1. Hebrew Bible, Genesis, 1.26, 2.7, 30.11 (9th cent. BCE - 3rd cent. BCE)
| 1.26. וַיֹּאמֶר אֱלֹהִים נַעֲשֶׂה אָדָם בְּצַלְמֵנוּ כִּדְמוּתֵנוּ וְיִרְדּוּ בִדְגַת הַיָּם וּבְעוֹף הַשָּׁמַיִם וּבַבְּהֵמָה וּבְכָל־הָאָרֶץ וּבְכָל־הָרֶמֶשׂ הָרֹמֵשׂ עַל־הָאָרֶץ׃ 2.7. וַיִּיצֶר יְהוָה אֱלֹהִים אֶת־הָאָדָם עָפָר מִן־הָאֲדָמָה וַיִּפַּח בְּאַפָּיו נִשְׁמַת חַיִּים וַיְהִי הָאָדָם לְנֶפֶשׁ חַיָּה׃ 30.11. וַתֹּאמֶר לֵאָה בגד [בָּא] [גָד] וַתִּקְרָא אֶת־שְׁמוֹ גָּד׃ | 1.26. And God said: ‘Let us make man in our image, after our likeness; and let them have dominion over the fish of the sea, and over the fowl of the air, and over the cattle, and over all the earth, and over every creeping thing that creepeth upon the earth.’" 2.7. Then the LORD God formed man of the dust of the ground, and breathed into his nostrils the breath of life; and man became a living soul." 30.11. And Leah said: ‘Fortune is come! ’ And she called his name Gad." |
|
2. Hebrew Bible, Psalms, 139.13, 139.16 (9th cent. BCE - 3rd cent. BCE)
| 139.13. כִּי־אַתָּה קָנִיתָ כִלְיֹתָי תְּסֻכֵּנִי בְּבֶטֶן אִמִּי׃ 139.16. גָּלְמִי רָאוּ עֵינֶיךָ וְעַל־סִפְרְךָ כֻּלָּם יִכָּתֵבוּ יָמִים יֻצָּרוּ ולא [וְלוֹ] אֶחָד בָּהֶם׃ | 139.13. For Thou hast made my reins; Thou hast knit me together in my mother's womb." 139.16. Thine eyes did see mine unformed substance, And in Thy book they were all written— Even the days that were fashioned, When as yet there was none of them." |
|
3. Hebrew Bible, Isaiah, 11.2-11.3, 40.12, 42.5, 57.16 (8th cent. BCE - 5th cent. BCE)
| 11.2. וְנָחָה עָלָיו רוּחַ יְהוָה רוּחַ חָכְמָה וּבִינָה רוּחַ עֵצָה וּגְבוּרָה רוּחַ דַּעַת וְיִרְאַת יְהוָה׃ 11.3. וַהֲרִיחוֹ בְּיִרְאַת יְהוָה וְלֹא־לְמַרְאֵה עֵינָיו יִשְׁפּוֹט וְלֹא־לְמִשְׁמַע אָזְנָיו יוֹכִיחַ׃ 40.12. מִי־מָדַד בְּשָׁעֳלוֹ מַיִם וְשָׁמַיִם בַּזֶּרֶת תִּכֵּן וְכָל בַּשָּׁלִשׁ עֲפַר הָאָרֶץ וְשָׁקַל בַּפֶּלֶס הָרִים וּגְבָעוֹת בְּמֹאזְנָיִם׃ 42.5. כֹּה־אָמַר הָאֵל יְהוָה בּוֹרֵא הַשָּׁמַיִם וְנוֹטֵיהֶם רֹקַע הָאָרֶץ וְצֶאֱצָאֶיהָ נֹתֵן נְשָׁמָה לָעָם עָלֶיהָ וְרוּחַ לַהֹלְכִים בָּהּ׃ 57.16. כִּי לֹא לְעוֹלָם אָרִיב וְלֹא לָנֶצַח אֶקְּצוֹף כִּי־רוּחַ מִלְּפָנַי יַעֲטוֹף וּנְשָׁמוֹת אֲנִי עָשִׂיתִי׃ | 11.2. And the spirit of the LORD shall rest upon him, The spirit of wisdom and understanding, The spirit of counsel and might, The spirit of knowledge and of the fear of the LORD." 11.3. And his delight shall be in the fear of the LORD; And he shall not judge after the sight of his eyes, Neither decide after the hearing of his ears;" 40.12. Who hath measured the waters in the hollow of his hand, And meted out heaven with the span, And comprehended the dust of the earth in a measure, And weighed the mountains in scales, And the hills in a balance?" 42.5. Thus saith God the LORD, He that created the heavens, and stretched them forth, He that spread forth the earth and that which cometh out of it, He that giveth breath unto the people upon it, And spirit to them that walk therein:" 57.16. For I will not contend for ever, Neither will I be always wroth; For the spirit that enwrappeth itself is from Me, And the souls which I have made." |
|
4. Plato, Phaedrus, None (5th cent. BCE - 4th cent. BCE)
| 247a. He is followed by an army of gods and spirits, arrayed in eleven squadrons; Hestia alone remains in the house of the gods. of the rest, those who are included among the twelve great gods and are accounted leaders, are assigned each to his place in the army. There are many blessed sights and many ways hither and thither within the heaven, along which the blessed gods go to and fro attending each to his own duties; and whoever wishes, and is able, follows, for jealousy is excluded from the celestial band. But when they go to a feast and a banquet |
|
5. Septuagint, Ecclesiasticus (Siracides), 17.3 (2nd cent. BCE - 2nd cent. BCE)
| 17.3. He endowed them with strength like his own,and made them in his own image. |
|
6. Philo of Alexandria, Allegorical Interpretation, 3.96 (1st cent. BCE - 1st cent. CE)
|
7. Anon., Didache, 9.2 (1st cent. CE - 2nd cent. CE)
|
8. Ignatius, To The Romans, 7.3 (1st cent. CE - 2nd cent. CE)
| 7.3. I have no delight in the food of corruption or in the delights of this life. I desire the bread of God, which is the flesh of Christ who was of the seed of David; and for a draught I desire His blood, which is love incorruptible. |
|
9. New Testament, 1 Corinthians, 2.15, 5.7, 10.1, 10.16-10.17, 11.20-11.21, 11.23-11.29, 15.50 (1st cent. CE - 1st cent. CE)
| 2.15. But he who is spiritual discerns allthings, and he himself is judged by no one. 5.7. Purge out the old yeast, that you may bea new lump, even as you are unleavened. For indeed Christ, ourPassover, has been sacrificed in our place. 10.1. Now I would not have you ignorant, brothers, that our fatherswere all under the cloud, and all passed through the sea; 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? 10.17. Because we, who are many, are one bread, one body; forwe all partake of the one bread. 11.20. When therefore you assemble yourselves together, itis not possible to eat the Lord's supper. 11.21. For in your eatingeach one takes his own supper before others. One is hungry, and anotheris drunken. 11.23. For I received from the Lord that which also I delivered toyou, that the Lord Jesus on the night in which he was betrayed tookbread. 11.24. When he had given thanks, he broke it, and said, "Take,eat. This is my body, which is broken for you. Do this in memory ofme. 11.25. In the same way he also took the cup, after supper,saying, "This cup is the new covet in my blood. Do this, as often asyou drink, in memory of me. 11.26. For as often as you eat this breadand drink this cup, you proclaim the Lord's death until he comes. 11.27. Therefore whoever eats this bread or drinks the Lord's cup i unworthy manner will be guilty of the body and the blood of theLord. 11.28. But let a man examine himself, and so let him eat of thebread, and drink of the cup. 11.29. For he who eats and drinks in anunworthy manner eats and drinks judgment to himself, if he doesn'tdiscern the Lord's body. 15.50. Now I say this, brothers, that flesh and blood can'tinherit the Kingdom of God; neither does corruption inheritincorruption. |
|
10. New Testament, Acts, 17.24-17.31 (1st cent. CE - 2nd cent. CE)
| 17.24. The God who made the world and all things in it, he, being Lord of heaven and earth, dwells not in temples made with hands 17.25. neither is he served by men's hands, as though he needed anything, seeing he himself gives to all life and breath, and all things. 17.26. He made from one blood every nation of men to dwell on all the surface of the earth, having determined appointed seasons, and the bounds of their habitation 17.27. that they should seek the Lord, if perhaps they might reach out for him and find him, though he is not far from each one of us. 17.28. 'For in him we live, and move, and have our being.' As some of your own poets have said, 'For we are also his offspring.' 17.29. Being then the offspring of God, we ought not to think that the Divine Nature is like gold, or silver, or stone, engraved by art and device of man. 17.30. The times of ignorance therefore God overlooked. But now he commands that all men everywhere should repent 17.31. because he has appointed a day in which he will judge the world in righteousness by the man whom he has ordained; whereof he has given assurance to all men, in that he has raised him from the dead. |
|
11. New Testament, Ephesians, 2.17 (1st cent. CE - 1st cent. CE)
| 2.17. He came and preached peace to you who were far off and to those who were near. |
|
12. New Testament, Romans, 5.12, 8.5 (1st cent. CE - 1st cent. CE)
| 5.12. Therefore, as sin entered into the world through one man, and death through sin; and so death passed to all men, because all sinned. 8.5. For those who live according to the flesh set their minds on the things of the flesh, but those who live according to the Spirit, the things of the Spirit. |
|
13. New Testament, John, 3.18-3.21 (1st cent. CE - 1st cent. CE)
| 3.18. He who believes in him is not judged. He who doesn't believe has been judged already, because he has not believed in the name of the only born Son of God. 3.19. This is the judgment, that the light has come into the world, and men loved the darkness rather than the light; for their works were evil. 3.20. For everyone who does evil hates the light, and doesn't come to the light, lest his works would be exposed. 3.21. But he who does the truth comes to the light, that his works may be revealed, that they have been done in God. |
|
14. New Testament, Mark, 14.25 (1st cent. CE - 1st cent. CE)
| 14.25. Most assuredly I tell you, I will no more drink of the fruit of the vine, until that day when I drink it anew in the Kingdom of God. |
