1. Plato, Republic, 365 (5th cent. BCE - 4th cent. BCE)
|
2. Anon., Sibylline Oracles, 3.550, 3.604 (1st cent. BCE - 5th cent. CE)
| 3.550. 550 Shalt thou receive. And Cragus, lofty mount 3.604. Will Hades wed, and of as many youth |
|
3. Philo of Alexandria, On The Contemplative Life, 29 (1st cent. BCE - 1st cent. CE)
| 29. They have also writings of ancient men, who having been the founders of one sect or another have left behind them many memorials of the allegorical system of writing and explanation, whom they take as a kind of model, and imitate the general fashion of their sect; so that they do not occupy themselves solely in contemplation, but they likewise compose psalms and hymns to God in every kind of metre and melody imaginable, which they of necessity arrange in more dignified rhythm. |
|
4. Anon., Didache, 14 (1st cent. CE - 2nd cent. CE)
| 14. But every Lord's day gather yourselves together, and break bread, and give thanksgiving after having confessed your transgressions, that your sacrifice may be pure. But let no one that is at variance with his fellow come together with you, until they be reconciled, that your sacrifice may not be profaned. For this is that which was spoken by the Lord: In every place and time offer to me a pure sacrifice; for I am a great King, says the Lord, and my name is wonderful among the nations. |
|
5. New Testament, 1 Corinthians, 5.7, 6.1, 6.2, 6.3, 6.4, 6.5, 6.6, 6.7, 6.8, 6.9, 6.10, 6.11, 10.16, 10.17, 10.18, 10.19, 10.20, 10.21, 11.17-14.40 (1st cent. CE - 1st cent. CE)
| 10.16. Thecup of blessing which we bless, isn't it a communion of the blood ofChrist? The bread which we break, isn't it a communion of the body ofChrist? |
|
6. New Testament, Luke, 15.4 (1st cent. CE - 1st cent. CE)
| 15.4. Which of you men, if you had one hundred sheep, and lost one of them, wouldn't leave the ninety-nine in the wilderness, and go after the one that was lost, until he found it? |
|
7. Anon., Acts of Peter, 13 (2nd cent. CE - 3rd cent. CE)
|
8. Athenagoras, Apology Or Embassy For The Christians, 31 (2nd cent. CE - 2nd cent. CE)
| 31. 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. 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. |
|
9. Hippolytus, Refutation of All Heresies, 6.37 (2nd cent. CE - 3rd cent. CE)
| 6.37. For also the blessed presbyter Irenaeus, having approached the subject of a refutation in a more unconstrained spirit, has explained such washings and redemptions, stating more in the way of a rough digest what are their practices. (And it appears that some of the Marcosians,) on meeting with (Irenaeus' work), deny that they have so received (the secret word just alluded to), but they have learned that always they should deny. Wherefore our anxiety has been more accurately to investigate, and to discover minutely what are the (instructions) which they deliver in the case of the first bath, styling it by some such name; and in the case of the second, which they denominate Redemption. But not even has this secret of theirs escaped (our scrutiny). For these opinions, however, we consent to pardon Valentinus and his school. But Marcus, imitating his teacher, himself also feigns a vision, imagining that in this way he would be magnified. For Valentinus likewise alleges that he had seen an infant child lately born; and questioning (this child), he proceeded to inquire who it might be. And (the child) replied, saying that he himself is the Logos, and then subjoined a sort of tragic legend; and out of this (Valentinus) wishes the heresy attempted by him to consist. Marcus, making a similar attempt with this (heretic), asserts that the Tetrad came to him in the form of a woman - since the world could not bear, he says, the male (form) of this Tetrad, and that she revealed herself who she was, and explained to this (Marcus) alone the generation of the universe, which she never had revealed to any, either of gods or of men, expressing herself after this mode: When first the self-existent Father, He who is inconceivable and without substance, He who is neither male nor female, willed that His own ineffability should become realized in something spoken, and that His invisibility should become realized in form, He opened His mouth, and sent forth similar to Himself a Logos. And this (Logos) stood by Him, and showed unto Him who he was, viz., that he himself had been manifested as a (realization in) form of the Invisible One. And the pronunciation of the name was of the following description. He was accustomed to utter the first word of the name itself, which was Arche, and the syllable of this was (composed) of four letters. Then he subjoined the second (syllable), and this was also (composed) of four letters. Next he uttered the third (syllable), which was (composed) of ten letters; and he uttered the fourth (syllable), and this was (composed) of twelve letters. Then ensued the pronunciation of the entire name, (composed) of thirty letters, but of four syllables. And each of the elements had its own peculiar letters, and its own peculiar form, and its own peculiar pronunciation, as well as figures and images. And not one of these was there that beholds the form of that (letter) of which this was an element. And of course none of them could know the pronunciation of the (letter) next to this, but (only) as he himself pronounces it, (and that in such a way) as that, in pronouncing the whole (word), he supposed that he was uttering the entire (name). For each of these (elements), being part of the entire (name), he denominates (according to) its own peculiar sound, as if the whole (of the word). And he does not intermit sounding until he arrived at the last letter of the last element, and uttered it in a single articulation. Then he said, that the restoration of the entire ensued when all the (elements), coming down into the one letter, sounded one and the same pronunciation, and an image of the pronunciation he supposed to exist when we simultaneously utter the word Amen. And that these sounds are those which gave form to the insubstantial and unbegotten Aeon, and that those forms are what the Lord declared to be angels- the (forms) that uninterruptedly behold the face of the Father. |
|
10. Irenaeus, Refutation of All Heresies, 1, 1.1, 1.10, 1.11, 1.11.1, 1.12, 1.13.1, 1.13.2, 1.13.3, 1.13.5, 1.13.7, 1.14, 1.14.1, 1.15, 1.15.1, 1.15.6, 1.16, 1.17, 1.18, 1.18.4, 1.19, 1.2, 1.2.1, 1.20, 1.21, 1.21.1, 1.21.2, 1.21.3, 1.21.4, 1.21.5, 1.22, 1.22.1, 1.22.2, 1.23, 1.23.2, 1.24, 1.25, 1.25.4, 1.25.5, 1.26, 1.26.3, 1.27, 1.28, 1.28.1, 1.28.2, 1.29, 1.29.1, 1.3, 1.30, 1.30.1, 1.30.15, 1.30.2, 1.30.3, 1.31, 1.31.1, 1.31.2, 1.4, 1.4.3, 1.5, 1.6, 1.6.3, 1.7, 1.8, 1.9, 1.9.5, 2.13.10, 2.14.5, 2.15.3, 2.32.2, 4.15.1, 4.16.4, 4.4.2, i. pref. 2 (2nd cent. CE - 3rd cent. CE)
|
11. Justin, First Apology, 67, 26 (2nd cent. CE - 2nd cent. CE)
| 26. And, thirdly, because after Christ's ascension into heaven the devils put forward certain men who said that they themselves were gods; and they were not only not persecuted by you, but even deemed worthy of honours. There was a Samaritan, Simon, a native of the village called Gitto, who in the reign of Claudius C sar, and in your royal city of Rome, did mighty acts of magic, by virtue of the art of the devils operating in him. He was considered a god, and as a god was honoured by you with a statue, which statue was erected on the river Tiber, between the two bridges, and bore this inscription, in the language of Rome: - Simoni Deo Sancto, To Simon the holy God. And almost all the Samaritans, and a few even of other nations, worship him, and acknowledge him as the first god; and a woman, Helena, who went about with him at that time, and had formerly been a prostitute, they say is the first idea generated by him. And a man, Meder, also a Samaritan, of the town Capparet a, a disciple of Simon, and inspired by devils, we know to have deceived many while he was in Antioch by his magical art. He persuaded those who adhered to him that they should never die, and even now there are some living who hold this opinion of his. And there is Marcion, a man of Pontus, who is even at this day alive, and teaching his disciples to believe in some other god greater than the Creator. And he, by the aid of the devils, has caused many of every nation to speak blasphemies, and to deny that God is the maker of this universe, and to assert that some other being, greater than He, has done greater works. All who take their opinions from these men, are, as we before said, called Christians; just as also those who do not agree with the philosophers in their doctrines, have yet in common with them the name of philosophers given to them. And whether they perpetrate those fabulous and shameful deeds - the upsetting of the lamp, and promiscuous intercourse, and eating human flesh - we know not; but we do know that they are neither persecuted nor put to death by you, at least on account of their opinions. But I have a treatise against all the heresies that have existed already composed, which, if you wish to read it, I will give you. |
|
12. Justin, Second Apology, 2 (2nd cent. CE - 2nd cent. CE)
