14. Theophilus, To Autolycus, 2.10, 2.12, 2.34, 3.9, 3.11, 3.16, 3.19-3.29 (2nd cent. CE - 3rd cent. CE)
| 2.10. And first, they taught us with one consent that God made all things out of nothing; for nothing was coeval with God: but He being His own place, and wanting nothing, and existing before the ages, willed to make man by whom He might be known; for him, therefore, He prepared the world. For he that is created is also needy; but he that is uncreated stands in need of nothing. God, then, having His own Word internal within His own bowels, begot Him, emitting Him along with His own wisdom before all things. He had this Word as a helper in the things that were created by Him, and by Him He made all things. He is called governing principle [ἁρκή], because He rules, and is Lord of all things fashioned by Him. He, then, being Spirit of God, and governing principle, and wisdom, and power of the highest, came down upon the prophets, and through them spoke of the creation of the world and of all other things. For the prophets were not when the world came into existence, but the wisdom of God which was in Him, and His holy Word which was always present with Him. Wherefore He speaks thus by the prophet Solomon: When He prepared the heavens I was there, and when He appointed the foundations of the earth I was by Him as one brought up with Him. And Moses, who lived many years before Solomon, or, rather, the Word of God by him as by an instrument, says, In the beginning God created the heaven and the earth. First he named the beginning, and creation, then he thus introduced God; for not lightly and on slight occasion is it right to name God. For the divine wisdom foreknew that some would trifle and name a multitude of gods that do not exist. In order, therefore, that the living God might be known by His works, and that [it might be known that] by His Word God created the heavens and the earth, and all that is therein, he said, In the beginning God created the heavens and the earth. Then having spoken of their creation, he explains to us: And the earth was without form, and void, and darkness was upon the face of the deep; and the Spirit of God moved upon the water. This, sacred Scripture teaches at the outset, to show that matter, from which God made and fashioned the world, was in some manner created, being produced by God. 2.12. of this six days' work no man can give a worthy explanation and description of all its parts, not though he had ten thousand tongues and ten thousand mouths; nay, though he were to live ten thousand years, sojourning in this life, not even so could he utter anything worthy of these things, on account of the exceeding greatness and riches of the wisdom of God which there is in the six days' work above narrated. Many writers indeed have imitated [the narration], and essayed to give an explanation of these things; yet, though they thence derived some suggestions, both concerning the creation of the world and the nature of man, they have emitted no slightest spark of truth. And the utterances of the philosophers, and writers, and poets have an appearance of trustworthiness, on account of the beauty of their diction; but their discourse is proved to be foolish and idle, because the multitude of their nonsensical frivolities is very great; and not a stray morsel of truth is found in them. For even if any truth seems to have been uttered by them, it has a mixture of error. And as a deleterious drug, when mixed with honey or wine, or some other thing, makes the whole [mixture] hurtful and profitless; so also eloquence is in their case found to be labour in vain; yea, rather an injurious thing to those who credit it. Moreover, [they spoke] concerning the seventh day, which all men acknowledge; but the most know not that what among the Hebrews is called the Sabbath, is translated into Greek the Seventh (ἑβδομάς), a name which is adopted by every nation, although they know not the reason of the appellation. And as for what the poet Hesiod says of Erebus being produced from chaos, as well as the earth and love which lords it over his [Hesiod's] gods and men, his dictum is shown to be idle and frigid, and quite foreign to the truth. For it is not meet that God be conquered by pleasure; since even men of temperance abstain from all base pleasure and wicked lust. 2.34. And, for the rest, would that in a kindly spirit you would investigate divine things - I mean the things that are spoken by the prophets- in order that, by comparing what is said by us with the utterances of the others, you may be able to discover the truth. We have shown from their own histories, which they have compiled, that the names of those who are called gods, are found to be the names of men who lived among them, as we have shown above. And to this day their images are daily fashioned, idols, the works of men's hands. And these the mass of foolish men serve, while they reject the maker and fashioner of all things and the nourisher of all breath of life, giving credit to vain doctrines through the deceitfulness of the senseless tradition received from their fathers. But God at least, the Father and Creator of the universe, did not abandon mankind, but gave a law, and sent holy prophets to declare and teach the race of men, that each one of us might awake and understand that there is one God. And they also taught us to refrain from unlawful idolatry, and adultery, and murder, fornication, theft, avarice, false swearing, wrath, and every incontinence and uncleanness; and that whatever a man would not wish to be done to himself, he should not do to another; and thus he who acts righteously shall escape the eternal punishments, and be thought worthy of the eternal life from God. 3.9. Now we also confess that God exists, but that He is one, the creator, and maker, and fashioner of this universe; and we know that all things are arranged by His providence, but