|
15. New Testament, Matthew, 25.31-25.46 (1st cent. CE - 1st cent. CE)
| 25.31. But when the Son of Man comes in his glory, and all the holy angels with him, then he will sit on the throne of his glory. 25.32. Before him all the nations will be gathered, and he will separate them one from another, as a shepherd separates the sheep from the goats. 25.33. He will set the sheep on his right hand, but the goats on the left. 25.34. Then the King will tell those on his right hand, 'Come, blessed of my Father, inherit the kingdom prepared for you from the foundation of the world; 25.35. for I was hungry, and you gave me food to eat; I was thirsty, and you gave me drink; I was a stranger, and you took me in; 25.36. naked, and you clothed me; I was sick, and you visited me; I was in prison, and you came to me.' 25.37. Then the righteous will answer him, saying, 'Lord, when did we see you hungry, and feed you; or thirsty, and give you a drink? 25.38. When did we see you as a stranger, and take you in; or naked, and clothe you? 25.39. When did we see you sick, or in prison, and come to you?' 25.40. The King will answer them, 'Most assuredly I tell you, inasmuch as you did it to one of the least of these my brothers, you did it to me.' 25.41. Then he will say also to those on the left hand, 'Depart from me, you cursed, into the eternal fire which is prepared for the devil and his angels; 25.42. for I was hungry, and you didn't give me food to eat; I was thirsty, and you gave me no drink; 25.43. I was a stranger, and you didn't take me in; naked, and you didn't clothe me; sick, and in prison, and you didn't visit me.' 25.44. Then they will also answer, saying, 'Lord, when did we see you hungry, or thirsty, or a stranger, or naked, or sick, or in prison, and didn't help you?' 25.45. Then he will answer them, saying, 'Most assuredly I tell you, inasmuch as you didn't do it to one of the least of these, you didn't do it to me.' 25.46. These will go away into eternal punishment, but the righteous into eternal life. |
|
16. Athenagoras, Apology Or Embassy For The Christians, 4.2, 5.2, 6.2-6.3, 7.1, 8.1, 10.2, 10.4, 12.2, 18.2, 24.1-24.2 (2nd cent. CE - 2nd cent. CE)
|
17. Clement of Alexandria, Christ The Educator, 1.6.28.2 (2nd cent. CE - 3rd cent. CE)
|
18. Clement of Alexandria, Miscellanies, (2nd cent. CE - 3rd cent. CE)
|
19. Hippolytus, Refutation of All Heresies, 5.12-5.18, 7.34 (2nd cent. CE - 3rd cent. CE)
| 5.12. This is the diversified wisdom of the Peratic heresy, which it is difficult to declare in its entirety, so intricate is it on account of its seeming to consist of the astrological art.' As far forth, then, as this is possible, we shall briefly explain the whole force of this (heresy). In order, however, that we may by a compendious statement elucidate the entire doctrine of these persons, it appears expedient to subjoin the following observations. According to them, the universe is Father, Son, (and) Matter; (but) each of these three has endless capacities in itself. Intermediate, then, between the Matter and the Father sits the Son, the Word, the Serpent, always being in motion towards the unmoved Father, and (towards) Matter itself in motion. And at one time he is turned towards the Father, and receives the powers into his own person; but at another time takes up these powers, and is turned towards Matter. And Matter, (though) devoid of attribute, and being unfashioned, moulds (into itself) forms from the Son which the Son moulded from the Father. But the Son derives shape from the Father after a mode ineffable, and unspeakable, and unchangeable; (that is,) in such a manner as Moses says that tire colors of the conceived (cattle) flowed from the rods which were fixed in the drinking-troughs. And in like manner, again, that capacities flowed also from the Son into Matter, similarly to the power in reference to conception which came from the rods upon the conceived (cattle). And the difference of colors, and the dissimilarity which flowed from the rods through the waters upon the sheep, is, he says, the difference of corruptible and incorruptible generation. As, however, one who paints from nature, though he takes nothing away from animals, transfers by his pencil all forms to the canvas; so the Son, by a power which belongs to himself, transfers paternal marks from the Father into Matter. All the paternal marks are here, and there are not any more. For if any one, he says, of those (beings) which are here will have strength to perceive that he is a paternal mark transferred hither from above, (and that he is) incarnate - just as by the conception resulting from the rod a something white is produced - he is of the same substance altogether with the Father in heaven, and returns there. If, however, he may not happen upon this doctrine, neither will he understand the necessity of generation, just as an abortion born at night will perish at night. When, therefore, he says, the Saviour observes, your Father which is in heaven, he alludes to that one from whom the Son deriving his characteristics has transferred them hither. When, however, (Jesus) remarks, Your father is a murderer from the beginning, he alludes to the Ruler and Demiurge of matter, who, appropriating the marks delivered from the Son, generated him here who from the beginning was a murderer, for his work causes corruption and death. No one, then, he says, can be saved or return (into heaven) without the Son, and the Son is the Serpent. For as he brought down from above the paternal marks, so again he carries up from thence those marks roused from a dormant condition and rendered paternal characteristics, substantial ones from the unsubstantial Being, transferring them hither from thence. This, he says, is what is spoken: I am the door. And he transfers (those marks), he says, to those who close the eyelid, as the naphtha drawing the fire in every direction towards itself; nay rather, as the magnet (attracting) the iron and not anything else, or just as the backbone of the sea falcon, the gold and nothing else, or as the chaff is led by the amber. In this manner, he says, is the portrayed, perfect, and con-substantial genus drawn again from the world by the Serpent; nor does he (attract) anything else, as it has been sent down by him. For a proof of this, they adduce the anatomy of the brain, assimilating, from the fact of its immobility, the brain itself to the Father, and the cerebellum to the Son, because of its being moved and being of the form of (the head of) a serpent. And they allege that this (cerebellum), by an ineffable and inscrutable process, attracts through the pineal gland the spiritual and life-giving substance emanating from the vaulted chamber (in which the brain is embedded). And on receiving this, the cerebellum in an ineffable manner imparts the ideas, just as the Son does, to matter; or, in other words, the seeds and the genera of the things produced according to the flesh flow along into the spinal marrow. Employing this exemplar, (the heretics) seem to adroitly introduce their secret mysteries, which are delivered in silence. Now it would be impious for us to declare these; yet it is easy to form an idea of them, by reason of the many statements that have been made. 5.13. But since I consider that I have plainly explained the Peratic heresy, and by many (arguments) have rendered evident (a system that hitherto) has always escaped notice, and is altogether a tissue of fable, and one that disguises its own peculiar venom, it seems expedient to advance no further statement beyond those already put forward; for the opinions propounded by (the heretics) themselves are sufficient for their own condemnation. 