A Plea for the Christians
A petition to the emperors Marcus Aurelius and Commodus, written about AD 177, defending Christians against the charges of atheism, cannibalism and immorality. Athenagoras argues for one God from reason and from the prophets, and describes how Christians actually live.
GreekOtto edition, 1857
English, ANFAnte-Nicene Fathers, vol. 2 (1885)
Modern EnglishSermonIndex
Opening address
Αὐτοκράτορσιν Μάρκῳ Αὐρηλίῳ Ἀντωνίνῳ καὶ Λουκίῳ Αὐρηλίῳ Κομμόδῳ, Ἀρμενιακοῖς, Σαρματικοῖς, τὸ δὲ μέγιστον Φιλοσόφοις.
Injustice Shown Towards the Christians.To the Emperors Marcus Aurelius Anoninus and Lucius Aurelius Commodus, conquerors of Armenia and Sarmatia, and more than all, philosophers.
To the Emperors Marcus Aurelius Antoninus and Lucius Aurelius Commodus, conquerors of Armenia and Sarmatia, and above all, philosophers.
Translator’s note. “Armeniakos” and “Sarmatikos” are victory titles taken from conquered peoples.
Chapter 1
Ἡ ὑμετέρα, μεγάλοι βασιλέων, οἰκουμένη, ἄλλος ἄλλοις ἔθεσι χρῶνται καὶ νόμοις, καὶ οὐδεὶς αὐτῶν νόμῳ καὶ φόβῳ δίκης, κἂν γελοῖα ᾖ, μὴ στέργειν τὰ πάτρια εἴργεται. Ἀλλ᾿ ὁ μὲν Ἰλιεὺς θεὸν Ἕκτορα λέγει καὶ τὴν Ἑλένην Ἀδράστειαν ἐπιστάμενος προσκυνεῖ, ὁ δὲ Λακεδαιμόνιος Ἀγαμέμνονα Δία καὶ Φιλονόην τὴν Τυνδάρεω θυγατέρα καὶ Τέννην ὁ Τενέδιος σέβει, ὁ δὲ Ἀθηναῖος Ἐρεχθεῖ Ποσειδῶνι θύει· καὶ Ἀγραύλῳ Ἀθηναῖοι καὶ τελετὰς καὶ μυστήρια ἄγουσι καὶ Πανδρόσῳ, αἲ ἐνομίσθησαν ἀσεβεῖν ἀνοίξασαι τὴν λάρνακα.Καὶ ἑνὶ λόγῳ κατὰ ἔθνη καὶ δήμους θυσίας κατάγουσιν ἃς ἂν θέλωσιν ἄνθρωποι καὶ μυστήρια. Οἱ δὲ Αἰγύπτιοι καὶ αἰλούρους καὶ κροκοδείλους καὶ ὄφεις καὶ ἀσπίδας καὶ κύνας θεοὺς νομίζουσι. Καὶ τούτοις πᾶσιν ἐπιτρέπετε καὶ ὑμεῖς καὶ οἱ νόμοι, τὸ μὲν οὖν μηδ᾿ ὅλως θεὸν ἡγεῖσθαι ἀσεβὲς καὶ ἀνόσιον νομίσαντες, τὸ δὲ οἷς ἕκαστος βούλεται χρῆσθαι ὡς θεοῖς ἀναγκαῖον, ἵνα τῷ πρὸς τὸ θεῖον δέει ἀπέχωνται τοῦ ἀδικεῖν.
Injustice Shown Towards the Christians.In your empire, greatest of sovereigns, different nations have different customs and laws; and no one is hindered by law or fear of punishment from following his ancestral usages, however ridiculous these may be. A citizen of Ilium calls Hector a god, and pays divine honours to Helen, taking her for Adrasteia. The Lacedaemonian venerates Agamemnon as Zeus, and Phylonoe ( the daughter of Tyndarus; and the man of Tenedos worships Tennes. The Athenian sacrifices to Erechtheus as Poseidon. The Athenians also perform religious rites and celebrate mysteries in honour of Agraulus and Pandrosus, women who were deemed guilty of impiety for opening the box. In short, among every nation and people, men offer whatever sacrifices and celebrate whatever mysteries they please. The Egyptians reckon among their gods even cats, and crocodiles, and serpents, and asps, and dogs. And to all these both you and the laws give permission so to act, deeming, on the one hand, that to believe in no god at all is impious and wicked, and on the other, that it is necessary for each man to worship the gods he prefers, in order that through fear of the deity, men may be kept from wrong-doing.
Throughout your empire, greatest of kings, different peoples follow different customs and laws. No one is kept by law or by fear of punishment from loving his ancestral ways, however ridiculous they may be. The man of Ilium calls Hector a god, and he worships Helen, believing her to be Adrasteia. The Spartan reveres Agamemnon as Zeus, and also Philonoe, the daughter of Tyndareus. The man of Tenedos worships Tennes. The Athenian sacrifices to Erechtheus as Poseidon. The Athenians also hold rites and mysteries for Agraulus and Pandrosus, who were judged guilty of impiety for opening the chest. In a word, every nation and every community establishes whatever sacrifices and mysteries people want. The Egyptians regard even cats, crocodiles, snakes, asps and dogs as gods. And both you and your laws allow all of this. You consider it impious and unholy to believe in no god at all, but necessary for each person to worship whatever gods he chooses, so that through fear of the divine they may keep from doing wrong.
Translator’s note. The “chest” is the one Athena gave the daughters of Cecrops to guard. In most surviving versions of the myth, Aglauros (Agraulus) and Herse opened it, while Pandrosus obeyed. Athenagoras’ account differs from these versions.
Ὑμῖν δὲ (καὶ μὴ παρακρουσθῆτε ὡς οἱ πολλοὶ ἐξ ἀκοῆς) τὸ ὄνομα τί ἀπεχθάνεται; Οὐ γὰρ τὰ ὀνόματα μίσους ἄξια, ἀλλὰ τὸ ἀδίκημα δίκης καὶ τιμωρίας. Διόπερ τὸ πρᾶον ὑμῶν καὶ ἥμερον καὶ τὸ πρὸς ἅπαντα εἰρηνικὸν καὶ φιλάνθρωπον θαυμάζοντες οἱ μὲν καθ᾿ ἕνα ἰσονομοῦνται, αἱ δὲ πόλεις πρὸς ἀξίαν τῆς ἴσης μετέχουσι τιμῆς, καὶ ἡ σύμπασα οἰκουμένη τῇ ὑμετέρᾳ συνέσει βαθείας εἰρήνης ἀπολαύουσιν. Ἡμεῖς δὲ οἱ λεγόμενοι Χριστιανοί, ὅτι μὴ προνενόησθε καὶ ἡμῶν, συγχωρεῖτε δὲ μηδὲν ἀδικοῦντας, ἀλλὰ καὶ πάντων, ὡς προϊόντος τοῦ λόγου δειχθήσεται, εὐσεβέστατα διακειμένους καὶ δικαιότατα πρός τε τὸ θεῖον καὶ τὴν ὑμετέραν βασιλείαν, ἐλαύνεσθαι καὶ φέρεσθαι καὶ διώκεσθαι, ἐπὶ μόνῳ ὀνόματι προσπολεμούντων ἡμῖν τῶν πολλῶν, μηνύσαι τὰ καθ᾿ ἑαυτοὺς ἐτολμήσαμεν (διδαχθήσεσθε δὲ ὑπὸ τοῦ λόγου ἄτερ δίκης καὶ παρὰ πάντα νόμον καὶ λόγον πάσχοντας ἡμᾶς), καὶ δεόμεθα ὑμῶν καὶ περὶ ἡμῶν τι σκέψασθαι, ὅπως παυσώμεθά ποτε ὑπὸ τῶν συκοφαντῶν σφαττόμενοι.
But why-for do not, like the multitude, be led astray by hearsay-why is a mere name odious to you? Names are not deserving of hatred: it is the unjust act that calls for penalty and punishment. And accordingly, with admiration of your mildness and gentleness, and your peaceful and benevolent disposition towards every man, individuals live in the possession of equal rights; and the cities, according to their rank, share in equal honour; and the whole empire, under your intelligent sway, enjoys profound peace. But for us who are called Christians you have not in like manner cared; but although we commit no wrong-nay, as will appear in the sequel of this discourse, are of all men most piously and righteously disposed towards the Deity and towards your government-you allow us to be harassed, plundered, and persecuted, the multitude making war upon us for our name alone. We venture, therefore, to lay a statement of our case before you-and you will team from this discourse that we suffer unjustly, and contrary to all law and reason-and we beseech you to bestow some consideration upon us also, that we may cease at length to be slaughtered at the instigation of false accusers.
But why is a name hateful to you? (Do not be misled by hearsay, as most people are.) Names do not deserve hatred. It is wrongdoing that deserves trial and punishment. That is why individuals, who admire your mildness and gentleness and your peaceful and kindly spirit toward everyone, enjoy equal rights. Cities share equal honor according to their worth, and the whole world, thanks to your wisdom, enjoys deep peace. But we who are called Christians you have not taken thought for. You allow us, though we do nothing wrong, to be hounded, plundered and persecuted, while the crowds make war on us for our name alone. As the argument goes on it will be shown that we are, of all people, the most devout and just in our attitude toward God and toward your empire. So we have dared to explain our situation. You will learn from this discourse that we suffer unjustly and against every law and reason. We ask you to give some thought to us as well, so that we may at last stop being slaughtered by false accusers.
Translator’s note. The Greek calls the accusers “sycophants,” meaning informers who bring malicious charges.
Οὐδὲ γὰρ εἰς χρήματα ἡ παρὰ τῶν διωκόντων ζημία, οὐδὲ εἰς ἐπιτιμίαν ἡ αἰσχύνη, ἢ εἰς ἄλλο τι τῶν μειζόνων ἡ βλάβη· τούτων γὰρ καταφρονοῦμεν, κἂν τοῖς πολλοῖς δοκῇ σπουδαῖα, δέροντα οὐ μόνον μὴ ἀντιπαίειν οὐδὲ μὴν δικάζεσθαι τοῖς ἄγουσι καὶ ἁρπάζουσιν ἡμᾶς μεμαθηκότες, ἀλλὰ τοῖς μέν, κἂν κατὰ κόῤῥης προσπηλακίζωσι, καὶ τὸ ἕτερον παίειν παρέχειν τῆς κεφαλῆς μέρος, τοῖς δέ, εἰ τὸν χιτῶνα ἀφαιροῖντο, ἐπιδιδόναι καὶ τὸ ἱμάτιον. Ἀλλ᾿ εἰς τὰ σώματα καὶ τὰς ψυχάς, ὅταν ἀπείπωμεν τοῖς χρήμασιν, ἐπιβουλεύουσιν ἡμῖν, κατασκεδάζοντες ὄχλον ἐγκλημάτων· ἃ ἡμῖν μὲν οὐδὲ μέχρις ὑπονοίας, τοῖς δὲ ἀδολεσχοῦσι καὶ τῷ ἐκείνων πρόσεστι γένει.
For the fine imposed by our persecutors does not aim merely at our property, nor their insults at our reputation, nor the damage they do us at any other of our greater interests. These we hold in contempt, though to the generality they appear matters of great importance; for we have learned, not only not to return blow for blow, nor to go to law with those who plunder and rob us, but to those who smite us on one side of the face to offer the other side also, and to those who take away our coat to give likewise our cloak. But, when we have surrendered our property, they plot against our very bodies and souls, pouring upon us wholesale charges of crimes of which we are guiltless even in thought, but which belong to these idle praters themselves, and to the whole tribe of those who are like them.
The loss our persecutors inflict does not stop at our money, nor the disgrace at our reputation, nor the harm at any other of the greater things. These we despise, though most people think them important. For we have learned not to hit back when we are beaten, and not to go to law against those who drag us away and plunder us. More than that, we have learned to offer the other side of the head to those who strike us on the cheek, and to give our cloak as well to those who take our tunic. But when we have given up our property, they plot against our bodies and our souls, heaping up a crowd of charges against us. These charges do not touch us even in thought. They belong to the babblers who make them, and to their whole kind.
Translator’s note. The teaching on turning the other cheek and giving the cloak echoes the Sermon on the Mount (Matthew 5:39–40; Luke 6:29). Athenagoras does not name the source.
Scripture: Matthew 5:39-40; Luke 6:29
Chapter 2
Καὶ εἰ μέν τις ἡμᾶς ἐλέγχειν ἔχει ἢ μικρὸν ἢ μεῖζον ἀδικοῦντας, κολάζεσθαι οὐ παραιτούμεθα, ἀλλὰ καὶ ἥτις πικροτάτη καὶ ἀνηλεὴς τιμωρία ὑπέχειν ἀξιοῦμεν. Εἰ δὲ μέχρις ὀνόματος ἡ κατηγορία (εἰς γοῦν τὴν σήμερον ἡμέραν ἃ περὶ ἡμῶν λογοποιοῦσιν ἡ κοινὴ καὶ ἄκριτος τῶν ἀνθρώπων φήμη, καὶ οὐδεὶς ἀδικῶν Χριστιανὸς ἐλήλεγκται), ὑμῶν ἤδη ἔργον τῶν μεγίστων καὶ φιλανθρώπων καὶ φιλομαθεστάτων βασιλέων, ἀποσκευάσαι ἡμῶν νόμῳ τὴν ἐπήρειαν, ἵν᾿, ὥσπερ ἡ σύμπασα ταῖς παρ᾿ ὑμῶν εὐεργεσίαις καὶ καθ᾿ ἕνα κεκοινώνηκε καὶ κατὰ πόλεις, καὶ ἡμεῖς ἔχωμεν ὑμῖν χάριν, σεμνυνόμενοι ὅτι πεπαύμεθα συκοφαντούμενοι. Καὶ γὰρ οὐ πρὸς τῆς ὑμετέρας δικαιοσύνης τοὺς μὲν ἄλλους, αἰτίαν λαβόντας ἀδικημάτων, μὴ πρότερον ἢ ἐλεγχθῆναι κολάζεσθαι, ἐφ᾿ ἡμῶν δὲ μεῖζον ἰσχύειν τὸ ὄνομα τῶν ἐπὶ τῇ δίκῃ ἐλέγχων, οὐκ εἰ ἠδίκησέ τι ὁ κρινόμενος τῶν δικαζόντων ἐπιζητούντων, ἀλλ᾿ εἰς τὸ ὄνομα ὡς εἰς ἀδίκημα ἐνυβριζόντων.
Claim to Be Treated as Others are When Accused.If, indeed, any one can convict us of a crime, be it small or great, we do not ask to be excused from punishment, but are prepared to undergo the sharpest and most merciless inflictions. But if the accusation relates merely to our name-and it is undeniable, that up to the present time the stories told about us rest on nothing better than the common undiscriminating popular talk, nor has any Christian been convicted of crime-it will devolve on you, illustrious and benevolent and most learned sovereigns, to remove by law this despiteful treatment, so that, as throughout the world both individuals and cities partake of your beneficence, we also may feel grateful to you, exulting that we are no longer the victims of false accusation. For it does not comport with your justice, that others when charged with crimes should not be punished till they are convicted, but that in our case the name we bear should have more force than the evidence adduced on the trial, when the judges, instead of inquiring whether the person arraigned have committed any crime, vent their insults on the name, as if that were itself a crime.
If anyone can prove that we are guilty of wrongdoing, small or great, we do not refuse to be punished. We consider it right to suffer even the harshest and most merciless penalty. But if the accusation goes no further than a name, then it is your task, great and kindly and most learned emperors, to remove this abuse from us by law. (Up to this very day, what people say about us rests on common, undiscerning rumor, and no Christian has been proved guilty of any wrong.) Then, just as the whole world, both individuals and cities, shares in your benefits, we too may thank you and be proud that we are no longer falsely accused. It does not fit your justice that others who are charged with crimes are not punished until they are convicted, while in our case the name counts for more than the proofs at the trial. The judges do not inquire whether the accused has done any wrong, but heap abuse on the name as though it were a crime.
Οὐδὲν δὲ ὄνομα ἐφ᾿ ἑαυτοῦ καὶ δι᾿ αὐτοῦ οὐ πονηρὸν οὔτε χρηστὸν νομίζεται, διὰ δὲ τὰς ὑποκειμένας αὐτοῖς ἢ πονηρὰς ἢ ἀγαθὰς πράξεις ἢ φλαῦρα ἢ ἀγαθὰ δοκεῖ. Ὑμεῖς δὲ ταῦτα ἴστε φανερώτερον, ὡσανεὶ ἀπὸ φιλοσοφίας καὶ παιδείας πάσης ὁρμώμενοι. Διὰ τοῦτο καὶ οἱ παρ᾿ ὑμῖν κρινόμενοι, κἂν ἐπὶ μεγίστοις φεύγωσι, θαῤῥοῦσιν, εἰδότες ὅτι ἐξετάσετε αὐτῶν τὸν βίον, καὶ οὔτε τοῖς ὀνόμασι προσθήσεσθε, ἂν ᾖ κενά, οὔτε ταῖς ἀπὸ τῶν κατηγοριῶν αἰτίαις, εἰ ψευδεῖς εἶεν· ἐν ἴσῃ τάξει τὴν καταδικάζουσαν τῆς ἀπολυούσης δέχονται ψῆφον. Τὸ τοίνυν πρὸς ἅπαντας ἴσον καὶ ἡμεῖς ἀξιοῦμεν, μὴ ὅτι Χριστιανοὶ λεγόμεθα μισεῖσθαι καὶ κολάζεσθαι (τί γὰρ ἡμῖν τὸ ὄνομα πρὸς κακίαν τελεῖ;), ἀλλὰ κρίνεσθαι ἐφ᾿ ὅτων ἂν καὶ εὐθύνῃ τις, καὶ ἢ ἀφίεσθαι ἀπολυομένους τὰς κατηγορίας ἢ κολάζεσθαι τοὺς ἁλισκομένους πονηρούς, μὴ ἐπὶ τῷ ὀνόματι (οὐδεὶς γὰρ Χριστιανὸς πονηρός, εἰ μὴ ὑποκρίνεται τὸν λόγον), ἐπὶ δὲ τῷ ἀδικήματι.
But no name in and by itself is reckoned either good or bad; names appear bad or good according as the actions underlying them are bad or good. You, however, have yourselves a dear knowledge of this, since you are well instructed in philosophy and all learning. For this reason, too, those who are brought before you for trial, though they may be arraigned on the gravest charges, have no fear, because they know that you will inquire respecting their previous life, and not be influenced by names if they mean nothing, nor by the charges contained in the indictments if they should be false: they accept with equal satisfaction, as regards its fairness, the sentence whether of condemnation or acquittal. What, therefore, is conceded as the common right of all, we claim for ourselves, that we shall not be hated and punished because we are called Christians (for what has the name to do with our being bad men? ), but be tried on any charges which may be brought against us, and either be released on our disproving them, or punished if convicted of crime-not for the name (for no Christian is a bad man unless he falsely profess our doctrines), but for the wrong which has been done.
No name is considered good or bad in itself or by itself. A name seems good or bad because of the good or bad actions that lie behind it. You know this very clearly, since you come to the matter with all the learning of philosophy and education. That is why people brought to trial before you are confident, even when they stand accused of the gravest crimes. They know that you will examine their lives. You will not be swayed by names, if the names are empty, or by the grounds of the accusations, if they are false. They accept a verdict of condemnation as readily as one of acquittal, since they trust it to be fair. We ask for the same fairness that is shown to everyone. We ask that we not be hated and punished because we are called Christians (for what can the name contribute to wickedness?). We ask instead to be tried on whatever charges anyone brings against us. Those cleared of the accusations should be released, and those found guilty of wrongdoing should be punished. This should be for the crime, not for the name, since no Christian is wicked unless he only pretends to hold our teaching.
Translator’s note. The older translation’s “unless he falsely profess our doctrines” renders the Greek “unless he plays a part regarding the word (logos).” Here logos means the Christian message or teaching.
Οὕτω καὶ τοὺς ἀπὸ φιλοσοφίας κρινομένους ὁρῶμεν. Οὐδεὶς αὐτῶν πρὸ κρίσεως διὰ τὴν ἐπιστήμην ἢ τέχνην ἀγαθὸς ἢ πονηρὸς τῷ δικαστῇ εἶναι δοκεῖ, ἀλλὰ δόξας μὲν εἶναι ἄδικος κολάζεται, οὐδὲν τῇ φιλοσοφίᾳ προστριψάμενος ἔγκλημα (ἐκεῖνος γὰρ πονηρὸς ὁ μὴ ὡς νόμος φιλοσοφῶν, ἡ δὲ ἐπιστήμη ἀναίτιος), ἀπολυσάμενος δὲ τὰς διαβολὰς ἀφίεται. Ἔστω δὴ τὸ ἴσον καὶ ἐφ᾿ ἡμῶν· ὁ τῶν κρινομένων ἐξεταζέσθω βίος, τὸ δὲ ὄνομα παντὸς ἀφείσθω ἐγκλήματος. Ἀναγκαῖον δέ μοι ἀρχομένῳ ἀπολογεῖσθαι ὑπὲρ τοῦ λόγου δεηθῆναι ὑμῶν, μέγιστοι αὐτοκράτορες, ἴσους ἡμῖν ἀκροατὰς γενέσθαι καὶ μὴ τῇ κοινῇ καὶ ἀλόγῳ φήμῃ συναπενεχθέντας προκατασχεθῆναι, ἐπιτρέψαι δὲ ὑμῶν τὸ φιλομαθὲς καὶ φιλάληθες καὶ τῷ καθ᾿ ἡμᾶς λόγῳ. Ὑμεῖς τε γὰρ οὐ πρὸς ἀγνοίας ἐξαμαρτήσετε καὶ ἡμεῖς, τὰ ἀπὸ τῆς ἀκρίτου τῶν πολλῶν φήμης ἀπολυσάμενοι, παυσόμεθα πολεμούμενοι.
It is thus that we see the philosophers judged. None of them before trial is deemed by the judge either good or bad on account of his science or art, but if found guilty of wickedness he is punished, without thereby affixing any stigma on philosophy (for he is a bad man for not cultivating philosophy in a lawful manner, but science is blameless), while if he refutes the false charges he is acquitted. Let this equal justice, then, be done to us. Let the life of the accused persons be investigated, but let the name stand free from all imputation. I must at the outset of my defence entreat you, illustrious emperors, to listen to me impartially: not to be carried away by the common irrational talk and prejudge the case, but to apply your desire of knowledge and love of truth to the examination of our doctrine also. Thus, while you on your part will not err through ignorance, we also, by disproving the charges arising out of the undiscerning rumour of the multitude, shall cease to be assailed.
This is how we see philosophers treated when they are tried. Before the trial, none of them is thought by the judge to be good or bad because of his knowledge or craft. If he is judged guilty of wrongdoing, he is punished, and no blame is attached to philosophy itself (for the wicked man is the one who does not practice philosophy as the law requires, while the discipline itself is blameless). If he clears himself of the slanders, he is released. Let the same fairness be shown to us. Let the lives of the accused be examined, and let the name be cleared of every charge. As I begin my defense of our teaching, I must ask you, most mighty emperors, to be fair listeners to us. Do not be carried away and prejudiced by common, unreasoning rumor. Instead, give your love of learning and your love of truth a place in considering our teaching as well. Then you will not sin through ignorance, and we, once cleared of the charges that come from the undiscerning talk of the crowd, will stop being attacked.
Chapter 3
Τρία ἐπιφημίζουσιν ἡμῖν ἐγκλήματα, ἀθεότητα, Θυέστεια δεῖπνα, Οἰδιποδείους μίξεις. Ἀλλὰ εἰ μὲν ἀληθῆ ταῦτα, μηδενὸς γένους φείσησθε, ἐπεξέλθετε δὲ τοῖς ἀδικήμασι· σὺν γυναιξὶ καὶ παισὶ προῤῥίζους ἡμᾶς ἀποκτείνατε, εἴ γέ τις Χριστιανῶν ζῇ δίκην θηρίων. Καίτοι γε καὶ τὰ θηρία τῶν ὁμογενῶν οὐχ ἅπτεται, καὶ νόμῳ φύσεως καὶ πρὸς ἕνα καιρὸν τὸν τῆς τεκνοποιΐας, οὐκ ἐπ᾿ ἀδείας μίγνυται, γνωρίζει δὲ καὶ ὑφ᾿ ὧν ὠφελεῖται. Εἴ τις οὖν καὶ τῶν θηρίων ἀνημερώτερος, τίνα οὗτος πρὸς τὰ τηλικαῦτα ὑποσχὼν δίκην καὶ πρὸς ἀξίαν κεκολάσθαι νομισθήσεται; Εἰ δὲ λογοποιΐαι ταῦτα καὶ διαβολαὶ κεναί, φυσικῷ λόγῳ πρὸς τὴν ἀρετὴν τῆς κακίας ἀντικειμένης καὶ πολεμούντων ἀλλήλοις τῶν ἐναντίων θείῳ νόμῳ, καὶ τοῦ μηδὲν τούτων ἀδικεῖν ὑμεῖς μάρτυρες, κελεύοντες μὴ μηνύειν, πρὸς ὑμῶν λοιπὸν ἐξέτασιν ποιήσασθαι βίου, δογμάτων, τῆς πρὸς ὑμᾶς καὶ τὸν ὑμέτερον οἶκον καὶ τὴν βασιλείαν σπουδῆς καὶ ὑπακοῆς, καὶ οὕτω ποτὲ συγχωρῆσαι ἡμῖν οὐδὲν πλέον τοῖς διώκουσιν ἡμᾶς. Νικήσομεν γὰρ αὐτούς, ὑπὲρ ἀληθείας ἀόκνως καὶ τὰς ψυχὰς ἐπιδιδόντες.
Charges Brought Against the Christians.Three things are alleged against us: atheism, Thyestean feasts, Oedipodean intercourse. But if these charges are true, spare no class: proceed at once against our crimes; destroy us root and branch, with our wives and children, if any Christian is found to live like the brutes. And yet even the brutes do not touch the flesh of their own kind; and they pair by a law of nature, and only at the regular season, not from simple wantonness; they also recognise those from whom they receive benefits. If any one, therefore, is more savage than the brutes, what punishment that he can endure shall be deemed adequate to such offences? But, if these things are only idle tales and empty slanders, originating in the fact that virtue is opposed by its very nature to vice, and that contraries war against one another by a divine law (and you are yourselves witnesses that no such iniquities are committed by us, for you forbid informations to be laid against us), it remains for you to make inquiry concerning our life, our opinions, our loyalty and obedience to you and your house and government, and thus at length to grant to us the same rights (we ask nothing more) as to those who persecute us. For we shall then conquer them, unhesitatingly surrendering, as we now do, our very lives for the truth's sake.
They pin three charges on us: atheism, Thyestean feasts, and Oedipean intercourse. If these things are true, spare no one. Prosecute the crimes. Kill us, root and branch, with our wives and children, if any Christian lives like a wild beast. Yet even wild animals do not touch their own kind. By a law of nature they mate only at one time, the season for bearing young, and not without restraint. They also recognize those who do them good. So if anyone is more savage than the beasts, what penalty could he suffer for such great crimes that would be thought a fitting punishment? But if these are only invented stories and empty slanders, then they arise from the natural opposition of vice to virtue, and from the fact that opposites make war on each other by a divine law. You yourselves are witnesses that we do none of these wrongs, since you order that no one inform against us. What remains is for you to examine our way of life, our teachings, and our zeal and obedience toward you, your house and your empire. Then, at last, grant us the same treatment as those who persecute us, and nothing more. For we will defeat them, since we give up even our lives for the truth without hesitation.
Translator’s note. “Thyestean feasts” refers to the Greek myth of Thyestes, who was tricked into eating his own children. “Oedipean intercourse” refers to Oedipus, who unknowingly married his mother. These stood for the charges of cannibalism and incest.
Chapter 4
Ὅτι μὲν οὖν οὐκ ἐσμὲν ἄθεοι· πρὸς ἓν ἕκαστον ἀπαντήσω τῶν ἐγκλημάτων, μὴ καὶ γελοῖον ᾖ τοὺς λέγοντας μὴ ἐλέγχειν· Διαγόρᾳ μὲν γὰρ εἰκότως ἀθεότητα ἐπεκάλουν Ἀθηναῖοι, μὴ μόνον τὸν Ὀρφικὸν εἰς μέσον κατατιθέντι λόγον καὶ τὰ ἐν Ἐλευσῖνι καὶ τὰ τῶν Καβείρων δημεύοντι μυστήρια καὶ τὸ τοῦ Ἡρακλέους ἵνα τὰς γογγύλας ἑψοῖ κατακόπτοντι ξόανον, ἄντικρυς δὲ ἀποφαινομένῳ μηδ᾿ ὅλως εἶναι θεόν. Ἡμῖν δέ, διαιροῦσιν ἀπὸ τῆς ὕλης τὸν θεόν, καὶ δεικνύουσιν ἕτερον μέν τι εἶναι τὴν ὕλην ἄλλο δὲ τὸν θεὸν καὶ τὸ διὰ μέσου πολύ (τὸ μὲν γὰρ θεῖον ἀγένητον εἶναι καὶ ἀΐδιον, νῷ μόνῳ καὶ λόγῳ θεωρούμενον, τὴν δὲ ὕλην γενητὴν καὶ φθαρτήν), μή τι οὐκ ἀλόγως τὸ τῆς ἀθεότητος ἐπικαλοῦσιν ὄνομα;
The Christians are Not Atheists, But Acknowledge One Only God.As regards, first of all, the allegation that we are atheists-for I will meet the charges one by one, that we may not be ridiculed for having no answer to give to those who make them-with reason did the Athenians adjudge Diagoras guilty of atheism, in that he not only divulged the Orphic doctrine, and published the mysteries of Eleusis and of the Cabiri, and chopped up the wooden statue of Hercules to boil his turnips, but openly declared that there was no God at all. But to us, who distinguish God from matter, and teach that matter is one thing and God another, and that they are separated by a wide interval (for that the Deity is uncreated and eternal, to be beheld by the understanding and reason alone, while matter is created and perishable), is it not absurd to apply the name of atheism?
I will answer each charge in turn, so that we are not ridiculed for failing to refute our accusers. First, that we are not atheists. The Athenians were right to charge Diagoras with atheism. He not only made public the Orphic teaching, exposed the mysteries at Eleusis and those of the Cabiri, and chopped up the wooden statue of Heracles to boil his turnips, but declared outright that there is no god at all. But we separate God from matter. We show that matter is one thing and God another, with a great gap between them. The divine is uncreated and eternal, perceived only by mind and reason, while matter is created and perishable. Is it not unreasonable to call us by the name of atheism?
Εἰ μὲν γὰρ ἐφρονοῦμεν ὅμοια τῷ Διαγόρᾳ, τοσαῦτα ἔχοντες πρὸς θεοσέβειαν ἐνέχυρα, τὸ εὔτακτον, τὸ διὰ παντὸς σύμφωνον, τὸ μέγεθος, τὴν χροίαν, τὸ σχῆμα, τὴν διάθεσιν τοῦ κόσμου, εἰκότως ἂν ἡμῖν καὶ ἡ τοῦ μὴ θεοσεβεῖν δόξα καὶ ἡ τοῦ ἐλαύνεσθαι αἰτία προσετρίβετο. Ἐπεὶ δὲ ὁ λόγος ἡμῶν ἕνα θεὸν ἄγει τὸν τοῦδε τοῦ παντὸς ποιητήν, αὐτὸν μὲν οὐ γενόμενον (ὅτι τὸ ὂν οὐ γίνεται ἀλλὰ τὸ μὴ ὄν), πάντα δὲ διὰ τοῦ παρ᾿ αὐτοῦ λόγου πεποιηκότα, ἑκάτερα ἀλόγως πάσχομεν, καὶ κακῶς ἀγορευόμεθα καὶ διωκόμεθα.
If our sentiments were like those of Diagoras, while we have such incentives to piety-in the established order, the universal harmony, the magnitude, the colour, the form, the arrangement of the world-with reason might our reputation for impiety, as well as the cause of our being thus harassed, be charged on ourselves. But, since our doctrine acknowledges one God, the Maker of this universe, who is Himself uncreated (for that which is does not come to be, but that which is not) but has made all things by theLogos which is from Him, we are treated unreasonably in both respects, in that we are both defamed and persecuted.
Suppose we thought as Diagoras did, even though we have so many pledges pointing us to the worship of God: the good order of the world, its constant harmony, its size, color, shape, and arrangement. Then the reputation for not worshiping God, and the reason for our being harassed, might fairly be pinned on us. But our teaching brings us to one God, the Maker of this whole universe. He was not himself made (because what is does not come into being, only what is not), but he made all things through the Logos that comes from him. So we are wronged in both respects, spoken of badly and persecuted, and both without reason.
Translator’s note. “Logos” means “Word” or “reason.” Athenagoras uses it here for God’s Word through whom all things were made.
Scripture: John 1:3
Chapter 5
Καὶ ποιηταὶ μὲν καὶ φιλόσοφοι οὐκ ἔδοξαν ἄθεοι, ἐπιστήσαντες περὶ θεοῦ. Ὁ μὲν Εὐριπίδης ἐπὶ μὲν τῶν κατὰ κοινὴν πρόληψιν ἀνεπιστημόνως ὀνομαζομένων θεῶν διαπορῶν· Ὤφειλε δ᾿, εἴπερ ἔστ᾿ ἐν οὐρανῷ Ζεύς, μὴ τὸν αὐτὸν δυστυχῆ καθιστάναι. Επὶ δὲ τοῦ κατ᾿ ἐπιστήμην νοητοῦ ὡς ἔχει νοῦς δογματίζων· Ὁρᾷς τὸν ὑψοῦ τόνδ᾿ ἄπειρον αἰθέρα Καὶ γῆν πέριξ ἔχονθ᾿ ὑγραῖς ἐν ἀγκάλαις; Τοῦτον νόμιζε Ζῆνα, τόνδ᾿ ἡγοῦ θεόν. Τῶν μὲν γὰρ οὔτε τὰς οὐσίας, αἷς ἐπικατηγορεῖσθαι τὸ ὄνομα συμβέβηκεν, ὑποκειμένας ἑώρα (Ζῆνα γάρ, ὅστις ἐστὶ Ζεύς, οὐκ οἶδα πλὴν λόγῳ) οὔτε τὰ ὀνόματα καθ᾿ ὑποκειμένων κατηγορεῖσθαι πραγμάτων. (Ὧν γὰρ αἱ οὐσίαι οὐχ ὑπόκεινται, τί πλέον αὐτοῖς τῶν ὀνομάτων;) Τὸν δὲ ἀπὸ τῶν ἔργων, ὄψει τῶν ἀδήλων νοῶν τὰ φαινόμενα ἀέρος, αἰθέρος, γῆς.
Testimony of the Poets to the Unity of God.Poets and philosophers have not been voted atheists for inquiring concerning God. Euripides, speaking of those who, according to popular preconception, are ignorantly called gods, says doubtingly:- "If Zeus indeed does reign in heaven above, He ought not on the righteous ills to send. But speaking of Him who is apprehended by the understanding as matter of certain knowledge, he gives his opinion decidedly, and with intelligence, thus:- "Seest thou on high him who, with humid arms, Clasps both the boundless ether and the earth? Him reckon Zeus, and him regard as God. For, as to these so-called gods, he neither saw any real existences, to which a name is usually assigned, underlying them ("Zeus," for instance: "who Zeus is I know not, but by report"), nor that any names were given to realities which actually do exist (for of what use are names to those who have no real existences underlying them? ); but Him he did see by means of His works, considering with an eye to things unseen the things which are manifest in air, in ether, on earth.
Poets and philosophers were not thought to be atheists for thinking carefully about God. Euripides speaks about the gods that people name without knowledge, following common assumption, and he expresses doubt: “If Zeus really is in heaven, he ought not to make the same man unfortunate.” But when he speaks of the God who is grasped by the mind through knowledge, he states his view as his understanding holds it: “Do you see this boundless ether on high, which holds the earth around in its moist arms? Think of this as Zeus. Consider this to be God.” He did not see that the beings to which the name is applied actually exist (as he says, “Zeus, whoever Zeus is, I know only by report”). Nor did he see that the names are applied to things that really exist. (For those whose beings do not exist, what do they have beyond names?) But the other God he understood from his works. By sight he perceived the unseen through what is visible: the air, the ether, the earth.
Translator’s note. The older translation turns Euripides’ line into “He ought not on the righteous ills to send.” The Greek says only that Zeus ought not to make “the same man” unfortunate.
Scripture: Romans 1:20
Οὗ οὖν τὰ ποιήματα καὶ ὑφ᾿ οὗ τῷ πνεύματι ἡνιοχεῖται, τοῦτον κατελαμβάνετο εἶναι θεόν, συνᾴδοντος τούτῳ καὶ Σοφοκλέους· Εἷς ταῖς ἀληθείαισιν, εἷς ἐστιν θεός, Ὃς οὐρανόν τ᾿ ἔτευξε καὶ γαῖαν μακράν, πρὸς τὴν τοῦ θεοῦ φύσιν τοῦ κάλλους τὰ ἐκείνου πληρουμένην ἑκάτερα, καὶ ποῦ δεῖ εἶναι τὸν θεὸν καὶ ὅτι ἕνα δεῖ εἶναι, διδάσκων.
Him therefore, from whom proceed all created things, and by whose Spirit they are governed, he concluded to be God; and Sophocles agrees with him, when he says:- "There is one God, in truth there is but one, Who made the heavens, and the broad earth beneath. [Euripides is speaking] of the nature of God, which fills His works with beauty, and teaching both where God must be, and that He must be One.
So the one whose works these are, and by whose Spirit they are steered, Euripides grasped to be God. Sophocles agrees with him: “One, in truth there is one God, who made heaven and the wide earth.” Concerning the nature of God, which fills both heaven and earth with his beauty, Euripides teaches where God must be and that there must be only one.
Translator’s note. These lines are attributed to Sophocles here and by other early Christian writers, but they are not found in his surviving works. Many scholars think they were composed later and attributed to him.
Chapter 6
Καὶ Φιλόλαος δέ, ὥσπερ ἐν φρουρᾷ πάντα ὑπὸ τοῦ θεοῦ περιειλῆφθαι λέγων, καὶ τὸ ἕνα εἶναι καὶ τὸ ἀνωτέρω τῆς ὕλης δεικνύει. Λύσις δὲ καὶ Ὄψιμος ὁ μὲν ἀριθμὸν ἄῤῥητον ὁρίζεται τὸν θεόν, ὁ δὲ τοῦ μεγίστου τῶν ἀριθμῶν τὴν παρὰ τὸν ἐγγυτάτω ὑπεροχήν. Εἰ δὲ μέγιστος μὲν ἀριθμὸς ὁ δέκα κατὰ τοὺς Πυθαγορικούς, ὁ τετρακτύς τε ὢν καὶ πάντας τοὺς ἀριθμητικοὺς καὶ τοὺς ἁρμονίους περιέχων λόγους, τούτῳ δὲ ἐγγὺς παράκειται ὁ ἐννέα, μονάς ἐστιν ὁ θεός, τοῦτ᾿ ἔστιν εἷς. Ἑνὶ γὰρ ὑπερέχει ὁ μέγιστος τὸν ἐγγυτάτω ἐλάχιστον αὐτῷ. Πλάτων δὲ καὶ Ἀριστοτέλης, καὶ οὐχ ὡς ἐπιδεικνύων τὰ δόγματα τῶν φιλοσόφων ἐπ᾿ ἀκριβές, οὕτως ἃ εἰρήκασι περὶ θεοῦ διέξειμι· οἶδα γὰρ ὅτι ὅσον συνέσει καὶ ἰσχύϊ τῆς βασιλείας πάντων ὑπερέχετε τοσοῦτον καὶ τῷ πᾶσαν παιδείαν ἀκριβοῦν πάντων κρατεῖτε, οὕτω καθ᾿ ἕκαστον παιδείας μέρος κατορθοῦντες ὡς οὐδὲ οἱ ἓν αὐτῆς μόριον ἀποτεμνόμενοι.
