Additional Fathers: Public-Domain Translations

SOURCE SECTION: introduction.htm

Early Church Fathers - Additional Texts. General Introduction

Early Church Fathers - Additional Texts

General Introduction

Everyone interested in the study of the Fathers of the Christian Church must be aware of the 39 volume set of the fathers, issued by T. & T. Clark of Edinburgh in the late 19th century and continually in print ever since. These fall into three parts: The Ante-Nicene Fathers, and two series of Select Nicene and Post-Nicene Fathers. It has been the achievement of Harry Plantinga and his Christian Classics Ethereal Library to transcribe these and make them available online freely for us all.

The original series of Ante-Nicene Fathers came out by subscription in a different order as the Ante-Nicene Library, which was complete by 1870. Since that time a considerable number of texts have been published in English translation. Some were unknown to the compilers of that series. Some had just been published and so were then in copyright. Some translations were made later, often published by the Society for Promoting Christian Knowledge (SPCK).

Still others were perhaps considered too obscure to be commercially viable. The Texts and Translations Society in particular published many texts in Syriac with an English translation, up until around 1921. Most of these derived from a collection purchased in 1842 in the Nitrian desert in Egypt by Archdeacon Tattam and now in the British Library.

This further collection of texts is intended to fill in some of the gaps left by the Edinburgh series. All of them are now out of copyright in the United States. Many are hard to find even in a good research library. Where a library does possess a copy, it is not infrequently classified as a 'rare' book. This status is almost the stamp of death for a book. Photocopies will not be permitted, borrowing unthinkable, so only whatever can be read in a visit will be accessible to the rare visitor. For practical purposes, the text becomes inaccessible except to the silent ceaseless agents of biological decay.

It is hoped to locate other out-of-copyright English translations and place these online in this collection also. There seems no good reason why every patristic text ever translated into English should not go online, provided it is out of copyright. I would be glad to hear of any unknown to me.

Texts are listed in chronological order.

In some cases I have added an additional preface where I thought it appropriate. These I place also in the public domain, in order to avoid a pointless tangle of differing copyright permissions. Anyone may do anything they wish with any of this material, whether for private, educational or commercial purposes. I hope that copies will appear on other sites on the internet, and on CDROM. The best way to preserve material is to ensure it exists in many copies.

It has not been possible for me to transcribe characters in Syriac and Ethiopic, since I lack any knowledge of these scripts and languages. I have omitted such material reluctantly. If any reader feels the loss of these philological notes keenly, and would like to remedy the situation, I should be glad to hear from them. The original page numbers are indicated in the text. Footnotes have generally been renumbered and placed at the end, because of the limitations of HTML formatting, but it should always be possible to work out the number and page number of the note in the original.

Roger PEARSE

31st October 2002

ADDITIONAL NOTE TO THE CHRISTIAN READER

Some may ask what for whom this collection is intended, and what spiritual value this literature has. These are fair questions, and I will do my best to answer them.

Firstly, little of this literature has spiritual value, in my opinion. The majority of the authors wrote after the First Council of Nicaea in 325, and did so within the context of the late empire, in which the church was almost a department of state. Even at the beginning of the fouth century, Eusebius records in his Historia Ecclesiastica how many clergy deserved the persecution which God then permitted to occur. Constantine made this much worse by assigning all sorts of legal privileges to the clergy. This inevitably created a situation in which worldly advantage accrued to those who obtained orders; and a bishopric became a base for personal power to the ambitious. The Eastern Roman Empire was an absolute despotism, in which no political dissent was tolerated. However, a certain amount of religious dissent was tolerated. It comes as no surprise whatever, then, to find that every personal or regional rivalry manifested itself in some form of theological innovation or definition. The literature on these pages records the bitter, hateful infighting that followed. In this process, Christ seems to have been no more than a name, and the theological terms just the badges of factions, or just words to express approval or hatred. The insane rivalries following the Council of Chalcedon in 451 are copiously documented in the Ecclesiastical Histories in this collection, and make frustrating reading. All of them are a testimony, not to the power of God to redeem mankind, but to the power of mankind to deprave itself.

The value of this literature is elsewhere. A great deal of mythology circulates about the events of these years, and is sometimes used to concoct libels on the Christians. It is the task of some of those engaged in apologetics to look up the slanders and obtain the facts. A collection of the primary data such as this is of immediate service in this task. It is also interesting of itself, and those interested in finding out the facts of history for themselves will find it useful to have this data onhand.

Some will ask whether delving into this is not a distraction from the urgent task of helping our fellow man to escape from his sins and thus from the reward of them, death and hell. This is a proper question for anyone to ask, for life is full of distractions! Each of us must ask Christ this question, and do what he commands. What follows is my own answer.

All of us would accept that learning, of itself, is a good thing. Only if preferred to Christ, or used as an excuse to avoid what he commands, does it become less than good. Even in World War 2, study did not cease in our universities, and nor should it in our churches. It must be secondary to evangelism, of course, but it too can be a work of love in the service of others.

Some Christians will be led by God and their natural inclination to study this area of history, and of church history. Many will want to dabble occasionally, and come in search of facts. This collection will help.

It is important for us not to become distracted or puffed-up by book-learning, and to remain humble and aware that all of us are only forgiven sinners. Many very great scholars have been very little men. Many warm believers have forgotten the face of the Lord who saved them while attempting to write a definitive monograph on some minutia. Nevertheless, abusus non tollit usum -- we do not rule out the right use of something just because it can be abused. The right approach for all of us is not less time spent in study, but more time spent in prayer. May I hope also that sometimes you will remember me in your prayers.

Roger PEARSE

th March 2003

This text was transcribed by Roger Pearse, 31st October 2002. All material on this page is in the public domain - copy freely.

Greek text is rendered using the Scholars Press SPIonic font, free from here.

Early Church Fathers - Additional Texts

SOURCE SECTION: acts_long_01_intro.htm

The Western Text of the Acts of the Apostles (1923). Introduction. pp. 1-37.

The Western Text of the Acts of the Apostles (1923). Introduction. pp. 1-37.

1. The object of this Translation

2. Statement of the question that it raises

3. The great importance of this text

4. Its decisive importance recognised by leading critics

5. Readers of English only are qualified to form a judgment from the translation alone

6. Outline of supplementary matters touched on in this Introduction

7. The internal evidence examined. Illustrations of omissions for the sake of brevity

8. Interest on various grounds of some of the omitted passages

9. Instances of some sentences rewritten

10. Excisions few where St Luke appears to be quoting from documents supplied him

11. Excisions in the account of St Paul's first missionary journey, and probable inference

12. Importance of the fact supplied by this text in Acts xi. 28

13. St Luke's presence at Antioch throws light on one of the sources of his Gospel

14. Light is also thrown on St Luke's use of Q and on the history of Manaen

15. A further inference from St John's Gospel as to the history of Manaen

16. Importance of the Bezan text of the decree of the Council of Jerusalem in Acts xv

17. The difference of the two texts

18. The nature of the arguments in support of either text of the decree

19. Difficulties in accepting the ordinary text

20. Difficulties removed by accepting the text in this codex as the true report of the decree

21. The words "things strangled" a later interpolation unknown to the earliest texts

22. The evidences, internal and external, for the view here advocated cumulative and convincing

23. Confirmed by minor verbal alterations, and an avoidance in the revision of over-statement

24. Confirmed further by the additions made by St Luke in the revision

25. Some supplementary information

26. A brief description of the Codex Bezae

27. The origin of the hypothesis that there were two Lucan originals of the MSS. of the Acts of the Apostles

28. Why the ordinary text is preserved in so many MSS. and this text became so rare

29. Were there also two original Lucan texts of his Gospel?

30. Why this view of the value of the text in Codex Bezae was not adopted by the Revisers in 1880

31. Professor Hort's study of the texts of the New Testament of great value

32. Scrivener's final remarks on the Greek text of the Codex Bezae

33. Why recent opinions of scholars are not here summarised

34. Grounds on which late dates have often been assigned by critics to the writings usually regarded as Lucan

35. Brief statement of results which follow from acceptance of the views above advocated

THE ACTS OF THE APOSTLES

Translated from the Codex Bezae with an Introduction on its Lucan Origin and importance by

Canon J. M. WILSON, D.D.

LONDON

SOCIETY FOR PROMOTING CHRISTIAN KNOWLEDGE

NEW YORK AND TORONTO: THE MACMILLAN CO.

1923

PRINTED IN GREAT BRITAIN

PREFACE

IT is necessary to state quite explicitly that this little work is not intended or thought of as a contribution to scholarship or criticism, or as bearing on the great problem of the origin and reconstruction of the Western Text. The whole subject, besides being far beyond my powers, is not yet ripe for settlement. Work on it by eminent scholars has been going on for years, and is proceeding apace in England, Germany and the U.S.A. New materials are being discovered. It will receive the devoted attention of scholars for years to come.

Scholars and textual critics have ample material put before them. My sole aim is to give English readers of the New Testament some outline of the unusual interest connected with this problem of New Testament criticism; to indicate its importance and bearing on wide issues; and to place before them for the first time, in the case of one book, materials for judging for themselves one of the chief arguments used for what appears the most probable solution. In a word my aim is to promote Christian knowledge. To critics I would say: In every work regard the writer's end, Since none can compass more than they intend.

I acknowledge most gratefully the permission granted me by the Delegates and Syndics of the University Presses to make use of the Revised Version in the translation of the Acts of the Apostles given in this book.

James M. WILSON.

College, Worcester.

July 1923.

INTRODUCTION

1. The Object of this Translation

A glance at the translation that follows will shew the difference between this text and those from which our ordinary English versions are taken. The words in thick type are in the Codex Bezae, briefly referred to as D, but not in our ordinary text; and the words in square brackets are in our ordinary text, but not in D. The object of this arrangement is to enable readers of the English New Testament to form a judgment on one of the most interesting and important problems of New Testament criticism lately brought before scholars, the Lucan origin of this remarkable text of the Acts. The lack of Greek scholarship, and that of other technical knowledge, do not disqualify anyone from forming an intelligent and independent opinion on one solution offered of the main question at issue.

2. Statement of the question that it raises

The main question is this. There must be some reason for the striking difference between this text and that with which we are familiar. It has come to be believed by some scholars that there is conclusive evidence, both external and internal, that St Luke wrote a first draft of the Acts, and then revised, rewrote, and somewhat shortened it in the copy which he sent to Theophilus at Antioch; and that each of these texts was preserved and naturally copied, again and again, for the use of Churches; and that thus there came to exist from the earliest period two texts of the Acts, a longer and a shorter, a Western----so called from its chief circulation in the West----and an Antiochian.

The oldest MSS. of the Acts that happen to survive (none are older, however, than the fourth century), and the great majority of the later MSS., are all Antiochian; and it is |2 from these that both our Authorised and Revised Versions were translated. But it has chanced that a few MSS. survive which were derived from St Luke's first and longer draft; and of these the Codex Bezae, known as D, now at Cambridge, is the oldest. These few and exceptional MSS. have been generally regarded, very naturally, but mistakenly, as full of strange later interpolations, and have therefore been disregarded as textual authorities. The belief that I speak of now is that the longer text, here for the first time shewn in English, is derived from St Luke's original and longer draft; and that the shorter text of our ordinary versions was formed from it by St Luke's own excision of what could be spared.

If this belief is well founded we have here additions and a correction to the Received Text of the New Testament; and, as it happens, additions and a correction of singular interest and importance.

3. The great importance of this text

I will state at once why these additions and this correction, though small in extent, are of such general interest and importance. It is not only because they clear up some long-standing obscurities, but that they are decisive as to the early date of the writing of the Acts, and consequently of the early dates of the Gospels. How important it is to be assured of these early dates needs no enforcement. It is obvious that early Christian writings, derived from personal knowledge or from contemporary testimony, are of a wholly different value, as evidence for the truth of the historic basis of our Christian faith, from writings of a hundred, or seventy, or even forty years later.

4. Its decisive importance recognised by leading critics

I have said that the additional matter and an omission in this text of the Acts are decisive as to the early date of its composition, if this text is accepted as really Lucan in origin. My own judgment on this question could carry no |3 weight. But I will quote on this point two of the admittedly highest authorities on New Testament criticism, both of them reluctant witnesses, Harnack and Schmiedel.

Harnack in 1911 (Date of the Acts..., p. 93) writes: "I have now come to believe that there is a high probability in favour of an early date for the Lukan writings." He goes on to assign to the composition of them a date before the destruction of Jerusalem. He had previously written (Acts of the Apostles, Crown Edn. p. 250) that he had agreed with almost everyone in accepting the Eastern form of the decree in Acts xv. as the original. "Since that time, and, I may say, with great reluctance, and after long consideration, I have arrived at a different conclusion. I am not fond of correcting myself; but magis amica veritas." It was chiefly the external evidence that convinced Harnack.

And Dr P. S. Schmiedel, in his article on the Acts in the Encyclopaedia Biblica, after urging every possible argument for a late date, states his conclusion as follows: "The date of Acts must accordingly be set down as somewhere between 105 and 130; or if the Gospel of Luke presupposes acquaintance with all the writings of Josephus, between no and 130." But then follows this remarkable sentence: "The conclusions reached in the foregoing sections would have to be withdrawn however, if the views recently put forth by Blass on the Western text of the Acts of the Apostles should prove to be correct."

Blass, it may be here stated, was an eminent German Professor of Classical Literature, not a theologian or a specialised New Testament critic, who in 1895 edited the Acts in precisely the same impartial spirit in which he had edited other ancient writings, purely as a matter of scientific criticism; and his view's are those expressed above in the second section. Blass rests his conclusion on the external and internal evidences equally.

This is enough to shew the importance of the question I am thus, after many years of reflection, endeavouring to bring before readers of the English New Testament for their information and judgment. |4

5. Readers of English only are qualified to form a Judgment from the Translation alone

The question, I repeat, is this. There did exist, and was widely known, from the second century onward, an enlarged text of the Acts which had much in common with D or the Codex Bezae. This is now admitted by all scholars. This text is commonly described as the Western text, and for brevity and convenience is referred to as the β text. The shorter or Antiochian text is similarly known as the a text. Was the longer text made from the shorter by additions, made by some later unauthorised transcribers, as has been till lately assumed? Or was the shorter text derived from the longer by excisions made by St Luke himself on revision; the excisions being made, it is now suggested, of what could be spared as redundant or unimportant, or for the improvement of style, or as corrections on second thoughts? It is to lay before English readers the internal evidence for the latter hypothesis, furnished by the MS. itself, that this translation is made.

There is obviously no a priori improbability in the latter supposition, though it is unfamiliar in New Testament criticism. There have been duplicate original texts in the case of other authors. This general question is not one for Greek and Latin scholars only, though there may be some points on which they may have something special to say; for example, to shew that the additional matter is Lucan in language and literary style; but it appeals to common experience, to the experience of everyone who has written, and then revised, a letter or article or document of any importance.

The reader may now pass on to read carefully this text of the Acts of the Apostles, with the question stated above always present to his mind for judgment: "Does the perusal confirm, or does it not, the suggestion that I am reading a text derived from an early draft of the Acts written by Luke himself; and that on revision and rewriting he struck out the words in thick type, and inserted those within square brackets?" |5

6. Outline of supplementary matters touched on in this Introduction

The introduction might, as I have suggested, end here. But it is probable that many readers would be assisted by some remarks on the nature of the excisions and additions, and be glad to have their attention drawn to the importance of some of them; and that they would also wish to know something more of the contents and history of this Codex Bezae; and of the proofs of the early wide circulation of an enlarged and authoritative Western text. They would also probably wish to know something of the origin and reception among scholars of this, at present unfamiliar, view of its importance. The literature of the subject is very extensive, and is being added to every year. I am not attempting to say all that could be said or to give a bibliography of the subject; but only enough to whet the reader's appetite for more.

7. The internal evidence examined. Illustrations of omissions for the sake of brevity

A chief reason for omission in revision appears to be the desire for brevity----simply to shorten the book. Words, therefore, and clauses, that on reading over again seemed superfluous or unimportant are left out. It must be remembered that a roll of papyrus had its limitations of convenient size; and the first and third Gospels and the Acts, even in its shorter form, were perhaps near to that limit. Two or three examples, which I will take from the first few verses of chap. i, will sufficiently illustrate this class of omission, which may be seen in nearly every page.

In i. 2 the β text reads "the apostles whom he had chosen and ordered to proclaim the gospel." In the a text the words " and ordered to proclaim the gospel" do not appear; they were omitted as superfluous.

In i. 4 the β text reads "the promise of the Father which ye heard, saith he, from my mouth." In the a text this is similarly shortened into "which ye heard from me."

In i. 5 the β text reads "Ye shall be baptized with the Holy Ghost, and which ye are about to receive after these |6 not many days until the Pentecost." In the a text this is simplified into "not many days hence."

The words omitted in i. 5 are of considerable value. They explain why " when the day of Pentecost was now come, they were all together in one place," and what they expected.

All these verses are quoted as Scripture by Augustine and others from the β text.

Such omissions are intelligible if made on revision with a view to shorten the text: they are meaningless if regarded as interpolations, or additions.

8. Interest on various grounds of some of the omitted passages

Some of the passages struck out on revision, in order to shorten the text, as historically unimportant are of value as shewing the writer's intimate knowledge of the circumstances. They thus have a bearing on questions of date of composition and of authorship. I can find space in this introduction for only a few examples, but the significance of the omitted words must always be considered.

Note for example the frequent excision of notices of time, notices it may be observed very characteristic of St Luke's style. In xvi. 4 the words "at the same time" are struck out. In xvi. 11 "on the morrow," and in xvii. 19 "after some days" are similarly struck out: the last being of some interest as shewing that Paul had been teaching at Athens for some time before they took him to the Areopagus. See also xv. 30, xviii. 19. We may put here the curious excision from xix. 9 that Paul lectured daily in the School of Tyrannus "from eleven o'clock till four."

Such excisions as these notes of time are quite what one would expect from an author who is rewriting and desirous of shortening his own work; but it is difficult to think of them, from the other point of view, as interpolations by later copyists.

Among such omissions, trifling in themselves, is that in xii. 10 in which the β text tells us that, on going out of the prison, Peter and the angel "went down the seven steps," before "passing through one street." A detail like this, |7 however, and the knowledge shewn of Mary's house, and of the citadel, and its stairs, indicate that the writer was well acquainted with Jerusalem.

9. Instances of some sentences rewritten

It will be noticed that many passages are more or less rewritten, partly with a view to shorten them, partly from considerations of style. I will give one instance only, from ii. 37. The β text reads "Then all who had come together when they heard this were pricked in their heart, and some of them said to Peter and the apostles, Men and brethren, what therefore shall we do? Shew us." Compare this with our Revised Version taken from the a text. Twenty-eight Greek words have been reduced to eighteen.

There are many such examples of rewriting and compressing or omitting. See v. 39, vi. 10, 11, x. 24-26, xi. 2, xvi. 35-end, xix. 14, xx. 18. Chapters xiv to xxi should be read as a whole in order to give a fair impression.

10. Excisions few where St Luke appears to be quoting from Documents supplied him

It is, I think, noticeable that omissions are relatively few and short where St Luke is apparently relying on information, documentary or verbal, obtained from others, as in the early chapters. One such slight excision is of some interest.

In vii. 58 the β text reads "The witnesses laid their garments at the feet of a certain young man whose name was Saul." On revision St Luke omitted the word "certain." Does not this omission imply that St Luke was quoting from a document which had been written before "the young man whose name was Saul" had come to be well known? But when St Luke was writing and revising it seemed out of place so to speak of St Paul. The β text therefore has perhaps preserved a valuable indication, lost in the revision, that the evidence on which St Luke was relying was very early, nearly if not quite contemporary with the facts.

But how impossible that a subsequent copyist should have gratuitously interpolated here the little word "certain"! |8

11. Excisions in the account of St Paul's first Missionary Journey, and probable inference

I have said that the excisions seem to be on a larger scale where St Luke is revising his own personal recollections. This is specially true of his earlier recollections. Note, for example, with this thought in mind, some of the details given in chap. xvi of β, respecting the imprisonment at Philippi of which St Luke was plainly an eye-witness. The narrative in its form in β is very graphic. Or to give slight examples, look at xx. 12. What a touch of reality the story of St Paul's parting from the elders gains from the little incident that it was "as they were bidding Paul farewell" that they brought the young man alive, and were not a little comforted. Or the story of the riot at Ephesus (xix. 28) from the mention that "they ran into the street." What copyist could have thought of interpolating these?

This observation suggests an interesting inference. For if chaps. xiii, xiv, and xv are also read in this text with this thought in mind, it can scarcely fail, I think, to occur to anyone as it did, I think, to Irenaeus ¹, that St Luke may have been with St Paul during part at least of that missionary journey. Even the ordinary text, from xiii. 4 onwards, in its description of the start from Antioch, the visit to Cyprus, the interview with Sergius Paulus, the treatment of Elymas, and the experiences at Perga, the Pisidian Antioch, Iconium, Lystra and Derbe, and the return to the Syrian Antioch, is so graphic and detailed as to assure us that it rests on the testimony, even if it is not itself the description, of an eye-witness. But the β text gives some noteworthy special touches in addition. Note in particular that the proconsul was hearing Barnabas and Saul "with the greatest pleasure " in xiii. 8; and in xiii. 41 how a hush of "silence" fell on all in the Synagogue when St Paul had finished speaking. There is a variation in the β text of xiii. 26 accounted for if St Luke was present. In reporting |9 St Paul's speech at Antioch (xiii. 26) the β text reads "Brethren, Children of the stock of Abraham, and those among 'us,' who fear God, to us is the word of this salvation sent forth." A similar indication of St Luke's presence was allowed to remain in the a text of xiv. 22 "that through many tribulations 'we' must enter the Kingdom of God." Certainly no other missionary tour of St Paul is related with such detail, except in cases where St Luke was certainly present. Compare the brief accounts given in xv. 41-xvi. 6, xviii. 20-23, xx. 1-3.

If the acceptance of the β text as genuinely Lucan did no more than turn the balance of judgment in favour of St Luke's presence during part at least of this missionary tour, it would enhance not a little the interest of the story.

And, once more, how unlike these little touches and variations are to interpolations by a copyist! We are driven to believe that they were Lucan, and struck out on his revision.

12. Importance of the fact supplied by this text in Acts xi. 28

I shall now select the two most important special readings of D, and accepting them as of genuine Lucan authority, indicate some of the inferences to be drawn from them. All that has gone before in this Introduction is only intended to illustrate the internal proof, which the MS. itself furnishes, that these and other statements of the β text must be regarded as unquestionably Lucan, and therefore as the historically valuable words of a contemporary, and as part of our New Testament.

In xi. 28 the β text reads " Now in these days there came down prophets from Jerusalem unto Antioch; and there was much rejoicing; and when we were gathered together Agabus spoke, etc." It may be noted that this passage also is quoted in this form by Augustine and others as Scripture. Now the words in italics are omitted in the a text, and they imply that St Luke was at Antioch at that time. There is no such implication remaining in the a text. We learn this fact from the β text alone. |10

There are many points on which this fact throws light.

(α) It obviously adds to the probability, spoken of in the last section, of St Luke's having accompanied St Paul on the first missionary tour.

(β) It confirms, or it may be a source of, Jerome's statement that St Luke's home was at Antioch, and the similar tradition that Theophilus lived at Antioch.

(c) It explains the singular prominence given in the Acts to the affairs of the Church of Antioch. People come to Antioch, and go from Antioch. A whole section of the Acts has its centre at Antioch. It explains St Luke's knowledge of the personnel "in the Church that was there" (xiii. 1) ----i.e. not mere visitors. We know the names of some of the prophets and teachers there----Barnabas, and Symeon, and Lucius, and Manaen, and Saul. In the list of seven deacons the home of one only is mentioned, Nicolas of Antioch. We know nothing from the Acts of the similar Churches that may have existed in Galilee, and at Samaria, Joppa, Caesarea, Tyre, Sidon, Damascus, Alexandria, Cyrene, Cilicia (xv. 23 and 41) and must have existed at Jerusalem. This fact brings out the unity and authorship of the book, and throws some light on its purpose. The scope of the writer is limited. Its title in Greek and Latin MSS. is "Acts of Apostles." It does not profess to give an account of the work of the twelve, or a sketch of the growth of the whole Church.

(d) It adds considerably to the historic trustworthiness of the details related as to the deputation from Antioch to the Church at Jerusalem to consider the great problem raised by the existence of ardent Gentile Churches, and the resulting decree of the Council. We have here the testimony of one who, if not, as seems probable, actually present, was at least in intimate relation at the time with the chief actors.

(e) But there are remoter and very illuminating consequences of our knowing certainly that St Luke was at Antioch at that time. For we read that one of his associates in the Church of Antioch was "Manaen, the foster-brother," as the R.V. translates the word, "of Herod the tetrarch." Now Manaen is a most interesting person. Dean Plumptre |11 was, I believe, the first to point out, on the authority of Josephus, that when Herod the Great was made King of Judaea, he invited the child (or grandchild) of an old friend of his, also named Manaen, to come and live at his court, and be brought up with his own young son, Herod, the future tetrarch. That child was Manaen. The young Herod and the young Manaen were brought up as children and boys together; as youths they visited Greece and Rome together: and subsequently Manaen lived with Herod at his court in Tiberias. They were inseparables and intimate friends during the period of our Lord's public ministry. It is this Manaen, Herod's foster-brother, who, a very few years later, appears as one of the prophets or teachers of the Church at Antioch. How this transformation was brought about may perhaps be traced.

13. St Luke's presence at Antioch throws light on one of the sources of his Gospel

The fact of St Luke's association with Manaen throws much light on one of the sources of the Gospels. It instantly explains and confirms St Luke's remarkable knowledge of occurrences in the court of Herod; such as the help given to our Lord by Joanna, the wife of Chuza, Herod's steward, and Susanna (St Luke viii. 3); and the scene (St Luke xxiii. 8) of our Lord's trial before Herod. From some source----unless indeed it was pure imagination, like that of a novelist----St Luke knew not occurrences only, but motives; he knew that "Herod was exceeding glad to see Jesus"; that he " had been for a long time desirous to see him"; that "he hoped to have seen some miracle done by him"; that Herod "questioned him in many words"; that "Herod and Pilate became friends with each other that very day." Of course it was Manaen, Herod's inseparable, who doubtless was present with Herod, who was St Luke's informant. Manaen was in fact one of "the eyewitnesses and ministers of the word" to whom St Luke refers in his preface (i. 2). Those words exactly describe him.

We shall, of course, not forget that St Mark was also at Antioch at this time (Acts xii. 25, xiii. 5), nor shall we fail |12 to see that Manaen was also St Mark's authority for the singularly graphic and accurate account (St Mark vi. 14-29) of Herod's birthday feast, of those who were present at it, of the dancing, the oath, the beheading, and the subsequent honourable burial of John "in a tomb" by his disciples; and in particular of the motives and feelings of the principal actors in it. If this is not all sheer romance it must have been supplied by someone present. Who but Manaen? The early association also of the two evangelists is known only through the β text; and this in itself is of no small interest.

14. Light is also thrown on St Luke s use of Q and on the history of Manaen

I am tempted to give another illustration from St Luke's gospel of his knowing some details through Manaen. It is slight, and might easily be overlooked, but it is not the less convincing on that account. St Matthew, in xi. 2 relates an incident thus: "Now when John heard in the prison the works of the Christ he sent by his disciples, and said unto him, Art thou he that should come, etc.? " The same incident is told by St Luke with some additional detail as follows (vii. 18): " The disciples of John told him of all these things. And John calling unto him a certain two of his disciples sent them to the Lord, saying, etc." Now this passage is recognised by all critics as part of an original document, used by St Matthew and St Luke, and by many identified with a collection of our Lord's sayings, reported by an early writer, Papias, to have been made by St Matthew: memoranda in fact, made probably at the time, after the manner of the disciples of a Rabbi. This document, as one of the sources of the first and third gospels, is commonly referred to as Q, standing for Quelle, a source. The form in which it appears in St Matthew is just what we should expect from notes, made by a disciple at the time, of the sayings of our Lord that followed the incident. St Luke had this document before him, and used it largely, as is known. But in this instance he introduced some additional incidents of the story, plainly from the point of view of |13 John. It was "John's disciples," not a mere gaoler, that had told him: he "called two of them"----a "certain" two, as the Greek has it----which means that St Luke could name them. This information must have come from some disciple of John. Moreover, it is evident that they were men of high rank, men from the court of Herod: for "as they went their way," as St Matthew puts it, or "when they were departed," as St Luke expresses it, our Lord spoke of the men "clothed in soft raiment" and living "in king's courts." Was not one of the two Manaen? Was not this one of the incidents that led to his becoming an avowed disciple of Christ after the tetrarch's death?

15. A further inference from St John's Gospel as to the history of Manaen

I am sure I shall be pardoned for adding one more highly probable conjecture as to information supplied to the Church by Manaen, and a decisive event in his life.

In St John iv. 46-end we read the story of "the nobleman whose son was sick at Capernaum." Nobleman! What a strange title! It is a title unknown to Jew or Greek or Roman. Nobleman! What does it mean? The word plainly puzzled the translators of both our versions. They suggest in the margin "courtier," "ruler," "king's officer." As a title, or description of rank or office, it is, I believe, found nowhere else in Greek literature. It means simply " royal," a royal personage, but not a king. Now what description could be more appropriate for one who was in the unique position of foster-brother and inseparable companion of the king? It is more, I think, than a probable conjecture that Manaen was the "nobleman," the "royal," who besought Jesus "to come down and heal his son."

There are circumstances which support this conjecture, or, as I should prefer to say, confirm this identification. If the conversation with the servants in vv. 51, 52 is not sheer invention, it must have come from the "nobleman" himself. The incident also occurred very early in our Lord's Galilaean ministry, for it is mentioned that "this was the second miracle that Jesus did, having come out of Judaea |14 into Galilee." How could a man in high position in the court have heard thus early of Jesus? and heard it on testimony that made him resolve at once to act upon it? He must have heard of Jesus from John the Baptist. Manaen may have been with the "soldiers on service" of St Luke iii. 14 who asked John "And what shall we do?" Manaen would certainly be drawn to the ascetic John by hereditary sympathies, for his father or grandfather, the friend of Herod the Great, was an Essene.

Some such explanation there must be for the manifestly exceptional treatment of John as a prisoner, for the free access to him of his disciples, for the existence at Herod's court of disciples both of John and of Christ, men and women of high position, and for Manaen's early hearing of Jesus. May we not then with reasonable probability trace the conversion of Manaen first to the influence of John the Baptist; then to the interview with Jesus at Cana, and the immediate and simultaneous recovery of his son; then to his again seeing Jesus at work, when he went as one of John's messengers; and finally to his seeing Him before Herod's judgment-seat?

This identification of the "nobleman" of St John's Gospel with Manaen of the Acts is not, however, entirely dependent on the acceptance of the β version of the Acts as Lucan; for St Mark was also associated with Manaen at Antioch; and, indeed, Manaen must have been far too conspicuous a convert in the early Church for his story not to have been widely known. But the completeness of the chain of circumstances that brought Manaen to Christ, and an increase of the feeling that we are throughout in contact with real events, are due to the acceptance of the β text of Acts xi. 28, and are of no little interest and value. We are on solid ground.

16. Importance of the Bezan Text of the decree of the Council of Jerusalem in Acts xv

I now pass to the second of the two special readings of D and the β text in general, the omission mentioned above in sections 4 and 12, which is even more important in its results. |15

The ordinary text of xv. 28, 29, gives the decree of the great Council of Jerusalem as follows: "It seemed good to the Holy Ghost and to us to lay upon you no greater burden than these necessary things; that ye abstain from things sacrificed to idols, and from blood, and from things strangled, and from fornication; from which if ye keep yourselves it shall be well with you. Fare ye well." In the β text the opening words are the same; but those that follow are: "that ye abstain from things sacrificed to idols, and from blood, and from fornication; and that whatsoever ye would not should be done to you ye do not to others; from which if ye keep yourselves it shall be well with you. Fare ye well, being sustained by the Holy Spirit." The important point of difference is not the omission in a of the last clauses, interesting as that is; but the absence from β of the words "things strangled," both in this chapter and again in xxi. 25. The questions arise, Which of the texts is really Lucan? or Are both really Lucan? and Which of the two rightly reproduces the text of the decree?

It is now coming to be believed as clearly proved that the β text alone is really Lucan, and alone gives the original and true form of the decree.

17. The difference of the two texts

The importance of the difference may not be immediately obvious, but reflection will show that it is very great. For the words "things strangled," if they were in the original text of the decree of the Council, would place it beyond doubt that the Council enacted a food-law for Gentile Christians. It would have declared that no Gentile could be recognised as a member of the Church of Christ unless he observed a Jewish food-law in not eating the flesh of any animal that had been strangled. Moreover, this being plainly a food-law, the prohibition of "blood" was taken to be also a food-law, that blood might not be eaten in any form; and the abstinence from meat which had been offered to idols has also been taken as a food-law. How can the question between the two texts be decided? |16

18. The nature of the arguments in support of either text of the decree

On the one side, in favour of the correctness of the text to which we are all accustomed, is the overwhelming preponderance of the numbers of the MSS. surviving which support it, and among these are the earliest, the fourth-century MSS. If the question is to be decided on the ground of the numbers and antiquity of the MSS. which support the words "things strangled," the β text, which does not include them, has no case.

But, on the other hand, the most ancient testimony other than that of surviving MSS., is as decidedly in favour of the β text. Here we touch on the external evidence. It is the β text that is quoted, Scrivener (Introd. p. lxiii) tells us, "by Irenaeus, Tertullian, Cyprian, Ambrose, Pacian, Jerome (who speaks of the omitted words as occurring in some copies), Augustine," and others. It is the β text that was translated into the early Latin, Syriac, and Sahidic and other versions. The β text is used by Ephrem in his commentary ². It is the β text that is assumed in the Apology of Aristides in the middle of the second century. This is of great importance. No proof could be more complete of the wide early acceptance of the β text, and of its admitted authority as Scripture, specially in the West. Some of the Eastern writers quote from the a text. But even Clement of Alexandria is shewn (Journal of Theol. Studies, Jan. 1900, p. 292) to have used a text akin to D.

The β text, moreover, of chap. xv, if read as a whole, is even more manifestly than the a text, the work of someone who was either present at the Council, or got his information from those that were. These are very cogent arguments.

19. Difficulties in accepting the Ordinary Text

Let us also reflect on some of the difficulties which are involved in accepting the words "things strangled" as having been in the original decree.

There is the incongruity, which must have struck everyone, of coupling with these food-laws the prohibition of |17 fornication, as if it was on a level with them. There is the unaccountable omission of all mention of circumcision, which from xv. 5 we see was the thing chiefly insisted on. There is the inconsistency of saying in the decree that "they would not trouble them which from among the Gentiles turn to God," and then imposing on them food-laws which there is evidence to shew were not generally observed among the Jews of the Dispersion, as seems also to have been admitted by St Peter, xv. 10. There is the statement, in the Bezan text, of Acts xxi. 25, "we sent giving judgment that they should observe nothing of that sort." There is the strange statement in xv. 31 that when the decree was reported at Antioch " the multitude rejoiced for the consolation." There is the still more inexplicable fact that St Paul, shortly afterwards, when the question about the eating of meat" sold in the shambles " (1 Cor. x. 25) which had been offered to idols, does not allude to this decree, while he absolutely forbids (1 Cor. x. 20,21) sharing in idol feasts. And, finally, there is the fact that no Western Father, or apologist, or hostile critic, ever alludes to such a food-law as enjoined on Christians. If it ever existed it was ignored from the first. That such a food-law should have formed part of the decree is, on such grounds as these, so incredible, that critics have always regarded this chapter as their chief support for denying the early date and Lucan authorship of at least this part of the Acts. Harnack, for example, who up to 1899 accepted the a text as giving the original form of the decree, wrote that "the statement was so inconsistent with facts that to suppose the writer to have been a companion of St Paul was quite inadmissible."

20. Difficulties removed by accepting the Text in this Codex as the true report of the Decree

From such reasoning as this critics have been of late led to the conclusion that the β text gives the true form of the decree. For if the words "things strangled" were not in the decree, the natural interpretation of the decree, would, beyond all question, have been that it forbade the three great sins of idolatry, murder, and fornication; and was in |18 fact a purely moral law: idolatry, of which the outward expression was sharing in the "sacramental communion with the idol," the temple feast, which St Paul describes (1 Cor. x. 18-22) as "communion with devils"; murder, commonly spoken of as blood-shedding or blood, as in St Matt. xxiii. 35 and often in the Septuagint; and fornication. These are the crimes forbidden to all Gentile Christians by the decree; associated here as in Rev. xxii. 15, "Without are the fornicators, and the murderers, and the idolaters." The decree was a simple moral law, summarised, emphasised and consecrated by the quotation of our Lord's words from the Sermon on the Mount, naturally thrown into the negative form----"Whatsoever ye would not that should be done to you ye do not to others." This might well be hailed with joy everywhere. It was the final emancipation of Christianity from Judaism. Christianity had never been bound to the temple and the Sacrificial priesthood of the Jews. Now it was publicly transformed from a tribal or national religion to one that was universal; and the declaration is that the mark of the universal religion was to be faith in Christ's Revelation of God, along with morality and the observance of the golden rule.

The acceptance of the β text shews the greatness of the Council of Jerusalem. Well may Harnack say, "The Scribe who first wrote the little word 'strangled' opposite 'blood' on the margin of his exemplar created a flood, which has for almost 2000 years swamped the correct interpretation of the whole passage....We can close whole libraries of commentaries and investigations, as documents of the history of a gigantic error!...The importance of Codex D (Bezae)----supported to be sure by all the Western authorities----is here brought into great prominence."

21. The words "things strangled" a later Interpolation unknown to the earliest Texts

But how did the words "things strangled" get into the a or Antiochian text? This is not known. Harnack offers the conjecture given in the last section; that it was a mistaken explanation of the word "blood," put by someone in |19 the margin of a MS., and regarded by some subsequent copyist as denoting an accidental omission, and by him inserted in the text itself. Additions to the author's text have sometimes originated in this way. Or it may have been a deliberate interpolation on the part of someone of "the sect of the Pharisees who believed," who wished to get apostolic authority for insisting on this part of the ceremonial law. This suggestion receives some support from the significant omissions in the later text of Acts xxi. 25. The β text there makes it clear that the decree was that the Gentiles were to observe nothing of the Jewish Ceremonial: "we sent giving judgment that they should observe nothing of that sort except to guard themselves from idol sacrifices, and from blood and from fornication." But, whatever its origin may have been, we may now feel sure that the Apostolic Council guaranteed for ever the Gentile Churches entire freedom from Jewish ceremonial law. This is in accordance with history. The Church from the first understood the Apostolic document as an ethical rule. Jewish morality was to be insisted on as a law of God; but Jewish ceremonial was not.

22. The Evidences internal and external for the view here advocated cumulative and convincing

I have now given a sketch of the internal evidence from the omissions made in rewriting the β text that it is of Lucan authorship, and some of the important results that follow from accepting it as such. This is the main point; which the reader will, I think, after due study, come to regard as finally established.

But this leads me to repeat that the grounds for so accepting it are only outlined and illustrated in this Introduction. No one can appreciate the full force of the cumulative internal evidence till he has read the whole text, and satisfied himself that of the numerous excisions, short or long, all are explicable on the hypothesis that an author is revising and somewhat shortening his own work, and that most of these omitted words or phrases are so superfluous, and so entirely free from any doctrinal tendency, as to make it |20 extremely unlikely, to say the least, that any copyist should have thought it worth his while to interpolate them. The rewritten passages also lead to the same conclusion. On comparing them no one, I, think, can bring himself to believe that the β text is derived from rewriting the a.

It will, of course, be understood that the Bezan texts which we possess were copied from older MSS., which in their turn were copied from others; and that our Greek text has thus been subjected to many influences, and does not exactly reproduce the text as it left St Luke's hand. It is well, however, to remember Hort's saying that the doubtful words scarcely exceed one-thousandth of the whole N.T.: and we may feel sure that the substance of this text is Lucan. To discover the most probable underlying text or, in this case, texts is the highly skilled work of the textual critic.

The external evidence also, derived from ancient references to the β text, and from its use in early versions----the evidence which converted Harnack----must be carefully weighed. But this I am not called to expound in detail here, or to enforce.

23. Confirmed by minor verbal alterations, and an avoidance in the revision of over statement

There is a class of minor differences between the two texts, in which one word is substituted for another, which is in most cases a synonym. These changes are in general, I suppose, matters of style or rhythm; as if an English writer on revision preferred "he beheld" to "he saw": or "he went away" to "he departed thence." I do not reproduce these minor changes except in a few instances.

But there is one change of a word, which I have not seen noticed, which is of considerable interest. It is not a change to a synonym, and it suggests careful and scientific accuracy on the part of St Luke. In v. 15, 16, after the account of their laying sick people in the street so that the shadow of Peter might fall on them as he passed by, the β text continues: "for they were set free from every sickness which each one of them had"; and goes on to say that all who were brought into Jerusalem were "cured." Both these |21 statements were, it may be assumed, in the authority from which St Luke is quoting: and he inserted them in his first draft. But on revision and rewriting I imagine that he felt this to be an over-statement. He therefore left out the first clause altogether; and instead of a word which means "cured" he used a word which strictly means "attended to," "relieved," "medically treated." I must explain that there are two Greek words, not really synonymous, though sometimes they may be loosely used as such; and both are translated in our versions "healed" or "cured," which, I suppose, mean the same thing. But St Luke was a physician, and uses them accurately. He observes the distinction. He perhaps knew Galen's maxim quoted by Harnack, that "a physician ought first to cure his own symptoms, and then attempt to treat those of others." In Acts xxviii. 8, 9, the distinction is marked. St Luke tells us that St Paul cured the father of Publius, and that the rest of the people who had diseases in the island came and were "medically treated"; by St Luke doubtless as well as by St Paul, for he writes that "they honoured us with many honours." But in St Luke's Gospel (ix. 11) he writes differently of our Lord, and says that " them that had need of medical treatment (or relief) he cured." The alteration of the word, therefore, in St Luke's revision of Acts v. 16 is significant. It maybe noted that St Luke uses the word" attended to" in Acts xvii. 25, where the revisers translate it "served." " Neither is God 'served' by men's hands as though he needed anything." The same word is so used by Plato, and we ourselves speak of Divine service. It is to be regretted, I think, that the revisers did not see their way to mark this distinction.

24. Confirmed further by the additions made by St Luke in the revision

Besides the excisions from the draft, shewn by thick type in the version that follows, and besides the rewriting of some passages not so easily shewn in detail, and besides the occasional change of a word into a synonym, not generally indicated at all, there are additions made in the revised, or a text, shewn by square brackets. |22

These are much less numerous than the excisions, and of less importance; but so far as they go they will be seen to be consistent with, and indeed to confirm, the hypothesis of revision by the author. In most cases they are very slight, and seem to be purely literary, in order to link the sentences better, or to prevent a misapprehension. See, for example, iv. 14, 15, 17 and xi. 7, 9, 12, 17. In some cases it is to make a quotation more full, or to give the reference, as in ii. 16-20. In a few cases the addition is of some significance. In iv. 1 the additional words "the captain of the temple," shew that at this early period the attention of the Roman garrison had been called to the new movement. And in xvii. 18, after "he seemeth to be a setter forth of strange gods," the addition of the words "because he preached unto them Jesus and the resurrection" seems to be an explanation of the plural "gods," and to suggest that some of his hearers thought that the Anastasis or resurrection preached by St Paul was a goddess.

25. Some supplementary information

I have now finished this outline of the internal evidence that is furnished by the version itself as to its being derived from St Luke's first draft of the book, written prior to the revision from which the a text has been derived.

The reader will now probably wish to know something more about the Codex Bezae itself; its nature, date and history, the views that have been entertained by critics as to its textual and historical value, and in particular the origin and reception of the view lately revived by Blass which I am advocating in this Introduction. But these subjects lie outside the scope of this little work. I am not writing a critical account of the Codex. I have already said that I wish to give only enough to whet the reader's appetite for more.

The completest account of this MS., of its history, collations, and editions, and of the critical problems it raises, down to the date 1864, is contained in the Introduction to Scrivener's edition of the Codex (Bezae Codex Cantabrigiensis, edited with a critical introduction, annotations and facsimiles, by Frederick H. Scrivener, M.A. (Deighton, Bell and Co., 1864)). This work is indispensable to anyone |23 who wishes to study the subject critically. In that Introduction of 64 quarto pages of small print he gives all the facts known prior to that date with marvellous accuracy, a minute examination of its variations from the a text, and of the changes and comments made by later scribes, "some ten or twelve in number"; and this is followed by the full text of the MS. and notes. But a very brief outline of some matters may here be given.

26. A brief description of the Codex Bezae

The Codex Bezae is a MS. volume, written on vellum, its pages being 10 inches high and 8 inches broad. Each page contains 33 lines. The letters are all capitals, those of the Latin very like the Greek; the words in general not divided from one another by a space. The left-hand page, the page of honour, is the Greek text; the right-hand page is the Latin. The volume originally contained the four Gospels, placed in the usual Western order, Matthew, John, Luke, Mark (the apostles having precedence), and the Catholic Epistles. But a considerable number of leaves are missing. In the Acts are missing viii. 29 to x. 14; xxi. 2-10, 16-18; xxii. 10-20; and all that follow xxii. 29, about a quarter of the whole book. Many leaves are in bad condition, and some passages wholly or quite illegible.

The text is divided into lines of curiously different lengths or stichoi, a division shewn by Scrivener to be copied from older MSS., and more carefully copied in the Acts than in some of the Gospels. The division is evidently literary, in order to assist the reader and the listener. This will be best seen by an example. I take Acts xvii. 11: "Some therefore of them believed, But some did not believe:

And of the Greeks and of those of honourable estate, Both men and women, Many believed.

But when those from Thessalonica knew, Jews, that the word of God was proclaimed At Beroea, and that they believed, They came also thither, and there stirring up And troubling the multitude, did not cease." |24

The number of letters in a line in the Greek text ranges from eight in Acts xiii. 16, to forty-four in xiii. 31.

Scrivener gives three pages of facsimile; and these, and his introduction, shew that the MS. has passed through many hands, not less than twelve, of correctors and others, who made erasions and interlinear corrections, and also added liturgical notes in the margin as to the lessons read in the Church services. The lines and text of the Latin and Greek in general correspond.

The volume was presented to the University of Cambridge on 6 Dec. 1581 by Theodore Beza, the well-known French Reformer, and is now preserved in the University Library. Scrivener gives a list of its collations and editions prior to his own; and in 1899 the University of Cambridge published a magnificent photographic facsimile of the whole MS. This edition was reviewed by Mr (now Sir) F. G. Kenyon of the British Museum in the Journal of Theological Studies for Jan. 1900. He there discusses the date and country in which it was probably written. The handwriting he describes as rough and irregular; and though a date in the sixth century is regarded as more probable, evidence which pushed it into the fifth century would be accepted without difficulty. He considers that the most probable birthplace of the MS., i.e. the place where it was copied from an older manuscript, was Southern Gaul, the Church of the Greek Missionaries Pothinus and Irenasus of about A.D. 170. The liturgical notes shew that the Greek text was used in the services. Both the Latin and Greek texts are full of grammatical mistakes and mis-spellings, and shew that the writer was not familiar with the correct forms of these languages; they indicate country and dialect uses, rather than a literary centre as the origin of the MS. The Latin appears to be the vernacular or rustic Latin, as it was passing into the spoken language of the South of France in the fifth century. It should be added that Professor Burkitt has subsequently given good reasons in the Journal of Theological Studies for assigning the MS. to the fifth century. Its history prior to 1581 is not known: but there is good reason for surmising that it was part of the plunder of the |25 city of Lyons in 1562, and in particular of the monastery there of St Irenaeus; and that it was given to Beza. He speaks of it as "found" there when the civil war broke out in 1562. "Outward appearance," says Scrivener, "and internal indications, point to Gaul as the native country of Codex Bezae, nor is there any reason for thinking that it ever left that country till it was carried into Italy in 1546."

27. The origin of the hypothesis that there were two Lucan originals of MSS. of the Acts of the Apostles

The history of the hypothesis that St Luke wrote two copies of the Acts, and that D is derived from the earlier, which was also the longer, is briefly as follows:

A French scholar, Jean Le Clerc (born 1657), after studying the unique peculiarities of this Codex, suggested, early in the eighteenth century, as a probable but novel explanation of them, that St Luke made two copies of the Acts, and that while all other existing Greek MSS., which had up to that time been collated, had been made from one, Codex Bezae alone was derived from the other. This hypothesis was, I have read, supported by a Dutch scholar, Hemsterhuis, but by no one else, and it dropped out of sight.

The suggestion was made, whether independently or not I do not know, in 1848 by a German scholar, Bornemann, that Luke kept a private diary in which he noted doings of the apostles; that the diary was afterwards found, and extracts from it inserted in some copies. He afterwards thought that D was Luke's original work; and he further shewed that the shorter text was derived from the longer by excision, and not the shorter from the longer by interpolation. His papers attracted little attention, and once more the suggestion dropped out of sight. It may perhaps have been felt that the suggestion was difficult to harmonize with the belief universally held of Divine verbal inspiration of Scripture.

Again, in 1895, a well-known German classical scholar, Blass, re-examined the whole question in the light of the very much more extensive and accurate knowledge of MSS. and versions and quotations then available; and he came |26 to the same conclusion; adding that the original copy was probably retained at Rome, and that copies of it circulated widely in the West, while the revised copy was sent to Theophilus at Antioch, and its copies were circulated in the East.

But Blass went much further than his predecessors were able to do. He attempted to reconstruct the Western text of the Acts, using for that purpose all the other sources of information as to that early text that I spoke of in Section 18, the result of another half-century of keen and widespread study and collation of texts. The two texts of Codex Bezae, it must be remembered, though the chief are not the sole authority for the early Western text. He used the others, of which he gives a list, not only to supply the text where some leaves of D are missing, but conjecturally to correct errors in D. Variations in the Western text appeared early. For example, in ii. 9 for Judaea Jerome quotes Syria, and Tertullian Armenia. Blass's conjectures have naturally been disputed, as will be seen in the article in the Encyclopaedia Biblica quoted in Section 4, and in some cases probably with success. But no one has, I believe, shaken his main contention. The reconstruction of the Western text is still an unaccomplished work. The ripest scholarship, the widest knowledge of ancient versions and commentaries, and the devotion of years will be needed for this text.

28. Why the ordinary text is preserved in so many MSS. and this text became so rare

It is an obvious question why, if the β text was so widely circulated and had such authority in the earliest centuries, the MSS. that preserved it should have so largely disappeared. This question is partly answered by Westcott and Hort (N.T. vol. II. p. 142, ed. 1881), and to this volume I refer the reader. It is certain that the β text was widely circulated in the earliest centuries, and that it survived long in the West. Bede's quotations from the Acts for example, shew that he used that text; and King Alfred's Preface to his laws contains a plain quotation from the β text of the Council of Jerusalem. |27

The rarity of surviving Western MSS. may be connected with the earlier date of monachism and monastic libraries in the East than in the West, and with their somewhat greater immunity from pillage. Few indeed are the fragments of English MSS. of the New Testament that have survived from the early days of the English Church ³.

But it was to some extent an accident that the unknown MSS. used by Cardinal Ximenes for the Complutensian Text in 1514, and for the three or four MSS. which Erasmus used for his Greek Testament (1515-1535), and which thus formed the basis of the text of our Authorised Version, were of the a type; and somewhat of an accident that the oldest surviving MSS., the Sinaitic, and Vatican and Alexandrian, and Codex Ephrcemi are all of the same type.

29. Were there also two original Lucan Texts of his Gospel?

The question will naturally be asked whether the MS. of St Luke's Gospel in Codex Bezae may also be regarded as derived from a first draft, and to be truly Lucan. I have not studied this question at all, and offer no opinion, and I do not know whether it has been recently examined. But there are interesting variations in this MS. of St Luke's Gospel which suggest that it is a not impossible hypothesis.

For example, there is the well-known saying attributed to our Lord, usually placed among the uncanonical agrapha. It occurs in vi. 5. After the words "He said unto them, The Son of man is lord of the sabbath," D adds "On the same day seeing someone working on the sabbath, he said to him, Man, if thou knowest what thou art doing blessed art thou; but if thou knowest not, thou art cursed and a transgressor of the law." St Luke may have thought on revision that this was probably incorrectly reported, and had better be omitted.

And in xiii. 7-9 there may be an instance of rewriting in order to improve the style. D reads: "Behold it is three years since I have come seeking fruit on this fig-tree and I |28 find none. Bring the axe. Cut it down. Why does it cumber the ground? But he answering saith to him, Lord, let it alone this year also till I shall dig about it, and throw on it a basket of dung; and if it bear fruit, well, but if not for the future thou shalt cut it down."

In xvi. 19 D reads, before the parable of Dives and Lazarus, "And he spake also another parable."

And there is at least one little touch in D which must have come from an eye-witness, in xxiii. 42, where, of the dying robber on the cross, the text in D reads "And, turning to the Lord, he said to him, Lord, remember me in the day of thy kingdom." The question calls for careful examination.

30. Why this view of the value of the text in Codex Bezae was not adopted by the Revisers in 1880

There is another, and very interesting question, which is sure to occur to the reader----Why so satisfactory and simple a solution of the problem of the curious variations in Codex Bezas was not accepted by that company of eminent scholars and critics who were in 1870 entrusted by Convocation with the duty of preparing a Revised Version of the New Testament.

The real answer may be that the suggestions put forward by Le Clerc, and Borneman, mentioned above in Section 27, were not present to their minds. They had dropped out of sight. And it must be remembered that the work of Blass had not then been written.

But a sufficient reason is given in the Revisers' Preface to the New Testament, to which I refer the reader. It will be there seen that among the "Principles and Rules" for the revisers were (1) that they were to introduce as few alterations as possible into the text of the Authorised Version consistently with faithfulness; (4) that the text to be adopted was to be that for which the evidence was decidedly preponderating; and (5) that they were to make no change in the text except on the approval of two-thirds of the revisers present. It cannot be doubted that in 1880 the evidence for the a text decidedly preponderated. |29

31. Professor Hort's Study of the Texts of the New Testament of great value

At that time the highest authorities on the text of the New Testament were Westcott and Hort, and in particular the latter. They published in 1881 a carefully revised text of the New Testament in two volumes; the Introduction to which fully and clearly explains their principles and methods. It will, I think, be long before that Introduction is out of date. They were fully aware of the existence and antiquity and authority of the Western text, and of its peculiarities, as the following quotations shew; but, as far as I can remember, the suggestion of there having been two Lucan originals does not seem to have been present to their minds. It had dropped out of sight.

In vol. 1. p. 544, they clearly state that the textual value of a MS. depends not on its own antiquity, nor on the number of its supporters, but on the authority of its earliest traceable progenitor. "One early document," they write, "may have left a single descendant, another a hundred or a thousand:...No available presumptions...can be obtained from number alone, that is, from number not as yet interpreted by descent."

On p. 547 they write: "A text virtually identical with the prevalent Greek text of the Middle Ages was used by Chrysostom and other Antiochian Fathers in the latter part of the fourth century." But they go on to say that "...The writings of Origen, which carry us to the middle of the third century, and even earlier, establish the prior existence of at least 3 types of text... The most clearly marked of these is one that has long been conventionally known as 'Western.'" And again (1. 548): "The rapid and wide propagation of the Western text is the most striking phenomenon of textual history in the three centuries following the death of the Apostles. The first clear evidence (Marcion, Justin) shews us a text containing definitely Western readings before the middle of the second century....The text used by all the Ante-Nicene Greek writers not connected with Alexandria (Irenaeus, etc.) is substantially |30 Western. Even in the two chief Alexandrians, Clement and Origcn, especially in some of Origen's writings, Western quotations hold a conspicuous place, while in Eusebius they are on the whole predominant....The Old Latin Versions were Western from the first....The Old Syriac, and every ancient version, was affected by it."

It is plain that Dr Hort was perfectly familiar with all the relevant facts then known. Could anyone have urged the claims of the Western text on external grounds more effectively? But the explanation now before us of the perplexing facts seems never to have occurred to him. He writes of the Codex D on page 548, "The chief and constant characteristic is a love of paraphrase....Words and even clauses are changed, omitted, and inserted with surprising freedom.... Readiness to adopt alterations or additions from sources extraneous to the books which ultimately became canonical. These various tendencies must have been in action for some time." But he comforts himself with the remark that "the Western licence did not prevail everywhere, and MSS. unaffected by its results were still copied."

On p. 554 he inadvertently, if we may venture to use such a word of anything Dr Hort ever wrote, speaks of the Western text as containing "interesting matter omitted in the other Pre-Syrian texts, yet manifestly not due to the inventiveness of scribes." He speaks of them on p. 565 as "come from an extraneous source."

How close he was to the answer to the riddle! How he would have welcomed it!

32. Scrivener's final remarks on the Greek Text of the Codex Bezae

No one in any age has studied the Codex with so wide a knowledge and such accuracy as Mr Scrivener. His final remarks are therefore of great value. He wrote in 1864 as follows (p. lxiv). After speaking of the Latin text of the Codex and its date and origin he proceeds: "The Greek text, on the other hand, we believe to bear distinct traces of an origin far more remote. Itself immediately derived |31 from a Manuscript whose stichometry was arranged just like its own (see p. xxiii) it must ultimately be referred to an exemplar wherein the verses, now so irregular and confused, were first distributed according to an orderly system (see p. xvii), and such an original would most likely belong to the third century at the latest. In respect, moreover, to its rare and peculiar readings, the close resemblance of Codex Bezae to the text of the Syriac versions (with which it could hardly have been compared later than the second century), and to that of the old Latin, yet unrevised by Jerome, as employed by Cyprian and Augustine in Africa, by the translator of Irenaeus, by Hilary, and Lucifer and Ambrose in the North-West----such resemblance (far too common to be the result of chance) persuades us to regard with the deepest interest this venerable monument of Christian learning; inasmuch as the modification of the inspired writings which it preserves, whatever critics may eventually decide respecting its genuineness and purity, was at once widely diffused and largely received by the holiest men in the best ages of the Primitive Church."

Scrivener wrote, of course, before the time of Blass; he was, however, acquainted with Bornemann's work mentioned above in Section 27: but, like Tischendorf, he seems not to have treated it very seriously. Tischendorf doubted whether it was not written as a jest. Scrivener retained the traditional view that "the characteristic feature of Codex D was its perpetual tendency to interpolation, its adding to the received text." But that he felt this explanation inadequate he shews in many ways. He speaks, for example, of these additions as "whether genuine or spurious." His view is, in fact, not inconsistent with that of Blass. But his chief aim was to shew, by constant detailed comparison with ancient versions and early writers, that the Greek text of Codex Bezae, as it stands, is in the main identical with the text that was current, both in the East and West as early as the second century. And this aim he achieved, and it is a result of the first importance, for the text could not have won such wide currency so early unless it possessed strong claims for genuineness. |32

33. Why recent opinions of Scholars are not here summarized

I purposely do not quote such opinions as I happen to know of more recent and living authorities on textual criticism of the New Testament. It is partly because I am not in a position to do so at all completely: any selection that I could give of names of such British and American, and a fortiori of German, French and Dutch scholars, would be imperfect and therefore misleading. But the main reason is that the new light enlarges and strengthens the external evidence for the early date and value of a Western text with which I am not here concerned. The question I deal with here is the internal evidence; and it is largely a literary, and even commonsense, question. I am, however, aware that in Great Britain the subject has not as yet attracted the general attention which I am sure it deserves.

34. Grounds on which late dates have often been assigned by critics to the writings usually regarded as Lucan

In Section 4 of this Introduction I quoted the words of a leading and representative scholar, Dr P. S. Schmiedel, in which he stated that his conclusions as to the late date (A.D. 105-130) to be assigned to the Acts would have to be withdrawn if Blass's views were accepted. Harnack has similarly altered his date, and names A.D. 57 to 59. This change of assigned dates is so great and so surprising as to be scarcely intelligible until it is understood how the main arguments for the late date are not only met but removed by the β text. The reader may naturally ask What are these arguments? Why should anyone doubt that the date of completing the writing of the book was the end of the two years of St Paul's imprisonment at Rome (Acts xxviii. 30)? If written later, why is there no mention or hint of any subsequent event?

The reader must be referred to Schmiedel's article in the Encyclopedia Biblica and similar works. I cannot pretend to do the arguments justice; for I do not feel that they carry much, if any, weight. But perhaps the following, though very brief, is not an unfair sketch of them. |33

1. If the ordinary text of the decree of the Council of Jerusalem is that of the original writer it is so inconsistent with historical facts that it could not have been written by any contemporary.

This is weighty: but it is removed altogether if the β text is accepted, as has been shewn above, and as is admitted by Schmiedel.

2. It is certain that the Acts was written after the Gospel of St Luke. But in chap. xxi of that Gospel a prediction is attributed to our Lord of the details of the siege of Jerusalem under Titus, which correspond, it is urged, too precisely to the facts to have been a prediction. The Gospel, it is argued, was therefore written after A.D. 70; and the Acts still later.

On this I would refer the reader to Knowling's Introduction to his edition of the Acts in the Expositor's Bible. But I may remark that this argument carries little weight with those who note that our Lord plainly had Daniel chap. ix in mind; and also bear in mind that such events were regarded as probable long before they took place. Knowling quotes other instances of prediction; and, I think, it was Blass who remarked that it was harder for Savonarola to predict a Luther, than for Christ to predict a Titus.

3. There are passages in St Luke's writings which may indicate an acquaintance with Josephus. This is a very precarious argument.

4. But the fundamental reason for insisting on a late date is perhaps the half-conscious a priori conviction that no contemporary evidence for events outside the familiar order of nature, and in particular for the unexplained phenomena attending the resurrection of our Lord, is possible. It is first assumed that the events related did not really happen. Time must, therefore, be allowed for legends to grow up, invented to support a belief which had no real historical foundation: and therefore, it is argued; that Gospels and the Acts must be late products of Christian piety indeed, but also of Christian credulity. And it seems to me that some critics, to whom it would be absurd to |34 attribute any such prepossessions, are so anxious not to allow themselves to be prejudiced in the opposite sense, that they underestimate the obvious and clear arguments for an early date.

35. Brief statement of results which follow from acceptance of the views above advocated

Finally, it remains that I should state somewhat more explicitly the general results of accepting the Bezan text of the Acts as even more purely Lucan and historical than the Antiochian text; though it is certainly far less free than the best Antiochian texts from trifling errors of transcription, and what is known as conflation.

It will put an end to the long disputes over the authorship and date of the Acts. We shall hear no more of the Acts being non-Lucan in compilation or authorship, and no more of such dates for it as A.D. no to 130, or even of A.D. 80 or 70. The obstacles that made scholars hesitate to accept the obvious arguments for an early date have been removed. This is the primary result; and it is of the first importance, because it carries with it such weighty consequences.

It would be foreign to my purpose, and take too much space, to do more here than barely indicate those obvious arguments, but some such summary may be useful. For a thorough presentation of them I would refer the reader to a paper by the Rev. R. Rackham in the Journal of Theological Studies for October 1899.

It is surely impossible that a writer who had described so fully St Paul's defence before his Roman provincial judges at Caesarea, and their treatment of his cause, could, if the subsequent trial before the Emperor Nero had taken place, have omitted to mention it. To tell in detail the story of an appeal, made many years previously, and not even to allude to the result, is a literary impossibility. It would be to tell a well-planned story, and omit its climax.

Perhaps it may be said in reply that the writer contemplated a third and later volume which was to report the climax. Yes: but the tone, the presentiments, of vol. II. |35 could not fail to be affected by the writer's knowledge of that climax, whether it was St Paul's martyrdom, or his liberation, had it already taken place. It is impossible that the atmosphere of the years before the trial and before the overthrow of Jerusalem could have been, by any dramatic effort, reproduced after it. Compare the peaceful close of the Acts, written before these events, and the lurid passionate tone of some chapters in the Revelation. Or think of the account in the Acts of St Paul's last visit to Jerusalem, with all going on as usual. Could that have been written years after the Temple and city had been destroyed, the nation scattered, and the Church of Christians no longer there? Impossible! And how disproportionate in detail if written many years later, would be the last few chapters!

The whole position had altered completely between A.D. 60 and A.D. 80, not to speak of A.D. 130. When the Acts was being written the questions at issue were still the relations between Pharisaic and Gentile Christians, about Hellenists and proselytes, about the recognition of a Gentile Christianity as possible. But by A.D. 80 those questions had been settled. When the Acts was being written the Jews were persecuting the Christian Gentiles: but by A.D. 80 both Jews and Christians were alike the object of persecution. When the Acts was being written there were hopes that Christianity would be soon, through the appeal to Nero, a permitted religion in the empire: by A.D. 80 it had been decided that it was not permitted.

It is argued that there are inconsistencies between the narrative of the Acts and some of St Paul's Epistles. But both are incomplete accounts, and the apparent inconsistencies might disappear if we knew the whole story, and allowance made for failure of knowledge and memory. And the inconsistencies are proofs that the writer of the Acts had not before him copies of the Epistles. No later writer on the Acts of the Apostles would have failed to consult them.

The Bezan text contributes much, as the reader of it will see, to the impression the book conveys of personal knowledge: there are frequent touches of colour in the narrative |36 which, in combination with manifest simplicity and truthfulness, are impossible in anyone but a contemporary and eye-witness.

The net result of such considerations, of the correctness of which the Bezan text supplies the final assurance, is that the Acts was written about A.D. 57 to 59, at Rome. But this throws back the date of the Gospel of St Luke, say to A.D. 56 or 57, when St Luke was at Caesarea and its neighbourhood, and could gather and test his materials. And even then "many had taken in hand to draw up narratives " of Christ's words and actions. One of these many was doubtless his friend and old companion St Mark, whose Gospel is thus thrown back to at least an early date in the sixth decade of the century.

And behind the gospels is the document Q, imbedded, but discernible, in the Gospels of St Matthew and Luke. It bears the marks of a still earlier time. We have good authority for believing that St Matthew made a collection of our Lord's sayings. It may be identified with Q. A late great Bishop of Manchester, Dr Moorhouse, a most careful student of New Testament criticism, wrote to me----the letter is published in his life----"that the most serious reason for doubting whether we have not in document Q a contemporary report of our Lord's teaching is that it is almost too good news to be true. What a relief it would be to feel that in about one-third of the contents of St Matthew we have-----without doubt, and without the admixture of traditional accretions----the very words of our Lord."

I know that we must beware of prejudices, of making the wish the father to the thought. But we are not bound to say that any hypothesis or conclusion is too good to be true, if the evidence for it is convincing.

And among the collateral evidences for the early dates of the historic documents of our faith, and among the glimpses obtainable of the firsthand sources from which they were derived, and for preserving the only true record of the momentous decision of the great Council of Jerusalem, the Magna Charta of the Church, the text of the Acts of the Apostles preserved in the Codex Bezae holds a unique place. |37

Finally, the acceptance of these early dates is an indication that one stage of New Testament criticism is ending, and another beginning. We have for many decades past watched the evaporation under criticism of certain elements in the New Testament narratives. We are now beginning to witness the crystallisation of the solid and imperishable residue.

[Footnotes moved to the end and numbered]

1. * lrenaeus describes Luke as inseparable from Paul, and a fellow-workman. See Rendel Harris, Four Lectures on the Western Text, p. 88.

2. * Rendel Harris, Four Lectures, p. 27; Chase, The old Syriac Element.

3. * But see Westcott and Hort, II. Chap. ii. Section C. Ed. 1881.

This text was transcribed by Roger Pearse, 2006. All material on this page is in the public domain - copy freely.

Early Church Fathers - Additional Texts

SOURCE SECTION: acts_long_02_text.htm

The Western Text of the Acts of the Apostles (1923). Note and translation. pp. 38-96.

The Western Text of the Acts of the Apostles (1923). Note and translation. pp. 38-96.

II. NOTE ON THE TRANSLATION THAT FOLLOWS

The sole object of publishing this translation of the Greek text of so much of the Acts of the Apostles as has survived in the Codex Bezae is to enable the English reader to form a judgment, based on internal and literary evidence alone, as to the relation between the original source of this text, and that of the shorter text from which our A.V. and R.V. are translated. It is my belief that a careful examination of it will do more than suggest to the reader as possible, it will convince him of the fact, that we have before us traces of the revision of a work by the author himself, the words in thick type being struck by him out of his first draft, and the words in square brackets introduced. The other argument, based on external and historical evidence, pointing to the same conclusion, is also briefly alluded to in the Introduction.

This being the sole object of the translation, it will, I hope, be understood that this is not a critical collation of texts, and deals with no other critical question. Many obvious errors of transcription in the MS. are tacitly corrected. In some rewritten passages the whole is in thick type though parts of them appear in the ordinary text. The reader is assumed to have the R.V. open before him, or in his memory. The translation is in general that of the R.V. or its margin.

I have, in a word, endeavoured to put before the English reader the purely literary question----revision by author or interpolation by copyist----in a form at once fair and simple and readable.

The translation was made partly from Kipling's facsimile in folio, and completed and revised from Scrivener's very careful transcription. I fear that some errors will have been made or escaped correction, and I shall be truly grateful to anyone who will send me a note of them.

Chapter I.

The former treatise I made, O Theophilus, concerning all that Jesus began both to do and to teach, until the day in which he was received up, after that he had given commandment through the Holy Spirit unto the apostles whom he had chosen, and ordered to proclaim the gospel: to whom he also shewed himself alive after his passion by many proofs, appearing unto them by the space of forty days, and speaking the things concerning the kingdom of God: and, being assembled together with them, he charged them not to depart from Jerusalem, but to wait for the promise of the Father, which ye heard, saith he, from my mouth: for John indeed baptized with water; but ye shall be baptized with the Holy Spirit, and which ye are about to receive after these not many days until the Pentecost.

They therefore, when they were come together, asked him, saying, Lord, dost thou at this time restore the kingdom of Israel? And he said unto them, It is not for you to know times or seasons, which the Father hath set within his own authority. But ye shall receive power, when the Holy Spirit is come upon you; and ye shall be my witnesses both in Jerusalem, and in all Judaea and Samaria, and unto the uttermost part of the earth. And when he had said these things, [as they were looking], a cloud received him, and he was taken away out of their sight. And while they were looking stedfastly into heaven as he went, behold, two men stood by them in white apparel; which also said, Ye men of Galilee, why stand ye looking into heaven? this Jesus, which was received up from you [into heaven], shall so come in like manner as ye beheld him going into heaven. |40

Then returned they unto Jerusalem from the mount called Olivet, which is nigh unto Jerusalem, a sabbath day's journey off.

And when they were come in, they went up into the upper chamber, where they were abiding; both Peter and John, [and] James and Andrew, Philip and Thomas, Bartholomew and Matthew, James of Alphaeus, [and] Simon the Zealot, and Judas of James. These all with one accord continued stedfastly in prayer, with the women and children, and Mary the mother of Jesus, and [with] his brethren.

And in these days Peter stood up in the midst of the disciples, and said (for there was a multitude of persons together about a hundred and twenty), Men and brethren, it was needful that this scripture should be fulfilled, which the Holy Spirit spake before by the mouth of David concerning Judas, who was guide to them that took Jesus.

For he was numbered among us, and received his portion in this ministry. Now this man obtained a field with the reward of his iniquity; and falling headlong he burst asunder in the midst, and all his bowels gushed out. And it became known to all the dwellers at Jerusalem; insomuch that in their language that field was called Akeldamach, that is, The field of blood.

For it is written in the book of Psalms,

Let his habitation be made desolate,

And let no man dwell therein:

And his overseership let another take.

Of the men therefore which have companied with us all the time that the Lord Jesus Christ went in and went out among us, beginning from the baptism of John, unto the day that he was received up from us, of these must one become a witness with us of his resurrection. And he put forward two, Joseph called Barnabas, who was surnamed Justus, and Matthias. And they prayed, and said, Thou, |41 Lord, which knowest the hearts of all men, shew of these two the one whom thou hast chosen, to take the place in this ministry and apostleship, from which Judas fell away, that he might go to his own place. And they gave lots for them; and the lot fell upon Matthias; and he was numbered with the twelve apostles.

Chapter II.

And it came to pass in those days of the fulfilment of the day of the Pentecost, when they were all [together] in one place, and, behold, suddenly there came from heaven a sound as of a rushing mighty wind, and it filled all the house where they were sitting. And there appeared unto them tongues parting asunder, like as of fire: and they sat upon each one of them. And they were all filled with the Holy Spirit, and began to speak with other tongues, as the Spirit gave them utterance.

[Now] there were dwelling in Jerusalem Jews, devout men, from every nation under heaven. And when this sound took place, the multitude came together, and were confounded; and each one heard them speaking in their own tongues. And they were [all] amazed and marvelled, saying to one another, Behold are not all these which speak Galilaeans? And how hear we each one our own language wherein we were born? Parthians and Medes and Elamites, and dwellers in Mesopotamia, Judaea and Cappadocia, in Pontus and Asia, in Phrygia and Pamphylia, in Egypt and the parts of Libya about Cyrene, and sojourners from Rome, both Jews and proselytes, Cretans and Arabians, we do hear them speaking in our tongues the mighty works of God. And they were all amazed, and were perplexed, one with another, about what had taken place, and saying What meaneth this? but others mocking said, They are filled with new wine. |42

But then Peter, standing up with the ten apostles, lifted up his voice first, and said, Ye men of Judaea, and all ye that dwell at Jerusalem, be this known unto us, [and] give ear unto my words. For these are not drunken, as ye suppose; seeing it is but the third hour of the day: but this is that which hath been spoken by the prophet [Joel]:

[And] it shall be in the last days, saith the Lord,

I will pour forth of my Spirit upon all flesh;

And their sons and their daughters shall prophesy,

And the young men shall see visions,

And the old men shall dream dreams;

[yea] and on my servants and on my hand maidens [in those days]

I will pour out of my Spirit;

[And they shall prophesy].

And I will shew wonders in the heaven above,

and signs on the earth beneath,

[blood, and fire, and vapour of smoke].

the sun shall be turned into darkness,

and the moon into blood,

before the day of the Lord come,

that great [and notable day].

And it shall be, that whosoever shall call on the name

of the Lord shall be saved.

Ye men of Israel, hear these words, Jesus of Nazareth, a man approved of God unto us by mighty works and wonders and signs, which God did by him in the midst of you, even as ye yourselves know; him, being delivered up by the determinate counsel and fore-knowledge of God, ye took, and by the hand of lawless men did crucify and slay; whom God raised up, having loosed the pains of Hades, because it was not possible that he should be holden of it. For David saith concerning him, |43

I beheld my Lord always before my face;

For he is on my right hand, that I should not be moved;

Therefore my heart was glad, and my tongue rejoiced;

Moreover my flesh also shall dwell in hope:

Because thou wilt not leave my soul in Hades,

Neither wilt thou give thy Holy One to see corruption.

Thou madest known unto me the ways of life;

Thou shalt make me full of gladness with thy countenance.

Men and brethren, I may say unto you freely of the patriarch David, that he both died and was buried, and his tomb is with us unto this day. Being therefore a prophet, and knowing that God had sworn with an oath to him, that of the fruit of his heart according to the flesh he would raise up the Christ, and set him upon his throne ¹: [he foreseeing this spake] of the resurrection of the Christ, that neither was he left in Hades, nor did his flesh see corruption. This Jesus therefore did God raise up, whereof we all are witnesses. Being therefore by the right hand of God exalted, and having received of the Father the promise of the Holy Spirit, he hath poured forth upon you this, which ye both see and hear. For David ascended not into the heavens; for he said himself

The Lord said unto my Lord,

Sit thou on my right hand,

Till I make thine enemies

The footstool of thy feet.

Let all the house of Israel know assuredly that God hath made [him] both Lord and Christ, this Jesus whom ye crucified.

Then all who had come together, when they heard this, were pricked in their heart, and some of them said to Peter and the [rest of the] apostles, Men and brethren, |44 what therefore shall we do? Shew us. And Peter saith unto them, Repent ye, and be baptized every one of you in the name of the Lord Jesus Christ unto the Remission of [your] sins; and ye shall receive the gift of the Holy Spirit. For to us is the promise, and to our children, and to all that are afar off, even as many as the Lord our God shall call unto him. And with many other words he testified, and exhorted them, saying, Save yourselves from this crooked generation. They then that believed his word were baptized; and there were added [unto them] in that day about three thousand souls. And they continued stedfastly in the apostles' teaching in Jerusalem, and the fellowship, in the breaking of the bread, and the prayers ². And fear came upon every soul: and many wonders and signs were done by the Apostles. And all that believed were together, and had all things common; and as many as had possessions or goods sold them, and parted them day by day to all those who had need. And all continued stedfastly [with one accord], in the temple, and in their homes together breaking bread they did take their food with gladness and singleness of heart, praising God, and having favour with all the world. And the Lord added [to them] those that were being saved day by day together in the Church.

Chapter III.

Now in those days Peter and John were going up into the temple in the evening at the ninth hour, that of prayer. And, behold, a certain man, that was lame from his mother's womb was being carried, whom they laid daily at the door of the temple which is called Beautiful, to ask alms of them that were entering into the temple. He fixing steadily his eyes, and seeing Peter and John about to |45 go into the temple, asked alms from them. And Peter, looking on him, with John, said, Look steadily on us. And he looked steadily on them, expecting to receive something from them. But Peter said, Silver and gold have I none; but what I have, that give I thee. In the name of Jesus Christ of Nazareth, walk. And he took him by the right hand, and raised him up. And immediately he stood; and his feet and ankle-bones received strength. And leaping up, he stood, and walked rejoicing, and entered with them into the temple [walking, and leaping, and] praising God: And all the people saw him walking and praising God. And they took knowledge of him, that it was he which sat for alms at the Beautiful Gate of the temple; and they were filled with wonder and amazement at that which had happened unto him.

And as Peter and John went out, he went out with them, and held them: and [all the people ran together unto them and] were standing astonished in the porch that is called Solomon's, greatly wondering. But Peter answering said unto them: Ye men of Israel, why marvel ye at this? or why fasten ye your eyes on us, as though by our own power or godliness we had done this thing that he should walk? The God of Abraham and the God of Isaac, and the God of Jacob, the God of our fathers hath glorified his servant Jesus Christ, whom ye delivered up to judgment, and denied him before the face of Pilate, when he had judged and wished to release him. But ye oppressed the Holy and Righteous One, and asked for a murderer to be granted unto you. And ye killed the Prince of life; whom God raised from the dead; whereof we are witnesses. And by faith in his name ye behold this man and know that his name made him strong, and the faith which is by him hath given him this perfect soundness in the presence of you all. And now, men and brethren, we know that ye |46 did a wicked thing in ignorance, as did also your rulers. But the things which God foreshewed by the mouth of all the prophets, that his Christ should suffer, he hath thus fulfilled. Repent ye therefore, and turn again, that your sins may be blotted out, that so there may come seasons of refreshing from the face of the Lord; and that he may send the Christ who hath been appointed for you, even Jesus, whom the heaven must receive until the times of restoration of all things, whereof God spake by the mouth of his holy prophets [which have been since the world began.] Moses indeed said unto our fathers, A prophet shall the Lord your God raise up unto you of our brethren; to him like unto myself shall ye hearken in all things whatsoever he shall speak unto you. And it shall be, that every soul, which shall not hearken to that prophet, shall be utterly destroyed from among the people. Yea, and all the prophets, from Samuel and them that followed after, as many as have spoken, they also told of these days. Ye are the sons of the prophets, and of the covenant which God made with your fathers, saying unto Abraham, And in thy seed shall all the families of the earth be blessed. Unto you first, God having raised up his Servant, sent him to bless you, in turning away every one of you from your iniquities.

Chapter IV.

And as they spake these words unto the people, the priests and [the captain of the temple] and the Sadducees came upon them, being sore troubled because they taught the people, and proclaimed Jesus in the resurrection of the dead. And they laid hands on them, and put them in ward unto the morrow: for it was now eventide. But many of them that heard the word believed; and the number also of the men came to be about five thousand. |47

And it came to pass on the day of the morrow, that the rulers and elders and Scribes were gathered together in Jerusalem; and Annas the high-priest, and Caiaphas, and Jonathas and Alexander, and as many as were of the kindred of the high-priest. And when they had set them in the midst, they inquired, By what power, or in what name, have ye done this? Then Peter, filled with the Holy Spirit, said unto them, Ye rulers of the people, and elders of Israel, if we this day are examined by you concerning a good deed done to an impotent man, by what means this man is made whole; be it known unto you all, and to all the people of Israel, that in the name of Jesus Christ of Nazareth, whom ye crucified, whom God raised from the dead, in him doth this man stand here before you whole. He is the stone which was set at nought of you the builders, which was made the head of the corner. And in none other is there [salvation], for there is none other name under heaven given to men, wherein we must be saved.

Now when they beheld the boldness of Peter and John, and had perceived that they were unlearned [and ignorant] men, they marvelled; but they took knowledge of them, that they had been with Jesus. [And] seeing the man that was healed standing with them, they could do or say nothing against it. [But] when they had commanded that they should be led out of the Council, they conferred among themselves, saying, What shall we do to these men? for that indeed a notable sign hath been wrought through them is more than manifest to all that dwell in Jerusalem, and we cannot deny it. [But] that it spread no further among the people, let us threaten them, that they speak henceforth to no man in this name. And when they had agreed to this decision they called them, and charged them not to speak [at all] nor teach in the name of Jesus. But Peter and John answered and said unto them, Whether it |48 be right in the sight of God to hearken unto you rather than unto God, judge ye: for we cannot ³ [but] speak the things which we saw and heard. And they, when they had further threatened them, let them go, finding nothing how they might punish them, because of the people; for all men glorified God for that which was done. For the man was more than forty years old, on whom this sign of healing was wrought.

And being let go, they came to their own company, and reported all that the chief priests and the elders had said unto them. And they, when they heard it, and recognised the working of God, lifted up their voice to God with one accord, and said, O Lord, thou the God that didst make the heaven and the earth and the sea, and all that in them is: who by the Holy Spirit, by the mouth of [our father] David thy servant didst say,

Why did the Gentiles rage,

And the peoples imagine vain things?

The kings of the earth set themselves in array,

And the rulers were gathered together,

Against the Lord, and against his Anointed:

For of a truth in this city, against thy holy Servant Jesus, whom thou didst anoint, both Herod and Pontius Pilate were gathered together with the Gentiles and the peoples of Israel, to do whatsoever thy hand and thy counsel foreordained to come to pass. And now, Lord, look upon their threatenings: and grant unto thy servants to speak thy word with all boldness, while thou stretchest forth thy hand to heal, and that signs and wonders may be done through the name of thy holy Servant Jesus. And when they had prayed, the place was shaken wherein they were gathered together: and they were all filled with the Holy Spirit, and they spake the word of God with boldness, to every man who wished to believe. |49

And the multitude of them that believed were of one heart and soul, and there was no distinction at all among them: and not one of them said that aught of the things which he possessed was his own; but they had all things common. And with great power gave the apostles their witness of the resurrection of the Lord Jesus Christ; and great grace was upon them all. For neither was there among them any that lacked; for as many as were possessed of lands or houses sold them, and brought the prices of the things that were sold, and laid them at the apostles' feet: and distribution was made unto each one according as any one had need.

And Joseph, who by the apostles was surnamed Barnabas, (which is, being interpreted, Son of Exhortation), a Cyprian Levite by race, having a field sold it, and brought the money, and laid it at the apostles' feet.

Chapter V.

But a certain man named Ananias, with Sapphira his wife, sold a possession and kept back part of the price, his wife also being privy to it, and brought a certain part, and laid it at the apostles' feet. But Peter said to Ananias, Why hath Satan filled thy heart to lie to the Holy Spirit, to keep back part of the price of the land? Whiles it remained, did it not remain thine own? and after it was sold was it not in thy power? How is it that thou hast conceived in thy heart to do this wicked thing? thou hast not lied unto men but unto God. And when he heard these words Ananias immediately fell down and gave up the ghost, and great fear came upon all that heard it. And the young men arose and wrapped him round, and they carried him out and buried him.

And it was about the space of three hours after when his wife, not knowing what was done, came in. And Peter |50 said to her I will further ask you if verily ye sold the land for so much. She then said, Yea, for so much. But Peter (said) unto her, How is it that ye have agreed together to tempt the Spirit of the Lord? Behold, the feet of them which have buried thy husband are at the door, and they shall carry thee out. And she fell down immediately at his feet, and gave up the ghost. And the young men came in, and found her dead; and having wrapped her round they carried her out, and buried her by her husband. And great fear fell upon the whole church, and upon all that heard these things.

And by the hands of the apostles were many signs and wonders wrought among the people; and they were all with one accord in the temple in Solomon's porch. But of the rest ⁴ durst no one join himself to them; howbeit the people magnified them. And were the more added to them, believing on the Lord, multitudes both of men and women: insomuch that they [even] carried out their sick into the streets, and laid them on beds and couches, that, as Peter came by, at the least his shadow might overshadow some one of them. For they were set free from every sickness which each one of them had. And there came [also] together into Jerusalem a multitude from the cities round about, bringing sick folk, and them that were vexed with unclean spirits: and all were cured ⁵.

But the high priest rose up, and all they that were with him which is the sect of the Sadducees, and they were filled with jealousy; and laid hands on the apostles, and put them in public ward: and each one of them went to his own home. Then by night an angel of the Lord opened |51 the doors of the prison, and brought them out, and said, Go and stand and speak in the temple to the people all the words of this Life. And when they heard this, they entered into the temple about day break, and taught. But the high priest came, and they that were with him, having been roused early, and called the council together, and all the senate of the children of Israel, and sent to the prison to have them brought. But the officers having come and opened the prison found them not within; and they returned, and told, saying, The prison-house we found shut in all safety, and the keepers standing at the doors; but when we had opened we found no man within. Now when the captain of the temple and the chief priests heard these words, they were much perplexed concerning them whereunto this would grow. And there came one and told them, Behold the men whom ye put in the prison are in the temple, standing and teaching the people. Then went the captain with the officers, and brought them [not] with violence: for they feared the people, lest they should be stoned. And when they had brought them they set them before the Council. And the [high] priest asked them, saying, Did we not straitly charge you not to teach in this name? And, behold, ye have filled Jerusalem with your teaching, and wish to bring that man's blood upon us. But Peter [and the apostles answered and] said to them, We must obey God rather than men. The God of our fathers raised up Jesus, whom ye slew, hanging him on a tree. Him did God exalt for his glory ⁶ [with his right hand], to be a Prince and a Saviour, to give repentance to Israel, and remission of sins in him. And we are witnesses of all these things; and so is the Holy Spirit, whom God hath given to them that obey him. |52

But they, when they heard this, were cut to the heart, and were minded to slay them. But there stood up one of the council, a Pharisee, named Gamaliel, a doctor of the law, had in honour of all the people, and commanded to put the apostles forth a little while. And he said to the rulers and those of the council, Ye men of Israel, take heed to yourselves as touching these men, what ye are about to do. For before these days rose up Theudas, giving himself out to be somebody great: to whom a number of men, about four hundred, joined themselves; who was slain by himself, and all as many as obeyed him, and came to nought. After this man rose up Judas of Galilee, in the days of the enrolment, and drew away much people after him: he also perished, and all, as many as obeyed him, were scattered abroad. And now, brethren; I say unto you, Refrain from these men, and let them alone, not defiling your hands; for if this counsel or this work be of men, it will be overthrown; but if it is of God, ye will not be able to hinder them: neither you nor kings nor tyrants: keep away therefore from these men, lest haply ye be found fighting against God. And to him they agreed: and when they had called the apostles unto them, they beat them, and charged them not to speak in the name of Jesus, and let them go. The apostles therefore departed from the presence of the Council, rejoicing that they were counted worthy to suffer dishonour for the Name. And every day, in the temple and at home they ceased not to teach and preach the Lord Jesus as the Christ.

Chapter VI.

Now in these days, when the number of the disciples was multiplying, there arose a murmuring of the Hellenists against the Hebrews, because their widows were neglected in the daily ministration, in the ministration of the |53 Hebrews. [And] the twelve called the multitude of the disciples unto them, and said, It is not pleasing to us that we should leave the word of God, and minister to tables. What is it then, brethren? Look ye out [therefore] from among you seven men of good report, full of the Spirit and of wisdom, whom we will appoint over this business: but we will continue stedfastly in prayer, and in the ministry of the word. And this saying pleased the whole multitude of the disciples; and they chose Stephen, a man full of faith and of the Holy Spirit, and Philip, and Prochorus, and Nicor, and Timon, and Parmenas, and Nicolas a proselyte of Antioch. These were set before the apostles; and when they had prayed, they laid their hands on them. And the word of the Lord increased; and the number of the disciples multiplied in Jerusalem exceedingly; and a great company of the priests were obedient to the faith. And Stephen, full of grace and power, wrought great wonders and signs among the people, through the name of the Lord Jesus Christ. But there arose certain of them that were of the Synagogue called the Synagogue of the Libertines, and of the Cyrenians, and of the Alexandrians, and of them of Cilicia [and Asia] disputing with Stephen. And they were not able to withstand the wisdom that was in him, and the Holy Spirit with which he spake, because they were confuted by him with all boldness. Being unable therefore to face the truth then they suborned men which said, We have heard him speak blasphemous words against Moses, and against God, And they stirred up the people, and the elders, and the scribes, and came upon him, and seized him, and brought him into the Council; and set up false witnesses against him, which said, This man ceaseth not to speak words against the holy place, and the law: for we have heard him say that this Jesus of Nazareth shall destroy this place, |54 and shall change the customs which Moses delivered unto us. And all that sat in the council, fastening their eyes on him, saw his face as it had been the face of an angel standing in the midst of them ⁷.

Chapter VII.

And the high priest said to Stephen, Is this thing so? And he said Men, brethren and fathers, hearken. The God of glory appeared to our father Abraham, when he was in Mesopotamia, before he dwelt in Haran, and said unto him, Get thee out of thy land, and from thy kindred, and come into the land which I shall shew thee. Then came Abraham out of the land of the Chaldeans, and dwelt in Haran; and there he was after the death of his father. And (God) removed him into this land, wherein ye now dwell, and our fathers who were before us. And he gave him none inheritance in it, no, not so much as to set his foot on: but he promised that he would give it him in possession, and his seed after him, when as yet he had no child. And God spake on this wise to him, that his seed should sojourn in a strange land, and that they should bring them into bondage, and entreat them evil, four hundred years. And the nation to which they shall be in bondage will I judge, said God, and after that shall they come forth, and serve me in this place. And he gave him the covenant of circumcision. And so he begat Isaac, and circumcised him the eighth day; and Isaac begat Jacob, and Jacob the twelve patriarchs. And the patriarchs, moved with jealousy against Joseph, sold him into Egypt; and God was with him, and delivered him out of all his afflictions, and gave him favour and wisdom before Pharaoh, King of Egypt; and he made him governor over Egypt and |55 all his house. Now there came a famine over all Egypt and Canaan, and great affliction; and our fathers found no sustenance. When therefore Jacob heard that there was corn in Egypt, he sent forth our fathers the first time. And at the second time Joseph was made known to his brethren, and Joseph's race became manifest unto Pharaoh. And Joseph sent, and called to him Jacob his father and all his kindred, three score and fifteen souls. And Jacob went down into Egypt; and he died, himself, and our fathers. And they were carried over unto Shechem, and laid in the tomb that Abraham bought for a price in silver of the sons of Emmor of Shechem. But as the time of the promise drew nigh, which God promised unto Abraham, the people grew and multiplied in Egypt, till there arose another king [over Egypt] which knew not Joseph. The same dealt subtilly with our race, and evil entreated the fathers, that they should cast out their babes to the end they might not live.

At which season Moses was born, and was exceeding fair; and he was nourished three months in his father's house. And when he was cast out by the riverside, Pharaoh's daughter took him up and nourished him for her own son. And Moses was instructed in all the wisdom of the Egyptians, and he was mighty in his words and works. But when he was full forty years old it came into his heart to visit his brethren the children of Israel. And seeing one of his race suffering wrong, he defended him, and avenged him that was oppressed, smiting the Egyptian, and he hid him in the sand; and he supposed that his brethren understood how that God by his hand was giving them deliverance; but they understood not. And then on the day following he appeared unto them as they strove, and saw them doing injustice, and would have set them at one again, saying, What are ye doing, men and brethren? why do |56 ye wrong one to another? But he that did his neighbour wrong thrust him away saying, Who made thee a ruler and a judge over us? Wouldest thou kill me as thou killedst the Egyptian yesterday? Thus also Moses fled at this saying, and became a sojourner in the land of Midian, where he begat two sons.

And after these things, when forty years were fulfilled, an angel of the Lord appeared to him in the wilderness of Mount Sinai, in a flame of fire in a bush. And when Moses saw it, he wondered at the sight: and as he drew near to behold, the Lord spake to him saying, I am the God of thy fathers, the God of Abraham, and the God of Isaac, and the God of Jacob. And Moses trembled, and durst not behold. And a voice came to him, Loose the shoes from thy feet: for the place whereon thou standest is holy ground. I have surely seen the affliction of my people which is in Egypt, and have heard their groaning, and I am come down to deliver them: and now come, I will send thee into Egypt.

This Moses whom they refused, saying, Who made thee a ruler and a judge over us, him hath God sent to be both a ruler and a redeemer with the hand of the angel which appeared to him in the bush. This man led them forth, having wrought wonders and signs in Egypt, and in the Red Sea, and in the wilderness forty years. This is [that] Moses, which said unto the children of Israel, A prophet shall God raise up unto you from among your brethren, as he raised up me: hear him. This is he that was in the church in the wilderness with the angel which spake to him in the mount Sinai, and of our fathers; who received living oracles to give unto us: because our fathers would not be obedient, but thrust him from them, and turned back in their hearts unto Egypt, saying unto Aaron, Make us gods which shall go before us: for as for this Moses, which led |57 us forth out of the land of Egypt, we wot not what is become of him. And they made a calf in those days, and brought a sacrifice unto the idol, and rejoiced in the works of their hands. But God turned, and gave them up to serve the host of heaven; as it is written in the book of the prophets, Did ye offer unto me slain beasts and sacrifices, forty years in the wilderness, O house of Israel? And ye took up the tabernacle of Moloch, and the star of the god Remphan, the figures which ye made to worship them; and I will carry you away into the parts of Babylon. The tabernacle of the testimony was with our fathers in the wilderness, even as he appointed who spake unto Moses that he should make it according to the figure that he had seen. Which also our fathers, in their turn, brought in with Joshua when they entered on the possession of the nations, which God thrust out before the face of our fathers, unto the days of David; who found favour in the sight of God, and asked to find a habitation for the house of Jacob. But Solomon built him a house. Howbeit the Most High dwelleth not in houses made with hands, as saith the prophet, The heaven is my throne, and the earth the footstool of my feet. What manner of house will ye build me? saith the Lord: or of what sort is the place of my rest? Did not my hand make all these things? Ye stiffnecked and uncircumcised in heart and ears, ye do always resist the Holy Spirit: as your fathers did, so do ye. Which of the prophets did not they persecute? and they killed them which shewed before of the coming of the Righteous One; of whom ye have now become betrayers and murderers; ye who received the law as it was ordained by angels, and kept it not. |58

Now when they heard these things, they were cut to the heart, and they gnashed on him with their teeth. But he, being full of the Holy Spirit, looked up stedfastly into heaven, and saw the glory of God, and Jesus the Lord, standing on the right hand of God: and said, Behold I see the heavens opened, and the Son of Man standing on the right hand of God. But they cried out with a loud voice, and stopped their ears, and rushed upon him with one accord; and they cast him out of the city, and stoned him; and the witnesses laid down their garments at the feet of a certain young man named Saul. And they stoned Stephen calling upon [the Lord] and saying, Lord Jesus, receive my spirit. And he kneeled down, and cried with a loud voice, saying, Lord, lay not this sin to their charge; and when he had said this, he fell asleep.

Chapter VIII.

And Saul was consenting unto his death.

And there arose on that day a great persecution and affliction against the church which was in Jerusalem; and they were all scattered abroad throughout the regions of Judaea and Samaria, except the apostles, who remained in Jerusalem. And devout men buried Stephen, and made great lamentation over him. But Saul laid waste the church, entering into every house, and haling men and women, committed them to prison.

They therefore that were scattered abroad went about preaching the word. And Philip went down to the city of Samaria, and proclaimed unto them the Christ. And, when they heard, all the multitudes gave heed unto the things which were spoken by Philip with one accord ⁸, when they heard and saw the signs which he did. For from many of those which had unclean spirits they came out crying with |59 a loud voice, and many that were palsied [and that were] lame were healed ⁹. And there was much joy in that city. But there was a certain man, Simon by name, which beforetime in the city used sorcery, and amazed the people of Samaria, giving out that he himself was some great one; to whom they all gave heed from the least to the greatest, saying, This man is the power of God which is called Great. And they gave heed to him, because that of long time he had amazed them with his sorceries. But when they believed Philip preaching good tidings concerning the kingdom of God and the name of Jesus Christ, they were baptized, both men and women. And Simon also himself believed, and was baptized, and he continued with Philip; and beholding signs and great miracles wrought, he was amazed. Now when the apostles which were at Jerusalem heard that Samaria had received the word of God, they sent unto them Peter and John; who when they were come down, prayed for them, that they might receive the Holy Spirit: for as yet he was fallen upon none of them: only they had been baptized into the name of the Lord Jesus Christ. Then laid they their hands upon them, and they received the Holy Spirit. Now when Simon saw that through the laying on of the apostles' hands the Holy Spirit was given, he brought them money, exhorting them and saying, Give me also this power, that on whomsoever I also lay my hands, he may receive the Holy Spirit. But Peter said unto him, Thy silver perish with thee, because thou hast thought to obtain the gift of God with money. Thou hast neither part nor lot in this matter, for thy heart is not right before God. Repent therefore from this thy wickedness, and pray the Lord if perhaps the thought of thy heart shall be forgiven thee: for I see that thou art in the gall of bitterness and in the bond of iniquity. |60 And Simon answered and said to them I beseech you pray ye for me to God that none of these evils of which ye have spoken come upon me. And he ceased not to shed many tears.

They therefore, when they had testified and spoken the word of the Lord, returned to Jerusalem, and preached the gospel to many villages of the Samaritans.

But an angel of the Lord spake unto Philip saying, Arise, and go toward the south unto the way that goeth down from Jerusalem unto Gaza: the same is desert. And he arose and went: and, behold, a man of Ethiopia, an eunuch of great authority under Candace, a certain queen of the Ethiopians, who had the charge of all her treasure, who had come to Jerusalem for to worship: and he was returning and sitting in his chariot [and was] reading the prophet Isaiah. And the Spirit said unto Philip...

Here eight leaves of the Codex are wanting, including from viii. 29 to x. 14 in Greek, and viii. 20 to x. 4 in Latin. The Latin text, d, follows a from x. 4 to x. 14.

Chapter X.

...anything that is common or unclean and called unto him again the second time, What God hath cleansed, make not thou common. And this was done thrice: and [straight way] the vessel was received up again into heaven. Now when he came to himself Peter doubted what this vision which he had seen should mean: and, behold the men that were sent from Cornelius, having made enquiry for Simon's house, stood before the gate, and called and asked whether Simon, which was surnamed Peter, was lodging there. And while Peter thought on the vision, the Spirit said unto him, Behold [three] men seek thee. But arise, and get thee down, |61 and go with them nothing doubting; for I have sent them. Then Peter went down to the men and said, Behold I am he whom ye seek. What do you wish? or what is the cause wherefore ye are come? And they said to him, A certain Cornelius, a centurion, a righteous man, and one that feareth God, and well reported of by all the nation of the Jews, was warned by a holy angel to send for thee into his house, and to hear words from thee. Then Peter led them in and lodged them.

And on the morrow he arose and went forth with them, and certain of the brethren from Joppa accompanied him. And on the morrow he entered into Caesarea. And Cornelius was expecting them, and having called together his kinsmen and his near friends he was waiting for them. And as Peter was drawing near to Caesarea one of the servants ran forward and announced that he was come. And Cornelius sprang up and met him, and fell down at his feet, and worshipped him. But Peter raised him up saying What art thou doing? I myself also am a man as thou also art. And [as he talked with him] he went in, and found many come together. And he said unto them, Ye yourselves know very well how that it is an unlawful thing for a man that is a Jew to join himself or come unto one that is of another nation: and unto me hath God shewed that I should not call any man common or unclean. Wherefore also I came without gainsaying when I was sent for by you. I ask therefore with what intent ye sent for me. And Cornelius said, From the third day until this hour I was fasting, and keeping the ninth hour of prayer in my house, and behold, a man stood before me in bright apparel, and saith, Cornelius, thy prayer is heard, and thine alms are had in remembrance in the sight of God. Send therefore to Joppa, and call unto thee Simon, who is surnamed Peter; he lodgeth in the house of Simon a tanner |62 by the seaside. He when he cometh shall speak unto thee. Forthwith therefore I sent to thee exhorting thee to come unto us; and thou hast well done that thou hast come with speed. Now therefore we all in thy sight are wishing to hear from thee that which has been commanded thee by God.

And Peter opened his mouth and said, Of a truth I perceive that God is no respecter of persons; but in every nation he that feareth him, and worketh righteousness, is acceptable to him. For the word which he sent unto the children of Israel, preaching good tidings of peace by Jesus Christ, (he is Lord of all), ye know that [saying] which took place throughout all Judaea; for beginning from Galilee, after the baptism which John preached, even Jesus of Nazareth, whom God anointed with the Holy Spirit and with power. He went about doing good, and healing all that were oppressed of the devil; for God was with him. And we are his witnesses of [all] the things which he did both in the country of the Jews, and in Jerusalem; whom also they slew, hanging him on a tree. Him God raised up after the third day, and gave him to be made manifest, not to all the people, but unto witnesses that were chosen before of God, even to us, who did eat and drink with him, and companied with him, after he rose from the dead for forty days. And he charged us to preach unto the people, and to testify that this is he which is ordained of God to be the Judge of quick and dead. To him bear all the prophets witness, that through his name every one that believeth on him shall receive remission of sins.

While Peter yet spake these words, the Holy Spirit fell on all them that heard the word. And they of the circumcision which believed were amazed, as many as came with Peter, because that on the Gentiles also was poured out the gift of the Holy Spirit. For they heard them speak with |63 uncertain ¹⁰ tongues and magnify God. And Peter said, Can any man forbid the water, that these should not be baptized, which have received the Holy Spirit as well as we? Then he commanded them to be baptized in the name of the Lord Jesus Christ. Then they besought him to remain with them certain days.

Chapter XI.

Now it was heard by the apostles and the brethren that were in Judaea that the Gentiles also had received the word of God. Peter therefore for a considerable time wished to journey to Jerusalem; and he called to him the brethren, and stablished them; making a long speech, and teaching them throughout the villages: he also went to meet them, and he reported to them the grace of God. But the brethren that were of the circumcision contended with him, saying, Thou wentest in to men uncircumcised, and didst eat with them. But Peter began, and expounded the matter unto them in order, saying, I was in the city of Joppa praying; and in a trance I saw a vision, a certain vessel descending, as it were a great sheet let down from heaven by four corners, and it came even unto me. Upon the which when I had fastened mine eyes, I considered, and saw [the] fourfooted beasts of the earth, and the wild beasts, and creeping things, and fowls of the heaven. And I heard [also] a voice saying unto me, Rise, Peter, kill and eat. But I said, Not so, Lord; for nothing common or unclean hath ever entered into my mouth. But there was a voice to me [the second time] out of heaven, What God hath cleansed, make not thou common. And this was done thrice; and all were drawn up again into heaven. And behold, forthwith three men stood before the house in which we were, having been sent from |64 Caesarea unto me. And the Spirit bade me go with them [making no distinction]. And these six brethren also accompanied me; and we entered into the man's house; and he told us how he had seen an angel standing in his house, and saying to him, Send to Joppa and fetch Simon, whose surname is Peter, who shall speak unto thee words whereby thou shalt be saved, thou and all thy house. And as I began to speak to them, the Holy Spirit fell on them, even as on us at the beginning. And I remembered the word of the Lord, how that he said, John indeed baptized with water; but ye shall be baptized with the Holy Spirit. If then [God] gave unto them the like gift as he did also unto us, when we believed on the Lord Jesus Christ, who was I that I could withstand God? that I should not give them the Holy Spirit when they believed on him. And when they heard these things, they held their peace; and glorified God, saying, Then to the Gentiles also hath God given repentance unto life.

They therefore that were scattered abroad upon the tribulation that arose from Stephen travelled as far as Phoenicia and Cyprus and Antioch, speaking the word to none save only to Jews. But there were some of them, men of Cyprus and Cyrene, who, when they were come to Antioch spake unto the Greeks [also], preaching the Lord Jesus Christ. And the hand of the Lord was with them: and a great number that believed turned unto the Lord. And the report concerning them came to the ears of the Church which was in Jerusalem: and they sent forth Barnabas that he should go as far as Antioch; who also, when he had come, and had seen the grace of God, was glad; and exhorted them all, that with purpose of heart they would cleave unto the Lord; for he was a good man, and full of the Holy Spirit and of faith: and much people was added unto the Lord. |65

And having heard that Saul was at Tarsus, he went out to seek him; and when he met him he exhorted him to come to Antioch.

And they, when they had come, for a whole year were gathered together (in the church, and taught) ¹¹ much people, and the disciples were called Christians then first in Antioch.

Now in these days there came down prophets from Jerusalem unto Antioch. And there was much rejoicing; and when we were gathered together one of them named Agabus stood up and spake, signifying by the Spirit that there should be a great famine over all the world; which came to pass in the days of Claudius. And the disciples, every man according to his ability, determined to send for ministry unto the brethren who dwelt in Judaea; which also they did, sending it to the elders by the hand of Barnabas and Saul.

Chapter XII.

Now about that time Herod the king put forth his hands to afflict certain of the Church in Judaea. And he killed James the brother of John with the sword. And when he saw that his laying hands upon the faithful pleased the Jews, he proceeded to seize Peter also. And those were the days of unleavened bread. And when he had taken him, he put him in prison, and delivered him to four quaternions of soldiers to guard him; intending after the Passover to bring him forth to the people. Peter therefore was kept in the prison: but much prayer in earnestness about him was made by the church to God about him. And when Herod was about to bring him forth, the same night Peter was sleeping between two soldiers, bound with |66 two chains, and guards before the door were keeping the prison. And behold an angel of the Lord stood by Peter, and a light shined in the cell; and he nudged Peter on the side, and awoke him, saying, Rise up quickly. And his chains fell off from his hands. And the angel said unto him, Gird thyself, and bind on thy sandals. And he did so. And he saith unto him, Cast thy garment about thee and follow me. And he went out and followed; and he wist not that it was true which was done by the angel; for he thought he saw a vision. And when they were past the first and the second ward, they came unto the iron gate that leadeth into the city, which opened to them of its own accord, and they went out, and went down the seven steps, and passed on through one street; and straightway the angel departed from him. And when Peter was come to himself, he said, Now I know of a truth, that the Lord hath sent forth his angel and delivered me out of the hand of Herod, and from all the expectation of the people of the Jews. And when he had considered the thing, he came to the house of Mary the mother of John, whose surname was Mark: where many were gathered together and were praying. And when he knocked at the door of the gate, a maid came to answer, named Rhoda. And when she knew Peter's voice, she opened not the gate for joy, and ran in and told that Peter stood before the gate. And they said unto her, Thou art mad. But she confidently affirmed that it was even so. And they said Perchance it is his angel. But Peter continued knocking. And when they had opened and saw him, they were astonished. But he, beckoning unto them with the hand to hold their peace, came in and declared unto them how that the Lord had brought him forth out of the prison. And he said, Tell these things unto James, and to the brethren. And he departed and went to another place. Now as soon as it was day, there was a |67 [no small] stir among the soldiers, what was become of Peter. And when Herod had sought for him, and found him not, he examined the guards, and commanded that they should be put to death. And he went down from Judaea to Caesarea, and tarried there.

For he was highly displeased with them of Tyre and Sidon: but they with one accord from both the cities came to the king, and having persuaded Blastus the king's chamberlain, they asked for peace, because their country was fed from the king's country. And upon a set day Herod arrayed himself in royal apparel, and sat on the throne, and made an oration unto them, after being reconciled with the Tyrians. And the people shouted, saying, The voice of a god, and not of a man. And immediately an angel of the Lord smote him, because he gave not God the glory. And he came down from the throne, and while he was still living he was eaten of worms, and thus gave up the ghost.

But the word of God grew and multiplied. And Barnabas and Saul returned from Jerusalem when they had fulfilled their ministration, taking with them John, whose surname was Mark.

Chapter XIII.

Now there were at Antioch, in the church that was there, prophets and teachers, among whom were Barnabas, and Symeon that was called Niger, and Lucius of Cyrene, and Manaen, the foster-brother of Herod the tetrarch, and Saul. And as they ministered to the Lord, and fasted, the Holy Spirit said, Separate me Barnabas and Saul for the work whereunto I have called them. Then when they had all fasted and prayed, and had laid their hands on them, [they sent them away.] ¹² |68

So they, being sent forth by the Holy Spirit, went down to Seleucia; and from thence they sailed to Cyprus. And when they were at Salamis, they proclaimed the word of the Lord in the Synagogues of the Jews; and they had also John as their attendant. And when they had gone through the whole island unto Paphos, they found a certain sorcerer, a false prophet, a Jew, whose name was Barjesus, which was with the proconsul, Sergius Paulus, a man of understanding. The same called unto him Barnabas and Saul, and sought to hear the word of God. But Etimas the sorcerer (for so is his name by interpretation) withstood them, seeking to turn aside the proconsul from the faith, since he was hearing them with the greatest pleasure. But Saul who is also called Paul, filled with the Holy Spirit, fastened his eyes on him, and said, O full of all guile and all villany, thou son of the devil, thou enemy of all righteousness, wilt thou not cease to pervert the ways of the Lord which are right. And now, behold, the hand of the Lord is upon thee, and thou shalt be blind, not seeing the sun for a season. And immediately there fell on him a mist and a darkness: and he went about seeking some to lead him by the hand. And [then] the proconsul, when he saw what was done marvelled, and believed in God, being astonished at the teaching of the Lord.

Now Paul and his company set sail from Paphos, and came to Perga of Pamphylia; but John departed from them and returned to Jerusalem. But they, passing through from Perga, came to Antioch of Pisidia; and they went into the synagogue on the Sabbath day, and sat down. And after the reading of the law and the prophets the rulers of the synagogue sent unto them, saying, Men and brethren, if ye have any word of wisdom of exhortation for the people, say on. And Paul stood up and beckoning with the hand said, Men of Israel, and ye that fear God, hearken. |69 The God of this people Israel chose our fathers and exalted ¹³ the people when they sojourned in tne land of Egypt, and with a high arm led he them forth out of it, and for [about] forty years ¹⁴ suffered he their manners in the wilderness. And when he had destroyed seven nations in the land of Canaan, he gave them the land of the Philistines for an inheritance; and for about four hundred and fifty years he gave them judges until Samuel the prophet. And afterwards they asked for a king: and God gave unto them Saul, the son of Kish, a man of the tribe of Benjamin, for the space of forty years. And when he had removed him, he raised up David to be their king: to whom also he bare witness, and said, I have found David the son of Jesse, a man after my heart, who shall do all my will. Of this man's seed therefore hath God according to promise raised up unto Israel a Saviour, Jesus; when John had first preached before his coming the baptism of repentance to all the people of Israel. And as John was fulfilling his course, he said, Whom suppose ye that I am? I am not he. But, behold, there cometh one after me, the shoes of whose feet I am not worthy to unloose. Men and brethren, children of the stock of Abraham, and those among us who fear God, to us is the word of this salvation sent forth. For they that dwell at Jerusalem, and their rulers, [because they knew him not,] nor understanding the writings of the prophets which are read every Sabbath, fulfilled them by condemning him. And though they found no cause of death in him, after judging him they delivered him to Pilate that he should be slain. And when they had fulfilled all things that were written of him they asked Pilate to crucify him. And when they had obtained this also, they took him down from the tree, and laid him in a tomb; whom God raised |70 from the dead. He was seen for many days of them that came up with him from Galilee to Jerusalem, who till now are his witnesses unto the people. And we bring you good tidings of the promise made unto the fathers, that God hath fulfilled the same unto our children, in that he raised up the Lord Jesus Christ. For thus it is written in the first Psalm,

Thou art my Son;

this day have I begotten thee

Ask of me and I will give thee the heathen

for thine inheritance,

and the ends of the earth

for thy possession.

And when he raised him up from the dead, now no more to return to corruption, he hath spoken on this wise, I will give you the holy and sure blessings of David. And elsewhere he saith, Thou wilt not give thy Holy One to see corruption. For David, after he had in his own generation served the counsel of God, fell on sleep, and was laid unto his fathers, and saw corruption; but he whom God raised up saw no corruption. Be it known unto you therefore, men and brethren, that through this man is proclaimed unto you remission of sins; and repentance from all things from which ye could not be justified by the law of Moses. In him therefore every one that believeth is justified before God. Beware therefore lest that come upon you which is spoken in the prophets; Behold ye despisers and wonder and vanish away; for I work a work in your days. [a work] which ye shall in no wise believe if a man declare it unto you. And they kept silence.

And as they went out, they besought that these words might be spoken to them the next Sabbath. Now when the synagogue broke up, many of the Jews and of the devout proselytes followed Paul and Barnabas; who speaking to |71 them urged them to continue in the grace of God. And it came to pass that the word of God went throughout the whole city.

And the next Sabbath almost the whole city was gathered together to hear Paul telling about the Lord in many words. And when the Jews saw the multitudes, they were filled with jealousy, and contradicted the words which were spoken by Paul, contradicting and railing. And Paul and Barnabas spake out boldly unto them, and said, It was right that the word of God should first be spoken to you: but seeing ye thrust it from you, and judge yourselves unworthy of eternal life, lo, we turn to the Gentiles. For so hath the Lord commanded [us] saying, I have set thee for a light of the Gentiles, that thou shouldest be for salvation unto the uttermost part of the earth.

And as the Gentiles heard this, they were glad, and they received the word of God: and as many as were ordained to eternal life believed. And the word of the Lord was spread abroad throughout all the region. But the Jews urged on the devout women of honourable estate, and the chief men of the city, and stirred up a great affliction and persecution against Paul and Barnabas, and cast them out of their borders. But they shook off the dust of their feet against them, and went down to Iconium. And the disciples were filled with joy and with the Holy Spirit.

Chapter XIV.

And it came to pass in Iconium that in the same way he entered into the synagogue of the Jews, and so spake to them that a great multitude both of Jews and of Greeks believed. But the rulers of the synagogue of the Jews [that were disobedient] and the chief men of the synagogue raised up among them a persecution against the just, and made the souls of the Gentiles evil affected against the |72 brethren. But the Lord speedily gave them peace.

Long time therefore they tarried there, speaking boldly in the Lord, which bare witness unto the word of his grace, granting signs and wonders to be done by their hands. But the multitude of the city was divided, and part held with the Jews, and part with the apostles, cleaving to them on account of the word of God. And when there was made an onset both of the Gentiles and of the Jews with their rulers to entreat them shamefully and to stone them ¹⁵, they became aware of it, and fled into the cities of Lycaonia, to Lystra and Derbe, and the whole region round about. And there they preached the gospel. And the whole multitude was moved at the teaching.

Now Paul and Barnabas spent some time at Lystra. And there sat a certain man impotent in his feet, [a cripple] from his mother's womb, who never had walked. The same heard Paul speaking, being in fear. And Paul, fastening his eyes upon him, and seeing that he had faith to be saved, said with a loud voice, I say to thee in the name of the Lord Jesus Christ, Stand upright on thy feet, and walk. And straightway suddenly he leaped up and walked. And when the multitudes saw what Paul had done, they lifted up their voice, saying in the speech of Lycaonia, The gods are come down to us in the likeness of men. And they called Barnabas, Zeus: and Paul, Hermes, because he was the chief speaker. And the priests of Zeus, whose temple was before the city, brought for them oxen and garlands unto the gates, and would have done sacrifice with the multitudes. But when [the apostles], Barnabas and Paul, heard of it, they rent their garments, and sprang forth among the multitude, crying out and exclaiming, Sirs, why do ye these things? We also are men of like |73 passions with you, and bring you good tidings of God, that ye should turn from these vain things unto the living God, who made the heaven and the earth and the sea, and all that in them is; who in the generations gone by suffered [all] the nations to walk in their own ways. And yet he left not himself without witness, in that he did good, and gave you from heaven rains and fruitful seasons, filling your hearts with food and gladness. And with those sayings scarce restrained they the multitudes from doing sacrifice unto them. [But] while they were spending some time there and teaching there came certain Jews from Iconium and Antioch: and having persuaded the multitudes, they stoned Paul, and dragged him out of the city, supposing that he was dead. But as the disciples stood round about him, he rose up, and entered into the city of Lystra, and on the morrow he went forth with Barnabas to Derbe. And when they had preached the gospel to those in the city, and had made many disciples, they returned to Lystra and to Iconium and to Antioch, confirming the souls of the disciples, and exhorting them to continue in the faith, and that through many tribulations we must enter into the kingdom of God. And when they had appointed for them elders in every church, and had prayed with fastings, they commended them to the Lord on whom they had believed. And they passed through Pisidia, and came to Pamphylia. And when they had spoken the word in Perga, they went down to Attalia, preaching to them the good tidings. And thence they sailed to Antioch, from whence they had been committed to the grace of God for the work which they had fulfilled. And when they were come, and had gathered the church together, they rehearsed all things that God had done for them with their souls, and that he had opened a door of faith unto the Gentiles. And they tarried no little time with the disciples. |74

Chapter XV.

And certain men came down from Judaea and were teaching the brethren, saying, Except ye be circumcised and walk after the custom of Moses, ye cannot be saved. And Paul and Barnabas had no small dissension and questioning with them, for Paul spake strongly maintaining that they should remain so as when they believed; but those who had come from Jerusalem, charged them, Paul and Barnabas and certain others [of them], to go up to Jerusalem unto the apostles and elders that they might be judged before them about this question. They therefore, being brought on their way by the Church, passed through both Phoenicia and Samaria, declaring the conversion of the Gentiles; and they caused great joy to all the brethren. And when they were come to Jerusalem, they were received in great fashion by the Church and the apostles and the elders, and they rehearsed all things that God had done with them. But those who had charged them to go up to the elders, being certain of the sect of the Pharisees who believed, rose up saying, It is needful to circumcise them, and to charge them to keep the law of Moses.

And the apostles and elders were gathered together to consider of this matter. And when there had been much questioning, Peter rose up in the Spirit and said unto them, Men and brethren, ye know how that a good while ago God made choice among us that by my mouth the Gentiles should hear the word of the Gospel and believe. And God, which knoweth the heart, bare them witness, giving upon them the Holy Spirit, even as he did unto us; and he made no distinction between us and them, cleansing their hearts by faith. Now therefore why tempt ye God, that ye shall |75 put a yoke upon the neck of the disciples, which neither our fathers nor we were able to bear? But we believe that we shall be saved through the grace of the Lord Jesus Christ, in like manner as they.

And the elders agreed to what had been spoken by Peter: and all the multitude kept silence; and they hearkened unto Barnabas and Paul rehearsing what signs and wonders God had wrought among the Gentiles by them. And after they had held their peace, James rose up and said, Men and brethren, hearken unto me: Symeon hath rehearsed how first God did visit the Gentiles, to take out of them a people for his name. And to this agree the words of the prophets, as it is written,

After these things I will return,

And I will build again the tabernacle of David which is fallen;

And I will build again the ruins thereof,

And I will set it up;

That the residue of men may seek after the Lord,

And all the Gentiles upon whom my name is called

Saith the Lord who doeth these things.

Known unto the Lord from the beginning is his work.

Wherefore my judgment is that we trouble not them which from among the Gentiles turn to God: but that we enjoin on them to abstain from the pollutions of idols, and from fornication, [and from what is strangled] and from blood: and that whatsoever they would not should be done to them ye do not to others. For Moses from generations of old hath in every city them that preach him, being read in the synagogues every Sabbath.

Then it seemed good to the apostles and elders, with the whole church, to choose men out of their company and send them to Antioch with Paul and Barnabas, Judas called Barabbas, and Silas, chief men among the brethren. |76 And they wrote a letter by their hands containing as follows. The apostles and the elder brethren unto the brethren which are of the Gentiles in Antioch and Syria and Cilicia, greeting: Forasmuch as we have heard that certain which went out from us have troubled you with words, subverting your souls; to whom we gave no commandment; it seemed good unto us, having come to one accord, to choose out men, and send them to you with your beloved Barnabas and Paul, men that have hazarded their lives for the name of our Lord Jesus Christ in every trial. We have sent therefore Judas and Silas, who themselves also shall tell you the same things by word of mouth. For it seemed good to the Holy Spirit and to us, to lay upon you no greater burden than these necessary things; that ye abstain from idol sacrifices, and from blood, [and from things strangled], and from fornication and whatsoever ye would not should be done to yourselves, ye do not to another. From which if ye keep yourselves ye do well, being sustained by the Holy Spirit. Fare ye well.

So they, when they were dismissed, in a few days came down to Antioch; and having gathered the multitude together, they delivered the epistle. And when they had read it they rejoiced for the consolation. And Judas and Silas, being themselves also prophets, full of the Holy Spirit exhorted the brethren by [much] speech, and confirmed them. And after they had spent some time there, they were dismissed in peace from the brethren unto those that had sent them forth. But it seemed good to Silas to abide there, and Judas journeyed alone. But Paul and Barnabas tarried in Antioch, teaching and preaching the word of the Lord, with many others also.

And after some days Paul said to Barnabas, Let us return now and visit the brethren in every city wherein we proclaimed the word of the Lord, and see how they fare. And |77 Barnabas was minded to take with them John [also] who was called Mark. But Paul was not willing: saying that one who withdrew from them from Pamphylia, and went not with them to the work for which they were sent, should not be with them. And there arose a sharp contention, so that they parted asunder one from the other. Then Barnabas took Mark and sailed to Cyprus; but Paul chose Silas, and went forth, being commended by the brethren to the grace of the Lord. And he went through Syria and Cilicia confirming the churches, giving to them the commands of the elders.

Chapter XVI.

And having passed through these nations he came down to Derbe and Lystra, and, behold, a certain disciple was there, named Timothy, the son of a Jewess which believed; but his father was a Greek. The same was well reported of by the brethren that were at Lystra and Iconium. Him would Paul have to go forth with him; and he took and circumcised him because of the Jews that were in those parts: for they all knew that his father was a Greek. And as they went through the cities they preached and delivered unto them, with all boldness, the Lord Jesus Christ, and at the same time also delivered [them] the decrees [which had been ordained] of the apostles and elders that were at Jerusalem. So the churches were strengthened [in the faith], and increased in number daily.

And they went through the region of Phrygia and Galatia, having been forbidden of the Holy Spirit to speak the word of God to any one in Asia. And when they were come over against Mysia, they wished to go into Bithynia, and the Spirit of Jesus suffered them not. And passing through Mysia, they came down to Troas. And in a vision |78 by night there appeared to Paul, as it were a certain man of Macedonia, standing before his face, beseeching him, and saying, Come over into Macedonia, and help us. When therefore he had risen up, he related to us the vision, and we perceived that the Lord had called us to preach the Gospel to those who were in Macedonia.

And on the morrow [therefore] we set sail from Troas, and came with a straight course to Samothrace, and the day following to Neapolis; and from thence to Philippi, which is the capital of Macedonia, a city, a colony. And we were in this city tarrying certain days. And on the Sabbath day we went forth without the gate by the riverside, where it seemed likely that there would be a place of prayer: and we sat down, and spake unto the women which were come together. And a certain woman named Lydia, a seller of purple of the city of Thyatira, one that worshipped God, heard us; whose heart the Lord opened to give heed unto the things which were spoken by Paul. And when she was baptized, and all her household, she besought us, saying, If ye have judged me to be faithful to God, come into my house, and abide there. And she constrained us.

And it came to pass, as we were going to the place of prayer, that a certain maid, having a spirit of divination, met us, which brought her masters much gain through this, by soothsaying. The same following after Paul and us cried out saying, These men are servants of the Most High God, who proclaim unto you the good news of the way of salvation. And this she did for many days. But Paul, in the Spirit, turned, and being sore troubled he said, I charge thee in the name of Jesus Christ, that thou come out of her. And straightway it came out.

But when the masters of the maiden saw that they were deprived of the gain which they had through |79 her, they laid hold on Paul and Silas, and dragged them into the market place before the rulers; and when they had brought them unto the magistrates, they said, These men, being Jews, do exceedingly trouble our city, and set forth customs which it is not lawful for us to receive or to observe, being Romans. And a great multitude rose up together against them, crying out. Then the magistrates rent their garments off them, and commanded to beat them with rods. And when they had laid many stripes upon them, they cast them into prison, charging the jailer to keep them safely. And he, having received such a charge, cast them into the inner prison, and made their feet fast in the stocks. But about midnight Paul and Silas were praying and singing hymns unto God, and the prisoners were listening to them; and suddenly there was a great earthquake, so that the foundations of the prison house were shaken; and immediately all the doors were opened, and every one's bands were loosed. And the jailer being roused out of sleep, and seeing the prison doors open, drew his sword, and was about to kill himself, supposing that the prisoners had escaped. But Paul cried with a loud voice, saying, Do thyself no harm; for we are all here. And he called for lights, and sprang in, and trembling for fear, fell down before the feet of Paul and Silas, and led them out after securing the rest, and said, Sirs, what must I do to be saved? And they said, Believe on the Lord Jesus Christ, and thou shalt be saved, thou and thy house. And they spake to him the word of the Lord, with all that were in his house. And he took them the same hour of the night, and washed their stripes, and was baptized, he and all his, immediately. And he brought them into his house, and set meat before them, and rejoiced [greatly] with [all] his house, having believed in God. |80

But when it was day the magistrates assembled together into the market place, and recollecting the earthquake that had happened they were afraid; and they sent the Serjeants, saying, Let those men go whom yesterday thou didst receive. And the jailer came in, and reported the words to Paul, that, The magistrates have sent to let you go: now therefore come forth, and go on your journey [in peace.] But Paul said unto them, Without fault alleged they have beaten us publicly, uncondemned, men that are Romans, and have cast us into prison: and do they now cast us out privily? Nay, verily; but let them come themselves and bring us out. And the Serjeants reported to the magistrates themselves these words which were spoken for the magistrates; and when they heard that they were Romans they feared; and they came with many friends into the prison, and besought them to go forth, saying, We did not know about you that ye are just men. And when they had brought them forth, they besought them, saying, Go forth out of this city, lest they again assemble against us, crying against you. And they went out of the prison, and went to Lydia; and when they had seen the brethren, they reported all the things which the Lord had done for them, and comforted them and departed.

Chapter XVII.

Now when they had passed through Amphipolis they went down to Apollonis, and thence to Thessalonica, where was a synagogue of the Jews: and Paul, as his custom was, went in unto them, [and] for three sabbath days discoursed with them from the Scriptures, opening and alleging that it behoved [the] Christ to suffer, and to rise again from the dead, and that this is Christ, Jesus whom, said he, I |81 proclaim unto you. And some of them were persuaded, and consorted with Paul and Silas, in the teaching: and many of the devout, and of Greeks a great multitude, and women, of the first rank, not a few. But the Jews who disbelieved assembled certain vile men of the rabble, [gathering a crowd], and set the city on an uproar, and assaulting the house of Jason, they sought to bring them forth to the people. And when they found them not, they dragged Jason and certain brethren before the rulers of the city, crying out and saying, These are they that have turned the world upside down, and have come hither [also]; whom Jason hath received; and these all act contrary to the decrees of Caesar, saying that there is another king, Jesus. And they troubled the rulers of the city and the multitude. When they had heard these things, and when they had taken security from Jason and the rest, they let them go. And the brethren immediately sent away Paul and Silas by night unto Beroea, who when they were come thither went into the synagogue of the Jews. Now these were more noble than those in Thessalonica, in that they received the word with all readiness of mind, examining the Scriptures daily, whether these things were so. Some therefore of them believed, but some did not believe; and of the Greeks and of those of honourable estate, both men and women, many believed. But when the Jews from Thessalonica had knowledge that the word of God was proclaimed [of Paul] at Beroea [also], and that they believed, they came also thither, and there did not cease to stir up and trouble the multitudes. Therefore [immediately] the brethren sent forth Paul to go [as far as] to the sea: but Silas and Timothy abode there still. But they that conducted Paul brought him as far as Athens. But he passed by ¹⁶ Thessaly for he was forbidden to proclaim the |82 word to them, and receiving a commandment from Paul to Silas and Timothy that they should come to him with all speed, they departed.

Now while Paul waited for them at Athens, his spirit was provoked within him, as he beheld the city full of idols. So he discoursed in the synagogue with the Jews and the devout persons, and with those in the market place every day with them that met with him. And certain also of the Epicurean and Stoic philosophers encountered him. And some said, What would this babbler say? other some, He seemeth to be a setter forth of strange gods, [because he preached Jesus and the Resurrection]. And after some days they took hold of him, and brought him unto the Areopagus, inquiring and saying May we know what this new teaching is which is spoken by thee? For thou bringest certain strange things to our ears. We would know therefore what these things mean. Now all the Athenians and the strangers sojourning among them, spent their time in nothing else, but either to tell or to hear some new thing. And Paul stood in the midst of the Areopagus, and said,

Ye men of Athens, in all things I perceive that ye are more than others god-fearing. For as I passed along, and observed the objects of your worship, I found also an altar with the inscription, To an unknown god. What therefore ye worship in ignorance, this set I forth unto you. The God that made the world and all things therein, he, being Lord of heaven and earth, dwelleth not in temples made with hands, neither is he served by men's hands, as though he needed [anything], seeing he himself gave to all life and breath and all things. He made of one blood every nation of man for to dwell on all the face of the earth; having determined their appointed seasons, according to the bound of their habitation; that they should seek most of all that which is divine, if haply they might feel after |83 it, or find it; though it is not far from each one of us; for in him we live and move, and have our being day by day. As certain even of your own [poets] have said, For we are also his offspring. Being then the offspring of God, we ought not to think that the Divine is like unto gold or silver or stone, graven by art and device of man. The times of this ignorance therefore God overlooked; but now he declareth to men that they should all everywhere repent, inasmuch as he hath appointed a day to judge the world in righteousness by the man Jesus whom he hath ordained; giving assurance unto all men, in that he hath raised him from the dead.

Now when they heard of the resurrection of the dead, some mocked; and others said, We will hear thee concerning this yet again. Thus Paul went out from among them. But certain men clave unto him and believed; among whom also was a certain Dionysius an Areopagite, [and a woman named Damaris ¹⁷] of honourable estate, and others with them.

Chapter XVIII.

And [after these things] he departed from Athens and came to Corinth. And having found a certain Jew named Aquila, a man of Pontus by race, lately come from Italy, and his wife Priscilla, because Claudius had commanded all Jews to depart from Rome: these had come to dwell in Greece; Paul came unto him, and, because he was of the same trade, abode with them and wrought; [for by their trade they were tentmakers]. And entering into the synagogue he discoursed every sabbath, and introduced the name of the Lord Jesus, and persuaded not only Jews but also Greeks. |84

But then Silas and Timothy came from Macedonia, Paul was constrained by the word, testifying to the Jews that the Lord Jesus was the Christ. And after there had been much discourse, and the scriptures had been interpreted, when they opposed themselves and blasphemed, Paul shook out his raiment, and said unto them, Your blood be upon your own head; I am clean from you, [from henceforth] now I go to the Gentiles. And he left Aquila, and entered into the house of a certain man named [Titus] Justus, one that worshipped God, whose house joined hard to the synagogue. And Crispus, the ruler of the synagogue, believed on the Lord with all his house; and many of the Corinthians hearing believed, and were baptized believing in God through the name of our Lord Jesus Christ. And the Lord said unto Paul by night in a vision, Be not afraid, but speak, and hold not thy peace: for I am with thee, and no man shall set on thee to harm thee, for I have much people in this city. And he dwelt in Corinth a year and six months, teaching them the word of God.

And when Gallio was proconsul of Achaia. the Jews with one accord rose up, having talked together amongst themselves against Paul; and they laid their hands upon him, and brought him before the judgment seat, crying out, and saying, This man persuadeth men to worship God contrary to the law. But when Paul was about to open his mouth, Gallio said to the Jews, If it were a matter of wrong or of wicked villany, O ye Jews, reason would that I should bear with you: but if ye are having an enquiry about words and names and your own law, look to it yourselves. I am not minded to be a judge of these matters. And he drove them from the judgment seat. And all the Greeks took hold of Sosthenes, the ruler of the synagogue, and beat him before the judgment seat. |85 Then Gallio pretended not to see him ¹⁸. [And Gallio cared for none of these things.]

And Paul, having tarried after this yet many days took his leave of the brethren, and sailed for Syria, and with him Priscilla and Aquila, having shorn his head in Cenchreae: for he had a vow. And he came to Ephesus, and on the next sabbath he left them there: but he himself entered into the synagogue, and discoursed with the Jews. And when they asked him to abide a longer time, he consented not; but taking his leave of them, and saying, I must by all means keep the coming feast day at Jerusalem, and return unto you if God will, he set sail from Ephesus. And when he had landed at Caesarea, he went up and saluted the Church, and went down to Antioch. And having spent some time there he departed, and went through the region of Galatia and Phrygia in order, stablishing all the disciples. Now a certain Jew named Apollonius, an Alexandrian by race, a learned man, came to Ephesus; and he was mighty in the scriptures. He had been instructed in his own country in the word of the Lord; and being fervent in spirit, he spake and taught carefully the things concerning Jesus, knowing only the baptism of John. He began to speak boldly in the synagogue. But when Aquila and Priscilla heard him, they took him unto them, and expounded the Way [of God] unto him more carefully.

Now certain Corinthians were sojourning in Ephesus, and having heard him, they exhorted him to cross with them into their own country; and when he consented the Ephesians wrote to the disciples in Corinth that they should receive the man. And when he sojourned in Achaia he helped them much in the churches, for he powerfully confuted the Jews, reasoning publicly, and shewing by the scriptures that Jesus was Christ. |86

Chapter XIX.

And when Paul, according to his private wish, desired to go to Jerusalem, the Spirit told him to return into Asia. And [while Apollos was at Corinth] he passed through the upper districts and comes to Ephesus, and found certain disciples; and he said unto them, Did ye receive the Holy Spirit when ye believed? And they said unto him, Nay, we have not even heard (that) any receive the ¹⁹ Holy Spirit. And he said, Into what then were ye baptized? And they said, Into John's baptism. And Paul said, John baptized with the baptism of repentance, saying unto the people that they should believe on him which should come after him, that is, on Christ. And when they heard this they were baptized into the name of the Lord Jesus Christ, unto the remission of sins. And when Paul had laid his hand on them straightway the Holy Spirit fell upon them: and they spake with tongues, and prophesied. And they were in all about twelve men.

And Paul entered into the synagogue, and with great power spake boldly for the space of three months, discoursing and persuading [as to the things] concerning the kingdom of God. Some therefore of them were hardened and unbelieving, and spake evil of the Way before the multitude of the Gentiles. Then Paul departed from them, and separated the disciples, discoursing daily in the school of one Tyrannus from the fifth till the tenth hour. And this continued for [the space of] two years; so that all they that dwelt in Asia heard the words of the Lord, [both] Jews and Greeks. And God wrought special miracles by the hands of Paul; insomuch even that unto the sick were carried away from his body handkerchiefs or aprons, and the diseases departed from them, and the evil spirits went |87 out. But certain [also] of the strolling Jews, exorcists, took upon them to name over them which had the evil spirits the name of the Lord Jesus, saying, I adjure you by Jesus whom Paul preacheth. Among whom also [were] the [seven] sons of one Sceva, [a Jew] a [chief] priest, [who] wished to do the same thing, being accustomed to exorcise such people. And they came in unto one who was possessed with a devil, and began to call upon the Name saying, We command you, in Jesus whom Paul preacheth, to come out. Then the evil spirit answered and said unto them, Jesus I recognise, and Paul I know: but who are ye? And the man in whom the evil spirit was leaped on them, and mastered both of them, and prevailed against them, so that they fled out of that house naked and wounded. And this became known to all, [both] Jews and Greeks, that dwelt at Ephesus; and fear fell upon them all, and the name of the Lord Jesus was magnified. Many also of them that were believing, came confessing and declaring their deeds. And not a few of them that practised curious arts brought also their books together, and burned them in the sight of all: and they counted the prices of them, and found it fifty thousand pieces of silver ²⁰. So mightily did it prevail; and the faith of God increased and multiplied.

[Now after these things were ended] then Paul purposed in the Spirit to pass through Macedonia and Achaia, and go to Jerusalem, saying, After I have been there I must also see Rome. And having sent into Macedonia two of them that ministered unto him, Timothy and Erastus, he himself stayed for a little while in Asia.

And about that time there arose no small stir about the Way. For there was a certain man [named] Demetrius, a silversmith, which made silver shrines of Diana, who |88 brought no little business unto the craftsmen. He gathered together the craftsmen of such things, and said unto them, Fellow craftsmen, ye know that out of this business we have our wealth. And ye hear and see that not alone at Ephesus, but almost throughout all Asia, this Paul, a somebody, hath persuaded and turned away much people, saying that they be no gods which are made with hands: and not only is there danger that this our trade come into disrepute; but also that the temple of the great goddess Diana be made of no account, but is about to be deposed [from her magnificence, whom] all Asia and the world worshippeth. And when they heard this, they were filled with wrath, and they ran into the street, and cried out saying, Great is Diana of the Ephesians. And the whole city was filled with confusion, and they rushed with one accord into the theatre, having seized Gaius and Aristarchus, men of Macedonia, Paul's companions in travel. And when Paul was minded to enter in unto the people, the disciples suffered him not. And certain also of the chief officers of Asia, being his friends, sent unto him, and besought him not to adventure himself into the theatre. Some therefore cried one thing and some another; for the assembly was in confusion; and the more part knew not wherefore they were come together. And they brought Alexander out of the crowd, the Jews putting him forward. And Alexander beckoned with the hand, and would have made a defence unto the people. But when they perceived that he was a Jew, all with one voice about the space of two hours cried out, Great is Diana of the Ephesians. But the townclerk beckoned to the crowd and saith, Ye men of Ephesus, what man is there who knoweth not how that our city is temple-keeper of the great Diana, and of the image which fell down from Jupiter? Seeing then that these things cannot be gainsaid, ye ought to be quiet, and to do nothing |89 rash. For ye have brought hither these men, which are neither robbers of temples nor blasphemers of our goddess.

If therefore this Demetrius, and the craftsmen that are with him, have any matter against them, the courts are open, and there are proconsuls; let them accuse one another.

But if ye seek anything about other matters, it shall be settled according to the law of the assembly. For indeed we are in danger this day to be accused of riot, there being no cause for which we shall be able to give an account of this concourse. And when he had thus spoken he dismissed the assembly.

Chapter XX.

And after the uproar was ceased, Paul having sent for the disciples, and given them much exhortation, took leave of them and departed [for to go] into Macedonia. And when he had gone through those parts, and had given them much exhortation, he came into Greece. And when he had spent three months there, and a plot was laid against him by the Jews he wished to sail for Syria. But the Spirit said to him to return through Macedonia, therefore when he was about to go out as far as Asia, Sopater of Beroea, the son of Pyrrhus; and of the Thessalonians Aristarchus and Secundus, and Gaius of Derbe, and Timothy: and of Ephesians Eutychus and Trophimus. These had gone before and were waiting for him at Troas. But we sailed away from Philippi after the days of unleavened bread, and came unto them to Troas in five days; where we tarried seven days. And upon the first day of the week, when we were gathered together to break bread, Paul discoursed with them intending to depart on the morrow, and prolonged his speech until midnight. And there were many lights in the upper chamber, where we were gathered together. And there sat in the window a certain young |90 man named Eutychus, borne down with deep sleep; and as Paul discoursed yet longer, being borne down by his sleep, he fell down from the third storey and was taken up dead. And Paul went down, and fell on him, and embracing him said, Make ye no ado, for his life is in him. And when he was gone up, and had broken the bread, and had eaten, and had talked with them a long while, even till break of day, so he departed. And as they were bidding him farewell they brought the young man alive, and were not a little comforted.

But we went ²¹ down to the ship, and set sail for Assos, there intending to take in Paul. For so had he appointed, as intending himself to go on foot. And, when he met us at Assos, we took him in, and came to Mitylene. And sailing from thence we came the following day over against Chios; and the next day we touched at Samos, and tarried at Trogyllium: and the day after we came to Miletus. For Paul had determined to sail past Ephesus: lest some detention for him might occur in Asia, for he was hastening [if it were possible for him] to be in Jerusalem on the day of Pentecost.

And from Miletus he sent to Ephesus, and sent for the elders of the Church. And when they were come to him, and were together, he said unto them, Ye yourselves know, brethren, from the first day that I set foot in Asia, for three years and even more, after what manner I was with you all the time, serving the Lord, with all lowliness of mind, and with tears, and with trials which befell me by the plots of the Jews: how that I shrank not from declaring unto you all that was profitable, and from teaching from house to house and publicly, testifying both to Jews and to Greeks repentance toward God, and faith through our Lord Jesus Christ. And now, behold, I go bound in the spirit unto Jerusalem, not knowing the things which shall befall me there, save that the Holy Spirit testifieth |91 unto me in every city saying that bonds and afflictions abide me in Jerusalem. But I take account of none of these things, nor hold my life as dear unto myself, that I may accomplish my course and the ministry of the word which I received from the Lord Jesus to testify to Jews and Greeks the gospel of the grace of God. And now, behold, I know, that ye all among whom I went about preaching the kingdom of Jesus shall see my face no more. Therefore [I testify unto you that] until this day I am pure from the blood of all men. For I shrank not from declaring unto you the whole counsel of God. Take heed unto yourselves and to all the flock, in the which the Holy Spirit hath made you bishops, to feed the Church of the Lord which he purchased for himself with his own blood. I know that after my departing grievous wolves shall enter in among you, not sparing the flock; and from among your own selves shall men arise, speaking perverse things, to draw away the disciples after them. Wherefore watch ye, remembering that by the space of three years I ceased not to admonish every one night and day with tears. And now I commend you to God, and to the word of his grace, which is able to build you up, and to give you inheritance among [all] them that are sanctified. I coveted of you all no man's silver, or gold, or apparel. Ye yourselves know that my hands ministered unto my necessities, and to [all] them that were with me. In all things I gave you an example, that so labouring ye ought to help the weak, [and] to remember the words of the Lord Jesus how that he himself said, It is more blessed to give than to receive.

And when he had thus spoken, he kneeled down, and prayed with them all. And they all wept sore, and fell on Paul's neck, and kissed him; sorrowing most of all for the word which he spake, Ye shall see my face no more. And they brought him on his way unto the ship. |92

Chapter XXI.

And when [it came to pass that] we had set sail and were parted from them, we came with a straight course unto Cos, and the next day unto Rhodes, and from thence unto Patara and Myra; and having found a ship crossing unto Phoenice.

One leaf is missing here, containing xx. 31 to xxi. 2 in Latin, and xxi. 2-10 in Greek.

...prophet named Agabus. And coming up to us, and taking Paul's girdle, he bound his own feet and hands, and said, Thus saith the Holy Spirit, so shall the Jews at Jerusalem bind the man that owneth this girdle, and shall deliver him into the hands of the Gentiles. And when we heard these things, both we and they of that place besought Paul not himself to go up to Jerusalem. But Paul said to us, What do ye, weeping and disturbing my heart; for I desire not to be bound only but am ready also to die at Jerusalem for the name of the Lord Jesus Christ. And when he would not be persuaded, we ceased, saying to one another, The will of God be done.

And after certain days ²² we bade them farewell, and we go up to Jerusalem from Caesarea; and with us those who led us to him with whom we should lodge. And when they came to a certain village, we stayed with Nason ²³, a certain Cyprian, an old disciple; and going forth thence we came to Jerusalem. And the brethren received us gladly.

And the day following Paul went in with us unto James, ²⁴ and the elders were assembled with him. And when he |93 had saluted them he rehearsed one by one the things which God had wrought among the Gentiles by his ministry. And when they heard it they glorified the Lord, saying, Thou seest, brother, how many myriads there are in Judaea of them which have believed, and they are all zealous for the law; and they have been informed concerning thee, that thou teachest [all] the Jews which are among the Gentiles to forsake Moses, telling them not to circumcise their children, neither to walk after their customs. What is it therefore? The multitude must needs come together, for they will hear that thou art come. Do therefore this that we say to thee. We have four men which have a vow on them; these take, and purify thyself with them, and be at charges for them, that they may shave their heads; and all may know that there is no truth in the things whereof they have been informed concerning thee; but that thou thyself also walkest orderly, keeping the law. But as touching the Gentiles which have believed, they have nothing to say against thee, for we sent giving judgment, that they should observe nothing of that sort, except to guard themselves from idol sacrifices, and from blood, [and from what is strangled], and from fornication. Then Paul took the men, and the next day purifying himself with them he went into the temple, declaring the fulfilment of the days of purification until the offering was made for every one of them.

And when the seven days were [almost] completed, the Jews who had come from Asia, when they saw him in the temple, stirred up all the multitudes, and laid hands upon him, crying out, Men of Israel, help: This is the man that teacheth all men everywhere against the people, and the law, and this place; and moreover he brought Greeks into the temple, and hath denied this holy place. For they had before seen with him in the city Trophimus the |94 Ephesian, whom they supposed that Paul had brought into the temple. And all the city was moved, and the people ran together: and they laid hold on Paul, and dragged him out of the temple: and straightway, the doors were shut. And as they were seeking to kill him, tidings came up to the chief captain of the band, that all Jerusalem was in confusion. And forthwith he took soldiers and centurions and ran down upon them: and they, when they saw the chief captain and the soldiers, left beating of Paul. Then the chief captain came near, and laid hold on him, and commanded him to be bound with two chains, and enquired who he was and what he had done. And some shouted one thing, and some another, among the crowd; and when he could not know the certainty for the uproar, he commanded him to be brought into the castle. And when he came upon the stairs, so it was, that he was borne of the soldiers for the violence of the people: for the multitude [of the people] followed after, crying out, Away with him.

And as he was about to be brought into the castle, he answered and said to the chief captain, May I speak unto thee? And he said, Dost thou know Greek? Art thou not [then] the Egyptian, which before these days stirred up to sedition, and led out into the wilderness, the four thousand men of the Assassins? But Paul said, I am a Jew, born in Tarsus of Cilicia, [a citizen of no mean city], and I beseech thce give me leave to speak unto the people. And when the chief Captain had given him leave, Paul, standing on the stairs, beckoned with the hand unto the people: and when there was made a great silence, he spake unto them in the Hebrew language, saying:

Chapter XXII.

Men, Brethren and fathers, hear ye my defence which I make now unto you. And when they heard that he spake |95 [unto them] in the Hebrew language, they were the more quiet; and he saith, I am a Jew, born in Tarsus of Cilicia, but brought up in this city at the feet of Gamaliel, instructed according to the strict manner of the law of our fathers, zealous for God, even as ye all are this day. And I persecuted this Way unto death, binding and delivering into prison both men and women. As also the high priest will bear witness to me, and all the estate of the elders, from whom I received letters from the brethren. I was journeying to Damascus, to bring them also that were there unto Jerusalem in bonds, that they might be punished. And [it came to pass that as I made my journey], as I drew nigh unto Damascus, about noon, suddenly there shone from heaven a great light round about me, and I fell unto the ground, and heard a voice saying unto me, Saul, Saul, why persecutest thou me? And I answered, Who art thou, Lord? And he said unto me, I am Jesus of Nazareth whom thou persecutest. And they that were with me saw indeed the light, and were frightened; but they heard not the voice of him that spake with me. And I said, What shall I do, Lord. And he said unto me, Arise, and go into Damascus, and there it shall be told thee of all things ²⁵ which thou oughtest to do. But when I rose up I did not see for the glory of that light, and being led by the hand of them that were with me I came into Damascus. And one Ananias, a devout man according to the law, and by the witness of all the Jews, came unto me and [standing by me] said unto me, Saul, Brother Saul, receive thy sight; and in that very hour I received sight. And he said unto me, The God of our fathers hath appointed thee to know his will, and to see the Righteous one, and to hear a voice from his mouth; for thou shalt be a witness for him unto all men of what thou hast seen and heard. |96 And now, why tarriest them? Arise, be baptized, and wash away thy sins, calling on his name. And it came to pass that when I had returned to Jerusalem and while I prayed in the temple, I fell into a trance, and saw him saying unto me, Make haste and get thee quickly out of Jerusalem because they will not receive my testimony [from thee.] And I said, Lord, they themselves know that I imprisoned and beat in every synagogue them that believed on thee: and when the blood of Stephen the witness was shed, I [also] was standing by, and consenting ²⁶, and keeping the garments of them that slew him. And he said unto me, Depart, for I send thee forth far hence unto the Gentiles.

And they gave him audience unto this word: and they lifted up their voice and said, Away with such a fellow from the earth, for it is not fit that he should live. And as they cried out, and threw off their garments, and cast dust into the air, the chief captain commanded him to be brought into the castle, bidding that he should be examined by scourging, that he might know for what cause they so shouted against him. And when they had tied him up with the thongs, he said unto the centurion that stood by, Is it lawful for you to scourge a man that is a Roman and uncondemned. And when the centurion heard this, that he called himself a Roman he went to the chief captain and told him, See what thou art about to do. This man is a Roman. Then the chief captain came and asked him, Tell me, art thou a Roman? and he said, I am. And the chief captain answered, I know with how great a sum I obtained this citizenship. And Paul said, But I am [a Roman] born. Then they departed from him...

All the rest of the Codex Bezae is wanting.

Cambridge: printed by W. Lewis at the University Press.

[Footnotes moved to the end and numbered]

1. * A line of MS. in D accidentally omitted in both versions.

2. * d, in the fellowship of the breaking of the bread.

3. * D and d, accidentally omit the second not.

4. * "The rest" is perplexing. Hilgenfeld conjectures "of the Levites," the words in Greek having some resemblance.

5. + The word in the a text, translated in A.V. and R.V. healed, is θεραπεύειν, which means "treated" or "relieved": in the b text it is ἰᾶσθαι, which means "cured." See Introduction, Section 23.

6. * The Greek words "for his glory" closely resemble those for "with his right hand."

7. * It is possible that these words have been misplaced, and refer to the high priest in the verse that follows. Rendel Harris, pp. 71-75.

8. * The Greek text is defective here.

9. * Treated medically or relieved.

10. * The Greek is wanting; the Latin reads praevaricatis linguis.

11. * A whole line omitted in error in both Greek and Latin texts.

12. * Probably a line here accidentally omitted.

13. * D and d are both apparently corrupt in one line.

14. + The Latin text reads: "nourished them as a nurse."

15. * The Latin Version states that they did stone them at the second persecution.

16. * Probably going by sea. But the Latin text has "passed through."

17. * Possibly a line is omitted in D----and a woman named Damaris----and that the word "of honourable estate" applied to her.

18. * The translation is from the Latin. The line in Greek is almost entirely erased.

19. * The Bezan text is somewhat confused here.

20. * d translates "Two hundred thousand sesterces."

21. * a reads "we, going before to the ship, set sail."

22. * In this text it is plain that from Caesarea to Jerusalem is a two days' journey: and they travelled with him to introduce him to Mnason who was to entertain him for the first night.

23. + Verses 15-18 are wanting in the Greek text.

24. ++ The Greek text begins again here.

25. * From this verse to v. 20 the Greek text is wanting. The Latin remains.

26. * Here the Greek is preserved, and the Latin is wanting.

This text was transcribed by Roger Pearse, 2006. All material on this page is in the public domain - copy freely.

Greek text is rendered using unicode.

Early Church Fathers - Additional Texts

SOURCE SECTION: polycarp_fragments_00_intro.htm

Polycarp, Fragments from Victor of Capua (2006). Preface to the online text.

Polycarp, Fragments from Victor of Capua (2006). Preface to the online text.

Irenaeus in Adv. Haer. 3:3,4 mentions several other letters of Polycarp which have not come down to us. In his note against this passage an early editor, François Feuardent (Feuardentius; 1539-1610) in his 1596 edition ¹ published certain extracts which he had discovered in a medieval catena as fragments of these lost letters.

His description is as follows:

Harum [epistolarum] porro quinque non asperanda fragmenta a me superioris quadragesimae tempore Virduni in quadam vetustissimis characteribus manu descripta super quattuor evangelistas Catena inventa, ut a Victore episcopo Capuano ante mille et centum annos ibidem laudantur, hoc loco inserere operae pretium visum est. Haec itaque ibidem leguntur: Victor episcopus Capuae ex responsione capitulorum sancti Polycarpi Smyrnensis episcopi, discipuli Joannis evangelistae.

Further, since I found five not to be despised fragments of these [letters] above, during 40 days at Verdun, written in a hand in the oldest form of letters in a Catena on the four gospels ², which were praised in that very place by Victor, bishop of Capua, 1100 years before, it seemed right to insert the works in this place. And so these very words were read: Victor, bishop of Capua, from the response to the 'chapters' ³ of St. Polycarp, bishop of Smyrna, disciple of the evangelist John.

After this heading follow the fragments in Latin which follow, but with the introductory sentence:

Divi Polycarpi Smyrnensis episcopi et martyris b. Joannis evangelistae quondam discipuli responsionum fragmenta. Matthaeus Dominum dixisse testatur... (and so on).

Fragments of the responsiones of St. Polycarp, bishop of Smyrna and martyr and sometime disciple of the blessed John the evangelist. Matthew says that the Lord... (and so on).

At the end of the fragments, Feuardent adds the following:

Haec Victor Capuanus vir Graece et Latine doctus circa annum Dom. 480 ex Graeco Responsionum capitulorum b. Polycarpi, quem nactus erat, codice a se Latina facta recensuit; et in supra nominata Catena manuscripta, quam penes me habeo et, quum per typographicos licebit, studiosis communicabo, citantur.

This Victor the Capuan, a learned man in Greek and Latin, reviewed from the Greek [a volume] of the responses of the chapters of St. Polycarp, and translated the codex into Latin; and in the above mentioned manuscript Catena, which I have as my own property, and which as soon as the printers permit, I will communicate to the learned, they are quoted.

Lightfoot adds that no such publication of the Catena ever took place, and the manuscript of it is now lost.⁴ The fragments have been reprinted since in various later writers, some of whom presume wrongly that the catena was compiled by Victor of Capua.

Cardinal Pitra located a manuscript of the Expositio in Heptateuchum of John the Deacon. ⁵ John wrote a biography of Gregory the Great and lived in the 9th century, but he refers to a Responsiones written by Victor of Capua. Pitra found two fragments, which he proposed to add to Feuardent's fragments. The first is a comment on Gen. 2:7, introduced by

Victor episcopus Capuae in libro suo Responsorum capitulo [ms reads capitula] vigesimo primo...

Victor, bishop of Capua, in his book of Responsiones, chapter 21...

This must relate to the heading given by Feuardentius, where 'Victor episcopus Capuae ex responsione capitulorum' is a corruption (or misreading of an abbreviation) for Victor episcopus Capuae ex responsione capitulo [...], and likewise indicates a (missing) chapter number in Victor's book. The extracts, then, were written in the Catena by someone who had read Victor's book, and seen that it contained material ascribed to Polycarp. The compiler of the catena is unknown; Pitra suggests that it too may have been written by John the Deacon, as the only person known to have seen Victor's book.

Victor's epitaph is extant and shows that he died in A.D. 554, having held the see for 13 years.

The authenticity of the extracts, found in a catena where names tend to drift from one entry to another, is doubtful. The manuscript is lost and we are anyway dependent on a quotation of a quotation for the name of Polycarp, which may be mistaken. The portion beginning 'Legitur et in dolio...' in fragment 2 seems unlike a comment by Polycarp, who must have known John's life for himself, and is presumably an addition by the catena writer or Victor. The contents of fragment 3 have also suggested a later date to some.

John Chapman, John the Presbyter and the Fourth Gospel (Oxford: Clarendon, 1911), 101 n.2, made the following conjecture:

I will boldly say that I am inclined to believe that all the five Pseudo-Polycarp fragments enshrine bits of Papias. The heading to them as given by Feuardent was: Victor Episcopus Capuae ex responsione capitulorum sancti Polycarpi Smyrnensis episcopi, discipuli Ioannis evangelistae [Victor Bishop of Capua from the replies to the chapters of saint Polycarp bishop of Smyrna, disciple of John the evangelist]. Either Victor himself (though he was a careful man) or a scribe wrote Polycarp for Papias.

UPDATE (2015): Stephen C. Carlson writes: "The Pseudo-Polycarp fragments that I had translated from Lightfoot and donated to your web site had been attributed--successfully in my opinion--by Harnack back in 1921 to a certain Latinius Drepanius Pacatus who wrote the a Latin response to Porphyry in the early th century. Harnack's argument can be found conveniently

here.

1. I am unsure whether the note appeared in any preceding edition of the text by Feuardent; such editions begin in 1575.

2. Lit. 'four evangelists'.

3. Or 'headings' or '(biblical) questions'.

4. J. B. Lightfoot, The Apostolic Fathers. S. Ignatius, S. Polycarp. vol. 3, pt. 2. London and New York (1889). p.420 f. All this information comes from Lightfoot's detailed preface. The translations are by Roger Pearse.

5. Spicilegium Solesm. vol. 1, p. 266 ff, Paris (1852). The manuscript is Paris ms. 838 (Sangermanensis 60).

Written by Roger Pearse, 2006. All material on this page is in the public domain - copy freely.

Greek text is rendered using unicode.

Early Church Fathers - Additional Texts

SOURCE SECTION: polycarp_fragments_01_text.htm

Polycarp, Fragments from Victor of Capua (2006). Text and translation.

Polycarp, Fragments from Victor of Capua (2006). Text and translation.

[Translated by Stephen C. Carlson]

Victor, Bishop of Capua, from the response to the chapters of St. Polycarp, bishop of Smyrna, disciple of John the evangelist. ¹

§ 1. Matthaeus Dominum dixisse testatur, quod Moyses scribit Adam locutum fuisse hos modo Hoc nunc os ex ossibus meis et caro ex carne mea propter hoc relinquet homo patrem et matrem etc. [Matt 19:5] Sed non concordant Domini verba cum Moysis sermonibus. Quia enim Adam praebens officium inspiratione divina prophetavit, ipse a Moyse hoc dixisse refertur; Deus vero, qui per inspirationem divinam in corde Adam ista verba formavit, ipse pater a Domino recte locutus fuisse refertur. Nam et Adam hanc prophetiam protulit et pater, qui eam inspiravit, recte dicitur protulisse. § 1. Matthew testifies that the Lord said that Moses writes that Adam spoke in this way: Now this is a bone from my bones, flesh from my flesh, because of this a man will leave [his] father and mother etc. [Matt 19:5] But the words of the Lord do not agree with the discourses of Moses. For, because Adam, showing deference, prophesied by divine inspiration, he was related by Moses to have said this; yet God, who formed these words in the heart of Adam by divine inspiration, the father himself was related correctly by the Lord to have spoken. For both Adam produced this prophecy and the father, who inspired it, is rightly said to have produced.²

§ 2. Idem ad haec verba Christi: Calicem meum bibetis etc. [Matt 20:23] Per hujusmodi potum significat passionem, et Jacobum quidem novissimum martyrio consummandum, fratrem vero ejus Joannem transiturum absque martyrio, quamvis et afflictiones plurimas et exsilia toleravit, sed praeparatam martyrio mentem Christus martyrem judicavit. Nam apostolus Paulus Quotidie, inquit, morior; cum impossibile sit quotidie mori hominem ea morte qua semel vita haec finitur. Sed quoniam pro evangelio ad mortem jugiter erat praeparatus, se mori quotidie sub ea significatione testatus est. Legitur et in dolio ferventis olei pro nomine Christi beatus Joannes fuisse demersus.

§ 2. The same to these words of Christ: you drink my cup etc. [Matt 20:23] By this kind of drink he means the passion that James indeed was to most recently perfect by martyrdom, yet his brother John to depart without martyrdom, although he also withstood many afflictions and exiles, but Christ judged the mind prepared for martyrdom to be a martyr. For the apostle Paul said I die daily; while it is impossible for a person to die daily, in his death by which this life is ended once. But since for the gospel he is continually prepared for death, he testified about himself to die daily under this meaning. It is also read that the blessed John had been plunged in a vat of boiling oil in the name of Christ.³

§ 3. Idem de initio evangelii secundum Marcum. Rationabiliter evangelistae principiis diversis utuntur, quamvis una eademque evangelizandi probetur intentio. Matthaeus, ut Hebraeis scribens, genealogiae Christi ordinem textuit, ut ostenderet ab ea Christum descendisse progenie, de qua eum nasciturum universi prophetae cecinerant; Joannes autem ad Ephesum constitutus, qui legem tamquam ex gentibus ignorabant, a causa nostrae redemptionis evangelii sumpsit exordium; quae causa ex eo apparet, quod filium suum Deus pro nostra salute voluit incarnari. Lucas vero a Zachariae sacerdotio incipit, ut ejus filii miraculo nativitatis et tanti praedicatoris officio divinitatem Christi gentibus declararet. Unde et Marcus antiqua prophetici mysterii competentia adventi Christi declarat, ut non nova sed antiquitus prolata ejus praedicatio probaretur vel per hoc. Evangelistis curae fuit eo uti prooemio, quod unusquisque judicabat auditoribus expedire. Nihil ergo contrarium reperitur, ubi licet diversis scriptis ad eandem tamen patriam pervenitur. § 3. The same on the beginning of the gospel according to Mark. Reasonably, the evangelists used different beginnings although the one and the same purpose of evangelization is represented. Matthew, as writing to Hebrews, composed the order of the genealogy of Christ, so that he would show that Christ had descended from this progeny, from which all the prophets had foretold him to be born. But John, based in Ephesus, made the beginning of the gospel from the reason of our redemption, of us who from the gentiles as it were did not know the law, which reason is evident from him that God wished his son to be incarnated for our salvation. Luke, however, began from Zacharias the priest so that he would declare the divinity of Christ to the gentiles by the miracle of the birth of his son and by the office of so many preachers. From which Mark too declares the ancient qualifications of the prophetic mystery of the coming of Christ so that his preaching had been proven not to be new but uttered from ancient times or account of that. The evangelists were concerned with using introductions, which each decided to set forth that for the listeners. Thus nothing is found to the contrary where even for different writings the same basis is arrived at.

§ 4. Idem in illud: Noli vocare amicos tuos sed pauperes et debiles etc. (Luke 14:12-13) Praecipit non amicos, sed infirmos quosque vocandos ad prandium. Quodsi claudus aut quilibet eorum sit amicus, sine dubio talis pro amicitia minime est rogandus, unde ipsa quasi videntur se impugnare mandata. Nam si non amici, sed claudi et caeci sunt invitandi, ipsosque quoque amicos esse contingat, nequaquam rogare debemus. Sed amicos arbitror intelligi hoc loco debere illos, quos mundi hujus terrena consideratione diligimus, non pro divinae contemplationis intuitu. Hi sunt igitur amici relinquendi.

Denique ideo debilium exempla proposuit, quos pro nullius possumus appetere necessitate, nisi tantum pro fructu retributionis aeternae.

§ 4. The same in this: I do not want to call your friends but the poor and the weak etc. (Luke 14:12-13) He teaches that not friends but whoever are sick are to be called to a meal. But if the lame or anyone of them would be a friend, without a doubt such is at least to be called for friendship, where these com-mands almost seem to oppose each other. For if not the friends but the lame and blind are to be invited, it would affect those that are friends too, then we should by no means call. But, I decide to understand first to owe them in this place whom of this would esteem the earthly considerations, not in view of divine contemplation. These are, therefore, friends to be left.

Accordingly, he proposed examples of weakness, which we can necessarily desire for none, unless so much for the fruit of the eternal reward.

§ 5. Idem in illud: Opus consummavi quod dedisti mihi, ut faciam(John 17:4). Quomodo opus salutis humanae adimplesse commemorat, cum necdum crucis vexillium conscenderat? Sed definitione voluntati, de qua cuncta venerandae passionis insignia adire decreverat, jure se opus perfecisse significat. § 5. The same in this: I have completed the work you have given me to do (John 17:4). How does he commemorate the fulfillment of the work of human salvation when he had not yet climbed the standard of the cross? But by the determination of his will, by which he decided to undergo all the marks of the venerable passion, he properly means that he completed the work himself.

1. Perhaps the most accessible discussion of the Pseudo-Polycarp fragments along with Latin text (but with no translation) can be found at J. B. Lightfoot, The Apostolic Fathers: S. Ignatius, S. Polycarp (1889; repr. Hendricksons, 1989), vol.3 pt.2, pp.419-422. These fragments were translated from Lightfoot. They have been attributed--successfully in my opinion--by Harnack back in 1921 to a certain Latinius Drepanius Pacatus who wrote the a Latin response to Porphyry in the early th century. Harnack's argument can be found conveniently at:

https://archive.org/stream/HarnackPorphyrius-GegenDieChristen/HarnackPorphyriusGegenDieChristen1916#page/n115/mode/2up

2. The odd part about this fragment is that Matt 19:5 does not include the citation of the "bone from my bones and flesh of my flesh" bit from Gen 2:23.

3. The detail of John being plunged in boiling oil is usually conjectured to have been in the lost beginning of the late-second-century apocryphal Acts of John and has generally been responsible for the skepticism for the attribution to Polycarp.

This text was written by Stephen C. Carlson in 2004 and edited by Roger Pearse, 2006. Update to footnote 1 in 2015. All material on this page is in the public domain - copy freely.

Early Church Fathers - Additional Texts

SOURCE SECTION: aristides_00_eintro.htm

Aristides the Philosopher: Apology. Preface to the online text.

Aristides the Philosopher: Apology. Preface to the online text.

In the printed edition of the Ante-Nicene Fathers, volume 10 contains a translation in parallel columns of both the Greek and the Syriac texts of the Apology of Aristides. However the translation itself is absent from the Christian Classics Ethereal Library, perhaps because it was found hard to layout. I have scanned this, but I gather it will not appear soon online. Rather than have this most interesting text offline, I have departed from the general approach of this collection, and included it here.

Roger PEARSE

21st November 2003

This text was transcribed by Roger Pearse, 2003. All material on this page is in the public domain - copy freely.

Greek text is rendered using the Scholars Press SPIonic font, free from here.

Early Church Fathers - Additional Texts

SOURCE SECTION: aristides_00_title.htm

The Apology of Aristides the Philosopher: Title Page

The Apology of Aristides the Philosopher: Title Page

THE APOLOGY

OF

ARISTIDES THE PHILOSOPHER

TRANSLATED FROM THE GREEK AND FROM THE SYRIAC VERSION

IN

PARALLEL COLUMNS

BY

D. M. KAY, B.Sc., B.D.,

ASSISTANT TO THE PROFESSOR OF SEMITIC LANGUAGES IN THE UNIVERSITY OF EDINBURGH

This text was transcribed by Roger Pearse, 2003. All material on this page is in the public domain - copy freely.

Greek text is rendered using the Scholars Press SPIonic font, free from here.

Early Church Fathers - Additional Texts

SOURCE SECTION: aristides_01_intro.htm

Ante-Nicene Fathers, Vol. X: The Apology of Aristides: Introduction

Introduction.

Introduction.

The Church Histories, hitherto in dealing with early Christian literature, have given Aristides along with Quadratus the first place in the list of lost apologists. It was known that there had been such early defenders of the faith, and that Quadratus had seen persons who had been miraculously healed by Christ; but beyond this little more could be said. To Justin Martyr, who flourished about A.D. 150, belonged the honour of heading the series of apologists whose works are extant, viz., Tatian, Melito, Athenagoras, Theophilus, the author of the Epistle to Diognetus, who all belonged to the second century and wrote in Greek; and Tertullian, Minucius Felix, Arnobius, and Lactantius, who wrote in Latin, and Clement and Origen who wrote in Greek, during the third century. While Christianity was winning its way to recognition in the Roman empire, these writers tried to disprove the gross calumnies current about Christians, to enlighten rulers and magistrates as to the real character and conduct of the adherents of the new religion, and to remove the prejudice which led to the violent persecutions of the populace. They also endeavoured to commend Christianity to "the cultured among its despisers," by showing that it is philosophy as well as revelation, that it can supply the answers sought by philosophy, and is unlike human wisdom in being certain because divinely revealed. At the same time they demonstrated the folly of polytheism and pointed out its disastrous effects on morality. This faithful company of the defenders of the faith has now regained Aristides as their leader in place of Justin Martyr. It will be well to recount briefly what was previously known about Aristides, and to tell how the lost Apology has been found.

Eusebius, in his History of the Church, written during the reign of Constantine, A.D. 306-387, has a chapter (bk. iv., c. 3) headed "The authors that wrote in defence of the faith in the reign of Hadrian, A.D. 117-188." After describing and quoting the Apology of Quadratus, he adds:

"Aristides also, a man faithfully devoted to the religion we profess, like Quadratus, has left to posterity a defence of the faith, addressed to Hadrian. This work is also preserved by a great number, even to the present day."

The same Eusebius in his Chronicon states that the Emperor Hadrian visited Athens in the eighth year of his reign (i.e., A.D. 125 ) and took part in the Eleusinian mysteries. In the same connection the historian mentions the presentation of Apologies to the Emperor by Quadratus and Aristides, "an Athenian philosopher; "and implies that Hadrian was induced by these appeals, coupled with a letter from Serenius Granianus, proconsul of Asia, to issue an Imperial rescript forbidding the punishment of Christians without careful investigation and trial.

About a century later Jerome (died A.D. 420) tells us that Aristides was a philosopher of Athena, that he retained his philosopher's garb after his conversion to Christianity, and that he presented a defence of the faith to Hadrian at the same time as Quadratus. This Apology, he says, was extant in his day, and was largely composed of the opinions of philosophers ("contextum philosophorum sententiis "), and was afterwards imitated by Justin Martyr. After this date Aristides passes out of view. In the mediaeval martyrologies there is a faint reflection of the earlier testimony, as, e.g., the 31st of August is given as the saint's day "of the blessed Aristides, most renowned for faith and wisdom, who presented books on the Christian religion to the prince Hadrian, and most brilliantly proclaimed in the presence of the Emperor himself how that Christ Jesus is the only God."

In the seventeenth century there were rumours that the missing Apology of Aristides was to be found. in various monastic libraries in Greece; and Spon, a French traveller, made a fruitless search for it. The book had apparently disappeared for ever.

But in recent times Aristides has again "swum into our ken." Armenian literature, which has done service to Christendom by preserving so many of its early documents, supplied also the first news of the recovery of Aristides. In the Mechitarite convent of b. Lazarus at Venice there is a body of Armenian monks who study Armenian and other literature. In 1878 these Armenians surprised the learned world by publishing a Latin translation of an Armenian fragment (the first two chapters) of the lost Apology of Aristides. Renan at once set it down as spurious because it contained theological terms of a later age, e.g., "bearer of God" applied to the Virgin Mary. These terms were afterwards seen to be due to the translator. At what time the translation from Greek into Armenian was made is not apparent; but it may reasonably be connected with the work begun by the famous Armenian patriarch Mesrobes. This noble Christian invented an alphabet for his country, established schools, and sent a band of young Armenians to Edessa, Athens, and elsewhere with instructions to translate into Armenian the best sacred and classical books. And in spite of Mohammedans and Turks Armenia has remained Christian, and now restores to the world the treasures committed to its keeping in the early centuries.

Opinions as to the Armenian fragment of Aristides remained undecided till 1889. In the spring of that year Professor J. Rendel Harris, of Cambridge, had the honour of discovering a Syriac version of the whole Apology in the library of the Convent of St. Catharine, on Mount Sinai. He found the Apology of Aristides among a collection of Syriac treatises of an ethical character; and he refers the ms. to the seventh century. Professor Harris has translated the Syriac into English, and has carefully edited the Syriac text with minute discussions of every point of interest.¹

The recovery of the Syriac version by Professor Harris placed the genuineness of the Armenian fragment beyond question. It also led to the strange reappearance of the greater part of the original Greek. Professor J. A. Robinson, the general editor of the Cambridge Texts and Studies, having read the translation of the Syriac version, discovered that the Apology of Aristides is incorporated in the early Christian Romance entitled, The Life of Barlaam and Josaphat.

Some account must be given of this remarkable book in order to show its connection with the Apology of Aristides. Its author is said to be John of Damascus, who died about A.D. 760. Whoever wrote it, the book soon became very popular. In the East it was translated into Arabic, Ethiopic, Armenian, and Hebrew; in the West there are versions of it in nearly a dozen languages, including an English metrical rendering. As early as 1204 a king of Norway had it translated into Icelandic. It is now known to be the story of Buddha in a Christian setting, furnished with fables and parables which have migrated from the far East and can be traced back to an extreme antiquity.

The outline of the story is as follows: A king in India, Abenner by name, who is an enemy of the Christians, has an only son Josaphat (or Joasaph). At his birth the astrologers predict that he will become great, but will embrace the new doctrine. To prevent this, his father surrounds the prince with young and beautiful attendants, and takes care that Josaphat shall see nothing of illness, old age, or death. At length Josaphat desires his freedom, and then follow the excursions as in the case of Buddha. Josaphat seeing so much misery possible in life is sunk in despair. In this state he is visited by a Christian hermit-Barlaam by name. Josaphat is converted to Christianity, and Barlaam withdraws again to the desert.

To undo his son's conversion the king arranges that a public disputation shall be held; one of the king's sages, Nachor by name, is to personate Barlaam and to make a very weak statement of the Christian case, and so be easily refuted by the court orators. When the day comes, the prince Josaphat charges Nachor, the fictitious monk, to do his best on pain of torture. Thus stimulated, Nachor begins, and "like Balaam's ass he spake that which he had not purposed to speak; and he said, `I, O king, in the providence of God, 'etc." He then recites the Apology of Aristides to such purpose that he converts himself, the king, and all his people. Josaphat finally relinquishes his kingdom, and retires into the desert with the genuine Barlaam for prayer and meditation. Not only so, but the churches of the Middle Ages, forgetting the fabulous character of the story, raised Barlaam and Josaphat to the rank of saints, with a holy day in the Christian calendar. Thus the author of Barlaam and Josaphat caused Christianity unwittingly to do honour to the founder of Buddhism under the name of St. Josaphat; and also to read the Apology of Aristides in nearly twenty languages without suspecting what it was.

The speech of Nachor in Greek, that is to say, the greater part of the original Greek of the Apology of Aristides, has been extracted from this source by Professor Robinson and is published in Texts and Studies, Vol. I., so that there is now abundant material for making an estimate of Aristides.

It may be asked whether we have in any of our three sources the actual words of Aristides. The circumstances under which the Apology was incorporated in The Life of Barlaam and Josaphat are such as to render it unlikely that the author of the Romance should copy with the faithfulness of a scribe; but examination proves that very few modifications have been made. The Greek divides men into three races (the Syriac and Armenian into four); the introductory accounts of these races are in the Greek blended with the general discussion; and at the close the description of early Christian customs is shortened. These few differences from the Syriac are all explained by the fact that the Apology had to be adapted to the circumstances of an Indian court in a later age. On the other hand, when the Syriac is compared with the Greek and Armenian in passages where these two agree, it is found that explanatory clauses are added; and there is throughout a cumbrous redundancy of pronouns in the Syriac. In short, the actual words of Aristides may be restored with tolerable certainty-a task which has been already accomplished by a German scholar, Lic. Edgar Hennecke.² In any case we have the substance of the Apology of Aristides with almost verbal precision.

In regard to the date of Aristides, Eusebius says expressly that the Apology was presented to Hadrian while he was in Athens about the year A.D. 125. The only ground for questioning this statement is the second superscription given in the Syriac version, which implies that the Apology was presented to Antoninus Pius, A.D. 138-161. This heading is accepted by Professor Harris as the true one; and he assigns the Apology to "the early years of the reign of Antoninus Pius; and it is at least conceivable," he adds, "that it may have been presented to the Emperor along with other Christian writings during an unrecorded visit of his to his ancient seat of government at Smyrna." But this requires us to suppose that Eusebius was wrong; that Jerome copied his error; that the Armenian version curiously fell into the same mistake; and that the Syriac translator is at this point exceptionally faithful. So perhaps it is better with Billius, "not to trust more in one's own suspicions, than in Christian charity which believeth all things," and to rest in the comfortable hypothesis that Eusebius spoke the truth.

Writing in A.D. 125, or even twenty years later, Aristides becomes an important witness as to the nature of early Christianity. His Apology contains no express quotation from Scripture; but the Emperor is referred for information to a gospel which is written. Various echoes of New Testament expressions will at once be recognized; and "the language moulding power of Christianity "is discernible in the new meaning given to various classical words. Some topics are conspicuous by their absence. Aristides has no trace of ill-feeling to the Jews; no reference to the Logos doctrine, nor to the distinctive ideas of the Apostle Paul; he has no gnosticism or heresy to denounce, and he makes no appeal to miracle and prophecy. Christianity, in his view, is worthy of a philosophic emperor because it is eminently reasonable, and gives an impulse and power to live a good life. On the whole, Aristides represents that type of Christian practice which is found in the Teaching of the Twelve Apostles; and to this he adds a simple Christian philosophy which may be compared with that of St. Paul at Athens. Although the details about the elements and the heathen gods are discussed with tedious minuteness, still his closing section describing the lives of the early Christians should always be good reading.

The translation of the Syriac given here is independently made from the Syriac text, edited by Professor Harris³. Full advantage has been taken of his notes and apparatus criticus, but no use has been made of his translation. In obscure passages the German translation of Dr. Richard Raabe⁴ has been compared; and the Text-Rekonstruktion of Hennecke has been consulted on textual points in both translations. The Greek translation is made from the text edited by Professor Robinson.⁵ The translations from the Greek and from the Syriac are arranged side by side, so that their relation to one another is apparent at a glance. No attempt has been made to force the same English words from passages which are evidently meant to be identical in the two languages; but the literal tenour of each has been allowed to assert itself.

¹Texts and Studies. Contributions to Biblical and Patristic Literature. Edited by J. A. Robinson, B.D. Vol i., No. 1, the Apology of Aristides, edited and translated by J. Rendel Harris, MA., with an Appendix by J. A. Robinson, B.D. (Cambridge University Press.)

²Die Apologie des Aristides. Recension und Rekonstruktion des Textes, von Lic. Edgar Hennecke. (Die Griechischen Apologeten: Heft 3.)

³The Cambridge Texts and Studies, vol i., No. 1.

⁴Texte und Untersuchungen zur Geschichte der Altchristlichen Litteratur, Gebhardt und Harnak, IX. Band, Heft 1.

⁵The Cambridge Texts and Studies, vol. i., No. 1.

SOURCE SECTION: aristides_02_trans.htm

Ante-Nicene Fathers, Vol. X: The Apology of Aristides

The Apology of Aristides

THE APOLOGY OF

ARISTIDES

AS IT IS PRESERVED IN THE HISTORY OF

BARLAAM AND JOSAPHAT.

Translated from the Greek.

I. I, O King in the providence

of God came into the world; and

when I had considered the heaven

and the earth, the sun and the moon

and the rest, I marvelled at their

orderly arrangement.

And when I saw that the universe

and all that is therein is moved by

necessity, I perceived that the mover

and controller is God.

For everything which causes motion

is stronger than that which is

moved, and that which controls is

stronger than that which is controlled.

The self-same being, then, who

first established and now controls

the universe----him do I affirm to be

God who is without beginning and without end,

immortal and self-sufficing, above all

passions and infirmities, above

anger and forgetfulness

and ignorance and the rest.

Through Him too all things consist.

He requires not sacrifice and

libation nor any one of the things

that appear to sense; but all men

stand in need of Him.

THE APOLOGY OF

ARISTIDES THE PHILOSOPHER.

Translated from the Syriac.

ARISTIDES.

Here follows the defence which Aristides the

philosopher made before Hadrian the King on behalf

of reverence for God.

... All-powerful Caesar Titus Hadrianus Antoninus,

venerable and merciful, from Marcianus Aristides,

an Athenian philosopher. ¹

I. I, O King, by the grace of God came into this

world; and when I had considered the heaven and the

earth and the seas, and had surveyed the sun and

the rest of creation, I marvelled at the beauty of the

world. And I perceived that the world and all that

is therein are moved by the power of another; and

I understood that he who moves them is God, who

is hidden in them, and veiled by them. And it is

manifest that that which causes motion is more

powerful than that which is moved. But that I

should make search concerning this same mover of

all, as to what is his nature (for it seems to me,

he is indeed unsearchable in his nature), and that

I should argue as to the constancy of his government,

so as to grasp it fully,----this is a vain effort

for me; for it is not possible that a man should fully

comprehend it. I say, however, concerning this

mover of the world, that he is God of all, who made

all things for the sake of mankind. And it seems to

me that this is reasonable, that one should fear God

and should not oppress man.

I say, then, that God is not born, not made, an

ever-abiding nature without beginning and without

end, immortal, perfect, and incomprehensible.

Now when I say that he is "perfect," this means

that there is not in him any defect, and he is not in

need of anything but all things are in need of him.

And when I say that he is "without beginning," this

means that everything which has beginning has also

an end, and that which has an end may be brought

to an end. He has no name, for everything which

has a name is kindred to things created. Form he

has none, nor yet any union of members; for whatsoever

possesses these is kindred to things fashioned.

He is neither male nor female.⁵ The heavens do

not limit him, but the heavens and all things, visible

and invisible, receive their bounds from him.

Adversary he has none, for there exists not any stronger

than he. Wrath and indignation he possesses not,

for there is nothing which is able to stand against

him. Ignorance and forgetfulness are not in his

nature, for he is altogether wisdom and understanding;

and in Him stands fast all that exists.

He requires not sacrifice and libation, nor even one of

things visible; He requires not aught from any, but

all living creatures stand in need of him.

II. Having thus spoken concerning

God, so far as it was possible for

me to speak of Him,² let us next

proceed to the human race, that we

may see which of them participate in

the truth and which of them in

error.

For it is clear to us, O King,³ that

there are three⁴ classes of men in

this world; these being the worshippers

of the gods acknowledged

among you, and Jews, and Christians.

Further they who pay homage

to many gods are themselves divided

into three classes, Chaldaeans

namely, and Greeks, and Egyptians;

for these have been guides and preceptors

to the rest of the nations in

the service and worship of these

many-titled deities.

II. Since, then, we have addressed you concerning

God, so far as our discourse can bear upon him, let

us now come to the race of men, that we may know

which of them participate in the truth of which we

have spoken, and which of them go astray from it.

This is clear to you, O King, that there are four

classes of men in this world:----Barbarians and Greeks,

Jews and Christians. The Barbarians, indeed, trace

the origin of their kind of religion from Kronos and

from Rhea and their other gods; the Greeks, however,

from Helenos, who is said to be sprung from

Zeus. And by Helenos there were born Aiolos and

Xuthos; and there were others descended from

Inachos and Phoroneus, and lastly from the Egyptian

Danaos and from Kadmos and from Dionysos.

The Jews, again, trace the origin of their race from

Abraham, who begat Isaac, of whom was born Jacob.

And he begat twelve sons who migrated from Syria

to Egypt; and there they were called the nation of

the Hebrews, by him who made their laws; and at

length they were named Jews.

The Christians, then, trace the beginning of their

religion from Jesus the Messiah; and he is named

the Son of God Most High. And it is said that God

came down from heaven, and from a Hebrew virgin

assumed and clothed himself with flesh; and the Son

of God lived in a daughter of man. This is taught

in the gospel, as it is called, which a short time ago

was preached among them; and you also if you will

read therein, may perceive the power which belongs

to it. This Jesus, then, was born of the race of the

Hebrews; and he had twelve disciples in order that

the purpose of his incarnation ⁶ might in time be

accomplished. But he himself was pierced by the Jews,

and he died and was buried; and they say that after

three days he rose and ascended to heaven. Thereupon

these twelve disciples went forth throughout

the known parts of the world, and kept showing his

greatness with all modesty and uprightness. And

hence also those of the present day who believe that

preaching are called Christians, and they are become

famous.

So then there are, as I said above, four classes of

men:----Barbarians and Greeks, Jews and Christians.

Moreover the wind is obedient to God, and fire to

the angels; the waters also to the demons and the

earth to the sons of men.⁷

III. Let us see then which of them

participate in truth and which of

them in error.

The Chaldaeans, then, not knowing

God went astray after the elements

and began to worship the

creation more than their Creator.

And of these they formed certain

shapes and styled them a representation

of the heaven and the earth and

the sea, of the sun too and the moon

and the other primal bodies or

luminaries. And they shut them up

together in shrines, and worship

them, calling them gods, even though

they have to guard them securely

for fear they should be stolen by

robbers. And they did not perceive

that anything which acts as guard

is greater than that which is guarded,

and that he who makes is greater

than that which is made. For if

their gods are unfit to look after

their own safety, how shall they

bestow protection upon others?

Great then is the error into which the

Chaldaeans wandered in adoring

lifeless and good-for-nothing images.

And it occurs to me as surprising,

O King, how it is that their so-called

philosophers have quite failed to

observe that the elements themselves

are perishable. And if the elements

are perishable and subject to necessity,

how are they gods? And if the

elements are not gods, how do the

images made in their honour come

to be gods?

III. Let us begin, then, with the Barbarians, and

go on to the rest of the nations one after another,

that we may see which of them hold the truth as to

God and which of them hold error.

The Barbarians, then, as they did not apprehend

God, went astray among the elements, and began to

worship things created instead of their Creator;⁸

and for this end they made images and shut them

up in shrines, and lo! they worship them, guarding

them the while with much care, lest their gods be

stolen by robbers. And the Barbarians did not observe

that that which acts as guard is greater than

that which is guarded, and that every one who

creates is greater than that which is created. If

it be, then, that their gods are too feeble to see to

their own safety, how will they take thought for the

safety of men? Great then is the error into which

the Barbarians wandered in worshipping lifeless

images which can do nothing to help them. And

I am led to wonder, O King, at their philosophers,

how that even they went astray, and gave the name

of gods to images which were made in honour of

the elements; and that their sages did not perceive

that the elements also are dissoluble and perishable.

For if a small part of an element is dissolved or destroyed,

the whole of it may be dissolved and destroyed.

If then the elements themselves are dissolved

and destroyed and forced to be subject to another

that is more stubborn than they, and if they are

not in their nature gods, why, forsooth, do they call

the images which are made in their honour, God?

Great, then, is the error which the philosophers

among them have brought upon their followers.

IV. Let us proceed then, O King,

to the elements themselves that we

may show in regard to them that

they are not gods, but perishable and

mutable, produced out of that

which did not exist at the command

of the true God, who is indestructible

and immutable and invisible; yet

He sees all things and as He

wills, modifies and changes things.

What then shall I say concerning the

elements?

They err who believe that the

sky is a god. For we see that it

revolves and moves by necessity and

is compacted of many parts, being

thence called the ordered universe

(Kosmos). Now the universe is the

construction of some designer; and

that which has been constructed

has a beginning and an end. And

the sky with its luminaries moves

by necessity. For the stars are

carried along in array at fixed intervals

from sign to sign, and, some setting,

others rising, they traverse their

courses in due season so as to mark

off summers and winters, as it has

been appointed for them by God;

and obeying the inevitable necessity

of their nature they transgress not

their proper limits, keeping company

with the heavenly order. Whence

it is plain that the sky is not a

god but rather a work of God.

IV. Let us turn now, O King, to the elements in

themselves, that we may make clear in regard to

them, that they are not gods, but a created thing,

liable to ruin and change, which is of the same nature

as man; whereas God is imperishable and unvarying,

and invisible, while yet He sees, and overrules,

and transforms all things.

They erred also who believed the

earth to be a goddess. For we see

that it is despitefully used and

tyrannized over by men, and is furrowed

and kneaded and becomes of

no account. For if it be burned

with fire, it becomes devoid of life;

for nothing will grow from the

ashes. Besides if there fall upon it

an excess of rain it dissolves away,

both it and its fruits. Moreover it

is trodden under foot of men and

the other creatures; it is dyed with

the blood of the murdered; it is dug

open and filled with dead bodies and

becomes a tomb for corpses. In face

of all this, it is inadmissible that

the earth is a goddess but rather it is

a work of God for the use of men.

Those then who believe concerning the earth that

it is a god have hitherto deceived themselves, since

it is furrowed and set with plants and trenched; and

it takes in the filthy refuse of men and beasts and

cattle. And at times it becomes unfruitful, for if

it be burnt to ashes it becomes devoid of life, for

nothing germinates from an earthen jar. And besides

if water be collected upon it, it is dissolved

together with its products. And lo! it is trodden

under foot of men and beast, and receives the bloodstains

of the slain; and it is dug open, and filled with

the dead, and becomes a tomb for corpses. But it is

impossible that a nature, which is holy and worthy

and blessed and immortal, should allow of any one

of these things. And hence it appears to us that the

earth is not a god but a creation of God.

V. They also erred who believed

the water to be a god. For it, too,

has been made for the use of men,

and is controlled by them; it is

defiled and destroyed and suffers

change on being boiled and dyed

with colours; and it is congealed by

the frost, and polluted with blood,

and is introduced for the washing of

all unclean things. Wherefore it is

impossible that water should be a

god, but it is a work of God.

They also err who believe that fire

is a god. For fire was made for the

use of men, and it is controlled by

them, being carried about from place

to place for boiling and roasting

all kinds of meat, and even for (the

burning of) dead bodies. Moreover

it is extinguished in many ways,

being quenched through man's agency.

So it cannot be allowed that fire

is a god, but it is a work of God.

They also err who think the blowing

of the winds is a goddess. For it

is clear that it is under the dominion

of another; and for the sake of man

it has been designed by God for

the transport of ships and the

conveyance of grain and for man's

other wants. It rises too and falls at the

bidding of God, whence it is concluded

that the blowing of the winds is not

a goddess but only a work of God.

V. In the same way, again, those erred who believed

the waters to be gods. For the waters were

created for the use of man, and are put under his

rule in many ways. For they suffer change and

admit impurity, and are destroyed and lose their

nature while they are boiled into many substances.

And they take colours which do not belong to them;

they are also congealed by frost and are mingled and

permeated with the filth of men and beasts, and with

the blood of the slain. And being checked by skilled

workmen through the restraint of aqueducts, they

flow and are diverted against their inclination, and

come into gardens and other places in order that they

may be collected and issue forth as a means of fertility

for man, and that they may cleanse away every

impurity and fulfil the service man requires from

them. Wherefore it is impossible that the waters

should be a god, but they are a work of God and a

part of the world.

In like manner also they who believed that fire

is a god erred to no slight extent. For it, too, was

created for the service of men, and is subject to them

in many ways:----in the preparation of meats, and as a

means of casting metals, and for other ends whereof

your Majesty is aware. At the same time it is

quenched and extinguished in many ways.

Again they also erred who believed the motion of

the winds to be a god. For it is well known to us

that those winds are under the dominion of another,

at times their motion increases, and at times it

fails and ceases at the command of him who controls

them. For they were created by God for the sake of

men, in order to supply the necessity of trees and

fruits and seeds; and to bring over the sea ships

which convey for men necessaries and goods from

places where they are found to places where they are

not found; and to govern the quarters of the world.

And as for itself, at times it increases and again

abates; and in one place brings help and in another

causes disaster at the bidding of him who rules it.

And mankind too are able by known means to confine

and keep it in check in order that it may fulfil for

them the service they require from it. And of itself

it has not any authority at all. And hence it is impossible

that the winds should be called gods, but rather

a thing made by God.

VI. They also err who believe the

sun to be a god. For we see that it

moves by necessity and revolves and

passes from sign to sign, setting

and rising so as to give warmth to

plants and tender shoots for the use

of man.

Besides it has its part in common

with the rest of the stars, and is

much smaller than the sky; it suffers

eclipse of its light and is not the

subject of its own laws. Wherefore

it is concluded that the sun is not a

god, but only a work of God. They

also err who believe that the moon is

a goddess. For we see that it moves

by necessity and revolves and passes

from sign to sign, setting and rising

for the benefit of men; and it is less

than the sun and waxes and wanes

and has eclipses. Wherefore it is

concluded that the moon is not a

goddess but a work of God.

VI. So also they erred who believed that the sun

is a god. For we see that it is moved by the compulsion

of another, and revolves and makes its journey,

and proceeds from sign to sign, rising and setting

every day, so as to give warmth for the growth of

plants and trees, and to bring forth into the air

wherewith it (sunlight) is mingled every growing

thing which is upon the earth. And to it there belongs

by comparison a part in common with the rest of

the stars in its course; and though it is one in its

nature it is associated with many parts for the supply

of the needs of men; and that not according to its

own will but rather according to the will of him who

rules it. And hence it is impossible that the sun

should be a god, but the work of God; and in like

manner also the moon and the stars.

VII. They also err who believe that

man ⁹ is a god. For we see that he

is moved by necessity, and is made

to grow up, and becomes old even

though he would not. And at one

time he is joyous, at another he is

grieved when he lacks food and

drink and clothing. And we see

that he is subject to anger and jealousy

and desire and change of purpose

and has many infirmities. He is

destroyed too in many ways by

means of the elements and animals,

and by ever-assailing death. It cannot

be admitted, then, that man is a god,

but only a work of God.

Great therefore is the error into

which the Chaldaeans wandered,

following after their own desires.

For they reverence the perishable

elements and lifeless images, and do

not perceive that they themselves

make these things to be gods.

VII. And those who believed of the men of the

past, that some of them were gods, they too were

much mistaken. For as you yourself allow, O King,

man is constituted of the four elements and of a soul

and a spirit (and hence he is called a microcosm),¹⁰

and without any one of these parts he could not consist.

He has a beginning and an end, and he is born and

dies. But God, as I said, has none of these

things in his nature, but is uncreated and imperishable.

And hence it is not possible that we should set

up man to be of the nature of God:----man, to

whom at times when he looks for joy, there comes

trouble, and when he looks for laughter there comes

to him weeping,----who is wrathful and covetous and

envious, with other defects as well. And he is destroyed

in many ways by the elements and also by the

animals.

And hence, O King, we are bound to recognize the

error of the Barbarians, that thereby, since they did

not find traces of the true God, they fell aside from

the truth, and went after the desire of their imagination,

serving the perishable elements and lifeless

images, and through their error not apprehending

what the true God is.

