Justin's Hortatory Address to the Greeks
[Translated by the Rev. M. Dods, M.A.]
Chapter I.--Reasons for addressing the Greeks.
As I begin this hortatory address to you, ye men of Greece, I pray God
that I may know what I ought to say to you, and that you, shaking off
your habitual [2507] love of disputing, and being delivered from the
error of your fathers, may now choose what is profitable; not fancying
that you commit any offence against your forefathers, though the things
which you formerly considered by no means salutary should now seem
useful to you. For accurate investigation of matters, putting truth to
the question with a more searching scrutiny, often reveals that things
which have passed for excellent are of quite another sort. Since, then,
we propose to discourse of the true religion (than which, I think,
there is nothing which is counted more valuable by those who desire to
pass through life without danger, on account of the judgment which is
to be after the termination of this life, and which is announced not
only by our forefathers according to God, to wit the prophets and
lawgivers, but also by those among yourselves who have been esteemed
wise, not poets alone, but also philosophers, who professed among you
that they had attained the true and divine knowledge), I think it well
first of all to examine the teachers of religion, both our own and
yours, who they were, and how great, and in what times they lived; in
order that those who have formerly received from their fathers the
false religion, may now, when they perceive this, be extricated from
that inveterate error; and that we may clearly and manifestly show that
we ourselves follow the religion of our forefathers according to God.
__________________________________________________________________
[2507] Literally, "former."
__________________________________________________________________
Chapter II--The poets are unfit to be religious teachers.
Whom, then, ye men of Greece, do ye call your teachers of religion? The
poets? It will do your cause no good to say so to men who know the
poets; for they know how very ridiculous a theogony they have
composed,--as we can learn from Homer, your most distinguished and
prince of poets. For he says, first, that the gods were in the
beginning generated from water; for he has written thus: [2508] --
"Both ocean, the origin of the gods, and their mother Tethys"
And then we must also remind you of what he further says of him whom ye
consider the first of the gods, and whom he often calls "the father of
gods and men;" for he said: [2509] --
"Zeus, who is the dispenser of war to men."
Indeed, he says that he was not only the dispenser of war to the army,
but also the cause of perjury to the Trojans, by means of his daughter;
[2510] and Homer introduces him in love, and bitterly complaining, and
bewailing himself, and plotted against by the other gods, and at one
time exclaiming concerning his own son: [2511] --
"Alas! he falls, my most beloved of men!
Sarpedon, vanquished by Patroclus, falls.
So will the fates."
And at another time concerning Hector: [2512] --
"Ah! I behold a warrior dear to me
Around the walls of Ilium driven, and grieve
For Hector."
And what he says of the conspiracy of the other gods against Zeus, they
know who read these words: [2513] "When the other Olympians--Juno, and
Neptune, and Minerva --wished to bind him." And unless the blessed gods
had feared him whom gods call Briareus, Zeus would have been bound by
them. And what Homer says of his intemperate loves, we must remind you
in the very words he used. For he said that Zeus spake thus to Juno:
[2514] --
"For never goddess pour'd, nor woman yet,
So full a tide of love into my breast;
I never loved Ixion's consort thus,
Nor sweet Acrisian Danaë, from whom
Sprang Perseus, noblest of the race of man;
Nor Phoenix' daughter fair, of whom were born
Minos, unmatch'd but by the powers above,
And Rhadamanthus; nor yet Semele,
Nor yet Alcmene, who in Thebes produced
The valiant Hercules; and though my son
By Semele were Bacchus, joy of man;
Nor Ceres golden-hair'd, nor high-enthron'd
Latona in the skies; no--nor thyself
As now I love thee, and my soul perceive
O'erwhelm'd with sweetness of intense desire."
It is fit that we now mention what one can learn from the work of Homer
of the other gods, and what they suffered at the hands of men. For he
says that Mars and Venus were wounded by Diomed, and of many others of
the gods he relates the sufferings. For thus we can gather from the
case of Dione consoling her daughter; for she said to her: [2515] --
"Have patience, dearest child; though much enforc'd
Restrain thine anger: we, in heav'n who dwell,
Have much to bear from mortals; and ourselves
Too oft upon each other suff'rings lay:
Mars had his suff'rings; by Alöeus' sons,
Otus and Ephialtes, strongly bound,
He thirteen months in brazen fetters lay:
Juno, too, suffer'd, when Amphitryon's son
Thro' her right breast a three-barb'd arrow sent:
Dire, and unheard of, were the pangs she bore,
Great Pluto's self the stinging arrow felt,
When that same son of Ægis-bearing Jove
Assail'd him in the very gates of hell,
And wrought him keenest anguish; pierced with pain,
To high Olympus, to the courts of Jove,
Groaning, he came; the bitter shaft remain'd
Deep in his shoulder fix'd, and griev'd his soul."
But if it is right to remind you of the battle of the gods, opposed to
one another, your own poet himself will recount it, saying: [2516] --
"Such was the shock when gods in battle met;
For there to royal Neptune stood oppos'd
Phoebus Apollo with his arrows keen;
The blue-eyed Pallas to the god of war;
To Juno, Dian, heav'nly archeress,
Sister of Phoebus, golden-shafted queen.
Stout Hermes, helpful god, Latona fac'd."
These and such like things did Homer teach you; and not Homer only, but
also Hesiod. So that if you believe your most distinguished poets, who
have given the genealogies of your gods, you must of necessity either
suppose that the gods are such beings as these, or believe that there
are no gods at all.
__________________________________________________________________
[2508] Iliad, xiv. 302.
[2509] Iliad, xix. 224.
[2510] That is, Venus, who, after Paris had sworn that the war should
be decided by single combat between himself and Menelaus, carried him
off, and induced him, though defeated, to refuse performance of the
articles agreed upon.
[2511] Iliad, xvi. 433. Sarpedon was a son of Zeus.
[2512] Iliad, xxii. 168.
[2513] Iliad, i. 399, etc.
[2514] Iliad, xiv. 315. (The passage is here given in full from
Cowper's translation. In Justin's quotation one or two lines are
omitted.)
[2515] Iliad, v. 382 (from Lord Derby's translation).
[2516] Iliad, xx. 66 (from Lord Derby's translation).
__________________________________________________________________
Chapter III.--Opinions of the school of Thales.
And if you decline citing the poets, because you say it is allowable
for them to frame myths, and to relate in a mythical way many things
about the gods which are far from true, do you suppose you have some
others for your religious teachers, or how do you say that they
themselves [2517] have learned this religion of yours? For it is
impossible that any should know matters so great and divine, who have
not themselves learned them first from the initiated. [2518] You will
no doubt say, "The sages and philosophers." For to them, as to a
fortified wall, you are wont to flee, when any one quotes the opinions
of your poets about the gods. Therefore, since it is fit that we
commence with the ancients and the earliest, beginning thence I will
produce the opinion of each, much more ridiculous as it is than the
theology of the poets. For Thales of Miletus, who took the lead in the
study of natural philosophy, declared that water was the first
principle of all things; for from water he says that all things are,
and that into water all are resolved. And after him Anaximander, who
came from the same Miletus, said that the infinite was the first
principle of all things; for that from this indeed all things are
produced, and into this do all decay. Thirdly, Anaximenes--and he too
was from Miletus--says that air is the first principle of all things;
for he says that from this all things are produced, and into this all
are resolved. Heraclitus and Hippasus, from Metapontus, say that fire
is the first principle of all things; for from fire all things proceed,
and in fire do all things terminate. Anaxagoras of Clazomenæ said that
the homogeneous parts are the first principles of all things.
Archelaus, the son of Apollodorus, an Athenian, says that the infinite
air and its density and rarity are the first principle of all things.
All these, forming a succession from Thales, followed the philosophy
called by themselves physical.
__________________________________________________________________
[2517] i.e., these teachers.
[2518] Literally, "those who knew."
__________________________________________________________________
Chapter IV.--Opinions of Pythagoras and Epicurus.
Then, in regular succession from another starting-point, Pythagoras the
Samian, son of Mnesarchus, calls numbers, with their proportions and
harmonies, and the elements composed of both, the first principles; and
he includes also unity and the indefinite binary. [2519] Epicurus, an
Athenian, the son of Neocles, says that the first principles of the
things that exist are bodies perceptible by reason, admitting no
vacuity, [2520] unbegotten, indestructible, which can neither be
broken, nor admit of any formation of their parts, nor alteration, and
are therefore perceptible by reason. Empedocles of Agrigentum, son of
Meton, maintained that there were four elements--fire, air, water,
earth; and two elementary powers --love and hate, [2521] of which the
former is a power of union, the latter of separation. You see, then,
the confusion of those who are considered by you to have been wise men,
whom you assert to be your teachers of religion: some of them declaring
that water is the first principle of all things; others, air, others,
fire; and others, some other of these fore-mentioned elements; and all
of them employing persuasive arguments for the establishment of their
own errors, and attempting to prove their own peculiar dogma to be the
most valuable. These things were said by them. How then, ye men of
Greece, can it be safe for those who desire to be saved, to fancy that
they can learn the true religion from these philosophers, who were
neither able so to convince themselves as to prevent sectarian
wrangling with one another, and not to appear definitely opposed to one
another's opinions?
__________________________________________________________________
[2519] monada kai ten aoriston duada. One, or unity, was considered by
Pythagoras as the essence of number, and also as God. Two, or the
indefinite binary, was the equivalent of evil. So Plutarch, De placit.
philosoph., c. 7; from which treatise the above opinions of the various
sects are quoted, generally verbatim.
[2520] ametocha kenou: the void being that in which these bodies move,
while they themselves are of a different nature from it.
[2521] Or, accord and discord, attraction and repulsion.
__________________________________________________________________
Chapter V.--Opinions of Plato and Aristotle.
But possibly those who are unwilling to give up the ancient and
inveterate error, maintain that they have received the doctrine of
their religion not from those who have now been mentioned, but from
those who are esteemed among them as the most renowned and finished
philosophers, Plato and Aristotle. For these, they say, have learned
the perfect and true religion. But I would be glad to ask, first of
all, from those who say so, from whom they say that these men have
learned this knowledge; for it is impossible that men who have not
learned these so great and divine matters from some who knew them,
should either themselves know them, or be able correctly to teach
others; and, in the second place, I think we ought to examine the
opinions even of these sages. For we shall see whether each of these
does not manifestly contradict the other. But if we find that even they
do not agree with each other, I think it is easy to see clearly that
they too are ignorant. For Plato, with the air of one that has
descended from above, and has accurately ascertained and seen all that
is in heaven, says that the most high God exists in a fiery substance.
[2522] But Aristotle, in a book addressed to Alexander of Macedon,
giving a compendious explanation of his own philosophy, clearly and
manifestly overthrows the opinion of Plato, saying that God does not
exist in a fiery substance: but inventing, as a fifth substance, some
kind of ætherial and unchangeable body, says that God exists in it.
Thus, at least, he wrote: "Not, as some of those who have erred
regarding the Deity say, that God exists in a fiery substance." Then,
as if he were not satisfied with this blasphemy against Plato, he
further, for the sake of proving what he says about the ætherial body,
cites as a witness him whom Plato had banished from his republic as a
liar, and as being an imitator of the images of truth at three removes,
[2523] for so Plato calls Homer; for he wrote: "Thus at least did Homer
speak, [2524] And Zeus obtained the wide heaven in the air and the
clouds,' " wishing to make his own opinion appear more worthy of credit
by the testimony of Homer; not being aware that if he used Homer as a
witness to prove that he spoke truth, many of his tenets would be
proved untrue. For Thales of Miletus, who was the founder of philosophy
among them, taking occasion from him, [2525] will contradict his first
opinions about first principles. For Aristotle himself, having said
that God and matter are the first principles of all things, Thales, the
eldest of all their sages, says that water is the first principle of
the things that exist; for he says that all things are from water, and
that all things are resolved into water. And he conjectures this,
first, from the fact that the seed of all living creatures, which is
their first principle, is moist; and secondly, because all plants grow
and bear fruit in moisture, but when deprived of moisture, wither.
Then, as if not satisfied with his conjectures, he cites Homer as a
most trustworthy testimony, who speaks thus:--
"Ocean, who is the origin of all." [2526]
May not Thales, then, very fairly say to him, "What is the reason,
Aristotle, why you give heed to Homer, as if he spoke truth, when you
wish to demolish the opinions of Plato; but when you promulgate an
opinion contrary to ours, you think Homer untruthful?"
__________________________________________________________________
[2522] Or, "is of a fiery nature."
[2523] See the Republic, x. 2. By the Platonic doctrine, the ideas of
things in the mind of God were the realities; the things themselves, as
seen by us, were the images of these realities; and poetry, therefore,
describing the images of realities, was only at the third remove from
nature. As Plato puts it briefly in this same passage, "the painter,
the bed-maker, God--these three are the masters of three species of
beds."
[2524] Iliad, xv. 192.
[2525] i.e., from Homer; using Homer's words as suggestive and
confirmatory of his doctrine.
[2526] Iliad, xiv. 246.
__________________________________________________________________
Chapter VI.--Further disagreements between Plato and Aristotle.
And that these very wonderful sages of yours do not even agree in other
respects, can be easily learned from this. For while Plato says that
there are three first principles of all things, God, and matter, and
form,--God, the maker of all; and matter, which is the subject of the
first production of all that is produced, and affords to God
opportunity for His workmanship; and form, which is the type of each of
the things produced,-- Aristotle makes no mention at all of form as a
first principle, but says that there are two, God and matter. And
again, while Plato says that the highest God and the ideas exist in the
first place of the highest heavens, and in fixed sphere, Aristotle says
that, next to the most high God, there are, not ideas, but certain
gods, who can be perceived by the mind. Thus, then, do they differ
concerning things heavenly. So that one can see that they not only are
unable to understand our earthly matters, but also, being at variance
among themselves regarding these things, they will appear unworthy of
credit when they treat of things heavenly. And that even their doctrine
regarding the human soul as it now is does not harmonize, is manifest
from what has been said by each of them concerning it. For Plato says
that it is of three parts, having the faculty of reason, of affection,
and of appetite. [2527] But Aristotle says that the soul is not so
comprehensive as to include also corruptible parts, but only reason.
And Plato loudly maintains that "the whole soul is immortal." But
Aristotle, naming it "the actuality," [2528] would have it to be
mortal, not immortal. And the former says it is always in motion; but
Aristotle says that it is immoveable, since it must itself precede all
motion.
__________________________________________________________________
[2527] to logikon to thumikon, to epithumetikon, --corresponding to
what we roughly speak of as reason, the heart, and the appetites.
[2528] entelecheia, --the completion or actuality to which each thing,
by virtue of its peculiar nature (or potentiality, dunamis), can
arrive.
__________________________________________________________________
Chapter VII.--Inconsistencies of Plato's doctrine.
But in these things they are convicted of thinking in contradiction to
each other. And if any one will accurately criticise their writings,
they have chosen to abide in harmony not even with their own opinions.
Plato, at any rate, at one time says that there are three first
principles of the universe--God, and matter, and form; but at another
time four, for he adds the universal soul. And again, when he has
already said that matter is eternal, [2529] he afterwards says that it
is produced; and when he has first given to form its peculiar rank as a
first principle, and has asserted for its self-subsistence, he
afterwards says that this same thing is among the things perceived by
the understanding. Moreover, having first declared that everything that
is made is mortal [2530] he afterwards states that some of the things
that are made are indestructible and immortal. What, then, is the cause
why those who have been esteemed wise among you disagree not only with
one another but also with themselves? Manifestly, their unwillingness
to learn from those who know, and their desire to attain accurate
knowledge of things heavenly by their own human excess of wisdom though
they were able to understand not even earthly matters. Certainly some
of your philosophers say that the human soul is in us; others, that it
is around us. For not even in this did they choose to agree with one
another, but, distributing, as it were, ignorance in various ways among
themselves, they thought fit to wrangle and dispute with one another
even about the soul. For some of them say that the soul is fire, and
some that it is the air; and others, the mind; and others, motion; and
others, an exhalation; and certain others say that it is a power
flowing from the stars; and others, number capable of motion; and
others, a generating water. And a wholly confused and inharmonious
opinion has prevailed among them, which only in this one respect
appears praiseworthy to those who can form a right judgment, that they
have been anxious to convict one another of error and falsehood.
__________________________________________________________________
[2529] Literally, "unbegotten."
[2530] Or, "liable to destruction."
__________________________________________________________________
Chapter VIII.--Antiquity, inspiration, and harmony of Christian teachers.
Since therefore it is impossible to learn anything true concerning
religion from your teachers, who by their mutual disagreement have
furnished you with sufficient proof of their own ignorance, I consider
it reasonable to recur to our progenitors, who both in point of time
have by a great way the precedence of your teachers, and who have
taught us nothing from their own private fancy, nor differed with one
another, nor attempted to overturn one another's positions, but without
wrangling and contention received from God the knowledge which also
they taught to us. For neither by nature nor by human conception is it
possible for men to know things so great and divine, but by the gift
which then descended from above upon the holy men, who had no need of
rhetorical art, [2531] nor of uttering anything in a contentious or
quarrelsome manner, but to present themselves pure [2532] to the energy
of the Divine Spirit, in order that the divine plectrum itself,
descending from heaven, and using righteous men as an instrument like a
harp or lyre, might reveal to us the knowledge of things divine and
heavenly. Wherefore, as if with one mouth and one tongue, they have in
succession, and in harmony with one another, taught us both concerning
God, and the creation of the world, and the formation of man, and
concerning the immortality of the human soul, and the judgment which is
to be after this life, and concerning all things which it is needful
for us to know, and thus in divers times and places have afforded us
the divine instruction. [2533]
__________________________________________________________________
[2531] Literally, "the art of words."
[2532] Literally, "clean," free from other influences.
[2533] [The diversities of Christian theology are to be regretted; but
Justin here shows the harmony and order of truths, such as are
everywhere received by Christians, to be an inestimable advantage.]
__________________________________________________________________
Chapter IX.--The antiquity of Moses proved by Greek writers.
