Ἔστω δὲ καὶ νῦν ἡμῖν ὁ τῶν λογίων θεσμὸς προδιωρισμένος τὸ τὴν ἀλήθειαν ἡμᾶς καταδείσασθαι τῶν περὶ θεοῦ λεγομένων «οὐκ ἐν πειθοῖς σοφίας ἀνθρωπίνης λόγοις, ἀλλ’ ἐν ἀποδείξει» τῆς πνευματοκινήτου τῶν θεολόγων «δυνάμεως».
καταδείσασθαι is not found elsewhere in the TLG corpus. The only analysis of it that TLG gives is aor inf mid of καταδείδω, but this does not fit the context.
Indeed, the translations I could find seem to assume some other meaning. E.g. a French one here http://remacle.org/bloodwolf/eglise/denys/noms.htm
“Ici encore, revenons à la règle tracée par les Écritures : n’appuyons pas ce que nous affirmons de Dieu sur les paroles persuasives de la sagesse humaine…”
Or, the one by Colm Luibheid:
"Here too let us hold on to the scriptural rule that when we say anything about God, we should set down the truth “not in the plausible words of human wisdom…”
So, my question is what analysis of καταδείσασθαι do these translations (or any other that might make sense in this context) presuppose? Thanks in advance.
Hi, I don’t know the context, but perhaps this is meant to be καταδείξασθαι (from καταδείκνυμι)?
Cheers, Chad
Thanks, καταδείξασθαι would certainly fit, and this is the emendation that Patrologia Graeca suggests (indicating, also, that some mss. read καταδήσασθαι) yet I’m wondering what the competent editor, Beate Regina Suchla, might have had in mind as she chose not to follow this suggestion.