Book XI of "Gospel Preparation"

"Gospel Preparation" is an apologetic work by Eusebius of Caesarea, addressed to the pagan intelligentsia. The treatise consists of 15 books, presumably written in 314-321. and is a narrative about the development of human thinking and worship of God. Eusebius seeks to prove the superiority of the Old Testament Jewish religion over paganism. He argues that ancient philosophers were familiar with the texts of the Old Testament and with the Jewish spiritual tradition, which helped their spiritual and philosophical ascent. The first 6 books are devoted to the refutation of polytheism. In books 1-3, Eusebius criticizes cosmogony and mythical theology. In books 4-6 he criticizes the oracles and overthrows the pagan gods, who are essentially only evil spirits. The 7th book is dedicated to the faith of the Old Testament patriarchs. Book 8 deals with the Law of Moses. Book 9 contains the testimonies of the Greeks about the Jews. The 10th book addresses the issue that the Greek civilization appeared later than the Jewish one, to which they owe the essence of their scientific knowledge and theological systems. Books 11-13 speak of agreement between the opinions of famous Greek philosophers and the Old Testament texts. Books 14-15 deal with disagreements between various schools of philosophy. This publication presents the translation into Russian of the 11th book of the “Gospel Preparation”, performed by A.O. Yastrebov. *The title of the work in Greek is Εὐαϒϒελικὴ προπαρασκευή. *The title of the work in Latin is Praeparatio Evangelica. Contents Review of the work of Yastrebov A.O. “XI book of the Gospel Preparation of Eusebius of Caesarea” Review of the thesis work of A.O. Yastrebova “The Gospel Preparation of Eusebius of Caesarea (translation and commentary)” XI book of the Gospel Preparation of Eusebius of Caesarea Chapter I Chapter II Eusebius Pamphilus Gospel Preparation. Book XI Introduction to the plot Chapter 1. How Plato's philosophy followed the philosophy of the Jews in the most important aspects Chapter 2. Atticus: on the tripartite nature of Plato's philosophy Chapter 3. Aristocles: on Plato's philosophy Chapter 4. On the ethical positions of the Jews Chapter 5. On the logical teaching of the Jews Chapter 6. On the correctness of the names of the Jews Chapter 7. On the physiology of the Jews Chapter 8. On the physiology intelligible entities Chapter 9. On beings according to Moses and Plato Chapter 10. Excerpt from the work “On the Good” Numenia of the Pythagorean Chapter 11. Plutarch: extract from the treatise “On the saying “thou art” in Delphi” Chapter 12. On the fact that the deity is ineffable Chapter 13. On the fact that there is only one God Chapter 14. On the Second Cause Chapter 15. Philo: on the Second Cause Chapter 16. Plato: on the Second Cause Chapter 17. Plotinus: on the Second Cause Chapter 18. Numenius: on the Second Cause Chapter 19. Amelius: on the theology of our Evangelist John Chapter 21. On the essence of good Chapter 22. Numenius: on the good Chapter 23. On ideas according to Plato Chapter 24. Philo: on ideas according to Moses Chapter 25. Clement: on the same subject Chapter 26. Jews and Plato: on hostile forces Chapter 27. Jews and Plato: on the immortality of the soul Chapter 28. Porfiry: on the same subject Chapter 29. On the fact that the sensory world is born Chapter 30. On the heavenly bodies Chapter 31. On the fact that all the works of God are good Chapter 32. On the change and transformation of the world Chapter 33. The same author: on the return of the dead to life Chapter 34. More about the end of the world Chapter 35. How Plato talks about the resurrection of the dead in the same words as the books of Hebrews Chapter 36. Plutarch: on a similar subject Chapter 37. How Plato talks about the so-called heavenly earth similar to the Hebrews Chapter 38. “That Plato believes in judgment after death according to the Hebrews Index of texts of the Holy Scripture: Alphabetical indexes: Bibliography Literature in Russian Works of the Fathers and teachers of the Church Other works Literature in foreign languages Works of the Fathers and teachers of the Church Other works Dictionaries and Encyclopedias Review of the work of Yastrebov A. O. “XI book of the Gospel Preparation of Eusebius of Caesarea” The work under review is an annotated translation into Russian of the eleventh book of the “Gospel Preparation” - a major apologetic treatise by the “father of church history” Eusebius of Caesarea. The translation is preceded by two brief introductory chapters, which describe the place of the “Gospel Preparation” among the works of Eusebius, the goals and objectives of the treatise, and also outlines the content and general plan of the 11th book. At the end of the work there is an index of cited passages of Holy Scripture, an alphabetical index of names and a bibliographic list. The value of the work is obvious at first glance. Although the name of Eusebius of Caesarea cannot be called little-known, a significant part of his legacy is inaccessible to the Russian reader, and, one might say, completely unknown to him. Only “Church History”, “Life of Constantine”, and “On the Palestinian Martyrs”, that is, only his historical creations, have been translated into Russian. Meanwhile, Eusebius wrote significant exegetical, dogmatic and apologetic works. Among these works of Eusebius, not yet translated into Russian, “Gospel Preparation” occupies a special place. Almost half of this apologetic treatise in 15 books consists of quotations. Among the ancient authors cited here, there are many whose works have not reached us in full, and only fragments of them translated by Eusebius have survived. Translated by A. Yastrebov's 11th book, which, according to Eusebius himself, is intended to “show in certain, if not all, dogmatic provisions the agreement of Hellenic philosophers with the sacred texts of the Hebrews,” it is necessary to note fragments from the peripatetic Boethus, the middle Platonists Atticus and Numenius, the Neoplatonist Amelius, as well as Philo of Alexandria. All this testifies to the significance and relevance of the work undertaken by A. Yastrebov. As for the actual quality of work, it should be recognized as excellent. Based on the best critical edition of Sources Crétiennes, the translation is maintained at a very high level - it is clear that the translator has studied the original Greek text down to the smallest subtleties. Still, I would like to make a few comments regarding the style of the Russian translation. In the table of contents, the introductory section of the 11th book is named in full accordance with the Greek text - “Introduction: about the subject of this book,” but in the text itself there is a very unfortunate “Introduction to the plot.” In chapter 15 (§ 5) the following is written: “The One who was born, imitating, of course, the ways of the Father, looking at his archetypal models, formed visible things.” “To form, looking at archetypal models” is an example of purely modern scientific, or even scientific-like language, and in the text of an ancient author such words sound very artificial. There is some carelessness in quotations from Holy Scripture. In some places it is quoted from the Synodal translation, in others the translator deviates from it without giving any notes. These remarks, of course, cannot in any way detract from the indisputable merits of the work under review, and the need for its highest assessment does not raise any doubts. Reviewer: Bachelor of Theology Anton Sergeevich Nebolsin Feedback on the thesis work of A.O. Yastrebova “The Gospel Preparation of Eusebius of Caesarea (translation and commentary)” Thesis by A.O. Yastrebova is the fruit of a year's work on the translation and commentary of the XI book of the Gospel Preparation. Consideration of this particular work provoked interest in the tradition of middle Neoplatonism in the context of Christian apologetics. The comparative lack of study of the topic made me want to dwell on this issue in detail. The importance of Eusebius' apologetics is determined largely by the fact that he was the last writer of this genre to survive the severity of persecution and live to see the triumph of Christianity under St. Constantine. In a sense, apologetics ends with Eusebius. It is necessary to note the literary style of the translation, which very successfully reflects the peculiarities of Eusebius’s language, which, it must be said, is very difficult. A large number of quotations from authors of different times, philosophical schools and confessions created a number of problems in translation, which were successfully overcome by A.O. Yastrebov. The work includes not only a translation of this book, but also quite detailed comments on a number of issues raised in it: for example, questions about Eusebius’s borrowing of the title of Plotinus’ treatise V, 1, about the attribution of an excerpt from Porphyry’s treatise On the Soul are exhaustively discussed, the triadological views of Eusebius, etc. In preparing the work A.O. Yastrebov showed the ability to work with primary sources and their modern translations: all available editions of philosophical texts cited in Book XI were taken into account. In addition, in the process of preparing notes, pre-revolutionary and modern domestic and foreign research related to the book under review was taken into account. Taking into account all the above advantages of the work, I consider A.O. Yastrebov is worthy of being awarded the title of specialist in religious studies. d.f. n. Shichalin Yu.A. 25. 6. 00. Book XI of the Gospel Preparation of Eusebius of Caesarea Thesis by Alexey Olegovich Yastrebov scientific supervisor – Doctor of Philosophy Shichalin Yuri Anatolyevich reviewer – Nebolsin Anton Sergeevich Chapter I. A story about the place of the Gospel Preparation among the works of Eusebius. Goals and objectives of the treatise. Chapter II. Book XI of the Gospel Preparation: content and general plan. Translation of Book XI of the Gospel Preparation Index of Scripture texts used in the book; The prominent 4th-century ecclesiastical writer Eusebius Pamphilus, bishop of Caesarea in Palestine, is known primarily for his Ecclesiastical History. The significance of this work for subsequent generations of Christians is difficult to overestimate, and its author is rightfully called the “father of church history.” He was a witness and direct participant in an unusually difficult era in the history of the Roman state and the Christian Church. “Eusebius of Caesarea was destined to serve the Church of God during her grave sufferings and during her triumph... In his eyes, the most intense efforts of the pagans to suppress Christianity were carried out, and he himself experienced the burden of the last persecution, but he was also a witness - a herald of the final victory of the Christian faith over the pagan faith” 1. At the same time, Eusebius was interested not only in history, but also in apologetics: strictly speaking, he also studied history for apologetic purposes, since he proved to the pagans the antiquity, and thereby the unique “legitimacy” of the existence of the Christian faith. It is precisely apologetic goals that determined the creation of the Gospel Preparation, the eleventh book of which is the subject of consideration in this work. Eusebius’s apologetics is addressed primarily to the pagan intelligentsia, and therefore his polemic with paganism is predominantly intellectual in nature: this explains the fact that both this and other polemical works of Eusebius are free from the emotional intensity and accusatory pathos of similar literature of previous centuries, when the faith of Christ was persecuted by the authorities of the empire. In particular, for the Gospel Preparation the main thing is the consistent implementation of thought, which turned out to be extremely in demand throughout the subsequent tradition of Christian thought and has not lost its significance to this day: namely, Eusebius seeks to consistently demonstrate that the truth before the Nativity of Christ, by the grace of God, was also revealed to the pagans. In connection with this approach, it was possible to defend Christian dogmas based on pagan provisions and texts, which were used not only to show the contradictions and false nature of the pagan religion, but also to confirm the truth of Christianity. The time when the Gospel Preparation was written made its own demands on works of the apologetic genre: it became necessary to study more deeply the arguments of opponents, especially those who became more active during this period. On the other hand, the study of ancient philosophy necessarily led to amazing results: it turned out that certain directions of the philosophical thought of the pagans - both ancient times and the immediate past - were not opposite, but consonant with the dogmas of faith, which could become a powerful argument against those who attacked Christianity from the standpoint of reason. Such features of Eusebius’s apologetics give special interest to the special study of the influence of the philosophical heritage on him, first of all, Platonism, understood in a broad sense - from Plato to Plotinus and his closest students; in particular, it is the tradition of Platonism that is very clearly represented in the text of the Gospel Preparation we are considering. Therefore, the Gospel Preparation is of great interest from the point of view of the history of philosophy. It is a unique source on the philosophy of Middle Platonism; In addition, Eusebius in this work introduces us to the interschool philosophical polemics of the 1st–3rd centuries on the Nativity of Christ. It is these features that make the work of Eusebius in question, on the one hand, extremely important, and on the other, difficult to perceive and study. This explains, in particular, the lack of its translation into Russian. In addition, it should be noted that the text of the Gospel Preparation has been well published relatively recently. Due to the Second World War, the exemplary publication prepared by Karl Mras was published only in the 50s. the passing century. The second modern critical edition of the text was prepared by a number of specialists in the Sources Chrétiennes series in the 70s and 80s. Connected with this is the fact that fragments of a number of Platonists quoted by Eusebius in this book were also published for the first time relatively recently 2 . Thus, the topic “Eusebius and Platonism,” whether it will be considered from a theological or historical-philosophical point of view, turns out to be the main one when considering the XIth book of the Gospel Preparation, the translation of which is proposed in this work. Editions and translations (including those used in this translation) The first was carried out by Robert Estienne: Eusebii Pamphili Evangelicae Praeparationis libri XV, Lutetiae, ex officina Rob. Stefani, 1544. Then comes Francois Viger's edition: Paris, 1628, distinguished by the high quality of the text and notes and the excellent translation, which made the translation of George of Trebizond unnecessary (Venise 1470). He introduced the division of chapters adopted in all subsequent editions up to the edition of Mras. Wieger's page numbering and the division of each page from “a” to “d” are reproduced in the margins of each edition. Minh provides the text, translation and notes by Viger. 19th century editions: F. A. Heinichen, Leipzig 1842–43; Th. Gaisford, Oxford 1843; G. Dindorf, Leipzig 1867. At the beginning of the 20th century, Gifford's publication [E. H. Gifford] (Eusebii Pamphili Evangelicae Preparationis libri XV, Oxford 1903) was provided with an English translation and notes. All these editions are surpassed by the edition of K. Mras (Eusebius Werke, achter Band, Die Praeparatio evangelica (Grieschische christliche Schriftsteller 43). I, books I–X, Berlin 1954; II, books XI–XV, ibid. 1956). In addition to the Latin and English translations mentioned, there are also French translations: Seguier de Saint-Brisson, Paris 1846 and Migne, Paris 1843 (the latter contains only the Gospel Proof). This translation is based on the publication: Eusèbe de Césarée La Préparation Évangélique (Sources Chrétiennes No. 292) Paris, 1982. The translation took into account the French translation of Genevieve Favrell, and also took into account the translations of passages of philosophers quoted by Eusebius - Atticus (translation by Ed. de Place) and Numenius (translation by C. Mras), as well as the Russian translation of De opificio mundi by Philo of Alexandria (done by A.V. Vdovichenko) and treatise V, 1 of Plotinus (edited by Prof. Malevansky). In the process of preparing the text of Plato’s translation, the following publications were taken into account: Platon, Société “Les belles lettres” I–XIII Paris 1954–1976 and “Loeb classical library”, as well as Russian translations of the dialogues of this philosopher, published in the series “Philosophical Heritage” (Platon, Works in 4 volumes, Moscow, 1993), most of which, however, were edited in due to the fact that the interpretations of the translators of Plato in the mentioned edition regularly differ from those implied by Eusebius, or due to the fact that the texts of the manuscripts of Plato and Eusebius do not coincide. Therefore, despite the desire to adhere to traditional translations, in a number of cases the text had to be changed radically; cases of verbatim quotation of any passage are always specified in a footnote. Eusebia Pamphilus Gospel Preparation 3. Book XI 1 Previous to the one you hold in your hands, the Xth book of the Gospel Preparation, compiled not from my words, but on the basis of external evidence, proved the evidence that the Greeks, who brought nothing wise from themselves except verbal sophistication and beauty of speech, but borrowed everything from the Barbarians 4, were, in particular, aware of the sacred texts of the Jews 5, which they partly took possession of and, thus Thus, although they are ambitious about what they themselves write, they have not kept their hands clean from theft. And I say this because it is not we who call them, as I said, but they call themselves thieves. 2 Moreover, in the same 6 book we learned 7 from a comparison of dates that they are very young both in terms of intelligence and age, very far behind Jewish antiquity. 3 This is what the previous book talks about; as for the present, it is in a hurry to finally fulfill what was promised as a kind of duty, and to show in certain, if not all, dogmatic provisions the agreement of the Hellenic philosophers with the sacred texts of the Jews. She, turning to the most outstanding of them, calls chapter 8 all, believing that it is necessary to choose from all one expert on the subject - Plato, since only he alone, as it seems to us, having surpassed everyone in fame, will be sufficient to create an idea of ​​​​the subject. 4 But, if necessary, to clarify his thoughts, I will refer to the testimony of his zealous followers and present their opinions in order to carry out my purpose. 5 However, I must take into account that our author does not always speak accurately, although in most cases he speaks according to the truth; Of course, we will remember some of this in due time - not in order, of course, to reproach him, but so that we can be justified in why we believe that barbarian philosophy is preferable to Hellenic. Chapter 1 9. How Plato's philosophy followed the philosophy of the Jews in the most important respects 1 While Plato divided all philosophical knowledge into three parts - physics, ethics and logic 10 - and then, in turn, divided physics into the contemplation of sensible things and the knowledge of incorporeal things, you can also find this three-part image of teaching among the Jews: it is clear that something similar was widespread in their philosophy even before the birth of Plato. 2 But first, it is appropriate to listen to what Plato says, and only then consider the provisions of the Jews. I will present Plato's opinions with the help of his followers. Among the philosophers of the Platonic school, the famous Atticus stands out, who approximately sets out the views of this man in a work entitled: Against those trying to explain the philosophy of Plato with the help of the philosophy of Aristotle. Chapter 2. Atticus: on the tripartite nature of Plato’s philosophy 1 “So, all philosophy is divided into three parts: into the so-called area of ethics, then physics and, finally, logic; the first part makes each of us a worthy person, and corrects the life of entire families to the best state, and even the whole people is ordered with the help of the best government system and the most precise laws; the second extends to the knowledge of divine things: both the principles and causes themselves, and everything else, that is, what is born from them, and that Plato calls “knowledge of nature 11”; and the third part is used to consider and study the first two. 2 It is clear to everyone that Plato was the first to bring together all the parts of philosophy, hitherto scattered and scattered - as someone said 12 - like parts of the body of Pentheus, and declared that philosophy is a kind of body and a perfect living being. 3 Indeed, it is known that the followers of Thales, Anaximenes and Anaxagoras, as well as their contemporaries, were exclusively engaged in the study of the nature of things; at the same time, Pittacus, Periander, Solon, Lycurgus and the like openly introduced their philosophy into the government; finally, Zeno and this entire famous Eleatic school practiced the art of composing speeches with the greatest zeal. 4 But Plato, who was born after them, a man perfect by nature and very outstanding, as if sent by the gods so that through him philosophy would appear as a whole, neglected nothing and carefully examined everything, omitting nothing from the necessary and not being carried away by the unnecessary. 5 So, since we said that the Platonist belongs to all parts of philosophy, that is, he studies nature, talks about ethics, deals with dialectics, let’s consider each of these points separately.” 6 This is what Atticus says; The peripatetic Aristocles adds his testimony to his testimony and in the seventh book [of the treatise] he speaks of philosophy verbatim like this: Chapter 3. Aristocles: on Platonic philosophy 1 "But Plato was a true and perfect philosopher, like no one ever; in fact, the followers of Thales were engaged in natural philosophy, the Pythagoreans hid all their teachings, and Xenophanes and his followers - although they caused great dizziness among philosophers by giving impetus to eristic speeches - nevertheless did not bring any benefit. 2 And in the same way Socrates, according to the proverb, “added fire to fire," as Plato himself said: after all, he was very gifted and skillful in putting forward aporia on any subject; he introduced the study of ethics and politics, as well as ideas, when he was the first to try to give definitions; he awakened various types of reasoning and searched for everything, but death did not allow him to complete the matter. 3 Others, having chosen a certain part for themselves, devoted all their time to it: some - medicine, others - mathematical sciences, others studied poets and the art of music, but the greatest number of people extolled the power of speech, and some of them called themselves rhetoricians, and others dialecticians. 4 As for the followers of Socrates, some of them began to think very differently and even directly opposite to each other: some praised Cynic principles, modesty and abstinence from passions, while others praised pleasures; others boasted that what everyone knows, while others know nothing at all; 5 And if some were in public and communicated with the people, others, on the contrary, lived in solitude and were unsociable. 6 And so Plato, judging that there can be only one knowledge about the divine and human, was the first to divide it and said that the first is an investigation of the nature of the world, the second is about what concerns man, and the third is about inferences. 7 He believed, however, that we cannot comprehend the human if we do not first see the divine: in fact, just as doctors, when they want to treat some organs, first take care of the body as a whole, so it behooves the one who is going to penetrate into material things to first explore the nature of the world: both man is part of the world, and good is twofold, that is, ours and the world, which is more important, because thanks to him the first exists. 