Exhortation to the Hellenes

The treatise “Admonition to the Hellenes” aims to prove to the Greeks the falsity of their paganism and convert them to the true religion, which was first foretold by Moses and the prophets long before the emergence of Greek philosophy. According to most patrolologists, this anonymous work does not belong to the martyr Justin the Philosopher and dates back no earlier than the 3rd century. *The title of the work in Greek is Λόγος παραινετικὸς πρὸς ῞Ελληνας. *The title of the work in Latin is Cohortatio ad Graecos. Contents About the exhortation to the Hellenes Archpriest Peter Preobrazhensky Exhortation to the Hellenes With more right than the “speech to the Hellenes”, St. Justin the philosopher has a rather extensive (consisting of 38 chapters) work of apologetic content, now known under the name “exhortations (λόγος παραινέτιχος) to the Hellenes.” Its writer, having in mind to overcome the stubbornness of the pagans in the superstition of their fathers and to incite them to accept Christianity, tries to show the unsatisfactoryness of paganism in the matter of knowledge of God. In the first part of the work (chap. 1–13), he proves that true knowledge of God cannot be found among pagan teachers: poets, and at their head the famous Homer, represent the gods with all the shameful weaknesses and passions of humans (chap. 2). The opinions of philosophers about God are also unfounded and inconsistent with each other; even Plato and Aristotle - these pillars of Hellenic wisdom - not only disagree with one another, but also contradict themselves (chap. 3-7). “All philosophers,” he says, “can be praised for only one thing: that they tried to expose each other in error and ignorance of the truth.” The author contrasts such teachers of paganism with the Old Testament prophets - Christian teachers, who are much older than the pagans and spoke not on their own, but under the inspiration of St. Spirit: they all, despite the fact that they appeared at different times, agreed, as if with one mouth and one tongue, they proclaimed the truths revealed to them from above about God and the origin of the world, about the creation of man, the immortality of the soul, about the future judgment and about other things that need to be known (chapter 8). Further, the author proves the antiquity of prophetic teaching and cites numerous testimonies from pagan writers about the extreme antiquity of the first prophet and lawgiver of the Jews - Moses; his writings appeared long before the beginning of Greek literature, and in later times, together with the books of other prophets, were translated into Greek at the request of the Egyptian king Ptolemy (9 - 13). In the second part of the exhortation (14 - 38) it is proven that those few religious truths that are found among pagan poets and philosophers - about one God, about judgment and resurrection, etc., were borrowed by them from the Old Testament writings, which, as is known, they became acquainted with during their travels in the East. For this purpose, the author presents from the works of Orpheus, Homer, Sophocles, Pythagoras and Plato places that are similar in thoughts and even expressions to the writings of the prophets. Referring to the sayings of the Sibylline in favor of the true teaching, he finally turns to the pagans with an admonition to start reading the prophetic writings and learn from them true knowledge of God: “It is time for us, Hellenes, having become convinced on the basis of external historical evidence that Moses and other prophets lived much earlier than all your imaginary sages, to leave the old delusion of your ancestors; It’s time for us to turn to the sacred tales of the prophets and learn from them the true religion: they do not represent the art of words, do not use the techniques of eloquence for persuasion - this is typical of those who want to obscure the truth - but in simple, unartificial words they proclaim what the Holy Spirit who descended on them wanted to reveal through them to people who want to know true piety. So, without being at all ashamed, renounce the old human error, the empty noise of vanity, in which you place all your pleasure, and follow what is useful to you. You will not sin at all against your ancestors if you now want to turn from their error to the opposite teaching: perhaps they themselves are now tormented in hell by late repentance, and if they could tell you from there what befell them after death, then you would know what disasters they would like to save you from. This is the content of the exhortation to the Hellenes, placed in handwritten codes and printed publications with the name of St. Justin the Martyr. In the list of the works of this latter by Eusebius, Jerome and Photius, there is no work called “exhortations (λόγος παραινέτιχος)”; but they mention his composition against the pagans under the title “Reproach” (ελεγχος), by which one can rightly understand the now famous “exhortation to the Hellenes,” since the dominant character and direction of it is exposure 1, the revelation of the errors and absurdities of pagan dogma among poets and philosophers. This consideration is confirmed by the fact that Photius in his “library” (sod. 232), citing one passage from Stephen Gobar (V 1st century), says that it was borrowed from Justin the martyr, and makes a remark on it, referring to Justin and in his own words; The passages cited by Gobar and Photius are now in the “exhortation to the Hellenes” (chapter 23). This essay probably received the name “exhortation” instead of “reproof” from the initial words: “addressing you, Hellenes, with an exhortation, I ask,” etc., the writer says in the first line of the essay. Against the authenticity of the Exhortation as a work of St. Justin points out the difference in style, which in the Exhortation is clearer and more harmonious than in its apologies, the harshness of the reviews in the Exhortation about Greek philosophy, and the fact that in it all the best things among philosophers are explained from their external acquaintance with revelation, and not from the internal action of the Word in them. But these and similar differences will be significantly reduced if not only Justin’s apology is taken into consideration, but also the conversation with Tryphon, and moreover, they can be explained by the accusatory direction of the exhortation, which depended on the personal motives of the author and the external reasons for the composition. 2 1. Addressing an admonition to you, Hellenes, I ask God to grant me the ability to say what is needed for you, and for you the determination to abandon your former stubbornness and, freed from the delusion of your ancestors, accept what is useful for you, without thinking that you will sin against your ancestors if you now recognize as useful the teaching opposite to the one that they previously erroneously held. For a careful examination of a matter shows in a different form what often seemed beautiful, revealing the truth through careful testing. We have to study about true religion - about such a subject, which is more important, I think, nothing can be for those who want to live safely, because after this life there will be a judgment foreshadowed not only by our predecessors in worship - the prophets and legislators, but also by men famous among you for wisdom - poets and philosophers, who pretend to know the divine and true teaching; Therefore, I deigned first of all to consider the teachers of our and your religion, who and what they were and in what time they lived, so that in this way those who previously accepted a false religion from their ancestors would now know the truth and leave that ancient error, and we would clearly prove that it is we who follow the religion of our ancestors in reverence for God. 2. Whom do you, Hellenes, call the teachers of your religion? Poets? But you cannot say this to those who are familiar with their creations. These people know their absurd opinions about the origin of the gods, which can be seen in the most famous and first of your poets - Homer. For, first, he says that the gods are of water, in the following words: . . . . Immortal father Ocean and mother Tethys 3 Next, it should be mentioned that he speaks of the first among the gods, whom he often calls the father of gods and people: he said: Zeus between people battles solver 4 He says that Zeus was not only the decider of the battle for the combatants, but also the culprit of the Trojan perjury that occurred because of his daughter. In addition, Homer depicts Zeus as both in love and distressed and persecuted by the evil intentions of other gods. He makes him talk about his son like this: Woe! I see, Sarpedon, dearest to me among mortals, Today it is destined to fall under the hand of Patroclus 5 Woe! Dear husband, driven near the city My eyes see, and the disease passes through my heart 6 Also from the following verses it is clear that he is talking about the evil intentions of other gods against Zeus: On the day the Olympian gods dared to bind their father, Hera and King Posidaon and with them Pallas Athena 7 And if the fear of the one called Briareus. 