Dale A. Brueggemann on the Egyptian Background to Luke 16:19-31

  

Another Egyptian descent story is that of Setne and his son, Si-Osire. In this story, an Egyptian is allowed to return to the land of the living to deal with a Nubian magician who has been overpowering Egypt’s magicians. This emissary is reincarnated as Si-Osire, the child of Setne and his wife. At a funeral for a rich man and a pauper, Si-Osire hears his father express his longing that he might have the fate of the rich man. He subsequently takes his father on a tour of the Underworld that highlights the fate of three classes of the dead: those whose good deeds outnumber their bad ones, like the pauper; those whose bad deeds dominate, like the rich man; and those whose good and bad deeds essentially balance out. The tour shows the rich man degraded and the pauper elevated to sit beside Osiris (compare Luke 16:19–31). When Si-Osire grows up, he vanquishes the Nubian magician and returns to the Underworld. (Dale A. Brueggemann, “Descent into the Underworld, Critical Issues,” in The Lexham Bible Dictionary, ed. John D. Barry et al. [Bellingham, Wash.: Lexham Press, 2016], Logos Bible Software edition)

 

Stephen De Young (EO) on Josephus's Comments about the Old Testament Canon in Against Apion

 Commenting on Josephus, Contra Apion, 1.37-44:

 

Josephus does not merely express this grouping of texts to be the Scriptures according to his opinion or to be the canon as he received it from within his own community. Rather, he makes the claim that every single Jewish individual on earth, from birth, recognizes these and only these books. He further states that every one of those individuals obeys these Scriptures and is willing to die rather than violate a single command.

 

On its face, Josephus uses rather extreme hyperbole. Newborn infants have no opinion on the relative authority of various religious texts. Even a casual reading of the books that Josephus endorses reveals that the vast majority of Jewish people paid little attention to any of the commands of the Torah, let alone demonstrated a willingness to die for them. While Jewish martyrs existed, particularly in the Maccabean period as described in the books that Josephus here seems to marginalize, they were certainly never the majority any more than one can generalize from the Christian martyrs just how committed the majority of Christians were. Josephus also denies the editorial activity within the various texts that make up the Hebrew Bible, despite its being readily apparent even in translation.

 

Josephus was a member of the party of the Pharisees. His view on which Scriptures were authoritative within Jewish communities reflects this perspective, and the Pharisees would have agreed with him. But, even within Palestinian Judaism, not everyone was a Pharisee. Other religious parties existed in the first century within Palestine, and these parties had different collections of Scriptures that exercised authority within their communities. This is even more true of Jewish communities scattered across Egypt, Ethiopia, Mesopotamia, and the Roman world, reaching as far as Spain in that era. Josephus does not report objective fact but rather asserts that he and his fellows are right, over against competing parties. He goes a step further by asserting that everyone really knows that he is right, even if he or she won’t admit it.

 

This proclamation by Josephus, then, while an important early witness to the understanding of one slice of Second Temple Judaism, is a flimsy basis on which to argue for the practice of the Christian Church in contemporary society. It is especially weak given that it conflicts with two millennia of Christian experience across the Christian world. Among early Christians, each community received a set of authoritative texts as its Old Testament based on the texts that held authority in the preceding Jewish communities. Christian communities in Palestine received the canon of Palestinian Judaism; those in Egypt, Alexandrian Judaism; those in Ethiopia, Ethiopian Judaism.(Stephen De Young, The Whole Counsel of God: An Introduction to Your Bible [Chesterton, Ind.: Ancient Faith Publishing, 2022], page 37 of 116, Kindle ed.)