VIII. Let us proceed then to the

Greeks, that we may see whether

they have any discernment concerning

God. The Greeks, indeed,

though they call themselves wise

proved more deluded than the Chaldaeans

in alleging that many gods

have come into being, some of them

male, some female, practised masters

in every passion and every variety of

folly. [And the Greeks themselves

represented them to be adulterers and

murderers, wrathful and envious

and passionate, slayers of fathers

and brothers, thieves and robbers,

crippled and limping, workers in

magic, and victims of frenzy. Some

of them died (as their account goes),

and some were struck by thunderbolts,

and became slaves to men, and were

fugitives, and they mourned and

lamented, and changed themselves

into animals for wicked and

shameful ends.] ¹¹

Wherefore, O King, they are ridiculous

and absurd and impious tales that

the Greeks have introduced, giving

the name of gods to those who

are not gods, to suit their unholy

desires, in order that, having

them as patrons of vice, they might

commit adultery and robbery and

do murder and other shocking deeds.

For if their gods did such deeds why

should not they also do them?

So that from these misguided

practices it has been the lot of

mankind to have frequent wars and

slaughters and bitter captivities.

VIII. Let us turn further to the Greeks also, that

we may know what opinion they hold as to the true

God. The Greeks, then, because they are more subtle

than the Barbarians, have gone further astray than

the Barbarians; inasmuch as they have introduced

many fictitious gods, and have set up some of them

as males and some as females; and in that some of

their gods were found who were adulterers, and did

murder, and were deluded, and envious, and wrathful

and passionate, and parricides, and thieves, and

robbers. And some of them, they say, were crippled

and limped, and some were sorcerers, and some actually

went mad, and some played on lyres, and some

were given to roaming on the hills, and some even

died, and some were struck dead by lightning, and

some were made servants even to men, and some

escaped by flight, and some were kidnapped by men,

and some, indeed, were lamented and deplored by

men. And some, they say, went down to Sheol,

and some were grievously wounded, and some transformed

themselves into the likeness of animals to

seduce the race of mortal women, and some polluted

themselves ¹² by lying with males. And some, they

say, were wedded to their mothers and their sisters

and their daughters. And they say of their gods

that they committed adultery with the daughters of

men; and of these there was born a certain race

which also was mortal. And they say that some of

the females disputed about beauty, and appeared

before men for judgment. Thus, O King, have the

Greeks put forward foulness, and absurdity, and

folly about their gods and about themselves, in that

they have called those that are of such a nature

gods, who are no gods. And hence mankind have

received incitements to commit adultery and fornication,

and to steal and to practise all that is offensive

and hated and abhorred. For if they who are called

their gods practised all these things which are written

above, how much more should men practise

them----men, who believe that their gods themselves

practised them. And owing to the foulness of this

error there have happened to mankind harassing

wars, and great famines, and bitter captivity, and

complete desolation. And lo! it was by reason of

this alone that they suffered and that all these things

came upon them; and while they endured those

things they did not perceive in their mind that for

their error those things came upon them.

IX. But, further, if we be minded

to discuss their gods individually,

you will see how great is the absurdity;

for instance, how Kronos is

brought forward by them as a god

above all, and they sacrifice their

own children to him. And he had

many sons by Rhea, and in his madness

devoured his own offspring. And

they say that Zeus cut off his

members and cast them into the sea,

whence Aphrodite is said in fable

to be engendered. Zeus, then, having

bound his own father, cast him

into Tartaros. You see the error

and brutality which they advance

against their god? Is it possible,

then, that a god should be manacled

and mutilated? What absurdity!

Who with any wit would ever say so?

Next Zeus is introduced, and they

say that he was king of their gods,

and that he changed himself into

animals that he might debauch mortal

women.

For they allege that he transformed

himself into a bull for Europe,

and into gold for Danae, and

into a swan for Leda, and into a

satyr for Antiope, and into a thunderbolt

for Semele. Then by these there

were many children, Dionysos

and Zethus and Amphion and

Herakles and Apollo and Artemis and

Perseus, Kastor and Helenes and

Polydeukes and Minos and Rhadamanthys

and Sarpedon, and the nine

daughters whom they called the

Muses. Then too they bring forward

statements about the matter of

Ganymedes.

Hence it happened, O King, to

mankind to imitate all these things

and to become adulterous men and

lascivious women, and to be workers

of other terrible iniquities, through

the imitation of their god. Now

how is it possible that a god should

be an adulterer or an obscene person

or a parricide?

IX. Let us proceed further to their account of

their gods that we may carefully demonstrate all that

is said above. First of all, the Greeks bring forward

as a god Kronos, that is to say Chiun ¹³ (Saturn).

And his worshippers sacrifice their children to him,

and they burn some of them alive in his honour.

And they say that he took to him among his wives

Rhea, and begat many children by her. By her too

he begat Dios, who is called Zeus. And at length he

(Kronos) went mad, and through fear of an oracle

that had been made known to him, he began to devour

his sons. And from him Zeus was stolen away

without his knowledge; and at length Zeus bound

him, and mutilated the signs of his manhood, and

flung them into the sea. And hence, as they say in

fable, there was engendered Aphrodite, who is called

Astarte. And he (Zeus) cast out Kronos fettered

into darkness. Great then is the error and ignominy

which the Greeks have brought forward about the

first of their gods, in that they have said all this

about him, O King. It is impossible that a god

should be bound or mutilated; and if it be otherwise,

he is indeed miserable.

And after Kronos they bring forward another god

Zeus. And they say of him that he assumed the

sovereignty, and was king over all the gods. And

they say that he changed himself into a beast and

other shapes in order to seduce mortal women, and to

raise up by them children for himself. Once, they

say, he changed himself into a bull through love of

Europe and Pasiphae.¹⁴ And again he changed himself

into the likeness of gold through love of Danae,

and to a swan through love of Leda, and to a man

through love of Antiope, and to lightning through

love of Luna,¹⁵ and so by these he begat many children.

For by Antiope, they say, that he begat Zethus

and Amphion, and by Luna Dionysos, by Alcmena

Hercules, and by Leto, Apollo and Artemis, and

by Danae, Perseus, and by Leda, Castor and Polydeuces,

and Helene and Paludus,¹⁶ and by Mnemosyne

he begat nine daughters whom they styled the Muses,

and by Europe, Minos and Rhadamanthos and Sarpedon.

And lastly he changed himself into the likeness

of an eagle through his passion for Ganydemos

(Ganymede) the shepherd.

By reason of these tales, O King, much evil has

arisen among men, who to this day are imitators of

their gods, and practise adultery and defile them-

selves with their mothers and their sisters, and by

lying with males, and some make bold to slay even

their parents. For if he who, is said to be the chief

and king of their gods do these things how much

more should his worshippers imitate him? And

great is the folly which the Greeks have brought

forward in their narrative concerning him. For it is

impossible that a god should practise adultery or

fornication or come near to lie with males, or kill his

parents; and if it be otherwise, he is much worse

than a destructive demon.

X. Along with him, too, they

bring forward one Hephaistos as a

god, and they say that he is lame

and wields a hammer and tongs,

working as a smith for his living.

Is he then badly off? But it cannot

be admitted that a god should be

a cripple, and besides be dependent

on mankind.

Then they bring forward Hermes

as a god, representing him to be lustful,

and a thief, and covetous, and a

magician (and maimed) and an interpreter

of language. But it cannot

be admitted that such an one is a

god.

They also bring forward Asklepios

as a god who is a doctor and prepares

drugs and compounds plasters

for the sake of a living. For he was

badly off. And afterwards he was

struck, they say, with a thunderbolt

by Zeus on account of Tyndareos,

son of Lacedaimon; and so was

killed. Now if Asklepios in spite

of his divinity could not help himself

when struck by lightning, how

will he come to the rescue of others?

Again Ares is represented as a

god, fond of strife and given to

jealousy, and a lover of animals and

other such things. And at last while

corrupting Aphrodite, he was bound

by the youthful Eros and by Hephaistos.

How then was he a god who

was subject to desire, and a warrior,

and a prisoner and an adulterer?

They allege that Dionysos also is

a god who holds nightly revels and

teaches drunkenness, and carries off

the neighbours' wives, and goes

mad and takes to flight. And at

last he was put to death by the

Titans. If then Dionysos could not

save himself when he was being

killed, and besides used to be mad,

and drunk with wine, and a fugitive,

how should he be a god?

They allege also that Herakles got

drunk and went mad and cut the

throats of his own children, then he

was consumed by fire and so died.

Now how should he be a god, who

was drunk and a slayer of children

and burned to death? or how will

he come to the help of others, when

he was unable to help himself?

X. Again they bring forward as another god

Hephaistos. And they say of him, that he is lame,

and a cap is set on his head, and he holds in his

hands firetongs and a hammer; and he follows the

craft of iron working, that thereby he may procure

the necessaries of his livelihood. Is then this god so

very needy? But it cannot be that a god should be

needy or lame, else he is very worthless.

And further they bring in another god and call

him Hermes. And they say that he is a thief,¹⁷ a

lover of avarice, and greedy for gain, and a magician

and mutilated and an athlete, and an interpreter of

language. But it is impossible that a god should be

a magician or avaricious, or maimed, or craving for

what is not his, or an athlete. And if it be otherwise,

he is found to be useless.

And after him they bring forward as another god

Asklepios. And they say that he is a physician and

prepares drugs and plaster that he may supply the

necessaries of his livelihood. Is then this god in

want? And at length he was struck with lightning

by Dios on account of Tyndareos of Lacedaemon, and

so he died. If then Asklepios were a god, and, when

he was struck with lightning, was unable to help himself,

how should he be able to give help to others?

But that a divine nature should be in want or be

destroyed by lightning is impossible.

And again they bring forward another as a god,

and they call him Ares. And they say that he is a

warrior, and jealous, and covets sheep and things

which are not his. And he makes gain by his arms.

And they say that at length he committed adultery

with Aphrodite, and was caught by the little boy

Eros and by Hephaistos the husband of Aphrodite.

But it is impossible that a god should be a warrior or

bound or an adulterer.

And again they say of Dionysos that he forsooth!

is a god, who arranges carousals by night, and teaches

drunkenness, and carries off women who do not

belong to him. And at length, they say, he went mad

and dismissed his handmaidens and fled into the

desert; and during his madness he ate serpents.

And at last he was killed by Titanos. If then

Dionysos were a god, and when he was being killed

was unable to help himself, how is it possible that he

should help others?

Herakles next they bring forward and say that he

is a god, who hates detestable things, a tyrant,¹⁸

and warrior and a destroyer of plagues. And of him

also they say that at length he became mad and killed

his own children, and cast himself into a fire and

died. If then Herakles is a god, and in all these

calamities was unable to rescue himself, how should

others ask help from him? But it is impossible

that a god should be mad, or drunken or a slayer of

his children, or consumed by fire.

XI. They represent Apollo also as

a jealous god, and besides as the

master of the bow and quiver, and

sometimes of the lyre and flute, and as

divining to men for pay? Can he

then be very badly off? But it

cannot be admitted that a god should

be in want, and jealous, and a

harping minstrel.

They represent Artemis also as his

sister, who is a huntress and has a

bow with a quiver; and she roams

alone upon the hills with the dogs

to hunt the stag or the wild boar.

How then should such a woman,

who hunts and roams with her dogs,

be a divine being?

Even Aphrodite herself they affirm

to be a goddess who is adulterous.

For at one time she had Ares

as a paramour, and at another time

Anchises and again Adonis, whose

death she also laments, feeling the

want of her lover. And they say

that she even went down to Hades

to purchase back Adonis from

Persephone. Did you ever see, O King,

greater folly than this, to bring forward

as a goddess one who is adulterous

and given to weeping and

wailing?

And they represent that Adonis

is a hunter god, who came to a

violent end, being wounded by a wild

boar and having no power to help

himself in his distress. How then

will one who is adulterous and a

hunter and mortal give himself any

concern for mankind?

All this and much more of a like

nature, and even far more disgraceful

and offensive details, have the

Greeks narrated, O King, concerning

their gods;----details which it is

not proper either to state or for a

moment to remember. And hence

mankind, taking an impulse from

their gods, practised all lawlessness

and brutality and impiety, polluting

both earth and air by their awful

deeds.

XI. And after him they bring forward another

god and call him Apollon. And they say that he is

jealous and inconstant, and at times he holds the

bow and quiver, and again the lyre and plectron.

And he utters oracles for men that he may receive

rewards from them. Is then this god in need of

rewards? But it is an insult that all these things

should be found with a god. And after him they bring forward as a goddess

Artemis, the sister of Apollo; and they say that she

was a huntress and that she herself used to carry a

bow and bolts, and to roam about upon the mountains,

leading the hounds to hunt stags or wild boars

of the field. But it is disgraceful that a virgin maid

should roam alone upon the hills or hunt in the

chase for animals. Wherefore it is impossible that

Artemis should be a goddess.

Again they say of Aphrodite that she indeed is a

goddess. And at times she dwells with their gods,

but at other times she is a neighbour to men. And

once she had Ares as a lover, and again Adonis who

is Tammuz. Once also, Aphrodite was wailing and

weeping for the death of Tammuz, and they say that

she went down to Sheol that she might redeem

Adonis from Persephone, who is the daughter of

Sheol (Hades). If then Aphrodite is a goddess and

was unable to help her lover at his death, how will

she find it possible to help others? And this cannot

be listened to, that a divine nature should come to

weeping and wailing and adultery.

And again they say of Tammuz that he is a god.

And he is, forsooth! a hunter and an adulterer. And

they say that he was killed by a wound from a wild

boar, without being able to help himself. And if he

could not help himself, how can he take thought for

the human race? But that a god should be an adulterer

or a hunter or should die by violence is

impossible.

Again they say of Rhea that she is the mother of

their gods. And they say that she had once a lover

Atys, and that she used to delight in depraved men.

And at last she raised a lamentation and mourned

for Atys her lover. If then the mother of their gods

was unable to help her lover and deliver him from

death, how can she help others? So it is disgraceful

that a goddess should lament and weep and take

delight in depraved men.

Again they introduce Kore and say that she is a

goddess, and she was stolen away by Pluto, and could

not help herself. If then she is a goddess and was

unable to help herself how will she find means to

help others? For a god who is stolen away is very

powerless.

All this, then, O King, have the Greeks brought

forward concerning their gods, and they have invented

and declared it concerning them. And hence

all men received an impulse to work all profanity and

all defilements; and hereby the whole earth was corrupted.

XII. The Egyptians, again, being

more stupid and witless than these

have gone further astray than all the

nations. For they were not content

with the objects of worship of the

Chaldaeans and the Greeks, but in

addition to these brought forward

also brute creatures as gods, both

land and water animals, and plants

and herbs; and they were defiled

with all madness and brutality more

deeply than all the nations on the

earth.

For originally they worshipped

Isis, who had Osiris as brother and

husband. He was slain by his own

brother Typhon; and therefore Isis

with Horos her son fled for refuge to

Byblus in Syria, mourning for Osiris

with bitter lamentation, until Horos

grew up and slew Typhon. So that

neither had Isis power to help her

own brother and husband; nor could

Osiris defend himself when he was

being slain by Typhon; nor did Typhon,

the slayer of his brother, when

he was perishing at the hands of

Horos and Isis, find means to rescue

himself from death. And though

they were revealed in their true

character by such mishaps, they

were believed to be very gods by the

simple Egyptians, who were not satisfied

even with these or the other

deities of the nations, but brought

forward also brute creatures as gods.

For some of them worshipped the

sheep, and some the goat; another

tribe (worshipped) the bull and the

pig; others again, the raven and the

hawk, and the vulture and the eagle;

and others the crocodile; and some

the cat and the dog, and the wolf and

the ape, and the dragon and the asp;

and others the onion and the garlic

and thorns and other created things.

And the poor creatures do not perceive

about all these that they are

utterly helpless. For though they

see their gods eaten by men of other

tribes, and burnt as offerings and

slain as victims and mouldering in

decay, they have not perceived that

they are not gods.

XII. The Egyptians, moreover, because they are

more base and stupid than every people that is on the

earth, have themselves erred more than all. For the

deities (or religion) of the Barbarians and the Greeks

did not suffice for them, but they introduced some

also of the nature of the animals, and said thereof

that they were gods, and likewise of creeping things

which are found on the dry land and in the waters.

And of plants and herbs they said that some of them

were gods. And they were corrupted by every kind

of delusion and defilement more than every people

that is on the earth. For from ancient times they

worshipped Isis, and they say that she is a goddess

whose husband was Osiris her brother. And when

Osiris was killed by Typhon his brother, Isis fled with

Horos her son to Byblus in Syria, and was there for a

certain time till her son was grown. And he contended

with Typhon his uncle, and killed him. And

then Isis returned and went about with Horos her son

and sought for the dead body of Osiris her lord,

bitterly lamenting his death. If then Isis be a goddess,

and could not help Osiris her brother and lord, how

can she help another? But it is impossible that a

divine nature should be afraid, and flee for safety, or

should weep and wail; or else it is very miserable.

And of Osiris also they say that he is a serviceable

god. And he was killed by Typhon and was unable

to help himself. But it is well known that this

cannot be asserted of divinity. And further, they say

of his brother Typhon that he is a god, who killed his

brother and was killed by his brother's son and by his

bride, being unable to help himself. And how, pray,

is he a god who does not save himself?

As the Egyptians, then, were more stupid than the

rest of the nations, these and such like gods did not

suffice for them. Nay, but they even apply the name

of gods to animals in which there is no soul at all.

For some of them worship the sheep and others the

calf; and some the pig and others the shad fish; and

some the crocodile and the hawk and the fish and the

ibis and the vulture and the eagle and the raven.

Some of them worship the cat, and others the turbot-

fish, some the dog, some the adder, and some the asp,

and others the lion; and others the garlic and onions

and thorns, and others the tiger and other such

things. And the poor creatures do not see that all

these things are nothing, although they daily witness

their gods being eaten and consumed by men and also

by their fellows; while some of them are cremated,

and some die and decay and become dust, without

their observing that they perish in many ways. So

the Egyptians have not observed that such things

which are not equal to their own deliverance, are not

gods. And if, forsooth, they are weak in the case of

their own deliverance, whence have they power to

help in the case of deliverance of their worshippers?

Great then is the error into which the Egyptians

wandered;----greater, indeed, than that of any people

which is upon the face of the earth.

XIII. So the Egyptians and the

Chaldaeans and the Greeks made a

great error in bringing forward such

beings as gods, and in making images

of them, and in deifying dumb and

senseless idols.

And I wonder how they saw their

gods sawn out and hacked and

docked by the workmen, and besides

aging with time and falling to

pieces, and being cast from metal,

and yet did not discern concerning

them that they were not gods.

For when they have no power to

see to their own safety, how will they

take forethought for men?

But further, the poets and philosophers,

alike of the Chaldaeans and

the Greeks and the Egyptians, while

they desired by their poems and

writings to magnify the gods of their

countries, rather revealed their

shame, and laid it bare before all

men. For if the body of man while

consisting of many parts does not cast

off any of its own members, but

preserving an unbroken unity in all its

members, is harmonious with itself,

how shall variance and discord be

so great in the nature of God?

For if there had been a unity of

nature among the gods, then one

god ought not to have pursued or

slain or injured another. And if

the gods were pursued by gods, and

slain, and kidnapped and struck

with lightning by them, then there is

no longer any unity of nature, but

divided counsels, all mischievous.

So that not one of them is a god.

It is clear then, O King, that all

their discourse on the nature of the

gods is an error.

But how did the wise and erudite

men of the Greeks not observe that

inasmuch as they make laws for

themselves they are judged by their

own laws? For if the laws are

righteous, their gods are altogether

unrighteous, as they have committed

transgressions of laws, in slaying

one another, and practising sorceries,

and adultery and thefts and

intercourse with males. If they

were right in doing these things,

then the laws are unrighteous, being

framed contrary to the gods. Whereas

in fact, the laws are good and

just, commending what is good and

forbidding what is bad. But the

deeds of their gods are contrary to

law. Their gods, therefore, are

lawbreakers, and all liable to the

punishment of death; and they are

impious men who introduce such

gods. For if the stories about them

be mythical, the gods are nothing

more than mere names; and if the

stories be founded on nature, still

they who did and suffered these

things are no longer gods; and if

the stories be allegorical, they are

myths and nothing more.

It has been shown then, O King,

that all these polytheistic objects of

worship are the works of error and

perdition. For it is not right to give

the name of gods to beings which

may be seen but cannot see; but one

ought to reverence the invisible and

all-seeing and all-creating God.

XIII. But it is a marvel, O King, with regard to

the Greeks, who surpass all other peoples in their

manner of life and reasoning, how they have gone astray

after dead idols and lifeless images. And yet they see

their gods in the hands of their artificers being sawn

out, and planed and docked, and hacked short, and

charred, and ornamented, and being altered by them

in every kind of way. And when they grow old, and

are worn away through lapse of time, and when they

are molten and crushed to powder, how, I wonder,

did they not perceive concerning them, that they are

not gods? And as for those who did not find deliverance

for themselves, how can they serve the distress of men?

But even the writers and philosophers among them

have wrongly alleged that the gods are such as are

made in honour of God Almighty. And they err in

seeking to liken (them) to God whom man has not at

any time seen nor can see unto what He is like.

Herein, too (they err) in asserting of deity that any

such thing as deficiency can be present to it; as when

they say that He receives sacrifice and requires burnt-

offering and libation and immolations of men, and

temples. But God is not in need, and none of these

things is necessary to Him; and it is clear that men

err in these things they imagine.

Further their writers and their philosophers represent

and declare that the nature of all their gods

is one. And they have not apprehended God our

Lord who while He is one, is in all. They err

therefore. For if the body of a man while it is many

in its parts is not in dread, one member of another,

but, since it is a united body, wholly agrees with

itself; even so also God is one in His nature. A

single essence is proper to Him, since He is uniform

in His nature and His essence; and He is not afraid

of Himself. If then the nature of the gods is one,

it is not proper that a god should either pursue or slay

or harm a god. If, then, gods be pursued and wounded

by gods, and some be kidnapped and some struck

dead by lightning, it is obvious that the nature of

their gods is not one. And hence it is known, O

King, that it is a mistake when they reckon and

bring the natures of their gods under a single

nature. If then it becomes us to admire a god

which is seen and does not see, how much more

praiseworthy is it that one should believe in a nature

which is invisible and all-seeing? And if further it

is fitting that one should approve the handiworks of

a craftsman, how much more is it fitting that one

should glorify the Creator of the craftsman?

For behold! when the Greeks made laws they did

not perceive that by their laws they condemn their

gods. For if their laws are righteous, their gods

are unrighteous, since they transgressed the law in

killing one another, and practising sorcery, and

committing adultery, and in robbing and stealing,

and in lying with males, and by their other practises

as well. For if their gods were right in doing

all these things as they are described, then the laws

of the Greeks are unrighteous in not being made

according to the will of their gods. And in that case

the whole world is gone astray.

For the narratives about their gods are some of

them myths, and some of them nature-poems (lit:

natural----fusikai/), and some of them hymns and

elegies. The hymns indeed and elegies are empty

words and noise. But these nature-poems, even if

they be made as they say, still those are not gods who

do such things and suffer and endure such things.

And those myths are shallow tales with no depth

whatever in them.

XIV. Let us proceed then, O King,

to the Jews also, that we may see

what truth there is in their view of

God. For they were descendants of

Abraham and Isaac and Jacob, and

migrated to Egypt. And thence God

brought them forth with a mighty

hand and an uplifted arm through

Moses, their lawgiver; and by many

wonders and signs He made known

His power to them. But even they

proved stubborn and ungrateful, and

often served the idols of the nations,

and put to death the prophets and

just men who were sent to them.

Then when the Son of God was

pleased to come upon the earth, they

received him with wanton violence

and betrayed him into the hands of

Pilate the Roman governor; and

paying no respect to his good deeds

and the countless miracles he

wrought among them, they demanded

a sentence of death by the cross.

And they perished by their own

transgression; for to this day they

worship the one God Almighty, but

not according to knowledge. For

they deny that Christ is the Son of

God; and they are much like to the

heathen, even although they may

seem to make some approach to the

truth from which they have removed

themselves. So much for the Jews.

XIV. Let us come now, O King, to the history of

the Jews also, and see what opinion they have as to

God. The Jews then say that God is one, the

Creator of all, and omnipotent; and that it is not

right that any other should be worshipped except this

God alone. And herein they appear to approach the

truth more than all the nations, especially in that

they worship God and not His works. And they

imitate God by the philanthropy which prevails

among them; for they have compassion on the poor,

and they release the captives, and bury the dead, and

do such things as these, which are acceptable before

God and well-pleasing also to men,----which (customs)

they have received from their forefathers.

Nevertheless they too erred from true knowledge.

And in their imagination they conceive that it is God

they serve; whereas by their mode of observance it is

to the angels and not to God that their service is

rendered:----as when they celebrate sabbaths and the

beginning of the months, and feasts of unleavened

bread, and a great fast; and fasting and circumcision

and the purification of meats, which things, however,

they do not observe perfectly.

XV. Now the Christians¹⁹ trace

their origin from the Lord Jesus

Christ. And He is acknowledged by

the Holy Spirit to be the son of the

most high God, who came down

from heaven for the salvation of

men. And being born of a pure

virgin, unbegotten and immaculate,

He assumed flesh and revealed himself

among men that He might recall

them to Himself from their wandering

after many gods. And having accomplished

His wonderful dispensation,

by a voluntary choice He tasted

death on the cross, fulfilling an

august dispensation. And after

three days He came to life again and

ascended into heaven. And if you

would read, O King, you may judge

the glory of His presence from the

holy gospel writing, as it is called

among themselves. He had twelve

disciples, who after His ascension to

heaven went forth into the provinces

of the whole world, and declared His

greatness. As for instance, one of

them traversed the countries about

us, proclaiming the doctrine of the

truth. From this it is, that they

who still observe the righteousness

enjoined by their preaching are

called Christians.

And these are they who more than

all the nations on the earth have

found the truth. For they know

God, the Creator and Fashioner of

all things through the only-begotten

Son and the Holy Spirit²¹; and beside

Him they worship no other God.

They have the commands of the

Lord Jesus Christ Himself graven

upon their hearts; and they observe

them, looking forward to the resurrection

of the dead and life in the world

to come. They do not commit

adultery nor fornication, nor

bear false witness, nor covet the

things of others; they honour father

and mother, and love their neighbours;

they judge justly, and they

never do to others what they would

not wish to happen to themselves;

they appeal to those who injure

them, and try to win them as friends;

they are eager to do good to their

enemies; they are gentle and easy

to be entreated; they abstain from

all unlawful conversation and from

all impurity; they despise not the

widow, nor oppress the orphan; and

he that has, gives ungrudgingly for

the maintenance of him who has

not.

If they see a stranger, they take

him under their roof, and rejoice

over him as over a very brother; for

they call themselves brethren not

after the flesh but after the spirit.

And they are ready to sacrifice

their lives for the sake of Christ; for

they observe His commands without

swerving, and live holy and just

lives, as the Lord God enjoined upon

them.

And they give thanks unto Him

every hour, for all meat and drink

and other blessings.

XV. But the Christians, O King, while they went

about and made search,²⁰ have found the truth; and

as we learned from their writings, they have come

nearer to truth and genuine knowledge than the rest

of the nations. For they know and trust in God, the

Creator of heaven and of earth, in whom and from

whom are all things, to whom there is no other god

as companion, from whom they received commandments

which they engraved upon their minds and

observe in hope and expectation of the world which is

to come. Wherefore they do not commit adultery nor

fornication, nor bear false witness, nor embezzle what

is held in pledge, nor covet what is not theirs. They

honour father and mother, and show kindness to

those near to them; and whenever they are judges,

they judge uprightly. They do not worship idols

(made) in the image of man; and whatsoever they

would not that others should do unto them, they do

not to others; and of the food which is consecrated

to idols they do not eat, for they are pure. And their

oppressors they appease (lit: comfort) and make

them their friends; they do good to their enemies;

and their women, O King, are pure as virgins, and

their daughters are modest; and their men keep

themselves from every unlawful union and from all

nncleanness, in the hope of a recompense to come in

the other world. Further, if one or other of them

have bondmen and bondwomen or children, through

love towards them they persuade them to become

Christians, and when they have done so, they call

them brethren without distinction. They do not

worship strange gods, and they go their way in all

modesty and cheerfulness. Falsehood is not found

among them; and they love one another, and from

widows they do not turn away their esteem; and they

deliver the orphan from him who treats him harshly.

And he, who has, gives to him who has not, without

boasting. And when they see a stranger, they take

him in to their homes and. rejoice over him as a very

brother; for they do not call them brethren after the

flesh, but brethren after the spirit and in God. And

whenever one of their poor passes from the world,

each one of them according to his ability gives heed

to him and carefully sees to his burial. And if they

hear that one of their number is imprisoned or

afflicted on account of the name of their Messiah, all of

them anxiously minister to his necessity, and if it

is possible to redeem him they set him free. And if

there is among them any that is poor and needy, and

if they have no spare food, they fast two or three

days in order to supply to the needy their lack of

food. They observe the precepts of their Messiah

with much care, living justly and soberly as the Lord

their God commanded them. Every morning²² and

every hour they give thanks and praise to God for

His loving-kindnesses toward them; and for their food

and their drink they offer thanksgiving to Him.

And if any righteous man among them passes from

the world, they rejoice and offer thanks to God; and

they escort his body as if he were setting out from

one place to another near. And when a child has

been born to one of them, they give thanks to God;

and if moreover it happen to die in childhood, they

give thanks to God the more, as for one who has

passed through the world without sins. And further

if they see that any one of them dies in his ungodliness

or in his sins, for him they grieve bitterly, and

sorrow as for one who goes to meet his doom.

XVI. Such, O King, is the commandment of the

law of the Christians, and such is their manner of

life. As men who know God, they ask from Him

petitions which are fitting for Him to grant and for

them to receive. And thus they employ their whole

lifetime. And since they know the loving-kindnesses

of God toward them, behold! for their sake the glorious

things which are in the world flow forth to view.

And verily, they are those who found the truth when

they went about and made search for it; and from

what we considered, we learned that they alone come

near to a knowledge of the truth. And they do

not proclaim in the ears of the multitude the kind

deeds they do, but are careful that no one should

notice them; and they conceal their giving just as

he who finds a treasure and conceals it. And they

strive to be righteous as those who expect to behold

their Messiah, and to receive from Him with great

glory the promises made concerning them. And as

for their words and their precepts, O King, and their

glorying in their worship, and the hope of earning

according to the work of each one of them their

recompense which they look for in another world,----

you may learn about these from their writings. It

is enough for us to have shortly informed your

Majesty concerning the conduct and the truth of

the Christians. For great indeed, and wonderful is

their doctrine to him who will search into it and

reflect upon it. And verily, this is a new people, and

there is something divine (lit: a divine admixture)

in the midst of them.

XVI. Verily then, this is the way

of the truth which leads those who

travel therein to the everlasting

kingdom promised through Christ

in the life to come. And that you

may know, O King, that in saying

these things I do not speak at my

own instance, if you deign to look

into the writings of the Christians,

you will find that I state nothing

beyond the truth. Rightly then,

did thy son²³ apprehend, and

justly was he taught to serve the

living God and to be saved for the

age that is destined to come upon

us. For great and wonderful are

the sayings and deeds of the Christians;

for they speak not the words

of men but those of God. But the

rest of the nations go astray and

deceive themselves; for they walk

in darkness and bruise themselves

like drunken men.

Take, then, their writings, and read therein,

and lo! you will find that I have not put forth these

things on my own authority, nor spoken thus as

their advocate; but since I read in their writings I

was fully assured of these things as also of things

which are to come. And for this reason I was constrained

to declare the truth to such as care for it

and seek the world to come. And to me there is

no doubt but that the earth abides through the

supplication of the Christians. But the rest of the

nations err and cause error in wallowing before the

elements of the world, since beyond these their mental

vision will not pass. And they search about as if in

darkness because they will not recognize the truth;

and like drunken men they reel and jostle one

another and fall.

XVII. Thus far, O King, extends

my discourse to you, which has been

dictated in my mind by the Truth.²⁵

Wherefore let thy foolish sages

cease their idle talk against the

Lord; for it is profitable for you to

worship God the Creator, and to give

ear to His incorruptible words, that

ye may escape from condemnation

and punishment, and be found to be

heirs of life everlasting.

XVII. Thus far, O King, I have spoken; for concerning

that which remains, as is said above,²⁴ there are

found in their other writings things which are hard

to utter and difficult for one to narrate,----which

are not only spoken in words but also wrought out in

deeds.

Now the Greeks, O King, as they follow base

practises in intercourse with males, and a mother and a

sister and a daughter, impute their monstrous

impurity in turn to the Christians. But the Christians

are just and good, and the truth is set before their

eyes, and their spirit is long-suffering; and, therefore,

though they know the error of these (the Greeks),

and are persecuted by them, they bear and endure

it; and for the most part they have compassion

on them, as men who are destitute of knowledge.

And on their side, they offer prayer that these

may repent of their error; and when it happens

that one of them has repented, he is ashamed

before the Christians of the works which were done

by him; and he makes confession to God, saying,

I did these things in ignorance. And he purifies his

heart, and his sins are forgiven him, because he

committed them in ignorance in the former time, when

he used to blaspheme and speak evil of the true

knowledge of the Christians. And assuredly the

race of the Christians is more blessed than all the

men who are upon the face of the earth.

Henceforth let the tongues of those who utter

vanity and harass the Christians be silent; and

hereafter let them speak the truth. For it is of serious

consequence to them that they should worship the

true God rather than worship a senseless sound.

And verily whatever is spoken in the mouth of the

Christians is of God; and their doctrine is the

gateway of light. Wherefore let all who are without the

knowledge of God draw near thereto; and they will

receive incorruptible words, which are from all time

and from eternity. So shall they appear before the

awful judgment which through Jesus the Messiah is

destined to come upon the whole human race.

The Apology of Aristides the Philosopher is finished.

1. ¹ The superscription seems to be duplicate in the Syriac. It is absent from the Greek as we have it; the Armenian has " To the Emperor Caesar Hadrian trom Aristides." Various explanations are offered,

(a) Both emperors, as colleagues, may be meant. In support of this the Syriac adjectives for "venerable and merciful" are marked plural; the phrase "Your majesty" occurring later has a plural suffix; and two Imperatives, "Take and read," are plural. On the other hand "O King" occurs constantly in the singular; and the emperors were colleagues only for a few months in the year A.D. 138.

(b) The longer heading is the true one----the shorter being due perhaps to a scribe who had a collection of works to copy. In that case the word "Hadrian" has been selected from the full title of Antonine, and the two adjectives "venerable and merciful" are proper names, Augustus Pius. (Harris.)

(c) The shorter heading has the support of Eusebius and the Armenian version; and the translator into Syriac may have amplified.

[Syriac] Almighty is separated from the word for "God" by a pause, and is not an attribute which a Christian would care to apply to a Roman emperor. pantokra&twr may have been confounded with au)tokra&wr. Raabe supplies [Syriac] giving the sense "qui Imperium (poetatem) habet," as an epithet of Caesar. If... [Syriac] ="Renewed, or dedicated again to... Antoninus Pius," could be read, both headings might be retained.

2. ¹ The Greek might be rendered, "so far as there was room for me to speak of Him," i.e., the attributes of the Deity are not further relevant to the discussion----as the translator into Syriac takes it. The Armenian adopts the other meaning, viz., the theme is beyond man's power to discuss. As translated by F. C. Conybeare, the Armenian is in these words: "Now by the grace of God it was given me to speak wisely concerning Him. So far as I have received the faculty I will speak, yet not according to the measure of the inscrutability of His greatness shall I be able to do so, but by faith alone do I glorify and adore Him."

3. ² The "King" in the Greek is Abenner, the father of Josaphat; in the Syriac, as in the Greek originally, he is the Roman Emperor. Hadrian.

4. ³ The Armenian and Syriac agree to giving four races, which was probably the original division. To a Greek, men were either Greeks or Barbarians: to a Greek Christian it would seem necessary to add two new peoples, Jews and Christians. The Greek calls the Barbarians "Chaldaeans." This change of classification is probably the cause of the omission in the Greek of the preliminary accounts of the four classes. The Greek blends the summaries with the fuller accounts.

5. ⁴ The Armenian adds, "For that which is subject to this distinction is moved by passions."

6. ¹ Literally: "a certain dispensation of his." The Greek term oi0konomi/a, "dispensation," suggests to the translator into Syriac the idea of the Incarnation, familiar, as it seems, by his time. Professor Sachau reads the equivalent of qaumasth& instead of [Syriac] (tij). In the translation given [Syriac] is taken adverbially=aliquamdiu.

7. ² This irrelevant sentence is found in the Armenian version also, and therefore was probably in the original Greek. It seems to be an obiter dictum. Men fall into four groups, and, by the way, so do the elements, air, fire, earth, and water; and the powers that govern them. One quaternion suggests others.

8. ³ Cf. Rom. i. 25 and Col. ii. 8.

9. ¹ "I do not think it out of place here to mention Antinous of our day [a slave of the Emperor Hadrian], whom all, not-

withstanding they knew who and whence he was, yet affected to worship as a god."----Justin Martyr quoted in Eusebius Hist.

Bk. IV., c. 8.

10. ² Or "and hence the world also gets its name ko&smoj." The Syriac is the equivalent of the Greek "dio_ kai\ ko&smoj kalei=tai,',

which occurs (Chap. IV.) in discussing the supposed divinity of the sky or heaven.

11. ¹ The passage in brackets occurs earlier in "Barlaam and Josaphat," and is restored to its place by J. A. Robinson.

12. ² Professor Nöldeke's emendation, [Syriac], in place of [Syriac] ="they were reviled," is adopted in the translation given.

13. ³ Cf. Amos v. 26, "Chiun, your star god," and Acts vii. 43.

14. ¹ Pasiphae's unnatural passion for Taurus is not in the Greek mythology charged to Zeus.

15. ² The visit of Zeus to Semele (not Selene) is evidently referred to. Selh&nh Luna would give the Syriac [Syriac]

16. ³ Professor Rendel Harris pronounces "Paludus" a vox nihili, and explains its presence as due to a corrupt repetition of the pre-

ceding Polydeuces. The Syriac word in the text suggests Pollux----the Latin equivalent of Polydeuces. Clytemnestra is the name re-

quired.

17. ⁴ Adopting Professor Harris's emendation [Syriac] = kle/pthj instead of [Syriac] =vir.

18. ¹ Tyrant," [Syriac] seems out of place when connected with Herakles. Perhaps [Syriac] =ebrius, which occurs at the close of

the paragraph, should be read here. Cf. also the Greek.

19. ¹ This, the "Christological" passage, occurs earlier in the Syriac. Chap. ii.

20. ² The same two words are used of Isis. The Christians are unlike her in finding what they sought.

21. ¹ The Armenian agrees with the Greek against the Syriac. "Una cum Spiritu Sancto " Arm.

22. ² Cf. Pliny's letter to the Emperor Trajan, A.D. 112, " The Christians are wont to meet at dawn on an appointed day, and to sing a

hymn to Christ as God."

23. ¹ The reference is to Josaphat, son of Abenner, who was taught to be a Christian by the monk Barlaam.

24. ¹ The Christian Scriptures are previously referred to as a source of information, not as containing difficulties. cf 2 Peter iii. 16.

25. ²Nachor, the fictitious monk who represented Barlaam, intended to make a weak defence of Christianity, but, according

to the story, he was constrained to speak what he had not intended. It is evidently the author's intention to make it an instance of

"suggestio verborum" or plenary inspiration, in the case of the fictitious monk.

SOURCE SECTION: aristides_03_preface.htm

The Apology of Aristides: Texts and Studies 1 (1891) Prefatory matter.

The Apology of Aristides: Texts and Studies 1 (1891) Prefatory matter.

TEXTS AND STUDIES

CONTRIBUTIONS TO

BIBLICAL AND PATRISTIC LITERATURE

EDITED BY

J. ARMITAGE ROBINSON B.D.

FELLOW OF CHRIST'S COLLEGE CAMBRIDGE

VOL. I.

THE APOLOGY OF ARISTIDES

THE PASSION OF S. PERPETUA

THE LORD'S PRAYER IN THE EARLY CHURCH

THE FRAGMENTS OF HERACLEON

CAMBRIDGE

AT THE UNIVERSITY PRESS 1891

[Photograph of manuscript folio]

TEXTS AND STUDIES

CONTRIBUTIONS TO

BIBLICAL AND PATRISTIC LITERATURE

EDITED BY

J. ARMITAGE ROBINSON M.A.

FELLOW OF CHRIST'S COLLEGE CAMBRIDGE

VOL. I.

No. 1. THE APOLOGY OF ARISTIDES

CAMBRIDGE

AT THE UNIVERSITY PRESS

1891

London: C. J. CLAY AND SONS,

CAMBRIDGE UNIVERSITY PRESS WAREHOUSE,

AVE MARIA LANE.

[Arms omitted]

Cambridge: DEIGHTON, BELL AND CO.

Leipzig: F. A. BROCKHAUS.

New York: MACMILLAN AND CO.

THE APOLOGY OF ARISTIDES

ON BEHALF OF THE CHRISTIANS

FROM A SYRIAC MS. PRESERVED ON MOUNT SINAI EDITED

WITH AN INTRODUCTION AND TRANSLATION BY

J. RENDEL HARRIS M.A.

FORMERLY FELLOW OF CLARE COLLEGE CAMBRIDGE

AND NOW PROFESSOR OF BIBLICAL LANGUAGES IN

HAVERFORD COLLEGE PENNSYLVANIA

WITH AN APPENDIX CONTAINING THE MAIN PORTION OF

THE ORIGINAL GREEK TEXT

BY

J. ARMITAGE ROBINSON M.A.

FELLOW AND ASSISTANT TUTOR OF CHRIST'S COLLEGE CAMBRIDGE

CAMBRIDGE AT THE UNIVERSITY PRESS

1891

[All Rights reserved]

Cambridge:

PRINTED BY C. J. CLAY, M.A. AND SONS,

AT THE UNIVERSITY PRESS.

PREFACE.

THE first part of this tract contains the Syriac text of the lost Apology of Aristides, accompanied by such comments and elucidations as I have been able to give to the subject. It is my first venture in Syriac, and I am thankful to my learned friends who have from time to time assisted me with suggestions and criticisms for the elimination of some of the more glaring errors. Amongst them I may mention especially Professor Bensly, of Cambridge, and Professor Isaac A. Hall, of New York. In the attempt to give the Armenian fragments of the Apology, in such a form as may make them accessible for critical use, I have had the valuable aid of Mr Conybeare, of Oxford, who placed at my disposal the results of his own work at Edschmiazin.

When the pages were almost through the printer's hands, my friend Mr J. A. Robinson, of Christ's College, by one of those happy accidents, as we call them, upon which progress depends, discovered that substantially the whole of the Greek text was extant, and had been incorporated in that charming half-Greek and half-Oriental story, the Lives of Barlaam and Joasaph. Of course this means that, for the greater part of the Apology of Aristides, we have copies and versions in good number (Greek, Latin, Ethiopic, Arabic, Old French, etc.). This opens quite a new field before the student of Christian Apologetics. Need I say how gladly I make way for him in the Appendix, which will really be the text itself; and that I say in the language of the Acts of St Perpetua: "Hic ordinem totum Apologiae iam hinc ipse narrabit...manu sua et suo sensu."

J. RENDEL HARRIS.

NOTE.

WITH the aid of the photographs taken by Prof. Harris the Syriac text has been carefully revised by Prof. Bensly, who has taken special pains with the reproduction of the punctuation of the MS. There seems occasionally to be some deviation from the ordinary system in the use of the diacritical points: but as it is impossible to tell from the photographs to what date the punctuation belongs, it has seemed better to reproduce it without attempting to mend it.

The English translation was in the first instance made by Prof. Harris: but the discovery of the Greek made it necessary that it should undergo a complete revision, in order that scholars who do not read Syriac might be able to form a better estimate of the relation of the Syriac to the Greek, than could be given by a translation made without any reference to the latter. Moreover in several places the Greek cast new light upon the Syriac where it was obscure before. The task of revision would have been entirely beyond my power, but for the kind patience of Prof. Bensly, who allowed me to read the whole piece through with him. At his suggestion too I have added, within brackets, a few notes in addition to those made by Prof. Harris.

The Facsimile of a page of the Syriac MS. has been made from one of Prof. Harris's photographs. It corresponds with [Syr] 5 — [Syr] 9 of this edition.

J.A. R.

TABLE OF CONTENTS.

INTRODUCTION 1-34

Description of the Syriac MS 3

Aristides and Eusebius 6

Celsus and Aristides 19

The Symbol of the Faith in the time of Aristides 23

The Armenian Fragment of the Apology 26

An additional Armenian Fragment of Aristides 33

TRANSLATION OF THE SYRIAC VERSION 35-51

NOTES ON THE SYRIAC VERSION 52-64

APPENDIX 65-118

The original Greek of the Apology of Aristides 67

The Greek text of 'Barlaam and Josaphat' 80

The bearing of the Apology on the Canon 82

The Apology and the Didaché 84

The Apology and the Preaching of Peter 86

The Greek text edited from three MSS 100

Index of Greek words 113

Index of subject matter 117

THE SYRIAC TEXT OF THE APOLOGY [Syriac]

[Blank page]

This text was transcribed by Roger Pearse, 2003. All material on this page is in the public domain - copy freely.

Greek text is rendered using the Scholars Press SPIonic font, free from here.

Early Church Fathers - Additional Texts

SOURCE SECTION: aristides_04_intro.htm

The Apology of Aristides: Texts and Studies 1 (1891) pp. 1-34. Introduction.

The Apology of Aristides: Texts and Studies 1 (1891) pp. 1-34. Introduction.

INTRODUCTION.

THE present volume contains one of the earliest of the Apologies made to the Roman Emperors on behalf of the Christians, that, namely, which was said to have been presented to the Emperor Hadrian by an Athenian philosopher of the name of Aristides. Our information concerning this Apology has hitherto been of the scantiest kind, depending chiefly upon certain allusions of Eusebius in his Ecclesiastical History and in his Chronicon; as Eusebius did not, however, preserve any extracts from the book and presents only a most obscure figure in a philosopher's garb as its author, while subsequent writers have added little or nothing to what they found in Eusebius, it must be admitted that our ideas as to the character and scope of one of the earliest apologetic treatises on Christianity were about as vague as it was possible for them to be. It is true that there was a suspicion abroad which came from Jerome that the lost work. of Aristides had been imitated by Justin in his Apology, and Jerome had also ventured the opinion that the Apology was woven out of materials derived from the philosophers: but it was almost impossible to put any faith in Jerome's statements, which are usually mere editorial expansions and colourings of what he found in the pages of Eusebius. Not that there was any à priori improbability in the opinion that one Christian Apologist had imitated another, for almost all the Apologies that are known to us are painfully alike, and it would not be difficult to maintain of any two of them selected at random that one of them had borrowed from or imitated the other. The difficulty lay in the want of literary faith in statements made by Jerome; but even if |2 this confidence had not been wanting, we should not have been very much the wiser.

In the case of a companion Apology to that of Aristides, we were more happily placed for forming an opinion; since Eusebius not only describes an Apology presented to the Emperor Hadrian by a certain Quadratus, at the time of one of the imperial visits to Athens, but gives us also some striking and powerful sentences, just enough to convince one that the document was marked by argumentative force and spiritual insight, and could not have been a mere conventional tirade against paganism. Until recent times, then, all that could be said on the subject of these lost Apologies was that we had Eusebian tradition for their existence, Eusebian authority for their date, and a Eusebian extract from one of them as a specimen of sub-apostolic defence, a mere brick from a vanished house.

The mist, however, lifted some time ago, when the learned Armenians of the Lazarist monastery at Venice added to the obligations under which they have so often laid the scholarly and Christian world, by publishing an Armenian translation of the opening chapters of the lost Apology of Aristides; and although their document was received in some quarters ¹ with incredulity, it will be seen; by what we have presently to bring forward, that the fragment which they printed was rightly entitled, and that they had at least made the way for a satisfactory conception of |3 the dogmatics which underlay the apologetics. This was a great gain. Moreover their published fragment shewed traces of an interesting originality of method in the classification of the religious beliefs of the time.

Our contribution to the subject consists of a Syriac translation of the whole, or substantially the whole, of the missing Apology. We were so happy as to discover this text in a volume of Syriac extracts preserved in the library of the convent of St Catharine, upon Mount Sinai, during a delightful visit which we paid to those majestic solitudes and silences in the spring of 1889. Our copy has suffered somewhat in the course of time from successive transcriptions, and needs occasionally the hand of the critical corrector. The language and thought of the writer are, however, so simple and straightforward that the limits of error are much narrower than they would be in a document where the structure was more highly complicated; the unintelligible sentences which accumulate in a translation so much more rapidly than in the copying of an original document, are almost entirely absent. In fact the writer is more of a child than a philosopher, a child well-trained in creed and well-practised in ethics, rather than either a dogmatist defending a new system or an iconoclast destroying an old one: but this simplicity of treatment, so far from being a weakness, adds often greatly to the natural impressiveness of the subject and gives the work a place by the side of the best Christian writing of his age. But, before going further, it will be best to describe a little more closely the volume from which our text is taken.

Description of the MS.

The MS. from which we have copied is numbered 16 amongst the Syriac MSS. of the Sinaitic convent. The MS. may be |4 referred to the th century, and is written in two columns to the page. The book is made up of a number of separate treatises and extracts, almost all of which are ethical in character. Thus on fol. 1 b we have [Syriac] or, the history of the Lives of the Fathers, translated from Greek into Syriac.

On fol. b [syriac]

Apparently we have here the Liber Paradisi or Lives of the Holy Fathers of the Desert, of which many copies exist in Greek, though it may be doubted whether there is any critical edition. Some portions of this Syriac version were published at Upsala by Tullberg and his disciples, in 1851, from MSS. in the Vatican and in the British Museum. In our MS. the current heading of the pages is [syriac]

or, History of the Egyptian Hermits.

After fol. 86 b two leaves appear to have been cut away. Fol. 87 b bears the heading [syriac]

Of the holy Nilus the Solitary.

At the foot of fol. 93 a begins the Apology of Aristides.

On fol. 105 a begins [syriac]

or, A discourse of Plutarch on the subject of a man's being assisted by his enemy.

At the foot of fol. 112 a [syriac]

or, A second discourse of the same Plutarch peri\ a)skh&sewj.

Apparently this is the tract published by Lagarde in his Analecta, pp. 177-186, and translated by Gildemeister and Bücheler. |5

On fol. 121 b [syriac]

A discourse of Pythagoras,

probably the same as is published in Lagarde's Analecta, pp. 195 -201.

On fol. 126 a [syriac]

A discourse of Plutarch, on Anger,

for which see Lagarde, Analecta Syriaca, pp. 186-195. On fol. 132 b [syriac]

A discourse of Lucius (Lucianus), that we should not receive slander against our friends: peri\ tou~ mh_ r(a|di/wj pisteu&ein diabolh~|.

Apparently the same as is given in Sachau, Inedita, pp. 1-16. On fol. 140 a [syriac]

A discourse made by a philosopher, De Anima:

probably the same as is given in Sachau, Inedita, as Philosophorum de anima sententiae.

On fol. 143 a, [syriac]

or, the Counsel of Theano, a female philosopher of the school of Pythagoras:

see Sachau, Inedita, pp. 70-75, as Theano: Sententiae ².

On fol. 145 b a collection of Sayings of the Philosophers, beginning with [Syriac] (Plato the Wise said).

On fol. 151 6 [Syriac]

A first discourse in explanation of Ecclesiastes, made by Mar John the Solitary for the blessed Theognis. See Wright's Cat. of the Syr. MSS. in the Brit Mus. p. 996. |6

And from fol. 214a onward the volume is occupied with translations from the Homilies of Chrysostom on Matthew.

The above description will shew something of the value of the MS. It will also suggest that it was the ethical character of the Apology of Aristides that secured its incorporation with the volume. Let us now pass on to discuss the effect which this recovered document has upon our estimate of the Eusebian statements concerning the earliest Church Apologists.

Aristides and Eusebius.

According to the Chronicon of Eusebius we have the following date for the Apologies of Quadratus and Aristides:

1. The Armenian version of the Chronicon gives under the year 124 A.D. as follows:

Ol. A. Abr. Imp. Rom.

d226 2140 c d Adrianus Eleusinarum rerum gnarus fuit multaque (dona) Atheniensium largitus est.

c Romanorum ecclesiae episcopatum excepit septimus Telesphorus annis xi.

Codratus apostolorum auditor et Aristides nostri dogmatis (nostrae rei) philosophus Atheniensis Adriano supplicationes dedere apologeticas (apologiae, responsionis) ob mandatum. Acceperat tamen et a Serennio (s. Serenno) splendido praeside (iudice) scriptum de Christianis, quod nempe iniquum sit occidere cos solo rumore sine inquisitione, neque ulla accusatione. Scribit Armonicus Fundius (Phundius) proconsuli Asianorum ut sine ullo damno et incusatione non damnarentur; et exemplar edicti eius hucusque circumfertur.

One of the Armenian MSS. (Cod. N) transfers this notice about the Apologists to the following year, and it is believed that this represents more exactly the time of Hadrian's first visit to Athens (125-126 A.D.). With this agrees the dating of the Latin version of Jerome. We may say then that it is the intention of Eusebius to refer the presentation of both these |7 Apologies to the time when Hadrian was spending his first winter in Athens; and to make them the reason for the Imperial rescript to Minucius Fundanus which we find attached to the first Apology of Justin Martyr. And since Minucius Fundanus and his predecessor Granianus were consuls suffect in the years 106 and 107, it is not unreasonable to suppose that they held the Asian pro-consulate in the years A.D. 123 and 124, or 124 and 125. If then Aristides and Quadratus presented apologies to Hadrian, it is reasonable to connect these Apologies with his first Athenian winter and not with the second (A.D. 129-130).

But here we begin to meet with difficulties; for, in the first place, much doubt has been thrown on the genuineness of the rescript of the emperor to Minucius Fundanus; in the second place there is a suspicious resemblance between Quadratus the Apologist and another Quadratus who was bishop of Athens in the reign of Antoninus Pius, succeeding to Publius whom Jerome affirms to have been martyred; and in the third place our newly-recovered document cannot by any possibility be referred to the period suggested by Eusebius, and there is only the barest possibility of its having been presented to the Emperor Hadrian at all. Let us examine this last point carefully, in order to answer, as far as our means will permit, the question as to the time of presentation of the Apology of Aristides and the person or persons to whom it was addressed.

The Armenian fragment is headed as follows:

To the Emperor Hadrian Caesar, from Aristides, philosopher of Athens.

There is nothing, at first sight, to lead us to believe that this is the original heading; such a summary merely reflects the Eusebian tradition and might be immediately derived from it.

When we turn to the Syriac Version, we find a somewhat similar preface, to the following effect.

Apology made by Aristides the Philosopher before Hadrianus the King, concerning the worship of Almighty God.

But this, which seems to be a mere literary heading, proper, shall we say, for one out of a collection of apologies, is immediately |8 followed by another introduction which cannot be anything else than a part of the primitive apology. It runs as follows:

...Caesar Titus Hadrianus Antoninus, Worshipful and Clement, from Marcianus Aristides, philosopher of Athens.

The additional information which we derive from this sentence is a sufficient guarantee of its genuineness; we have the first name of the philosopher given, as Marcianus; and we have the name of the emperor addressed given at length. To our astonishment this is not Hadrian, but his successor Antoninus Pius, who bears the name of Hadrian by adoption from Publius Aelius Hadrianus. Unless therefore we can shew that there is an error or a deficiency in the opening sentence of the Apology we shall be obliged to refer it to the time of the emperor Antoninus Pius, and to say that Eusebius has made a mistake in reading the title of the Apology, or has followed some one who had made the mistake before him. And it seems tolerably clear that if an error exist at all in such a precise statement as ours, it must be of the nature of an omission. Let us see what can be urged in favour of this theory. We will imagine that the original title contained the names both of Hadrian and of Antoninus Pius, his adviser and companion, much in the same way as Justin opens his first Apology with" the words, "to the Emperor Titus Aelius Hadrianus Antoninus Pius Augustus Caesar and to his son Verissimus the Philosopher, and to Lucius the Philosopher, natural son of Caesar and adopted son of Pius....I Justin...have written the following appeal and supplication." In support of this theory we might urge the apparent dislocation of the opening sentence of our Apology. The Syriac version is clearly wrong in its punctuation, for example, since it transfers the expression [Syriac] (Almighty) to Caesar, by placing a colon after the word [Syriac] (God). This is clearly impossible, for that the writer did not attempt to translate, say, au)tokra&twr as if it were pantokra&twr will be evident from his correct use of the Divine attribute later on in his work. But even if the translator had been guilty of such a mistake, the case would not have been bettered, because Antonine would now have been styled Emperor as well as Caesar.

But let us imagine if we please that the term Caesar or |9 Emperor Caesar belongs to a previous name which has dropped out and supply the connective necessary, so as to read, "To the Emperor Aelius Hadrianus Augustus Caesar and to Titus Hadrianus Antoninus." In support of this we may urge that the adjectives which follow are marked in the Syriac with the sign of the plural, as if the writer imagined himself to be addressing more persons than one. Supposing then that this is the case we should still have to face the question as to the name given to Antonine; if he is called Hadrian, this must mean that the Apology is presented at some time subsequent to his adoption, which is generally understood to have taken place in the year A.D. 138, only a little while before Hadrian's death. So that in any case we should be prohibited by our document from dating the Apology in question either in the first visit of Hadrian to Athens or in the second visit, and we should only have the barest possibility that it was presented to Hadrian at all. It would have, so to speak, to be read to him on his death-bed at Baiae. Seeing then the extreme difficulty of maintaining the Hadrianic or Eusebian hypothesis, we are driven to refer the Apology to the reign of Antoninus Pius, and to affirm that Eusebius made a mistake in reading or quoting the title of the book, in which mistake he has been followed by a host of other and later writers. If he followed a text which had the heading as in the Syriac, he has misunderstood the person spoken of as Hadrian the king; and if on the other hand he takes the opening sentences as his guide, he has made a superficial reference, which a closer reading would have corrected. All that is necessary to make the Syriac MS. intelligible is the introduction of a simple prepositional prefix before the imperial name, and the deletion of the ribbui points in the adjectives.

Nor is this all; for there can be no doubt that the two adjectives in question ([Syriac]) are intended to represent two of the final titles of Antoninus: [Syriac] standing for the Greek Sebasto&j, which again is the equivalent of the Latin Augustus; and [Syriac] being the equivalent of the title Pius which the Roman Senate gave to Antoninus shortly after his accession and which the Greeks render by eu)sebh&j. And it is precisely in this order that the titles are usually found, |10 viz. Augustus Pius, which the Syriac has treated as adjectives, and connected by a conjunction. Moreover this translation of eu)sebh&j on the part of the Syriac interpreter shews that the meaning of the title is 'clement' or 'compassionate,' rather than that of mere filial duty, which agrees with what we find in a letter of Marcus Aurelius to Faustina; "haec (clementia) patrem tuum imprimis Pii nomine ornavit ³."

Now how will this conclusion react upon the companion Apology of Quadratus? We could, no doubt, maintain that it leaves the question where it found it. The mistake made by Eusebius need not have been a double error, and the correct reference to Hadrian for Quadratus's Apology would have furnished a starting-point for the incorrect reasoning with regard to Aristides. On this supposition we should simply erase the reference to Aristides from Eusebius and his imitators.

But there is one difficulty to be faced, and that is the fact that we were in confusion over Quadratus before we reached any conclusion about Aristides. And our investigation has not helped to any elucidation of the confusion. Read for example the language in which Eusebius (H. E. IV. 3) describes the presentation of the Apology,

[Greek]

and compare it with the Greek of the Chronicon as preserved by Syncellus,

[Greek]

and we naturally suspect with Harnack⁴ that the title must have been something like the following,

[Greek]

and we are confirmed in this belief by finding that the Aristides Apology was also headed

a)pologi/a u(pe\r th~j qeosebei/aj?:

at least its literary heading must have been very like this. |11

May we not also infer that the opening sentences of the Quadratus-Apology must have contained the dedication Ai0li/w| 9Adrianw~| which we find suggested above? But when we have made these suppositions the similarity between the two apologies in the titles is very great, for Aelius Hadrianus is also a part of the adopted name of the emperor Antoninus.

And let us look at the matter from another point of view. One of our early sources of information about Quadratus, the bishop of Athens, is found in a passage of a letter of Dionysius of Corinth preserved by Eusebius, and certainly Dionysius of Corinth ought to be good authority for Athenian religious history of the time immediately preceding his own. Euscbius does not actually quote the letter which Dionysius wrote to the church at Athens, but he tells us its scope and makes it easy to divine its contents: his language is as follows:

[Greek]

From this it would naturally be inferred that the Quadratus mentioned in the letter was a contemporary of Dionysius of Corinth; for the latter writes to the Athenians at once convicting them of slackness in the faith, and congratulating them on their happy revival under the ministration of Quadratus. And since Dionysius writes letters also to Soter, the bishop of Rome, who belongs to the early years of Marcus Aurelius, we should probably say that Quadratus was not very much earlier than this, which would place him in the reign of Antoninus Pius. And the persecution at Athens which ended in the martyrdom of Publius must therefore fall in the same reign. Now Jerome (de Virr. ill. § 19) identifies this Quadratus, the bishop of Athens, with the Apologist ⁵, and consequently pushes back the persecution into the |12 reign of Hadrian. We do not indeed attach any especial weight to Jerome's statement as to the time of the persecution, which is simply a combination made up out of passages from Eusebius concerning Quadratus and Dionysius with slight amplifications. He can hardly be right in placing the persecution under the reign of Hadrian, for, as Lightfoot points out ⁶, Eusebius, from whom he draws his facts, knows nothing about it: moreover we have information from Melito ⁷ that Antoninus Pius did actually write to Athens to suppress a persecution of the Christians. But, on the other hand, may he not be right after all in his identification of the bishop Quadratus with the Apologist, and do not the circumstances of the persecution suggested by Melito and testified to by Dionysius exactly suit the presentation of the Apology to the emperor?

While then we would readily admit that, as long as the Apology of Aristides was held to belong to the time of an Athenian visit of Hadrian, the Apology of Quadratus naturally remained with it, yet on the other hand when the Hadrian hypothesis is untenable for Aristides, will not the Quadratus-bishop and Quadratus-apologist naturally run together, and be one and the same person? Or is there anything to prevent the identification? The words 'apostolorum discipulus,' used by Jerome, and the corresponding words of Eusebius, a0posto&lwn a0kousth&j, can hardly be held to militate seriously against this hypothesis, for they are evident deductions from the passage which Eusebius quotes from the Apology of Quadratus about the sick people healed by the Lord, 'some of whom continued down to our times.' Jerome says boldly that Quadratus had seen very many of the subjects of our Lord's miracles; which is in any case a gross exaggeration. But if such persons, either many or few, had really lived into the age of Quadratus, it would be very difficult to place |13 the Apologist in the reign of Antoninus Pius. Unless, therefore, it can be maintained that the language quoted by Eusebius from Quadratus is an exaggeration or a misunderstanding we can hardly identify the bishop with the apologist. This is the furthest point to which the evidence carries the argument.

And now let us return to Aristides and see whether we can determine anything further concerning the time and manner of presentation of the Apology.

And first of all we may say that the simplicity of the style of the Apology is in favour of an early date. The religious ideas and practices are of an antique cast. The ethics shew a remarkable continuity with Jewish ethics: the care for the stranger and the friendless, the burial of the dead and the like, are given as characteristic virtues both of Judaism and of Christianity. Indeed we may say that one of the surprising things about the Apology is the friendly tone in which the Jews are spoken of: one certainly would not suspect that the chasm between the Church and the Synagogue had become as practically impassable as we find it in the middle of the second century. There is no sign of the hostile tone which we find towards the Jews in the martyrdom of Polycarp, and nothing like the severity of contempt which we find in the Epistle to Diognetus. If the Church is not in the writer's time any longer under the wing of the Synagogue, it has apparently no objection to taking the Synagogue occasionally under its own wing.

Such a consideration seems to be a mark of antiquity, and one would, therefore, prefer to believe, if it were possible, that the Apology was earlier than the Jewish revolt under Bar-Cochab. But since we have shewn that view to be untenable (and yet how attractive if we could place Aristides in the second visit of Hadrian to Athens, and Quadratus in the first!) we must content ourselves with seeking as early a date as is consistent with the superscriptions.

Another point that seems ancient about our Apology is that it contains traces, and very interesting traces, of the use of a creed, very similar to the Apostolic Symbol, but involving certain notable points of difference. We shall discuss the question more at length by and by; but at present it will be interesting |14 to notice, especially in view of the obviously friendly attitude of the writer towards the Jews, that his creed contained a clause to the effect that

'He was crucified by the Jews,'

perhaps without the clause that was current in later times, 'under Pontius Pilate.' Now I am aware that there are some persons to whom this will seem an argument for a later date; for example M. Renan, Origines vi. p. 277, says: "les Chrétiens commençaient à faire retomber sur l'ensemble de la nation juive un reproche que sûrement ni Pierre ni Jacques ni l'auteur de l'Apocalypse ne songeaient à lui adresser, celui d'avoir crucifié Jésus." It would be interesting however to compare this statement of M. Renan with the language of Peter in Acts ii. 36, "Whom ye crucified;" of James in Ep. v. 6, "ye murdered the Just;" or with the writer of the Apocalypse where he describes Jerusalem as the spiritual Sodom and Egypt, "where also our Lord was crucified."

The very same charge is made by Justin in his dialogue with Trypho ⁸, who uses language very similar to that of the Epistle of James, and in discussing the miseries which have befallen the Jewish race, says pointedly "Fairly and justly have these things come upon you; for Ye slew the Just One." Why should we assume such a sentiment to be a mark of late date?

These references do not, however, suggest that the sentence in question was in the Creed. To prove that, we should have to go much farther afield, for the known forms of early creeds do not seem to contain it: if, however, we were to examine the Apocryphal Christian Literature of the early centuries, we should, no doubt, find many traces of the lost sentence. For example, it comes over and over in the Apocryphal Acts of John, a Gnostic document which Wright edited and translated from the Syriac. Here we find the sentence frequently in the very connexion which it would have with other Christian dogmatic statements if it had been incorporated with some actual form of the Symbol of Faith. When we find that these Acts give us as the staple of Apostolic teaching that |15

"The Jews crucified Him on the tree,

And He died

And rose after three days,

And He is God,

And He ascended to Heaven

And is at the right hand of His Father"

we must admit that the sequence of ideas, and probably the very words, are from a Creed.

The same thing is true when we find the Apostle speaking, and saying

"In the name of Jesus the Messiah, God,

Whom the Jews crucified and killed in Jerusalem;

And He died and was buried

And rose after three days:

And lo! He is above in Heaven

At the right hand of His Father."

At all events we may maintain that there is evidence for the diffusion of the Creed in early times under a slightly different form to that generally received, and if so, we may call it a mark of antiquity to have the Apology of Aristides expressing itself to that effect; for certainly no such sentence in the generally received Creed existed in later times, however widely the sentiment against the Jews may have been diffused.

It is interesting also to compare the custom of the early Christians in the matter of fasting, that they might relieve by their self-denial the necessities of the poor. This is precisely what we find described so fully in the Similitudes of Hermas (Sim. v. 3), where the directions are given that on the day when we fast we are ourselves to eat only bread and water, and calculate the amount saved thereby and bestow it on the poor. Now very many of the later fathers teach the same doctrine, that fasting and alms are conjoined in duty and merit, and that it is proper, under certain circumstances, for the church to call for such an expression of religion. But what makes for the antiquity of the Apology is that the whole church fasts, not merely one day, but two or three days, and that not by direction or rule, but because they are poor and have no other way of meeting the needs of those who are poorer |16 than themselves. It is a spontaneous, rather than a commanded charity, dictated at once by love and necessity. Can such a practice in such a form be other than early? But if the Apology is early in its doctrines and practices, where shall we place it? Must it not be at least as early as the first years of the reign of Antoninus Pius?

But here we are in difficulty again, for, if we assume that the Apology was presented to Antoninus Pius in person, we have no satisfactory evidence that Antoninus was ever in the East, or in Greece after his accession, and even the suspicions as to an Eastern visit belong to a later period of his reign, say A.D. 154. Did Aristides present the Apology at Rome or elsewhere? May we infer from his calling himself Marcianus Aristides, Philosopher of Athens, that he was in some city not his own natural dwelling-place? For that he came from Athens is deducible not only from his own statement but also from the fact to which we have already alluded that Antoninus wrote to Athens to suppress a persecution of the Christians. But this almost implies that Antoninus was not in Athens when he received the Apology, or where would be the need of writing a letter at all? He must have been out of Greece.

Only two solutions seem to present themselves, (i) that Aristides journeyed to Rome to present his apology; (ii) that Antoninus made some unrecorded visit to the East.

Now with regard to the second of these suppositions there is reason, outside of our argument and its necessities, to believe that some such visit must have taken place, and that Antoninus held court at Smyrna, some time after his accession to the throne.

In the celebrated letter of Irenaeus to Florinus (written probably later than A.D. 189) the writer speaks of having seen Florinus when he lived in lower Asia with Polycarp, when he was at the royal court, and rising in esteem there; he, Irenaeus, being at that time a boy. Now this seems to imply some kind of royal residence at Smyrna; but it has always been difficult to determine what is meant by such a royal residence. The problem is discussed by Lightfoot in his Ignatius (ed. ii. vol. I. p. 449), It cannot be Hadrian's visit in A.D. 129, which would be too early; and Lightfoot thinks that although there is some reason for believing |17 Antoninus Pius to have been in Syria, and presumably also in Asia Minor, somewhere about A.D. 154, 155, this date is too late, on account of the mention of Polycarp. Accordingly Lightfoot frames, with some hesitation, the following hypothesis: "About the year 136 T. Aurelius Fulvus was proconsul of Asia. Within two or three years of his proconsulate he was raised to the imperial throne, and is known as Antoninus Pius. Even during his proconsulate omens marked him as the future occupant of the imperial throne....Florinus may have belonged to his suite, and Irenaeus in after years might well call the proconsul's retinue the 'royal Court' by anticipation, especially if Florinus accompanied him to Rome, &c."

This ingenious hypothesis only fails to meet our requirement on one point, viz. that the name given to Antoninus in the Apology is the name given him after adoption, and so is subsequent to Feb. 25, A.D. 138.

But suppose we imagine a visit of Antoninus to Asia Minor some years later than this, we could find then some support for the theory that Aristides presented his Apology to the Emperor at Smyrna.

For we might say that the name of Marcianus is a conspicuous one in the Church at Smyrna. When the Church of the Smyrnaeans wrote for the Church of Philomelium the account of the martyrdom of Polycarp, they employed to compose the narrative a person whom they characterise as our brother Marcianus ⁹. Now it is worthy of note that this person must have been conspicuous in the Church of Smyrna, for he is probably the same person to whom Irenaeus, whose relations with the Church at Smyrna are so intimate, dedicated one of his treatises ¹⁰. Moreover the relations of the Church to the Emperor through Florinus would have been favourable for the presentation of the Apology.

Let us then say, in recapitulation, that we have found it difficult to assign the Apology to any other period than the early years of the reign of Antoninus Pius; and it is at least conceivable that it may have been presented to the Emperor, along with other Christian writings, during an unrecorded visit of his to his ancient seat of government in Smyrna. |18

There are a few later references to Aristides to which we have drawn no attention hitherto, because it seemed to be impossible to extract any trustworthy data from them: they are as follows:

(1) A passage in a letter of Jerome to Magnus, "Aristides philosophus, vir eloquentissimus, eidem principi (Hadriano) Apologeticum pro Christianis obtulit, contextum philosophorum sententiis, quem imitatus postea Justinus, et ipse philosophus." This is simply a réchauffé of the Eusebian data, with reflections thereupon. Justin being a philosopher, his Apology naturally imitates the philosophical treatise which has preceded his own.

(2) Martyrologium Vetus Romanum¹¹ ad v. Nonas Octobris.

"Athenis Dionysii Areopagitae sub Hadriano diversis tormen-tis passi, ut Aristides testis est in opere quod de Christiana religione composuit; hoc opus apud Athénien ses inter antiquorum memorias clarissimum tenetur." Aristides himself is commemorated on ii. Kal. Septr. and it is said that in his treatise he maintained "quod Christus Jesus solus esset Deus."

It would be very interesting to determine how the Martyrologies arrived at these statements. Our Syriac Apology certainly contains no trace of an allusion to Dionysius the Areopagite; on the other hand it fairly enough teaches the Divinity of Christ. We would dismiss the statements at once as archaeological fictions if it had not been that evidence has been produced for the existence of a Latin version of Aristides. Harnack's attention was drawn by the pastor Kawerau to the following letter of Witzel to Beatus Rhenanus, dated Bartholomew's day 1534. "Dedisti nobis Eusebium, praeterea Tertullianum. Restat ut pari nitore des Justinum Martyrem, Papiam et Ignatium graece excusum. Amabo, per Bibliothecas oberrare, venaturus si quid scripsit Quadratus, si praeter epistolam alia Polycarpus, si nonnihil praeter Apologeticon Aristides. Despice, si quae supersunt Cornelii et tanta bonorum librorum panolethria. Plures sunt Dionysii scriptores, sed omnes praeter unum Areopagitem desyderamus, qui utinam sua quoque in lingua extaret. Utinam exorirentur Stromata Clementis, breviter quicquid est

kro&ni+on. Tineae pascuntur libris, quibus |19 homines pasci debebamus &c." I have given the extract from Harnack's copy ¹², not having access to the original letter.

It seems to me that Witzel's language almost implies that the Apology was already in print in Latin. Is it conceivable that some portion of the Apology may have found its way into print before the year 1534 and remained unnoticed in later times?

But even if it existed in manuscript, we must leave it an open question whether it may not have contained some matter which is wanting in the Syriac; nevertheless it is à priori extremely improbable that the story about the martyrdom of Dionysius the Areopagite can belong here.

Celsus and Aristides.

We have alluded above to a possible connexion between the True Word of Celsus and the Apology of Aristides, and it may be worth while to follow the matter up a little closer for the following reasons:

1. Celsus is undoubtedly very nearly contemporary with Aristides; although it is difficult to determine his date exactly (and even Origen was doubtful as to his identity), we may probably say with a good assurance of safety that he was at the zenith of his influence and fame under the reign of Antoninus Pius.

2. It is peculiarly difficult to determine what Christian books had come into the hands of Celsus, whether gospels or other literature. We know however for certain that he had read the dialogue between Jason and Papiscus, a work of Aristo of Pella, written not long after the close of the Jewish war under Hadrian, and so at a period very near to the one in which we are interested. Now if he were reading contemporary Christian literature he could hardly miss Aristides.

3. And since we find more and closer parallels between the fragments preserved by Origen from the great work of Celsus and our Apology than between most of the other books of the century, it is at least a fair question whether Aristides was not one of the persons to whom Celsus undertook to reply. |20

One of the leading beliefs in Aristides is that God made all things for the sake of man. This doctrine he repeats in various forms, shewing that the separate elements, the earth, the air, the fire, and the water together with the sun, moon and stars, are his ministers. Now Celsus seems to have been particularly opposed to this doctrine and to have discussed it at length: it was one of the points of contact between the Stoic philosophy and the Jewish and Christian faiths, and Celsus was, no doubt, well prepared to be diffuse on the subject by many previous philosophical encounters.

He draws ridiculous pictures of the philosophy of the frogs in the swamp, of the ants in their ant-hill, and of bevies of bats, discussing the to them obvious proposition that the world has been made solely for their benefit. Accordingly Origen remarks, [Greek] ¹³. In which sentence he has pretty well covered the argument from Providence as stated by Aristides. Were the elements and the stars, says he, made for the self-congratulation and self-exaltation of the bat, the frog, or----the man?

But he carries out the argument in detail: a providence over man is as reasonable as a providence over beasts and vegetables, which can be proved from the same data. [Greek] ¹⁴. Indeed, according to Celsus, Providence is more apparent in the case of ants and bees and the like, which obtain their food without labour or with much less labour than happens in the case of man. He will not hear of such a statement as that the sun and stars serve man, much less what Aristides affirms, that the sun was created to serve the multiplicity of human need. Do not, says he, quote me verses from Euripides about sunshine and shade serving man; how do they serve him any more than the ants or the flies, which sleep |21 and wake much as we do? [Greek] ¹⁵;

Now of course we do not mean to suggest that Aristides invented the argument from Providence or that Celsus was the first to heap easy scorn upon it. The argument and the reply are commonplaces. Celsus's question as to whether the world was created for the sake of vegetables will be found discussed in Cicero, de Natura Deorum II. 133. "Cuiusnam causa tantarum rerum molitio sit? Arborumne et herbarum? quae quamquam sine sensu sunt, tarnen a natura sustinentur. At id quidem absurdum est. An bestiarum? Nihilo probabilius, deos mutorum et nihil intelligentium causa tantum laborasse----Ita fit credibile deorum et hominum causa factum esse mundum, quaeque in eo sint omnia."

It is easy to see how both the Jewish and Christian teachers, starting from the same text, the first verse in the book of Genesis, and formulating the same statement of faith, that the Almighty was 'Maker of Heaven and Earth,' found themselves fighting in the ranks with the Stoics against the Epicureans, and so exposed from time to time to the infinite raillery which seemed to the latter school to be proper to the situation. As we have said, Aristides does not stand alone in the statement. Justin Martyr takes the same ground and implies that it is a part of the regular Christian teaching. "We are taught," says he, "that God in His goodness created all things in the beginning from formless matter, for the sake of man¹⁶;" and the unknown writer of the Epistle to Diognetus affirms that "God loved men, for whom He made the world, to whom He subjected all things that are in the earth¹⁷."

It is however worthy of notice that in Aristides the argument is repeated over and over, and that Celsus answers it, as Origen thought, at unnecessary length. It is not therefore inconceivable that Aristides may have drawn the Epicurean fire upon himself (and in this matter we may certainly count Celsus with the Epicureans) by the stress which he laid on the point in his Apology.

Let us pass on to another point upon which Aristides is |22 somewhat original, viz. the doctrine of the races of the world and of their origin.

Aristides divides the world into four races, the Barbarian, the Greek, the Jew, the Christian. The last two races are curiously described; the Jews derive their origin from Abraham, Isaac and Jacob: they went down from Syria into Egypt; they came back from Egypt into Syria. As for the Christians, the new race, they derive their origin from Jesus the Messiah, and He is called the Son of God Most High.

Now in the first book against Celsus, Origen remarks as follows: "Celsus promises that he will speak on the subject of the Jews later on, and he begins his discourse concerning our Saviour, as being the leader of our generation in so far as we are Christians ¹⁸, and he goes on to say that he was the leader of this teaching, a few years ago, being regarded by the Christians as the Son of God."

Now it is worthy of note that if Celsus is handling any written document, that document proceeded from the discussion of the Jews to the Christians, affirmed Christ to be the head of the new race, and declared that His followers regarded Him as the Son of God. The agreement at this point with Aristides is certainly striking.

When moreover we come to the discussion of the Jews, Celsus breaks out that the 'Jews were mere Egyptian runaways, and that this darling people of God had never done anything worth remembering¹⁹,' just as if he had passed over the names of the Patriarchs and fastened on the admission that the Jews had come out of Egypt. Accordingly Origen replies that it is universally agreed that the Jews reckon their genealogy from Abraham, Isaac and Jacob; [Greek].

When Aristides deals with the beliefs of the Jews he expresses the remarkable opinion that the Jewish ritual is rather an adoration of angels than a worship of God. The expression is the more remarkable, because Aristides affects to reason throughout as the |23 philosopher rather than the Christian, arid he forgets himself and introduces the angels without even an explanation to the emperor, as to what beings are intended. What shall we say then when we find Celsus affirming that the Jews worship angels ²⁰? [Greek] And Origen is so puzzled as to ask 'where in the world did Celsus find in the Mosaic writings instruction in the worship of angels?' It is certainly curious that we find the missing link supplied by the Apology of Aristides.

No doubt further analogies might be traced; for example, Celsus is especially irate with the Christians for their ridicule of Egyptian superstitions²¹, they see nothing except ephemeral animals, instead of grasping eternal ideas. Now there is no doubt that it is a very common subject of Christian merriment, but perhaps no one of the early Christian Writers has laughed so much in detail about it as Aristides. We will not however press the matter further: there are always numerous points of contact and necessary collisions between the attack and the defence of given religions: suffice it to say that we have shewn it to be by no means an inconceivable proposition that Celsus had read the Apology of Aristides before he penned his 'Alhqh_j lo&goj.

The Symbol of the Faith in the time of Aristides.

Aristides the Philosopher is a Christian who has preserved the philosophic manner, and probably the philosophic dress, with a view to future service in the gospel. It seems to have been the practice of not a few of the famous second-century Christians to attract an audience in this way. Justin certainly did so, and almost as surely Tatian; and if these why not Aristides? But as we have already said, the professedly dispassionate presentation of the Christian case, the endeavour to talk reasonably on all sides successively, soon breaks down; the man throws off his disguise and gives the note of challenge: Christianus sum; nihil Christianum alienum a me puto. He talks of angels as though all men knew them, dashes through the dogmatic statements of the Church as though they were perfectly familiar, and without a |24 word of preliminary explanation of terms, makes a peroration of the impending judgment-day. And so the philosopher with an imperial audience turns out to be another illustration of the Christian city that is set on a hill and cannot be hid.

It is especially interesting to observe that in the time of Aristides the Church already had a Symbol of the Faith: and we may reconstruct a good many of its sentences. Of course in such matters we proceed from the things that are practically certain to those which are less demonstrable; we should not start by saying that the words "Maker of heaven and earth" were proof of the existence of an approximately fixed symbol. But if we can establish other sentences with good confidence, there is no reason to omit these words from the reconstructed formula.

The certain passage from which we proceed is in the words:

"He was pierced (crucified) by the Jews;

"He died and was buried;"

" and they say that

after three days He rose,

and ascended into Heaven."

It may be taken for granted that these words represent a part of the Symbolum Fidei as known to Aristides.

What else may we say was contained in his creed? We may add words which must have stood respectively at the beginning and ending of the Creed: viz. that God was the Maker of Heaven and Earth; and that Jesus Christ was to come to judge the world.

Whether we can go further is a more difficult question: but there is at least a strong suspicion that the creed contained the clause "He was born of the Virgin Mary;" for in Aristides' statement the language about the 'Hebrew virgin' precedes the account of the Crucifixion; moreover, here also, we find Aristides is most pronounced in the enunciation of the doctrine, and Celsus is emphatically scornful in the rejection of it. Accordingly Celsus brings forward the story of the infidelity of Mary, affirming that the father of Jesus was in reality a soldier whose name was Panthera ²². The same story appears in the Talmud under the name Pandera, which is a transliteration of the foregoing. |25

Indeed it has been generally held that the legend was invented by the Jews, through the difficulty of accounting for our Lord's birth; apparently, therefore, the Jews were in search of a more tenable hypothesis than the paternity of Joseph; and it is not unreasonable to refer to an early Jewish scandal the story which we find in the Talmud and in Celsus.

But if the story be Jewish in origin, it was certainly Greek in manufacture. Some persons have tried to explain the Greek name Panthera by regarding it as a symbol of violent and unrestrained lust. They are, however, mistaken: the name is simply a Greek anagram on the word 'Parthenos,' by which the Blessed Virgin was commonly known. Those who are familiar with the literary tricks of that time, its anagrams, acrostics, isopsephics, and the like, will have not the least difficulty in seeing that this is the true solution. The inventor has only changed the order of the letters and slightly altered the ending of the word. Everything that we know of the dogmatics of the early part of the second century agrees with the belief that at that period the Virginity of Mary was a part of the formulated Christian belief. Nor need we hesitate, in view of the antiquity of the Panthera-fable, to give the doctrine a place in the creed of Aristides.

We restore the fragments of Aristides' creed, then, as follows:

We believe in one God, Almighty Maker of Heaven and Earth:

And in Jesus Christ His Son

* * * *

Born of the Virgin Mary:

* * * *

He was pierced by the Jews:

He died and was buried:

The third day He rose again:

He ascended into Heaven:

* * * *

He is about to come to judge.

* * * * |26

The Armenian Fragment of the Apology.

We give, later on, the Latin translation of the Armenian fragment, as published by the Venetian editors. The passage has also been translated into German by von Himpel ²³, and this translation will be found in Harnack's Griechische Apologeten, pp. 110-112. Von Himpel rightly affirms the Armenian text to have been made from the Greek: it will be observed, however, that the Armenian text has the same lacuna as the Syriac in the discourse on the four elements and the powers to which they are respectively subject. This lacuna would seem to be an early feature of the Greek text.

There are one or two points in which we may get some authority from the Armenian for the original text. For instance in c. ii. where the Syriac reads that the origin of the Greeks is to be traced through "Danaus the Egyptian, and through Kadmus, and through Dionysus." Here the Armenian reads "Danaus the Egyptian and Kadmus the Sidonian and Dionysus the Theban," and I am disposed to believe the words added in the Armenian belong there: for instance, we may compare Tatian's language ²⁴, "Dionysus is absolute sovereign over the Thebans." In a similar manner something seems to have dropped in the Syriac after the statement that in God there is no distinction of male or female; for the Armenian text adds the reason "quia cupiditatibus agitatur qui huic est distinctioni obnoxius." Again in the opening sentences of the Apology the Armenian text has the words, "Eum autem qui rector atque creator est omnium, investigare perdifficile est ²⁵." We recognize at once in these words the ring of the characteristic Christian quotation from the Timaeus, which is usually employed to shew the superior illuminating power of Christian grace over philosophic research, but seems here to be taken in the Platonic sense. The Armenian is perhaps a little nearer to the Platonic language than the Syriac; both versions however will claim the passage from the Timaeus as a parallel. |27

Allowing then for the occasional preservation of a passage in greater purity by the Armenian fragment, we shall find that the Armenian translator has often made changes, and added glosses, and epitomized sentences. For example, in the summary of the Christian Faith, he describes the Son as the Logos, His mother as the Theotokos. When the disciples are sent forth, in order that a certain oi0konomi/a may be fulfilled, the Armenian translator calls it a dispensation of illuminating truth; the preaching too is with 'signs following,' 'comitantibus prodigiis,' which seems to come from Mark xvi. 20 and would be, if genuine, one of the earliest illustrations of that text. It will be seen how large an element of paraphrase is found in the Armenian text.

The Armenian Fragment

(from the Venice edition).

IMPERATORI CAESARI HADRIANO,

ARISTIDES,

PHILOSOPHUS ATHENIENSIS.

Ego, O Rex, Dei providentia creatus, hunc mundum ingressus sum, et caelis, terra ac mari, sole, luna et stellis, caeterisque omnibus creaturis conspectis, huius mundi constitutionem admirans miratus sum, atque conscius factus sum mihi, quoniam omnia quae sunt in mundo necessitate ac vi diriguntur, omnium creatorem et rectorem esse Deum: quia iis omnibus quae reguntur atque moventur, fortior est creator et rector.

Eum autem, qui rector atque creator est omnium, investigare perdifficile atque in immensum pertinens mihi videtur: penitus vero eum et certa ratione describere, quum inexplicabilis et ineffabilis sit, impossibile et sine ulla prorsus utilitate. Deus enim naturam habet infinitam, imperscrutabilem et creaturis omnibus incomprehensibilem. Hoc unum scire necesse est, qui creaturas universas Providentia sua gubernat, ipsum esse Dominum Deum et creatorem omnium: quia visibilia omnia creavit bonitate sua, eaque humano generi donavit. Quapropter Illum solum, utpote unum Deum, nos adorare et glorificare oportet: unumquemque autem nostrum proximum suum sicut semetipsum diligere. |28

Verumtamen de Deo saltem sciendum est, Eum ab alio factum non fuisse, neque semetipsum fecisse, atque, a nullo circumscriptum, omnia comprehendere. Ex se ipsomet est ²⁶. Ipse sapientia immortalis, principio et fine carens, immortalis atque aeternus, perfectus, nulli necessitati obnoxius, et necessitatibus omnium satisfaciens, nullo indigens et indigentiis omnium ipse magnificus opitulator.

Ipse est principio carens, quia, qui habet principium, habet et finem. Ipse sine nomine, quod quicumque nomine appellatur, creatus est factusque ab alio. Ei neque colores sunt neque forma: quod, quicumque his praeditus est, mensurabilis est, limitibusque cogitur. Eius naturae nulla inest maris et feminae distinctio, quia cupiditatibus agitatur qui huic est distinctioni obnoxius. Ipse sub caelis incomprehensibilis est, quia caelos excedit: nec caeli caelorum Illo maiores sunt, quia caeli caelorum et creaturae omnes quae sub caelis sunt, ab Illo comprehenduntur.

Ipsi nemo contrarius neque adversarius: quod si quis Ei contrarias et adversarius esse posset, eidem compar fieri videretur.

Ipse immobilis est atque praeter quemcumque terminum et circuitum: quia ubi et unde moveri possit locus deest. Ipse neque mensura comprehendi, neque circumdari potest, quia Ipse omnia replet, atque est ultra omnes visibiles et invisibiles creaturas. Ipse neque ira, neque indignatione movetur, quia nulla caecitate afficitur, quum omnino et absolute sit intellectualis. Propterea hisce omnibus miraculis variis omnibusque beneficiis Ipse omnia creavit. Sacrificiis, oblationibus et hostiis Ipse non indiget, neque, ulla in re, visibilibus creaturis opus habet; quia omnia replet, et omnium egestatibus satisfacit, Ipse numquam indigens ac semper gloriosus.

De Deo sapienter loqui ab ipso Deo mihi datum est, et pro meis viribus locutus sum, quin tamen altitudinem imperscrutabilis magnitudinis Ejus comprehendere possem. Sola fide vero Ilium glorificans adoro.

Nunc igitur ad genus humanum veniamus et quinam praefatas veritates secuti fuerint videbimus, et quinam ab eis erraverint. Compertum est nobis, o Rex, quatuor esse humani generis stirpes, quae sunt Barbarorum, Graecorum, Hebraeorum atque Christianorum. Ethnici et Barbari genus suum ducunt a Belo, Crono et |29 Hiera, aliisque suis Divis pluribus. Graeci vero a Jove, qui Zeus vel Jupiter dicitur, originem trahunt, per Helenum, Xuthum, aliosque eorum descendentes, nempe Helladem, Inacum, Phoroneum, ac demum Danaum Aegyptium, Cadmum Sidonium, ac Dionysium Thebanum. Hebraei autem genus suum ducunt ex Abrahamo, Isaaco, Jacobo, et duodecim Jacobi filiis, qui e Syria in Aegyptum se receperunt, et a legislature suo Hebraei nuncupati fuerunt, inde vero terram promissionis ingressi, Judaei sunt appellati. Christianorum tandem genus a Domino Jesu Christo oritur.

Ipse Dei altissimi est Filius, et una cum Spiritu Sancto revelatus est nobis: de caelis descendit ex Hebraea Virgine natus, ex Virgine carnem assumpsit, assumptaque humana natura, semetipsum Dei filium revelavit. Qui Evangelio suo vivificante mundum Universum, consolatoria sua bonitate, sibi captivum fecit.

Ipse est Verbum, qui ex progenie Hebraica, secundum carnem, ex Maria virgine Deipara natus est. Ipse est qui Apostolos duodecim inter suos discipulos elegit, ut mundum Universum dispensatione. illuminantis Veritatis suae institueret. Ipse ab Hebraeis crucifixus est: a mortuis resurrexit et ad caelos ascendit: in mundum Universum discipulos suos mittens, qui divino et admirabili lumine suo, comitantibus prodigiis, omnes gentes sapientiam docerent. Quorum praedicatio in hunc usque diem germinat atque fructificat, orbem Universum vocans ad lucem.

Quatuor ergo nationes, O Rex, ostendi tibi: Barbaros, Graecos, Hebraeos atque Christianos.

* * * * * * * * * *

Divinitati spiritualis natura propria est, Angelis ignea, daemoniis aquosa, generique humano terrestris.

* * * * * * * * * *

We have now reprinted all that is known of the Armenian translation of the Apology; it is out of our limit and beyond our measure to think of reprinting the actual Armenian text. For the purpose of comparison we add, however, another copy of the same Armenian fragment, taken from a MS. at Edschmiazin, and translated into English by Mr F. C. Conybeare, of Oxford, for whose kindly aid we are very grateful. According to the information which he has supplied, the MS. at Edschmiazin was written on paper, and is much worn by age. The date was certainly not |30 later than the eleventh century. The fragment from the Apology which it contains was followed by the fragment from the Homily on the Penitent Thief. Here and there the text was illegible, and in these cases the missing words have been supplied from the Venice text, as reprinted by Pitra. The two texts in question are moreover in very close agreement, except for the occasional addition of a word or two by the Edschmiazin MS. The rendering is designedly a literal one.

The Armenian Fragment

(from the Edschmiazin MS.).

TO THE AUTOCRATIC CAESAR ADRIANOS

FROM ARISTIDES, ATHENIAN PHILOSOPHER.

I, O Ruler, who was by the providence of God created and fashioned man in the world, and who have beheld the heaven and the earth and the sea, the sun and the moon and the stars and all creatures, wondered and was amazed at the eternal ²⁷ order thereof. I also by reflection learned that the world and all that is therein is by necessity and force guided and moved and of the whole God is controuler and orderer: for that which controuls is more powerful than that which is controuled and moved. To enquire about Him who is guardian and controuls all things seems to me to quite exceed the comprehension and to be most difficult, and to speak accurately concerning Him is beyond compass of thought and of speech, and bringeth no advantage; for His nature is infinite and unsearchable, and imperceptible,²⁸ and inaccessible to all creatures. We can only know that He who governs by His providence all created things, He is Lord and God and creator of all, who ordered all things visible in His beneficence, and graciously bestowed them on the race of man. Now it is meet that we serve and glorify Him alone as God, and love one another as ourselves. But this much alone can we know concerning God, |31 that He was not generated from any source, and did not Himself make Himself, and is not contained by aught, but Himself contains all. Au)togene\j ei]doj ²⁹ and wisdom immortal, without beginning or end, not passing away and undying, He is complete and wanteth nothing, while He fulfilleth all wants. In Himself He wanteth nought, but gives to and fulfils the needs of all. In Himself He is without beginning, for He is beginning of everything whatever, and is perfect. In Himself He is nameless, for whatever is named is fashioned out of something else³⁰ and created. Colour and form of Him there is not, for that falls under measure and limit, unto whatsoever colour and form belong. Male and female in that nature there is not, for that is subject to particular passions, in whatsoever that distinction exists. Within the heavens He is not contained, for He is beyond³¹ the heavens; neither are the heavens greater than He, for the heavens and all creation are contained in Him. Counter to Him and opposed there is no one: if any one be found counter to Him, it appears that that one becometh associate with Him. He is unmoved and unmeasured and ineffable; for there is no place whence or with which He could move; and He is not, by being measured, contained or environed on any side, for it is Himself that filleth all, and He transcends all things visible and invisible. Wrath and anger there is not in Him, for there is not in Him blindness, but He is wholly and entirely rational, and on that account He established creation with divers wonders and entire beneficence. Need hath He none of victims and oblations and sacrifices, and of all that is in the visible creation He wanteth nought. For He fulfilleth the wants of all and completeth them, and being in need of nothing He is glorified unto all time.

Now by the grace of God it was given me to speak wisely concerning Him. So far as I have received the faculty I will speak, yet not according to the measure of the inscrutability of His greatness shall I be able to do so, but by faith alone do I glorify and adore Him.

Let us next come to the race of man, and see who are capable |32 of receiving the truth of these sayings, and who are gone astray. It is manifest³², O Ruler, for there are four tribes³³ of the human race. There are barbarians, and some are Greeks and others Hebrews, and there are who are Christians. But the heathens and barbarians count their descent from Baal, and from Cronos, and from Hera, and from many others of their gods. But the Greeks say Zeus (who is Dios) is their founder³⁴, and reckon their descent from Helenos and Xuthos, and one after another from Hellas, Inachos and Phoroneus, and also finally from Danaus the Egyptian, and from Cadmus the Sidonian, and Dionysius the Theban.

But the Jews reckon their race from Abraham, and Abraham's son they say was Isaac, and from Isaac Jacob, and from Jacob the twelve who migrated from Assyria into Egypt and were there named the tribes of the Hebrews by their lawgiver, and having come into the land of recompence, were named......³⁵ the tribes of the Jews.

But the Christians reckon their race from the Lord Jesus Christ. He is Himself Son of God on high, who was manifested of the Holy Spirit, came down from heaven, and being born of a Hebrew virgin took on His flesh from the virgin, and was manifested in the nature of humanity the Son of God: who sought to win the entire world to His eternal goodness by His life-giving preaching³⁶. He it is who was according to the flesh born of the race of the Hebrews, by the God-bearing³⁷ virgin Miriam. He chose the twelve disciples, and He by his illuminating truth, dispensing |33 it³⁸ taught, all the world, and was nailed on the cross by the Jews. Who rose from the dead and ascended into heaven, and sent forth His disciples into the whole world³⁹, and taught all with divinely miraculous and profoundly wise wonders. Their preaching until this day blossoms and bears fruit, and summons all the world to receive the light.

These are the four tribes, whom we set before thee, O Ruler, Barbarians, Greeks, Jews and Christians. But to the Deity is appointed the spiritual, and to angels the fiery, and to devils the watery, and to the race of men the earth.

* * * * * * * * * *

An additional Armenian Fragment of Aristides.

Over and above the fragments of the lost Apology of Aristides, and the homily de Latrone, there is a scrap printed by Pitra in his Spicilegium Solesmense which professes to come from an epistle of Aristides to all Philosophers. It is, as far as we can judge, in the form in which we have it presented to us, a theological product of the time of the Monophysite controversy. But we must bear in mind what we have learned from the Armenian fragment of the Apology, that an Armenian translation is made up out of the matter of the original writer plus the terms and definitions of the translator, as for instance we see to have happened in the ascription of the term Qeoto&koj to the Blessed Virgin. And the question is whether under the amplified folds of the theology of this fragment printed by Pitra there may be hidden the more scanty terms of a theologian of the second century, and if so, whether the writer be our Aristides, and the work quoted be the Apology or some other work. In order to test this point, we will give a rendering of the fragment into Greek, for which again I am indebted to the kindness of Mr Conybeare. |34

Armenian Fragment.

(Frag. iii. of Pitra.)

FROM AN EPISTLE OF ARISTIDES TO ALL PHILOSOPHERS.

[Greek].^{40 41}

Now with reference to the foregoing passage, we may say at once that the concluding terms are not second-century language at all. On the other hand, the reference to the "Hebrew virgin" is precisely the language of the Apology. Further, the opening words of the fragment, with their allusion to a real passion of a real body, are certainly anti-Docetic, and therefore may be taken as second-century theology. We may compare with them the sentiments of the Ignatian epistles, as for example the letter to the Smyrnaeans (c. ii.), where we read: ----

[Greek]

It does not, therefore, seem as if these words in the opening of the fragment were a translator's invention or addition. They have a second-century ring about them. If so, then the extract is either a translation of a paragraph of the Apology, or of some other tract by the same writer, and probably the latter. We have, however, no means of discriminating further the original form of the sentence from the later accretions. It is, however, by no means impossible that the heading may be correct; that Aristides may have written an epistle or address to Philosophers on the subject of the Christian religion in general, or of the Incarnation in particular. |35

[Footnotes renumbered and moved to the end]

1. ¹ Especially by M. Renan, who in his Origines de Christianisme, vol. vi. p. vi., says: "Le présent volume était imprimé quand j'ai eu connaissance d'une publication des mékhitaristes de Venise contenant en Arménien, avec traduction Latine, deux morceaux, dont l'un serait l'Apologie adressée par Aristide à Adrien. L'authenticité de cette pièce ne soutient pas l'examen. C'est une composition plate, qui répondrait bien mal à ce que Eusèbe et S. Jérôme disent du talent de l'auteur et surtout à cette particularité que l'ouvrage était contextum philosophorum sententiis. L'écrit Arménien ne présente pas une seule citation d'auteur profane. La théologie qu'on y trouve, en ce qui concerne la Trinité, l'incarnation, la qualité de mère de Dieu attribuée à Marie, est postérieure au ive siècle. L'érudition historique ou plutôt mythologique est aussi bien indigne d'un écrivain du ii° siècle. Le second 'sermon' publié par les mékhitaristes a encore moins de droit à être attribué au philosophe Chrétien d'Athènes: le manuscrit porte Aristaeus: c'est une homélie insignificable sur le bon larron."

M. Renan was rightly opposed in this sweeping negation of authenticity by Doulcet, who pointed out relations between Aristides and the Timaeus as a justification of the philosophical character of the work. Unfortunately Doulcet went too far, by trying to identify Aristides with the author of the Epistle to Diognetus.

Harnack (Theol. LZ. 1879, no. 10, col. 375 f.) was very favourable to the genuineness of the fragment, and made some excellent points in its defence.

M. Renan will now have the opportunity of verifying for himself that the term Theotokos, to which he objected so strongly as savouring of the fourth century, is not in the Syriac text.

2. ¹ See Wright's Catalogue, p. 1160. The general contents of this MS. (Brit. Mus. 987) should be compared with those of the MS. here described: it contains e.g. the Apology of Melito and the Hypomnemata of Ambrose, and various Philosophical treatises.

3. ¹ Quoted by Eckhel, Doctrina vii. Ft. n. p. 36. This would seem to resolve the perplexity of Spartianus as to the origin of the name.

4. ² Die griechischen Apologeten p. 101. I need not say how much I am indebted to Harnack's investigations. It will be apparent throughout these pages.

5. ¹ "Quadratus apostolorum discipulus, Publio Athenarum episcopo ob Christi fidem martyrio coronato, in locum eius substituitur et ecclesiam grandi terrore dispersam fide et industria sua congregat. Cumque Hadrianus Athenis exegisset hiemem, invisens Eleusinam, et omnibus paene Graeciae sacris initiatus dedisset occasionem his, qui Christianos oderant, absque praecepto imperatoris vexare credentes, porrexit ei librum &c."

6. ¹ Lightfoot, Ignatius, ed. ii. 11. 541.

7. ² Euseb. H. E. iv. 26, ex apologia Melitonis, [Greek]. This certainly looks like an outbreak of persecution in Greece.

8. ¹ Dial. 16.

9. ¹ Mart. Polyc. 20.

10. ² Euseb. H. E. v. 26.

11. ¹ Migne, Patr. Lat. cxxiii.

12. ¹ Die Griechischen Apologeten, p. 107 note. I cannot find it in Briefwechsel des Beatus Rhenanus by Horawitz and Hartfelder, Leipzig, 1886. I understand, however, from Prof. Kawerau, that it may be found in Epistolarum G. Wicelii libri tres, Lipsiae, 1537.

13. ¹ Origen c. Celsum, lib. iv. 23.

14. ² lib. iv. 74.

15. ¹ lib. iv. 77.

16. ² Justin Apol. i. c. 10.

17. ³ Ep. ad Diogn. 10.

18. ¹ Orig. c. Cels. i. 26 [Greek]

19. ² Orig. c. Cels. iv. 32.

20. ¹ Orig. c. Cels. i. 26.

21. ² Orig. c. Cels. iii. 19.

22. ¹ Orig. c. Cels. i. 32.

23. ¹ Tüb. Theol. Quartalschrift, 1877, ii. p. 289, f. 1880, I. p. 109-127.

24. ² Cohortatio, c. viii.

25. ³ Plato, Timaeus, 28 C, [Greek]

26. ¹ Sensus dubius: armeniaca verba idem sonant ac graeca au)togene\j ei]doj.

27. ¹ Here there is a copyist's error in the Edschmiazin text.

28. ² Here the Edschmiazin text adds a word which means 'not to be observed or looked at.'

29. ¹ au0togene\j (or au)toge/nnhton) ei]doj is the Greek that answers to the Armenian texts. 'Ex se ipsomet est' does not give the sense. I give the Greek, for I really hardly know how to render it in English.

30. ² Or "by another."

31. ³ e0pe/keina.

32. ¹ So it stands in the Venice text: but in the Edschmiazin copy, for 'manifest' there is a word which means 'the name' followed by a lacuna of a few letters, as if the scribe had intended to read 'I will recount the names, O Ruler,' or something of that kind.

33. ² The word answers to the Greek fulai/ or dh~moi. In the same sense at the end of the fragment another word is used, answering rather to ge/nh.

34. ³ These three words are added to make sense, the whole passage being grammatically much confused.

35. ⁴ Here the Edschmiazin MS. was unreadable from age. The printed text has no lacuna and gives no hint of the word whatever it was which was read in the Edschmiazin text.

36. ⁵ eu)agge/lion.

37. ⁶ The word Qeoto&koj is implied.

38. ¹ Oi0konomiko&j is here rendered. Perhaps it should be taken as an epithet of 'truth,' for in the original it precedes the word 'illuminating.'

39. ² Oi0koume/nhn.

40. ¹ The same word is used by the translator to render sw~ma and sa&rc.

41. ² More exactly e9autou~: an additional word being necessary in the Armenian in order to give the sense 'conjunxit sibi': but the sense seems to require e9autw~|.

This text was transcribed by Roger Pearse, 2004. All material on this page is in the public domain - copy freely.

Greek text is rendered using the Scholars Press SPIonic font, free from here.

Early Church Fathers - Additional Texts

SOURCE SECTION: aristides_05_trans.htm

The Apology of Aristides: Texts and Studies 1 (1891) pp. 35-51. Translation from the Syriac.

The Apology of Aristides: Texts and Studies 1 (1891) pp. 35-51. Translation from the Syriac.

THE APOLOGY OF ARISTIDES, TRANSLATED FROM THE SYRIAC.

Again, the apology which Aristides the philosopher made before Hadrian the king concerning the worship of God.

[To the Emperor] Caesar Titus Hadrianus Antoninus Augustus Pius, from Marcianus Aristides, a philosopher of Athens.

I. I, O king, by the grace of God came into this world; and having contemplated the heavens and the earth and the seas, and beheld the sun and the rest of the orderly creation, I was amazed at the arrangement of the world; and I comprehended that the world and all that is therein are moved by the impulse of another, and I understood that he that moveth them is God, who is hidden in them and concealed from them: and this is well known, that that which moveth is more powerful than that which is moved. And that I should investigate concerning this Mover of all, as to how He exists—for this is evident to me, for He is incomprehensible in His nature—and that I should dispute concerning the stedfastness of His government, so as to comprehend it fully, is not profitable for me; for no one is able perfectly to comprehend it. But I say concerning the Mover of the world, that He is God of all, who made all for the sake of man; and it is evident to me that this is expedient, that one should fear God, and not grieve man.

Now I say that God is not begotten, not made; a constant nature, without beginning and without end; immortal, complete, and incomprehensible: and in saying that He is complete, I mean this; that there is no deficiency in Him, and He stands in need of nought, but everything stands in need of Him: and in saying that He is without beginning, I mean this; that everything which has a beginning has also an end; and that which has an end is dissoluble. He has no name; for everything that has a name is associated with the created; He has no likeness, nor composition of members; for he who possesses this is associated with things |36 fashioned. He is not male, nor is He female: the heavens do not contain Him; but the heavens and all things visible and invisible are contained in Him. Adversary He has none; for there is none that is more powerful than He; anger and wrath He possesses not, for there is nothing that can stand against Him. Error and forgetfulness are not in His nature, for He is altogether wisdom and understanding, and in Him consists all that consists. He asks no sacrifice and no libation, nor any of the things that are visible; He asks not anything from anyone; but all ask from Him.

II. Since then it has been spoken to you by us concerning God, as far as our mind was capable of discoursing concerning Him, let us now come to the race of men, in order that we may know which of them hold any part of that truth which we have spoken concerning Him, and which of them are in error therefrom.

This is plain to you, O king, that there are four races of men in this world; Barbarians and Greeks, Jews and Christians.

Now the Barbarians reckon the head of the race of their religion from Kronos and from Rhea and the rest of their gods: but the Greeks from Helenus, who is said to be from Zeus; and from Helenus was born Aeolus and Xythus, and the rest of the family from Inachus and Phoroneus, and last of all from Danaus the Egyptian and from Kadmus and from Dionysus.

Moreover the Jews reckon the head of their race from Abraham, who begat Isaac, from whom was born Jacob, who begat twelve sons who removed from Syria and settled in Egypt, and there were called the race of the Hebrews by their lawgiver: but at last they were named Jews.

The Christians, then, reckon the beginning of their religion from Jesus Christ, who is named the Son of God most High; and it is said that God came down from heaven, and from a Hebrew virgin took and clad Himself with flesh, and in a daughter of man there dwelt the Son of God. This is taught from that Gospel which a little while ago was spoken among them as being preached; wherein if ye also will read, ye will comprehend the power that is upon it. This Jesus, then, was born of the tribe of the Hebrews; and He had twelve disciples, in order that a certain dispensation of His might be fulfilled. He was |37 pierced by the Jews; and He died and was buried; and they say that after three days He rose and ascended to heaven; and then these twelve disciples went forth into the known parts of the world, and taught concerning His greatness with all humility and sobriety; and on this account those also who to-day believe in this preaching are called Christians, who are well known. There are then four races of mankind, as I said before, Barbarians and Greeks, Jews and Christians.

To God then ministers wind, and to angels fire; but to demons water, and to men earth.

III. Let us then begin with the Barbarians, and by degrees we will proceed to the rest of the peoples, in order that we may understand which of them hold the truth concerning God, and which of them error.

The Barbarians then, inasmuch as they did not comprehend God, erred with the elements; and they began to serve created things instead of the Creator of them¹, and on this account they made likenesses and they enclosed them in temples; and lo! they worship them and guard them with great precaution, that their gods may not be stolen by robbers; and the Barbarians have not understood that whatsoever watches must be greater than that which is watched; and that whatsoever creates must be greater than that whatever is created: if so be then that their gods are too weak for their own salvation, how will they furnish salvation to mankind? The Barbarians then have erred with a great error in worshipping dead images which profit them not. And it comes to me to wonder also, O king, at their philosophers, how they too have erred and have named gods those likenesses which have been made in honour of the elements; and the wise men have not understood that these very elements are corruptible and dissoluble; for if a little part of the element be dissolved or corrupted, all of it is dissolved and corrupted. If then these elements are dissolved and corrupted, and compelled to be subject to another harder than themselves, and are not in their nature gods, how can they call gods those likenesses which are made in their honour? Great then is the error which their philosophers have brought upon their followers. |38

IV. Let us turn then, O king, to the elements themselves, in order that we may shew concerning them that they are not gods, but a creation, corruptible and changeable, which is in the likeness of man². But God is incorruptible and unchangeable and invisible, while seeing, turning and changing all things.

Those therefore who think concerning earth that it is God have already erred, since it is digged and planted and delved; and since it receives the defilement of the excrement of men and of beasts and of cattle: and since sometimes it becomes what is useless; for if it be burned it becomes dead, for from baked clay there springs nothing: and again, if water be collected on it, it becomes corrupted along with its fruits: and lo! it is trodden on by men and beasts, and it receives the impurity of the blood of the slain; and it is digged and filled with the dead and becomes a repository for bodies: none of which things can that holy and venerable and blessed and incorruptible nature receive. And from this we have perceived that the earth is not God but a creature of God.

V. And in like manner again have those erred who have thought concerning water that it is God. For water was created for the use of man and in many ways it is made subject to him. For it is changed, and receives defilement, and is corrupted, and loses its own nature when cooked with many things, and receives colours which are not its own; being moreover hardened by the cold and mixed and mingled with the excrement of men and beasts and with the blood of the slain: and it is compelled by workmen, by means of the compulsion of channels, to flow and be conducted against its own will, and to come into gardens and other places, so as to cleanse and carry out all the filth of men, and wash away all defilement, and supply man's need of itself. Wherefore it is impossible that water should be God, but it is a work of God and a part of the world.

So too those have erred not a little who thought concerning fire that it is God: for it too was created for the need of men: and in many ways it is made subject to them, in the service of food and in the preparation of ornaments and the other things of |39 which your majesty is aware: whilst in many ways it is extinguished and destroyed.

And again those who have thought concerning the blast of winds that it is God, these also have erred: and this is evident to us, that these winds are subject to another, since sometimes their blast is increased and sometimes it is diminished and ceases, according to the commandment of Him who subjects them. Since for the sake of man they were created by God, in order that they might fulfil the needs of trees and fruits and seeds, and that they might transport ships upon the sea; those ships which bring to men their necessary things, from a place where they are found to a place where they are not found; and furnish the different parts of the world. Since then this wind is sometimes increased and sometimes diminished, there is one place in which it does good and another where it does harm, according to the nod of Him who rules it: and even men are able by means of well-known instruments to catch and coerce it that it may fulfil for them the necessities which they demand of it: and over itself it has no power at all; wherefore it is not possible that winds should be called gods, but a work of God.

VI. So too those have erred who have thought concerning the sun that he is God. For lo! we see him, that by the necessity of another he is moved and turned and runs his course; and he proceeds from degree to degree, rising and setting every day, in order that he may warm the shoots of plants and shrubs, and may bring forth in the air which is mingled with him every herb which is on the earth. And in calculation the sun has a part with the rest of the stars in his course, and although he is one in his nature, he is mixed with many parts, according to the advantage of the needs of men: and that not according to his own will, but according to the will of Him that ruleth him. Wherefore it is not possible that the sun should be God, but a work of God; and in like manner also the moon and stars.

VII. But those who have thought concerning men of old, that some of them are gods, these have greatly erred: as thou, even thou, O king, art aware, that man consists of the four elements and of soul and spirit, and therefore is he even called World, and apart from any one of these parts he does not exist. He has |40 beginning and end, and he is born and also suffers corruption. But God, as I have said, has none of this in His nature, but He is unmade and incorruptible. On this account, then, it is impossible that we should represent him as God who is man by nature, one to whom sometimes, when he looketh for joy, grief happens; and for laughter, and weeping befals him; one that is passionate and jealous, envious and regretful, along with the rest of the other defects: and in many ways more corrupted than the elements or even than the beasts.

And thence, O king, it is right for us to understand the error of the Barbarians, that, whereas they have not investigated concerning the true God, they have fallen away from the truth and have gone after the desire of their own mind, in serving elements subject to dissolution, and dead images: and on account of their error they do not perceive who is the true God.

VIII. Let us return now to the Greeks in order that we may know what opinion they have concerning the true God.

The Greeks then because they are wiser than the Barbarians have erred even more than the Barbarians, in that they have introduced many gods that are made; and some of them they have represented as male and some of them as female; and in such a way that some of their gods were found to be adulterers and murderers, and jealous and envious, and angry and passionate, and murderers of fathers, and thieves and plunderers. And they say that some of them were lame and maimed; and some of them wizards, and some of them utterly mad; and some of them played on harps; and some of them wandered on mountains: and some of them died outright; and some were struck by lightning, and some were made subject to men, and some went off in flight, and some were stolen by men; and lo! some of them were wept and bewailed by men; and some, they say, went down to Hades; and some were sorely wounded, and some were changed into the likeness of beasts in order that they might commit adultery with the race of mortal women; and some of them have been reviled for sleeping with males: and some of them, they say, were in wedlock with their mothers and sisters and daughters; and they say of their gods that they committed adultery with the daughters of men, and from them was born a certain race which was also |41 mortal. And of some of their goddesses they say that they contended about beauty and came for judgment before men. The Greeks, then, O king, have brought forward what is wicked, ridiculous and foolish concerning their gods and themselves; in that they called such like persons gods, who are no gods: and hence men have taken occasion to commit adultery and fornication, and to plunder and do everything that is wicked and hateful and abominable. For if those who are called their gods have done all those things that are written above, how much more shall men do them who believe in those who have done these things! and from the wickedness of this error, lo! there have happened to men frequent wars and mighty famines, and bitter captivity and deprivation of all things: and lo! they endure them, and all these things befal them from this cause alone: and when they endure them they do not perceive in their conscience that because of their error these things happen to them.

IX. Now let us come to the history of these their gods in order that we may prove accurately concerning all those things which we have said above.

Before everything else the Greeks introduce as a god Kronos, which is interpreted Chiun; and the worshippers of this deity sacrifice to him their children: and some of them they burn while yet living. Concerning him they say that he took him Rhea to wife; and from her he begat many sons; from whom he begat also Dios, who is called Zeus; and at the last he went mad and, for fear of an oracle which was told him, began to eat his children. And from him Zeus was stolen away, and he did not perceive it: and at the last Zeus bound him and cut off his genitals and cast them in the sea: whence, as they say in the fable, was born Aphrodite, who is called Astera: and he cast Kronos bound into darkness. Great then is the error and scorn which the Greeks have introduced concerning the head of their gods, in that they have said all these things about him, O king. It is not possible that God should be bound or amputated; otherwise it is a great misfortune.

And after Kronos they introduce another god, Zeus; and they say concerning this one, that he received the headship and became king of all the gods; and they say concerning him that he was changed into cattle and everything else, in order that he might |42 commit adultery with mortal women, and might raise up to himself children from them. Since at one time they say he was changed into a bull on account of his passion for Europa and for Pasiphae; and again he was changed into the likeness of gold on account of his passion for Danae: and into a swan, through his passion for Lcda; and into a man through his passion for Antiope; and into lightning on account of his passion for the Moon: so that from these he begat many children: for they say that from Antiope he begat Zethus and Amphion; and from the Moon, Dionysus; from Alkmena, Herakles; and from Leto, Apollo and Artemis; and from Danae, Perseus; and from Leda, Castor and Polydeuces and Helene; and from Mnemosyne he begat nine daughters, those whom he called the Muses; and from Europa, Minos and Rhadamanthus and Sarpedon. But last of all he was changed into the likeness of an eagle on account of his passion for Ganymede the shepherd.

Because of these stories, O king, much evil has befallen the race of men who are at this present day, since they imitate their gods, and commit adultery, and are defiled with their mothers and sisters, and in sleeping with males: and some of them have dared to kill even their fathers. For if he, who is said to be the head and king of their gods, has done these things, how much more shall his worshippers imitate him! And great is the madness which the Greeks have introduced into their history concerning him: for it is not possible that a god should commit adultery or fornication, or should approach to sleep with males, or that he should be a parricide; otherwise he is much worse than a destructive demon.

X. And again they introduce another god, Hephaestus; and they say of him that he is lame and wearing a cap on his head, and holding in his hand tongs and hammer; and working in brass in order that therefrom he may find his needed sustenance. Is then this god so much in need? Whereas it is impossible for a god to be needy or lame: otherwise he is very weak.

And again they introduce another god and call him Hermes; and they say that he is a thief, loving avarice and coveting gains, and a magician and maimed and an athlete and an interpreter of words: whereas it is impossible for a god to be a magician, or |43 avaricious, or maimed, or coveting anything that is not his, or an athlete: and if it be found to be otherwise, he is of no use.

And after him they introduce another god, Asclepius; and they say that he is a physician and prepares medicines and bandages in order that he may satisfy his need of sustenance. Is then this god in need? And he at last was struck by lightning by Zeus, on account of Tyndareus the Lacedemonian; and so he died. If then Asclepius was a god, and when struck by lightning was unable to help himself, how is it that he was able to help others? Whereas it is an impossible thing that the divine nature should be in need, or that it should be struck by lightning.

And again they introduce another god and call him Ares, and they say that he is a warrior and jealous, and covets sheep and things which do not belong to him, and acquires possessions through his weapons; and of him they say that at last he committed adultery with Aphrodite and was bound by a tiny boy Eros, and by Hephaestus the husband of Aphrodite: whereas it is impossible that a god should be a warrior or a prisoner or an adulterer.

And again they say of Dionysus that he too is a god, who celebrates festivals by night and teaches drunkenness, and carries off women that do not belong to him: and at the last they say that he went mad and left his female attendants and tied to the wilderness; and in this madness of his he ate serpents; and at the last he was killed by Titan. If then Dionysus was a god, and when slain was not able to help himself; how is it that he was able to help others?

Herakles, too, they introduce, and they say of him that he is a god, a hater of things hateful, a tyrant and a warrior, and a slayer of the wicked: and of him they say that at the last he went mad and slew his children and cast himself into the fire and died. If therefore Herakles be a god and in all these evils was unable to stand up for himself, how was it that others were asking help from him? Whereas it is impossible that a god should be mad or drunken or a slayer of his children, or destroyed by fire.

XI. And after him they introduce another god and call him Apollo: and they say of him that he is jealous and. changeable; and |44 sometimes he holds a bow and a quiver, and sometimes a lyre and a plectrum; and he gives oracles to men, in order that he may receive a reward from them. Is then this god in need of reward? Whereas it is disgraceful that all these things should be found in a god.

And after him they introduce Artemis a goddess, the sister of Apollo; and they say that she was a huntress; and she carried a bow and arrows, and went about on mountains leading dogs, either to hunt the deer or the wild boars. Whereas it is disgraceful that a maid should go about by herself on mountains and follow the chase of beasts. And therefore it is not possible that Artemis should be a goddess.

Again they say of Aphrodite that she forsooth is a goddess; and sometimes forsooth she dwells with their gods, and sometimes she commits adultery with men; and sometimes she has Ares for her lover and sometimes Adonis, who is Tammuz: and sometimes forsooth Aphrodite is wailing and weeping for the death of Tammuz: and they say that she went down to Hades in order that she might ransom Adonis from Persephone, who was the daughter of Hades. If then Aphrodite be a goddess and was unable to help her lover in his death, how is she able to help others? And this is a thing impossible to be listened to, that the divine nature should come to weeping and wailing and adultery.

And again they say of Tammuz that he is a god; and he is forsooth a hunter and an adulterer; and they say that he was killed by a blow from a wild boar, and was not able to help himself, And if he was not able to help himself, how is he able to take care of the human race? And this is impossible, that a god should be an adulterer or a hunter or that he should have died by violence.

And again they say of Rhea that she forsooth is the mother of their gods; and they say of her that she had at one time a lover Atys, and she was rejoicing in corruptible men; and at the last she established lamentations, and was bewailing her lover Atys. If then the mother of their gods was not able to help her lover and rescue him from death, how is it possible that she should help others? It is disgraceful then that a goddess should lament and weep, and that she should have joy over corruptible beings. |45

Again they bring forward Kore; and they say that she was a goddess and that she was carried off by Pluto and was not able to help herself. If then she is a goddess and was not able to help herself, how is she able to help others? For a goddess who is carried off is extremely weak.

All these things, then, O king, the Greeks have introduced forward about their gods, and have invented and said concerning them: whence all men have taken occasion to do all wicked and impure things: and thereby the whole earth has been corrupted.

XII. Now the Egyptians, because they arc more evil and ignorant than all peoples upon the earth, have erred more than all men. For the worship of the Barbarians and the Greeks did not suffice them, but they introduced also the nature of beasts, and said concerning it that they were gods: and also of the creeping things which are found on the dry land and in the waters, and of the plants and herbs they have said that some of them are gods, and they have become corrupt in all madness and impurity more than all peoples that are upon the earth. For of old time they worshipped Isis; and they say that she forsooth is a goddess, who had forsooth a husband Osiris, her brother; but when forsooth Osiris was killed by his brother Typhon, Isis fled with her son Horus to Byblos in Syria and was there for a certain time until that her son was grown: and he contended with his uncle Typhon and killed him, and thereupon Isis returned and went about with her son Horus, and was seeking for the body of Osiris her lord, and bitterly bewailing his death. If therefore Isis be a goddess, and was not able to help Osiris her brother and lord, how is it possible that she should help others? Whereas it is impossible that the divine nature should be afraid and flee, or weep and wail. Otherwise it is a great misfortune.

But of Osiris they say that he is a god, a beneficent one; and he was killed by Typhon and could not help himself; and it is evident that this cannot be said of Deity.

And again they say of Typhon, his brother, that he is a god, a fratricide, and slain by his brother's son and wife since he was unable to help himself. And how can one who does not help himself be a god?

Now because the Egyptians are more ignorant than the rest of |46 the peoples, these and the like gods did not suffice them, but they also put the name of gods on the beasts which are merely soulless. For some men among them worship the sheep, and others the calf; and some of them the pig, and others the shadfish; and some of them the crocodile, and the hawk, and the cormorant, and the kite, and the vulture, and the eagle, and the crow; some of them worship the cat, and others the fish Shibbuta; some of them the dog, and some of them the serpent, and some the asp, and others the lion, and others garlic, and onions, and thorns, and others the leopard, and the like.

And the poor wretches do not perceive with regard to all these things that they are nought; while every day they look upon their gods, who are eaten and destroyed by men, yea even by their own fellows; and some of them being burned, and some of them dying and putrifying and becoming refuse; and they do not understand that they are destroyed in many ways.

And accordingly the Egyptians have not understood that the like of these are not gods, since their salvation is not within their own power; and if they are too weak for their own salvation, then as regards the salvation of their worshippers pray whence will they have the power to help them?

XIII. The Egyptians then have erred with a great error, above all peoples that are upon the face of the earth. But it is a matter of wonder, O king, concerning the Greeks, whereas they excel all the rest of the peoples in their manners and in their reason, how thus they have gone astray after dead idols and senseless images: while they see their gods sawn and polished by their makers, and curtailed and cut and burnt and shaped and transformed into every shape by them. And when they are grown old and fail by the length of time, and are melted and broken in pieces, how is it that they do not understand concerning them that they are not gods? And those who have not ability for their own preservation, how will they be able to take care of men? But even the poets and philosophers among them being in error have introduced concerning them that they are gods, things like these which are made for the honour of God Almighty; and being in error they seek to make them like to God as to whom no man has ever seen to whom He is like; nor is |47 he able to see Him³; and together with these things they introduce concerning Deity as if it were that deficiency were found with it; in that they say that He accepts sacrifice and asks for burnt-offering and libation and murders of men and temples. But God is not needy, and none of these things is sought for by Him: and it is clear that men are in error in those things that they imagine. But their poets and philosophers introduce and say, that the nature of all their gods is one; but they have not understood of God our Lord, that while He is one, He is yet in all. They, then, are in error; for if, while the body of man is many in its parts, no member is afraid of its fellow, but whilst it is a composite body, all is on an equality with all: so also God who is one in His nature has a single essence proper to Him, and He is equal in His nature and His essence, nor is He afraid of Himself. If therefore the nature of the gods is one, it is not proper that a god should persecute a god, nor kill nor do him that which is evil.

If then gods were persecuted and transfixed by gods, and some of them were carried off and some were struck by lightning; it is clear that the nature of their gods is not one, and hence it is clear, O king, that that is an error which they speculate about the nature of their gods, and that they reduce them to one nature. If then it is proper that we should admire a god who is visible and does not see, how much more is this worthy of admiration that a man should believe in a nature which is invisible and all-seeing! and if again it is right that a man should investigate the works of an artificer, how much more is it right that he should praise the Maker of the artificer! For behold! while the Greeks have established laws, they have not understood that by their laws they were condemning their gods; for if their laws are just, their gods are unjust, who have committed transgression in killing one another and practising sorcery, committing adultery, plundering, stealing and sleeping with males, along with the rest of their other doings. But if their gods excellently and as they describe have done all these things, then the laws of the Greeks are unjust; and they are not laid down according to the will of the gods; and in this the whole world has erred. |48

For as for the histories of their gods, some of them are myths, some of them physical, and some hymns and songs: the hymns and songs, then, are empty words and sound; and as to the physical, if they were done as they say, then they are not gods, since they have done these things and suffered and endured these things: and these myths arc flimsy words, altogether devoid of force.

XIV. Let us come now, O king, also to the history of the Jews and let us see what sort of opinion they have concerning God. The Jews then say that God is one, Creator of all and almighty: and that it is not proper for us that anything else should be worshipped, but this God only: and in this they appear to be much nearer to the truth than all the peoples, in that they worship God more exceedingly and not His works; and they imitate God by reason of the love which they have for man; for they have compassion on the poor and ransom the captive and bury the dead, and do things of a similar nature to these: things which are acceptable to God and are well-pleasing also to men, things which they have received from their fathers of old. Nevertheless they too have gone astray from accurate knowledge, and they suppose in their minds that they are serving God, but in the methods of their actions their service is to angels and not to God, in that they observe sabbaths and new moons and the passover and the great fast, and the fast, and circumcision, and cleanness of meats: which things not even thus have they perfectly observed.

XV. Now the Christians, O king, by going about and seeking have found the truth, and as we have comprehended from their writings they are nearer to the truth and to exact knowledge than the rest of the peoples. For they know and believe in God, the Maker of heaven and earth, in whom are all things and from whom are all things: He who has no other god as His fellow: from whom they have received those commandments which they have engraved on their minds, which they keep in the hope and expectation of the world to come; so that on this account they do not commit adultery nor fornication, they do not bear false witness, they do not deny a deposit, nor covet what is not theirs: they honour father and mother; they do good to those who are their neighbours, and when they are judges they judge uprightly; and they do not worship idols in the form of man; and whatever they do not |49 wish that others should do to them, they do not practise towards any one⁴, and they do not eat of the meats of idol sacrifices, for they are undefiled: and those who grieve them they comfort, and make them their friends; and they do good to their enemies: and their wives, O king, are pure as virgins, and their daughters modest: and their men abstain from all unlawful wedlock and from all impurity, in the hope of the recompense that is to come in another world: but as for their servants or handmaids, or their children if any of them have any, they persuade them to become Christians for the love that they have towards them; and when they have become so, they call them without distinction brethren: they do not worship strange gods: and they walk in all humility and kindness, and falsehood is not found among them, and they love one another: and from the widows they do not turn away their countenance: and they rescue the orphan from him who does him violence: and he who has gives to him who has not, without grudging; and when they see the stranger they bring him to their dwellings, and rejoice over him as over a true brother; for they do not call brothers those who are after the flesh, but those who are in the spirit and in God: but when one of their poor passes away from the world, and any of them sees him, then he provides for his burial according to his ability; and if they hear that any of their number is imprisoned or oppressed for the name of their Messiah, all of them provide for his needs, and if it is possible that he may be delivered, they deliver him.

And if there is among them a man that is poor or needy, and they have not an abundance of necessaries, they fast two or three days that they may supply the needy with their necessary food. And they observe scrupulously the commandments of their Messiah: they live honestly and soberly, as the Lord their God commanded them: every morning and at all hours on account of the goodnesses of God toward them they praise and laud Him: and over their food and over their drink they render Him thanks. And if any righteous person of their number passes away from the world they rejoice and give thanks to God, and they follow his body, as if he were moving from one place to another: and when a child is born to any one of them, they praise God, and if again |50 it chance to die in its infancy, they praise God mightily, as for one who has passed through the world without sins. And if again they see that one of their number has died in his iniquity or in his sins, over this one they weep bitterly and sigh, as over one who is about to go to punishment: such is the ordinance of the law of the Christians, O king, and such their conduct.

XVI. As men who know God, they ask from Him petitions which are proper for Him to give and for them to receive: and thus they accomplish the course of their lives. And because they acknowledge the goodnesses of God towards them, lo! on account of them there flows forth the beauty that is in the world. And truly they are of the number of those that have found the truth by going about and seeking it, and as far as we have comprehended, we have understood that they only are near to the knowledge of the truth.

But the good deeds which they do, they do not proclaim in the ears of the multitude, and they take care that no one shall perceive them, and hide their gift, as he who has found a treasure and hides it⁵. And they labour to become righteous as those that expect to see their Messiah and receive from Him the promises made to them with great glory.

But their sayings and their ordinances, O king, and the glory of their service, and the expectation of their recompense of reward, according to the doing of each one of them, which they expect in another world, thou art able to know from their writings. It sufficeth for us that we have briefly made known to your majesty concerning the conversation and the truth of the Christians. For truly great and wonderful is their teaching to him that is willing to examine and understand it. And truly this people is a new people, and there is something divine mingled with it. Take now their writings and read in them, and lo! ye will find that not of myself have I brought these things forward nor as their advocate have I said them, but as I have read in their writings, these things I firmly believe, and those things also that are to come. And therefore I was constrained to set forth the truth to them that take pleasure therein and seek after the world to come.

And I have no doubt that the world stands by reason of |51 the intercession of Christians. But the rest of the peoples are deceived and deceivers, rolling themselves before the elements of the world, according as the sight of their understanding is unwilling to pass by them; and they grope as if in the dark, because they are unwilling to know the truth, and like drunken men they stagger and thrust one another and fall down.

XVII. Thus far, O king, it is I that have spoken. For as to what remains, as was said above, there are found in their other writings words which are difficult to speak, or that one should repeat them; things which are not only said, but actually done.

The Greeks, then, O king, because they practise foul things in sleeping with males, and with mother and sister and daughter, turn the ridicule of their foulness upon the Christians; but the Christians are honest and pious, and the truth is set before their eyes, and they are long-suffering; and therefore while they know their error and are buffeted by them, they endure and suffer them: and more exceedingly do they pity them as men who are destitute of knowledge: and in their behalf they offer up prayers that they may turn from their error. And when it chances that one of them turns, he is ashamed before the Christians of the deeds that are done by him: and he confesses to God, saying, In ignorance I did these things: and he cleanses his heart, and his sins are forgiven him, because he did them in ignorance in former time, when he was blaspheming and reviling the true knowledge of the Christians. And truly blessed is the race of the Christians, more than all men that are upon the face of the earth.

Let the tongues of those now be silenced who talk vanity, and who oppress the Christians, and let them now speak the truth. For it is better that they should worship the true God rather than that they should worship a sound without intelligence; and truly divine is that which is spoken by the mouth of the Christians, and their teaching is the gateway of light. Let all those then approach thereunto who do not know God, and let them receive incorruptible words, those which are so always and from eternity: let them, therefore, anticipate the dread judgment which is to come by Jesus the Messiah upon the whole race of men.

The Apology of Aristides the Philosopher is ended.

[Footnotes renumbered and moved to the end]

1. ¹ Rom. i. 25.

2. ¹ Rom. i. 23.

3. ¹ 1 Tim. vi. 10.

4. ¹ Cf. Teaching of the Twelve Apostles, cc. 1-4.

5. ¹ Matt. xiii. 44.

This text was transcribed by Roger Pearse, 2004. All material on this page is in the public domain - copy freely.

Greek text is rendered using the Scholars Press SPIonic font, free from here.

Early Church Fathers - Additional Texts

SOURCE SECTION: aristides_06_notes.htm

The Apology of Aristides: Texts and Studies 1 (1891) pp. 52-64. Selected Notes on the Syriac Version

The Apology of Aristides: Texts and Studies 1 (1891) pp. 52-64. Selected Notes on the Syriac Version

NOTES ON THE SYRIAC VERSION.

[Note to the online text: the majority of these notes are concerned with or cite copious quantities of the Syriac text. This page includes only a selection of those notes likely to be of use to English-speaking readers]

p. 35, 1. 7. The demonstration of Divine Providence from the contemplation of the heavenly bodies is common to all forms of Theistic teaching: consequently it occurs freely in Christian Apologetics. We may compare the following passages:

Melito, Oration to Antoninus Caesar (Cureton, Spic. Syr, p. 46). "He hath set before thee the heavens, and He has placed in them the stars. He hath set before thee the sun and the moon, and they every day fulfil their course therein... He hath set before thee the clouds which by ordinance bring water from above and satisfy the earth: that from these things thou mightest understand, that He who moveth these is greater than they all, [Syriac] and that thou mightest accept the goodness of Him who hath given to thee a mind by which thou mayest distinguish these things."

Origen, De Principiis, II. 1. 5. "But that we may believe on the authority of Holy Scripture, that such is the case, hear how in the books of Maccabees, |53 where the mother of the seven martyrs exhorts her son to endure torture, this truth is confirmed: for she says, ' I ask of thee, my son, to look at the heaven and earth, and at all things which are in them, and beholding them, to know that God made all these things when they did not exist.'" [2 Macc. vii. 28.]

Id. iv. 1. 7. "The artistic plan of a providential Ruler is not so evident in matters belonging to the earth, as in the case of the sun, moon and stars."

l. 11. Cf. Melito, Oration p. 50. "He made the lights that His works might behold one another, and lie concealcth Himself in His might from all His works."

ll. 14, 15. A comparison with the Armenian suggests that something has fallen out here. The Syriac cannot be translated as it stands. The Greek unfortunately fails us at this point.

1. 19 (r^ 19). The early Christian teachers emphasised strongly this belief that the world was made for the sake of man: consequently we must not assume, if we find the same statement in Justin Martyr, that the idea was borrowed from Aristides, for it is a part of the regular second -century teaching. The following parallels may be quoted:

Justin, Apol. I. 10. [Greek]

Dial. 41. [Greek].

Ps. Justin, Ep. ad Diogn. 10. [Greek].

i. 23. Cf. Philo, Fragments, p. 70: [Greek]

Id. de Fortitudine § 3. [Greek] |54

Acta Mar Kardaghi (ed. Abbeloos, p. 30): [Syriac]

l. 28. The same philosophical opinion will be found almost in the same words in Eustathius contra Arianos quoted in John of Damascus, Parallels p. 314, [Greek]

l. 30. We may compare the following passages from Justin and from the Epistle to Diognetus, in view of Jerome's statement that Justin imitated Aristides, and the modern theory of Doulcet as to the authorship of the anonymous epistle to Diognctus.

Justin, Apol. I. 9. [Greek]

Justin, Apol. II. 6.[Greek]

Justin, Dial. 4. [Greek]

Justin, Apol. I. 10. [Greek]

Ep. ad Diogn. 3. [Greek]

p.36, l. 18. 'The head of the race of their religion.' This seems to be a conflation of the two phrases which occur lower down: ' the head of their race,' and ' the beginning of their religion.' It should be simply ' the head of their race,' as we see from the Greek.]

l. 23. The Armenian has ' Kadmus the Sidonian and Dionysus the Theban.' Cf. Herod. II. 91 [Greek]. But Kadmus is a Sidonian in Eur. Bacch. 171 and Ovid, Met. iv. 571.

[l. 27. The statement that the people received the name of ' Hebrews ' from Moses is peculiar to the Syr. and Arm. translations.]

l. 29. The writer not only deduces the name of the Christians from the title of their founder, but he is also ready, like Justin and other |55 fathers, to compare the name with the Greek word xrhsto&j, as we shall see in the closing chapter. The following parallels may be noted in Justin. Justin, Apol. I. 12. [Greek]; Dial. 63. [Greek]; Ibid. 138. [Greek]

l. 32. With the closing words of this sentence we may compare the Syriac Acts of John (ed. Wright), p. 37, [Syriac] where we should correct the text so as to read "and when formed as a child in the womb He was. with His Father."

l. 34. The Gospel is clearly a written one, and not the general message (eu)agge/lion). In c. xvi. we again find Aristides offering the Emperor the Christian Scriptures.

p. 37, l. 1. Another instance of the formula 'He was crucified by the Jews,' beyond those to which we have already drawn attention, may be found in a fragment of Melito preserved by Anastasius Sinaita; [Greek] for which the Syriac rendering is given by Cureton, Spic. Syr.

In later times we may expect to find similar language, though the expression itself disappears from the Creed. In Acta Mar Kardaghi p. 37 we have the following (loquitur Satanas), [Syriac] and again in p. 74 [Syriac]. The idea of the Jews being the special agents of Satan in the Crucifixion |56 comes out also in an unpublished a)ntilogia& between the Devil and Christ, which is preserved in a MS. at Jerusalem (Cod. 66, S. Sep.), where we read [Greek].

[Compare also the Letter of Pilate in the Acts of Peter and Paul § 42 (Tisch. Acta Apocr., Lips. 1851, p. 17): [Greek]]

l. 20. The injunction to have a care that your gods be not stolen is not uncommon with the early Christians, and it is not improbable that they were able to refer to special and notable cases of violation of temples and mutilation of images. We may refer, at all events, to the following parallels: Justin, Apol. I. 9. [Greek]; Ep. ad Diogn. 2. [Greek]

l. 26. Compare c. vii. From the "Teaching of the Apostles" (c. vi. 3) onwards, idolatry is known as a 'worship of dead gods': e.g. Melito, Oration p. 43, "But I affirm that also the Sibyl has said respecting them, that it is the images of kings, who are dead, they worship."

p. 38, l. 1 (co 19). The writer now proceeds to discuss the views of those who either sought the First Principle in one of the elements or imagined it to be located in one of the heavenly bodies. And it is common for the early Christian writers to demolish the philosophic schools in detail according as they found them referring the origin of all things to water, as Thaïes; or air, as Anaximenes; or fire, as Heraclitus; or earth, as Pherecydes and Xenophanes. We may compare Plutarch De placitis philosophorum i. 3, and then notice how the Christian apologists deal with the matter. The writer of the Epistle to Diognetus thinks that, if a god is to be found amongst the elements, one element or created thing is as good as another: Ep. ad Diogn. 8. [Greek].

Melito deals even more shortly with the matter, and in a rude common-sense manner says that we may call a creature God without making it to be divine:

Oration, p. 42. "And if, therefore, a man...say that there is another God, it is found from his own words that he calleth some created thing God. For if a man call fire God, it is not God, because it is fire; and if a man call the waters God, they are not God, because they are waters; and if this earth which we tread upon, and if those heavens which are seen by us, and if the sun, or the moon, or one of those stars which run their course by |57 ordinance and rest not, nor proceed by their own will—and if a man call gold and silver gods: are not these things that we use as we please?"

It will be seen that their treatment of the subject was superficial, no other treatment being, in fact, necessary. Aristides, however, takes the matter more seriously and examines each case in detail by the light of his previously stated axioms concerning the divine nature.

p. 39, l. 1 This phrase, 'your majesty,' does not in any way suggest that more than one person is addressed.

l. 25 He is referring to Apollo, Poseidon and Asklepios: cf. Tertullian, Apol. 14, Hic Apollinem Admeto regi pascendis pecoribus addicit, ille Nepturii structorias operas Laomedonti locat. Est et illis de lyricis (Pindarum dico) qui Aescolapium canit avaritiae merito, quia medicinam nocenter exercebat, fulmine iudicatum. |58

l. 21. The translator gives the Syriac name for Saturn, [Syriac]. In the Classical Review for June 1890, p. 259, Prof. Margoliouth reviewing Budge's Pseudo-Callisthenes remarks as follows, "On p. 9 after the name of each planet we are told what the Persian for it is: surely this implies that the book which the translator had before him was in Persian. I will quote one of these, because Mr Budge has by accident missed the truth. The name of Saturn is omitted from the list, but instead we read, the colour [Syriac] of a black stone, and the horoscopus of helani which is called in Persian Farnüg'. Mr Budge would emend Farnüg', but it is a Persian word signifying Saturn...... Hence [Syriac] 'colour' must stand for a word signifying Saturn; and this will be the Persian [Persian] which the translator has read [Persian] 'colour'." It would seem to be a more direct process simply to emend the Syriac into [Syriac].

p. 42, l. 2. The amours of the gods are, as might have been expected, the staple of early Christian apologetics. A few references may be given in illustration of the scornful summary of Olympic history given by Aristides. Justin, Apol. I. 21. [Greek]; Justin, Apol. I. 25. [Greek]; Recog. Clément, x. 22. "Antiopen Nyctei versus in Satyrum corrupit: ex qua nascuntur Amphion et Zethus; Alcmenam, mutatus in virum eius Amphitryonem; ex qua nascitur Hercules: Aeginam Asopi, mutatus in aquilam, ex qua nascitur Aeacus. Sed et Ganymedem Dardani mutatus nihilominus in aquilam stuprat; Mantheam Phoci, mutatus in ursum; ex qua nascitur Arctos: Danaen Acrisii, mutatus in aurum; ex qua nascitur Perseus: Europen Phoenicis, mutatus in taurum; ex qua nascitur Minos, et Rhadamanthus Sarpedonque: Eurymedusam Achelai, mutatus in formicam; |59 ex qua nascitur Myrmidon: Thaliam Aetnam nympham, mutatus in vulturem; ex qua nascuntur apud Siciliam Palixi: Imandram Geneani apxid Rhodum, mutatus in imbrem: Cassiopiam, mutatus in virum eins Phoenicem; ex qua nascitur Anchinos: Ledam Thesti, mutatus in cycnum; ex qua nascitur Helena: et iterum eandem, mutatus in stellam; ex qua nascuntur Castor et Pollux: Lamiam, mutatus in upupam: Mnemosynen, mutatus in pastorem; ex qua nascuntur Musae novem: Nemesin, mutatus in anserem: Semelen Cadmiam mutatus in ignem; ex qua nascitur Dionysus," etc.

See also Ps. Justin, Oratio ad Gentiles = Ambrose, Hypomnemata (Cureton, Spic. Syr. pp. 63, 64) for a similar sketch to that of Aristides.

[l. 4. Pasiphae is an erroneous insertion in the Syriac.

l. 11. 'Castor and Polydeuces and Hélène and Paludus.' This last word is a vox nihili; and the confusion has arisen in the following manner. The Greek has 'Castor and Hélène and Polydeuces.' The Syriac scribe has written Polydeuces in its more obvious position immediately after Castor, and then the second Polydeuces has suffered corruption.]

l. 31. For the ornaments made by Hephaestus, and sarcastic Christian remarks thereon, we may cite: Tatian, Oratio ad Graecos, c. viii.[Greek] |60

p.44, l. 31. [The paragraph on Rhea and the following one on Proserpine are not in the Greek.] The Fathers not infrequently allude to the myth of Rhea and Atys. [Cf. Tatian, ad Gfraecos, 8, [Greek]]

The story is apparently Phrygian in origin, though very similar in its details to forms from the further East. Lucian (De dea Syra, 33) describing the three images in the temple at Hierapolis says that the first two are Zeus and Hera, and the third [Greek]. Baethgen (Beiträge zur Semitischen Religionsgesckichte) p. 73 most ingeniously conjectures this to be a misunderstanding of Lucian's; [Greek] which last stands for Atti or Atys: the name appearing in a variety of forms, sometimes alone, sometimes combined with other deities, and sometimes as a factor in proper names: o.g. in Bardesanes De Fato we are told that the men of Edessa down to the time of Abgar used to sacrifice their foreskins to Tharatha: this seems to be a late form [Hebrew]; or Istar + Atta.

As to the establishment of dances in honour of Atys, these are a characteristic feature of Semitic orgiastic worship. One of the best illustrations is the temple of Baal-Marcod, which stands on a spur of the Lebanon above Beyrout, and where there are many inscriptions from the ancient temple built into the walls of a modern convent. The name implies Lord of Dances and in one inscription given by Waddington (Inscr. Syr. No. 1855) is directly paraphrased as koi/rane kw&mwn.

p. 45, l. 22. According to our apologist Isis fled to Byblos in Syria; and this agrees with Plutarch De Iside et Osiride, that Byblos was a sanctuary of Isis; now we know from Lucian De Dea Syra c. 6 that the great sanctuary at Byblos was a sanctuary of Aphrodite Bubli/n (cf. Strabo xvi. 2, p. 362). We should therefore have to assume that |61 Byblos was the centre at once of an Isis-cult and an Aphrodite-cult which is the same thing as an Astarte-cult, for our apologist tells us to equate the Greek Aphrodite to the Syrian Astera. We must then assume either that the two forms of worship existed side by side, or that there had been a fusion of the two cults, the latter hypothesis being favoured by the similarity between the case of Aphrodite weeping for Tammuz and Isis lamenting Osiris. Moreover the confusion extends to the personalities of Osiris and Adonis: and Movers quotes from Stephanus of Byzantium as follows: [Greek]

Whether, then, we pay attention to the dead gods or the wailing goddesses, there is a great similarity in the matter of the two religions. And we have suggested that in the sanctuary at Byblos the two cults may have been carried on side by side. One other question suggests itself, viz. whether they may not both be modifications of some earlier worship. We have some reason for believing that the original Byblos-worship was that of the Assyrian Baaltis, for Philo Byblius says that this city was the gift of Cronos to Baaltis. Now this Baaltis, the Assyrian mother of the gods, appears in the west in a Greek form, first under the name of Mylitta by a common change in the pronunciation of b and m. But this Mylitta is affirmed by Herodotus to be capable of equation with Aphrodite (i. 131 [Greek]) and this would lead us to recognize in the sanctuary at Byblos an original sanctuary of Mylitta.

p.46, l. 3. The local variation in the Egyptian worship appears in Herodotus and is alluded to by the Christian fathers: Herod. II. 69. [Greek]; Justin, Apol. I. 24.[Greek]; Recog. Clement, v. 20. " Nam alii eorum bovem qui Apis dicitur colendum tradidere, alii hircum; alii gattas; nonnulli ibin; quidam serpentera; piscem quoque, et caepas et cloacas, crepitus ventris, pro numinibus habendos esse docuerunt: et alia innumerabilia quae pudet etiam nominare."

[See Mayor's notes to Juv. Sat. xv., for a storehouse of references on this point.]

Of the objects of worship mentioned by Aristides, some are rather difficult to identify. The first question that arises is with regard to the animal denoted by [Syriac]. In the Dublin MS. of the Fables of Syntipas, Fable 45, we find [Syriac]. The word therefore stands for a cat. The fable to which we have referred is |62 No. 40 in Landsberger's Fabeln des Sophos. The Syriac reference is due to Prof. Bensly.

l. 27. Here the language may be illustrated by a reference to Justin, Apol. I. 9, [Greek]; and Ep. ad Diogn. 2, [Greek]

p. 49, l. 1. The description given of the Christians in this chapter recalls in many points the " Teaching of the Apostles." To begin with, we have the golden rule in a negative form, which may be compared with the first chapter of the Teaching, and with a similar Syriac sentence |63 given as a saying of Menander in Land, Anecdota i. 69, from Cod. Mus. Britt. 14658, fol. 166 r, as follows: [Syriac]which is a very different rendering from that of Aristides, and may be suspected from its ascription to Menander to be a translation of some metrical form of the golden rule.

The version in Aristides, from its setting in the text of the Apology, between two precepts against idolatry, viz. idols in the form of man, and meats offered to idols, reminds one of the Codex Bezae which completes the rule of the Council at Jerusalem (Acts xv. 29) by adding the words [Greek]. But whether the sentence stood in this connexion in the primitive Didascalia, we cannot say.

Other parallels will suggest themselves, as when Aristides describes Christian practice in words that seem to answer to [Greek] which does not differ much from c. ii. of the Teaching. The parallelisms, however, are only just sufficient to suggest an acquaintance with the Teaching on the part of Aristides; and his whole presentation of Christian ethics is vastly superior to anything in the Didaché, and can only be paralleled for beauty and spirituality in the pages of Tertullian.

p. 50, l. 37. The belief that the world stands by reason of the Christians occurs also in the following passages: Justin, Apol. I. 45. [Greek]; Justin, Apol. II. 7. [Greek]; Ep. ad Diogn. 6. [Greek]

The extract from the Epistle to Diognetus is nearer to the idea of Aristides than the passages quoted from Justin.

p. 51, l. 2. The expression [Syriac] which we have rendered " rolling themselves," occurs again in Melito, Oration (Cureton, Spic. Syr. p. [Syriac], 25), |64 (" Why rollest thou thyself upon the earth, and offerest supplication to things which are without perception?")

l. 36. The concluding words may be compared with Justin Dial. 58, [Greek].

It will be seen that we have given especial attention to the illustrations furnished to the text of our author by the undoubted writings of Justin and by the Epistle to Diognetus. We have not, however, been able to agree with the opinion of Doulcet in reference to the latter writing, nor with the tradition of Jerome in reference to Justin's imitation of Aristides. It may, however, be taken for granted, from the parallels adduced, that Justin and Aristides are nearly contemporary.

This text was transcribed by Roger Pearse, 2004. All material on this page is in the public domain - copy freely.

Greek text is rendered using the Scholars Press SPIonic font, free from here.

Early Church Fathers - Additional Texts

SOURCE SECTION: aristides_07_appendix.htm

The Apology of Aristides: Texts and Studies 1 (1891) pp. 65-... Appendix: The Remains of the Original Greek of the Apology of Aristides [Extracts]

The Apology of Aristides: Texts and Studies 1 (1891) pp. 65-99. Appendix: The Remains of the Original Greek of the Apology of Aristides [Extracts]

[Note to the online edition: much of this appendix is directed to a hypothetical reconstruction of other documents, with copious citation of the Greek. This has been almost entirely omitted]

APPENDIX

THE REMAINS OF THE ORIGINAL GREEK

OF

THE APOLOGY OF ARISTIDES

BY

J. ARMITAGE ROBINSON M.A.

FELLOW AND ASSISTANT TUTOR OF CHRIST'S COLLEGE CAMBRIDGE

THE ORIGINAL GREEK OF THE APOLOGY OF ARISTIDES.

While Mr Harris was passing the preceding pages through the press, he kindly allowed me to read the proof sheets of his translation of the Syriac. Shortly afterwards as I was turning over Latin Passionals at Vienna in a fruitless search for a lost MS. of the Passion of S. Perpetua, I happened to be reading portions of the Latin Version of the 'Life of Barlaam and Josaphat,' and presently I stumbled across words which recalled the manner and the thought of Aristides. Turning back to the beginning of a long speech, I found the words: 'Ego, rex, providentia Dei veni in mundum; et considerans celum et terram, mare et solem et lunam, et cetera, admiratus sum ornatum eorum.' The Greek text of 'Barlaam and Josaphat ' is printed in Migne's edition of the works of S. John of Damascus: and it was not long before I was reading the actual words of the Apologist himself: [Greek] It was with some impatience that I waited for my return to Cambridge, in order to examine the proof sheets again, and so to discover by a comparison of the Syriac Version how much of our author was really in our hands in the original tongue.

To what extent then does the Greek speech in 'Barlaam and Josaphat' correspond to the Syriac Version of the Apology of Aristides? In other words: How far may we claim to have recovered the original Apology in the language in which it was written?

The circumstances under which the Greek has been preserved at all demand first a brief notice. 'The Life of Barlaam and |68 Joasaph (or Josaphat)' is the title of a religious romance, which, by a tradition dating at the latest from the 11th century, has been connected with the name of S. John of Damascus. It is true that SS. Barlaam and Josaphat find a place in the Calendars of both the Eastern and Western Churches: but it has long been recognised that their 'Life' is a working up of the Indian legend of Sakya Mouni, or Buddha; and a number of the apologues scattered over the piece have also been identified as Eastern stories of a very early date.

The popularity of the book has rarely been equalled in the history of literature. Before the 13th century it had been translated into almost every known language of the world; an Icelandic Version was made about the year 1200 by the order of a Norwegian king; and there is an early English rendering in metre.

It has lately been argued, and I think with success, by Zotenberg¹, that the book is much earlier than the time of S. John of Damascus; and that the matter which it has in common with several of his works is drawn from previous writers such as Gregory Nazianzen and Nemesius. This being so, it may well go back to the th century, or perhaps earlier still.

The outline of the story is as follows. An Eastern king, named Abenner, persecutes the Christians, and especially the monks, whom he expels from India. He is childless; but at length the young prince Josaphat is born, and the astrologers, as in the case of Buddha, predict for him an extraordinary greatness. They add however that he will become a Christian. This his father determines to prevent. He encloses him in a magnificent palace; allows none but young and beautiful attendants to approach him; and forbids the mention of sorrow, disease and death, and above all of Christianity. When the prince is grown to man's estate he asks his father to give him liberty. His entreaties are at length successful, as it seems that otherwise his life will be saddened, and the first step will have been taken towards his reception of the forbidden faith. He is allowed to drive out, but the way is carefully prepared beforehand, and guarded from the |69 intrusion of sad sights and sounds. At last precaution fails, and he sees one day a lame man and a blind man, and another day a man wrinkled and tottering with age. He inquires whether accidents may befal any man, and whether every man must come at last to miserable old age or death. There is but one answer: and the joy has fled from his life.

A monk of the desert, Barlaam by name, is divinely warned of the prince's condition; and comes disguised as a merchant, and obtains entrance to the prince to shew him a most goodly pearl. In a long discourse, into which Gospel parables and Eastern apologues are skilfully woven, he expounds to him the vanity of the world and the Christian hope of the life to come. In the end the prince is baptized, and Barlaam disappears into the desert. The king, distracted with rage on the one hand and love for his son on the other, casts about for means to shake his faith. A wily counsellor propounds a plan. An old man, who closely resembles Barlaam and who is an admirable actor, is to defend the cause of Christianity in an open debate. He is to make a lame speech, and be easily refuted by the rhetoricians. The prince, seeing his instructor baffled, will renounce his newly accepted faith.

The day comes, and Nachor, for this is the old man's name, appears to personate Barlaam. Josaphat addresses him in vigorous terms, reminding him of the difficulties in which his instructions have involved him, and promising him a miserable fate if he fails to prove his point. Nachor is not reassured by this mode of address; but after some preliminary fencing on the part of the rhetoricians he begins to speak. Such, says our author, was the providence of God, that like Balaam of old he had come to curse, but he ended by blessing with manifold blessings. Or, as he says again, lowering his metaphor; 'He beckoned to the multitude to keep silence, and he opened his mouth, and like Balaam's ass he spake that which he had not purposed to speak; and he said to the king: I, O king, by the providence of God came into the world...'

The Apology of Aristides carried the day: and, to cut the long story short, Nachor himself and finally the king and his people were converted: and at last Josaphat, who in due course succeeds |70 his father, resigns his kingdom and retires to spend his days with Barlaam in the desert².

What modifications then were required to fit the Apology for its new surroundings? Surprisingly few.

(1) The king is of course addressed throughout: but this is so in the original piece. Only a short sentence at the end praises the wise choice of the king's son.

(2) The fourfold division of mankind into Barbarians and Greeks, Jews and Christians, was out of place in an Indian court. We find in its stead a triple division----Worshippers of false gods, Jews and Christians: and the first class is subdivided into Chaldeans, Greeks and Egyptians, as being the ringleaders and teachers of heathenism to the rest of the world³.

(3) A short passage at the close, in which the Christians are defended from the foul charges so often brought against them in the first days, was out of date and consequently has disappeared.

(4) If we add to this that there are traces of compression here and there, and that the description of the Christians at the close is considerably curtailed, we have exhausted the list of substantial modifications which can with certainty be detected.

The substance of the Apology then is for the most part faithfully preserved: but can we say that with the exceptions already named we have the actual Greek words of Aristides himself?

The first and most obvious test to apply is that of comparative length. The Syriac is, speaking roughly, half as long again as the Greek: and this difference is not fully accounted for by the combination in the latter of the preliminary statements about the Jews and the Christians with the fuller descriptions of them given later on, and by the omission of nearly two pages at the close. |71 The fact is that the Syriac has a large number of repetitions and not a few additional details which are absent from the Greek. Thus at the end of each description of the several gods and goddesses of the heathen, the Syriac Version points the moral and drives home the inevitable conclusion: and again such histories as those of Kronos and of Isis and Osiris are somewhat more elaborately told in this form of the Apology.

Are we then to conclude that the Syriac translator has enlarged upon his original, and supplemented it here and there from his own resources? Or must we say that the author of 'Barlaam and Josaphat' found the Apology too long for his purpose, and pruned away unnecessary details?

The second hypothesis has a prima facie probability, and the general reputation for faithfulness of Syriac translators might point us in the same direction. On the other side it is to be observed that, even when read in the light of the Syriac Version, the Greek form is still felt to be a harmonious and consistent whole: and it certainly does not convey the impression of serious mutilation. The genius of the author, in so framing his plot as perfectly to suit the Apology which he intended to introduce, needs no further praise than is involved in the fact that hitherto no one has had the remotest suspicion that he did not write the speech of Nachor himself. If anything could make his genius appear more extraordinary still, it would be the proof that he had consistently compressed the original document in almost every alternate sentence without leaving any traces of rough handling: but such proof is at present not forthcoming. In the absence of further documents, the question must be decided largely by internal evidence and the minute investigation of the points of difference. But there are two external sources from which light may be thrown upon the problem.

(1) In 1855 Cureton published in his Spicilegium Syriacum a treatise bearing the title: 'Hypomnemata, which Ambrose, a chief man of Greece, wrote;' and commencing with the words: 'Do not suppose, men and Greeks, that without fit and just cause is my separation from your customs.' These words are the literal translation of the opening sentence of the Oratio ad |72 Gentiles traditionally ascribed to Justin Martyr: [Greek]

When we compare the original Greek with the Syriac Version of this document, we find that in point of length they stand to one another exactly as do the Greek and Syriac forms of the Apology of Aristides: that is to say, in either case the Syriac is about half as long again as the Greek. Moreover, as in the case of our Apology, the variation begins to shew itself immediately after the first sentence, which I have quoted. For the Greek continues thus: [Greek]. But the Syriac replaces this by the following, as Cureton renders it: 'For I have investigated the whole of your wisdom of poetry, and rhetoric, and philosophy; and when I found not anything right or worthy of the Deity, I was desirous of investigating the wisdom of the Christians also, and of learning and seeing who they are, and when, and what is this its recent and strange production, or on what good things they rely who follow this wisdom, so as to speak the truth. Men and Greeks, when I had made the enquiry I found not any folly, as in the famous Homer, who says respecting the wars of the two rivals, "for the sake of Helen many of the Greeks perished at Troy, far from their beloved home." For first they say respecting Agamemnon,' &c.

Here then we have a similar problem to that of the Apology of Aristides; and in this case we are not hampered by the consideration that the Greek may possibly have been abbreviated to fit it for incorporation into a religious novel. Few will be disposed to challenge the verdict of Otto⁴, that the Syriac translator has so altered and amplified his original as almost to have produced a new work.

We may give one more illustration of the manner in which the translator has proceeded. We have seen already that he has paraded at the outset his independent acquaintance with Homer. |73 Where Ulysses is alluded to, later on, the Greek has a sentence full of satire and liable to be misunderstood. [Greek]. Corresponding to this we find in the Syriac Version: 'But respecting the guile of Odysseus, son of Laertes, and his murders, who shall tell? For to a hundred and ten suitors in one day his house was a grave, and was filled with dead bodies and blood. And he it is that by his wickedness purchased praises, because by the excellence of his wisdom he was concealed: and he it is that, as ye say, sailed over the sea, and heard the voice of the Sirens, because he stopped his ears with wax.'

The translator then has first supplemented his author by introducing fresh details about Ulysses: and then he has totally missed the meaning of the Greek. He has obviously read it as if it were [Greek], ' through the excellence of his wisdom he kept himself in the dark.' Then not seeing the point of [Greek], he simply tells us that ' he stopped his ears with wax.' This of course" the hero did not do: and the translator has got the Homeric story wrong: nor shall we mend matters much by inserting with Cureton the word 'not' after 'and heard.' We see at any rate plainly enough what was this Syrian's conception of a translator's function when his author seemed obscure.

The parallel between the two Apologies is the more striking, because the line of argument in these Hypomnemata vividly recalls parts of Aristides, and the same illustrations of the misdemeanours of the gods frequently reappear in almost the same language. The satire of the so-called Ambrosius is a much keener weapon than the simple narrative of Aristides: but there is not the same intensity of moral earnestness. It is quite credible that the later Apologist had the work of Aristides before him when he wrote, and endeavoured to reproduce the same arguments in what he thought was a more telling manner. Thus he says: [Greek] (cf. infra p. 109, 1. 7). And again: [Greek]. |74 (cf. p. 106, 1. 24). And once more: [Greek] (cf. p. 105, 1. 18).

Enough then has been said to shew that a Syriac translator, finding an early Greek Apology and desiring to reproduce it in his own language, might have no scruple whatever in dealing very freely with his author, in expunging sentences which he was not able or did not care to translate, and in supplementing the original here and there out of his own resources. The Syriac translator of the Oratio ad Gentiles has clearly so treated his unknown author; and this fact removes any a priori objection to the supposition that the Syriac translator of Aristides has acted in a similar way.

(2) We are fortunate in having an additional source of evidence in the Armenian fragment which contains the opening sentences of the Apology. The Armenian translator has clearly done what we have had some reason to suspect in the case of the Syriac translator. He has dealt freely with his original, adding words and even sentences, and introducing the stock phrases of a later theology..But this, while it diminishes very considerably the amount of the evidence which can be produced from his version, does not materially affect its value as far as it goes. Phrases which are only found in the Armenian, or only found in the Syriac, may be dismissed as possibly the inventions of the respective translators: but there remains a considerable quantity of matter common to the two Versions, which therefore presupposes a Greek original. The question we have to ask is: What is the relation of this common matter to the Greek text now in our hands 1

A preliminary point however demands attention: Is the Armenian translated from the Syriac, or is it an independent translation made directly or indirectly from the Greek itself?

A few instances in which the Armenian corresponds with the Greek against the Syriac will suffice to shew that it cannot come from the Syriac as we now have it.

In the opening sentence we have [Greek] and ' providentia ' (Arm.) against 'goodness' (Syr.). Immediately afterwards [Greek] and ' luna ' (Arm.), which the Syriac omits. Lower down ' rectorem' |75 three times corresponds to parts of [Greek], but there is nothing to answer to these in the Syriac. In the Christological passage near the end of the fragment, ' una cum Spiritu Sancto ' (Arm.) answers to [Greek]: and here again the Syriac has no equivalent.

Moreover in the description of the Divine nature the Armenian Version says: ' Ei neque colores sunt neque forma,' or as Mr Conybeare renders it ' Colour and form of Him there is not.' This corresponds to the Syriac phrase: ' He has no likeness, nor composition of members.' The Greek fails us here: but we may suppose that the -Greek word which has been variously rendered ' colour ' and ' likeness ' was [Greek], as in the passage quoted by Mr Harris from Justin (supra p. 54): [Greek].

We may conclude then that the Armenian Version is not made from the Syriac Version in its present form⁵: and similar arguments could be adduced, if there were any necessity, to shew that the Syriac Version is independent of the Armenian.

I have mentioned already almost all the cases in which the Syriac fails to reproduce in any form matter which is common to the Greek and the Armenian. They scarcely make up between them more than a dozen words. The additional matter found only in the Syriac Version is more considerable.

First, there is the second title which introduces the name of Antoninus Pius, and so conflicts with the first which has the support of the Armenian⁶.

Then we have the following phrases:

(a) Who is hidden in them and concealed from them: and this is well known, that... |76

(b) And in saying that He is complete, I mean that there is no deficiency in Him.

(c) And that which has an end is dissoluble.

(d) From man He asks nothing.

(e) Who begat...from whom was born...who begat.

(f) Of their religion (bis).

(g) And it is said that (in the Christological statement)... and clad Himself with...and they say that...who are well known.

I have taken no account of the many places in which the two Versions wander far from each other, and yet seem to have some common basis. Here the Armenian is obviously the worst offender, and its interpolations are far more numerous.

We now turn to the Greek itself in the passage covered by the Armenian fragment, in order to see first of all to what extent what we actually have faithfully represents the Greek words which underlie the Syriac and Armenian Versions.

(1) The first sentence which bears the appearance of compression is the following: [Greek]. This seems to bring together several more expanded phrases witnessed to by the two Versions, which however do not agree with one another sufficiently closely to allow us to make a certain reconstruction.

(2) In the sentence, [Greek], a word, corresponding to ' praefatas ' (Arm.) and ' which we have spoken concerning Him ' (Syr.), has dropped out before [Greek]: and instead of [Greek] there must have been a verb in the original; ' ab eis erraverint ' (Arm.), ' have erred therefrom ' (Syr.). The difference is of course exceedingly slight in itself: but it is important from a critical point of view, when we are testing the faithfulness with which the author of 'Barlaam and Josaphat' has preserved to us the original Apology. We may probably trace in this sentence the influence of an almost identical one, which comes later on, after the preliminary descriptions of the four races have been given. As the Greek combines these descriptions with the fuller |77 accounts afterwards given, it brings the parallel sentences close together.

(3) The division of mankind into three races, and not four, has been already noticed⁷.

(4) It is just at this point that the most serious divergence is found: viz., the omission of the preliminary descriptions of the races, as noted above. This was perhaps the result of the change in the method of their division, which rendered unsuitable the sentences which immediately followed.

Once more, we have to ask how much is there which can be shewn, by the united testimony of the Versions, to have stood in the original Greek, and which yet finds no place in the Greek which has survived.

(1) In the first line both Versions have 'into this world,' while the Greek has [Greek]: but the demonstrative may perhaps only be an attempt to represent the Greek article. The first real gap is eight lines lower down, where the Versions are very divergent⁸, but yet point- to some common original. It is probable that the Greek text at this point was difficult or corrupt, and so was omitted altogether by the author of ' Barlaam and Josaphat.' The topic is the difficulty and uselessness of elaborate investigation concerning the Divine nature: and the conclusion is drawn ' that one should fear God and not grieve man ' (Syr.), ' utpote unum Deum nos adorare oportet: unumquemque autem nostrum proximum suum sicut semetipsum diligere ' (Arm.). To this the Greek has nothing to correspond.

(2) For the list of properties of the Divine nature we have in the Greek merely the compressed sentence, part of which was quoted above. The Versions agree in telling us more fully that ' God is not begotten, not made '; ' without beginning, because that which has a beginning has also an end'; 'without name, because that which has a name belongs to the created'; 'without likeness (Arm. ' colores,' implying [Greek] in the Greek) and composition of members (Arm. ' forma '), for he who possesses this is associated with things created' (Arm. 'mensurabilis est, |78 limitibusque cogitur'); 'neither male nor female' (Arm. adds 'quia cupiditatibus agitatur qui huic est distinctioni obnoxius '); ' the heavens do not contain Him: but the heavens and all things visible and invisible are contained in Him '; ' He has no adversary ' (in the reason for this there is fresh discrepancy); ' He is altogether wisdom and understanding.' After this the Greek, as we have it, is again, for the next seven lines, obviously the same as that which lay before the translators.

(3) Now comes the new division of mankind, and the Greek has omitted the following: ' Now the Barbarians reckon---- and from Dionysus,' about six lines.

(4) The preliminary accounts of the Jews and the Christians are found in the Greek later on, where they are amalgamated with the fuller descriptions. The account of the Jews agrees fairly well with that given in the Versions, especially in the Armenian. The additions in the Greek will be noticed presently. It adds at the close: [Greek].

(5) The Christological passage which follows is so important that it will be an advantage to have the three forms side by side.

[Greek]

The Christians then reckon the beginning of their religion from Jesns Christ, Who is named the Son of God most High; and it is said that God came down from Jieaven, and from a Hebrew virgin toot: and clad Himself with flesh; and there dwelt in a daughter of man the Son of God.

Christianorum tandem gentil a Domino Jesn Christo oritur. Ipse Dei altissimi est Filius, et una cum Spiritu Sancto reuelatus est nobis: de coelis descendit, ex Hebraea uirgine natus, ex uirgine carnem assumpsit, assumpta-qne humana natura semet-ipsum Dei Filium reuelauit.

Here I have distinguished by spaced type or by italics every word, which having a double testimony may be referred to the original Greek. As regards omissions, the Greek omits only the epithet ' Hebrew ', which it replaces by the epithet agia, and the second reference to 'the Son of God,' where however there is a discrepancy between the two Versions. The Syriac omits [Greek], |79 The Armenian has no omission that can be certainly traced. The additions in each case may be seen at a glance. The Armenian has practically none; though a few lines further down the epithet corresponding to theotokos is applied to the Virgin. The most serious change is that in the Syriac, where the word ' God ' is inserted as the subject of the verbs which follow. The passage is one which was more likely than any other in the whole piece to tempt later writers to make changes of their own. It is to be noted that here the Greek in spite of its additions represents the original Apology much more faithfully than the Syriac does.

(6) In the words which follow next the Versions do not agree either with one another, or with the Greek, which has displaced the sentence and gives it a little lower down. But both the Greek and the Syriac appeal to a written Gospel, which the king might read if he chose.

(7) The repetition of the fourfold division of mankind is of course not found in the Greek, and with it has disappeared the problematical sentence: ' To God then ministers wind, and to angels fire; but to demons water, and to men earth.' At this point the Armenian fragment ends.

What then is the result of our investigation of this opening passage, in which alone we have a triple testimony to the contents of the original Apology?

(1) There is one serious modification (if, indeed, we have not here the original) in the Greek, as it is preserved to us; but it was necessitated by the conditions of its reproduction in its new surroundings.

(2) There is one serious displacement in the Greek; but this was almost necessitated by the modification just mentioned.

(3) The description of the Divine nature is very much abbreviated in the Greek; but no word occurs in it which has not the support of the Versions.

(4) In the Christological passage which we examined in detail the Greek was seen to preserve the original statements, though with the addition of the later phrase |80

(5) The Syriac Version is often loose and inaccurate: it drops a phrase here and there; and it makes insertions by way of explanation or of supplement, and sometimes in such a way as to convey a wholly false conception of the original.

We learn then to expect for the remainder of the Apology that the Greek, as we have it, will as a rule give us the actual words of Aristides, except in the very few places in which modification was obviously needed. Where the Syriac presents us with matter which has no counterpart whatever in the Greek, we shall hesitate to pronounce that the Greek is defective, unless we are able to suggest a good reason for the omission, or to authenticate the Syriac from some external source⁹.

The Greek Text of 'Barlaam and Josaphat.'

It is remarkable that this work, which at one time enjoyed such extraordinary popularity, should not have found its way into print in its original language before the present century. The Latin Version wrongly attributed to Georgius Trapezuntius, but really, as the MSS. of it prove, of a much earlier date, was printed, together with various works of S. John of Damascus, at Basel in 1539: but it was reserved to Boissonade to publish the Greek Text for the first time in the fourth volume of his Anecdota, which appeared at Paris in 1832.

Boissonade apologises for the meagreness of his apparatus criticus on the ground that an edition was expected almost immediately from Schmidt and Kopitar the librarian of the Imperial Library at Vienna. This edition, however, never appeared. Out. of seventeen MSS. preserved in the Library at Paris, Boissonade used throughout but two, 903 and 1128, which he refers to as A and C. He gives occasional readings from two others, 904 and 907, which he names B and D. In the portion of the book which specially concerns us, viz. the speech of Nachor, C is defective for about 10 of Boissonade's pages, and the testimony of D is frequently |81 recorded. From time to time readings are also quoted from the Latin Version.

This very inadequate text has been reprinted in Migne's Patrologia Graeca, tom. 96, in the third volume of the works of S. John of Damascus: but we have gained nothing by the reproduction except new blunders.

In the Wiener Jahrbücher für Deutsche Literatur (lxxii. 274, lxxiii. 176) Schubart has given some description of the Vienna MSS., and a list of the principal variants contained in them.

Lastly, Zotenberg¹⁰ has made a useful list of about 60 MSS., and has constructed a critical text of certain passages of special interest. Nothing however has been attempted as yet in the way of a genealogical classification of the MSS.; a work which will involve great labour, but which is essential to the production of a satisfactory edition.

In editing the Remains of the Apology of Aristides I have used three MSS., which were kindly placed at my disposal in Cambridge. I have recorded their variants with a greater completeness than is necessary for my present purpose, in order to aid a future editor of the whole treatise in assigning them without further trouble to their proper families.

(1) I have to thank Miss Algerina Peckover of Wisbech for kindly sending to the University Library a MS. in her possession, which apparently belongs to the beginning of the eleventh century. This Codex is specially interesting for the pictures which a later hand has drawn in the margin, sometimes in ink and sometimes in colours. It is unfortunately defective at the beginning and at the end. It commences with the words [Greek] (Bois. p. 48), and ends with [Greek] (Bois. p. 357). Unhappily it has been corrected very largely throughout, and it is frequently impossible to discover the original readings: those which are obviously by a later hand I have marked as W².

(2) The authorities of Magdalen College, Oxford, with a like generosity allowed me to use their codex, Gr. 4, side by side with |82 the Wisbech MS. in our Library. This bears the date 1064. It contains besides: a Life of S. Basil, a tract on Images, the Martyrdom of SS. Galaction and Episteme, a tract on Penalties, and a work of Anastasius Sinaiticus. It has remained for the most part uncorrected.

(3) In the Library of Pembroke College, Cambridge, there is a MS. of the 17th century, the readings of which are of sufficient interest to be recorded for the present in spite of its late date;

In my apparatus criticvs these MSS. are referred to by the letters W, M and P respectively. I have now and then recorded readings from the Vienna MSS. collated by Schubart, using the signs V21, V102, &c., where the figures correspond with Schubart's numbers. Wherever I have differed from the text of Boissonade, I have recorded his readings, and sometimes I have expressly mentioned his MSS., A, C and D. I have given in the margin of the Greek text the reference to Boissonade's pages. Where it seemed desirable I have recorded readings of the Latin Version, taking them from the Basel edition of 1539 mentioned above.

The Bearing of the Apology on the Canon.

There are but few references to the Books of Scripture in the Apology of Aristides, which thus stands in striking contrast with the works of Justin. On two occasions the Emperor is referred to Christian writings. In the first case a written Gospel is distinctly implied, as the matter in hand is the outline of our Lord's Life; the words in the Greek are ¹¹: [Greek] (p. 110, 1. 21). The second reference is more general, and possibly includes Books outside the Canon: [Greek] (p. 111, l. 24; cf. Syr. supra p. 50 fin.). There are no direct quotations from the New Testament, although the Apologist's diction is undoubtedly coloured at times by the language of the Apostolic writers.

(1) The opening sentence recalls the words of 2 Macc. vii. 28: [Greek] |83

(2) p. 100, l. 11. [Greek]. Cf. Col. i. 17, [Greek] (cf. [Greek] in i. 16).

(3) p. 101, l. 6. [Greek]. This is clearly based on Rom. i, 25: [Greek]. The addition of [Greek] is interesting. The Syriac translator renders: ' and they began to serve created things instead of the Creator of them'; he is probably led to make the change by the recollection of the Syriac Version (Pesh.) in this passage, where the word ' Creator ' has the suffix of the fem. plural.

(4) p. 104, l. 2. [Greek]. Cf. Rom. i. 22: [Greek].

(5) p. 107, l. 12. [Greek]. These words are a kind of echo, although in a different sense, of Rom. vii. 8: [Greek].

(6) p. 109, l. 12. [Greek]. Hère again we seem to feel the influence of the same chapter; Rom. vii. 12, 16, [Greek] (cf. 1 Tim. i. 8).

(7) p. 109, l. 26. [Greek]. The first part of this sentence has affinities with Heb. xi. 8, 9, [Greek]. And the whole may be compared with Acts xiii. 17, [Greek]. The second part of the phrase however is not attested by the Syr. and Arm. Versions, and may possibly have been introduced by the author of 'Barlaam and Josaph.it' from Ps. cxxxvi. 11, 12.

(8) p. 110, l. 2. [Greek]. This is a combination of words found in S. Matt. xiii. 17, [Greek], and S. Matt, xxiii. |84 37 (cf. S. Luke xiii. 34) [Greek]. But here again we cannot be sure that we have the words of Aristides himself. This last remark applies also to the phrase, [Greek] (p. 110, 1. 9), which comes from Rom. x. 2.

(9) p. 110, l. 19. [Greek] clearly comes from Heb. ii. 9; but the Syr. simply has 'He died,' and the Arm. has nothing at all to correspond. Hence we cannot be certain that these are the words of Aristides. They probably have replaced the statement preserved in the Syr. ' He was pierced by the Jews.' Throughout this great Christological passage it is worth noting how the actual phrases of the N. T. are not introduced.

(10) p. 111, l. 30. [Greek]. With this we may perhaps compare 1 Thess. ii. 13, [Greek]

The Apology and the Didaché.

A source from which our author has drawn part of his description of the life and conduct of the Christians is the Two Ways, though it may well be doubted whether he knew it in the form preserved to us in the Didaché. [...] |85

When we turn to the Epistle of Barnabas we find there the same parallels which have been quoted from the Didaché, [...] |86

It is possible then that here we have a witness to the earlier Two Ways, which has been variously embodied in the Didaché and the Epistle of Barnabas.

Some support may be given to this view when we observe that the wording of the negative form of the Golden Rule in our Apology has a greater affinity to the. famous interpolations in Codex Bczae than to the clause in the Didaché. This appears partly from the position of the first negative, and partly from the use of [Greek] rather than [Greek].

Let us bring the various texts together: [...]

It is hardly possible therefore to believe that Aristides can have drawn this precept directly from the Didaché in the form in which we know it.

The Apology and the Preaching of Peter.

At the close of the Apology Aristides challenges the Emperor 'to examine the writings of the Christians, from which he declares that the materials for his defence are drawn: p. 111, l. 23: [Greek]: or, as it is more fully said in the Syriac Version: ' Take now their writings and read in them, and lo! ye will find that not of myself have I brought these things forward nor as their advocate have I said them, but as I have read in their writings, these things I firmly believe,' &c.

We have seen already that he refers to a written Gospel for his statements as to the life and work of our Lord. We have also seen that he has drawn part of his description of the conduct of the Christians from the ' Two Ways.' Moreover the Book of |87 Wisdom seems to have influenced his method and his language, in several parts of his work.

The following investigation will tend to shew that he owes a still greater debt to a work now lost, which exercised a considerable influence upon the writings of the second century.

The Preaching of Peter ( [Greek]) is classed by Eusebius (H. E. in. 3) together with his Acts, his Gospel and his Apocalypse as outside the Canon of writings accepted by the universal Church ( [Greek]). He goes on to say of these four books that none of the early writers or of his contemporaries used quotations from them. This statement is however incorrect: for Clement of Alexandria again and again quotes from both the Preaching and the Apocalypse, as authoritative works. The Preaching of Peter then was one of those books which, like the Didaché, the Epistle of Barnabas and the Shepherd of Hennas, at one time claimed a place in the Canon; though its claim was disallowed, even more emphatically perhaps than the claims of these other competitors.

We must in the first instance gather together all the fragments which can be assigned with certainty to this work¹². For the sake of clearness I have arranged them in the order in which it will be most easy to compare them with our Apology.

Clem. Al. Strom. VI. 39 ff. [Greek] |88 |89

Ibid. 48.

Ibid. 43.

Ibid. 128. |90

I have given above in full (with one exception; Clem. Strom. i. 182, [Greek]) all the indisputable fragments of the Preaching of Peter¹: and the parallels adduced from the Apology of Aristides shew that there is an intimate connexion between the two documents.

Before going further into the interesting problem of the reconstruction of the Preaching, let us inquire what light these parallels throw upon the relation of the Syriac Version to the Greek text of the Apology.

(1) Several passages of the Syriac Version, quoted above in the notes, which are wanting in the Greek as we now have it, are authenticated by their similarity to portions of the Preaching.

Of these the most important are: (a) the worship of angels attributed to the Jews; (b) the description of the Christians as a ' new people '; (c) the confession of the converted heathen; (d) the attribution of our Lord's sufferings to the Jews, Especially valuable are (a) and (c), as giving us ground for believing that the great closing section of the Syriac Version, which is so curtailed in the Greek, is substantially the writing of Aristides himself.

(2) On the other hand, the division into three races, which we find in the Greek, has the support of the famous [Greek] of the Preaching. The fourfold division of the Syriac and Armenian Versions (Barbarians and Greeks, Jews and Christians) comes therefore under grave suspicion: and the more we examine it, the less primitive it appears. For to the Greek mind the Jews were themselves Barbarians: see, for example, Clem. Strom, vi. 44, [Greek]: and Orig. c. Cels. i. 2, [Greek]. Moreover there seems to be no parallel to this fourfold classification of races in early Christian literature.

The Preaching of Peter is quoted by Heracleon (Orig. Comm. in Joan. xiii. 17), and we shall see that possibly it was used by |91 Celsus. It seems also to have been in the hands of the unknown writer of the Epistle to Diognetus. Moreover in the Sibylline Oracles we have several passages which seem to be based on it. Some of these are especially interesting, as shewing coincidences with our Apology, though not with the existing fragments of the Preaching ¹³.

Now if three or four extant works can be shewn to have drawn materials from a document, which is known to us now only by a few fragments, there is obviously a possibility that the lost document may be to some extent critically reconstructed by a consideration of common matter found in any two of the works, which may accordingly have been taken from the document in question. To attempt to do this fully for the Preaching of Peter would be beyond our present scope: but we may fairly consider here what contributions to such a reconstruction are afforded by our Apology, which has apparently made so free a use of it.

Let us begin with those passages which either the Preaching or the Apology have in common with the Sibylline Oracles. I shall not attempt a. discrimination between the various writings which are gathered under the name of the Sibyl, but shall simply give references to Alexandre 's edition of 1869. Prooem. 7 ff. [...] |92 |93 |94 |95

With regard to the second passage, there is a still more striking parallel in c. xvii., preserved to us only in the Syriac Version. ' The Greeks then, O king, because they practise foul things in sleeping with males, and with mother and sister and daughter, turn the ridicule of their foulness upon the Christians; but the Christians are honest and pious,' etc.

These coincidences are worth noting even if we are not prepared, with our present knowledge, to suppose that they send us back for their explanation to the Preaching of Peter.

Next let us turn to the Epistle to Diognetus. As soon as the Armenian fragment of Aristides was discovered, it was observed that it had points in common with this anonymous Epistle. The coincidences have multiplied greatly with our larger knowledge of the Apology. Several of them have been quoted by Mr Harris in his notes, but it is necessary for our present purpose to bring them together again under one view. I shall do this in the briefest possible form, giving in the footnotes references to such parallels in the Apology as have not already been quoted above. [...] |96 |97

We cannot account for these parallels by merely supposing that Aristides had the Epistle to Diognetus before him: for there are many points in common between Aristides and the Preaching of Peter, such as the worship of angels ascribed to the Jews, which do not appear in the Epistle. Nor will the converse hypothesis hold good. For, to take one instance out of several, the phrase in the Epistle [Greek] is directly parallel to [Greek] in the Preaching; but it has no counterpart in form in the Apology.

Here again then we are guided to the hypothesis that the Preaching lies behind both of these works. Can we gain anything further in the way of its reconstruction? [...] |98

Mr Harris has collected (pp. 23 ff.) several instances of contact between the Apology of Aristides and the True Word of Celsus; and he has suggested that Celsus may have had the Apology in his hands when he wrote his attack upon Christianity. We are now in a position to see that most of the coincidences which have been pointed out would be accounted for by the supposition that it was the Preaching of Peter itself, and not our Apology, which, like ' Jason and Papiscus ' and other apocryphal writings, supplied the materials of his attack.

It will be more satisfactory to present the evidence in full as we have done in the previous cases, even at the risk of some repetition. I shall follow the order of Origen's reply. [...] |99

It is not easy on the evidence here collected to say whether it was the Preaching of Peter or the Apology of Aristides which lay before Celsus, but we can hardly doubt that it must have been one or the other. The statement that the world was made for the sake of man does not find a place in the recognised fragments of the Preaching; but we have given good reasons for believing that it was contained in it. On the other hand, the Apology gives no starting point for the attack of Celsus on Jewish prophecies about the Messiah, whereas the Preaching laid great stress on this point (see above, p. 89).

[...]

[Footnotes moved to end and renumbered]

1. ¹ Notice sur le livre de Barlaam et Joasaph, Paris, 1886. A useful summary of the literature on 'B. and J.' is given by Krumbacher in Iwan von Müller's Handbuch der alt. Wissensch. vol. 9, pt. 1, p. 469,

2. ¹ A small fragment (below, p. 104), which is omitted from its proper place in Nachor's speech, is embodied in an early part of the book (Bois. p. 49). We thus see that the writer had the Apology before him at the outset of his work, and designed his plot with the definite intention of introducing it.

3. ² See, however, below, p. 90; where reasons are given which tend to shew that the Greek has preserved the original triple division, as against the Syriac and the Armenian.

4. ¹ Justini Opera, tom. 2, p. xxix.

5. ¹ See however p. 90, where the fourfold division of mankind, common to Syr. and Arm., is further criticised.

6. ² Mr Harris inclines to accept this second title of the Syriac Version as the true one: see above, pp. 7 ff. But the course of the present argument tends to shew that the Syriac translator has introduced many arbitrary changes on his own account: and this makes me the more unwilling to accept his testimony against that of the Armenian Version, which has moreover the explicit statement of Eusebius to support it. The circumstances under which the Greek has been preserved to us necessitated the omission of the title altogether; so that no direct evidence on the point reaches us from that quarter.

7. ¹ See above, p. 70; and further remarks on p. 90.

8. ² The Syriac is untranslateable as it stands.

9. ¹ Cf. infra, p. 90.

10. ¹ Notice sur le livre de B. et J., pp. 3-5.

11. ¹ For the Syriac see above, p. 36 fin. 'This is taught from that Gospel,' &c.

12. ¹ Hilgenfeld (N. T. extra Can. pp. 56 ff.), to whose work I need scarcely acknowledge my indebtedness, has brought together under the head of [Greek], various fragments of the Didascalia Petri, &c. The fact that these find no parallels in Aristides will give a new reason for keeping them separate.

13. ¹ The Gnostic Acts of Thomas are frequently indebted to the Preaching of Peter, as may be seen by the following passages: c. 1, [Greek]: C. 15, [Greek]: c. 28, [Greek]: C. 36, [Greek]: C. 38, [Greek]: C. 55, [Greek]: c. 56, [Greek] (see too the argument from prophecy in the same chapter).

This text was transcribed by Roger Pearse, 2004. All material on this page is in the public domain - copy freely.

Greek text is rendered using the Scholars Press SPIonic font, free from here.

Early Church Fathers - Additional Texts

SOURCE SECTION: irenaeus_00_proof_eintro.htm

Irenaeus: Proof of the Apostolic Preaching (1920). Preface to the online edition

Irenaeus: Proof of the Apostolic Preaching (1920). Preface to the online edition

This important and interesting work was discovered only in 1904, in an Armenian translation, and the first English translation was published in London and New York in 1920. This is the translation that follows. The translator was J. Armitage Robinson. A modern translation, which is highly recommended, exists in the Ancient Christian Writers series. Robinson titled his version, "Demonstration of the Apostolic Preaching" but the ACW uses the title "Proof of the Apostolic Preaching", which has been adopted here.

The CCEL began to scan this volume a long time ago, but few seem to have been aware of it and progress has apparently stopped. Furthermore the format of the version that they are making breaks the text up into a multitude of pages, making it hard to read or reference. I have therefore scanned the text with abbreviated notes and placed it here, in order to promote interest in this little known work.*

I have omitted the long introductory essay by the translator on the doctrine of the Holy Spirit in Justin and Irenaeus. I have also omitted most of the footnotes. The majority of these indicate passages in the Adversus Haereses where Irenaeus quotes the same passage of scripture. The manuscript text was in Armenian. None of the footnotes include any of this -- no doubt SPCK's compositors wisely objected -- but Robinson compensates by quoting the AH in Latin, and at least one chunk of Greek on every page, usually from the Old Testament. All this I have omitted, leaving a series of dots where the Greek was. Finally I have moved the marginal scripture references into the footnotes, and omitted the indices. No doubt all these things will be present in the CCEL edition.

Roger PEARSE

20th September 2003

* Postscript, th October 2003. I've had a note from my friends at the CCEL to the effect that their version has been updated, and the table of contents can be accessed here. The main text, together with the latter part of the introduction, is here, and the myriad little pages seem to have gone. The new version appears to include all the material. Nevertheless, I think the format I have here will still be useful.

This text was transcribed by Roger Pearse, 2003. All material on this page is in the public domain - copy freely.

Greek text is rendered using the Scholars Press SPIonic font, free from here.

Early Church Fathers - Additional Texts

SOURCE SECTION: irenaeus_01_proof_intro.htm

Irenaeus: Proof of the Apostolic Preaching (1920) pp. 1-23. Introduction.

Irenaeus: Proof of the Apostolic Preaching (1920) pp. 1-23. Introduction.

TRANSLATIONS OF CHRISTIAN LITERATURE

GENERAL EDITORS: W. J. SPARROW SIMPSON, D.D. W. K. LOWTHER CLARKE, B.D.

SERIES IV

ORIENTAL TEXTS

ST. IRENAEUS

ST IRENAEUS

THE DEMONSTRATION OF THE APOSTOLIC PREACHING

TRANSLATED FROM THE ARMENIAN WITH INTRODUCTION AND NOTES

BY

J. ARMITAGE ROBINSON, D.D.

DEAN OF WELLS

LONDON:

SOCIETY FOR PROMOTING CHRISTIAN KNOWLEDGE

NEW YORK: THE MACMILLAN CO.

1920

PRINTED IN GREAT BRITAIN BY

RICHARD CLAY & SONS, LIMITED,

BRUNSWICK ST., STAMFORD ST., S.E. 1,

AND BUNGAY, SUFFOLK.

PREFACE

EUSEBIUS in his Ecclesiastical History tells us that in addition to his great work Against Heresies St Irenaeus wrote A Discourse in Demonstration of the Apostolic Preaching. This work was entirely lost sight of: no one seems ever to have quoted a word of it. But it has quite recently reappeared in an Armenian manuscript together with Books IV and V of the greater work. The Armenian translation proves to be a fairly close rendering of the original Greek.

What Irenaeus meant by the Apostolic Preaching can be seen from his larger work. Although the exact expression does not seem to occur there, we have its equivalent, "the Preaching of the Apostles" (III, iii. 2), and also the parallel phrases, "the Tradition of the Apostles" (III, iii. 4) and "the Preaching of the Truth" (I, iii. I; III, iii. 4). Moreover, in I, i. 20 we read that "he who holds the canon (or rule) of the truth without deviation, which he received through his baptism," will be able to escape all the snares of heresy: and in the Demonstration (c. 3.) we have closely'parallel words which also refer to the baptismal faith. Although it was not until much later that the baptismal confession came to be called the Apostles' Creed, |vi it was already regarded as a summary of the essential elements of the Apostolic message. Its form varied in some details in different Churches, but its structure was everywhere the same, for it had grown up on the basis of the baptismal formula.

What Irenaeus undertakes in the present work is to set out the main points of this Apostolic message, which, as he has explained in his greater work (III, iii. 1 ff), has been handed down in the Church by the successions of the bishops and is the same in substance in all parts of the world, and to demonstrate its truth more especially from the sacred scriptures of the Old Testament. This argument from prophecy was the earliest form of Christian evidence; and though it does not appeal to us with equal force to-day, and we find it hard to be patient with some of the proofs which seemed to be convincing in the earliest times, we must yet recognize that it was a true instinct which claimed the Jewish scriptures as the heritage of the Christian Church, and surmounted by means of allegorical interpretations those serious difficulties which led many Christians to wish to cast them aside altogether.