Opinions of the Philosophers as to the One God.Philolaus, too, when he says that all things are included in God as in a stronghold, teaches that He is one, and that He is superior to matter. Lysis and Opsimus thus define God: the one says that He is an ineffable number, the other that He is the excess of the greatest number beyond that which comes nearest to it. So that since ten is the greatest number according to the Pythagoreans, being the Tetractys, and containing all the arithmetic and harmonic principles, and the Nine stands next to it, God is a unit-that is, one. For the greatest number exceeds the next least by one. Then there are Plato and Aristotle-not that I am about to go through all that the philosophers have said about God, as if I wished to exhibit a complete summary of their opinions; for I know that, as you excel all men in intelligence and in the power of your rule, in the same proportion do you surpass them all in an accurate acquaintance with all learning, cultivating as you do each several branch with more success than even those who have devoted themselves exclusively to any one.
Philolaus also says that all things are enclosed by God as in a guardpost, and so he shows that God is one and above matter. Of Lysis and Opsimus, the one defines God as an ineffable number. The other defines him as the amount by which the greatest number exceeds the one nearest to it. The Pythagoreans hold that the greatest number is ten, since it is the tetractys and contains all the numerical and harmonic ratios. Nine lies next to it. So God is a monad, that is, one, because the greatest number exceeds the nearest below it by one. Then there are Plato and Aristotle. I will not go through what they said about God as if I were giving an exact account of the philosophers’ teachings. I know that you surpass everyone in understanding and in the power of your rule, and that you also excel everyone in exact knowledge of every branch of learning. You succeed in each part of it better than even those who devote themselves to a single part.
Translator’s note. The tetractys was the Pythagoreans’ sacred figure of the first four numbers (1+2+3+4), which add up to ten.
Ἀλλ᾿ ἐπειδὴ ἀδύνατον δεικνύειν ἄνευ παραθέσεως ὀνομάτων ὅτι μὴ μόνοι εἰς μονάδα τὸν θεὸν κατακλείομεν, ἐπὶ τὰς δόξας ἐτραπόμην. Φησὶν οὖν ὁ Πλάτων· Τὸν μὲν οὖν ποιητὴν καὶ πατέρα τοῦδε τοῦ παντὸς εὑρεῖν τε ἔργον καὶ εὑρόντα εἰς πάντας ἀδύνατον λέγειν· ἕνα τὸν ἀγένητον καὶ ἀίδιον νοῶν θεόν. Εἰ δ᾿ οἶδεν καὶ ἄλλους, οἷον ἥλιον καὶ σελήνην καὶ ἀστέρας, ἀλλ᾿ ὡς γενητοὺς οἶδεν αὐτούς· Θεοὶ θεῶν, ὧν ἐγὼ δημιουργὸς πατήρ τε ἔργων, ἄλυτα ἐμοῦ μὴ θέλοντος· τὸ μὲν οὖν δεθὲν πᾶν λυτόν. Εἰ τοίνυν οὐκ ἔστιν ἄθεος Πλάτων, ἕνα τὸν δημιουργὸν τῶν ὅλων νοῶν ἀγένητον θεόν, οὐδὲ ἡμεῖς ἄθεοι, ὑφ᾿ οὗ λόγῳ δεδημιούργηται καὶ τῷ παρ᾿ αὐτοῦ πνεύματι συνέχεται τὰ πάντα τοῦτον εἰδότες καὶ κρατοῦντες θεόν.
But, in as much as it is impossible to demonstrate without the citation of names that we are not alone in confining the notion of God to unity, I have ventured on an enumeration of opinions. Plato, then, says, "To find out the Maker and Father of this universe is difficult; and, when found, it is impossible to declare Him to all," conceiving of one uncreated and eternal God. And if he recognises others as well, such as the sun, moon, and stars, yet he recognises them as created: "gods, offspring of gods, of whom I am the Maker, and the Father of works which are indissoluble apart from my will; but whatever is compounded can be dissolved. If, therefore, Plato is not an atheist for conceiving of one uncreated God, the Framer of the universe, neither are we atheists who acknowledge and firmly hold that He is God who has framed all things by the Logos, and holds them in being by His Spirit.
But it is impossible to show, without citing names, that we are not the only ones who confine God to a unity, so I have turned to their opinions. Plato says: “To find the Maker and Father of this universe is a hard task, and having found him, it is impossible to declare him to everyone.” He is thinking of one uncreated and eternal God. If Plato also knows other gods, such as the sun, moon and stars, he knows them as created: “Gods of gods, of whom I am the craftsman and father of the works. They are indissoluble unless I will it, though everything that has been bound can be dissolved.” So if Plato is not an atheist, since he understands the Craftsman of all things to be one uncreated God, neither are we atheists. We know and hold as God the one by whom all things were made through the Logos and are held together by the Spirit from him.
Translator’s note. Both quotations are from Plato’s Timaeus (28c and 41a–b).
Ὁ δὲ Ἀριστοτέλης καὶ οἱ ἀπ᾿ αὐτοῦ, ἕνα ἄγοντες οἱονεὶ ζῶον σύνθετον, ἐκ ψυχῆς καὶ σώματος συνεστηκότα λέγουσι τὸν θεόν, σῶμα μὲν αὐτοῦ τὸ αἰθέριον νομίζοντες, τούς τε πλανωμένους ἀστέρας καὶ τὴν σφαῖραν τῶν ἀπλανῶν, κινούμενα κυκλοφορητικῶς, ψυχὴν δὲ τὸν ἐπὶ τῇ κινήσει τοῦ σώματος λόγον, αὐτὸν μὲν οὐ κινούμενον, αἴτιον δὲ τῆς τούτου κινήσεως γινόμενον. Οἱ δὲ ἀπὸ τῆς στοᾶς, κἂν ταῖς προσηγορίαις κατὰ τὰς παραλλάξεις τῆς ὕλης, δι᾿ ἧς φασι τὸ πνεῦμα χωρεῖν τοῦ θεοῦ, πληθύνωσι τὸ θεῖον τοῖς ὀνόμασι, τῷ γοῦν ἔργῳ ἕνα νομίζουσι τὸν θεόν· εἰ γὰρ ὁ μὲν θεὸς πῦρ τεχνικὸν ὁδῷ βαδίζον ἐπὶ γενέσεις κόσμου, ἐμπεριειληφὸς ἅπαντας τοὺς σπερματικοὺς λόγους, καθ᾿ οὕς ἕκαστα καθ᾿ εἱμαρμένην γίνεται, τὸ δὲ πνεῦμα αὐτοῦ διήκει δι᾿ ὅλου τοῦ κόσμου, ὁ θεὸς εἷς κατ᾿ αὐτούς, Ζεὺς μὲν κατὰ τὸ ζέον τῆς ὕλης ὀνομαζόμενος, Ἥρα δὲ κατὰ τὸν ἀέρα, καὶ τὰ λοιπὰ καθ᾿ ἕκαστον τῆς ὕλης μέρος δι᾿ ἧς κεχώρηκε καλούμενος.
Aristotle, again, and his followers, recognising the existence of one whom they regard as a sort of compound living creature (zw=on), speak of God as consisting of soul and body, thinking His body to be the etherial space and the planetary stars and the sphere of the fixed stars, moving in circles; but His soul, the reason which presides over the motion of the body, itself not subject to motion, but becoming the cause of motion to the other. The Stoics also, although by the appellations they employ to suit the changes of matter, which they say is permeated by the Spirit of God, they multiply the Deity in name, yet in reality they consider God to be one. For, if God is an artistic fire advancing methodically to the production of the several things in the world, embracing in Himself all the seminal principles by which each thing is produced in accordance with fate, and if His Spirit pervades the whole world, then God is one according to them, being named Zeus in respect of the fervid part (to/\ ze/on) of matter, and Hera in respect of the air (o9 a0h/r), and called by other names in respect of that particular part of matter which He pervades.
Aristotle and his followers also bring in one God, but they speak of him as a kind of composite living being, made up of soul and body. They take his body to be the ethereal region: the wandering stars and the sphere of the fixed stars, which move in circles. His soul is the reason that governs the movement of the body. This reason is not itself moved, but it becomes the cause of the body’s motion. The Stoics multiply the divine by names according to the changes of the matter through which they say God’s Spirit passes. Yet in practice they too hold God to be one. They say God is a craftsmanlike fire proceeding by a set path toward the making of the world. He contains all the seminal principles by which each thing comes to be according to fate, and his Spirit pervades the whole world. So according to them God is one. He is called Zeus from the boiling (zeon) of matter, and Hera from the air (aēr), and given other names from each part of matter through which he has passed.
Translator’s note. The Stoic naming rests on Greek wordplay: Zeus (Zeus) from zeon, “boiling” or “fervent,” and Hera (Hērā) from aēr, “air.”
Chapter 7
Ὅταν οὖν τὸ μὲν εἷναι ἓν τὸ θεῖον ὡς ἐπὶ τὸ πλεῖστον κἂν μὴ θέλωσι τοῖς πᾶσι συμφωνῆται ἐπὶ τὰς ἀρχὰς τῶν ὅλων παραγινομένοις, ἡμεῖς δὲ κρατύνωμεν τὸν διακοσμήσαντα τὸ πᾶν τοῦτο τοῦτον εἶναι τὸν θεόν, τίς ἡ αἰτία τοῖς μὲν ἐπ᾿ ἀδείας ἐξεῖναι καὶ λέγειν καὶ γράφειν περὶ τοῦ θείου ἃ θέλουσιν, ἐφ᾿ ἡμῖν δὲ κεῖσθαι νόμον, οἵ ἔχομεν ὅ τι καὶ νοοῦμεν καὶ ὀρθῶς πεπιστεύκαμεν, ἕνα θεὸν εἶναι, ἀληθείας σημείοις καὶ λόγοις παραστῆσαι; Ποιηταὶ μὲν γὰρ καὶ φιλόσοφοι, ὡς καὶ τοῖς ἄλλοις, ἐπέβαλον στοχαστικῶς, κινηθέντες μὲν κατὰ συμπάθειαν τῆς παρὰ τοῦ θεοῦ πνοῆς ὑπὸ τῆς αὐτὸς αὐτοῦ ψυχῆς ἕκαστος ζητῆσαι, εἰ δυνατὸς εὑρεῖν καὶ νοῆσαι τὴν ἀλήθειαν· τοσοῦτον δὲ δυνηθέντες ὅσον περινοῆσαι οὐχ εὕρηνται, ὡς οὐ παρὰ θεοῦ περὶ θεοῦ ἀξιώσαντες μαθεῖν ἀλλὰ παρ᾿ αὐτοῦ ἕκαστος· διὸ καὶ ἄλλος ἄλλως ἐδογμάτισεν αὐτῶν καὶ περὶ θεοῦ καὶ περὶ ὕλης καὶ περὶ εἰδῶν καὶ περὶ κόσμου.
Superiority of the Christian Doctrine Respecting God.Since, therefore, the unity of the Deity is confessed by almost all, even against their will, when they come to treat of the first principles of the universe, and we in our turn likewise assert that He who arranged this universe is God,-why is it that they can say and write with impunity what they please concerning the Deity, but that against us a law lies in force, though we are able to demonstrate what we apprehend and justly believe, namely that there is one God, with proofs and reason accordant with truth? For poets and philosophers, as to other subjects so also to this, have applied themselves in the way of conjecture, moved, by reason of their affinity with the afflatus from God, each one by his own soul, to try whether he could find out and apprehend the truth; but they have not been found competent fully to apprehend it, because they thought fit to learn, not from God concerning God, but each one from himself; hence they came each to his own conclusion respecting God, and matter, and forms, and the world.
Almost everyone agrees that the divine is one, even when they do not mean to, whenever they come to the first principles of the universe. And we hold that the one who set this whole universe in order is God. So why are others free to say and write whatever they like about the divine, while a law is set against us? We have something to show for what we think and have rightly believed, that there is one God, and we can establish it with signs and arguments of truth. The poets and philosophers, as in other matters, only made guesses. Each was stirred by his own soul, through its kinship with the breath that comes from God, to search for whether he could find and grasp the truth. But they could only go as far as thinking around it, and they did not find it, because they did not think it right to learn about God from God. Instead, each one learned from himself. So each of them taught something different about God, about matter, about forms, and about the world.
Translator’s note. The older translation reads “affinity with the afflatus from God”; the Greek speaks of a shared feeling or kinship (sympatheia) with the “breath” (pnoē) from God.
Ἡμεῖς δὲ ὧν νοοῦμεν καὶ πεπιστεύκαμεν ἔχομεν προφήτας μάρτυρας, οἵ πνεύματι ἐνθέῳ ἐκπεφωνήκασι καὶ περὶ τοῦ θεοῦ καὶ περὶ τῶν τοῦ θεοῦ. Εἴποιτε δ᾿ ἂν καὶ ὑμεῖς, συνέσει καὶ τῇ περὶ τὸ ὄντως θεῖον εὐσεβείᾳ τοὺς ἄλλους προὔχοντες, ὡς ἔστιν ἄλογον παραλιπόντας πιστεύειν τῷ παρὰ τοῦ θεοῦ πνεύματι, ὡς ὄργανα κεκινηκότι τὰ τῶν προφητῶν στόματα, προσέχειν δόξαις ἀνθρωπίναις.
But we have for witnesses of the things we apprehend and believe, prophets, men who have pronounced concerning God and the things of God, guided by the Spirit of God. And you too will admit, excelling all others as you do in intelligence and in piety towards the true God (to\ o !ntwj qei=on), that it would be irrational for us to cease to believe in the Spirit from God, who moved the mouths of the prophets like musical instruments, and to give heed to mere human opinions.
But we have prophets as witnesses to what we think and believe. Moved by a divine Spirit, they spoke out about God and about the things of God. You too, who surpass others in understanding and in reverence toward what is truly divine, would say that it is unreasonable to leave off believing the Spirit from God, who moved the mouths of the prophets as though they were instruments, and to pay attention to human opinions.
Chapter 8
Ὅτι τοίνυν εἷς ἐξ ἀρχῆς ὁ τοῦδε τοῦ παντὸς ποιητὴς θεὸς οὑτωσὶ σκέψασθε, ἵν᾿ ἔχητε καὶ τὸν λογισμὸν ἡμῶν τῆς πίστεως. Εἰ δύο ἐξ ἀρχῆς ἢ πλείους ἦσαν θεοί, ἤτοι ἐν ἑνὶ καὶ ταὐτῷ ἦσαν ἢ ἰδίᾳ ἕκαστος αὐτῶν. Ἐν μὲν οὖν ἑνὶ καὶ ταὐτῷ εἶναι οὐκ ἠδύναντο. Οὐ γὰρ εἰ θεοὶ ὅμοιοι, ἀλλ᾿ ὅτι ἀγένητοι οὐχ ὅμοιοι· τὰ μὲν γὰρ γενητὰ ὅμοια τοῖς παραδείγμασι, τὰ δὲ ἀγένητα ἀνόμοια, οὔτε ἀπό τινος οὔτε πρός τινα γενόμενα. Εἰ δέ, ὡς χεὶρ καὶ ὀφθαλμὸς καὶ ποὺς περὶ ἓν σῶμά εἰσιν τὰ μέρη, ἕνα ἐξ αὐτῶν συμπληροῦντες, ὁ θεὸς εἶς; Καίτοι ὁ μὲν Σωκράτης, παρὸ γενητὸς καὶ φθαρτός, συγκείμενος καὶ διαιρούμενος εἰς μέρη· ὁ δὲ θεὸς ἀγένητος καὶ ἀπαθὴς καὶ ἀδιαίρετος, οὐκ ἄρα συνεστὼς ἐκ μερῶν.
Absurdities of Polytheism.As regards, then, the doctrine that there was from the beginning one God, the Maker of this universe, consider it in this wise, that you may be acquainted with the argumentative grounds also of our faith. If there were from the beginning two or more gods, they were either in one and the same place, or each of them separately in his own. In one and the same place they could not be. For, if they are gods, they are not alike; but because they are uncreated they are unlike: for created things are like their patterns; but the uncreated are unlike, being neither produced from any one, nor formed after the pattern of any one. Hand and eye and foot are parts of one body, making up together one man: is God in this sense one? And indeed Socrates was compounded and divided into parts, just because he was created and perishable; but God is uncreated, and, impassible, and indivisible-does not, therefore, consist of parts.
Now consider, in the following way, that the Maker of this universe has been one God from the beginning, so that you may also have the reasoning behind our faith. Suppose there were two gods from the beginning, or more. Either they were in one and the same place, or each was in a place of his own. They could not be in one and the same place. Being gods does not make them alike. Because they are uncreated, they are not alike. Created things are like their patterns, but uncreated things are unlike, since they came from no one and were made after no one’s likeness. Or is God one in the way that a hand, an eye and a foot are parts of one body, together making up one person? But Socrates is made up of parts and can be divided into them precisely because he was created and is perishable. God is uncreated, beyond suffering and indivisible, so he is not made up of parts.
Εἰ δὲ ἰδίᾳ ἕκαστος αὐτῶν, ὄντος τοῦ τὸν κόσμον πεποιηκότος ἀνωτέρω τῶν γεγονότων καὶ περὶ ἃ ἐποίησέ τε καὶ ἐκόσμησε, ποῦ· ὁ ἕτερος ἢ οἱ λοιποί; Εἰ γὰρ ὁ μὲν κόσμος σφαιρικὸς ἀποτελεσθεὶς οὐρανοῦ κύκλοις ἀποκέκλεισται, ὁ δὲ τοῦ κόσμου ποιητὴς ἀνωτέρω τῶν γεγονότων ἐπέχων αὐτὸν τῇ τούτων προνοίᾳ, τίς ὁ τοῦ ἑτέρου θεοῦ ἢ τῶν λοιπῶν τόπος; Οὔτε γὰρ ἐν τῷ κόσμῳ ἐστίν, ὅτι ἑτέρου ἐστίν· οὔτε περὶ τὸν κόσμον, ὑπὲρ γὰρ τοῦτον ὁ τοῦ κόσμου ποιητὴς θεός. Εἰ δὲ μήτε ἐν τῷ κόσμῳ ἐστὶ μήτε περὶ τὸν κόσμον (τὸ γὰρ περὶ αὐτὸν πᾶν ὑπὸ τούτου κατέχεται), ποῦ ἐστιν; Ἀνωτέρω τοῦ κόσμου καὶ τοῦ θεοῦ; Ἐν ἑτέρῳ κόσμῳ ἢ περὶ ἕτερον;
But if, on the contrary, each of them exists separately, since He that made the world is above the things created, and about the things He has made and set in order, where can the other or the rest be? For if the world, being made spherical, is confined within the circles of heaven, and the Creator of the world is above the things created, managing that by His providential care of these, what place is there for the second god, or for the other gods? For he is not in the world, because it belongs to the other; nor about the world, for God the Maker of the world is above it. But if he is neither in the world nor about the world (for all that surrounds it is occupied by this one ), where is he? Is he above the world and [the first] God? In another world, or about another?
But suppose each of them is in a place of his own. The one who made the world is above the things that have come to be, and around the things he made and put in order. Where, then, is the second god, or the others? The world has been made spherical and is enclosed by the circles of heaven. Its Maker is above what he made and holds it together by his care for it. What place is left for the second god or the rest? He is not in the world, because the world belongs to the other. He is not around the world, because God, the Maker of the world, is above it. And if he is neither in the world nor around it (for everything around it is held by this God), where is he? Is he above the world and above God? In another world, or around another?
Ἀλλ᾿ εἰ μέν ἐστιν ἐν ἑτέρῳ ἢ περὶ ἕτερον, οὔτε περὶ ἡμᾶς ἐστιν ἔτι (οὔ τε γὰρ κόσμου κρατεῖ), οὔτε αὐτὸς δυνάμει μέγας ἐστίν (ἐν γὰρ περιωρισμένῳ τόπῳ ἐστίν). Εἰ δὲ οὔτε ἐν ἑτέρῳ κόσμῳ ἐστὶν (πάντα γὰρ ὑπὸ τούτου πεπλήρωται) οὔτε περὶ ἕτερον (πάντα γὰρ ὑπὸ τούτου κατέχεται), καὶ οὐκ ἔστιν, οὐκ ὄντος ἐν ᾧ ἐστιν. Ἢ τί ποιεῖ, ἑτέρου μὲν ὄντος οὗ ἐστιν ὁ κόσμος, αὐτὸς δὲ ἀνωτέρω ὢν τοῦ ποιητοῦ τοῦ κόσμου, οὐκ ὤν δὲ οὔτε ἐν κόσμῳ οὔτε περὶ κόσμον; Ἀλλ᾿ ἔστι τι ἕτερον, ἵνα που στῇ; Ἀλλ᾿ ὑπὲρ αὐτὸν ὁ θεὸς καὶ τὰ τοῦ θεοῦ. Καὶ τίς ἔσται τόπος, τὰ ὑπὲρ τὸν κόσμον τούτου πεπληρωκότος; Ἀλλὰ προνοεῖ; Καὶ μὴν οὐδέν, εἰ μὴ προνοεῖ, πεποίηκεν. Εἰ δὲ μὴ ποιεῖ μήτε προνοεῖ μήτε ἐστὶ τόπος ἕτερος ἐν ᾧ ἐστιν, εἷς οὗτος ἐξ ἀρχῆς καὶ μόνος ὁ ποιητὴς τοῦ κόσμου θεός.
But if he is in another or about another, then he is not about us, for he does not govern the world; nor is his power great, for he exists in a circumscribed space. But if he is neither in another world (for all things are filled by the other), nor about another (for all things are occupied by the other), he clearly does not exist at all, for there is no place in which he can be. Or what does he do, Seeing there is another to whom the world belongs, and he is above the Maker of the world, and yet is neither in the world nor about the world? Is there, then, some other place where he can stand? But God, and what belongs to God, are above him. And what, too, shall be the place, seeing that the other fills the regions which are above the world? Perhaps he exerts a providential care? [By no means. And yet, unless he does so, he has done nothing. If, then, he neither does anything nor exercises providential care, and if there is not another place in which he is, then this Being of whom we speak is the one God from the beginning, and the sole Maker of the world.
But if he is in another world or around another, then he is no longer concerned with us, since he does not rule our world. Nor is his power great, since he is in a limited place. And if he is not in another world (for all things are filled by this God), nor around another (for all things are held by him), then he does not exist at all, since there is no place for him to be. Or what is he doing? Another has the world, and he himself is above the Maker of the world, yet he is neither in the world nor around it. Is there some other place for him to stand? But God, and what belongs to God, are above that place. And what place could there be, when this God has filled everything above the world? Does he, then, exercise providence? But if he does not, he has made nothing. And if he does not make, does not exercise providence, and there is no other place in which he exists, then this one is the one God from the beginning, and the sole Maker of the world.
Chapter 9
Εἰ μὲν οὖν ταῖς τοιαύταις ἐννοίαις ἀπηρκούμεθα, ἀνθρωπικὸν ἄν τις εἶναι τὸν καθ᾿ ἡμᾶς ἐνόμισε λόγον. Ἐπεὶ δὲ αἱ φωναὶ τῶν προφητῶν πιστοῦσιν ἡμῶν τοὺς λογισμούς (νομίζω καὶ ὑμᾶς, φιλομαθεστάτους καὶ ἐπιστημονεστάτους ὄντας, οὐκ ἀνοήτους γεγονέναι οὔτε τῶν Μωσέως οὔτε τῶν Ἠσαΐου καὶ Ἱερεμίου καὶ τῶν λοιπῶν προφητῶν, οἳ κατ᾿ ἔκστασιν τῶν ἐν αὐτοῖς λογισμῶν κινήσαντος αὐτοὺς τοῦ θείου πνεύματος ἃ ἐνηργοῦντο ἐξεφώνησαν, συγχρησαμένου τοῦ πνεύματος ὡσεὶ καὶ αὐλητὴς αὐτὸν ἐμπνεύσαι), τί οὖν οὗτοι; Κύριος ὁ θεὸς ἡμῶν· οὐ λογισθήσεται ἕτερος πρὸς αὐτόν. Καὶ πάλιν· Ἐγὼ θεὸς πρῶτος καὶ μετὰ ταῦτα, καὶ πλὴν ἐμοῦ οὐκ ἔστι θεός. Ὁμοίως· Ἔμπροσθεν ἐμοῦ οὐκ ἐγένετο ἄλλος θεὸς καὶ μετ᾿ ἐμὲ οὐκ ἔσται· ἐγὼ ὁ θεὸς καὶ οὐκ ἔστι πάρεξ ἐμοῦ. Καὶ περὶ τοῦ μεγέθους· Ὁ οὐρανός μοι θρόνος, ἡ δὲ γῆ ὑποπόδιον τῶν ποδῶν μου. Ποῖον οἶκον οἰκοδομήσετέ μοι, ἢ τίς τόπος τῆς καταπαύσεώς μου; Καταλείπω δὲ ὑμῖν, ἐπ᾿ αὐτῶν τῶν βιβλίων γενομένοις, ἀκριβέστερον τὰς ἐκείνων ἐξετάσαι προφητείας, ὅπως μετὰ τοῦ προσήκοντος λογισμοῦ τὴν καθ᾿ ἡμᾶς ἐπήρειαν ἀποσκευάσησθε.
The Testimony of the Prophets.If we satisfied ourselves with advancing such considerations as these, our doctrines might by some be looked upon as human. But, since the voices of the prophets confirm our arguments-for I think that you also, with your great zeal for knowledge, and your great attainments in learning, cannot be ignorant of the writings either of Moses or of Isaiah and Jeremiah, and the other prophets, who, lifted in ecstasy above the natural operations of their minds by the impulses of the Divine Spirit, uttered the things with which they were inspired, the Spirit making use of them as a flute-player breathes into a flute;-what, then, do these men say? "The Lord is our God; no other can be compared with Him." And again: "I am God, the first and the last, and besides Me there is no God." In like manner: "Before Me there was no other God, and after Me there shall be none; I am God, and there is none besides Me." And as to His greatness: "Heaven is My throne, and the earth is the footstool of My feet: what house win ye build for Me, or what is the place of My rest? " But I leave it to you, when you meet with the books themselves, to examine carefully the prophecies contained in them, that you may on fitting grounds defend us from the abuse cast upon us.
If we were content with arguments like these, someone might think our teaching merely human. But the voices of the prophets confirm our reasoning. I think that you, who love learning so much and are so well informed, cannot be unfamiliar with the writings of Moses, of Isaiah and Jeremiah, and of the other prophets. In an ecstasy, with their own reasoning set aside, they spoke out what was working in them as the divine Spirit moved them. The Spirit used them as a flute player breathes into a flute. What, then, do these men say? “The Lord is our God; no other will be reckoned alongside him.” And again: “I am God, the first and the one hereafter, and apart from me there is no God.” Likewise: “Before me no other god came to be, and after me there will be none; I am God, and there is none besides me.” And about his greatness: “Heaven is my throne, and the earth is the footstool of my feet. What house will you build for me, or what is the place of my rest?” I leave it to you, when you take up the books themselves, to examine their prophecies more carefully, so that with sound reasoning you may throw off the abuse heaped on us.
Translator’s note. Athenagoras quotes the Greek (Septuagint) Old Testament loosely and sometimes blends passages: the first quotation begins like Deuteronomy 6:4 and continues with Baruch 3:35 (3:36 in the Septuagint), “no other will be reckoned alongside him”; the others are close to Isaiah 44:6, Isaiah 43:10 (with 45:5) and Isaiah 66:1.
Scripture: Isaiah 44:6; Isaiah 43:10-11; Isaiah 66:1
Chapter 10
Τὸ μὲν οὖν ἄθεοι μὴ εἶναι, ἕνα τὸν ἀγένητον καὶ ἀΐδιον καὶ ἀόρατον καὶ ἀπαθῆ καὶ ἀκατάληπτον καὶ ἀχώρητον, νῷ μόνῳ καὶ λόγῳ καταλαμβανόμενον, φωτὶ καὶ κάλλει καὶ πνεύματι καὶ δυνάμει ἀνεκδιηγήτῳ περιεχόμενον, ὑφ᾿ οὗ γεγένηται τὸ πᾶν διὰ τοῦ αὐτοῦ λόγου καὶ διακεκόσμηται καὶ συγκρατεῖται, θεὸν ἄγοντες, ἱκανῶς μοι δέδεικται. Νοοῦμεν γὰρ καὶ υἱὸν τοῦ θεοῦ. Καὶ μή μοι γελοῖόν τις νομίσῃ τὸ υἱὸν εἶναι τῷ θεῷ. Οὐ γὰρ ὡς ποιηταὶ μυθοποιοῦσιν, οὐδὲν βελτίους τῶν ἀνθρώπων δεικνῦντες τοὺς θεούς, ἢ περὶ τοῦ θεοῦ καὶ πατρὸς ἢ περὶ τοῦ υἱοῦ πεφρονήκαμεν. Ἀλλ᾿ ἔστιν ὁ υἱὸς τοῦ θεοῦ λόγος τοῦ πατρὸς ἐν ἰδέᾳ καὶ ἐνεργείᾳ· πρὸς αὐτοῦ γὰρ καὶ δι᾿ αὐτοῦ πάντα ἐγένετο, ἑνὸς ὄντος τοῦ πατρὸς καὶ τοῦ υἱοῦ.
The Christians Worship the Father, Son, and Holy Ghost.That we are not atheists, therefore, seeing that we acknowledge one God, uncreated, eternal, invisible, impassible, incomprehensible, illimitable, who is apprehended by the understanding only and the reason, who is encompassed by light, and beauty, and spirit, and power ineffable, by whom the universe has been created through His Logos, and set in order, and is kept in being-I have sufficiently demonstrated. [I say "His Logos"], for we acknowledge also a Son of God. Nor let any one think it ridiculous that God should have a Son. For though the poets, in their fictions, represent the gods as no better than men, our mode of thinking is not the same as theirs, concerning either God the Father or the Son. But the Son of God is the Logos of the Father, in idea and in operation; for after the pattern of Him and by Him were all things made, the Father and the Son being one.
I have shown sufficiently that we are not atheists. We hold that God is one: uncreated, eternal, invisible, beyond suffering, beyond comprehension, and beyond containment. He is grasped only by mind and reason, and he is surrounded by light, beauty, spirit and indescribable power. By him, through his Word, the whole universe was made, set in order, and is held together. For we also recognize a Son of God. Do not think it ridiculous that God should have a Son. We do not think about God the Father or about the Son as the poets do in their myths, who show their gods to be no better than men. The Son of God is the Word of the Father, in idea and in activity. For all things were made by him and through him, since the Father and the Son are one.
Translator’s note. “All things were made … through him” echoes John 1:3, and “the Father and the Son are one” echoes John 10:30.
Scripture: John 1:3; John 10:30
Ὄντος δὲ τοῦ υἱοῦ ἐν πατρὶ καὶ πατρὸς ἐν υἱῷ, ἑνότητι καὶ δυνάμει πνεύματος, νοῦς καὶ λόγος τοῦ πατρὸς ὁ υἱὸς τοῦ θεοῦ. Εἰ δὲ δι᾿ ὑπερβολὴν συνέσεως σκοπεῖν ὑμῖν ἔπεισιν, ὁ παῖς τί βούλεται, ἐρῶ διὰ βραχέων πρῶτον γέννημα εἶναι τῷ πατρί, οὐχ ὡς γενόμενον (ἐξ ἀρχῆς γὰρ ὁ θεός, νοῦς ἀΐδιος ὤν, εἶχεν αὐτὸς ἐν ἑαυτῷ τὸν λόγον, ἀϊδίως λογικὸς ὤν), ἀλλ᾿ ὡς τῶν ὑλικῶν ξυμπάντων, ἀποίου φύσεως καὶ γῆς ἀχρείας ὑποκειμένων δίκην, μεμιγμένων τῶν παχυμερεστέρων πρὸς τὰ κουφότερα ἐπ᾿ αὐτοῖς, ἰδέα καὶ ἐνέργεια εἶναι προελθών. Συνᾴδει δὲ τῷ λόγῳ καὶ τὸ προφητικὸν πνεῦμα· Κύριος γάρ, φησίν, ἔκτισέ με ἀρχὴν ὁδῶν αὐτοῦ εἰς ἔργα αὐτοῦ. Καίτοι καὶ αὐτὸ τὸ ἐνεργοῦν τοῖς ἐκφωνοῦσι προφητικῶς ἅγιον πνεῦμα ἀπόῤῥοιαν εἶναί φαμεν τοῦ θεοῦ, ἀποῤῥέον καὶ ἐπαναφερόμενον ὡς ἀκτῖνα ἡλίου.Τίς οὖν οὐκ ἂν ἀπορήσαι, λέγοντας θεὸν πατέρα καὶ υἱὸν θεὸν καὶ πνεῦμα ἅγιον, δεικνύντας αὐτῶν καὶ τὴν ἐν τῇ ἑνώσει δύναμιν καὶ τὴν ἐν τῇ τάξει διαίρεσιν, ἀκούσας ἀθέους καλουμένους;
And, the Son being in the Father and the Father in the Son, in oneness and power of spirit, the understanding and reason (nou=j kai\ lo/goj) of the Father is the Son of God. But if, in your surpassing intelligence, it occurs to you to inquire what is meant by the Son, I will state briefly that He is the first product of the Father, not as having been brought into existence (for from the beginning, God, who is the eternal mind [nou=j], had the Logos in Himself, being from eternity instinct with Logos [logiko/j]; but in as much as He came forth to be the idea and energizing power of all material things, which lay like a nature without attributes, and an inactive earth, the grosser particles being mixed up with the lighter. The prophetic Spirit also agrees with our statements. "The Lord," it says, "made me, the beginning of His ways to His works. The Holy Spirit Himself also, which operates in the prophets, we assert to be an effluence of God, flowing from Him, and returning back again like a beam of the sun. Who, then, would not be astonished to hear men who speak of God the Father, and of God the Son, and of the Holy Spirit, and who declare both their power in union and their distinction in order, called atheists?
The Son is in the Father and the Father is in the Son, in the unity and power of the Spirit. The Son of God is the mind and word of the Father. But if, in your great understanding, you wish to ask what “the Child” means here, I will say briefly: he is the first offspring of the Father. This does not mean he came into being, for from the beginning God, who is eternal mind, had the Word in himself, since he was eternally rational. Rather, he came forth to be the idea and the working power for all material things. These lay underneath like a nature without qualities, a useless earth, with the heavier particles mixed together with the lighter ones. The prophetic Spirit agrees with this account: “The Lord created me as the beginning of his ways, for his works,” it says. Moreover, we say that the Holy Spirit himself, who is at work in those who speak prophetically, is an outflow from God. He flows out from God and returns, like a ray of the sun. Who, then, would not be amazed to hear us called atheists, when we speak of God the Father, God the Son and the Holy Spirit, and show both their power in unity and their distinction in order?
Translator’s note. The quotation is Proverbs 8:22 in the Greek Septuagint, which reads “created me” (the older translation has “made me”). Athenagoras applies the verse to the Son as the Word. He takes care to say the Son is the Father’s offspring “not as having come into being,” since God always had his Word in himself. The Son “came forth” to give shape and working power to creation.
Scripture: John 10:38; John 14:10-11; Proverbs 8:22
Καὶ οὐκ ἐπὶ τούτοις τὸ θεολογικὸν ἡμῶν ἵσταται μέρος· ἀλλὰ καὶ πλῆθος ἀγγέλων καὶ λειτουργῶν φαμεν, οὓς ὁ ποιητὴς καὶ δημιουργὸς κόσμου θεὸς διὰ τοῦ παρ᾿ αὐτοῦ λόγου διένειμε καὶ διέταξε περί τε τὰ στοιχεῖα εἶναι καὶ τοὺς οὐρανοὺς καὶ τὸν κόσμον καὶ τὰ ἐν αὐτῷ καὶ τὴν τούτων εὐταξίαν.
Nor is our teaching in what relates to the divine nature confined to these points; but we recognise also a multitude of angels and ministers, whom God the Maker and Framer of the world distributed and appointed to their several posts by His Logos, to occupy themselves about the elements, and the heavens, and the world, and the things in it, and the goodly ordering of them all.
Our teaching about God does not stop here. We also speak of a multitude of angels and servants. God, the maker and builder of the world, assigned and appointed them through his Word to watch over the elements, the heavens, the world and what is in it, and to keep all of it in good order.
Chapter 11
Εἰ δὲ ἀκριβῶς διέξειμι τὸν καθ᾿ ἡμᾶς λόγον, μὴ θαυμάσητε· ἵνα γὰρ μὴ τῇ κοινῇ καὶ ἀλόγῳ συναποφέρησθε γνώμῃ, ἔχητε δὲ τἀληθὲς εἰδέναι, ἀκριβολογοῦμαι· ἐπεὶ καὶ δι᾿ αὐτῶν τῶν δογμάτων οἷς προσέχομεν, οὐκ ἀνθρωπικοῖς οὖσιν ἀλλὰ θεοφάτοις καὶ θεοδιδάκτοις, πεῖσαι ὑμᾶς μὴ ὡς περὶ ἀθέων ἔχειν δυνάμεθα. Τίνες οὖν ἡμῶν οἱ λόγοι οἷς ἐντρεφόμεθα; Λέγω ὑμῖν· ἀγαπᾶτε τοὺς ἐχθροὺς ὑμῶν, εὐλογεῖτε τοὺς καταρωμένους, προσεύχεσθε ὑπὲρ τῶν διωκόντων ὑμᾶς, ὅπως γένησθε υἱοὶ τοῦ πατρὸς ὑμῶν τοῦ ἐν τοῖς οὐρανοῖς, ὃς τὸν ἥλιον αὐτοῦ ἀνατέλλει ἐπὶ πονηροὺς καὶ ἀγαθοὺς καὶ βρέχει ἐπὶ δικαίους καὶ ἀδίκους. Ἐπιτρέψατε ἐνταῦθα τοῦ λόγου ἐξακούστου μετὰ πολλῆς κραυγῆς γεγονότος ἐπὶ παῤῥησίαν ἀναγαγεῖν, ὡς ἐπὶ βασιλέων φιλοσόφων ἀπολογούμενον.