 

Robert Alter on Isaiah 5:7

  

justice . . . jaundice . . . righteousness . . . wretchedness. This translation proposes English equivalents for the Hebrew wordplay, where the meaning of the two second terms is somewhat different. The Hebrew is mishpat, “justice,” mispaḥ, “blight,” and tsedaqah, “righteousness,” tseʿaqah, “scream.” (Robert Alter, The Hebrew Bible, 3 vols. [New York: W. W. Norton & Company, 2019], 2:636)

 

Robert Alter on שְׂכִיָּה (KJV: Pictures) in Isaiah 2:16

  

lovely crafts. The translation follows a scholarly proposal for the noun sekhiyot, but its meaning is obscure, and the conclusion about what it might be is dictated chiefly by the poetic parallelism. (Robert Alter, The Hebrew Bible, 3 vols. [New York: W. W. Norton & Company, 2019], 2:629)

 

Radak (David Kimhi) on Jeremiah 17:9

  

Radak on Jeremiah 17:9:1

עקוב הלב. לפי שדבר על הבטחון שהוא רע כשישים בטחונו באדם וזה תלוי בכונת הלב כמו שאמר ומן ה' יסור לבו כמו שפירש לפיכך דבר בכונת הלב ואמר כי הלב עקוב יותר מכל דבר כלומר מרמה כי יוכל אדם להראות בפיו ובמעשיו טוב ויהיה לבו רע ומי ידע זה בלתי האל לפיכך אמר מי ידענו. ואמר אני ה' חוקר לב והמרמה תלויה בלב לא בפה ובמעשה כי אף על פי שתהיה לפעמים המרמה בפה שיאמר דברים שהכונה בהם על שני פנים או יעשה מרמה בידיו הכל הוא בכונת הלב לפיכך אמר מכל כי אין דבר מרמה כמו הלב: (source)

 

“The heart is crooked.” Since he has spoken about trust, which is bad when a person places his trust in man, and this depends on the intention of the heart, as he said, “and his heart turns away from the Lord,” as he explained, therefore he speaks of the intention of the heart and says that the heart is more crooked than anything else—that is, deceitful. For a person can appear with his mouth and in his actions to be good, while his heart is evil, and who can know this except God? Therefore he said, “Who can know it?” And he said, “I, the Lord, search the heart,” and deceit depends on the heart, not on the mouth or on action, for even though deceit is sometimes in the mouth, when one says things that are intended to be understood in two ways, or practices deceit with his hands, everything is according to the intention of the heart. Therefore he said, “above all things,” for nothing is as deceitful as the heart.

 

 

Radak on Jeremiah 17:9:2

ואנוש הוא. ענין כאב ושבר כמו אנוש כאבי אנושה מכתי ויאמר על דרך השאלה בכאב הלב ביגון או בדאגה או בעסקים רעים או במחשבה לפיכך אמר ואנוש הוא ואמר חרפה שברה לבי ואנושה:

 

“And it is incurably sick.” This is a term for pain and brokenness, like “my wound is painful, my blow is severe,” and it is said figuratively of heartache, grief, worry, evil circumstances, or troubled thought. Therefore he said, “and it is incurably sick,” and he said, “My heart is broken with shame, and I am sick.”

 

Robert Roberts’s High View of John Thomas

  

Dr. Thomas, of West Hoboken, Hudson Co. New Jersey, U. S., has undoubtedly been the great instrument in the hand of God in digging out, in the nineteenth century, the lost and hidden treasure of the gospel. The scattered elements of “the truth” had here and there shown themselves occasionally before his day. The Kingdom of God in some of its aspects was believed in by a few, the worthlessness of human nature in respect to immortality was here and there recognised by a stray Bible student; baptism had long been practised as an essential religious rite, but it was left to the remarkable man of whom we are speaking to collate and systematise the truth and evolve it in the complete doctrinal development which is efficacious for the salvation of men. In the accomplishment of this great work, he studied much, and brought out many long lost ideas. He also detected the fallacy of many a revered doctrine, and gave to the Book of God such an altered complexion that the Bible which before time was enshrined in mystery, and cut off from the sympathies of intelligent men, became transparent in its intelligibility, and highly interesting in the grandeur of its revelations, and the adaptation of its schemes to the wants of the world.

