Книга первая

1. Theme of creation. The benefits that writers provide to readers with their works The beginning is missing .................................................................... so that you can read them at hand and save them. But should no one be allowed to write, or only a few? If the first, then what are (already existing) literary works suitable for? If it’s the latter, then this means allowing either efficient or non-efficient people to write. But of course it would be ridiculous, while rejecting the works of efficient people, to give free play to the works of people who are not such people (the cheaters). Then it would turn out that Theopompus and Timaeus, and besides them Epicurus, the founder of atheism, and also Hipponax and Archilochus, are allowed to spread their corrupting thoughts, but the preacher of truth should be prevented from giving help to posterity! This is exactly what I think, that it is wonderful (as a benefit) to leave behind virtuous children for posterity, not children of the flesh, the fruit of the womb, but compositions, the fruit of the inner soul, the result of heartfelt convictions 2 . From the very hour they began to teach us, that is why we call them fathers 3. Moreover, wisdom (and in itself, by its nature) is sociable and humane 4. Therefore Solomon says: My son, if, having accepted my words, you hide my commandments in your heart, then your ear will listen to wisdom 5 (Prov. 2:1,2). Through this, he reveals that rational teaching must be perceived by the soul of the one being instructed as the seed is perceived by the earth, and that it is actually the spiritual field. Therefore, he adds: And you will turn your heart towards prudence; You will declare this in your instructions to your son (Proverbs 3:1). Soul touches soul and the mind of one with the mind of another; through the medium of a word, one sows in another, with the same word causing the seed thrown on this earth (teaching) to grow and reviving it with this word. And everyone who is taught, relying on the teaching of his teacher, is his son. My son, says Solomon, do not forget my instructions (Prov. 3:1). But since knowledge is not the property of all minds (1 Cor. 8:7), then for the majority literary works are the same as a lyre for a donkey, as those who use proverbs say: at least pigs find more pleasure in mud than in clean water 6 . Therefore, the Lord says: I speak to them in parables, because seeing they do not see and hearing they do not hear and do not understand (Matthew 13:13). This does not mean that the Lord condemns the ignorance of the majority - such an understanding would be criminal - but prophetically penetrating into the content of the souls of many and testifying about it, He proclaims that even in the future they will not understand what is about to be said before them. But the Savior reveals the same thing to us when, out of the abundant abundance of His riches, He endowed the slaves with gifts, which had to be developed through exercise. Those of these servants who have multiplied their silver, having proved faithful over a little, He approves; and having told them that he would place them over the greater, (immediately after that) he commanded them to enter into the joy of the Lord. Turning to the slave, who hid the silver entrusted to him from circulation from interest and returned it without any profit, He said: Evil and lazy slave! Shouldn't you have given my silver to those who make money in exchange, and if I had come, I would have received mine (at a profit) (Matthew 26:27, etc.; Luke 19:23, etc.). For this, the lazy slave is thrown into outer darkness (Matthew 22:13, etc.; Luke: 25:30, etc.). Therefore, my son, as Paul says, be strong in the grace-filled teaching of Christ Jesus, and what you have heard from me in the presence of many witnesses, impart to faithful people who will be able to teach others (2 Tim. 2:1,2). And again: Try to appear before God as a worker worthy of His approval, doing nothing to be ashamed of, and teaching the word (teaching) of truth correctly (2 Tim. 2:15). So, regarding the proclamation of word 7, there are two kinds of believers; Some do this by writing, 8 others orally, in a living voice. And aren’t both of these types of faithful worthy of being accepted, 9 since they prove active faith through love? God is not involved in the guilt of the one who did not make a better choice. Therefore, the calling of some is to proclaim the teaching of life so that it bears fruit, while the task of others is to prove its value through life itself. The decision whether to take the side of this teaching of faith or reject it depends on those who choose. The understanding of this saving teaching manifests itself in two ways; one is a public announcement about it, the other is a kind of evangelistic life, which actually proves the beneficence of this teaching. Whichever of these two ways anyone acts for the benefit of this teaching, “in life or in style,” (Iliad 1:77). in both cases, he supports the teaching and contributes to its success. Because he who sows to the Spirit from the Spirit will reap eternal life, but by doing good, let him not grow weary (Gal. 6:8,9; cf. Proverbs 22:8; Rom. 8:13: Rev. 2:3; Heb. 12:5,12,15). The one whom Divine Providence has called to engage in the work of preaching becomes the owner of the greatest benefits. He acts on the principle of faith, in civil life he brings with him good will, in his private life he strives for simplicity and naturalness, for purity; within himself he carries a constant desire for research and exploration, tracking down true knowledge; in a word, in his calling he has the means and opportunity for salvation 10. Those who are taught by such evangelists in this saving teaching honestly and sincerely, having received in it auxiliary means for achieving eternal life, soar to heaven. The Apostle spoke an amazingly beautiful word about honest preachers of the true teaching. In everything, he says, we turn out to be what servants of God should be. Being poor. We enrich many; Having nothing, we own everything. Our mouth is open to you (we freely express our demands before you) (2 Cop. 6:4,10,11). I conjure you. He says in his letter to Timothy, (I urge you), calling God as witnesses both Christ Jesus and the chosen (venerable) Angels and testifying in their name that I speak the truth: keep this without prejudice, doing nothing with partiality 11 (1 Tim. 5:21). It is necessary in such a way that both of them test themselves; some - in a word, promoting the teaching of faith - are whether they are worthy of it and whether their writings deserve to be passed on to posterity; others, those who listen to the teaching of faith, determine whether they listen to it and read it in the same way as it is said and written, and whether they are capable of making a correct judgment about it. Of course, by some, after breaking the Eucharistic bread in the usual way, the whole people are allowed to participate in the sacrament. Everyone is allowed to take part of it. Whether someone accepts this bread with full and perfect attention or whether he should refuse it, the best witness of this is conscience. And for purity of conscience, the right life, consistent with the same teaching, is a reliable support. And the way to understand the truth of the teaching is to follow others who have already experienced its truth in practice before us; they, having fulfilled their duties perfectly, can be an example for us of fulfilling the commandments of this teaching. So whoever eats this bread or drinks this cup of the Lord unworthily is guilty of the body and blood of the Lord. Let a man test himself and thus eat from the bread and drink from the cup (1 Cop. 11:27,28). Anyone who undertakes to proclaim the doctrine of faith by word should therefore discuss whether he is one of those who have the benefit of their neighbor in mind. He must ask himself: “Did he rush into teaching out of arrogance or out of rivalry with someone else? and also, is it not out of ambition that he spreads his teaching? Does he make the creation of his listeners his only reward? Doesn't he flatter any of them? Does he avoid any reason to accuse him of self-interest? Can he realize that throughout his entire previous life he has been so free from the love of money and corruption that his teaching can lay claim to the significance of a monumental literary work? Isn’t it more like gibberish?” Never, says the Apostle, have we resorted among you, as you yourself know, to flattering words, nor have we made our service an excuse to satisfy our self-interest: God is our witness of this. We did not seek glory from people, neither from you nor from others. We, as Apostles of Christ, could entrust the care of our existence to you. But we were gentle among you, just as a nurse is gentle with her children (1 Thess. 2:5-7). But for the same reason, 12 those who are disposed to accept the Divine teaching must carefully guard against that shallow curiosity that appears aimlessly in cities and stares at city buildings to no avail and without benefit to itself; Let no one come to us with such inclinations. And in the same way, let no one come here based on calculations and for some earthly and transitory benefits, having heard that people who have dedicated themselves to Christ share with others everything necessary in life. This is hypocrisy and begging, and we will not talk about this kind of people here. If you want to “not just seem righteous, but really be one,” you must recognize yourself as pure and impeccable in your conscience 13 . But there are few of them. The harvest is abundant, but the workers are few. Therefore, we should pray so that a greater number of workers will appear (Matt. 9:37, 38; Luke 10:2). And cultivating the church field is again also twofold. It is accomplished in two ways: one through the non-written word, the other through the written word. But no matter which of these two methods the worker of the Lord scatters the noble wheat, whichever of these two methods he grows the ears of wheat, and equally, whichever of them, one or the other, brings them to maturity, the truly Divine farmer will always appear 14. Do not worry about food that perishes, says the Lord, but about food that endures to eternal life (John 6:27). Nutrition is accomplished through the intake of material food and through the communication of saving teaching. As for the last type of nutrition, truly blessed are the peacemakers (Matthew 6:9), who through sound teaching guide travelers wandering through this life onto the true paths. Through communicating this teaching to them, they free them from the darkness of ignorance, penetrate them with peace, which is bestowed by the Logos, and through mastering life in accordance with the law of God, i.e. By providing them with this heavenly bread (John 6:32), they satisfy these souls hungry for righteousness (Matthew 6:6). But there are also minds that feed on special food. These are souls whose development occurs under the influence of knowledge and science. Others of the minds of this latter kind are nourished by Greek philosophy, in which, as in nuts, however, not everything is edible. But both he who sows and he who waters alike walk under God who increases; and as for their service, they both consist of the same thing, i.e. servants of God. Everyone will receive a reward depending on their work, for we are God’s co-workers, and you are God’s field, God’s building, according to the Apostle (1 Cop. 3:8,9). But even this is not permissible for listeners of Divine teaching, so that they judge its truth, venerability and acceptability by comparing it with other teachings. This teaching should not be passed on for discussion by people filled with all kinds of human knowledge. It is not appropriate to prove it with plump syllogisms, which is what people are prone to do, whose souls are still full of pre-occupied opinions and have not been emptied of them. Whoever chooses faith as the beginning of his life, the solid ground for accepting the Divine Word is already ready. In faith, he has a criterion of things that is completely consistent with the foundations of reason; and from this abundant source his conviction flows and develops. It is precisely this strength of the beginning of faith and the suitability of its strong foundations for building on them that the prophetic word indicates: If you do not believe, you will not understand (Isa. 7:9). So, while we have time, let us do good to everyone, but especially to our own by faith (Gal. 6:10). Let each of the faithful sing with thanksgiving, repeating the words of blessed David: Sprinkle me with hyssop and I will be clean; Wash me and I will become whiter than snow. Send me to hear joy and gladness, and the bones struck by You will rejoice. O let Thy face blot out my sins and blot out my misdeeds. Create in me, O God, a pure heart and grant me a new, strong spirit within. Do not cast me away from Your face and do not take Your Holy Spirit from me. Comfort me again with Your help and support my free, joyful spirit (Ps. 50:9-14). He who speaks with a living voice to those present, therefore waits for instructions from time to time regarding his listeners, but he also decides with his own judgment and finds out from others with accuracy which of them is capable of listening to him. He ponders their speech, watches their character, observes their habits, life, movements, manners, views, voice, or speaking figuratively, crossroads, rockiness of the soil (Matthew 13:5), trodden paths, fruitfulness of the soil, wooded area, lightness of the soil, its suitability for certain plants, its cultivation and what kind of crops it can multiply. The one who transmits himself in books, claiming to be remembered in posterity, appeals to God himself, with his literary works, as if in a living voice, calling out: “Not because of benefits, not because of vanity (Luke 18:11), not another conquered by some passion, not out of slavish fear and servility, not pursuing my own pleasure, I wrote this, but solely promoting the good of the readers, with the hope of it living and, in any case, receiving reward from Him that will follow. Who promised to reward the workers with wages worthy of their labors” (Luke 10:7). A Christian, who is included in the register of husbands, in the lists of people of mature age and personifies perfection in himself, should be virtuous not out of expectation of reward, but solely out of love for God. Whoever boasts about the good he has done is deprived of his reward for his self-praise. The one who performs any of his duties for the sake of a reward or for the exact fulfillment of their reward, whether he himself seeks or performs his duties out of fear of being branded as a violator and subject to punishment and punishment for failure to fulfill them, is he not acting in the spirit of this world? One should, as far as possible, imitate the Lord. He who cooperates with the will of God receives freely and gives freely (Matthew 10:8). He receives a sufficiently great reward already in his very consciousness that, as a free citizen, he nobly fulfills the duties incumbent upon him in relation to the state and society. The spoils of a harlot shall not be accepted into the sanctuary (Deut. 23:2,8), says the Lord 15. Therefore, it was forbidden to bring to the sacrificial altar what was exchanged for a dog 16. And if someone’s spiritual vision has been dulled by bad upbringing and teaching, let him follow that teaching, in the light of which things appear in their true light; let him test himself with that sound and pure holy teaching. Scriptures, which through written laws reveal laws that are inherent to us by nature. You who are thirsty, come to the water, says Isaiah (60:1). And Solomon urges: Drink water from your springs (Proverbs 5:15). Therefore, Plato, who became a philosopher thanks to the Hebrews 17, in his “Laws” advises farmers not to artificially irrigate their fields with water through nearby canals, and likewise not to borrow water from others without first trying to get to the bottom of the so-called virgin layer on their own land 18; Only a farmer who finds that layer waterless is allowed to artificially irrigate his field. It is unfair not to help a soul that is confused, confused, or confused. But it is not a commendable task to provide laziness with auxiliary means for achieving success 19 . And Pythagoras said that if it is completely reasonable to assist someone in lifting a weight, it does not at all follow from this that one needs to help him and lift it from himself 20 . Scripture, igniting the spark smoldering in our soul, turns its gaze into its being; like a farmer, of course, it puts something into the soul, but it also excites what is present in it and lifts it to heights. But according to the Divine Apostle, there are many among us who are weak and sick, and not a few die. And if we judged ourselves, we would not be judged (1 Cop. 11:30,31). This literary work is not an essay written artificially just for show, no. It is a memorial book, a memory medicine for old age. It contains everything worthy of memory. It is a truthful reproduction and outline of the exemplary thoughts that permeated the amazing, bright, lively and vital speeches of the blessed and memorable men, whose hearing I was privileged to hear. Of these, one shone in Greece, and precisely in Ionia (Achaia), the other blossomed in great Greece. One of them came from Kele - Syria, the other from Egypt. And the other two shone in the east; one was from Assyria, but I met the other in Palestine and he was a Jew by birth 21 . I met him only after everyone else, but in terms of spiritual abilities he was the leader. I calmed down on him and settled with pleasure, settling in Egypt and tracking down that he was hiding here. He was truly a Sicilian bee 22. Gathering sweetness from the prophetic and apostolic meadow, he imprinted some pure and holy wisdom on the souls of his listeners. They listened to this teaching, which made them so happy and enriched, directly from the holy apostles Peter, James, John and Paul 23. Having been accepted by them from the Apostles, just as a son receives an inheritance from his father (how few sons resemble their fathers!), by God’s will it came to us, having sunk in our souls with the seeds bequeathed to us by our predecessors and the Apostles. And I am sure that my listeners will admire this. It is not because of this work of mine, I say, that they will rejoice, but because of the fact that the tradition is preserved in it. I think that it is the soul that wants to preserve the blessed tradition intact, which is reflected in the following image: A man who loves wisdom makes his Father glad (Prov. 29:3). Wells from which water is constantly taken provide clear water; and the water of those from whom no one draws spoils 24. And iron retains its shine only through use; if left unused, it becomes covered with rust. Let me say briefly: Physical and mental exercises shared with others have health benefits on both body and soul. No one lights a lamp to put it under the bed, but puts it on the candlestick, so that it gives light to everyone (Matt. 5:15; Mark 4:29; Luke 8:16; 11:33) invited to the supper. For what good is wisdom if it does not make wise the one who listens to it? But in addition, the Savior is constantly vigilant over the preservation of tradition. He does as he sees the Father doing (John 5:17, 19). By teaching others, we ourselves learn more 25; When speaking to those who listen to us, we often listen ourselves. There is one Lord (Matthew 23:8) and the same for both the teacher and the listener. He is the source of both the mind of the listener and the words of the teacher. And the Lord cannot disrupt, delay or suppress the continuity of tradition. For good there are no holidays, no Sabbath (Matt. 12:12; Luke 6:9). But allowing those who are capable of perceiving them to participate in the Divine mysteries of tradition and to use the holy light, He did not reveal to the mass of listeners what was inaccessible to the understanding of the majority, but to the few 26 for whom it was fitting - those secrets could receive and were able to imprint them on their hearts (i.e., preserve). And these mysteries, like the idea of ​​God himself, are conveyed by word, and not in writing. And if anyone objects to me from the Scripture: There is nothing hidden that will not be revealed, and nothing secret that will not be known (Matthew 10:26), then let him hear from us that whoever listens in secret, to him the secret is revealed; he will openly know what is hidden by the truth; and what is hidden from many will be revealed to few. For why do not all people know the truth? And why doesn’t everyone love righteousness, if it is the common property of everyone? Secrets are transmitted in a mysterious way, so that what is transmitted is on the lips of the transmitter, and even more in his soul than on his lips. And God appointed the churches some as apostles, others as prophets, others as evangelists, others as shepherds and teachers, to direct the saints to works of service, to the building up of the body of Christ (Eph. 6:11,12). I know that this sketch of my memories is weak in comparison with the gracious spirit with which we were privileged to come into contact. But whoever is touched by firs 27, in his mind he will, despite the fact, evoke a prototype. For speak to a wise man, Scripture testifies, and he will become wiser (Prov. 9:9) and he who has will have abundance (Matt. 25:29; 13:12; Mark 4:25; Luke 8:18). However, this sketch of my memoirs does not promise to be a complete interpretation of our holy mysteries; Not only do we have many, but we also have no claims to this; it presents itself only as a reminder of the secrets in case we forgot about them or so that we do not forget about them completely. I know well that my Memories are not complete. Much was not included in their essay. Time passed, but we did not try to write down what could now be included in this essay, and so it was completely forgotten. However, I used some means to compile as detailed an essay as possible. I divided the written material I had into chapters and, thanks to this means, recalled a lot of new things in my memory. Still, something remained that we could not bring to mind, for the spiritual talent of these blessed men was great. So, what has completely disappeared from our memory was not included in this essay, because it was not written down in time, little by little. Nor did it enter into him what had dimmed in the mind itself, weakened in recollection and almost faded away. This labor of reproduction cannot be easily imagined by those who have not experienced its difficulties themselves. And although some things came to my mind, I deliberately omitted them when transmitting the letter, expressing them only orally, being afraid to write them down, and was careful not to talk about them; not out of envy - which would be sinful - but out of fear that my listeners, who could understand my words in a wrong sense, would not be misled by me and that I would not be accused of, as the proverb says, giving a child a sword. It is impossible for something written to disappear without a trace, even if it remains unpublished by me. What is written can be reproduced at any time, and, moreover, in the same sounds; those. what is written tells the reader nothing more than what is written. Of necessity, the reader here remains constantly helpless on the part of the one who wrote; It is impossible to use the help of anyone else who would follow in the footsteps of the writer. I will go through some things in my essay in silence and only hint at them. But of these things I will dwell on some of them, while others will only be recalled by their name. Apparently being secretive, I will nevertheless try to reveal something and, hiding behind a veil of mystery, discover something, silently show it. We will cite the provisions of the most famous of heresies and contrast them with everything that was revealed to us in an economically orderly and expedient manner even earlier than the prophetic contemplations and that should be preceded by internal knowledge or contemplation. We will take the creation of the world as our starting point, and we will choose as our guide the provisions of the glorious and sacred tradition. And first of all, before any reasoning, we will contrast these heresies with a simple and ingenuous contemplation of nature with the conclusions that necessarily follow from it. And what will be contrary to this method, we will eliminate them through conclusions, so that just as a farmer, by first clearing the soil of thorns and various kinds of weeds, prepares it for planting a vine on it, so we, through a similar matter, prepare our minds to accept the Gnostic tradition. Preparation for battle is also a battle and the teaching that precedes the communication of secrets is also a secret 28. In these Memoirs, we will not be afraid to communicate with philosophers, and we will also borrow the most beautiful things from other preparatory sciences. For it is reasonable, as the Apostle says, to become not only a Jew on account of the Jews and those under the law, but also a Greek on account of the Greeks, in order to win (convince) everyone (1 Cop. 9:19, 20, 22). And in his letter to the Colossians he writes: Warning every man and teaching every man in all wisdom, that he might make every man perfect in Christ (Col. 1:28). Since my work is nothing more than Memoirs, it has a certain kind of contemplative character. And is not the irrigating of sound doctrine with good borrowings from other useful sciences somewhat similar to the seasonings that are mixed into the food of an athlete? He does not seek pleasure in these seasonings, but the stimulation of a good appetite, meaning to strive for glory. At least by singing we harmoniously weaken the too strong tension of the sounds of our voice. But in the same way, those who want to address the people often use a herald, so that he can more audibly proclaim the appeal to the people. We do the same in this work. With our word we address a large people, presenting them with a solid tradition; Therefore, we have to use the opinions and language that they are accustomed to hearing. In this way our listeners can most surely be led to the truth. Let's say everything briefly in one word: Just as among many small pearls there is only one excellent one; just as in a fish catch there is only one Tobian fish caught at a time: so time and labor reveal one truth, especially if you find a good guide. It is through people that the most important blessings are sent down to us from above. Although we are all gifted with vision, we do not all look at objects in the same way; Different people look at the same subject from different points of view. The cook looks at the sheep differently, and the shepherd looks at it differently. One asks if she is fat; another watches the sheep's milk to see if it is fatty; one milks her to make food from the milk; another one cuts her fur when he needs blankets. In the same way I have to benefit from the fruits of Greek philosophy. I don’t think there is a single book so happy that it would not encounter objections and contradictions. But of course, a book that does not encounter any reasonable contradiction should be considered sane. It is not those actions and not that doctrine that should be allowed that are not attacked, but those that are attacked unreasonably. If someone initially does not want to do something because of that very thing, then it does not follow that he is completely avoiding it and that by some chance he will not be forced to do it; If he is brought to this point, then it means that some kind of Divine agency has arisen here, forcing him to submit to all circumstances and apply himself to all kinds of combinations of life conditions. He who lives by virtue no longer needs the path to virtue; and whoever feels healthy has no need to strengthen his strength. And just as farmers first irrigate the soil, and then sow it, so we, with what is good among the Hellenes, irrigate their earthly things, so that this soil can receive the spiritual seed scattered over it and so that it can nourish it. Therefore, in these books, called Stromats, the truth will be mixed with the propositions of philosophers, or better to say, it will be shown that these propositions of philosophers contain truth, but only as a nut shell contains an edible kernel. In my opinion, only cultivators of the field of faith are called upon to preserve the seeds of truth (i.e., pure ones). I am not unaware of the teaching, greatly extolled by some out of ignorance, that one should concern oneself with things only that are most necessary; These are the original articles of faith; external teachings 30, alien to us and now unnecessary, should supposedly pass in silence, because they allegedly will only tire us and, moreover, completely in vain and distract us from labors that are not related to the matter of salvation 31. Others argue that philosophy penetrated into the lives of people only to their misfortune and destruction, and that it was invented by some insidious inventor 32 . But I will show that all malice is by its very nature something evil and that such a farmer is not able to produce anything good. In all these books of my Stromats, I will make it clear that philosophy is also a matter of, in some way, Divine Providence. 2. An answer to the reproach of some as to why he introduced so many borrowings from Greek philosophy into his writings And regarding the inclusion in these Memoirs, when necessary, of the provisions of Hellenic scientists, to people who find pleasure in blaming everything, I answer the following. Firstly, even if Greek philosophy were empty chatter, it would be useful to prove its unsuitability for anything, but for this alone it would represent something practical. Further, those who do not penetrate into their teachings beyond bare phrases have no right to condemn the Hellenes, and do not stop at revealing the validity of these teachings as much as possible. But only that investigation that is carried out a posteriori is worthy of complete confidence; this a posteriori nature represents premises that give the right to a very thorough conclusion. In addition, there are many things that, although they do not directly contribute to the achievement of the goals pursued by a true scientist, still relate to his properties. In addition, the versatility of the writer, who quotes the most important philosophical propositions, makes the listeners convinced and judiciously agree with the writer; Such a method, producing surprise in those being instructed, awakens in them a friendly disposition towards true teaching. Such delight of souls with delights and sparkles from other sciences imparts firmness and reliability to the teaching from their point of view; By this method, inquisitive souls and thirsty for teachings are brought to the acceptance of that very truth, which they themselves previously stubbornly opposed and blasphemed. This circumstance testifies that philosophy in itself does not at all have a disastrous effect on human life and that it is not the cause of the emergence of false opinions and bad deeds, as some slander it, but that it consists of an obvious and embodied image of the teaching of truth - a gift that was sent down to the Greeks from God. And it does not distract us from faith, as if it were some kind of enchantment of some magical art; on the contrary, we are protected by philosophy as if by some kind of strong bulwark, discovering in it some kind of ally, together with whom we then justify our faith. Through comparative comparison of two interconnected teachings, developed on opposite paths 33, the truth is clarified more fully and deeply, and from here comes its more perfect tracking and acquisition. It is not because of philosophy itself that we are attracted to these studies, but because of the fruits that flow for us from this kind of knowledge; knowledge of things comprehended by the human mind confirms us in the conviction that we adhere to our teaching of the truth. I am silent about the fact that these books of Stromat are diverse in content and therefore combine various teachings into one whole, because their task is to carefully protect the seeds of knowledge. Just as a passionate hunter, having fallen on the trail of game, found it, seen it, unleashed dogs on it, and finally takes it, similarly the truth, if someone has been looking for it for a long time and only discovered it after labors, makes him happy. So, why did we want to put things this way in our Memoirs? The reason is that it is very dangerous to recklessly profane the real meaning of true philosophy (- instead of assimilating its edification with the heart, publicly raising it to ridicule) 34, as they do, who - being too gifted with various offensive harshness - love to contradict everything, in irritation and without observing any decency, they bombard you with all kinds of words and phrases, but by this they deceive themselves, but also others, They deceive those attracted to their side. For, as the Apostle says, (only) Jews demand miracles, but Greeks seek wisdom (1 Cop. 1:22). 3. Against sophists and idle talkers who boast of completely useless knowledge There is a large crowd of people of this kind. Some of them, devoted to pleasures, not wanting to believe in anything, mock the saving teaching, worthy of all respect, giving it the nickname of barbaric teaching 35. Some of them, becoming arrogant, strive to invent various slander against our teachings, looking for various places in them to challenge them, hunting for different words, finding strange (in our teachings) techniques, raising abuse and quarrels because of them, or, as the Abderite says (Democritus), weaving belt ropes into them with various knots 36 . Human language is flexible; he has a lot of speeches All kinds; the field of words both here and there is limitless; Whatever you say to a person, you will hear from him. In these ways, these pathetic sophists try to place themselves above other people, thinking about themselves that they are more worthy than everyone else. All their lives they are busy with nothing but chattering into the wind and littering the eyes of others with their chatter. They delve into a set of words, in composing and combining well-aimed expressions, turning out to be more talkative than doves (Zenob. 6, 8; Theocr. 15, 88), not at all worthy of men, flattering the ears (2 Tim. 4:3), flattering and delighting those whose ears itch, Not just a drop, but a whole river of artificial words pouring out onto them 37 . They look too much like old shoes. Everything else in them has already become frayed and fallen apart, only the tongue still dangles like an old sole. The Athenian Solon characterizes them perfectly, condemning them with these words: Only the tongue is an important matter for you and the sweet speeches of a flattering husband, You don't pay attention to things at all. Are you all chasing a sly fox? And your own mind is completely dank and insignificant. This is precisely what our Savior alludes to with the expression: Foxes have holes, but the Son of man has no place to lay his head (Matthew 8:20; Luke 9:58). For only on the believer, completely separated from other people, whom Scripture calls foxes, does the Head and King of all rest, i.e. the merciful and meek Logos, who ensnares the wise in their own wickedness, the Lord, the only leader of their advice and the fact that these are empty (Job 5:13; 1 Cop. 3:19, 20; Ps. 93:11). Here Scripture undoubtedly calls the sophists sages, revolving among phrases and feigned artificiality. From where the Hellenes themselves also called the sages (σοφοί), who especially carefully dealt with petty things, at the same time called the derivative name “sophists” 39. That is why Cratinus in Archilochus 40, criticizing the poets, says: One must always distinguish between sophists. In a similar way, the comedian Jophon 41 speaks of the rhapsodists and some other people in the Avloids, or Satyrs: And then a large crowd of sophists entered: where did they get so many of them from? The Divine Scripture speaks beautifully about these people and others like them, practicing in carrying out various nonsense: I will destroy the wisdom of the wise and reject the understanding of the prudent (I will take it out of practice) (Isa. 29:14; 1 Cop. 1:19). 4. The secular sciences, no less than theology, have a Divine origin. Homer also calls a simple craftsman a sage 42. And about a certain Margita writes the following: The gods in his person did not bother to create either a farmer or a simple digger; He was not a sage at all: he knew nothing 43. Hesiod, having said that the lyre player Lin knew a lot and was experienced in various kinds of arts and skills, finally does not find it difficult to call a simple sailor a sage, saying: He showed no wisdom whatsoever in the art of navigation. In the same way, Daniel the prophet honors the Babylonian scientists with the name of “wise men,” saying: The secret about which the king asks cannot be revealed to wise men, priests, or spellcasters; it is not in the power of the Gadarenes (i.e., the pagans); there is a God in heaven who reveals mysteries (Dan. 2:27, 28). And that by the general name of “wisdom” Scripture calls in general all worldly sciences and arts 44 - everything that the human mind could reach and that it was able to conceive, and that all technical and theoretical knowledge comes from God, this will be completely clear if we also cite the following expressions of Scripture: And the Lord spoke to Moses, saying: Behold, I call Bezaleel, the son of Uriah, the son of Hur, from the tribe of Judah. And I filled him with the Divine Spirit of wisdom and intelligence and knowledge, so that he would understand in every matter and be capable of creation, to work in gold, in silver, in copper, in blue, purple and scarlet wool, to perform all construction work in stone and wood, and so on even to the words: and in general all kinds of work (Ex. 31:2-5). Then, combining everything previously said, Scripture uses the following general expression: And in the heart of every intelligent person I have put understanding (Ex. 31:6), i.e. in the heart of everyone who is able to acquire that understanding through tension and exercise. And again, with all certainty, it is written in the name of the Lord: And tell this to all who are wise in mind, whom I have filled with the spirit of understanding (Ex. 28:3). These wise in minds are distinguished by their especially gifted nature. By showing special abilities, they reveal that they have received a double measure of understanding; I would even say that from the primitive wisdom a double spirit of wisdom flowed into their hearts. Already the technical attitude towards the arts responds overwhelmingly to the development of certain external senses. So-called musicians have a particularly developed sense of hearing, sculptors have a sense of touch,45 singers have a voice, perfumers have a sense of smell, and seal carvers have a sense of sight. Those who devote themselves to scientific pursuits also become more receptive. The poet especially develops a sense of proportion, the orator a sense of style, the dialectician the ability to judge, and the philosophers - what concerns them - speculation. It is feeling that makes one capable of invention and invention; Only feeling determines the direction of activities and mental ones. And thanks to the constancy of exercise, the ability for a certain type of activity is strengthened and expanded. The Apostle therefore quite rightly says that the manifold wisdom of God (Eph. 3:10) reveals its wealth for our good many times (in different cases) and diversely (in various ways) (Heb. 1:1), through the arts, sciences, faith, and the gift of prophecy. All wisdom is from the Lord and with Him abides forever, as the book of the Wisdom of Jesus says (Sir. 1:1). Because if you call on knowledge with a strong voice and appeal to reason, if you look for it as one searches for silver and if you look for it in the same way as one searches for treasure, and if you search for it with effort, then you will understand what service pleasing to God consists of and you will notice with your feelings the Divine (Proverbs 2:3-5). The sacred writer speaks of the feeling of the Divine, in contrast to the feeling immersed in secular sciences, which in beautiful and majestic expressions, however, also advises us to carefully seek, so that in the understanding of perfect service to God and piety we move forward. He contrasts these secular sciences with an understanding of the duties imposed on us by God's reverence; and meaning by this the content of true religion, he expresses it as follows: For from His lips the Lord exudes wisdom, and together knowledge and understanding, and in the person of the righteous he helps, gathering in them for the years of famine, as if in a granary, the treasures of salvation (Proverbs 2:6,7). In the enlightenment of philosophy (abstract content by the sciences) there is hidden help for us; Such enlightenment determines the subtlety of feeling, leading to true reverence for God and piety. 