8 could not restrain the blessed gods; they would certainly have bound Zeus. It is also necessary to mention that Homer speaks of the immoderate lust of Zeus. For this is what Zeus says to Hera: Such love is never for a goddess or a mortal It didn’t pour into my chest and didn’t control my soul! So I did not love, captivated by the young wife of Ixion, Not seduced by Danae, the white-footed daughter of Acrisius, Nor owning the famous Phoenix's young daughter, Nor the most beautiful mortal captivated by Alcmena in Thebes, Even Semele, who gave birth to the joy of people - Dionysus; I didn’t love so much, captivated by the fair-haired Queen Demeter, Glorious Summer itself, not even you, O Hera! 9 I consider it not superfluous to cite here what can be learned from Homer’s poem about other gods and what they suffered from people. For he says that Ares and Aphrodite were wounded by Diomedes, and tells about the sufferings of many other gods. For example, here are the words of Diona consoling her daughter: Dear daughter, be of good cheer, endure, no matter how sad your heart is. There are already many gods living on Olympus from people We suffered, mutually causing trouble for each other. Thus also Ares suffered, as did his Ephialtes and Othos, Two huge Aloids, bound with a terrible chain: He was chained for thirteen months in a copper dungeon. Hera suffered similarly, like the powerful son of Amphitryon In Persia he struck her with a three-pointed bitter arrow: A fierce, joyless pain tormented the goddess Hera. Aides himself, terrible among the gods, suffered from birds. The same disastrous husband, Thunderer's branch, Aidesa Having wounded them to lie next to the dead, they plunged them into bitter suffering. He ascended to the high Olympus in Egiokh's house We are sad at heart and tormented by illness; fatal arrow In the powerful Aides frame stood and tormented the soul 10 If you still need to remind you about the internecine war of the other gods, then let your poet himself tell you: Everything became so excited, as the immortals came together to fight. Against King Posidaon, powerful Ennosigeus, Apollo became long-haired and wearing winged arrows; Against Ares is the azure-eyed maiden Pallas; The golden-eyed fishing goddess went against Hera Artemis, sister of Apollo, proud of her arrow accuracy, Opposite Lethe stood the beneficent winged Hermes 11 Homer depicts your gods with these and similar features, and not only Homer, but also Hesiod. Therefore, if you believe your most famous poets, who also conveyed the genealogy of your gods, then you must either honor the gods as they portray them, or not recognize them as gods at all. 12 3. But if you reject the testimony of your poets, saying that they could create myths and say many fabulous things about the gods that are far from the truth, then who else do you consider to be the teachers of your religion and from whom, tell me, did they learn it? It cannot be that they knew such great and divine subjects without first learning from knowledgeable people. Of course, you will point to your sages and philosophers: you usually resort to them as a solid wall when someone opposes you with the opinions of your poets about the gods. Since it is proper to begin with the most ancient and the first, I, starting with them, will present the opinions of each of them, which are even more ridiculous than the theology of your poets. Thales of Miletus, 13 who was the founder of the philosophy of nature, recognized water as the beginning of all things; for, according to him, everything comes from water and everything is resolved into water. After him, Anaximander, also a native of Miletus, said that the beginning of everything is limitless, since everything is born from it and everything returns to it. Further, Anaximenes, also from Miletus, asserts that air is the beginning of everything that exists, for everything comes from it and everything is resolved into it. Heraclitus (and Hippasus) the Metapontine recognizes fire as the beginning of things, since everything comes from fire and everything ends with fire. Anaxagoras of Klazomensky recognizes omiomerism as the beginning of everything; 14 Archelaus the Athenian, son of Apollodorus, is the boundless air, its rarefied and condensed state. All of them, in succession from Thales, were engaged in what they called the philosophy of nature. 4. Then, starting from another beginning, Pythagoras of Samos, the son of Mnesarchus, recognizes as the beginnings of all number, their relationships and combinations, also elements composed of both, and in addition the unit and the indefinite binary. Epicurus the Athenian, son of Neocles, calls the beginning of all that exists bodies, contemplated by the mind, alien voids, beginningless and indestructible, which can neither be divided, nor composed of parts, nor changed; and therefore they are contemplated only by reason. Empedocles of Agrigentum, son of Jeton, recognizes four elements - fire, air, water, earth and two main forces - friendship and enmity, of which one unites and the other divides. From this you see the confusion of opinions among the people whom you regard as sages, whom you consider teachers of your religion. Some of them recognize the beginning of all things as water, others as air, others as fire, and others as one of the above-mentioned elements. And at the same time they all use eloquence to support their unfounded opinions and try to prove that their own teaching of one or another of them is superior to others. These are their concepts. How, Greeks, can those who wish to receive salvation be sure that they can learn true religion from those people who could not even convince each other not to argue among themselves and not to contradict in their opinions? 5. But perhaps those who do not want to abandon an ancient and inveterate error will say that they received the teaching of religion not from the above-mentioned philosophers, but from the most famous and famous for virtue - Plato and Aristotle: they, as they say, taught perfect and true religion. But first I would ask those who say so, from whom these teachers of theirs received their teaching, since it cannot be that they themselves could recognize such a high and divine teaching and correctly teach it to others, without having learned it from knowledgeable people. Then I consider it necessary to also examine their opinions: then we will see whether they also disagree with each other in their opinions. If we find that they do not agree with each other, then I think it will not be difficult to conclude from this that they also did not know the truth 15. Plato, who seemed to have descended from heaven and clearly saw everything that was there, says that the Almighty God is contained in the element of fire. 16 Aristotle, expounding in his work to Alexander the Great the essence of his philosophy, openly refutes the opinion of Plato, saying that God does not dwell in the fiery element, but, inventing some kind of fifth ethereal and unchangeable body, says that God resides in it. He writes like this: “I don’t think like others who, being mistaken in their opinions about the deity, say that God consists in a fiery substance. 17 And further, as if not content with this censure of Plato, to cite as proof of his words about the etheric body Homer, whom Plato excluded from his republic and called a liar and a third imitator of the truth. 18 Aristotle writes: “and Homer also said: Zeus got a spacious sky between the clouds and the ether 19 Through Homer's testimony, he wanted to make his opinion more reliable, not seeing that if he cites the testimony of Homer as proof of the truth of his words, then on the same basis many of Aristotle's opinions would turn out to be unfair. For Thales of Miletus, the founder of philosophy, with the words of the same Homer will refute his teaching about principles. Aristotle argued that the beginning of everything is God and matter, and the most ancient of philosophers, Thales, calls water the beginning of everything, because, he says, everything comes from water and everything is resolved into water. And in this opinion he is based, firstly, on the fact that the seed of all animals, which serves as their beginning, is moist; secondly, on the fact that all plants feed on moisture and bear fruit, but if there is a lack of it, they dry out. Then, as if not satisfied with these conclusions, he refers to Homer, a witness worthy of faith, who says this: ... the ancient river Ocean, from which everything was born 20 Doesn’t Thales have the right to say to Aristotle: “Why do you, Aristotle, wanting to refute Plato’s opinions, turn to Homer as speaking the truth, but when you affirm an opinion opposite to mine, do not recognize his words as fair?” 6. That your famous philosophers do not agree with each other on other subjects is easy to see from the following. For Plato recognizes three principles of everything: God, matter and idea - God as the creator of everything; substance, as the basis for the original origin of things and the reason for His artistic activity; the idea, as an example of each of the created things. Aristotle, on the contrary, does not recognize ideas as a beginning, saying that there are only two beginnings - God and matter. 21 In addition, Plato says that in the first fixed sphere of the highest heaven there are the first God and ideas, but after the first God Aristotle does not supply ideas, but some kind of mental deities. So they disagree with each other in the teaching about heavenly things: it is easy to understand that those who could not know what we have on earth and disagree with each other about this cannot be reliable tellers about heavenly things. In the same way, they do not agree with each other in the doctrine of the human soul, as can be seen from the own words of each of them. Plato says that it consists of three parts - reasonable, irritable and desirable. Aristotle does not understand the soul so broadly that it also contains parts subject to destruction, but he recognizes in it only the rational part. Plato said directly: “the entire soul is immortal”; 22 Aristotle, calling it entelechy, 23 claims that it is not immortal, but mortal. The first recognizes it as moving, and the second as motionless, although it controls all movement. 7. This reveals their mutual disagreement. But if anyone wants to take a closer look at the creations of each of them, he will find that they are fickle in their own opinions. Plato, for example, sometimes accepts three principles: God, matter and idea, sometimes four, adding to them the universal soul. And one more thing: having first said that matter was not created, then he calls it created; first ascribed to form an independent beginning and original existence, and then says that it exists in the concepts of the mind. And having first recognized that everything created is perishable, he then asserts that some of the created beings may be indestructible and incorruptible. Why do those who are so revered among you as sages disagree not only with each other, but often with themselves? Obviously, because they did not want to learn from knowledgeable people, imagining that through their human mind they could achieve clear knowledge of heavenly things, while they themselves could not know earthly things. So some of your philosophers claim that the human soul is in us, and others that it is near us. And even on this they did not want to agree, but, as if having divided ignorance among themselves to varying degrees, they argue and disagree with each other about the soul. For some of them worship the soul with fire, others with air, others with the mind, others with movement, others with breath; some more - by the power flowing from the stars, others by the number, endowed with the power of movement, and finally others - by water, which has generative power. 24 Thus, confusion and differences of opinion prevail among them: and only for one thing can they justly be praised - because they tried to expose one another in error and ignorance of the truth. 