5.14. Let us then see what the Sithians affirm. To these it appears that there are three definite principles of the universe, and that each of these principles possesses infinite powers. And when they speak of powers let him that hears take into account that they make this statement. Everything whatsoever you discern by an act of intelligence, or also omit (to discern) as not being understood, this by nature is fitted to become each of the principles, as in the human soul every art whatsoever which is made the subject of instruction. Just for instance, he says, this child will be a musician, having waited the requisite time for (acquiring a knowledge of) the harp; or a geometrician, (having previously undergone the necessary study for acquiring a knowledge) of geometry; (or) a grammarian, (after having sufficiently studied) grammar; (or) a workman, (having acquired a practical acquaintance) with a handicraftsman's business; and to one brought into contact with the rest of the arts a similar occurrence will take place. Now of principles, he says, the substances are light and darkness; and of these, spirit is intermediate without admixture. The spirit, however, is that which has its appointed place in the midst of darkness which is below, and light which is above. It is not spirit as a current of wind, or some gentle breeze that can be felt; but, as it were, some odour of ointment or of incense formed out of a compound. (It is) a subtle power, that insinuates itself by means of some impulsive quality in a fragrance, which is inconceivable and better than could be expressed by words. Since, however, light is above and darkness below, and spirit is intermediate in such a way as stated between these; and since light is so constituted, that, like a ray of the sun, it shines from above upon the underlying darkness; and again, since the fragrance of the spirit, holding an intermediate place, is extended and carried in every direction, as in the case of incense-offerings placed upon fire, we detect the fragrance that is being wafted in every direction: when, I say, there is a power of this description belonging unto the principles which are classified under three divisions, the power of spirit and light simultaneously exists in the darkness that is situated underneath them. But the darkness is a terrible water, into which light is absorbed and translated into a nature of the same description with spirit. The darkness, however, is not devoid of intelligence, but altogether reflective, and is conscious that, where the light has been abstracted from the darkness, the darkness remains isolated, invisible, obscure, impotent, inoperative, (and) feeble. Wherefore it is constrained, by all its reflection and understanding, to collect into itself the lustre and scintillation of light with the fragrance of the spirit. And it is possible to behold an image of the nature of these in the human countece; for instance, the pupil of the eye, dark from the subjacent humours, (but) illuminated with spirit. As, then, the darkness seeks after the splendour, that it may keep in bondage the spark, and may have perceptive power, so the light and spirit seek after the power that belongs to themselves, and strive to uprear, and towards each other to carry up their intermingled powers into the dark and formidable water lying underneath. But all the powers of the three originating principles, which are as regards number indefinitely infinite, are each according to its own substance reflective and intelligent, unnumbered in multitude. And since what are reflective and intelligent are numberless in multitude, while they continue by themselves, they are all at rest. If, however, power approaches power, the dissimilarity of (what is set in) juxtaposition produces a certain motion and energy, which are formed from the motion resulting from the concourse effected by the juxtaposition of the coalescing powers. For the concourse of the powers ensues, just like any mark of a seal that is impressed by means of the concourse correspondingly with (the seal) which prints the figure on the substances that are brought up (into contact with it). Since, therefore, the powers of the three principles are infinite in number, and from infinite powers (arise) infinite concourses, images of infinite seals are necessarily produced. These images, therefore, are the forms of the different sorts of animals. From the first great concourse, then, of the three principles, ensues a certain great form, a seal of heaven and earth. The heaven and the earth have a figure similar to the womb, having a navel in the midst; and if, he says, any one is desirous of bringing this figure under the organ of vision, let him artfully scrutinize the pregt womb of whatsoever animal he wishes, and he will discover an image of the heaven and the earth, and of the things which in the midst of all are unalterably situated underneath. (And so it is, that the first great concourse of the three principles) has produced such a figure of heaven and earth as is similar to a womb after the first coition. But, again, in the midst of the heaven and the earth have been generated infinite concourses of powers. And each concourse did not effect and fashion anything else than a seal of heaven and earth similar to a womb. But, again, in the earth, from the infinite seals are produced infinite crowds of various animals. But into all this infinity of the different animals under heaven is diffused and distributed, along with the light, the fragrance of the Spirit from above. From the water, therefore, has been produced a first-begotten originating principle, viz., wind, (which is) violent and boisterous, and a cause of all generation. For producing a sort of ferment in the waters, (the wind) uplifts waves out of the waters; and the motion of the waves, just as when some impulsive power of pregcy is the origin of the production of a man or mind, is caused when (the ocean), excited by the impulsive power of spirit, is propelled forward. When, however, this wave that has been raised out of the water by the wind, and rendered pregt in its nature, has within itself obtained the power, possessed by the female, of generation, it holds together the light scattered from above along with the fragrance of the spirit - that is, mind moulded in the different species. And this (light) is a perfect God, who from the unbegotten radiance above, and from the spirit, is borne down into human nature as into a temple, by the impulsive power of Nature, and by the motion of wind. And it is produced from water being commingled and blended with bodies as if it were a salt of existent things, and a light of darkness. And it struggles to be released from bodies, and is not able to find liberation and an egress for itself For a very diminutive spark, a severed splinter from above like the ray of a star, has been mingled in the much compounded waters of many (existences), as, says he, (David) remarks in a psalm. Every thought, then, and solicitude actuating the supernal light is as to how and in what manner mind may be liberated, by the death of the depraved and dark body, from the Father that is below, which is the wind that with noise and tumult uplifted the waves, and who generated a perfect mind his own Son; not, however, being his peculiar (offspring) substantially. For he was a ray (sent down) from above, from that perfect light, (and) was overpowered in the dark, and formidable, and bitter, and defiled water; and he is a luminous spirit borne down over the water. When, therefore, the waves that have been upreared from the waters have received within themselves the power of generation possessed by females, they contain, as a certain womb, in different species, the infused radiance, so as that it is visible in the case of all animals. But the wind, at the same time fierce and formidable, whirling along, is, in respect of its hissing sound, like a serpent. First, then, from the wind - that is, from the serpent - has resulted the originating principle of generation in the manner declared, all things having simultaneously received the principle of generation. After, then, the light and the spirit had been received, he says, into the polluted and baneful (and) disordered womb, the serpent - the wind of the darkness, the first-begotten of the waters - enters within and produces man, and the impure womb neither loves nor recognises any other form. The perfect Word of supernal light being therefore assimilated (in form) to the beast, (that is,) the serpent, entered into the defiled womb, having deceived (the womb) through the similitude of the beast itself, in order that (the Word) may loose the chains that encircle the perfect mind which has been begotten amidst impurity of womb by the primal offspring of water, (namely,) serpent, wind, (and) beast. This, he says, is the form of the servant, and this the necessity of the Word of God coming down into the womb of a virgin. But he says it is not sufficient that the Perfect Man, the Word, has entered into the womb of a virgin, and loosed the pangs which were in that darkness. Nay, more than this was requisite; for after his entrance into the foul mysteries of the womb, he was washed, and drank of the cup of life-giving bubbling water. And it was altogether needful that he should drink who was about to strip off the servile form, and assume celestial raiment. 