The Moral Teaching of the Christians Repels the Charge Brought Against Them.If I go minutely into the particulars of our doctrine, let it not surprise you. It is that you may not be carried away by the popular and irrational opinion, but may have the truth clearly before you. For presenting the opinions themselves to which we adhere, as being not human but uttered and taught by God, we shall be able to persuade you not to think of us as atheists. What, then, are those teachings in which we are brought up? "I say unto you, Love your enemies; bless them that curse you; pray for them that persecute you; that ye may be the sons of your Father who is in heaven, who causes His sun to rise on the evil and the good, and sends rain on the just and the unjust. Allow me here to lift up my voice boldly in loud and audible outcry, pleading as I do before philosophic princes.
Do not be surprised that I explain our teaching so precisely. I am being exact so that you will not be swept along by the common, unreasoning opinion, and so that you can know the truth. For through the very teachings we hold, which are not human but spoken by God and taught by God, we can persuade you not to think of us as atheists. What, then, are the words on which we are raised? “I tell you: Love your enemies, bless those who curse you, pray for those who persecute you, so that you may be sons of your Father in heaven, who makes his sun rise on the evil and the good and sends rain on the just and the unjust.” Since this subject has become widely known amid much clamor, allow me here to speak about it openly, as one making a defense before philosopher-kings.
Translator’s note. The Greek of the last sentence is difficult. It seems to mean that the matter has become notorious “with much outcry,” so Athenagoras asks leave to speak freely about it. The older translation takes the outcry to be his own.
Scripture: Matthew 5:44-45; Luke 6:27-28
Τίνες γὰρ ἢ τῶν τοὺς συλλογισμοὺς ἀναλυόντων καὶ τὰς ἀμφιβολίας διαλυόντων καὶ τὰς ἐτυμολογίας σαφηνιζόντων, ἢ τῶν τὰ ὁμώνυμα καὶ συνώνυμα καὶ κατηγορήματα καὶ ἀξιώματα καὶ τί τὸ ὑποκείμενον καὶ τί τὸ κατηγορούμενον, οἳ εὐδαίμονας ἀποτελεῖν διὰ τούτων καὶ τῶν τοιούτων λόγων ὑπισχνοῦνται τοὺς συνόντας, οὕτως ἐκκεκαθαρμένοι εἰσὶ τὰς ψυχὰς ὡς ἀντὶ τοῦ μισεῖν τοὺς ἐχθροὺς ἀγαπᾶν, καὶ ἀντὶ τοῦ, τὸ μετριώτατον, κακῶς ἀγορεύειν τοὺς προκατάρξαντας λοιδορίας εὐλογεῖν, καὶ ὑπὲρ τῶν ἐπιβουλευόντων εἰς τὸ ζῆν προσεύχεσθαι; Οἳ τοὐναντίον ἀεὶ διατελοῦσι κακῶς τὰ ἀπόῤῥητα ἑαυτοῖς ταῦτα μεταλλεύοντες, καὶ ἀεί τι ἐργάσασθαι ἐπιθυμοῦντες κακόν, τέχνην λόγων καὶ οὐκ ἐπίδειξιν ἔργων τὸ πρᾶγμα πεποιημένοι.Παρὰ δ᾿ ἡμῖν εὕροιτε ἂν ἰδιώτας καὶ χειροτέχνας καὶ γραΐδια, εἰ λόγῳ τὴν ὠφέλειαν παριστᾶν εἰσιν ἀδύνατοι τὴν παρὰ τοῦ λόγου, ἔργῳ τὴν ἀπὸ τῆς προαιρέσεως ὠφέλειαν ἐπιδεικνυμένους· οὐ γὰρ λόγους διαμνημονεύουσιν, ἀλλὰ πράξεις ἀγαθὰς ἐπιδεικνύουσιν· παιόμενοι μὴ ἀντιτύπτειν καὶ ἁρπαζόμενοι μὴ δικάζεσθαι, τοῖς αἰτοῦσι διδόναι καὶ τοὺς πλησίον ἀγαπᾶν ὡς ἑαυτούς.
For who of those that reduce syllogisms, and clear up ambiguities, and explain etymologies, or of those who teach homonyms and synonyms, and predicaments and axioms, and what is the subject and what the predicate, and who promise their disciples by these and such like instructions to make them happy: who of them have so purged their souls as, instead of hating their enemies, to love them; and, instead of speaking ill of those who have reviled them (to abstain from which is of itself an evidence of no mean forbearance), to bless them; and to pray for those who plot against their lives? On the contrary, they never cease with evil intent to search out skilfully the secrets of their art, and are ever bent on working some ill, making the art of words and not the exhibition of deeds their business and profession. But among us you will find uneducated persons, and artisans, and old women, who, if they are unable in words to prove the benefit of our doctrine, yet by their deeds exhibit the benefit arising from their persuasion of its truth: they do not rehearse speeches, but exhibit good works; when struck, they do not strike again; when robbed, they do not go to law; they give to those that ask of them, and love their neighbours as themselves.
Take those who unravel syllogisms, clear up ambiguities and explain the origins of words. Take those who teach about homonyms and synonyms, predicates and propositions, what the subject is and what is predicated of it. They promise to make their students happy by these and similar arguments. Are any of them so cleansed in soul that, instead of hating their enemies, they love them? Instead of speaking ill of those who started the abuse (which is the very least one would expect), do they bless them? Do they pray for those who plot against their lives? On the contrary, they go on forever, with evil intent, digging out these hidden matters for themselves. They are always eager to do some harm, since they have made their business an art of words and not a showing of deeds. Among us, however, you would find uneducated people, craftsmen and old women. Even if they cannot prove in words the benefit of our teaching, they show by their deeds the benefit of the choice they have made. They do not recite speeches; they show good works. When struck, they do not strike back. When robbed, they do not take anyone to court. They give to those who ask, and they love their neighbors as themselves.
Translator’s note. The closing list echoes Jesus’ teaching in Matthew 5:39–42 and Luke 6:29–30, and the command to love one’s neighbor as oneself (Leviticus 19:18; Matthew 22:39).
Scripture: Matthew 5:44; Luke 6:28; Matthew 5:39-42; Matthew 22:39
Chapter 12
Ἆρα τοίνυν, εἰ μὴ ἐφεστηκέναι θεὸν τῷ τῶν ἀνθρώπων γένει ἐνομίζομεν, οὕτως ἂν ἑαυτοὺς ἐξεκαθαίρομεν; Οὐκ ἔστιν εἰπεῖν. Ἀλλ᾿ ἐπεὶ πεπείσμεθα ὑφέξειν παντὸς τοῦ ἐνταῦθα βίου λόγον τῷ πεποιηκότι καὶ ἡμᾶς καὶ τὸν κόσμον θεῷ, τὸν μέτριον καὶ φιλάνθρωπον καὶ εὐκαταφρόνητον βίον αἱρούμεθα, οὐδὲν τηλικοῦτον πείσεσθαι κακὸν ἐνταῦθα νομίζοντες, κἂν τῆς ψυχῆς ἡμᾶς ἀφαιρῶνταί τινες, ὧν ἐκεῖ κομιούμεθα τοῦ πράου καὶ φιλανθρώπου καὶ ἐπιεικοῦς βίου παρὰ τοῦ μεγάλου δικαστοῦ. Πλάτων μὲν οὖν Μίνω καὶ Ῥαδάμανθυν δικάσειν καὶ κολάσειν τοὺς πονηροὺς ἔφη, ἡμεῖς δέ, κἂν Μίνως τις κἂν Ῥαδάμανθυς ᾖ κἂν ὁ τούτων πατήρ, οὐδὲ τοῦτόν φαμεν διαφεύξεσθαι τὴν κρίσιν τοῦ θεοῦ. Εἶθ᾿ οἱ μὲν τὸν βίον τοῦτον νομίζοντες, φάγωμεν καὶ πίωμεν, αὔριον γὰρ ἀποθνήσκομεν, καὶ τὸν θάνατον βαθὺν ὕπνον καὶ λήθην τιθέμενοι (ὕπνω καὶ θανάτω διδυμάονε) πιστεύονται θεοσεβεῖν· ἄνθρωποι δέ, τὸν μὲν ἐνταῦθα ὀλίγου καὶ μικροῦ τινος ἄξιον βίον λελογισμένοι, ὑπὸ μόνου δὲ παραπεμπόμενοι τοῦ τὸν θεὸν καὶ τὸν παρ᾿ αὐτοῦ λόγον εἰδέναι, τίς ἡ τοῦ παιδὸς πρὸς τὸν πατέρα ἑνότης, τίς ἡ τοῦ πατρὸς πρὸς τὸν υἱὸν κοινωνία, τί τὸ πνεῦμα, τίς ἡ τῶν τοσούτων ἕνωσις καὶ διαίρεσις ἑνουμένων, τοῦ πνεύματος τοῦ παιδὸς τοῦ πατρός, πολὺ δὲ καὶ κρείττονα ἢ εἰπεῖν λόγῳ τὸν ἐκδεχόμενον βίον εἰδότες, ἐὰν καθαροὶ ὄντες ἀπὸ παντὸς παραπεμφθῶμεν ἀδικήματος, μέχρι τοσούτου δὲ φιλανθρωπότατοι ὥστε μὴ μόνον στέργειν τοὺς φίλους (Ἐὰν γὰρ ἀγαπᾶτε, φησίν, τοὺς ἀγαπῶντας καὶ δανείζετε τοῖς δανείζουσιν ὑμῖν, τίνα μισθὸν ἕξετε;), τοιοῦτοι δὲ ἡμεῖς ὄντες καὶ τὸν τοιοῦτον βιοῦντες βίον, ἵνα κριθῆναι διαφύγωμεν, ἀπιστούμεθα θεοσεβεῖν; Ταῦτα μὲν οὖν μικρὰ ἀπὸ μεγάλων καὶ ὀλίγα ἀπὸ πολλῶν, ἵνα μὴ ἐπὶ πλεῖον ὑμῖν ἐνοχλοίημεν· καὶ γὰρ τὸ μέλι καὶ τὸν ὀρὸν δοκιμάζοντες μικρῷ μέρει τοῦ παντὸς τὸ πᾶν εἰ καλὸν δοκιμάζουσιν.
Consequent Absurdity of the Charge of Atheism.Should we, then, unless we believed that a God presides over the human race, thus purge ourselves from evil? Most certainly not. But, because we are persuaded that we shall give an account of everything in the present life to God, who made us and the world, we adopt a temperate and benovolent and generally despised method of life, believing that we shall suffer no such great evil here, even should our lives be taken from us, compared with what we shall there receive for our meek and benevolent and moderate life from the great Judge. Plato indeed has said that Minos and Rhadamanthus will judge and punish the wicked; but we say that, even if a man be Minos or Rhadamanthus himself, or their father, even he will not escape the judgment of God. Are, then, those who consider life. to be comprised in this, "Let us eat and drink, for to-morrow we die," and who regard death as a deep sleep and forgetfulness ("sleep and death, twin brothers" ), to be accounted pious; while men who reckon the present life of very small worth indeed, and who are conducted to the future life by this one thing alone, that they know God and His Logos, what is the oneness of the Son with the Father, what the communion of the Father with the Son, what is the Spirit, what is the unity of these three, the Spirit, the Son, the Father, and their distinction in unity; and who know that the life for which we look is far better than can be described in words, provided we arrive at it pure from all wrong-doing; who, moreover, carry our benevolence to such an extent, that we not only love our friends ("for if ye love them," He says, "that love you, and lend to them that lend to you, what reward will ye have? " ),-shall we, I say, when such is our character, and when we live such a life as this, that we may escape condemnation at last, not be accounted pious? These, however, are only small matters taken from great, and a few things from many, that we may not further trespass on your patience; for those who test honey and whey, judge by a small quantity whether the whole is good.
If we did not believe that God presides over the human race, would we purify ourselves like this? Certainly not. But we are persuaded that we will give an account of our whole life here to God, who made us and the world. So we choose a life that is moderate and kind, a life that others readily look down on. We think that no harm we suffer here, even if someone takes our life, can compare with what we will receive there from the great Judge for our gentle, kind and fair-minded life. Plato said that Minos and Rhadamanthus would judge and punish the wicked. But we say that even if someone is a Minos or a Rhadamanthus, or the father of them both, he will not escape the judgment of God. Now compare. Some think this life comes down to “Let us eat and drink, for tomorrow we die.” They treat death as deep sleep and forgetfulness (“sleep and death, twin brothers”). Yet these people are believed to be godly. We, on the other hand, count this present life as worth little. We are guided on our way by this alone: knowing God and the Word who comes from him. We know what the oneness of the Son with the Father is, what the fellowship of the Father with the Son is, and what the Spirit is. We know what the union and the distinction is of those who are so united, the Spirit, the Son and the Father. We know that the life that awaits us is far better than words can say, if we are brought to it pure of every wrong. And we are so kind that we do not love only our friends. For “If you love those who love you,” he says, “and lend to those who lend to you, what reward will you have?” We are like this, and we live such a life in order to escape condemnation. Yet we are not believed when we say we are godly! These are only small points out of great ones, a few out of many, so that we may not trouble you any longer. After all, people who test honey and whey judge from a small sample whether the whole is good.
Translator’s note. The saying of Jesus freely combines Matthew 5:46 and Luke 6:32–34.
Scripture: 1 Corinthians 15:32; Isaiah 22:13; Matthew 5:46; Luke 6:32-34
Chapter 13
Ἐπεὶ δὲ οἱ πολλοὶ τῶν ἐπικαλούντων ἡμῖν τὴν ἀθεότητα, οὐδ᾿ ὄναρ τί ἐστι θεὸν ἐγνωκότες, ἀμαθεῖς καὶ ἀθεώρητοι ὄντες τοῦ φυσικοῦ καὶ τοῦ θεολογικοῦ λόγου, μετροῦντες τὴν εὐσέβειαν θυσιῶν νόμῳ, ἐπικαλοῦσι τὸ μὴ καὶ τοὺς αὐτοὺς ταῖς πόλεσι θεοὺς ἄγειν, σκέψασθέ μοι αὐτοκράτορες ὧδε περὶ ἑκατέρων, καὶ πρῶτόν γε περὶ τοῦ μὴ θύειν. Ὁ τοῦδε τοῦ παντὸς δημιουργὸς καὶ πατὴρ οὐ δεῖται αἵματος οὐδὲ κνίσσης οὐδὲ τῆς ἀπὸ τῶν ἀνθῶν καὶ θυμιαμάτων εὐωδίας, αὐτὸς ὢν ἡ τελεία εὐωδία, ἀνενδεὴς καὶ ἀπροσδεής· ἀλλὰ θυσία αὐτῷ μεγίστη, ἂν γινώσκωμεν τίς ἐξέτεινε καὶ συνεσφαίρωσε τοὺς οὐρανοὺς καὶ τὴν γῆν κέντρου δίκην ἥδρασε, τίς συνήγαγε τὸ ὕδωρ εἰς θαλάσσας καὶ διέκρινε τὸ φῶς ἀπὸ τοῦ σκότους, τίς ἐκόσμησεν ἄστροις τὸν αἰθέρα καὶ ἐποίησε πᾶν σπέρμα τὴν γῆν ἀναβάλλειν, τίς ἐποίησε ζῶα καὶ ἄνθρωπον ἔπλασεν.
Why the Christians Do Not Offer Sacrifices.But, as most of those who charge us with atheism, and that because they have not even the dreamiest conception of what God is, and are doltish and utterly unacquainted with natural and divine things, and such as measure piety by the rule of sacrifices, charges us with not acknowledging the same gods as the cities, be pleased to attend to the following considerations, O emperors, on both points. And first, as to our not sacrificing: the Framer and Father of this universe does not need blood, nor the odour of burnt-offerings, nor the fragrance of flowers and incense, for as much as He is Himself perfect fragrance, needing nothing either within or without; but the noblest sacrifice to Him is for us to know who stretched out and vaulted the heavens, and fixed the earth in its place like a centre, who gathered the water into seas and divided the light from the darkness, who adorned the sky with stars and made the earth to bring forth seed of every kind, who made animals and fashioned man.
Most of those who charge us with atheism have no idea, not even in a dream, what God is. They are ignorant, with no insight into natural or divine matters, and they measure piety by the law of sacrifices. They accuse us of not honoring the same gods as the cities do. Consider both points, emperors, and first the matter of not sacrificing. The Maker and Father of this whole universe has no need of blood, or of the smell of burning fat, or of the fragrance of flowers and incense. He himself is perfect fragrance, lacking nothing and needing nothing. The greatest sacrifice to him is for us to know who stretched out the heavens and rounded them into a sphere, and who set the earth firm like a center. It is to know who gathered the water into seas and separated light from darkness. It is to know who adorned the sky with stars and made the earth send up every kind of seed, and who made the animals and formed man.
Translator’s note. The list echoes Scripture’s account of creation: stretching out the heavens (Isaiah 40:22; 42:5), gathering the waters and separating light from darkness (Genesis 1:4, 9–10), and the earth bringing forth seed (Genesis 1:11–12).
Scripture: Genesis 1:4; Genesis 1:9-10
Ὅταν, ἔχοντες τὸν δημιουργὸν θεὸν συνέχοντα καὶ ἐποπτεύοντα ἐπιστήμῃ καὶ τέχνῃ καθ᾿ ἣν ἄγει τὰ πάντα, ἐπαίρωμεν ὁσίους χεῖρας αὐτῷ, ποίας ἔτι χρείαν ἑκατόμβης ἔχει; Καὶ τοὺς μὲν θυσίῃσι καὶ εὐχωλῇς ἀγανῇσιν Λοιβῇ τε κνίσσῃ τε παρατρωπῶσ᾿ ἄνθρωποι, Λισσόμενοι, ὅτε κέν τις ὑπερβαίῃ καὶ ἁμάρτῃ. Τί δέ μοι ὁλοκαυτώσεων, ὧν μὴ δεῖται ὁ θεός; Καίτοι προσφέρειν δέον ἀναίμακτον θυσίαν καὶ τὴν λογικὴν προσάγειν λατρείαν.
When, holding God to be this Framer of all things, who preserves them in being and superintends them all by knowledge and administrative skill, we "lift up holy hands" to Him, what need has He further of a hecatomb? "For they, when mortals have transgress'd or fail'd To do aright, by sacrifice and pray'r, Libations and burnt-offerings, may be soothed. And what have I to do with holocausts, which God does not stand in need of?-though indeed it does behove us to offer a bloodless sacrifice and "the service of our reason."
We hold that God is the Maker who holds all things together and watches over them with the knowledge and skill by which he guides everything. When we lift up holy hands to him, what further need does he have of a hundred-ox sacrifice? As the poet says: “People turn the gods with sacrifices and gentle prayers, with drink offerings and the savor of burnt fat, begging them, when someone has overstepped and sinned.” But what are whole burnt offerings to me, when God has no need of them? Yet we ought to offer a bloodless sacrifice and bring the worship of the mind, the “reasonable service.”
Translator’s note. “Reasonable service” (logikē latreia) is the phrase of Romans 12:1, also translated “spiritual worship.”
Scripture: 1 Timothy 2:8; Isaiah 1:11; Romans 12:1
Chapter 14
Ὁ δὲ περὶ τοῦ μὴ προσιέναι καὶ τοὺς αὐτοὺς ταῖς πόλεσι θεοὺς ἄγειν πάνυ αὐτοῖς εὐήθης λόγος. Ἀλλ᾿ οὐδὲ οἱ ἡμῖν ἐπικαλοῦντες ἀθεότητα, ἐπεὶ μὴ τοὺς αὐτοὺς οἷς ἴσασι νομίζομεν, σφίσιν αὐτοῖς συμφωνοῦσι περὶ θεῶν. Ἀλλ᾿ Ἀθηναῖοι μὲν Κελεὸν καὶ Μετάνειραν ἵδρυνται θεούς, Λακεδαιμόνιοι δὲ Μενέλεων, καὶ θύουσιν αὐτῷ καὶ ἑορτάζουσιν, Ἰλιεῖς δὲ οὐδὲ τὸ ὄνομα ἀκούοντες Ἕκτορα φέρουσι, Κεῖοι Ἀρισταῖον τὸν αὐτὸν καὶ Δία καὶ Ἀπόλλω νομίζοντες, Θάσιοι Θεαγένην, ὑφ᾿ οὗ καὶ φόνος ὀλυμπιάσιν ἐγένετο, Σάμιοι Λύσανδρον ἐπὶ τοσαύταις σφαγαῖς καὶ τοσούτοις κακοῖς, Ἀλκμὰν καὶ Ἡσίοδος Μήδειαν καὶ Νιόβην Κίλικες, Σικελοὶ Φίλιππον τὸν Βουτακίδου, Ὀνήσιλον Ἀμαθούσιοι, Ἀμίλκαν Καρχηδόνιοι. Ἐπιλείψει μὲ ἡ ἡμέρα τὸ πλῆθος καταλέγοντα. Ὅταν οὖν αὐτοὶ αὐτοῖς διαφωνῶσι περὶ τῶν κατ᾿ αὐτοὺς θεῶν, τί ἡμῖν μὴ συμφερομένοις ἐπικαλοῦσι;
Inconsistency of Those Who Accuse the Christians.Then, as to the other complaint, that we do not pray to and believe in the same gods as the cities, it is an exceedingly silly one. Why, the very men who charge us with atheism for not admitting the same gods as they acknowledge, are not agreed among themselves concerning the gods. The Athenians have set up as gods Celeus and Metanira: the Lacedaemonians Menelaus; and they offer sacrifices and hold festivals to him, while the men of Ilium cannot endure the very sound of his name, and pay their adoration to Hector. The Ceans worship Aristaeus, considering him to be the same as Zeus and Apollo; the Thasians Theagenes, a man who committed murder at the Olympic games; the Samians Lysander, notwithstanding all the slaughters and all the crimes perpetrated by him; Alcman and Hesiod Medea, and the Cilicians Niobe; the Sicilians Philip the son of Butacides; the Amathusians Onesilus; the Carthaginians Hamilcar. Time would fail me to enumerate the whole. When, therefore, they differ among themselves concerning their gods, why do they bring the charge against us of not agreeing with them?
The other complaint is that we do not come to worship the same gods as the cities, and that is a very silly one. Even the people who accuse us of atheism, because we do not regard as gods the ones they know, do not agree among themselves about the gods. The Athenians have set up Celeus and Metanira as gods. The Spartans have set up Menelaus, and they sacrifice to him and hold festivals for him. The people of Ilium cannot bear even to hear his name; they honor Hector. The people of Ceos honor Aristaeus, regarding him as the same as Zeus and Apollo. The Thasians honor Theagenes, the man responsible for a killing at the Olympic games. The Samians honor Lysander, in spite of all his slaughters and so many evils. Alcman and Hesiod honor Medea, and the Cilicians Niobe. The Sicilians honor Philip, son of Butacides; the people of Amathus, Onesilus; the Carthaginians, Hamilcar. The day would run out before I finished listing them all. When they disagree with one another about their own gods, why do they accuse us of not agreeing with them?
Translator’s note. The Greek of the Alcman, Hesiod, Medea and Niobe clause is very compressed, and how the names pair up is uncertain; the older translation’s pairing is followed here.
Τὸ δὲ κατ᾿ Αἰγυπτίους μὴ καὶ γελοῖον ᾖ; Τύπτονται γὰρ ἐν τοῖς ἱεροῖς τὰ στήθη κατὰ τὰς πανηγύρεις ὡς ἐπὶ τετελευτηκόσι καὶ θύουσιν ὡς θεοῖς· καὶ οὐδὲν θαυμαστόν· οἵ γε καὶ τὰ θηρία θεοὺς ἄγουσι καὶ ξυρῶνται ἐπεὶ ἀποθνήσκουσι, καὶ θάπτουσιν ἐν ἱεροῖς καὶ δημοτελεῖς κοπετοὺς ἐγείρουσιν. Ἂν τοίνυν ἡμεῖς, ὅτι μὴ κοινῶς ἐκείνοις θεοσεβοῦμεν, ἀσεβῶμεν, πᾶσαι μὲν πόλεις πάντα δὲ ἔθνη ἀσεβοῦσιν· οὐ γὰρ τοὺς αὐτοὺς πάντες ἄγουσι θεούς.
Then look at the practices prevailing among the Egyptians: are they not perfectly ridiculous? For in the temples at their solemn festivals they beat their breasts as for the dead, and sacrifice to the same beings as gods; and no wonder, when they look upon the brutes as gods, and shave themselves when they die, and bury them in temples, and make public lamentation. If, then, we are guilty of impiety because we do not practise a piety corresponding with theirs, then all cities and all nations are guilty of impiety, for they do not all acknowledge the same gods.
And is not the Egyptian practice actually ridiculous? At their festivals they beat their breasts in the temples as though mourning the dead, and yet they sacrifice to the same beings as gods. That is no surprise, for they treat animals as gods. They shave themselves when the animals die, bury them in temples, and hold public mourning. So if we are guilty of impiety because we do not worship as these people do, then every city and every nation is guilty of impiety, for not everyone holds the same gods.
Translator’s note. Herodotus (2.66) reports that Egyptians shaved their eyebrows when a household cat died and their whole bodies when a dog died.
Chapter 15
Ἀλλ᾿ ἔστωσαν τοὺς αὐτοὺς ἄγοντες. Τί οὖν; Ἐπεὶ οἱ πολλοί, διακρῖναι οὐ δυνάμενοι τί μὲν ὕλη τί δὲ θεὸς πόσον δὲ τὸ διὰ μέσου αὐτῶν, προσίασι τοῖς ἀπὸ τῆς ὕλης εἰδώλοις, δι᾿ ἐκείνους καὶ ἡμεῖς, οἱ διακρίνοντες καὶ χωρίζοντες τὸ ἀγένητον καὶ τὸ γενητόν, τὸ ὂν καὶ τὸ οὐκ ὄν, τὸ νοητὸν καὶ τὸ αἰσθητόν, καὶ ἑκάστῳ αὐτῶν τὸ προσῆκον ὄνομα ἀποδιδόντες, προσελευσόμεθα καὶ προσκυνήσομεν τὰ ἀγάλματα; Εἰ μὲν γὰρ ταὐτὸν ὕλη καὶ θεός, δύο ὀνόματα καθ᾿ ἑνὸς πράγματος, τοὺς λίθους καὶ τὰ ξύλα, τὸν χρυσὸν καὶ τὸν ἄργυρον οὐ νομίζοντες θεούς, ἀσεβοῦμεν. Εἰ δὲ διεστᾶσι πάμπολυ ἀπ᾿ ἀλλήλων, καὶ τοσοῦτον ὅσον τεχνίτης καὶ ἡ πρὸς τὴν τέχνην αὐτοῦ παρασκευή, τί ἐγκαλούμεθα;
The Christians Distinguish God from Matter.But grant that they acknowledge the same. What then? Because the multitude, who cannot distinguish between matter and God, or see how great is the interval which lies between them, pray to idols made of matter, are we therefore, who do distinguish and separate the uncreated and the created, that which is and that which is not, that which is apprehended by the understanding and that which is perceived by the senses, and who give the fitting name to each of them,-are we to come and worship images? If, indeed, matter and God are the same, two names for one thing, then certainly, in not regarding stocks and stones, gold and silver, as gods, we are guilty of impiety. But if they are at the greatest possible remove from one another-as far asunder as the artist and the materials of his art-why are we called to account?
But suppose they all did hold the same gods. What then? Most people cannot tell what matter is and what God is, or how great the gap between them is, and so they approach images made of matter. Are we to do the same on their account? We distinguish and separate the uncreated from the created, what is from what is not, what is grasped by the mind from what is perceived by the senses, and we give each its proper name. Shall we then go up and worship statues? If matter and God were the same thing, two names for one reality, then we would be impious for not regarding stones and wood, gold and silver as gods. But if they are very far apart, as far apart as a craftsman is from the materials he prepares for his craft, why are we accused?
Ὡς γὰρ ὁ κεραμεὺς καὶ ὁ πηλός (ὕλη μὲν ὁ πηλός, τεχνίτης δὲ ὁ κεραμεύς), καὶ ὁ θεὸς δημιουργός, ὑπακούουσα δὲ αὐτῷ ἡ ὕλη πρὸς τὴν τέχνην. Ἀλλ᾿ ὡς ὁ πηλὸς καθ᾿ ἑαυτὸν σκεύη γενέσθαι χωρὶς τέχνης ἀδύνατος, καὶ ἡ πανδεχὴς ὕλη ἄνευ τοῦ θεοῦ τοῦ δημιουργοῦ διάκρισιν καὶ σχῆμα καὶ κόσμον οὐκ ἐλάμβανεν. Ὡς δὲ οὐ τὸν κέραμον προτιμότερον τοῦ ἐργασαμένου αὐτὸν ἔχομεν οὐδὲ τὰς φιάλας καὶ χρυσίδας τοῦ χαλκεύσαντος, ἀλλ᾿ εἴ τι περὶ ἐκείνας δεξιὸν κατὰ τὴν τέχνην τὸν τεχνίτην ἐπαινοῦμεν, καὶ οὗτός ἐστιν ὁ τὴν ἐπὶ τοῖς σκεύεσι δόξαν καρπούμενος, καὶ ἐπὶ τῆς ὕλης καὶ τοῦ θεοῦ τῆς διαθέσεως τῶν κεκοσμημένων οὐχ ὕλη τὴν δόξαν καὶ τὴν τιμὴν δικαίαν ἔχει ἀλλ᾿ ὁ δημιουργὸς αὐτῆς θεός. Ὥστε, εἰ τὰ εἴδη τῆς ὕλης ἄγοιμεν θεούς, ἀναισθητεῖν τοῦ ὄντος θεοῦ δόξομεν, τὰ λυτὰ καὶ φθαρτὰ τῷ ἀϊδίῳ ἐξισοῦντες.
For as is the potter and the clay (matter being the clay, and the artist the potter), so is God, the Framer of the world, and matter, which is subservient to Him for the purposes of His art. But as the clay cannot become vessels of itself without art, so neither did matter, which is capable of taking all forms, receive, apart from God the Framer, distinction and shape and order. And as we do not hold the pottery of more worth than him who made it, nor the vessels or glass and gold than him who wrought them; but if there is anything about them elegant in art we praise the artificer, and it is he who reaps the glory of the vessels: even so with matter and God-the glory and honour of the orderly arrangement of the world belongs of right not to matter, but to God, the Framer of matter. So that, if we were to regard the various forms of matter as gods, we should seem to be without any sense of the true God, because we should be putting the things which are dissoluble and perishable on a level with that which is eternal.
The potter and the clay are a picture of it. The clay is the matter and the potter is the craftsman. In the same way God is the Maker, and matter is subject to him for the work of his craft. Clay cannot become vessels by itself without craftsmanship, and likewise matter, which receives every form, did not receive distinction, shape and order without God the Maker. We do not value the pottery more than the man who made it, nor the bowls and gold cups more than the smith who made them. If there is some skill to admire in them, we praise the craftsman, and he is the one who enjoys the glory for the vessels. So it is with matter and God. The glory and honor for the ordering of what has been arranged belong rightly not to matter but to God, its Maker. Therefore, if we regarded the forms of matter as gods, we would seem to have no perception of the God who truly is, since we would be putting what can be dissolved and destroyed on a level with the eternal.
Translator’s note. “Bowls and gold cups”: the older translation’s “glass and gold” does not match the Greek, which names two kinds of vessel, bowls (phialai) and gold cups.
Chapter 16
Καλὸς μὲν γὰρ ὁ κόσμος καὶ τῷ μεγέθει περιέχων καὶ τῇ διαθέσει τῶν τε ἐν τῷ λοξῷ κύκλῳ καὶ τῶν περὶ τὴν ἄρκτον καὶ τῷ σχήματι σφαιρικῷ ὄντι· ἀλλ᾿ οὐ τοῦτον, ἀλλὰ τὸν τεχνίτην αὐτοῦ προσκυνητέον. Οὐδὲ γὰρ οἱ πρὸς ὑμᾶς ἀφικνούμενοι ὑπήκοοι, παραλιπόντες ὑμᾶς τοὺς ἄρχοντας καὶ δεσπότας θεραπεύειν, παρ᾿ ὧν ὧν ἂν δέοιντο καὶ τύχοιεν, ἐπὶ τὸ σεμνὸν τῆς καταγωγῆς ὑμῶν καταφεύγουσιν, ἀλλὰ τὴν μὲν βασιλικὴν ἑστίαν τηνάλλως ἐντυχόντες αὐτῇ θαυμάζουσι καλῶς ἠσκημένην, ὑμᾶς δὲ πάντα ἐν πᾶσιν ἄγουσι τῇ δόξῃ. Καὶ ὑμεῖς μὲν οἱ βασιλεῖς ἑαυτοῖς ἀσκεῖτε τὰς καταγωγὰς βασιλικάς, ὁ δὲ κόσμος οὐχ ὡς δεομένου τοῦ θεοῦ γέγονεν· πάντα γὰρ ὁ θεός ἐστιν αὐτὸς αὐτῷ, φῶς ἀπρόσιτον, κόσμος τέλειος, πνεῦμα, δύναμις, λόγος.
The Christians Do Not Worship the Universe.Beautiful without doubt is the world, excelling, as well in its magnitude as in the arrangement of its parts, both those in the oblique circle and those about the north, and also in its spherical form. Yet it is not this, but its Artificer, that we must worship. For when any of your subjects come to you, they do not neglect to pay their homage to you, their rulers and lords, from whom they will obtain whatever they need, and address themselves to the magnificence of your palace; but, if they chance to come upon the royal residence, they bestow a passing glance of admiration on its beautiful structure: but it is to you yourselves that they show honour, as being "all in all. You sovereigns, indeed, rear and adorn your palaces for yourselves; but the world was not created because God needed it; for God is Himself everything to Himself,-light unapproachable, a perfect world, spirit, power, reason.
The world is indeed beautiful, in its vast extent, in the arrangement of the stars in the zodiac and those around the Bear, and in its spherical shape. But it is not the world we must worship; it is the world’s Craftsman. When your subjects come to you, they do not pass by you, their rulers and lords, from whom they may get what they need, in order to seek out the grandeur of your residence instead. They may come upon the royal palace and admire in passing how well it is built, but it is you whom they honor as all in all. You emperors furnish royal residences for yourselves, but the world did not come into being because God needed it. For God is everything to himself: unapproachable light, a perfect world-order, spirit, power, reason.
Translator’s note. “Unapproachable light” echoes 1 Timothy 6:16, where God “dwells in unapproachable light.”
Scripture: 1 Timothy 6:16
Εἰ τοίνυν ἐμμελὲς ὁ κόσμος ὄργανον κινούμενον ἐν ῥυθμῷ, τὸν ἁρμοσάμενον καὶ πλήσσοντα τοὺς φθόγγους καὶ τὸ σύμφωνον ἐπᾴδοντα μέλος, οὐ τὸ ὄργανον προσκυνῶ· οὐδὲ γὰρ ἐπὶ τῶν ἀγωνιστῶν, παραλιπόντες οἱ ἀθλοθέται τοὺς κιθαριστάς, τὰς κιθάρας στεφανοῦσιν αὐτῶν. Εἴτε, ὡς ὁ Πλάτων φησί, τέχνη τοῦ θεοῦ, θαυμάζων αὐτοῦ τὸ κάλλος τῷ τεχνίτῃ πρόσειμι· εἴτε οὐσία καὶ σῶμα, ὡς οἱ ἀπὸ τοῦ περιπάτου, οὐ παραλιπόντες προσκυνεῖν τὸν αἴτιον τῆς κινήσεως τοῦ σώματος θεὸν ἐπὶ τὰ πτωχὰ καὶ ἀσθενῆ στοιχεῖα καταπίπτομεν, τῷ ἀπαθεῖ ἀέρι κατ᾿ αὐτοὺς τὴν παθητὴν ὕλην προσκυνοῦντες· εἴτε δυνάμεις τοῦ θεοῦ τὰ μέρη τοῦ κόσμου νοεῖ τις, οὐ τὰς δυνάμεις προσιόντες θεραπεύομεν, ἀλλὰ τὸν ποιητὴν αὐτῶν καὶ δεσπότην. Οὐκ αἰτῶ τὴν ὕλην ἃ μὴ ἔχει, οὐδὲ παραλιπὼν τὸν θεὸν τὰ στοιχεῖα θεραπεύω, οἷς μηδὲν πλέον ἢ ὅσον ἐκελεύσθησαν ἔξεστιν· εἰ γὰρ καὶ καλὰ ἰδεῖν τῇ τοῦ δημιουργοῦ τέχνῃ, ἀλλ᾿ αὐτὰ τῇ τῆς ὕλης φύσει.
If, therefore, the world is an instrument in tune, and moving in well-measured time, I adore the Being who gave its harmony, and strikes its notes, and sings the accordant strain, and not the instrument. For at the musical contests the adjudicators do not pass by the lute-players and crown the lutes. Whether, then, as Plato says, the world be a product of divine art, I admire its beauty, and adore the Artificer; or whether it be His essence and body, as the Peripatetics affirm, we do not neglect to adore God, who is the cause of the motion of the body, and descend "to the poor and weak elements," adoring in the impassible air (as they term it), passible matter; or, if any one apprehends the several parts of the world to be powers of God, we do not approach and do homage to the powers, but their Maker and Lord. I do not ask of matter what it has not to give, nor passing God by do I pay homage to the elements, which can do nothing more than what they were bidden; for, although they are beautiful to look upon, by reason of the art of their Framer, yet they still have the nature of matter.
So if the world is a well-tuned instrument moving in rhythm, then I worship the one who tuned it, who strikes its notes and sings the harmonious song. I do not worship the instrument. At musical contests the judges do not pass over the lyre players and crown their lyres. Suppose the world is God’s handiwork, as Plato says. Then I admire its beauty and come to the craftsman. Suppose instead it is God’s substance and body, as the Peripatetics say. Even then we do not abandon the worship of God, the cause of the body’s motion, in order to fall down before “the poor and weak elements,” worshiping matter that is subject to change in what they call the impassible air. Suppose someone takes the parts of the world to be powers of God. Even then we do not approach and serve the powers, but their Maker and Master. I do not ask matter for what it does not have. I do not leave God to serve the elements, which are allowed to do nothing beyond what they were commanded. They may be beautiful to look at because of the Creator’s skill, but in their own nature they are still matter.
Translator’s note. The Greek about “the impassible air” is compressed, and its exact sense is uncertain.
Scripture: Galatians 4:9
Μαρτυρεῖ δὲ τῷ λόγῳ τούτῳ καὶ Πλάτων· Ὃν γὰρ οὐρανόν, φησί, καὶ κόσμον ἐπωνόμακεν, πολλῶν μὲν μετέσχηκε μακαρίων παρὰ τοῦ πατρός, ἀτὰρ οὖν δὴ κεκοινώνηκε σώματος· ὅθεν αὐτῷ μεταβολῆς ἀμοίρῳ τυγχάνειν ἀδύνατον. Εἰ τοίνυν θαυμάζων τὸν οὐρανὸν καὶ τὰ στοιχεῖα τῆς τέχνης οὐ προσκυνῶ αὐτὰ ὡς θεούς, εἰδὼς τὸν ἐπ᾿ αὐτοῖς τῆς λύσεως λόγον, ὧν οἶδα ἀνθρώπους δημιουργοὺς πῶς ταῦτα προσείπω θεούς; Σκέψασθε δέ μοι διὰ βραχέων.