| 2. A certain woman lived with an intemperate husband; she herself, too, having formerly been intemperate. But when she came to the knowledge of the teachings of Christ she became sober-minded, and endeavoured to persuade her husband likewise to be temperate, citing the teaching of Christ, and assuring him that there shall be punishment in eternal fire inflicted upon those who do not live temperately and conformably to right reason. But he, continuing in the same excesses, alienated his wife from him by his actions. For she, considering it wicked to live any longer as a wife with a husband who sought in every way means of indulging in pleasure contrary to the law of nature, and in violation of what is right, wished to be divorced from him. And when she was overpersuaded by her friends, who advised her still to continue with him, in the idea that some time or other her husband might give hope of amendment, she did violence to her own feeling and remained with him. But when her husband had gone into Alexandria, and was reported to be conducting himself worse than ever, she - that she might not, by continuing in matrimonial connection with him, and by sharing his table and his bed, become a partaker also in his wickednesses and impieties - gave him what you call a bill of divorce, and was separated from him. But this noble husband of hers - while he ought to have been rejoicing that those actions which formerly she unhesitatingly committed with the servants and hirelings, when she delighted in drunkenness and every vice, she had now given up, and desired that he too should give up the same - when she had gone from him without his desire, brought an accusation against her, affirming that she was a Christian. And she presented a paper to you, the Emperor, a very bold apostrophe, like that of Huss to the Emperor Sigismund, which crimsoned his forehead with a blush of shame.]}-- requesting that first she be permitted to arrange her affairs, and afterwards to make her defense against the accusation, when her affairs were set in order. And this you granted. And her quondam husband, since he was now no longer able to prosecute her, directed his assaults against a man, Ptolem us, whom Urbicus punished, and who had been her teacher in the Christian doctrines. And this he did in the following way. He persuaded a centurion - who had cast Ptolem us into prison, and who was friendly to himself - to take Ptolem us and interrogate him on this sole point: whether he were a Christian? And Ptolem us, being a lover of truth, and not of a deceitful or false disposition, when he confessed himself to be a Christian, was bound by the centurion, and for a long time punished in the prison And, at last, when the man came to Urbicus, he was asked this one question only: whether he was a Christian? And again, being conscious of his duty, and the nobility of it through the teaching of Christ, he confessed his discipleship in the divine virtue. For he who denies anything either denies it because he condemns the thing itself, or he shrinks from confession because he is conscious of his own unworthiness or alienation from it, neither of which cases is that of the true Christian. And when Urbicus ordered him to be led away to punishment, one Lucius, who was also himself a Christian, seeing the unreasonable judgment that had thus been given, said to Urbicus: What is the ground of this judgment? Why have you punished this man, not as an adulterer, nor fornicator, nor murderer, nor thief, nor robber, nor convicted of any crime at all, but who has only confessed that he is called by the name of Christian? This judgment of yours, O Urbicus, does not become the Emperor Pius, nor the philosopher, the son of C sar, nor the sacred senate. And he said nothing else in answer to Lucius than this: You also seem to me to be such an one. And when Lucius answered, Most certainly I am, he again ordered him also to be led away. And he professed his thanks, knowing that he was delivered from such wicked rulers, and was going to the Father and King of the heavens. And still a third having come forward, was condemned to be punished. |
|
13. Justin, Dialogue With Trypho, 35.4, 80.3, 120.6 (2nd cent. CE - 2nd cent. CE)
|
14. Lucian, The Passing of Peregrinus, 11 (2nd cent. CE - 2nd cent. CE)
|
15. Minucius Felix, Octavius, 9.6, 31.1, 31.5 (2nd cent. CE - 3rd cent. CE)
|
16. Pliny The Younger, Letters, 10.96 (2nd cent. CE - 2nd cent. CE)
|
17. Pliny The Younger, Letters, 10.96 (2nd cent. CE - 2nd cent. CE)
|
18. Tertullian, To The Heathen, 1.7 (2nd cent. CE - 3rd cent. CE)
| 1.7. Whence comes it to pass, you will say to us, that such a character could have been attributed to you, as to have justified the lawmakers perhaps by its imputation? Let me ask on my side, what voucher they had then, or you now, for the truth of the imputation? (You answer,) Fame. Well, now, is not this - Fama malum, quo non aliud velocius ullum? Now, why a plague, if it be always true? It never ceases from lying; nor even at the moment when it reports the truth is it so free from the wish to lie, as not to interweave the false with the true, by processes of addition, diminution, or confusion of various facts. Indeed, such is its condition, that it can only continue to exist while it lies. For it lives only just so long as it fails to prove anything. As soon as it proves itself true, it falls; and, as if its office of reporting news were at an end, it quits its post: thenceforward the thing is held to be a fact, and it passes under that name. No one, then, says, to take an instance, The report is that this happened at Rome, or, The rumour goes that he has got a province; but, He has got a province, and, This happened at Rome. Nobody mentions a rumour except at an uncertainty, because nobody can be sure of a rumour, but only of certain knowledge; and none but a fool believes a rumour, because no wise man puts faith in an uncertainty. In however wide a circuit a report has been circulated, it must needs have originated some time or other from one mouth; afterwards it creeps on somehow to ears and tongues which pass it on and so obscures the humble error in which it began, that no one considers whether the mouth which first set it a-going disseminated a falsehood - a circumstance which often happens either from a temper of rivalry, or a suspicious turn, or even the pleasure of feigning news. It is, however, well that time reveals all things, as your own sayings and proverbs testify; yea, as nature herself attests, which has so ordered it that nothing lies hid, not even that which fame has not reported. See, now, what a witness you have suborned against us: it has not been able up to this time to prove the report it set in motion, although it has had so long a time to recommend it to our acceptance. This name of ours took its rise in the reign of Augustus; under Tiberius it was taught with all clearness and publicity; under Nero it was ruthlessly condemned, and you may weigh its worth and character even from the person of its persecutor. If that prince was a pious man, then the Christians are impious; if he was just, if he was pure, then the Christians are unjust and impure; if he was not a public enemy, we are enemies of our country: what sort of men we are, our persecutor himself shows, since he of course punished what produced hostility to himself. Now, although every other institution which existed under Nero has been destroyed, yet this of ours has firmly remained - righteous, it would seem, as being unlike the author (of its persecution). Two hundred and fifty years, then, have not yet passed since our life began. During the interval there have been so many criminals; so many crosses have obtained immortality; so many infants have been slain; so many loaves steeped in blood; so many extinctions of candles; so many dissolute marriages. And up to the present time it is mere report which fights against the Christians. No doubt it has a strong support in the wickedness of the human mind, and utters its falsehoods with more success among cruel and savage men. For the more inclined you are to maliciousness, the more ready are you to believe evil; in short, men more easily believe the evil that is false, than the good which is true. Now, if injustice has left any place within you for the exercise of prudence in investigating the truth of reports, justice of course demanded that you should examine by whom the report could have been spread among the multitude, and thus circulated through the world. For it could not have been by the Christians themselves, I suppose, since by the very constitution and law of all mysteries the obligation of silence is imposed. How much more would this be the case in such (mysteries as are ascribed to us), which, if divulged, could not fail to bring down instant punishment from the prompt resentment of men! Since, therefore, the Christians are not their own betrayers, it follows that it must be strangers. Now I ask, how could strangers obtain knowledge of us, when even true and lawful mysteries exclude every stranger from witnessing them, unless illicit ones are less exclusive? Well, then, it is more in keeping with the character of strangers both to be ignorant (of the true state of a case), and to invent (a false account). Our domestic servants (perhaps) listened, and peeped through crevices and holes, and stealthily got information of our ways. What, then, shall we say when our servants betray them to you? It is better, (to be sure,) for us all not to be betrayed by any; but still, if our practices be so atrocious, how much