The words of Bishop Westcott in reference to the methods of the schoolmen of the Middle Ages, are applicable also to these earlier teachers: "Many of the arguments which they use appear to us frivolous and pointless. It requires a serious effort to enter into them with a sympathetic intelligence. But the effort is worth making. Conclusions which rest upon arbitrary assumptions |vii as to the symmetries of things witness in an imperfect fashion to a deep sense of a divine order in creation; and we do injustice to those who draw them if we allow even the greatest errors of expression and form to blind us to the nobility of the conception which they embody most inadequately" (Epp. of St John, "The Gospel of Creation," pp. 276 f.).

The wonder of Irenaeus is the largeness of his outlook. No theologian had arisen since St Paul and St John who had grasped so much of the purpose of God for His world. "The Making of Man," to borrow Tennyson's great phrase, is his constant theme. Even though he was forced to be controversial, he was never merely negative; and the last of his books Against Heresies ends on the keynote of the whole----that man shall at length be made "after the image and likeness of God." This is to him the meaning of all history; and for that reason the centre point of history is the Incarnation. So Christ came "to link up the end with the beginning," or in St Paul's words, which Irenaeus never tires of repeating, " to gather up into one all things " in Himself.

I have retained the chapter divisions of the first editors and translators of the Armenian text. The references to the work Against Heresies are to Harvey's edition (Cambridge, 1857). Though I have not everywhere reproduced the double renderings which are so frequent in the Armenian, I have made the translation sufficiently literal to serve the general needs of the patristic student, |viii even at the cost of some clumsiness of expression. In the Introduction and Notes I have been at some pains to bring out the indebtedness of Irenaeus to Justin Martyr; and in pursuance of the same end I have devoted a section of the Introduction to the teaching of both these writers in regard to the Holy Spirit.

J. ARMITAGE ROBINSON.

The Deanery,

Wells, Somerset, Oct. 1919.

|ix

CONTENTS

PREFACE v

INTRODUCTION:

I. THE DOCUMENT AND ITS VALUE 1

II. THE DEBT OF IRENAEUS TO JUSTIN MARTYR 6

III. THE DOCTRINE OF THE HOLY SPIRIT IN JUSTIN AND IRENAEUS 24

THE DEMONSTRATION OF THE APOSTOLIC PREACHING 69

INDEX OF SCRIPTURE QUOTATIONS 152

GENERAL INDEX 154

ST IRENAEUS

THE DEMONSTRATION OF THE APOSTOLIC PREACHING

INTRODUCTION

I

THE DOCUMENT AND ITS VALUE

IT is a remarkable fact, and much to be regretted, that none of the works of St Irenaeus, the greatest theologian of the second century, have come down to us in the language in which they were written. Of his chief work, the five books Against Heresies, we have a very early Latin translation, and a few fragments of the original Greek preserved through quotation. by other writers.¹ The work now before us, The Demonstration of the Apostolic Preaching, has recently been found in an Armenian translation, and no portion of it seems to have survived in any other language.

This new treatise does not come upon us entirely as a surprise; for Eusebius ² had mentioned its title, Εἰς ἐπίδειξιν τοῦ ἀποστολικοῦ κηρύγματος, and had said that it was addressed to "a brother named |2 Marcianus." This is all he tells us; but we can now add from the book itself that it was written after the completion of the greater work, and therefore somewhere about A.D. 190; and that Marcianus was on intimate terms with the writer, but absent from him at the time of writing.³ The work Against Heresies is, of course, controversial from first to last: but the present treatise is a sort of Vade mecum for an intelligent Christian, explaining his faith, placing it in its historical setting in relation to Judaism, and confirming it by the citation and exposition of a great number of Old Testament passages. It is in no sense a manual for catechumens: it is a handbook of Christian Evidence, though its form is not controversial.

A tract of this kind from the pen of a great teacher in any age must needs be of interest. How was Christianity presented as a whole to an educated believer? What were the main points of doctrine and of life on which stress was laid? What were the grounds of belief which appeared to be most convincing then? These are the things which the historian of religious development wants to know in each of the Christian centuries, and which he finds it exceptionally difficult to get at. The great events and the leading personalities have left their mark on the records of the time: the development of doctrine and the growth of ecclesiastical institutions can be traced with increasing clearness as the documents are tested and studied and compared: but the religious sense |3 of an age, the beliefs which affected life, and the grounds of those beliefs, the ruling motives of conduct, the things that to the best minds seemed to matter most----these escape us unless we are insistent in our search for them; and often, search as we will, we find little to reward our pains. We have special reason to be grateful for a plain statement of the Christian religion as it presented itself to a master mind at the end of the second century. A long and varied experience had qualified Irenaeus for such a task. As a boy he had listened to St Polycarp at Smyrna, and he may have conversed with others----the Elders, as he calls them----who had seen the Apostles. He had visited Rome on business of ecclesiastical moment, and as Bishop of Lyons he had long presided over the churches of Southern Gaul. Moreover he had explored every maze of heresy, and had confronted what we now call "Gnosticism," in all its divergent forms, with the Christian truth as he had come to conceive it in a long life of patient study and practical ministry. He had given to the Church his five books of The Exposure and Overthrow of Knowledge (Gnosis) falsely so called. When such a man lays controversy aside and takes up his pen to talk, as he says, to his absent friend, and furnish him with a summary statement of the Apostolic message and the reasons for believing it in terms of his own day, he deserves our close attention. We shall make little of him if we insist on judging him by modern standards: we shall miss the definite-ness of post-Nicene doctrine; we shall be disappointed at finding nothing about ecclesiastical |4 organization; we shall be distressed at the quaint conceits of his exposition of Old Testament prophecies. But if we come to him fresh from the study of Justin Martyr's First Apology, written some thirty-five years before, we shall appreciate the atmosphere in which he had grown up and shall recognize the advance which he had made in the thoughtful interpretation of the Faith.

The manuscript which contains our treatise was found in December 1904, in the Church of the Blessed Virgin at Eriwan in Armenia, by Dr Karapet Ter-Mekerttshian, one of the most learned of the Armenian clergy. It was edited by him with a translation into German, in conjunction with Dr Erwand Ter-Minassiantz, in 1907, in the Texte und Untersuchungen (xxxi. 1); and Dr Harnack added a brief dissertation and some notes. Then in 1912 Dr Simon Weber, of the Faculty of Catholic Theology in the University of Freiburg in Breisgau, being dissatisfied with this presentation of the work, published a fresh translation with the help of some Armenian scholars. Neither of these translations satisfies the needs of English patristic students. The second, though it corrects some errors of the first, is far less close to the original text. And both are vitiated by a want of acquaintance with the textual criticism of the Septuagint and the Greek New Testament, and also with the larger work of St Irenaeus himself. The present translation is an attempt to remedy these defects, and at the same time to bring the treatise to the knowledge of those who have hitherto been debarred by linguistic difficulties from reading it. My own |5 acquaintance with the Armenian language and literature is so limited that I cannot hope to have altogether avoided mistakes, and I shall be grateful to those who will point them out. I owe very much to the first of the translations into German, and something also to the second: if I am sometimes right where they were wrong, it is mainly because I have sought to read the text in the light of what Irenaeus has said elsewhere.

The same manuscript contains an Armenian version of Books IV and V of the great work Against Heresies.⁴ These come immediately before our treatise, and are embraced with them under the single title, The Demonstration of the Apostolic Preaching. We cannot say whether this error of title goes back beyond the date of the manuscript, which was probably written between 1270-1289, that is in the time of the learned Archbishop John, the brother of King Hetum of Cilicia. A note at the end states that it was written for this archbishop. The Armenian editors believe that the same translator is responsible for the two books of the larger work and for our treatise, and that the translation was made at some date between 650 and 750. The version of Books IV and V is of high value, as enabling us to check the Latin version, the MSS. of which differ considerably among themselves. It is useful also as illustrating the fondness of the Armenian translator for a double rendering of a single word of the original. When we read the Armenian and the Latin side | by side, we gain the impression that the Greek text has been very closely followed; and thus we are assured that for our present treatise also the Armenian version is a faithful representative of the lost original.

II

THE DEBT OF IRENAEUS TO JUSTIN MARTYR

IF we are to proceed with safety in forming a judgment as to the relation between Justin and Irenaeus in respect of the matter which they have in common, it will be necessary not merely to consider a number of selected parallels, but also to examine the treatment of a particular theme in the two writers. Let us set side by side, for example, c. 32 of Justin's First Apology with c. 57 of the Demonstration. Justin has been explaining to his Roman readers who the Jewish prophets were, and then giving a list of the chief things which they expressly foretold concerning the coming of Christ. Then he proceeds thus:

Moses then, who was the first of the prophets, speaks expressly as follows: There shall not fail a prince from Judah, nor a leader from his loins, until he shall come for whom it is reserved: and he shall be the expectation of the Gentiles; binding his colt to the vine; washing his robe in the blood of the grape. It is your part then to make careful enquiry and to learn up to what point the Jews had a prince and king of their own. It was up to the appearing of Jesus Christ, our teacher and the expounder of the prophecies which were not understood, namely how it was foretold by the divine holy prophetic Spirit through Moses that there should not fail a prince from the Jews, until he should come for whom is reserved the kingdom. For Judah is the ancestor of the Jews, from whom also they obtained that they should be called Jews. And you, after His appearance |7 took place, both ruled over the Jews and mastered their land.

Now the words He shall be the expectation of the Gentiles were meant to indicate that from among all the Gentiles men shall expect Him to come again----which you yourselves can see with your eyes and believe as a fact: for men of all races are expecting Him who was crucified in Judaea, immediately after whose time the land of the Jews was conquered and given over to you.

And the words Binding his colt to the vine and Washing his robe in the blood of the grape were a sign to show what was to happen to Christ, and what was to be done by Him.

For the colt of an ass was standing at the entrance to a village, tied to a vine; and this He commanded His disciples at that time to bring to Him; and when it was brought He mounted and sat on it, and entered into Jerusalem, where was that very great temple of the Jews, which afterwards was destroyed by you. And after these things He was crucified, that the remainder of the prophecy might be accomplished. For Washing his robe in the blood of the grape was the announcement beforehand of the passion which He was to suffer, cleansing by blood those who believe on Him. For what is called by the divine Spirit through the prophet (His) robe means the men who believe in Him, those in whom dwells the seed from God, (that is) the Word.

And that which is spoken of as blood of the grape signifies that He who is to appear has blood indeed, yet not from human seed, but from a divine power. Now the first power after God, the Father and Lord of all, is the Son, the Word: of whom we shall presently tell after what manner He was made flesh and became man. For even as the blood of the vine not man hath made, but God; so also is it signified that this blood shall not be of human seed, but of the power of God, as we have said before.

Moreover Isaiah, another prophet, prophesying the same things in other words said thus: There shall rise a star out of Jacob, and a flower shall spring up from the root of Jesse, and on his arm shall the Gentiles hope.

The points that strike us at once in this passage are these:

(1) The well-known Blessing of Jacob is cited as the prophecy of Moses, who is called the "first of the prophets." |8

(2) The quotation is abbreviated, and Justin comments on it in its abbreviated form.

(3) The statement that Judah was the ancestor of the Jews, and that from him they got their name, is on a par with many such explanations which Justin makes for the sake of his Roman readers.

(4) That the Jews had no prince or king of their own after the time of Christ, and that their land was conquered and ruled by the Romans, was a good point of apologetic and one which his readers would fully appreciate.

(5) We are somewhat surprised that "the expectation of the Gentiles" should be referred to the second coming of Christ.

(6) The statement that the ass's colt was tied to a vine is not found in our Gospels.

(7) Washing his robe in the blood of the grape easily suggested our Lord's passion; but that His robe should be those who believe on Him seems to us far-fetched.

(8) Equally far-fetched is the explanation of the blood of the grape as pointing to blood made not by man, but by God.

(9) The combination of Balaam's prophecy with words of Isaiah, and the attribution of the whole to Isaiah, strikes us as a strange piece of carelessness.

Now let us read c. 57 of the Demonstration. After a few prefatory sentences in which he notes certain points regarding Christ which are the subject of prophecy, Irenaeus goes on: |9

Moses in Genesis says thus: There shall not fail a prince from Judah, nor a leader from his loins, until he shall come for whom it remaineth: and he shall be the expectation of the Gentiles: washing his robe in wine, and his garment in the blood of the grape. Now Judah was the ancestor of the Jews, the son of Jacob; from whom also they obtained the name. And there failed not a prince among them and a leader, until the coming of Christ. But from the time of His coming the might of the quiver was captured, the land of the Jews was given over into subjection to the Romans, and they had no longer a prince or king of their own. For He was come, for whom remaineth in heaven the kingdom; who also washed his robe in wine, and his garment in the blood of the grape: His robe as also His garment are those who believe on Him, whom also He cleansed, redeeming us by His blood. And His blood is said to be blood of the grape: for even as the blood of the grape no man maketh, but God produceth, and maketh glad them that drink thereof, so also His flesh and blood no man wrought, but God made. The Lord Himself gave the sign of the virgin, even that Emmanuel which was from the virgin; who also maketh glad them that drink of Him, that is to say, who receive His Spirit, (even) everlasting gladness. Wherefore also He is the expectation of the Gentiles, of those who hope in him; for we expect of Him that He will establish again the kingdom.

We may now take our nine points one by one:

(1) Here again the Blessing of Jacob is cited as the prophecy of Moses; and a little earlier (§ 43) we find the words: "Moses, who was the first that prophesied."

(2) The text of the quotation is the same as in Justin: but the words about binding the colt to the vine are omitted, and the remainder of the passage is given without abbreviation, as in the LXX.

(3) That Judah is the ancestor of the Jews, who got their name from him, is found in Irenaeus; and the actual words would seem to have been taken over from Justin. The statement is somewhat superfluous in a book written for a fairly well |10 instructed Christian, whereas it comes quite naturally in Justin's Apology. Though several parallels between Justin and Irenaeus might be explained by the hypothesis of their both having used a book of "Testimonies against the Jews," such a solution could hardly be advanced in this case; for the statement in question would not be likely to occur in such a book.

(4) Justin's words are: μεθ̕ὃν εὐθὺς δοριάλωτος ὑμῖν ἡ γῆ ̕Ιουδαίων παρεδόθη. The translation of the first part of the parallel in Irenaeus is obscure: but it is possible that the phrase "the might of the quiver was captured" is no more than the translator's attempt to make something of δοριάλωτος. If so, it would appear certain that here also Irenaeus was practically writing out a sentence of Justin, only changing ὑμῖν into τοῖς ̔Ρωμαίοις.

(5) The expectation of the Gentiles is here also explained of the Second Advent; and the word "kingdom" is offered, as in Justin, as the unexpressed subject of ᾧ ἀπόκειται.

(6) The passage about the ass's colt is omitted both from the quotation and from the interpretation. Irenaeus has it in IV, xx. 2, where he quotes, again as from Moses, the whole section (Gen. xlix. 10-12), ending with: laetifici oculi ejus a vino, et candidi dentes ejus quam lac. He then goes on: "Let these persons who are said to investigate all things search out the time at which there failed prince and leader from Judah, and who is the expectation of the Gentiles, and what the vine, and what his colt, and what the robe, and what are eyes and teeth and wine; and search out every point; |11 and they shall find that none other is foretold, than our Lord Jesus Christ." Here again Irenaeus is very close to the passage in Justin, so far as the general method of putting the argument goes.

(7) and (8) reappear in Irenaeus, and it is most natural to suppose that he took them over from Justin. He has a point of his own when he goes on to add to the interpretation of the blood of the grape the gladness produced by the wine. It seems to be introduced without any obvious reason, until we observe that the words which follow in the passage in Genesis tell of the gladness of the eyes produced by wine (laetifici oculi, etc. quoted above).

(9) In c. 58 Irenaeus proceeds at once to the quotation of Balaam's prophecy, as follows: "And again Moses says: There shall rise a star out of Jacob, and a leader shall be raised up out of Israel." He does not make the combination with Isaiah which we find in Justin; nor does he attribute Balaam's words to Isaiah. It is however to be noted that in III, ix. 2, where he quotes the passage as here, he does attribute it to Isaiah: "Cujus et stellam Ysaias quidem sic prophetavit: Orietur Stella ex Jacob, et surget dux in Israel." On this coincidence in error Dr Rendel Harris remarks (Testimonies, I. p. 11): "Justin shews us the passage of Isaiah following the one from Numbers, and the error lies in the covering of two passages with a single reference. It is clear, then, that Justin's mistake was made in a collection of Testimonies from the prophets, and that the same collection, or one that closely agreed with it, was |12 in the hands of Irenaeus." In view, however, of the intimate connexion which appears to exist between Irenaeus and Justin we must not exclude the alternative possibility that the mistake began with Justin, and was at first reproduced by Irenaeus, but was afterwards corrected by him in his later work.

Another example of a whole section drawn from Justin Martyr will be found in cc. 44 f. Here it is the Dialogue with Trypho the Jew to which Irenaeus is indebted. The whole of these two chapters should be read consecutively: but the chief parts must be given here. Irenaeus cites Gen. xviii. 1 ff., to show that it was the Son of God who spake with Abraham. This is Justin's view also, but the nearest parallels come after the quotation of Gen. xix. 24. At this point Irenaeus says:

And then the Scripture says: And the Lord rained upon Sodom and Gomorrah brimstone and fire from the Lord out of heaven: that is to say, the Son, who spake with Abraham, being Lord, received power to punish the men of Sodom from the Lord out of heaven, even from the Father who rules (or is Lord) over all. So Abraham was a prophet and saw things to come, which were to take place in human form: even the Son of God, that He should speak with men and eat with them, and then should bring in the judgment from the Father, having received from Him who rules over all the power to punish the men of Sodom.

Justin had said (Dial. 56 ad fin.): "And He is the Lord, who from the Lord who is in heaven, that is, from the Maker of all things, received (power) to bring these things on Sodom and Gomorrah, which the narrative recounts, saying: The Lord rained upon Sodom and Gomorrah |13 brimstone and fire from the Lord out of heaven (καὶ κύριός ἐστι παρὰ κυρίου τοῦ ἐν τῷ οὐρανῷ, τουτέστι τοῦ ποιητοῦ τῶν ὅλων, λαβὼν τὸ ταῦτα ἀπενεγκεῖν Σοδόμοις κ.τ.λ.)." And he then goes on to discuss the question of the eating and drinking with Abraham, but does not treat it as Irenaeus does here.

The interpretation of the passage may already have been common Christian apologetic: it is the expression "received power (or authority)" to punish the Sodomites that suggests a direct literary connexion; and this expression is found again in Irenaeus III, vi. 1, quoted below in the note on this passage.

After this Irenaeus goes on at once as follows (Dem. c. 45):

And Jacob, when he went into Mesopotamia, saw Him in a dream, standing upon the ladder, that is, the tree, which was set up from earth to heaven; for thereby they that believe on Him go up to the heavens. For His sufferings are our ascension on high. And all such visions point to the Son of God, speaking with men and being in their midst. For it was not the Father of all, etc. (See below.)

This idea that Jacob's Ladder was "the tree" (ξύλον), that is to say, the cross, is found in Justin (Dial. 86), among a number of other types equally strange to us: "It says that a ladder was seen by him; and the Scripture has declared that God was supported upon it; and that this was not the Father we have proved from the Scriptures." Irenaeus again expands the comment in his own way, but he recurs to the theme "It was not the Father."

For it was not the Father of all, who is not seen by the |14 world, the Maker of all who said: Heaven is my throne, and earth is my footstool: what house will ye build me, or what is the place of my rest? and who comprehendeth the earth with his hand, and with his span the heaven----it was not He that came and stood in a very small space and spake with Abraham; but the Word of God, etc.

Now the words "in a very small space" are clearly reminiscent of Justin. For in Dial. 127 he says: "Think not that the unbegotten God Himself came down or went up from anywhere. For the unutterable Father and Lord of all has never come any whither," etc. "How then should He either speak to any one, or be seen by any, or appear in some very small portion of earth (ἐν ἐλαχίστῳ)?" Cf. Dial. 60: ἐν ὀλίγῳ γῆς μορίῳ πεφάνθαι.

These repeated coincidences, in large matters and in small, make us feel that Irenaeus was very familiar with Justin's writings. Everywhere he goes beyond him: but again and again he starts from him.

The advantage to be gained by the recognition of the dependence of Irenaeus upon Justin may be illustrated from c. 53 of our Treatise. The Armenian text here presents several difficulties, probably from corrupt transcription. The original cannot have been very easy to understand; but when we read with it c. 6 of Justin's Second Apology some points at any rate are cleared up. Irenaeus has just quoted Isa. vii. 14 ff., following the LXX with slight variations:

Therefore the Lord himself shall give you a sign: behold, the virgin shall conceive and shall bring forth a son, and ye shall call him Emmanuel: butter and honey shall he eat; before he knoweth or selecteth the evil, he chooseth the good: |15 for, before the child knoweth good or evil, he rejecteth wickedness to choose the good. So he proclaimed His birth from a virgin; and that He was truly man he declared beforehand by His eating; and also because he called Him the child: and further by giving Him a name; for this is the custom also for one that is born.

We must pause here for a moment to quote some parallel words from Irenaeus himself (III, xxv. 2). He has quoted the same Scripture, and in commenting upon it he says: "Et manifestat quoniam homo, in eo quod dicit: Butyrum et mel manducabit; et in eo quod infantem nominat eum; et priusquam cognoscat bonum et malum: haec enim omnia signa sunt hominis infantis."

In my translation I have written: "this is the custom also for one that is born." But the Armenian text has: "this is the error also of one that is born." I have accepted Mr F. C. Conybeare's simple and attractive emendation sovoruthiun, "custom," for moloruthiun, " error." ⁵

We now return to our passage:

And His name is two-fold: in the Hebrew tongue Messiah Jesus, and in ours Christ Saviour. And the two names are names of works actually wrought. For He was named Christ, because through Him the Father anointed and adorned all things; and because on His coming as man He was anointed with the Spirit of God and His Father. As also by Isaiah He says of Himself: The Spirit of the Lord is upon me: wherefore he hath anointed me to preach good tidings to the poor. And (He was named) Saviour for this, that He became the cause of salvation to those who at |16 that time were delivered by Him from all sicknesses and from death, and to those who afterwards believed on Him the author of salvation in the future and for evermore.

The Armenian text reads: "in the Hebrew tongue Messiah Christ, and in the Armenian Jesus Saviour." I have adopted the emendation proposed by the Armenian scholars who made the first translation into German. No doubt Χριστὸς Σωτήρ was what Irenaeus wrote as the rendering of "Messiah Jesus": compare Just. M. Ap. I, 33, "Now the name Jesus in the Hebrew speech signifies Saviour in the Greek language."

Having disposed of these preliminary difficulties, we note some curious matters that remain for consideration. What is the point of saying, "names of works actually wrought"? Is there any parallel to the explanation of "Christ" as "He through whom the Father anointed"? And why does our author lay stress on the cure of the sick as the explanation of the name "Jesus"?

Let us now look at the passage of Justin to which we referred at the outset (Ap. II, 6):

Now a name imposed on the Father of all, unbegotten as He is, is an impossibility. For he to whom a name is applied must have one older than himself who has imposed on him the name. Father and God and Creator and Lord and Master are not names: they are appellations derived from benefits and works (ἐκ τῶν εὐποιϊῶν καὶ τῶν ἔργων).

Here we see the force of what Irenaeus had said about the naming spoken of by Isaiah, as indicating the manhood of the promised Child of the Virgin. The Unbegotten has no name, in the strict sense: there was none before Him to impose a name on Him. The Begotten, when begotten as man, has |17 a name, though before that He has what is at once an appellation and a name. Justin goes on:

But His Son, who alone is called Son in the full sense, the Word who before all created things both was with Him and was generated, when at the beginning He created and ordered (or adorned) all things through Him, is called on the one hand Christ, in respect of His being anointed and of God's ordering (or adorning) all things through Him----a name which also in itself contains a signification beyond our knowledge, just as the title God is not a name, but a conception, innate in human nature, of a thing (or work) too hard to be declared (πράγματος δυσεξηγήτου).

Here Justin is explaining that "Christ" is a name indeed, but more than a name. It is a designation derived from a work, just as the designation God is derived from a work (cf. ἔργων above, and πράγματος). What then is this work? The anointing which made Him the Christ is something which to Justin's mind occurred before His coming as man. He was anointed that through Him God might order (or adorn) the universe. The sense of the words is fairly plain, if it be somewhat surprising.

But the construction of the Greek at the crucial point is at least awkward. The words are: Χριστὸς μὲν κατὰ τὸ κεχρῖσθαι καὶ κοσμῆσαι τὰ πάντα δι̕ αὐτοῦ τὸν θεὸν λέγεται. Long ago Scaliger proposed to read καὶ χρῖσαι, instead of κεχρῖσθαι. This would mean: "in respect of God's both anointing and ordering all things through Him." The emendation found little favour with the editors of Justin, until the discovery of the Demonstration. Now it seems likely to find a wider acceptance in view of these words of Irenaeus: "For He was named Christ because through Him the Father |18 anointed and adorned all things." At any rate it will not be doubted that Irenaeus so understood the passage, whatever he may have actually read in his copy of Justin. I have not myself ventured to correct Justin's text: for it is intelligible as it stands; whereas to say "He was called Christ," not because He was anointed, but "because the Father anointed all things through Him," is not very intelligible, even though Irenaeus has said it. Justin continues:

Jesus, on the other hand, offers both the name of a man and the significance of Saviour. For, as we have already said, He has become man, born in accordance with the counsel of God the Father on behalf of the men that believe on Him and for the overthrow of the demons: and this you can learn at the present time from what takes place under your eyes. For many possessed of demons, in the world generally and in your own city, have been healed and are still being healed by many of our men, the Christians, who exorcise them by the name of Jesus Christ, crucified under Pontius Pilate, though they could not be healed by all the rest of the exorcists.

Jesus is a man's name, familiar enough to Greek readers of the Bible from having been given by Moses to his successor whom we call Joshua. It also has a significance: for it means Saviour.

As Σωτήρ to the Greeks suggested specially the giving of health (σωτηρία), Justin finds a connexion between ̕Ιησοῦς and ἴασις, "healing." You can see this to-day, he says: for the Christians who use the name of Jesus Christ, crucified under Pontius Pilate, can heal when no one else can (μὴ ἰαθέντας ἰάσαντο καὶ ἔτι νῦν ἰῶνται).

Turning back to the last words of the passage quoted above from Irenaeus, we note that the same interpretation of "Jesus" is in his mind, even |19 if he does not play on the word ἴασις. For σωτηρία itself includes "healing" among its meanings: and Irenaeus refers to our Lord's own acts of healing, though he does not at this point follow Justin in instancing the healing of the possessed by Christians in the name of Jesus.⁶

We have now to consider a passage in which the help to be gained from Justin is not so clear. In c.43 we read: "This Jeremiah the prophet also testified, saying thus: Before the morning-star I begat thee; and before the sun (is) thy name; and that is, before the creation of the world; for together with the world the stars were made."

Here we have a composite quotation, made up from two different Psalms and attributed to the prophet Jeremiah. The words of Ps. cx. 3, which are familiar to us in the form " The dew of thy youth is of the womb of the morning," were understood by the LXX to mean " From the womb before the morning-star I begat thee" (ἐκ γαστρὸς πρὸ ἑωσφόρου ἐγέννησά σε). In our passage the phrase "from the womb" is dropped; and thus the text can be the more easily applied to the pre-existent Son of God. We feel the difficulty of combining the two phrases when we find Tertullian (Adv. Marcion. V. 9), who applies the passage to our Lord's human birth, constrained to interpret "before the morning-star" as meaning while it was yet dark, and offering various proofs from the Gospels that Christ was born in the night.

The second half of our quotation is a |20 modification of Ps. lxxii. 17: "Before the sun his name remaineth " (πρὸ τοῦ ἡλίου διαμένει τὸ ὄνομα αὐτοῦ), or "shall remain" (διαμενεῖ).

It is obvious that the two texts have been drawn together by a recollection of the parallel phrases "before the morning-star" and "before the sun." But again, in the neighbourhood of the latter, we find "before the moon," in the difficult verse (Ps. lxxii. 5): καὶ συνπαραμενεῖ τῷ ἡλίῳ, καὶ πρὸ τῆς σελήνης γενεὰς γενεῶν. We shall see that in other writers this phrase also is drawn in.

We may now consider the use made of these texts by Justin Martyr. In his Dialogue with the Jew Trypho (c. 45) he speaks of Christ, as "the Son of God, who was before the morning-star and the moon" and was incarnate and born of the Virgin. This is not exactly a mixed quotation, but we see how readily phrases from the two Psalms are combined. Then in c. 63 he quotes "that which was spoken by David: In the brightness of thy holy ones, from the womb before the morning-star I begat thee:" and he comments thus: "Does this not show you that from of old (ἄνωθεν) and through a human womb the God and Father of all was to beget Him? "Here there is no combination of texts: but in c. 76 we have the three texts brought together, though "the morning-star" is not mentioned: "And David proclaimed that before sun (Ps. lxxii. 17) and moon (Ps. lxxii. 5) He should be begotten from the womb (Ps. cx. 3), according to the counsel of the Father."

If, as we may well believe, these passages of Justin were familiar to Irenaeus, it is not difficult |21 to understand that by a trick of memory he should produce the quotation: "Before the morning-star I begat thee and before the sun is thy name." It was a more serious lapse to assign the quotation to Jeremiah.

In a book of Testimonies against the Jews, attributed to Gregory of Nyssa,⁷ we have the following quotation which combines all three texts: "From the womb before the morning-star I begat thee: and before the sun is his name, and before the moon." This is not assigned to any particular author; and as we have "his name," not "thy name," it may be intended for two separate quotations.⁸ It is possible that by this date the words "and before the moon" had got into some MSS. of the LXX. The Old Latin Psalter has: "Ante solem permanebit nomen ejus in saecula, et ante lunam sedes ejus;" and some cursive MSS. of the LXX have a Greek text which corresponds with this.

Dr Rendel Harris also quotes from the Syriac writer Bar Salibi:⁹ "David said: Before the day-star I begat thee. And before the sun is his name, and before the moon." From these and other parallels he concludes that Irenaeus made use of a common body of proof texts contained in a very ancient book of "Testimonies against the Jews." |22 The existence of such a work has been suggested more than once. Dr Rendel Harris has propounded it in a fresh and attractive form in a book entitled "Testimonies," of which as yet only the introductory portion has appeared (Cambridge, 1916). The body of evidence on which it rests is promised us in a second volume; and judgment must necessarily be suspended until this is available. So far as the Demonstration of Irenaeus is concerned, this is the only passage in which there might conceivably be a gain in calling in such a hypothesis. Direct dependence on Justin, on the other hand, can be demonstrated in various portions of our treatise; and this may be the true explanation here.

Irenaeus goes on to attribute to Jeremiah a yet more strange quotation: "Blessed is he who was, before he became man." The German translations render the last words differently: one of them has: "before the coming into being of man (vor dem Werden des Menschen):" the other has: "before through him man was made (bevor durch ihn der Mensch warde)." We have however an exact parallel to the construction in the Armenian rendering of the words "before he knoweth" in c. 53. The Greek there is πρὶν ἢ γνῶναι αὐτόν (Isa. vii. 15); and we may suppose that here it was πρὶν ἢ γενηθῆναι αὐτὸν ἄνθρωπον.

No such text is to be found in any book now known to us which is attributed to Jeremiah. Dr Rendel Harris has been the first to point to its occurrence in a slightly different form, and again as quoted from Jeremiah, in Lactantius (Divin. Inst. |23 iv. 8). The whole passage must be given: "First of all we affirm that He was twice born, first in spirit, afterwards in flesh. Wherefore in Jeremiah it is thus spoken: Before I formed thee in the womb, I knew thee. Also: Blessed is he who was, before he was born: which happened unto none save Christ; who, being from the beginning Son of God, was re-born anew according to the flesh." The Latin, "Beatus qui erat antequam nasceretur," may represent a Greek reading, πρὶν ἢ γεννηθῆναι.

The words which follow in Lactantius: "qui, cum esset a principio filius dei, regeneratus est denuo secundum carnem," appear to be taken from Cyprian's Testimonia (II, 8), where a section is headed: " Quod, cum a principio filius dei fuisset, generari denuo haberet secundum carnem;" but the only O.T. quotation that there follows is Ps. ii. 7 f.

So far, then, we have no clue to the source from which either Irenaeus or Lactantius derived this strange quotation. It is not likely that Lactantius got it, directly at any rate, from the Demonstration of Irenaeus, which does not appear to have had a wide circulation. It is possible that this and certain other passages which are attributed to Jeremiah may be derived from some apocryphal work bearing that prophet's name.

[Note to the online text: pp. 24ff which deal with Justin and Irenaeus on the Holy Spirit have been omitted]

[Footnotes moved to the end and renumbered]

1. ¹ The Armenian translation of Bks. IV and V, found in the same MS. with our treatise, is a valuable aid for the criticism of these books.

2. ² Eccl. Hist., v. 26.

3. ¹ See chapters 1 and 99.

4. ¹ Published with a translation by the same editors in Texte u. Untersuchungen, xxxv. 2.

5. ¹ I had at first thought that a comparison of the passage quoted from III, xxv. 2 pointed to the loss of some words from our text, and that we might emend thus: "[and in that he said: Before he knoweth good or evil;] for this is the uncertainty also of one that is born." But I doubt whether moloruthiun could be toned down to mean "uncertainty." Moreover in what follows it is the name on which stress is laid.

6. ¹ He does so in the notable passage II, xlix. 3, of which Eusebius has preserved the original Greek.

7. ¹ Printed by Zacagni, Monumenta, p. 292 (Rome, 1698).

8. ² We have, "thy name "in Clem. Alex. Exc. ex Theodoto 20: Τὸ γὰρ πρὸ ἑωσφόρου ἐγέννησά σε οὕτως εξακούομεν ἐπὶ τοῦ πρωτοκτί-στου θεοῦ λόγου, καὶ πρὸ ἡλίου καὶ σελήνης καὶ πρὸ πάσης κτίσεως τὸ ὄνομά σου.

9. ³ Harris, Testimonies, p. 15. See also on p. 45 a quotation from an anti-Mohammedan tract: "His name endures before the sun and moon throughout all ages."

This text was transcribed by Roger Pearse, 2003. All material on this page is in the public domain - copy freely.

Greek text is rendered using unicode.

Early Church Fathers - Additional Texts

SOURCE SECTION: irenaeus_02_proof.htm

Irenaeus, The Proof of the Apostolic Preaching (1920) pp. 69-151.

Irenaeus, The Proof of the Apostolic Preaching (1920) pp. 69-151.

THE DEMONSTRATION OF THE APOSTOLIC PREACHING

---------

1. Knowing, my beloved Marcianus, your desire to walk in godliness, which alone leads man to life eternal, I rejoice with you and make my prayer that you may preserve your faith entire and so be pleasing to God who made you. Would that it were possible for us to be always together, to help each other and to lighten the labour of our earthly life by continual discourse together on the things that profit.¹ But, since at this present time we are parted from one another in the body, yet according to our power we will not fail to speak with you a little by writing, and to show forth in brief the preaching of the truth for the confirmation of your faith.² We send you as it were a manual of essentials,³ that by little you may attain to much, learning in short space all the members of the body of the truth, and receiving in brief the |70 demonstration of the things of God. So shall it be fruitful to your own salvation, and you shall put to shame all who inculcate falsehood, and bring with all confidence our sound and pure teaching to everyone who desires to understand it. For one is the way leading upwards for all who see, lightened with heavenly light: but many and dark and contrary are the ways of them that see not. This way leads to the kingdom of heaven, uniting man to God: but those ways bring down to death, separating man from God. Wherefore it is needful for you and for all who care for their own salvation to make your course unswerving, firm and sure by means of faith, that you falter not, nor be retarded and detained in material desires, nor turn aside and wander from the right.

2. Now, since man is a living being compounded of soul and flesh, he must needs exist by both of these: and, whereas from both of them offences come, purity of the flesh is the restraining abstinence from all shameful things and all unrighteous deeds, and purity of the soul is the keeping faith towards God entire, neither adding thereto nor diminishing therefrom. For godliness is obscured and dulled by the soiling and the staining of the flesh, and is broken and polluted and no more entire, if falsehood enter into the soul: but it will keep itself in its. beauty and its measure, when truth is constant in the soul⁴ and purity in the flesh. For what |71 profit is it to know the truth in words, and to pollute the flesh and perform the works of evil? Or what profit can purity of the flesh bring, if truth be not in the soul? For these rejoice with one another, and are united and allied to bring man face to face with God. Wherefore the Holy Spirit says by David: Blessed is the man who hath not walked in the counsel of the ungodly:⁸ that is, the counsel of the nations which know not God: for those are ungodly who worship not the God that truly is. And therefore the Word says to Moses: I am He that is:^{5 9} but they that worship not the God that is, these are the ungodly. And hath not stood in the way of sinners: but sinners are those who have the knowledge of God and keep not His commandments; that is, disdainful scorners. And hath not sat in the seat of the pestilential:⁶ now the pestilential are those who by wicked and perverse doctrines corrupt not themselves only, but others also. For the seat is a symbol of teaching. Such then are all heretics: they sit in the seats of the pestilential, and those are corrupted who receive the venom of their doctrine.

3. Now, that we may not suffer ought of this kind, we must needs hold the rule of the faith without deviation,⁷ and do the commandments of God, believing in God and fearing Him as Lord and loving Him as Father. Now this doing is produced |72 by faith: for Isaiah says: If ye believe not, neither shall ye understand.¹⁰ And faith is produced by the truth; for faith rests on things that truly are. For in things that are, as they are, we believe; and believing in things that are, as they ever are, we keep firm our confidence in them. Since then faith is the perpetuation of our salvation, we must needs bestow much pains on the maintenance thereof, in order that we may have a true comprehension of the things that are. Now faith occasions this for us; even as the Elders, the disciples of the Apostles, have handed down to us. First of all it bids us bear in mind that we have received baptism for the remission of sins, in the name of God the Father, and in the name of Jesus Christ, the Son of God, who was incarnate and died and rose again, and in the Holy Spirit of God. And that this baptism is the seal of eternal life, and is the new birth unto God, that we should no longer be the sons of mortal men, but of the eternal and perpetual God; and that what is everlasting and continuing is made God;¹¹ and is over all things that are made, and all things are put under Him; |73 and all the things that are put under Him are made His own; for God is not ruler and Lord over the things of another, but over His own;¹² and all things are God's; and therefore God is Almighty, and all things are of God.

4. For it is necessary that things that are made should have the beginning of their making from some great cause; and the beginning of all things is God. For He Himself was not made by any, and by Him all things were made. And therefore it is right first of all to believe that there is One God, the Father, who made and fashioned all things, and made what was not that it should be, and who, containing all things, alone is uncontained.¹³ Now among all things is this world of ours, and in the world is man: so then this world also was formed by God.

5. Thus then there is shown forth ¹⁴ One God, the Father, not made, invisible, creator of all things; above whom there is no other God, and after whom there is no other God.¹⁵ And, since God is rational, |74 therefore by (the) Word He created the things that were made;¹⁶ and God is Spirit, and by (the) Spirit He adorned all things: as also the prophet says: By the word of the Lord were the heavens established, and by his spirit all their power.¹⁷ Since then the Word establishes, that is to say, gives body ¹⁸ and grants the reality of being, and the Spirit gives order and form to the diversity of the powers; rightly and fittingly is the Word called the Son, and the Spirit the Wisdom of God. Well also does Paul His apostle say: One God, the Father, who is over all and through all and in us all.¹⁹ For over all is the Father; and through all is the Son, for through Him all things were made by the Father; and in us all is the Spirit, who cries Abba Father,²⁰ and fashions man into the likeness of God.⁴ Now the Spirit shows forth the Word, and therefore the prophets announced the Son of God; and the Word utters the Spirit, and therefore is Himself the announcer of the prophets, and leads and draws man to the Father.

6. This then is the order of the rule of our faith, and the foundation of the building, and the |75 stability of our conversation: God, the Father, not made, not material, invisible; one God, the creator of all things: this is the first point²¹ of our faith. The second point is: The Word of God, Son of God, Christ Jesus our Lord, who was manifested to the prophets according to the form of their prophesying and according to the method of the dispensation of the Father:²² through whom all things were made; who also at the end of the times, to complete and gather up²³ all things, was made man among men, visible and tangible,²⁴ in order to abolish death and show forth life and produce a community of union between God and man. And the third point is: The Holy Spirit, through whom the prophets prophesied, and the fathers learned the things of God, and the righteous were led forth into the way of righteousness; and who in the end of the times was poured out in a new way upon mankind in all the earth, renewing man unto God.

7. And for this reason the baptism of our |76 regeneration proceeds through these three points: God the Father bestowing on us regeneration through His Son by the Holy Spirit. For as many as carry (in them) the Spirit of God are led to the Word, that is to the Son; and the Son brings them to the Father; and the Father causes them to possess incorruption. Without the Spirit it is not possible to behold the Word of God, nor without the Son can any draw near to the Father: for the knowledge of the Father is the Son, and the knowledge of the Son of God is through the Holy Spirit; and, according to the good pleasure of the Father, the Son ministers and dispenses the Spirit to whomsoever the Father wills and as He wills.

8. And by the Spirit the Father is called Most High and Almighty and Lord of hosts; that we may learn concerning God that He it is who is creator of heaven and earth and all the world, and maker of angels and men, and Lord of all, through whom all things exist and by whom all things are sustained; merciful, compassionate and very tender, good, just, the God of all, both of Jews and of Gentiles, and of them that believe. To them that believe He is as Father, for in the end of the times He opened up the covenant of adoption; |77 but to the Jews as Lord and Lawgiver, for in the intermediate times, when man forgat God and departed and revolted from Him, He brought them into subjection by the Law, that they might learn that they had for Lord the maker and creator, who also gives the breath of life, and whom we ought to worship day and night: and to the Gentiles as maker and creator and almighty: and to all alike sustainer and nourisher and king and judge; for none shall escape and be delivered from His judgment, neither Jew nor Gentile, nor believer that has sinned, nor angel: but they who now reject His goodness shall know His power in judgment, according to that which the blessed apostle says: Not knowing that the goodness of God leadeth thee to repentance; but according to thy hardness and impenitent heart thou treasurest up for thyself wrath in the day of wrath and of the revelation of the righteous judgment of God, who shall render to every man according to his works.²⁵ This is He who is called in the Law the God of Abraham and the God of Isaac and the God of Jacob, the God of the living; although the sublimity and greatness of this God is unspeakable.

9. Now this world is encompassed by seven heavens,²⁶ in which dwell powers and angels and |78 archangels, doing service to God, the Almighty and Maker of all things: not as though He was in need, but that they may not be idle and unprofitable and ineffectual.²⁷ Wherefore also the Spirit of God is manifold in (His) indwelling,²⁸ and in seven forms of service ²⁹ is He reckoned by the prophet Isaiah, as resting on the Son of God, that is the Word, in His coming as man. The Spirit of God, he says, shall rest upon him, the Spirit of wisdom and of understanding, the Spirit of counsel and of might, (the Spirit of knowledge) and of godliness; the Spirit of the fear of God shall fill him.³⁰ Now the heaven which is first from above,³¹ and encompasses the rest, is (that of) wisdom; and the |79 second from it, of understanding; and the third, of counsel; and the fourth, reckoned from above, (is that) of might; and the fifth, of knowledge; and the sixth, of godliness; and the seventh, this firmament of ours, is full of the fear of that Spirit which gives light to the heavens. For, as the pattern (of this), Moses received the seven-branched candlestick, that shined continually in the holy place; for as a pattern of the heavens he received this service, according to that which the Word spake unto him: Thou shalt make (it) according to all the pattern of the things which thou hast seen in the mount.³²

10. Now this God is glorified by His Word who is His Son continually,³³ and by the Holy Spirit who is the Wisdom of the Father of all: and the power(s) of these, (namely) of the Word and Wisdom, which are called Cherubim and Seraphim,³⁴ with unceasing voices glorify God; and |80 every created thing that is in the heavens offers glory to God the Father of all.³⁵ He by His Word has created the whole world, and in the world are the angels; and to all the world He has given laws wherein each several thing should abide, and according to that which is determined by God should not pass their bounds, each fulfilling his appointed task.

11. But man He formed with His own hands,³⁶ taking from the earth that which was purest and finest, and mingling in measure His own power with the earth. For He traced His own form on the formation,³⁷ that that which should 'be seen should be of divine form: for (as) the image of God was man formed and set on the earth. And that he might become living, He breathed on his face the breath of life; that both for the breath and for the formation man should be like unto God. Moreover he was free and self-controlled, being made by God for this end, that he might rule all those things that were upon the earth. And this great created world, prepared by God before the formation of man, was given to man as his place, containing all things within itself.³⁸ And there were in this place also with (their) tasks the |81 servants of that God who formed all things; and the steward, who was set over all his fellow-servants received this place. Now the servants were angels, and the steward was the archangel.³⁹

12. Now, having made man lord of the earth and all things in it, He secretly appointed him lord also of those who were servants in it. They however were in their perfection; but the lord, that is, man, was (but) small; for he was a child; and it was necessary that he should grow, and so come to (his) perfection. And, that he might have his nourishment and growth with festive and dainty meats, He prepared him a place better than this world,⁴⁰ excelling in air, beauty, light, food, plants, |82 fruit, water, and all other necessaries of life: and its name is Paradise. And so fair and good was this Paradise, that the Word of God continually resorted thither, and walked and talked with the man, figuring beforehand the things that should be in the future, (namely) that He should dwell with him and talk with him, and should be with men, teaching them righteousness. But man was a child, not yet having his understanding perfected; wherefore also he was easily led astray by the deceiver.

13. And, whilst man dwelt in Paradise, God brought before him all living things and commanded him to give names to them all; and whatsoever Adam called a living soul, that was its name.⁴¹ And He determined also to make a helper for the man: for thus God said, It is not good for the man to be alone: let us make for him a helper meet for him.⁴² For among all the other living things there was not found a helper equal and comparable and like to Adam. But God Himself cast a trance upon Adam and made him sleep;⁴³ and, that work might be accomplished from work, since there was no sleep in Paradise, this was brought upon Adam by the will of God; and God took one of Adam's ribs and filled up the flesh in its place, and the rib which He took He builded into a woman; ⁴⁴ and so He brought her to Adam; and he seeing (her) said: This is now bone of my bone, flesh of my flesh: she shall be called woman, because she was taken from her husband. |83

14. And Adam and Eve----for that is the name of the woman----were naked, and were not ashamed;⁴⁵ for there was in them an innocent and childlike mind, and it was not possible for them to conceive and understand anything of that which by wickedness through lusts and shameful desires is born in the soul. For they were at that time entire, preserving their own nature; since they had the breath of life which was breathed on their creation: and, while this breath remains in its place and power, it has no comprehension and understanding of things that are base. And therefore they were not ashamed, kissing and embracing each other in purity after the manner of children.

15. But, lest man should conceive thoughts too high, and be exalted and uplifted, as though he had no lord, because of the authority and freedom granted to him, and so should transgress against his maker God, overpassing his measure, and entertain selfish imaginings of pride in opposition to God; a law was given to him by God, in order that he might perceive that he had as lord the Lord of all. And He set him certain limitations, so that, if he should keep the commandment of God, he should ever remain such as he was, that is to say, immortal; but, if he should not keep it, he should become mortal and be dissolved to earth from whence his formation had been taken. Now the commandment was this: Of every tree that is in the Paradise thou shalt freely eat; but of that tree alone from which is the knowledge of good |84 and evil, of it thou shalt not eat; for in the day thou eatest, thou shalt surely die.⁴⁶

16. This commandment the man kept not, but was disobedient to God, being led astray by the angel who, for the great gifts of God which He had given to man, was envious and jealous of him,⁴⁷ and both brought himself to nought and made man sinful, persuading him to disobey the commandment of God. So the angel, becoming by his falsehood the author and originator of sin, himself was struck down, having offended against God, and man he caused to be cast out from Paradise. And, because through the guidance of his disposition he apostatized and departed from God, he was called Satan, according to the Hebrew word; that is, Apostate: ⁴⁸ but he is also called Slanderer. Now God cursed the serpent which carried and conveyed the Slanderer; and this malediction came on the beast himself and on the angel hidden and concealed in him, even on Satan; and man He put away from His presence, removing him and making him to dwell on the way to Paradise ⁴⁹ at that time; because Paradise receiveth not the sinful.

17. And when they were put out of Paradise, Adam and his wife Eve fell into many troubles of anxious grief, going about with sorrow and toil |85 and lamentation in this world. For under the beams of this sun man tilled the earth, and it put forth thorns and thistles, the punishment of sin. Then was fulfilled that which was written: Adam knew his wife, and she conceived and bare Cain;⁵⁰ and after him she bare Abel, Now the apostate angel, who led man into disobedience and made him sinful and caused his expulsion from Paradise, not content with the first evil, wrought a second on the brothers; for filling Cain with his spirit he made him a fratricide. And so Abel died, slain by his brother; signifying thenceforth that certain should be persecuted and oppressed and slain, the unrighteous slaying and persecuting the righteous. And upon this God was angered yet more, and cursed Cain; and it came to pass that everyone of that race in successive generations was made like to the begetter. And God raised up another son to Adam, instead of Abel who was slain.⁵¹

18. And for a very long while wickedness extended and spread, and reached and laid hold upon the whole race of mankind, until a very small seed of righteousness remained among them: and illicit unions took place upon the earth, since angels were united with the daughters of the race of mankind; and they bore to them sons who for their exceeding greatness were called giants. And the angels brought as presents to their wives teachings of wickedness,⁵² in that they brought |86 them the virtues of roots and herbs, dyeing in colours and cosmetics, the discovery of rare substances, love-potions, aversions, amours, concupiscence, constraints of love, spells of bewitchment, and all sorcery and idolatry hateful to God; by the entry of which things into the world evil extended and spread, while righteousness was diminished and enfeebled.

19. Until judgment came upon the world from God by means of a flood, in the tenth generation from the first-formed (man); Noah alone being found righteous. And he for his righteousness was himself delivered, and his wife and his three sons, and the three wives of his sons, being shut up in the ark. And when destruction came upon all, both man and also animals, that were upon the earth, that which was preserved in the ark escaped. Now the three sons of Noah were Shem, Ham and Japheth, from whom again the race was multiplied: for these were the beginning of mankind after the flood.

20. Now of these one fell under a curse, and the two (others) inherited a blessing by reason of their works. For the younger of them,⁵³ who was called Ham, having mocked his father, and having been |87 condemned of the sin of impiety because of his outrage and unrighteousness against his father, received a curse; and all the posterity that came of him he involved in the curse; whence it came about that his whole race after him were accursed, and in sins they increased and multiplied. But Shem and Japheth, his brothers, because of their piety towards their father obtained a blessing. Now the curse of Ham, wherewith his father Noah cursed him, is this: Cursed be Ham the child; ⁵⁴ a servant shall he be unto his brethren.⁵⁵ This having come upon his race, he begat many descendants upon the earth, (even) for fourteen generations, growing up in a wild condition; and then his race was cut off by God, being delivered up to judgment. For the Canaanites and Hittites and Peresites and Hivites and Amorites and Jebusites and Gergasites and Sodomites, the Arabians also and the dwellers in Phoenicia, all the Egyptians and the Libyans,⁵⁶ are of the posterity of Ham, who have fallen under the curse; for the curse is of long duration over the ungodly.

21. And even as the curse passed on, so also the blessing passed on to the race of him who was |88 blessed, to each in his own order. For first of them was Shem blessed in these words: Blessed be the Lord, the God of Shem; and Ham ⁵⁷ shall be his servant.⁵⁸ The power of the blessing lies in this, that the God and Lord of all should be to Shem a peculiar possession of worship. And the blessing extended and reached unto Abraham, who was reckoned as descended in the tenth generation from the race of Shem: and therefore the Father and God of all was pleased to be called the God of Abraham and the God of Isaac and the God of Jacob; because the blessing of Shem reached out and attached itself to Abraham. Now the blessing of Japheth is on this wise: God shall enlarge unto Japheth, and he shall dwell in the house of Shem, and Ham ⁵⁹ shall be his servant.⁶⁰ That is to say: In the end of the ages he blossomed forth, at the appearing of the Lord, through the calling of the Gentiles, when God enlarged unto them the calling; and their sound went out into all the earth, and their words to the end of the world.⁶¹ The enlarging, then, is the calling from among the Gentiles, that is to say, the Church.⁶² And he dwells in the house |89 of Shem; that is, in the inheritance of the fathers, receiving in Christ Jesus the right of the firstborn. So in the rank in which each was blessed, in that same order through his posterity he received the fruit of the blessing.⁶³

22. Now after the Flood God made a covenant with all the world, even with every living thing of animals and of men, that He would no more destroy with a flood all that grew upon the earth. And He set them a sign (saying): When the sky shall be covered with a cloud, the bow shall be seen in the cloud; and I will remember my covenant, and will no more destroy by water every moving thing upon the earth.⁶⁴ And He changed the food of men, giving them leave to eat flesh: for from Adam the first-formed until the Flood men ate only of seeds and the fruit of trees, and to eat flesh was not permitted to them. But since the three sons of Noah were the beginning of a race of men, God blessed them for multiplication and increase, saying: Increase and multiply, and replenish the earth and rule it; and the fear and dread of you shall be upon every living thing of animals and upon all the fowls of the air; and they shall be to you for meat, even as the green herb: but the flesh with the blood of life ye shall not eat: for your blood also will I requite at the hand of all beasts and at the hand of man. Whoso sheddeth a man's blood, in return for his blood shall it be shed.⁶⁵ For He made man the |90 image of God; and the image of God is the Son, after whose image man was made: and for this cause He appeared in the end of the times that He might show the image (to be) like unto Himself. According to this covenant the race of man multiplied, springing up from the seed of the three. And upon the earth was one lip, that is to say one language.⁶⁶

23. And they arose and came from the land of the east; and, as they went through the land, they chanced upon the land of Shinar, which was exceeding broad; where they took in hand to build a tower. They sought means thereby to go up to heaven, and be able to leave their work as a memorial to those men who should come after them. And the building was made with burnt bricks and bitumen: and the boldness of their audacity went forward, as they were all of one mind and consent, and by means of one speech they served the purpose of their desires. But that the work should advance no further, God divided their tongues, that they should no longer be able to understand one another. And so they were scattered and planted out, and took possession of the world, and dwelt in groups and companies each according to his language: whence came the diverse tribes and various languages upon the earth. So then, whereas three races of men took possession of the earth, and one of them was under the curse, and two under the blessing, the blessing first of all came to Shem, whose |91 race dwelt in the east and held the land of the Chaldeans.

24. In process of time, that is to say, in the tenth generation after the Flood, Abraham appeared,⁶⁷ seeking for the God who by the blessing of his ancestor was due and proper to him.⁶⁸ And when, urged by the eagerness of his spirit, he went all about the world, searching where God is, and failed to find out; God took pity on him who alone was silently seeking Him; and He appeared unto Abraham, making Himself known by the Word, as by a beam of light. For He spake with him from heaven, and said unto him: Get thee out of thy country, and from thy kindred, and from thy father's house; and come into the land that I will show thee,⁶⁹ and there dwell. And he believed the heavenly voice, being then of ripe age, even seventy ⁷⁰ years old, and having a wife; and together with her he went forth from Mesopotamia, taking with him Lot, the son of his brother who was dead. And when he came into the land which now is called Judaea, in which at that time dwelt seven tribes descended from Ham, God appeared unto him in a vision and said: To thee will I give this land, and to thy seed after thee, for an everlasting possession,⁷¹ and (He said) that his seed should be a stranger in a land not their own, and should be evil-entreated there, being afflicted and |92 in bondage four hundred years; and in the fourth generation should return unto the place that was promised to Abraham; and that God would judge that race which had brought his seed into bondage. And, that Abraham might know as well the multitude as the glory of his seed, God brought him forth abroad by night, and said: Look upon the heaven, and behold the stars of the heaven, if thou be able to number them: so shall thy seed be.⁷² And when God saw the undoubting and unwavering certainty of his spirit, He bare witness unto him by the Holy Spirit, saying in the Scripture: And Abraham believed, and it was counted unto him for righteousness.⁷³ And he was uncircumcised when this witness was borne; and, that the excellency of his faith should be made known by a sign, He gave him circumcision, a seal of the righteousness ⁷⁴ of that faith which he had in uncircumcision.⁷⁵ And after this there was born to him a son, Isaac, from Sarah who was barren, according to the promise of God; and him he circumcised, according to that which God had covenanted with him. And of Isaac was Jacob born; and on this wise the original blessing of Shem reached to Abraham, and from Abraham to Isaac, and from Isaac to Jacob, the inheritance of the Spirit being imparted to them: for He was called the God of Abraham and the God of Isaac and the God of Jacob. And Jacob begat twelve sons, from whom the twelve tribes of Israel were named. 25. And when famine had come upon all the |93 earth, it chanced that in Egypt alone there was food; and Jacob with all his seed removed and dwelt in Egypt: and the number of all that migrated was threescore and fifteen souls:⁷⁶ and in four hundred years, as the oracle had declared beforehand, they became six hundred and sixty thousand. And, because they were grievously afflicted and oppressed through evil bondage, and sighed and groaned unto God, the God of their fathers, Abraham and Isaac and Jacob; He brought them out of Egypt by the hand of Moses and Aaron, smiting the Egyptians with ten plagues, and in the last plague sending a destroying angel and slaying their first-born, both of man and of beast: wherefrom He saved the children of Israel, revealing in a mystery the sufferings of Christ by the sacrifice of a lamb without spot, and giving its blood to be smeared on the houses of the Hebrews as a sure precaution. And the name of this mystery is Passion,⁷⁷ the source of deliverance. And dividing the Red Sea, He brought the children of Israel with all security to the wilderness; and as to the pursuing Egyptians, who followed them and entered into the sea, they were all overwhelmed; this judgment of God coming upon those who had iniquitously oppressed the seed of Abraham.

26. And in the wilderness Moses received the Law from God, the Ten Words on tables of stone, written with the finger of God ⁷⁸ (now the finger of |94 God is that which is stretched forth from the Father in the Holy Spirit);⁷⁹ and the commandments and ordinances which he delivered to the children of Israel to observe. And the tabernacle of witness he constructed by the command of God, the visible form on earth of those things which are spiritual and invisible in the heavens, and a figure of the form of the Church, and a prophecy of things to come: in which also were the vessels and the altars of sacrifice and the ark in which he placed the tables (of the Law). And he appointed as priests Aaron and his sons, assigning the priesthood to all their tribe: and they were of the seed of Levi. Moreover this whole tribe he summoned by the word of God to accomplish the work of service in the temple of God, and gave them the Levitical law, (to shew) what and what manner of men they ought to be who are continually employed in performing the service of the temple of God.

27. And when they were near to the land, which God had promised to Abraham and his seed, Moses chose a man from every tribe, and sent them to search out the land and the cities therein and the dwellers in the cities. At that time God revealed to him the Name which alone is able to save them that believe thereon; and Moses changed the name of Oshea the son of Nun, one of them that were sent, and named him Jesus:⁸⁰ and so he |95 sent them forth with the power of the Name, believing that he should receive them back safe and sound through the guidance of the Name: which came to pass.⁸¹ Now when they had gone and searched and enquired, they returned bringing with them a bunch of grapes; and some of the twelve who were sent cast the whole multitude into fear and dismay, saying that the cities were exceeding great and walled, and the sons of the giants dwelt therein, so that it was (not) possible for them to take the land. And thereupon it fell out that all the multitude wept, failing to believe that it was God who should grant them power and subjugate all to them. And they spake evil also of the land, as not being good, and as though it were not worth while to undergo the danger for the sake of such a land. But two of the twelve, Jesus the son of Nun, and Caleb the son of Jephunneh, rent their clothes for the evil that was done, and besought the people not to be disheartened nor lose their courage; for God had given all into their hands, and the land was exceeding good. And when they believed not, but the people still continued in the same unbelief, God changed and altered their way, that they should wander desolate and sore smitten in the desert. And according to the days that they were in going and returning who had spied out the land----and these were forty in number----setting a |96 year for a day, He kept them in the wilderness for the space of forty years; and none of those who were fullgrown and had understanding counted He worthy to enter into the land because of their unbelief, save only the two who had testified of the inheritance, Jesus the son of Nun and Caleb the son of Jephunneh, and those who were quite young and knew not the right hand and the left. So all the unbelieving multitude perished and were consumed in the wilderness, receiving one by one the due reward of their want of faith: but the children, growing up in the course of forty years, filled up the number of the dead.

28. When the forty years were fulfilled, the people drew near to the Jordan, and were assembled and arrayed over against Jericho. Here Moses gathered the people together, and summed up all afresh, proclaiming the mighty works of God even unto that day, fashioning and preparing those that had grown up in the wilderness to fear God and keep His commandments, imposing on them as it were a new legislation, adding to that which was made before. And this was called Deuteronomy:⁸² and in it were written many prophecies concerning our Lord Jesus Christ and concerning the people, and also concerning the calling of the Gentiles and concerning the kingdom.

29. And, when Moses had finished his course, |97 it was said to him by God: Get thee up into the mountain, and die:⁸³ for thou shalt not bring in my people into the land. So he died according to the word of the Lord;⁸⁴ and Jesus the son of Nun succeeded him. He divided the Jordan and made the people to pass over into the land; and, when he had overthrown and destroyed the seven races that dwelt therein, he assigned to the people the temporal Jerusalem,⁸⁵ wherein David was king, and Solomon his son, who builded the temple to the name of God, according to the likeness of the tabernacle which had been made by Moses after the pattern of the heavenly and spiritual things.

30. Hither were the prophets sent by God through the Holy Spirit; and they instructed the people and turned them to the God of their fathers, the Almighty; and they became heralds of the revelation of our Lord Jesus Christ the Son of God, declaring that from the posterity of David His flesh should blossom forth; that after the flesh He might be the son of David, who was the son of Abraham by a long succession; but according to the spirit Son of God, pre-existing⁸⁶ with the Father, begotten before all the creation of the world, and at the end of the times appearing to all the world as man, the Word of God gathering up in Himself all things that are in heaven and that are on earth.⁸⁷

31. So then He united man with God, and established a community of union ⁸⁸ between God |98 and man; since we could not in any other way participate in incorruption, save by His coming among us. For so long as incorruption was invisible and unrevealed, it helped us not at all: therefore it became visible,⁸⁹ that in all respects we might participate in the reception of incorruption. And, because in the original formation of Adam all of us were tied and bound up with death through his disobedience, it was right that through the obedience of Him who was made man for us we should be released from death: and because death reigned over the flesh, it was right that through the flesh it should lose its force and let man go free from its oppression. So the Word was made flesh,⁹⁰ that, through that very flesh which sin had ruled and dominated, it should lose its force and be no longer in us. And therefore our Lord took that same original formation as (His) entry into flesh, so that He might draw near and contend on behalf of the fathers, and conquer by Adam that which by Adam had stricken us down.

32. Whence then is the substance of the first-formed (man)? From the Will and the Wisdom |99 of God, and from the virgin earth.⁹¹ For God had not sent rain, the Scripture says, upon the earth, before man was made; and there was no man to till the earth.⁹² From this, then, whilst it was still virgin, God took dust of the earth and formed the man, the beginning of mankind. So then the Lord, summing up afresh this man, took the same dispensation of entry into flesh, being born from the Virgin by the Will and the Wisdom of God; that He also should show forth the likeness of Adam's entry into flesh,²and there should be that which was written in the beginning, man after the image and likeness of God.⁹³

33. And just as through a disobedient virgin man was stricken down and fell into death, so through the Virgin who was obedient to the Word of God man was reanimated and received life.⁹⁴ For the Lord came to seek again the sheep that |100 was lost;⁹⁵ and man it was that was lost: and for this cause there was not made some other formation, but in that same which had its descent from Adam He preserved the likeness of the (first) formation.⁹⁶ For it was necessary that Adam should be summed up in Christ, that mortality might be swallowed up and overwhelmed by immortality; and Eve summed up in Mary, that a virgin should be a virgin's intercessor, and by a virgin's obedience undo and put away the disobedience of a virgin.⁹⁷

34. And the trespass which came by the tree was undone by the tree of obedience, when, hearkening unto God, the Son of man was nailed to the tree; thereby putting away the knowledge of evil and bringing in and establishing the knowledge of good: now evil it is to disobey God, even as hearkening unto God is good. And for this cause the Word spake by Isaiah the prophet, announcing beforehand that which was to come----for therefore are they prophets, because they proclaim what is to come: by him then spake the Word thus: |101 I refuse not, nor gainsay: I gave my back to scourging, and my cheeks to smiting;⁹⁸ and my face I turned not aivay from the shame of spitting.⁹⁹ So then by the obedience wherewith He obeyed even unto death,¹⁰⁰ hanging on the tree, He put away the old disobedience which was wrought in the tree. Now seeing that He is the Word of God Almighty, who in unseen wise in our midst is universally extended in all the world, and encompasses its length and breadth and height and depth ¹⁰¹----for by the Word of God the whole universe is ordered and disposed----in it is crucified the Son of God, inscribed crosswise upon it all:¹⁰² for it is right that He being made visible, should set upon all things visible the sharing of His cross, that He might show His operation on visible things through a visible form. For He it is who illuminates the height, that is the heavens; and encompasses the deep which is beneath the earth; and stretches and spreads out the length from east to west; and steers across the breadth of north and south; |102 summoning all that are scattered in every quarter to the knowledge of the Father.

35. Moreover He fulfilled the promise made to Abraham, which God had promised him, to make his seed as the stars of heaven. For this Christ did, who was born of the Virgin who was of Abraham's seed, and constituted those who have faith in Him lights in the world,¹ and by the same faith with Abraham justified the Gentiles. For Abraham believed God, and it was counted unto him for righteousness. In like manner we also are justified by faith in God: for the just shall live by faith. Now not by the law is the promise to Abraham, but by faith: for Abraham was justified by faith: and for a righteous man the law is not made. In like manner we also are justified not by the law, but by faith, which is witnessed to in the law and in the prophets, whom the Word of God presents to us.¹⁰³

36. And He fulfilled the promise to David; for to him God had promised that of the fruit of his body He would raise up an eternal King,¹⁰⁴ whose kingdom should have no end. And this King is Christ, the Son of God, who became the Son of man; that is, who became the fruit of that Virgin who had her descent from David. And for this cause |103 the promise was, Of the fruit of thy body ¹⁰⁵----that He might declare the peculiar uniqueness of Him, who was the fruit of the virgin body that was of David, (even of Him) who was King over the house of David, (and) of whose kingdom there shall be no end.

37. Thus then He gloriously achieved our redemption, and fulfilled the promise of the fathers, and abolished the old disobedience. The Son of God became Son of David and Son of Abraham; perfecting and summing up this in Himself, that He might make us to possess life. The Word of God was made flesh by the dispensation of the Virgin, to abolish death and make man live. For we were imprisoned by sin, being born in sinfulness and living under death.

38. But God the Father was very merciful: He sent His creative ¹⁰⁶ Word, who in coming to deliver us came to the very place and spot in which we had lost life, and brake the bonds of our fetters. And His light appeared and made the darkness of the prison disappear, and hallowed our birth and destroyed death, loosing those same fetters in which we were enchained. And He manifested |104 the resurrection,¹⁰⁷ Himself becoming the first-begotten of the dead,¹⁰⁸ and in Himself raising up man that was fallen, lifting him up far above the heaven to the right hand of the glory of the Father: even as God promised by the prophet, saying: And I will raise up the tabernacle of David that is fallen;¹⁰⁹ that is, the flesh ¹¹⁰ that was from David. And this our Lord Jesus Christ truly fulfilled, when He gloriously achieved our redemption, that He might truly raise us up, setting us free unto the Father. And if any man will not receive His birth from a virgin, how shall he receive His resurrection from the dead? For it is nothing wonderful and astonishing and extraordinary, if one who was not born rose from the dead: nay indeed we cannot speak of a resurrection of him who came unto being without birth. For one who is unborn and immortal, and has not undergone birth, will also not undergo death. For he who took not the beginning of man, how could he receive his end?

39. Now, if He was not born, neither did He die; and, if He died not, neither did He rise from the dead; and, if He rose not from the dead, neither did He vanquish death and bring its reign" to nought; and if death be not vanquished, how can we ascend to life, who from the beginning have fallen under death? So then those who take away redemption from man, and believe not in God that He will raise them from the dead, these also despise |105 the birth of our Lord, which He underwent on our behalf, that the Word of God should be made flesh in order that He might manifest the resurrection of the flesh, and might have pre-eminence over all things in the heavens, as the first-born and eldest offspring of the thought of the Father, the Word, fulfilling all things, and Himself guiding and ruling upon earth. For He was the Virgin's first-born, a just and holy man, godfearing, good, well-pleasing to God, perfect in all ways, and delivering from hell all who follow after Him: for He Himself was the first-begotten of the dead,¹¹¹ the Prince and Author of life unto God.

40. Thus then the Word of God in all things hath the pre-eminence;¹¹² for that He is true man and Wonderful Counsellor and Mighty God;¹¹³ calling men anew to fellowship with God, that by fellowship with Him we may partake of incorruption. So then He who was proclaimed by the law through Moses, and by the prophets of the Most High and Almighty God, as Son of the Father of all; He from whom all things are, He who spake with Moses----He came into Judaea, generated from God by the Holy Spirit, and born of the Virgin Mary, even of her who was of the seed of David and of Abraham, Jesus the Anointed of God, |106 showing Himself to be the One who was proclaimed beforehand by the prophets.

41. And His forerunner was John the Baptist) who prepared and made ready the people beforehand for the reception of the Word of life; declaring that He was the Christ, on whom the Spirit of God rested, mingling with His flesh.¹¹⁴ His disciples, the witnesses of all His good deeds, and of His teachings and His sufferings and death and resurrection, and of His ascension into heaven after His bodily ¹¹⁵ resurrection----these were the apostles, who after (receiving) the power of the Holy Spirit were sent forth by Him into all the world, and wrought the calling of the Gentiles, showing to mankind the way of life, to turn them from idols and fornication and covetousness, cleansing their souls and bodies by the baptism of water and of the Holy Spirit; which Holy Spirit they had received of the Lord, and they distributed and imparted It to them that believed; and thus they ordered and established the Churches. By faith and love and hope they established that which was foretold by the prophets, the calling of the Gentiles, according to the mercy of God which was extended to them; bringing it to light through the ministration of their service, and admitting them to the promise of the fathers: to wit, that to those who thus believed in and loved the Lord, and continued in holiness and righteousness and patient endurance, the God of all had promised to grant |107 eternal life by the resurrection of the dead; through Him who died and rose again, Jesus Christ, to whom He has delivered over the kingdom of all existing things, and the rule of quick and dead, and also the judgment. And they counselled them by the word of truth to keep their flesh undefiled unto the resurrection and their soul unstained.

42. For such is the state of those who have believed, since in them continually abides the Holy Spirit, who was given by Him in baptism, and is retained by the receiver, if he walks in truth and holiness and righteousness and patient endurance. For this soul has a resurrection in them that believe, the body receiving the soul again, and along with it, by the power of the Holy Spirit, being raised up and entering into the kingdom of God. This is the fruit of the blessing of Japheth, in the calling of the Gentiles, made manifest through the Church, standing in readiness ¹¹⁶ to receive its dwelling in the house of Shem according to the promise of God. That all these things would so come to pass, the Spirit of God declared beforehand by the prophets; that in respect of them the faith of those who worship God in truth should be confirmed. For what was an impossibility to our nature, and therefore ready to cause incredibility to mankind, this God caused to be made known beforehand by the prophets; in order that, through its having been foretold in times long before, and then at last finding |108 effect in this way, even as it was foretold, we might know that it was God who (thus) proclaimed to us beforehand our redemption.

43. So then we must believe God in all things, for in all things God is true. Now that there was a Son of God, and that He existed not only before He appeared in the world, but also before the world was made, Moses, who was the first that prophesied,¹¹⁷ says in Hebrew: Baresith bara Elowin basan benuam samenthares.¹¹⁸ And this, translated into our language,¹¹⁹ is: "The Son in the beginning: God established then the heaven and the earth." ¹²⁰ This Jeremiah the prophet also testified, saying thus: Before the morning-star I begat thee: and before the sun (is) thy name; ¹²¹ and that is, before the creation of the world; for together with the world the stars were made. And again the same says: Blessed is he who was, before he became man:¹²² Because, for God, the Son was (as) the beginning before the creation of the world;¹²³ but for us (He was) then, when He |109 appeared; and before that He was not for us, who knew Him not.¹²⁴ Wherefore also His disciple John, in teaching us who is the Son of God, who was with the Father before the world was made, and that all the things that were made were made by Him, says thus: In the beginning was the Word, and the Word was with God, and the Word was God, The same was in the beginning with God. All things were made by Him, and without Him was not anything made:¹²⁵ showing with certainty that the Word, who was in the beginning with the Father, and by whom all things were made, this is His Son.

44. And again Moses tells how the Son of God drew near to hold converse with Abraham: And God appeared unto him by the oak of Mamre in the middle of the day. And looking up with his eyes he beheld, and, lo, three men stood over against him. And he bowed himself down to the earth, and said: Lord, if indeed I have found favour in thy sight.¹²⁶ And all that which follows he spake with the Lord, and the Lord spake with him. Now two of the three were angels; but one was the Son of God, with whom also Abraham spake, pleading on behalf of the men of Sodom, that they should not perish if at least ten righteous should be found there. And, whilst these were speaking, the two angels entered into Sodom, and Lot received them. And then the Scripture says: And the Lord rained upon Sodom and Gomorrah brimstone and fire from |110 the Lord out of heaven:¹²⁷ that is to say, the Son, who spake with Abraham, being Lord, received power to punish the men of Sodom from the Lord out of heaven, even from the Father who rules over all. So Abraham was a prophet and saw things to come, which were to take place in human form: even the Son of God, that He should speak with men and eat with them, and then should bring in the judgment from the Father, having received from Him who rules over all the power to punish the men of Sodom.

45. And Jacob, when he went into Mesopotamia, saw Him in a dream, standing upon the ladder,¹²⁸ that is, the tree, which was set up from earth to heaven; ¹²⁹ for thereby they that believe on Him go up to the heavens. For His sufferings are our ascension on high. And all such visions point to the Son of God, speaking with men and being in their midst. For it was not the Father of all, who is not seen by the world, the Maker of all who said: Heaven is my throne, and earth is my footstool: what house will ye build me, or what is the place of my rest?¹³⁰ and who comprehendeth the earth with his hand, and with his span the heaven ¹³¹----it was not He that came and stood in a very small space and spake with Abraham; but the Word of God, who was ever with mankind, and made known |111 beforehand what should come to pass in the future, and taught men the things of God.

46. He it is who spake with Moses in the bush, and said: Seeing have I seen the affliction of thy people that is in Egypt; and I am come down to deliver them.¹³² He it is who came forth and came down for the deliverance of the oppressed, bringing us out from the power of the Egyptians, that is, from all idolatry and impiety; and delivering us from the Red Sea, that is, delivering us from the deadly confusion of the Gentiles and the grievous vexation of their blasphemy. For in them the Word of God prepared and rehearsed beforehand the things concerning us. Then He set forth in types beforehand that which was to be; now in very truth He has brought us out from the cruel service of the Gentiles, and a stream of water in the desert has He made to flow forth in abundance from a rock; and that rock is Himself; and has given twelve fountains, that is, the teaching of the twelve apostles. And the obstinate unbelievers He brought to an end and consumed in the wilderness; but those who believed on Him, and in malice were children, He made to enter into the inheritance of the fathers; whom not Moses, but Jesus puts in possession of the heritage: who also delivers us from Amalek by the expansion of His hands,¹³³ and brings us to the kingdom of the Father.¹³⁴ |112

47. So then the Father is Lord and the Son is Lord, and the Father is God and the Son is God; for that which is begotten of God is God. And so in the substance and power of His being there is shown forth one God; but there is also according to the economy of our redemption both Son and Father. Because to created things the Father of all is invisible and unapproachable,¹³⁵ therefore those who are to draw near to God must have their access to the Father through the Son. And yet more plainly and evidently does David speak concerning the Father and the Son as follows: Thy throne, O God, is for ever and ever: thou hast loved righteousness and hated unrighteousness: therefore God hath anointed thee with the oil of gladness above thy fellows.¹³⁶ For the Son, as being God, receives from the Father, that is, from God, the throne of the everlasting kingdom, and the oil of anointing above His fellows. The oil of anointing is the Spirit, wherewith He has been anointed; and His fellows are prophets and righteous men and apostles, and all who receive the fellowship of His kingdom, that is to say, His disciples.

48. And again David says: The Lord said unto my Lord: Sit on my right hand, until I make thy |113 enemies thy footstool. The rod of thy strength shall the Lord send forth from Sion; and rule thou in the midst of thy enemies. With thee in the beginning in the day of thy power, in the brightness of the holy ones: from the womb before the morning-star I begat thee. The Lord sware and will not repent: Thou art a priest for ever after the order of Melchisedec. And the Lord on thy right hand hath broken in pieces kings in the day of wrath: he shall judge among the Gentiles, he shall fill up the ruins, and shall break in pieces the heads of many on the earth? He shall drink of the brook in the way: therefore shall he lift up the head. Now hereby he proclaimed that He came into being before all, and that He rules over the Gentiles and judges all mankind and the kings who now hate Him and persecute His name; for these are His enemies: and in calling Him God's priest for ever, he declared His immortality. And therefore he said: He shall drink of the brook in the way; therefore shall he lift up the head; proclaiming the exaltation with glory that followed on His humanity and humiliation and ingloriousness.¹³⁷

49. And again Isaiah the prophet says: Thus saith the Lord God to my Anointed the Lord,¹³⁸ whose right hand I have held, that the Gentiles should hearken before him.¹³⁹ And how the Christ is called Son of God and King of the Gentiles, that is, of all |114 mankind; and that He not only is called but is Son of God and King of all, David declares thus: The Lord said unto me: Thou art my Son, this day have I begotten thee. Ask of me and I will give thee the Gentiles for thy inheritance, and for a possession the utmost parts of the earth.¹⁴⁰ These things were not said of David; for neither over the Gentiles nor over the utmost parts did he rule, but only over the Jews. So then it is plain that the promise to the Anointed to reign over the utmost parts of the earth is to the Son of God, whom David himself acknowledges as his Lord, saying thus: The Lord said unto my Lord, Sit on my right hand,¹⁴¹ and so forth, as we have said above. For he means that the Father speaks with the Son; as we showed a little before as to Isaiah, that he said thus: God saith to my Anointed the Lord, that the Gentiles should hearken before him. For the promise is the same by the two prophets, that He should be King: so that the speech of God is addressed to one and the same, I mean, to Christ the Son of God. Forasmuch as David says: The Lord said unto me,¹⁴² it is necessary to say that it is not David who speaks, nor any one of the prophets, in his own person: for it is not a man who speaks the prophecies; but the Spirit of God, assimilating and likening Himself to the persons represented, speaks in the prophets, and utters the words sometimes from Christ and sometimes from the Father.¹⁴³ |115

50. So then right fitly Christ says through David that He converses with the Father; and right worthily does He say the other things concerning Himself through the prophets; as in other instances, so also after this manner by Isaiah: And now thus saith the Lord, who formed me as his servant from the womb, to gather Jacob and to gather Israel unto him: and I shall be glorified before the Lord, and my God shall be a strength unto me. And he said; A great thing shall it be to thee to be called my servant, to stablish and confirm the tribe of Jacob, and to turn again the dispersion of Israel: and I have set thee for a light of the Gentiles,¹⁴⁴ that thou shouldst be for salvation unto the end of the earth.¹⁴⁵

51. Here, first of all, is seen that the Son of God pre-existed, from the fact that the Father spake with Him,¹⁴⁶ and before He was born revealed Him to men: and, next, that He must needs be born a man among men; and that the same God forms Him from the womb, that is, that of the Spirit of God He should be born; and that He is Lord of all men, and Saviour of them that believe on Him, both Jews and others. For the people of the Jews is called Israel in the Hebrew language, from Jacob their father, who was the first to be called Israel: and Gentiles He calls the whole of mankind. And that the Son of the Father calls Himself servant, (this is) on account of His |116 subjection to the Father: for among men also every son is the servant of his father.

52. That Christ, then, being Son of God before all the world, is with the Father; and being with the Father¹⁴⁷ is also nigh and close and joined unto mankind; and is King of all, because the Father has subjected all things unto Him; and Saviour of them that believe on Him----such things do the Scriptures declare. For it is not feasible and possible to enumerate every scripture in order; and from these you may understand the others also which have been spoken in like manner, believing in Christ, and seeking understanding and comprehension from God, so as to understand what has been spoken by the prophets.

53. And that this Christ, who was with the Father, being the Word of the Father, was thereafter to be made flesh and become man and undergo the process of birth and be born of a virgin and dwell among men, the Father of all bringing about His incarnation----Isaiah says thus: Therefore the Lord himself shall give you a sign: behold, the virgin shall conceive and shall bring forth a son, and ye shall call him Emmanuel: butter and honey shall he eat; before he knoweth or selecteth the evil, he chooseth the good: for, before the child knoiveth good or evil, he rejecteth wickedness to choose the good.¹⁴⁸ So he proclaimed His birth from a virgin; and that He was truly man he declared beforehand by His eating; and also because he called Him the |117 child; and further by giving Him a name; for this is the custom also for one that is born.¹⁴⁹ And His name is two-fold: in the Hebrew tongue Messiah Jesus, and in ours Christ Saviour. And the two names are names of works actually wrought. For He was named Christ, because through Him the Father anointed and adorned all things; and because on His coming as man He was anointed with the Spirit of God and His Father. As also by Isaiah He says of Himself: The Spirit of the Lord is upon me: wherefore he hath anointed me to preach good tidings to the poor.¹⁵⁰ And (He was named) Saviour for this, that He became the cause of salvation to those who at that time were delivered by Him from all sicknesses and from death,¹⁵¹ and to those who afterwards believed on Him the author of salvation in the future and for evermore.

54. For this cause then is He Saviour. Now Emmanuel is, being interpreted, With you God; ¹⁵² or as a yearning cry ¹⁵³ uttered by the prophet, such as this: With us shall be God; according to which it is the explanation and manifestation of the good tidings proclaimed. For Behold, H e saith, the virgin shall conceive and shall bring forth a son;¹⁵⁴ and He, being God, is to be with us. And, as if altogether astonished ¹⁵⁵ at these things, he proclaims in regard to these future events that With us shall be God. |118 And yet again concerning His birth the same prophet says in another place: Before she that travailed gave birth, and before the pains of travail came on, she escaped and was delivered of a man-child.¹⁵⁶ Thus he showed that His birth from the virgin was unforeseen and unexpected. And again the same prophet says: Unto us a son is born, and unto us a child is given;¹⁵⁷ and his name is called Wonderful Counsellor, Mighty God.¹⁵⁸

55. He calls Him Wonderful Counsellor, meaning of the Father: whereby it is declared that the Father works all things together with Him; as is contained in the first book of Moses which is entitled Genesis: And God said, Let us make man after our image and likeness.¹⁵⁹ For there is seen in this place the Father speaking to the Son, the Wonderful Counsellor of the Father. Moreover He is also our Counsellor, giving advice; not compelling as God, even though He is Mighty God, (as) he says; but giving advice that we should forsake ignorance and acquire knowledge, and |119 depart from error and come to the truth, and put away corruption and receive incorruption.

56. And again Isaiah says: And they shall wish that they had been burned with fire: for unto us a child is born, and unto us a son is given; whose government is upon his shoulders, and his name is called Angel of great counsel. For I will bring peace upon the riders, again peace and health unto him. Great is his rule, and of his peace there is no bound, upon the throne of David and upon his kingdom, to prosper and complete, to aid and undertake, in righteousness and judgment from this time forth and for evermore.¹⁶⁰ For hereby the Son of God is proclaimed both as being born and also as eternal King. But they shall wish that they had been burned with fire (is said) of those who believe not on Him, and who have done to Him all that they have done: for they shall say in the judgment, How much better that we had been burned with fire before the Son of God was born, than that, when He was born, we should not have believed on Him. Because for those who died before Christ appeared there is hope that in the judgment of the risen ¹⁶¹ they may obtain salvation, even such as feared God and died in righteousness and had in them the Spirit of God, as the patriarchs and prophets and righteous men. But for those who after Christ's appearing believed not on Him, there is a vengeance without pardon in the judgment. |120Now in this: Whose government is upon his shoulder, the cross is in a figure declared, on which He was nailed back. For that which was and is a reproach to Him, and for His sake to us, even the cross, this same is, says he, His government, being a sign of His kingdom. And, Angel of great counsel, he says; that is, of the Father whom He hath declared unto us.

57. That the Son of God should be born, and in what way He was to be born, and that He should be shown to be Christ----from what has been said it is plain how this was made known beforehand by the prophets. And in addition to this, in what land and among whom of mankind He was to be born and to appear, this also was proclaimed beforehand with words such as these. Moses in Genesis says thus: There shall not fail a prince from Judah, nor a leader from his loins, until he shall come for whom it remaineth; and he shall be the expectation of the Gentiles: washing his robe in wine, and his garment in the blood of the grape.¹⁶² Now Judah was the ancestor of the Jews, the son of Jacob; from whom also they obtained the name. |121 And there failed not a prince among them and a leader, until the coming of Christ. But from the time of His coming the might of the quiver was captured,¹⁶³ the land of the Jews was given over into subjection to the Romans, and they had no longer a prince or king of their own. For He was come, for whom remaineth in heaven the kingdom; who also washed his robe in wine, and his garment in the blood of the grape. His robe as also His garment are those who believe on Him, whom also He cleansed, redeeming us by His blood. And His blood is said to be blood of the grape: for even as the blood of the grape no man maketh, but God produceth, and maketh glad them that drink thereof, so also His flesh and blood no man wrought, but God made. The Lord Himself gave the sign of the virgin, even that Emmanuel which was from the virgin; who also maketh glad them that drink of Him, that is to say, who receive His Spirit, (even) everlasting gladness. Wherefore also He is the expectation of the Gentiles, of those who hope in Him; because we expect of Him that He will establish again the kingdom.¹⁶⁴

58. And again Moses says: There shall rise a star out of Jacob; and a leader ¹⁶⁵ shall be raised up out of Israel; showing yet more plainly that the |122 dispensation of His coming in flesh should be among the Jews. And from Jacob and from the tribe of Judah He who was born, coming down from heaven, took upon Him this economy of dispensation: for the star appeared in heaven. And by leader he means king, because He is the King of all the redeemed. And at His birth the star appeared to the Magi who dwelt in the east;¹⁶⁶ and thereby they learned that Christ was born; and they came to Judaea, led by the star; until the star came to Bethlehem where Christ was born, and entered the house wherein was laid the child, wrapped in swaddling-clothes; and it stood over His head,¹⁶⁷ declaring to the Magi the Son of God, the Christ.

59. Moreover Isaiah himself yet further says: A nd there shall come forth a rod out of the roots of Jesse, and a flower from his root shall come forth. And the spirit of God shall rest upon him; the spirit of wisdom and of understanding, the spirit of counsel and of might, the spirit of knowledge and of godliness: the spirit of the fear of God shall fill him? Not according to opinion shall he judge, and not according to speech shall he reprove: but he shall judge judgment for the humble, and shew mercy to the humble of the earth. And he shall smite the earth with the word of his mouth, and with the |123 breath of his lips ¹⁶⁸ shall he slay the impious man. And he shall be girt about his loins with righteousness, and with truth encompassed about his reins. And the wolf shall feed with the lamb, and the leopard with the kid, and the calf and the lion shall pasture together. And a sucking child shall put his hand on the hole of the asps, and on the lair of the offspring of the asps, and they shall not hurt him. And in that day there shall be a root of Jesse, and he that riseth up to rule the Gentiles: in him shall the Gentiles hope: and his rising up shall be honour.¹⁶⁹ By these words he states that He was born from her who was of the race of David and of Abraham. For Jesse was the descendant of Abraham, and the father of David; (and David's) descendant the virgin was who conceived Christ. Now (as to) the rod: for this cause also Moses with¹⁷⁰ a rod showed the mighty works to Pharaoh: and with other men also the rod is a sign of rule. And by flower he means His flesh; ¹⁷¹ for from spirit it budded forth, as we have said before.

60. Now, Not according to opinion shall he judge, and not according to speech shall he reprove: but he shall judge judgment for the humble, and shall show mercy to the humble on the earth----(by this) he the |124 more establishes and declares His godhead. For to judge without respect of persons and partiality, and not as favouring the illustrious, but affording to the humble worthy and like and equal treatment, accords with the height and summit of the righteousness of God: for God is influenced and moved by none, save only the righteous. And to show mercy is the peculiar attribute of God, who by mercy is able to save. And He shall smite the earth with a word, and slay the impious with a word only: this belongs to God who worketh all things with a word. And in saying: He shall be girt about his loins with righteousness, and with truth encompassed about his reins, he declares His human form and aspect, and His own surpassing righteousness.

61. Now as to the union and concord and peace of the animals of different kinds,¹⁷² which by nature are opposed and hostile to each other, the Elders say that so it will be in truth at the coming of Christ, when He is to reign over all. For already in a symbol he announces the gathering together in peace and concord, through the name of Christ, of men of unlike races and (yet) of like dispositions. For, when thus united, on the righteous, who are likened to calves and lambs and kids and sucking |125 children, those inflict no hurt at all who in the former time were, through their rapacity, like wild beasts in manners and disposition, both men and women; so much so that some of them were like wolves and lions, ravaging the weaker and warring on their equals; while the women (were like) leopards or asps, who slew, it may be, even their loved ones with deadly poisons, or by reason of lustful desire. (But now) coming together in one name ¹⁷³ they have acquired righteous habits by the grace of God, changing their wild and untamed nature. And this has come to pass already. For those who were before exceeding wicked, so that they left no work of ungodliness undone, learning of Christ and believing on Him, have at once believed and been changed, so as to leave no excellenpy of righteousness undone; so great is the transformation which faith in Christ the Son of God effects for those who believe on Him. And he says: Rising up to rule the Gentiles, because He is to die and rise again, and be confessed and believed as the Son of God (and) King. On this account he says: And His rising up shall be honour: that is, glory; for then was He glorified as God, when He rose.

62. Wherefore again the prophet says:¹⁷⁴ In that day I will raise up the tabernacle of David that is fallen:¹⁷⁵ that body ¹⁷⁶ of Christ, which, as we have said before, is born of David, he plainly declares as after death rising from the dead. For the body is called a |126 tabernacle.¹⁷⁷ For by these words he says that He who according to the flesh is of the race of David will be Christ the Son of God; and that He will die and rise again, and that He is in aspect a man, but in power God; and that He Himself will be as judge of all the world and as the only worker of righteousness and redeemer----all this the Scripture declared.

63. And again the prophet Micah speaks of the place where Christ should be born, that it should be in Bethlehem of Judaea, saying thus: And thou, Bethlehem of Judaea, art thou the least among the princes of Judah? for out of thee shall come a prince who shall feed my people Israel.¹⁷⁸ But Bethlehem is the native place of David: so that not only in respect of the Virgin who bore Him is He of David's race, but also in respect of His birth in Bethlehem the native place of David.

64. And again David says that of his race Christ is to be born, (speaking) after.this manner: For David my ¹⁷⁹ servant's sake turn not away the face of thy Christ. The Lord sware truth unto David, and he will not disappoint him: Of the fruit of thy body |127 will I set on thy throne: if thy children shall keep my covenant and my testimonies, which I covenanted with them, their sons for evermore (shall sit upon thy throne).¹⁸⁰ But none of the sons of David reigned for evermore, nor was their kingdom for evermore; for it was brought to nought. But the king that was born of David, He is Christ. All these testimonies declare in plain terms His descent according to the flesh, and the race and place where He was to be born; so that no man should seek among the Gentiles or elsewhere for the birth of the Son of God, but in Bethlehem of Judaea from Abraham and from David's race.

65. And the manner of His entry into Jerusalem, which was the capital of Judaea, where also was His royal seat and the temple of God, the prophet Isaiah declares: Say ye to the daughter of Sion, Behold a king cometh unto thee, meek and sitting upon an ass, a colt the foal of an ass.¹⁸¹ For, sitting on an ass's colt, so He entered into Jerusalem, the multitudes strewing and putting down for Him their garments. And by the daughter of Sion he means Jerusalem.

66. So then, that the Son of God should be born, and in what manner born, and where He was to be born, and that Christ is the one eternal King,¹⁸² the prophets thus declared. And again they told beforehand concerning Him how, sprung from mankind, He should heal those whom He healed, |128 and raise the dead whom He raised, and be hated and despised and undergo sufferings and be put to death and crucified, even as He was hated and despised and put to death.

67. At this point let us speak of His healings. Isaiah says thus: He took our infirmities and bare our sicknesses:¹⁸³ that is to say, He shall take, and shall bear. For there are passages in which the Spirit of God through the prophets recounts things that are to be as having taken place. For that which with God is essayed and conceived of as determined to take place, is reckoned as having already taken place: and the Spirit, regarding and seeing the time in which the issues of the prophecy are fulfilled, utters the words (accordingly). And concerning the kind of healing, thus will He make mention, saying: In that day shall the deaf hear the words of the book, and in darkness and in mist the eyes of the blind shall see.¹⁸⁴ And the same says again: Be strong, ye weak hands and feeble and trembling knees: be comforted, ye that are of a fearful mind. Be strong, fear not. Behold, our God will recompense judgment: He will come and save us. Then shall the eyes of the blind be opened, and the ears of the deaf shall hear: then shall the lame man leap as an hart, and the tongue of the stammerers shall be plain.¹⁸⁵ And concerning the dead, that they shall be raised, he says thus: The dead shall be raised, and they that are in the tombs |129 shall be raised.¹⁸⁶ And in bringing these things to pass He shall be believed to be the Son of God.

68. And that He shall be despised and tormented and in the end put to death, Isaiah says thus: Behold, my son shall understand,¹⁸⁷ and shall be exalted and glorified greatly. Even as many shall be astonished at thee, so without glory shall thy form be from men. And many races shall be astonished, and kings shall shut their mouths: for they to whom it was not declared concerning him shall see, and they who have not heard shall consider. Lord, who hath believed our report? and to whom hath the arm of the Lord been revealed? We declared before him as a child, as a root in a dry ground: and there is to him no form nor glory: and we saw him, and he had no form nor beauty: and his form was without honour, meaner than that of other men: a man in chastisement, and acquainted with the bearing of pain; for his face was turned away, he was dishonoured and made of no account. He beareth our sins, and for our sakes endureth pain: and we accounted him to be in pain and chastisement and affliction. But he was wounded for our iniquities, and was tormented for our sins. The discipline of our peace (was) upon him; by his stripes we were healed.¹⁸⁸ By these words it is declared that He was tormented; as also David says: And I was tormented.¹⁸⁹ Now |130 David was never tormented, but Christ (was), when the command was given that He should be crucified. And again by Isaiah His Word says: I gave my back to scourging, and my cheeks to smiting: and my face I turned not away from the shame of spitting.¹⁹⁰ And Jeremiah the prophet says the same, thus: He shall give his cheek to the smiter: he shall be filled with reproaches.¹⁹¹ All these things Christ suffered.

69. Now what follows in Isaiah is this: By his stripes we were healed. All we like sheep went astray: a man in his way went astray: and the Lord delivered him up to our sins.¹⁹² It is manifest therefore that by the will of the Father these things occurred to Him for the sake of our salvation. Then he says: And he by reason of his suffering opened not (his) mouth: as a sheep to the slaughter was he brought, as a lamb ¹⁹³ dumb before the shearer.¹⁹⁴ Behold how he declares His voluntary coming to death. And when the prophet says: In the humiliation his judgment was taken away, he signifies the appearance of His humiliation: according to the form of the abasement was the taking away of judgment. And the taking away of judgment is for some unto salvation, and to some unto the torments of perdition. For there is a taking away for a person, and also from a person. |131 So also with the judgment----those for whom it is taken away have it unto the torments of their perdition: but those from whom it is taken away are saved by it. Now those took away to themselves the judgment who crucified Him, and when they had done this to Him believed not on Him: for through that judgment which was taken away by them they shall be destroyed with torments. And from them that believe on Him the judgment is taken away, and they are no longer under it. And the judgment is that which by fire will be the destruction of the unbelievers at the end of the world.

70. Then he says: His generation who shall declare?¹⁹⁵ This was said to warn us, lest on account of His enemies and the outrage of His sufferings we should despise Him as a mean and contemptible man. For He who endured all this has an un-declarable generation; for by generation He means descent; (for) He who is His Father is undeclarable and unspeakable. Know therefore that such descent was His who endured these sufferings; and despise Him not because of the sufferings which for thy sake He of purpose endured, but fear Him because of His descent.

71. And in another place Jeremiah says: The Spirit of our face, the Lord Christ;¹⁹⁶ and how He was taken in their snares, of whom, we said, Under his shadow we shall live among the Gentiles. That, being (the) Spirit of God, Christ was to become a |132 suffering man the Scripture declares; and is, as it were, amazed and astonished at His sufferings, that in such manner He was to endure sufferings, under whose shadow we said that we should live. And by shadow he means His body.¹⁹⁷ For just as a shadow is made by a body, so also Christ's body was made by His Spirit.¹⁹⁸ But, further, the humiliation and contemptibility of His body he indicates by the shadow. For, as the shadow of bodies standing upright is upon the ground and is trodden upon, so also the body of Christ fell upon the ground by His sufferings and was trodden on indeed. And he named Christ's body a shadow, because the Spirit overshadowed it, as it were, with glory and covered it.¹⁹⁹ Moreover oftentimes when the Lord.passed by, they laid those who were held by divers diseases in the way, and on whomsoever His shadow fell, they were healed.²⁰⁰

72. And again the same prophet (says) thus concerning the sufferings of Christ: Behold how the righteous is destroyed, and no man layeth it to heart; and righteous men are taken away, and no man understandeth. For from the face of iniquity is the taking away of the righteous: peace shall be his burial, he hath been taken away from the midst.²⁰¹ And who else is perfectly righteous, but the Son of God, who makes righteous and perfects them that believe on Him, who like unto Him are persecuted |133 and put to death? ²⁰² But in saying: Peace shall be his burial, he declares how on account of our redemption He died: for it is in the peace of redemption: and (also he declares) that by His death those who aforetime were enemies and opposed to one another, believing with one accord upon Him, should have peace with one another, becoming friends and beloved on account of their common faith in Him; as indeed they have become. But in saying: He hath been taken away from the midst, he signifies His resurrection from the dead. Moreover because He appeared no more after His death and burial, the prophet declares that after dying and rising again He was to remain immortal, (saying) thus: He asked life, and thou gavest (if) him, and length of days for ever and ever.²⁰³ Now what is this that he says, He asked life, since He was about to die? He proclaims His resurrection from the dead, and that being raised from the dead He is immortal. For He received both life, that He should rise, and length of days for ever and ever, that He should be incorruptible.

73. And again David says thus concerning the death and resurrection of Christ: I laid me down and slept: I awaked, for the Lord received me.²⁰⁴ David said not this of himself, for he was not raised after death: but the Spirit of Christ, who (spake) also in other prophets concerning Him, says here by David: I laid me down and slept: I |134 awaked, for the Lord received me. By sleep he means death; for He arose again.

74. And again David (says) thus concerning the sufferings of Christ: Why did the Gentiles rage, and the people imagine vain things? Kings rose up on the earth, and princes were gathered together, against the Lord and his Anointed.²⁰⁵ For Herod the king of the Jews and Pontius Pilate, the governor of Claudius Caesar,²⁰⁶ came together and condemned Him to be crucified.²⁰⁷ For Herod feared, as though He were to be an earthly king, lest he should be expelled by Him from the kingdom. But Pilate was constrained by Herod and the Jews that were with him against his will to deliver Him to death: (for they threatened him) if he should not rather do this²⁰⁸ than act contrary to Caesar, by letting go a man who was called a king.

75. And further concerning the sufferings of Christ the same prophet says: Thou hast repelled and despised us; and hast cast away thine Anointed. Thou hast broken the covenant of my²⁰⁹ servant; thou hast cast his holiness to the ground. Thou hast overthrown all his hedges; thou hast made his |135 strongholds to tremble.²¹⁰ They that pass on the way have ravaged him; he is becdme a reproach to his neighbours. Thou hast exalted the right hand of his oppressors; thou hast made his enemies to rejoice over him, Thou hast turned away the help of his sword, and gavest him not a hand in the battle. Thou hast removed and thrown him down from purification; thou hast overturned his throne upon the ground. Thou hast shortened the days of his time, and hast poured forth shame upon him. That He should endure these things, and that too by the will of the Father, he manifestly declared: for by the will of the Father He was to endure sufferings.

76. And Zechariah says thus: Sword, awake against my shepherd, and against the man (that is) my companion. Smite ²¹¹ the shepherd, and the sheep of the flock shall be scattered.²¹² And this came to pass when He was taken by the Jews: for all the disciples forsook Him, fearing lest they should die with Him. For not yet did they stedfastly believe on Him, until they had seen Him risen from the dead.

77. Again He says in the Twelve Prophets:²¹³ And they bound him and brought him as a present to the king.²¹⁴ For Pontius Pilate was governor of Judaea, and he had at that time resentful enmity against Herod the king of the Jews.²¹⁵ But then, when Christ was brought to him bound, Pilate sent |136 Him to Herod, giving command to enquire of him, that he might know of a certainty what he should desire concerning Him; making Christ a convenient occasion of reconciliation with the king.

78. And in Jeremiah He thus declares His death and descent into hell, saying: And the Lord the Holy One of Israel, remembered his dead, which aforetime fell asleep in the dust of the earth; and he went down unto them, to bring the tidings of his salvation, to deliver them.²¹⁶ In this place He also renders the cause of His death: for His descent into hell was the salvation of them that had passed away.

79. And, again, concerning His cross Isaiah says thus: I have stretched out my hands all the day long to a disobedient and gainsaying people.²¹⁷ For this is an indication of the cross,²¹⁸ And yet more manifestly David says: Hunting-dogs encompassed me: the assembly of evil-doers came about me. They pierced my hands and my feet.²¹⁹ And again he says: My heart became even as wax melting in the midst |137 of my body; and they put asunder my bones, and again he says: Spare my soul from the sword and nail my flesh: for the assembly of evil-doers hath risen up against me.²²⁰ In these words with manifest clearness he signifies that He should be crucified. And Moses says this same thing to the people, thus: And thy life shall be hanged up before thine eyes, and thou shalt fear by day and by night, and thou shalt not believe in thy life.²²¹

80. And again David says: They looked upon me, they parted my garments among them, and upon my vesture they cast lots.²²² For at His crucifixion the soldiers parted His garments as they were wont; and the garments they parted by tearing; but for the vesture, because it was woven from the top and was not sewn, they cast lots, that to whomsoever it should fall he should take it.²²³

81. And again Jeremiah the prophet says: And they took the thirty pieces of silver, the price of him that was sold, whom they bought from the children of Israel; and they gave them for the potter's field, as the Lord commanded me.²²⁴ For Judas, being one of Christ's disciples, agreed with the Jews and covenanted with them, when he saw they desired to kill Him, because he had been reproved by Him: and he took the thirty staters ²²⁶ of the province, and betrayed Christ unto them²²⁵: and then, repenting of |138 what he had done, he gave the silver back again to the rulers of the Jews, and hanged himself. But they, thinking it not right to cast it into their treasury, because it was the price of blood, bought with it the ground that was a certain potter's for the burial of strangers.

82. And at His crucifixion, when He asked a drink, they gave Him to drink vinegar mingled with gall.²²⁷ And this was declared through David: They gave gall to my meat, and in my thirst they gave me vinegar to drink.²²⁸

83. And that, being raised from the dead, He was to ascend into heaven, David says thus: The chariot of God (is) ten-thousandfold, thousands are the drivers: the Lord (is) among them in Sinai in (his] sanctuary.²²⁹ He ascended up on high, he led captivity captive: he received, he gave gifts to men.²³⁰ And by captivity he means the destruction of the rule of the apostate angels. He declares also the place where He was to ascend into heaven from the earth. For the Lord, he says, from Sion ascended up on high. For over against Jerusalem, |139 on the mount which is called (the Mount) of Olives, after He was risen from the dead, He assembled His disciples, and expounded to them the things concerning the kingdom of heaven; and they saw that He ascended, and they saw how the heavens were opened and received Him.

84. And the same says David again: Lift up your gates, ye rulers; and be ye lift up, ye everlasting gates, and the King of glory shall come in.²³¹ For the everlasting gates are the heavens. But because the Word descended invisible to created things, He was not made known in His descent to them. Because the Word was made flesh, He was visible in His ascension; and, when the powers saw Him, the angels below cried out to those who were on the firmament: Lift up your gates; and be ye lift up, ye everlasting gates, that the King of glory may come in. And when they marvelled and said: Who is this? those who had already seen Him testified a second time: The Lord strong and mighty, he is the King of glory.²³²

85. And being raised from the dead and exalted at the Father's right hand, He awaits the time appointed by the Father for the judgment, when all enemies shall be put under Him. Now the enemies are all those who were found in apostasy, angels and archangels and powers and thrones, who despised the truth. And the prophet David |140 himself says thus: The Lord said unto my Lord, Sit on my right hand, until I make thine enemies thy footstool.²³³ And that He ascended thither, whence He had come down, David says: From the end of heaven is his going forth, and his cessation even at the end of heaven. Then he signifies his judgment: And there is none that shall be hid from his heat.²³⁴

86. If then the prophets prophesied that the Son of God was to appear upon the earth, and prophesied also where on the earth and how and in what manner He should make known His appearance, and all these prophecies the Lord took upon Himself; our faith in Him was well-founded, and the tradition of the preaching (is) true: that is to say, the testimony of the apostles, who being sent forth by the Lord preached in all the world the Son of God, who came to suffer, and endured to the destruction of death and the quickening of the flesh: that by the putting away of the enmity towards God, which is unrighteousness, we should obtain peace with Him, doing that which is pleasing to Him. And this was declared by the prophets in the words: How beautiful are the feet of them that bring tidings of peace, and of them that bring tidings of good things.²³⁵ And that these were to go forth from Judaea and from Jerusalem, to declare to us the word of God, which is the law for us, Isaiah says thus: For from Sion shall come |141 forth the law, and the word of the Lord from Jerusalem.²³⁶ And that in all the earth they were to preach, David says: Into all the earth went forth their speech, and their words to the ends of the world.²³⁷

87. And that not by the much-speaking of the law, but by the brevity of faith and love,²³⁸ men were to be saved, Isaiah says thus: A word brief and short in righteousness: for a short word will God make in the whole world.²³⁹ And therefore the apostle Paul says: Love is the fulfilling of the law:²⁴⁰ for he who loves God has fulfilled the law. Moreover the Lord, when He was asked which is the first commandment, said: Thou shalt love the Lord thy God with all thy heart and with all thy strength.¹ And the second is like unto it: Thou shalt love thy neighbour as thyself. On these two commandments, He says, all the law hangeth and the prophets.²⁴¹ So then by our faith in Him He has made our love to God and our neighbour to grow, making us godly and righteous and good. And therefore a short word has God made on the earth in the world.

88. And that after His ascension He was to be exalted above all, and that there shall be none to be compared and equalled unto Him, Isaiah says thus:² Who is he that entereth into judgment (with me)? Let him stand up against (me). And |142 who is he who is justified? Let him draw near to the Lords Son. Woe unto you, for ye shall grow old as a garment, and the moth shall devour you. And all flesh shall be humbled and abased, and the Lord alone shall be exalted in the highest.²⁴² And that in the end by His name they should be saved who served God, Isaiah says: And on those who serve me a new name shall be called, which shall be blessed upon the earth: and they shall bless the true God.²⁴³ And that this blessing He Himself should bring about, and Himself should redeem us by His own blood, Isaiah declared, saying: No mediator, no angel, but the Lord himself saved them; because he loved them and spared them: he himself redeemed them.²⁴⁴

89. That He would not send back the redeemed to the legislation of Moses----for the law was fulfilled in Christ----but would have them live ²⁴⁵ in newness by the Word, through faith in the Son of God and love, Isaiah declared, saying: Remember not the former things, nor bring to mind the things that were in the beginning. Behold I make new (things), which shall now spring up, and ye shall know (them). And I will make in the wilderness a way, and in the waterless place streams, to give drink to my chosen race, and to my people whom I have purchased to declare my virtues.²⁴⁶ Now a wilderness and a waterless place was at first the calling of the Gentiles: for the Word had not passed through |143 them, nor given them the Holy Spirit to drink; who fashioned the new way of godliness and righteousness, and made copious streams to spring forth, disseminating over the earth the Holy Spirit; even as it had been promised through the prophets, that in the end of the days He should pour out the Spirit upon the face of the earth.

90. Therefore by newness of the spirit is our calling, and not in the oldness of the letter;²⁴⁷ even as Jeremiah prophesied: Behold the days come, saith the Lord, that I will accomplish for the house of Israel and for the house of Judah the covenant of the testament which I covenanted with their fathers, in the day when I took them by the hand to lead them out of the land of Egypt: because they continued not in the covenant, and I regarded them not, saith the Lord. For this is the covenant of the testament that I will covenant with the house of Israel after those days, saith the Lord: I will put my laws ²⁴⁸ into their minds, and write them in their hearts; and I will be to them a God, and they shall be to me a people: and they shall not teach any more every man his neighbour, and every man his brother, saying, Know the Lord: for all shall |144 know me, from the least to the greatest of them. For I will pardon and be merciful unto the sins of their iniquities, and their sins will I remember no more.²⁴⁹

91. And that these promises the calling from among the Gentiles should inherit, to whom also the new testament was opened up, Isaiah says thus: These things saith the God of Israel: In that day a man shall trust²⁵⁰ in his Maker, and his eyes shall look to the Holy One of Israel: and they shall not trust in altars, nor in the work of their own hands, which their fingers have made.²⁵¹ For very plainly this was said of such as have forsaken idols and believed in God our Maker through the Holy One of Israel. And the Holy One of Israel is Christ: and He became visible to men, and to Him we look eagerly and behold Him; and we trust not in altars, nor in the works of our hands.

92. And that He should become visible ²⁵² amongst us----for the Son of God became Son of man----and be found of us who before had no knowledge (of Him), the Word Himself says thus in Isaiah: I became manifest to them that sought me not; I was found of them that asked not for me. I said, Behold, here am I, to a race that called not on my name.²⁵³

93. And that this race was to become an holy people was declared in the Twelve Prophets by Hosea, thus: I will call that which was not (my) |145 people, my people; and her that was not beloved, beloved. It shall come to pass that in the place where it was called not my people, there shall they be called sons of the Living God.²⁵⁴ This also is that which was said by John the Baptist: That God is able of these stones to raise up sons to Abraham.²⁵⁵ For our hearts being withdrawn and taken away from the stony worship by means of faith behold God, and become sons of Abraham, who was justified by faith. And therefore God says by Ezekiel the prophet: And I will give them another heart, and a new spirit will I give them: and I will withdraw and take away the stony heart from their flesh, and I will give them another heart of flesh: so that they shall walk in my precepts, and shall keep my ordinances and do them. And they shall be to me for a people, and I will be to them for a God. ²⁵⁶

94. So then by the new calling a change of hearts in the Gentiles came to pass through the Word of God, when He was made flesh and tabernacled with men; as also His disciple John says: And his Word was made flesh and dwelt among us.²⁵⁷ Wherefore the Church beareth much fruit of the redeemed: because no longer Moses (as) mediator nor Elijah (as) messenger, but the Lord Himself has redeemed us, granting many more children to the Church than to the first Synagogue;²⁵⁸ |146 as Isaiah declared, saying: Rejoice thou barren, that didst not bear.²⁵⁹ The barren is the Church, which never at all in former times presented sons to God. Cry out and call, thou that didst not travail: for the children of the desolate are more than of her which hath an husband. Now the first Synagogue had as husband the Law.

95. Moreover Moses in Deuteronomy says that the Gentiles should be the head, and the unbelieving people the tail. And again he says: Ye provoked me to jealousy with those that are no gods, and angered me with your idols: and I will provoke you to jealousy with that which is no nation, and with a foolish nation will I anger you.²⁶⁰ Because they forsook the God who is, and worshipped and served the gods who are not; and they slew the prophets of God, and prophesied for Baal,²⁶¹ who was the idol of the Canaanites. And the Son of God, who is,²⁶² they despised and condemned, but they chose Barabbas the robber who had been taken for murder: and the eternal King ²⁶³ they disavowed, and they acknowledged as their king the temporal Caesar. (So) it pleased God to grant their inheritance to the foolish Gentiles, even to those who were not of the polity of God and knew not what God is. Since, then, by this calling life has been given (us), and God has summed up again for Himself in us the faith of Abraham, we ought |147 not to turn back any more----I mean, to the first legislation. For we have received the Lord of the Law, the Son of God; and by faith in Him we learn to love God with all our heart, and our neighbour as ourselves. Now the love of God is far from all sin,²⁶⁴ and love to the neighbour worketh no ill to the neighbour.²⁶⁵

96. Wherefore also we need not the Law as a tutor. Behold, with the Father we speak, and in His presence we stand, being children in malice, and grown strong in all righteousness and soberness.²⁶⁶ For no longer shall the Law say, Do not commit adultery, to him who has no desire at all for another's wife; and Thou shalt not kill, to him who has put away from himself all anger and enmity; (and) Thou shalt not covet thy neighbour s field or ox or ass,²⁶⁷ to those who have no care at all for earthly things, but store up the heavenly fruits: nor An eye for an eye, and a tooth for a tooth,²⁶⁸ to him who counts no man his enemy, but all men his neighbours, and therefore cannot stretch out his hand at all for vengeance. It will not require tithes of him who consecrates all his possessions to God, leaving father and mother and all his kindred, and following the Word of God. And there will be no command to remain idle for one day of rest, to him who perpetually keeps sabbath,²⁶⁹ that is to |148 say, who in the temple of God, which is man's body, does service to God, and in every hour works righteousness. For I desire mercy, He saith, and not sacrifice; and the knowledge of God more than burnt offerings. But the wicked that sacrificeth to me a calf is as if he should kill a dog; and that offereth fine flour, as though (he offered] swine's blood. But whosoever shall call on the name of the Lord shall be saved. And there is none other name of the Lord given under heaven whereby men are saved,²⁷⁰ save that of God, which is Jesus Christ the Son of God, to which also the demons are subject and evil spirits and all apostate energies, by the invocation of the name of Jesus Christ, crucified under Pontius Pilate.²⁷¹

97. He is separated and withdrawn from among men, and (yet) there is a separation and division among mankind; and wheresoever any of those who believe on Him shall invoke and call upon Him and do His will, He is near and present, fulfilling the requests of those who with pure hearts call upon Him. Whereby receiving salvation, we continually give thanks to God, who by His great, inscrutable and unsearchable wisdom delivered us, and proclaimed the salvation from heaven ---- to wit, the visible coming of our Lord, that is, His living as man ----to which we by ourselves could not attain: for the things which are impossible with men are possible with God.²⁷² Wherefore also Jeremiah saith concerning her (i. e. wisdom):²⁷³ Who hath gone up into |149 heaven, and taken her, and brought her down from the clouds? Who hath gone over the sea, found her, and will bring her for choice gold? There is none that hath found her way, nor any that comprehendeth her path. But he that knoweth all things knoweth her by his understanding: he that prepareth the earth for evermore, hath filled it with four-footed beasts: he that sendeth forth the light and it goeth; he called it, and it obeyed him with fear: and the stars shined in their watches, and were glad: he called them, and they said Here we be; they shined with gladness unto him that made them. This is our God: there shall none other be accounted of in comparison with him. He hath found out every way by knowledge, and hath given it unto Jacob his servant, and to Israel that is beloved of him. Afterward did he appear upon earth, and was conversant with men. This is the book of the commandments of God, and of the law which endureth for ever. All they that hold it fast (are appointed) to life: but such as leave it shall die. Now by Jacob and Israel he means the Son of God, who received power from the Father over our life, and after having received this brought it down to us who were far off from Him, when He appeared on earth and was conversant with men, mingling and mixing the Spirit of God the |150 Father with the creature formed by God,²⁷⁴ that man might be after the image and likeness of God.

98. This, beloved, is the preaching of the truth, and this is the manner of our redemption, and this is the way of life, which the prophets proclaimed, and Christ established, and the apostles delivered, and the Church in all the world hands on to her children. This must we keep with all certainty, with a sound will and pleasing to God, with good works and right-willed disposition.

99. So that none should imagine God the Father to be other than our Creator, as the heretics imagine; (for) they despise the God who is, and make gods of that which is not; and they fashion a Father of their own above our Creator, and imagine that they have found out for themselves something greater than the truth. For all these are impious and blasphemers against their Creator and against the Father, as we have shown in the Exposure and Overthrow of Knowledge falsely so-called. And others again reject the coming of the Son of God and the dispensation of His incarnation, which the apostles delivered and the prophets declared beforehand, even such as should be the summing up of mankind, as we have shown you in brief: and such also are reckoned amongst those who are lacking in faith. And others receive not the gifts of the Holy Spirit, and cast away from |151 themselves the prophetic grace, watered whereby man bears the fruit of life unto God: and these are they of whom Isaiah speaks: For they shall be, saith he, as an oak that is stripped of leaves, and as a garden that hath no water.²⁷⁵ And such are in no wise serviceable to God, seeing that they cannot bear any fruit.

100. So then in respect of the three points²⁷⁶ of our seal error has strayed widely from the truth. For either they reject the Father, or they accept not the Son and speak against the dispensation of His incarnation; or else they receive not the Spirit, that is, they reject prophecy. And of all such must we beware, and shun their ways, if in very truth we desire to be well-pleasing to God and to attain the redemption that is from Him.

[Selected footnotes moved to the end and renumbered.]

1. ¹ This opening section is in the manner of the introductions to each of the five books Against Heresies: in the first of these, of which the Greek is preserved, we have parallels to language used here:...

2. ² "To shew forth the preaching." This corresponds to the wording of the title: the e0pi/deicij, ostensio, or "demonstration" of the Apostolic Preaching.

3. ³ Lit. "a more essential remembrancer."

4. ² Or, "spirit." The Armenian word for "spirit" (pneu~ma) is sometimes used also for "soul " (yuxh&): the context shows that it is so used here.

5. ¹ Lit. "I am the Existing One,"as in LXX.... In III, vi. 2 the words are quoted as spoken by the Father.

6. ² Here, as usual, the LXX is followed...

7. ³ Cf. I, i. 20:.... The Arm. has taken over the Greek word kanw&n.

8. Ps. i. 1.

9. Ex. iii. 14.

10. Isa. vii. 9

11. ² This passage is obscure, and I cannot feel any confidence in my rendering of it. The Armenian translator has probably misunderstood the construction of the Greek: his verbs are all in the infinitive, which suggests that Irenaeus is recording what the faith teaches. The words "made God" represent qeopoiei=sqai. This word, if not traceable elsewhere in Irenaeus, is found in other early writers: e. g. Hippolytus, Philos. x. 34:.... It is frequent in Athanasius; e. g. De Incarn. 54:.... In Irenaeus the thought finds expression in various forms: see IV, lxiii. 3: "quoniam non ab initio dii facti sumus, sed primo quidem homines, tunc demum dii:" also III, vi. i.

12. ¹ This is a reminiscence of controversy with the heretics who denied that the Good God of the New Testament was the Creator God of the Old Testament: see IV, xxxiv. 2: "non enim aliena sed sua tradidit ei" (of the Father committing all things to the Son); V, ii. i: ''vani autem qui in aliena dicunt Dominum venisse, velut aliena concupiscentem" (where the Arm. enables us to correct the Latin, which has "Deum ").

13. ² In IV, xxxiv. 2 he quotes, as "Scripture," the Shepherd of Hermas, Mand. I:.... Cf. also I, XV. 1.

14. ⁴ Or "shown to be": cf. V, xviii. 1: "Et sic unus Deus Pater ostenditur ( = dei/knutai)."

15. Cf. Isa. xliii. 10.

16. ¹ God is logiko&j, therefore by lo&goj He created the world. The play on the words is given by the Armenian, but cannot be given by the English translation.

17. Ps. xxxiii. 6.

18. ² "Gives body:" apparently representing swmatopoiei=: cf. I. i. 9, of the Demiurge of Valentinus:....

19. Eph. iv. 6.

20. Cf. Gal. iv. 6.

21. ¹ Lit. "head:" cf. cc. 7, 100.

22. ² This is fully worked out in IV, lv. 1-6: the prophets were "members of Christ," and so each, according to the "member" that he was, declared his portion of prophecy, all together announcing the whole.

23. ³ The same double rendering of a0nakefalaiw&sasqai (Eph. i. 10) is found in the Arm. version of V, i. 2.

24. ⁴ IV, xi. 4: "visibilem et palpabilem;" cf. IV, xiii. 1, where the Arm. shows that the Latin "passibilis" should be corrected to "palpabilis."

25. Rom. ii. 4-6.

26. ¹ An account of the late Jewish teaching as to the Seven Heavens is given in Mr. H. St John Thackeray's valuable book St Paul and Contemporary Jewish Thought, pp. 172-179, where three parallel tables of their descriptions will be found. References to them in Christian apocryphal literature are collected in Dr Charles's Book of the Secrets of Enoch (from the Sclavonic), pp. xliv-xlvii. Hippolytus in his Commentary on Daniel (ed. Achelis, p. 96), referring to... in the Benedicite, says:.... Clement of Alexandria (Strom, iv. 25) says:..., Origen (c. Cels, vi. 21) likewise mentions the Seven Heavens, but without committing himself to the exact number.

Irenaeus in I, i. 9 refers to the Valentinian teaching which identified the Seven Heavens with angels of varying degrees of power. In our passage he strangely connects the Seven Heavens with the Seven Gifts of the Spirit. We observe two peculiarities in his description. First, that, numbering from above downwards, he reckons the highest as the First Heaven: secondly, that his Seventh, or lowest, is the firmament. Evil is wholly excluded from these heavens: so it is in the Ascension of Isaiah (for which see Introd. p. 41), where however it is found in the firmament, which is not reckoned as one of the heavens.

The belief in the Seven Heavens soon came to be discredited; and it is curious to find a survival of it, due apparently to Irish influences, in the invocation of the septem caelos in a book of prayers of the seventh or eighth century (Brit. Mus. Reg. 2. A. xx, f. 47 v.).

27. ¹ Compare the reason given by Justin Martyr (Dial. 22) for the worship in the Temple:....

28. ² Perhaps the text should be emended so as to give "operation "....

29. ³ Or "ministrations " (=... in Arm. version of i Cor. xii. 5).

30. Isa. xi. f.

31. ⁵ The heavens are enumerated from above, in order to correspond with the prophet's words and put Wisdom first and Fear of God last.

ADDITIONAL NOTE (p.151 of printed text): On p. 78, n. 5. Compare the fragment attributed to Victorinus of Pettau, printed by Routh, Rell. III, 458: "Summum ergo coelum sapientiae," etc. The common source maybe "the Elders" or Papias.

32. Ex. xxv. 40.

33. ⁴ The meaning is uncertain: the word means "daily, continual, perpetual"; but it is also used as an adverb. The German translations take it in the sense of "eternal" (sein ewiger Sohn). It renders dia_ panto_j in Lev. xxiv. 2; and that may have been the original Greek in this passage. But even so it is not clear whether it is to be taken with "who is His Son," or with "is glorified"----For the Eternal Sonship we may compare III, xix. I: "existens semper apud Patrem; " and IV, xxxiv. 3: " semper cum Patre erat."

34. ⁵ Origen in his Commentary on Romans (III, § 8) interprets the two Cherubim over the mercy-seat as the Son and the Holy Spirit. In De Principiis (I, Hi. 4, IV, iii. 26) he gives the same interpretation of the two Seraphim of Isa. vi. 3, saying that he received it from his Hebrew teacher: he adds that the same applies to the two living creatures of Hab. iii. 2 (LXX). Philo ( Vit. Mos. iii. 8) had interpreted the two Cherubim as..., the latter ku&rioj. This probably paved the way for Origen's interpretation.

35. Cf. Rev. v. 13.

36. ¹ Elsewhere Irenaeus constantly speaks of the Son and the Spirit as the Hands of God: see Introd. p. 51.

37. ² Equivalent to plasma or plasmatio.

38. ³ So both the German translations: but they transfer the words so as to link them with " this great created world." What we seem to want is, "to have all as his own," if the words can bear that meaning.

39. ¹ For this function of angels cf. Papias, as quoted by Andreas in Apocal. c. 34, serm. 12:...

40. ³ That Paradise was in a region outside this world is not quite distinctly stated here, but the opening words of c. 17 seem to support this view. The view of Irenaeus, however, is clearly given in V, v. 1:... (Gen. ii. 8)....... He goes on to speak of this as the Paradise into which St Paul was caught up (2 Cor. xii. 4). Moreover he identifies it with the resting-place of just men, such as Enoch and Elijah. So in the Apocalypse of Peter the just are dwelling in a.... Irenaeus is silent as to whether Paradise is in the third heaven. But the Slavonic Secrets of Enoch, referred to above, places it there. In the shorter and apparently more original recension we read as follows (c. 8): "And the men removed me from that place, and brought me to the third heaven, and placed me in the midst of a garden; a place such as was never seen for the goodliness of its appearance. And every tree is beautiful, and every fruit ripe; all kinds of agreeable food springing up with every kind of fragrance. And (there are) four rivers flowing with a soft course; and every kind of thing good, that grows for food," etc. The Valentinians, according to Irenaeus (I, i. 9), placed Paradise...

Comp. the Anaphora in the Liturgy of St Basil (Swainson, p. 80):...

41. Gen. ii. 19.

42. Gen. ii. 18. As LXX.

43. Gen. ii. 21 ff.

44. ² As LXX.

45. Gen. ii. 25.

46. Gen. ii. 16f.

47. ¹ IV, lxvi, 2;... V, xxiv. 4:... Cf. Wisd. ii. 24:...

48. ² V, xxi. 2: "Satana enim verbum Hebraicum apostatam signifi-cat." Cf. Just. Mart. Dial. 103.

49. ³ Cf. Gen. iii. 24:.... Perhaps "the way" comes from "the way of the tree of life " in the same verse.

50. Gen. iv. 1 f.

51. Gen. iv 25.

52. ¹ This is from the Book of Enoch, to which Irenaeus also refers in IV, xxvii. 2. Enoch vii. 1:.... Tertullian makes use of the same passage: De cultu fem. i. 2, ii. 10 (ut Enoch refert).

53. ¹ The Armenian corresponds to the Greek o( new&teroj (Gen. ix. 24). As there were three sons of Noah, the comparative causes difficulty. Origen took it as a superlative: for in later Greek (as in French) the comparative with the article is used as a superlative. He went on to argue that as Ham was not the youngest son of Noah, the word "son" was used for grandson, and that "Noah knew what his grandson (Canaan) had done to him": hence the curse falls on Canaan. This accorded with a tradition given him by his Hebrew teacher (Comm. in Gen. ix. 18; Lomm. viii, p. 65). The trouble arose from the fact that "the curse of Ham" was not pronounced on Ham, but on his son Canaan. Justin Martyr (Dial. 139) says that Noah cursed his son's son; "for the prophetic Spirit would not curse his son, who had been blessed together with the other sons by God."

54. ¹ Irenaeus makes no difficulty about speaking of "the curse of Ham." It is clear that he had a text of the LXX, which enabled him to do so. The Hebrew of Gen. ix. 25 gives us: "Cursed be Canaan: a servant of servants shall he be unto his brethren." The LXX has:.. But some MSS (E and some cursives) read Xa&m for Xana&an. When pai=j was taken with the preceding word, Xa_m pai=j was no doubt intended to mean "the child of Ham," i.e. Canaan: it might however be understood as "Ham the child." So here the Armenian translator does not give the genitive case of Ham, but the nominative: and it would seem that he rightly interprets the meaning of Irenaeus.

55. Gen. ix. 25.

56. ² Irenaeus seems to have drawn on Acts ii. 9-11 to amplify his list.

57. ¹ The LXX reads Canaan, but one cursive has Ham.

58. Gen. ix. 26.

59. ² Here again the LXX reads Canaan, though E and other MSS. have Ham. The Arm. here has "he shall bless" for "he shall dwell "; but this is a slip, as appears from below.

60. Gen. ix. 27.

61. Ps. xix. 4.

62. ³ "The calling of the Gentiles," or, as we have it also here, " the calling from among the Gentiles," recurs in cc. 28, 41 bis, 42, 89, 91. I have noted it in the Armenian version of IV, xxxiv. 12, where however we find in the Greek..., and in the Latin.... I do not remember to have met with it elsewhere in the writings of Irenaeus, or in any earlier writer. In the fragments of Hippolytus on Gen. xlix (ed. Achelis, pp. 59 ff.)... is found several times, and more than once... occurs as a various reading. It is not found, however, in the corresponding comments in The Blessings of Jacob (Texte u. Unters. xxxviii. 1).

63. ¹ With all the above cf. Just. M. Dial. 139.

64. Gen. ix. 14 f.

65. Gen. ix. i ff. ² These last words are so quoted in V, xiv. 1. The LXX continues:.... This Irenaeus paraphrases; cf. c. II: "for (as) the image of God was man formed and set on the earth." That ''the image of God is the Son" may be a reminiscence of Col. i. 15.

66. Gen. xi. 1.

67. ¹ Lit. "was found"....

68. ² This is explained by the comment above (c. 21) on the blessing of Shem, which did not say "Blessed be Shem," but "Blessed be the Lord, the God of Shem"; meaning that God "should be to Shem a peculiar possession of worship."

69. Gen. xii. (1 Acts vii. 3).

70. ³ Heb. and LXX: "seventy and five."

71. Gen. xvii. 8.

72. Gen. xv. 5.

73. Gen. xv. 6; Rom. iv. 3.

74. ¹ The Arm. has "uncircumcision" for "righteousness" by an oversight.

75. Rom. iv. 11.

76. Acts vii. 14.

77. ¹ The same interpretation of Pascha, as if from pa&sxein is found in IV, xx. I: "cujus et diem passionis non ignoravit, sed figuratim praenuntiavit eum, Pascha nominans."

78. Ex xxxi. 18; xxxiv. 28

79. ¹ "The finger of God" (Luke xi. 20) appears as "the Spirit of God " in Matt. xii. 28. Cf. Barn. xiv. 3; and Clem. Hom. xi. 22, xvi. 12, quoted in Introd. p. 53 n. 1.

80. ² Num. xiii. 16.... Justin Martyr (Dial. 75, 113) has much to say on this change of name. Cf. Barn. xii. 8 f.

81. ¹ Probably this represents.... Compare the brief clauses: "and this came to pass " (c. 67), and "as indeed they have become" (c. 72); III, vi. 4: "quod et erat." But it might be rendered, in conjunction with the Name, " which was (given them) ": so the German translations take it.

82. ¹ Cf. the Greek fragment attributed to Irenaeus, Harvey II, p. 487, where we have...: this fragment, however, is now shown to be from Hippolytus On the Blessings of Moses (Texte u. Unters. N. F. XI, la, p. 49). Cf. also IV, ii. 1: "Moyses igitur recapitulationem universae legis... in Deuteronomio faciens.''

83. Deut. xxxii. 49 f.

84. Deut. xxxiv. 5

85. ¹ Or "this present Jerusalem": perhaps representing... (Gal. iv. 25).

86. ² Cf. c. 51.

87. Eph. i. 10.

88. ³ For this double rendering see above c. 6.

89. ² Cf. 2 Tim. i. 10:...

90. John i. 14.

91. ¹ Almost the same words are here used as in III, xxx. I.:... Cf. III, xix. 6: also Ephraim's Commentary on the Diatessaron (Moesinger, p. 21): "In Virginis conceptione disce quod qui sine conjugio Adamum ex virginea terra protulit, is etiam Adamum secundum in utero virginis formaverit." Cf. also Tertullian, De carne Christi, 17; Firmicus Maternus, De errore prof. relig., 25.

92. Gen. ii. 5.

93. Gen. i. 26.

94. ⁴ The same parallel is worked out in III, xxxii. 1, and V, xix. 1. It is found earlier in Justin Martyr (Dial. 100), and later in Tertullian (De carne Chr. 17).

95. ¹ Irenaeus is fond of referring to the sheep that was lost: see III, xx. 3, xxxii. 2, xxxvii. I; V, xii. 3, xv. 2.

96. ³ See above, c. 32.

97. Cf. I Cor. xv. 53.

98. ¹ Cf. c. 68.

99. Isa. 1. 5 f.

100. Phil. ii. 8.

101. ² V, xvii. 4:... The Greek, preserved in a Catena, is here emended from the Latin and Armenian versions, both of which omit...

102. ³ V, xviii. 2:... The thought is taken from Justin (Ap. I. 60)" who attributes to Plato the words:...... (cf. Timaeus 36 B.C.). See above, Introd. p. 29. Justin says that Plato misunderstanding the story of the Brazen Serpent,...

103. Phil. ii. 15. Gen. xv. 6; cf. Rom. iv. 3. Gal.iii. ii; Rom. iv. 13. i Tim. i. 9.

104. ² III, xxvi. 1:... III, xi. 4, xvii. i, xxix. I. In all these places the phrase "eternal king" is used in connexion with this particular promise. The phrase also occurs in III, xx. 2, and below in cc. 56, 66, 95. Justin uses it several times (Dial. 34,36, 118, 135), but not in this connexion.

105. ¹ Here and above I have used "body" as in A. V. for koili/a: but the strange argument is thus somewhat obscured. The words which immediately follow in the Armenian text may be more easily rendered in Latin: "de fructu ventris tui, quod est proprium feminae praegnantis: non de fructu lumborum, nec de fructu renum, quod est proprium viri generantis: ut declararet," etc. Almost the same words are found in III, xxvi. I: cf. also III, ix. 2: "ex fructu ventris David, id est, ex David virgine." The argument is used by Tertullian, Adv. Marcion, III, 20.

106. ² The same word corresponds to "artifex" in the Arm. version of V, xv. 2, xxiv. 4: cf. III, xi. II:..

107. ¹ Cf. C. 39: Barn. V. 6:...: and Hippolytus, Apostolic Tradition, in the Eucharistic Prayer: " ut resurrectionem manifestet "; and Philos. x. 33 (Connolly, Texts and Studies, VIII, 4. 166).

108. Rev. i. 5.

109. Amos ix. ii.

110. ² Or "body": cf. c. 62.

111. Rev. i. 5.

112. Col. i. 18.

113. Isa. ix. 6.

114. ¹ Cf. c. 97 (where however the Incarnation is in question), and the references there given.

115. ² Or " fleshly": cf. I, ii. I:...

116. ² Cf. c. 21. The Arm. is obscure, perhaps corrupt.

117. ¹ Cf. Just. M. Ap. 1. 32:...

118. Gen. i. i.

119. ² Lit. "the Armenian language."

120. ³ The Hebrew text has been corrupted in transmission: but it is plain that Irenaeus interpreted the first two words (''In the beginning created") as " In the beginning the Son." St Hilary, on Ps. ii. §2, says that bresith has three meanings, "in principio in capite, in filio "; but he prefers the first as the interpretation given by the LXX. See the note of the learned Dom Coustant, the Benedictine editor of St Hilary. See also Dr Harnack's notes in Texte u. Unters., I, l.117ff. and xxxi, I. 60. In Clem. Alex. Ed. Proph. 4 we find as a comment on Gen. i. I,....

121. ⁴ Ps. cx. 3, lxxii. 17. For this composite quotation from the Psalms, here attributed to Jeremiah, see Introd. p. 19 ff.

122. ⁵ For this quotation also see Introd. p. 22 f.

123. ⁶ This is probably a reference to Prov, viii. 22:...

124. ¹ Justin (Dial. 88) quotes the Voice at the Baptism in the form " Thou art my Son, this day have I begotten thee " (Ps. ii. 7, and Luke iii. 22 in Codex Bezae, etc.)....

125. John i. 1 ff.

126. Gen. xviii 1 ff.

127. Gen. xix. 24.

128. Gen. xxviii. 12 f.

129. ² The Arm. text has "from heaven to heaven" by oversight. That Jacob's Ladder signified the Cross was said by Justin (Dial. 86).

130. Acts vii. 49 (Isa. lxvi. i).

131. Isa. xl. 12.

132. Ex. iii. 7.

133. ³ V, xvii. 4:...(where neither Lat. nor Arm. supports the inserted Betas): cf. c. 79. For this... cf. Barn. XII. 2; Just. M. Dial. 91, 112, 131.

134. Cf. I Cor. x. 4. Cf. Ex. xv. 27. I Cor. xiv. 20. Cf. Ex. xvii. 9 ff.

135. ³ Cf. Athan. Orat. i. 64:...

136. Heb. i. 8 f. (Ps. xlv. f.).

137. ³ This is Justin's interpretation of the words: see Dial. 33...

138. ⁴.. cf. Barn. XII, 11: so also many later writers.

139. Isa. xlv. 1.

140. Ps. ii. 7 f.

141. Ps. cx. 1. Isa. xlv. 1.

142. Ps. ii. 7.

143. ¹ The subject is fully treated by Justin (Ap. I, 36 ff.):...

144. ¹ Here the quotation corresponds with Acts xiii. 47, as in Just. M. Dial. 121.

145. Isa. xlix. 5 f.

146. ² Cf. c. 30. Justin says (Dial. 62):...

147. ¹ The construction of the Arm. is uncertain, but the general sense is plain...

148. Isa. vii. 14 ff.

149. ¹ For comments on the rest of this chapter, see Introd. pp. 15 f.

150. Isa. lxi. 1.

151. ² After the word "death " the Arm. has again "at that time."

152. Cf. Matt, i. 23.

153. ⁴ Or, perhaps," a cry of augury."

154. Isa. vii. 14.

155. ⁵ Cf. c. 71; and Just. M. Ap. I, 47... Dial. 118....

156. Isa. lxvi. 7.

157. ² The transposition of "son " and " child " would seem to be an oversight: see however Just. M. Ap. I, 35...: and note that the whole passage is quoted differently in c. 56 below.

158. Isa. ix. 6.

159. Gen. i. 26.

160. Isa. ix. 5 ff.

161. ³ The Arm. appears to mean "of the Risen One": but the text may be corrupt.

162. Gen. xlix. 10 f.

163. ¹ The translation is uncertain. Cf. Justin, ibid.:...

164. Cf. Ps. civ. 15. Isa. vii. 14. Isa. xxxv. 10. Isa. xi. 10. Num. xxiv. 17.

165. ⁴ So in III, ix. 2 ("dux").. The only other evidence for this seems to be Just. M. Dial. 106: LXX,...

166. Cf. Matt, ii. 1-9.

167. ¹ Cf. Protevang. Jacobi (cod. D):...: Opus Imperf. in Matth. p. 30: "venit et stetit super caput pueri." Codex Bezae has... (with vet. lat.).

168. ¹ Lit. "with spirit through the lips," as in LXX.

169. Isa. xi. 1 ff.

170. ⁴ The Arm. means "with," not "by means of." Cf. Just. M. Dial. 86... the Rod from Jesse's root is there said to be Christ.

171. ⁵ Or "body."

172. ² In V, xxxiii. 4 he discusses the same question and, while recognizing that some persons give a symbolical interpretation, he inclines to look for a literal fulfilment. Here also he finds room for both interpretations. The passage of Papias there quoted, as to the marvellous productivity of the millennial period, ends with the statement that the animals will live in peace and concord and in subjection to man. This explains the reference to the Elders in our text.

173. ¹ The Arm. text as printed gives "in my name"; but by a different division of the letters we get " in one name."

174. ² Cf. c. 38.

175. Amos ix. 11.

176. ³ Or " flesh"; and so throughout the passage.

177. ¹ Cf. Wisd. ix. 15 (R. V.): "For a corruptible body weighs down the soul, and the earthly frame... lieth heavy on a mind that is full of cares:" 2 Cor. v. I: 7)...

178. ² Matt. ii. 6 (Micah v. 2.) Irenaeus quotes the prophecy in the Matthaean form, which differs much from the LXX rendering. Moreover he agrees with Codex Bezae in reading... Justin quotes the words twice in the Matthaean form, but with the... (Ap. I, 34, Dial. 78).

179. ⁴ " My " for " thy " (LXX...) by oversight. Part of the text is quoted in III, ix. 2. See also above, c. 36.

180. ¹ Ps. cxxxii. 10 ff. The Arm. has "and their son for evermore," and nothing further.

181. ² Matt. xxi. 5 (Isa. lxii. II; Zech. ix. 9). The passage is quoted in the Matthaean form, and ascribed to Isaiah from whom the first words come. In St Matthew's Gospel it is ascribed to "the prophet," though some codices insert "Zachariah." Justin quotes it differently, Ap. I, 35, Dial. 53.

182. ³ Cf. cc. 36, 56, 95.

183. Matt. viii. 17 (Isa. liii. 4).

184. Isa. xxix. 18.

185. Isa. xxxv. ff.

186. Isa. xxvi. 19.

187. ¹ The Arm. text gives the passive ("be understood "); but doubtless the LXX... was read: the difference is only in the final letter.

188. Isa. ii. 13 ff.

189. ² The repetition in the Arm. of the word here rendered "tormented " suggests that the same Greek verb would underlie the words of the prophet ("was tormented for our sins") and of the psalmist ("And I was tormented"). But in the former case we and..., and this verb does not occur in the LXX of the Psalms. Probably the reference is to Ps. xxxviii. 8 (9),... Isa. liii. 4, 7. For the argument cf. Just. M. Ap. I, 35...

190. ¹ Isa. i. 6. Cf. c. 34.

191. Lam. iii. 30.

192. Isa. liii. f.

193. ² The Arm. word for "lamb " in this place (amaru) seems to be a Syriac loan-word: see the note in Dr. Weber's translation.

194. Isa. liii. 7. Isa. liii. 8.

195. Isa. liii. 8.

196. Lam. iv. 20.

197. ¹ Or "flesh," as elsewhere.

198. ² Cf. c. 59, ad fin.

199. ³ The words appear to mean literally: "the Spirit becoming as it were a shadow with glory and covering it (or him)."

200. ⁴ This is said of St Peter in Acts v. 15.

201. Isa. lvii. 1 f.

202. ¹ The same point about "the Just" and "just men" is made by Justin (Ap. I, 48, Dial. 110).

203. Ps. xxi. 4.

204. Ps. iii. 5.

205. Ps. ii. 1 f.

206. ¹ Pilate was procurator of Judaea for ten years (27-37). Claudius did not become emperor until A.D. 42. The statement here made is therefore inconsistent with the chronology of history: but it agrees with the view, expressed in II, xxxiii. ff., that our Lord reached aetatem seniorem, that is, an age between 40 and 50: a view which is largely based on John viii. 57: "Thou art not yet fifty years old, and hast thou seen Abraham? " For these words seemed to Irenaeus to show that He could not have been much less than fifty at the time when they were spoken. See C. H. Turner's art. "Chronology" in Hastings' Dict. of the Bible.

207. Cf. Acts iv. 25 ff.

208. ² The Armenian is here uncertain.

209. ³ Cf. c. 64 for a similar oversight.

210. Lit. "for trembling." Ps. lxxxix. 39 ff.

211. ² "Smite" is in the singular, as in cod. A of the LXX, which is here followed.

212. Zech. xiii. 7.

213. ³ Cf. c. 93, and IV, xxix. 5; "in duodecim prophetis Malachias." Often in Justin.

214. Hos. x. 6.

215. ⁴ The same interpretation is given by Justin (Dial. 103).

216. ¹ This is one of the prophecies which Justin declared the Jews had erased from their Scriptures (Dial. 72) It is quoted several times by Irenaeus: III, xxii. 1 (as from Isaiah); IV, xxxvi. i (as from Jeremiah, to whom Justin had attributed it); 1. I (an allusion only); lv. 3 ("alii autem dicentes: Rememoratus... causam reddiderunt propter quam passus est haec omnia"); V, xxxi. I (with variations, and no name of author).

217. Isa. lxv. 2.

218. ² Cf. c. 46: Barn. XII. 4: Just. M. Ap. I, 35.

219. Ps, xxii. 16.

220. ³ Ps. xxii. 14, 17. Ps. xxii. 20; cxix. 120; xxii. 16. " Nail my flesh " comes from the LXX. of Ps. cxix. 120, where A. V. has "My flesh trembleth for fear of thee." Cf. Barn. V, 13:...

221. Deut. xxviii. 66.

222. Ps. xxii. 17 f.

223. Cf. John xix. 23 f.

224. Matt, xxvii. 9 f. (Zech. xi. 13).

225. Cf. Matt. xxvi. 15.

226. ⁴ In Matt. xxvi. 15 Cod. Bezae and some other authorities have... for....

227. Cf. Matt, xxvii. 34. Joh. xix. 29.

228. Ps. lxix. 21.

229. Ps. lxviii. 17 f.

230. Eph. iv. 8.

231. Ps. xxiv. 7

232. ¹ Ps. xxiv. 8 ff. Justin's interpretation (Dial. 36) makes the humble form of our Lord's humanity... the reason why He is not at once recognized. The interpretation given by Irenaeus corresponds to that of the Ascension of Isaiah: see Introd. p. 43.

233. Ps. cx, 1.

234. Ps. xix. 6.

235. Rom. x. 15 (Isa. lii. 7).

236. Isa. ii. 3.

237. Ps. xix. 4.

238. Cf. Matt. vi. 7.

239. Rom. ix. 28 (Isa. X. 22 f.).

240. Rom. xiii. 10.

241. ¹ Matt. xxii. 37 f.; Mark xii. 30 f. For the abbreviation of the "First Commandment " cf. Just. M. Dial. 93. X.

242. Isa. l.8 f.; ii. 17.

243. Isa. lxv. 15 f.

244. Isa. lxiii. 9.

245. ² The word means more especially "to live in freedom."

246. Isa. xliii. 18ff.

247. Cf. Rom. vii. 6.

248. ⁵ Lit. "giving my laws"; cf. Heb. viii. 10.

249. Jer. xxxi. 31 ff.; Heb. viii. 8 ff.

250. ² Or " hope ": and so twice below.

251. Isa. xvii. f.

252. ³ Or " manifest," as in the quotation below.

253. Isa. lxv. 1.

254. Rom. ix. 25 f. (Hos. ii. 23, i. 10).

255. Matt. iii. 9.

256. Ezek. xi. 19 f.

257. John i. 14.

258. ³ Both the German translations take the passage to mean: "granting many children to the Church, the assembly of the firstborn." But it is hard to get this out of the Armenian text, which has "first" and not "first-born." It seems certain that there is a contrast between "the Church" and "the first Synagogue" (whose husband was the Law, as is said below). The text can easily be amended so as to give the meaning required. Cf. IV, xlviii. i. f: "duae synagogae...fructificantes...filios vivos vivo Deo "; III, vi. i: " Ecclesia, haec enim est synagoga Dei." For the quotation and its interpretation cf. Just. M. Ap. I, 53.

259. Isa. liv. 1; Gal. iv. 27.

260. Cf. Deut. xxviii. 44. Deut. xxxii. 21; Rom. x. 19.

261. Cf. Jer. ii. 8.

262. ¹ In the Arm. "who is" refers to "the Son,"

263. ² Cf. 36, 56, 66.

264. ¹ Dr Rendel Harris (Testimonies I, 66) has pointed out that this is a reminiscence of Polycarp, Ep. ad Phil....

265. Cf. Rom. xiii. 10.

266. i Cor. xiv. 20.

267. Ex. xx. 13 ff.; Deut. v. 17 ff.

268. Ex. xxi. 24.

269. ⁴ Just. M. Dial. 12...

270. Hos. vi. 6. Isa. lxvi. 3. Joel ii. 32. Cf. Acts iv. 12.

271. ADDITIONAL NOTE.----A new instalment has now appeared of the Patrologia Orientalis (XII. 5: Paris, 1919), containing a reprint of the Armenian text, with a translation into English by the discoverer, Ter-Mekerttschian, and Dr S. G. Wilson. This is followed by a much more accurate translation into French by the late Pere Barthoulout, S.J., formerly a missionary in Armenia. Among other valuable notes he points out that the opening words of c. 97 have been wrongly separated from the preceding chapter. The next sentence would then appear to mean: "He is separated and withdrawn from among men, and (yet) wheresoever," etc.

[Note to the online edition: this note appeared on p.151 of the printed text, and was presumably added after the remainder had been printed. The suggested alteration has been made in the online text. Chapter 97 in the original printed text begins: "By the invocation of the name of Jesus Christ, crucified under Pontius Pilate, there is a separation and division among mankind; and wheresoever..."]

272. Luke xviii. 27.

273. Bar. iii. 29-iv. 1.

274. ¹ Lit. " with the formation (plasma) of God."

275. Isa. i. 30.

276. ² Lit. "heads": cf. cc. 6 f.

This text was transcribed by Roger Pearse, 2003. All material on this page is in the public domain - copy freely.

Greek text is rendered using the Scholars Press SPIonic font, free from here.

Early Church Fathers - Additional Texts

SOURCE SECTION: hermias_0_epreface.htm

Hermias: Satire on pagan philosophers -- preface to the online edition

Hermias: Satire on pagan philosophers -- preface to the online edition

Very little is known about this obscure little work in Greek, the Irrisio Gentilium Philosophorum. The author is styled 'Hermias the philosopher' in his own work, but cannot be identified with any other figure of antiquity. The date at which he wrote is uncertain. His work contains no allusions by which to date it, and is not explicitly cited by any other writer in antiquity. A number of parallels have been seen in works from Tatian onwards, from the nd to the th centuries AD. But none is compelling, and in any case each parallel can mean either that Hermias used that work, or equally that the other author knew Hermias.

Biblical citations are few. The work opens with a quotation from 1 Corinthians 3:19. The only other reference is in chapter 17:12-20, where the discussion is based closely on Isiah 40:12 in the Septuagint version.

The best manuscript is the codex Patmiacus 202, belonging to the library of the monastery of St. John, Patmos. It is a parchment Ms. of the 11th-12th centuries, and became known to scholars only in 1890 when Sakkelion published a catalogue of that library. Harnack then signalled some of the variants in 1893. 15 others exist, all later. These belong to a different and inferior family, but which still has a role to play. Three of the later ones were copied by a notorious copyist, Andreas Damarios, who made around 7-8 errors in each copy he made. The work was first printed in 1553 by Ralph Seiler.

The first edition to make full use of the Patmiacus is that by a group of English scholars led by the late R.P.C. Hanson. This does not seem to have been published in English: a French translation appeared in 1993 in the Sources Chrétiennes series. This contains a very full discussion of all the issues surrounding this work, and tentatively concludes that Hermias is most safely dated to around 200 AD.

The only English translation is that by J.A. Giles, which appears here. For some reason this work was not included in the Ante-Nicene Fathers, and has not been included in any other collection of the second century writers.

Roger PEARSE

29th March 2003

Bibliography

R.P.C. HANSON, Hermias. Satire des Philosophes Païens. Introduction, texte critique, notes, appendices et index. Sources Chrétiennes 388. Paris: Cerf (1993). ISBN 2-204-04857-7.

This text was transcribed by Roger Pearse, 2003. All material on this page is in the public domain - copy freely.

Greek text is rendered using the Scholars Press SPIonic font, free from here.

Early Church Fathers - Additional Texts

SOURCE SECTION: hermias_0_preface.htm

Hermias: Derision of Gentile Philosophers -- Preface

The Writings of the Early Christians of the Second Century, namely Athenagoras,... Hermias... (1857) pp. vii, xiv

PREFACE

|vii

IV. HERMIAS.

Nothing whatever is known of Hermias, the author of this treatise. Cave refers him to the second century; but the Benedictine editor of his works thinks he may with as great probability be ascribed to the third. All agree that he was later than Justin Martyr, whose words and thoughts he occasionally imitates. The Benedictine editor considers his whole treatise to be no more than an expansion of that paragraph in Tatian's work, § 25, "You follow the doctrines of Plato," &c. (see page 102 of this volume). The name of philosopher is given to Hermias in all the manuscript copies of his work, from which it would seem that, like Justin and others, he was a Gentile philosopher who embraced Christianity.

The original Greek text of Hermias has been often printed. It first appeared at Basle, vo., 1553, at the end of DEMETRII CYDONII Oratio de contemnenda morte; and, after several intermediate editions, at the end of Worth's Tatian, vo., Oxon., 1700. But the best edition is at the end of the Benedictine Justin Martyr, fol., Paris, 1742, until the expected edition of it by Otto, to correspond with his Justin Martyr, shall be published. The present translation is the first (as far as I know) that has ever been made into the English language.

[...]

|xiv

The translation has been made from the text of Otto for Tatian; from the old Benedictine edition for Athenagoras, Theophilus, and Hermias; and from the Reliquiae Sacrae of my late venerable friend Dr. Routh, for the other twenty-one writers contained in this volume. It was originally intended to give the Apostolical Fathers in an accompanying volume, so that the present would have been vol. ii. of the work; but, as Archbishop Wake's excellent translation is easily accessible, the idea was abandoned.

J. A. GILES.

PERIVALE RECTORY, MIDDLESEX,

March 1, 1857.

[From: The Writings of the Early Christians of the Second Century, namely Athenagoras, Tatian, Theophilus, Hermias, Papias, Aristides, Quadratus, &c, collected together and first translated complete by the Rev. Dr. Giles. London: John Russell Smith (1857)]

This text was transcribed by Roger Pearse, 2003. All material on this page is in the public domain - copy freely.

Greek text is rendered using the Scholars Press SPIonic font, free from here.

Early Church Fathers - Additional Texts

SOURCE SECTION: hermias_1_satire.htm

Hermias the philosopher: His derision of Gentile philosophers

The Writings of the Early Christians of the Second Century, namely Athenagoras,... Hermias... (1857) pp. 193-199

HERMIAS THE PHILOSOPHER

DERISION OF GENTILE PHILOSOPHERS.

[Translated by J.A.Giles, 1857]

1. PAUL the blessed apostle, my beloved brethren, writing to the Corinthians who inhabit Laconian Greece, spake saying, "The wisdom of this world is folly in the sight of God" [1 Cor. iii, 19], and he said not amiss. For it seems to me to have taken its beginning from the rebellion of the angels ¹; for which cause the philosophers put forth their doctrines, saying things that neither sound the same, nor mean the same as one another. For some of them say that the soul is fire, like Democritus; air, like the Stoics; some say it is the mind; and some say it is motion, as Heraclitus ²; some say it is exhalation; some an influence flowing from the stars; some say it is number in motion, as Pythagoras; some say it is generative water, as Hippo; some say an element from elements; some say it is harmony, as Dinarchus; some say the blood, as Critias; some the breath; some say unity, as Pythagoras; and so the ancients say contrary things. How many statements are there about these things! how many attempts! how many also of sophists who carry on a strife rather than seek the truth!

2. Be it so then: they differ about the soul, but have |194 pronounced other things about it in unison: and of others, one man calls pleasure its good, another its evil, and again a third man, its middle state between good and evil. But its nature some call immortal, some mortal, and others say that it remains for a time, but others that it becomes brutalised, others divide it into atoms, others embody it three times, others assign to it periods of three thousand years. For though they do not live even an hundred years, they talk of three thousand years ³ about to come. What then must we term these things? They seem to me, to be a prodigy, or folly, or madness, or rebellion, or all these together. If they have found out anything true, let them agree together about it, or let them join together, and I then will gladly listen to them. But, if they distract the soul, and draw it, one into a different nature, another into a different being, changing one kind of matter for another; I confess I am harassed by the ebbing and flowing of the subject. At one time I am immortal and rejoice; at another time again I become mortal and weep. Anew I am dissolved into atoms: I become water, and I become air: I become fire, and then after a little, neither air, nor fire: he makes me a beast, he makes me a fish ⁴. Again then I have dolphins for my brothers; but when I look on myself, I am frightened at my body, and I know not how I shall call it, man, or dog, or wolf, or bull, or bird, or snake, or serpent, or chimaera; for I am changed by the philosophers into all the beasts, of the land, of the sea, having wings, of many forms, wild or tame, dumb or vocal, brute or reasoning: I swim, I fly, I rise aloft, I crawl, I run, I sit. But here is Empedocles, and he makes me a stump of a tree.

3. Since then it is not possible for the philosophers by agreeing together to find out the soul of man, they can scarcely be able to declare the truth about the gods or the universe. For they have this audacity, that I may not call it infatuation. For those who are not able to discover their own soul, seek into the nature of the gods themselves; and those who do not know their own body, busy themselves |195 about the nature of the world. In truth they wholly oppose one another about the principles of nature. When Anaxa-goras catches me, he teaches me thus: The beginning of all things is mind, and this is the cause and regulator of all things, and gives arrangement to things unarranged, and motion to things unmoved, and distinction to things mixed, and order to things disordered. Anaxagoras, who says these words, is my friend, and I bow to his doctrine. But against him rise up Melissus and Parmenides. Parmenides indeed, in his poetical works, proclaims that being is one, and everlasting, and endless, and immoveable, and in every way alike. Again then, I know not why I change to this doctrine: Parmenides has driven Anaxagoras out of my mind. But when I am on the point of thinking that I have now a firm doctrine, Anaximenes, catching hold of me, cries out, "But I tell you, everything is air, and this air, thickening and settling, becomes water and air; rarefying and spreading, it becomes aether and fire: but returning into its own nature, it becomes thin air: but if also it becomes condensed, (says he) it is changed." And thus again I pass over to this opinion of his, and cherish Anaximenes.

4. But Empedocles stands opposite chafing, and crying aloud from Aetna ⁵. The principles of all things are enmity and friendship, the one drawing together, the other separating; and their strife makes all things. But I define these to be, like and unlike, boundless and having bounds, things eternal, and things made. Well done, Empedocles; I follow you now even up to the craters of fire. But on the other hand stands Protagoras, and draws me aside, saying, Man is the term and arbitrement of things, and those are things that fall under sensation: but those which do not so fall are not in the forms of being. Enticed by Protagoras with this description, I am pleased, because every thing or at least the greatest part is left to man. But on the other hand Thales nods the truth to me, defining water to be the principle of all, and that all things are formed out of the moist, and are |196 resolved into the moist,, and the earth rides over the water. Why then should I not listen to Thales the elder ⁶ of the Ionians? But his countryman Anaximander himself says that eternal motion is an older principle than moisture, and that by it some things are generated, and some things perish. And so let Anaximander be our guide.

5. And is not Archelaus of good repute, who declares that the principles of the whole are heat and cold? But again in this also the grandiloquous Plato does not agree; saying that the principles are God, and matter, and example. Now then I am persuaded. For how shall I not trust a philosopher who made the chariot of Jupiter? But behind stands his disciple Aristotle, envying his master for his coach-making. He lays down other principles, to do, and to suffer; and that the active principle is the aether, which is acted on by nothing, but the passive has four qualities, drought, moisture, heat, and cold: for by the change of these into one another all things are produced and perish. We were now tired, changing up and down with the doctrines, but I will rest on the opinion of Aristotle, and let no doctrine henceforth trouble me.

6. But what can I do? For old men more ancient than these hamstring my soul: Pherecydes saying that the principles are Jupiter, and Tellus ⁷, and Saturn—Jupiter the aether, Tellus the Earth, and Saturn Time. The aether is the agent, but the earth is passive, and Time in which all created things are comprised. These old men have contentions with one another. For Leucippus, deeming all these things madness, says that the principles are boundless, motionless, and infinitesimal; and that the lighter parts going up, become fire and air, whilst the heavier parts, subsiding, become water and earth. How long am I taught such things, learning nothing true? Unless else Democritus will set me free from error, declaring that the principles are Existence and Non-existence, and that Existence is full, but Non-existence is empty ⁸; but the full affects all things by change or by order in the empty. Perhaps I might listen to good Democritus, and should like |197 to laugh with him, did not Heraclitus persuade me otherwise, at the same time weeping and saying, Fire is the principle of all things: it has two states of being, thinness and thickness: the one active, the other passive, the one blending, the other separating. This is enough for me, and I should already be drunk with so many principles: but Epicurus ⁹ calls me away from thence also, by no means to revile his good doctrine, of atoms and of emptiness. For by the varied and manifold interweaving of these, all things are born and perish.

7. I do not contradict you, my best of men, Epicurus. But Cleanthes ¹⁰, raising his head from the well, laughs at your doctrine. And myself also derive from him the true principles, God and matter; and that earth changes into water, and water into air; that the air floats, and that the fire comes to the parts near the earth, that the soul extends through all the world, of which we also, sharing a portion, have the breath of life. Which things then being thus many, another multitude throngs me out of Libya, Carneades, and Clitomachus, and all their followers, treading down all the doctrines of the others, and themselves declaring plainly, that all things are incomprehensible, and that a false imagination always hangs about the truth. What then will become of me, after having toiled so long a time? How can I deliver forth so many doctrines from my mind? For if nothing be comprehensible, truth is gone from men, and vaunted philosophy throws a shade rather than conveys a knowledge of the things that be.

8. But lo, from the old school, Pythagoras and his fellows, grave and silent men, deliver to me other doctrines, as mysteries, and among them this great and ineffable one, HE HATH SAID. The principle of all things is unity, but from its forms and numbers are produced the elements, and the number and form and measure of each of these is thus somehow declared. Fire is completed out of four-and-twenty right-angled triangles, being contained by four equilateral ones. Each equilateral one is composed of six triangles, whence also they liken it to a pyramid. But air is completed by forty-eight triangles, |198 being contained by eight equilateral ones. But it is likened to an octahedron, which is contained by eight equilateral triangles, each of which is divided into six right-angled ones, so that they are forty-eight in all. But water being contained by an hundred and twenty, is likened also to a figure having twenty sides, which indeed consists of twenty-six equal and equilateral triangles.... and... ¹¹. But the aether is completed of twelve equilateral pentagons, and is similar to a figure having twelve sides, Earth is completed of forty-eight triangles, and is also contained by six equilateral triangles, and is like a cube. For the cube is contained by six squares, each of which extends to four triangles; so that all together are twenty-four.

9. Thus Pythagoras measures the world. But I again, becoming inspired, despise my home, and my country, and my wife, and my children, and I no longer care for them, but mount up into the aether itself, and taking the cubit from Pythagoras, begin to measure the fire. For Jupiter's measuring it is not enough for me. Unless also the great animal, the great body, the great soul, MYSELF, mount into heaven, and measure the aether, the rule of Jupiter is gone. But when I have measured it, and Jupiter has learnt from me, how many angles fire has, I again go down from heaven, and eating olives, and figs and cabbage, I make the best of my way to the water, and with cubit, and digit and half-digit, measure the watery being, and calculate its depth, that I may also teach Neptune, how much sea he rules over. I pass over all the earth in one day, collecting its number and its measure and its forms. For I am persuaded that, such and so great a person as I am, of all things in the world, I shall not make a mistake of a single span. But I know both the number of the stars, and of the fishes, and of the wild beasts, and placing the world in a balance, I can easily learn its weight. About these things then my soul has been earnest until now, to have rule over all things.

10. But Epicurus, stooping towards me, says, "You have |199 measured one world, my friend; there are many and endless worlds ¹²." I am compelled then again to speak of many heavens, other aethers, and many of them. Come then, without more delay, having victualled yourself for a few days' travel into the worlds of Epicurus. I easily pass its bounds, Tethys and Oceanus. But when I have entered into a new world, and as it were into a new city, I measure the whole in a few days. And from thence I cross back into the world again, then into a fourth, and a fifth, and a tenth, and an hundredth, and a thousandth, and where will it end? For all things already are the darkness of ignorance to me, and black error, and endless wandering, and unprofitable fancy, and ignorance not to be comprehended: unless else I intend to number the very atoms also, out of which such great worlds have arisen, that I may leave nothing unexamined, especially of things so necessary and useful, from which both houses and cities prosper. These things have I gone through, wishing to point out the opposition which is in their doctrines, and how their examination of things will go on to infinity and no limit, for their end is inexplicable and useless, being confirmed neither by one manifest fact, nor by one sound argument.

|268

[Note to the online text: numbers have been added to the end notes so that they can be inserted in the text as hyperlinks]

1. Page 193, line 5. rebellion of the angels] This opinion was held by many other philosophers, and is refuted by Clemens Alexandrinus, Strom. i, pag. 310, and vi, pag. 647. It is a well-known eastern notion, and has been beautifully embodied in the writings of some of our modern poets.

2. Line 10. Heraclitus] The editors think these names of the philosophers were originally side-notes, and have been copied by mistake into the text. The Oxford editor says that the name of Heraclitus is here misplaced, and should come after exhalation, in the next line. See Plut. de Placit. Philosoph. iv, 3. |269

3. Page 194, line 9. three thousand years] In allusion to Plato's views about the three periods of three thousand years. See Phaedo, p. 248.

4. Line 21. a fish] Empedocles and Plato seem to be here meant. See Tertullian de Anima, xxxii, and Plato's Timaeus, sub fin.

5. Page 195, line 22. Empedocles] It is said that Empedocles, in order that he might utterly disappear from the sight of men and be thought immortal, leaped into the crater of Mount Etna, but that one of his shoes was cast up with the lava, and detected his design.

6. Page 196, line 2. elder] tw|~ presbute/rw| tw~n 'Iw&nwn.

7. Line 28. Jupiter and Tellus, &c.] In Greek Zeus, Chthonia, and Kronos: we use the equivalent names of the corresponding Roman deities.

8. Line 35. empty] The doctrine of the plenum and the vacuum, as it is generally termed. I prefer the plain English words, full and empty.

9. Page 197, line 6. Epicurus] The reader must be told that the doctrine of unrestrained enjoyment was promulgated, not by this eminent philosopher, but by his disciples after him, who took a corollary from his system, as the exponent of the system itself.

10. Line 11. Cleanthes] the successor of Zeno as head of the stoic school, famous for his sobriety----a water-drinker.

11. Page 198, line 7. triangle, &c.] Here is some omission or corruption in the Greek. Worth, the Oxford editor of Hermias, has tried to reconstruct the whole passage: but it is an unfruitful labour to follow him; the general idea of the doctrine is as obvious as it is absurd.

12. Page 199, line 1. endless worlds] The ancients were not wholly without a knowledge of the wonders of astronomy, and the immense number of the heavenly bodies; though it is generally believed that it was nothing in comparison with the revelations of modern science made by means of the telescope.

This text was transcribed by Roger Pearse, 2003. All material on this page is in the public domain - copy freely.

Greek text is rendered using the Scholars Press SPIonic font, free from here.

Early Church Fathers - Additional Texts

SOURCE SECTION: marcionite_prologues_01_text.htm

Anonymous, The 'Marcionite' prologues to the letters of St. Paul. From "The Gospel History and its transmission" (1906) p.355 f.

Anonymous, The 'Marcionite' prologues to the letters of St. Paul. From "The Gospel History and its transmission" (1906) p.355 f.

[Translated by F.C. Burkitt]

To the Galatians

Galatians are Greeks. These accepted the word of truth first from the apostle, but after his departure were tempted by false apostles to turn to the law and circumcision. These the apostle recalls to the faith of the truth, writing to them from Ephesus.

To the Corinthians

Corinthians are of Achaia. And these similarly heard the word of truth from the apostle and were perverted variously by false apostles, some by the wordy eloquence of philosophy, others brought in by the sect of the Jewish law. These the apostle recalls to true evangelical wisdom, writing to them from Ephesus by Timothy.

To the Romans

Romans are in the parts of Italy. These were reached beforehand by false apostles, and under the name of our Lord Jesus Christ had been brought in to the law and the prophets. These the apostle recalls to the true evangelical faith, writing to them from Corinth.

To the Thessalonians

Thessalonians are Macedonians, who having accepted the word of truth persevered in the faith even in persecution from their fellow-citizens. Moreover, also, they received not the things said by false apostles. These the apostle praises, writing to them from Athens.

To the Colossians

Colossians ---- these also like the Laodiceans are of Asia, and they had been reached beforehand by pseudo-apostles, nor did the apostle himself come to them. But these also by a letter he corrects, for they had heard the word from Archippus, who also accepted a ministry unto them. Therefore the apostle already in custody writes to them from Ephesus.

To the Philippians

Philippians are Macedonians. These having accepted the word of truth persevered in the faith, nor did they receive false apostles. These the apostle praises, writing to them from Rome out of prison by Epaphroditus.

To Philemon

To Philemon he sends a private letter for Onesimus his slave, and writes to him from Rome out of prison.

This text was transcribed by Roger Pearse, 2006. All material on this page is in the public domain - copy freely.

Greek text is rendered using unicode.

Early Church Fathers - Additional Texts

SOURCE SECTION: anti_marcionite_prologues.htm

Anonymous, The "Anti-Marcionite" prologues to the gospels

Anonymous, The "Anti-Marcionite" prologues to the gospels (2006)

[Translated by Roger Pearse]

Mark

... Mark recorded, who was called Colobodactylus ¹, because he had fingers that were too small for the height of the rest of his body. He himself was the interpreter of Peter. After the death of Peter himself, the same man wrote this gospel in the parts of Italy.

Luke

Indeed Luke was an Antiochene Syrian, a doctor by profession, a disciple of the apostles: later however he followed Paul until his martyrdom, serving the Lord blamelessly. He never had a wife, he never fathered children, and died at the age of eighty-four, full of the Holy Spirit, in Boetia. Therefore --- although gospels had already been written ---- indeed by Matthew in Judaea but by Mark in Italy ---- moved by the Holy Spirit he wrote down this gospel in the parts of Achaia, signifying in the preface that the others were written before his, but also that it was of the greatest importance for him to expound with the greatest diligence the whole series of events in his narration for the Greek believers, so that they would not be led astray by the lure of Jewish fables, or, seduced by the fables of the heretics and stupid solicitations, fall away from the truth. And so at once at the start he took up the extremely necessary [story] from the birth of John, who is the beginning of the gospel, the forerunner of our Lord Jesus Christ, and was a companion in the perfecting of the people, likewise in the introducing of baptism and a companion in martyrdom. Of this disposition the prophet Malachi, one of the twelve, certainly makes mention. And indeed afterwards the same Luke wrote the Acts of the Apostles. Later the apostle John wrote the Apocalypse on the island of Patmos, and then the Gospel in Asia.

John

The Gospel of John was revealed and given to the churches by John while still in the body, just as Papias of Hieropolis, the close disciple of John, related in the exoterics, that is, in the last five books. Indeed he wrote down the gospel, while John was dictating carefully. But the heretic Marcion, after being condemned by him because he was teaching ² the opposite to him [John], was expelled by John. But he [Marcion] had brought writings or letters to him [John] from the brothers which were in Pontus.

The translation was made from the text published by De Bruyne in Revue Bénédictine 40 (1928), p.193ff.

1. The nickname means "stumpy finger."

2. Lit. sentiebat: he was thinking.

This text was transcribed by Roger Pearse, 2006. All material on this page is in the public domain - copy freely.

Greek text is rendered using unicode.

Early Church Fathers - Additional Texts

SOURCE SECTION: origen_on_prayer_01_eintro.htm

Origen, On Prayer (Unknown date). Preface

Origen, On Prayer (Unknown date). Preface

This is a mysterious item which I found on the internet. The translator is given as William A. Curtis, who appears to have been a Scottish divine in Glasgow in the early 20th century. But the originator seems to be a Theodore J. Nottingham, who says that he obtained it from a certain Dr Charles Ashanin, who in turn obtained it from Curtis' papers. Nottingham wrote to Harry Plantinga at CCEL, offering the item thus in January 2001:

I would like to ask that you add a link to a very rare translation that has come into my possession and which is posted free on the Internet. Translated from the original Greek by a reknown (sic) Scottish scholar at the turn of the century, the manuscript of "Origen on Prayer" was passed on to my spiritual mentor, a Church Historian from the former Yugoslavia, who recently passed on. On behalf of his fifty year effort to publish this material, I have placed it, newly edited and updated, at this site: "http://tedn.hypermart.net/origen.htm". Please share it with persons interested in the great master.

The item is widely available now online. In case it vanishes, I have placed it here.

This text was written by Roger Pearse, 2017. This file and all material on this page is in the public domain - copy freely.

Early Church Fathers - Additional Texts

SOURCE SECTION: origen_on_prayer_02_text.htm

Origen, On Prayer (Unknown date). Translation.

Origen, On Prayer (Unknown date). Translation.

[Translated by William A. Curtis]

I. INTRODUCTION

Things in themselves so supremely great, so far above man, so utterly above our perishable nature, as to be impossible for the race of rational mortals to grasp, as the will of God became possible in the immeasurable abundance of the Divine grace which streams forth from God upon men, through Jesus Christ the minister of His unsurpassable grace toward us, and through the cooperant Spirit. Thus, though it is a standing impossibility for human nature to acquire Wisdom, by which all things have been established—for all things, according to David, God made in wisdom—from being impossible it becomes possible through our Lord Jesus Christ, who was made for us wisdom from God and righteousness and sanctification and redemption.

For what or who is man that he shall know the counsel of God, or who shall conceive what that Lord willeth? Since the thoughts of mortals are weakling and our purposes are prone to fail; for the body that is corruptible weighs down soul, and mind with its store of thought is burdened by it's earthly tabernacle; and things on earth we forecast with difficulty, but things in heaven whoever yet traced out? Who would not say that it is impossible for man to trace out things in heaven? Yet this impossible thing, by the surpassing grace of God, becomes possible; for he who was caught up unto a third heaven traced out things in the three heavens through having heard unutterable utterances which it was not permitted for man to speak. Who can say that it is possible for the mind of the Lord to be known by man?

But this, too, God graciously gives through Christ who said to His disciples: "No longer do I call you servants, because the servant knows not what his lord's will is, but I have called you friends, because all the things that I have heard from my Father I have made known to you; so that through Christ there is made known to them the will of one who, when He teaches them the will of the Lord, has no desire to be their lord any longer but instead becomes a friend to those whose lord he was before." Moreover, as no one knows the things of man save the Spirit of man that is in him, so also no one knows the things of God save the Spirit of God.

Now if no one knows the things of God save the Spirit of God, it is impossible that a man should know the things of God. But mark how this too becomes possible: but we, he says, have received not the spirit of the world but the spirit which is from God, that we may know the things graciously given to us by God, and these also we speak not in words taught of human wisdom but in those taught of the Spirit. But I think, right pious and industrious Ambrosius, and right discreet and manful Tatiana, from whom I avow that womanly weakness has disappeared as truly as it had from Sarah of old, you are wondering to what purpose all this has been said in preface about things impossible for man becoming possible by the grace of God, when the subject prescribed for our discourse is Prayer.

The fact is, I believe it to be itself one of those things which, judged by our weakness, are impossible, clearly to set forth with accuracy and reverence a complete account of prayer, and in particular of how prayer ought to be offered, what ought to be said to God in prayer, which seasons are more, which less, suitable for prayer... The very apostle who by reason of the abundance of the revelations is anxious that no one should account to him more than he sees or hears from him, confesses that he knows not how to pray as he ought, for what we ought to pray, he says, we know not how to as we ought. It is necessary not merely to pray but also to pray as we ought and to pray what we ought. For even though we are enabled to understand what we ought to pray, that is not adequate if we do not add to it the right manner also.

On the other hand what is the use of the right manner to us if we do not know to pray for what we ought? Of these two things the one, I mean the 'what we ought' of prayer, is the language of the prayer, while the 'as we ought' is the disposition of him who prays. Thus the former is illustrated by "Ask for the great things and the little shall be added unto you," and "Ask for the heavenly things and the earthly shall be added unto you," and "Pray for them that abuse you," and "Entreat therefore the Lord of the harvest that He send out workers unto his harvest," and "Pray that you enter not into temptation," and "Pray that your flight be not in winter or on a Sabbath," and "In praying babble not" and the like passages: the latter by "I desire therefore that men pray in ever place lifting up holy hands without anger and questioning, and in like manner that women array themselves decently in simplicity, with modesty and discretion, not in or gold or pearls or costly raiments, but, as becomes women of pious profession, through good works. Instructive too, for prayer 'as we ought' is the passage:

"If then you art offering your gift at the altar and there think you that your brother hath aught against you, leave there your gift before the altar, and go back—first be reconciled to your brother, and then come and offer your gift;" for what greater gift can be sent up to God from a rational creature than fragrant words of prayer that is offered from a conscience devoid of taint from Sin? Similarly instructive is "Deprive not one another, save by agreement for a season that you may give yourselves to prayer and may be together at another time again, in order that Satan may not have occasion to exalt over you by reason of your incontinence.

For prayer 'as we ought' is restrained unless the marriage mysteries which claim our silence be consummated with more of solemnity and deliberation and less of passion, the 'agreement' referred to in the passage obliterating the discord of passion, and destroying incontinence, and preventing Satan's malicious exultation. Yet again instructive for prayer 'as we ought' is the passage: "If you are standing at prayer, forgive aught that you have against any man;" and also the passage in Paul "Any man who prays or preaches with covered head dishonours his head, and any woman who prays or preaches with unveiled head dishonors her head" is descriptive of the right manner of prayer.

Paul knows all these sayings, and could cite, with subtle statement in each case, manifold more from law and prophets and gospel fulfillment, but in the moderation, yes, and in the truthfulness of his nature, and because he sees how much, after all of them, is lacking to knowledge of the right way to pray what he ought, he says "but what we ought to pray we know not how to as we ought," and adds thereto the source from which a man's deficiency is made up if though ignorant he has rendered himself worthy to have the deficiency made up within him:

"The Spirit himself more than intercedes with God in sighs unspeakable and He that searches hearts knows what is the mind of the Spirit, because His intercession on behalf of saints is according to God." Thus the Spirit who cries "Abba Father" in the hearts of the blessed, knowing with solicitude that their sighing in this tabernacle can but weigh down the already fallen or transgressors, "more than intercedes with God in sighs unspeakable," for the great love and sympathy He feels for men taking our sighs upon himself; and, by virtue of the wisdom that resides in Him, beholding our Soul humbled 'unto dust' and shut within the body 'of humiliation,' He employs no common sighs when He more than intercedes with God but unspeakable ones akin to the unutterable words which a man may not speak. Not content to intercede with God, this Spirit intensifies His intercession, "more than intercedes," for those who more than conquer, as I believe such as Paul was, who says "Nay in all these we more than conquer."

He simply "intercedes," I think, not for those who more than conquer, nor again for those who are conquered, but for those who conquer. Akin to the saying "what we ought to pray we know not how to as we ought, but the Spirit more than intercedes with God in sighs unspeakable," is the passage "I will pray with the Spirit, and I will pray with the understanding also: I will sing with the spirit; and I will sing with the understanding also."

For even our understanding is unable to pray unless the spirit leads it in prayer within hearing of it as it were, anymore than it can sing or hymn, with rhythmic cadence and in unison, with true measure and in harmony, the Father in Christ, unless the Spirit who searches all things even the depth of God first praise and hymn Him whose depth He has searched and, as He had the power, comprehended. I think it must have been the awakened consciousness of human weakness falling short of prayer in the right way, above all realized as he listened to great words of intimate knowledge falling from the Savior's lips in prayer to the Father, that moved one of the disciples of Jesus to say to the Lord when He ceased praying, "Lord, teach us to pray, even as John also taught his disciples." The whole train of language is as follows: "And it came to pass, as He was at prayer in a certain place, that one of His disciples said to Him when He ceased "Lord, teach us to pray even as John also taught his disciples."

For is it conceivable that a man who had been brought up under instruction in the law and hearing of the words of the prophets and was no stranger to the synagogue had no knowledge whatsoever of prayer until he saw the Lord praying in a certain place? It is absurd to pretend that he was one who did pray after the Jewish practice but saw that he needed fuller knowledge as to the place in reference to prayer. What was it, too, in reference to prayer that John used to teach the disciples who came to him for baptism from Jerusalem and all Judea and the country round about, but certain things of which, as one who was greater than a prophet, he had vision in reference to prayer, which I believe he would not deliver to all who were baptized but privately to those who were disciples with a view to baptism?

Such are the prayers, which are really spiritual because the spirit was praying in the heart of the saints, recorded in scripture, and they are full of unutterably wonderful declarations. In the first book of Kings there is the prayer of Hannah, partially, because the whole of it was not committed to writing since she was 'speaking in her heart' when she perservered in prayer before the Lord; and in Psalms, the seventeenth psalm is entitled "A prayer of David," and the ninetieth "A prayer of Moses, man of God," and the hundred and second "A prayer of a poor man at a time he is weary and pours forth his supplication before the Lord."

These are prayers which, because truly prayers made and spoken with the spirit, are also full of the declarations of the wisdom of God, so that one may say of the truths they proclaim "Who is wise that he shall understand them? And understanding, then he shall fully know them." Since therefore it is so great an undertaking to write about prayer, in order to think and speak worthily of so great a subject, we need the special illumination of the Father, and the teaching of the first born Word himself, and the inward working of the Spirit, I pray as a man—for I by no means attribute to myself any capacity for prayer—that I may obtain the Spirit of prayer before I discourse upon it, and I entreat that a discourse full and spiritual may be granted to us and that the prayers recorded in the Gospels may be elucidated.

So let us now begin our discourse on Prayer.

II. SCRIPTURAL USES OF THE GENERAL WORDS FOR PRAYER

So far as I have observed, the first instance of the term prayer that I find is when Jacob, a fugitive from his brother Esau's wrath, was on his way to Mesopotamia at the suggestion of Isaac and Rebecca. The passage runs: And Jacob vowed a vow (prayed a prayer), saying—If the Lord God will be with me, and guard me in this way that I am going, and give me bread to eat and raiment to put on, and bring me back in safety to my father's house, then shall the Lord be my God and this stone which I have set up as a pillar shall be for me God's house, and of all that you will give me I will give you tithe.

It should also to be remarked that the term prayer is in many places is different from prayer as we speak of it—as when applied in the case of one who professes that he will do certain things in exchange for obtaining certain other things from God. The expression prayer is, however, employed in our usual sense [in early texts]. Thus in Exodus after the scourge of frogs, the second in order of the ten, "Pharaoh called for Moses and Aaron and said to them: Pray unto the Lord for me that He withdraw the frogs from me and from my people; and I will send the people forth that they may sacrifice to the Lord."

And if, because Pharaoh's word is aw-thar' anyone should be sceptical as to aw-thar' meaning here prayer as well as vow, he should observe what follows: "Moses said to Pharaoh, 'Kindly tell me when I am to pray (aw-thar') for you and for your officials and for your people, that the frogs may be removed from you and your houses and be left only in the Nile.'" In the case of the fleas, the third scourge, I have observed that neither does Pharaoh entreat that prayer be made nor does Moses pray. In the case of the flies, the fourth, he says: Pray therefore unto the Lord for me.

Then Moses also said: I will go out from you and pray unto God and the flies shall go away from Pharaoh and his servants and his people tomorrow. And shortly after: So Moses went out from Pharaoh and prayed unto God. Again in the case of the fifth and the sixth scourge neither did Pharaoh entreat that prayer should be made nor did Moses pray, but in the case of the seventh Pharaoh sent and called for Moses and Aaron and said to them: I have sinned this time; the Lord is righteous, I and my people are impious. Therefore pray unto the Lord that there be an end of thunder and hail and fire. And shortly after: Moses went out from Pharaoh outside the city, and stretched forth his hands unto the Lord and there was an end to the thunder. Why is it not as in the foregoing cases?

And he prayed, but he stretched forth his hands unto the Lord. That is a question to be considered more conveniently elsewhere. In the case of the eighth scourge, however, Pharaoh says... and pray (aw-thar') to the LORD your God that at the least he remove this deadly thing from me." So Moses went out from Pharaoh and prayed (aw-thar') unto God. We said that the term prayer (aw-thar') is, as in Jacob's case, in many places employed in a sense other than the customary. In Leviticus for instance: The Lord spoke to Moses saying: Speak to the children of Israel; and you shall say unto them:

Whoever vows (naw-dar') a vow (neh'-der), setting a price upon his soul to the Lord, his price, if a male from twenty to sixty years, shall be fifty didrachims of silver, sanctuary standard. And in Numbers: And the Lord spoke to Moses saying: Speak to the Children of Israel; and you shall say unto them: Man or woman, whoever vows (naw-dar') a great vow of consecration to the Lord, shall be consecrate from wine and strong drink—and so on of the so-called Nazarite; then, shortly after: and shall hallow his head in that day in which he was hallowed to the Lord for the days of the vow.

And again shortly after: This is the law for him that has vowed when he shall have fulfilled the days of his vow...; and again shortly after: And after that, he that has vowed will drink wine. This is the law for him that has vowed, whoever has vowed his votive gift to the Lord, apart from what his hand may find by virtue of his vow which he has vowed according to the law of consecration. And towards the end of Numbers: And Moses spoke to the rulers of the tribes of the Children of Israel saying, This is the thing which the Lord has decreed: A man who has vowed a vow to the Lord or sworn an oath or entered a bond, on his soul shall not desecrate his word: all that has gone out of his mouth shall he do.

And if a woman has vowed a vow to the Lord or entered a bond in the house of her father in her youth, and her father has heard her vows and her bonds that she entered into against her soul, and her father has let them pass in silence, all her vows shall stand, and her bonds that she entered into against her soul shall remain: after which he lays down sundry other laws for such a woman. In this sense it is written in Proverbs: [I have a peace offering: today I pay my vows; and a foolish son is a father's shame: unhallowed are vows from a harlot's hire; and] it is a snare to a man to hallow hastily anything of his own: for after vowing comes repenting.

And in Ecclesiastes: Better not vow than vow without paying; and in the Acts of the Apostles: There are among us four men of their own accord under a vow. I thought it not out of place first to distinguish the meaning of prayer (aw-thar') in its two senses, and similarly of prayer (neh'-der), for the latter turn in addition to its common and customary general usage, is also employed, in the sense which we are accustomed to attach to vow in what is told of Hannah in the first book of Samuel: Now Eli the priest was sitting on a seat at the doorway of the temple of the Lord.

And she was in bitterness of soul and prayed (paw-lal') unto the Lord and wept sore. And she vowed (naw-dar') a vow (neh'-der) and said: O Lord of hosts, if you will indeed look on the humiliation of your bondwoman and remember me and forget not your bondwoman and will give to your bondwoman male seed, then will I give him in gift to the Lord all the days of his life, and no razor shall come upon his head. And yet in this instance, one may, not without plausibility, with special regard to the words "she prayed (paw-lal') unto the Lord," "and she vowed a vow," Ask whether, as she has done both of two things, that is "prayed unto the Lord" "and vowed a vow," the word prayed ( paw-lal') on the one hand is not employed in our customary signification of prayer (aw-thar'), and "vowed a vow" on the other hand in the sense in which it is employed in Leviticus and Numbers.

For "I will give him in gift to the Lord all the days of his life, and no razor shall come upon his head" is strictly not a prayer but such a vow as Jephthah also vowed in the passage; and Jephthah vowed a vow to the Lord and said: If you will indeed deliver the children of Ammon into my hand, then it shall be that whoever comes out of the doors of my house to meet me on my return in peace from the Children of Ammon shall be the Lord's and I will offer him up as a burnt offering.

III. OBJECTIONS TO PRAYER

If then I must next, as you have urged, set forth in the first place the arguments of those who told that nothing is accomplished as a result of prayers and therefore allege that prayer is superfluous, I shall not hesitate to do that also according to my ability—the term prayer being now used in its more common and general sense. In such disrepute indeed is the view and to such a degree has it failed to obtain champions of distinction that, among those who admit a Providence and set a God over the universe, not a soul can be found who does not believe in prayer.

The opinion (sentiment) belongs either to utter atheists who deny the existence of God, or assume a God, as far as the name goes, but deprive Him of providence. Already, it must be said, the adverse inworking, with intent to wrap the most impious of opinions around the name of Christ and around the teaching of the Son of God, has made some converts on the needlessness of prayer—a sentiment which find champions in those who by every means do away with outward forms, eschewing baptism and eucharist alike, misrepresenting the Scriptures as not actually meaning this that we call prayer but as teaching something quite different from it.

Those who reject prayers, while, that is to say, setting a God over the universe and affirming Providence—for it is not my present task to consider the statements of those who by every means do away with a God or Providence—might reason as follows: God knows all things before they come to be. There is nothing that upon its entrance into existence is then first known by Him as previously unknown. What need to send up prayer to One who, even before we pray, knows what things we have need of? For the heavenly Father knows what things we have need of before we ask Him.

It is reasonable to believe that as Father and Artificer of the universe who loves all things that are and abhors nothing that He has made, quite apart from prayer He safely manages the affairs of each like a father who champions his infant children without awaiting their entreaty when they are either utterly incapable of asking or through ignorance often desirous of getting the opposite of what is to their profit and advantage. We men come further short of God even than the merest children of the intelligence of their parents. And in all likelihood the things that are to be are not only foreknown but prearranged by God, and nothing takes place contrary to His prearrangement. Were anyone to pray for sunrise he would be thought a simpleton for entreating through prayer for the occurrence of what was to take place quite apart from his prayer: In like manner a man would be a fool to believe that his prayer was responsible for the occurrence of what was to take place in any case even had he never prayed.

And again, as it is the height of madness to imagine that, because one suffers discomfort and fever under the sun at Summer Solstice, the Sun is through prayer to be transferred to the Springtime Zodiac, in order that one may have the benefit of temperate air, so it would be the height of infatuation to imagine that by reason of prayer one would not experience the misfortunes that meet the race of men by necessity. Moreover, if it be true that sinners are estranged from birth and the righteous man has been set apart from his mother's womb, and if, while as yet they are unborn and have done neither good nor evil, it is said the elder shall serve the younger, that the elective purpose of God may stand based not on works but on the Caller, it is in vain that we entreat for forgiveness of sins or to receive a spirit of strength to the end that, Christ empowering us, we may have strength for all things.

If we are sinners, we are estranged from birth: if on the other hand we were set apart from our mother's womb, the best of things will come our way even though we do not pray. It is prophesied before his birth that Jacob shall be over Esau and that his brother shall serve him: what has prayer to do with that? Of what impiety is Esau guilty that he is hated before his birth? To what purpose does Moses pray, as is found in the ninetieth psalm, if God is his refuge since before the mountains were settled and the earth and world were formed. Besides, of all that are to be saved, it is recorded in the Epistle to Ephesians that the Father elected them in Him, in Christ, before the world's foundation, that they should be holy and blameless before Him, preordaining them unto adoption as His sons through Christ.

Either, therefore, a man is elect, of the number of those who are so since before the world's foundation, and can by no means fall from his election in which case he has therefore no need of prayer; or he is not elect nor yet preordained, in which case he prays in vain, since, though he should pray ten thousand times, he will not be listened to. For whom God foreknew, them He also preordained to conformity with the image of His Son's glory; and whom He preordained, them He also called; and whom He called, them He also justified; and whom He justified, them He also glorified.

Why is Josiah distressed, or why has he anxiety as to whether or not he will be listened to in prayer, when, many generations before, he was prophesied by name and his future action not only foreknown but foretold in the hearing of many. To what purpose, too, does Judas pray with the result that even his prayer turned to sin, when from David's times it is pre-announced that he will lose his overseership, another receiving it in his stead.

It is self-evidently absurd, God being unchangeable and having pre-comprehended all things and adhering to His prearrangements, to pray in the belief that through prayer one will change His purpose, or, as though He had not already prearranged but awaited each individual's prayer, to make intercession that He may arrange what suits the supplicant by reason of his prayer, there and then appointing what He approves as reasonable though He has previously not contemplated it. At this point the propositions you formulated in your letter to me may be set down word for word thus: Firstly, if God is foreknower of the future and it must come to pass, prayer is vain. Secondly, if all things come to pass by virtue of God's will, and His decrees are fixed, and nothing that He wills can be changed, prayer is vain. Towards a solution of the difficulties which benumb the instinct of prayer, the following, as I believe, helpful considerations may be advanced.

IV. ANSWER TO OBJECTIONS: MAN'S FREEWILL AND GOD'S FOREKNOWLEDGE

Of objects that move, some have the cause of motion outside them. Such are objects which are lifeless and in passive motion simply by force of condition, and those which are moved by force of nature and of life in the same manner and not like things which move occasionally, for stones and stocks that have been quarried or cut off from growth, being in passive motion simply by force of condition, have the cause of motion outside them.

Such too are dead bodies of animals and movable parts of plants, which change position under compulsion and not as animals and plants themselves change their position but in the same manner as stones and stocks cut off from growth—although even these may be said to move in respect that, all bodies in decay being in flux, they possess the motion inherently attendant upon decay. Besides these a second class of moving objects are those which move by force of their internal nature or life, which are said by those who use terms in their stricter sense to move of themselves.

A third kind of movement is that in animals, which is termed spontaneous movement, whereas, in my opinion, the movement of rational beings is independent movement. If we withdraw from an animal spontaneous movement, it cannot be any longer conceived as even an animal; it will be like either a plant moving by mere force of nature or a stone borne along by some force external to it: Whenever an object follows its own peculiar movement, since that is what we have termed independent movement, it must needs be rational. Thinkers therefore who will have it that nothing is in our power, will necessarily assent to a most foolish statement, firstly that we are not animals, and secondly that neither are we rational beings, but that, what we are believed to do, we may be said to do by force as it were of some external cause of motion and in no sense moving ourselves.

Let anyone, moreover, with special regard to his own feelings, see whether without shame he can deny that it is himself that wills, eats, walks, gives assent to and accepts certain opinions, dissents from others as false. There are certain opinions to which a man cannot possibly assent though he puts them with innumerable refinements of argument and with plausible reasoning: and similarly it is impossible to assent to any view of human affairs in which our free will is in no sense preserved.

Who assents to the view that nothing is comprehensible, or lives as in complete suspense of judgement: Who that has received a sense perception of a domestic misdeed, forebears to reprove the servant? And who is there that does not censure a son who fails to pay the duty owed to parents, or does not blame and find fault with an adulteress as having committed a shameful act? Truth forces and compels us, in spite of innumerable refinements, to impulsive praise and blame, on the basis of our retention of free will with the responsibility in which it involves us.

If our free will is in truth preserved with innumerable inclinations towards virtue or vice, towards either duty or its opposite, its future must like other things have been known by God, before coming to pass, from the world's creation and foundation; and in all things prearranged by God in accordance with what He has seen of each act of our free wills. He has with due regard to each movement of our free wills prearranged what also is at once to occur in His providence and to take place according to the train of future events. God's foreknowledge is not the cause of all future events including those that are to have their efficient cause in our freewill guided by impulse.