I will begin, then, with our first prophet and lawgiver, Moses; first
explaining the times in which he lived, on authorities which among you
are worthy of all credit. For I do not propose to prove these things
only from our own divine histories, which as yet you are unwilling to
credit on account of the inveterate error of your forefathers, but also
from your own histories, and such, too, as have no reference to our
worship, that you may know that, of all your teachers, whether sages,
poets, historians, philosophers, or lawgivers, by far the oldest, as
the Greek histories show us, was Moses, who was our first religious
teacher. [2534] For in the times of Ogyges and Inachus, whom some of
your poets suppose to have been earth-born, [2535] Moses is mentioned
as the leader and ruler of the Jewish nation. For in this way he is
mentioned both by Polemon in the first book of his Hellenics, and by
Apion son of Posidonius in his book against the Jews, and in the fourth
book of his history, where he says that during the reign of Inachus
over Argos the Jews revolted from Amasis king of the Egyptians, and
that Moses led them. And Ptolemæus the Mendesian, in relating the
history of Egypt, concurs in all this. And those who write the Athenian
history, Hellanicus and Philochorus (the author of The Attic History),
Castor and Thallus, and Alexander Polyhistor, and also the very well
informed writers on Jewish affairs, Philo and Josephus, have mentioned
Moses as a very ancient and time-honoured prince of the Jews. Josephus,
certainly, desiring to signify even by the title of his work the
antiquity and age of the history, wrote thus at the commencement of the
history: "The Jewish antiquities [2536] of Flavius
Josephus,"--signifying the oldness of the history by the word
"antiquities." And your most renowned historian Diodorus, who employed
thirty whole years in epitomizing the libraries, and who, as he himself
wrote, travelled over both Asia and Europe for the sake of great
accuracy, and thus became an eye-witness of very many things, wrote
forty entire books of his own history. And he in the first book, having
said that he had learned from the Egyptian priests that Moses was an
ancient lawgiver, and even the first, wrote of him in these very words:
"For subsequent to the ancient manner of living in Egypt which gods and
heroes are fabled to have regulated, they say that Moses [2537] first
persuaded the people to use written laws, and to live by them; and he
is recorded to have been a man both great of soul and of great faculty
in social matters." Then, having proceeded a little further, and
wishing to mention the ancient lawgivers, he mentions Moses first. For
he spoke in these words: "Among the Jews they say that Moses ascribed
his laws [2538] to that God who is called Jehovah, whether because they
judged it a marvellous and quite divine conception which promised to
benefit a multitude of men, or because they were of opinion that the
people would be the more obedient when they contemplated the majesty
and power of those who were said to have invented the laws. And they
say that Sasunchis was the second Egyptian legislator, a man of
excellent understanding. And the third, they say, was Sesonchosis the
king, who not only performed the most brilliant military exploits of
any in Egypt, but also consolidated that warlike race by legislation.
And the fourth lawgiver, they say, was Bocchoris the king, a wise and
surpassingly skilful man. And after him it is said that Amasis the king
acceded to the government, whom they relate to have regulated all that
pertains to the rulers of provinces, and to the general administration
of the government of Egypt. And they say that Darius, the father of
Xerxes, was the sixth who legislated for the Egyptians."
__________________________________________________________________
[2534] The incongruity in this sentence is Justin's.
[2535] [Autochthones]. That is, sprung from the soil; and hence the
oldest inhabitants, the aborigines.
[2536] Literally, archæology.
[2537] Unfortunately, Justin here mistook Menes for Moses. [But he may
have so read the name in his copy. See Grabe's note on Diodorus, and
the quotation following in another note.]
[2538] This sentence must be so completed from the context in Diodorus.
See the note of Maranus.
__________________________________________________________________
Chapter X--Training and inspiration of Moses. [2539]
These things, ye men of Greece, have been recorded in writing
concerning the antiquity of Moses by those who were not of our
religion; and they said that they learned all these things from the
Egyptian priests, among whom Moses was not only born, but also was
thought worthy of partaking of all the education of the Egyptians, on
account of his being adopted by the king's daughter as her son; and for
the same reason was thought worthy of great attention, as the wisest of
the historians relate, who have chosen to record his life and actions,
and the rank of his descent, --I speak of Philo and Josephus. For
these, in their narration of the history of the Jews, say that Moses
was sprung from the race of the Chaldæans, and that he was born in
Egypt when his forefathers had migrated on account of famine from
Phoenicia to that country; and him God chose to honour on account of
his exceeding virtue, and judged him worthy to become the leader and
lawgiver of his own race, when He thought it right that the people of
the Hebrews should return out of Egypt into their own land. To him
first did God communicate that divine and prophetic gift which in those
days descended upon the holy men, and him also did He first furnish
that he might be our teacher in religion, and then after him the rest
of the prophets, who both obtained the same gift as he, and taught us
the same doctrines concerning the same subjects. These we assert to
have been our teachers, who taught us nothing from their own human
conception, but from the gift vouchsafed to them by God from above.
__________________________________________________________________
[2539] [Consult the ponderous learning of Warburton's Divine Legation,
passim.]
__________________________________________________________________
Chapter XI.--Heathen oracles testify of Moses.
But as you do not see the necessity of giving up the ancient error of
your forefathers in obedience to these teachers [of ours], what
teachers of your own do you maintain to have lived worthy of credit in
the matter of religion? For, as I have frequently said, it is
impossible that those who have not themselves learned these so great
and divine things from such persons as are acquainted with them, should
either themselves know them, or be able rightly to teach others. Since,
therefore, it has been sufficiently proved that the opinions of your
philosophers are obviously full of all ignorance and deceit, having now
perhaps wholly abandoned the philosophers as formerly you abandoned the
poets, you will turn to the deceit of the oracles; for in this style I
have heard some speaking. Therefore I think it fit to tell you at this
step in our discourse what I formerly heard among you concerning their
utterances. For when one inquired at your oracle--it is your own
story--what religious men had at any time happened to live, you say
that the oracle answered thus: "Only the Chaldæans have obtained
wisdom, and the Hebrews, who worship God Himself, the self-begotten
King."
Since, therefore, you think that the truth can be learned from your
oracles, when you read the histories and what has been written
regarding the life of Moses by those who do not belong to our religion,
and when you know that Moses and the rest of the prophets were
descended from the race of the Chaldæans and Hebrews, do not think that
anything incredible has taken place if a man sprung from a godly line,
and who lived worthily of the godliness of his fathers, was chosen by
God to be honoured with this great gift and to be set forth as the
first of all the prophets.
__________________________________________________________________
Chapter XII.--Antiquity of Moses proved.
And I think it necessary also to consider the times in which your
philosophers lived, that you may see that the time which produced them
for you is very recent, and also short. For thus you will be able
easily to recognise also the antiquity of Moses. But lest, by a
complete survey of the periods, and by the use of a greater number of
proofs, I should seem to be prolix, I think it may be sufficiently
demonstrated from the following. For Socrates was the teacher of Plato,
and Plato of Aristotle. Now these men flourished in the time of Philip
and Alexander of Macedon, in which time also the Athenian orators
flourished, as the Philippics of Demosthenes plainly show us. And those
who have narrated the deeds of Alexander sufficiently prove that during
his reign Aristotle associated with him. From all manner of proofs,
then, it is easy to see that the history of Moses is by far more
ancient than all profane [2540] histories. And, besides, it is fit that
you recognise this fact also, that nothing has been accurately recorded
by Greeks before the era of the Olympiads, and that there is no ancient
work which makes known any action of the Greeks or Barbarians. But
before that period existed only the history of the prophet Moses, which
he wrote in the Hebrew character by the divine inspiration. For the
Greek character was not yet in use, as the teachers of language
themselves prove, telling us that Cadmus first brought the letters from
Phoenicia, and communicated them to the Greeks. And your first of
philosophers, Plato, testifies that they were a recent discovery. For
in the Timæus [2541] he wrote that Solon, the wisest of the wise men,
on his return from Egypt, said to Critias that he had heard this from a
very aged Egyptian priest, who said to him, "O Solon, Solon, you Greeks
are ever children, and aged Greek there is none." Then again he said,
"You are all youths in soul, for you hold no ancient opinion derived
through remote tradition, nor any system of instruction hoary with
time; but all these things escape your knowledge, because for many
generations the posterity of these ancient ages died mute, not having
the use of letters." It is fit, therefore, that you understand that it
is the fact that every history has been written in these
recently-discovered Greek letters; and if any one would make mention of
old poets, or legislators, or historians, or philosophers, or orators,
he will find that they wrote their own works in the Greek character.
__________________________________________________________________
[2540] Literally, "without," not belonging to the true faith.
[2541] C. 3.
__________________________________________________________________
Chapter XIII.--History of the Septuagint.
But if any one says that the writings of Moses and of the rest of the
prophets were also written in the Greek character, let him read profane
histories, and know that Ptolemy, king of Egypt, when he had built the
library in Alexandria, and by gathering books from every quarter had
filled it, then learnt that very ancient histories written in Hebrew
happened to be carefully preserved; and wishing to know their contents,
he sent for seventy wise men from Jerusalem, who were acquainted with
both the Greek and Hebrew language, and appointed them to translate the
books; and that in freedom from all disturbance they might the more
speedily complete the translation, he ordered that there should be
constructed, not in the city itself, but seven stadia off (where the
Pharos was built), as many little cots as there were translators, so
that each by himself might complete his own translation; and enjoined
upon those officers who were appointed to this duty, to afford them all
attendance, but to prevent communication with one another, in order
that the accuracy of the translation might be discernible even by their
agreement. And when he ascertained that the seventy men had not only
given the same meaning, but had employed the same words, and had failed
in agreement with one another not even to the extent of one word; but
had written the same things, and concerning the same things, he was
struck with amazement, and believed that the translation had been
written by divine power, and perceived that the men were worthy of all
honour, as beloved of God; and with many gifts ordered them to return
to their own country. And having, as was natural, marvelled at the
books, and concluded them to be divine, he consecrated them in that
library. These things, ye men of Greece, are no fable, nor do we
narrate fictions; but we ourselves having been in Alexandria, saw the
remains of the little cots at the Pharos still preserved, and having
heard these things from the inhabitants, who had received them as part
of their country's tradition, [2542] we now tell to you what you can
also learn from others, and specially from those wise and esteemed men
who have written of these things, Philo and Josephus, and many others.
But if any of those who are wont to be forward in contradiction should
say that these books do not belong to us, but to the Jews, and should
assert that we in vain profess to have learnt our religion from them,
let him know, as he may from those very things which are written in
these books, that not to them, but to us, does the doctrine of them
refer. That the books relating to our religion are to this day
preserved among the Jews, has been a work of Divine Providence on our
behalf; for lest, by producing them out of the Church, we should give
occasion to those who wish to slander us to charge us with fraud, we
demand that they be produced from the synagogue of the Jews, that from
the very books still preserved among them it might clearly and
evidently appear, that the laws which were written by holy men for
instruction pertain to us.
__________________________________________________________________
[2542] [Doubtless Justin relates the tradition as he received it.
Consult Dr. Selwyn's full account of the fables concerning the LXX., in
Smith's Dict. of the Bible, iii. p. 1203 ff.]
__________________________________________________________________
Chapter XIV.--A warning appeal to the Greeks.
It is therefore necessary, ye Greeks, that you contemplate the things
that are to be, and consider the judgment which is predicted by all,
not only by the godly, but also by those who are irreligious, that ye
do not without investigation commit yourselves to the error of your
fathers, nor suppose that if they themselves have been in error, and
have transmitted it to you, that this which they have taught you is
true; but looking to the danger of so terrible a mistake, inquire and
investigate carefully into those things which are, as you say, spoken
of even by your own teachers. For even unwillingly they were on your
account forced to say many things by the Divine regard for mankind,
especially those of them who were in Egypt, and profited by the
godliness of Moses and his ancestry. For I think that some of you, when
you read even carelessly the history of Diodorus, and of those others
who wrote of these things, cannot fail to see that both Orpheus, and
Homer, and Solon, who wrote the laws of the Athenians, and Pythagoras,
and Plato, and some others, when they had been in Egypt, and had taken
advantage of the history of Moses, afterwards published doctrines
concerning the gods quite contrary to those which formerly they had
erroneously promulgated.
__________________________________________________________________
Chapter XV.--Testimony of Orpheus to monotheism.
At all events, we must remind you what Orpheus, who was, as one might
say, your first teacher of polytheism, latterly addressed to his son
Musæus, and to the other legitimate auditors, concerning the one and
only God. And he spoke thus:--
"I speak to those who lawfully may hear:
All others, ye profane, now close the doors,
And, O Musæus! hearken thou to me,
Who offspring art of the light-bringing moon:
The words I utter now are true indeed;
And if thou former thoughts of mine hast seen,
Let them not rob thee of the blessed life,
But rather turn the depths of thine own heart
Unto the place where light and knowledge dwell.
Take thou the word divine to guide thy steps,
And walking well in the straight certain path,
Look to the one and universal King--
One, self-begotten, and the only One,
Of whom all things and we ourselves are sprung.
All things are open to His piercing gaze,
While He Himself is still invisible.
Present in all His works, though still unseen,
He gives to mortals evil out of good,
Sending both chilling wars and tearful griefs;
And other than the great King there is none.
The clouds for ever settle round His throne,
And mortal eyeballs in mere mortal eyes
Are weak, to see Jove reigning over all.
He sits established in the brazen heavens
Upon His golden throne; under His feet
He treads the earth, and stretches His right hand
To all the ends of ocean, and around
Tremble the mountain ranges and the streams,
The depths, too, of the blue and hoary sea."
And again, in some other place he says:--
"There is one Zeus alone, one sun, one hell,
One Bacchus; and in all things but one God;
Nor of all these as diverse let me speak."
And when he swears he says:--
"Now I adjure thee by the highest heaven,
The work of the great God, the only wise;
And I adjure thee by the Father's voice.
Which first He uttered when He stablished
The whole world by His counsel."
What does he mean by "I adjure thee by the Father's voice, which first
He uttered?" It is the Word of God which he here names "the voice," by
whom heaven and earth and the whole creation were made, as the divine
prophecies of the holy men teach us; and these he himself also paid
some attention to in Egypt, and understood that all creation was made
by the Word of God; and therefore, after he says, "I adjure thee by the
Father's voice, which first He uttered," he adds this besides, "when by
His counsel He established the whole world." Here he calls the Word
"voice," for the sake of the poetical metre. And that this is so, is
manifest from the fact, that a little further on, where the metre
permits him, he names it "Word." For he said:--
"Take thou the Word divine to guide thy steps."
__________________________________________________________________
Chapter XVI.--Testimony of the Sibyl.
We must also mention what the ancient and exceedingly remote Sibyl,
whom Plato and Aristophanes, and others besides, mention as a
prophetess, taught you in her oracular verses concerning one only God.
And she speaks thus:--
"There is one only unbegotten God,
Omnipotent, invisible, most high,
All-seeing, but Himself seen by no flesh."
Then elsewhere thus:--
"But we have strayed from the Immortal's ways,
And worship with a dull and senseless mind
Idols, the workmanship of our own hands,
And images and figures of dead men."
And again somewhere else:--
"Blessed shall be those men upon the earth
Who shall love the great God before all else,
Blessing Him when they eat and when they drink;
Trusting in this their piety alone.
Who shall abjure all shrines which they may see,
All altars and vain figures of dumb stones,
Worthless and stained with blood of animals,
And sacrifice of the four-footed tribes,
Beholding the great glory of One God."
These are the Sibyl's words.
__________________________________________________________________
Chapter XVII.--Testimony of Homer.
And the poet Homer, using the license of poetry, and rivalling the
original opinion of Orpheus regarding the plurality of the gods,
mentions, indeed, several gods in a mythical style, lest he should seem
to sing in a different strain from the poem of Orpheus, which he so
distinctly proposed to rival, that even in the first line of his poem
he indicated the relation he held to him. For as Orpheus in the
beginning of his poem had said, "O goddess, sing the wrath of Demeter,
who brings the goodly fruit," Homer began thus, "O goddess, sing the
wrath of Achilles, son of Peleus," preferring, as it seems to me, even
to violate the poetical metre in his first line, than that he should
seem not to have remembered before all else the names of the gods. But
shortly after he also clearly and explicitly presents his own opinion
regarding one God only, somewhere [2543] saying to Achilles by the
mouth of Phoenix, "Not though God Himself were to promise that He would
peel off my old age, and give me the vigour of my youth," where he
indicates by the pronoun the real and true God. And somewhere [2544] he
makes Ulysses address the host of the Greeks thus: "The rule of many is
not a good thing; let there be one ruler." And that the rule of many is
not a good thing, but on the contrary an evil, he proposed to evince by
fact, recounting the wars which took place on account of the multitude
of rulers, and the fights and factions, and their mutual counterplots.
For monarchy is free from contention. So far the poet Homer.
__________________________________________________________________
[2543] Iliad, ix. 445.
[2544] Iliad, ii. 204.
__________________________________________________________________
Chapter XVIII.--Testimony of Sophocles.
And if it is needful that we add testimonies concerning one God, even
from the dramatists, hear even Sophocles speaking thus:--
"There is one God, in truth there is but one,
Who made the heavens and the broad earth beneath,
The glancing waves of ocean and the winds
But many of us mortals err in heart,
And set up for a solace in our woes
Images of the gods in stone and wood,
Or figures carved in brass or ivory,
And, furnishing for these our handiworks,
Both sacrifice and rite magnificent,
We think that thus we do a pious work."
Thus, then, Sophocles.
__________________________________________________________________
Chapter XIX.--Testimony of Pythagoras.
And Pythagoras, son of Mnesarchus, who expounded the doctrines of his
own philosophy, mystically by means of symbols, as those who have
written his life show, himself seems to have entertained thoughts about
the unity of God not unworthy of his foreign residence in Egypt. For
when he says that unity is the first principle of all things, and that
it is the cause of all good, he teaches by an allegory that God is one,
and alone. [2545] And that this is so, is evident from his saying that
unity and one differ widely from one another. For he says that unity
belongs to the class of things perceived by the mind, but that one
belongs to numbers. And if you desire to see a clearer proof of the
opinion of Pythagoras concerning one God, hear his own opinion, for he
spoke as follows: "God is one; and He Himself does not, as some
suppose, exist outside the world, but in it, He being wholly present in
the whole circle, and beholding all generations; being the regulating
ingredient of all the ages, and the administrator of His own powers and
works, the first principle of all things, the light of heaven, and
Father of all, the intelligence and animating soul of the universe, the
movement of all orbits." Thus, then, Pythagoras.
__________________________________________________________________
[2545] Has no fellow.
__________________________________________________________________
Chapter XX.--Testimony of Plato.
But Plato, though he accepted, as is likely, the doctrine of Moses and
the other prophets regarding one only God, which he learned while in
Egypt, yet fearing, on account of what had befallen Socrates, lest he
also should raise up some Anytus or Meletus against himself, who should
accuse him before the Athenians, and say, "Plato is doing harm, and
making himself mischievously busy, not acknowledging the gods
recognised by the state;" in fear of the hemlock-juice, contrives an
elaborate and ambiguous discourse concerning the gods, furnishing by
his treatise gods to those who wish them, and none for those who are
differently disposed, as may readily be seen from his own statements.
For when he has laid down that everything that is made is mortal, he
afterwards says that the gods were made. If, then, he would have God
and matter to be the origin of all things, manifestly it is inevitably
necessary to say that the gods were made of matter; but if of matter,
out of which he said that evil also had its origin, he leaves
right-thinking persons to consider what kind of beings the gods should
be thought who are produced out of matter. For, for this very reason
did he say that matter was eternal, [2546] that he might not seem to
say that God is the creator of evil. And regarding the gods who were
made by God, there is no doubt he said this: "Gods of gods, of whom I
am the creator." And he manifestly held the correct opinion concerning
the really existing God. For having heard in Egypt that God had said to
Moses, when He was about to send him to the Hebrews, "I am that I am,"
[2547] he understood that God had not mentioned to him His own proper
name.
__________________________________________________________________
[2546] Or, "uncreated."
[2547] ho on, "He who is; the Being."
__________________________________________________________________
Chapter XXI.--The namelessness of God.