8. So, if it is not possible to learn anything true about worship of God from your teachers, for they have sufficiently proven their ignorance to you by mutual disagreements, then you should - I think - turn to our ancestors, who are much older than your teachers in time and did not teach us anything according to their own invention, moreover, they did not disagree with each other, and did not try to refute each other’s opinions, but without any disputes or disagreements, they accepted knowledge from God and passed it on to us. For it is impossible for people to know such a high and divine truth either by nature or through the activity of the human mind, but only through the gift that then descended from above on holy men. They did not need either verbal art, or the ability to argue and compete, but they only needed to present themselves as pure for the action of the Divine Spirit, so that He, like a bow descended from heaven, using righteous men as a zither or lyre, would reveal to us through them the knowledge of the heavenly and divine. That is why, with such fidelity to themselves, with such agreement with each other, as if with one mouth and one tongue, they teach us about God, about the creation of the world, about the creation of man and about the immortality of the human soul, about the future judgment after this life and about everything that we need to know, and their teaching is invariable and mutually consistent; and, moreover, they passed on this divine teaching to us, living in different places and at different times. 9 . Now I will begin with our first prophet and lawgiver, Moses, and first of all, I will tell you about the time in which he lived, based on the most reliable evidence you have. I will try to confirm my words not only from our sacred legends, which you do not want to believe, blinded by the inveterate prejudice of your ancestors, but from your stories, which have nothing to do with our religion. You will see that the first teacher of our religion, Moses, was much more ancient than all your sages, poets, historians, philosophers and legislators, as the legends of the Hellenes show us. Even in the times of Ogigus and Inachus, whom some of you consider to be the sons of the earth, Moses is mentioned as the leader and ruler of the Jewish people. Thus Polemon, in the first book of his Greek history, and Appion, the son of Posidonius, in his work against the Jews and in the fourth book of their history, mention that during the reign of Inachus, king of Argives, the Jews broke away from Amasis, king of Egypt, and their leader was Moses. Also Ptolemy Mendisius, telling the history of the Egyptians, agrees with them in all this. And Athenian historians: Ellanicus, the author of Atticus Philochorus, Castor and Phallus, Alexander Polyhistor, as well as the most learned Jewish historians Philo and Joseph, speak of Moses as the most ancient leader of the Jews. So Josephus, wanting to show the antiquity of history in the very writing of his books, entitled the story: “Flavius ​​Josephus Jewish Archaeology,” denoting the antiquity of history with the word: “archaeology.” Finally, we must add the famous one of your historians, Diodorus, who made extracts from libraries and for thirty years, as he himself writes, 25 for the sake of great curiosity, walked through Asia and Europe, and saw a lot with his own eyes and wrote forty books of his history. 26 In his first book, having said that he learned from the Egyptian priests about Moses as the first and most ancient legislator, he wrote about him this way: “after the ancient order of life in Egypt, which in mythology seems to be the period of gods and heroes, they say that the first to teach the peoples the use of written laws was Moses, a glorious man both for the greatness of the spirit and for the benefits he brought to the human race.” 27 Then, a little later, mentioning the ancient legislators, putting Moses at their head. Here are his words: “They say that among the Jews Moses ascribed his laws to God, called Iao, 28 either because they considered it a wondrous and divine idea that would benefit many people, or because they thought that the people, paying attention to the perfections and power of the founders of the laws, would obey them more. The second Egyptian legislator is called Sauhnis, famous for his wisdom. The third Egyptian legislator is revered as king Sesonkhosis, who not only became famous among the Egyptians for his military exploits, but also for curbing the warlike people with laws. The fourth legislator was King Vochoris, wise and at the same time cunning. After him, King Amasis was involved in legislation, who they say put everything in order that concerns the heads of the provinces and the administration of all of Egypt. Finally, Darius, the father of Xerxes, is called the sixth legislator of the Egyptians.” 10. Thus, Hellenes, writers who are alien to our religion testify to the antiquity of Moses, saying that they learned all this from the Egyptian priests, among whom Moses was not only born, but was also honored to learn all the wisdom of Egypt, since he was taken by the king’s daughter instead of a son and therefore had great care for him; This is narrated by the most learned historians who described his life and giving and the great fate of the Jewish people - Philo and Joseph. They, telling the history of the Jews, say that Moses came from the tribe of the Chaldeans; when his ancestors, due to famine, moved from Phenicia to Egypt, a man was born there whom God wanted to honor for his high virtue and made him the chief, leader and legislator of his people when He deigned to lead the Jewish people from Egypt to their own land. To him first God communicated that divine and prophetic gift that descended from above on holy people; God made him the first teacher of our religion, and after him other prophets who received the same gift and taught us the same things as he did. These are the people we call teachers of our religion - who taught us not according to their own human imagination, but according to the gift they received from God from above. 11. But since you, following the inveterate delusion of your ancestors, do not want to believe these teachers, then who do you finally consider to be the teachers of your religion who would be worthy of faith? For, as I have already said more than once, it cannot be that, without first learning from knowledgeable people, they could themselves know and correctly teach such high and divine truths to others. From what has been said, all the ignorance and all the lies with which the teachings of your philosophers are filled are sufficiently exposed; and therefore you, having left the philosophers in the same way as before the poets, perhaps turn to the prophecies of the oracles; I heard such a confession from some. Therefore, I consider it necessary to tell you now what I heard about them from you before. For as you yourself say, when someone asked your oracle what kind of people were ever pious, the oracle gave this answer: Only the Chaldeans comprehended wisdom, and also the Jews, That God was honored by giving the original. And since you believe that the truth can be learned from oracles; then, reading the stories about the life of Moses, written by people completely alien to our religion, and knowing that Moses and other prophets came from the Chaldean and Jewish tribe, do not consider it strange if God wanted to honor with such a gift a person who came from a pious family and lived in accordance with the piety of his ancestors and if He deigned to reveal him first of all the prophets. 12. With all this, I consider it necessary to take into account the time when your philosophers lived, so that you know that the period of time separating them from you is very short. Moreover, from here you can easily see the antiquity of Moses. But so that, having embarked on the chronology, I do not deviate too far due to the abundance of evidence, I will be content with the following. Socrates was Plato's teacher, Plato Aristotle's teacher. The period of their glory was the time of Philip and Alexander the Great, the time of prosperity also for the Athenian orators, which is clearly demonstrated to us by the speeches of Demosthenes, written against Philip. And that Aristotle was a contemporary of the reign of Alexander is proven by the narrators of Alexander’s deeds. From all this it is already easy to see that the story of Moses is much older than all secular stories. In addition, you should not be unaware that the Hellenes do not have any reliable history before the Olympics, 29 and there is not a single monument testifying to the deeds of the Hellenes or barbarians. Until this time, there was one story of the prophet Moses, which he wrote, at the inspiration of God, in Hebrew. But Hellenic writing did not yet exist at that time, as shown by the teachers of literature themselves, who say that Cadmus was the first to bring writing from Phenicia and taught it to the Hellenes. And the first of your philosophers. Plato testifies that Hellenic writing was invented at a later time. He writes in Timaeus that the wisest of the wise, Solon, returning from Egypt, told Critias what he had heard from a not very old Egyptian priest. This priest said this: “O Solon, Solon, you are Hellenes, still children, there is no elder among the Hellenes.” And further: “You are still young at heart, you have no ancient institutions, no ancient legends. You are so mired in ignorance that those who lived many generations ago died silently due to the lack of writing.” You should know that all historical works are written in Hellenic letters, which were invented quite recently. And therefore, if anyone wants to turn to any of the ancient poets, or legislators, or historians, or philosophers, or orators, he will find that they all wrote their works in the Hellenic language. 