5. Philosophy is the handmaiden of Theology. This is explained by an allegorical interpretation of the story of Sarah and Hagar So, before the coming of the Lord, philosophy was necessary for the Hellenes to achieve a certain kind of righteousness, 46 and now it turns out to be necessary for bringing to true piety those whose spirit can only be opened to true faith only by deductions from premises or after preliminary experimental evidence; For them, philosophy consists of a kind of preparatory teaching. Your foot will not stumble, says Scripture (Prov. 3:23), if you attribute all good things to Divine Providence, whether the good is Hellenic or ours. God is the author of all good, but only through direct guidance, as for example. He is the direct author of the Old and New Testaments; He is the culprit of other good things in a secondary and mediocre manner, as for example. philosophy. And perhaps philosophy, before the Lord called the Hellenes to Himself, was given to them only for the first time (for the same purpose for which the Scripture was given to the Hebrews). She was the same leader for the Hellenes as the law was for the Jews and brought them as children to Christ (Gal. 3:23,24). If philosophy is a preliminary teaching that paves and smoothes the path to Christ; if it brings a traveler to the decision to devote himself to Christ and end up perfect in Him, then do not hesitate, says Solomon, to surround your wisdom with a rampart and it will exalt you and adorn your head with a crown of honor and joy (Prov. 6:8, 9). Because when you erect a battlemented wall of philosophy around your wisdom and, securing for yourself a stronger position behind that wall, you introduce virtue into your life, your wisdom will represent something unapproachable for the sophists. Without a doubt, there is one path to the truth, but some streams flow into it on one side, others on the other, in its bed uniting into a river that flows into eternity. That is why God speaks to us: Listen, my son, and accept my words, so that the paths of your life may be multiplied. I will show you the ways of wisdom, so that the springs within you will not dry up (Prov. 4:10, 11, 21), gushing from the very soil. The holy king speaks of the multiplicity of saving paths not only for the same righteous person, but in general about the multiplicity of saving paths; this means that just as there can be many righteous people, so the ways of their salvation are numerous 47 . This is exactly what he wants to say with the words: The paths of the righteous shine like light (Prov. 6:18). The commandments and preliminary instructions are also the ways and means to life, the gates to it. Jerusalem, Jerusalem, how often have I wanted to gather your children together as a bird gathers its chicks (Matthew 23:37; Luke 13:34). Jerusalem means: vision of the world. With the above words, the Lord prophetically reveals to us (firstly) that the Jews were allowed to peacefully contemplate the sacred mysteries and that they were prepared for their high calling as children. What happened? But it’s just that the matter was limited to desire. The Lord wanted, but could not. And how many times (secondly) did the Lord prepare the Jews and in what way? Twice. Through the prophets and through his coming. So, the expression shows how many times that God’s wisdom uses various paths to save people, that these paths are both diverse in quantity and diverse in quality. But also (thirdly) it is revealed from here that God’s wisdom constantly takes care of our salvation, not only in time, but also in eternity. Because the Spirit of the Lord fills the universe (Wis. 1:7). And if someone, wanting to wound us, brought this passage of Scripture against us: Do not listen to the words of a prostitute, because honey drips from her lips (Prov. 5:3), meaning by a dissolute wife Hellenic learning, then let him listen to what follows (in Scripture). She sweetens your throat for a while (v. 4), it says. But philosophy does not flatter. What kind of dissolute woman is Scripture talking about in this place? This is revealed from the words added after that: The feet of madness bring those who listen to those words to hell to death; but her ways are fickle (v. 5). So arrange, therefore, that your path should be far from insane pleasures. Do not approach the doors of her houses, lest you betray your health to others (vv. 7-10). Then, in support of this, Scripture adds the following: So that you do not repent in old age, when your strength is exhausted and your body weakens (v. 11). This is the end of insane voluptuousness; These are the consequences of this kind of pleasure. Another kind of saying of Scripture: Do not stay long with a stranger (Prov. 5:20). With this expression, it allows us to benefit from human knowledge by applying it to life, but it does not give us the right to rest completely on that worldly learning. The intellectual wealth characteristic of every nation at any given time is for all of them only a propaedeutic, disposing them to accept the teachings of the Lord. Of course, there were always people who, being swooned by the love potions of the maids (the seductive charms of the preparatory teachings consisting of none other than the maids), treated the mistress of the house with contempt. those. philosophy, and some grew old in music, others in geometry, others in grammar, and most in oratory 48. But the so-called course sciences, obligatory for free people, represent steps that facilitate the ascent along them to philosophy, which is their master. And just as they serve philosophy, so it itself is an accomplice to the acquisition of true wisdom 49; wisdom is knowledge of divine and human things with their causes 50. Wisdom means that she is the master of philosophy, just as philosophy is the master of the preliminary sciences. Because if the task of philosophy is to preach moderation in the use of language, in the use of things that have a connection with the belly and hypogastric region, and if it mediates virtue, then it is many times more honorable and excellent for it to strive for the glory of God and to promote the knowledge of God. What we say in Scripture is confirmed by this kind of evidence. Sarah reached old age and was still barren, although she was Abraham's wife. Without giving birth, she allows Abraham to get closer to his maid 51, Hagar, an Egyptian, with the goal of having children with her. In the same way, wisdom, which was the friend of the faithful, i.e. Abraham, to whom faith was counted as righteousness (Rom. 4:9), was in that generation barren and childless, not producing in the person of Abraham the fruits of virtue. In fairness, therefore, she wanted the one who had hitherto strived for success in his life, but had not yet had success, to enter into connection with worldly science - Egypt symbolically represents the world - and then to draw closer to it, with wisdom, to produce, by the will of Divine Providence, the rightful heir, Isaac. According to Philo’s interpretation (this is how this story should be understood, for) the word Hagar means “a dwelling next door,” an adjacent settlement 52, which is why it is said in the Pisanin: I will not stay with a foreign woman for long (Prov. 5:20); Sarah's name means: my authority 53. So, these preliminary teachings (the initial development in secular sciences) lead to wisdom, to which the throne belongs and which multiplies the race of Israel. From here it is revealed that wisdom can be acquired through teaching 54 . Abraham reached it precisely this way, moving from the contemplation of heavenly things to faith in God and righteousness. The word Isaac means one who does not learn from others, but by himself achieves something 55 . That is why he turns out to be a prototype of Christ. He was already the husband of one wife, namely Rebekah, whose name means “patience.” Jacob is so called because he fought with many opponents, for his name means an athlete, “an exerciser.” One can only practice in what is a science of some kind, diverse and varied in nature 56 . Why does Jacob receive another name and is called Israel, which means “truly seeing”: extensive experience and long-term exercises made him truly a seer 57 . An interpretation of the names of these three forefathers of the Jewish people in this way reveals to us that (religious) knowledge is stamped with strength and durability by its relationship to nature (to secular science), to learning (to amateur activity) and to practical, business life. In Tamar you also have another image of the 58 principles that we are developing. She goes to the street intersection and sits here, playing the role of meretricis. The curious Judas sees her - Judas means strong 59 - leaving nothing of what he found unexamined, without examination, peers into it and deviates towards it, however, without retreating from the confession of God. Judah turned away from Tamar for the same reason that Abraham temporarily became close to Hagar. He valued in human philosophy only what it contains that is useful; therefore, when Sarah began to be jealous that her servant, Hagar, was given more honor than her, the mistress, 60 Abraham said to her: Here is the slave in your hands; do with her what you please. As if he were saying this to Sarah: “I welcome worldly knowledge for nothing other than its youth (news) and value it no more than a simple servant; In you I honor the true mistress and value your knowledge as the most perfect. satisfying deeper and nobler.” A expression: And Sarah offended her equivalently: And she corrected and reprimanded her 61. My son, do not forget the instructions of the Lord and do not reject His reproofs. For whom the Lord loves, He punishes. He still strikes His children, who are accepted into heaven, here on earth (Prov. 3:11,12; Heb. 12:5,6). Considered in relation to other types, the cited passages of Scripture represent an explanation of other mysteries 62. Here we only assert on the basis of these passages that philosophy seeks truth and explores the nature of things; The Lord himself is truth, having spoken: I am the truth (John 14:6). Preparatory teachings, which precede tranquility in Christ, exercise the mind and awaken understanding, generate ardor and develop insight in finding the truth, and at the same time help to achieve true philosophy, which those initiated into it find in sacred things, or in the treasure they received from the Truth itself (i.e. Christ) 63. 6. Learning, and not nature, develops us to the level of virtuous people. It greatly influences the formation in us and the very disposition towards virtue. Being prepared by preliminary teaching greatly contributes to the understanding of which things should be given preference; knowledge and skills assimilated by the mind (enriching it), in turn, contribute to its development (and a new thirst for knowledge). There are three different kinds of things that are comprehended by the mind: indefinite quantities, definite quantities, and thoughts contained in words 64 . The teaching, accompanied by evidence, so strengthens faith in the soul of the follower that he refuses to imagine the matter differently. If we justify the content of the teaching of faith with evidence, then this will protect us from various deceivers, preventing us from being led astray and confused by their nonsense. The soul, which has developed through a thorough study of the preparatory sciences, breaks free from the power of external senses, is excited and imbued with strength and energy, making it capable of understanding the true teaching. This mental development, this purposeful knowledge, assimilated by the mind, feeds the mind and its thinking in the same way that the body is nourished with food; and it is they who actually determine the efficiency of different natures. But these efficient natures themselves, brought up in preliminary teachings, thanks to them can constantly move forward along the path of improvement, becoming better in various respects, and equally influencing the creation of other efficient natures even better than themselves. This is noticeable in the animal kingdom and in general. Therefore, O slothful man, go to the ant and try to become wiser than him. During the harvest, he prepares many different kinds of supplies, protecting himself for the winter (Proverbs 6:6). Or: Go to the bee and know how hardworking she is, for she, too, collects juice from the flowers of the meadow and produces honeycombs (Prov. 6:8). The Lord commanded us to pray in the room (Matt. 6:8), worshiping in the spirit (John 4:8). This means that one should be concerned not only with the appropriate arrangement of the house, but also with the upbringing of one’s soul, i.e. what should it be fed with and how and in what quantity; what should be removed from it and what should be preserved in it as treasure; and what should be brought to the fore in it and for what purposes. It is not nature, but learning that makes us pleasant and kind, just as learning makes doctors and sailors. We all see the vine and the horse. But only the gardener will know whether it is fertile or not and what kind of grapes it produces; and the horse handler will immediately distinguish a sluggish horse from a fast running one. The fact that good results in some areas of knowledge are achieved only by people who are naturally gifted with higher abilities, although it undoubtedly proves that the soul of some is more capable of good than the soul of others, and yet this circumstance does not at all indicate that a more perfect approach to the truth is due to the nature of these special people alone. Moreover, the most important of the virtues are carried out by people with a nature that is opposed to the truth, if they are instructed in this and if those instructions are accepted by them. On the other hand, people who are disposed towards good fall into vice if they received a wrong upbringing or if they were completely neglected in relation to it. The fact is that already at creation God put into us the principles of truth and created us for social life; those. Without concluding from this that virtue develops in us from this gift itself, we must necessarily admit that the sparks of goodness invested in us are fanned by education; the teaching instructs us to choose good and prefer it to evil 65. Of course, you can be a believer without science; but the ignorant is not able to understand what is expressed by faith. It is not simple faith that can accept sound teaching and reject bad teaching, but only that which is based on science. If, on the basis that both the poor and the rich can live virtuously, who would object to me that ignorance, bad manners and ignorance of anything means, on a par with erudition, the knowledge of divine and human things is mediated, then we affirm, contrary to this, that those who have undergone the free sciences will more easily and more quickly declare themselves to be some kind of virtue, although this is not how it should be understood, as if without them virtue cannot be acquired, and so only that students’ feelings become more sophisticated 66. Hatred, says Solomon, stirs up strife, but teaching observes the ways of life (Prov. 10:12,17); then it is difficult to deceive us and we are not led into discord by those who develop obscene teachings to the destruction of their listeners. But he who is not taught by teaching goes astray, says Scripture (Prov. 10:17). It means that one should become familiar with teachings, prove them, and refute opponents, in order to be able to reflect the false opinions of the sophists. Anaxarchus writes in his book “On the Kingdom” that the established opinion of him as a “happy” person is very commendable: “Learning can help a lot, but it can also do a lot of harm to those who acquire it. She helps those who are worth her; It harms the one who talks whatever and wherever he pleases. The decency of the times should also be observed in the dissemination of the truth. The perfection of wisdom requires this. He who sings in front of the door, even if he sang something sensible and skillfully, cannot be considered wise, but only testifies to his stupidity.” And Hesiod says: The muses give the poet volubility, inspiration and a ringing voice. In these words, the poet calls a fertile husband verbose; he calls a witty and ardent husband vociferous 67; and he calls one who is at the same time skillful, a philosopher, and versed in the truth, inspired by the Divine himself. 7. Philosophy paves the way to heaven. In this way, however, none of those who are indicated by private philosophical schools consist, but those who are cleared by the Church So, it is revealed that the preliminary sciences studied by the free Hellenes, along with philosophy, come from God. This origin must be understood not in the same way as if God himself instructed people through those sciences, but in such a way that, like some kind of rain, they indifferently litter the fertile soil and manure and the roofs of houses. Therefore, the rain of these sciences has the same effect on the growth of both chaff and wheat. The fig tree in the cemetery and other even more unpretentious trees also grow under its influence. These random creations of the field of human souls under the influence of this rain of science are even more beautiful than its deliberate fruits. The same beneficial influence of this rain of science determines the generation of both those random products of the human spirit and the products of its fertile soil, but the former do not have the value of the latter; therefore, they usually either dry up on their own or are forcibly plucked out. The Lord's parable about the sower, interpreted by Him Himself (Matthew 13; Mark 4), reveals our subject very well. The cultivated field consists of people, and the only Tiller of this field is the One, who, starting from the creation of the world from above, scatters nutritious seeds throughout this field, constantly irrigating them through the mediation of the Divine Logos. The grains scattered throughout this field are all nutritious properties, but the difference in time and the diversity of the soil fertilized affects the difference in its products. There is of course a difference between these grains in terms of nutritional value. Thus the Divine Farmer scatters the wheat, but there are also different kinds. A He also sows barley, beans, peas, seeds of various vegetables and flowers grown in the gardens. One and the same Farmer, but He works now in the fields, now in the gardens, now in the vineyards. He also takes care, finally, that the soil is covered with various kinds of trees and that it nourishes them. Likewise, pets all require personal care, but this care must be appropriate to the type of animal. The art of herding sheep consists of one thing, and the herding of oxen is determined by a special kind of knowledge; different from these is the art of driving horses and different from this is the art of training dogs; Again, the art of bee breeding is different from these; and yet all these arts are useful in this earthly life. By philosophy I do not mean either Stoic philosophy, or Plato, or Epicurean, or Aristotle, but eclectic, the best of all their positions regarding rightness, knowledge and humanity 68. In the same thing that the sophists borrowed with distortions from human philosophy into their wisdom, I see nothing Divine. However, it is sometimes necessary (to determine the Divine elements in this worldly wisdom) and pay attention to whether those who are not taught virtue (from above) live well. It happens that they do well; some approach the true teaching, realizing that the whole point is in it and that it should be the goal. Abraham was justified by faith, not by good works (Rom. 4). In the same way, the followers of various philosophical schools did not benefit from all their good deeds, but their faith served them for salvation. God arranged it so that the Holy Scriptures were translated into Greek; and thus every pretext for ignorance of the truth was taken away from the philosophers; they had only to wish, and they could easily find out the truth. It is another thing to hear someone talking about the truth, and another thing to hear how the truth testifies to itself. It is another thing to guess about the truth, and another thing to have intercourse with it; there is a big difference between perception and reality. There is a science comprehended by study and work; and there is a science based on authority and consisting of the fruit of faith. The teaching that instructs us in true reverence for God is a gift to us from above, just as faith is the fruit of the action of grace in us. Only from then on do we begin to know the will of God, and how to begin (in grace) to fulfill it 69. Open the gates of righteousness for me, says Scripture, so that by entering them I can glorify the Lord (Ps. 117:19). The paths leading to the truth are numerous and varied, for God, in His goodness, uses various means to save people, and all these paths lead us to the path of the Lord and lead us to the gates of the Lord. If you ask about the royal path indicated by God himself, then here is the answer: These are the gates of the Lord: the righteous will enter into them (Ps. 118:20) 70. Many gates to truth are open, but only the gates of righteousness lead to the path that leads to Christ; Blessed are all those who have entered this path and declared themselves on it by the holiness of life and knowledge. Therefore, Clement, in his letter to the Corinthians, enumerates in the following terms the various paths that are recognized by the church as true: “Let one be a simple believer; let the other be the bearer of sacred knowledge; Let this one be wise in discerning speech (1 Cor. 12:8,9,10); this one is distinguished by the energy of activity.” 8. Sophistry and other arts that consist only of words are useless arts. But the intricate art of sophistry, which the Hellenes so zealously practice, is only an imaginary force; it all consists of a set of words with which the truth is only obscured, and an untrue opinion is presented as not false. The art of choosing pompous words and endless bickering are his means; in the first of these means lies all its persuasiveness; with the second, it supports the dispute and gains the upper hand in it. Whoever makes use of this kind of tricks will have a disastrous effect on everyone, precisely because it is not combined with real knowledge and love for it. That is why Plato called this sophistic art positively disastrous. Aristotle had the same opinion about him. He declares that sophistry is the art of deception; She fraudulently plays the role of a representative of supposedly top-notch higher learning and acquires for herself knowledge of the very sciences that she has not only never studied, but even neglects. To clarify the nature of sophistry and its techniques, I will briefly say the following. Rhetoric has as its starting point the probable; argument serves as a means to achieve goals; its goal is persuasion. Dialectical art (to argue) sets itself as its beginning also the possible; For him, argument serves as a means of persuasion; his goal is victory. Sophistry also begins with the plausible. But her method of persuasion is twofold; one approaches the rhetorical and has the appearance of a sequential disclosure of the case; for others it is borrowed from dialectics, giving it an interrogative form; its goal is to arouse surprise, to make the listener gape and go numb. But even in the schools of this same dialectic, so extolled by public opinion, the production is nothing more than the scribbling of this and that philosopher about generally accepted opinions, exercising oneself in the art of disputing and being resourceful in an argument. The truth is not taught through it anywhere. The glorious Apostle, expressing contempt for these empty arts that revolve only in words, had every reason to say about the sophists: They do not follow sound teachings, but are inflamed by a certain passion for teaching, but they do not know anything; Their minds painfully turn to competitions and disputes over words, from which arise strife, envy, slander, crafty suspicion, empty disputes (at the wrong time and about trifles) between people of a damaged mind, alien to the truth (1 Tim. 6:3-5) Do you understand, of course, that the Apostle speaks with censure about such people? He calls their idle talk a disease. And the Greek and foreign sophists are so proud of him and they like this disastrous emptyness so much. The tragic poet Euripides also considered it a disease. In his drama “The Phoenician Women” he expresses the following opinion about one of these idle talkers: Painful in its very essence: it is necessary here expedient use of healing agents (Articles 471, 472). The Apostle’s teaching about salvation is called sound teaching, because the Logos who taught it is truth itself. And what is healthy, everything remains immortal; and whatever is removed from the healthy and Divine is wickedness and represents a fatal disease. Predatory wolves (Matthew 7:15) – these sophists, that’s who they are, just hiding behind sheep’s clothing. These are the enslavers of their neighbors, turning them from free people into slaves; these are sweet-tongued seducers of souls; They are cheats, but secret ones and it is difficult to catch them in cheating; They use all their cunning and all their strength to captivate us, ordinary people, with the art of their idle talk, strangers. It often happens that a person who does not have the gift of eloquence Even if he said something profound, he produces with his speech less impressive than an eloquent person. Especially in your days, the most undoubted truths are drowned in the river of words, Just to prevent the truth from coming to light, says the tragedy 71. This is what these philosophers, so eager to debate, do, whether expounding the teachings of some school or practicing dialectical tricks. “They,” says the priest. Scripture, they take the cloth off the loom, but they did not weave that cloth” 72 ; Instead, they are engaged in pouring from empty to empty. The Apostle calls this art deceit and cunning art that ensnares people in the net of error (Eph. 4:14). For there are, he says, many disobedient, many idle talkers and deceivers (Titus 1:10) So, the word is not addressed to everyone: You are the salt of the earth (Matthew 5:13). Even among those familiar with the Divine teaching, there are people like sea fish, who require seasoning with salt, although they have lived in salt water since birth. Therefore, I completely agree with the words of the tragic poet: My son! Speeches, skillfully composed, are often false. Thanks to the beauties of style, they often prevail over truth. But this is not what should be appreciated most about them, A essence and efficiency. An eloquent man Of course there is a skilled and capable person. So I would constantly give preference to better the essence of the matter, rather than beautiful words 73. It happens that people are deprived of various precious benefits not of their own free will. They lose them, sometimes by succumbing to the deceptions of other people, sometimes by giving in to their seductions, sometimes by yielding to their impudence, sometimes by their lack of faith by not resisting them. By credulously accepting their teachings, it is their own fault that they are taken by surprise; they are too hasty to give consent to false teaching, and therefore fall into a trap; They are little careful and forget that if there is a lack of vigilance, then from our mind, if it is left to itself, a conviction or an unreasonable word can be stolen. But beliefs, once accepted, are often abandoned in moments of annoyance, fear, argument or anger. People who are also carried away by voluptuousness or overcome by a feeling of fear become victims of delusion. And what matters most in all these falls of thought is the will. True knowledge is not subject to any of these vicissitudes. 9 . Knowledge of human sciences related to philosophy is necessary for understanding the sacred. Scriptures Some imagine that they are doing a very clever thing when they do not want to deal with philosophy, nor with dialectics, nor do they want to study natural sciences, but are satisfied with simple and pure faith alone. This is the same as if they argued that no care for the grapevine is needed, but that it is enough just to plant it in order to produce grapes from it. If, on the contrary, the care of the grapevine was thorough and took place in compliance with all the rules of agricultural art, i.e. in accordance with the commandments of the Logos, the Lord himself promises to become grapes in that, appropriating its fruit for himself and being called in an allegorical sense a grapevine (John 15:1). And that care consists of pruning, digging, tying and other work around it. When caring for a grapevine, it goes without saying that you have to use a knife, a spade and other agricultural tools. And in agriculture, as well as in medicine, only one is skilled who has studied sciences that are different and related to them, instructing him how best to cultivate the land and how to heal more successfully. It's the same in religion. Only a thoroughly learned person can reduce everything to true teaching. Such a one uses much from geometry and from music and from grammar and from philosophy to protect faith from attacks against it. (This draws attention to her.) For, as we said earlier, no athlete who has not prepared for the competition with preliminary exercises receives attention. In a similar way, we express pleasure at the sight or name of a highly experienced pilot, “who has seen many cities and people” 75 - and at the name of a doctor who has had a lot of practice, for which some call such doctors experienced. And the one who relates all particular manifestations of virtue to the ideal of one and the same right life, citing all examples from the history of philosophy, both Hellenic and foreign, as evidence of this, is a very intelligent investigator of the truth and is truly a “man of wise counsel” 76 . It can be compared to an touchstone, otherwise such stones are called Lydian, by means of which, they say, one can distinguish pure gold from that containing impurities. In the same way, among us, a person who knows a lot and is intelligent (Gnostic) will be able to distinguish between sophistry and philosophy, feigned beauty from that developed through gymnastics, delicious dishes of the culinary arts from those approved for health by medicine, rhetoric from dialectics; finally he will distinguish between the errors and the truth in barbarian philosophy. (But on the other hand, philosophy is necessary for the Theologian). Is it really not necessary for those who want to bring an idea closer to their understanding, for example. omnipotence of God? This is one of those objects that can only be comprehended by speculation. How useful it is for the Theologian to be able to penetrate into the true meaning of some dark sacred passages. Scriptures that are open to different interpretations! Through such illumination of some mutual sayings of Scripture, the Lord wisely repelled the temptation of the devil (Matthew 4:4). And some, even after this, still consider the devil to be the inventor of both philosophy and dialectics. After this, I cannot understand how the devil allowed himself to be confused and put into a dead end by a saying that was difficult to understand? But let us assume that the prophets and apostles did not know the sciences that serve as material for philosophy. And in this case, familiarity with secular sciences is necessary. The meaning of many prophetic and teaching passages by the Spirit acting in them is expressed covertly, because not everyone’s ears are equally developed to understand the meaning of those sayings. The interpretation of such passages of Scripture without the help of secular sciences is impossible. The prophets themselves and the disciples of the (Divine) Spirit understood the meaning of such passages without difficulty, for by faith they understood what the Spirit inspired in them. But if this method of penetrating into what was spoken by the Spirit was no longer easy for them, then how can we penetrate into the meaning of those passages of Scripture, who are not similarly instructed by the Spirit? “And these commandments, says Scripture, write down within yourself in two ways: on your will and in your consciousness, so that you can answer with words of truth those who question you” 77 . But this ability to answer and ask what else is it but dialectics? What then? And doesn’t speaking represent a special type of labor? And (especially) does this activity not flow from the Logos (Son of God)? Therefore, if we surrender ourselves to it without Logos (without reason), then are we not surrendering ourselves to an unreasonable cause? If this matter flows from reason, then it will be in accordance with the will of God (the word of God). And without Him nothing happened (John 1:8), says Scripture; without Hero, i.e. God the Word (Logos, reason), for did not the Lord create everything by the Logos? Livestock and livestock work under the compulsion of fear. Should we, the so-called true believers, pursue good deeds without knowing what we are doing? 10. One should care more about virtue than about eloquence. That is why 79 The Lord, taking the bread, first spoke and gave thanks; then he broke it and offered it 80 so that we too might eat from it wisely (understanding what we are doing) and through the study of the Scriptures we would behave as citizens of the (new) state (members of the church) in accordance with the commandments of those Scriptures. Those who abuse the word are no different from villains. Hateful speech is a kind of sword, and slander inflicts the same wounds that come from it. The action of both has a disastrous effect on life. These are the consequences of obscene speech. And those who use the word intelligently approach virtuous people. And with a word, the soul can be brought to its senses and turned to righteousness and a pious way of life. Happy is he who can use both hands equally well. However, someone who has the gift of speaking effectively has no right to blame someone who has been given the opportunity to do good; and the latter, in turn, should not despise the former. Let everyone be active in fulfilling the task of life for which he was born. Let one declare himself by deed, the other act by word; let one show the way with a good example, the other encourage his listeners to virtue with his word. The word is as saving as the deed. Without words there is no right. And just as there is no good deed where there are no benefactors, so there is neither faith nor obedience where teaching and teaching are not allowed. Therefore, let us help each other in word and deed. One should avoid, and especially carefully, only the spirit of strife and the art of sophistry. With their empty talk, these false thinkers not only bewitch entire masses of listeners, not only mislead them, but also completely subjugate them, and to them, (penetrating their hearts with hatred), they deliver the victories of Cadmus 81. This word of the Psalmist breathes with the highest truth: The righteous will live forever and will not see the grave, although he will see the death of the wise (Ps. 49:10,11). Whom does the psalm call wise men? Learn about this from the book of the Wisdom of Jesus: The knowledge of evil is not wisdom (Sir. 19:19). Of course, there is wisdom here, as much as there is in the art of ranting and disputing. You will seek wisdom from profane people and will not find it (Prov. 14:6). And if you begin to ask: Where is she, then here is the answer: The lips of the righteous drip with wisdom (Proverbs 10:31). Both true teaching and sophistry are therefore called wisdom, but the latter in a mutual sense. As for me, the only goal I have set for myself - and I think it’s true - is to live in accordance with the commandments of the Logos and penetrate into the spirit of His teaching; - never worry about eloquence, but be content only with clarifying for others what you yourself have achieved. And why should I worry about in what expressions to convey what I understand? Putting souls who thirst for salvation on the path of salvation and promoting their salvation is the most beautiful thing in my eyes, and not a petty selection of words with the aim of putting on some petty feminine attire in speech. “If you do not worry too much about words,” says the Pythagorean in Plato’s “Politics,” then the wiser you will be in old age” 82. And in “Theatetus” you will find: “To use names and verbs in speech with some freedom, without subtle attention to their meaning, is not always ignoble (it cannot always serve as a sign of insufficiently developed taste): more slavery, incompatible with the dignity of a free person, can rather be found in the opposite use of them. However, the latter is sometimes necessary” 83. But how should this deal with style? Scripture speaks very briefly about this in this way: “Don’t be too loose in words” 84. The syllable is clothing, and the presented object is like the meat and nerves of the body. You should not care more about clothes than about the health of your body. Not only does he who chooses a life in accordance with the true teaching condemn himself to an abstinent way of life, but in his speeches he must also renounce all extreme sophistication and intricate decoration. We must renounce all pomp and luxury in general because of the networks they represent and all the excesses the source of which they serve. We must abandon them, I say, just as the ancient Lacedaemonians expelled from their midst the use of various pleasures, such as wearing purple clothes, dyed and anointing themselves with artificial incense 85 . It is not the kind of food that is well prepared, which has more seasonings than nutrients: likewise, the speech should not be considered as pleasant and delicately composed, which cares more about giving pleasure to its listeners than about benefit. Pythagoras convinces us to give preference to the Muses rather than to the Sirens 86. He advises not to indulge in pleasures that are not combined with wisdom, 87 but to look at them as a kind of seduction that darkens and destroys the soul. As for the stories: about a certain person who sailed safely past the Sirens 88 and about another who guessed the allegory of the Sphinx 89, then, if you want, neither one nor the other existed. There is no point in expanding the phylactery 90 too much, seeking fame that is only imaginary and has no real value. A truly reasonable person is satisfied if chance provides him with at least one listener 91 . And here it would be appropriate to heed the word of Pindar the Baeotian. He writes: “On the lips of not everyone (nowadays) ancient (short and meaningful) speech can be revealed. Or rather, sometimes it will be sought on the lips of silent people. (Nowadays) even the most eloquent speech arouses only fervor and controversy” 92. The blessed Apostle therefore had every reason to advise us not to get involved in verbal disputes, which are not accompanied by anything other than harm to the listeners. He exhorts obscene idle talk to leave. With their speeches such people only increase lawlessness. Their teaching, like a cancer spreading unnoticed, entails the corruption of morals (2 Tim. 2:14, 16, 17). 