8 However, Aristoxenus the musician claims that this teaching is Indian, and the situation was like this: one of those men met Socrates in Athens and asked him what he meant by philosophy; when Socrates replied that he was studying human life, the Indian laughed and said that it is impossible to know anything human while being ignorant of the divine 13. 9 Whether this is true is impossible to say with certainty, but it is certain that Plato made a distinction between the philosophical consideration of the world as a whole, politics and logic.” 10 This is Plato's philosophy; now is the time to consider the philosophy of the Jews, who philosophized in this way long before the birth of Plato; among them you can also find the same three-part division of disciplines into ethics, logic and physics, if you pay attention to this: Chapter 4. On the ethical principles of the Jews 1 As for ethical issues, you can understand that the Jews zealously dealt with them before any others, and in fact - much earlier than in words, if you consider their judgments: they considered piety and love of God through observance of the moral law to be the highest good and the pinnacle of a blessed life and strove for this, and not for Epicurean bodily pleasure and not for the three kinds of goods of Aristotle, who put external and bodily goods on the same level with the goods of the soul, 2 and certainly not to extreme ignorance and ignorance, to which some have given the more solemn name of abstinence from judgment, and not even to spiritual virtue: in fact, is it so significant in people and how can it itself, without God, lead to a carefree life? In order to acquire this latter, they placed their hope in God in everything, likening Him to a strong rope 14, and declared that only those who love Him can become blessed: 3 for it is clear that the treasury of all good things is God, and He disposes of life and is the source of virtue itself and the giver of everything related to the body and that which is outside it. He alone is needed for a blessed life by those who, through true piety, strive to love Him. 4 Thus, the wise Moses, the first of all people to set out in writing the lives of the God-loving Jews who lived before him, laid the foundation for a civil and moral structure 15 with the help of a historically reliable story. Beginning it, he leads his teaching from the universal: he posits God as the cause of everything and describes the origin of the world and man. 5 Then, moving in his reasoning from the general to the particular, he, by the examples of ancient men, prompted his disciples to be zealous for virtue and worship of God. Moreover, being himself the culprit of the pious laws he established, he was clearly concerned in everything about the love of God with the help of care for morals, which, however, getting ahead of ourselves, we have already explained above. 6 It would be too long to list in this presentation all the prophets who followed Moses, their exhortations to virtue and their diatribes against all evil. And why present to you the moral teachings of the wise Solomon, to which he dedicated a collection of his words, calling them Proverbs, where he compiled short sayings, similar to apothegmas, united on separate topics? 7 Therefore, as regards ethics, the children of the Jews 16 from ancient times, even before the Hellenes learned about the first elements, were themselves educated and willingly introduced those who came to them to this education. Chapter 5. About the logical teaching of the Jews 1 The Jews considered that in the logical part of philosophy one should strive not for mastery in sophistic techniques and not for speeches composed for deception, as is kind to the Hellenes, but for the comprehension of the truth itself, which their godly wise men, who illuminated their souls with divine light, found and with which they were enlightened. 2 To this truth they directed those studying their sciences from childhood and transmitted to them expositions of the sacred teaching, stories of sacred history, odes and epics written in verse, as well as questions, symbols and some allegorical visions, conveyed eloquently and with the correct use of their native language. 3 Moreover, for these first sciences they had certain “Deuterots” 17 - this is how they liked to call the interpreters of their writings - who revealed what was hidden in the riddles with the help of interpretation and clarification, however, not to everyone, but only to those who were capable of perceiving it 18. 4 The already named Solomon, the wisest among them, began his collection of Proverbs with approximately the same thing and indicated the only reason for writing the work, saying literally that every person should “know wisdom and instruction, understand the sayings of the mind, understand the intricacies of words and true justice and express right judgments, so that,” he says, “give understanding to the simple, and knowledge and prudence to the young man. For having heard this, the wise will become wiser, and the understanding will find wise advice and will understand the parable and the intricate speech, the words of the wise and their riddles 19.” 5 So this is what the said work promises; As for the questions presented in order in the texts mentioned above and their explanations, the logical teaching carried in their native language through all their prophetic writings thanks to the wisdom of these men, anyone who wishes can become acquainted with this by picking up their books at their leisure. 6 And if anyone, out of love for beauty, becomes acquainted with their language, he will learn that the Barbarians had very eloquent authors who were in no way inferior to the sophists and rhetoricians, using their native language 20. 7 They also had metrical compositions, such as, for example, the great song of Moses 21 and Psalm 118 of David, which were composed in the so-called heroic meter among the Hellenes. At least they say that these are hexameters represented in 16 syllables. Also, the rest of their poetic works are said to be composed in their native language in trimeters and tetrameters 22. 8 But, if the peculiarity of their literary style still fully allows for ordinary rational comprehension, then in the field of ideas they can no longer be compared with ordinary people: their writings contain sacred sayings 23 of God and truth itself, they contain revelations and prophecies, the science of piety and teachings related to the knowledge of beings. 9 And confirmation of their logical accuracy can be obtained based on the correctness of their establishment of names, in connection with which Plato clearly testifies in favor of the Jews, being in agreement with their philosophy, which is not difficult to verify based on the following: Chapter 6. About the correctness of names among Jews 1 Moses, long before the time when the very word “philosophy” appeared among the Hellenes, throughout his work was many times busy establishing names: then he introduced the names most appropriate to nature for everything that was in his power; in other places Moses gives God the right to decide on the renaming of godly people; or he instructs us that names are given to things by nature, and not by arbitrary establishment. Plato follows him and agrees even in the wording, and immediately after mentioning the Barbarians he says that they retain this method, most likely meaning the Jews, because it would not be easy to find the same teaching among the other Barbarians. 2 Thus he says in Cratylus 24: “It is not the name by which some people, having agreed to call it, call [some thing], pronouncing aloud a part of their speech; but there is a certain correctness of names that is the same for the Hellenes and for the Barbarians 25.” “Consequently, you will evaluate the legislator, whether he is here or from the barbarians, in this way: as long as he recreates the image of the name appropriate to each thing, and in any syllables, the local legislator will be no worse than anywhere else 26.” 4 Then again, calling the one who has the knowledge of the right names a dialectician and a legislator, he says this: “So, the carpenter’s duty is to make the rudder under the direction of the helmsman, if he wants the rudder to be good. 5 – And the legislator, apparently, must make a name under the supervision of a dialectician, if he wants the name to be established well. “That’s because, Hermogenes, this is not such an insignificant matter - establishing names - as you think - and not the work of inexperienced or random people. And Cratylus is right when he says that things have names by nature, and that not everyone can be the creator of names, but only one who pays attention to the natural name inherent in each thing and is able to embody its image in letters and syllables 27.” 6 After he had said this, much further on, he again remembers the Barbarians and then definitely admits that most of the names came to the Hellenes from the Barbarians, saying literally the following: 7 “I think that the Hellenes, especially those who live under the rule of the Barbarians, borrowed many names from the Barbarians. – If anyone begins to investigate how appropriately names are established in accordance with the Hellenic language, and not with the one from which the name comes, then, as you understand, he will come to a dead end. 8 This is what Plato says; but Moses, of course, is ahead of him: listen to what this wise legislator and dialectician says: “And God created out of the ground all the animals of the field and all the birds of the air, and brought them to Adam to see what he would call them: and whatever name Adam called the living soul, that was its name.” (Gen. 2:19) 9 After all, with the phrase “such was her name,” he precisely claims that names are given according to nature; namely, he says that this recently given name has been contained in nature for a long time and each of the named creatures pre-existed a certain name, which was fixed by the said person, relying on a higher power. 10 Even the very name Adam, being Hebrew, in Moses can mean a person born from the earth, because the earth among the Jews is called “Adam”: that is why Moses etymologically accurately called the first one born from the earth Adam. 11 This name can have another meaning and be translated as “red,” thereby showing the nature of the body; but by the name Adam he showed an earthly man, made from the earth and born of the earth, or bodily and carnal. 12 However, the children of the Hebrews also call man by another name, calling him Enos, which, according to them, is the rational principle in us and has a different nature in relation to the earth-given Adam. The word “Enos” also has a special meaning and is translated into Greek as “forgetting.” 13 And the rational principle in us became such because of its participation in the mortal and irrational: in fact, the completely pure, incorporeal and divine principle remembers not only events the past, but also has knowledge of the future thanks to the great power of insight; when the Jewish prophet saw the rational principle, constrained by the flesh, cut through by bones and nerves and burdened by the body - a great and heavy burden of deep forgetfulness and ignorance, he called [the person] directly - Enos, which means “forgetting”. 14 Indeed, the prophet said: “What is man, that You are mindful of him, and the son of man, that You visit him 29?”; Instead, the Hebrew text proposes the word “Enos” as the first name - “man”, as if it wants to say more clearly: “What is this forgetter, that You, O God, remember him, although he is the forgetter?” 15 And as for the expression “and the son of man, why do You visit him?”, then they say: “and the son of Adam,” in order to emphasize that Adam and Enos are one, simply the carnal principle is represented by Adam, and the rational principle is represented by Enos 30. 16 The sacred texts of the Hebrews thus distinguish the true meanings (την ετυμολογίαν) of these names; Plato, for his part, argues that “man” (ἄνθρωπος) in Greek comes from the verb meaning “to carefully consider” (ἀναθρεῖν) and says: “A person, as soon as he saw it - that is, at the sight (ὄπωπε) - begins to carefully examine and reflect on what he caught,” so that he turns out to be “carefully examining what he caught (ἀναθρεῖν ἃ ὄπωπε). 31 " 17 Jews also call a man “ace” (ΕΙΣ); this name comes from the word “es” (ΕΣ), with which they designate fire, so that a person is called so because of the warmth and flammability of the male nature. 18 But the woman, because they say that she was taken from the man, has a common name with him. In fact, they call a woman “essa” (ΕΣΣΑ), since the man is “ace”. Plato says that man (ἀνήρ) received his name from the “upward flow” (ἄνω ὁρᾶν) and adds: And the name “wife” (γυνή), it seems to me, should mean birth (γονή) 32.” 19 Further, Moses correctly calls the sky in Hebrew “firmament” (Gen. 1:6), because the sky is the first solid and sensory body after the incorporeal and supersensible essence of this world. And Plato argues that the sky is given the correct name, since the word “sky” (οὐρανός) comes from the fact that it makes one look up (ἄνω ὁρᾶν) 33 . 20 Then, the Jews say that the highest proper name of God is ineffable, inexpressible and cannot be comprehended with the help of reason, and in the sense in which we call Him God, they call Him Elohim, apparently from the concept of “el” - because this is translated as “strength and might” - so that the name of God is derived from the concept of power and strength inherent in Him, thanks to which He is thought of as omnipotent and omnipotent, as the one who created everything; and Plato says that the heavenly bodies are called gods from the word θέειν, which means “to run” 34. 21 This is, in general terms, the opinions of the Jews and Plato about the correctness of names; Plato, in addition, argues that names are also given to people with a certain intention and tries to justify this 35 by saying - I don’t know what to rely on - that Hector is named from “possession” (τό ἔχειν) and “rule” (τό κρατεῖν), since he was the king of the Trojans 36 , and Agamemnon - because staying too long (τό ἄγαν μένειν) in place and due to the fact that he stubbornly and unshakably remained (παραμένειν) faithful to the decisions regarding the Trojans 37; Orestes [so named] because of his steep (ὀρεινός), wild and bestial character 38, and Atreus - because of his destructive (ἀτηρός) disposition 39, Pelops - because he saw not what was in the distance, but only what was before his eyes (πέλας) 40; Tantalus, he says, symbolizes a person who is extremely unfortunate (ταλάντατος) because of the misfortunes that befell him 41 . 22 This and many other similar things you can find in Plato, who tried to show that names were originally given by nature, and not by institution. 23 But it cannot be said that Moses’ names were given contrary to nature and in accordance with some sophistic sophistication, if we take into account that “Cain” is translated from Hebrew into Greek as “envy,” and he turned out to be worthy of this name because of envy of his brother Abel. 24 Abel, in turn, is translated as “sorrow,” because he became the cause of sorrow for the parents, who gave these names to their born children according to some divine providence. 25 Shall I give you Abraham 42 as an example? Previously, when he studied the Chaldean wisdom as an astrologer-astrologer, knowing a lot about observing the stars and teachings about the sky, he was called Abram: and this name is translated into Greek means “heavenly father.” 26 But God then brought him from here to the unseen and beyond the sight and accurately renamed him, saying: “You will no longer be called Abram, but Abraham will be your name, for I will make you the father of many nations.” (Gen. 17:5) 27 It would take a long time to talk about the depth of meaning of this renaming; but it will be enough here to refer to Plato, who, confirming my reasoning, says that some names were given with the help of divine power; Here are his own words: 28 “After all, here the names should be established especially carefully. And some of them, perhaps, appeared rather thanks to divine power than human 43.” 29 This is precisely what the Holy Scriptures of the Hebrews confirm with many examples. And Moses was the first of all to explain that the power of God gave names to Abraham, to his son Isaac, and also to Israel; Isaac is translated “laughter,” symbolizing that virtuous joy that God has promised to give as a special reward to those who love Him. 30 And his son Israel, formerly bore the name of Jacob, but instead of Jacob God gives him the name Israel, turning the “fighter” and “practitioner” into a “contemplative man”; 31 after all, Jacob is translated as “displacer” (πτερνιστής), since he labored on the path of virtue, 44 and Israel is translated as “seeing God,” which is the beginning in man of the knowing and contemplating mind. 32 But why should I here reveal the correctness of establishing their names with the help of examples taken from the writings of the wise Moses and many other sacred texts of the Hebrews, which would require more time than we have? 33 Truly, the Hellenes cannot indicate the etymology of even the first letters of the alphabet, and Plato himself could not determine for what reason the vowels and consonants were named. 34 But the children of the Jews can explain the origin of Alpha, which they call Alf and symbolizes “knowledge,” and Beta, which they call Bef: that’s what they call the house; so the meaning [of the first two letters] is clear - “knowledge of the house,” or, to put it more clearly, “a certain teaching and knowledge about the economy”; 35 Then, they call Gamma Gimel: this is how they call completeness; further, when they called the tablets for writing Delph, they meant by this the fourth letter, as if noting by comparing the first two letters that the written teaching is the one that fills the tablets. 36 If you examine the remaining letters of the alphabet, you will find that each of the letters received its name for a specific reason and meaning. For example, they say, in particular, that the combination of seven vowel letters conceals the expression of a certain secret name, which the children of the Jews denote by four letters and attribute to the highest power of God, learning, son from father, that this is something that is unacceptable to communicate to the majority and ineffable. 37 Also among the Hellenes, a certain sage, I don’t know where he learned from, hints at this and says: Seven praise me, the great, eternal god vowels, the one who is a tireless father for everyone: I am the imperishable lyre of the entire universe, and by me The rotation of the heavens is composed into a sonorous song. 45 38 You can find the meaning of the remaining letters of the Hebrew alphabet if you examine each of them, but we already mentioned this earlier when we proved that the Hellenes borrowed everything from the Barbarians 46 . 39 In addition, if you study the language of the Jews well, you can note the exceptional correctness of the names of these men, because even the very name of the entire people came from the paronym Heber, which means the one crossing, because in the Hebrew language “crossing” and “crossing” are designated by the word Heber 47. 40 And the Word teaches to cross from this worldly to the divine and in no case remain or become stagnant in the contemplation of visible things, but, on the contrary, to cross from them to the unmanifested and invisible essences of theology, which has as its subject the Creator and Demiurge of the world. Thus, those who were the first to devote themselves to the Lord and Author of the world and were in impeccable and true piety are called Jews. They are called those who have reached and have already crossed over spiritually. 41 Do I now need to talk about this at even greater length, mentioning everything that concerns the correctness and accuracy of Hebrew names, since the question requires a separate study? However, in short, I believe that by means of the above, I have formed an idea of ​​\u200b\u200bthe logical doctrine of the Jews, if only it is true that, as Plato says, the discovery of the true nature of names is not the work of unskilled and random people, but of a wise dialectician and legislator, such as we have Moses and the sacred texts of the Hebrews. What should be considered after logic, if not physics, namely, what idea did the children of the Jews have about this area of ​​\u200b\u200bknowledge? Chapter 7. About the physiology of Jews 1 As for the third part of Jewish philosophy, that is, physics, which among them is divided into the contemplation of intelligible and incorporeal entities and the doctrine of the nature of the sensible, the Jewish prophets, perfect in everything, knew it and, when the time came, added it to their teachings. They learned about it not with the help of guesswork and the zeal of the mortal mind and did not refer to the authority of learned men, but attributed their knowledge to the inspiration of a higher power and the inspiration of the spirit of God. 2 This is where they have many prophecies about the future and about the structure of the world; They managed to learn a lot about the nature of living beings, and each added many judgments about plants to their prophecies. 3 And Moses, among other things, having studied the properties of stones well, it was no coincidence that he used this knowledge when describing the clothing of the high priest 48 . Also about Solomon - that he stood out like no other in this science - the knowledge of nature - there is evidence in the divine Scripture, which contains the following words: 4 “And Solomon spoke three thousand parables, and his songs were five thousand: and he spoke of trees, from the cedar that is in Lebanon to the hyssop that grows out of the wall; he spoke of animals, and of birds, and of reptiles, and of fish. And they all came nations to hear the wisdom of Solomon, from all the kings of the earth who have heard of wisdom its 49.” 5 In further reasoning, he elevates wisdom, the source of all virtue, to His face and says: “He Himself gave me a true knowledge of existing things, in order to know the structure of the world and the action of the elements, the beginning, the end and the middle of times, the changes of turns and the changes of times, the circles of the years and the position of the stars, the nature of animals and the properties of animals, the aspirations of the winds and the thoughts of people, the differences of plants and the strength of roots. I knew everything, both hidden and obvious, for Wisdom, the artist of everything, taught me.” (Wis.7:17–21) 6 The same Solomon in Ecclesiastes, examining the changeable nature of bodies from the physical side, says: “Vanity of vanities, all is vanity! What profit does a man get from all his labors with which he toils under the sun?” ( Eccl. 1:2–3 ). And he adds: "What is what has been? the same thing that will be; and what is done? The same thing that will be done; and there is nothing new under the sun." (Ibid., 1:9:7) These and similar judgments were expressed by him about the bodily essence; at the same time, one can see that other Jewish sages were not devoid of similar knowledge: at least, as I said earlier, they said many times about the nature of plants and animals of land, water and flying, 8 and even about the stars of heaven, since their writings contain a non-random mention of Arctos 50, the Pleiades, Orion and Arcturus, which among the Hellenes is usually called Arctophylax and Bootes. 9 Then they accurately and very extensively expounded the teachings and revelations about the creation of the world and about the rotation and change of the universe, 51 about the essence of the soul and about the nature of all rational beings, about creation visible and invisible, about universal Providence and about the first Cause of everything that was before all this, about the theology of the second Cause and about the rest, perceivable only by reason, so that we will not be mistaken if we call those of the Hellenes who subsequently investigated the nature of these things, as if they were young men following their elders. 