more proper is it when a righteous indignation bursts asunder even all ties of domestic fidelity? How was it possible for it to endure what horrified the mind and affrighted the eye? This is also a wonderful thing, both that he who was so overcome with impatient excitement as to turn informer, did not likewise desire to prove (what he reported), and that he who heard the informer's story did not care to see for himself, since no doubt the reward is equal both for the informer who proves what he reports, and for the hearer who convinces himself of the credibility of what he hears. But then you say that (this is precisely what has taken place): first came the rumour, then the exhibition of the proof; first the hearsay, then the inspection; and after this, fame received its commission. Now this, I must say, surpasses all admiration, that that was once for all detected and divulged which is being for ever repeated, unless, forsooth, we have by this time ceased from the reiteration of such things (as are alleged of us). But we are called still by the same (offensive) name, and we are supposed to be still engaged in the same practices, and we multiply from day to day; the more we are, to the more become we objects of hatred. Hatred increases as the material for it increases. Now, seeing that the multitude of offenders is ever advancing, how is it that the crowd of informers does not keep equal pace therewith? To the best of my belief, even our manner of life has become better known; you know the very days of our assemblies; therefore we are both besieged, and attacked, and kept prisoners actually in our secret congregations. Yet who ever came upon a half-consumed corpse (among us)? Who has detected the traces of a bite in our blood-steeped loaf? Who has discovered, by a sudden light invading our darkness, any marks of impurity, I will not say of incest, (in our feasts)? If we save ourselves by a bribe from being dragged out before the public gaze with such a character, how is it that we are still oppressed? We have it indeed in our own power not to be thus apprehended at all; for who either sells or buys information about a crime, if the crime itself has no existence? But why need I disparagingly refer to strange spies and informers, when you allege against us such charges as we certainly do not ourselves divulge with very much noise - either as soon as you hear of them, if we previously show them to you, or after you have yourselves discovered them, if they are for the time concealed from you? For no doubt, when any desire initiation in the mysteries, their custom is first to go to the master or father of the sacred rites. Then he will say (to the applicant), You must bring an infant, as a guarantee for our rites, to be sacrificed, as well as some bread to be broken and dipped in his blood; you also want candles, and dogs tied together to upset them, and bits of meat to rouse the dogs. Moreover, a mother too, or a sister, is necessary for you. What, however, is to be said if you have neither? I suppose in that case you could not be a genuine Christian. Now, do let me ask you, Will such things, when reported by strangers, bear to be spread about (as charges against us)? It is impossible for such persons to understand proceedings in which they take no part. The first step of the process is perpetrated with artifice; our feasts and our marriages are invented and detailed by ignorant persons, who had never before heard about Christian mysteries. And though they afterwards cannot help acquiring some knowledge of them, it is even then as having to be administered by others whom they bring on the scene. Besides, how absurd is it that the profane know mysteries which the priest knows not! They keep them all to themselves, then, and take them for granted; and so these tragedies, (worse than those) of Thyestes or Œdipus, do not at all come forth to light, nor find their way to the public. Even more voracious bites take nothing away from the credit of such as are initiated, whether servants or masters. If, however, none of these allegations can be proved to be true, how incalculable must be esteemed the grandeur (of that religion) which is manifestly not overbalanced even by the burden of these vast atrocities! O you heathen; who have and deserve our pity, behold, we set before you the promise which our sacred system offers. It guarantees eternal life to such as follow and observe it; on the other hand, it threatens with the eternal punishment of an unending fire those who are profane and hostile; while to both classes alike is preached a resurrection from the dead. We are not now concerned about the doctrine of these (verities), which are discussed in their proper place. Meanwhile, however, believe them, even as we do ourselves, for I want to know whether you are ready to reach them, as we do, through such crimes. Come, whosoever you are, plunge your sword into an infant; or if that is another's office, then simply gaze at the breathing creature dying before it has lived; at any rate, catch its fresh blood in which to steep your bread; then feed yourself without stint; and while this is going on, recline. Carefully distinguish the places where your mother or your sister may have made their bed; mark them well, in order that, when the shades of night have fallen upon them, putting of course to the test the care of every one of you, you may not make the awkward mistake of alighting on somebody else: you would have to make an atonement, if you failed of the incest. When you have effected all this, eternal life will be in store for you. I want you to tell me whether you think eternal life worth such a price. No, indeed, you do not believe it: even if you did believe it, I maintain that you would be unwilling to give (the fee); or if willing, would be unable. But why should others be able if you are unable? Why should you be able if others are unable? What would you wish impunity (and) eternity to stand you in? Do you suppose that these (blessings) can be bought by us at any price? Have Christians teeth of a different sort from others? Have they more ample jaws? Are they of different nerve for incestuous lust? I think not. It is enough for us to differ from you in condition by truth alone. |
|
19. Tertullian, Apology, 39 (2nd cent. CE - 3rd cent. CE)
| 39. I shall at once go on, then, to exhibit the peculiarities of the Christian society, that, as I have refuted the evil charged against it, I may point out its positive good. We are a body knit together as such by a common religious profession, by unity of discipline, and by the bond of a common hope. We meet together as an assembly and congregation, that, offering up prayer to God as with united force, we may wrestle with Him in our supplications. This violence God delights in. We pray, too, for the emperors, for their ministers and for all in authority, for the welfare of the world, for the prevalence of peace, for the delay of the final consummation. We assemble to read our sacred writings, if any peculiarity of the times makes either forewarning or reminiscence needful. However it be in that respect, with the sacred words we nourish our faith, we animate our hope, we make our confidence more steadfast; and no less by inculcations of God's precepts we confirm good habits. In the same place also exhortations are made, rebukes and sacred censures are administered. For with a great gravity is the work of judging carried on among us, as befits those who feel assured that they are in the sight of God; and you have the most notable example of judgment to come when any one has sinned so grievously as to require his severance from us in prayer, in the congregation and in all sacred intercourse. The tried men of our elders preside over us, obtaining that honour not by purchase, but by established character. There is no buying and selling of any sort in the things of God. Though we have our treasure chest, it is not made up of purchase-money, as of a religion that has its price. On the monthly day, if he likes, each puts in a small donation; but only if it be his pleasure, and only if he be able: for there is no compulsion; all is voluntary. These gifts are, as it were, piety's deposit fund. For they are not taken thence and spent on feasts, and drinking-bouts, and eating-houses, but to support and bury poor people, to supply the wants of boys and girls destitute of means and parents, and of old persons confined now to the house; such, too, as have suffered shipwreck; and if there happen to be any in the mines, or banished to the islands, or shut up in the prisons, for nothing but their fidelity to the cause of God's Church, they become the nurslings of their confession. But it is mainly the deeds of a love so noble that lead many to put a brand upon us. See, they say, how they love one another, for themselves are animated by mutual hatred; how they are ready even to die for one another, for they themselves will sooner put to death. And they are angry with us, too, because we call each other brethren; for no other reason, as I think, than because among themselves names of consanguinity are assumed in mere pretence of affection. But we are your brethren as well, by the law of our common mother nature, though you are hardly men, because brothers so unkind. At the same time, how much more fittingly they are called and counted brothers