And to this view Plato also bears testimony; "for," says he, "that which is called heaven and earth has received many blessings from the Father, but yet partakes of body; hence it cannot possibly be free from' change. If, therefore, while I admire the heavens and the elements in respect of their art, I do not worship them as gods, knowing that the law of dissolution is upon them, how can I call those objects gods of which I know the makers to be men? Attend, I beg, to a few words on this subject.
Plato bears witness to this argument too. He says: “What he has named heaven and world has received many blessings from the Father, yet it has also come to share in body. So it cannot possibly be free from change.” Now I admire the heavens and the elements for the skill shown in them, yet I do not worship them as gods, because I know the principle of dissolution that governs them. So how could I call gods things whose makers I know to be human beings? Consider this briefly with me.
Translator’s note. The quotation is from Plato’s Statesman (269d–e); “things whose makers I know to be human beings” looks ahead to the idols discussed next.
Chapter 17
Ἀνάγκη δὲ ἀπολογούμενον ἀκριβεστέρους παρέχειν τοὺς λογισμοὺς καὶ περὶ τῶν ὀνομάτων, ὅτι νεώτερα, καὶ περὶ τῶν εἰκόνων, ὅτι χθὲς καὶ πρώην γεγόνασιν, ὡς λόγῳ εἰπεῖν· ἴστε δὲ καὶ ὑμεῖς ταῦτα ἀξιολογώτερον, ὡς ἂν ἐν πᾶσι καὶ ὑπὲρ πάντας τοῖς παλαιοῖς συγγινόμενοι. Φημὶ οὖν Ὀρφέα καὶ Ὅμηρον καὶ Ἡσίοδον εἶναι τοὺς καὶ γένη καὶ ὀνόματα δόντας τοῖς ὑπ᾿ αὐτῶν λεγομένοις θεοῖς. Μαρτυρεῖ δὲ καὶ Ἡρόδοτος· Ἡσίοδον γὰρ καὶ Ὅμηρον ἡλικίην τετρακοσίοις ἔτεσι δοκέω πρεσβυτέρους ἐμοῦ γενέσθαι, καὶ οὐ πλείοσι· οὗτοι δέ εἰσιν οἱ ποιήσαντες θεογονίην Ἕλλησι, καὶ τοῖσι θεοῖσι τὰς ἐπωνυμίας δόντες καὶ τιμάς τε καὶ τέχνας διελόντες, καὶ εἴδεα αὐτῶν σημήναντες. Αἱ δ᾿ εἰκόνες, μέχρι μήπω πλαστικὴ καὶ γραφικὴ καὶ ἀνδριαντοποιητικὴ ἦσαν, οὐδὲ ἐνομίζοντο, Σαυρίου δὲ τοῦ Σαμίου καὶ Κράτωνος τοῦ Σικυωνίου καὶ Κλεάνθους τοῦ Κορινθίου καὶ κόρης Κορινθίας ἐπιγενομένων· καὶ σκιαγραφίας μὲν εὑρεθείσης ὑπὸ Σαυρίου, ἵππον ἐν ἡλίῳ περιγράψαντος, γραφικῆς δὲ ὑπὸ Κράτωνος, ἐν πίνακι λελευκωμένῳ σκιὰς ἀνδρὸς καὶ γυναικὸς ἐναλείψαντος· ἀπὸ δὲ τῆς κόρης ἡ κοροπλαθικὴ εὑρέθη· ἐρωτικῶς γάρ τινος ἔχουσα περιέγραψεν αὐτοῦ κοιμωμένου ἐν τοίχῳ τὴν σκιάν, εἶθ᾿ ὁ πατήρ, ἡσθεὶς ἀπαραλλάκτῳ οὔσῃ τῇ ὁμοιότητι, (κέραμον δὲ εἰργάζετο) ἀναγλύψας τὴν περιγραφὴν πηλῷ προσανεπλήρωσεν· ὁ τύπος ἔτι καὶ νῦν ἐν Κορίνθῳ σώζεται.
The Names of the Gods and Their Images are But of Recent Date.An apologist must adduce more precise arguments than I have yet given, both concering the names of the gods, to show that they are of recent origin, and concerning their images, to show that they are, so to say, but of yesterday. You yourselves, however, are thoroughly acquainted with these matters, since you are versed in all departments of knowledge, and are beyond all other men familiar with the ancients. I assert, then, that it was Orpheus, and Homer, and Hesiod who gave both genealogies and names to those whom they call gods. Such, too, is the testimony of Herodotus. "My opinion," he says, "is that Hesiod and Homer preceded me by four hundred years, and no more; and it was they who framed a theogony for the Greeks, and gave the gods their names, and assigned them their several honours and functions, and described their forms. Representations of the gods, again, were not in use at all, so long as statuary, and painting, and sculpture were unknown; nor did they become common until Saurias the Samian, and Crato the Sicyonian, and Cleanthes the Corinthian, and the Corinthian damsel appeared, when drawing in outline was invented by Saurias, who sketched a horse in the sun, and painting by Crato, who painted in oil on a whitened tablet the outlines of a man and woman; and the art of making figures in relief (koroplaqikh/) was invented by the damsel, who, being in love with a person, traced his shadow on a wall as he lay asleep, and her father, being delighted with the exactness of the resemblance (he was a potter), carved out the sketch and filled it up with clay: this figure is still preserved at Corinth.
Anyone making a defense has to give more exact arguments. Here I must show that the names of the gods are fairly recent. I must also show that their images came into being only yesterday or the day before, so to speak. You yourselves know these things thoroughly, since in every field, and more than anyone else, you are at home with the ancients. I say, then, that Orpheus, Homer and Hesiod are the ones who gave both genealogies and names to the gods they speak of. Herodotus bears witness to this as well: “I think that Hesiod and Homer lived four hundred years before me, and no more. They are the ones who composed a theogony for the Greeks. They gave the gods their titles, divided up their honors and their skills, and described their forms.” As for images, they were not even in use as long as modeling, painting and statue-making did not exist. They arose only when Saurias of Samos, Crato of Sicyon, Cleanthes of Corinth and the Corinthian girl came along. Saurias invented shadow-drawing when he traced the outline of a horse in the sun. Crato invented painting when he painted in the shadows of a man and a woman on a whitened panel. The girl was the source of clay figure-making. She was in love with a young man, and while he slept, she traced his shadow on a wall. Her father was a potter, and he was delighted with how exact the likeness was. He carved out the outline and filled it in with clay. That figure is still preserved in Corinth today.
Translator’s note. A similar story about a Corinthian potter’s daughter tracing her lover’s shadow is told by Pliny the Elder (Natural History 35.151), who names the potter Butades.
Τούτοις δὲ ἐπιγενόμενοι Δαίδαλος καὶ Θεόδωρος ὁ Μιλήσιος ἀνδριαντοποιητικὴν καὶ πλαστικὴν προσεξεῦρον. Ὁ μὲν δὴ χρόνος ὀλίγος τοσοῦτος ταῖς εἰκόσι καὶ τῇ περὶ τὰ εἴδωλα πραγματείᾳ, ὡς ἔχειν εἰπεῖν τὸν ἑκάστου τεχνίτην θεοῦ. Τὸ μὲν γὰρ ἐν Ἐφέσῳ τῆς Ἀρτέμιδος καὶ τὸ τῆς Ἀθηνᾶς (μᾶλλον δὲ Ἀθηλᾶς· Ἀθηλᾶ γὰρ ὡς οἱ μυστικώτερον, οὕτω γὰρ τὸ ἀπὸ τῆς ἐλαίας τὸ παλαιὸν) καὶ τὴν καθημένην Ἔνδοιος εἰργάσατο μαθητὴς Δαιδάλου, ὁ δὲ Πύθιος ἔργον Θεοδώρου καὶ Τηλεκλέους, καὶ ὁ Δήλιος καὶ ἡ Ἄρτεμις Τεκταίου καὶ Ἀγγελίωνος τέχνη, ἡ δὲ ἐν Σάμῳ Ἥρα καὶ ἐν Ἄργει Σμίλιδος χεῖρες, καὶ Φειδίου τὰ λοιπὰ εἴδωλα, ἡ Ἀφροδίτη ἐν Κνίδῳ ἑταίρα Πραξιτέλους τέχνη, ὁ ἐν Ἐπιδαύρῳ Ἀσκληπιὸς ἔργον Φειδίου. Συνελόντα φάναι, οὐδὲν αὐτῶν διαπέφευγεν τὸ μὴ ὑπ᾿ ἀνθρώπου γεγονέναι. Εἰ τοίνυν θεοί, τί οὐκ ἦσαν ἐξ ἀρχῆς; Τί δαί εἰσι νεώτεροι τῶν πεποιηκότων; Τί δαὶ ἔδει αὐτοῖς πρὸς τὸ γενέσθαι ἀνθρώπων καὶ τέχνης; Γῆ ταῦτα καὶ λίθοι καὶ ὕλη καὶ περίεργος τέχνη.
After these, Daedalus and Theodorus the Milesian further invented sculpture and statuary. You perceive, then, that the time since representations of form and the making of images began is so short, that we can name the artist of each particular god. The image of Artemis at Ephesus, for example, and that of Athena (or rather of Athela, for so is she named by those who speak more in the style of the mysteries; for thus was the ancient image made of the olive-tree called), and the sitting figure of the same goddess, were made by Endoeus, a pupil of Daedalus; the Pythian god was the work of Theodorus and Telecles; and the Delian god and Artemis are due to the art of Tectaeus and Angelio; Hera in Samos and in Argos came from the hands of Smilis, and the other statues were by Phidias; Aphrodité the courtezan in Cnidus is the production of Praxiteles; Asclepius in Epidaurus is the work of Phidias. In a word, of not one of these statues can it be said that it was not made by man. If, then, these are gods, why did they not exist from the beginning? Why, in sooth, are they younger than those who made them? Why, in sooth, in order to their coming into existence, did they need the aid of men and art? They are nothing but earth, and stones, and matter, and curious art.
After these came Daedalus and Theodorus of Miletus, who went on to invent statue-making and modeling. So the time since images and idol-making began is so short that one can name the craftsman of each god. The Artemis at Ephesus was made by Endoeus, a pupil of Daedalus. So was the Athena (or rather Athela, as those more given to the mysteries call her, since that was the name of the ancient image made from the olive tree), and also the seated figure. The Pythian Apollo was the work of Theodorus and Telecles. The Delian Apollo and Artemis were the work of Tectaeus and Angelion. The Hera at Samos and the one at Argos came from the hands of Smilis, and the remaining idols from Phidias. The Aphrodite at Cnidus, a courtesan, was the work of Praxiteles. The Asclepius at Epidaurus was the work of Phidias. In short, not one of them escapes having been made by a human being. If they are gods, then, why did they not exist from the beginning? Why are they younger than the people who made them? Why did they need human beings and craftsmanship in order to come into being? These things are earth and stones and raw material and overelaborate craftsmanship.
Translator’s note. Calling the Aphrodite of Cnidus “a courtesan” probably reflects the ancient story that Praxiteles used a courtesan as his model.
Chapter 18
Ἐπεὶ τοίνυν φασί τινες εἰκόνας μὲν εἶναι ταύτας, θεοὺς δὲ ἐφ᾿ οἷς αἱ εἰκόνες, καὶ τὰς προσόδους ἃς ταύταις προσίασι καὶ τὰς θυσίας ἐπ᾿ ἐκείνους ἀναφέρεσθαι καὶ εἰς ἐκείνους γίνεσθαι, μὴ εἶναί τε ἕτερον τρόπον τοῖς θεοῖς ἢ τοῦτον προσελθεῖν (χαλεποὶ δὲ θεοὶ φαίνεσθαι ἐναργεῖς), καὶ τοῦ ταῦθ᾿ οὕτως ἔχειν τεκμήρια παρέχουσι τὰς ἐνίων εἰδώλων ἐνεργείας, φέρε ἐξετάσωμεν τὴν ἐπὶ τοῖς ὀνόμασι δύναμιν αὐτῶν. Δεήσομαι δὲ ὑμῶν, μέγιστοι αὐτοκρατόρων, πρὸ τοῦ λόγου ἀληθεῖς παρεχομένῳ τοὺς λογισμοὺς συγγνῶναι· οὐ γὰρ προκείμενόν μοι ἐλέγχειν τὰ εἴδωλα, ἀλλὰ ἀπολυόμενος τὰς διαβολὰς λογισμὸν τῆς προαιρέσεως ἡμῶν παρέχω. Ἔχοιτε ἀφ᾿ ἑαυτῶν καὶ τὴν ἐπουράνιον βασιλείαν ἐξετάζειν· ὡς γὰρ ὑμῖν πατρὶ καὶ υἱῷ πάντα κεχείρωται, ἄνωθεν τὴν βασιλείαν εἰληφόσι (βασιλέως γὰρ ψυχὴ ἐν χειρὶ θεοῦ, φησὶ τὸ προφητικὸν πνεῦμα), οὕτως ἑνὶ τῷ θεῷ καὶ τῷ παρ᾿ αὐτοῦ λόγῳ υἱῷ νοουμένῳ ἀμερίστῳ πάντα ὑποτέτακται.
The Gods Themselves Have Been Created, as the Poets Confess.But, since it is affirmed by some that, although these are only images, yet there exist gods in honour of whom they are made; and that the supplications and sacrifices presented to the images are to be referred to the gods, and are in fact made to the gods; and that there is not any other way of coming to them, for "'Tis hard for man To meet in presence visible a God; " and whereas, in proof that such is the fact, they adduce the eneregies possessed by certain images, let us examine into the power attached to their names. And I would beseech you, greatest of emperors, before I enter on this discussion, to be indulgent to me while I bring forward true considerations; for it is not my design to show the fallacy of idols, but, by disproving the calumnies vented against us, to offer a reason for the course of life we follow. May you, by considering yourselves, be able to discover the heavenly kingdom also! For as all things are subservient to you, father and son, who have received the kingdom from above (for "the king's soul is in the hand of God," saith the prophetic Spirit), so to the one God and the Logos proceeding from. Him, the Son, apprehended by us as inseparable from Him, all things are in like manner subjected.
Some people say that these statues are only images, and that the gods are the ones the images represent. They say that the approaches made to the images and the sacrifices offered to them are really offered to those gods and take place for them. They also say there is no other way to come to the gods, since “gods are hard to see plainly.” As proof they point to the powers at work in some of the idols. So let us examine the power attached to their names. Before I begin, greatest of emperors, I ask you to bear with me while I offer true arguments. My aim is not to refute the idols. I am clearing away the slanders against us and giving an account of the way of life we have chosen. You can understand the heavenly kingdom from your own case. All things have been put under your hand, father and son, who have received your kingdom from above. (“The king’s soul is in God’s hand,” says the prophetic Spirit.) In the same way all things are subject to the one God and to the Word who is from him, whom we understand to be the Son, undivided from him.
Translator’s note. The “father and son” addressed here are the emperors Marcus Aurelius and Commodus. The words about the king’s soul recall Proverbs 21:1, which in the Greek Old Testament says “heart” rather than “soul.” The “hard to see plainly” line quotes Homer, Iliad 20.131.
Scripture: Proverbs 21:1
Ἐκεῖνο τοίνυν σκέψασθέ μοι πρὸ τῶν ἄλλων.Οὐκ ἐξ ἀρχῆς, ὥς φασιν, ἦσαν οἱ θεοί, ἀλλ᾿ οὕτως γέγονεν αὐτῶν ἕκαστος ὡς γινόμεθα ἡμεῖς. Καὶ τοῦτο πᾶσιν αὐτοῖς ξυμφωνεῖ· Ὁμήρου μὲν γὰρ λέγοντος· Ὠκεανόν τε, θεῶν γένεσιν, καὶ μητέρα Τηθύν, Ὀρφέως δὲ (ὃς καὶ τὰ ὀνόματα αὐτῶν πρῶτος ἐξεῦρε καὶ τὰς γενέσεις διεξῆλθε καὶ ὅσα ἑκάστοις πέπρακται εἶπε καὶ πεπίστευται παρ᾿ αὐτοῖς ἀληθέστερον θεολογεῖν, ᾧ καὶ Ὅμηρος τὰ πολλὰ καὶ περὶ θεῶν μάλιστα ἕπεται) καὶ αὐτοῦ τὴν πρώτην γένεσιν αὐτῶν ἐξ ὕδατος συνιστάντος· Ὠκεανός, ὅσπερ γένεσις πάντεσσι τέτυκται. Ἦν γὰρ ὕδωρ ἀρχὴ κατ᾿ αὐτὸν τοῖς ὅλοις, ἀπὸ δὲ τοῦ ὕδατος ἰλὺς κατέστη, ἐκ δὲ ἑκατέρων ἐγεννήθη ζῶον δράκων προσπεφυκυῖαν ἔχων κεφαλὴν λέοντος, διὰ μέσου δὲ αὐτῶν θεοῦ πρόσωπον, ὄνομα Ἡρακλῆς καὶ Χρόνος.
This then especially I beg you carefully to consider. The gods, as they affirm, were not from the beginning, but every one of them has come into existence just like ourselves. And in this opinion they all agree. Homer speaks of "Old Oceanus, The sire of gods, and Tethys; " and Orpheus (who, moreover, was the first to invent their names, and recounted their births, and narrated the exploits of each, and is believed by them to treat with greater truth than others of divine things, whom Homer himself follows in most matters, especially in reference to the gods)-he, too, has fixed their first origin to be from water:- "Oceanus, the origin of all. For, according to him, water was the beginning of all things, and from water mud was formed, and from both was produced an animal, a dragon with the head of a lion growing to it, and between the two heads there was the face of a god, named Heracles and Kronos.
Please consider this point before all the others. According to their own writers, the gods did not exist from the beginning. Each of them came to be in the way that we come to be. All their writers agree on this. Homer speaks of “Oceanus, origin of the gods, and mother Tethys.” Orpheus was the first to devise their names, to go through their births, and to tell what each of them did. They believe he speaks of the gods more truly than others, and Homer follows him in most matters, especially about the gods. Orpheus also sets their first origin in water: “Oceanus, who has become the origin of all.” For according to him water was the beginning of everything. From the water mud settled, and from the two together a living creature was born. It was a serpent with a lion’s head growing on to it, and between them was the face of a god, named Heracles and Chronos (Time).
Translator’s note. “Chronos” is the Greek word for time. The older translation spelled it “Kronos,” which is the name of a different figure, the Titan father of Zeus.
Οὗτος ὁ Ἡρακλῆς ἐγέννησεν ὑπερμέγεθες ὠόν, ὃ συμπληρούμενον ὑπὸ βίας τοῦ γεγεννηκότος ἐκ παρατριβῆς εἰς δύο ἐῤῥάγη· τὸ μὲν οὖν κατὰ κορυφὴν αὐτοῦ οὐρανὸς εἶναι ἐτελέσθη, τὸ δὲ κατενεχθὲν γῆ. Προῆλθε δὲ καὶ θεὸς Γῆ διὰ σώματος· Οὐρανὸς δὲ Γῇ μιχθεὶς γεννᾷ θηλείας μὲν Κλωθώ, Λάχεσιν, Ἄτροπον, ἄνδρας δὲ ἑκατόγχειρας Κόττυν, Γύγην, Βριάρεων, καὶ Κύκλωπας Βρόντην καὶ Στερόπην καὶ Ἄργον· οὓς καὶ δήσας κατεταρτάρωσεν, ἐκπεσεῖσθαι αὐτὸν ὑπὸ τῶν παίδων τῆς ἀρχῆς μαθών. Διὸ καὶ ὀργισθεῖσα ἡ Γῆ τοὺς Τιτᾶνας ἐγέννησε. Κούρους δ᾿ οὐρανίωνας ἐγείνατο πότνια Γαῖα, Οὓς δὴ καὶ Τιτῆνας ἐπίκλησιν καλέουσιν, Οὕνεκα τισάσθην μέγαν Οὐρανὸν ἀστερόεντα.
This Heracles generated an egg of enormous size, which, on becoming full, was, by the powerful friction of its generator, burst into two, the part at the top receiving the form of heaven (ou0rano/j), and the lower part that of earth (gh=). The goddess Ge, moreover, came forth with a body; and Ouranos, by his union with Gê, begat females, Clotho, Lachesis, and Atropos; and males, the hundred-handed Cottys, Gyges, Briareus, and the Cyclopes Brontes, and Steropes, and Argos, whom also he bound and hurled down to Tartarus, having learnt that he was to be ejected from his government by his children; whereupon Gê, being enraged, brought forth the Titans. "The godlike Gala bore to Ouranos Sons who are by the name of Titans known, Because they vengeance took on Ouranos, Majestic, glitt'ring with his starry crown."
This Heracles produced an enormous egg. It was filled by the force of the one who produced it, and the friction made it burst in two. The part at the top became heaven (Ouranos), and the part that fell down became earth (Ge). The goddess Earth also came forth in bodily form. Heaven then mingled with Earth and fathered three females, Clotho, Lachesis and Atropos. He also fathered the hundred-handed males Cottus, Gyges and Briareus, and the Cyclopes Brontes, Steropes and Argos. Heaven bound these and threw them down into Tartarus, because he had learned that his own children would drive him from power. Earth was enraged at this and bore the Titans: “Queenly Earth bore sons of heaven, whom they call Titans by name, because they took vengeance on great starry Heaven.”
Translator’s note. The Greek says Earth came forth “through a body”; the exact sense of the phrase is unclear.
Chapter 19
Αὕτη ἀρχὴ γενέσεως περὶ τοὺς κατ᾿ αὐτοὺς θεούς τε καὶ τὸ πᾶν. Τί ἐκεῖνο τοίνυν; Ἕκαστον γὰρ τῶν τεθεολογημένων ὡς τὴν ἀρχὴν ὄν νοεῖται. Εἰ γὰρ γεγόνασιν οὐκ ὄντες, ὡς οἱ περὶ αὐτῶν θεολογοῦντες λέγουσιν, οὐκ εἰσίν. Ἢ γὰρ ἀγένητόν τι καὶ ἔστιν ἀΐδιον, ἢ γενητὸν καὶ φθατόν ἐστι. Καὶ οὐκ ἐγὼ μὲν οὕτως, ἑτέρως δὲ οἱ φιλόσοφοι. Τί τὸ ὂν ἀεί, γένεσίν τε οὐκ ἔχον, ἢ τί τὸ γενόμενον μέν, ὂν δὲ οὐδέποτε; Περὶ νοητοῦ καὶ αἰσθητοῦ διαλεγόμενος ὁ Πλάτων τὸ μὲν ἀεὶ ὄν, τὸ νοητόν, ἀγένητον εἶναι διδάσκει, τὸ δὲ οὐκ ὄν, τὸ αἰσθητόν, γενητόν, ἀρχόμενον εἶναι καὶ παυόμενον. Τούτῳ καὶ οἱ ἀπὸ τῆς στοᾶς τῷ λόγῳ ἐκπυρωθήσεσθαι τὰ πάντα καὶ πάλιν ἔσεσθαί φασιν, ἑτέραν ἀρχὴν τοῦ κόσμου λαβόντος.
The Philosophers Agree with the Poets Respecting the Gods.Such was the beginning of the existence both of their gods and of the universe. Now what are we to make of this? For each of those things to which divinity is ascribed is conceived of as having existed from the first. For, if they have come into being, having previously had no existence, as those say who treat of the gods, they do not exist. For, a thing is either uncreated and eternal, or created and perishable. Nor do I think one thing and the philosophers another. "What is that which always is, and has no origin; or what is that which has been originated, yet never is? " Discoursing of the intelligible and the sensible, Plato teaches that that which always is, the intelligible, is unoriginated, but that which is not, the sensible, is originated, beginning to be and ceasing to exist. In like manner, the Stoics also say that all things will be burnt up and will again exist, the world receiving another beginning.
That is the beginning of the birth of their gods, and of the universe. What follows from this? Each of the things called gods is understood to have existed from the beginning. But if they came to be when they did not exist before, as the writers about the gods say, then they do not exist. A thing is either unbegotten and eternal, or begotten and perishable. And I am not saying one thing while the philosophers say another. “What is that which always is and has no coming-to-be? And what is that which comes to be but never truly is?” Plato, speaking of the intelligible and the sensible, teaches that what always is, the intelligible, is unbegotten. What “is not,” the sensible, is begotten, beginning and ceasing to be. On this same principle the Stoics also say that all things will be consumed by fire and will exist again, when the world takes another beginning.
Translator’s note. The question about “what always is” comes from Plato’s Timaeus (27d–28a), quoted with small differences from Plato’s wording.
Εἰ δέ, καίτοι δισσοῦ αἰτίου κατ᾿ αὐτοὺς ὄντος, τοῦ μὲν δραστηρίου καὶ καταρχομένου, καθὸ ἡ πρόνοια, τοῦ δὲ πάσχοντος καὶ τρεπομένου, καθὸ ἡ ὕλη, ἀδύνατον δέ ἐστι καὶ προνοούμενον ἐπὶ ταὐτοῦ μεῖναι τὸν κόσμον γενόμενον, πῶς ἡ τούτων μένει σύστασις, οὐ φύσει ὄντων ἀλλὰ γενομένων; Τί δὲ τῆς ὕλης κρείττους οἱ θεοί, τὴν σύστασιν ἐξ ὕδατος ἔχοντες; Ἀλλ᾿ οὐδὲ κατ᾿ αὐτοὺς ὕδωρ τοῖς πᾶσιν ἀρχή. Ἔκ τε ἁπλῶν καὶ μονοειδῶν τί ἄν συστῆναι στοιχείων δύναιτο; Δεῖ δὲ καὶ τῇ ὕλῃ τεχνίτου καὶ ὕλης τῷ τεχνίτῃ. Ἢ πῶς ἂν γένοιτο τὰ ἐκτυπώματα χωρὶς τῆς ὕλης ἢ τοῦ τεχνίτου; Οὔτε πρεσβυτέραν λόγον ἔχει εἶναι τὴν ὕλην τοῦ θεοῦ· τὸ γὰρ ποιητικὸν αἴτιον προκατάρχειν τῶν γινομένων ἀνάγκη.
But if, although there is, according to them, a twofold cause, one active and governing, namely providence, the other passive and changeable, namely matter, it is nevertheless impossible for the world, even though under the care of Providence, to remain in the same state, because it is created-how can the constitution of these gods remain, who are not self-existent, but have been originated? And in what are the gods superior to matter, since they derive their constitution from water? But not even water, according to them, is the beginning of all things. From simple and homogeneous elements what could be constituted? Moreover, matter requires an artificer, and the artificer requires matter. For how could figures be made without matter or an artificer? Neither, again, is it reasonable that matter should be older than God; for the efficient cause must of necessity exist before the things that are made.
By their own account there are two causes. One is active and originating, and this is providence. The other is passive and changeable, and this is matter. Even so, once the world has come to be, it cannot stay in the same state, even though providence cares for it. How then can the existence of these gods last, when they do not exist by nature but have come to be? And how are the gods better than matter, when they get their make-up from water? Yet even by their own account water is not the beginning of all things. And what could be put together from elements that are simple and of one kind? Matter needs a craftsman, and the craftsman needs matter. How could shapes be made without matter or without a craftsman? Nor is it reasonable that matter should be older than God. The cause that makes things must come before the things that are made.
Chapter 20
Εἰ μὲν οὖν μέχρι τοῦ φῆσαι γεγονέναι τοὺς θεοὺς καὶ ἐξ ὕδατος τὴν σύστασιν ἔχειν τὸ ἀπίθανον ἦν αὐτοῖς τῆς θεολογίας, ἐπιδεδειχὼς ὅτι οὐδὲν γενητὸν ὃ οὐ καὶ διαλυτόν, ἐπὶ τὰ λοιπὰ ἄν παρεγενόμην τῶν ἐγκλημάτων. Ἐπεὶ δὲ τοῦτο μὲν διατεθείκασιν αὐτῶν τὰ σώματα· τὸν μὲν Ἡρακλέα ὅτι θεὸς δράκων ἑλικτός, τοὺς δὲ ἑκατόγχειρας εἰπόντες, καὶ τὴν θυγατέρα τοῦ Διός, ἣν ἐκ τῆς μητρὸς Ῥέας ἢ Δήμητρος αὐτῆς ἐπαιδοποιήσατο, δύο μὲν κατὰ φύσιν εἶπον ἔχειν ὀφθαλμοὺς καὶ ἐπὶ τῷ μετώπῳ δύο καὶ προτομὴν κατὰ τὸ ὄπισθεν τοῦ τραχήλου μέρος, ἔχειν δὲ καὶ κέρατα, διὸ καὶ τὴν Ῥέαν φοβηθεῖσαν τὸ τῆς παιδὸς τέρας φυγεῖν, οὐκ ἐφεῖσαν αὐτῇ τὴν θηλήν, ἔνθεν μυστικῶς μὲν Ἀθηλᾶ κοινῶς δὲ Φερσεφόνη καὶ Κόρη κέκληται, οὐχ ἡ αὐτὴ οὖσα τῇ Ἀθηνᾷ τῇ ἀπὸ τῆς κόρης λεγομένῃ· τοῦτο δὲ τὰ πραχθέντα ἐπ᾿ ἀκριβὲς αὐτοῖς ὡς οἴονται διεξεληλύθασι· Κρόνος μὲν ὡς ἐξέτεμε τὰ αἰδοῖα τοῦ πατρὸς καὶ κατέῤῥιψεν αὐτὸν ἀπὸ τοῦ ἅρματος καὶ ὡς ἐτεκνοκτόνει καταπίνων τῶν παίδων τοὺς ἄρσενας, Ζεὺς δὲ ὅτι τὸν μὲν πατέρα δήσας κατεταρτάρωσε, καθὰ καὶ τοὺς υἱεῖς ὁ Οὐρανός, καὶ πρὸς Τιτᾶνας περὶ τῆς ἀρχῆς ἐπολέμησε, καὶ ὅτι τὴν μητέρα Ῥέαν ἀπαγορεύουσαν αὐτοῦ τὸν γάμον ἐδίωκε, δρακαίνης δ᾿ αὐτῆς γενομένης καὶ αὐτὸς εἰς δράκοντα μεταβαλὼν συνδήσας αὐτὴν τῷ καλουμένῳ Ἡρακλειωτικῷ ἅμματι ἐμίγη, τοῦ σχήματος τῆς μίξεως σύμβολον ἡ τοῦ Ἑρμοῦ ῥάβδος, εἶθ᾿ ὅτι Φερσεφόνῃ τῇ θυγατρὶ ἐμίγη βιασάμενος καὶ ταύτην ἐν δράκοντος σχήματι, ἐξ ἧς παῖς Διόνυσος αὐτῷ· ἀνάγκη κἂν τοσοῦτον εἰπεῖν· Τί τὸ σεμνὸν ἢ χρηστὸν τῆς τοιαύτης ἱστορίας, ἵνα πιστεύσωμεν θεοὺς εἶναι τὸν Κρόνον, τὸν Δία, τὴν Κόρην, τοὺς λοιπούς;
Absurd Representations of the Gods.If the absurdity of their theology were confined to saying that the gods were created, and owed their constitution to water, since I have demonstrated that nothing is made which is not also liable to dissolution, I might proceed to the remaining charges. But, on the one hand, theyhave described their bodily forms: speaking of Hercules, for instance, as a god in the shape of a dragon coiled up; of others as hundred-handed; of the daughter of Zeus, whom he begat of his mother Rhea; or of Demeter, as having two eyes in the natural order, and two in her forehead, and the face of an animal on the back part of her neck, and as having also horns, so that Rhea, frightened at her monster of a child, fled from her, and did not give her the breast (qhlh/), whence mystically she is called Athela, but commonly Phersephone and Koré, though she is not the same as Athena, who is called Koré from the pupil of the eye;-and, on the other hand, they have described their admirable achievements, as they deem them: how Kronos, for instance, mutilated his father, and hurled him down from his chariot, and how he murdered his children, and swallowed the males of them; and how Zeus bound his father, and cast him down to Tartarus, as did Ouranos also to his sons, and fought with the Titans for the government; and how he persecuted his mother Rhea when she refused to wed him, and, she becoming a she-dragon, and he himself being changed into a dragon, bound her with what is called the Herculean knot, and accomplished his purpose, of which fact the rod of Hermes is a symbol; and again, how he violated his daughter Phersephone, in this case also assuming the form of a dragon, and became the father of Dionysus. In face of narrations like these, I must say at least this much, What that is becoming or useful is there in such a history, that we must believe Kronos, Zeus, Koré, and the rest, to be gods?
If their theology were absurd only in saying that the gods came into being and have their make-up from water, I would move on to the other charges, since I have shown that nothing that comes into being is free from dissolution. But they have also described the gods’ bodies. They say Heracles is a god, a coiled serpent. They speak of others as hundred-handed. And the daughter of Zeus, whom he fathered by his mother Rhea (or by Demeter herself), they say has two eyes in the normal place, two more on her forehead, and a face on the back of her neck, and that she also has horns. Rhea was terrified at the monstrous child and ran from her, and would not let her have the breast. So in the mysteries she is called Athela, but commonly Persephone and Kore. She is not the same as Athena, who is called Kore from the “pupil” of the eye. They have also recounted in detail the deeds of the gods, as they think of them. Kronos cut off his father’s genitals and threw him down from his chariot. He killed his own children by swallowing the males. Zeus bound his father and shut him in Tartarus, just as Ouranos had done to his sons, and he fought the Titans for the rule. He pursued his mother Rhea when she refused to marry him. She turned into a serpent, and he himself turned into a serpent, bound her with what is called the Heraclean knot, and lay with her. The rod of Hermes is a symbol of the shape of that union. Then he forced himself on his daughter Persephone, again in the form of a serpent, and by her he had a son, Dionysus. In the face of such stories I must at least say this: what is dignified or good in such a history, that we should believe Kronos, Zeus, Kore and the rest to be gods?
Translator’s note. The rod of Hermes (the caduceus) was shown with two serpents twined around it.
Αἱ διαθέσεις τῶν σωμάτων; Καὶ τίς ἂν ἄνθρωπος κεκριμένος καὶ ἐν θεωρίᾳ γεγονὼς ὑπὸ θεοῦ γεννηθῆναι πιστεύσαι ἔχιδναν (Ὀρφεύς· Ἂν δὲ Φάνης ἄλλην γενεὴν τεκνώσατο δεινὴν Νηδύος ἐξ ἱερῆς, προσιδεῖν φοβερωπὸν ἔχιδναν, Ἦς χαῖται μὲν ἀπὸ κρατὸς καλόν τε πρόσωπον Ἦν ἐσιδεῖν, τὰ δὲ λοιπὰ μέρη φοβεροῖο δράκοντος Αὐχένος ἐξ ἄκρου.) ἢ αὐτὸν τὸν Φάνητα δέξαιτο, θεὸν ὄντα πρωτόγονον (οὗτος γάρ ἐστιν ὁ ἐκ τοῦ ὠοῦ προχυθείς), ἢ σῶμα ἢ σχῆμα ἔχειν δράκοντος, ἢ καταποθῆναι ὑπὸ τοῦ Διός, ὅπως ὁ Ζεὺς ἀχώρητος γένοιτο; Εἰ γὰρ μηδὲν διενηνόχασι τῶν φαυλοτάτων θηρίων (δῆλον γὰρ ὅτι ὑποδιαλλάσσειν δεῖ τῶν γηΐνων καὶ τῶν ἀπὸ τῆς ὕλης ἀποκρινομένων τὸ θεῖον), οὐκ εἰσὶ θεοί. Τί δαὶ καὶ πρόσιμεν αὐτοῖς, ὧν κτηνῶν μὲν δίκην ἔχει ἡ γένεσις, αὐτοὶ δὲ θηριόμορφοι καὶ δυσειδεῖς;
Is it the descriptions of their bodies? Why, what man of judgment and reflection will believe that a viper was begotten by a god (thus Orpheus:- "But from the sacred womb Phanes begat Another offspring, horrible and fierce, In sight a frightful viper, on whose head Were hairs: its face was comely; but the rest, From the neck downwards, bore the aspect dire Of a dread dragon" ); or who will admit that Phanes himself, being a first-born god (for he it was that was produced from the egg), has the body or shape of a dragon, or was swallowed by Zeus, that Zeus might be too large to be contained? For if they differ in no respect from the lowest brutes (since it is evident that the Deity must differ from the things of earth and those that are derived from matter), they are not gods. How, then, I ask, can we approach them as suppliants, when their origin resembles that of cattle, and they themselves have the form of brutes, and are ugly to behold?
Is it the descriptions of their bodies? What person of sound judgment and reflection could believe that a god fathered a viper? Orpheus says: “And Phanes fathered another terrible offspring from the sacred womb, a fearful-looking viper. From its head came hair and a lovely face to look at, but the rest of it, from the top of the neck down, was the body of a dreadful dragon.” Or who could accept that Phanes himself, a god and the first-born (he is the one poured out of the egg), has the body or shape of a dragon? Or that he was swallowed by Zeus so that Zeus might become boundless? If these gods are no different from the lowest of beasts, they are not gods. The divine, clearly, must differ from earthly things and from what is separated out of matter. Why then should we come to them, when their birth is like that of cattle, and they themselves are beast-shaped and ugly?
Translator’s note. “Boundless” translates a Greek word meaning “that cannot be contained.” The verses are from the Orphic poems, about the god Phanes.
Chapter 21
Καίτοι εἰ σαρκοειδεῖς μόνον ἔλεγον αὐτοὺς καὶ αἷμα ἔχειν καὶ σπέρμα καὶ πάθη ὀργῆς καὶ ἐπιθυμίας, καὶ τότε ἔδει λῆρον καὶ γέλωτος λόγους τούτους νομίζειν· οὔτε γὰρ ὀργὴ οὔτε ἐπιθυμία καὶ ὄρεξις οὐδὲ παιδοποιὸν σπέρμα ἐν τῷ θεῷ. Ἔστωσαν τοίνυν σαρκοειδεῖς, ἀλλὰ κρείττους μὲν θυμοῦ καὶ ὀργῆς, ἵνα μὴ Ἀθηνᾶ μὲν βλέπηται Σκυζομένη Διῒ πατρί, χόλος δέ μιν ἄγριος αἱρεῖ, Ἥρα δὲ θεωρῆται· Ἥρῃ δ᾿ οὐκ ἔχαδε στῆθος χόλον, ἀλλὰ προσηύδα. Κρείττους δὲ λύπης· Ὢ πόποι, ἦ φίλον ἄνδρα διωκόμενον περὶ τεῖχος Ὀφθαλμοῖσιν ὁρῶμαι· ἐμὸν δ᾿ ὀλοφύρεται ἦτορ. Ἐγὼ μὲν γὰρ καὶ ἀνθρώπους ἀμαθεῖς καὶ σκαιοὺς λέγω τοὺς ὀργῇ καὶ λύπῃ εἴκοντας. Ὅταν δὲ ὁ πατὴρ ἀνδρῶν τε θεῶν τε ὀδύρηται μὲν τὸν υἱόν, Αἲ αἲ ἐγών, ὅτε μοι Σαρπηδόνα φίλτατον ἀνδρῶν Μοῖρ᾿ ὑπὸ Πατρόκλοιο Μενοιτιάδαο δαμῆναι! ἀδυνατῇ δὲ ὀδυρόμενος τοῦ κινδύνου ἐξαρπάσαι, Σαρπηδὼν Διὸς υἱός, ὁ δ᾿ οὐδ᾿ ᾧ παιδὶ ἀμύνει, τίς οὐκ ἂν τοὺς ἐπὶ τοῖς τοιούτοις μύθοις φιλοθέους, μᾶλλον δὲ ἀθέους, τῆς ἀμαθίας καταμέμψοιτο;
⚑ Possible scanning error in the digital Greek (δαμῆναι!). Check it against the printed edition.