10 This is what they teach about the nature of everything. However, they divide this knowledge in two: they do not consider it necessary to teach one part - the doctrine of sensible objects - to the majority and to acquaint the masses with the causes of the nature of beings, excluding only what is necessary to know, namely: that the world is not independent in its development and that it did not appear by chance as a result of some unreasonable movement, but, on the contrary, it is guided by the guiding word of God and governed by the power of ineffable wisdom. 11 As for intelligible objects, their essence, nature, and how they are structured, their powers and differences, this has been spoken about and set forth on the pages of the sacred books and offered for study to everyone; this is what those who devote themselves to piety in order to acquire a prudent and temperate life should know. 12 But the deeper and more hidden explanation of such things they left secretly to be explored only by those capable of being initiated into it. Meanwhile, it would be good, as a conclusion, to briefly consider their mysterious revelations and show that in this too Plato is in complete agreement with our authors. Chapter 8. On the physiology of intelligible entities 1 Of course, with regard to the study of supersensible and incorporeal entities, the amazing Plato also followed the teachings of the all-wise Moses and the Hebrew prophets, as is clear from his own words; but did he learn about this by hearing from someone - after all, he was with the Egyptians at the very time when the Jews were expelled from their land by the power of the Persians and began to settle in Egypt - or did he himself somehow comprehend the nature of things, or was he somehow honored by God with this knowledge? His eternal power and Godhead, so that they are unrequited.” (Rom. 1:19–20) You can understand what we said above by considering the following: Chapter 9. About existence according to Moses and Plato 1 After Moses in the sacred text, speaking in the name of God, uttered the words: “I am who I am. Thus shalt thou say to the children of Israel: I am sent by him to you” (Ex. 3:14), and showed that only God is the only one who exists and is worthy of this name in justice and proper sense; 2 and then Solomon declared, speaking about the birth and death of the sensory and bodily: "What is what has been? The same is what will be; and what is what has been done? The same is what will be done, and there is nothing new under the sun. Something happens about which they will say: “This is new”; but this was already in the centuries before us” (Eccl. 1:9-10), 3 following which authors we also divide the world into two - into the intelligible and the sensible - and determine that the intelligible, being incorporeal and rational by nature, is incorruptible and immortal, while the sensible remains in change and destruction, impermanence and change of its essence; and that all things ascend to one to the beginning; and we affirm that the ungenerate - the cause of everything incorporeal and corporeal - is one in its own sense and truly “is”, 4 see how Plato, having adopted not only the thought, but also the very expressions and formulations of the Scriptures of the Hebrews, makes their teaching his own and explains more precisely in these words: “What is an ever-existing, non-originating being, and what is an eternally arising, but never existing? The first is comprehended by reason with the help of reasoning, always remaining identical, but the second is the object of opinion based on irrational sensation, it arises and dies, but never really exists 52.” 5 Isn’t it obvious that this amazing man remade the Mosaic saying that says: “I am who is” by means of the expression “what is eternal, unoriginating being?.. 53” He even more clearly revealed this in the expression that existing is nothing other than invisible with bodily eyes, but comprehended by the mind; at least, having asked the question of what exists, he answers himself, saying this: “comprehensible by reason through reasoning.” 6 As for the phrase of Solomon: "What is what has been? The same is what will be; and what is what has been done? The same is what will be done," you can see how Plato translates it almost literally, saying: "... the second is the object of an opinion based on an unreasonable sensation, it arises and perishes, but never really exists." To this he adds another 54: 7 "After all, all these are parts of time: “was” and “will be"; and we, transferring them to the eternal essence, imperceptibly make a mistake. Thus, we say about this essence that it “was,” “is,” and “will be,” but, if we judge correctly, only “is” is appropriate for it, while “was” and “will be” can only be said about the emergence that occurs in time, because both are essence movement. But that which eternally remains identical and motionless does not become older or younger over time, or to become so once, now or in the future, or to undergo any of the things that emergence has endowed with things that are moving and given in sensation; but all these are types of time that imitate eternity and run in a circle according to the [laws of] number. Moreover, we also say that what has arisen is what has arisen and what is emerging is. that which arises, and that which has to arise is that which has to arise 55...” 8 But lest anyone think that we have misinterpreted the philosopher’s words, I will use comments that will shed light on the meaning of this text. Although many authors have begun to consider this issue, it will be enough for me here to quote the words of one famous man, the Pythagorean Numenius, who says something like this in the second book of the treatise On the Good: Chapter 10. Excerpt from the essay “On the Good” by Numenius the Pythagorean 1 "So, let us identify which property most closely determines being and say: what exists has never been and never will be, but always exists in a certain time, namely, only in the present. 2 If anyone wants to call this present time an eon, I agree with this; while about the escaped past time we must think that it has already escaped and ran away, so as not to be anymore; the future, in turn, although it does not yet exist, they say about it that it will be able to come into being. 3 Thus, it is completely unreasonable to believe that being ......? 4 – But, if this is so, hardly anything else could exist, since being itself is non-bearing in relation to being itself. – In this case, [it is necessary to accept that] being is eternal, constant, always identical and self-identical; it was not born and then died, and it did not increase and then decrease, it did not become more or less. Finally, it cannot move either spatially or in any other way. 5 Indeed, it is impossible for him to move and being will never deviate either back or forward or up or down, neither right nor left; and it will not rotate around its axis, but, on the contrary, will remain unshakable and constant, and it will always be existing in itself and identical to itself 56.” 6 Then, after further consideration, he adds: "So, all these were my preliminary considerations; I myself will no longer pretend and say that I do not know the name of the incorporeal: it seems that now it is better to say than not to say; and so I affirm that his name is the one that we have been exploring for a long time. 7 But let them not laugh at me if I say that the name of the incorporeal is “essence and being”; the reason for the name “being” is that it is not born and not perishes, does not accept anything else and no movement, and does not undergo any change to a greater or lesser extent, but, on the contrary, it is simple, unchangeable, has the same appearance, does not want to be deprived of self-identity and is not forced to do so by anyone 8 And Plato said in Cratylus that names are given by resemblance to things 57; therefore let being be and appear incorporeal 58.” 9 Then below he adds: "I said that being is incorporeal, that is, it is intelligible. At least, as far as I remember, it was said so. But I want to reassure those who are looking for a (ground) basis for my statement, pointing out that even if it were not in accordance with the provisions of Plato, it should be attributed to another great and very influential man, Pythagoras. 10 In any case, Plato says - let me remember his words - 'What is a being that exists eternally and has no generation? And what is it that is eternally arising, but never exists? The first can be understood by reason with reason, and the second is perceived by opinion with the help of irrational sensation, it arises and perishes, but never actually exists 59.’ 11 So, he asks what is being, after asserting that it is beyond any doubt unborn. otherwise it would be mutable, and what is mutable would not be eternal 60.” 12 Then below he says: “Since being is wholly and completely eternal, motionless, in no way comes out of itself, but remains identical with itself and unchangeable, then it, of course, ‘can be understood by reason with reasoning’; 13 and on the contrary, since the body flows and is carried away by any change, it escapes and does not exist; therefore, would it be a great mistake to say that it is indefinite and cognizable only by opinion, and, as Plato says, that it ‘arises and perishes, but never really exists 61 ?’” 14 This is what Numenius says, explaining the thoughts of Plato, and much earlier - Moses; and this is a natural reason to attribute to this philosopher the expression that tradition has adopted for him: “Who is Plato if not Moses speaking Attic?” 15 See now whether Plutarch, who explains the present question at greater length, does not also join in with the aforementioned words of the philosophers on the one hand, and with the various sayings of the Jews about divinity on the other, in which God is partly shown revealing and saying: “For I am the Lord your God, and I do not change” (Mal. 3:6); 16 in part, the prophet contemplating Him adds that while everything visible, it is clear, can ever change and transform, “You are the same, and Your years will not end.” ( Ps. 101:28 ) At least pay attention - doesn’t it seem that, as if taking as a basis the words of Moses “I am who am,” “I am the Lord your God and I do not change” and “You are the same” (σύ δε ὁ αὐτός εἶ), Plutarch interprets this teaching in the treatise On [saying] “thou art” (ΕΙ) in Delphi, when he says the following verbatim: Chapter 11. Plutarch: extract from the treatise “On the saying “thou art” in Delphi” 1 "I think that this letter does not mean either a number, or an ordinal number, or a union, or any other of the non-independent parts of speech; no, but it is a self-perfect appeal to God and a greeting to him, together with the word introducing the speaker into the concept of divine power. 2 After all, God, as if greeting, addresses each of us coming to this place (i.e. Delphi (A.Ya.)) with the words “know yourself,” which, of course, is nothing more than “rejoice 62”; when we answer God, we say: “thou art,” turning to him with the most true, unfalse and appropriate greeting to him alone: “thou art.” 3 The fact is that in us there is truly nothing involved in being and every mortal nature, being between death and birth, is a ghost and its own unclear and fickle vision, 4 and if you turn the mind 63 to it, wanting to understand something, just as grasping by squeezing a hand in water and trying to grab it into a fist misses the spreading goal, and the mind, in search of too clear a vision of each of the things subject to suffering and changing, is deceived as in relation to her birth and in relation to her death, being unable to understand what abides and exists in reality. 5 After all, according to Heraclitus, ‘one cannot enter twice into the same river 64’, and touch the same mortal essence twice, catching it in the same state: changing with rapid speed, it dissipates and gathers again, or rather, not even ‘again’ and not ‘later’, but at the same time it is formed and decreases and approaches and moves away. 6 Therefore, its formation never reaches being, since it never ceases or stops, but, starting from the seed, first forms an embryo, then a baby, then a child, then a teenager, a youth, then a husband, an elderly person, an old man, each time destroying previous births and ages with new ones. 7 It’s funny, but we are afraid of one death, although we have already died so many times and are dying now. Not only, as Heraclitus said, ‘the death of fire is the birth of air 65’, but also, what is even more obvious in relation to ourselves: a mature person dies with the birth of an old man, a young man dies into a mature man, a child into a young man, an infant into a child. Yesterday's man died in today's man, and today's man died in tomorrow's man. No one remains what he was, and no one remains [consistently] one, but we become many, while matter always wanders and slides around one ghost and a common imprint. 8 In fact, how can we, if we remain the same, rejoice in some things now and others earlier, love the opposite, hate, admire and blame, use different words, experience different feelings, without even having the same appearance, image and reason? 9 After all, without change it is impossible to receive new impressions, and the one who changes is not identical to himself, if he is not the same, then he does not exist at all, but “exists” in the fact of his change, becoming one from another; sensory perception, out of ignorance of existence, lies, saying that the phenomenon exists. 10 So, what is it that really exists? It is eternal, unborn and indestructible, it is something to which time does not bring any change. In fact, time is something mobile, associated with moving matter, eternally flowing and not preserving anything [and representing] as if a container of destruction and emergence; the very use of the terms ‘then’, ‘before’, ‘will’, ‘was’ in relation to time is a recognition that it refers to non-existence; 11 Indeed, it is absurd and inappropriate to say that something exists that has not yet come into being or has already ceased to be. At the very moment when we, concentrating our thoughts on time, say: ‘it has come’, ‘it is here’ and ‘now’, our speech, slipping out of this moment, ruins the whole thing, 12 because it is forced out into the future and into the past, finding itself, of necessity, divided, like lightning before those who want to see it. If the nature being measured undergoes the same thing as the one measuring it, then it has neither permanence nor existence, but is born and dies according to its relation to time. 13 Therefore, it is impossible to say ‘was’ or ‘will be’ in relation to being, for all these are deviations, changes and displacements characteristic of that which is not inherent in constantly being in being. 14 But the deity ‘is’, if it is necessary to talk about it, and ‘is’ not in time, but in eternity, motionless, timeless, unchanging, without the concepts of ‘before’ and ‘later’, without future and past, without ‘old’ and ‘young’, but since it is one, then with its only ‘now’ it has filled ‘always’; therefore, only being-in-itself 66 really exists: after all, it did not have a past and will not have a future, did not have a beginning and will not have an end. 15 Thus, he must be greeted with respect and called “thou art,” or, by Zeus, like some of the ancients, “thou art one,” because the deity is not many; it is not like us, who are a motley and pompous mixture of thousands of differences born in passions; but being must be one, just as the one must be being, and otherness, due to its difference from being, passes to the birth of non-being.” Chapter 12. That the deity is ineffable 1 After Moses and all the Hebrew prophets taught that the Godhead is ineffable, and indicated by a sign, which they should not have uttered, the symbol of the ineffable name, listen to how Plato, in agreement with them, speaks in the same words in the Great Letter thus: 2 “This cannot be expressed in words, like other sciences; only if someone is constantly engaged in this matter and has merged life with it, suddenly, like a light shining from a spark of fire, this consciousness arises in the soul and feeds itself there 67.” Another Jewish prophet used this image of light before Plato and expressed it by saying: “The light of Your face has been shown to us, O Lord” (Ps. 4:7) and again: “In Your light we will see light.” (Ps.36:10) Chapter 13. About the fact that there is only one God 1 After Moses said about the God of all: “Hear, O Israel, the Lord our God is one Lord” (Deut. 6:4) - after him, Plato teaches that there is one God, just as there is one heaven, saying in Timaeus approximately the following: 2 "Do we have any basis for asserting that there is only one heaven, or would it be more correct to speak of many and even innumerable ones? No, it is one if it is created in accordance with the model. After all, what embraces all intelligible living beings could not be in second place after some other 68." 3 The fact that Plato recognized one god (although, following the Hellenic custom, he spoke about many gods) is also clear from a letter to Dionysius 69, in which he, indicating the signs of letters written to him seriously, and those that do not deserve attention, said that the sign of letters that are empty in content will be “gods” put at the beginning, and the sign of those written by him deliberately is “god”. So he says this verbatim: 4 "Regarding the sign that allows you to distinguish which letters I send you seriously and which not, I think you remember, but think about it and pay special attention. After all, many people ask me to write to you, whom it is not easy to refuse outright. So, in serious letters God is mentioned first, while gods are mentioned in frivolous ones 70." 5 He also admits that the doctrine of one god has been taught since ancient times, when he says in the Laws: "God, according to the ancient legend, holds in his hands the beginning, end and middle of all things. He goes straight to his goal amid the rotation of nature. Justice (Δίκη) always follows him, taking revenge on those who deviate from the divine law. Whoever wants to be happy must adhere to Justice and follow it humbly and in strict order. If anyone, out of arrogance, boasts of wealth, honors, bodily good looks or, due to youth and foolishness, inflames his soul with arrogance and begins to believe that he does not need either a ruler or a leader, but he himself is fit to be a leader for others, then he will be abandoned by God. He, along with others like him, rushes about, crushing everything around him, but he soon has to give due satisfaction to Justice, he completely destroys himself, his home and state 71.” 6 These were the words of Plato, but compare the expression “God holds in His hands the beginning, end and middle of all things” with the Jewish prophecy: “I am God first, and I am after this” (Is. 41:4); and compare the expressions “he goes straight (εὐθείᾳ) to his goal amid the rotation of nature” and “His face sees the straight paths (εὐθύτητας)” (Ps. 10:7); 7 and with the words: “Justice always follows him, taking vengeance on those who transgress the divine law” compare: “The Lord is righteous and loved righteous deeds” (ibid.), “Vengeance is mine, I will repay, says the Lord” (Rom. 12:19 (= Deut. 32:35)) and “for the Lord is an avenger” (1 Thess. 4:6) and “to those who do haughtily rewards abundantly” (Ps. 30:24); and the expression “whoever wants to be happy must follow it humbly and in strict order” corresponds to “Follow the Lord your God” (Deut. 13:4); 8 with the expression “he who prides himself will be abandoned by God” compare “God resists the proud, but gives grace to the humble” (1 Peter 5:5 (= Proverbs 3:34 = James 4:6)) and “the joy of the wicked is a terrible fall” (Job 20:5). Of course, this is only a small part of the many things that have been said about the God of the world. But now look what was said about the Second Cause. Chapter 14. About the Second Cause 1 So, let us agree that in the matter concerning the First Cause of the world, everything is as we have shown. Now consider what is said about the Second [Cause], which the sacred texts of the Hebrews teach, that it is the Word of God and God from God, as we ourselves are taught to confess 72 . 2 First of all, Moses clearly theologizes about the two Lords when he says: “And the Lord rained down fire and brimstone from the Lord on the city of the wicked” (Gen. 19:24), here he, as usual, uses the same styles of Hebrew letters for the two persons; This name of the deity, consisting of four letters, cannot be pronounced out loud among them 73 . 3 Also, David, another prophet and at the same time the king of the Jews, says in agreement with him: “The Lord said to my Lord, sit at my right hand” (Ps. 109:1), designating the highest God by the name of the first “Lord,” and the second after Him by the name of “second.” Indeed, of whom else can we think that he is justly given a place at the right hand of the unborn deity, if not of the One about whom we speak 74? 4 The same prophet in another place more clearly reveals that What he theologizes about is the Word of the Father, who created the world, when he says: “By the Word of the Lord the heavens were established.” ( Ps. 32:6 ) 5 He also introduces Him as the savior of those who need His care, saying, “He sent His Word, and It healed them.” (Ps.106:20) 6 Then his son and successor Solomon gave the same meaning to another name, using “Wisdom” instead of “Word”; and this is what he states, as if on Her behalf: 7 “I, Wisdom, dwell in the council and I have called knowledge and thinking.” ( Proverbs 8:12 ) Then he continues: "The Lord created Me as the beginning of His ways for His works; before the world began He founded Me, in the beginning, before the creation of the earth and the foundation of the mountains; He begat Me before all the hills. When He prepared the heavens, I was with Him 75." 8 And here is another quote from this author: “God in Wisdom founded the earth, He prepared the heavens with meditation.” ( Proverbs 8:3 ) And here, as they say 76, are his words: “I have known everything that is hidden and everything that is visible; for the creator of all things, Wisdom, taught me.” (Wis.7:21) 9 Then he adds: “What Wisdom is and how it was born, I will declare and will not hide secrets from you, but will trace it from the beginning of birth.” 10 And then he makes the following explanation: “For She is an intelligent spirit, holy, only begotten, many-parted, subtle, flexible, clear, undefiled, omnipotent, all-seeing, and penetrating all rational, pure and subtle spirits. For Wisdom is more mobile than any movement; She passes through and penetrates everything because of Her purity. For She is the breath of the power of God and the pure outpouring of the glory of the Almighty: therefore nothing defiled enters into Her. For She is a reflection of eternal light and an undefiled mirror of the action of God and the image of His goodness. It spreads from one end to the other and makes everything useful.” (Wis.7:22-26 (ten epithets omitted) and 8:1) This was Holy Scripture 77; but Philo the Jew, interpreting the meaning of this teaching more clearly, presents it in this way: Chapter 15. Philo: on the Second Cause 1 “It is wonderful when those who have devoted themselves to the work of knowledge strive to see being, and if it is impossible to comprehend it, then at least to see its image - the most holy Word 78.” 2 In the same treatise 79 he says the following: “And although no one has yet been worthy to be called ‘the son of God,’ it is necessary to try to put oneself in order according to His first-born Word, the eldest 80 of the angels, who is, as it were, an archangel with many names: 3 thus, He is called ‘The Beginning,’ ‘The Name of God,’ ‘The Word,’ ‘Man in the Image,’ and ‘Seeing Israel.’ That is why I was inclined a little earlier to praise the virtues those who say: “We are all children of one man”; 4 and indeed, since we are not born worthy to be called sons of God, then at least [we can be called sons of] His invisible image - the most holy Word. 5 And then he adds: “I heard that one of the followers of Moses uttered the following prophecy: ‘Here is a man whose name is East.’ (Zech. 6:12). An extremely strange name, if you consider that the one in question consists of soul and body, but if [He in question] is incorporeal and rightfully bears the divine idea, 82 you will agree that the name assigned to Him: ‘East’ is the most correct; 6 indeed, Father of the World gave birth to this eldest Son, whom he called in another way the firstborn 83. The One who was born, imitating, of course, the ways of the Father, looking at His archetypal models, formed visible things 84.” 