who have been led to the knowledge of God as their common Father, who have drunk in one spirit of holiness, who from the same womb of a common ignorance have agonized into the same light of truth! But on this very account, perhaps, we are regarded as having less claim to be held true brothers, that no tragedy makes a noise about our brotherhood, or that the family possessions, which generally destroy brotherhood among you, create fraternal bonds among us. One in mind and soul, we do not hesitate to share our earthly goods with one another. All things are common among us but our wives. We give up our community where it is practised alone by others, who not only take possession of the wives of their friends, but most tolerantly also accommodate their friends with theirs, following the example, I believe, of those wise men of ancient times, the Greek Socrates and the Roman Cato, who shared with their friends the wives whom they had married, it seems for the sake of progeny both to themselves and to others; whether in this acting against their partners' wishes, I am not able to say. Why should they have any care over their chastity, when their husbands so readily bestowed it away? O noble example of Attic wisdom, of Roman gravity - the philosopher and the censor playing pimps! What wonder if that great love of Christians towards one another is desecrated by you! For you abuse also our humble feasts, on the ground that they are extravagant as well as infamously wicked. To us, it seems, applies the saying of Diogenes: The people of Megara feast as though they were going to die on the morrow; they build as though they were never to die! But one sees more readily the mote in another's eye than the beam in his own. Why, the very air is soured with the eructations of so many tribes, and curi, and decuri . The Salii cannot have their feast without going into debt; you must get the accountants to tell you what the tenths of Hercules and the sacrificial banquets cost; the choicest cook is appointed for the Apaturia, the Dionysia, the Attic mysteries; the smoke from the banquet of Serapis will call out the firemen. Yet about the modest supper-room of the Christians alone a great ado is made. Our feast explains itself by its name. The Greeks call it agapè, i.e., affection. Whatever it costs, our outlay in the name of piety is gain, since with the good things of the feast we benefit the needy; not as it is with you, do parasites aspire to the glory of satisfying their licentious propensities, selling themselves for a belly-feast to all disgraceful treatment - but as it is with God himself, a peculiar respect is shown to the lowly. If the object of our feast be good, in the light of that consider its further regulations. As it is an act of religious service, it permits no vileness or immodesty. The participants, before reclining, taste first of prayer to God. As much is eaten as satisfies the cravings of hunger; as much is drunk as befits the chaste. They say it is enough, as those who remember that even during the night they have to worship God; they talk as those who know that the Lord is one of their auditors. After manual ablution, and the bringing in of lights, each is asked to stand forth and sing, as he can, a hymn to God, either one from the holy Scriptures or one of his own composing - a proof of the measure of our drinking. As the feast commenced with prayer, so with prayer it is closed. We go from it, not like troops of mischief-doers, nor bands of vagabonds, nor to break out into licentious acts, but to have as much care of our modesty and chastity as if we had been at a school of virtue rather than a banquet. Give the congregation of the Christians its due, and hold it unlawful, if it is like assemblies of the illicit sort: by all means let it be condemned, if any complaint can be validly laid against it, such as lies against secret factions. But who has ever suffered harm from our assemblies? We are in our congregations just what we are when separated from each other; we are as a community what we are individuals; we injure nobody, we trouble nobody. When the upright, when the virtuous meet together, when the pious, when the pure assemble in congregation, you ought not to call that a faction, but a curia- [i.e., the court of God.] |
|
20. Tertullian, Prescription Against Heretics, 41-42, 30 (2nd cent. CE - 3rd cent. CE)
|
21. Babylonian Talmud, Sanhedrin, 74a (3rd cent. CE - 6th cent. CE)
| 74a. רב פפא אמר במפותה ודברי הכל,אביי אמר ביכול להציל באחד מאבריו ורבי יונתן בן שאול היא דתניא רבי יונתן בן שאול אומר רודף שהיה רודף אחר חבירו להורגו ויכול להצילו באחד מאבריו ולא הציל נהרג עליו,מאי טעמא דרבי יונתן בן שאול דכתיב (שמות כא, כב) וכי ינצו אנשים (יחדו) וגו' וא"ר אלעזר במצות שבמיתה הכתוב מדבר דכתיב (שמות כא, כג) ואם אסון יהיה ונתתה נפש תחת נפש ואפ"ה אמר רחמנא ולא יהיה אסון ענוש יענש,אי אמרת בשלמא יכול להציל באחד מאבריו לא ניתן להצילו בנפשו היינו דמשכחת לה דיענש כגון שיכול להציל באחד מאבריו,אלא אי אמרת יכול להציל באחד מאבריו נמי ניתן להצילו בנפשו היכי משכחת לה דיענש,דילמא שאני הכא דמיתה לזה ותשלומין לזה,לא שנא דאמר רבא רודף שהיה רודף אחר חבירו ושיבר את הכלים בין של נרדף ובין של כל אדם פטור מאי טעמא מתחייב בנפשו הוא,ונרדף ששיבר את הכלים של רודף פטור של כל אדם חייב של רודף פטור שלא יהא ממונו חביב עליו מגופו של כל אדם חייב שמציל עצמו בממון חבירו,ורודף שהיה רודף אחר רודף להצילו ושיבר את הכלים בין של רודף בין של נרדף בין של כל אדם פטור ולא מן הדין שאם אי אתה אומר כן נמצא אין לך כל אדם שמציל את חבירו מיד הרודף:,אבל הרודף אחר בהמה: תניא רשב"י אומר העובד עבודת כוכבים ניתן להצילו בנפשו מק"ו ומה פגם הדיוט ניתן להצילו בנפשו פגם גבוה לא כל שכן וכי עונשין מן הדין קא סבר עונשין מן הדין,תניא רבי אלעזר ברבי שמעון אומר המחלל את השבת ניתן להצילו בנפשו סבר לה כאבוה דאמר עונשין מן הדין ואתיא שבת בחילול חילול מעבודת כוכבים,א"ר יוחנן משום ר"ש בן יהוצדק נימנו וגמרו בעליית בית נתזה בלוד כל עבירות שבתורה אם אומרין לאדם עבור ואל תהרג יעבור ואל יהרג חוץ מעבודת כוכבים וגילוי עריות ושפיכות דמים,ועבודת כוכבים לא והא תניא א"ר ישמעאל מנין שאם אמרו לו לאדם עבוד עבודת כוכבים ואל תהרג מנין שיעבוד ואל יהרג ת"ל (ויקרא יח, ה) וחי בהם ולא שימות בהם,יכול אפילו בפרהסיא תלמוד לומר (ויקרא כב, לב) ולא תחללו את שם קדשי ונקדשתי,אינהו דאמור כר"א דתניא ר"א אומר (דברים ו, ה) ואהבת את ה' אלהיך בכל לבבך ובכל נפשך ובכל מאדך אם נאמר בכל נפשך למה נאמר בכל מאדך ואם נאמר בכל מאדך למה נאמר בכל נפשך,אם יש לך אדם שגופו חביב עליו מממונו לכך נאמר בכל נפשך ואם יש לך אדם שממונו חביב עליו מגופו לכך נאמר בכל מאדך,גילוי עריות ושפיכות דמים כדרבי דתניא רבי אומר (דברים כב, כו) כי כאשר יקום איש על רעהו ורצחו נפש כן הדבר הזה וכי מה למדנו מרוצח,מעתה הרי זה בא ללמד ונמצא למד מקיש רוצח לנערה המאורסה מה נערה המאורסה ניתן להצילו בנפשו אף רוצח ניתן להצילו בנפשו,ומקיש נערה המאורסה לרוצח מה רוצח יהרג ואל יעבור אף נערה המאורסה תהרג ואל תעבור,רוצח גופיה מנא לן סברא הוא דההוא דאתא לקמיה דרבה ואמר ליה אמר לי מרי דוראי זיל קטליה לפלניא ואי לא קטלינא לך אמר ליה לקטלוך ולא תיקטול מי יימר דדמא דידך סומק טפי דילמא דמא דהוא גברא סומק טפי,כי אתא רב דימי א"ר יוחנן לא שנו אלא שלא בשעת גזרת המלכות) אבל בשעת גזרת המלכות אפי' מצוה קלה יהרג ואל יעבור,כי אתא רבין א"ר יוחנן אפי' שלא בשעת גזרת מלכות לא אמרו אלא בצינעא אבל בפרהסיא אפי' מצוה קלה יהרג ואל יעבור,מאי מצוה קלה אמר רבא בר רב יצחק אמר רב | 74a. bRav Pappa says:The ruling of the mishna, which lists his sister among those for whom he must pay a fine, is stated bwith regard toa young woman who was bseduced, andin the case of seduction ball agreethat the woman is not saved at the cost of the seducer’s life, as the intercourse was consensual., bAbaye says:The ruling of the mishna is stated bwith regard toa young woman who was raped in a case bwhereone was bable to saveher by injuring the pursuer bin one of his limbs,so that it was not necessary to kill him in order to achieve her rescue, band it isin accordance with the opinion of bRabbi Yonatan ben Shaul. As it is taughtin a ibaraita /i: bRabbi Yonatan ben Shaul says:If ba pursuer was pursuing another to kill him, andone was bable to savethe pursued party without killing the pursuer, but instead by injuring him bin one of his limbs, but he did not save himin this manner and rather chose to kill him, bhe is executed on his accountas a murderer.,The Gemara explains: bWhat is the reason of Rabbi Yonatan ben Shaul? As it is written: “If men striveand strike a woman with child, so that her fruit departs, and yet no further harm ensues, he shall be punished, according to the demands that the woman’s husband makes on him; and he shall pay it as the judges determine” (Exodus 21:22). bAndconcerning this bRabbi Elazar says: The verse is speaking of striving to kill,where each man was trying to kill the other. The proof is bthat it is written: “But if any harm ensues, then you shall give life for life”(Exodus 21:23), and if there was no intention to kill, why should he be executed? bAnd even so, the Merciful One states: “And yet no further harm ensues, he shall be punished,”teaching that he must pay the monetary value of the fetus to the woman’s husband., bGranted, if you saythat in a case where one is bable to savethe pursued party by injuring the pursuer bin one of his limbs, he may not savethe pursued party batthe cost of the pursuer’s blife,and if he killed the pursuer rather than injure him he is liable to receive the death penalty, bthat is how you findthe possibility bthatthe one who ultimately struck the woman bwould be punished.This would be in a