For God cannot be called by any proper name, for names are given to
mark out and distinguish their subject-matters, because these are many
and diverse; but neither did any one exist before God who could give
Him a name, nor did He Himself think it right to name Himself, seeing
that He is one and unique, as He Himself also by His own prophets
testifies, when He says, "I God am the first," and after this, "And
beside me there is no other God." [2548] On this account, then, as I
before said, God did not, when He sent Moses to the Hebrews, mention
any name, but by a participle He mystically teaches them that He is the
one and only God. "For," says He; "I am the Beingi;" manifestly
contrasting Himself, "the Being," with those who are not, [2549] that
those who had hitherto been deceived might see that they were attaching
themselves, not to beings, but to those who had no being. Since,
therefore, God knew that the first men remembered the old delusion of
their forefathers, whereby the misanthropic demon contrived to deceive
them when he said to them, "If ye obey me in transgressing the
commandment of God, ye shall be as gods," calling those gods which had
no being, in order that men, supposing that there were other gods in
existence, might believe that they themselves could become gods. On
this account He said to Moses, "I am the Being," that by the participle
"being" He might teach the difference between God who is and those who
are not. [2550] Men, therefore, having been duped by the deceiving
demon, and having dared to disobey God, were cast out of Paradise,
remembering the name of gods, but no longer being taught by God that
there are no other gods. For it was not just that they who did not keep
the first commandment, which it was easy to keep, should any longer be
taught, but should rather be driven to just punishment. Being therefore
banished from Paradise, and thinking that they were expelled on account
of their disobedience only, not knowing that it was also because they
had believed in the existence of gods which did not exist, they gave
the name of gods even to the men who were afterwards born of
themselves. This first false fancy, therefore, concerning gods, had its
origin with the father of lies. God, therefore, knowing that the false
opinion about the plurality of gods was burdening the soul of man like
some disease, and wishing to remove and eradicate it, appeared first to
Moses, and said to him, "I am He who is." For it was necessary, I
think, that he who was to be the ruler and leader of the Hebrew people
should first of all know the living God. Wherefore, having appeared to
him first, as it was possible for God to appear to a man, He said to
him, "I am He who is;" then, being about to send him to the Hebrews, He
further orders him to say, "He who is hath sent me to you."
__________________________________________________________________
[2548] Isa. xliv. 6.
[2549] Literally, "with the not-beings."
[2550] Literally, "between the God being and not-beings."
__________________________________________________________________
Chapter XXII.--Studied ambiguity of Plato.
Plato accordingly having learned this in Egypt, and being greatly taken
with what was said about one God, did indeed consider it unsafe to
mention the name of Moses, on account of his teaching the doctrine of
one only God, for he dreaded the Areopagus; but what is very well
expressed by him in his elaborate treatise, the Timæus, he has written
in exact correspondence with what Moses said regarding God, though he
has done so, not as if he had learned it from him, but as if he were
expressing his own opinion. For he said, "In my opinion, then, we must
first define what that is which exists eternally, and has no
generation, [2551] and what that is which is always being generated,
but never really is." Does not this, ye men of Greece, seem to those
who are able to understand the matter to be one and the same thing,
saving only the difference of the article? For Moses said, "He who is,"
and Plato, "That which is." But either of the expressions seems to
apply to the ever-existent God. For He is the only one who eternally
exists, and has no generation. What, then, that other thing is which is
contrasted with the ever-existent, and of which he said, "And what that
is which is always being generated, but never really is," we must
attentively consider. For we shall find him clearly and evidently
saying that He who is unbegotten is eternal, but that those that are
begotten and made are generated and perish [2552] --as he said of the
same class, "gods of gods, of whom I am maker"--for he speaks in the
following words: "In my opinion, then, we must first define what that
is which is always existent and has no birth, and what that is which is
always being generated but never really is. The former, indeed, which
is apprehended by reflection combined with reason, always exists in the
same way; [2553] while the latter, on the other hand, is conjectured by
opinion formed by the perception of the senses unaided by reason, since
it never really is, but is coming into being and perishing." These
expressions declare to those who can rightly understand them the death
and destruction of the gods that have been brought into being. And I
think it necessary to attend to this also, that Plato never names him
the creator, but the fashioner [2554] of the gods, although, in the
opinion of Plato, there is considerable difference between these two.
For the creator creates the creature by his own capability and power,
being in need of nothing else; but the fashioner frames his production
when he has received from matter the capability for his work.
__________________________________________________________________
[2551] That is, "is not produced or created; has no birth."
[2552] Or, "are born and die."
[2553] kata tauta "according to the same things," i.e., in eternal
immutability.
[2554] Or, "demiurge or maker."
__________________________________________________________________
Chapter XXIII.--Plato's self-contradiction.
But, perhaps, some who are unwilling to abandon the doctrines of
polytheism, will say that to these fashioned gods the maker said,
"Since ye have been produced, ye are not immortal, nor at all
imperishable; yet shall ye not perish nor succumb to the fatality of
death, because you have obtained my will, [2555] which is a still
greater and mightier bond." Here Plato, through fear of the adherents
of polytheism, introduces his "maker" uttering words which contradict
himself. For having formerly stated that he said that everything which
is produced is perishable, he now introduces him saying the very
opposite; and he does not see that it is thus absolutely impossible for
him to escape the charge of falsehood. For he either at first uttered
what is false when he said that everything which is produced is
perishable, or now, when he propounds the very opposite to what he had
formerly said. For if, according to his former definition, it is
absolutely necessary that every created thing be perishable, how can he
consistently make that possible which is absolutely impossible? So that
Plato seems to grant an empty and impossible prerogative to his
"maker," when he propounds that those who were once perishable because
made from matter should again, by his intervention, become imperishable
and enduring. For it is quite natural that the power of matter, which,
according to Plato's opinion, is uncreated, and contemporary and coæval
with the maker, should resist his will. For he who has not created has
no power, in respect of that which is uncreated, so that it is not
possible that it (matter), being free, can be controlled by any
external necessity. Wherefore Plato himself, in consideration of this,
has written thus: "It is necessary to affirm that God cannot suffer
violence."
__________________________________________________________________
[2555] That is, "my will to the contrary." See Plato, Tim., p. 41 [cap
13].
__________________________________________________________________
Chapter XXIV.--Agreement of Plato and Homer.
How, then, does Plato banish Homer from his republic, since, in the
embassy to Achilles, he represents Phoenix as saying to Achilles, "Even
the gods themselves are not inflexible," [2556] though Homer said this
not of the king and Platonic maker of the gods, but of some of the
multitude whom the Greeks esteem as gods, as one can gather from
Plato's saying, "gods of gods?" For Homer, by that golden chain, [2557]
refers all power and might to the one highest God. And the rest of the
gods, he said, were so far distant from his divinity, that he thought
fit to name them even along with men. At least he introduces Ulysses
saying of Hector to Achilles, "He is raging terribly, trusting in Zeus,
and values neither men nor gods." [2558] In this passage Homer seems to
me without doubt to have learnt in Egypt, like Plato, concerning the
one God, and plainly and openly to declare this, that he who trusts in
the really existent God makes no account of those that do not exist.
For thus the poet, in another passage, and employing another but
equivalent word, to wit, a pronoun, made use of the same participle
employed by Plato to designate the really existent God, concerning whom
Plato said, "What that is which always exists, and has no birth." For
not without a double sense does this expression of Phoenix seem to have
been used: "Not even if God Himself were to promise me, that, having
burnished off my old age, He should set me forth in the flower of
youth." For the pronoun "Himself" signifies the really existing God.
For thus, too, the oracle which was given to you concerning the
Chaldæans and Hebrews signifies. For when some one inquired what men
had ever lived godly, you say the answer was:--
"Only the Chaldæans and the Hebrews found wisdom,
Worshipping God Himself, the unbegotten King."
__________________________________________________________________
[2556] Iliad, ix. 497.
[2557] That is, by the challenge of the chain introduced--Iliad, viii.
18.
[2558] Iliad, ix. 238.
__________________________________________________________________
Chapter XXV.--Plato's knowledge of God's eternity.
How, then, does Plato blame Homer for saying that the gods are not
inflexible, although, as is obvious from the expressions used, Homer
said this for a useful purpose? For it is the property of those who
expect to obtain mercy by prayer and sacrifices, to cease from and
repent of their sins. For those who think that the Deity is inflexible,
are by no means moved to abandon their sins, since they suppose that
they will derive no benefit from repentance. How, then, does Plato the
philosopher condemn the poet Homer for saying, "Even the gods
themselves are not inflexible," and yet himself represent the maker of
the gods as so easily turned, that he sometimes declares the gods to be
mortal, and at other times declares the same to be immortal? And not
only concerning them, but also concerning matter, from which, as he
says, it is necessary that the created gods have been produced, he
sometimes says that it is uncreated, and at other times that it is
created; and yet he does not see that he himself, when he says that the
maker of the gods is so easily turned, is convicted of having fallen
into the very errors for which he blames Homer, though Homer said the
very opposite concerning the maker of the gods. For he said that he
spoke thus of himself:--
"For ne'er my promise shall deceive, or fail,
Or be recall'd, if with a nod confirm'd." [2559]
But Plato, as it seems, unwillingly entered not these strange
dissertations concerning the gods, for he feared those who were
attached to polytheism. And whatever he thinks fit to tell of all that
he had learned from Moses and the prophets concerning one God, he
preferred delivering in a mystical style, so that those who desired to
be worshippers of God might have an inkling of his own opinion. For
being charmed with that saying of God to Moses, "I am the really
existing," and accepting with a great deal of thought the brief
participial expression, he understood that God desired to signify to
Moses His eternity, and therefore said, "I am the really existing;" for
this word "existing" expresses not one time only, but the three--the
past, the present, and the future. For when Plato says, "and which
never really is," he uses the verb "is" of time indefinite. For the
word "never" is not spoken, as some suppose, of the past, but of the
future time. And this has been accurately understood even by profane
writers. And therefore, when Plato wished, as it were, to interpret to
the uninitiated what had been mystically expressed by the participle
concerning the eternity of God, he employed the following language:
"God indeed, as the old tradition runs, includes the beginning, and
end, and middle of all things." In this sentence he plainly and
obviously names the law of Moses "the old tradition," fearing, through
dread of the hemlock-cup, to mention the name of Moses; for he
understood that the teaching of the man was hateful to the Greeks; and
he clearly enough indicates Moses by the antiquity of the tradition.
And we have sufficiently proved from Diodorus and the rest of the
historians, in the foregoing chapters, that the law of Moses is not
only old, but even the first. For Diodorus says that he was the first
of all lawgivers; the letters which belong to the Greeks, and which
they employed in the writing of their histories, having not yet been
discovered.
__________________________________________________________________
[2559] Iliad, i. 526.
__________________________________________________________________
Chapter XXVI.--Plato indebted to the prophets.
And let no one wonder that Plato should believe Moses regarding the
eternity of God. For you will find him mystically referring the true
knowledge of realities to the prophets, next in order after the really
existent God. For, discoursing in the Timæus about certain first
principles, he wrote thus: "This we lay down as the first principle of
fire and the other bodies, proceeding according to probability and
necessity. But the first principles of these again God above knows, and
whosoever among men is beloved of Him." [2560] And what men does he
think beloved of God, but Moses and the rest of the prophets? For their
prophecies he read, and, having learned from them the doctrine of the
judgment, he thus proclaims it in the first book of the Republic: "When
a man begins to think he is soon to die, fear invades him, and concern
about things which had never before entered his head. And those stories
about what goes on in Hades, which tell us that the man who has here
been unjust must there be punished, though formerly ridiculed, now
torment his soul with apprehensions that they may be true. And he,
either through the feebleness of age, or even because he is now nearer
to the things of the other world, views them more attentively. He
becomes, therefore, full of apprehension and dread, and begins to call
himself to account, and to consider whether he has done any one an
injury. And that man who finds in his life many iniquities, and who
continually starts from his sleep as children do, lives in terror, and
with a forlorn prospect. But to him who is conscious of no wrong-doing,
sweet hope is the constant companion and good nurse of old age, as
Pindar says. [2561] For this, Socrates, he has elegantly expressed,
that whoever leads a life of holiness and justice, him sweet hope, the
nurse of age, accompanies, cheering his heart, for she powerfully sways
the changeful mind of mortals.' " [2562] This Plato wrote in the first
book of the Republic.
__________________________________________________________________
[2560] Plato, Tim., p. 53 D, [cap. 20].
[2561] Pind., Fr., 233, a fragment preserved in this place.
[2562] Plato, Rep., p. 330 D.
__________________________________________________________________
Chapter XXVII.--Plato's knowledge of the judgment.
And in the tenth book he plainly and manifestly wrote what he had
learned from the prophets about the judgment, not as if he had learned
it from them, but, on account of his fear of the Greeks, as if he had
heard it from a man who had been slain in battle--for this story he
thought fit to invent--and who, when he was about to be buried on the
twelfth day, and was lying on the funeral pile, came to life again, and
described the other world. The following are his very words: [2563]
"For he said that he was present when one was asked by another person
where the great Ardiæus was. This Ardiæus had been prince in a certain
city of Pamphylia, and had killed his aged father and his elder
brother, and done many other unhallowed deeds, as was reported. He
said, then, that the person who was asked said: He neither comes nor
ever will come hither. For we saw, among other terrible sights, this
also. When we were close to the mouth [of the pit], and were about to
return to the upper air, and had suffered everything else, we suddenly
beheld both him and others likewise, most of whom were tyrants. But
there were also some private sinners who had committed great crimes.
And these, when they thought they were to ascend, the mouth would not
permit, but bellowed when any of those who were so incurably wicked
attempted to ascend, unless they had paid the full penalty. Then fierce
men, fiery to look at, stood close by, and hearing the din, [2564] took
some and led them away; but Ardiæus and the rest, having bound hand and
foot, and striking their heads down, and flaying, they dragged to the
road outside, tearing them with thorns, and signifying to those who
were present the cause of their suffering these things, and that they
were leading them away to cast them into Tartarus. Hence, he said, that
amidst all their various fears, this one was the greatest, lest the
mouth should bellow when they ascended, since if it were silent each
one would most gladly ascend; and that the punishments and torments
were such as these, and that, on the other hand, the rewards were the
reverse of these." Here Plato seems to me to have learnt from the
prophets not only the doctrine of the judgment, but also of the
resurrection, which the Greeks refuse to believe. For his saying that
the soul is judged along with the body, proves nothing more clearly
than that he believed the doctrine of the resurrection. Since how could
Ardiæus and the rest have undergone such punishment in Hades, had they
left on earth the body, with its head, hands, feet, and skin? For
certainly they will never say that the soul has a head and hands, and
feet and skin. But Plato, having fallen in with the testimonies of the
prophets in Egypt, and having accepted what they teach concerning the
resurrection of the body, teaches that the soul is judged in company
with the body.
__________________________________________________________________
[2563] Plato, Rep., p. 615, [lib. x. p. 325. Ed. Bipont, 1785.]
[2564] The bellowing of the mouth of the pit.
__________________________________________________________________
Chapter XXVIII.--Homer's obligations to the sacred writers.
And not only Plato, but Homer also, having received similar
enlightenment in Egypt, said that Tityus was in like manner punished.
For Ulysses speaks thus to Alcinous when he is recounting his
divination by the shades of the dead: [2565] --
"There Tityus, large and long, in fetters bound,
O'erspread nine acres of infernal ground;
Two ravenous vultures, furious for their food,
Scream o'er the fiend, and riot in his blood,
Incessant gore the liver in his breast,
Th' immortal liver grows, and gives th' immortal feast."
For it is plain that it is not the soul, but the body, which has a
liver. And in the same manner he has described both Sisyphus and
Tantalus as enduring punishment with the body. And that Homer had been
in Egypt, and introduced into his own poem much of what he there
learnt, Diodorus, the most esteemed of historians, plainly enough
teaches us. For he said that when he was in Egypt he had learnt that
Helen, having received from Theon's wife, Polydamna, a drug, "lulling
all sorrow and melancholy, and causing forgetfulness of all ills,"
[2566] brought it to Sparta. And Homer said that by making use of that
drug Helen put an end to the lamentation of Menelaus, caused by the
presence of Telemachus. And he also called Venus "golden," from what he
had seen in Egypt. For he had seen the temple which in Egypt is called
"the temple of golden Venus," and the plain which is named "the plain
of golden Venus." And why do I now make mention of this? To show that
the poet transferred to his own poem much of what is contained in the
divine writings of the prophets. And first he transferred what Moses
had related as the beginning of the creation of the world. For Moses
wrote thus: "In the beginning God created the heaven and the earth,"
[2567] then the sun, and the moon, and the stars. For having learned
this in Egypt, and having been much taken with what Moses had written
in the Genesis of the world, he fabled that Vulcan had made in the
shield of Achilles a kind of representation of the creation of the
world. For he wrote thus: [2568] --
"There he described the earth, the heaven, the sea,
The sun that rests not, and the moon full-orb'd;
There also, all the stars which round about,
As with a radiant frontlet, bind the skies."
And he contrived also that the garden of Alcinous should preserve the
likeness of Paradise, and through this likeness he represented it as
ever-blooming and full of all fruits. For thus he wrote: [2569] --
"Tall thriving trees confess'd the fruitful mould;
The reddening apple ripens here to gold.
Here the blue fig with luscious juice o'erflows,
With deeper red the full pomegranate glows;
The branch here bends beneath the weighty pear,
And verdant olives flourish round the year.
The balmy spirit of the western gale
Eternal breathes on fruits, untaught to fail;
Each dropping pear a following pear supplies,
On apples apples, figs on figs arise.
The same mild season gives the blooms to blow,
The buds to harden, and the fruits to grow.
Here order'd vines in equal ranks appear,
With all th' united labours of the year.
Some to unload the fertile branches run,
Some dry the blackening clusters in the sun,
Others to tread the liquid harvest join.
The groaning presses foam with floods of wine.
Here are the vines in early flower descry'd
Here grapes discoloured on the sunny side,
And there in autumn's richest purple dy'd."
Do not these words present a manifest and clear imitation of what the
first prophet Moses said about Paradise? And if any one wish to know
something of the building of the tower by which the men of that day
fancied they would obtain access to heaven, he will find a sufficiently
exact allegorical imitation of this in what the poet has ascribed to
Otus and Ephialtes. For of them he wrote thus: [2570] --
"Proud of their strength, and more than mortal size,
The gods they challenge, and affect the skies.
Heav'd on Olympus tottering Ossa stood;
On Ossa, Pelion nods with all his wood."
And the same holds good regarding the enemy of mankind who was cast out
of heaven, whom the Sacred Scriptures call the Devil, [2571] a name
which he obtained from his first devilry against man; and if any one
would attentively consider the matter, he would find that the poet,
though he certainly never mentions the name of "the devil," yet gives
him a name from his wickedest action. For the poet, calling him Ate,
[2572] says that he was hurled from heaven by their god, just as if he
had a distinct remembrance of the expressions which Isaiah the prophet
had uttered regarding him. He wrote thus in his own poem: [2573] --
"And, seizing by her glossy locks
The goddess Ate, in his wrath he swore
That never to the starry skies again,
And the Olympian heights, he would permit
The universal mischief to return.
Then, whirling her around, he cast her down
To earth. She, mingling with all works of men,
Caused many a pang to Jove."