11. What kind of worldly wisdom and philosophy does the Apostle command to avoid? So, the wisdom of this world mentioned above is foolishness before God. The Lord knows that the speculations of these wise men are vain (1 Cor. 3:19,20). Therefore, let no one boast of human knowledge (1 Cor. 3:21), putting forward with it. It is well written on this subject by Jeremiah: Let not the wise man boast of his wisdom; and let not the mighty boast of this power; and let not the rich man boast of his riches. But let him who boasts of this boast in the understanding and knowledge that I am the Lord, who works mercy and judgment and righteousness on earth. For only this is My will, as the Lord says (Jer. 9:23, 24), and as the Apostle explains it, to trust not in ourselves, but in God, who raises the dead, who delivered us from such a terrible death (2 Cop. 1:9,10), so that our faith would not be based on human wisdom, but on the power of God (1 Cop. 2:5), for the spiritual judges to everyone, but no one can judge him (v. 15). Listen also to these words of the Apostle: I say this for my sake, so that no one deceives you with insinuating words (Col. 2:4) and so that no one is carried away by empty deception (v. 8). And again: Be careful that no one captivates you with philosophy and empty deception, according to human tradition, according to the elements of the world, and not according to Christ (Col. 2:8). The Apostle does not condemn all philosophy here, but only Epicurean philosophy, which Paul mentions in the book. Acts of the Apostles (Acts 17:18), condemning her for denying providence and counting sensual pleasures among the gods. But any other philosophy is subject to the same censure if it honors the elements, not recognizing the creation behind them, but rejecting being and the Creator himself. And the Stoics also belong here, about whom the Apostle also mentions (Acts 13:18) and who falsely teach about God that He is a bodily substance and penetrates with Himself all, even the coarsest, matter 93. The Apostle calls human tradition the overly cunning and fractional refinements of word usage, which is why he writes about them: Avoid youthful 94 investigations (2 Tim. 2:22, 23), for something childish represents this kind of enthusiasm for them 95. “Virtue does not rest on a childish (changeable and whimsical) disposition towards it" of only one period of time, says Plato. And our aspirations and intense efforts, according to Gorgias Leontinets, necessarily require from us two virtues (from the distinct mental properties, strengths, advantages of two): courage (courage) and wisdom (practical dexterity); the first courageously goes to meet and resists dangers, and the second penetrates into the signs of the times. For the Logos, like the herald at the Olympic Games, calls, although everyone who wants, crowns only the one who finds strength, ability and skill to remain invincible, appealing only to the truth and truly does not want the believer in Hero to remain inactive. Seek, He says, and you will find (Matt. 7:7). But He transforms the investigation into discovery, believing, as it were, to the opposite shore or already to the fields on the other side of the tomb, still here, in this life, translating, empty talkativeness from His society, expelling, and approving only contemplative research and only giving value to it as such, by which our faith is strengthened and established. I say this so that no one will deceive you with a set of subtle but false evidence, says the Apostle (Col. 2:4). It is clear that the Apostle instructs believers to carefully think about what such people say and instructs them to treat what they present with distrust. Therefore, just as you have followed the Lord Christ Jesus and were instructed in His teaching, so act in accordance with it, being rooted in it (for the beginning of your thoughts, seeking food in it) and being built up and established in the faith (Col. 2:6,7). And the solid foundation of faith is conviction. Be careful that no one distracts you from faith in Christ through philosophy and empty deception, which denies providence according to human tradition (v. 8). Philosophy, which, according to Divine tradition, recognizes and affirms providence; for the one who denies it, the economy regarding (the giving to us) of the Savior seems like a fable, and then we rush around (we find ourselves in need, wetting ourselves) against the elements of this world, and not against Christ. For the teaching that is in agreement with Christ, as this world produces from God, so does providence see even in particulars; he thinks about the elements as having happened and recognizes their changeable nature. It teaches us to control the elements, so that in our spiritual abilities in this respect we may resemble the Divine, placing His economy at the head of all education and science. The elements are considered to be: Diogenes - air, Thales - water, Hippasus - fire; and they produce them as from principles from atoms, (only) hiding behind the name of philosophy, (in fact) consisting of lustful and atheist little people 96. Therefore I pray for this, says the Apostle, that your love may more and more abound in knowledge and in every feeling, so that you may know what is best (Phil. 1:9,10). Since as long as we were in childhood, the same Apostle says, we were enslaved to the material principles of the world (Gal. 6:3). One who is in childhood, even if he was an heir, is no different from a slave even before the time appointed by the Father (vv. 1, 2). Spiritually, therefore, philosophers are (still) in childhood if they do not become men in Christ. (It also applies to them that it is written that) the son of a slave woman will not be an heir with the son of a free woman (Gen. 21:10; Gal. 4:30), although the son of a slave woman is still the true seed of Abraham, unlike the descendant of the promise, receiving only a special gift 97. The perfect are characterized by solid food: their senses are accustomed (already) to distinguish between good and evil (Heb. 5:14). Yes. Because everyone who is fed with milk is not versed in the word of truth, since he is a baby (v. 13) and does not yet know (fully) the teaching in which he has believed and according to which he acts, 98 being unable to give an account of it. Test everything, says the Apostle, and retain what is good (1 Thess. 5:21), saying this to the spiritual, who discuss everything that is presented to them under the guise of true teaching, whether it is really true (1 Cop. 2:14). He who is not admonished by teaching goes astray (Prov. 10:17), but learning in wisdom (admonition) is accompanied by wounds and reproofs (13:25); it goes without saying: denunciations imbued with love. The right sense seeks knowledge (Prov. 15:14). Therefore, he who seeks God will gain knowledge with righteousness; those who duly sought him found peace 99 . But I will test, says the Apostle, not the words of those who are proud, but the strength of those who are proud (1 Cop. 6:19). He writes this to censure those who, although they consider themselves wise, are not so in reality. The kingdom of God is not in words (1 Cop. 6:20). It is not, the Apostle wants to say, who is not sincere (in fact) and only in words represents something attractive, but in power, for only the truth (the agreement of words with deeds) is powerful. And again: If anyone thinks that he knows something, he still does not know anything as he should know (1 Cop. 8:2). Truth is not at all an opinion (dreaminess and conceit); the opinion of knowledge only puffs up and permeates with arrogance. Love, which revolves not in opinions, but in truth, creates; That's why it's said. He who loves will know (vv. 1, 3). 12. The truths of faith should not be revealed to everyone you meet, because not all listeners are equally disposed to the true teaching And since this tradition can reach the ears not only of those who are able to comprehend its greatness, but in some places the ears of others, this wisdom, revealed by the Son of God and proclaimed in inviolable holiness (1 Cop. 2:7), should be transmitted under cover. That is why even in Isaiah the prophet the tongue is purified by fire (Isaiah 6:6, 7) so that he can tell the vision. And we must cleanse not only our lips, but also our ears, if we want to become participants in the truth. These considerations have so far kept me from writing. But even now I am afraid to throw pearls before swine. lest they trample it under their feet and turn and tear us to pieces (Matthew 7:6). It is dangerous to speak about the true light in sincere and mirror-clear terms before ignorant and pig-like listeners. For the crowd there is nothing funnier than such things, and for thoughtful listeners there is nothing more surprising and more God-revealing than them. The natural man does not accept the things of the Spirit of God, because he considers them foolishness (1 Cor. 2:14). The wise do not divulge what they discuss in council 100. Whatever you hear in your ear, says the Lord, preach on the housetops (Matthew 10:27). But here He speaks of secret traditions concerning true knowledge, excellently and sublimely explained by Him. He commands them to be received and passed on to someone in the same way as we heard in the ear. But by this He does not at all command to recklessly divulge here and there secrets that He Himself had communicated in parables. That is why, in this sketch of our memoirs, we scattered the truth (the features of true teaching) here and there like seeds, so that it could more easily escape the attention of the vain talkers, who are always ready to crow about it like crows. If this essay of mine meets a good farmer, then every seed in it will sprout, and then wheat. 13. Each of the philosophical schools contains some part of the truth There is only one truth, 101, and the deviations from it are countless lies. Like the Bacchae, the philosophical schools, Hellenic and barbarian, tore this Pentheus (truth) into pieces and each boasts of the received part as if it owns the whole truth in it. But with the rising of the Sun 102 everything appears in its true light. All of them, both from the Hellenes and from the barbarians, who sought the truth, in their teachings, some more, others less, contain something of the true teaching, the source of which is the Logos. If the present, past and future are parts of time and if eternity unites them in itself, then it is all the more possible for Truth 103 to gather its own seeds together, even if they fall on alien soil. And indeed, in the teachings contained in various philosophical schools - it goes without saying, with the exception of completely extravagant ones, which, like the ancient wives who tore their husbands into pieces, tearing apart the order and reason of nature 104, completely renounced Christ (truth), - although they disagree with each other, one can discover many who agree in the main and in general provisions with the true teaching; each of them belongs to the whole or as a part or as a species or as a genus. In musical instruments, the highest string is the opposite of the lowest, and yet both form one harmony. In the same way, even in numbers is different from odd, and yet arithmetic speaks of both. In the same way, geometry speaks of a circle, triangle, quadrangle, although they are not similar in shape to each other. There is an even greater mutual difference between the parts of the universe, and yet they have in common that they are connected and related to the whole 105. The same can be said about barbarian and Hellenic philosophy. They contain passages of eternal truth, only they received them not from the mythology of Bacchus, but from the theology of the eternal Logos 106. Understand therefore that whoever unites all these scattered parts will, without being in danger of falling into error, will contemplate the perfect truth, the Logos. That is why it is written in Ecclesiastes: I have acquired wisdom more than all that were before me in Jerusalem, and my heart (soul) knew many things; I had wisdom and knowledge; besides everything, he knew parables and (various) sciences. And I realized that all this is the will of the Spirit (Divine) and that the depth of knowledge is determined by the abundance of wisdom (Eccl. 1:16-18). Only the one who possesses diverse wisdom is the only one who is truly a reasonable person (Gnostic). And therefore it is also written: Wide acquaintance with wisdom will revive those who delve into it (Eccl. 7:18, Glor.). What has been said is even more clearly confirmed by the following saying of Scripture: All things are clear to those who understand (Proverbs 8:9). And by this we mean everything Hellenic and barbarian, although neither Hellenic science nor barbarian science yet embraces everything. All this is simple (and true) only for those who want to bring feeling into everything (to penetrate everything with searching attention) (Proverbs 8:9). Choose doctrine over silver and knowledge more refined than gold (Prov. 8:10). But prefer this observation to pure gold (Proverbs 3:14, 15). Wisdom is better than precious stones. Nothing precious can compare with it (Prov. 8:11). 14. A number of Greek philosophers. The Hellenes claim that after Orpheus, Linus and the most ancient contemporary poets, the first in their amazing wisdom were the so-called seven sages. Four of them were from Asia, namely Thales from Miletus, Vias from Priene, Pittacus from Mytilene and Cleobulus from Lindus. Two were Europeans by origin, Solon from Athens and Chilon from Lacedaemon. Some call the seventh Periander from Corinth, others Anaxarchus of Scythia, others Epimenides with Fr. Krita. The latter is called a Hellenic prophet by the Apostle Paul, speaking about him in his letter to Titus as follows: Of them themselves, one prophet said about them like this: The Cretans are always liars, evil beasts, lazy in their bellies. This testimony is true (Tit. 1:12, 13). You see how the Apostle assimilates some part of the truth to the Hellenic prophets. And for the edification of some, and for bringing others to their senses (1 Cop. 15:34), he is not ashamed to use Hellenic poems in reasoning. Because the example given is not the only one. Discussing in his letter to the Corinthians about the resurrection of the dead, he introduces into his speech the following tragic iambic 107: What good will it do me if the dead are not raised? We will eat and drink, because we will die in the morning. Don't flatter yourself. Bad communities spoil good morals (1 Cor. 15:32, 33). Some count Akuzilaus the Argive among the seven wise men, others Pherecydes the Syrian. Plato 108, considering Periander unworthy to bear the name of a sage, because he was a tyrant, instead ranks Muson of Hen among them. A little lower we will show that these Hellenic sages lived long after Moses. Now let us turn to their philosophy and show that it was distinguished by some mystery and was borrowed from the Jews. So, first of all, they try to be brief, since a short form is the most convenient for conveying rules and instructions through it. Plato reports that in ancient times all Hellenes, and especially the Lacedaemonians and Cretans, 109 were distinguished by this brevity, among whom the best laws were generally developed. So, the saying: “Know thyself” is attributed by some to Chilop. Chamaileon, in his book “On the Gods,” attributes it to Thales, and Aristotle to the Pythia. It is possible that this saying was generally meant to encourage us to strive for wisdom. It is impossible to know a part if you do not know the essence of the whole. In the same way, to understand human nature one must first penetrate the mystery of the creation of the world. Chilo the Lacedaemonian is credited with this saying: “Nothing too much.” But Strato, in his book “On Inventions,” attributes it to Stratodemus from Tegea, and Didymus thinks that it came from Solon. He also attributes this saying to Cleobulus: “The best thing in everything is measure.” And about the saying: “Vouch for someone and expect harm to yourself,” Cleomenes in his book “On Hesiod” says that it first came from the mouth of Homer, for he has a verse: It's a bad thing to vouch for a bad person Aristotle's followers attribute this saying to Chilo. Didymus says that this warning came from Thales. The following saying: “All people are evil” or: “Most people are evil,” for this saying is conveyed in two ways, is attributed to Sotad the Byzantine to Vias. And the saying: “Through diligence conquers everything” is learned by Periander, “Take advantage of the opportunity,” Pittacus learns this saying. Solon was the legislator of the Athenians, and Pittacus of Mytilene. And finally, Pythagoras, a friend of Pherecydes, is the first to call himself a philosopher. From the named men now come three philosophical schools; and they got their name from the places where they flourished. The Italian school was founded by Pythagoras, the Ionian by Thales and the Eleatic by Xenophanes. According to Hippobot, Pythagoras was the son of Mnesarchus and Fr. Samosa. But Aristoxenus in his “Biography of Pythagoras” and Aristarchus and Theopompus claim that he comes from Etruria. A Neant shows that he came from Syria or Tyre, so that if we follow the majority of voices, then Pythagoras was a barbarian by birth. But Thales, as Leander and Herodotus testify, was a Phoenician, and according to others he came from Miletus. He, it seems, was the only philosopher who listened only to the teachings of the Egyptian sages; history does not report that he, as well as Pherecydes the Syrian, whose student was Pythagoras, studied with anyone else. As for this Italian school, its last followers were the inhabitants of Metapontum, where it grew old along with Pythagoras. Thales's successor was Anaximander, the son of Proxidamus of Miletus. He was followed by Anaximenes, son of Eurustratus from Miletus. Next came Anaxagoras, son of Hegesibulus, a native of Klazomen. This Ionian school was transplanted to Athens. His successor was Archelaus, the teacher of Socrates. But this last one, who was a stonemason, a great preacher of justice who fascinated the Hellenes, left his teacher, says Timon in his Sillas. Indeed, Socrates lagged behind the physicists for morality. A listener of Socrates, Antisthenes, founded the Cynic School, and Plato separated into the Academy. Aristotle, who listened to philosophy from Plato, went to the Lyceum and founded the Peripatetic school. His successor was Theophrastus, and this Strato, and then Lucon, then Critolaus, then Diodorus. Plato's successor was Speusippus, this one Xenocrates, then Polemon. Polemon's listeners were Crates and Krantor, with whom the ancient Academy died out. Crantor had Arkesilaus as a student, from whom even before Hegesilaus the secondary Academy flourished. Hegesilaus was succeeded by Carneades and others later. Crates (the Theban) had a student, Zeno the Kittian; he was the founder of the Stoic school. This successor was Xeanthes, and Cleanthes Chrysippus and those who followed. The founder of the Eleatic school was Xenophanes the Colophonian. Timaeus claims that he lived during the time of the Sicilian tyrant Hiero, and that he was a contemporary of the poet Epicharmus. But Apollodorus claims that he was born in the 40th Olympiad and lived until the time of Cyrus and Darius. Xenophanes had Parmenides as his listener, and this one had Zeno. Next come Leucippus and Democritus. The listeners of Democritus were Protagoras from Abdera and Metrodorus from Chios. Metropolitan's listener was Diogenes the Smyrna, and Diogenes was Anaxarchus, and Anaxarchus was Purron, and Purron was Nausiphanes. Epicurus, according to some, was a disciple of this. This, in brief, is the sequence of the Greek philosophers. It remains now to show exactly when the founders of these schools lived, and then from a comparison of chronological data it will be revealed that Jewish philosophy is many generations older than them. This has already been said about Xenophanes, the founder of the Eleatic school. And Thales, according to Eudemus in his “History of Astrology,” predicted the very solar eclipse that occurred on the day of the battle of the Medes with the Lydians. Cyaxares, the father of Astyages, was then king of the Medes, and Aluattes, the father of Croesus, reigned over the Lydiids. At the head of the writers who agree with Eudemus on this point is Herodotus with his testimony in the 1st book of his History. The timing of this eclipse falls around the 50th Olympiad. It is said that Pythagoras lived during the reign of the tyrant Polycrates, around the 62nd Olympiad. History shows that Mnesiphilus, the teacher of Themistocles, was a rival of Solon. A Solon lived around the 46th Olympiad. As for Heraclitus, son of Bavson, he convinced the tyrant Melankoma to renounce his power. Another date: Heraclitus refused the invitation of King Darius to move to Persia. 15. Most of Hellenic philosophy is of foreign origin So, the time in which the most ancient of the Hellenic sages and philosophers lived is relatively late. And that most of them were foreigners by origin and learned from foreigners, is it necessary to talk about this? That Pythagoras came from Etruria or Turium has already been shown; Antisthenes was a Phrygian, Orpheus was an Audrusian or Thracian. Most of the evidence about Homer boils down to the fact that he was an Egyptian. It is said about Thales that he was from the Phoenicians and had close ties with the Egyptian priests. It is also known about Pythagoras that he maintained relations with them and that, studying the mysterious philosophy of the Egyptians and wanting to be initiated into the deepest secrets of the teachings of the priests, he accepted circumcision from them. And he visited the most noble of the Chaldeans and magicians; and just as the place of our meetings is now called the church, so in the time of Pythagoras the place of general hearing was called among them ὁμαϰοεῖον. Plato does not deny that he borrowed all the most beautiful things in his philosophy from foreigners. He admits that he traveled to Egypt; therefore, in the Phaedo, arguing that a philosopher can gather useful things for himself from everywhere, he writes the following: “Hellas is great, Cevis,” answered Socrates; it contains people of various talents; and there are many barbarian tribes.” Thus, Plato admits that barbarians also have their philosophers. On the contrary, Epicurus believes that only among the Hellenes could philosophy arise and flourish. But Plato in his “Symlosyne” (Symposium), praising the barbarians for diligently engaged in philosophy, says that there were such philosophers (not only in Athens, but) also in other countries - among the Hellenes and among the barbarians - and that many churches were erected for them for the children (generated by their frequent and ethereal thoughts). It is clear, then, that the barbarians constantly surrounded their legislators and teachers with the greatest honors: they called them gods. They thought, as Plato reports, that “virtuous souls, leaving the regions above heaven, descend to earth, to this Tartarus, and here, having put on a body, they take part together with people in all the disasters of this earthly life, having the task of taking care of the destinies of people from the time of their birth” 110; and they actually decreed laws and taught philosophy, “this greatest of all blessings that have ever been sent down from the gods to the human race and will still be sent” 111. And it seems to me that it was precisely by understanding the great significance of the good, of which they became participants through following the sages, that the Brahmins, Audrusians and Getae revered them and publicly proclaimed their wisdom. For the same reason, the Egyptian nation was especially zealous in elevating them to the same level as gods. It was the same with the Chaldeans, with the Arabs called happy, with all the peoples who inhabited Palestine, with most of the Persian people and with thousands of other peoples. The same Plato constantly very clearly testifies to his respect for the barbarians, remembering that both he himself and Pythagoras borrowed most of the most beautiful and sublime of their teachings into their philosophy from the barbarians. That is why he calls these peoples “peoples of foreign philosophers.” From his “Phaedrus” it is revealed that he knew a certain wisest Egyptian king, Thoth, and imagined him as something like Hermes. But from what he says in Charmides, it is revealed that he also knew some Thracians, of whom he says that they believed in the immortality of the soul. They say that Pythagoras’s teacher was Sonchis, the head of all the Egyptian priests, and Plato’s was the Heliopolitan Senkhuthis; Eudoxa the Knidian is Honufis, also an Egyptian. In the conversation “On the Soul” 112 Plato again turns out to recognize prophecies. for he introduces a prophet into the conversation, who, explaining the speech of Laches, predicts something for the souls destined by fate to descend to earth. In Timaeus he depicts the sage Solon receiving instructions from a stranger. The real words of his testimony are: “O Solon, Solon and the rest of the Hellenes! You are still children. There is not a single Greek elder among you, since there is no teaching among you that would become respectable over time.” Democritus wrote an essay “On the Morals of the Babylonians.” It is also said that among his writings there was also an interpretation of the hieroglyphs inscribed on the Atsikara column. One can believe this based on his own testimony. Here is what he writes about himself and how proud he is of his extensive learning: “Of all my contemporaries, I have traveled the largest number of countries, visiting the most ancient peoples in order to study their legends. I saw very many spheres of the air and earth, listened to the speeches of very many learned people. No one can compare with me in the art of establishing strongholds (finding evidence) and solving various problems, not even one of the Egyptians, called Arpedonaptes 113. As a guest for eighty years I treated all these sages.” Indeed, he traveled around Babylonia, Persia and Egypt and became a student of magicians and priests. Pythagoras was inspired by the philosophy of the Persian magician Zoroaster. Those who share the false teaching of Prodicus 114 boast that they own the apocryphal books of this magician. Alexander, in his essay “On Pythagorean Symbols,” says that Pythagoras was a student of the Assyrian Nazareth. Some think it is Ezekiel; but we will prove later that this opinion is erroneous. Alexander also claims that Pythagoras listened to the Galatians and the Brahmins. Clearchus the Peripatetic says that he knew a certain Jew who had relations and talked with Aristotle. Heraclitus claims that the sayings of the Sibylla were not the product of the human mind, but rather were a Divine suggestion 115. They also say that in the meeting room at Delphi they showed a stone that, according to legend, served as the seat of the first Sibylla, who descended from Helicon, where she was raised by the Muses 116. Some say that she came from Malia and was the daughter of Lamia Poseidon. In one of his poems, Serapion says that Sibylla did not stop predicting even after death, and that it was her spirit, which left her at death, that constitutes the divinatory ability of augurs and soothsayers; her body, having turned into earth, grew (prophetic) grass; That is why, from the entrails of animals that grazed the grass in this place, people can completely discover the future. He finally thinks that the face represented by the moon is the soul of this Sibylla. This is what ancient legends tell us about her. Numa, king of Rome, was a Pythagorean 117. Based on the books of Moses, he forbade the Romans to depict God in the form of a man or other living creature. For the next 170 years, there were indeed no statues or paintings in Roman churches. By his order, Numa inspired his subjects that only with the mind can they soar to the Supreme Being. So, philosophy, this most useful science, once flourished among the barbarians. Later it penetrated into Hellas. In Egypt, its carriers were soothsayers, in Assyria - the Chaldeans, in Gaul - the Druids, in Bactria - the Sabaneans, among the Celts - philosophers, in Persia - the Magi. These latter announced the birth of the Savior before it became known (from other sources) and arrived in Jerusalem, following the star. In India, its representatives were the gymnosophists and other foreign philosophers. But the family of these philosophers is twofold. Some of them are called Sarmane, others Brahmins. And from Sarman those who are called Allobia 118 neither live in cities nor have shelter, they dress in tree bark, eat acorns and tree fruits, and drink water with their hands. They do not know either marriage or childbirth, like the current so-called Epkratites. Of the Hindus, some follow the commandments of the Buddha, who is given Divine honors for his excellent virtue. Anacharsis was also a Scythian, and yet historians place him higher than many Greek philosophers. Hellanicus tells us about the Hyperboreans that they live beyond the Ripaean mountains, are brought up in justice, do not eat meat, and feed only on vegetation and fruits. They take sixty-year-olds out of the gate and thus exclude them from their environment 119. The Germans also have so-called sacred wives, who divine by looking into the whirlpools of rivers, observing their meanders, listening to the sound of the waves: by what they see and hear, they predict the future. They did not allow the Germans and Caesar to enter into battle before the new moon. But the Jewish people are much older than all these; and the Pythagorean Philo proves by numerous examples that the philosophy contained in the commandments set forth in their Scriptures began before the Hellenic. Aristobulus 120 and many others also prove; I just don’t want to dwell on listing them by name. The writer Megasthenes, a contemporary of Seleucus Nicator, in the 3rd book of his work “On the Hindus” writes the following about them: “Everything said by the ancients about nature had already been previously expressed by non-Hellenic philosophers, namely: partly in India by the Brahmins, partly in Syria by the so-called Jews.” Some of the historians convey such fabulous stories that of the so-called Dactyls the Ideans were the first sages. These ancient Dactyls are credited with the invention of the letters called Ephesus 121 and musical rhythm; It is from them that the dactylic meter in music allegedly got its name. And these Dactyls were Phrygians and barbarians. Herodorus tells that the famous Hercules was a fortuneteller, that he consulted among nature and from Atlas, a Phrygian and barbarian, he learned the idea of ​​​​the pillars of the world. This myth says that Hercules studied the science of celestial phenomena from Atlas. Hermippus from Beirut calls the Centauri Cyron wise, about whom the author of the Titanomachy says: “He was the first to introduce justice into the race of mortal people, teaching them Oath formulas, ceremonies, propitiatory sacrifices and images of Olympus." He was the mentor of Achilles who fought at Troy. Hippo, the daughter of a Centauri, having married Aeolus, disposed him to the consideration of nature, the science she learned from her father. Euripides also testifies about Hippo: “She was the first to predict the will of the gods By special divinatory ability or by asking the rising of the stars 122. Odysseus, after taking Troy, enjoyed the hospitality of this Aeolus. Note carefully the chronological data to compare the time of Moses with the era of the most ancient philosophy. 16. In addition to philosophy, the barbarians were the inventors of almost all other sciences and arts But not only philosophy, but almost all other sciences and arts were invented by barbarians 123. Thus, the science of astrology was first given birth to by the Egyptians. Likewise, one of its first innovators were the Chaldeans. And the method of illumination through lamps (Matthew 5:15) was first introduced by the Egyptians 124. They divided the year into 12 months. And relations with women in churches were prohibited for them. But even for those who hugged their spouses at home, before going to the churches, they were required to have a preliminary ablution. The Egyptians were also inventors of geometry. Some learned the discovery of the art of predicting the future through the observation of celestial bodies to the Carians. The Phrygians were the first to take a closer look at the flight of birds. The Etrurians and other peoples of Italy perfectly developed the art of divination from the entrails of animals. The Isaurians and Arabs developed the art of divination by the flight of birds. The Telmisians predicted the future through the interpretation of dreams. The Etruscans invented the trumpet, and the Phrygians invented the flute, because Olyumpus and Marsui were Phrygians. Cadmus, the inventor of writing for the Hellenes, was, according to the testimony of Ephor, a Phoenician. And this is why Herodotus (Y, 58) writes that the Hellenic alphabet is composed of Phoenician letters. According to others, the first inventors of letters were the Phoenicians and Syrians. Apis, an Egyptian by origin, discovered the art of medicine even before the arrival of the nymph Io in Egypt. Subsequently, this art was improved by Aesculapius. Atlas the Libyan built the first ship and was the first to sail the sea on it. Kelmis and Damnameney, from Idean Daktili, were the first to discover iron on the island of Cyprus. And another Ideaniin discovered the art of forging and using it. And according to Hesiod, he was a Scythian. The Thracians were the first to invent a weapon called the harpy; this is a curved sword. They were the first to use the so-called pelta (a shield shaped like a crescent) while sitting on horses. But in the same way they consider him and the Illyrians to be inventors. They also say that plastic art was invented by the Etrurians and that the long oblong quadrangular shield was first made by the Samnite Ethan. Cadmus the Phoenician discovered the first quarries and the first gold mines near Mount Pankea. We owe to another people, namely the Cappadocians, the invention of a musical instrument called (1 Chronicles 15:16, 29 according to the Seventy) nabla. The Assyrians were the first to invent dichordon. The Carthaginians built the first four-oared galley. Its architect was the Carthaginian Bosporus, who invented it impromptu. Medea, daughter of Aietes, a Colchian, was the first to invent the art of dyeing hair. The Norops, a people from Paeonia, now the so-called Noriki, were the first to process copper and were the first to refine iron. The king of the Babriks, Amik, was the first to come up with the idea of ​​wrapping belts around your arms in battles. Lydian harmony was first skillfully introduced into the field of music by Olyumpus Mizanin. The so-called Troglodytes invented the musical instrument sambuca (a type of flute). Satyr the Phrygian is said to have invented the crooked field trumpet. Guagnius, also a Phrygian, invented the trichordon and diatonic harmony. Olyumpus the Phrygian indicated ways to play stringed instruments, while Marsui, originating from the same Phrygia, discovered Phrygian, half-Phrygian and half-Lydian harmonies, and the Thracian Famur discovered Doric harmony. We also know that the Persians built the first chariots; They were the first to use beds and footstools; a The Sidonians were the first to build triremes. The Sicilians, a people neighboring Italy, were the first to invent the forminx, which differs little from the zither. They also invented a special rattle like a tambourine. It is believed that the manufacture of clothing from flax began during the reign of the Egyptian (?) Queen Semiramis. Hellanicus says that Atossa, queen of the Persians, was the first to write letters on specially shaped tablets and sheets. A narrative of all these facts can be found in Skamon the Mytilenean, Theophrastus the Eressian, and Kyudippus the Mantinean; in addition, Antiphanes, Aristodemus, Aristotle; also by Philostephan and Peripatetic Strato in his writing “On Inventions”. I have added some of them here to confirm that the barbarians are inventive in everything useful for life and that the Hellenes borrowed much from them in their sciences and arts. If anyone takes up arms against the language of the barbarians, then I will answer him with the word of Anacharsis: “The Greek language is to my ears the same as Scythian to the ears of Hellene.” And this Anacharsis was held in high esteem by the Hellenes for his saying: “Wool is my clothing, milk and cheese are my food” (*). This is barbaric philosophy (virtue): it does not consist in words, but also in deeds. The Apostle says: Therefore, if the language you speak is not understandable, how can you know what you are talking about? Will you speak into the wind. There are so many languages ​​in the world and there is not a single people that does not have a language. If I don’t know the meaning of words in any language, then for the interlocutor I will be a barbarian, and for me he will be the same. And: Whoever wants to speak in a foreign language must use a translator (1 Cop. 14:9, 10, 11, 13). What else should I add to this? The doctrine of writing essays and writing in general penetrated to the Hellenes relatively late. Thus, the first work on natural history was written by the Crotonian Alcmaeon, son of Perithos. Others say that the first to publish a book about this was Anaxagoras the Clazomenian, the son of Hegezibulus. Only Terpander of Antissa was the first to write poems in the form of verses; he translated the laws of the Lacedaemonians into verse. Dithyrambs were invented only by Lassus Hermione; the hymn was invented by Stesichorus Hymeraeus; dance by Lacedaemonian Alcman; erotic poem by Theos Anacreon; dancing to the songs of the Theban Pindar. Timothy the Milesian was the first to translate the laws into sheet music for a zither with choir accompaniment. The iambic was invented by Archilochus of Paros; The Ephesian Hipponax is an incomplete iambic. The Athenian Thespis invented tragedy; comedy Susarion Icarian. Grammarians also determine the era in which these businessmen lived. To present the details of this, however, would require a lot of time. Yes, we have already proven that Bacchus himself, in whose honor the games were established under the name Dionysius, lived much later than Moses. According to Diodorus, the first speech according to the rules of the school was composed by Antiphon, son of Sophilus, born Ramnus; He was the first to write on rhetoric. According to Diodorus, the same Antiphon was the first to demand payment for his advocacy; he was the first to write a defense speech with the purpose of handing it over to the client to deliver. Apollodorus, a native of Qom, was the first to be called a critic; He was also the first to be called a grammarian. Some argue that the first grammarian was Erotosthenes the Cyrene, because he published two books under the title: “Γραμματιϰά.” But the first who was called a grammarian in the sense that this word now has, was the son of Dionysiphanes, Praxiphanes, a native of Mytilene. They say that the first legislator was Zaleucus the Lokrian. Others call such a legislator Minos, the son of Jupiter, a fellow citizen of Lyncea. This one lived after Danaus, namely eleven generations after Inachus and Moses, which we will show a little below. Lycurgus, who lived long after the capture of Troy, gave laws to the Lacedaemonians 150 years before the 1st Olympiad. We have already talked about the era when Solon lived. It also turns out that the Dragon, who was also a legislator, lived around the 39th Olympiad. And Antilochus, the author of a historical work on philosophers and scientists from the time of Pythagoras to the death of Epicurus, which followed on the 10th day of the month of Hamilion, covers a period of time of only 312 years. They also say that the heroic hexameter was invented by Phanothea, the wife of Icarus; others attribute its invention to Femina, one of the daughters of Titan. Didymus, in his essay on Pythagorean philosophy, claims that Theano the Crotonian was the first woman to study philosophy and write poems. Thus, according to some, truth wandered into Hellenic philosophy as if by accident, and even then to an insignificant degree; according to others (and this is not true, but) she is a product of demons. Some people think that all philosophy was instilled in the Hellenes by spirits of a lower order. In our opinion, although Hellenic philosophy does not contain the truth in all its greatness, although it does not provide the strength to fulfill the commandments of the Lord, nevertheless it clears the path leading to the truth, to the acceptance of a truly royal teaching, since to a certain extent it corrects and creates morals; he who believes in Providence is disposed to accept the truth. 