 

In attaining this magnificent achievement, Dr. Thomas but yielded to the pressure of circumstances. It was not a result upon which he had set his mind. He may be said to have drifted into it through the studies forced upon him. His theological career was emphatically a providential development as will be seen from the narrative that is to follow. He did not design it; he did not incline it; it grew as the result of circumstances acting upon his peculiarly constituted mind. This gives the history of his life an interest proportionate to the love possessed for the truth he was instrumental in developing. (Robert Roberts, “Dr. Thomas and His Mission,” The Ambassador of the Coming Age 1, no. 1 [July 1864]: 9-10; this publication would later be retitled The Christadelphian)

 

Further Reading:

 

Listing of Articles on Christadelphian Issues

Clement of Alexandria, Stromata Book 6, Chapter 18

The following is taken from Clement of Alexandria, Stromata Book 6, Chapter 18 (Migne, PG 9:396-97, 400-1):

 

Ὁ γνωστικὸς δ’ ἡμῖν ἐν ταῖς κυριωτάταις δεῖ ποτε διατρίβει· εἰ δέ που σχολῇ καὶ ἀνέσει καιρὸς ἀπὸ τῶν προηγουμένων, ἀντὶ τῆς ἄλλης ῥυθμίας καὶ τῆς Ἑλληνικῆς ἐφάπτεται φιλοσοφίας, οἷον τραγῳδῶν τι ἐπὶ τῷ δείπνῳ παρῃρμένος (5) οὐ τῶν κρειττόνων ἀμελήσας, προσλαμβάνων δὲ, ἐφ’ ὅσον πρέπει, καὶ ταῦτα, δι’ ἃς προεῖπον αἰτίας. Οἱ δὲ τῶν οὐκ ἀναγκαίων καὶ περιττῶν τῆς φιλοσοφίας δραχθέντες, καὶ μόνοις τοῖς ἐριστικοῖς προσανέχοντες σοφίσμασι, τῶν ἀναγκαίων καὶ κυριωτάτων (6) ἀπελήφθησαν, οἵ τε σκιασμῶς τῶν λόγων διώκοντες. Καλὸν μὲν οὖν τὸ πάντα ἐπίστασθαι· ὅσῳ δὲ ἀσθενεῖ ἐπεκτείνεσθαι ἡ ψυχὴ πρὸς τὴν πολυμαθῆ ἐμπειρίαν, τὰ προηγούμενα καὶ βελτίω αἱρήσεται μόνα· ἡ γὰρ τῷ ὄντι ἐπιστήμη, ἣν φάμεν μόνον ἔχειν τὸν γνωστικόν, κατάληψις (7) ἐστὶ βεβαία διὰ λόγων ἀληθῶν καὶ βεβαίων ἐπὶ τὴν τῆς αἰτίας γνῶσιν ἀνάγουσα. Ὁ δὲ ἐπιστήμων τοῦ ἀληθοῦς περὶ ὃ δοποιοῦν αὐτίκα καὶ τοῦ ψεύδους περὶ τὸ αὐτὸ ἐπιστήμην ὑπάρχει. Καὶ γὰρ (8) οὖν εὖ πως ἔχει μοι φαίνεται ὁ λόγος ἐκεῖνος, εἰ φιλοσοφητέον αὐτό· αὐτὸ γάρ τι αὐτῷ ἀκολουθεῖ· ἀλλ’ εἰ καὶ μὴ φιλοσοφητέον (οὐ γάρ τις καταγωγὴ τινὸς μὴ τοῦτο πρότερον ἐγνωκότος) φιλοσοφητέον ἄρα. Τούτων οὕτως ἐχόντων, τοῖς Ἕλλησι χρὴ διὰ νόμου καὶ προφητῶν ἐκμανθάνειν ἕνα μόνον σέβειν Θεόν, τὸν ὄντως ὄντα παντοκράτορα. Ἔπειτα (9) διὰ τοῦ Ἀποστόλου διδάσκεσθαι· «Ἡμῖν (10) δὲ οὐδὲν εἴδωλον ἐν κόσμῳ»· ἐπεὶ μηδὲν ἀπεικόνισμα τοῦ Θεοῦ οἷόν τε ἐν γενητοῖς (11) εἶναι· προπεπαιδεύσθαι δὲ, ὡς οὐδὲ τούτων ὧν γέγονεν ἀγάλματα, εἴη ἂν αἱ εἰκόνες· οὐ γὰρ πω τοιοῦτον κατὰ τὸ σχήμα τὸ τῶν ψυχῶν γένος, ὁποῖα διαπλάσσουσιν Ἕλληνες τὰ ξόανα. Ψυχαὶ μὲν γὰρ, ἀόρατοι, οὐ μόνον αἱ λογικαί, ἀλλὰ καὶ αἱ τῶν ἄλλων (12) ζῴων· τὰ δὲ σώματα αὐτῶν μέρη μὲν αὐτῶν οὐδέποτε γίνεται τῶν ψυχῶν, ὄργανα δὲ ὧν μὲν ἐνσχήματα, ὧν δὲ ἀσχήματα, ἄλλων δὲ ἄλλον τρόπον σχήματα. Ἀλλ’ οὐδὲ τῶν ὀργάνων τὰς εἰκόνας οἷόν τε ἀπομιμήσασθαι ἐνεργῶς· ἐπεὶ καὶ τὸν ἥλιον τις, ὡς ὁρίζεται, πλάσσειε, καὶ τὴν ἶριν τοῖς χρώμασιν ἀπεικάζεσθω· ἐπειδὰν δὲ ἀπολείπωσι τὰ εἴδωλα, τότε ἀκουσονται τῆς Γραφῆς, «Ἐὰν μὴ πλεονάσῃ (13) ὑμῶν ἡ δικαιοσύνη πλείον τῶν γραμματέων καὶ Φαρισαίων,» τῶν κατ’ ἀποχὴν κακῶν (14) δικαιουμένων, σὺν τῷ μετὰ τῆς ἐν τούτοις τελειώσεως καὶ τῷ τὸν πλησίον ἀγαπᾶν, καὶ εὐεργετεῖν δύνασθε, οὐκ ἔσεσθε βασιλικοί (15). Ἡ ἐπίτασις γὰρ τῆς κατὰ τὸν νόμον δικαιοσύνης τὸν γνωστικὸν δείκνυσιν. Οὕτω τις κατὰ τὸ ἡγεμονικὸν τοῦ οἰκείου σώματος τὴν κεφαλὴν τάξει, ἐπὶ τὴν ἀκρότητα τῆς πίστεως χωρίσας, τὴν γνῶσιν αὐτήν, περὶ ἣν πάντα ἐστὶ τὰ αἰσθητήρια, ἀκροτάτης ὁμοίως τεύξεται τῆς κληρονομίας. Τὸ δὲ ἡγεμονικὸν τῆς γνώσεως σαφῶς ὁ Ἀπόστολος τοῖς διαφέρειν δυναμένοις ἐνδεικνύεται, τοῖς Ἑλλαϊκοῖς ἐκείνοις γράφων Κορινθίοις οὕδε πως· «Ἔλπίδα δὲ ἔχοντες αὐξανομένης τῆς πίστεως ὑμῶν ἐν ὑμῖν μεγαλυνθῆναι κατὰ τὸν κανόνα ἡμῶν εἰς περισσείαν, εἰς τὰ ὑπερέκεινα ὑμῶν εὐαγγελίσασθαι»· οὐ τὴν ἐπέκτασιν τοῦ κηρύγματος