case bwhere it was possible to savethe man under attack, i.e., one of the men who were fighting, by injuring the pursuer, i.e., the other man, who ultimately struck the woman, bin one of his limbs.In this case, the one who ultimately struck the woman was not subject to being killed. Therefore, he is subject to pay a fine., bBut if you saythat even if one is bable to savethe pursued party by injuring the pursuer bin one of his limbs, he can also save him atthe cost of the pursuer’s blife, how can you findthe possibility bthatthe one who ultimately struck the woman bwould be punished?When he was going to strike the other man, he was at risk of being killed, as anybody could have killed him at that time, and the ihalakhais that anybody who commits an act warranting death exempts himself from any monetary obligation ensuing from that act.,The Gemara tries to refute this reasoning: bPerhaps it is different here becausehis two liabilities are not on account of the same person; rather, his liability to be put to bdeath is on account of thisperson, the man with whom he fought, bwhilehis liability to give bpayment is on account of thatperson, the woman he ultimately struck. Consequently, he is liable to receive both punishments.,The Gemara rejects this distinction: There bis no difference. As Rava says:If ba pursuer was pursuing anotherto kill him, bandduring the course of the chase the pursuer bbroke vesselsbelonging beither to the person being pursued or to anyone else,he is bexemptfrom paying for the broken vessels. bWhat is the reasonfor this? The reason is that bhe is liable to be killed,since everyone is entitled to kill him in order to save the victim’s life, and one who commits an act rendering himself liable to be killed is exempt from any monetary obligation arising from that act, even if the payment were to be made to a person not connected to the act for which he is liable to be killed.,Rava continues: bAndif bthe pursuedparty bbroke vesselswhile fleeing from the pursuer, if those vessels bbelonged to the pursuer,the pursued party is bexempt.But if they bbelonged to anyoneelse, he is bliableto pay for them. The Gemara explains: If the vessels bbelonged to the pursuer,he is bexempt.The reason for this is bso that thepursuer’s bproperty should not be more precious tothe pursuer bthan hisown bbody.Were the one being pursued to cause the pursuer bodily harm, he would be exempt; all the more so when the pursued one breaks the pursuer’s vessels. And if the vessels belonged bto anyoneelse, he is bliable, as he saved himself atthe expense of banother’s property,and that other person should not have to suffer a loss on his account.,Rava continues: bButif one bpursuer was pursuinganother bpursuerin order bto save him,i.e., if he was trying to save the person being pursued by killing the pursuer, bandwhile doing so bhe broke vesselsbelonging beither to the pursuer or to the one being pursued, or to anyoneelse, he is bexemptfrom paying for them. The Gemara comments: This bis not bystrict blaw,as if one who saves himself at another’s expense is liable to pay for the damage, certainly one who saves another at the expense of a third party should bear similar liability. Rather, it is an ordice instituted by the Sages. This is bbecause if you do not saythat he is exempt, it will bbe found that no person will save another from a pursuer,as everyone will be afraid of becoming liable to pay for damage caused in the course of saving the pursued party.,§ The mishna teaches: bButwith regard to bone who pursues an animalto sodomize it, or one who seeks to desecrate Shabbat, or one who is going to engage in idol worship, they are not saved at the cost of their lives. bIt is taughtin a ibaraita /i: bRabbi Shimon ben Yoḥai says: One whoseeks to bworship idols may be savedfrom transgressing batthe cost of bhis life.This is derived bthrough an ia fortiori /iinference: bIfto avoid bthe degradation of an ordinaryperson, such as in the case of a rapist who degrades his victim, bhe can be savedeven batthe cost of bhis life, all the more sois it bnotclear that one may kill the transgressor to avoid bthe degrading ofthe honor of bGodthrough the worship of idols? The Gemara asks: bBut doesthe court badminister punishmentbased bonan ia fortiori binference?The Gemara answers: Rabbi Shimon ben Yoḥai bmaintainsthat the court badministers punishmentbased bonan ia fortiori binference. /b, bIt is taughtin a ibaraita /i: bRabbi Elazar, son of Rabbi Shimon, says: One whoseeks to bdesecrate Shabbat may be savedfrom transgressing even batthe cost of bhis life.The Gemara explains that Rabbi Elazar bholds in accordance withthe opinion of bhis father,Rabbi Shimon, bwho says:The court badministers punishmentbased bonan ia fortiori binference, andthe ihalakhawith regard to one who desecrates bShabbat is derived fromthe ihalakhawith regard to bidol worshipby way of a verbal analogy between the word b“desecration”mentioned in the context of Shabbat and the word b“desecration”mentioned in the context of idol worship.,§ The Gemara now considers which prohibitions are permitted in times of mortal danger. bRabbi Yoḥa says in the name of Rabbi Shimon ben Yehotzadak:The Sages who discussed this issue bcountedthe votes of those assembled band concluded in the upper story of the house of Nitza inthe city of bLod:With regard to ballother btransgressions in the Torah, if a person is told: Transgressthis prohibition band you will not be killed, he may transgressthat prohibition band not be killed,because the preserving of his own life overrides all of the Torah’s prohibitions. This is the ihalakhaconcerning all prohibitions bexcept forthose of bidol worship, forbidden sexual relations, and bloodshed.Concerning those prohibitions, one must allow himself to be killed rather than transgress them.,The Gemara asks: bAndshould one bnottransgress the prohibition of bidol worshipto save his life? bBut isn’t it taughtin a ibaraita /i: bRabbi Yishmael said: From whereis it derived bthat if a person is told: Worship idols and you will not be killed, from whereis it derived bthat he should worshipthe idol band not be killed? The verse states:“You shall keep My statutes and My judgments, which a person shall do, band he shall live by them”(Leviticus 18:5), thereby teaching that the mitzvot were given to provide life, bbutthey were bnotgiven so bthatone will bdie due to theirobservance.,The ibaraitacontinues: One bmighthave thought that it is permitted to worship the idol in this circumstance beven in public,i.e., in the presence of many people. Therefore, bthe verse states: “Neither shall you profane My holy name; but I will be hallowedamong the children of Israel: I am the Lord Who sanctifies you” (Leviticus 22:32). Evidently, one is not required to allow himself to be killed so as not to transgress the prohibition of idol worship when in private; but in public he must allow himself to be killed rather than transgress.,The Gemara answers: bThosein the upper story of the house of Nitza bstatedtheir opinion bin accordance withthe opinion of bRabbi Eliezer. As it is taughtin a ibaraitathat bRabbi Eliezer says:It is stated: b“And you shall love the Lord your God with all your heart, with all your soul, and with all your might”(Deuteronomy 6:5). bIf it is stated: “With all your soul,” why is italso bstated: “With all your might,”which indicates with all your material possessions? bAnd if it is stated: “With all your might,” why is italso bstated: “With all your soul”?One of these clauses seems to be superfluous.,Rather, this serves to teach that bif you have a person whose body is more precious to him than his property, it is therefore stated: “With all your soul.”That person must be willing to sacrifice even his life to sanctify God’s name. bAnd if you have a person whose property is more precious to him than his body, it is therefore stated: “With all your might.”That person must even be prepared to sacrifice all his property for the love of God. According to the opinion of Rabbi Eliezer, one must allow himself to be killed rather than worship an idol.,From where is it derived that one must allow himself to be killed rather than transgress the prohibition of bforbidden sexual relations andthe prohibition of bbloodshed?This is bin accordance withthe opinion bof RabbiYehuda HaNasi. bAs it is taughtin a ibaraita /i: bRabbiYehuda HaNasi bsays:With regard to the rape of a betrothed young woman it is written: “But you shall do nothing to the young woman; the young woman has committed no sin worthy of death; bfor as when a man rises against his neighbor, and slays him,so too with this matter” (Deuteronomy 22:26). But why would the verse mention murder in this context? bBut what do we learnhere bfrom a murderer? /b, bNow,the mention of murder bcamein order bto teacha ihalakhaabout the betrothed young woman, band it turns outthat, in addition, bit derivesa ihalakhafrom that case. The Torah bjuxtaposesthe case of ba murderer tothe case of ba betrothed young womanto indicate that bjust asin the case of a betrothed young woman bone may save her atthe cost of the rapist’s blife, so too,in the case of ba murderer, one may savethe potential victim batthe cost of the murderer’s blife. /b, bAndconversely, the Torah bjuxtaposes a betrothed young woman to a murdererto indicate that bjust aswith regard to a potential bmurderer,the ihalakhais that