13. If anyone says that the books of Moses and other prophets were also written in the Hellenic language, then let him learn from secular histories that Ptolemy, the king of Egypt, collecting books everywhere to fill the library he built in Alexandria, when he soon learned that ancient historical tales written in Hebrew were still preserved, then, wanting to know their content, he called from Jerusalem 70 learned men who knew the Hebrew and Hellenic languages and ordered them to translate books. In order that, without any hindrance, they could make the translation as quickly as possible, he ordered the construction, not in the city itself, but seven stages away from it, where the lighthouse was to be erected, as many small houses as there were translators, so that each of them would do the translation separately. At the same time, he ordered the assigned servants to deliver to them everything they needed and to serve them, but not to allow them to have mutual relations, so that afterward the accuracy of the translation could be judged by their consent. When he learned that 70 men in their translation not only retained the same thoughts, but used the same words, did not differ from each other in a single expression, but wrote the same thing; Then, surprised and believing that this translation was written with the help of divine power, he recognized them as worthy of all honor, as people pleasing to God, and ordered them to be released to their fatherland with great rewards, and considering the books to be divine, they should be placed in the library 30. We are telling you this, Hellenes, not a fable or a fictitious story. We ourselves were in Alexandria and saw the still surviving remains of houses in Pharos, and what we heard from the natives, who knew this from tradition from their fathers, we now tell you, you can also learn from others, especially from scientists and respected historians who spoke about this subject - Philo and Joseph and many others. If any of the hunters contradicts and says that these books do not belong to us, but to the Jews, who therefore still keep them in their synagogues, and that it is in vain that we think of finding the teaching of our religion in them; let him learn from what is written in these very books that this teaching does not belong to them, but to us. The fact that these books related to our religion are still kept by the Jews is a matter of divine providence for us. For if we presented the books that are in our church, we would give reason to suspect deception to people who are looking for an opportunity to slander us; but we propose to get books from the Jewish synagogues, so that from these very books, still kept by them, it can be clearly seen that the rules of doctrine written by holy men belong to us. 14. So, you must, Hellenes, foreseeing the future and looking at the judgment announced not only by our holy men, but also by strangers to us, not blindly cling to the error of your ancestors and not consider as the truth what they, in their deception, delivered to you; but realizing how dangerous it is to err in such an important matter, you must carefully examine and test what is said by your, as you call them, teachers. For they, too, by the action of divine providence about people, were forced to unwittingly say a lot in our favor, especially those who were in Egypt and took advantage of the religious teachings of Moses and his ancestors. I think it is not unknown to some of you, if you have read the works of Diodorus and other historians, that Orpheus, Homer and Solon, who wrote the laws of the Athenians, also Pythagoras and Plato and some others, having been in Egypt and using the writings of Moses, thereafter expressed thoughts contrary to their previous false opinions about the gods. 15. I consider it necessary to remind you that Orpheus finally announced the one God to his son Museum and other close listeners. Orpheus, who was the first teacher of your polytheism, as someone would say. Here are his words: I will speak to those who are appropriate, and you, profane people, will close the doors. Listen, Museum, son of the luminous moon! I will tell the truth so that my previous suggestions do not deprive you of a blissful life. Look to the divine Word, strive towards it, directing your heart and mind; follow the right path and know one King of the world. He is unique; by one all things were created; He lives in everything, and none of the mortals sees Him, but He Himself sees everyone. After good, He sends evil to mortals - war, which brings horror, and sorrow, which causes tears. There is no other but the great King. But I do not see Him: for a cloud hides Him from the sight of mortals. All of them have eyes too weak to see the ruler of all Zeus. He established himself at the top of the iron sky, on a golden throne and tramples the earth with his feet; He stretches out His right hand to the ends of the ocean; around it shake huge mountains, rivers and the depths of a clear azure sea. 31 And in another place he says this: One Zeus, one Hades, one Helios, one Dionysus, one God in all. What can I tell you more than this? And in his Spells he says this: I conjure you by heaven, by the wise work of the great God; I conjure you with the first Word of the Father, which He spoke when He established the universe with His laws. 32 I conjure you with the first word of the Father that He spoke. The word here means the Word of God, through which heaven and earth and every creature came into being, as the divine prophecies of the holy men teach: Orpheus partially became acquainted with them during his trip to Egypt and knew that everything was created by the Word of God. Therefore, after the words: I conjure you with the first Word of the Father that He spoke When He established the universe with His laws Here Orpheus used the actual expression: voice (άδγή) instead of word (λογος) for the sake of the measure of the verse. That this is so is evident from the fact that a little earlier, when the poetic measure allowed him, he calls Him the Word. Look to the divine Word and strive for it. 16. I will also give you the sayings of the very ancient Sibyl, in which she teaches you about the one God: this Sibyl is mentioned by many Plato, Aristophanes and others as an inspired prophetess. She says this: There is One Great God, the Beginningless, the Almighty, the Invisible, the All-Seeing, and Himself invisible to any mortal flesh. 33 We have lost our way from the ways of the Immortal; with an unreasonable heart we honor man-made products, idols of gods and transitory people. 34 Blessed will be those people on earth who will honor the great God, blessing Him before eating food and drink and piously trusting in Him: they will reject churches and altars - vain elevations of insensitive stones, which are desecrated by the blood of animals and the sacrifices of four-legged animals, but will look at the great beauty of the one God. 35 This is what the Sibyl said. 17. The poet Homer, abusing the freedom of poetry and following the opinion of Orpheus about the many gods, which he first expressed, 36 mentions the truth about many gods, in order not to deviate from Orpheus’ poetry; he took her as a model and showed his disposition towards him in the very first verse of the poem: Orpheus at the beginning of his poem said: Wrath, goddess, sing to the fertile Demeter. 37 Wrath, goddess, sing to Achilles, son of Peleus deciding, it seems to me, even to violate the legal measure of the verse at the beginning of the poem, 38 just so that it would not seem that he immediately neglected the name of the gods. And a little later he clearly and openly expresses his thought about the one God, saying, then through the mouth of the Phoenix to Achilles: At least God himself promised the Almighty, Having tempted old age to return me to my blooming youth again 39 where through the pronoun “himself” he denotes the One who truly is God: then, giving Odysseus these words to the Hellenic people: There is no good in plural power; let there be one ruler. 40 But he wanted to show in practice that plural power is not good, but on the contrary, evil, and for this he told the wars of many leaders, battles, disturbances and their mutual malicious intent, while autocracy is irresistible. This is what we find in the poet Homer. 18. If you need to add dramatic poets to confirm the unity of God, then listen to Sophocles, who says this: One truly, one is God, who created the sky and the great earth, the azure waves of the sea and gusty winds. But many mortals, deceived in their hearts, for their consolation in the midst of misfortunes, made idols of gods from stone or wood, from ivory or gold. To such gods we make sacrifices, dedicate solemn assemblies, and in this we place our piety. 41 19. And Pythagoras, the son of Mnesarchus, who expounded the teachings of his philosophy covertly through symbols, as his biographers say, seemed to have thoughts about a single God, testifying to his journey to Egypt. For, considering one to be the beginning of everything and the source of every good, he allegorically teaches that there is one God. This is precisely evident from the fact that, according to him, one and one are very different from each other: one takes place in what is comprehended by the mind, and one in numbers. If you want to have the clearest proof of Pythagoras’s doctrine of one God, then listen to his own opinion. “There is one God,” he says, “not outside the world, as some people think, but whole within himself. He completely embraces with his gaze all creatures, the sustainer of all ages, the creator of his powers and works, the beginning of everything, the lamp of heaven and the universal father, the mind and soul of the universe, the driving force of all spheres.” 42 These are the words of Pythagoras. 20. Plato probably shared the teaching of Moses and other prophets about the one God, whom he met while in Egypt, but taught by the unfortunate fate of Socrates, he was afraid to arm against himself some Anytus or Melita, who would accuse him before the Athenians and say: “Plato behaves impiously and restlessly, not honoring the gods whom the citizens honor.” 43 Out of fear of hemlock, he used different and hidden modes of speech about the gods and skillfully imagined that there were gods for those who admitted this, and that there were none for those who thought differently: this is easy to see from his own words. Having said before that everything created is subject to death, he then says that the gods were created. If he recognizes God and matter as the beginnings of everything, then obviously, by necessity, one should conclude that the gods originated from matter. If they originated from matter, from which, according to Plato, evil also originated, then it is left to sane people to judge what opinion they should have about gods who originated from matter? That is why he recognized matter as uncreated, so that they would not think that he considered God the creator of evil. This is what he says about the gods created by God: “gods of gods, of whom I am the creator.” 