__________________________________________________________________
[2565] Odyssey, xi, 576 (Pope's translation, line 709).
[2566] Odyssey, iv. 221; [Milton's Comus, line 675].
[2567] Gen. i. 1.
[2568] Iliad, xviii. 483.
[2569] Odyssey, vii. 114 (Pope's translation, line 146.).
[2570] Odyssey, xi. 312 (Pope's translation, line 385).
[2571] The false accuser; one who does injury by slanderous
accusations.
[2572] 'Ate, the goddess of mischief, from whom spring all rash, blind
deeds and their results.
[2573] Iliad, xix. 126.
__________________________________________________________________
Chapter XXIX.--Origin of Plato's doctrine of form.
And Plato, too, when he says that form is the third original principle
next to God and matter, has manifestly received this suggestion from no
other source than from Moses, having learned, indeed, from the words of
Moses the name of form, but not having at the same time been instructed
by the initiated, that without mystic insight it is impossible to have
any distinct knowledge of the writings of Moses. For Moses wrote that
God had spoken to him regarding the tabernacle in the following words:
"And thou shalt make for me according to all that I show thee in the
mount, the pattern of the tabernacle." [2574] And again: "And thou
shalt erect the tabernacle according to the pattern of all the
instruments thereof, even so shalt thou make it." [2575] And again, a
little afterwards: "Thus then thou shalt make it according to the
pattern which was showed to thee in the mount." [2576] Plato, then,
reading these passages, and not receiving what was written with the
suitable insight, thought that form had some kind of separate existence
before that which the senses perceive, and he often calls it the
pattern of the things which are made, since the writing of Moses spoke
thus of the tabernacle: "According to the form showed to thee in the
mount, so shalt thou make it."
__________________________________________________________________
[2574] Ex. xxv.
[2575] Ex. xxv. 9.
[2576] Ex. xxv. 40.
__________________________________________________________________
Chapter XXX.--Homer's knowledge of man's origin.
And he was obviously deceived in the same way regarding the earth and
heaven and man; for he supposes that there are "ideas" of these. For as
Moses wrote thus, "In the beginning God created the heaven and the
earth," and then subjoins this sentence, "And the earth was invisible
and unfashioned," he thought that it was the pre-existent earth which
was spoken of in the words, "The earth was," because Moses said, "And
the earth was invisible and unfashioned;" and he thought that the
earth, concerning which he says, "God created the heaven and the
earth," was that earth which we perceive by the senses, and which God
made according to the pre-existent form. And so also, of the heaven
which was created, he thought that the heaven which was created--and
which he also called the firmament--was that creation which the senses
perceive; and that the heaven which the intellect perceives is that
other of which the prophet said, "The heaven of heavens is the Lord's,
but the earth hath He given to the children of men." [2577] And so also
concerning man: Moses first mentions the name of man, and then after
many other creations he makes mention of the formation of man, saying,
"And God made man, taking dust from the earth." [2578] He thought,
accordingly, that the man first so named existed before the man who was
made, and that he who was formed of the earth was afterwards made
according to the pre-existent form. And that man was formed of earth,
Homer, too, having discovered from the ancient and divine history which
says, "Dust thou art, and unto dust shalt thou return," [2579] calls
the lifeless body of Hector dumb clay. For in condemnation of Achilles
dragging the corpse of Hector after death, he says somewhere: [2580] --
"On the dumb clay he cast indignity,
Blinded with rage."
And again, somewhere else, [2581] he introduces Menelaus, thus
addressing those who were not accepting Hector's challenge to single
combat with becoming alacrity,--
"To earth and water may you all return,"--
resolving them in his violent rage into their original and pristine
formation from earth. These things Homer and Plato, having learned in
Egypt from the ancient histories, wrote in their own words.
__________________________________________________________________
[2577] Ps. cxv. 16.
[2578] Gen. ii. 7.
[2579] Gen. iii. 19.
[2580] Iliad, xxii.
[2581] Iliad, vii. 99.
__________________________________________________________________
Chapter XXXI.--Further proof of Plato's acquaintance with Scripture.
For from what other source, if not from his reading the writings of the
prophets, could Plato have derived the information he gives us, that
Jupiter drives a winged chariot in heaven? For he knew this from the
following expressions of the prophet about the cherubim: "And the glory
of the Lord went out from the house and rested on the cherubim; and the
cherubim lift up their wings, and the wheels beside them; and the glory
of the Lord God of Israel was over them above." [2582] And borrowing
this idea, the magniloquent Plato shouts aloud with vast assurance,
"The great Jove, indeed, driving his winged chariot in heaven." For
from what other source, if not from Moses and the prophets, did he
learn this and so write? And whence did he receive the suggestion of
his saying that God exists in a fiery substance? Was it not from the
third book of the history of the Kings, where it is written, "The Lord
was not in the wind; and after the wind an earthquake, but the Lord was
not in the earthquake; and after the earthquake a fire, but the Lord
was not in the fire; and after the fire a still small voice?" [2583]
But these things pious men must understand in a higher sense with
profound and meditative insight. But Plato, not attending to the words
with the suitable insight, said that God exists in a fiery substance.
__________________________________________________________________
[2582] Ezek. xi. 22.
[2583] 1 Kings xix. 11, 12.
__________________________________________________________________
Chapter XXXII.--Plato's doctrine of the heavenly gift.
And if any one will attentively consider the gift that descends from
God on the holy men, --which gift the sacred prophets call the Holy
Ghost,--he shall find that this was announced under another name by
Plato in the dialogue with Meno. For, fearing to name the gift of God
"the Holy Ghost," lest he should seem, by following the teaching of the
prophets, to be an enemy to the Greeks, he acknowledges, indeed, that
it comes down from God, yet does not think fit to name it the Holy
Ghost, but virtue. For so in the dialogue with Meno, concerning
reminiscence, after he had put many questions regarding virtue, whether
it could be taught or whether it could not be taught, but must be
gained by practice, or whether it could be attained neither by practice
nor by learning, but was a natural gift in men, or whether it comes in
some other way, he makes this declaration in these very words: "But if
now through this whole dialogue we have conducted our inquiry and
discussion aright, virtue must be neither a natural gift, nor what one
can receive by teaching, but comes to those to whom it does come by
divine destiny." These things, I think, Plato having learned from the
prophets regarding the Holy Ghost, he has manifestly transferred to
what he calls virtue. For as the sacred prophets say that one and the
same spirit is divided into seven spirits, so he also, naming it one
and the same virtue, says this is divided into four virtues; wishing by
all means to avoid mention of the Holy Spirit, but clearly declaring in
a kind of allegory what the prophets said of the Holy Spirit. For to
this effect he spoke in the dialogue with Meno towards the close: "From
this reasoning, Meno, it appears that virtue comes to those to whom it
does come by a divine destiny. But we shall know clearly about this, in
what kind of way virtue comes to men, when, as a first step, we shall
have set ourselves to investigate, as an independent inquiry, what
virtue itself is." You see how he calls only by the name of virtue, the
gift that descends from above; and yet he counts it worthy of inquiry,
whether it is right that this [gift] be called virtue or some other
thing, fearing to name it openly the Holy Spirit, lest he should seem
to be following the teaching of the prophets.
__________________________________________________________________
Chapter XXXIII.--Plato's idea of the beginning of time drawn from Moses.
And from what source did Plato draw the information that time was
created along with the heavens? For he wrote thus: "Time, accordingly,
was created along with the heavens; in order that, coming into being
together, they might also be together dissolved, if ever their
dissolution should take place." Had he not learned this from the divine
history of Moses? For he knew that the creation of time had received
its original constitution from days and months and years. Since, then,
the first day which was created along with the heavens constituted the
beginning of all time (for thus Moses wrote, "In the beginning God
created the heavens and the earth," and then immediately subjoins, "And
one day was made," as if he would designate the whole of time by one
part of it), Plato names the day "time," lest, if he mentioned the
"day," he should seem to lay himself open to the accusation of the
Athenians, that he was completely adopting the expressions of Moses.
And from what source did he derive what he has written regarding the
dissolution of the heavens? Had he not learned this, too, from the
sacred prophets, and did he not think that this was their doctrine?
__________________________________________________________________
Chapter XXXIV.--Whence men attributed to God human form.
And if any person investigates the subject of images, and inquires on
what ground those who first fashioned your gods conceived that they had
the forms of men, he will find that this also was derived from the
divine history. For seeing that Moses's history, speaking in the person
of God, says, "Let Us make man in our image and likeness," these
persons, under the impression that this meant that men were like God in
form, began thus to fashion their gods, supposing they would make a
likeness from a likeness. But why, ye men of Greece, am I now induced
to recount these things? That ye may know that it is not possible to
learn the true religion from those who were unable, even on those
subjects by which they won the admiration of the heathen, [2584] to
write anything original, but merely propounded by some allegorical
device in their own writings what they had learned from Moses and the
other prophets.
__________________________________________________________________
[2584] Literally, "those without."
__________________________________________________________________
Chapter XXXV.--Appeal to the Greeks.
The time, then, ye men of Greece, is now come, that ye, having been
persuaded by the secular histories that Moses and the rest of the
prophets were far more ancient than any of those who have been esteemed
sages among you, abandon the ancient delusion of your forefathers, and
read the divine histories of the prophets, and ascertain from them the
true religion; for they do not present to you artful discourses, nor
speak speciously and plausibly--for this is the property of those who
wish to rob you of the truth--but use with simplicity the words and
expressions which offer themselves, and declare to you whatever the
Holy Ghost, who descended upon them, chose to teach through them to
those who are desirous to learn the true religion. Having then laid
aside all false shame, and the inveterate error of mankind, with all
its bombastic parade and empty noise, though by means of it you fancy
you are possessed of all advantages, do you give yourselves to the
things that profit you. For neither will you commit any offence against
your fathers, if you now show a desire to betake yourselves to that
which is quite opposed to their error, since it is likely enough that
they themselves are now lamenting in Hades, and repenting with a too
late repentance; and if it were possible for them to show you thence
what had befallen them after the termination of this life, ye would
know from what fearful ills they desired to deliver you. But now, since
it is not possible in this present life that ye either learn from them,
or from those who here profess to teach that philosophy which is
falsely so called, it follows as the one thing that remains for you to
do, that, renouncing the error of your fathers, ye read the prophecies
of the sacred writers, [2585] not requiring from them unexceptionable
diction (for the matters of our religion lie in works, [2586] not in
words), and learn from them what will give you life everlasting. For
those who bootlessly disgrace the name of philosophy are convicted of
knowing nothing at all, as they are themselves forced, though
unwillingly, to confess, since not only do they disagree with each
other, but also expressed their own opinions sometimes in one way,
sometimes in another.
__________________________________________________________________
[2585] Literally, "sacred men."
[2586] [A noteworthy apology for early Christian writers.]
__________________________________________________________________
Chapter XXXVI.--True knowledge not held by the philosophers.
And if "the discovery of the truth" be given among them as one
definition of philosophy, how are they who are not in possession of the
true knowledge worthy of the name of philosophy? For if Socrates, the
wisest of your wise men, to whom even your oracle, as you yourselves
say, bears witness, saying, "Of all men Socrates is the wisest"--if he
confesses that he knows nothing, how did those who came after him
profess to know even things heavenly? For Socrates said that he was on
this account called wise, because, while other men pretended to know
what they were ignorant of, he himself did not shrink from confessing
that he knew nothing. For he said, "I seem to myself to be wisest by
this little particular, that what I do not know, I do not suppose I
know." Let no one fancy that Socrates ironically feigned ignorance,
because he often used to do so in his dialogues. For the last
expression of his apology which he uttered as he was being led away to
the prison, proves that in seriousness and truth he was confessing his
ignorance: "But now it is time to go away, I indeed to die, but you to
live. And which of us goes to the better state, is hidden to all but
God." Socrates, indeed, having uttered this last sentence in the
Areopagus, departed to the prison, ascribing to God alone the knowledge
of those things which are hidden from us; but those who came after him,
though they are unable to comprehend even earthly things, profess to
understand things heavenly as if they had seen them. Aristotle at
least--as if he had seen things heavenly with greater accuracy than
Plato--declared that God did not exist, as Plato said, in the fiery
substance (for this was Plato's doctrine) but in the fifth element,
air. And while he demanded that concerning these matters he should be
believed on account of the excellence of his language, he yet departed
this life because he was overwhelmed with the infamy and disgrace of
being unable to discover even the nature of the Euripus in Chalcis.
[2587] Let not any one, therefore, of sound judgment prefer the elegant
diction of these men to his own salvation, but let him, according to
that old story, stop his ears with wax, and flee the sweet hurt which
these sirens would inflict upon him. For the above-mentioned men,
presenting their elegant language as a kind of bait, have sought to
seduce many from the right religion, in imitation of him who dared to
teach the first men polytheism. Be not persuaded by these persons, I
entreat you, but read the prophecies of the sacred writers. [2588] And
if any slothfulness or old hereditary superstition prevents you from
reading the prophecies of the holy men through which you can be
instructed regarding the one only God, which is the first article of
the true religion, yet believe him who, though at first he taught you
polytheism, yet afterwards preferred to sing a useful and necessary
recantation--I mean Orpheus, who said what I quoted a little before;
and believe the others who wrote the same things concerning one God.
For it was the work of Divine Providence on your behalf, that they,
though unwillingly, bore testimony that what the prophets said
regarding one God was true, in order that, the doctrine of a plurality
of gods being rejected by all, occasion might be afforded you of
knowing the truth.
__________________________________________________________________
[2587] This is now supposed to be fable.
[2588] Literally, "sacred men."
__________________________________________________________________
Chapter XXXVII.--Of the Sibyl. [2589]
And you may in part easily learn the right religion from the ancient
Sibyl, who by some kind of potent inspiration teaches you, through her
oracular predictions, truths which seem to be much akin to the teaching
of the prophets. She, they say, was of Babylonian extraction, being the
daughter of Berosus, who wrote the Chaldæan History; and when she had
crossed over (how, I know not) into the region of Campania, she there
uttered her oracular sayings in a city called Cumæ, six miles from
Baiæ, where the hot springs of Campania are found. And being in that
city, we saw also a certain place, in which we were shown a very large
basilica [2590] cut out of one stone; a vast affair, and worthy of all
admiration. And they who had heard it from their fathers as part of
their country's tradition, told us that it was here she used to publish
her oracles. And in the middle of the basilica they showed us three
receptacles cut out of one stone, in which, when filled with water,
they said that she washed, and having put on her robe again, retires
into the inmost chamber of the basilica, which is still a part of the
one stone; and sitting in the middle of the chamber on a high rostrum
and throne, thus proclaims her oracles. And both by many other writers
has the Sibyl been mentioned as a prophetess, and also by Plato in his
Phædrus. And Plato seems to me to have counted prophets divinely
inspired when he read her prophecies. For he saw that what she had long
ago predicted was accomplished; and on this account he expresses in the
Dialogue with Meno his wonder at and admiration of prophets in the
following terms: "Those whom we now call prophetic persons we should
rightly name divine. And not least would we say that they are divine,
and are raised to the prophetic ecstasy by the inspiration and
possession of God, when they correctly speak of many and important
matters, and yet know nothing of what they are saying," --plainly and
manifestly referring to the prophecies of the Sibyl. For, unlike the
poets who, after their poems are penned, have power to correct and
polish, specially in the way of increasing the accuracy of their verse,
she was filled indeed with prophecy at the time of the inspiration, but
as soon as the inspiration ceased, there ceased also the remembrance of
all she had said. And this indeed was the cause why some only, and not
all, the metres of the verses of the Sibyl were preserved. For we
ourselves, when in that city, ascertained from our cicerone, who showed
us the places in which she used to prophesy, that there was a certain
coffer made of brass in which they said that her remains were
preserved. And besides all else which they told us as they had heard it
from their fathers, they said also that they who then took down her
prophecies, being illiterate persons, often went quite astray from the
accuracy of the metres; and this, they said, was the cause of the want
of metre in some of the verses, the prophetess having no remembrance of
what she had said, after the possession and inspiration ceased, and the
reporters having, through their lack of education, failed to record the
metres with accuracy. And on this account, it is manifest that Plato
had an eye to the prophecies of the Sibyl when he said this about
prophets, for he said, "When they correctly speak of many and important
matters, and yet know nothing of what they are saying.
__________________________________________________________________
[2589] [In Grabe's edition consult notes of Lang and Kortholt, ii. p.
45.]
[2590] [Travellers must recognise the agreement of Justin's story with
the traditional cave still shown in this region.]
__________________________________________________________________
Chapter XXXVIII.--Concluding appeal.
But since, ye men of Greece, the matters of the true religion lie not
in the metrical numbers of poetry, nor yet in that culture which is
highly esteemed among you, do ye henceforward pay less devotion to
accuracy of metres and of language; and giving heed without
contentiousness to the words of the Sibyl, recognise how great are the
benefits which she will confer upon you by predicting, as she does in a
clear and patent manner, the advent of our Saviour Jesus Christ; [2591]
who, being the Word of God, inseparable from Him in power, having
assumed man, who had been made in the image and likeness of God,
restored to us the knowledge of the religion of our ancient
forefathers, which the men who lived after them abandoned through the
bewitching counsel of the envious devil, and turned to the worship of
those who were no gods. And if you still hesitate and are hindered from
belief regarding the formation of man, believe those whom you have
hitherto thought it right to give heed to, and know that your own
oracle, when asked by some one to utter a hymn of praise to the
Almighty God, in the middle of the hymn spoke thus, "Who formed the
first of men, and called him Adam." And this hymn is preserved by many
whom we know, for the conviction of those who are unwilling to believe
the truth which all bear witness to. If therefore, ye men of Greece, ye
do not esteem the false fancy concerning those that are no gods at a
higher rate than your own salvation, believe, as I said, the most
ancient and time-honoured Sibyl, whose books are preserved in all the
world, and who by some kind of potent inspiration both teaches us in
her oracular utterances concerning those that are called gods, that
have no existence; and also clearly and manifestly prophesies
concerning the predicted advent of our Saviour Jesus Christ, and
concerning all those things which were to be done by Him. For the
knowledge of these things will constitute your necessary preparatory
training for the study of the prophecies of the sacred writers. And if
any one supposes that he has learned the doctrine concerning God from
the most ancient of those whom you name philosophers, let him listen to
Ammon and Hermes: [2592] to Ammon, who in his discourse concerning God
calls Him wholly hidden; and to Hermes, who says plainly and
distinctly, "that it is difficult to comprehend God, and that it is
impossible even for the man who can comprehend Him to declare Him to
others." From every point of view, therefore, it must be seen that in
no other way than only from the prophets who teach us by divine
inspiration, is it at all possible to learn anything concerning God and
the true religion. [2593]
__________________________________________________________________
[2591] [The fascinating use made of this by Virgil must not be
overlooked:-- "Ultima Cumæi venit jam carminis ætas," etc. Ecl., iv.
(Pollio) 4.]
[2592] [Hermes Trismegistus. Milton (Penseroso, line 88,) translates
this name.]
[2593] [N.B.-- This work is not supposed to be Justin's by modern
critics.]