by Him alone. And we have learned a holy law; but we have as lawgiver Him who is really God, who teaches us to act righteously, and to be pious, and to do good. And concerning piety He says, You shall have no other gods before me. You shall not make unto you any graven image, or any likeness of anything that is in heaven above, or that is in the earth beneath, or that is in the water under the earth: you shall not bow down yourself to them, nor serve them: for I am the Lord your God. Exodus 20:3 And of doing good He said: Honour your father and your mother; that it may be well with you, and that your days may be long in the land which I the Lord God give you. Again, concerning righteousness: You shall not commit adultery. You shall not kill. You shall not steal. You shall not bear false witness against your neighbour. You shall not covet your neighbour's wife, you shall not covet your neighbour's house, nor his land, nor his man-servant, nor his maid-servant, nor his ox, nor his beast of burden, nor any of his cattle, nor anything that is your neighbour's. You shall not wrest the judgment of the poor in his cause. Exodus 23:6 From every unjust matter keep you far. The innocent and righteous you shall not slay; you shall not justify the wicked; and you shall not take a gift, for gifts blind the eyes of them that see and pervert righteous words. of this divine law, then, Moses, who also was God's servant, was made the minister both to all the world, and chiefly to the Hebrews, who were also called Jews, whom an Egyptian king had in ancient days enslaved, and who were the righteous seed of godly and holy men - Abraham, and Isaac, and Jacob. God, being mindful of them, and doing marvellous and strange miracles by the hand of Moses, delivered them, and led them out of Egypt, leading them through what is called the desert; whom He also settled again in the land of Canaan, which afterwards was called jud a, and gave them a law, and taught them these things. of this great and wonderful law, which tends to all righteousness, the ten heads are such as we have already rehearsed. 3.11. And when the people transgressed the law which had been given to them by God, God being good and pitiful, unwilling to destroy them, in addition to His giving them the law, afterwards sent forth also prophets to them from among their brethren, to teach and remind them of the contents of the law, and to turn them to repentance, that they might sin no more. But if they persisted in their wicked deeds, He forewarned them that they should be delivered into subjection to all the kingdoms of the earth; and that this has already happened them is manifest. Concerning repentance, then, Isaiah the prophet, generally indeed to all, but expressly to the people, says: Seek the Lord while He may be found, call upon Him while He is near: let the wicked forsake his ways, and the unrighteous man his thoughts: and let him return unto the Lord his God, and he will find mercy, for He will abundantly pardon. Isaiah 55:6 And another prophet, Ezekiel, says: If the wicked will turn from all his sins that he has committed, and keep all My statutes, and do that which is right in My sight, he shall surely live, he shall not die. All his transgressions that he has committed, they shall not be mentioned unto him; but in his righteousness that he has done he shall live: for I desire not the death of the sinner, says the Lord, but that he turn from his wicked way, and live. Ezekiel 18:21 Again Isaiah: You who take deep and wicked counsel, turn, that you may be saved. Isaiah 31:6 And another prophet, Jeremiah: Turn to the Lord your God, as a grape-gatherer to his basket, and you shall find mercy. Jeremiah 6:9 Many therefore, yea rather, countless are the sayings in the Holy Scriptures regarding repentance, God being always desirous that the race of men turn from all their sins. 3.16. But I wish now to give you a more accurate demonstration, God helping me, of the historical periods, that you may see that our doctrine is not modern nor fabulous, but more ancient and true than all poets and authors who have written in uncertainty. For some, maintaining that the world was uncreated, went into infinity; and others, asserting that it was created, said that already 153,075 years had passed. This is stated by Apollonius the Egyptian. And Plato, who is esteemed to have been the wisest of the Greeks, into what nonsense did he run? For in his book entitled The Republic, we find him expressly saying: For if things had in all time remained in their present arrangement, when ever could any new thing be discovered? For ten thousand times ten thousand years elapsed without record, and one thousand or twice as many years have gone by since some things were discovered by D dalus, and some by Orpheus, and some by Palamedes. And when he says that these things happened, he implies that ten thousand times ten thousand years elapsed from the flood to D dalus. And after he has said a great deal about the cities of the world, and the settlements, and the nations, he owns that he has said these things conjecturally. For he says, If then, my friend, some god should promise us, that if we attempted to make a survey of legislation, the things now said, etc., which shows that he was speaking by guess; and if by guess, then what he says is not true. 3.19. And neither does he make out that there was a second flood: on the contrary, he said that never again would there be a flood of water on the world; as neither indeed has there been, nor ever shall be. And he says that eight human beings were preserved in the ark, in that which had been prepared by God's direction, not by Deucalion, but by Noah; which Hebrew word means rest, as we have elsewhere shown that Noah, when he announced to the men then alive that there was a flood coming, prophesied to them, saying, Come there, God calls you to repentance. On this account he was fitly called Deucalion. And this Noah had three sons (as we mentioned in the second book), whose names were Shem, and Ham, and Japhet; and these had three wives, one wife each; each man and his wife. This man some have surnamed Eunuchus. All the eight persons, therefore, who were found in the ark were preserved. And Moses showed that the flood lasted forty days and forty nights, torrents pouring from heaven, and from the fountains of the deep breaking up, so that the water overtopped every high hill 15 cubits. And thus the race of all the men that then were was destroyed, and those only who were protected in the ark were saved; and these, we have already said, were eight. And of the ark, the remains are to this day to be seen in the Arabian mountains. This, then, is in sum the history of the deluge. 