44 But he has a correct opinion about the true God. For he learned in Egypt that God, sending Moses to the Jews, said to him: “I am He,” 45 from which Plato understood that God had not told the prophet His own name. 21. Indeed, God cannot be called by any proper name. For names exist to designate and distinguish objects in their multitude and variety, but there was no one before who would give God a name, and He had no need to give Himself a name, being only one, 46 as He Himself testifies through His prophets, saying: “I am God the first and the last, and besides Me there is no other God.” 47 Therefore, as I said above, God, sending Moses to the Jews, does not mention any of His name, but signifies it mysteriously. Himself through the sacrament (Sy) and thereby makes it known that He is one. “I Am,” He says, contrasting Himself, as being, with those who do not exist, so that those who were previously mistaken would know that they were attached not to those who exist, but to those who do not exist. For He knew that among people that ancient delusion of the ancestors had not yet disappeared, into which the misanthropic demon wanted to involve them, saying: “If you obey me to transgress the commandment of God, you will be like gods,” 48 calling non-existent gods, so that people, thinking that there are other gods, would believe that they too can become gods; That is why God said: “I am this,” in order to show the difference between the existing God and the non-existent through the participle “I am.” When people, having believed the demon’s seduction, dared to disobey God and left paradise, they remembered that they had been told about the gods, but God had not yet revealed to them that there were no other gods (except Him); for it was unfair for those who did not keep the first commandment, which was so easy to keep, to still be taught, but they should have been subjected to righteous punishment. So, expelled from paradise, they, thinking that they were expelled only for disobedience to God, and not because they also believed that there are gods who do not exist, passed on this idea about gods to their descendants. This is the origin of the false thought about the gods, which received its origin from the father of lies. God, seeing that the false thought of polytheism, like some kind of disease, burdened the souls of people, wanted to destroy it; therefore He, appearing first to Moses, said to Him: “I am He.” For, I think, it was necessary that the future leader and leader of the Jewish people should be the first of all to know the real God. Therefore, appearing to him first, since it is possible for God to appear to man, he said to him: “I am.” Then, sending him to the Jews, he commanded him to say to them too: “He has sent me to you.” 49 22. Plato learned all this in Egypt and of course he liked the doctrine of one God, but fearing the Areopagus, he considered it unsafe to mention before the Athenians the name of Moses, who taught about the unity of God, and his doctrine of God was outlined in a carefully crafted conversation “Timaeus”, in which he discussed divine things - not as the teaching taught by Moses, but as his own opinion; however, he said the same thing that Moses wrote about God. He said: “In my opinion, it is necessary, first of all, to distinguish between what is always existing and has no beginning, and what is existing, but never existing.” 50 I ask, Greeks, those who can understand: is it not the same thing in the words of Moses and Plato, with the difference only in the member? Moses said: This (δ ών), and Plato: the existing (το &οcιρc;v). Both expressions obviously befit a God who always exists; for He alone always exists and has no beginning. What else is opposed to the always-existing, about which Plato said: “always existing, but never existing?” Let us consider this carefully and see that he clearly and directly calls the beginningless eternal, and those who received a beginning or were created - as he says about them: “the gods of the gods, of whom I am the creator,” - you call them coming into being and perishing. Here are his own words: “In my opinion, it is necessary first of all to distinguish between what is always existing, but has no beginning, and what is, but never exists. One is understood by rational thinking, being always the same, while the other is subject to opinion through irrational sensation, since it comes into existence and perishes, but never exists.” These words give meaning to those who can think correctly about the destruction and destruction of the created gods. I consider it necessary to pay attention to the fact that Plato calls God not the creator, but the creator of gods, because according to the same Plato there is a big difference between the two: the creator does not need anything extraneous and with his own strength, and with his power produces what he creates, the creator or artist receives the opportunity for his creation from matter and from it he forms his work. 28. But maybe some, not wanting to lag behind the opinion of the multitude of gods, will object to us that the Artist himself said this to the created gods: “since you received a beginning, you are not immortal and not completely indestructible, however, you will not be destroyed and will not be subject to the fate of death, having received my will as an inheritance - this strongest and strongest connection.” 51 Here Plato, fearing the worshipers of polytheism, puts words into the mouth of the Creator that put him in contradiction with himself. For according to his presentation, the one who previously said that everything that has received a beginning is subject to death now asserts the opposite: Plato does not notice that in this way it is impossible to avoid the accusation of lying; because either the first statement is unjust, that everything that has received a beginning is mortal, or the other is false, when it says the opposite of what was said before about the gods. If it is absolutely necessary that what has received a beginning should be subject to death according to its first position, then how could something that is absolutely impossible become possible? So, Plato in vain thinks to grant the impossible to his Artist when he declares that those who, having originated from matter, are therefore already subject to death, will thanks to him be free from death and destruction. For the power of matter, which according to Plato is beginningless and co-eternal with the Creator, can resist His will; the one who did not create has no power over the uncreated, so violence cannot be done to a substance that is free from all external necessity. Therefore, Plato himself, with this in mind, wrote: “it is necessary to admit that nothing can do violence to God. 52 24. How does Plato expel Homer from his republic when he put the following words into the mouth of Phoenix in the embassy to Achilles: Even the gods themselves are flexible 53 In them, Homer speaks not about the king and Plato’s creator of gods, but about those gods of whom the Hellenes admitted a great number, as we see from Plato’s expression: “gods of gods.” To the one and first God Homer ascribes authority and power over everything through the golden chain of which he speaks; 54 and believes such a difference between His deity and other gods that he does not hesitate to name them together with people. Thus Odysseus appears to be speaking to Achilles about Hector: The strong one rages violently against Zeus; he imputes it to nothing Mortals and the gods themselves, possessed of a terrible rage. 55 Here, it seems to me, Homer, like Plato, having learned about the one God in Egypt, clearly expresses this, saying that he who trusts in the existing God does not pay attention to those gods that do not exist. So the poet in another place uses another equivalent expression - a pronoun, which also means that Plato has a participle, and which indicates the existing God, about whom Plato said: “always existing, and without a beginning.” For it’s not just that it seems to me that the words spoken by the Phoenix: At least God himself promised the almighty Old age has tempted me to return to my blooming youth again. The pronoun “himself” means God according to the truth of existence. The same thing is expressed by the saying of the oracle known to you about the Chaldeans and Jews; for when someone asked who were ever pious people, he answered, according to your words: Only the Chaldeans comprehended wisdom, and also the Jews. That the beginningless God of the king himself was revered. 56 25. Why does Plato blame Homer for calling the gods accommodating, when Homer said so for the sake of benefit, as can be seen from his own words? For those who think of receiving mercy through prayer and sacrifice tend to forsake their sins and repent of them; but if they consider the deity to be inflexible, then they do not think of letting go of their sins, considering all repentance useless. How did the philosopher Plato condemn the poet Homer for his words: Even the gods themselves are flexible, and he himself imagines his Creator of the gods to be so easily changed that you call the gods either mortal or immortal? Also, speaking not only about the gods, but also about the substance from which the gods, whom he calls created, necessarily originated, he either recognizes it as beginningless, or created, not noticing that he himself clearly falls into the same mistake with which he reproaches Homer. Plato calls the Creator of the gods flexible, while Homer says something completely different about him; for he represents God speaking about himself. ... that word is irrevocable, immutable And it cannot fail to happen when I anoint the head! 57 However, Plato probably deliberately, fearing the worshipers of polytheism, said such an absurdity about the gods. When he considers it necessary, he expresses what he learned from Moses and the prophets about the one God in secret, making his opinion clear to those who wish to honor God. For when he liked the words of God to Moses: “I am He,” and he pondered for a long time about the short saying expressed through the sacrament, he realized that in the words: “I am He,” God wanted to show Moses His eternity, since the word “He” does not mean one time, but three times - past, present and future. So Plato uses the word “This” to mean endless time in his expression: “never existing”: the word “never” refers not only to the past, as some think, but also to the future time: secular writers have defined this as well. Therefore, Plato, having secretly expressed through the sacrament the thought of the eternity of God, as if in order to make it understandable even for those who do not understand, wrote the following words: “God, as the ancient tradition says, is the beginning, the end and the middle of everything.” 58 Here Plato clearly calls the law of Moses an ancient tradition, fearing only to mention the name of Moses for fear of hemlock, for he knew that the teaching of this man was contrary to the Hellenic religion, but clearly hints at Moses in his expression about the ancient tradition. And that the law of Moses is very ancient and the first, we have sufficiently proven above from Diodorus and other historians; for Diodorus says that he was the first of all legislators, before the Hellenic writings with which they wrote their histories had been invented. 