__________________________________________________________________
As I begin this hortatory address to you, ye men of Greece, I pray God
that I may know what I ought to say to you, and that you, shaking off
your habitual [2507] love of disputing, and being delivered from the
error of your fathers, may now choose what is profitable; not fancying
that you commit any offence against your forefathers, though the things
which you formerly considered by no means salutary should now seem
useful to you. For accurate investigation of matters, putting truth to
the question with a more searching scrutiny, often reveals that things
which have passed for excellent are of quite another sort. Since, then,
we propose to discourse of the true religion (than which, I think,
there is nothing which is counted more valuable by those who desire to
pass through life without danger, on account of the judgment which is
to be after the termination of this life, and which is announced not
only by our forefathers according to God, to wit the prophets and
lawgivers, but also by those among yourselves who have been esteemed
wise, not poets alone, but also philosophers, who professed among you
that they had attained the true and divine knowledge), I think it well
first of all to examine the teachers of religion, both our own and
yours, who they were, and how great, and in what times they lived; in
order that those who have formerly received from their fathers the
false religion, may now, when they perceive this, be extricated from
that inveterate error; and that we may clearly and manifestly show that
we ourselves follow the religion of our forefathers according to God.
__________________________________________________________________
[2507] Literally, "former."
__________________________________________________________________
Chapter II--The poets are unfit to be religious teachers.
Whom, then, ye men of Greece, do ye call your teachers of religion? The
poets? It will do your cause no good to say so to men who know the
poets; for they know how very ridiculous a theogony they have
composed,--as we can learn from Homer, your most distinguished and
prince of poets. For he says, first, that the gods were in the
beginning generated from water; for he has written thus: [2508] --
"Both ocean, the origin of the gods, and their mother Tethys"
And then we must also remind you of what he further says of him whom ye
consider the first of the gods, and whom he often calls "the father of
gods and men;" for he said: [2509] --
"Zeus, who is the dispenser of war to men."
Indeed, he says that he was not only the dispenser of war to the army,
but also the cause of perjury to the Trojans, by means of his daughter;
[2510] and Homer introduces him in love, and bitterly complaining, and
bewailing himself, and plotted against by the other gods, and at one
time exclaiming concerning his own son: [2511] --
"Alas! he falls, my most beloved of men!
Sarpedon, vanquished by Patroclus, falls.
So will the fates."
And at another time concerning Hector: [2512] --
"Ah! I behold a warrior dear to me
Around the walls of Ilium driven, and grieve
For Hector."
And what he says of the conspiracy of the other gods against Zeus, they
know who read these words: [2513] "When the other Olympians--Juno, and
Neptune, and Minerva --wished to bind him." And unless the blessed gods
had feared him whom gods call Briareus, Zeus would have been bound by
them. And what Homer says of his intemperate loves, we must remind you
in the very words he used. For he said that Zeus spake thus to Juno:
[2514] --
"For never goddess pour'd, nor woman yet,
So full a tide of love into my breast;
I never loved Ixion's consort thus,
Nor sweet Acrisian Danaë, from whom
Sprang Perseus, noblest of the race of man;
Nor Phoenix' daughter fair, of whom were born
Minos, unmatch'd but by the powers above,
And Rhadamanthus; nor yet Semele,
Nor yet Alcmene, who in Thebes produced
The valiant Hercules; and though my son
By Semele were Bacchus, joy of man;
Nor Ceres golden-hair'd, nor high-enthron'd
Latona in the skies; no--nor thyself
As now I love thee, and my soul perceive
O'erwhelm'd with sweetness of intense desire."
It is fit that we now mention what one can learn from the work of Homer
of the other gods, and what they suffered at the hands of men. For he
says that Mars and Venus were wounded by Diomed, and of many others of
the gods he relates the sufferings. For thus we can gather from the
case of Dione consoling her daughter; for she said to her: [2515] --
"Have patience, dearest child; though much enforc'd
Restrain thine anger: we, in heav'n who dwell,
Have much to bear from mortals; and ourselves
Too oft upon each other suff'rings lay:
Mars had his suff'rings; by Alöeus' sons,
Otus and Ephialtes, strongly bound,
He thirteen months in brazen fetters lay:
Juno, too, suffer'd, when Amphitryon's son
Thro' her right breast a three-barb'd arrow sent:
Dire, and unheard of, were the pangs she bore,
Great Pluto's self the stinging arrow felt,
When that same son of Ægis-bearing Jove
Assail'd him in the very gates of hell,
And wrought him keenest anguish; pierced with pain,
To high Olympus, to the courts of Jove,
Groaning, he came; the bitter shaft remain'd
Deep in his shoulder fix'd, and griev'd his soul."
But if it is right to remind you of the battle of the gods, opposed to
one another, your own poet himself will recount it, saying: [2516] --
"Such was the shock when gods in battle met;
For there to royal Neptune stood oppos'd
Phoebus Apollo with his arrows keen;
The blue-eyed Pallas to the god of war;
To Juno, Dian, heav'nly archeress,
Sister of Phoebus, golden-shafted queen.
Stout Hermes, helpful god, Latona fac'd."
These and such like things did Homer teach you; and not Homer only, but
also Hesiod. So that if you believe your most distinguished poets, who
have given the genealogies of your gods, you must of necessity either
suppose that the gods are such beings as these, or believe that there
are no gods at all.
__________________________________________________________________
[2508] Iliad, xiv. 302.
[2509] Iliad, xix. 224.
[2510] That is, Venus, who, after Paris had sworn that the war should
be decided by single combat between himself and Menelaus, carried him
off, and induced him, though defeated, to refuse performance of the
articles agreed upon.
[2511] Iliad, xvi. 433. Sarpedon was a son of Zeus.
[2512] Iliad, xxii. 168.
[2513] Iliad, i. 399, etc.
[2514] Iliad, xiv. 315. (The passage is here given in full from
Cowper's translation. In Justin's quotation one or two lines are
omitted.)
[2515] Iliad, v. 382 (from Lord Derby's translation).
[2516] Iliad, xx. 66 (from Lord Derby's translation).
__________________________________________________________________
Chapter III.--Opinions of the school of Thales.
And if you decline citing the poets, because you say it is allowable
for them to frame myths, and to relate in a mythical way many things
about the gods which are far from true, do you suppose you have some
others for your religious teachers, or how do you say that they
themselves [2517] have learned this religion of yours? For it is
impossible that any should know matters so great and divine, who have
not themselves learned them first from the initiated. [2518] You will
no doubt say, "The sages and philosophers." For to them, as to a
fortified wall, you are wont to flee, when any one quotes the opinions
of your poets about the gods. Therefore, since it is fit that we
commence with the ancients and the earliest, beginning thence I will
produce the opinion of each, much more ridiculous as it is than the
theology of the poets. For Thales of Miletus, who took the lead in the
study of natural philosophy, declared that water was the first
principle of all things; for from water he says that all things are,
and that into water all are resolved. And after him Anaximander, who
came from the same Miletus, said that the infinite was the first
principle of all things; for that from this indeed all things are
produced, and into this do all decay. Thirdly, Anaximenes--and he too
was from Miletus--says that air is the first principle of all things;
for he says that from this all things are produced, and into this all
are resolved. Heraclitus and Hippasus, from Metapontus, say that fire
is the first principle of all things; for from fire all things proceed,
and in fire do all things terminate. Anaxagoras of Clazomenæ said that
the homogeneous parts are the first principles of all things.
Archelaus, the son of Apollodorus, an Athenian, says that the infinite
air and its density and rarity are the first principle of all things.
All these, forming a succession from Thales, followed the philosophy
called by themselves physical.
__________________________________________________________________
[2517] i.e., these teachers.
[2518] Literally, "those who knew."
__________________________________________________________________
Chapter IV.--Opinions of Pythagoras and Epicurus.
Then, in regular succession from another starting-point, Pythagoras the
Samian, son of Mnesarchus, calls numbers, with their proportions and
harmonies, and the elements composed of both, the first principles; and
he includes also unity and the indefinite binary. [2519] Epicurus, an
Athenian, the son of Neocles, says that the first principles of the
things that exist are bodies perceptible by reason, admitting no
vacuity, [2520] unbegotten, indestructible, which can neither be
broken, nor admit of any formation of their parts, nor alteration, and
are therefore perceptible by reason. Empedocles of Agrigentum, son of
Meton, maintained that there were four elements--fire, air, water,
earth; and two elementary powers --love and hate, [2521] of which the
former is a power of union, the latter of separation. You see, then,
the confusion of those who are considered by you to have been wise men,
whom you assert to be your teachers of religion: some of them declaring
that water is the first principle of all things; others, air, others,
fire; and others, some other of these fore-mentioned elements; and all
of them employing persuasive arguments for the establishment of their
own errors, and attempting to prove their own peculiar dogma to be the
most valuable. These things were said by them. How then, ye men of
Greece, can it be safe for those who desire to be saved, to fancy that
they can learn the true religion from these philosophers, who were
neither able so to convince themselves as to prevent sectarian
wrangling with one another, and not to appear definitely opposed to one
another's opinions?
__________________________________________________________________
[2519] monada kai ten aoriston duada. One, or unity, was considered by
Pythagoras as the essence of number, and also as God. Two, or the
indefinite binary, was the equivalent of evil. So Plutarch, De placit.
philosoph., c. 7; from which treatise the above opinions of the various
sects are quoted, generally verbatim.
[2520] ametocha kenou: the void being that in which these bodies move,
while they themselves are of a different nature from it.
[2521] Or, accord and discord, attraction and repulsion.
__________________________________________________________________
Chapter V.--Opinions of Plato and Aristotle.
But possibly those who are unwilling to give up the ancient and
inveterate error, maintain that they have received the doctrine of
their religion not from those who have now been mentioned, but from
those who are esteemed among them as the most renowned and finished
philosophers, Plato and Aristotle. For these, they say, have learned
the perfect and true religion. But I would be glad to ask, first of
all, from those who say so, from whom they say that these men have
learned this knowledge; for it is impossible that men who have not
learned these so great and divine matters from some who knew them,
should either themselves know them, or be able correctly to teach
others; and, in the second place, I think we ought to examine the
opinions even of these sages. For we shall see whether each of these
does not manifestly contradict the other. But if we find that even they
do not agree with each other, I think it is easy to see clearly that
they too are ignorant. For Plato, with the air of one that has
descended from above, and has accurately ascertained and seen all that
is in heaven, says that the most high God exists in a fiery substance.
[2522] But Aristotle, in a book addressed to Alexander of Macedon,
giving a compendious explanation of his own philosophy, clearly and
manifestly overthrows the opinion of Plato, saying that God does not
exist in a fiery substance: but inventing, as a fifth substance, some
kind of ætherial and unchangeable body, says that God exists in it.
Thus, at least, he wrote: "Not, as some of those who have erred
regarding the Deity say, that God exists in a fiery substance." Then,
as if he were not satisfied with this blasphemy against Plato, he
further, for the sake of proving what he says about the ætherial body,
cites as a witness him whom Plato had banished from his republic as a
liar, and as being an imitator of the images of truth at three removes,
[2523] for so Plato calls Homer; for he wrote: "Thus at least did Homer
speak, [2524] And Zeus obtained the wide heaven in the air and the
clouds,' " wishing to make his own opinion appear more worthy of credit
by the testimony of Homer; not being aware that if he used Homer as a
witness to prove that he spoke truth, many of his tenets would be
proved untrue. For Thales of Miletus, who was the founder of philosophy
among them, taking occasion from him, [2525] will contradict his first
opinions about first principles. For Aristotle himself, having said
that God and matter are the first principles of all things, Thales, the
eldest of all their sages, says that water is the first principle of
the things that exist; for he says that all things are from water, and
that all things are resolved into water. And he conjectures this,
first, from the fact that the seed of all living creatures, which is
their first principle, is moist; and secondly, because all plants grow
and bear fruit in moisture, but when deprived of moisture, wither.
Then, as if not satisfied with his conjectures, he cites Homer as a
most trustworthy testimony, who speaks thus:--
"Ocean, who is the origin of all." [2526]
May not Thales, then, very fairly say to him, "What is the reason,
Aristotle, why you give heed to Homer, as if he spoke truth, when you
wish to demolish the opinions of Plato; but when you promulgate an
opinion contrary to ours, you think Homer untruthful?"
__________________________________________________________________
[2522] Or, "is of a fiery nature."
[2523] See the Republic, x. 2. By the Platonic doctrine, the ideas of
things in the mind of God were the realities; the things themselves, as
seen by us, were the images of these realities; and poetry, therefore,
describing the images of realities, was only at the third remove from
nature. As Plato puts it briefly in this same passage, "the painter,
the bed-maker, God--these three are the masters of three species of
beds."
[2524] Iliad, xv. 192.
[2525] i.e., from Homer; using Homer's words as suggestive and
confirmatory of his doctrine.
[2526] Iliad, xiv. 246.
__________________________________________________________________
Chapter VI.--Further disagreements between Plato and Aristotle.
And that these very wonderful sages of yours do not even agree in other
respects, can be easily learned from this. For while Plato says that
there are three first principles of all things, God, and matter, and
form,--God, the maker of all; and matter, which is the subject of the
first production of all that is produced, and affords to God
opportunity for His workmanship; and form, which is the type of each of
the things produced,-- Aristotle makes no mention at all of form as a
first principle, but says that there are two, God and matter. And
again, while Plato says that the highest God and the ideas exist in the
first place of the highest heavens, and in fixed sphere, Aristotle says
that, next to the most high God, there are, not ideas, but certain
gods, who can be perceived by the mind. Thus, then, do they differ
concerning things heavenly. So that one can see that they not only are
unable to understand our earthly matters, but also, being at variance
among themselves regarding these things, they will appear unworthy of
credit when they treat of things heavenly. And that even their doctrine
regarding the human soul as it now is does not harmonize, is manifest
from what has been said by each of them concerning it. For Plato says
that it is of three parts, having the faculty of reason, of affection,
and of appetite. [2527] But Aristotle says that the soul is not so
comprehensive as to include also corruptible parts, but only reason.
And Plato loudly maintains that "the whole soul is immortal." But
Aristotle, naming it "the actuality," [2528] would have it to be
mortal, not immortal. And the former says it is always in motion; but
Aristotle says that it is immoveable, since it must itself precede all
motion.
__________________________________________________________________
[2527] to logikon to thumikon, to epithumetikon, --corresponding to
what we roughly speak of as reason, the heart, and the appetites.
[2528] entelecheia, --the completion or actuality to which each thing,
by virtue of its peculiar nature (or potentiality, dunamis), can
arrive.
__________________________________________________________________
Chapter VII.--Inconsistencies of Plato's doctrine.
But in these things they are convicted of thinking in contradiction to
each other. And if any one will accurately criticise their writings,
they have chosen to abide in harmony not even with their own opinions.
Plato, at any rate, at one time says that there are three first
principles of the universe--God, and matter, and form; but at another
time four, for he adds the universal soul. And again, when he has
already said that matter is eternal, [2529] he afterwards says that it
is produced; and when he has first given to form its peculiar rank as a
first principle, and has asserted for its self-subsistence, he
afterwards says that this same thing is among the things perceived by
the understanding. Moreover, having first declared that everything that
is made is mortal [2530] he afterwards states that some of the things
that are made are indestructible and immortal. What, then, is the cause
why those who have been esteemed wise among you disagree not only with
one another but also with themselves? Manifestly, their unwillingness
to learn from those who know, and their desire to attain accurate
knowledge of things heavenly by their own human excess of wisdom though
they were able to understand not even earthly matters. Certainly some
of your philosophers say that the human soul is in us; others, that it
is around us. For not even in this did they choose to agree with one
another, but, distributing, as it were, ignorance in various ways among
themselves, they thought fit to wrangle and dispute with one another
even about the soul. For some of them say that the soul is fire, and
some that it is the air; and others, the mind; and others, motion; and
others, an exhalation; and certain others say that it is a power
flowing from the stars; and others, number capable of motion; and
others, a generating water. And a wholly confused and inharmonious
opinion has prevailed among them, which only in this one respect
appears praiseworthy to those who can form a right judgment, that they
have been anxious to convict one another of error and falsehood.
__________________________________________________________________
[2529] Literally, "unbegotten."
[2530] Or, "liable to destruction."
__________________________________________________________________
Chapter VIII.--Antiquity, inspiration, and harmony of Christian teachers.
Since therefore it is impossible to learn anything true concerning
religion from your teachers, who by their mutual disagreement have
furnished you with sufficient proof of their own ignorance, I consider
it reasonable to recur to our progenitors, who both in point of time
have by a great way the precedence of your teachers, and who have
taught us nothing from their own private fancy, nor differed with one
another, nor attempted to overturn one another's positions, but without
wrangling and contention received from God the knowledge which also
they taught to us. For neither by nature nor by human conception is it
possible for men to know things so great and divine, but by the gift
which then descended from above upon the holy men, who had no need of
rhetorical art, [2531] nor of uttering anything in a contentious or
quarrelsome manner, but to present themselves pure [2532] to the energy
of the Divine Spirit, in order that the divine plectrum itself,
descending from heaven, and using righteous men as an instrument like a
harp or lyre, might reveal to us the knowledge of things divine and
heavenly. Wherefore, as if with one mouth and one tongue, they have in
succession, and in harmony with one another, taught us both concerning
God, and the creation of the world, and the formation of man, and
concerning the immortality of the human soul, and the judgment which is
to be after this life, and concerning all things which it is needful
for us to know, and thus in divers times and places have afforded us
the divine instruction. [2533]
__________________________________________________________________
[2531] Literally, "the art of words."
[2532] Literally, "clean," free from other influences.
[2533] [The diversities of Christian theology are to be regretted; but
Justin here shows the harmony and order of truths, such as are
everywhere received by Christians, to be an inestimable advantage.]
__________________________________________________________________
Chapter IX.--The antiquity of Moses proved by Greek writers.