τὴν κατὰ τὸν τόπον λέγων· ἐπεὶ καὶ ἐν «Ἀγάπῃ» πεπλεονάκεναι τὴν πίστιν αὐτὸς φησίν. Φέρεται δὲ (16) καὶ ἐν ταῖς Πράξεσι τῶν ἀποστόλων, καὶ ἐν «ταῖς Ἀθήναις» κηρύξας τὸν Λόγον· ἀλλὰ τὴν γνῶσιν διδάσκει, τελειωτὴν οὖσαν τῆς πίστεως, ἐπείκεινα περισσεύειν τῆς κατηχήσεως κατὰ τὸ μέγαλεῖον τῆς τοῦ Κυρίου διδασκαλίας, καὶ τὸν ἐκκλησιαστικὸν κανόνα. Διὸ καὶ ὑποβάς, ἐπιφέρει· «Εἰ δὲ καὶ ἰδιώτης τῷ λόγῳ, ἀλλ’ οὐ τῇ γνώσει.» Πλὴν οἱ γε ἐπὶ τῷ κατεληφθαι τὴν ἀλήθειαν αὐχοῦντες τῶν Ἑλλήνων εἰπάτωσαν ἡμῖν παρὰ τίνος μαθηταὶ ἀλαζονεύονται. Παρὰ Θεοῦ μὲν γὰρ οὐκ ἂν φήσαιεν· παρὰ ἀνθρώπων δὲ ὁμολογοῦσι. Καὶ εἰ τοῦτο, ἢ τοιγε παρ’ ἐκείνων (17), οἵ τε ἐκμαθόντες, ὥσπερ ἄμελεῖ καὶ τετυφωμένοι τινὲς αὐτῶν αὐξοῦσιν, ἢ παρ’ ἑτέρων τῶν ὁμοίων. Ἀλλ’ οὐκ ἐχέγγυοι διδάσκαλοι περὶ Θεοῦ λέγοντες ἄνθρωποι, καθό ἄνθρωποι· οὐ γὰρ ἀξιόχρεώς γε, ἄνθρωπός τε ὢν, καὶ περὶ Θεοῦ τάλῃς λέγειν, ὁ ἀσθενὴς καὶ ἐπίκηρος περὶ τοῦ ἀγεννήτου, καὶ ἀφθάρτου, καὶ τὸ ἔργον περὶ τοῦ πεποιηκότος. Εἴθ’, ὁ μὴ περὶ αὐτοῦ τάλῃς λέγειν δυνάμενος, ἄρ’ οὐ πλέον οὐδὲ τὰ περὶ Θεοῦ πιστευτέος; Ὅσον γὰρ δυνάμει Θεοῦ λείπεται ἄνθρωπος, τοσοῦτον καὶ ὁ λόγος αὐτοῦ ἐξασθενεῖ, κἂν μὴ Θεὸν, ἀλλὰ περὶ Θεοῦ λέγῃ καὶ τοῦ θείου λόγου. Ἀσθενὴς γὰρ φύσει ὁ ἀνθρώπινος λόγος, καὶ ἀδύνατος φράσαι Θεόν· οὐ τοὔνομα λέγω· κοινὸν γάρ τοῦτο οὐ φιλοσόφων μόνον ὀνομάζειν, ἀλλὰ καὶ ποιητῶν· οὐδὲ τὴν οὐσίαν· ἀδύνατον γάρ· ἀλλὰ τὴν δύναμιν καὶ τὰ ἔργα τοῦ Θεοῦ. Καὶ τοι ἐπιγεγραμμένοι θεῖον διδάσκαλον, μόνης εἰς ἔννοιαν ἀρκνοῦνται Θεοῦ, τῆς χάριτος αὐτοῖς συλλαμβανούσης εἰς πᾶσαν ἐπίγνωσιν· οἷον θέλημα (18) θέλημα, καὶ τῷ ἁγίῳ Πνεύματι τὸ ἅγιον Πνεῦμα θεωρεῖν ἐθίζοντες· ὅτι πνεῦμα τὰ βάθη τοῦ Θεοῦ ἐρευνᾷ. Ψυχικὸς δὲ ἄνθρωπος οὐ δέχεται τὰ τοῦ Πνεύματος. Μόνη τοίνυν ἡ παρ’ ἡμῖν θεοδίδακτός ἐστι σοφία· ἀφ’ ἧς αἱ πάσαι πηγαὶ (19) τῆς σοφίας ἥρτηνται, ὅσαι γε τῆς ἀληθείας στοχάζονται. Ἄμει δὲ ὡς ἂν τοῦ Κυρίου ἤκοντος εἰς ἀνθρώπους τοῦ διδάξαντος ἡμᾶς, μυρίοι