17. About the saying of the Savior: “All who came before Me were thieves and robbers” But it is written, they say: All who appeared before the coming of the Lord are thieves and robbers (John 10:8). In this saying, under the name of thieves and robbers, everyone who, before the incarnation of the Logos, proposed any teaching (without God’s calling to it) is understood. The prophets, since they were sent and inspired by the Lord himself, were not thieves, but servants (of God). That is why Scripture says: Wisdom sent her loud heralds, calling for the cup of wine (Proverbs 9:3, 5). But philosophy, they say, did not fulfill the Lord’s order, but entered (into the world) as a thief, or (in other words) communicated by a thief. A certain spiritual principle, or an (evil) angel 125, somewhat familiar with the provisions of the true teaching, but betraying them, began to instill in people these philosophical truths and acquaint them with them, although the demon himself (after the fall) kept them predatory. The Lord knew this, for He already knows the end of things that have not yet been called into existence, but He did not hinder the evil spirit in its work. Retelling these truths alien to the evil spirit still brought people some benefit. The predator did not have this goal in mind, but Providence gave a beneficial direction to the desperately daring deed. I know that many (of the sophists) never cease to humiliate us for such reasoning. They say: “Whoever does not stop someone from doing something is guilty of it.” They argue that “whoever does not watch (does not watch) for a known thing and does not take measures against its theft is himself guilty of stealing it from him. So the culprit of a fire is the one who did not extinguish the fire at the very beginning. Similarly, the culprit of a shipwreck is the helmsman who did not gather the sails on time. But according to the law, the perpetrators of such misfortunes are subject to punishment for this: in whose power it was to prevent the misadventure, he is responsible for it.” We answer them. The reason for a certain course of action must be seen in the power (ability, strength, freedom) to act, act, be active; an activity should be discussed for its positive reason. Also, what did not put barriers or obstacles to a certain course of action, then for this reason it has nothing to do with it. Further, the reason has a relationship with the thing being done (and not with the thing not being done). Thus, the builder of a ship declares himself (in a positive way) by this or that arrangement of the underwater part of the ship (i.e., properties that essentially belong to the ship); and the mason - (in one way or another, positive) the structure of the house, (and not its negative properties). The action is carried out because the force (power, ability) that could prevent its completion did not participate in it and did not interfere with it; because what action does one perform who does not forbid it? Talkativeness here leads our opponents to the point of speaking nonsense, since they have to say that the cause of the wound is not the arrow that inflicted it, but the shield that did not prevent it from penetrating the body; then in court let them bring a complaint not against the thief, but against the one who did not stop the thief from stealing. Likewise, let them blame the burning of ships among the Hellenes not on Hector, but on Achilles, because he could have prevented this, but did not. But if Achilles, since it was in his will either to indulge his anger or to tame it, by not preventing the fire from occurring, thereby made himself responsible for it, then the demon was equally his own master and could either repent 126 or remain a kidnapper; He is therefore responsible for keeping the stolen property, and not the Lord, who did not prevent it. Moreover, there was no incentive for God to keep the demon from his work, because what he brought into the world was harmless to people. If, in relation to my opponents, it is necessary for me to resort to even more refined reasoning, then let them know that the cause of the certain consequences that were accompanied by the retention (by the demon after the fall of some grains of truth) and the dissemination of the stolen (that is, these grains or philosophy) was not the removal (by God) of all hindrances, delays and obstacles to this 127, but a completely different circumstance (the positive providence of God was added to the criminal effect of this cause) about the good of man). So, covering another with a shield is the reason for the shielded person not to be wounded, since by interceding for him he prevents the enemy from inflicting a wound on the protected one. And for Socrates, the demon (δαιμονίον) was the (positive) motive cause of his activity, directly approving certain of his actions, and not that he did not directly prohibit one thing or another, 128 he directly encouraged him to a certain type of activity, and not that he did not dissuade him from it 129. Neither praise nor blame, nor reward nor punishment would be fair if our spirit did not have the power to strive for certain things or if it could not evade them completely freely - if sin were an involuntary matter. That is why he who prevents (evil) in some way can be the culprit of it, but he who does not resist evil does not hinder good. He quite rightly recognizes the soul’s freedom of choice, so that God cannot in any case be considered the culprit of evil. Since sin begins with our free choice, combined with a disposition towards one or another mode of activity, and since sometimes, through ignorance or carelessness, we allow into our soul opinions that are inherently false or deceitful prejudices, by which we are determined in our activities, then, without trying to free ourselves from them, for ignorance or still inexperience, we are rightly subjected to punishment. (And we can free ourselves from ignorance and inexperience). Fever, of course, is an involuntary disease. But if someone causes it through his own excess, then in some respects he himself becomes the cause. For some, in a similar way, sin is involuntary, so i.e. that no one chooses him as evil because he is evil; We all, carried away by the pleasures that surround sin, consider it worthy of our choice because we accept it as good. And if this is so, then it is in our power to free ourselves from ignorance, from any imaginary successful choice, and, first of all, it depends on ourselves not to succumb to the deceptive chimeras that lead us to evil. The demon is called a robber and a thief because he mixed false prophets with true ones, just as tares are mixed with wheat. So it turns out that all those who came before the Lord are thieves and robbers (John 10:8). But the word “all” here should not mean all people, but all false prophets and everyone who did not receive a special calling from the Lord. False prophets also committed a special kind of abduction in that they forced themselves to be called prophets, whereas even if they were prophets, they were the prophets of a liar. The Lord says: The father from whom you were born is the devil, and you want to do the will of your father. He was a murderer from the very beginning and did not stand in the truth, for the truth is not in him. When he presents a lie, he says what is proper to him, for he is a liar and the father of lies (John 8:44). The false prophets mingled with their lies a few words of truth 130 ; and when they predicted, they actually came into a kind of ecstasy, being the messengers of the apostate. The Angel of Repentance, the Shepherd, also spoke to Herma about the false prophet: “He also speaks a few words of truth, for the devil penetrates him with his spirit, wanting to seduce (drop, kill, smite) one of the righteous (Book II, Commandment 10). But in the hands of Providence, everything turns for good, so that the manifold wisdom of God, so amazingly manifested in the variety of God’s works, according to the eternal counsel fulfilled in Christ, is revealed especially in His church (Eph. 3:10, 11). Nothing can resist God, nothing can resist Him: He is Lord, He is omnipotent. The thoughts and deeds of the fallen angels, representing only scattered actions (incoherent, disorderly, inconsistent, having no connection with the work), arise, like bodily illnesses, from their bad inclinations. But Providence also directs these actions towards a salutary goal, although their very cause is pathogenic. And this is why the most remarkable feature of Divine Providence is that it does not allow vice, which arose from self-willed falling away, to remain completely without benefit or to respond only to harm to everyone and everything. In fact, the wisdom, goodness and omnipotence of God are manifested not only in the fact that good flows from them - such is already the essence of God, just as the nature of fire is the heat emanating from it, and the nature of light is light - but also in the fact - and this is even mainly - that they lead to a good and useful end and the disastrous machinations of evil spirits; Apparently, even the harmful is transformed into a bright phenomenon under their influence. So, for example, in temptation and testing, God gives an opportunity for confession. In a similar way, in philosophy, as if stolen from heaven by a second Prometheus, there is contained the fire of some luminous truth; you just have to kindle it with your efforts. There are some traits of wisdom in it, some aspirations, put in by the hand of the Divine. And yet, the Hellenic philosophers were thieves and robbers, because, having borrowed some parts of the truth from the Jewish prophets before the coming of the Savior, they not only do not admit it, but also assimilate them to themselves, as if these were teachings that really belonged to them. Meanwhile, they distorted some of the teachings, others, with their characteristic sophistic dexterity, they touched only in passing, and others were invented by them themselves, because a certain spirit of cleverness was not unusual for the Hellenes (Ex. 28:3; cf. above, Chapter 4). Aristotle agrees with St. Scripture also calls sophistry the art of stealing wisdom; and we have already talked about this saying of him (Compare above in Chapter 8). But we, says the Apostle, proclaim these gifts to you not in the eloquent words of human wisdom, but in those which the Spirit speaks to us (1 Cop. 2:13). John says about the prophets: We have all received from His fullness (John 1:16), i.e. Christ: so prophets are not thieves. And My teaching is not Mine, says the Savior, but the Father who sent Me (John 7:16). About thieves He says: He who speaks for himself seeks his own glory (John 7:18). Such are the Hellenes. They are selfish and arrogant (2 Tim. 3:2). But, calling them sages, the priest. Scripture does not condemn these true sages, but those who only pretend to be sages. 18. Explanation of the words of the Apostle: “I will destroy the wisdom of the wise” And about these latter (i.e., false sages) priest. Scripture says: I will destroy the wisdom of the wise and the learning of the learned (Isa. 29:14; 1 Cop. 1:19). That is why the Apostle adds: What became of the wise men? What about the experts in the law? What about the minds that longed to enrich themselves with all the knowledge of their age? Here he distinguishes experts in the law from inquisitive minds, scouts for the wisdom of this age, i.e. from pagan philosophers. Did not God, the Apostle continues, reveal the folly of the wisdom of this world, showing that it is madness, and not at all the truth, as the world thought about it? And if you ask about the reason that made the Hellenic philosophers consider themselves wise men, then the Apostle calls it the hardening of their hearts (Eph. 4:18). Since, in the light of the wisdom of God, proclaimed by the prophets, and through the wisdom that spoke through the mouth of the wise, the world did not know Him, i.e. God, then He favored the madness of preaching, i.e. preaching, which seemed madness to the Hellenes, to save those who believed it. For faith, says the Apostle, Jews demand miracles, and Greeks seek wisdom, i.e. reasoning with rigorous proofs and other formal conclusions. We preach Jesus Christ crucified, for the Jews it is a temptation, because, believing in the prophecies, they do not believe in their fulfillment, for the Greeks it is madness, for those who consider themselves wise men find it fabulous that the Son of God spoke through the mouth of a man, that God has a Son and that this Son suffered; preconceived opinions prevent them from believing. But the coming of the Savior, who turned out to be obedient to His call, did not make them reckless, hard-hearted, or treacherous, but formed them into reasonable, obedient and honest people. Those who refused to enter into an alliance with these obedient ones and separated from them, in comparison with them, turned out to be reckless, treacherous and short-sighted people. For those who remained faithful to the voice that called them, whether they were Jews or Greeks, Christ is God's power and God's wisdom (1 Cop. 1:21-24). With these words the Apostle clarifies his thought more precisely and on the basis of them it therefore does not follow in his expression: Has not God turned the wisdom of this world into madness to see something negative in relation to it, to think, i.e. that God deliberately turned aside the wise men of this world, plunged them into recklessness, no; By his expression, the Apostle only wants to say that God revealed the folly of worldly learning (detached from Him), so that no one would consider God himself to be the culprit of the hardness of hearts of those who did not believe. The wise men of this world were taught to such an extent that they were able to believe the gospel preaching; if they did not believe her, then they themselves were only all the more responsible for it, because a person’s inclination towards the truth and its choice are completely in his will. In addition, with the expression: I will destroy the wisdom of the wise (Is. 29:4), the Lord deigned to express the thought that He shed true light on it. Having kindled, along with Hellenic philosophy, philosophy among the barbarians 131, even until recently little valued, despised, by this opposition He also did what happens to a lamp burning in the sun: its light is darkened by it, because the power of its brilliance is far lower than that of the sun. And since everyone is called, those who did not refuse to obey the voice that called them are all equally called called (1 Cop. 1:24), because injustice is not characteristic of God (cf. Rom. 9:14). And whether they are Jews or Gentiles, if they believe, then they constitute a special, chosen people (Titus 2:14). In the Acts of the Apostles you will find the expression: Those who received his word were baptized (Acts 2:41); those who did not accept it meant that they themselves separated from the people of God. It is to them that the prophetic word is addressed: If you are willing and obey, you will eat the blessings of the earth (Isa. 1:19). This shows that it is in our power to accept the word of God or reject it. The Apostle called the teaching of the Lord the wisdom of God, thereby showing us that true wisdom was transmitted to us by the Son of God. And for those who count themselves among the wise, in the messages of the same Apostle there are reminders to put on the new man, created in the likeness of God in the righteousness and holiness of the true teaching (Eph. 4:24). Therefore, having rejected the false teaching, the Apostle adds, confess the true teaching. Don't give room to the devil. Whoever stole, do not steal from now on, but rather work, doing useful things - (and to seek the truth, this after all means to engage in good and useful work, for this seeking of truth is the same charity, only instead of substance, the means for it is the word), - so that you can give something to the needy (Eph. 4:25, 27, 28), i.e. in order to be able to reveal to those in need and seeking to improve their situation both the spiritual riches of this world, as well as the abundance of wisdom and Divine wisdom. Having commanded to engage in useful things, the Apostle wants the true teaching to be studied only through a comparative test of its merits, just as silver is first carefully cleaned in a crucible, and only then is it given to the money changers for increase in interest (Matthew 25:27; cf. Strom. 1 at the end of Chapter 28). That's why he adds: Let no corrupt word come out of your mouth (Eph. 4:29); and these are precisely (i.e. rotten, disgusting) words (teachings) arising from man’s conceit. On the contrary, let whatever you say be nourished by faith and grace given to those who hear (Eph. 4:29). Since God is good, it is necessary that His word be good and true. But how can these words not be trustworthy if they are saving for a person? 19. Evidence that philosophers understood the true teaching in some parts of it So, (in Holy Scripture) there is clear evidence that some of the teachings of the Hellenes agree with the truth. It is possible in this, for example. make sure from the following. The book of the Acts of the Apostles contains a speech spoken by Paul in the Areopagus. In it, among other things, he said the following: “I am clearly convinced that you are pious people, for having gone out and examined your entire city with objects of your worship, I also found an altar on which it is written: “To the Invisible God.” It is this God, whom you do not know, and yet devoutly honor, that I preach to you. God, who created the world and everything in it, being the Lord of heaven and earth, does not live in churches created by the hand of man and cannot be sufficiently honored by any expressions of subordination from mortals, because He does not need anything, He who gives life, breath and everything to everything. From one man He produced the entire human race, settling it over the entire face of the earth, assigning certain times (their historical life) and boundaries to their places of residence, so that they would seek God and try to come into contact with Him or find Him, although He is not far from each of us, for in Him we live, and move and exist, just as some of your poets say: With these words, the Apostle clearly reveals that he recognizes many provisions in the teaching of Hellenic philosophers as solid; this is eg. the above statement, taken by him from “Heavenly Phenomena,” the poetic creation of Arat. The Apostle, in the above passage of his speech, also made it clear that under the name of the “Unknown God” the Greeks revered the Creator of the universe; but the veneration of Him was not knowledge, but only the touching of Him, contact with Him, touching Him; the Son had intelligible knowledge of Him to impart to them; They got it from Hero. For this, the Lord tells him, I sent you to the pagans, so that you would open their eyes and bring them out of darkness to the retinue; having freed them from the power of Satan, he brought them to God, so that through faith in Me they would receive forgiveness of sins and a share in the inheritance of the saints (Acts 26:17, 18). So, Greeks, these are the blind whose eyes had to be opened (Jn. 9:30), so that in the person of the Son they might know the Father; This is the true meaning of the expression “To the Unknown God”: it reflected the feeling of God by the Hellenes, the sense of Him with their lower feelings, but not with sight and through the higher powers of the soul with comprehension. Liberation from the power of Satan and turning to God is identical with liberation from sin, which gave rise to slavery. That is why we do not recognize every philosophy as true without further examination of the matter, but only that one about which Socrates speaks in Plato: “According to the proverb that circulates among initiates in the mysteries: “There are many bearers of philosophies, but there are few Bacchus”; an expression with which the Savior’s saying can be compared: Many are called, but few are chosen (Matt. 20:16; 22:14). That is why Socrates continues further in expressions that are no longer mutual: “The Bacchus, in my opinion, are nothing other than philosophers who were able to follow the true path in their philosophy. In order to be among them, as much as I could, I did not leave anything in life, but I did everything for this. Whether my aspirations were based on a good start and proper direction and whether they were accompanied by any success, God willing, we will find out soon, as soon as we reach the pier.” Isn’t it true that Socrates is here in expressions consistent with the spirit of the Jewish priests. Scripture expresses the hope of what kind of faith pervades the righteous and which must find its fulfillment after death? Further in Demodocus, if only Plato owns this creation 132, the same Socrates says: “Do not think that I call a philosopher a person who spends his life hunched over the study of various arts (such as cunning rhetoric) or any of the other learned people. I call such a person by a completely different name, considering this kind of fruitless pursuit to be far from irreproachable.” 133 Socrates undoubtedly knew the opinion of Heraclitus on this matter, who said that “extensive learning does not teach intelligence” 134. In the 5th book of his work “On the State” we encounter, among other things, the following passage in one conversation: “All these and similar people who greedily devote themselves to this kind of learned (detached from life) pursuits, as well as laboring over the study of the arts (especially rhetoric), shall we really call philosophical philosophers? “Not at all,” I answered; otherwise we’ll just say that they only look like philosophers. “But,” he objected, who are the true philosophers? “Contemplatives of truth,” I answered.” Philosophy is not encompassed by geometry, which is composed of postulates and hypotheses. Nevertheless, it is encompassed only by fortune-telling and musical arts (in the proper sense, music, poetry, singing, dancing, drama and others, although they decorate and ennoble life); - nor astronomy (observation of the celestial and aerial phenomena of nature), a science fraught with evidence, but based on the observation of physical objects and phenomena, therefore transient, and on probabilities. Philosophy is established on the understanding of the essence of good and truth, because good in its essence is another matter, and the path leading to it is another matter (and the above-mentioned knowledge and arts are precisely only the paths and means to good and truth). That is why Socrates is not satisfied with the so-called “circle (course) of sciences,” considering it insufficient for compiling knowledge of good. In his opinion, the only consequence that can be derived from practicing them is that they awaken the mind and exercise it, accustoming it to deal with things that are comprehended only by thought. But they say that the Hellenes accidentally attacked some of the provisions of true philosophy. Let's put it this way; but chance is also one of the actions of Divine providence. And let no one mock us arrogantly, as if with the Epicureans we consider chance to be God. If the Hellenes attacked the truth under the influence of a happy coincidence of circumstances, then this too, we affirm, is not outside of Providence. If anyone argues that in this case, the Hellenes were inspired with their ideas by their very spiritual nature, that they were innate to them, then we contrast this with the position that (of both natures, both spiritual and visible), there is one Creator; That’s why we argued earlier (compare chapters 7, 11 and others) that righteousness should be a natural phenomenon. If the Hellenes were endowed, on an equal basis with all other people, with reason characteristic of other nations, then let us consider who was the culprit of it and what kind of justice governed the distribution of this characteristic among people. Because if someone called this mind the ability to predict future events or the art of interpreting the meaning of present ones, then by this he would indicate the types of prophecy. There is no doubt that some rays of truth reached the mental eye of philosophers through their superficial reflection in it. That is why the Divine Apostle says about us: We now see God only as if in a dim mirror (1 Cor. 13:12); those. Trying to cognize the reflection of the image of God in us, as far as possible, we at the same time contemplate the reason for this, which produces it in us. For, says the priest. Scripture, “he who saw his brother saw God also” 135. In my understanding, the present saying under the name of God tells us about the Savior. Subsequently, having thrown off this earthly shell, as long as we are pure in heart (Matthew 5:8), we will see God face to face (1 Cop. 13:12) and then finally the understanding of the essence of God will be fully and perfectly explained to us and will be brought closer to our understanding. And among the Hellenes, those who showed the greatest zeal in the study of philosophy and discovered a correct understanding of its essence, penetrated into the idea of ​​​​the Divine and comprehended it in the same way as one must comprehend something through the reflection of something in our eye or in an optical instrument. Such is an indispensable consequence of our weakness that we can understand the images in which God himself reveals his true being to us only to the extent that our mental eye is capable of understanding them; but this ability does not go further than the contemplation of those objects in the form in which they are reflected in water or in which they appear to us through the transparent body separating us from them. What Solomon says fits here very well. And he says: He who sows righteousness exercises faith (Prov. 11:21). There are people who scatter their treasures, and yet thereby multiply them (Proverbs 11:24). He says further: Take care of the shoots of the field and you will mow the grass (Proverbs 27:25). Then: Harvest the hay on time so that you have food for the sheep that clothe you (Prov. 27:25, 26). You see that you should take equal care of both the clothes and the funds that contributed (to purchase them). Become thoroughly familiar with the living conditions of your flock (Proverbs 27:23). In fact, if the pagans, who do not have the law, naturally perform the works commanded by the law, then they personify the law in their person (Rom. 2:14), i.e. if, according to the Apostle, the uncircumcised kept the commandments of the law (Rom. 2:26) before the law was communicated to them, then it means they kept them before the coming of Christ 136. The Logos, as if equating philosophers with so-called heretics, says: Better is a friend who is close (a pagan, but prepared by his science to accept the true teaching) than a brother who is far away (a Christian, but a heretic) (Proverbs 27:10). He who builds on a lie scatters the wind and chases after winged birds (Prov. 9:12). In my opinion, the Logos is not talking about philosophy here - although it is philosophers who often try to prove probable things with arguments that are also only probable - but condemns heresies. That is why He adds: He left his vineyard out of the way and went to wander in the furrows of his field (Prov. 9:12). Such are the societies of heretics that from the very beginning of the church began to separate from it. Whoever has once fallen into the snare of heresy is as if he had walked through a waterless desert (Proverbs 9:12). Having abandoned the true God, he himself is abandoned by Him; he seeks water where there is none, walks through desert and barren soil, and his hands reap only emptiness (Prov. 11:12). And turning further to the madmen, i.e. to heretics (Proverbs 9:16), Wisdom says: Hidden bread is acceptable and stolen water is sweet (Proverbs 9:17). It is clear that under the bread and water stolen from the holy. Scripture clearly states that heretics use bread and water during sacrifice, contrary to the rules of the church. There are also heretics who use only water during the sacrament of the Eucharist 137. Priest Scripture adds: Run quickly and do not stay long in the place where this woman stopped (Prov. 4:18). Not about the church, but about the synagogue of heretical priests. Scripture understands this word to be mutual. And then St. Scripture exclaims: For by doing this, you will pass through strange water (Prov. 6:18); those. priest Scripture looks at the water of heretical baptism as unclean (not corresponding to the holiness of the house of God) and illegal (alien to it). And you will cross, it says, an alien river, by the flow of which those who turn away from the teachings of the true, one and unshakable, are carried away and plunged, along with the pagans, into the abyss of changeable and disorderly human opinions, an abyss that spins its waters, knocks them out and absorbs them again at the boundary between the ebb and flow of the tide. 20. The boundaries within which philosophy contributes to the understanding and acceptance of the true, Divine teachings Just as about an artel consisting of several people and pulling a ship, it cannot be said that this partnership is a combination of several causes, but only one, but composed of several parts included in it, because each of these artel members, taken separately from the others, does not constitute the cause of the movement of the ship, but consists of such only in connection with assistants: in the same way, philosophy, consisting of a desire for truth, its search, investigation, promotes comprehension true teaching, but it does not yet represent the reason for this comprehension and consists only of such in connection with the other circumstances of the matter; it remains only an auxiliary cause, although it can also be a contributing cause. In exactly the same way, there is one bliss, but it is created by several virtues. Likewise, if someone warms up, this is due to various reasons: the sun, fire, bath and clothing. In the same way, there is only one true teaching, but many things contribute to the search, investigation and embrace of its truth; although without the help (grace) of the Son, the acquisition of truth is still impossible. In the same way, if we discuss more carefully, we will find that virtue represents a certain spiritual authority; but sometimes this power manifests itself in actions in one way, sometimes in another; depending on the form of its discovery, it is sometimes called prudence; in another case it is expressed by moderation, and sometimes also by spiritual greatness and justice. Likewise, truth is one; but this does not prevent the existence of geometric truth in geometry, musical truth in the musical arts, and among the Hellenes it finds expression in sound philosophy. And yet the truth in its own sense, the one and only truth in all its completeness and perfection incomprehensible, is that which we learn in the person of the Son of God. They talk about the same drachma, but as payment to the owner of the ship for transporting goods they call it freight; if they give it to the tax collector - tax, tribute, duty; if they pay her for shelter to the owner of the inn - in rent; if it is given to the teacher - with a reward; if they give it to a merchant - as a deposit. In the same way, each particular virtue, as well as each particular truth, although they bear these generic names of virtue and truth, they still have something special in themselves and unique in their kind, which serves as their basis. And yet, the way of life that makes us blessed is made up of the combination of particular virtues in the general ideal of a virtuous person, for a blessed life does not consist in the waste of various beautiful words and expressions, but we call the right life blessed, and blessed are those whose soul is adorned with virtues. Although philosophy, in the search, investigation and embrace of true teaching, helps us only from afar - and it really helps us in this, since its paths, although different, all of them lead to knowledge that we contain and brings us closer to the truth than anything else - nevertheless, this distant help is useful to those who strive to rise to true knowledge, even if they strive for it with the garb of the Logos. And yet the teachings of the Hellenes, even if they are true, even if they are called by names identical to those used by us, still significantly deviate from our contents; and the objects of our teachings are more important, and our proofs are more accurate, and their effectiveness is characteristic of Divine; The true teachings we contain differ in other similar properties; for we have been taught by God himself (1 Thessalonians 4:9), having received these truly sacred Scriptures 138 from the Son of God. Hence it happens that the Hellenes develop souls differently than we do. Their educational method and teaching are completely different. If, because of our ill-wishers, who catch us at every word, it is necessary for us to more precisely define what we mean by philosophy, when, as a search, investigation and embrace of truth, we call it a reason auxiliary and promoting the understanding of the teaching of the true, then we admit that for the Gnostic (the contemplator and embodiment in his life of the highest and perfect truth) it is a preparatory teaching. And yet we do not consider only a contributing cause to be a true cause in the proper sense; We do not consider a merely auxiliary cause to be conditioning and to contain within itself its own effect. That is why the study of philosophy is not necessarily accompanied by the search for truth; it is not a conditio sine qua non. In fact, almost all of us received our knowledge of God through faith, without completing a full course of study, remaining unfamiliar with philosophy, some without even knowing how to read and write, but being enlightened by the light of only Divine philosophy, the so-called barbarian; we are taught in power (Rom. 1:4; 1 Thess. 1:5) by Wisdom herself, who created all things from herself. That which, due to its imperfection, cannot act on its own, but needs help from another, we call a secondary and contributing cause. It becomes a cause only when combined with another cause; independently, only by acting on its own, it is not able to manifest itself, its action, to realize itself in practice (realize itself). Although philosophy in itself sometimes justified the Hellenes (cf. above at the beginning of Chapter 5), it did not provide them with complete and universal justification; she only assisted him, led to him, just as the first and second staircase are the path to penetrate into the upper floor of the house. Philosophy was useful for this in the same way that grammar is useful to someone who wants to study philosophy. But this does not mean that by taking it away, (this ladder), the Logos operating in the universe will lack anything, or that with the taking away of philosophy, the true teaching will fall. Sight, hearing and voice contribute to the achievement of truth, but it is no less true that the mind, by the special advantage of its nature, knows the truth. The reasons are always more or less valid and secondary. The elaboration of the style contributes to the clear transmission of true teachings: dialectics to the victorious refutation of hostile attacks on us by heresies. And yet the teaching of the Savior, being God's power and God's wisdom (1 Cop. 1:24), produces its effect entirely by its own properties and does not need any other help; and if you add philosophy to it, it will not become more effective. But since philosophy weakens all the attacks of the sophists, since it removes from the path the deceptive nets that are laid for the truth, we called it a fence and a wall surrounding the vineyard (Matthew 21:33; Isaiah 5:1, 2). True teaching, assimilated by faith, is as necessary for our spiritual life as bread is necessary for our physical life. As for the preparatory teaching, it is like an appetizer or a dessert. “At the end of dinner, says the Theban poet Pindar, dessert is a pleasant thing” 139. Priest Scripture says: A simple man, by listening to Me, will become wise, and a wise man will gain knowledge (Prov. 21:11). He who speaks from himself, said the Savior, seeks his own glory, but he who seeks the glory of Him who sent Him is true and there is no unrighteousness in him (John 7:18). This means that someone who borrows philosophical teachings from the barbarians and then boasts about them, as if it were his personal property, does not remain truthful; dressing up in the clothes of truth, he tries to increase only his own glory and lies about the truth. Those who act like this are holy. Scripture calls them thieves. It says: “My son, do not be a liar, for lying leads to theft”; Meanwhile, what is stolen by a thief, whether it be gold or silver, a literary work or teaching, remains as pure and true as before the theft. That is why the teachings that Hellenic philosophers predatorily borrowed from the Holy Scriptures. Although the Scriptures partly agree with the true teaching, philosophers recognize their true meaning only by guesswork or are forced to do so by their irrefutable rationality. They will understand them completely truly and tangibly only when they wish to become disciples of Christ Jesus. 