I will begin, then, with our first prophet and lawgiver, Moses; first
explaining the times in which he lived, on authorities which among you
are worthy of all credit. For I do not propose to prove these things
only from our own divine histories, which as yet you are unwilling to
credit on account of the inveterate error of your forefathers, but also
from your own histories, and such, too, as have no reference to our
worship, that you may know that, of all your teachers, whether sages,
poets, historians, philosophers, or lawgivers, by far the oldest, as
the Greek histories show us, was Moses, who was our first religious
teacher. [2534] For in the times of Ogyges and Inachus, whom some of
your poets suppose to have been earth-born, [2535] Moses is mentioned
as the leader and ruler of the Jewish nation. For in this way he is
mentioned both by Polemon in the first book of his Hellenics, and by
Apion son of Posidonius in his book against the Jews, and in the fourth
book of his history, where he says that during the reign of Inachus
over Argos the Jews revolted from Amasis king of the Egyptians, and
that Moses led them. And Ptolemæus the Mendesian, in relating the
history of Egypt, concurs in all this. And those who write the Athenian
history, Hellanicus and Philochorus (the author of The Attic History),
Castor and Thallus, and Alexander Polyhistor, and also the very well
informed writers on Jewish affairs, Philo and Josephus, have mentioned
Moses as a very ancient and time-honoured prince of the Jews. Josephus,
certainly, desiring to signify even by the title of his work the
antiquity and age of the history, wrote thus at the commencement of the
history: "The Jewish antiquities [2536] of Flavius
Josephus,"--signifying the oldness of the history by the word
"antiquities." And your most renowned historian Diodorus, who employed
thirty whole years in epitomizing the libraries, and who, as he himself
wrote, travelled over both Asia and Europe for the sake of great
accuracy, and thus became an eye-witness of very many things, wrote
forty entire books of his own history. And he in the first book, having
said that he had learned from the Egyptian priests that Moses was an
ancient lawgiver, and even the first, wrote of him in these very words:
"For subsequent to the ancient manner of living in Egypt which gods and
heroes are fabled to have regulated, they say that Moses [2537] first
persuaded the people to use written laws, and to live by them; and he
is recorded to have been a man both great of soul and of great faculty
in social matters." Then, having proceeded a little further, and
wishing to mention the ancient lawgivers, he mentions Moses first. For
he spoke in these words: "Among the Jews they say that Moses ascribed
his laws [2538] to that God who is called Jehovah, whether because they
judged it a marvellous and quite divine conception which promised to
benefit a multitude of men, or because they were of opinion that the
people would be the more obedient when they contemplated the majesty
and power of those who were said to have invented the laws. And they
say that Sasunchis was the second Egyptian legislator, a man of
excellent understanding. And the third, they say, was Sesonchosis the
king, who not only performed the most brilliant military exploits of
any in Egypt, but also consolidated that warlike race by legislation.
And the fourth lawgiver, they say, was Bocchoris the king, a wise and
surpassingly skilful man. And after him it is said that Amasis the king
acceded to the government, whom they relate to have regulated all that
pertains to the rulers of provinces, and to the general administration
of the government of Egypt. And they say that Darius, the father of
Xerxes, was the sixth who legislated for the Egyptians."
__________________________________________________________________
[2534] The incongruity in this sentence is Justin's.
[2535] [Autochthones]. That is, sprung from the soil; and hence the
oldest inhabitants, the aborigines.
[2536] Literally, archæology.
[2537] Unfortunately, Justin here mistook Menes for Moses. [But he may
have so read the name in his copy. See Grabe's note on Diodorus, and
the quotation following in another note.]
[2538] This sentence must be so completed from the context in Diodorus.
See the note of Maranus.
__________________________________________________________________
Chapter X--Training and inspiration of Moses. [2539]
These things, ye men of Greece, have been recorded in writing
concerning the antiquity of Moses by those who were not of our
religion; and they said that they learned all these things from the
Egyptian priests, among whom Moses was not only born, but also was
thought worthy of partaking of all the education of the Egyptians, on
account of his being adopted by the king's daughter as her son; and for
the same reason was thought worthy of great attention, as the wisest of
the historians relate, who have chosen to record his life and actions,
and the rank of his descent, --I speak of Philo and Josephus. For
these, in their narration of the history of the Jews, say that Moses
was sprung from the race of the Chaldæans, and that he was born in
Egypt when his forefathers had migrated on account of famine from
Phoenicia to that country; and him God chose to honour on account of
his exceeding virtue, and judged him worthy to become the leader and
lawgiver of his own race, when He thought it right that the people of
the Hebrews should return out of Egypt into their own land. To him
first did God communicate that divine and prophetic gift which in those
days descended upon the holy men, and him also did He first furnish
that he might be our teacher in religion, and then after him the rest
of the prophets, who both obtained the same gift as he, and taught us
the same doctrines concerning the same subjects. These we assert to
have been our teachers, who taught us nothing from their own human
conception, but from the gift vouchsafed to them by God from above.
__________________________________________________________________
[2539] [Consult the ponderous learning of Warburton's Divine Legation,
passim.]
__________________________________________________________________
Chapter XI.--Heathen oracles testify of Moses.
But as you do not see the necessity of giving up the ancient error of
your forefathers in obedience to these teachers [of ours], what
teachers of your own do you maintain to have lived worthy of credit in
the matter of religion? For, as I have frequently said, it is
impossible that those who have not themselves learned these so great
and divine things from such persons as are acquainted with them, should
either themselves know them, or be able rightly to teach others. Since,
therefore, it has been sufficiently proved that the opinions of your
philosophers are obviously full of all ignorance and deceit, having now
perhaps wholly abandoned the philosophers as formerly you abandoned the
poets, you will turn to the deceit of the oracles; for in this style I
have heard some speaking. Therefore I think it fit to tell you at this
step in our discourse what I formerly heard among you concerning their
utterances. For when one inquired at your oracle--it is your own
story--what religious men had at any time happened to live, you say
that the oracle answered thus: "Only the Chaldæans have obtained
wisdom, and the Hebrews, who worship God Himself, the self-begotten
King."
Since, therefore, you think that the truth can be learned from your
oracles, when you read the histories and what has been written
regarding the life of Moses by those who do not belong to our religion,
and when you know that Moses and the rest of the prophets were
descended from the race of the Chaldæans and Hebrews, do not think that
anything incredible has taken place if a man sprung from a godly line,
and who lived worthily of the godliness of his fathers, was chosen by
God to be honoured with this great gift and to be set forth as the
first of all the prophets.
__________________________________________________________________
Chapter XII.--Antiquity of Moses proved.
And I think it necessary also to consider the times in which your
philosophers lived, that you may see that the time which produced them
for you is very recent, and also short. For thus you will be able
easily to recognise also the antiquity of Moses. But lest, by a
complete survey of the periods, and by the use of a greater number of
proofs, I should seem to be prolix, I think it may be sufficiently
demonstrated from the following. For Socrates was the teacher of Plato,
and Plato of Aristotle. Now these men flourished in the time of Philip
and Alexander of Macedon, in which time also the Athenian orators
flourished, as the Philippics of Demosthenes plainly show us. And those
who have narrated the deeds of Alexander sufficiently prove that during
his reign Aristotle associated with him. From all manner of proofs,
then, it is easy to see that the history of Moses is by far more
ancient than all profane [2540] histories. And, besides, it is fit that
you recognise this fact also, that nothing has been accurately recorded
by Greeks before the era of the Olympiads, and that there is no ancient
work which makes known any action of the Greeks or Barbarians. But
before that period existed only the history of the prophet Moses, which
he wrote in the Hebrew character by the divine inspiration. For the
Greek character was not yet in use, as the teachers of language
themselves prove, telling us that Cadmus first brought the letters from
Phoenicia, and communicated them to the Greeks. And your first of
philosophers, Plato, testifies that they were a recent discovery. For
in the Timæus [2541] he wrote that Solon, the wisest of the wise men,
on his return from Egypt, said to Critias that he had heard this from a
very aged Egyptian priest, who said to him, "O Solon, Solon, you Greeks
are ever children, and aged Greek there is none." Then again he said,
"You are all youths in soul, for you hold no ancient opinion derived
through remote tradition, nor any system of instruction hoary with
time; but all these things escape your knowledge, because for many
generations the posterity of these ancient ages died mute, not having
the use of letters." It is fit, therefore, that you understand that it
is the fact that every history has been written in these
recently-discovered Greek letters; and if any one would make mention of
old poets, or legislators, or historians, or philosophers, or orators,
he will find that they wrote their own works in the Greek character.
__________________________________________________________________
[2540] Literally, "without," not belonging to the true faith.
[2541] C. 3.
__________________________________________________________________
Chapter XIII.--History of the Septuagint.
But if any one says that the writings of Moses and of the rest of the
prophets were also written in the Greek character, let him read profane
histories, and know that Ptolemy, king of Egypt, when he had built the
library in Alexandria, and by gathering books from every quarter had
filled it, then learnt that very ancient histories written in Hebrew
happened to be carefully preserved; and wishing to know their contents,
he sent for seventy wise men from Jerusalem, who were acquainted with
both the Greek and Hebrew language, and appointed them to translate the
books; and that in freedom from all disturbance they might the more
speedily complete the translation, he ordered that there should be
constructed, not in the city itself, but seven stadia off (where the
Pharos was built), as many little cots as there were translators, so
that each by himself might complete his own translation; and enjoined
upon those officers who were appointed to this duty, to afford them all
attendance, but to prevent communication with one another, in order
that the accuracy of the translation might be discernible even by their
agreement. And when he ascertained that the seventy men had not only
given the same meaning, but had employed the same words, and had failed
in agreement with one another not even to the extent of one word; but
had written the same things, and concerning the same things, he was
struck with amazement, and believed that the translation had been
written by divine power, and perceived that the men were worthy of all
honour, as beloved of God; and with many gifts ordered them to return
to their own country. And having, as was natural, marvelled at the
books, and concluded them to be divine, he consecrated them in that
library. These things, ye men of Greece, are no fable, nor do we
narrate fictions; but we ourselves having been in Alexandria, saw the
remains of the little cots at the Pharos still preserved, and having
heard these things from the inhabitants, who had received them as part
of their country's tradition, [2542] we now tell to you what you can
also learn from others, and specially from those wise and esteemed men
who have written of these things, Philo and Josephus, and many others.
But if any of those who are wont to be forward in contradiction should
say that these books do not belong to us, but to the Jews, and should
assert that we in vain profess to have learnt our religion from them,
let him know, as he may from those very things which are written in
these books, that not to them, but to us, does the doctrine of them
refer. That the books relating to our religion are to this day
preserved among the Jews, has been a work of Divine Providence on our
behalf; for lest, by producing them out of the Church, we should give
occasion to those who wish to slander us to charge us with fraud, we
demand that they be produced from the synagogue of the Jews, that from
the very books still preserved among them it might clearly and
evidently appear, that the laws which were written by holy men for
instruction pertain to us.
__________________________________________________________________
[2542] [Doubtless Justin relates the tradition as he received it.
Consult Dr. Selwyn's full account of the fables concerning the LXX., in
Smith's Dict. of the Bible, iii. p. 1203 ff.]
__________________________________________________________________
Chapter XIV.--A warning appeal to the Greeks.
It is therefore necessary, ye Greeks, that you contemplate the things
that are to be, and consider the judgment which is predicted by all,
not only by the godly, but also by those who are irreligious, that ye
do not without investigation commit yourselves to the error of your
fathers, nor suppose that if they themselves have been in error, and
have transmitted it to you, that this which they have taught you is
true; but looking to the danger of so terrible a mistake, inquire and
investigate carefully into those things which are, as you say, spoken
of even by your own teachers. For even unwillingly they were on your
account forced to say many things by the Divine regard for mankind,
especially those of them who were in Egypt, and profited by the
godliness of Moses and his ancestry. For I think that some of you, when
you read even carelessly the history of Diodorus, and of those others
who wrote of these things, cannot fail to see that both Orpheus, and
Homer, and Solon, who wrote the laws of the Athenians, and Pythagoras,
and Plato, and some others, when they had been in Egypt, and had taken
advantage of the history of Moses, afterwards published doctrines
concerning the gods quite contrary to those which formerly they had
erroneously promulgated.
__________________________________________________________________
Chapter XV.--Testimony of Orpheus to monotheism.
At all events, we must remind you what Orpheus, who was, as one might
say, your first teacher of polytheism, latterly addressed to his son
Musæus, and to the other legitimate auditors, concerning the one and
only God. And he spoke thus:--
"I speak to those who lawfully may hear:
All others, ye profane, now close the doors,
And, O Musæus! hearken thou to me,
Who offspring art of the light-bringing moon:
The words I utter now are true indeed;
And if thou former thoughts of mine hast seen,
Let them not rob thee of the blessed life,
But rather turn the depths of thine own heart
Unto the place where light and knowledge dwell.
Take thou the word divine to guide thy steps,
And walking well in the straight certain path,
Look to the one and universal King--
One, self-begotten, and the only One,
Of whom all things and we ourselves are sprung.
All things are open to His piercing gaze,
While He Himself is still invisible.
Present in all His works, though still unseen,
He gives to mortals evil out of good,
Sending both chilling wars and tearful griefs;
And other than the great King there is none.
The clouds for ever settle round His throne,
And mortal eyeballs in mere mortal eyes
Are weak, to see Jove reigning over all.
He sits established in the brazen heavens
Upon His golden throne; under His feet
He treads the earth, and stretches His right hand
To all the ends of ocean, and around
Tremble the mountain ranges and the streams,
The depths, too, of the blue and hoary sea."
And again, in some other place he says:--
"There is one Zeus alone, one sun, one hell,
One Bacchus; and in all things but one God;
Nor of all these as diverse let me speak."
And when he swears he says:--
"Now I adjure thee by the highest heaven,
The work of the great God, the only wise;
And I adjure thee by the Father's voice.
Which first He uttered when He stablished
The whole world by His counsel."
What does he mean by "I adjure thee by the Father's voice, which first
He uttered?" It is the Word of God which he here names "the voice," by
whom heaven and earth and the whole creation were made, as the divine
prophecies of the holy men teach us; and these he himself also paid
some attention to in Egypt, and understood that all creation was made
by the Word of God; and therefore, after he says, "I adjure thee by the
Father's voice, which first He uttered," he adds this besides, "when by
His counsel He established the whole world." Here he calls the Word
"voice," for the sake of the poetical metre. And that this is so, is
manifest from the fact, that a little further on, where the metre
permits him, he names it "Word." For he said:--
"Take thou the Word divine to guide thy steps."
__________________________________________________________________
Chapter XVI.--Testimony of the Sibyl.
We must also mention what the ancient and exceedingly remote Sibyl,
whom Plato and Aristophanes, and others besides, mention as a
prophetess, taught you in her oracular verses concerning one only God.
And she speaks thus:--
"There is one only unbegotten God,
Omnipotent, invisible, most high,
All-seeing, but Himself seen by no flesh."
Then elsewhere thus:--
"But we have strayed from the Immortal's ways,
And worship with a dull and senseless mind
Idols, the workmanship of our own hands,
And images and figures of dead men."
And again somewhere else:--
"Blessed shall be those men upon the earth
Who shall love the great God before all else,
Blessing Him when they eat and when they drink;
Trusting in this their piety alone.
Who shall abjure all shrines which they may see,
All altars and vain figures of dumb stones,
Worthless and stained with blood of animals,
And sacrifice of the four-footed tribes,
Beholding the great glory of One God."
These are the Sibyl's words.
__________________________________________________________________
Chapter XVII.--Testimony of Homer.
And the poet Homer, using the license of poetry, and rivalling the
original opinion of Orpheus regarding the plurality of the gods,
mentions, indeed, several gods in a mythical style, lest he should seem
to sing in a different strain from the poem of Orpheus, which he so
distinctly proposed to rival, that even in the first line of his poem
he indicated the relation he held to him. For as Orpheus in the
beginning of his poem had said, "O goddess, sing the wrath of Demeter,
who brings the goodly fruit," Homer began thus, "O goddess, sing the
wrath of Achilles, son of Peleus," preferring, as it seems to me, even
to violate the poetical metre in his first line, than that he should
seem not to have remembered before all else the names of the gods. But
shortly after he also clearly and explicitly presents his own opinion
regarding one God only, somewhere [2543] saying to Achilles by the
mouth of Phoenix, "Not though God Himself were to promise that He would
peel off my old age, and give me the vigour of my youth," where he
indicates by the pronoun the real and true God. And somewhere [2544] he
makes Ulysses address the host of the Greeks thus: "The rule of many is
not a good thing; let there be one ruler." And that the rule of many is
not a good thing, but on the contrary an evil, he proposed to evince by
fact, recounting the wars which took place on account of the multitude
of rulers, and the fights and factions, and their mutual counterplots.
For monarchy is free from contention. So far the poet Homer.
__________________________________________________________________
[2543] Iliad, ix. 445.
[2544] Iliad, ii. 204.
__________________________________________________________________
Chapter XVIII.--Testimony of Sophocles.
And if it is needful that we add testimonies concerning one God, even
from the dramatists, hear even Sophocles speaking thus:--
"There is one God, in truth there is but one,
Who made the heavens and the broad earth beneath,
The glancing waves of ocean and the winds
But many of us mortals err in heart,
And set up for a solace in our woes
Images of the gods in stone and wood,
Or figures carved in brass or ivory,
And, furnishing for these our handiworks,
Both sacrifice and rite magnificent,
We think that thus we do a pious work."
Thus, then, Sophocles.
__________________________________________________________________
Chapter XIX.--Testimony of Pythagoras.
And Pythagoras, son of Mnesarchus, who expounded the doctrines of his
own philosophy, mystically by means of symbols, as those who have
written his life show, himself seems to have entertained thoughts about
the unity of God not unworthy of his foreign residence in Egypt. For
when he says that unity is the first principle of all things, and that
it is the cause of all good, he teaches by an allegory that God is one,
and alone. [2545] And that this is so, is evident from his saying that
unity and one differ widely from one another. For he says that unity
belongs to the class of things perceived by the mind, but that one
belongs to numbers. And if you desire to see a clearer proof of the
opinion of Pythagoras concerning one God, hear his own opinion, for he
spoke as follows: "God is one; and He Himself does not, as some
suppose, exist outside the world, but in it, He being wholly present in
the whole circle, and beholding all generations; being the regulating
ingredient of all the ages, and the administrator of His own powers and
works, the first principle of all things, the light of heaven, and
Father of all, the intelligence and animating soul of the universe, the
movement of all orbits." Thus, then, Pythagoras.
__________________________________________________________________
[2545] Has no fellow.
__________________________________________________________________
Chapter XX.--Testimony of Plato.
But Plato, though he accepted, as is likely, the doctrine of Moses and
the other prophets regarding one only God, which he learned while in
Egypt, yet fearing, on account of what had befallen Socrates, lest he
also should raise up some Anytus or Meletus against himself, who should
accuse him before the Athenians, and say, "Plato is doing harm, and
making himself mischievously busy, not acknowledging the gods
recognised by the state;" in fear of the hemlock-juice, contrives an
elaborate and ambiguous discourse concerning the gods, furnishing by
his treatise gods to those who wish them, and none for those who are
differently disposed, as may readily be seen from his own statements.
For when he has laid down that everything that is made is mortal, he
afterwards says that the gods were made. If, then, he would have God
and matter to be the origin of all things, manifestly it is inevitably
necessary to say that the gods were made of matter; but if of matter,
out of which he said that evil also had its origin, he leaves
right-thinking persons to consider what kind of beings the gods should
be thought who are produced out of matter. For, for this very reason
did he say that matter was eternal, [2546] that he might not seem to
say that God is the creator of evil. And regarding the gods who were
made by God, there is no doubt he said this: "Gods of gods, of whom I
am the creator." And he manifestly held the correct opinion concerning
the really existing God. For having heard in Egypt that God had said to
Moses, when He was about to send him to the Hebrews, "I am that I am,"
[2547] he understood that God had not mentioned to him His own proper
name.
__________________________________________________________________
[2546] Or, "uncreated."
[2547] ho on, "He who is; the Being."
__________________________________________________________________
Chapter XXI.--The namelessness of God.