5.15. These are the statements which the patrons of the Sethian doctrines make, as far as it is possible to declare in a few words. Their system, however, is made up (of tenets) from natural (philosophers), and of expressions uttered in reference to different other subjects; and transferring (the sense of) these to the Eternal Logos, they explain them as we have declared. But they assert likewise that Moses confirms their doctrine when he says, Darkness, and mist, and tempest. These, (the Sethian) says, are the three principles (of our system); or when he states that three were born in paradise - Adam, Eve, the serpent; or when he speaks of three (persons, namely) Cain, Abel, Seth; and again of three (others)- Shem, Ham, Japheth; or when he mentions three patriarchs - Abraham, Isaac, Jacob; or when he speaks of the existence of three days before sun and moon; or when he mentions three laws- prohibitory, permissive, and adjudicatory of punishment. Now, a prohibitory law is as follows: of every tree that is in paradise you may freely eat; but of the tree of the knowledge of good and evil you may not eat. But in the passage, Come forth from your land and from your kindred, and hither into a land which I shall show you, this law, he says, is permissive; for one who is so disposed may depart, and one who is not so disposed may remain. But a law adjudicatory of punishment is that which makes the following declaration: You shall not commit adultery, you shall not kill, you shall not steal; for a penalty is awarded to each of these acts of wickedness. The entire system of their doctrine, however, is (derived) from the ancient theologians Musaeus, and Linus, and Orpheus, who elucidates especially the ceremonies of initiation, as well as the mysteries themselves. For their doctrine concerning the womb is also the tenet of Orpheus; and the (idea of the) navel, which is harmony, is (to be found) with the same symbolism attached to it in the Bacchanalian orgies of Orpheus. But prior to the observance of the mystic rite of Celeus, and Triptolemus, and Ceres, and Proserpine, and Bacchus in Eleusis, these orgies have been celebrated and handed down to men in Phlium of Attica. For antecedent to the Eleusinian mysteries, there are (enacted) in Phlium the orgies of her denominated the Great (Mother). There is, however, a portico in this (city), and on the portico is inscribed a representation, (visible) up to the present day, of all the words which are spoken (on such occasions). Many, then, of the words inscribed upon that portico are those respecting which Plutarch institutes discussions in his ten books against Empedocles. And in the greater number of these books is also drawn the representation of a certain aged man, grey-haired, winged, having his pudendum erectum, pursuing a retreating woman of azure color. And over the aged man is the inscription phaos ruentes, and over the woman pereeµphicola . But phaos ruentes appears to be the light (which exists), according to the doctrine of the Sethians, and phicola the darkish water; while the space in the midst of these seems to be a harmony constituted from the spirit that is placed between. The name, however, of phaos ruentes manifests, as they allege, the flow from above of the light downwards. Wherefore one may reasonably assert that the Sethians celebrate rites among themselves, very closely bordering upon those orgies of the Great (Mother which are observed among) the Phliasians. And the poet likewise seems to bear his testimony to this triple division, when he remarks, And all things have been triply divided, and everything obtains its (proper) distinction; that is, each member of the threefold division has obtained (a particular) capacity. But now, as regards the tenet that the subjacent water below, which is dark, ought, because the light has set (over it), to convey upwards and receive the spark borne clown from (the light) itself; in the assertion of this tenet. I say, the all-wise Sethians appear to derive (their opinion) from Homer: - By earth I swore, and yon broad Heaven above, And Stygian stream beneath, the weightiest oath of solemn power, to bind the blessed gods. That is, according to Homer, the gods suppose water to be loathsome and horrible. Now, similar to this is the doctrine of the Sethians, which affirms (water) to be formidable to the mind. 5.16. These, and other assertions similar to these, are made (by the Sethians) in their interminable commentaries. They, however, persuade their disciples to become conversant with the theory respecting composition and mixture. But this theory has formed a subject of meditation to many, but (among others) also to Andronicus the Peripatetic. The Sethians, then, affirm that the theory concerning composition and mixture is constituted according to the following method: The luminous ray from above is intermingled, and the very diminutive spark is delicately blended in the dark waters beneath; and (both of these) become united, and are formed into one compound mass, just as a single savour (results) from the mixture of many incense-offerings in the fire, and (just as) an adept, by having a test in an acute sense of smell, ought to be able from the single odour of the incense to distinguish accurately each (ingredient) of the incense-offerings that have been mingled in the fire - whether, for example, storax, and myrrh, and frankincense, or whatever other (ingredient) may be mixed (in the incense). They, however, employ also other examples, saying both that brass is mixed with gold, and that some art has been discovered which separates the brass from the gold. And, in like manner, if tin or brass, or any substance homogeneous with it, be discovered mixed with silver, these likewise, by some art superior to that of mixing, are distinguished. But already some one also distinguishes water mingled with wine. So, say they, though all things are commingled, they are capable of being separated. Nay, but, he says, derive the same lesson from the case of animals. For when the animal is dead, each of its parts is separated; and when dissolution takes place, the animal in this way vanishes. This is, he says, what has been spoken: I came not to send peace on the earth, but a sword, - that is, the division and separation of the things that have been commingled. For each of the things that have been commingled is separated and divided when it reaches its proper place. For as there is one place of mixture for all animals, so also has there been established one (locality) of separation. And, he says, no one is aware of this (place), save we alone that have been born again, spiritual, not carnal, whose citizenship is in heaven above. In this manner insinuating themselves, they corrupt their pupils, partly by misusing the words spoken (by themselves), while they wickedly pervert, to serve any purpose they wish, what has been admirably said (in Scripture); and partly by concealing their nefarious conduct, by means of whatever comparisons they please. All these things, then, he says, that have been com-mingled, possess, as has been declared, their own particular place, and hurry towards their own peculiar (substances), as iron towards the magnet, and the chaff to the vicinity of amber, and the gold to the spur of the sea falcon. In like manner, the ray of light which has been com-mingled with the water, having obtained from discipline and instruction its own proper locality, hastens towards the Logos that comes from above in servile form; and along with the Logos exists as a logos in that place where the Logos is still: (the light, I say, hastens to the Logos with greater speed) than the iron towards the magnet. And that these things, he says, are so, and that all things that have been commingled are separated in their proper places, learn. There is among the Persians in a city Ampa, near the river Tills, a well; and near the well, at the top, has been constructed a certain reservoir, supplied with three outlets; and when one pumps from this well, and draws off some of its contents in a vessel, what is thus pumped out of the well, whatever it is at all, he pours into the reservoir hard by. And when what is thus infused reaches the outlets, and when what is taken up (out of each outlet) in a single vessel is examined, a separation is observed to have taken place. And in the first of the outlets is exhibited a concretion of salt, and in the second of asphalt, and in the third of oil; and the oil is black, just as, he says, Herodotus also narrates, and it yields a heavy smell, and the Persians call this rhadinace. The similitude of the well is, say the Sethians, more sufficient for the demonstration of their proposition than all the statements that have been previously made. 5.17. The opinion of the Sethians appears to us to have been sufficiently elucidated. If, however, any one is desirous of learning the entire doctrine according to them, let him read a book inscribed Paraphrase of Seth; for all their secret tenets he will find deposited there. But since we have explained the opinions entertained by the Sethians, let us see also what are the doctrines advanced by Justinus. 