Even though we should suppose God ignorant of the future, we shall not on that account be incapacitated for effecting this and willing that. Rather it ensues from His foreknowledge that our individual free wills receive adjustment to suit the universal arrangement needful for the constitution of the world. If, therefore, our individual free wills have been known by Him, and if in His providence He has on that account been careful to make due arrangement for each one, it is reasonable to believe that He has also pre-comprehended what a particular man is to pray in that faith, what his disposition, and what his desire.

That being so, in His arrangement it will accordingly have been ordained somewhat after this wise: This man I will hear for the sake of the prayer that he will pray, because he will pray wisely: but that man I will not hear, either because he will be unworthy of being heard, or because his prayer will be for things neither profitable for the suppliant to receive nor becoming me to bestow: and in the case of this prayer, of some particular person, let us say, I will not hear him, but in the case of that I will.

Should the fact of God's unerring foreknowledge of the future disquiet anyone by suggesting that things have been necessarily determined, we must tell him that it is a real part of God's fixed knowledge that a particular man will not with any fixed certainty choose the better or so desire the worse as to become incapable of a change for his good. And again I will do this for this man when he prays, as becomes me seeing that he will pray without reproach and will not be negligent in prayer: upon that man who will pray for a certain amount, I will bestow this abundantly in excess of his asking or thinking, for it becomes me to surpass him in well doing and to furnish more than he has been capable of asking.

To this other man of a particular character I will send this angel as minister, to cooperate from a certain time in his salvation and to be with him for a certain period: to that other, who will be a better man than he, that angel of higher rank than his. From this man who, after having devoted himself to the higher views will gradually relax and fall back upon the more material, I will withdraw this superior cooperator, upon whose withdrawal that duly inferior power, having found an opportunity to get at his slackness, will set upon him and when he has given himself up in readiness to sin, will incite him to these particular sins. So we may imagine the Prearranger of All saying:

Amos will beget Josiah, who will not emulate his father's faults but will find his way leading on to virtue, and will by aid of these companions be noble and good, so that he will tear down the evilly erected altar of Jeroboam. I also know that Judas, in the sojourn of my son among the race of men, will at the first be noble and good but later turn aside and fall away to human sins so that he will rightly suffer thus for them. This foreknowledge, it may be in regard to all things, certainly in regard to Judas and other mysteries, exists in the Son of God also, who in His discernment of the evolution of the future has seen Judas and the sins to be committed by him, so that, even before Judas came into existence, He in His comprehension has said through David the words beginning "O God, keep you not silence at my praise."—Knowing as I do the future and what an influence Paul will have in the cause of religion, ere yet I set me to begin creation and found the world I will make choice of him: I will commit him from the moment of his birth to these powers that cooperate in men's salvation.

I will set him apart from his mother's womb. I will permit him at the first to fall in youth into an ignorant zeal and in the avowed cause of religion to persecute believers in my Christ and to keep the garments of them that stone my servant and witness Stephen, so that later at the close of his youthful wilfulness he may be given a fresh start and change for the best and yet not boast before me but may say: "I am not fit to be called an apostle, because I persecuted the church of God," and realizing the kindness that he will receive from me after his faults committed in youth in the avowed cause of religion may declare "It is by God's grace that I am what I am"; and, being restrained by conscience by reason of the deeds he wrought while still young against Christ, he will not be excessively elated by the exceeding abundance of the revelations which in kindness I shall show him.

To the objection in reference to prayer for the rising of the Sun we may reply as follows. The Sun also possesses a certain free will, since he with the moon joins in praising God, for "Praise Him, Sun and Moon" it says: as also manifestly the moon and all the stars conformably, for it says "Praise Him all the stars and light." As, therefore, we have said that God has employed the free will of individual beings on earth for the service of beings on earth in arranging them aright, so we may suppose that He has employed the free will, fixed and certain and steadfast and wise as it is, of sun, moon and stars in arranging the whole world of heaven with the course and movement of the stars in harmony with the whole.

If I do not pray in vain for what concerns any other freewill, much more shall I pray for what concerns the freewill of the stars which tread in heaven their world-conserving measures. It may indeed be said of beings on earth that certain appearances in our surroundings call out now our instability, now our better inclination to act or speak in certain ways: but in the case of beings in heaven what appearances can interpose to oust and remove from the course that benefit the world beings which have each a life so adjusted by Reason independently of them, and which enjoy so ethereal and supremely pure a frame?

V. ANSWER TO OBJECTIONS: CONDITIONS NECESSARY TO PRAYER

With a view to impel men to pray and to turn them from neglect of prayer, we may not unreasonably further use an illustration such as this. Just as, apart from woman and apart from recourse to the function requisite for procreation, man cannot procreate, so one may not obtain certain things without prayer in a certain manner, with a certain disposition, with a certain faith, after a certain antecedent mode of life. Thus we are not to babble or ask for little things or pray for earthly things or enter upon prayer with anger and with thoughts disturbed.

Nor again is it possible to think of giving oneself to prayer apart from purification. Nor again is forgiveness of sins possible to the supplicant unless from the heart he forgives his brother who has done wrong and entreats him to obtain his pardon. That benefit accrues to him who prays rightly or according to his ability strives to do so, follows, I consider, in many ways: It is, first of all, surely in every sense a spiritual advantage to him who is intent upon prayer, in the very composure of prayer to present himself to God and in His presence to speak to Him with a vivid sense that he looks on and is present. For just as certain mental images and particular recollections connected with the objects recollected may sully the thoughts suggested by certain other images, in the same way we may believe that it is advantageous to remember God as the object of our faith—the One who discerns the movements within the inner sanctuary of the soul as it disposes itself to please the Examiner of Hearts and Inquisitor of Reins as One who is present and beholds and penetrates into every mind.

Even though further benefit than this be supposed to accrue to him who has composed his thoughts for prayer, no ordinary gain is to be conceived as gotten by one who has devoutly disposed himself in the season of prayer. When this is regularly practiced, how many sins it keeps us from, and how many achievements it brings us to, is known only to those who have given themselves up with some degree of constancy to prayer.

For if the recollection and recontemplation of a man who has found fame and benefit in wisdom incites us to evaluate him and sometimes restrains our lower impulses, how much more does the recollection of God the Father of All, along with prayer to Him, become advantageous to those who are persuaded that they stand before and speak to a present and hearing God!

What I have said may be established from the divine scriptures in the following way. He who prays must lift up holy hands, forgiving everyone who has wronged him, with the passion of anger banished from his soul and in wrath with none. And again, to prevent his mind from being made turbid by irrelevant thoughts, he must while at prayer forget for the time everything outside prayer—surely a state of supreme blessedness! As Paul teaches in the first Epistle to Timothy when he says: "I desire therefore that men pray in every place lifting up holy hands without anger and disputations. And further, a woman ought, most of all at prayer, to preserve simplicity and decency in soul and body, above all and especially while she prays reverencing God and expelling from her intellect every wanton womanish recollection, arrayed not in chaplets and gold or pearls or costly raiment, but in the things in which it becomes a woman of pious profession to be arrayed, (and I marvel that anyone should hesitate, were it on the strength of such a condition alone, to pronounce her blessed who has thus presented herself for prayer) as Paul has taught in the same Epistle when he says, "in like manner that women array themselves decently in simplicity with modesty and discretion, not in chaplets and gold or pearls or costly raiment, but, as becomes woman of pious profession, through good works." ( Tim.2:9)

And besides, the prophet David speaks of much else that the saint possesses in prayer. We may, not irreverently, cite these passages as showing that, even if this alone be considered, the attitude and preparation for prayer of one who has offered himself to God is of the highest benefit. He says: "Unto you have I lifted mine eyes, who dwellest in heaven and unto you have I lifted my soul, O God." For when the eyes of thought are lifted up from dwelling on earthly things and being filled with the imagination of material objects, and are elevated to such a height as to look beyond begotten things and to be engaged solely in contemplation of God and in solemn converse with Him becoming to the Hearer.

Surely those eyes themselves have already got the highest advantage in reflecting the glory of the Lord with face unveiled and being transformed into the same image from glory to glory, for they then partake of a certain divine perception shown by the words: "the light of your face, O Lord, hath been signalized upon us." (Ps.4:6) And indeed the soul being lifted up, and parting from body to follow spirit, and not only following the spirit but also merging in it, as is shown by the words "Unto you have I lifted my soul," is surely already putting off its existence as soul and becoming spiritual. And if forgiveness is a very high accomplishment, so high as according to the prophet Jeremiah to embrace a summary of the whole law, for he says, "I laid not those commands upon your fathers as they were gone forth from Egypt, but this command I laid:

Let each man not be unforgiving to his neighbor in his heart," and if in entering upon prayer with unforgiveness left behind us we keep the Savior's command, "If you're standing at prayer forgive aught that you have against any man." (Mk.11:25) It is plain that those who stand in that temper to pray have already received the best of possessions.

VI. ANSWER TO OBJECTIONS: HE WHO PRAYS PRAYS NOT ALONE

So far, I have said that, even on the supposition that nothing else is going to follow our prayer, we receive the best of gains when we have come to perceive the right way to pray and when we achieve it. But it is certain that he who thus prays, having previously cast aside all discontent with Providence, will, if intent to mark the inworking of the Hearer, in the very act hear the response "Here am I."

The above condition is expressed in the words "If you withdraw your bonds and protests and murmuring utterance," for he that is content with what comes to pass becomes free from every bond, and does not protest against God for ordaining what He wills for our discipline, and does not even in the secrecy of his thoughts murmur inaudibly; for they who murmur thus, not daring to abuse Providence roundly for what occurs with voice and soul but desiring as it were to escape the observation even of the Lord of All in their discontent, are like bad domestics who rail, but not openly, against their masters' orders.

And I think the same thing is meant in the passage in Job: "In all these ocurrences Job sinned not with his lips in the sight of God"; and it is just this that the saying in Deuteronomy enjoins must not happen, when it says: "Take heed lest a secret utterance be ever in your heart to break the law, saying the seventh year draws nigh" and so on. So then he who prays thus, becomes, as already so greatly benefited, more fit to mingle with the Spirit of the Lord that fills the whole world and fills all the earth and the heaven and says by the prophet: "'Do not I fill the heaven and the earth?' says the Lord."

And further, through the afore mentioned purification as well as through prayer, he will enjoy the good office of the Word of God, who is standing in the midst even of those who do not know Him and who fails the prayer of none, to pray to the Father along with Him for whom He mediates. For the Son of God is high priest of our offerings and our pleader with the Father. He prays for those who pray, and pleads along with those who plead. He will not, however, consent to pray, as for his intimates, on behalf of those who do not with some constancy pray through Him, nor will he be Pleader with the Father, as for men already His own, on behalf of those who do not obey His teaching to the effect that they ought at all times to pray and not lose heart.

For it says, "He spoke a parable to the end that they ought at all times to pray and not lose heart. 'There was a certain judge in a certain city,'" and so on; and earlier he said unto them, "Who of you shall have a friend, and shall go unto him at midnight and shall say to him:

Friend, lend me three loaves since a friend of mine has come to me after a journey and I have naught to set before him"; and a little later, "I tell you, even though he will not rise and give him because he is his friend, he will yet because of his being unabashed get up and give him as many as he wants." And who that believes the guileless lips of Jesus can but be stirred to unhesitating prayer when He says, "Ask and it shall be given you for everyone that asks receives," since the kind Father gives to those who have received the spirit of adoption from the Father, the living bread when we ask Him, not the stone which the adversary would have become food for Jesus and His disciples, and since The Father gives the good gift in rain from heaven to those that ask him.

But these pray along with those who genuinely pray—not only the high priest but also the angels who "rejoice in heaven over one repenting sinner more than over ninety-nine righteous that need not repentance," and also the souls of the saints already at rest. Two instances make this plain. The first is where Raphael offers their service to God for Tobit and Sarah. After both had prayed, the scripture says, "The prayer of both was heard before the presence of the great Raphael and he was sent to heal them both," and Raphael himself, when explaining his angelic commission at God's command to help them, says:

"Even now when you prayed, and Sarah your daughter-in-law, I brought the memorial of your prayer before the Holy One," and shortly after, "I am Raphael, one of the Seven angels who present the prayers of saints and enter in before the glory of the Holy One. Thus, according to Raphael's account at least, prayer with fasting and almsgiving and righteousness is a good thing.

The second instance is in the Books of the Maccabees where Jeremiah appears in exceeding "white haired glory" so that a wondrous and most majestic authority was about him, and stretches forth his right hand and delivers to Judas a golden sword, and there witnesses to him another saint already at rest saying, "This is he who prays much for the people and the sacred city, God's prophet Jeremiah." For it is absurd when knowledge, though manifested to the worthy through a mirror and in a riddle for the present, is then revealed face to face not to think that the like is true of all other excellences as well, that they who prepare in this life beforehand are made strictly perfect then.

Now one of these excellences in the strictest sense according to the divine word is love for one's neighbor, and this accordingly we are compelled to think of as possessed in a far higher degree by saints already at rest than by those who are in human weakness and wrestle on along with the weaker. It is not only here that "if one member suffers, all the members suffer with it and if one member is glorified, all the members rejoice with it" in the experience of those who love their brethren, for it beseems the love also of those who are beyond the present life to say "I have anxiety for all the churches:

Who is weak and I am not weak? Who is made to stumble and I do not burn?" Especially when Christ avows that according as such one of the saints may be weak, He is weak in like manner, and in prison and naked and a stranger and hungry and athirst. For who that reads the gospel is ignorant that Christ, in taking on himself whatever befalls believers, counts their sufferings His own?

And if angels of God came to Jesus and ministered to Him, and if we are not to think of the ministry of the angels to Jesus as having been limited to the brief space of His bodily sojourn among men while He was still in the midst of believers not as one that reclined at table but as one that ministered, how many angels, I wonder, must now be ministering to Jesus when He would "bring together the Children of Israel one by one" and gather them from the dispersion, saving those who fear God and call upon Him, and must be cooperating more than the apostles in the increase and enlargement of the church! Thus in John certain angels are spoken of in the Apocalypse as actually presiding over the churches.

Not in vain do angels of God ascend and descend unto the Son of Man, beheld of eyes that have been enlightened with the light of knowledge. In the very season of prayer, accordingly, being reminded by the suppliant of his needs, they satisfy them as they have ability by virtue of their general commission. To further the acceptance of our view we may make use of some such image as the following in support of this argument.

Suppose that a righteously minded physician is at the side of a sick man praying for health, with knowledge of the right mode of treatment for the disease about which the man is offering prayer. It is manifest that he will be moved to heal the suppliant, surmising, it may well be not idly, that God has had this very action in mind in answer to the prayer of the suppliant for release from the disease. Or suppose that a man of considerable means, who is generous, hears the prayer of a poor man offering intercession to God for his wants. It is plain that he, too, will fulfil the objects of the poor man's prayer, becoming a minister of the fatherly counsel of Him who at the season of the prayer had brought together him who was to pray and him who was able to supply and by virtue of the rightness of his principles, incapable of overlooking one who has made that particular request.

As therefore we are not to believe that these events are fortuitous, when they take place because He who has numbered all the hairs of the head of saints, has aptly brought together at the season of the prayer the hearer who is to be minister of His benefaction to the suppliant and the man who has made his request in faith; so we may surmise that the presence of the angels who exercise oversight and ministry for God is sometimes brought into conjunction with a particular suppliant in order that they may join in breathing his petitions.

Nay more, beholding ever the face of the Father in heaven and looking on the Godhead of our Creator, the angel of each man, even of "little ones" within the church, both prays with us, and acts with us where possible, for the objects of our prayer.

VII. ANSWER TO OBJECTIONS: THE TRUE PLACE OF PRAYER IN MAN'S LIFE

Again I believe the words of the prayer of the saints to be full of power above all when praying "with the spirit," they pray "also with the understanding," which is like a light rising from the suppliant's mind and proceeding from his lips to gradually weaken by the power of God the mental venom injected by the adverse powers into the intellect of such as neglect prayer and fail to keep that saying of Paul's in accordance with the exhortations of Jesus, "Pray without ceasing." For it is as if a dart from the suppliant's soul, sped by knowledge and reason or by faith, proceeds from the saint and wounds to their destruction and dissolution the spirits adverse to God and desirous of casting round us the bonds of sin.

Now, since the performance of actions enjoined by virtue or by the commandments is also a constituent part of prayer, he prays without ceasing who combines prayer with right actions, and becoming actions with prayer. For the saying "pray without ceasing" can only be accepted by us as a possibility if we may speak of the whole life of a saint as one great continuous prayer.

Of such prayer what is usually termed prayer is indeed a part, and ought to be performed at least three times each day, as is plain from the account of Daniel who, in spite of the grave danger that impended, prayed three times daily. Peter furnishes an instance of the middle prayer of the three when he goes up to the housetop about the sixth hour to pray on that occasion on which he also saw the vessel which descended from heaven let down by four corners. The first is spoken of by David: "In the morning shall you hear my prayer: in the morning will I present myself to you and keep watch."

The last is indicated in the words: "the lifting up of my hands in evening sacrifice." Indeed we shall not rightly speak even the season of night without such prayer as David refers to when he says "at midnight I arose to make acknowledgment to you for your righteous judgments" and as Paul exemplifies when, as it is said in the Acts of the Apostles, along with Silas he offers prayer and praise to God "about midnight" in Phillipi so that the prisoners also heard them.

VIII. ANSWER TO OBJECTIONS: SIGNAL INSTANCES OF PRAYER

If Jesus prays and does not pray in vain, if He obtains His requests through prayer and it may be would not have received them without prayer, who of us is to neglect prayer? Mark tells us that "in the morning long before daybreak he arose and went out and departed to a lonely place and there prayed." Luke says: "And it came to pass, as He was at prayer in a certain place, that one of His disciples said to Him when He ceased,... and elsewhere: And He passed the night in prayer to God." John records a prayer of Him in the words:

"These things spoke Jesus, and lifting up His eyes unto heaven He said, 'Father the hour is come; glorify your Son that your Son may also glorify you.'" And the Lord's saying, "I knew that you hear me always," recorded in the same writer shows that it is because He is always praying that He is always heard.

What need is there to tell the tale of those who, through right prayer, have obtained the greatest of things from God, when it is open to everyone to select any number of them for himself from the Scriptures? Hannah did service to the birth of Samuel, who is numbered along with Moses, because though barren she prayed in faith unto the Lord. Hezekiah, who while still childless learned from Isaiah that he was about to die, is included in the Savior's genealogy because he prayed. When the people were already on the point of perishing under a single decree as the result of Haman's conspiracy, it was the heard prayer with fasting of Mordecai and Esther that added to the Mosaic festivals and gave rise to the Mordecaic day of rejoicing for the people.

It was, moreover, after offering holy prayer that Judith with God's help overcame Holophernes, and thus a single woman of the Hebrews wrought shame upon the house of Nebuchadnezzar. It was on being heard that Ananiah and Azariah and Mishael became worthy to receive a hissing rain and wind which kept the flame of the fire from taking effect. Through Daniel's prayers the lions in the Babylonians' pit were muzzled.

Even Jonah, because he did not despair of being heard from the belly of the monster that had swallowed him, was able to quit the monster's belly and complete his interrupted prophet's mission to the Ninevites. And further, how many things could each of us recount should he choose to recall with gratitude the benefits conferred upon him and to offer praise to God for them! Souls that have long been barren but have become conscious of their intellects' sterility and the barrenness of their mind, through persevering prayer have conceived of the Holy Spirit and given birth to thoughts and words of salvation full of contemplated truth.

How many of our foes have been dispersed, when often countless thousands in the adverse host were wearing us down with intent to sweep us away from the divine faith, and we rejoiced, when their appeal was to chariots and horses but ours to the name of the Lord, to see that in truth deceptive is a horse for safety! Many a time indeed does he whose trust is in praise to God—for Judith means praise—cut his way through guileful and persuasive speech, that chief commander of the adversary who brings numbers even of reputed believers to their knees.

What need is there to go on to tell of all who many a time have fallen among temptations hard to overcome, whose burn was sharper than any flame, and have suffered naught under them but emerged from them in every way unscathed, without so much of scathe as the slightest odor of the hostile fire; or again of all the brutes exasperated against us, in the form of wicked spirits or cruel men, that we have encountered and often muzzled by our prayers, so that they were impotent to fasten their fangs in our members which had become those of Christ. Often in each saint's experience has the Lord dashed together the teeth of lions, and they were brought to nothing, as water flowing by.

We know that often fugitives from God's commands who have been swallowed by death, which at the first prevailed against them, have been saved by reason of repentance from so great an evil, because they did not despair of being able to be saved though already overpowered in the belly of death: for death prevailed and swallowed, and again God took away every tear from every face. What I have said after my enumeration of persons who have been benefited through prayer, I consider to have been most necessary to my purpose of turning aspirants after the spiritual life in Christ from prayer for little earthly things, and urging readers of this writing towards the mystical things of which the above mentioned were types.

For it is always and wholly prayer for the spiritual, mystical things which we have instanced, that is practised by him who does not war according to the flesh but with the Spirit mortifies the body's actions, preference being given to the things suggested by analogy and study over the benefaction apparently indicated by the language of scripture as having accrued to those who had prayed.

For in ourselves also we are to strive, hearing the spiritual law with spiritual ears, that barrenness or sterility may not arise, but that we may like Hannah and Hezekiah be heard, being freed from barrenness or sterility, and like Mordecai and Esther and Judith be delivered from plotting enemies—in our case the spiritual powers of evil. Inasmuch as Egypt is an iron furnace and also a symbol of every earthly place, let every one who has escaped from the wickedness of the life of men without having been scorched by sin or having had his heart like an oven full of fire, give thanks no less than the men who experienced rain amid fire.

Let him, too, who has been heard when he has prayed and said "Deliver not to the brutes a soul that makes acknowledgment to you," and who has suffered naught from asp and basilisk because through Christ he has trod on them, and who has trampled lion and snake and enjoyed the good authority bestowed by Jesus to walk over serpents and scorpions and upon the whole power of the enemy, without having been injured by any of them, give thanks more than Daniel as having been delivered from brutes more terrible and harmful.

Let him, moreover, who has learned by experience what manner of monster that which swallowed Jonah typified, perceiving that it is of such that Job has spoken, "May He curse it that curses that day, He that is to worst the great monster," if he should ever come by reason of any disobedience to be in the belly of the monster, pray in penitence, and he shall come out thence; and if, after coming out, he abides in obedience to the commands of God, he shall be able according to the kindness of the Spirit to be a prophet to perishing Ninevites of today and to become a means to their salvation, without discontent with the kindness of God or desire that He should abide in severity towards penitents.

The very highest thing that Samuel is said to have done through prayer is spiritually possible of achievement today by every genuine dependant upon God who has become worthy to be heard. It is written: "And now do but stand and see this great thing which the Lord does under you eyes. Is it not wheat harvest today? I will call upon the Lord and He will give thunders and rain." And then shortly after it says "and Samuel called upon the Lord, and the Lord gave thunders and rain in that day." To every saint who is genuinely in discipleship to Jesus it is said by the Lord, "Lift up your eyes and behold how the fields are white already unto harvest. He that harvests receives wages and gathers fruit unto life eternal."

In this time of harvest the Lord does a great thing under the eyes of those who hear the prophets; for when he that is adorned by the Spirit calls upon the Lord, God gives from heaven thunders and rain that waters the Soul, in order that he who was before in vice may deeply fear the Lord and the minister of God's benefaction whose claim to reverence and veneration has been attested through the hearing of his prayers. Elijah indeed by a divine word opened the heavens after they had been shut to the impious three years and six months, a thing which anyone may accomplish at any time when through prayer he receives the Soul's rain, if he be one who has hitherto been deprived of it because of sin.

IX. THE CONTENT OF PRAYER: ITS FOUR MOODS

After thus interpreting the benefactions which have accrued to saints through their prayers, let us turn our attention to the words "ask for the great things and the little shall be added unto you: and ask for the heavenly things and the earthly shall be added unto you." All symbolical and typical things may be described as little and earthly in comparison with the true and the spiritual.

And, I believe, the divine Word, in urging us on to imitate the prayers of the saints, speaks of the heavenly and great things set forth through those concerned with the earthly and little, in order that we may make our requests according to the reality of which their achievements were typical. He says in effect: Do you who would be spiritual ask for the heavenly and great, in order that obtaining in them heavenly things you may inherit a kingdom of heaven, and as obtaining great things you may enjoy the greatest blessings, while as for the earthly and little that you require by reason of your bodily necessities, your Father will supply them to you in due measure.

In the first Epistle to Timothy the Apostle has employed four terms corresponding to four things in close relation to the subject of devotion and prayer. It will therefore be of service to cite his language and see whether we can satisfactorily determine the strict meaning of each of the four. He says, "I exhort therefore first of all that requests, prayers, intercessions, thanksgivings be made on behalf of all men," and so on.

Request I take to be that form of prayer which a man in some need offers with supplication for its attainment; prayer, that which a man offers in the loftier sense for higher things with ascription of glory; intercession, the addressing of claim to God by a man who possesses a certain fuller confidence; thanksgiving, the prayerful acknowledgment of the attainment of blessings from God, he who returns the acknowledgment being impressed by the greatness, or what seems to the recipient the greatness, of the benefactions conferred. Of the first, examples are found in Gabriel's speech to Zachariah who, it is likely, had prayed for the birth of John: "Fear not, Zachariah, because your request hath been heard and your wife Elizabeth shall beget you a Son and you shall call his name John;" in the account in Exodus of the making of the Calf: "And Moses made request before the Lord God, and said: To what purpose, Lord, art you in anger wroth with your people whom you hast brought out of the land of Egypt in great might?"

In Deuteronomy: "And I made request before the Lord a second time even as also the former time forty days and forty nights bread I ate not and water I drank not for all your sins that you sinned;" and in Esther: "Mordecai made request of God, recalling all the works of the Lord, and said; Lord, Lord, King Almighty," and Esther herself "made request of the Lord God of Israel and said: Lord our King... " Of the second, examples are found in Daniel: "And Azariah drew himself up and prayed thus, and opening his mouth amid the fire said...;" and in Tobit: "And with anguish I prayed saying, 'Righteous art you, O Lord, and all your works; all your ways are mercy and truth, and judgment true and righteous dost you judge forever.'" Since however, the circumcised have marked the passage in Daniel spurious as not standing in the Hebrew, and dispute the Book of Tobit as not within the Testament, I shall cite Hannah's case from the first book of Kings.

"And she prayed unto the Lord, and wept exceedingly, and vowed a vow, and said, 'O Lord of Hosts, if you will indeed have regard unto the humiliation of your bondmaid,'" and so on; and in Habakkuk: "A prayer of Habakkuk the prophet, set to song. O Lord, I have hearkened to your voice and was afraid; I did mark your works and was in ecstasy. In the midst of two living beings you shall be known; as the years draw nigh you shall be fully known;" a prayer which eminently illustrates what I said in defining prayer that it is offered with ascription of glory by the suppliant. And in Jonah also, Jonah prayed unto the Lord his God from the belly of the monster, and said, "I cried in my affliction unto the Lord my God, and he heard me. You heard my wail from the belly of death, my cry; you flung me away into the depths of the heart of the sea, and streams encircled me."

Of the third, we have an example in the Apostle where he with good reason employs prayer in our case, but intercession in that of the Spirit as excelling us and having confidence in approaching Him with whom He intercedes; for as to what we are to pray, he says, "as we ought we know not, but the Spirit Himself more than intercedes with God in sighs unspeakable, and He that searches hearts knows what is the mind of the Spirit because His intercession on behalf of saints is according to God;" for the Spirit more than intercedes, and intercedes, whereas we pray.

What Joshua said concerning the sun's making a stand over against Gabaoth is, I think, also intercession: Then spake Joshua to the LORD in the day when the LORD delivered up the Amorites before the children of Israel, "Here spoke Joshua to the Lord in the day when God delivered up the Amorites before the children of Israel, and he said in the sight of Israel, Sun, stand thou still upon Gibeon; and thou, Moon, in the valley of Ajalon;" and in Judges, it is, I think, in intercession that Samson said, "Let my soul die together with the aliens" when he leaned in might and the house fell upon the princes and upon all the people in it. Even though it is not explicitly said that Joshua and Samson interceded but that they said, their language seems to be intercession, which, if we accept the terms in their strict sense, is in our opinion distinct from prayer.

Of thanksgiving an example is our Lord's utterance when He says: "I make acknowledgment to you, O Father, Lord of heaven and earth, that you did hide these things from the wise and understanding and reveal them to infants;" for I make acknowledgment is equivalent to I give thanks.

X. THE RECIPIENT OF PRAYER IN ITS FOUR MOODS

Now request and intercession and thanksgiving, it is not out of place to offer even to men—the two latter, intercession and thanksgiving, not only to saintly men but also to others. But request to saints alone, should some Paul or Peter appear, to benefit us by making us worthy to obtain the authority which has been given to them to forgive sins—with this addition indeed that, even should a man not be a saint and we have wronged him, we are permitted our becoming conscious of our sin against him to make request even of such, that he extend pardon to us who have wronged him.

Yet if we are offer thanksgiving to men who are saints, how much more should we give thanks to Christ, who has under the Father's will conferred so many benefactions upon us? Yes and intercede with Him as did Stephen when he said, "Lord, set not this sin against them." In imitation of the father of the lunatic we shall say, "I request, Lord, have mercy" either on my son, or myself, or as the case may be. But if we accept prayer in its full meaning, we may not ever pray to any begotten being, not even to Christ himself, but only to the God and Father of All to whom our Savior both prayed himself, as we have already instanced, and teaches us to pray.

For when He has heard one say. "Teach you us to pray," He does not teach men to pray to Himself but to the Father saying, "Our Father in heaven," and so on. For if, as is shown elsewhere, the Son is other than the Father in being and essence, prayer is to be made either to the Son and not the Father or to both or to the Father alone.

That prayer to the Son and not the Father is most out of place and only to be suggested in defiance of manifest truth, one and all will admit. In prayer to both it is plain that we should have to offer our claims in plural form, and in our prayers say, "Grant you both, Bless you both, Supply you both, Save you both," or the like, which is self-evidently wrong and also incapable of being shown by anyone to stand in the scriptures as spoken by any.

It remains, accordingly, to pray to God alone, the Father of All, not however apart from the High Priest who has been appointed by the Father with swearing of an oath, according to the words He hath sworn and shall not repent, "You art a priest forever after the order of Melchizedek." In thanksgiving to God, therefore, during their prayers, saints acknowledge His favors through Christ Jesus.

Just as the man who is scrupulous about prayer ought not to pray to one who himself prays but to the Father upon whom our Lord Jesus has taught us to call in our prayers, so we are not to offer any prayer to the Father apart from Him. He clearly sets this forth himself when He says, "Verily, verily, I tell you, whatsoever you may ask of my Father He shall give you in my house. Until but now you have not asked aught in my name. Ask and you shall receive, that your joy may be fulfilled."

He did not say, "Ask of me," nor yet simply "Ask of the father," but "Whatsoever you may ask of the Father, He will give you in my name." For until Jesus taught this, no one had asked of the Father in the name of the Son. True was the saying of Jesus, "Until but now you have not asked aught in my name"; and true also the words, "Ask and you shall receive, that your joy may be fulfilled." Should anyone, however who believes that prayer ought to be made to Christ himself, confused by the sense of the expression make obeisance, confront us with that acknowledged reference to Christ in Deuteronomy, "Let all God's angels make obeisance to Him," we may reply to him that the church, called Jerusalem by the prophet, is also said to have obeisance made to her by kings and queens who become her foster sires and nurses, in the words, "Behold, I lift up my hand upon the nations, and upon the isles will I lift up my sign: and they shall bring your sons in their bosom and your daughters they shall lift up on their shoulders; and kings shall be your foster sires, their queens they nurses: to the face of the earth shall they make obeisance to you, and the dust of your feet shall they lick: and you shall know that I am the Lord and shall not be ashamed."

And how does it not accord with Him who said, "Why callest you me good? None is good save One—God the Father" to suppose that He would say, "Why pray you to me? To the Father alone ought you to pray, to whom I also pray, as indeed you learn from the holy Scriptures. For you ought not to pray to one who has been appointed high priest for you by the Father and has received it from the Father to be advocate, but through a high priest and advocate able to sympathize with your weaknesses, having been tried in all points like you but, by reason of the Father's free gift to me, tried without sin.

Learn you therefore how great a free gift you have received from my Father in having received through regeneration in me the Spirit of adoption, that you may be called sons of God and my brethren. For you have read my utterance spoken through David to the Father concerning you, 'I will proclaim your name to my brethren; in the midst of the church will I sing hymns to you.' It is not reasonable that those who have been counted worthy of one common Father should pray to a brother.To the Father alone ought you, with me and through me, to send up prayer."

So then hearing Jesus speak to such effect, let us pray to God through Him, all with one accord and without division concerning the manner of prayer. Are we not indeed divided if we pray some to the Father, others to the Son—those who pray to the Son, whether with the Father or without the Father, committing a crude error in all simplicity for lack of discrimination and examination?

Let us therefore pray as to God, intercede as with a Father, request as of a Lord, give thanks as to God and Father and Lord, though in no way as to a servant's lord; for the Father may reasonably be considered Lord not only of the Son but also of those who through Him are become sons also, though, just as He is not God of dead but of living men, so He is not Lord of baseborn servants but of such as at the first are ennobled by means of fear because they are as infants, but serve thereafter according to love in a service more blessed than that which is in fear. For within the soul itself, visible to the Seer of Hearts alone, these are distinctive characters of servants and sons of God.

XI. THE OBJECTS OF PRAYER

Everyone who asks for the earthly and little things from God disregards Him who has enjoined the asking of heavenly and great things. God is incapable of bestowing anything either earthly or little. Should anyone suggest instances to the contrary in which the material things bestowed upon the saints in the past as a result of prayer, and indeed the express language of the Gospel when it teaches that the earthly and the little are to be added unto us, we may reply to him as follows.

When someone bestows upon us a particular material object, we should not say that the person has bestowed upon us the shadow of the object, for it is unintentional to present two things, object and shadow. The giver's intention is to give a material object; our receipt of its shadow is a consequence of the gift. In like manner if, with mind grown nobler, we have discerned the gifts that are principally given to us by God, we shall most properly describe as consequences of the great and heavenly spiritual gifts of grace the material things which are given to each of the saints for his good or in proportion to his faith or according as the Giver wills, and wisely does He will, even though we are unable to describe a cause and reason worthy of the Giver for each of His gifts.

Greater fruit had been borne by Hannah's soul in being turned from sterility than was her body in conceiving Samuel. Diviner had been the offspring begotten by Hezekiah's mind than that which was begotten of the material seed of his body. Higher had been the deliverances of Esther and Morecai and the people from spiritual plots than was that from Haman and his conspirators. Mightier was the prince that sought to ruin her soul, whose power Judith had cut through than he whom she met in Holophermes.

Who would not acknowledge that in the spiritual blessing which comes home to all the saints and which Isaac spoke of to Jacob, "God give you of the rain of heaven," a higher rain had fallen to Ananiah and those with him than the material rain that overcame Nebuchadnezzar's flame? Greater had been the muzzling of the unseen lions by the prophet Daniel so that they were unable to work anything against his soul, than that of the visible lions to which all of us who read the passage have understood it to refer.

And who as a saint, becoming a fit recipient of the holy spirit, had ever, like Jonah, escaped the belly of a monster that swallowed every fugitive from God and which has been defeated by Jesus our Savior? It need not cause surprise if, to keep the metaphor, the corresponding shadow is not given to all who receive objects capable of making shadows, while to some a shadow is what is given. Students of questions relating to sundials and of the relation of shadows to the illuminating body clearly observe what is the case with bodies generally, that at a particular time some projectors are shadowless, others are short shadowed, others are more or less long-shadowed.

It is therefore not astonishing that, as the Giver's plan is to bestow the principal things in accordance with certain unutterable and mystic guiding principles and suitable to the recipients and occasions, when the principal objects are being given there should sometimes go with them no shadows at all for the recipients. At other times shadows are but few; at other times shadows which are smaller in comparison accompany different objects.

As the presence or absence of the shadow of bodies neither pleases nor pains the man whose object of search is solar beams, he possesses his chief necessity in being illumined or freed from shadow or in having more or less of shadow as the case may be. If the spiritual things are ours, and we are being illumined by God for complete possession of true blessings, we shall not quibble over a matter so paltry as concerns the shadow.

For material and physical things count as fleeting feeble shadow, in no way comparable to the saving holy gifts of the God of All. What comparison is there between material riches and the riches that are in every word and all wisdom? Who in his senses would compare health of flesh and bone with health of mind, strength of soul, and consistency of thought—things which, if kept in measure by God's word, make bodily sufferings a paltry scratch, and even slighter if we can grasp it.

He that has discerned the meaning of the beauty of the bride whom the bridegroom Word of God loves, a soul blooming with more than heavenly and more than mundane beauty, will be ashamed to dignify with the same name of beauty the physical beauty of woman or child or man. For of beauty in the strict sense flesh is not capable, being deformity throughout. For all flesh is as grass, and the glory thereof, which is manifest in the so called beauty of women and children, is according to the prophet's language compared to a flower, "All people are grass, their constancy is like the flower of the field. The grass withers, the flower fades, when the breath of the LORD blows upon it; surely the people are grass. The grass withers, the flower fades; but the word of our God will stand forever."

Again, who that has perceived the nobility of the sons of God shall any longer give the name of nobility to what passes as such among men? After contemplating Christ's kingship over kings, how shall the mind not dispel all kingship upon earth? When the human mind, so far as capable while still bound to a body, has once beheld as clearly as may be an army of angels, and among them chief-commanders of the Lord's hosts, and archangels and thrones and lordships and principalities and more than heavenly authorities, and has come to understand that it can obtain from the Father their equivalent, how shall it not despise those things which though frailer than shadow are the admiration of the foolish, even if they should all be given to it, as most shadowy and in comparison insignificant, and look beyond in order not to fall short of obtaining the true principalities and diviner authorities?

We should therefore pray for the principal and truly great and heavenly things, and as for those concerned with the shadows accompanying the principal, commit them to the God who knows before we ask Him what things, by reason if our perishable body, we have need.

XII. THE LORD'S PRAYER: THE PREFACE IN MATTHEW

What I have said, according to my capacity to receive the grace which has been given by God through His Christ, and as I trust in the Holy Spirit also—whether it be so you will judge when you read it—may suffice by way of examination of the general subject of prayer. I shall now proceed to the next task, to consider how full of meaning is the prayer outlined by the Lord. It is first of all to be observed that to most people Matthew and Luke might seem to have recorded the same prayer sketched as a pattern for right prayer. Matthew's words run thus:

Our Father in heaven, hallowed be your name. Your kingdom come. Your will be done, on earth as it is in heaven. Give us this day our daily bread. And forgive us our debts, as we also have forgiven our debtors. And do not bring us to the time of trial, but rescue us from the evil one.

But Luke's run as follows:

Father, hallowed be your name. Your kingdom come. Give us each day our daily bread. And forgive us our sins, for we ourselves forgive everyone indebted to us. And do not bring us to the time of trial.

To those who suppose it to be the same prayer we may reply that the utterances, though they certainly resemble one another, also appear to differ, as I shall set forth in investigating them. In the second place it is not possible that the same prayer should be said on the mountain where "When Jesus saw the crowds, he went up the mountain; and after he sat down, his disciples came to him. Then he began to speak, and taught them, saying"—for it is in the course of the recital of the Beatitudes and the subsequent injunctions that it is found recorded in Matthew. It also have been said, "He was praying in a certain place, and after he had finished, one of his disciples said to him, "Lord, teach us to pray, as John taught his disciples."

It is surely impossible that the same words should be described as having been spoken in the course of continuous utterance without any question to precede them and as being announced in response to a disciple's request. One might, however, say the prayers are equivalent and were spoken as one. On the one occasion in continuous discourse, on the other in response to the request of a different disciple who in all likelihood was not present when He spoke the form in Matthew or had not mastered what had earlier been spoken. But perhaps it is better that the prayers be regarded as different, with certain portions in common.

In Mark, though I have searched there also in case the record of an equivalent should escape me, I have not found so much as a vestige of a prayer contained. I have already said that before praying one must first be composed and disposed in a particular manner. Let us therefore glance at the words preceding the prayer contained in Matthew, which were uttered by our Savior. They are as follows: And whenever you pray, do not be like the hypocrites; for they love to stand and pray in the synagogues and at the street corners, so that they may be seen by others.

Truly I tell you, they have received their reward. But whenever you pray, go into your room and shut the door and pray to your Father who is in secret; and your Father who sees in secret will reward you. When you are praying, do not heap up empty phrases as the Gentiles do; for they think that they will be heard because of their many words. Do not be like them, for your Father knows what you need before you ask him.

Pray then in this way: Our Savior often appears as inveighing against the love of glory as a deadly passion, just as He has done in this place where He dissuades us from the practice of actors at the season of prayer, for it is a practice of actors rather to plume themselves in piety before men rather than to have communion with God.

Remembering then the words, "How can you believe when you accept glory from one another and do not seek the glory that comes from the one who alone is God?" we ought to despise all glory with men even though it be thought honorably gained and to seek the strict and true glory which is from Him alone who glorifies the deserving in a manner becoming to Himself and exceeding the desert of the person glorified. The very act which would in itself be thought honorable and is thought praiseworthy is polluted when we do it to be glorified by men or to appear to men, and on that account it is attended by no recompense from God. Unerring as the whole of Jesus' language is, it becomes even more so when it is spoken with His accustomed oath.

Of those who for human glory seem to do good to their neighbor, or pray in synagogues and at broadway corners, he says. "Truly I tell you, they have received their reward." For as the rich man according to Luke had good things in his human life, being no longer capable of obtaining them after the present life because he had had them, so he that has his reward, as having sown not "unto the spirit" but "unto the flesh" shall "reap corruption" but shall not "reap eternal life" in his giving or in his prayers.

It is sowing unto the flesh when one does alms, with trumpeting before him, in synagogues and thoroughfares to be glorified by men, or likes to pray standing in synagogues and at broadway corners to appear to men and thought a pious and a holy person among the onlookers. Indeed every wayfarer along the broad and spacious way leading to destruction without rightness or straightness but crooked and cornered throughout, (for the straight line is broken in it to the utmost), is standing no less than he who prays at broadway corners, not in one but through his love of pleasure in a number of streets in which beings who as men are perishing because they have fallen away from their divinity, are to be found glorifying and pronouncing blessed those whom they have thought to act piously.

There are always many who are rather pleasure-loving than God-loving in their seeming prayer who debauch prayer amid banqueting and carousing, standing in truth at the broadway corners and praying. For everyone who has made pleasure his rule of life has in his passion for the spacious fallen out of the narrow straitened way of Jesus Christ that is without a single bend and has no corner at all.

There is a certain difference between Church and Synagogue. The church in the strict sense is without "a spot or wrinkle or anything of the kind," is holy and blameless. Into it enters neither child of harlot, nor eunuch or emasenlate, nor yet Egyptian or Edomite unless sons born to them in the third generation enables them with difficulty to join the church, nor Moabite and Ammonite, unless the tenth generation is complete and the aeon passed.

The Synagogue on the other hand may be built by a centurion, as was the case in times preceding the sojourn of Jesus when as yet witness had not yet been borne that the man possessed faith such as the Son of God did not find even in Israel. Now he who likes to pray in synagogues is not far from broadway corners. But it is not so with the saint, for he loves, not likes to pray, in churches, not broadway corners, in the straightness of the narrow straitened way, not to appear to men, but to present himself before the Lord God, a male in the sense that he observes the acceptable year of the Lord and keeps the commandment which says, "Thrice in the year shall every male present himself before the Lord God."

We are to attend to the word "appear" carefully, since no appearance is a good inasmuch as it only seems to exist and not in truth, and misleads the senses and expresses nothing exactly and truly. As actors of plays in theatres are not what they profess nor are really what the mask they wear makes them look like, so too all who appear to assume the outward sensible form of goodness and are not righteous but actors of righteousness, acting moreover in a theatre of their own—namely synagogues and broadway corners. But he that is no actor but has cast off all that is alien to him and sets himself to please in that theatre which is inconceivably greater than any which has been mentioned, enters into his own storeroom to the riches therein treasured up, and shuts up after him his treasury of wisdom and knowledge.

Never turning his glance outwards or doting on things outside, having shut up every door of the senses that he may not be drawn away by sensations or have their sensible presentation stealing into his mind, prays to the Father who does not shun or desert a place so secret but dwells in it, the Only Begotten also being present with Him. For He says "I and the Father will come unto him and make abode with him." And plainly, if we do pray thus, we shall be interceding not only with a God but also with a Father who is righteous, who does not desert us as His children but is present in our secret place and watches it and increases the contents of the storeroom if we shut up its door.

When we pray let us not babble but use godly speech. We babble when, without scrutiny of ourselves or of the devotional words we are sending up, we speak of the corrupt in deed or word or thought, things which are mean and reprehensible and alien to the incorruptibleness of the Lord. He, then, that babbles in prayer is in a synagogic disposition worse than any yet described and in a harder way than those who are at broadway corners, preserving not as much as a vestige even of acting in goodness.

For according to the passage in the Gospel only heathen babble, being quite insensible of great or heavenly petitions and therefore sending up every prayer for the material and the external. To a babbling heathen, then, is he like who asks for things below from the Lord who dwells in heaven and above the heights of the heavens.

He who is wordy also seems to be a babbler and he who babbles to be wordy. There is no unity in matter and in bodily substances, but every such supposed unity is split up and divided and disintegrated into many units to the loss of its union. Good is one; many are the base. Truth is one; many are the false. True righteousness is one; many are the states that act it as a part. God's wisdom is one; many are the wisdoms of this age and of the rulers of this age which come to nought. The word of God is one, but many are the words alien to God.

Therefore no one shall escape Sin as the result of wordiness, and no one who thinks to be heard as the result of wordiness can be heard. For this reason we ought not to make our prayers like heathen babbling or wordiness or other practice after the likeness of the serpent, for the God of saints, being a Father, knows of what things His children have need, since such things are worthy of Fatherly knowledge.

He who knows not God knows not the things of God also—knows not the things of which he has need, for the things of which he thinks he has need are mistaken. But he who has contemplated the better and diviner things of which he is in need shall obtain the objects of his contemplation which are known by God and which have been known by the Father even before asking. After these remarks upon the preface to the prayer in the Gospel according to Matthew, let us now proceed to consider what the prayer sets forth.

XIII. THE LORD'S PRAYER—OUR FATHER IN HEAVEN

Our Father in Heaven. It deserves a somewhat careful observation of the so-called Old Testament to discover whether it is possible to find anywhere in it a prayer of one who addresses God as Father. For though I have made examination to the best of my ability, I have up to the present failed to find one. I do not say that God is not spoken of as Father or that accounted believers in God are not called sons of God, but that I have not yet found in prayer that confidence in calling God Father which the Savior has proclaimed.

That God is spoken of as Father and those who have waited on God's word as sons, may be seen in many places, as in Deuteronomy, "You have forsaken God your parent and forgotten God your nourisher," and again, "Is He not your Father himself that got you and made you and created you?" and again, "Sons who have not faith in them." And in Isaiah, "I have nourished and brought up children, and they have rebelled against me"; and in Malachi, "A son honors his father, and a servant his master: if then I be a father, where is my honor? and if I be a master, where is my fear?" So then, even though God is termed Father and their Sons who have been begotten by reason of their faith in Him, yet sure and unchangeable sonship is not to be seen in the ancient people.

The very passages I have cited since the subjection of those so-called sons, since according to the apostle "the heir, as long as he is a child, differs nothing from a servant, though he be lord of all; But is under tutors and governors until the time appointed of the father." But the fullness of time is in the sojourn of our Lord Jesus Christ, when they who desire receive adoption as sons, as Paul teaches in the words, "For you did not receive a spirit of slavery unto fear, but you received a spirit of adoption as sons, wherein we cry 'Abba Father'"; and as it is in the Gospel according to John, "To as many as received Him He gave authority to become children of God if believers on His name"; and it is by reason of this Spirit of adoption as sons, we learn in the Catholic Epistle of John regarding the begotten of God, that "Everyone that is begotten of God does no sin because His seed abides in him, and he cannot sin because he is begotten of God."

And yet if we think of the meaning of the words which are written in Luke, "When you pray say: Father...," we shall hesitate to address this expression to Him unless we have become genuine sons in case, in addition to our other sins, we should also become liable to a charge of impiety. My meaning is as follows. In the first Epistle to Corinthians Paul says, "No one can say 'Jesus is Lord' save in a holy spirit, and no one that speaks in God's spirit says 'cursed be Jesus' calling the same thing a holy spirit and God's spirit." What is meant by speaking in a holy spirit of Jesus as Lord is not quite clear, as countless actors and numbers of heterodox people, and at times even demons conquered by the power in the name, utter the expression.

No one therefore will venture to declare that anyone of these calls Jesus 'Lord' in a holy spirit. For the same reason, indeed, they could not be shown to call Jesus Lord at all, since they alone call Jesus Lord who express it from inward disposition in service to the word of God and in proclaiming no other Lord than Him in all their conduct. And if it be such who say Jesus is Lord, it may be that everyone who sins, in that he curses the divine Word through his transgression, has through his actions called out, "Cursed be Jesus."

And accordingly, as the one type of man says "Jesus is Lord," and the man of opposite disposition "Cursed be Jesus," "so everyone that hath been begotten of God and does not sin" because he is partaker of God's seed which turns him from all sin, says through his conduct "Our Father in Heaven," the spirit himself witnessing with their spirit that they are children of God and heirs to Him and joint heirs with Christ, since as suffering with Him they reasonably hope with Him also to be glorified. But in order that theirs may be no one-sided utterance of the words "Our Father," in addition to their actions they have a heart—a fountain and source of good actions—believing unto righteousness, in harmony with which their mouth makes acknowledgment unto salvation.

So then their every act and word and thought, formed by the only begotten word in accord with Him, imitates the image of the invisible God and has come to be "in accordance with the image of the Creator" who makes "the sun to rise upon evil men and good and rains upon righteous and unrighteous," that there may be in them the image of the heavenly One who is himself also an image of God. Saints, therefore, as an image of an Image himself, a son, receive the impress of Sonship, becoming conformed not only to the glorified body of Christ but also to Him who is in that body, and they become conformed to Him who is in a glorified body through being transformed by the renewing of their mind.

And if such men through out the whole of life voice the words "Our Father in the Heavens," plainly he that does sin, as John says in the Catholic Epistle, "is of the devil because the devil sins from the beginning" and just as God's seed abiding in the begotten of God produces inability to sin in him who is formed in accordance with the only begotten Word, so the devil's seed is in everyone that does sin, to the extent in which it is present within the soul—not suffering its possessor to have power to prosper. But since "for this end was the Son of God manifested that He might undo the actions of the devil," it is possible, through the undoing of the actions of the devil by the sojourn of the Word of God within our Soul, for the evil seed implanted in us to be utterly removed and for us to become children of God.

Let us, therefore, not think that it is words we are taught to say in any appointed season of prayer. On the contrary, if we understand our former consideration of prayer without ceasing, let our whole life of prayer without ceasing speak the words "Our Father in the Heavens," having its commonwealth in no wise on earth but in every way in heaven, which is God's throne because of the foundation of the kingdom of God in all who wear the image of the Heavenly One and therefore become heavenly. When the Father of saints is said to be in the heavens, we are not to suppose that He is circumscribed by material form and dwells in heaven.

Since, in that case, as contained God will be formed to be less than the heavens because they contain Him, whereas the ineffable might of His godhead demands our belief that all things are contained and held together by Him. And, in general, passages which taken literally are thought by the simpler order of minds to assert that God is in space are to be otherwise taken in a sense more becoming to great spiritual concepts of God.

Such are those passages in the Gospel according to John: Before the feast of the Passover, Jesus, knowing that His hour had come that He should pass from this world to the Father, as He had loved His own who were in the world, loved them to the end; and shortly after: knowing that the Father had given all into His hands, and that He had come forth from God and was returning to God; and later: you heard that I said to you: I return and come unto you. If you loved me you would have rejoiced that I go to the Father; and again later; Now I return to Him that sent me and none of you asks me: Where do you return?

If these things are to be taken spacially, so also plainly is: Jesus answered and said to them, "If any one love me he will keep my word and my Father will love him and we shall come unto him and make abode with him." But surely the words do not imply a spacial transition of the Father and the Son to the lover of the word of Jesus and are therefore not to be taken spacially.

On the contrary, the Word of God, in condescension for us and, in regard to His proper desert, in humiliation while among men, is said to pass from this world unto the Father so that we also may behold Him perfectly there in reversion to His proper fullness from the emptiness among us whereby He emptied himself—where we also, enjoying His guidance, shall be filled and freed from all emptiness. To such an end the Word of God well may leave the world and depart to Him that sent Him, and go to the Father! And as for that passage near the end of the Gospel according to John, "Cling not to me, for I am not yet gone up unto my Father," let us seek to conceive it in the more mystical sense:

Let ours be the more reverent conception of the ascension of the Son to the Father with sanctified insight, an ascension rather of soul than of body. I think it right to have linked these considerations to the clause Our Father in the Heavens for the sake of doing away with a low conception of God held by those who think that He is in heaven spacially, and of preventing anyone from saying God is in material space since it follows that He also is physical, which leads to opinions most impious\—to belief that He is divisible and material and corruptible. For every material thing is divisible and corruptible.

Or else let them tell us, not on the strength of vague sensation but with a claim to clear understanding, how it can be of any other than a material nature. Since, then, in writings before Christ's bodily sojourn there are also many statements which seem to say that God is in physical space, it appears to me to be not out of place to cite a few of them also for the sake of doing away with any doubt in those who, because they know no better, confine God, who is over all, within small and scanty space on their own scale. First, in Genesis it says Adam and Eve heard the sound of the lord God walking at evening in the garden, and both Adam and his wife hid themselves from the Lord God amid the wood of the Garden.

I shall put the question to those who not only refuse to enter into the treasures of the passage but do not so much as knock at all at its door, whether they are able to imagine the Lord God, who fills the heaven and the earth, who as they themselves suppose in the more physical sense uses heaven as throne and the earth as a footstool for His feet, as contained by so scanty a space in comparison with the whole heaven and the earth that a garden which they suppose to be material is not filled by God but so far exceeds Him in greatness as to hold Him even when walking while a sound from the tread of His feet is heard? Absurder still on their interpretation is the hiding of Adam and Eve, in fear of God by reason of their transgression, from before God amid the wood of the Garden.

For it is not even said that they merely desired to hide but that they actually hid themselves. And how is it in their view that God inquires of Adam saying: Where are you? I have discussed these matters at greater length in my examination of the contents of Genesis, yet here, too—in order not to pass by so grave a subject in complete silence—it will suffice if I recall what is said by God in Deuteronomy: I will dwell in them and walk in them. For as is His walk in saints such is His walk in the Garden also, since everyone that sins hides from God and shuns His oversight and renounces his confidence with Him. So it was that Cain also went out from before God and dwelt in the land of Nod over against Eden. In the same way, therefore, as He dwells in saints.

So also does He dwell in heaven (that is, in every saint who wears the image of the Heavenly One, or Christ, in whom all who are being saved are luminaries and stars of heaven, or else because saints are in heaven) according to the saying: Unto you who dwells in heaven have I lifted up my eyes. And yet the passage in Ecclesiastes: Be not in haste to utter speech before God, because God is in heaven above, and you on Earth below, means to show the interval which separates those who are in the body of humiliation from Him who is with the angels and holy powers who are being exalted by the help of the Word also and with Christ himself. For it is not unreasonable that He should be strictly at the Father's throne, allegorically called heaven, while His church, termed Earth, is a footstool at His feet.

I have cited a few Old Testament utterances, thought to represent God in space, for the sake of urging the reader by every means within the power given me to accept the divine scripture in the higher and more spiritual sense whenever it seems to teach that God is in space. And it was fitting that these considerations should be linked to the clause Our Father in the Heavens inasmuch as it distinguishes the essence of God from all created beings. For it is upon such as do not share in that essence that a certain glory of God and a power from Him, an outflow of the deity, comes.

XIV. HALLOWED BE THY NAME

Hallowed be Thy name. Although this may represent either that the object of prayer has not yet come to pass, or after its attainment, that it is not permanent in which case the request is for its retention; the language in this instance makes it plain that it is with the implication that the name of the Father has not yet been hallowed, that we are bidden—according to Matthew and Luke, that is—to say "Hallowed be Thy Name." Then how, one might say, should a man request the hallowing of God's name as though not hallowed? Let us understand what the Father's name, and what the hallowing of it, means. A name is a summary designation descriptive of the peculiar character of the thing named.

Thus the Apostle Paul has a certain peculiar character, partly of soul which is accordingly of a certain kind, partly of intellect which is accordingly contemplative of certain things, and partly of body which is accordingly of a certain kind. It is the peculiar in these characteristics, the unique combination—for there is not another being identical with Paul—that is indicated by means of the appellation Paul. In the case of men, however, whose peculiar characteristics are changed, their names also by a sound usage are changed according to scripture.

When the character of Abram was transformed, he was called Abraham; when that of Simon he was named Peter, and when that of Saul the persecutor of Jesus, he was designated Paul. But in the case of God, inasmuch as He is himself ever unchangeable and unalterable, the proper name which even He may be said to bear is ever one, that mentioned in Exodus, "He that is," or the like. Since therefore, though we all have some notion of God, conceiving of Him in various ways, but not all of what He is, for few and, be it said, fewer than few are they who comprehend His compete holiness—we are with good reason taught to attain to a holy conception of Him in order that we may see His holiness as creator, provider, judge, elector, abandoner, acceptor, rejector, rewarder and punisher of each according to his desert.

For it is in such and similar terms that God's peculiar character may be said to be sketched which I take to be the meaning of the expression, God's name according to the scriptures in Exodus: Thou shall not take the name of the Lord your God in vain; in Deuteronomy: Be my utterance awaited as rain: as dew let my words descend, as showers upon herbage and as moisture upon grass: for I have called on the Lord's name; and in Psalms: They shall remember your name in every generation.

It is he who associates the thought of God with wrong things that takes the name of the Lord God in vain, and he who is able to utter rain that cooperates with his hearers in the fruit bearing of their souls, and who addresses words of exhortation that are like dew, and who in the edifying torrent of his words turns upon his listeners showers most helpful or moisture most efficacious is able to do so because he has perceived his need of God as the accomplisher and calls in the real supplier of those things; and everyone who penetrates the very things of God recalls to mind rather than learns the mysteries of piety even when he seems to be told them by another or thinks that he discovers them. And as the suppliant ought at this point to reflect that his asking is for the hallowing of God's name, so in Psalms it is said Let us Exalt His name together, the patriarch enjoining attainment to the true and exalted knowledge of God's peculiar nature with all harmony, in the same mind, and in the same will.

It is exalting the name of God together when, after one has participated in an outflow of deity in having been sustained by God and having overcome his enemies so that they are unable to rejoice over his fall, he exalts the power of God in which he has participated, as is shown in the twenty-ninth psalm by the words: I will exalt you, O Lord, for you have sustained me and not made my enemies to rejoice over me. A man exalts God when he has consecrated to Him a house within himself, since the superscription of the Psalm also runs thus: A Psalm of singing for the consecration of the House of David.

It is further to be observed regarding the clause Hallowed be your Name and its successors in imperative form, that the translators also continually made use of imperatives instead of ablatives, as in the Psalms: Speechless let the guileful lips be, that speak lawlessness against the righteous instead of 'may they be' and Let the creditor search out all his possessions: Let him possess no helper, concerning Judas in the one hundred and eighth; for the whole Psalm is a petition concerning Judas that certain things may befall him.

But Tatian, failing to perceive that let there be does not always signify the ablative but is occasionally also imperative, has most impiously supposed that God said Let there be light in prayer rather than in command that the light should be; since, as he puts it in his godless thought, God was in darkness. In reply to him it may be asked, how is he going to take the other sayings? Let the Earth grow grass, and Let the water below heaven be gathered together, and Let the waters bring forth creeping things with living souls, and Let the earth bring forth a living soul. Is it for the sake of standing upon firm ground that He prays that the water below heaven be gathered together into one meeting place, or for the sake of partaking of the things that grow from the earth that He prays Let the Earth grow...?

What manner of need, to match His need of light; has He of creatures of water, air, and land that He should pray for them also? If even on Tatian's view it is absurd to think of Him as praying for these things which occur in imperative expressions, may the same not be said of Let be there light—that it is an imperative and not an ablative expression? I thought that, in view of the fact that prayer is expressed in imperative forms, some reference was necessary to his perversion for the sake of those—I myself have met with cases who have been misled into accepting his impious teaching.

XV. THY KINGDOM COME

Thy Kingdom Come. According to the word of our Lord and Savior, the Kingdom of God does not come observably, nor shall men say 'Lo it is here', or 'Lo is it there', but the Kingdom of God is within us; for the utterance is exceedingly near in our mouth and in our heart. It is therefore plain that he who prays for the coming of the kingdom of God prays with good reason for rising and fruit bearing and perfecting of God's kingdom within him.

For every saint is ruled over by God and obeys the Spiritual laws of God, and conducts himself like a well-ordered city; and the Father is present with him, and Christ rules together with the Father in the perfected Soul, according to the saying that I mentioned shortly before: We will come unto him and make abode with him. By God's kingdom I understand the blessed condition of the mind and the settled order of wise reflection; by Christ's kingdom the issue of words of salvation to their hearers and the practice of acts of righteousness and the other excellences; for the son of God is word and righteousness.

But every sinner is tyrannized by the ruler of this world, since every sinner is in conformity with the present evil world, and does not yield himself to Him who gave Himself for us sinners that He might release us from the present evil world and release us according to the will of God our Father, as it is expressed in the Epistle to Galatians. And he who, by reason of deliberate sin is tyrannized by the ruler of this world, is also ruled over by sin: wherefore we are bidden by Paul to be no longer subject to sin that would rule over us, and we are enjoined in these words, Let sin therefore not rule in our mortal body that we should obey its lusts.

But in reference to both clauses Hallowed Be Thy Name and Thy Kingdom Come, it may be urged that, if the suppliant prays them with a view to being heard and ever is heard, plainly his will be an instance, answering to what has just been said, of the name of God being hallowed and of the rise of the Kingdom of God, in which event how shall he any longer with propriety pray for things already present as though they not present, saying Hallowed be Thy Name: Thy Kingdom Come:?—And in that case it will sometimes be proper not to say Hallowed Be Thy Name: Thy Kingdom Come.

To this it may be replied that just as he who prays to obtain a word of knowledge and a word of wisdom will with propriety pray for them continually with the prospect of continually receiving fuller contemplations of wisdom and knowledge through being heard, although his knowledge of such things as he may be able in the present to receive is partial, whereas the perfect that annuls the partial shall then be manifested when the mind confronts its objects face to face without sensation—so perfection in our individual hallowing of the name of God and in the rise of His kingdom within us is not possible unless there also come perfection of knowledge and wisdom and it may be the other excellences.

We are wayfaring toward perfection if we forget the things behind, pressing on toward those before us. The kingdom of God within us will therefore be consummated in us as we advance without ceasing, when, the saying in the Apostle is fulfilled, that Christ, His enemies all made subject to Him, shall deliver the kingdom to God the Father that God may be All in All. For this reason let us pray without ceasing with a disposition made divine by the Word, and say to our Father in heaven: Hallowed Be Thy Name: Thy Kingdom Come. Of the kingdom of God it is further to be said by way of distinction that as righteousness has no partnership with lawlessness and light no community with darkness and Christ no argument with Belial, so a kingdom of sin is incompatible with the Kingdom of God.

If, accordingly we would be ruled over by God, by no means let sin rule in our mortal body nor let us obey its commands when it calls our soul forth to the works of the flesh that are alien to God, but let us mortify our members that are on earth and bear the fruits of the Spirit that the Lord may walk in us as in a spiritual garden, ruling alone over us with His Christ seated within us on the right of the Spiritual power that we pray to receive, sitting until all His enemies within us become a footstool for His feet and every rule and authority and power be undone from us.

These things may come to pass in the case of each of us, and death the last energy be undone, so that Christ may say within us also O death, where is your sting? O grave! Where is your victory? Even now, therefore, let our corruptible put on the holiness and incorruptibleness that consists in chastity and purity, and our mortal, death undone, wrap itself in the paternal immortality, so that, being ruled over by God, we may even now live amid the blessings of regeneration and resurrection.

XVI. THY WILL BE DONE ON EARTH ALSO AS IN HEAVEN

Thy Will be done on Earth also as in Heaven. After the clause Thy Kingdom come Luke has passed over these words in silence and placed the clause Give us daily our Needful Bread. Let us therefore examine next in succession the words I have placed first as set down in Matthew alone. As suppliants who are still on earth, believing that the will of God is done in heaven among all the household of the heavens, let us pray that the will of God may be done by us also who are on earth in like manner with them, as will come to pass when we do nothing contrary to His will.

And when the will of God as it is in heaven has been accomplished by us also who are on earth, we shall inherit a kingdom of heaven as having, alike with them, worn the image of the Heavenly One, while those who come after us on earth are praying to become in turn like us who have come to be in heaven.

So far as Matthew alone is concerned the words on Earth also as in Heaven can be taken in common, so that what we are enjoined to say in prayer would run thus: Hallowed be Thy Name on Earth also as in Heaven: Thy Kingdom come on Earth also as in Heaven: Thy Will be done on Earth also as in Heaven. For alike the name of God has been hallowed among those who are in heaven, and the kingdom of God is risen in them, and the will of God has been done in their midst—things indeed which are all unrealized by us but which can be acquired by us through rendering ourselves worthy to obtain God's hearing in reference to them all.

The words Thy Will be done on Earth also as in Heaven may raise the question how has the will of God been done in Heaven where the spiritual forces of evil are, by reason of which the sword of God shall drink deep even in heaven? If we pray thus that the will of God be done on Earth just as it is being done in heaven may we not thoughtlessly be praying that the very opposite may abide on earth where such things already come from heaven since much that is bad on earth is due to the overcoming spiritual forces of evil which are in the heavenly places?

Anyone who allegorizes heaven and asserts that it is Christ, and Earth the church—what throne so worthy of the Father as Christ? What footstool of the feet of God as the Church?—will easily solve the question by replying that everyone in the church ought to pray to receive the paternal will in such wise as Christ has done, who came to do the will of His Father and accomplished if completely. For it is possible by being joined to Him to become one spirit with Him and therefore receptive of the will to the end that, as it has been accomplished in heaven, so it may be accomplished on earth also; for he that is joined to the Lord, according to Paul, is one spirit. And I believe that one who carefully considers it will find this an interpretation not to be despised.

But someone may dispute it by citing what is said to the eleven disciples by the Lord after the resurrection at the close of the this gospel: There hath been given to me all authority on earth also as in heaven. That is, having authority over the things that are in heaven, He says that He has also received it over those on earth:

Whereas those that are in heaven have already been illumined by the Word, it is at the consummation of the world that those on earth are also, in imitation of those over which the Savior received authority, brought to a successful issue by reason of the authority given to the Son of God: accordingly His will is to receive those who are disciples under Him as in a sense cooperants through their prayers to the Father in order that, in like manner with the things in heaven that are subject to Truth and Word, He may lead the things on Earth, restored by reason of the authority which He has received on earth also as in heaven, to an end fraught with bliss for the objects of His authority.

On the other hand one who would take heaven to be the Savior and Earth the church, asserting that it is the firstborn of all creation, on whom the Father reposes as on a throne, that is heaven, would find that it is the man whom He put on after having been fitted for such power because He had humbled himself and having been obedient till death, who says after the resurrection There hath been given to me all authority on Earth also as in heaven—the man in the Savior having received His authority over the things in heaven, as the proper possessions of the Only-begotten, in order to be in communion with Him, mingling in His divinity and becoming one with Him.

But if this second thought does not yet solve the difficulty as to how the will of God can be in heaven when the spiritual forces of evil in the heavenly places wrestle against those who are on earth, it will be possible to solve the question from this consideration—It is not by virtue of place but of principle that one who is still on earth but has a commonwealth in heaven and lays up treasure in heaven and has his heart in heaven and wears the image of the Heavenly One, is no longer of the earth nor of the world below but of heaven and of the heavenly world that is better than this.

So, too, the spiritual forces of evil which still dwell in the heavenly places but have their commonwealth on earth and plot against men the means whereby they wrestle against mankind, and lay up treasure on Earth, and wear an image of the Earthly One who the beginning of the Lord's fashioning made to be mocked by the angels, are not heavenly nor by reason of their vicious disposition do they dwell in the heavens. Accordingly when it is said: Thy will be done on Earth also as in Heaven, we are not to reckon those beings as in heaven at all, because through pride they have fallen along with Him who fell from heaven like a thunderbolt.

And it may well be that our Savior, in saying that we ought to pray that the Father's will may be done on Earth also as in heaven, does not by any means order prayer for things spacially on earth that they may be made like things spacially in heaven, but His will in enjoining prayer is that all things on earth, that is things inferior and conformed to the earthly, be made like the better which have their commonwealth in heaven, which have all become heaven.

For he that sins, wherever he may be, is earth, and will turn into the like somehow, unless he repents, whereas he that does the will of God and does not disobey the spiritual laws of salvation is heaven. Whether therefore we are still earth because of sin, let us pray that the will of God may extend restoringly to us also as it has already reached those who have become or are heaven before us: or if we are already accounted not earth but heaven by God, let our request be that, in like manner with heaven, on earth also, in inferior things I mean, the will of God may be fulfilled unto what I may term earth's heaven-making, so that there shall be no longer earth but all things become heaven.

For if, on this interpretation, the will of God be done on earth also as in heaven, earth will not remain earth, just as to make my meaning clearer with another illustration—if the will of God be done in the case of the wanton as it has been with the temperate, the wanton will be temperate, or if it should be in the case of the unrighteous as it has been with the righteous, the unrighteous will be righteous. If, therefore, the will of God be done on earth also as it has been in heaven, we shall all be heaven; for though flesh that helps not; and blood that is akin to it, are unable to inherit God's kingdom, they may be said to inherit it if they be changed from flesh and earth and clay and blood to the heavenly essence.

XVII. GIVE US TODAY OUR NEEDFUL BREAD

Give us today our Needful Bread, or as Luke has it, Give us daily our Needful Bread. Seeing that some suppose that it is meant that we should pray for material bread, their erroneous opinion deserves to be done away with and the truth about the needful bread set forth, in the following manner. We may put the question to them—how can it be that He, who says that heavenly and great things ought to be asked for as if, on their view, He has forgotten His teaching now enjoins the offering of intercession to the Father for an earthly and little thing, since neither is the bread which is assimilated into our flesh a heavenly thing nor is it asking a great thing to request it?

For my part I shall follow the Teacher's own teaching as to the bread and cite the passages in detail. To men who have come to Capernaum to seek Him He says, in the Gospel according to John, Verily, verily, I tell you you seek me not because you saw signs but because you ate of the loaves of bread and were filled... for he that has eaten and been filled with the loaves of bread which have been blessed by Jesus seeks the more to grasp the Son of God more closely and hastens toward Him.

Wherefore He will enjoin: Work not for the food that perishes but for the food that abides unto life eternal which the Son of Man shall give you. And when, upon that, they who had heard inquired and said: What are we to do that we may work the works of God? Jesus answered and said to them: This is the work of God that you believe on him whom He has sent. As it is written in Psalms, God sent His Word and healed them, that is the diseased, and believers in that Word work the works of God which are food that abides unto life eternal.

And my Father, He says, gives you the true bread from heaven, for the bread of God is that which comes down from heaven and gives life to the world. It is true bread that nourishes the true man who is made in God's image, and he that has been nourished by it also becomes in the Creator's likeness. What is more nourishing to the soul than Word, or what more precious to the mind of him that is capable of receiving it than the Wisdom of God?

What is more congenial to the rational nature than Truth? Should it be urged in objection to this view that He would not in that case teach men to ask for needful bread as if something other than Himself, it is to be noted that He also discourses in the Gospel according to John sometimes as if it were other than Himself but at other times as if He is Himself the Bread. The former in the sense of the words: Moses hath given you the bread from heaven yet not the true bread, but my Father gives you the true bread from heaven.

In the latter sense, to those who had said to Him Ever give us this bread, He says: I am the bread of life: he that comes unto me shall not hunger, and he that believes on me shall not thirst; and shortly after: I am the living bread that is come down from heaven: if anyone eat of this bread he shall live unto eternity: yea and the bread which I shall give is my flesh which I shall give for the sake of the life of the world.

Now since all manner of nourishment is spoken of as bread according to Scripture as is clear from the fact that it is recorded of Moses that he ate not bread and drank not water forty days, and since the nourishing Word is manifold and various, not all being capable of nourishment by the solidity and strength of the divine teachings, He is therefore pleased to offer strenuous nourishment befitting men more perfect, where He says:

The bread which I shall give is my flesh which I shall give for the sake of the life of the world: and shortly after: Except you eat the flesh of the son of Man and drinks His blood, you have not life in yourselves. He that eats my flesh and drinks my blood hath life eternal, and I will raise him up in the last day. for my flesh is true food and my blood is true drink. He that eats my flesh and drinks my blood abides in me and I in him.As the living Father sent me and I live because of the Father, so also he that eats me—he too shall live because of me. This is the true food, Christ's flesh, which being Word has become flesh, as it is said And the Word became flesh. When we eat and drink the Word He tabernacles in us.

When He is assimilated the words are fulfilled: We beheld His glory. This is the bread that is come down from heaven. Not as the fathers ate and died, he that eats this bread shall live unto eternity. Discoursing to infant Corinthians who walk in the way of man Paul says: I gave you milk to drink, not meat, for you were not yet able. Nay even now you are not yet able, for you are still of the flesh; and in the Epistle to Hebrews: And you are become in need of milk, not of solid nourishment. For any one who partakes of milk is devoid of moral reason, for he is infant.

But solid nourishment is for mature men who by force of use have their senses trained to discriminate good and evil. In my opinion the words: One man hath faith to eat anything, but he that is weak eats vegetables are also in his intention meant to refer not to material forms of nourishment but to the words of God that nourish the soul: Of these the man most faithful and mature is able to partake of any, he being denoted in the words One man hath faith to eat anything, whereas the weaker and more immature is content with simpler teachings that do not quite produce full strength in him, reference being intended to him in the words But he that is weak eats vegetables.

There is also in Solomon a saying in the Proverbs which I think teaches that the man who by reason of simplicity is incapable of the stronger and greater sentiments is better, short of false thought, than the man who, though more ready and keener and of greater insight into things, fails to penetrate the principle of peace and harmony in all. Solomon's passage runs as follows: Better is hospitality of vegetables served with friendship and grace than a fatted calf with enmity.

Many a time do we accept untutored simpler entertainment, accompanied by good conscience, as guests at the table of those who are unable to furnish us with more, with greater satisfaction than any elevation of words upreared against the knowledge of God and proclaiming with ample plausibility a sentiment alien to the Father of our Lord Jesus who has given the law and the prophets. In order, therefore, that we may neither fall sick of soul for lack of nourishment nor die to God because of famine of the Lord's word, let us in obedience to the teaching of our Savior, with righter faith and life, ask the Father for the living bread which is the same as the needful bread.

Let us now consider what the word epiousion, needful, means. First of all it should be known that the word epiousion is not found in any Greek writer whether in philosophy or in common usage, but seems to have been formed by the evangelists. At least Matthew and Luke, in having given it to the world, concur in using it in identical form. The same thing has been done by translators from Hebrew in other instances also; for what Greek ever used the expression enotizou or akoutisthete instead of eistaota dexai or akousai poice se.

Exactly like the expression epiousion, needful, is one found in Moses' writings, spoken by God: Ye shall be my periousios—peculiar people. Either word seems to me to be a compund of ousia—essence—the former signifying the bread that contributes to the essence, the latter denoting the people that has to do with the essence and is associated with it. As for ousia, essence, in the strict sense, by those who assert the priority of the substance of immaterial things, it is ranked with immaterial things which are in possession of permanent being and neither receive addition nor suffer subtraction. For addition and subtraction are characteristic of material things in reference to which growth and decay take place owing to their being in a state of flux, in need of imported support and nourishment.

If the import exceeds the waste in a period growth takes place, if it is less, diminuation; and if, as in conceivable, there are things receiving no import at all, they are in what I may term unmitigated diminuation. Those on the other hand who hold the substance of immaterial things to be posterior and that of material things to be prior, define essence in these terms: It is the primary matter of existing things out of which they are or the matter of bodily things out of which they are; or that of terms out of which they are; or the primary unqualified substance or presubstance of existing things; or that which admits of all transformations and modifications though itself as such inherently incapable of modification; or that which undergoes all modification and transformation.

On their view essence is inherently unqualified and inarticulate as such. It is even indeterminate in magnitude, but it is involved in all quality as a kind of ready ground for it. By qualities they mean distinctively like the actualities and the activities in which movements and articulations of the essence have come to be, and they say that the essence as such has no part in these inherently though it is always incidentally inseparable from some of them and equally receptive of all the agent's actualizations however it may act and transform. (For it the force associated with the essence, pervading all that would be responsible for all quality and the particular dispositions involving it.)

And they say that it is throughout transformable and throughout divisible, and that any essence can coalesce with any other, all being a unity not withstanding. What I have said in this discussion of essence raised by the expressions the needful bread and the peculiar people has been to distinguish the meanings of essence. And since we have already seen that it is spiritual bread for which we ought to ask, we must needs understand the essence to be akin to the bread, so that just as material bread on assimilation into the body of the nourished passes into its essence, so the living bread which is come down from heaven being assimilated into the mind and soul may impart its own power to him who has lent himself to nourishment from it, and so become the needful bread for which we ask.

And again, in like manner, as the nourished attains strength varying according to the character of the nourishment whether solid and fit for athletes or of the nature of milk and vegetables, so it follows that when the word of God is given either as milk as befits children, or as vegetables as suits invalids, or as flesh as is proper for combatants, each of the nourished acquires this or that power or nature according to the word to which he has lent himself.

Moreover, there is a kind of reputed nourishment which is in reality harmful, a second that is productive of disease, and another that cannot even be assimilated, and all of these may be transferred by analogy to varieties of reputedly nourishing teachings. Needful, therefore, is the bread which corresponds most closely to our rational nature and is akin to our very essence, which invests the soul at once with well being and with strength, and, since the Word of God is immortal, imparts to its eater its own immortality.

It is just this needful bread that seems to me to be otherwise termed in Scripture a tree of life, he who stretches forth his hand to which and takes of it shall live unto eternity. And under a third name this tree is termed wisdom of God in Solomon's words: She is a tree of life to all that take hold upon her and to those that lean upon her as upon the Lord she is safe. And since the angels also are nourished by God's wisdom receiving power for the accomplishment of their proper works from their contemplation in truth with wisdom, it is said in Psalms that the angels also are nourished, men of God designated Hebrews holding communion with the angels and, as it were, even becoming messfellows with them.

Such is the meaning of the saying:Bread of angels hath man eaten. Far from us be such poverty of mind as to suppose that it is of some material bread, such as is recorded to have come down from heaven upon those who had quitted Egypt, that the angels continually partake and are nourished, as though it was actually in this that the Hebrews had communion with the angels, God's ministering spirits. And while we are considering the needful bread and the tree of life and the wisdom of God and the common nourishment of saintly men and angels, it is not untimely to refer to the three men recorded in Genesis who were entertained by Abraham and partook of three measures of fine flour of wheat kneaded into ember-cakes, and to observe that this may perhaps simply be told in a figurative sense.

It would show that saints are able upon occasion to impart spiritual and rational nourishment not only to men but also to divine powers, either for their benefit or for the exhibition of their most nourishing acquisitions, the angels being cheered and nourished in such display and becoming the readier to cooperate in every way and henceforth to conspire in the apprehension of fuller and greater things by the man who has cheered and so to say nourished them with his store of nourishing teachings already acquired.

No wonder that a man may nourish angels when even Christ avows himself to stand before the door and knock in order that He may enter into him that opens to Him and sup with him on his fare, thereafter Himself in turn to impart His own to him who first according to his individual power has entertained the Son of God. So then the partaker of the needful bread, having his heart confirmed, becomes a son of God whereas he that has portion in the serpent is none other than a spiritual Ethiopian and himself in turn changes into a snake by reason of the serpent's toils so that, even should he express a desire for baptism, he is reproached by the Word and hears it said: Snakes, offspring of vipers, who hath prompted you to flee from the coming wrath?

And David speaks of the serpent body being fed on by Ethiopians: Thou has shattered the heads of the serpents in the water, you hast crushed the serpent's head, you hast given him to be food for the Ethiopian peoples. If it is not absurd to suppose that, since the Son of God and also the Adversary are of essential substances, either of them may become nourishment to this soul or that, why need we hesitate in the case of all powers, better and worse, including human beings, to believe that each one of us may derive nourishment from any of them?

As Peter was about to commune with the centurion Cornelius and those who met together with him in Caesarea, and thereafter to impart the words of God to the Gentiles also, he saw, the vessel let down from heaven by four corners, in which were all manner of quadrupeds and reptiles and beasts of the earth, whereupon he was also bidden rise up and stay and eat, and after he had said in deprecation: Thou knowest that nothing common or unclean hath ever entered my mouth, he was commanded to call no man common or unclean because what God had made clean ought not to be made common by Peter; in the words of the passage, what things God hath made clean make not you common.

Accordingly the clean and unclean food distinguished according to the law of Moses in terms of various animals bear an analogy to the differing characters of rational beings and teaches that some are nourishing for us but others the reverse until God has cleansed and made all, or those from every race, nourishing. But while that is indeed so and while there is such diversity among foods, the needful bread, for which we ought to pray in order to be counted worthy of it, and, being nourished by the Word that was God with God in the beginning to be made divine God, is one and transcends all the foods mentioned.

But it will be said that the word epiousion, needful, is formed from epienai, to go on, so that we are bidden to ask for the bread proper to the coming age, in order that God may take it in advance and bestow it on us now. Thus what was to be given as it were tomorrow would be given us today, today being taken to mean the present age, tomorrow the coming. Since, however, as far as I can judge, the preceding interpretation is better, let us go on to consider the added reference to today in Matthew or the expression daily written in Luke.

To call the whole present age today is a usage frequent in the Scriptures, as in the passages: He is father of the Moabites until today, and He is father of the Ammonites until today, and this account has been reported among Jews until today, and in the Psalms, Today if you hear His voice harden not your hearts. In Joshua, this is expressed very clearly: Turn not away from the Lord in the days of today. And if today means the whole present age, yesterday is probably the bygone age. That I have understood to be its meaning in Psalms and in Paul in the Epistle to Hebrews.

In Psalms it is thus: A thousand years are in thine eyes as a yesterday that had passed—whatever the much talked of millennium means, it is likened to yesterday as opposed to today; and in the apostle it is written, Jesus Christ is the same yesterday and today and unto the ages. No wonder that the whole of an age counts with God as the space of a single day with us, aye and less as I think. We may also consider whether the accounts of feasts or assemblies recorded in terms of days or months or seasons or years have symbolical references to ages. For if the law contains a shadow of coming things, its many Sabbaths must be a shadow of many days and its moons come round in the course of intervals of time, completed by some manner of a moon's conjunction with some sun.

And if a first month and tenth till fourteenth day and a feast of unleavened bread from fourteenth till twenty-first contain a shadow of coming things, who is wise and to such a degree God's friend as to have vision of the first among many months and its tenth day and so on? What need I say of that feast of seven weeks of days, and of that seventh month whose new moon is a day of trumpets and on whose tenth day falls a day of atonement, which are known to God alone who has enacted them? Who has to such a degree received the mind of Christ as to interpret those seventh years of freedom for Hebrew domestic slaves and of remission of debts and of cessation from tillage of the holy land?

And over and above the feast of every seven years there is yet another year, the so-called Jubilee, clearly to imagine whose nature even partially, or the true laws to be fulfilled in it, is for no one save Him who has contemplated the Father's counsel in reference to the order in all the ages according to His unsearchable judgments and His univestigable ways. In trying to reconcile two apostolic passages it has often occurred to me to raise the question how there can be consummation of ages at which Jesus has been manifested once for all unto abolition of sins if there are going to be ages following after this. The Apostles' passages are as follows: In the Epistle to Hebrews, but now at a consummation of the ages He hath been manifested once for all unto abolition of sins through His sacrifice; but in the Epistle to Ephesians, in order that He may show forth, in the years following, the exceeding riches of His Grace in kindness toward us.

Well, in conjecture as to matters so great, I believe that, just as the year's consummation is it's last month after which arises another month's beginning, so probably the present age is a consummation of numerous ages completing as it were a year of ages, and after it certain coming ages will arise whose beginning is the coming age, and in those coming ages God shall show forth the riches of His Grace in kindness, when the greatest sinner, who for having spoken ill against the Holy Spirit is held fast by his sin throughout the present age and the coming one from beginning to end, shall after that, I know not how, receive a dispensation.

When a man has had vision of these things and has given thought to a week of ages with intent to contemplate a kind of holy sabbath—keeping and a month of ages to see God's holy new moon, and a year of ages to survey the feasts of the year when every male must appear before the Lord God, and the corresponding years of so many ages to discern the seventh holy year, and seven weekly years of ages to sing a hymn to the Enactor of Laws so great, how can he after such consideration cavil over what is the merest fraction of an hour in the day of such an age, instead of doing everything to become, through his preparation here, worthy of obtaining the needful bread and to receive it while it is today and daily, what daily means being already clear from the foregoing explanations.

For he who prays today to God, who is from infiniti to infiniti, not only for today but also in a sense for that which is daily shall be enabled to receive from Him who hath power to bestow exceedingly above what we ask or think even things—to use extreme language—which transcend those that eye hath not seen and ear hath not heard and that have not gone up into the heart of man. These considerations seem to me to have been very necessary for the understanding of both the expressions today and daily when we are praying that the needful bread be given us from His Father.

XVIII. AND FORGIVE US OUR DEBTS AS WE ALSO HAVE FORGIVEN OUR DEBTORS

And forgive us our Debts as we also have forgiven our Debtors, or as Luke has it, And forgive us our Sins, for we also ourselves forgive everyone in Debt to us. Concerning debts the Apostle also says: Pay your debts to all—to whom you owe tribute, tribute, to whom fear, fear, to whom taxes, taxes, to whom honor, honor: owe no man anything save mutual love.

We owe therefore in having certain duties not only in giving but also in kind speech and corresponding actions, and indeed we owe a certain disposition towards one another. Owing these things, we either pay them through discharging the commands of the divine law, or failing to pay them, in contempt of the salutary word, we remain in debt. The like reflection applies to debts toward brothers, to those who in the religious sense have been born again with us in Christ, as well as to those who have a common mother or father with us.

We also have a certain debt toward fellow citizens, and another toward all men in common, in particular toward guests and toward men at the age of fatherhood, and another toward such as it is right that we should honor as sons or as brothers. He, therefore, who does not do what is a debt to be discharged to brothers remains a debtor for what he has not done. So, too, should we fail in what falls, at the prompting of the charitable spirit of wisdom, to human beings also at our hands, our indebtedness becomes the greater. Indeed, we also have debt in personal concerns—to use the body in a certain way, so as not to wear out the flesh of the body through love of pleasure, and on the other hand to treat the soul with a certain care, and to take forethought for the keenness of the mind, and for our speech that it be without sting and helpful and not trifling. Whenever we fail to perform what we owe, even to ourselves, the heavier does our debt become.

Besides all these, being above all a creation and formation of God, we owe it to preserve a certain disposition towards Him with love that is from a whole heart and from a whole strength and from a whole mind, and if we fail to achieve this we remain God's debtors, sinning against the Lord. And who in that case shall pray for us? For if a man sinning sin against a man, then shall they pray for him: but if he sin against the Lord, who shall pray for him? as Eli says in the first book of Kings.

Moreover, we are debtors to Christ who bought us with His own blood, just as every house slave is also debtor to his purchaser for the sum of money given for him. We have also a certain indebtedness to the Holy Spirit: we are paying it when we do not grieve Him in whom we were sealed unto a day of redemption, and when, without grieving Him, we bear the fruits demanded of us, He being present with us and quickening our soul.

And even though we do not know precisely which is our individual angel that looks upon the face of the Father in heaven, it is at least manifest to each of us upon reflection that we are debtors to him also for certain things. And inasmuch as we are in a world theater both of angels and of men, one must know that as the performer in a theater owes it to say or do certain things in sight of the spectators, and if he fails to perform this is punished as having insulted the whole theater, so we, too, owe to the whole world, to all the angels and the race of men alike, those things which, if we have the will, we shall learn of wisdom.

Apart from those more general debts, there is a certain indebtedness to a widow who is being provided for by the church, a second to a deacon, another to an elder, while that to a bishop is heaviest of all—being demanded by the Savior of the whole church and avenged if not paid. As already said, the Apostle mentions a certain common debt between husband and wife, when he says: Let the husband pay his indebtedness to the wife and wife likewise to the husband, and continues Deprive not one another.

But what need is there, when readers of this writing select their own examples from the record, for me to speak of all the things we owe which we either fail to pay and so come to be restrained or else pay and come to be free? Suffice it to say that it is impossible while in this life to be without debt at any hour of night or day. In owing, a man either pays or else withholds the indebtedness. He may either pay or withhold in this life. Some indeed owe no man anything; others pay off most and owe little; others pay little and owe more; and a man may conceivably pay nothing and owe everything.

And besides, he who pays all so as to owe nothing may at sometimes effect his object if he prays for forgiveness for previous indebtedness, inasmuch as such forgiveness may reasonably be thought obtainable by one who has for sometime made it his ambition to reach the position of having no obligation unpaid and thus owing nothing. Our very activities in transgression leave their impression within our mind and become the indictment against us on which we shall be brought to trial when, as it were, the books that have been indicted by us all shall be brought forth, in the time when we shall all stand before the judgment seat of Christ that each may receive what he has earned through the body according to his conduct whether good or bad.

It is also in reference to such indebtedness that it is said in the Proverbs: Give not yourself in certainty to your shame, for if the man shall not have ability to pay, they shall take your bed that is under you. But if we owe to so many, it is certain that men owe to us also. Some owe to us as to human beings, others as to fellow citizens, others as to fathers, some as to sons, yet others as wives to husbands or as friends to friends. Whenever, accordingly, any of our very numerous debtors have behaved too remiss in the matter of payment of there dues to us, our more charitable course will be to bear them no grudge and to remember our own indebtedness and how often we have failed to discharge them not only towards men but also towards God himself.

Remembering what as debtors we have not paid but withheld during the time which it was our duty to have done this or that for our neighbor had run by, we shall be gentler toward those who have fallen in debt to us in turn and have not paid their indebtedness, especially if we do not forget our transgressions against the Divine and the unrighteousness we have spoken against the Height either in ignorance of the truth or else in displeasure at the misfortunes that have befallen us.

But if we refuse to become gentler towards those who have fallen in debt to us, our experience will be that of him who did not remit the hundred shillings to his fellow servant and of whom, according to the parable set down in the gospel, though already pardoned, the master exacts in severity what had already been remitted, saying to him: Wicked servant and slothful, was it not right for you to pity your fellow servant as I also pitied you? Cast him into prison until he pay all that is owed. And the Lord continues: So shall the heavenly Father do to you also if you forgive not each his brother from your hearts.

It is however on profession of penitence that we are to forgive those who have sinned against us, even though our debtor often does so; for He says: If your brother sin against you seven times a day and seven times turn and say, "I repent," you shall forgive him. It is not we who are harsh towards the impenitent, but they who are wicked to themselves, for he that spurns instruction hates himself. Yet even in such cases we should seek in every way that healing arise within him who is so completely perverted as not even to be conscious of his own ills but to be drunken with a drunkenness more fatal than from wine, from the darkening of evil.

When Luke says Forgive us our Sins he means the same as Matthew, since sins are constituted when we owe and do not pay, though he does not appear to lend support to him who would forgive only penitent debtors when he says that it is enacted by the Savior that we ought in prayer to add: for we ourselves also forgive everyone in debt to us. And it would seem that we have all authority to forgive the sins that have been committed against us as is clear from both clauses: as we also have forgiven our debtors; and for we ourselves also forgive everyone in debt to us. But it is when a man is inspired by Jesus as were the apostles, when he can be known from his fruits to have received the Spirit that is Holy and to have become spiritual through being led by the Spirit after the manner of a Son of God unto every reasonable duty, that he forgives whatsoever God has forgiven and holds those sins that are irremediable, and as the prophets served God in speaking not their own message but that of the divine Will, so he too serves the God who alone has authority to forgive.

In the Gospel according to John the language referring to the forgiveness exercised by the apostles runs thus: Receive the Holy Spirit: whosoever's sins you forgive, they are forgiven unto them: whosoever's you hold, they are held. Anyone taking these words without discrimination might blame the apostles for not forgiving all men in order that all might be forgiven but holding the sins of some so that they are held with God also on their account.

It is helpful to take an example from the Law with a view to understand God's forgiveness of sins through men. Legal priests are prohibited from offering sacrifice for certain sins in order that the persons for whom the sacrifices are made may have their misdeeds forgiven; and though the priest has authority to make offerings for certain involuntary or willful misdeeds, he of course does not presume to offer a sacrifice for sin in cases of adultery or willful murder or any other more serious offence.

So, too, the apostles, and those who have become like apostles, being priests according to the Great High Priest and having received knowledge of the service of God, know under the Spirit's teaching for which sins, and when, and how they ought to offer sacrifices, and recognize for which they ought not to do so. Thus Eli the priest, knowing that his sons Hophni and Phineahas are sinners, with a sense of his inability to cooperate with them for forgiveness of sins, confesses his despair of such a result in his words:

If a man sins against a man, then shall they pray for him, but if he sin against the Lord, who shall pray for him? I know not how it is, but there are some who have taken upon themselves what is beyond priestly dignity, perhaps through utter lack of accurate priestly knowledge, and are proud of their ability to pardon even acts of idolatry and to forgive acts of adultery and fornication, claiming that even sin unto death is absolved through their prayer for those who have dared to commit such.

They do not read the words: There is sin unto death; not for it do I say that a man should ask. Nor should we omit to mention the resolute Job's offering of sacrifice for his sons, with the words: Perhaps my sons have had evil thoughts in their minds toward God. Though the sinful thoughts are doubtful and at worst have not reached the lips, he offers his sacrifice for them.

XIX. AND BRING US NOT INTO TEMPTATION BUT DELIVER US FROM EVIL

And bring us not into Temptation but deliver us from Evil. In Luke the words but deliver us from Evil are omitted. Assuming that the Savior does not command us to pray for the impossible, it appears to me to deserve consideration in what sense we are bidden to pray not to enter into temptation when all human life on earth is a test.

In that on earth we are beset by the flesh which wars against the spirit and whose intent is emnity to God as it is by no means capable of being subject to the law of God, we are in temptation. That all human life on earth is a trial we have learned from Job in the words: Is not the life of men on earth a trial, and the same thing is made plain from the seventeenth psalm in the words: In you will I be delivered from trial. Paul, too, writing to the Corinthians says that God bestows not freedom from temptation but freedom from temptation beyond one's power.

More than human temptation has not possessed you, and God is to be trusted not to let you be tempted beyond your power but to make the temptation be accompanied by the outlet of power to endure it. Whether our wrestling is with the flesh that lusts or wars against the spirit, or with the soul of all flesh—in other words the ruling faculty, called the heart, of the body in which it resides—as is the wrestling of those who are tempted with human temptations, or, as advanced and maturer athletes, who no longer wrestle with blood and flesh nor are reviewed in the human temptations which they have already trampled down, our struggles are with the principalities and authorities and world-rulers of His darkness and the Spiritual forces of evil, we have no release from temptation.

In what sense then does the Savior bid us pray not to enter into temptation, when God in some sense tempts all men? Think you, says Judith, not only to the elders of that day but also to all readers of her writing, of all that He did with Abraham and all His temptations of Isaac and all that befell Jacob in Mesopotamia of Syria while he shepherded the flocks of Laban, his mother's brother. For it is not that whereas He tested them by fire for the proving of their hearts, the Lord who, for their admonishment, scourges those who approach Him, now wreaks vengeance upon us.

And David declares as a general truth concerning all righteous men that Many are the afflictions of the righteous, while in the acts the Apostle says: because it is through many afflictions that we must enter into the kingdom of God. And if we failed to understand what escapes most men in reference to prayer that we enter not into temptation, we would at this point say that the apostles were not heard in their prayers since throughout their whole time they endured countless sufferings: in toils more abundantly, in blows more abundantly, in prisons above measure, in deaths often, while Paul in particular: five times received forty stripes save one at the hands of Jews, thrice was beaten with rods, once was stoned, thrice was shipwrecked, passed a night and a day in the deep, a man in every way afflicted, in straits, persecuted, cast down, confessing: Until the present hour we have hungered, thirsted, gone naked, been buffeted, lacked rest, toiled at work with our own hands. Reviled, we have blessed; persecuted, we have borne up; slandered, we have exhorted.

When the apostles have failed in prayer, we might ask what hope there is for any of their inferiors to obtain God's hearing when one prays? One ignorant of the true meaning of the Savior's command will have reason to suppose that the words in the twenty-fifth psalm, Test me, O Lord, and try me; assay my reins and my heart with fire, are in opposition to our Lord's teaching about prayer. And when has anyone ever believed that those of whom he had complete knowledge were free of temptations?

And what time can be conceived during which a man could be lighthearted as though he did not struggle to avoid sinning? Is a man poor? Let him beware lest one day he steal and forswear by the name of God. Again, is he rich? Let him not be lighthearted, for he may become completely false and say in exaltation, "Who sees me?" Even Paul, for all his riches, in all manner of discourse and in all manner of knowledge, is not released from the danger of sinning on their account through excessive exaltation, but needs a stake of Satan to buffet him in order that he may not be excessively exalted. Even though a man may have a comparatively good conscience and fly up in alarm from things evil, let him read what is said in the second book of the Chronicles of Hezekiah, who is said to have fallen from the elevation of his heart.

And if, because I have not dwelt on the case of the poor, someone is lighthearted—as though poverty involved no temptation—he must know that the Plotter plots to cast down the needy and the poor, especially since according to Solomon, the needy endure no threats. And what need is there to tell how many, because of their material riches which they had failed to manage rightly, have found a place in punishment along with the rich man in the Gospel? And how many, because they bore poverty ignobly, with behavior more servile and base than was seemly in Saints, have fallen away from their heavenly hope? Even they who are midway between these extremes of riches and poverty are not by any means released from sinning according to their possession, moderate though it be.

Again, one who is in bodily health and well being imagines that by virtue of his mere health and well being he is outside of all temptation. And yet, whose sin it is, apart from those in well being and in health, to corrupt the temple of God, no one will venture to say because the meaning of the passage is clear to everyone. And who in sickness has escaped the incitements to corrupt the temple of God, having leisure at such time and readily admitting thoughts of unclean things, not to speak of all the others things beside these which trouble him unless he guards his heart with all vigilance?

Many a man, overcome by troubles and incapable of bearing sickness manfully, has been shown to be suffering at the time from sickness rather of the soul than of the body, and many another, ashamed to bear the name of Christ nobly, has, through shunning disrepute, fallen into eternal shame. Again, a man may think that he has respite from temptation when he is in honor among men. Yet is not the Lord's saying, They have their reward from men, proclaimed to those who are elated over their popularity? Do not the words strike dismay: How can you have come to believe, when you have received glory from one another, and seek not the glory which is from God alone?

And what need is there for me to recount the crimes done in pride by the reputed noble, and the fawning submission of the so-called low born towards the reputed noble by reason of their ignorance, a submission which separates from God men who are devoid of genuine friendliness but feign that fairest of human possessions—love. The whole life of man on earth is therefore a trial, as has already been said. Let us for that reason pray for deliverance from trial not through being exempt from it—that is an utter impossibility for beings on earth—but through not succumbing under it.

It is when a man succumbs in the moment of tempting, I take it, that he enters into temptation, being held in its nets. Into those nets the Savior entered for the sake of those who had already been caught in them, and in the words of the Song of Songs, looking out through the meshwork makes answer to those who have been already caught by them and have entered into temptation, and says to those who form His bride: Arise, my dear one, my fair one, my dove. To bring home the fact that every time is one of temptation on earth, I will add that even he who meditates upon the law of God day and night and makes a practice of carrying out the saying, A righteous man's mouth shall meditate on wisdom, has no release from being tempted. How many in their devotion to the examination of the divine Scriptures have, through misunderstanding the messages contained in Law and Prophets, devoted themselves to godless and impious or to foolish and ridiculous opinions?

What need is there for me to answer, when there are countless examples of such mistakes among those who do not seem to be open to the charge of righteousness in their reading? The same fate has also overtaken many in their reading of the Apostles and Gospels inasmuch as, through their own lack of discernment, they fashion in imagination a Son or a Father other than the One divinely conceived and truly recognized by Holy Writ. For one who fails to have true thoughts of God or His Christ has fallen away from the true God and from His Only Begotten, and his worship of the imaginary Father and Son, fashioned by his lack of discernment, is no real worship. Such is his fate through having failed to recognize the temptation present in the reading of Holy Writ to arm himself and take a stand as for a struggle already upon him.

We ought therefore to pray, not that we be not tempted—that is impossible—but that we be not encompassed by temptation, the fate of those who are open to it and are overcome. Now since, outside of the Lord's Prayer, it is written Pray that you enter not into temptation, the force of which may perhaps be clear from what has already been said, whereas in the Lord's prayer we ought to say to God our Father, Bring us not into Temptation, it is worth seeing in what sense we ought to think of God as leading one who does not pray or is not heard into temptation. If entering into temptation means being overcome, it is manifestly out of the question to think that God leads anyone into temptation as though He delivered him to be overcome.

The same difficulty awaits one no matter in what sense one may interpret the words Pray that you enter not into temptation, for if it is an evil to fall into temptation, which we pray may not be our fate, must it not be out of place to think of the Good God, who is incapable of bearing evil fruits, as encompassing anyone with evils? It is of service to cite in this connection what Paul has said in the Epistle to Romans—thus: Claiming to be wise they became foolish and changed the glory of the incorruptible God into the likeness of an image of corruptible man and of winged and four footed and creeping things. Wherefore God delivered them in the lusts of their hearts unto uncleanness to the dishonoring of their bodies among themselves; and shortly after:

Therefore God delivered them unto passions of dishonor: for both their females changed the natural use into the unnatural, and the males likewise setting aside the natural use of the female, were consumed... and so on. And again shortly after: And as they proved not to have God in full knowledge, God delivered them unto a reprobate mind to do the unseemly.

We may simply confront dividers of the Godhead with all these passages and put these questions to them since they hold that the good Father of Our Lord is distinct from the God of the law. Is it the good God who leads into temptation one who fails in prayer? Is it the Father of the Lord who delivers in the lusts of their hearts those who have already done some sin unto uncleanness to the dishonoring of their bodies among themselves?

Is it He who, as they themselves say, is free from judging and punishing, who delivers unto passions of dishonor and unto a reprobate mind to do the unseemly men who would not have fallen into the lusts of their hearts had they not been delivered to them by God, who would not have succumbed to passions of dishonor had they not been delivered to them by God, and who would not have lapsed into a reprobate mind but for the fact that the so condemned had been delivered to it by God.

I am well aware that these passages will trouble such thinkers exceedingly. Indeed they have fashioned in imagination a God other than the Maker of heaven and earth, because they find many such passages in the Law and the Prophets and have been offended by the author of such utterances as not good. But I on my part, for the sake of that question, raised in connection with the words Bring us not into Temptation, which led to my citation of the apostle's words also, must now consider whether I in turn find a solution of apparent contradictions worth considering. Well, it is my belief that God rules over each rational soul, having regard to its everlasting life, in such a way that it is always in possession of free will and is itself responsible alike for being, in the better way, in progress towards the perfection of goodness, or otherwise for descending as the result of heedlessness to this or that degree of aggravation of vice.

Accordingly, since a swift and somewhat short cure gives rise in some men to a contempt for the disease into which they have fallen, with the possible result of their incurring it a second time, He will in such other cases with good reason allow the vice to increase to a certain extent, suffering it even to be aggravated in them to the verge of incurableness, in order that they may be sated through long continuance in the evil and through surfeit of the sin for which they lust, and may be brought to a sense of their injury, and, having learned to hate what formerly they welcomed, may be enabled when cured to enjoy more steadfastly the health which their cure has brought to their souls. So it was that the mixed throng among the Children of Israel, once fell into lust.

Sitting down they and the Children of Israel cried out saying, "Who will give us flesh to eat? We remember the fish we used to eat freely in Egypt, and the cucumbers and melons and leeks and onions and garlic, but now is our soul parched; our eyes are on nothing save the manna." Then, shortly after, it is said: And Moses heard them crying in their tribes; each was at his door. And again shortly after the Lord says to Moses: And you shall say to the people, "Sanctify yourselves for the morrow, and eat flesh, because you have cried before the Lord saying, 'Who will give us flesh to eat, because it was well with us in Egypt,' and the Lord shall give you flesh to eat. So eat flesh! Eat it not one nor two nor five days, not ten nor twenty days; for a month of days eat till it issue from your nostrils, and it shall make you ill, because you have disobeyed the Lord who is among you, and have cried before Him, 'Wherefore have we left Egypt?'" Let us therefore see whether the narrative I have laid before you as a parallel is of help towards a solution of the apparent contradiction in the clause Bring us not into temptation and in the words of the apostle. Having fallen into lust, the mixed throng among the Children of Israel cried and the Children of Israel with them.

Plainly so long as they were without the objects of their lust, they were not able to be sated with them or cease their passion. In fact, it was the will of the benevolent and good God, in giving them the object of their lust, not to give it in such a way that any lust should be left in them. For that reason He tells them to eat the flesh not one day—for had they partaken of the flesh a short time their passion would have remained in their soul which would have been kindled and set ablaze by it—nor does He give them the object of their lust for two days.

It being His will to make it excessive for them, He utters what is, to one who can understand, a threat rather than a promise of their apparent gratification, saying, "Neither shall you pass five days eating the flesh nor twofold those, nor yet twofold those again, but eat flesh for a whole mouth, until such time as your imagined good shall issue from your nostrils with choleric affection, and with it your culpable and base lust for it. So shall I set you free from all further lust of living, that when you have come out in such condition you may be pure from lust and may remember all the troubles through which you were set free from it.

Thus you shall be enabled either not to fall into it again, or, should that ever happen through forgetfulness during the long lapse of time of your sufferings on account of lust, if you take no heed to yourselves and not appropriate the Word that completely frees you from every passion, if you fall into evil and at a later time, through having come to lust again for creation, require a second time to obtain the objects of your lust—in hatred of that object revert again to the good and heavenly nourishment through despising that which you longed for the most."

The like fate, accordingly, will overtake those who have changed the glory of the incorruptible God into the likeness of an image of corruptible man and of winged and four-footed and creeping things, and who are forsaken of God and thereby delivered in the lusts of their hearts unto uncleanness to the dishonoring of their bodies as men who have brought down to soulless insensible matter the name of Him who has bestowed upon all sentient rational beings not only sense but even rational sense, and to some indeed a complete and excellent sense and intelligence. Such men are reasonably delivered to passion of dishonor by the God whom they have forsaken, being forsaken by Him in return, receiving the requital of error through which they came to love the itch for pleasure.

For it is more of a requital of their error for them to be delivered to passions of dishonor than to be cleansed by the fire of Wisdom and to have each of their debts exacted from them in prison to the last farthing. For in being delivered to passions of dishonor which are not only natural but many of the unnatural, they are debased and hardened by the flesh and become as though they had no soul or intelligence any longer but were flesh entirely, whereas in fire and prison they receive not requital of their error but benefaction for the cleansing of the evil contracted in their error, along with salutary sufferings attendant in the pleasure-loving and are thereby set free from all stain and blood in whose defilement and pollution they had to their own undoing been unable even to think of being saved.

So their God shall wash away the stain of the sons and daughters of Zion and shall cleanse away the blood from their midst with a spirit of judgment and a spirit of burning: for He comes in as the fire of a furnace and as soap, washing and cleansing those who are in need of such remedies because it has not been their clear desire to have knowledge of God. After being delivered to these remedies they will of their own accord hate the reprobate mind, for it is God's will that a man acquire goodness not as under necessity but of his own accord. Some, it may well be, will have had difficulty in perceiving the baseness of evil as the result of long familiarity with it, but then turning away from it as falsely taken to be good.

Consider too, whether God's reason for hardening the heart of Pharaoh also is that he may, because hardened, be unable to say, as in fact he did, "The Lord is righteous, but I and my people are impious." Rather it is that he needs more and more to be hardened and to undergo certain sufferings, in order that he may not, as the result of a too speedy end to the hardening, despise hardening as an evil and frequently again deserve to be hardened.

If their nets are not wrongfully stretched for birds, according to the statement in the Proverbs, but God rightly leads men into the snare, as one has said, You led us into the snare, and if not even a sparrow, cheapest of birds, falls into the snare without the counsel of the Father, its fall into the snare being due to the failure to use aright its control of its wings given to it to soar, let us pray to do nothing to deserve being brought into temptation by the righteous judgment of God, as in the case with everyone who is delivered by God in the lusts of his own heart unto uncleanness, or delivered unto passions of dishonor, or as not having proved to have God in full knowledge, is delivered unto a reprobate mind to do the unseemly. The use of temptation is somewhat as follows. Through temptations the content of our soul, which is a secret to all except God, ourselves included, becomes manifest, in order that it may no longer be a secret to us what manner of men we are but that we may have fuller knowledge of ourselves and realize, if we choose, our own evils and be thankful for the blessings manifested to us through temptations. That the temptations which befall us take place for the revealing of our true nature or the discerning of what is hidden in our heart, is set forth by the Lord's saying in Job and by the scripture in Deuteronomy, which runs thus: Think you that I have uttered speech to you for any reason other than that you may be revealed as righteous?

And in Deuteronomy: He afflicted you and starved you and gave you manna to eat, and He led you about in the wilderness where biting serpents and scorpions and thirst are, that the things in your heart might be discerned. And if we desire references to plain history, it is matter of knowledge that Eve's readiness to be deceived and unsoundness of thought did not originate when in disobedience to God she hearkened to the serpent, but had already been betrayed, the reason for the serpent's having engaged her being that with its peculiar wisdom it had perceived her weakness.

Nor was it the beginning of evil in Cain where he slew his brother, for already the heart-knowing God had little regard for Cain and his sacrifices. It was simply that his wickedness became manifest when he took Abel's life. Had Noah not drunk of the wine that he cultivated and become intoxicated and uncovered himself, neither Ham's indiscretion and irreverence towards his father nor his brother's reverence and modesty towards their parent would have been revealed.

Though Esau's plot against Jacob seemed to have provided an excuse for his being deprived of the blessing, his soul even before that had roots of fornication and profanity. And we should never have known of the splendor of Joseph's self-control, prepared as he was against falling a victim to any lust, had his master's wife not fallen in love with him. Let us therefore, in the intervals between the succession of temptations, make a stand against the impending trial, and prepare ourselves for all possible contingencies—in order that, come what may, we may not be convicted of unreadiness but may be shown to have braced ourselves with the utmost care. For when we have carried out all our part, the deficiency caused by human weakness will be filled up by God who cooperates for good in all things with those who love Him, and whose future growth has been foreseen according to His unerring knowledge.

In the words Bring us not into Temptation Luke seems to me to have virtually taught Deliver us from Evil also. In any case it is natural that the Lord should have addressed the briefer form to the disciple as he had already been helped, but the more explicit to the many who were in need of clearer teaching. God delivers us from Evil, not when the enemy does not engage us at all in conflict through any of his own wiles or those of the ministers of his will, but when we make a manful stand against contingencies and are victorious.

In that sense I have also taken the words: Many are the afflictions of the righteous: and He delivers them from them all. For God delivers us from afflictions not when afflictions are no more—and surely Paul's expression in everything afflicted implies that affliction had never yet ceased—but when, by God's help, under affliction we are not straitened.

According to a usage native to Hebrews, 'affliction' denotes misfortune that happens without reference to a human will, whereas 'straitening' refers to the will overcome by affliction and surrendered to it: hence Paul well says: in everything afflicted but not impoverished. And I consider the words in Psalms In affliction you set me at large to be similar, for by 'setting at large' is meant the joyousness and cheerfulness of temper which comes to us from God in the season of misfortune through the cooperation and presence of God's encouraging and saving Word. We are accordingly to understand deliverance from evil in the same way. God delivered Job, not through the Devil's failure to receive authority to beset him with certain temptations—for he did receive it—but through his own avoidance of sin in the sight of God amidst all that befell him and through the exhibition of his righteousness.

Thus he who had said: Does Job revere God for nothing? Have you not fenced about with a circle his goods without and his goods within the house and the goods of all who are his, and blessed his work and made his flocks and herds to abound on the earth? But send forth your hand, and touch all that he has, and surely he will curse you to your face, was put to shame as having thereby spoken falsely against Job, for he, after all his suffering, did not, as the Adversary said, curse God to His face, but even when delivered to the tempter he continued steadfastly blessing God, reproving his wife for saying Speak you some word against God and die, and rebuking her in the words: As one of the senseless women have you spoken.

If we have accepted the good from the Lord's hand, shall we not endure the evil? And a second time concerning Job the Devil said to the Lord: Skin for skin; all that the man has he will pay for his soul. Nay but send forth your hand and touch his bones and his flesh, and surely he will curse you to your face. But he is overcome by the champion of virtue and shown to be a liar, for Job inspite of the severest sufferings stood firm committing no sin with his lips in the sight of God. Two falls did Job wrestle and conquer, but no third such struggle did he undergo, for the threefold wrestling had to be reserved for the Savior, as it is recorded in the three Gospels, when the Savior known in human form thrice conquered the Enemy. In order therefore to ask of God intelligently that we enter not into temptation and that we be delivered from Evil, let us consider these things and investigate them in our own minds more carefully. Through hearkening unto God let us become worthy to be heard by Him, and let our entreaty be that when tempted we may not be brought to death, and that when assailed by flaming darts of evil, we may not be set on fire by them.

All whose hearts are (as one of the Twelve Prophets says, as an ember-pan) are set on fire by them, but not so they who with the shield of faith quench all the flaming darts aimed at them by the Evil One, since they have within themselves rivers of water springing up into life eternal which do not let the fire of the Evil One prevail but readily undo it with the flood of their inspired and saving thought that is impressed by contemplation of the truth upon the soul of him whose study is to be spiritual.

XX. FORMALITIES OF PRAYER: CONCLUSION

I think it not out of place to add, by way of completing my task in reference to prayer, a somewhat elementary discussion of such matters as the disposition and the posture that is right for one who prays, the place where one ought to pray, the direction towards which one ought except in any special circumstances to look, and the time suitable and marked out for prayer.

The seat of disposition is to be found in the soul, that of the posture in the body. Thus Paul, as we observed above, suggests the disposition in speaking of the duty of praying without anger and disputation and the posture in the words lifting up holy hands, which he seems to me to have taken from the Psalms where it stands thus—the lifting up of my hands as evening sacrifice; as to the place I desire therefore that men pray in every place, and as to the direction in the Wisdom of Solomon: that it might be known that it is right to go before the sun to give thanks to you and to intercede with you towards the dawn of light.

Accordingly it seems to me that one who is about to enter upon prayer ought first to have paused awhile and prepared himself to engage in prayer throughout more earnestly and intently, to have cast aside every distraction and confusion of thought, to have bethought him to the best of his ability of the greatness of Him whom he is approaching and of the impiety of approaching Him frivolously and carelessly and, as it were, in contempt, and to have put away everything alien.

He ought thus to enter upon prayer with his soul, as it were, extended before his hands, and his mind intent on God before his eyes, and his intellect raised from earth and set toward the Lord of All before his body stands. Let him put away all resentment against any real or imagined injurer in proportion to his desire for God not to bear resentment against himself in turn for his injuries and sins against many of his neighbors or any wrong deeds whatsoever upon his conscience.

Of all the innumerable dispositions of the body that, accompanied by outstretching of the hands and upraising of the eyes, standing is preferred—inasmuch as one thereby wears in the body also the image of the devotional characteristics that become the soul. I say that these things ought to be observed by preference except in any special circumstances, for in special circumstances, by reason of some serious foot disease one may upon occasion quite properly pray sitting, or by reason of fevers or similar illnesses, lying, and indeed owing to circumstances, if, let us say, we are on a voyage or if our business does not permit us to retire to pay our debt of prayer, we may pray without any outward sign of doing so.

Moreover, one must know that kneeling is necessary when he is about to arraign his personal sins against God with supplication for their healing and forgiveness, because it is a symbol of submission and subjection. For Paul says; For this cause I bow my knees unto the Father from whom is all fatherhood named in heaven and on earth. It may be termed spiritual kneeling, because of the submission and self-humiliation of every being to God in the name of Jesus, that the apostle appears to indicate in the words: that in the name of Jesus every knee should bow in heaven and on earth and under the earth.

It should not be supposed that beings in heaven have bodies so fashioned as actually to possess knees, since their bodies have been described possibly as spherical in form by those who have discussed these matters more minutely. He who refuses to admit this will also, unless he outrages reason, admit the uses of each of the members in order that nothing fashioned for them by God may be in vain. One falls into error on either hand, whether he shall assert that bodily members have been brought into being by God for them in vain and not for their proper work, or shall say that the internal organs, the intestine included, perform their proper uses even in heavenly beings. Exceedingly foolish will it be to think that it is only their surface, as with statues, that is human in form and nothing further underneath.

This much discussion will suffice, then, of kneeling and of seeing that: in the name of Jesus every knee shall bow in heaven and on earth and under the earth. To the same effect, it is written by the prophet: To me every knee shall bow. In regard to place, it should be known that every place is rendered fit for prayer by one who prays rightly, for in every place sacrifice is offered to me... says the Lord, and I desire therefore that men pray in every place.

But to secure the performance of one's prayers in peace without distraction, the rule is for every man to make choice, if possible, of what I may term the most solemn spot in his house before he prays, considering in addition to his general examination of it, whether any violation of law or right has not been done in the place in which he is praying, so as to have made not only himself but also the place of his personal prayer of such a nature that the regard of God has fled from it.

And in reference to this matter of place, lengthy consideration leads me to say what may seem to be harsh, but what, if one inquires into it carefully, may possibly not invite contempt, namely that it is a question whether it is reverent and pure to intercede with God in the place of that union which is not unlawful but is conceded by the Apostle's word by way of indulgence not injunction. For if it is not possible to give oneself to prayer as one ought without devoting oneself to it by agreement for a season, the matter of the place also may possibly deserve to be considered if possible.

Yet there is a certain helpful charm in a place of prayer being the spot in which believers meet together. Also it may well be that the assemblies of believers also are attended by angelic powers, by the powers of our Lord and Savior himself, and indeed by the spirits of saints, including those already fallen asleep, certainly of those still in life, though just how is not easy to say. In reference to angels we may reason thus: If an angel of the Lord shall encamp round about those that fear Him and shall deliver them, and if Jacob's words are true, not only of himself but to all who have devoted themselves to God, when we understand him to say the angel who delivers me from all evil... it is natural to infer that, when a number of men are genuinely met for Christ's glory, that angel of each man—who is round about each of those that fear—will encamp with the man with whose guardianship and stewardship he has been entrusted, so that when saints assemble together there is a twofold church, the one of men the other of angels.

And although it is only the prayer of Tobit, and after him of Sarah who later became his daughter-in-law owing to her marriage to Tobias, that Raphael says he has offered up as a memorial, what happens when several are linked in one mind and conviction and are formed into one body in Christ? In reference to the presence of the power of the Lord with the church Paul says: you being gathered together with my spirit and with the power of the Lord Jesus, implying that the Lord Jesus' power is not only with the Ephesians but also with the Corinthians.

And if Paul, while still wearing the body, believed that he assisted in Corinth with his spirit, we need not abandon the belief that the blessed departed in spirit also, perhaps more than one who is in the body, make their way likewise into the churches. For that reason we ought not to despise prayer in churches, recognizing that it possesses a special virtue for him who genuinely joins in.

And just as Jesus' power and the spirit of Paul and similar men, and the angels of the Lord who encamp round about each of the saints, are associated and join with those who genuinely assemble themselves together, so we may conjecture that if any man be unworthy of a holy angel and give himself up through sin and transgressions in contempt of God to a devil's angel, he will perhaps, in the event of those like him being few, not long escape that providence of those angels which oversee the church by the authority of the divine will and will bring the misdeeds of such persons to general knowledge; whereas if such persons become numerous and meet as mere human societies with business of the more material sort, they will not be overseen.

That is shown in Isaiah when the Lord says: neither if you shall come to appear before me; for I will turn away my eyes from you, and even if you multiply your supplication I will not pay attention.

For in place of the already mentioned twofold company of saintly men and blessed angels there may, on the other hand, be a twofold association of impious men and evil angels. Of such a congregation it might be said alike by holy angels and by pious men: I sat not down with the council of vanity, and with transgressors I will not enter in; I hated the church of evildoers and with the impious I will not sit down. I think that it was also for such a reason that the people in Jerusalem and the whole of Judea, having come to be in a state of great sinfulness, became subject to their enemies through the abandonment by God and the overshielding angels and the saving work of saintly men—having become people who have abandoned the Law.

For whole gatherings are at times thus abandoned to fall into temptation in order that even that which they seem to have may be taken away from them. Like the fig tree that was cursed and taken away from the roots because it had not given fruit to the hungering Jesus, they wither and lose any little amount they once had of lively power according to faith.

So much for what seem to me to have been necessary observations in considering the place of prayer and in setting forth its special virtue in respect to place in the case of the meetings of saintly men who come together reverently in churches. A few words may now be added in reference to the direction in which one ought to look in prayer. Of the four directions, the North, South, East, and West, who would not at once admit that the East clearly indicates the duty of praying with the face turned towards it with the symbolic suggestion that the soul is looking upon the dawn of the true light?

Should anyone, however, prefer to direct his intercessions according to the aperture of the house, whichever way the doors of the house may face, saying that the sight of heaven appeals to one with a certain attraction greater than the view of the wall, and the eastward part of the house having no opening, we may say to him that since it is by human arrangement that houses are open in this or that direction but by nature that the East is preferred to all the other directions, the natural is to be set before the artificial. Besides, on that view why should one who wished to pray when in the open country pray to the East in preference to the West? If, in the one case it is reasonable to prefer the East, why should the same not be done in every case? Enough on that subject.

I have still to treat the topics of prayer, and therewith I purpose to bring this treatise to an end. Four topics which I have found scattered throughout the Scriptures appear to me to deserve mention, and according to these everyone should organize their prayer. The topics are as follows: In the beginning and opening of prayer, glory is to be ascribed according to one's ability to God, through Christ who is to be glorified with Him, and in the Holy Spirit who is to be proclaimed with Him.

Thereafter, one should put thanksgivings: common thanksgivings—into which he introduces benefits conferred upon men in general—and thanksgivings for things which he has personally received from God. After thanksgiving it appears to me that one ought to become a powerful accuser of one's own sins before God and ask first for healing with a view to being released from the habit which brings on sin, and secondly for forgiveness for past actions. After confession it appears to me that one ought to append as a fourth element the asking for the great and heavenly things, both personal and general, on behalf of one's nearest and dearest. And last of all, one should bring prayer to an end ascribing glory to God through Jesus Christ in the Holy Spirit. As I already said, I have found these points scattered throughout the scriptures.

The element of glorious ascription occurs in these words in the one hundred and third psalm:—O Lord, my God, how exceedingly you are magnified. You have put on praise and majesty, who are He that wraps himself in light as in a mantel, who stretches out the heaven like a curtain, who roofs His upper chambers with waters, who makes clouds His chariot, who walks on wings of winds, who makes winds His angels and flaming fire His ministers, who lays the foundations of the earth for its safety—it shall not swerve for ever and ever; the deep is a mantle of His vestment; on the mountains shall waters stand; from your rebuke shall they flee; from the sound of your thunder shall they shrink in fear.

Indeed most of the psalm contains ascription of glory to the Father. But anyone may select numerous passages for himself and see how broadly the element of glorious ascription is scattered. Of thanksgiving, this may be set forth as an example. It is found in the second book of Kings, and is uttered by David, after promises made through Nathan to David, in astonishment at the bounties of God and in thanksgiving for them. It runs: Who am I, O Lord my Lord, and what is my house, that you have loved me to this extent? I am exceeding small in your sight, my Lord, and yet you have spoken on behalf of the house of your servant for a long time to come. Such is the way of man, O Lord my Lord, and what shall David go on to say more to you? Even now you know your servant, O Lord. For your servant have you wrought and according to your heart have you wrought all this greatness to make it known to your servant that he should magnify you, O Lord my Lord.

Of confessions we have an example in: From all my transgressions deliver me. And elsewhere: My wounds have stunk and been corrupt because of my folly. I have been wretched and bowed down utterly; all the day have I gone with sullen face. Of petitions we have an example in the twenty-seventh psalm: Draw me not away with sinners, and destroy me not with workers of unrighteousness, and the like. And it is right as one began with ascription of glory, to bring one's prayers to an end in ascription of glory, singing and glorifying the Father of all through Jesus Christ in the Holy Spirit—to whom be glory unto eternity.

Thus, Ambrosius and Tatiana, studious and genuine brethren in piety, according to my ability I have struggled through my treatment of the subject of prayer and of the prayer in the Gospels together with its preface in Matthew. But if you press on to the things in front and forget those behind and pray for me in my undertaking, I do not despair of being enabled to receive from God the Giver a fuller and more divine capacity for all these matters, and with it to discuss the same subject again in a nobler, loftier, and clearer way. Meanwhile, however, you will peruse this with indulgence.

This text was reformatted by Roger Pearse, 2008. This file and all material on this page is in the public domain - copy freely. Originally uploaded to the web by ("http://tedn.hypermart.net/index.htm") Nottingham Publishing.

Early Church Fathers - Additional Texts

SOURCE SECTION: origen_philocalia_01_intro.htm

The Philocalia of Origen (1911) pp.i-xv. Introductory material

The Philocalia of Origen (1911) pp.i-xv. Introductory material

THE PHILOCALIA OF ORIGEN

Printed by

MORRISON AND GIBB LIMITED,

FOR

T. & T. CLARK, EDINBURGH.

LONDON: SIMPKIN, MARSHALL, HAMILTON, KENT, AND CO. LIMITED.

NEW YORK: CHARLES SCRIBNER'S SONS.

THE PHILOCALIA

OF ORIGEN

A COMPILATION OF SELECTED PASSAGES FROM

ORIGEN'S WORKS MADE BY ST. GREGORY

OF NAZIANZUS AND ST. BASIL OF CAESAREA

TRANSLATED INTO ENGLISH

BY THE

REV. GEORGE LEWIS

M.A., OF BALLIOL COLLEGE, OXFORD

M.A., UNIVERSITY OF LONDON

RECTOR OF ICOMB, GLOUCESTERSHIRE

LATE. VICAR OF DODDERHILL, DROITWICH

Author of "A Life of Joseph Hall, Bishop of Exeter and Norwich,"

"An Oxford Parish Priest": Translator of S. Basil's "De Spiritu Sancto,"

S. Jerome's "Dogmatic Treatises," etc.

EDINBURGH: T. & T. CLARK, 38 GEORGE STREET

1911

TO

MY CHEERY COMPANIONS

C. M. L.

AND

A. V. T.

TRANSLATOR'S PREFACE

THE translation here undertaken is, by kind permission, from the Revised Text (Cambridge, University Press, 1893) of Dr. Armitage Robinson, then Norrisian Professor of Divinity, subsequently Dean of Westminster, now Dean of Wells, who thus describes the original: "The Philocalia of Origen is a compilation of selected passages from Origen's works made by SS. Gregory and Basil. The wholesale destruction of his writings which followed upon the warfare waged against his opinions shortly after his death, has caused a special value to attach to the Philocalia as preserving to us in the original much of Origen's work which would otherwise have been entirely lost, or would have survived only in the translations of Rufinus. Moreover, even his great and comparatively popular work against Celsus depends for its text solely on a manuscript of the thirteen century, so that we have a cause for gratitude in the preservation of a large part of it in the Philocalia. But apart from its textual importance, this collection deserves attention as forming an excellent introduction to the study of Origen. Much of his best thought is here presented to us, arranged under various important heads; and we are guided to the appreciation of his theological standpoint by two of the strongest intellects of the century after his own."

Bishop Westcott's account of "the great teacher of Alexandria----of him whose proper name is said to mean the Son of light, and whose labours earned for him the title of Adamantine" may perhaps be of service to the reader. "The fortunes of Origen during his lifetime aptly prefigured the fate of his writings. His zeal was accounted |vi infatuation, and his learning turned to a reproach. Though he was known to have reclaimed the wandering, and to have refuted the malicious, yet he was driven from the service of the Church in the very city where he had preached Christ on the steps of the temple of Serapis, and strengthened his father to endure the terrors of martyrdom. Though countless doctors, priests, and confessors proceeded from his school, he was himself arraigned as a heretic and convicted; though he was the friend and teacher of Saints, his salvation was questioned and denied. For many centuries he was condemned almost universally by the Western Church, in consequence of the adverse judgment of Jerome. In later times Picus of Mirandola ventured to maintain the cause of the great Father: the thesis was suppressed, but the author remained uncensured: indeed, a pious lady was said to have received a revelation not long before, which seemed to assure her of the forgiveness of Samson, Solomon, and Origen. This hope, however, in the case of the last was admitted apparently by few; and Baronius expresses his surprise that any doubt of his condemnation could be raised after the sentence of Anastasius. If we find in Origen's own words about Holy Scripture a deep and solid foundation of truth constructed with earnestness and wisdom,----unaptly crowned, it may be, with the fantastic structures of a warm and hasty imagination,----it is possible that we may be led to regard his other labours with charity, if not with gratitude, and to remember that his errors refer to questions which had not in his time been decided by the authority of the Church."

For the suggestion that a translation of the Philocalia might be found useful I am indebted to the present Bishop of Gloucester (Dr. Gibson), who in making the suggestion did not, of course, in the least guarantee the fitness of the translator for the work. While I have availed myself of any printed matter I could find, and most gratefully acknowledge my obligations, I have refrained almost entirely from consulting my friends, not from any |vii feeling of sufficiency, but from a dread that I might make them partakers in my literary sins. The one or two instances in which I have begged assistance are mentioned in the notes. In translating an author so difficult as Origen, I can hardly hope to escape criticism at many points. The translator will most cordially welcome anything that may tend to improve his work.

GEORGE LEWIS.

ICOMB RECTORY,

21st June 1911.

THE PHILOCALIA ¹ OF ORIGEN

(Explanatory Note in the Greek)

THE volume which we now offer to our readers contains a selection of scriptural problems and their solutions compiled by the divines Basil and Gregory ² from the learned labours of Origen. It is said to have been sent by the latter, Gregory the theologian, to Theodorus, who was then Bishop of Tyana, as is shown by the letter ³ addressed to him, which runs thus:----

The festival, and your letter, and what is better, your anticipation of the season, and readiness to allow us to keep the festival beforehand. These are the gifts of your piety. In return we give the best we have, our prayers. But that you may have some memorial from us, and at the same time from Basil, we have sent you a small volume of the choice thoughts of Origen, containing extracts of passages which may be of service to scholars. Pray accept it, and let us see that with the aid of industry and the Spirit you have found it useful.

PREFACE TO THE GREEK EDITION

THE present volume contains a selection of scriptural problems and their solutions from various laborious treatises of Origen. Some say that the book, and also the division of it into chapters as they are arranged, and the titles were the work of the learned divines, Basil and Gregory, and that it was sent by Gregory the theologian, in a folding tablet to Theodore of holy memory, who was then Bishop of Tyana. And this is what was intended to be shown in the preface of the very ancient codex from which we have made the transcript. But how do they establish the fact? By the letter, so they say, which was written to the aforesaid Theodore, and sent with the tablet. Now we acknowledge the letter to have been written by him who was called the theologian, and on the other hand, we find many things in the collected passages which are inconsistent with sound doctrine; we had therefore good reason, inasmuch as we followed the word of truth, for our resolve to prefix this preface, and thus enable readers to easily detect the secret villainy of Origen's champions.

We have not the least doubt that the letter was written by the theologian, particularly as it is found, precisely as we have it, in all copies of his letters, and nobody disputes it. And if we frankly admit this, we consequently accept the second statement, viz. that the compilation was made by the learned editors from the works of Origen----a compilation, of course, of useful and profitable passages, as it is concisely expressed in the theologian's letter of which we have just spoken. For it was what we should expect, that those spiritual bees would |xii gather the choicest honey from various flowers to make up one pure honey-comb, whereof, as Solomon, the wise collector of Proverbs says, kings and private persons taste and are sweetened, and are helped in gaining perfect health. We believe, accordingly, that those famous Fathers did compile such portions as have no taint of heretical bitterness, but certainly not all, without distinction, that we find in the following chapters; much of it we reject as conflicting with the inspired teaching of the Fathers.

For, we would ask, was there ever a time when Basil and Gregory, those invincible champions of our religion, were content to hold their peace if any one profanely maintained the Son of God or the Holy Spirit to be a created being? We need not say how they treasured such doctrines, or how profitable they deemed them to scholars. Were they not in the thick of every fight against the blasphemy of Arius ⁴ and Eunomius and their associates? Did they not give such an account of pre-existence, and final restoration, and similar doctrines, as suited ancient legend and was adapted to the Grecian mind? What need to mention the details? The time would fail to tell what laborious service they rendered in the interests of orthodoxy. Nearly the whole of their life was spent in showing the All-holy and Self-existent Trinity to be equal in honour and glory, and in the same true sense Co-eternal and Co-essential. They fed Christ's sheep in the green pasture of the holy doctrines, speaking to them in the familiar voice and pure tones of the truth. But in |xiii the work under consideration you may find everything just the reverse. For all the absurdities we have enumerated, and others besides, are sown broadcast, and of the chapters, the twenty-second is by the bare title, we maintain, proved to be spurious and illegitimate. It follows that if we were to make the Holy Fathers responsible for the selection of all these absurdities, we should of necessity be giving to error that assent which is due to truth. And consider how absurd this would be; for we shall be charging the guardians of righteousness with our own perversity. But God forbid! Would any man of ordinary critical judgment allow that those famous champions of our religion in their selections were accustomed to mingle the chaff with the wheat? At the same time we may very well allow that some heretical tenets may be called "wheat"; for, as Cyril with his ripe wisdom tells us, "We ought not to cleprecatingly shun all that the heretics say, inasmuch as they confess many things which we also confess." ⁵ Basil and Gregory, then, surely were not the persons who mixed the wheat and the chaff for us. Impossible! But certain of those who pervert the ways of the Lord, in their eagerness for the impious subtleties which Origen borrowed from the Greeks, imitated the devil who outwitted their teacher, and, in the case before us, mixed the chaff with our wheat, just as the devil in days of old scattered the tares in the Master's field. For the wheat is ours; ours, too, wherever they may be found, are the orthodox doctrines. And the inspired preachers of those doctrines, with their superlatively wise teaching, using the fan of their critical ability given them from above, and thereby sifting the wheat from the chaff, brought the wheat into the fair garner of the Church, but have delivered the chaff to unquenchable fire----and that in spite of Origen.

So, then, taking all this into account, although we admit the letter to be genuine, and have no doubt that the compilation was made by the two saints, and give good heed to their orthodox teaching, which shines more brightly |xiv than the sun, we shall maintain that we were justified in the further inference we drew on our own responsibility. What we mean is this. Certain persons, as has been said, mad upon the heterodox views of Origen, taking advantage of the holy Gregory's letter, have undoubtedly had the audacity to pollute the whole of the compilation with profane insertions, apparently supposing that the more simple-minded readers might be found, as holy Basil somewhere says, mixing the poison with the honey. To prevent this we have done our best to show readers clearly where the poison is. Accordingly, after giving the most careful attention to the thorough exposition of all the chapters in the following list, and after applying the best tests we could, we have marked the spurious and illegitimate passages in the margin as "heretical," "faulty"; and have thus branded them in their several places.

The letter of holy Gregory the Divine to Theodore, Bishop of Tyana. [See above.]

The contents of the book: a selection of passages from the words of the impious Origen. [Here follow the titles of the chapters.]

CONTENTS

TRANSLATOR'S PREFACE v

EXPLANATORY NOTE IN THE GREEK ix

PREFACE TO THE GREEK EDITION xi

TEXT

I. Of the Inspiration of the Divine Scripture 1

II. That the Divine Scripture is closed up and sealed 30

III. Why the Inspired Books are Twenty-two in Number 34

IV. Of the Solecisms and Poor Style of Scripture 35

V. What is "much speaking," and what are the "many books"? The whole Inspired Scripture is One Book 36

VI. The whole Divine Scripture is One Instrument of God, perfect and fitted for its Work 42

VII. Of the special "character" of the Persons of Divine Scripture 44

VIII That we need not attempt to correct the Solecisms of Scripture, etc 45

IX. Scripture uses the same Terms in different Significations. 47

X. Stumbling-blocks in Holy Scripture 51

XI. On Heretical Interpretation of Holy Scripture 53

XII. We ought not to despair in reading the Scriptures if we find Difficulties in them 54

XIII. Philosophy in relation to Holy Scripture 57

XIV. The Use of Logic in the Study of Scripture 60 |xv

XV. A Reply to the Objection that the Truths of Christianity have been better expressed by the Greeks. Our Lord's Body, etc. 62

XVI. On the Divisions among Christians 77

XVII. May we give Heathen Titles to the Supreme God? 81

XVIII. The "simplicity"of Christian Faith, etc. 86

XIX. Faith in Christ commendable and accordant with the original Moral Notions of Mankind. How Jesus being God could have a Mortal Body 109

XX. Man and the Irrational Creatures 113

XXI. Free Will 137

XXII. The Dispersion of Mankind, and the Confusion of Tongues.163

XXIII. Fate, Astrology, etc 173

XXIV. Matter is not Uncreated, or the Cause of Evil 197

XXV. God's Foreknowledge, Predestination, etc. 208

XXVI. Scripture Blessings. What things are really "Good" and "Evil" 214

XXVII. The Hardening of Pharaoh's Heart 224

[Footnotes have been renumbered and moved to the end]

1. ¹ Philocalia = love of the beautiful. The word may be contrasted with Apeirocalia ----ignorance of the beautiful, want of taste, in pl. vulgarities.

2. ² Basil of Caesarea (329-379 A.D.); Gregory of Nazianzus (d. 389 or 390 A.D.).

3. ³ S. Greg. Ep. cxv.

4. ¹ Presbyter of Alexandria, A.D. 319. "Arianism was largely the result of a mental and moral temper fostered by the Greek schools of disputation, and began, as we learn from Socrates (i. 5), with this line of argument----What is true of human fatherhood is true of the relation between the Father and the Son: Hut the father's priority of existence is true of human fatherhood: Therefore it is true in regard to the Father and the Son: Therefore, once there was no Son: Therefore He was, at some very remote period, created by the Father. The petitio principii in the major premiss is a key to the whole heresy."----Bright's S. Leo, p. 139.

The Eunomians were a sect of Arians, so named from Eunomius, Bishop of Cyzicus in A.D. 360. They taught that the Son was "Only Begotten" in the sense "Begotten by God alone."

5. ¹ S. Cyr., Alex. Ep. xliv.

This text was transcribed by Roger Pearse, 2003. All material on this page is in the public domain - copy freely.

Greek text is rendered using the Scholars Press SPIonic font, free from here.

Early Church Fathers - Additional Texts

SOURCE SECTION: origen_philocalia_02_text.htm

The Philocalia of Origen (1911) pp. 1-237. English translation

The Philocalia of Origen (1911) pp. 1-237. English translation

I. Of the Inspiration of the Divine Scripture

II. That the Divine Scripture is closed up and sealed

III. Why the Inspired Books are Twenty-two in Number

IV. Of the Solecisms and Poor Style of Scripture

V. What is "much speaking," and what are the "many books"? The whole Inspired Scripture is One Book

VI. The whole Divine Scripture is One Instrument of God, perfect and fitted for its Work

VII. Of the special "character" of the Persons of Divine Scripture

VIII That we need not attempt to correct the Solecisms of Scripture, etc

IX. Scripture uses the same Terms in different Significations.

X. Stumbling-blocks in Holy Scripture

XI. On Heretical Interpretation of Holy Scripture

XII. We ought not to despair in reading the Scriptures if we find Difficulties in them

XIII. Philosophy in relation to Holy Scripture

XIV. The Use of Logic in the Study of Scripture

XV. A Reply to the Objection that the Truths of Christianity have been better expressed by the Greeks. Our Lord's Body, etc.

XVI. On the Divisions among Christians

XVII. May we give Heathen Titles to the Supreme God?

XVIII. The "simplicity"of Christian Faith, etc.

XIX. Faith in Christ commendable and accordant with the original Moral Notions of Mankind. How Jesus being God could have a Mortal Body

XX. Man and the Irrational Creatures

XXI. Free Will

XXII. The Dispersion of Mankind, and the Confusion of Tongues

XXIII. Fate, Astrology, etc

XXIV. Matter is not Uncreated, or the Cause of Evil

XXV. God's Foreknowledge, Predestination, etc

XXVI. Scripture Blessings. What things are really "Good" and "Evil"

XXVII. The Hardening of Pharaoh's Heart

THE PHILOCALIA OF ORIGEN

CHAP. I. ----Of the inspiration of the Divine Scripture; how it is to be read and understood; why it is obscure; and what is the reason of the obscurity in it, and of what is impossible in some cases, or unreasonable, when it is taken literally. From the work on "Principles" and various other works of Origen.

The following analysis of Origen's scheme of interpretation may be useful to the reader:----

Interpretation | | ----------------------------------------------------------------------------- | | | Literal (Body) Moral (Soul) Mystical (Spirit) | | ------------------------- ------------------------- | | | | Actual Fictitious Allegory. Anagoge. History. History. Prefiguring the Typifying the Invented by the Holy Spirit history of Christ things of a higher to convey moral and mystical and His Church. world in which truths which earthly things everything of this could not sufficiently typify. earth has its antitype. In the law some things were literally to be observed; others were in the letter impossible or absurd, but were intended to convey moral and mystical teaching.

1. Inasmuch as when we investigate matters of such importance we are not content with common notions and such light as is given by the things that are seen, we strengthen our position by the additional evidence of the Scriptures, which we believe to be Divine, viz. both that which is called the Old Testament and that which is called the New, and endeavour with the help of reason |2 to confirm our faith. But as we have never yet discussed the Scriptures on the side of their Divine inspiration, let us bring together a few brief remarks concerning them, by way of showing upon what grounds we regard them as Divine. And before we proceed to make use of the text of the Scriptures and of what is revealed in them, a few particulars must be given concerning Moses and Jesus Christ----the lawgiver of the Hebrews, and the Author of the saving doctrines of Christianity. For of all the numerous lawgivers that have arisen among Greeks and Barbarians, we recall no one who could induce other nations to eagerly accept his tenets; and although the professors of philosophic truth made elaborate efforts to establish their doctrine on a seeming basis of reason, not one of them succeeded in introducing into different nations the truth which he supported, or in influencing considerable numbers of one nation. And yet the lawgivers would have liked, if it had been possible, to bind the good laws, as they appeared to be, on the whole human race, and the teachers would desire that what they imagined to be truth should be spread throughout the world. Conscious, however, that they would not succeed if they invited men of different languages and of many nationalities to observe the law they promulgated, and accept the instruction they gave, they did not even attempt this at first, for they shrewdly suspected that the attempt would end in failure. But in every land, Greek and Barbarian, throughout the world, countless adherents of our faith may be found who have abandoned their ancestral customs and familiar gods, to become zealous observers of the law of Moses and eager disciples of Jesus Christ; and this in spite of the fact that they who submit to the law of Moses are hated by the worshippers of images, and they who accept the Gospel of Jesus Christ are not only hated but are in peril of death.

2. And if we realise in how very short a time, notwithstanding the plots laid against the professors of Christianity, whereby some perished and others lost their |3 possessions, the Word, though the number of the preachers was not great, has been everywhere preached throughout the world, so that Greeks and Barbarians, wise and foolish, submit themselves to the fear of God through Jesus, if, I say, we realise this, we shall not hesitate to say that there is something superhuman in the result. For Jesus taught with all authority and persuasiveness that the Word would prevail, so that one may reasonably regard His utterances as prophetic.¹ For instance, "Before governors and kings shall ye be brought for my sake, for a testimony to them and to the Gentiles."² And, "Many will say to me in that day, Lord, Lord, did we not eat in thy name, and drink in thy name? And I will say to them, depart from me, ye that work iniquity. I never knew you."³ It was perhaps reasonable to think that He spoke these things at random, and that they were not true; but when the things spoken with such authority came to pass, it is manifest that God really took our nature upon Him and delivered doctrines of salvation to men.

3. Need I add how it was foretold that the promised princes should depart from Judah,⁴ and rulers from between his thighs, at the coming of Messiah for whom it is reserved, viz. the kingdom, and at the advent of the Expectation of the Gentiles? For it is surely clear from history and from what we see to-day, that from the times of Jesus there have been none who called themselves kings of the Jews; for everything whereon the Jews prided themselves, I mean the arrangements of the temple and the altar, the performance of the service, and the vestments of the high priest, has been abolished. For the prophecy was fulfilled which says, "The children of Israel shall abide many days without king, and without prince, and without sacrifice, and without altar, and without priesthood,⁵ and without Urim and Thummim." ⁶ And |4 we turn the foregoing passage against our opponents, who, perplexed by what Jacob in Genesis says to Judah, allege that the Ethnarch sprung from the family of Judah, is the "governor of the people," and that his seed shall not fail until the coming of Messiah of which they dream. For if "the children of Israel shall abide many days without king, and without prince, and without sacrifice, and without altar, and without priesthood, and without Urim and Thummin"; and from the time when the temple was destroyed there has been no sacrifice, nor altar, nor priesthood, it is clear that a prince has failed from Judah, and a ruler from between his thighs. And since the prophecy says, "A prince shall not fail from Judah, nor a ruler from between his thighs, until the things reserved for him shall come,"⁷ it is clear that He has come to whom the things reserved belong, viz. the Expectation of the Gentiles. And this is proved by the multitude of the Gentiles who have believed on God through Christ.

4. The Song in Deuteronomy also contains a prophecy of the future election of the foolish Gentiles on account of the sins of God's former people, and this has come to pass through Jesus only. "For they," so the words stand, "have moved me to jealousy with that which is not God: they have provoked me to anger with their idols. And I will move them to jealousy with those which are not a people: I will provoke them to anger with a foolish nation." ⁸ We can very clearly understand how they who bore the name of Hebrews and provoked God to jealousy with that which is not God, and provoked Him to anger with their idols, were themselves provoked to jealousy and moved to anger with those which were not a people, the foolish people, whom God chose through the coming of Christ and through His disciples. "We see, then, our calling, that not many wise men after the flesh, not many |5 mighty, not many noble are called: but God chose the foolish things of the world, that he might put to shame them that are wise; and God chose the base things and things that are despised, and the things that are not, that he might bring to nought the things that were before: and that Israel after the flesh may not boast before God."⁹ For when the Apostle uses the word "flesh" he means "Israel."

5. But what are we to say about the prophecies in the Psalms concerning Christ? Is there not a "song" entitled "For the Beloved"? ¹⁰ The Beloved's tongue is called "the pen of a ready writer"; He is fairer than the children of men, for grace is poured into His lips. A proof of the grace poured into His lips is the fact that though the whole period of His teaching was so short (He taught for something like a year and a few months), the world has been filled with His doctrine and with the religion which He brought. For "in his days righteousness hath sprung up, and abundance of peace to last to the end," ¹¹ for this lasting to the end is the meaning of the phrase "the moon shall be no more"; and "He shall have perpetual dominion from sea to sea, and from the rivers unto the ends of the earth." And a sign is given to the house of David; for the Virgin did bear; she both conceived and bore a son, and His name is Immanuel, which being interpreted is God with us.¹² The prophecy is fulfilled, as the same prophet says: "God is with us; be wise ye nations, and submit; ye that are mighty submit."¹³ We of the Gentiles who have been led captive by the grace of His Word have been conquered and have submitted. But even the place of His birth was foretold: "For thou Bethlehem, land of Judah, art in no wise least among the princes of Judah; for out of thee shall come forth a governor, which shall be shepherd of my people Israel."¹⁴ And the seventy weeks wore fulfilled, as Daniel |6 shows,¹⁵ when Christ the "governor" came. And, according to Job,¹⁶ He came who subdued the great sea-monster, and has given authority to His true disciples to tread upon serpents and scorpions, and over all the power of the enemy, being in no wise hurt by them.¹⁷ Let a man observe how the Apostles who were sent by Jesus to proclaim the Gospel went everywhere, and he cannot help seeing their superhuman daring in obedience to the Divine command. And if we inquire how it was that men when they heard new doctrines and strange words welcomed the Apostles, and in spite of their desire to plot against them were overcome by a certain Divine power guarding the speakers, we shall not disbelieve even if we are told that the Apostles did work miracles, God bearing witness to their words both by signs and wonders and by manifold powers.¹⁸

6. But in thus briefly summarising the proofs for the Godhead of Jesus, and making use of the words of the prophets concerning Him, we are at the same time proving the inspiration of the Scriptures which prophesy of Him, and are showing that those writings which proclaim His coming and teaching were delivered with all power and authority; and we say that if they have prevailed over the election from the Gentiles, it is because they were inspired. But we must say that the divinity of the prophetic utterances, and the spiritual meaning of the law of Moses, shone forth by the dwelling of Jesus on earth. For there could be no clear proofs of the inspiration of the ancient Scriptures before the coming of Christ. But the coming of Jesus brought men who might suspect that the law and the prophets were not Divine to the plain avowal that they were written with help from heaven. And the careful and attentive reader of the words of the prophets, if his zeal be kindled ever so little by reading them, will through his own experience be persuaded that what we believe to be the words of God |7 are not human compositions. And the light also of the law of Moses, though it had been hidden by a veil, shone forth when Jesus came;¹⁹ for the veil was taken away and the good things foreshadowed in the Scriptures were gradually revealed.

7. It would be a big undertaking to now recount the most ancient prophecies, so that in amazement at their Divine character, the doubter may with full conviction and concentrated purpose submit himself with all his soul to the words of God. If, however, the superhuman element in the Scriptures does not everywhere appear to strike the uninstructed, no wonder; for in the working of the Divine Providence throughout the whole World some things are very clearly seen to be providential, while others are so hidden as to seem to leave room for doubt as to whether God with His ineffable skill and power does order the universe. For the evidence of design in Providence is not so clear in things of earth as it is in the sun and moon and stars; and it is not so clear in the changes and chances of human affairs as it is in the souls and bodies of animals, certainly when the why and wherefore of their instincts, impressions, natures, and bodily structure have been ascertained by experts in these branches of knowledge. But as the doctrine of Providence is not destroyed by our ignorance in some particulars, when we have once for all admitted it, so neither is the Divine character of Scripture upon the whole impaired, because our weakness cannot in each phrase approach the hidden glory of the truths concealed in poor and contemptible language. For we have a treasure in earthly vessels,²⁰ that the exceeding greatness of the power of God may shine forth, and may not be thought to come from us men. For if the hackneyed methods of demonstration common among men, which we find on our library shelves,²¹ had prevailed over men, our faith would with good reason have been supposed to stand |8 in the wisdom of men, and not in the power of God;²² but as things are, if a man will lift up his eyes, it will be evident that the Word and the preaching have influenced the multitude not by persuasive words of wisdom, but by demonstration of the Spirit and of power. Wherefore, seeing that a heavenly power, or a power even from, above the heavens, urges us to worship the Creator only, let us, leaving the word of the beginning of Christ,²³ that is, leaving elementary instruction, endeavour to press on unto perfection, that the wisdom spoken to the perfect may be spoken also to us.²⁴ For He Who has this wisdom promises to speak it among the perfect, a wisdom other than the wisdom of this world and the wisdom of the ruler of this world, which is brought to nought. And this wisdom shall be plainly stamped on us, according to the revelation of the mystery which hath been kept in silence through times eternal, but now is manifested, by the Scriptures of the prophets ²⁵ and the appearing of our Lord and Saviour Jesus Christ,²⁶ to Whom be the glory for ever. Amen.

8. Now that we have, as it were, just glanced at the inspiration of the Divine Scriptures, we must pass on to the way to read and understand them; for very many mistakes have been made, because the right method of examining the holy texts has not been discovered by the greater number of readers. Hardhearted and unlearned readers belonging to the Circumcision have not believed on our Saviour, because it is their habit to follow the bare letter of the prophecies concerning Him, and they do not see Him with their bodily eyes proclaiming liberty to the captives,²⁷ nor building what they think the true city of God,²⁸ nor cutting off the chariot from Ephraim, and the horse from Jerusalem,²⁹ nor eating butter and honey, and before He knoweth or preferreth evil choosing the good.³⁰ They still suppose that prophecy declares that the |9 four-footed animal, the wolf, shall feed with the lamb, and the leopard lie down with the kid; and the calf, and the bull, and the lion feed together, and that a little child shall lead them; and that the cow and the bear shall be pastured together, their young ones being reared together, and that the lion shall eat straw like the ox.³¹ Because they saw nothing like this when He Whom we believe to be Christ dwelt on the earth, they did not receive Jesus, but crucified Him, maintaining that He had no right to call Himself Christ. And heretics when they read the words, "A fire is kindled in mine anger";³² and, "I am a jealous God, visiting the iniquity of the fathers upon the children, upon the third and fourth generation";³³ and, "It repenteth me that I have anointed Saul to be king";³⁴ and, "I am God that maketh peace and create evil";³⁵ and in another place, "Shall evil befall a city, and the Lord hath not done it";³⁶ or again, "Evil is come down from the Lord unto the gates of Jerusalem";³⁷ and, "An evil spirit from the Lord plagued Saul";³⁸ and countless similar passages: when they read these, I say, they will not venture to deny the Divine origin of the Scriptures, but believing them to have come from the Demiurge,³⁹ Whom the Jews worship, and holding that the Demiurge is imperfect and lacking in goodness, they suppose our Saviour while He dwelt on earth to have proclaimed a more perfect God, Whom, from different motives, they affirm not to be the Demiurge. And having thus once for all revolted from the Demiurge, Who is the only God uncreate, they have given themselves up to vain imaginations, inventing for themselves various theories, so as to account for the origin of things that are seen, and for the origin of others not seen, and all this is the offspring of their own fancy. And yet, as a matter of fact, the less sophisticated of those who in their self-confidence have left the Church |10 allow no God greater than the Demiurge, and so far they are right; but their conception of Him is such as would discredit an extremely cruel and unjust man.

9. Now the only reason why all these of whom I have spoken entertain false and impious opinions, or ignorant views respecting God, appears to be that the Scripture on the spiritual side is not understood, but is taken in the bare literal sense. For the sake, therefore, of those readers who are persuaded that the sacred books are not human compositions, but that they were written and have come to us by inspiration of the Holy Spirit, according to the will of the Father of All through Jesus Christ, we must point out what appear to be the right methods, while we keep to the rule of the heavenly Church of Jesus Christ in succession to the Apostles. And that there are certain mystic dispensations revealed through the Divine Scriptures has been believed by all who have studied the Word, even the simplest readers; but what these dispensations are, fair-minded and modest men confess they do not know. Anyway, supposing a man to be perplexed about the intercourse of Lot with his daughters,⁴⁰ or the two wives of Abraham,⁴¹ or Jacob's marrying two sisters, and the handmaidens who had children by him,⁴² these readers will say that here we have mysteries which we do not understand. But suppose the passage to be about the building of the tabernacle,⁴³ feeling sure that the narrative is typical, they will endeavour to give each detail, as best they can, a spiritual meaning. So far as their conviction goes that the tabernacle is a type of something, they are not far wrong; but when on the strength of this they attempt in a way worthy of Scripture to define the particular thing of which the tabernacle is a type, they sometimes fail. And every ordinary story of marriage, or childbearing, or war, or any historical occurrences which would generally be |11 regarded as such, they pronounce to be typical. But when they come to particulars, it sometimes happens, partly because they are not thoroughly familiar with the subject, partly because they are too precipitate, partly because, even if a man is well trained and deliberate, the things are extremely difficult to investigate, that certain points are not quite cleared up.

10. And why speak of the prophecies, which we ail know to be full of enigmas and dark sayings? And, coming to the Gospels, if we are to find their exact sense, inasmuch as that sense is the mind of Christ, there is need of the grace given to him who said, "We have the mind of Christ, that we may know the things freely given to us by God; which things we also speak, not in words which man's wisdom teacheth, but which the Spirit teacheth." ⁴⁴ And who, again, can read the things revealed to John without astonishment at the ineffable mysteries therein concealed, mysteries, plainly enough, though a man does not understand what is written? As for the letters of the Apostles, could any critic find them clear and easily intelligible, seeing they contain countless things of the greatest importance and thronging thoughts, seen as through a lattice,⁴⁵ and by no means easy of access? Wherefore, seeing that this is the case, and that vast numbers go wrong, it is somewhat dangerous when we read to lightly declare that one understands what requires that key of knowledge which was with the lawyers. And I wish they who will not allow that men had the truth before Christ came would tell us what our Lord Jesus Christ means by saying that the key of knowledge was in the keeping of the lawyers, for, according to our opponents, the lawyers had no books containing the secrets of knowledge, and complete mysteries. The precise words are these: "Woe unto you lawyers! for ye took away |12 the key of knowledge: ye entered not in yourselves, and them that were entering in ye hindered." ⁴⁶

11. The right way, then, to read the Scriptures and extract their meaning, so far as we have been able to discover from examining the oracles themselves, appears to be as follows:----Solomon in the Proverbs gives a rule respecting the Divine doctrines of Scripture to this effect: "Do thou thrice record them with counsel and knowledge that thou mayest answer with words of truth to those who try thee with hard questions." ⁴⁷ A man ought then in three ways to record in his own soul the purposes of the Holy Scriptures; that the simple may be edified by, as it were, the flesh of Scripture (for thus we designate the primary sense), the more advanced by its soul, and the perfect by the spiritual law, which has a shadow of the good things to come. For the perfect man resembles those of whom the Apostle speaks: "Howbeit we speak wisdom among the perfect; yet a wisdom not of this world, nor of the rulers of this world, which are coming to nought: but we speak God's wisdom in a mystery, even the wisdom that hath been hidden, which God foreordained before the worlds unto our glory,⁴⁸ from the spiritual law which hath a shadow of the good things to come.⁴⁹ As man consists of body, soul, and spirit, so too does Scripture which has been granted by God for the salvation of men. And thus we explain that passage in The Shepherd,----a book which some treat with contempt, ----in which Hermas is commanded to write two books, and then read to the elders of the Church what he has learned from the Spirit.⁵⁰ "Thou shalt write two books, and give one to Clement and one to Grapte. And Grapte shall admonish the widows and orphans, Clement shall send to the cities abroad, and thou shalt read to the elders of the Church." Grapte, who admonishes the widows and orphans, is the bare letter of Scripture; it admonishes those readers whose souls are in the stage of childhood, and who cannot |13 yet call God their Father, and are therefore styled "orphans"; it moreover admonishes souls,⁵¹ no longer consorting with the unlawful bridegroom, but remaining in a widowed state because not yet worthy of the true Bridegroom. Clement, the reader who has got beyond the letter, is said to send what is said to the cities abroad, that is to say, the souls which have escaped from the bodily desires and lower aims. And next the writing is forsaken, and the disciple himself of the Spirit is bidden "read" to the wise and hoary-headed elders of the whole Church of God with the living voice.

12. But inasmuch as some Scriptures have not the "corporeal," ⁵² as we shall presently show, in such cases we must seek only the "soul" and the "spirit." For instance, this may explain why the six waterpots of stone said to be set after the Jews' manner of purifying, as we read in the Gospel according to John,⁵³ contain two or three firkins apiece: the Word darkly hinting at those who were inwardly Jews, of whom the Apostle speaks ⁵⁴----that these, forsooth, are cleansed through the word of Scripture, that Word sometimes containing two firkins, that is, if we may so say, the "soul" and "spirit" of the Word: sometimes three; for some Scriptures have besides these two also the "corporeal" part with its power of edification. As for the number, the six waterpots may reasonably refer to those who are being purified in the world, which was made in six days, six being a perfect number.⁵⁵

13. That we may profit by the primary sense of Scripture, even if we go no further, is evident from the multitudes of true and simple-minded believers. Let us, however, take what Paul says in the first Epistle to the |14 Corinthians as an example of the higher "soul" interpretation. "It is written," he says, "Thou shalt not muzzle the ox when he treadeth out the corn." ⁵⁶ Then, going on to explain this law, he adds, "Is it for the oxen that God careth, or saith he it altogether for our sake? Yea, for our sake it was written: because he that ploweth ought to plow in hope, and he that thresheth, to thresh in hope of partaking." And, indeed, very many passages so interpreted as to suit the great body of believers, and edifying for those who have no ear for better things, have more or less the same stamp. But spiritual interpretation is for one who is able to show the nature of the heavenly things,⁵⁷ of which the Jews after the flesh served the copy and shadow, and what the good things to come are of which the law is a shadow. And in general, according to the apostolic command, we must everywhere seek wisdom in a mystery, "even the wisdom which hath been hidden, which God foreordained before the world unto the glory of the righteous; which none of the rulers of this world knoweth." ⁵⁸ The same Apostle, referring to certain incidents in Exodus and Numbers, somewhere says, "These things happened unto them by way of figure: and they were written for our admonition upon whom the ends of the ages are come";⁵⁹ and he hints at the things of which they were figures, saying, "For they drank of a spiritual Rock that followed them: and the Rock was Christ." ⁶⁰ And in the sketch of the tabernacle which he gives in another epistle he quotes the words, "Thou shalt make all things according to the pattern which was shewed thee in the Mount." ⁶¹ Again, in the Epistle to the Galatians, as it were reproaching those who think they read the law though they do not understand it, and giving his judgment that as many as think there are no allegories in what is written, do not understand, he goes on to say, "Tell me ye that desire to be under the law, do ye not hear the law? ⁶² |15 For it is written, that Abraham had two sons, one by the handmaid, and one by the freewoman. Howbeit the son by the handmaid is born after the flesh, but the son by the freewoman is born through promise. Which things contain an allegory: for these women are two covenants," and so on. We must carefully note exactly what he says: "Ye that desire to be under the law": not "Ye that are under the law"; and, "Do you not hear the law?": the hearing in his judgment being the understanding and knowing. And also in the Epistle to the Colossians, where he epitomises the meaning of the whole giving of the law, he says, "Let no man therefore judge you in meat, or in drink, or in respect of a feast day or a new moon or a sabbath day: which are a shadow of the things to come." ⁶³ Further, in the Epistle to the Hebrews, arguing concerning those of the Circumcision, he writes thus: "Who serve that which is a copy and shadow of the heavenly things." ⁶⁴ This will probably suffice to remove all doubts respecting the five books, called the Books of Moses, from the minds of those who really believe the Apostle to be a Divine ⁶⁵ man; but they may wish to learn whether the rest of the history is also figurative. Now we must carefully note that the passage in Romans from the third Book of Kings, "I have left for myself seven thousand men who have not bowed the knee to Baal," ⁶⁶ was taken by Paul as applying to the Israelites according to the election,⁶⁷ for that not only have the Gentiles benefited by the coming of Christ, but also some of the holy ⁶⁸ race.

14. This being so, we must outline what seems to us the peculiarities involved in understanding the Scriptures. And what we have to show first is that the aim of the Spirit, Who, by the providence of God through the Word, Who in the beginning was with God, enlightens the ministers of the truth, the Prophets and Apostles, was chiefly directed to the unspeakable mysteries connected |16 with men,----and by men I mean embodied souls, so that any one who is capable of instruction, if he will search the Scriptures, and will earnestly endeavour to fathom their depths, may be a partaker in all the decrees of His counsel. And as regards souls, inasmuch as without the rich and wise truth concerning God they cannot possibly reach perfection, things relating to God and to His only-begotten Son must be placed in the front rank, viz. His nature, in what sense He is Son of God, and for what reasons He humbled Himself and took upon Him our flesh and perfect manhood; further, how He works, for whom, and under what conditions. And, of necessity, if we want to know about kindred beings, and the other rational creatures, both those more Divine than humankind and those also who have fallen from bliss, and the causes of their fall, this should be introduced into Divine revelation; and, similarly, if we have to discuss the differences in souls, and how the differences have arisen; or inquire what we mean when we talk of the "world," and ask how it came into existence. We have to learn, moreover, the origin of the great and terrible wickedness on earth, and whether it is found only on earth, or elsewhere as well.

15. Now, while the Spirit Who illumines the souls of the holy ministers of the truth had these and similar purposes in view, it was, secondly, His aim, for the sake of those who cannot bear the labour of investigating such mysteries, to conceal the foregoing doctrines in narrative form conveying an account of the visible works of creation, and of man's creation, and of the descendants of the first man until they become numerous; and in other histories which relate the doings of righteous men, and the sins which they occasionally committed inasmuch as they were men, as also the wicked, licentious, overbearing behaviour of lawless and godless men. And, very strange though it may seem, by the history of wars and victors and vanquished, some of the ineffable mysteries are declared to those who have the ability to investigate these matters. And, still more marvellous, through the written law, the |17 laws of the Truth are foretold; and all these subjects are linked together by the Divine wisdom with a power truly worthy of the wisdom of God. For it was the Spirit's purpose to make even the vesture of things spiritual, I mean the "corporeal" part of the Scriptures, many ways not unprofitable, but capable of benefiting the majority of readers according to their capacity.

16. If the use of the Law had been everywhere made perfectly clear, and strict historical sequence had been preserved, we should not have believed that the Scriptures could be understood in any other than the obvious sense.⁶⁹ The Word of God therefore arranged for certain stumbling-blocks and offences and impossibilities to be embedded in the Law and the historical portion, so that we may not be drawn hither and thither by the mere attractiveness of the style, and thus either forsake the doctrinal part because we receive no instruction worthy of God, or cleave to the letter and learn nothing more Divine. And this we ought to know, that the chief purpose being to show the spiritual connection both in past occurrences and in things to be done, wherever the Word found historical events capable of adaptation to these mystic truths, He made use of them, but concealed the deeper sense from the many; but where in setting forth the sequence of things spiritual there was no actual event related for the sake of the more mystic meaning, Scripture interweaves the imaginative with the historical, sometimes introducing what is utterly impossible, sometimes what is possible but never occurred. Sometimes it is only a few words, not literally true, which have been inserted; sometimes the insertions are of greater length. And we must this way understand even the giving of the Law, for therein we may frequently discover the immediate use, adapted to the times when the Law was given; sometimes, however, no good reason appears. And elsewhere we have even impossible commands, for readers of greater ability and those who have more of the spirit of inquiry; so that, applying themselves |18 to the labour of investigating the things written, they may have a fitting conviction of the necessity of looking therein for a meaning worthy of God. And not only did the Spirit thus deal with the Scriptures before the coming of Christ, but, inasmuch as He is the same Spirit, and proceedeth from the One God, He has done the same with the Gospels and the writings of the Apostles; for not even they are purely historical, incidents which never occurred being interwoven in the "corporeal" sense; nor in the Law and the Commandments does the Spirit make the reasonableness altogether clear.

17. Anyway, will any man of sense suppose that there was a first day, and a second, and a third, evening and morning, without sun and moon and stars? ⁷⁰ and the first, as it were, even without a heaven? And who is so silly as to imagine that God, like a husbandman, planted a garden in Eden eastward, and put in it a tree of life,⁷¹ which could be seen and felt, so that whoever tasted of the fruit with his bodily teeth received the gift of life, and further that any one as he masticated the fruit of this tree partook of good and evil? And if God is also said to walk in the garden in the evening, and Adam to hide himself under the tree,⁷² I do not suppose that any one will doubt that these passages by means of seeming history, though the incidents never occurred, figuratively reveal certain mysteries. Moreover, Cain's comning out from the presence of God,⁷³ if we give heed, is a distinct inducement to inquire what is meant by "the presence of God," and by a man's "coming out from" it. Why say more? They who are not quite blind can collect countless similar instances of things recorded as actual occurrences, though not literally true. Why, even the Gospels abound in incidents of the same kind. We read of the Devil taking Jesus into a lofty mountain, that from thence he might shew Him the kingdoms of the whole world and their |19 glory.⁷⁴ Who but a careless reader of these things would not condemn the supposition that with the bodily eye, which required a lofty height if the parts down below at the foot were to be seen, Jesus beheld the kingdoms of Persia, Scythia, India, and Parthia, and the glory of their rulers among men? And, similarly, the careful student may observe countless other instances in the Gospels, and may thus be convinced that with the historical events, literally true, different ones are interwoven which never occurred.

18. And if we come also to the Mosaic code, many of the laws, so far as regards their bare observance, seem unreasonable, and others impossible. The prohibition of kites,⁷⁵ for instance, as food is unreasonable, for no one in the direst famines would be driven to this creature. Children eight days old if not circumcised are ordered to be cut off from their people. If an express enactment respecting those children was indispensable, it is their fathers who should be ordered to be put to death; whereas the Scripture says, "Every uncircumcised male, who shall not be circumcised on the eighth day, shall be cut off from his people." ⁷⁶ If you wish to see some impossible enactments, let us consider that the goat-stag is a fabulous creature. And yet Moses commands us to offer it as a clean animal;⁷⁷ on the other hand, there is no instance of the griffin having been tamed by man, but the lawgiver, nevertheless, forbids it to be eaten. If we closely examine the famous ordinance of the Sabbath, "Ye shall sit every man in his house: let no man go out of his place on the seventh day,"⁷⁸ we shall see that it cannot be literally kept; for no living creature can sit the whole day without stirring from his seat. And therefore in some cases they of the Circumcision, and as many as desire no more light than that of the mere letter, do not go to the root of things, and, for example, search for the meaning of what is said about the goat-stag, the griffin, and the kite; while |20 in other cases they sophistically trifle with the words, and confront you with frigid traditions; as regards the Sabbath, for instance, they maintain that every man's "place" is 2000 cubits. Others, among them Dositheus the Samaritan, condemning such an interpretation, think the person is to remain until the evening in the posture in which he was found on the Sabbath day. Nor can the command to carry no burden on the Sabbath be observed; ⁷⁹ and the Jewish teachers have accordingly gone very great lengths, pretending that a sandal of one kind is a "burden," but not a sandal of another kind, the one being nailed, the other without nails; and, the same way, what is carried upon one shoulder is a "burden," but by no means what is carried upon both.

19. If we similarly investigate the Gospels, what could be more unreasonable than the command which simple readers think the Saviour gave to His Apostles, "Salute no man by the way." ⁸⁰ Again, what is said about the smiting on the right cheek is incredible;⁸¹ for when a man strikes, if he acts naturally, he strikes the left cheek with his right hand. And we cannot take literally the passage in the Gospel in which the right eye is said to cause one to stumble.⁸² For even granting the possibility of sight making any one to stumble, why, when the two eyes see, should we put the blame on the right eye. Would any man when he condemns himself for looking on a woman to lust after her, put the blame on the right eye only, and cast it from him? Again, the Apostle lays down the law thus: "Was any man called being circumcised? let him not become uncircumcised?" ⁸³ Any one may see that the Apostle has something in view other than the literal context; for, in the first place, such an insertion when he is giving precepts concerning marriage and purity must appear unmeaning. And, in the second place, who will say that, in order to escape from the disgrace mostly connected with circumcision, a man |21 does wrong in endeavouring, if he can, to become un-circumcised.

20. We have said all this for the sake of showing that the aim of the Divine power which gives us the sacred Scriptures, is not to select such things only as are presented in a literal sense, for sometimes the things selected taken literally are not true, but are even unreasonable and impossible; and further, that certain things are woven into the web of actual history and of the Law, which in its literal sense has its uses. But that no one may suppose us to make a sweeping statement and maintain that no history is real,⁸⁴ because some is unreal; and that no part of the Law is to be literally observed, because a particular enactment in its wording happens to be unreasonable or impossible; or that what is recorded of the Saviour is true only in a spiritual sense; or that we are not to keep any law or commandments of His: that we may not incur such an imputation, we must add that we are quite convinced of the historical truth of certain passages; for instance, that Abraham was buried in the double cave in Hebron,⁸⁵ as also Isaac and Jacob, and one wife of each of these; and that Sichem was given to Joseph for his portion,⁸⁶ and that Jerusalem is the capital of Judea, wherein God's temple was built by Solomon, and countless other statements. For those things which are true historically are many more than those connected with them which contain merely a spiritual sense. Again, take the commandment, "Honour thy father and thy mother that it may be well with thee." ⁸⁷ Would not any one allow its usefulness apart from any anagogical ⁸⁸ interpretation, and support |22 its observance, seeing that even the Apostle Paul uses the express words? And what are we to say about the commands, "Thou shalt not kill," "Thou shalt not commit adultery," "Thou shalt not steal," "Thou shalt not bear false witness?" ⁸⁹ Further, there are commands in the Gospel about which there is no doubt as to whether they are to be literally observed or not; for instance, that which says, "But I say to you, whosoever shall be angry with his brother," ⁹⁰ and so on; and, "But I say to you, Swear not at all." ⁹¹ And we must keep to the letter of the Apostle's words, "Admonish the disorderly, encourage the fainthearted, support the weak, be long-suffering towards all";⁹² though among more eager students it is possible to treasure every detail as the deep wisdom of God, without rejecting the literal meaning of the command.

21. Still, there are places where the careful reader will be distracted because he cannot without much labour decide whether he is dealing with history in the ordinary sense, or not, and whether a given commandment is to be literally observed, or not. The reader must therefore, following the Saviour's injunction to search the Scriptures,⁹³ carefully examine where the literal meaning is true, and where it cannot possibly be so; and he must, to the best of his ability, by comparing parallel passages scattered up and down Scripture, trace out the prevalent sense of what is literally impossible. Since, then, as will be clear to readers, the literal connection is impossible, while the main connection is not impossible but even true, we must strive to grasp the general sense which intelligibly connects things literally impossible with such things as are not only not impossible, but are historically true, and capable of allegorical |23 interpretation, no less than those which never literally occurred. For, regarding the whole of Divine Scripture, we hold that every portion has the spiritual meaning, but not every portion the "corporeal"; for the "corporeal" meaning is often proved to be impossible. The cautious reader must therefore very carefully bear in mind that the Divine books are Divine writings, and that there appears to be a peculiar way of understanding them, which I will now describe.

22. The inspired words relate that God chose out a certain nation upon earth, which they call by several names. The whole nation is called Israel, and also Jacob. But after the division in the time of Jeroboam the son of Nebat, the ten tribes under him were called Israel, and the other two with the tribe of Levi, governed by kings of the seed of David, were known as Judah. And the whole country inhabited by the nation, and given to them by God, is called Judea; and of this Jerusalem was the metropolis, or mother city, that is to say, of numerous cities, the names of which dispersed in many parts of Scripture are included in one list in the Book of Joshua the son of Nun. This being so, the Apostle, raising our thoughts higher, somewhere says, "Behold Israel after the flesh,"⁹⁴ implying that there is an Israel after the Spirit. And elsewhere he says, "It is not the children of the flesh that are children of God: nor are they all Israel which are of Israel.⁹⁵ Nor is he a Jew which is one outwardly; neither is that circumcision which is outward in the flesh; but he is a Jew which is one inwardly, and circumcision is that of the heart, in the spirit, not in the letter." ⁹⁶ For if the judgment of the Jew depends on the inward state, we must understand that as there is a bodily race of Jews, so there is a race of those who are Jews inwardly, and that there are secret reasons for souls having this noble lineage. There are, moreover, many prophecies concerning Israel and Judah which relate the things that should befall them. Now, let me ask, |24 do not such great prophecies written on their behalf, inasmuch as in the literal sense they are trivial and exhibit none of the lofty dignity of a promise made by God, require a mystical interpretation? And if the promises are spiritual, though expressed by means of things sensible, they also to whom the promises are given are not "corporeal."

23. And, not to spend more time over the argument concerning the Jew that is one inwardly and the Israelite in the inner man, enough having been said for any but unintelligent readers, we return to our subject, and say. that Jacob was the father of the twelve patriarchs, they the progenitors of the rulers of the people, and these again the ancestors of the rest of Israel. So, then, the "corporeal" Israelites are traced up to the rulers of the people, and the rulers to the patriarchs, and the patriarchs to Jacob and those still farther back; but as for the spiritual Israelites, of whom the "corporeal" were the type, do they not spring from the "hundreds," the "hundreds" from the tribes, and the tribes from one man who had no such "corporeal" descent, but the better, he too being born of Isaac, and he of Abraham, all going back to Adam, who, as the Apostle says, is Christ? For all families in their relation to the God of All had their beginning lower down in Christ, Who being next to the God and Father of All, is thus the Father of every soul as Adam is the father of all men. And if Eve has been made by Paul to represent the Church, it is no wonder that Cain, who was born of Eve, and all after him who trace their descent from Eve, should be types of the Church, inasmuch as in a special sense they sprang from the Church.

24. If we are impressed by what has been said about Israel and the tribes and the hundreds, when the Saviour tells us that He was not sent save unto the lost sheep of the house of Israel,⁹⁷ we do not take the words in the same sense as the Ebionites with their poverty of |25 understanding (their poverty of intellect gives them their name, for "Ebion" is the Hebrew for "poor "), and suppose that Christ came chiefly to Israel after the flesh; for "it is not the children of the flesh that are children of God." ⁹⁸ Again, the Apostle gives similar teaching concerning Jerusalem when he tells us that "the Jerusalem which is above is free, which is our mother." ⁹⁹ And in another epistle he says, "But ye are come unto Mount Zion, and unto the city of the living God, the heavenly Jerusalem, and to innumerable hosts of angels, to the general assembly and church of the first-born who are enrolled in heaven." ¹⁰⁰ If, then, Israel is a race of souls, and there is a city, Jerusalem in heaven, it follows that the cities of Israel, and, consequently, all Judea, have for their metropolis the heavenly Jerusalem. Accordingly, whatever is foretold or said respecting Jerusalem, if we listen to God as God, and hear Him speaking from the depths of His wisdom,¹⁰¹ we must understand that the Scriptures refer to the heavenly city, and the whole country containing the cities of the holy land. It may be that these are the cities to which the Saviour leads us ¹⁰² up when He gives the command of ten or five cities to those who satisfactorily dealt with the pounds.

25. If, then, the prophecies respecting Judea and Jerusalem, and Israel and Judah and Jacob, inasmuch as we do not take them in the fleshly sense, suggest some such mysteries as the foregoing, it should follow that the prophecies concerning Egypt and the Egyptians, Babylon and the Babylonians, Tyre and the Tyriaus, Sidon and the Sidonians, or any other nations, are not prophecies merely of the corporeal Egyptians,¹⁰³ Babylonians, Tyrians, and Sidonians. For if there are "spiritual" Israelites, it follows that there are "spiritual" Egyptians and Babylonians. What the Prophet Ezekiel says cannot at all be made to |26 suit Pharaoh, King of Egypt, a past or future human ruler of the country, as will be evident to close observers. Similarly, what is said about the ruler of Tyre cannot be understood of some future human ruler of Tyre. And the many passages relating to Nabuchadnosor, particularly in Isaiah, how can we possibly take them to refer to the man of that name? For the man Nabuchadnosor did not fall from heaven,¹⁰⁴ nor was he Lucifer, nor did he rise early on the earth. And the sayings in Ezekiel concerning Egypt, to the effect that it would be desolate for forty years,¹⁰⁵ so that the foot of man should not be found there, and that war should be so fiercely waged at some time or other that throughout the whole land blood should reach to the knees, what sensible person will understand them of Egypt that borders on the Ethiopians with their sunburnt bodies?

26. Perhaps, as they who leave the earth when they die the death of all men are dealt with in such a way that according to the deeds done in the body, if judged worthy of the place called Hades, they are assigned to different places in proportion to their sins: so they, if I may so speak, who die there, descend to this earthly Hades, being judged worthy of the different habitations, better or worse, throughout the world, and to have parents of different nationalities; so that an Israelite may perhaps fall among Scythians, and an Egyptian descend into Judea. But the Saviour came to gather together the lost sheep of the house of Israel;¹⁰⁶ and as many of Israel did not submit to His teaching, the Gentiles also are being called.

27. These mysteries are, as we think, concealed in the histories. For "the kingdom of heaven is like unto a treasure hidden in the field; which a man found, and hid; and in his joy he goeth and selleth all that he hath, and buyeth that field."¹⁰⁷ Let us consider then whether the obvious in Scripture, its superficial and easy meaning, is |27 not like a field covered with all sorts of growths; while the secret things, not seen by all, but as it were buried beneath the things that are seen, are the hidden treasures of wisdom and knowledge:¹⁰⁸ which the Spirit by the mouth of Esaias calls "dark," "invisible," "concealed." They must be found out, though God alone can break in pieces the gates of brass which hide them, and shatter the iron bars upon the doors; so that all the statements in Genesis concerning different real varieties of souls, and as it were seeds of souls, more or less remote from Israel, may be discovered; as also what is meant by the seventy souls going down into Egypt,¹⁰⁹ that there they may become as the stars of heaven for multitude. But since not all their descendants are the light of the world,¹¹⁰ for "they are not all Israel that are of Israel," ¹¹¹ the seventy become even as it were sand by the sea shore that cannot be numbered.

From the 39th Homily on Jeremiah.

28. And as all the gifts of God are vastly greater than the mortal substance, so also the true word of wisdom concerning all these, being with God Who caused all these things to be written, for the Father of the Word so willed, would be found in the soul which with all earnestness and with full consent has been thoroughly purified from human weakness in the apprehension of that wisdom. But if a man rashly enters on the subject, and is not aware of the mystery of the wisdom of God and of the Word Who was in the beginning with God and was Himself God, and that if we are to seek and find these things we must follow the instructions of the Word Who was also God, and conform to His wisdom, he must of necessity fall into fables and frivolous conceits and inventions of his own, for he exposes himself to danger for his impiety. We must therefore remember the admonition in Ecclesiastes to such readers: "Let not thine heart |28 be hasty to utter anything before God; for God is in heaven, and thou upon earth: therefore let thy words be few." ¹¹² And it is fitting to believe that not a single tittle of the sacred Scriptures is without something of the wisdom of God; for He Who gave me a mere man the command, "Thou shalt not appear before me empty," ¹¹³ how much more will He not speak anything "empty." When the Prophets speak, it is after receiving of His fulness; ¹¹⁴ and so everything breathes what comes of His fulness; and there is nothing in Prophecy, or Law, or Gospel, or Apostle, which is not of His fulness. And just because it is of His fulness, it breathes His fulness to those who have eyes to see the things of that fulness, and ears to hear the things of that fulness, and a faculty to perceive the sweet odour of the things of that fulness. But if in reading the Scripture thou shouldest sometime stumble at a meaning which is a fair stone of stumbling and rock of offence,¹¹⁵ blame thyself. Do not despair of finding meanings in the stone of stumbling and rock of offence, so that the saying may be fulfilled, "He that believeth shall not be ashamed." ¹¹⁶ First believe, and thou shalt find beneath what is counted a stumbling-block much gain in godliness.

From the Commentary on the 50th Psalm, in the allegorical treatment of the early portion of the history of Uriah.

29. If the partly allegorical treatment of the history appears to any one forced, and therefore not to relieve the difficulties, we have obviously been speaking to no purpose, and we must look for some other suitable interpretation; unless, perchance, some reader by further labour may discover a way of putting everything right, explaining ¹¹⁷ both the murder of the man and his evident kindliness, inasmuch as he was unwilling to go to his house and rest, when the people were in camp and |29 struggling against the enemy. But I do not know how they who shun the allegorical interpretation, and think the narrative was written for its own sake, will reconcile themselves to the will of the Holy Spirit, Who thought such things deserving of record as justify the charge not only of licentiousness, but also of savagery and inhumanity being brought against David; for he dared to commit a crime against Uriah which would be extraordinary even in the case of a man of average morality. I should, however, say that as the judgments of God are great and cannot be expressed,¹¹⁸ and seem to be causes of the erring of unnurtured souls, so also His Scriptures are great and full of meanings, secret, spiritual, and hard to understand. They, too, cannot be expressed, and appear to cause the unnurtured souls of heretics to err by inconsiderately and rashly accusing God on account of the Scriptures which they do not understand, and by therefore falling into the error of inventing another God. The safe course is to wait for the interpretation of an explainer of the Word, and of the wisdom hidden in a mystery,¹¹⁹ which none of the rulers of this world knoweth, according to the revelation of the mystery which hath been kept in silence through times eternal,¹²⁰ but now is manifested to the Apostles and those like them, both through the writings of the Prophets, and by the appearing to them of our Saviour the Word Who in the beginning was with God.¹²¹

From the th Homily on Leviticus, near the beginning.

30. Not perceiving the difference between visible and spiritual Judaism, that is, between the Judaism which is outward and the Judaism which is inward,¹²² godless and impious heresies forsook Judaism and the God Who gave our Scriptures and the whole Law, and invented a different God besides Him Who gave the Law and the Prophets, besides the Maker of heaven and earth. The fact is not so, however; but He Who gave the Law also gave the |30 Gospel, He Who made things visible also made things invisible. And things visible are akin to things invisible; in such wise akin that the invisible things of God since the creation of the world are clearly seen, being perceived through the things that are made.¹²³ The things of the Law and the Prophets which are seen are akin to the things of the Law and the Prophets which are not seen but are intelligible.¹²⁴ Seeing, then, that the Scripture itself consists as it were of a body which is seen, and a soul therein apprehended by the reason, and a spirit, that which corresponds to the copies and shadow of heavenly things,¹²⁵ let us call upon Him Who created Scripture with a body, soul, and spirit, the body for those who were before us, the soul for us, and the spirit for those who in the coming age shall inherit eternal life, and are destined to reach the heavenly, archetypal things contained in the Law; and then let us search, not for the letter, but for the soul of what we are considering. Then, if we are able, we will ascend also to the spirit, corresponding to the principles involved in the sacrifices of which we read.

CHAP. II. ----That the Divine Scripture is closed up and sealed. From the Commentary on the st Psalm.

1. The Divine words say that the Divine Scriptures have been closed up and sealed with the key of David, and perhaps with the seal which is described as "the stamp of a seal, a hallowed offering to the Lord" ¹²⁶----that is, with the power of God, Who gave the Scriptures, the seal being the emblem of power. Now John interprets the closing up and sealing in the Apocalypse, when he says:¹²⁷ "And to the angel of the church in Philadelphia write; These things saith he that is holy, he that is true, he that hath the key of David, he that openeth, and none shall shut, and that shutteth, and none openeth: I know thy |31 works: behold I have set before thee a door opened, which none can shut." And a little farther on:¹²⁸ "And I saw in the right hand of him that sat on the throne a book written within and without, close sealed with seven seals. And I saw another, a strong angel, proclaiming with a great voice, Who is worthy to open the book, and to loose the seals thereof? And no one in the heaven, or on the earth, or under the earth, was able to open the book, or to look thereon. And I wept because no one was found worthy to open the book, or to look thereon: and one of the elders saith unto me, Weep not: behold, the Lion that is of the tribe of Judah, the Root of David, hath prevailed to open the book and the seven seals thereof."

2. As regards the sealing up only, Esaias thus speaks:¹²⁹ "And all these sayings shall be to you as the words of this book which is sealed, which men deliver to One that is learned, saying, Read this: and he saith, I cannot read it, for it is sealed: and the book shall be delivered into the hands of a man that is not learned, saying, Read this: and he saith, I am not learned." For we must consider these things to be spoken not only of the Apocalypse of John and Esaias, but also of all Divine Scripture, which is beyond question full of riddles, and parables, and dark sayings, and various other obscurities, hard to be understood by men, whose ears can catch no more than the faint echoes of the Divine words. This was what the Saviour wished to teach us when He said, inasmuch as the key was with the Scribes and Pharisees who did not strive to find the way to open the Scriptures, "Woe unto you lawyers! for ye took away the key of knowledge: ye entered not in yourselves, and them that were entering in ye hindered." ¹³⁰

Then, after topics of a different kind, Origen proceeds:----

3. Now that we are going to begin our interpretation |32 of the Psalms, let us preface our remarks with a very pleasing tradition respecting all Divine Scripture in general, which has been handed down to us by the Jew. That great scholar used to say that inspired Scripture taken as a whole was on account of its obscurity like many locked-up rooms in one house. Before each room he supposed a key to be placed, but not the one belonging to it; and that the keys were so dispersed all round the rooms, not fitting the locks of the several rooms before which they were placed. It would be a troublesome piece of work to discover the keys to suit the rooms they were meant for. It was, he said, just so with the understanding of the Scriptures, because they are so obscure; the only way to begin to understand them was, he said, by means of other passages containing the explanation dispersed throughout them. The Apostle, I think, suggested such a way of coming to a knowlege of the Divine words when He said, "Which things also we speak, not in words which man's wisdom teacheth, but which the Spirit teacheth; comparing spiritual things with spiritual." ¹³¹

Much farther on, comparing the blessings addressed to individuals with those addressed to more than one,¹³² he says:----

4. If the words of the Lord are pure words, as silver tried in a furnace, approved of the whole earth, purified seven times; ¹³³ it is just as true that the Holy Spirit has dictated them, through the ministers of the Word,¹³⁴ with the most scrupulous accuracy, lest the parallel meaning which the wisdom of God had constantly in view over the whole range of inspired Scripture, even to the mere letter, should escape us. And perhaps this is why the Saviour says, "One jot or one tittle shall in no wise pass away from the law, till all things be accomplished." ¹³⁵ For if we study Creation we see that the Divine skill is shown not only in heaven, in the sun, moon, and stars, being everywhere evidenced in those bodies, but also upon earth no less |33 in commoner matter: so that the bodies of the smallest living creatures are not scornfully treated by the Creator, much less the souls existing in them, each having some peculiar gift, something to ensure the safety of the irrational creature. And as for plants, neither are they overlooked, for the Creator is immanent in every one, as regards roots, and leaves, appropriate fruits, and varying qualities. So, too, we conceive of all that has been recorded by the inspiration of the Holy Ghost, believing that the sacred foreknowledge ¹³⁶ has through the Scriptures supplied superhuman wisdom to the race of man, having, so to speak, sown the seeds of saving truths, traces of the wisdom of God, in every letter as far as possible.

5. In truth, any one who has once accepted these Scriptures as coming from the Creator of the world, must be convinced that whatever difficulties confront those who investigate the story of creation, similar difficulties will also be found in the study of the Scriptures. There are, I say, in creation as well as in Scripture, certain problems which we men solve with difficulty, or even not at all; and we must not therefore blame the Maker of the universe because, say, we cannot discover why basilisks and other venomous creatures were created. In the contemplation of Nature it is an act of piety if a man who is conscious of human weakness, and recognises the impossibility of understanding the principles of the Divine skill, though pondered with all diligence, will ascribe to God the knowledge of these things. He will hereafter, should we be deemed worthy, reveal to us all the mysteries which now engage our reverent attention. Similarly, we should see that the Divine Scriptures also contain many mysteries of which it is hard for us to give an account. Anyway, let those who, after forsaking the Creator of the world and betaking themselves to a god of their own invention, make these professions, solve the difficulties we put before them; or, at least, after such strange impiety, let them see how they can with a good |34 conscience uphold their speculations on the matters under investigation and the problems presented to them. For if the problems no less remain, though our opponents have forsaken the Godhead, would it not be far greater piety to be content with our conception of God, the Creator being contemplated through the works of creation, and to refrain from uttering godless and unholy opinions respecting so great a God?

CHAP. III. ---- Why the inspired books are twenty-two ¹³⁷ in number. From the same volume on the st Psalm.

As we are dealing with numbers, and every number has among real existences a certain significance, of which the Creator of the universe made full use as well in the general scheme as in the arrangement of the details, we must give good heed, and with the help of the Scriptures trace their meaning, and the meaning of each of them. Nor must we fail to observe that not without reason the canonical books are twenty-two,¹³⁸ according to the Hebrew tradition, the same in number as the letters of the Hebrew alphabet. For as the twenty-two letters may be regarded as an introduction to the wisdom and the Divine doctrines given to men in those Characters, so the twenty-two inspired books are an alphabet of the wisdom of God and an introduction to the knowledge of realities. |35

CHAP. IV. ----Of the solecisms and poor style of Scripture. From Volume IV. of the Commentaries on the Gospel according to John, three or four pages from the beginning.

1. A reader who carefully distinguishes language, meaning, and things, on which the meaning is based, will not stumble at solecistic ¹³⁹ expressions, if, on examination, he finds that the things are none the worse for the language in which they are clothed, particularly as the holy writers confess that their speech was not in persuasive words of wisdom, but in demonstration of the Spirit and of power.¹⁴⁰

Then, after speaking of the solecisms of the Gospel, he goes on to say:----

2. Inasmuch as the Apostles were not unconscious of their errors, nor unaware what the things were which concerned them, they say they are rude in speech, but not in knowledge:¹⁴¹ for we must believe that the other Apostles, as well as Paul, would have said so. Then there is the passage, "But we have this treasure in earthen vessels, that the exceeding greatness of the power may be of God, and not from ourselves";¹⁴² which we interpret of the treasure elsewhere described as the treasure of knowledge and hidden wisdom,¹⁴³ and we take the "earthen vessels" in the sense of the ordinary, and, in Greek estimation, contemptible diction of the Scriptures, wherein the exceeding greatness of the power of God is really seen. For the mysteries of the truth and the force of what was said, in spite of the ordinary language, were strong enough to reach the ends of the earth, and bring into subjection to the word of Christ, not only the foolish things of the world, but sometimes also its wise ones.¹⁴⁴ For we see what our calling is: not that it has no one wise after the flesh, but not many wise |36 after the flesh. Nay more, Paul says that in proclaiming the Gospel ¹⁴⁵ he owes the delivery of the Word not only to Barbarians but also to the Greeks, and not only to the foolish, who more easily give their assent, but also to the wise; for he was by God made sufficient to be a minister of the new covenant,¹⁴⁶ and to use the demonstration of the Spirit and of power,¹⁴⁷ so that the assent of believers may not stand in the wisdom of men, but in the power of God. For had the Scripture been embellished with elegance of style and diction, like the masterpieces of Greek literature, one might perhaps have supposed that it was not the truth which got hold of men, but that the clear sequence of thought and the beauty of the language won the souls of the hearers, and caught them with guile.

CHAP. V. ---- What is "much speaking," and what are the "many books"? The whole inspired Scripture is one book. From the Introduction to Volume V. of the Commentaries on John.