3.20. And Moses, becoming the leader of the Jews, as we have already stated, was expelled from the land of Egypt by the king, Pharaoh, whose name was Amasis, and who, they say, reigned after the expulsion of the people 25 years and 4 months, as Manetho assumes. And after him [reigned] Chebron, 13 years. And after him Amenophis, 20 years 7 months. And after him his sister Amessa, 21 years 1 month. And after her Mephres, 12 years 9 months. And after him Methramuthosis, 20 years and 10 months. And after him Tythmoses, 9 years 8 months. And after him Damphenophis, 30 years 10 months. And after him Orus, 35 years 5 months. And after him his daughter, 10 years 3 months. After her Mercheres, 12 years 3 months. And after him his son Armais, 30 years 1 month. After him Messes, son of Miammus, 6 years, 2 months. After him Rameses, 1 year 4 months. After him Amenophis, 19 years 6 months. After him his sons Thoessus and Rameses, 10 years, who, it is said, had a large cavalry force and naval equipment. The Hebrews, indeed, after their own separate history, having at that time migrated into the land of Egypt, and been enslaved by the king Tethmosis, as already said, built for him strong cities, Peitho, and Rameses, and On, which is Heliopolis; so that the Hebrews, who also are our ancestors, and from whom we have those sacred books which are older than all authors, as already said, are proved to be more ancient than the cities which were at that time renowned among the Egyptians. And the country was called Egypt from the king Sethos. For the word Sethos, they say, is pronounced Egypt. And Sethos had a brother, by name Armais. He is called Danaus, the same who passed from Egypt to Argos, whom the other authors mention as being of very ancient date. 3.21. And Manetho, who among the Egyptians gave out a great deal of nonsense, and even impiously charged Moses and the Hebrews who accompanied him with being banished from Egypt on account of leprosy, could give no accurate chronological statement. For when he said they were shepherds, and enemies of the Egyptians, he uttered truth indeed, because he was forced to do so. For our forefathers who sojourned in Egypt were truly shepherds, but not lepers. For when they came into the land called Jerusalem, where also they afterwards abode, it is well known how their priests, in pursuance of the appointment of God, continued in the temple, and there healed every disease, so that they cured lepers and every unsoundness. The temple was built by Solomon the king of Jud a. And from Manetho's own statement his chronological error is manifest. (As it is also in respect of the king who expelled them, Pharaoh by name. For he no longer ruled them. For having pursued the Hebrews, he and his army were engulphed in the Red Sea. And he is in error still further, in saying that the shepherds made war against the Egyptians.) For they went out of Egypt, and thenceforth dwelt in the country now called Jud a, 313 years before Danaus came to Argos. And that most people consider him older than any other of the Greeks is manifest. So that Manetho has unwillingly declared to us, by his own writings, two particulars of the truth: first, avowing that they were shepherds; secondly, saying that they went out of the land of Egypt. So that even from these writings Moses and his followers are proved to be 900 or even 1000 years prior to the Trojan War. 3.22. Then concerning the building of the temple in Jud a, which Solomon the king built 566 years after the exodus of the Jews from Egypt, there is among the Tyrians a record how the temple was built; and in their archives writings have been preserved, in which the temple is proved to have existed 143 years 8 months before the Tyrians founded Carthage (and this record was made by Hiram (that is the name of the king of the Tyrians), the son of Abimalus, on account of the hereditary friendship which existed between Hiram and Solomon, and at the same time on account of the surpassing wisdom possessed by Solomon. For they continually engaged with each other in discussing difficult problems. And proof of this exists in their correspondence, which to this day is preserved among the Tyrians, and the writings that passed between them); as Meder the Ephesian, while narrating the history of the Tyrian kingdom, records, speaking thus: For when Abimalus the king of the Tyrians died, his son Hiram succeeded to the kingdom. He lived 53 years. And Bazorus succeeded him, who lived 43, and reigned 17 years. And after him followed Methuastartus, who lived 54 years, and reigned 12. And after him succeeded his brother Atharymus, who lived 58 years, and reigned 9. He was slain by his brother of the name of Helles, who lived 50 years, and reigned 8 months. He was killed by Juthobalus, priest of Astarte, who lived 40 years, and reigned 12. He was succeeded by his son Bazorus, who lived 45 years, and reigned 7. And to him his son Metten succeeded, who lived 32 years, and reigned 29. Pygmalion, son of Pygmalius succeeded him, who lived 56 years, and reigned 7. And in the 7th year of his reign, his sister, fleeing to Libya, built the city which to this day is called Carthage. The whole period, therefore, from the reign of Hiram to the founding of Carthage, amounts to 155 years and 8 months. And in the 12th year of the reign of Hiram the temple in Jerusalem was built. So that the entire time from the building of the temple to the founding of Carthage was 143 years and 8 months. 