5.18. Justinus was entirely opposed to the teaching of the holy Scriptures, and moreover to the written or oral teaching of the blessed evangelists, according as the Logos was accustomed to instruct His disciples, saying, Go not into the way of the Gentiles; and this signifies that they should not attend to the futile doctrine of the Gentiles. This (heretic) endeavours to lead on his hearers into an acknowledgment of prodigies detailed by the Gentiles, and of doctrines inculcated by them. And he narrates, word for word, legendary accounts prevalent among the Greeks, and does not previously teach or deliver his perfect mystery, unless he has bound his dupe by an oath. Then he brings forward (these) fables for the purpose of persuasion, in order that they who are conversant with the incalculable trifling of these books may have some consolation in the details of these legends. Thus it happens as when in like manner one making a long journey deems it expedient, on having fallen in with an inn, to take repose. And so it is that, when once more they are induced to turn towards studying the diffuse doctrine of these lectures, they may not abhor them while they, undergoing instruction unnecessarily prolix, rush stupified into the transgression devised by (Justinus); and previously he binds his followers with horrible oaths, neither to publish nor abjure these doctrines, and forces upon them an acknowledgment (of their truth). And in this manner he delivers the mysteries impiously discovered by himself, partly, according to the statements previously made, availing himself of the Hellenic legends, and partly of those pretended books which, to some extent, bear a resemblance to the foresaid heresies. For all, forced together by one spirit, are drawn into one profound abyss of pollution, inculcating the same tenets, and detailing the same legends, each after a different method. All those, however, style themselves Gnostics in this peculiar sense, that they alone themselves have imbibed the marvellous knowledge of the Perfect and Good (Being). |
|
20. Hippolytus, Apostolic Tradition, 21 (2nd cent. CE - 3rd cent. CE)
|
21. Irenaeus, Refutation of All Heresies, None (2nd cent. CE - 3rd cent. CE)
|
22. Irenaeus, Demonstration of The Apostolic Teaching, 14, 16-19, 25, 27, 30-31, 34, 43-46, 5-8, 11 (2nd cent. CE - 2nd cent. CE)
|
23. Justin, First Apology, 67.5 (2nd cent. CE - 2nd cent. CE)
|
24. Justin, Dialogue With Trypho, 5.6 (2nd cent. CE - 2nd cent. CE)
| 18. Justin: For since you have read, O Trypho, as you yourself admitted, the doctrines taught by our Saviour, I do not think that I have done foolishly in adding some short utterances of His to the prophetic statements. Wash therefore, and be now clean, and put away iniquity from your souls, as God bids you be washed in this laver, and be circumcised with the true circumcision. For we too would observe the fleshly circumcision, and the Sabbaths, and in short all the feasts, if we did not know for what reason they were enjoined you - namely, on account of your transgressions and the hardness of your hearts. For if we patiently endure all things contrived against us by wicked men and demons, so that even amid cruelties unutterable, death and torments, we pray for mercy to those who inflict such things upon us, and do not wish to give the least retort to any one, even as the new Lawgiver commanded us: how is it, Trypho, that we would not observe those rites which do not harm us- I speak of fleshly circumcision, and Sabbaths, and feasts? |
|
25. Tatian, Oration To The Greeks, 5.1, 14.1 (2nd cent. CE - 2nd cent. CE)
|
26. Tertullian, Apology, 39.17-39.18 (2nd cent. CE - 3rd cent. CE)
|
27. Tertullian, On The Flesh of Christ, 14 (2nd cent. CE - 3rd cent. CE)
| 14. But Christ, they say, bare (the nature of) an angel. For what reason? The same which induced Him to become man? Christ, then, was actuated by the motive which led Him to take human nature. Man's salvation was the motive, the restoration of that which had perished. Man had perished; his recovery had become necessary. No such cause, however, existed for Christ's taking on Him the nature of angels. For although there is assigned to angels also perdition in the fire prepared for the devil and his angels, Matthew 25:41 yet a restoration is never promised to them. No charge about the salvation of angels did Christ ever receive from the Father; and that which the Father neither promised nor commanded, Christ could not have undertaken. For what object, therefore, did He bear the angelic nature, if it were not (that He might have it) as a powerful helper wherewithal to execute the salvation of man? The Son of God, in truth, was not competent alone to deliver man, whom a solitary and single serpent had overthrown! There is, then, no longer but one God, but one Saviour, if there be two to contrive salvation, and one of them in need of the other. But was it His object indeed to deliver man by an angel? Why, then, come down to do that which He was about to expedite with an angel's help? If by an angel's aid, why come Himself also? If He meant to do all by Himself, why have an angel too? He has been, it is true, called the Angel of great counsel, that is, a messenger, by a term expressive of official function, not of nature. For He had to announce to the world the mighty purpose of the Father, even that which ordained the restoration of man. But He is not on this account to be regarded as an angel, as a Gabriel or a Michael. For the Lord of the Vineyard sends even His Son to the labourers to require fruit, as well as His servants. Yet the Son will not therefore be counted as one of the servants because He undertook the office of a servant. I may, then, more easily say, if such an expression is to be hazarded, that the Son is actually an angel, that is, a messenger, from the Father, than that there is an angel in the Son. Forasmuch, however, as it has been declared concerning the Son Himself, You have made Him a little lower than the angels how will it appear that He put on the nature of angels if He was made lower than the angels, having become man, with flesh and soul as the Son of man? As the Spirit of God, however, and the Power of the Highest, Luke 1:35 can He be regarded as lower than the angels - He who is verily God, and the Son of God? Well, but as bearing human nature, He is so far made inferior to the angels; but as bearing angelic nature, He to the same degree loses that inferiority. This opinion will be very suitable for Ebion, who holds Jesus to be a mere man, and nothing more than a descendant of David, and not also the Son of God; although He is, to be sure, in one respect more glorious than the prophets, inasmuch as he declares that there was an angel in Him, just as there was in Zechariah. Only it was never said by Christ, And the angel, which spoke within me, said to me. Zechariah 1:14 Neither, indeed, was ever used by Christ that familiar phrase of all the prophets, Thus says the Lord. For He was Himself the Lord, who openly spoke by His own authority, prefacing His words with the formula, Verily, verily, I say unto you. What need is there of further argument? Hear what Isaiah says in emphatic words, It was no angel, nor deputy, but the Lord Himself who saved them. Isaiah 63:9 |
|
28. Tertullian, Prescription Against Heretics, 33 (2nd cent. CE - 3rd cent. CE)
|
29. Babylonian Talmud, Sanhedrin, None (3rd cent. CE - 6th cent. CE)