if one was ordered to murder another, bhe must be killed and not transgressthe prohibition of bloodshed, bso too,with regard to ba betrothed young woman,if she is faced with rape, bshe must be killed and not transgressthe prohibition of forbidden sexual relations.,The Gemara asks: bFrom where do wederive this ihalakhawith regard to ba murderer himself,that one must allow himself to be killed rather than commit murder? The Gemara answers: bIt isbased on blogical reasoningthat one life is not preferable to another, and therefore there is no need for a verse to teach this ihalakha /i. The Gemara relates an incident to demonstrate this: bAswhen ba certain person came before Rabba and said to him: The lord of my place,a local official, bsaid to me: Go kill so-and-so, and if not I will kill you,what shall I do? Rabba bsaid to him:It is preferable that bhe should kill you and you should not kill. Who is to say that your blood is redderthan his, that your life is worth more than the one he wants you to kill? bPerhaps that man’s blood is redder.This logical reasoning is the basis for the ihalakhathat one may not save his own life by killing another.,§ bWhen Rav Dimi camefrom Eretz Yisrael to Babylonia, bhe saidthat bRabbi Yoḥasaid: The Sages btaughtthat one is permitted to transgress prohibitions in the face of mortal danger bonly when it is not a time ofreligious bpersecution. But in a time ofreligious bpersecution,when the gentile authorities are trying to force Jews to violate their religion, bevenif they issued a decree about ba minor mitzva, one must be killed and not transgress. /b, bWhen Ravin camefrom Eretz Yisrael to Babylonia, he said that bRabbi Yoḥa said: Even whenit is bnot a time ofreligious bpersecution,the Sages bsaidthat one is permitted to transgress a prohibition in the face of mortal danger bonlywhen he was ordered to do so bin private. Butif he was ordered to commit a transgression bin public, evenif they threaten him with death if he does not transgress ba minor mitzva, he must be killed and not transgress. /b,The Gemara asks: bWhat is a minor mitzvafor this purpose? bRava bar Yitzḥak saysthat bRav says: /b |
|
22. Eusebius of Caesarea, Ecclesiastical History, 4.23-4.24, 5.13, 5.16 (3rd cent. CE - 4th cent. CE)
|
23. Nag Hammadi, The Gospel of Thomas, 50 (3rd cent. CE - 3rd cent. CE)
|
24. Nag Hammadi, The Gospel of Truth, 18.12-18.21, 19.5, 21.5-21.11, 21.14-21.18 (3rd cent. CE - 3rd cent. CE)
|
25. Nag Hammadi, The Tripartite Tractate, 123.32 (3rd cent. CE - 3rd cent. CE)
|
26. Origen, Against Celsus, 1.48, 2.27, 5.59, 5.61-5.65, 6.31, 8.32 (3rd cent. CE - 3rd cent. CE)
| 1.48. Although the Jew, then, may offer no defense for himself in the instances of Ezekiel and Isaiah, when we compare the opening of the heavens to Jesus, and the voice that was heard by Him, to the similar cases which we find recorded in Ezekiel and Isaiah, or any other of the prophets, we nevertheless, so far as we can, shall support our position, maintaining that, as it is a matter of belief that in a dream impressions have been brought before the minds of many, some relating to divine things, and others to future events of this life, and this either with clearness or in an enigmatic manner - a fact which is manifest to all who accept the doctrine of providence; so how is it absurd to say that the mind which could receive impressions in a dream should be impressed also in a waking vision, for the benefit either of him on whom the impressions are made, or of those who are to hear the account of them from him? And as in a dream we fancy that we hear, and that the organs of hearing are actually impressed, and that we see with our eyes - although neither the bodily organs of sight nor hearing are affected, but it is the mind alone which has these sensations - so there is no absurdity in believing that similar things occurred to the prophets, when it is recorded that they witnessed occurrences of a rather wonderful kind, as when they either heard the words of the Lord or beheld the heavens opened. For I do not suppose that the visible heaven was actually opened, and its physical structure divided, in order that Ezekiel might be able to record such an occurrence. Should not, therefore, the same be believed of the Saviour by every intelligent hearer of the Gospels?- although such an occurrence may be a stumbling-block to the simple, who in their simplicity would set the whole world in movement, and split in sunder the compact and mighty body of the whole heavens. But he who examines such matters more profoundly will say, that there being, as the Scripture calls it, a kind of general divine perception which the blessed man alone knows how to discover, according to the saying of Solomon, You shall find the knowledge of God; and as there are various forms of this perceptive power, such as a faculty of vision which can naturally see things that are better than bodies, among which are ranked the cherubim and seraphim; and a faculty of hearing which can perceive voices which have not their being in the air; and a sense of taste which can make use of living bread that has come down from heaven, and that gives life unto the world; and so also a sense of smelling, which scents such things as leads Paul to say that he is a sweet savour of Christ unto God; and a sense of touch, by which John says that he handled with his hands of the Word of life; - the blessed prophets having discovered this divine perception, and seeing and hearing in this divine manner, and tasting likewise, and smelling, so to speak, with no sensible organs of perception, and laying hold on the Logos by faith, so that a healing effluence from it comes upon them, saw in this manner what they record as having seen, and heard what they say they heard, and were affected in a similar manner to what they describe when eating the roll of a book that was given them. And so also Isaac smelled the savour of his son's divine garments, and added to the spiritual blessing these words: See, the savour of my son is as the savour of a full field which the Lord blessed. And similarly to this, and more as a matter to be understood by the mind than to be perceived by the senses, Jesus touched the leper, to cleanse him, as I think, in a twofold sense - freeing him not only, as the multitude heard, from the visible leprosy by visible contact, but also from that other leprosy, by His truly divine touch. It is in this way, accordingly, that John testifies when he says, I beheld the Spirit descending from heaven like a dove, and it abode upon Him. And I knew Him not; but He that sent me to baptize with water, the same said to me, Upon whom you will see the Spirit descending, and abiding on Him, the same is He that baptizes with the Holy Ghost. And I saw, and bear witness, that this is the Son of God. Now it was to Jesus that the heavens were opened; and on that occasion no one except John is recorded to have seen them opened. But with respect to this opening of the heavens, the Saviour, foretelling to His disciples that it would happen, and that they would see it, says, Verily, verily, I say unto you, You shall see the heavens opened, and the angels of God ascending and descending upon the Son of man. And so Paul was carried away into the third heaven, having previously seen it opened, since he was a disciple of Jesus. It does not, however, belong to our present object to explain why Paul says, Whether in the body, I know not; or whether out of the body, I know not: God knows. But I shall add to my argument even those very points which Celsus imagines, viz., that Jesus Himself related the account of the opening of the heavens, and the descent of the Holy Spirit upon Him at the Jordan in the form of a dove, although the Scripture does not assert that He said that He saw it. For this great man did not perceive that it was not in keeping with Him who commanded His disciples on the occasion of the vision on the mount, Tell what you have seen to no man, until the Son of man be risen from the dead, to have related to His disciples what was seen and heard by John at the Jordan. For it may be observed as a trait of the character of Jesus, that He on all occasions avoided unnecessary talk about Himself; and on that account said, If I speak of Myself, My witness is not true. And since He avoided unnecessary talk about Himself, and preferred to show by acts rather than words that He was the Christ, the Jews for that reason said to Him, If You are the Christ, tell us plainly. And as it is a Jew who, in the work of Celsus, uses the language to Jesus regarding the appearance of the Holy Spirit in the form of a dove, This is your own testimony, unsupported save by one of those who were sharers of your punishment, whom you adduce, it is necessary for us to show him that such a statement is not appropriately placed in the mouth of a Jew. For the Jews do not connect John with Jesus, nor the punishment of John with that of Christ. And by this instance, this man who boasts of universal knowledge is convicted of not knowing what words he ought to ascribe to a Jew engaged in a disputation with Jesus. 