3.23. So then let what has been said suffice for the testimony of the Phœnicians and Egyptians, and for the account of our chronology given by the writers Manetho the Egyptian, and Meder the Ephesian, and also Josephus, who wrote the Jewish war, which they waged with the Romans. For from these very old records it is proved that the writings of the rest are more recent than the writings given to us through Moses, yes, and than the subsequent prophets. For the last of the prophets, who was called Zechariah, was contemporary with the reign of Darius. But even the lawgivers themselves are all found to have legislated subsequently to that period. For if one were to mention Solon the Athenian, he lived in the days of the kings Cyrus and Darius, in the time of the prophet Zechariah first mentioned, who was by many years the last of the prophets. Or if you mention the lawgivers Lycurgus, or Draco, or Minos, Josephus tells us in his writings that the sacred books take precedence of them in antiquity, since even before the reign of Jupiter over the Cretans, and before the Trojan War, the writings of the divine law which has been given to us through Moses were in existence. And that we may give a more accurate exhibition of eras and dates, we will, God helping us, now give an account not only of the dates after the deluge, but also of those before it, so as to reckon the whole number of all the years, as far as possible; tracing up to the very beginning of the creation of the world, which Moses the servant of God recorded through the Holy Spirit. For having first spoken of what concerned the creation and genesis of the world, and of the first man, and all that happened after in the order of events, he signified also the years that elapsed before the deluge. And I pray for favour from the only God, that I may accurately speak the whole truth according to His will, that you and every one who reads this work may be guided by His truth and favour. I will then begin first with the recorded genealogies, and I begin my narration with the first man. 3.24. Adam lived till he begot a son, 230 years. And his son Seth, 205. And his son Enos, 190. And his son Cai, 170. And his son Mahaleel, 165. And his son Jared, 162. And his son Enoch, 165. And his son Methuselah, 167. And his son Lamech, 188. And Lamech's son was Noah, of whom we have spoken above, who begot Shem when 500 years old. During Noah's life, in his 600th year, the flood came. The total number of years, therefore, till the flood, was 2242. And immediately after the flood, Shem, who was 100 years old, begot Arphaxad. And Arphaxad, when 135 years old, begot Salah. And Salah begot a son when 130. And his son Eber, when 134. And from him the Hebrews name their race. And his son Phaleg begot a son when 130. And his son Reu, when 132 And his son Serug, when 130. And his son Nahor, when 75. And his son Terah, when 70. And his son Abraham, our patriarch, begot Isaac when he was 100 years old. Until Abraham, therefore, there are 3278 years. The fore-mentioned Isaac lived until he begot a son, 60 years, and begot Jacob. Jacob, till the migration into Egypt, of which we have spoken above, lived 130 years. And the sojourning of the Hebrews in Egypt lasted 430 years; and after their departure from the land of Egypt they spent 40 years in the wilderness, as it is called. All these years, therefore, amount to 3,938. And at that time, Moses having died, Jesus the sun of Nun succeeded to his rule, and governed them 27 years. And after Jesus, when the people had transgressed the commandments of God, they served the king of Mesopotamia, by name Chusarathon, 8 years. Then, on the repentance of the people, they had judges: Gothonoel, 40 years; Eglon, 18 years; Aoth, 8 years. Then having sinned, they were subdued by strangers for 20 years. Then Deborah judged them 40 years. Then they served the Midianites 7 years. Then Gideon judged them 40 years; Abimelech, 3 years; Thola, 22 years; Jair, 22 years. Then the Philistines and Ammonites ruled them 18 years. After that Jephthah judged them 6 years; Esbon, 7 years; Ailon, 10 years; Abdon, 8 years. Then strangers ruled them 40 years. Then Samson judged them 20 years. Then there was peace among them for 40 years. Then Samera judged them one year; Eli, 20 years; Samuel, 12 years. 3.25. And after the judges they had kings, the first named Saul, who reigned 20 years; then David, our forefather, who reigned 40 years. Accordingly, there are to the reign of David [from Isaac] 496 years. And after these kings Solomon reigned, who also, by the will of God, was the first to build the temple in Jerusalem; he reigned 40 years. And after him Rehoboam, 17 years; and after him Abias, 7 years; and after him Asa, 41 years; and after him Jehoshaphat, 25 years; and after him Joram, 8 years; and after him Ahaziah, 1 year; and after him Athaliah, 6 years; and after her Josiah, 40 years; and after him Amaziah, 39 years; and after him Uzziah, 52 years; and after him Jotham, 16 years; and after him Ahaz, 17 years; and after him Hezekiah, 29 years; and after him Manasseh, 55 years; and after him Amon, 2 years; and after him Josiah, 31 years; and after him Jehoahaz, 3 months; and after him Jehoiakim, 11 years. Then another Jehoiakim, 3 months 10 days; and after him Zedekiah, 11 years. And after these kings, the people, continuing in their sins, and not repenting, the king of Babylon, named Nebuchadnezzar, came up into Jud a, according to the prophecy of Jeremiah. He transferred the people of the Jews to Babylon, and destroyed