| 67a. סימנא בעלמא:, big strongמתני׳ /strong /big המסית זה הדיוט והמסית את ההדיוט אמר יש יראה במקום פלוני כך אוכלת כך שותה כך מטיבה כך מריעה,כל חייבי מיתות שבתורה אין מכמינין עליהם חוץ מזו,אמר לשנים הן עדיו ומביאין אותו לב"ד וסוקלין אותו אמר לאחד הוא אומר יש לי חבירים רוצים בכך,אם היה ערום ואינו יכול לדבר בפניהם מכמינין לו עדים אחורי הגדר והוא אומר לו אמור מה שאמרת ביחוד והלה אומר לו והוא אומר לו היאך נניח את אלהינו שבשמים ונלך ונעבוד עצים ואבנים אם חוזר בו הרי זה מוטב ואם אמר כך היא חובתנו כך יפה לנו העומדין מאחורי הגדר מביאין אותו לבית דין וסוקלין אותו,האומר אעבוד אלך ואעבוד נלך ונעבוד אזבח אלך ואזבח נלך ונזבח אקטיר אלך ואקטיר נלך ונקטיר אנסך אלך ואנסך נלך וננסך אשתחוה אלך ואשתחוה נלך ונשתחוה:, big strongגמ׳ /strong /big המסית זה הדיוט טעמא דהדיוט הא נביא בחנק והמסית את ההדיוט טעמא דיחיד הא רבים בחנק,מתני׳ מני ר"ש היא דתניא נביא שהדיח בסקילה ר' שמעון אומר בחנק מדיחי עיר הנדחת בסקילה ר"ש אומר בחנק,אימא סיפא המדיח זה האומר נלך ונעבוד עבודת כוכבים ואמר רב יהודה אמר רב מדיחי עיר הנדחת שנו אתאן לרבנן רישא ר"ש וסיפא רבנן,רבינא אמר כולה רבנן היא ולא זו אף זו קתני,רב פפא אמר כי קתני מסית זה הדיוט להכמנה,דתניא ושאר כל חייבי מיתות שבתורה אין מכמינין עליהן חוץ מזו,כיצד עושין לו מדליקין לו את הנר בבית הפנימי ומושיבין לו עדים בבית החיצון כדי שיהו הן רואין אותו ושומעין את קולו והוא אינו רואה אותן והלה אומר לו אמור מה שאמרת לי ביחוד והוא אומר לו והלה אומר לו היאך נניח את אלהינו שבשמים ונעבוד עבודת כוכבים אם חוזר בו מוטב ואם אמר כך היא חובתנו וכך יפה לנו העדים ששומעין מבחוץ מביאין אותו לבית דין וסוקלין אותו:,[הוספה מחסרונות הש"ס: וכן עשו לבן סטדא בלוד ותלאוהו בערב הפסח,בן סטדא בן פנדירא הוא אמר רב חסדא בעל — סטדא בועל — פנדירא בעל פפוס בן יהודה הוא אלא אֵימא אמו סטדא אמו מרים מגדלא נשיא הואי כדאמרי בפומדיתא סטת דא מבעלה:], big strongמתני׳ /strong /big המדיח זה האומר נלך ונעבוד עבודת כוכבים,המכשף העושה מעשה חייב ולא האוחז את העינים ר"ע אומר משום ר' יהושע שנים לוקטין קשואין אחד לוקט פטור ואחד לוקט חייב העושה מעשה חייב האוחז את העינים פטור:, big strongגמ׳ /strong /big אמר רב יהודה אמר רב מדיחי עיר הנדחת שנו כאן:,המכשף זה העושה מעשה וכו': תנו רבנן מכשפה אחד האיש ואחד האשה א"כ מה ת"ל מכשפה מפני שרוב נשים מצויות בכשפים,מיתתן במה רבי יוסי הגלילי אומר נאמר כאן (שמות כב, יז) מכשפה לא תחיה ונאמר להלן (דברים כ, טז) לא תחיה כל נשמה מה להלן בסייף אף כאן בסייף,ר' עקיבא אומר נאמר כאן מכשפה לא תחיה ונאמר להלן (שמות יט, יג) אם בהמה אם איש לא יחיה מה להלן בסקילה אף כאן בסקילה,אמר לו ר' יוסי אני דנתי לא תחיה מלא תחיה ואתה דנת לא תחיה מלא יחיה,אמר לו רבי עקיבא אני דנתי ישראל מישראל שריבה בהן הכתוב מיתות הרבה ואתה דנת ישראל מעובדי כוכבים שלא ריבה בהן הכתוב אלא | 67a. It is bmerely a mnemonic.The verse is not relevant to this ihalakha /i, and it is cited merely as a sign indicating that just as the ihalakhaof a betrothed young woman pertains to her first act of sexual intercourse, so too, the ihalakhaof the daughter of a priest who committed adultery pertains to a case where it is her first disqualification from the priesthood., strongMISHNA: /strong With regard to the case of ban inciter,listed among those liable to be executed by stoning, bthis is an ordinary person,not a prophet. bAndit is referring to bone who incites an ordinary personand not a multitude of people. What does the inciter do? bHe says: There is an idol in such and such a place,which beats like this, drinks like this, does goodfor its worshippers blike this,and bharmsthose who do not worship it blike this. /b,The mishna states a principle with regard to the ihalakhaof an inciter: With regard to ball of thosementioned bin the Torahwho bare liable toreceive bthe deathpenalty, if there are no witnesses to their transgressions, the court bdoes not hidewitnesses in order btoensnare and punish bthem, except for thiscase of an inciter.,The mishna elaborates: If the inciter bsaidhis words of incitement bto twomen, bthey are his witnesses, andhe does not need to be warned before the transgression; bthey bring him to court and stone him.If bhe saidhis words of incitement bto oneman alone, that man’s testimony would not be sufficient to have the inciter executed. Therefore bhe saysto the inciter: bI have friends who are interested in this;tell them too. This way there will be more witnesses.,The mishna continues: bIfthe inciter bis cunning, andhe knows that bhe cannot speak in front oftwo men, the court bhides witnesses for him behind the fenceso that he will not see them, bandthe man whom the inciter had previously tried to incite bsays to him: Say what you saidto me when we were bin seclusion. And the otherperson, the inciter, bsays to himagain that he should worship the idol. bAnd he says tothe inciter: bHow can we forsake our God in Heaven and go and worship wood and stones? Ifthe inciter bretractshis suggestion, bthat is good. But if he says: Thisidol worship bis our duty; thisis what bsuits us,then bthose standing behind the fence bring him to court and have him stoned. /b,The ihalakhaof an inciter includes bone who says: I shall worshipidols, or one of the following statements: bI shall go and worshipidols, or: blet us go and worshipidols, or: bI shall sacrificean idolatrous offering, or: bI shall go and sacrificean idolatrous offering, or: bLet us go and sacrificean idolatrous offering, or: bI shall burnincense as an idolatrous offering, or: bI shall go and burnincense, or: bLet us go and burnincense, or: bI shall pouran idolatrous libation, or: bI shall go and poura libation, or: bLet us go and poura libation, or: bI shall bowto an idol, or: bI shall go and bow,or: bLet us go and bow. /b, strongGEMARA: /strong The mishna teaches: With regard to the case of ban inciter, this is an ordinary person.The Gemara infers: bThe reasonhe is executed by stoning is bthat he is an ordinary person, butif he is ba prophethe is executed bby strangulation,not by stoning. The mishna states further: bAndit is referring to bone who incites an ordinary person.The Gemara infers: bThe reasonhe is executed by stoning is bthathe incited ban individual, butif he subverted ba multitudeof people, he is executed bby strangulation. /b,Consequently, bwhoseopinion is expressed in bthe mishna? It isthe opinion of bRabbi Shimon, as it is taughtin a ibaraita /i: bA prophet who subvertedothers to participate in idol worship is executed bby stoning. Rabbi Shimon says:He is executed bby strangulation.Likewise, bthe subverters of an idolatrous cityare executed bby stoning. Rabbi Shimon says: By strangulation. /b,The Gemara challenges: bSay the last clauseof the mishna, i.e., say the following mishna: With regard to the case of bthe subverterlisted among those liable to be executed by stoning, bthis is one who says: Let us go and worship idols. And Rav Yehuda saysthat bRav says:In this mishna the Sages btaughtthe case of bthe subverters of an idolatrous city.Here bwe arrive atthe opinion of bthe Rabbis,who hold that those who incite a multitude of people are also executed by stoning. Is it possible that bthe first clauseof the mishna expresses the opinion of bRabbi Shimon, and the last clauseexpresses that of bthe Rabbis? /b, bRavina says: The entiremishna bisin accordance with the opinion of bthe Rabbis, andthe itanna bteachesthe mishna employing the style of: bNotonly bthisbut balso that.In other words, the mishna should be explained as follows: Not only is one who incites an individual executed by stoning, but even one who subverts an entire city is executed by stoning., bRav Pappa says: Whenthe mishna bteacheswith regard to one who bincitesthat bthis isreferring to ban ordinary person,it is not indicating that a prophet is not included in this ihalakha /i. Rather, it is referring btothe bhidingof witnesses behind a fence in order to ensnare the inciter, as his life is treated with contempt and derision, as though he were an ordinary person, i.e., a simpleton., bAs it is taughtin a ibaraita /i: bAndwith regard to ball the rest of those liable toreceive the bdeathpenalty bby Torahlaw, the court bdoes not hidewitnesses in order btoensnare bthemand punish them bexcept for thiscase of an inciter., bHowdoes the court bdothis bto him?The agents of the court blight a candle for him in an inner room, andthey bplace witnesses for him in an outer roomin the dark, bso that they can see him and hear his voice but he cannot see them. And the otherperson, whom the inciter had previously tried to incite, bsays to him: Say what you said to mewhen we were bin seclusion. And he says to himagain that he should worship the idol. bAnd the otherperson bsays to him: How can we forsake our God in Heaven and worship idols? Ifthe inciter bretractshis suggestion, bthat is good. But if he says: Thisidol worship bis our duty, and thisis what bsuits us, the witnesses, who are listening from outside, bring him to court, andthey bhave him stoned. /b, bAndthe court bdid the same toan inciter named bben Setada, fromthe city of bLod, and they hanged him on Passover eve. /b,The Gemara asks: Why did they call him bben Setada,when bhe was the son of Pandeira? Rav Ḥisda says:Perhaps his mother’s bhusband,who acted as his father, was named bSetada,but his mother’s bparamour,who fathered this imamzer /i, was named bPandeira.The Gemara challenges: But his mother’s bhusband was Pappos ben Yehuda,not Setada. bRather,perhaps bhis motherwas named bSetada,and he was named ben Setada after her. The Gemara challenges: But bhis mother was Miriam, who braided women’s hair.The Gemara explains: That is not a contradiction; Setada was merely a nickname, bas they say in Pumbedita: This one strayed [ isetat da /i] from her husband. /b, strongMISHNA: /strong With regard to the case of bthe subverterlisted among those liable to be executed by stoning, bthis is one who saysto a multitude of people: bLet us go and worship idols. /b, bThe warlockis also liable to be executed by stoning. bOne who performsa real bactof sorcery bis liable, but not one who deceives the eyes,making it appear as