7 Let me have here the texts of the Jew Philo taken from the treatise called On the fact that the worst tends to attack the best. However, I have already expounded elsewhere in the Gospel Preparation the teachings of piety of the ancient Hebrews, including those that relate to the Second Cause, to which I will now refer those who wish to learn about this 85. After [we have seen that] the Jews have said so much in a theological sense 86 about the Second Cause of the World, the time has come to listen to Plato, who in Post-Law says the following: Chapter 16. Plato: on the Second Reason 1 “Let us give them (celestial bodies - A.Ya.) honors, but not in such a way that we devote a whole year to one, a month to another, and to the third we do not devote any share or time at all, during which they go through their cycle and thus put in order the cosmos created by the word (λόγος), the most divine of all 87. A blessed person is first amazed by this order, and then begins to love it and strives to assimilate him, as far as is possible for mortal nature 88.” 2 And in a letter to Hermias, Erastus and Coriscus, he carries out this position with great caution and writes literally the following: "It is necessary that all three read this letter, preferably together; if this does not work out, read it in twos, if possible together and as often as possible. You must look at this letter as an agreement, as the main law, which it is fair to swear with all seriousness, but not with that which is unpleasant, but with a related joke, swearing God, the ruler of the present and the future, and the almighty father of the ruler and the cause, whom, if we are true philosophers, we clearly recognize, as far as is possible for blessed people 89.” 3 Don't you think that in saying this, Plato followed the tenets of the Jews? In fact, where, if not from them, could such an idea come to him - to point to another god, more powerful than the cause of everything born - the father of the ruler of the world? And why on earth would Plato add the name of the master (τό τοῦ κυρίου ὄνομα) to the name of the father of the demiurge, if none of the Hellenes before him not only had not proclaimed this name publicly, but had not even thought about it in their minds? 4 But if you need other witnesses that irrefutably support both Plato’s thought and our reasoning, listen to what Plotinus explains to you in his treatise On the Three Supreme Essences; he writes: Chapter 17. Plotinus: on the Second Cause 1 “Whoever admires this sensory world, observing its greatness, beauty, as well as the order of its eternal movement, contemplating in it deities both visible and invisible, demons and all kinds of animals and plants, let him ascend to the prototype of this world, to the truly existing world, and there he will see intelligible entities, having immortality in themselves through the knowledge and life inherent in them, and their boss - pure mind and ineffable wisdom 90.” 2 Then he adds to this the following: "Who is the one who gave birth to him? Simple and existing before the mind, the cause of his being and multiplicity. Number comes from him, because number is not something original, since the two is preceded by one. The two takes second place and comes from one 91." 3 And below Plotinus adds: "How and what should we think about it, which remains motionless? Light emanates from it, while it itself remains at rest, just as the sun, surrounded by the light constantly generated by it, remains motionless. 4 In the same way, other things, while they themselves are at rest, necessarily produce from their own essence into an essence independent of them, which is the image of the things from which it came: 5 so, for example, fire retains heat, and snow - cold, not only within itself. The best example of this is fragrant substances: after all, since they exist, they generate around themselves a certain outflow, with which everything nearby is saturated. 6 And in general, everything, when reaching maturity, gives birth to something else; therefore, an eternally perfect being gives birth forever, moreover, an eternal one, although somewhat inferior to it in the degree of perfection. 7 What, then, can we say about an all-perfect being? It gives birth to something other than the most perfect being after itself, and this most perfect being after it is the second principle - the mind: and in fact, the mind contemplates the first one and needs it, and only in it alone, while the latter does not need anything at all. What is born from a principle higher than the mind cannot be anything other than the mind, and it is above all other beings, since everything else is after it 92.” 8 To this he adds below: “Every born being needs and loves the one who gave birth, especially when the one who was born and the one who gave birth are the only ones in the world. And when, in addition to this, the one who gave birth is the best, then it is natural for the one who was born to always be with the one who gave birth, so that they are not separated from each other in anything except their [personal] differences; and the mind, as we say, is the image of that first one. Now this needs to be said more clearly 93.” 9 To this he adds: “Hence Plato’s three [levels]. He says: ‘The whole first order gravitates towards the king of all, the second principle takes care of the second order, and the third - about the third 94. He also asserts that there is a father for the cause 95, meaning by the mind the mind; because the mind for him is the demiurge, 10 who, according to him, formed the soul from the mixture in the cup 96. Identifying the cause with the mind, Plato calls the father good and beyond both mind and essence 97; and in many places he defines the idea as a synthesis of mind and being. So, according to the teachings of Plato, the mind is born from the good, and the soul is born from the mind. This opinion is by no means new, it was expressed in ancient times, although in secret, and current reasoning was only an interpretation of this opinion, and they confirm the antiquity of these ideas by the writings of Plato himself 98. " 11 These were the words of Plotinus. Now let us cite the statement of Numenius, who, defending Plato’s positions, discusses the Second Cause in his essay On the Good: Chapter 18. Numenius: on the Second Cause 1 "He who intends to comprehend the first and second god must first arrange all the concepts concerning this in the proper order; then, when he decides that everything has been sorted out properly, then he must try to speak in order, and not randomly, because, as they say, those who want to take possession of a treasure prematurely, even before it begins to exist, the reward will be ashes. 2 May we not happen to experience anything like this! Having asked God that with the help of his His own interpretation revealed the treasure of thought in this way: first one must pray, and then one must begin to define 99. 3 The first god, who has existence in himself, is simple; because he is entirely concentrated in himself, he cannot be divided. fluidity. 4 Thus, since he is no longer turned to the intelligible (which would mean for him to turn to himself), by virtue of the fact that he looks at matter and cares about it, he is distracted from himself. 5 Therefore, he comes into contact with the sensory world and surrounds it with his care and, rushing to matter, raises it to his image 100.” 6 And after other provisions he adds: "Indeed, the first god does not need to create, but it should be considered that the first god is the father of the creator god. 7 Now, if we were to direct our investigation to the nature of the creator, saying that the being must first of all be unsurpassed in his creation, this would be the appropriate beginning of our reasoning; but since this investigation is not about the demiurge, but is directed to the first cause, I take back what was said and will not talk about it any more to speak; I myself begin to find the object of my research, leading the hunt along a different path 101. 8 However, before seizing it, let us agree with ourselves regarding one undoubted truth, namely: the first god is at rest and has no relation to the matter of creation, being the king, and the demiurge god controls everything, walking through the sky 9 And our path lies there, because the mind 102 was sent down through the orbits. 103 to all those disposed to take part in the journey. 10 So, when God sees and addresses each of us, bodies begin to live and become animated, uniting with him thanks to his radiations 104. When the god returns to the place of observation 105, they fade away, while the mind continues to exist, enjoying a blissful life 106.” 11 This is what Numenius said; You compare what he said with what was sung in ancient times by the Hebrews by the prophet David in this way: “How glorified are Your works, O Lord! You have done everything wisely; the earth is full of Your creation, everyone expects You to give them their food in due time. You give it to them, they accept it; You open Your hand and they are filled with good. If you hide Your face, they are troubled; If you take away their spirit, they will die and return to their dust. If you send Your spirit, they will be created, and You will renew the face of the earth (Ps. 103:25, 27-30).” 12 So how does this differ from the expressed thought of the philosopher, who says: “When God sees and addresses each of us, bodies begin to live and become animated, uniting with him thanks to his radiations. When the god returns to the place of observation, they fade away.” 13 Then, when the Savior tells us: “I am the vine, My Father the vinedresser, and you are the branches (John 15:1-5),” listen to how Numenius theologizes about the Second Cause: 14 “By the image of the connection between the vinedresser and the worker, one can imagine the image of the relationship of the first god to the demiurge: the existent 107 sows the seed of every soul into all things involved in him in the aggregate, and the legislator plants, distributes, replants in each of us what was sown from above 108.” 15 And further, here is what he again says about how the Second Cause arose from the First Cause: “Every thing that is given passes to the recipient, leaving the giver (such as slaves, wealth, embossed dishes or coins) - all these goods are perishable and human; and the divine, on the contrary, are those that, being transferred from above to here, down, were not separated from what is above; having reached what is below, they brought benefit to the recipient without harm to the one who sent; is everything connected with knowledge, which, being given and received, nevertheless remains with the giver in the same way as with the recipient. 18 And the reason for this, stranger, is not human: the fact is that there is a certain state and an essence possessing knowledge, which is the same for the god who gave it and for you and me who received it. 19 This is why Plato says that the wisdom that came to people with the help of Prometheus was accompanied by some kind of brightest fire 111.” 20 “Such is the life of the first and second god; It is obvious that the first will be at rest, and the second, on the contrary, will be in motion. Thus, the first will take care of supersensible entities, and the second - both supersensible and sensory. 21 Do not be surprised at what I said, for you will also hear something more surprising: I affirm that, like the movement inherent in the second cause, the immobility of the first is also an innate movement, from which flows the order of the world, its eternal constancy and salvation, pouring out on all things in the aggregate 112.” 22 And to this he adds the following in the sixth book: “When Plato realized that only one demiurge can be known by people, while the first mind, which is called being-in-itself (αὐτοόν), is completely unknowable by them, he said the following, presenting these words as a phrase uttered by someone: 23 “O people, the mind that you imagine is not the first; before him there is another, older than him and more divine 113.” 24 After considering other subjects, he adds: "The helmsman, carried along the sea, sitting high above the stern oar, steers the ship with a rudder, but his eyes and mind are directed straight to the heights of the ether, to the stars, because his path runs above, in the sky, although he floats below, in the sea. In the same way, the demiurge bound matter with harmony so that it does not go out of its way and does not deviate to the side; he himself controls it like a ship in the sea 114, and above he rules by harmony with the help of ideas; but the demiurge looks instead of the sky at the highest God, who attracts his gaze, and he receives his ability to make decisions from this contemplation, and his desire to begin with this desire. (John 5:19) This is what Numenius says about all this; and it is needless to say that he does not express his own opinions, but only explains Plato’s thoughts; 26 And that Plato was not the first to accept this teaching, but the Jewish sages were ahead of him, is clear from the above. Therefore, it is completely natural that Amelius, famous among modern philosophers, being like no other a zealous supporter of Platonic philosophy, although he did not consider it appropriate to remember the name of the Evangelist John when he called the Jewish philosopher Barbarian, nevertheless is a witness confirming his words and writes verbatim the following: Chapter 19. Amelius: on the theology of our Evangelist John 1 “Thus, it was the Word, thanks to Whom, existing eternally, as Heraclitus said, 116 things were born, and about Whom, by Zeus, Barbarian says that It is in the rank and dignity of the Beginning, that It was with God and [Itself] is God; through Him everything in general began to be; in Him what came into being became living, life and being; then It rushed into bodies, and having taken on flesh, it became like a man, thus showing the greatness of nature; it is also indisputable that then, having died, It was deified and became God, Which It was before descending into the body and flesh of man 117.” 2 It can be seen that these words were not secretly, but, on the contrary, openly 118 borrowed from the theology of Barbarian; and the Barbarian he called none other than the evangelist of our Savior, John, the Jew, the son of the Hebrews, 3 who, at the beginning of his writings, theologizes thus: "In the beginning was the Word, and the Word was with God, and the Word was God. It was in the beginning with God. Through Him all things came into being, and without Him nothing came into being that was made. In Him was life, and the life was the light of men; and the Word became flesh and dwelt among us, and we saw the glory." His glory as the only begotten from the Father.” ( John 1:1–4:14 ) 4 Listen to what another Jewish theologian says about this same subject: “...Who is the image of the invisible God, the first born of every creation: for by Him were all things created, that are in heaven and that are in earth, visible and invisible—all things were established by Him, and all things were founded on Him (Col. 1:15–17).” 5 So, as regards the structure and essence of the Second Cause, the Hellenic sages are in agreement with the provisions of the Jews. Let us now move on to other subjects. Chapter 21. On the essence of good 1 While the divine Scripture of the Hebrews in various places teaches that the essence of good and goodness itself are nothing other than God, when it says: “The Lord is good to him that waiteth for Him, to the soul that seeks Him” (Lam. 3:25), and: “Confess the Lord, for He is good, for His mercy endures forever” (Ps. 118:1:29), and when the word of the Savior addressed to the one who asked the same indicates to us about this: "Why do you ask Me about good? No one is good except God alone" (Matthew 19:17), 2 listen to what Plato says in Timaeus: "Let's say for what reason the one who created them arranged the creation and this world: he was good, and he who is good never experiences envy in any matter. Being alien to envy, he wished that all things would become as similar to himself as possible 120." And in the State he says the following: “So, the sun is also not sight, but, being the cause of sight, it is visible by sight itself? “So,” I said, I consider the sun to be the son of good, which it gave birth to like itself, and which is the same in the visible realm in relation to sight and visible things, as good in the intelligible realm in relation to the mind and intelligible 121.” “So call the idea of ​​good that which imparts truth to knowable things, and to the knower the ability to know 122.” 5 “I think you will agree that the sun gives visible things not only the opportunity to be visible, but also birth, growth and food, although it itself is not birth. “Admit it also with knowable things: they not only accept the ability to be knowable thanks to good, but it gives them being and [actual] existence, although good itself is not existence, it is beyond existence, exceeding it in dignity and power 123.” 6 From what has been said, it is absolutely clear that Plato asserts that intelligible entities receive from good - that is, from God - not only the ability to be known, but also being and existence, although good “is not existence, it is beyond existence, exceeding it in dignity and power.” Thus, he believes that they (intelligible entities (A.Ya.)) are not consubstantial with 124 good, and are not even unborn, since they received being and existence from the essence of a non-existent, but located “beyond existence, exceeding it in dignity and power,” which, rightly, the Hebrew scriptures call the one God, because He is the cause [of the existence] of all things. 7 So, it is illogical to call gods entities that have neither being nor existence from themselves, and are not consubstantial with the nature of good, in which goodness is not inherent in nature; after all, this goodness does not befit in dignity to anyone else except for one single good, which Plato amazingly proclaimed to be “beyond all existence, exceeding it in dignity and power.” And again Numenius, in his treatise On the Good, sets out his considerations in this way, explaining Plato’s thought: Chapter 22. Numenius: about the good 1 "We can know bodies by making a conclusion about them either on the basis of bodies similar to them [that are known to us], or by isolating incidental signs from existing bodies; but goodness cannot be comprehended either by the example of an existing [body], or on the basis of sensory similarity. But for this, this will be required: just as someone, sitting at an observation post, suddenly notices a fragile fishing boat, one of these lonely boats, completely one, located among the waves, and, with one sharp glance, would recognize the ship, so it is necessary that the one who moves far from the sensory communicates only with one good, where there is neither man nor any other living creature, nor a large or small body, but where there is a completely inexpressible and indescribable divine desert, where the abode, stay and exultation of the good, and it itself is in peace and goodwill, calm, merciful control, superior to the essence. 2 But if someone imagined good things flying, following the example of sensory things, and then, having experienced pleasure, thought that he had encountered it, then he is completely mistaken. After all, truly, one must go to it not the easy way, but the divine one. This path is best for one who does not care about the sensory, but ardently strives for knowledge, contemplates numbers, devotes himself to the knowledge of being 125.” 3 This he says in the first book; and in the fifth book he says this: "If essence and idea are intelligible, and if, on the other hand, it is recognized that the mind is older than the idea and is its cause, then we find that only he, he alone, is good. After all, if the god-demiurge is the beginning of birth, then it is enough that good is the beginning of essence; and the relationship between good and the god-demiurge, who is his imitator, is the same as between essence and birth, which is its image and imitation of it. 4 And if the demiurge the emergence of goods, then, of course, the demiurge of the essence of self-goods 126, being similar in nature to the essence. After all, the second [god] due to the duality of his nature, first, since he is a demiurge, he himself creates both his idea and the world, and then he becomes entirely contemplative 5 We concluded that the four realities correspond to four names: the first god, his self-good imitator, the good demiurge - one [y] the first god, and the other [from] the second; and the good world, which is an imitation of it, adorned with participation in good 127.” 6 And in the sixth book he adds: "The entities that are involved in him (the first god (A.Ya.)) are involved in him only in the realm of thought and in nothing else; this is how they can be combined with good and in no other way. As for the thinking ability, it belongs only to the first god, from whom everything else is colored and receives its good. And only an unreasonable soul could doubt that good is characteristic of him alone. 7 After all, if the second god is good not in itself, but from the first, then how is it possible, so that the one through whose participation the second became good would not be good, especially if it turns out that the second is involved in him as a good? 8 So, on the basis of reasoning, Plato explained to an insightful person that there is one good 128.” And a little further he says: 9 “That everything is this way, Plato established with the help of various kinds of sequential division, namely: while in the Timaeus he uses this adjective in its usual meaning when he speaks of the demiurge: ‘he was good 129’, in the Republic he called good the idea of good 130, meaning that good is the idea of the demiurge, who appears to us good by communion with the first and only. 10 After all, just as people are called so because they are imprinted with the idea of man, bulls with bulls, and horses with horses, so the demiurge is good by virtue of his participation in the first good, and the first mind, which is good in itself, is the idea of good 131.” Chapter 23. On ideas according to Plato 1 "Thus arose - it is clear that this is a cosmos - was created according to the example of a self-identical sample comprehended by rational thinking; and if so, then it is extremely necessary that this cosmos be a likeness of something. After all, just as the sample contains all intelligible living beings, so this cosmos contains us 132." 2 This is what Plato says in the Timaeus; I will explain the meaning of what was said using Didymus’s treatise On the Opinions of Plato. He writes like this: 3 "He (Plato (A. Ya.)) says that ideas are certain examples of things that are sensible by nature, limited by gender, patterns from which knowledge and definition come; after all, for all people there is one man, for all horses - a horse, and for all animals in general - one unborn and immortal animal. 4 Just as from one seal numerous prints and images of one man are born, so from each idea - numerous kinds of sensible bodies: from the idea of people - all people..., and in the same way in relation to all other creatures, according to the nature of each. 5 He also asserts that the idea is the eternal essence, the cause and beginning of the fact that each thing is similar to itself. 6 Just as individual ideas, as prototypes, precede sensible bodies, so the idea, which contains all ideas, the most beautiful and most perfect, is the model of this world, because on the basis of similarity with it the world was formed by the one who created it from all essence according to the original plan of God. 133.” 7 This is what the mentioned author says on this issue; but the wise Moses goes ahead in this matter and teaches that even before the sun and stars were revealed, before the visible sky, which he calls the firmament, before our dry land, and what we call day and night, there was already something other than the light of the sun, another day and night, and everything else was created by the supreme ruler and Cause, the God of the world. 