the temple which Solomon had built. And in the Babylonian banishment the people passed 70 years. Until the sojourning in the land of Babylon, there are therefore, in all, 4954 years 6 months and 10 days. And according as God had, by the prophet Jeremiah, foretold that the people should be led captive to Babylon, in like manner He signified beforehand that they should also return into their own land after 70 years. These 70 years then being accomplished, Cyrus becomes king of the Persians, who, according to the prophecy of Jeremiah, issued a decree in the second year of his reign, enjoining by his edict that all Jews who were in his kingdom should return to their own country, and rebuild their temple to God, which the fore-mentioned king of Babylon had demolished. Moreover, Cyrus, in compliance with the instructions of God, gave orders to his own bodyguards, Sabessar and Mithridates, that the vessels which had been taken out of the temple of Jud a by Nebuchadnezzar should be restored, and placed again in the temple. In the second year, therefore, of Darius are fulfilled the 70 years which were foretold by Jeremiah. 3.26. Hence one can see how our sacred writings are shown to be more ancient and true than those of the Greeks and Egyptians, or any other historians. For Herodotus and Thucydides, as also Xenophon, and most other historians, began their relations from about the reign of Cyrus and Darius, not being able to speak with accuracy of prior and ancient times. For what great matters did they disclose if they spoke of Darius and Cyrus, barbarian kings, or of the Greeks Zopyrus and Hippias, or of the wars of the Athenians and Laced monians, or the deeds of Xerxes or of Pausanias, who ran the risk of starving to death in the temple of Minerva, or the history of Themistocles and the Peloponnesian war, or of Alcibiades and Thrasybulus? For my purpose is not to furnish mere matter of much talk, but to throw light upon the number of years from the foundation of the world, and to condemn the empty labour and trifling of these authors, because there have neither been twenty thousand times ten thousand years from the flood to the present time, as Plato said, affirming that there had been so many years; nor yet 15 times 10,375 years, as we have already mentioned Apollonius the Egyptian gave out; nor is the world uncreated, nor is there a spontaneous production of all things, as Pythagoras and the rest dreamed; but, being indeed created, it is also governed by the providence of God, who made all things; and the whole course of time and the years are made plain to those who wish to obey the truth. Lest, then, I seem to have made things plain up to the time of Cyrus, and to neglect the subsequent periods, as if through inability to exhibit them, I will endeavour, by God's help, to give an account, according to my ability, of the course of the subsequent times. 3.27. When Cyrus, then, had reigned twenty-nine years, and had been slain by Tomyris in the country of the Massaget, this being in the 62d Olympiad, then the Romans began to increase in power, God strengthening them, Rome having been founded by Romulus, the reputed child of Mars and Ilia, in the 7th Olympiad, on the 21st day of April, the year being then reckoned as consisting of ten months. Cyrus, then, having died, as we have already said, in the 62d Olympiad, this date falls 220 A.U.C., in which year also Tarquinius, surnamed Superbus, reigned over the Romans, who was the first who banished Romans and corrupted the youth, and made eunuchs of the citizens, and, moreover, first defiled virgins, and then gave them in marriage. On this account he was fitly called Superbus in the Roman language, and that is translated the Proud. For he first decreed that those who saluted him should have their salute acknowledged by some one else. He reigned twenty-five years. After him yearly consuls were introduced, tribunes also and ediles for 453 years, whose names we consider it long and superfluous to recount. For if any one is anxious to learn them, he will ascertain them from the tables which Chryserus the nomenclator compiled: he was a freedman of Aurelius Verus, who composed a very lucid record of all things, both names and dates, from the rounding of Rome to the death of his own patron, the Emperor Verus. The annual magistrates ruled the Romans, as we say, for 453 years. Afterwards those who are called emperors began in this order: first, Caius Julius, who reigned 3 years 4 months 6 days; then Augustus, 56 years 4 months 1 day; Tiberius, 22 years; then another Caius, 3 years 8 months 7 days; Claudius, 23 years 8 months 24 days; Nero, 13 years 6 months 58 days; Galba, 2 years 7 months 6 days; Otho, 3 months 5 days; Vitellius, 6 months 22 days; Vespasian, 9 years 11 months 22 days; Titus, 2 years 22 days; Domitian, 15 years 5 months 6 days; Nerva, 1 year 4 months 10 days; Trajan, 19 years 6 months 16 days; Adrian, 20 years 10 months 28 days; Antoninus, 22 years 7 months 6 days; Verus, 19 years 10 days. The time therefore of the C sars to the death of the Emperor Verus is 237 years 5 days. From the death of Cyrus, therefore, and the reign of Tarquinius Superbus, to the death of the Emperor Verus, the whole time amounts to 744 years. 