though he is performing sorcery, as that is not considered sorcery. bRabbi Akiva says in the name of Rabbi Yehoshua:For example, btwopeople can each bgather cucumbersby sorcery. bOneof them bgatherscucumbers and he is bexempt, andthe other bone gatherscucumbers and he is bliable.How so? bThe one who performsa real bactof sorcery is bliable,and bthe one who deceives the eyes is exempt. /b, strongGEMARA: /strong With regard to the case of subverters mentioned in the mishna, bRav Yehuda saysthat bRav says:The Sages btaught herethe case of bthe subverters of an idolatrous city.Accordingly, there is no halakhic difference between one who incites individuals to idolatry and one who subverts an entire city; both are liable to be executed by stoning.,The mishna teaches that the case of bthe warlock isreferring to bone who performsa real bactof sorcery. bThe Sages taughtin a ibaraita /i: The verse: b“You shall not allow a witch to live”(Exodus 22:17), does not refer only to a female who practices sorcery; bboth a man and a womanare included. bIf so, whydoes bverse state “a witch”?This is bbecause most women are familiar with witchcraft. /b, bIn whatmanner is btheir deathsentence administered? bRabbi Yosei HaGelili says: It is stated here: “You shall not allow a witch to live,” and it is stated there,with regard to the conquest of the Canaanites: b“You shall allow nothing that breathes to live”(Deuteronomy 20:16). bJust as there,the Canaanites were to be killed bbythe bsword(see Numbers 21:24), bso too here,the execution of a witch is administered bbythe bsword. /b, bRabbi Akiva says: It is stated here: “You shall not allow a witch to live,” and it is stated there,with regard to Mount Sinai: “No hand shall touch it, for he shall be stoned, or thrown down; bwhether it be animal or man, it shall not live”(Exodus 19:13). bJust as there,the verse speaks bof stoning, so too here,a witch is executed bby stoning. /b, bRabbi YoseiHaGelili bsaid to him: I derivedthe meaning of the verse b“You shall not allowa witch bto live” fromthe verse b“You shall allow nothingthat breathes bto live”via a verbal analogy between two similar phrases, bbut you derivedthe meaning of the verse b“You shall not allowa witch bto live” fromthe verse b“It shall not live,”which is a less similar phrase., bRabbi Akiva said to him: I deriveda ihalakhaconcerning bJews froma ihalakhaconcerning bJews, with regard to whom the verse included manytypes of bdeathpenalties. Therefore, the fact that the expression “It shall not live” refers to stoning when stated with regard to Jews is especially significant. bBut you deriveda ihalakhaconcerning bJews froma ihalakhaconcerning bgentiles, with regard to whom the verse included only /b |
|
30. Cyprian, Letters, 63.1, 63.16 (3rd cent. CE - 3rd cent. CE)
|
31. Cyprian, Letters, 63.1, 63.16 (3rd cent. CE - 3rd cent. CE)
|
32. Cyprian, Letters, 63.1, 63.16 (3rd cent. CE - 3rd cent. CE)
|
33. Cyprian, Letters, 63.1, 63.16 (3rd cent. CE - 3rd cent. CE)
|
34. Eusebius of Caesarea, Ecclesiastical History, 4.22.7, 6.12.6 (3rd cent. CE - 4th cent. CE)
| 4.22.7. And he wrote of many other matters, which we have in part already mentioned, introducing the accounts in their appropriate places. And from the Syriac Gospel according to the Hebrews he quotes some passages in the Hebrew tongue, showing that he was a convert from the Hebrews, and he mentions other matters as taken from the unwritten tradition of the Jews. 6.12.6. For having obtained this Gospel from others who had studied it diligently, namely, from the successors of those who first used it, whom we call Docetae; (for most of their opinions are connected with the teaching of that school ) we have been able to read it through, and we find many things in accordance with the true doctrine of the Saviour, but some things added to that doctrine, which we have pointed out for you farther on. So much in regard to Serapion. |
|
35. Origen, Commentary On John, 2.12 (3rd cent. CE - 3rd cent. CE)
| 2.12. We have thus enquired as to the life of God, and the life which is Christ, and the living who are in a place by themselves, and have seen how the living are not justified before God, and we have noticed the cognate statement, Who alone has immortality. We may now take up the assumption which may appear to be involved in this, namely, that whatever being is gifted with reason does not possess blessedness as a part of its essence, or as an inseparable part of its nature. For if blessedness and the highest life were an inseparable characteristic of reasonable being, how could it be truly said of God that He only has immortality? We should therefore remark, that the Saviour is some things, not to Himself but to others, and some things both to Himself and others, and we must enquire if there are some things which He is to Himself and to no other. Clearly it is to others that He is a Shepherd, not a shepherd like those among men who make gain out of their occupation; unless the benefit conferred on the sheep might be regarded, on account of His love to men, as a benefit to Himself also. Similarly it is to others that He is the Way and the Door, and, as all will admit, the Rod. To Himself and to others He is Wisdom and perhaps also Reason (Logos). It may be asked whether, as He has in Himself a system of speculations, inasmuch as He is wisdom, there are some of those speculations which cannot be received by any nature that is begotten, but His own, and which He knows for Himself only. Nor should the reverence we owe to the Holy Spirit keep us from seeking to answer this question. For the Holy Spirit Himself receives instruction, as is clear from what is said about the Paraclete and the Holy Spirit, John 16:14-15 He shall take of mine and shall declare it to you. Does He, then, from these instructions, take in everything that the Son, gazing at the Father from the first, Himself knows? That would require further consideration. And if the Saviour is some things to others, and some things it may be to Himself, and to no other, or to one only, or to few, then we ask, in so far as He is the life which came in the Logos, whether he is life to Himself and to others, or to others, and if to others, to what others. And are life and the light of men the same thing, for the text says, That which was made was life in Him and the life was the light of men. But the light of men is the light only of some, not of all, rational creatures; the word men which is added shows this. But He is the light of men, and so He is the life of those whose light he is also. And inasmuch as He is life He may be called the Saviour, not for Himself but to be life to others, whose light also He is. And this life comes to the Logos and is inseparable from Him, once it has come to Him. But the Logos, who cleanses the soul, must have been in the soul first; it is after Him and the cleansing that proceeds from Him, when all that is dead or weak in her has been taken away, that pure life comes to every one who has made himself a fit dwelling for the Logos, considered as God. |
|
36. Origen, Commentary On Matthew, 11.12, 16.12 (3rd cent. CE - 3rd cent. CE)
| 11.12. And He called to Him the multitude and said to them, Hear and understand, etc. Matthew 15:10 We are clearly taught in these words by the Saviour that, when we read in Leviticus and Deuteronomy the precepts about meat clean and unclean, for the transgression of which we are accused by the material Jews and by the Ebionites who differ little from them, we are not to think that the scope of the Scripture is found in any superficial understanding of them. For if not that which enters into the mouth defiles the man, but that which proceeds out of the mouth, Matthew 15:11 and especially when, according to Mark, the Saviour said these things making all meats clean, Mark 7:19 manifestly we are not defiled when we eat those things which the Jews who desire to be in bondage to the letter of the law declare to be unclean, but we are then defiled when, whereas our lips ought to be bound with perception and we ought to make for them what we call a balance and weight, Sirach 28:25 we speak offhand and discuss matters we ought not, from which there comes to us the spring of sins. And it is indeed becoming to the law of God to forbid those things which arise from wickedness, and to enjoin those things which tend to virtue, but as for things which are in their own nature indifferent to leave them in their own place, as they may, according to our choice and the reason which is in us, be done ill if we sin in them, but if rightly directed by us be done well. And any one who has carefully thought on these matters will see that, even in those things which are thought to be