I. Since you are not content to have taken up your present work as God's task-master over me,¹⁴⁸ and expect me even when away to devote myself mainly to you and to my duty towards you, I in turn, if I decline the labour, and shun the danger to which they are exposed at God's hands who give themselves up to writing on Divine subjects, might find support in Scripture for refusing to "make many books." For Solomon says in Ecclesiastes, "My son, beware of making many books: there is no end: and much study is a weariness of the flesh." ¹⁴⁹ If the words |37 before us had not a hidden meaning which we do not even yet clearly understand, we should have expressly broken the commandment through not being on our guard against "making many books."

Then, after saying that he had written four full volumes on a few passages of the Gospel, he proceeds thus:----

2. As far as the words go there are two possible meanings of the precept, "My son, beware of making many books"; firstly, that one ought not to have many books: secondly, that one ought not to compose many books; and if the first is not permissible, the second is certainly not; though if the second is permissible, the first is not certainly so; ¹⁵⁰ either way the lesson appears to be that we ought not to make too many books. And, keeping to what has now occurred to me, I might send you the passage which I have quoted, as my apology: I might make the most of the fact that the saints have never had leisure for composing many books, and, accordingly, cease to compose any more to be sent to you, as we agreed. You would perhaps be so struck by what I said that you would let me have my way. But since a man should investigate Scripture with a good conscience, and not hastily claim to understand the meaning because he grasps the literal sense, I cannot bear to offer an unreal apology, which you might turn against me if I were to break our agreement. First, then, seeing that history seems to support what Solomon says, inasmuch as no saint has published numerous volumes and expressed his thoughts in many books, something must be said about this. And he who chides me for going on composing more books will tell me that the famous Moses left only five.

Then, after enumerating Prophets and Apostles, and showing how each of them wrote but a little, or not even that, he continues:----

3. Again, though I have said all this, my head swims, and I turn dizzy at the thought that in obeying you I may have disobeyed God and not imitated the saints. I trust |38 I shall not do wrong, if in my heartfelt affection for you, and earnest desire in nothing to give you pain, I plead my own cause and base my defence on these grounds. First of all, we adduced the words of Ecclesiastes, "My son, beware of making many books." ¹⁵¹ Side by side with this I place the saying of the same Solomon in the Proverbs, "In the multitude of words thou shalt not escape sin, but if thou refrain thy lips thou wilt be discreet," ¹⁵² and I ask if the mere speaking many words is much speaking, even if a man speak many holy and saving words. If this be so, and he who discusses many profitable things indulges in a "multitude of words," Solomon himself did not escape the sin, for "he spake three thousand proverbs; and his songs were a thousand and five. And he spake of trees, from the cedar that is in Lebanon, even unto the hyssop that springeth out of the wall: he spake also of beasts, and of fowl, and of creeping things, and of fishes." ¹⁵³ How can teaching be effective without many words of the simpler kind? Wisdom herself tells the perishing, "I prolonged my words unto you, and ye did not regard." ¹⁵⁴ And Paul appears to have continued preaching from morn until midnight, until Eutychus borne down with deep sleep fell down and alarmed the audience, who thought he was dead.¹⁵⁵

4. Well, then, if it be true that "in a multitude of words thou wilt not escape sin"; and if it be also true that neither Solomon sinned though he spake many words about the above-mentioned subjects, nor Paul, though he continued teaching until midnight, we must inquire what "a multitude of words" is, and then pass on to consider the meaning of "the many books." The whole Word of God, I say, the Word which was in the beginning with God,¹⁵⁶ is not "a multitude of words," for it is not "words "; there is one Word ¹⁵⁷ which may be regarded from many points of view, and each of these meanings is a part of the whole Word. But as for words other than this Word, which |39 profess to describe or relate anything whatsoever, though we may believe them to be words respecting truth,----what I am going to say will sound still more paradoxical, ----not one of them is a word, but each of them words. For the unit can nowhere be found, nor can harmony and unity, but because they are torn with mutual conflict their unity has perished; and they are split into many parts, perhaps infinitely numerous; so that, according to this, we may say that he who utters anything whatsoever contrary to godliness speaks much, while he who speaks the things of the truth, even though he speak so exhaustively as to omit nothing, even speaks one word, and the saints, making the one Word their constant aim, do not fall into the vice of much speaking. If, then, whether there be or be not "much speaking" depends on the doctrines and not on the number of the words, see whether we cannot say the whole range of sacred teaching is one book, and all other teaching many books?

5. But since I must have proof from the Divine Scripture, consider whether my most striking way of presenting it is not to show that the account of Christ in relation to us is not contained in one book, if we take the "books" in the ordinary sense. It is described even in the Pentateuch; but also in each of the Prophets, and in the Psalms, and, generally, as the Saviour Himself says, in all the Scriptures, to which He refers us, bidding us "Search the Scriptures, for ye think that in them ye have eternal life: and these are they which bear witness of me." ¹⁵⁸ If, then, He refers us to the Scriptures as bearing witness of Him, He does not send us to this or that particular portion, but to all the Scriptures that tell of Him, such as those which in the Psalms He called "the roll of the book," saying, "In the roll of the book it is written of me." ¹⁵⁹ If any one takes the phrase "in the roll of the book" to mean some one of the books containing the things concerning Him, I should like him to tell me why he prefers that book to any other. To justify |40 any one in supposing that the word refers to the Book of the Psalms itself, he must point out that the words should have been "In this book it is written concerning me." But the fact is that He says that everything is one roll, because the account of Himself which has reached us is summed up in one (statement, "I came to do Thy will"). And what, again, is the meaning of the book being seen by John written in front and on the back, close sealed:¹⁶⁰ which no one could read or loose the seals thereof, except the Lion that is of the tribe of Judah, the Root of David, He that hath the key of David,¹⁶¹ He that openeth and no man shall shut, and no man shall open? It surely is the whole of Scripture which is indicated by the "book"; written "in front" by reason of the easy, obvious interpretation: "on the back " because of the more remote and spiritual sense.

6. Besides this, we must closely observe whether it is any proof of holy truths being one book, and the opposite of these many, that for the living there is one book from which they who have become unworthy of it are blotted out, as it is written, "Let them be blotted out of the book of the living," ¹⁶² while for those subject to judgment looks are brought; for Daniel says, "The judgment was set and the books were opened." ¹⁶³ To the unity of the Divine book even Moses testifies when he says, "If thou wilt forgive this people their sin, forgive them; and if not, blot me out of thy book which thou hast written."¹⁶⁴ I take the passage in Isaiah the same way; for it is not a peculiarity of his prophecy that the words of the book were sealed, and were not read by him that was not learned because he was not learned, nor by him that was learned because the book was sealed; but even this is true of all Scripture, which needs the Word that shut and will open; for "He shall shut and none shall open," ¹⁶⁵ and once He opens no one can any longer associate darkness with His clear light; and this is why it is said that He shall |41 open and none shut. And the very similar passage in Ezekiel about the book there spoken of, wherein was written "lamentations and music and woe." For every book contains the "woe" of the perishing,¹⁶⁶ and "music" for those who are being saved, and lamentations for those between these extremes. John, too, when he says that he ate one roll of the book,¹⁶⁷ wherein were written things past and things to come, must have regarded the whole of Scripture as one book, very sweet as a man understands it at first and feeds upon it, but bitter when it is revealed to the self-consciousness of every one who has come to know it. To demonstrate this I will add an apostolic saying not understood by the followers of Marcion, who therefore reject the Gospels; for whereas the Apostle says, "According to my gospel in Christ Jesus," ¹⁶⁸ and does not speak of gospels, they oppose us, and maintain that if there were several gospels the Apostle would not have used the word in the singular. They do not understand that as He is one, so the Gospel written by its many authors is one in effect, and the Gospel truly delivered by four evangelists is one Gospel.

7. Wherefore, if this has brought us conviction as to what the one book means, and what the many, I am now not so much concerned for the quantity of the copy as for the quality of the same, lest I fall into the transgression of the commandment, if I put forth anything as truth which is contrary to the truth even in a single detail of what is written; for I shall then prove myself to be a writer of many books. And just now, when, with a show of knowledge, men who hold false opinions are rising up against the holy Church of Christ, and publishing book after book which professes to expound the Gospels and apostolic writings, if we hold our peace, and do not meet them with the true and sound doctrines, they will prevail over gluttonous souls which, for want of wholesome food, rush to things forbidden, to utterly unclean and abominable meats. It therefore seems to me to be necessary, that he |42 who can genuinely plead for the doctrine of the Church and refute the handlers of knowledge falsely so-called, should withstand the inventions of the heretics, opposing to them the elevation of the preaching of the Gospel, inasmuch as he is satisfied with the harmony of doctrines common to the Old Testament and to the New, as they are respectively called. At all events, you yourself, when advocates of the good cause were scarce, because you could not endure an irrational and commonplace faith, in your love for Jesus embraced opinions which you afterwards, when you had fully exercised the understanding given to you, condemned and forsook. This I say, according to my light, by way of excuse for men who can speak and write, and also by way of apology for myself, lest, perhaps, not being equipped as a man should be who is enabled by God to be a minister of the New Testament,¹⁶⁹ not of the letter, but of the spirit, I too boldly apply myself to composition.¹⁷⁰

CHAP. VI. ----The whole Divine Scripture is one instrument of God, perfect and fitted for its work. From Volume II. of the Commentaries on the Gospel according to Matthew: "Blessed are the peacemakers" ¹⁷¹

1. To the man who is both ways a peacemaker, there is no longer anything in the Divine oracles crooked or perverse,¹⁷² for all things are plain to those who understand; and since to such an one there is nothing crooked or perverse, he sees abundance of peace¹⁷³ everywhere in Scripture, even in those parts which appear not to agree and to be contradictory to one another. But there is also a third peacemaker, he, viz. who shows that what to the eyes of others seems like disagreement in the Scriptures is not really so, and who proves that harmony and concord exist, whether between the Old and the New, or the Law and the Prophets, or Gospel and Gospel, or Evangelists and |43 Apostles, or Apostles and other Apostles. For,¹⁷⁴ according to the Preacher,¹⁷⁵ all the Scriptures, words of the wise, are as goads, and as nails well fastened, words which were given from collections from one shepherd, and there is nothing superfluous in them. And the Word is "one shepherd" of things relating to the Word, which do indeed sound discordant to those who have not ears to hear,¹⁷⁶ but are in truth most harmonious.

2. For as the different strings of the psaltery or the lyre, each of which gives forth a note of its own seemingly unlike that of any other, are thought by an unmusical man who does not understand the theory of harmony to be discordant, because of the difference in the notes: so they who have not ears to detect the harmony of God in the sacred Scriptures suppose that the Old Testament is not in harmony with the New, or the Prophets with the Law, or the Gospels with one another, or an Apostle with the Gospel, or with himself, or with the other Apostles. But if a reader comes who has been instructed in God's music, a man who happens to be wise in word and deed, and on that account, it may be, called David, which being interpreted is "a cunning player," he will produce a note of God's music, for he will have learned from God's music to keep good time, playing now upon the strings of the Law, now upon those of the Gospel in harmony with them, now upon those of the Prophets; and when the harmony of good sense is required he strikes the apostolic strings tuned to suit the foregoing, and, similarly, apostolic strings in harmony with those of Evangelists. For he knows that the whole Scripture is the one, perfect, harmonious instrument of God, blending the different notes, for those who wish to learn, into one song of salvation, which stops and hinders all the working of an evil spirit, as the music of David laid to rest the evil spirit in Saul which was |44 vexing him.¹⁷⁷ You observe, then, that there is a third kind of peacemaker, he who keeping close to the Scripture both sees the peace which pervades it everywhere, and bestows it on those who rightly seek the truth and are really eager to learn.

CHAP. VII. ----Of the special character of the persons of Divine Scripture. From the small volume on the Song of Songs, which Origen wrote in his youth.

1. Any one who does not understand the peculiar character ¹⁷⁸ of the persons in Scripture, both as regards the speakers and the persons addressed, must be much perplexed by what he reads; he will ask who is speaking, who is spoken to, and when does the speaker cease to speak. For it often happens that the same person is addressed, though a third person speaks to him; or the person addressed is no longer the same, and a different person takes up what is said, while the same person speaks. And sometimes both the speaker and the person addressed are changed; or, further, though both are unchanged, it is not clear that they are. Need I seek an illustration of each of these statements, seeing that the prophetical writings abound in such changes? In fact we have here a special, though it may be unrecognised, cause of the obscurity of Scripture. It is also the way of Scripture to jump suddenly from one discourse to another.¹⁷⁹ The prophets, above all, do this, obscuring their sense and more or less confusing the reader.

Again, from the th Homily ¹⁸⁰ on the Acts, "It was needful that the Scripture should be fulfilled which the Holy Spirit spake before by the mouth of David concerning Judas."

2. In the Psalm wherein the things concerning Judas are written, one might say that it is not the Holy Spirit Who speaks, for the words are clearly the Saviour's, |45 "Hold not thy peace, O God, at my praise: for the mouth of the wicked and the mouth of the deceitful man is opened upon me," ¹⁸¹ and so on, until we come to "And his office let another take." Now if it is the Saviour Who says this, what does Peter mean by telling us that "It was needful that the Scripture should be fulfilled which the Holy Ghost spake before by the mouth of David?" ¹⁸² Perhaps the lesson is something like this. The Holy Ghost employs personification in the prophets, and if He introduces the person of God, it is not God Who speaks, but the Holy Ghost speaks as God.¹⁸³ And if He introduces Christ, it is not Christ Who speaks, but the Holy Ghost speaks as Christ. So, then, if He brings in the person of a prophet, or personifies this or that people, or anything whatsoever, it is the Holy Ghost Who devises all these personifications.

CHAP. VIII. ----That we need not attempt to correct the solecistic phrases of Scripture, and those which are unintelligible according to the letter, seeing that they contain great propriety of thought for those who can understand. From the Commentary on Hosea.

1. Inasmuch as the solecisms ¹⁸⁴ in Scripture, if literally taken, often confuse the reader, so that he suspects the text to be neither correct, nor in accord with propriety of reason; and this to such an extent, that some persons by way of correction, even venture to make alterations and substitute another meaning for that of the seemingly inconsistent passages, I fear something similar may befall the language of the passages before us; we are therefore bound to see what their hidden meaning is. The Prophet after using the plural, "They wept and made supplication unto me," ¹⁸⁵ and again the plural, showing the sequel, "In |46 the house of On they found me," proceeds in the singular, "And there he spoke with him." A reader glancing at the words as they stand might suppose there was an error in the copy, and therefore write the plural in the last clause, or change the previous plurals into the singular. For when he reads, "They wept and made supplication unto me," and "In the house of On they found me," he would say that the next clause should be, "There he spake with them," that is, with those who wept and made supplication and found God in the house of On. But if we consider other passages we shall see that even here we have no inconsistency.

2. In Genesis God gives a command to Adam, saying, "Of every tree in the garden thou mayest freely eat; but of the tree of the knowledge of good and evil, ye shall not eat of it: for in the day that ye eat thereof ye shall surely die." ¹⁸⁶ There, also, God begins by speaking in the singular, "Of every tree in the garden thou mayest freely eat," but goes on in the plural, "of the tree of the knowledge of good and evil, ye shall not eat of it: for in the day that ye eat thereof, ye shall surely die." The explanation is that when God speaks of the commandment which He wished Adam to keep and live, He commands in the singular, "Of every tree in the garden thou mayest freely eat"; for they who walk in God's ways and hold fast His commandments, though they be many, yet by reason of their being of one mind the many are essentially one.¹⁸⁷ And, therefore, when a commandment respecting goodness is given, the singular is used----"Thou mayest freely eat"; but in laying down the law respecting transgression, God no longer uses the singular, but the plural----"Ye shall not eat: for in the day that ye eat thereof, ye shall surely die."

3. And so it is with the present passage. When they still weep and make supplication to God, the plural is used----"They wept and made supplication to me "; but when they find God, He no longer uses the plural----"There |47 He spake, not with them," but with him. For by finding God and by hearing His Word, they have already become one. For the individual when he sins is one of many, severed from God and divided, his unity gone; but the many who follow the commandments of God are one man; as also the Apostle testifies, saying, "For we who are many are one bread, one body";¹⁸⁸ and again, "There is one God, and One Christ, and one faith, and one baptism";¹⁸⁹ and elsewhere, "For all we are one body in Christ Jesus";¹⁹⁰ and again, "I espoused you all to one husband, that I might present you as a pure virgin to the Lord."¹⁹¹ And that they are well pleasing to the Lord and one,¹⁹² is shown in the Lord's prayer to His Father for His disciples. "Holy Father," He says, "grant that as I and Thou are one, so also they may be one in us."¹⁹³ And also, whenever the saints are said to be members of one another,¹⁹⁴ the only conclusion is that they are one body. In The Shepherd,¹⁹⁵ again, where we read of the building of the tower, a building composed of many stones, but seeming to be one solid block, what can the meaning of the Scripture be except the harmony and unity of the many?

CHAP. IX. ---- Why it is that the Divine Scripture often uses the same term in different significations, even in the same place. From the Epistle to the Romans, Volume IX. on the words, "What then? Is the law sin?" ¹⁹⁶

1. One term, law, may be used, but the scriptural account of "law" is not everywhere one and the same. A reader must therefore in every place consider with the utmost care first the literal meaning of the word "law," then the special significance of it. This is only what we do with most other words; for there are other instances of equivocal scriptural terms, such as confuse readers who suppose that because the word is the same the meaning |48 must be the same wherever it is found. Now the word "law" is intended to serve not everywhere the same purpose, but many purposes; we will, therefore, passing by the numerous passages requiring careful reasoning because they suggest an objection which calls for an answer, set forth all such as may effectually convince anybody that the word "law" has many meanings. As an illustration let us take what is said in the Epistle to the Galatians. "As many as are of the works of the law are under a curse: for it is written, Cursed is every one which continueth riot in all things that are written in the book of the law to do them." ¹⁹⁷ It is clear that we have here the literal law of Moses, enjoining on those under it what they are to do, and forbidding what they must not do. And we have no less clearly the meaning of the passage in the same Epistle, "The law was added because of transgressions, till the seed should come to whom the promise hath been made; and it was ordained through angels by the hand of a mediator";¹⁹⁸ and of another, "So that the law hath been our tutor to bring us unto Christ, that we might be justified by faith. But now that faith is come, we are no longer under a tutor. For ye are all sons of God, through faith in Christ Jesus." ¹⁹⁹ And that "law" also denotes the historical writings of Moses we may gather from the passage in the same epistle ----"Tell me ye that desire to be under the law, do ye not hear the law? For it is written, that Abraham had two sons, one by the handmaid, and one by the freewoman. Howbeit the son by the handmaid is born after the flesh; but the son by the freewoman is born through the promise." ²⁰⁰

2. I know that even the Psalms are called "law," as is plain from the passage, "That the word may be fulfilled that is written in their law, They hated me without a cause." ²⁰¹ Nay more, the prophecy of Isaiah is called "law" by the Apostle, who tells us, "In the law it is |49 written, By men of strange tongues, and by the lips of strangers will I speak unto this people; and not even then will they hear me, saith the Lord";²⁰² and this is in effect what I found in Aquila's interpretation. The term is also applied to the more mystic and Divine sense of the law; as, for instance, "We know that the law is spiritual."²⁰³ And besides all this, the Word sown in the soul, evidenced by the moral notions common to mankind, and in Scripture language "written in the heart," enjoining what we have to do, forbidding what we must not do, is called "law." This is proved by the following words of the Apostle: "For when the Gentiles which have no law do by nature the things of the law, these, having no law, are a law unto themselves; in that they show the work of the law written in their hearts, their consciences bearing witness therewith." ²⁰⁴ For the law written in men's hearts and in Gentiles who by nature do the things of the law, is no other than the law of common morality by nature written in our governing part,²⁰⁵ and day by day becoming clearer with the perfecting of reason. This is the meaning of law in the words,"Sin is not imputed where there is no law," ²⁰⁶ and in these, "I had not known sin except through the law." ²⁰⁷ For before the Mosaic law was given sin is found to have been imputed both to Cain and to the sufferers in the Deluge, and to the people of Sodom as well, and to countless others; and many came to know sin before the law of Moses was given. And do not be surprised if two meanings of the one word "law" are discovered in the same place; for we shall find this usage in other parts of Scripture; for example, "Say not ye, There are yet four months and then cometh the harvest? Behold, I say unto you, Lift up your eyes, and look on the fields, that they |50 are white already into harvest."²⁰⁸ The word "harvest" is used twice, the first time of the "corporeal" ²⁰⁹ harvest, the second time of the spiritual. And you will find a parallel also in the account of the healing of the man born blind. The man was literally blind, but the Saviour adds, "For judgment came I into this world, that they which see not may see; and that they which see may become blind." ²¹⁰

3. So, then, it is as true as ever that; "apart from the law, the law of nature, a righteousness of God hath been manifested, being witnessed by the law and the prophets." ²¹¹ And we would tell those readers who shrink from admitting the double meaning of "the law," that if we are to understand the same law to be referred to in both clauses, "But now apart from the law a righteousness of God hath been manifested," and "Being witnessed by the law and the prophets," we must conclude that if the righteousness hath been manifested apart from the Law, it is not witnessed by the Law; and if it is witnessed by the Law, it hath not been manifested apart from the Law. The truth is that the law of nature by no means witnesses to the righteousness of God manifested by Jesus Christ, for it is inferior to that righteousness; but the Law of Moses, not the letter, but the spirit, does witness, as also the Prophets in accordance with the spirit of the law, and as does the spiritual word in them. The reader of the Divine Scripture must therefore carefully observe that the Scriptures do not invariably use the same words to denote the same things; and they make the change sometimes on account of the equivocal sense of a word, sometimes for the sake of the figurative meaning, and sometimes because the context requires a different nuance in some places from that which the word has in others. If we are well on our guard in all this we escape many blunders and false interpretations. We ought, then, to know that the word "see" ²¹² does not always denote the same thing, sometimes being applied to bodily sight, sometimes to our understanding. |51 Speaking generally, we ought to be aware that inasmuch as the purpose of the Spirit in the Prophets, and the Word in the Apostles of Christ, is to conceal and not plainly disclose the thoughts of the Truth, confusion arises again and again through the mere wording, and no close sequence of thought is preserved; the object being that even the unworthy may not to the judgment of their own soul discover the things which are thus for their good concealed from them. And this is often the reason why Scripture, as a whole, appears to lack orderly arrangement and consecutiveness, particularly, as we said before, the prophetic and apostolic writings; and in the apostolic writings, the Epistle to the Romans, wherein the functions of the Law are set forth in different terms, and applied to different circumstances. The result is that Paul in the composition of the epistle does not seem to be true to his aim.

CHAP. X. ----Of things in the Divine Scripture which seem to come near to being a stumbling-block and rock of offence. From the 39th Homily on Jeremiah: "The Lord could not bear because of the evil of your doings"

1. If at anytime in reading the Scripture you stumble at something which is a fair stone of stumbling, and rock of offence,²¹³ blame yourself; for you must not despair of finding in this stone of stumbling and rock of offence thoughts to justify the saying, "He that believeth shall not be ashamed." ²¹⁴ First believe, and thou shalt find beneath what is deemed a stumbling-stone much gain in godliness. For if we really received a commandment to speak no idle word, because we shall give account of it in the day of judgment;²¹⁵ and if we must with all our might endeavour to make every word proceeding out of our mouths a working word both in ourselves who speak and in those who hear, must we not conclude that every word spoken |52 through the Prophets was fit for work? and it is no wonder if every word spoken by the Prophets had a work adapted to it. Nay, I suppose that every letter, no matter how strange, which is written in the oracles of God, does its work. And there is not one jot or tittle ²¹⁶ written in the Scripture, which, when men know how to extract the virtue does not work its own work.

2. As every herb has its own virtue whether for the healing of the body, or some other purpose, and it is not given to everybody to know the use of every herb, but certain persons have acquired the knowledge by the systematic study of botany, so that they may understand when a particular herb is to be used, and to what part it is to be applied, and how it is to be prepared, if it is to do the patient good; just so it is in things spiritual; the saint is a sort of spiritual herbalist, who culls from the sacred Scriptures every jot and every common letter, discovers the value of what is written and its use, and finds that there is nothing in the Scriptures superfluous. If you would like another illustration, every member of our body has been designed by God to do some work. But it is not for everybody to know the power and use of all the members, even the meanest, but those physicians who are expert anatomists can tell for what use every part, even the least, was intended by Providence. Just so, you may regard the Scriptures as a collection of herbs, or as one perfect body of reason; but if you are neither a scriptural botanist, nor can dissect the words of the Prophets, you must not suppose that anything written is superfluous, but blame yourself and not the sacred Scriptures when you fail to find the point of what is written. All this by way of general preface, though it may be applied to the whole of Scripture; so that they who will give heed to their reading may beware of passing over a single letter without examination and inquiry. |53

CHAP. XI. ----That we must seek the nourishment supplied by all inspired Scripture, and not turn from the passages troubled by heretics with ill-advised difficulties, nor slight them; we ought rather to have our share in them without the confusion which attaches to unbelief. From Volume XX. on Ezekiel. "Thus saith the Lord God: Behold I judge between sheep and sheep, as well the rams as the he-goats. Seemeth it a small thing unto you to have fed upon the good pasture, but ye must tread down with your feet the residue of your pasture? and to have drunk of the clear waters, but ye must foul the residue with your feet? And as for my sheep they eat that which ye have trodden with your feet, and they drink that which ye have fouled with your feet? " ²¹⁷

After giving his views respecting sheep that are rams, and sheep that are goats, and showing that it is the practice of Scripture sometimes to class sheep and goats together, he thus proceeds:----

1. Now let us do our best to discover what truths are shadowed out in these words. Every good pasture, and the pool of clear water, represent, I suppose, the oracles of the sacred Scriptures as a whole. The next thought is that inasmuch as certain persons approve of some portions as profitable, and reject others as having no saving power, they may be said to feed upon the good pasture of the passages they choose, drink the clear water of what they judge to be the best, and then tread down the residue of the pasture, and foul the residue of the water with their feet. These, I say, are they who approve the New Testament, but reject the Old; these are they who maintain that certain parts of the ancient writings exhibit more of the Divine power and are highly spiritual, and make others to be deficient in these respects. But the Shepherd calls them His own sheep who do not disdain what has been trodden by the feet, and who do not despise the water fouled by the feet, of the |54 blame-worthy sheep, perhaps more correctly named goats and kids; for they would not be sheep worthy of the rams upon the right hand.

2. For ourselves, then, who profess to be sheep of the Shepherd, let us never be shy at feeding on those passages which, taken literally, do not look like Scripture, and on account of their verbal incongruity are trodden down by men who are neither able nor willing to use the whole pasture. Even supposing that some water has been fouled by their feet, suppose, I mean, they have mingled with the pure word of the Scripture shameful unheard-of objections, let us not, because of the confusion they have introduced into the Word, be deterred from drinking that which has been fouled by their feet. And carefully observe that they who foul the water and tread down the pasture, are reminded of better sheep in the words, "And as for my sheep, they eat that which ye have trodden with your feet, and they drink that which ye have fouled with your feet." ²¹⁸ Furthermore, let us never tread down the pasture of the Prophets, nor foul the water of the Law; and while there are some who err in respect of the Gospel pasture and the apostolic water, so that they tread down certain portions of the Gospel field and feed on others as on good pasture, either rejecting the whole apostolic pasture, or approving some parts and rejecting others, let us feed on the whole of the Gospels and not tread down any part of them, and while we drink of all the apostolic waters, clear water as far as we can make it such, let us guard the fountains, and in no wise foul them through unbelief, which is wont to confuse the minds of men who cannot understand what is said.

CHAP. XII. ----That a man ought not to faint in reading the Divine Scripture if he cannot comprehend the dark riddles and parables therein. From the 20th Homily on Joshua, the son of Nun.

1. A hearer greatly profits by such readings as these |55 if he can understand the true inheritance which Joshua divided by lot to the children of Israel, and if he can both ascend to the holy land, the true, really good land, and, following the list of names, can adapt the local descriptions to the varying circumstances of those who receive the inheritance. But it is difficult to find a man who thus profits, and we therefore wish to encourage our hearers not to faint as they read. "What the encouragement is which I offer to him who hears such passages, I must now tell. Charms have a certain natural force; and any one who comes under the influence of the charm, even if he does not understand it, gets something from it, according to the nature of the sounds thereof, either to the injury or to the healing of his body, or his soul. Just so, pray observe, it is with the giving of names in the Divine Scriptures, only they are stronger than any charm. For there are certain faculties in us, the best of which are nourished by these "charms," as I may call them, being akin to them, though we may not perceive that those faculties by understanding what we are told become more effective in the development of our lives. For that there are certain invisible departments of our being, and those many in number, the words of the Psalm will prove, "Bless the Lord, O my soul, and all that is within me bless his holy name." ²¹⁹ There is, then, within us a multitude of faculties amongst which we have been, as it were, souls and bodies, divided by lot; and these are such that if holy they profit and gather strength at the reading of the Scripture, even though the understanding be unfruitful; as it is written concerning him who speaketh "in a tongue," "My spirit prayeth, but my understanding is unfruitful." ²²⁰ Please note, then, that though at times our understanding is unfruitful, the faculties which assist the soul, and the understanding, and help us all, are nourished with rational nourishment drawn from the Holy Scriptures, and from these names, and that being nourished they are better able to assist us. And just as our better faculties, as |56 it were, use the charm and are profited, and gain strength through Scriptures and names like these, so the opposing faculties of our inner nature, we may say, are weakened and overcome by God's enchantments, and being overcome are put to sleep.

2. If any of you have ever seen an asp or some other venomous creature under the spell of the charmer, I would have you take that as an illustration of the Scripture. If it be read and not understood, the hearer sometimes grows listless and weary; yet let him believe that the asps and vipers within him are weakened through the charms of the charmers, that is to say, by wise Moses, wise Joshua, the wise and holy Prophets. Let us not then weary when we hear Scriptures which we do not understand; but let it be unto us according to our faith,²²¹ by which we believe that all Scripture being inspired by God is profitable.²²² For as regards these Scriptures, you must admit one of two things: either that they are not inspired because they are not profitable, as an unbeliever might suppose; or, as a believer, you must allow that because they are inspired they are profitable. We must, however, know that we often profit without perceiving it, just as frequently happens when we diet ourselves to improve our eyesight; we do not, I suppose, while we are eating perceive that our eyesight is better, but after two or three days, when the food is assimilated which benefits the eye, we are convinced of the fact by experience; and the same remark applies to other foods which benefit other parts of the body. Well, then, have the like faith with regard to Divine Scripture; believe that thy soul is profited by the mere reading, even though thy understanding does not receive the fruit of profiting by these passages. Our inner nature is charmed; its better elements are nourished, the worse weakened and brought to nought. |57

CHAP. XIII. ---- When and to whom the lessons of philosophy may be profitable, in the explanation of the sacred Scriptures, with Scripture proof. The letter to Gregory.

1. Greeting in God, from Origen to my good lord and most reverend son,²²³ Gregory. Natural ability, as you know, if properly trained, may be of the utmost possible service in promoting what I may call the "object" of a man's training. You, for instance, have ability enough to make you an expert in Roman law, or a philosopher in. one of the Greek schools held in high esteem. I should like you, however, to make Christianity your "object," and to bring the whole force of your ability to bear upon it, with good effect. I am therefore very desirous that you should accept such parts even of Greek philosophy as may serve for the ordinary elementary instruction of our schools, and be a kind of preparation for Christianity: also those portions of geometry and astronomy likely to be of use in the interpretation of the sacred Scriptures, so that, what the pupils of the philosophers say about geometry and music, grammar, rhetoric, and astronomy, viz. that they are the handmaidens of philosophy, we may say of philosophy itself in relation to Christianity.

2. Perhaps something of the kind is hinted at in the command from the mouth of God Himself that the children of Israel be told to ask their neighbours and companions for vessels of silver and gold,²²⁴ and for clothing, so that by spoiling the Egyptians they might find materials to make the things of which they were told ²²⁵ for the Divine service. For out of the spoils which the children of Israel took from the Egyptians came the contents of the Holy of Holies, the ark with its cover, and the Cherubim, and the mercy-seat, and the golden pot wherein was treasured up the manna, the Angels' bread. These things, |58 we may suppose, were made of the best of the Egyptian gold. From the second best came the candlestick throughout of solid gold, standing near the inner curtain, and the lamps upon it, and the golden table upon which was placed the shew-bread, and, between the two, the golden censer. If there was any third- or fourth-rate gold, the holy vessels were made of it. And from the Egyptian silver, also, came other things; for it was through sojourning in Egypt that the children of Israel had abundance of precious material to make things for the service of God. And out of the clothing of the Egyptians probably came whatever was required, as the Scripture says,²²⁶ in the way of things embroidered or sewn together, the work of embroiderers with the wisdom of God, different garments being sewed together to make the veils and the curtains, both the outer and the inner.

3. Why need I digress further to show how useful the things brought from Egypt were to the children of Israel, things which the Egyptians did not use properly, but the Hebrews through the wisdom of God turned to godly purposes? The Divine Scripture knows, however, that some were the worse for the going down of the children of Israel from their own land into Egypt, and darkly hints that some do lose by sojourning with the Egyptians, that is to say, by lingering in the learning of the world after being nourished in the law of God and the Divine worship of Israel. At all events, Hadad the Edomite,²²⁷ so long as he was in the land of Israel, and did not taste the Egyptian bread, made no idols; but when he ran away from wise Solomon and went down into Egypt, running away one might say from the wisdom of God, he became Pharaoh's kinsman by marrying Pharaoh's wife's sister, and begetting a son brought up with Pharaoh's sons. And so it happened that although he returned into the land of Israel, he returned to divide God's people into two parts, and make them say over the golden calf, "These be thy |59 Gods, O Israel, which brought thee up out of the land of Egypt." ²²⁸ And, taught by his experience, I beg leave to tell you that a man is seldom found who takes the useful things of Egypt, leaves that land, and provides for the service of God; but Hadad the Edomite has many a brother. These are they who with a certain Greek smartness propagate heretical opinions, and, as it were, make golden calves in Bethel: which being interpreted is "the house of God." The word therefore seems to shadow forth the truth, viz. that these men set up their own inventions in the Scriptures----figuratively called "Bethel"----wherein dwelleth the Word of God. But the Word says that the other invention was set up in Dan. Now the boundaries of Dan are farthest off, and near those of the Gentiles, as is clear from the account given in the Book of Joshua, the son of Nun. So, then, some of these inventions are near the confines of the Gentiles----inventions, as we have interpreted, of Hadad's brethren.

4. Do you, then, my lord and my son, chiefly give heed to the reading of the Divine Scriptures; do give heed. For we need great attention when we read the Divine writings, that we may not speak or form notions about them rashly. And as you give heed to reading the Divine volume with a faithful anticipation well pleasing to God, knock at its closed doors and it shall be opened unto you by the porter, of whom Jesus said, "To him the porter openeth." ²²⁹ And as you give heed to the Divine reading, seek, in the right way and with an unfaltering faith in God, the meaning of the Divine writings, which is hidden from the many. Be not content, however, with knocking and seeking; for prayer is the most necessary qualification for the understanding of Divine things, and the Saviour urged us to this when He said, not only, Knock and it shall be opened, Seek and ye shall find,²³⁰ but also, Ask and it shall be given unto you. I have ventured thus far in my fatherly love for you; if I have done well or not in venturing, God and His Christ, and he that partaketh of the |60 Spirit of God and of the Spirit of Christ, alone can know. Mayest thou be a partaker, and ever increase the participation, that thou mayest say not only, "We are become partakers of Christ," ²³¹ but also, "We are become partakers of God."

CHAP. XIV. ----They who wish to rightly understand the Divine Scriptures must of necessity be acquainted with the logical principles adapted to their use; without these they cannot conceive the exact meaning of the thoughts expressed, as they should do. From Volume III. of the Commentaries on Genesis.

1. "God made the two great lights,²³² the greater light for rule ²³³ of the day, and the lesser light for rule of the night; he made the stars also. And God set them in the firmament of the heaven, to give light upon the earth and to rule ²³⁴ the day and the night." We must, then, inquire whether for rule of the day means the same as to rule the day, and for rule of the night the same as to rule the night, in the ordinary acceptation of the words; for Aquila preserved the parallel, making for authority ²³⁵ the equivalent of for rule, and to have authority ²³⁶ the equivalent of to rule. And we are told by those who carefully investigate the meaning of words, where they deal with the relation of names and predicates, that the things bearing the names previously exist, and that predicates follow the names. Prudence, for example, they say is a name with a predicate, and the predicate is to be prudent. Similarly, moderation is a name, and to be moderate is a predicate; and they say that prudence pre-exists, and that from prudence is derived the predicate to be prudent. We have made these observations, though some may think we are going beyond the intention of Scripture, because God Who made the lights makes the greater for rule of the day and the lesser for rule of the night; but when He places them in the firmament of |61 the heaven it is no longer for rule of the day and of the night, but to rule the day and the night. The orderly and systematic arrangement of the passage, the names coming first and then the predicates, roused our suspicions that the matter was so understood by the servants of God, and all the more because Aquila, who strove to interpret most literally, has only distinguished the name from the predicate.

2. If any one doubts the soundness of this reasoning, let him consider whether a problem in ethics, or physics, or theology, can be properly conceived without accurately finding the meaning, and without close regard to the clear rules of logic. What absurdity is there in listening to those who determine the exact meaning of words in different languages, and in carefully attending to things signified? And we sometimes through ignorance of logic fall into great errors, because we do not clear up the equivocal senses, ambiguities, misapplications, literal meanings, and distinctions. Take, for example, the word world. Through not knowing that it was an equivocal term, men have fallen into the most impious opinions concerning the Demiurge: men, I mean, who have not cleared up the question in what sense "the world lieth in the evil one," ²³⁷ and have not realised that the "world" there denotes earthly and human affairs. Supposing the "world" to be literally the complex whole of heaven and earth and things therein, they exhibit the utmost audacity and impiety in their conceptions of God; for with all their efforts they cannot show how the sun and moon and stars, with their wonderful orderly movements, "lie in the evil one." If, again, we study the passage, "Behold the Lamb of God, which taketh away the sin of the world," ²³⁸ and attempt to show that "world" is here the scene of sin abounding, that is, the different localities of the earth, they will candidly admit what is said, but from a spirit of foolish contention they will cling to their detestable errors, which they have once embraced, simply because they do not understand the equivocal meaning of |62 the word. If, again, we read that "God was in Christ reconciling the world to Himself," ²³⁹ they will no longer, certainly not consistently with their own principles, succeed in showing that the word denotes the whole world, that is, the contents of the whole world; on their own showing the word must be examined as being equivocal. And as for detestable interpretations caused by ambiguity, punctuation,²⁴⁰ and countless other things, a keen student may find abundant illustrations. But we have digressed thus far in order to show that even we ourselves, who wish not to err concerning the truth in our understanding, of the Scriptures, are bound to be familiar with the logical principles involved in the use of them. Such principles we just now required to discover the difference between the two expressions with which we began, the lights being said to have been created for rule of the night, and to rule the day and the night.

CHAP. XV. ----A reply to the Greek philosophers who disparage the poverty of style of the Divine Scriptures, and allege that the noble truths of Christianity have been better expressed among the Greeks. They further assert that the body of the Lord was ill-favoured; with the reason of the different forms of the Word. From the treatise against Celsus, who wrote against Christians, Volumes VI. and VII.

1. In beginning this sixth book, we desire, holy Ambrose, to meet the charges brought by Celsus against Christians, not, as might be supposed, what he has borrowed from philosophy. For he quoted numerous passages, mainly from Plato, making common property of such portions of the sacred Scriptures as might mislead even an intelligent reader, alleging that they have been "better expressed by Greeks, and without the violent expedient of a message supposed to come from God or from the Son of God." Now we maintain that if the aim of those who represent the truth is to do as much good as possible to |63 as many as possible, and out of love for men to win over to the truth, as far as may be, every single man, not only the quick and ready, but also him that is void of understanding: or, to put it another way, not Greeks only, nor Barbarians only,----and it is a mark of great humanity if a man is capable of converting rustics and ignorant folk,----it is obvious that a speaker must cultivate a style both popular and profitable, and such as will win everybody's ear. And men who tell us that they say farewell to the ignorant as being no better than slaves, and to such as have no ear for the close connection of the words and the order of the incidents, and who therefore pay attention only to hearers who have had a literary and scientific bringing up, these men reduce the fellowship of the Gospel to very narrow limits.

2. I have said this in reply to the charge brought against the Scriptures by Celsus and others on account of their poverty of style, though that seems to vanish in the grandeur of the composition.²⁴¹ For our Prophets, and Jesus and His Apostles had the insight to adopt a mode of delivery which not only conveys the truth, but can win the many, until they are drawn to be Catechumens and then, every one so far as he can, rise to the ineffable mysteries contained in the seemingly poor language. And if I may dare say so, the ornate and polished style of Plato and his imitators benefits only a few, if indeed it does benefit them; while the style of those who have taught and written less elegantly, but. nevertheless with a direct and practical aim, keeping in view the wants of the greater number, has benefited many. At all events, you may see Plato in the hands of those who are regarded as literary men, but Epictetus is the admiration of the man in the street and of all who are inclined to improve themselves, for they are conscious of the benefits to be derived from his writings. We do not say this to disparage Plato, for the great world of |64 men has found even him useful, but in order to show the meaning of those who said, "And my speech and my preaching was not in persuasive words of wisdom, but in demonstration of the Spirit and of power; that your faith should not stand in the wisdom of men, but in the power of God." ²⁴²

3. For there is a demonstration of the Word, all its own, more Divine than the dialectic of the Greeks, which the Apostle calls "a demonstration of the Spirit and of power ";²⁴³ "of the Spirit," because of the prophecies which are enough to convince the reader, particularly in things relating to Christ: and "of power," because of the marvellous powers which one must be prepared to admit, as on many other grounds, so also, inasmuch as the traces of them are still preserved among those who live according to the intent of the Word.

4. Further, the Divine Word also asserts that what is said, although it be in itself true and most persuasive, is not of itself sufficient to reach man's soul, unless a certain power from God be given to the speaker and grace be shed over his words,²⁴⁴ and effective speakers cannot have this grace without God's help. At all events, the Prophet says in the 67th Psalm that "the Lord shall give a word to them that publish the tidings with great power." ²⁴⁵ Granting, then, that in some cases the Greeks have the same doctrines as ours, it by no means follows that even the same doctrines avail for winning souls and disposing them accordingly. Hence it is that the disciples of Jesus, unlearned and ignorant men as regards Greek philosophy, compassed many nations of the world, impressing each individual hearer as the Word desired, according to his deserts; for the hearers profited in proportion as their will inclined to receive the blessing.

5. Well, then, let the wise men of old be explained to |65 those who can understand them. Let Plato, the son of Aristo, in one of his epistles express his views on the Chief Good, and let him maintain that the Chief Good is by no means communicable in words, but is acquired through much intercourse with it, and, kindled as it were from flaming fire,²⁴⁶ suddenly illuminates the soul. When we hear these things (for we are careful not to incur odium for anything that is well said, and if the enunciators of the truth are outside the Faith, we are studious not to vie with them, nor seek to upset sound sense) we admit that they are well spoken, "for God manifested it unto them," ²⁴⁷ and whatsoever else is good in their utterances. And this is why we say that they who have true conceptions of God, and do not lead a godly life worthy of the truth concerning Him, are liable to the chastisements of sinners. For this is precisely what Paul asserts concerning such men, viz, that "the wrath of God is revealed from heaven against all ungodliness and unrighteousness of men, who hold down the truth in unrighteousness; because that which may be known of God is manifest in them; for God manifested it unto them. For the invisible things of him since the creation of the world are clearly seen, being perceived through the things that are made, even his everlasting power and divinity; that they may be without excuse; because that, knowing God, they glorified him not as God, neither gave thanks; but became vain in their reasonings, and their senseless heart was darkened. Professing themselves to be wise, they became fools, and changed the glory of the incorruptible God for the likeness of an image of corruptible man, and of birds, and of four-footed beasts, and creeping things." ²⁴⁸ They certainly do "hold down the truth," as our Word also testifies, who think that "the Chief Good is not communicable in words," ²⁴⁹ and who say that "from much intercourse with the thing itself and from living with it, it suddenly, lighted as from flaming fire, illuminates the soul, and straightway nourishes itself." |66

6. They who wrote such things concerning the Chief Good nevertheless go down to the Piraeus that they may offer up a prayer to the goddess Artemis, and because they want to see how the national festival is kept by the common folk;²⁵⁰ and after so finely discussing the soul and surveying the conduct of a soul that has lived a good life, they forsake the greatness of the things which God manifested to them for mean and paltry conceptions, and pay a cock they owe to Asclepios.²⁵¹ And although they could imagine the invisible things of God and the eternal forms of Being from the creation of the world and things that are seen, from which they rise to intelligible ²⁵² things, and although they have no ignoble vision of His everlasting power and Godhead, they none the less become vain in their reasonings, and their heart, inasmuch as it is foolish, is overwhelmed with darkness and ignorance, so far I mean as concerns the service of God. And we may see men who pride themselves on wisdom and their knowledge of theology worshipping the likeness of the image of a corruptible man to show how they honour him; and we sometimes see them descending, like the Egyptians, to birds and four-footed beasts and creeping things. And even if "some do seem to have risen above this, they will nevertheless "exchange the truth of God for a lie, and worship and serve the creature more than the Creator." ²⁵³ Wherefore, because the wise and learned Greeks err in their religious observances, "God chose the foolish things of the world that he might put to shame them that are wise; and the base things of the world, and the weak things, and the things that are despised, and the things that are not, that he may bring to nought the things that are; and that truly no one may glory before God." ²⁵⁴ But our wise men, Moses the most ancient of them all, and the Prophets who came after him, knowing that the Chief Good is not at all communicable in words, and believing that God manifests |67 Himself to fit and suitable persons, were the first to write that God appeared to Abraham, for instance, or to Isaac, pr to Jacob. But Who He was that appeared, whence He came, and how, and for what object connected with mankind, they have left for those to investigate who can put themselves into God's hands as did the saints to whom God appeared, for He was seen, not with their bodily eyes, but with the pure heart. As our Jesus says, "Blessed are the pure in heart, for they shall see their God."

7. As for the sudden kindling in the soul of a burning light as it were from flaming fire, the Word ²⁵⁵ knew this before Plato,²⁵⁶ for, speaking by the prophet, He said, "Light up for yourselves the light of knowledge." ²⁵⁷ And John, who came long after, tells us that "What was in the Word was life, and the life was the light of men";²⁵⁸ the true light which lighteneth every man as he cometh into the real "intelligible" world, and maketh him a light of the world.²⁵⁹ For this light shone in our hearts to give the illumination of the gospel of the glory of God in the face of Jesus Christ.²⁶⁰ Wherefore a very ancient Prophet, who prophesied generations before the rise of the kingdom of Cyrus, for he was earlier than that monarch by more than fourteen generations, says, "The Lord is my light and my salvation, whom shall I fear?" ²⁶¹ and, "Thy word is a lamp unto my feet, and light unto my paths";²⁶² and, "The light of thy countenance, O Lord, was lifted up as a banner over us";²⁶³ and,"In thy light shall we see light." ²⁶⁴ And, urging us to come to this light, the Word in Isaiah says, "Shine, shine, Jerusalem; for thy light is come, and the glory of the Lord hath risen upon thee." ²⁶⁵ And this same Isaiah, prophesying of the coming of Jesus, Who turns men from the worship of idols and images and demons, says, "To them which sat in the region and shadow of death, to them did the light spring up." ²⁶⁶ And again, "The people |68 which sat in darkness saw a great light." ²⁶⁷ Observe, then, the difference between Plato's fine saying respecting the Chief Good, and what is said in the Prophets concerning the light of the blessed; and observe further that the truth in Plato concerning the Chief Good did not at all help his readers to attain to pure and undefiled religion; and. what is more, it did not benefit the philosopher him-self who thus expounded the Chief Good. But the diction of the Divine Scriptures, poor as it is, has given inspiration to true readers----those who nourish this light with the oil spoken of in the parable,²⁶⁸ the oil which keeps alight the torches of the five virgins.

8. Now let us see what he has to say next. "They have," he says, "a precept to the effect that we are not to avenge ourselves on any one who treats us with insolence and violence. Even if a man strikes you on the one cheek, you are, according to it, to offer him the other also. This is an old saw; it was well enough expressed before; the Christians have revived it in a rougher form. Plato makes Socrates say in his argument with Crito,²⁶⁹ 'Then we must do no wrong. Certainly not. Nor when injured injure in return, as the many imagine; for we must injure no one at all. Clearly not,'" and so on. Our reply to this and to all those passages which Celsus has made out to be common property, alleging, because he could not face the truth of them, that the same things have been said by Greek authors, is something like this. If the doctrine is serviceable and its purpose sound and wise, and it has been taught the Greeks by Plato or some other philosopher, and the Jews by Moses or some other Prophet, and Christians in the recorded sayings of Jesus or of one of the Apostles, we must not suppose that what is held by Jews or Christians is prejudiced by the fact that the same things have been said by Greeks, particularly if Jewish teaching can be shown to be older than Grecian. Nor, again, must we suppose that a given statement is by reason of the beauty of Greek phraseology of necessity better than what |69 is expressed with less elegance and in simpler terms by Jewish or Christian authors, though we must bear in mind that the primitive language of the Jews, which the Prophets employed in the books which they have left us, is perpetuated in the Hebrew, and with a wise regard to the possibilities of composition in that tongue.

9. If we must, however, show that when the doctrines are the same they are better expressed by Jewish Prophets or Christian oracles, let us, though the argument may seem strange, take an illustration in proof of our position from different kinds of food and their preparation. Suppose some wholesome and nutritious food to be cooked and seasoned a certain way, and let the partakers of it not be rustics, and the inmates of hovels, and poor folk who know nothing of such dainties, but only rich people accustomed to live delicately. And suppose myriads of persons to eat the same food not cooked that way, to suit the palates of acknowledged epicures, but to suit the tastes of the poor, of rustics, and the majority of men. Now, if we grant that the epicures alone gain health and strength from the food prepared one way, and that no ordinary person cares for such food, while whole multitudes of men thrive on the food cooked the other way, which set of cooks are we to regard as the greatest public benefactors on account of the wholesome food they provide? Shall we give the credit to those who cook to suit the learned few, or to those who cater for the masses? We may concede that whichever way the cooking is done, the food is equally wholesome and nourishing; humanity itself, however, and the public welfare teach us that a physician who takes thought for the health of the many, renders a greater service to the public than he who cares only for the health of the few.

10. If the illustration is understood, let us apply it to the quality of the rational food of rational creatures. And consider whether Plato and the wise men of the Greeks do not in their choice dicta resemble physicians who attend only better-class patients, while they despise the bulk of men. But the Jewish Prophets and the disciples |70 of Jesus, bidding a long farewell to the embroidery of diction, and, as Scripture terms it, "the wisdom of men" and "wisdom after the flesh " ²⁷⁰ (hinting at the tongue), would be like the cooks who take care, the quality of the food remaining the same, to prepare it the most wholesome way; they have at their command a style which reaches the masses of mankind, adapts itself to their speech, and does not by its strangeness close men's ears to such discourses because they are unfamiliar. For if the real object of eating the rational food, if I may so speak, is to make the eater submissive and meek, must we not think that the Word which produces multitudes of forbearing and meek hearers, or sets them on the way to becoming so, is better prepared than that which makes a mere handful, to concede so much, forbearing and meek? And if Plato, a Greek, intended to benefit Greek or Syrian adherents by sound doctrine, he would take care to learn the languages of his future hearers, and, as the Greeks phrase it, would rather be a "barbarian" to do the Egyptians and Syrians good, than remain a Greek and be incapable of speaking anything of use to the Egyptians and Syrians. Just so, the Divine Nature taking thought not only for those who are reputed learned among the Greeks, but also for the rest of the Greeks, condescended to the ignorance of the majority of hearers, so that, employing words familiar to them, it might encourage the unlearned multitude to hearken; for after the first introduction they can easily endeavour to get a hold on the deeper truths hidden in the Scriptures. For even an ordinary reader soon discovers that many passages have a deeper signification than appears on the surface, a signification revealed to devoted students of the Word, and revealed in proportion to the time they spend upon the Word and to their zeal in putting into practice what they read.

11. So, then, it has been proved that if Jesus did, as Celsus alleges, speak somewhat roughly when He said, "To |71 him that striketh thee on the one cheek, turn the other also": ²⁷¹ and, "If any man would go to law with thee, and take away thy coat, let him have thy cloak also":²⁷² He has by thus speaking expressed and applied the precept to better purpose than Plato did in the Crito. The unlearned cannot in the least understand it there, and even they who have received a good school education before attempting the grave philosophy of Greece, can understand it only with difficulty. And we must further observe that the true teaching respecting forbearance is not "corrupted" by the poor diction in which it is conveyed; but even here Celsus slanders the Word when he says, "But as for those and all other corrupting precepts let the foregoing suffice."

Again in Book VI., in reply to the statement of Celsus that our Lord's body was unsightly, Origen writes thus:----

12. After this Celsus says, "Since there was a Divine Spirit in the body of Jesus, that body would of necessity vary at all events in some respects from other bodies, in size, or beauty, or strength, or voice; it would have some astonishing or attractive characteristics. Tor it is impossible that a body having more of the Divine Nature than other bodies should no way differ from any other; but the body of Jesus was not at all different; indeed, so they say, it was small, ill-favoured, and ignoble." Now here again, it is clear that if Celsus wishes to disparage Jesus, he quotes the Scriptures as if he believed such of them as seem to him to justify the charge; but wherever, in the same Scriptures, any one might suppose the opposite of what constitutes the charge to be asserted, Celsus professes not to know it. We admit, then, that there are passages which speak of the body of Jesus as ill-favoured, but not ignoble, as our opponents maintain; nor is there clear evidence that it was small. The exact description given by Isaiah in the prophecy that He would not visit the many in a graceful form, or with surpassing beauty, runs thus: "Lord who hath believed our report? ²⁷³ and |72 to whom hath the arm of the Lord been revealed? for he grew up before him as a tender ²⁷⁴ plant, as a root in a dry ground: he hath no form (nor glory: and we saw him and he had no form) nor comeliness; but his form was unhonoured,. marred more than the sons of men": Celsus noted all this, for he thought it would serve him in disparaging Jesus; but he paid no attention to the words of the 45th Psalm, the Psalm "for the Beloved," how it is said, "Gird thy sword upon thy thigh, O Mighty One, in thy grace and beauty, and in thy majesty ride on prosperously."²⁷⁵

13. But maybe Celsus had not read the prophecy, or perhaps he had read it but was misled by interpreters who erroneously hold that it does not refer to Jesus Christ. Well, what will he make of the Gospel narrative in which we are told that He went up to a high mountain,²⁷⁶ and was transfigured before His disciples and appeared in glory; when both Moses and Elias also appeared in glory,²⁷⁷ and spake of His decease which He was about to accomplish at Jerusalem? Or again, if the Prophet says, "We beheld him, and he had no form, nor beauty," ²⁷⁸ and so on, Celsus admits that the prophecy may be referred to Jesus, but it is a blind admission, for he does not see that the, fact of a prophecy giving particulars of the form of Jesus, many years before His birth, is a strong confirmation of the truth that Jesus Who seemed to have no "form" was the Son of God. But if another Prophet says that Jesus had grace and beauty, why will not Celsus allow that this prophecy refers to Jesus Christ? Further, if it were possible to clearly gather from the Gospels that our Lord had no form nor beauty, but that His form was without honour, marred more than the sons of men, one might say that Celsus in his argument followed not the Prophets but the Evangelists. The fact, however, is that neither the Gospels, nor even the Apostles, |73 give any intimation that He had no form or beauty; and it is obvious that Celsus is bound to admit the declaration of prophecy ²⁷⁹ to be a true description of Christ; and this being so, there is an end to the disparaging statements concerning Jesus.

14. Again, we have the statement that "inasmuch as the body was tenanted by a Divine Spirit it must have varied at all events in some respects from other bodies, either in size, or voice, or strength, in astonishing or attractive characteristics." How came Celsus to overlook the fact that our Lord's body varied according to the capacity of the observers, and that a useful purpose was served when its appearance was such as was necessary for each individual? And it is nothing wonderful that matter; by nature mutable and variable and convertible to every-thing the Creator ²⁸⁰ chooses, and receptive of every quality the Artificer desires, should sometimes have a quality corresponding to the description, "He hath neither form nor beauty," and sometimes should be so glorious, astonishing, and marvellous, that the three Apostles who ascended the Mount with Jesus at the sight of such wondrous beauty fell upon their faces.²⁸¹ But we shall be told that these are fictions, no better than fables, like the rest of the strange stories about Jesus.

15. Our answer is that to reconstruct almost any historical scene, even if true, so as to give a vivid impression of what actually occurred, is exceedingly difficult, and sometimes impossible. Suppose some one to assert that there never was a Trojan war, mainly on the ground that the impossible story of a certain Achilles being the son of a sea goddess Thetis and a man Peleus is mixed up with it; or that Sarpedon was the son of Zeus, or Ascalaphus and Ialmenus sons of Ares; or that Aeneas was Aphrodite's son: how could we dispose of such an objection? Should we not be very hard pressed to explain the strange blending of a fiction with the universal |74 belief that there was war between Greeks and Trojans at Troy? Or let us suppose some one to doubt the story of Oedipus and Jocaste, and of their sons Eteocles and Polynices, because that a sort of half-woman, the Sphinx, is mixed up with the story; how should we clear up the difficulty? Well, the prudent reader of the narratives, who wishes to guard against deception, will use his own judgment as to what he will allow to be historical, and what he will regard as figurative; he will try to discover what the writers meant by inventing such stories; and to some things he will refuse his assent on the ground that they were recorded to gratify certain persons. And this we have premised, having in view the history of Jesus as a whole contained in the Gospels; for we do not invite intelligent readers to a bare unreasoning faith, but we wish to show that future readers will have to exercise prudence, and make careful inquiry, and, so to speak, penetrate the very heart of the writers, if the exact purport of every passage is to be discovered.

16. Celsus, in fact, so that he may impeach the Word, appears to believe just as much as he pleases of what our Scriptures contain; but to avoid acknowledging the manifest Divinity proclaimed in the same books, he will not believe the Gospels: for any one who sees what lovers of truth the writers were, must, judging by the way they treat less important matters, believe them in things more Divine.

17. Now, if they had not been lovers of the truth, but, as Celsus supposes, had recorded fictions, they would never have told us of Peter's denial or informed us that the disciples of Jesus were offended. For though such things did happen, who was there to prove the fact? And, really, these incidents would probably have been passed over in silence by men who wished to teach readers of the Gospels to despise death for the sake of confessing Christianity. But, as the case stands, seeing that the Word will mightily prevail over men, they gave these particulars, which, strangely enough, were destined not to injure the readers or afford a pretext for denial. |75

18. And the Word has a more mystic meaning also, for it shows that the different appearances ²⁸² of Jesus are related to the nature of the Divine Word,²⁸³ which does not appear the same to the many,²⁸⁴ and to those who can follow Him to the lofty mountain ²⁸⁵ of which we have given an account. For in the eyes of those who are below and are not yet ready for the ascent, the Word hath neither form nor beauty;²⁸⁶ to such as these its form is without honour, and marred more than the words "born of men," in the passage before us figuratively called "sons of men." For we might say that the words of the philosophers, being "sons of men," look far more beautiful than the Word of God preached to the many, which even draws attention to the foolishness of the preaching,²⁸⁷ and it is because of the foolishness of the preaching that men who regard the preaching only, say, "We beheld it, and it hath neither form nor beauty." But for those who through obeying Him have received strength to follow Him even when He ascends the lofty mountain, He hath a Diviner appearance. And a man sees Him thus, if he is a Peter making room for the building of the Church within him through the Word, gaining such strength of character that no gate of hell shall prevail against him,²⁸⁸ inasmuch as he has been lifted up through the Word from the gates of death that he may declare all the praises of God in the gates of the daughter of Zion;²⁸⁹ and others see it thus also, men who have been born of words with a great voice, such as have the full tones of spiritual thunder.²⁹⁰

19. And down below the Word has other garments; they are not white, they are not like the light; if thou |76 shalt ascend to the lofty mountain, thou shalt see His light and His garments. The garments of the Word are the phrases of the Scripture; the Divine thoughts are clothed in these expressions. As then down below He looks different, but having ascended is transfigured, His face beaming like the sun, so it is with His clothing, so it is with His garments. When thou art below, they do not shine, they are not white; but if thou ascend, thou shalt see the beauty and the light of the garments, and shalt marvel at the transfigured face of Jesus. And consider whether the Gospels do not also give us the same teaching respecting Jesus. The particulars of His generation, His descent from Abraham and birth of the seed of David according to the flesh, is the Book of the generation of Jesus Christ; ²⁹¹ but as for the more Divine and more important things to be said concerning Him, and proclaimed by Him, John says, "I suppose that even the world itself would not contain the books that should be written." ²⁹² For we must not, like some, admit that if the world cannot contain the books that should be written, it is because of the multitude of the writings, but rather that it is on account of the greatness of the incidents; their greatness is not only indescribable, but they cannot be proclaimed by fleshly tongue, nor be made known in the language and speech of men. This is why Paul, when he is about to learn things more Divine, leaves our world of earth and is rapt into the third heaven,²⁹³ that he may be able to hear the unutterable words thence proceeding. For we are told of what was said there and considered to be the Word of God, the Word made flesh,²⁹⁴ and who, as regards being God with God,²⁹⁵ emptied Himself. Wherefore we see the Word of God ²⁹⁶ on earth, for that He became man, in human guise; for even in the Scriptures the Word became flesh that He might tabernacle among us.²⁹⁷ But if we incline on the |77 bosom of the Word made flesh ²⁹⁸ and are able to follow Him when He ascends the lofty mountain, we shall say, "We saw his glory." ²⁹⁹ Some perhaps who are not like those who lie upon His bosom and follow Him to the lofty mountain may say, "We saw his glory," but they will not add "Glory as of an only-begotten from a Father, full of grace and truth": for this language becomes John and such as are like him. And, according to a loftier interpretation, they who are able to walk in the footsteps of Jesus as He ascends, and is transfigured out of sight of earth, shall behold His transfiguration in every scripture; for instance, when Jesus shows Himself to the many, this is the function of the simpler diction; but when He ascends a lofty mountain and is transfigured, showing Himself to very few of the disciples, and to those who have become able to follow Him to the heights above, this is the work of the highest, sublimest sense, containing oracles of the wisdom hidden in a mystery, which wisdom "God foreordained before the worlds unto the glory of his righteous ones." ³⁰⁰

20. But how can Celsus, and the enemies of the Divine Word, and such as do not investigate Christianity with a love of truth, know the meaning of the different appearances of Jesus? I refer to the different periods of His life, to anything He did before the Passion, and whatever happened after His Resurrection from the dead.

CHAP. XVI. ----Concerning those who slander Christianity on account of the heresies in the Church. Book III. against Celsus.

1. Then, as if he would like to blame the Word for the evils of heresy associated with Christianity, he reproaches us, saying, "Having grown in numbers and being widely dispersed, they are further split and divided; every body wants to have his own party." And again he says, "Being too numerous to keep together, they refute one another; they share, so to speak, if they do share it, the |78 one name, the only thing that in spite of their divisions they are ashamed to give up; as for the rest they are all one here, one there." In reply, we will say that you never find different sects in any department of thought unless the principle involved is one of grave importance and practical use. Take the science of Medicine. It is useful and necessary to the human race, and the questions which arise as to the healing of the body are many. This is why, as is admitted, there are several sects ³⁰¹ among the Greeks, and I suppose among Barbarians also, as many as profess to practise the healing art. Let us take another illustration, Philosophy, inasmuch as it professes the pursuit of truth and the knowledge of realities, suggests the proper mode of life, and endeavours to teach things profitable to our race. But the points in question involve much diversity of opinion, and this is why there arose such an incredible number of philosophic sects of more or less distinction. Nay, even Judaism had a pretext for the rise of sects, through the varied interpretation of the writings of Moses and the words of the Prophets. Similarly, because Christianity appeared, not only to the low-minded, as Celsus says, but also to many learned Greeks, to be a matter of grave importance, sects of necessity arose, and not altogether through factiousness or contentiousness, but because so many even of the literary class were anxious to understand the meaning of Christianity. In consequence of this, because scholars differently interpreted what were believed on all sides to be Divine utterances, sects sprang up bearing the names of thinkers who had a reverent regard for the origin of the Word, but somehow or other through specious and plausible reasoning were brought into conflict with one another. But no man of sense would shun the science of Medicine because of its different sects; nor would a man of proper aims make the many sects of philosophy a pretext for hating it; and, similarly, we must not condemn the sacred books of Moses and the Prophets on account of the Jewish sects. |79

2. If all this hangs together, may we not offer a similar apology for the sects of Christianity? What Paul says concerning them seems to me truly marvellous: "There must be also sects among you, that they which are approved may be made manifest among you." ³⁰² For as a man "approved" in the science of Medicine is he who is familiar with the practice of many different sects, and having fairly considered their claims, has chosen the best; and as the advanced student of Philosophy who, having an extensive knowledge of his subject, is familiar with its details, and therefore gives his adhesion to the stronger reasoning, may be called "approved"; so, I would say, he who carefully examines the sects of Judaism and Christianity becomes the wisest Christian. But any one who blames the Word on account of our sects would also blame the teaching of Socrates, because from the study of that Philosopher many different schools of thought have arisen. Nay, a man might blame even the doctrines of Plato because Aristotle gave up the study of him and took a line of his own, a point to which we have already referred. But Celsus seems to me to have become acquainted with certain sects which do not even share the name of Jesus with us. Rumours may have reached him of the Ophites and Cainites, or the holders of some other opinion altogether alien to the teaching of Jesus. But Christian doctrine is not in the least to be blamed for this.

3. Granting that there are some amongst us Christians who do not allow that our God is the same as the God of the Jews, it by no means follows that they are to be blamed who prove from the same Scriptures that one and the same God is God of the Jews and of the Gentiles;³⁰³ Paul plainly shows this, when, after leaving the Jewish religion and embracing Christianity, he says, "I thank God, whom I serve from my forefathers in a pure conscience." ³⁰⁴ Let us grant, too, that there is a third class composed of those who call some persons |80 psychical ³⁰⁵ and others spiritual (I suppose Celsus means the Valentinians); but what have we who belong to the Church to do with that? We are the accusers of those who introduce the doctrine of natures so constituted that they must be saved, or must perish. Let it further be granted that there are certain persons who also profess to be Gnostics, like the Epicureans who call themselves Philosophers; our answer is that men who destroy a belief in Providence could not really be Philosophers, nor can they be Christians who foist upon us these monstrous fictions so distasteful to the followers of Jesus.

4. Celsus goes on to say, "And they even say the most shameful things of one another; they would not make the least concession in the interests of harmony; for they utterly detest one another." In reply, even in Philosophy, as we have already said, rival sects may be found, and so it is in Medicine. We, however, following the Word of Jesus, and having made it our study to think and speak and do whatever He has said, being reviled, bless: being persecuted, we endure: being defamed, we entreat;³⁰⁶ and we would not say shameful things of those whose views differ from our own; but we would do all in our power to raise them to a higher level through persevering loyalty to the Creator alone, and by acting as men who will one day be judged. But if the heterodox will not be persuaded, we have our rule for dealing with them. "A man that is heretical after a first and second admonition refuse, knowing that such a one is perverted and sinneth, being self-condemned." ³⁰⁷ And again, men who understand the words, "Blessed are the peacemakers," ³⁰⁸ and "Blessed are the meek," ³⁰⁹ would not utterly detest opponents who debase Christianity. |81

CHAP. XVII. ----A reply to certain philosophers who say that it makes no difference whether we call Him Who is God over All by the name Zeus, current among the Greeks, or by that which is used by Indians, for instance, or. Egyptians. Books I. and V. against Celsus.

1. Celsus then says, "The goatherds and shepherds acknowledged one god, whether they call him the Most High, or Adonai, or the God of Heaven, or Sabaoth, or gave him some local designation to suit their fancy; beyond this they know nothing." And he afterwards says, "It makes no difference whether we call the Supreme God by the name Zeus, which is current among the Greeks, or by some Indian name, for instance, or Egyptian name." Now in answer to this we must remark that here we come upon a deep and mysterious subject, the nature of names. Shall we say, as Aristotle ³¹⁰ thinks, that names are arbitrarily given? or, with the Stoics, that they are natural, the first articulate sounds being imitative of what the names denote, so that they also acquaint us with certain principles of etymology? or, as Epicurus ³¹¹ teaches, differing herein from the Stoics, are they "natural," in the sense that primitive men broke into speech which varied according to their circumstances? If, then, in our leading argument, we are able to show the nature of powerful names, some of which arc used by the wise men of Egypt, or by the learned Magi of Persia, or by the philosophic Brahmans |82 of India, or by the Samaneans,³¹² and so in every nation; and if we succeed in making out that what is called Magic is not, as the Epicureans and Aristotelians suppose, incoherent from beginning to end, but, as the experts prove, is a well-compacted system, with words known to extremely few,----if, I say, we get as far as this, we shall maintain that the name Sabaoth, and Adonai, and whatever others are by Hebrew tradition regarded with great reverence, are not applicable to ordinary created things, but to a mysterious science of things Divine, related to the Creator ³¹³ of the universe. It follows that these names when uttered in their proper connection, and other names current in Egyptian of ³¹⁴ certain demons with particular powers only, and others in the Persian language of other spiritual beings, and so in every nation, can be applied to certain purposes. And thus it will be found that the demons to whom have been assigned different parts of the earth bear names according to the dialect of the place and nation. Any one, therefore, who has a nobler, even though it be but a slender, conception of these things, will take care to apply different names to different things, lest he fare no better than they who erroneously give the name of God to lifeless matter, or degrade the title "the good" by severing it from the First Cause, or from virtue and honour, and apply it to blind Plutus, and to the proportions of flesh and blood and bones required for health and strength, or to what is counted noble birth.

2. And perhaps it is no less dangerous to degrade the name of God, or the title "good," to improper objects, than it is to change the names of God to suit some secret doctrine, and apply the names of the better to the worse, and of the worse to the better. I do not dwell on the fact that when we hear of Zeus it is implied that he was |83 the son of Cronos and Rhea, and the husband of Rhea, and the brother of Poseidon, and the father of Athene and Artemis, and that he had intercourse with his daughter Persephone; or that when we hear Apollo's name, we remember that he was the son of Leto and Zeus, and the brother of Artemis, and the half-brother of Hermes; not to mention all the other wonderful stories told us by the wise men whom Celsus approves, who are the authors of these opinions, and by the ancient theologians of Greece. Is it not unreasonable that Zeus should be his proper name, and yet that he should not have Cronos for his father and Rhea for his mother? And we must treat all the other so-called gods the same way. But the charge by no means attaches to those who, in accordance with some mysterious doctrine, apply the name Sabaoth, or Adonai, or any of the other names, to the (true) God. As soon as a man can philosophically explain the mysteries of names, he will make many discoveries respecting those given to the Angels of God, one of whom is called Michael, another Gabriel, another Raphael, the names being suitable to the service they render according to the will of the God of the whole universe. Our Jesus, too, keeps to the same philosophy of names; for His name has already been clearly proved to drive out countless demons from souls and bodies, powerfully working in the sufferers from whom the demons were expelled. And, treating of names, we must further observe that they who are familiar with the use of charms tell us that if we pronounce the same charm in its own language, it is possible to effect what the charm professes to do; but that if we change it into another tongue, no matter what, it may be found feeble and quite ineffective. The power of producing a certain effect is not therefore to be attributed to the actual meaning of the charm, but to the qualities and peculiarities of the sounds. We shall therefore on such lines as these defend the Christians for striving even unto death that they may not call God by the name Zeus, nor give Him a name in another tongue. For |84 Christians in their confessions either employ the usual name God, without further definition, or they add, "The Maker ³¹⁵ of all things," "The Creator of heaven and earth "----He Who to benefit mankind sent down such and such wise men, with whose names the name of God conjoined bestows a certain wonder-working power among men. Much more might be said on the subject of names as against those who think that the use of them is a matter of indifference, And if Plato is much admired for saying in Philebus, "My awe, Protarchus, in naming the gods is considerable," ³¹⁶ for Philebus, who was arguing with Socrates, said that the true name of Aphrodite was Pleasure, ought we not much rather to approve the piety of Christians, inasmuch as there is not one of the names handed down in mythology which they apply to the Maker of the world?

And in Book V., treating of the same subject, he says:

3. But since Celsus thinks it makes no difference whether we call the Most High Jupiter, or Zen,³¹⁷ or Adonoeus, or Sabaoth, or Amon, as the Egyptians do, or Pappaeus like the Scythians, let us briefly discuss these points, and remind the reader of what was said above on this great question, when the language of Celsus invited us to the argument. We repeat, then, that the nature of names does not, as Aristotle thinks, depend on the arbitrary rules of those who give them. For the languages of men do not even originate with men, as is clear to those who can give attention to the nature of charms variously appropriated by the authors of the languages, according as the languages differ and the names are differently pronounced. We have already briefly discussed this, and have maintained that though they have a natural power in a given language, if they are translated into another language they lose the effect which they had in their own proper expression. And we find that the same peculiarity applies to man. Suppose some one to be called from birth by a Greek name; if we change the name into Egyptian, or Roman, or some other language, we could not make him do or suffer what he would if he were called |85 by his original name. Nor even if we were to translate ³¹⁸ into Greek a name which was Roman to begin with, could we do what the charm professes to do if it keeps to the man's first name! Now, if what we have said respecting human names is true, what ought we to think of names which are some way or other traced up to the Divine nature? For instance, some new power is transferred to the Greek from the name Abraham, something is signified by the name Isaac, and something shown by the title Jacob; and if a man were to call upon or swear by the God of Abraham, and the God of Isaac, and the God of Jacob, he would produce some effect, either through the nature of the names or their power, for even demons are vanquished and become subject to a man who uses this language. But if one were to say,³¹⁹ "The God of the elect father of the sound," and "the God of laughter," and "the God of the tripper up," the name thus used is as ineffective as any other ordinary name. Similarly, if we change the name Israel into Greek or some other language, we shall effect nothing; but if we keep it as it is, and use it in conjunction with such expressions as the learned think should be associated with it, there will be some result from the use of such language according with the professions of those who employ such invocations. And we shall say the same respecting the name Sabaoth, which is often found in charms, viz. that if we change the name into "The Lord of Hosts," or "Lord of Armies," or "Almighty" (for the interpreters take it differently), we shall effect nothing; but if we keep to its proper pronunciation, we shall, so the learned say, produce some effect, and the same holds good of Adonai. Now, if neither "Sabaoth" nor "Adonai," when changed into what they appear to signify in Greek, produces any effect, how much less could they be efficacious among men who think it makes no difference whether we |86 call the Supreme God Jupiter, or Zen, or Adonai, or Sabaoth!

5. Well, then, Moses and the prophets understanding these things and the corresponding mysteries, forbade any one who practised prayer to the Supreme God alone to take the name of other gods upon his lips, or remember them in a heart taught to be pure from all foolishness in thought or speech. And this is why we would rather endure every outrage than confess that Jupiter is God. For we do not suppose Jupiter and Sabaoth to be the same, nor do we regard Jupiter as at all Divine, but we think that some demon, friendly neither to man nor to the true God, rejoices in the name. And even if the Egyptians should offer Amon to us with threats of death, we will die rather than call Amon God, for the name is probably used in some Egyptian charms which invoke the demon. The Scythians may say that Pappaeus is "the Supreme God," but we shall not be persuaded; for though they employ the solemn title of "Supreme God," it is only in a sense which pleases the demon to whom was allotted the Scythian desert with the Scythian race and language, not because Pappaeus is a proper name for God. Any one, however, who gives God His name in the Scythian language, or the Egyptian, or the language in which he has been brought up, will not commit sin.

6. We do not even like to call the sun Apollo, or the moon Diana; but worshipping the Creator with a pure worship, and praising His beauteous works, we do not pollute Divine things even so far as a name goes. We agree with what Plato says in the Philebus; he would not have Pleasure called a goddess: "So great is my awe, Protarchus, in naming the gods." ³²⁰ We, too, really have such awe in naming God and His beauteous works, that we will not accept any fable even as allegory, which might injure the young.

CHAP. XVIII. ----A reply to those Greek philosophers who profess to know everything, and blame the simple faith of the man of Christians; and complain that they prefer folly to wisdom in life; moreover, that no wise or educated |87 man has become a disciple of Jesus; but boatmen and tax-gatherers of the lowest class, they say, get fools and blockheads, slaves, weak women and children, to submit themselves to the Gospel. Books I. and III. against Celsus.

1. He next urges us in forming our opinions to make reason our guide and follow it, because whoever gives his assent in other terms is sure to be misled; and he likens men who have an unreasoning faith to begging priests of Cybele and to soothsayers, Mithrae and Sabadians,³²¹ or any other sort one comes upon, phantom ³²² envoys of Hecate or some other demon, or demons. For as among them detestable men are frequently found trading upon the ignorance of the simple, and leading them any way they choose, so, Celsus says, it is with Christians. He tells us that certain teachers who will neither give nor receive an account of what they believe employ the formula, "Don't ask why, but believe," and another, "Thy faith shall save thee"; and these teachers, he adds, maintain that "worldly wisdom is a bad thing, and foolishness a good thing." This is our answer. If all men could give up the active pursuits of life and apply themselves to philosophy, that would be the only course for any man to take; for in Christianity, not to speak offensively, there will be found no less inquiry than elsewhere; we have our careful investigation of the articles of the Faith, and our explanation of the dark sayings of the Prophets, the parables in the Gospels, and countless other figurative events or enactments. But if this course is impracticable, whether on account of the stress of life, or because of human infirmity, for very few are eager to reason, what better plan for benefiting the many could be devised than that which was delivered by Jesus to the Gentiles? And as regards the greater |88 number of believers, who have escaped from the deep mire of wickedness in which they formerly wallowed, which, we ask, is really best----that with unreasoning faith they should be reformed characters, because they believe that men are punished for sin and rewarded for good works, or that we should not allow their conversion on the strength of mere faith, but wait for their deliberate investigation of the reasons for belief? It is clear that nearly all will be excluded from the benefits which the others have received through simply believing; the many will continue to lead abandoned lives. Whatever else then goes to prove that the love towards man which marked the entry of the Word into human affairs was not undesigned by God, this must be included. A religious man will not suppose that even a physician of the body, who restores many sick to health, comes into cities or nations independently of God;. for without God's help nothing comes to men. But if the physician who cures the bodies of many sufferers, or partially benefits them, does not cure without God's help, how much rather is this true of Him who heals the souls of many, converts them, does them good, attaches them to the Supreme God, and teaches them in all their doings to make His good pleasure their aim, and to shun whatever is in the least displeasing to Him in word, or deed, or thought?

2. So then, since our opponents are for ever talking about our faith, we have to tell them that we allow it on the ground that it is a good thing for the many, and we confess that we teach those who cannot forsake everything else and investigate the evidence, to believe even without reasoning; and our opponents, though they would not confess so much, do the same. Could any man who has been drawn to Philosophy and has dashed into some philosophic sect, either at random, or because he has had access to some particular teacher, get thus far any other way than by believing that sect to be the best? For it is not by waiting to hear the arguments of all the philosophers and of the different sects, and by learning how some may be upset and others established, that a man chooses to be a Stoic, or a follower of Plato, or a |89 Peripatetic, or an Epicurean, or to belong to any other philosophic school; but it is by an unreasoning impulse, though they will not admit the fact, that they come, for instance, to forsake the others and adopt Stoicism: rejecting Plato's doctrine as less dignified than that of the others, or the Peripatetic system because it is more human, and more readily than others admits the blessings of mankind. And there are some who in their alarm at the faintest approach to the doctrine of Providence, arguing from what on earth befalls both bad and good, rashly conclude that there is no Providence, and take the view of Epicurus and Celsus.

3. Since, then, as reason teaches, we must believe some one who has founded a sect, Greek or Barbarian, should we not much rather believe the Supreme God, and Him who teaches that we ought to worship God only, and overlook all else, as either non-existent, or as existing and worthy of honour, but not of reverence and adoration? As regards these points, if a man not only believes, but also views them in the light of reason, he will let it be known what proofs he comes upon, and discovers through thorough inquiry. It is surely more reasonable, since all things human depend on faith,³²³ to believe God rather than them. Does any man go on a voyage, or marry, or beget children, or sow the land, unless he believes that all will turn out for the best, though the opposite is possible, and sometimes does happen? In spite of possible disappointment, the belief in a prosperous issue and that they will realise their wishes, makes all men venture even where there is uncertainty, and the result may be other than they hope. Now, if in every undertaking where the result is uncertain the hope and belief in a successful result is the stay of life, shall not a man with much better reason than if he sailed the sea, or sowed the land, or married a wife, or engaged in any other human affairs, have this faith, and believe in the God Who made all these things, and in Him Who, with surpassing wisdom and Divine magnanimity, ventured to present this doctrine to all mankind, in the face of great dangers and of what was considered a |90 shameful death, which sufferings He endured for man, teaching His earliest adherents to boldly traverse the whole world in peril at every step and with the constant expectation of death, in order to promote the salvation of men?

4. Let the impugner of the faith of Christians tell us by what demonstrative proofs he was driven to admit the occurrence of numerous conflagrations and deluges, and upon what grounds he maintains that the last deluge was in the time of Deucalion, and the last conflagration in the time of Phaethon. If he adduces the dialogues of Plato on these subjects, we will tell him that we, too, are at liberty to believe that a Divine Spirit abode in the pure and pious soul of Moses, who soared above all things created and clung to the Maker of the universe, and gave clearer views of the things of God than Plato or the Greek and Barbarian philosophers. And if Celsus demands our reasons for such a faith, let him first give us the grounds of his unproved opinions, and we will at once make good our position.

5. Celsus is welcome to the teachers of fabulous conflagrations and deluges. According to him they were the wisest of the Egyptians, and traces of their wisdom may be seen in the worship of irrational creatures, and in the arguments to show that such a worship of God, though partly lost and mysterious, is quite reasonable. If the Egyptians boast of their animal worship and explain the principles of their religion, they are wise; but if a man, assenting to the Judaic law and acknowledging the lawgiver, refers everything to the only God, the Maker of the universe, he is accounted by Celsus and his followers inferior to him who degrades the Godhead to the level not only of rational and mortal creatures, but of irrational creatures, thus going beyond the fabulous transmigration of souls, according to which a soul falls from the vaults of heaven and descends to irrational creatures, not only such as are tamed, but even the most savage. And if Egyptians tell these mythic tales, they are believed to have been philosophers with their riddles and mysteries; but if Moses writes histories for a whole nation, and |91 bequeaths laws to the people, his words are regarded as empty fables, incapable of even an allegorical interpretation. For this is the opinion of Celsus and the Epicureans.

6. Then, in express terms, Celsus says, "If they will be good enough to answer me, not as if I were a novice, for I know all about it," and so on. In reply to this claim to know "all about it," which is an astounding piece of swagger, we must observe that if he had read the Scriptures, above all, the prophetical writings, which we admit are full of dark sayings and things obscure to the many, and if he had studied the parables in the Gospels, and the texts of Scripture containing the Law and the history of the Jewish people, and the utterances of the Apostles, and, reading with a fair and open mind, had wished to get at the meaning, he would not have been so bold as to say, "I know all about it." Not even we who spend ourselves upon these studies would claim to know "all about it," for truth is dear to us. Not one of us will say "I know all that Epicurus taught," nor will boast that he knows the whole of Plato; the truth being that there are numerous points as to which even the expounders of the doctrines are not agreed. Who would be so bold as to say, "I know all about the Stoic or Peripatetic philosophy "? though it might happen that hearing some illiterate blockheads, unconscious of their own ignorance, boasting of their universal knowledge, a man might on the authority of such teachers suppose that he himself knew everything. Celsus seems to me to have acted much the same as if a traveller in Egypt (where those who are familiar with the national literature indulge in many speculations on what are regarded as Divine institutions, but the unlearned are greatly elated when they hear certain myths without understanding the principles involved) were to think he was acquainted with all the wisdom of the Egyptians, though, in fact, he was a disciple of the ignorant, and never came into touch with any of the priests, nor was taught the mysterious doctrines of the Egyptians by one of them. And what I have said about the Egyptians, wise and ignorant, holds good, as we may |92 see, of the Persians. They have their mysteries, celebrated by the learned on principles of reason, but taken symbolically by the masses and ordinary people. And the same applies to the Syrians and Indians, and all who have myths and literature.

7. Celsus, moreover, makes many Christians say, "Wordly wisdom is a bad thing, and foolishness a good thing." We must therefore observe that he slanders the Word, for he does not give Paul's exact words, which run thus: "If any man thinketh that he is wise among you in this world, let him become a fool that he may be wise. For the wisdom of this world is foolishness with God." ³²⁴ The Apostle does not say without qualification, "Wisdom is foolishness with God," but "the wisdom of this world" Again, he does not say, "If any man among you thinketh that he is wise, let him become a fool absolutely," but "let him become a fool in this world, that he may become wise." Well, then, by "the wisdom of the world" we mean all false philosophy, which, according to the Scripture, is being brought to nought; and we call foolishness a good thing, not absolutely, but when a man becomes a fool to this world. It is the same as if we were to say that a Platonist who believes in the immortality of the soul and what is said about its transmigration, is foolish in the eyes of the Stoics who give no quarter to these opinions; or in the eyes of the Peripatetics who are always talking about the inanities of Plato; or in the eyes of the Epicureans who charge with superstition those who introduce a Providence and set God over all things. And, further, that even, according to the Word itself, it is much better to assent to our doctrines on grounds of reason and wisdom, than on the strength of the bare faith of which we have spoken; and that, under certain circumstances the Word even intended this, so as not to leave men altogether unprofitable,³²⁵ is shown by Paul, the true disciple of |93 Jesus, when he says, "For seeing that in the wisdom of God the world through its wisdom knew not God, it was God's good pleasure through the foolishness of the preaching to save them that believe." ³²⁶ This clearly shows that God should have been known in the wisdom of God. And since this did not come to pass, God, as by a second expedient, was pleased to save believers, not by foolishness absolutely, but by foolishness so far as related to preaching. For the preaching of Jesus Christ as crucified is "foolishness of preaching." Paul is conscious of this when he says, "But we preach Jesus Christ crucified, unto Jews a stumbling-block, and unto Gentiles foolishness; but unto them that are called, both Jews and Greeks, Christ the power of God, and the wisdom of God."

And towards the end of the same book, Book I., respecting the statement that no wise or educated man has been a disciple of Jesus, there is the following:----

8. It is clear to those who are capable of investigating the history of the Apostles with intelligence and candour that it was by Divine power they taught Christianity, and succeeded in bringing men into subjection to the Word of God. For it was not their powerful speaking, or that they offered the Gospel,³²⁷ in accordance with the rules of Greek dialectics or rhetoric, which won over their hearers. But it seems to me that if Jesus had chosen certain men in general esteem for their wisdom, who could think and speak so as to please the many, and had employed them as ministers of the doctrine, He might reasonably have been suspected of having been preached by a school like the leaders of some philosophical sect; and in that case the promise that the Word should be Divine would not have been clear, inasmuch as the Word and the preaching was in persuasive words of that wisdom which is shown in style and composition;³²⁸ and Christian faith, like the faith of the Philosophers of the world in their doctrines, would |94 have been in the wisdom of men and not in the power of God. But who, when he sees fishermen and tax-gatherers, men without even the rudiments of learning (the Gospel so describes them, and Celsus credits them with speaking the truth about their own ignorance), not only dealing boldly with the Jews as regards the Faith in Jesus, but also preaching Him in other nations, and with success, would not ask how they came to have this convincing power? for it is no ordinary power. And who would not say that by a certain Divine power in His Apostles Jesus fulfilled the promise, "Come ye after me, and I will make you fishers of men "? ³²⁹ It is such a power as this which Paul, as we have said before, describes when he says, "And my speech and my preaching were not in persuasive words of wisdom, but in demonstration of the Spirit and of power: that your faith should not stand in the wisdom of men, but in the power of God." ³³⁰ For as we read in the Prophets who foretell the preaching of the Gospel, "The Lord gave a word to those who bring good tidings with great power,³³¹ the King of the powers of the Beloved," ³³² in order that the prophecy may be fulfilled which says, "His word shall run very swiftly." ³³³ And in fact we see that "The sound of the apostles of Jesus Christ went out into every land, and their words unto the end of the world." ³³⁴ Thus it is that when men hear the Word proclaimed with power they are filled with power, and they manifest it both by their dispositions and their lives, and by contending earnestly for the truth even unto death; but some speakers are mere windbags even though they profess to believe in God through Jesus, for not being Divinely enabled they only seem to be subject to the Word of God. I have already mentioned a saying of our Saviour in the Gospels, but I will none the less make use of it now, for it is appropriate, by way of showing how our Saviour's foreknowledge of the preaching of the Gospel is |95 most Divinely manifested, and also how the Word without teachers prevails over those who yield to the persuasiveness of Divine power: "The harvest truly is great, but the labourers are few. Pray ye, therefore, the Lord of the harvest, that he send forth labourers into the harvest." ³³⁵

9. And whereas Celsus speaks of infamous men, and calls the Apostles of Jesus villainous tax-gatherers and sailors, we will say respecting this, that in order to find fault with the Word he appears to believe the Scriptures wherever he chooses; but to disbelieve the Gospels so that he may not have to accept the manifestations of Deity proclaimed in those same books; for any one who sees how the writers cling to truth in describing minor matters cannot help believing them when they treat of things more Divine. It is indeed written in the Catholic Epistle of Barnabas, from which Celsus probably took his description of the Apostles as "infamous" and "villainous," that "Jesus Christ chose for His own apostles those who were notoriously lawless men." ³³⁶ And in the Gospel according to Luke, Peter says to Jesus, "Depart from me, for I am a sinful man, O Lord." ³³⁷ Nay more, Paul (though he afterwards became an Apostle of Jesus) says in his Epistle to Timothy, "Faithful is the saying and worthy of all acceptation, that Christ Jesus came into the world to save sinners; of whom I am chief." ³³⁸ Is there, then, any absurdity in believing that Jesus, because He wished to show mankind His wondrous skill in healing souls, chose "infamous" and "villainous" men, and brought them to such a pitch of excellence, that they were a pattern of the purest life to those who through them were led to submit to the Gospel of Christ?

10. If we are going to make their past a reproach to men who have changed their lives, it is time for us to attack Phaedo even though he is now the Philosopher: for, as history relates, Socrates took him out of a house of ill-fame and interested him in philosophy. We shall also make the profligacy of Polemon, the successor of Xenocrates, a reproach to philosophy; whereas we ought to give |96 philosophy credit thus far, that reason when used by those gifted with persuasive power can rescue from such vices those who had been overcome by them. The Greeks have one Phaedo, I do not know of another, and one Polemon, who after a dissolute and utter detestable life changed and became philosophers; while with Jesus there were not only the Twelve at the time we speak of, but always many more, such as having become a joyous band of temperate livers, say concerning their former lives: "For we also were aforetime foolish, disobedient, deceived, serving divers lusts and pleasures, living in malice and envy, hateful, hating one another. But when the kindness of God our Saviour, and his love toward men, appeared through the washing of regeneration and renewing of the Holy Ghost which he poured out upon us," ³³⁹ we became what we are. For "God sent forth his word, and healed them, and delivered them from their destructions," ³⁴⁰ as the prophet taught in the Psalms. And I would further remark, that Chrysippus in his treatise on the Healing of the Passions, his object being to check the passions of men's souls, though he does not pledge himself to the truth of any particular doctrine, endeavours to apply his remedy according to the principles of the sect to which they belong who have been mastered by their passions; and he says that if pleasure be the (philosophic) end, we must through pleasure cure the passions; and even if, according to some, there are three kinds of blessings, we must none the less, according to this doctrine, similarly rid men from the tyranny of the passions. But the accusers of Christianity do not see how the passions of multitudes are calmed, and the surging waves of wickedness laid to rest, nor do they regard the numbers of those whose savage characters are tamed by means of the Word. And if they find this public benefit to be a fact, they ought to confess their gratitude to the Word for having by a new method delivered men from many vices; and they ought to bear witness to it, that whether it be the truth or not, it has at all events profited mankind. |97

11. Jesus, teaching His disciples not to be rash, said to them, "When they persecute you in this city, flee into the next; and if they persecute you in the next, flee again into another";³⁴¹ and He not only taught, but was an example of a well-regulated life, in which dangers are never encountered without an object, unseasonably, or unreasonably. This, again, Celsus mischievously perverts, and makes his Jew say to Jesus, "You run away to all sorts of places with your disciples."

12. "What need was there for you while still an infant to be carried off into Egypt, so that you might not have your throat cut? For it was not likely that a god should be afraid of death?" and so on. But inasmuch as we believe Jesus, when He Himself says concerning His Divinity, "I am the way, the truth, and the life," ³⁴² or anything similar; and as we also believe Him when, referring to His having a human body, He says,"But now ye seek to kill me, a man that hath told you the truth," ³⁴³ we maintain that He was something compound. And inasmuch as it was His purpose during His sojourn on earth to live the life of a man, it was right that He should not unseasonably expose Himself to death. So, too, it was necessary that He should be taken away by His parents who were guided by one of God's angels.

13. Is there any absurdity in supposing that, having once become Man, His human life was so ordered that He shunned dangers? ³⁴⁴ not that it was otherwise impossible to attain His object, but because it was fitting to leave room for ways and means in securing His safety. And it was surely better for the child Jesus to escape from Herod's plot and sojourn with His parents in Egypt until the death of the conspirator, than for Providence watching over Jesus to hinder the will of Herod when he purposed to kill the child, or to associate with Jesus dark Pluto's helm, of which the poets speak, or anything of the kind, or to smite those who came to destroy Him, as the men of Sodom were |98 smitten.³⁴⁵ If it had been perfectly clear that some very extraordinary help was given to Him, this would not have furthered His desire to teach, as a man approved by God, that He had something more Divine within the visible man, which "something" was properly ³⁴⁶ the Son of God, God the Word, the power of God and the wisdom of God,³⁴⁷ He that is called Christ. But this is not the time to discuss the compound nature, and the parts of which Jesus, who became a man, was composed; that is a separate topic, and, if I may so speak, one suitable for investigation by believers.

14. And the story of Aristotle has points of resemblance to the slanderous charge against Jesus and His disciples. When Aristotle saw that a court was going to be got together to try him for impiety, on account of certain of his philosophical opinions which the Athenians considered impious, he left Athens and stayed in Chalcis, defending himself to his friends by saying, "Let us leave Athens, so that we may not give the Athenians any occasion for incurring the guilt they did over Socrates, and that they may not a second time sin against Philosophy."

15. And in Book III. of the same treatise against Celsus he says this:----

Then Celsus goes on to quote what is said against the teaching of Jesus by a very small number of persons who are considered Christians, not the most intelligent, as he supposes, but the most ignorant, and tells us "that such rules as these are laid down by them: Let no educated person come, no one wise, no one prudent; for education, wisdom, and prudence are with us regarded as bad things. But if any one is unlearned, if any one is without understanding, or uneducated, or a mere child, let him come boldly. Now the fact that they confess these persons to be worthy of their God, shows that they wish and are able to convince none but fools, low-born people, blockheads, slaves, weak women, and children." This is our reply. When Jesus was teaching self-control He said, "Every |99 one that looketh upon a woman to lust after her hath committed adultery with her already in his heart." ³⁴⁸ Now, suppose a man saw some few persons, out of so many, who are considered to be Christians, living undisciplined lives, he would with very good reason accuse them of living contrary to the teaching of Jesus; but he would be most unreasonable if he were to charge the Gospel with their offence. Just so, if Christian doctrine ³⁴⁹ as much as any other is found to invite men to wisdom, they must be blamed who rest satisfied with their own ignorance, and who say, not what Celsus relates (for though some are ignorant and unlearned, they do not use such shameless language), but other things which, though far less important, are nevertheless calculated to turn believers from the practice of wisdom.

16. That the Word means us to be wise, we may prove even from the old Jewish Scriptures, which we use as well as the Jews, and no less also from those which were written after Jesus came, and are believed in the churches to be Divine. In the 50th Psalm David in his prayer to God is reported to have said, "Thou hast showed me the secret and hidden things of thy wisdom." ³⁵⁰ And any reader of the Psalms may find the book full of many wise doctrines. And Solomon, because he asked for wisdom, received it;³⁵¹ and the proofs of his wisdom may be seen in his works, which contain much thought in few words, and in which you may discover many praises of wisdom and many admonitions as to the necessity of embracing it. Solomon was in fact so wise that "the Queen of Sheba having heard of his name and the name of the Lord came to prove him with hard questions,³⁵² and she communed with him of all that was in her heart. And Solomon told her all her questions: there was not anything overlooked by the king, which he told her not. And the Queen of Sheba saw all the understanding of Solomon, and all that belonged to him; and there was no more spirit in her. And she said to the king, It was a true report that I |100 heard in mine own land of thee and of thy understanding. Howbeit I believed not the words, until I came, and mine eyes had seen it: and, behold, the half was not told me: thy wisdom and riches exceed all the report which I heard." Again, it is written concerning the same Solomon, "And God gave Solomon wisdom and understanding exceeding much, and largeness of heart, even as the sand that is on the seashore. And Solomon's wisdom excelled the understanding of all the ancients and all the understanding of Egypt; and he was wiser than all men," ³⁵³ and so on. And so desirous is the Word that there should be wise men among believers, that to exercise the intelligence of the hearers it has expressed some things.in enigmas, some in what are called dark sayings, others through parables, and others through difficult questions.³⁵⁴ And one of the prophets, Hosea, in his concluding words, exclaims, "Who is wise, and he shall understand these things? prudent, and he shall know them?" ³⁵⁵ Daniel, too, and his companions in captivity made such progress in all the learning cultivated by the wise men about the King of Babylon, that they were proved to be ten times better than them all. ³⁵⁶ And in Ezekiel it is said to the Prince of Tyre, who prided himself upon his wisdom, "Surely thou art not wiser than Daniel? Every secret was not shown thee." ³⁵⁷

17. And if you come to the books written after the time of Jesus, you will find the crowds of believers who heard the parables regarded as "without," ³⁵⁸ and worthy only of the popular arguments, but the disciples learning in private the interpretation of the parables; for Jesus privately expounded everything to His own disciples, thus honouring those who claimed His wisdom more than He did the crowds. And He promises those who believe on Him that He will send wise men and scribes, saying, "Behold, I send unto you wise men and scribes: and some of them shall they kill and crucify." ³⁵⁹ And Paul |101 in his list of the gifts of God's grace, placed first the word of wisdom, and second, as inferior to it, the word of knowledge, and third, still lower I suppose, he placed faith.³⁶⁰ And inasmuch as he honoured the Word above marvellous acts, for this reason he places workings of miracles and gifts of healing below the gifts of the Word. And in the Acts of the Apostles Stephen testifies to the great learning of Moses, taking his proofs altogether from such ancient writings as were not generally known. For he says, "And Moses was instructed in all the wisdom of the Egyptians." ³⁶¹ And this is why Moses was suspected in his miracles; they thought he might work them not because, as he professed, he came from God, but because of the learning of the Egyptians in which he was skilled, The king, because he thus suspected him, summoned the enchanters of the Egyptians, and the wise men, and the sorcerers;³⁶² and they were proved to be as nothing in comparison with the wisdom in Moses, which surpassed all the wisdom of the Egyptians.

18. But what Paul writes in the first Epistle to the Corinthians, where he addresses them as Greeks priding themselves on their Grecian wisdom, has probably moved some to think that the Word does not want the wise. If any one so thinks, let me tell him that as the Word reflects on bad men, and says that they are not wise in things spiritual, invisible, and eternal, but because they concern themselves with things of sense only, and make them all in all, they are wise men of the world: so also, inasmuch as there are many doctrines, some of which give support to theories of matter and corporeal substances, and allege that all subsistences to begin with were corporeal, and that there is nothing else beside them, whether it be called "invisible" or "incorporeal," the Word says that this is wisdom of the world which is being brought to nought and stultified, and that it is wisdom of this present life.³⁶³ On the other hand, there are doctrines which translate the soul from earthly affairs to the blessedness |102 of communion with God and to the kingdom which bears His name, and teaches the soul to despise all things sensible and visible as being temporal, but to press on to the things invisible and to keep in view the things that are not seen----and these doctrines the Word says are the wisdom of God. Paul, with his love of truth, speaking of certain wise men of the Greeks and the truth they hold, says that, "Knowing God, they glorified him, not as God, neither gave thanks";³⁶⁴ and he tells us that they had not this knowledge without God's help. "For," he says, "God manifested it unto them." ³⁶⁵ I suppose he is darkly hinting at those who rise from things visible to the things intelligible, ³⁶⁶ when he writes that "The invisible things of him since the creation of the world are clearly seen, being perceived through the things that are made, even his everlasting power and divinity; so that they may be without excuse: because that, knowing God, they glorified him not as God, neither gave thanks."

19. Then there is the passage, "For behold your calling, brethren, how that not many wise men after the flesh, not many mighty, not many noble, are called: but God chose the foolish things of the world, that he might put to shame them that are wise; and God chose the base things of the world, and the things that are despised, and the things that are not, that he might bring to nought the things that are: that no flesh should glory before him." ³⁶⁷ Some have perhaps been moved through this to suppose that no one educated, or wise, or prudent embraces the Word. We would point out to such an one that the words are not, "No wise man after the flesh," but "Not many wise men after the flesh." And it is plain that in the character sketch of those who are called Bishops, when Paul described what manner of man the bishop ought to be, he gave the teacher his proper place: for he says the bishop "must be able also to convict the gainsayers, so that he may stop the mouth of vain talkers and deceivers." ³⁶⁸ And as the Apostle in choosing a man |103 for the office of a bishop prefers one who is the husband of one wife rather than him who has been twice married,³⁶⁹ and the blameless man rather than him who has been overtaken in a fault, and the temperate man rather than the opposite, and the soberminded man rather than him who is not soberminded, and the orderly man rather than him who is ever so little disorderly: so he wishes the man specially qualified for the office of a bishop to be apt to teach, and able to stop the mouths of the gainsayers. How, then, can Celsus with any show of reason accuse us of saying, "Let no one educated come, no one wise, no one prudent." By all means let any educated, wise, or prudent man come if he wishes to: but if a man be ignorant, and unintelligent, and uneducated, and childish, he will be no less welcome. For the Word promises to heal such if they come, making them all worthy of God.

20. And it is another falsehood that "the teachers of the Divine Word wish to persuade only silly, ill-bred people, blockheads, and slaves, and weak women, and children," though the Word calls even those that it may do them good. But it also calls such as are very different from them, for Christ is the Saviour of all men, specially of them that believe,³⁷⁰ whether they be men of understanding, or more simple folk, and "He is the propitiation with the Father for our sins, and not for ours only, but also for the whole world." ³⁷¹ After what we have said it is too much to expect us to reply to such questions as these, which Celsus puts: "Why is it a very bad thing for a man to have been educated, and to have studied the best arguments, and both to be and seem wise? How does this hinder a man from knowing God? Can it possibly be anything but a help and a means whereby a man may more readily reach the truth?" A real education is not a bad thing, for education is a path to virtue; but not even the wise men of Greece will tell us that the holders of erroneous opinions are to be reckoned among the "educated." According to our Word, a knowledge of wickedness is not wisdom; and, if I may use the term, |104 there is a knowledge of wickedness in the holders of false opinions, and in those who have been deceived by fallacious arguments. I should therefore say that they are more ignorant than wise. Further, who would not confess that it is a good thing to have studied the best arguments? Shall we, however, call any arguments the "best," except those which are true and which urge men to the pursuit of virtue? Again, it is a good thing to be wise, though not, as Celsus says, to seem so; and to have been educated, and to have studied the best arguments, and to be a man of understanding is certainly no hindrance but a help in knowing God. And it is more fitting for us than for Celsus to say this, particularly if he is proved to be an Epicurean.

21. Let us see what he says next. "Why, we surely see even the men in the market-places parading their infamous opinions ³⁷² and collecting a crowd, though they would never come near a gathering of sensible people, and would never dare to show their real sentiments among them; but wherever they catch sight of striplings, or a herd of slaves, or a set of fools, away they go and show off." Now observe, I pray you, how herein he slanders us by comparing us to the men in the market-places who parade their infamous opinions and collect a crowd. What infamous opinions, then, do we parade? or how are we like them, when by readings and explanations of what we read we invite men to the worship of the God of the universe, and to the cultivation of the virtues connected with that worship, but dissuade them from the contempt of the Divine Being, and from the practice of all that is contrary to sound doctrine? The Philosophers, I take it, would gladly get together so many hearers of their discourses which invite men to a virtuous life, as has been notably the case with certain of the Cynics, who publicly converse with such hearers as happen to be by. Will it then be said that these Philosophers, because they do not gather an audience of what are considered educated people, |105 but invite the common people to assemble, are like the men in the market-places who parade their infamous opinions and collect a crowd? The truth is that neither Celsus, nor any one who agrees with him, finds fault with teachers who follow the course which humanity dictates, and address their arguments to the ignorant masses as well as to other people.

22. If the Philosophers are not to be blamed for doing this, let us see whether Christians do not more than they, and to better purpose, endeavour to win multitudes to the love of the beautiful and good. The Philosophers who discourse in public make no distinctions in their choice of hearers; any one who likes stands and listens. But Christian teachers, so far as they can, first make trial of the souls of those who wish to hear them, and rejoice over them in private; then, when the hearers appear sufficiently earnest in their desire to lead a good life, they introduce them to the public assembly, having made a private list of those who are novices and catechumens, and have not as yet received the Sacrament of their cleansing, and another list of those who, as far as possible, show their determination to adopt Christianity to the exclusion of all else; and with these are associated certain officers appointed to inquire carefully into the lives and conduct of the candidates, so that they may prevent such as are guilty of infamous practices from coming to the public assembly, but may heartily welcome such as are different from these, and may day by day do them good.³⁷³ And they have a similar method in dealing with those who fall into sin, particularly such as are licentious, whom they, who, according to Celsus, resemble the market-place orators parading their infamous opinions, expel from the public assembly. The venerable school of the Pythagoreans used to set up kenotaphs to those who abandoned that philosophy, reckoning them as dead. But our Christian teachers |106 lament as dead, inasmuch as they are lost and dead to God, those who have been overcome by lasciviousness, or some other disgusting wickedness; and regarding them as risen from the dead if they manifest a considerable change, they afterwards receive them, though a longer interval is required than in the case of catechumens;³⁷⁴ they choose, however, to no office and administration in the Church of God those who soon lapsed after submitting to the Gospel.

23. Now Celsus says that these men to whom he compares us, the men in the market-places parading their infamous opinions and collecting a crowd, would never think of coming near a company of sensible people, nor venture to show their real sentiments among them: "but wherever they see striplings, or a herd of slaves, and a set of fools, away they go and show off." When he thus abuses us he is exactly like the low women who delight in slandering one another. For we do all we can to get an audience of sensible men, and we then venture in our public discourses to bring forth what is best and most Divine, when we have a number of intelligent hearers, but we conceal and pass over in silence the deeper truths, when we see that those who assemble are the simpler sort of people, and require such teaching as is metaphorically called "milk." For Paul, writing to the Corinthians, Greeks whose morals were not yet cleansed, says, "I fed you with milk, not with meat: for ye were not able to bear it: nay, not even now are ye able; for ye are yet carnal; for whereas there is among you jealousy and strife, are ye not carnal, and walk after the manner of men?" ³⁷⁵ And the same Paul, knowing that some things are food for the more mature soul, and that others being suitable for beginners are like "milk," says, "Ye have become such as have need of milk, not of solid food.³⁷⁶ For every one that partaketh of milk is without experience of the word of righteousness; For he is a babe. |107 But solid food is for full-grown men, even those who by reason of use have their senses exercised to discern good and evil." Now, let me ask, could men who believe this to be well spoken suppose that the beauties of the Word should never be declared to an assembly of sensible men, but that "wherever they see striplings, and a herd of slaves, and a set of fools," there "they should produce the Divine and hallowed truths, and before such an audience show off in handling them?" On the contrary, it is clear to any one who examines the whole drift of our Scriptures, that Celsus, like the ignorant masses, is moved by hatred against the family of Christ when he makes such false and unwarranted statements.

24. We own to a desire to instruct all with the Word of God, whatever Celsus may wish, so as to give the striplings such exhortation as is suitable for them, and show slaves how they may be ennobled by the Word if they recover a free mind. And our advocates of Christianity emphatically declare that they are debtors to Greeks and Barbarians, to the wise and to the foolish; ³⁷⁷ for they do not deny that they are bound to cure the souls even of the foolish, so that, as far as they can, laying aside their ignorance they may earnestly seek wisdom, and may give heed to Solomon's words, "Ye fools, be of an understanding heart";³⁷⁸ and, "Let him who is most foolish among you turn aside unto me";³⁷⁹ and those who are without understanding Wisdom exhorts thus, "Come, eat ye of my bread, and drink of the wine which I have mingled. Forsake folly that ye may live, and correct understanding in knowledge." I should also like to ask in reply to what Celsus states, for the point is important, whether the teachers of philosophy do not invite striplings to come and hear them? And do they not urge young men to give up a low life and turn to something better? How does Celsus make out that they do not wish slaves to take up Philosophy? Are we going to blame Philosophers for encouraging slaves to turn and lead a virtuous life, as Pythagoras did Zamolxis, and Zeno did Persaeus, or as they did who very recently won |108 Epictetus to the side of Philosophy? May you, ye Greeks,³⁸⁰ invite striplings, and slaves, and fools, to embrace Philosophy? and if we do so, will ye not allow our motive to be love for man, seeing that we wish with the healing virtue of the Word to cure every rational nature and make it fit for God, the Creator of all things?

25. When Celsus, distracted at the numbers of those who flock to hear the Word, alleges that no sensible person obeys the Word, he acts like a man who alleges that because so many ignorant persons submit to the laws, no sensible person obeys Solon,³⁸¹ for instance, or Lycurgus,³⁸² or Zaleucus,³⁸³ or any other lawgiver, particularly if by "sensible" he means in respect of virtue. For as the law-givers, providing for the masses according to their views of what was best, have given them proper guidance and laws on all sides: so God when He gives the law in Jesus Christ to all men every where, leads those who are not "sensible" as well as others, so far as such men can be led, on to the better life. Paul knew this when he said, "God chose the foolish things of the world, that he might put to shame them that are wise; ³⁸⁴ and, speaking generally, he calls all those "wise" who seem to be proficient in learning but have fallen into godless polytheism; for "Professing themselves to be wise, they became fools, and changed the glory of the incorruptible God for the likeness of an image of corruptible man, and of birds, and four-footed beasts, and creeping things." ³⁸⁵

26. Celsus blames the Christian teacher as if he specially looked for ignoramuses. In reply we would ask, What ignoramuses do you mean? For, strictly speaking, any inferior man is an ignoramus. Well, then, if by ignoramuses you mean inferior people, do you when you |109 try to attract men to Philosophy seek to attract inferior people or the cultured? Certainly not the cultured, for they are already acquainted with Philosophy. Inferior people, then. But inferior people, as we have seen, are ignoramuses; and your aim is to win many such inferior people to Philosophy; it follows that you, too, look for ignoramuses. But I, even if I do seek those who are thus called "ignoramuses," am like a humane physician who looks for the sick that he may bring them the help they need, and may restore them to health and strength. If, however, by "ignoramuses" you mean those who are not only not clever, but are portentously stupid people, my answer is that I do my best to benefit these also, though I should not like the great body of Christians to consist of them. By way of preference I look for men of some cleverness and acuteness, inasmuch as they are able to trace out the clear interpretation of the hard sayings and obscure passages in the Law and the Prophets, and the Gospels, which you have despised as containing nothing of any account, because you have not closely examined their sense, nor tried to enter into the meaning of the writers.

CHAP. XIX. ----And again, earlier in the same book, Origen says, That our faith in our Lord has nothing in common with the irrational superstitious faith of the Gentiles, and that it is both commendable, and accords with the original moral notions of mankind. In answer also to those who say, How do we think that Jesus is God seeing that He had a mortal body?

1. Faith in Antinous ³⁸⁶ or some other Egyptian or Greek hero, is, if I may use the expression, unfortunate;³⁸⁷ but faith in Jesus would appear to be either fortunate, or to have its claims severely tested; for it seems to be fortunate with the many, and severely tested by very few. And if I say that a certain faith is fortunate, as the many |110 would call it, I refer the explanation of this good fortune to God, Who knows the causes of every human being's lot in life. And the Greeks will also admit that even in the case of those who are regarded as their wisest men, good fortune accounts for much, as for example the sort of teachers they have, and whether they meet with better ones (for other men teach opposite doctrines), and whether they have a better bringing up. For it is the lot of many to be so brought up that they cannot get even a faint perception of the higher life, but from their very earliest years are destined to be among the favourites of licentious men, or of tyrants, or to be in some other sad condition which prevents the opening of the eyes of the soul. I quite suppose that the causes of this are to be found in the rulings of Providence; but how the causes affect mankind is not easy to explain. I thought I would make this digression in passing, for we remember the old saying, "What wonders faith performs when it once takes hold of anything!" It was necessary to speak of different forms of faith on account of the different ways men are brought up; and from this to go on to show that what is called good or bad fortune would appear to assist even clever men in this very respect, that they appear more reasonable than other men, and with better reason for the most part to adopt their opinions. But enough of this.

2. But we must consider what Celsus says next. Amongst other things he tells us that "we are already under the influence of faith when we thus submit to Jesus." ³⁸⁸ And in truth faith does effect this submission. Observe, however, whether the very act of faith does not exhibit something praiseworthy when we submit ourselves to God Who is over all, confessing our gratitude to Him Who has guided us to such a faith, and saying that He did not without God's help undertake and accomplish such a difficult task. And we believe also in the intentions of those who wrote the Gospels, as we mark the caution ³⁸⁹ and |111 conscientiousness shown in their writings, and how they admit nothing spurious, hazardous, invented, or unscrupulous. For it strikes us that souls which knew nothing of the strange devices taught by the unscrupulous sophistry of the Greeks, and by the rhetoric bandied in the law-courts, could not thus invent incidents able of themselves to lead men to faith and to a life in keeping with their faith. And I suppose this was why Jesus wished to employ such teachers of His doctrines, that there might be no room to suspect them of plausible sophisms, but that they who are capable of understanding may see clearly that the writers' purity of intention with its, if I may so speak, great simplicity, was deemed worthy of Divine help, which accomplishes far more than diction, and composition, and right construction with its refinements and rules of Grecian art seems able to accomplish.

3. Now see whether the principles of our faith, being accordant with man's original conceptions, do not work a change in fair-minded hearers of the Word. For though the perverted doctrine, backed up with much instruction, has been able to implant in the minds of the many the belief that images are gods, and that things made of gold, and silver, and ivory, and stone, are worthy of worship; common sense, nevertheless, forbids us to think that God is by any means corruptible matter, or that He is honoured when He is fashioned by men in forms of dead matter, supposed to pictorially or symbolically represent Him. And we accordingly at once decide respecting images that they are not gods; and respecting such works of art that they are not to be compared to the Creator; and that they are insignificant when we think of God, Who is over all, the Maker, Preserver, and Governor of the universe. And the rational soul, as if it recognised its affinity, at once rejects what it hitherto imagined to be gods, and resumes its natural affection for the Creator; and because of that natural affection for Him, it eagerly accepts Him, Who first showed these truths to the Gentile world by means of the disciples whom He prepared, and whom He sent forth with |112 Divine power and authority to preach the Word concerning God and His kingdom.

4. And whereas Celsus, I know not how many times already, taunts us with holding that Jesus, though He had a mortal body, is a god, and with supposing that herein we show our piety, it is superfluous to say more, for more than enough has already been said. Still, I would have our accusers know that He Who we think and are persuaded was from the beginning God and Son of God, is the very Word, and very Wisdom, and very Truth; and we affirm that the mortal body and the human soul therein, not only by communication with Him, but by an union and intimate mixture, gained the highest honours, and having participated in the Divine Nature, were taken into God.³⁹⁰ And if, any one stumbles at our saying this concerning His body, let him attend to what is said by the Greeks about matter, in itself unqualified, acquiring whatever qualities the Creator wishes to invest it with; and how it frequently divests itself of its former qualities and assumes better ones of a different kind. For if this is sound doctrine, is it any wonder that the quality of mortality attaching to the body of Jesus should by the providence of God, Who so willed, change into one that was heavenly and Divine?

5. Celsus, then, did not show his dialectical skill when, comparing the human flesh of Jesus to gold, and silver, and stone, he saw it was more corruptible than they. For, to speak correctly, what is incorruptible cannot be more incorruptible than something else which is incorruptible, nor can what is corruptible be more corruptible than some other corruptible thing. But allowing that there are degrees of corruptibility, we shall still reply, that if it is possible for the matter which underlies all qualities to change its qualities, why should it be impossible for the flesh of Jesus to change its qualities, and become such as it ought to be if it is to live in the sky, and the upper realms, no longer having the qualities of fleshly |113 weakness, and whatever other qualities Celsus called "pollutions"? ----and in doing so did not speak like a philosopher. For in the proper sense pollution is the result of vice; but the nature of the body is not polluted; for as bodily nature it has no vice, which generates the pollution.

CHAP. XX. ----A reply to those who say that the whole world, including man, was made not for man, but for the irrational creatures; for the irrational creatures live with less toil than men; further, that they are wiser than we are, and are both dear to God, and have a conception of God, and foreknow the future; wherein we shall also oppose transmigration of souls, and have something to say concerning augury and the trickery connected with it. From Book IV. against Celsus.

1. He, Celsus I mean, then says, "But, not to confine my remarks to the Jews, for that is not my aim, but that I may deal with the whole of nature, as I promised, I will explain more clearly what I have said." What modest man who reads this and is conscious of human weakness, would not shrink from the offensiveness of a man who promises to give an account of the whole of nature, and so pretentious as Celsus in daring to give such a title to his book? Let us see, then, what it is he promises to tell us about the whole of nature, and what light he throws upon the subject.

2. Well, he proceeds to blame us at great length for alleging that God has made all things for man. And, drawing on the stories of animals and the sagacity they show, he wishes to prove that everything exists no more for the sake of men than for the sake of the irrational creatures. Here he seems to me to talk like those men who from hatred of the people they dislike, blame them for the very qualities for which their own friends are praised. For as enmity so blinds these men that they are not aware of accusing their friends when they think they are abusing their enemies: the same way, Celsus in this confusion of thought has not seen that he is blaming the Philosophers of the Porch, inasmuch as not unwisely they give man the first place, and in |114 general prefer rational nature to all irrational beings, and maintain that for the sake of the rational creation chiefly, Providence has made everything. And rational creatures, inasmuch as they are the leading objects of Providence, are regarded as children begotten; but irrational and lifeless creatures are like the after-birth.³⁹¹ I moreover think that as in our towns the inspectors of provisions and of the market exercise their office only for the sake of men, but even dogs and other irrational creatures enjoy the abundance as well: so Providence chiefly provides for the rational creatures, but it follows also that the irrational creatures enjoy what exists for the sake of men. And as a man is in error if he says that the clerks of the markets provide no more for men than dogs, for that the dogs as well as men enjoy the abundance of what is on sale: so Celsus and they who are of his mind are much more guilty of impiety towards God, "Who provides for the rational creatures; for they pretend to ask. "What more is done for man's support than for plants, and trees, and roots,³⁹² and thorns?"

3. For, in the first place, now more clearly showing his Epicurean views, he thinks that "thunder and lightning and rain are not works of God." And, secondly, he says that "if one were to grant that these are works of God, they exist no more for us men than they do for plants, and trees, and roots, and thorns"; thus, like a true Epicurean, allowing that they are the result of chance and not designed by Providence. If they are no more useful to men than they are to plants, and trees, roots, and thorns, it is clear that they are not the gift of Providence, or that they come from a Providence which no more provides for us than for trees, or a root, or a thorn. But the impiety is obvious whichever way you take it; and it is silly to oppose such views by withstanding a man who accuses us of impiety; for any one may see, from what has been said, who it is that is guilty of impiety. Then he adds, "Even if you say that these (he clearly means the plants, |115 trees, roots, and thorns) grow for men, what reason is there for saying that they grow more for the sake of men than for the sake of the wildest irrational creatures?" I wish Celsus would tell us plainly that the great variety in the produce of the earth is not the work of Providence, but that a fortuitous concourse of atoms is the cause of so many qualities, and that we are indebted to chance for so many kinds of plants, and trees, and grass,³⁹³ resembling one another; and that no reason designed them to begin with, and that they do not spring from an infinitely marvellous understanding. But we Christian people, who are dedicated to the service of the Creator of these things, the only God, even herein find motives for gratitude to the Maker of them all, because He prepared so fair a home for us, and, for our sakes, for the animals which serve us; "He causeth the grass to grow for the cattle, and herb for the service of man: that he may bring forth food out of the earth; and wine that maketh glad the heart of man, and oil to make his face to shine, and bread that strengtheneth man's heart." ³⁹⁴ And if He also prepared food for the most savage beasts, it is no wonder; for these beasts, as some philosophers have maintained, were meant to be a training school for the rational creature. And one of our wise men somewhere says, "Say not, what is this? wherefore is that? for all things have been made for their uses"; and, "Say not, what is this? wherefore is that? for at time convenient they shall be sought out." ³⁹⁵

4. After this, Celsus wishing to show that Providence has not made the things that grow upon the earth any more for us than for the most savage beasts, says, "We wear ourselves out with unceasing toil, and yet with all our labour hardly get a living; but everything grows for the beasts without their ploughing and sowing." ³⁹⁶ He does not see that because God wished man's intelligence everywhere to find a field for exercise, so that it might not remain idle and without some conception of the arts, He |116 made man a creature of many wants, intending him to be driven by his very necessities to discover various arts, some for his sustenance, others for his protection. For it was better that men who were not likely to search and study Divine things should be in want, so that they should have to use their understanding in discovering these various arts, than that they should through abundance altogether neglect their understanding. One result of the scarcity of the necessaries of life was agriculture, another vine-dressing, another the different styles of gardening, another the crafts of the carpenter and the smith, which furnish tools to the arts which minister to man's sustenance. And the want of protection brought weaving, which followed wool-carding and spinning, and also building; and thus man's intelligence rose even to architecture. And the lack of necessaries led also to the transport of commodities from certain places, through seamanship and the shipmaster's skill, to those who were without them; so that for these reasons, as well as others, a man might marvel at Providence for having made the rational creature, to its advantage, more necessitous than the irrational creatures. For the irrational creatures have their food prepared for them, because they have no means of cultivating the arts; and they have a natural protection, for they are covered with hair, or wings, or horny scales, or shells.

5. But some advocate of the dignity of man, he tells us, may object that the irrational creatures were created for man's sake. "If any one should call us lords of creation because we hunt and feast on the other creatures, we will ask in return, Is it not nearer the truth to say that we exist for their sakes, because they hunt and devour us? The fact is we must have nets and weapons, and a lot of men, and dogs, to assist us in our sport, while nature gave them their own weapons as soon as they were born, thus making us an easy prey to them." Now here, again, you see how the gift of understanding is a great help to us, and better than any weapon which the wild beasts seem to have. We, at any rate, though our bodily strength is far less than that of the animals, and |117 very far less than that of some of them, gain the mastery over them through our understanding, and hunt even such huge beasts as elephants. Some animals which were intended by nature to be domesticated, we tame by our gentleness; but in dealing with those which cannot be domesticated, or which it would appear useless to domesticate, we consult our own safety, and when we like we keep them shut up, or when we want them for food we kill them, just as we do the animals that are not wild. So then, the Creator has made all things to serve the rational creature, and to be in subjection to his rational intelligence. We want dogs for such purposes as guarding the flocks, or cattle, or herds of goats, or our houses; and cattle for tilling the land; while we use other beasts for drawing vehicles or carrying loads. So we may say that lions and bears, pards and boars, and all such animals, are given to us to exercise and develop our manhood.

6. Then, in defiance of mankind, who perceive their own superiority over the irrational creatures, he says, "In reply to your contention, that God has given us the power to capture and make full use of the wild beasts, we shall take up this position. It is probable that before towns were built, or crafts invented, or such-like social arrangements were made, before weapons and nets were devised, men were carried off and devoured by the wild beasts, while the beasts were only by the rarest chance captured by men." Now, in answer to this, observe that even though men capture the beasts and the beasts carry off men, there is a wide difference between men who prevail by intelligence, and the beasts whose savage and cruel nature gives them the mastery over men, and who do not use their intelligence to secure safety from them. When Celsus makes the remark about a time when there were no towns, nor arts, nor such means of social intercourse, he must, I think, have forgotten what he said before to the effect that "the world was uncreated and incorruptible, and that only the dwellers upon earth were exposed to deluges and conflagrations, and that their |118 misfortunes did not end there." ³⁹⁷ As it is not for those who suppose the world to be eternal to talk of its beginning, so neither may they speak of a time when there were no towns of any sort and arts had not been discovered. Now, for argument's sake, let us allow that he and we are herein agreed, though he is not at all consistent with himself in what he said before. But has this anything at all to do with men's being at the first captured and eaten by the wild beasts, while as yet the beasts were not captured by men? Certainly, if the world came into being through the wisdom of Providence, and God is ruler over all, the small sparks ³⁹⁸ of the human race must at first have been guarded by a higher power, so that at first there was intercourse between the Divine Nature and men. The poet of Ascra ³⁹⁹ thought so, for he said----

"Then the feasts were common, and seats ⁴⁰⁰ common,

To immortal gods and mortal men."

7. And the Divine Word according to Moses, introducing the first men, makes them hear a more Divine voice, and oracles, and sometimes see the angels of God coming to visit them. It is surely probable that at the beginning of the world human nature received more assistance than afterwards; until such time as, having advanced in understanding, and the other manly qualities, and having discovered various arts, men were able to live independent lives, and did not continually need guardians and governors, with miraculous manifestation of the service rendered to the will of God. It is consequently false to say that at the beginning "men were caught and eaten by the beasts, but the beasts were hardly ever captured by men." And this shows the falsity also of what Celsus thus expresses: "So that in this respect at least God subjected men to the beasts, rather than beasts to men." For God did not subject men to the beasts, but God gave |119 the beasts to be taken by the intelligence of men, and by the arts which intelligence suggests for their destruction. For not without God's help did men devise the means of saving themselves from the beasts, and of maintaining their dominion over them.

8. The noble critic, overlooking the fact that so many philosophers bring Providence into their arguments and affirm that it does everything for the sake of the rational creatures, does his best to destroy ⁴⁰¹ their doctrines, which are of use in showing the agreement of Christian teaching and philosophy in these respects; nor does he perceive what an injury and hindrance it is to piety to accept the view that with God there is no difference between man and ants or bees. Because he does not observe this, Celsus says: "If men seem to excel the irrational creatures, inasmuch as they dwell in towns, and have some form of government, and magistracies, and authorities, it is nothing to the purpose, for ants and bees have all this as well. Bees, at any rate, have their queen with her followers and attendants; they have also their wars and victories and capture the vanquished; they have their towns and even suburbs, the division of labour, and courts for trying the idle and bad members of the community; anyway, they drive the drones away and punish them." Now here, again, Celsus has not seen where the difference lies between what is accomplished by thought and reason, and what results from an irrational nature and a creature's mere make. No original gift of reason in the creatures accounts for these doings, for they have not reason; but the Most Ancient One, He Who is both Son of God and King of the subject universe, has created an irrational nature which by its very lack of reason helps the creatures not deemed worthy of reason. Towns, then, arose among men along with many arts and a legal system; and forms of government, and magistracies, and human authorities, whether those which are properly so called because they secure good habits and |120 activities, or those less properly so named, according as the former are imitated as far as possible; for it was by contemplating these habits and activities that legislators succeeded in establishing the best forms of government, magistracies, and authorities. But nothing like this can be found among the irrational creatures, though Celsus may transfer to ants and bees the names derived from reason, and institutions based on reason, "town," "government," "magistracies," "authorities." Even so we must not receive ⁴⁰² ants or bees, for they do not reason when they thus act; but we must admire the Divine nature, extending as it does to irrational creatures what I may call the imitation of the rational, perhaps to put rational creatures to the blush; so that when they look at the ants, they may become more diligent and may husband their own blessings better; and when they observe the bees, they may obey their authorities, and may take their share in such duties of government as tend to promote the welfare of the citizens.

9. Perhaps the so-called "wars" of bees are intended as a lesson in just and regular warfare among men, if the necessity should arise. And bees have no "towns" and "suburbs"; but their hives and hexagonal cells, their works, and their division of labour, are for the sake of men, who require honey for many purposes, for the healing of their bodies and for wholesome food. And we must not compare the treatment of the drones by the bees to the courts for prosecuting the idlers and bad characters in our towns, and to the punishments inflicted on them. But, as I said before, while we must admire the nature of the bees in these respects, we must allow that man is able to consider the details of everything, and to arrange everything, for he co-operates with Providence, and not only accomplishes the works of God's Providence, but also those of his own foresight.

10. After speaking of bees, so that as far as possible he may disparage the towns, forms of government, magistracies, authorities, and patriotic warfare, not only of us Christians but of mankind generally, Celsus proceeds to |121 introduce an elaborate eulogy of ants, in order that by thus eulogising the ants he may upset the superiority of man in the management of his food supplies, and show his contempt for the provision which man makes for his winter quarters, as being nothing more than the irrational foresight of the ants where Celsus thinks they show it. Would not Celsus, so far as it depends upon him, turn any one of the simpler sort, and such as are not qualified to look into things all round, from helping a heavily-laden fellow-man, and from sharing his toil, by telling us that the ants when they see a fellow-ant labouring with a load help him to carry it? He who needs the instruction of the Word, and does not by any means give ear to it, will say, "It seems we are no better than the ants even when we help those who are weary with their heavy burdens; why go on doing so to no purpose?" Ants, indeed, since they are irrational creatures, would not be puffed up with pride because their works were compared to those of men; but men being able to learn through reason how their social life is belittled, might, if it depended on Celsus and his arguments, suffer injury; for Celsus does not see that in wishing to turn his readers from Christianity, he is also diverting the sympathy of those who are not Christians from the most heavily laden of his fellow-men. If he were a public-spirited philosopher, he ought not only to refrain from destroying at the same time both Christianity and the beneficent practices of human life, but he should, if possible, support the excellence which Christianity has in common with the rest of mankind. Supposing, however, that the ants do tear off the shoots of the corn they have in store, to prevent its swelling, so that it may last through the year for food, we must not imagine that this is the result of reasoning in ants, but must rather believe that Nature, mother of all things, has so constituted even irrational creatures as not to leave even the least without some trace of Nature's reason. It cannot be that Celsus----in a moment of forgetfulness, for in many things he likes to follow Plato----wishes to indicate that all souls are of |122 the same kind, and that the soul of man no way differs from that of ants and bees; that would be not only to bring down the soul from the vaults of heaven to the human body, but also to everything else. Christians will not assent to these views, for they have already grasped the truth that man's soul was made in the image of God; and they see that it is impossible for a nature created in the image of God to altogether obliterate its characteristics, and take others, copies of I know not what, in irrational creatures.

11. And since Celsus says also that "when ants die the survivors choose a burial ground, and that there they have their family memorials," I must answer that the more he praises the irrational creatures, so much the more, in spite of himself, he exalts the work of that reason which ordered ⁴⁰³ all things, and shows the cleverness of man, which is able by reason to order the natural advantages of the irrational creatures. Why do I say "irrational," seeing that Celsus thinks that the creatures so named by the general consent of mankind are not irrational? Nor does he who promised to discuss the whole range of nature, and boasted of his truthfulness in the title of his book, think that ants, at all events, are without reason. For he speaks of ants talking to one another, and makes the following remarks: "It really is a fact that when they meet they talk to one another, and this is why they never miss their way; so then they have a full measure of reason, and some general notions, and a voice, know what accidents are, and express what they mean." It is indeed true that when two persons talk to one another they use a voice which expresses some meaning, and frequently describes what are called "accidents"; but would it not be very ridiculous to say we find that sort of thing in ants?

12. And he is not ashamed to add (that he may fully show the indecency of his opinions to those who shall come |123 after him), "Come! if one were to look down from heaven upon the earth, what difference would there seem to be between the doings of us men and those of ants and bees?" Now picture a spectator looking down from heaven, as Celsus supposes, and seeing the doings of men and ants: does he look upon the bodies of men and ants, and not perceive that in men the ruling principle is rational and set in action by reasoning power, and that, on the contrary, in ants the ruling principle is irrational, set in action without the help of reason, by impulse and fancy, along with some secret contrivance of nature? But it is absurd to suppose that any one who saw from heaven what is done upon earth should wish to look upon the bodies of men and ants from such a distance, and not be much more desirous to see the nature of the ruling principles and the source of impulses, whether rational or irrational. And if he once sees the source of all impulses, he will of course see also the difference, and the superiority of man not only to ants but also to elephants. For the spectator from heaven will discover in the irrational creatures, whatever their size, no other principle than, if I may so call it, irrationality; while in the rational creatures he will see reason, the common property of all men, and of beings heavenly and Divine, and perhaps also of the Supreme God Himself; and it is on account of reason that man is said to have been made in the image of God, for reason is the image of the Supreme God Himself. ⁴⁰⁴

13. Next, as if he were doing his utmost to degrade the human race and make it resemble irrational natures, and as if he were reluctant to give up anything at all related of irrational creatures which shows their dignity, he says that some of them have magical powers as well as men; so that not even in this respect can men claim special distinction, or dream of having superiority over the brute creation. This is what he tells us: "If men pique themselves on magic, the fact is that serpents and eagles are wiser than men in this respect |124 also; they, at all events, are acquainted with many antidotes and means of averting mischief, and specially with the virtue of certain stones in saving their nestlings; when men come upon these stones they think they have got hold of something wonderful." Now, in the first place, I cannot understand how he applies the name "magic" to the, shall we say? experience, or kind of instinct the animals have in using the antidotes which nature provides, for the name has another familiar application; it may be that he forgets himself, and, like a true Epicurean, wishes to disparage the use of such arts altogether because it belongs to the profession of magic. However, let us grant that men do pride themselves on their knowledge of these things, whether they are magicians or not. Does it follow that serpents are wiser on this showing than men, because they use fennel to clear their sight and quicken their movements, the truth being that they take this natural remedy not because they calculate (the effect), but because they are so constituted? Men do not arrive at such methods, like serpents, through the mere promptings of nature, but partly by experiment, partly by reason, and sometimes by calculation and by following the rules of science. Even supposing that eagles do find and carry to the nest what is called the "eagle stone" to keep their nestlings safe, does it follow that eagles are wise, or wiser than men, who because they have the faculty of reason, discover by experiment what is given to the eagles as a natural remedy, and use it intelligently? Suppose that other antidotes come to be known by the animals, is this any proof that in them it is not nature but reason that makes the discovery? If reason made the discovery, there would not have been one discovery, or two or three, confined to snakes, and something different among eagles, and so on with the other creatures; the discoveries would have been as numerous as they are among men. But the fact that the remedies are exclusively adapted to the particular nature of each animal, shows that the animals have not wisdom or |125 reason, but that for their good they are naturally disposed to such remedies through the creative power of the Divine reason.⁴⁰⁵

14. If, indeed, I wished to join issue with Celsus on these lines, I might quote the words of Solomon in the Proverbs: "There be four things which be little upon the earth, but they are exceedingly wise: the ants are a people not strong, yet they provide their meat in the summer; the conies are but a feeble folk, yet make they their houses in the rocks; the locusts have no king, yet go they forth all of them by bands at one word of command; the lizard taketh hold with her hands, and though easily taken, yet is she in the strongholds of kings." ⁴⁰⁶ But the words are not clear, and I therefore do not avail myself of them; in accordance with the title of the book (it is called "Proverbs ") I regard them as "dark sayings" and look for the meaning. For the inspired writers are wont to distinguish the many ways of conveying a deeper meaning than the literal, and one of them is the Proverb. Hence it is that even in our Gospels our Saviour is reported to have said, "These things have I spoken unto you in proverbs: the hour cometh when I shall no more speak unto you in proverbs." ⁴⁰⁷ Now it is not the ants we see that are wiser than the wise, but the ants proverbially indicated. And we say the same of the other animals. But Celsus thinks the books of Jesus and Christians are very simple common-place productions, and he supposes that they who treat them allegorically do violence to the meaning of the writers. Let this suffice to show how futile it is for Celsus to slander us; and let it be the reputation of his argument to prove that snakes and eagles are wiser than men.

15. And wishing to show at still greater length that even man's conceptions of God are no more remarkable than the mortal side of his nature, but that some of the irrational creatures have thoughts of God, concerning Whom the acutest thinkers everywhere, Greek and |126 Barbarian, have entertained such discordant opinions, he says, "If man because he has got hold of some Divine thoughts is supposed to surpass other animals, let me remind those who are of this opinion that many other animals will put in a claim to the same thing; and with very good reason; for what is more Divine than to foreknow and foreshow the future? Well, men learn the art from other animals, and specially from birds; and as many as profess to know what they point out are Soothsayers. Now, if birds, or any other oracular creatures gifted by God with foreknowledge, teach us by signs, it seems that they have naturally a closer intercourse with God, and are wiser than men and dearer to God. And intelligent men tell us that the birds have their assemblies, obviously more sacred than ours; and, further, that somehow or other they discover what the birds say, and that they give real proof of the discovery whenever they previously declare what the birds said, viz. that the birds would go away to some place and do this and that, and then show that the birds did go there and do what they foretold. And as for elephants, nothing could surpass their fidelity to oaths or be truer to Divine things, just because, I suppose, they have some knowledge of God." Now, here observe how often he begs the question, and takes for granted what is still speculative matter, the fact being that both Greeks and Barbarians have either discovered, or learned from certain demons, the ways of birds and other creatures, from which they are said to derive their powers of divination. In the first place, it is open to question whether there is any such art of augury, and, in general, any basis for divination by means of animals, or not. Secondly, among those who admit that there is an art of divination through birds, it is not agreed as to why the divination takes that form; for some say that it is from demons or gods of divination that the animals receive their impulses, the birds to different flights and cries, the other animals to such and such movements; while others hold that the souls of these animals are more |127 divine than others, and are adapted to the purpose; which is most improbable.

16. If Celsus wished to prove by the foregoing that the irrational creatures have a Divine nature and are wiser than man, he ought to have fully shown that there is such an art as divination; then, he should have more clearly shown how it can be defended; then have given clear grounds for rejecting the arguments of those who would do away with such arts; and, lastly, should have decisively upset the arguments of those who say that it is from demons or gods the animals derive their divination impulses. Then would be the time for dealing with the question, whether the soul of irrational creatures is more Divine than that of men. If he had thus shown a philosophic spirit in treating such important matters, we would have withstood his plausible assertions to the best of our power; we would have upset his statement that the irrational creatures are wiser than men, and we would have proved how false it is that they have more sacred conceptions of God than we have, and that they hold certain sacred assemblies.⁴⁰⁸ But, as things are, the man who reproaches us with believing in the Supreme God expects us to believe that the souls of birds have more divine and clearer conceptions than men. If this be indeed true, birds have clearer conceptions of God than Celsus has, and no wonder if they surpass Celsus who so belittles man. Celsus certainly does his best to make it look as though the birds have greater and diviner conceptions, I do not say than we Christians have, or the Jews, who use the same Scriptures as ourselves, but than even the Greeks had, who treated of God and the Divine nature, for they were men. So, according to Celsus, the race of divining birds, forsooth, understand the nature of God better than Pherecydes,⁴⁰⁹ and Pythagoras, and Socrates, and Plato. And it seems that we must go and be taught by the birds, in order that, as, according to Celsus, they teach us by |128 means of divination what is going to happen, so they may also rid men of their doubts respecting the Divine Being, by passing on the clear conception of Him to which they have attained. It follows that Celsus, holding as he does that birds are superior to men, should go to the birds for instruction, and not to one of those distinguished Greek philosophers.

17. But we must add a few remarks, out of many, in answer to the foregoing, for we wish to utterly refute the false opinions of Celsus and prove his ingratitude to his Maker; for Celsus, being a man, and being in honour, understandeth not;⁴¹⁰ wherefore, he is not even like the birds and other irrational creatures which he considers to have the gift of divination; but yielding them the preeminence, he goes further than the Egyptians, who worship the irrational creatures as gods, and places himself, and, so far as he can, the whole human race, beneath the irrational creatures, for he believes that men have lower and meaner conceptions of God. Let our inquiry, then, be chiefly directed to the point whether there really is, or is not, an art of divination by birds, and the other animals believed to be "divining," for both ways the argument is to be treated with respect; on the one hand, it presses us not to accept any such thing as divination, lest the rational creatures should forsake the oracles of demons and resort to birds; on the other hand, it brings much clear evidence to show that many people have been preserved from the greatest dangers because they believed in divination by birds. For our present purpose let us allow that augury is a reality: my object is to show any persons who are prepossessed in its favour, that even if this is conceded, the superiority of man over the irrational creatures, and over the very creatures with powers of divination, is incomparably great. Let me then say that even though there were in them a Divine nature capable of predicting the future, and so passing rich, that out of its superfluity it could disclose the future to any man who |129 wished to know it, we must suppose that these creatures would much sooner know their own affairs. But if they knew their own affairs they would have taken care not to fly to any place where men set snares and nets to catch them, or archers make them a target and shoot them on the wing. And certainly, if eagles knew beforehand the designs upon their young ones, whether of serpents climbing to them and killing them, or of men trying to take them either for sport or to serve some other purpose, they would not have made their nests where they were likely to be exposed to these attacks; and, in general, not a single living creature could ever have been captured by men, inasmuch as it was more Divine and wiser than men.

18. Moreover, if birds of omen converse with one another;⁴¹¹ if, as Celsus says, the divining birds and the other irrational creatures having a Divine nature and conceptions of God, and having the knowledge of the future, disclosed this knowledge to others, the sparrow in Homer would not have made her nest where the serpent would destroy her and her little ones; and the serpent would not, as the same poet relates, have failed to guard itself against being caught by the eagle. Homer, that marvellous poet, thus tells the story of the sparrow----

"Behold a wonder! by Olympian Jove

Sent forth to light, a snake, with blood-red back,

Of aspect fearful, issuing from beneath

The altars, glided to the plane-tree straight.

There on the topmost bough, beneath the leaves

Cowering, a sparrow's callow nestlings lay;

Eight fledglings, and the parent bird the ninth.

All the eight nestlings, uttering piercing cries,

The snake devoured; and as the mother flew,

Lamenting o'er her offspring, round and round,

Uncoiling, caught her, shrieking, by the wing!

Then, when the sparrow's nestlings and herself

The snake had swallowed, by the God, who first

Sent him to light, a miracle was wrought:

For Jove, the deep-designing Saturn's son,

Turned him to stone; we stood, and wondering gazed."⁴¹² |130

Respecting the eagle he says----

"A soaring eagle in his talons bore

A dragon, huge of size, of blood-red line,

Alive, and breathing still, nor yet subdued;

For, twisting backward, through the breast he pierced

His bearer, near the neck; he, stung with pain,

Let fall his prey, which dropped amid the crowd;

Then screaming, on the blast was borne away.

The Trojans, shuddering, in their midst beheld

The spotted serpent, dire portent of Jove." ⁴¹³

Shall we say that the eagle was a divining bird, but that the serpent, though the augurs make use of the creature, had not the gift of divination? The arbitrary distinction is easily refuted, and is not the supposition that both had the gift easily disproved? Would not the serpent, if he had possessed divining power, have taken care that the eagle did not treat him so? One might produce countless other instances to show that the animals have not in themselves a divining soul. But, as the poet says, and most men agree, "Olympian Jove himself sent him to the light"; ⁴¹⁴ and if Apollo also uses a hawk as his messenger, something symbolical is intended, for a falcon is said to be Apollo's swift messenger.⁴¹⁵

19. Our view is that certain worthless demons (Titans or Giants, if I may say so), having sinned against the true God and the angels in heaven, and, having fallen from heaven, wallow in the grosser bodily existences and the unclean things of earth; they have some insight into the future, and inasmuch as they are not encumbered with earthly bodies, and are set on that sort of thing (for they desire to seduce the human race from their allegiance to the real God), they conceal themselves in the more rapacious and savage beasts, and others of a craftier kind, and make them at any time do what they choose; or they turn the fancies of such creatures to such and such nights and movements; so that men, caught in the snare of that divining power which is in the irrational creatures, may |131 not seek Him Who embraceth all, nor try to discover the pure form of worship, but may sink by their speculations to the level of the birds and serpents upon earth, and still lower to foxes and wolves. For it has been observed by the experts that the clearest indications of the future are given through such creatures as these; it may be because the demons cannot so fully "possess" the gentler animals as they can the wild ones, which they closely resemble in wickedness, though the wickedness is not really wickedness in such animals.

20. And nothing in Moses appears to me more marvellous than what I am about to mention. Because he understands the different natures of animals, and has either learnt from God the facts about them and the demons which have affinity with each, or has by exercising his own wisdom made the discovery, all the animals which he classifies as unclean are those considered by the Egyptians and the rest of mankind to be connected with divination, while those not so connected are, generally speaking, clean animals. Amongst the unclean Moses places the wolf, the fox, the serpent, the eagle, the hawk, and such-like.⁴¹⁶ And, speaking generally, you will find, not only in the Law but in the Prophets, that these animals are taken to represent the worst qualities, while there is no instance of a wolf or a fox being mentioned in connection with anything good. There seems to be, then, a fellowship between such kind of demons and each kind of animals. And as among men some are stronger than others, and not at all on account of their moral character: so some demons in things indifferent may be stronger than others; and some of them may use certain animals to deceive men, according to the pleasure of him who in the words of our Scriptures is called "the prince of this world";⁴¹⁷ and different ones may show the future by means of another kind of animal. And observe that the demons are so filthy that even weasels are seized by them for revealing the future. Now judge for yourself which |132 is the best view to take, that God over All, and His Son, impel the birds and other creatures for divination, or that they who give the impulse to such animals, and not to men, though men are present, are worthless, and, as our sacred Scriptures call them, "unclean" demons.

21. But if the soul of birds is really Divine because the future is foretold by means of them, must we not much more admit that wherever omens are received by men, the soul of the medium through which the omens are heard is Divine? According to such teachers as these, we must believe that the slave in Homer who ground the corn was "divine"; for, speaking of the suitors, she said----

"Would that they might eat their last meal here!" ⁴¹⁸

She was "divine": the great Ulysses, the friend of Homer's Athene, was not "divine," but understanding the omens given by the "divine" slave he rejoiced; in the words of the poet, "The noble Ulysses rejoiced at the omen." ⁴¹⁹ Again, observe that if the birds really have a Divine soul and perceptions of God, or, as Celsus says, "the gods," when we men sneeze, we sneeze, of course, because we have a certain divinity and divining faculty of soul. For many testify to this; and the poet accordingly says----

"Telemachus sneezed as the prayer was offered." ⁴²⁰

Wherefore, also, Penelope says----

"Do you not see that my son sneezed as you spoke?"

22. The true God, however, in imparting a knowledge of the future employs neither irrational creatures nor ordinary men, but the holiest and purest souls of men, such as He inspires with prophetic power. And this explains why amongst the other wonderful precepts of the law of Moses we must place such prohibitions as "Ye shall not practise augury, nor observe birds." ⁴²¹ And in another place, "For the nations, which the Lord thy |133 God shall destroy from before thy face, will hearken to omens and divinations; but the Lord thy God gave not so unto thee." ⁴²² And elsewhere, "The Lord thy God will raise up unto thee a prophet from among thy brethren." ⁴²³ On one occasion God wished by means of an augur to turn His people from the practice of augury, and therefore caused a spirit in the augur to say, "Surely there is no augury with Jacob, nor is there divination with Israel; at the due season shall it be told to Jacob and to Israel, what God will perform." ⁴²⁴ Just because we are acquainted with these and similar passages, we wish to observe the mystical command, "Keep thy heart with all diligence," ⁴²⁵ lest some demon usurp the throne of reason, or some hostile spirit turn our imagination to follow his desires. And we pray that "the light of the knowledge of the glory of God" ⁴²⁶ may shine in our hearts, the Spirit of God dwelling in our imagination and impressing on us the things of God; "for as many as are led by the Spirit of God, they are the sons of God." ⁴²⁷

23. And we ought to know that the knowledge of the future is not necessarily Divine: for in itself it is a thing indifferent, and is found among both bad and good men. Physicians, at all events, by their medical knowledge know certain things beforehand, though they may be men of bad character; and so, also, shipmasters, though they may be rascals, know the signs of the weather, tempestuous winds, and atmospheric changes, through their peculiar experience and observation. I suppose no one will say that because they have this knowledge they are "divine," no matter what rascals they are. So then, when Celsus says, "What can be pronounced more Divine than to foreknow and foreshow the future?" he implies what is false. It is also false that "many of the animals have claims to Divine conceptions," for no irrational creature has a conception of God. It is also false that "the irrational creatures have |134 a closer intimacy with God"; for the fact is that bad men, however high their attainments, are far from intimacy with God. We maintain that only the truly wise and the sincerely godly approach at all near to intimacy with God: such men as our Prophets and Moses, to whom on account of the great purity of his character the Word has borne witness, saying, "Moses alone shall draw near to God, the rest shall not draw nigh." ⁴²⁸ Is it not impiety for the man who accuses us of impiety, to say that "the irrational creatures are not only wiser than man, but are also dearer to God?" And who would not shrink from heeding a man who says that the serpent, the fox, the wolf, the eagle, and the hawk are dearer to God than human kind? He will have to admit that if these creatures are dearer to God than men, these same creatures are obviously dearer to God than Socrates, and Plato, and Pythagoras, and Pherecydes, and the other exponents of God and the Divine nature, whose praises he sang not long before. One might really offer up a prayer for Celsus, and say, "If these creatures are dearer to God than men, may you be as dear to God as they are, and may you come to resemble those creatures which, according to you, are dearer to God than men!" And let him not suppose that such a prayer is really an imprecation; for who would not pray that he may become altogether such as they who, he is persuaded, are dearer to God than others, so that he, like them, may become dear to God?

24. And wishing to show that the assemblies of the irrational creatures are more sacred than ours, Celsus ascribes what he relates, not to ordinary mortals, but to "intelligent" men; though in truth only the good are intelligent, for no bad man is intelligent. Well, he speaks after this fashion: "Intelligent men say that the creatures have their assemblies, obviously more sacred than ours; and that they somehow discover what is said and show that they actually have the knowledge, inasmuch as they announce beforehand that the birds said they would go |135 away and do this or that, and then show that they did go away and do what they had already foretold." In reality, no "intelligent" person tells such stories, and no wise man says that the assemblies of the irrational creatures are more sacred than those of men. If, however, for the sake of testing the statements of Celsus, we examine what they lead to, it appears, according to him, that the assemblies of the irrational creatures are more sacred than those of the venerable Pherecydes, Pythagoras, Socrates, and Plato, and the Philosophers in general, which, on the face of it, is not only unseemly, but most absurd. But if we are to believe that certain men, who have derived their information from the inarticulate cry of the birds, announce beforehand that the birds will go to some place and do this or that, we shall maintain that the information has been given to men by demons through certain signs, for the purpose of men being deceived by demons, and their understanding dragged down from heaven and from God to earth and places lower still.

25. I do not know how Celsus came to hear tell of an oath being taken by elephants, and that they show more fidelity towards the Divine Being than we men, and that they have a knowledge of God. I know a good many marvellous stories about the animal and its docility, but I am not aware that any one has spoken of an elephant's oaths, unless, perhaps, Celsus calls their docility and the sort of covenant they make once for all with men, the keeping of an oath; but that again is absurd. There are instances, though rare, of elephants, after seeming to be tamed, fiercely attacking men and killing them, and of their being therefore condemned to death as of no further use. And. to prove his point, as he thinks, that the stork has more piety than men, our opponent adduces what is related about its loving and cherishing its parents and bringing them food. I must therefore add that even this conduct of the storks does not proceed from a regard to what is right, nor from reasoning, but from nature, it |136 being nature's aim in fashioning them, to set an example in irrational creatures strong enough to shame men into showing gratitude to their parents. If Celsus had known the vast difference between doing these things with the aid of reason and doing them without the aid of reason, and by the mere impulses of nature, he would never have said that storks have more piety than men. Further, as if determined to uphold the piety of irrational creatures, Celsus adduces the fable of the Arabian creature, the Phoenix, which is said to visit Egypt at long intervals, and to bring its father, dead and buried in a globe of myrrh, and deposit the remains at the temple of the Sun. Now, even supposing what is here related to be true, it may be the result of natural processes; for Divine Providence has even in the different constitutions of living creatures given proof to man of the rich variety to be found in the ordering of the world, a variety extending even to the birds; and it brought into being a unique creature, not that men might marvel at the creature, but at its Creator.

26. To all this Celsus adds the following: "Just as all things have not been made for the sake of lion, eagle, or dolphin, so neither have they for the sake of man; but the aim was that this world, as God's work, might be a complete and perfect unity;⁴²⁹ and this is why all the parts have been proportioned, not to one another, except in a secondary sense, but to the whole, and God cares for the whole; and Providence never forsakes it, nor does it degenerate, nor does God in process of time turn it again to Himself, nor is He angry on account of men any more than on account of apes or flies; nor does He threaten these creatures, each of which has in its turn received its appointed lot." Let us, if only briefly, meet these allegations. I suppose I have already said enough to show how everything has been made for man, and for every rational creature; for it is chiefly on account of the rational creature that everything has been created. Celsus may tell us that the world exists no |137 more for man than it does for the lion, or the other creatures which he mentions; hut we shall maintain that the Creator has made these things not for the lion, the eagle, or the dolphin, but all things for the sake of the rational creature; and this is so, in the words of Celsus, "in order that this world may be, as God's work, a complete and perfect unity"; for we must acknowledge the good sense of this. But God's care is not merely universal, as Celsus thinks, but while He cares for the whole, He has a special care for every rational creature. And a general Providence will never fail; for it is His plan, even though there be a general deterioration because of the sinning rational portion, to purify all creation, and in process of time to turn it back to Himself. It is true that God is never angry on account of apes and flies; but inasmuch as men have transgressed the promptings of nature,⁴³⁰ He brings upon them judgment and chastisement, and threatens them through the Prophets and the Saviour Who came to save the whole human race; that through His threatening they who hear may be turned, and they who neglect the words intended to turn them may fitly pay the penalty which it is proper that God should, according to His own will, and as is expedient for the whole, inflict on those who need such painful treatment and correction. But our fourth book is now large enough, and we will therefore here end the discourse. God grant through His Son, Who is God the Word, and Wisdom, and Truth, and Righteousness, and whatsoever else the sacred Scriptures say of His Divinity, that we may begin the fifth volume to the profit of our readers, and finish it well, with the help of His Word abiding in our soul!

CHAP. XXI. ----Of Free Will, with an explanation and interpretation of those sayings of Scripture which seem to destroy it; such as the following:----

a. "The Lord hardened the heart of Pharaoh."

b. "I will take away their stony hearts, and will give |138 them hearts of flesh, that they may walk in my statutes and keep mine ordinances."

c. "That seeing they may not see, and hearing they may hear and not understand, lest haply they should turn again, and it should be forgiven them."

d. "It is not of him that willeth, nor of him that runneth, but of God that hath mercy."

e. "It is of God both to will and to do"

f."So then he hath mercy on whom he will, and whom he will he hardeneth."

1. Since the doctrine of a righteous judgment of God forms part of ⁴³¹ the preaching of the Church, and that doctrine if believed to be true stimulates the hearers, of course consenting that praiseworthy or blameworthy conduct is in our own power, to live good lives and by all means to avoid sin, come let us briefly discuss a few points connected with Free Will, for the subject is of the utmost importance. And that we may understand what Free Will is, I must unfold the meaning of it, so that when this is cleared up the question may be accurately stated. Now of things that move, some have the cause of motion in themselves, while those of a different kind are moved only from without. To this latter class belong portable things only, for example, wood and stones, and all matter which is held together by its constitution only.⁴³² And on this occasion we will not apply the term "motion" to the flux of bodies, for it is not necessary for our purpose. But animals, plants, and generally whatever is held together by a natural soul,⁴³³ including metals, as some say, have the cause of motion in themselves. Besides these, fire is self-moved, and so perhaps are fountains. And of |139 things which have the cause of motion in themselves, some are said to be moved of ⁴³⁴ themselves, others by themselves; lifeless things of themselves, living things by themselves. And the living things are moved by themselves when there arises within them a phantasy, that is, a desire or feeling,⁴³⁵ which calls forth an instinct. And, again, in certain of the living creatures the phantastic nature not only calls forth an instinct, but does so regularly; for instance, in the spider a "phantasy" of weaving arises and the instinct to weave follows, its phantastic nature regularly urging it to do so, the creature having been entrusted with nothing more than its phantastic nature; and in the bee the instinct is to make cells of wax.

2. The rational creature, however, in addition to its phantastic nature has reason, which distinguishes between the phantasies, rejecting some, approving others, so that the creature may be guided accordingly. Now it is the nature of reason to have promptings to the contemplation of virtue and vice; and if, yielding to these promptings, we choose the former and shun the latter, we deserve praise for devoting ourselves to the practice of virtue, or blame if we take the opposite course. We must not, however, fail to remark that, though for the most part ⁴³⁶ the nature of animals is adapted to all their needs, it is so in varying degrees, sometimes more, sometimes less; so that hounds in hunting and horses in war are not, if I may say so, far from the rational creature. Now, whether something external shall chance to excite this or that phantasy in us, confessedly does not rest with us; but it is for reason and nothing else to decide whether we shall use what has happened in a particular way or otherwise, reason either urging us, according to its promptings, to follow our better and nobler instincts, or misleading us so that we do the reverse.|140

3. If any one says that the outward world is so constituted that one cannot resist it, let him study his own feelings and movements, and see whether there are not some plausible motives to account for his approval and assent, and the inclination of his reason to a particular object. To take an illustration, suppose a man to have made up his mind to exercise self-control and refrain from sexual intercourse, and then let a woman come upon the scene and solicit him to act contrary to his resolution; she is not cause sufficient to make him break his resolution. It is just because he likes the luxury and softness of the pleasure, and is unwilling to resist it, or stand firm in his determination, that he indulges in the licentious practice. On the contrary, the same thing may happen to a man of greater knowledge and better disciplined; he will not escape the sensations and incitements; but his reason, inasmuch as it is strengthened and nourished by exercise, and has firm convictions on the side of virtue, or is near to having them, stops the excitements short and gradually weakens the lust.

4. Now, when the facts stand thus, to excuse ourselves by putting the blame on outward things, declaring ourselves to be like wood and stone drawn hither and thither by the outward things that move them, is neither truth nor candour, and no one but a man who wishes to give a false conception of Free Will would make such a statement. For if we were to ask him what Free Will is, he would say that my will is free when I purpose to do something, and nothing from without opposes and incites to the contrary. And again, on the other hand, to blame our mere natural constitution ⁴³⁷ is absurd; for reason takes and teaches the most licentious and savage men, if they will but follow her exhortation, and changes them, so that the exhortation is very efficacious, and the change for the better very great; and the most licentious men frequently surpass in goodness those who do not at first seem likely to be licentious by nature, while the most savage men change |141 and become so gentle, that men who were never so savage as they, seem savage in comparison with some individual who has adopted gentler ways. On the other hand, we see men of a different type, men of the utmost steadiness and gravity,⁴³⁸ turning aside to low amusements, and thus stripped of their steadiness and gravity; so that they change to licentiousness, oftentimes beginning this licentiousness in middle life, and falling into disorderly ways after that, in the natural course of things, the unsteadiness of youth has passed away. Reason then shows that outward things are not in our own power, but that it is our business to make reason inquire and judge how we ought to meet any particular combination of circumstances, and turn it to account this way or the contrary.

5. That it is our business to lead a good life, and that God asks this of us, inasmuch as it does not depend on Him, and does not come from some different god, or, as some suppose, from fate, but is a matter for ourselves, the prophet Micah will testify, when he says, "Was it shewed thee, O man, what is good? What doth the Lord require of thee, but to do justice, and love mercy, and to be ready to walk with the Lord thy God?" ⁴³⁹ And Moses, "I have set before thee the way of life and the way of death. Choose the good, and walk therein." ⁴⁴⁰ And Esaias, "If ye be willing, and will hearken unto me, ye shall eat the good of the land; but if you refuse, and will not hearken unto me, the sword shall devour you: for the mouth of the Lord hath spoken it." ⁴⁴¹ And in the Psalms, "Oh that my people had hearkened unto me, and Israel had walked in my ways! I should soon have subdued their enemies, and turned my hand against those that oppress them":⁴⁴² which shows that it was in the power of the people to hearken and walk in the ways of God. And the Saviour says, "But I say unto you, Resist not him that is evil";⁴⁴³ and, "That every one who is angry |142 with his brother shall be in danger of the judgment";⁴⁴⁴ and, "Whosoever looketh on a woman to lust after her hath committed adultery with her already in his heart." ⁴⁴⁵ And if He gives any other commandments, He speaks on the supposition that it is in our power to keep what is enjoined; and with good reason, if we are to be in danger of the judgment for transgressing them. Whence also He says, "Every one which heareth these words of mine, and doeth them, shall be likened unto a wise man, which built his house upon the rock"; and so on. "But he that heareth and doeth not, is likened unto a foolish man, which built his house upon the sand";⁴⁴⁶ and so on. And, speaking to those on the right hand, "Come, ye blessed of my Father," and so forth; "for I was an hungered, and ye gave me meat; I was thirsty, and ye gave me drink";⁴⁴⁷ which shows very clearly that because they deserve to be praised He gives them the promises. And, on the contrary, He says to the others, because in comparison with them they deserved to be blamed, "Depart from me, ye cursed, into the eternal fire." ⁴⁴⁸ And let us see how Paul also discourses to us on the supposition that we have Free Will and are ourselves responsible for being lost or saved. "Or despisest thou," he says,⁴⁴⁹ "the riches of his goodness and forbearance and longsuffering, not knowing that the goodness of God leadeth thee to repentance? But after thy hardness and impenitent heart treasurest up for thyself wrath in the day of wrath and revelation of the righteous judgment of God; who will render to every man according to his works: to them that by patience in well-doing seek for glory and honour and incorruption, eternal life: but unto them that are factious, and obey not the truth, but obey unrighteousness, shall be wrath and indignation, tribulation and anguish, upon every soul of man that worketh evil, of the Jew first, and also of the Greek; but glory and honour and peace |143 to every man that worketh good, to the Jew first and also to the Greek." There are, indeed, countless passages in the Scriptures which very clearly support the doctrine of Free Will.

6. But since certain passages in the Old Testament and in the New tend to the opposite conclusion, viz. that it is not in our power to keep the commandments and be saved, or to transgress them and perish, let us in turn take some of these, and look at the explanations of them; so that a reader studying our examples may similarly pick out for himself all the passages which seem to destroy Free Will, and may consider the way to explain them. No doubt what is related of Pharaoh, concerning whom God says repeatedly, "I will harden Pharaoh's heart," ⁴⁵⁰ has troubled many. For if he is hardened by God, and sins because he is hardened, he does not cause himself to sin, nor, if this is so, is Pharaoh a free agent; and similarly, some one will say that the perishing are not free agents, and that their perishing will not be their own doing. Again, in Ezekiel it is said, "I will take away their stony hearts, and will give them hearts of flesh: that they may walk in my statutes, and keep mine ordinances." ⁴⁵¹ This is disturbing, for it seems to say that God gives the power to walk in the statutes and to keep the ordinances, inasmuch as He has taken away that which hinders, viz. the stony heart, and has put in them something better, the heart of flesh. Let us look, too, at the passage in the Gospel, where the Saviour replies to those who asked why He spoke to the multitude in parables. "That," He says, "seeing they may not perceive; and hearing they may not understand; lest haply they should turn again, and it should be forgiven them." ⁴⁵² Further, in Paul we find, "It is not of him that willeth, nor of him that runneth, but of God that hath mercy." ⁴⁵³ And elsewhere, "It is God that worketh in you both to will and to do." ⁴⁵⁴ And in another place, "So then |144 he hath mercy on whom he will, and whom he will he hardeneth. Thou wilt say then unto me, Why doth he still find fault? For who withstandeth his will?" ⁴⁵⁵ And "This persuasion ⁴⁵⁶ is of him that calleth and not of ourselves." ⁴⁵⁷ "Nay but, O man, who art thou that repliest against God? " ⁴⁵⁸ And again, "Shall the thing formed say to him that formed it, Why didst thou make me thus? Or hath not the potter a right over the clay, from the same lump to make one part a vessel unto honour, and another unto dishonour?" This in itself is surely enough to greatly trouble most readers, and give the impression that man is not a free agent, but that God saves and destroys whomsoever He wishes.

7. Let us begin, then, with what is said about Pharaoh's being hardened by God, so that he might not let the people go; and with this shall also be examined the apostolic statement, "So then he hath mercy on whom he will, and whom he will he hardeneth." ⁴⁵⁹ And since some heterodox thinkers use these passages, themselves almost destroying Free Will, for the sake of introducing perishing natures incapable of being saved, and different natures which are being saved, because they cannot possibly be lost; and since they say that Pharaoh being of a perishing nature was therefore hardened by God, Who hath mercy on the spiritual, but hardeneth the earthy; come, let us see what it is they mean. We will ask them if Pharaoh was of an earthy nature; and if they answer "Yes," we will tell them that the man with an earthy nature is altogether disobedient to God; and if he be thus disobedient, what need is there for hardening his heart, and this not once but many times? Unless perhaps (seeing that it was possible for him to obey, and he certainly would have obeyed, inasmuch as he was not earthy, because he was put to shame by the signs and wonders) God wanted him still more disobedient for the sake of showing forth mighty deeds to the saving of the |145 many, and therefore hardened his heart. This shall be our first argument against them in order to overthrow their assumption that Pharaoh was of a perishing nature. And we shall give the same answer respecting the Apostle's statement. Does God really harden any? Does He harden the perishing, because He believes that they will be partially obedient unless they are hardened? or, forsooth, those who would be saved, because they have not a perishing nature? And on whom hath He mercy? Is it on those who will be saved? But what need have they of a second mercy, seeing that once for all they have been so fashioned that they will be saved, and that they are certain to be blessed on account of their nature? Unless, perhaps, since it is possible for them to perish if they have not mercy shown them, they have mercy shown them, so that they may not incur destruction to which they are liable, but may come to be numbered with those who are being saved. This is our reply to those men.

8. But we must raise another question in reply to those who think they understand the word "harden." What do they mean by saying that God by His operation hardens the heart, and what is His object in so doing? Let them, at all events, keep to a conception of God consistent with His being really just and good. If they object to this, let us for the present waive the point, and only say just; and I invite them to show how the good and just God, or the just God, to say no more, manifests His justice by hardening the heart of a man who is perishing through being hardened; and how the just God can be the cause of a man's disobedience and destruction, seeing that men are punished by Him for their hardness and because they do not obey Him? And why does God also blame Pharaoh, saying, "Thou wilt not let my people go.⁴⁶⁰ Behold, I smite all the first-born in the land of Egypt, and thy first-born";⁴⁶¹ and whatever else is recorded as spoken by God to Pharaoh through the mouth of Moses. Any fair-minded man who believes that the Scriptures are |146 true, and that God is just, must do his best to show how in using such expressions God is clearly understood to be just; for if any one should have the effrontery to stand up and denounce the Creator for His wickedness,⁴⁶² we should want other arguments to answer him. But since our opponents say they are disposed to regard Him as just, and we regard Him as both just and good, let us consider how the good and just God could harden the heart of Pharaoh.

9. Let us see, then, whether an illustration which the Apostle used in the Epistle to the Hebrews will help us to show how by one operation God hath mercy on whom He will, and hardens whom He will; not that God intends to harden: God's purpose is merciful; but the hardening is a result thereof, through man's inherent wickedness, and God is therefore said to harden him that is hardened. "The land," he says, "which hath drunk the rain that cometh upon it, and bringeth forth herbs meet for them for whose sake it is also tilled, receiveth blessing from God: but if it beareth thorns and thistles, it is rejected and nigh unto a curse; whose end is to be burned." ⁴⁶³ So then, in respect of the rain there is one operation; but while there is one operation in respect of the rain, the land which is tilled bears fruit, and the land which is neglected and barren bears thorns. It would sound harsh for the sender of the rain to say, "I made the fruits and the thorns to grow that are in the land"; but however harsh it might sound, it would nevertheless be true. For if there had been no rain, there would have been neither fruits nor thorns; but because there were seasonable and moderate rains, both fruits and thorns grew. It is the land which hath drunk the rain that cometh frequently upon it, and beareth thorns and thistles, that is rejected and nigh unto a curse. So then, the blessing of the rain came also upon the inferior land; but it was the inherent badness of the land, left uncared for and uncultivated, which caused thorns and |147 thistles to grow. Similarly, God's marvellous doings are, as it were, the rain; but men's different purposes ⁴⁶⁴ are, as it were, the cultivation or neglect of the land; the nature of the land is one and the same.

10. Suppose the sun were to speak and say, "I melt and dry up." Melting and drying up are the contraries of one another, but it would not speak falsely, because of the subject matter:⁴⁶⁵ wax being melted, and clay dried up, by one and the same heat. Similarly, the one operation of God by means of Moses proved the hardening of Pharaoh on account of his evil disposition, and the obedience of the mixed multitudes of the Egyptians who went out with the Hebrews. And the brief statement that the heart of Pharaoh was somewhat softened, inasmuch as he said, "Only ye shall not go very far away: ye shall go a three days' journey, but leave your wives"; ⁴⁶⁶ and whatever else he said, slightly yielding to the marvellous deeds of Moses, shows that the signs produced some effect upon him, but not the full effect. Now there would not have been even this degree of softening, if, as is thought by the many, the meaning of "I will harden Pharaoh's heart" is that the hardening was effected by God Himself. And it is not absurd to tone down the harshness of such expressions as we do in common life. It often happens that kind masters say to their servants, who are being ruined by their kindness and forbearance, "I have spoiled you"; "I am to blame for such and such offences." We ought to attend to the nature and force of what is said, and not quibble because we do not plainly catch the meaning of the expression. Paul, at any rate, no doubt after careful inquiry, says to the sinner, "Or despisest thou the riches of his goodness and forbearance and long-suffering; not knowing that the goodness of God leadeth thee to repentance? ⁴⁶⁷ But, after thy hardness and impenitent heart, treasurest up for thyself wrath in the day of wrath and revelation |148 of the righteous judgment of God." Now, let us suppose that what the Apostle says to the sinner is addressed to Pharaoh, and we see how well the declaration would suit him; for after his hardness and impenitent heart he was treasuring up for himself wrath; and his hardness would not have been so clearly proved, nor have been so manifest, if the signs had not been wrought, or, if they had been wrought, but had not been so many and so great.

11. But since such interpretations are far from convincing and are thought to be forced, let us look at the word of Prophecy, and see what the many say who have experienced the abundant goodness of God though they may not have lived good lives, but afterwards sinned: "O Lord, why dost thou make us to err from thy way? Wherefore hardenest thou our heart that we fear not thy name? Return for thy servants' sake, the tribes of thine inheritance, that for a little while we may inherit thy holy mount." ⁴⁶⁸ And in Jeremiah, "O Lord, thou hast deceived me, and I was deceived: thou art stronger than I, and hast prevailed." ⁴⁶⁹ For when the suppliants for mercy say, "Wherefore hardenest thou our heart that we fear not thy name?",⁴⁷⁰ the meaning is, in effect, something like this: "Wherefore didst thou spare us so long, not visiting us to take vengeance on our sins, but leaving us alone until our offences became so great?" God leaves the greater number of men without chastisement, so that the character of each one may be thoroughly tested from our voluntary conduct, and that through the trial the good may be made manifest, and the rest, not without being known,----I will not say to God, for He knows all things before they begin,⁴⁷¹ ----but to the rational creatures and themselves, may afterwards light on a way of healing; for they would never have realised the benefit, if they had not condemned themselves; and this is expedient for every one, that he may perceive his own peculiar nature and the grace which God gives. But if a man does not perceive his own weakness and the |149 grace of God, though he be benefited without having had experience of himself and without having condemned himself, he will imagine that the blessing bestowed upon him by the grace of heaven is his own brave and manly conduct. And this supposition, filling him with pride, will be the cause of his downfall; as we think happened to the Devil, because he gave himself credit for the privileges which he enjoyed when he was blameless. "For every one that exalteth himself shall be humbled," and "Every one that humbleth himself shall be exalted." ⁴⁷² Consider, further, that for this cause the Divine mysteries are hidden from the wise and understanding,⁴⁷³ viz. that, as the Apostle says, "No flesh may glory before God"; and they are revealed to babes, who, when they have passed their infancy, have come to better things, and remember that if they have reached the height of blessedness, the credit is not so much due to themselves as to the unspeakable bounty of God.

12. So then, he that ⁴⁷⁴ is left without chastisement is so left by the Divine judgment, and God is long-suffering towards some sinners, not without reason, but because it will be good for them, having regard to the immortality of the soul and eternal life, that they be not too soon assisted in the attainment of salvation, but be slowly brought thereto after they have had experience of much evil. For as physicians, though they might quickly cure a man, will adopt the opposite of remedial measures whenever they suspect lurking mischief, because by so doing they mean to make the cure more permanent, and think it better to keep the patient for a long time in feverishness and sickness, so that he may make a sounder recovery, than that he should soon seem to pick up strength, but suffer a relapse, and the too hasty cure prove to be only temporary: so God also, knowing the secrets of the heart and having foreknowledge of the future, in His long-suffering perhaps lets things take their course, and by means of outward circumstances draws forth the secret evil, in order to |150 cleanse him, who through neglect, has harboured the seeds of sin; so that a man having vomited them when they have come to the surface, even if he be far gone in wickedness, may afterwards find strength when he has been cleansed from his wickness and been renewed. For God governs the souls of men, not, if I may so speak, according to the scale of an earthly life of fifty years, but by the measure of eternity; for He has made the intellectual nature incorruptible and akin to Himself; and the rational soul is not debarred of healing, as if this present life were all.

13. Now let us make use of the following illustration from the Gospel: There is a rock with a scanty surface soil; if the seeds fall into that soil, they quickly spring up, but when they have sprung up, once the sun is risen, they are scorched and wither away because they have no root.⁴⁷⁵ Now this rock is the soul of man, hardened through neglect, and through wickedness turned to stone; for no man's heart is created stony by God, but it becomes such through wickedness. Suppose one were to blame the husbandman for not sowing his seed on the rocky ground earlier, because some other rocky ground which had received the seed was seen to be flourishing; the husbandman might reply, "I will sow this land later when I have dressed ⁴⁷⁶ it with what will keep back ⁴⁷⁷ what I intend to sow; for the slower and safer method will suit this land better than it would the land which takes the seed sooner and more superficially"; we should give the husbandman credit for speaking reasonably and for understanding his work. So, too, the great Husbandman of every nature puts off the well-doing, which might too soon be reckoned such, in order that it may not be superficial. But some one may here object, "How is it that some of the seeds fall upon the soul which is like a rock with its thin covering of soil?" In reply, let us say that it is better for such a soul which has too hastily resolved on the higher life, and is not treading the path which leads to it, to get what it wishes, so |151 that, condemning itself for its impatience, it may have long patience hereafter to receive its natural cultivation. For our ⁴⁷⁸ souls, so to speak, are countless, and their characters countless, and their emotions, dispositions, purposes, and instincts innumerable; there is but One Who ordered them, and He the Best; He understandeth the seasons, and the proper helps, and the ways of guidance, and the paths, the God and Father of All, Who knoweth how He is guiding even Pharaoh through many experiences and through the drowning in the sea, though His ordering of Pharaoh's welfare does not end there. For Pharaoh was not destroyed when he was drowned. "In the hand of God are both we and our words: All wisdom also and knowledge of workmanship?" ⁴⁷⁹ So far, briefly, in defence of the statement that Pharaoh's heart was hardened, and in explanation of the words, "On whom he will he hath mercy, and whom he will he hardeneth." ⁴⁸⁰

14. Now, let us look at the passage from Ezekiel, "I will take away their stony hearts from them, and will give them hearts of flesh, that they may walk in my statutes and keep mine ordinances." ⁴⁸¹ If God when He wishes takes away their stony hearts and puts in them hearts of flesh, so that His ordinances are kept and His commandments observed, the putting away of wickedness does not depend upon ourselves. For the taking away of stony hearts can have but one meaning, viz., that from whom God chooses, the wickedness in which any man is hardened is put away; and as for the creating of a heart of flesh, that a man may walk in the ordinances of God and keep His commandments, what does this mean but that the man begins to yield, does not stubbornly withstand the truth, and has the power to practise virtue? And if God promises to do this, and until God takes away the stony hearts, we do not put them away, it is clear that the putting away of our wickedness does not depend upon ourselves; and if we contribute nothing towards the creation within us of the heart of flesh, |152 but it is the work of God, it follows that a virtuous life will not be our work, but altogether [the work of] Divine grace. This is what any one will say who from the bare words seeks to destroy Free Will. In reply we shall say that we ought thus to understand these passages. Suppose some one ignorant and uneducated to become conscious of his defects, either through the admonition of his teacher, or simply of himself, and then to put himself in the hands of a man whom he thinks capable of leading him into education and virtue; when he thus surrenders himself, his instructor promises to take away the lack of education and to give him an education; not, however, as though the educating and the escape from the want of it in no way depend on the pupil having offered himself for treatment: he only promises to benefit his pupil because he desires to improve. Thus the Divine Word promises to take away the wickedness, which it calls the stony heart, of those who come to it, not if they are unwilling, but if they submit themselves to the Physician of the sick; just as in the Gospels, the sick are found coming to the Saviour and begging to be healed and restored to health. We may say that if the blind received their sight, it was the doing of the sufferers, inasmuch as they believed they could be restored and begged the blessing, and that it was the Saviour's doing, inasmuch as He did restore their sight. So, also, the Word of God promises to implant knowledge in those who come to it, by taking away the stony and hard heart, that is to say, their wickedness, so that a man may walk in the Divine commandments and keep the Divine ordinances. 15. Then there was the passage from the Gospel, in which the Saviour said that His reason for speaking to those without in parables was, "That seeing they may not perceive, and hearing they may not understand, lest haply they should turn again, and it should be forgiven them." ⁴⁸² Our opponents will say, "If it is certainly the case that some hearers turn because they hear clearer teaching, and so turn that they become worthy of the forgiveness of sins, |153 and whether they hear the clearer teaching or not does not depend upon them but upon the teacher, and the reason why he does not speak to them more clearly is that they may not see and understand, their salvation does not depend upon themselves; and if this is so, we are not free agents as regards salvation and perdition." If it were not for the additional words, "Lest haply they should turn again, and it should be forgiven them," it would be a convincing reply to say that the Saviour did not wish those who were unlikely to become good and upright to understand the deeper, mystical truths, and He therefore spoke to them in parables; but, as it is, when we find the words, "Lest haply they should turn again, and it should be forgiven them," our defence is more difficult. In the first place, then, we must note the passage in connection with the heterodox, who hunt up such portions of the Old Testament, because in them, as they make bold to say, the cruelty of the Creator ⁴⁸³ shows itself, the spirit of revenge and retaliation which bad men display, or whatever they like to call it, their only object being to prove that there is no goodness in the Creator; and in reading the New Testament they do not accord it fair and equal treatment, but dismiss such passages as resemble those they think deserving of censure in the Old Testament. For the Saviour is clearly shown in the Gospel, and they themselves so take the above words, to have had this motive in not speaking plainly, viz. "That men may not turn, and having turned become worthy of remission of sins"----a passage which in itself rivals any like it from the Old Testament which are impugned. But if they seek a defence of the Gospel, we must ask them whether their inconsistent treatment of similar questions is not culpable, inasmuch as they take no offence at the New Testament but seek to defend it, while they attack the Old Testament for such-like things, though they ought to defend them like those from the New Testament. And let us hereby teach them on account of the resemblances to consider all |154 as the Scriptures of one God. Now let us offer the best defence we can in the matter before us.

16. When we were investigating the story of Pharaoh we said that sometimes a too rapid cure is not for the good of the patients; for if, having got themselves into trouble, they were to be relieved of their sufferings on easy terms, they would think little of the evil because it was soon cured, and through not being on their guard against falling into it would fall into it again. Wherefore, in such cases the Eternal God, Who knoweth the secret things and knoweth all things before they be,⁴⁸⁴ according to His goodness will not give the sufferers too speedy assistance, and, if I may so say, helps them by not helping them,⁴⁸⁵ because that is best for them. It is probable, then, that those "without," ⁴⁸⁶ of whom we are speaking, inasmuch as the Saviour saw, as we suppose, that they would not be steadfast in their conversion if they clearly heard what He said, were so treated by the Lord that they should not distinctly hear the deeper truths; lest haply, having turned too quickly, and having been healed by gaining forgiveness, they should despise the wounds of their wickedness as.trifling and easily cured, and again, even more quickly than before, suffer from them. Perhaps also, while paying the penalty for their former sins, offences against virtue which they committed through forsaking her, they had not filled the proper time; so that, being forsaken of the Divine superintendence, and having had enough of the evils which they themselves sowed, they are afterwards called to a more steadfast repentance, and will not speedily fall into the sins into which they fell before, because they mocked at the worth of goodness, and abandoned themselves to the lower life. Those, then, who are said to be "without," of course as compared with those "within," inasmuch as they are not very far distant from those within, these last being the inner circle who hear distinctly, hear indistinctly because they are addressed in parables, but they do hear. |155 Others, again, of those "without," they who are called the people of Tyre,⁴⁸⁷ although it was foreknown that they would long ago have repented, sitting in sackcloth and ashes, if the Saviour came near their borders, do not even hear what He said to those "without." ⁴⁸⁸ The reason probably is that these Tyrians were far less deserving than those "without"; and the Saviour intended that at another season, when it has become more tolerable for them than for those who did not receive the Word, and who reminded him of the Tyrians, they may hear under more favourable conditions, and may more steadfastly repent. And observe whether, as we prosecute the inquiry,⁴⁸⁹ we do not more and more strive to every way preserve piety towards God and His Christ, endeavouring, for we know how marvellous these things are, to defend by all means the manifold providence of God Who taketh thought for an immortal soul. If, indeed, any one should ask concerning those who were reproached by the Saviour, because, though they saw marvellous things and heard Divine words, they did not profit, while the Tyrians would have repented if such things had been said and clone among them: if he were to raise the question and ask, Why in the world did the Saviour preach to such people to their hurt, so that a heavier burden of sins might be imputed to them? we must reply that He Who understands the dispositions of those who blame His providence, and say that it explains their unbelief, because it has not granted them to see what it privileged others to behold, and has not arranged for them to hear what others have heard to their profit, He, inasmuch as He wishes to show the unreasonableness of their defence, grants those things for which the accusers of His government ask, so that after they have received them they may none the less be convicted of deep impiety, seeing that they do not surrender themselves that they may be profited, and may therefore cease from such audacity; and, being so far free, may learn that God sometimes lingers |156 and delays out of kindness to some men, not granting them to see and hear things which, if seen and heard, would convict them of still more grievous sin, forasmuch as after such mighty works they did not believe.

17. Now let us look at the words, "So then it is not of him that willeth, nor of him that runneth, but of God that hath mercy." ⁴⁹⁰ They who take hold of the passage say, "If it is not of him that willeth, nor of him that runneth, but of God that hath mercy," salvation does not depend upon ourselves, but upon the way ⁴⁹¹ they are constituted by Him Who makes them what they are, or on the choice ⁴⁹² of Him Who hath mercy when He pleases! We must ask the objectors this question: Is the willing that which is good a good or a bad thing? and the running of the man who wishes to reach the goal by zealously pursuing that which is good, is this deserving of praise or blame? If they tell us that it deserves blame, their answer will be absurd, for the saints will and run, and, of course, herein do nothing deserving blame. If they say that to will that which is good is good, and to run after that which is good is good, we will ask how the perishing nature wills the better course; for it is like a bad tree bearing good fruit, if willing the better course is really good. And, thirdly, they will say that to will that which is good and run after that which is good belongs to the class of things indifferent, and is neither good nor bad.⁴⁹³ In reply to this it must be said that if willing the good and running after the good is a thing indifferent, then its opposite is also a thing indifferent, that is to say, willing that which is evil and running after that which is evil. But, in fact, to will that which is evil and run after that which is evil, is not a thing indifferent. Therefore, to will that which is good and run after that which is good, is not a thing indifferent.

18. Some such defence as this, I think, we can offer to |157 the words, "So then it is not of him that willeth, nor of him that runneth, but of God that hath mercy." ⁴⁹⁴ In the Book of Psalms Solomon says (for he is the author of the Song of Ascents ⁴⁹⁵ which we are about to quote), "Except the Lord build the house, they labour in vain that build it: except the Lord keep the city, the watchman waketh but in vain." ⁴⁹⁶ He does not mean to dissuade us from building, nor is he teaching us not to watch so as to guard the city of our soul, but he is showing that what is built apart from God, and is not blessed with His guardianship, is built in vain and kept to no purpose, because God might reasonably have been called the Lord of the building, and the Master of the Universe, the Ruler of the guard of the city. Suppose, therefore, we were to say that such a building is not the work of the builder, but God's work; and that if the city has suffered nothing from its enemies, success is not to be attributed to the watchman, but to God over all, we should not err: for it is understood that man plays his part, though the manliness and virtue is thankfully ascribed to God Who brought it to perfection. Similarly, inasmuch as human willing is not sufficient for the attainment of the end in view, nor the running, as if we were athletes, sufficient for grasping the prize of the high calling of God in Christ Jesus,⁴⁹⁷ for these results are secured with God's assistance, it is well said that "It is not of him that willeth, nor of him that runneth, but of God that hath mercy." ⁴⁹⁸ The same might be said of husbandry, as it is written, "I planted, Apollos watered; but God gave the increase. So then neither is he that planteth anything, neither he that watereth; but God that giveth the increase";⁴⁹⁹ and if there are abundant fruits, we could not with piety say that this is the work of the husbandman, or the work of him that watereth, but the work of God; so also our perfecting is not brought about if we do nothing at all, though it is not completed by us, but God effects the greater part of it. And that what we |158 say may carry clear conviction, we will take an illustration from navigation. If we regard the winds that blow, the settled state of the weather, and the brightness of the stars, all contributing to the safety of those on board, how much could we credit seamanship with for bringing the vessel into harbour? The shipmasters themselves from motives of piety do not often venture to affirm that they have saved the ship, but ascribe everything to God; not as though they had done nothing, but because Providence has contributed to the result immensely more than their skill. And certainly in the saving of our souls what God gives is immensely more than what comes from our own ability;⁵⁰⁰ and this, I think, accounts for the words, "It is not of him that willeth, nor of him that runneth, but of God that hath mercy." For if we must take the words, "It is not of him that willeth, nor of him that runneth, but of God that hath mercy," as our opponents suppose, the commandments are superfluous, and Paul to no purpose blames some for having fallen into sin, and congratulates others on their uprightness, and lays down laws for the churches; and on their showing it is useless for us to devotedly will the better life, useless to earnestly resolve to run. But not in vain does Paul give his advice, blaming some, congratulating others; and not in vain do we devotedly will the better life and press on to things which excel. So, then, they have not well understood the passage.

19. Besides these there is the passage, "It is God which worketh in you both to will and to work." ⁵⁰¹ Some say, "If the willing comes from God, and the working from God, even if we will badly and work badly, God is the original source of our so doing; and if this be so, we are not free agents. On the other hand, when we will what is better and work the things that excel, since the willing and the working come from God, it is not we who have done the things that excel; we, indeed, seemed to do them, but the doing them was God's gift; so that, according to this also, we are not free agents." In reply, we have to |159 say that the Apostle's language does not imply that the willing of evil, or the willing of good, is of God, and similarly, the working of what is better or worse, but willing and running in general. For as it is from God that we are living creatures and men, so also it is from Him that we have the power of willing in general, as I said, and the power of motion in general. And as, although in virtue of our being living creatures we have the power of motion and can move the members of our bodies, our hands or feet, for instance, we could not reasonably say that the specific movement comes from God, the movements to strike, or kill, or take away another man's goods, but must maintain that motion in general is indeed a gift from God, though we use it for either bad or good purposes: so the working which stamps us as living creatures, we have received from God, and the willing we received from the Creator; but we use that power of willing either for the noblest purposes, or for the opposite, and so also the power of working.

20. Still, the utterance of the Apostle will seem to force us to the conclusion that we are not free agents. Putting an objection, he says, "Thou wilt say then unto me, Why doth he still find fault? For who withstandeth his will? Nay but, O man, who art thou that repliest against God? Shall the thing formed say to him that formed it, Why hadst thou made me thus? Or hath not the potter a right over the clay, from the same lump to make one part a vessel unto honour, and another unto dishonour?" ⁵⁰² A reader may well say, "If, as the potter from the same lump makes some vessels unto honour and some unto dishonour, so also God makes some unto salvation and some to perdition, it follows that we have nothing to do with our salvation or perdition: nor are we free agents." Let me ask a reader who makes this use of the words, if he can imagine the Apostle contradicting himself. I do not think any one will dare say this. Well, then, if the Apostle does not contradict himself, how does the reader who thus understands him mean to show that |160 the Apostle reasonably finds fault when he blames the Corinthian fornicator, or those who fell into sin and did not repent of the lasciviousness and incontinence which they committed? ⁵⁰³ And how is it that he blesses for their well-doing those whom he praises, as, for instance, the house of Onesiphorus, saying, "The Lord grant mercy unto the house of Onesiphorus: for he oft refreshed me, and was not ashamed of my chain: but, when he was in Rome, he sought me diligently, and found me. The Lord grant unto him to find mercy of the Lord in that day." ⁵⁰⁴ Surely it is not consistent for the same Apostle to censure the sinner because he deserves blame, and congratulate the well-doer because he deserves praise; and, contrariwise, as if nothing depended on ourselves, maintain that the Creator of the world is responsible for one vessel being unto honour, and another unto dishonour. How can it be sound doctrine that, "We must all stand before the judgment-seat of Christ, that each one may receive the things done in the body, according to what he hath done, whether it be good or bad," ⁵⁰⁵ if they who have done evil have so conducted themselves because they were created vessels of dishonour, and they who have lived virtuous lives have done that which is right, because originally they were fashioned thereto and were vessels of honour? And again, is not what is said elsewhere inconsistent with the view that it is the fault of the Creator if "one vessel is in honour and another in dishonour," as the critics infer from what we have quoted? "In a great house," we read, "there are not only vessels of gold and silver, but also of wood and of earth; and some unto honour and some unto dishonour. If a man therefore purge himself from these, he shall be a vessel unto honour, sanctified, meet for the master's use, prepared unto every good work." ⁵⁰⁶ For if he who purges himself becomes a vessel unto honour, while he who carelessly leaves himself unpurged becomes a vessel unto dishonour, the Creator cannot, so far as these words go, be held responsible. For |161 the Creator makes vessels of honour and vessels of dishonour, not originally according to His foreknowledge, since He does not, according to it, condemn or justify beforehand, but He makes them vessels of honour who purge themselves, and them vessels of dishonour who carelessly leave themselves unpurged. So that from antecedent ⁵⁰⁷ causes for making the vessels to honour and dishonour it arises that one man is to honour and another to dishonour.

21. But if we once admit that there are certain antecedent causes for one vessel being a vessel of honour, and another a vessel of dishonour, what absurdity is there in going back to the mystery of the soul, and understanding that there were antecedent causes for Jacob's being loved and Esau's being hated; as regards Jacob, before his assumption of a body, and as regards Esau, before he was conceived in the womb? At the same time it clearly appears that, so far as the subject nature is concerned, as there is one and the same lump of clay subject to the potter, out of which vessels are made to honour and dishonour: so, though there is one common soul nature subject to God, and, if I may so speak, one lump of rational subsistences, certain antecedent causes have made some men to be unto honour and others to dishonour. And if the Apostle's question conveys a rebuke, "Nay, O man, who art thou that repliest against God? ⁵⁰⁸ it perhaps teaches that he who has confidence towards God, as a man of faith and good life, would not have the question addressed to him, "Who art thou that repliest against God?" Such an one was Moses; for Moses spake, and God answered him by a Voice,⁵⁰⁹ and as God answers Moses, so also the holy man answers God. But he who has not this confidence, manifestly, either because he has lost it, or because he investigates these topics not from a love of learning but in a contentious spirit, and therefore says, "Why doth he still find fault? For who withstandeth |162 his will?" ⁵¹⁰ this man would deserve the rebuke, "Nay, O man, who art thou that repliest against God?" ⁵¹¹

22. But to those who introduce different natures,⁵¹² and use the present passage in support, I have this to say: If they make good their contention that from one lump are made both those who are perishing and those who are being saved, and that the Creator of those who are being saved is the Creator also of those who are perishing, and if He is good Who maketh not only men who are spiritual, but also those who are earthy (for this is a consequence of their doctrine), it is nevertheless possible that a man who in the present time has through certain previous deeds of righteousness become a vessel of honour, may, if he do not the like things, nor such as befits the vessel of honour, become in a different age a vessel of dishonour; as, on the contrary, it is possible that although through causes prior to this life a man has here become a vessel of dishonour, when his faults have been corrected, he may become a vessel of honour in the new creation, sanctified and meet for the Master's use, prepared unto every good work.⁵¹³ And perhaps the Israelites of our day, if they live unworthily of their high descent, will degenerate, and change as it were from vessels of honour to vessels of dishonour; and many of the Egyptians and Edomites of the present time, whenever they shall bring forth fruit abundantly, will enter the Church of the Lord, being no longer accounted Egyptians and Edomites, but future Israelites; so that, according to this, some through their deliberate choice advance from bad to good, while others fall away from good to bad; and others are kept in goodness, or rise step by step from good to better, and others, again, abide in evil, or, because their wickedness abounds, grow worse and worse.