For God cannot be called by any proper name, for names are given to
mark out and distinguish their subject-matters, because these are many
and diverse; but neither did any one exist before God who could give
Him a name, nor did He Himself think it right to name Himself, seeing
that He is one and unique, as He Himself also by His own prophets
testifies, when He says, "I God am the first," and after this, "And
beside me there is no other God." [2548] On this account, then, as I
before said, God did not, when He sent Moses to the Hebrews, mention
any name, but by a participle He mystically teaches them that He is the
one and only God. "For," says He; "I am the Beingi;" manifestly
contrasting Himself, "the Being," with those who are not, [2549] that
those who had hitherto been deceived might see that they were attaching
themselves, not to beings, but to those who had no being. Since,
therefore, God knew that the first men remembered the old delusion of
their forefathers, whereby the misanthropic demon contrived to deceive
them when he said to them, "If ye obey me in transgressing the
commandment of God, ye shall be as gods," calling those gods which had
no being, in order that men, supposing that there were other gods in
existence, might believe that they themselves could become gods. On
this account He said to Moses, "I am the Being," that by the participle
"being" He might teach the difference between God who is and those who
are not. [2550] Men, therefore, having been duped by the deceiving
demon, and having dared to disobey God, were cast out of Paradise,
remembering the name of gods, but no longer being taught by God that
there are no other gods. For it was not just that they who did not keep
the first commandment, which it was easy to keep, should any longer be
taught, but should rather be driven to just punishment. Being therefore
banished from Paradise, and thinking that they were expelled on account
of their disobedience only, not knowing that it was also because they
had believed in the existence of gods which did not exist, they gave
the name of gods even to the men who were afterwards born of
themselves. This first false fancy, therefore, concerning gods, had its
origin with the father of lies. God, therefore, knowing that the false
opinion about the plurality of gods was burdening the soul of man like
some disease, and wishing to remove and eradicate it, appeared first to
Moses, and said to him, "I am He who is." For it was necessary, I
think, that he who was to be the ruler and leader of the Hebrew people
should first of all know the living God. Wherefore, having appeared to
him first, as it was possible for God to appear to a man, He said to
him, "I am He who is;" then, being about to send him to the Hebrews, He
further orders him to say, "He who is hath sent me to you."
__________________________________________________________________
[2548] Isa. xliv. 6.
[2549] Literally, "with the not-beings."
[2550] Literally, "between the God being and not-beings."
__________________________________________________________________
Chapter XXII.--Studied ambiguity of Plato.
Plato accordingly having learned this in Egypt, and being greatly taken
with what was said about one God, did indeed consider it unsafe to
mention the name of Moses, on account of his teaching the doctrine of
one only God, for he dreaded the Areopagus; but what is very well
expressed by him in his elaborate treatise, the Timæus, he has written
in exact correspondence with what Moses said regarding God, though he
has done so, not as if he had learned it from him, but as if he were
expressing his own opinion. For he said, "In my opinion, then, we must
first define what that is which exists eternally, and has no
generation, [2551] and what that is which is always being generated,
but never really is." Does not this, ye men of Greece, seem to those
who are able to understand the matter to be one and the same thing,
saving only the difference of the article? For Moses said, "He who is,"
and Plato, "That which is." But either of the expressions seems to
apply to the ever-existent God. For He is the only one who eternally
exists, and has no generation. What, then, that other thing is which is
contrasted with the ever-existent, and of which he said, "And what that
is which is always being generated, but never really is," we must
attentively consider. For we shall find him clearly and evidently
saying that He who is unbegotten is eternal, but that those that are
begotten and made are generated and perish [2552] --as he said of the
same class, "gods of gods, of whom I am maker"--for he speaks in the
following words: "In my opinion, then, we must first define what that
is which is always existent and has no birth, and what that is which is
always being generated but never really is. The former, indeed, which
is apprehended by reflection combined with reason, always exists in the
same way; [2553] while the latter, on the other hand, is conjectured by
opinion formed by the perception of the senses unaided by reason, since
it never really is, but is coming into being and perishing." These
expressions declare to those who can rightly understand them the death
and destruction of the gods that have been brought into being. And I
think it necessary to attend to this also, that Plato never names him
the creator, but the fashioner [2554] of the gods, although, in the
opinion of Plato, there is considerable difference between these two.
For the creator creates the creature by his own capability and power,
being in need of nothing else; but the fashioner frames his production
when he has received from matter the capability for his work.
__________________________________________________________________
[2551] That is, "is not produced or created; has no birth."
[2552] Or, "are born and die."
[2553] kata tauta "according to the same things," i.e., in eternal
immutability.
[2554] Or, "demiurge or maker."
__________________________________________________________________
Chapter XXIII.--Plato's self-contradiction.
But, perhaps, some who are unwilling to abandon the doctrines of
polytheism, will say that to these fashioned gods the maker said,
"Since ye have been produced, ye are not immortal, nor at all
imperishable; yet shall ye not perish nor succumb to the fatality of
death, because you have obtained my will, [2555] which is a still
greater and mightier bond." Here Plato, through fear of the adherents
of polytheism, introduces his "maker" uttering words which contradict
himself. For having formerly stated that he said that everything which
is produced is perishable, he now introduces him saying the very
opposite; and he does not see that it is thus absolutely impossible for
him to escape the charge of falsehood. For he either at first uttered
what is false when he said that everything which is produced is
perishable, or now, when he propounds the very opposite to what he had
formerly said. For if, according to his former definition, it is
absolutely necessary that every created thing be perishable, how can he
consistently make that possible which is absolutely impossible? So that
Plato seems to grant an empty and impossible prerogative to his
"maker," when he propounds that those who were once perishable because
made from matter should again, by his intervention, become imperishable
and enduring. For it is quite natural that the power of matter, which,
according to Plato's opinion, is uncreated, and contemporary and coæval
with the maker, should resist his will. For he who has not created has
no power, in respect of that which is uncreated, so that it is not
possible that it (matter), being free, can be controlled by any
external necessity. Wherefore Plato himself, in consideration of this,
has written thus: "It is necessary to affirm that God cannot suffer
violence."
__________________________________________________________________
[2555] That is, "my will to the contrary." See Plato, Tim., p. 41 [cap
13].
__________________________________________________________________
Chapter XXIV.--Agreement of Plato and Homer.
How, then, does Plato banish Homer from his republic, since, in the
embassy to Achilles, he represents Phoenix as saying to Achilles, "Even
the gods themselves are not inflexible," [2556] though Homer said this
not of the king and Platonic maker of the gods, but of some of the
multitude whom the Greeks esteem as gods, as one can gather from
Plato's saying, "gods of gods?" For Homer, by that golden chain, [2557]
refers all power and might to the one highest God. And the rest of the
gods, he said, were so far distant from his divinity, that he thought
fit to name them even along with men. At least he introduces Ulysses
saying of Hector to Achilles, "He is raging terribly, trusting in Zeus,
and values neither men nor gods." [2558] In this passage Homer seems to
me without doubt to have learnt in Egypt, like Plato, concerning the
one God, and plainly and openly to declare this, that he who trusts in
the really existent God makes no account of those that do not exist.
For thus the poet, in another passage, and employing another but
equivalent word, to wit, a pronoun, made use of the same participle
employed by Plato to designate the really existent God, concerning whom
Plato said, "What that is which always exists, and has no birth." For
not without a double sense does this expression of Phoenix seem to have
been used: "Not even if God Himself were to promise me, that, having
burnished off my old age, He should set me forth in the flower of
youth." For the pronoun "Himself" signifies the really existing God.
For thus, too, the oracle which was given to you concerning the
Chaldæans and Hebrews signifies. For when some one inquired what men
had ever lived godly, you say the answer was:--
"Only the Chaldæans and the Hebrews found wisdom,
Worshipping God Himself, the unbegotten King."
__________________________________________________________________
[2556] Iliad, ix. 497.
[2557] That is, by the challenge of the chain introduced--Iliad, viii.
18.
[2558] Iliad, ix. 238.
__________________________________________________________________
Chapter XXV.--Plato's knowledge of God's eternity.
How, then, does Plato blame Homer for saying that the gods are not
inflexible, although, as is obvious from the expressions used, Homer
said this for a useful purpose? For it is the property of those who
expect to obtain mercy by prayer and sacrifices, to cease from and
repent of their sins. For those who think that the Deity is inflexible,
are by no means moved to abandon their sins, since they suppose that
they will derive no benefit from repentance. How, then, does Plato the
philosopher condemn the poet Homer for saying, "Even the gods
themselves are not inflexible," and yet himself represent the maker of
the gods as so easily turned, that he sometimes declares the gods to be
mortal, and at other times declares the same to be immortal? And not
only concerning them, but also concerning matter, from which, as he
says, it is necessary that the created gods have been produced, he
sometimes says that it is uncreated, and at other times that it is
created; and yet he does not see that he himself, when he says that the
maker of the gods is so easily turned, is convicted of having fallen
into the very errors for which he blames Homer, though Homer said the
very opposite concerning the maker of the gods. For he said that he
spoke thus of himself:--
"For ne'er my promise shall deceive, or fail,
Or be recall'd, if with a nod confirm'd." [2559]
But Plato, as it seems, unwillingly entered not these strange
dissertations concerning the gods, for he feared those who were
attached to polytheism. And whatever he thinks fit to tell of all that
he had learned from Moses and the prophets concerning one God, he
preferred delivering in a mystical style, so that those who desired to
be worshippers of God might have an inkling of his own opinion. For
being charmed with that saying of God to Moses, "I am the really
existing," and accepting with a great deal of thought the brief
participial expression, he understood that God desired to signify to
Moses His eternity, and therefore said, "I am the really existing;" for
this word "existing" expresses not one time only, but the three--the
past, the present, and the future. For when Plato says, "and which
never really is," he uses the verb "is" of time indefinite. For the
word "never" is not spoken, as some suppose, of the past, but of the
future time. And this has been accurately understood even by profane
writers. And therefore, when Plato wished, as it were, to interpret to
the uninitiated what had been mystically expressed by the participle
concerning the eternity of God, he employed the following language:
"God indeed, as the old tradition runs, includes the beginning, and
end, and middle of all things." In this sentence he plainly and
obviously names the law of Moses "the old tradition," fearing, through
dread of the hemlock-cup, to mention the name of Moses; for he
understood that the teaching of the man was hateful to the Greeks; and
he clearly enough indicates Moses by the antiquity of the tradition.
And we have sufficiently proved from Diodorus and the rest of the
historians, in the foregoing chapters, that the law of Moses is not
only old, but even the first. For Diodorus says that he was the first
of all lawgivers; the letters which belong to the Greeks, and which
they employed in the writing of their histories, having not yet been
discovered.
__________________________________________________________________
[2559] Iliad, i. 526.
__________________________________________________________________
Chapter XXVI.--Plato indebted to the prophets.
And let no one wonder that Plato should believe Moses regarding the
eternity of God. For you will find him mystically referring the true
knowledge of realities to the prophets, next in order after the really
existent God. For, discoursing in the Timæus about certain first
principles, he wrote thus: "This we lay down as the first principle of
fire and the other bodies, proceeding according to probability and
necessity. But the first principles of these again God above knows, and
whosoever among men is beloved of Him." [2560] And what men does he
think beloved of God, but Moses and the rest of the prophets? For their
prophecies he read, and, having learned from them the doctrine of the
judgment, he thus proclaims it in the first book of the Republic: "When
a man begins to think he is soon to die, fear invades him, and concern
about things which had never before entered his head. And those stories
about what goes on in Hades, which tell us that the man who has here
been unjust must there be punished, though formerly ridiculed, now
torment his soul with apprehensions that they may be true. And he,
either through the feebleness of age, or even because he is now nearer
to the things of the other world, views them more attentively. He
becomes, therefore, full of apprehension and dread, and begins to call
himself to account, and to consider whether he has done any one an
injury. And that man who finds in his life many iniquities, and who
continually starts from his sleep as children do, lives in terror, and
with a forlorn prospect. But to him who is conscious of no wrong-doing,
sweet hope is the constant companion and good nurse of old age, as
Pindar says. [2561] For this, Socrates, he has elegantly expressed,
that whoever leads a life of holiness and justice, him sweet hope, the
nurse of age, accompanies, cheering his heart, for she powerfully sways
the changeful mind of mortals.' " [2562] This Plato wrote in the first
book of the Republic.
__________________________________________________________________
[2560] Plato, Tim., p. 53 D, [cap. 20].
[2561] Pind., Fr., 233, a fragment preserved in this place.
[2562] Plato, Rep., p. 330 D.
__________________________________________________________________
Chapter XXVII.--Plato's knowledge of the judgment.
And in the tenth book he plainly and manifestly wrote what he had
learned from the prophets about the judgment, not as if he had learned
it from them, but, on account of his fear of the Greeks, as if he had
heard it from a man who had been slain in battle--for this story he
thought fit to invent--and who, when he was about to be buried on the
twelfth day, and was lying on the funeral pile, came to life again, and
described the other world. The following are his very words: [2563]
"For he said that he was present when one was asked by another person
where the great Ardiæus was. This Ardiæus had been prince in a certain
city of Pamphylia, and had killed his aged father and his elder
brother, and done many other unhallowed deeds, as was reported. He
said, then, that the person who was asked said: He neither comes nor
ever will come hither. For we saw, among other terrible sights, this
also. When we were close to the mouth [of the pit], and were about to
return to the upper air, and had suffered everything else, we suddenly
beheld both him and others likewise, most of whom were tyrants. But
there were also some private sinners who had committed great crimes.
And these, when they thought they were to ascend, the mouth would not
permit, but bellowed when any of those who were so incurably wicked
attempted to ascend, unless they had paid the full penalty. Then fierce
men, fiery to look at, stood close by, and hearing the din, [2564] took
some and led them away; but Ardiæus and the rest, having bound hand and
foot, and striking their heads down, and flaying, they dragged to the
road outside, tearing them with thorns, and signifying to those who
were present the cause of their suffering these things, and that they
were leading them away to cast them into Tartarus. Hence, he said, that
amidst all their various fears, this one was the greatest, lest the
mouth should bellow when they ascended, since if it were silent each
one would most gladly ascend; and that the punishments and torments
were such as these, and that, on the other hand, the rewards were the
reverse of these." Here Plato seems to me to have learnt from the
prophets not only the doctrine of the judgment, but also of the
resurrection, which the Greeks refuse to believe. For his saying that
the soul is judged along with the body, proves nothing more clearly
than that he believed the doctrine of the resurrection. Since how could
Ardiæus and the rest have undergone such punishment in Hades, had they
left on earth the body, with its head, hands, feet, and skin? For
certainly they will never say that the soul has a head and hands, and
feet and skin. But Plato, having fallen in with the testimonies of the
prophets in Egypt, and having accepted what they teach concerning the
resurrection of the body, teaches that the soul is judged in company
with the body.
__________________________________________________________________
[2563] Plato, Rep., p. 615, [lib. x. p. 325. Ed. Bipont, 1785.]
[2564] The bellowing of the mouth of the pit.
__________________________________________________________________
Chapter XXVIII.--Homer's obligations to the sacred writers.
And not only Plato, but Homer also, having received similar
enlightenment in Egypt, said that Tityus was in like manner punished.
For Ulysses speaks thus to Alcinous when he is recounting his
divination by the shades of the dead: [2565] --
"There Tityus, large and long, in fetters bound,
O'erspread nine acres of infernal ground;
Two ravenous vultures, furious for their food,
Scream o'er the fiend, and riot in his blood,
Incessant gore the liver in his breast,
Th' immortal liver grows, and gives th' immortal feast."
For it is plain that it is not the soul, but the body, which has a
liver. And in the same manner he has described both Sisyphus and
Tantalus as enduring punishment with the body. And that Homer had been
in Egypt, and introduced into his own poem much of what he there
learnt, Diodorus, the most esteemed of historians, plainly enough
teaches us. For he said that when he was in Egypt he had learnt that
Helen, having received from Theon's wife, Polydamna, a drug, "lulling
all sorrow and melancholy, and causing forgetfulness of all ills,"
[2566] brought it to Sparta. And Homer said that by making use of that
drug Helen put an end to the lamentation of Menelaus, caused by the
presence of Telemachus. And he also called Venus "golden," from what he
had seen in Egypt. For he had seen the temple which in Egypt is called
"the temple of golden Venus," and the plain which is named "the plain
of golden Venus." And why do I now make mention of this? To show that
the poet transferred to his own poem much of what is contained in the
divine writings of the prophets. And first he transferred what Moses
had related as the beginning of the creation of the world. For Moses
wrote thus: "In the beginning God created the heaven and the earth,"
[2567] then the sun, and the moon, and the stars. For having learned
this in Egypt, and having been much taken with what Moses had written
in the Genesis of the world, he fabled that Vulcan had made in the
shield of Achilles a kind of representation of the creation of the
world. For he wrote thus: [2568] --
"There he described the earth, the heaven, the sea,
The sun that rests not, and the moon full-orb'd;
There also, all the stars which round about,
As with a radiant frontlet, bind the skies."
And he contrived also that the garden of Alcinous should preserve the
likeness of Paradise, and through this likeness he represented it as
ever-blooming and full of all fruits. For thus he wrote: [2569] --
"Tall thriving trees confess'd the fruitful mould;
The reddening apple ripens here to gold.
Here the blue fig with luscious juice o'erflows,
With deeper red the full pomegranate glows;
The branch here bends beneath the weighty pear,
And verdant olives flourish round the year.
The balmy spirit of the western gale
Eternal breathes on fruits, untaught to fail;
Each dropping pear a following pear supplies,
On apples apples, figs on figs arise.
The same mild season gives the blooms to blow,
The buds to harden, and the fruits to grow.
Here order'd vines in equal ranks appear,
With all th' united labours of the year.
Some to unload the fertile branches run,
Some dry the blackening clusters in the sun,
Others to tread the liquid harvest join.
The groaning presses foam with floods of wine.
Here are the vines in early flower descry'd
Here grapes discoloured on the sunny side,
And there in autumn's richest purple dy'd."
Do not these words present a manifest and clear imitation of what the
first prophet Moses said about Paradise? And if any one wish to know
something of the building of the tower by which the men of that day
fancied they would obtain access to heaven, he will find a sufficiently
exact allegorical imitation of this in what the poet has ascribed to
Otus and Ephialtes. For of them he wrote thus: [2570] --
"Proud of their strength, and more than mortal size,
The gods they challenge, and affect the skies.
Heav'd on Olympus tottering Ossa stood;
On Ossa, Pelion nods with all his wood."
And the same holds good regarding the enemy of mankind who was cast out
of heaven, whom the Sacred Scriptures call the Devil, [2571] a name
which he obtained from his first devilry against man; and if any one
would attentively consider the matter, he would find that the poet,
though he certainly never mentions the name of "the devil," yet gives
him a name from his wickedest action. For the poet, calling him Ate,
[2572] says that he was hurled from heaven by their god, just as if he
had a distinct remembrance of the expressions which Isaiah the prophet
had uttered regarding him. He wrote thus in his own poem: [2573] --
"And, seizing by her glossy locks
The goddess Ate, in his wrath he swore
That never to the starry skies again,
And the Olympian heights, he would permit
The universal mischief to return.
Then, whirling her around, he cast her down
To earth. She, mingling with all works of men,
Caused many a pang to Jove."
__________________________________________________________________
[2565] Odyssey, xi, 576 (Pope's translation, line 709).
[2566] Odyssey, iv. 221; [Milton's Comus, line 675].