21. From a comparison with the history of the Hellenes of the era of Moses and the prophets, it is revealed that Jewish institutions and laws are much more ancient than the wisdom of the Hellenes We will more accurately establish the fact of the insidious (due to silence about the original source) borrowing of Hellenic scientists’ teachings from the Jews later. First, for a more methodical presentation of this matter, we should talk about the time when Moses lived; from here it will be revealed beyond doubt that Jewish wisdom is more ancient than any other 140. Tatian in his “Speech to the Hellenes” goes into great detail about this subject; Cassian also speaks about the same thing in the 1st book of his Interpretations; but the very essence of this creation of ours, into which we bring in everything that we want to keep both in our memory and to remind others of it, requires that we review everything that is said there on this subject. Apion the grammarian, nicknamed Pleistonix, was an Egyptian by birth and was hostile to the Jews, even writing a special essay against them, in the 4th book of his “History of Egypt” he mentions the Egyptian king Amasis and, as evidence of his deeds, refers to Ptolemy the Mendesian. Here are the true words of Apion: “By order of Amasis, Lake Avaris was dug up. And he lived, as Ptolemy the Mendesian reports in his Chronicles, during the time of the Argive Inachus.” This Ptolemy was a priest. In three books he outlined the history of the kings of Egypt. And in one of them he says that “under the leadership of Moses, during the reign of Amasis, the Jews left Egypt.” From this (from consideration of the 1st of these places with the 2nd) it is revealed that Moses was a contemporary of Inachus 141. The oldest of all Hellenic cities is Argos, built by Inachus, as Dionysius of Halicarnassus testifies to this in his Chronicles. Athens, compared to Argos, is four generations younger. They were founded by Kekrops, a bisexual and autochthonous man, as Tatian speaks of him in these very expressions; Pelasgus, the first legislator of Arcadia, lived nine generations after Inachus. It is also called autochthon. And Deucalion, the first king of Phthia, lived fifteen generations later than the same Inachus. From Inachus to the time of the prosperity of Troy, 20 generations or 21 are considered; this will be 400 years or even more than 142. And if, according to the testimony of Kgesia, the Assyrians united into one people long before the Hellenes, then it is obvious that Moses led the children of Israel out of Egypt 402 years after the founding of the Assyrian monarchy, in the 82nd year of the reign of Gelokh the 8th, during the time of Amasis and Inachus, of whom one was king of Egypt, the other of Argos. During the reign of Phoroneus, Inakhov's successor, the Ogyugei flood befell Hellas. At the same time, the kingdom of Sikyon rose in the person of its first kings, Aegialeus, then Europe and then Telkhin; at the same time on o. Crete reigned. It is on this basis that it must be admitted that Akuzilaus calls Phoroneus the first man, which is why the author of the Phoroneida calls him “the father of mortals.” That is why Plato, agreeing with the legend of Akuzilaus, says in the Timaeus: “Sometimes, in order to challenge them (the priests of the city of Sais) to stories about ancient times, he (Solon) began to talk to them about the first times of Hellas and about Phoroneus, about whom they say that he was a primitive man, and about Niobe, and about the events that accompanied the flood of Deucalion.” Actaeus, from whose name Attica is called so (i.e. instead of Aktikos), was a contemporary of Forbant. Prometheus, Atlas, Epimetheus, the bisexual Cecrops and Ion were contemporaries of Triops. The fire of the Phaetons and the flood of the Deucalions occurred during the time of Kekrops. And the reign of Sthenelus (Sthenelais) was contemporary with the reign of Amphictyon, the resettlement of Danaus in the Peloponnese and the founding of Dardania by Dardanus, whom Homer (Il. 20:215) calls The primordial cloud collector Zeus. Around the same time, Europa was kidnapped from Phenice (by Zeus) and taken to Crete. Events contemporary with the reign of Lyncaeus were: the abduction of Proserpina (Harmonia by Cadmus), the founding of the sanctuary at Eleusis, the introduction of agriculture by Triptolemus, the arrival of Cadmus in Thebes and the reign of Minos. And during the time of Prietus, the war of Eumolpus against the Athenians took place. During the time of Acrisius, Pelops moved from Phrygia to Hellas. The arrival of Ion and the second Cecrops in Athens, the affairs of Perseus and Dionysus, Orpheus and Museum date back to the same era. According to the testimony of Dionysius the Argive, Troy was taken in the 18th year of the reign of Agamemnon, in the 1st year of the reign of Demophon, son of Theseus, over the Athenians, on the 12th day of the month Phargelion. Egius and Derkul claim that Troy was taken on the 8th day of the 3rd decade of the month Panema; Hellanicus - on the 12th day of the month Fargelion; According to other historiographers of Athens, this event occurred on the 8th day of the last ten days of the month Phargelion, in the last year of the reign of Menestheus and on the full moon. And the moon shone with its full brilliance, says the author of the Little Iliad (Leskh). Others claim that this happened on the 8th day of the last ten days of the month of Skyrophorion. Theseus, a rival of Hercules, lived one generation before the siege of Troy. That is why Homer mentions Tlipolemus, the son of Hercules, who fought against Troy (Il. 2:653). It has been proven, therefore, that Moses lived 604 years earlier than the inclusion of Dionysus (Bacchus) among the gods, because this deification took place in the 32nd year of the reign of Perseus, as the Chronicles (Annals) of Apollodorus show. From the apotheosis of Dionysus (Bacchus) to the time of Hercules and those famous warriors who, together with Jason, undertook the voyage on the ship Argo, there are 63 years. Aesculapius and the Dioscuri (Castor and Pollux) also took part in this journey, as Allolonius of Rhodes testifies to in his poem “The Argonauts” (lib. 1.5:146). From the year of Hercules' accession to the throne of Argos to the apotheosis of him and Aesculapius, according to the chronography of Apollodorus, 38 years are counted. From this era to the apotheosis of Castor and Pollux, 53 years are considered. Around that time Troy was conquered. If we accept the words of the poet Hesiod as true, then we should listen to what he says: Fuerat cum sacrum ingressa cubile of Zeus Maia, daughter of Atlas, his son genucrate, the great Hermes, Messenger of the immortal gods; Semele, daughter of Cadmus, coisset cum furtim with the first of the gods, Dionysus (Bacchus) peperit, squandering joy everywhere (Theogoniac ѵ. 938). Cadmus, the father of Semele, came to Thebes under Lyncaeus and invented Hellenic letters. Triopas, they say, lived at the same time as Isis, seven generations after Inachus. It is believed that Isis is identical with the nymph Io (the walking one), and is so named for her wanderings around the world. Istres in his book “On the Egyptian Colonies” says that this nymph was the daughter of Prometheus. Therefore Prometheus lived at the same time as Triopes, seven generations after Moses. So, it becomes reliable that Moses lived much earlier than the era in which, according to the Hellenes, the first man appeared Leon, the author of a work about the Egyptian gods, says that Isis was known among the Hellenes under the name of Demeter; hence Demeter lived in the time of Lyncaeus, eleven generations after Moses. Apis, king of Argos, was the founder of Memphis, as Aristippus relates in the 1st book of his History of Arcadia. Aristeas the Argive says that this king was nicknamed Serapis and that this is the same Serapis whom the Egyptians idolize. Nymphodorus the Amphipolitan in the 3rd book of his creation “on Asian laws” says that when the bull Apis died and was embalmed, they put him in a coffin - in Greek coffin σορός - and that this coffin was placed in the church of the deity, whom the Egyptians (in the form of this bull) worshiped; hence the bull received the name Soro-Apisa; subsequently, the inhabitants of that area began to call him in short Serapis 143. Apis was the third descendant of Inachus. Latona lived during the time of Tituy, For to Laton he, traxit per vim, the glorious conju gtm of Zeus Therefore, Tituy and Tantalus were contemporaries. That is why Pindar the Boeotian could write: “Then Apollo was born.” And there is nothing surprising in this, since Apollo and Hercules find themselves serving together under Admetus for “a long year” (Il. XXI, 443). Zeph and Amphion, inventors of music, were born around the time of Cadmus. And if we are told that the first Sibyl was Themonoia, with whom Acrisius consulted, then know that she lived only 27 years earlier than Orpheus, Museum and Linus, the teacher of Hercules. Homer and Hesiod lived much later than the capture of Troy and much earlier than the Hellenic legislators Lycurgus and Solon, before the seven wise men, the Syrian Pherecydes and the great Pythagoras, all of whom, as we have already proven, lived after the establishment of the Olympiad system. Thus, we have proven that Moses lived much earlier not only than the Hellenic sages and poets, but even before most of the Hellenic gods. And not only Moses, but also the Sibyl lived much earlier than Orpheus. They say that there are many works discussing her nickname and prophecies and that she was a Phrygian named Artemis (Diana) and that when she went to Delphi she sang the following verses: O Delphians, worshipers of the far-shooting Apollo, I have come to announce to you the will of the aegis-bearing Zeus, Being ignited by the divinatory spirit of my brother Apollo. There is also another Sibyl, originally from Eretria; her name is Herophila. Heraclides of Pontus mentions both in his work “On Divination.” I will keep silent about the Egyptian and Italian Sibyl, who lived in Rome, where the Carmental Gate later rose. Evander, the founder of the church in honor of Pan, the so-called Lupersalles, was the son of this Sibyl. Now it is necessary to determine the time when other prophets who were among the Jews after Moses lived. After the death of Moses, Joshua took over the leadership of the people of Israel. For 65 years he fought wars, and the remaining 25 years he rested in the promised land, and according to the book of Joshua, after Moses, he ruled the Israelites for 27 years. After the book of Judges narrates (3:8), the Jews, due to their sins, fell under the authority of Husachar, king of Mesopotamia, and were under it for 8 years. But, having begged God, they chose Othniel, the younger brother of Caleb, from the tribe of Judah, as their leader. Othniel killed the king of Mesopotamia and then ruled the people for 50 years (Judges 3:11) 144. The Jews again fell into sin and were betrayed for 18 years into the power of Eglom, king of the Moabites. After that, they repented again and for 80 years (Judges 3:11) they had leaders from the tribe of Ephraim Eod, who controlled his left hand as well as his right (Judges 3:15). He killed Eglom. After the death of Ehud, the Jews sinned again and were for 20 years under the rule of Jabem, king of Canaan. At this time there lived the prophetess Devorah, the wife of Labidoth, from the tribe of Ephraim. The high priest then was Uzziah, the son of Abijah (1 Chronicles 6:4,5). Thanks to the influence of Devorah, Barak, the son of Benir, from the tribe of Naphtali, was placed at the head of the army (Judges 4:6), went against Sisera, the commander-in-chief of the troops of Jabem, and defeated him. After this victory, Devora carried out justice among the people for 40 years. After her death, her people sinned again and were under the rule of the Midianites for 7 years. Then Gideon, the son of Joash, from the tribe of Manasseh, went against the Midianites at the head of 300 soldiers and killed up to 120,000 enemies. He ruled the Israelites for 40 years, and after him his son Abimelech ruled for 3 years. This latter's successor was Pholeya, the son of Bedan, the son of Haran, from the tribe of Ephraim 145; he was a judge in Israel for 23 years. After his death, 146 the Jews sinned again and were under the rule of the Ammonites for 18 years. Again they repented and chose Jephthah from Gilead, from the tribe of Manasseh, as judge. Jephthah ruled the Israelites for 6 years. His successor was Heshbon from Bethlehem (Judges 12:8), from the tribe of Judah. He was a judge for 7 years. After him Euron, from the tribe of Zebulun, 8 years 147; further Eglom, from the tribe of Ephraim, 8 years old. Some add the 8 years of Euronov’s reign to the 7 years of Heshbon’s reign. After Eglom, the Jews sinned again and for 40 years the foreign yoke of the Philistines weighed heavily on them. But when they turned to God, Samson from the tribe of Dan became their leader and subjugated the foreigners to them. He ran them for 20 years. After Samson, anarchy set in (Judges 18:1; 19:1, etc.). Then for 40 years 148 the high priest Eli was judge. Elijah's successor was the prophet Samuel. Saul reigned under Samuel, ascending the throne for 27 years. Samuel was anointed to the kingdom of David and died two years earlier than Saul, into the high priesthood of Abimelech. So Samuel, through the anointing, established the kingdom (1 Sam. 10:1) in Israel and Saul was the 1st king to reign in Israel after the Judges. The time of the Judges lasted 463 years and 7 months. After them, as we know from the 1st book of Samuel, Saul, having renewed his kingdom, reigned for another 20 years 149. After the death of Saul, David, son of Jesse, from the tribe of Judah, was the second king of Israel, with residence in Hebron. His reign lasted 40 years, as the 2nd book of Kings tells us. The high priest at that time was Abiathar, the son of Abimelech, one of the relatives of Eli. Gad and Nathan prophesied under David. From Joshua to the time of David’s accession to the kingdom, according to some, 450 years passed, but according to our chronology, 523 years and 7 months passed from this time until the death of David. Solomon, the son of David, reigned after him for 40 years. During his reign, the prophet Nathan was still alive and suggested that he build a church. At the same time there lived the prophet Ahijah of Shiloh. David and Solomon were also prophets. Zadok was the first of the high priests to offer sacrifices in Solomon's temple. Since Aaron the 1st high priest, he was the 8th. Thus, from Moses to the time of Solomon, according to some, 595 years passed, and according to others, 576 years 150. Therefore, if to the 450 years that elapsed from the time of Joshua to David, we add 40 years of Moses’ reign over the people of Israel and the other 80 years of Moses’ life before the exodus of the Jews from Egypt, and if we add another 40 years of David’s reign, we get the figure of 610 children. Our chronology is more accurate and more perfect: 523 years and 7 months passed before the death of David; to them we add 120 years of the life of Moses, and also the reign of Solomon 40 years. If we count all the time that elapsed before the death of Solomon, we will find that 683 years and 7 months passed. Hiram married his daughter to Solomon around the time when Menelaus, after the capture of Troy, landed on the Phoenician coast, about which arrival Menander the Pergamite and Laetus report in his work “The Phoenicians.” Solomon was succeeded by his son Rehoboam, who reigned for 17 years: the high priest then was Abimilech, the son of Zadok. During the reign of Rehoboam, the kingdom of Israel fell apart and Jeroboam, the servant of Solomon, from the tribe of Ephraim, reigned in Samaria. At this time there lived the prophets Ahijah the Silonite, Shemea, the son of Amama, and another prophet who came to Jeroboam from Judea and rebelled against the construction of the altar by this king (1 Kings 13:1, 2). Rehoboam was succeeded by his son Abijah, who reigned for 23 years. The successor of this latter was Asaman, who reigned for the same number of years. In his old age he suffered from gout in his legs. During his reign there lived the prophet Jehu, the son of Ananias. Asaman was succeeded by Jehoshaphat his son, who reigned for 25 years. During his reign there lived the following prophets: Elijah the Thesbite, Micah the son of Jeblaus, and Obadiah the son of Hananiah. A contemporary of Micah was the false prophet Zedekiah, the son of Canaan. Then follows Joram, the son of Jehoshaphat, who reigned for 8 years. During his reign there lived also Elijah and after him Elisha, the son of Shaphat. During the time of Elisha, the inhabitants of Samaria, being in need, ate their own children and pigeon droppings (2 Kings 6:25, 28, 29). The reign of Jehoshaphat occupies the last part of the 1st book of Kings even before the 4th book. The reign of Jehoram coincides with the ascension of Elijah into heaven. After Elijah, Elisha, having entered into the prophetic ministry at the age of 40, prophesied for 6 years. Then follows Ahaziah, who reigned only one year. In his time there also lived Elisha and Abaddonei (2 Chronicles 15:1). Ahaziah's successor was Ahaziah's mother Athaliah, who reigned for 8 years (2 Chronicles 23:1). She killed her son's children (compare 2 Kings 11:1; 2 Chronicles 22:10), for she belonged to the family of Ahab. Ahaziah's sister Josheba saved Ahaziah's son Joash and subsequently handed over the kingdom to him. During the reign of this Athaliah, Elisha also prophesied. After Athaliah, as we have already mentioned, Joash reigned, saved from death by Josheba; and she was the wife of the high priest Jehoiada. All the years of Jos's life were 40. Thus, from the time of Solomon to the death of the prophet Elisha, some count 105 years, and others 200. But, as it turns out from our chronology, 181 years passed from Solomon’s accession to the kingdom to the death of Elisha. According to Philochorus, 180 years passed from the capture of Troy to the birth of Homer, which followed the emigration of the Ionian colony. Aristarchus, in his Commentary on Archilochus, says that Homer already lived during this emigration. Therefore, it occurred about 140 years after the fall of Troy. Apollodorus claims that Homer was born 100 years after the emigration of the Ionian colony, during the reign of Agesilaus, son of Dorusseev, over the Lacedaemonians. He proves that the legislator Lycurgus during his youth was a contemporary of Homer. Euthymenes, in his Chronicles, says that he flourished with Hesiod during the time of Acastus and was born on Chios approximately in the year 200 after the capture of Troy. Archemachus holds the same opinion in the 3rd book of his “history of the island of Euboea.” From this it is revealed that both Homer and Hesiod lived later than (the prophets Elijah and) Elisha. If we follow the story of the grammarian Crates and if we believe that the birth of Homer falls at the time around the arrival of the Heraclides in the Peloponnese, i.e. year approximately in the 80th year after the fall of the Tropes, we will find that Homer lived later even than Solomon, during whose reign, as mentioned above, the arrival of Menelaus in Phenicia occurred. According to Eratosthenes, Homer was born 100 years after the capture of Troy. Theopompus, in the 43rd chapter of his “history of Philip,” says that Homer was born 500 years after the life of the participants in the capture of Troy. And Euphorion, in the “history of the Alevad dynasty,” dates the life of Homer to the time of Huges, who assumed the kingdom around the beginning of the 18th Olympiad. This Euphorion also reports that Huges was the first to call himself a tyrant. Sosibius the Laconian, in his “Chronological Essay,” places the birth of Homer in the 8th year of Charillus, son of Polyudektov. Kharill reigned for 64 years, and after him his son Nikander reigned for 39 years. According to the same Sosibius, the first Olympiad falls in the 34th year of the reign of Nikander. Thus, Homer was born 30 years after the beginning of the Olympiad system. After Joash, his son Amaziah, who reigned for 39 years, took control of the kingdom. Amaziah was succeeded in exactly the same way by his son Uzziah (cf. 2 Kings 14:2; 2 Chronicles 25:1 and Eusebius), who reigned for 52 years and died of leprosy. In his time there lived the prophets Amos and Isaiah his son, Hosea the son of Beer, and Jonah the son of Hamath, a native of Get Haber; he preached to the Ninevites, emerging from the belly of the monster that had devoured him. Uzziah was succeeded by his son Jotham, who reigned for 16 years. During his reign there also lived the prophets Isaiah, Hosea, Micah the Morasthite (Mic. 1:1) and Joel, the son of Bethuel. Jotham was succeeded by his son Ahaz, who reigned for 16 years. Approximately in the 15th year of the reign of Ahaz, Israel was taken into captivity by Babylon, and Shalmaneser, king of Assyria, resettled the inhabitants of Samaria to Media and Babylon (2 Kings 18:10, 11). Ahaz was succeeded by Hoshea, who reigned for 8 years, then by Hezekiah, who reigned for 29 years. This king, who was almost dying, deserved with his holy life that God, through the mouth of Isaiah, extended his life by another 15 years, which promise was confirmed by God through the return of the shadow of the sun (2 Kings 20:6 etc.). Isaiah, Hosea, and Micah prophesied before the reign of Hezekiah. They are said to have lived after Lycurgus, the legislator of the Lacedaemonians. Indeed, Dieuchis, in the 4th book of her “history of Megara,” dates the life of Lycurgus to approximately the 290th year after the capture of Troy. Isaiah and with him Micah, Hosea and Joel, the son of Bethuel, prophesied back in the 200th year after Solomon, during whose reign, as we have already talked about this above, Menelaus came to Phenicia. After Hezekiah, his son Manasseh reigned for 55 years. Then his son Amos for two years. After Amos, Josiah reigned, his son, considered the most just and most benevolent; His reign lasted 31 years. He threw the corpses of people onto broken and overturned statues of idols, as it is written in the book of Leviticus (26:30; cf. 1 Kings 13:2; 2 Kings 23:14,20). In his time, in the 18th year of his reign, the Passover was celebrated with such splendor as it had never been celebrated before, neither by Samuel nor by any of Josiah's predecessors (2 Chronicles 35:18; cf. 2 Kings 23:22). In his time, Hilkiah the priest, the father of the prophet Jeremiah, found the book of the Law in the church and died while reading it. During the reign of this king, Oldai, Zephaniah, and Jeremiah prophesied. This latter contemporary was the false prophet Ananias, who disobeyed Jeremiah and died that same year. As for Josiah, he was killed on the river. Euphrates, where he went to meet the king of Egypt Necho, who was going against the Assyrians (2 Kings 23 and 2 Chronicles 35). Josiah was succeeded by his son Jehoiachin and his son Jehoahaz, who reigned for 3 months and 10 days. Necho, king of Egypt, put Jehoahaz in chains and took him to Egypt, and in his place made his brother Joachim king; He instructed this to collect taxes from the people, imposing them on the whole country. Joachim reigned for 11 years. His heir was his son Joachin, who reigned only three months. This was followed by Zedekiah, who reigned for 11 years. During his reign Jeremiah also prophesied. At the same time, Ezekiel the son of Buzi, Uriah the son of Shemea (Jer. 26:20) and Habakkuk prophesied. This ends the series of Jewish kings. Thus, from the birth of Moses to the day on which Zedekiah was taken to Babylon, according to the reckoning alone, 972 years passed, and according to the more reliable results of our reckoning, 1085 years, 6 months and 10 days. And from the reign of David to the captivity from the Chaldeans, according to some, 452 years and 6 months passed, and according to our more careful calculation, 482 years, 6 months and 10 days. In the 12th year of the reign of Zedekiah, therefore 70 years before the rule of the Persians, Nebuchadnezzar fought with the Phoenicians and Jews, as Berosus tells about this in his “history of the Chaldeans.” Yuba, in his work on the Assyrians, says that he borrows his historical information from Berosus, and thus vouches for the veracity of this historian. So, Nebuchadnezzar, having blinded him, takes Zedekiah to Babylon, and resettles all the people, with the exception of a small number of people who fled to Egypt, to distant countries. And this captivity of the Jews lasted 70 years. Jeremiah and Habakkuk also prophesied under Zedekiah. In the 5th year of his reign, Ezekiel prophesied in Babylon, and after him Nahum, then Daniel. After Daniel, during the reign of Darius I (Histaspes), Haggai and Zechariah prophesied for two years. After Daniel, Malachi prophesied, one of the twelve prophets, whose name means “messenger” (angel). After Haggai and Zechariah, Nehemiah, the chief cupbearer of Artaxerxes, the son of the Israeli Achel, rebuilds Jerusalem and restores the church. The story of Esther and Mordecai, recounted in the book of this name, is connected with this captivity, just as the Maccabees are spoken of in the books of the same name. During this captivity, Misail, Ananias and Azariah, who refused to bow to the idol, were thrown into a heated oven, but were saved by an angel who descended to them. Then, because of the dragon, Daniel was thrown into the lion's den, here, by Divine providence, he was fed by Habakkuk, and on the 7th day he was pulled out of the den safe and sound. At the same time, the wonderful story of Jonah and Tobias falls. The latter, with the assistance of the Angel, takes Sarah as his wife, to whom 7 suitors had previously been wooed and all were killed by the demon; Tobit, the father of Tobias, received his sight after his son’s wedding. During the same captivity, Zerubbabel, having destroyed the machinations of his opponents with his prudence, buys from Darius the right to restore Jerusalem, returns to his native land with Ezra, frees his people through Ezra, and with the help of Divine inspiration puts in order the collection of holy books. Scriptures 151, restores the celebration of Passover, prohibits marriages of Jews with foreign women. Even before this, Cyrus allowed the Jews to return to their homeland and freedom (cf. 1 Ezra 1:1; 6:1, etc.). When, according to this permission, the return of the Jews during the reign of Darius took place (compare 1 Ezra 6:16 and 7:15), the Jews celebrated the Dedication of the Church, as well as the Feast of Tabernacles (Nahum 8:16). In general, it is believed that 1155 years, 6 months, 10 days passed from the birth of Moses to the liberation of the Jews from captivity. From the reign of David until this liberation from captivity, according to some, 352 years passed, and according to a more reliable calculation, 572 years, 6 months and 10 days. Thus, through the Babylonian captivity, the following prophecy of Daniel was fulfilled in the time of Jeremiah: Seventy weeks for your people and the holy city are reduced, so that treachery may be exhausted and sin may end, so that iniquities may be blotted out and iniquities purged, so that everlasting righteousness may be revealed, so that visions and prophecies may be fulfilled, and so that the Holy of Holies may be anointed. Know and understand. From this prophecy and the restoration of Jerusalem until the king of Christ, 7 weeks and 62 weeks will pass and the people will return and the streets will be built again and walls will be erected, but difficult times will come. And after 62 weeks Christ will be killed without judgment; and at the same time, the king who is about to come will destroy the city and the holy of holies, and as if by a new flood, the inhabitants will be destroyed, and even until the very end of the war, death will rage among them. And the covenant shall be established for many in one week, and in half the week the sacrifices and the drink offerings shall fall, and the abomination of desolation shall be spread upon the sanctuary, and even until the end of that time the people of the saints shall be given over to destruction. And in the middle of the week no more incense will rise from the altar, sacrifices will cease, and the abomination of desolation will be on the wing of the sanctuary, until the fullness of it makes the desolator himself wonder.” (Dan. 9:24-27). So, that the church was built during the first seven weeks is clear; This event is also recorded by Ezra. Jesus reigned among the Jews in Jerusalem with the fulfillment of 7 weeks; and during the 62 weeks, all Judea rested, enjoying deep peace, not disturbed by any war; and our Lord Jesus Christ, the Holy of saints. having come and fulfilled the visions and prophecies, he was anointed according to the flesh by the Spirit of the Father. The manifestation of the royal dignity of Christ to the world took place in these 62 weeks and during the only week, as the prophet foretold. Half of the next week is covered by the reign of Nero and begins with the introduction of disgust by this emperor into the holy city of Jerusalem; and in the second half of this week he was deposed; in which Galba, Otho and Vitellius died; then power passed to Vespasian, who destroyed Jerusalem and plundered the sanctuary. For those who understand, it becomes clear that events went exactly as the prophet predicted. So, after the 11th year and at the beginning of the next, which was the first year of the reign of Joahin (Jehoniah; cf. 2 Kings 23:36; 24:8, 10, 14), Nebuchadnezzar, after 7 years of his reign over Assyria (2 Kings 24:12), resettles the inhabitants of Jerusalem to Babylon. This captivity befell the Jews in the 2nd year of the reign of Wafra (Jer. 44:30), king of Egypt, and in the 1st year of the 48th Olympiad, when Phenippus was archon in Athens. This captivity lasted 70 years, as it ended in the 2nd year of the reign of Darius, son of Gistaspes, ruler of the Persians, Assyrians and Egyptians. In his time, Haggai, Zechariah and Malachi, one of the 12 prophets, prophesied, as has already been said. The high priest at that time was Jesus the son of Josedek. In the 2nd year of the reign of Darius, who, according to Herodotus (3:70), overthrew the usurper power of the magicians, Zerubbabel, the son of Salathiel, was sent to Jerusalem to restore this city and decorate the church. And here is the chronology during the existence of the Persian monarchy. Cyrus reigned 30 years (Herod. 1:214), Cambyses 19 years (Herod. 3:66), Darius 46 years, Xerxes 26 years, Artaxerxes 41 years, Darius 8 years, Artaxerxes 42 years, Ochos or Arses 3 years. As a result, the reign of all the kings of Persia will be 235 years. After this time, Alexander the Great ascended the throne of Persia, depriving Darius (Kodoman) of the throne. Here is the chronology of the Macedonian kings: Alexander reigned for 18 years, Ptolemy Lagus for 40 years, Ptolemy Philadelphus for 27 years, Ptolemy Euergetes for 25 years, Ptolemy Philopator for 17 years, Ptolemy Epiphanes for 24 years. This was succeeded by Ptolemy Philometor, who reigned for 35 years; after him was king Ptolemy Physcon, who was king for 29 years; then Ptolemy Latour, who reigned for 36 years; followed by Ptolemy Dionysus, who reigned for 29 years; finally Cleopatra, who reigned for 22 years. After her, the kingdom of Cappadocia arose, but lasted only 18 days. In general, the reign of all the Macedonian kings lasted 312 years and 18 days. It has therefore been proven that the prophets Haggai, Zechariah and Malachi, one of the 12 prophets who lived in the 2nd year of the reign of Darius Hystaspes and appeared in the 1st year of the 48th Olympiad, are older than Pythagoras, whose lifetime is said to refer to the 62nd Olympiad. They are much older than Thales, however, the most ancient of the Hellenic sages, born only around the 50th Olympiad. The so-called wise men were also contemporary with Thales, as Andron speaks of this in his Tripod. Heraclitus, who lived after Pythagoras, mentions this philosopher in his writings. Thus, it becomes irrefutable that the 1st Olympiad, and it, as has already been proven, falls in the 407th year after the capture of Troy, an ancient time in which the above-mentioned prophets lived, as well as the time of life of the philosophers called sages. It is now easier to see that Solomon, whose reign corresponds to the reign of Menelaus, was contemporary with the siege of Troy and lived a significant number of years before the sages of ancient Hellas. We have already shown above how many years before Solomon Moses lived. Alexander, nicknamed Polyhistor, in his work on the Jews, conveys the contents of some of the letters of Solomon to Bafra, king of Egypt and to the king of Phoenicia, as well as the answers of these kings to Solomon. From these letters it is revealed that Bafra sent 8,000 Egyptian workers to Solomon to build the church, that the king of Tire sent the same number of workers to Solomon, and with them an architect, on his mother’s side a Jew from the tribe of Gad (2 Chron. 2:13), named Giram (1 Kings 7:13, 40). History says, among other things, that the Athenian Onomacritus, the notorious author of the poems attributed to Orpheus, lived during the time of the Pisistratids around the 50th Olympiad. Orpheus, who sailed with Hercules on the ship Argo, was the teacher of the Museum. Amphion lived two generations before the siege of Troy. Demodocus and Famius, famous for playing the cithara and causing her astonishment, Demodocus with the Phaeacians (Odis. 8:43), and Famius with the suitors of Penelope (Odis. 1:153), lived after the capture of Troy. They say among other things (Pausanias in Atticis) that the “Predictions” in verse attributed to the Museum belong to Onomacritus, that the “Spilling Cup” of Orpheus (according to Svida) is the work of Zopyrus the Heraclean; that “The Descent into Hell” is the creation of Prodicus of Samos. Ion the Chian in his “Triagmas” conveys that the poems published under the name of Orpheus were composed by Pythagoras (according to D. Laertius). Epigenes, in his essay on the poems attributed to Orpheus, claims that “The Descent into Hell” and “The Sacred Speech” belong to the Pythagorean Kerkop, and “Peplos” and the poem “On Nature” belong to Brontin. Some also consider Terpandra to be an ancient poet. But Hellanicus testifies that Terpander was born in the time of Midas; Fanius, having appointed Lesch the lesbian earlier than Terpandra, considers him younger than Archilochus. He says that Lesh fought with Arktin and defeated him. According to the testimony of Xanthus the Lydian, the city of Thasos was founded around the 18th Olympiad, and according to the testimony of Dionysius, around the 15th. Thus, it becomes reliable that the poet Archilochus became famous after the 20th Olympiad 152, since he speaks of the destruction of Magnesia as a recent disaster. They say that Simonides was a contemporary of Archilochus and that Callinus’s life does not belong to a very ancient era, because Archilochus speaks of the destruction of Magnesia, and Callinus remembers the still flourishing state of this city. Eumelus the Corinthian belongs to a more ancient era, for, according to the testimony of some historians, he knew Archias, the founder of Syracuse. I found it necessary to say all this because the Cyclical poets are usually ranked among the most ancient. They say that the ancient Hellenes already had many soothsayers. Such eg. There were Bacids, one from Boeotia, the other from Arcadia, who predicted many things. Pisistratus established tyranny for himself only because the Athenian Amphilutus 153 showed him a favorable moment in time to seize power (Herod. 1:62). I will say nothing about Comet from Crete, about Cynurus the Cyprian, about Admetus from Thessaly, about Aristaeus the Cyrenean, about Amphiaraus the Athenian 154, about Timoxenus from Corcyra, about Demenetes the Phocian, about Epigenes from Thespiae, about Nicias the Carustian, about Ariston the Thessalian, about Dionysius the Carthaginian, about Cleophone the Corinthian, about Hippo, the daughter of Chiron, about Boyo, about Manto and the whole swarm of Sibyls 155, about Sibylla of Samos, Colophon, Cumaea, Eryufrey, about Futo 156, Taraxandra, about Maketis, about Thessala, about Thesprotis, further about Calchas and Mopsus, two contemporaries of the siege of Troy. But Pug was the older of them, because he was one of the Argonauts. Nevertheless, they say that the so-called “Mantika” of Mops was compiled by the Cyrene Battus. And Dorotheus, in the 1st part of his Pandect (compilations), reports that Mopsus listened to Alcyone and Corona. The great Pythagoras was constantly studying the art of fortune-telling and believed in this kind of prediction. Equally close to him were Avaris the Hyperborean, Aristaeus the Proconnesian, Epimenides the Cretan, who moved to Sparta, the Mede Zoroaster, Empedocles from Agrigentum, Phormion the Laconian, Polyuaratus from Thasos, Empedotimus the Syracusan, and finally and especially the Athenian Socrates. “I believe,” he says in “Theagenes,” that by the grace of God, since childhood, there has been a demon with me, who does not leave me with signs. It is a voice that rises from within every time I want to do something, rejecting me, but never urging me to do anything.” Exekestes, the tyrant of Phocea, constantly wore two magic rings on the finger of one of his hands, and by the sound they made when they touched each other, he determined the time when he should act. However, he died from cunning, although by the sound of the rings he foresaw the death that threatened him, as Aristotle says in his book “On the Phocian Republic.” Let us now list those of the Egyptians who were originally simple people, but who were subsequently worshiped by their neighbors. These are Hermes the Theban, Aesculapius from Memphis, Teresius and Manto from Thebes, according to Euripides (“Phoenicians” verse 841 etc.); also Helenus, Laocoon, Oinona and Crenos, all four from Troy. Kren of them, one of the Heraclides, is said to have been a remarkable fortuneteller. Let us also name Iam from Elis, from whom the Yamides descended, and Polyuis, famous in Argos and Megara, whom tragic poets also remember. Is it still necessary to name Thelem, the fortuneteller of the Cyclops, who predicted Polyphemus the blow that he later actually received from Odysseus on his journey? Why should I name the Athenian Onomacritus or Amphiaraus, who, as they say, lived one generation before the capture of Troy and was one of the seven generals who fought at Thebes? Why – Theoklyulena from Cephalonia or Telmisa from Caria or Galena from Sicily? But besides them there were others, such as. Idmon, one of the Argonauts, Themonoia the sorceress of Delphi, Pug the son of Apollo and Manto from Pamphylia, Amphilochus the son of Amphiaraus from Cilicia, Alcleon from Acarnania, Ania from Delos, Aristander the Telmissian who accompanied Alexander. And Philochorus, in the 1st book of his “Essay on the Divinatory Art,” says that Orpheus was also a fortuneteller. Theopompus, Ephorus and Timaeus talk about the fortuneteller Orthagoras. Pythocles the Samian in the 4th book of his “history of Italy” mentions another fortuneteller Caius Julia Nepo. But of all these Hellenes we named, some, as Scripture says (John 10:8), were thieves and robbers and based most of their predictions on observations and assumptions of a materialistic nature, just as doctors and soothsayers, when practicing their art, are based only on physiognomy; others were inspired by demons or came into a divinatory ecstasy from the vapors rising from the water or from various fragrant smells or from certain atmospheric vapors. The fortune-telling art of the Jewish prophets was of heavenly origin. Even before the message of the law, Adam was such a prophet, who predicted the future in the words he uttered at the sight of his wife and when naming animals. Such a prophet was Noah, who preached repentance (2 Pet. 2:5), Abraham. Isaac and Jacob, who clearly foreshadowed many events that were hidden in the distant future and those whose replenishment was already close. Such were, from the time of the giving of the law, Moses and Aaron, and after them Joshua the son of Nun, Samuel, Gad, Nathan, Ahijah, Shemei, Jehu, Elijah, Micah, Obadiah, Elisha, Abadoneus, Amos, Isaiah, Hosea, Jonah, Joel, Jeremiah, Zephaniah the son of Huzi (or Buzi) 157, Ezekiel, Uriah, Habakkuk, Nahum, Daniel, Mishael, compiler of the treatise on evidence 158, Haggai, Zechariah, Malachi one of the twelve, a total of 35 prophets. Among the women - because there were prophetesses among them - such were Sarah, Rebekah, Miriam, Deborah and Huldah. Then, during the reign of the same law, John prophesied before the baptism of the Savior. After the birth of Christ, the prophets Simeon and Anna appear. The Gospel tells us that Zechariah, John's father, also prophesied before his son. Now let us pay attention to the chronology adopted by the Hellenes. Let's start with Moses. From his birth to the day when the Israelites left Egypt, 80 years passed. From the exodus of the Israelites from Egypt until the death of Moses was 40 years. The exodus of the Israelites from Egypt followed during the time of Inachus, because Moses left Egypt 345 years before the migration of the nymph Io (Inachus's daughter). From Moses taking control of Israel into his own hands and from Inachus to the Deucalion flood, the second of the floods that visited Hellas, and to the fire of Phaethon, the events of contemporary Krotop (Kekrops), number 40 generations 159. And for a hundred years there are three generations. From the flood of Deukalion to the fire on Mount Ida, to the discovery of iron and to the Dactyls of the Ideas, Frasyllus calculates 73 years, and from the fire on Ida to the abduction of Ganymede 65 years; 15 years passed from this abduction to the expedition of Perseus and to the establishment of the Isthmian Games in memory of Melicert by the Commander-in-Chief; from the expedition of Perseus to the founding of Troy 34 years; from this time until the Argonauts' campaign 64 years; from the campaign of the Argonauts to the times of Theseus and the Minotaur 32 years; from the time of Theseus and the Minotaur to the era of the seven generals who commanded at Troy, 10 years; from there to the establishment of the Olympic Games by Hercules in memory of Pelops 3 years; from the beginning of the Olympic Games to the Amazons' campaign against Athens and to the abduction of Helen by Theseus 9 years; from now until the deification of Hercules is 11 years; from now until the abduction of Helen by Alexander Paris is 4 years; from this abduction to the capture of Troy 10 years; from the capture of Troy to the arrival of Aeneas in Italy and to the founding of Lavinium 10 years; from the founding of Lavinia to the reign of Ascanius 8 years; from Ascania to the arrival of the Heraclides 61 years; from the arrival of the Heraclides to the Olympics of Iphitus 338 years 160. Eratosthenes' chronology is as follows. From the capture of Troy to the arrival of the Heraclides 80 years; from the arrival of the Heraclides to the formation of Ionia 60 years; from the formation of Ionia to the reign of Lycurgus 159 years; from the beginning of his reign to the 1st year of the 1st Olympiad 108 years; from this era to the invasion of Xerxes 297 years; from this invasion to the beginning of the Peloponnesian War 48 years; from the beginning of this war until its end with the defeat of the Athenians, 27 years; from this defeat to the battle of Leuctra 34 years; from this battle to the death of Philip 35 years; from the death of Philip to the death of Alexander 12 years. Some consider 24 years from the 1st Olympiad to the founding of Rome; from the founding of Rome to the expulsion of the kings, accompanied by the establishment of the consulate, 243 years; from the expulsion of the kings to the death of Alexander 186 years; from the death of Alexander to the victory of Augustus, after which Antony committed suicide in Alexandria, 294 years old - Augustus was then elected consul for the 4th time; - from this time until the establishment of the games in Rome by Domitian 114 years; from the first celebration of these games until the death of Commodus there were 111 years. Some historians count 1828 years from Kekrops to Alexander the Great, and 1250 years from Demophon. From the capture of Troy to the arrival of the Heraclides, 120 or 180 years; from this last event to the archon Evenet, during whose time, they say, Alexander went to Asia, according to Fanius, 715 years passed, according to Ephorus, 735, but Timaeus and Cleitarchus 820, according to Eratosthenes, 774. Duris from the capture of Troy to the arrival of Alexander in Asia counts 1000 years; from this last event to Evenet, who was archon in Athens at the time of Alexander's death 161, 11 years; from the death of Alexander to the reign of Germanicus Claudius Caesar 365 years. From the time of Claudius to the death of Commodus, the number of years is known reliably. Having used the numeration adopted by the Hellenes to depict the picture with the longest rows of years, we should now turn to the chronology adopted by the barbarians. From Adam to the flood there are 2148 years and 4 days. From Shem to Abraham there are 1250 years. From Isaac to the division of the Promised Land there are 616 years. From the time of Judges to Samuel 463 years 7 months. The reign of the Judges was followed by the reign of the kings, which lasted 572 years, 6 months and 10 days. After the kings from the tribe of Judah, the rule of the Persians began, which lasted 235 years. After the Persian rule, the Macedonian rule - if we count it as lasting from Alexander until the death of Anthony - will last 312 years and 18 days. Then come the Roman emperors. From Augustus to the death of Commodus, 222 years passed. From the end of the 70-year captivity and the return of the Jews to their native land until the new yoke that befell them during the reign of Vespasian, they count 410 years. Finally, from Vespasian to the death of Commodus, 121 years 6 months 24 days. Demetrius in his “History of the Kings of Judah” says that the tribes of Judah, Benjamin and Levi were not taken into captivity by Sennacherib and that from this captivity to the last one imposed on the inhabitants of Jerusalem by Nebuchadnezzar, 128 years and 6 months passed; that from the year in which the 10 tribes of Israel were taken into captivity from Samaria until the reign of Ptolemy IV, 573 years and 9 months passed, and from the era when they were taken captives from Jerusalem, 338 years and 3 months. But Philo himself does not agree with Demetrius regarding the chronology in the history of the kings of Judah. In addition, Eupolemus, in his work on the same subject, from Adam to the 50th year of the reign of Ptolemy Demetrius, king of Egypt and 12th between the Ptolemies, totals 5149 years, and from the time of Moses' removal