8 But even after Moses, the children of the Hebrews determine that there is some kind of incorporeal sun, which is not visible to everyone and is not revealed to mortal eyes, as the prophet says on behalf of God: “For those who fear Me the sun of righteousness will rise.” (Mal.4:2) 9 And that this righteousness is not human, but its idea, learned another prophet of the Hebrews, who said about God: “Who raised up righteousness from the east, called it before his face, and it will go? He will give it before the nations.” (Isa. 41:2.) 10 Our common “word” has recently, in the previous pages, presented the Divine Word, incorporeal and substantial (οὐσιώδη) based on the testimony of the Hebrew scriptures, in which the same authors say this about the Word: “Which 134 became for us wisdom from God, righteousness and sanctification and redemption.” (1 Cor. 1:30.) 11 It is also called life, and is called both wisdom and truth. And the teaching of the Jews - if, of course, the apostles and disciples of our Savior are Jews - says that everything that exists and lies at the foundation, and myriads of other incorporeal forces, and that which is on the other side of the sky and all material and fluid existence, all this, as this teaching asserts, imprinted its images in sensory things, in relation to which it took the name “image”. 12 At least they (Jews (A.Ya.)) say that man is the image of an intelligible model and the whole life of people passes in the image. Thus, Moses says: “And God created man, in the image of God he created him (Gen. 1:27.)”; and another Jew, reflecting on the paternal tradition: “Truly,” he says, “a man walks in an image.” (Ps.39:7) Listen to how the interpreters of the sacred laws explain the thought contained in the writings of Moses; Thus, Philo the Jew, interpreting the traditions of his fathers, says verbatim: Chapter 24. Philo: about ideas according to Moses 1 "If we use clearer terminology, we can say that the intelligible world is nothing more than the word of God who is already creating the world. In fact, the intelligible city is nothing more than the calculation of the architect who has already planned to create an intelligible city. 2 This is the position of Moses, not mine; in any case, he definitely states, when in the following pages he describes the birth (emergence) of man, that he was created 'in the image of God' ( Gen. 1:27) 3 If the part is the image of the image, and if it is obvious that the whole form, this entire sensory cosmos in its entirety, since it is greater than the human image, is an imitation of the divine image, it is clear that the archetypal seal, which we call the intelligible cosmos, is itself a model, an archetypal idea of ideas, the word of God. 4 When he says: “In the beginning God created the heavens and the earth” (Gen. 1:1), he does not understand “beginning” in a temporal sense, as some think: for time did not exist before the world, but it was born with it or after it. 5 In fact, since time is a period (or “interval”) of the movement of the world, and movement cannot appear before the movable, but it is necessary that it arise either later or simultaneously [with the world], then, therefore, it is necessary that time be the same age as the world or younger than it, and to dare to assert that it is older than it is not in accordance with philosophy. 6 But if in this text ‘beginning’ is not understood in terms of time, then it probably denotes the beginning of a series of numbers, that is, ‘in the beginning he created’ corresponds to ‘first he created the heavens’ 135.” 7 Then he continues, saying: "So, the creator first created the incorporeal sky, the invisible earth, the idea of ​​air and emptiness. And [of the last two] he called the first darkness, because the air is black by nature, and the second - the abyss, because the emptiness is very deep and vast; 8 then he created the incorporeal essence of water and breath and, in the seventh place, light, which, also being incorporeal, became an intelligible model for the sun and all luminous stars that he intended to create in the sky. 9 But he considered breath and light worthy of priority: thus, he called the first the spirit of God, since breath is supremely life-giving, and the cause of life is God; and the second - by light, since it is extremely beautiful: I think that the intelligible light is as much superior in light and brilliance to the visible as the sun is superior to darkness, day - night, and the faculty of judgment, and this is the mind that governs the whole soul - the bodily eyes; 10 and that invisible and intelligible light became the image of the divine word, which explained his birth 136; This light is a super-celestial star, the source of the sensible stars, which it would be appropriate to call the world’s light, and from which the sun, the moon and all the other planets and motionless celestial bodies, each as far as possible, draw their due radiance, and this unalloyed and pure radiance weakens when it begins to turn from the intelligible into the sensible: after all, in the realm of the sensible there is nothing pure 137.” 11 And a little later he adds: "But since there was light, the darkness gave way and moved away, and morning and evening arose on the borders that separated them, the measurement of time was immediately and necessarily realized, which the good creator called 'day', and not the 'first' day, but the 'one' day, so called because of the unity of the intelligible world, which has a monadic nature. 12 So, now the incorporeal cosmos has already acquired its own border, since it was placed in the depths of the divine Words, and the sensory cosmos was born 138 according to the model of the incorporeal. Moreover, the first and best of its parts, which the demiurge created, is the sky; he (Moses (A. Ya.)) gave it the etymologically correct name: “firm”, since it has a corporeal nature; after all, the body is solid by nature and has three dimensions, and what can be the idea of “solid” and “body” except that it is extended in all directions? correctly, contrasting the intelligible and incorporeal with the sensible and corporeal, Moses called the heavens ‘firmament’ 139.” This is what Philo says; Clement also agrees with him, who in the sixth book of 140 Stromatus says the following: Chapter 25. Clement: on the same subject 1 "Also, the cosmos, as barbarian philosophy defined, is intelligible, and there is sensual: the first is an archetype, and the second is the image of a beautiful example. And the first [this philosophy] raises to one, since it is intelligible, and the sensual - to the six, since among the Pythagoreans the six is called marriage, since it is the generating number 141. 2 In the unit, barbarian philosophy places the invisible heaven, the holy earth and the intelligible light. “In the beginning,” says [this philosophy], “God created the heavens and the earth” (Gen. 1:1-2); then it adds: “And God said: “Let there be light.” (Gen. 1:3) With the origin of the sensible world, it creates the solid heaven (and the solid is the sensible), the visible sky and the visible. light. 3 Don't you think that it is precisely on the basis of the above that Plato leaves the ideas of living beings in the intelligible world and creates sensible species in accordance with the intelligible genera? 4 So it is quite logical that, as Moses says, the body is molded from the earth, that body which Plato calls ‘a container made of earth 142’ (γήΐον σκῆνος), and the rational soul from above is breathed into the face by God. 5 After all, it is here, say the scriptures, that the guiding principle is found, explaining the subsequent entry of the soul through the senses into the primordial man: this is why man was created ‘in the image and likeness.’ (Gen. 1:26) For the divine and royal Word, dispassionate man, is the image of God, and the human mind is the image of the image 143.” Chapter 26. Jews and Plato: about hostile forces 1 Further, Plato, following the teachings of the Jews, asserts that there are not only incorporeal and good forces, but also those contrary to them, and writes in the Xth Book of the Laws approximately like this: 2 “- Should we not admit that the soul, which rules everything and dwells in everything that moves in various ways, also rules the sky? – But one soul or many? I will answer for you: we cannot possibly assume less than two - a beneficent one and another capable of doing the opposite 144.” “Since we have agreed with ourselves that although heaven is full of many good things, [it is] also, although not in large quantities, evil, then, we affirm, [between them] there is a constant struggle, such that it requires extraordinary vigilance; and our allies are gods and demons, and we are the property of both 145.” 4 I cannot say where Plato got such thoughts, but what I will say - and this is true - is that many thousands of years before the birth of Plato, this teaching was among the Jews. 5 Thus, their Scripture says: “And there was a day, and the angels of God came to present themselves before God; and the devil came among them, going around the earth and going out from it, 146,” calling “the devil” the hostile force, and “angels of God” the good [forces]. It calls these good forces “divine spirits” and “servants of God” when it says: “Thou createsst flaming spirits by Thy angels and Thy servants.” fire.” (Ps.103:4 (= Heb.1:7)) 7 But this is how the one who said: “Our struggle is not against flesh and blood, but against the rulers, against the powers, against the rulers of this darkness, 147 against the spirits of wickedness in the heavenly places” represents the confrontation between hostile forces. (Eph.6:12) 8 It seems that Plato paraphrased the Mosaic saying, which reads: “When the Most High divided the nations to scatter the sons of Adam, He set the boundaries of the nations according to the number of the angels of God 148”; on the basis of which he determined that the entire human race is ‘the property of gods and demons’. Chapter 27. Jews and Plato: on the immortality of the soul 1 In his ideas regarding the immortality of the soul, Plato also does not differ in any way from Moses, who was the first to determine that the human soul is an immortal essence, calling it the image of God, or rather, that it was created in the image of God. “And God said,” he says, “Let us make man in Our image and in our likeness. And God created man, in the image of God He created him” (Gen. 1:26-27) 2 And then, in a word dividing the complex substance into a visible body and an intelligible soul, he adds: “And God took dust from the earth, and created man, and breathed into his nostrils the breath of life, and man became a soul alive.” ( Gen. 2:7 ) 3 He also states that man was invested with power and kingly dignity to rule over all living creatures on earth; Thus, he says: “And God said: Let us make man in our image and likeness; and let them have dominion over the fish of the sea, and over the birds of the air, and over the cattle, and over all the earth. And God created man in His own image, 149 in the image of God He created him.” (Genesis 1:26–27) 4 How else can the image of God and likeness be conceived, if not in relation to the powers of God and to the likeness of [His] virtue? Now listen to what Plato, as if having learned from Moses, says in the Alcibiades: 5 “So, can we say that there is some part of the soul more divine than that which contains knowledge and understanding? – So this part of the soul is like God; and if you look into it and know everything divine, that is, God and understanding, then in this way you can best know yourself. - And just as mirrors are clearer, purer and sparkling than the mirror of the eye, so God is purer and more brilliant than the best part of our soul. - This is plausible, Socrates. “Therefore, looking at God, we can use that most beautiful mirror and thus see and know ourselves. 6 This is what Plato says in Alcibiades; and in the dialogue On the Soul he interprets this teaching more extensively in each specific place in the dialogue where it occurs: “So, with your permission,” he said, “let us establish two types of existence - visible and formless. “We’ll establish it,” answered Kebes. – And the formless always remains unchanged, while the visible “Let’s establish this too,” said Kebes. 7 “Look,” continued Socrates, “isn’t it the case that we have one body and another soul, and that there is nothing in us other than these two?” – Which of the two species, we can say, is the body more similar and related? – In all respects it is similar to the visible. - And the soul? Is she visible or invisible? “No,” said Cebes, “[invisible], at least, Socrates, for people.” - But when we talked about what is visible or invisible, we meant human nature! Or maybe you mean something else? 8 – What do we say about the soul? Is it visible or invisible? - This means that, in comparison with the body, the soul is closer to the formless, and the body is in in comparison with the soul - to the visible? - Absolutely. 9 – Didn’t we already say earlier that the soul, when it uses the body to explore something with the help of sight, hearing or some other sense (after all, to explore with the help of the body and with the help of feeling is the same thing!), it is carried away by the body in the direction of something that never has constancy and from contact with this the soul wanders, becomes confused and seized, like a drunk, with dizziness. 10 – When she conducts research on her own, she goes to where everything is pure, eternal, immortal and unchangeable, and since she is akin to all this, she always ends up with him as soon as she is alone with herself and this turns out to be possible for her. Here comes the end of her wanderings, and, in contact with all this, she becomes constant and unchanging. This state of hers is called understanding, isn't it? 11 “Exactly right, Socrates,” said Cebes, “you speak wonderfully.” – So, to which species [of being] is the soul more similar and related, as it seems to you, if we reason on the basis of the previous and these most recent conclusions? “It seems to me, Socrates,” he answered, “anyone, even the most notorious slow-witted person, following this path, recognizes that the soul is decisively and certainly more similar to the unchanging than to the changing.” – [Similar to] another [type of being]. 12 – Now look from this side. When the soul and body are together, nature tells the body to obey and be a slave, and the soul to rule and be a mistress. Having taken this into account, tell me which of them, as it seems to you, is similar to the divine and which to the mortal? Don't you think that it is natural for the divine to dominate and rule, and for the mortal to obey and be slaves? 13 – So what is the soul similar to? - It’s clear, Socrates: the soul is similar to the divine, and the body to the mortal. “Now look, Cebes,” said Socrates, “doesn’t this follow from all that has been said: our soul is in the highest degree similar to the divine, immortal, intelligible, uniform, indestructible, constant and unchangeable in itself, and to the human, mortal, incomprehensible to the mind, diverse, destructible, not similar to itself, also in the highest degree like a body. 14 Can we say anything contrary to this, friend Cebes? - Well, since all this is so, then isn’t it appropriate for the body to quickly to be destroyed, but for the soul to be completely indestructible or almost indestructible? “Then,” said Socrates, “you notice that when a person dies, the visible part of him - the body belonging to the visible [world], or the corpse, as we call it, which tends to be destroyed, disintegrated, dissipated, does not suffer this fate suddenly, not immediately, but is preserved for quite a long time if death overtakes the body in a favorable state and at a favorable time of year. After all, a body that is shrunken and embalmed, as they are embalmed in Egypt, remains preserved almost endlessly. But even if the body rots, some of its parts - bones, tendons and the like, can be said to be immortal. Or not? 16 - So, the soul - formless and moving away to a similar place - wonderful, pure, formless - truly to Hades, to a good and reasonable God, where, if God wishes, my soul must soon go - is it really the soul, whose properties and nature we have now defined, immediately, as soon as it leaves the body, dissipates and perishes, as most people believe? 17 No, friends Cebes and Simmias, nothing like it, but most likely this is how it is. If the soul is separated from the pure body and does not carry anything corporeal with it, because during its life it did not want to be connected with the body, but avoided it and concentrated in itself, because it cared about it - in other words, it devoted itself to true philosophy and, in fact, was preparing to die easily. Or can this not be called preparation for death? 18 – So, such a soul goes to a formless place similar to itself, divine, immortal, rational, and, having reached it, it becomes blessed, freed from wanderings, recklessness, fears, wild carnal lusts and all other human evils, and - as they say about those initiated into the sacraments - henceforth it dwells forever among the gods. So should we say Kebet, or something else? “Yes, I swear by Zeus,” answered Cebes. 19 - But, I think, if the soul is separated from the body, defiled and soiled, because it has always been in connection with the body, pleased it and loved it, enchanted by it, its passions and pleasures so much that it no longer considered anything true except the physical - that which can be touched, seen, drunk, eaten or used for love pleasure, and everything vague to the eye, but comprehended by the mind and philosophy, learned to hate, fear and avoid - how do you think such a soul will part with a clean body? “Never,” answered Kebes 151.” 20 This is what Plato says; and Porphyry explains his thought as follows in the first book of the treatise On the Soul against Boethus 152: Chapter 28. Porfiry: on the same subject 1 "Here, according to Plato, is a serious argument in favor of the immortality of the soul, namely, the argument from similarity; for if it is like the divine, immortal, formless, incorruptible, indestructible, essential and based on incorruptibility, can it not belong to the genus of the model? 2 For when regarding any thing the question arises: which of the two obvious extremes, such as rational or unreasonable beginning, she belongs, possible only one type of proof [of its belonging], namely, the following: to show which of the two opposites this thing is similar to. Thus, although the human race in childhood remains unreasonable, and many take pleasure in the mistakes of unreason even into old age, yet, due to its great resemblance to pure reason, this race is considered initially rational. 3 Thus, since, on the one hand, there clearly exists a divine substance, pure, uncorrupted, that is, akin to the gods, and, on the other hand, there clearly also exists another, earthly substance, which is destroyed and lies in decay, then uncertainty arises regarding the soul: which of the two mentioned principles does it gravitate toward? So Plato believed that it was necessary to explore the truth using the argument from similarity. 4 And since it is in no way similar to the dissolvable, incomprehensible, not involved in life and, as a result, tangible, sensual, born and dying, but, on the contrary, it is similar to the divine, immortal, formless, intelligible, living, akin to truth and is endowed with all the features attributed to it by Plato, who considered that it should not, recognizing it everything else in which she is similar to God, to reject that because of which she became involved in all this - similarity [to him] in essence. 5 Just as what is not like God in its energies is different from him and in the composition of nature, so, consequently, what is somehow involved in these energies already has a similarity of essence; after all, what the essence is depends on what the energies will be, which, as it were, flow from it and are its offspring 153. 6 But Boeth invalidated this proof; listen to what he did by writing this at the beginning of his presentation: 7 ‘In order to prove whether the soul is immortal and whether it is stronger by nature than any destruction, it is necessary to patiently and carefully present many proofs of this. 8 Of course, the fact that there is nothing in us more like God than the soul can be convinced, if desired, and without long research, by the example of the constancy and continuity not only of the movement that it brings into us, but also of the mind that is in it. 9 Drawing attention to this, the Krotonian physicist said that she is immortal and by nature avoids all rest, since souls are the most divine of bodies 154. 10 But a great likeness to God can appear in one who once, in the process of contemplation, comprehends the idea of the soul and especially the mind that rules within us, in the sense of how many and what decisions and aspirations it often sets in motion 155.’ 11 And then he adds: ‘Indeed, if the soul of all things shows itself to be the most similar to a deity, why look for other arguments to prove its immortality; after all, one can immediately begin with an argument capable of convincing reasonable people, and not include it among other [secondary arguments], namely: she could not be involved in energies similar to the divine if she were not herself divine. 12 After all, if immersed in the mortal, the dissolvable, the incomprehensible, dead in itself, always perishing and flowing into change and disappearance, she nevertheless gives form to all this and keeps it from disintegrating, thereby showing her divine essence, although she is obscured and constrained by the all-destructive statue surrounding her, then how can she, if mentally separated from all this, as from the dirt stuck around her, immediately not will reveal its idea as something comparable only to God? But due to her participation in him, she retains a similarity to him in her energies, even in her mortal parts 156 - as happens when she is imprisoned in a mortal body; it does not disintegrate because by nature it belongs to that which is not involved in death 157 ' ‘It is true that the soul appears at the same time divine, because of its similarity to the inseparable, and mortal because it approaches mortal nature; she both descends and ascends, she has a mortal image and she is similar to immortals. 14 Indeed, on the one hand, a person is the one who fills his stomach, strives to be satisfied like cattle, but, on the other hand, the same person is the one who can save a ship with his knowledge that is in danger at sea and save him in illness; he seeks the truth and methodically acquires knowledge, he invented fire, observes horoscopes and creates, imitating the creations of the demiurge. 15 Indeed, man created on earth the combination of seven [planets] with their movement, imitating the celestial structure with the help of technical devices. And what didn’t he come up with, showing himself a god-like, divine mind? 16 Although, through the example of these darings, a man showed an Olympian, divine and in no way mortal essence, he convinced the crowd, unable to see him (mind (A. I .)) due to selfishness, manifested in a tendency to value things, base my judgments on external phenomena and consider that the mind, like them, is mortal; for there is only one way of consoling oneself in troubles, and that is to convince oneself that all are equal in their misfortunes, drawing such a conclusion on the basis of external phenomena, and that all, both without and within, are men 158.’” 17 The inspirer of all these ideas was undoubtedly Moses, who, having described the birth of the first man 159 in the words previously quoted, established the doctrine of the immortality of the soul by the example of its likening to a deity. 18 But since agreement and unanimity have been established between Moses and Plato on the issue of the incorporeal and invisible essence, then it is time to examine the remaining parts of Plato’s philosophy and show that he is in everything in tune with the Hebrews, except perhaps that sometimes he speaks more humanly than in accordance with the truth. 