2.27. After this he says, that certain of the Christian believers, like persons who in a fit of drunkenness lay violent hands upon themselves, have corrupted the Gospel from its original integrity, to a threefold, and fourfold, and many-fold degree, and have remodelled it, so that they might be able to answer objections. Now I know of no others who have altered the Gospel, save the followers of Marcion, and those of Valentinus, and, I think, also those of Lucian. But such an allegation is no charge against the Christian system, but against those who dared so to trifle with the Gospels. And as it is no ground of accusation against philosophy, that there exist Sophists, or Epicureans, or Peripatetics, or any others, whoever they may be, who hold false opinions; so neither is it against genuine Christianity that there are some who corrupt the Gospel histories, and who introduce heresies opposed to the meaning of the doctrine of Jesus. 5.59. Celsus then continues: The Jews accordingly, and these (clearly meaning the Christians), have the same God; and as if advancing a proposition which would not be conceded, he proceeds to make the following assertion: It is certain, indeed, that the members of the great Church admit this, and adopt as true the accounts regarding the creation of the world which are current among the Jews, viz., concerning the six days and the seventh; on which day, as the Scripture says, God ceased from His works, retiring into the contemplation of Himself, but on which, as Celsus says (who does not abide by the letter of the history, and who does not understand its meaning), God rested, - a term which is not found in the record. With respect, however, to the creation of the world, and the rest which is reserved after it for the people of God, the subject is extensive, and mystical, and profound, and difficult of explanation. In the next place, as it appears to me, from a desire to fill up his book, and to give it an appearance of importance, he recklessly adds certain statements, such as the following, relating to the first man, of whom he says: We give the same account as do the Jews, and deduce the same genealogy from him as they do. However, as regards the conspiracies of brothers against one another, we know of none such, save that Cain conspired against Abel, and Esau against Jacob; but not Abel against Cain, nor Jacob against Esau: for if this had been the case, Celsus would have been correct in saying that we give the same accounts as do the Jews of the conspiracies of brothers against one another. Let it be granted, however, that we speak of the same descent into Egypt as they, and of their return thence, which was not a flight, as Celsus considers it to have been, what does that avail towards founding an accusation against us or against the Jews? Here, indeed, he thought to cast ridicule upon us, when, in speaking of the Hebrew people, he termed their exodus a flight; but when it was his business to investigate the account of the punishments inflicted by God upon Egypt, that topic he purposely passed by in silence. 5.61. After the above remarks he proceeds as follows: Let no one suppose that I am ignorant that some of them will concede that their God is the same as that of the Jews, while others will maintain that he is a different one, to whom the latter is in opposition, and that it was from the former that the Son came. Now, if he imagine that the existence of numerous heresies among the Christians is a ground of accusation against Christianity, why, in a similar way, should it not be a ground of accusation against philosophy, that the various sects of philosophers differ from each other, not on small and indifferent points, but upon those of the highest importance? Nay, medicine also ought to be a subject of attack, on account of its many conflicting schools. Let it be admitted, then, that there are among us some who deny that our God is the same as that of the Jews: nevertheless, on that account those are not to be blamed who prove from the same Scriptures that one and the same Deity is the God of the Jews and of the Gentiles alike, as Paul, too, distinctly says, who was a convert from Judaism to Christianity, I thank my God, whom I serve from my forefathers with a pure conscience. And let it be admitted also, that there is a third class who call certain persons carnal, and others spiritual,- I think he here means the followers of Valentinus - yet what does this avail against us, who belong to the Church, and who make it an accusation against such as hold that certain natures are saved, and that others perish in consequence of their natural constitution? And let it be admitted further, that there are some who give themselves out as Gnostics, in the same way as those Epicureans who call themselves philosophers: yet neither will they who annihilate the doctrine of providence be deemed true philosophers, nor those true Christians who introduce monstrous inventions, which are disapproved of by those who are the disciples of Jesus. Let it be admitted, moreover, that there are some who accept Jesus, and who boast on that account of being Christians, and yet would regulate their lives, like the Jewish multitude, in accordance with the Jewish law - and these are the twofold sect of Ebionites, who either acknowledge with us that Jesus was born of a virgin, or deny this, and maintain that He was begotten like other human beings - what does that avail by way of charge against such as belong to the Church, and whom Celsus has styled those of the multitude? He adds, also, that certain of the Christians are believers in the Sibyl, having probably misunderstood some who blamed such as believed in the existence of a prophetic Sibyl, and termed those who held this belief Sibyllists. 5.62. He next pours down upon us a heap of names, saying that he knows of the existence of certain Simonians who worship Helene, or Helenus, as their teacher, and are called Helenians. But it has escaped the notice of Celsus that the Simonians do not at all acknowledge Jesus to be the Son of God, but term Simon the power of God, regarding whom they relate certain marvellous stories, saying that he imagined that if he could become possessed of similar powers to those with which be believed Jesus to be endowed, he too would become as powerful among men as Jesus was among the multitude. But neither Celsus nor Simon could comprehend how Jesus, like a good husbandman of the word of God, was able to sow the greater part of Greece, and of barbarian lands, with His doctrine, and to fill these countries with words which transform the soul from all that is evil, and bring it back to the Creator of all things. Celsus knows, moreover, certain Marcellians, so called from Marcellina, and Harpocratians from Salome, and others who derive their name from Mariamme, and others again from Martha. We, however, who from a love of learning examine to the utmost of our ability not only the contents of Scripture, and the differences to which they give rise, but have also, from love to the truth, investigated as far as we could the opinions of philosophers, have never at any time met with these sects. He makes mention also of the Marcionites, whose leader was Marcion. 5.63. In the next place, that he may have the appearance of knowing still more than he has yet mentioned, he says, agreeably to his usual custom, that there are others who have wickedly invented some being as their teacher and demon, and who wallow about in a great darkness, more unholy and accursed than that of the companions of the Egyptian Antinous. And he seems to me, indeed, in touching on these matters, to say with a certain degree of truth, that there are certain others who have wickedly invented another demon, and who have found him to be their lord, as they wallow about in the great darkness of their ignorance. With respect, however, to Antinous, who is compared with our Jesus, we shall not repeat what we have already said in the preceding pages. Moreover, he continues, these persons utter against one another dreadful blasphemies, saying all manner of things shameful to be spoken; nor will they yield in the slightest point for the sake of harmony, hating each other with a perfect hatred. Now, in answer to this, we have already said that in philosophy and medicine sects are to be found warring against sects. We, however, who are followers of the word of Jesus, and have exercised ourselves in thinking, and saying, and doing what is in harmony with His words, when reviled, bless; being persecuted, we suffer it; being defamed, we entreat; and we would not utter all manner of things shameful to be spoken against those who have adopted different opinions from ours, but, if possible, use every exertion to raise them to a better condition through adherence to the Creator alone, and lead them to perform every act as those who will (one day) be judged. And if those who hold different opinions will not be convinced, we observe the injunction laid down for the treatment of such: A man that is a heretic, after the first and second admonition, reject, knowing that he that is such is subverted, and sins, being condemned of himself. Moreover, we who know the maxim, Blessed are the peacemakers, and this also, Blessed are the meek, would not regard with hatred the corrupters of Christianity, nor term those who had fallen into error Circes and flattering deceivers. 