26. Let no one be surprised that Plato believed Moses and wrote so about the eternity of God. You can find that he secretly attributes, after the true God, the true knowledge of things to the prophets. So in Timaeus, discussing some principles, he wrote: “we assume the beginning of fire and other bodies, following the probable conclusions of reason, but the beginnings of these things are known only by God and those of the people who are pleasing to Him.” Who does he mean by people pleasing to God, if not Moses and other prophets? He became acquainted with their prophecies, from them he learned the doctrine of judgment, and therefore he says in his first book about the republic: “when someone approaches the time when he thinks about dying soon, he is attacked by fear and anxiety about something that had not previously occurred to him. Well-known legends about hell and the torment that those living here unrighteously must undergo there, which previously caused laughter, then begin to worry his soul, whether this will actually happen; and whether due to the infirmity of old age or because of his approach to that fate, he is more concerned with it. He is tormented by doubt and fear, reflects and considers whether he has done harm to anyone. And the one who finds that he has done a lot of evil in his life, like children, often awakens from sleep, fears and lives with gloomy hope; and with him who realizes that he has done no wrong, sweet hope is always present, the nourisher of old age, as Pindar said. It’s wonderful, Socrates, said the poet, that whoever has lived a holy and righteous life, He has a heart filled with joy and is accompanied by hope, the nourisher of old age, hope that for the most part controls the fickle thoughts of mortals. 59 This is found in Plato's first book on the Republic. 27. In the tenth book of the same work, Plato clearly expounds the doctrine of judgment after death, which he learned from the prophets; however, for fear of the Hellenes, he does not dare to say that he borrowed from the prophets, but imagines that he heard from one man killed in the war, who was supposed to be buried and was put on the fire, but came to life and told him what he saw there. Here are the words of Plato: “he said that he was at a time when one asked the other where the great Arideus was. This Arideus was a tyrant in one city of Panphilia: they said that he killed an old man, his father, and his elder brother, and committed many other atrocities. The interviewee answered: he did not come and will not come here. We saw such a terrible sight. When we approached the hole, wanting to return from there and having suffered all other trials, we suddenly saw Arideus and others, who for the most part were also tyrants, and partly also simple people who had committed great crimes: they all hoped to get out, but the hole did not accept them and made a roar every time one of the inveterately evil tried to get out without having carried out the proper punishment. Here stood terrible people, fiery in appearance, who, having heard the roar, grabbed others and took them away, while Arideas and others, having tied their legs, arms and heads, threw them to the ground, tortured them, dragged them out and threw them onto thorn bushes; and told those present why they were being thrown into tartarus. But of the many horrors of every kind that befell there, the most terrible for the one who ascends is to hear the roar of the hole, and everyone feels the greatest joy when he does not hear it on his way out. Such are the torments and executions of hell; but the state of virtuous people is opposite to them.” 60 Here Plato, it seems to me, borrowed from the prophets not only the doctrine of judgment, but also of the resurrection, which the Greeks do not believe in. By saying that the soul is judged together with the body, he clearly shows that he believed the doctrine of the resurrection. For how could Arideus and the others endure such torment in hell if they left their body on earth with head, arms, legs and skin? They will not say that the soul has a head, arms, legs and skin. But Plato learned in Egypt the testimony of the prophets and accepted their teaching about the resurrection of the body, and therefore teaches that the soul is judged along with the body. 28. And not only Plato, but also Homer, who also learned this in Egypt, told a similar story about the torment of Tityus. This is how Odysseus tells Alcinous about seeing the shadows of the dead: I also saw Tityus, the son of the famous Gaia, Nine acres occupying a huge body, immovable There he lay; two kites sat on the sides, tearing His liver and tormented his womb with claws 61 Obviously the liver does not belong to the soul, but to the body. In the same way, Homer wrote about the bodily torment of Sisyphus and Tantalus. And that Homer was in Egypt and much of what he learned there, he transferred into his poetry, the most famous of historians, Diodorus, clearly testifies to us. Thus, according to him, Homer in Egypt learned that Helen had brought to Sparta “nepenthes, a sweet juice that gives the heart oblivion of disasters,” 62 which she received from Polydamna, the wife of Fon, and this medicine, as Homer says, Helen used to quench the grief of Menelaus, excited by the presence of Telemachus. Homer called Venus golden based on what he saw in Egypt: he knew there both a church dedicated to the golden Venus and a field called by this name. But why do we bring all this? In order to prove that Homer also introduced into his poems many of the sacred tales of the prophets, and, firstly, what Moses says about the beginning of peacemaking. Moses wrote this: “in the beginning God created the heavens and the earth, then the sun, the moon and the stars.” 63 Homer, who in Egypt read with pleasure what Moses wrote in the book of Genesis, reproduced the same picture of the creation of the world on the shield of Achilles, made by Hephaestus. Here is Homer's description. There he imagined the earth, imagined both the sky and the sea, The sun is on its way tirelessly, a full silver month, All the beautiful stars with which the sky is crowned 64 And Homer’s description of Alkinoev’s garden is very similar to the image of paradise; he imagines it always blooming and filled with fruits. Here are Homer's verses: .................................................... grew there There are many fruitful, branchy, wide-topped trees. Apple trees, and pears, and pomegranates, abundant in golden fruits, Also sweet fig trees and olive trees, blooming luxuriously; It’s there all year round, both in the cold winter and in the hot summer. Fruits were visible on the branches; was always there Warm marshmallows, nucleating some, pouring others; Pear after pear, apple after apple, fig after fig, Purple cluster after cluster replaced there ripening. There was also a rich grape garden there; and grapes Some of them lay in a sunny place, drying in the heat, Some of them waited for the vinedresser to cut them from the vines; others They were crushed in vats; and others bloomed, or showered The color ripened and filled with amber-thick juice 65 Do these words not represent a clear imitation of the description of paradise by the first prophet Moses? If anyone also pays attention to the pandemonium through which the people of that time dreamed of making themselves ascend to heaven, he will find in the same poet an allegorical imitation of this. Speaking about Ota and Ephialtes, Homer depicts them as follows: The daring began to threaten the immortal gods that Olympus was theirs They will be shocked by a noisy war and excited by a destructive battle; Pile the ossa on ancient Olympus, Pelion is multi-forested They attempted to throw up Ossa so that they could attack the sky In the same way, whoever looks carefully will find in Homer the fall from heaven of the enemy of mankind, whom the sacred Scriptures call the devil and who received this name from the first slander used to deceive man. The poet does not mention the name of the devil, but gives him the name from his lowest action; he calls it Atoya (Offence) and speaks of casting it down from heaven, as if recalling the words of the prophet Isaiah about him. This is what he wrote in his poem: ………….He grabbed Resentment by his magnificently shiny curls, Burning with terrible anger, and swore a great oath, What about the hilly Olympus and the star-crowned sky The resentment that blinds everyone will never arise. So he said; and with a wave of his right hand from the starry sky, He threw it, and it fell on the affairs of man 67 29. Plato, speaking about the third principle after God and matter, which he calls idea, obviously took advantage of the instructions of Moses and borrowed the very name of idea from the words of this prophet; however, knowledgeable people did not teach him then that it is impossible to clearly understand anything that Moses said without mysterious contemplation. Moses wrote that God commanded him this way regarding the tabernacle: “And you will make Me a pattern of the tabernacle, in the likeness of the one that I will show you on the mountain.” 68 And again: “You will build the tabernacle according to the pattern of all its accessories, and so you will do it.” 69 And a little further: “Look, and make it according to the pattern shown to you on the mountain” 70 . Plato read this and did not assimilate the written words with proper contemplation: that is why he thought that the idea existed separately and before sensible things; he often also calls the idea the model of created things, because Moses wrote this about the tabernacle: “according to the model shown to you on the mountain, so you will do it” 71 30. Plato fell into a similar error regarding heaven, earth and man: he thinks that their ideas also exist. Moses wrote: “In the beginning God created the heavens and the earth,” and then adds: “But the earth was invisible and unstructured”; 72 Therefore, Plato thought that the words: “the earth was” means the previously existing earth, since Moses said: “the earth was invisible and unstructured”; with the words: “God created heaven and earth,” he thought, meant the sensual earth, created by God according to a pre-existing idea. 73 Plato also made a mistake about the sky: the created sky, which is called (by Moses) the firmament, in his opinion is the visible sky, and the other is the imaginable, about which the prophet said: “the heaven of heaven (belongs) to the Lord, and he gave the earth to the sons of men.” 74 A similar error applies to man: Moses first mentions the name of man, and then after all creatures speaks about the creation of man in the following words: “and God created man, (taking) his finger from the ground.” 