Impure Loves Ascribed to the Gods.But should it be said that they only had fleshly forms, and possess blood and seed, and the affections of anger and sexual desire, even then we must regard such assertions as nonsensical and ridiculous; for there is neither anger, nor desire and appetite, nor procreative seed, in gods. Let them, then, have fleshly forms, but let them be superior to wrath and anger, that Athena may not be seen "Burning with rage and inly wroth with Jove; " nor Hera appear thus:- "Juno's breast Could not contain her rage. And let them be superior to grief:- "A woful sight mine eyes behold: a man I love in flight around the walls! My heart For Hector grieves. For I call even men rude and stupid who give way to anger and grief. But when the "father of men and gods" mourns for his son,- "Woe, woe! that fate decrees my best belov'd Sarpedon, by Patroclus' hand to fall; " and is not able while he mourns to rescue him from his peril:- "The son of Jove, yet Jove preserv'd him not; " who would not blame the folly of those who, with tales like these, are lovers of the gods, or rather, live without any god?
But even if they said only that the gods are flesh-like, with blood and seed and the passions of anger and desire, we should still have to count such talk as nonsense and a laughingstock. For there is no anger in God, no desire or appetite, and no seed that produces children. So let them be flesh-like, but let them be above rage and anger. Otherwise we see Athena “angry at father Zeus, and savage wrath seizes her,” and we see Hera: “Hera’s breast could not hold her anger, but she spoke.” And let them be above grief: “Alas, I see with my own eyes a man I love chased around the wall, and my heart mourns for him.” For I call even human beings ignorant and boorish when they give in to anger and grief. But then the father of men and gods laments for his son: “Woe is me, that Fate has decreed that Sarpedon, dearest of men to me, be laid low by Patroclus, son of Menoitios!” He weeps, yet he cannot snatch him from danger: “Sarpedon, son of Zeus; but Zeus does not even defend his own child.” Who would not blame the ignorance of those who are devoted to the gods because of myths like these, or rather, who are really godless?
Translator’s note. These lines are from Homer’s Iliad. In Homer the speaker of “Alas, I see…” is Zeus, and the “man I love” is Hector.
Ἔστωσαν σαρκοειδεῖς, ἀλλὰ μὴ τιτρωσκέσθω μηδὲ Ἀφροδίτη ὑπὸ Διομήδους τὸ σῶμα, Οὖτά με Τυδέος υἱὸς ὑπέρθυμος Διομήδης, ἢ ὑπὸ Ἄρεως τὴν ψυχήν, Ὡς ἐμὲ χωλὸν ἐόντα Διὸς θυγάτηρ Ἀφροδίτη Αἰὲν ἀτιμάζει, φιλέει δ᾿ ἀΐδηλον Ἄρηα. — — Διὰ δὲ χρόα καλὸν ἔδαψεν. Ὁ δεινὸς ἐν πολέμοις, ὁ σύμμαχος κατὰ Τιτάνων τοῦ Διός, ἀσθενέστερος Διομήδους φαίνεται. Μαίνετο δ᾿ ὡς ὅτ᾿ Ἄρης ἐγχέσπαλος —. Σιώπησον Ὅμηρε, θεὸς οὐ μαίνεται. Σὺ δέ μοι καὶ μιαιφόνον καὶ βροτολοιγόν, Ἄρες, Ἄρες βροτολοιγέ, μιαιφόνε, διηγῇ τὸν θεόν, καὶ τὴν μοιχείαν αὐτοῦ διέξει καὶ τὰ δεσμά· Τὼ δ᾿ ἐς δέμνια βάντε κατέδραθον, ἀμφὶ δὲ δεσμοὶ Τεχνήεντες ἔχυντο πολύφρονος Ἡφαίστοιο, Οὐδέ τι κινῆσαι μελέων ἦν. Οὐ καταβάλλουσι τὸν πολὺν τοῦτον ἀσεβῆ λῆρον περὶ τῶν θεῶν;
Let them have fleshly forms, but let not Aphrodité be wounded by Diomedes in her body:- "The haughty son of Tydeus, Diomed, Hath wounded me; " or by Arê s in her soul:- "Me, awkward me, she scorns; and yields her charms To that fair lecher, the strong god of arms. "The weapon pierced the flesh. He who was terrible in battle, the ally of Zeus against the Titans, is shown to be weaker than Diomedes:- "He raged, as Mars, when brandishing his spear. Hush! Homer, a god never rages. But you describe the god to me as blood-stained, and the bane of mortals:- "Mars, Mars, the bane of mortals, stained with blood; " and you tell of his adultery and his bonds:- "Then, nothing loth, th' enamour'd fair he led, And sunk transported on the conscious bed. Down rushed the toils. Do they not pour forth impious stuff of this sort in abundance concerning the gods?
Let them have bodies like flesh, but let Aphrodite not be wounded in her body by Diomedes: “The son of Tydeus, high-spirited Diomedes, struck me.” Nor let her be wounded in her soul by Ares: “How Aphrodite, the daughter of Zeus, always dishonors me because I am lame, and loves destructive Ares.” And of Ares: “He tore through the lovely skin.” The one who is terrible in wars, Zeus’s ally against the Titans, turns out to be weaker than Diomedes. “He raged as when Ares, brandishing his spear, rages.” Be quiet, Homer! A god does not rage. Yet you describe the god to me as blood-stained and a destroyer of men: “Ares, Ares, destroyer of mortals, blood-stained.” You also go through his adultery and his chains: “The two went to bed and lay down, and around them were poured the cunning bonds of resourceful Hephaestus, and they could not move a limb.” Do they not pour out a great deal of impious nonsense like this about the gods?
Translator’s note. The line about Aphrodite always dishonoring “me because I am lame” is spoken by her husband Hephaestus in Homer’s Odyssey (book 8), where the story of the bonds also comes from. “He tore through the lovely skin” comes from Iliad book 5, where Diomedes wounds Ares. “He raged as when Ares...” is said of Hector in Iliad book 15. The Greek does not name Ares in these sentences; the name is added for clarity.
Οὐρανὸς ἐκτέμνεται, δεῖται καὶ καταταρταροῦται Κρόνος, ἐπανίστανται Τιτᾶνες, Στὺξ ἀποθνήσκει κατὰ τὴν μάχην· ἤδη καὶ θνητοὺς αὐτοὺς δεικνύουσιν· ἐρῶσιν ἀλλήλων, ἐρῶσιν ἀνθρώπων. Αἰνείας, τὸν ὑπ᾿ Ἀγχίσῃ τέκε δῖ᾿ Ἀφροδίτη, Ἴδης ἐν κνημοῖσι θεὰ βροτῷ εὐνηθεῖσα. Οὐκ ἐρῶσιν; Οὐ πάσχουσιν; Ἦ γὰρ θεοί, καὶ οὐχ ἅψεται αὐτῶν ἐπιθυμία! Κἂν σάρκα θεὸς κατὰ θείαν οἰκονομίαν λάβῃ, ἤδη δοῦλός ἐστιν ἐπιθυμίας; Οὐ γὰρ πώποτέ μ᾿ ὧδε θεᾶς ἔρος οὐδὲ γυναικὸς Θυμὸν ἐνὶ στήθεσσι περιπροχυθεὶς ἐδάμασσεν· Οὐδ᾿ ὁπότ᾿ ἠρασάμην Ἰξιονίης ἀλόχοιο, Οὐδ᾿ ὅτε περ Δανάης καλλισφύρου Ἀκρισιώνης, Οὐδ᾿ ὅτε Φοίνικος κούρης τηλεκλειτοῖο, Οὐδ᾿ ὅτε περ Σεμέλης, οὐδ᾿ Ἀλκμήνης ἐνὶ Θήβῃ, Οὐδ᾿ ὅτε Δήμητρος καλλιπλοκάμοιο ἀνάσσης, Οὐδ᾿ ὅτε περ Λητοῦς ἐρικυδέος, οὐδὲ σεῦ αὐτῆς. Γενητός ἐστι, φθαρτός ἐστιν, οὐδὲν ἔχων θεοῦ.
⚑ Possible scanning error in the digital Greek (ἐπιθυμία!). Check it against the printed edition.
Ouranos is mutilated; Kronos is bound, and thrust down to Tartarus; the Titans revolt; Styx dies in battle: yea, they even represent them as mortal; they are in love with one another; they are in love with human beings:- "Aenuas, amid Ida's jutting peaks, Immortal Venus to Anchises bore. Are they not in love? Do they not suffer? Nay, verily, they are gods, and desire cannot touch them! Even though a god assume flesh in pursuance of a divine purpose, he is therefore the slave of desire. "For never yet did such a flood of love, For goddess or for mortal, fill my soul; Not for Ixion's beauteous wife, who bore Piritho (us, sage in council as the gods; Nor the neat-footed maiden Danäe, A crisius' daughter, her who Perséus bore, Th' observ'd of all; nor noble Phoenix' child; ..... nor for Semele; Nor for Alcmena fair; ... No, nor for Ceres, golden-tressèd queen; Nor for Latona bright; nor for thyself. He is created, he is perishable, with no trace of a god in him.
Uranus is castrated. Cronus is bound and thrown into Tartarus. The Titans rebel. Styx dies in the battle. So they now show the gods to be mortal. They love one another, and they love human beings: “Aeneas, whom divine Aphrodite bore to Anchises on the ridges of Ida, the goddess lying with a mortal.” Do they not love? Do they not suffer? Surely they are gods, and desire will not touch them! And if a god does take flesh according to a divine plan, is he then a slave of desire? Zeus says: “Never yet has love for goddess or woman poured over the heart in my chest and conquered me like this. Not when I loved the wife of Ixion, not when I loved Danaë of the slender ankles, daughter of Acrisius, not when I loved the daughter of far-famed Phoenix, not when I loved Semele or Alcmene in Thebes, not when I loved Demeter, the fair-tressed queen, nor glorious Leto, nor even you yourself.” He has come into being, he is perishable, and he has nothing of God in him.
Translator’s note. Zeus’s speech is from Homer’s Iliad (book 14), where he speaks to Hera. Athenagoras leaves out some lines.
Ἀλλὰ καὶ θητεύουσιν ἀνθρώποις· Ὦ δώματ᾿ Ἀδμήτει᾿, ἐν οἷς ἔτλην ἐγὼ Θῆσσαν τράπεζαν αἰνέσαι, θεός περ ὤν· καὶ βουκολοῦσιν· Ἐλθὼν δ᾿ ἐς αἶαν τήνδ᾿ ἐβουφόρβουν ξένῳ, Καὶ τόνδ᾿ ἔσωζον οἶκον. Οὐκοῦν κρείττων Ἄδμητος τοῦ θεοῦ. Ὦ μάντι καὶ σοφὲ καὶ προειδὼς τοῖς ἄλλοις τὰ ἐσόμενα, οὐκ ἐμαντεύσω τοῦ ἐρωμένου τὸν φόνον, ἀλλὰ καὶ ἔκτεινας αὐτοχειρὶ τὸν φίλον. Κἀγὼ τὸ Φοίβου θεῖον ἀψευδὲς στόμα Ἤλπιζον εἶναι, μαντικῇ βρύον τέχνῃ. (ὡς ψευδόμαντιν κακίζει τὸν Ἀπόλλω ὁ Αἰσχύλος) Ὁ δ᾿ αὐτὸς ὑμνῶν, αὐτὸς ἐν θοίνῃ παρών, Αὐτὸς τάδ᾿ εἰπών, αὐτός ἐστιν ὁ κτανὼν Τὸν παῖδα τὸν ἐμόν.
Nay, they are even the hired servants of men:- "Admetus' halls, in which I have endured To praise the menial table, though a god. And they tend cattle:- "And coming to this laud, I cattle fed, For him that was my host, and kept this house. Admetus, therefore, was superior to the god. 0 prophet and wise one, and who canst foresee for others the things that shall be, thou didst not divine the slaughter of thy beloved, but didst even kill him with thine own hand, dear as he was:- "And I believed Apollo's mouth divine Was full of truth, as well as prophet's art. (Aeschylus is reproaching Apollo for being a false prophet: )- "The very one who slugs while at the feast, The one who said these things, alas! is he Who slew my son."
Not only that, but they even work as hired servants for men: “O house of Admetus, where I, though a god, endured to accept a hired servant’s table.” And they herd cattle: “I came to this land and herded cattle for my host, and kept this house safe.” So Admetus was better than the god. O prophet, wise one, who foresee what will happen for others, you did not foretell the death of the one you loved. Instead you killed your friend with your own hand! “And I hoped that the divine mouth of Phoebus was free of falsehood, overflowing with the art of prophecy.” (This is how Aeschylus condemns Apollo as a false prophet.) “But he himself who sang the hymn, he himself who was at the feast, he himself who said these things, is the very one who killed my son.”
Translator’s note. The beloved friend whom Apollo killed is Hyacinthus, struck by Apollo’s discus in the Greek myth. The Aeschylus lines, which survive because Plato quotes them (Republic, book 2), are spoken by the sea-goddess Thetis about her son Achilles. Apollo had sung at her wedding and foretold good things for her child.
Chapter 22
Ἀλλὰ ταῦτα μὲν ἴσως. πλάνη ποιητική, φυσικὸς δέ τις ἐπ᾿ αὐτοῖς καὶ τοιοῦτος λόγος· Ζεὺς ἀργὴς (ὥς φησιν Ἐμπεδοκλῆς) Ἥρη τε φερέσβιος ἠδ᾿ Ἀϊδωνεὺς Νῆστίς θ᾿, ἣ δακρύοις τέγγει κρούνωμα βρότειον. Εἰ τοίνυν Ζεὺς μὲν τὸ πῦρ, Ἥρα δὲ ἡ γῆ καὶ ὁ ἀὴρ Ἀϊδωνεὺς καὶ τὸ ὕδωρ Νῆστις, στοιχεῖα δὲ ταῦτα, τὸ πῦρ τὸ ὕδωρ ὁ ἀήρ, οὐδεὶς αὐτῶν θεός, οὔτε Ζεὺς οὔτε Ἥρα οὔτε Ἀϊδωνεύς· ἀπὸ γὰρ τῆς ὕλης διακριθείσης ὑπὸ τοῦ θεοῦ ἡ τούτων σύστασίς τε καὶ γένεσις· Πῦρ καὶ ὕδωρ καὶ γαῖα καὶ ἠέρος ἤπιον ὕψος, Καὶ φιλίη μετὰ τοῖσιν. Ἅ χωρὶς τῆς φιλίας οὐ δύναται μένειν, ὑπὸ τοῦ νείκους συγχεόμενα, πῶς ἄν οὖν εἴποι τις ταῦτα εἶναι θεούς;
Pretended Symbolical Explanations.But perhaps these things are poetic vagary, and there is some natural explanation of them, such as this by Empedocles:- "Let Jove be fire, and Juno source of life, With Pluto and Nêstis, who bathes with tears The human founts. If, then, Zeus is fire, and Hera the earth, and Aïdoneus the air, and Nê stis water, and these are elements-fire, water, air-none of them is a god, neither Zeus, nor Hera, nor Aïdoneus; for from matter separated into parts by God is their constitution and origin:- "Fire, water, earth, and the air's gentle height, And harmony with these. Here are things which without harmony cannot abide; which would be brought to ruin by strife: how then can any one say that they are gods?
But perhaps these things are just the poets’ error, and there is a natural explanation behind them, such as this one. As Empedocles says: “Bright Zeus, life-bearing Hera, and Aidoneus, and Nestis, who moistens the mortal spring with tears.” Now suppose Zeus is fire, Hera is earth, Aidoneus is air, and Nestis is water. These are elements: fire, water, air. Then none of them is a god, neither Zeus nor Hera nor Aidoneus. For their makeup and origin come from matter that God has sorted out into parts. As Empedocles says: “Fire and water and earth and the gentle height of air, and Friendship with them.” But these things cannot last without Friendship. They are thrown into confusion by Strife. How then could anyone say they are gods?
Translator’s note. In Empedocles, Friendship (or Love) and Strife are the two forces that join the elements together and drive them apart.
Ἀρχικὸν ἡ φιλία κατὰ τὸν Ἐμπεδοκλέα, ἀρχόμενα τὰ συγκρίματα, τὸ δὲ ἀρχικὸν κύριον· ὥστε, ἐὰν μίαν καὶ τὴν αὐτὴν τοῦ τε ἀρχομένου καὶ τοῦ ἄρχοντος δύναμιν θῶμεν, λήσομεν ἑαυτοὺς ἰσότιμον τὴν ὕλην τὴν φθαρτὴν καὶ ῥευστὴν καὶ μεταβλητὴν τῷ ἀγενήτῳ καὶ ἀϊδίῳ καὶ διαπαντὸς συμφώνῳ ποιοῦντες θεῷ. Ζεὺς ἡ ζέουσα οὐσία κατὰ τοὺς Στωϊκούς, Ἥρα ὁ ἀήρ, καὶ τοῦ ὀνόματος εἰ αὐτὸ αὐτῷ ἐπισυνάπτοιτο συνεκφωνουμένου, Ποσειδῶν ἡ πόσις. Ἄλλοι δὲ ἄλλως φυσιολογοῦσιν· οἱ μὲν γὰρ ἀέρα διφυῆ ἀρσενόθηλυν τὸν Δία λέγουσιν, οἱ δὲ καιρὸν εἰς εὐκρασίαν τρέποντα τὸν χρόνον, διὸ καὶ μόνος Κρόνον διέφυγεν. Ἀλλ᾿ ἐπὶ μὲν τῶν ἀπὸ τῆς στοᾶς ἔστιν εἰπεῖν· εἰ ἕνα τὸν ἀνωτάτω θεὸν ἀγένητόν τε καὶ ἀΐδιον νομίζετε, συγκρίματα δὲ ἴσα ἡ τῆς ὕλης ἀλλαγή, καὶ τὸ πνεῦμα τοῦ θεοῦ διὰ τῆς ὕλης κεχωρηκὸς κατὰ τὰς παραλλάξεις αὐτῆς ἄλλο καὶ ἄλλο ὄνομα μεταλαγχάνειν φατέ, σῶμα μὲν τὰ εἴδη τῆς ὕλης τοῦ θεοῦ γενήσεται, φθειρομένων δὲ τῶν στοιχείων κατὰ τὴν ἐκπύρωσιν ἀνάγκη συμφθαρῆναι ὁμοῦ τοῖς εἴδεσι τὰ ὀνόματα, μόνου μένοντος τοῦ πνεύματος τοῦ θεοῦ.
Friendship, according to Empedocles, has an aptitude to govern, things that are compounded are governed, and that which is apt to govern has the dominion; so that if we make the power of the governed and the governing one and the same, we shall be, unawares to ourselves putting perishable and fluctuating and changeable matter on an equality with the uncreated, and eternal, and ever self-accordant God. Zeus is, according to the Stoics, the fervid part of nature; Hera is the air (a0h/r)-the very name, if it be joined to itself, signifying this; Poseidon is what is drunk (water, po/sij). But these things are by different persons explained of natural objects in different ways. Some call Zeus twofold masculine-feminine air; others the season which brings about mild weather, on which account it was that he alone escaped from Kronos. But to the Stoics it may be said, If you acknowledge one God, the supreme and uncreated and eternal One, and as many compound bodies as there are changes of matter, and say that the Spirit of God, which pervades matter, obtains according to its variations a diversity of names the forms of matter will become the body of God; but when the elements are destroyed in the conflagration, the names will necessarily perish along with the forms, the Spirit of God alone remaining.
According to Empedocles, Friendship is the ruling principle. The compounds are ruled, and the ruling principle is the master. So if we assume one and the same power for the ruled and the ruler, we will unknowingly be making matter, which is perishable, fluid and changeable, equal in honor to God, who is unbegotten, eternal and always in harmony. According to the Stoics, Zeus is the boiling substance, and Hera is the air. The name itself shows this if it is joined to itself and pronounced as one. Poseidon is the drink. Others give other natural explanations. Some say that Zeus is air of a double nature, male and female. Others say he is the season that turns time into mild weather, and that is why he alone escaped Kronos. But to the Stoics we can say this. You consider the highest God to be one, unbegotten and eternal. You say the compounds are as many as the changes of matter. You also say that the Spirit of God, which passes through matter, receives one name after another according to its changes. If so, the forms of matter will become the body of God. And when the elements are destroyed in the great fire, the names must be destroyed along with the forms, and only the Spirit of God will remain.
Translator’s note. “The great fire” translates ekpyrōsis. This is the Stoic teaching that the universe is periodically consumed by fire.
Ὧν οὖν σωμάτων φθαρτὴ ἡ κατὰ τὴν ὕλην παραλλαγή, τίς ἄν ταῦτα πιστεύσαι θεούς; Πρὸς δὲ τοὺς λέγοντας τὸν μὲν Κρόνον χρόνον, τὴν δὲ Ῥέαν γῆν, τὴν μὲν συλλαμβάνουσαν ἐκ τοῦ Κρόνου καὶ ἀποτίκτουσαν, ἔνθεν καὶ μήτηρ νομίζεται πάντων, τὸν δὲ γεννῶντα καὶ καταναλίσκοντα, καὶ εἶναι τὴν μὲν τομὴν τῶν ἀναγκαίων ὁμιλίαν τοῦ ἄρσενος πρὸς τὸ θῆλυ, τέμνουσαν καὶ καταβάλλουσαν σπέρμα εἰς μήτραν καὶ γεννῶσαν ἄνθρωπον, ἐν ἑαυτῷ τὴν ἐπιθυμίαν, ὅ ἐστιν Ἀφροδίτη, ἔχοντα, τὴν δὲ μανίαν τοῦ Κρόνου τροπὴν καιροῦ φθείρουσαν ἔμψυχα καὶ ἄψυχα, τὰ δὲ δεσμὰ καὶ τὸν τάρταρον χρόνον ὑπὸ καιρῶν τρεπόμενον καὶ ἀφανῆ γινόμενον, πρὸς τοίνυν τούτους φαμέν· εἴτε χρόνος ἐστὶν ὁ Κρόνος, μεταβάλλει, εἴτε καιρός, τρέπεται, εἴτε σκότος ἢ πάγος ἢ οὐσία ὑγρά, οὐδὲν αὐτῶν μένει· τὸ δὲ θεῖον καὶ ἀθάνατον καὶ ἀκίνητον καὶ ἀναλλοίωτον· οὔτε ἄρα ὁ Κρόνος οὔτε τὸ ἐπ᾿ αὐτῷ εἴδωλον θεός.Περὶ δὲ τοῦ Διός, εἰ μὲν ἀήρ ἐστι γεγονὼς ἐκ Κρόνου, οὗ τὸ μὲν ἄρσεν ὁ Ζεύς, τὸ δὲ θῆλυ Ἥρα (διὸ καὶ ἀδελφὴ καὶ γυνή), ἀλλοιοῦται, εἰ δὲ καιρός, τρέπεται· οὔτε δὲ μεταβάλλει οὔτε μεταπίπτει τὸ θεῖον.
Who, then, can believe that those bodies, of which the variation according to matter is allied to corruption, are gods? But to those who say that Kronos is time, and Rhea the earth, and that she becomes pregnant by Kronos, and brings forth, whence she is regarded as the mother of all; and that he begets and devours his offspring; and that the mutilation is the intercourse of the male with the female, which cuts off the seed and casts it into the womb, and generates a human being, who has in himself the sexual desire, which is Aphrodité; and that the madness of Kronos is the turn of season, which destroys animate and inanimate things; and that the bonds and Tartarus are time, which is changed by seasons and disappears;-to such persons we say, If Kronos is time, he changes; if a season, he turns about; if darkness, or frost, or the moist part of nature, none of these is abiding; but the Deity is immortal, and immoveable, and unalterable: so that neither is Kronos nor his image God. As regards Zeus again: If he is air, born of Kronos, of which the male part is called Zeus and the female Hera (whence both sister and wife), he is subject to change; if a season, he turns about: but the Deity neither changes nor shifts about.
So since these bodies change along with matter and perish, who could believe that they are gods? Next, some say that Kronos is time and Rhea the earth. They say Rhea conceives by Kronos and gives birth, which is why she is thought the mother of all, while he begets and devours. The cutting off of the private parts is the union of male and female. This union cuts off seed and drops it into the womb, and so produces a human being, who carries desire within him, and desire is Aphrodite. The “madness” of Kronos is the turning of the season, which destroys things living and lifeless. The “chains” and Tartarus are time, which is changed by the seasons and passes out of sight. To these people we say: if Kronos is time, he changes. If he is a season, he turns. If he is darkness, or frost, or a liquid substance, none of these remains. But the divine is immortal, unmoving and unchanging. So neither Kronos nor the idol made of him is God. As for Zeus: if he is air born from Kronos, with Zeus as the male part and Hera as the female (which is why she is both sister and wife), then he is altered. If he is a season, he turns. But the divine neither changes nor falls into another state.
Translator’s note. “Kronos” and “chronos” (time) sound alike in Greek, which is why the allegory identifies them. The cutting refers to the myth, told by Hesiod, of Kronos castrating his father Ouranos (Heaven).
Τί δεῖ πλέον λέγοντα ἐνοχλεῖν ὑμῖν, οἳ ἄμεινον τὰ παρ᾿ ἑκάστοις τῶν πεφυσιολογηκότων οἴδατε, ἢ οἷα περὶ τῆς φύσεως ἐνόησαν οἱ συγγραψάμενοι, ἢ ἅ περὶ τῆς Ἀθηνᾶς ἣν φρόνησιν διὰ πάντων διήκουσάν φασιν, ἢ περὶ τῆς Ἴσιδος ἣν φύσιν αἰῶνος, ἐξ ἧς πάντες ἔφυσαν καὶ δι᾿ ἧς πάντες εἰσί, λέγουσιν, ἢ περὶ τοῦ Ὀσίριδος οὗ σφαγέντος ὑπὸ Τυφῶνος τοῦ ἀδελφοῦ μετ᾿ Ὤρου τοῦ υἱοῦ ἡ Ἶσις ζητοῦσα τὰ μέλη καὶ εὑροῦσα ἤσκησεν εἰς ταφήν, ἣ ταφὴ ἕως νῦν Ὀσιριακὴ καλεῖται; Ἄνω γὰρ καὶ κάτω περὶ τὰ εἴδη τῆς ὕλης στρεφόμενοι ἀποπίπτουσι τῷ λόγῳ θεωρητοῦ θεοῦ, τὰ δὲ στοιχεῖα καὶ τὰ μόρια αὐτῶν θεοποιοῦσιν, ἄλλοτε ἄλλα ὀνόματα αὐτοῖς τιθέμενοι, τὴν μὲν τοῦ σίτου σπορὰν Ὄσιριν (ὅθεν φασὶ μυστικῶς ἐπὶ τῇ ἀνευρέσει τῶν μελῶν ἢ τῶν καρπῶν ἐπιλεχθῆναι τῇ Ἴσιδι· Εὑρήκαμεν, συγχαίρομεν!), τὸν δὲ τῆς ἀμπέλου καρπὸν Διόνυσον, καὶ Σεμέλην αὐτὴν τὴν ἄμπελον, καὶ κεραυνὸν τὴν τοῦ ἡλίου φλόγα.
⚑ Possible scanning error in the digital Greek (συγχαίρομεν!),). Check it against the printed edition.
But why should I trespass on your patience by saying more, when you know so well what has been said by each of those who have resolved these things into nature, or what various writers have thought concerning nature, or what they say concerning Athe (na (, whom they affirm to be the wisdom (fro/nhsij) pervading all things; and concerning Isis, whom they call the birth of all time (fu/sij ai0w=noj), from whom all have sprung, and by whom all exist; or concerning Osiris, on whose murder by Typhon his brother Isis with her son Orus sought after his limbs, and finding them honoured them with a sepulchre, which sepulchre is to this day called the tomb of Osiris? For whilst they wander up and down about the forms of matter, they miss to find the God who can only be beheld by the reason, while they deify the elements and their several parts, applying different names to them at different times: calling the sowing of the corn, for instance, Osiris (hence they say, that in the mysteries, on the finding of the members of his body, or the fruits, Isis is thus addressed: We have found, we wish thee joy), the fruit of the vine Dionysus, the vine itself Semelé, the heat of the sun the thunderbolt.
Why should I trouble you with more, when you know better than I do what each of the natural philosophers has said, what the writers have thought about nature, and what they say about Athena, whom they call wisdom running through all things? They say Isis is the nature of eternity, from whom all things grew and through whom all exist. They tell how Osiris was killed by his brother Typhon, and how Isis, with her son Horus, searched for his limbs, found them and prepared them for burial. That burial is still called Osirian today. For these people keep turning this way and that among the forms of matter. They fall away from the God who is perceived by reason, and they make gods of the elements and their parts, giving them one name after another. The sowing of grain they call Osiris. (From this, they say, in the mysteries, at the finding of his limbs, or of the fruits, these words are spoken to Isis: “We have found! We rejoice together!”) The fruit of the vine they call Dionysus, the vine itself Semele, and the sun’s flame the thunderbolt.
Translator’s note. In the myth, Semele, the mother of Dionysus, was destroyed by Zeus’s thunderbolt. The allegory makes her the vine and the thunderbolt the sun’s heat that ripens it.
Καίτοι γε πάντα μᾶλλον ἢ θεολογοῦσιν οἱ τοὺς μύθους θεοποιοῦντες, οὐκ εἰδότες ὅτι οἷς ἀπολογοῦνται ὑπὲρ τῶν θεῶν τοὺς ἐπ᾿ αὐτοῖς λόγους βεβαιοῦσι. Τί ἡ Εὐρώπη καὶ ὁ Ταῦρος καὶ ὁ Κύκνος καὶ ἡ Λήδα πρὸς γῆν καὶ ἀέρα, ἵν᾿ ἡ πρὸς ταύτας μιαρὰ τοῦ Διὸς μῖξις ᾖ γῆς καὶ ἀέρος; Ἀλλ᾿ ἀποπίπτοντες τοῦ μεγέθους τοῦ θεοῦ καὶ ὑπερκύψαι τῷ λόγῳ (οὐ γὰρ ἔχουσι συμπάθειαν εἰς τὸν οὐράνιον τόπον) οὐ δυνάμενοι ἐπὶ τὰ εἴδη τῆς ὕλης συντετήκασιν, καὶ καταπίπτοντες τὰς τῶν στοιχείων τροπὰς θεοποιοῦσιν· ὅμοιον εἰ καὶ ναῦν τις, ἐν ᾗ ἔπλευσεν, ἀντὶ τοῦ κυβερνήτου ἄγοι. Ὡς δὲ οὐδὲν πλέον νεώς, κἂν ᾖ πᾶσιν ἠσκημένη, μὴ ἐχούσης τὸν κυβερνήτην, οὐδὲ τῶν στοιχείων ὄφελος διακεκοσμημένων δίχα τῆς παρὰ τοῦ θεοῦ προνοίας. Ἥ τε γὰρ ναῦς καθ᾿ ἑαυτὴν οὐ πλευσεῖται, τά τε στοιχεῖα χωρὶς τοῦ δημιουργοῦ οὐ κινηθήσεται.
And yet, in fact, they who refer the fables to actual gods, do anything rather than add to their divine character; for they do not perceive, that by the very defence they make for the gods, they confirm the things which are alleged concerning them. What have Europa, and the bull, and the swan, and Leda, to do with the earth and air, that the abominable intercourse of Zeus with them should be taken for the intercourse of the earth and air? But missing to discover the greatness of God, and not being able to rise on high with their reason (for they have no affinity for the heavenly place), they pine away among the forms of matter, and rooted to the earth, deify the changes of the elements: just as if any one should put the ship he sailed in the place of the steersman. But as the ship, although equipped with everything, is of no use if it have not a steersman, so neither are the elements, though arranged in perfect order, of any service apart from the providence of God. For the ship will not sail of itself; and the elements without their Framer will not move.
Yet those who turn the myths into gods are doing anything but speaking about God. They do not realize that the very arguments they use to defend the gods confirm the stories told about them. What have Europa, the Bull, the Swan and Leda to do with earth and air, so that Zeus’s foul union with them could be a union of earth and air? In truth they have fallen short of the greatness of God. They cannot rise above this world by reason, for they have no fellow-feeling with the heavenly place. So they melt away into the forms of matter, and in their fall they make gods of the changes in the elements. It is as if someone were to take the ship he sailed in for the helmsman. A ship, however well fitted out, is no use without a helmsman. In the same way the elements, however well ordered, are no use apart from God’s providence. The ship will not sail by itself, and the elements will not move without their Maker.
Chapter 23
Εἴποιτε ἂν οὖν συνέσει πάντας ὑπερέχοντες· Τίνι οὖν τῷ λόγῳ ἔνια τῶν εἰδώλων ἐνεργεῖ, εἰ μή εἰσι θεοὶ ἐφ᾿ οἷς ἱδρυόμεθα τὰ ἀγάλματα; Οὐ γὰρ εἰκὸς τὰς ἀψύχους καὶ ἀκινήτους εἰκόνας καθ᾿ ἑαυτὰς ἰσχύειν χωρὶς τοῦ κινοῦντος. Τὸ μὲν δὴ κατὰ τόπους καὶ πόλεις καὶ ἔθνη γίνεσθαί τινας ἐπ᾿ ὀνόματι εἰδώλων ἐνεργείας οὐδ᾿ ἡμεῖς ἀντιλέγομεν· οὐ μήν, εἰ ὠφελήθησάν τινες καὶ αὖ ἐλυπήθησαν ἕτεροι, θεοὺς νομιοῦμεν τοὺς ἐφ᾿ ἑκάτερα ἐνεργήσαντας. Ἀλλὰ καὶ ᾧ λόγῳ νομίζετε ἰσχύειν τὰ εἴδωλα, καὶ τίνες οἱ ἐνεργοῦντες, ἐπιβατεύοντες αὐτῶν τοῖς ὀνόμασιν, ἐπ᾿ ἀκριβὲς ἐξητάκαμεν. Ἀναγκαῖον δέ μοι, μέλλοντι δεικνύειν τίνες οἱ ἐπὶ τοῖς εἰδώλοις ἐνεργοῦντες καὶ ὅτι μὴ θεοί, προσχρήσασθαί τισι καὶ τῶν ἀπὸ φιλοσοφίας μάρτυσι.
Opinions of Thales and Plato.You may say, however, since you excel all men in understanding, How comes it to pass, then, that some of the idols manifest power, if those to whom we erect the statues are not gods? For it is not likely that images destitute of life and motion can of themselves do anything without a mover. That in various places, cities, and nations, certain effects are brought about in the name of idols, we are far from denying. None the more, however, if some have received benefit, and others, on the contrary, suffered harm, shall we deem those to be gods who have produced the effects in either case. But I have made careful inquiry, both why it is that you think the idols to have this power, and who they are that, usurping their names, produce the effects. It is necessary for me, however, in attempting to show who they are that produce the effects ascribed to the idols, and that they are not gods, to have recourse to some witnesses from among the philosophers.
Since you surpass everyone in understanding, you might say: “How is it, then, that some of the idols work effects, if those in whose honor we set up the statues are not gods? It is not likely that lifeless, motionless images could have power by themselves without something to move them.” We do not deny that in various places, cities and nations certain effects occur in the name of idols. But if some people have been helped and others harmed, we will not therefore think that those who produced either result are gods. We have examined carefully both why you think the idols have power, and who the beings are that work these effects by taking over their names. But I am about to show who those workers are and that they are not gods, so I must call on some witnesses from the philosophers.
Πρῶτος Θαλῆς διαιρεῖ, ὡς οἱ τὰ ἐκείνου ἀκριβοῦντες μνημονεύουσιν, εἰς θεόν, εἰς δαίμονας, εἰς ἥρωας. Ἀλλὰ θεὸν μὲν τὸν νοῦν τοῦ κόσμου ἄγει, δαίμονας δὲ οὐσίας νοεῖ ψυχικάς, καὶ ἥρωας τὰς κεχωρισμένας ψυχὰς τῶν ἀνθρώπων, ἀγαθοὺς μὲν τὰς ἀγαθάς, κακοὺς δὲ τὰς φαύλας. Πλάτων δέ, τὰ ἄλλα ἐπέχων, καὶ αὐτὸς εἴς τε τὸν ἀγένητον θεὸν καὶ τοὺς ὑπὸ τοῦ ἀγενήτου εἰς κόσμον τοῦ οὐρανοῦ γεγονότας, τούς τε πλάνητας καὶ τοὺς ἀπλανεῖς ἀστέρας, καὶ εἰς δαίμονας τέμνει· περὶ ὧν δαιμόνων αὐτὸς ἀπαξιῶν λέγειν τοῖς περὶ αὐτῶν εἰρηκόσιν προσέχειν ἀξιοῖ. Περὶ δὲ τῶν ἄλλων δαιμόνων εἰπεῖν καὶ γνῶναι τὴν γένεσιν μεῖζον ἢ καθ᾿ ἡμᾶς, πειστέον δὲ τοῖς εἰρηκόσιν ἔμπροσθεν, ἐγγόνοις μὲν θεῶν οὖσιν ὡς ἔφασαν, σαφῶς γέ που τοὺς ἑαυτῶν προγόνους εἰδότων· ἀδύνατον οὖν θεῶν παισὶν ἀπιστεῖν, κἄνπερ ἄνευ εἰκότων καὶ ἀναγκαίων ἀποδείξεων λέγωσιν, ἀλλὰ ὡς οἰκεῖα φασκόντων ἀπαγγέλλειν ἑπομένους τῷ νόμῳ πιστευτέον.
First Thales, as those Who have accurately examined his opinions report, divides [superior beings] into God, demons, and heroes. God he recognises as the Intelligence (nou=) of the world; by demons he understands beings possessed of Soul (yukikai/); and by heroes the separated souls of men, the good being the good souls, and the bad the worthless. Plato again, while withholding his assent on other points, also divides [superior beings] into the uncreated God and those produced by' the uncreated One for the adornment of heaven, the planets, and the fixed stars, and into demons; concerning which demons, while he does not think fit to speak himself, he thinks that those ought to be listened to who have spoken about them. "To speak concerning the other demons, and to know their origin, is beyond our powers; but we ought to believe those who have before spoken, the descendants of gods, as they say-and surely they must be well acquainted with their own ancestors: it is impossible, therefore, to disbelieve the sons of gods, even though they speak without probable or convincing proofs; but as they profess to tell of their own family affairs, we are bound, in pursuance of custom, to believe them.