23. And since the Apostle in one place does not pretend that it rests with God whether a man becomes a |163 vessel unto honour or unto dishonour, but puts the whole responsibility upon us, saying, "If then a man purge himself, he shall be a vessel unto honour, sanctified and meet for the master's use, prepared unto every good work"; and elsewhere he does not pretend that it depends upon us but lays the whole responsibility upon God, when he asserts that "the potter hath a right over the clay, to make one vessel unto honour and another unto dishonour",⁵¹⁴ and his statements are not contradictory; we must bring them both together, and from the two draw one sound conclusion. The power we have does not compel us to advance in goodness apart from the knowledge of God, nor does the knowledge of God compel us to advance unless we also contribute to the good result; for neither does our power apart from the knowledge of God, and the full use of what is in a worthy sense our "power," make a man to be unto honour or unto dishonour; nor does God's power alone fashion a man unto honour or dishonour unless He have our choice, inclining to the better or the worse, as a sort of raw material out of which to make the difference. This may suffice for our treatment of Free Will.

CHAP. XXII. ---- What is the dispersion on earth of rational, that is, human souls, indicated under a veil in the building of the tower, and the confusion of tongues thereat? Wherein we shall also treat of many lords set over the dispersed according to their condition. From Book v. against Celsus.

1. Now let us see what Celsus says next. It runs thus: "The Jews having become a separate nation, and having made laws to suit their country, in still maintaining the authority of their laws, and guarding the national religion with all its peculiarities, are only doing what other men do; for every community cherishes its ancestral customs, once they are established, no matter what they are. And it seems to be a good thing, not only because the different peoples have had different ideas of laws and customs, and because of the |164 necessity of guarding public institutions, but also because it is probable that different parts of the earth were originally assigned to different superintending spirits,⁵¹⁵ and having been made into separate realms are that way administered. And, in fact, correct practice in the several instances would depend on the pleasure of these spirits;⁵¹⁶ and it would be profanity to relinquish the original local usages." What Celsus here really means to show is that the ancient Egyptians afterwards became a separate nation, the Jews, and that having made laws for themselves they observe them. And, not to repeat the exact words of Celsus already quoted, he says that it is best for them to keep to their ancestral religion, just as it is for the other nations which honour their own forms of worship. And he adduces a deeper reason to explain why it is best for the Jews to honour their own forms of worship, when he darkly hints that they whose lot it was to superintend the land of those for whom the laws were made, assisted the lawgivers in the several instances. He seems, then, to indicate that one or more beings watch over the country of the Jews and its inhabitants, and that the laws were made by Moses with their assistance.

2. "And they ought," he says, "to keep their laws not only because different peoples have had different ideas of laws and customs, and because of the necessity of guarding public institutions, but also because it is probable that different parts of the earth were originally assigned to different superintending spirits, and having been made into separate realms are that way administered." So, as if he had forgotten what he said against the Jews, he now gives them a share in the general distribution of praise to all who keep the ancestral usages; for he says, |165 "And, in fact, in the several instances right practice would depend on the pleasure of the ruling spirits." And observe whether he does not distinctly mean, if he can bring it about, to make a Jew live in the observance of Jewish laws and not forsake them, inasmuch as he would be guilty of profanity if he did forsake them; for he says, "It is profanity to relinquish the original local usages." In reply, I should like to ask him and those who agree with him, who it was that originally assigned the different parts of the earth to the different guardian angels,⁵¹⁷ in particular, the country of the Jews and its people, to the one or more angels whose charge they were. Did Zeus, as Celsus would say, assign the Jewish people and their country to one or more? And Did Zeus intend that the spirit to whom Judea was allotted should make the existing Jewish laws, or was this done against his will? That Celsus may answer, if he will, you see I am willing to put the whole thing in a nutshell. But if the parts of the earth have not been assigned to their guardian spirits by some one deity, it follows that each at random and with no one to direct him, took his share of the earth just as it happened; but this is absurd, and enough to overthrow belief in the providence of the Supreme God.

3. And let any one who chooses relate how the various parts of the earth, having been divided into certain realms, are administered by the spirits which have the oversight of them; but let him also tell us how it is that in the several communities the correct practice would depend on the pleasure of the ruling spirits; and whether, for instance, the laws of the Scythians, which allow the doing away with fathers, are right; or those of the Persians, which |166 do not forbid marriages between mothers and their own sons, nor between fathers and their own daughters. And why need I take other instances from those who interested themselves in the laws of different nations, and go on to ask how, in the several communities, the laws are properly executed according to the pleasure of the ruling spirits? We shall be glad if Celsus will tell us how it is impiety to relinquish ancestral laws which allow the marriages ⁵¹⁸ of mothers and daughters, or make suicide by hanging a happy end of life, or affirm the perfect purification of those who give their bodies to be burnt, and through fire seek their release from life; and how it can be impiety to abolish laws, those of the Tauri, for instance, which enjoin the offering of strangers as sacrifices to Artemis, or those of certain Libyan tribes regarding the sacrificing of their children to Saturn. Celsus must, moreover, accept the consequence, that it is impiety for the Jews to break their ancestral laws which prohibit the worship of any other God than the Creator of the universe. And piety, according to him, will not be essentially Divine, but a matter of arbitrary institution; for with some it is piety to worship a crocodile, and with others to eat a portion of the objects of their adoration; others deem it piety to worship a calf, and others to regard the goat as a god. The result will be that the same man will be pious in regard of one set of laws, and impious according to a different set, which is an utter absurdity.

4. But they will probably reply that the pious man is he who keeps the customs of his own country, and that he is by no means to be taxed with impiety when he does not observe those of other countries; and again, that a man who is deemed impious by certain races is not impious when, according to the customs of his own country, he worships his own gods, but fights against and feasts upon the gods of those who have opposite laws. Now, consider whether these arguments do not exhibit great confusion of thought in respect of righteousness, and piety, and |167 religion; for religion has thus no organic unity, no distinctive character of its own, no power to impress a religious stamp on those who act in accordance with it. If, then, religion, piety, and righteousness are relative only, so that piety and impiety are the same thing, inasmuch as they depend on varying relations and on the established laws, consider whether it does not follow that temperance ⁵¹⁹ will also be in the class of things relative, and courage, and prudence, and knowledge, and the rest of the virtues, which is the height of absurdity.

5. Celsus seems to think that the argument leads to the conclusion that "all men ought to live according to the customs of their country, and that they should not be blamed for so doing; but that Christians having forsaken their ancestral usages, and not being one nation like the Jews, are to be blamed for following the teaching of Jesus." Let him then tell us whether men of a philosophic turn of mind, who have been taught to avoid superstition, are right in forsaking their ancestral usages and in going so far as to eat things forbidden in their own countries; or will they act unbecomingly in so doing? For if on account of their philosophy, and what they have learned in opposition to superstition, they do not keep their ancestral customs, but would eat of things traditionally forbidden, why should not Christians also, since reason persuades them not to concern themselves with images, and statues, or even with the works of God, but to rise above these and bring the soul near to the Creator, why should not they be free from blame when they are only doing what the philosophers do? If for the sake of defending his pet theory, Celsus or his supporters should say that even a philosopher will observe his country's customs, it is time for philosophers to make a laughing-stock of themselves, in Egypt, for instance, by refraining from eating onions that they may observe their country's customs, or certain parts of a carcase, head or shoulder, for example, that they may not transgress the traditions of their fathers. So then, also, if a man has been brought by the Word to |168 worship the Supreme God, and out of regard for ancestral usage lingers somewhere down among the images and statues of men, and is not willing by deliberate choice to rise to the Creator, he would be like those who are acquainted with philosophy, but fear where no fear is, and count it impiety to partake of such food.

6. Enough has now been said to satisfy those who take their stand upon plain common-sense principles against the opinions of Celsus now before us; but as we think that some persons of a more critical temper will read what we write, let us venture to set forth a few of the deeper arguments, involving speculation of a mystical and esoteric nature, concerning the original distribution of various countries of the earth to various spirits who have the oversight of them; and, to the best of our ability, let us show that our argument is free from the absurdities recounted. Celsus really seems to me to have misunderstood some of the deeper reasoning concerning the distribution of the earth's inhabitants, upon which even Grecian history touches in a way, when it represents certain of those who are accounted gods as having contended with one another for Attica, and in the poetical writings makes some of those who are called gods acknowledge that certain places are in a special sense their own. The history of barbarous nations, too, particularly that of Egypt, also indicates something similar in treating of the division of Egypt into what are called nomes, for it says that Athene to whose lot Sais fell is the same goddess that has Achaia. And the learned Egyptians will tell countless similar stories; but I do not know whether they include the Jews and their country in the distribution, and assign them to some spirit. But enough for the present, concerning what is said on these topics outside the Divine Word.

7. We say that Moses, who with us is regarded as a Prophet of God and His true servant, in the song in Deuteronomy, speaks as follows concerning the division of the earth. He tells us that "when the Most |169 High separated the nations, when he scattered abroad the sons of Adam, be set the bounds of the peoples, according to the number of the angels of God; and the Lord's portion became his people Jacob; Israel the lot of his inheritance." ⁵²⁰ And the same Moses, in the book called Genesis, gives an historical account of the distribution of the nations, to this effect: "And the whole earth was of one language, and of one speech. And it came to pass as they journeyed from the east, they found a plain in the land of Shinar; and they dwelt there." ⁵²¹ And a little farther on he says, "The Lord came down to see the city and the tower, which the children of men builded. And the Lord said, Behold, they are one people, and they have all one language; and this is what they begin to do: and now nothing will be withholden from them, which they purpose to do. Go to, let us go down, and there confound their language, that they may not understand one another's speech. So the Lord scattered them abroad from thence upon the face of all the earth: and they left off to build the city and the tower. Therefore was the name of it it called Confusion, because the Lord did there confound the language of all the earth: and from thence did the Lord scatter them abroad upon the face of all the earth." And also in the book entitled "The Wisdom of Solomon," where wisdom and the confusion of languages, whereby the division of the inhabitants of the earth has arisen, are discussed, this is what is said concerning wisdom: "Moreover the nations in their wicked conspiracy being confounded, she found out the righteous, and preserved him blameless unto God, and kept him strong in her tender compassion toward his son." ⁵²²

8. Much might be said, and that of a mystical nature, about these things: with which agrees the saying, "It is good to keep close the secret of the king";⁵²³ in order that the doctrine of the embodying of souls (not through transmigration) may not be wasted on everybody's ears, nor holy things be given to the dogs, nor pearls cast before |170 swine.⁵²⁴ For this is impious, and involves a betrayal of the secret oracles of the wisdom of God, concerning which it is well said, "A malicious soul wisdom shall not enter, nor dwell in the body that is subject unto sin." ⁵²⁵ And it is sufficient to present as historical narrative the secret meaning of the seeming ⁵²⁶ historical statement, so that they who can; may for themselves thoroughly investigate the subject.

9. Let us then conceive of all the dwellers upon earth as using one Divine language, and, so long as they agree with one another, as being kept in the use of that Divine language; and let us suppose that they do not move from the east, so long as they mind the things of the light and the brightness of the everlasting light. And let them, whenever they move from the east, minding the things alien to the east, find a plain in the land of Shinar: which, being interpreted, is "the shaking of teeth," and symbolises their losing the means of their support; and there let them dwell. Then, inasmuch as they will to collect material things, and join to heaven things which have no such natural affinity, so that through the material things they may conspire against the immaterial, we will suppose them to say, "Go to, let us make brick, and burn them throughly." ⁵²⁷ When, accordingly, they harden and stiffen the clay and other materials, and determine to make brick into stone and clay into bitumen, and therewith build a city and a tower the top of which they expect to reach unto heaven,⁵²⁸ let them severally, in proportion as they have moved a greater or less distance from the east, and in proportion as they have made the bricks into stones, and the clay into bitumen, and have built with them, be delivered to angels of more or less severity, and of such and such dispositions, until they have paid the penalty for their audacity; and we will further suppose them to be severally led by the angels, who give them |171 their own language, to various parts of the earth according as they deserve; some, let us say, to a scorching hot country, others to one so bitterly cold that it punishes its inhabitants, some to a land hard to cultivate, others to one not so hard, some to a land full of wild beasts, and others to one with not so many.

10. Next, if any one has the ability, let him, under the garb of history, in part literally true, in part conveying some secret meaning, see those also who have preserved their original language because they have not moved from the east, but have stayed in the east, and have kept to the eastern language; and let him understand that these alone become the portion of the Lord and His people called Jacob, and Israel the lot of His inheritance; ⁵²⁹ and let these alone be governed by a ruler who has not received his command that he may punish his subjects, like the other rulers. And let him who can, remembering that he is dealing with men, observe the sins committed in this commonwealth of those who constitute the special portion of the Lord, sins at first venial and such as do not make the offenders deserve to be quite forsaken, but becoming more abundant though still venial; and let our observer notice that this goes on for a long time, and that remedial measures are all the while applied, and that these same men at intervals turn again, and let him behold them, in proportion to tbeir sins, forsaken and given up to the appointed rulers of the other countries, and when they have been a little chastised and have suffered punishment, having been, as it were, trained, let him behold them returning to their own home; and afterwards, let him see them delivered to harsher rulers, to use Scripture names, the Assyrians and the Babylonians. Then, in spite of the care taken of them, let him see them none the less multiplying their offences, and for that reason made a spoil by the rulers of the other nations, and scattered over the other parts of the earth. Now let us suppose that their ruler advisedly takes no notice of them |172 when they are made a spoil by the rulers over the other nations, so that, as it were, avenging Himself, having acquired the right to detach from the other nations whom He can, He may reasonably do so, and may make laws for them, and show them the sort of life they have to live, intending to raise them to the level to which He raised those belonging to the former people who did not sin. And let those who have eyes to see such wondrous truths, hereby learn that He, whose lot it was to govern those who did not sin at the first, is more powerful than the other rulers: for He has proved Himself able to choose His men from all sides, make them revolt from their tormentors, being then under His laws, and lead them to live such a life as helps towards their former sins being no longer remembered. But, as we said before, we must be supposed to have a secret meaning in saying all this, it being our purpose to show the mistakes of those who allege that "the various parts of the earth were originally assigned to various spirits who had the oversight of them, were divided into realms, and are administered on that principle." It was from these men Celsus borrowed the statements under discussion.

11. And whereas they who moved from the east were for the sins they committed given up unto a reprobate mind, and unto vile passions, and in the lusts of their hearts unto uncleanness,⁵³⁰ so that having taken their fill of sin they might hate it, we shall not agree with the opinion of Celsus, "that right practice in the several instances depends on the spirits who have the oversight of the various parts of the earth"; but we even wish not to do their will and pleasure. For we see that it is piety to abolish original local usages by laws which are better and more Divine, which Jesus in the plenitude of His power inspired, delivering us out of this present evil world,⁵³¹ and from the rulers of this world which are coming to nought;⁵³² and that it is impiety not to throw ourselves upon the mercy of Him Who is seen and proved to be more mighty |173 than all rulers, to whom God said, as the prophets foretold many generations before, "Ask of me and I will give thee nations for thine inheritance, and the uttermost parts of the earth for thy possession." ⁵³³ For He has become the "expectation" of us who from among the peoples have believed on Him and on His Father, God over All.⁵³⁴

CHAP. XXIII. ----Of Fate, and how though God foreknows the conduct of every one, human responsibility remains the same. Further, how the stars ⁵³⁵ are not productive of human affairs, but merely indicate them; further, that men cannot attain to an accurate knowledge of these things, but that the signs are set by Divine powers; what is the cause of the signs. Astrology seems to have some elements of truth. From Book III. of the Commentaries on Genesis, "And let them be for signs, and for seasons, and for days, and for years."

1. As regards the lights of heaven having been created for signs, to speak precisely, the sun, moon, and stars, this is a subject which we are bound to discuss; for not only do many nations, strangers to the Faith of Christ, err in the matter of fate, inasmuch as they think that all things happen, both earthly events in general and the incidents of every human life, and perhaps what befalls the irrational creatures, through the relation of the planets to the constellations of the Zodiac; but beside this, many who are supposed to have embraced the Faith are distracted at the thought that human affairs may be governed by necessity, and cannot possibly be otherwise than is ruled by the stars in their different groupings. And a consequence of this opinion is the complete destruction of Free Will; and a further result is that praise and blame are unmeaning, and the distinction between acceptable conduct and conduct deserving of blame is lost. And if this be so, there is an |174 end of that Divine judgment which we preach; an end also of God's threats of punishment awaiting sinners; an end, too, of a blessed future for those who have devoted themselves to the higher life: for there will no longer be any basis of reason for them. And if any one wishes to see the other consequences of holding these views, our faith will be vain, the advent of Christ of no avail, and the whole dispensation of the Law and the Prophets, and the labours of Apostles to establish the churches of God through Christ, of no avail; unless, forsooth, as these bold thinkers would have us believe, Christ also, inasmuch as His nativity was necessitated by the movement of the stars, did and suffered everything, not because the God and Father of All gave Him those marvellous powers, but because the stars bestowed them. Another result of their godless and unholy principles is, that believers are said to believe in God because they are compelled by the stars to believe. But we would ask our opponents to tell us what God meant by so making the world, that some men are effeminate creatures and lead lascivious lives through no fault of their own; while others, who are in the condition of wild beasts through the revolution of the whole heavens, because God so ordered the universe, abandon themselves to the most savage and inhuman practices, murders, and piratical outrages. And why need I speak of the incidents of human life, and the sins of men, in their countless variety? The champions of these noble principles may free their fellow-men from all guilt, but they make God the cause of all that is bad and blameworthy.

2. And if some of them, that they may seem to defend God's character, shall say that there is a different God, the good God,⁵³⁶ Who has no control of these things, and attribute all such evils to the Creator;⁵³⁷ not even so will they |175 succeed in showing, as they desire, that the Creator is just; for how could the Author of so many evils, as according to them He is, be reasonably thought just? In the second place, let us inquire what they will say about themselves. Are they subject to the revolution of the stars, or are they free men, and all their lives no way influenced thereby? If they shall admit that they are subject to the stars, it is clear that the stars gave them this impression, and the Creator will have suggested through the general movement of the stars the doctrine of the higher God they have imagined; but that they would deny. If they reply that they are not influenced by the Creator's laws connected with the stars, that their statements may not be more than unverified assertion, let them endeavour to win our assent by some more forcible plea; let them show how to distinguish between the two kinds of mind, the one controlled by nativity and fate, the other free from their control. Any one who knows such men will be aware that if they are asked for a reason they will be quite unable to give it. In addition to what has been said, even the prayers we offer are superfluous; for if certain events must happen, and the stars create the necessity, and nothing contrary to their combination with one another can happen, it is unreasonable to expect God to give us this or that. Why need we further pursue the impiety involved in the doctrine of fate, a subject treated by many with too little consideration as a commonplace? Enough has been said to give some idea of it.

3. Here let us remind ourselves that we were examining the words, "Let the lights be for signs" ⁵³⁸ when we came upon this discussion. They who learn the truth about things, have either been eye-witnesses and therefore give a good account of what takes place because they have beheld the suffering and the doing of those who do or suffer, or they get to know the circumstances by hearsay from informants not at all responsible for what has occurred. For we will agree on the present occasion to exclude the |176 possibility that the doers or sufferers may themselves relate what they have done and suffered, and may acquaint any one who did not happen to be present with the facts. If, then, any one who gets the information from a person no way responsible for the events, on hearing that certain things have befallen or will befall certain individuals, does not bear in mind that his informant as to the past or future is no way answerable for any given occurrence, he will suppose that the informant has brought about or will bring about what he relates, but he will obviously be wrong in so doing; it is as though a man were to read a prophetic book in which the conduct of Judas the traitor is foretold, and having learnt what was to happen, were, on seeing it accomplished, to think that the book was the cause of what afterwards occurred, because the book showed him the future conduct of Judas; or, again, should imagine that not the book was the cause, but he who first wrote it, or He Who had the book written, God Himself, if we may so speak. Just as in the case of the prophecies concerning Judas, the passages themselves on investigation show that God did not produce the treachery of Judas, but that, foreknowing what would result from the wickedness of the traitor through his own fault, He only made it known: so also, if any one would go deep into the discussion of God's universal foreknowledge, and into those things whereon, as it were, God stamps the proofs of His own foreknowledge, he would understand that neither is He Who foreknows at all the cause of what is foreknown, nor are those things which were stamped with the proofs of the foreknowledge of Him Who did foreknow.

4. That God knows long before every detail of the future, is, apart from Scripture, from the very conception of God clear to him who understands the power and excellence of the Divine understanding. If, however, we must prove this from the Scriptures, the prophecies are full of suitable illustrations; and, according to Susanna, God knows all things before they be: for she thus speaks, "O |177 everlasting God, that knowest the secrets, and knowest all things before they be, Thou knowest that they have borne false witness against me." ⁵³⁹ And in the third Book of the Kings even the name of a future king, and his acts, were thus prophetically described many years before the events took place. "And Jeroboam ordained a feast in the eighth month, on the fifteenth day of the month, like unto the feast that is in Judah, and he went up unto the altar which is in Bethel, which he made for the calves which he made." ⁵⁴⁰ Then, a little farther on, "And, behold, there came a man of God out of Judah by the word of the Lord unto Bethel: and Jeroboam was standing by the altar to burn incense. And he cried against the altar by the word of the Lord, and said, O altar, altar! thus saith the Lord, Behold, a child shall be born unto the house of David, Josiah by name; and upon thee shall he sacrifice the priests of the high places that burn incense upon thee, and men's bones shall they burn upon thee. And he gave a sign the same clay, saying, This is the sign which the Lord hath spoken: Behold, the altar shall be rent, and the fat that is upon it shall be poured out." ⁵⁴¹ And, a little farther on, it is shown that "the altar also was rent, and the fat poured out from the altar, according to the sign which the man of God had given by the Word of the Lord."⁵⁴²

5. And in Isaiah, who lived long before the Babylonish Captivity, there is this prophecy concerning Cyrus by name, Cyrus king of the Persians, who lived some time after the Captivity, and assisted in the building of the Temple in the days of Esdras. There is this prophecy concerning Cyrus by name, "Thus saith the Lord to his anointed, to Cyrus, whose right hand I have holden, to subdue ⁵⁴³ nations before him, and I will loose the loins ⁵⁴⁴ of kings; I will open the doors before him, and the gates of cities shall not be shut; I will go before thee, and make mountains plain: I will break in pieces the doors of brass, and cut in sunder the |178 bars of iron: and I will give thee the treasures of darkness, hidden riches of secret places will I lay bare to thee, that thou mayest know that I am the Lord, which call thee by thy name, even the God of Israel. For Jacob my servant's sake, and Israel my chosen, I will call thee by thy name and will receive thee." ⁵⁴⁵ This clearly shows, that for the sake of the people to whom Cyrus was a benefactor, God gave him, though he was unacquainted with the Hebrew religion, the rule over many nations; and we may also learn this from Greek historians who wrote the history of Cyrus, the subject of the prophecy. And again in Daniel also, at a time when Babylonian kings were on the throne, the kingdoms which should be after him are shown to Nebuchadnezzar. And they are shown by means of the image: the Babylonian kingdom being called gold, the Persian silver, the Macedonian brass, the Roman iron.⁵⁴⁶ And again, in the same prophet the affairs of Darius and Alexander, and the four successors of Alexander king of Macedonia, and Ptolemy, the ruler of Egypt, surnamed Lagos, are thus foretold: "And as I was considering, behold, an he-goat came from the west over the face of the whole earth; and the goat had a horn between his eyes. And he came to the ram that had the horns, whom I saw standing before the stream Ulai,⁵⁴⁷ and ran upon him in the face of his power. And I saw him close unto the ram, and he was moved with choler against him, and smote the ram, and brake his two horns; and there was no power in the ram to stand before him: but he cast him down to the ground, and trampled upon him; and there was none that could deliver the ram out of his hand. And the he-goat magnified himself exceedingly: and when he was strong, the great horn was broken; and instead of it there came up four other horns toward the four winds of heaven. And out of one of them came forth a mighty horn, and |179 waxed exceedingly great towards the south and towards the west." ⁵⁴⁸ Why need I mention the prophecies concerning Christ, as for example that Bethlehem should be the place of His birth, and Nazareth the place of His bringing up, and the marvellous works He did, and the manner of His betrayal by Judas who was called to be an Apostle? For all these are signs of the foreknowledge of God. But the Saviour Himself also says, "When ye see Jerusalem compassed with armies, then ye shall know that her desolation is at hand";⁵⁴⁹ for He spake beforehand what afterwards came to pass, the final destruction of Jerusalem.

6. Well, then, now that we have, not unseasonably, demonstrated the foreknowledge of God, if we are to explain how the stars are for signs, we must understand that the stars have their movements so regulated, those we call planets revolving the contrary way to the fixed stars, that observers may take and know the signs from the grouping of all those stars which have a special or general influence. And when I say "observers," I do not mean men (for ability to really learn from the movements of the stars what will befall every individual soul with all its possibilities of doing or suffering, far transcends human capacity), but I refer to the Powers, which must for many reasons have this knowledge, as, so far as we can, we shall show in the sequel. But men being deceived by certain observations, or even by the teaching of Angels who have lost their proper rank, and, to the injury of our race, give some instruction about these things, supposed that they from whom they thought they received the signs were the original causes of the events which the Word says the signs indicate. We shall proceed at once to briefly discuss somewhat carefully as well as we can both the events and the supposed authors. These, then, are the problems which confront us----(α) How, if God knows from all eternity what we regard as done by the individual, Free Will is to be maintained; (β) in what way the stars are not productive of human affairs, but only indicate them; |180 (γ) that men cannot have an accurate knowledge of these things, but the signs are shown to Powers superior to men; (δ) why it is that God has made the signs for the Powers to know, shall be the fourth point of investigation.

7. Well, then, let us look at the first. Many of the Greeks, handling the matter with caution, and supposing events to be ruled by necessity, and that man's Free Will cannot be at all maintained if God foreknows the future, ventured to hold an impious doctrine, rather than admit, as they allow it to be, a glorious attribute of God, but one destructive of Free Will, and which therefore does away with the distinction between praise and blame, the acceptability of virtue and the censure of vice. They tell us that if God from everlasting knows that a certain person will be unjust, and will do certain unjust deeds, and if the knowledge of God be infallible, and if he that is foreseen to have such a character will certainly be unjust and will do these unjust deeds, his injustice is necessitated, and it will be impossible for his conduct to be other than what God knew it would be. But if his conduct could not be different, and no one is to be blamed for not doing impossibilities, it is no use for us to accuse the unjust. And from the unjust man and his unjust deeds they pass on to the other sins a man may commit, and, on the contrary, to what is considered upright conduct; and they say that consistently with God's foreknowledge our Free Will cannot possibly be maintained.

8. Our reply will be as follows: When God planned the creation of the world, inasmuch as there is nothing without a cause, His thoughts traversed the whole course of the future, and He saw that when a certain thing takes place another follows, and if this occurs it will have its fitting result, and this supposed, something is its consequence; and going on thus to the end of all things He knows what will be, but is not at all the cause of the occurrence of any particular event. For as when we see a man reckless through ignorance, and in his recklessness foolishly venturing on a slippery path, we are not the |181 causes of the man's finding the path slippery, because we realise that the man will slip and fall: just so, we must understand that God having foreseen what every one will be like, also perceives the causes of his being what he is, and that he will commit these sins, or do these righteous deeds. And if we are bound to admit that the foreknowledge is not the cause of the occurrences (for though God knows before that a man will sin, He does not put a finger on him when he does sin), we shall make a still stronger statement, nevertheless true, that the future event is the cause of God's peculiar knowledge concerning it. For it does not happen because it is known, but it is known because it will happen; and we must herein carefully distinguish. For if any one interprets the words certainly will be in the sense that what is foreknown will of necessity be, we do not agree with him; for we shall not say that, because it was foreknown that Judas would be a traitor, there was any necessity for Judas to be a traitor. At any rate, in the prophecies concerning Judas reproaches and accusations of Judas are recorded, which prove his guilt to every reader. Now no blame would have attached to him if he had of necessity been a traitor, and if it had not been possible for him to be like the other Apostles. And consider whether this is not shown by the following words which we shall quote: "Neither let there be any to have pity on his fatherless children. Because that he remembered not to show mercy, but persecuted the poor and needy man, and the broken in heart, to slay them. Yea, he loved cursing, and it came unto him; and he delighted not in blessing, and it was far from him." ⁵⁵⁰ If any one will explain the "certainly will be" as only meaning that some particular events will occur, but that things might have turned out differently, we assent to this as true; for God cannot possibly lie; and when things may possibly happen or not happen, we may contemplate either contingency.

9. We will put the case more clearly this way: If it |182 is possible for Judas to be an Apostle like Peter, it is possible for God to think of Judas continuing an Apostle as Peter did. If it is possible for Judas to be a traitor, it is possible for God to contemplate his becoming a traitor. And if Judas proves to be a traitor, God by His foreknowledge of the two aforesaid possibilities (one only of Which can be realised), inasmuch as His foreknowledge is true, will know before that Judas is going to be a traitor; but though God knows this, it might have been otherwise; and the knowledge of God would say, "It is possible for Judas to do this, but also possible for him to do the opposite; but of the two things possible I know that he will do this one." If God were to say, "It is not possible for this man to fly," and, predicting the future ⁵⁵¹ of another man, were to say, for instance, "It is not possible for him to be temperate," the cases would not be parallel. For the man is not in the least qualified to fly, but he is qualified to lead either a temperate or a licentious life. Now, though there be this ability both ways, if a man does not give heed to admonition and instruction, he gives himself up to the worse; but he who seeks the truth and is resolved to live accordingly, gives himself up to the better. And one man does not seek the truth because he inclines to pleasure, while another man investigates it, being brought thereto, partly by common sense,⁵⁵² partly by exhortation. The former, again, chooses pleasure, not because he is unable to resist it, but because he will not strive against it; and the latter despises it, because he sees the disgrace which often attaches to it.

10. To prove our point, that the foreknowledge of God really does not necessitate the things which it apprehends, we will further observe that in many parts of Scripture God commands the Prophets to preach repentance, not professing to know before whether the hearers will turn or abide in their sins. Thus in Jeremiah God says, "It may be they will hearken and repent." ⁵⁵³ If God |183 thus speaks, it is not because He does not know whether they will hearken or not; but by this form of speech He shows, as it were, that they have equal ability to do one or the other; so that He may not, by announcing beforehand what He knows, make the hearers despond because of a seeming necessity, as if they had no power to turn, and His foreknowledge thus become, as it were, the cause of their sins. Or again, let us take the case of those who, because they do not know their goodness foreknown to God, may by striving.and struggling against wickedness succeed in living a virtuous life. God will not have His foreknowledge become a cause of their slackness, inasmuch as, relying on the certain accomplishment of what has been foretold, they no longer stand firm against sin: for so the foreknowledge of their future goodness might prove a hindrance. Thus it is that God Who ordereth all things for the best, with good reason hides the future from our eyes. For the knowledge of the future makes us relax in the struggle against wickedness, and the apparent certainty of wickedness enervates us, and the result is that because we do not wrestle against sin we soon become subject to it. And at the same time it would be an obstacle in the way of a man's becoming good and upright, if the knowledge that he will certainly some day be good reached him beforehand. For in addition to what we have, there is need of great earnestness and vigorous application if a man is to become good and upright; but the knowledge beforehand that a man will certainly be good and upright, weakens his habits of discipline. Wherefore it is expedient that we know not whether we shall be good, or whether we shall be bad.

11. And since we have said that God blinds our eyes with regard to the future, consider whether we can thus explain the question in Exodus, "Who maketh a man dumb and deaf, seeing and blind?" ⁵⁵⁴ If we are to understand that God has made the same man blind and seeing, the man must see things present and be blind as regards things |184 future; for we are not now concerned with the interpretation of the dumbness and deafness. That, however, many things for which we are responsible are caused by a multitude of things for which we are not responsible, even we will allow; if they had not occurred, the things I mean for which we are not responsible, certain things for which we are responsible would not have been done; but they have been done in consequence of precedent events for which we are not responsible, though it was possible for us on the basis of the past to have acted otherwise than we did. If any one would have our Free Will detached from everything else, so as to make our voluntary choice independent of the changes and chances of life, he has forgotten that he is a part of the world, and subject to limitations as a member of society and a participant in the general environment. I think it has been shown with tolerable clearness, if briefly, that the foreknowledge of God does not necessitate what is certainly foreknown.

The same subject is further discussed in Book II. of the treatise against Celsus as follows:----

12. Celsus thinks that if a prediction comes to pass it is because the event was predicted. We do not grant this; we say that the Prophet is not the cause of the future event because he foretells its occurrence, but that the future event, which would happen even if it were not predicted, is the cause of his foretelling it, who has the foreknowledge. And the whole thing is in the foreknowledge of the Prophet; a given event may or may not come to pass; he knows which of the two it will be. Further, we do not say that he who foreknows destroys the possible alternative, and as it were declares, "This shall certainly be, and it is impossible that the event can be otherwise." And something like what we have urged is applicable to the whole question of the foreknowledge of what is in our power, whether we look at the Divine Scriptures or at the narratives of the Greeks. And what the dialecticians call an "idle argument," by which they mean a sophism, will be, if we are to believe Celsus, no sophism, though |185 according to sound reason it is a sophism. That our point may be understood, I will use the prophecies of the Scriptures concerning Judas, or our Saviour's foreknowledge of his being a traitor: and from the narratives of the Greeks, I will take the oracle addressed to Laius, for the present assuming it to be true, for that does not affect the argument. Well, then, at the beginning of the 108th Psalm, speaking in the person of Christ, the Psalmist says, "Hold not thy peace, O God, at my praise; for the mouth of the wicked and the deceitful man is opened upon me." ⁵⁵⁵ And if you carefully note what is said in the psalm you will find that as Judas is foreknown to be the betrayer of the Saviour, so he is also represented as being the cause of the betrayal, and worthy of the curses pronounced against him for his wickedness----let him suffer such and such things----"Because that he remembered not to do mercy, but persecuted the poor and needy man." ⁵⁵⁶ He might then have remembered to do mercy, and he might have refrained from persecuting Him whom he did persecute, but though he might he did not, but betrayed the Saviour; so that he deserves the curses in the prophecy against him. And as regards the Greeks, we will similarly make use of what was said by the oracle to Laius, either in the precise words of the tragic poet, or in equivalent terms. This is what the oracle with its knowledge of the future told him:----

"Beget not children in defiance of the gods;

For if thou shalt beget a son, thy son shall slay thee,

And all thy house shall wade through blood." ⁵⁵⁷

Here it is clearly shown that it was possible for Laius not to beget children, for the oracle would not have commanded him to do what was impossible; but the begetting was possible, and neither alternative was compulsory. And the consequence of his not guarding against begetting children, was that through begetting he suffered what is related in the tragedy concerning Oedipus and Jocasta and their sons. |186

13. By way of illustrating the "idle argument," that is to say, the sophistical form of reasoning, we may suppose the following argument to be addressed to an invalid in order to dissuade him from calling in the doctor: "If you are fated to recover from your sickness, whether you call in the doctor, or do not call him in, you "will recover; but if you are fated not to recover from your sickness, whether you call in the doctor, or do not call him in, you will not recover; now either you are fated to recover from your sickness, or you are fated not to recover; it is therefore no good for you to call in the doctor." Now a parallel to this reasoning is neatly drawn after this fashion: "If you are fated to beget children, whether you go with a woman, or whether you do not, you will beget children; but if you are fated not to beget children, whether you go with a woman, or do not go, you will not beget children: now either you are fated to beget children or not to beget them; it is useless therefore for you to go with a woman." In this case, forasmuch as it is an utter impossibility to beget children without going with a woman, to go with a woman is not a useless procedure; and similarly, if there is but one road to recovery from sickness, and that is via the doctor's skill, the doctor must be summoned; and it is false to say, "It is no good for you to call in the doctor." Now I have gone into all these details on account of what our paragon of wisdom, Celsus, said: "Being God He foretold, and what was foretold must certainly have come to pass"; for if Celsus by "certainly" means "necessarily," we shall not agree with him, for the event might not have happened. But if by "certainly" he means "will be,"----and there is nothing to prevent this being true, though the event might possibly not have happened,----my argument is as sound as ever; it does not follow that because Jesus truly foretold the traitor's treachery, or Peter's denial, He was Himself the cause of their impiety and unholy conduct. For, as we hold, He knew what was in man;⁵⁵⁸ and seeing the traitor's detestable character, and also what through |187 avarice and through want of a right and steadfast regard for the Master he would dare to do, after much besides, Jesus said,"He that dippeth his hand with me in the dish, the same shall betray me." ⁵⁵⁹

From Book III. of the Commentary on Genesis:----

14. Now let us grapple with the question whether it is a fact that the stars are not in the least productive of human affairs, but only indicate them. It is quite plain that if the stars in a given position are thought to produce certain events in a human life----let us make that the precise point of the present inquiry----their position to-day, for instance, which concerns that one man, could not be understood to have produced the past of some other person or persons; for whatever produces precedes the thing produced. But, according to the teaching of the professors of the art, things that happened before this grouping of the stars are generally thought to be declared. For they profess, once they have ascertained somehow or other the particular ⁵⁶⁰ hour of any given man, to be able to find the elevation of each planet, or in what minutest part of the sign it appeared, and what sort of a star of the Zodiac happened to be on the eastern horizon, and what on the west, and which star was on the meridian, and which on the opposite meridian. And when they have placed the stars, whose position they think they have determined for themselves, and which are thus grouped according to the season of the nativity of the person, from the time of the birth of him concerning whom they are inquiring, they investigate not only the future, but also the past, and things before the birth and begetting of the person we are speaking of; what manner of man his father was, rich or poor, sound in body or maimed, of good or bad character, with much wealth or little, of this or that condition; and, similarly, respecting the man's mother, and his elder brethren, if there happen to be any.

15. For the present let us allow, though we shall afterwards show that it is not so, that they do ascertain the true meaning of the position and relations of the stars; |188 nevertheless, let us ask those who suppose that human affairs are necessitated by the stars, how such and such a position to-day can have produced previous events. For if this is impossible, even supposing that they discover the truth concerning those previous events, it is clear that the stars with their present movements in the heavens have not produced things past and gone before they took that position. And if any one, noting what is said about the future, should allow that they are correct, he will say that they are right, not because the stars cause the events, but only because they indicate them. And if any one alleges that the stars do not now cause past events, but that there were other groupings which were the causes of the nativity of the persons I have mentioned, but that the present grouping has only indicated them, and that future events are nevertheless shown by the present grouping at the nativity of such an one, let him show how we are to distinguish between our ability to prove the truth of certain things if the stars are causative,⁵⁶¹ and of others if they are indicative only. If they cannot explain the difference, they will frankly concede that nothing human is caused by the stars, but, as we said before, some way or other indicated; as if one did not receive the knowledge of the past and future from the stars at all, but from the mind of God through some prophetic utterance. For, as we have already shown that the fact of God's knowing the future conduct of every person does not disturb the argument respecting our Free Will, so neither do the signs, which God appointed to be indicative, interfere with our Free Will; but, like a volume of prophecy, the heavens as a whole, being as it were one of God's books, may contain the future. And thus what is said by Jacob in the prayer for Joseph may be understood: "For I read in the pages of the sky what shall befall thee and thy sons." ⁵⁶² Perhaps also the passage, "The heavens shall be rolled together as a book," ⁵⁶³ shows |189 that the declarations therein indicative of the future shall be brought to completion, and, so to speak, fulfilled, as the prophecies are said to be fulfilled by the event. And thus the existing stars will be for signs, according as it is said, "Let them be for signs." ⁵⁶⁴ And Jeremiah, in order that he may bring us back to ourselves, and remove our dread of what is thought to be indicated by the stars, and perhaps supposed to come from them, says, "Be not dismayed at the signs of heaven." ⁵⁶⁵

16. Now let us look at our second undertaking, and try to show how it is that the stars cannot be causative, though they may possibly be indicative. In the vast multitude of nativities we may possibly get at the incidents of one man's life; but this is only an assumption; we concede the point that it is possible for men to gain a knowledge of them. For instance, our opponents say we may learn both from a man's own nativity, and from the nativity of each of his brothers, if he has more than one, that he will suffer in a certain way, and will die a violent death through meeting with robbers. For they suppose that the nativity of each one includes the death of a brother at the hand of robbers, and likewise the nativity of the father and mother and wife and sons and domestics and dearest friends, and perhaps the nativity of the murderers themselves. How can a man then, whose future is involved in so many nativities, to make them this concession, be influenced by the position and relation of the stars at one nativity more than by those at the others? The statement that the position of the stars at a man's own nativity has caused certain events, while their position at the nativities of the rest has not caused but only indicated them, is incredible; and it is as silly to say that the nativity of each one of them, severally, included a cause of the violent death of this one in particular, so that in fifty nativities, suppose, is included the death of this one person. I do not know how they will maintain that the position of the stars at the nativity of nearly everybody in Judea |190 was such that they received circumcision on the eighth day, being mutilated in their parts, and ulcerated, and subject to inflammation and sores, and no sooner born than needing a doctor; while the position at the nativity of certain Israelites down in Arabia was such that they were all circumcised at the age of thirteen years, for this is what we are told about them; and again the position at the nativity of certain people in Etheopia such that they had their knee-pans taken away, while the Amazons had one of their breasts removed. How do the stars cause these effects in various nations? I suppose that if we give close attention to the subject, we shall not be able to state a single true and reliable fact ⁵⁶⁶ about these things. And when we hear of so many ways of knowing the future, I am at a loss to understand how men can be so inconsistent as to deny the existence of an active cause in augury, and in sacrificial inspection, maintaining that they are only indicative, but will not allow that astrology also, and nativity casting, are only indicative. For if because a future event is known,----granting that it is known,----the source of the event is the same as the source of the knowledge, why shall events any more be caused by stars than by birds, and by birds, or by entrails of victims, more than by ruling stars? ⁵⁶⁷ This will suffice for the present to upset the notion that the stars are causes of human affairs.

17. We conceded the point, for it does not interfere with the reasoning, that men can understand the positions of the stars in the heavens, the signs, and the things of which they are signs; now let us see if it is true. Well, then, the masters of this art say that any one who is going to accurately cast a nativity must know not only in which twelfth part of the Zodiac the star in question is, but also in what part of the twelfth part, and in which of its sixty parts; and the more careful calculators add, in which sixtieth of that sixtieth. And the observer, they say, ought to do |191 this in the case of each one of the planets, investigating its relation to the fixed stars. He must, moreover, scanning the eastern horizon, observe not only which sign ⁵⁶⁸ of the Zodiac is there, but also the part of the sign, and the sixtieth part of this part, whether the first or second sixtieth. How, then, since an hour, roughly speaking, is equivalent to half the twelfth part, can any one ascertain the sixtieth part, unless he has a corresponding scale for the division of the hours? For example, who could know that such an one was born at the fourth hour, plus half an hour, plus a quarter, plus an eighth, plus a sixteenth, plus a thirty-second of an hour? For they say it makes a great difference in the things indicated if there is an error, not of a whole hour, but even of a fraction of an hour. Anyway, in the birth of twins there is frequently only a momentary interval; and yet, according to them, the twins differ widely in their fortunes and performances, because they who were thought to have observed the hour were not quite correct as to the relation of the stars, and the part of the sign on the horizon. For no one can say to the thirtieth of an hour what the interval" between the two births is. But let us allow that they are able to determine the hour.

18. There is a well-known theorem which proves that the Zodiac, like the planets, moves from west to east at the rate of one part in a hundred years, and that this movement in the lapse of so long a time changes the local relation of the signs; so that, on the one hand, there is the invisible ⁵⁶⁹ sign, and on the other, as it were, the visible figure of it; and events, they say, are discovered not from the figure, but from the invisible sign; though it cannot possibly be apprehended. But let us grant that the invisible sign can be apprehended, or admit the possibility of getting at the truth through the visible sign; still even they will admit their inability to preserve in due proportion what they call the "blending" ⁵⁷⁰ of the signs in |192 these positions, for it often happens that the influence of a malignant star which appears is more or less weakened by the aspect of a more benign one; and again, that the weakening of the influence of the malignant star by the aspect of the benign one is hindered, because of some particular position and relation of the other, though it is indicative of evil. And I think that any one who studies the passages must despair of understanding such matters, inasmuch as the knowledge is not disclosed to men, but at the most only goes as far as the indication ⁵⁷¹ of events. And any one who has had actual experience will know that speakers and writers more frequently fail than succeed in their guesses at the truth. Wherefore Isaiah, believing that these things cannot be discovered by men, says to the daughter of the Chaldeans, who above all others were professors of the art, "Let now the astrologers, the star-gazers, stand up and save thee; let them tell thee what shall come upon thee." ⁵⁷² We are thus taught that the most learned in these matters cannot show beforehand what the Lord intends to bring upon every nation.

19. We have already given instances of the literal fulfilment of prophecy. And if Jacob speaks of reading in the pages of the sky what should befall his sons, and if any one on the strength of this should meet us with the objection that the contrary to what we say is proved by Scripture,----for we said that men cannot comprehend the signs, and Jacob says that he read in the pages of the sky,⁵⁷³ ----our defence will be that our wise men, guided by a marvellous superhuman spirit, are not taught the mysteries by human skill but by the power of God; as Paul says, "I heard unspeakable words, which it is not lawful for a man to utter." ⁵⁷⁴ For they know the alterations of the |193 turning of the sun, and the change of seasons: the events of years, and the position of stars," ⁵⁷⁵ not from men nor through men, but because the Spirit reveals them, and reveals them clearly, as God wills, announcing the Divine purposes. And another way also Jacob was more than human, for he supplanted his brother, and confessed in the same book from which we quoted the words, "I read in the pages of the sky," that he was commander-in-chief of the host of the Lord and had long ago gained the name Israel; all of which he acknowledges when ministering in bodily form, when the Archangel Uriel ⁵⁷⁶ reminds him of it.

20. It now remains to inquire and show those who believe that the lights of heaven are set for signs, but have been misled by fanciful interpretations of the passages, why it is that God has made these signs in the sky. And we must first observe that if we believe the mind of God to be great enough to embrace the perfect knowledge of every individual existence, so that not the least ordinary occurrence escapes His Divinity, this belief involves the tenet, not demonstrably certain, but held as being consistent with the eternity of God's understanding, which transcends all nature, that His knowledge is, as it were, infinite. In order, then, that superhuman beings, and also the holy souls which have escaped from the bondage of this present state, may by experience grasp this truth, God created in the heavens beings who have been taught and shall be taught, as well by the revolution of the heavens as by other means, to read the signs which God gives as if they were written and stamped on the face of the sky. And it is not surprising that God should create some one for the sake of a manifestation to the blessed, for the Scripture saith to Pharaoh, "For this very purpose did I raise thee up, that I might show in thee my power, and that my name might be published abroad in all the |194 earth." ⁵⁷⁷ For if Pharaoh was preserved for the sake of showing the power of God and publishing abroad His name in all the earth,⁵⁷⁸ consider what a marvellous manifestation of the power of God there is in the heavenly signs, for all of them have been from everlasting to everlasting engraved in the book of the heavens, a book worthy of God. And, secondly, I conjecture that the signs are exposed to the Powers which administer human affairs, in order that they may only know some things, and effect others; just as in our books some things are written that we may know them, as, for example, the story of the Creation, or any other mystery, and others that we may know and do them, as, for instance, the commandments and ordinances of God. It is indeed possible that the writings of the heavens, which Angels and Divine powers can read well, contain some things to be read by the Angels and ministers of God in order that they may rejoice in their knowledge; and other things in order that they may receive them as commandments and do them.

21. And we shall not err if we maintain the analogy between the things in the Law and that which is written in the heavens and the stars. Even supposing that inferior energies, different from human kind, do bring about some of the events foreknown and indicated in the heavens, there is no necessity for supposing that they effect the results because they are reminded by the writings of God (in the heavens). Just as men when they act unjustly, effect the injustice through their own wickedness, not because they have learnt that God foreknows that some one will be unjustly treated by them; so the opposing Powers, though God foreknows the wickedness of the men and Powers who devise the detestable results, bring things to pass of their own shameful free choice. As regards the holy Angels, however, the ministering spirits sent forth to do service,⁵⁷⁹ it is probable that inasmuch as they follow ⁵⁸⁰ the commands of God's written law, they produce the |195 better results in an orderly way, having regard to time, manner, and degree; for it is absurd to suppose that being Divine, they at random, and not deliberately, approach some transaction, for instance, with Abraham, and do something for Isaac, and deliver Jacob from danger, or impress the spirit of some prophet. In order, therefore, that they may not thus act at random or haphazard, they read God's book; and thus they do the things belonging to them. And, as we said before, we, as regards our own conduct, or the working of the opposing Powers against us, act of our own free choice; when we sin, the choice is disorderly; when we do such things as are pleasing to God, the choice is disciplined; not however that we can dispense with Angels, the Divine Scriptures, or assisting saints.

And Clement of Rome ⁵⁸¹ in his argument with his father at Laodicea has some comments on the question before us----the passage occurs in The Travels,⁵⁸²----which agree with the foregoing. Towards the end he speaks with great force on the seeming results of "Nativity," Book X.

22. The Father.----Pardon me, my son, what you said yesterday was so true that I had no choice but to agree with you; but my conscience, like the weakness left by a fever, torments me with a lingering doubt, for I feel that everything in my nativity has come to pass.

I answered, consider with me, father, what the nature of Astrology ⁵⁸³ is, and upon what grounds I give you my advice. If you meet with an astrologer, and begin by telling him that at a certain time you had poor luck, and ask him to be good enough to inform you what star was the cause of it, he will, say that a malignant Mars or Saturn ruled the times, or that one of them was periodic,⁵⁸⁴ or that one |196 of them regarded the particular year from the point of quadrature, or diametrically,⁵⁸⁵ or in conjunction, or centrally,⁵⁸⁶ or was retrograding,⁵⁸⁷ and no end of things besides. He will tell you that either an auspicious planet was not counteracting ⁵⁸⁸ a malignant one, or it was not observable, or was in figure,⁵⁸⁹ or was retrograding, or in eclipse, or in detriment,⁵⁹⁰ or was among the dim stars. And because there are many ostensible causes, he is still able to adapt his proofs to what he has been told by you. Now, if you afterwards go to another astrologer and tell him the opposite, viz. that at that same time you had a piece of good fortune, and ask him from what star of your nativity it has arisen, though you have deceived him, he is able, as I said before, out of many figures to find one, or two, or three, or more, which he will make out to be the true cause of your good fortune. For it is impossible that at any man's nativity, at any hour, some of the stars should not be favourably placed, others unfavourably; for the circle ⁵⁹¹ admits of equal divisions, is diversified in contents, and admits of unlimited shuffling, so that any astrologer can say what he likes. We can sometimes make nothing of ambiguous dreams, but the event enables us to give them the most fitting interpretation. So it is with Astrology. Before the events it can tell us nothing certain, but when the facts are related the result clearly shows the cause. This is why in predicting the future they frequently err, and after the event blame themselves, and say, "It was this or that caused it, and we did not know." As I said yesterday, the reason why the very |197 learned astrologers err is that they do not know what is certainly the cause of a man's nativity, and what is not certainly so, and what things we certainly long to do, and are not certain to do. The cause is clear to us who have learnt the secret, viz. that being free to exercise our faculties of reason we sometimes yield to concupiscence and suffer defeat, sometimes resolve to check it, and succeed. But astrologers, through not being acquainted with this very secret, though they have expatiated on the whole subject of man's Free Will from the first, have fallen into the error of devising climacterics; for they regard our power of choice as a most obscure subject, as we pointed out yesterday. Now it is your turn. If you have anything to say in reply, please say it.

And the father answered with an oath, Nothing can be truer than your words.

CHAP. XXIV. ----Matter is not uncreated, or the cause of evil. From Book VII. of the Praeparatio Evangelica of Eusebius of Palestine.

1. I suppose you are aware that two uncreated things cannot exist together; though you seem to assume that they can, and to put the assumption in the forefront of your argument, when you say that one of two things must be admitted, either that God is separated from matter, or, on the contrary, that He is united to it. Now, if any one would maintain that God is united to matter, this is saying that there is one uncreated substance; for each of these two uncreated substances will be a part of the other, and, as they are parts of one another, they will not be two uncreated, but one, consisting of different parts. We do not because a man has different parts divide him into many created substances, but, as reason demands, we say that a single being, a man with many parts, has been created by God. Similarly, of necessity, if God is not separated from matter, we must allow that there is one substance, and that uncreated. But if any one will say that God is separated from matter, there must be something between |198 the two which also proves their separation; for it is impossible to arrive at any idea of distance between two objects, unless there be a third to form the basis of measurement. And this holds good not only of a single substance, as in the present case, but of any number you please; for our argument respecting the two uncreated substances must be no less sound if we suppose that there are three. For we should ask respecting these, whether they are separated from one another, or whether, on the contrary, each is united to its neighbour. If any one decides to assert the union, our reply will be the same as before; if, on the other hand, he holds to the separation, he will have to face the question of the necessary separating medium. And should any one thereupon say that there is a third account which may be fitly given of the uncreated substances, viz. that God is neither separated from matter nor united with it, but is, as it were, locally in matter, or matter in God, let me tell him, and it is the gist of the whole argument, that if we say matter is the place of God, we must of necessity affirm that He is finite and circumscribed by matter. He must, moreover, like matter, be subject to irregular disturbance; He cannot stay in one place, nor abide self-dependent, inasmuch as that wherein He is contained is carried first one way, then another. Besides this, it follows that we must affirm God to be in the lower forms of being. For if matter ever was unordered, and God of His own free choice ordered it with a view to progressive development, there was a time when God had no order of His own,⁵⁹² and we might fairly ask whether God filled matter, or was in a part of it. If any one prefers to say that God was in a part of matter, he makes God infinitely smaller than matter: if a part really contained the whole of God. If he says that God is in all matter and pervades the whole of matter, let him tell us how God worked on matter. Either there was some contraction of God before He worked on that from which He withdrew, or He worked at Himself as well as |199 the matter, because He had no place to withdraw to. If any one will maintain that matter is in God, we must similarly inquire whether we are to suppose that God stood apart from Himself, and as living creatures are in the air, that He split up and divided Himself to receive the things in Him, or whether matter is in Him locally, like water in earth. If we say that matter is in Him like birds in the air, we are bound to admit that God is divisible; if we say that matter is in God as water is in earth, and if matter was in a state of confusion and disorder, and, moreover, contained even evil things, we must of necessity allow that God was the place of disorder and of evil, which does not seem to me consistent with piety, but to be rather dangerous. For you postulate the existence of matter, so that you may not have to admit that God is the Author of evil, and in your determination to avoid this error, you affirm that He is a receptacle of evil. If you told me that what you see in created substances ⁵⁹³ leads you to suppose that matter was originally uncreated, I should have had many arguments to prove the impossibility of this conclusion; but as you say the origin of evil is the cause of such a supposition, I must, I think, proceed to inquire into the nature of evil. For once it is clear how evil comes to exist, and, if because matter is subject to God, we cannot possibly deny that He was the cause of evil, there will, I think, be an end of your supposition.

2. Do I understand you to say that unqualified matter is co-existent with God, and that out of it He created the world?

It seems so to me.

So, then, if matter had no qualities, and the world was made by God, and qualities are in the world, God is the Maker of the qualities.

Just so.

But I think you said before that nothing can possibly come out of nothing. Please tell me, therefore, whether |200 you think that the qualities of the world have not sprung from already existing qualities?

It seems so.

And that these qualities are quite distinct from the substances?

Yes.

Well, then, if God did not make the qualities out of existing qualities, and they have not come from the substances, because they are not substances, we are driven to the conclusion that they were made by God out of nothing. And this is why you seemed to me to urge in vain that we cannot possibly suppose that anything was made by God out of nothing. Let us look at the matter this way. Among ourselves we see men making various things out of nothing; out of nothing I say, though they certainly do seem to be creators in their own departments. Take architects, for example. They do not build cities out of cities, nor, similarly, temples out of temples. If because substances exist which are at their command, you suppose the architects to produce cities and temples out of existing things, you are mistaken, for it is not the substance which makes the city, nor the temples, but the skill in treating the substance. And the skill does not spring from any skill existing in the substances, but from a skill which has no existence in them. You may meet me with the objection that the artist out of the skill which he himself has makes the skill in the substance. It seems to me a fair rejoinder that the man's skill does not arise from any previously existing skill. It cannot be that skill as a self-existent entity gives the skill; for it belongs to the class of accidents, and to those things which receive a real existence when they inhere in substance. You may have the man without the architect's skill, but you cannot have the architect's skill unless the man first exist; and we must therefore maintain that the various forms of human skill have nothing out of which they arise.⁵⁹⁴ Now, if we have shown that this |201 is so with men, must we not much rather admit that God can make not only qualities out of nothing, but also substances? For if it is proved that anything arises out of nothing, it is also proved that the same holds good of substances.

3. But I know you are longing to investigate the origin of evil; I will therefore go on to the discussion of that topic. And I should like to briefly ask you, Do you regard evil things as substances, or qualities of substances?

I think it is right to say, qualities of substances.

But matter, you thought, was unqualified and unformed?

So I assumed when we began the discussion.

Well, then, if evil is a quality of matter, and matter was unqualified, and you affirm that God is the Maker of the qualities, it follows that God will also be the Creator of evil. Since, then, we cannot even thus avoid making God the cause of evil, it seems to me superfluous to make Him inseparable from matter. If you have any answer to this, pray say on. If we were disputing for victory, I should think the question of evil decided; but as we are making the inquiry more in a friendly spirit and to do one another good, I think we may re-open the discussion.

My aim and object must, I think, be very obvious, and you must be conscious how earnestly I desire in arguing not to score a victory on the strength of plausible lies, but by careful inquiry to point out the truth. And I am quite sure that you are so disposed. So please, therefore, without hesitation use such means as you consider best for the discovery of the truth, for by so doing you will profit not yourself only but me also, by showing me my ignorance. It seems clear to me that evil has a substantial existence, for I never see what is evil apart from substances.

4. Ho! Ho! If you say that things evil are substances, I must examine the meaning of substance. Do you think that substance is a kind of bodily compound?

I think so.

And the bodily compound is self-existent, needing nothing to give it existence? |202

Just so.

And do you think that evil things are a man's actions?

It appears so to me.

And the actions then only begin when the agent is present?

Of course.

And if there is no one to act, there are no actions?

There cannot be any.

Well, then, if substance is a kind of bodily compound, and the bodily compound needs nothing to give it existence: and if evil things are a man's actions, and the actions require some one to act, and when he acts they then begin to be, it follows that evil things are not substances. But if evil things are substances, and murder is an evil, murder will be a substance; murder, however, is a man's action; murder will therefore not be a substance. If you mean that the things in action are substances, I agree; as, for example, the murderer, inasmuch as he is a man, is a substance; but the murder which he commits is not a substance, but something, done by the substance. Now we say that a man is sometimes bad because he commits murder, and sometimes, on the contrary, we call him good because of his well-doing; and these names are accidentally associated with the substance, though the accidents are not the substance itself. For neither is murder a substance, nor adultery, nor is any such like evil thing. But as the grammarian is so called from grammar, and the rhetorician from rhetoric, and the medical man from medicine, though neither medicine nor rhetoric nor grammar is a substance, and the substance takes its title according to its accidents, neither of which it is; in the same way, it appears to me, the substance receives a name from what are considered evil things, though it is neither one nor the other of them. Consider further, that if you imagine some other deity to be the cause of the evil which men do, he too, inasmuch as he acts in men, is evil because of the evil which he does. For the reason why he too is said to be evil, is that he is |203 an author of evil; and what a man does, is not the man himself, but his actions, and it is from these the title "evil" is derived. If we were to say that a man is what he creates, and he creates murders, and adulteries, and thefts, and all sorts of such things, he will be all these. But if he is all these, and they exist only when they are being done, and have no existence when they are not being done, and if they are done by men, men will be the creators of them, and the causes of their existing or not existing. If you admit that these evil things are the man's actions, it is what from what he does that he has the quality of evil, not from what he is as a substance. For we said that he is called evil from the accidents of the substance, which accidents are not the substance itself, as the medical man is so-called from medicine. And if every man is evil through his actions, and his actions have a beginning, he himself began to be evil, and these evil things, too, had a beginning. If this be so, the man was not evil when his wickedness began, nor can the evil attaching to him be unoriginate; we say it did originate with him.

5. I think, my friend, you have given a sufficient answer to your companion, and I thought you drew an excellent conclusion from his own premises; for, in truth, if matter was unqualified, and God was the Creator of the qualities, and the qualities are evil, God will be the Author of evil. We are agreed, then, that he has been well answered. But it seems to me false to speak of unqualified matter, for we cannot say that any substance whatsoever is without qualities; in fact the very affirmation that it is unqualified, and the description of matter thus given, point out a particular kind of quality. So, if you please, once more discuss the matter with me; for matter seems to me to have had qualities from all eternity; and if I maintain that evil is an effluence of matter, it is that God may not be the cause of evil, but matter the cause of all the evil in the world.

I am delighted with your ready acquiescence, my friend, and commend your earnestness in the discussion: for every one who is desirous to learn ought not to give a mere |204 random assent to what is said, but should carefully weigh the arguments. For supposing one of two disputants to take up a false position, and thus lead his opponent to the conclusion he desires, that will not convince the man who hears him; but if there seems to be a good opening for a remark, the latter will make it on the spot; for one of two things will happen: he will either after hearing what has been said be absolutely benefited by his impressions, or he will convict his antagonist of not speaking the truth. And in my opinion you are not right in saying that matter was qualified from all eternity. For if this be so, what is there for God to create? If we say substances, we have admitted that they already existed; if, on the contrary, we say qualities, we have recognised their pre-existence also. So, then, if both substances and qualities are already in existence, it seems to me useless to call God a Creator. But that I may not seem to argue all on my own side, let me ask you a question: In what sense do you say that God was a "Creator"? ⁵⁹⁵ Is it that He changed the substances so that they no longer were what they were before, but became something different? Or is it that He kept the substances as they previously were, but changed their qualities?

6. I do not suppose there was a change in the substances; that is to me an obvious absurdity; what I say is that there was a change of the qualities, and I maintain that in respect of them God is a Creator. For just as we may say that a house is built of stones, but cannot say that, because the stones have become a house, they do not remain stones in substance: for I maintain that the house is built in virtue of the quality of arrangement, the former quality of the stones having been of course changed; so, it seems to me, God, while the substance remained the same, created a change of its qualities, and I maintain that this change justifies us in saying that God made the world.

Well, then, since you say that a change of the qualities was brought about by God, I wish you would briefly tell |205 me whether you likewise think that things evil are qualities of the substances?

I think so.

And were these qualities themselves in matter from the very first, or had they a beginning?

I say that these qualities were eternally co-existent with matter.

But do you not say that God produced a change of the qualities?

Yes. That is what I say.

Was it for the better, or for the worse?

I think I must admit it was for the better.

Well, then, if the evil things are qualities of matter, and God changed its qualities for the better, we are bound to inquire into the origin of evil. For the qualities did not remain what they were by nature. If the qualities were not bad at first, and you say that through the change which God made, matter acquired its first bad qualities, God will be the cause of evil, because He changed qualities which were not bad, so that they became bad; or do you suppose God not to have changed the bad qualities into better ones, but that the only ones left, the indifferent ones, were changed by God for the sake of putting all in order?

That has been my view from the first.

7. How, then, do you account for His having left the qualities of bad things as they were? Do you say that He had the power to destroy them, but did not choose to do so, or that He had not the power? If you say that He could, but would not, you are bound to admit that He was the cause of these things: for though He had the power to abolish evil He allowed it to remain as it was, particularly when He began to work at matter. If he had not concerned Himself at all with matter, He would not have been the cause of those qualities which He allowed to remain; but since He worked upon a portion of it, and let alone another portion though He might have changed it for the better, it appears to mo that He deserves blame, because He left part of the matter in its evil state, to the |206 destruction of the part on which He worked. In truth, very great injustice seems to have been done to this part of matter; inasmuch as though He reduced it to order, it now partakes of evil. For if any one will carefully look into things, he will find that the present condition of matter is worse than that of the original chaos. Before it was differentiated, it had ho perception of evil; but now every part of it has the perception of evil. Take man, for instance. Before he was fashioned, and by the Creator's skill became a living creature, he had no natural participation in evil; but as soon as God made him a man, he became conscious of approaching evil; and what you say God intended for the benefit of matter is found to have done it more harm than good. If you say that the reason why evil was not stopped was that God could not remove it, you will affirm that God is impotent; and His impotence must either be caused by natural weakness, or be due to the fact that, as if He were the slave of some stronger power, He is overcome by fear. If you venture to say that He is weak by nature, you appear to imperil your salvation; and if you say that He is overcome by fear of some stronger power, you will be affirming that evil is mightier than God, inasmuch as it is strong enough to resist and overcome His will; and this seems to me an absurd statement to make about God. These things, which according to you are able to overcome God, must surely be the true gods, that is to say, if by God we mean Omnipotence.

8. And I should like to also ask you a short question about matter itself. Tell me, is matter simple or compound? for the difference in things brings me to this turn in the argument. If matter is simple and uniform, and the world is compound, and consists of different substances and commixtures,⁵⁹⁶ we cannot say that it is made of matter, because compound things cannot consist of one simple substance; for when we speak of "compound" we mean a mixture ⁵⁹⁷ of several simple things. If, on the other hand, |207 you say that matter is compound, you will certainly affirm it to be compounded of simple things; and if it is compounded of simple things, there was a time when these simple things existed apart from one another, and it was by their being compounded together that matter was made; and this shows that matter was created. For if matter is compound, and compound things consist of simple things, there was a time when matter was not, that is, before the simple things came together; and if there was a time when matter was not, and there never was a time when the uncreated was not, it follows that matter cannot be uncreated. But from your view it follows that there will be many things uncreated. For if God was uncreated, and the simple things of which matter is compounded were uncreated, there will not be two and only two uncreated. But do you think that nothing opposes itself?

That is my opinion.

But water is the opposite of fire?

Certainly.

And, likewise, darkness is the opposite of light, and heat of cold? And moisture of drought?

Just so.

Well, now, if nothing opposes itself, and the things I have mentioned are opposed to one another, it follows that they are not one and the same matter, nor made of one and the same matter. And I wish to ask you a question like the others: Do you admit that the parts of a thing are not destructive of one another?

I do.

And that fire and water, and the others I mentioned, are parts of matter?

Just so.

And do you not also agree that water is destructive of fire, light of darkness, and so on with all similar things?

Yes.

If, then, the parts of a thing are not destructive of one another, and these things are destructive of one another, it follows that they are not parts of one another; and if they |208 are not parts of one another, they will not be parts of one and the same matter. But in fact they will not be matter at all, because that nothing is destructive of itself, as is the case with opposites. For nothing is opposed to itself, opposites being by nature opposed to things other than themselves; as for example, white is not the opposite of white, but is said to be opposed to black; light, too, is shown not to be opposed to itself, but to darkness, and similarly with countless other things. So then, if matter is a single substance, it cannot be its own opposite; and if this doctrine of opposites holds good, it appears that there is no such matter.

The foregoing is taken from Book VII. of the Praeparatio Evangelica of Eusebius; being, as he says, the work of Maximus,⁵⁹⁸ a Christian writer of some distinction. But it has been discovered word for word in Origen's discussion with the Marcionites and other heretics, Eutropius defending, Megethius opposing.

CHAP. XXV. ----That the "separation" which arises from foreknowledge does not do away with Free Will. From Book I. of the Commentary on the Epistle to the Romans, at the words "separated unto the gospel of God."

1. The third point to notice is the phrase "separated unto the Gospel of God";⁵⁹⁹ and in the Epistle to the Galatians the Apostle says the same thing about himself: "When it was the good pleasure of God, who separated me even from my mother's womb, to reveal his son in me." ⁶⁰⁰ They who do not understand that any one who is predestined through the foreknowledge of God is the cause of the events foreknown, take hold of such expressions as these, and think they can by them establish their doctrine that men are so constituted by nature that they must be saved. And some employ such passages to destroy man's Free Will, and also make use of the words in the Psalms, "The wicked are estranged from the womb." We may |209 easily meet this by asking them to explain what comes next; for it is written, "The wicked are estranged from the womb; they go astray as soon as they be born, speaking lies. Their poison is like the poison of a serpent." ⁶⁰¹ And we will ask those who insist on the clearness of the words, whether the wicked who were estranged from the womb, as soon as they were born went astray and erred from the way of salvation, and whether this was their own doing. And how could the wicked who were estranged from the womb, both go astray as soon as they were born and also speak lies? For our opponents, I suppose, will never be able to show that in the moment of birth they uttered an articulate cry, and told lies. If, however, we observe the steps by which we approach predestination in the argument of the epistle which we are examining, we shall, once we have disposed of what inclines the simpler sort of readers to justify the charge of injustice brought against God's decree, be able to defend Him Who separated from his mother's womb, and separated unto the Gospel of God, Paul the servant of Jesus Christ, called to be an Apostle. The words stand thus: "We know that to them that love God all things work together for good, even to them that are called according to his purpose. For whom he foreknew, he also foreordained to be conformed to the image of his Son, that he might be the first-born among many brethren: and whom he foreordained, them he also called: and whom he called, them he also justified: and whom he justified, them he also glorified."⁶⁰²

2. Let us, then, attend to the order of these statements. God first calls, and then justifies, and He does not justify those whom He did not call; and He calls, having before the calling foreordained, and He does not call whom He did not foreordain;⁶⁰³ and the foreordaining is not the origin of His calling and justifying; for if it were the origin of all that follows they who bring in by a side wind the absurd doctrine of souls being "naturally constituted" ⁶⁰⁴ |210 might very plausibly have claimed the victory; but the foreknowledge comes before the foreordaining, for "whom he did foreknow," says the Apostle, "he also foreordained to be conformed to the image of his Son." ⁶⁰⁵ So then, God first surveyed the long series of events, and perceiving the will of certain men to be inclined to godliness, and also their efforts to attain thereto when their will was so inclined, and further, how they would wholly give themselves up to a virtuous life, He foreknew them, for He knows the present and foreknows the future; and whom He thus foreknew, He foreordained to be conformed to the image of His Son. Now we know there is a Person, Who is the image of the invisible God,⁶⁰⁶ and it is His image which is called the image of the Son of God; and we think that this image is the human ⁶⁰⁷ soul which the Son of God assumed, and which for its merit became the image of the image of God. And it was to this, which we think is the image of the image of the Son of God, that God foreordained those to be conformed, whom, on account of His foreknowledge of them, He did foreordain. We must not therefore suppose that the foreknowledge of God is the cause of future events; but inasmuch as these events would follow the agent's own impulses, on this account He foreknew, for He knoweth all things before they be:⁶⁰⁸ and inasmuch as He knoweth all things before they be, He foreknew certain individuals and foreordained them to be conformed to the image of His Son; but others He saw |211 estranged. And if any one objects, and asks whether what God foreknows might possibly not occur, we shall say it possibly might not; but granting this possibility, there is no necessity that it should occur, or not occur; and the events will not in the least be necessitated, but there is also the possibility of their not occurring. The subject of possibilities, however, belongs to the science of the skilled logician; so that if a man will cleanse the eye of his mind, he may thus be able to follow the subtle arguments, and may understand how, even in the course of ordinary events, there is nothing to prevent the possibility of a given circumstance issuing many ways, though, in fact, there will be only one out of the many, and that not necessitated; and the foreknowledge of it means that it will be, but will not of necessity be; for though it may possibly not occur, the prediction of it will not be conjecture but real foreknowledge.

3. And let no one think that we have said nothing about the phrase "according to his purpose," because it may seem to hamper our argument; for Paul says, "We know that to them that love God all things work together for good, even to them that are called according to his purpose." ⁶⁰⁹ The critic should observe that the Apostle also at once gave the reason for their being culled according to His purpose, saying, "Whom he did foreknow, them he also foreordained to bo conformed to the image of his Son." And who more fitting to be included in the justifying calling by the purpose of God, than those who love Him? And that the cause of the purpose and foreknowledge lies in our Free Will is clearly shown by the words, "We know that all things work together for good to them that love God"; for Paul all but said that if all things work together for good, the reason is that they who love God are worthy of their working together. And here let us ask our opponents a question, and let them give us an answer. Just for a moment let us assume that we have some measure of Free Will,----and we will tell them that this is a fact, though they |212 seek to destroy Free Will,----until on that assumption we can prove the unsoundness of their view. If Free Will is indeed a reality, will God, when He considers the chain of future events, foreknow what will be done by each possessor of Free Will through the exercise of that Free Will, or will He not foreknow? To say that He will not foreknow, is worthy of a man who knows nothing of the omniscience and majesty of God. But if they will admit His foreknowledge, let us ask them another question: Is His knowing the cause of future occurrences, assuming that men have Free Will? Or does He foreknow because the events will come to pass? And is it the truth that His foreknowledge is by no means the cause of what will result from man's Free Will? It is then possible for a man created free, under given circumstances, not to do one thing and to do another.

4. For these reasons, and others like them which might be adduced, we uphold the words, "Well done, good and faithful servant: thou hast been faithful over a few things, I will set thee over many things: enter thou into the joy of thy Lord," ⁶¹⁰ and meaning attaches to all commendation. There is sound reason also in the words, "Thou wicked and slothful servant, thou oughtest to have put my money to the bankers." ⁶¹¹ Only thus can we maintain the justice of what is said to those on His right hand, "Come ye blessed of my Father, inherit the kingdom prepared for you from the foundation of the world: for I was an hungered, and ye gave me meat," ⁶¹² and so on; and to those on the left hand, "Depart from me, ye cursed, into the eternal fire which is prepared for the devil and his angels: for I was an hungred, and ye gave me no meat," ⁶¹³ and so on. But even supposing that the words "Separated unto the gospel of God," ⁶¹⁴ and "He that separated me from my mother's womb," ⁶¹⁵ imply some necessity, how could the Apostle reasonably say, "I buffet my body and bring it into bondage, lest by any means, after that I have preached to others, I myself should be |213 rejected." ⁶¹⁶ And further, "Woe is unto me if I preach not the gospel." ⁶¹⁷ For he clearly shows hereby that if he did not buffet his body and bring it into bondage as much as he could, he would be rejected after preaching to others, and that woe might have been unto him if he did not preach the Gospel. Perhaps, then, it was under these conditions that God separated him from his mother's womb: God saw the cause of the just separation, viz. that Paul would buffet his body, and bring it into bondage, because he feared lest having preached to others he himself might be rejected, and that, knowing there would be woe to him unless he preached the Gospel, being moved with fear towards God so that he might not be in woe, he would not hold his peace but would preach the Gospel. And this He also saw Who separated him from his mother's womb, and separated him unto His own Gospel, viz. that he would be in labours more abundantly,⁶¹⁸ in prisons more frequently, in stripes above measure, in death oft; that of the Jews he would five times receive forty stripes save one, that he would be thrice beaten with rods, once be stoned; and that he would suffer all this rejoicing in tribulations, and that, knowing that tribulation worketh endurance,⁶¹⁹ he would endure. For these reasons it was meet that he should be separated unto the Gospel of God, as it was foreknown that he would be, and that he should be separated from his mother's womb. And he was separated unto the Gospel of God not because his nature was specially endowed and by its constitution surpassed the natures of men unlike him, but on account of his actions, first foreknown, but afterwards realised, every one of them, through his apostolic fitness and apostolic purpose. This is not the time to discuss the passage in the psalm, for it was a digression; so, God willing, it shall be discussed in its proper place, whenever we interpret the psalm. The foregoing will abundantly suffice for the term "separated." |214

CHAP. XXVI. ----Of the question of things "good"and "evil"; that they partly depend on our own efforts ⁶²⁰ and partly do not; and (that) according to the teaching of Christ, but not as Aristotle thinks. From the treatise on the th Psalm, at the words, "Many say, who will show us the good things?" ⁶²¹

1. Seeing that there is so much discussion as to what things are "good," what "evil," some affirming that good things and the contrary do not depend ⁶²² on our own efforts, pleasure,⁶²³ for instance, as they declare, being a good thing, trouble an evil thing; while others identify "good" and "evil" with things dependent on our own efforts only, for they say that good ⁶²⁴ things are the virtues only and virtuous actions, and that evil things are the vices and vicious actions; and a third set of thinkers unite the two views, and tell us that good and evil things partly depend on our own efforts, partly do not: no wonder, if distracted by these sophistries the majority of believers, longing to learn what are really good things, cry out with the psalmist, "Who will show us the good things?" ⁶²¹ That the good things naturally depend upon our own efforts, everybody who accepts the passage in the Gospel where the judgment is described, would unhesitatingly allow. For it says that a man is good, supposing him to hear the sentence, "Well done, good and faithful servant; thou hast been faithful over a few things, I will set thee over many things: enter thou into the joy of |215 thy Lord." ⁶²⁵ And that is also good which proceedeth from the good man, out of his heart, as the Saviour says, "The good man out of the good treasure of his heart bringeth forth that which is good." ⁶²⁶ And, in general, every fruit of a good tree, because it depends on a man's own efforts, is a good thing: such as love, peace, joy, long-suffering, kindness, goodness, faithfulness, meekness, self-control; and the contraries are evil things. And if, according to the teaching of Christ, there is a something good and evil, and we must still look for it in things independent of our choice, and it should prove to be independent of our efforts, we shall on further investigation very quickly show. But, at any rate, things so called by those who unite what is within our choice with what is not, could not be good and evil; for they think that some good things pertain to the soul, others to the body, and that others are external; and similarly with evil things. And in respect of the soul, they speak of virtue and virtuous conduct, or vice and vicious conduct; as concerns the body, of health and vigour and beauty, or disease and sickliness and deformity; as regards externals, wealth, good birth and reputation, or poverty, humble origin and disgrace.

2. And some will suppose that likewise according to the Scriptures there are three kinds of good things, and three of evil; for while they allow that virtues and vices are "good" and "evil," according to the recognised distinction between virtue and vice, and the corresponding conduct on either side, they will make use of passages which declare that oven things pertaining to the body, and things external, are good or evil. And as regards virtues and vices, need I say anything? for we are taught by ethics that we ought to choose righteousness, and temperance, and prudence, and courage, and regulate our conduct according to these virtues; and that we ought to shun the contraries to them. We therefore require no illustrations of good things which are the objects of |216 our own choice; but from many places they will adduce instances of good things which are bodily and external. On the present occasion it will suffice if we adduce certain passages from Exodus, Leviticus, and Deuteronomy, to prove that promises are made to those who keep the commandments' while there are threats and curses against those who transgress them; for example, that health is a blessing, and disease the opposite, the following quotation from Exodus will show: "If thou wilt keep my commandments and my ordinances, I will put none of the diseases upon thee, which I put upon the Egyptians; for I am the Lord that healeth thee." ⁶²⁷ And the words also from Deuteronomy against sinners might be supposed to make bodily plagues and diseases an evil thing, and health and bodily strength, of course, a good thing. The passage stands thus: "If thou wilt not observe to do all the words of this law which are written in this book, that thou mayest fear this glorious and marvellous name, The Lord thy God; then The Lord thy God will make thy plagues wonderful, and the plagues of thy seed, even great plagues, and marvellous, and sore sicknesses, and very many. And he will bring upon thee again all the grievous plague of Egypt, which thou wast afraid of, and it shall cleave unto thee. Also every sickness, and every plague, which is not written in the book of this law, will the Lord bring upon thee, until it utterly destroy thee." ⁶²⁸ And again to transgressors it is said, "I will appoint over you even fever and jaundice, that shall consume your eyes, and make your soul to pine away." ⁶²⁹ Further, in Deuteronomy ⁶³⁰ the Word threatens with incurable lockjaw ⁶³¹ those who forsake godliness.

3. And they who understand outward blessings to be promised by the Divine word in Leviticus, will make use of the following: "If ye walk in my statutes, and |217 keep my commandments, and do them: then I will give you the rain in its season, and the land shall yield her increase, and the trees of the plains shall yield their fruit. And your threshing shall overtake the vintage, and the vintage shall reach unto the sowing time, and ye shall eat your bread to the full, and dwell in your land safely," ⁶³² and so on. And from Deuteronomy they will take and use the passage, "And it shall be when ye shall pass over Jordan unto the land which the Lord thy God giveth thee, and ye observe to do all his commandments which I command thee this day, that the Lord thy God shall set thee on high above all: and all these blessings shall come upon thee, and overtake thee, if thou shalt hearken unto the voice of the Lord thy God.⁶³³ Blessed shalt thou be in the city, and blessed shalt thou be in the field. Blessed shall be the fruit of thy body, and the fruit of thy ground, the herds of thy kine, and the flocks of thy sheep. Blessed shall be thy garners and thy kneading-troughs," ⁶³⁴ and so on. And so again, on the contrary, it is said to the ungodly, "Cursed shalt thou be in the city, and cursed shalt thou be in the field. Cursed shall be thy garners and thy kneading-troughs. Cursed shall be the fruit of thy body, and the fruit of thy ground, cursed the herds of thy cattle and the flocks of thy sheep." ⁶³⁵ And countless other passages will be brought forward by those who will have it that good and evil things are bodily and external. And they lay hold of the Gospels also, and tell us that the Saviour when He came took away from men, inasmuch as He deemed them evil things, bodily blindness, and deafness, and palsy, and healed every disease and every sickness,⁶³⁶ and gave instead of the evil things which previously prevailed, clearness of bodily sight, and hearing, and every form of health and strength; and they will put you out of countenance by what they allege, unless we are prepared to admit possession by devils and lunacy |218 to be evil things,⁶³⁷ and, on the contrary, deliverance from them to be a good thing. Nay, the Apostles also in exercising the gifts of healing, and in working miracles, by the very nature of what they did brought good things to men and freed them from evil things. And they who say such things will pass over to the world to come, and allege that because pain is an evil thing sinners are committed to age-long fire; and if pain is an evil thing, pleasure must be a good one.

4. The foregoing clearly shows the arguments which mostly silence such readers as cannot dispose of the. scriptural statements which are adduced in favour of there being three kinds of good things and three of evil things. Moreover, not only have confessedly unsophisticated believers been thus beguiled, but even some of those who profess wisdom according to Christ have fallen into the snare; for they suppose such promises as these to be made by the Creator,⁶³⁸ and that beyond their literal signification the threats have no meaning. Well, then, in reply to all who so strangely apprehend the Scriptures, we must further inquire whether the Prophets, against whom no charge is brought, kept the law; Elias, for instance, the poorest of men, so poor that he had not bread of his own to eat, and was therefore sent to a woman of Zarephath which belonged to Zidon;⁶³⁹ and Eliseus, who at the house of the Shunammite had a very little chamber, and a bed, and a cheap candlestick, who also fell sick and died;⁶⁴⁰ and Isaiah, who went three years naked and barefoot;⁶⁴¹ and Jeremiah, who was cast into a miry pit, and was constantly derided, so that he prayed he might have a lodging-place in the wilderness;⁶⁴² and John, who was in the deserts and ate nothing but locusts and wild honey, who had a leathern girdle about his loins, and was clothed in raiment of camel's hair.⁶⁴³ They will, I suppose, admit that these men kept the law. And we will ask whether |219 what our opponents consider good things, were the lot of those who kept the law. And if they cannot show that this was so, there will be no escape for them; they will have to allow either that the promises which are said to be given to the godly are false, or that being true they must be anagogically interpreted; and once they are compelled to resort to allegory, there is an end of their supposition that the law threatens the ungodly with bodily disease, and such external things as are reckoned to be evils, and that the promise of bodily health and wealth is for those who follow after God.

5. And is it not foolish to make such a point of the ills of life, and to boast of those who suffer from them? For if tribulations are evil, and the Apostle speaks of rejoicing in tribulations,⁶⁴⁴ it is clear that he rejoiced in evil things; but this is foolish, and the Apostle was not a fool; and it follows that such exercises of the Apostle as he speaks of were not evil; being pressed on every side he is not straitened; he is perplexed, yet not unto despair;⁶⁴⁵ tempted, but not killed; thought to be poor, he maketh many rich, and supposed to have nothing, he possesses all things; for the whole world of wealth belongs to the believer, and not an obol to the unbeliever. And further, they who suppose that according to Scripture there are three kinds of good and three kinds of evil, have to face another fact, viz. that the righteous are ever in the midst of evils, for the word of prophecy says truly, "Many are the afllictions of the righteous."⁶⁴⁶ And they who suppose certain things to be evils might not unfitly remember what befell Job, to whom after that he had nobly borne the trials which compassed him about, the Divine word says, "And dost thou suppose that I dealt with thee for any other purpose than that thou mayest appear righteous?" ⁶⁴⁷ For if Job is shown to be righteous no other way than through this and that befalling him, how can we say that the causes of his appearing righteous are evils to him? And it follows that even the Devil is |220 not an evil to the holy man. At all events, the Devil was not an evil to Job, for all things work together for good to those who love God, to those who are the called according to His purpose.⁶⁴⁸ And we further say that it is far from clear that, if the blessings are taken literally, the "righteous" man will be a partaker of those things which in the Scriptures are considered "good." For the story of many a holy man's life contradicts such interpretations. It is absurd to suppose that the holy man will be a money lender, opening banks in many nations,⁶⁴⁹ in town after town, distracted over payments and receipts, and following a prohibited business; for "the righteous man ⁶⁵⁰ putteth not out his money to usury, and taketh not rewards against the innocent"; and "he that doeth these things shall never be moved." ⁶⁵¹ And, according to Ezekiel, "the holy man giveth not forth his money upon usury nor taketh increase." ⁶⁵² And as for thinking that fever is inflicted on account of sins, that is an opinion of very ignorant people, for the causes of such a sickness are often clear enough; either the neighbourhood, or the quality of the water, or the character of the food. And if health and wealth are rewards for the righteous, no ungodly man ought to have health or wealth. But we must look for this health in the constitution of a man's soul, and the wealth we must take to be that ransom of a man's soul of which Solomon speaks,----"The ransom of a man's soul is his own riches." ⁶⁵³ But we must shun poverty, which is thus described: "A poor man endureth not a threat." And further, by wounds and bruises and sicknesses we must understand the evils which befall heedless souls through their wickedness; and the prophet blames the sufferers this way for being in such a condition, saying, "From the sole of the foot even unto the head, neither wound, nor bruise, nor festering sore (is healed); there is no plaster, nor oil, to put upon them, neither have they been bound up." ⁶⁵⁴ |221

6. This will be enough to enable any but the very dull, when they read the distracting passages of Scripture, to arrive at a worthy conception of the action of the Holy Spirit. But in order to silence those who think that in these passages we have the good things which shall be given to the saints, and, on the other hand, the evil things which shall be awarded to sinners, we must further observe that everything which exists on account of a given object is less important than that for which it exists; for instance, surgical operations, cauteries, and plasters, which are means to health, are less important than the health in view. And even supposing that regarded as remedies of the physician these things are called "good," we must understand that they are not the final good things of the healing art, but causes of them; from the physician's standpoint bodily health is the final good. Similarly, if we must keep certain commands for the sake of securing certain blessings, and the rewards are bodily and external, the good actions will not be good as ends in themselves, but only as productive of the blessings; and the wealth which our opponents suppose the Scripture to promise, and the bodily health, will excel the righteousness, and the very holiness, piety, and fear of God which constitute the upright and virtuous conduct. It is for men who do not know the dignity of virtue, but prefer material things to virtue itself, to accept such doctrines; for of all things it is most absurd to say that wealth and bodily health surpass upright and virtuous conduct. And, in fact, it is on account of these detestable opinions that some persons have come to believe that even after the Resurrection one of the first things promised is that we shall eat and drink such and such things, and some hold that we shall even beget children. As soon as ever these opinions reach heathen inquirers, they will make Christianity appear a very foolish thing; for some who are strangers to the Faith hold far better views.

7. Now we will apply what appears to be the results of our investigation of the sacred oracles. We alleged that |222 we were content to say that "good" things and "evil" things, partly depend on our own efforts, and partly do not. We did not,⁶⁵⁵ however, reckon among the blessings which do not depend on our efforts, health and beauty and high descent and riches, and, as best we could, we endeavoured to briefly solve these perplexing passages. We must now say what the good things are which do not depend on our efforts; for it is true that "except the Lord build the house, they labour but in vain who build it"; and "except the Lord keep the city, the watchman waketh but in vain." ⁶⁵⁶ Every one who is making progress is building a house, and every one that is perfect keepeth a city; and the work of him that buildeth is in vain, except the Lord build and the Lord watch. The power of the Lord which assists in the building of him that buildeth, and which cooperates with him who is himself unable to complete the edifice, is one of the good things which do not depend on our efforts; and we must take the same view of the city which is being watched. And just as if I were to say that the "good thing" of agriculture, that which produces the fruit, partly depends on ourselves in respect of the husbandman's skill, and partly does not so depend, in respect of the working of Providence for a genial atmosphere and an abundant supply of rain: so the "good thing" of the rational creature is made up of man's purpose, and the Divine power assisting him, when he has chosen the better life. There is need, therefore, both of our own purpose and of the Divine assistance, not only that we may become good and upright, but also that having become good and upright we may abide in virtue; for even if a man has been perfected he will fall away, if he be puffed up over his goodness and accounts himself the cause thereof, and does not fitly ascribe glory to Him who contributes more than all besides to the acquiring and keeping of his virtue. |223 Something like this, we think, explains how it was that he who in Ezekiel is said to have walked blameless in all his ways, until iniquity was found in him,⁶⁵⁷ fell from heaven, viz., as Isaiah tells us, Lucifer, once a morning star, afterwards, undone and cast clown to earth.⁶⁵⁸ For not only of the sons of men is it true that if a man be perfect and have not the wisdom of God, he is accounted but a thing of nought; but it is true even in the order of Angels, and of sovereign Powers, and in every rank of being that is Divine so far as God is with it. Anyway, perhaps because the holy Apostle sees that our purposing counts for far less than the power of God in the acquisition of the good things, he says that the result is not of him that willeth, nor of him that runneth, but of God that showeth mercy;⁶⁵⁹ not as though God showeth mercy without our willing and running, but because our willing and running is as nothing in comparison with the mercy of God; and therefore, as is right and meet, he gives the credit of the good result rather to the mercy of God than to human willing and running.

8. Although we knew we should seem to be widely digressing, we have gone into all these details, for we are convinced of the necessity of the inquiry, if we are to handle the words, "Many say, who will show us the good things?" ⁶⁶⁰ As far as we could we have clearly pointed out to the many who say "Who will show us the good things?" what the good things are, and, consequently, also, what are the evil things, in order that through our exercises and prayers we may acquire the good things, and repel the evil things from our souls. But since in speaking men sometimes use literal expressions, and sometimes, I suppose, even use words in a wrong sense, we must not be surprised if occasionally we find those who hold unsound opinions applying the terms "good" and "evil" to bodily things, and what we call things external. For example, in Job we read, "If we receive good at the hand of God, shall wo not endure evil? " ⁶⁶¹ And in Jeremiah, "Evil came down from |224 the Lord to the gates of Jerusalem." ⁶⁶² Instead of saying, "If we receive such and such useful and pleasant things at the hand of Providence, shall we not put up with the unpleasant and painful ones?" Job says, "If we receive good at the hand of God, shall we not endure evil?" And instead of, "These particular events providentially happened to Jerusalem for the chastisement of its inhabitants," we have, "Evil came down from the Lord to the gates of Jerusalem." So then, readers who understand the facts must not quibble over the names, but must ascertain when the names are to be taken literally, and when on account of their limited connotation they are not taken in their strict sense. And even if the Saviour healed some of these disorders, and gave health, and sight, and hearing to men, we must look chiefly for their spiritual meaning, since the narratives prove that the word of the Gospel does heal the disorders of the soul. And there is no absurdity in supposing in such cases that what is related in the narrative was done to astonish the men of that time; so that if any were not convinced by argument and instruction, they might be silenced through the marvellous miracles, and yield assent to the teacher.

CHAP. XXVII. ----The meaning of the Lord's hardening Pharaoh's heart.

1. Nearly all readers of the Book of Exodus, both they who disbelieve, and they who say they believe it, are disturbed at the frequently occurring words, "The Lord hardened the heart of Pharaoh," ⁶⁶³ and "I will harden the heart of Pharaoh." ⁶⁶⁴ For among many other causes of men's disbelief we must include this, that things unworthy of God are spoken of God, and it is unworthy of God to bring about the hardening of any man's heart, and to effect the hardening in order that he who is hardened may disobey the will of Him who hardens. And they further ask, Is it not absurd for God to influence any one to disobey His will? That would be a clear proof that God did not wish |225 Pharaoh to be obedient to His commands. And to ordinary believers it sounds very harsh to say, "The Lord hardened the heart of Pharaoh." For readers who are convinced that there is no other God but the Creator,⁶⁶⁵ think that God arbitrarily, as it were, has mercy on whom He will have mercy, and hardens whom He will,⁶⁶⁶ when there is no reason why one man should have mercy shown him by God, and another be hardened by Him. And others, better advised than these, say they look upon Scripture as containing many secrets, and that they do not on that account turn aside from the sound faith; and one of the secrets they hold to be the true ⁶⁶⁷ account of this portion of Scripture. Others, alleging that there is a God other than the Creator, will have Him to be just but not good, very foolishly and impiously going the length of severing righteousness from goodness, and supposing that it is possible for righteousness to exist in any one apart from goodness, and for goodness to be separated from righteousness. And although they say this, they nevertheless, in contradiction of their own conception of a righteous God, concede the point that He hardens the heart of Pharaoh, and makes him disobedient to Himself. For if He who giveth to every man his due, and bestoweth on those who have themselves been the cause of progress or deterioration, such things as He knoweth each one to be fitted to receive,----if He is just, how can that God be just Who was the cause of Pharaoh's sin? not absolutely the cause, indeed, but so far as they understand Him to have contributed to Pharaoh's becoming a most unrighteous man. For inasmuch as they refer the hardening of Pharaoh's heart to nothing worthy of the purpose of a just God, I fail to understand how, even on their own showing, they can make the hardener of Pharaoh's heart a just God. We must therefore press them in the exposition of the passage before us either to show how a just God hardens, or to pluck up courage and say that the Creator, because He hardens, is a wicked God. If they can find but scanty proofs that the just God is capable of hardening a man's |226 heart, and dare not be so godless as to own that they charge the Creator with wickedness, let them take refuge in some other way of interpreting the words, "The Lord hardened the heart of Pharaoh," ⁶⁶⁸ and no longer contradict their own conception of a just God, because they think they understand the literal meaning. They will at last, perhaps, confess that they are at a loss to know what the Word is hinting at.

2. Away, then, with such conceptions of the Divine nature as we are investigating in the question before us. They are torn to shreds. But inasmuch as there are those who advance the plea of natural constitution, supposing some persons to have been created to perdition, and adduce these passages in support of their views, maintaining that their contention is clearly proved by the fact that Pharaoh's heart was hardened by the Lord, come, let us ask them a few questions. A man created to perdition would never be able to grow in goodness, because his original nature neutralises his efforts to attain to virtue. What need, then, was there for Pharaoh, who was, as you say, a son of perdition, to be hardened by God so that he should not let the people go? For you tell us that if he had not been hardened he would have let them go. Further, we should like an answer to another question: What would Pharaoh have done if he had not been hardened? If he had let them go, not being hardened, he had not a nature doomed to perdition. If he had not let them go, the hardening of his heart was superfluous; for he would just the same have refused to let them go, even if he had not been hardened. And what did God do to control his reason when he hardened him? And how is it that He blames him, saying, "Because thou disobeyest me, behold I will slay thy first-born." ⁶⁶⁹ Can it be that He who hardens, hardens one already hard. Clearly, the hard is not hardened, but the change is from softness to hardness; and softness of heart is, according to the Scripture, praiseworthy, as we have often observed. Let them, |227 therefore, tell us whether Pharaoh turns from good to bad; further, whether God in blaming Pharaoh blames him without cause, or not without cause; if without cause, how is He any longer wise and just? if not without cause, Pharaoh was responsible for his sins of disobedience; and if he was responsible, he had not a nature doomed to perdition. We must certainly ask another question, because the Apostle, pushing his arguments to their full conclusion, says, "So then he hath mercy on whom he will, and whom he will he hardeneth. Thou wilt say then unto me, Why doth he still find fault? For who withstandeth his will? " ⁶⁷⁰ Who, we ask, is it that hardeneth and hath mercy? The hardening surely does not belong to one God, and the having mercy to a different one, if we follow the apostolic utterance, but both are attributed to the same God. Either, then, they who in Christ find mercy, belong to Him Who hardeneth Pharaoh's heart, and it is idle for our opponents to invent any other god than (as they allow Him to be) the good God, Who not only hath mercy but also hardens; or He would no longer be, as they suppose, even good.

3. We have advisedly gone into all these details at considerable length, in opposition to those who unwarrantably congratulate themselves on their understanding, and complain of our simplicity, in order to show that neither in their conceptions of God, nor in their doctrines of natures, does the Word when examined give them any support. For ourselves, we are for many reasons convinced, both as we study the sacred Scriptures, and as we contemplate the magnitude of the forces at work in creation, and the evidences of orderly design, that things visible and invisible, things temporal and things eternal, come from God the Creator, Who is to be regarded as one and the same with the Father of our Lord and Saviour, the good and just and wise God; and in handling the Scriptures we strive to keep that steadily in view, begging God our Saviour to show us all things pertaining to a good |228 and just and wise God, for we suppose that the things we speak of cannot be regarded, at least by intelligent beings, as the result of chance, but that we must ask ourselves whether they are consistent with His goodness and justice and wisdom.

4. Something like this, then, we suppose to be the meaning of the words,"The Lord hardened the heart of Pharaoh." ⁶⁷¹ The Word of God is a physician of the soul, and uses the most diverse, suitable, and seasonable methods of healing the sick; and of these methods of healing, some more, some less, give pain and torment to those who are under treatment; and the remedies, moreover, seem unsuitable, sometimes not; and, further, they act speedily or slowly; and are sometimes applied when the patients have had their fill of sin, or when, so to speak, they have only touched it. The whole of inspired Scripture abounds in proofs of each of these statements. For example, we read that remedies more or less sad were applied to the people in the course of what befell them, for the sake of punishment and correction, in wars of greater or less magnitude, and in famines of longer or shorter duration; and we have an instance of seemingly unsuitable treatment in the passage, "I will not punish your daughters when they commit whoredom, nor your brides when they commit adultery." ⁶⁷² It may be that God leaves to themselves the souls that eagerly desire the sweets of bodily pleasure, until being satiated they abandon the objects of their longing; they are, as it were, sick of them, and not likely to fall quickly into the same snares, because they are disgusted and have been so far tormented. Souls are more slowly healed, because, if they were soon rid of their sufferings, they would think little of falling a second time into the same evils. The God who designed them knows all their different constitutions, and, for that He is an expert in the art of healing, it is for Him alone to say what is best to be done for each, and when.

5. In some bodily sicknesses, when the mischief is, as |229 they say, deep-seated, the physician with the aid of certain drugs draws and forces the matter to the surface, producing severe inflammation and swelling, causing more pains than those which a patient had before he put himself under treatment----as is the practice in cases of Hydrophobia and similar diseases. So God also, I think, deals with secret, deep-seated mischief in the soul. The physician might say in one of his cases, "I will set up inflammation round about the injury, and will force certain parts to swell, so as to produce a bad abscess"; and when he speaks thus, one hearer will not blame a scientific expert but will even praise him for, as it were, threatening to produce these effects, while another hearer will blame him, and will allege that a man who makes a cure depend on inflammations and abscesses must be a quack; so it is, I think, when God says, "I will harden the heart of Pharaoh." ⁶⁷³ And seeing that these things are written, he that heareth them as the oracles of God, observing the dignity of the Speaker, accepts them, and every one who seeketh, findeth a way of showing even herein the goodness of God;⁶⁷⁴ for the people were through the numerous miracles more openly assured of safety; and, secondly, there was goodness as regards the Egyptians, as many as, amazed at what took place, intended to follow the Hebrews: for "a mixed multitude," says the historian, "of the Egyptians went out with them";⁶⁷⁵ and there was perhaps a deeper and more secret purpose of benefiting Pharaoh himself, when he shall no longer conceal the poison nor check the malady, but draw it forth to the light, and perhaps by his conduct put a stop to it: so that having gone through all the stages of the eruption of the wickedness within him, he may find the tree which bore the evil fruit less vigorous, perhaps at last withering away, when he is overwhelmed in the sea: not, as one might suppose, to perish altogether, but that he may cast away and be relieved of the burden of his sins, and, it |230 may be, descend to Hades in peace, or in less warfare of the soul.

6. Readers, however, may hardly be convinced: they will suspect that there is something forced in our version of the matter, viz. that the hardening of Pharaoh's heart was for his good, and that everything we are told, right up to the overwhelming in the sea, was for his sake. Let us see, then, if we cannot remove this reluctance, and convince our readers of the truth of what we say. "Many are the scourges," says David, "of the wicked";⁶⁷⁶ and his son teaches that "God scourgeth every son whom he re-receiveth." ⁶⁷⁷ And elsewhere David in a prophetic promise concerning Christ and those who believe on Him, says, "If his children forsake my law, and walk not in my judgments; if they profane my statutes, and keep not my commandments; then will I visit their transgressions with the rod, and their iniquities with scourges. But my mercy will I not utterly take from them." ⁶⁷⁸ So, then, it is a favour from the Lord that the transgressor is visited with a rod and the sinner with scourges. And so far as the sinner is not scourged, he is not yet brought under discipline and correction. And this is why God threatens, that if the sins of the inhabitants of Judah become great, He will no longer punish their daughters when they commit whoredom, nor their brides when they commit adultery.⁶⁷⁹ And elsewhere he says, "Because I have purged thee, and thou wast not purged, I will not again be furious over thee, nor again be jealous over thee." ⁶⁸⁰ So, then, there are sinners with whom God is not furious; if I may so speak, though He is angry, He is not furious.

7. We must also observe that the threats of the Prophets against the many end with "They shall know that I am the Lord";⁶⁸¹ and not only the threats against the Israelites, but also those against the Egyptians and Assyrians and the other enemies of the people. And this |231 familiar ending of many threats is found also in the Book of Exodus: "And all the Egyptians shall know that I am the Lord":⁶⁸² the usual sufferings being brought upon them for this very purpose, that they may know the Lord. And in the Maccabees something similar is said: "Now I beseech those that read this book, that they be not discouraged for these calamities, but that they judge those punishments not to be for destruction, but for a chastening of our nation. For it is a token of His great goodness, when wicked doers are not suffered any long time, but forthwith punished. For not as with other nations whom the Lord forbeareth to punish, till they be come to the fulness of their sins, so dealeth he with us; but though he punish with adversity he doth not forsake his own people." ⁶⁸³ If the incurring punishment for sins is a token of God's great goodness, I would have you consider whether Pharaoh, inasmuch as he was punished after the hardening of his heart, and chastised as well as his people, was not punished with good reason, and according to his own wickedness. And David, as it were imitating God, and having due regard to times and seasons, when he gives Solomon command concerning Joab, to chastise him for his offences against Abner the son of Ner, and to slay him for his errors, goes on to say, "And thou shalt bring down his hoar head in peace to the grave." ⁶⁸⁴ And it is clear, as the Jew ⁶⁸⁵ also told us, that Joab's resting in peace would be the result of his punishment, torment and punishment being no longer due to him after his discharge therefrom, for he had therein already received his deserts. And so we think that every threat and pain and punishment, things that come from God, are never inflicted to injure the sufferers, but always to do them good. And what are considered the severest |232 terms we can apply to God, fury and anger, are called rebuking and chastening in the passage, "O Lord, rebuke me not in thy fury, nor chasten me in thine anger";⁶⁸⁶ where the suppliant begs that he may not need rebuke through God's fury, and chastening through God's anger, for some there were who would be rebuked in God's fury, and chastened in His anger.

8. But that we may the more readily assent to what has been said, we must make use of similar passages from the New Testament. The Saviour says, "I came to cast fire upon the earth; and what will I, if it is already kindled." ⁶⁸⁷ If the fire which He came to cast upon the earth had not been a saving fire, at all events a saving fire for men, the Son of the good God would not have said this. And then there is the case of Peter, who, when with the sword of his mouth he slew Ananias and Sapphira, because they sinned by lying,⁶⁸⁸ not to men but to the Lord, had in view not only the edification of such as seeing what was done would show more reverence towards the Faith of Christ, but also the welfare of the offenders visited with death. He wished them to depart from the body purified by their sudden and unexpected death; for they had some right on their side, inasmuch as they gave even the half of their possessions for the wants of the needy. And Paul also, though he pronounces the sentence of blindness on the companion of Sergius Paulus the Proconsul, endeavours through suffering to turn him from sin to godliness, for he says to him, "O full of all guile, and all villainy, thou son of the devil, thou enemy of all righteousness, wilt thou not cease to pervert the right ways of the Lord? And now thou shalt be blind, not seeing the sun for a season." ⁶⁸⁹ What "season" would it be, except such time as, having been punished and tormented for his sins, he would repent and become worthy of both ways seeing the sun?----with his bodily eyes, that the Divine power might be proclaimed in the restoration of his sight, |233 and with the eyes of the soul, when, as a believer he would delight in godliness. Demas, too, and Hermogenes, whom Paul ⁶⁹⁰ delivered to Satan that they might learn not to blaspheme, experienced something like what we have spoken of. And the man at Corinth that had his father's wife was himself, also, delivered to Satan for the destruction of the flesh, that his spirit might be saved in the day of the Lord.⁶⁹¹ No wonder, then, if the treatment of Pharaoh, so that he was hardened and finally involved in such chastisements, is to be traced to the goodness of God. For the present let the foregoing, which we put down as it came into our head, suffice for the words, "And the Lord hardened Pharaoh's heart." ⁶⁹² If any one with due regard to God's glory should discover better arguments, and such as have no tincture of impiety, and can support them with the evidence of the Divine Scriptures, we will gladly avail ourselves of them.

Origen elsewhere discusses the same subject----

9. Among other considerations, I would further urge that possibly as physicians in the treatment of Hydrophobia, to prevent the poison from getting a hold within and killing the man, draw it to the surface, thus causing more acute suffering and inflammation: so God through His healing art draws out the secret mischief lurking in the depths of the soul, and makes it show itself, in order that He may afterwards induce a healthy state. This, I think, is the meaning of what we read in Deuteronomy: "And thou shalt remember all the way that the Lord thy God hath led thee these forty years in the wilderness, that He might humble thee, to prove thee, to know what was in thine heart, whether thou wouldest keep His commandments, or no. And He humbled thee, and suffered thee to hunger, and fed thee with manna, which thou knewest not, neither did thy fathers know; that He might make thee know that man doth not live by bread only, but by every thing that proceedeth out of the mouth of the Lord doth man live." ⁶⁹³ Observe here that God humbles |234 and tries, in order that what is in each man's heart may be known, inasmuch as it lies deep and is revealed through tribulations. And such is the declaration of the Lord to Job in storm and whirlwind: "Dost thou think that I have dealt with thee for any other purpose than that thou mayest appear righteous?" He did not say, "That thou mayest be righteous," but, "That thou mayest appear righteous.⁶⁹⁴ Righteous he was even before his trials, but God would have him show his righteousness by what befell him.

Elsewhere in the same Commentaries on Exodus----

10. One of our friends to relieve the difficulty takes an illustration from daily life, and tells us how frequently it happens that masters who are kind and long-suffering towards their erring servants say, "I ruined you"; and "I spoiled you"; meaning to imply that their kindness and long-suffering seem to have occasioned worse behaviour. As then a sophistical reasoner may say that because the master speaks thus, he confesses that he has spoiled the servant; so, it may be urged, what God in His goodness does, having been made the occasion of Pharaoh's hardness, is described as having hardened Pharaoh's heart. And our friend will discover in the Apostle's own words the softer meaning he desires: "Or despisest thou the riches of His goodness, and forbearance, and long-suffering, not knowing that the goodness of God leadeth thee to repentance? But after thy hardness and impenitent heart treasurest up for thyself wrath in the day of wrath, and revelation of the righteous judgment of God; who will render to every man according to his works." ⁶⁹⁵ Anyway, the same Apostle, in the same Epistle to the Romans, says, "What if God, willing to show his wrath, and to make his power known, endured with much long-suffering vessels of wrath fitted unto destruction," ⁶⁹⁶ as if the long-suffering of God having endured the vessels of wrath, had, as it were, produced them. For if, because of His long-suffering He did not chastise the sinners but took pity on them, and if wickedness thereby abounded, He in a way by His long-suffering endured |235 the vessels of wrath, and, so to speak, Himself made them vessels of wrath, and accordingly Himself hardened their heart. For when Pharaoh, although so many signs and wonders were wrought, is not persuaded, but after his strange experiences still resists, is he not certainly proved to be harder and more unbelieving, and does it not look as though the hardness and unbelief had arisen from the marvellous miracles? The passage in the Gospel is similar: "For judgment came I into this world";⁶⁹⁷ for the Saviour did not purpose to come for judgment, but His coming for judgment of those who after His marvellous works believed not on Him was a consequence of His coming; He, moreover, came for the fall of many;⁶⁹⁸ but He did not purpose when He came to make them fall for whose fall He came.

And elsewhere----

11. So the marvellous things, to those who accept them and believe, as was the case with the mixed multitude of Egyptians who went out with the people, mean mercy; but to the unbelieving they bring hardness of heart. And, further, besides what has been said, we may adduce similar passages from the Gospel, which go to show that even the Saviour appears to have been the cause of evil to some people. "Woe unto thee. Chorazin! Woe unto thee, Bethsaida! for if the mighty works had been done in Tyre and Sidon which were done in you, they would have repented long ago, sitting in sackcloth and ashes. But I say unto you, it shall be more tolerable for Tyre and Sidon than for you. And thou, Capernaum," ⁶⁹⁹ and so on. The Saviour knew beforehand the unbelief of the dwellers at Chorazin and Bethsaida and Capernaum, and that it will be more tolerable for the land of Sodom in the day of judgment than for them. Why, then, does He do His marvellous works in Chorazin and Bethsaida, though He sees that those works will make it more tolerable in the day of judgment for the people of Tyre and Sidon than for them? |236

And again----

12. "And thou shalt say unto Pharaoh, Israel is my son, my first-born: and I have said unto thee, Let my son go, that he may serve me; and if thou refusest to let him go: behold, I will slay thy son, thy first-born." ⁷⁰⁰ Let me ask those persons who allege that this is the action of a just God, and suppose, according to the literal meaning of the words, that Pharaoh's heart was hardened, how He Who hardened the heart of Pharaoh that he might not let the people go, can be just, and at the same time threaten that unless Pharaoh will let them go, He will slay his first-born son? Being hard pressed they will confess that He must be a bad God. Then, again, they will be upset by other passages and forced to escape from their bondage to the letter, inasmuch as the literal meaning, according to them, is inconsistent, with the justice of the Creator.⁷⁰¹ And once they are compelled to investigate the matter, they will proceed so far that they will no longer accuse the Creator, but will allow that He is good. Let us then ask those who think they understand the words, "The Lord hardened the heart of Pharaoh," ⁷⁰² whether they believe the above threats were uttered by God through the mouth of Moses inspired for the occasion, or whether there was no truth in them? If there was no truth in them, God according to them is neither just nor true, and on their own showing is not God at all; but if the words were truly spoken, I would have them consider whether God does not blame Pharaoh as a free agent when He says, "If thou wilt not let my people go";⁷⁰³ and in another place, "How long wilt thou refuse to humble thyself before me?"⁷⁰⁴ For the question, "How long wilt thou refuse to humble thyself before me?" ⁷⁰⁴ is intended to shame Pharaoh, because, if he did not humble himself, it was not that he could not, but that he would not. And then there is what was said before by Moses to Pharaoh: "That thou mayest know that the earth is the Lord's. |237 But as for thee and thy servants, I know that ye have not yet feared the Lord." ⁷⁰⁵ This shows that they will fear----a good argument against the heterodox, for it proves the goodness of God, and disproves their tenet of a man's being naturally doomed to perdition.

And in Book II. of the Commentaries on the "Song of Songs "----

13. Observe further that the sun though white and shining seems to be the cause of a man's turning black, not because of what it does itself, but because of him who turns black.⁷⁰⁶ And so also, perhaps, the Lord hardens Pharaoh's heart, though the cause of this was connected with the king's making the lives of the Hebrews bitter with hard service, in clay and in brick, and in all the service, not on the mountains and hills, but in the plains.⁷⁰⁷ For becoming a material man through his own wickedness, and living a life in all things according to the flesh, just because he is fond of clay, he wishes to turn ⁷⁰⁸ the Hebrews also into clay, for his own reason is not purified from the clay; and just as clay is hardened by the sun, so his reason was hardened by the bright beams of Godhead visiting Israel. And that something like this is the interpretation of the passage, and that it is not the purpose of God's servant to write mere history, will be clear to any one who notices that when the children of Israel groaned they did not groan because of the brick, nor because of the clay, nor because of the straw, but because of the service; and their cry went up to God not because of the clay, but, we repeat, because of the service.⁷⁰⁹ Wherefore God also heard their groans, though He did not hear the groaning of such as cried to Him, not because of the service, but because of the clay and their earthly condition. |238

This text was transcribed by Roger Pearse, 2003. All material on this page is in the public domain - copy freely.

Greek text is rendered using the Scholars Press SPIonic font, free from here.

Early Church Fathers - Additional Texts

SOURCE SECTION: origen_philocalia_04_adverts.htm

The Philocalia of Origen (1911). Advertisements

The Philocalia of Origen (1911). Advertisements

T. & T. CLARK'S PUBLICATIONS.

THE ANTE-NICENE CHRISTIAN LIBRARY.

The Ante-Nicene Christian Library. A Collection of all the Works of the Fathers of the Christian Church prior to the Council of Nicaea. Edited by the Rev. Professor ROBERTS, D.D., and Principal JAMES DONALDSON, LL.D., St. Andrews. In Twenty-four handsome vo Volumes, Subscription Price £6, s. net; or a selection of Four Volumes for £1, s. net.

Any Volume may be had separately, price 10s. d.

This Series has been received with marked approval by all sections of the Christian Church in this country and in the United States, as supplying what has long been felt to be a want, and also on account of the impartiality, learning, and care with which Editors and Translators have executed a very difficult task.

The following Works are included in the Series:----

Apostolic Fathers, comprising Clement's Epistle to the Corinthians; Polycarp to the Ephesians; Martyrdom of Polycarp; Epistle of Barnabas; Epistles of Ignatius (longer and shorter, and also the Syriac Version); Martyrdom of Ignatius; Epistle to Diognetus; Pastor of Hermas; Papias; Spurious Epistles of Ignatius. One Volume. Justin Martyr; Athenagoras. One Volume. Tatian; Theophilus; The Clementine Recognitions. One Volume. Clement of Alexandria, comprising Exhortation to Heathen; The Instructor; and the Miscellanies. Two Volumes. Hippolytus, Volume First; Refutation of all Heresies, and Fragments from his Commentaries. Irenaeus, Volume First. Irenaeus (completion) and Hippolytus (completion); Fragments of Third Century. One Volume. Tertullian against Marcion. One Volume. Cyprian; The Epistles and Treatises; Novatian; Minucius Felix. Two Volumes. Origen: De Principiis; Letters; Treatise against Celsus; and Life of Origen. Two Volumes. Tertullian: To the Martyrs; Apology; To the Nations, etc. Three Volumes. Methodius; Alexander of Lycopolis; Peter of Alexandria Anatolius; Clement on Virginity; and Fragments. One Volume. Apocryphal Gospels, Acts, and Revelations; comprising all the very curious Apocryphal Writings of the first Three Centuries. One Volume. Clementine Homilies; Apostolical Constitutions. One Volume. Arnobius. One Volume. Gregory Thaumaturgus; Dionysius; Archelaus; Syrian Fragments. One Volume. Lactantius; together with the Testaments of the Twelve Patriarchs, and Fragments of the Second and Third Centuries. Two Volumes. Early Liturgies and Remaining Fragments. One Volume.

N.B.----Additional Volume, containing 'RECENTLY DISCOVERED MSS.,' to (pp. 640), price 12s. d. net.

ST. AUGUSTINE'S WORKS.

The Works of Aurelius Augustine, Bishop of Hippo. Edited by MARCUS DODS, D.D. In Fifteen Volumes, demy vo. Subscription Price £3, 19s. net.

Any Volume may be had separately, price 10s. d.

The 'City of God.' Two Volumes. Writings in connection with the Donatist Controversy. One Volume. The Anti-Pelagian Works. Three Volumes.

Treatises against Faustus the Manichaean. One Volume.

On the Trinity. One Volume.

Commentary on John. Two Volumes. The Harmony of the Evangelists, and the Sermon on the Mount.

One Volume. 'Letters.' Two Volumes.

On Christian Doctrine, Enchiridion, on Catechising, and on Faith and the Creed. One Volume.

'Confessions.' With Copious Notes by Rev. J. G. PlLKINGTON.

'For the reproduction of the "City of God" in an admirable English garb we are greatly indebted to the well-directed enterprise and energy of Messrs. Clark, and to the accuracy and scholarship of those who have undertaken the laborious task of translation.'----Christian Observer.

N.B.----Messrs. CLARK offer a Selection of Four Volumes from either or both of those Series at the Subscription Price of One Guinea net (or a larger number at same proportion).

T. & T. CLARK'S PUBLICATIONS.

Recently Discovered Manuscripts, and ORIGEN'S COMMENTARIES ON MATTHEW AND JOHN. Being an Additional Volume to 'The Ante-Nicene Christian Library.' Edited by Professor ALLAN MENZIES, D.D., St. Andrews University. Containing: Gospel of Peter (by Professor ARMITAGE ROBINSON)----Diatessaron of Tatian----Apocalypse of Peter----Visio Pauli----Apocalypses of the Virgin and Sedrach----Testament of Abraham----Acts of Xanthippe and Polyxena ----Narrative of Zosimus----Apology of Aristides----Epistles of Clement (Complete Text)----Origen's Commentaries on Matthew and John, etc. In One Volume, to (pp. 540), price 12s. d. net.

'It was a happy idea which occurred to the publishers of "The Ante-Nicene Library " to supplement that series with a volume containing translations of the more important discoveries of recent years. A judicious arrangement has been observed in grouping the recovered treasures.... It has been compiled with great care, and the Introductions are short and to the point.'----Record.

The Testament of Our Lord. Translated into English from the Syriac, with Introduction and Notes, by JAMES COOPER, D.D., Prof. of Ecclesiastical History in Glasgow University; and the Right Rev. A. J. MACLEAN, D.D., Bishop of Moray and Ross. vo, 9s,

'In making the work known, the Editor has done considerable service to the study both of ecclesiastical history and of liturgy. It is a real service, which deserves the gratitude of scholars.'----Guardian.

The Testament possesses the special interest of being the production of the very period when the great transition in the Church's fortunes, from Imperial persecution to Imperial favour, was leading to the inevitable transformation of her buildings and her services to suit her altered circumstances.... The Testament reflects this state of things as a mirror. It vibrates, moreover, with the pulsation of the great controversies through which the Church was passing. The volume is thus far more than a mere antiquarian curiosity. It had a message to its own time; it has a message to all time, and very distinctly to the time now present. The Testament is also a veritable mine at once of devotional expression and liturgical lore.

A Dissertation on the Gospel Commentary of S. Ephraem the Syrian. With a Scriptural Index to his Works. By Rev. J. HAMLYN HILL, D.D. vo, price s. d.

The BISHOP OF GLOUCESTER AND BRISTOL writes: ' This work forms a valuable appendix to Dr. Hill's English Version of the "Diatessaron."... It is a monument of patient research and intelligent industry, which deserves very hearty recognition."

The Oldest Code of Laws in the World. The Code of Laws promulgated by HAMMURABI, King of Babylon, B.C. 2285-2242. Translated by C. H. W. JOHNS, M.A., Lecturer on Assyriology, Queens' College, Cambridge. Crown vo, s. d. net.

Pseudepigrapha: An Account of certain Apocryphal Sacred Writings of the Jews and early Christians. By Rev. WILLIAM J. DEANE, M.A., Rector of Ashen, Essex. In post vo, price s. d.

' It is the most complete book on the subject in the English language, and contains the most ample information on these writings. It is indispensable to every scholar who wishes to be acquainted with this class of literature, and should occupy a place in the library of every theologian.'----PATON J. GLOAG, D.D.

Hymns and Thoughts on Religion. By NOVALIS. With a Biographical Sketch. Translated and Edited by Prof. HASTIE, D.D., Glasgow University. Crown vo, price s. As a poet, Novalis is no less idealistic than as a philosopher. His poems are breathings of a high, devout soul."----CARLYLE.

T. & T. CLARK'S PUBLICATIONS.

BY PROFESSOR ADOLF DEISSMANN, D.D.

Bible Studies. Contributions, chiefly from Papyri and Inscriptions, to the History of the Language, Literature, and Religion of Hellenistic Judaism and Primitive Christianity. Authorised Translation (incorporating Dr. DEISSMANN'S most recent changes and additions). vo, price 9s.

In every respect a notable book.... As to its value there can be no hesitation about the verdict.... Words, syntax, and ideas can all be tested over again by a completely new apparatus of study, the lexicon of the New Testament can be enriched, the grammar re-written, and the theology re-vivified and humanised.'----Dr. J. RENDEL HARRIS.

New Light on the New Testament. From Records of the Graeco-Roman Period. Crown vo, price s. net.

'The impartial reader must feel that this book fully justifies its title, as Prof. Deiss-mann is at the same time the pioneer and the most brilliant exponent of the branch of research which it represents.'----Christian World.

SCHULTZ'S OLD TESTAMENT THEOLOGY.

Old Testament Theology. The Religion of Revelation in its Pre-Christian Stage of Development. By Professor HERMANN SCHULTZ, D.D., Göttingen. Authorised English Translation by Professor J. A. PATERSON, D.D. Second Edition. In Two Volumes, vo, price 18s. net.

'The book will be read with pleasure, and, it need not be said, with profit, not only by professional students, but by all intelligent persons who have an interest in the Old Testament... Though externally popular and of singular literary finish, the author's work within is a laborious and able study of the whole subject.'----Professor A. B. DAVIDSON, D.D.

KAFTAN'S TRUTH OF THE CHRISTIAN RELIGION.

The Truth of the Christian Religion. By Professor JULIUS KAFTAN, Berlin. Translated from the German, under the Author's supervision, by G. FERRIES, D.D. With a Prefatory Note by Professor FLINT, D.D. In Two Volumes, vo, price 16s. net.

'Quite apart from the immediate question of obtaining a knowledge of the Ritschlian theology at first hand, these volumes are welcome. For Kaftan is no imitator, but a fertile and able writer. In the near future his view of theology, its essence and its accidents, will exercise a deep influence in our land.'----Expository Times.

T. & T. CLARK'S PUBLICATIONS.

GRIMM'S LEXICON.

Greek-English Lexicon of the New Testament, being Grimm's Wilke's Clavis Novi Testamenti. Translated, Revised, and Enlarged by Professor JOSEPH HENRY THAYER, D.D., Harvard University. Fourth Edition. Demy to, price 36s. 'The best New Testament Greek Lexicon.... It is a treasury of the results of exact scholarship.'----BISHOP WESTCOTT.

'An excellent book, the value of which for English students will, I feel sure, be best appreciated by those who use it most carefully.'----Professor F. J. A. HORT, D.D.

'This work has been eagerly looked for.... The result is an excellent book, which I do not doubt will be the best in the field for many years to come.'----Professor W. SANDAY, D.D., in the Academy.

'Undoubtedly the best of its kind. Beautifully printed and well translated,... it will be prized by students of the Christian Scriptures.'----Athenaeum.

CREMER'S LEXICON.

Biblico-Theological Lexicon of New Testament Greek. By Professor HERMANN CREMER, D.D. Translated by W. URWICK, M.A. Fourth Edition, with SUPPLEMENT. In demy to, price 38s.

This Lexicon deals with words whose meaning In the Classics is modified or changed in Scripture, words which have become the bases and watchwords of Christian theology, tracing their history in their transference from the Classics into the LXX, and from the LXX into the New Testament, and the gradual deepening and elevation of their meaning till they reach the fulness of New Testament thought.

'It gives with care and thoroughness a complete history, as far as it goes, of each word and phrase that it deals with.... Dr. Cremer's explanations are most lucidly set out'---- Guardian.

'It is hardly possible to exaggerate the value of this work to the student of the Greek Testament.'----Church Bells.

'We cannot find an important word in our Greek New Testament which is not discussed with a fulness and discrimination which leaves nothing to be desired.'----Nonconformist.

The Growth of Christian Faith. By Rev. GEORGE FERRIES, D.D., Cluny. vo, s. d. net.

SUMMARY OF CONTENTS:----Part I. THE PREPARATION FOR RELIGION. Part II. RELIGION AS AN ESTABLISHED FACT OF LIFE. Part III. FORGIVENESS THROUGH CHRIST. Part IV. HISTORICAL. Part V. DEVELOPMENT OF RESULTS. 'We know of no work in English exactly like it.... The whole of this rich and fertile work demands, and we think will receive, close attention. Dr. Ferries in writing it has conferred a great benefit upon all open-minded lovers of Christian truth.'----Christian World.

The Fatherhood of God in Christian Truth and Life. By the Rev. J. SCOTT LIDGETT, M.A., Warden of Bermondsey Settlement. vo, s. net.

This book is an attempt to establish the Fatherhood of God as the determining fact of Christian life and the determining principle of Christian Theology. Among the subjects dealt with are; The New Testament Doctrine of the Fatherhood of God. Place in New Testament Theology. The Relation of the Old Testament Doctrine to the Fatherhood of God. The Doctrine in Church History. Validity and Content. Manifestation.

'Every reader will own the masterly skill with which Mr. Lidgett handles his subject, the breadth of his reasoning, the wide knowledge which he brings to bear on every page of his work, and the zeal which fuses and transfuses the whole.'----Methodist Recorder.

' A valuable contribution to the study of a very great doctrine.'----Guardian.

A Handbook of Christian Ethics. By Professor J. CLARK

MURRAY, LL.D., Montreal. Post vo, price s. net. 'This is distinctly the best handbook with which we are acquainted. It is the work of an experienced teacher, a ripe scholar, and a profound thinker.... We have come to the conclusion from a careful perusal of the book, and from a comparison of it with Other books on the same subject, that it is the best we know.'----Aberdeen Free Press

T. & T. CLARK'S PUBLICATIONS.

A GREAT ENCYCLOPEDIA.

VOLUMES ONE, TWO, AND THREE NOW READY

ENCYCLOPEDIA

OF

RELIGION AND ETHICS

EDITED BY

DR. JAMES HASTINGS.

THE purpose of this Encyclopaedia is to give a complete account of Religion and Ethics so far as they are known. It will contain articles on every separate religious belief and practice, and on every ethical or philosophical idea and custom. Persons and places that have contributed to the History of religion and morals will also be described.

The Encyclopaedia will cover a distinct department of knowledge. It is the department which has always exercised the greatest influence over men's lives, and its interest at least, if not its influence, is probably greater at the present time than ever. Within the scope of ' Religion and Ethics' come all the questions that are most keenly debated in PSYCHOLOGY and in SOCIALISM, while the title will be used to embrace the whole of THEOLOGY and PHILOSOPHY. Ethics and Morality will be handled as thoroughly as religion.

It is estimated that the work will be completed in Ten Volumes of about 900 pages each, size 11 1/2 by 9.

PRICE----

In Cloth Binding................ 28s. net per volume.

In Half-Morocco................ 34s. net per volume.

OR, EACH VOLUME MAY BE HAD IN 12 MONTHLY PARTS,

PRICE s. d. NET PER PART.

The full Prospectus may be had from any bookseller, or from the Publishers, on request.

'The general result of our examination enables us to say that the editor has risen to the height of his great undertaking. The work deserves the fullest and best encouragement which the world of readers and investigators can give it.'----Athenaeum.

'A very warm tribute is due to the eminent publishers, Messrs. T. & T. Clark. They have done their part to admiration. No handier or more handsome encyclopedia exists. It is well printed, well bound, and very light in the hand. Those who know the immense risk and pains involved in a work of this kind will know how to estimate the services of Messrs. Clark in what is, we think, the boldest and most enterprising venture in religious literature which has ever been undertaken in this country. We wish them all the success they deserve, and that success should be very great. The services of Dr. Hastings and his loyal colleague Dr. Selbie demand an acknowledgment not less ample.... The scope of this encyclopaedia is immense, and as for the quality of the articles, the list of the contributors proves that it is in general very high.

'It will be one of the most reassuring and encouraging signs of the times if this great and magnificent enterprise receives adequate encouragement and recognition."----British Weekly.

'No library could be better provided with what men have said and thought through the ages on Religion and Ethics and all they imply than by this one library in itself.... Some of the articles themselves summarise a whole literature.'----Public Opinion.

T. & T. CLARK'S PUBLICATIONS.

SOMETHING ENTIRELY NEW. NEVER ATTEMPTED BEFORE.

'A triumphant and unqualified success. Indispensable to ministers and Bible tudents.'----Sir W. ROBERTSON NICOLL, LL.D.

NOW COMPLETE IN TWO VOLUMES

A DICTIONARY OF CHRIST AND THE GOSPELS.

Edited by J. HASTINGS, D.D.

Price per Vol., in cloth binding, 21s. net; in half-morocco, gilt top, 26s. net.

The purpose of this Dictionary is to give an account of everything that relates to CHRIST----His Person, Life, Work, and Teaching.

It is first of all a preacher's Dictionary. Its authors are preachers as well as scholars.

The articles are not entirely limited to the Bible, but gather together whatever touches Christ in all the history and experience of the Church.

It is called a DICTIONARY OP CHRIST AND THE GOSPELS, because it includes everything that the Gospels contain, whether directly related to CHRIST or not. Its range, however, is far greater than that of the Gospels. It seeks to cover all that relates to Christ throughout the Bible and in the life and literature of the world. There are articles on the Patristic estimate of Jesus, the Mediaeval estimate, the Reformation and Modern estimates. There are articles on Christ in the Jewish writings and in the Muslim literature. Much attention has been given to modern thought, whether Christian or anti-Christian. Every aspect of modern life, in so far as it touches or is touched by Christ, is described under its proper title.

It will be found that the contents of the Gospels, especially their spiritual contents, have never before been so thoroughly investigated and set forth.

'The present volume worthily completes a unique work. The articles are rich in instruction and helpfulness to preachers and teachers. Even those who have the "Bible Dictionary" proper will not find this one superfluous, and to those who do not need the larger one, the present one will prove an excellent substitute.'----London Quarterly Review.

'The preacher's purpose is better served than it has ever been before.'----Times.

'A scholarly production, edited with admirable skill.'----Christian World.

'Valuable for all scholars and students, it should prove invaluable for the preacher. ----Methodist Times.

'No more useful present could be made to a young clergyman than a copy of this admirable work. The articles are by competent and scholarly writers, and are full of information and suggestiveness.'----Guardian.

'Invaluable to preachers and teachers, and ought to be in constant use.'----Churchman,

A full Prospectus, with specimen pages, may be had from any bookseller, or free from the Publishers on application.

This text was transcribed by Roger Pearse, 2003. All material on this page is in the public domain - copy freely.

Greek text is rendered using the Scholars Press SPIonic font, free from here.

Early Church Fathers - Additional Texts

SOURCE SECTION: dionysius_alexandria_letters.htm

Dionysius of Alexandria: Newly discovered letters to the Popes Stephen and Xystus

Dionysius of Alexandria, Newly discovered letters to the Popes Stephen and Xystus,

F.C. CONYBEARE, English Historical Review 25 (1910) pp. 111-114

Newly discovered Letters of Dionysius of Alexandria to the Popes Stephen and Xystus.

DURING the years 254-258 there was a controversy between the see of Rome on the one hand and the Asiatic and African churches on the other as to the validity of baptisms administered by heretics. Pope Stephen maintained that those who had, in an heretical medium, been baptised either in the name of Jesus Christ alone, or in the name of Father, Son, and Holy Spirit, ought, after a bishop had laid hands on them, to be admitted to communion; whereas Cyprian of Carthage and Firmilian of Caesarea maintained that heresy on the part of the baptiser rendered baptism null and void. The pope accused his antagonists of rebaptising (a)nabapti/zein), thereby to some extent begging the question at issue, and excommunicated them both in Asia and in Africa. In this controversy Dionysius, patriarch of Alexandria, intervened, and wrote, as Euse-bius relates in the seventh book of his Ecclesiastical History, one letter to Pope Stephen and as many as three to his successor Xystus (257-8). Eusebius has also preserved to us brief extracts from the one letter to Stephen, and from the first and second to Xystus.

In the library of Valarshapat in Russian Armenia is preserved a bulky refutation of the Tome of Leo and of the decrees of Chalcedon by Timotheus (called Aelurus), the patriarch of Alexandria. The original was composed by him in exile at Gangra and Cherson about the year 460, and was translated into Armenian some time between the years 506 and 544. This version has just been edited from an old uncial codex which contains it, No. 1945 in the Catalogue of Karinian, by two of the archimandrites of Etshmiadsin, Dr. Karapet Ter-Mekerttshian and Dr. Erwand Ter-Minassiantz. The method of Timotheus is to adduce the Chalcedonian positions, and to confront them first with extracts from orthodox fathers, especially from the works of his own predecessors in the see of Alexandria; and, secondly, with passages from writers declared by his antagonists (as he assumes) to be heretical, especially Theodoret of Cyrrhus, Nestorius, Paul of Samosata, and Diodore of Tarsus.

Among the former set of extracts we find one long fragment |112 of Dionysius' letter to Stephen, and two from his first and third letters to Xystus, of which the following is a literal translation:

I. Of the blessed Dionysius, bishop of Alexandria, from the letter to Stephanus, bishop of Rome.

For as the wisdom [which is] according to the gentiles,¹ by changing them into holy persons,² constitutes them friends of God and prophets; so, conversely, the wickedness by transmuting into unholy persons, manifests them to be ³ enemies of God and false prophets. What one custom ever included these? For of a custom there is in any case a single period [as cause], whereas of caprices all kinds of ages ⁴ [are the causes]. And due causes must always pre-exist before the customs of the gentiles and before human laws. I say human, however, because God, as alone knowing all things before they come into being,⁵ can naturally also arrive at them by from the first enacting them as law. Men, however, when they have beforehand discerned something, and when they have first formed ideas of certain events, then and not before lay down laws, or make a beginning of customs.⁶ If then it was from the apostles, as we said above, that this custom took its beginning, we must adjust ourselves thereto, whatsoever may have been their reasons and the grounds on which they acted ⁷; to the end that we too may observe the same in accordance with their practice. For as to things which were written afterwards and which are until now still found, they are ignored by us; and let them be ignored, no matter what they are. How can these comply with the customs of the ancients? And in a word I have deemed certain disquisitions about these matters superfluous; and I feel that to pay attention to them is noisy and vain. For as we are told after a first and second admonition to avoid them,⁸ so must we admonish and converse about them, and after brief inculcation and talk in common we must desist. On points, however, of prime importance and great weight we must insist. For if anyone utters any impiety about God, as do those who say he is without mercy; or if anyone introduces the worship of strange gods, such an one the law has commanded to stone.⁹ But we with the vigorous words of our faith will stone them unless ¹⁰ they approach the mystery of Christ; or [if] anyone alter or destroy [it], or [say] that he was either not God or not man, or that he did not die or rise again, or that he is |113 not coming again to judge the quick and the dead; or if he preach any other gospel than we have preached, let him be accursed, says Paul.¹¹ But if anyone despises the doctrine of the resurrection of the body, let such an one be at once ranked with the dead. For these reasons, that we may be in accord, church with church and bishop with bishop and elder with elder, let us be careful in our utterances. Moreover in judging of and dealing with particular cases,—as to how it is proper to admit those who come to us from without,¹² and how to supervise those who are within,—we give instructions to the local primates ¹³ who under divine imposition of hands were appointed to discharge these duties; for they shall give a summary account to the Lord of whatsoever they do.

[This account perfectly accords with what we know from other sources of this controversy. Pope Stephen, as the tract De Rebaptismate alleges, appealed to vetustissima consuetudo ac traditio ecclesiastica. Dionysius meets his appeal by asking how could the orthodox and the heretic have in common any custom? Qualis una istos circumclusit consuetudo? He argues from Tit. iii. 10 that heretics should be left severely alone, and affirms that he has instructed the duly ordained ecclesiastical authorities of his province to treat those who ad ecclesiam advolant—to use the phrase of the De Rebaptismate—as if they came wholly from the outside or pagan world, that is to baptise them, and afterwards to watch them carefully.]

II. Of the same from the first letter to Xystus, chief bishop of Rome.

Inasmuch as you have written thus, setting forth the pious legislation, which we continually read and now have in remembrance—namely that it shall suffice only to lay hands on those who shall have made profession in baptism, whether in pretence or in truth,¹⁴ of God Almighty and of Christ and of the Holy Spirit; but those over whom there has not been invoked the name either of Father or of Son or of the Holy Spirit, these we must baptise, but not rebaptise. This is the sure and immovable teaching and tradition, begun by our Lord after his resurrection from the dead, when he gave his apostles the command ¹⁵: Go ye, make disciples of all nations, baptising them in the name of the Father and of the Son and of the Holy Spirit. This then was preserved and fulfilled by his successors, the blessed apostles, and by all the bishops prior to ourselves who have died in the holy church and shared in its life ¹⁶; and it has lasted down to us, because it is firmer than the whole world. For, he said, heaven and earth shall pass away, but my words shall not pass away.¹⁷ |114

III. Of the same to the same from the third letter.

If then our faith urges us to have zeal for God and with our entire heart love him; and if we must regard as unclean only those who contemn the really one and only God, and Creator and Lord of heaven and earth and of all things, declaring that he is inferior to and less estimable than some other god; and they attribute wickedness to the all good, or they do not believe that his Beloved is our Saviour Jesus Christ, whatever else he be; but breaking up the marvellous economy and mighty mystery, they believe some of them that he is not God nor Son of God, but others, that he never became man nor came in the flesh, but say that he was a phantasm and shadow—all these John¹⁸ has rightly in his epistle called anti-Christs. Moreover of these the prophet¹⁹ also bore witness, saying: Thy hated ones, O Lord, I have hated, and because of thine enemies I have wasted away. With perfect hatred I have hated them; they are become mine enemies. And these are all they that have among us the appellation of heretics. If however we in the least let them have their way or side with them, then no longer will the precept to love God with our whole heart be observed in its entirety, though that it is which it ever profits us to foster and increase.

[In this letter Dionysius protests against the least concession being made to the heretics whose errors he enumerates, in the way of recognising their baptisms as valid. F. C. CONYBEARE.]

[Footnotes have been moved to the end. Greek text is rendered using the Scholars Press SPIonic font, free from here.]

1. ¹ Perhaps cf. Acts x. 35 and Rom. ii. 13.

2. ² Or souls.

3. ³ As if the Greek were a)pe/fhnen.

4. ⁴ Ages in the sense in which we speak of the seven ages of human life. I supply the words in brackets as necessary to the sense.

5. ⁵ The Armenian has a compound word which means pre-existence; but probably the Greek read pro_ th~j gene/sewj, which the Armenian translated literally in defiance of his native idiom.

6. ⁶ The idea of this passage seems to be that which Suidas expresses in the words to_ e qoj ou_k e stin eu rhma a)nqrw&pwn, a)lla_ bi/on kai\ xro&nou. Men first take the drift of events and then inductively establish customs and frame laws on the basis of them. God however enacts facts in advance, as being cognisant of events beforehand. The passage is anyhow obscure.

7. ⁷ The Greek original must have run somewhat as follows: ta_ kat' au)touj faino&mena kai\ e0c w{n e pracan.

8. ⁸ Tit, iii. 10.

9. ⁹ Deut. xiii. 10.

10. ¹⁰ The sense rather requires lest.

11. ¹¹ Loosely quoted from Gal. i. 9.

12. ¹² The phrase recalls the words in Euseb. H. E. vii. 5, 4, tou_j prosio&ntaj a)po_ ai9re/sewn.

13. ¹³ Perhaps xwrepi/skopoi in the original.

14. ¹⁴ Phil. i. 18.

15. ¹⁵ Matt. xxviii. 19.

16. ¹⁶ The Greek may have had the word sumpoliteusame/nwn.

17. ¹⁷ Matt. xxiv. 35.

18. 1 John ii. 22, iv. 3

19. Ps. cxxxviii. (cxxxix) 21, 22.

This text was transcribed by Roger Pearse, 2002. All material on this page is in the public domain - copy freely.

Greek text is rendered using the Scholars Press SPIonic font, free from here.

Early Church Fathers - Additional Texts

SOURCE SECTION: methodius_de_lepra.htm

Methodius, On Leprosy (2012) pp.451-456 (Excpt)

Methodius, On Leprosy (2012) pp.451-456 (Excpt)

The following excerpt was commissioned commercially from the edition by G. Bonwetsch in the GCS series. This consisted of a German rendering of the Old Slavonic text, interspersed with Greek fragments (untranslated). The translator began at the start of Bonwetsch's text, but proved unable to handle the ecclesiastical vocabulary or the Greek. The commission was terminated at the end of p.456 of Bonwetsch. What follows is the material that was successfully translated.

Roger Pearse

December 2011

The holy Methodius, bishop of Olympus, to Sistelius, about leprosy.

I. ¹ From where, o Eubulius? Apparently not from trying to understand how divine scripture should be interpreted?

For in the early morning someone belonging to Sistelius knocked on the door and when a boy opened it, he reported that Sistelius was summoning us to him. ² And after I arose, I immediately departed. And when we were close to the dwelling, Sistelius walked towards me, embraced me and said: Having temporarily departed from us, you robbed us of the understanding of the scripture. For as a cloud that covers the sun prevents us from seeing the sun clearly, so as well, when good instruction goes away, the soul becomes dark and the meaning eclipsed. - And I answered him: You said (reported) this well.

And after we entered the house, we sat down. ³ And Sistelius said: Now then, let us see in the scripture truth itself! With a healing herb we remove this bad leprosy, with words and with medications reducing the damage, saying: "Stand up, you, who are sleeping, and stand up from the dead, and Christ will illuminate (enlighten) you." ⁴ Now then is the time, he said, to raise your voice, that is to say explaining about the leprosy that is in the law, wherein the Lord commands us to interpret much in the law allegorically, to inform the one thirsting for the gift of God of... an ungrudging gift.

II. ¹ At the same time, do not think that I will rebuff one who wishes to receive this gift of mercy, even if I am weak in deed and word; but he, who plants the words (thoughts (?) ) into the soul of each of us, will pull the bad roots out of our hearts and plant all virtues into our souls. ² For when the nettle-like weed has dried out, then the flower of virtue blossoms. Which Christ now also compares allegorically to the "grain of mustard seed", saying that it will bring a large stock to the of heaven. ³ For to begin with, descending to our weaknesses the divine seed of faith becomes small; once it falls into the furrows of the soul, it grows to greatness, it proceeds to the height of piety by spiritual contemplation. ⁴ And the Lord justifiably calls his father the planter of such a planting, for "every single plant", he says, "which my father did not plant, will be (pulled out?)". For understand, that he speaks not because of the plurality of souls, as some thought, but of the proper teachings and of god-fearing thoughts (words), which the industrious planter planted invisibly into our hearts, weeding out the improper plantings from our hearts, i.e., the bad thoughts and deeds. ⁵ For if we do not believe such, then we become the successors of the very lawless Marcion, who says that another is the good one instead of the true God, and therefore the souls of the creator of the world could not receive the promised good life, they were without the planting of the good. However, we do not want to take that into

consideration now, for it is not time for this proceeding now.

III. ¹ For you are right to say, that one shouldn't hesitate and, now that the spiritual estate is being prepared by God, one should have strong fruits of wisdom, according to the words of the Apostle who says: "We are God's field." ² For in order to keep the disease from spreading and to reveal it to everyone, we ought "to heal" through the songs of the gospel and see "if there is someone, who lacks God's mercy, whether there is an upward growing root causing damage and whether many are becoming defiled", the Apostle says, writing to the Jews.

³ However, the law also teaches us: "And the Lord spoke unto Moses and Aaron, saying: When a person shall have on the skin a sign of leprosy, then he should come before Aaron the priest, or one of his sons. And the priest shall examine the sore on his skin, to see if it is a sign of leprosy; and to check whether the leprosy is more than skin deep." And soon thereafter: ⁴ "On the seventh day, the priest is to examine him; and if he sees that the sore is unchanged and has not spread in the skin, the priest is to keep him in isolation for seven days for a second time.

(On the seventh day the priest is to examine him for the second time), and if he sees that the sore has not changed, the priest cleans him, for it is a sign; and he should wash his clothes." And soon thereafter: ⁵ "If any clothing is contaminated with a sign of leprosy, in a woolen or linen clothing or anything made of leather and the leprosy becomes scarlet red or green"; furthermore in the following...

IV.¹.. having said little, you reprimand. But now, O Sistelius, the truth itself, namely the law, to be stated. We should now attempt to understand these insights spiritually, so that we may understand the spirit of the law and not just the word.

² But continuing in the proceedings he adds: "If it has spread" after the removal of the "mildew in the clothing or the leather or the attire or the weft, then the remaining mildew is leprosy, it is unclean, and he must burn the clothing or attire or the weft" etc., shown to the priest.

However, this is now the explanation for the leprosy in the law. ³ For I, myself, believe, that the prophet used these words as specific cloaks and shadows, whereby God wanted to lead us to the light of truth this way. ⁴ This is why, I think, the holy Paul said: "And even if our gospel is veiled, it is still hidden among the lost, in whom the God of this age has blinded the minds of the unbelievers, so that in them cannot shine the light of the gospel of the glory of Christ, who is the image of the invisible," by clearly stating, that the gospel is revealed to the believers and the "to be saved", but "veiled" to the "ones being lost" as if attached with iron clamps. ⁵ For one, who understands the scripture from the outside, goes forward without spiritual understanding, like someone who has seen empty walls built from stones. However, one who has fought vigorously", who has torn the spiritual veil, who, after having risen like a bird inspired by God's spirit, [has] reached the inner understanding of the scripture, which is the most holy; and arrives at the bright light, will be nourished by the lightning of true beauty. ⁶ For as the trees are stripped of the ornament of fruit in winter, but regain their ornaments in the spring with the sprouting of the leaves, - so I think, the words of the prophets too seem barren without meaning if taken at their word, but if interpreted with wisdom, if viewed as laden with fruit and leaves, have blossoms of a multitude of senses.

Therefore, O Sistelius, refusing to take them literally, let us carefully interpret the scriptures spiritually!

V.¹ However, we now say, as Christ instructs us:

Thus the scripture that Moses's sister had leprosy, because she spoke ill of her brother.

⁵ However, the prophet, the holy Jeremiah, also says: "Sow not among thorns, but circumcise yourselves to the Lord and remove the uncircumcision of your hearts," [Jer. 4:3-4] saying: Circumcise the evil passions, so that we deliver the [soul] unstained to God.

⁶ For I think, the Lord also gave these commandments to his disciples, to walk "without a staff and without two tunics." For the evangelists have to, by

[The translation work was ended here at the foot of p.456, but Bonwetsch continues.]

This text was commissioned by Roger Pearse, 2011. This file and all material on this page is in the public domain - copy freely.

Early Church Fathers - Additional Texts

SOURCE SECTION: methodius_preface_chub.htm

Michael Chub, Preface to the recovery of the Slavic collection of the works of St. Methodius (1961) Bogoslovskie Trudy, pp.145-151.

Michael Chub, Preface to the recovery of the Slavic collection of the works of St. Methodius (1961) Bogoslovskie Trudy, pp.145-151.

INTRODUCTION

By the end of the third century, Christianity had spread to almost every area of the Roman Empire and had gone beyond its limits. Across these geographical boundaries, the Church had by this time among its members representatives of many different nationalities and different walks of life, and at the same time, actively improving its interior life, had successfully fought against external and internal enemies, and laid a solid foundation of theology.

Even before the Edict of Milan, the Church, in its most prominent representatives, had used every opportunity for considerable creative work for the development of various branches of theological knowledge. The widespread pagan persecutions which broke out in some areas were unable to stop this creative work of the Church, although it was a serious hindrance to normal development and often destroyed (in whole or in part) the fruits of creative labour. For obvious reasons, that part of the theological heritage of this early epoch which survives to this day, has a quite exceptional value.

Unsurpassed in its importance, the patristic literature of the fourth and fifth centuries includes the works of great ecumenical teachers, the hard work of dogmatic thought in the era of the Ecumenical Councils, the ascetic and mystical insights of the ascetics of Egypt, Sinai, Syria and Palestine -- all these build on what preceded the development. The flourishing of theological literature after the Edict of Milan can be understood and appreciated only if there are properly defined links that connect this period with the preceding one. The continuity of historical traditions in this case is extremely important.

From this perspective, the most serious attention of the researcher has been attracted to the literary heritage of Bishop St. Methodius, who was famous for the protection of academic religious traditions at the end of the third century, and at the end of the Great Persecution this culminated in his martyrdom as a confession of faith. The literary activity of St. Methodius, as can be seen, coincides with the end of the ante-Nicene period of development of theological thought, and, to some extent, can be regarded as a peculiar result of this development.

The sources preserved for the life of St. Methodius are extremely limited. Desiring to find out, if possible, at least the most important facts relating to his biography, the researcher makes the plunge into a maze of earlier contradictory statements, opinions and guesses, but the final result of these searches is very limited. Suffice it to say that so far, despite the great efforts of the experts, there is no well-established epithet, which would undeniably indicate his episcopal ministry in a particular city. It should also be noted, |146 that in the "Ecclesiastical History", Eusebius of Caesarea did not mention the name of St. Methodius. The reason for this, according to an authoritative patrology, is to be found in the marked anti-Origenism of St. Methodius: the omission of him by such an enthusiastic admirer of Origen, as Eusebius was, serves as a classic example of partisan bias. There is a well-established tradition, dating back to Leontius of Byzantium, which has long pointed to the episcopal see of St. Methodius as being in Patara in Lycia. The name of Methodius "of Patara" became famous in the Middle Ages in connection with the apocryphal "Revelation" then ascribed to him. Over time, theological science, in spite of the centuries-old association between the name of St. Methodius and Patara, and despite the certainty of his relations with Lycia in general and with Patara in particular, has had to take its search in another episcopal direction ¹. The most probable at the present time is the version according to which St. Methodius - a native of Lycia - was a bishop in the town of Philippi in Macedonia. Slavic manuscripts, which preserve to this day a large proportion of what was written by St. Methodius, many times suggest Philippi as the place of his episcopal ministry.

The most significant conclusion from all the studies and research on St. Methodius, is of the undeniable dominance in all his activities, of his interests in literary, theological and philosophical subjects. He devoted his life to them. The most reliably attested date of his martyrdom is 311 AD.

Despite the silence of Eusebius of Caesarea in his "Ecclesiastical History", we can no doubt safely say that St. Methodius during his lifetime was an authoritative theologian. In later centuries, he is repeatedly cited, not only by supporters but also by enemies. It is interesting to note that the same Eusebius, without mentioning the name of St. Methodius, made use of his works. The fate of the spiritual legacy of St. Methodius in the next century is very peculiar, for several of the works most associated with his name do not belong to him. At the same time his genuine works were gradually pushed into the background or remained in obscurity. Only relatively recently has patrology definitively established a list of works which certainly belong to St. Methodius. In this case, most of the credit belongs to the late Prof. N.G. Bonwetsch (Bonwetsch) ². In Russian, there is only one translation of the works of St. Methodius made by Prof. E. Lovyagin in the last century with the publication of the Greek texts ³. Even this translation, made by a specialist, included two sermons quite groundlessly attributed to St. Methodius. Meanwhile, patrological science has long known, that the extant Greek texts (repeatedly published and translated into different languages) do not exhaust the total extant works of the Bishop. Of exceptional value in this case are ancient Slavic translations of St. Methodius in manuscript collections, which have came down to us. These contain works which were carefully preserved, studied and copied by the monks in antiquity. |147

At the present time many of these collections are part of the most important manuscript collections of the libraries in our country. (Some of the Slavic manuscripts of the works of St. Methodius are known outside the Soviet Union, particularly in the Romanian Peoples Republic) These Slavic texts, outliving the author, who wrote in the late third and early years of the fourth century, date back to an ancient Slavic translation, made in Bulgaria not later than the tenth century. The texts in large part coincide with the surviving Greek texts, but along with that, quite a respectable portion of the wealth of the Slavic manuscript heritage of St. Methodius has no parallel in Greek manuscripts. In other words, in many cases, the Slavic translation is the only source of our acquaintance with the original works of the holy father. This is the value of the Slavic texts in question. To illustrate this it suffices to note that the well-known Greek text of the famous polemical work "On the Resurrection" of the Holy Methodius, which has made him famous as the most outstanding anti-Origenist, is largely completed and is controlled by the Slavic translation. At the same time, some works of St. Methodius are known exclusively in the Slavic texts ⁴.

Familiarization with the content of this - Slavic - part of the literary heritage of St. Methodius so far been possible only from the publications of Professor N. G. Bonwetsch ⁵. But these books, for all their exceptional academic merit, have a peculiar feature: the Greek text is given here in its own script - based on the most authoritative manuscripts - but for the Slavonic text, there is only a German translation. This translation is made very carefully, with good knowledge of the characteristics of the ancient Slavic language. However, no one will dispute the fact that, no matter how much further the modern Russian language has developed from the language of the Slavic manuscripts referred to here, the consonance of the Russian and Old Slavic languages (in the broadest sense of the expression) is significantly greater than any harmony of the German language with the language of the Slav. In any case, despite the success of the translation, this fact is of great importance. For the Russian reader to learn the content of the works of St. Methodius, preserved only in the Slavonic text, by means of the German translation will at a minimum reduce the informative value of the studied material. Such are the considerations that led the author of these words to do work on the Slavic manuscripts of the works of St. Methodius and experience led him to undertake the translation of some parts of the foregoing Slavonic texts into the modern Russian language.

The results of this work for readers are a partial fulfillment of the wishes of Prof. E. Lovyagin made in the already mentioned book, "that all the Slavonic translations (of the works of St. Methodius) might be revised and published as a rare treasure, often supplemented with the text found in the Greek works of St. Methodius, often not known in any other language".⁶ |148

It must be borne in mind that patrology currently has a very diverse set of materials giving the opportunity for acquaintance with a considerable part of the works written by St.Methodius. Some of his writings survived complete; for others, we can learn something on the basis of more or less extensive fragments, extracts and summaries. The Slavic texts, which are here referred to, at least to a certain part are such extracts and are, in all probability, very slightly different from the original. (In addition to the works of St. Methodius in Slavonic translations, there are -- in the form of relatively small fragments - extracts in ancient Syrian and Armenian translations.) Up to the present day, for the "Feast of the ten virgins," and the "On Free Will", only for the "Feast of the ten virgins," is the Greek text preserved completely in the manuscript tradition, while for the treatise "On Free Will" there is a large Greek fragment (about 1/3 of the total text) and the full text of the Slavonic translation. In addition, we can obtain the fullness of the text of the extensive treatise "On the Resurrection", reconstructed on the basis of mutually complementing Greek and Slavic manuscripts, and the Slavic texts of the small treatise "On Life and rational activity", "On distinguishing foods, and the cow referred to in the book of Leviticus, which is sprinkled with ashes by sinners", "The leprosy "("On the lepers")⁷ and "On the leech", referred to in the book of Proverbs, and the words "The heavens declare the glory of God". From the work "On the creation" are preserved short excerpts; from the "Against Porphyry", "The Martyrs' and commentary on the book of Job there are only a few small fragments. This is the sum total of extant literary heritage of St. Methodius. (There are references works on the interpretation of the Song of Songs, the book of Habakkuk and the book of Genesis, and mentions of the names of treatises "On the witch of Endor" and "On the flesh" but these works are lost.) The favourite literary forms of St. Methodius are the dialogues and letters. These forms were formal literary devices of the era, but it is quite possible that the letters of the holy bishop were real answers to questions addressed to him.

The following publication provides a translation of the prayer of St. Methodius, which ends the essay "On the Resurrection," and four treatises: "On Life and rational activity", "On distinguishing foods", "On leprosy" and "On the leech."

The prayer of St. Methodius, known only from the Slavonic text, no doubt, belongs among the earliest Christian prayers. Its formulation and expression are extremely characteristic for evaluating the dogmatic discourse of the ante-Nicene era. That passage in the prayer which talks about victory over death, by means of the suffering and killing of a perfect, impassive and eternal one, deserves special attention. Here words and ideas already familiar to the ancient Christian Church (cf. Ignatius, "Epistle to Polycarp," 3:2, Gregory of Neocaesarea, "Message to Theopompus", 7, 8, 10) meet and mingle, and these entered the everyday life of prayer of later ages (compare, for example, in the "Succession before sleep" in the modern prayer book, Prayer Two). The whole prayer is important for judging the strength and stability of church traditions and, in particular, on how to preserve and pass on these traditions. |149

The main idea of the treatise "On Life"⁸ is the Christian and at the same time, the philosophical (similar to Stoic morality) admonition to be content with what God has bestowed on earth, to patiently endure temptation and to wait for the enduring blessing of the hereafter.

All three of these treatises, translations of which are given here, have as their main task to interpret in the Christian sense Jewish ritual prescriptions. Along with this, they have many moral and dogmatic elements. They deserve great attention to statements that are relevant to church history, and you can find valuable advice on methodology of penitential discipline and established liturgical practice in the early Church, and you can also hear complaints of weakness and vices which have penetrated into the church community - as far as the highest hierarchy. These passages sound like autobiographical motifs.

By attending closely to the text of these works, there can be found in them the elements of controversy, which is determined by the actual situation with which St. Methodius had to deal ⁹.

The main manuscript for the text of these works is Sbornik 11 of the XVI century, kept in the Leningrad State Public Library in the Saltykov-Shchedrin (QI 265) ¹⁰.

The main text was produced by collating the following manuscripts;

1) Library of the Academy of Sciences of the USSR, ms. 16. 16. 2 (XVII century).

2) Lenin Library [=Russian State Library], from the Collection of the Moscow Theological Seminary, ms. 41 (online), previously found in the Trinity-Sergius Lavra (the beginning of the XVII century.).

3) "http://www.shm.ru/manuscript_22_01.html" - State Historical Museum, from the Synodal Assembly, ms. 170 (XVI century).

4) Lenin Library, from the collection of the Moscow Theological Seminary, ms. 40 (online), written for Arsenius Sukhanov (XVII century).

5) Lenin Library, from the collection of the Society of Russian History and Antiquities, ms. 137 (XVII century).

In addition to these manuscripts, the following were involved;

6) State Historical Museum, Uvarov collection, Ms. 115 (XVI century).

7) State Historical Museum, from the collection of the Chudovsky monastery, ms. 233 (XVI - XVII c).

8) State Historical Museum, from the collection of the Chudovsky monastery, ms. 205 (XVII century).

9) State Historical Museum, from the collection of Edinoverie monastery, ms. 12 (XVII century).

10) State Historical Museum, from the Autograph collection, Ms. 264 (a forgery - a rather ingenious one - from the XVI century, reproducing, apparently, word for word the text of an ancient manuscript that served as a model for this).

A comparison of the manuscripts 6-10, stored at the State Historical Museum, with the main text of the manuscript did not reveal any notable variations. The main variants, identified by collating the main manuscript, QI 265, and manuscripts -5, were incorporated in the translation work in accordance with the basic rules of paleography. |150

The purpose of this publication is the desire to give readers the results of the work done to create a partial Russian translation of the works of St. Methodius, within the boundaries listed above. In some cases, this translation, due to the peculiarities of the text becomes a paraphrase, out of necessity. Words and phrases are translated approximately, or else these are inserted in the text to assist communication enclosed in parentheses. In the interlinear apparatus, in order to avoid misunderstandings that may arise, in most cases the first reproduces the expression that caused the need for a note in Russian, and then provides the corresponding Slavic expression - usually as it appears in the main manuscript, and sometimes an option from one of the other manuscripts listed above. Because this publication has repeatedly offered translations that do not coincide with the Bonwetsch edition, there was a need for special abbreviations in the apparatus - in some cases, with appropriate reference to individual expression and a German translation. The following abbreviations have been employed in the apparatus:

BO = N. G. Bonwetsch. Methodius, Leipzig, 1917. Numeral after "BO" stands for the book.

Shear. = Sreznevsky II "Materials for a dictionary of ancient language." St. Petersburg, 1893-1912.

The phrase "gap in the manuscript" notes an obvious gap in the semantic consistency of the text, detectable only when reading, because these gaps are not indicated in the manuscript; these semantic gaps are found in all the studied manuscripts, and therefore it can be argued that the loss of one or another part of the text (in most cases, no doubt, of not less than a single complete leaf) must have already occurred in the original manuscript, which was the model for all subsequent copyists.

References to Holy Scripture after a quotation were not put in by St. Methodius. They are inserted into the translation for readability; direct quotations in parentheses, and indirect quotations and reminiscences - in square brackets []. The biblical translation quoted in St. Methodius' texts in the Russian language should be, as near as possible, that in the original Slavic manuscripts, which often deviates somewhat from the normal currently accepted reading. Most of these deviations are in quotations from the Old Testament, and are caused by the very nature of things: that St. Methodius quoted from the Septuagint in the text ¹¹. Trying to quote the Bible in the Slavonic text in its present form would have led to some confusion, since in this case could not have avoided a number of sensitive deviations from generally now accepted texts ¹².

The number of biblical quotations (direct and indirect) proposed in the edition is slightly more than given by professor N.G. Bonwetsch. This is explained by the fact that, as a foreigner, in spite of a good knowledge of the Russian and Slavic languages, sometimes it was difficult for him to recognize quotations "by ear". Extra-biblical citations in this paper are not listed. The only exception to this provision are those cases where there is contact between the text of the works of St. Methodius with the literature generally known as "Agrapha" ¹³. These instances are noted in the footnotes. |151

In connection with the orations that follow, it should be noted here that Prof.N. G.Bonwetsch does not mention at all the subject of the presence of agrapha in the works of St. Methodius.

The division of the text of the works of St.Methodius into chapters and sections corresponds to the division adopted in the latest edition of Prof. N. G.Bonwetsch.

Since in this publication it was not possible to give a transcription of any kind of the Slavic text of the works of St. Methodius which was selected for translation, it seems essential to supply some photographic reproductions,which give readers an idea of the best known manuscripts, the foundation for this work.

1. As a result of these searches, the patrology of the XIX century, following the Blessed St. Jerome, acknowledged Methodius as bishop of Olympus in Lycia.

2. N. G. Bonwetsch, born in Saratov Province. A professor of evangelical theology in Dorpat (Tartu), then at Gottingen, the author of several exciting and patrological studies. He died in 1925.

3. "St. Methodius, bishop and martyr, the father of the Church of the III century. His collected works have been translated from Greek, ed. Prof Yevgraf Lovyagin, St Petersburg. 1877. " In 1905 a second edition appeared.

4. However, for one of these treatises ("On leprosy") there are Greek fragments preserved, but their total is considerably less than the amount of Slavonic text.

5. The first edition -- N. G. Bonwetsch. Methodius von Olympus. 1891. The second edition - N. G. Bonwetsch. Methodius. Lpz., 1917. The second of these two publications is the most complete, and it is cited for the works of St. Methodius in all later studies. For this discussion, citation is also based on this edition.

6. E. Lovyagin, St. Methodius, bishop and martyr, the father of the Church of the III century. St Petersburg., 1905, pp. 22-23.

7. The surviving Greek fragments of the treatise "On the leprosy" (very small in volume) in some places give a somewhat more detailed text than the corresponding Slavic translation. Although in terms of volume, this is only a few lines, this circumstance indicates that the Slavic translator in some cases was content to paraphrase.

8. In the Slavic collections of the works of St. Methodius, this treatise is placed in second place (after "On Free Will"), and is usually denoted as the "second floor". The first chapters of this treatise, because of the richness of philosophical terminology, are particularly difficult to translate.

9. When reading the treatise "On leprosy", it should be remembered that the author's intention is to write a dialogue. The names of the interlocutors are Eubulus, and Sistelios Euthymios. Eubulus is most easily recognized as Methodius himself. The work "On distinguishing foods" - a letter addressed to Frenope and Kilonii. In the treatise above-mentioned work "On Virginity" ("Feast of the ten virgins") and "On the Resurrection." Treatise "On the leech" - letter to Eustathius. "

10. This manuscript belonged to the first F.A. Tolstoy. It is also the basis for the translation of the works of St. Methodius (referring to Slavic texts) in the publications of Prof. N. G. Bonwetsch.

11. For an illustration, it is sufficient to give one example, the modern Russian text of the book of Proverbs 30, 15 et seq, does not even provide a key to the question in the main part of the treatise "On the leech."

12. Compare Prof. I. Evseev. Handwritten tradition of the Slavic Bible, St. Petersburg., 1911.

13. See for example. A. Resch, Agrapha. Leipzig, 1906. For Agraphia in the works of St. Methodius, see "J. M. P", 1954, № 6, p. 43-50. [Perhaps Journal of the Moscow Patriarchate?]

This text was scanned and translated into English using Google Translate by Roger Pearse, 2011, with the help for the difficult passages of a correspondent who knew Russian. This file and all material on this page is in the public domain - copy freely.

Early Church Fathers - Additional Texts

SOURCE SECTION: eusebius_chronicon_01_text.htm

Eusebius of Caesarea, Chronicon, Book 1 (2008)

Eusebius of Caesarea, Chronicon, Book 1 (2008)

[Translated by Andrew Smith]

[p ] I have searched through the various books of ancient history; [I have read] what the Chaldaeans and Assyrians have recorded, what the Egyptians have written in detail, and what the Greek have related as accurately as possible. They include the dates of their kings and the Olympiads, which are athletic contests, and they contain the outstanding exploits of both the Greeks and the barbarians, of both the brave and the decadent. They also mention the remarkable victories of these nations, their generals, scholars, heroes, poets, historians and philosophers.

I think it is fitting, or rather a useful and necessary task, to summarise all this, and to write down the ancient history and chronology of the Hebrews, taken from the Holy Scriptures, alongside the things which I have just mentioned. From that we can tell how long Moses, and the prophets who came after him, lived before the appearance on earth of our saviour, about which they prophesied through the holy spirit; and we can easily recognise in which [reigns] of Greek or barbarian [rulers] the famous men of each race were alive; and at what time, from the beginning, the outstanding prophets existed amongst the Hebrews, together with all their rulers, one after another.

I warn and advise everyone from the start, that no-one should ever pretend that he can be completely certain about matters of chronology. It will help if first we remember the advice of our true master, [p ] who told his companions [Acts, 1:7]: "It is not for you to know the hours and seasons whicih the Father has set under his own authority." He, as our Lord and God, uttered this saying not only about the end of the world, but also, in my opinion, about all dates, to dissuade men from such pointless investigations.

Indeed, my own words here will confirm this saying of our master, [by showing] that it is not possible to gain an accurate knowledge of the whole chronology of the world from the Greeks, or from any others, not even from the Hebrews themselves. But it is possible to hope for this only: that what is said by us in this present treatise will help us to recognise two things. Firstly, no-one, like some have done, should believe that he is calculating dates with full accuracy, and be deceived in that way. But he should realise that this has been brought up for discussion, only so that he can know the means and manner of the proposed investigation, and so that he should not remain in doubt.

There is no reason to be surprised that the Greeks do not appear in the most ancient times. They have fallen into various fatal errors, and for a long time before the generation of Cadmus they were completely ignorant of writing. They say that Cadmus was the first to bring them the alphabet, from the land of the Phoenicians. And so the Egyptian in Plato's book [ Timaeus, 22'B ] rightly despises Solon; "O Solon,&quot he says, "you Greeks are always children. An old Greek man is never to be found, and no-one can learn from you about ancient times.&quot But many improbable stories have been told by the Egyptians and Chaldaeans. For instance, the Chaldaeans calculate that their recorded history has lasted for more than 400,000 years. [p ] The Egyptians make up myths about gods and demi-gods, and also about some shades; and they tell many crazy myths about other mortal kings.

Yet what forces me to examine such matters in detail now, when I value the truth above all else? Even amongst my beloved Hebrews one can find inconsistencies, which I will mention at the appropriate time. But I have said this much in reproach of those chroniclers who are eager for such hollow glory.

In accordance with these objectives, I will scrutinise the books of the ancient writers. First I will put in writing the chronology of the Chaldaeans; and then the chronology of the Assyrians; next the kings of the Medes; and then the kings of the Lydians and Persians. Then I will go on to a different topic, and set out all the chronology of the Hebrews in sequence. After the Hebrews, in the third section [I will set out] the dates of the Egyptian dynasties. I will add to them the dynasty of the Ptolemaei, who reigned after Alexander the Macedonian in Egypt and Alexandria. Then I will start on another [topic], and describe one after another what the Greeks have told about their history: first the rulers of Sicyon, and then [the rulers] of the land of the Argives, and of the city of the Athenians, from the first to the last; next, the kings of Lacedaemon and Corinth; and lastly, those who in any region held control of the sea. To these I will add a list of the Olympiads, which are recorded by the Greeks. After I have set out all the Olympiads in sequence, I will write down the first kings of the Macedonians and Thessalians, and then the leaders of the Syrians and Asians, who came after Alexander, one by one. Next I will set out in their turn all the individual rulers of the Latins, who were later called Romans, starting from Aeneias after the capture of Troy. Then [I will set out] in sequence [the kings], starting from Romulus, who founded the city of Rome; the succession of emperors, starting from Julius Caesar and Augustus; and the consuls for each year.

After collecting material from all these sources, I will move on to the chronological canons of time. Resuming from the beginning with those who ruled in each nation, I will divide their dates into separate series; [p ] and next to them I will place in sequence the numbers of their [regnal] years, so that it can easily and quickly be seen, at which time each of them lived. I will briefly mention the outstanding events of each reign, as recorded by every nation, in the context of that reign.

But the second book is a task for the future. Now, in the following section, let us investigate the chronology of the Chaldaeans, and what they have recorded about their ancestors.

[THE CHALDAEANS]

How the Chaldaeans record their chronology, from [the writings of] Alexander Polyhistor; about the books of the Chaldaeans, and their first kings

That is what Berossus relates in his first book, and in the second book he lists the kings, one after another. He says that Nabonassar was king at that time. He merely lists the names of the kings, and says very little about their achievements; or perhaps he thinks that they are not worth mentioning, when he has already stated the number of kings. He begins to write as follows: "Apollodorus says that the first king was Alorus, who was a Chaldaean from Babylon, and he reigned for 10 sars." He divides a sar into 3,600 years, and adds two other [measures of time]: a ner and a soss. He says that a ner is 600 years, and a soss is 60 years. He counts the years in this way, following some ancient form of calculation. After saying this, he proceeds to list ten kings of the Assyrians, one after the other in [chronological] order; from Alorus, the first king, until Xisuthrus, in whose reign the first great flood occurred, the flood which Moses mentions.

He says that the total length of the reigns of the [ten] kings was 120 sars, which is the equivalent of 432,000 years. He writes about the individual kings as follows:

[p9] When Alorus died, his son Alaparus became king for 3 sars. After Alaparus, Amelon, a Chaldaean from the city of Pautibiblon, became king for 13 sars. After Amelon, Ammenon, a Chaldaean from (?) Parmibiblon, became king for 12 sars.

- In his reign, the monster Annedotus, whose form was a mixture between a man and a fish, appeared out of the Red Sea. Megalarus, from the city of Pautibiblon, reigned for 18 sars. The shepherd Daonus, from the city of Pautibiblon, reigned for 10 sars.

- In this reign, again four monsters appeared out of the Red Sea, who [like Annedotus] were a mixture between a man and a fish. Euedorachus, from the city of Pautibiblon, reigned for 18 sars.

- In this reign, another monster appeared out of the Red Sea, which also was a mixture between a man and a fish, and its name was Odacon. All these [monsters] explained in detail what Oannes had stated briefly. Amempsinus, a Chaldaean from Larancha, reigned for 10 sars. Otiartes, a Chaldaean from Larancha, reigned for 8 sars. When Otiartes died, his son Xisuthrus became king, for 18 sars.

- In his reign, the great flood occurred.

The reigns of all these kings, added together, make 120 sars. They are calculated in this way:

Alorus, for 10 sars Alaparus, for 3 sars Amelon, for 13 sars Ammenon, for 12 sars Megalarus, for 18 sars Daonus, for 10 sars Euedorachus, for 18 sars Amempsinus, for 10 sars Otiartes, for 8 sars Xisuthrus, for 18 sars

In total, 10 kings and 120 sars. [p11] And they say that 120 sars are the equivalent of 432,000 years, because one sar is the equivalent of 3,600 years.

That is what Alexander Polyhistor says in his book. But if anyone thinks that what is contained in that book is a true history, and that [those kings] really ruled for so many myriads of years, then he should also believe in all the other similar things in that book, which are equally incredible. Now will tell what Berossus wrote in the first book of his history, and first I will add another quotation from the same book of Polyhistor, as follows.

Another unreliable account of Chaldaean history, from the same book of Alexander Polyhistor about the Chaldaeans

Berossus, in the first book of his Babylonian History, says that he lived at the time of Alexander the son of Philippus, and that he transcribed the writings of many authors, which had been carefully preserved at Babylon, containing the records of (?) over 150,000 years. These writings contain the history of heaven and the sea, of creation, and of the kings and their deeds.

Firstly, he says that the land of Babylonia lies between the rivers Tigris and Euphrates. Wild wheat, barley, lentils and sesame grow on the land; and the marshes produce roots, called gonges, which are as nutritious as barley. There are dates, apples, [p13] and other fruits and fish, as well as birds in the woods and marshes. The parts lying towards Arabia are dry and barren, but the parts on the opposite side from Arabia are mountainous and fertile. A large number of foreigners dwell in Chaldaea; they live in Babylon in a disorderly way, like wild animals.

In the first year, a horrible beast appeared out of the Red Sea in the region near Babylonia. Its name was Oannes, according to Apollodorus. It had the complete body of a fish, but underneath its head there grew another head, beneath the fish's head; and in the same way the feet of a man grew of the tail of the fish. It had the voice of a man, and its likeness has been preserved even down to the present day. He says that this beast spent the day with men, taking no food, but instructing them about writing and science and all kinds of crafts. It taught them about founding cities and establishing temples, about introducing laws and about geometry. It showed them how to sow seed and gather fruit; and in general it gave men all the skills they needed for a civilised life. Since that time, nothing additional has been discovered.

But when the sun set, this beast called Oannes went back into the sea, and spent the night in the water, because it was amphibious. Afterwards other similar beasts appeared, which he says he will mention in the list of kings. But he says that Oannes wrote about creation and about the government of states, and he passed on this message on to mankind.

There was once a time, in which everything was darkness and water. [p15] In those times, monstrous beasts were born, with strange appearances. There were men with two wings, and some with four wings and two faces. They had one body, but two heads, of a man and a woman, and two sets of genitals, male and female. Other men had the legs and horns of a goat, or the hooves of a horse, or the rear end of a horse and the front of a man, like centaurs. Other beasts were born, such as bulls with human heads; dogs with four bodies and fish tails protruding from their rear end; horses with dogs' heads; humans and other animals with the head and body of a horse, but the tail of a fish; and other beasts with the form of all kinds of wild animals. As well as these [beasts], there were fish and reptiles and snakes and many other strange creatures, each of which had a different appearance. Representations of them were set up in the temple of Belus. A woman called Omorca ruled over all these [creatures]; she is called Thalatth in the Chaldaean language, which is translated into Greek as thalassa ("the sea").

When everything was joined together in this way, Belus came along and split the woman in half. Half of her he made the heavens, and the other half he made the earth; and he destroyed all the creatures on her. He says that this story is an allegory about nature; for when everything was wet and creatures were born in it, this god cut off his own head. The other gods took the blood that flowed from him and by mixing it with earth they created men. Therefore men are intelligent and have a share of divine reason.

[p17] Belus, which is translated as Zeus in Greek, cut the darkness in half. He separated the earth and the heavens from each other, and he arranged the universe. But because the creatures could not bear the power of the light, they were destroyed. When Belus saw that the land was empty and fertile, he ordered one of the gods to cut off his own head, and by mixing the blood which flowed from him with earth, to create men and wild beasts who could endure the air. Belus created the stars, the sun, the moon and the five planets.

That, according to Alexander Polyhistor, is what Berossus says in his first book. In the second book he lists the kings, one after another, and he says that the time of the ten kings, which we mentioned above, lasted for longer than 400,000 years. Anyone who believes that these writers are telling the truth about such a huge number of years should believe all the other improbable stories that they tell. Such a length of time is clearly supernatural, and is not worthy of belief, even if it is explained in a different way. And even if someone thinks that this number of years is possible, they still should not accept the statement about the dates without some further questions. If the number of rulers was sufficient to explain all these thousands of years, which are produced by their chronology, or if the writers reported the events and actions which would be expected to occur over such a length of time, then one might perhaps agree that there is some likelihood of their account being true. But as they claim that so many myriads of years were taken up by the rule of only ten men, who can doubt that these stories are merely ravings and myths?

Perhaps these so-called sars were originally measured not in years, but in some very small period of time. For instance, the ancient Egyptians talked about lunar years, [p19] that is a month of days or years containing 30 days. Other people consider the seasons to be periods of three months; in other words, they reckon each changing period of three months as a single year, and count the years in that way. Similarly, it is likely that the so-called sar of the Chaldaeans indicated some such [period of time].

So they count only ten generations from Alorus, who was the first to be called king [of the Chaldaeans], up until Xisuthrus, in whose reign the great flood occurred. In the Hebrew scriptures also, Moses declares that there were ten generations before the flood; for the Hebrews mention that number of generations, one by one, from the first man in their account up until the flood. But Hebrew history assigns about 2,000 years to these ten generations. Assyrian [history] lists the same number of generations as the book of Moses, but produces a very different total of years. It says that the ten generations lasted for 120 sars, which is the equivalent of (?) 430,000 years.

The reader who is keen to know the truth can easily understand, from what we have already said, that Xisuthrus is the same as the man who is called Noah by the Hebrews, in whose time the great flood occurred. The book of Polyhistor also mentions him, and writes about him as follows.

From the same book of Alexander Polyhistor, about the flood

When Otiartes died, his son Xisuthrus became king, for 18 sars. In his reign, the great flood occurred. This is how the story is told.

Cronus (whom they call the father of Zeus, while others call him Chronus ["time"]) approached him in his sleep, and said that on the 15th day of the month of Daesius the human race would be destroyed by a flood. [p21] Cronos ordered him to bury the beginnings, the middles and the ends of all writings in Heliopolis, the city of the Sippareni; to build a boat and embark on it with his close friends; to load the boat with food and drink, and to put on board every kind of bird and four-footed creature; and then, when all the preparations were complete, to sail away. When he asked where he should sail, Cronus replied, "To the gods, to pray that good things may happen to men." Xisuthrus did as he had been told. He built a boat which was 15 stades long, and 2 stades wide. After completing everything as instructed, he sent his wife, his children and his close friends onto the boat.

When the flood had come, and soon afterwards stopped, Xisuthrus sent out some of the birds. But they could not find any food or anywhere to rest, and so they returned to the boat. A few days later, Xisuthrus sent out the birds again, and this time they returned to the boat with mud on their feet. The third time that he sent out the birds, they no longer returned to the boat. Xisuthrus realised that some land had appeared. He removed part of the sides of the boat, and saw that it had come to rest on a mountain. He disembarked with his wife and daughter and the helmsman, and kissed the ground. After he had set up an altar and had sacrificed to the gods, he disappeared from sight, along with the others who had left the boat with him. When Xisuthrus and his companions did not return, the remainder of those who were on the boat disembarked and searched for him, calling out his name. They could not see Xisuthrus anywhere, but a voice came out of the sky telling them that they should honour the gods, and that Xisuthrus had gone to live with the gods, because of the honour he showed them; his wife, his daughter and the helmsman had received the same reward. The voice told them to return to Babylon; they were destined to dig up the writings which had been hidden in the city of the Sippareni, [p23] and distribute them amongst men. They were told that they were now in the land of Armenia.

When they heard all of this, they sacrificed to the gods and went by foot to Babylon. A small part of the boat, which came to rest in Armenia, can still be found in the mountains of the Cordyaei in Armenia. Some people scrape off the asphalt, which covers the boat, and use it to ward off diseases, like an amulet. When they arrived back in Babylon, they dug up the writings in the city of the Sippareni. They founded many cities, and re-founded Babylon, constructing many temples.

Afterwards Polyhistor gives an account of the building of the tower, which agrees with the books of Moses, in exactly these words.

[From the writings] of Alexander Polyhistor, about the building of the tower

The Sibyl says: "When men all spoke the same language, they built a very tall tower, so that they could climb up to heaven. However god blew a wind at them and overturned the tower. Then he gave each of them their own language, and so the city was called Babylon. After the flood there came Titan and Prometheus, in whose time Titan made war against Cronus."

That is what Polyhistor says about the building of the tower. He continues with the following details.

After the flood, (?) Euechius ruled the land of the Chaldaeans, for 4 ners Then his son Chomasbelus became king, for 4 ners and 5 sosses

From Xisuthrus and the flood until the capture of Babylon by the Medes, [p25] Polyhistor lists 86 kings in all, and names each of them, copying their names from the book of Berossus. These kings reigned in total for 33,091 years. But when the city had become so firmly established, the Medes unexpectedly led their forces against Babylon and captured it. Then they set up their own kings as rulers there.

He names 8 kings of the Medes, who reigned for 224 years Then again 11 kings, for ²⁸ years Then 49 kings of the Chaldaeans, for 458 years Then 9 kings of the Arabs, for 245 years After that time (he says) Semiramis was ruler of the Assyrians Then he lists individually the names of 45 kings, and allocates 526 years to them After them, Phulus became king of the Chaldaeans

- The Hebrew scriptures [2 Kings 15:19 ] call this king Pul, and say that he invaded the land of the Hebrews. After him, Polyhistor says that Sennacherib became king

The Hebrew scriptures say that Sennacherib was king at the time of king Hezekiah and the prophet Isaiah. To be exact, Holy Scripture says [2 Kings 18:13]: "It happened in the fourteenth year of king Hezekiah that Sennacherib the king of the Assyrians marched against the fortified cities of Judah, and captured them." And after telling the whole story, it continues [2 Kings 19:37]: "And his son Esarhaddon reigned in his place." Later on again, it adds [2 Kings 20:1]: "It happened at that time that Hezekiah fell ill&quot, and [2 Kings 20:12] " at that time Merodach Baladan sent envoys with letters and gifts to Hezekiah.&quot. That is what the Hebrew scriptures say.

But Sennacherib and his son Esarhaddon [Asordanus] and Merodach Baladan, along with Nebuchadnezzar, are mentioned by the historian of the Chaldaeans, who speaks about them as follows.

[p27] [From the writings] of the same Alexander, about Sennacherib and Nebuchadnezzar, their exploits and their virtues

After the reign of the brother of Sennacherib, when Achises had been king for less than thirty days, he was killed by Merodach Baladan. Merodach Baladan seized the throne, but after ruling for six months he was killed by someone called Elibus, who became king in his place. In the third year of his reign, Sennacherib the king of the Assyrians led an army against the Babylonians and defeated them in battle. He captured Elibus, and ordered him to be taken with his friends to the land of the Assyrians. After bringing the Babylonians under his control, he appointed his son Asordanus to be their king. Then he returned to the land of the Assyrians.

When Sennacherib heard that the Greeks had arrived in Cilicia with the intention of fighting, he set out for Cilicia and met them in battle. Although many men from his own army were killed, he defeated the enemy, and as a monument of his victory he set up a statue of himself in that place. He ordered it to be inscribed with Chaldaean letters, which recorded his bravery and greatness for future generations. And he founded the city of Tarsus, on the same model as Babylon, and gave it the name of Tharsis.

Then, after relating the other achievements of Sennacherib, he adds: "After remaining [in power] for 18 years, he died as a result of a plot which was formed against him by his son Ardumuzan." That is what Polyhistor says [about Sennacherib].

These dates agree with what is said in Holy Scripture. For in the time of Hezekiah, as Polyhistor states:

Sennacherib was king, for 18 years Then his son, for 8 years Then Sammuges, for 21 years His brother, for 21 years Then Nabopolassar for 20 years Then Nebuchadnezzar for 43 years

In total, from Sennacherib until Nebuchadnezzar, there are 88 years.

A careful investigation of the Hebrew scriptures will come to a similar conclusion. [p29] After Hezekiah, the kings who reigned over the remaining Jews were:

Manasseh, the son of Hezekiah, for 55 years Then Amon, for (?) 2 years Then Josiah, for 31 years Then (?) Jehoiachin

- At the beginning of his reign, Nebuchadnezzar besieged Jerusalem and took Jewish captives back to Babylon.

In total, from Hezekiah until Nebuchadnezzar, there are 88 years, which is the same number of years as was calculated by Polyhistor in his history of the Chaldaeans.

After this, Polyhistor relates some other deeds and exploits of Sennacherib. He speaks about his son in the same way as the Hebrew scriptures, and gives a detailed account of all that happened. He says that the philosopher Pythagoras lived at the same time as these kings. After Sammuges, Sardanapallus was king of the Chaldaeans for 21 years.

Sardanapallus sent an army to the assistance of Astyages, the satrap of the Medes, and accepted Amyïtis, the daughter of Astyages, as the bride of his son Nebuchadnezzar. Then Nebuchadnezzar became king for 43 years. After gathering an army, he attacked the Jews, Phoenicians and Syrians, whom he took away as captives. I do not need to give a long explanation to prove that Polyhistor agrees with the Hebrew scriptures in this matter also.

After Nebuchadnezzar, his son Amilmarudoch became king for 12 years. He is called Evilmerodach in the Hebrew histories. Polyhistor says that after him, Neglissar ruled the Chaldaeans for 4 years, and then Nabonidus for 17 years. In his reign, Cyrus the son of Cambyses led an army against the land of the Babylonians. Nabonidus met him [in battle], but was defeated and put to flight.

Then Cyrus became king of Babylon, for 9 years After Cyrus died in another battle on the (?) plain of the Dahae, Cambyses became king, for 8 years Then Dareius, for 36 years After Dareius came Xerxes and the other Persian kings

Just as Berossus gives a brief account of each of the Chaldaean kings, so Polyhistor describes them in the same manner. From what he says, it is clear that Nebuchadnezzar led an army against the Jews and conquered them. From Nebuchadnezzar until Cyrus the king of the Persians, there is period of 70 years. [p31] The Hebrew histories agree with this, and state that the Jews were in captivity for 70 years, calculating from the first year of the reign of Nebuchadnezzar up until Cyrus the king of the Persians.

Abydenus, whose account is similar to Polyhistor (?) in most respects, writes as follows in his History of the Chaldaeans.

[From the writings] of Abydenus, about the first kings of the Chaldaeans

So much about the wisdom of the Chaldaeans.

The first king of the region, so they say, was Alorus.

- He spread a report about himself that he had been chosen by god to be the shepherd of the people, and he reigned [over them] for ten sars (a sar is 3,600 years; a ner is 600 years; and a soss is 60 years). Next, Alaparus Amillarus, from the city of Pautibiblon

- In his reign, a second Annedotus, a kind of demi-god, similar in appearance to Oannes, rose out of the sea. Ammenon Magalanus The shepherd Daōs

- In his reign, bi-formed creatures came out of the sea onto the land, and their names were: Euedocus, Eneugamus, Eneubulus and Anementus. Euedoreschus

- In his reign, Anodaphus [came out of the sea]. After him, there were other rulers, and finally Sisuthrus

After agreeing with Polyhistor in such matters, this historian then writes about the flood in the same way.

[From the writings] of Abydenus, about the flood

After him, there were other kings, including Sisuthrus, to whom Cronus foretold that there would be a great torrent of rain on the fifteenth day of the month of Daesius. Cronus ordered him to conceal all the books which were kept in Heliopolis, the city of the Sippareni. Sisuthrus did as instructed, and then he sailed away to Armenia. Immediately it began to happen as the god had foretold. [p33] On the third day, when the rain eased, Sisuthrus sent out some birds, to test if they could see any land rising up out of the sea. But they found nothing except a gaping wide sea, and, having nowhere to rest, they flew back to Sisuthrus. The same thing happened when [he sent] some other birds. But he achieved success with the third set of birds, who came back with mud splattered on the bottom of their feet, and then the gods removed him from the sight of men. The inhabitants of Armenia made wooden amulets out of his ship, as a protection against poisons.

I think that it will be obvious to everyone that what Abydenus says about the flood is similar to the story of the Hebrews, and uses the same form of words. That these historians, whether they are Greeks or Chaldaeans, give Noah a different name, and call him Sisuthrus, is hardly surprising. Nor is it surprising that, as is their custom, they refer to gods rather than God, and talk about birds in general without mentioning a dove.

That then is what Abydenus says about the flood in this History of the Chaldaeans. He also writes about the building of the tower, in a way which is similar to the account of Moses, as follows.

[From the writings] of Abydenus, about the building of the tower

They say that the first men at that time were puffed up with pride because of their strength and height, and in their arrogance they thought that they were better than the gods. They built a huge tower where Babylon now is, and it was already close up to heaven. But the winds came to the aid of the gods, and threw down the structure around them. The remains of the tower were called Babylon. Up to that time they had shared a common language but then they received a great variety of different speech from the gods. Afterwards a war arose between Cronus and Titan.

[p35] The same author writes about Sennacherib, as follows.

[From the writings] of Abydenus, about Sennacherib

At this time, Sennacherib became the 25th of the [Assyrian] kings. He conquered Babylon and brought it under his control. He defeated a fleet of Greek ships in a naval battle off the coast of Cilicia. He established a temple of the Athenians, and erected bronze columns on which he inscribed in writing his mighty achievements. He built Tarsus with a design which was similar to Babylon, so that the river Cydnus flows through the middle of Tarsus, just as the Euphrates flows through the middle of Babylon.

After him Nergilus became king, but he was killed by his son Adramelus. Then Adramelus was killed by Axerdis, his half-brother (by the same father, but a different mother). Axerdis gathered an army and sent it against the city of Byzantium. He was the first king to seek help from mercenaries, and one of these was Pythagoras, who became a student of Chaldaean wisdom. Axerdis conquered Egypt and parts of lower Syria. Then Sardanapallus was [king].

Then Saracus became king of the Assyrians, [p37] and when he was informed that an army like a swarm of locusts had invaded by sea, he immediately sent his general Nabopolassar [Busalossorus] to Babylon. But this general started to plot rebellion, and betrothed his son Nebuchadnezzar [Nabuchodonosor] to Amytis the daughter of Astyages, the king of the Medes. And then he immediately set off to attack the city of Nineveh. When king Saracus learned of the attack, he burnt down the palace with himself inside it. Nebuchadnezzar took over power as king, and put up a strong wall around Babylon.

After saying this, Abydenus gives an account of Nebuchadnezzar, which agrees with the writings of the Hebrews, as follows.

[From the writings] of Abydenus, about Nebuchadnezzar

When Nebuchadnezzar came to power, he fortified Babylon with a three-fold circuit of walls in about fifteen days. He made a channel for the river Narmalacis, a branch of the Euphrates, [(?) and the Acracanus]. [p39] He dug a reservoir above the city of the Sippareni, which was 40 parasangs in circumference, and 20 fathoms deep; and he constructed gates, which could be opened to irrigate the whole plain. They call these gates ochetognomones. He protected [the shore] against flooding by the Red Sea, and he built the city of Teredon [to guard] against the raids of the Arabs. He adorned the palace with new kinds of plants, and called it "The Hanging Gardens".

Then he gives a detailed description of this Hanging Garden. He says that the Greeks regard it as one of the so-called seven wonders of the world.

And in another place the same author writes as follows: "It is said that in the beginning everything was water, which was called the sea. But Belus restrained [the sea] and assigned a region to each person. He surrounded Babylon with a wall, and at the appointed time he disappeared from sight. Later Nebuchadnezzar gave Babylon new walls, with gates of bronze, which lasted until the time of the Macedonians."

The words of Daniel are in accordance with everything that Abydenus says. In his book [Dan. 4:30] he relates how Nebuchadnezzar, becoming arrogant and puffed up with pride, declared; "Is this not the great Babylon I have built as the royal residence, by my mighty power and for the glory of my majesty?"

That Nebuchadnezzar regarded his power as proof of his good fortune, is made clear the words of the prophet Daniel. And Abydenus declares that he was "mightier than Heracles", when he writes as follows: [p41] "Megasthenes says that Nebuchadnezzar, who was mightier than Heracles, let his armies as far as Libya and Iberia. He conquered these countries, and settled some of their inhabitants on the right-hand shore of the Euxine Sea. But the Chaldaeans say that afterwards, when he went up to the palace, he was possessed by some god, and uttered these words: 'O Babylonians, I Nebuchadnezzar predict that a great disaster will befall you.' "

After adding some more details about this, the historian continues: "When he had (?) uttered this prediction, he immediately vanished from sight, and his son Amilmarudocus became king in his place. But Amilmarudocus was killed by his kinsman Niglisares, leaving a son called Labassoarascus. When he too died a violent death, they proclaimed Nabannidochus as king, although he had no right to assume royal power. When Cyrus captured Babylon, he made Nabannidochus the governor of Carmania; but king Dareius took some of the territory away from him.

All this is in accordance with what is said in the Hebrew scriptures. [p43] The book of Daniel tells how and in what way Nebuchadnezzar was afflicted in his mind. The Greek historians and the Chaldaeans turn his suffering to good account, by calling the madness a god who entered into him, or some demon which came to him. But this is not surprising, because it is their custom to attribute all such occurrences to a god, and to call the demons gods. All this is related by Abydenus.

Flavius Josephus, the Jewish historian, gives a similar account in the first book of his Antiquities [ Ap_1'128-160 ], as follows:

From the first book of the Antiquities of Josephus, about Nebuchadnezzar

I will now relate what has been written about us in the Chaldaean histories, which closely agree with our scriptures on various points. Berossus shall be witness to what I say: he was by birth a Chaldaean, well known by the learned, on account of his publication for Greek readers of books on Chaldaean astronomy and philosophy. This Berossus, therefore, following the most ancient records of that nation, describes in the same way as Moses the flood, and the destruction of mankind which it caused. He also gives us an account of the ark in which Noah, the forefather of our race, was preserved, when it was brought to the highest part of the Armenian mountains. Then he gives us a list of the descendants of Noah, with their dates; and at length comes down to Nabopolassar, who was king of Babylon, and of the Chaldaeans. And in his narrative of the acts of this king, he describes how he sent his son Nebuchadnezzar against Egypt, and against our land, with a great army, when he was informed that they had revolted from him. [p45] After he had subdued them all, and destroyed our temple at Jerusalem by fire, he removed our people entirely out of their own country, and transported them to Babylon. Then our city was deserted for a period of seventy years, until the days of Cyrus king of Persia. He adds that this Babylonian king conquered Egypt, and Syria, and Phoenicia, and Arabia, and exceeded in his exploits all the kings who had reigned before him in Babylon and Chaldaea.