of the Jews from Egypt to the same time, 2580 years; 120 years passed from this era to the consulate in Rome of Caius Domitian and Sabinus. Ephor and many of the other historians say that there are 75 nations and 75 dialects in the world. Without a doubt, they knew what Moses wrote: And all the souls that came out of Egypt with Jacob were 75 in number (Gen. 46:27). But we can rather accept as truth that the number of initial adverbs is 72, as our priests tell us. Scriptures 162. All other adverbs are formed from a mixture of the original adverbs, two or three or more. An adverb is a quality of language that characterizes the locality or spirit of one or another particular people. The Hellenes say that they have five dialects: Attic, Ionic, Doric, Aeolian and the fifth common, and that the dialects of the barbarians are countless and are not called dialects, but languages. Plato says that the gods also have a certain dialect 163. He bases this assumption on delving into dreams and divinations; This is also evidenced by the possessed, who speak not in their own voice and not in their own dialect, but in the voice and dialect of demons who have secretly taken possession of them. He even thinks that animals also have their own special dialect, understandable only to individuals of the same genus 164. Thus, when an elephant gets into a swamp and lets out cries, then some other elephant comes and, seeing what has happened, returns back and a little later brings with it a whole herd of elephants and with the help of which it frees the one stuck in the swamp. They say that in Libya, when a scorpion sees a person whom it cannot reach with its sting, it leaves, but then returns with other scorpions; they interlock with each other in the form of a chain and thus their design succeeds. Animals do not resort to ambiguous gestures, nor do they use facial expressions to express themselves, but they use a language peculiar to them. Some of the naturalists claim that if a fisherman’s line breaks off the moment he catches a fish, and if the fish he caught leaves, then that fisherman will not catch a single fish in that place that entire day. The initial and formative dialects are the dialects of the peoples, which among the Hellenes are known as barbarians. The names of objects indicate their very essence, nature 165, which is why it is recognized that prayers in the barbarian language are more valid than in other languages. In Cratylus, Plato, wanting to explain the etymology of the word πῦρ, says that this is a barbaric word. He testifies that this word, with some slight modification, is used among the Phrygians. Now, in order to best determine the era in which the Savior was born, it would be decent, I think, to outline the chronology of the Roman emperors. Augustus reigned 43 years, Tiberius 22, Caius 4, Claudius 14, Nero 14, Galba 1, Vespasian 10, Titus 3, Domitian 15, Nerva 1, Trajan 19, Hadrian 21 and Antoninus 21. After that, the reign of Marcus Aurelius, nicknamed Antoninus, and Commodus together totaled 82 years. From Augustus to Commodus 222 years passed, and from Adam to the death of Commodus 5784 2 months 12 days. Some historians present the history of the Roman emperors chronologically as follows. Julius Caesar ruled the Roman state for 3 years, 4 months and 5 days. After him Augustus reigned for 46 years, 4 months and 1 day; then Tiberius 26 years 6 months 19 days; Kai Caesar 3 years 10 months and 8 days; Claudius 13 years 8 months and 28 days; Nero is also 13 years 8 months and 28 days; Galba 7 months and 6 days: Otho 5 months and 1 day; Vitellius 7 months and 1 day; Vespasian 11 years 11 months and 22 days; Titus 2 years and 2 months; Domitian 15 years 8 months and 5 days; Nerva 1 year 4 months and 10 days; Trajan 19 years 7 months and 15 days; Adrian 20 years 10 months and 28 days; Antonin 22 years 3 months and 7 days; Marcus Aurelius Antoninus 19 years and 11 days; Commodus 12 years 9 months and 14 days. Thus, 236 years and 6 months passed from Julius Caesar to the death of Commodus. And from Romulus, the founder of Rome, until the death of Commodus, it is generally considered 953 years and 6 months. Consequently, our Savior was born in the 28th year of the reign of Augustus, during the production of the 1st census. The correctness of this digital date is proven by the message of the Gospel of St. Luke: In the 15th year of the reign of Tiberius Caesar the word of the Lord came to John, the son of Zechariah (Luke 3:1). And in the same Gospel it is written: When Jesus came to be baptized, He was 30 years old (Luke 3:23). And regarding His teaching, it was supposed to last only one year 166, and about this in the same Gospel it is said this way: He sent Me for one year to preach about the mercy of the Lord (Is. 61:2). These are the words of the prophet and the Gospel. Thus, the 15 years of the Savior’s life falling during the reign of Augustus 167 and the other 15 years falling during the reign of Tiberius amount to 30 years that elapsed until the days of His suffering. From the day of His death to the destruction of Jerusalem, 42 years and 3 months are considered; from the destruction of Jerusalem to the death of Commodus 128 years 10 months and 3 days. In general, from the Nativity of the Lord to the death of Commodus, 194 years, 1 month and 13 days passed. Some of the historians extend chronological accuracy to the point that they indicate not only the year, but also the day of birth of the Savior, claiming that He was born in the 28th year of the reign of Augustus on the 25th day of the month of Pacho. The followers of Basilides also celebrate the day of the baptism of Christ Jesus, spending the night before this day reading. They say that the baptism of the Lord followed in the 15th year of the reign of Tiberius Caesar on the 15th day of the month Tubi. Others claim that this happened on the 11th day of this month. Some researchers, who are careful about even the slightest details of the suffering of our Lord, claim that this happened in the 16th year of the reign of Tiberius Caesar, on the 25th day of the month of Phamenoth; others on the 25th day of the month Farmufi; Still others claim that this happened on the 19th day of the month Farmufi. Some of these researchers say that Christ Jesus was born on the 24th or 25th day of the month Farmufi. It is necessary to add to our chronological picture the number of days, according to Daniel, that elapsed from the destruction of Jerusalem until its final fall and another 7 years and 7 months, constituting the end of the reign of Vespasian. Because if you add up the first two years of this reign and the 17 months and 8 days of the reigns of Galba, Otho and Vitellius, you get 3 years and 6 months, constituting half of the week that the prophet Daniel speaks about. And he said that 2300 days would pass from the time Nero introduced abomination into the holy city until the destruction of this city. This is precisely what is meant by the following words of Scripture: How long does this vision of daily sacrifice and the devastating wickedness of sin reach its fullness extend? How long will the Holy of Holies and its influence be despised? And He said to me: At 2300 evenings and mornings, and then the Holy of Holies will be destroyed (Dan. YI1I, 13). These 2300 days make up 6 years and 4 months, the half of which dates back to the reign of Nero and constitutes half of the week of the prophet; the other half of this week is covered by the reigns of Galba, Otho and Vitellius and the two years of the reign of Vespasian. This is why Daniel says: Blessed is he who lives to see the 1335th day (Dan. 8:12), because it was until that day that the war continued and then ceased. This number is mentioned elsewhere in the same chapter from which we quoted the previous words. This is the place: And from the time the daily sacrifice ceases and the abomination that makes desolate is set up, 1290 days will pass. Blessed is he who lives to see the 1335th day (Dan. 11:11, 12). Josephus Flavius ​​the Jew and author of the history of the Jews presents us with a calendar according to which 585 years are counted from Moses to David; from David to the 2nd year of the reign of Vespasian 1179 years; from this year to the 10th year of the reign of Antoninus (Pius) 77 years. Thus, from Moses to the 10th year of the reign of Antoninus, Josephus considers 1933. Others, from Inachus and Moses to the death of Commodus, consider 2942; still others 2821 years. In the Gospel of Matthew, the genealogy of Jesus begins with Abraham and ends with Mary, the material of the Lord. And all generations, says the evangelist, from Abraham to David, the number is 14; David before moving to Babylon is also 14; from the migration to Babylon to Christ is also 14 (Matt. 1:17). As a result, these three mysterious intervals embrace the number of generations that lived during 6 weeks. 22. About the Greek translation of the Old Testament Here are the various chronologies that most historians follow. A from the sacred The law and the prophets of the Scriptures, they say, were translated 168 from the Hebrew language into Greek during the reign of Ptolemy the son of Lagov or, according to others, during the reign of Ptolemy Philadelphus, and that Demetrius of Phalerea showed the greatest zeal in this matter and contributed a lot to him by delivering the necessary materials. Indeed, even during the Macedonian rule over Asia 169, Ptolemy Lagus, wanting to enrich the library he founded in Alexandria with all kinds of works, ordered that the Jerusalemites also translate the writings of their prophets into Hellenic; and they, being then subject to the Macedonians, chose from among themselves 70 elders, versed in the understanding of Scripture and knowing the Greek language, and sent them with the sacred books to Ptolemy. And after each of these elders separately translated all the holy books, all 70 began to compare their translations and found them to agree with each other both in thoughts and expressions. This work was arranged by the will of God to familiarize the Hellenes with the holy. Scriptures. And there is nothing surprising in the sending down of Divine inspiration on this matter - that the Jewish prophets, by the inspiration of God, became, so to speak, Hellenic prophets. Was it not the same before, when the Scriptures, which were lost during the captivity of the Jews by Nebuchadnezzar, were written again by Ezra, the Levite and the priest, by the inspiration of God, during the reign of Artaxerxes, king of Persia? Aristobulus, in the 1st book of his work dedicated to Ptolemy Philometor, writes: “Plato also learned the principles of our legislation; and it is obvious that he carefully delved into all its details. Before Demetrius of Phalereia, even before the onset of the rule of Alexander and the Persians, another translator translated passages from our writings, for example. a story about the exodus of the Jews from Egypt, about all the remarkable events that our ancestors were eyewitnesses or perpetrators of, about the conquest of the Promised Land, a statement of all our legislation. In general, it is certain that Plato borrowed a lot from this source, for he was very learned. Likewise, Pythagoras introduced into his philosophy many of the provisions from our books.” So this is why Numenius, the Pythagorean philosopher, says: “What is Plato but the Moses of Athens.” And this Jewish Moses 170 was a theologian and prophet, but in the opinion of others only an interpreter of sacred laws. And these priests themselves tell about his family, deeds and life. Scriptures; and all that is worthy of faith and should be set forth by us. 23. About the time of birth of Moses, his origin and life Moses was a Chaldean by birth, but was born in Egypt, because his ancestors, avoiding the famine that had been weighing on Babylon for a long time, left this city and moved to Egypt. He descended from Jacob in the 7th generation, was brought up like a king and the circumstances of his life were as follows. When the number of Jews in Egypt increased and they began to represent a significant part of its population, the king of the country began to fear the possibility of indignation on the part of these popular masses and, fearing especially brave youth, he ordered that only girls be raised from the children born to the Jews - because women are incapable of war - and boys should be killed. But since Moses’ parents did not feel like slaves, but saw in their son a man born in a noble and free state, they, disdaining the cruelty of the tyrant, secretly nourished him for three months (Heb. 11:23): natural parental love was stronger in them than the fear of the tyrant. Then, fearing that they would die along with their son, they wove a basket from papyrus, a local shrub, put the child in it and placed it in the reeds in the swampy coastal area of ​​the river. The child’s sister, standing not far away, watched what would happen next. The king's daughter, who had long been barren and wanted to have a child, came to the river that day to bathe. Hearing the cry of the child, she ordered him to be brought to her and, touched by compassion, ordered a nurse to be found for him. Then the child’s sister ran up and said that she knew a Jewish woman who had recently given birth and volunteered to find her if the king’s daughter wanted it. With the consent and request of this latter, the child’s sister brought the child’s mother to the princess as a nurse for an agreed fee, as if she were a complete stranger to him. Then the princess, in memory of saving the child from the water, named him Moses, for μωϋ in Egyptian means water 171, being lowered into which, it was assumed, he was supposed to die. That is why in Egyptian they call the one who was raised from the water (came out, got out, freed himself) in Egyptian. And it is clear that the parents of Moses, when he was circumcised, even before being lowered into the water, gave him a different name; he was then named Joachim. In heaven, after his ascension, as those initiated into the mysteries say, he received the third name Melchi 172. When Moses reached the age capable of studying, they assigned him the most famous Egyptian teachers and he studied with them arithmetic, geometry, astronomy, the science of rhythm and harmony, medicine and music; in addition to wisdom, symbolically represented by hieroglyphs. He studied the rest of the sciences under the guidance of Hellenic teachers who lived in Egypt, as Philo states in the Life of Moses. In addition, he studied Egyptian literature under the guidance of Egyptian teachers, and Chaldean teachers instructed him in the science of the celestial bodies. That is why the Acts of the Apostles says about him: And he was taught in all the wisdom of Egypt (7:22). Eupolemus, in his work “On the Kings of the Jews,” says that Moses was the first scientist of his time and that “he was the first to introduce the Jews to the art of writing, that the Phoenicians borrowed this art from the Jews, and the Hellenes from the Phoenicians” 173 . But with the assimilation of Egyptian wisdom, Moses developed and strengthened in himself the rules that he had inherited from his ancestors and from Russian tradition. And he was so zealously devoted to these latter that, having struck, he once killed an Egyptian who had no right to become embittered against a Jew. Those initiated into the mysteries claim that he only killed the Egyptian with a word, just as Peter killed with a word those who unfairly kept part of the price for the field and those who lied 174 . Artapan in his work “On the Jews” says that “when Moses, by order of Nekhefrei (Chenephre), king of Egypt, for the constant demand for the Jewish people of freedom and the right to leave the country, was imprisoned, then at night, by the will of God, the doors of the prison opened by themselves. Upon leaving the prison, Moses went to the palace, penetrated to the very bed of the sleeping king and woke him up. Surprised by what had happened, the king began to ask Moses about the name of God by whom he was sent; Moses leaned down and spoke this name into the king’s ear; Having heard this, the king fell dead; but Moses lifted him up and brought him back to life.” Ezekiel, the author of the Jewish tragedies 175, tells of the education of Moses according to ours. In the drama entitled “The Exodus of the Hebrews from Egypt,” he writes on behalf of Moses about his upbringing: “Seeing our people multiplying more and more from day to day, King Pharaoh began to take many insidious measures against us. At first he began to depress us with hard work, We had to make bricks, then we had to build buildings, To surround cities with walls and towers, Moreover, we were allowed to be mistreated. Unhappy ones! But those were our duties. Then he ordered the boys born from us Throw into the deep waters of the river. My mother, as she often told me, At birth, I was hidden for three months; Not being able to hide, She planned to secretly save me. Putting on me the most beautiful of my baby diapers, She laid me on the high bank of the river, In a place overgrown with bushes and reeds. Meanwhile, Mariam, my sister, hiding not far away, watched everything. II here is the daughter of the king 176, accompanied by her honorary companions Immediately she saw me, ordered me to be taken and brought to her. She immediately found out that I was a Jewish child. She ran up to the princess and said: “Do you want me to immediately find a Jewish feeder for this child?” The princess nodded her head in agreement. My sister ran to my mother and told everything that had happened. My mother herself immediately came and took me in her arms. Then the princess said: “You, my dear, Feed him, and I will pay you.” And in memory of the fact that you found me On the river bank, she called me Moses. When the days of my childhood were over for me, My mother took me to the princess's palace, Having previously told me everything in parts and as a whole About the family of my fathers and about Divine blessings to us. And constantly, as long as I was in my youth, They gave me royal food and education, As if I were of royal blood. But when, over the course of a whole host of days, I reached age, Then, having told about the fight between a Jew and an Egyptian and about the latter’s burial in the sand, Ezekiel speaks about another similar quarrel like this: “Why do you hit someone who is weaker than you?” And he answered me: “Who made you a judge over us? Or the prince here? Don't you want to kill me too? How did you kill a man yesterday? And I said, scared: “How? Has this already become known? That is why Moses fled from Egypt and became a shepherd of flocks, thus preparing to bear supreme power over the people. For someone who will eventually have to shepherd a herd of tame people, herding herds of cattle serves as a kind of preparatory school for the performance of royal duties, just as hunting teaches warriors the art of war. And then God, from his shepherd occupation, puts Moses at the head of the Jews. Then the admonition of the Egyptians begins, after they have repeatedly testified to their short-sighted unbelief. The Jews, being eyewitnesses of the disasters experienced by others, learned the fullness of God's omnipotence. And since the Egyptians, in their madness, refused to believe the words of Moses and the manifestations of God's omnipotence, they were, according to the proverb, “punished as fools” 177 . The Jews finally left Egypt, taking with them great booty. But they took their things from the Egyptians not out of greed, as their slanderers say, because God commanded them not to covet what belongs to others, but firstly as payment for serving the Egyptians for such a long time and for forced slave labor; then, in some way, as retribution to the Egyptians, who were so greedy for money, for the bitter life that they forced the message of the Jews in Egypt and which they poisoned with enslavement; By carrying the spoils out of Egypt, the Jews upset the Egyptians just as much as they upset them. Therefore, perhaps the Jews did so according to military law; having seized the property of their enemies, they took advantage only of the right of the winner; it was the right of the strong over the weaker. The reason for the war was legitimate. The Jews came to Egypt with a humble request for acceptance, fleeing from famine; The Egyptians enslaved their guests, forcing them to perform slave labor, forcing them to serve even without remuneration. Perhaps the Jews acted in this way by peaceful law: by carrying away booty from Egypt, they in some way rewarded themselves with what the masters should have repaid them with long ago, but instead the Egyptians only derived benefits from the Jews. 24. About the manner in which Moses performed the duties of the leader of the Jews and his precedence by his example to others in the performance of their duties A prophet, legislator, leader and organizer, a great leader, a skilled politician and, in addition to this, a philosopher (a virtuous man), this is what our Moses later became. How he became a prophet will be discussed later when we talk about prophecy; and as for the rest, the art of directing order is included as part of the science of leadership; the ability to lead an army is part of the science of government; just as legislation, as well as the judicial function, are parts of the science of management. There are four ways to manage people. The first is Divine, in agreement with the will of God and the holiness of His Son, from which come not only earthly and external blessings, but also all perfect well-being. “Ask, they say, for great things, then small things will be given to you” 179. The second after the only reasonable and Divine way of governing people is the one whose initial principle and driving force has only the passionate and desirable side of the soul, fueled by power. This was the way of government of Hercules, king of Argives and Alexander king of Macedon. The third is the one whose only principle is the desire to conquer and destroy; he does not pay any attention to using the victory for good or bad. This is exactly how the kings of Persia behaved in the war they waged against Hellas. Desirable movements of the soul are of two kinds. According to the strength of some, a person wants to gain the upper hand at any cost and wants to rule only out of lust for power. According to the strength of others, a person has a tendency to do good and honest deeds, and the zeal of such people is directed towards achieving praiseworthy results. For the fourth method of management, of all the worst, only passions serve as the rule and guidance. This was the way Sardanapalus governed; but to this day it remains in force among those whose only goal in doing so is the satisfaction of their wishes. The art of ruling, both when it places its triumph in virtue and when it practices violence, consists in leadership and ordering, and this art is varied depending on the variety of its subject. The leaders and orderers of this state are the soul and the mind, with the help of animate and inanimate tools, adapting weapons and animals to war. The movements of the soul, internal anxieties, which we can control only with virtue, they are ordered by reason, abstinence and moderation indicating the rule in holiness and knowledge of the truth and leading everything in piety and reverence for God. And indeed. For people who practice virtue, everything is governed by prudence, in relation to Divine affairs by wisdom, in relation to human affairs by politics, and in relation to Divine affairs, since they are connected with human ones, by the art of governing. Therefore, the king is only the one who rules according to the laws and knows how to restrain arbitrary desires. Such is the Lord, who accepts into His kingdom all those who believe in Him through Him. Because God (the Father) has handed over everything (Luke 10:22) and put everything in subjection to Christ (1 Cor. 15:27), our King, so that at the name of Jesus every knee in heaven, on earth and in hell should bow and that every tongue should acknowledge that the Lord Jesus Christ is the glory of God the Father (Phil. 2:10,11). The art of leading an army is practiced in three ways: by showing caution, by showing courage, and by combining courage with caution. And each of these qualities is again composed of three: from the word, from the deed, and from the word combined with the deed. And when using these three different functions of power, it is permissible to resort to both persuasion and force and cunning, if you have to take revenge for injustice or stop violence. These same functions of power equally endow it with the right in actions to observe either justice or pretense or the open statement of the truth, or the joint use at the same time of some of these means. The Greeks, having borrowed from Moses the knowledge of all this, as well as the use of each of these means of management, derived great benefits from it. As proof, I will tell you two or three examples from the strategy. When Moses led the Jews out of Egypt, suspecting that the Egyptians would pursue him, he left the shortest and easiest path and headed towards the desert, walking most often at night. But in doing so he also had another intention, namely: during this long journey through the vast desert, to teach the Jews to believe in one God, to accustom them to prudent patience. Moses' military tactics teach us to expose ourselves to danger only when we already have the means at our disposal to overcome it. And what Moses foresaw happened. The Egyptians pursued the Jews on horseback and in chariots, but soon they were all exterminated. The opening sea swallowed them with chariots and horses without remains. After this, thanks to the pillar of fire, which, moving at night before the children of Israel, served as their guide, Moses led them through an inconvenient country, and through labors and transitions taught them courage and patience, so that after enduring trials that seemed unbearable to them, they could better appreciate the riches and advantages of the country to which he was leading them amid a thousand trials. In addition, he routed and destroyed the enemies who had previously occupied that country, approaching them along deserted and difficult roads and attacking them by surprise. This is precisely the art of leadership, and to take possession of enemy land in this way is proof of experience and military talent. Miltiades, the Athenian general and conqueror of the Persians at Marathon, imitated the tactics of Moses in the following way. He led the Athenians at night along unknown roads and thereby deceived the Persians who were waiting for him; because Hippias, who fled from Athens and went over to the side of the Persians, led the barbarians to Attica, knowing the country, he occupied the most convenient areas. And since it was difficult to take him by surprise, Miltiades, being a skilled commander, chose difficult roads, attacked the Persians at night, commanded by Datis, and won a victory. But Thrasibulus, who led the Athenians with him from exile and wanted to hide his campaign, following at night along unpaved roads, under a moonless sky and covered with clouds, a pillar of fire served as a guide as he moved forward; he brought Thrasybulus and his comrades unharmed to Munichia, then left them at the very place where the altar of Phosphorus (Lucifer) now stands. Let this tradition, borrowed from the annals of the Hellenes, teach them to respect our annals and force them to believe that it was possible for the almighty God to precede the children of Israel at night with a pillar of fire and show them the way through it. One poetic prediction similarly says, based on Jewish books: Dionysus (Bacchus) is a pillar for the Thebans. Moreover, Euripides says in Antiope: In the wedding room there is a statue, Representing Bacchus as a shepherd crowned with ivy. The pillar indicates the indescribability of God, and the luminous pillar, in addition to indicating the impossibility of imagining Him in any image, also indicates the eternal existence of God and the unquenchable Divine light, which cannot be represented under any form. That is why, before the invention of sculpture and its improvement, ancient people erected pillars and worshiped them as idols of God. That is why the author of Phoroneida says: Callithoia wears keys, a symbol of the fact that she is the queen of Olympus. She was the first to decorate with flowers and ribbons The tall column of Hera of Argives. But the author of the poem “Europe” (Eumelus) says that the statue of Apollo standing in Delphi is nothing more than a column. Here are his words: ...So that we hang as a gift to God on the door of his church on a high column The first fruits and a tenth of them. In a mysterious sense, the one God is called Apollo, for α in this name is equal to negation, and πόλλων means many, and the true God does not consist of parts 180. Finally, this fire, which resembled a column and penetrated into inaccessible places, is a symbol of the sacred light that lifts (us) from the earth and ascends to heaven; This light is connected (instead of the ancient pillar) with the pillar of the tree of the cross, thanks to which we are given the opportunity to see everything with the eyes of reason. 25. How was Plato inspired by Moses in his work On the Laws? And Plato the philosopher, borrowing his legislative principles from the writings of Moses, condemns Minos and Lycurgus for the fact that with their political institutions they meant the development of military courage alone. On the contrary, he praises as the most honorable and useful those of the institutions that have as their starting point some one and only beginning and which are intended to achieve one and only goal 181. He says that the surest means for strengthening oneself, for exaltation and for penetration with intelligence, is to turn one’s gaze to the contemplation of the majestic view of the sky, persistently and without hesitation on the same feelings regarding the same objects. Therefore, when Plato advises us to raise our eyes to the one God and observe justice in life, he turns out to be, as it were, an interpreter of the (Mosaic) law. According to the teachings of this philosopher, political science is divided into two types, one is called judicial, and for the other he reserves the name political. In one of his works, called “Politician,” he makes it clear that the true “Politician” is only the Creator of all things. He extends this name to those who lift their gaze to God, lead an active life, act justly, and look at things from a higher, contemplative point of view. As for legislative politics, he similarly divides it into two component parts: the one that refers to rulers, who are obliged to take care of the intermediaries of their governance, and the one that deals with their subordinates, who are obliged to obey their rulers. According to Plato, good morals, balance, and harmony can only exist when rulers agree with the ruled and when the ruled obey the rulers. But this is the goal also pursued by the writings of Moses. Inspired by these writings, Plato adds: “Society is created by legislative policy; another kind of politics introduces love and harmony into it.” That is why to his creation “On the Laws” he adds “Epinomides,” a conversation where he brings to the stage a philosopher who understands the flow of all things that happen here on earth under the influence of the planets. That is why to his “Republic” he adds “Timaeus,” a dialogue where he brings onto the stage another philosopher (Pythagorean), the so-called astronomer, deep in the science of the celestial bodies and their circulation, in the understanding of their sympathetic relations with each other and the laws connecting them with each other 182. Plato continues: “In my opinion, the contemplative way of thinking should be crowned not only by politics, but it should also be considered perfection for a person who lives in accordance with the requirements of the law. It is necessary to govern the state lawfully and honestly, but the best thing is to be a virtuous person (philosopher). A smart person lives in such a way that he directs all his strength to acquiring knowledge, making good and excellent deeds the guiding rule of his life, rejecting bad deeds with contempt and enriching himself with the acquisition of knowledge leading to comprehension of the true teaching (Christianity). What is commanded by the law is not yet the law, just as what we see is not yet sight. Likewise, not every opinion is already a law; undoubtedly, one cannot call error by the name of law; the rule is internally substantive and practically useful, that is the law. But a law is consistent with its nature and useful if it is true; the truthful law reveals and comprehends what really exists. “He who exists sent me,” said Moses (Ex. 3:13). In accordance with this definition of the law - it is clear that it is practical - some of the philosophers 183 characterized the law in such a way that it is a just force that commands what should be done, while prohibiting what should not be done. 26. Moses is rightly called the Divine legislator, although lower than Christ, but higher than the Greek legislators Minos and Lycurgus Thus, it is quite rightly said that the law was given through Moses (John 1:17) as a model of righteousness for those who strive for it and as a mirror for the unjust. And quite correctly, we could call this law, given through Moses by God himself, tesmas 184. It is He who leads us to God. Paul also says about the law: It was given because of transgressions, until the time of the coming of the Seed, to which the promise relates (Gal. 3:19). Then, as if to clarify his thought, the Apostle adds: But before the coming of faith we were in prison, guarded by the law (Gal. 3:23), i.e. the law kept us from sin through fear of punishment until it was time to open ourselves to faith. Thus the law was for us a Teacher to Christ, so that we might be justified by faith (Gal. 3:24, 25). The art of the legislator consists in indicating to each of the manifestations of a person’s mental life a suitable norm and in assigning the reward deserved by each for deeds. But Moses was, in short, a living law, speaking and acting under the influence of the merciful Logos. That is why he was able to establish a state government among the Jews that was so beneficial, educating people so well for living together in society. Moses, among other things, also carried judicial duties, and they consist of correcting the guilty and teaching them the truth. The punitive function is closely related to the judicial one; it consists in observing the correct proportionality between punishment and guilt and in directing these exacting measures for educational purposes, so that through punishment they act correctively on the soul. But Moses, in general, with all his institutions, pursued a single goal: to educate those who wanted to be morally beautiful and develop the seeds of goodness in themselves, and to return those whose souls had deviated from virtue, but were not yet alienated from goodness, to the path to it. This is precisely the talent of a ruler. And as for the art of the Jewish legislator, in bringing people to a union with the Logos, in providing irreplaceable services to them, then this wisdom was characteristic of him, and even especially. Being a very glorious and royal quality, this ability is characterized by the ability to incline people to goodness and guide them on good paths. And this is why philosophers call only a wise man a king, a legislator, a true strategist, a righteous man, a sacred person and a friend of God. But do we not find these different traits united precisely in Moses? Do not the Scriptures testify positively to this, so that with full confidence based on evidence we can call Moses a true wise man? We said earlier that just as a shepherd's duties and work consist of caring for the sheep - even to the extent that the good shepherd lays down his life for the sheep (John 10:11) - so legislative science, setting as its task to teach people virtue, awakens the seeds of good hidden in them: its work is to edify the human flock and care for it. And if by the flock in the well-known parable of the Lord we mean nothing more than a host or human society, then the Lord himself will be in this one flock of sheep who obey Him (John 10:16), at the same time both a good shepherd, and a good legislator and trustee for him, with the help of the law and the Logos, seeking and finding one lost sheep (Matthew 18:12). The law is spiritual, says the Apostle (Rom. 7:14). and if it is spiritual, then it leads to the highest happiness, to bliss. The law is spiritual, because it was given by the Holy Spirit, but everything done by the Holy Spirit is (no doubt to the highest degree) spiritual. And this Holy Spirit is the truest lawgiver, because He not only commands what is good and beautiful, but it is completely known to Him. From this Spirit the law comes. So, the law communicated by the Lawgiver, who fully knows his law, is a saving law; the commandments of this law are beneficial and making happy. It is better to say that the commandments of such a law are the commandments of the very knowledge of the incarnate (Logos). This is God's power and God's wisdom (1 Cop. 1:24). Through His mediation the law was given, and He is also the first interpreter of its commandments. He, the only begotten Son of God, gave us the opportunity to gaze into the very bosom of the Father (John 1:18). But even those who are obedient to the law cannot help but believe the true teaching or be justified by not knowing it, because they know Him (1 John 5:18–20, etc.). Unbelievers, who do not want to obey the law and do not fulfill any of the deeds prescribed by it, thereby testify that they do not know the truth. For what is the unbelief of the Greeks? Is it not a rejection of the truth that the law of Moses was given through him by God himself? But according to the testimony of their own philosophers, Moses is venerable. And besides, don’t Plato, Aristotle and Ephorus say that Minos, often visiting a cave dedicated to Zeus, every 9 years carried out from here a number of laws, which he left on Crete? Do they not say that Lycurgus often went to Delphi to visit Apollo and that he studied the science of legislation there? Finally, don’t Chameleon the Heraclean in his discussion “On Drunkenness” and Aristotle in the “Republic of Locrians” say that Zaleucus the Locrian received his law from Athena? Those, therefore, who, in order to surround the laws of the Hellenes with a special halo, claim about them the same as about the prophecy of Moses, that they do not come from mortal people, but are the essence of a Divine work, but at the same time do not accept the primary sources of the teaching that served as the prototype for the legends told in their books, they testify through this only to their ingratitude. 