3.28. And from the foundation of the world the whole time is thus traced, so far as its main epochs are concerned. From the creation of the world to the deluge were 2242 years. And from the deluge to the time when Abraham our forefather begot a son, 1036 years. And from Isaac, Abraham's son, to the time when the people dwelt with Moses in the desert, 660 years. And from the death of Moses and the rule of Joshua the Son of Nun, to the death of the patriarch David, 498 years. And from the death of David and the reign of Solomon to the sojourning of the people in the land of Babylon, 518 years 6 months 10 days. And from the government of Cyrus to the death of the Emperor Aurelius Verus, 744 years. All the years from the creation of the world amount to a total of 5698 years, and the odd months and days. 3.29. These periods, then, and all the above-mentioned facts, being viewed collectively, one can see the antiquity of the prophetical writings and the divinity of our doctrine, that the doctrine is not recent, nor our tenets mythical and false, as some think; but very ancient and true. For Thallus mentioned Belus, king of the Assyrians, and Saturn, son of Titan, alleging that Belus with the Titans made war against Jupiter and the so-called gods in his alliance; and on this occasion he says that Gyges, being defeated, fled to Tartessus. At that time Gyges ruled over that country, which then was called Acte, but now is named Attica. And whence the other countries and cities derived their names, we think it unnecessary to recount, especially to you who are acquainted with history. That Moses, and not he only, but also most of the prophets who followed him, is proved to be older than all writers, and than Saturn and Belus and the Trojan War, is manifest. For according to the history of Thallus, Belus is found to be 322 years prior to the Trojan War. But we have shown above that Moses lived somewhere about 900 or 1000 years before the sack of Troy. And as Saturn and Belus flourished at the same time, most people do not know which is Saturn and which is Belus. Some worship Saturn, and call him Bel or Bal, especially the inhabitants of the eastern countries, for they do not know who either Saturn or Belus is. And among the Romans he is called Saturn, for neither do they know which of the two is more ancient - Saturn or Bel. So far as regards the commencement of the Olympiads, they say that the observance dates from Iphitus, but according to others from Linus, who is also called Ilius. The order which the whole number of years and Olympiads holds, we have shown above. I think I have now, according to my ability, accurately discoursed both of the godlessness of your practices, and of the whole number of the epochs of history. For if even a chronological error has been committed by us, of, e.g., 50 or 100, or even 200 years, yet not of thousands and tens of thousands, as Plato and Apollonius and other mendacious authors have hitherto written. And perhaps our knowledge of the whole number of the years is not quite accurate, because the odd months and days are not set down in the sacred books. But so far as regards the periods we speak of, we are corroborated by Berosus, the Chald an philosopher, who made the Greeks acquainted with the Chald an literature, and uttered some things concerning the deluge, and many other points of history, in agreement with Moses; and with the prophets Jeremiah and Daniel also, he spoke in a measure of agreement. For he mentioned what happened to the Jews under the king of the Babylonians, whom he calls Abobassor, and who is called by the Hebrews Nebuchadnezzar. And he also spoke of the temple of Jerusalem; how it was desolated by the king of the Chald ans, and that the foundations of the temple having been laid the second year of the reign of Cyrus, the temple was completed in the second year of the reign of Darius. |
|
15. Babylonian Talmud, Shevuot, None (3rd cent. CE - 6th cent. CE)
34a. כל אחת ואחת בפני ב"ד ושלא בפני ב"ד אינו מדבר אלא בתביעת ממון עדות שלא עשה בה נשים כאנשים קרובים כרחוקים פסולין ככשרים ואינו חייב אלא אחת בפני ב"ד אינו דין שלא יהא מדבר אלא בתביעת ממון,מה לפקדון שכן לא עשה בו מושבע כנשבע ומזיד כשוגג תאמר בעדות שכן עשה בה מושבע כנשבע ומזיד כשוגג,ת"ל תחטא תחטא לגזירה שוה נאמר כאן (ויקרא ה, כא) תחטא ונאמר להלן תחטא מה להלן אינו מדבר אלא בתביעת ממון אף כאן אינו מדבר אלא בתביעת ממון,מתקיף לה רבה בר עולא (ויקרא ה, ד) או או ביטוי יוכיחו שהן אואין ויש עמהן שבועה ואין עמהן כהן ומדברים שלא בתביעת ממון,מסתברא מפקדון הוה ליה למילף שכן תחטא מתחטא,אדרבה מביטוי ה"ל למילף שכן חטאת מחטאת,אלא מסתברא מפקדון ה"ל למילף שכן חטא במזיד תבעיה וכפריה ועבריה,אדרבה מביטוי הוה ליה למילף שכן חטאת שירדה לחומש הנך נפישן:,ר"ע אומר (ויקרא ה, ה) והיה כי יאשם לאחת מאלה יש מאלה שהוא חייב ויש מאלה שהוא פטור הא כיצד תבעו ממון חייב תבעו ד"א פטור,איפוך אנא,ר"ע אאואין דר"א סמיך,מאי בינייהו בין ר"א ובין ר"ע,איכא בינייהו משביע עדי קרקע לר"א חייבין לר"ע פטורין,ולר' יוחנן דאמר התם משביע עדי קרקע אפי' לר"א פטורין הכא מאי איכא בין ר"א לר"ע,איכא בינייהו עדי קנס,ר' יוסי הגלילי אומר והוא עד או ראה או ידע בעדות המתקיימת בראיה בלא ידיעה ובידיעה בלא ראיה הכתוב מדבר,א"ל רב פפא לאביי לימא ר' יוסי הגלילי לית ליה דר' אחא דתניא ר' אחא אומר גמל האוחר בין הגמלים ונמצא גמל הרוג בצידו בידוע שזה הרגו דאי אית ליה דר' אחא בדיני נפשות נמי משכחת לה כר"ש בן שטח,דתניא אר"ש בן שטח אראה בנחמה אם לא ראיתי אחד שרץ אחר חבירו לחורבה ורצתי אחריו ומצאתי סייף בידו ודם מטפטף והרוג מפרפר אמרתי לו רשע מי הרגו לזה או אני או אתה,אבל מה אעשה שאין דמך מסור בידי שהרי אמרה תורה (דברים יז, ו) על פי שנים עדים או שלשה עדים יומת המת אלא המקום יפרע ממך אמרו לא זזו משם עד שנשכו נחש ומת,אפי' תימא אית ליה דרבי אחא בשלמא ידיעה בלא ראיה משכחת לה אלא ראיה בלא ידיעה היכי משכחת לה מי לא בעי מידע אם עובד כוכבים הרג או ישראל הרג אם אדם טרפה הרג או שלם הרג,ש"מ קסבר רבי יוסי הגלילי משביע עדי קנס פטור דאי ס"ד חייב נהי דידיעה בלא ראיה אשכחן לה ראיה בלא ידיעה מי לא בעי מידע נכרית בעל בת ישראל בעל בתולה בעל בעולה בעל,יתיב רב המנונא קמיה דרב יהודה ויתיב רב יהודה וקא מיבעיא ליה מנה מניתיך בפני פלוני ופלוני | 34a. beach and everyoath if the plaintiff administered several oaths to him and he denied having the deposit in his possession, whether he took the oath bbefore a court or not before a court,and despite the broad application of the ihalakha /i, the verse bis speakingof liability bonly incases involving ba monetary claim,then in the case of an oath of btestimony with regard to whichthe Torah bdid not renderthe halakhic status of bwomen likethat of bmen,the status of brelatives likethat of bnon-relatives,and the status of bunfitwitnesses blikethat of those