I will set down Berossus' own words, which are as follows: "Nabopolassar, father of Nebuchadnezzar, heard that the governor whom he had set over Egypt, and over the regions of Coele Syria and Phoenicia, had revolted from him. Because he was not able to bear the hardships of a campaign, he committed part of his army to his son Nebuchadnezzar, who was then a young man, and sent him against the rebel. Nebuchadnezzar joined battle with the rebel, and conquered him, and forced the country to submit to him again. Meanwhile it happened that his father Nabopolassar fell ill, and died in the city of Babylon, after he had reigned twenty-one years. When Nebuchadnezzar heard, soon afterwards, that his father Nabopolassar was dead, he set the affairs of Egypt and the other countries in order. He committed the captives he had taken from the Jews, and Phoenicians, and Syrians, and inhabitants of Egypt, [p47] to some of his friends, that they might conduct them with his heavy-armed forces troops, and the rest of his baggage, to Babylonia. He himself went in haste, having only a few companions with him, over the desert to Babylon. When he arrived there, he found that the public affairs were being managed by the Chaldaeans, and that the principal person among them had preserved the kingdom for him. Accordingly, he then took over complete control of his father's dominions.

"He ordered the captives to be placed in colonies in the most suitable places of Babylonia; but as for himself, he adorned the temple of Belus, and the other temples, in a magnificent manner, out of the spoils he had taken in this war. He also rebuilt the old city, and added another to it on the outside. He restored Babylon in such a way, that no-one who should besiege it afterwards might be able to divert the course of river, in order to force an entrance into it. He achieved this by building three walls about the inner city, and three about the outer city. Some of these walls he built of burnt brick and bitumen, and some of brick only. So when he had fortified the city on this grand scale, and had adorned the gates magnificently, he added a new palace to the one which his father had dwelt in. It was close by it, but was superior in its height, and also in its great splendour. It would require too long a narration, to describe it all in detail. However, as prodigiously large and magnificent as the palace was, it was finished in only fifteen days. In this palace he erected very high walks, supported by stone pillars, and by planting what was called a Hanging Garden, and adorning it with all sorts of trees, he gave it the appearance of a mountainous country. This he did to please his queen, because she had been brought up in Media, and was fond of mountainous scenery."

This is what Berossus says about Nebuchadnezzar, and he relates many other things about him in the third book of his Chaldaean History, in which he censures the Greek writers because they suppose, without any foundation, that Babylon was built by Semiramis, queen of Assyria, and they wrongly claim that those wonderful buildings were created by her. [p49] On this subject, the account in the Chaldaean History must surely be accepted. Moreover, we find confirmation of what Berossus says in the archives of the Phoenicians, concerning this king Nebuchadnezzar, that he conquered all of Syria and Phoenicia. Philostratus is in agreement on these matters in his History, where he mentions the siege of Tyre; as is Megasthenes, in the fourth book of his Indian History, in which he tries to prove that this king of the Babylonians was superior to Heracles in strength and the greatness of his exploits; for he says that he conquered most of Libya and Iberia.

I have said before that the temple at Jerusalem was attacked by the Babylonians, and burnt down by them, but it was restored after Cyrus had taken control of Asia. This is proved by what Berossus adds on the subject; for in his third book he says as follows: "Nebuchadnezzar, after he had begun to build the wall which I mentioned, fell sick and died, when he had reigned forty-three years. His son Evilmerodach became king, but he governed public affairs in an illegal and dishonest manner, and after he had reigned for only two years, Neriglissar, his sister's husband, plotted against him and killed him. After his death, Neriglissar, the man who had plotted against him, succeeded him in the kingdom, and reigned for four years; his son Laborosoarchod obtained the kingdom, though he was but a child, and kept it for nine months; but because of the depraved disposition which he showed, a plot was laid against him also, and he was beaten to death by his friends.

After his death, the conspirators met together, and by common consent entrusted the kingdom to Nabonidus [Nabonnedus], a Babylonian who had joined in the plot. In his reign the walls of the city of Babylon were built magnificently with burnt brick and bitumen; but when he had reached the seventeenth year of his reign, Cyrus advanced from Persia with a great army; and having already conquered all the rest of Asia, he marched against Babylonia. [p51] When Nabonidus heard that Cyrus was coming to attack him, he met him with his forces, but was defeated in battle. He fled away with a few of his troops, and was shut up in the city of Borsippa. Cyrus captured Babylon, and gave orders that the outer walls of the city should be demolished, because the city had proved very formidable, and was difficult to capture. He then marched away to Borsippa, to besiege Nabonidus, who immediately surrendered without waiting for a siege. Nabonidus was at first kindly treated by Cyrus, who sent him away from Babylonia and gave him Carmania, as a place to inhabit. Accordingly Nabonidus spent the rest of his time in that country, and there he died."

This account is true, and agrees with our scriptures; for in them it is written that Nebuchadnezzar, in the eighteenth year of his reign, destroyed our temple, and so it lay in ruins for fifty years; but in the second year of the reign of Cyrus its foundations were laid, and it was completed again in the second year of Dareius. I will now add the records of the Phoenicians, because I ought to give the reader abundant proof on this occasion. These records list the lengths of the reigns of their kings as follows:

Ithobal

- During his reign, Nebuchadnezzar besieged Tyre for thirteen years. Baal, ten years After him judges were appointed, and held office:

Ecnibalus, the son of Baslechus, two months Chelbes, the son of Abdaeus, ten months Abbar, the high priest, three months Myttynus and Gerastratus, the sons of Abdelimus, six years

After them, Balatorus was king for one year After his death they summoned Merbalus from Babylon, who reigned four years After his death they sent for his brother Hirom, [p53] who reigned twenty years

- In his reign Cyrus became king of Persia.

So the whole period is fifty-four years and three months; for Nebuchadnezzar began to besiege Tyre in the seventh year of his reign, and Cyrus the Persian came to power in the fourteenth year of Hirom. Therefore the records of the Chaldaeans and the Tyrians agree with our writings about this temple.

That is what Josephus says about these matters. Later on, Abydenus includes another account of the kings of the Chaldaeans, which is similar to Polyhistor. Then he lists the kings of the Assyrians in [chronological] order, as follows.

[ THE ASSYRIANS ]

[From the writings] of Abydenus, about the kingdom of the Assyrians

"That is the account which the Chaldaeans give of the kings of their country, but they do not mention Ninus or Semiramis." After saying this, he immediately begins the history [of the Assyrians]: "Ninus was the son of Arbelus, the son of Anebus, the son of Babus, the son of Belus, king of the Assyrians."

Then he lists [the kings of the Assyrians] from Ninus and Semiramis up until Sardanapallus, who was the last of all the kings; and from Sardanapallus until the first Olympiad, there are 67 years. That is the account which Abydenus gives about each of the Assyrian kings. But he is not the only writer [to mention them]: Castor, in the first book of the Summary of his Chronicle, speaks about the kingdom of the Assyrians in the following words.

From the Summary of Castor, about the kingdom of the Assyrians

"Belus was the king of the Assyrians. During his reign, the Cyclopes brought lightning and thunder to assist Zeus during his battle against the Titans. At the same time, the kings of the Titans were in their prime - including king Ogygus." And shortly afterwards he says: "The giants attacked the gods, [p55] and were killed, after Heracles and Dionysus, who were descended from the Titans, came to the aid of the gods. Belus, whom we mentioned before, came to the end of his life, and was regarded as a god. After him, Ninus ruled the Assyrians for 52 years. His wife was Semiramis. After Ninus, Semiramis ruled the Assyrians for 42 years. Then Zames, who was also called Ninyas, [was king]."

Then he lists each of the subsequent kings of the Assyrians in order, up until Sardanapallus. He mentions all of them by name; and we also will write down their names, together with the length of each of their reigns, a little later on.

Castor writes about the Assyrians again in his Canons, in these words: " First we have listed the kings of the Assyrians, starting with Belus; but because the length of his reign is not stated for certain, we have only mentioned his name. We have started the list in this chronicle with Ninus, and ended with another Ninus, who succeeded Sardanapallus as king. In this way, the total duration of the kingdom can be clearly shown, as well as the length of each of the individual reigns. And it shows that the kingdom lasted for 1,280 years."

That is what Castor says. And Diodorus Siculus, who wrote the [Historical] Library, gives a similar account, in the following words.

From the writings of Diodorus, about the kingdom of the Assyrians

"No noteworthy deeds or even names have been recorded of the native kings who ruled in Asia in the most ancient times. Ninus of Assyria is the first king who is recorded in history. His achievements were great, and we will give a detailed account of him." And then a little later he says: "[Ninus] had a son by Semiramis, who was called Ninyas. But when Ninus died, Semiramis became queen, and she buried Ninus in the palace." And again, a little later he says: "[Semiramis] ruled over all of Asia, except for the Indians; [p57] and she died in the manner which we have described, when she had lived for 62 years and had reigned for 42 years." And he states separately that: "After she died, Ninyas the son of Ninus and Semiramis became king, and he remained at peace. He did not attempt to imitate the exploits of his mother, who had been eager for war and struggle."

And again, a little later he says: "And in a similar way the other kings ruled for 35 generations, handing down the kingdom from father to son, until the time of Sardanapallus. When he was king, the empire of the Assyrians was destroyed by the Medes, after lasting for over 1,300 years, as Ctesias of Cnidus says in his second book. There is no need to write down the names of these kings, or the lengths of their reigns, because they achieved nothing worthy of mention. The only event which is recorded is that the Trojans received assistance from the Assyrians, led by Memnon the son of Tithonus. They say that when the Greeks sailed with Agamemnon against Troy, Asia was ruled by Teutamus, who was the twenty-sixth king from Ninyas the son of Semiramis; and the empire of the Assyrians in Asia had already lasted for over a thousand years. Priamus the king of the Trojans, worn out by the pressure of war, submitted to the king of the Assyrians, and sent an embassy to ask the Assyrians to send aid and reinforcements. The king of the Assyrians gave him ten thousand men from the land of the Ethiopians, and a similar number of Susians, with two hundred chariots; and he sent Memnon the son of Tithonus to be their leader." And again he says: "The barbarians say that the splendid achievements of Memnon are reported in the royal books."

"Sardanapallus was the 35th king from Ninus, who established their empire. He was the last king of the Assyrians, and he outstripped all his predecessors in luxury and indolence." And a little later he says: "He was so shameless, that he not only ruined his own life by his perversions, but also destroyed the entire empire of the Assyrians, which had lasted for longer than any other recorded empire. [p59] Arbaces, one of the Medes who was renowned for his bravery and his outstanding spirit, was the leader of the Medes who were sent every year to the city of Ninus [Nineveh]. While leading his army, he became acquainted with the general of the Babylonians, who urged him to overthrow the empire of the Assyrians." This is what Diodorus says in the second book of his Historical Library [chapters 1-24].

Cephalion is another writer who mentions the empire of the Assyrians, and this is what he says.

[From the writings] of the historian Cephalion, about the kingdom of the Assyrians

"I begin my account with what the other writers have mentioned: firstly Hellanicus of Lesbos and Ctesias of Cnidus, and then Herodotus of Halicarnassus. In ancient times, the Assyrians ruled over Asia, and Ninus the son of Belus was their king. In his reign, many great events occurred." Then he writes about the birth of Semiramis, Zoroaster the magus, the war with the king of the Bactrians and the disaster [suffered] by Semiramis; and about the death of Ninus, after a reign of 52 years. After Ninus, Semiramis became queen. She built the walls around Babylon, in the manner which has been described by many writers, such as Ctesias, Zenon [(?) or Dinon], Herodotus, and later authors. Then he tells of her expedition into the land of the Indians, how she was defeated and fled; and how she killed her own sons, but was herself put to death by Ninyas, another of her sons, when she had reigned for 42 years. After her, Ninyas became king, but Cephalion says that he achieved nothing worthy of mention. [p61] Then he passes over all the other [kings]; "they ruled in total for a thousand years, handing down the kingdom from father to son; and none of them reigned for less than twenty years. Their unwarlike, unadventurous and effeminate character kept them safe. Because they were inactive and remained indoors, no-one had access to them except for their concubines and effeminate men. If anyone wishes to know, I think that Ctesias lists the names of 23 of these kings. But what pleasure or benefit would I provide, if I wrote down the names of barbarian kings, who achieved nothing, but were cowardly, weak and degenerate?"

And again he adds: "After about 640 years had passed, Belimus was king of the Assyrians; and in his reign, Perseus the son of Danaë, who was escaping from Dionysus the son of Semele, arrived in the country with 100 ships." Then, after describing the defeat of Perseus by Dionysus, he adds: "In a later generation, when Pannyas was king of the Assyrians, the expedition of the Argonauts sailed to the river Phasis, and to (?) Medeia of Colchis. They say that Heracles left the ship because of his love for Hylas, and wandered amongst the Cappadocians." And again he says; "A thousand years after Semiramis, when Mitraeus was king [of the Assyrians], Medeia of Colchis left king Aegeus; her son was Medus, [p63] who gave his name to the Medes and the country of Media."

Then he says: "Teutamus became king after Mitraeus, and he too lived according to the customs and laws of the Assyrians. Nothing else happened in his reign, but [at this time] Agamemnon and Menelaus the Mycenaeans sailed with the Argives and other Achaeans against the city of Troy, when Priamus governed Phrygia. [Priamus wrote to Teutamus:] 'The Greeks have invaded your territory and attacked me; we have met them in battle, and sometimes we have been victorious, but sometimes we have been defeated. Now even my son Hector has been killed, along with many others of my brave children. Therefore send a force to come to our relief, and appoint a valiant general to lead them.' " Then [Cephalion] describes in detail, how Teutamus sent assistance to him, and appointed Memnon the son of Tithonus to be the leader of the army; but the Thessalians killed Memnon in an ambush.

Then in another place, he says: "In the 1,013th year, Sardanapallus became king of the Assyrians." Later, he describes the downfall of Sardanapallus. "After the death of Sardanapallus, Arbaces the Mede destroyed the kingdom of the Assyrians and transferred their empire to the Medes." All this is what Cephalion says.

The kings of the Assyrians, as recorded by the most reliable of the writers, are as follows.

The kings of the Assyrians

Ninus, for 52 years.

They say that Ninus was the first to rule over all the inhabitants of Asia, except for the Indians. It can be shown that Abraham, the patriarch of the Hebrew nation, lived during his reign. Semiramis, for 42 years. Zames, also called Ninyas, for 38 years. Arius, for 30 years. Aralius, also called Amyrus, for 40 years. Xerxes, also called Balaeus, for 30 years. Armamithres, for 38 years. Belochus, for 35 years. Balaeas, for 12 years. Aladas, for 32 years. [p65] Mamythus, for 30 years. Machchalaeus, for 30 years. Spherus, for 22 years. Mamylus, for 30 years. Sparethus, for 40 years. Ascatades, for 40 years.

Moses, the law-giver of the Jews, lived during his reign. Amyntas, for 45 years. Belochus, for 45 years.

His daughter Tratres, who was also called (?) Achurard, ruled for 17 years. Dionysus and Perseus lived at this time. Balatores, for 30 years. Lamprides, for 32 years. Sosmares, for 8 years. Lampares, for 30 years. Pannias, for 42 years.

The expedition of the Argonauts and Heracles happened during his reign. Sosarmus, for 19 years. Mithraeus, for 27 years. Teutamus, for 32 years.

Troy was captured during his reign. Teutaeus, for 40 years. Theneus, for 30 years. Derusus, for 40 years. Eupalmes, for 38 years.

[David], the famous king of the Hebrews, lived during his reign. Solomon, the son [of David], built the temple at Jerusalem. Laosthenes, for 45 years. Peritiades, for 30 years. Ophrataeus, for 21 years. Ophatanes, for 50 years. [p67] Acrazanes, for 42 years Sardanapallus, for 20 years.

In his reign, Lycurgus established laws for the Lacedaemonians. The empire of the kings of the Assyrians lasted until this time, when Thespieus the son of Ariphron was archon of the Athenians. According to some writers, the whole empire of the Assyrians lasted for 1,240 years; according to others, it lasted for 1,300 years. Thonnos Konkoleros, who is called Sardanapallus in Greek, was defeated by Arbaces and Belesius, and burnt himself to death. From Sardanapallus until the first Olympiad, there are 40 years.

After destroying the empire of Sardanapallus and the Assyrians, Arbaces appointed Belesius to be governor of Babylon. He transferred the empire of the Assyrians to the Medes, and the duration of their empire was as follows.

THE MEDES

The kings of the Medes

Arbaces, for 28 years. Maudaces, for 20 years. Sosarmus, for 30 years. Artycas, for 30 years. Deioces, for 54 years. Phraortes, for 24 years. Cyaxares, for 32 years. Ashdahak [Astyages], for 38 years.

In his time, Cyrus was king of the Persians. He deposed Ashdahak and destroyed the empire of the Medes, which had lasted for 298 years. Others writers have given a different list of the kings of the Medes.

THE LYDIANS

The kings of the Lydians

Ardys the son of Alyattes, for 36 years. Alyattes, for 14 years. [p69] Meles, for 12 years. Candaules, for 17 years. Gyges, for 35 years. Ardys, for 37 years. Sadyattes, for 5 years. Odyartes, for 49 years. Croesus, for 15 years.

Cyrus killed Croesus, and destroyed the empire of the Lydians.

THE PERSIANS

The kings of the Persians

Cyrus, for 31 years. Cambyses, for 8 years. Smerdes the magus, for 7 months. Dareius the son of Hystaspes, for 36 years.

In his reign, the temple at Jerusalem was rebuilt, after the first [temple] had been burnt down by the Babylonians. Xerxes the son of Dareius, for 20 years. Artaxerxes, who was called Longimanus [Macrocheir], for 41 years.

In his reign, Ezra and Nehemiah were the leaders of the Hebrews. Dareius, for 7 years. Artaxerxes, for 40 years. Ochus, for 26 years. Arses, for 4 years. Dareius, for 6 years.

Alexander the son of Philippus killed Dareius, and ruled over the empire of the Persians and Assyrians for 12 years.

After Alexander, there were Macedonian kings for 295 years, until the death of queen Cleopatra, who reigned in about the 187th Olympiad [32-29 B.C.]. In her time, Augustus was emperor of the Romans, who was called Sebastos in Greek. [p71] [Cleopatra died] in the 15th year of Augustus' reign. From then until the 202nd Olympiad [29-32 A.D.], and the 15th year of Tiberius Caesar, there are 52 years. And from then until the 20th anniversary of Constantinus, there are 300 years.

We will now proceed to the chronology of the Hebrews.

[p71] THE HEBREWS

How the Hebrews have recorded their chronology

We will set down here the chronology of the Hebrews, taken from the writings of Moses and later Hebrew writers; from the Jewish Antiquities of Flavius Josephus; and from the chronicle of Africanus.

How the Hebrews describe the [most ancient] times

The dates and kings of the Chaldaeans and Assyrians, and of the Medes and Persians, have been described in the previous section. And it is clearly shown that the ancestors of the Hebrew race were Chaldaeans, because Abraham was a Chaldaean and his forefathers are said to have lived in the land of the Chaldaeans, as Moses says in these words [Genesis, 11:31]: "Terah took his son Abraham, his grandson Lot son of Haran, and his daughter-in-law Sarah, the wife of his son Abraham, and he led them out of the land of the Chaldaeans."

Therefore it is fitting, after our account of the Chaldaeans, next to relate the history of the ancient Hebrews. The description of the flood, which is recorded by the Hebrews, is very different from the stories of the Greeks, which they tell about the flood at the time of Deucalion. [The Hebrew flood] happened a long time before Ogyges and the equally large flood, which is said by the Greeks to have happened in the time of Ogyges. In all, the flood which is described by the Hebrews happened 1,200 years before the time of Ogyges, which in its turn happened 250 years before Deucalion's flood.

But three is considerable agreement between the Hebrew scriptures and the accounts of the Assyrians, and the story which is told by them about the flood. They relate that before the flood, there were [p73] ten successive generations.

After the flood, the human race throughout the whole world was derived from three men. Japheth was the ancestor of the inhabitants of Europe, from Mount Amanus to the western ocean. Ham was [the ancestor of the inhabitants] of Egypt, Libya and all the regions to the west in that direction. And Shem, who was the eldest brother, [was the ancestor] of the Assyrians, and all the peoples of the east.

The Hebrew scriptures state that Nimrod was the first man to build the city of Babylon. These are the words of the scriptures [Genesis, 10:8-11]: "Cush was the father of Nimrod" (Cush was an Ethiopian, who they believe was the father of Nimrod). Then Scripture says about Nimrod: "He grew to be a mighty [warrior] on the earth. He was a mighty hunter before the Lord, that is why it is said, 'Like Nimrod, a mighty [hunter] before the Lord.' The first centres of his kingdom were Babylon, Erech, Akkad and Calneh, in the land of Shinar. From that land he went to [Assyria], where he built Nineveh.&quot Nineveh is the city which is called Ninus [by the Greeks]; it was the first royal city of the Assyrians, which was founded by Asshur. Asshur was one of the sons of Shem, who, as we said, took possession of all the regions of the east.

They say that the sons of Shem were Elam, Asshur, Arphaxad, Aram and Lud. Elam was the ancestor of the Elymaeans, the most ancient tribe of the Persians, who founded the city of Elymais. Asshur was the ancestor of the Assyrians; he founded the city of Nineveh, which was later restored by Ninus the king of the Assyrians, who renamed it Ninus after his own name. Arphaxad was the ancestor of the Arphaxaeans, who were also called Chaldaeans. Aram was the ancestor of the Aramaeans, who were also called Syrians. Lud was the ancestor of the Lydians. Arphaxad was the father of Shelah, and Shelah was the father of Eber, from whom the name and nation of the Hebrews was derived. The sixth in succession from Eber was Abraham, the patriarch of the Jewish nation, in the tenth generation after the flood. That is sufficient to show in brief the close relationship between the Hebrews and the Chaldaeans and Assyrians. [p75] Therefore it is fitting after [the Assyrians] to start on the chronology of the Hebrews.

At the very start of their account of history, [the Hebrews] tell the ancient story of the fall of the human race from their blissful state, and the first patriarch Adam, who was the forefather of the whole human race (Adam in the Hebrew language means all men in general). The rest of the life [of Adam] after he was cast out of paradise is described by the Holy Spirit, through Moses. And then [Genesis, 5:1-32] he lists the names of Adam's descendants and successors, and the length of each of their lives, so that from this point onwards we can calculate the chronology of the Hebrews, and write it down in order.

No-one could calculate the length of their stay in the so-called paradise of God. The admirable Moses, inspired by the Holy Spirit, seems to be suggesting another kind of era, greater than our own, a thrice-blessed and god-loving way of life, which he calls paradise - the dwelling place of the first race of men. When Moses describes the blissful life of Adam in paradise, he is referring to the whole race [of men].

But this present chronicle will not include an account of that stay [in paradise], nor [will it start] from the creation of heaven, the earth and the universe, as some have done, but [it will start] from the establishment of our human race, and our era, beginning with the forefather of our race, called Adam, who was the one who fell from paradise and was case out from the blissful life. Taking the information from the scriptures of the Hebrews, as the book of Moses relates, I will set down the number of the years of the doomed and mortal life [of Adam], [p77] and what follows; which is where the historical accounts of the Hebrews begin. At this point, the book of Moses says [Genesis 3:23]: "The Lord banished him" (that is, the first man) "from paradise to work the ground from which he had been taken. And he drove Adam out, and made him dwell outside the region of paradise." Then it adds [Genesis 4:1]: "Adam lay with his wife Eve, and she conceived and gave birth to Cain." Our present chronicle will start from this point; but it will not include the first part of history, which cannot be calculated and must be left separate from the subsequent times.

There is much disagreement amongst the Hebrews about the dates which they have recorded. Therefore it is best to look at the different accounts which they have given, and by comparing and considering them all, to decide where the truth lies. The five books of Moses tell the story of the creation of the world, and of life before the flood, and the history of the most ancient men after the flood, and the successive generations after the flood, and Moses' departure from this life. But the books of the law are written down differently by the Jews, and by the Samaritans, who were foreigners who came to live among the Jews.

The characters, which are used by the Jews to represent the Hebrew letters, are different from those used by the Samaritans; and even the descendants of the Jews agree that the Samaritans use the original and true forms of the characters. The two races had no disagreement [about the texts] until the characters were changed. But now there is a great difference between them on matters of chronology, which will become immediately obvious when we compare them in the discussion which follows.

The Greek translation also differs significantly from the Jewish version in some respects, but it does not differ much from the Hebrew version of the Samaritans. There are some differences in the period up to the flood; but from then onwards until the time of Abraham, the two versions are in agreement.

The text which we use was translated by seventy Hebrew men, out of their native language into Greek. [p79] They produced the translation in complete harmony during the reign of Ptolemaeus Philadelphus, and placed it in the library at Alexandria.

Now we will down write each version of Scripture in turn, so that it will be easy to spot the differences between them. First of all, we will see how the Septuagint [the translation of the seventy men] records the chronology of the period from Adam until the birth of Abraham.

The Septuagint

Adam, the first man, became the father of Seth when he was 230 years old, and lived for another 700 years, until the 135th year of Mahalalel. Seth became the father of Enosh when he was 205 years old, and lived for another 707 years, until the 20th year of Enoch. Enosh became the father of Kenan when he was 190 years old, and lived for another 715 years, until the 53rd year of Methuselah. Kenan became the father of Mahalalel when he was 170 years old, and lived for another 740 years, until the 81st year of Lamech. Mahalalel became the father of Jared when he was 165 years old, and lived for another 730 years, until the 48th year of Noah. Jared became the father of Enoch when he was 162 years old, and lived for another 800 years, until the 280th year of Noah. Enoch became the father of Methuselah when he was 165 years old, and lived for another 200 years, until he was taken away in the 33rd year of Lamech. Methuselah became the father of Lamech when he was 167 years old, and lived for another 802 years. The number of years assigned to Methuselah [by the Septuagint] suggests that he survived for (?) 22 years after the time of the flood; but we know that in some copies of the text, it is stated that he lived for another 782 years [after the birth of Lamech], and died at the time of the flood. [p81] Lamech became the father of Noah when he was 188 years old, and lived for another 535 years. Lamech died before his father Methuselah, in the 535th year of Noah. Noah became the father of Shem, Ham and Japheth when he was 500 years old, 100 years before the time of the flood. The flood occurred in the 600th year of Noah, and he lived for another 350 years after the flood, until the 83rd year of Eber.

In total, 2,242 years, according to the Septuagint version.

The Hebrew version, of the Jews

Adam became the father of Seth when he was 130 years old, and lived for another 800 years, until the 56th year of Lamech. Seth became the father of Enosh when he was 105 years old, and lived for another 807 years, until the 168th year of Lamech. Enosh became the father of Kenan when he was 90 years old, and lived for another 815 years, until the 84th year of Noah. Kenan became the father of Mahalalel when he was 70 years old, and lived for another 840 years, until the 179th year of Noah. Mahalalel became the father of Jared when he was 65 years old, and lived for another 830 years, until the 234th year of Noah. Jared became the father of Enoch when he was 162 years old, and lived for another 800 years, until the 366th year of Noah. Enoch became the father of Methuselah when he was 65 years old, and lived for another 300 years, until he was taken away in the 113th year of Lamech. Methuselah became the father of Lamech when he was 187 years old, and lived for another 782 years, up until the time of the flood. Lamech became the father of Noah when he was 182 years old, and lived for another 595 years. He died five years before the flood. [p83] Noah became the father of Shem, Ham and Japheth when he was 500 years old, 100 years before the time of the flood. The flood occurred in the 600th year of Noah, and he lived for another 350 years after the flood, until the 58th year of Abraham.

In total, 1,656 years.

This version differs from the Septuagint by a total of 586 years. This is the difference from the Septuagint in the number of years for which each of them lived before their sons were born; apart from Jared, Methuselah and Lamech, who are given the same number of years in both versions. From the agreement with respect to these three, we can deduce that the version which we use is more reliable, because the longer length of years which is assigned to Jared and his descendants in the Hebrew version makes it clear that the years of their predecessors should also be the same as in the Septuagint version. If the later and more recent generations are found, with the addition of the hundred years, to be assigned the same number of years in both the Hebrew and the Septuagint versions, how much likely is it that the previous generations, their forefathers, lived to be older than their descendants? For in the summary of each man's life, the number of years before his son was born, and the number of year that he lived afterwards, added together gives the same total of years in the Hebrew version and the Septuagint translation. It is only the numbers of years before their sons were born which are shorter in the account preserved in the Jewish copies. Therefore we suspect that this was something which the Jews did: that they ventured to compress and shorten the time before these sons were born, in order to encourage early marriages. For if these most ancient of men, who lived such long lives, came quite soon to marriage and fatherhood, as their account declares, who would not want to imitate them and marry early?

The Hebrew version, of the Samaritans

Adam, the first man, became the father of Seth when he was 130 years old, and lived for another 800 years, until the 223rd year of Noah. [p85] Seth became the father of Enosh when he was 105 years old, and lived for another 807 years, until the 335th year of Noah. Enosh became the father of Kenan when he was 90 years old, and lived for another 815 years, until the 433rd year of Noah. Kenan became the father of Mahalalel when he was 70 years old, and lived for another 840 years, until the 528th year of Noah. Mahalalel became the father of Jared when he was 65 years old, and lived for another 830 years, until the 583rd year of Noah. Jared became the father of Enoch when he was 62 years old, and lived for another 785 years, up until the time of the flood. Enoch became the father of Methuselah when he was 65 years old, and lived for another 300 years, until he was taken away in the 180th year of Noah. Methuselah became the father of Lamech when he was 67 years old, and lived for another 653 years, up until the time of the flood. Lamech became the father of Noah when he was 53 years old, and lived for another 600 years, up until the time of the flood. Noah became the father of Shem when he was 500 years old, 100 years before the time of the flood. The flood occurred in the 600th year of Noah, and he lived for another 350 years after the flood, until the 83rd year of Eber.

In total, 1,307 years.

[The Samaritan version] differs from the Jewish version by 349 years; and it differs from the Septuagint translation by 935 years. That is the end of our discussion of the period before the flood.

Let us now proceed to the times after the flood. First, let us note that the books of the Chaldaeans contain a very similar account to what is told by the Hebrews about the flood and about the ark which was built by Noah. But because I have already written down the account which was recorded by the Chaldaeans in the appropriate place, I think it is pointless to repeat the same words here.

[p87] Some proof that the flood rose above the highest mountains was given a long time afterwards to us, as we wrote this [chronicle]. We observed that, in our own times, fish had been found on top of the highest peaks of the Libanus mountains. Some men, who had gone there to cut out stones from the mountains for building, found various kinds of sea-fish, compacted into the mud in the hollows of the mountains. The fish had survived until the present time, as if they had been artificially preserved, and the sight of them provided evidence to us that the ancient story was true. Let our readers believe this as they wish - but we will now proceed to the following period of time.

After the flood, according to the Septuagint translation

In the second year [after the flood], Shem the son of Noah became the father of Arphaxad, and lived for another 500 years, until the 101st year of Peleg. Arphaxad became the father of Shelah when he was 135 years old, and lived for another 403 years, until the 9th year of Reu. Shelah became the father of Eber when he was 130 years old, and lived for another 406 years, until the th year of Serug. Eber became the father of Peleg when he was 134 years old, and lived for another 433 years, until the 38th year of Nahor. Peleg became the father of Reu when he was 130 years old, and lived for another 209 years, until the 75th year of Serug.

In the days of Peleg, the land was divided up, and therefore the name Peleg means "division" in the Hebrew language. Peleg [was the second man who] died before his father. In his time, the tower [of Babel] was built; men began to speak many different languages, instead of the common language which they had used before; and each nation had its own language, as the Holy Scriptures say [Genesis 11:5-9]. [p89] Gentile writers also tell the same story; Alexander Polyhistor mentions it in his book about the Chaldaeans, and Abydenus also gives a similar account. I have already recorded what they say in my account of the Chaldaeans. After Peleg, Reu became the father of Serug when he was 135 years old, and lived for another 207 years, until the 77th year of Nahor. Serug became the father of Nahor when he was 130 years old, and lived for another 200 years, until the 51st year of Abraham. Nahor became the father of Terah when he was 79 years old, and lived for another 119 years, until the 49th year of Serug. Terah became the father of Abraham when he was 70 years old, and lived for another 135 years, until the 35th year of Isaac. The first year of Abraham, who was the forefather of the Jewish nation.

In his time, Ninus and Semiramis ruled over Assyria and the whole of Asia.

From the flood up until the first year of Abraham, there are 942 years. From Adam up until the flood, 2,242 years. In total, 3,184 years.

After the flood, according to the Hebrew version of the Jews

In the second year after the flood, Shem the son of Noah became the father of Arphaxad, and lived for another 500 years, until the 50th year of Jacob. Arphaxad became the father of Shelah when he was 35 years old, and lived for another 403 years, until the 48th year of Isaac. Shelah became the father of Eber when he was 30 years old, and lived for another 403 years, until the 18th year of Jacob. Eber became the father of Peleg when he was 34 years old, and lived for another 430 years, until the 79th year of Jacob. Peleg became the father of Reu when he was 30 years old, and lived for another 209 years, until the 48th year of Jacob. Reu became the father of Serug when he was 32 years old, and lived for another 207 years, until the 78th year of Abraham. [p91] Serug became the father of Nahor when he was 30 years old, and lived for another 200 years, until the first year of Isaac. Nahor became the father of Terah when he was 29 years old, and lived for another 119 years, until the 49th year of Abraham. Terah became the father of Abraham when he was 70 years old, and lived for another 135 years, until the 35th year of Isaac. The first year of Abraham.

From the flood up until the first year of Abraham, there are 292 years. In total, 1,948 years from Adam. This differs from the Septuagint translation by 1,235 years.

After the flood, according to the Hebrew version of the Samaritans

In the second year after the flood, Shem the son of Noah became the father of Arphaxad, and lived for another 500 years, until the 101st year of Peleg. Arphaxad became the father of Shelah when he was 135 years old, and lived for another 303 years, until the 39th year of Peleg. Shelah became the father of Eber when he was 130 years old, and lived for another 303 years, until the 39th year of Reu. Eber became the father of Peleg when he was 134 years old, and lived for another 270 years, until the 140th year of Reu. Peleg became the father of Reu when he was 130 years old, and lived for another 109 years, until the 109th year of Reu. Reu became the father of Serug when he was 132 years old, and lived for another 207 years, until the 77th year of Nahor. Serug became the father of Nahor when he was 130 years old, and lived for another 100 years, until the 21st year of Terah. Nahor became the father of Terah when he was 79 years old, and lived for another 69 years, until the 69th year of Terah. Terah became the father of Abraham when he was 70 years old, and lived for another 75 years, until the 75th year of Abraham. [p93] The first year of Abraham, who was the forefather of the Jewish nation.

From the flood up until the first year of Abraham, there are 942 years. This is the same total as in the Septuagint translation.

Therefore, the Hebrew version of the Samaritans agrees with our version in the number of years which it assigns to each of these men, before his son was born; but it differs from the Hebrew version of the Jews by 650 years. For according to the Jewish version, there were 292 years from the flood up until the first year of Abraham.

It is clear from the oldest version of the Hebrew scriptures, which is preserved by the Samaritans, and which is in agreement with the Septuagint translation, that these men, from the flood down to Abraham, did not have sons until they were over a hundred years old. So who could suppose that their ancestors, who lived for much longer, had fathered children more quickly, rather than after the length of time which is recorded in the Septuagint [translation]? That is what any rational study would suggest; and so we must agree that [the numbers of years in] the Jewish version are incorrect for the whole period from Adam until Abraham, except for the three generations starting with Jared; and the Samaritan version is also incorrect, but only in the period from Adam until the flood, because in the period from the flood until Abraham, it records the same numbers of years as the Septuagint translation.

Indeed, it is absolutely clear that [the dates in] the Hebrew version of the Jews are incorrect. It even suggests that Noah and Abraham were alive at the same time - which is something that is not mentioned in any history. For if, according to the Jewish scriptures, there were 292 years from the flood until Abraham, and Noah lived for another 350 years after the flood, it is obvious that Noah was alive until the 58th year of Abraham. And it is possible to show that the Jewish version is untrustworthy in another way: because it says that the generations before Abraham were about 30 years old when their sons were born, but the generations after Abraham are said to have been much older when they fathered their children.

[p95] Therefore, because it has been definitely established that the Septuagint version was translated from the original, unadulterated Hebrew scriptures, it is reasonable for us to use that version for this chronicle - especially since it is the only version that is approved by the church of Christ, which has spread throughout the whole world, and it is the version that was handed down to us from the beginning by the apostles and disciples of Christ.

According to the Septuagint [version], from Adam until the flood, there are 2,242 years. From the flood until the first year of Abraham, 942 years. In total, 3,184 years.

According to the Hebrew [version] of the Jews, from Adam until the flood, there are 1,656 years. From the flood until the first year of Abraham, 292 years. In total, 1,948 years.

According to the Hebrew [version] of the Samaritans, from Adam until the flood, there are 1,307 years. From the flood until the first year of Abraham, 942 years. In total, 2,249 years.

All the versions agree that from Abraham up until Moses and the exodus of the Jews from Egypt, there are 505 years, which are calculated in the following way. In the 75th year of Abraham, God appeared to him and said that he would give the promised land to his offspring. It is written [Genesis, 12:4-7]: "Abraham was seventy-five years old when he set out from Haran. He took his wife Sarah, and his nephew Lot." And a little later, Scripture adds: "The Lord appeared to Abraham, and said, 'To your offspring I give this land.' " So from the first year of Abraham [until this promise made by God], there are 75 years; and from the 75th year of Abraham until the exodus of the Jews from Egypt, there are 430 years. The Apostle Paul bears witness to this, when he says [Galatians, 3:17-18]: "The law, introduced 430 years later, does not set aside the covenant previously established by God and thus do away with the promise." And shortly afterwards, he adds: "God in his grace gave it to Abraham through a promise." Abraham's son Isaac was born in Abraham's 100th year, 25 years after the promise which God made to him. From then until the exodus from Egypt there are 405 years, so that the total time from the promise until [the exodus] is 430 years.

[p97] But God, who had appeared to Abraham, appeared to him again and said [Genesis 15:13]: "Know for certain that your descendants will be strangers in a country not their own, and they will be enslaved and ill-treated for four hundred years." The word "descendants" is used deliberately; and to show that we should not allocate the [whole] time to Isaac, the period of 430 years is mentioned at the time of the exodus of the children of Israel from the land of the Egyptians. Scripture says [Exodus 12:40-41]: "Now the length of time which they and their forefathers lived in Egypt and the land of Canaan, was 430 years. At the end of the 430 years, all the Lord's divisions left Egypt by night." Because the length of time, from when the promise was made by God (in the 75th year of Abraham), is 430 years, it is clear that from the first year of Abraham until Moses and the exodus from Egypt, there are 505 years.

Some writers calculate the years in detail, as follows:

Abraham became the father of Isaac, when he was 100 years old Isaac became the father of Jacob, when he was 60 years old Jacob became the father of Levi, when he was 86 years old Levi became the father of Kohath, when he was 46 years old Kohath became the father of Amram, when he was 63 years old Amram became the father of Moses, when he was 70 years old Moses led the people out of Egypt, when he was 80 years old

So the total length of time, from the first year of Abraham until the exodus from Egypt, is 505 years.

In total, from Adam until the exodus from Egypt, according to the Septuagint version, there are 3,689 years; according to the Jews, 2,453 years; according to the Samaritans, 2,753 years.

The period from the death of Moses until Solomon and the building of the temple is described in one way by the book of Judges, with which the holy Apostle agrees in the Acts of the Apostles; but in a different way by the book of Kings and the Hebrew tradition. It will be best to report both accounts, and then to choose the one which is more truthful.

Firstly, it must be mentioned that Africanus, who compiled a Chronography in five books, seems to me to have been greatly mistaken in these matters. [p99] By his reckoning, there were 741 years from the exodus of Moses until Solomon and the building of the temple at Jerusalem, but he provides no evidence for most of this. He is wrong, not only because what he says is contrary to the account of the Holy Scriptures, but also because he audaciously adds a total of 100 years on his own authority. He assigns an additional 30 years to the elders after Joshua; and then after Samson, he places 40 years of anarchy, and another 30 years of peace. By inserting these additional years without any proof, he carelessly produces an inflated total of over 740 years in his calculation of the time between Moses and king Solomon.

By observing how many generations had elapsed, we can see that his account is improbable. There were 14 generations from Abraham until David, and the ninth generation had already come to an end at the time of Moses, when Nahshon the son of Aminadab was leader of the tribe of Judah. Nahshon died in the desert after leaving Egypt, and he was present when the people were first numbered. It is clear that there were five generations after Nahshon until David: David was the son of Jesse, who was the son of Obed, who was the son of Boaz, who was the son of Salmon, who was the son of Nahshon. So how can it be claimed that these five generations after Moses lasted for a total of more than 700 years? If the years are evenly distributed between the men in each generation, we will find that each of them lived for over 140 years before his son was born; and no-one in their senses would consider that possible. Moses himself died at the age of 120 years, and his successor Joshua died at the age of 110 years. Before their time, Joseph lived in all for 110 years, and earlier still Jacob, who was also called Israel, the patriarch of all the Jews, lived for 147 years.

[p101] So how can it be supposed that in later times, after Moses, anyone could have lived for as long as we have said? Africanus is clearly wrong in this matter. However, Clemens reckoned that there were 674 years from Joshua the successor of Moses until the building of the temple, as can be found in the first book of his Miscellany [ Stromata, 1'21 ]. The holy Apostle Paul, in his speech to the Jews in the Acts of the Apostles, says as follows [Acts 13:19-22]: "Joshua destroyed seven nations in the land of Canaan, and he divided the land [amongst the Jews] for 450 years, and after that he gave them judges until the time of Samuel the prophet. Then they asked for a king, and God gave them Saul the son of Kish, of the tribe of Benjamin, who reigned for 40 years. After that, God removed Saul and gave them David in his place."

That is what the Apostle says. According to him, there were 534 years after Joshua. As well as the 450 years, which he assigns to the judges until Samuel, there must be added 40 years for Saul, another 40 years for David, and the four years of Solomon's reign before the building of the temple, which makes a total of 534 years from Joshua the successor of Moses until Solomon. If you add the 40 years of Moses in the wilderness, and the 27 years of Joshua the son of Nun, then the total for the whole period will be 600 years, according to the Apostle. The book of Judges is in agreement with his account, and assigns 450 years to the judges until Samuel, which are divided up as follows:

According to the book of Judges

After Joshua, rule by foreigners - 8 years Othniel - 40 years foreigners - 18 years Ehud and Shamgar - 80 years foreigners - 20 years Barak and Deborah - 40 years [p103] foreigners - 7 years Gideon - 40 years Abimelech - 3 years Tola - 23 years Jair - 22 years foreigners - 18 years Jephthah - 6 years Ibzan - 7 years Elon - 10 years Abdon - 8 years foreigners - 40 years Samson - 20 years Eli, in whose time Samuel was born - 40 years

The total for all the judges until Samuel is 450 years.

The total is consistent with the words of the holy Apostle, but it does not include the years of Moses, or of Joshua the successor of Moses, or of Samuel, or of Saul. The number of years for Samuel and Saul, and also for Joshua, may be uncertain; but as the Apostle suggests, the 40 years of Saul should be added to the 450 years of the judges, and if the 40 years of David and the 4 years of Solomon are joined to this, they make a total of 534 years, the same as in the account of the Apostle. If we also add the 40 years of Moses in the wilderness, and the 27 years of Joshua the son of Nun, according to the tradition of the Hebrews, the total for the whole period is 600 years.

If this total is compared with the five generations between Nahshon and David, which were mentioned previously, and the years are divided equally between the generations, it follows that the men in each generation lived for more than 115 years before their sons were born. It is scarcely credible that, when Moses lived in all for 120 years, his descendants should reach almost the same age, before their sons were born. Therefore there is nothing left but to move on at this point to the account in the book of Kings.

The book of Kings clearly states that, from the exodus of the children of Israel until Solomon and the building of the temple, there was a total of 440 years; according to the Hebrew version, it was 480 years. [p105] The third book of Kings says as follows [1 Kings 6:1]: "It happened in the 440th year after the exodus out of Egypt, that Solomon began to build the house of the Lord." In the Hebrew version, it says "It happened in the 480th year" because the Jewish teachers, by a careful calculation, decided that the total came to 480 years. They did not count separately the years in which the foreigners are said to have ruled over the people [of Israel], but counted just the time that the judges ruled them, and included within this the periods of foreign domination. And this must be how it is done, because it is the only way that the total can be made to be 480 years. I believe that when the holy Apostle stated the number of years, which was mentioned before, he was not speaking in the manner of a chronographer, or of someone who was making an exact calculation. It would have been superfluous to introduce a discussion of chronology into his declaration of the message of salvation, and so he followed the common interpretation of the book of Judges.

The book of Kings expressly states that there were 440 (or 480) years from the exodus until Solomon. But if we look at the dates of each of the judges, and also count separately the times of foreign rule which are mentioned in the book of Judges, there is a total of 600 years between Moses and Solomon. This total of 600 years is divided up as follows:

Moses in the wilderness - 40 years Joshua - 27 years Judges and foreigners - 450 years

(as the Apostle states, in accordance with the book of Judges) Samuel and Saul - 40 years David - 40 years Solomon (until the building of the temple) - 4 years

Therefore the men in each of the five generations, which we mentioned previously, must have lived for 120 years before their sons were born; which is wholly incredible.

However, if we follow the account in the book of Kings, we will have a total of 480 years, because the 120 years, during which the Hebrews were ruled by foreigners, have been removed. [p107] Instead, the years of their enslavement will have been combined with the years of their freedom in a single total, which is how the Hebrews themselves count it. That is how we will calculate the dates here, by assuming that the times of foreign rule are included in the number of years assigned to each of the judges. We have been particularly persuaded to use this method of calculation, by considering how long is allowed for the five generations from Nahshon to David. If we subtract the 40 years of Moses in the wilderness and the four years of Solomon from the total of 480 years, there are 436 years left, up until the death of David. If these years are divided equally between the five generations, there are 87 years for each generation. If anyone investigates this, he will find that it is a plausible account, starting from the birth of David. David was the eighth son of Jesse, and was born after his seven elder brothers when his father was an old man; and so we can reckon that something similar may have happened to his ancestors.

Therefore we will follow here the account in the book of Kings, that there were 480 years from the exodus out of Egypt until Solomon and the building of the temple. We will include the periods of foreign rule in the number of years assigned to each of the judges who ruled in succession.

The book of Judges supports this decision in another way, by the words of Jephthah, who was one of the judges of the people. When the Ammonites, who lived on the other side of the river Jordan, made war on Jephthah, he sent an embassy to the enemy, with this message [Judges 11:25-26]: "Are you better than Balak son of Zippor, king of Moab? Did he ever quarrel with Israel, or fight with them? For three hundred years Israel occupied Heshbon, Aroer, the surrounding settlements and all the towns along the Jordan. Why did he not retake them during that time?" His message tells them that Moses and Balaam the son of Beor lived 300 years before their own time. [p109] The only way to produce this total of 300 years is to reckon that the periods when foreigners ruled [the people of Israel] are included in the number of years assigned to the judges who ruled them. If anyone counts the periods of the people's enslavement, when they were ruled by foreigners, separately [from the judges], he will produce a total which far exceeds the 300 years. But if he counts only the years which are assigned to the judges who ruled the people, he will find that there are 300 years from Moses until Jephthah, as Jepththah's message stated.

Therefore, the chronology which we use for this period will be as follows:

From Moses to Solomon

Moses - 40 years Joshua - 27 years foreigners and Othniel the judge - 40 years foreigners and Ehud the judge - 80 years foreigners and Deborah and Barak - 40 years foreigners and Gideon - 40 years Abimelech - 3 years Tola - 23 years Jair - 22 years foreigners and Jephthah the judge - 6 years Ibzan - 7 years Abdon - 8 years foreigners and Samson - 20 years

In his time, the Trojan war was fought. Eli - 40 years Samuel and Saul - 40 years David - 40 years Solomon (until the building of the temple) - 4 years

In total, from Moses and the exodus out of Egypt until the building of the temple, 480 years.

About Joshua, the book which bears his name tells us nothing more than that [p111] he died at the age of 110 years. But the Hebrews say that he was leader for 27 years; and so he was 43 years old when Moses went out of Egypt.

About Samuel, because Scripture does not explicitly assign a number of years to him, I think that the length of Saul's reign which is mentioned by the holy Apostle should belong jointly to Saul and to Samuel. It is clear that Samuel was leader of the people for many years; but Scripture states that Saul reigned for just two years. In the first book of Kings, it says [1 Samuel 13:1]: "Saul was the son of a year in his reigning; and he ruled over Israel for two years". Symmachus makes this clearer in his translation: "Saul was like a year-old child in his reigning", meaning that Saul was pure and faultless at the beginning of his reign. He kept that nature for two years, but when he turned to evil ways, he was rejected by God and suffered divine punishment. Therefore the remaining years have been assigned to Samuel, and 40 years is the joint total for Saul and Samuel. It is clear that Saul [or Samuel] ruled for this length of time, not only from the evidence of the Apostle, but also from a careful investigation of Scripture, which says [2 Samuel, 2:10] that after the death of Saul, "Ish-Bostheth son of Saul was 40 years old when he became king over Israel, and he reigned two years. The house of Judah, however, followed David.&quot Ish-Bostheth must have been born after Saul became king, because Scripture [1 Samuel, 14:49], when talking of the beginning of Saul's reign, mentions three sons of Saul, but not this one. Therefore we think that Ish-Bosheth was born later, and the length of Saul's reign was about the same as the age of his son after his death.

In summary, the third book of Kings [1 Kings, 6:1] says that there were 480 years from the exodus out of Egypt until Solomon and the building of the temple; there were 505 years from Abraham until Moses and the exodus; [p113] there were 942 years from the flood until the first year of Abraham; and there were 2,242 years from Adam until the flood. Altogether there were 4,170 years from Adam until Solomon and the building of the temple.

The historian Josephus, in the first book of his Jewish Antiquities, produced some Phoenicians as witnesses to the date of Solomon and to his building of the temple, and the evidence of the men whom he mentions seems useful to me. In that book, he writes as follows [Against Apion, 1:106(17)]:

The evidence of the Phoenicians about the temple at Jerusalem, from Josephus

I will now, therefore, pass from these records, and come to those that belong to the Phoenicians, and concern our nation, and shall produce proof of what I have said out of them. There are then records among the Tyrians that take in the history of many years, and these are public writings, and are kept with great exactness, and include accounts of the facts done among them, and such as concern their transactions with other nations also, those I mean which were worth remembering. Therein it was recorded that the temple was built by king Solomon at Jerusalem, one hundred forty-three years and eight months before the Tyrians built Carthage.

In their annals the building of our temple is related; for Hirom, the king of Tyre, was the friend of Solomon our king, and had such friendship transmitted down to him from his forefathers. He thereupon was ambitious to contribute to the splendour of this edifice of Solomon, and made him a present of one hundred and twenty talent talents of gold. [p115] He also cut down the most excellent timber out of that mountain which is called Libanus, and sent it to him for adorning its roof. Solomon also not only made him many other presents, by way of requital, but gave him a country in Galilee also, that was called Chabulon. But there was another passion, a philosophic inclination of theirs, which cemented the friendship that was between them; for they sent mutual problems to one another, with a desire to have them resolved by each other; wherein Solomon was superior to Hirom, as he was wiser than he in other respects: and many of the letters that passed between them are still preserved among the Tyrians. Now, that this may not depend on my bare word, I will produce for a witness Dius, one that is believed to have written the Phoenician History after an accurate manner. This Dius, therefore, writes thus, in his Histories of the Phoenicians:

"Upon the death of Abibalus, his son Hirom took the kingdom. This king raised banks at the eastern parts of the city, and enlarged it; he also joined the temple of Olympian Zeus, which stood before in an island by itself, to the city, by raising a causeway between them, and adorned that temple with donations of gold. He moreover went up to Libanus, and had timber cut down for the building of temples. They say further, that Solomon, when he was king of Jerusalem, sent problems to Hirom to be solved, and desired he would send others back for him to solve, and that he who could not solve the problems proposed to him should pay money to him that solved them. And when Hirom had agreed to the proposals, but was not able to solve the problems, he was obliged to pay a great deal of money, as a penalty for the same. As also they relate, that one Abdemon, a man of Tyre, did solve the problems, and propose others which Solomon could not solve, upon which he was obliged to repay a great deal of money to Hirom."

These things are attested to by Dius, and confirm what we have said upon the same subjects before. [p117] And now I shall add Menander the Ephesian, as an additional witness. This Menander wrote the Acts that were done both by the Greeks and Barbarians, under every one of the Tyrian kings, and had taken much pains to learn their history out of their own records. Now when he was writing about those kings that had reigned at Tyre, he came to Hirom, and says thus:

"Upon the death of Abibalus, his son Hirom took the kingdom; he lived fifty-three years, and reigned thirty-four. He raised a bank on that called the Broad Place, and dedicated that golden pillar which is in Zeus' temple; he also went and cut down timber from the mountain called Libanus, and got timber of cedar for the roofs of the temples. He also pulled down the old temples, and built new ones; besides this, he consecrated the temples of Heracles and of Astarte. He first built Heracles' temple in the month Peritius, and that of Astarte when he made his expedition against the Tityans [(?) inhabitants of Utica], who would not pay him their tribute; and when he had brought them under his control, he returned home. Under this king there was a younger son of Abdemon, who mastered the problems which Solomon king of Jerusalem had recommended to be solved." Now the time from this king to the building of Carthage is thus calculated.

"Upon the death of Hirom, Baalbazerus his son took the kingdom; he lived forty-three years, and reigned seventeen years: after him succeeded his son Abdastartus; he lived thirty-nine years, and reigned nine years. Now four sons of his nurse plotted against him and slew him, the eldest of whom reigned twelve years: after them came Astartus, the son of Eleastartus; he lived fifty-four years, and reigned twelve years: after him came his brother Astharymus; he lived fifty-eight years, and reigned nine years: he was slain by his brother Phelles, who took the kingdom and reigned but eight months, though he lived fifty years: he was slain by Eithobalus, the (?) son of king Astartus, who reigned thirty-two years, and lived forty-eight years: [p119] he was succeeded by his son Balezorus, who lived forty-five years, and reigned eight years: he was succeeded by Metenus his son; he lived thirty-two years, and reigned twenty-nine years: Physmalion succeeded him; he lived fifty-eight years, and reigned forty-seven years. Now in the seventh year of his reign, his sister fled away from him, and built the city Carthage in Libya. So the whole time from the reign of Hirom, till the building of Carthage, amounts to the sum of one hundred fifty-five years and eight months."

Since then the temple was built at Jerusalem in the twelfth year of the reign of Hirom, there were from the building of the temple, until the building of Carthage, one hundred forty-three years and eight months. Therefore, what occasion is there for quoting any more evidence out of the Phoenician histories [on the behalf of our nation], since what I have said is so thoroughly confirmed already? To be sure, our ancestors came into this country long before the building of the temple; for it was not till we had gained possession of the whole land by war that we built our temple. And this is the point that I have clearly proved out of our sacred writings in my Antiquities.

That is what Josephus says.

The list of times [of reigns] which is shown here covers 432 years, from the building of the temple, in the fourth year of Solomon, until the destruction [of the temple] by the Babylonians. They are reckoned as follows:

Solomon - for 37 years

(The rest of his reign except for the first three years) Rehoboam - for 16 years Abijah - for 3 years Asaph - for 41 years Jehoshaphat - for 25 years Jehoram - for 8 years Ahaziah - for 1 year Athaliah his mother - for 7 years Joash - for 40 years [p121] Amaziah - for 28 years Uzziah - for 52 years

In his reign the Greeks established the first Olympic games [776 B.C.]. Jotham - for 16 years Ahaz - for 16 years Hezekiah - for 29 years Manasseh - for 55 years Amon - for 2 years Josiah - for 31 years Jehoahaz - for 3 months Jehoiakim - for 11 years Jehoiachin, also called Jekhoniah, his son - for 3 months Mattaniah, also called Zedekiah - for 11 years

In total, 432 years.

After this, the Babylonian captivity of the Jews and the abandonment of their country lasted for 70 years, which came to an end in the 65th Olympiad [520-517 B.C.], in the second year of Dareius the king of the Persians, as the Holy Scriptures say.

Clemens agrees with our account, when he writes in the first book of his Miscellany as follows [ Stromata, 1'21 ]: "The captivity lasted for seventy years, and ended in the second year of Darius Hystaspes, who had become king of the Persians, Assyrians, and Egyptians; in whose reign, as I said above, Haggai and Zechariah and the angel of the twelve [Malachi] prophesied. And the high priest was Joshua the son of Josedec." That is what Clemens says.

More evidence that there was a period of 70 years from the destruction of the temple until the second year of Dareius is provided by the prophet Zechariah, who said in the second year of Dareius [Zechariah 1:12]: "Almighty Lord, how long will you not pity Jerusalem and the cities of Judah, which you have despised? This is the seventieth year."

But the acute observer may say: "But why is it said at the beginning of the book of Ezra [Ezra 1:1], that in the first year of Cyrus the king of the Persians, to fulfil the word of God which was spoken through the prophet Jeremiah, the Lord aroused the spirit of Cyrus the king of the Persians, and he gave an order throughout his kingdom in a written decree." And then, adding what follows in that book, [p123] he will show that it refers to the release of the Jews, and how Cyrus ordered the temple to be rebuilt. From this you would assume that the 70 years of the captivity came to an end in the reign of Cyrus, and not in the reign of Dareius.

To this I reply, that the words of the prophets refer to two different periods of 70 years. The one is reckoned from the destruction of the temple, and came to an end in the second year of Dareius, as the statement of Zechariah makes clear. The second is from the enslavement of the Jews, up until the capture of Babylon and the destruction of the kingdom of the Chaldaeans. This is reckoned from the time of the prophecy, and came to an end in the reign of Cyrus, and not in the reign of the Dareius, in accordance with the word of Jeremiah, in which he foretells what will happen [Jeremiah 29:10]: "Thus says the Lord. When the 70th year has been completed, I will come to you, and I will fulfil my promise to you, that I will lead you back to this place." And again, he prophesies as follows [Jeremiah 25:11-12]: "All this land will be deserted and ruined, and they will serve the king of the Babylonians amongst the foreigners; and the Lord says about that nation, and about the land of the Chaldaeans, that I will bring them to ruin."

All this was fulfilled in the reign of Cyrus, by counting the years, not from the destruction of the temple, but earlier, from the second year of Jehoiakim, king of the Jews, because it was in this year that Nebuchadnezzar the king of the Babylonians first enslaved the Jews; or even earlier, from when the prophet Jeremiah first began to prophesy. From that time, there were 40 years until the siege of Jerusalem and the burning of the temple, and 70 years until the first year of the reign of Cyrus. The one period of 70 years lasted from the beginning of Jeremiah's prophecy until the reign of Cyrus; but there were 30 years from the destruction of the temple until the reign of Cyrus, and [the other period of] 70 years was completed in the second year of the reign of Dareius. The temple was restored in the eighth year of Dareius.

From that time onwards, the Jews remained without their own kings. They had their own high priests as leaders, but were subject first to the kings of the Assyrians, then to the kings of the Persians, and after them to the Macedonians who ruled after Alexander, up until the time of Antiochus Epiphanes, who as king of Syria forced the Jews to adopt Greek customs. At that time, Mattathias the son of Asamonaeus, who was a priest at Jerusalem, his son Judas, who [p125] was surnamed Maccabaeus, and their successors re-established the Jewish state, and ruled it continuously until the time of Augustus. In Augustus' time, Herodes was the first foreigner to become king of the Jews, with the support of the Romans; during his reign, our Saviour Jesus Christ was born. This was the fulfilment of the prophecy spoken by Moses [Genesis 49:10]: "The sceptre will not depart from Judah, nor the ruler's staff from between his feet, until he comes to whom it belongs and the obedience of the nations is his". These are the words of the prophecy. But the total length of time, from Solomon and the first building of the temple until the second year of Dareius and the rebuilding of the temple, is 502 years. And from Moses and the exodus from Egypt until Solomon and the first building of the temple, is 480 years. And from the first year of Abraham until the exodus, is 505 years. And from the flood until the first year of Abraham, is 942 years. And from Adam to the flood, is 2242 years. So the overall total, from Adam until the second year of Dareius and the second building of [the temple in] Jerusalem, is 4680 years. And from the second year of Dareius which was the first year of the 65th Olympiad [520 B.C.] [until the ministry of Christ], is 137 Olympiads and 548 years.

To show this in more detail, the kings of the Persians are listed here, along with the lengths of their reigns:

Cyrus reigned for 30 years Then Cambyses - for 6 years Dareius reigned for 36 years

In Dareius' second year, the temple in Jerusalem was restored. Dareius reigned for a further 34 years. Then Xerxes the son of Dareius - for 20 years

In his reign, the story of Esther took place. Artabanus - for 6 months Artaxerxes "Macrocheir" - for 41 years

In his reign lived Ezra, the sacred scribe of the Hebrews, who is said to have memorised the whole of Holy Scripture, and who transmitted it to the Jews in the new Hebrew script, because they were living in enemy lands. Nehemiah the head cupbearer also lived at this time; with the approval of the king, he returned to Judaea [p127] and rebuilt Jerusalem, and surrounded the city with a wall; for up until then the city had been deserted, except for the temple which was rebuilt under Dareius. After Artaxerxes there were the following kings of the Persians: Xerxes the second - for 2 months Sogdianus - for 6 months Dareius "Nothus" - for 19 years Artaxerxes "Mnemon" - for 40 years Artaxerxes, also called Ochus - for 26 years Arses the son of Ochus - for 4 years Dareius the son of Arsames - for 6 years Alexander, the king of the Macedonians, killed Dareius and ruled over the Persian empire for 6 years; he had ruled over the land for 6 years before killing Dareius.

The empire of the Persians lasted for 234 years. Beginning in the 55th Olympiad [560-557 B.C.], it ended in the 113th Olympiad [328-325 B.C.]. And from the second year of Dareius until the death of Alexander, who died in the first year of the 114th Olympiad [324 B.C.], is 197 years. After the death of Alexander, there were the following kings of Egypt and Alexandria:

1. Ptolemaeus the son of Lagus - for 40 years 2. Ptolemaeus Philadelphus - for 38 years 3. Ptolemaeus Euergetes - for 24 years 4. Ptolemaeus Philopator - for 21 years 5. Ptolemaeus Epiphanes - for 22 years 6. Ptolemaeus Philometor - for 34 years

In his time, Antiochus Epiphanes was king of Syria; and in Antiochus' reign occurred the events which [are related] in the books of Maccabees. These books tell how Antiochus tried to convert the Jews to Greek customs; he defiled the temple by putting up sacred images there, and carried off the sacred vessels of the temple in the 151st Olympiad [176-173 B.C.]. So from the death of Alexander of Macedonia to the first year of Antiochus Epiphanes, is 150 years. And from the second year of Dareius until Antiochus, is 347 years. In the reign of Antiochus, Mattathias the son of Asamonaeus [p129] showed great devotion to his country's religion, and became leader of the Jews. After his death, his son Judas Maccabaeus [became leader]; and after him, his brother Jonathan [was leader]; and after him, his brother Simon [was leader]. The account of the book of Maccabees ends in the reign of Simon; it covers a period of 40 years, up until the end of the 161st Olympiad [136-133 B.C.]. And from this time until Augustus the Roman emperor, is 88 years. After Simon, according to Africanus and Josephus, Jonathan, also called Hyrcanus, was leader of the Jews for 26 years. After him, Aristobulus [was leader] for one year. Aristobulus was the first to wear the royal diadem, acting as king and high priest of the Jewish race; this was 484 years after the Babylonian captivity. After him, Alexander, also called Jannaeus, was king for 25 years. After him, his widow Alexandra, also called Sallina, [was queen] for 9 years. And after her, Aristobulus and Hyrcanus [were kings]. In their reign, Pompeius the Roman general forced the Jews to pay tribute to the Romans. He set up Hyrcanus as their king, but led off Aristobulus as a prisoner to Rome. In Hyrcanus' reign, in the (?) 184th Olympiad [44 B.C.], Julius Caesar became emperor of the Romans, for 4 years and 7 months. And after him, Augustus (Sebastos in Greek) was emperor for 56 years and 6 months. In his reign, Herodes was the first foreigner to be made king of the Jews by the Romans; his family came from Ascalon, and he had no right to the throne. In Herodes' reign, Christ the Son of God was born in Bethlehem of Judaea. After Augustus, Tiberius became emperor. In his 15th year, the fourth year of the 201st Olympiad [28 A.D.], our Saviour and Lord, Jesus Christ the Son of God, appeared amongst men. So from Antiochus Epiphanes until the 15th year of Tiberius, is 201 years. And from Alexander of Macedonia until the same year of Tiberius, is 352 years. And from the second year of Dareius [until the same year of Tiberius], is 548 years. [p131] And from the 15th year of Tiberius until the final siege of Jerusalem in the second year of Vespasianus, is 42 years. From Adam until the second year of Dareius, is 4680 years. And from the second year of Dareius until the 15th year of Tiberius, is 548 years. So the total, from Adam until the 15th year of Tiberius, is 5228 years. From the 15th year of Tiberius until the 20th anniversary of Constantinus Victor Augustus, is 300 years. So the overall total, according to the Hebrews in the Septuagint version, is (?) 5518 years. According to the Jews' Hebrew text, it is 1237 years less; and according to the Samaritans' Hebrew text, it is 935 years less. This is the way in which the numbers of years are calculated, according to the Hebrews.

[p131] THE EGYPTIANS

How [the history of] the Ethiopians is included in the chronology of the Egyptians, and [the times when] the Ptolemaei ruled over Egypt and Alexandria. How the Egyptians have kept records of their dates.

After the chronology of the Chaldaeans, the Assyrians and the Hebrews, it it time to move on to the records of the Egyptians.

Diodorus, in the first book of his historical library [ 1.44 ], writes as follows: "Some of them tell the story that the first rulers in Egypt were gods and heroes, who ruled for slightly less than sixteen thousand years; the last of the gods who ruled there was Horus the son of Isis. Then men became kings of the country, in the time of Myris, and have continued for slightly less than five thousand years, until the 180th Olympiad [60-57 B.C.], when I visited Egypt, in the reign of Ptolemaeus, who was called the New Dionysus.

[p133] "For the great majority of that time, the country has been ruled by native kings; but for short periods it was ruled by Ethiopians, by Persians and by Macedonians. There were only four Ethiopian kings, and they did not rule in a single sequence, but at separate times; in total, they ruled for slightly less than 36 years. During the supremacy of the Persians, which was established when Cambyses conquered the [Egyptian] people by force, and which lasted for 135 years, the Egyptians rose in revolt, because they could not endure the harsh government and the impiety [of the Persians] towards the native gods. Then the Macedonians and their descendants became kings, for 276 years. For the whole of the rest of the time, [Egypt] was governed by native rulers, who consisted of 470 kings and 5 queens.

"Records about all of these rulers have been kept by the priests in their sacred books, which have been continuously handed down from one [generation] to another, since the most ancient times. These books tell about the character of each king, their virtue and their bravery, their spirit and their nobility, as well as the achievements of each of them in their reigns. However it is unnecessary, and moreover worthless, for us to write down the deeds of each of them; especially since many of them were judged to be insignificant even in their own times.&quot That is what Diodorus says.

And now it is right and fitting for us to add to this Manetho's account of the Egyptians, which seems to be a reliable history.

From the Egyptian records of Manetho, who composed in three books commentaries about the gods, demi-gods, spirits, and the mortal kings who ruled over the Egyptians, up until the time of Dareius the king of the Persians.

The first man amongst the Egyptians was Hephaestus, who discovered fire for them; he was the father of Sol [the Sun]. After him came [(?)Agathodaemon; then] Cronus; then Osiris; then Typhon the brother of Osiris; and then Horus the son of Osiris and Isis. These were the first rulers of the Egyptians. [p135] After them, one king succeeded another until the time of Bidis, for a total of 13,900 years - calculated by lunar years, which lasted for 30 days. That is the period which we now call a month, but the men of that time called it a year.

After the gods, a race of demi-gods ruled for 1,255 years. After them, other kings ruled [the country] for 1,817 years. After them, 30 kings from Memphis [ruled] for 1,790 years; and then another ten kings from Thinis ruled for 350 years. And then the shades and demi-gods were kings, for 5,813 years. The total for all of these is 11,000 years - which are lunar years, or months.

The total time, which the Egyptians assign to the gods and demi-gods and spirits is 24,900 lunar years - which is the equivalent of 2,206 solar years. If you compare this figure with the chronology of the Hebrews, you will find almost the same number of years. For Aegyptus is called Mizraim by the Hebrews; and he was born many years after the time of the flood. It was after the time of the flood that Ham the son of Noah became the father of Mizraim, who was also called Aegyptus; and when the nations were scattered around the earth, Mizraim set off for Egypt to live there. According to the Hebrews, there were 2,242 years in all from Adam until the flood.

So let the Egyptians boast of their antiquity, in the ancient times which preceded the flood. They say that they had some gods, demi-gods and shades. If the years which are recorded by the Hebrews are converted to months, the total is over 20,000 lunar years, so that there are about the same number of months as are contained in the years recorded by the Hebrews, when we count the years from the first-born man up until Mizraim. Mizraim was the patriarch of the Egyptians, and the first dynasty of the Egyptians was descended from him.

But if, even so, the number of years is found to be too large, then we must investigate the reason for this. Perhaps it happened that there were many kings in Egypt at the same time. They say that some of them were kings of Thinis, some of Memphis, some of Sais, and some of Ethiopia; and there were yet others in other places. [p137] And as it seems that these dynasties ruled each in its own (?) nome, it is very unlikely that they ruled in succession to each other. Rather, some of them ruled in one place, and others in another place. Therefore the increase in the number of years can be explained in that way. But we will leave this matter, and proceed to the details of the chronology of the Egyptians.

After the demi-gods and spirits, they reckon that the first dynasty consisted of 8 kings. The first of these kings was Menes, who was an outstanding ruler. Starting from him, we will list the rulers of each generation. The succession of rulers was as follows.

st Dynasty. Menes and his seven descendants:

Menes of Thinis, whom Herodotus [ 2.4 ] calls Min, ruled for (?) 60 years.

- He led his armies beyond the borders of his kingdom, and he was held in high esteem. He was seized by a hippopotamus. His son Athotis ruled for 27 years.

- He built a palace in the city of Memphis. He was skilled in medicine, and wrote books about anatomy. His son Cenchenes, 39 years Venephes, 42 years

- In his reign there was a severe famine. He built the pyramids near Cocome. Usaphais, 20 years Niebais, 26 years Semempses, 18 years

- In his reign there were many prodigies, and a great pestilence. Ubienthis, 26 years.

In total: 252 years

nd Dynasty. 9 kings:

Firstly, Bochus, in whose reign a chasm appeared in the ground at Bubastis, and many were killed. Then Caechōus, in whose reign Apis and Mnevis and the goat of Mendes were honoured as gods. [p139] Biophis, in whose reign it was decided that women too could reign as monarchs. After him, there were three other kings, but nothing significant happened in their reigns. In the reign of the seventh king, there is a legend that the river Nile flowed for eleven days with honey mixed in its water. Then Sesochris [ruled] for 48 years. He is said to have been 5 cubits and 3 palms tall. Nothing worthy of mention happened in the reign of the ninth king.

In total: 297 years

rd Dynasty. 8 kings of Memphis:

Necherochis

- In his reign the Libyans revolted from the Egyptians, but when the moon unexpectedly grew in size, they were moved by fear and surrendered again. Sesorthus

- He was called Asclepius by the Egyptians because of his skill in medicine. He discovered how to make buildings out of hewn stone, and also gave some attention to writing. The other six kings achieved nothing worthy of mention.

In total: 197 years

th Dynasty. 17 kings of Memphis, from another family:

The third king was Suphis

- He built the largest pyramid, which Herodotus [ 2.124 ] says was built by Cheops. He was disdainful towards the gods, but later he repented and wrote the sacred book, which the Egyptians hold in the highest regard. Nothing worthy of mention is recorded about the other kings.

In total: 448 years

th Dynasty. 31 kings of Elephantine:

The first king was Othoēs, who was assassinated by his bodyguards. The fourth king was Phiops, who became king at the age of six, and reigned until 100 years [old].

[Eusebius does not give a total number of years for this dynasty]

th Dynasty.

Queen Nitocris, who was the noblest and most beautiful woman of her time, with a fair complexion. She is said to have built the third pyramid.

In total: [they ruled for] 203 years

[p141] th Dynasty. 5 kings of Memphis, who ruled for 75 (?) days.

th Dynasty. 5 kings of Memphis, who ruled for 100 years.

9th Dynasty. 4 kings of Heracleopolis, who ruled for 100 years.

The first king was Achthoēs, who was the most terrible of all the kings up to his time. He cruelly maltreated the inhabitants throughout Egypt, but later he fell into madness and was killed by a crocodile.

10th Dynasty. 19 kings of Heracleopolis, who ruled for 185 years.

11th Dynasty. 16 kings of Diospolis, who ruled for 43 years.

After them, Ammenemes reigned for 16 years.

At this point, Manetho finishes his first book, which contains 192 kings who reigned in total for 2,300 years [and 75 days].

From the second book of Manetho:

12th Dynasty. 7 kings of Diospolis:

Firstly, Sesonchosis the son of Ammenemes, for 46 years Ammanemes, for 38 years

- He was killed by his own eunuchs. Sesostris, for 48 years

- He is said to have been 4 cubits, 3 palms and 2 digits tall. He conquered the whole of Asia in nine years, as well as Europe as far as Thrace. Everywhere he erected monuments to show his control over the nations; he depicted men's genitals on the columns for brave nations, and women's genitals for cowardly nations. Therefore the Egyptians gave him the first place of honour after Osiris. Lamares, for 8 years

- He built the labyrinth in the Arsinoite [nome], as his own tomb. [p143] His successors ruled for 42 years.

In total: they ruled for 245 years

13th Dynasty. 60 kings of Diospolis, who ruled for 453 years.

14th Dynasty. 76 kings of Xois, who ruled for 484 years.

15th Dynasty. [? 17] kings of Diospolis, who ruled for 250 years.

16th Dynasty. 5 kings of Thebes, who ruled for 190 years.

17th Dynasty. Shepherds. Phoenician brothers and foreign kings, who captured Memphis:

Firstly, Saites, for 19 years

- The Saite nome was named after him. They established a city in the Sethroite nome, and from there they advanced and conquered the Egyptians. Secondly, Bnon, for 40 years Archles, for 30 years Apophis, for 14 years

In total: 103 years. Joseph seems to have (?) lived at the time of these kings.

18th Dynasty. 14 kings of Diospolis:

Amosis, 25 years Chebron, 13 years Ammenophis, 21 years Misphres, 12 years Misphragmuthosis, 26 years [p145] Tuthmosis, 9 years Amenophis, 31 years

- He is the one who is thought to be Memnon, the "singing" statue. Orus, 38 years Achencherses, 16 years

- In his reign, Moses led the exodus of the Jews out of Egypt. Acherres, 8 years Cherres, 15 years Armaïs, who was also [called] Danaus, 5 years

- After 5 years he was expelled from Egypt, and fled from his brother Aegyptus to Greece, where he captured Argos and became the king of the Argives. Rhamesses, who was also called Aegyptus, 68 years Amenophis, 40 years

In total: 348 years

19th Dynasty. 5 kings of Diospolis:

Sethos, 55 years Rhampses, 66 years Amenephthis, (?) 40 years Ammenemes, 26 years Thuōris, 7 years

- Homer [ Od_4'126 ] calls him Polybus, the husband of Alcandra, and in his reign Troy was captured.

In total: 194 years

This is [the end] of the second book of Manetho, which contains (?) 92 kings who reigned in total for 2,121 years.

From the third book of Manetho:

20th Dynasty. 12 kings of Diospolis, who ruled for 172 years.

21st Dynasty. 7 kings of Tanis:

Smendis, 26 years Psusennes, 41 years Nephercheres, 4 years Amenophthis, 9 years [p147] Osochor, 6 years Psinaches, 9 years Psusennes, 35 years

In total: 130 years

22nd Dynasty. 3 kings of Bubastis:

Sesonchosis, 21 years Osorthon, 15 years Tacelothis, 13 years

In total: 49 years

23rd Dynasty. 3 kings of Tanis:

Petubastis, 25 years Osorthon, whom the Egyptians called Heracles, 9 years Psammūs, 10 years

In total: 44 years

24th Dynasty. Bocchoris of Sais, 44 years. In his reign, a lamb spoke.

25th Dynasty. 3 Ethiopian kings:

Sabacon, who captured Bocchoris and burnt him alive, ruled for 12 years Sebichos, his son, 12 years Taracus, 20 years

In total: 44 years

26th Dynasty. 9 kings of Sais:

Ammeres the Ethiopian, (?) 12 years Stephinathis, 7 years Nechepsos, 6 years Nechao, 8 years Psammetichus, 44 years Nechao II, 6 years

- He captured Jerusalem, and took king Jehoahaz back as a prisoner to Egypt. Psammuthes (Psammetichus) II, 17 years Vaphres, 25 years

- The remaining Jews fled to him after Jerusalem had been captured by the Assyrians. Amosis, 42 years

In total: 167 years

27th Dynasty. 8 Persian kings:

[p149] Cambyses, in the th year of his reign, ruled the Egyptians for 3 years the magi, 7 months Dareius, 36 years Xerxes, the son of Dareius, 21 years Artaxerxes, 40 years Xerxes II, 2 months Sogdianus, 7 months Dareius, the son of Xerxes, 19 years

In total: 120 years and 4 months

28th Dynasty. Amyrtaeus of Sais, 6 years.

29th Dynasty. 4 kings of Mendes:

Nepheretes, 6 years Achoris, 13 years Psammuthes, 1 year Muthes, 1 year Nepherites, 4 months

In total: 21 years and 4 months

30th Dynasty. 3 kings of Sebennytus:

Nectanebis, 10 years Teōs, 2 years Nectanebus, 8 years

In total: 20 years

31st Dynasty. 3 Persian kings:

Ochus, in the 20th year of his reign, ruled over Egypt for 6 years Arses, the son of Ochus, 4 years Dareius, who was killed by Alexander the Macedonian, 6 years

All of the above is contained in the third book of Manetho.

What follows will be taken from Greek writers, because the kingdom of the Egyptians came to an end at this point. But as Flavius Josephus has produced evidence from the books of Manetho, in his history of the ancestors of the Hebrews, I think that it is right to record his words, which appear in the first [book of] his Antiquity of the Jews, as follows.

[p151] Josephus, [quoting] from the books of Manetho

I shall begin with the writings of the Egyptians; not indeed of those that have written in the Egyptian language, which it is impossible for me to do. But Manetho, who was by birth an Egyptian, had some knowledge of Greek learning, as is very evident; for he wrote the history of his own country in the Greek language, by translating it, as he says himself, out of their sacred records; he also finds great fault with Herodotus for his ignorance and inaccuracy about Egyptian history. Now this Manetho, in the second book of his Egyptian History, writes concerning us in the following manner. I will set down his very words, as if I were to bring the very man himself into a court as a witness: "Tutimaeus. In his reign it happened, I know not why, that God was angry with us, and there came, unexpectedly, men of ignoble birth from the east, and they were bold enough to make an expedition into our country, and easily subdued it by force, because we did not even hazard a battle with them. So when they had overpowered our rulers, they afterwards burnt down our cities, and demolished the temples of the gods, and treated all the inhabitants in the most barbarous manner. Some of them they slew, and led their children and their wives into slavery. At length they made one of themselves king, whose name was Salitis; he also lived at Memphis, and he made both the upper and lower regions pay tribute, and left garrisons in places that were the most suitable for them. He chiefly aimed to secure the eastern parts, because he foresaw that the Assyrians, who were the most powerful people of that time, would want to seize his kingdom, and invade it. He found in the Sethroite nome a city very suitable for this purpose, on the east side of the Bubastic channel of the river, which for theological reasons was called Avaris. He rebuilt it, and made it very strong by the walls he built around it, and put in a very large garrison of two hundred and forty thousand armed men, to guard it. [p153] Salitis came there in summer time, partly to gather his corn, and pay his soldiers their wages, and partly to exercise his armed men, and thereby to intimidate foreigners. After this man had reigned nineteen years, another, whose name was Bnon, reigned for forty-four years; after him reigned another, called Apachnas, thirty-six years and seven months; after him Apophis reigned sixty-one years, and then Jannas fifty years and one month; after all these, Assis reigned for forty-nine years and two months. And these six were the first rulers among them, who were all along making war with the Egyptians, and wanted gradually to eradicate them. This whole nation was styled Hyksos, that is, 'shepherd-kings': for the first syllable hyk, according to the sacred dialect, denotes 'a king', and sos is 'a shepherd', according to the ordinary dialect; and of these is compounded Hyksos: but some say that these people were Arabians." Now in another copy it is said that this word does not denote 'kings', but, on the contrary, denotes that the shepherds were 'captives'. For hyk, as well as hak with an aspirate, in the Egyptian language expressly denotes 'captives'; and this to me seems the more probable opinion, and more in accordance with ancient history.

"These people, whom we have before named kings, and called shepherds also, and their descendants," as he says, "kept control of Egypt for five hundred and eleven years." After this, he says, "The kings of Thebais and the other parts of Egypt rebelled against the shepherds, and a terrible and long war was fought between them. A king, whose name was Misphragmuthosis, subdued the shepherds, and after driving them out of the other parts of Egypt, he shut them up in a place [p155] that contained ten thousand arourai; this place was named Avaris." Manetho adds, "The shepherds built a large and strong wall round all this place, in order to keep all their possessions and their prey within a place of strength, but Thummosis the son of Misphragmuthosis made an attempt to take them by force and by siege, surrounding them with an army of four hundred and eighty thousand men. But, despairing of taking the place by siege, he came to an agreement with them, that they should leave Egypt, and go, without suffering any harm, wherever they chose; and, after this agreement was made, they went away with all their families and possessions, not fewer in number than two hundred and forty thousand, and travelled out of Egypt, through the wilderness, towards Syria. But as they were in fear of the Assyrians, who were then the rulers of Asia, they built a city in that country which is now called Judaea; the city was large enough to contain this great number of men, and they called it Jerusalem." Now Manetho, in another book of his, says that this nation, thus called 'shepherds', were also called 'captives', in the sacred books of his country. And this account of his is true; for feeding of sheep was the employment of our forefathers in the most ancient ages, and as they led such a wandering life in feeding sheep, they were called 'shepherds'. Nor was it without reason that they were called 'captives' by the Egyptians, since one of our ancestors, Joseph, told the king of Egypt that he was a captive, and afterwards brought his brothers into Egypt with the king's permission. But as for these matters, I shall give a more detailed account of them elsewhere.

But now I shall produce the Egyptians as witnesses to the antiquity of our nation. I shall therefore bring in Manetho again, and what he writes about the sequence of dates. He says: "When this people or shepherds left Egypt and went to Jerusalem, Tethmosis the king of Egypt, who drove them out, reigned for another twenty-five years and four months, and then he died; [p157] after him his son Chebron took the kingdom for thirteen years; after whom came Amenophis, for twenty years and seven months; then came his sister Amesses, for twenty-one years and nine months; then came her son Mephres, for twelve years and nine months; after him was Mephramuthosis, for twenty-five years and ten months; after him was Thmosis, for nine years and eight months; after him came Amenophis, for thirty years and ten months; after him came Orus, for thirty-six years and five months; then came his daughter Acenchres, for twelve years and one month; then was her brother Rathotis, for nine years; then came his son Acencheres, for twelve years and five months; then came another Acencheres, for twelve years and three months; after him Armais, for four years and one month; after him was Ramesses, for one year and four months; after him came Armesses Miamūn, for sixty-six years and two months; after him Amenophis, for nineteen years and six months; after him came Sethosis, also called Ramesses, who had an army of cavalry, and a strong navy. This king appointed his brother, Armais, to be his deputy over Egypt. He also gave him all the other authority of a king, except that he instructed him, that he should not wear the diadem, nor do any harm to the queen, the mother of his children, and that he should not meddle with the other concubines of the king. Then he made an expedition against Cyprus, and Phoenicia, and besides against the Assyrians and the Medes. He subdued them all, some by his arms, some without fighting, and some by the terror of his great army; and being puffed up by the great successes he had had, he went on still more boldly, and overthrew the cities and countries that lay in the east. But after some considerable time, Armais, who was left in Egypt, recklessly did all those very things, which his brother had forbidden him to do. He used violence against the queen, and continued to make use of the rest of the concubines, without sparing any of them. At the persuasion of his friends he put on the diadem, and set up in opposition to his brother. But then the chief of the priests in Egypt wrote letters to Sethosis, and informed him of all that had happened, and how his brother had set up in opposition to him. Sethosis therefore returned back to Pelusium immediately, and recovered his kingdom again." The country was called Egypt from his name; for Manetho says, that Sethosis was himself called Aegyptus, [p159] and his brother Armais was called Danaus.

This is Manetho's account. And it is clear from the number of years allocated by him to this interval, if they are all added together, that these shepherds, as they are here called, were no other than our forefathers, who were delivered out of Egypt, and came from there to inhabit this country, three hundred and ninety-three years before Danaus came to Argos; although the Argives look upon Danaus as their most ancient king. Manetho, therefore, provides evidence from the Egyptians records for two points which are of the greatest consequence to our purpose. In the first place, that we came out of another country into Egypt; and secondly, that our departure from Egypt was so ancient in time as to have preceded the siege of Troy by almost a thousand years. As to those things which Manetho adds, not from the Egyptian records, but, as he confesses himself, from some stories of an uncertain origin, I will disprove them later in detail, and shall demonstrate that they are no better than incredible fables.

That is what Josephus says in the book which we referred to. He [? Manetho] describes the kings of the Egyptians from the beginning until the end, up until one of the kings that they appointed, called Nectanebus. I have already mentioned Nectanebus earlier on, at the appropriate point in the list of kings. After Nectanebus, Ochus the king of the Persians gained control of Egypt, and ruled over it for 6 years. After him, his son Arses [was king] for 4 years. After him, Dareius [was king] for 6 years. Then Alexander the Macedonian killed Dareius the Persian, and ruled over both the Asians and the Egyptians. Alexander founded the city of Alexandria in Egypt in the sixth year of his reign. After the death of Alexander, his empire was divided between many different rulers, and the Ptolemaei became kings of Egypt and Alexandria. The dates of these kings are as follows.

The kings of Egypt and the city of Alexandria after the death of Alexander of Macedonia, from the writings of Porphyrius:

Alexander of Macedonia died in the 114th Olympiad [324 B.C.], after reigning for a total of 12 years. He was succeeded by Aridaeus, also called Philippus, who was a brother of Alexander, but by a different mother; for he was the son of Philippus and Philinna of Larissa. Aridaeus ruled for 7 years, before he was killed in Macedonia by Polysperchon the son of Antipater.

[p161] A year after Philippus became king, Ptolemaeus the son of Arsinoe and Lagus was sent to be satrap of Egypt. He was satrap for 17 years, and then he was king for 23 years; so altogether he ruled for 40 years, until his death. However, while still alive he abdicated in favour of his son Ptolemaeus, called Philadelphus, and he lived for a further two years after his son had taken over as king; so we reckon the reign of this first Ptolemaeus, called Soter, to be 38 rather than 40 years long.

He was succeeded by his son Ptolemaeus, who as we said was called Philadelphus. The son reigned for two years while his father was still alive, and then for a further 36 years after his death, so that we reckon the length of his reign to be 38 years, the same as for his father.

After him, the third Ptolemaeus, called Euergetes, reigned for 25 years.

After him, the fourth Ptolemaeus, called Philopator, reigned for 17 years.

After him, the fifth Ptolemaeus, called Epiphanes, reigned for 24 years.

This Ptolemaeus had two sons, the elder called Philometor and the younger called the second Euergetes, who ruled after him for a combined total of 64 years. We have counted their years together, because they were constantly fighting against each other and alternately gained and lost control of the kingdom, which makes it difficult to calculate their years separately.

Philometor first ruled on his own for 11 years; but when Antiochus invaded Egypt and removed him from the throne, the inhabitants of Alexandria put the younger brother in charge. Then they forced Antiochus out of Egypt, and freed Philometor. They called that the 12th year of Philometor, and the first year of Euergetes. After that the two kings ruled jointly until the 17th year, but from the 18th year onwards Philometor ruled on his own.

At that time the elder brother, who had been deposed by the younger brother, was restored by the Romans. [p163] So he ruled in Egypt, and made his brother ruler of Libya instead, and after that Philometor ruled as sole king of Egypt for 18 years. When he died in Syria, which was also under his control, Euergetes was called back from Cyrene and proclaimed king. Euergetes counted his years from the time when he first became king, so that he seems to have reigned for 25 [29?] years after his brother's death, but officially he reigned for 54 years. The 36th year of Philometor should have been called the first year of his reign, but instead he ordered it to be written as the 25th year of his reign. So the combined length of both their reigns is 64 years, 35 years under Philometor and the rest under Euergetes; but to split it up into separate reigns would lead to confusion.

Ptolemaeus the second Euergetes had two sons by Cleopatra, the elder called Ptolemaeus Soter and the younger called Ptolemaeus Alexander. The elder son was appointed by his mother to reign first; she thought he would obey her, so favoured him for a time. But in the tenth year of his reign he murdered his parents' friends, and was deposed by his mother because of his cruelty, and fled to Cyprus.

His mother summoned her younger son from Pelusium, and appointed him to be king along with her. So the younger son ruled jointly with his mother, and the country was governed in both their names; this year was called the 11th year of Cleopatra and the th year of Alexander, because Alexander counted his years from the th year of his brother's reign, which was when he started to rule over Cyprus. This state of affairs continued until the death of Cleopatra; after she died, Alexander ruled on his own, and he reigned for 18 years in all after he returned to Alexandria, though officially he reigned for 26 years. In the 19th year, after a dispute with his soldiers, he went away to collect an army to bring to Egypt against them. However they followed him, and under the leadership of a relative of the kings called Tyrrus, [p165] they defeated him in a naval battle. Alexander was forced to take refuge with his wife and daughter in Myra, a city of Lycia; from there, he crossed over to Cyprus, where he was defeated by the admiral Chaereas, and died.

After his expulsion, the inhabitants of Alexandria sent envoys to the elder brother, Ptolemaeus Soter, and established him as king again, when he had sailed back from Cyprus. Soter lived for another 7 years and 6 months after his return, and the whole period after the death of the brothers' father was counted in his name, which was a total of 35 years and 6 months. But if we split the period up according to the actual course of events, Ptolemaeus Soter ruled at two different times for a total of 17 years and 6 months, and in between the younger brother, Ptolemaeus Alexander, ruled for 18 years. The inhabitants of Alexandria were unable to completely delete Alexander's reign from the records, but as far as was in their power they erased all mention of it, because Alexander had assaulted them with the help of some Jews. So they do not count the years of his reign, but attribute the whole 36 years to the elder brother.

Similarly, they do not attribute the next 6 months after the death of the elder brother, which make up the complete 36 years, to Cleopatra, the daughter of the elder brother and wife of the younger brother, who took over control of the kingdom after the death of her father. Nor do they formally attribute to Alexander the 19 days in which he jointly reigned with her.

This Alexander was the son of the younger Ptolemaeus, who was also called Alexander, and the stepson of Cleopatra. He was staying in Rome, when he was summoned back to Alexandria because there were no men of the royal family left in Egypt. He married the aforesaid Cleopatra, and when she had willingly handed over power to him, after an interval of 19 days he murdered her. Then he himself was seized and killed by the armed men in the gymnasium, because of the foul murder which he had committed.

[p167] This Alexander was succeeded by Ptolemaeus, called the new Dionysus, who was the son of Ptolemaeus Soter and the brother of the aforesaid Cleopatra. He reigned for 29 years.

His daughter Cleopatra was the last of the dynasty of the Ptolemaei. She reigned for 22 years.

These reigns also did not follow an continuous sequence from start to finish, as laid out in the records, but each of them had some interruptions in the middle of it. In the reign of the new Dionysus, a three year period was ascribed to the rule of his daughters Cleopatra Tryphaena and Berenice, one year as a joint reign and the following two years, after the death of Cleopatra Tryphaena, as the reign of Berenice on her own. Because Ptolemaeus had gone off to Rome, and was spending a long time there, his daughters took over the rule of the kingdom, as if he was not going to return, and Berenice took on some men of the royal family as co-rulers. But when Ptolemaeus returned from Rome, he forget all affection towards his daughter, and in his anger at what she had done, he put her to death.

In the first years of Cleopatra's reign, she shared power with her elder brother Ptolemaeus and then with others, for the following reasons. When the new Dionysus died, he left four children, two sons called Ptolemaeus and daughters called Cleopatra and Arsinoe. He handed over power to the two eldest children, Ptolemaeus and Cleopatra, who reigned jointly for 4 years. And this state of affairs would have continued, if Ptolemaeus had not wanted to seize sole power for himself, in contravention of his father's orders. However he was fated to die soon afterwards, after being defeated in a naval battle by Julius Caesar, who intervened on behalf of Cleopatra.

After Ptolemaeus' death, Cleopatra's younger brother, who was also called Ptolemaeus, became joint ruler with his sister, as proposed by Caesar. The next year was called the fifth year of Cleopatra and the first year of Ptolemaeus, and so it continued for the following two years, [p169] until he died. He was plotted against and killed by Cleopatra, in his th year, which was Cleopatra's th year. From then onwards Cleopatra ruled on her own, up until her 15th year. However, her 16th year was also called the first year, because after the death of Lysimachus the king of Chalcis in Syria, the Roman general Marcus Antonius gave Chalcis and the surrounding regions to Cleopatra. And from then onwards for the remaining years up until the 22nd year, which was the last of Cleopatra's reign, the years were counted in the same way, so that the 22nd year was also called the th year.

Octavius Caesar, also called Augustus, conquered Egypt in the battle of Actium, and succeeded Cleopatra as ruler of Egypt in the second year of the 184th Olympiad [43 B.C.]. From the first year of the 111th Olympiad [336 B.C.], when Aridaeus Philippus became king, until the second year of the 184th Olympiad [43 B.C.], is 73 Olympiads and one additional year. So the total duration of the rule of all the kings of Alexandria, down to the death of Cleopatra, is 293 years.

So the reign-lengths of the Ptolemaei are as follows:

Alexander the Macedonian began his reign in the first year of the 111th Olympiad [336 B.C.]. He founded the city of Alexandria in Egypt, and ruled for 12 years and 7 months. After him, the kings of the city of Alexandria and the whole of Egypt were:

Ptolemaeus the son of Lagus - for 40 years Ptolemaeus Philadelphus - for 38 years Ptolemaeus Euergetes - for 24 years Ptolemaeus Philopator - for 21 years Ptolemaeus Epiphanes - for 24 years Ptolemaeus Philometor - for 31 years [p171] Ptolemaeus the second Euergetes - for 29 years Ptolemaeus Physcon, or Soter - for 17 years and 6 months Ptolemaeus Alexander, after the expulsion of [Soter], his predecessor - for ¹⁰ years Ptolemaeus Philadelphus, returning from exile after the expulsion of Alexander - for 8 years Ptolemaeus Dionysus, called Philadelphus - for 30 years Cleopatra the daughter of Ptolemaeus - for 22 years

In her reign, Gaius Julius Caesar became the first Roman emperor. The next emperor, Octavius Caesar Augustus, called Sebastos in Greek, killed Cleopatra and put an end to the dynasty of the Ptolemaei, who had ruled for 295 years.

THE GREEKS According to the historians of their ancient times.

The kings of the Athenians The kings of the Argives The kings of the Sicyonians The kings of the Lacedaemonians The kings of the Corinthians Who ruled the sea, and for how long The individual Olympiads of the Greeks The early kings of the Macedonians The kings of the (?) Macedonians, Thessalians, Syrians and Asians after Alexander

Dates of the Greeks

The Sicyonians and their kings are said to be the most ancient of the Greeks. The first king to rule Sicyon was Aegialeus, at the same time as Ninus and Belus, who are the first recorded kings of the Assyrians and of Asia. The Peloponnese was originally called Aegialeia, after this Aegialeus.

Inachus is said to have been the first king of the Argives, 235 years after the start of the Sicyonian kingdom. [p173] Cecrops, called Diphyes ("two-formed") was the first king of the Athenians, about 300 years after the start of the Argive kingdom, and 533 years after the start of the Sicyonian kingdom.

This chronicle will start with the earliest rulers, and first it will give a full list of the kings of the Sicyonians. There is considerable disagreement amongst the older writers who composed chronicles of Greek history; but, as far as possible, we will copy the accounts which are agreed by most writers.

The chronographer Castor lists the dates of the Sicyonian kings in his chronicle; and then he provides a summary of them, as follows: "We will provide a list of the kings of Sicyon, starting with Aegialeus, the first king, and ending with Zeuxippus. These kings reigned for a total of 959 years. After the kings, six priests of [Apollo] Carneius were appointed; this priesthood lasted for 33 years. Then Charidemus was appointed priest; but he could not bear the expense, and went into exile."

That is what Castor wrote. The exact succession of the Sicyonian kings is reckoned as follows.

The kings of the Sicyonians

Aegialeus, for 52 years.

The Peloponnese was originally called Aegialeia, after this Aegialeus. He is said to have started to rule Sicyon in the 15th year of Belus, the first king of the Assyrians. According to legend, [Belus] was the son of Poseidon and Libya.

Europs, for 45 years.

He reigned at the same time as Ninus, the son of Belus.

Telchin, for 20 years.

He reigned at the same time as Semiramis.

Apis, for 25 years.

The Peloponnese was then called Apia, after this Apis.

Thelxion, for 52 years.

Aegydrus, for 34 years.

Thurimachus, for 45 years.

During his reign, Inachus became the first king of the Argives.

[p175] Leucippus, for 53 years.

Messapus, for 47 years.

During his reign Egypt was ruled by Joseph, as the Hebrews record.

Eratus, for 46 years.

Plemnaeus, for 48 years.

Orthopolis, for 63 years.

Marathonius, for 30 years.

During his reign, Cecrops Diphyes became the first king of Attica.

Marathus, for 20 years.

During his reign, Moses led the Hebrews out of Egypt, as will be shown in due course.

Echyreus, for 55 years.

During his reign, Danaus became king of the Argives.

Corax, for 30 years.

Epopeus, for 35 years.

Laomedon, for 40 years.

Sicyon, for 45 years.

During his reign, the kingdom of the Argives came to an end, after lasting for 540 years.

Polybus, for 40 years.

Inachus, for 40 years.

Phaestus, for 8 years.

Adrastus, for 4 years.

Polypheides, for 31 years.

During his reign, Troy was captured.

Pelasgus, for 20 years.

During his reign, Aeneias was king of the Latins.

Zeuxippus, for 31 years.

In all, there were 26 kings of Sicyon, who reigned for 959 years. After Zeuxippus, there were no more kings, and instead there were priests of [Apollo] Carneius.

The first priest was Archelaus, for one year.

Automedon, for one year.

Theoclytus, for four years.

Euneus, for six years.

Theonomus, for nine years.

[p177] Amphigyes, for (?) twelve years.

Lastly, Charidemus for one year. He could not bear the expense, and went into exile. He was priest (?) 352 years before the first Olympiad [i.e. 1128 B.C.].

The total duration of the kings and priests of the Sicyonians was 998 years.

After the rulers of the Sicyonians, it will be fitting to give a summary of the kings of the Argives, as far as can be established from the ancient histories. Castor mentions them in these words.

Castor, about the kings of the Argives:

Next we will list the kings of the Argives, starting with Inachus and ending with Sthenelus the son of Crotopus. These kings reigned for a total of 382 years, until Sthenelus was driven out by Danaus, who seized control of Argos. The descendants of Danaus ruled Argos for 162 years, ending with Eurysthenes, the son of Sthenelus, the son of Perseus. After Eurysthenes, the descendants of Pelops ruled Argos for (?) 105 years, starting with Atreus, and ending with Penthilus, Tisamenus and Cometes (?) the son of Orestes, in whose time occurred the invasion of the Heracleidae. The dates of each of the Argive kings are as follows.

The kings of the Argives

Inachus, for 50 years.

The country was called Inachia, after this Inachus. He began to rule the Argives at the time of Thurimachus, who was the seventh king of the Sicyonians.

Phoroneus, for 60 years.

In his reign, Ogygus founded Eleusis.

Apis, for 35 years.

The country was then called Apia, after this Apis. During his reign, Joseph governed the Egyptians, as recorded by the Hebrews.

Argus, the son of Zeus and Niobe, for 70 years.

The name of the country was changed to Argeia, after this Argus.

Criasus, for 54 years.

Phorbas, for 35 years.

During his reign, Cecrops Diphyes became king of the Athenians.

[p179] Triopas, for 46 years.

During his reign, Moses led the Hebrews out of Egypt.

Crotopus, for 21 years.

Sthenelus, for 11 years.

In all, these kings reigned for 382 years.

Danaus drove out Sthenelus, and ruled Argos, as did his descendants after him. The succession of kings, and their dates, are as follows.

Danaus, for 50 years.

Lynceus, for 41 years.

Abas, for 23 years.

Proetus, for 17 years.

Acrisius, for 31 years.

In all, there were rulers of Argos for a period of 544 years, until the end of Danaidae.

After Acrisius, the Argives began to be ruled from Mycenaae, when the descendants of Pelops took over the kingdom, in the time of Eurysthenes the son of Sthenelus. Pelops was the first ruler of the Peloponnese, and he organised the Olympic games.

After Acrisius, when the Argives began to be ruled from Mycenae:

Eurysthenes was king for 45 years.

Then the sons of Pelops, Atreus and Thyestes, for 65 years.

After them, Agamemnon, for 30 years. In the 18th year of his reign, Troy was captured.

Aegisthus, for 17 years.

Orestes, Tisamenus, Penthilus and Cometes for 58 years, until the return of the Heracleidae, when they conquered the Peloponnese. From the return of the Heracleidae until the migration of the Ionians, there are (?) 60 years. From the migration of the Ionians until the first Olympiad [776 B.C.], there are 267 years.

Next it will be fitting to provide a list of the kings of Athenians, by summarising the accounts of some of the ancient historians.

Ogygus is said to have been the first [king] of the Athenians; [p181] the Greeks relate that their great ancient flood happened in his reign. Phoroneus the son of Inachus, king of the Argives, is said to have lived at the same time. Plato mentions this in the Timaeus [ 22 ], as follows: "When he wished to introduce them to ancient history, so that they could discuss the antiquity of this city, he started his account with the old stories about Phoroneus and Niobe, and then what happened after the flood." Ogygus lived in the time of Messapus, the ninth king of Sicyon, and Belochus, the eighth king of the Assyrians.

After Ogygus, because of the great destruction caused by the flood, Attica remained without a king for 190 years, until the time of Cecrops. The number of years is reckoned from the kings of the Argives, who began before Ogygus. From the end of the reign of Phoroneus, king of the Argives, in whose time Ogygus' flood is said to have happened, until Phorbas, in whose time Cecrops became king of Attica, is a period of 190 years. From Cecrops until the first Olympiad, there are counted seventeen kings, and twelve archons for life; in this time, the marvellous myths of the Greeks are said to have occurred. The Greeks count the kings of Attica from [Cecrops], because they do not know for certain the dates of any earlier kings. Castor explained this in the summary of this history, as follows.

Castor, about the kings of the Athenians:

We will now list the kings of the Athenians, starting with Cecrops, called Diphyes, and ending with Thymoetes. The total duration of the reigns of all these kings, called Erechtheidae, was 450 years. After them, Melanthus of Pylus, son of Andropompus, became king, [p183] followed by his son Codrus. The total duration of their two reigns was (?) 58 years. [When the kings came to an end, they were replaced by archons who ruled for life], starting with (?) Medon son of Codrus, and ending with Alcmaeon son of Aeschylus. The total duration of the rule of the archons for life was 209 years. The next archons held power for 10 years each; there were seven of these archons, and altogether they ruled for 70 years. Then the archons started to hold power for one year each, starting with Creon and ending with Theophemus, in whose time the history and glorious achievements of our country came to a complete end.

That is what Castor wrote. Now we will provide a list of each of the kings.

The kings of the Athenians

Cecrops Diphyes, for 50 years.

In his reign lived Prometheus, Epimetheus and Atlas. He started to rule the Athenians in the time of Triopas, the seventh king of the Argives, and Marathonius, the thirteenth king of Sicyon.

At this time, Moses was prominent amongst the Hebrews, as we will show in due course.

Also in his reign, the flood of Deucalion is said to have engulfed Thessaly, just as fire devastated the land of Ethiopia in the time of Phaethon.

Cranaus, an aboriginal, for 9 years.

Amphictyon, the son of Deucalion and son-in-law of Cranaus, for (?) 10 years.

The deeds of the Danaidae are said to have occurred in his reign.

Erichthonius, the son of Hephaestus, who is called Erechtheus by Homerus, for 50 years.

The Idaean Dactyls lived in his reign.

Pandion, the son of Erichthonius, for 40 years.

The rape of Core [Persephone], and what is related about Triptolemus, occurred in his reign.

[p185] Erechtheus the son of Pandion, for 50 years.

The deeds of Perseus occurred in his reign.

Cecrops, the brother of Erechtheus, for 40 years.

The deeds of Dionysus occurred in his reign.

Pandion, the son of Erechtheus, for 25 years.

Afterwards Pandion went into exile, and became king of Megara.

The deeds of Europa, Cadmus and the Sparti occurred in his reign.

Aegeus, the son of Pandion, for 48 years.

The deeds of the Argonauts and the Centaurs occurred in his reign; and Heracles held the athletic games.

Theseus, the son of Aegeus, for 30 years.

In his reign, Minos established laws.

Menestheus, the son of Peteus, son of Orneus son of Erechtheus, for 23 years.

In his reign, Troy was captured.

Demophon, the son of Theseus, for 33 years.

The deeds of Odysseus and Orestes occurred in his reign; and Aeneias was king of Lavinium.

Oxyntes, the son of Demophon, for 12 years.

In his reign, the Amazons burnt down the temple at Ephesus.

Apheidas, the son of Oxyntes, for one year.

Thymoetes, the brother of Apheidas, for 8 years.

Melanthus of Pylus, the son of Andropompus, for 37 years.

In his reign the Heracleidae returned and occupied the Peloponnese.

Codrus, the son of Melanthus, for 21 years.

In his reign, the Ionians were driven out of Achaea, and took refuge in Athens.

Archons of the Athenians, who held power for life

Medon, the son of Codrus, for 20 years.

Acastus, the son of Medon, for 36 years.

In his reign occurred the migration of the Ionians, [p187] including Homerus, so they say.

At the same time, Solomon built the temple at Jerusalem, as will be shown in due course.

Archippus, the son of Acastus, for 19 years.

Thersippus, the son of Archippus, for 41 years.

Phorbas, the son of Thersippus, for 30 years.

Megacles, the son of Phorbas, for 30 years.

Diognetus, the son of Megacles, for 28 years.

At this time, Lycurgus was in his prime.

Pherecles, the son of Diognetus, for 19 years.

Ariphron, the son of Pherecles, for 20 years.

At this time, the kingdom of the Assyrians came to an end, and Sardanapalus was killed.

Thespieus, the son of Ariphron, for 27 years.

At this time, Lycurgus established laws for the Spartans.

Agamestor, the son of Thespieus, for 17 years.

Aeschylus, the son of Agamestor, for 23 years.

In his twelfth year, the first Olympiad was held, in which Coroebus won the stadion contest.

The total duration of the Athenian rulers, from Cecrops down to the first Olympiad [776 B.C.], was 780 years; from Ogygus to the first Olympiad, there were 970 years. From this time onwards, it is convenient to calculate dates according to the Olympiads.

After Aeschylus, Alcmaeon ruled the Athenians, for 2 years.

[p189] After Alcmaeon, the Athenians decided to appoint archons for ten years each:

Charops, for ten years. Aesimides, for ten years. Cleidicus, for ten years. Hippomenes, for ten years. Leocrates, for ten years. Apsander, for ten years. Eryxias, for ten years.

After this, they decided to appoint archons for one year each. The first annual archon was Creon, in the 24th Olympiad [684-681 B.C.]. From that time onwards, an archon was appointed for each year; but it is not necessary to list their names.

This concludes the summary of the dates of the ancient rulers of the Athenians, as related by the older and more reliable historians. We have set down the dates and events before the capture of Troy, which are not reliably recorded, as well as we can from the different accounts. Nor are the events from the capture of Troy until the first Olympiad accurately recorded. However Porphyrius, in the first book of his Philosophical History, gives a summary in the following words:

"Apollodorus says that there are 80 years from the capture of Troy [1183 B.C.] until the expedition of the Heracleidae to the Peloponnese [1103 B.C.]; there are 60 years from the return of the Heracleidae until the settling of Ionia [1043 B.C.]; there are 159 years from then until Lycurgus [884 B.C.]; and there are 108 years from Lycurgus until the first Olympiad [776 B.C.]. Altogether, there are 407 years from the capture of Troy until the first Olympiad."

Next, it will be fitting to give an account of the Olympiads as they are recorded by the Greeks.

[p191]Olympiads of the Greeks

First Olympiad: in which Coroebus of Elis won the stadion race.

From this time onwards, the dates of the Greeks seem to have been accurately recorded; before then, the dates are supplied according to the whim of each writer.

About the institution of the Olympic Games

It is necessary to say a little about the origin of the games. Some writers, who trace back the institution of the games to the earliest times, say that they had been held before Heracles, by one of the Idaean Dactyls; and then by Aethlius, as a challenge for his sons (from his name, the competitors were called athletes); and then by his son Epeius; and then Endymion, Alexinus and Oenomaus were each in charge of the sacred festival. Then Pelops held the games in honour of his father Zeus; and next, Heracles the son of Alcmene. There were ten generations (or, according to some, only three complete festivals) from Heracles until the time of Iphitus.

Iphitus was a citizen of Elis, who was concerned about the condition of Greece, and wished to rid the cities of their wars. He sent envoys from the whole of the Peloponnese to consult [the god] about release from the wars which gripped them. The god gave this response to the Peloponnesians:

You who dwell in the Peloponnese, gather round the altar;

Make sacrifice, and obey the instructions of the prophets.

He added these words to the Eleians:

Eleian servants of the gods, who maintain your ancestral rites,

Protect your homeland, and desist from war.

Lead the Greeks in mutually just friendship,

Until the gathering comes in the year of good will.

[p193] As a result of this, Iphitus proclaimed the truce [which had been fixed by Heracles at the summer solstice; they no longer fought against each other,] and he organised the games together with Lycurgus, who happened to be his relative because they were both descended from Heracles. On this occasion, the only contest was the stadion race; later the other contests were added in their turn.

Aristodemus of Elis relates that the victors in the athletic contests began to be registered in the 27th Olympiad after Iphitus. Before then, no-one had thought to record the athletes' names. In the 28th Olympiad Coroebus of Elis won the stadion race, and he was the first victor to be registered. This was then established as the first Olympiad, from which the Greeks calculate their dates.

Polybius says the same as Aristodemus; but Callimachus says that thirteen Olympiads passed after Iphitus without victors being registered; and Coroebus was the victor in the 14th Olympiad. Many writers state that the institution of the games by Heracles the son of Alcmene occurred (?) 419 years before what is counted as the first Olympiad. The Eleians hold the games every fifth year, with a gap of four years in between them.

The Greek Olympiads, from the first Olympiad up until the 247th, when Antoninus the son of Severus was emperor of the Romans:

st Olympiad [776 B.C.] - Coroebus of Elis was the victor in the stadion race.

The stadion race was the only contest for the first thirteen Olympiads. nd [772 B.C.] - Antimachus of Elis, stadion race rd [768 B.C.] - Androclus of Messenia, stadion race

[At this time] Romulus and Remus were born. [p195] th [764 B.C.] - Polychares of Messenia, stadion race th [760 B.C.] - Aeschines of Elis, stadion race th [756 B.C.] - Oebotas of Dyme, stadion race th [752 B.C.] - Diocles of Messenia, stadion race th [748 B.C.] - Anticles of Messenia, stadion race 9th [744 B.C.] - Xenocles of Messenia, stadion race 10th [740 B.C.] - Dotades of Messenia, stadion race 11th [736 B.C.] - Leochares of Messenia, stadion race 12th [732 B.C.] - Oxythemis of Coroneia, stadion race 13th [728 B.C.] - Diocles of Corinth, stadion race 14th [724 B.C.] - Desmon of Corinth, stadion race

A double race was added, which was won by Hypenus of Elis. 15th [720 B.C.] - Orsippus of Megara, stadion race

A long race was added, and the runners were naked; the winner was Acanthus of Laconia. 16th [716 B.C.] - Pythagoras of Laconia, stadion race 17th [712 B.C.] - Polus of Epidaurus, stadion race 18th [708 B.C.] - Tellis of Sicyon, stadion race

A wresting contest was added, and the winner was Eurybatus of Laconia.

A pentathlon contest was also added, and the winner was Lampis of Laconia. 19th [704 B.C.] - Menus of Megara, stadion race 20th [700 B.C.] - Atheradas of Laconia, stadion race 21st [696 B.C.] - Pantacles of Athens, stadion race 22nd [692 B.C.] - Pantacles for a second time 23rd [688 B.C.] - Icarius of Hyperesia, stadion race

A boxing contest was added, and the winner was Onomastus of Smyrna. It was Onomastus who established the rules of boxing. 24th [684 B.C.] - Cleoptolemus of Laconia, stadion race 25th [680 B.C.] - Thalpis of Laconia, stadion race

A race was added for chariots drawn by four horses, and the winner was Pagon of Thebes. [p197] 26th [676 B.C.] - Callisthenes of Laconia, stadion race

Philombrotus of Laconia won the pentathlon at three Olympic games.

The Carneia, a contest for citharodes, was held for the first time at Sparta. 27th [672 B.C.] - Eurybus of Athens, stadion race 28th [668 B.C.] - Charmis of Laconia, stadion race

Charmis trained on a diet of dried figs.

These games were held by the inhabitants of Pisa, because Elis was preoccupied by a war against Dyme. 29th [664 B.C.] - Chionis of Laconia, stadion race

Chionis could leap a distance of 22 feet. 30th [660 B.C.] - Chionis for a second time

The inhabitants of Pisa defected from Elis, and supervised these and the following 22 games. 31st [656 B.C.] - Chionis of Laconia for a third time, stadion race 32nd [652 B.C.] - Cratinus of Megara, stadion race

At these games, Comaeus was the third of his brothers to win the boxing contest. 33rd [648 B.C.] - Gylis of Laconia, stadion race

At these games, a pancratium contest was added, and the winner was Lygdamis of Syracuse. Lygdamis was massive; he measured out the stadion with his feet, in only six hundred paces.

A horse race was added, and the winner was Craxilas of Thessaly. 34th [644 B.C.] - Stomas of Athens, stadion race 35th [640 B.C.] - Sphaerus of Laconia, stadion race

The double race was won by Cylon of Athens, who later attempted to set himself up as tyrant. [p199] 36th [636 B.C.] - Phrynon of Athens, stadion race

Phrynon was killed in single combat with Pittacus. 37th [632 B.C.] - Eurycleidas of Laconia, stadion race

A stadion race for boys was added, and the winner was Polynices of Elis.

A wrestling contest for boys was added, and the winner was Hipposthenes of Laconia, who won the men's wrestling contest five times in a row, starting from the next-but-one Olympic games. 38th [628 B.C.] - Olyntheus of Laconia, stadion race

A pancratium contest for boys was added, but only on this one occasion. The winner was Deutelidas of Laconia. 39th [624 B.C.] - Rhipsolaus of Laconia, stadion race 40th [620 B.C.] - Olyntheus of Laconia for a second time, stadion race 41st [616 B.C.] - Cleondas of Thebes, stadion race

A boxing contest for boys was added, and the winner was Philotas of Sybaris. 42nd [612 B.C.] - Lycotas of Laconia, stadion race 43rd [608 B.C.] - Cleon of Epidaurus, stadion race 44th [604 B.C.] - Gelon of Laconia, stadion race 45th [600 B.C.] - Anticrates of Epidaurus, stadion race 46th [596 B.C.] - Chrysamaxus of Laconia, stadion race

The boys' stadion race was won by Polymnestor of Miletus, who chased and caught a hare while he was tending goats. 47th [592 B.C.] - Eurycles of Laconia, stadion race 48th [588 B.C.] - Glycon of Croton, stadion race

Pythagoras of Samos was excluded from the boys' boxing contest and was mocked for being effeminate, but he went on to the men's contest and defeated all his opponents. 49th [584 B.C.] - Lycinus of Croton, stadion race [p201] 50th [580 B.C.] - Epitelidas of Laconia, stadion race

[At this time] the seven wise men were identified. 51st [576 B.C.] - Eratosthenes of Croton, stadion race 52nd [572 B.C.] - Agis of Elis, stadion race 53rd [568 B.C.] - Hagnon of Peparethus, stadion race 54th [564 B.C.] - Hippostratus of Croton, stadion race

Arichion of Phigaleia was (?) strangled and died, while winning the pancratium contest for the third time, and though dead he was crowned as victor, because his opponent had already conceded defeat, after his leg was broken by Arichion. 55th [560 B.C.] - Hippostratus for a second time

[At this time] Cyrus became king of the Persians. 56th [556 B.C.] - Phaedrus of Pharsalus, stadion race 57th [552 B.C.] - Ladromus of Laconia, stadion race 58th [548 B.C.] - Diognetus of Croton, stadion race 59th [544 B.C.] - Archilochus of Corcyra, stadion race 60th [540 B.C.] - Apellaeus of Elis, stadion race 61st [536 B.C.] - Agatharchus of Corcyra, stadion race 62nd [532 B.C.] - Eryxias of Chalcis, stadion race

Milon of Croton won the wrestling contest. He won six times at the Olympic games, six times at the Pythian games, ten times at the Isthmian games, and nine times at the Nemean games. 63rd [528 B.C.] - Parmenides of Camarina, stadion race 64th [524 B.C.] - Menander of Thessaly, stadion race 65th [520 B.C.] - Anochas of Tarentum, stadion race

A race in full armour was added, and the winner was Damaretus of Heraea. 66th [516 B.C.] - Ischyrus of Himera, stadion race 67th [512 B.C.] - Phanas of Pellene, stadion race

Phanas was the first to win all three races, the stadion race, the double race and the race in full armour. 68th [508 B.C.] - Isomachus of Croton, stadion race 69th [504 B.C.] - Isomachus for a second time [p203] 70th [500 B.C.] - Nicasias of Opus, stadion race 71st [496 B.C.] - Tisicrates of Croton, stadion race 72nd [492 B.C.] - Tisicrates for a second time 73rd [488 B.C.] - Astyalus of Croton, stadion race 74th [484 B.C.] - Astyalus for a second time 75th [480 B.C.] - Astyalus for a third time 76th [476 B.C.] - Scamander of Mytilene, stadion race 77th [472 B.C.] - Dandes of Argos, stadion race 78th [468 B.C.] - Parmenides of Poseidonia, stadion race 79th [464 B.C.] - Xenophon of Corinth, stadion race 80th [460 B.C.] - Torymmas of Thessaly, stadion race

The wrestling contest was won by Amesinas of Barce, who trained by wrestling with a bull while he was tending cattle. He even brought the bull to Pisa to help his training. 81st [456 B.C.] - Polymnastus of Cyrene, stadion race 82nd [452 B.C.] - Lycus of Larissa, stadion race 83rd [448 B.C.] - Crisson of Himera, stadion race 84th [444 B.C.] - Crisson for a second time 85th [440 B.C.] - Crisson for a third time 86th [436 B.C.] - Theopompus of Thessaly, stadion race 87th [432 B.C.] - Sophron of Ambracia, stadion race

During this [Olympiad], the Peloponnesian war began. 88th [428 B.C.] - Symmachus of Messenia, stadion race 89th [424 B.C.] - Symmachus for a second time 90th [420 B.C.] - Hyperbius of Syracuse, stadion race 91st [416 B.C.] - Exagentus of Acragas, stadion race 92nd [412 B.C.] - Exagentus for a second time 93rd [408 B.C.] - Eubatus of Cyrene, stadion race

The pancratium contest was won by Polydamas of Scotussa, a massive man who, when he was with Ochus amongst the Persians, killed lions and fought without weapons against armed men; he even brought chariots charging at full speed to a halt.

A race was added for chariots drawn by a pair of horses, and the winner was Euagoras of Elis. 94th [404 B.C.] - Crocinas of Larissa, stadion race 95th [400 B.C.] - Minon of Athens, stadion race 96th [396 B.C.] - Eupolemus of Elis, stadion race

A contest for trumpeters was added, and the winner was Timaeus of Elis.

[p205] A contest for heralds was added, and the winner was Crates of Elis. 97th [392 B.C.] - Terinaeus [of...], stadion race 98th [388 B.C.] - Sosippus of Delphi, stadion race

The wrestling contest was won by Aristodemus of Elis, whom no-one could grasp round the middle. 99th [384 B.C.] - Dicon of Syracuse, stadion race

A race was added for chariots drawn by four foals, and the winner was Eurybatus of Laconia. 100th [380 B.C.] - Dionysodorus of Tarentum, stadion race 101st [376 B.C.] - Damon of Thurii, stadion race 102nd [372 B.C.] - Damon for a second time 103rd [368 B.C.] - Pythostratus of Ephesus, stadion race 104th [364 B.C.] - Phocides of Athens, wrestling

These games were held by the inhabitants of Pisa. 105th [360 B.C.] - Porus of Cyrene, stadion race 106th [356 B.C.] - Porus for a second time 107th [352 B.C.] - Micrinas of Tarentum, stadion race 108th [348 B.C.] - Polycles of Cyrene, stadion race 109th [344 B.C.] - Aristolochus of Athens, stadion race 110th [340 B.C.] - (?) Anticles of Athens, stadion race 111th [336 B.C.] - Cleomantis of Cleitor, stadion race 112th [332 B.C.] - Eurylas of Chalcis, stadion race

[At this time] Alexander captured Babylon, and killed Dareius. 113th [328 B.C.] - Cliton of Macedonia, stadion race

Ageus of Argos, [victor in] the long race, returned to Argos and announced his own victory on the same day. 114th [324 B.C.] - Micinas of Rhodes, stadion race

[At this time] Alexander died, and his empire was split between many rulers; Ptolemaeus became king of Egypt and Alexandria. 115th [320 B.C.] - Damasias of Amphipolis, stadion race 116th [316 B.C.] - Demosthenes of Laconia, stadion race 117th [312 B.C.] - Parmenides of Mytilene, stadion race 118th [308 B.C.] - Andromenes of Corinth, stadion race

Antenor of Athens or Miletus, undisputed [victor in] the pancratium, was victor at all the major games, undefeated in each of three age [p207] groups. 119th [304 B.C.] - Andromenes of Corinth, stadion race 120th [300 B.C.] - Pythagoras of Magnesia-on-Maeander, stadion race

Ceras of Argos, [victor in] wrestling, tore the hooves off a cow. 121st [296 B.C.] - Pythagoras for a second time 122nd [292 B.C.] - Antigonus of Macedonia, stadion race 123rd [288 B.C.] - Antigonus for a second time 124th [284 B.C.] - Philomelus of Pharsalus, stadion race 125th [280 B.C.] - Ladas of Aegium, stadion race 126th [276 B.C.] - Idaeus or Nicator of Cyrene, stadion race 127th [272 B.C.] - Perigenes of Alexandria, stadion race 128th [268 B.C.] - Seleucus of Macedonia, stadion race 129th [264 B.C.] - Philinus of Cos, stadion race

A new race for two-foal chariots was introduced, and the first winner was Philistiachus [Bilistiche of Macedonia]. 130th [260 B.C.] - Philinus for a second time 131st [256 B.C.] - Ammonius of Alexandria, stadion race

A one-foal race was introduced, and the first winner was Hippocrates [of Thessaly]. 132nd [252 B.C.] - Xenophanes of Amphissa in Aetolia, stadion race 133rd [248 B.C.] - Simylus of Neapolis, stadion race

[At this time] the Parthians revolted against the Macedonians; their first king was Arsaces, from whom the kings are called the Arsacids. 134th [244 B.C.] - Alcides of Laconia, stadion race 135th [240 B.C.] - Eraton of Aetolia, stadion race

Cleoxenus of Alexandria, [victor in] boxing, won without injury at all the major games. 136th [236 B.C.] - Pythocles of Sicyon, stadion race 137th [232 B.C.] - Menestheus of [?] Barcyla, stadion race 138th [228 B.C.] - Demetrius of Alexandria, stadion race 139th [224 B.C.] - Iolaidas of Argos, stadion race 140th [220 B.C.] - Zopyrus of Syracuse, stadion race 141st [216 B.C.] - Dorotheus of Rhodes, stadion race 142nd [212 B.C.] - Crates of Alexandria, stadion race

[p209] Caprus of Elis won both the wrestling and the pancratium competitions, like Heracles; so he was acclaimed as "second after Heracles". 143rd [208 B.C.] - Heracleitus of Samos, stadion race 144th [204 B.C.] - Heracleides of Salamis in Cyprus, stadion race 145th [200 B.C.] - Pyrrhias of Aetolia, stadion race

Moschus of Colophon, [victor in] boys' boxing, was the only boy to have won the boxing competition at all the major games. A boys' pancratium competition was introduced, and the first winner was Phaedimus of Alexandria. 146th [196 B.C.] - Micion of Boeotia, stadion race 147th [192 B.C.] - Agemachus of Cyzicus, stadion race

Cleitostratus of Rhodes, [victor in] wrestling, overcame his opponents by grasping their necks. 148th [188 B.C.] - Arcesilaus of Megalopolis, stadion race 149th [184 B.C.] - Hippostratus of Seleucia in Pieria, stadion race 150th [180 B.C.] - Onesicritus of Salamis, stadion race 151st [176 B.C.] - Thymilus of Aspendus, stadion race 152nd [172 B.C.] - Democritus of Megara, stadion race 153rd [168 B.C.] - Aristander of Antissa in Lesbos, stadion race 154th [164 B.C.] - Leonidas of Rhodes, three times victor in the stadion race 155th [160 B.C.] - Leonidas for a second time 156th [156 B.C.] - Leonidas for a third time

Aristomenes of Rhodes was the third after Heracles to win both the wrestling and the pancratium competitions. 157th [152 B.C.] - Leonidas, victor in the stadion race for a fourth time, was the first and only man to win 12 Olympic crowns over four Olympiads. 158th [148 B.C.] - Othon of Syracuse, stadion race 159th [144 B.C.] - Alcimus of Cyzicus, stadion race 160th [140 B.C.] - Agnodorus of Cyzicus, stadion race 161st [136 B.C.] - Antipater of Epirus, stadion race 162nd [132 B.C.] - Damon of Delphi, stadion race 163rd [128 B.C.] - Timotheus of Tralles, stadion race 164th [124 B.C.] - Boeotus of Sicyon, stadion race [p211] 165th [120 B.C.] - Acusilaus of Cyrene, stadion race 166th [116 B.C.] - Chrysogonus of Nicaea, stadion race 167th [112 B.C.] - Chrysogonus for a second time 168th [108 B.C.] - Nicomachus of Philadelphia, stadion race 169th [104 B.C.] - Nicodemus of Lacedaemon, stadion race 170th [100 B.C.] - Simmias of Seleuceia-on-Tigris, stadion race 171st [96 B.C.] - Parmeniscus of Corcyra, stadion race 172nd [92 B.C.] - Eudamus of Cos, stadion race

Protophanes of Magnesia-on-Maeander was the fourth after Heracles to win both the wrestling and the pancratium competitions. 173rd [88 B.C.] - Parmeniscus of Corcyra again, stadion race 174th [84 B.C.] - Demostratus of Larissa, stadion race 175th [80 B.C.] - Epaenetus of Argos, boys' stadion race

There was no stadion race for adults this year, because Sulla had summoned all the athletes to Rome. 176th [76 B.C.] - Dion of Cyparissus, stadion race 177th [72 B.C.] - Hecatomnos of Elis, stadion race 178th [68 B.C.] - Diocles [?] Hypopenus, stadion race

Stratonicus of Alexandria, son of Corragus, was the fifth after Heracles to win both the wrestling and the pancratium competitions; at the Nemean games, he won four crowns on the same day in the boys' and youths' competitions, [though he attended the competitions without a horse. He achieved this through the favour of his friends or the kings, and therefore he was regarded as disqualified]. 179th [64 B.C.] - Andreas of Lacedaemon, stadion race 180th [60 B.C.] - Andromachus of Ambracia, stadion race 181st [56 B.C.] - Lamachus of Tauromenium, stadion race 182nd [52 B.C.] - Anthestion of Argos, stadion race

[p213] Marion of Alexandria, son of Marion, was the sixth after Heracles to win both the wrestling and the pancratium competitions. 183rd [48 B.C.] - Theodorus of Messene, stadion race

[At this time] Julius Caesar was emperor of the Romans. 184th [44 B.C.] - Theodorus for a second time

[At this time] Augustus became emperor of the Romans. 185th [40 B.C.] - Ariston of Thurii, stadion race 186th [36 B.C.] - Scamander of Alexandria Troas, stadion race 187th [32 B.C.] - Ariston of Thurii again, stadion race 188th [28 B.C.] - Sopater of Argos, stadion race 189th [24 B.C.] - Asclepiades of Sidon, stadion race 190th [20 B.C.] - Auphidius of Patrae, stadion race 191st [16 B.C.] - Diodotus of Tyana, stadion race 192nd [12 B.C.] - Diophanes of Aeolis, stadion race 193rd [8 B.C.] - Artemidorus of Thyateira, stadion race 194th [4 B.C.] - Demaratus of Ephesus, stadion race 195th [1 A.D.] - Demaratus for a second time 196th [5 A.D.] - Pammenes of Magnesia-on-Maeander, stadion race 197th [9 A.D.] - Asiaticus of Halicarnassus, stadion race 198th [13 A.D.] - Diophanes of Prusa [by Mt. Olympus], stadion race

Aristeas of Stratoniceia or (?) Maeander was the seventh after Heracles to win both the wrestling and the pancratium competitions.

[At this time] Tiberius became emperor of the Romans. 199th [17 A.D.] - Aeschines Glaucias of Miletus, stadion race

The four-horse race which had been stopped a long time ago was reinstated, and the winner was Tiberius Caesar. 200th [21 A.D.] - Polemon of Petra, stadion race 201st [25 A.D.] - Damasias of Cydonia, stadion race 202nd [29 A.D.] - Hermogenes of Pergamum, stadion race 203rd [33 A.D.] - Apollonius of Epidaurus, stadion race 204th [37 A.D.] - Sarapion of Alexandria, stadion race

Neicostratus of Aegae was the eighth and last after Heracles to win both the wrestling and the pancratium competitions. [p215] Only eight men between Heracles and our times have achieved this, because after these games the inhabitants of Elis would not award the crown even to those who were capable of it.

[At this time] Gaius became emperor of the Romans. 205th [41 A.D.] - Eubulidas of Laodiceia, stadion race

[At this time] Claudius became emperor of the Romans. 206th [45 A.D.] - Valerius of Mytilene, stadion race 207th [49 A.D.] - Athenodorus of Aegium, stadion race 208th [53 A.D.] - Athenodorus for a second time

[At this time] Nero became emperor of the Romans. 209th [57 A.D.] - Callicles of Sidon, stadion race 210th [61 A.D.] - Athenodorus of Aegium [(?) for a third time], stadion race 211th [65 A.D.] - These games were not held [at the usual time] because Nero postponed them until his visit to Greece. They were held two years later, and Tryphon of Philadelphia won the stadion race. Nero was awarded the crown in the contests for heralds, performers of tragedy and citharodes; and also in the races for chariots drawn by foals, full-grown horses and ten foals. 212th [69 A.D.] - Polites of Ceramus, stadion race

[At this time] Vespasianus became emperor of the Romans. 213th [73 A.D.] - Rhodon of Cyme, or Theodotus, stadion race 214th [77 A.D.] - Straton of Alexandria, stadion race

[At this time] Titus became emperor of the Romans. 215th [81 A.D.] - Hermogenes of Xanthus, stadion race

[At this time] Domitianus became emperor of the Romans. 216th [85 A.D.] - Apollophanes Papis of Tarsus, stadion race 217th [89 A.D.] - Hermogenes of Xanthus for a second time, stadion race 218th [93 A.D.] - Apollonius of Alexandria, or Heliodorus, stadion race 219th [97 A.D.] - Stephanus of Cappadocia, stadion race

[At this time] Nerva became emperor of the Romans, and after him Trajanus [became emperor]. 220th [101 A.D.] - Achilleus of Alexandria, stadion race 221st [105 A.D.] - Theonas Smaragdus of Alexandria, stadion race 222nd [109 A.D.] - Callistus of Side, stadion race

The horse races were reintroduced. [p217] 223rd [113 A.D.] - Eustolus of Side, stadion race 224th [117 A.D.] - Isarion of Alexandria, stadion race

[At this time] Hadrianus became emperor of the Romans. 225th [121 A.D.] - Aristeas of Miletus, stadion race 226th [125 A.D.] - Dionysius Sameumys of Alexandria, stadion race 227th [129 A.D.] - Dionysius for a second time 228th [133 A.D.] - Lucas of Alexandria, stadion race 229th [137 A.D.] - Epidaurus Ammonius of Alexandria, stadion race

[At this time] Antoninus Pius became emperor of the Romans. 230th [141 A.D.] - Didymus (?) Clydeus of Alexandria, stadion race 231st [145 A.D.] - Cranaus of Sicyon, stadion race 232nd [149 A.D.] - Atticus of Sardis, stadion race

Socrates entered both the wrestling and the citharode competitions, but he was banned by the inhabitants of Elis, in favour of Dionysius of Seleuceia. 233rd [153 A.D.] - Demetrius of Chios, stadion race 234th [157 A.D.] - Eras of Chios, stadion race 235th [161 A.D.] - Mnasibulus of Elateia, stadion race

[At this time] Marcus Antoninus Pius and Lucius Verus became emperors of the Romans. 236th [165 A.D.] - Aeithales of Alexandria, stadion race 237th [169 A.D.] - Eudaemon of Alexandria, stadion race 238th [173 A.D.] - Agathopus of Aegina, stadion race 239th [177 A.D.] - Agathopus for a second time

[At this time] Commodus became emperor of the Romans. 240th [181 A.D.] - Anubion Pheidus of Alexandria, stadion race 241st [185 A.D.] - Heron of Alexandria, stadion race 242nd [189 A.D.] - Magnus [Libycus] of Cyrene, stadion race 243rd [193 A.D.] - Isidorus [Artemidorus] of Alexandria, stadion race

[At this time] Pertinax, and then Severus, became emperors of the Romans. 244th [197 A.D.] - Isidorus for a second time 245th [201 A.D.] - Alexander of Alexandria, stadion race 246th [205 A.D.] - Epinicus Cynas of Cyzicus, stadion race [p219] 247th [209 A.D.] - Satornilus of Gortyn in Crete, stadion race

[At this time] Antoninus, called Caracalla, became emperor of the Romans. 248th [213 A.D.] - Heliodorus Trosidamas of Alexandria, stadion race 249th [217 A.D.] - Heliodorus for a second time

The record of the Olympiads which we have found ends at this point.¹

It will be fitting to add here lists of the kings of the Corinthians, kings of the Spartans, rulers of the sea and the early kings of the Macedonians. I will set down in order their names and their dates, taking them from the Historical Library of Diodorus, who gives a very accurate account of them.

The kings of the Corinthians - from the books of Diodorus

After thoroughly investigating that, it remains to tell how Corinth and Sicyon were settled by the Dorians. Almost all the nations in the Peloponnese, except the Arcadians, were uprooted by the return of the Heracleidae. In their division of the land, the Heracleidae picked out Corinth and the surrounding area; they sent for Aletes, and awarded the territory to him. Aletes became a distinguished king and increased the power of Corinth; he reigned for 38 years.

After the death of Aletes, his descendants ruled the land, the eldest son succeeding in every case, until the tyrant Cypselus, who [came to power] 447 years after the return of the Heracleidae.

The first of them to become king was Ixion, for 38 years.

[p221] Then Agelas was king for 37 years.

Then Prymnis, for 35 years.

Then Bacchis, also for 35 years. Bacchis was the most distinguished of the kings up to his time; so that the kings after him called themselves Bacchidae instead of Heracleidae.

Then Agelas, for 30 years.

Eudemus, for 25 years.

Aristomedes, for 35 years.

When Aristomedes died, his son Telestes was still a child; and so the direct succession was interrupted by his uncle and guardian Agemon, for 16 years.

Then Alexander was king, for 25 years.

Telestes, who earlier had been deprived of his father's kingdom, killed Alexander, and ruled for 12 years.

Automenes ruled for one year, after Telestes was killed by his relatives.

The Bacchidae, descendants of Heracles who were more than 200 in number, seized power and jointly governed the city; each year they chose one of their number to be president, in place of the king. They governed the city for 90 years, until they were suppressed by the tyrant Cypselus.

The kings of the Corinthians are as follows:

Aletes - for 35 years Ixion - for 37 years Agelas - for 37 years Prymnis - for 35 years Bacchis - for 35 years Agelas - for 30 years Eudemus - for 25 years Aristomedes - for 35 years Agemon - for 16 years Alexander - for 25 years Teletes - for 12 years Automenes - for one year

After which there were annual presidents.

The kings of the Spartans - from the books of Diodorus

It happens that it is difficult to establish the dates between the Trojan war and the first Olympiad, because at that time there were no annual magistrates either at Athens or at any other city. Therefore we will take the kings of the Spartans as an example.

According to Apollodorus of Athens, there were 308 years from the destruction of Troy [1183 B.C.] until the first Olympiad [776 B.C.]. 80 of those years passed before the expedition of the Heracleidae [1103 B.C.]; [p223] the rest are covered by the reigns of the kings of the Spartans - Procles, Eurysthenes and their descendants. We will set down the order of [the kings of] each family up until the first Olympiad.

Eurysthenes began his reign in the 80th year after the Trojan war, and he was king for 42 years.

After him, Agis reigned for one year.

Echestratus for 31 years.

After him, Labotas reigned for 37 years.

Dorystus for 29 years.

They were followed by Agesilaus, who reigned for 44 years.

Archelaus for 60 years.

Teleclus for 40 years.

Alcamenes for 38 years. In the tenth year of his reign, the first Olympiad was established, in which Coroebus of Elis won the stadion race.

Procles was the first king of the other family, for (?) 49 years.

After him, Prytanis reigned for 49 years.

Eunomius for 45 years.

And then Chariclus reigned for 60 years.

Nicander for 38 years.

Theopompus for 47 years. The first Olympiad occurred in the tenth year of this reign.

In summary, there were 80 years from the capture of Troy until the expedition of the Heracleidae, and then these kings of the Spartans:

Eurysthenes - for 42 years Agis - for one year Echestrates - for 37 years Labotas - for 37 years Dorystus - for 29 years [p225] Agesilaus - for 44 years. Archelaus - for 60 years Teleclus - for 40 years Alcamenes - for 37 years. In his tenth year, the first Olympiad was established.

In total, 325 years.

The kings from the other family were:

Procles - for 51 years Prytanis - for 49 years Eunomius - for 45 years Charicles - for 60 years Nicander - for 38 years Theopompus - for 47 years. In his tenth year, the first Olympiad was established.

In total, 290 years.

The Thalassocracies, who ruled the sea - in brief, from the writings of Diodorus

After the Trojan war, the sea was controlled by:

The Lydians and Maeones - for 92 years The Pelasgians - for 85 years The Thracians - for 79 years The Rhodians - for 23 years The Phrygians - for 25 years The Cypriots - for 33 years The Phoenicians - for 45 years The Egyptians - for [..] years The Milesians - for [..] years [The Carians - for.. years] The Lesbians - for [..] years The Phocaeans - for 44 years The Samians for [..] years The Spartans - for 2 years The Naxians - for 10 years The Eretrians - for 15 years The Aeginetans - for 10 years

Up until the time when (?) Alexander crossed over the sea.

After this, it will be fitting to move on to the kingdom of the Macedonians.

[p227]The kings of the Macedonians

The end of the Assyrian empire, after the death of Sardanapallus the last king of the Assyrians, was followed by the Macedonian age.

Before the first Olympiad, Caranus was moved by ambition to collect forces from the Argives and from the rest of the Peloponnese, in order to lead an army into the territory of the Macedonians. At that time the king of the Orestae was at war with his neighbours, the Eordaei, and he called on Caranus to come to his aid, promising to give him half of his territory in return, if the Orestae were successful. The king kept his promise, and Caranus took possession of the territory; he reigned there for 30 years, until he died in old age.

He was succeeded by his son Coenus, who was king for 28 years.

After him, Tyrimias reigned for 43 years.

Perdiccas for 42 years. He wanted to expand his kingdom; so he sent [a mission] to Delphi.

A little further on, [Diodorus] says:

Perdiccas reigned for 48 years, and left his kingdom to Argaeus, who reigned for 31 years.

The next king was Philippus, who reigned for 33 years.

Aeropus for 20 years.

Alcetas for 18 years.

Amyntas for 49 years.

He was followed by Alexander, who reigned for 44 years.

Then Perdiccas was king for 22 years.

Archelaus for 17 years.

Aeropus for 6 years.

Then Pausanias was king for one year.

Ptolemaeus for 3 years.

Perdiccas for 5 years.

Philippus for 24 years.

Alexander, [who] fought against the Persians, for more than 12 years.

In this way the most reliable historians trace the ancestry of the Macedonian kings back to Heracles. From Caranus, who was the first to rule all the Macedonians, until Alexander, who conquered Asia, there were 24 kings who reigned for a total of 453 years.

[p229] The individual [kings] are as follows:

Caranus reigned for 30 years Coenus - for 28 years Tyrimias - for 43 years Perdiccas - for 48 years Argaeus - for 38 years Philippus - for 33 years Aeropus - for 20 years Alcetas - for 18 years. In his time, Cyrus was king of the Persians. Amyntas - for 42 years Alexander - for 44 years Perdiccas - for 23 years Archelaus - for 24 years Orestes - for 3 years Archelaus - for 4 years Amyntas - for one year Pausanias - for one year Amyntas - for 6 years Argaeus - for 2 years Amyntas - for 18 years Alexander - for one year Ptolemaeus of Alorus - for 3 years Perdiccas - for 6 years Philippus - for 27 years Alexander the son of Philippus - for 12 years

The kings of the Macedonians, from the writings of our enemy, the philosopher Porphyrius: These were the kings of Macedonia and Greece after Alexander the son of Philippus; and the Macedonian kingdom continued until its dissolution as follows. The Macedonians appointed Aridaeus, the son of Philippus and Philinna of Thessaly, to be king after Alexander because of their affection for the family of Philippus, although they knew that Aridaeus was the son a courtesan and he was feeble-minded. He began to reign, as we said, in the second year of the 114th Olympiad [323 B.C.]. He is reckoned to have reigned for 7 years, because he lived up until the fourth year of the 115th Olympiad [317 B.C.]. [p231] Alexander left two sons, Heracles the son of Barsine the daughter of Pharnabazus, and Alexander the son of Roxane the daughter of Oxyartes the Bactrian; this Alexander was born about the time of his father's death, at the start of Philippus' reign. Olympias the mother of Alexander killed Aridaeus, but then Cassander the son of Antipater executed her and both the sons of Alexander, the one by himself and the other (the son of Barsine) by prompting Polysperchon. Cassander cast away Olympias' body without a burial, and proclaimed himself king; and from then onwards, all the other satraps acted as kings, because the family of Alexander had been destroyed. Cassander married Thessalonice the daughter of Philippus, and survived as king for another 19 years as king, until he died of a wasting disease. His reign, including the year in which Olympias ruled after the death of Aridaeus, lasted from the first year of the 116th Olympiad [316 B.C.] until the third year of the 120th Olympiad [298 B.C.]. Cassander was succeeded by his sons, Philippus and Alexander and Antipater, who reigned for 3 years and 6 months after the death of their father. The first to rule was Philippus, who died at Elateia. Then Antipater murdered his mother Thessalonice, who favoured her other son Alexander, and fled to Lysimachus. But Lysimachus put him to death, even though he had married one of Lysimachus' daughters. Alexander married Lysandra, the daughter of Ptolemaeus, and in the war against his younger brother called on the aid of Demetrius the son of Antigonus, who was called Poliorcetes. But Demetrius killed Alexander, and made himself the king of the Macedonians. The reign of the sons of Cassander is reckoned to last from the fourth year [p233] of the 120th Olympiad [297 B.C.] until the third year of the 121st Olympiad [294 B.C.]. Demetrius reigned for 6 years, from the [fourth year of the] 121st Olympiad [293 B.C.]until the first year of the 123rd Olympiad [288 B.C.], when he was deposed by Pyrrhus the king of Epirus, the 23rd in line from Achilleus the son of Thetis. Pyrrhus claimed the kingdom belonged to him after the extinction of Philippus' family, through his connection with Olympias the mother of Alexander, who was also a descendant of Pyrrhus the son of Neoptolemus. Pyrrhus ruled the Macedonians for seven months in the second year of the 123rd Olympiad [287 B.C.]. In the eighth month, he was replaced by Lysimachus the son of son of Agathocles, a Thessalian from Crannon who had been a bodyguard of Alexander. Lysimachus was king of Thrace and the Chersonese, and now overran the neighbouring country of Macedonia. Lysimachus was persuaded by his wife Arsinoe to kill his own son. He ruled Macedonia for 5 years and 6 months, from the second year of the 123rd Olympiad [287 B.C.] until the third year of the 124th Olympiad [282 B.C.]. [p235] He was defeated by Seleucus Nicator, the king of Asia, at the battle of Corupedium, and lost his life in the battle. But straight after his victory, Seleucus was murdered by Ptolemaeus Ceraunus, the son of Lagus and Eurydice the daughter of Antipater, even though Seleucus was his benefactor and had received him when he fled [from Lysimachus]. Then Ptolemaeus ruled over the Macedonians, until he was killed in battle against the Galatians. He reigned for one year and five months, which lasted from the fourth year of the 124th Olympiad [281 B.C.] until the fifth month of the first year of the 125th Olympiad [280 B.C.]. Ptolemaeus was succeeded by his brother Meleager, but the Macedonians deposed Meleager after only two months, because they considered him unfit to rule. In his place, since no-one was left from the royal family, they appointed as king Antipater, who was the nephew of Cassander and the son of Philippus. But he too was deposed after ruling for 45 days by Sosthenes, a commoner who considered him to be too poor a general to face the dangerous invasion of Brennus the Galatian. The Macedonians gave Antipater the name Etesias, because the Etesian winds blow at about the time when he was king. Sosthenes repelled Brennus, and died after being in charge of the state for two complete years. After Sosthenes, there was anarchy in Macedonia, because the followers of Antipater and Ptolemaeus and Aridaeus were competing for control of the state, but no-one was completely in charge. In the period from Ptolemaeus until the end of the anarchy, that is from the fourth year of the 124th Olympiad [281 B.C.] until the [first year of the] 126th Olympiad [276 B.C.], Ptolemaeus Ceraunus reigned for one year and five months, [p237] Meleager for two months, Antipater for 45 days, Sosthenes for two years, and the rest is reckoned to have been a time of anarchy. While Antipater was plotting to take over the state, Antigonus set himself up as king; he was the son of Demetrius Poliorcetes and Phila the daughter of Antipater, and was called Gonatas because he had been born and brought up at Gonni in Thessaly. Antigonus reigned in total for 44 years; before he gained control of Macedonia, he had already been king for 10 whole years. He was proclaimed king in the second year of the 123rd Olympiad [287 B.C.], and became king of the Macedonians in the first year of the 126th Olympiad [276 B.C.]. Antigonus subdued Greece by force; he lived for 83 years in all, and died in the first year of the 135th Olympiad [240 B.C.]. Antigonus was succeeded by his son Demetrius, who conquered the whole of Libya and captured Cyrene. Eventually he gained absolute control of all his father's possessions, and ruled over them for 10 years. He married a captive girl whom he called Chryseis, and by her he had a son Philippus, who was the first of the kings to fight against the Romans and caused the Macedonians much woe. When Demetrius died, Philippus was left as a [young] orphan, and a member of the royal family, Antigonus called Phuscus, became his guardian. Seeing that Phuscus acted honourably in his role of guardian, the Macedonians made him king, and gave him Chryseis to be his wife. Chryeis bore him sons, but he did not bring them up, because he was holding the kingdom in trust for Philippus. And indeed he was succeeded by Philippus, when he died. Demetrius, called the Fair, died in the second year of the [?] 130th Olympiad. Philippus then became king, [p239] with the aforesaid Antigonus as his guardian. Antigonus died in the fourth year of the 139th Olympiad [221 B.C.]; he had been guardian for 12 years, and lived for 42 years in all. Philippus began to rule without a guardian in the 140th Olympiad [220 B.C.]; he reigned for 42 complete years, and died in the second year of the 150th Olympiad [179 B.C.], aged 58 years. Perseus the son of Philippus caused the death of his brother Demetrius by making accusations against him to his father. Perseus was king for 10 years and 8 months, until the fourth years of the 152nd Olympiad [169 B.C.], when Lucius Aemilius defeated and conquered the Macedonians at Pydna. Perseus fled to Samothrace, but then agreed to surrender to the enemy, who transferred him to Alba, where he was imprisoned and died five years later. He was the last king of the Macedonians. At that time the Romans allowed the Macedonians to remain autonomous, out of respect for their glorious reputation and the greatness of their [former] empire. But 19 years later, in the third year of the 157th Olympiad [150 B.C.], a certain Andriscus falsely claimed to be the son of Perseus, and took on the name of Philippus, from which he came to be called the false Philippus. With the help of the Thracians he conquered Macedonia, but after ruling for a year he was defeated and fled to the Thracians, who handed him over, to be sent as a prisoner to Rome. Because the Macedonians had been ungrateful, and had co-operated with the false Philippus, the Romans made them tributary in the fourth year of the 157th Olympiad [149 B.C.]. So from Alexander until the end, when they became tributary to the Romans, that is from the second year of 114th Olympiad [323 B.C.] [p241] until the fourth year of the 157th Olympiad [149 B.C.], the kingdom of the Macedonians lasted for 43 Olympiads and two extra years, which is a total of 174 years. These are the kings of the Macedonians after Alexander the son of Philippus:

Aridaeus, also called Philippus - for 7 years Cassander - for 19 years The sons of Cassander - for 3 years and 6 months Demetrius Poliorcetes - for 6 years Pyrrhus - for 7 months Lysimachus - for 5 years and 5 months Ptolemaeus Ceraunus - for 1 year and 5 months Meleager - for 2 months Antipater son of Lysimachus - for 45 days Sosthenes - for 2 years (Anarchy) - for 2 years Antigonus Gonatas - for 34 years Demetrius the Fair - for 10 years Antigonus Phuscus - for 12 years Philippus - for 42 years Perseus - for 10 years and 8 months (Autonomy) - for 19 years The false Philippus - for 1 year

After that, they were subject to the Romans. The kings of the Thessalians: For a long time, the Thessalians and Epirus had the same rulers as the Macedonians. They were granted independence by the Romans after Philippus was defeated by the Roman general Titus in Thessaly. But eventually, for the same reason as the Macedonians, they were made tributary to the Romans. Like the Macedonians, they were ruled by Aridaeus, also called Philippus, for seven years after the death of Alexander. Then his successor Cassander ruled over Epirus and the Thessalians for 19 years. After him, his son Philippus [ruled] for 4 months. Then his brothers Antipater and Alexander [ruled] for 2 years and 6 months. And then Demetrius the son of [Antigonus ruled] for 6 years and 6 months. After him, Pyrrhus [ruled] for 4 years and 4 months. Then Lysimachus the son of Agathocles [ruled] for 6 years. [p243] And Ptolemaeus, who was called Ceraunus, [ruled] for one year and 5 months. Then Meleager [ruled] for 2 months. After him, Antipater the son of Lysimachus [ruled] for 45 days. After him, Sosthenes [ruled] for one year. Then there was anarchy for 2 years and 2 months, after which Antigonus the son of Demetrius [ruled] for 34 years and 2 months. During this time, Pyrrhus won over Antigonus' army and ruled over a few regions, but he lost control of them when he was defeated by Demetrius the son of Antigonus in a battle at Derdia. Shortly afterwards Antigonus died, and his son Demetrius reigned for 10 years. After him, Antigonus, the son of Demetrius who went off to Cyrene and of Olympias the daughter of Pauliclitus of Larisa, [ruled] for 9 years. Antigonus came to the aid of the Achaeans, defeated Cleomenes the king of the Spartans in battle, and liberated Sparta. Therefore the Achaean people honoured him like a god. After him, Philippus the son of Demetrius reigned for 23 years and 9 months, until he was defeated in a battle in Thessaly by Titus the Roman general. Then the Romans allowed the Thessalians to be autonomous, along with the rest of the Ionians [? Greeks] who had been subject to Philippus. For the first year there was anarchy in Thessaly, but then they started to elect annual leaders from amongst the people. The first to be elected was Pausanias the son of Echecrates, from Pherae. Then Amyntas the son of Crates, from [?] Pieria; in his year, Titus returned to Rome. Then Aeacides the son of Callas, from Metropolis. Then Epidromas the son of Andromachus, from Larisa, for 8 months only; for the remaining 4 months of the year, the leader was Eunomus the son of Polyclitus, from Larisa. Eunomus was leader again for the whole of the following year. Then Aeacides the son of Callas, from Metropolis, for a second time. Then Pravilus the son of Phaxas, from Scotussa. Then Eunomus [p245] the son of Polyclitus, from Larisa, for a second time. Then Androsthenes the son of Italas, from Gortona. Then Thrasymachus the son of Alexander, from [?] Atrax. Then Laontomenes the son of Damothon, from Pherae. Then Pausanias the son of Damothon. Then Theodorus the son of Alexander, from Argos. Then Nicocrates the son of Paxinas, from [?] Scotussa. Then Hippolochus the son of Alexippus, from Larisa. Then Cleomachides the son of Aeneus, from Larisa. Then Phyrinus the son of Aristomenes, from Gomphi. In his year, Philippus the king of Macedonia died, and was succeeded by his son Perseus. As we said, Philippus reigned over the Thessalians for 3 years and 9 months, but in all he reigned over the Macedonians for 42 years and 9 months. From the start of the reign of Philippus [Aridaeus] until the death of Philippus the son of Demetrius, that is from the second year of the 114th Olympiad [323 B.C.] until the fifth month of the second year of the 150th Olympiad [179 B.C.], is a total of 144 years and five months. A summary of the kings of the Thessalians:

Aridaeus, also called Philippus - for 7 years Cassander - for 19 years Philippus - for 4 months Antigonus and Alexander - for 2 years and 6 months Demetrius - for 6 years and 6 months Pyrrhus - for 3 years and 6 months Lysimachus - for 6 years Ptolemaeus, also called Ceraunus - for 1 year and 5 months Meleager - for 2 months Antipater - for 45 days Sosthenes - for 1 year (Anarchy) - for 2 years and 2 months Antigonus - for 33 years and 2 months [p247] Demetrius - for 10 years Antigonus - for 9 years Philippus - for 23 years and 9 months

And then the following [annual] leaders: Pausanias, Amyntas, Aeacides, Epidromus, Eunomus, Aeacides again, Praviles, Eunomus again, Androsthenes, Thrasymachus, Laontomenes, Pausanias, Theodorus, Nicocrates, Hippolochus, Cleomachides, Phyrinus, and Philippus.

[p247] The kings of Asia and Syria after the death of Alexander the Great: In the th year of Philippus Aridaeus, which was the third year of the 115th Olympiad [318 B.C.], Antigonus became the first king of Asia. He reigned for 18 years, and lived in all for 86 years. He was the most formidable of the kings of that period, and died in Phrygia after all the other rulers attacked him out of fear of him, in the fourth year of the 119th Olympiad [301 B.C.].

His son Demetrius escaped to Ephesus, and lost control of all of Asia; he was considered to be the most resourceful of the kings in siege warfare, and so was given the name Poliorcetes ["the besieger"]. Demetrius reigned for 17 years, and lived in all for 54 years. Starting from the first year of the 120th Olympiad [300 B.C.], he ruled jointly with his father for 2 years, which were included in the 17 years of his reign. In the fourth year of the [123rd] Olympiad [285 B.C.] he was captured by Seleucus; after his capture, he was sent to Cilicia, and was kept in royal style as a prisoner of Seleucus until he died, in the fourth year of the 124th Olympiad [281 B.C.]. The reigns of Antigonus and Demetrius passed in this way.

Meanwhile, Lysimachus was ruling in Lydia opposite Thrace and Seleucus was ruling in the eastern regions and Syria. [p249] Both of them started to reign in the first year of the 114th Olympiad [324 B.C.]. No account will be given of Lysimachus' reign, but the events of Seleucus' reign will be described here.

After Ptolemaeus, the first king of the Egyptians, had marched to Old Gaza and had defeated Demetrius the son of Antigonus in battle, he set up Seleucus as king of Syria and the eastern regions. Seleucus went up to Babylonia and defeated the barbarians there; so he was given the name Nicanor ["victor"]. He reigned for 32 years, from the first year of the 117th Olympiad [312 B.C.] until the fourth year of the 124th Olympiad [281 B.C.], and lived in all for 75 years. Eventually, he was ambushed and killed by his friend Ptolemaeus, called Ceraunus.

Seleucus was succeeded by Antiochus, his son by Apame the Persian. Antiochus was called Soter, and died in the [third] year of the 129th Olympiad [262 B.C.] after he had lived in all for 54 years and had reigned for 19 years, from the first year of the 125th Olympiad [280 B.C.] until the third year of the 129th Olympiad [262 B.C.].

Antiochus Soter had [three] children by Stratonice the daughter of Demetrius; a son Antiochus, and two daughters Stratonice and Apame, of whom the former was married to Demetrius the king of the Macedonians, and the latter [to Magas?]. When he died, he was succeeded by Antiochus called Theos, in the fourth year of the 129th Olympiad [261 B.C.]. After 19 years, Antiochus Theos fell ill, [p251] and died at Ephesus in the third year of the [133rd] Olympiad [246 B.C.], after living in all for 40 years. He had two sons, Seleucus called Callinicus and Antigonus, and two daughters by Laodice the daughter of Achaeus, of whom one was married to Mithridates and the other to Ariathes. The elder son Seleucus, who as we said was called Callinicus, succeeded Antiochus and reigned for 21 years, from the third year of the 133rd Olympiad [246 B.C.] until the second year of the 138th Olympiad [227 B.C.].

When he died, Seleucus was succeeded by his son, Seleucus called Ceraunus, but while he was still alive it happened that his younger brother Antigonus refused to accept his position and sought power for himself. Antigonus had help and assistance from [Alexander], the brother of his mother Laodice, who was in charge of the city of Sardis; he also had the Galatians as allies in two battles. Seleucus won a battle in Lydia, but he was unable to capture Sardis or Ephesus, which was held by Ptolemaeus. Then Seleucus fought a second battle against Mithridates in Cappadocia, where 20,000 of his men were killed by the barbarians, and he himself lost his life. Meanwhile Ptolemaeus called Tryphon seized part of Syria, but his siege of Damascus and Orthosia was stopped in the third year of the 134th Olympiad [242 B.C.], when Seleucus advanced to that region.

Antigonus the brother of Callinicus crossed greater Phrygia, forced the inhabitants to pay tribute, and sent his generals with an army against Seleucus. But he was handed over by his own followers to the barbarians, and after escaping with a few men, set off for Magnesia. The next day he offered battle, and with the assistance of soldiers sent by Ptolemaeus, amongst others, he won a victory, and married the daughter of Zielas. [p253] However, in the fourth year of the 137th Olympiad [229 B.C.] he fought twice in the country of Lydia and was defeated, and he joined battle with Attalus in the region of Lake Coloe. In the first year of the 138th Olympiad [228 B.C.], after a battle in Caria he was forced by Attalus to flee to Thrace, where he died.

Seleucus Callinicus, the brother of Antigonus, died in the next year, and was succeeded by his son Alexander, who adopted the name Seleucus, and was called Ceraunus by his army. Seleucus had a brother called Antiochus. After reigning for three years, Seleucus was treacherously attacked and killed by a Galatian called Nicanor, in about the first year of the 139th Olympiad [224 B.C.]. He was succeeded by his brother Antiochus, whom the army summoned from Babylon. Antiochus was called [the Great] and reigned for 36 years, from the second year of the 139th Olympiad [223 B.C.] until the second year of the 148th Olympiad [187 B.C.]. In the latter year, he made an expedition to Susa and the eastern provinces, but was killed with all [his men] in battle with the Elymaeans; he left behind two sons, Seleucus and Antiochus.

Seleucus succeeded his father in the third year of the 148th Olympiad [186 B.C.], and reigned for 12 years, until the [?] first year of the 151st Olympiad [176 B.C.]; he lived in all for 60 years. When Seleucus died, he was succeeded by his brother Antiochus called Epiphanes, who reigned for 11 years, from the third year of the 151st Olympiad [174 B.C.] until the first year of the 154th Olympiad [164 B.C.]. While Antiochus Epiphanes was still alive, his son Antiochus called Eupator was made king, when he was only twelve years old, after which his father lived for a further one year and six months. Then Demetrius, who had been given to the Romans by his father Seleucus as a hostage, escaped from Rome to Phoenicia, and came to the city of Tripolis. Demetrius killed the young Antiochus along with his guardian Lysias, and made himself king in the fourth year of the 154th Olympiad [161 B.C.]; [p255] he was called Soter, and reigned for 12 years, until the [?] fourth year of the 157th Olympiad [149 B.C.]. He was forced to fight for his kingdom against Alexander, who brought an army from outside with the assistance of Ptolemaeus and Attalus, and he was killed in a battle.

Alexander gained control of Syria in the [?] third year of the 157th Olympiad [150 B.C.], and ruled for 5 years. He died in the fourth year of the 158th Olympiad [145 B.C.], in a battle near the city of Antioch against Ptolemaeus, who had come to the aid of Demetrius the son of Demetrius. Ptolemaeus also was wounded and died in the same battle.

The war was carried on by this Demetrius, the son of Demetrius. Setting out from Seleuceia, he defeated Antiochus the son of Alexander, who was based in Syria and the city of Antioch, and started to reign in the first year of the 160th Olympiad [140 B.C.]. In his second year, he collected an army and set off for Babylon and the eastern regions, to fight against Arsaces. In the next year, which was the third year of the 160th Olympiad [138 B.C.], he was captured by Arsaces, who sent him to be held prisoner in Parthia; so he was called Nicanor ["victor"] because he had defeated Antiochus the son of Alexander, and also [?] Seripides because he was kept as a prisoner in chains. The younger brother of Demetrius, called Antiochus, was brought up in the city of Side, from which he was given the name Sidetes. When he heard that Demetrius had been defeated and made a prisoner, he left Side and in the fourth year of the 160th Olympiad [137 B.C.] gained control of Syria, which he ruled for nine years. In the third year of the 162nd Olympiad [130 B.C.] he conquered the Jews, pulled down the walls of [Jerusalem] after a siege, and put their leaders to death.

In the fourth year of the 162nd Olympiad [129 B.C.], Arsaces attacked him with an army of 120,000 men, and schemed against him by sending his brother Demetrius, who had been kept as a prisoner, back to Syria. But at the onset of winter Antiochus met the barbarians in a confined space; bravely attacking them, he was injured and killed, in the 35th year of his life. [p257] His young son Seleucus, who had accompanied him, was captured by king Arsaces and was kept in royal style as a prisoner.

Antiochus the fifth had three sons and two daughters; the first two, the daughters, were both called Laodice. The third, called Antiochus, fell ill and died, like his sisters. The fourth was Seleucus, who was captured by Arsaces. The fifth was another Antiochus, who was brought up by Craterus the eunuch at Cyzicus, where he had fled with Craterus and the rest of the household of Antiochus, through fear of Demetrius. One of the brothers had already died, along with his sister, so only Antiochus was left, the youngest of the brothers, and because of his residence at Cyzicus he was called Cyzicenus.

Demetrius returned [to Syria] and started his second reign in the second year of the (?) 163rd Olympiad [127 B.C.], after having been held captive for the intervening 10 years. As soon as he returned from captivity, he turned his attention to Egypt; he advanced as far as Pelusium, but when Ptolemaeus Physcon confronted him Demetrius had to retreat, because his soldiers hated him and refused to obey his orders.

Angered by this, Ptolemaeus set up Alexander, a pretended son of Alexander, to be king of Asia; Alexander was called Zabinas by the Syrians, because he was thought to have been bought by Ptolemaeus to take on this role.

Demetrius was defeated in a battle at Damascus, and fled to Tyre, but was refused entry into the city. While trying to escape by boat, he was seized and killed, in the first year of the 164th Olympiad [124 B.C.]; he had reigned for 3 years before his captivity, and for another 4 years after his return.

Demetrius was succeeded by his son Seleucus, who died soon afterwards as a result of his mother's accusations. His younger brother Antiochus came to power in the second year of the 164th Olympiad [123 B.C.], and in the third year he defeated Zabinas, who killed himself with poison because he could not endure the defeat. Antiochus reigned for 11 years, until the fourth year of the 166th Olympiad [113 B.C.]; the one year of his brother Seleucus' reign is also included in this total. [p259] He was given the names Grypus ["hook-nose"] and Philometor. But when faced with an attack by Antiochus Cyzicenus whom we mentioned earlier, who was his half-brother by the same mother as well as his nephew on his father's side, Grypus gave up his kingdom and retired to Aspendus; from which he was given the name Aspendius, as well as Grypus and Philometor.

Antiochus Cyzicenus started to reign in the first year of the 167th Olympiad [112 B.C.], after Antiochus [Grypus] retired to Aspendus. But in the second year of the same Olympiad [111 B.C.], Antiochus returned from Aspendus, and took control of Syria, while Cyzicenus remained in control of Coele [Syria]. After the kingdom had been split between them in this way, Grypus remained as king until the fourth year of the 170th Olympiad [97 B.C.]. He lived for another 15 years after his return, so that his reign lasted in all for 26 years: 11 years on his own, and 15 years after the kingdom had been split in two.

Cyzicenus ruled from the first year of the 167th Olympiad [112 B.C.], and died in the first year of the 171st Olympiad [96 B.C.], after reigning for 18 years and living in all for 50 years. The manner of his death was as follows. After Antiochus Grypus died at the time which was stated above, his son Seleucus came with an army and captured many cities. Antiochus Cyzicenus brought an army from Antioch, but was defeated in a battle; his horse carried him off towards the enemy, and when they were about to capture him, he drew his sword and killed himself. So Seleucus gained control of the whole kingdom, and captured Antioch.

But the surviving son of Cyzicenus began a war against Seleucus. When their armies met at the city called Mopsuestia in Cilicia, the victory went to Antiochus. Seleucus fled to the city, but when he learnt that the inhabitants intended to burn him alive, [p261] he hastened to commit suicide. His two brothers Antiochus and Philippus who were called the Didymi ["twins"], appeared with an army and captured the city by force; then they avenged their brother's death by destroying the city. However they were confronted by the son of Cyzicenus, and defeated in a battle; while escaping from the battle, Antiochus the brother of Seleucus rode his horse recklessly and fell headlong into the river Orontes, where he was caught by the current and died.

And then two others began to fight over the kingdom: Philippus, the brother of Seleucus and son of Antiochus Grypus, and Antiochus, the son of Antiochus Cyzicenus. Starting from the (?) third year of the 171st Olympiad [94 B.C.], they fought against each other for possession of Syria with substantial armies, each controlling part of the country. Antiochus was defeated and fled to the Parthians. Later he surrendered to Pompeius, in the hope of being restored to Syria. But Pompeius, who had received a gift of money from the inhabitants of Antioch, ignored Antiochus and allowed to city to be autonomous.

Then the inhabitants of Alexandria sent Menelaus and Lampon and Callimander to ask Antiochus to come and rule in Egypt together with the daughters of Ptolemaeus, when Ptolemaeus Dionysus had been driven out of Alexandria. But Antiochus fell ill, and died.

Philippus whom we mentioned before, the son of Grypus and of Tryphaena the daughter of Ptolemaeus VIII, was also deposed. He wanted to go to Egypt, because he too had been invited by the inhabitants of Alexandria to rule there, but Gabinius, an officer of Pompeius who was the Roman governor of Syria, stopped him from going. And so the royal dynasty in Syria came to an end with Antiochus and Philippus.

So the kings of Asia and Syria are as follows:

Antigonus was king of Asia - for 18 years Demetrius Poliorcetes, king of Syria and the east - for 17 years [p263] Seleucus Nicator [or "Nicanor"] - for 32 years Antiochus Soter - for 19 years Antiochus Theos - for 15 years Seleucus Callinicus - for 21 years Seleucus Ceraunus - for 3 years Antiochus the Great - for 36 years Seleucus Philopator - for 12 years Antiochus Epiphanes - for 11 years Antiochus Eupator - for 1 year and 6 months Demetrius Soter - for 12 years Alexander - for 15 years Demetrius the son of Demetrius - for 3 years Antiochus Sidetes - for 9 years Demetrius again - for 4 years Antiochus Grypus - for 26 years Antiochus Cyzicenus - for 17 years Philippus the son of Grypus, with whom the kings of Syria came to an end [ - for 2 years ]

[The total duration of the Macedonian rule in Syria, starting from Antigonus, was 274 years; or, starting from Seleucus Nicator, 239 years.]

THE ROMANS

The kings of the Romans, starting with Romulus The emperors of the Romans, from Augustus to our time The consuls of the Romans, from Julius Caesar to our time

Taken from all the previous historians, as listed here:

from Alexander Polyhistor from Abydenus, who wrote books about the Assyrians and Medes from the three books of Manetho, about the monuments of Egypt from Cephalion's nine books of the Muses from the forty books of Diodorus' [Historical] Library, containing a brief history of events up until Gaius Caesar from the eighteen books of Cassius Longinus, containing a summary of 228 Olympiads [p265] from the fourteen books of Phlegon, the freedman of [Hadrianus] Caesar, containing a summary of 229 Olympiads from the six books of Castor, containing an account of history from Ninus up until the 181st Olympiad from the three books of (?) Thallus, containing an account of events from the capture of Troy up until the (?) 167th Olympiad [112 B.C.] from [the books of] Porphyrius, the philosopher who lived in our time, [containing events] from the capture of Troy up until the reign of Claudius

[The kings] of the Romans, and their dates

It is now time to list the dates of the kings of the Romans. They first acquired this title in the seventh Olympiad [752-749 B.C.], when Romulus founded the city of the Romans, and gave his name to the city, and to all the people who were ruled by the kings [of the city]. Before this time they had been called sometimes Latins, and sometimes Aborigines, having different names at different times.

After the capture of Troy, they submitted to Aeneias the son of Anchises, and his successors ruled over the people until the foundation of the city. The history of these kings has been related by many different writers, not only native Romans but also Greeks. It will be sufficient to quote just two of them, as reliable witnesses to the events which we are considering. Firstly, I will quote Dionysius, who provides a brief description of the history of the Romans; as well as other books, he wrote an Ancient History of the Romans. In the first book, he gives an account of Aeneias and the kings after him, (?) up until the capture of Troy. From this book I will summarise what is essential, and what is related to the matters which we are considering here, as follows [ DionHal_1.9 ].

From the first book of Dionysius of Halicarnassus, about the history of the Romans

"This city, mistress of the whole earth and sea, which the Romans now inhabit, is said to have had as its earliest occupants the barbarian Sicels, a native race. As to the condition of the place before their time, whether it was occupied by others or uninhabited, none can certainly say. [p267] But some time later the Aborigines gained possession of it, having taken it from the occupants after a long war. These people had previously lived on the mountains in unwalled villages and scattered groups. They say that after them, the Pelasgians and some of the Greeks conquered that region. At first they were called Aborigines; but under Latinus, their king, who reigned at the time of the Trojan war, they began to be called Latins. Sixteen generations later, Romulus founded the city, and expanded it, and raised its affairs to greater prosperity."

And then Dionysius continues his narrative, in these very words [ DionHal_1.10 ]: "There are some who affirm that the Aborigines, from whom the Romans are originally descended, were natives of Italy, a stock which came into being spontaneously (I call Italy all that peninsula which is bounded by the Ionian Gulf and the Tyrrhenian Sea and, thirdly, by the region where the Latins live). The Aborigines were called "founders of families" or "ancestors"; but others claim that they were called "vagabonds", coming together out of many places. Still others have a story to the effect that they were foreigners who came there from Libya. But some of the Roman historians say that they were Greeks, part of those who once dwelt in Achaea, and that they migrated to there many generations before the Trojan war."

Then he adds: "It is uncertain, therefore, what the truth of the matter is. But in my opinion, the Aborigines can be a colony of no other people but of those who are now called Arcadians; for these were the first of all the Greeks to cross the Ionian Gulf, under the leadership of Oenotrus, the son of Lycaon, and to settle in Italy; this Oenotrus was the fifth from (?) Aezeius and Phoroneus, seventeen generations before the Trojan war. Oenotrus settled in the mountains, and called the region Oenotria, and its inhabitants Oenotrians. Later they were called Italians, from king Italus, who also gave the name of Italy to the whole country. [p269] Italus was succeeded by Morges, from whose name they were called Morgetes. And at the same time as Oenotrus, his brother Peucetius came as a colonist from Arcadia, and settled by the Junian bay, and from his name the people were called Peucetii."

After giving his own opinion about all of this, he then says that the Pelasgian colonists migrated from Greece, and settled in the country of the Italians among the Aborigines. The Pelasgians were also called Tyrrheni [Etruscans] and the whole region was called Tyrrhenia, from the name of one of their leaders, who was called Tyrrhenus. Later, Euander arrived with a fleet from Greece, from the city of Pallantium in Arcadia, and he settled in the region of Italy around the site of the future city of Rome. [Dionysius] says that the Arcadians brought the Greek alphabet to Italy, along with the musical instruments called nablia, or lyres, and a set of laws. After them, Heracles arrived with a Greek fleet and settled in the same region. At first, he was called Saturnius, and from his name the whole region was called Saturnia. Heracles had a son called Latinus, and he too ruled over the land of the Aborigines; from his name, they were called Latins. When Latinus died without any sons, Aeneias the son of Anchises succeeded him as king.

He summarises all this again in the following words [ DionHal_1.60 ]: "The people who came together there, and mingled with the native population of the land, from whom the Roman race was sprung, before the present inhabitants of the city, were as follows. Firstly, the Aborigines, who drove the Sicels out of this region; they were Greeks, originally from the Peloponnese, who came as colonists with Oenotrus, from the region which is now called Arcadia, in my opinion. Secondly, the Thessalians migrated there, from the country which used to be called Haemonia, and is now called Thessaly. Thirdly, the Pelasgians, who arrived with Euander from the city of Pallantium in Arcadia. Then another group arrived, who were part of the Peloponnesian army commanded by Heracles. Lastly, the Trojans who escaped with Aeneias from Ilium, Dardanus and the other Trojan towns."

[p271] From the same book, about the date of Aeneias' arrival in Italy

He says [ DionHal_1.63 ]: "Ilium was taken at the end of the summer, seventeen days before the winter solstice, and in the month of Elaphebolion, according to the calendar of the Athenians; and there still remained five days after the solstice to complete that year. During the thirty-seven days that followed the taking of the city I imagine the Achaeans were employed in regulating the affairs of the city, in receiving embassies from those who had withdrawn themselves, and in concluding a treaty with them. In the following year, which was the first after the taking of the city, the Trojans set sail after the autumnal equinox, crossed the Hellespont, and landing in Thrace, passed the winter season there, during which they received the fugitives who kept flocking to them and made the necessary preparations for their voyage. And leaving Thrace at the beginning of spring, they sailed as far as Sicily; when they had landed there that year came to an end, and they passed the second winter dwelling with the Elymians in their cities in Sicily. But as soon as conditions were favourable for navigation they set sail from the island, and crossing the Tyrrhenian sea, arrived at last at Laurentum on the coast of the Aborigines in the middle of the summer. And having taken possession of the region, they founded Lavinium, thus bringing to an end the second year from the taking of Troy. With regard to these matters, then, I have thus shown my opinion.

"But when Aeneias had sufficiently adorned the city with temples and other public buildings, of which the greatest part remained even to my day, in the next year, which was the third after his departure from Troy, he reigned over the Trojans only. But in the fourth year, Latinus having died, he succeeded to his kingdom also, because of his relationship to him by marriage, Lavinia being the heiress after the death of Latinus."

A little later he adds: "War arose out of these complaints and in a sharp battle that ensued Latinus, Turnus and many others were slain; nevertheless, Aeneias and his people gained the victory. Thereupon Aeneias succeeded to the kingdom because of his connection by marriage; [p273] but when he had reigned three years after the death of Latinus, in the fourth he lost his life in battle."

A little later he says: "Aeneias having departed this life about the seventh year after the taking of Troy, Euryleon, who in the flight had been renamed Ascanius, succeeded to the rule over the Latins."

Then he adds [ DionHal_1.70 ]: "Upon the death of the Ascanius in the thirty-eighth year of his reign, Silvius, his brother, succeeded to the rule. He was born of Lavinia, the daughter of Latinus, after the death of Aeneias."

Then he adds: "Silvius, after holding the sovereignty twenty-nine years, was succeeded by Aeneias, his son, who reigned one less than thirty years. After him, Latinus reigned fifty-one, then Alba, thirty-nine; after Alba, Capetus reigned twenty-six, then Capys twenty-eight, and after Capys, Capetus held the rule for thirteen years. Then Tiberinus reigned for a period of eight years. This king, it is said, was slain in a battle that was fought near a river, and being thrown by his horse into the stream, gave his name to the river, which had previously been called the Albula. Tiberinus' successor, Agrippa, reigned forty-one years. After Agrippa, Amulius, a tyrannical creature and odious to the gods, reigned nineteen years. Contemptuous of the divine powers, he had contrived imitations of lightning and sounds resembling thunder-claps, with which he proposed to terrify people as if he were a god. But rain and lightning descended upon his house, and the lake beside which it stood rose to an unusual height, so that he was overwhelmed and destroyed with his whole household. And even now when the lake is clear in a certain part, which happens whenever the flow of water subsides and the depths are undisturbed, the ruins of porticoes and other traces of a dwelling appear. Aventius, after whom was named one of the seven hills that are joined to make the city of Rome, succeeded him in the sovereignty and reigned thirty-seven years, [p275] and after him Procas twenty-eight years. Then Amulius, having unjustly possessed himself of the kingdom which belonged to Numitor, his elder brother, reigned forty-two years. But when Amulius had been slain by Romulus and Remus, the sons of a noble maiden, as shall presently be related, Numitor, the maternal grandfather of the youths, after his brother's death resumed the sovereignty which by law belonged to him. In the next year of Numitor's reign, which was the three hundred and thirty-second after the taking of Troy, the Albans sent out a colony, under the leadership of Romulus and Remus, and founded Rome, in that year, which was the seventh Olympiad, when Da cles of Messene was victor in the foot race [752 B.C.], and at Athens Charops was in the first year of his ten-year term as archon."

The same writer adds the following words, in which he relates the various accounts of the historians about [the foundation of] the city of Rome [ DionHal_1.72 ].

About the foundation of the city of Rome

"But as there is great dispute concerning both the time of the building of the city and the founders of it, and as in my opinion none [of the previous writers] has given a convincing account of them, [it is not possible] to give merely a cursory account of these things, as if they were universally agreed on. For Cephalon of Gergis, a very ancient writer, says that the city was built in the second generation after the Trojan war by those who had escaped from Troy with Aeneias, and he names as the founder of it Romus, who was the leader of the colony and one of Aeneias' sons; he adds that Aeneias had four sons, Ascanius, Euryleon, Romulus and Remus. And Demagoras, Agathymus and many others agree with him as regards both the time and the leader of the colony. But the author of the history of the priestesses at Argos and of what happened in the days of each of them says that Aeneias came into Italy from the land of the Molossians with Odysseus and became the founder of the city, which he named after Romē, one of the Trojan women. He says that this woman, growing weary with wandering, [p277] stirred up the other Trojan women and together with them set fire to the ships. And Damastes of Sigeum and some others agree with him.

"But Aristotle, the philosopher, relates that some of the Achaeans, while they were doubling Cape Malea on their return from Troy, were overtaken by a violent storm, and being for some time driven out of their course by the winds, wandered over many parts of the sea, till at last they came to this place in the land of the Opicans which is called Latium, lying on the Tyrrhenian sea. And being pleased with the sight of land, they hauled up their ships, stayed there the winter season, and were preparing to sail at the beginning of spring; but when their ships were set on fire in the night and they were unable to sail away, they were compelled against their will to fix their abode in the place where they had landed. This fate, he says, was brought upon them by the captive women they were carrying with them from Troy, who burned the ships, fearing that the Achaeans in returning home would carry them into slavery. Callias, who wrote about the deeds of Agathocles, says that Romē, one of the Trojan women who came into Italy with the other Trojans, married Latinus, the king of the Aborigines. By Latinus she had two sons, Romus and Romulus and Telegonus, who built a city, gave it the name of their mother. Xenagoras, the historian, writes that Odysseus and Circe had three sons, Romus, Antias and Ardeias, who built three cities and called them after their own names. Dionysius of Chalcis names Romus as the founder of the city, [p279] but says that according to some this man was the son of Ascanius, and according to others the son of Emathion. There are others who declare that Rome was built by Romus, the son of Italus and Leucē, the daughter of Latinus.

"I could cite many other Greek historians who assign different founders to the city, but, not to appear prolix, I shall come to the Roman historians. The Romans, to be sure, have not so much as one single historian or chronicler who is ancient; however, each of their historians has taken something out of ancient accounts that are preserved on tablets in their temples. Some of these say that Romulus and Remus, the founders of Rome, were the sons of Aeneias, others say that they were the sons of a daughter of Aeneias, without going on to determine who was their father; that they were delivered as hostages by Aeneias to Latinus, the king of the Aborigines, when the treaty was made between the inhabitants and the new-comers, and that Latinus, after giving them a kindly welcome, not only looked after them carefully, but, upon dying without male issue, left them his successors to some part of his kingdom. Others say that after the death of Aeneias Ascanius, having succeeded to the entire kingdom of Latinus, divided both the country and the forces of the Latins into three parts, two of which he gave to his brothers, Romulus and Remus. He himself, they say, built Alba and some other towns; Remus built cities which he named Capua, after Capys, his great-grandfather, Anchisa, after his grandfather Anchises, Aeneia (which was afterwards called Janiculum), after his father, and Rome, after himself. This last city was for some time deserted, but upon the arrival of another colony, which the Albans sent out under the leadership of Romulus and Remus, it regained its original status. So that, according to this account, there were two settlements of Rome, one a little after the Trojan war, and the other fifteen generations after the first. And if anyone desires to look more carefully into the remote past, [p281] even a third foundation of Rome will be found, more ancient than these, one that happened before Aeneias and the Trojans came into Italy. This is related by no ordinary historian, but by Antiochus of Syracuse, whom I have mentioned before. He says that when Morges reigned in Latium (which at that time comprehended all of Italy from Tarentum to the coast of Poseidonia), a man came to him who had been banished from Rome. His words are these: 'When Italus was growing old, Morges reigned. In his reign there came a man who had been banished from Rome; his name was Sicelus.' According to the Syracusan historian, therefore, an ancient Rome is found even earlier than the Trojan war. However, as he has left it doubtful whether it was situated in the same region where the present city stands or whether some other place happened to be called by this name, I, too, cannot say for certain. But as regards the ancient settlements of Rome, I think that what has already been said is sufficient.

"As to the last settlement or founding of the city, or whatever we ought to call it, Timaeus of Sicily, following what reckoning I do not know, places it at the same time as the founding of Carthage, that is, in the thirty-eighth year before the first Olympiad [814 B.C.]; Lucius Cincius, a member of the senate, places it about the fourth year of the twelfth Olympiad [729 B.C.], and Quintus Fabius in the first year of the eighth Olympiad [748 B.C.]. Porcius Cato does not give the time according to Greek reckoning, but being as careful as any writer in gathering the date of ancient history, he places its founding four hundred and thirty-two years after the Trojan war; and this time, being compared with the Chronicles of Eratosthenes, corresponds to the first year of the seventh Olympiad [752 B.C.]. That the canons of Eratosthenes are sound I have shown in another treatise, where I have also shown how the Roman chronology is to be synchronized with that of the Greeks."

That is what Dionysius says in the first book of his Ancient History of Rome, in which he describes in sequence all the things which happened in the times following the capture of Troy:

the escape of Aeneias from Troy, and his arrival in Italy his descendants and successors, who were kings of the Latins, up until Romulus and the foundation of Rome the various accounts of the ancient [p283] [historians] about the foundation of the city of Rome.

Some writers say that Picus the son of Cronus was the first king in the territory of Laurentium, where Rome is now situated, and that he reigned for 37 years. After him Faunus the son of Picus [was king] for 44 years. In his reign, Heracles arrived from Spain and set up an altar in the Forum Boarium, because he had killed Cacus the son of Vulcanus. Then Latinus was king for 36 years; the Latins derived their name from him. Troy was captured in the 33rd year of his reign. Then Aeneias fought against the Rutuli, and killed Turnus. After he married Lavinia, the daughter of Latinus, and founded the city of Lavinium, he was king for 3 years. That is a summary of what we have found in the books of other writers.

But now let us proceed to another narrator of these events - namely Diodorus, who combined and summarised [the contents of] all libraries in one collection; he records the history of the Romans in his seventh book, as follows.

From the seventh book of Diodorus, about the ancient origins of the Romans

Some historians have mistakenly supposed that Romulus [and Remus], who founded the city of Rome, were the sons of the daughter of Aeneias. But this is not true, because there were many kings in the period between Aeneias and Romulus. The foundation of Rome happened in the second year of the th Olympiad [751 B.C.], which was 433 years after the Trojan War. Aeneias became king of the Latins three years after the capture of Troy; and after ruling for three years, he disappeared from the sight of men, and was honoured as an immortal. He was succeeded as king by his son Ascanius, who founded the city of Alba Longa; this city was named [p285] after the river that flowed beside it, which was then called Alba, but is now called Tiber.

The Roman historian Fabius tells a different story about the name of this city. He says that it was foretold to Aeneias, that a four-footed animal would lead him to the site of the city. When he was preparing to sacrifice a pregnant white sow, the sow escaped from his grasp and was chased up a hill, where she gave birth to thirty piglets. Aeneias was amazed by this omen, and in accordance with the prophecy, he attempted to build on the site. But he was warned in a dream, that he should not found the city until thirty years had passed, the same number as the piglets which were born to the sow; and so he gave up the attempt.

After the death of Aeneias, his son Ascanius became king and after thirty years he founded a settlement on the hill, which he called Alba, after the colour of the sow; for the Latin word for 'white' is alba. Ascanius also added another name, Longa, which translated means 'long', because the city was narrow in width and stretched for a long way.

And [Diodorus] goes on to say that that Ascanius made Alba the capital of his kingdom and subdued no small number of the inhabitants round about; he became a famous man and died after a reign of thirty-eight years. At the end of this period, there arose a division among the people, on account of two men who were contending with each other for the throne. For Julius, since he was the son of Ascanius, maintained that his father's kingdom belonged to him. But Silvius, the brother of Ascanius and, furthermore, a son of Aeneias by Lavinia, the daughter of Latinus (whereas Ascanius was a son of Aeneias by his first wife, who was a Trojan woman), maintained that the kingdom belonged to him. Indeed, after the death of Aeneias, Ascanius had plotted against the life of Silvius; and it was while the latter as a child was being reared by some herdsmen on a mountain, to avoid this plot, that he came to be called Silvius, after the name of the (?) mountain, which the Latins call Silva. In the struggle between the two groups, Silvius finally received the support of the people and gained the throne. However Julius, although he did not acquire the supreme power, was made pontifex maximus and became a kind of second king; [p287] he was the ancestor, so we are told, of the Julian family, which survives in Rome even to this day.

Silvius achieved nothing worthy of mention in his reign, and died after ruling for 49 years. He was succeeded as king by his son Aeneias Silvius, who ruled for more than 30 years. He was a strong ruler, in government and in war. He subdued the neighbouring regions, and founded the eighteen ancient cities of the Latins, which were: Tibur, Praeneste, Gabii, Tusculum, Cora, Cometia, Lanuvium, Labicum, Scaptia, Satricum, Aricia, Tellenae, Crustumerium, Caenina, Fregellae, Cameria, Medullia, and Boilum (which some writers call Bola).

When Latinus died, his son Alba Silvius was chosen to be king, and he ruled for 38 years. The next king was Epitus (?) Silvius, for 26 years. When he died, Capis was appointed king, and he ruled for 28 years. His son Calpetus was the next king, and ruled for 13 years. Then Tiberius Silvius ruled for 8 years.

When this king was crossing the river Alba with an army, to fight against the Etruscans, he fell into a whirlpool and died. As a result, the name of the river was changed to Tiber. After the death [of Tiberius], Agrippa became king of the Latins, for 41 years.

The next king was Arramulius Silvius, who reigned for 19 years. They say that Arramulius was arrogant throughout his life, and became so proud that he claimed to rival the power of Jupiter. When there were continual heavy thunderstorms during autumn time, he ordered all the men in his army [p289] at a given command to strike their swords against their shields, supposing that by this noise he could surpass even thunder. Therefore he was killed by a bolt of lightning, and paid the penalty for his arrogance towards the gods. His whole house was swallowed up by the Alban lake. The Romans who live near the lake today still point out the remains of the royal palace under the lake: some columns which can be seen deep beneath the surface of the water.

Aventius was chosen to be the next king, and he ruled for 37 years. During a battle against the people who lived around the city, he was trapped in a confined space and killed near a hill, which from his name was called the Aventine hill. After he died, his son Procas Silvius was appointed to be the next king, and ruled for 23 years. After his death, his younger son Amulius seized the throne by force, while his elder brother Numitor was away in a distant country. Amulius reigned for a little over 43 years, and was killed by Remus and Romulus, who founded the city of Rome.

The individual kings of the Romans are as follows:

Aeneias became king of the Latins, in the fourth year after the capture of Troy - for 3 years Ascanius - for 38 years Silvius, the son of Aeneias - for 28 years Aeneias Silvius - for 31 years Latinus Silvius - for 50 years Alba Silvius - for 39 years Epitus Silvius - for 26 years Capis Silvius - for 28 years Calpetus Silvas - for 13 years Tiberius Silvius - for 8 years Agrippa Silvius - for 35 years [Arramulius Silvius - for 19 years] [Aventius - for 37 years] [p291] Procas Silvius - for 23 years Amulius Silvius - for 42 years

Romulus founded Rome, and became its king in the seventh Olympiad [752-749 B.C.]. From Aeneias up until Romulus, there were (?) 427 years. From the capture of Troy [up until Romulus], there were 431 years.

The kings, after Romulus who founded Rome, are listed as follows:

Romulus - for 38 years Numa Pompilius - for 41 years Tullus Hostilius - for 33 years Ancius Marcus - for 33 years Tarquinius - for 37 years Servilius - for 44 years Tarquinius Superbus - for 24 years

There were seven kings of the Romans, starting with Romulus, and they ceased after a period of 244 years. From the capture of Troy up until Romulus, there were were (?) 431 years. Altogether, [up until the end of the kings] there were 675 years. Dionysius of Halicarnassus gives a brief account of the dates of these kings, from Romulus to Tarquinius, around the time of the first Olympiad, as follows [ DionHal_1.75 ].

Dionysius of Halicarnassus, about the kings of Rome after Romulus

If from the expulsion of the kings the time is reckoned back to Romulus, the first ruler of the city, it amounts to two hundred and forty-four years. This is known from the order in which the kings succeeded one another and the number of years each of them ruled.

After the death of Romulus the city was a year without a king. Then Numa Pompilius, who was chosen by the army, reigned for forty-three years; after Numa, Tullus Hostilius thirty-three years; [p293] and his successor, Ancus Marcius, twenty-four years; after Marcius, Lucius Tarquinius, called Priscus, thirty-eight years; Servius Tullius, who succeeded him, forty-four years. And the slayer of Servius, Lucius Tarquinius, the tyrannical prince who, from his contempt of justice, was called Superbus, extended his reign to the twenty-fifth year.

As the reigns, therefore, of the kings amount to two hundred and forty-four years or sixty-one Olympiads, it follows necessarily that Romulus, the first ruler of the city, began his reign in the first year of the seventh Olympiad [752 B.C.], when Charops at Athens was in the first year of his ten-year term as archon. For the count of the years requires this; and the number of years that each king reigned is shown in (?) that book. This, therefore, is the account given by those who lived before me and adopted by me concerning the time of the settlement of the city which now rules supreme.

That is what Dionysius says.

However, after the death of Tarquinius the Romans no longer had kings to rule them. Instead of kings, first they appointed Brutus [and Collatinus] to be consuls; then [they appointed] tribunes of the plebs; then dictators, who were generals; and then consuls again. I think it would be superfluous to list the magistrates of each year here, because it would be an enormous number of names. And if I described their achievements in detail, my account would stretch to a great length. Such detail is unnecessary for my current purpose; and so I think it is appropriate to leave these magistrates, and everything connected with them, to another chronicle: that is, the consuls who came after Tarquinius, the tribunes of the plebs [p295] and the dictators who governed the city of Rome, during the years up until the time of Caesar. After these remarks, we will return to the reign of the first emperor. From the death of Tarquinius up until the time of Julius Caesar, there was an intervening period of 115 Olympiads, which is the equivalent of 460 years.

[This period is calculated as follows.] Tarquinius died at the end of the 67th Olympiad [509 B.C.]. Caesar became emperor at the start of the 183rd Olympiad [48 B.C.]. In between them, there was an interval of 460 years. From the th Olympiad [752 B.C.], when the city of Rome was founded, [until the death of Tarquinius] there was a period of 244 years. Therefore, from the foundation of Rome until the time of Julius Caesar, there was a total of 704 years, which is the equivalent of 176 Olympiads.