27. The law constantly, even with the punishments it imposes, has in mind the good of people Because of the penalties imposed by the law, let no one attack him, as if he were not beneficent and morally excellent. Otherwise, a doctor who expels a disease from the body should not be considered a benefactor. If he should be recognized as bringing special benefit and as a person providing special services, then shouldn’t he be all the more precious to us who tries to free our souls from untruths? The soul is more valuable than the body. In order to bring health to our body, do we not tolerate cutting off entire body parts and cauterizations? Isn’t that why we take bitter medicine? And do we not call the one who prescribes them to us a savior and a doctor? Not out of envy or hatred towards the patient, but yielding to the necessity indicated to him by his science, the doctor cuts off certain parts of the body so that through contact with them healthy people will not become infected; and yet no one accuses medical science of cruelty for this. Likewise, to preserve our sanity, will we not courageously accept exile, monetary fines, and imprisonment? If only it was about the freedom of both of us from the networks of vice and about walking the paths of virtue. The law, taking care of those who obey it, teaches them piety, shows them what they should do, rejects them from all kinds of offenses and imposes punishment for even the most minor crime. And when he notices someone behaving in such a way that he turns out to be incurable, having reached the last degree of wickedness, then out of concern for others and out of fear that they might become infected from him, he condemns him to death with a beneficent judicial sentence, just as a spoiled member is taken away from the body. Being judged, says the Apostle, we are punished by the Lord, so as not to be condemned with the world (1 Cop. 11:32). And earlier the Apostle the prophet said: The Lord punished me severely, but did not put me to death (Ps. 117:18). For to teach you to keep His commandments, He punished you, it is said, and tested you, tormenting you with hunger and thirst in the desert, in order to imprint on your heart His justifications and His judgments, which I now command you; and so that you may know in your heart that in the same way as a man raises his son, so the Lord our God will raise you (Deut. 8:2,8,5,11). And that punishment enlightens us, Scripture speaks about it this way: A prudent person, seeing a person punished evilly, bitterly reproaches himself (Prov. 23:8), since the fear of the Lord engenders wisdom (Prov. 22:4). The greatest and most perfect benefit is to turn someone away from vice and put him on the right path of a good life. But that's exactly what the law does. Because if someone gives himself over to evil in such a way that there is no way to turn him away from it; if anyone has become, for example. slave of avarice and untruths, then his death will be a blessing for others. But if the law can make unrighteous people righteous, if only they wish to obey it, then it means it is beneficent. The law is beneficial if it frees from the evils of the present age and if it promises to repay everyone who has chosen a right and abstinent life with immortality. Knowing and understanding the law is characteristic only of a person with a morally good way of thinking and acting. That is why Scripture says again: Evil people do not understand the law, but those who seek the Lord are skillful in all good (Prov. 28:5). It is therefore necessary to assume that Providence is just and merciful, since these two properties are already sufficient to arrange our salvation. Being just, Providence corrects us with punishments; By showing us benefits, it testifies to its mercy. Therefore, we should not remain children of unbelief, but we should move from darkness to life, lend our ears to the voice of wisdom, out of fear of the law, everyone should first become a servant of God, and then, out of fear of offending the (just) Lord God, he turns out to be His faithful servant. The one who rises above this level of virtue will be numbered among the sons of God. As soon as the multitude of his sins is covered by the mercy of God (1 Pet. 4:8), enriched by the fulfillment of the hope that makes him happy, grown in love, strengthened, blossomed, God accepts him as one of his chosen sons, called the friends of God; He honors him with acceptance into His eternal kingdom; and singing hymns to mercy, he says: “Let the Lord be my God.” In his Epistle to the Hebrews the Apostle describes in these terms the benefits of the law. Here you are called a Jew and you reassure yourself with the law and boast in God and know His will and understand the best, learning from the law; and I am confident of myself that you are a guide for the blind, a light for those who are in darkness, a teacher of the ignorant, a teacher of little children, having in the law an example of knowledge and truth (Rom. 2:17-20). It is undeniable that the law can teach the fulfillment of all this, although those who do not organize their lives according to the rules of the law boast that they live according to the law. But blessed is the man who gains wisdom and the mortal who gains understanding (Prov. 3:13). From the mouth of wisdom flows justice; on her tongue she carries law and mercy (Prov. 3:16). Both the Law and the Gospel are the work of one and the same Lord, who is God's power and wisdom (1 Cop. 1:24). And fear generated by the law is a benefit for salvation 185; Never let alms, faith and truth leave you; put them around your neck (Prov. 3:3). In the same way, Paul the Apostle shames the Jews because they do not understand the law 186. Destruction and death are on their paths; they have not known the way of peace (Isa. 59:7,8; Rom. 3:16, 17). There is no fear of God before their eyes (Ps. 13:3; Rom. 3:18). Those who call themselves wise have become fools (Rom. 1:22). But we know that the law is good if someone uses it correctly: but those who want to be teachers in the law, says the Apostle, do not understand either what they say or what they affirm. The goal of exhortation is love from a pure heart and a good conscience and not hypocritical faith (1 Tim. 1:8, 7, 5). 28. Fourfold Mosaic Law And the Mosaic wisdom is divided into four parts: the historical part and the legislative part, which both have a connection with morality; part three concerns religious rites and contemplation of visible nature; and finally, part four, theological, establishes a view of the holy sacraments. Plato calls this part “contemplation” of the truth of the great mysteries, 187 Aristotle calls it metaphysics; Plato’s real name is “dialectics,” as he himself says in his “Politics” 188, calling it here a science that deals with finding and clarifying the meaning of things 189. Every reasonable person should have a good command of this science, but not in order to say anything or do at least one of the things that people usually do, for which the current dialecticians practice in it, presenting in an elegant style and in an elegant form subjects that are apparently intricate, but in fact empty, no; but for this purpose, everyone must know it, so that everyone, according to his own strength, will be able to say or do what is pleasing to God. True dialectic has a connection with true wisdom; she examines concepts, interrogates mental powers and abilities, rises to the noblest essence of things, dares to soar even to the throne of the Creator of the universe; She is not occupied with insight into the affairs of mortal people, but with the comprehension and proclamation of the results of her reflections on Divine and eternal things, from which real benefit flows in relation to human affairs, for she teaches us what we should talk about and what we should do. Wanting to form us into such dialecticians, with its usual wisdom, Scripture invites us to this: “Be vigilant (experienced, knowledgeable in your business) money changers, keeping the good quality silver and putting away the bad” 190. Dialectics is a mental force aimed at distinguishing things comprehended by the mind; she soberly depicts everything that exists exactly as it really is - each individual object with its own character, in a clear and strict separation from other objects; in other words, dialectics is the ingenuity of the mind, aimed at distinguishing concepts, at raising some to generic ones, and reducing others and the smallest ones to species and at presenting both in their characteristic, true and unfalse light. That is why, of all the sciences, it alone leads us, as it were, by the hand to that true wisdom, which is comprehended by a special, God-sent, spiritual strength and perseverance, soberly directed towards the comprehension of beings precisely as beings, which does not part with what has once been achieved, but remains free from all mental turmoil and passions. However, this cannot be without the help of the Savior, who, with His Divine light, disperses the dark clouds of ignorance, which are brought over our spiritual eyes by a vain life (1 Peter 1:18; 2 Peter. 2:7), restores in the soul that most beautiful state in which We can clearly know whether He is God or man (Il. 5:128). Our Savior showed us in an undoubted way how we need to approach the knowledge of God and ourselves; to everyone to whom it is desirable, He reveals the Father of the universe; and precisely to the extent that the human mind can accommodate it (Matthew 19:11,12). For no one knows the Son except the Father, and no one knows the Father except the Son, and to whom the Son chooses to reveal it (Matthew 11:27). The Apostle therefore rightly said that he learned this mystery through revelation, about which he wrote above, as he says, briefly, so that readers could discern their understanding of the mystery of Christ (Eph. 3:3,4). He said: so that they could, since he knew that some only accepted the milk of teaching, not solid food (1 Cop. 3:2), or better said, not only milk (and a piece of heretical teaching was mixed into it). The will of the law is conveyed to us in three ways: either through an image with some kind of sign, or through the teaching of a commandment for the right order of life according to it, or through the prediction of the future 191. I understand very well that distinguishing this threefold meaning of Scripture is characteristic only of those of age in the faith 192 . They say: “Yes; As for the understanding of Scripture, according to the proverb, Mucon alone cannot manage here” 193. But it is precisely in the investigation of Scripture that perhaps one should follow that strictest dialectical method: then the consistency and agreement of the Divine teaching about itself will be revealed all the more clearly to those who seek it. 29. One Egyptian rightly called the Hellenes children in the discussion of their institutions in comparison with the Jewish ones 194 It is wonderful, therefore, that one Egyptian priest says in Plato: “O Solon, Solon! You Ellins are still children. The inherited traditions from your ancestors were not able to imprint a single ancient teaching on your soul; There are no elder advisors among the Hellenes" 195. By “elders,” I believe, this priest meant people familiar with ancient teachings, i.e. our content; and under the youths, those who talk about relatively new things - which the Hellenes are especially concerned about and diligently study, although they only appear to have arisen yesterday and now - talk as if they were some kind of ancient and even primitive. Therefore, that priest added: “You do not support and do not preserve teachings that would already deserve this honor for their antiquity alone.” With this speech of the priest we hint too openly at the same state of affairs, which continues in the present. Of course, it will be unpleasant for many in the above conversation between the Egyptian priest and our Solon to see the hint that such things are not only in this example taken from the past, but even now exist; and in this case we do not observe special formalities, established decency and order; but we adopted the manner of writing like this from the barbarians 196 . Will people who have not lost their common sense allow themselves to be fooled like this? Don’t they demand an explanation for every fable? And about the stories common among the Hellenes, a voice from their own midst responds that they are “little different from children’s fairy tales” (nonsense, nonsense 197. But children’s fairy tales (nonsense, nonsense), moreover, those that, in addition, were composed by children (unreasonable people), are to be occupied with, to assimilate them, greedily listening to them to the point of directing at them, in addition to your thoughts, also the will, without there should be no doubt. That is why Plato called all these inventions of idle imagination “childish” 198, saying that the people who were known among the Hellenes as wise men were not far advanced in insight. “The teaching, which already for its antiquity alone would deserve the honor of support and preservation,” he of course identifies with the most ancient, true teaching of the barbarians, to which he contrasted the “boyish inventions” (of his Hellenes), testifying to this that the transmission and hearing of various, only recently compiled, inventions, which are something like childish chatter, is not yet equivalent to support and the storage of certain ancient teachings. With both of the above expressions in his saying, Plato said that both the inventions of the Hellenes and their stories about historical reality are all something childish. Divine Virtue 199 speaks excellently in the revelation to Herme: “Visions and revelations, she says, are necessary (for the purpose of assurance) only for the hypocritical soul, which asks itself: “Do these things truly exist or do they not really exist”? But extensive learning also leads to confirmation in the true teaching and virtue. She can abundantly support the true teaching with the most detailed evidence, support and affirm it; whereas Young people ascend to the spheres of the air only, fluttering here with your thoughts from object to object (Il. III, 108). But the commandment is beneficial, says Scripture, and is a lamp; the law is the illumination of the way; and edifying instructions are the ways of life (Prov. 6:33). “The law is king for everyone,” says Pindar, both for mortals and immortals” 201. And I almost directly hear the name of the Legislator himself in these constant naming of the law. and I understand the following verses of Hesiod to be said specifically about the God of the universe, although the poet spoke them tentatively, without comprehending the full meaning of what he said. He writes: The son of Kronos gave this law to the human race. Because fish, wild animals and birds of prey flying through the air He allowed them to devour each other, since there is no control over them, He gave judgment to people, the most beautiful good. Whether the poet is talking here about the law that is introduced into a person at birth or about the one that is given by God subsequently, it equally turns out that the law of nature and the commandments and statutes of the revealed law are mutually identical; all the same, they both represent the same law. This is why Plato, in his Politics, says that in reality there is only one and only Lawgiver. In his “Laws,” Plato says that only one single Great Mind could put inner harmony into the external manifestations of life. The philosopher sows the seeds of the doctrine of the existence of one Logos and one God. Moses (speaking of the Lord also speaks of the covenant and) calls the Lord a covenant 202. Here am I, he says, and my covenant is with you (Gen. 17:4). This is said after it has been said before what the covenant itself will consist of 203. By covenant 204 therefore one should not understand Scripture alone; The covenant of the Divine Creator of the universe is also a covenant. The word ϑεὸς (God) is identical in basic composition with ϑέσις (establishment); and since the last is the publication of laws, it means that God is so named for his statutes, orders and institutions. Yes, and Peter in his “Sermon” calls the Lord Law and Logos 205. But it’s time for us to finish this first book of our Memoirs, explaining the contents of our teaching according to the principles of true wisdom. The intermediary thought, of course, is this: We ourselves are the children of our mentors. because, that is, they give birth to spiritual life in us, leaving in us offspring, children. St. Irenaeus, lib. 4, cap. 79: “The one who taught is called the son of the one who taught, and this one is his father.” St. Zlotoust in demon. 11th: “The father’s job is not only to sow, but also to educate.” St. Paul: “Though you have thousands of teachers in Christ, yet the father is few. For through the gospel I have begotten you in Christ Jesus (1 Cop. 4:15). Clement himself collects many such examples in the 3rd book of Stromatus, ch. 15 and 16. Compare. also Strom. 6, in ch. 1st. This custom is actually Jewish, where students called their mentors fathers. Therefore, Christ says: And do not call anyone on earth your father (Matthew 23:9). Maimonides (De studio legis, p. 1), explaining a passage from Deut. 6:7: And instill all this in your children, he says: “You need to understand the disciples, because disciples here and there in Scripture are very often called sons.” The sons of the prophets are cited as an example. Of course it is. Everything internal, every force, as required by human nature, strives to manifest itself externally; and the more alive this inner being, the more persistently it strives to push its way out. The true meaning of science lies in its influence on life; this is its true nature. Each of its true adherents is animated by this idea; it gives them the courage and strength to explore, affirm what they have researched and defend: after all, they want to put it into practice. Add: “And your will will obey her.” This is precisely the meaning of the word ὑπαϰούσεται both in the classics and in N.3. Similar in the “Admonition” ch. 10th. Those. of course Christian teaching. so-called for example OK. 1:2; Jr. 2:2; Acts 4:4. It is also called the word of God, as in Acts. 6:2,7; 8:14; - in the word of the Lord: Acts. 8:48,49; - the word of the Lord's grace: Acts. 14:3; - word of truth: Eph. 1:13; - in the word of the truth of the Gospel: Col. 1:5; – word of life: Phil. 2:16 ; - a word about salvation: Acts. 13:26. Compare Strom. 4 in ch. 17 and 6 in ch. 11. Those. to be accepted well, with affection, with approval; This is how the word is used in 1 Tim. 3:3; 5:4; - to be rewarded with praise and honor: Acts. 24:3. In a similar sense, Demosthenes uses this word, for example. at the beginning of the speech “On the alliance with Alexander”; also Plato in Phaedo: “I do not consider myself worthy of this praise” (ἀποδέχομαι). Syunesius: “We praise this speaker” (ἀποδεχόμεϑα). Similar to Lysias, Philo, Polybius, Josephus, Eusebius. Those. means and opportunity for the saving liberation of oneself from the slave service of wickedness (Luke 1:71; Acts 7:25; Heb. 1:14) and a happy sinless life on this earth (Luke 19:9; Acts 6:12; 13:26; 16:17; Rom. 1:16; 10:1,10; 13:11; 2 Cop. 1:6; 7:10; Eph. 1:13), but blessed beyond the grave (Phil. 2:12; 1 Sol. 5:8, 9; 2 Sol. 1:13; 2 Tim. 2:10; Heb. 2:10). Those. doing nothing out of impure calculation, out of species, out of inclination or greater disposition towards one side; a act according to your inner conviction. Those. out of duty to teach listeners only the purest teaching and for the purest motives. An allusion to the glorification contained in Aeschylus’s tragedy “Seven in Thebes,” which he said about Amphiaraus: “Not only apparently does he want to be the best, but in reality.” “Cultivation of the church field through writing,” says Raynesius, Var. lect. 1:1, p. 22, by those who gather and teach the church community by the scriptures; Those who edify people in piety and lead people to the Lord with a living voice, orally or, even better, by example of a Christian-honest and holy life, education in strict and honorable rules of life, which are developed for example, are engaged in oral farming in this field. in the books of the Teacher, whose task was to awaken good inclinations of the will in the catechumens, formulate actions and calm passions. And perhaps in the early times of the church, many went to the vineyard of the Lord thanks to precisely this silent farming and the edification of pious examples, rather than under the influence of the teaching that is usually developed by learned people.” Philo also interpreted that mercedem meretricis non esse inferendum in sacra. That is the writer deduces from these decrees of the Jewish legislator and connects with them the meaning that, due to unclean motives, literary works written and imbued with impure thoughts cannot withstand the criticism of time and the judgment of God. Similar in the book. 2nd at the end of ch. 1st “Pedagogue”: “Plato, who strived for truth more zealously than all other philosophers, shines in his works with some sparks of Jewish philosophy.” Below, the writer often expresses his thoughts and proves with many arguments that Plato and the rest of the Greeks drew almost all of their teachings from Jewish books. Minucius in Octavia: “Do you notice that we also speak like philosophers? This does not mean that we are following in their footsteps, but that regarding Divine decrees, their reasoning represents a reflection and borrowing of the thoughts of the prophets.” Lactantius says the opposite of this, lib. 4, cap. 2. The passage taken by the writer from Plato’s De legibus is found in the book. 8. In Plato: before alumina. “About the virgin land,” says Nikander the physician and poet (c. 150 BC) in his Alexipharmacis. Those. a soul that does not feel the need for saving teaching to be imposed on him. Plutarch in the biography of Solon: “The law decreed: where there is a public well at a distance (from any house) of a hippike (four stages, or 500 steps), it is allowed to use it; and if the distance to it from the house is greater, then the residents should dig their own well; and if the diggers could not find water at a depth of 10 fathoms, then they are allowed to take water from a neighbor, but no more than twice a day, each time for 6 kongia (kongia = 3 mugs). The legislator thinks that need should be helped, but laziness should not be supported.” Plutarch lib. 8, cap. 7 Symp. – Kirill: “It is not laziness that should be promoted, but virtue.” In a similar way, Xenophon is called the “Attic bee.” Lucretius De rerum natura 3, art. 11, 12: “As bees from flower-bearing areas try everything, so we assimilate all the golden sayings.” The writer mentions only these Apostles, for he believed that the Savior only imparted directly the knowledge of the mysteries to them, and precisely this way: to the first three before the Ascension, and to Paul after it. In the last to Cor. and to Gal. Paul testifies that he was taught all the mysteries of the Christian religion by Christ himself and by the rest of the Apostles, completely equal. Eusebius in the book. 2nd of his “History”, ch. The 1st writes: “He (Clement) in the 7th book. of his “Hypotyposes” also says this about him (about Jacob): “After the resurrection, the Lord imparted knowledge (gnosis) to James, John and Peter. They passed it on to the rest of the Apostles, and these Seventy.” The comparison used and St. Vasily in a letter to Eustathius. Also Philo in the book. De gigantibus. Blazh. Augustine about himself, epist. 7, writes: “I find that I am one of those who write prosperously and succeed in writing.” Strom. 6 in ch. 15th: “This was said at first only to those who understood, since the Savior taught the Apostles. Then the unwritten tradition, which has something to do with the written one, passed on to us.” The firs is a light staff entwined with ivy and vine tendrils, which was carried in solemn processions by those initiated into the cult of Bacchus. The upper end was crowned with a pine cone. It was considered a symbol of Bacchic animation. Our writer here calls by this expression the grace of the Holy Spirit operating in believers. An allusion to the Eleusinian Mysteries of Ceres. Those who wished to be initiated into the great mysteries prepared for this through initiation into the lesser ones, which were, as it were, a pre-purification before entering the great ones. Therefore, writers often hinted at other things through mysteries. Thus, some preliminary studies and knowledge were called small mysteries, introducing Platonic philosophy. Clement in Strom. 4, ch. 1st: “Then we almost naturally move on to the Gnostic contemplation of nature, as if through the lesser mysteries we had been initiated into the great ones.” Also Strom. 6 in ch. 11th and 7, in ch. 4th. Καλλίχϑυς callionymus, anthius, was the name of the sacred fish, the bile of which cuts and blindness were cured: the sea wolf. However, this is said in contradiction with the Decrees of the Apostolic Books. 1, ch. 6: “Abstain from all pagan books.” Compare note Coteleria to this place of the Resolutions. This tirade, perhaps, would be more suitable for the current state of theological science in the Orthodox Russian Church. those. the devil. In Strom. 6, ch. 17th: “Isn’t it absurd, while attributing to the devil the work of disorder and injustice, to attribute to him the instillation of such a beautiful thing as philosophy”? Compare also Strom. 5 in ch. 1st and Strom. 1 in ch. 17th “It is especially natural for the contrary to inquire into the contrary,” said Philo. ʼΕξορχήσασϑαι, to expose the secrets of nature, to mock sacred things. Compare in the “Exhortation” in ch. Our 12th. transfer to column. 174 notes 2nd and in the “Teacher” book. 3, ch. 3 columns 260. Referring to barbarism, i.e. on the ignorance of Christian teaching or on its inconvenience for reason. Those. by interweaving various false ideas, trying to confuse and darken everything. An allusion to Theocritus of Chios' mockery of Anaximenes. When this time he had a speech to speak, Theocritus said: “Now a river of thoughtless words will flow, and a drop of intelligence.” Mediating thought: Such were precisely the contemporaries of Christ in their moral qualities; their attitude towards His teaching was evil. Also Diogenes Laertius in the preface. He also conveys that poets were also called sophists. This is what de Cratin calls Homer and Hesiod in Archilochus. Herodotus in the book. 1 Solon and other wise men were also called sophists. Also with Isocrates. But later, the name of sophists began to be called only those who philosophized for the sole purpose of “ostentation and self-interest,” as Cicero says about this in Acad, quaest. lib. 2. This was the name of Kratina's comedy, probably one of the caustic and passionate ones. Jophon, son of Sophocles, comic poet. Of course from Iliad 15, art. 410–412. Margita and Aristotle know this Ethic, ad Nicom. 7 and in book. “On Poetic Art”, equal. in the image of Plato in Alcibiades 2nd. Aristotle Ethic. 6:7 ad Nicom. attributes this verse, like Clement, to Homer, but Dion assimilates it to Hesiod. Svida says that Margit was presented in comedies as an example of stupidity. He couldn't count beyond five. When he was already a young man, he asked his mother whether she came from the same father or from another. That's why they started calling fools Margits. In this sense, Aeschines, in his speech against Ctesiphon, called Alexander Margite. St. also discussed the different meanings inherent in this word, because it denotes different concepts. Vasily. Compare Tatiana according to the Oxford edition. pag. 120 not. 2, Afenagora r. 59 not. 1. So below in ch. 20th this 1st book. Stromat the writer says: “Philosophy once in itself justified the Hellenes.” Compare about this subject Vossia Historiae Pelagianae lib. 3, part. 3, thes. 11. That by the name of this rightness (διϰαιοσύνης) our writer does not need to understand justification before God, but only the possible perfect fulfillment of duties in relation to Him, to people and to himself, this is clear from Strom. 7:3, 12; 6:12; 5:1. Compare Arist. Ethical. 5:1, 2; Marc. Antonin. 12. Ciicero and Topic, cap. 28 duties towards people are expressed through justitia, and religious duties through pietas. An obvious deepening of concepts is represented by the use of words N.3: Lk. 1:75 ; Eph. 4:24 ; 1 Tim. 6:11. A little lower, namely in Chap. The 7th writer says: “Because God in his goodness saves (us) in many ways, the ways to justification are many and varied; but they all lead to one main path and to one gate. If you are looking for the royal path and the reliable one, then listen: “This is the gate of the Lord: “(Only) the righteous will enter into it.” And since many gates are open to righteousness, one must enter into them in Christ, and all who enter through them are blessed.” In this tirade, the last sentence is borrowed from the epistle of Clement of Rome. In ch. 48th last. to the Corinthians he writes: “Among the many gates that are open for us, the gates of righteousness are those that lead to Christ. Blessed are all those who enter into these, walking their path holy and righteously and fulfilling their duties in undisturbed peace of mind.” Borrowed from Philo lib. De cong. erud. quaer. gratia: “Some, seduced by the lures of slaves, neglected the mistress of philosophy and grew old, some in poetic art, others in drawings, others in the composition of paints, still others in countless other things, not having the strength to turn to the mistress.” This is also taken from Philo, who continues a little below the words just quoted: “And just as coursework or compulsory sciences for free people contribute to the acquisition of philosophy, so philosophy contributes to the acquisition of wisdom. For philosophy consists in thinking about wisdom, and wisdom is the knowledge of Divine and human things and their causes. Consequently, just as the course of musical sciences occupies a service position in relation to philosophy, so philosophy helps wisdom. But philosophy teaches us to restrain the tongue, the belly and the hypogastric parts. Although it is said that those sciences are desirable for their own sake, they become more majestic when they have in mind the glory of God and His service.” – Our writer also hints at the circle or course of sciences required for every free person in other places; eg in ch. 19th and 23rd of this book. Stromat, at the end of ch. 1st Stromat 2; at the beginning Ch. 2nd Strom. book 3; Strom. 6, at the end of ch. 10th and 11th; Strom.7 in Ch. 3rd. – His student Origen writes something similar to what Clement said in book 3. against Celsus: “If you gave us teachers who teach philosophy and practice it, then we will not scare away young men from such people; on the contrary, if there were those who studied in such schools and completed the course of these, as they are called, preparatory sciences, then we would elevate such people to a more subtle and unknown to the masses of Christians, talking about especially sublime and necessary things,” and so on. - In Philocalia he says: “Thanks to your talent, you have an unconditional right to the title of Roman legal adviser, and among the Hellenes you would be a philosopher of one of the most famous schools. But I would like you to direct all your talent and all the tension of your mind to what leads to the end, to Christianity, namely to active Christianity. Therefore, I would like you to learn from Greek philosophy that knowledge that can be an introduction to Christian teaching or this kind of coursework or preparatory sciences. Many of them, for example, from geometry and astronomy, can be used to interpret the Holy Scriptures. Scriptures. For what philosophers say regarding geometry, music, grammar, rhetoric and astronomy that these sciences are allied with their profession and help it (i.e. philosophy), we can say the same about the position occupied by philosophy in relation to the Christian religion. And this is from Philo, as his words above show. The Stoics said similar things about philosophy and wisdom. Plutarch at the beginning of the book. 1 De placitis philosoph.: “The Stoics said that wisdom is knowledge of things Divine and human, and philosophy consists of studies aimed at acquiring this kind of knowledge.” Our writer in the last chapter of the 1st book. "Pedagogue" defines philosophy according to the understanding of the Stoics, saying that it is "the study of sound reason." About wisdom in the 2nd book. “Teacher” in the middle of chapter. 2nd he says: “Wisdom is the art of leading a right lifestyle.” Others did not distinguish philosophy from wisdom. Alkina Anim, iu Porphyr, cap. 1 says: “Philosophy is the knowledge of things Divine and human,” whereas he should have said: (only) the science of things Divine and human. This is also taken from Philo. Not far from the beginning of the above-cited book about Sarah, he reasons in this way: “So, go in, says (i.e., Sarah to Abraham) to my maidservant, become familiar with the science that deals with knowledge (wisdom) intermediate and general, so that first from her you may have children (fruit); after that, from communication with your mistress, you can have legitimate children.” In his above-mentioned work, Philo says much more of this kind, placing all other knowledge and sciences in some way in a service relation to wisdom. After the words just quoted below, Philo adds: “She was originally an Egyptian, named Hagar. A translation means this name is “neighboring settlement”. Philo, not far from the beginning of the book “On the Cherubim,” says: “Sarah is a symbol of my dignity, for my position of authority is signified by her name.” There, this allegorical interpretation of the story of Abraham's wives, Sarah and Hagar, is further developed. In the book “About Listening Meetings” prefaces. exercises", countries. 429, Philo: “The virtue that Abraham followed is studyable, subject to study.” The Stoics also taught the same thing, as Diogenes Laertius testifies in Zeno VII, seg. 91. Our writer also owes this etymology and allegory to Philo. In the above-cited book of countries. 429 he hints: “And the race that learned by itself is the one to which Isaac belonged.” Then the interpretation of the name Rebekah is conveyed: “The Greeks have patience, and the Jews have Rebekah,” which etymology Philo conveys in many other places. Clement has already cited this word production in ch. 5th 1st book. "Teacher." Philo adds to the words above: “Through exercise it is brought to perfection; the exercises consist of many different exercises, preliminary, subsequent, done more quickly and slowly and associated with labor, sometimes greater or less.” Clement only shortened these words of Philo. We have made a full note on this subject in the Teacher; see note. in the 7th chapter. book 1st. And this allegory is also taken from Philo, who in the book. pag. 442 writes: “Tamar sits down at the place where three roads converged, revealing herself to those passing by meretricem, so that one of the most curious would pull off the veil from her and testify to the most beautiful beauty of her pure and virginal modesty. But who is this scout, thirsty for knowledge, leaving nothing unstudied and unexplored, if not the supreme leader and king, willingly entering into the struggle and enduring it in alliance with God, Judas in the name? According to Philo, Judas means “confession or confession to the Lord.” In sq. De plantatione noe pag. 233. Philo writes: “Judas, according to the translation, means “confession to the Lord.” Also in the book. 1 De legis allegor. pag. 55: “Judas means one who confesses.” Philo hints at this not only in the words written out in the above note, but also Clement himself in the following words: “Nevertheless departing from the confession of God.” And to Strom. VII, at the end of ch. 16th, he hints at the same thing, saying: “Judea translated means: Confession.” Apostolic Constitutions 2, ch. 60: “Judas is translated as Confession.” Kotelery makes the following note to this place: “Here and there the authors interpret the name of Judas with relation to the confession of God, glorification, understanding by the name of Judas the confessor of the name of God, glorifying it. But in the Miscellaneo, which remained after our writer, Judas is translated “strong,” i.e. imperious, powerful, since the Hebrew root “jod” means “strength” and power, and “jod” means “overthrows, brings down,” which is characteristic of the strong. This is also from Philo's book De cong quaer. erud. gratia p. 446. Philo in the book. just named pag. 447: “And she offended (punished, beat) her. This expression is equivalent: And she scolded, reproached her, corrected her and forced her to fulfill her duties.” He also cites a little lower the saying of Solomon, also cited by Clement. A little higher than Isaac, the writer himself called him a prototype of Christ. Regarding this allegorical interpretation of the stories of Abraham and Hagar and Judah and Tamar, we consider it necessary to note the following in defense of our writer. It’s time for fans of the so-called historical-critical interpretation of the sacred. The scriptures of the method should stop calling the allegorical method, with the light hand of Protestant rationalists and semi-rationalists, a method of arbitrariness, groundless fantasies and unscientificness. No other method in educational terms could be, and even now cannot be, more popular and more expedient than this. In practical terms, for instructing people in the truths of faith, for introducing their well-known idea to the masses, this is the most appropriate method for its true clarity, liveliness and persuasiveness; It greatly facilitates the popularization of deep ideas and their understanding by the people, for it requires very little time to imprint known truths in memory, to process them in the mind and assimilate them. In this regard, it is much more expedient than your abstract one. A simple pious citizen of the city or a villager, partly due to literacy, partly due to constant listening and reading of the sacred. I became well acquainted with the letters of the Scriptures in church and at home. Is it strange if a preacher draws new conclusions from these facts known to his listeners and popularizes some new idea with them? Why shouldn’t he use the knowledge of his listeners as covers and carriers of new teachings for them? Historical facts known to the listener may remain historical facts; but why cannot they represent in living images the dogmas and truths of the highest Christian life? The spiritual and abstract through the plastic images of this method can only be made easier to understand, and imprinted in memory faster and deeper. What takes weeks with the abstract method, with the help of some plastic image, the common man understands and is convinced of this in just an hour. And it is completely in agreement with the essence of the matter and it goes without saying that to dwell only on the appearance of a historical fact would mean falling into one-sidedness and superficiality; Every fact in life serves as an expression of the highest and spiritual meaning. And sin captivates us not with its ugliness, but with its tinsel. Therefore, if we delve into the ordinary phrases of everyday life and discover a deeper meaning in them, then why, delving into the Scriptures with feelings and minds purified, sanctified and transformed, do we not seek the right to discover the higher meaning in them? Is it not through visions and through images that the merciful God still, depending on greater or lesser acceptability, more or less perfectly, instructs each of us? There is no point in reproaching the allegorical method for its borrowing from pagan philosophers, who used it to explain poets and myths; There is no point in suspecting him of borrowing from Philo. What is truly humane and expedient is the same for everyone and is practical everywhere. Of course, false etymologies from the allegorical method must be abandoned; we apply it must be within certain boundaries, but the explanations of known ideas given through those etymologies must be considered absolutely correct. The example, image, similarity may be different, more successful and borrowed from other spheres, but the matter remains the same to this day. The period of allegorical or - which is also - symbolic, typical interpretation of the sacred. Scripture, but also other things and facts, has not passed to this day; it will never pass, because everywhere in the earthly the heavenly is reflected, in the sensual the spiritual, in the temporary the eternal. (On the mysterious meaning of some parts of Holy Scripture, or on the meaning of the allegorical, Alexandrian, way of interpreting it,” compare in the Yaroslavl diocesan history of 1888, part of the neophyte, in Nos. 11, 12, 13 and 14). (*) Or to put it another way: the objects of knowledge can be: either God or objects or the relationship between them. Apparently, there is an allusion here to the expression of Theognis: “What is fair is beautiful.” Aristotle teaches the same thing, Ethic. ad Nicom. 