bfitto testify, band he is liableto bring bonly onesliding-scale offering if the plaintiff administered several oaths to him and he falsely denied knowledge of the matter bin the presence of a court, is it not right thatthe verse bis speakingof liability bonly incases involving ba monetary claim? /b,The ibaraitarejects this inference: bWhatis notable baboutthe case of ba deposit?It is notable in bthat with regard toa deposit the Torah bdid not renderthe halakhic status of bone to whom an oath was administeredby others blikethat of bone whohimself btook an oath,as one to whom an oath was administered by others is exempt; bandthe Torah did not render the halakhic status of one who takes ban intentionalfalse oath blikethat of one who takes ban unwittingfalse oath. bWill you saythat the same is true bwith regard toan oath of btestimony, as inthat case the Torah brenderedthe halakhic status of bone to whom an oath was administeredby others blikethat of bone whohimself btook an oath; andit rendered the halakhic status of one who takes ban intentionalfalse oath blikethat of one who takes ban unwittingfalse oath, and one is liable to bring an offering in both instances?,Therefore, bthe verse statesthe term b“shall sin”with regard to an oath of testimony and states b“shall sin”with regard to an oath on a deposit in order btoderive ba verbal analogy. Here, it is statedwith regard to an oath of testimony: b“Shall sin”(Leviticus 5:1), band there, it is statedwith regard to an oath on a deposit: b“Shall sin”(Leviticus 5:21). bJust as there,concerning an oath on a deposit, the verse bis speaking only with regard to a monetary claim, so too here,concerning an oath of testimony, the verse bis speaking only with regard to a monetary claim. /b,§ After presenting the different proofs cited in the ibaraita /i, the Gemara proceeds to analyze the opinions cited therein, beginning with the opinion of Rabbi Eliezer that one derives that one is liable for an oath of testimony only if it involves a monetary claim from the case of an oath on a deposit based on multiple instances of the term “or” that appear in both contexts, and there is an oath with those multiple instances of the term “or” and there is no priest in their context. bRabba bar Ulla objects to this:The multiple instances of the term “or” in the verse: b“Orif any one shall take an oath to clearly express with his lips to do evil borto do good” (Leviticus 5:4), which is written with regard to an oath on ban utterance, will provethat one is liable even without a monetary claim, bas they aremultiple instances of the term b“or,” and there is an oath in theircontext, band there is no priest in theircontext, band they are not speaking with regard to a monetary claim. /b,The Gemara rejects this: bIt stands to reasonthat bhe should have derivedthe ihalakhawith regard to an oath of testimony bfroman oath on ba depositand not from an oath on an utterance bdue tothe verbal analogy between the terms b“shall sin”and b“shall sin.” /b,The Gemara rejects this: bOn the contrary, he should have derivedthe ihalakhawith regard to an oath of testimony bfromthe ihalakhawith regard to an oath on ban utterance, asit is a derivation of one case for which one is liable to bring ba sin-offeringfor taking a false oath bfromanother case for which one is liable to bring ba sin-offeringfor taking a false oath. This is in contrast to an oath on a deposit, for which one is liable to bring a guilt-offering for taking a false oath., bRather, it stands to reasonthat bhe should have derivedthe ihalakhawith regard to an oath of testimony bfromthe ihalakhawith regard to an oath on ba deposit, asthere are many elements common to both oaths, represented by the mnemonic: bSin, intentionally, claimedfrom bhim, denied hisclaim, band his past.There is a verbal analogy between them, as the term “shall sin” appears in both contexts. In both cases one is liable for taking a false oath intentionally. Additionally, in both cases there is a claim presented by one of the parties and denial of that claim by the one taking the oath. And both oaths relate to events that transpired in the past.,The Gemara asks: bOn the contrary, he should have derivedthe ihalakhawith regard to an oath of testimony bfromthe ihalakhawith regard to an oath on ban utterance, asthere are many elements common to both oaths, represented by the mnemonic: bSin /b- boffering, that descended, to one-fifth.In both cases one is liable to bring a sin-offering for a false oath, as opposed to a guilt-offering for a false oath on a deposit. In each case the offering is a sliding-scale offering, as opposed to the fixed offering in the case of an oath on a deposit. In both cases there is no payment of an additional one-fifth for taking a false oath. And in the case of a false oath on a deposit, there is payment of an additional one-fifth. The Gemara answers: bTheseelements common to an oath of testimony and an oath on a deposit are more bnumerousthan the elements common to an oath of testimony and an oath on an utterance.,§ bRabbi Akiva saysthat it is written with regard to an oath of testimony: b“And it shall be when he will be guilty of one of these”(Leviticus 5:5). The term “of these” is a restrictive expression from which it is derived: bThere aresome bof thesefor bwhich he is liable and there aresome bof thesefor bwhich he is exempt. How so?If the plaintiff bdemandedtestimony from the witness with regard to ba monetaryclaim, the witness is bliablefor taking a false oath; if the plaintiff bdemandedtestimony from the witness with regard to banother matter,he is bexempt. /b,The Gemara challenges: Since it is not clear from the verse for which claim one is liable and for which claim one is exempt, bI will reverseit and say that one is liable only when the claim was with regard to another matter, not when it involves monetary matters.,The Gemara answers: bRabbi Akiva relies onthe