[2567] Gen. i. 1.
[2568] Iliad, xviii. 483.
[2569] Odyssey, vii. 114 (Pope's translation, line 146.).
[2570] Odyssey, xi. 312 (Pope's translation, line 385).
[2571] The false accuser; one who does injury by slanderous
accusations.
[2572] 'Ate, the goddess of mischief, from whom spring all rash, blind
deeds and their results.
[2573] Iliad, xix. 126.
__________________________________________________________________
Chapter XXIX.--Origin of Plato's doctrine of form.
And Plato, too, when he says that form is the third original principle
next to God and matter, has manifestly received this suggestion from no
other source than from Moses, having learned, indeed, from the words of
Moses the name of form, but not having at the same time been instructed
by the initiated, that without mystic insight it is impossible to have
any distinct knowledge of the writings of Moses. For Moses wrote that
God had spoken to him regarding the tabernacle in the following words:
"And thou shalt make for me according to all that I show thee in the
mount, the pattern of the tabernacle." [2574] And again: "And thou
shalt erect the tabernacle according to the pattern of all the
instruments thereof, even so shalt thou make it." [2575] And again, a
little afterwards: "Thus then thou shalt make it according to the
pattern which was showed to thee in the mount." [2576] Plato, then,
reading these passages, and not receiving what was written with the
suitable insight, thought that form had some kind of separate existence
before that which the senses perceive, and he often calls it the
pattern of the things which are made, since the writing of Moses spoke
thus of the tabernacle: "According to the form showed to thee in the
mount, so shalt thou make it."
__________________________________________________________________
[2574] Ex. xxv.
[2575] Ex. xxv. 9.
[2576] Ex. xxv. 40.
__________________________________________________________________
Chapter XXX.--Homer's knowledge of man's origin.
And he was obviously deceived in the same way regarding the earth and
heaven and man; for he supposes that there are "ideas" of these. For as
Moses wrote thus, "In the beginning God created the heaven and the
earth," and then subjoins this sentence, "And the earth was invisible
and unfashioned," he thought that it was the pre-existent earth which
was spoken of in the words, "The earth was," because Moses said, "And
the earth was invisible and unfashioned;" and he thought that the
earth, concerning which he says, "God created the heaven and the
earth," was that earth which we perceive by the senses, and which God
made according to the pre-existent form. And so also, of the heaven
which was created, he thought that the heaven which was created--and
which he also called the firmament--was that creation which the senses
perceive; and that the heaven which the intellect perceives is that
other of which the prophet said, "The heaven of heavens is the Lord's,
but the earth hath He given to the children of men." [2577] And so also
concerning man: Moses first mentions the name of man, and then after
many other creations he makes mention of the formation of man, saying,
"And God made man, taking dust from the earth." [2578] He thought,
accordingly, that the man first so named existed before the man who was
made, and that he who was formed of the earth was afterwards made
according to the pre-existent form. And that man was formed of earth,
Homer, too, having discovered from the ancient and divine history which
says, "Dust thou art, and unto dust shalt thou return," [2579] calls
the lifeless body of Hector dumb clay. For in condemnation of Achilles
dragging the corpse of Hector after death, he says somewhere: [2580] --
"On the dumb clay he cast indignity,
Blinded with rage."
And again, somewhere else, [2581] he introduces Menelaus, thus
addressing those who were not accepting Hector's challenge to single
combat with becoming alacrity,--
"To earth and water may you all return,"--
resolving them in his violent rage into their original and pristine
formation from earth. These things Homer and Plato, having learned in
Egypt from the ancient histories, wrote in their own words.
__________________________________________________________________
[2577] Ps. cxv. 16.
[2578] Gen. ii. 7.
[2579] Gen. iii. 19.
[2580] Iliad, xxii.
[2581] Iliad, vii. 99.
__________________________________________________________________
Chapter XXXI.--Further proof of Plato's acquaintance with Scripture.
For from what other source, if not from his reading the writings of the
prophets, could Plato have derived the information he gives us, that
Jupiter drives a winged chariot in heaven? For he knew this from the
following expressions of the prophet about the cherubim: "And the glory
of the Lord went out from the house and rested on the cherubim; and the
cherubim lift up their wings, and the wheels beside them; and the glory
of the Lord God of Israel was over them above." [2582] And borrowing
this idea, the magniloquent Plato shouts aloud with vast assurance,
"The great Jove, indeed, driving his winged chariot in heaven." For
from what other source, if not from Moses and the prophets, did he
learn this and so write? And whence did he receive the suggestion of
his saying that God exists in a fiery substance? Was it not from the
third book of the history of the Kings, where it is written, "The Lord
was not in the wind; and after the wind an earthquake, but the Lord was
not in the earthquake; and after the earthquake a fire, but the Lord
was not in the fire; and after the fire a still small voice?" [2583]
But these things pious men must understand in a higher sense with
profound and meditative insight. But Plato, not attending to the words
with the suitable insight, said that God exists in a fiery substance.
__________________________________________________________________
[2582] Ezek. xi. 22.
[2583] 1 Kings xix. 11, 12.
__________________________________________________________________
Chapter XXXII.--Plato's doctrine of the heavenly gift.
And if any one will attentively consider the gift that descends from
God on the holy men, --which gift the sacred prophets call the Holy
Ghost,--he shall find that this was announced under another name by
Plato in the dialogue with Meno. For, fearing to name the gift of God
"the Holy Ghost," lest he should seem, by following the teaching of the
prophets, to be an enemy to the Greeks, he acknowledges, indeed, that
it comes down from God, yet does not think fit to name it the Holy
Ghost, but virtue. For so in the dialogue with Meno, concerning
reminiscence, after he had put many questions regarding virtue, whether
it could be taught or whether it could not be taught, but must be
gained by practice, or whether it could be attained neither by practice
nor by learning, but was a natural gift in men, or whether it comes in
some other way, he makes this declaration in these very words: "But if
now through this whole dialogue we have conducted our inquiry and
discussion aright, virtue must be neither a natural gift, nor what one
can receive by teaching, but comes to those to whom it does come by
divine destiny." These things, I think, Plato having learned from the
prophets regarding the Holy Ghost, he has manifestly transferred to
what he calls virtue. For as the sacred prophets say that one and the
same spirit is divided into seven spirits, so he also, naming it one
and the same virtue, says this is divided into four virtues; wishing by
all means to avoid mention of the Holy Spirit, but clearly declaring in
a kind of allegory what the prophets said of the Holy Spirit. For to
this effect he spoke in the dialogue with Meno towards the close: "From
this reasoning, Meno, it appears that virtue comes to those to whom it
does come by a divine destiny. But we shall know clearly about this, in
what kind of way virtue comes to men, when, as a first step, we shall
have set ourselves to investigate, as an independent inquiry, what
virtue itself is." You see how he calls only by the name of virtue, the
gift that descends from above; and yet he counts it worthy of inquiry,
whether it is right that this [gift] be called virtue or some other
thing, fearing to name it openly the Holy Spirit, lest he should seem
to be following the teaching of the prophets.
__________________________________________________________________
Chapter XXXIII.--Plato's idea of the beginning of time drawn from Moses.
And from what source did Plato draw the information that time was
created along with the heavens? For he wrote thus: "Time, accordingly,
was created along with the heavens; in order that, coming into being
together, they might also be together dissolved, if ever their
dissolution should take place." Had he not learned this from the divine
history of Moses? For he knew that the creation of time had received
its original constitution from days and months and years. Since, then,
the first day which was created along with the heavens constituted the
beginning of all time (for thus Moses wrote, "In the beginning God
created the heavens and the earth," and then immediately subjoins, "And
one day was made," as if he would designate the whole of time by one
part of it), Plato names the day "time," lest, if he mentioned the
"day," he should seem to lay himself open to the accusation of the
Athenians, that he was completely adopting the expressions of Moses.
And from what source did he derive what he has written regarding the
dissolution of the heavens? Had he not learned this, too, from the
sacred prophets, and did he not think that this was their doctrine?
__________________________________________________________________
Chapter XXXIV.--Whence men attributed to God human form.
And if any person investigates the subject of images, and inquires on
what ground those who first fashioned your gods conceived that they had
the forms of men, he will find that this also was derived from the
divine history. For seeing that Moses's history, speaking in the person
of God, says, "Let Us make man in our image and likeness," these
persons, under the impression that this meant that men were like God in
form, began thus to fashion their gods, supposing they would make a
likeness from a likeness. But why, ye men of Greece, am I now induced
to recount these things? That ye may know that it is not possible to
learn the true religion from those who were unable, even on those
subjects by which they won the admiration of the heathen, [2584] to
write anything original, but merely propounded by some allegorical
device in their own writings what they had learned from Moses and the
other prophets.
__________________________________________________________________
[2584] Literally, "those without."
__________________________________________________________________
Chapter XXXV.--Appeal to the Greeks.
The time, then, ye men of Greece, is now come, that ye, having been
persuaded by the secular histories that Moses and the rest of the
prophets were far more ancient than any of those who have been esteemed
sages among you, abandon the ancient delusion of your forefathers, and
read the divine histories of the prophets, and ascertain from them the
true religion; for they do not present to you artful discourses, nor
speak speciously and plausibly--for this is the property of those who
wish to rob you of the truth--but use with simplicity the words and
expressions which offer themselves, and declare to you whatever the
Holy Ghost, who descended upon them, chose to teach through them to
those who are desirous to learn the true religion. Having then laid
aside all false shame, and the inveterate error of mankind, with all
its bombastic parade and empty noise, though by means of it you fancy
you are possessed of all advantages, do you give yourselves to the
things that profit you. For neither will you commit any offence against
your fathers, if you now show a desire to betake yourselves to that
which is quite opposed to their error, since it is likely enough that
they themselves are now lamenting in Hades, and repenting with a too
late repentance; and if it were possible for them to show you thence
what had befallen them after the termination of this life, ye would
know from what fearful ills they desired to deliver you. But now, since
it is not possible in this present life that ye either learn from them,
or from those who here profess to teach that philosophy which is
falsely so called, it follows as the one thing that remains for you to
do, that, renouncing the error of your fathers, ye read the prophecies
of the sacred writers, [2585] not requiring from them unexceptionable
diction (for the matters of our religion lie in works, [2586] not in
words), and learn from them what will give you life everlasting. For
those who bootlessly disgrace the name of philosophy are convicted of
knowing nothing at all, as they are themselves forced, though
unwillingly, to confess, since not only do they disagree with each
other, but also expressed their own opinions sometimes in one way,
sometimes in another.
__________________________________________________________________
[2585] Literally, "sacred men."
[2586] [A noteworthy apology for early Christian writers.]
__________________________________________________________________
Chapter XXXVI.--True knowledge not held by the philosophers.
And if "the discovery of the truth" be given among them as one
definition of philosophy, how are they who are not in possession of the
true knowledge worthy of the name of philosophy? For if Socrates, the
wisest of your wise men, to whom even your oracle, as you yourselves
say, bears witness, saying, "Of all men Socrates is the wisest"--if he
confesses that he knows nothing, how did those who came after him
profess to know even things heavenly? For Socrates said that he was on
this account called wise, because, while other men pretended to know
what they were ignorant of, he himself did not shrink from confessing
that he knew nothing. For he said, "I seem to myself to be wisest by
this little particular, that what I do not know, I do not suppose I
know." Let no one fancy that Socrates ironically feigned ignorance,
because he often used to do so in his dialogues. For the last
expression of his apology which he uttered as he was being led away to
the prison, proves that in seriousness and truth he was confessing his
ignorance: "But now it is time to go away, I indeed to die, but you to
live. And which of us goes to the better state, is hidden to all but
God." Socrates, indeed, having uttered this last sentence in the
Areopagus, departed to the prison, ascribing to God alone the knowledge
of those things which are hidden from us; but those who came after him,
though they are unable to comprehend even earthly things, profess to
understand things heavenly as if they had seen them. Aristotle at
least--as if he had seen things heavenly with greater accuracy than
Plato--declared that God did not exist, as Plato said, in the fiery
substance (for this was Plato's doctrine) but in the fifth element,
air. And while he demanded that concerning these matters he should be
believed on account of the excellence of his language, he yet departed
this life because he was overwhelmed with the infamy and disgrace of
being unable to discover even the nature of the Euripus in Chalcis.
[2587] Let not any one, therefore, of sound judgment prefer the elegant
diction of these men to his own salvation, but let him, according to
that old story, stop his ears with wax, and flee the sweet hurt which
these sirens would inflict upon him. For the above-mentioned men,
presenting their elegant language as a kind of bait, have sought to
seduce many from the right religion, in imitation of him who dared to
teach the first men polytheism. Be not persuaded by these persons, I
entreat you, but read the prophecies of the sacred writers. [2588] And
if any slothfulness or old hereditary superstition prevents you from
reading the prophecies of the holy men through which you can be
instructed regarding the one only God, which is the first article of
the true religion, yet believe him who, though at first he taught you
polytheism, yet afterwards preferred to sing a useful and necessary
recantation--I mean Orpheus, who said what I quoted a little before;
and believe the others who wrote the same things concerning one God.
For it was the work of Divine Providence on your behalf, that they,
though unwillingly, bore testimony that what the prophets said
regarding one God was true, in order that, the doctrine of a plurality
of gods being rejected by all, occasion might be afforded you of
knowing the truth.
__________________________________________________________________
[2587] This is now supposed to be fable.
[2588] Literally, "sacred men."
__________________________________________________________________
Chapter XXXVII.--Of the Sibyl. [2589]
And you may in part easily learn the right religion from the ancient
Sibyl, who by some kind of potent inspiration teaches you, through her
oracular predictions, truths which seem to be much akin to the teaching
of the prophets. She, they say, was of Babylonian extraction, being the
daughter of Berosus, who wrote the Chaldæan History; and when she had
crossed over (how, I know not) into the region of Campania, she there
uttered her oracular sayings in a city called Cumæ, six miles from
Baiæ, where the hot springs of Campania are found. And being in that
city, we saw also a certain place, in which we were shown a very large
basilica [2590] cut out of one stone; a vast affair, and worthy of all
admiration. And they who had heard it from their fathers as part of
their country's tradition, told us that it was here she used to publish
her oracles. And in the middle of the basilica they showed us three
receptacles cut out of one stone, in which, when filled with water,
they said that she washed, and having put on her robe again, retires
into the inmost chamber of the basilica, which is still a part of the
one stone; and sitting in the middle of the chamber on a high rostrum
and throne, thus proclaims her oracles. And both by many other writers
has the Sibyl been mentioned as a prophetess, and also by Plato in his
Phædrus. And Plato seems to me to have counted prophets divinely
inspired when he read her prophecies. For he saw that what she had long
ago predicted was accomplished; and on this account he expresses in the
Dialogue with Meno his wonder at and admiration of prophets in the
following terms: "Those whom we now call prophetic persons we should
rightly name divine. And not least would we say that they are divine,
and are raised to the prophetic ecstasy by the inspiration and
possession of God, when they correctly speak of many and important
matters, and yet know nothing of what they are saying," --plainly and
manifestly referring to the prophecies of the Sibyl. For, unlike the
poets who, after their poems are penned, have power to correct and
polish, specially in the way of increasing the accuracy of their verse,
she was filled indeed with prophecy at the time of the inspiration, but
as soon as the inspiration ceased, there ceased also the remembrance of
all she had said. And this indeed was the cause why some only, and not
all, the metres of the verses of the Sibyl were preserved. For we
ourselves, when in that city, ascertained from our cicerone, who showed
us the places in which she used to prophesy, that there was a certain
coffer made of brass in which they said that her remains were
preserved. And besides all else which they told us as they had heard it
from their fathers, they said also that they who then took down her
prophecies, being illiterate persons, often went quite astray from the
accuracy of the metres; and this, they said, was the cause of the want
of metre in some of the verses, the prophetess having no remembrance of
what she had said, after the possession and inspiration ceased, and the
reporters having, through their lack of education, failed to record the
metres with accuracy. And on this account, it is manifest that Plato
had an eye to the prophecies of the Sibyl when he said this about
prophets, for he said, "When they correctly speak of many and important
matters, and yet know nothing of what they are saying.
__________________________________________________________________
[2589] [In Grabe's edition consult notes of Lang and Kortholt, ii. p.
45.]
[2590] [Travellers must recognise the agreement of Justin's story with
the traditional cave still shown in this region.]
__________________________________________________________________
Chapter XXXVIII.--Concluding appeal.
But since, ye men of Greece, the matters of the true religion lie not
in the metrical numbers of poetry, nor yet in that culture which is
highly esteemed among you, do ye henceforward pay less devotion to
accuracy of metres and of language; and giving heed without
contentiousness to the words of the Sibyl, recognise how great are the
benefits which she will confer upon you by predicting, as she does in a
clear and patent manner, the advent of our Saviour Jesus Christ; [2591]
who, being the Word of God, inseparable from Him in power, having
assumed man, who had been made in the image and likeness of God,
restored to us the knowledge of the religion of our ancient
forefathers, which the men who lived after them abandoned through the
bewitching counsel of the envious devil, and turned to the worship of
those who were no gods. And if you still hesitate and are hindered from
belief regarding the formation of man, believe those whom you have
hitherto thought it right to give heed to, and know that your own
oracle, when asked by some one to utter a hymn of praise to the
Almighty God, in the middle of the hymn spoke thus, "Who formed the
first of men, and called him Adam." And this hymn is preserved by many
whom we know, for the conviction of those who are unwilling to believe
the truth which all bear witness to. If therefore, ye men of Greece, ye
do not esteem the false fancy concerning those that are no gods at a
higher rate than your own salvation, believe, as I said, the most
ancient and time-honoured Sibyl, whose books are preserved in all the
world, and who by some kind of potent inspiration both teaches us in
her oracular utterances concerning those that are called gods, that
have no existence; and also clearly and manifestly prophesies
concerning the predicted advent of our Saviour Jesus Christ, and
concerning all those things which were to be done by Him. For the
knowledge of these things will constitute your necessary preparatory
training for the study of the prophecies of the sacred writers. And if
any one supposes that he has learned the doctrine concerning God from
the most ancient of those whom you name philosophers, let him listen to
Ammon and Hermes: [2592] to Ammon, who in his discourse concerning God
calls Him wholly hidden; and to Hermes, who says plainly and
distinctly, "that it is difficult to comprehend God, and that it is
impossible even for the man who can comprehend Him to declare Him to
others." From every point of view, therefore, it must be seen that in
no other way than only from the prophets who teach us by divine
inspiration, is it at all possible to learn anything concerning God and
the true religion. [2593]
__________________________________________________________________
[2591] [The fascinating use made of this by Virgil must not be
overlooked:-- "Ultima Cumæi venit jam carminis ætas," etc. Ecl., iv.
(Pollio) 4.]
[2592] [Hermes Trismegistus. Milton (Penseroso, line 88,) translates
this name.]
[2593] [N.B.-- This work is not supposed to be Justin's by modern
critics.]
__________________________________________________________________
Share & Connect
bakersfieldCATHOLIC - Copyright © 2013 - 2024 breakthrough - All Rights Reserved.
If you are seeking the website for the Roman Catholic Diocese of Fresno, please use the following URL: www.dioceseoffresno.org