Thales was the first to make the division, according to those who have studied his views closely. He divides the beings above us into God, demons, and heroes. He takes God to be the mind of the world. By demons he means beings of a soul-like nature. By heroes he means the souls of men who have departed the body: good souls are good heroes, and worthless souls are bad ones. Plato, who holds back his judgment on other matters, also divides these beings. He speaks of the unbegotten God. He speaks of those the unbegotten God made to adorn the heavens, the wandering stars and the fixed stars. And he speaks of demons. He does not think it worthwhile to speak about these demons himself, but thinks we should listen to those who have spoken about them. He says: “To speak about the other demons and to know how they came to be is beyond us. We must trust those who spoke before us. They were, as they said, offspring of the gods, and surely they knew their own ancestors well. It is impossible, then, to disbelieve the children of gods, even if they speak without likely or necessary proofs. They claim to be reporting matters of their own family, so we must believe them, as custom requires.”
Translator’s note. “Demon” (Greek daimōn) here is a general word for spirit beings between gods and men; it does not yet mean only evil spirits. The quotation comes from Plato’s Timaeus (40d–e).
Οὕτως οὖν κατ᾿ ἐκείνους καὶ ἡμῖν ἡ γένεσις περὶ αὐτῶν τῶν θεῶν ἐχέτω καὶ λεγέσθω. Γῆς τε καὶ Οὐρανοῦ παῖδες Ὠκεανός τε καὶ Τηθὺς ἐγεννήθησαν, τούτων δὲ Φόρκος Κρόνος τε καὶ Ῥέα καὶ ὅσοι μετὰ τούτων, ἐκ δὲ Κρόνου τε καὶ Ῥέας Ζεὺς Ἥρα τε καὶ πάντες, οὓς ἴσμεν πάντας ἀδελφοὺς λεγομένους αὐτῶν, ἔτι τε τούτων ἄλλους ἐκγόνους. Ἆρ᾿ οὖν ὁ τὸν ἀΐδιον νοῦν καὶ λόγῳ καταλαμβανόμενον περινοήσας θεὸν καὶ τὰ ἐπισυμβεβηκότα αὐτῷ ἐξειπών, τὸ ὄντως ὄν, τὸ μονοφυές, τὸ ἀγαθὸν ἀπ᾿ αὐτοῦ ἀποχεόμενον, ὅπερ ἐστὶν ἀλήθεια, καὶ περὶ πρώτης δυνάμεως, καὶ ὡς περὶ τὸν πάντων βασιλέα πάντα ἐστὶ καὶ ἐκείνου ἕνεκεν πάντα, καὶ ἐκεῖνο αἴτιον πάντων, καὶ περὶ δύο καὶ τρία, δεύτερον δὲ περὶ τὰ δεύτερα, καὶ τρίτον περὶ τὰ τρίτα, περὶ τῶν ἐκ τῶν αἰσθητῶν γῆς τε καὶ οὐρανοῦ λεγομένων γεγονέναι μεῖζον ἢ καθ᾿ ἑαυτὸν τἀληθὲς μαθεῖν ἐνόμισεν;
In this way, then, let us hold and speak as they do concerning the origin of the gods themselves. Of Ge ( and Ouranos were born Oceanus and Tethys; and of these Phorcus, Kronos, and Rhea, and the rest; and of Kronos and Rhea, Zeus, Hera, and all the others, who, we know, are all called their brothers; besides other descendants again of these. Did, then, he who had contemplated the eternal Intelligence and God who is apprehended by reason, and declared His attributes-His real existence, the simplicity of His nature, the good that flows forth from Him that is truth, and discoursed of primal power, and how "all things are about the King of all, and all things exist for His sake, and He is the cause of all; "and about two and three, that He is "the second moving about the seconds, and the third about the thirds; " -did this man think, that to learn the truth concerning those who are said to have been produced from sensible things, namely earth and heaven, was a task transcending his powers?
“Following them, then, let us also hold and tell the origin of the gods themselves. Of Earth and Heaven were born Oceanus and Tethys. Of these were born Phorcys, Cronus, Rhea, and all who go with them. Of Cronus and Rhea were born Zeus, Hera, and all those we know are called their brothers and sisters, and then still other descendants of these.” Now consider the man who conceived of God as the eternal mind, grasped by reason, and who described what belongs to him. He spoke of the one who truly is, whose nature is single, and of the good that flows out from him, which is truth. He spoke of the first power, and how all things are around the King of all and exist for his sake, and how he is the cause of everything. He spoke of two and three: the second around the second things, and the third around the third things. Did this man suppose that learning the truth about those said to have come from things perceived by the senses, earth and heaven, was beyond his ability?
Translator’s note. The opening genealogy is still Plato speaking; it continues the quotation from the Timaeus begun in the previous section. The phrases about “the King of all” and “the second” and “third” come from the Second Letter attributed to Plato.
Ἦ οὐκ ἔστιν εἰπεῖν. Ἀλλ᾿ ἐπεὶ ἀδύνατον γεννᾶν καὶ ἀποκυΐσκεσθαι θεοὺς ἐνόμισεν, ἑπομένων τοῖς γινομένοις τελῶν, καί, τὸ τούτου ἀδυνατώτερον, μεταπεῖσαι τοὺς πολλοὺς ἀβασανίστως τοὺς μύθους παραδεχομένους, διὰ ταῦτα μεῖζον ἢ καθ᾿ ἑαυτὸν γνῶναι καὶ εἰπεῖν ἔφη περὶ τῆς τῶν ἄλλων δαιμόνων γενέσεως, οὔτε μαθεῖν οὔτε ἐξειπεῖν γεννᾶσθαι θεοὺς δυνάμενος. Καὶ τὸ εἰρημένον αὐτῷ· Ὁ δὴ μέγας ἡγεμὼν ἐν οὐρανῷ Ζεύς, ἐλαύνων πτηνὸν ἅρμα, πρῶτος πορεύεται διακοσμῶν πάντα καὶ ἐπιμελούμενος, τῷ δὲ ἕπεται στρατιὰ θεῶν τε καὶ δαιμόνων· οὐκ ἐπὶ τοῦ ἀπὸ Κρόνου λεγομένου ἔχει Διός. Ἔστι γὰρ ἐν τούτῳ ὄνομα τῷ ποιητῇ τῶν ὅλων. Δηλοῖ δὲ καὶ αὐτὸς ὁ Πλάτων· ἑτέρῳ σημαντικῷ προσειπεῖν αὐτὸν οὐκ ἔχων τῷ δημώδει ὀνόματι, οὐχ ὡς ἰδίῳ τοῦ θεοῦ ἀλλ᾿ εἰς σαφήνειαν, ὅτι μὴ δυνατὸν εἰς πάντας φέρειν κατὰ δύναμιν τὸν θεόν, προσεχρήσατο, ἐπικατηγορήσας τὸ μέγας, ἵνα διαστείλῃ τὸν οὐράνιον ἀπὸ τοῦ χαμᾶθεν, τὸν ἀγένητον ἀπὸ τοῦ γενητοῦ, τοῦ νεωτέρου μὲν οὐρανοῦ καὶ γῆς, νεωτέρου δὲ Κρητῶν, οἳ ἐξέκλεψαν αὐτὸν μὴ ἀναιρεθῆναι ὑπὸ τοῦ πατρός.
It is not to be believed for a moment. But because he thought it impossible to believe that gods beget and are brought forth, since everything that begins to be is followed by an end, and (for this is much more difficult) to change the views of the multitude, who receive the fables without examination, on this account it was that he declared it to be beyond his powers to know and to speak concerning the origin of the other demons, since he was unable either to admit or teach that gods were begotten. And as regards that saying of his, "The great sovereign in heaven, Zeus, driving a winged car, advances first, ordering and managing all things, and there follow him a host of gods and demons," this does not refer to the Zeus who is said to have sprung from Kronos; for here the name is given to the Maker of the universe. This is shown by Plato himself: not being able to designate Him by another title that should be suitable, he availed himself of the popular name, not as peculiar to God, but for distinctness, because it is not possible to discourse of God to all men as fully as one might; and he adds at the same time the epithet "Great," so as to distinguish the heavenly from the earthly, the uncreated from the created, who is younger than heaven and earth, and younger than the Cretans, who stole him away, that he might not be killed by his father.
Surely not; no one can say that. But Plato thought it impossible for gods to beget and to be born, since an end follows everything that comes into being. He thought it even more impossible to change the minds of the many, who accept the myths without testing them. For these reasons he said it was beyond him to know and to tell how the other demons came to be. He could neither learn nor declare that gods are born. Take also his saying: “Zeus, the great leader in heaven, driving a winged chariot, goes first, arranging all things and caring for them, and an army of gods and demons follows him.” He does not mean the Zeus said to be the son of Cronus. In this saying the name stands for the Maker of all things. Plato makes this clear himself. He had no other expressive name by which to call him, so he used the common name. He did not use it as God’s own name but for the sake of clarity, since it is not possible to bring God before everyone as fully as one might wish. And he added the word “great” in order to distinguish the heavenly Zeus from the earthbound one, the unbegotten from the begotten. The begotten Zeus is younger than heaven and earth, and younger than the Cretans, who stole him away so that his father would not destroy him.
Translator’s note. The quotation is from Plato’s Phaedrus. The myth Athenagoras alludes to is that Cronus swallowed his children, and Rhea hid the infant Zeus in Crete.
Chapter 24
Τί δαὶ δεῖ πρὸς ὑμᾶς πάντα λόγον κεκινηκότας ἢ ποιητῶν μνημονεύειν ἢ καὶ ἑτέρας δόξας ἐξετάζειν, τοσοῦτον εἰπεῖν ἔχοντι· Εἰ μὴ καὶ ποιηταὶ καὶ φιλόσοφοι ἕνα μὲν εἶναι ἐπεγίνωσκον θεόν, περὶ δὲ τούτων οἱ μὲν ὡς περὶ δαιμόνων, οἱ δὲ ὡς περὶ ὕλης, οἱ δὲ ὡς περὶ ἀνθρώπων γενομένων ἐφρόνουν, ἡμεῖς γε ἂν εἰκότως ἐξενηλατούμεθα, διαιρετικῷ λόγῳ καὶ περὶ θεοῦ καὶ ὕλης καὶ περὶ τῆς τούτων αὐτῶν οὐσίας κεχρημένοι; Ὡς γὰρ θεόν φαμεν καὶ υἱὸν τὸν λόγον αὐτοῦ καὶ πνεῦμα ἅγιον, ἑνούμενα μὲν κατὰ δύναμιν τὸν πατέρα τὸν υἱὸν τὸ πνεῦμα, ὅτι νοῦς λόγος σοφία ὁ υἱὸς τοῦ πατρός, καὶ ἀπόῤῥοια ὡς φῶς ἀπὸ πυρὸς τὸ πνεῦμα, οὕτως καὶ ἑτέρας εἶναι δυνάμεις κατειλήμμεθα περὶ τὴν ὕλην ἀρχούσας καὶ δι᾿ αὐτῆς, μίαν μὲν τὴν ἀντίθεον, οὐχ ὅτι ἀντιδοξοῦν τί ἐστι τῷ θεῷ, ὡς τῇ φιλίᾳ τὸ νεῖκος κατὰ τὸν Ἐμπεδοκλέα καὶ τῇ ἡμέρᾳ νὺξ κατὰ τὰ φαινόμενα (ἐπεὶ κἂν εἰ ἀνθειστήκει τι τῷ θεῷ ἐπαύσατο τοῦ εἶναι, λυθείσης αὐτοῦ τῇ τοῦ θεοῦ δυνάμει καὶ ἰσχύϊ τῆς συστάσεως), ἀλλ᾿ ὅτι τῷ τοῦ θεοῦ ἀγαθῷ, ὃ κατὰ συμβεβηκός ἐστιν αὐτῷ καὶ συνυπάρχον, ὡς χρόα σώματι, οὗ ἄνευ οὐκ ἔστιν (οὐχ ὡς μέρους ὄντος, ἀλλ᾿ ὡς κατ᾿ ἀνάγκην συνόντος παρακολουθήματος, ἡνωμένου καὶ συγκεχρωσμένου, ὡς τῷ πυρὶ ξανθῷ εἶναι καὶ τῷ αἰθέρι κυανῷ), ἐναντίον ἐστὶ τὸ περὶ τὴν ὕλην ἔχον πνεῦμα, γενόμενον μὲν ὑπὸ τοῦ θεοῦ, καθὸ οἱ λοιποὶ ὑπ᾿ αὐτοῦ γεγόνασιν ἄγγελοι, καὶ τὴν ἐπὶ τῇ ὕλῃ καὶ τοῖς τῆς ὕλης εἴδεσι πιστευσάμενον διοίκησιν.
Concerning the Angels and Giants.What need is there, in speaking to you who have searched into every department of knowledge, to mention the poets, or to examine opinions of another kind? Let it suffice to say thus much. If the poets and philosophers did not acknowledge that there is one God, and concerning these gods were not of opinion, some that they are demons, others that they are matter, and others that they once were men,-there might be some show of reason for our being harassed as we are, since we employ language which makes a distinction between God and matter, and the natures of the two. For, as we acknowledge a God, and a Son his Logos, and a Holy Spirit, united in essence,-the Father, the Son, the Spirit, because the Son is the Intelligence, Reason, Wisdom of the Father, and the Spirit an effluence, as light from fire; so also do we apprehend the existence of other powers, which exercise dominion about matter, and by means of it, and one in particular, which is hostile to God: not that anything is really opposed to God, like strife to friendship, according to Empedocles, and night to day, according to the appearing and disappearing of the stars (for even if anything had placed itself in opposition to God, it would have ceased to exist, its structure being destroyed by the power and might of God), but that to the good that is in God, which belongs of necessity to Him, and co-exists with Him, as colour with body, without which it has no existence (not as being part of it, but as an attendant property co-existing with it, united and blended, just as it is natural for fire to be yellow and the ether dark blue),-to the good that is in God, I say, the spirit which is about matter, who was created by God; just as the other angels were created by Him, and entrusted with the control of matter and the forms of matter, is opposed.
Speaking to you, who have explored every field of learning, why should I bring up the poets or examine other opinions? I can say this much. If the poets and philosophers did not recognize one God, and if they did not think of these gods as demons, or matter, or men who once lived, then we might reasonably be driven out, since we use an argument that distinguishes God from matter and the nature of each. But we speak of God, and of his Son the Word, and of the Holy Spirit. The Father, the Son and the Spirit are united in power, because the Son is the mind, word and wisdom of the Father, and the Spirit is an outflow, like light from fire. In the same way we have come to understand that there are other powers that rule over matter and work through it. One of them is opposed to God. I do not mean that anything is God’s rival or counterpart, as strife is to friendship in Empedocles, or as night is to day in the way things appear. If anything stood against God, it would cease to exist, because God’s power and strength would dissolve its structure. What I mean is that the spirit who is concerned with matter is opposed to the goodness of God. That goodness is an attribute of God and exists together with him, as color does with a body, which cannot exist without it. It is not a part of him but an accompanying quality that is necessarily there, united and blended with him, as yellow is with fire and deep blue with the upper air. This spirit was made by God, just as the other angels were made by him, and was entrusted with the management of matter and of the forms of matter.
Translator’s note. The Greek verb here (antidoxein) usually means “to hold a contrary opinion.” From the examples Athenagoras gives, he seems to mean a rival opposite to God.
Τοῦτο γὰρ ἡ τῶν ἀγγέλων σύστασις, τῷ θεῷ ἐπὶ προνοίᾳ γεγονέναι τοῖς ὑπ᾿ αὐτοῦ διακεκοσμημένοις, ἵνα τὴν μὲν παντελικὴν καὶ γενικὴν ὁ θεὸς ἔχῃ τῶν ὅλων πρόνοιαν, τὴν δὲ ἐπὶ μέρους οἱ ἐπ᾿ αὐτοῖς ταχθέντες ἄγγελοι. Ὡς δὴ καὶ ἐπὶ τῶν ἀνθρώπων, αὐθαίρετον καὶ τὴν ἀρετὴν καὶ τὴν κακίαν ἐχόντων (ἐπεὶ οὐκ ἂν οὔτ᾿ ἐτιμᾶτε τοὺς ἀγαθοὺς οὔτ᾿ ἐκολάζετε τοὺς πονηρούς, εἰ μὴ ἐπ᾿ αὐτοῖς ἦν καὶ ἡ κακία καὶ ἡ ἀρετή· καὶ οἱ μὲν σπουδαῖοι περὶ ἃ πιστεύονται ὑφ᾿ ὑμῶν, οἱ δὲ ἄπιστοι εὑρίσκονται), καὶ τὸ κατὰ τοὺς ἀγγέλους ἐν ὁμοίῳ καθέστηκεν. Οἱ μὲν γὰρ ἄλλοι, αὐθαίρετοι δὴ οἷοι γεγόνασιν ὑπὸ τοῦ θεοῦ, ἔμειναν ἐφ᾿ οἷς αὐτοὺς ἐποίησεν καὶ διέταξεν ὁ θεός, οἱ δὲ ἐνύβρισαν καὶ τῇ τῆς οὐσίας ὑποστάσει καὶ τῇ ἀρχῇ, οὗτός τε ὁ τῆς ὕλης καὶ τῶν ἐν αὐτῇ εἰδῶν ἄρχων καὶ ἕτεροι τῶν περὶ τὸ πρῶτον τοῦτο στερέωμα, (ἴστε δὲ μηδὲν ἡμᾶς ἀμάρτυρον λέγειν, ἃ δὲ τοῖς προφήταις ἐκπεφώνηται μηνύειν) ἐκεῖνοι μὲν εἰς ἐπιθυμίαν πεσόντες παρθένων καὶ ἥττους σαρκὸς εὑρεθέντες, οὗτος δὲ ἀμελήσας καὶ πονηρὸς περὶ τὴν τῶν πεπιστευμένων γενόμενος διοίκησιν.Ἐκ μὲν οὖν τῶν περὶ τὰς παρθένους ἐχόντων οἱ καλούμενοι ἐγεννήθησαν γίγαντες.
For this is the office of the angels,-to exercise providence for God over the things created and ordered by Him; so that God may have the universal and general providence of the whole, while the particular parts are provided for by the angels appointed over them. Just as with men, who have freedom of choice as to both virtue and vice (for you would not either honour the good or punish the bad, unless vice and virtue were in their own power; and some are diligent in the matters entrusted to them by you, and others faithless), so is it among the angels. Some, free agents, you will observe, such as they were created by God, continued in those things for which God had made and over which He had ordained them; but some outraged both the constitution of their nature and the government entrusted to them: namely, this ruler of matter and its various forms, and others of those who were placed about this first firmament (you know that we say nothing without witnesses, but state the things which have been declared by the prophets); these fell into impure love of virgins, and were subjugated by the flesh, and he became negligent and wicked in the management of the things entrusted to him. Of these lovers of virgins, therefore, were begotten those who are called giants.
For this is why the angels were established: God made them to exercise providence over the things he has ordered. God keeps the complete and general care of the whole, while the angels appointed over the individual parts take care of those parts. The same is true of human beings, who have both virtue and vice by their own choice. (You would not honor the good or punish the wicked unless vice and virtue were in their own power. Some people are diligent in the duties you entrust to them, and others are found unfaithful.) The angels are in the same position. Some of them, free agents as God made them, stayed in the condition and the work that God made and appointed for them. But others abused both the nature of their being and their office. One was this ruler of matter and of the forms in it. The others were some of those who were around this first firmament. (You know that we say nothing without witnesses; we report what the prophets have proclaimed.) The latter fell into desire for virgins and were found to be overcome by the flesh. The ruler of matter became careless and wicked in managing what had been entrusted to him. From the angels who had to do with the virgins were born those called giants.
Translator’s note. This draws on Genesis 6:1–4, where the “sons of God” take the daughters of men and the Greek Old Testament speaks of “giants.” Athenagoras’s account of angels lusting after women also resembles the Jewish Book of Enoch (1 Enoch 6–7).
Scripture: Genesis 6:1-4
Εἰ δέ τις ἐκ μέρους εἴρηται περὶ τῶν γιγάντων καὶ ποιηταῖς λόγος, μὴ θαυμάσητε, τῆς κοσμικῆς σοφίας καὶ θεολογικῆς ὅσον ἀλήθεια πιθανοῦ διαφέρει διαλλαττουσῶν, καὶ τῆς μὲν οὔσης ἐπουρανίου, τῆς δὲ ἐπιγείου· καὶ κατὰ τὸν ἄρχοντα τῆς ὕλης Ἴσμεν ψεύδεα πολλὰ λέγειν ἐτύμοισιν ὁμοῖα.
And if something has been said by the poets, too, about the giants, be not surprised at this: worldly Wisdom and divine differ as much from each other as truth and plausibility: the one is of heaven and the other of earth; and indeed, according to the prince of matter,- "We know we oft speak lies that look like troths."
If the poets too have given some partial account of the giants, do not be surprised. Worldly wisdom and wisdom about God differ as much as truth differs from what is merely plausible. The one is heavenly and the other earthly. And in the words of the ruler of matter: “We know how to say many lies that look like the truth.”
Translator’s note. The quoted line is from Hesiod, Theogony 27, where the Muses speak it. Athenagoras puts it in the mouth of the ruler of matter, implying that he inspired the poets’ falsehoods.
Chapter 25
Οὗτοι τοίνυν οἱ ἄγγελοι οἱ ἐκπεσόντες τῶν οὐρανῶν, περὶ τὸν ἀέρα ἔχοντες καὶ τὴν γῆν, οὐκέτι εἰς τὰ ὑπερουράνια ὑπερκύψαι δυνάμενοι, καὶ αἱ τῶν γιγάντων ψυχαὶ οἱ περὶ τὸν κόσμον εἰσὶ πλανώμενοι δαίμονες, ὁμοίας κινήσεις οἱ μὲν αἷς ἔλαβον συστάσεσιν, οἱ δαίμονες, οἱ δὲ αἷς ἔσχον ἐπιθυμίαις, οἱ ἄγγελοι, ποιούμενοι. Ὁ δὲ τῆς ὕλης ἄρχων, ὡς ἔστιν ἐξ αὐτῶν τῶν γινομένων ἰδεῖν, ἐναντία τῷ ἀγαθῷ τοῦ θεοῦ ἐπιτροπεύει καὶ διοικεῖ. Πολλάκι μοι πραπίδων διῆλθε φροντίς, Εἴτε τύχα εἴτε δαίμων τὰ βιότια κραίνει, Παρά τ᾿ ἐλπίδα καὶ παρὰ δίκαν Τοὺς μὲν ἀπ᾿ οἴκων ἀναπίπτοντας Ἄτερ βίου, τοὺς δ᾿ εὐτυχοῦντας ἄγει. Τὸ παρ᾿ ἐλπίδα καὶ δίκην εὖ πράττειν ἢ κακῶς ἐν ἀφασίᾳ τὸν Εὐριπίδην ἐποίησε, τίνος ἡ τοιαύτη τῶν περιγείων διοίκησις, ἐν ᾗ εἴποι τις ἄν· Πῶς οὖν τάδ᾿ εἰσορῶντες ἢ θεῶν γένος Εἶναι λέγωμεν, ἢ νόμοισι χρώμεθα;
The Poets and Philosophers Have Denied a Divine Providence.These angels, then, who have fallen from heaven, and haunt the air and the earth, and are no longer able to rise to heavenly things, and the souls of the giants, which are the demons who wander about the world, perform actions similar, the one (that is, the demons) to the natures they have received, the other (that is, the angels) to the appetites they have indulged. But the prince of matter, as may be seen merely from what transpires, exercises a control and management contrary to the good that is in God:- "Ofttimes this anxious thought has crossed my mind, Whether 'tis chance or deity that rules The small affairs of men; and, spite of hope As well as justice, drives to exile some Stripped of all means of life, while others still Continue to enjoy prosperity. Prosperity and adversity, contrary to hope and justice, made it impossible for Euripides to say to whom belongs the administration of earthly affairs, which is of such a kind that one might say of it:- "How then, while seeing these things, can we say There is a race of gods, or yield to laws?
These angels, then, who fell from the heavens, occupy the air and the earth. They can no longer rise to the realms beyond the heavens. The souls of the giants are the demons who wander about the world. Each group acts in keeping with what it is: the demons according to the natures they received, and the angels according to the desires they had. As can be seen from what actually happens, the ruler of matter governs and manages things contrary to the goodness of God. “Often the thought has passed through my mind whether chance or a spirit rules the affairs of life. Against hope and against justice, it leads some to fall from their homes without a livelihood, while others it leads on in good fortune.” People do well or badly against hope and justice. This left Euripides at a loss to say whose management of earthly affairs this is. Of such a management one might say: “Then, seeing these things, how can we say that there is a race of gods, or keep to the laws?”
Translator’s note. The first quotation is a fragment of Euripides from an unidentified play; the second is an unattributed tragic fragment sometimes assigned to Euripides.
Τοῦτο καὶ τὸν Ἀριστοτέλη ἀπρονόητα εἰπεῖν τὰ κατωτέρω τοῦ οὐρανοῦ ἐποίησε, καίτοι τῆς ἀϊδίου ἐπ᾿ ἴσης ἡμῖν μενούσης προνοίας τοῦ θεοῦ· Ἡ γῆ δ᾿ ἀνάγκῃ, κἂν θέλῃ κἂν μὴ θέλῃ, Φύουσα ποίαν τἀμὰ πιαίνει βοτά· τῆς δὲ ἐπὶ μέρους πρὸς ἀλήθειαν, οὐ πρὸς δόξαν, χωρούσης ἐπὶ τοὺς ἀξίους, καὶ τῶν λοιπῶν κατὰ τὸ κοινὸν συστάσεως νόμῳ λόγου προνοουμένων. Ἀλλ᾿ ἐπεὶ αἱ ἀπὸ τοὐναντίου πνεύματος δαιμονικαὶ κινήσεις καὶ ἐνέργειαι τὰς ἀτάκτους ταύτας ἐπιφορὰς παρέχουσιν, ἤδη καὶ τοὺς ἀνθρώπους ἄλλον ἄλλως, καὶ καθ᾿ ἕνα καὶ κατὰ ἔθνη, μερικῶς καὶ κοινῶς, κατὰ τὸν τῆς ὕλης λόγον καὶ τῆς πρὸς τὰ θεῖα συμπαθείας, ἔνδοθεν καὶ ἔξωθεν κινοῦσαι, διὰ τοῦτό τινες, ὧν δόξαι οὐ μικραί, ἐνόμισαν οὐ τάξει τινὶ τὸ πᾶν τοῦτο συνεστάναι, ἀλλ᾿ ἀλόγῳ τύχῃ ἄγεσθαι καὶ φέρεσθαι, οὐκ εἰδότες ὅτι τῶν μὲν περὶ τὴν τοῦ παντὸς κόσμου σύστασιν οὐδὲν ἄτακτον οὐδὲ ἀπημελημένον, ἀλλ᾿ ἕκαστον αὐτῶν γεγονὸς λόγῳ, διὸ οὐδὲ τὴν ὡρισμένην ἐπ᾿ αὐτοῖς παραβαίνουσι τάξιν, ὁ δὲ ἄνθρωπος κατὰ μὲν τὸν πεποιηκότα καὶ αὐτὸς εὐτάκτως ἔχει, καὶ τῇ κατὰ τὴν γένεσιν φύσει, ἕνα καὶ κοινὸν ἐπεχούσῃ λόγον, καὶ τῇ κατὰ τὴν πλάσιν διαθέσει, οὐ παραβαινούσῃ τὸν ἐπ᾿ αὐτῇ νόμον, καὶ τῷ τοῦ βίου τέλει, ἴσῳ καὶ κοινῷ μένοντι, κατὰ δὲ τὸν ἴδιον ἑαυτῷ λόγον καὶ τὴν τοῦ ἐπέχοντος ἄρχοντος καὶ τῶν παρακολουθούντων δαιμόνων ἐνέργειαν ἄλλος ἄλλως φέρεται καὶ κινεῖται, κοινὸν πάντες τὸν ἐν αὐτοῖς ἔχοντες λογισμόν.
" The same thing led Aristotle to say that the things below the heaven are not under the care of Providence, although the eternal providence of God concerns itself equally with us below,- "The earth, let willingness move her or not, Must herbs produce, and thus sustain my flocks," - and addresses itself to the deserving individually, according to truth and not according to opinion; and all other things, according to the general constitution of nature, are provided for by the law of reason. But because the demoniac movements and operations proceeding from the adverse spirit produce these disorderly sallies, and moreover move men, some in one way and some in another, as individuals and as nations, separately and in common, in accordance with the tendency of matter on the one hand, and of the affinity for divine things on the other, from within and from without,-some who are of no mean reputation have therefore thought that this universe is constituted without any definite order, and is driven hither and thither by an irrational chance. But they do not understand, that of those things which belong to the constitution of the whole world there is nothing out of order or neglected, but that each one of them has been produced by reason, and that, therefore, they do not transgress the order prescribed to them; and that man himself, too, so far as He that made him is concerned, is well ordered, both by his original nature, which has one common character for all, and by the constitution of his body, which does not transgress the law imposed upon it, and by the termination of his life, which remains equal and common to all alike; but that, according to the character peculiar to himself and the operation of the ruling prince and of the demons his followers, he is impelled and moved in this direction or in that, notwithstanding that all possess in common the same original constitution of mind.
This is also what led Aristotle to say that the things below the heavens are not under providence. Yet God’s eternal providence rests equally on us. As the poet says: “The earth, by necessity, whether she wishes it or not, grows grass and fattens my flocks.” God’s particular providence goes out, in truth and not merely in appearance, to those who are worthy. All the rest are cared for by the law of reason, according to the common order of things. But demonic movements and workings, which come from the opposing spirit, cause these disorderly attacks. They also stir people up, each in a different way, as individuals and as nations, in part and as a whole. They do this from within and from without, according to the pull of matter and to a person’s sympathy with divine things. For this reason some men of no small reputation have supposed that this whole universe is not held together by any order, but is driven and tossed about by irrational chance. They do not understand that nothing in the constitution of the whole world is disordered or neglected. Each part came into being by reason, and so none of them oversteps the order assigned to it. Man himself, as far as his Maker is concerned, is also well ordered. He is ordered in the nature of his birth, which follows one common principle. He is ordered in the make-up of his body, which does not break the law set over it. And he is ordered in the end of his life, which remains the same and common to all. But according to his own individual reasoning, and according to the working of the ruling prince and the demons that attend him, each person is carried and moved in a different direction. All the while they all share the same reasoning power within them.
Translator’s note. The lines about the earth and the flocks are from Euripides’ play Cyclops (lines 332–333), spoken by the Cyclops Polyphemus. Athenagoras seems to use them to illustrate the general providence that works through the fixed order of nature.
Chapter 26
Καὶ οἱ μὲν περὶ τὰ εἴδωλα αὐτοὺς ἕλκοντες οἱ δαίμονές εἰσιν οἱ προειρημένοι, οἱ προστετηκότες τῷ ἀπὸ τῶν ἱερείων αἵματι καὶ ταῦτα περιλιχμώμενοι· οἱ δὲ τοῖς πολλοῖς ἀρέσκοντες θεοὶ καὶ ταῖς εἰκόσιν ἐπονομαζόμενοι, ὡς ἔστιν ἐκ τῆς κατ᾿ αὐτοὺς ἱστορίας εἰδέναι, ἄνθρωποι γεγόνασιν. Καὶ τους μὲν δαίμονας εἶναι τοὺς ἐπιβατεύοντας τοῖς ὀνόμασι πίστις ἡ ἑκάστου αὐτῶν ἐνέργεια. Οἱ μὲν γὰρ ἀποτέμνουσι τὰ αἰδοῖα, οἱ περὶ τὴν Ῥέαν, οἱ δὲ ἐγκόπτουσιν ἢ ἐντέμνουσιν, οἱ περὶ τὴν Ἄρτεμιν, καὶ ἡ μὲν ἐν Ταύροις φονεύει τοὺς ξένους· ἐῶ γὰρ τοὺς ταῖς μαχαίραις καὶ τοῖς ἀστραγάλοις αἰκιζομένους αὐτοὺς λέγειν καὶ ὅσα εἴδη δαιμόνων· οὐ γὰρ θεοῦ κινεῖν ἐπὶ τὰ παρὰ φύσιν. Ὅταν δ᾿ ὁ δαίμων ἀνδρὶ πορσύνῃ κακά, Τὸν νοῦν ἔβλαψε πρῶτον.
The Demons Allure Men to the Worship of Images,They who draw men to idols, then, are the aforesaid demons, who are eager for the blood of the sacrifices, and lick them; but the gods that please the multitude, and whose names are given to the images, were men, as may be learned from their history. And that it is the demons who act under their names, is proved by the nature of their operations. For some castrate, as Rhea; others wound and slaughter, as Artemis; the Tauric goddess puts all strangers to death. I pass over those who lacerate with knives and scourges of bones, and shall not attempt to describe all the kinds of demons; for it is not the part of a god to incite to things against nature. "But when the demon plots against a man, He first inflicts some hurt upon his mind.
The ones who draw people to idols are the demons I mentioned earlier. They cling to the blood of the sacrificial animals and lick around it. But the gods who please the crowds and whose names are given to the images were human beings, as one can learn from their own histories. That it is demons who have taken over these names is proved by what each of them does. Some, the followers of Rhea, cut off their genitals. Others, the followers of Artemis, cut or gash themselves. The goddess among the Taurians kills strangers. I will say nothing of those who torture themselves with knives and knucklebone whips, or of all the kinds of demons there are. It is not the part of a god to drive people to things against nature. As the poet says: “When a demon prepares evil for a man, he first damages his mind.”
Translator’s note. “Knucklebone whips” translates a word for animal knucklebones, which were sometimes fastened into whips. The last line is a tragic verse by an unknown author, also quoted by the orator Lycurgus (Against Leocrates 92).
Ὁ δὲ θεός, τελείως ἀγαθὸς ὤν, ἀϊδίως ἀγαθοποιός ἐστιν. Τοῦ τοίνυν ἄλλους μὲν εἶναι τοὺς ἐνεργοῦντας, ἐφ᾿ ἑτέρων δὲ ἀνίστασθαι τὰς εἰκόνας, ἐκεῖνο μέγιστον τεκμήριον, Τρωὰς καὶ Πάριον· ἡ μὲν Νερυλλίνου εἰκόνας ἔχει, ὃς ἀνὴρ τῶν καθ᾿ ἡμᾶς, τὸ δὲ Πάριον Ἀλεξάνδρου καὶ Πρωτέως· τοῦ Ἀλεξάνδρου ἔτι ἐπὶ τῆς ἀγορᾶς καὶ ὁ τάφος καὶ ἡ εἰκών.Οἱ μὲν οὖν ἄλλοι ἀνδριάντες τοῦ Νερυλλίνου κόσμημά εἰσι δημόσιον, εἴπερ καὶ τούτοις κοσμεῖται πόλις, εἷς δὲ αὐτῶν καὶ χρηματίζειν καὶ ἰᾶσθαι νοσοῦντας νομίζεται, καὶ θύουσί τε δι᾿ αὐτὰ καὶ χρυσῷ περιαλείφουσι καὶ στεφανοῦσι τὸν ἀνδριάντα οἱ Τρωαδεῖς. Ὁ δὲ τοῦ Ἀλεξάνδρου καὶ ὁ τοῦ Πρωτέως (τοῦτον δ᾿ οὐκ ἀγνοεῖτε ῥίψαντα ἑαυτὸν εἰς τὸ πῦρ περὶ τὴν Ὀλυμπίαν), ὁ μὲν καὶ αὐτὸς λέγεται χρηματίζειν, τῷ δὲ τοῦ Ἀλεξάνδρου [Δύσπαρι, εἶδος ἄριστε, γυναιμανές] δημοτελεῖς ἄγονται θυσίαι καὶ ἑορταὶ ὡς ἐπηκόῳ θεῷ.
But God, being perfectly good, is eternally doing good. That, moreover, those who exert the power are not the same as those to whom the statues are erected, very strong evidence is afforded by Troas and Parium. The one has statues of Neryllinus, a man of our own times; and Parium of Alexander and Proteus: both the sepulchre and the statue of Alexander are still in the forum. The other statues of Neryllinus, then, are a public ornament, if indeed a city can be adorned by such objects as these; but one of them is supposed to utter oracles and to heal the sick, and on this account the people of the Troad offer sacrifices to this statue, and overlay it with gold, and hang chaplets upon it. But of the statues of Alexander and Proteus (the latter, you are aware, threw himself into the fire near Olympia), that of Proteus is likewise said to utter oracles; and to that of Alexander- "Wretched Paris, though in form so fair, Thou slave of woman" - sacrifices are offered and festivals are held at the public cost, as to a god who can hear.
But God is perfectly good, and so he is eternally a doer of good. Those who work these effects are not the same as those for whom the statues are set up. The strongest proof of this comes from Troas and Parium. Troas has statues of Neryllinus, a man of our own time. Parium has statues of Alexander and of Proteus. The tomb and the statue of Alexander are still in the marketplace. Now the other statues of Neryllinus are a public decoration, if a city can really be decorated by such things. But one of them is believed to give oracles and to heal the sick. Because of this the people of Troas offer sacrifices to it, and they smear the statue with gold and crown it with garlands. Then there are the statues of Alexander and of Proteus. (You know that Proteus threw himself into the fire near Olympia.) The statue of Proteus is likewise said to give oracles. To the statue of Alexander, “Ill-starred Paris, handsomest of men, mad for women,” sacrifices are offered and festivals are held at public expense, as to a god who hears prayer.
Translator’s note. Proteus is Peregrinus Proteus, a Cynic philosopher who burned himself to death near Olympia at the time of the Olympic games of AD 165. The satirist Lucian describes the event in The Passing of Peregrinus.
Πότερον οὖν ὁ Νερυλλῖνος καὶ ὁ Πρωτεὺς καὶ ὁ Ἀλέξανδρός εἰσιν οἱ ταῦτα ἐνεργοῦντες περὶ τὰ ἀγάλματα ἢ τῆς ὕλης ἡ σύστασις; Ἀλλ᾿ ἡ μὲν ὕλη χαλκός ἐστιν. Τί δαὶ χαλκὸς δύναται καθ᾿ ἑαυτόν, ὃν μεταποιῆσαι πάλιν εἰς ἕτερον σχῆμα ἔξεστιν, ὡς τὸν ποδονιπτῆρα ὁ παρὰ τῷ Ἡροδότῳ Ἄμασις; Ὁ δὲ Νερυλλῖνος καὶ ὁ Πρωτεὺς καὶ ὁ Ἀλέξανδρος τί πλέον τοῖς νοσοῦσιν; Ἃ γὰρ ἡ εἰκὼν λέγεται νῦν ἐνεργεῖν, ἐνήργει καὶ ζῶντος καὶ νοσοῦντος Νερυλλίνου.
Is it, then, Neryllinus, and Proteus, and Alexander who exert these energies in connection with the statues, or is it the nature of the matter itself? But the matter is brass. And what can brass do of itself, which may be made again into a different form, as Amasis treated the footpan, as told by Herodotus? And Neryllinus, and Proteus, and Alexander, what good are they to the sick? For what the image is said now to effect, it effected when Neryllinus was alive and sick.