multiple instances of the term b“or,”as cited bby Rabbi Eliezer,to derive from an oath on a deposit that one is liable only for a false oath that involves a monetary claim. From the term “of these” Rabbi Akiva derives that there are some cases involving monetary claims for which one is not liable for taking a false oath of testimony.,The Gemara asks: bWhat isthe practical difference bbetweenthe opinions of bRabbi Eliezer and Rabbi Akiva?With regard to which cases involving monetary claims does Rabbi Akiva hold that one is not liable for taking a false oath of testimony?,The Gemara answers: The practical difference bbetween theiropinions is in the case of bone who administers an oath to witnesseswith regard to testimony involving bland. According to Rabbi Eliezer, they are liableif they take a false oath. bAccording to Rabbi Akiva they are exemptin that case, as it is excluded by the term “of these.”,The Gemara asks: bAnd according to Rabbi Yoḥa, who says therewith regard to an oath on a deposit and an oath of testimony that in the case of bone who administers an oath to witnesseswith regard to testimony involving bland,the witnesses bare exempt even according to Rabbi Eliezer, whatdifference bis there betweenthe opinions of bRabbi Eliezer and Rabbi Akiva? /b,The Gemara answers: The practical difference bbetween theiropinions is in the case where one administers an oath to bwitnesseswith regard to testimony involving ba fine.According to Rabbi Eliezer they are liable, and according to Rabbi Akiva they are exempt.,§ bRabbi Yosei HaGelilicites a different proof and bsays:The verse states with regard to an oath of testimony: b“And he is a witness or he saw or he knew”(Leviticus 5:1). It is bwith regard to testimony that is founded on sight without knowledgeof the matter, bor by means of knowledge without sight,that bthe verse is speaking.The reference is to testimony involving monetary matters, as all other testimony requires both knowledge and sight., bRav Pappa said to Abaye: Shall we saythat bRabbi Yosei HaGelili does not acceptthe opinion bof Rabbi Aḥa? As it is taughtin a ibaraita( iTosefta /i, iBava Kamma3:6) that bRabbi Aḥa says:If there is ba ruttingmale bcamel [ igamal haoḥer /i]that is rampaging bamongother bcamels andthen ba camel was found killed at its side, it is evident that thisrampaging camel bkilled it,and the owner must pay for the damage. Rabbi Aḥa rules that cases of monetary law can be decided based on circumstantial evidence. bAs, if he is ofthe opinion that the ruling is in accordance with the opinion bof Rabbi Aḥathat witnesses may testify on the basis of circumstantial evidence, bincases of bcapital law too, you finda case of knowledge without sight, basin the case discussed by bRabbi Shimon ben Shataḥ. /b, bAs it is taughtin a ibaraitathat bRabbi Shimon ben Shataḥ saidin the form of an oath: bI willnot bsee the consolationof Israel bif I did not see one who was running after another into a ruin, and I ran after him and found a sword in his hand and blood drippingfrom the sword, band the slainperson bconvulsing. I said to him: Wickedone, bwho killed thisperson? It was beither me or you,as there is no one else here., bBut what can I do, as your blood is not given to my controland I have no jurisdiction to execute you, bas the Torah says: “On the basis of two witnesses or three witnesses shall he that is to die be put to death”(Deuteronomy 17:6), and there are no witnesses here. bRather, the Omnipresent will exact retribution from you.The Sages bsaid: They did not move from there until a snake came and bitthe pursuer band he died.Rabbi Aḥa would hold in that case that the pursuer could be executed by the court based on circumstantial evidence. Ostensibly, Rabbi Yosei HaGelili disagrees, as he says that testimony based on knowledge without sight exists only in cases of monetary law.,The Gemara answers: bEvenif byou saythat Rabbi Yosei HaGelili bis ofthe opinion that the ruling is in accordance with the opinion bof Rabbi Aḥathat one may rely on circumstantial evidence even in cases of capital law, one may nevertheless distinguish between cases of monetary law and cases of capital law. bGranted,even in cases of capital law byou findtestimony based on bknowledge without sight, but how can you finda case of bsight without knowledge? Don’tthe witnesses bneed to know ifthe one whom he witnessed killing another bkilled a gentile or he killed a Jew, if he killed one who has a wound that would have caused him to die within twelve months [ itereifa /i] or he killedone whose body is bintact? /b,The Gemara notes: bConclude from itthat bRabbi Yosei HaGelili holdsthat in a case where bone administers an oath to witnesseswith regard to testimony involving ba fine,the witnesses are bexemptfrom liability for taking a false oath of testimony. bAs if it enters your mindto say that the witnesses are bliable, although you findtestimony with regard to fines based on bknowledge without sight,and witnesses may testify based on circumstantial evidence, in cases of bsight without knowledge,when it comes to fines, bdon’tthe witnesses bneed to know ifthe rapist bengaged in intercourse with a gentile womanor if bhe engaged in intercourse with a Jewish woman,if bhe engaged in intercourse with a virginor if bhe engaged in intercourse with a non-virgin?Rabbi Yosei HaGelili holds that witnesses are liable for taking a false oath of testimony only in cases where both testimony based on sight alone and testimony based on knowledge alone are accepted, which is not the case concerning testimony involving fines.,§ Apropos the matter of sight without knowledge in cases of monetary law, the Gemara relates: bRav Hamnuna was sitting before Rav Yehuda, and Rav Yehuda was sitting and he was raising a dilemma:If one demands payment from another and claims: bI counted for youand gave you bone hundred dinars in the presence of so-and-so and so-and-so, /b |
|