5.64. Celsus appears to me to have misunderstood the statement of the apostle, which declares that in the latter times some shall depart from the faith, giving heed to seducing spirits and doctrines of devils; speaking lies in hypocrisy, having their conscience seared with a hot iron; forbidding to marry, and commanding to abstain from meats, which God has created to be received with thanksgiving of them who believe; and to have misunderstood also those who employed these declarations of the apostle against such as had corrupted the doctrines of Christianity. And it is owing to this cause that Celsus has said that certain among the Christians are called 'cauterized in the ears;' and also that some are termed enigmas, - a term which we have never met. The expression stumbling-block is, indeed, of frequent occurrence in these writings - an appellation which we are accustomed to apply to those who turn away simple persons, and those who are easily deceived, from sound doctrine. But neither we, nor, I imagine, any other, whether Christian or heretic, know of any who are styled Sirens, who betray and deceive, and stop their ears, and change into swine those whom they delude. And yet this man, who affects to know everything, uses such language as the following: You may hear, he says, all those who differ so widely, and who assail each other in their disputes with the most shameless language, uttering the words, 'The world is crucified to me, and I unto the world.' And this is the only phrase which, it appears, Celsus could remember out of Paul's writings; and yet why should we not also employ innumerable other quotations from the Scriptures, such as, For though we do walk in the flesh, we do not war after the flesh; (for the weapons of our warfare are not carnal, but mighty through God to the pulling down of strongholds,) casting down imaginations, and every high thing that exalts itself against the knowledge of God? 5.65. But since he asserts that you may hear all those who differ so widely saying, 'The world is crucified to me, and I unto the world,' we shall show the falsity of such a statement. For there are certain heretical sects which do not receive the Epistles of the Apostle Paul, as the two sects of Ebionites, and those who are termed Encratites. Those, then, who do not regard the apostle as a holy and wise man, will not adopt his language, and say, The world is crucified to me, and I unto the world. And consequently in this point, too, Celsus is guilty of falsehood. He continues, moreover, to linger over the accusations which he brings against the diversity of sects which exist, but does not appear to me to be accurate in the language which he employs, nor to have carefully observed or understood how it is that those Christians who have made progress in their studies say that they are possessed of greater knowledge than the Jews; and also, whether they acknowledge the same Scriptures, but interpret them differently, or whether they do not recognise these books as divine. For we find both of these views prevailing among the sects. He then continues: Although they have no foundation for the doctrine, let us examine the system itself; and, in the first place, let us mention the corruptions which they have made through ignorance and misunderstanding, when in the discussion of elementary principles they express their opinions in the most absurd manner on things which they do not understand, such as the following. And then, to certain expressions which are continually in the mouths of the believers in Christianity, he opposes certain others from the writings of the philosophers, with the object of making it appear that the noble sentiments which Celsus supposes to be used by Christians have been expressed in better and clearer language by the philosophers, in order that he might drag away to the study of philosophy those who are caught by opinions which at once evidence their noble and religious character. We shall, however, here terminate the fifth book, and begin the sixth with what follows. 6.31. Moreover, if any one would wish to become acquainted with the artifices of those sorcerers, through which they desire to lead men away by their teaching (as if they possessed the knowledge of certain secret rites), but are not at all successful in so doing, let him listen to the instruction which they receive after passing through what is termed the fence of wickedness, - gates which are subjected to the world of ruling spirits. (The following, then, is the manner in which they proceed): I salute the one-formed king, the bond of blindness, complete oblivion, the first power, preserved by the spirit of providence and by wisdom, from whom I am sent forth pure, being already part of the light of the son and of the father: grace be with me; yea, O father, let it be with me. They say also that the beginnings of the Ogdoad are derived from this. In the next place, they are taught to say as follows, while passing through what they call Ialdabaoth: You, O first and seventh, who art born to command with confidence, you, O Ialdabaoth, who art the rational ruler of a pure mind, and a perfect work to son and father, bearing the symbol of life in the character of a type, and opening to the world the gate which you closed against your kingdom, I pass again in freedom through your realm. Let grace be with me; yea, O father, let it be with me. They say, moreover, that the star Ph non is in sympathy with the lion-like ruler. They next imagine that he who has passed through Ialdabaoth and arrived at Iao ought thus to speak: You, O second Iao, who shines by night, who art the ruler of the secret mysteries of son and father, first prince of death, and portion of the innocent, bearing now my own beard as symbol, I am ready to pass through your realm, having strengthened him who is born of you by the living word. Grace be with me; father, let it be with me. They next come to Sabaoth, to whom they think the following should be addressed: O governor of the fifth realm, powerful Sabaoth, defender of the law of your creatures, who are liberated by your grace through the help of a more powerful Pentad, admit me, seeing the faultless symbol of their art, preserved by the stamp of an image, a body liberated by a Pentad. Let grace be with me, O father, let grace be with me. And after Sabaoth they come to Astaph us, to whom they believe the following prayer should be offered: O Astaph us, ruler of the third gate, overseer of the first principle of water, look upon me as one of your initiated, admit me who am purified with the spirit of a virgin, you who sees the essence of the world. Let grace be with me, O father, let grace be with me. After him comes Alo us, who is to be thus addressed: O Alo us, governor of the second gate, let me pass, seeing I bring to you the symbol of your mother, a grace which is hidden by the powers of the realms. Let grace be with me, O father, let it be with me. And last of all they name Hor us, and think that the following prayer ought to be offered to him: You who fearlessly leaped over the rampart of fire, O Hor us, who obtained the government of the first gate, let me pass, seeing you behold the symbol of your own power, sculptured on the figure of the tree of life, and formed after this image, in the likeness of innocence. Let grace be with me, O father, let grace be with me. 8.32. The Psalmist bears witness that divine justice employs certain evil angels to inflict calamities upon men: He cast upon them the fierceness of His anger, wrath, and indignation, and trouble, sent by evil angels. Whether demons ever go beyond this when they are suffered to do what they are ever ready, though through the restraint put upon them they are not always able to do, is a question to be solved by that man who can conceive, in so far as human nature will allow, how it accords with the divine justice, that such multitudes of human souls are separated from the body while walking in the paths which lead to certain death. For the judgments of God are so great, that a soul which is still clothed with a mortal body cannot comprehend them; and they cannot be expressed: therefore by unnurtured souls they are not in any measure to be understood. And hence, too, rash spirits, by their ignorance in these matters, and by recklessly setting themselves against the Divine Being, multiply impious objections against providence. It is not from demons, then, that men receive any of those things which meet the necessities of life, and least of all ourselves, who have been taught to make a proper use of these things. And they who partake of grain and wine, and the fruits of trees, of water and of air, do not feed with demons, but rather do they feast with divine angels, who are appointed for this purpose, and who are as it were invited to the table of the pious man, who hearkens to the precept of the word, which says, Whether you eat or drink, or whatever you do, do all to the glory of God. And again, in another place it is written, Do all things in the name of God. When, therefore, we eat and drink and breathe to the glory of God, and act in all things according to what is right, we feast with no demons, but with divine angels: For every creature is good, and nothing to be refused, if it be received with thanksgiving: for it is sanctified by the word of God and prayer. But it could not be good, and it could not be sanctified, if these things were, as Celsus supposes, entrusted to the charge of demons. |
|
27. Epiphanius, Panarion, 27.6, 33.3-33.7 (4th cent. CE - 5th cent. CE)
|
28. Anon., 2 Enoch, 39.3-39.5
|