75 Plato thought that the previously mentioned man pre-existed the created man, and the one created later from the earth was created according to a pre-existing idea. Homer knew about the creation of man from the earth from the ancient sacred history, which says: “you are the earth and you will return to the earth”; 76 That’s why he calls Hector’s lifeless body dumb earth. He says this about Achilles, dragging the body of the dead Hector: ..... A frantic husband insults the dumb earth. 77 And in another place he expounds the words of Menelaus addressed to those who did not readily accept Hector’s challenge to single combat: But you will all perish, crumble into water and dust! 78 Here, in his extreme anger, he turns them into the dust of the earth, their primitive beginning. This is what Homer and Plato set out in their works, having learned in Egypt from ancient legends. 81. Where, if not from reading prophetic books, did Plato borrow the image of Zeus riding across the sky in a fast chariot? He knew the words of the prophet about the cherubim: “and glory came out of the house and ascended on the cherubim, and the cherubim lifted up their wings and the chariots (rose) with them, and the glory of the Lord God of Israel was over the cherubim.” 79 With this, the excited, eloquent Plato exclaims with the greatest freedom: “Great in the sky is Zeus, flying in a fast chariot.” 80 From what other source did he learn this than from Moses and the prophets? Where did he get the reason to say that God is contained in a fiery substance? Is it not from the third book of Kings, where it is written: “The Lord is not in the wind, after the wind there is a shaking, the Lord is not in the shaking, and after the shaking is fire, the Lord is not in the fire, and after the fire is the voice of a subtle wind.” 81 It is necessary for the pious to delve into these words with great reflection; but Plato, without paying due attention to them, said that God consists in a fiery substance. 82. If anyone wants to carefully consider what concerns the gift that comes from above from God to holy men, which the sacred prophets call the Holy Spirit, he will find that Plato speaks about it in his conversation with Meno, only he calls it by a different name. For, fearing to call the gift of God the Holy Spirit, so that, following the teaching of the prophets, he would not appear to be an enemy of the Hellenes, he recognizes that this gift comes from above from God, but decided to call it not the Holy Spirit, but virtue. So, in a conversation with Meno about recollection, first he talks a lot about virtue, exploring whether virtue can be learned or not, but it is acquired by exercise, or whether it cannot be learned or acquired by skill, but it is given to people by nature, or in some other way; finally expressed in the following words: “if in this conversation we reasoned correctly, we must conclude that virtue comes neither from nature nor from teaching, but is given by divine Providence, without the knowledge of those to whom it is given.” Here, I believe, Plato, having learned from the prophets about the Holy Spirit, replaces it with the name of virtue. For, just as the holy prophets say that one and the same Spirit is divided into seven spiritual gifts, Plato, recognizing virtue as one, divides it into four virtues. Although he here does not say a word about the Holy Spirit, he very clearly expounds through allegory the teaching of the prophets about the Holy Spirit. Spirit. At the end of the conversation with Menon, he says this: “from our reasoning, Menon, one can see that virtue is given by divine Providence to those who receive it; We will learn more clearly how virtue is given to people if we first carefully consider what virtue is.” You see how he calls the gift coming from above only a virtue, but at the same time he considers it worthy of investigation whether this gift should be called a virtue or something else, fearing to openly call it the Holy Spirit, so as not to appear to be a follower of the teachings of the prophets. 33. How did Plato also know that time came into existence together with heaven, for he writes thus: “time was created together with heaven, in order that, having appeared together, they would be destroyed together, if ever their destruction were to occur?” Didn't he learn this from the sacred history of Moses? For he learned that the existence of time began from a certain division into days, months and years. So, the first day, created along with the sky, was the beginning of all time; for this is what Moses writes: “In the beginning God created the heavens and the earth,” and to this he adds: “and there was one day,” by means of the part meaning all time 82 . Plato calls the day a time, so that, having mentioned the day, he would not be accused by the Athenians as a follower of Moses. Where did he also get the idea about the destruction of the sky? Is it not from the teaching of the holy prophets that he borrows this opinion? 34. If you were to pay attention to the statues, from where their first inventors got the idea that the gods have a human form, it will turn out that they learned this too from sacred history. since in the history of Moses it is said on behalf of God: “Let us create man in our image and likeness” 83 ; Then, thinking from these words that people were like gods in appearance, they began to make images of gods, believing that like could be depicted by like. But why am I mentioning this here, Hellenes? So that you know that it is impossible to learn true reverence for God from those who, even about what earned themselves the surprise of people alien to our religion, could not write anything of their own, but allegorically set out in their writings what they borrowed from Moses and other prophets. 35. So, it’s time for you, Hellenes, having become convinced on the basis of external historical evidence that Moses and other prophets lived much earlier than all your imaginary sages, to leave the old delusion of your ancestors; It’s time for you to turn to the sacred stories of the prophets and learn from them the true religion: they do not represent the methods of eloquence for persuasion - this is characteristic of those who want to obscure the truth - but in simple, unartificial words they proclaim what the Holy Spirit who descended on them wanted to reveal through them to people who want to know true piety. So, without being at all ashamed, renounce the old human error, the empty noise of vanity, in which you place all your pleasure, and follow what is useful to you. For you will not sin at all against your ancestors if you now want to turn from their error to the opposite teaching: perhaps they themselves are now tormented in hell by late repentance, and if they could tell you from there what befell them after death, then you would know what disasters they would like to save you from. But since at the present time it is impossible for you to learn anything either from them or from those who teach that false philosophy, then it remains for you to finally abandon the error of your ancestors and delve into the teachings of the holy prophets, without demanding from them grace of speech (for the essence of our religion is not in words, but in deeds) and from them learn the truths that will lead you to eternal life. For those who in vain only disparage the name of philosophy are accused of knowing nothing, as they themselves are forced to involuntarily admit, because they not only argue and disagree with each other, but are also fickle in their own opinions. 36. If the discovery of truth, according to these philosophers, is the goal of philosophy, then do those who have not achieved it deserve the name of philosophers? For if the wisest of your sages is Socrates, about whom, according to your stories, your oracle testifies with the words: Socrates is the wisest of all men, if he admits that he knows nothing, then how can those who came after him attribute to themselves knowledge of even heavenly things? Socrates himself says that he is called a sage because, while others attribute to themselves knowledge that they actually do not have, he does not hesitate to admit that he knows nothing. Here are his words: “It seems to me that in one thing only I am the wisest, that I do not arrogate to myself the knowledge of what I do not know. 84 Here no one should assume that Socrates is speaking ironically about his ignorance, on the grounds that he often does so in conversation. For the last words of his apology, which he uttered when going to prison, show that he sincerely confesses his ignorance of the truth. He said: “It’s time for us to part ways, for me to die, and for you to live, but no one except God alone knows who will have a better fate.” Having uttered these last words to the Areopagus, Socrates went to prison, attributing to God alone the knowledge of things unknown to us; and those who came after him, unable to know anything earthly, ascribed to themselves the knowledge of heavenly things, as if they had seen it with their own eyes. Aristotle, for example, as if he saw the heavenly better than Plato, does not place God in a fiery substance, as Plato said, but argued that he lives in the fifth ethereal element. And he, who demanded faith in his words for their eloquence, when he could not recognize the nature of Eurids of Chalcis, took his own life out of grief at his disgrace and out of shame. 85 Therefore, none of the prudent people should prefer the eloquence of those philosophers to their salvation, but, as they say in ancient legends, let him plug his ears with wax and run further from the disastrous sweet voice of these sirens. For the men we mentioned above, counting on the elegance of their speech as a seductive bait, try to turn many away from true piety, imitating the one who dared to teach polytheism to the first people. And I urge you not to follow them, but to heed the prophecies of holy men. If the negligence or inveterate superstition of your ancestors prevents you from turning to these prophecies, from which you can draw knowledge of the one God, which is the first sign of true religion, then at least believe Orpheus, who first taught polytheism, but then, having chosen the best and most useful direction for his chants, said what I cited a little higher - believe others who also wrote about the one God. 86 For the divine thought about you arranged it in such a way that all of them, although involuntarily, testified to the truth of the prophetic teaching about the one God, so that from the fact that they rejected the teaching of polytheism, you could be convinced of the need for another true knowledge. 