19 In particular, everything that he said successfully, as a rule, coincides with the teachings of Moses, and everything that he understands that does not agree with Moses and the prophets cannot have a reasonable basis. All this we will have to consider in due course; In the meantime, since the consonance and agreement [of Plato and Moses regarding] theses concerning the contemplation of intelligible realities has been established, it is time to return again to the physiology of the sensory and briefly touch on Plato’s agreement with the ideas of the Jews. Chapter 29. About the fact that the sensory world is born 1 After Moses showed that this begotten world was created by God - this is what he says at the beginning of his writing: “In the beginning God created the heavens and the earth” (Gen. 1:1) and after setting out the particulars he adds: “This is the book of the origin of the heavens and the earth, [from the time] when it was completed, on the day that God created the heavens and the earth” (Gen. 2:4) - listen to how Plato, without deviating from his thought, writes approximately like this in words: 2 “Everything that has arisen is necessarily born under the influence of some cause, since it is absolutely impossible to receive birth without a cause 160.” "'The whole sky' or 'cosmos' or some other name will be more suitable for it 161, let it be called by this name among us. So, regarding it, we must consider what should be considered at the beginning of the study of each thing, namely: did it always exist, without having a beginning of its origin, or did it arise from a certain beginning? 4 It arose, because it is visible, tangible and has a body, yet such things belong to the genus the sensible, and the sensible, as it seems, can be comprehended by opinion and is born. But we say that everything that has arisen needs a certain cause for its emergence. However, the creator and demiurge of this world is not easy to find, and even if he is found, it will not be possible to tell everyone about him 162.” “So, according to proper reasoning, it should be recognized that this cosmos is an animated and intelligent living being, and it was truly born with the help of divine providence 163.” Chapter 30. About the heavenly bodies 1 After Moses taught that they too were created when he said: "And God said, Let the lights be (created) in the firmament of the heaven to give light on the earth; and they should serve for signs, and times, and days, and years. And God created the two great lights and the stars, and set them in the firmament of the heaven" (Gen. 1:14-17), 2 and Plato says something similar: "According to the plan and intention of God regarding the birth of time, the sun, the moon and five other stars called planets arose in order to determine and maintain the numbers of time. Having created their bodies, God placed them in their orbits 164." 3 Consider whether Plato’s phrase: “According to the plan and purpose of God” is not similar to the expression of the Hebrews: “By the word of the Lord were the heavens established, and by the spirit of His mouth, and all their powers.” (Gen. 32:6) Also following Moses, who said: “And he set (ἔθετο) them in the firmament of the heaven,” and Plato uses a word similar to “set”: “Having created their bodies, God placed (ἔθηκεν) them in their orbits.” Chapter 31. That all the works of God are good 1 After the Scripture of the Hebrews adds in relation to each of the creations: “And God saw that it was good” (Gen. 1:4, 10, 12, 18, 21:25), and when summing up the [creation] of the world says: “And God saw everything that He had made, and behold, it was very good” (Gen. 1:31), listen to what Plato says: “If the cosmos is beautiful and its demiurge is good, it is clear that he looked at the eternal 165.” “After all, this world is the most beautiful of created things, and its creator is the best of causes 166.” Chapter 32. About the change and transformation of the world 1 And about this also the Scripture of the Hebrews speaks; here, when he says: “And the heavens will be rolled up like a scroll” (Is. 34:4), then there, when he adds: “And there will be a new heaven and a new earth, which I create, to remain before Me, says the Lord” (Is. 65:17 + 66:22), or in another place, when he says: “For the image of this world is passing away 167” (1 Cor. 7:31). 2 Listen to how Plato supports this doctrine when he says in the Timaeus: “By combining the primary elements, he created the visible and tangible sky; as a result of such actions and from such constituent parts, four in number, the body of the cosmos was born, ordered by proportion, and from this friendship arose in it, so that it became self-identical, and cannot be decomposed [into elements] by anyone except the one who himself connected it 168.” “So, time arose along with the sky, so that, having been born at the same time, they would disintegrate at the same time if disintegration came for them 169.” “Gods of gods! I am your demiurge and the father of things, and what has arisen from me will remain indestructible, for such is my will 170,” he then adds, saying: “Although everything that is composed of parts can be destroyed, yet it would be an evil deed to want to destroy what is good and beautifully constructed; therefore, despite the fact that you are born and are not immortal, yet you will not be destroyed and will not receive death as your inheritance, since my will is a stronger and more powerful bond than those that united each of you at birth 171.” 5 And in Politics the same author says this: "After all, God either directs the movement of this world, giving it rotation himself, or allows it to move independently, when its rotations have already exhausted the measure of the appointed time, and the world again spontaneously turns back, since the world is a living being, possessing a mind given to it by those who originally created it. This reverse movement of it arose due to this innate necessity. – By what force exactly? 6 – Remaining eternally unchanged and identical to themselves is appropriate only for the most divine beings, but the nature of the body is structured differently. What we called heaven and space, although it received many happy properties from its parent, still participates in the body: therefore, it was absolutely impossible for it not to receive changes as its destiny. Still, if possible, it moves along one trajectory, so it received reverse rotation as the smallest deviation from its inherent movement. 7 It is impossible for almost anyone to set himself in motion forever, except for the one who directs the movement of everything movable, and it is not proper for him to move in one direction or the other. In accordance with all this, it cannot be said that the cosmos moves itself, nor that God completely and always turns it in two ways and oppositely, nor that it is rotated by two deities who think oppositely, but what we recently said remains: the cosmos moves thanks to another, divine reason, and accepting new life, it also receives from the demiurge the immortality prepared for it; when he is given freedom, he moves on his own, left to himself for such a period as to make many thousands of circles in the opposite direction - thanks to the fact that he, the largest and best balanced, moves on a tiny foot. 8 – Everything you stated looks very plausible. – Let us reason and understand, based on what we have just said, what kind of condition it is that was the cause of all the wonderful things we talked about; because this is what it is... – The fact is that the rotational movement of the world is directed first in one direction, then in the other. – This change should be considered the most significant and perfect of all the changes taking place in heaven. “Therefore, we must consider that the greatest changes are also happening to us who live within this sky. – Don’t we know that the nature of living beings has a hard time withstanding many, large and varied changes? “Therefore, of necessity, then a great destruction occurs among all living beings, and few people remain alive. And many other amazing and unusual experiences fall to their lot, but the greatest of them follows the world cycle, when the current movement of the world changes to the opposite 172.” To all this, below, he, prompted by the opinions of the Jews, adds this further reasoning about the resurrection of the dead: Chapter 33. Same author: about bringing the dead back to life 1 – But how then, stranger, did the emergence of new creatures happen? And how were they born from each other? 2 - It is clear, Socrates, that in the nature of that time there was no birth of people from each other, but the generation of that time was called earth-born, because people were born each time again from the earth, and memories of this were preserved by our early ancestors, who were adjacent in time to the end of the first cycle: they were born at the beginning of the current one. They became for us messengers of those legends that many now unreasonably doubt. 3 And this, I think, can be understood on the basis of this: just as the old men will come to the age of babies, so the dead lying in the earth will again rise from it and come to life, carried away by this complete reversal, when birth returns back, and, therefore, will, of necessity, both in name and in essence, be earth-born, except for those for whom God has prepared a different fate. “Yes, this certainly follows from what was said earlier 173.” 4 Then, continuing, he sets forth thoughts similar to the provisions of the Hebrews concerning the end of the world in this way: Chapter 34. More about the end of the world 1 “When all this had come to an end and a change was about to come, and the entire earth-born tribe had suffered destruction, after each soul had fulfilled the measure of its births and had fallen into the ground with as many seeds as it was allotted, the helmsman of the world, as if letting go of the rudder, retreated to his observation post 174, and fate and innate lust again turned back the movement of the cosmos. 2 All the local gods, the co-rulers of the most powerful deity, having learned about what had happened, also deprived part of the cosmos of their care. The cosmos, turning back, driven by the opposite desire of the beginning and the end and shaken by a powerful internal shock, brought new death to all kinds of animals. guarding and ruling over everything that is in him, and over himself 175.” 4 And a little lower he adds saying: "That is why the god who created it (the world (A.Ya.)), seeing such a difficult situation for it and worrying that, agitated by the turmoil, it does not collapse and plunge into the boundless space of 176 dissimilarity, again takes the steering wheel and again directs everything that is sick and destroyed in the former, independent cycle: he again arranges the cosmos, puts it in order and makes it immortal and ageless. This is completion of the myth 177.” Chapter 35. How Plato talks about the resurrection of the dead in the same words as the books of Hebrews 1 "But,” I said, “both in number and in magnitude they (the rewards of the gods to people during life (A.Ya.)) are nothing compared to what awaits both (the just and unjust person (A.Ya.)) after their death. It’s worth listening to about this, so that both of them can take away from our conversation what they should.” “Please continue,” he said, “there is hardly anything else you can listen to more willingly.” “I will not tell you the story of Alcinous,” I said, “but the story of one brave man, Er, son of Armenia, originally from Pamphylia 178.” One day he was killed in the war; when ten days later they began to pick up the bodies of the already decomposed dead, they found him still whole, brought him home, and when on the twelfth day they began the burial, then, already lying on the fire, he suddenly came to life, and having come to life, he told what he saw there. 3 He said that his soul, when it left his body, went along with many others, and they all came to some wonderful place where there were two holes in the ground, one next to the other, and opposite, up in the sky, there were also two. 4 In the middle between them sat the judges. After passing the sentence, they ordered the just people to go to the right, up to heaven, and hung a sign of the sentence in front of them, and to the unjust people to go to the left, down, and these too had - behind - the designation of all their misdeeds. 5 When it came to Er’s turn, the judges said that he should become a messenger for the people of everything that he saw here, and they ordered him to listen to everything and observe everything that happens in this place 179.” 6 This is what Plato says; Plutarch narrates similarly in the first book of his treatise On the Soul: Chapter 36. Plutarch: on a similar subject 1 "We were also with this Antillus; but let us tell Socitelus and Heracleon what we are talking about. The fact is that he recently fell ill and it seemed to the doctors that he had no hope of recovery; but, having barely recovered from some unreliable faint, he did not do or say anything strange, except that he died and was then released, and that he would not die from this illness; moreover, he heard the master of those, who brought him, reproached them: after all, having been sent to Nikand, they returned, taking Antilla with them instead. This Nikand was a shoemaker, however, one of those who developed in the palaestra and therefore he was a friend and close acquaintance of many. As a result, the young men came to tease him that he had escaped [death] by bribing the servants who came from there, and he, meanwhile, was clearly somewhat embarrassed and annoyed, but in the end; Finally, he died on the third day, after a fever suddenly attacked him. As for Antillus, he returned to life, is still alive and does good, being the most benevolent of our guests 180.” 2 I bring this here because in the Scriptures of the Hebrews we also find [evidence] of the resurrection of the dead. Since they contain promises that only the lovers of God will be given a certain land, according to the word of the prophecy: “The meek will inherit the earth” (Ps. 37:11; Matt. 5:5), and that we are talking about the heavenly earth, this explains the text, which says: “But Jerusalem that is above is free - it is the mother of us all” (Gal. 4:26) and about it the prophet says allegorically that it was created from precious stones: “Behold, I will set your stones on ruby and your strongholds on jasper, and I will make your foundation of sapphires, and your fence of precious stones” (Is. 54:11-12), see how Plato, convinced of the truth of these or some similar thoughts, openly admits this in the dialogue On the Soul, when he puts approximately the following words into the mouth of Socrates: Chapter 37. How Plato talks about the so-called heavenly earth, similar to the Jews 1 "You see, Simmias, simply retelling what and how - for this, in my opinion, the skill of Glaucus is not needed, but to prove whether this is true, in my opinion, is a task more difficult than the skill of Glaucus 181. In any case, I cannot cope, and besides, even if I were capable of this, now, probably, I would not have enough life for a long story. But about the idea of ​​the earth, as I imagine it, and about its regions, nothing interferes tell me. “And this is quite enough,” said Simmias. 2 “So, I am convinced,” he answered, “first of all, that if the earth is round and is in the middle of the sky 182, it does not need either air or any other similar force that would keep it from falling, but for this the uniformity of the sky everywhere and the earth’s own equilibrium are sufficient, for a homogeneous body in equilibrium, placed in the middle of a homogeneous container, cannot tilt in either direction, but will remain uniform and motionless. 3 This is the first thing,” he said, “that I was convinced of.” “And rightly so,” said Simmias. “Further,” continued Socrates, “I became convinced that the earth is very large, and that we, living from Phasis to the Pillars of Hercules, occupy only a small part of it; we crowd around our sea, like ants or frogs around a swamp, and many other peoples live in many other places similar to ours. 4 After all, everywhere on the earth there are many depressions, different in appearance and size, into which water, fog and air have flowed. But the earth itself rests pure in the clear sky, where the stars are, and to which most who are accustomed to speak on these topics give the name of ether, the sediments of which are water, fog and air, constantly flowing into the hollows of the earth. 5 And we, who live in its depressions, have no idea about this, but we think that we live on the very surface of the earth, just as if someone living at the bottom of the sea imagined that he lived on the surface, and, seeing the sun and stars through the water, considered the sea to be the sky. Because of his slowness and weakness, he would never have been able to reach the surface and, having emerged and stuck his head out of the water, see how much cleaner and more beautiful it is here than in his region, and he would not even have heard about it from anyone else who saw it. 6 We also experience the same thing: we live in a hollow of the earth, but we think that we are on the surface, and we call the air the sky in the confidence that the stars move in this sky. And all because, due to our weakness and slowness, we cannot reach the extreme boundary of the air. But if someone nevertheless reached the edge or became winged and flew up, then, like fish here with us, who stick their heads out of the sea and see this world of ours, so he, raising his head, would see the world there. And if by nature he were able to bear this sight, he would know that for the first time he was seeing the true sky, the true light and the true earth. 7 After all, our land, its stones, and every local area are destroyed and eaten away, like sea cliffs eaten away by salt. Nothing worthy of attention will be born in the sea, nothing, one might say, is perfect in it, and where there is land there are only crevices, sand, endless silt and dirt - in a word, there is absolutely nothing there that can be compared with the beauty of our places. 8 And that world, apparently, is even more different from ours. If it is only appropriate to retell the myth now, it would be worth listening, Simmias, to what is on that earth, which is under the very heavens. “Well, of course, Socrates,” answered Simmias, “we would be glad to hear this myth.” 9 “So, friend, they say first of all,” said Socrates, “that that earth, if you look at it from above, looks like a ball, sewn from twelve pieces of leather and colorfully painted with different colors 183.” As their samples, the colors that our painters use can be presented, but there the whole earth plays with such colors, and even much brighter and purer than these: 10 here it is purple and amazing in beauty, here it is golden, there it is white - whiter than plaster and snow; and the rest of the colors from which it is composed are the same, only there are more of them and they are more beautiful than anything we have seen. 11 And even its very hollows, although filled with water and air, are colored in their own way and shine brightly with a variety of colors, so that its face appears single, integral and at the same time infinitely varied. 12 This is what she is like, and like herself, trees and flowers grow on her, fruits ripen, and mountains are built in her likeness, and stones, they are in the same proportion as here, only they are smoother, more transparent and more beautiful in color. Their fragments are the very stones that we value so much here: our carnelians, and jaspers, and emeralds, and all others of this kind. And there any stone is the same or even better. 13 The reason for this is that the stones there are clean, uncorroded and unspoiled - unlike ours, which are corroded by rot, salt and sediments flowing here: they bring deformities and diseases to the stones and soil, animals and plants. That land is decorated with all these beauties, and also with gold, and silver, and other expensive metals. All this is open, and, being of large size, is scattered in large quantities throughout the earth, so that it can become a spectacle for blissful spectators 184.” Chapter 38. “That Plato believes in judgment after death, according to the Jews 1 After the Scripture of the Hebrews in thousands of texts foretells the judgment of God and the division of souls after the removal from here, and speaks of this also in the following places: "The judgment sat down and the books were opened, and the Ancient of Days sat down. The river of fire unfolded before Him; thousands of thousands served Him and darkness stood before Him 185." (Dan.7:9-10), listen to how Plato, mentioning the judgment of God and even the river by name, in words that agree with the Hebrew, describes many dwellings of pious people and the great punishments of the wicked. 2 This is what he says in the dialogue On the Soul: "The third river originates between the first two and soon after the source flows into a vast place, blazing with fire, and forms a lake, larger in size than our sea, where water boils with silt. From there it goes in a circle, muddy and muddy, and, encircling the earth, changes direction and comes close to the edge of the lake of Acherusiade, but does not mix with its waters. Having described many more circles underground, it leaves underground below Tartarus. 3 The name of this river is Pyriflegethontus, and it spews out splashes of its lava wherever it touches the earth's surface. In the opposite direction from it, the fourth river originates in a wild and terrible place, and, as they say, of a blue-black color, called the Stygian country, and the lake that the river forms is called Styx. strength, and, plunging underground, describes a circle, and flows in the direction opposite to Pyriphlegethon, approaching Acherusiad from the opposite edge. Its waters also do not mix anywhere with other people’s waters; and this river, too, encircling the earth with a ring, flows into Tartarus - opposite Pyriflegethon. The name of this river, according to the poets, is Kokit 186. 4 This is how it is with these rivers; when the dead appear in the place where each person’s genius takes them, the first thing is that judgment is carried out on everyone - both on those who lived their lives righteously and piously, and on those who lived differently. Those who are judged to have stuck to the middle go to Acheron - board the boats that are waiting for them, and sail on them to the lake. There they live and, being cleansed of the wrongdoings they committed during their lifetime, suffer punishment and receive liberation from guilt, and for good deeds they receive rewards - each according to his deserts. Those who, due to the gravity of their crimes, are considered incorrigible (these are either sacrileges, who often robbed in large quantities in churches, or murderers, who killed many contrary to justice and law, or other villains similar to them) - their appropriate fate casts them into Tartarus, from where they will never emerge. 5 And if they decide about someone that they have committed serious crimes, but still redeemable - for example, in anger they raised a hand against their father or mother, and then repented all their lives, or became murderers under similar circumstances - although they should be thrown into Tartarus, however, after a year, the waves carry the murderers to Cocytus, and the parricides and matricides to Pyriphlegethon. And when they, burned by fire, find themselves near the shores of Lake Acherusiad, they scream and call, some for those whom they killed, others for those who were offended, and pray, conjure, to allow them to go out to the lake and accept them. And if they bow to their prayers, they come out, and their misfortunes come to an end, and if not, they are again carried away to Tartarus, and from there into the rivers, and so they suffer until they beg forgiveness from those towards whom they have committed injustice: this is their punishment appointed by the judges. 6 And finally, those about whom it is decided that they have lived a particularly holy life: they are liberated and delivered from these places in the bowels of the earth, as from a prison, and go up and come to a clean dwelling and settle above the earth. Those among them who, thanks to philosophy, have been completely purified, henceforth live completely carefree 187 and arrive in even more beautiful abodes, which, however, are not easy to tell, and we are now running out of time. And for the sake of everything we just talked about, Simmias, we must make every effort to join, while we are alive, to virtue and reason, for the reward is wonderful and the hope is great 188!” 