5. An allusion to the passage from (Heb. 5:14): Solid food is characteristic of those who are perfect and whose senses are accustomed by skill to distinguish between good and evil. An allusion to Homer's verse from Odyssey X, 136: There lived the power-blind Circe, a goddess of amazing efficiency and a master of singing. The writer approves and shares the position occupied in relation to various philosophical schools by those who, not adhering to any of them, chose from all of them, guided by their personal taste, what they considered to be the truth, without distinguishing by whom exactly, which school expressed it. It was an eclectic school and closest in origin to the time of Clement. Diogenes Laertius (lived in the 1st half of the 3rd century AD), at the end of the preface to his famous work, speaks of this school as something that happened recently and calls its founder the Alexandrian Potamon. Svida reports that Potamon lived during the time of Emperor Augustus and after him. – Galen (131–200 AD) also mentions eclectics in medicine, whom Festus (Roman grammarian, lived in the 4th century AD) calls “Miscelliones.” Galen himself testifies that he was taught by his father not to follow any of the schools, but to study from all of them, however, discussing their teachings; He also expresses pleasure that he listened to his father. - Quintillian, III, 1, reports about himself that he “does not belong to any particular school and does not share their superstitions.” – But even before the time of Potamon, as Chrysostomus reveals from Dio (acted in Rome in 94-117 AD), he himself and some others like him adhered to the same philosophical trend, although they were not called eclectics. Cicero, De off. I, 2, testifies about himself: “We wish to be both Socratics and Platonists.” In ch. 6 he also: “At the present time, and in this kind of questions, although we adhere more to the opinions of the Stoics, we do not slavishly, only interpreting them, but from their writings, guided by our own judgment, then borrowing even so much. as far as it turns out to be necessary.” An allusion to a place from (John 7:17): Whoever wants to do His will will know about this teaching, whether it is from God or I speak from Myself. Below the writer himself quotes Clement of Rome. But even from this thought, he joins it with minor changes. Compare 1st last. Clement of Rome to the Corinthians, chapter 48, and also in this book. Stromat above 2nd note. Ch. 5th Verses of Euryides, quoted by Stobaeus De calumnia 4 0. It is difficult to guess what saying of Scripture the writer is hinting at. Poems of an unknown poet, explained by Grotius in Excerpt, e trag. et com. Graecis p. 461. Socrates in Plato’s “Crito” admits: “Not only now, but I have always been such that, of all my things, I believed the only reason that seemed to me the best in my conclusions.” An allusion to a verse from Homer's Odyssey I, 3: I observed the morals of many people and saw cities. Epithet of Odysseus. Il. I, 311, 440; Od. XXI, 274, etc. Borrowed with some changes from the book. Proverbs 22:20,21. In its unchanged form, this passage here reads like this: Write this to yourself three times: to your will, to your mind, and to the tablet of your heart. For I instruct you in true doctrine and to obey good judgment, so that you may convey the words of truth to those who send you. Allusion to Art. 6 ps. 32: By the Word of the Lord the heavens were created. This thought has the closest connection, of course, with the end of the previous chapter; and the sequence of thoughts will be as follows: So, our word must be imbued with reason and thoughts about God, but also accompanied by good deeds. Matt. 26:26 ; Mk. 14:22; OK. 22:19; 1 Corinthians 11:23. But the writer conveys the matter not in the words of Scripture, but in his own. A hint of Cadmus, on the advice of Athena, sowing the teeth of the monstrous serpent he killed, from which armed warriors immediately arose, who then began to fight among themselves and killed each other. Therefore, a war is called Kadmovskaya, which, having been undertaken on someone’s advice, brings with it death to both the winner and the vanquished. According to others, this metaphor is taken from the war of seven kings against Thebes, in which at first the Thebans (the ancient name of Thebes is Cadmeia) gained the upper hand, and after a few years they were conquered by the epigones of these kings, their city was taken by them and destroyed. From now on, it has become a custom to call a victory for which the victors were killed the Cadmian victory. The words of a certain Pythagorean from Plato in “Politics”: “You answered well, Socrates. And if you don’t worry about words, then the more intelligent you will be in old age.” Theodoret De curand quotes the same position. Graec. affect. Words of Socrates in Plato's Theatetus, cap. XXIX, pag. 184. A passage from Scripture borrowed only in meaning, and not literally; because it is difficult to guess which one exactly. In "Teacher", book. II, ch. 8 (column 178) our writer says: “It is not in the order of things that in a city where purity of thought and behavior live, and corruption of morals should go around, revealed in the dyeing of clothes and in the use of lipsticks and perfumes,” - Plutarch, Symp. III, reports the saying of one foreigner: “Various fragrant ointments and ointments and purple and false-colored clothing are also suspicious for us.” Wilhelm Kanter. lib. 2, p.1, Var. lect., citing a similar passage from Theodoret, lib. VIII, De curat. Graec.. writes: “I think that Pythagoras likened the Sirens to speeches that are decorated and pleasant, and to the Muses those who, having nothing of the flooding beauty and decoration, present you with a pure image and truth.” Strictly speaking, Pythagoras allowed the combination of pleasures with wisdom, disapproving only of those that were not combined with wisdom. By the name of the Muses he meant honest pleasures and virtues that do not contradict, but by the image of the Sirens, perverted and vicious pleasures. Porphyry De vita Pythagorae: “He distinguished pleasures of two kinds: those consisting of serving the womb and Aphrodite and those disastrous like the songs of the Sirens; others are decent and right, necessary in life, both pleasant when tested, and after that they do not awaken repentance. He likened these to the consonant singing of the Muses.” – Horace Sat. III, lib. II, vers. 14: "The shameless idleness of the Sirens must be avoided." Mythical maidens who, according to Homer, lived between the cliffs of Ayiaia and Scylla and, with their beautiful singing, lured inexperienced sailors from passing by and then killed them (Odis. 12). A predatory monster that lived on a rock near Thebes and offered the following riddle to those passing by: “What kind of animal is this that walks on four legs, sometimes on two, sometimes on three?” Those who did not guess correctly were strangled. The Thebans promised the one who freed their city from the monster the throne left behind by the death of Laius and the hand of Jocasta. Oedipus, who came to Thebes, solved the riddle by explaining that a person first crawls on all fours, then walks on two legs, and in old age he still supports himself with a staff. The terrible serpent then fell from the cliff. A metaphor taken from the words of the Savior about the Pharisees: Yet they do all their deeds so that people can see them: they expand the phylacteries and increase the edges (edges) of their clothes (Matthew 23:5). A phylactery is a small piece of leather or parchment with words from the Pentateuch, which the Jews tied to their hand or forehead; had the meaning of an amulet, a talisman, but also a reminder; translated into Russian therefore: repository, - Our writer with this expression metaphorically hints at the sophists’ unceremoniously selfish pursuit of fame. A hint of a curiosity with the poet Antimachus. When, during his reading of his “Thebaid,” all the listeners except Plato left the audience, Antimachus said: “Nevertheless, I will continue reading, because Plato is worth everyone” (Cic. Brut. 51, 91). Our writer contrasts this unpretentiousness of Antimachus with the jealousy of the sophists to gather masses of listeners around them. This phragmeite is only known from Clement. Compare Hartung's Pindaris Opera in his Die Griechischen Lyriker, 4, S. 238. At the beginning of ch. 14th Strom. book Our fifth writer also says that they considered God a corporeal (σῶμα) substance or ζῶον ἀϑάνατον, as Diogenes Laertius reports about them in the biography of Zeno. “The substance of God,” says Laertius, “Zeno considered the whole world and heaven.” The rest of the heads of the Stoic school, such as Chrysippus, Posidonius and Antipater, affirmed the same according to Laertius. This means that the world seemed to them to be a huge animal, imbued with the Divine soul (πνεΰμα). Seneca, epist. 97: “This Universe in which we live is permeated with unity and is something Divine.” Therefore, Clement, explaining in the above, is quoted. where the teaching of the Stoics says: “God, in their opinion, permeates all matter.” In “Admonition”, chapter 5, Clement writes: “And I do not want to pass over the Stoic philosophers in silence. They claim that the Divine permeates all matter with Himself, even if it is of the most disgusting kind. But this means directly disgracing philosophy.” Sextus Empiricus, in Hypotyposeon, III, 24, criticizing various opinions about the gods, says: “And the Stoics considered the Divinity to be a spirit that penetrates and is the most fetid of all.” Cicero, lib. II, De natura deorum. cap. 40: “And according to these despicable fables, which tell us that God is contained in the nature of every thing and is called, if we are talking about the earth, Ceres, and if we are talking about the sea, then Neptune, and if we are talking about something else, then by other names, we can judge what the gods are.” – The souls that form and penetrate the bodies of people and animals were considered by the Stoics to be parts of the Divinity. Seneca: “We are His allies and members.” Virgil about bees (Georg. IV, V. 220): “Bees have a part of the Divine mind and the ability to listen to heavenly inspirations, for God fills with Himself the whole earth and the waters of the sea and the deep sky.” Those. fashionable. the newest ones, which have become common lately, but changeable like a whim. At least this is the meaning our writer associates with the expression of the Apostle. As a matter of fact, the Apostle nowhere commands to avoid youthful investigations. But he advises Timothy to avoid foolish and ignorant competitions (2 Tim. 2:23) and to avoid youthful lusts (2 Tim. 2:22). Our writer, thinking on the basis of Scripture, from the point of view of the Apostle establishes a view of the state of modern philosophical thought, and therefore omits from the expressions of the Apostle those that have no connection with his thought, and not because he confuses two expressions of the Apostle in his memory, quoting them from memory, as Min explains. Clement also speaks about them in the “Admonition”, in ch. 5th, and Strom. 2, ch. 4, arguing that neither Thales nor the other physicists before Anaxagoras recognized God. But it is known that not all of these philosophers were atheists. About Thales, Minucius writes in Octavia: “Thales argued that the beginning of all things is water, but God is the mind that formed everything from water.” Almost literally, Cicero also speaks about this in the book. De nat. deor. Also Lactantius lib. I, cap. 5. From the sayings of Thales, Diogenes Laertius cites this, lib. I, seg. 35: “The most ancient of all is God, for He is not begotten, but the most beautiful of all is the world created by God.” Compare Plutarch in Op. "The Feast of the Seven Wise Men." Another answer of Thales, testifying to his piety, is conveyed by the same Diogenes Laertius in the same book. seg. 36 and Valery Maxim, lib. VII, cap. 2: “Once asked: Do the gods interfere with the affairs of people,” Thales answered: “Reckless, yes.” - But Clement calls all the philosophers who lived before Anaxagoras atheists because Anaxagoras was the first to teach about the existence of the Mind before the beginning of things. Perhaps Anaxagoras was the first to use this word and renewed in the Ionian school the doctrine of God, the Creator of the world, which Thales had already defended before. Yet it is true that the successors of Thales, Anaximander, Anaximenes and others, among the principles of their philosophy, did not assign a special place to the idea of ​​God. Those. According to Christian teaching, Isaac becomes the heir, the legitimate son of Abraham, born from him according to the Divine promise. Ishmael becomes the heir of other knowledge, the son of Abraham from the slave Hagar and his side sons from Keturah, who were not born in a legal marriage and not by virtue of any special promise, although they were the true sons of Abraham and a special share was allocated to them by their father, as it is written about in (Gen. 25:6). The allusion seems to be (1 Thessalonians 2:13): You did not receive the word (not teaching) of men, but the word of God, which is at work in you who believe. – About whom, however, should we understand the writer’s tirade in the text about those fed with milk: about the pagans, who in the time of Clement belonged to different philosophical schools, or from Christians about simple believers?.. And Min considers these provisions to be biblical in their meaning, although literally it would be in vain to search for them in the books of the priesthood. Scriptures; but rather, it seems, one will hear here the echo of the blessed soul of Clement of Rome. Compare above in ch. 7th and 5th. The allusion seems to be (Prov. 24:7, 8): Those who understand do not stray from the mouth (law) of the Lord, but meditate in congregations. Similar Lactantius lib. 6, p.7 That is Christ, who said: I am the light of the world (John 8:12). Those. for Christ, who said: I am the way, the truth and the life (John 8:6). Connection with Philo’s thought in De vita Moysis: “We join to the harmony of nature.” Nemesian (3rd century AD) also sang about the relationship of different parts of the universe to each other in the poem “On the Nature of Man.” A similar idea about the seeds of the Logos in humanity was developed by St. Justius in his Apologies. In the Protagoras, from which Clement borrows the following Platov in the book. 1 “On Laws”: “All Hellenes consider your city talkative and long-winded; Lacedaemon and Crete, one distinguished by brevity of speech, the other by being more concerned with the truth than with words.” From the Phaedo; see at the end. Not in Phaedo, but in “De republ”. in ch. X. loop tiers, or what is the same, letter adders, compilers of essays. Gnostic sect; compare Strom. III in Chapter 4 and Strom. VII in ch. 7th. Plutarch cites these words of Heraclitus in his work De Pyth. oraculis. From there. The same with Pausanias in his Phocicis. And so on below in Strom. Chapter V 1st. Or: Gyulobiyami, i.e. living in the forests. Similar Herodotus in the 1st book. his story about the Massagetae. Clement quotes his words below in ch. 22nd. This tragedy has not reached us. Origen against Celsus book. 1, ch. 2: “Then Celsus draws attention to the foreign origin of our creed. At the same time, he undoubtedly means that it was borrowed from the Jews, on whose religion the Christian religion is based and stands in connection with it. At the same time, he reveals generosity and barbarian origin does not reproach our creed; on the contrary, he even praises the barbarians for their resourcefulness in inventing new (religious) teachings.” Tatian develops the same proof at greater length at the beginning of his “Word to the Hellenes.” Clement follows this apology almost step by step, and his further presentation is nothing more than the disclosure of Tatian’s position: “What can you point out, what can’t. would you have borrowed from the barbarians? At least the use of lamps among the Egyptians was very widespread. They even had a special holiday with illumination (Herod. 2:130). In the church of Jupiter Ammon, according to Plutarch, Do def. orac, c. 2, the unquenchable lamp was constantly burning. But also later, for example. During the holidays organized by Cleopatra, Anthony was so struck by nothing as the brilliance of many lamps (Plut. Ant. c. 26). In Greece, in heroic times, they were illuminated simply by a dry pine torch. Telemachus goes to his bedroom “by the light of burning torches” (Od. 19:48). Penelola spreads her weaving at night by torchlight (ibid. 150). Even the chambers of King Alcinous (Od. VII, 100) were illuminated in this way: “On skillfully crafted pedestals stood gold statues of young men holding brightly flaming torches in their hands.” In relation to this, Athenaeus (15) said that “the lamp is not an ancient invention, because the ancients were illuminated by lighting a pine torch and from other trees.” Nevertheless, Pallas Athena is already holding a lamp in her hands (Od. 19:34). Herodotus (7:215) calls the time of twilight the time of lighting lamps; Their spread throughout Greece therefore occurred very early. The writer at the end of the previous chapter 2 in ch. The 9th already mentioned the opinion of some who considered the devil to be the culprit of philosophy. This was the opinion of Judeo-Alexandrian philosophy and was originally expressed in the book. Enoch; then it often began to be expressed by some church teachers. Eg. Tatian Orat, ad Graec. p. 28, 29; Hermien the philosopher p. 213, 214; especially Tertullian: Arol. With. 35; De idololatr. c. 9; De cultu fem. 1, 2, Our writer considers the devil only a transmitter, and not the originator of philosophy, and polemicizes against the latter opinion several times. This opinion was later defended by Origen, a student of Clement. Similar in Strom. VI, 12, and VIII, 9. The writer obviously wants to very reasonably insist that the initiative of good, which came from philosophy, should not be attributed to the devil, but to God. Clement gives Plato's message about this from his Theagenes below in Chapter. 21 after the middle. But Plato also has a message in his Apology of Socrates. those. This means that God encouraged people to do good. That false prophets mixed something true with lies, this opinion was expressed by the writer of Recognitionum, 4:21,22; 8:60; pseudo-Ambrose on 1 Sol. 5:21 and pseudo-Chrysostom on Matt. 6:21. Compare Maimonides De fundamentis legis ch. 10, note. 3. That is y Jews; sacred philosophy The Scriptures should here be understood in the sense of the writer, and not the pagan one. “Demodocus” was considered one of the inauthentic creations of Plato and Diogenes Daertius. But this place does not exist in the “Demodocus” that has come down to us, but it is found in Plato’s dialogue “Lovers”. Perhaps under the name of the Platonovs there were two dialogues with the name “Demodok”? Otherwise, we must recognize lapsus memoriae on the part of our writer or an error in the publication of Clement’s works by the ancient bookseller and his scribe. In Plato’s conversation “Lovers” this passage is literally translated as follows: “In reality, friend, this is not the case. It does not mean philosophizing if someone zealously studies various sciences and arts; Burdening oneself with many activities, neither much learning nor anything else, is not equivalent to philosophizing; I think that, strange as it may be, it would be more correct to call them mechanics, diligently engaged in their craft” (According to the Paris edition of Girshigia, 1873, volume 1, page 107). This saying of Heraclitus is quoted by Laertius, Julian or. 6, Gellius. But based on the great similarity of the texts, they guess (Menagius) that our writer drew it from the XIII book. Athenea. But along with Heraclitus, similar sayings of Hippo and Timon are quoted there. Hippo also said: “There is nothing more empty than much learning”; a Timon: “There is nothing more empty than wide and varied learning, if it is not connected with something else.” It is interesting that Clement does not refer to either the atheist Hippo or the skeptic Timon, but chooses instead the pious Heraclitus. The writer approves of this saying in Strom. Chapter 2 16; but who it belongs to is silent. Perhaps this saying was composed by the writer himself, modeled on the words of the Savior: He who has seen Me has seen the Father (John 14:9) and in accordance with 1 John 10:11; 3:15; 4:7–21 etc. Clement Grabius guesses that our writer here means what is said about Moses and Aaron in the book. Ref. 4:16; Abbot Min considers these words borrowed from some apocryphal writer or slightly modified from the words of Jacob to Esau, Gen. 33:1 0. It is known that practical wisdom was expressed in the person of Socrates in the direction of Greek philosophy. He respected knowledge so deeply that he recognized only knowledge as the only good, and ignorance as the only evil. But he directed this knowledge not into the abstract world, like the philosophers who preceded him, but into life itself. He tried to form his students into people, not sophists; he, as they said about him, brought down wisdom to cities, to squares, to families, from heaven to earth - Our writer obviously sympathizes with this philosophical trend and sees in it a transitional step to practical Christianity. He obviously understands all the passages of Scripture cited in this tirade figuratively about the inclination of the ancient Hellenic sages to a practically honest life and the initiative they laid down for it; sees in these sayings in some way a harbinger of the future of this philosophical and practical trend, identifying it with the contemporary Orthodox Church. Then, in the future, he polemicizes against those who deviated from the church trends of his time, skillfully using for this purpose some tirades from the book of Proverbs and, through an allegorical interpretation, applying them to heretics. those. those who received communion only with water; the blessed one speaks about them. Augustine De haer. With. 6 4. – The Ebionites also used only water for communion. St. jokes about them too. Irifaeus 5:1: “Therefore they do not allow the mixture of heavenly wine, and only want to be mortal water, not allowing God to communicate with them.” Also Epiphus. haer. 30 sect. 16. – Tatian, the founder of the Encratite sect (temperance society), fell into the same error, according to Epiphanius, haer. 46: “Sacraments following the example of St. he recognized churches, but when celebrating them he used only water,” which is why his disciples were called “idroparastats,” water adherents, because they brought water instead of wine in the Eucharist, as the blessed one says. Theodorite, Haeretic. fab. I, 20. – St. Cyprian: “Some have introduced a new institution. When blessing the cup of the Lord and offering it to the people, they do not do what Christ, the founder of this sacrament, established and taught when he was a teacher.” Then he begins to thoroughly refute those who sanctify one water. By adding the word “in truth,” adding it to the “holy Scriptures” of Christians, the writer distinguishes them from the sacred writings of the Egyptians, Chaldeans, Ethiopians and others. which, although they were called “sacred,” were not really so. According to Pollux, nuts, cotoneaster, and pomegranate apples served as common desserts. Based on the recent origin of the Christian religion and teachings, the Greeks concluded that they were false. That is why Christian apologists argued that the institutions and teachings of the Jews, from which the Christian ones originated, are much older than any Greek wisdom and all their stories. These provisions were developed in his 1st Apology and in the “Admonition to the Hellenes” by St. Justin philosopher and martyr, Theophilus of Antioch in his work on faith, written for Autolycus. That is why our writer, along with other apologists, laboriously entered into the presentation of this subject in his present work. Compare Lactation 4:5. During the time of Inachus, who soon after Deucalion’s flood founded the kingdom of the Argives in the Peloponnese, i.e. the historical information of the Greeks did not go back to even deeper antiquity. The newest chroniclers consider this ancient Greek king to be a contemporary of Patriarch Isaac. May be. But it may turn out that he lived no later, as Clement here assumes and as Origen later followed him (contra Cels. 4:11). The ancient Greek chronology is generally dark and confused, so it is easy to miscalculate back and forth. In the same chapter below, according to Clement, there were three generations for a hundred years; The generation accepted here is 19 or 20 years old. Clement discussed the same subject in his “Admonition”; see chap. 4th. Eusebius in his Chronicle puts 40 instead of this number. Folea actually came from the tribe of Issachar (Judges 11:1,2), and lived in the tribe of Ephraim (Judges 10:2); and at his place of residence Clement calls him Ephraimite. Jairus, the son of Gilead, who served as a judge for 22 years, was omitted (Judges 10:3). With this name the judge priest. The Scripture does not know, but says that after Heshbon, Helen the Zebulunite was a judge for 10 years. After him was Abdon the Pyrathonian. He judged for 8 years (Judges 12:11,13). So according to the Hebrew text (1 Samuel 4:18), and according to the Seventy 20 years. According to Zonara’s explanation, this means that Saul reigned under Samuel for 18 years and after him for another 22 years (Compare 1 Samuel 9:15). According to Theophilus's account in his letter to Autolycus in the book. Sh, based on Tyrian sources. This refers to the legend of the apocryphal 4th book. Ezra (14:39 etc.), which tells that the burnt books of the law were restored by God's inspiration by Ezra. But how does the fact that Thasos was founded in the 15th Olympiad reveal that Archilochus lived after the 20th Olympiad? In fact, Archilochus came not from Thasos, but from Paros, and the city of Paros on the island of this name was founded earlier than the city of Thasos, also on the island of this name. Min considers this place damaged. Perhaps Clement mentions Thasos together with the name of Archilochus because this city (identical with Aeria) was built by order of the soothsayer Telesicles, Archilochus’s father: “Tell the Parian people, Telesicles, what I said to you: let them build a glorious city on the island of Aeria.” Therefore Thucydides (4) and Strabo (10) call Thasos a Parian colony. Amphilutus actually came from Acarnania, but lived in Athens; That’s why Clement calls him an Athenian, just like Socrates in Plato’s “Theagenes” - a countryman. Better: Argivian; it is known that he came from Argos. The author of “Epitomes temporum”, who lived under Hoshea, the last king of Israel, Sibyllus lists the following: “This year the Sibyl of Eryufrey appeared in Egypt. Besides her, there were other Sibyls, eleven in number: Jewish, Persian, Delphic, Asia Minor (from Hell, a small seaside town in Aeolis), Cimmerian, Samos, Raphian, Cumaean, Libyan, Troadian, Phrygian, Tiburtine.” Lactantium, lib. I, cap. 6, names, on the basis of Varro, the following 10 Sibyls: 1) Persian, 2) Libyan, 3) Delphic, 4) Cumaean, 5) 6) Samian, 7) Cumanian, named Amalthea, Demophilus or Herophilus, 8) Hellespontian, born on the field of Troas, 9) Phrygian, 10) Tiburtine, according to name Albuneya. They assign other names to them, produce them from other local places, and transmit them in different numbers. Maybe Pufo through a reversal of aspiration; this will be the Delphic Sibyl. And earlier in the pillar. 125 The writer called Ezekiel the son of Huzi. Of course, the apocryphal book known by this name. Gervet corrects: four. Hegesia; Evenet was there before. Apparently, of course, a place from Ev. OK. 3:23–3 8, on which St. Irenaeus (3:23) based his opinion on limiting languages ​​to the number 72. The ancient church fathers generally believed that the number of languages ​​was 70 or 72 and the same number of peoples, and the same number of angels above them - the leaders. They concluded this number on the basis of various sacred passages. Scriptures, e.g. on basics Deut. 32:8. It was also believed that the builders of the Tower of Babel were 72 people, etc. Homer already wrote this. He speaks about the special dialect of the gods in Il. 1:403; 2:813; 19:291; 20:74. Similar to Celsus. See Origen contra Cels. 4:87. Compare about this Plato in “Cratylus”; at Herod. at the beginning of the book. 2, ch. 2; Origen Prot. Celsus 1:24; 5:41; Tertullian Ad nations 1:8. From St. Ignatius, our writer in this case separates himself. St. Ignatius in the 2nd. last writes that the Savior’s public ministry according to the Gospel lasted 3 years. But many of the ancients were of the same opinion with Clement, for example. Tertullian, Julius Africanus, Lactantius, Augustine, Origen, author Clementine, Valentinians and others. Of course, we mean the last 15 years of Augustus’s reign, not the initial ones. In this narration of the translation of the Seventy, our writer clearly followed St. Irenaeus (3:25). With a few changes, this was apparently borrowed from the book of Aristobulus, dedicated to Ptolemy Philometor. What follows is an abbreviation of the 1st part of the 1st book of Philo “De vita Moysis”. St. Justin in his “Admonition to the Greeks” briefly outlines the life of Moses according to the same source. Ma or mo in Egyptian is water, and the ear is to be saved. While at the beginning of this chapter, but also further, our writer follows Philo in presenting his subject, in his present opinion he joins the rabbis. The narration (Deut. 34:5,6) about the death of Moses and his burial in some secret place, Jewish interpreters from ancient times and constantly understood about the ascension of Moses or the transformation of his body immediately after death into the state of the bodies of Enoch and Elijah, taken to heaven without allowing them to die bodily, alive. There are direct reasons for accepting this opinion in the New Testament, for example. places from Ev. (Matthew 17:3; Mark 9:4; Luke 9:30). The dispute between Michael the Archangel and the devil, as evidenced in the last. St. Jude (v. 9), there was, of course, a dispute about the delivery of the body of Moses to corruption: the devil is directly called (Heb. 2:14) having the power of death. This subject is discussed in detail in this sense by Professor Kurtz in his “Biblical History.” Eupolemus lived about one and a half hundred years before Christ. His opinion about the inventor of the sound alphabet is conveyed by Eusebius, Praep. ev. 9:26. Of the newest researchers, Karl Faulmann considers Moses to be the inventor of alphabetic writing, and he is not the least authority. See his “Untersuchungen über die Entstehung der Buchstabenschrift und die Person des Erfinders.” 1876. Vienna. Ero “The history of letters” is known to every educated person. In general, many French archaeologists are of the opinion that Moses was the inventor of letters. An allusion to the story of Ananias and Sapphira in Acts 5:1. Ezekiel, a Jew who lived in Alexandria at the Ptolemaic court in the 2nd century BC, wrote in Greek. the language of drama, the plots for which were borrowed from the history of the Jews; unfortunately they died for posterity. The only thing known from Clement and Eusebius is the extract given here from his poem “The Exodus of the Jews from Egypt.” Eusebius Praep. ev. IX, 4 from Artapan calls it Palmanophis. An allusion to Hesiod’s saying in his poem “Works and Days,” A. 216: “And having tried something, a fool becomes wiser.” But Philo says something similar: “And fools who do not listen to reason are punished with a bunch of beatings”; and again: “In the same way that foolish children are admonished, and they were finally admonished by the disasters they experienced.” The image is consistent with Filonov in his “De vita Moysis”. An allusion to the saying of the Savior (Matthew 6:33). The evangelists literally do not cite such a saying anywhere. But Origen quotes him with an addition in his work “On Prayer” ch. 2: “Ask for important things (great things), then less important things will be given to you; ask for heavenly things, and then earthly things will be given to you.” Origen also hints at this same saying in his work “against Celsus”, 7:44, where he writes the following about a Christian: “He does not send prayers to God about insignificant and vulgar things, for he is taught from Jesus to ask not for trifles, i.e. material things, but about the great and truly worthy of God and given by Him to achieve bliss with Him through the mediation of God the Word (Logos), His Son.” These thoughts correspond only to the saying of the Savior (Matthew 6:33). In Strom. 4:6 our writer quotes this saying of the Savior with the following explanation: “Ask first of all the kingdom of heaven and its righteousness, for this is a great matter. Less important things related to physical life will be given to you.” Etymology borrowed from Plutarch. Our writer apparently does not quite correctly convey Plato’s thought that he praises legislators who, in their legislation, start from one principle and direct everything towards it. In the book. 1st De legibus Plato says: “We think that both among us and among the Lacedaemonians, where Lycurgus and Minos constantly had war in mind, the laws should be observed.” But he adds that in addition to the art of war, the legislator must take care of many other things, namely, the development of wisdom, moderation, justice and the like in citizens; and therefore he condemns one-sided legislators who neglect many. Therefore, immediately at the beginning of the book. 4th in De legibus he says: “Protect me, most honorable husband, precisely from what was said at the beginning about the Cretan laws. You say about them that they are one-sided, namely, they are only concerned about war. Since they were published with the purpose of inciting the virtue of courage, I called them published with a good purpose; but since they do not mean the totality of virtues, but only one particular virtue, then this is precisely why I do not really approve of them.” – We introduced the word “apparently” into this note by Min at the beginning. Clement did not proceed from the cited passages of Plato, but obviously from the general spirit of Platonic philosophy, idealism; and of course everyone will agree with our writer that in this regard, Plato “was presented with a single something.” In editions of Plato’s works these dialogues are still arranged like this: Timaeus for De republica, and Epinomids for Du legibus; tav eg. they are located in the Paris edition of Girshigia. Stoics; but our writer most likely had before his eyes similar words from Philo from the beginning of the 2nd book of his “De vita Moysis” or from “De migratione Abrahami”. An allusion to the production of the word ϑεσμὸς from ϑεῖος Divine and νόμος law. Hezihiy also identifies the tesmas with Divine laws. Philo in his work De vita Moysis says: “So, the purpose of the laws, according to the Most Divine Moses, is to follow God.” Hence Clement’s thought: “It (the law of Moses) precisely leads us to God.” True etymology: ϑεσ-μὸς=τε-ϑ-μό; from the root ϑε, the same as in τί-ϑη-μι; The threads are therefore equal to our code. An addition referring to heretics who denied that the law comes from the good God, since it threatens punishments. Since the writer needed to prove that the Law is good and, like the Gospel, teaches love, which the Jews did not understand enough, he cites passages from both testaments in which this ignorance of the Jews is condemned. By introducing the word truly, the writer distinguishes the mysteries of the Gospel from the Eleusinian mysteries and other secular ones, which, although many were called great, were in fact not so. Also in Phaedrus, in Sophist and in De republ. 7. Thus, in Plato the content of dialectics is not yet separated from the content of metaphysics. In its proper sense, dialectics is nothing more than applied logic, verbal discussion, proof and refutation of various provisions, definitions of a particular subject, but also their protection from the opponent’s objections. This area remains almost completely unknown to today's students. There is literally no such saying in the Holy Scriptures. Scripture, but many of the fathers assimilate it, some to Christ, others to the Apostles. It does not contradict Scripture and is sufficiently explained by the expressions found in it. Pure silver (1 Chronicles 29:4), pure gold (2 Chronicles 9:17) are known to Scripture. And since the purity of these metals is recognized by fire, then from here, through metaphor, came the expressions tested in Christ (Rom. 16:10), so that those who are experienced and experienced may be revealed among you (1 Cop. 11:19); this also includes expressions (2 Cop. 10:18; 13:7; 2 Tim. 2:15; James 1:12). In connection with the concept of a money changer (Matt. 25:27) and through consideration with (1 Thess. 5:25), even a direct saying is drawn up: “Be experienced money changers.” Our writer returns to this saying again in Strom. 2:4; 6:10: 7:15. Distinguishing the threefold meaning in Scripture: mysterious, moral and prophetic. That is and not adults, feeding on the milk of teaching. Myukon is one of the small Cycladic islands and southeast of Tenos, and to the east and near Delos, north of Naxos. According to Hesychius, the name of the island means a heap, a pile of rubbish. Perhaps already in the name of the island there is hidden a memory of its volcanic origin. Mythical time makes the island the theater of Hercules' struggle with the giants, all of whom he killed; here was their grave. Hidden in this myth is an apparently new memory of later earthquakes and geological upheavals on the island. Hence the proverb “how Myukonyan crushed everything under himself.” Hence, our writer obviously wanted to say with his metaphor that in Scripture one cannot be understood in the same way as another and everything can be summed up solely by the letter; should, and the distinguishing began to be applied to it: it is far from being an indifferent de pile of something (compare the context of the writer). The early baldness of the Myukonians, for which they were known throughout Hellas, could also give the writer a reason for a metaphor: it is impossible to cut all Scripture, like the Myukonians, with the same brush, without distinguishing one from the other: it is filled with not indifferent scribbles. The connection of this chapter with the previous one is as follows: The will of the law cannot be comprehended by infants who feed on the milk of teaching, but only by adults who feed on solid food. That is why the Hellenes, who live with children’s fables, cannot understand it. Above, at the beginning of ch. 15th, the writer has already referred to this conversation between the Egyptian priest and the ancient Hellenic legislator. Justin also cites him in his “Admonition to the Hellenes,” and Eusebius in Praep. ev. 10:4; Cyril of Alexandria against Julian in the book. 1st; Theodoret in “Healing Hellenic Prejudices.” Plato sets out this conversation at the beginning of Timaeus. The mediating thought could be expressed by ours: Have mercy, have mercy. Mediating thought: and yet there are people, and many of them, who believe them. The Timaeus is not far from the beginning. In his “Shepherd” book. 1, visible. 4. Only differently, and this tirade expresses the same idea that is contained in the words of the Apostle: Jews demand miracles, but Greeks seek wisdom (1 Cop. 1:22). Compare Strom. 1:2 at the end. Our writer returns to this same verse of Pindar back in Strom. 2:4. Why argue fruitlessly with the century: Custom is despot among people, says our Pushkin. Who read the 38th chapter. 3rd book of Herodotus, it is difficult for him to resist the guess that these two verses were inspired by our poet precisely by her (Martynov’s translation of the history of Herodotus came out two years before the beginning of “Eugene Onegin”) and that they present us with the same verse of Pindar, cited by Herodotus in the indicated chapter. The father of history understood this verse of Pindar about the omnipotence between people of morals, opinions and customs inherited from their ancestors and fathers; these morals, especially if they are ancient among the people, are difficult to eradicate or cannot be changed; This is why this unwritten law even surpasses the written one in its meaning and importance. Plato cites this verse of Pindar in his “Gorgias” (slightly earlier than the middle of the dialogue) and understands it already about the law of nature, because he reads it with the addition of ϰατὰ φύσιν. Our famous translator of Plato's works, G. Karpov, would very much like to understand Pindar's verse in accordance with Herodotus; therefore, he assimilates the addition ϰατὰ φύσιν to the sophists, although Plato in the Protagoras and twice in De leg. in the book 3 and 4 again reads it with ϰατὰ φύσιν. Origen (contra Cels. 5:40) understood this verse of Pindar to be about the law of nature or natural, although he cited it according to Herodotus. Our Clement precedes him with the same understanding. Whether the addition ϰατὰ φύσιν belongs to the sophists or to Pindar himself, that is the question; It is enough for us here that our writer read the cited verse of Pipdar with the said addition and proceeded from there in his further reasoning: for his philosophical ideas such reading represented a very solid basis. It is most likely, however, that Pindar himself by his “law” meant the laws of nature or nature, invariably and unshakably extending their royal dominion over the entire visible world, as a kind of divine force that governs and organizes everything. This is how this verse of Pindar was already understood by the ancients, such as Euripides, Chrysinnus and others. Literally. The writer perhaps wants to express the idea that the idea of ​​the Divine is concretely presented to us in the covenant, by which, however, we do not need to mean Scripture alone, but also the laws of nature and human nature, for Scripture speaks of the covenant before it itself existed. Of course, here is probably the 2nd verse of the same chapter: And I will establish My covenant between Me and you and will greatly multiply you. Add an intermediary thought: since the covenant is spoken of when there were no letters yet, therefore, etc. With this tirade, it seems to us, the writer wants to say the following: “God is revealed not only through Scripture, but also through visible nature and man. In relation to the Revelation of God in nature, Plato therefore calls Him the Great Mind; in relation to the history of mankind, we call Him Logos; Moses speaks about the Lord and about the covenant, calling God in the name of the Lord the Judge, and through the connection of the concept of the Lord with the covenant, shedding light on the nature of the covenant, according to which it is the content of the judgments of God, punishing the wicked and seeking the pious. But according to the laws of nature, this follows. By covenant, therefore, one does not need to mean only Scripture, but all natural and written laws in general.” The meaning attached by the writer to this expression can be gleaned from the above notes. The very expression of the apocrypha is repeated again in Strom, 2:15 and in Excerptis, 58.