These totals are confirmed by the account in the chronicle of Castor, where he gives a summary of the dates, and writes as follows.

[From the writings] of Castor, about the kings of Rome

We have named the kings of the Romans one by one, starting from Aeneias son of Anchises, when he became king of the Latins, and finishing with Amulius Silvius, who was killed by Romulus, the son of his niece Rhea. To them we will add Romulus and the others, who ruled Rome after him up until Tarquinius Superbus, for a period of 244 years. After these kings, we will give a separate list of the consuls, starting from Lucius Junius Brutus, and finishing with Marcus Valerius Messalla and Marcus Piso, who were consuls when Theophemus was archon at Athens [61 B.C.]. Altogether, [these consuls governed] for 460 years.

That is what Castor says. Next it is appropriate to add a list of the emperors of the Romans, starting from Julius Caesar; and to mention the consuls for each year, attaching to them the numbers of the Olympiads.... [The Armenian manuscript breaks off at this point]

Notes

The page numbers are those of Petermann, from which the text has been translated.

1. We know from elsewhere that the victor in the stadion race at the next Olympic games, the 250th Olympiad, was Publius Aelius Alcandridas of Sparta, who also won at the 251st games. So, thanks to Eusebius, we have a complete list of the victors in this race for a period of a thousand years, from 776 B.C. to 225 A.D.

This text was translated by Andrew Smith, 2008. This file and all material on this page is in the public domain - copy freely.

Early Church Fathers - Additional Texts

SOURCE SECTION: eusebius_chronicon_02_intro.htm

Eusebius of Caesarea, Chronicle book 1 (2008). Introduction by Robert Bedrosian

Eusebius of Caesarea, Chronicle book 1 (2008). Introduction by Robert Bedrosian

Eusebius' Chronicle

Translated from Classical Armenian by Robert Bedrosian

For my sister Karen Bedrosian Richardson

This work is in the public domain. It may be copied and distributed freely.

Translator's Preface

[i] Eusebius, (ca. 263-ca. 339) author of the Chronicle translated below, was a major Christian author and cleric of the fourth century. His other writings, many of which have survived, include the Ecclesiastical History, the Life of Constantine, historical, martyrological, apologetic, dogmatic, exegetical, and miscellaneous works. Although originally written in Greek, his important Chronicle (Chronography, or Chronicon) has survived fully only in an Armenian translation of the th century, of which our present edition is a translation. A fifth century Latin translation (known as Jerome's Chronicle) contains only the second part of Eusebius' two-part work, namely the chronological tables which accompany the text of Book One. Nonetheless, the Latin translation of the chronlogical tables is invaluable, since the beginning and ending of the corresponding Armenian parts of Book Two are damaged. Reflecting th century Armenia's multi-lingual cultural milieu, Eusebius' Chronicle initially was translated into Armenian from the original Greek, then corrected using a Syriac edition. During the same period Eusebius' other influential work, the Ecclesiastical History, was translated into Armenian from the Syriac. From almost the moment of their translation, Eusebius' works played an important role in the development of Armenian historical writing.

Many of Eusebius' extant Greek texts were written while the author worked at the library in Caesarea Palestina founded by the scholar Origen (ca. 185—ca. 254), where he had access to numerous works of antiquity which have not survived. Eusebius' welcome technique of including sometimes lengthy passages from such lost works guaranteed his writings an important place in historical literature, quite apart from his impressive literary and analytical abilities. These general characteristics of Eusebius' work are particularly highlighted in the Chronicle. The Chronicle was the ancient world's first systematic, chronologically sound, universal history. It begins with the earliest extant written records available to our author and continues to his own day, that is to the year 325. Among the sources cited and often quoted from at length are Berosus, Alexander Polyhistor, Abydenus, Josephus, Castor, Diodorus, Cephalion, various named translations of the Bible, the writings of Manetho, Porphyrius, and others. In a brief introduction, Eusebius describes the plan of his work. He proposes to give a prose description of salient events and personalities from the civilizations of the Chaldeans, Assyrians, Medes, Lydians, Persians, Hebrews, Egyptians, and Greeks, plus listings of the Greek Olympiads, and the rulers of the Greek city-states, the Macedonians, and Romans.

[ii] I will convert all the material collected about all these folk into chronological tables. Including, from the beginning, who from each nation ruled as king and for how long, I will put these [facts] into separate [chronological tables] together with the number of years involved. In this way, if we need to know who ruled and for how long [that information] will be easily and quickly accessible. Furthermore, the valiant deeds of each kingdom, which all nations have transmitted, I will place in summary form within [my account] of [these] kingdoms. However, that [material] will be in the second part of this work [Book Two].

Thus the text of Book One carefully established the chronological framework from which the tables in Book Two derived. To modern historians, syncretic chronological tables are taken for granted. However, it was Eusebius who introduced them initially and accurately in the Chronicle. This was a radical, revolutionary development in Eusebius' day, not sufficiently appreciated in modern works on historiography.

In addition to its importance as a source for Western historians on the most ancient known recorded history of Mesopotamia, Egypt, and the Mediterranean lands generally, Eusebius' Chronicle is a virtually untapped source for contemporary Armenists. It contains the classical Armenian equivalents of the names of gods, mythological creatures, Olympic sporting events and other terms rarely encountered or so precisely defined elsewhere in Armenian historical literature. Beyond its value for historians, anthropologists, and linguists, the Chronicle presents hitherto unexplored material regarding the possible role of extraterrestrial beings in the creation and development of human civilization.

*

Unlike any of the other translations in the present series, both Eusebius and his Chronicle have a substantial Internet presence. For this reason, readers are urged to consult the links suggested below for materials prepared by specialists. A general biography of Eusebius with references is available from Wikipedia. An excellent annotated bibliography of Eusebius' writings is available in the online article Editions and Translations of Eusebius of Caesarea by Roger Pearse. For a description of the manuscript tradition, see the same author's online Eusebius of Caesarea: the Manuscripts of the "Chronicle" which includes his English translation of a German lecture by Dr. Armenuhi Drost-Abgaryan on the Armenian manuscript tradition.

[iii] The present work was translated from the classical Armenian text published in 1818 in Venice by the philologist Father Mkrtich' Awgerean (known in the West as Jean-Baptiste Aucher). Aucher's bilingual edition (classical Armenian and Latin), once a collector's item, now is available as a free download (.pdf format) from Google Books. The Armenian Chronicle subsequently was translated again into Latin by Julius Heinrich Petermann and Alfred Schoene (known as the Schoene-Petermann edition, 1875/76), and into German by Josef Karst (1911). Karst's German translation is available online courtesy of R. Pearse. While the present work is the first English translation of the Armenian version of Eusebius' Chronicle, it is not the first English translation of the Chronicle. That distinction belongs to the noteworthy collaborative work of Andrew Smith, Roger Pearse and colleagues who made an English translation from the Latin translation of Schoene-Petermann, and placed it online. We made frequent use of their work during our own translation, especially for Greek and Latin names and dates. Indeed, it is unlikely that we would have undertaken such an enormous task without their important contribution as a guide. Hopefully the present translation will clear up some of the questions indicated in their work. Eusebius' chronological charts, which accompanied the text of the Chronicle, also were given to the public by Roger Pearse. We have included them with our work, since they cannot be equalled. The reader is encouraged to explore at length the websites of the polymaths Smith and Pearse [The Tertullian Project, Early Church Fathers, and Roger Pearse's Pages] to see what can be accomplished by motivated scholars who also possess virtuoso computer skills. Their accomplishments are all the more impressive and welcome since they are freely given, for public enlightenment.

The transliteration employed here is a modification of the Library of Congress system, substituting x for the LOC's kh, for the thirteenth character of the Armenian alphabet. Otherwise we follow the new LOC system for Armenian, which eliminates diacritical marks above or below a character and substitutes the single or double quotation mark to the character's right. In the LOC romanization, the seventh character of the alphabet appears as e', the eighth as e", the twenty-eighth as r', and the thirty-eighth, as o'.

Robert Bedrosian

Long Branch, New Jersey 2008

A Note on Pagination

The printed editions of these online texts show the page number at the top of the page. In the right margin the pagination of the classical Armenian (grabar) text also is provided. We have made the following alterations for the online texts: the page number of the printed English editions (Sources of the Armenian Tradition series) appears in square brackets, in the text. For example ¹⁰¹ this text would be located on page 101, and ¹⁰² this text would be on page 102. The grabar pagination is as follows. This sentence corresponds to the information found on page 91 of the classical Armenian text [g91] and what follows is on page 92. In other words, the classical Armenian text delimiters [gnn] indicate bottom of page.

This file and all material on this page is in the public domain - copy freely. The original versions may be found at Robert Bedrosian's Armenian History website. ("http://rbedrosian.com/")

Early Church Fathers - Additional Texts

SOURCE SECTION: eusebius_chronicon_02_text.htm

Eusebius, Chronicle, Book 1 (2008). Translated by Robert Bedrosian

Eusebius of Caesarea, Chronicle, Book 1 (2008)

[Translated by Robert Bedrosian]

Eusebius' Chronicle

¹ I have perused diverse histories of the past which the Chaldeans and Assyrians have recorded, which the Egyptians [g ] have written in detail, and which the Greeks have narrated as accurately as possible. [These works] contain [information about] the times of kings and Olympiads (which translates "athletes"), about the brave deeds which were performed by barbarians and Greeks, by Aryans and non-Aryans [i.e., by peoples inside and outside the Iranian cultural world], and about the marvelous accomplishments of their generals, sages, braves, poets, storytellers, and philosophers. I thought it would be appropriate to write down everything in brief, especially the beneficial and important things, and further to put adjacent to [these accounts] the history of the Hebrew patriarchs as revealed in the Bible. And thus we might establish how long [g ] before the life-giving revelation [of Christ] Moses and the Hebrew prophets who succeeded him lived and what they, filled with the divine spirit, said before [the time of Christ]. In this fashion it might be possible to recognize easily when the braves of each nation appeared [compared with] when the celebrated Hebrew prophets lived and, one by one, who all their leaders were [g ].

Permit me, right at the outset, to caution everyone against [believing that] there can be complete accuracy with respect to chronology. Indeed, we would benefit by contemplating what that wise Teacher told his acquaintances: "It is not for you to know times or seasons which the Father has fixed by his own authority" [Acts 1:7]. It seems to me that [Jesus], as God and Lord, delivered this succinct verdict not solely regarding the end of the world but about all times, in order to discourage those who would dare attempt such a futile undertaking [g ].

Let us also, in our own words, confirm the accuracy of the Teacher's dictum, for it is not possible to know unerringly the chronology of the entire world, not from the Greeks, not from the barbarians, not from other [peoples], not even the from the Hebrews. We would be pleased if just two points were taken from our words. First, do not be deceived into believing, as others do, that chronology [always] can be precisely determined. Second, despite this, to the extent that it is possible, use clarity to recognize the nature of the investigation which confronts you, and then proceed resolutely.

It should come as no surprise that the Greeks are absent [from recording information about events in antiquity] for a long period, since [during that time] they corrupted themselves with diverse forms of iniquities; moreover, for a long period, until Cadmus' generation, they were entirely unlettered since, they say, it was Cadmus who first brought them an alphabet from the land of the Phoenicians. Quite justly did that Egyptian reproach Solon in Plato's book [Timaeus 22b] when he remarked: "Oh, Solon, you Greeks are always [like] children [g ]. Nothing resembling an old man may be found amongst you. [And thus] it is impossible to study ancient history from you." On the other hand, the Egyptians relate many fabulous accounts [about ancient times], as do the Chaldeans, since they reckon their literacy embraces more than 400,000 years. The Egyptians have written extensively about [false] gods and their offspring, about ghosts and spirits of the dead, and of other [mortal] kings, in fable-like, delirious ravings [g ].

² Why should I, who reveres truth above all, pore over this type of material in such detail? [And why should I] who so loves the Hebrews point out, in the appropriate places, where I have found inconsistencies [in their accounts]? [I have done it] to reprove the boasting of vainglorious chronographers.

I shall approach the task before me with writings which have come down from the past. First I shall present a chronology of the Chaldeans, then [I shall present a list of] the kings of the Assyrians, then the Medes, then the Lydians, followed by the Persians. In the next section [I shall present] the entire chronology of the Hebrews in order. [This will be followed by] a third section [describing] the period of the Egyptian dynasties [g ] including the Ptolemids who reigned after Alexander of Macedon in Egypt and Alexandria. Next, one by one, I will introduce the beginnings of other [nations], how the Greeks tell their own history. First, [I will tell] about those ruling in Sicyon then in the land of the Argives, then in the city of Athens itself, from first to last, those in Lacadaemon, those in Corinth, and whoever else ruled over any other part of the sea.

I shall add to this a description of the Olympiads, which the Greeks wrote. Once all these [parts] have been set forth, I shall record, one by one, the first kings of the Macedonians, and the Thessalonians, followed by the those of the Assyrians and Asiatics who ruled after Alexander [g ]. Next, each topic in a separate segment, I will describe those descendants of Aeneas who, after the capture of Ilium, ruled over the Latins later called Romans; then the descendants of Romulus who built the city of Rome; then the successors of Julius Caesar and Augustus who became emperors and the consuls who ruled in the intervening years.

I will convert all the material collected about all these folk into chronological tables. Including, from the beginning, who from each nation ruled as king and for how long, I will put these [facts] into separate [chronological tables] together with the number of years involved. In this way, if we need to know who ruled and for how long [that information] will be easily and quickly accessible. Furthermore, the valiant deeds of each kingdom, which all nations have transmitted, I will place in summary form within [my account] of [these] kingdoms.

However, that [material] will be in the second part of this work. But at present, in the next section, let us examine what the Chaldeans' ancestors have related about [their own] chronology [g9]. ³ How the Chaldeans chronicled [their past], from Alexander Polyhistor; about their writings and their first kingdom.

Here is what Berosus related in Book One, and in Book Two what he wrote about the kings, one by one. He mentions the period when Nabonassarus was king, but merely records the kings' names not saying anything precise about their deeds, perhaps because he did not consider that they had done anything worth recalling--beyond [g10] [providing] a list of their names. This is how he begins. Apollodorus says that Alorus was the first Chaldean king to rule in Babylon, reigning for 10 sars. A sar consists of 3,600 years, and this [figure may be] broken down into [units called] ners and soses. He says that one ner is 600 years, while one sos is 60 years. This is how the [Chaldean] ancients reckoned [periods of] years. Having stated this, he proceeds to enumerate the kings of the Assyrians, one by one. There were 10 kings from the first king, Alorus, to Xisuthrus. He says that during [the latter's] time the first great flood occurred, which Moses also mentions. He states that the reign of those kings consisted of a total of 120 sars, making a total [in our denomination] of 2043 [Arm. sxd] myriad years. He describes them one by one thusly [g11].

He says that on the death of Alorus, his son, Alaparus, [ruled for] 3 sars; after Alaparus, the Chaldean Almelon, from the city of Pautibiblon [? Bad-tibira], ruled for 13 sars; after Almelon, Ammenon, from the city of Pautibiblon, ruled for 12 sars. Now in his day a creature called Idotion, having the [composite] shape of a man and a fish, emerged from the Red Sea. After [Ammenon], Amegalarus, from the city of Pautibiblon, ruled for 18 sars, and after him, the shepherd Daonus, from the city of Pautibiblon, ruled for 10 sars [g12]. In his day, once again there emerged from the Red Sea four hybrid beings (Arm. yushkaparik) of the same man-fish type [as Idotion]. Then Edovanchus, from the city of Pautibiblon, ruled for 18 sars. During his reign once again another sort of man-fish being emerged from the Red Sea, called Odacon. He says that all of them [g13] were from Oannes, [and] he concisely describes them, one by one. Then the Chaldean Amenpsinus, from [the city of] Lanchara ruled. His reign lasted for 10 sars. Then the Chaldean Otiartes from Lanchara ruled. His reign lasted 8 sars. Upon the death of Otiartus, his son Xisuthrus ruled for 18 sars. The great deluge occurred in his time. Altogether [this makes] 10 monarchs [ruling for a total of] 100 and 20 sars. [This material] may be presented as follows [g14]:

1

Alorus 10 sars

2

Alaparus 3 sars

3

Almelon 13 sars

4

Ammenon 12 sars

5

Amegalarus 18 sars

6

Daonus 10 sars

7

Edovanchus 18 sars

8

Amempsinus 10 sars

9

Otiartes 8 sars

10

Xisuthrus 18 sars

This makes a total of 10 kings [ruling for] [g15] a total of 120 sars. And they say that 120 sars equal 2043 myriad years, assuming that a sar consists of 3,600 years.

Such are the figures related in Alexander Polyhistor's book. And if a person regards this as accurate history, and accepts as valid [reigns lasting] for such myriads of years, then [that person] would have to believe other incredible material found in the same book. Howbeit, I will relate what that same Berosus relates in the aforementioned historical romance, and will resume their previous [thread] which [Alexander] Polyhistor has put in his own book. One after the other he recounts these types of things [g16].

⁴ More apocryphal Chaldean history [taken] from the same book of Alexander Polyhistor about the Chaldeans.

In the first of [his] Babylonian books, Berosus claims that he lived in the time of Philip's [son] Alexander, and that he wrote based on numerous books which were kept carefully in Babylon [describing a period of] 215 [g17] myriad years, [such as] chronologies, historical accounts, the Creator's making of Heaven and Earth and the Seas, and [information] about kings and their deeds. First, he says, the country of the Babylonians was established on the Tigris [River] and the Euphrates passed through it. The country brings forth of its own accord wild wheat and barley, lentils, peas, and sesame; and in the tranquil, swampy rivers a type of edible tuber is found which they call gongk' (Arm. "turnip"), having the [same] virtue as barley bread. Also found there are dates and apples as well as various other fruits. There are fish and birds, wild fowl and marsh fowl. There are sections by the Arab areas devoid of water and fruit, while opposite the Arabs' land are areas which are mountainous and fruit-bearing. In Babylon dwell a multitude of foreign peoples from the Chaldean land [g19], and they live wantonly like beasts and wild animals.

Now it happened that in the first year, in the confines of Babylonia, there emerged from the Red Sea an awesome creature which was named Oannes. As Apollodorus relates in his book, [this being] had the complete body of a fish. Yet by the fish's head was another appropriate [human] head, and by the tail were [a pair of] human feet, and it could speak human language [g20]. A picture/likeness of [Oannes] has been preserved to this day. He further states that this creature kept company with humans during the day, completely abstaining from any kind of food, instructing people in letters and the techniques of different arts [including] city and temple [building], knowledge of laws, the nature of weights and measures, how to collect seeds and fruits; indeed, he taught humankind everything necessary for domestic life on earth. From that time on no one [individual] has discovered more. Now when the sun went down, the Oannes creature once again returned to the sea, remaining until morning in the vast expanse of the waters. Thus it lived the life of an amphibian [g21]. Subsequently other similar creatures came forth, as the book of the kings makes clear. Furthermore it is said that Oannes wrote about deeds and virtues, giving humankind words and wisdom.

⁵ There was a time, he says, when all was dark and water. And there were other sorts of creatures [on the earth]. Half of them could reproduce themselves [asexually], while there were others which procreated and bore humans with two wings, others with four wings and two faces, with one body and two heads, male and female, and [others] having both male and female natures [combined]. Other humans had the legs of goats, horns on their heads, others had horses' hooves. Others had the rear half of a horse and the front half of a human. Some had the hybrid [Arm. yushkaparik] appearance of a horse and a bull. Also born [g22] were bulls with human heads, dogs with quadripartite bodies having the flippers of a fish and a fish's tail sprouting from the hindquarters. [There were] horses with dogs' heads as well as humans and other creatures with horses' heads and/or human forms and the extremities of fish. In addition there were diverse sorts of dragon-shaped creatures, hybrid fish, reptiles, snakes, and many types of astonishing creatures of differing appearance. The pictures of each of them are preserved at the temple of Belus. All of them were ruled over by a woman named Markaye' who was called T'aghatt'ay in Chaldean. The Greek translation of T'aladday is "sea" [g23]. Now while all of these mixed [creatures] were arising, Belus attacked. He cut the woman [i.e. the sea] in two, making half the sky and the other half the earth, and he killed the creatures in it. Thus [information] about the natural world is expressed in the form of an allegorical fable which means that initially there existed only water and moisture and the creatures in it. Then that deity cut off its head and another deity took the blood which dripped from it, mixed it with soil, and created humankind. Thus they became wise and partook of the thoughts of the gods [g24].

As regards Belus, which translates into Greek as Dios and into Armenian as Aramazd, he split the darkness in two, separating heaven and earth from each other, and then smoothed and fashioned the world. [Those] creatures which could not endure the strength of the light perished. Then Belus looked at the world, [both] the desert [parts] and the fruitful [parts], and gave an order to one of the gods to take [some of] the blood which was dripping down from his own severed head and to mix it with soil and to create humans, other animals, and beasts which could withstand this air. Belus also established [g25] the sun, the moon, and the five wandering stars. According to [Alexander] Polyhistor, this is what Berosus relates in his first volume. In the second volume he provides [information] about the reigns of the ten kings individually, which we have already treated. [This portion, from Oannes to Belus,] extends [the account back] more than 40 myriads.

⁶ Surely if anyone regards as veracious the Chaldean [account encompassing] such a huge number of years, then that person will also accept [as true] other parts of their fallacious history. [The Chaldean account] simply defies reason and is apocryphal, no matter how it is interpreted. [Even] if someone should accept [the account], then [g26] that [individual] should not accept [the Chaldean] calculation of time without examination. If, according to their chronology, there were [really] so many thousands of years amassed, and if the successors of these [early] peoples [performed] their acts and deeds over a similar extended period, and if only 10 kings could have lived for so many myriads of years, who would believe that there might be any truth in such things and fables? Now it is possible that the sars we cited [earlier] represented a shorter interval of time than what others have assigned to them. For example, the ancestors of the Egyptians spoke of a lunar cycle, that is, a month contained 30 days [g27], which they referred to as a "year." Others referred to three-month periods as "hours." I am saying that they styled seasons of the year and three-month intervals as "years." Consequently it could be the same sort of thing when the Chaldeans spoke of sars.

Accordingly, [the Chaldeans] considered that there were just 10 generations [g28] from Alorus whom they considered their first king until Xisuthrus. They relate that the great Flood occurred in the latter's day. Furthermore Moses, in the Hebrew books, says that there were 10 generations before the Flood, and each generation before the Flood is described, one by one. The Hebrew history reckons 2000 years for those 10 generations. Assyrian histories also detail the same number of generations as the writings of Moses do, though not embracing the same amount of time, since they reckon the 10 generations lasting for 120 sars, equaling 2043 myriad years.

Now for those of you seeking the truth in this matter [g29] it is simple to accept that Xisuthrus is the same [individual] as the man the Hebrews call Noah, during whose lifetime the great [g30] Flood occurred. The book of [Alexander] Polyhistor describes [the Flood] in the following manner.

⁷ Alexander Polyhistor on the Flood, from the same book we just mentioned.

He says that upon the death of Otiartes, his son Xisuthrus ruled for 18 sars, during which time the great Flood occurred. His text relates the details as follows.

He says that Chronos--who is called the father of Aramazd [Jupiter] and, by others, Time--came [to Xisuthrus] in his sleep and revealed to him that on the 15th [g31] of the month of Desios, which is the [Armenian] month of Marer [December/January], humankind would perish in a flood. [Chronos] commanded that the entire book [of Oannes?]--the beginning, middle, and ending--be taken and buried [for safety] at Heliopolis ("the city of the sun"), in Sippar. [He also commanded him] to fashion a ship and to go inside it with his family [g32] and closest friends, and to put inside [the ship] provisions and drink, animals, birds, and quadrupeds, and to be completely ready to set sail. Then [Xisuthrus] inquired where he should sail the ship, and [Chronos] replied that he should [just] pray to the gods [and] that all would be well for humanity. And so [Xisuthrus] saw to building the ship which [measured] 15 stadia in length and two stadia in width [g33].

After doing all that he was bidden, [Xisuthrus] entered the vessel with his wife, children, and closest friends. Then the deluge came. As soon as it had receded, Xisuthrus released some birds. However, when they were unable to find anything to eat or any place to perch, he took them back on board. A few days later he again released some birds, and they too returned to the ship, [but this time] their claws were covered with mud. Finally he released them a third time, and this time they did not return to the ship. By this Xisuthrus realized that the ground had become visible. He opened a side of the ship's deck and observed that the boat had landed on some mountain. He emerged with his wife, a daughter, and the [g34] navigator, and worshipped ("kissed the ground"). He fashioned an altar and made sacrifice to the gods. And thereafter he and those who descended with him from the ship did not appear to anyone. Those [people] who had remained on board and had not emerged with Xisuthrus subsequently descended and sought for him, circulating around shouting out his name. But Xisuthrus never again appeared to them. However [his] voice came to them from the air and commanded [g35] that they should worship the gods, and that he, because of his worship of the gods, had gone to dwell where the gods dwelled. His wife, daughter, and the ship's pilot shared in this honor. He also ordered them to return to Babylon, for so the gods had commanded, and to excavate and remove the manuscripts buried at the city of Sippar and give them [back] to humanity. As for the place where they emerged [from the ship], it was the land of the Armenians.

Now when [the people] heard all this, they offered sacrifices to the gods, and then went to Babylon on foot. As for that ship which landed in Armenia, they say that to the present a small portion of it [g36] remains in the Korduats' Mountains [RB: south of Lake Van] in the land of the Armenians. Some [folk] scrape off the naphtha which had been used as a sealant for the ship and make amulets from it to treat pain. Now [those who disembarked] went and arrived at Babylon, excavated in Sippar city and removed [manuscripts of] the book. Then they constructed numerous cities, erected temples to the gods and renewed Babylon once more. Along with this story, [Alexander] Polyhistor tells the following story of the building of the tower [of Babel], similar to the account [found] in the writings of Moses, [almost] to the syllable [g37].

⁸ Alexander Polyhistor on the building of the Tower

Sibyl states that the people were united and commenced building the lofty [g38] Tower, in order to ascend to the heavens. But Almighty God stirred up a wind which destroyed the Tower, and [God] divided each [of the participants] with distinct languages. It is for this reason that the city was called Babylon. It was after the Flood that the Titan Prometheus lived, and stirred up a war with Cronos. This is sufficient about the building of the Tower.

Polyhistor supplements this [topic] by adding that after the Flood [g39], Evexius ruled over the Chaldeans for four ners. After him his son, Comosbelus, held authority for four ners and five soses. Polyhistor counts a total of 86 monarchs from the time of Xisuthrus and the Flood until the Medes captured Babylon, and he provides the name of each one from Berosus' book. The total for all of them comes to three myriad, three thousand and ninety-one [33,091] years. Now after these generations, one after the other, suddenly the Medes massed troops against Babylon and took it, and set up tyrants of their own [nationality] there.

Then he enumerates the names of the Median tyrants, 8 of them, ruling for 224 years. Then 11 kings for...years; then Chaldeans again, 49 kings for 458 years; then 9 Arab kings for 245 years. After this period he writes that Shamiram [Semiramis] ruled the Assyrians. Then he briefly lists [g40] the names of 45 monarchs, giving them a total of 526 years. He says that after them, the kingship of the Chaldeans was held by a man named Phulus [Tiglath-Pileser III], also recalled in Hebrew history as Phulos. They say that he came against the country of the Jews.

Polyhistor relates that following [Phulus] Sennacherib became king. He is mentioned by the Hebrew books as ruling during the time of King Hezekiah and the prophet Isaiah. Scripture mentions in order that "In the fourteenth year of King Hezikiah, Sennacherib king of Assyria came up against all the fortified cities of Judah and took them" [2 Kings 18:13]. After this entire narration he continues with [the information that] [Sennacherib's] son Asordan [Esarhaddon] ruled after him. Then he proceeds to relate that in that period Hezikiah became sick. Continuing on, [g41] he states that the king of the Babylonians, Merodach Baldan [Marduk II], sent messengers, letters, and gifts to Hezekiah. This is what the Hebrew books say.

Now the historian of the Chaldeans mentions Sennacherib, his son Asordan, Marodach Baghdan, and with them Nebuchadnezzar as our passage has done. Here is his description.

⁹ From the same Alexander [Polyhistor] on the deeds and valor of Sennecherib and Nebuchadnezzar.

After Sennacherib's brother ruled, then Akises reigned over the Babylonians. He barely held power for 30 days, before he was slain by Maradoch Baladanus [g42]. The latter forcibly ruled for six months until a certain Elibus killed him and seized power. Now Sennacherib king of the Assyrians, in the third year of his reign, massed an army, went against the Babylonians, fought them, and triumphed. He arrested [Elibus] and his associates and had them taken to the country of the Assyrians. So [Sennacherib] dominated the Babylonians. He then enthroned his son Asordanios, and he himself returned to the country of the Assyrians.

Now soon thereafter he received word that the Greeks had come to the land of Cilicia to wage war. [Sennacherib] went there and deployed his troops, brigade by brigade. He triumphed over the enemy, despite the fact that many of his own troops were killed. As a memorial to his conquest, he had a statue of himself erected on the spot and ordered that an account of his bravery and power be inscribed in the Chaldean language as a memorial for the future. [Polyhistor] says that [Sennacherib] built the city of Tarsus in the likeness of Babylon, and named it Tarsin. And he relates that after all his other accomplishments he went on to rule for 19 years, until he died as a result of a plot hatched by his own son, Ardamusanus. This is from Polyhistor.

The account chronologically is in harmony with what is [g43] written in Scripture. According to Polyhistor, Sennacherib ruled during the period of Hezekiah for 18 years; his son succeeded him for 8 years; Sammuges followed, for 21 years; followed by his brother, for 21 years. Then Nabupalasar ruled for 20 years, followed by Nebuchadnezzar, for 43 years. From Sennacherib up to Nebuchadnezzar the regnal years total 88.

If one examines Hebrew writings, nearly the same [information] will be found. For following Hezekiah, his son Manasseh ruled over the remaining Hebrews for 55 years. Then Amos [ruled] for 12 years, followed by Josiah, followed by Jehoiakim. At the beginning of the latter's reign, Nebuchadnezzar came and besieged Jerusalem and took the Jews captive to Babylon. From Hezekiah to Nebuchadnezzar there are 88 years, just as Polyhistor calculated from the Chaldean sources.

After [describing] all this, Polyhistor again turns to the works and deeds of Sennacherib. The Hebrew sources also refer to his son[s]. And he records them one by one. They say that the philosopher Pythagoras lived in this period, during their time. Now following Sammuges, Sardanapallus ruled the Chaldeans for 21 years. He sent an auxiliary army to the patriarch and lord of the Medes, Azhdahak, [g44] to secure one of his daughters, Amuhean, as a wife for his son Nebuchadnezzar. Then Nebuchadnezzar ruled for 43 years. He massed troops and came and took captive the Jews, Phoenicians, and Assyrians. Since the Hebrew sources are in harmony with Polyhistor here, there is no need to elaborate.

Following Nebuchadnezzar, his son Amilmarudochus ruled for 12 years. In Hebrew history he is called Ilmaroduchus. After him, Polyhistor says, Neglisarus ruled the Chaldeans for 4 years, followed by Nabodenus for 17 years. It was during his reign that Cambyses' son, Cyrus, massed troops and came against the country of the Babylonians. Nabodenus resisted, was defeated, and took to flight. Cyrus ruled Babylon for 9 years. However, he died in another battle, in the plain of Daas. Subsequently Cambyses [II] ruled for 8 years, followed by Darius for 36 years, followed by Xerxes and other Persian kings.

Berosus described the Chaldean kings briefly one by one, and so does Polyhistor. Now it is quite clear that from the time when Nebuchadnezzar massed troops and took the Jews captive until the time of Cyrus' rule over the Persians, 70 years had transpired. Hebrew history also confirms this, considering that they had been in captivity for 70 years, reckoning [that event] from the first year of Nebuchadnezzar until the time of Cyrus, king of the Persians [g45].

Abydenus' Chaldean history confirms this. In agreement with Polyhistor, he relates it as follows.

¹⁰ Abydenus on the first Chaldean kings.

So much for an account of Chaldean wisdom. Now it is said that Alorus was the first to rule over the land of the Chaldeans as king [g46]. He claimed that the most provident Lord had designated him as shepherd of [his] people, and he ruled for 10 sars. A sar is 3,600 years, a ner is 600 years, and a sos is 60 years. Alaparus ruled after him, followed by Almelon from the city of Pautibiblon. During his reign the second Anidostus emerged from the sea. [He was a being] like Oannes, who had the appearance of a semi-divine hero. [Almelon] was followed by Ammenon, then by Amegazarus. Next the shepherd was Daonus. During his reign, four amphibious beings came on land, emerging from the sea: Iovdocos, E'newgamos, E'newboghos, and Amenentos [g47]. Anodap'os [, another sea-creature, appeared] during the reign of Edorescho who ruled after [Daonus]. Other [kings] ruled after him, until Xisuthrus. These are also recalled by Polyhistor. Now here is what [Abydenus] wrote about the Flood.

Abydenus on the Flood.

After him others ruled, including Xisuthrus. It was to him that Cronos gave advance warning about a great deluge [g48] of rain [which would begin] on the 15th of the month of Desios, which is [the Armenian month of] Marer. [Cronos] ordered that all books in the city of Heliopolis, in Sippar, be concealed [i.e. protected]. Xisuthrus did all this, and wanted to set sail for Armenia, when suddenly [the prophesy] of the god was realized on the sailors. On the third day, after the rain had decreased, Xisuthrus released some of the birds to determine whether land could be found in the midst of so much water. Now [the birds] flew off [g49] over the limitless expanse of sea but, not finding any perch, returned to Xisuthrus. [The latter] waited another three days and then released [some birds] again. [This time] they returned with mud sticking to their claws. Soon the gods removed [Xisuthrus] from the sight of humankind. The ship continued on and stopped in the land of the Armenians. The inhabitants of that land were rewarded with a useful medicine made from the wood [of the ship].

Now it seems to me that it should be evident to everyone that what Abydenus writes about the Flood is confirmed by Hebrew history. Nor is it surprising if Greek and Chaldean writers call Noah Xisuthrus or another name, or if they use their customary "gods" instead of God, or if they are silent about the doves, replacing them with "birds" [g50]. Such is Abydenus' account of the Flood [based on] Chaldean history. He also presents the following account of the building of the Tower, which supports the Mosaic narrative. It is said that people in early times had become so enamoured of their own power and size, that they even mocked the gods and wrought foolishness. They began [g51] to construct an enormous tower in the place now called Babylon. When they neared the gods in heaven, the winds aided the gods by blowing and causing that gigantic, artful structure to collapse. The ruins were called Babylon. [If] until that time, [everyone] spoke the same language, [afterwards] the gods introduced many different languages among the multitudes [g52]. After this Cronos and the Titans engaged each other in warfare. [Abydenus] also recalls Sennacherib in the following manner.

¹¹ Abydenus on Sennacherib.

In this period Sennacherib became the 25th to rule [over the Assyrians]. He conquered and subdued Babylon under his control, defeated the Greek naval fleet off the coast of Cilicia, and constructed a temple of the Athenians erecting [there] a bronze monument and inscribing on it [an account] of his valor. In addition, [Sennecharib] built Tarsus in accordance with the style and plan of Babylon, for the Cydnus River flows through Tarsus, just as the Euphrates flows through Babylon.

After [Sennacherib] Nergilus became king, but he was slain by his son Adramelus. The latter was slain by his brother Axerdis, who shared the same father but not the same mother. He pursued troops to the city of Byzantium and entered it. [Axerdis] was the first to muster mercenary troops, one of whom was [g53] Pythagoras, who became a student of Chaldean wisdom. Axerdis conquered Egypt and parts of inner Syria. He was succeeded by Sardanapallus.

Saracus was the next king of Assyria. Now when he learned that a motley force had attacked by sea, he immediately sent [his] general Busalossorus to Babylon. [This general], however, plotted rebellion and sought the marriage of Amuhean, daughter of Azhdahak [Astyages], the patriarch of the Medes, to his son, Nebuchadnezzar. Then he swiftly went against Ninea, that is, the city of Nineveh. King Saracus was informed of all this and set fire to the palace [killing himself and] whoever was inside it. Then Nebuchadnezzar took the reigns of kingship, and surrounded Babylon with a secure wall.

After relating this [material], Abydenus provides an account of Nebuchadnezzar, which coincides with [what is found in] Hebrew writings [g54].

Abydenus on Nebuchadnezzar.

Now when Nebuchadnezzar took power, he built a wall and triple ramparts around Babylon in the space of about 15 days. He then conducted the Armakalen River [away] from the Euphrates and dug a reservoir on the highland above the city of Sippar which was 40 leagues (hrasax) around and 20 fathoms (girk) deep. And he constructed gates which could open and always irrigate the plain. These gates were called E'k'e'tognomonas, to promote [g55] support and enthusiasm for himself. He also built a wall on the shore of the Red Sea [to protect it] from the pounding waves. He built the city of Terendos at the entrance to the Arabs' land. He also decorated the royal court by planting sapling trees, calling this the Hanging Garden. [Abydenus] presents a detailed description of this so-called Hanging Garden. The Greeks, he says, regarded [the Hanging Garden] as [one] of the seven wonders of the world.

In another place the same author has this to say [g56]. In the beginning, he says, everything was water and it was called the sea. Then Belus lowered [? the waters] and distributed the lands to each [nation]. He fortified Babylon by surrounding it with walls, but after the passage of a long time, [the walls] weakened. So Nebuchadnezzar rebuilt them, and they endured until the time of the rule of the Macedonians, together with their bronze gates.

Everything that Abydenus relates is confirmed by what Daniel says. [The book of Daniel, 4:30] describes how Nebuchadnezzar boasted inordinately: "Is not this great Babylon [g57], which I have built by my mighty power as a royal residence and for the glory of my majesty?" This is how Nebuchadnezzar spoke in [the book of] the prophet Daniel, since he regarded his power as proof of his goodness. Now listen to what Abydenus says [about Nebuchadnezzar] being stronger than Heracles. Here is his account.

Megasthenes says that [g58] Nebuchadnezzar, who was stronger than Heracles, levied troops and went to Libya and Iberia, which he conquered. He took and settled some of them on the fore part of the Black Sea coast. He subsequently relates from the Chaldeans' [accounts] that when he had returned to the royal court, some deity took control of his mind and spoke [through him] in this manner: "Oh brave Babylonians, I, Nebuchadnezzar, I predict that grief [g59] will befall you." He continues on in this vein for a while and then the historian [tells us] that after this eloquent speech he suddenly disappeared from sight. Then [Nebuchadnezzar's] son, Amilmardochus, ruled. The latter was slain by his son-in-law, Niglissarus. [Amilmardochus] left a son named Labossoracus, who also met with a violent [g60] end. Then Nabonedochus was invited to take the throne, although it was certainly not his [by right]. When Cyrus captured Babylon, he granted [Nabonedochus] the marzpanate of the land of Carmania. King Darius partly expelled him from that land. All this coincides with Hebrew accounts.

For Daniel, in his account of Nebuchadnezzar, relates how he declined mentally. There is really nothing peculiar about the fact that the Greeks or Chaldeans disguised his madness by saying that the gods or a demon (Arm. dew) entered his body and took it over. It is their custom to claim that such things are caused by gods whom they call demons. All this is [from] Abydenus [g61].

Similarly Flavius Josephus, the Jewish author of Antiquities provides the following confirmation of this [g61] [RB: the passage is in Against Apion Book I, 19-21].

¹² From Josephus' Antiquities about Nebuchadnezzar

He says: I will now describe what is written and narrated about us in the Chaldean histories one by one. These [accounts] have much in common with our own [Hebrew] writings. Berosus will attest to these [remarks]. He was a Chaldean by nationality and known to everyone interested in learning and wisdom, because he put into the Greek language books on [g62] Chaldean astrology and learning.

Berosus in his book of early times is in agreement with Moses' account of the flood and the extermination of humankind because of its corruption, and about the ark in which Noah, the forefather of our people, was spared, and [about how the ark] rested on the summit of the mountains in the land of the Armenians. One by one [Berosus] describes these folk and their times, from Noah to Nabopolassar, who was king of the Babylon and the Chaldeans. After describing [the latter's] acts and brave deeds, [Berosus] relates how [Nabopolassar] sent [g63] his son Nebuchadnezzar to the country of the Egyptians and to our land with an enormous army, since he had been informed that the inhabitants of the land had rebelled. [Nebuchadnezzar] arrived and subdued everyone, burned and ruined the Temple in Jerusalem and deported all of our people, settling them in the country of the Babylonians. Seventy years passed from this catastrophe--the destruction of the city and the Temple--until the time of the Persian king Cyrus the First. [Berosus] says that [Cyrus] ruled over the Babylonians, the land of the Egyptians, the Syrians, Phoenicians, and Arabs surpassing in valor and bravery all those who preceded him as kings of the Chaldeans and Babylonians. Here is how Berosus described it.

Nebuchadnezzar's father Nabopolassar learned [g64] that the satrap whom he had set over the lords of the land of the Egyptians, the regions of the Syrians and the Phoenician districts had rebelled from him. Now because he himself was not able to supress [the rebellion], he put part of the troops he had assembled under the control of his son, Nebuchadnezzar, who had reached maturity [g65], and dispatched them. Nebuchadnezzar went and defeated the rebel in battle, and then subdued the land as before. Now it happened that his father Nabopolassar had become ill in Babylon and had died, after a reign of 21 years.

¹³ When, after a long while, Nebuchadnezzar was informed of his father's death [g66], he settled and arranged affairs in the country of the Egyptians and in other lands. He entrusted the captives, Jews, Phoenicians, Syrians, and Egyptians, to some of his friends and ordered them to procede to Babylon with the heavily-armed troops. Meanwhile he himself [quickly] reached [the city] and found that his kingdom had been preserved by a certain one of the nobles. And so, [Nebuchadnezzar] ruled over his entire patrimonial state. He ordered that the captives be settled in goodly locales in the land of the Babylonians. Then he took booty from the war and adorned the temples of Bel and the other gods [g67] with great abundance. He increased [the flow of] water to the city proper and to the suburbs and secured the place so that no besieger would be able to divert the river into the city. He added three walls to the exterior of the city, in addition to the three walls on the inside of the city building half of baked brick and bitumen and half solely of brick. After enclosing the city with magnificent walls and splendidly decorating its gates, he constructed yet another palace near his father's palace [g68] whose size, beauty, and adornment one can hardly describe. Suffice it to say that it was a splendidly rare accomplishment, completely finished in fifteen days. The palace had a lofty turreted portion at the summit, constructed in such a manner as to resemble mountains and planted with a great variety of trees. This was named the Hanging Garden and it was created to satisfy the longing of his wife for the airy mountainous places where she was [g69] raised, in the high mountains of Media. This is what [Berosus] says about the king. He says a great deal more in the third book of his Chaldean History. There he lambasts Greek writers for vainly believing that Babylon was built by [Queen] Semiramis (Shamiram) and for attributing all the glorious wonders there to her.

One must accept this account from the Chaldean History as trustworthy. There is additional confirmation from Phoenician archival material which details [events from the reign of] this Babylonian king. For [Nebuchadnezzar] conquered Syria and all Phoenicia. The History of Philostratus supports this also where it describes the siege of Tyre. [Confirmation is also found] in the fourth volume of Megasthenes' History of the Indians, where he wants to demonstrate that the aforementioned king of the Babylonians surpassed [g70] Heracles in valor and bravery, for he mentions that [Nebuchadnezzar] conquered the greater part of Libya and Iberia. We mentioned earlier that the Temple in Jerusalem had been set afire by the Babylonian troops sent against [the city]. When Cyrus took the kingship of Asia, a start was made at rebuilding [the Temple]. Confirmation of this is found in the writings of Berosus, for in the third book of [his History] he writes as follows.

Nebuchadnezzar fell ill and died after beginning the construction of the aforementioned wall. He had reigned for 43 years. His son Amel-Marduk took the kingship, but he governed in a corrupt and impious manner [g71]. He was murdered by his sister's husband, Neriglissar, after ruling for two years. Then that Neriglissar, who had committed the murder, held power for four years. The latter's son Labesorachus ruled as a child for nine months. However, he suffered a violent death at the hands of relatives because of his wicked behavior. After his murder, the conspirators assembled and by general agreement placed a certain Babylonian named Nabonidus on the throne. He had been a participant in the conspiracy.

¹⁴ It was during [Nabonidus'] reign that the walls of Babylon by the river were constructed of baked brick and bitumen. Now in the 17th year of his reign, Cyrus [g72] came from Persia with an enormous army with which he conquered all the other kingdoms. Then he turned upon Babylon. When Nabonidus was informed about his invasion, he resisted him in battle with his troops. Defeated in battle, [Nabonidus] took to flight and then fortified himself in the city of Borsippa with a few of his followers.

After Cyrus had taken Babylon, he ordered that the city's outer wall be razed to the ground because of its [effective] fortification and the trouble it had presented [to him] in capturing the city. Then he went to besiege Nabonidus in Borsippa. Nabonidus surrendered right away since he could not endure a siege. Cyrus was merciful toward him and settled him in the land of Carmania [g73]. Thus Nabonidus was removed from Babylon and sent there, where he spent the remainder of his life, and died.

This is all true and in accord with our literature, which states that in the 18th year of Nebuchadnezzar our temple was destroyed, and remained ruined for 50 years. In the second year of the kingship of Cyrus the foundations were laid and in the sixth year of Darius' reign it was completed.

I will now add to this the Phoenician records, for it will not be superfluous to add further supporting proofs. The following [citations] are for chronology. Nebuchadnezzar [g74] besieged Tyre for thirteen years in the days of Ithobal, their king; after him reigned Baal, ten years; after him these judges were appointed: Ecnibalus, the son of Baslacus, two months; Chelbes, the son of Abdeus, ten months; Abbar, the high priest, three months; Sipunostus and Gerastratus, the sons of Abdelemus, were judges six years; after whom Balatorus reigned one year; after his death they sent and fetched Merbalus from Babylon, who reigned four years; after his death they sent for his brother Hirom, who reigned twenty years. Under his reign Cyrus the Persian flourished.

So that the whole interval is fifty-four years besides three months; for in the seventh year of the reign of Nebuchadnezzar he began to besiege Tyre, and Cyrus the Persian took the kingdom in the [g75] fourteenth year of Hirom. So that the records of the Chaldeans and Tyrians agree with our writings about this temple. The above is what Josephus has related.

Abydenus, after providing this account of the Chaldean kings, which is similar to [Alexander] Polyhistor's [account] then separately describes the Assyrian kings, one by one, as follows.¹⁵ Abydenus on the Assyrian Kingdom.

Here is the way the Chaldeans describe the kings of their land, from Alorus to [g76] Alexander. There is no special attention given to Ninus or Semiramis. So saying, [Abydenus] begins [g77] his account. He says that [the kings of the Assyrians] were Ninus, son of Arbelus, son of Chaalus, son of Arbelus, son of Anebus, son of Babus, son of the Assyrian king Belus [g78].

Then [Abydenus] describes [the rulers] one by one, from Ninus and Semiramis to Sardanapallus, who was the last of them. From the latter until the first [g79] Olympiad 67 years elapsed. Abydenus wrote about each of the Assyrian kings, one by one [g80] in this fashion. He is not the sole [author to write about them]. Castor, too, in the summary of his first Chronology describes the Assyrian kings in the same manner to the refuge of Solomon.

From the Summary of Castor, on the kingdom of the Assyrians.

[Castor] says: "Belus was the king of the Assyrians. During his reign [g81], the Cyclopes, using thunder and lightning, fought on Zeus' side in the battle Zeus (Aramazd) fought against the Titans. The kings of the Titans were known at this time, one of them being Ogygus. [Castor], after some brief words about him, states that the giants attacked the gods and were defeated after Heracles and Dionysius--who were descended from the Titans--came to the aid of the gods.

Belus, about whom we spoke earlier, died and was regarded as a god. After him Ninus ruled the Assyrians as king for 52 years. He married Semiramis. After [Ninus], Semiramis was the monarch for 42 years. Then Zames, also called Ninyas, ruled. Then [Castor continues] to mention each of the successive kings of the Assyrians to Sardanapallus. Shortly we too will provide a list of the names and regnal years of the monarchs. [Castor], in his Canons, also writes about who succeeded them [i.e. the rulers after Sardanapallus].

[Castor states:] First we described the kings of the Assyrians starting with Belus, but since the length of [g82] his reign has not been passed down with certainty, we have merely recorded his name. We have begun the chronology with Ninus and ended it with the other Ninus who held the kingship after Sardanapallus. In this fashion the entire duration [of the kingdom] may be shown clearly, as well as each individual king's [reign]. Thus it turns out that the [total] duration [of the Assyrian kingdom] was 1,280 years. This is Castor's [account]. Diodorus Siculus collected the same [material] in his Library. Here is what he wrote.

¹⁶ From Diodorus' work on the kingdom of the Assyrians.

No testimony of the first kings of the Asian world [g83] has survived--neither about their deeds nor [even] their names. Ninus was the first king of the Assyrians found to be worthy of historical remembrance. [Ninus]' deeds and valor were great, and we shall endeavor to describe them briefly. And [Diodorus] informs after narrating other things, that Ninus had a son Ninyas from Semiramis, and that after [Ninus]' death, Semiramis buried Ninus' body in the palace [out of sight] and stopped being queen [ruling instead as king]. Then after a bit [Diodorus] says that Semiramis ruled over all the Asians except the Indians. She died as we previously stated after living 62 years and [g84] reigning for 42 years. Separately [Castor] says that after [Semiramis'] death, Ninyas, son of Ninus and Semiramis assumed power. He maintained peace, not emulating his mother's martial and industrious manner.

Again, further on, [Diodorus] says that in such a fashion royal power was handed down from father to son, from generation to generation until [g85] Sardanapallus. During his reign royal power passed from the Assyrians to the Medes, after lasting more than 1,300 years as Ctesias of Cnidus observes in his second book. But [these authors] did not bother to record the names of these kings or the lengths of their reigns, since they accomplished nothing worthy of recall. The only event meriting recording [during this interval] was the [military] assistance sent to the Trojans by the Assyrians under general Memnon, Tithonus' son [g86].

While Teutamus--the 26th king from Semiramis' son, Ninyas--was the reigning king of the Asian world the Greeks, under Agamemnon, mustered troops and went to the land of the Trojans to fight. By this time the Assyrians had ruled over Asia for more than a thousand years. Priam, king of Troy, in difficulty because of the war, beseechingly requested [g87] military aid from the Assyrian king. [Teutamus acceded] and provided [Priam] with 10,000 [troops] from the land of the Ethiopians, an equal number from the Nusians, and two hundred chariots, [all] under [the command of] Tithonus' son Memnon. [Diodorus] further states that the barbarians said that Memnon had performed such feats of bravery that they were recorded in the royal books.

Sardanapallus, the 35th king from Ninus who [g88] organized the state, became the final king of the Assyrians. He surpassed all his predecessors in luxurious living and laziness. After a bit [Diodorus] informs that [Sardanapallus] was so dissolute that not only did he ruin his own life, but he wreaked the entire Assyrian state which had endured from time immemorial. Now it happened that there was a certain Arbaces of Median nationality, a virtuous stout-hearted man who was a general of the Medes who were sent each year to Ninus' city. In the course of his military duties, he became friendly with the commander-in-chief of the Median army, who beseeched him to overthrow the Assyrian government. This is what Diodorus relates in book two of the Historical Library. Cephalion also mentions Assyrian rule. Here is what he says [g89].

¹⁷ The historian Cephalion on the Assyrian kingdom.

Let me begin by writing about what others too have written. First Hellanicus [g90] of Lesbos and Ctesias of Cnidus, followed by Herodotus of Halicarnassus [have written about the Assyrians]. The first of the Assyrians to rule over the Asians was Belus' son, Ninus. During his reign many valorous deeds were done. Then he continues to discuss the birth of Semiramis, Zoroaster the Mage, war with the king of the Bactrians and the military defeat by Semiramis. Ninus' reign lasted for 52 years, and then he died. After him [g91] Semiramis ruled. It was she who built the walls around Babylon in the manner described by many [writers such as] Ctesias, Zenon, Herodotus and others after him.

Then he describes how Semiramis mustered troops [and went] against India, her defeat and flight; how she killed her own sons and then was killed by her son Ninyas, after a reign of 42 years. Then Ninyas assumed power. Cephalion says that he did nothing worthy of recall. Then he and others describe how for a thousand years power passed from father to son with none of them [g92] ruling for less than 20 years. Disliking warfare and strife they were effeminate, carefully keeping themselves fortified indoors, doing nothing, and seeing no one except their concubines or effeminate men. It seems to me that Ctesias records the names of some 23 of these kings, should someone want to know about them in more detail. But what pleasure or satisfaction would it bring to record the barbaric names [g93] of despicable, weak savages who displayed neither valor nor brave deeds?

[Cephalion] says next that 640 years later, Belimus ruled over the Assyrians. Perseus, [son] of Danae arrived in his land with 100 ships. He was escaping from Semele's son, Dionysius. After describing the defeat of Perseus by Dionysius, [Cephalion] says that in later times, when Pannyas [g94] ruled over the Assyrians, the fleet of the Argonauts sailed up the Phasis River to Mende' in Colchis. Hercules had [previously] left the ship out of his desire and longing for Hylas. As they say, he wandered about seeking [Hylas] in Cappadocia. Furthermore [Cephalion] says that 1000 years had elapsed from Semiramis to King Mitraeus. If one computes it, [the story of Medea and the period of King Mitreus] join up. [It was then] that Medea left King Aegeus [?Aeetes] of Colchis out of lust [for Jason]. Her son was Medus, whence Media, that is the [Armenian term] Mark' ("Medes"). Moreover that land is called Media, [g95] which is Marastan [in Armenian]. [Cephalion] says that Teutamus succeeded Mitraeus. The former also lived according to the customs and laws of the Assyrians. Nothing new occurred during his reign.

Agamemnon and Menelaeus, the Mycenaeans, mustered troops with the Argives and went against the city of Ilium while Priam was general of Phrygia. He said: "The Greek troops [g96] which have come against me have reached your own land. We have engaged them in battle, sometimes winning, sometimes losing. But now, behold, my own son Hector has died among many other brave sons. Send us auxiliary troops under a courageous general." [Cephalion] then describes in detail how Teutamus sent assistance to him under the generalship of Memnon, Tithonus' son. However, the Thessalians (T'eghaghats'ik) treacherously killed him. In another passage [Cephalion] says that Sardanapallus became king of the Assyrians in the 1,013 th year; and then he describes his destruction. After the death of Sardanapallus, (V)Arbaces the Mede, destroyed the power of the Assyrians and transferred rule to the Medes. All this is related by Cephalion.

Here is a list of the Assyrian kings, based on the most trustworthy writings [g97].

¹⁸ Kings of the Assyrians.

1

Ninus 52 years

They say that he was the first king to reign over all the Asians, except the Indians. Abraham, patriarch of the Hebrew people, lived during his time.

2

Semiramis 42 years

3

Zhames, also called Ninyas 38 years

4

Arius 30 years

5

Aralius, also called Amyrus 40 years

6

Xerxes, also called Balaeus 30 years

7

Armamithres 38 years

8

Belochus 35 years

9

Balaeas 12 years

10

Aladas 32 years

11

Mamithus 30 years

12

Machchalaeus 30 years

13

Sphaerus 22 years

14

Mamilus 30 years

15

Sparethus 40 years

16

Ascatades 40 years

Moses, the law-giver of the Jews, lived during his reign.

17

Amintas 45 years

18

Belochus 45 years

His daughter Tratre's, who was also [g98] called Ak'urartist, ruled in her own stead for 17 years. Dionysius and Perseus lived in this period.

19

Balatores 30 years

20

Lamprides 32 years

21

Sosmares 8 years

22

Lampares 30 years

23

Pannias 42 years

During his reign the fleet of the Argonauts and Heracles appeared.

24

Sosarmus 19 years

25

Mithraeus 27 years

26

Teutamus 32 years

During his reign Ilium was captured.

27

Teutaeus 40 years

28

Theneus 30 years

29

Derusus 40 years

30

Eupalmes 38 years

During his reign David, the prominent king of the Hebrews, lived. It was his son [g99] Solomon who built the temple in Jerusalem.

31

Laosthenes 45 years

32

Peritiades 30 years

33

Ophrataeus 21 years

34

Ophatanes 50 years

35

Acrazanes 42 years

36

Sardanapallus 20 years

During his reign Lycurgus made laws for the Lacedaemonians. The kings of the Assyrians were the rulers until this period, when Thespieus, Ariphron's son, was king of the Athenians.

According to reliable sources, the entire empire of the Assyrians lasted for 1,240 years. Others say that it lasted for 1,300 years. Thonnus Concolerus, who is called Sardanapallus in Greek, was defeated by Arbaces and Belesius and committed suicide by fire. From [Sardanapallus] until the first Olympiad, 40 years elapsed.

Once Arbaces had destroyed Assyrian rule, he designated Belesius as king of the Babylonians. [Arbaces] himself transferred the authority of the Assyrians to the Medes. Here is [a table of] their [kings'] reigns [g100].

¹⁹ Kings of the Medes.

1

Arbaces (Varbak) 28 years

2

Maudaces 20 years

3

Sosarmus 30 years

4

Articas 30 years

5

Deioces 44 years

6

Phraortes 24 years

7

Ciaxares 32 years

8

Astyages (Azhdahak) 38 years

[g101]. During his reign Cyrus the Persian ruled as king. He deposed Astyages and destroyed the rule of the Medes, which had lasted 298 years. Other books, however, record the [list of] Median kings differently [g102].

²⁰ Kings of the Lydians.

1

Ardys, son of Alyattes 36 years

2

Alyattes 14 years

3

Meles 12 years

4

Candaules 17 years

5

Gyges 35 years

6

Ardys 37 years

7

Sadyattes 5 years

8

Odyartes 49 years

8

Croesus 15 years

Cyrus killed Croesus and eliminated the Lydian empire [g103].²¹ Kings of the Persians.

1

Cyrus 31 years

2

Cambyses 8 years

3

Smerdis the Mage 7 months

4

Darius, son of Hystaspis 36 years

During his reign the temple in Jerusalem was rebuilt after the first [temple] was burned down by the Babylonians.

5

Xerxes, son of Darius 20 years

6

Artaxerxes, who was called Longimanus 41 years

During his reign Ezra and Nehemiah were recognized as leaders of the Hebrews [g104].

7

Darius 7 years

8

Artaxerxes 40 years

7

Ochus 26 years

8

Arses 4 years

8

Darius 7 years

[Darius] was slain by Alexander, son of Philip, who ruled over both Persian and Assyrian states for 12 years. After [Alexander], Macedonians ruled for 295 years until the death of a certain woman named Cleopatra, who ruled in the 187th Olympiad [32-29 B.C.]. During her reign, Augustus ruled over the Romans. [Augustus] was called Sebastos which translates "adorable" [g105]. [Cleopatra died] in the 15th year of Augustus' reign. Fifty-two years elapsed from that time until the 202nd Olympiad [29-32 A.D.], and the 15th year of Tiberius Caesar. From then until the 20th anniversary of Constantine, there are 300 years. Thus far, this much. Let us now turn to the chronology of the Hebrews.²² How the Hebrews transmitted [their] chronology.

We shall set out the chronology of the Hebrews, taken from the writings of Moses and later Hebrew authors, from The Antiquities of the Jews by Flavius Josephus and the chronologies of Africanus.

How the Hebrews chronicled [their history].

In the preceding sections we have recorded the events and kings of the Chaldeans, Assyrians, Medes and Persians [g106]. The fact that the Hebrew people derived from the Chaldeans was clearly demonstrated, since Abraham was Chaldean and his ancestors inhabited that land. Moreover, the Mosaic writings confirm this [in the following passage [Genesis 11.31]]: "Terah took Abraham his son and Lot the son of Haran, his grandson, and Sarah his daughter-in-law, his son Abraham's wife, and they went forth together from the land of the Chaldeans."

Thus it is fitting that the history of Hebrew antiquities follow our exposition of Chaldean history. The story they relate about the flood is quite different from the Greek legendary tale which places the flood during the time of Deucalion [g107], [an event which occurred] long before Ogyges and the great flood which the Greeks say occurred in his time. The flood [recounted in Genesis] took place some 1,200 years before Ogyges' flood, which in turn preceded Deucalion's flood by 250 years.

There are not a few similarities between the Assyrian and Hebrew writings about the flood. [For example] they [both] say that there were ten successive generations before the flood.

After the flood, the human race throughout the entire world was fathered by [only] three men. All Europe [g108], from Mt. Amanus to the western ocean, descended from Japheth. [The people of] Egypt, the land of Libya, and all points westward descended from Ham. The third brother, Shem, fathered [the inhabitants of] Assyria and all points eastward.

Hebrew scriptures regard Nimrod as the first builder of Babylon, describing [the matter] in this way [in Genesis 10.8-11]: "Cush became the father of Nimrod". Cush was an Ethiopian who was considered the father of Nimrod, about whom scripture says: "He was a mighty hunter before the Lord; therefore it is said, 'Like Nimrod a mighty hunter before the Lord'. The beginning of his kingdom was Babel, Erech, and Accad, all of them in the land of Shinar. From that land [g109] he went into Assyria and built Nineveh." Nineveh, which is called Ninus [in Greek], was the first royal city of the Assyrians. It was built by Asshur, one of the sons of Shem, who, as we said held all the eastern areas.

They say that the sons of Shem were Elam, Asshur, Arphaxad, Aram, and Lud. The Elamites, the first nation of the Persians, descended from Elam, who also built the city of Elymais. the Assyrians descended from Asshur who also built the Assyrian city, Ninus, which was called Nineveh. The Arphaxadians descended from Arphaxad also called Chaldeans. The Aramaeans, also called Syrians (Asorik'), descended from Aram. The Lydians descended from Lud. Arphaxad was the father of Shelah, who was the father of Eber, from whom the name and nation of the Hebrews derives. Abraham, the patriarch of the Hebrew nation, was the sixth generation descendant of Eber, in the tenth generation after the flood. This much should be sufficient to demonstrate in summary fashion that the ancestry of the Chaldeans and Assyrians is mixed with that of the Hebrews. Consequently it is appropriate to begin their [Hebrew] chronology close to those others.

²³ Their chronology commences with an account of the fall from grace of our human race. This occurred [g110] during the time of Adam, the first patriarch, whose name is synonymous with human kind, since in the Hebrew language "Adam" means, generally, "man." The period of his life after his expulsion from Paradise has been recorded by Moses, through the agency of the Holy Spirit. Moses then lists [Adam's] descendants and their ages through successive generations [Genesis 5.1-32]. Because of this we can set down a chronology of the Hebrews from him. But no one can determine when it was that [Adam] dwelled in that Paradise described in the Bible. It seems to me that the marvelous Moses alludes to a goodly, godly existence then in a world better than our own, a place called Paradise where the first man dwelled. [Moses] refers to all of humanity when he describes Adam's sweet and desirable existence in Paradise [g111].

Our chronicle will not provide accounts about that existence [in Paradise] nor about how the Almighty established heaven and earth. This is how some [chroniclers] have thought [to begin]. Rather, we shall begin from the time that our human race experienced mortality and from [the time of] our first ancestor who set out on that path. [That ancestor] was the man named Adam, whose dying, mortal span of years was calculated in Hebrew literature, for it was from this point that Hebrew chronology began. Indeed, the Book of Moses [Genesis 3.23] describes it as follows:

"The Lord God sent him (that is, the first man) forth from the garden of Eden, to till the ground from which he was taken. And he drove Adam out and made him live outside the comforts of Paradise." Further on it says [Genesis 4.1]: "Now Adam knew Eve [g112] his wife and she conceived and bore Cain." Our present chronology will begin at this point. The history of earlier, unknowable times will be set aside here, because it should be kept distinct from subsequent [verifiable] history.

There is considerable disagreement among the Hebrews about their own chronology, so it will be good to commence by examining their differing accounts. By evaluating and comparing all of them, the truth will be arrived at. The five books of Moses describe the creation of the world, life before the flood, the history of the ancients after the flood, the generations of the Hebrews, and the passing of Moses. The Jews [g113] and the Samaritans, who were foreigners who came to live among the Jews, have differing versions of the books of the law. The characters of the Hebrew alphabet used by the Jews differ from those used by the Samaritans. The correct and original [alphabet] is not the one used by the [contemporary] Jews, because their descendants corrupted it. Yet there was no conflict between them [the Hebrews and the Samaritans] until the alteration of the letters. Furthermore there are numerous disagreements between the two with respect to chronology, as will become clear in the comparison below.

The Greek translation [of the Bible] also differs from the Hebrew, though not so much from the Samaritan [version]. There is disagreement [in chronology in the versions] up to the flood, but thereafter, until the time of Abraham, the versions are in harmony. The text we use was translated collectively by seventy Hebrew men [g114] from their language into Greek during the reign of Ptolemaeus Philadelphus. [Their translation] was placed in the library in the city of Alexandria, where it was carefully preserved. Now we shall set forth historical information from each of the versions, one after the other, so that it will be easy to distinguish the discrepancies. We shall begin with the translation of the seventy men [the Greek Septuagint] [g115] and see how it treats the chronology of the period from Adam to the birth of Abraham.

²⁴ The Septuagint

1. Adam, the first man, was 230 years of age when he fathered Seth. He lived an additional 700 years, until the 135th year of Mahalalel.

2. Seth fathered Enosh when he was 205 years of age. He lived an additional 707 years, until the 20th year of Enoch [g116].

3. Enosh fathered Kenan when he was 190 years of age. He lived an additional 715 years, until the 53rd year of Methuselah.

4. Kenan fathered Mahalalel when he was 170 years of age. He lived an additional 740 years, until the 81st year of Lamech.

5. Mahalalel fathered Jared when he was 165 years of age. He lived an additional 730 years, until the 48th year of Noah.

6. Jared fathered Enoch when he was 162 years of age. He lived an additional 800 years, until the 280th years of Noah.

7. Enoch fathered Methusaleh when he was 165 years of age. He lived an additional 200 years, until he was translated in the 33rd year of Lamech.

8. Methusaleh fathered Lamech [g117] when he was 167 years of age. He lived an additional 802 years. Thus he would have survived the flood by 22 years. However, [g118] in other versions he died before the flood having lived an additional 782 years [after Lamech's birth] [g119].

9. Lamech fathered Noah when he was 188 years of age. He lived an additional 535 years. Lamech predeceased his father Methusaleh in the 535th year of Noah [g120].

10. Noah fathered Shem, Ham, and Japheth when he was 500 years of age. This was 100 years before the flood, which occurred in the 600th year of Noah. He lived an additional 350 years after the flood, until the 83rd year of Eber. [Thus] according to the Septuagint, the full total is 2,242 years [for the period from Adam to the death of Noah].

Now for the Hebrew version of the Jews. ²⁵ The Jewish [Hebrew Version]

1. Adam fathered Seth when he was 130 years of age. He lived an additional 800 years, until the 56th year of Lamech [g121].

2. Seth fathered Enosh when he was 105 years of age. He lived an additional 807 years, until the 168th year of Lamech.

3. Enosh fathered Kenan when he was 90 years of age. He lived an additional 815 years, until the 84th year of Noah.

4. Kenan fathered Mahalalel when he was 70 years of age. He lived an additional 840 years, until the 179th year of Noah.

5. Mahalalel fathered Jared when he was 65 years of age. He lived an additional 830 years, until the 234th year of Noah.

6. Jared fathered Enoch when he was 162 years of age. He lived an additional 800 years, until the 366th year of Noah.

7. Enoch fathered Methusaleh when he was 65 [g122] years of age. He lived an additional 300 years until he was translated in the 113th year of Lamech.

8. Methusaleh fathered Lamech when he was 187 years of age. He lived an additional 782 years, until the [time of the] flood.

9. Lamech fathered Noah when he was 182 years of age. He lived an additional 595 years, dying five years before the flood.

10. Noah fathered Shem, Ham and Japheth when he was 500 years of age, 100 years before the flood. The flood occurred in the 600th year of Noah. He lived an additional 350 years after the flood, until the 58th year of Abraham. The total sum [for this version] is 1656 years.

There is a 586 year discrepancy between this version and the Septuagint. The difference [g123] is in the number of years each man from Adam to Noah lived before fathering children. [The versions agree] only for the times of Jared, Methusaleh, and Lamech. This circumstance suggests to us that the text which we use [i.e. the Septuagint] is the best. From the longer period assigned to Jared and his descendants [in the Hebrew version] it is clear that the periods of their predecessors, similarly, should be the same as in the Septuagint version. By adding one hundred years the discrepancy observed between the later and more recent generations in the Hebrew and the Septuagint versions is eliminated. [We might suggest] the possibility that the descendants [g124] lived longer than their ancestors. Yet for each man's life, the number of years before his son was born, and the number of year that he lived afterwards, added together, produces the same total in the Hebrew version and the Septuagint. It is only the number of years before their sons were born which is shorter in the Jewish copies. Therefore we suspect that this was something which the Jews did. They made bold to shorten the time before the fathering of children to encourage early marriages. For if these ancestors lived such long lives, marrying early and fathering children early [g125] as their version clearly states, who would not want to emulate them by marrying early?

The Hebrew version of the Samaritans. ²⁶ The Samaritan [Hebrew Version]

1. Adam fathered Seth when he was 130 years of age. He lived an additional 800 years, until the 223rd year of Noah.

2. Seth fathered Enosh when he was 105 years of age. He lived an additional 807 years, until the 335th year of Noah.

3. Enosh fathered Kenan when he was 90 years of age. He lived an additional 815 years, until the 433rd year of Noah.

4. Kenan fathered Mahalalel when he was 70 years of age. He lived an additional 840 years, until the 528th year of Noah [g126].

5. Mahalalel fathered Jared when he was 65 years of age. He lived an additional 830 years, until the 583rd year of Noah.

6. Jared fathered Enoch when he was 62 years of age. He lived an additional 785 years, until the time of the flood.

7. Enoch fathered Methusaleh when he was 65 years of age. He lived an additional 300 years until he was translated in the 180th year of Noah.

8. Methusaleh fathered Lamech when he was 67 years of age. He lived [g127] an additional 653 years, until the time of the flood.

9. Lamech fathered Noah when he was 53 years of age. He lived an additional 600 years, until the time of the flood.

10. Noah fathered Shem when he was 500 years of age, 100 years prior to the flood. The flood occurred in the 600th year of Noah. He lived an additional 350 years, until the 83rd year of Eber. The total [for this edition] is 1,307 years.

[The Samaritan Hebrew version] differs from the Jewish Hebrew [version] by 349 years, and from the Septuagint [g128] translation by 935 years. This much, then, on [the period] before the flood.

Let us advance to the period following this. But first we should mention [again] the similarity between the Hebrew and the Chaldean sources in describing the flood and the ark built by Noah. We consider it superfluous to repeat this account, since we already discussed it in the section on Chaldean history.

As we are writing this chronicle we have received confirmation that the flood rose above the highest mountains--a contemporary eyewitness account of the veracity of the account. In our day, [the fossils of] fish were discovered high up Mt. Lebanon. It happened that while rocks [g129] were being quarried there for construction in the valley, [the fossils of] various types of ocean fish were uncovered, pressed into the mud. These [fossils] had been preserved to the present, thus providing evidence that the old story [of the flood] is credible. Those who hear this may believe it or not. But now we shall advance [g130].

[Beginning with the second year] after the flood, according to the Septuagint. ²⁷ The Septuagint

1. Noah's son Shem fathered Arphaxad [g131]. He lived an additional 500 years, until the 101st year of Peleg [g132].

2. Arphaxad fathered Shelah when he was 135 years of age. He lived an additional 403 years, until the 9th year of Reu [g133].

3. Shelah fathered Eber when he was 130 years of age. He lived an additional [g134] 406 years, until the th year of Serug [g135].

4. Eber fathered Peleg when he was 134 years of age. He lived an additional [g136] 433 years, until the 38th year of Nahor.

5. Peleg fathered Reu when he was 130 years of age. He lived an additional 209 years, until the [g137] 75th year of Serug.

In his time the world was divided up, just as phaleg means "division" in Hebrew. [Serug] predeceased [g138] his father. In his day, the tower [of Babel] was constructed, and many languages sprang out of the one [which everyone had spoken], with each nation speaking a different tongue. Holy Scripture recounts this [Genesis 11.5-9] as do secular writings. [For example], Alexander Polyhistor in his writings on the Chaldeans and Abydenus [in his writings], similarly, describe it. We too mentioned it in our earlier narration of Chaldean history. Now after Peleg:

6. Reu fathered Serug when he was 135 [g139] years of age. He lived an additional 207 years, until the 77th year of Nahor.

7. Serug fathered Nahor when he was 130 years of age. He lived an additional 200 years, until the 51th year of Abraham.

8. Nahor fathered Terah when he was 79 years of age. He lived an additional 119 years, until the 49th year of Serug.

Terah fathered Abraham when he was 70 years of age. He lived an additional 135 years, until the 35th year of Isaac [g140].

9. Year one of Abraham. He was the first patriarch of the Jewish people. During his time Ninus and Semiramis ruled over Assyria and all of Asia.

[According to this version], 942 years transpired from the flood to the first year of Abraham, 2,242 years transpired from Adam to the flood, for a total of 3,184 years.

Now for the Hebrew version of the Jews, starting with the second year after the flood. ²⁸ The Jewish [Hebrew Version]

1. Noah's son Shem fathered Arphaxad and lived an additional 500 years, until the 50th year of Jacob [g141].

2. Arphaxad fathered Shelah when he was 35 years of age. He lived an additional 403 years, until the 48th year of Isaac.

3. Shelah fathered Eber when he was 30 years of age. He lived an additional 403 years, until the 18th year of Jacob.

4. Eber fathered Peleg when he was 34 years of age. He lived an additional 430 years, until the 79th year of Jacob.

5. Peleg fathered Reu when he was 30 years of age. He lived an additional 209 years, until the 48th year of Jacob.

6. Reu fathered Serug when he was 32 years of age. He lived an additional 207 years, until the 78th year of Abraham.

7. Serug fathered Nahor when he was 30 years of age. He lived an additional 200 years, until the first year of Isaac [g142].

8. Nahor fathered Terah when he was 29 years of age. He lived an additional 119 years, until the 49th year of Abraham.

9. Terah fathered Abraham when he was 70 years of age. He lived an additional 135 years, until the 35th year of Isaac.

Year one of Abraham.

From the flood to the first year of Abraham, 292 years transpired. From Adam, a total of 1,948 years transpired. This [figure] differs from the [total for the] Septuagint translation by 1,235 years [g143].

Now for the Hebrew version of the Samaritans, starting with the second year after the flood. ²⁹ The Samaritan [Hebrew Version]

1. Noah's son Shem fathered Arphaxad.. He lived an additional 500 years, until the 101th year of Peleg.

2. Arphaxad fathered Shelah when he was 135 years of age. He lived an additional 303 years, until the 39th year of Peleg.

3. Shelah fathered Eber when he was 130 years of age. He lived an additional 303 years, until the 39th year of Reu [g144].

4. Eber fathered Peleg when he was 134 years of age. He lived an additional 270 years, until the 140th year of Reu.

5. Peleg fathered Reu when he was 130 years of age. He lived an additional 109 years, until the 109th year of Reu.

6. Reu fathered Serug when he was 132 years of age. He lived an additional 207 years, until the 77th year of Nahor [g145].

7. Serug fathered Nahor when he was 130 years of age. He lived an additional 100 years, until the 21th year of Terah.

8. Nahor fathered Terah when he was 79 years of age. He lived an additional 69 years, until the 69th year of Terah.

9. Terah fathered Abraham when he was 70 years of age. He lived an additional 75 years, until the 75th year of Abraham.

10. Year one of Abraham. From the flood to the first year [g146] of Abraham totals 942 years, the same figure that the Septuagint provides.

Our [Septuagint] text and this Samaritan Hebrew text are in harmony regarding the number of years each man lived prior to fathering a son. They [both] diverge from the Jewish Hebrew version by 650 years, because, according to the latter, 292 years transpired from the flood until the first year of Abraham. The most ancient Hebrew text, which has been preserved in the Samaritan version, agrees with the Septuagint translation that these men from [the time of the] flood until [the time of] Abraham fathered sons when they were at least a hundred years of age. Then who would suggest that their descendants, who lived longer, had fathered children any sooner than [g147] the period provided in the Septuagint? Consequently, the rational conclusion is that the [figures provided in the] Jewish version from Adam to Abraham are in error, except for the three generations beginning with Jared, and that the Samaritan version is also in error, but only from Adam to the flood, because from the flood to Abraham [the Samaritan version] is in agreement with the Septuagint translation.

³⁰ Moreover it is obvious that the Hebrew Jewish version is incorrect from the fact that by its calculations Adam and Noah were alive at the same time--something [g148] which no other account proposes. If, according to the Jewish scriptures, there were 292 years from the flood until Abraham, and Noah lived an additional 350 years after the flood, it is clear that Noah was alive until the 58th year of Abraham. Furthermore it is possible to show that the Jewish version is unreliable in another way, because it says that the generations before Abraham were about 30 years old when they fathered sons, while it makes the generations after Abraham considerably older when they fathered sons.

Thus it is patently clear that the Septuagint was translated from old and accurate Hebrew copies [g149], and is the most appropriate text for us to use in our present Chronicle, especially [g150] since the church of Christ, which has spread throughout the world, supports only this version and since the apostles and disciples of Christ used and transmitted this version.

In the Septuagint [version], 2,242 years transpired from Adam until the flood, and 942 years transpired from the flood until the first year of Abraham, making a total of 3,184 years.

In the Jewish Hebrew [version], 1,656 years transpired from Adam until the flood, and 292 years transpired from the flood until the first year of Abraham, making a total of 1,948 years.

In the Samaritan Hebrew [version], 1,307 years transpired from Adam until the flood, and 942 years transpired from the flood until the [g151] first year of Abraham, making a total of 2,249 years.

All versions agree that 505 years transpired from Abraham until Moses and the exodus of the Jews from Egypt. It is calculated as follows. When Abraham was 75 years of age, God appeared to him and said that He would give the promised land to his descendants. For it is written [in Genesis, 12.4-5]: "Abraham was seventy-five years old when he departed from Haran. And Abraham took Sarah his wife, and Lot his brother's son." In the same passage, further on [Genesis, 12. 7] it states: "Then the Lord appeared to Abraham and said: 'To your descendants I will give this land.'" Thus [we calculate] 75 years [in the life] of Abraham plus 430 years [from God's promise] until the exodus of the Jews from Egypt. The Apostle Paul confirms this [in Galatians, 3.17-18]: "The law, which came [g152] four hundred and thirty years afterward, does not annul a covenant previously ratified by God, so as to make the promise void." Then he adds: "God gave it to Abraham by a promise." When Abraham was 100 years of age his son Isaac was born, 25 years after God's promise. Four hundred and five years transpired from that event until the exodus from Egypt. Consequently, from the promise [until the exodus] 430 years elapsed.

Now God appeared to Abraham a second time and said [Genesis, 15.13]: "Know of a surety that your descendants will be sojourners in a land that is not theirs, and will be slaves there, and they will be oppressed for four hundred years." The word descendants is used deliberately so that we not allocate [g153] the entire period [solely] to Isaac. Moreover the period of 430 years is mentioned again at the time of the exodus of the children of Israel from Egypt, [Exodus, 12.40-41]: "They and their forefathers dwelled in Egypt and the land of Canaan for 430 years. And at the end of four hundred and thirty years, all the hosts of the Lord went out from the land of Egypt at night." Since the period from God's God's promise in the 75th year of Abraham is 430 years, it is clear that 505 years elapsed from the first year of Abraham to the time of Moses and the exodus from Egypt. Some [authors] have presented [this material] in detail, [g154] as follows: Abraham fathered Isaac at the age of 100. Isaac fathered Jacob at the age of 60. Jacob fathered Levi at the age of 86. Levi fathered Kohath at the age of 46. Kohath fathered Amran at the age of 63. Amran fathered Moses at the age of 70. Moses led his people out of Egypt when he was 80 years old. Thus from the first year of Abraham until the exodus from Egypt, a total of 505 years transpired. According to the Septuagint, [g155] the total from Adam to the exodus from Egypt is 3,689 years; according to the Jewish [Hebrew version], 2,453 years; and according to the Samaritan [Hebrew version], 2,753 years. ³¹ [The chronology] from the death of Moses to the time of Solomon's construction of the temple is described differently [by the available sources]. The book of Judges, as well as the blessed Apostle Paul in Acts of the Apostles calculate it one way, while the book of Kings and Hebrew tradition calculate it another way. It will be best to describe both and then select [the account] which proves truest.

First, however, we must pause to criticize Africanus, who wrote a five-book Chronology. It seems to me that he is greatly in error regarding the matter before us. From the exodus of Moses to [the time of] Solomon and the building of the temple [Africanus], through his own unique calculations assigns 744 years, mostly without any citations, and not only contrary to what is recorded in Scripture, but even audaciously [g156] adding an extra hundred years on his own. [Africanus] inserts an additional 30 years after Joshua, for the elders. Then, after Samson, he adds 40 years of anarchy and another 30 years of peace. By adding these additional years without any proof, he [g157] creates an inflated total of more than 740 years for the period between Moses and the reign of Solomon.

To see the fanciful nature of his calculations, we have to observe the preceding generations and their lengths. From Abraham to David there were 14 generations, and the eleventh generation had already ended at the time of Moses, when Nahshon the son of Aminadab was recognized as the prince of the nation of Judah. Nahshon died in the desert after leaving Egypt, and he was present when the people were first counted. It is clear that there were five generations from Nahshon to David: David was the son of Jesse, who was the son of Obed, who was the son of Boaz, who was the son of Salmon, who was the son of Nahshon. So on what grounds can it be claimed that the five generations after Moses endured for more than 700 years? If the years for men of each generation are evenly divided, we find that each one lived for 140 years before fathering a son, something that no rational person would accept as probable. For Moses himself died at 120 years of age, and his successor, Joshua, died at 110 years of age. Before them Joseph lived a total of 110 years, and earlier still Jacob, who was also called Israel, the patriarch of all the Jews, lived [g158] for 147 years.

Consequently, how could anyone claim that in the period after Moses anyone could have lived as long as we mentioned above? This is the error that Africanus made. Clemens, however, calculated 574 years from Moses' successor Joshua until the building of the temple, in his first book [Stromata 1.21]. The blessed Apostle Paul in his speech to the Jews in the Acts of the Apostles [13.19-22] states: "Joshua destroyed seven nations in the land of the Canaanites, and he gave them their land as an inheritance. And after 450 years he gave them judges until the time of Samuel the prophet. Then they asked for a king, and [God] gave them Saul the son of Kish, of the tribe of Benjamin, who reigned for 40 years. Afterwards [God] removed Saul and gave them David in his place.[g159]"

That is what the Apostle says. He calculated 534 years after Joshua in addition to the 450 years for the judges until Samuel. Add to this 40 years for Saul, another 40 years for David, and the four years of Solomon's reign before the building of the temple, which makes a total of 534 years from Joshua the successor of Moses until Solomon. According to the Apostle by adding the 40 years Moses spent in the wilderness, and the 27 years of Joshua the son of Nun, the total for the entire period will be 600 years. The book of Judges is in agreement with his account, and calculates 450 years to the judges until Samuel, which are divided up as follows:

³² From the Book of Judges

After Joshua, rule by foreigners, 8 years

Othniel, 40 years [g160]

foreigners, 18 years

Ehud and Shamgar, 80 years

foreigners, 20 years

Barak and Deborah, 40 years

foreigners, 7 years

Gideon, 40 years

Abimelech, 3 years

Tola, 23 years

Jair, 22 years

foreigners, 18 years

Jephthah, 6 years

Ibzan, 7 years

Elon, 10 years

Abdon, 8 years

foreigners, 40 years

Samson, 20 years

Eli, in whose time Samuel [was born], 40 years

The total for all the judges until Samuel is 450 years [g161].

This is in agreement with what the blessed Apostle indicated, for it excludes the figures for Moses, Joshua, Moses' successor, Samuel, or Saul. Currently the dates for Samuel, Saul, and Joshua are not certain. But as the Apostle indicates, the 40 years of Saul should be added to the 450 year period of the judges. Moreover, if the 40 years of David and the 4 years of Solomon are included, the total reaches 534 years--exactly what the Apostle indicated. Add the 40 years that Moses spent in the wilderness, the 27 years of Nun's son Joshua, according to the Hebrews, and we arrive at a grand total of 600 years.

Earlier we mentioned that there were five generations between Nahson and David. Taking the total [of 600 years] and dividing it equally among the generations, we find that the men lived for more than 115 years before becoming fathers, an unbelievable proposition. Since Moses lived for a total of 120 years, how could his descendants reach almost the same age before becoming fathers? There is nothing left [to deduce from the book of Judges] on this point, so let us turn to the book of Kings for [additional] evidence.

³³ The book of Kings confirms that from the exodus of the children of Israel from Egypt until Solomon and the construction of the temple, 440 years elapsed. According to the Hebrew version, it was 480 years [g162]. The third book of Kings [1 Kings, 6.1] states: "It happened in the 440th year after the exodus from Egypt, that Solomon began building the house of the Lord." The Hebrew version says: "It happened in the 480th year." This is because the Jewish doctors [of the faith] calculated that the total figure was 480 years, since they did not count the years that the foreigners ruled over the people separately. They just counted the time that the judges ruled them and included the foreign domination in that figure. This must have been the case, for it is the only way to arrive at a total of 480 years. It seems to me that when the blessed Apostle stated the number of years as mentioned earlier, he was not speaking as a chronographer, or someone trying to make a precise calculation. He was delivering a sermon on salvation. It would have been inappropriate [g163] to insert into it a treatise on chronological methodology, and so he followed the popular interpretation of the book of Judges.

The book of Kings clearly states that [the period] from the exodus until [the time of] Solomon embraced 440 or 480 years. However, if we examine the years for each of the judges individually and also tally the years of foreign rule separately--as mentioned in the book of Judges--we find 600 years total between Moses and Solomon: Moses was in the wilderness for 40 years. Joshua [g164], 27 years. Judges and foreigners, 450 years. This is what the Apostle states, according to the book of Judges. Samuel and Saul, 40 years. David, 40 years. Solomon 4 years, until the building of the temple. Accordingly, each of the men in the five generations just mentioned must have lived 120 years before fathering a son, a wholly preposterous proposition.

If we follow the book of Kings, we get a total of 480 years, after subtracting the 120 years of the Hebrews' servitude. The Hebrews themselves reckon it this way, combining their years of servitude to foreigners with the years of their freedom. We shall do the same in our Chronicle, incorporating the period of foreign servitude with the number of years assigned to each [of the judges] in the book of Kings. [This method] is especially [persuasive] concerning the five generations [g165] from Nahshon to David. By subtracting from the total of 480 years the 40 years Moses spent in the wilderness and the four years of Solomon, 436 years remain to the death of David. Dividing these years equally among the five generations, produces 87 years for each generation. Should people investigate this, they will find a credible account beginning with the birth of David. David was born when his father Jesse was an old man. David was the eighth son born after his seven older brothers. Consequently we can assume that something similar happened to his ancestors.

Thus, for our purposes, we will accept that 480 years elapsed from the exodus from Egypt until Solomon and the construction of the temple. And we will include the years of foreign rule within the reigns of each successive judge. Now it happens that this decision is supported by a statement in the book of Judges made by Jephthah, one of the judges of the people. When the Ammonites who lived on the far side of the Jordan River started a war with him, [Jephthah] sent a messenger [g166] to the enemy with this import [Judges 11.25-26]: "Now are you any better than Balak the son of Zippor, king of Moab? Did he ever strive against Israel, or did he ever go to war with them? While Israel dwelt in Heshbon and its villages, and in Aroer and its villages, and in all the cities that are on the banks of the Jordan, three hundred years, why did you not recover them within that time?" Thus [Jephthah] informed them that Moses and Balak, son of Zippor, lived 300 years before their period. The 300 year total can only be obtained by including the period of the rule by foreigners [g167] within the reigns of the judges.

Should someone tally the years of servitude to foreigners separately, he will obtain a figure which far exceeds the 300 years. Yet if only the years of the judges' rule are counted, then he will discover 300 years between Moses and Jephthah, exactly as Jephthah's message stated. Consequently we will adopt the following chronology in this work:

³⁴ From Moses to Solomon

Moses, 40 years

Joshua, 27 years [g168]

foreigners and Othniel the judge, 40 years

foreigners and Ehud the judge, 80 years

foreigners and Deborah and Barak, 40 years

foreigners and Gideon, 40 years

Abimelech, 3 years

Tola, 23 years

Jair, 22 years

foreigners and Jephthah the judge, 6 years

Ibzan, 7 years

Abdon, 8 years

foreigners and Samson, 20 years. In his time, the Trojan war was fought.

Eli, 40 years

Samuel and Saul, 40 years

David, 40 years

Solomon (until the building of the temple), 4 years [g169]

From Moses' exodus from Egypt until the building of the temple, a total of 480 years elapsed.

Concerning Joshua, Moses' successor, the book which bears his name mentions only that he died at the age of 110. The Hebrews consider that he was their leader for 27 years, thus he was 43 years old when Moses left Egypt.

³⁵ As regards Samuel, since the book [which bears his name] says nothing about his duration, I consider that what the blessed Apostle said concerning Saul should be taken to include both Saul and Samuel. For it appears that Samuel was the leader of the people for many years, while Saul ruled for but two years. The first book of Kings [1 Samuel 13.1] describes it this way: "Saul was the son of a year in his reign; and he ruled over Israel for two years more." Symmachus clarifies [g170] this in his translation: "Saul resembled a one-year-old child in his reigning," which means that at the beginning of his reign Saul was sincere and good, and stayed that way for two years. But then he became corrupted and was rejected by God and was strangled by a demon in punishment. Thus the remaining years have been assigned to Samuel and 40 years is the combined total for Samuel and Saul. It is clear that Saul ruled for this period not solely based on the testimony of the Apostle, but through a careful reading of Scripture.

It is written [in 2 Samuel 2.10] that following Saul's death, "Ish-bosheth, Saul's son, was 40 years old when he began to reign over Israel, and he reigned two years. But the house of Judah followed David." The Ish-bosheth mentioned here must have been born [g171] after Saul became king, because when describing events from the beginning of Saul's reign [1 Samuel 14.49], mention is made of three sons of Saul, but not this one. Thus we believe that [Ish-bosheth] was born late, and that the length of Saul's reign was approximately the same as the age of his son following his death.

Thus, the third book of Kings [1 Kings 6.1] states that 480 years elapsed from the exodus out of Egypt until Solomon and the building of the temple; 505 years elapsed from Abraham until Moses and the exodus; 942 years elapsed from the flood until the first year of Abraham; and 2,242 years elapsed from Adam until the flood. Altogether 4,170 years elapsed from Adam until Solomon and the building of the temple.

The historian Josephus in the first book of his Jewish Antiquities when describing the time of Solomon and the construction of the temple includes the testimony of some Phoenician men. The evidence of these men seems valuable to me. In that book [Against Apion 1.17], [Josephus] writes [g172]:

³⁶ The evidence of the Phoenicians about the temple at Jerusalem, from Josephus

I will now, therefore, pass from these records, and come to those that belong to the Phoenicians, and concern our nation, and shall produce attestations to what I have said out of them. There are then records among the Tyrians that take in the history of many years, and these are public writings, and are kept with great exactness, and include accounts of the facts done among them, and such as concern their transactions with other nations also, those I mean which were worth remembering. Therein it was recorded that the temple was built by king Solomon at Jerusalem, one hundred forty-three years and eight months before the Tyrians built Carthage [g173].

In their annals the building of our temple is related; for Hirom, the king of Tyre, was the friend of Solomon our king, and had such friendship transmitted down to him from his forefathers. He thereupon was ambitious to contribute to the splendor of this edifice of Solomon, and made him a present of one hundred and twenty talents of gold. He also cut down the most excellent timber out of that mountain which is called Libanus, and sent it to him for adorning its roof. Solomon also not only made him many other presents, by way of requital, but gave him a country in Galilee also, that was called Chabulon. But there was another passion, a philosophic inclination [g174] of theirs, which cemented the friendship that was betwixt them; for they sent mutual problems to one another, with a desire to have them unriddled by each other; wherein Solomon was superior to Hirom, as he was wiser than him in other respects: and many of the epistles that passed between them are still preserved among the Tyrians. Now, that this may not depend on my bare word, I will produce for a witness Dius, one that is believed to have written the Phoenician History after an accurate manner. This Dius, therefore, writes thus, in his Histories of the Phoenicians:

Upon the death of Abibalus, his son Hirom took the kingdom. This king raised banks at the eastern parts of the city, and enlarged it [g175]; he also joined the temple of Jupiter Olympius (Aramazd), which stood before in an island by itself, to the city, by raising a causeway between them, and adorned that temple with donations of gold. He moreover went up to Libanus, and had timber cut down for the building of temples. They say further, that Solomon, when he was king of Jerusalem, sent problems to Hirom to be solved, and desired he would send others back for him to solve, and that he who could not solve the problems proposed to him should pay money to him that solved them. And when Hirom had agreed to the proposals, but was not able to solve the problems, he was obliged to pay a great deal of money, as a penalty for the same [g176]. As also they relate, that one Abdemon, a man of Tyre, did solve the problems, and proposed others which Solomon could not solve, upon which he was obliged to repay a great deal of money to Hirom.

³⁷ These things are attested to by Dius, and confirm what we have said upon the same subjects before. And now I shall add Menander the Ephesian, as an additional witness. This Menander wrote the Acts that were done both by the Greeks and Barbarians, under every one of the Tyrian kings, and had taken much pains to learn their history out of their own records. Now when he was writing about those kings that had reigned at Tyre, he came to Hirom, and says thus:

Upon the death of Abibalus, his son Hirom took the kingdom; he lived fifty-three years [g177], and reigned thirty-four. He raised a bank on that called the Broad Place, and dedicated that golden pillar which is in Jupiter's (Aramazd's) temple; he also went and cut down timber from the mountain called Libanus, and got timber of cedar for the roofs of the temples. He also pulled down the old temples, and built new ones; besides this, he consecrated the temples of Hercules and of Astarte. He first built Hercules's temple in the month Peritus, and that of Astarte when he made his expedition against the Tityans, who would not pay him their tribute; and when he had subdued them to himself [g178], he returned home. Under this king there was a younger son of Abdemon, who mastered the problems which Solomon, king of Jerusalem, had recommended to be solved. Now the time from this king to the building of Carthage is thus calculated:

Upon the death of Hirom, Baleazarus his son took the kingdom; he lived forty-three years, and reigned seven years: after him succeeded his son Abdastartus; he lived twenty-nine years, and reigned nine years. Now four sons of his nurse plotted against him and slew him, the eldest of whom reigned [twelve years]: after them [g179] came Astartus, the son of Deleastartus; he lived fifty-four years, and reigned twelve years: after him came his brother Aserymus; he lived fifty-four years, and reigned nine years: he was slain by his brother Pheles, who took the kingdom and reigned but eight months, though he lived fifty years: he was slain by Ithobalus, the priest of Astarte, who reigned thirty-two years, and lived sixty-eight years: he was succeeded by his son Badezorus, who lived forty-five years, and reigned six years: he was succeeded by Matgenus his son; he lived thirty-two years [g180], and reigned nine years: Pygmalion succeeded him; he lived fifty-six years, and reigned forty-seven years. Now in the seventh year of his reign, his sister fled away from him, and built the city Carthage in Libya. So the whole time from the reign of Hirom, till the building of Carthage, amounts to the sum of one hundred fifty-five years and eight months. Since then the temple was built at Jerusalem in the twelfth year of the reign of Hirom, there were from the building of the temple, until the building of Carthage, one hundred forty-three years and eight months.

Wherefore, what occasion is there for alleging any more testimonies out of the Phoenician histories [on the behalf of our nation], since what I have said is so thoroughly confirmed already? and to be sure our ancestors came into this country long before the building of the temple [g181]; for it was not till we had gotten possession of the whole land by war that we built our temple. And this is the point that I have clearly proved out of our sacred writings in my Antiquities.

This is Josephus' account.

³⁸ For this Chronology, the following table shows [the rulers and their reigns] from the building of the temple in the fourth year of Solomon to its destruction by the Babylonians 432 years later. Here are the figures:

1. Solomon, 37 years, including the additional three years

2. Rehoboam, 16 years

3. Abijam, 3 years

4. Asa, 41 years

5. Jehoshaphat, 25 years

6. Jehoram, 8 years

7. Ahaziah, 1 year

8. Athaliah, his mother, 7 years

9. Jehoash, 40 years [g182]

10. Amaziah, 28 years

11. Uzziah, 52 years. In his reign the Greeks established the first Olympic games [776 B.C.].

12. Jotham, 16 years

13. Ahaz, 16 years

14. Hezekiah, 29 years

15. Manasseh, 55 years

16. Amon, 2 years

17. Josiah, 31 years

18. Jehoahaz, 3 months

19. Jehoiakim, 11 years

20. Jehoiachin, his son, also called Jekhoniah, 3 months

21. Mattaniah, also called Zedekiah, 11 years

This makes a total of 432 years.

After this, during [the next] 70 years, the Babylonian captivity of the Jews occurred and the destruction of the [temple's] site. According to the Bible, this ended in the second year of King Darius of Persia, which was during the 65th Olympiad [B.C. 520-517].

Clement agrees with us on this [point] in the first [book of his] Stromata [1.21] where he notes [g183]:

The captivity lasted for seventy years, and ended in the second year of Darius Hystaspes, who had become king of the Persians, Assyrians, and Egyptians. As I said previously, it was during his reign that Haggai and Zechariah, of the twelve, and Malachi [Angelus], whose name translates as "angel", prophesied. The high priest at that time was Joshua the son of Josedech.

Such is the account of that credible man [Clement].

³⁹ Moreover, the prophet Zechariah as a contemporary also testifies that there was a period of 70 years from the destruction of the temple until the second year of Darius. For in the second year of Darius he wrote [Zechariah 1.12]: "God Almighty, how long wilt thou have no mercy [g184] on Jerusalem and the cities of Judah, against which thou hast had indignation these seventy years?"

At this point one might inquire: Why does it state in the beginning of the book of Ezra [1.1]: "In the first year of Cyrus king of Persia, that the word of the Lord by the mouth of Jeremiah might be accomplished, the Lord stirred up the spirit of Cyrus king of Persia so that he made a proclamation throughout all his kingdom and also put it in writing." Furthermore, subsequent [passages] indicate that freedom [was given] to the Jews [at that point] and that it was Cyrus who ordered that the temple be rebuilt. From this one would assume that it was during the time of Cyrus, rather than Darius, that the 70 years of captivity came to an end.

To this I reply that the prophecies refer to two [distinct] 70-year periods. The first began with the destruction of the temple and ended, as Zechariah stated, in the second year of Darius [g185]. The second extends from the enslavement of the Jews to the capture of Babylon and the destruction of the Chaldean kingdom. This began in the time of the prophecy and ended with Cyrus, as Jeremiah recorded. [Jeremiah] further predicted [Jeremiah 29.10]: "For thus says the Lord: When seventy years are completed for Babylon, I will visit you, and I will fulfil to you my promise and bring you back to this place." And he also prophesies [Jeremiah 25.11-12]: "This whole land shall become a ruin and a waste, and these nations shall serve the king of Babylon seventy years. Then, after seventy years are completed, I will punish the king of Babylon and that nation, the land of the Chaldeans, for their iniquity, says the Lord, making the land an everlasting waste. [g186]"

All this came to a head during the time of Cyrus. The period of the enslavement [of the Jews] should not be reckoned from the [time of the] destruction of the temple, but earlier--from the second year of [the reign of] Jehoiakim, king of the Jews, when Nebuchadnezzar the king of the Babylonians enslaved them. [It could be reckoned] even earlier, from the time when the prophet Jeremiah first began to prophesy. From that time until the siege [of Jerusalem] and the burning of the temple 40 years elapsed, and 70 years until the first year of Cyrus. From the start of Jeremiah's prophesying until Cyrus' reign, the first 70 years [period] elapsed. However, from the destruction of the temple until Cyrus, 30 years elapsed, while it was in the second year of Darius that [the other] 70 years was completed. [The temple] was restored in the eighth year of Darius [g187].

⁴⁰ And from that time onward, the Jews remained without a king from their own [line of] kings. Their chief-priests served as princes and leaders, and throughout the entire period of the Persian kingdom they remained loyal to the Persian kings. Subsequently they served the Macedonians who ruled after Alexander, until the time of Antiochus Epiphanes. [The latter], ruling Syria, harassed the Jews to adopt paganism. During his time Mattathias, a priest in Jerusalem [g188], son of Asamonaeus, his son Judas, who was called Maccabaeus, and their descendants re-established the principality of the Jews, and held it until the time of Augustus. It was during his reign that Herod, at the order of the Romans, became the first foreign king of the Jews. Our Savior Jesus Christ was born during his reign. This was the fulfillment of the prophecy of Moses [in Genesis, 49.10]: "The scepter shall not depart from Judah, nor the ruler's staff from between his feet until he comes to whom it belongs; he is the hope of the gentiles." And it happened in just such a manner.

Five hundred and two years elapsed from the time of Solomon and the building of the first temple to the restoration of the temple in the second year of King Darius. Four hundred and eighty years elapsed from the time of Moses and the exodus from Egypt to Solomon and the building of the temple. Five hundred and five years elapsed from the first year of Abraham to the exodus. Nine hundred and forty-two years elapsed from the flood to the first year of Abraham. Two thousand two hundred and forty-two years elapsed from Adam to the flood. Thus the grand total, from Adam to the second year of Darius and the second building of [the temple in] Jerusalem, is 4680 years [g189]. From the second year of Darius which was the first year of the 65th Olympiad [520 B.C.] [until the time of Christ], is 137 Olympiads and 548 years.

⁴¹ This [material] can be shown in more detail [cross-referenced with the kings of Persia] as follows:

Cambyses took the crown following Cyrus, who was the first Persian king.

Then came Darius, who ruled for 36 years. In the second year of his reign, the temple in Jerusalem was restored. Darius ruled for an additional 34 years.

Darius' son, Xerxes, ruled next for 20 years. During his reign the story of Esther took place.

Artaxerxes ruled for 41 years. During his time Ezra lived, who, it is said, knew all the sacred Hebrew texts by heart including the entire Holy Bible, and transmitted it to the Jews in the new Hebrew script, because the world was riven by warfare. Indeed, it was during this time that Nehemiah, the chief cupbearer, lived. By order of the king, he went to the country of the Jews and [re]built Jerusalem, surrounding the city with a wall. For until then [g190] the city had been in ruins, except for the temple which had been restored in Darius' time. After Artaxerxes the following kings ruled Persia:

Darius, 19 years.

Artaxerxes Mnemon, 40 years.

Ochus, 26 years.

Arsaces, 4 years.

Darius, 6 years.

After these [monarchs], Alexander of Macedon eliminated the Persian kingdom and ruled for 6 years. He ruled an additional 6 years after slaying [the last king] Darius. From the second year of Darius [the First] to the death of Alexander--which occurred in the first year of the 114th Olympiad [324 B.C.]--197 years elapsed.

After the death of Alexander, the following monarchs ruled in Egypt and in the city of Alexandria:

1. Ptolemaeus, son of Lagus, 40 years. 2. Ptolemaeus Philadelphus, 28 years. During his reign the Hebrew sacred books were translated into Greek and placed [g191] in the library at Alexandria. 3. Ptolemaeus Euergetes, 24 years. 4. Ptolemaeus Philopator, 21 years. 5. Ptolemaeus Epiphanes, 22 years. 6. Ptolemaeus Philometor, 34 years. During his reign, Antiochus Epiphanes ruled in Syria. And it was during [Antiochus'] reign that the events described in the book of Maccabees took place, including how [Antiochus] tried to force the Jewish people into paganism, how he polluted the temple by placing idols in it, and how he stole the temple's sacred vessels, in the 151st Olympiad [176-173 B.C.]. [To sum up,] 150 years elapsed from the death of Alexander of Macedon to the first year of Antiochus Epiphanes. And 347 years elapsed from the second year of Darius to Antiochus.

⁴² It was during the reign of the aforementioned Antiochus that Mattathias, the son of Asamonaeus, showed zeal for his patrimonial religion and became a general of the people. After [Mattathias], his [g192] son Judas, called Maccabaeus, [led the people]; he was followed by his brother Jonathan, who was followed by his brother Simon. It is with him that the book of the Maccabees ends. It covers a period of 40 years, to the end of the 161st Olympiad [136-133 B.C.]. Eighty-eight years elapsed from that date to the Roman emperor Augustus.

According to Africanus and Josephus, after Simon [ruled] as general of the Jews, Jonathan, also called Hyrcanus, [succeeded him] for 26 years. After him, Aristobulus [ruled] for one year. [Aristobulus] was the first to put the royal crown on his head, simultaneously being king and high priest of the Jewish people. This was 484 years after the Babylonian captivity. After him, Alexander, also called Jannaeus, was king for 25 years. After him, his wife Alexandra, also called Mesalina, [ruled] for 9 years. After her, Aristobulus [g193] and Hyrcanus [ruled]. In their reign, Pompeius the Roman general put the Jews under Roman taxation. He established Hyrcanus as their king, but bound Aristobulus and took him to Rome.

In his reign, in the 184th Olympiad [44 B.C.], Julius Caesar became king of the Romans, ruling as an absolute monarch [emperor] for 4 years and 7 months. He was followed by Augustus, also called Sebastos, who ruled for 56 years and 6 months. It was in his reign that Herod, who was not fit [for the position] became the first foreign king of the Jews, getting [the position] through the Romans. [Herod's] people were from Ascalon. During his reign the Annointed of God [Christ] was born [g194] in Bethlehem, Judaea. Following Augustus, Tiberius ruled the Romans. In the 15th year of his reign, which was the fourth year of the 201st Olympiad [28 A.D.], our Savior and Lord Jesus Christ appeared among humankind.

Thus [the period] from Antiochus Epiphanes until the 15th year of Tiberius contains 201 years. [The period] from Alexander of Macedon to the same [15th] year of Tiberius contains 352 years. From the second year of Darius to [the 15th year] of Tiberius is 548 years. From the 15th year of Tiberius to the very end of the siege of Jerusalem--which occurred in the second year of Vespasian--is a total of 42 years. From Adam until the second year of Darius, is 4680 years. From the second year of Darius until the 15th year of Tiberius, is 548 years. Thus from Adam until the 15th year of Tiberius, a total of 5228 years elapsed. From the 15th year of Tiberius [g195] until the 20th anniversary of Constantinus Victor Augustus, is 300 years. The grand total is: 5518 years according to the Hebrews in the [Greek] Septuagint version; 1237 years less according to the Hebrew version of the Jews; and 935 years less according to the Hebrew Samaritan version.

This is how [our] chronology [is constructed] according to the Hebrews' [sources]. ⁴³ How the Egyptians chronicled [their past], and how Egyptian chronology includes that of the Ethiopians and [the chronology of] the Ptolemies' rule in Egypt and Alexandria.

After discussing the chronologies of the Chaldeans, Assyrians, and Hebrews, it is time to pass to the chronology of the Egyptians.

Diodorus in the first book of the Bibliotheca [1.44] wrote [g196]:

Some of them relate fabulous stories claiming that initially gods and heroes ruled Egypt for a period of somewhat less than 16,000 years. The last god to rule there was Horus, Isis' son. Then humans ruled that land as kings, they say, during the time of Myris. And this has continued for somewhat less than 5,000 years, through the 180th Olympiad [60-57 B.C.], when we visited Egypt. At that time, Ptolemy, called the New Dionysus, was ruling [g197].

For most of this period, [the Egyptians'] own kings ruled the land. However, for a small portion [of time], Ethiopians, Persians, and Macedonians [ruled]. Only four Ethiopian [kings] ruled, and not contiguously at that, rather, [they ruled] at separate times, and for a total of slightly less than 36 years. Persian domination was established by Cambyses who forcibly subdued [the Egyptians]. [Persian rule] lasted for 135 years and was ended by the rebellion of the Egyptians when they could no longer bear the harshness of [Persian] rule and the insults to their country's gods. After this the Macedonians and their descendants ruled for 276 years. For all the rest of the time native kings ruled, [g198] 470 kings and 5 queens.

The priests kept records ahout all of them in their temple archives, which were transmitted continuously from ancient times from generation to generation. They described each one's bravery and valor, personality and triumphs, and whatever else they accomplished in their periods. However it is unnecessary and even pointless for us to write down what each one wrought, since some of them, even in their own day, were considered useless.

This according to Diodorus. It is fitting and proper to add to this Manetho's account of the Egyptians, since his history seems quite reliable [g199].

⁴⁴ From the Egyptian records of Manetho, who wrote a three-volume work about the gods, demi-gods, spirits, and the mortal kings who ruled over the Egyptians, to the time of the Persian king Darius.

The first being among the Egyptians was Hephaestus, who discovered fire for them. He was succeeded by the Sun (Arm. Aregakn), (who was succeeded by Agathodaemon, followed) by Cronos, followed by Osiris. Then came Typhon, Osiris' brother, then Horus, who was the son of Osiris and Isis. These [entities] were the first rulers of the Egyptians. After them, one ruler succeeded the next until the time of Bidis, for a period of 13,900 years. This [was calculated] as lunar years of 30 days each, for what we now call a month was called a year in those days.

After rule by the gods, a race descended from the gods ruled for 1,255 years. Then other kings ruled for 1,817 years. After them 30 kings from Memphis ruled for 1,790 years. Then 10 other kings, from Thinis, ruled for 350 years. Then, for 5,813 years, the kings were spirits and demi-gods. This makes a total of 11,000 years--lunar years, that is, months.

The Egyptians calculate a total of [g200] 24,900 lunar years--2,206 solar years--to the [rule of the] gods, demi-gods, and spirits. If you compare this [calculation] with [similar calculations of] Hebrew chronology you will get almost the same figure. For among the Hebrews Aegyptus is called Mizraim, and he lived a long time after the flood. Because it was after the flood that Noah's son Ham became the father of Aegyptus, or Mizraim; and at the time of the dispersal of the peoples, he went to Egypt, as its first inhabitant. According to the Hebrews 2,242 years elapsed from Adam to the flood.

Be this as it may, the Egyptians still boast of their great antiquity before the flood. They say that they had gods, demi-gods, and spirits [as rulers in remote antiquity]. If we convert to months the years calculated by the Hebrews, we get over 20,000 lunar years. So when we count the "years" from the first man [Adam] until Mizraim, the Hebrew calculation is approximately the same [as the Egyptian]. Mizraim was first among the Egyptians, and the first dynasty is presumed to descend from him.

Despite this, if the number of years seems excessive, we must [g201] examine the reasons for it. It is conceivable that there were many kings ruling in Egypt simultaneously. For they say that [kings from] Thinis, Memphis, Sais, Ethiopia and elsewhere ruled. It may be that these dynasties did not rule in succession to each other, as is the norm, but in different places at the same time. As a consequence of this, the total number [of kings] is very large. Let us leave this issue, however, and move on to the details of Egyptian chronology.

After the [period of] spirits and demi-gods [g202], the First Dynasty appeared, consisting of 8 kings. The first and most noble of them was Menes. Beginning with him, we shall list the succession of kings from each generation [g203].

⁴⁵ st Dynasty

Menes of Thinis and his seven descendants.

[Menes], whom Herodotus [in The Histories 2.4] calls Min, ruled for 30 (or 60?) years. He took the army beyond the borders of his land seeking glory and renown. A hippopotamus made off with him.

Athotis, his son, ruled for 27 years. He built a palace in the city of Memphis. He was skilled in medicine, and wrote about how to conduct autopsies.

Chechenes, his son, [ruled for] 39 years.

Venephes, 42 years. In his reign a famine gripped [g204] the land. He built the pyramids near Cocome.

Usaphais, 20 years.

Niebais, 26 years.

[Se]mempses, 18 years. During his reign numerous abominations and corruptions occurred.

Vbienthis, 26 years.

Altogether [these kings] reigned for 252 years.

nd Dynasty

9 kings.

First was Bochus. During his reign an enormous fissure opened up in Bubastis and many people perished.

Then Caechous, in whose reign Apis and Mnevis and [g205] the goat of Mendes were honoured as gods.

Then Biophis, during whose reign women got the right to rule as monarchs.

After [Biophis], three other kings ruled, but nothing noteworthy was accomplished during their reigns.

During the reign of the seventh king, it is fabulously related that for eleven days the Nile ran with honey mixed with water.

Then Sesochris [ruled] for 48 years. He is said to have been 5 cubits and 3 palms tall.

During [g206] the reign of the ninth king, nothing noteworthy occurred.

Altogether [these kings] reigned for 297 years.

⁴⁶ rd Dynasty

8 kings of Memphis.

Necherochis. In his reign the Libyans revolted from the Egyptians, but when the moon unexpectedly grew in size, they were moved by fear and went back into service [to the Egyptians].

Sesorthus. He was called Asclepius by the Egyptians because of his skill in medicine. He discovered methods of building with hewn stone, and also was interested in writing.

The other six kings achieved nothing worthy of mention.

Altogether [these kings] reigned for 197 years.

th Dynasty

17 kings of Memphis, from another line.

Suphis was the third monarch. He built the largest pyramid, the one Herodotus [in The Histories 2. 124] [g207] claims was built by Cheops. At one time [Suphis] had been hostile toward the gods, but he subsequently regretted this and wrote a sacred book which the Egyptians hold in great esteem.

Nothing noteworthy has been recorded about any of the other kings [of this line].

Altogether [these kings] reigned for 448 years.

th Dynasty

31 kings of Elephantine.

Othoes was the first king [of this group]. He was slain by his attendants.

Phiops, the fourth king, began his reign at the age of six and ruled until he was one hundred.

[RB--From this point Eusebius (or Manetho) does not consistently provide dynasty totals.]

⁴⁷ th Dynasty

A woman by the name of Nitocris ruled next. It is said that she was braver than any man of her day and more beautiful [g208] than any contemporary woman, fair haired and red cheeked. The third pyramid is said to have been built by her.

Altogether [these kings] reigned for 203 years.

th Dynasty

5 kings from Memphis.

Altogether [these kings] reigned for 75 years.

th Dynasty

5 kings from Memphis.

Altogether [these kings] reigned for 100 years.

9th Dynasty

[g209] 4 kings from Heracleopolis, who ruled for 100 years.

Achthoes was the first [of this dynasty]. He was harsher than any of his predecessors, and worked crimes throughout the entire country of Egypt. Subsequently he became mad and was killed by a crocodile.

10th Dynasty

19 kings from Heracleopolis, who ruled for 185 years.

11th Dynasty

6 kings from Diospolis, who ruled for 43 years. After them Ammenemes reigned for 16 years.

Manetho's first book concludes here. One hundred ninety-two kings [were described], reigning for a total of 2,300 years [g210].

⁴⁸ From the Second Book of Manetho.

12th Dynasty

7 kings from Diospolis.

Sesonchosis the son of Ammenemes, 46 years.

Ammanemes, 38 years. He was killed by his own eunuchs.

Sesostris, 48 years. Supposedly he was 4 cubits, 3 palms and 2 digits tall. He conquered all of Asia in nine years, as well as Europe as far as Thrace. Everywhere he erected monuments to show his control over the nations; he depicted men's genitals on the columns for brave nations, and women's genitals for cowardly nations. Therefore the Egyptians [g211] evaluated him as coming after Osiris.

Lamares, 8 years. He built the maze at Arsinoite for his own tomb. His descendants ruled for 42 years.

Altogether [these kings] reigned for 245 years.

13th Dynasty

60 kings of Diospolis, who ruled for 453 years.

14th Dynasty

76 kings of Xois, who ruled for 484 years.

15th Dynasty

15 kings of Diospolis, who ruled for 250 years.

⁴⁹ 16th Dynasty

5 kings of Thebes, who ruled for 190 years [g212].

17th Dynasty

A dynasty of shepherds who were Phoenician brothers, foreign kings who took Memphis.

Saites was first, 19 years. The district of Saite was named after him. Then they established a city in the district of Sethroite from which they advanced and conquered [g213] the Egyptians.

Bnon, second, 40 years.

Archles, years.

Apophis, 14 years,

Altogether [these kings] reigned for 103 years. Joseph seems to have appeared during the time of these kings.

⁵⁰ 18th Dynasty

14 kings from Diospolis.

Amosis, 25 years.

Chebron, 13 years.

Ammenophis, 21 years.

Misphres, 12 years.

Misphragmuthosis, 26 years.

Tuthmosis, 9 years.

Amenophis, 31 years. He [g214] is the one believed to be Memnon, the talking statue.

Orus, 38 years.

Achencherses, 16 years. In his reign, Moses as general of the Jews, took them out of Egypt.

Acherres, 8 years.

Cherres, 15 years. Armais, also called Danaus, 5 years. Afterwards he was expelled from Egypt, and fled from his brother Aegyptus to Greece. He captured Argos and became king of the Argives. Rhamesses, also called Aegyptus, 68 years.

Amenophis, 40 years.

Altogether [these kings] reigned for 348 years [g215].

18th Dynasty

5 kings from Diospolis.

Sethos, 55 years

Rhampses, 66 years

Amenephthis, (?) 40 years

Ammenemes, 26 years

Thuoris, 7 years. Homer [Odyssey 4.126] calls him Polybus, the husband of Alcandra. In his reign Troy was captured.

Altogether [these kings] reigned for 194 years.

In sum, the second book [g216] of Manetho contains 92 kings who reigned for a total of 2,121 years.

⁵¹ From the Third Book of Manetho.

20th Dynasty

12 kings from Diospolis, who ruled for 172 years.

21th Dynasty

7 kings from Tanis.

Smendis, 26 years.

Psusennes, 41 years.

Nephercheres, 4 years.

Amenophthis, 9 years.

Osochor, 6 years.

Psinaches, 9 years.

Psusennes, 35 years.

Altogether [these kings] reigned for 130 years [g217].

22nd Dynasty

3 kings from Bubastis.

Sesonchosis, 21 years.

Osorthon, 15 years.

Tacelothis, 13 years.

Altogether [these kings] reigned for 49 years.

23rd Dynasty

3 kings from Tanis.

Petubastis, 25 years.

Osorthon, whom the Egyptians called Heracles, 9 years.

Psammu-s, 10 years. Altogether [these kings] reigned for 44 years.

24th Dynasty

Bocchoris from Sais, 44 years. In his reign, a lamb spoke..

⁵² 25th Dynasty, Ethiopian

3 kings.

Sabacon, who captured Bocchoris and burnt him alive, ruled for 12 years.

Sebichos, his son, [g218] 12 years.

Taracus, 20 years. Altogether [these kings] reigned for 44 years.

26th Dynasty

9 kings from Sais.

Ammeres the Ethiopian, 12 years.

Stephinathis, 7 years.

Nechepsos, 6 years.

Nechao, 8 years.

Psammetichus, 44 years.

Nechao II, 6 years. He captured Jerusalem, and took king Jehoahaz back as a prisoner to Egypt.

Psammuthes (Psammetichus) II, 17 years.

Vaphres, 25 years. The remaining Jews fled to him after Jerusalem had been captured by the Assyrians.

Amosis, 42 years. Altogether [these kings] reigned for 167 years [g219].

27th Dynasty

8 kings from Persia.

Cambyses, in the th year of his reign, ruled the Egyptians for 3 years.

the magi, 7 months.

Darius, 36 years.

Xerxes, the son of Darius, 21 years.

Artaxerxes, 40 years.

Xerxes II, 2 months.

Sogdianus, 7 months.

Darius, the son of Xerxes, 19 years. Altogether [these kings] reigned for 120 years and 4 months.

⁵³ 28th Dynasty

Amyrtaeus of Sais, 6 years..

29th Dynasty

4 kings of Mendes.

Nepheretes, 6 years.

Achoris, 13 years.

Psammuthes, 1 year.

Muthes, 1 year.

Nepherites, 4 months. Altogether [these kings] reigned for 21 years and 4 months [g220].

30th Dynasty

3 kings from Sebennytus.

Nectanebis, 10 years.

Teos, 2 years.

Nectanebus, 8 years. Altogether [these kings] reigned for 20 years.

31st Dynasty

3 kings from Persia.

Ochus in the 20th year of his reign ruled over Egypt, for 6 years.

Arses, the son of Ochus, 4 years.

Darius, who was killed by Alexander of Macedon, 6 years.

All this is from the third book of Manetho.

⁵⁴ From this point, the information comes from Greek authors, because the kingdom of the Egyptians went into decline. Yet, since we still possess further information from the books of Manetho contained in the writings of Flavius Josephus, which he included when describing the ancestors of the Hebrews, I think it will be good [g221] to include what he put down in his own words. The following [passage] is from the first book of his Antiquities of the Jews. [RB: it is from Josephus' Against Apion Book I.14-16. The translation below is from the Whiston edition. The extant works of Flavius Josephus including Antiquities of the Jews, Against Apion, and other writings are available on another page of this website.]

I shall begin with the writings of the Egyptians; not indeed of those that have written in the Egyptian language, which it is impossible for me to do. But Manetho was a man who was by birth an Egyptian, yet had he made himself master of the Greek learning, as is very evident; for he wrote the history of his own country in the Greek tongue, by translating it, as he saith himself, out of their sacred records [g222]; he also finds great fault with Herodotus for his ignorance and false narrations of Egyptian affairs. Now this Manetho, in the first book of his Egyptian History, writes concerning us in the following manner.

I will set down his very words, as if I were to bring the very man himself into a court for a witness: "[There was a king of ours whose name was Timaus. Under him] it came to pass, I know not how, that God was averse to us, and there came, after a surprising manner, men of ignoble birth out of the eastern parts, and had boldness enough to make an expedition into our country [g223], and with ease subdued it by force, yet without our hazarding a battle with them. So when they had gotten those that governed us under their power, they afterwards burnt down our cities, and demolished the temples of the gods, and used all the inhabitants after a most barbarous manner; nay, some they slew, and led their children and their wives into slavery. At length they made one of themselves king, whose name was Salatis; he also lived at Memphis, and made both the upper and lower regions pay tribute, and left garrisons in places that were the most proper for them. He chiefly aimed to secure the eastern parts, as foreseeing that the Assyrians, who had then the greatest power, would be desirous of that kingdom, and [g224] invade them; and as he found in the Saite Nomos, [Sethroite,] a city very proper for this purpose, and which lay upon the Bubastic channel, but with regard to a certain theologic notion was called Avaris, this he rebuilt, and made very strong by the walls he built about it, and by a most numerous garrison of two hundred and forty thousand armed men whom he put into it to keep it. Thither Salatis came in summer time, partly to [gather his corn, and] pay his soldiers their wages, and partly to exercise his armed men, and thereby to terrify foreigners. This man reigned for fifteen and then died.

⁵⁵ After him reigned another [g225], whose name was Beon, for forty-four years; after him reigned rgbanother, called Apachnas, thirty-six years and seven months; after him Apophis reigned sixty-one years, and then Janins fifty years and one month; after all these reigned Assis forty-nine years and two months. And these six were the first rulers among them, who were all along making war with the Egyptians, and were very desirous gradually to destroy them to the very roots. This whole nation was styled Hykos, that is, Shepherd-kings: for the first syllable Hyk, according to the sacred dialect, denotes a king, as is sos a shepherd; but this according to the ordinary dialect; and of these is compounded Hyksos: but some say that these people were Arabians [g226]. " Now in another copy it is said that this word does not denote Kings, but, on the contrary, denotes Captive Shepherds, and this on account of the particle Hyk; for that Hyk, with the aspiration, in the Egyptian tongue again denotes Shepherds, and that expressly also; and this to me seems the more probable opinion, and more agreeable to ancient history. [But Manetho goes on]: "These people, whom we have before named kings, and called shepherds also, and their descendants," as he says, "kept possession of Egypt five hundred and eleven years."

After these, he says, "That the kings of Thebais and the other parts of Egypt made an insurrection against the shepherds, and that there a terrible and long war was made between them." He says further, "That under a king, whose [g227] name was Alisphragmuthosis, the shepherds were subdued by him, and were indeed driven out of other parts of Egypt, but were shut up in a place that contained ten thousand acres; this place was named Avaris."

⁵⁶ Manetho says, "That the shepherds built a wall round all this place, which was a large and a strong wall, and this in order to keep all their possessions and their prey within a place of strength, but that Thummosis the son of Alisphragmuthosis made an attempt to take them by force and by siege, with four hundred and eighty thousand men to lie rotund about them, but that, upon his despair of taking the place by that siege, they came to a composition with them, that they should leave Egypt [g228], and go, without any harm to be done to them, whithersoever they would; and that, after this composition was made, they went away with their whole families and effects, not fewer in number than two hundred and forty thousand, and took their journey from Egypt, through the wilderness, for Syria; but that as they were in fear of the Assyrians, who had then the dominion over Asia, they built a city in that country which is now called Judea, and that large enough to contain this great number of men, and called it Jerusalem.

Now Manetho, in another book of his, says, "That this nation, thus called Shepherds, were also called Captives, in their sacred books.[g229]" And this account of his is the truth; for feeding of sheep was the employment of our forefathers in the most ancient ages and as they led such a wandering life in feeding sheep, they were called Shepherds. Nor was it without reason that they were called Captives by the Egyptians, since one of our ancestors, Joseph, told the king of Egypt that he was a captive, and afterward sent for his brethren into Egypt by the king's permission. But as for these matters, I shall make a more exact inquiry about them elsewhere.

But now I shall produce the Egyptians as witnesses to the antiquity of our nation. I shall therefore here bring in Manetho again, and what he writes as to the order of the times in this case; and thus he speaks: "When this people or shepherds were gone out of Egypt to Jerusalem, Tethtmosis the king of Egypt, who drove them out, reigned afterward [g230] twenty-five years and four months, and then died; after him his son Chebron took the kingdom for thirteen years; after whom came Amenophis, for twenty years and seven months; then came his sister Amesses, for twenty-one years and nine months; after her came Mephres, his son, for twelve years and nine months; after him was Mephramuthosis, for twenty-five years and ten months; after him was Thmosis, for nine years and eight months; after him came Amenophis, for thirty years and ten months; after him came Orus, for thirty-six years and five months; then came his daughter Acenchres, for twelve years and one month; then was her brother Rathotis, for nine years; then was Acencheres, for twelve years and five months; then came another Acencheres, for twelve years and three months; after him Armais, for four years and one month; after him was Ramesses [g231], for one year and four months; after him came Armesses Miammoun, for sixty-six years and two months; after him Amenophis, for nineteen years and six months; after him came Sethosis, and Ramesses, who had an army of horse, and a naval force. This king appointed his brother, Armais,, to be his deputy over Egypt." He also gave him all the other authority of a king, but with these only injunctions, that he should not wear the diadem, nor be injurious to the queen, the mother of his children, and that he should not meddle with the other concubines of the king; while he made an expedition against Cyprus, and Phoenicia, and besides against the Assyrians and the Medes. He then subdued them all, some by his arms, some without fighting, and some by the terror of his great army; and being puffed up by the great successes he had had [g232], he went on still the more boldly, and overthrew the cities and countries that lay in the eastern parts. But after some considerable time, Armais, who was left in Egypt, did all those very things, by way of opposition, which his brother had forbid him to do, without fear; for he used violence to the queen, and continued to make use of the rest of the concubines, without sparing any of them; nay, at the persuasion of his friends he put on the diadem, and set up to oppose his brother. But then he who was set over the priests of Egypt wrote letters to Sethosis, and informed him of all that had happened, and how his brother had set up to oppose him: he therefore returned back to Pelusium immediately, and recovered [g233] his kingdom again. The country also was called from his name Egypt; for Manetho says, that Sethosis was himself called Egyptus, as was his brother Armais called Danaus."

⁵⁷ This is Manetho's account. And it is evident from the number of years set down by him belonging to this interval, if they be summed up together, that these shepherds, as they are here called, who were no other than our forefathers, were delivered out of Egypt, and came thence, and inhabited this country, three hundred and ninety-three years before Danaus came to Argos; although the Argives look upon him as their most ancient king Manetho, therefore, bears this testimony to two points of the greatest consequence to our purpose, and those from the Egyptian records themselves. In the first place, that we came out of another country into Egypt; and that withal our deliverance out of it was so ancient in time as to have preceded the siege of Troy by almost a thousand years; but then, as to those things which Manetho adds, not from the Egyptian records, but, [g234] as he confesses himself, from some stories of an uncertain origin, I will disprove them hereafter particularly, and shall demonstrate that they are no better than incredible fables.

This is what Josephus relates in his book. One by one he names the kings of Egypt and their chonologies starting at the beginning and continuing until the period of the one named Nectanebus. I have already mentioned Nectanebus previously in the list of kings. After Nectanebus, Ochus the king of the Persians gained control of Egypt, and ruled for 6 years. Then Arses, Ochus' son, ruled for 4 years. After him, Darius ruled for 6 years. Then Alexander of Macedon killed Darius the Persian, and ruled over both the Asians and the Egyptians. Alexander founded the city of Alexandria in Egypt in the sixth year of his reign. After the death of Alexander, his empire was divided between many different rulers, and the Ptolemies became kings of Egypt and Alexandria. The dates of these kings are as follows [g235].

⁵⁸ Concerning those who ruled Egypt and the city of Alexandria after Alexander of Macedon. From the writings of Porphyry.

Alexander of Macedon [died] in the 114th Olympiad [324 B.C.]. He was succeeded by Aridaeus, also called Philippus, Alexander's brother by a different mother. For [g236] he was the son of Philippus and Philinna of Larissa. This Aridaeus ruled for 7 years. He was killed in Macedonia by Polysperchon the son of Antipater.

A year after Philippus took power, Ptolemy (Ptolemy) the son of Arsinoe and Lagus was sent to be governor of Egypt. He was governor for 17 years, and then he was king for 23 years. Thus he ruled for 40 years, until his death. However, while still alive he abdicated in favour of his son Ptolemy, called Philadelphus, and he lived for a further two years after his son had become king. Consequently the reign of this first Ptolemy, called Soter, we take to be 38 rather than 40 years.

He was succeeded by his son Ptolemy, who as we said was called Philadelphus. The son reigned for two years while his father was still alive [g237], and then for an additional 36 years, so we consider his reign to have lasted 38 years, the same as his father's.

He was succeeded by the third Ptolemy, called Euergetes, who reigned for 25 years.

He was succeeded by the fourth Ptolemy, called Philopator, who reigned for 17 years.

He was succeeded by the fifth Ptolemy, called Epiphanes, who reigned for 24 years.

The latter was succeeded by his two sons. The elder was called Philometer and the younger [g238], Euergetes the second. Their combined reigns totaled 61 years. We present their reigns as one due to the confusion of the period, since they were perpetually at war with each, and one was always seizing the throne from the other. First Philometor ruled for 11 years; but when Antiochus invaded Egypt and removed him from the throne, the inhabitants of Alexandria put the younger brother on the throne, forced Antiochus out of Egypt, and freed Philometor. They called that the 12th year of Philometor, and the first year of Euergetes. After that the two kings ruled jointly until the 17th year, but from the 18th year onwards Philometor ruled on his own.

Then the elder brother, who had recently been deposed by the younger brother, was restored [g239] by the Romans. So he ruled over Egypt, and gave the land of Libya to his younger brother. [Philometor] ruled [Egypt] alone for 18 years. He died in Syria, which was also under his rule. At that point Euergetes was called back from Cyrene and named king. Euergetes counted his years from the time he first became king, so he seems to have reigned for 25 years after his brother's death, but officially he reigned for 54 years. The 36th year of Philometor should have been called the first year of his reign, but instead he ordered it to be written as the 25th year of his reign. So the combined length of both their reigns is 64 years, 35 years [g240] under Philometor and the rest under Euergetes. Dividing it up into separate reigns would lead to confusion.

⁵⁹ Euergetes II Ptolemid had two sons by Cleopatra, the elder called Ptolemy Soter and the younger called Ptolemy Alexander. First the elder son was brought to the throne by his mother [g241]. She thought he would obey her, so favoured him for a time. But in the sixth year of his reign he murdered his parents' friends. His mother removed him from power because of his cruelty, and he fled to Cyprus.

His mother summoned her younger son from the city of Pelusium, and appointed him joint monarch with her. Thus the younger son and his mother ruled together and the country was governed in both their names. This year was called the 11th year of Cleopatra and the th year of Alexander Ptolemy, because Alexander counted his years from the th [g242] year of his brother's reign, which was when he started to rule over Cyprus. Thus matters continued until the death of Cleopatra. After she died, Alexander ruled as the sole monarch, reigning for a total of 18 years after he returned to Alexandria, though officially he reigned for 26 years. In the 19th year, after a dispute with his soldiers, he went away to collect an army to bring to Egypt against them. However they pursued him, and under the leadership of Tyrrus, who was a relative of the kings, they defeated him in a naval battle. Alexander escaped by a hairsbreadth and took refuge with his wife and daughter in Myra, a city of Lycia; from there, he crossed over to Cyprus, where he was defeated by the admiral Chaereas, and died [g243].

After [Alexander's] flight, the Alexandrians sent an emissary to his elder brother, Ptolemy Soter, once more giving the throne to him, when he would sail back from Cyprus. He lived another 7 years and 6 months after his return. The entire period after the death of the brothers' father was counted in his name, which was a total of 35 years and 6 months. But if we divide the period precisely, Ptolemy Soter ruled at two different times for a total of 17 years and 6 months, and in between the younger brother, Ptolemy Alexander, ruled for 18 years. The inhabitants of Alexandria were unable to completely delete Alexander's reign from the records, but as far as was in their power they erased all mention of it. This was due to the fact that Alexander with the help of some Jews had gone against them. So they did not count the years of his reign, but instead attributed the entire 36 year period to the elder brother. Similarly, they do not attribute the next 6 months after the death of the elder brother [g244], which make up the complete 36 years, to Cleopatra, the daughter of the elder brother and wife of the younger brother, who took over control of the kingdom after the death of her father. Nor do they formally attribute to Alexander the 19 days in which he jointly reigned with her.

⁶⁰ This Alexander, who was living in the city of Rome, was the homonymous son of the younger Ptolemy Alexander and the stepson of Cleopatra. Since there was a dearth of military men in Egypt at the time, he was summoned [home]. He arrived at Alexandria, married the aforementioned Cleopatra, took the kingdom from her against her will, and then murdered her 19 days later. But he himself [g245] was killed for this loathsome deed by a group of soldiers during a military review.

This Alexander was succeeded by Ptolemy called the new Dionysius. He was the son of Ptolemy Soter and the brother of the aforementioned Cleopatra. He reigned for 29 years.

His daughter Cleopatra was the last of the Ptolemid dynasty. She reigned for 22 years.

These reigns also were not continuous from beginning to end, as is found in writings, but each had some interruptions in its course. In the reign of the new Dionysus, his daughters Cleopatra Tryphaena and Berenice, had a three year [g246] reign ascribed to them: one year as a joint reign and the following two years, after the death of Cleopatra Tryphaena, as the reign of Berenice on her own. Because Ptolemy had gone to Rome, and was spending a long time there, his daughters took over the rule of the kingdom, as if he was not going to return, and Berenice had some some of her male relatives as co-rulers. But when Ptolemy returned from Rome, he forget all affection towards his daughter, and, full of rage for what she had done, put her to death.

In the first years of Cleopatra's reign, she shared power with her elder brother Ptolemy and then with others, for the following reasons. When the new [g247] Dionysus died, he left four children, two sons called Ptolemy and daughters called Cleopatra and Arsinoe. He handed over power to the two eldest children, Ptolemy and Cleopatra, who reigned jointly for 4 years. This arrangement would have continued if Ptolemy had not wanted to seize sole power for himself, defying his father's orders. However he died shortly, after being defeated in a naval battle by Julius Caesar, who came to the aid of Cleopatra.

After Ptolemy's death, Cleopatra's younger brother, who was also called Ptolemy, became joint ruler with his sister, according to Caesar's wishes. The next year was called the fifth year of Cleopatra and the first year of Ptolemy, and so it continued [g248] for the following two years, until he died. He died in his th year, which was Cleopatra's th year, due to Cleopatra's treachery. Thereafter Cleopatra ruled on her own, untill her 15th year. However, her 16th year was also called the first year, because after the death of Lysimachus the king of Chalcis in Syria, the Roman general Marcus Antonius gave Chalcis and the surrounding regions to Cleopatra. And thenceforth for the remaining years until the 22nd year, which was the last of Cleopatra's reign, the years were counted in the same way, so that the 22nd year was also called the th year.

Octavius Caesar, also called Augustus, conquered Egypt [g249] in the battle of Actium, and succeeded Cleopatra as ruler of Egypt in the second year of the 184th Olympiad [43 B.C.]. From the first year of the 111th Olympiad [336 B.C.], when Aridaeus Philippus became king, until the second year of the 184th Olympiad [43 B.C.], is 73 Olympiads and one additional year. Thus the total duration of the rule of all the kings of Alexandria, to the death of Cleopatra, is 293 years [g250].

⁶¹ The Ptolemids and the Lengths of Their Reigns.

Alexander of Macedon began his reign in the first year of the 111th Olympiad [336 B.C.]. He founded the city of Alexandria in Egypt, and ruled for 12 years and 7 months. After him, the kings of the city of Alexandria and all of Egypt were:

Ptolemy the son of Lagus, 40 years.

Ptolemy Philadelphus, 38 years.

Ptolemy Euergetes, 24 years.

Ptolemy Philopator, 21 years.

Ptolemy Epiphanes, 24 years.

Ptolemy Philometor, 21 years [g251].

Ptolemy the second Euergetes, 29 years.

Ptolemy Physcon, or Soter, 17 years and 6 months.

Ptolemy Alexander, who was expelled by his mother's father, 3 years.

Ptolemy Philadelphus, returning from exile after the expulsion of Alexander, 8 years.

Ptolemy Dionysus, called Philadelphus, 30 years. Cleopatra the daughter of Ptolemy, 22 years. In her reign, Gaius Julius Caesar became the first Roman emperor. The next emperor, Octavius Caesar Augustus, called Sebastos in Greek, killed [g252] Cleopatra and put an end to the dynasty of the Ptolemids, who had ruled for 295 years [g253]. ⁶² How the Greeks Calculate Their Ancient History.

[We shall list:] The kings of the Athenians.

The kings of the Argives.

The kings of the Sicyonians.

The kings of the Lacedaemonians.

The kings of the Corinthians.

Who ruled the sea, and for how long.

How the Greeks reckon each of the Olympiads.

The first Macedonian kings.

The Thessalian, Syrian and Asian kings after Alexander of Macedon.

Greek Chronology.

The Greeks regard the Sicyonians as the most ancient [Greeks]. Their kings [g253] resided at Sicyon. The first king to rule Sicyon was Aegialeus, at the same time as Ninus and Belus, who are the first remembered kings of the Assyrians and of Asia. The Peloponnese was originally called Aegialeia, after this Aegialeus.

Inachus is said to have been the first king of the Argives, 235 years after the start of the Sicyonian kingdom.

Cecrops, called Diphyes, was the first king of the Athenians, [ruling] about 300 years after the start of the Argive kingdom, and 533 years after the start of the Sicyonian kingdom.

This chronicle will start with the earliest rulers, and will begin with a list of the kings of the Sicyonians [g254]. There is considerable disagreement among the ancients who composed chronicles of Greek history. As far as possible, we will select [material] on which there is consensus. The chronographer Castor lists the dates of the Sicyonian kings in his chronicle and then provides a summary of them, as follows:

"We will provide a list of the kings of Sicyon, starting with Aegialeus, the first king, and ending with Zeuxippus. These kings reigned for a total of 959 years. After the kings, [g255] six priests of [Apollo] Carneius were appointed; this priesthood lasted for 33 years. Then Charidemus was appointed priest; but he could not bear the expense, and went into exile." This according to Castor. Below we present the full list of the Sicyonian kings.

⁶³ The Kings of the Sicyonians.

1. Aegialeus, 52 years. The Peloponnese was originally called Aegialeia, after this Aegialeus. He is said to have started to rule Sicyon in the 15th year of Belus, the first king of the Assyrians. According to legend, [Belus] was the son of Poseidon and Libya [g256]. 2. Europs, 45 years. He reigned at the same time as Ninus, the son of Belus.

3. Telchin, 20 years. He reigned at the same time as Semiramis.

4. Apis, 25 years. The Peloponnese was then called Apia, after this Apis.

5. Thelxion, 52 years.

6. Aegydrus, 34 years.

7. Thurimachus, 45 years. During his reign, Inachus became the first king of the Argives.

8. Leucippus, 53 years.

9. Messapus, 47 years. During his reign Egypt was ruled by Joseph, as the Hebrews record [g257].

10. Eratus, 46 years.

11. Plemnaeus, 48 years.

12. Orthopolis, 63 years.

13. Marathonius, 30 years. During his reign, Cecrops Diphyes became the first king of Attica. 14. Marathus, 20 years. During his reign, Moses led the Hebrews out of Egypt, as will be shown in due course. 15. Echyreus, 55 years. During his reign, Danaus became king of the Argives [g258].

16. Corax, 30 years.

17. Epopeus, 35 years.

18. Laomedon, 40 years. 19. Sicyon, 45 years. During his reign, the kingdom of the Argives came to an end, after lasting for 540 years.

20. Polybus, 40 years.

21. Inachus, 40 years.

22. Phaestus, 8 years.

23. Adrastus, 4 years.

24. Polypheides, 31 years. During his reign, Troy was captured [g259].

25. Pelasgus, 20 years. During his reign, Aeneias was king of the Latins.

26. Zeuxippus, 31 years.

There were a total of 26 kings of Sicyon, who reigned for 959 years. After [Zeuxippus], there were no more kings. Instead the priests of [Apollo] Carneius [ruled].

1. The first [of these] priest[s] was Archelaus [who ruled] one year.

2. Automedon, one year.

3. Theoclytus, four years.

4. Euneus, six years.

5. Theonomus, nine years [g260].

6. Amphigyes, twelve years.

7. Finally, Charidemus one year. He could not bear the expense, and went into exile. He was priest 352 years before the first Olympiad [i.e. 1128 B.C.].

The total for the Sicyonian kings and priests is 998 years.

Following this list of the Sicyonian rulers it is appropriate to list the kings of the Argives as they are accurately recorded in ancient histories. Here is how Castor desribed them [g261].

⁶⁴ Castor on the Kings of the Argives.

Now we will list the kings of the Argives, begining with Inachus and ending with Sthenelus the son of Crotopus. These kings reigned for a total of 382 years, until Sthenelus was expelled by Danaus, who seized control of Argos. The descendants of Danaus ruled Argos, ending with Eurysthenes, the son of Sthenelus, the son of Perseus. After Eurysthenes, the descendants of Pelops ruled Argos. The duration of the reign of the kings of the Danaidae was 162 years. The duration of the reign of the Pelopidae was 105 years, starting with Atreus, and ending with Penthilus, Tisamenus and Cometes the son of Orestes, in whose time the invasion of the Heracleidae occurred.

The dates of each of the Argive kings are as follows.

The Kings of the Argives.

1. Inachus, 50 years. The country was called Inachia, after this Inachus. He began to rule [g262] the Argives at the time of Thurimachus, who was the seventh king of the Sicyonians.

2. Phoroneus, 60 years. In his reign, Ogygus founded Eleusis.

3. Apis, 35 years. The country was then called Apia, after this Apis. During his reign, Joseph governed the Egyptians, as recorded by the Hebrews. 4. Argus, the son of Zeus and Niobe, for 70 years. The name of the country was changed to Argeia, after this Argus. 5. Criasus, 54 years.

6. Phorbas, 35 years. During his reign, Cecrops Diphyes became king of the Athenians.

7. Triopas, 46 years. During his reign, Moses led the Hebrews out of Egypt.

8. Crotopus, 21 years. 9. Sthenelus, 11 years.

Altogether these kings reigned for 382 years [g263].

Danaus expelled Sthenelus, and ruled Argos, as did his descendants. The succession of kings, and their dates, are as follows. 10. Danaus, 50 years.

11. Lynceus, 41 years.

12. Abas, 23 years.

13. Proetus, 17 years.

14. Acrisius, 31 years.

Altogether they ruled Argos for 545 years, until the end of the Danaidae.

After Acrisius, rule of the Argives passed to Mycenaae, when the descendants of Pelops took power, in the time of Eurysthenes the son of Sthenelus [g264]. Pelops was the first ruler of the Peloponnese, and he encouraged the Olympic games.

After Acrisius, when the Argives were ruled from Mycenae:

Eurysthenes ruled as king for 45 years.

Then the Pelopidae, Atreus and Thyestes, 65 years.

Then Agamemnon, 30 years. In the 18th year of his reign, Troy was captured.

Aegisthus, 17 years. Orestes, Tisamenus, Penthilus and Cometes 58 years, until the invasion of the Heracleidae, who then conquered the Peloponnese. From the return of the Heracleidae until the migration of the Ionians [g265], 60 years elapsed. From the migration of the Ionians until the first Olympiad [776 B.C.], 267 years elapsed.

It is appropriate to follow this with a list of the kings of the Athenians, summarizing accurate accounts from ancient writers.

Ogygus is said to have been the first [king] of the Athenians. The Greeks relate that their great ancient flood took place during his reign. Phoroneus the son of Inachus, king of the Argives, is considered to have lived at this time. Plato mentions this in the Timaeus ²², as follows: "When he wished to acquaint [g266] them with ancient history, so they could discuss the antiquity of this city, he began his account with the old stories about Phoroneus and Niobe, and then what happened after the flood." Ogygus lived in the time of Messapus, the ninth king of Sicyon, and Belochus, the eighth king of the Assyrians.

After Ogygus and until the time of Cecrops, it is said that there was no king in Attica for 190 years, because of the great destruction caused by the flood. The number of years is calculated from the kings of the Argives, who reigned before Ogygus. From the end of the reign of Phoroneus, king of the Argives, in whose time Ogygus' flood is said to have occurred, until Phorbas, in whose time Cecrops became king of Attica, 190 years elapsed. From Cecrops until the first Olympiad [g267], seventeen kings, and twelve archons for life are listed; in this period too, the amazing fables of the Greeks are said to have unfolded. The Greeks count the kings of Attica from [Cecrops], because they do not know for certain the dates of any earlier kings. Castor explained this briefly in his history, as follows.

⁶⁵ Castor on The Kings of the Athenians.

Now we will list the kings of the Athenians, beginning with Cecrops, called Diphyes, and ending with Thymoetes. The total duration of the reigns of all these kings, called Erechtheidae, was 450 years. After them, Melanthus of Pylus, son of Andropompus, took over the kingdom, followed by his son Codrus. The total duration of their two reigns was 52 (or 58) years. [lacuna]... [archons] starting with Medon (?) son of Codrus, and ending with Alcmaeon son of Aeschylus. The total duration of the rule of the archons for life was 209 years. The next archons held power for 10 years each; there were seven such archons, who ruled for 70 years [g268]. Then the archons started to hold power for one year each, starting with Creon and ending with Theophemus, in whose time the valorous deeds of our land ceased.

This is how Castor put it. Let us now provide a list of all these kings.

⁶⁶ The Kings of the Athenians.

1. Cecrops Diphyes, 50 years. In his reign Prometheus, Epimetheus and Atlas lived. He began ruling the Athenians in the time of Triopas, the seventh king of the Argives, and Marathonius, the thirteenth king of Sicyon. At this time, Moses had become recognized amongst the Hebrews, as we will show in due course. Also at this time, the flood of Deucalion is said to have occurred in Thessaly [g269], and fire devastated the land of Ethiopia in the time of Phaethon. 2. Cranaus, a native, 9 years. 3. Amphictyon, the son of Deucalion and son-in-law of Cranaus, 10 years. The deeds narrated about the Danaidae are said to have occurred in his reign. 4. Erichthonius, the son of Hephaestus, who is called Erechtheus by Homer, 50 years. The Idaean Dactyls lived in his reign. 5. Pandion, the son of Erichthonius, 40 years. The kidnaping of the girl [Persephone], and what is narrated about Triptolemus, occurred in his reign. 6. Erechtheus the son of Pandion, 50 years. The deeds narrated about Perseus occurred in his reign. 7. Cecrops, the brother of Erechtheus, 40 years. The deeds narrated about Dionysus occurred in his reign [g270]. 8. Pandion, the son of Erechtheus, 25 years. Afterwards Pandion went into exile, and became king of Megara. The deeds narrated about Europa, Cadmus and the Sparti occurred in his reign. 9. Aegeus, the son of Pandion, 48 years. The deeds narrated about the Argonauts and the Centaurs occurred in his reign; and Heracles held the wrestling competitions. 10. Theseus, the son of Aegeus, 30 years. In his reign, Minos became recognized as a legislator. 11. Menestheus, the son of Peteus, son of Orneus son of Erechtheus, 23 years. In his reign, Troy was captured. 12. Demophon, the son of Theseus, 33 years. The deeds narrated about Odysseus and Orestes occurred in his reign; and Aeneias was king of Lavinium. 13. Oxyntes [g271], the son of Demophon, 12 years. In his reign, the Amazons burned down the temple at Ephesus. 14. Apheidas, the son of Oxyntes, one year. 15. Thymoetes, the brother of Apheidas, 8 years. 16. Melanthus of Pylus, the son of Andropompus, 37 years. In his reign the Heracleidae returned and occupied the Peloponnese. 17. Codrus, the son of Melanthus, 21 years. In his reign, the Ionians were expelled from Achaea, and took refuge in Athens.

⁶⁷ The Athenian Princes [Archons] Who Ruled for Life.

18. Medon, the son of Codrus, 20 years.

19. Acastus, the son of Medon [g272], 36 years. In his reign occurred the migration of the Ionians, including Homer, so they say. At the same time, Solomon built the temple at Jerusalem, as we will show at the appropriate time.

20. Archippus, the son of Acastus, 19 years.

21. Thersippus, the son of Archippus, 41 years.

22. Phorbas, the son of Thersippus, 30 years.

23. Megacles, the son of Phorbas, 30 years.

24. Diognetus, the son of Megacles, 28 years. At this time, Lycurgus had become prominent.

25. Pherecles, the son of Diognetus, 19 years.

26. Ariphron, the son of Pherecles, 20 years. At this time, the kingdom of the Assyrians came to an end, and Sardanapalus was killed [g273].

27. Thespieus, the son of Ariphron, 27 years. At this time, Lycurgus created laws for the Spartans.

28. Agamestor, the son of Thespieus, 17 years.

29. Aeschylus, the son of Agamestor, 23 years. In his twelfth year, the first Olympiad was held, in which Coroebus won the stadion contest.

Adding together the reigns of all the Athenian kings, from the time of Cecrops to the first Olympiad [776 B.C.] the total is 780 years. And 970 years elapsed from Ogygus until the first Olympiad.

Henceforth it is appropriate to provide dating according to the Olympiads [g274].

After Aeschylus, Alcmaeon ruled the Athenians, for 2 years.

After him it was decided to appoint archons for ten years each:

Charops, for ten years.

Aesimides, for ten years.

Cleidicus, for ten years.

Hippomenes, for ten years.

Leocrates, for ten years.

Apsander, for ten years.

Eryxias, for ten years.

During [Eryxias' reign], it was decided to appoint archons for one year each. The first yearly archon was Creon, in the 24th Olympiad [684-681 B.C.]. Thereafter an archon was appointed each year. There is no need to list their names.

We have provided the dates of the ancient rulers of the Athenians [g275], as related by old and especially reliable historians. We have set down the dates and events before the capture of Troy--which are not regarded as particularly accurate--as well as we could from the many accounts. Similarly, events from the capture of Troy until the first Olympiad are not accurately recorded. However Porphyry, in the first book of his Philosophical History, gives the following summary:

⁶⁸ Porphyry from the first book of his Philosophical History [g276].

Apollodorus says that there are 80 years from the capture of Troy [1183 B.C.] until the Heracleidae invasion of the Peloponnese [1103 B.C.]; 60 years from the return of the Heracleidae until the settling of Ionia [1043 B.C.]; 159 years from that point until Lycurgus [884 B.C.];... and there are 108 years from Lycurgus until the first Olympiad [776 B.C.]. Altogether, 407 years elapsed from the capture of Troy to the first Olympiad.

I believe that it would be appropriate next to discuss the Greek Olympiads [g277].

⁶⁹ From the time of the first Olympiad, in which Coroebus of Elis won the stadion race, Greek chronology appears to have been accurately [g277] recorded. Before that time, however, the dates are provided according to the views of each writer.

About the Institution of the Olympics, which are Athletic Competitions.

It is necessary to discuss briefly [the origins of] the Olympics. There are some who place its beginning in remote antiquity, before the time of Heracles. [This group attributes the founding of the Olympics] to one of the Idaean Dactyls. Subsequently Aethlius [used the concept] as a means of challenging his sons. And it was from his name that the adversaries are called athletes. After [Aethlius] his sons Epeius and then Endymion, Alexinus and Oenomaus were each in charge of the sacrifices [connected with the] festival. Next Pelops [conducted an athletic competition] in honor of [g278] his father, Zeus (Aramazd). And then Heracles, son of Alcmene and Zeus (Aramazd) [held an athlethic competition].

Now it was 10 generations--though some say only 3--from the time of Heracles to the time of Iphitus. [Iphitus] was from Elis and was the steward for the entire Peloponnesus. He wanted to reduce the fighting among the cities. To this end he had sent men throughout the Peloponnesus to observe [conditions and] to learn how to lessen the military irritants. Then the gods gave the following commands to the Peloponnesians:

Enter the temples and make sacrifice,

And obey what the soothsayers command.

This additional prophesy was given to the Eleians [g279]:

Eleians, hold firm to the laws of your forefathers

And preserve your land,

And put an end to warfare.

Stay in complete friendship with the [other] Greeks

Until the arrival of a joyous celebration.

As a consequence of this, Iphitus ordered that they stop fighting, and that each [party ]begin to experience peace under confederation. He implemented Heracles' command that they not attack one another. And he initiated the [Olympic] games with Lycurgus the Lacedaemonian, who like himself was a descendant of Heracles [g280]. At this time the stadion race was the sole competition; however, subsequently, one by one, other contests were added [to the games].

Aristodemus of Elis relates that in the 27th Olympiad after Iphitus the names of the winners in the athletic contests began to be recorded. Before then the athletes' names were not recorded. In the twenty[-eighth] Olympiad, Coroebus of Elis won the stadion race, and he was the first [winner] to be recorded. Thus were the Olympiads initiated, by which the Greeks reckon their chronology.

Polybius supports Aristodemus' information; but Callimachus says that thirteen Olympiads passed after Iphitus without victors being recorded, and that Coroebus was the victor in the 14th Olympiad. Many [g281] writers state that 459 years elapsed between the institution of the games by Heracles the son of Alcmene and what is [commonly] regarded as the first Olympiad. The Eleians hold the games every fifth year, with a four year interval separating them.

⁷⁰ The Greek Olympiads

[A list] from the first Olympiad to the 247th, when Antoninus the son of Severus was emperor of the Romans.

st [776 B.C.] Coroebus of Elis was the victor in the stadion race [g282]. The stadion race was the sole contest until the thirteen Olympiad.

nd [772 B.C.] Antimachus of Elis, stadion race. Romulus and Remus [the legendary founders of Rome] were born.

rd [768 B.C.] Androclus of Messenia, stadion race.

th [764 B.C.] Polychares of Messenia, stadion race.

th [760 B.C.] Aeschines of Elis, stadion race.

th [756 B.C.] Oebotas of Dyme, stadion race.

th [752 B.C.] Diocles of Messenia, stadion race. Romulus built Rome.

th [748 B.C.] Anticles of Messenia, stadion race.

9th [744 B.C.] Xenocles of Messenia, stadion race.

10th [740 B.C.] Dotades of Messenia, stadion race.

11th [736 B.C.] Leochares of Messenia, stadion race.

12th [732 B.C.] Oxythemis of Coroneia, stadion race.

13th [728 B.C.] Diocles of Corinth, stadion race.

14th [724 B.C.] Desmon of Corinth, stadion race [g283]. A double race was added, which was won by Hypenus of Elis.

⁷¹ 15th [720 B.C.] Orsippus of Megara, stadion race. A long race was added, and the runners were naked; the winner was Acanthus of Laconia.

16th [716 B.C.] Pythagoras of Laconia, stadion race.

17th [712 B.C.] Polus of Epidaurus, stadion race.

18th [708 B.C.] Tellis of Sicyon, stadion race. A wrestling contest was added, and the winner was Eurybatus of Laconia. A pentathlon contest was also added, and the winner was Lampis of Laconia.

19th [704 B.C.] Menus of Megara, stadion race.

20th [700 B.C.] Atheradas of Laconia, stadion race.

21st [696 B.C.] Pantacles of Athens, stadion race.

22nd [692 B.C.] Pantacles for a second time.

23rd [688 B.C.] Icarius of Hyperesia, stadion race [g284]. A boxing contest was added, and the winner was Onomastus of Smyrna. It was Onomastus who established the rules of boxing.

24th [684 B.C.] Cleoptolemus of Laconia, stadion race.

25th [680 B.C.] Thalpis of Laconia, stadion race. A race was added for chariots drawn by four horses, and the winner was Pagon of Thebes.

26th [676 B.C.] Callisthenes of Laconia, stadion race. Philombrotus of Laconia won the pentathlon at three Olympic games. The Carneia, a contest for citharodes, was held for the first time.

27th [672 B.C.] Eurybus of Athens, stadion race.

28th [668 B.C.] Charmis of Laconia, stadion race. Charmis trained on a diet of dried figs. These games were held [g285] by the inhabitants of Pisa, because Elis was preoccupied by a war in the west.

29th [664 B.C.] Chionis of Laconia, stadion race. Chionis could leap a distance of 22 feet.

30th [660 B.C.] Chionis for a second time. The inhabitants of Pisa rebelled from Elis, and [so the Pisans] supervised these and the following 22 games.

⁷² 31st [656 B.C.] Chionis of Laconia for a third time, stadion race. [g286]

32nd [652 B.C.] Cratinus of Megara, stadion race. At these games, Comaeus was the third of his brothers to win the boxing contest.

33rd [648 B.C.] Gygis of Laconia, stadion race. At these games, a pancratium contest was added, and the winner was the enormous Lygdamis of Syracuse. He was able to measure out the stadion with his feet, in only six hundred paces. A horse race was added, and the winner was Craxilas of Thessaly.

34th [644 B.C.] Stomas of Athens, stadion race.

35th [640 B.C.] Sphaerus of Laconia, stadion race. The double race was won by Cylon of [g287] Athens, who later attempted to set himself up as tyrant.

36th [636 B.C.] Phrynon of Athens, stadion race. On the island of Coo, Phrynon was killed in single combat.

37th [632 B.C.] Eurycleidas of Laconia, stadion race. A stadion race for boys was added, and the winner was Polynices of Elis. A wrestling contest for boys was added, and the winner was Hipposthenes of Laconia, who won the men's wrestling contest five times in a row, starting from the next-but-one Olympic games.

38th [628 B.C.] Olyntheus of Laconia, stadion race. A pancratium contest for boys was added, but only on this one occasion. The winner was Deutelidas of Laconia.

39th [624 B.C.] Rhipsolaus of Laconia, stadion race [g288].

40th [620 B.C.] Olyntheus of Laconia for a second time, stadion race.

41st [616 B.C.] Cleondas of Thebes, stadion race. A boxing contest for boys was added, and the winner was Philotas of Sybaris.

42nd [612 B.C.] Lycotas of Laconia, stadion race.

43rd [608 B.C.] Cleon of Epidaurus, stadion race.

44th [604 B.C.] Gelon of Laconia, stadion race.

45th [600 B.C.] Anticrates of Epidaurus, stadion race.

46th [596 B.C.] Chrysamaxus of Laconia, stadion race. The boys' stadion race was won by Polymnestor of Miletus, who chased and caught a rabit while he was shepherding.

⁷³ 47th [592 B.C.] Eurycles of Laconia, stadion race.

48th [588 B.C.] Glycon of Croton, stadion race [g289]. Pythagoras of Samos was excluded from the boys' boxing contest and was mocked for being effeminate, but he went on to the men's contest and defeated all his opponents.

49th [584 B.C.] Lycinus of Croton, stadion race.

50th [580 B.C.] Epitelidas of Laconia, stadion race. [During this Olympiad] the seven wise men were named.

51st [576 B.C.] Eratosthenes of Croton, stadion race.

52nd [572 B.C.] Agis of Elis, stadion race.

53rd [568 B.C.] Hagnon of Peparethus, stadion race.

54th [564 B.C.] Hippostratus of Croton, stadion race. Arichion of Phigaleia died after winning the pancratium contest for the third time. Though dead he was crowned as victor, because his opponent had already conceded defeat, after his leg was broken by Arichion.

55th [560 B.C.] Hippostratus for a second time. [During this Olympiad] Cyrus was king of the Persians [g290].

56th [556 B.C.] Phaedrus of Pharsalus, stadion race.

57th [552 B.C.] Ladromus of Laconia, stadion race.

58th [548 B.C.] Diognetus of Croton, stadion race.

59th [544 B.C.] Archilochus of Corcyra, stadion race.

60th [540 B.C.] Apellaeus of Elis, stadion race.

61st [536 B.C.] - Agatharchus of Corcyra, stadion race. 62nd [532 B.C.] - Eryxias of Chalcis, stadion race. Milon of Croton won the wrestling contest. He won six times at the Olympic games, six times at the Pythian games, ten times at the Isthmian games, and nine times at the Nemean games. 63rd [528 B.C.] - Parmenides of Camarina, stadion race.

64th [524 B.C.] - Menander of Thessaly, stadion race. ⁷⁴ 65th [520 B.C.] - Anochas of Tarentum, stadion race. A race as hoplites (wearing armour) was added, and the winner was Damaretus of Heraea [g291]. 66th [516 B.C.] - Ischyrus of Himera, stadion race. 67th [512 B.C.] - Phanas of Pellene, stadion race. Phanas was the first to win all three races, the stadion race, the double race and the race wearing armour. 68th [508 B.C.] - Isomachus of Croton, stadion race.

69th [504 B.C.] - Isomachus for a second time.

70th [500 B.C.] - Nicasias of Opus, stadion race.

71st [496 B.C.] - Tisicrates of Croton, stadion race.

72nd [492 B.C.] - Tisicrates for a second time.

73rd [488 B.C.] - Astyalus of Croton, stadion race.

74th [484 B.C.] - Astyalus for a second time.

75th [480 B.C.] - Astyalus for a third time.

76th [476 B.C.] - Scamander of Mytilene, stadion race.

77th [472 B.C.] - Dandes of Argos, stadion race [g292].

78th [468 B.C.] - Parmenides of Poseidonia, stadion race. 79th [464 B.C.] - Xenophon of Corinth, stadion race. 80th [460 B.C.] - Torymmas of Thessaly, stadion race. The wrestling contest was won by Amesinas of Barce, who trained by wrestling with a bull while he was tending cattle. He even brought the bull to Pisa for his training.

81st [456 B.C.] - Polymnastus of Cyrene, stadion race.

82nd [452 B.C.] - Lycus of Larissa, stadion race.

83rd [448 B.C.] - Crisson of Himera, stadion race.

84th [444 B.C.] - Crisson for a second time.

85th [440 B.C.] - Crisson for a third time. 86th [436 B.C.] - Theopompus of Thessaly, stadion race. 87th [432 B.C.] - Sophron of Ambracia, stadion race. After this [Olympiad], the Peloponnesian war began. 88th [428 B.C.] - Symmachus of Messenia, stadion race [g293].

89th [424 B.C.] - Symmachus for a second time.

90th [420 B.C.] - Hyperbius of Syracuse, stadion race.

⁷⁵ 91st [416 B.C.] - Exagentus of Acragas, stadion race.

92nd [412 B.C.] - Exagentus for a second time. 93rd [408 B.C.] - Eubatus of Cyrene, stadion race. The pancratium contest was won by the enormous Polydamas of Scotussa, who killed lions and fought without weapons against armed men, when he was with Ochus among the Persians. He was able to bring chariots charging at full speed to a halt. A race was added for chariots drawn by a pair of horses (Synoris), and the winner was Euagoras of Elis. 94th [404 B.C.] - Crocinas of Larissa, stadion race.

95th [400 B.C.] - Minon of Athens, stadion race. 96th [396 B.C.] - Eupolemus of Elis, stadion race. A contest for trumpeters was added, and the winner was Timaeus of Elis [g294]. A contest for heralds was added, and the winner was Crates of Elis. 97th [392 B.C.] - Terinaeus [...], stadion race. 98th [388 B.C.] - Sosippus of Delphi, stadion race. The wrestling contest was won by Aristodemus of Elis, whom no one could grasp round the middle. 99th [384 B.C.] - Dicon of Syracuse, stadion race. A race was added for chariots drawn by four colts, and the winner was Eurybatus of Laconia. 100th [380 B.C.] - Dionysodorus of Tarentum, stadion race.

101st [376 B.C.] - Damon of Thurii, stadion race.

102nd [372 B.C.] - Damon for a second time [g295].

103rd [368 B.C.] - Pythostratus of Ephesus, stadion race.

104th [364 B.C.] - Phocides of Athens, stadion race. These games were held by the Pisans.

105th [360 B.C.] - Porus of Cyrene, stadion race.

106th [356 B.C.] - Porus for a second time.

107th [352 B.C.] - Micrinas of Tarentum, stadion race.

108th [348 B.C.] - Polycles of Cyrene, stadion race.

109th [344 B.C.] - Aristolochus of Athens, stadion race.

110th [340 B.C.] - Anticles of Athens, stadion race.

111th [336 B.C.] - Cleomantis of Cleitor, stadion race. 112th [332 B.C.] - Eurylas of Chalcis, stadion race. [During this Olympiad] Alexander captured Babylon, and killed Darius. ⁷⁶ 113th [328 B.C.] - Cliton of Macedonia, stadion race [g296]. Ageus of Argos, won the long race. He returned to Argos and announced his own victory on the same day. 114th [324 B.C.] - Micinas of Rhodes, stadion race. [During this Olympiad] Alexander died, and his empire was split into many parts; Ptolemy became king of Egypt and Alexandria. 115th [320 B.C.] - Damasias of Amphipolis, stadion race.

116th [316 B.C.] - Demosthenes of Laconia, stadion race.

117th [312 B.C.] - Parmenides of Mytilene, stadion race. 118th [308 B.C.] - Andromenes of Corinth, stadion race. Antenor of Athens or Miletus, undisputed winner of the pancratium, was crowned in all the major competitions, [g297] and was undefeated in each of three age groups. 119th [304 B.C.] - Andromenes of Corinth, stadion race. 120th [300 B.C.] - Pythagoras of Magnesia-on-Maeander, stadion race. Ceras of Argos, [victor in] wrestling, tore the hooves off an ox.

121st [296 B.C.] - Pythagoras for a second time.

122nd [292 B.C.] - Antigonus of Macedonia, stadion race.

123rd [288 B.C.] - Antigonus for a second time.

124th [284 B.C.] - Philomelus of Pharsalus, stadion race.

125th [280 B.C.] - Ladas of Aegium, stadion race.

126th [276 B.C.] - Idaeus or Nicator of Cyrene, stadion race.

127th [272 B.C.] - Perigenes of Alexandria, stadion race.

128th [268 B.C.] - Seleucus of Macedonia, stadion race. 129th [264 B.C.] - Philinus of Cos, stadion race [g298]. A new race for two-colt chariots was added, and the first winner was Philistiachus [son] of Macedonia. 130th [260 B.C.] - Philinus for a second time.

131st [256 B.C.] - Ammonius of Alexandria, stadion race. A one-colt race was introduced, and the first winner was Hippocrates [son] of Thessaly. 132nd [252 B.C.] - Xenophanes of Amphissa in Aetolia, stadion race. ⁷⁷ 133rd [248 B.C.] - Simylus of Neapolis, stadion race. [During this Olympiad] the Parthians revolted against the Macedonians. Arsaces was their first king, whence the [dynastic] name Arsacid. 134th [244 B.C.] - Alcides of Laconia, stadion race. 135th [240 B.C.] - Eraton of Aetolia, stadion race. Cleoxenus of Alexandria, winner in boxing, won without injury at all the major games. 136th [236 B.C.] - Pythocles of Sicyon, stadion race.

137th [232 B.C.] - Menestheus of [? son of] Barcyla, stadion race [g299].

138th [228 B.C.] - Demetrius of Alexandria, stadion race.

139th [224 B.C.] - Iolaidas of Argos, stadion race.

140th [220 B.C.] - Zopyrus of Syracuse, stadion race.

141st [216 B.C.] - Dorotheus of Rhodes, stadion race. 142nd [212 B.C.] - Crates of Alexandria, stadion race. Caprus of Elis won both the wrestling and the pancratium competitions, like Heracles. Thus he was recorded as "second after Heracles". 143rd [208 B.C.] - Heracleitus of Samos, stadion race.

144th [204 B.C.] - Heracleides of Salamis in Cyprus, stadion race. 145th [200 B.C.] - Pyrrhias of Aetolia, stadion race. Moschus of Colophon, [victor in] boys' boxing, was the only boy to have won the boxing competition at all the major games. A boys' pancratium competition was added, and the first winner was Phaedimus of Alexandria [g300]. 146th [196 B.C.] - Micion of Boeotia, stadion race. 147th [192 B.C.] - Agemachus of Cyzicus, stadion race. Cleitostratus of Rhodes, [victor in] wrestling, defeated his opponents by grasping their necks. 148th [188 B.C.] - Arcesilaus of Megalopolis, stadion race.

149th [184 B.C.] - Hippostratus of Seleucia in Pieria, stadion race.

150th [180 B.C.] - Onesicritus of Salamis, stadion race.

⁷⁸ 151st [176 B.C.] - Thymilus of Aspendus, stadion race.

152nd [172 B.C.] - Democritus of Megara, stadion race.

153rd [168 B.C.] - Aristander of Antissa in Lesbos, stadion race.

154th [164 B.C.] - Leonidas of Rhodes, three times victor in the stadion race.

155th [160 B.C.] - Leonidas for a second time. 156th [156 B.C.] - Leonidas for a third time. Aristomenes of Rhodes [g301] was the third after Heracles to win both the wrestling and the pancratium competitions. 157th [152 B.C.] - Leonidas, victor in the stadion race for a fourth time, was the first and only man to win 12 Olympic crowns over four Olympiads. 158th [148 B.C.] - Othon of Syracuse, stadion race.

159th [144 B.C.] - Alcimus of Cyzicus, stadion race.

160th [140 B.C.] - Agnodorus of Cyzicus, stadion race.

161st [136 B.C.] - Antipater of Epirus, stadion race.

162nd [132 B.C.] - Damon of Delphi, stadion race.

163rd [128 B.C.] - Timotheus of Tralles, stadion race.

164th [124 B.C.] - Boeotus of Sicyon, stadion race.

165th [120 B.C.] - Acusilaus of Cyrene, stadion race.

166th [116 B.C.] - Chrysogonus of Nicaea, stadion race.

167th [112 B.C.] - Chrysogonus for a second time [g302].

168th [108 B.C.] - Nicomachus of Philadelphia, stadion race.

169th [104 B.C.] - Nicodemus of Lacedaemon, stadion race.

170th [100 B.C.] - Simmias of Seleuceia-on-Tigris, stadion race.

171st [96 B.C.] - Parmeniscus of Corcyra, stadion race. 172nd [92 B.C.] - Eudamus of Cos, stadion race. Protophanes of Magnesia-on-Maeander was the fourth after Heracles to win both the wrestling and the pancratium competitions. 173rd [88 B.C.] - Parmeniscus of Corcyra again, stadion race.

174th [84 B.C.] - Demostratus of Larissa, stadion race. 175th [80 B.C.] - Epaenetus of Argos, boys' stadion race. There was no stadion race for men this year, because Sulla had summoned all the athletes to Rome. 176th [76 B.C.] - Dion of Cyparissus, stadion race.

177th [72 B.C.] - Hecatomnos of Elis, stadion race [g303]. 178th [68 B.C.] - Diocles [? son of] Hypopenus, stadion race. Stratonicus of Alexandria, son of Corragus, was the fifth after Heracles to win both the wrestling and the pancratium competitions. At the Nemean games, he won four crowns on the same day in the boys' and youths' competitions, competing naked. He attended without a horse. He won through the favour of his friends or the kings, and therefore he was considered disqualified. ⁷⁹ 179th [64 B.C.] - Andreas of Lacedaemon, stadion race.

180th [60 B.C.] - Andromachus of Ambracia, stadion race.

181st [56 B.C.] - Lamachus of Tauromenium, stadion race. 182nd [52 B.C.] - Anthestion of Argos, stadion race. [g304] Marion of Alexandria, son of Marion, was the sixth after Heracles to win both the wrestling and the pancratium competitions. 183rd [48 B.C.] - Theodorus of Messene, stadion race. [During this Olympiad] Julius Caesar was emperor of the Romans. 184th [44 B.C.] - Theodorus for a second time. [During this Olympiad] Augustus became emperor of the Romans. 185th [40 B.C.] - Ariston of Thurii, stadion race.

186th [36 B.C.] - Scamander of Alexandria Troas, stadion race.

187th [32 B.C.] - Ariston of Thurii again, stadion race.

188th [28 B.C.] - Sopater of Argos, stadion race.

189th [24 B.C.] - Asclepiades of Sidon, stadion race.

190th [20 B.C.] - Auphidius of Patrae, stadion race [g305].

191st [16 B.C.] - Diodotus of Tyana, stadion race.

192nd [12 B.C.] - Diophanes of Aeolis, stadion race.

193rd [8 B.C.] - Artemidorus of Thyateira, stadion race.

194th [4 B.C.] - Demaratus of Ephesus, stadion race.

195th [1 A.D.] - Demaratus for a second time.

196th [5 A.D.] - Pammenes of Magnesia-on-Maeander, stadion race.

197th [9 A.D.] - Asiaticus of Halicarnassus, stadion race. 198th [13 A.D.] - Diophanes of Prusa [near] Mt. Olympus, stadion race. Aristeas of Stratoniceia or Maeander was the seventh after Heracles to win both the wrestling and the pancratium competitions. [During this Olympiad] Tiberius became emperor of the Romans. ⁸⁰ 199th [17 A.D.] - Aeschines Glaucias of Miletus, stadion race. The four-horse race was reinstated, and the winner was Tiberius Caesar.

200th [21 A.D.] - Polemon of Petra, stadion race.

201st [25 A.D.] - Damasias of Cydonia, stadion race [g306].

202nd [29 A.D.] - Hermogenes of Pergamum, stadion race.

203rd [33 A.D.] - Apollonius of Epidaurus, stadion race. 204th [37 A.D.] - Sarapion of Alexandria, stadion race. Neicostratus of Aegae was the eighth and last after Heracles to win both the wrestling and the pancratium competitions. Only eight men between Heracles and our times have achieved this, because after these games the inhabitants of Elis would not award the crown even to those who were capable of it. [During this Olympiad] Gaius became emperor of the Romans. 205th [41 A.D.] - Eubulidas of Laodiceia, stadion race. [During this Olympiad] Claudius became emperor of the Romans. 206th [45 A.D.] - Valerius of Mytilene, stadion race [g307].

207th [49 A.D.] - Athenodorus of Aegium, stadion race.

208th [53 A.D.] - Athenodorus for a second time. [During this Olympiad] Nero became emperor of the Romans.

209th [57 A.D.] - Callicles of Sidon, stadion race.

210th [61 A.D.] - Athenodorus of Aegium, stadion race.

211th [65 A.D.] - These games were not held [at the usual time] because Nero postponed them until his visit to Greece. They were held two years later, and Tryphon of Philadelphia won the stadion race. Nero was awarded the crown in the contests for heralds, performers of tragedy and citharodes; and also in the races for chariots drawn by colts, mature horses and ten colts. 212th [69 A.D.] - Polites of Ceramus, stadion race [g308]. [During this Olympiad] Vespasianus became emperor of the Romans. 213th [73 A.D.] - Rhodon of Cyme, or Theodotus, stadion race. 214th [77 A.D.] - Straton of Alexandria, stadion race. [During this Olympiad] Titus became emperor of the Romans. ⁸¹ 215th [81 A.D.] - Hermogenes of Xanthus, stadion race. [During this Olympiad] Domitian became emperor of the Romans. 216th [85 A.D.] - Apollophanes Papis of Tarsus, stadion race.

217th [89 A.D.] - Hermogenes of Xanthus for a second time, stadion race.

218th [93 A.D.] - Apollonius of Alexandria, or Heliodorus, stadion race. 219th [97 A.D.] - Stephanus of Cappadocia, stadion race. [During this Olympiad] Nerva became emperor of the Romans, followed by Trajan [g309]. 220th [101 A.D.] - Achilleus of Alexandria, stadion race.

221st [105 A.D.] - Theonas Smaragdus of Alexandria, stadion race. 222nd [109 A.D.] - Callistus of Side, stadion race. Horse races were reintroduced. 223rd [113 A.D.] - Eustolus of Side, stadion race. 224th [117 A.D.] - Isarion of Alexandria, stadion race. [During this Olympiad] Hadrian became emperor of the Romans. 225th [121 A.D.] - Aristeas of Miletus, stadion race.

226th [125 A.D.] - Dionysius Sameumys of Alexandria, stadion race.

227th [129 A.D.] - Dionysius for a second time

228th [133 A.D.] - Lucas of Alexandria, stadion race. 229th [137 A.D.] - Epidaurus Ammonius of Alexandria, stadion race. [During this Olympiad] Antoninus Pius became emperor of the Romans. 230th [141 A.D.] - Didymus Clydeus of Alexandria, stadion race [g310].

231st [145 A.D.] - Cranaus of Sicyon, stadion race. 232nd [149 A.D.] - Atticus of Sardis, stadion race. [Socrates] entered both the wrestling and the citharode competitions, but was rejected by the inhabitants of Elis, in favour of Dionysius of Seleuceia. 233rd [153 A.D.] - Demetrius of Chios, stadion race.

234th [157 A.D.] - Eras of Chios, stadion race. ⁸² 235th [161 A.D.] - Mnasibulus of Elateia, stadion race. [During this Olympiad Marcus] Antoninus [Pius] and [Lucius] Verus became emperors of the Romans. 236th [165 A.D.] - Aeithales of Alexandria, stadion race.

237th [169 A.D.] - Eudaemon of Alexandria, stadion race.

238th [173 A.D.] - Agathopus of Aegina, stadion race. 239th [177 A.D.] - Agathopus for a second time [g311]. [During this Olympiad] Commodus became emperor of the Romans. 240th [181 A.D.] - Anubion Pheidus of Alexandria, stadion race.

241st [185 A.D.] - Heron of Alexandria, stadion race.

242nd [189 A.D.] - Magnus [Libycus] of Cyrene, stadion race. 243rd [193 A.D.] - Isidorus [Artemidorus] of Alexandria, stadion race. [During this Olympiad] Pertinax, and then Severus, became emperors of the Romans. 244th [197 A.D.] - Isidorus for a second time

245th [201 A.D.] - Alexander of Alexandria, stadion race.

246th [205 A.D.] - Epinicus, called Cynas, of Cyzicus, stadion race. 247th [209 A.D.] - Satornilus of Gortyn in Crete, stadion race. [During this Olympiad] Antoninus, called Caracalla, became emperor of the Romans [g312]. 248th [213 A.D.] - Heliodorus Trosidamas of Alexandria, stadion race.

249th [217 A.D.] - Heliodorus for a second time

The record the Olympiads which we have found goes [only] this far.

Now it will be appropriate to add lists of the kings of the Corinthians, kings of the Spartans [g313], rulers of the sea and the early kings of the Macedonians. I will list their names and dates, taking them from the Historical Library of Diodorus, who gives the most accurate account of them.

⁸³ The Kings of the Corinthians from the Books of Diodorus.

After this investigaton, it remains to tell how Corinth and Sicyon were settled by the Dorians. Almost all the peoples of the Peloponnese, except the Arcadians, were devastated by the invasion of the Heracleidae. The Heracleidae [g314], when dividing up the land, selected Corinth and the surrounding area as the best and most choice. They sent for Aletes, and gave the territory to him to rule over. Aletes was a venerable man who and increased the power of Corinth. He reigned as king for 38 years.

Following his death, the firstborn son reigned as king [successively] until the [time of the] tyrant Cypselus, some 447 after the invasion of the Heracleidae.

The first to reign [after Aletes] was Ixion, 38 years.

Then Agelas, 37 years.

Then Prymnis, 35 years.

Then Bacchis, also 35 years. Bacchis was more distinguished than the kings preceding him. Consequently, the kings after him called themselves Bacchidae instead of Heracleidae.

Then Agelas, [g315] 30 years.

Eudemus, 25 years.

Aristomedes, 35 years.

When Aristomedes died, his son Telestes was still a child; and so his uncle and guardian Agemon [ruled] for 16 years.

Then Alexander was king, 25 years.

Telestes, who had been deprived of power, killed Alexander, and ruled 12 years.

Automenes ruled for one year, after Telestes was killed by his relatives.

The Bacchidae, descendants of Heracles who were more than 200 in number, seized power and jointly governed the city; each year they chose one of their number to be leader, in place of the king. They governed the city for 90 years, until the the tyranny of Cypselus, after which they died out [g316].

List of the Kings of the Corinthians.

1. Aletes, 35 years.

2. Ixion, 37 years.

3. Agelas, 37 years.

4. Prymnis, 35 years.

5. Bacchis, 35 years.

6. Agelas, 30 years.

7. Eudemus, 25 years.

8. Aristomedes, 35 years [g317].

9. Agemon, 16 years.

10. Alexander, 25 years.

11. Teletes, 12 years.

12. Automenes, one year.

After this there were annual leaders.

⁸⁴ The Kings of the Spartans from the Books of Diodorus.

It is difficult to establish the dates between the Trojan war and the first Olympiad, because there were no [lists of] annual rulers at that time either in Athens or in any other city. We will take the kings of the Spartans as an example.

According to Apollodorus of Athens, 308 years elapsed from the destruction of Troy [1183 B.C.] to the first [g318] Olympiad [776 B.C.]. Eighty of those years passed before the invasion of the Heracleidae [1103 B.C.]; the rest are covered by the reigns of the kings of the Spartans - Procles, Eurysthenes and their descendants. We will now set down the order of each of the monarchs to the first Olympiad.

Eurysthenes began his reign in the 80th year after the Trojan war, and he was king for 42 years.

After him, Agis reigned for one year.

Echestratus, 31 years.

After him, Labotas, 37 years.

Dorystus, 29 years.

They were followed by Agesilaus, 44 years.

Archelaus, 60 years.

Teleclus, 40 years.

Alcamenes, 38 years. In the tenth year of his reign, the first Olympiad was established, in which Coroebus of Elis won the stadion race.

Procles was the first king of the other house, 49 years.

After him, Prytanis, 49 years.

Eunomius, 45 years.

And then Chariclus, 60 years.

Nicander, 38 years.

Theopompus, 47 years. The first Olympiad occurred in the tenth year of this reign.

In summary, there were 80 years from the capture of Troy until the invasion of the Heracleidae [g319].

⁸⁵ Next [we list] the Kings of the Spartans.

1. Eurysthenes, 42 years

2. Agis, one year

3. Echestrates, 37 years

4. Labotas, 37 years

5. Dorystus, 29 years

6. Agesilaus, 44 years.

7. Archelaus, 60 years

8. Teleclus, 40 years

9. Alcamenes, 37 years. In his tenth year, the first Olympiad was established.

In total, 325 years [g320].

The kings from the other house were:

1. Procles, 51 years

2. Prytanis, 49 years

3. Eunomius, 45 years

4. Charicles, 60 years

5. Nicander, 38 years

6. Theopompus, 47 years. In his tenth year, the first Olympiad was established.

In total, 290 years.

A Summary from the Writings of Diodorus Regarding the Sea Powers, the Thalassocracies, Who Ruled the Seas after the Trojan War.

1. The Lydians and Maeones, 92 years

2. The Pelasgians, 85 years

3. The Thracians, 79 years

4. The Rhodians, 23 years

5. The Phrygians, 25 years

6. The Cypriots, 33 years

7. The Phoenicians, 45 years

8. The Egyptians, [..] years

9. The Milesians, [..] years

10. [The Carians,.. years]

11. The Lesbians, [..] years

12. The Phocaeans, 44 years

13. The Samians for [..] years

14. The Spartans, 2 years

15. The Naxians, 10 years

16. The Eretrians, 15 years

17. The Aeginetans, 10 years

[The above ruled] until Alexander crossed over the sea.

It is appropriate following this to turn to the kingdom of the Macedonians [g321].

⁸⁶ The Kings of the Macedonians.

Tthe Macedonian period followed the end of the Assyrian empire. This came after the death of Sardanapallus the last king of the Assyrians.

Before the first Olympiad, Caranus assembled troops from the Argives and the rest of the Peloponnese, and lead this army into the territory of the Macedonians. At that time the king of the Orestae was warring with his neighbours, the Eordaei, and he called on Caranus to help him, promising half of his territory in return, if the Orestae were successful. The king kept his promise, and Caranus took possession of the territory. He reigned there for 30 years, until he died in old age [g322]. He was succeeded by his son Coenus, who was king for 28 years. After him, Tyrimias reigned for 43 years. Then Perdiccas for 42 years. He wanted to expand his kingdom; so he sent [a mission] to Delphi.

A little further on, [Diodorus] says:

Perdiccas reigned for 48 years, and left his kingdom to Argaeus, who reigned for 31 years.

The next king was Philippus, who reigned for 33 years.

Aeropus, 20 years.

Alcetas, 18 years.

Amyntas, 49 years.

He was followed by Alexander, who reigned 44 years.

Then Perdiccas was king, 22 years.

Archelaus, 17 years.

Aeropus, 6 years.

Then Pausanias was king, one year.

Ptolemy, 3 years.

Perdiccas, 5 years.

Philippus, 24 years.

Alexander, [who] fought against the Persians, for more than 12 years.

Thus the most reliable historians derive the Macedonian kings from [g323] Heracles. From Caranus, who was the first to rule all the Macedonians, until Alexander, who conquered Asia, 24 kings reigned for a total of 453 years.

⁸⁷ [Here is a List] of Each of these Kings.

1. Caranus reigned 30 years.

2. Coenus, 28 years.

3. Tyrimias, 43 years.

4. Perdiccas, 48 years.

5. Argaeus, 38 years.

6. Philippus, 33 years.

7. Aeropus, 20 years.

8. Alcetas, 18 years. In his time, Cyrus was king of the Persians.

9. Amyntas, 42 years.

10. Alexander, 44 years.

11. Perdiccas, 23 years.

12. Archelaus, 24 years.

13. Orestes, 3 years.

14. Archelaus, 4 years.

15. Amyntas, one year.

16. Pausanias, one year.

17. Amyntas, 6 years [g324].

18. Argaeus, 2 years.

19. Amyntas, 18 years.

20. Alexander, one year.

21. Ptolemy of Alorus, 3 years.

22. Perdiccas, 6 years.

23. Philippus, 27 years.

24. Alexander the son of Philippus, 12 years.

⁸⁸ From [the Writings of] Porphyry the Philosopher, Our Adversary.

After Alexander the son of Philippus, the following kings [g325] ruled Macedonia and Greece until the Macedonian kingdom was taken over by the Romans.

After Alexander the Macedonians made Aridaeus king. He was the son of Philippus and Philinna of Thessaly, king [and was appointed] because they liked Philippus' family, despite the fact that Aridaeus was the son a courtesan and he was weak-minded. He began to reign, as we said, in the second year of the 114th Olympiad [323 B.C.]. He is considered to have reigned for 7 years, because he lived until the fourth year of the 115th Olympiad [317 B.C.].

Now Alexander [the Great] left two sons, Heracles the son of Barsine the daughter of Pharnabazus, and Alexander the son of Roxane the daughter of Oxyartes the Bactrian; this Alexander was born about the time of his father's death [g326], at the start of Philippus' reign. Olympias, Alexander's mother, killed Aridaeus, but then Cassander the son of Antipater killed her and Alexander's two sons. One he killed by himself and the other he eliminated by ordering Polysperchon to do it. Cassander left Olympias' body where it fell, and forcibly declared himself king of the Macedonians. From that time forth, all the other lords ruled as kings. When the family of Alexander had been eliminated, [Cassander] married Thessalonice the daughter of Philippus. He reigned as king for another 19 years and then died of a wasting disease. His reign, including the year in which Olympias ruled after the death of Aridaeus, lasted from the first year of the 116th Olympiad [316 B.C.] until the third year of the 120th Olympiad [298 B.C.].

[Cassander] was succeeded by his sons, Philippus and Alexander and Antipater, who reigned for 3 years and 6 months [g327] after the death of their father. Philippus, who died at Elateia, ruled first. Then Antipater murdered his mother Thessalonice, who favoured her other son Alexander, and fled to Lysimachus. But Lysimachus put him to death, even though he had married one of Lysimachus' daughters.

Alexander married Lysandra, the daughter of Ptolemy. In a war against his younger brother he sought aid from Demetrius the son of Antigonus, who was called Poliorcetes. But Demetrius killed Alexander, and made himself the king of the Macedonians. The sons of Cassander are considered to have reigned from the fourth year of the 120th Olympiad [297 B.C.] until the third year of the 121st Olympiad [294 B.C.] [g328].

Pyrrhus the king of Epirus--the 23rd in line from Achilleus the son of Thetis--deposed [Demetrius] who had reigned for 6 years, from the [fourth year of the] 121st Olympiad [293 B.C.] until the first year of the 123rd Olympiad [288 B.C.]. Pyrrhus claimed the rule devolvded to him after the end of Philippus' family, because Olympias the mother of Alexander, was also a descendant of Pyrrhus the son of Neoptolemus. [Pyrrhus] ruled the Macedonians for seven months in the second year of the 123rd Olympiad [287 B.C.]. In the eighth month, he was replaced by Lysimachus the son of son of Agathocles, a Thessalian from Crannon who had been an attendant of Alexander. However, Lysimachus was king not only of Thrace and the Chersonese, for he now invaded the neighbouring country of Macedonia and took it.

⁸⁹ Urged on by his wife Arsinoe, Lysimachus killed his own son. He ruled Macedonia for 5 years and 6 months, from the second year of the 123rd [g329] Olympiad [287 B.C.] until the third year of the 124th Olympiad [282 B.C.]. He was defeated by Seleucus Nicator, the king of Asia, at the battle of Corupedium, and lost his life in the battle. However immediately after this victory, Seleucus was murdered by Ptolemy Ceraunus, the son of Lagus and Eurydice the daughter of Antipater,despite the fact that Seleucus was his benefactor and had received him [earlier ]when he was in flight. Now [Ptolemy] ruled over the Macedonians, until he was killed in battle against the Galatians. He reigned for one year and five months, which lasted from the fourth year of the 124th Olympiad [281 B.C.] until the fifth month of the first year of the 125th Olympiad [280 B.C.].

Ptolemy was succeeded by his brother Meleager. The Macedonians quickly deposed Meleager after only two months [g330] however, considering him unworthy. Because no one could be found from the royal line, they appointed as king Antipater, who was the nephew of Cassander and the son of Philippus. After ruling for 45 days he was put to flight by a certain Sosthenes, who did not consider him to be enough of a general to face the invasion that Brennus the Galatian threatened. The Macedonians gave Antipater the name Etesias, because the Etesian winds blow for about as long a time as he was king. Sosthenes also drove off Brennus, and died after ruling for two complete years. After Sosthenes, Macedonia was without a ruler, because the followers of Antipater and Ptolemy and Aridaeus were competing for control of the state, and no one was completely in charge. From the time [g331] of Ptolemy to the end of the anarchy, that is from the fourth year of the 124th Olympiad [281 B.C.] until the [first year of the] 126th Olympiad [276 B.C.], Ptolemy Ceraunus reigned for one year and five months, Meleager for two months, Antipater for 45 days, and Sosthenes for two years. The remainder is considered a period without rulers.

While Antipater was plotting, Antigonus took power. He was the son of Demetrius Poliorcetes and Phila the daughter of Antipater, and was called Gonatas because he had been born and brought up at Gonni in Thessaly. Antigonus reigned in total for 44 years. Prior to taking control of Macedonia, he had been king for a total of 10 years. He was declared king in the second year [g332] of the 123rd Olympiad [287 B.C.], and became king of the Macedonians in the first year of the 126th Olympiad [276 B.C.]. [Antigonus] conquered the Greek world with extreme force; he lived for 83 years in all, and died in the first year of the 135th Olympiad [240 B.C.].

[Antigonus] was succeeded by his son Demetrius, who conquered all of Libya and Cyrene. He ruled over all of his father's holdings as sole ruler for 10 years. He took to wife a captive whom he called Aureola/Chryseis, and by her he had a son Philippus, who was the first of the kings to fight against the Romans, causing the Macedonians much woe. After [Demetrius], Philippus succeeded under the superintendecy of a member of the royal line [g333], named Phuscus. [The Macedonians] subsequently made this Phuscus king when they saw that he honorably served as guardian. And they gave him Chryseis as a wife. The sons she bore him he did not raise [to the throne] because he was holding the kingdom in trust for Philippus. And indeed he was succeeded by Philippus, when he died.

⁹⁰ Demetrius, called the Handsome, died in the second year of the 130th Olympiad. Philippus then became king, with the aforementioned Antigonus as his guardian. [Antigonus] died in the fourth year of the 139th Olympiad [221 B.C.]; he had been guardian for 12 years, and lived for 42 years in all. Philippus began to rule without a guardian in the 140th Olympiad [220 B.C.][g334].He reigned for 42 complete years, and died in the second year of the 150th Olympiad [179 B.C.], aged 58 years.

Perseus the son of Philippus killed his brother Demetrius and ruled for 10 years and 8 months, until the fourth years of the 152nd Olympiad [169 B.C.]. Then Lucius Aemilius conquered the Macedonians at Pydna. Perseus fled to Samothrace, but then voluntarily surrendered to the combattants. They transferred him to Alba, where he was kept in custody. He died five years later, and with his death the Macedonians' [independent] rule ended.

At that time the Romans allowed the Macedonians to keep their autonomy, [g335] out of respect for their glorious reputation and their former greatness.

But 19 years later, in the third year of the 157th Olympiad [150 B.C.], a certain Andriscus falsely claimed to be the son of Perseus, and styled himself Philippus. Thus he was known as the false Philippus. With the help of the Thracians he conquered Macedonia. After ruling for a year he was defeated and fled to the Thracians, who surrendered him, and sent him bound to Rome.