7 This is what Plato says; you can compare with the expression: “And (the righteous) arrive in even more beautiful dwellings, which, however, are not easy to tell, and we are now running out of time,” what we say as follows: “Eye has not seen, nor ear has heard, nor has it entered into the heart of man what God has prepared for those who love Him” (1 Cor. 2:9. = Is. 64:4.); 8 and next to the mentioned dwellings place “many abodes” (John 14:2), which are promised to the lovers of God; and with what was said about Pyriphlegethonte, compare the eternal fire promised to the wicked, according to the Hebrew prophet who said to them: "Who will tell you that the fire is burning? Who will tell you the eternal place?" (Isa.33:14.) and again: “Their worm will not die, and the fire will not be quenched, and they will be a spectacle for all flesh.” (Isa.66:24.). 9 Pay attention to how Plato agrees with this and, having said that the wicked will go to Tartarus, adds: “from where they will never come out”; and, on the contrary, after he said that the pious will live among the blessed, he adds: “Henceforth they [live] completely [carefree].” Also, Plato’s expression: “carefree” is not similar to the words: “Pain, sorrow and sighing are gone” (Is. 35:10). 10 And having said that those who came to Acheron did not come just like that, but “having ascended” first “on the boats that are waiting for them,” what else does he mean by boats, if not the bodies, entering into which the souls of the dead along with them receive punishment, according to the ideas of the Jews 189? But since this comparison of Hebrews and Plato has already been described quite well by me, I will move on to the XII book of the Gospel Preparation. Scripture Index: Genesis: 1:1–2 – 25, 2 190, and also: 24:4, 24:6 and 29:1; 1:2 – 24, 9; 1:3 – 25, 2; 1:4 – 31, 1; 1:6 – 6, 19; 1:10 – 31, 1; 1:12 – 31, 1; 1:14 – 30, 1; 1:16 –17 – 30, 1; 1:18 – 31, 1; 1:21 – 31, 1; 1:25 – 31, 1; 1:26– 27 – 27, 1 and 27, 3; 1:26 – 25.5; 1:27 – 23, 12 and 24, 2; 1:31 – 31, 1; 2:4 – 29, 1; 2:7 – 25, 4 and 27, 2; 2:19 – 6, 8; 17:5 – 6, 26; 19:24 – 14, 2; 42:11 – 15, 3. Exodus: 3:14 – 9, 1 and 10, 16; 28:9 – 7, 3; 28:17–20 – 7, 3. Deuteronomy: 6:4 – 13, 1; 13:5 – 13, 7, 8–9; 32:1–43 – 5, 7; 8 – 26, 8; 35 – 13, 7. 3rd Book of Kings: 5:12–14 – 7, 4. Book of Job: 1:6–7 – 26, 5; 9:9 – 7, 8; 20:5 – 13, 8; 38:31–32 – 7, 8. Psalms: 4:7 – 12, 2; 8:5 – 6, 14; 10:7 – 13, 6. 7; 30:24 – 13, 7; 32:6 – 14, 4. 30, 3; 35:10 – 12, 2; 36:11 – 36, 2; 38:7 – 23, 12; 101:28 – 10, 16; 103:4 – 26, 6; 103:24 – 18, 11; 103:27–30 – 18, 11; 103:29 – 18, 10; 106:20 – 14.5; 109:1 – 14, 3; 117:1 – 21, 1; 117:29 – 21, 1; 118 – 5, 7. Book of Proverbs of Solomon: 1:2–6 – 5, 4; 3:4 – 13, 8; 3:19 – 14, 8; 8:12 – 14, 7; 8:22–25 – 14, 7; 8:27 – 14, 7. Book of Ecclesiastes: 1:2 – 7, 6; 1:9–10 – 9, 2; 1:9 – 7, 6. Book of Wisdom of Solomon: 6:22 – 14, 9; 7:17 – 7, 5; 7:21 – 14, 8; 7:22–26 – 14, 10; 8:1 – 14, 10. Book of the prophet Isaiah: 33:14 – 38, 8; 34:4 – 32, 1; 35:10 – 38, 9; 41:2 – 23, 9; 41:4 – 13, 6; 54:11–12 – 36, 2; 65:17 – 32, 1; 66:22 – 32, 1; 66:24 – 38, 8. Lamentations of Jeremiah: 3:25 – 21, 1. Book of the Prophet Daniel: 7:9–10 – 38, 1. Book of the Prophet Zechariah: 6:12 – 15, 5. Book of the prophet Malachi: 3:6 – 10, 15; 3:20 – 23, 8. Gospel of Matthew: 5:5 – 36, 2; 19:17 – 21, 1. Gospel of John: 1:1–4 – 19, 3; 1:14 – 19, 3; 5:19 – 18, 25; 15:1 – 18, 13; 15:5 – 18, 13. Epistle of James: 4:6 – 13, 8. First Epistle of Peter: 5:5 – 13, 8. First Epistle of John: 14:2 – 38, 8. Romans: 1:19–20 – 8, 1; 12:19 – 13, 7. First Epistle to the Corinthians: 1:30 – 23, 10; 2:9 – 38, 7; 7:31 – 32, 1. Epistle to the Galatians: 4:26 – 36, 2. Ephesians: 6:12 – 26, 7. Epistle to the Colossians: 1:15–17 – 19, 4. First Epistle to the Thessalonians: 4:6 – 13, 7. Hebrews: 1:7 – 26, 6. 1) Excerpts from the works of ancient authors: Alcmaeon of Croton: 24 A 1 et 24 A 12 DK – 28, 9. Amelius: fr. 1 Zoubos – 19, 1. Anonymous epigram about the magical power of vowels: 6, 37. Arius Didymus: De placitis Platonis fr. 1 Diels – 23, 3–6. Aristocles: fr. 1 Mullach – 3, 1. Aristoxene: fr. 3 Wehrli – 3, 8. Atticus: fr. 1 des Places – 2, 1–5. Boeth: fr. 1 Gifford – 28, 7–10; fr. 2 – 28, 11; fr. 3 – 28, 13. Heraclitus: fr. 1 DK – 19, 1; fr. 76 DK – 11, 7; fr. 91 DK – 11.5. Clement of Alexandria: Stromates V, 93, 4–94, 5–25, 1–5. Numenius: De bono I: fr. 2 des Places – 22, 1–2; II: fr. 5 – 10, 1–5; fr. 6 – 10, 6–8; fr. 7–10, 9–11; fr. 8 – 1, 12–14; IV vel V: fr. 11 – 18, 1–5; fr. 12 – 18, 6–10; fr. 13 – 18, 14; fr. 14 – 18, 15–19; fr. 15 – 18, 20–21; V: fr. 16 – 22, 3–5; VI: fr. 17 – 22, 2–23; fr. 18 – 24, 2–12; fr. 19 – 22, 6–8; fr. 20 – 22, 9–10; De Academiae erga Platonem dissensu : fr. 24 des Places – 2, 2. Plato: Axiochus: 365 e 5 – 25, 4; 366 a 1 – 25, 4; Alcibiades I: 133 from 1–16 – 27.5; 133 from 13–15 – 3, 7; State: VI: 508 b 9-c 4 – 21, 3; 508 e 1–3 – 21, 4; 508 e 3 – 22, 9; 509 b 2–10 – 21.5; X: 614 a 5-d 4 – 35, 1–5; Laws: II: 666 a 5 – 3, 2; IV: 323 c 7-d 6 – 16, 2; 323 d 4 – 17, 9; VII: 341 c 6-d 2 – 12, 2; XIII: 363 b 1–6 – 13, 4. Cratylus: 383 a 5-b 2 – 6, 2; 390 a 4–8 – 6, 3; 390 d 1-e 4 – 6, 4–5; 393 a 8–9 – 6, 21; 394 e 10–11 – 6, 21; 395 a 5-b 2 – 6, 21; 395 b 2-c 2 – 6, 21; 395 c 2-d 2 – 6, 21; 395 d 3-e 5 – 6, 21; 396 b 8-c 4 – 6, 19; 397 b 8-c 3 – 6, 28; 397 d 1–4; 399 c 3–6 – 6, 16; 409 d 9-e 7 – 6, 7; 414 a 3–4 – 6, 18; 430 a 1 – 10, 8; Letters: II: 312 d 7-e 6 – 20, 2; 312 e 1–4 – 17, 9; VI: 323 c 7-d 6 – 16, 2; 323 d 4 – 17, 9; VII: 341 c 6-d 2 – 12, 2; XIII: 363 b 1–6 – 13, 4; Politician: 269 c 4–270 d 4 – 32.5; 271 a 5-c 4 – 33, 1–3; 272 d 3–273 b 1 – 34, 1–3; 273 d 4-e 4 – 34, 4; Post-Law: 986 c 1–7 – 16, 1; 115 Timaeus: 27 d 6–28 a 4 – 9, 4 and 10, 2–6; 28 b 3-c 5 – 29, 3–4; 29 a 2–4 ​​– 31, 1; 29 a 5–6 – 31, 1; 29 a 7-b 2 – 23, 1; 29 d 6-e 4 – 21, 2; 29 e 1 – 22, 9; 30 b 7-c 1 – 29, 5; 30 c 9-d 1 – 23, 1; 31 a 1–5 – 13, 1; 32 b 8 – c 4 – 32, 2; 37 e 3–38 b 2 – 9, 2; 38 b 6–7 – 32, 3; 38 c 3–9 – 30, 2; 41 a 7-b 6 – 32, 4; 41 d 4 – 17, 10; Phaedrus: 243 b 6 – 19, 2; 270 a-c – 3, 7; Phaedo: 79 a 6–81 c 1 – 27, 6; 96 a 7 – 2, 1–9; 108 d 3–111 a 3–37, 1–13; 113 a 5–114 c 9 – 38, 2–6; Philebus: 16 c 6–7 – 18, 19; Charmides: 156 e – 3, 7. Plotinus: Enneads: V: 1, 4 – 17, 1; 1, 5 – 17, 2; 1, 6–7 – 17, 8; 1, 6 – 17, 3–7; 1, 8 – 17, 9–10. Plutarch: De anima fr. 176 Sandbach – 36, 1; De E apud Delphos 17– 20 (391 f-393 b) – 11, 1–15. Porphyry: Ad Boethum de anima I – 28, 1–16; fr. 1 Mras – 28, 1–5; fr. 2 – 28, 7–10; fr. 3 – 28, 11–12; fr. 4 – 28, 13–16. Philo of Alexandria: De confusione linguarum: 62–63 – 15, 5–6; 97 – 15, 1; 146–147 – 15, 2–4; De migratione Abrahami: 20 – 6, 40; De opificio mundi: 24–27 – 24, 1–6; 29–31 – 24, 7–10; 35–36 – 24, 11–12. Adam 6, 8. 10–12. 15; 26, 8; Arctophylax (Orion) 7, 8; Hercules (Pillars) 37, 3; David 5, 7; 14, 3; 18, 11; Jews introduction, 1. 3. 5; 1, 1–2; 3, 10; 4, 4. 7; 5, 1. 9; 6, 1. 10. 12. 13. 17. 19–21. 23. 29. 32. 34. 36. 38–41; 7, 1. 7; 8, 1; 9, 4; 10, 15; 12, 1–2; 13, 6; 14, 1–3; 15, 7; 16, 3; 18, 11. 26; 19, 2.5; 20, 1; 21, 1. 6; 23, 8–12; 25, 5; 26, 1. 4. 8; 28, 18–19; 30, 3; 31, 1; 32, 1. 11; 33, 4; 34, 4; 36, 2; 37, 13; 38, 1. 8. 10. Jewish Introduction, 2; 6, 10. 14. 41; Israel 6, 29–31; 9, 1; 13, 1; 15, 3; John (Evangelist) 18, 26; 19, 2; Moses 4, 4. 6; 5, 7; 6, 1. 8. 10. 19. 23. 29. 32. 41; 7, 3; 8, 1; 9, 1.5; 10, 14. 16; 12, 1; 13, 1; 14, 2; 15, 5; 23, 7–8. 12; 24, 2; 25, 4; 26, 8; 27, 1. 4; 28, 17–19; 29, 1; 30, 1. 3; Pyriphlegethontus 38, 3. 5. 8; Plato introduction, 3.5; 1, 1–2; 2, 2. 4. 6; 3, 1. 6. 9–10; 5, 9; 6, 33. 41; 7, 12; 8, 1; 10, 9; 16, 3; 17, 10–11; 18, 22. 25–26; 21, 7; 22, 8–10; 25, 3.5; 26, 4. 8; 27, 1; 28, 1. 3. 18; 37, 13; “Gospel Preparation” introduction, 1; 15, 7; 38, 10; Simmias 27, 17; 37, 1. 3. 8; 38, 6; Socrates 3, 2. 4. 8; 27, 5. 7–8. 11.13; 33, 2; 37, 8; Solomon 4, 6; 5, 4; 7, 3–4. 6; 9, 2. 6; 14, 6; Literature in Russian Writings of the Fathers and Teachers of the Church 1. Blessed Augustine Bishop of Hippo On the City of God, M 1994. 2. St. Athanasius the Great. Defensive word against the Arians // St. Athanasius the Great. Essays. M, 1994. 3. St. Gregory the Wonderworker, Gratitude to Origen, XIV, 159. 4. St. John of Damascus An accurate exposition of the Orthodox faith Moscow-Rostov-on-Don 1992. 5. St. Justin the Philosopher Admonition to the Hellenes; Dialogue with Tryphon the Jew; 1st Apology; //St. Justin philosopher and martyr, Creations. Moscow 1995 Reprint of the 1892 edition. 6. Clement of Alexandria Stromata // Works of the teacher of the Church Clement of Alexandria. Yaroslavl Diocesan Gazette. XXXII. No. 29. 1891–1892 Per. N. Korsunsky. 7. Origen On Principles (Samara 1993); Against Celsus I–IV (Translated by Ya. Pisarev, Kazan 1912) 8. St. Theophilus of Antioch, To Autolycus, Early Church Fathers, Brussels 1988. 1. Bolotov V.V. Lectures on the history of the ancient Church M. 1994 2. Bonaventure, The Soul's Guide to God M 1993. 3. Vdovichenko A.V. Eusebius of Caesarea: Against Hierocles (introductory article to the translation of the work Against Hierocles in the collection Early Christian Apologists of the 2nd-4th centuries), M. 2000. 4. Eusebius Pamphilus. Works of Eusebius Pamphilus in 2 volumes (Ecclesiastical History, On the Palestinian Martyrs, Life of Tsar Constantine, Speech on the Thirty Anniversary of the Reign of Constantine the Great), introduction, St. Petersburg. 1848. 5. Eusebius Pamphilus. Ecclesiastical History. M., 1993. 6. Krivushin I.V. The Birth of Church Historiography: Eusebius of Caesarea, Ivanovo 1995. 7. Lebedev A.P., The era of persecution of Christians and the establishment of Christianity in the Greco-Roman world under Constantine the Great, reprint M., 1994. 8. Rozanov N., Eusebius Pamphilus, Bishop of Caesarea Palestine, M 1880. 9. Posnov M.E., History of the Christian Church (before the division of the Churches - 1054), Kiev 1991. 10. Sozomen, Ecclesiastical History of Ermiya Sozomen of Salamis. St. Petersburg, 1851. 12. Blessed Theodoret of Cyrus, Church History M 1993. 13. Philo of Alexandria, On the Creation of the World, translation and comments by A.V. Vdovichenko, in press. 14. Florovsky G.V., Eastern fathers of the 4th century. M. 1992. 15. Fragments of early Greek philosophers part I (compiled by Lebedev A.V.) M 1989. 16. Yastrebov A.O. Eusebius of Caesarea (historical essay) (Theological collection No. 3) M. 1999. Literature in foreign languages Writings of the Fathers and Teachers of the Church 1. S. Clément d'Alexandrie. Protreptique. SC No. 2. 2. S. Cyrillus Alexandrinus. Contra Iulianum PG No. 76. 3. S. Epiphanius, Adversus octoginta haereses LXVIII, PG No. 42. 122 4. Eusebius, De theologia ecclesiastica // Eusebius Pamphilius Eusebii Pamphilii...opera. Lutetiae 1579. 5. Eusebius, Eclogae propheticae, II, 4 (p. 74, 5 Gaisford)), PG no. 24. 6. S. Jérôme, Commentaire sur S. Matthieu. SC No. 242. 7. S. Photius, Bibliotheca. Codex CXVIII. PG No. 103. 5. Chitchaline Youri A propos du titre du traité de Plotin PERI TWN TRIWN ARCIKWN UPOSTASEWN // Revue des Études Grecques CV, 1992. 6. Daniélou J., Les saints “paiens” de l’Ancien Testament, Paris 1956. 7. Daniélou J., Message évangélique et culture hellénistiqu e aux II et III siecles, Paris 1961. 8. Dillon J., The Middle Platonists, London 1977. 10. Dodds E.R., The Ancient Concept of Progress, Oxford 1973 11. Dörrie H., Une exégèse nèoplatonicienne du Prologue de l’Évangile de saint Jean (Amélius chez Eusèbe), in Epektasis. Mélanges Daniélou, Paris 1972, p. 75–87 (= Platonica minora, Munich 1976) 12. Festugière A.-J., Sur une traduction nouvelle d'Athénagore, in Revue des Études Grecques, 56, 1943. 13. Festugière A.-J, La révélation d’Hermès Trismégiste, livre I (Paris 1949), livre II (Paris 1949), livre III (Paris 1953), livre IV (Paris 1954). 14. Favrelle G. Introduction à livre XI de la Préparation Evangélique d’Eusèbe de Césaree. SC No. 292. Paris, 1982. 17. Meijering E. P., God Being History, Amsterdam 1975, p. 123–124. 18. Mondésert C., Vocabulaire de Clément d'Alexandrie Rech. Sc. Rel., 42, 1954. 20. Mr. K.. Preparatio Evangelica, t. I, Einleitung Glotta 1947. 123 21. Mras K., Die Stellung der Preparatio Evangelica des Eusebius im antiken Schrifttum, A. A. W. W. XCIII, 1956, p. 209–217. 22. Places É. des, Introduction to the edition of the Fragments of Numenius, Collection des Universités de France, Paris, 1973. 24. Places É. des, La tradition indirecte des Lois de Platon (livres I–VI), in Mélanges Saunier, Lyon 1944. 26. Places É. des, La tradition indirecte de l'Epinomis, in Mélagnes Desrousseaux, Paris 1937. 28. Schroeder G., approx. to Ev. Prig. VII, 8, 26, SC No. 215. 29. Schwarz E., article “Eusebios” in PR VI, 1, col. 1386. 30. Sirinelli J. Les vues historiques d’Eusèbe de Césarée. Ecclesiastical History, S.C. No. 73. 31. Sirinelli J., Introduction à la Préparation Évagélique, SC no. 206, 53–54. 33. Whittaker J., Numenius and Alcinous on the first principle, in Phoenix, 32, 1978. 3. Ancient Greek-Russian dictionary (compiled by I. Kh. Dvoretsky) M 1958. 4. Greek-Russian dictionary (compiled by A. D. Weisman) M 1991. 6. Paulys Realencyklop ä die f ü r classischen Altertrumswissenschaft (PR) VI, Stuttgart 1909. 8. L'Année philologique (Bibliographie critique et analitique de l'antiquité gréco-latine (fondée par J. Marouzeau)), I–LXVI, Paris 1927–1995. The reference to παλαιός λόγος is perceived as an indication of Jewish sources: “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” (Exhortation to the Hellenes , 25; quoted from: St. Justin the Philosopher and Martyr, Creations, p. 432; We see that with this quotation Eusebius ends the part of the work dedicated to the First God: the words with which the author introduces this passage speak not just about the unity of Plato’s god, but about Plato’s theology as a whole. The first idea that Eusebius notes is the mention of an “ancient tale”: at the end of the chapter he suggests, as is usually the case, that Plato’s theses are based on the theology of the Old Testament. It is also characteristic that Eusebius quotes this passage for much longer than his predecessors: Justin, for example, immediately comments on the first words of the passage. Let us also note the inaccurate reproduction of Plato’s words at the end of the chapter, when compared with the Holy Scriptures. At different times there were different assessments of the reliability of this passage, for example: Conrad Gessner, publisher of The Horn of Amalthea, in the preface to his book, recognizes the Platonic attribution of this text and sees the reason for the controversy of this text and the fact that it was omitted by later editors in the fact that it falls between two places of dialogue similar in meaning to it and to each other - 131 b and 134 d 4-5, which creates excessive repetition of one image, in this case the image of a mirror, uncharacteristic for Plato. At the same time, most experts still recognized our passage as inauthentic. The proof of this is seen in the fact that the controversial lines rather resemble an interpretation of the thought expressed above, a gloss that could have been accidentally introduced into the text and not provided with an appropriate comment. In addition, it should be remembered that in Alcibiades Plato considers ethics, but real reasoning is more of a metaphysical nature. Look at this topic in more detail: É. des Places, Une formule platonicienne de récurrence, Paris 1929, p. 26. Eusebius Pamphilus. Works of Eusebius Pamphilus. St. Petersburg 1848. T. 1. P. 11. Therefore, for the first translation into Russian of the 11th book about the authors quoted by Eusebius, doxographic information is given, since those who do not read Russian will not find information about some of them either in the “Philosophical Encyclopedia” or in the “Philosophical Encyclopedic Dictionary”. Actually, it would be better to translate into Russian as “Preparation for the Gospel,” but in this case we decided to follow the Greek original - Εὐαγγελική προπαρασκευή, the Latin version - Preparatio Evangelica, as well as the Russian tradition of translation. This translation was carried out under the general editorship of the director of the Greek-Latin Cabinet, candidate of philological sciences Yu.A. Shichalin, whom the translator thanks for his invaluable help. The theme of “theft” is a common theme among the Church Fathers, see J. Daniélou, Message évangélique et culture hellénistique, p. 41. in the text: τα λόγια – verb. “oracles” hereinafter: pluralis modestiae. The term κορυφαῖος is borrowed from Plato, Theaetetus, 173c. Chapters 1 to 6 can be conditionally called the introduction to the XIth book: it talks about the tripartite nature of Platonic philosophy and, then, about the presence of the first two elements among the Jews - ethics and logic, while the main part of the volume will be devoted to a detailed analysis of the Old Testament “physics”. On the division of philosophy into three parts, see A. Méhat, Étude sur les Stromates de Clément d’Alexandrie, Paris 1966, p. 77–89, and É. Des Plases, edition d'Atticus, Fragments, Coll. des Univ. de France, p. 32, no.2. Perhaps Numenius was meant here: see the edition of the Fragments of Atticus, edited by Ed. De Place, page 39. See H. Lewy, Aristotle and the Jewish sage according to Clearchus of Soli, in Harvard Theological Review, 31, 1938, p. 219–221. Philo of Alexandria expresses a similar idea: De opificio mundi, I, 3. Eusebius, in the Gospel Preparation, repeats several times the idea that knowledge is not given to everyone equally; this theme is common in Clement and Origen (eg Against Celsus, VII, 59). Proverbs 1, 2–6. Here and further, in the texts of the Old Testament, we will, if possible, adhere to the usual Synodal translation; at the same time, taking into account that the mentioned translation takes the Hebrew text of the Bible as a basis, while in our case all quotations are given according to the Septuagint, most often our version of the text will differ to a greater or lesser extent from the Synodal. Eusebius repeats almost word for word a passage from Against Celsus, VII, 59. This passage (6–7) shows that Eusebius was not familiar with the Hebrew language. This issue has already been touched upon by Origen: “Are names, as Aristotle thinks, the result of naming (θέσει) or, as the Stoics believe, are they dependent on nature (φύσει), so that sounds originally appeared in imitation of objects and names were already formed from them - why do the Stoics, when explaining the meanings of words, introduce so-called roots - or, as Epicurus teaches, names correspond nature of things, but in a slightly different sense compared to how the Stoics think about it, namely, that the first people allegedly caught some sounds from objects.” Against Celsus, I, 24, trans. L. Pisareva. When translating Cratilus, the Russian translation by T. V. Vasilyeva was taken into account. Plato Cratylus, 383 a 5 – b 2. Plato Cratylus, 390 d 1-e 4. Ps. 8, 5. In his other work - Eclogae, Eusebius interprets this passage from Holy Scripture differently: he applies these words to the Savior (Eusebius Eclogae propheticae, II, 4 (p. 74, 5 Gaisford)). For the names Adam and Enos, see Guy Schroeder's Notes on Ev. Prig. VII, 8, 5–11, SC 215, pp. 177–181. Plato Cratylus, 399 pp. 3 – 6. Plato Cratylus, 396 b 8 – s 4 verbatim “to give an account” – ἀποδιδόναι τόν λόγον Compare: St. Justin the Philosopher, Dialogue with Tryphon the Jew, 113 and Clement of Alexandria: “This righteous man of ancient times initially devoted himself to the contemplation of phenomena occurring in the air; with a curious and reflective gaze he followed the movement of the stars rolling across the sky. That is why he was called Abram, that is, “the majestic father.” Quoted from: Stromata, Works of the teacher of the Church Clement Alexandria. Yaroslavl Diocesan Gazette. Year XXXII. 1891. P. 458. Plato Cratylus, 397 b 8 – c 3. We are talking about the transfer of the birthright from Esau to Jacob. See here especially G. Schroeder, approx. to Ev. Prig. VII, 8, 26, SC 215. Per. Yu. A. Shichalina; This anonymous epigram refers to the magical power of vowels; see on this topic the note of K. Mras to the Xth book of Ev. Prig. (X, 5), SC.215 Ev. Prig. X, 4, 5, 4 – 11. See G. Schroeder's commentary on Ev. Prig. VII, 8, 20, SC 215, p. 186. Kings 4:32–34. The numbering of chapters and verses of the Holy Scriptures of the Old Testament is given according to the Synodal translation, which sometimes disagrees with the numbering adopted in the Septuagint and, in some cases, in the Slavic Bible: for example, in LXX the passage quoted is in chapter 5, verses 12–14. Constellation Ursa Major Referring to Plato's Timaeus to support his interpretation of the text of Exodus 3:14. Eusebius, it seems, lays the foundation for a whole tradition, which is characterized by the fact that he assimilates the Eleatic signs of being to the God of the Old Testament Revelation: identity, eternity, necessity. This tradition includes, for example, St. John of Damascus (Accurate exposition of the Orthodox faith, I, 9). “John of Damascus, following Moses, says that “Jesus” is the first name of God...” (Bonaventure, Guide of the Soul to God, V, 26.). The last sentence suggests that the author, by connecting two passages from the Timaeus, seeks to show that these are two parts of one thought of Plato. The text of the second passage is quoted in full, with the exception of the last phrase. The beginning and end of the phrase are of interest to us, since there are discrepancies here with the text of the original source. First, regarding the beginning of the passage: in Plato: after he enumerated the days, nights, etc. he says: ταῦτα δε πάντα μέρη χρόνου, καί τό τ΄ἦν τό τ΄ἔσται χρόνου γεγονότα εἴδη (37 f 3–5), thus moving from the concrete division of time into segments to its abstract understanding; Eusebius's text shortens this transition: ταῦτα γάρ πάντα μέρη χρόνου, τό ἦν καί ἔσται (XI, 9:7). Eusebius, thus, crosses out the entire previous context, and ταῦτα indicates what follows - ἦν and ἔσται and the word μέρος replaced εἴδος. Processing was obviously required in order to highlight this thought by isolating it. This could have been done either by our author or by the anonymous compiler of a collection of selected passages of dialogue, which Eusebius may have used. Next, regarding the end of the quote; in Plato we find καί τό γιγνόμενον εῖναι γιγνόμενον, ἔτι δε τό γενησόμενον εῖναι γενησόμενον, ὦν οὐδεν ἀκριβές λέγομεν. Eusebius omits the end of this phrase and it is not entirely clear why he does this - this place did not affect the general meaning of the passage. Most likely, here you can see a copyist's mistake or a lack of understanding of the exact meaning of the words. The last consideration is confirmed by another place in these lines: πρέπει λέγεσθαι, while Eusebius has οὖσαν instead of ἰοῦσαν. Here we see a passage taken out of context, largely devoid of poignancy, and rewritten without care for the accuracy of the words or the preservation of their meaning. So, from all of the above, we can conclude that the text cited here by Eusebius testifies to inattention to the content of the thoughts of the original source; the reworking of the beginning of this passage suggests a desire to make Plato's thought more autonomous. Finally, the author brings together the two quoted passages with the help of a short phrase, without specifying how large a gap separates them in the dialogue. Timaeus, 37 e 3–38 b 2. Eusebius interrupts the quotation before concluding: “There is no precision in all this.” We also find a paraphrase of this place in Origen: “... when we say “always”, “was” or allow some other designation of time, then this must be taken simply and in a figurative sense, because all these expressions have a temporal meaning, and the objects that we are talking about only in words allow a temporary designation, but by their nature they surpass any thought about time.” (On the Principles, I, 3, 4. Quoted from the edition: Origen, On Principles, Samara 1993). Numenius, De bono II fr. 5 des Places (14 Leemans). Numenius, De bono II fr. 6 des Places (15 Leemans). Numenius, De bono II fr. 7 des Places (16 Leemans). Numenius, De bono II fr. 8 des Places (17 Leemans). That is, a greeting, “hello.” Heraclitus fr. 91 Diels-Kranz, 40 Marcovich. Heraclitus fr. 76 Diels-Kranz, 66 Marcovich. Letters VII, 341 c 6 – d 2 (cf.: Clement of Alexandria, Stromata V, 77:1). 