good, it is possible for a man to sin who has taken them up in an evil way and under the impulse of passion, and that these things called impure may be considered pure, if used by us in accordance with reason. As, then, when the Jew sins his circumcision shall be reckoned for uncircumcision, but when one of the Gentiles acts uprightly his uncircumcision shall be reckoned for circumcision, Romans 2:25-26 so those things which are thought to be pure shall be reckoned for impure in the case of him who does not use them fittingly, nor when one ought, nor as far as he ought, nor for what reason he ought. But as for the things which are called impure, All things become pure to the pure, for, To them that are defiled and unbelieving nothing is pure, since both their minds and their conscience are defiled. Titus 1:15 And when these are defiled, they make all things whatsoever they touch defiled; as again on the contrary the pure mind and the pure conscience make all things pure, even though they may seem to be impure; for not from intemperance, nor from love of pleasure, nor with doubting which draws a man both ways, do the righteous use meats or drinks, mindful of the precept, Whether you eat or drink or whatsoever other thing ye do, do all to the glory of God. 1 Corinthians 10:31 And if it be necessary to delineate the foods which are unclean according to the Gospel, we will say that they are such as are supplied by covetousness, and are the result of base love of gain, and are taken up from love of pleasure, and from deifying the belly which is treated with honour, when it, with its appetites, and not reason, rules our souls. But as for us who know that some things are used by demons, or if we do not know, but suspect, and are in doubt about it, if we use such things, we have used them not to the glory of God, nor in the name of Christ; for not only does the suspicion that things have been sacrificed to idols condemn him who eats, but even the doubt concerning this; for he that doubts, according to the Apostle, is condemned if he eat, because he eats not of faith; and whatsoever is not of faith is sin. Romans 14:23 He then eats in faith who believes that that which is eaten has not been sacrificed in the temples of idols, and that it is not strangled nor blood; but he eats not of faith who is in doubt about any of these things. And the man who knowing that they have been sacrificed to demons nevertheless uses them, becomes a communicant with demons, while at the same time, his imagination is polluted with reference to demons participating in the sacrifice. And the Apostle, however, knowing that it is not the nature of meats which is the cause of injury to him who uses them or of advantage to him who refrains from their use, but opinions and the reason which is in them, said, But meat commends us not to God, for neither if we eat are we the better, nor if we eat not are we the worse. 1 Corinthians 8:8 And since he knew that those who have a loftier conception of what things are pure and what impure according to the law, turning aside from the distinction about the use of things pure and impure, and superstition, I think, in respect of things being different, become indifferent to the use of meats, and on this account are condemned by the Jews as transgressors of law, he said therefore, somewhere, Let no man therefore judge you in meat or in drink, etc., Colossians 2:16 teaching us that the things according to the letter are a shadow, but that the true thoughts of the law which are stored up in them are the good things to come, in which one may find what are the pure spiritual meats of the soul, and what are the impure foods in false and contradictory words which injure the man who is nourished in them, For the law had a shadow of the good things to come. Hebrews 10:1 |
|
37. Origen, Against Celsus, 1.32, 5.61, 6.28 (3rd cent. CE - 3rd cent. CE)
| 1.32. But let us now return to where the Jew is introduced, speaking of the mother of Jesus, and saying that when she was pregt she was turned out of doors by the carpenter to whom she had been betrothed, as having been guilty of adultery, and that she bore a child to a certain soldier named Panthera; and let us see whether those who have blindly concocted these fables about the adultery of the Virgin with Panthera, and her rejection by the carpenter, did not invent these stories to overturn His miraculous conception by the Holy Ghost: for they could have falsified the history in a different manner, on account of its extremely miraculous character, and not have admitted, as it were against their will, that Jesus was born of no ordinary human marriage. It was to be expected, indeed, that those who would not believe the miraculous birth of Jesus would invent some falsehood. And their not doing this in a credible manner, but (their) preserving the fact that it was not by Joseph that the Virgin conceived Jesus, rendered the falsehood very palpable to those who can understand and detect such inventions. Is it at all agreeable to reason, that he who dared to do so much for the human race, in order that, as far as in him lay, all the Greeks and Barbarians, who were looking for divine condemnation, might depart from evil, and regulate their entire conduct in a manner pleasing to the Creator of the world, should not have had a miraculous birth, but one the vilest and most disgraceful of all? And I will ask of them as Greeks, and particularly of Celsus, who either holds or not the sentiments of Plato, and at any rate quotes them, whether He who sends souls down into the bodies of men, degraded Him who was to dare such mighty acts, and to teach so many men, and to reform so many from the mass of wickedness in the world, to a birth more disgraceful than any other, and did not rather introduce Him into the world through a lawful marriage? Or is it not more in conformity with reason, that every soul, for certain mysterious reasons (I speak now according to the opinion of Pythagoras, and Plato, and Empedocles, whom Celsus frequently names), is introduced into a body, and introduced according to its deserts and former actions? It is probable, therefore, that this soul also, which conferred more benefit by its residence in the flesh than that of many men (to avoid prejudice, I do not say all), stood in need of a body not only superior to others, but invested with all excellent qualities. 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. 6.28. With some such object as this in view does Celsus seem to have been actuated, when he alleged that Christians term the Creator an accursed divinity; in order that he who believes these charges of his against us, should, if possible, arise and exterminate the Christians as the most impious of mankind. Confusing, moreover, things that are distinct, he states also the reason why the God of the Mosaic cosmogony is termed accursed, asserting that such is his character, and worthy of execration in the opinion of those who so regard him, inasmuch as he pronounced a curse upon the serpent, who introduced the first human beings to the knowledge of good and evil. Now he ought to have known that those who have espoused the cause of the serpent, because he gave good advice to the first human beings, and who go far beyond the Titans and Giants of fable, and are on this account called Ophites, are so far from being Christians, that they bring accusations against Jesus to as great a degree as Celsus himself; and they do not admit any one into their assembly until he has uttered maledictions against Jesus. See, then, how irrational is the procedure of Celsus, who, in his discourse against the Christians, represents as such those who will not even listen to the name of Jesus, or omit even that He was a wise man, or a person of virtuous character! What, then, could evince greater folly or madness, not only on the part of those who wish to derive their name from the serpent as the author of good, but also on the part of Celsus, who thinks that the accusations with which the Ophites are charged, are chargeable also against the Christians! Long ago, indeed, that Greek philosopher who preferred a state of poverty, and who exhibited the pattern of a happy life, showing that he was not excluded from happiness although he was possessed of nothing, termed himself a Cynic; while these impious wretches, as not being human beings, whose enemy the serpent is, but as being serpents, pride themselves upon being called Ophites from the serpent, which is an animal most hostile to and greatly dreaded by man, and boast of one Euphrates as the introducer of these unhallowed opinions. |
|
38. Theodoret of Cyrus, Compendium Against Heresies, 1.1 (4th cent. CE - 5th cent. CE)
|