37. But it will be even easier for you to learn true religion partly from the words of the ancient Sibyl, whose prophecies, which came from strong inspiration, are so similar to the teaching of the prophets. They say that she was born in Babylon and was the daughter of Berosus, who wrote the Chaldean history; then, when, I don’t know how, she came to the borders of Campania, she began to prophesy in a city called Cumae, which, as we know, is located six miles from Bahia, where the Campanian baths are located. When we were in this city, we saw a place where there is a huge basilica, carved from a single rock, a magnificent building worthy of every surprise: here she proclaimed her prophecies, as the local residents, who heard about it from their ancestors, say. In the middle of the basilica they showed us three pools carved from the same stone; She washed herself in their water, and having dressed, she retired to the inner part of the basilica and there, sitting in the middle of it on a high seat, she prophesied. This Sibyl, as a soothsayer, is mentioned, among other writers, by Plato in his Phaedrp. And it seems to me that, judging by her prophecies, Plato recognized the prophets as divinely inspired people. For he saw that her ancient predictions were fulfilled in practice. Surprised by them, he writes in a conversation with Meno, praising the prophets: “In truth, those whom we call prophets should be called divinely inspired people; We will not be mistaken if we say that they are divine and inspired by God, since with their words they do much and very important things, without themselves knowing what to say.” Here he clearly alludes to the Sibyl's prophecy. For she did not have the ability, like poets in writing poetry, to correct and purify them, especially regarding the correctness of their measure, but during inspiration she prophesied, and when the inspiration stopped, she even forgot what she said. This was the reason that not all of the Sibyl’s poems have survived to this day. We ourselves, having been in that city, learned about this from guides who showed us the places where she prophesied, and a vessel made of copper, where, according to them, her ashes are kept. By the way, as they had heard from their ancestors, they also said that those who received divinations, due to their lack of education, often distorted the correctness of the meter in her verses: to this reason they attributed the discordance of some of her verses, since the soothsayer, after the cessation of inspiration, did not remember anything said, while the scribes, due to their ignorance, made mistakes regarding the correctness of the measure of the verses. On this basis, Plato, referring to the prophecies of the Sibyl, said the following words about the soothsayers: “with their prophecies they do many and very important things, without themselves knowing what they say.” 38. But since the essence of true religion, Hellenes, does not consist in poetic meters and not in learning, which you value so highly; then, leaving aside the harmony of verses and speech, without any controversy, turn to the sayings of the Sibyl and see how many benefits it will bring you, for it clearly and openly predicts the coming of our Savior Jesus Christ, who, being the Word of God, immense in his power, accepted man created in the image and likeness of God and returned us to the faith of our first parents, whose descendants left it and began to worship the gods non-existent, seduced by an envious demon. If you doubt anything concerning the creation of man, then believe those in whom you still rely, believe your oracle, who, when asked to sing a hymn to Almighty God, among his hymn said this: He created the first mortal and named him Adam. This hymn is carefully preserved by many people we know, to convince those who do not want to believe the truth testified by everyone. So, if you, Hellenes, value your salvation above the false fiction of non-existent gods, then believe the most ancient Sibyl, whose books are kept throughout the world. In them, driven by powerful inspiration, she clearly teaches that those whom you called gods do not exist at all, and very clearly and openly predict the future coming of our Savior Jesus Christ and all his deeds. Knowing this will be a necessary preparation for you for the prophecies of holy men. If anyone thinks that he has accepted the teaching about God from the most ancient and famous philosophers, let him listen to Ammon and Hermes: Ammon calls God the all-hidden in his writings, but Hermes clearly speaks of Him like this: “It is very difficult to comprehend God, and even if anyone comprehends Him, it is impossible to express his concept.” So, it is obvious that knowledge of God and true religion cannot be obtained from anywhere except the prophets who taught us by divine inspiration. This is indicated by the frequent use of the word έλέγχειν in exhortation. The authenticity of the exhortation was refuted by Arendt (Theol. Quartalschr. Tubing. 1834.) and Mehler (Patrol. 1) and against their objections it was defended by Otto (de lust. scr. et doctrina) and Semisch (lust. d. Martyr), however the latter in theology. Duke's dictionary classifies the exhortation as one of the dubious writings of Justin. Iliad. XIV. 302. We present these and the following verses of Homer’s Iliad based on Gnedich’s translation. Briareus is one of the three hundred-armed giants with 50 heads, whose help the Olympian gods used to defeat the Titans: they are representatives of the powerful force of water Iliad. V. 382–3S7 and 392–400. Demolished. Tatiana (orat. adv. gent. p. 21), Athenagora (Supplie, pro Christ, p. 22). The writer of the exhortation borrowed almost literally the following statement of the opinions of philosophers about the beginning of things from the work of the false Plutarch de placitis philosoph. I p. 3. Further from Ch. differs a lot from Plutarch. Otto. Omyomeria (όμοιομερεία), i.e. the initial elements are of the same quality, in which the very parts are homogeneous to each other. Sn. Ch. - Justina. ap. 1. Ch. 44. ap. 2. Ch. 10. 13. Tatiana (or. p. Gent p. 25), Theophila (ad. Autol. II. p. 8. III. p. 3). Sn. Ch. 31 and 36. The writer of the exhortation attributes to Plato an opinion about the fiery essence of the Deity, probably misled by the fact that Plato found in the image of the sun a symbolic representation of the beneficial nature of the Deity (de Republ. XI). The writer quite freely cites a passage found in Aristotle’s work on the world (de mundo p. 2). Iliad. XV. 192. See Aristot. de mundo s. 6. These words about Plato and Aristotle are almost literally found in Cyril of Alexandria (adv. Julian. II), who in this work often uses the words “exhortations.” Entelechy, i.e. a complete being, representing the unity of matter, as possibility, and form. For similar things, see Ermius (irrsio gentil, philos, p. 1). Diodora Sicyl. Biblioth. hist. 1. p. 4. Julius Africanus had this place, starting above with the words: “in the times of Ogitus and Inachus...” before his eyes. See Eusebius praepar, evangel. X. s. 10. – Otto. Diodorus. in above book With. 94. Sn. Kiril. alex. adv. Jul. 1. In the text of the “exhortation” this passage from Diodorus is written incorrectly due to an error by the author or the scribe, and therefore it is translated here in accordance with the meaning of the original. It is also erroneously given by Kirill Alex.; giving the meaning that Moses is called God? Sn. Julia Afrik. in Eusebius praep. evang. X. The history of the 70's translation is recounted by St. Iustyan, only shorter, in 1 ap. Ch. 31. These verses, with minor changes, are given in the essay on autocracy ch. 2, Clement has Alex. (Protrept. p. 7. § 74; sn. Str. V. p. 12). Eusebius (Praepar. evang. XIII. p. 12), Cyril Alex. (adv. Jul. 1) and friend. On pseudo-orphic poems, see Lobeck's study: Aglaophamus sive de theologiae mysticae graecorum causis (Regiom. 1829), as well as Hermon's edition: Orphica. This passage is also found in Cyril (adv. Jul 1). These verses are found in Theophilus (ad. Autol. II. p. 36), in the introduction to Sibyll. oracc. v. 7–9 (Galland. Bibi. vett. pp. t. 1) and Lactantius Divin. Just. 1. p. 6). Oracc. Sibyll. III. v. 659–661. Oracc. Sib. IV. v. 24–30. The last 4 verses are also given by Clement Alex. (Protr. p. 4. § 62). First, i.e. either at the beginning of Orpheus’s poem, or generally initially, before becoming acquainted with the truths of revelation. The author hints at the errors in the first verse of the Iliad, which were also noticed by Eustathius the interpreter. Peak. These false Sophoclean verses are cited in the essay “on autocracy” (chapter 2) by Clement Alex. (Protr. p. § 74; Strom. U. p. 14); in Eusebius (praep. Evang. XIII. p. 13); Kirill Alex, (adv. jul. 1): sn. Athens. suppl, r. сhr. With. 5. Clement Alexander is also cited in the same place. (protr. p. 6. § 72). Kirill Alex. (adv. Iui. 1), n. Minucia Fel. (Octav. p. 19); Lactation (Divin. institt. 1. p. 5). This is how Socrates was accused by his enemies: Xenophus. Mein. Suer. 1. With. 1. And Plagon. Apol-Socr. Plat. Tim. The same similarity in the words of Plato with the words of Moses is found by Eusebius (praepar. evang. XI, p. 9) and Cyril Alexander. (adr. Iul. 1). Plat. Tim. Photius cites this passage from his exhortation in the Biblioth. page 232. See above ch. II Here this verse is given a little differently instead of αγνως to cost αυτόν. Plug. de Republ. X. Here Socrates tells the story of a certain Er, who was killed in battle and when he was put on the fire, came to life. Iliad. XIX. 126 – 131. – Sn. Isaiah XIV, 12. The writer of the exhortation assumes that Homer is later than Isaiah. Exodus. XXVI, 30. This verse is repeated somewhat differently below. See note 66.—The idea that the tabernacle is the image of the world, and the ideas of that tabernacle were the ideas of the world, is found earlier than Justin and the subsequent fathers, in Philo (de Yita Mosis III. p. 3; Quaest, in Exod. II. p. 82) in Josephus (antiqu. iud. III. p. 7). Even Philo, whose words are repeated by Eusebius (prep. Evang XI. p. 23), understood ideas under the invisible earth. Diogenes Laertius does not speak about this image of Aristotle’s death; therefore they think that this is an invention of his envious people. In addition to Tustin, it is repeated by Gregory of Nazianzus in the word against Julian. Those. Sibyl (chapter 16), Homer (chapter 17). Sophocles (88). Pythagoras (19). Plato (20 etc.).