50. This refers to the tyrant of Syracuse Dionysius the Younger (ruled from 367 to 343 BC), to whom Plato came twice. Laws IV, 715 e 7–716 b 5. For the fate of this passage from Plato’s Laws in Christian and pagan literature, see: É. des Places, “La tradition indirecte des Lois de Platon (livres I–VI)”, in Mélanges Saunier, Lyon 1944, p. 27–40, and his notes to the Laws (Coll.des Univ. de France, p. 65), which contain a list of citations of this text by philosophers and church fathers. Before Eusebius, the fathers used this text in the Exhortation to the Hellenes of Justin the Philosopher, 25, in Clement of Alexandria (Protrepticus, VI, 69; Stromatae, II, 132, 2; VII, 100:3) and in Origen (Against Celsus, VI, 15). The use of this passage varies from author to author: while Justin and Clement extract from it evidence of Plato's theology, Origen sees here a lesson in humility. This chapter is indicative in the light of Eusebius’ well-known accusations of Arianism: the author clearly testifies here that he shares the provisions of Orthodox triadology; at least he does not doubt the deity of the second Hypostasis of the Most Holy Trinity. It is necessary to recall in this regard that the final edition of the entire work dates back to the ante-Nicene period, so there is no reason to suspect Eusebius of deviating from Orthodoxy in the direction of the strict monotheism of Arius. αὕτη δέ ἐστιν ἡ διά τόν τεσσάρων στοιχείων ἀνεκφώνητος παρ΄αὐτοῖς θεολογία Eusebius’s subordinationist views are conditioned, as shown above, by his commitment to the ideas of Origen and, in general, rootedness in tradition: as is known, for the first centuries of Christianity, the hierarchical principle in Trinitarian theology did not cause concern - on the contrary, Neoplatonic emanative theology served as a solid foundation for Christian thought; however, the shortcomings of philosophical metaphysics ultimately led to a distortion of the basic dogma of the Christian faith. Proverbs 8:22–25, 27. These verses from the 8th chapter of the Proverbs of Solomon served a little later as the main evidence of the Holy Scriptures, on which the Arians relied, trying to prove the creation of the Son of God. These words indicate Eusebius' doubt about Solomon's authorship. The series of quotations from Scripture collected by Eusebius around the theme of the Second Cause is very important: we are talking about the actual manifestation of this theme in the Hebrews, and the words with which the author introduces Philo's texts emphasize the need for biblical interpretation in this area. The latter plays in Eusebius the same role as the followers of Plato, on the pages of the work helping to understand the meaning of the words of their teacher. Eusebius already spoke in the VIIth book of the Gospel Preparation about the Second Cause; he refers readers to this passage after the comparison between Plato and Moses (15:7). Philo Alex. De confusione linguarum, 97. Eusebius here confuses De confusione with the treatise Quod deterius potiori insidiari soleat. Πρεσβύτατον - senior in age. Philo Alex. De confusione linguarum, 146–147. On this passage and especially on the term “original”, see J. G. Kahn, in Œuvres de Philon 13, pp. 76–182, n. Compl. 26, § 146. θείαν ἰδέαν φοροῦντα ἱκανῶς ; Karl Mras accepts another reading of this passage: θείας ἰδέαν φοροῦντα ἱκόνος; in addition, another manuscript gives us another option: θείας ἀδιαφοροῦντα εἰκόνος The noun Ἀνατολή is derived from the verb ἀνατέλλω - “to generate.” There is evidence of Philo's use of the possibilities of the Greek language to interpret the text of the Old Testament. Philo Alex. De confusione linguarum, 62–63. Thus, the topic of the Second Cause is not dealt with in detail in this book: Eusebius spoke about it in VII, 12-14. Τοσούτων ... τεθεολογημένων. Eusebius modifies Plato's text by omitting the definition of ὁρατός relating to κόσμος: συναποτελῶν κόσμον ὃν ἔταξεν λόγος ὁ πάντων θειότατος ὁρατόν; The Christian concept of “logos” replaced “law”. See on this topic É.des Places, “La tradition indirecte de l' Epinomis”, in Mélagnes Desrousseaux, Paris 1937, p. 351.and also, Dodds E. R. Plato. Gorgias. A rev. text with introduction and commentary by E. R. Dodds Oxford 1959. Plato, Post-Law, 986 pp. 1–7. Plato, Letters VI, 323 c 7 – d 6 (Compare: Clement of Alexandria, Stromata V, 102:4). Plotinus, Enneads V, 1, 6–7. The text is difficult to understand. In the translation by Souilhé (J. Souilhé, Coll. des Universités de France) (Letters II, 312 e 1–4) the second part of the phrase looks like this: “...δεύτερον περί τά δεύτερα καί τρίτον πέρι τά τρίτα”, while in the text of Plotinus, as he is quoted by Eusebius: “δεύτερον περί τά δεύτερα καί περί τά τρίτα τρίτον”, which changes the meaning of the phrase and, if in the case of the first περί... one can assume an error and an accidental shift of stress to the first syllable from the end of the word, then in the second case this explanation is not suitable. The interpretation of this passage in the Trinitarian sense is common among the Church Fathers: see note. to Ev. Prig. XI, 20. Compare: Plato, Letters VI, 323 d 4. Compare: Plato, Timaeus 41 d 4. Compare: Plato, Republic VI, 509 b 8 – 9 Compare: Plato, Timaeus 27 p. On this subject, see the notes of Edouard de Place on the 11th fragment of Numenius (Numenius, De bono, fr. 11, Coll. des Universités de France, p. 106, n. 3). Numenius, De bono IV vel V fr. 11 des Places (20 Leemans). This passage from the work of Numenius was subsequently used by Cyril of Alexandria in his treatise Against Julian VIII (PG 76, 917 C). What kind of mind are we talking about here? Is he the mind of the demiurge emanating from him and becoming a separate entity? Or maybe it is the intelligence of each of us, or at least those of us who are able to accept it? τοῦ νοῦ πεμπομένου ἐν διεξόδῳ - John Dillon gives the following commentary on this passage: “Diexodos, although used in the sense of the orbits of the planets, means actually ‘passing through and going out’ - in this case - from the Demiurge, through the cosmos, to the individual beginning” (quoted in John Dillon, The Middle Platonists, London 1977, pp. 370–371). In the edition from which the translation is being made, the following reading is accepted: “τά σώματα κηδεύοντα τοῦ θεοῦ ἀκροβολισμοῖς,” which provides the basis for the proposed translation. This option is supported by two 15th-century manuscripts: I (Marcianus graecus 341) and N (Neapolitanus graecus II A 16). However, not all researchers share this reading; Already François Viger, based on a 13th-century manuscript, in scientific terminology: O (Bononiensis), proposed instead of κηδεύοντα κηδεύοντος, which changes the meaning of the phrase, making it less artificial. The latter opinion is partly shared by Dillon, in turn, offering κήδοντος; in the latter version the participle will be consistent with τοῦ θεοῦ. Taking into account the amendments, this passage can be translated as follows: “... since God takes care of bodies with the help of his radiations.” περιωπή – literally: “observation point”; compare: Politician 272 e 4. Numenius, De bono IV vel V fr. 12 des Places (21 Leemans). On the “biblicalism” of this term, see note Ed. de Place to the 13th fragment of his edition of Numenius (p. 108); see also: J. Whittaker, Numenius and Alcinous on the first principle, in Phoenix, 32, 1978, p. 144–154. Numenis, De bono IV vel V fr. 13 des Places (22 Leemans). Compare: Plato, Timaeus 41 p. The term “legislator” is Bpbleian and Philonian (Quis heres, 167): see M. Harl, ad locum, in oeuvres de Philon 15, p. 248, no. 1. The concept of knowledge as recollection later became an integral part of the doctrine of the pre-existence of souls developed by Origen. “From fire comes another fire, but in such a way that the one from which it is kindled does not decrease, but remains the same, while the one kindled from it actually exists and shines, without diminishing the one from which it was kindled” (St. Justin the Philosopher, Dialogue with Tryphon the Jew, 61). We find similar comparisons in Tertullian (Apologeticus, 21; Against Praxeus, 8) and in Lactantius (Divine Ordinances, IV, 29). Compare: Plato, Philebus 16 from 6–7. Numenius, De bono IV vel V fr. 14 des Places (23 Leemans). Numenius, De bono IV vel V fr. 15 des Places (24 Leemans). there VI fr. 17 des Places (26 Leemans). οἶον ὑπέρ νεώς ἐπί θαλάττης ; Karl Mras suggests adding at the end - τῆς ὕλης, i.e. “in the sea of ​​matter.” in the same place, VI fr. 18 des Places (27 Leemans). Heraclitus fr. 1 DK and Marcovich. See: H. Dörrie, Une exégèse néoplatonicienne du Prologue de l’Évangile de saint Jean (Amélius chez Eusèbe), in Epektasis. Mélanges Daniélou, Paris 1972, p. 75–87 (= Platonica minora, Munich 1976, p. 491–507), which convincingly argues for Amelius' docetism. γυμνῇ τῇ κεφαλῇ: “with your head uncovered” - this expression is found in Phaedrus and in the context of the dialogue means: “without being ashamed, without covering your face in shame”; perhaps Eusebius is so caustically mockingly convicting Amelia of plagiarism. The title of Plotinus's work is the so-called. Treatise V, 1. It was Eusebius who first drew attention to this treatise, which was subsequently so often used by the Church Fathers. It was he who identified the ὑπόστασις used here with “essence” and, thus, discerned in Plotinus a representative indication of the Holy Trinity. At the same time, it should be recalled that for the Neoplatonists the mentioned term did not mean anything like “essence”. In fact, Plotinus described the birth of a lower kind of being from a higher one using the verb ὑποστῆναι - “appear”, “appear”, “appear”. The term “hypostasis” thus means for Plotinus “(manifestation”). It is very important for him to emphasize that the Mind, Soul and Cosmos, i.e. the first three hypostases, are nothing more than manifestations of the One (V, 1, 3, 9. 10. 12.; 6, 1–2, 5, 27; 7, etc.). This is where the innovation of Neoplatonic philosophy lies: before Plotinus - in the tradition of Middle Platonism - Mind, Soul and Cosmos were three deities or principles, while Plotinus proved that they are nothing more than manifestations of one supreme deity. So, Neoplatonic philosophy, represented by Plotinus, and then Porphyry, who was the first to draw attention to this fundamental innovation of Plotinian philosophy, could not see in the words: “the first three hypostases”: the One, the Mind and the Soul, but by these hypostases it understood the first “incarnations” of the highest principle: the Mind, the Soul and the cosmos. Plotinus's arguments about the three hypostases have the character of a veiled polemic with those who see them as independent entities, in particular with Numenius. Eusebius does not notice this subtlety and puts the latter on a par with Plotinus in this matter. Look at this topic in more detail: Youri Chitchaline A propos du titre du trait é de Plotin ΠΕΡΙ ΤΩΝ ΤΡΙΩΝ ΑΡΧΙΚΩΝ ΥΠΟΣΤΑΣΕΩΝ // Revue des Études Grecques CV, 1992, 253–251. Plato Timaeus 29 d 6 – e 4; In this case, we used the translation by S.S. Averintsev, citing it without significant changes (Plato, Collected Works in 4 volumes, vol. 3, Moscow 1994, p. 433). Plato, Republic VI, 508 b 9 – c 4. Gifford and Mras draw attention in their notes to Eusebius's use of the adjective ὁμοούσιος even before the Council of Nicaea; one can see that despite his subsequent wary attitude towards this term, on the pages of the Gospel Preparation the author uses it as a theological concept without a shadow of a doubt. For Eusebius's attitude to this term, see: E. P. Meijering, God Being History, Amsterdam 1975, p. 123–124. Numenius, De bono I fr. 2 des Places (11 Leemans). There V fr. 16 des Places (25 Leemans). Numenius, De bono VI fr. 19 des Places (28 Leemans). Plato, Republic VI, 508 e 3. Numenius, De bono VI fr. 20 des Places (29 Leemans). Plato, Timaeus 29 a 7 – b 2; 30 c 9 – d 1. Arius Didymus, De placitis Platonis fr. Diels (Doxographi graeci 447, 2–27) = fere Albinus epit. XII, 1 Louis (p. 166–167 Hermann). Philo Alex., De opificio mundi 24–27. Apparently, the Holy Scripture is meant here. Philo Alex., De opificio mundi 29–31. In the text: τελειογονέομαι (about the fruit) to bear fruit, to be born ripe. ibid., 35–36. For the meaning of the term τό στερέωμα, see: Philo of Alexandria, On the Creation of the World, translation and comments by A. V. Vdovichenko, note 52 to § 36, in print. Eusebius is mistaken: in fact, he is quoting the fifth book of the Stromatus of Clement of Alexandria. Compare: "According to the laws of nature, of all the numbers, the most important in the emergence is the number six. For after one it is the first perfect, [that is] equal to the product of its parts and their sum - half - trinity, a third - two, a sixth part - one. By nature, one can say, it is both masculine and feminine, and is formed by multiplying by each other. For masculine is odd in beings, and feminine is even. Thus, The beginning of odd numbers is trinity, of even numbers is two, and their product is six.” (Philo of Alexandria, On the Creation of the World 13, trans. A.V. Vdovichenko). Plato, Axiochus 365 e 5 (γεώδες) and 366 a 1 (σκῆνος). Cl. Alex., Strom. V, 93, 4 – 94, 5. Plato, Laws X 896 d 1 – e 6. Plato, Laws X 906 a 2–7. On the interpretation of Plato's thought, see: A.-J. Festugière, La révélation d'Hermès Trismégiste, II, p. 123. Eusebius, citing these texts, does not pay attention to the problem of dualism in Plato. The same texts are given by Clement of Alexandria in the passage quoted by Eusebius in the XIIIth book of the Gospel Preparation. Job 1:6–7; from verse 7, the author left only the ending: “having walked around the earth and departed from it,” whereas in the text of the Bible this is Satan’s answer to God’s question. In the textus receptus: “...the darkness of this age...” Deut.32:8. Here in the Bible there is a thought about the Patron Angel of an entire people; compare: Dan. Here Eusebius twice quotes the 27th verse of the 1st chapter of the book of Genesis: “And God created man in His own image...”: in the first case, the words: “... in His own image...” were arbitrarily omitted by the author, which once again indicates Eusebius’ carelessness in reproducing not only ancient, but Christian texts, including the Holy Scriptures. Plato, Alcibiades I 133 pp. 1–16. Lines 8 to 16 (Alc. 133 c 8–16) are missing from Plato; they are preserved only by Eusebius and Stobaeus, a doxographer at the turn of the 5th–6th centuries, the author of the famous Eclogues, and were considered doubtful already in antiquity. This controversial passage was conveyed differently by Eusebius and Stobaeus - this gives reason to think that Stobaeus used his own sources, and not directly the text of Eusebius. The insertion into the Gospel Preparation seems more logical and fits into the narrative; it serves as a kind of commentary on the conversation above. Plato, Phaedo 79 a 6 – 81 p. 1. From 79 p. 9 the text corresponds almost word for word to the translation by S. P. Markish (Plato, collected works in 4 volumes, vol. 2, pp. 34–37., Moscow 1993). In the next chapter, Eusebius quotes the treatise On the Soul against Boethus, where Porphyry argues with the Peripatetic Boethus, outlining and deepening the Platonic argument on the question of the immortality of the soul. §§ 1–16 are divided into four excerpts from this work. The problem arises in connection with who is actually considered the author of these passages, or rather, the question is this: which passages are the author of Porphyry, and which of Boeth, quoted by Porphyry? If such clarity exists regarding the first quotation (§§ 1–5) - it, of course, belongs to Porphyry, then the beginning of the second (§ 7) should at least be attributed to Boethius, since Porphyry, in § 6, himself gives him the floor. The author's main idea seems to be that if the immortality of the soul is obvious, then there is no need to give so many arguments to prove it; but her comparison with God, the most essential proof in Phaedo, in this case, turns out to be unconvincing. If W. Theiler, Porphyrios und Augustin, Halle 1933, p. 22 (= Forschungen zum Neuplatonismus, p. 186, n. 51)), attributes only § 7 to Boeth, then Mras sees the authorship of the Peripatetic in the second passage (§§ 7–10), and Gifford believes that all three last quotations belong to him. Gifford relies on the fact that Eusebius, in § 6, introduces a quotation from Boethus in one of his usual expressions, and he does the same before the third and fourth extracts; these passages could thus belong to Boethus and, being borrowed by Eusebius from his work, have no relation to the treatise of Porphyry. Professor de Stricker, trying to get out of the situation, offers the following explanation: all quotes are related to Porfiry; in §§ 7–10, Porphyry may be reproducing a fairly accurate paraphrase of Boethus' text; the rest of the text contains either a paraphrase of Boeth, or places where the Neoplatonist explains what, in his opinion, Boeth wanted to say, starting with statements about the “duality” of human premises and actions, or, as in §§ 14–16, Porphyry objects to Boeth. (For de Stricker's opinion on this issue, see E.'s comments in more detail. De Place for his edition of the Greek text of the Gospel Preparation). §§ 1–5 = Porphyrius, Ad Boethum de anima I fr. 1 Mrs. § 9 See Alcmeonem Crotoniatem ap. Diog. La. VIII, 83 (24 A 1 Diels-Kranz) et ap. Aetium IV, 2, 2 (Doxografi graeci 386; 24 A 12 DK) §§ 7–10 = Boethus fr. 1 Gifford (et Mras II, 443); Porphyrius, Ad Boethum de anima I fr. 2 Mrs. In fact, Boeth does not look at the soul as a constant and unchanging substance, residing in the body as in a prison; he understands the soul in an Aristotelian way, entelechially in relation to the body, and, of course, in connection with the inevitable separation of soul and body, the only conclusion remains: the soul is mortal. “The mortal part of the soul” is a characteristically Aristotelian formulation. Let us recall that Aristotle asserted the mortality of the soul; and even the mind, which, according to the Stagirite, is twofold, is immortal only in one of its parts: the νοῦς ποιοῦν that comes from outside, which also leaves a person after death (Aristotle, On the Soul III, 4. 5. c, 7 431 a, 14. b. 2. c. 8. 432 a 8 et seq.). It seems that this is precisely what the author of these lines has in mind when he speaks of the immortal soul, especially since he constantly emphasizes its active character. At the same time, in Plato’s Timaeus (61 d; 65 a 4; 69 c – 70 b) we find indications of the presence of a certain mortal part in the soul: this suggests that this teaching appeared in a late period already with the founder of the school, and thus spread, and was later developed in more detail by Aristotle. This phrase suggests that this passage still belongs to Boeth. §§ 11–12 = Boethus fr. 2 Gifford; Porphyrius, Ad Boethum de anima I fr. 3 Mrs. §§ 13–16 = Boethus fr. 3 Gifford; Porphyrius, Ad Boethum de anima I fr. 4 Mrs. Plato's “cosmos” is, first of all, a rotating “sky”. For ancient philosophy, circular motion was the best of motions, the embodiment of eternity and constancy. Therefore, the visible cosmos, which for Plato was an example of the structure of the sensory world, is associated with the eternal and regular movements of the firmament. Plato, Timaeus 28 b 3 – c 5. Plato, Timaeus 29a 2–4. This text is quoted from the translation by S.S. Averintsev without changes. Eusebius consistently pursues the point of view that the New Testament is also the Scripture of the Jews, since the Jews, in contrast to the pagans and Jews, are for the author the guardians of true worship of God, spiritual Israel (see Ev. Prig. XI, 23, 11.) Ibid. 41 a 7. The last two texts are quoted from the translation by S.S. Averintsev without changes. See A.-J. Festugière, Sur une traduction nouvelle d'Athénagore, in Revue des Études Grecques, 56, 1943, p. 370. Plato, Politician 269 с 4– 270 d 4 Compare the use of this term in the 12th fragment of Numenius (Ev. Prig. XI, 18:10). Ibid., 272 d 3– 273 b 1. In Eusebius and in most codices it is written here: τόπον, but already in Proclus (in Tim. I, 179, 25 Diehl and in Alc., I, 34, 6 Creuzer; p. 15 Westerink), and then in Simplicius (in phys., p. 1122, 11 Diels) we find pTnton in this place. Look about this: É. des Places, Syngeneia, Paris 1964, p. 83–85. By Alcinous's narrative we mean Odysseus's story about his wanderings at the feast of King Alcinous (Od. IX–XII). There are several opinions about the origin of the name Er, up to the point that it is Hebrew (for example, in the lexicon of the Court); Clement of Alexandria identifies Er with Zoroaster (see: Stromata V, XIV 103, 2–4 / Translation by N. Korsunsky. Yaroslavl, 1892). Plutarch of Chaeronea also talks about Er’s afterlife, calling him, however, the son of Harmonius (Table Talks IX 740BC). See also: Origen, Against Celsus II 16 / Trans. Y. Pisareva, Kazan 1912. Justin’s Exhortation says: “In the tenth book of the same work, Plato clearly sets out 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 related what he saw there.” (Justin the Philosopher, Exhortation to the Hellenes, 27; quoted from: St. Justin the Philosopher and Martyr. Creations. Moscow 1995. Reprint of the 1892 edition. Page 434). This episode is also mentioned by St. Cyril of Alexandria in the VIII book Against Julian, and Blessed. Augustine (On the City of God, book 22, chapter 28). Plato, Republic X, 614 a 5 – d 4. Plutarchus, De anima fr. 176 Sandbach. For more on this passage, see E. R. Dodds, The Ancient Concept of Progress, Oxford 1973, p. 174 et n. 2. This proverb is explained in the scholia for this passage (p. 234 Hermann), used by Diels (Sarah 18:12). Glaucus discovered the secret of the consonance of copper disks acquired by the Pythagorean Hippasus, and began to make musical instruments. In a note to this place A.F. Losev writes: “This idea may have been borrowed from Anaximander: “The earth floats in the air, unsupported by anything, but remains in place due to equal distance from everywhere” (12 A 11 Diels)” (Plato, collected works in 4 volumes, volume 2, M. 1993, p. 433). The Pythagoreans also spoke about the sphericity of the earth (58 C 3 Diels). According to Pythagoras (44 A 15 Diels), there are five physical mathematical figures, and the “sphere of the Universe” arose from the dodecahedron (Plato also held a similar opinion about the shape of the earth) (ibid.). Plato, Phaedo 108 d 3–111 a 3. Starting from 110 c 6 the text is given according to the translation by S.P. Markish without significant changes. Translation by Theodotion. Theodotion is a translator of the Holy Scriptures of the Old Testament into Greek. He was a contemporary of the Emperor. Commodus. Originally from Pontus, he initially belonged to Marcion's heresy, but then converted to Judaism. The text of his translation of the Old Testament was included in Origen’s “hexaples.” Prester Lucian’s remark regarding the wide circulation of this translation is conveyed to us by a medieval editor: “Theodotion’s version of the book of Daniel, slightly changed in the Church, has now flourished so much that the ancient one has almost perished” (Septuaginta, p. 864, Stuttgart 1979). Cocytus (literally “crying, howling”) is a tributary of the Acheron. ἄνευ καμάτων (Eusebius and Theodoret), ἄνευ σωμάτων (Plato and Stobaeus). The text was apparently changed by Eusebius himself. Apparently, here, first of all, there is a desire to see in this place similarities with the Gospel beatitudes, although, perhaps, the author also seeks to remove the emphasis from the “immateriality” of the afterlife: otherwise this would contradict the Christian view of the reunification of the soul with the body after the general resurrection, as well as the possible interpretation of the concept of “boat” mentioned in § 4. Ibid., 113 a 5–114 p. 9. Starting from 113 d 1, the text is given according to the translation by S.P. Markish without significant changes. Eusebius adheres here to the Platonic tradition of understanding this term; ὀχήματα actually means “carrying, carrying”, i.e. any vehicles: ships, carts, etc. This word refers to what is used in the Timaeus to transport souls to their stars - “chariots” in the Russian translation by S.S. Averitsev (see also: Phaedrus 247 c). Subsequently, in a later period, this word began to be used as a technical term to designate the passionate element of the soul, which is given to it, even before entering the body, by the “local gods” (E. R. Dodds, Proclus: The Elements of Theology, Appendix II, pp. 313 ff.). First the chapter and verse of the book of Holy Scripture are indicated; the numbers after the dash mean chapter and paragraph of the XIth book of the Gospel Preparation. This list does not include such names as “God”, “Logos”, “Jesus”, “Christ”; in addition, this does not include ancient authors quoted by Eusebius (see point 1).