So is it Neryllinus, Proteus and Alexander who do these things through the statues? Or is it the material they are made of? But the material is bronze. What can bronze do by itself? It can be melted down and made into another shape, as Amasis did with the footbath in Herodotus. And what use are Neryllinus, Proteus and Alexander to the sick? For the things the statue is said to do now were already being done while Neryllinus was alive and ill.
Translator’s note. Herodotus (Histories 2.172) tells how Amasis, king of Egypt, had a gold footbath melted down and made into the image of a god, which the Egyptians then worshipped.
Chapter 27
Τί οὖν; Πρῶτα μὲν αἱ τῆς ψυχῆς ἄλογοι καὶ ἰνδαλματώδεις περὶ τὰς δόξας κινήσεις ἄλλοτε ἄλλα εἴδωλα, τὰ μὲν ἀπὸ τῆς ὕλης ἕλκουσι, τὰ δὲ αὐταῖς ἀναπλάττουσι καὶ κυοῦσι· πάσχει δὲ τοῦτο ψυχὴ μάλιστα τοῦ ὑλικοῦ προσλαβοῦσα καὶ ἐπισυγκραθεῖσα πνεύματος, οὐ πρὸς τὰ οὐράνια καὶ τὸν τούτων ποιητὴν ἀλλὰ κάτω πρὸς τὰ ἐπίγεια βλέπουσα, καθολικῶς εἰς γῆν, ὡς μόνον αἷμα καὶ σάρξ, οὐκέτι πνεῦμα καθαρὸν γινομένη. Αἷ οὖν ἄλογοι αὗται καὶ ἰνδαλματώδεις τῆς ψυχῆς κινήσεις εἰδωλομανεῖς ἀποτίκτουσι φαντασίας. Ὅταν δὲ ἁπαλὴ καὶ εὐάγωγος ψυχή, ἀνήκοος μὲν καὶ ἄπειρος λόγων ἐῤῥωμένων, ἀθεώρητος δὲ τοῦ ἀληθοῦς, ἀπερινόητος δὲ τοῦ πατρὸς καὶ ποιητοῦ τῶν ὅλων, ἐναποσφραγίσηται ψευδεῖς περὶ αὐτῆς δόξας, οἱ περὶ τὴν ὕλην δαίμονες, λίχνοι περὶ τὰς κνίσσας καὶ τὸ τῶν ἱερείων αἷμα ὄντες, ἀπατηλοὶ δὲ ἀνθρώπων, προσλαβόντες τὰς ψευδοδόξους ταύτας τῶν πολλῶν τῆς ψυχῆς κινήσεις, φαντασίας αὐτοῖς ὡς ἀπὸ τῶν εἰδώλων καὶ ἀγαλμάτων, ἐπιβατεύοντες αὐτῶν τοῖς νοήμασιν, εἰσρεῖν παρέχουσι· καὶ ὅσα καθ᾿ ἑαυτήν, ὡς ἀθάνατος οὖσα, λογικῶς κινεῖται ψυχή, ἢ προμηνύουσα τὰ μέλλοντα ἢ θεραπεύουσα τὰ ἐνεστηκότα, τούτων τὴν δόξαν καρποῦνται οἱ δαίμονες.
Artifices of the Demons.What then? In the first place, the irrational and fantastic movements of the soul about opinions produce a diversity of images (ei !dwla) from time to time: some they derive from matter, and some they fashion and bring forth for themselves; and this happens to a soul especially when it par takes of the material spirit and becomes mingled with it, looking not at heavenly things and their Maker, but downwards to earthly things, wholly at the earth, as being now mere flesh and blood, and no longer pure spirit. These irrational and fantastic movements of the soul, then, give birth to empty visions in the mind, by which it becomes madly set on idols. When, too, a tender and susceptible soul, which has no knowledge or experience of sounder doctrines, and is unaccustomed to contemplate truth, and to consider thoughtfully the Father and Maker of all things, gets impressed with false opinions respecting itself, then the demons who hover about matter, greedy of sacrificial odours and the blood of victims, and ever ready to lead men into error, avail themselves of these delusive movements of the souls of the multitude; and, taking possession of their thoughts, cause to flow into the mind empty visions as if coming from the idols and the statues; and when, too, a soul of itself, as being immortal, moves comformably to reason, either predicting the future or healing the present, the demons claim the glory for themselves.
What then? First, the irrational and image-making movements of the soul, in matters of opinion, draw in now one image and now another. Some of these images they take from matter, and others they shape and bring to birth for themselves. The soul suffers this most when it has taken on the material spirit and been mixed with it. It no longer looks up to heavenly things and their Maker. It looks down to earthly things, wholly toward the earth, as if it had become only blood and flesh and no longer pure spirit. So these irrational, image-making movements of the soul give birth to fantasies that make people mad for idols. Now take a soul that is tender and easily led. It has never heard or tried strong arguments, has never seen the truth, and has never thought about the Father and Maker of all things. Such a soul may be stamped with false opinions about itself. Then the demons that hover around matter step in. They are greedy for the smoke of sacrifices and the blood of the victims, and they deceive people. They seize on these false-minded movements in the souls of the many and ride upon their thoughts. They make impressions flow into them as if they came from the idols and statues. And whenever the soul by itself moves rationally, as an immortal thing does, either foretelling the future or healing present troubles, the demons reap the credit for it.
Chapter 28
Ἀναγκαῖον δὲ ἴσως, κατὰ τὰ προειρημένα, περὶ τῶν ὀνομάτων ὀλίγα εἰπεῖν. Ἡρόδοτος μὲν οὖν καὶ Ἀλέξανδρος ὁ τοῦ Φιλίππου ἐν τῇ πρὸς τὴν μητέρα ἐπιστολῇ (ἑκάτεροι δὲ ἐν τῇ Ἡλιουπόλει καὶ ἐν Μέμφι καὶ Θήβαις εἰς λόγους τοῖς ἱερεῦσιν ἀφῖχθαι λέγονται) φασὶ παρ᾿ ἐκείνων ἀνθρώπους αὐτοὺς γενέσθαι μαθεῖν. Ἡρόδοτος μέν· Ἤδη ὦν, τῶν αἱ εἰκόνες ἦσαν, τοιούτους ἀπεδείκνυσάν σφεας αὐτοὺς ἐόντας, θεῶν δὲ πολλὸν ἀπηλλαγμένους. Τὸ δὲ πρότερον τῶν ἀνδρῶν τούτων θεοὺς εἶναι τοὺς ἐν Αἰγύπτῳ ἄρχοντας, οὐκ ἐόντας ἅμα τοῖσι ἀνθρώποισι, καὶ τούτων ἀεὶ ἕνα τὸν κρατέοντα εἶναι· ὕστερον δὲ αὐτῆς βασιλεῦσαι Ὦρον τὸν Ὀσίρεως παῖδα, τὸν Ἀπόλλωνα Ἕλληνες ὀνομάζουσι· τοῦτον, καταπαύσαντα Τυφῶνα, βασιλεῦσαι ὕστατον Αἰγύπτου. Ὄσιρις δέ ἐστι Διόνυσος κατὰ Ἑλλάδα γλῶσσαν.
The Heathen Gods Were Simply Men.But it is perhaps necessary, in accordance with what has already been adduced, to say a little about their names. Herodotus, then, and Alexander the son of Philip, in his letter to his mother (and each of them is said to have conversed with the priests at Heliopolis, and Memphis, and Thebes), affirm that they learnt from them that the gods had been men. Herodotus speaks thus: "Of such a nature were, they said, the beings represented by these images, they were very far indeed from being gods. However, in the times anterior to them it was otherwise; then Egypt had gods for its rulers, who dwelt upon the earth with men, one being always supreme above the rest. The last of these was Horus the son of Osiris, called by the Greeks Apollo. He deposed Typhon, and ruled over Egypt as its last god-king. Osiris is named Dionysus (Bacchus) by the Greeks.
In keeping with what I have said, it is perhaps necessary to say a little about the names. Herodotus, and Alexander the son of Philip in his letter to his mother, both say they learned from the priests that the gods had been men. Each of them is said to have talked with the priests at Heliopolis, Memphis and Thebes. Herodotus says: “They showed that those whose images these were had been men like these, very far from gods. But before these men, they said, the gods were the rulers in Egypt. They did not live together with men, and one of them was always supreme. Later Horus, the son of Osiris, whom the Greeks call Apollo, was king. He put down Typhon and was the last to reign over Egypt. Osiris is Dionysus in the Greek language.”
Translator’s note. Greek god names are kept in this translation, where the older version used Latin ones (for example Bacchus for Dionysus, Diana for Artemis, Latona for Leto).
Οἵ τε οὖν ἄλλοι καὶ τελευταῖος βασιλεὺς Αἰγύπτου. Παρὰ δὲ τούτων εἰς Ἕλληνας ἦλθε τὰ ὀνόματα τῶν θεῶν. Ἀπόλλων ὁ Διονύσου καὶ Ἴσιδος, ὡς ὁ αὐτὸς Ἡρόδοτος λέγει· Ἀπόλλωνα δὲ καὶ Ἄρτεμιν Διονύσου καὶ Ἴσιδος λέγουσιν εἶναι παῖδας, Λητὼ δὲ τροφὸν αὐτοῖς καὶ σωτηρίαν γενέσθαι. Οὕς οὐρανίους γεγονότας πρώτους βασιλέας ἔσχον· πῆ μὲν ἀγνοίᾳ τῆς ἀληθοῦς περὶ τὸ θεῖον εὐσεβείας, πῆ δὲ χάριτι τῆς ἀρχῆς θεοὺς ὁμοῦ ταῖς γυναιξὶν αὐτῶν ἦγον. Τοὺς μέν νυν καθαροὺς βοῦς τοὺς ἄρσενας καὶ τοὺς μόσχους οἱ πάντες Αἰγύπτιοι θύουσι, τὰς δὲ θηλείας οὔ σφιν ἔξεστι θύειν, ἀλλὰ ἱραί εἰσι τῆς Ἴσιδος, τῆς ἄγαλμα ἐὸν γυναικήϊον βούκερών ἐστιν, καθάπερ οἱ Ἕλληνες τὴν Ἰοῦν γράφουσι. Τίνες δ᾿ ἂν μᾶλλον ταῦτα πιστευθεῖεν λέγοντες ἢ οἱ κατὰ διαδοχὴν γένους, παῖς παρὰ πατρός, ὡς τὴν ἱερωσύνην καὶ τὴν ἱστορίαν διαδεχόμενοι;
"Almost all the names of the gods came into Greece from Egypt. Apollo was the son of Dionysus and Isis, as He rodotus likewise affirms: "According to the Egyptians, Apollo and Diana are the children of Bacchus and Isis; while Latona is their nurse and their preserver. These beings of heavenly origin they had for their first kings: partly from ignorance of the true worship of the Deity, partly from gratitude for their government, they esteemed them as gods together with their wives. "The male kine, if clean, and the male calves are used for sacrifice by the Egyptians universally; but the females, they are not allowed to sacrifice, since they are sacred to Isis. The statue of this goddess has the form of a woman but with horns like a cow, resembling those of the Greek representations of Io. And who can be more deserving of credit in making these statements, than those who in family succession son from father, received not only the priesthood, but also the history?
So these, the others and the last, were kings of Egypt. From them the names of the gods came to the Greeks. Apollo was the son of Dionysus and Isis, as Herodotus himself says: “They say that Apollo and Artemis are children of Dionysus and Isis, and that Leto was their nurse and protector.” The Egyptians had these as their first kings, men of heavenly origin. Partly from ignorance of true reverence toward the divine, and partly out of gratitude for their rule, they counted them as gods, together with their wives. “All the Egyptians sacrifice clean male cattle and calves. They are not allowed to sacrifice females, because these are sacred to Isis. Her image is that of a woman with cow’s horns, just as the Greeks paint Io.” Who could be more believable in saying these things than people who receive the priesthood and the history by family succession, child from father?
Οὐ γὰρ τοὺς σεμνοποιοῦντας ζακόρους τὰ εἴδωλα εἰκὸς ἀνθρώπους αὐτοὺς γενέσθαι ψεύδεσθαι. Εἴ τι μὲν οὖν Ἡρόδοτος ἔλεγε περὶ τῶν θεῶν ὡς περὶ ἀνθρώπων ἱστορεῖν Αἰγυπτίους, καὶ λέγοντι τῷ Ἡροδότῳ· Τὰ μέν νυν θεῖα τῶν ἀφηγημάτων, οἷα ἤκουον, οὐκ εἰμὶ πρόθυμος διηγεῖσθαι, ἔξω ἢ τὰ ὀνόματα αὐτέων μοῦνα ἐλάχιστα· μὴ πιστεύειν ὡς μυθοποιῷ ἔδει. Ἐπεὶ δὲ Ἀλέξανδρος καὶ Ἑρμῆς ὁ Τρισμέγιστος ἐπικαλούμενος συνῆπτον τὸ ἀΐδιον αὐτοῖς γένος, καὶ ἄλλοι μυρίοι, ἵνα μὴ καθ᾿ ἕκαστον καταλέγοιμι, οὐδὲ λόγος ἔτι καταλείπεται, βασιλεῖς ὄντας αὐτοὺς μὴ νενομίσθαι θεούς. Καὶ ὅτι μὲν ἄνθρωποι, δηλοῦσι μὲν καὶ Αἰγυπτίων οἱ λογιώτατοι, οἵ, θεοὺς λέγοντες αἰθέρα γῆν ἥλιον σελήνην, τοὺς ἄλλους ἀνθρώπους θνητοὺς νομίζουσι καὶ ἱερὰ τοὺς τάφους αὐτῶν· δηλοῖ δὲ καὶ Ἀπολλόδωρος ἐν τῷ περὶ θεῶν.
For it is not likely that the priests, who make if their business to commend the idols to men's reverence, would assert falsely that they were men. If Herodotus alone had said that the Egyptians spoke in their histories of the gods as of men, when he says, "What they told me concerning their religion it is not my intention to repeat, except only the names of their deities, things of very trifling importance," it would behove us not to credit even Herodotus as being a fabulist. But as Alexander and Hermes surnamed Trismegistus, whoshares with them in the attribute of eternity, and innumerable others, not to name them individually, [declare the same], no room is left even for doubt that they, being kings, were esteemed gods. That they were men, the most learned of the Egyptians also testify, who, while saying that ether, earth, sun, moon, are gods, regard the rest as mortal men, and the temples as their sepulchres. Apollodorus, too, asserts the same thing in his treatise concerning the gods.
It is not likely that the temple keepers, whose job is to make the idols seem holy, would falsely say that these gods had been men. Suppose Herodotus alone said that the Egyptians tell the stories of their gods as stories of men. He also says, “I am not eager to relate the divine parts of the accounts, as I heard them, except only their names, and those very briefly.” In that case we might well refuse to believe him, as a mere teller of tales. But Alexander, and Hermes called Trismegistus, linked the race of gods called everlasting to these men, and so did countless others whom I will not list one by one. So no argument is left for denying that they were kings who came to be regarded as gods. That they were men is also made clear by the most learned of the Egyptians. These men call the upper air, earth, sun and moon gods, but they consider the others mortal men and their tombs sacred places. Apollodorus makes it clear too, in his work On the Gods.
Translator’s note. The older translation reverses the meaning here: it calls the temples tombs, but the Greek calls the tombs sacred places.
Ἡρόδοτος δὲ καὶ τὰ παθήματα αὐτῶν φησι μυστήρια· Ἐν δὲ Βουσίρι πόλι ὡς ἀνάγουσι τῇ Ἴσι τὴν ἑορτὴν εἴρηται πρότερόν μοι. Τύπτονται γὰρ δὴ μετὰ τὴν θυσίην πάντες καὶ πᾶσαι, μυριάδες κάρτα πολλαὶ ἀνθρώπων· τὸν δὲ τύπτονται τρόπον, οὔ μοι ὅσιόν ἐστι λέγειν. Εἰ θεοί, καὶ ἀθάνατοι, εἰ δὲ τύπτονται καὶ τὰ πάθη ἐστὶν αὐτῶν μυστήρια, ἄνθρωποι, ὡς αὐτὸς Ἡρόδοτος· Εἰσὶ δὲ καὶ αἱ ταφαὶ τοῦ οὐχ ὅσιον ποιεῦμαι ἐπὶ τοιούτῳ πρήγματι ἐξαγορεύειν τὸ οὔνομα ἐν Σάϊ, ἐν τῷ ἱρῷ τῆς Ἀθηναίης, ὄπισθεν τοῦ νηοῦ, παντὸς τοῦ τῆς Ἀθηναίης ἐχόμεναι τοίχου. Λίμνη δ᾿ ἐστὶν ἐχομένη, λιθίνῃ κρηπῖδι κεκοσμημένη ἐν κύκλῳ, μέγεθος, ὡς ἐμοὶ δοκέει, ὅση περ ἐν Δήλῳ ἡ τροχοειδὴς καλεομένη.
But Herodotus calls even their sufferings mysteries. "The ceremonies at the feast of Isis in the city of Busiris have been already spoken of. It is there that the whole multitude, both of men and women, many thousands in number, beat them selves at the close of the sacrifice in honour of a god whose name a religious scruple forbids me to mention. If they are gods, they are also immortal; but if people are beaten for them, and their sufferings are mysteries, they are men, as Herodotus himself says: "Here, too, in this same precinct of Minerva at Sais, is the burial-place of one whom I think it not right to mention in such a connection. It stands behind the temple against the back wall, which it entirely covers. There are also some large stone obelisks in the enclosure, and there is a lake near them, adorned with an edging of stone. In form it is circular, and in size, as it seemed to me, about equal to the lake at Delos called the Hoop.
Herodotus even calls their sufferings mysteries: “How they celebrate the festival of Isis in the city of Busiris I have told before. After the sacrifice, all the men and women, many tens of thousands of people, beat themselves. But in what manner they beat themselves, it is not right for me to say.” If they were gods, they would be immortal. But if people beat themselves for them, and their sufferings are mysteries, then they were men, as Herodotus himself says: “There are also the burial places of him whose name I think it unholy to speak in such a matter. They are at Sais, in the temple of Athena, behind the shrine, along the whole wall of Athena’s temple. Next to it is a lake, ringed around with a stone curb. In size, it seems to me, it is as large as the one on Delos called the Circular.”
Ἐν δὲ τῇ λίμνῃ ταύτῃ τὰ δείκηλα τῶν παθέων αὐτοῦ νυκτὸς καλέουσι μυστήρια Αἰγύπτιοι. Καὶ οὐ μόνον ὁ τάφος τοῦ Ὀσίριδος δείκνυται, ἀλλὰ καὶ ταριχεία. Ἐπεάν σφισι κομισθῇ νεκρός, δεικνύασι τοῖσι κομίσασι παραδείγματα νεκρῶν ξύλινα, τῇ γραφῇ μεμιμημένα· καὶ τὴν μὲν σπουδαιοτάτην αὐτέων φασὶν εἶναι τοῦ οὐχ ὅσιον ποιεῦμαι οὔνομα ἐπὶ τοιούτῳ πρήγματι ὀνομάζειν.
On this lake it is that the Egyptians represent by night his sufferings whose name I refrain from mentioning, and this representation they call their mysteries. And not only is the sepulchre of Osiris shown, but also his embalming: "When a body is brought to them, they show the bearer various models of corpses made in wood, and painted so as to resemble nature. The most perfect is said to be after the manner of him whom I do not think it religious to name in connection with such a matter."
“On this lake the Egyptians stage at night the representations of his sufferings, and they call them mysteries.” Not only is the tomb of Osiris shown, but also the embalming. “When a body is brought to them, they show the people who brought it wooden models of corpses, painted to look like the real thing. The most elaborate of these, they say, is the model of him whose name I do not think it right to mention in connection with such a matter.”
Translator’s note. The quoted lines are from the Greek historian Herodotus (Histories 2.171 and 2.86). Herodotus refuses to name the god. The sentence naming Osiris is Athenagoras’s own comment between the two quotations.
Chapter 29
Ἀλλὰ καὶ Ἑλλήνων οἱ περὶ ποίησιν καὶ ἱστορίαν σοφοὶ περὶ μὲν Ἡρακλέους· Σχέτλιος, οὐδὲ θεῶν ὄπιν ᾐδέσατ᾿ οὐδὲ τράπεζαν, Τὴν ἥν οἱ παρέθηκεν· ἔπειτα δὲ πέφνε καὶ αὐτόν. Τοιοῦτος ὢν εἰκότως μὲν ἐμαίνετο, εἰκότως δὲ ἀνάψας πυρὰν κατέκαυσεν ἑαυτόν. Περὶ δὲ Ἀσκληπιοῦ Ἡσίοδος μέν· Πατὴρ ἀνδρῶν τε θεῶν τε Χώσατ᾿, ἀπ᾿ Οὐλύμπου δὲ βαλὼν ψολόεντι κεραυνῷ Ἔκτανε Λητοΐδην φίλον, σὺν θυμὸν ὀρίνων. Πίνδαρος δέ· Ἀλλὰ κέρδει καὶ σοφία δέδεται. Ἔτραπε κἀκεῖνον ἀγάνορι μισθῷ χρυσὸς ἐν χερσὶ φανείς. Χερσὶ δ᾿ ἄρα Κρονίων ῥίψας δι᾿ ἀμφοῖν ἀμπνοὰν στέρνων καθεῖλεν Ὠκέως, αἴθων δὲ κεραυνὸς ἐνέσκηψε μόρον. Ἢ τοίνυν θεοὶ ἦσαν, καὶ οὔτε αὐτοὶ πρὸς χρυσὸν εἶχον (Ὦ χρυσέ, δεξίωμα κάλλιστον βροτοῖς, Ὡς οὔτε μήτηρ ἡδονὰς τοιάσδ᾿ ἔχει, Οὐ παῖδες.
Proof of the Same from the Poets.But among the Greeks, also, those who are eminent in poetry and history say the same thing. Thus of Heracles:- "That lawless wretch, that man of brutal strength, Deaf to Heaven's voice, the social rite transgressed. Such being his nature, deservedly did he go mad, and deservedly did he light the funeral pile and burn himself to death. Of Asklepius, Hesiod says:- "The mighty father both of gods and men Was filled with wrath, and from Olympus' top With flaming thunderbolt cast down and slew Latona's well-lov'd son-such was his ire. And Pindar:- "But even wisdom is ensnared by gain. The brilliant bribe of gold seen in the hand Ev'n him perverted: therefore Kronos' son With both hands quickly stopp'd his vital breath, And by a bolt of fire ensured his doom. Either, therefore, they were gods and did not hanker after gold- "O gold, the fairest prize to mortal men, Which neither mother equals in delight, Nor children dear" - for the Deity is in want of nought, and is superior to carnal desire, nor did they die; or, having been born men, they were wicked by reason of ignorance, and overcome by love of money.
Greek poets and historians also say the same. Of Heracles one says: “Cruel man, he had no respect for the watching gods, nor for the table he had set before his guest; then he killed the man himself.” Being such a man, he naturally went mad, and naturally built a pyre and burned himself. Of Asclepius, Hesiod says: “The father of men and gods was angered, and hurling a smoky thunderbolt from Olympus he killed Leto’s dear son, stirring up his wrath.” And Pindar says: “But even wisdom is bound by profit. Gold shining in the hand turned even him with a lordly fee. Then the son of Kronos, hurling with his hands, swiftly took the breath from the chests of them both, and the blazing thunderbolt brought down their doom.” So either they were gods and had no craving for gold (as the poet says, “O gold, the fairest gift of welcome for mortals! Not even a mother gives such pleasures, nor do children,”
Translator’s note. The Pindar lines are from Pythian Ode 3. “Both” refers to Asclepius and the dead man he was bribed to raise, not to “both hands.”
Ἀνεπιδεὲς γὰρ καὶ κρεῖττον ἐπιθυμίας τὸ θεῖον,) οὔτε ἀπέθνησκον· ἢ ἄνθρωποι γεγονότες καὶ πονηροὶ δι᾿ ἀμαθίαν ἦσαν καὶ χρημάτων ἐλάττους. Τί δεῖ με πολλὰ λέγειν, ἢ Κάστορος ἢ Πολυδεύκους μνημονεύοντα ἢ Ἀμφιάρεω, οἵ, ὡς εἰπεῖν λόγῳ, χθὲς καὶ πρώην ἄνθρωποι ἐξ ἀνθρώπων γεγονότες, θεοὶ νομίζονται, ὁπότε καὶ Ἰνὼ μετὰ τὴν μανίαν καὶ τὰ ἐπὶ τῆς μανίας πάθη θεὸν δοξάζουσι γεγονέναι, Πόντου πλάνητες Λευκοθέαν ἐπώνυμον, καὶ τὸν παῖδα αὐτῆς; Σεμνὸς Παλαίμων ναυτίλοις κεκλήσεται.
What more need I say, or refer to Castor, or Pollux, or Amphiaraus, who, having been born, so to speak, only the other day, men of men, are looked upon as gods, when they imagine even Ino after her madness and its consequent sufferings to have become a goddess? "Sea-rovers will her name Leucothea. And her son:- "August Palaemon, sailors will invoke."
for the divine is without need and stronger than desire), and they did not die; or else they were born men, and were wicked through ignorance and overcome by money. Why should I say more, mentioning Castor or Polydeuces or Amphiaraus? They were men born of men only yesterday and the day before, so to speak, and yet they are thought to be gods. People even imagine that Ino became a goddess after her madness and the sufferings of her madness: “Wanderers of the sea will call her Leucothea by name.” And of her son: “Revered Palaemon he shall be called by sailors.”
Chapter 30
Εἰ γὰρ καὶ ὡς ἀπόπτυστοι καὶ θεοστυγεῖς δόξαν ἔσχον εἶναι θεοί, καὶ ἡ θυγάτηρ τῆς Δερκετοῦς Σεμίραμις, λάγνος γυνὴ καὶ μιαιφόνος, ἔδοξε Συρία θεός, καὶ διὰ τὴν Δερκετὼ καὶ τὰς περιστερὰς καὶ τὴν Σεμίραμιν σέβουσι Σύροι (τὸ γὰρ ἀδύνατον, εἰς περιστερὰν μετέβαλεν ἡ γυνή· ὁ μῦθος παρὰ Κτησίᾳ), τί θαυμαστὸν τοὺς μὲν ἐπὶ ἀρχῇ καὶ τυραννίδι ὑπὸ τῶν κατ᾿ αὐτοὺς κληθῆναι θεούς· Σίβυλλα (μέμνηται δ᾿ αὐτῆς καὶ Πλάτων)· Καὶ τότε δὴ δεκάτη γενεὴ μερόπων ἀνθρώπων, Ἐξ οὗ δὴ κατακλυσμὸς ἐπὶ προτέρους γένετ᾿ ἄνδρας. Καὶ βασίλευσε Κρόνος καὶ Τιτὰν Ἰαπετός τε, Γαίης τέκνα φέριστα καὶ Οὐρανοῦ οὓς ἐκάλεσσαν Ἄνθρωποι, Γαῖάν τε καὶ Οὐρανὸν οὔνομα θέντες, Οὕνεκα οἱ πρώτιστοι ἔσαν μερόπων ἀνθρώπων· τοὺς δ᾿ ἐπ᾿ ἰσχύϊ, ὡς Ἡρακλέα καὶ Περσέα, τοὺς δ᾿ ἐπὶ τέχνῃ, ὡς Ἀσκληπιόν;
Reasons Why Divinity Has Been Ascribed to Men.For if detestable and god-hated men had the reputation of being gods, and the daughter of Derceto, Semiramis, a lascivious and blood-stained woman, was esteemed a Syria goddess; and if, on account of Derceto, the Syrians worship doves and Semiramis (for, a thing impossible, a woman was changed into a dove: the story is in Ctesias), what wonder if some should be called gods by their people on the ground of their rule and sovereignty (the Sibyl, of whom Plato also makes mention, says:- "It was the generation then the tenth, Of men endow'd with speech, since forth the flood Had burst upon the men of former times, And Kronos, Japetus, and Titan reigned, Whom men, of Ouranos and Gaïa Proclaimed the noblest sons, and named them so, Because of men endowed with gift of speech They were the first"); and others for their strength, as Heracles and Perseus; and others for their art, as Asclepius?
For even detestable people, hated by God, gained the reputation of being gods. Semiramis, the daughter of Derceto, a lustful and murderous woman, was thought to be a Syrian goddess. Because of Derceto, the Syrians worship doves, and Semiramis too (for, impossibly, the woman was changed into a dove; the story is in Ctesias). So what wonder is it if some were called gods by their contemporaries because of their rule and tyranny? The Sibyl, whom Plato also mentions, says: “And then came the tenth generation of speaking men, since the flood had come upon the men of former times. And Kronos reigned, with Titan and Iapetus, the noblest children of Earth and Heaven, whom people called Earth and Heaven, giving them those names because they were the first of speaking men.” Others were called gods for their strength, like Heracles and Perseus, and others for their skill, like Asclepius.
Translator’s note. Plato mentions the Sibyl in his Phaedrus (244b).
Οἷς μὲν οὖν ἢ αὐτοὶ οἱ ἀρχόμενοι τιμῆς μετεδίδοσαν ἢ αὐτοὶ οἱ ἄρχοντες, οἱ μὲν φόβῳ, οἱ δὲ καὶ αἰδοῖ μετεῖχον τοῦ ὀνόματος. Καὶ Ἀντίνους φιλανθρωπίᾳ τῶν ὑμετέρων προγόνων πρὸς τοὺς ὑπηκόους ἔτυχε νομίζεσθαι θεός. Οἱ δὲ μετ᾿ αὐτοὺς ἀβασανίστως παρεδέξαντο. Κρῆτες ἀεὶ ψεῦσται· καὶ γὰρ τάφον, ὦ ἄνα, σεῖο Κρῆτες ἐτεκτήναντο· σὺ δ᾿ οὐ θάνες. Πιστεύων Καλλίμαχε ταῖς γοναῖς τοῦ Διὸς ἀπιστεῖς αὐτοῦ τῷ τάφῳ, καὶ νομίζων ἐπισκιάσειν τἀληθὲς καὶ τοῖς ἀγνοοῦσι κηρύσσεις τὸν τεθνηκότα· κἂν μὲν τὸ ἄντρον βλέπῃς, τὸν Ῥέας ὑπομιμνήσκῃ τόκον, ἂν δὲ τὴν σορὸν ἴδῃς, ἐπισκοτεῖς τῷ τεθνηκότι, οὐκ εἰδὼς ὅτι μόνος ἀΐδιος ὁ ἀγένητος θεός. Ἢ γὰρ ἄπιστοι οἱ ὑπὸ τῶν πολλῶν καὶ ποιητῶν λεγόμενοι μῦθοι περὶ τῶν θεῶν καὶ περισσὴ ἡ περὶ αὐτοὺς εὐσέβεια (οὐ γὰρ εἰσὶν ὧν ψευδεῖς οἱ λόγοι), ἢ εἰ ἀληθεῖς αἱ γενέσεις, οἱ ἔρωτες, αἱ μιαιφονίαι, αἱ κλοπαί, αἱ ἐκτομαί, οἱ κεραυνοί, οὐκέτ᾿ εἰσί, παυσάμενοι εἶναι, ἐπεὶ καὶ ἐγένοντο οὐκ ὄντες.
Those, therefore, to whom either the subjects gave honour or the rulers themselves [assumed it], obtained the name, some from fear, others from revenge. Thus Antinous, through the benevolence of your ancestors towards their subjects, came to be regarded as a god. But those who came after adopted the worship without examination. "The Cretans always lie; for they, O king, Have built a tomb to thee who art not dead. Though you believe, O Callimachus, in the nativity of Zeus, you do not believe in his sepulchre; and whilst you think to obscure the truth, you in fact proclaim him dead, even to those who are ignorant; and if you see the cave, you call to mind the childbirth of Rhea; but when you see the coffin, you throw a shadow over his death, not considering that the unbegotten God alone is eternal. For either the tales told by the multitude and the poets about the gods are unworthy of credit, and the reverence shown them is superfluous (for those do not exist, the tales concerning whom are untrue); or if the births, the amours, the murders, the thefts, the castrations, the thunderbolts, are true, they no longer exist, having ceased to be since they were born, having previously had no being.
So in the case of those to whom honor was given, either the subjects themselves or the rulers themselves gave it. Some shared in the title out of fear, others out of reverence. Antinous, too, came to be thought a god through the kindness of your ancestors toward their subjects. Those who came after them accepted such gods without testing them. “Cretans are always liars; for a tomb, O lord, the Cretans built for you; but you did not die.” Callimachus, you believe in the birth of Zeus but disbelieve in his tomb. You think you are hiding the truth, yet you announce his death even to people who did not know it. If you look at the cave, you are reminded of Rhea giving birth; but when you see the coffin, you are trying to cover up the one who died. You do not know that only the unbegotten God is eternal. For either the stories told by the many and by the poets about the gods are unbelievable and the reverence paid to them is pointless (for those whose stories are false do not exist), or else the births, the love affairs, the murders, the thefts, the castrations and the thunderbolts are true. In that case the gods no longer exist, having ceased to be, since they came into being out of non-existence.
Translator’s note. The verse is from Callimachus’s Hymn to Zeus. Paul quotes the words “Cretans are always liars” in Titus 1:12.
Τίς γὰρ τοῖς μὲν πιστεύειν λόγος, τοῖς δὲ ἀπιστεῖν, ἐπὶ τὸ σεμνότερον περὶ αὐτῶν τῶν ποιητῶν ἱστορηκότων; Οὐ γὰρ ἂν δι᾿ οὓς ἐνομίσθησαν θεοί, σεμνοποιήσαντας τὴν κατ᾿ αὐτοὺς ἱστορίαν, οὗτοι τὰ πάθη τὰ αὐτῶν ἐψεύσαντο. Ὡς μὲν οὖν οὐκ ἐσμὲν ἄθεοι, θεὸν ἄγοντες τὸν ποιητὴν τοῦδε τοῦ παντὸς καὶ τὸν παρ᾿ αὐτοῦ λόγον, κατὰ δύναμιν τὴν ἐμήν, εἰ καὶ μὴ πρὸς ἀξίαν, ἐλήλεγκται.
And on what principle must we believe some things and disbelieve others, when the poets have written their stories in order to gain greater veneration for them? For surely those through whom they have got to be considered gods, and who have striven to represent their deeds as worthy of reverence, cannot have invented their sufferings. That, therefore, we are not atheists, acknowledging as we do God the Maker of this universe and His Logos, has been proved according to my ability, if not according to the importance of the subject.
What reason is there to believe some of these stories and disbelieve others, when the poets have told the history of the gods in a way that makes them more august? For those poets, through whom the gods came to be thought gods, and who made their history dignified, would not have invented the sufferings of those same gods. That we are not atheists, then, since we acknowledge as God the Maker of this universe and his Word (the Logos), has been shown as well as I am able, even if not as well as the subject deserves.
Chapter 31
Ἔτι δὲ καὶ τροφὰς καὶ μίξεις λογοποιοῦσιν ἀθέους καθ᾿ ἡμῶν, ἵνα τε μισεῖν νομίζοιεν μετὰ λόγου καὶ οἰόμενοι τῷ δεδίττεσθαι ἢ τῆς ἐνστάσεως ἀπάξειν ἡμᾶς τοῦ βίου ἢ πικροὺς καὶ ἀπαραιτήτους τῇ τῶν αἰτιῶν ὑπερβολῇ τοὺς ἄρχοντας παρασκευάσειν, πρὸς εἰδότας παίζοντες ὅτι ἄνωθέν πως ἔθος, καὶ οὐκ ἐφ᾿ ἡμῶν μόνον, κατά τινα θεῖον νόμον καὶ λόγον παρηκολούθηκε, προσπολεμεῖν τὴν κακίαν τῇ ἀρετῇ. Οὕτω καὶ Πυθαγόρας μὲν ἅμα τριακοσίοις ἑτέροις κατεφλέχθη πυρί, Ἡράκλειτος δὲ καὶ Δημόκριτος, ὁ μὲν τῆς Ἐφεσίων πόλεως ἠλαύνετο, ὁ δὲ τῆς Ἀβδηριτῶν, ἐπικατηγορούμενος μεμηνέναι, καὶ Σωκράτους Ἀθηναῖοι θάνατον κατέγνωσαν. Ἀλλ᾿ ὡς ἐκεῖνοι οὐδὲν χείρους εἰς ἀρετῆς λόγον διὰ τὴν τῶν πολλῶν δόξαν, οὐδ᾿ ἡμῖν οὐδὲν ἐπισκοτεῖ πρὸς ὀρθότητα βίου ἡ παρά τινων ἄκριτος βλασφημία· εὐδοξοῦμεν γὰρ παρὰ τῷ θεῷ.
Confutation of the Other Charges Brought Against the Christians.But they have further also made up stories against us of impious feasts and forbidden intercourse between the sexes, both that they may appear to themselves to have rational grounds of hatred, and because they think either by fear to lead us away from our way of life, or to render the rulers harsh and inexorable by the magnitude of the charges they bring. But they lose their labour with those who know that from of old it has been the custom, and not in our time only, for vice to make war on virtue. Thus Pythagoras, with three hundred others, was burnt to death; Heraclitus and Democritus were banished, the one from the city of the Ephesians, the other from Abdera, because he was charged with being mad; and the Athenians condemned Socrates to death. But as they were none the worse in respect of virtue because of the opinion of the multitude, so neither does the undiscriminating calumny of some persons cast any shade upon us as regards rectitude of life, for with God we stand in good repute.
They also spread stories against us about godless meals and unlawful unions. They do this so that they can think they have a reasoned basis for hating us. They also suppose that by frightening us they will either turn us from our steadfast way of life, or make the rulers harsh and unforgiving through the sheer size of the charges. But they are playing games with people who know that from long ago it has been the custom, and not only in our case, for wickedness to make war on virtue, according to some divine law and reason. So Pythagoras was burned in a fire along with three hundred others. Heraclitus was driven out of the city of the Ephesians, and Democritus out of Abdera, with the further charge that he was mad. The Athenians condemned Socrates to death. But those men were no worse in respect of virtue because of what the crowd thought of them. In the same way, the thoughtless slander of some does nothing to cloud our uprightness of life, for we have a good name with God.
Πλὴν ἀλλὰ καὶ πρὸς ταῦτα ἀπαντήσω τὰ ἐγκλήματα. Ὑμῖν μὲν οὖν καὶ δι᾿ ὧν εἴρηκα εὖ οἶδα ἀπολελογῆσθαι ἐμαυτόν. Συνέσει γὰρ πάντας ὑπερφρονοῦντες, οἷς ὁ βίος ὡς πρὸς στάθμην τὸν θεὸν κανονίζεται, ὅπως ἀνυπαίτιος καὶ ἀνεπίληπτος ἕκαστος ἡμῶν ἄνθρωπος αὐτῷ γένοιτο, ἴστε τούτους μηδ᾿ εἰς ἔννοιάν ποτε τοῦ βραχυτάτου ἐλευσομένους ἁμαρτήματος. Εἰ μὲν γὰρ ἕνα τὸν ἐνταῦθα βίον βιώσεσθαι πεπείσμεθα, κἂν ὑποπτεύειν ἐνῆν δουλεύοντας σαρκὶ καὶ αἵματι ἢ κέρδους ἢ ἐπιθυμίας ἐλάττους γενομένους ἁμαρτεῖν· ἐπεὶ δὲ ἐφεστηκέναι μὲν οἷς ἐννοοῦμεν, οἷς λαλοῦμεν, καὶ νύκτωρ καὶ μεθ᾿ ἡμέραν τὸν θεὸν οἴδαμεν, πάντα δὲ φῶς αὐτὸν ὄντα καὶ τὰ ἐν τῇ καρδίᾳ ἡμῶν ὁρᾶν, πεπείσμεθα τοῦ ἐνταῦθα ἀπαλλαγέντες βίου βίον ἕτερον βιώσεσθαι, ἀμείνονα ἢ κατὰ τὸν ἐνθάδε καὶ ἐπουράνιον, οὐκ ἐπίγειον (ὡς ἂν μετὰ θεοῦ καὶ σὺν θεῷ ἀκλινεῖς καὶ ἀπαθεῖς τὴν ψυχήν, οὐχ ὡς σάρκες, κἂν ἔχωμεν, ἀλλ ὡς οὐράνιον πνεῦμα, μενοῦμεν), ἢ συγκαταπίπτοντες τοῖς λοιποῖς χείρονα καὶ διὰ πυρός· οὐ γὰρ καὶ ἡμᾶς ὡς πρόβατα ἢ ὑποζύγια, πάρεργον καὶ ἵνα ἀπολοίμεθα καὶ ἀφανισθείημεν, ἔπλασεν ὁ θεός. Ἐπὶ τούτοις οὐκ εἰκὸς ἡμᾶς ἐθελοκακεῖν, οὐδ᾿ αὐτοὺς τῷ μεγάλῳ παραδιδόναι κολασθησομένους δικαστῇ.
Nevertheless, I will meet these charges also, although I am well assured that by what has been already said I have cleared myself to you. For as you excel all men in intelligence, you know that those whose life is directed towards God as its rule, so that each one among us may be blameless and irreproachable before Him, will not entertain even the thought of the slightest sin. For if we believed that we should live only the present life, then we might be suspected of sinning, through being enslaved to flesh and blood, or overmastered by gain or carnal desire; but since we know that God is witness to what we think and what we say both by night and by day, and that He, being Himself light, sees all things in our heart, we are persuaded that when we are removed from the present life we shall live another life, better than the present one, and heavenly, not earthly (since we shall abide near God, and with God, free from all change or suffering in the soul, not as flesh, even though we shall have flesh, but as heavenly spirit), or, falling with the rest, a worse one and in fire; for God has not made us as sheep or beasts of burden, a mere by-work, and that we should perish and be annihilated. On these grounds it is not likely that we should wish to do evil, or deliver ourselves over to the great Judge to be punished.
Still, I will answer these charges too. I am well aware that what I have already said has defended me before you. You surpass everyone in understanding, and you know that people whose lives are ruled by God as their standard, so that each of us may be blameless and above reproach before him, will never let even the smallest sin enter their thoughts. If we were persuaded that we would live only this one life, we might be suspected of sinning, enslaved to flesh and blood or overcome by greed or desire. But we know that God stands over what we think and what we say, by night and by day. We know that he is wholly light and sees even what is in our heart. And we are persuaded that when we are released from this life we shall live another life. It will be better than the life here, and heavenly, not earthly. With God and alongside God we shall remain unshaken and untouched by suffering in soul, not as flesh, even if we still have flesh, but as a heavenly spirit. Or else, falling with the rest, we shall have a worse life, and one in fire. For God did not form us, as he did sheep or beasts of burden, as a mere side-work, to perish and vanish. Given this, it is not likely that we would choose to do evil, or hand ourselves over to the great Judge to be punished.
Scripture: 1 John 1:5
Chapter 32
Τοὺς μὲν οὖν θαυμαστὸν οὐδὲν λογοποιεῖν περὶ ἡμῶν ἃ περὶ τῶν σφετέρων λέγουσι θεῶν· καὶ τὰ πάθη αὐτῶν δεικνύουσι μυστήρια. Χρῆν δ᾿ αὐτούς, εἰ δεινὸν τὸ ἐπ᾿ ἀδείας καὶ ἀδιαφόρως μίγνυσθαι κρίνειν ἔμελλον, ἢ τὸν Δία μεμισηκέναι, ἐκ μητρὸς μὲν Ῥέας θυγατρὸς δὲ Κόρης πεπαιδοποιημένον, γυναικὶ δ᾿ ἰδίᾳ ἀδελφῇ χρώμενον, ἢ τὸν τούτων ποιητὴν Ὀρφέα, ὅτι καὶ ἀνόσιον ὑπὲρ τὸν Θυέστην καὶ μιαρὸν ἐποίησε τὸν Δία· καὶ γὰρ οὗτος τῇ θυγατρὶ κατὰ χρησμὸν ἐμίγη, βασιλεῦσαι θέλων καὶ ἐκδικηθῆναι. Ἡμεῖς δὲ τοσοῦτον ἀδιάφοροι εἶναι ἀπέχομεν, ὡς μηδὲ ἰδεῖν ἡμῖν πρὸς ἐπιθυμίαν ἐξεῖναι. Ὁ γὰρ βλέπων, φησί, γυναῖκα πρὸς τὸ ἐπιθυμῆσαι αὐτῆς, ἤδη μεμοίχευκεν ἐν τῇ καρδίᾳ αὐτοῦ. Οἷς οὖν μηδὲν τὸ πλέον ἔξεστιν ὁρᾶν ἢ ἐφ᾿ ἃ ἔπλασεν τοὺς ὀφθαλμοὺς ὁ θεός, ἡμῖν φῶς αὐτοὺς εἶναι, καὶ οἷς τὸ ἰδεῖν ἡδέως μοιχεία, ἐφ᾿ ἕτερα τῶν ὀφθαλμῶν γεγονότων, μέχρις ἐννοίας κριθησομένοις, πῶς ἂν οὗτοι ἀπιστηθεῖεν σωφρονεῖν;
Elevated Morality of the Christians.It is, however, nothing wonderful that they should get up tales about us such as they tell of their own gods, of the incidents of whose lives they make mysteries. But it behoved them, if they meant to condemn shameless and promiscuous intercourse, to hate either Zeus, who begat children of his mother Rhea and his daughter Koré, and took his own sister to wife, or Orpheus, the inventor of these tales, which made Zeus more unholy and detestable than Thyestes himself; for the latter defiled his daughter in pursuance of an oracle, and when he wanted to obtain the kingdom and avenge himself. But we are so far from practising promiscuous intercourse, that it is not lawful among us to indulge even a lustful look. "For," saith He, "he that looketh on a woman to lust after her, hath committed adultery already in his heart. Those, then, who are forbidden to look at anything more than that for which God formed the eyes, which were intended to be a light to us, and to whom a wanton look is adultery, the eyes being made for other purposes, and who are to be called to account for their very thoughts, how can any one doubt that such persons practise self-control?
It is no wonder, then, that they invent about us what they say about their own gods. They even display the gods’ passions as mysteries. But if they were going to judge unrestrained, indiscriminate intercourse to be a terrible thing, they ought to hate Zeus, who fathered children by his mother Rhea and his daughter Kore, and who took his own sister as his wife. Or they ought to hate Orpheus, who composed these stories, because he made Zeus more unholy and defiled than Thyestes. For Thyestes had intercourse with his daughter because of an oracle, wanting to become king and to take revenge. We, on the other hand, are so far from being indiscriminate that we are not even permitted to look with desire. For “the one who looks at a woman so as to desire her,” he says, “has already committed adultery in his heart.” Now these are people who are allowed to look at nothing beyond the purpose for which God made the eyes, which was to be a light for us. For them a pleasurable look is adultery, since eyes were made for other things, and they will be judged even down to a thought. How could anyone doubt that they are self-controlled?
Translator’s note. Compare Matthew 5:28. Athenagoras quotes the saying with small differences from the Gospel’s wording and introduces it only with “he says”.
Scripture: Matthew 5:28
Οὐ γὰρ πρὸς ἀνθρωπικοὺς νόμους ὁ λόγος ἡμῖν, οὓς ἄν τις γενόμενος πονηρὸς καὶ λάθοι (ἐν ἀρχῇ δὲ ὑμῖν, δεσπόται, θεοδίδακτον εἶναι τὸν καθ᾿ ἡμᾶς λόγον ἐπιστούμην), ἀλλ᾿ ἔστιν ἡμῖν νόμος ὃς δικαιοσύνης μέτρον ἐποίησεν αὐτοὺς καὶ τοὺς πέλας ἔχειν. Διὰ τοῦτο καὶ καθ᾿ ἡλικίαν τοὺς μὲν υἱοὺς καὶ θυγατέρας νοοῦμεν, τοὺς δὲ ἀδελφοὺς ἔχομεν καὶ ἀδελφάς, καὶ τοῖς προβεβηκόσι τὴν τῶν πατέρων καὶ μητέρων τιμὴν ἀπονέμομεν. Οὓς οὖν ἀδελφοὺς καὶ ἀδελφὰς καὶ τὰ λοιπὰ τοῦ γένους νοοῦμεν ὀνόματα, περὶ πολλοῦ ἡμῖν ἀνύβριστα καὶ ἀδιάφθορα αὐτῶν τὰ σώματα μένειν, πάλιν ἡμῖν λέγοντος τοῦ λόγου· Ἐάν τις διὰ τοῦτο ἐκ δευτέρου καταφιλήσῃ, ὅτι ἤρεσεν αὐτῷ· καὶ ἐπιφέροντος· Οὕτως οὖν ἀκριβώσασθαι τὸ φίλημα μᾶλλον δὲ τὸ προσκύνημα δεῖ, ὡς, εἴπου μικρὸν τῇ διανοίᾳ παραθολωθείη, ἔξω ἡμᾶς τῆς αἰωνίου τιθέντος ζωῆς.
For our account lies not with human laws, which a bad man can evade (at the outset I proved to you, sovereign lords, that our doctrine is from the teaching of God), but we have a law which makes the measure of rectitude to consist in dealing with our neighbour as ourselves. On this account, too, according to age, we recognise some as sons and daughters, others we regard as brothers and sisters, and to the more advanced in life we give the honour due to fathers and mothers. On behalf of those, then, to whom we apply the names of brothers and sisters, and other designations of relationship, we exercise the greatest care that their bodies should remain undefiled and uncorrupted; for the Logos again says to us, "If any one kiss a second time because it has given him pleasure, [he sins]; "adding, "Therefore the kiss, or rather the salutation, should be given with the greatest care, since, if there be mixed with it the least defilement of thought, it excludes us from eternal life."
We do not answer only to human laws, which a wicked person can break without being found out. (At the beginning, my lords, I gave you proof that our teaching is taught by God.) We have a law that makes it the measure of justice to treat ourselves and our neighbors alike. For this reason we regard people according to their age. Some we think of as sons and daughters, others we count as brothers and sisters, and to those further advanced in years we give the honor due to fathers and mothers. So we care deeply that the bodies of those we call brothers and sisters, or by other family names, stay unabused and uncorrupted. For the Logos tells us again: “If anyone kisses a second time because it pleased him...” And he goes on: “So the kiss, or rather the reverent greeting, must be guarded with great care. If it is clouded even a little in the mind, it puts us outside eternal life.”
Translator’s note. The Greek phrase about the law and “our neighbors” is compressed. The older translation paraphrases it as “dealing with our neighbour as ourselves,” which probably echoes the command to love one’s neighbor as oneself (Leviticus 19:18; Matthew 22:39).
Scripture: Matthew 22:39; 1 Timothy 5:1-2
Chapter 33
Ἐλπίδα οὖν ζωῆς αἰωνίου ἔχοντες, τῶν ἐν τούτῳ τῷ βίῳ καταφρονοῦμεν, μέχρι καὶ τῶν τῆς ψυχῆς ἡδέων· γυναῖκα μὲν ἕκαστος ἡμῶν ἣν ἠγάγετο κατὰ τοὺς ὑφ᾿ ἡμῶν τεθειμένους νόμους νομίζων, καὶ ταύτην μέχρι τοῦ παιδοποιήσασθαι.Ὡς γὰρ ὁ γεωργὸς καταβάλλων εἰς γῆν τὰ σπέρματα ἄμητον περιμένει, οὐκ ἐπισπείρων, καὶ ἡμῖν μέτρον ἐπιθυμίας ἡ παιδοποιΐα. Εὕροις δ᾿ ἂν πολλοὺς τῶν παρ᾿ ἡμῖν, καὶ ἄνδρας καὶ γυναῖκας, καταγηράσκοντας ἀγάμους ἐλπίδι τοῦ μᾶλλον συνέσεσθαι τῷ θεῷ. Εἰ δὲ τὸ ἐν παρθενίᾳ καὶ ἐν εὐνουχίᾳ μεῖναι μᾶλλον παρίστησι τῷ θεῷ, τὸ δὲ μέχρις ἐννοίας καὶ ἐπιθυμίας ἐλθεῖν ἀπάγει, ὧν τὰς ἐννοίας φεύγομεν, πολὺ πρότερον τὰ ἔργα παραιτούμεθα. Οὐ γὰρ μελέτῃ λόγων ἀλλ᾿ ἐπιδείξει καὶ διδασκαλίᾳ ἔργων τὰ ἡμέτερα, ἢ οἷός τις ἐτέχθη μένειν ἢ ἐφ᾿ ἑνὶ γάμῳ· ὁ γὰρ δεύτερος εὐπρεπής ἐστι μοιχεία.
Chastity of the Christians with Respect to Marriage.Therefore, having the hope of eternal life, we despise the things of this life, even to the pleasures of the soul, each of us reckoning her his wife whom he has married according to the laws laid down by us, and that only for the purpose of having children. For as the husbandman throwing the seed into the ground awaits the harvest, not sowing more upon it, so to us the procreation of children is the measure of our indulgence in appetite. Nay, you would find many among us, both men and women, growing old unmarried, in hope of living in closer communion with God. But if the remaining in virginity and in the state of an eunuch brings nearer to God, while the indulgence of carnal thought and desire leads away from Him, in those cases in which we shun the thoughts, much more do we reject the deeds. For we bestow our attention; not on the study of words, but on the exhibition and teaching of actions,-that a person should either remain as he was born, or be content with one marriage; for a second marriage is only a specious adultery.
So because we have the hope of eternal life, we despise the things of this life, even the pleasures of the soul. Each of us regards as his wife the woman he married according to the laws we have laid down, and he regards her so only up to the point of having children. A farmer who has thrown seed into the ground waits for the harvest and does not sow more on top of it. In the same way, for us, having children is the limit of desire. You would find many among us, both men and women, growing old unmarried in the hope of being closer to God. If remaining a virgin or a eunuch brings a person nearer to God, while even going as far as a lustful thought or desire takes us away from him, then since we shun the thoughts, we refuse the deeds all the more. Our way is not a practice of fine words but a demonstration and teaching by deeds: either to remain as one was born, or to stay with one marriage. A second marriage is a respectable-looking adultery.
Translator’s note. “Eunuch” here most likely means a person who chose lifelong celibacy for God’s sake, in the sense of Jesus’ words in Matthew 19:12.
Ὃς γὰρ ἂν ἀπολύσῃ, φησί, τὴν γυναῖκα αὐτοῦ καὶ γαμήσῃ ἄλλην, μοιχᾶται, οὔτε ἀπολύειν ἐπιτρέπων ἧς ἔπαυσέ τις τὴν παρθενίαν οὔτε ἐπιγαμεῖν. Ὁ γὰρ ἀποστερῶν ἑαυτὸν τῆς προτέρας γυναικός, καὶ εἰ τέθνηκε, μοιχός ἐστι παρακεκαλυμμένος, παραβαίνων μὲν τὴν χεῖρα τοῦ θεοῦ, ὅτι ἐν ἀρχῇ ὁ θεὸς ἕνα ἄνδρα ἔπλασε καὶ μίαν γυναῖκα, λύων δὲ τὴν σαρκὸς πρὸς σάρκα κατὰ τὴν ἕνωσιν πρόσμιξιν εἰς τοῦ γένους κοινωνίαν.
"For whosoever puts away his wife," says He, "and marries another, commits adultery; " not permitting a man to send her away whose virginity he has brought to an end, nor to marry again. For he who deprives himself of his first wife, even though she be dead, is a cloaked adulterer, resisting the hand of God, because in the beginning God made one man and one woman, and dissolving the strictest union of flesh with flesh, formed for the intercourse of the race.
“For whoever divorces his wife,” he says, “and marries another, commits adultery.” So he forbids a man to send away a woman whose virginity he has ended, and he forbids him to marry again. A man who deprives himself of his first wife, even if she has died, is a hidden adulterer. He transgresses the hand of God, because in the beginning God formed one man and one woman. He also breaks up the joining of flesh to flesh in union, which was meant for the fellowship of the human race.
Translator’s note. “The hand of God” means God’s creating work. The older translation’s “resisting” is looser than the Greek, which means “transgressing.”
Scripture: Mark 10:11; Matthew 19:9; Matthew 19:4; Genesis 2:24
Chapter 34
Ἀλλ᾿ οἱ τοιοῦτοι (ὢ τί ἂν εἴποιμι τὰ ἀπόῤῥητα;) ἀκούομεν τὰ τῆς παροιμίας Ἡ πόρνη τὴν σώφρονα. Οἱ γὰρ ἀγορὰν στήσαντες πορνείας καὶ καταγωγὰς ἀθέσμους πεποιημένοι τοῖς νέοις πάσης αἰσχρᾶς ἡδονῆς καὶ μηδὲ τῶν ἀρσένων φειδόμενοι, ἄρσενες ἐν ἄρσεσι τὰ δεινὰ κατεργαζόμενοι, ὅσων σεμνότερα καὶ εὐειδέστερα σώματα παντοίως αὐτὰ ὑβρίζοντες, ἀτιμοῦντες καὶ τὸ ποιητὸν τοῦ θεοῦ καλόν (οὐ γὰρ αὐτοποίητον ἐπὶ γῆς τὸ κάλλος, ἀλλὰ ὑπὸ χειρὸς καὶ γνώμης πεμπόμενον τοῦ θεοῦ), οὗτοι δὲ ἃ συνίσασιν αὐτοῖς καὶ τοὺς σφετέρους λέγουσι θεούς, ἐπ᾿ αὐτῶν ὡς σεμνὰ καὶ τῶν θεῶν αὐτὰ αὐχοῦντες, ταῦτα ἡμᾶς λοιδοροῦνται, κακίζοντες οἱ μοιχοὶ καὶ παιδερασταὶ τοὺς εὐνούχους καὶ μονογάμους, οἱ δίκην ἰχθύων ζῶντες· καὶ γὰρ οὗτοι καταπίνουσι τὸν ἐμπεσόντα, ἐλαύνοντες ὁ ἰσχυρότερος τὸν ἀσθενέστερον.
The Vast Difference in Morals Between the Christians and Their Accusers.But though such is our character (Oh! why should I speak of things unfit to be uttered? ), the things said of us are an example of the proverb, "The harlot reproves the chaste. For those who have set up a market for fornication and established infamous resorts for the young for every kind of vile pleasure,-who do not abstain even from males, males with males committing shocking abominations, outraging all the noblest and comeliest bodies in all sorts of ways, so dishonouring the fair workmanship of God (for beauty on earth is not self-made, but sent hither by the hand and will of God),-these men, I say, revile us for the very things which they are conscious of themselves, and ascribe to their own gods, boasting of them as noble deeds, and worthy of the gods. These adulterers and paederasts defame the eunuchs and the once-married (while they themselves live like fishes; for these gulp down whatever fails in their way, and the stronger chases the weaker:
But though we are people like this (oh, why should I speak of things not to be spoken of?), we hear the proverb used against us: “The harlot reproves the chaste woman.” They have set up a market for fornication. They have made lawless dens for the young, offering every kind of shameful pleasure. They do not spare even males: males commit dreadful acts with males, outraging in every way the most dignified and best-looking bodies. In this way they dishonor the beauty God has made, for beauty on earth does not make itself but is sent by the hand and will of God. Yet these same people slander us for the very things they know about themselves and attribute to their own gods. They boast of these things as honorable, as worthy of gods. These adulterers and pederasts revile eunuchs and the once-married, while they themselves live like fish. Fish swallow whatever falls in their way, and the stronger hunts down the weaker.
Translator’s note. The proverb is quoted in its short form, with the verb left to be understood.
Scripture: Romans 1:27
Καὶ τοῦτό ἐστι σαρκῶν ἅπτεσθαι ἀνθρωπικῶν, τὸ κειμένων νόμων, οὓς ὑμεῖς καὶ οἱ ὑμέτεροι πρόγονοι πρὸς πᾶσαν δικαιοσύνην ἐξετάσαντες ἐθήκατε, παρὰ τούτους αὐτοὺς βιάζεσθαι, ὡς μηδὲ τοὺς ὑφ᾿ ὑμῶν καταπεμπομένους ἡγεμόνας τῶν ἐθνῶν ἐξαρκεῖν ταῖς δίκαις, οἷς οὐδὲ παιομένοις μὴ παρέχειν ἑαυτοὺς οὐδὲ κακῶς ἀκούουσι μὴ εὐλογεῖν ἔξεστιν· οὐ γὰρ ἀπαρκεῖ δίκαιον εἶναι (ἔστι δὲ δικαιοσύνης ἴσα ἴσοις ἀμείβειν), ἀλλ᾿ ἀγαθοῖς καὶ ἀνεξικάκοις εἶναι πρόκειται.
and, in fact, this is to feed upon human flesh, to do violence in contravention of the very laws which you and your ancestors, with due care for all that is fair and right, have enacted), so that not even the governors of the provinces sent by you suffice for the hearing of the complaints against those, to whom it even is not lawful, when they are struck, not to offer themselves for more blows, nor when defamed not to bless: for it is not enough to be just (and justice is to return like for like), but it is incumbent on us to be good and patient of evil.
And this is what it really means to lay hands on human flesh: to do violence against the established laws, which you and your ancestors enacted after examining everything for justice. The violence is so great that not even the provincial governors you send out are enough to handle the cases. And the people treated this way are not even permitted to refuse to offer themselves when they are struck, or to refuse to bless when they are slandered. For it is not enough for us to be just, since justice is to repay like for like. We are called to be good and patient under wrong.
Translator’s note. The words about being struck and slandered echo Jesus’ teaching (Matthew 5:39; Luke 6:28-29) and Paul’s “when reviled, we bless” (1 Corinthians 4:12).
Scripture: Matthew 5:39; Luke 6:28-29
Chapter 35
Τίς οὖν εὖ φρονῶν εἴποι τοιούτους ὄντας ἡμᾶς ἀνδροφόνους εἶναι; Οὐ γὰρ ἔστι πάσασθαι κρεῶν ἀνθρωπικῶν μὴ πρότερον ἀποκτείνασί τινα. Τὸ πρότερον οὖν ψευδόμενοι, τὸ δεύτερον κἂν μέν τις αὐτοὺς ἔρηται εἰ ἑωράκασιν ἃ λέγουσιν, οὐδεὶς οὕτως ἀπηρυθριασμένος ὡς εἰπεῖν ἰδεῖν. Καίτοι καὶ δοῦλοί εἰσιν ἡμῖν, τοῖς μὲν καὶ πλείους τοῖς δὲ ἐλάττους, οὓς οὐκ ἔστι λαθεῖν· ἀλλὰ καὶ τούτων οὐδεὶς καθ᾿ ἡμῶν τὰ τηλικαῦτα οὐδὲ κατεψεύσατο. Οὓς γὰρ ἴσασιν οὐδ᾿ ἰδεῖν κἂν δικαίως φονευόμενον ὑπομένοντας, τούτων τίς ἂν κατείποι ἢ ἀνδροφονίαν ἢ ἀνθρωποβορίαν; Τίς οὐχὶ τῶν περὶ σπουδῆς τὰς δι᾿ ὅπλων ἀγωνίας καὶ διὰ θηρίων, καὶ μάλιστα τὰς ὑφ᾿ ὑμῶν ἀγομένας, ἔχει; Ἀλλ᾿ ἡμεῖς, πλησίον εἶναι τὸ ἰδεῖν τὸν φονευόμενον τοῦ ἀποκτεῖναι νομίζοντες, ἀπηγορεύσαμεν τὰς τοιαύτας θέας.
The Christians Condemn and Detest All Cruelty.What man of sound mind, therefore, will affirm, while such is our character, that we are murderers? For we cannot eat human flesh till we have killed some one. The former charge, therefore, being false, if any one should ask them in regard to the second, whether they have seen what they assert, not one of them would be so barefaced as to say that he had. And yet we have slaves, some more and some fewer, by whom we could not help being seen; but even of these, not one has been found to invent even such things against us. For when they know that we cannot endure even to see a man put to death, though justly; who of them can accuse us of murder or cannibalism? Who does not reckon among the things of greatest interest the contests of gladiators and wild beasts, especially those which are given by you? But we, deeming that to see a man put to death is much the same as killing him, have abjured such spectacles.
Who in his right mind, then, would say that people like us are murderers? We cannot eat human flesh without first killing someone. So they lie on the first charge. On the second, if anyone asks them whether they have seen what they claim, no one is so shameless as to say he has. And yet we have slaves, some of us more and some fewer, from whom we cannot hide. Not one of these has invented such serious charges against us. They know that we cannot bear even to watch a man being put to death, even justly. So which of them would accuse us of murder or cannibalism? Who does not rank the contests with weapons and with wild beasts among the things worth keen attention, especially the ones you put on? But we think that watching a man being killed is close to killing him, so we have renounced such spectacles.
Πῶς οὖν μηδὲ ὁρῶντες, ἵνα μὴ ἑαυτοῖς ἅγος καὶ μίασμα προστριψαίμεθα, φονεύειν δυνάμεθα; Καὶ οἳ τὰς τοῖς ἀμβλωθριδίοις χρωμένας ἀνδροφονεῖν τε καὶ λόγον ὑφέξειν τῆς ἐξαμβλώσεως τῷ θεῷ φαμεν, κατὰ ποῖον ἀνδροφονοῦμεν λόγον; Οὐ γὰρ τοῦ αὐτοῦ νομίζειν μὲν καὶ τὸ κατὰ γαστρὸς ζῶον εἶναι καὶ διὰ τοῦτο αὐτοῦ μέλειν τῷ θεῷ, καὶ παρεληλυθότα εἰς τὸν βίον φονεύειν, καὶ μὴ ἐκτιθέναι μὲν τὸ γεννηθέν, ὡς τῶν ἐκτιθέντων τεκνοκτονούντων, πάλιν δὲ τὸ τραφὲν ἀναιρεῖν· ἀλλ᾿ ἐσμὲν πάντα πανταχοῦ ὅμοιοι καὶ ἴσοι, δουλεύοντες τῷ λόγῳ καὶ οὐκ ἄρχοντες αὐτοῦ.
How, then, when we do not even look on, lest we should contract guilt and pollution, can we put people to death? And when we say that those women who use drugs to bring on abortion commit murder, and will have to give an account to God for the abortion, on what principle should we commit murder? For it does not belong to the same person to regard the very foetus in the womb as a created being, and therefore an object of God's care, and when it has passed into life, to kill it; and not to expose an infant, because those who expose them are chargeable with child-murder, and on the other hand, when it has been reared to destroy it. But we are in all things always alike and the same, submitting ourselves to reason, and not ruling over it.
Since we do not even watch, so as not to bring guilt and defilement on ourselves, how could we kill? We say that women who use drugs to cause abortion commit murder and will have to answer to God for it. On what ground, then, would we commit murder ourselves? The same person cannot consistently hold that the child in the womb is a living being, and therefore under God’s care, and then kill it once it has come into life. He cannot refuse to expose a newborn because those who expose children are child-killers, and then destroy the child after raising it. No, we are the same in everything and everywhere, equal to ourselves, serving reason and not ruling over it.
Translator’s note. “Reason” translates the Greek logos, which can also mean “word”; Athenagoras elsewhere uses the same term for the divine Logos, the Son.
Chapter 36
Τίς ἂν οὖν ἀνάστασιν πεπιστευκὼς ἐπὶ σώμασιν ἀναστησομένοις ἑαυτὸν παράσχοι τάφον; Οὐ γὰρ τῶν αὐτῶν καὶ ἀναστήσεσθαι ἡμῶν πεπεῖσθαι τὰ σώματα καὶ ἐσθίειν αὐτὰ ὡς οὐκ ἀναστησόμενα, καὶ ἀποδώσειν μὲν νομίζειν τὴν γῆν τοὺς ἰδίους νεκρούς, οὓς δέ τις αὐτὸς ἐγκατέθαψεν αὐτῷ μήτε ἀπαιτηθήσεσθαι. Τοὐναντίον μὲν οὖν εἰκὸς τοὺς μὲν μήτε λόγον ὑφέξειν τοῦ ἐνταῦθα ἢ πονηροῦ ἢ χρηστοῦ βίου μήτε ἀνάστασιν εἶναι οἰομένους, συναπόλλυσθαι δὲ τῷ σώματι καὶ τὴν ψυχὴν καὶ οἷον ἐναποσβέννυσθαι λογιζομένους, μηδενὸς ἂν ἀποσχέσθαι τολμήματος· τοὺς δὲ μηδὲν ἀνεξέταστον ἔσεσθαι παρὰ τῷ θεῷ, συγκολασθήσεσθαι δὲ καὶ τὸ ὑπουργῆσαν σῶμα ταῖς ἀλόγοις ὁρμαῖς τῆς ψυχῆς καὶ ἐπιθυμίαις πεπεισμένους, οὐδεὶς λόγος ἔχει οὐδὲ τῶν βραχυτάτων τι ἁμαρτεῖν. Εἰ δέ τῳ λῆρος πολὺς δοκεῖ, τὸ σαπὲν καὶ διαλυθὲν καὶ ἀφανισθὲν σῶμα συστῆναι πάλιν, κακίας μὲν οὐκ ἂν εἰκότως δόξαν ἀποφεροίμεθα διὰ τοὺς οὐ πιστεύοντας ἀλλ᾿ εὐηθείας· οἷς γὰρ ἀπατῶμεν ἑαυτοὺς λόγοις ἀδικοῦμεν οὐδένα.
Bearing of the Doctrine of the Resurrection on the Practices of the Christians.Who, then, that believes in a resurrection, would make himself into a tomb for bodies that will rise again? For it is not the part of the same persons to believe that our bodies will rise again, and to eat them as if they would not; and to think that the earth will give back the bodies held by it, but that those which a man has entombed in himself will not be demanded back. On the contrary, it is reasonable to suppose, that those who think they shall have no account to give of the present life, ill or well spent, and that there is no resurrection, but calculate on the soul perishing with the body, and being as it were quenched in it, will refrain from no deed of daring; but as for those who are persuaded that nothing will escape the scrutiny of God, but that even the body which has ministered to the irrational impulses of the soul, and to its desires, will be punished along with it, it is not likely that they will commit even the smallest sin. But if to any one it appears sheer nonsense that the body which has mouldered away, and been dissolved, and reduced to nothing, should be reconstructed, we certainly cannot with any reason be accused of wickedness with reference to those that believe not, but only of folly; for with the opinions by which we deceive ourselves we injure no one else.
Who, then, if he believes in a resurrection, would make himself a tomb for bodies that will rise again? It is not the mark of the same people to be persuaded that our bodies will rise, and then to eat them as though they will not rise. Nor would they believe that the earth will give back its own dead, and yet that the bodies a man has buried within himself will not be demanded of him. On the contrary, it is natural that some people would hold back from no daring crime. These are people who think they will give no account for their life here, whether wicked or good, and that there is no resurrection, and who reckon that the soul perishes along with the body and is, as it were, put out in it. But others are convinced that nothing will go unexamined by God, and that the body, which served the soul’s irrational impulses and desires, will be punished together with it. It is unreasonable to suppose that such people would commit even the smallest sin. Suppose someone thinks it great nonsense that a body which has rotted, been broken down and vanished should be put together again. Then, in the eyes of those who do not believe, we could fairly be charged with foolishness, but not with wickedness. For by the arguments with which we deceive ourselves, we wrong no one.
Ὅτι μέντοι οὐ καθ᾿ ἡμᾶς μόνον ἀναστήσεται τὰ σώματα, ἀλλὰ καὶ κατὰ πολλοὺς τῶν φιλοσόφων, περίεργον ἐπὶ τοῦ παρόντος δεικνύειν, ἵνα μὴ ἐξαγωνίους τοῖς προκειμένοις ἐπεισάγειν δοκῶμεν λόγους, ἢ περὶ νοητῶν καὶ αἰσθητῶν καὶ τῆς τούτων συστάσεως λέγοντες, ἢ ὅτι πρεσβύτερα τὰ ἀσώματα τῶν σωμάτων καὶ τὰ νοητὰ προάγει τῶν αἰσθητῶν, κἂν πρώτοις περιπίπτωμεν τοῖς αἰσθητοῖς, συνισταμένων ἐκ μὲν τῶν ἀσωμάτων κατὰ τὴν ἐπισύνθεσιν τῶν νοητῶν σωμάτων, ἐκ δὲ τῶν νοητῶν τῶν αἰσθητῶν· οὐ γὰρ κωλύει κατὰ τὸν Πυθαγόραν καὶ τὸν Πλάτωνα, γενομένης τῆς διαλύσεως τῶν σωμάτων, ἐξ ὧν τὴν ἀρχὴν συνέστη ἀπὸ τῶν αὐτῶν αὐτὰ καὶ πάλιν συστῆναι. Ἀλλ᾿ ἀνακείσθω μὲν ὁ περὶ τῆς ἀναστάσεως λόγος.
But that it is not our belief alone that bodies will rise again, but that many philosophers also hold the same view, it is out of place to show just now, lest we should be thought to introduce topics irrelevant to the matter in hand, either by speaking of the intelligible and the sensible, and the nature of these respectively, or by contending that the incorporeal is older than the corporeal, and that the intelligible precedes the sensible, although we become acquainted with the latter earliest, since the corporeal is formed from the incorporeal, by the combination with it of the intelligible, and that the sensible is formed from the intelligible; for nothing hinders, according to Pythagoras and Plato, that when the dissolution of bodies takes place, they should, from the very same elements of which they were constructed at first, be constructed again. But let us defer the discourse concerning the resurrection.
That the bodies will rise is not only our teaching but also that of many philosophers. But it would be needless to show this at present. We would seem to be bringing in arguments foreign to our subject if we spoke about the intelligible and the sensible and how they are constituted. We would also seem to do so if we argued that the incorporeal is older than the corporeal and that the intelligible comes before the sensible, even though we meet the sensible things first. On that view, intelligible bodies are formed by the combining of incorporeal things, and sensible bodies are formed from intelligible ones. For according to Pythagoras and Plato, nothing prevents bodies, once they are dissolved, from being put together again from the very things from which they were first composed. But let the discussion of the resurrection be put off for now.
Translator’s note. A separate treatise, On the Resurrection of the Dead, has come down under Athenagoras’s name, though some scholars doubt that he wrote it.
Chapter 37
Ὑμεῖς δέ, ὦ πάντα ἐν πᾶσι φύσει καὶ παιδείᾳ χρηστοὶ καὶ μέτριοι καὶ φιλάνθρωποι καὶ τῆς βασιλείας ἄξιοι, διαλελυμένῳ μὲν τὰ ἐγκλήματα, ἐπιδεδειχότι δὲ ὅτι καὶ θεοσεβεῖς καὶ ἐπιεικεῖς καὶ τὰς ψυχὰς κεκολασμένοι, τὴν βασιλικὴν κεφαλὴν ἐπινεύσατε. Τίνες γὰρ καὶ δικαιότεροι ὧν δέονται τυχεῖν, ἢ οἵτινες περὶ μὲν τῆς ἀρχῆς τῆς ὑμετέρας εὐχόμεθα ἵνα παῖς μὲν παρὰ πατρὸς κατὰ τὸ δικαιότατον διαδέχησθε τὴν βασιλείαν, αὔξην δὲ καὶ ἐπίδοσιν καὶ ἡ ἀρχὴ ὑμῶν, πάντων ὑποχειρίων γινομένων, λαμβάνῃ; Τοῦτο δ᾿ ἐστὶ καὶ πρὸς ἡμῶν, ὅπως ἤρεμον καὶ ἡσύχιον βίον διάγοιμεν, αὐτοὶ δὲ πάντα τὰ κεκελευσμένα προθύμως ὑπηρετοῖμεν.
Entreaty to Be Fairly Judged.And now do you, who are entirely in everything, by nature and by education, upright, and moderate, and benevolent, and worthy of your rule, now that I have disposed of the several accusations, and proved that we are pious, and gentle, and temperate in spirit, bend your royal head in approval. For who are more deserving to obtain the things they ask, than those who, like us, pray for your government, that you may, as is most equitable, receive the kingdom, son from father, and that your empire may receive increase and addition, all men becoming subject to your sway? And this is also for our advantage, that we may lead a peaceable and quiet life, and may ourselves readily perform all that is commanded us.
And you, who in every way are good, moderate and kind by nature and by training, and worthy of your kingdom: I have answered the charges and shown that we are godly, fair-minded and disciplined in our souls. Now give me your royal nod of approval. For who has a juster claim to obtain what they ask than we do? We pray for your government, that you may receive the kingdom, son from father, in the most just way. We also pray that your rule may grow and increase as everyone is brought under your hand. This also serves our own interest, so that we may live a calm and quiet life and ourselves gladly carry out everything we are commanded.
Translator’s note. “A calm and quiet life” echoes the Greek of 1 Timothy 2:2, where Paul urges prayer for kings “that we may lead a calm and quiet life.”
Scripture: 1 Timothy 2:2
Sources. Greek text: J. C. T. von Otto’s edition (Jena, 1857), digitized by the Perseus Project and the First Thousand Years of Greek project (CC BY-SA 4.0). English (older translation): Ante-Nicene Fathers, vol. 2 (1885), public domain, from the Writings-Database collection (HistoricalChristianFaith); we matched its sentences to the Greek rows, and the translator’s chapter titles are kept. English (older translation): Ante-Nicene Fathers, vol. 2 (1885), public domain, from the Writings-Database collection (HistoricalChristianFaith); we matched its sentences to the Greek rows, and the translator’s chapter titles are kept. English (older translation): Ante-Nicene Fathers, vol. 2 (1885), public domain, from the Writings-Database collection (HistoricalChristianFaith); we matched its sentences to the Greek rows, and the translator’s chapter titles are kept. Modern English: prepared for SermonIndex with AI, based on that older English translation and checked clause by clause against the Greek, then checked again in a second AI pass, and released under CC BY-SA 4.0. Where the older translation departs from the Greek, our wording follows the Greek and a translator’s note says so. Translator’s notes also explain hard words and mark places where the author departs from Scripture.
⚑ Greek flags mark places where the digital Greek looks like a typing or scanning error. Please report any error.