σηματόρες, καταγγελεῖς, ἑτοιμασταί, πρόδρομοι, ἄνωθεν ἐκ καταβολῆς κόσμου, δι’ ἔργων, διὰ λόγων προμηνύοντες, προφῆτεντες ἐλεύσεσθαι, καὶ ποῦ, καὶ πῶς, καὶ τίνα τὰ σημεῖα. Ἄμα τε προῤῥητὸν ὁ νόμος, καὶ προφήται. Ἔπειτα δὲ, ὁ πρόδρομος (20) δείκνυσι τὸν παρόντα· μεθ’ ὃν οἱ κήρυκες τῆς ἐπιφανείας τὴν δύναμιν ἐκδιδάσκοντες (21) μηνούσι μόνους, καὶ εἰδ’ αὐτοῖς ἅπασιν ἴσασιν, ἀλλὰ Πλάτων μὲν Σωκράτης, καὶ Ξενοκράτει Πλάτων, Ἀριστοτέλης Θεοφράστῳ (22), καὶ Κλέανθι Ζήνων· οἱ τοὺς ἰδίους μόνον αἱρετιστὰς ἐπεϊσσαν. Ὁ δὲ γε τοῦ διδασκάλου τοῦ ἡμετέρου λόγος οὐκ ἔμεινεν ἐν Ἰουδαίᾳ μόνη, καθάπερ ἐν τῇ Ἑλλάδι ἡ φιλοσοφία· ἐχύθη δὲ ἀνὰ πᾶσαν τὴν οἰκουμένην, πεῖθων Ἕλληνας τε ὁμοῦ καὶ βαρβάρους, κατὰ ἔθνος καὶ χώραν, καὶ πόλιν πᾶσαν, οἴκους ὅλους καὶ ἰδίᾳ ἕκαστον τῶν ἐπαρχικῶν, καὶ αὐτῶν γε τῶν φιλοσόφων οὐκ ὀλίγους ἤδη ἐπὶ τὴν ἀλήθειαν μεθισταίς. Καὶ τὴν μὲν φιλοσοφίαν τὴν Ἑλληνικὴν ἂν ὁ τυχὸν ἄρχων κωλύσῃ, αἴγεται παρακτῆμα· τὴν δὲ ἡμετέραν διδασκαλίαν ἔκτεσιν καὶ τῇ πρώτῃ καταγγελίᾳ κωλύουσιν ὁμοῦ βασιλεῖς καὶ τύραννοι, καὶ οἱ κατὰ μέρος ἄρχοντες, καὶ ἡγεμόνες μετὰ τῶν μισθοφόρων ἀπάντων, πρὸς δὲ καὶ τῶν ἀπείρων ἀνθρώπων, καταστρατευόμενοι τε ἡμῶν, καὶ ὅση δύναμις ἐκκόπτειν πειρώμενοι· ἡ δὲ καὶ μᾶλλον ἀνθεῖ· οὐ γὰρ ὡς ἀνθρωπίνη ἀποθνήσκει διδασκαλία, οὐδ’ ὡς ἀσθενὴς μαραίνεται δωρεά· οὐδὲ μα ἄσθενὴς δωρεὰ Θεοῦ· μένει δὲ ἀκωλύτως, διωχθῆναι εἰς τέλος προσηνευθεῖσα. Ἔτι περὶ μὲν ποιητικῆς Πλάτων (23) «Κόσμον γὰρ τὶ χρῆμα καὶ ἱερὸν ποιητήν,» γράφει· «καὶ οὐκ οἶδ’ ὃς τε πρίν, πρὶν ἂν ἔνθεός τε καὶ ἔκφρων γένηται.» Καὶ ὁ Δημόκριτος ὁμοίως· «Ποιητὴς δὲ ὅσα μὲν ἂν γράψῃ μετ’ ἐνθουσιασμοῦ καὶ ἱεροῦ πνεύματος, καλά χαρὰ ἐστιν.» Ἴσμεν δὲ οἷα ποιηταὶ λέγουσι. Τοὺς δὲ τοῦ παντοκράτορος προφήτας θεοῦ οὐκ ἂν τις καταπλαγείη, ὄργανα (24) θείας γεγονότας φωνῆς! Καθάπερ οὖν ἀνδριάντα ἀποπλασάμενοι τοῦ γνωστικοῦ, μὴ μὲν ἐπεδείξαμεν ὡς ἐστι, μέγεθος (25) τε καὶ κάλλος ἦθους αὐτοῦ, ὡς ἐν ὑπογραφῇ, δηλώσαντες· ὁποῖος γὰρ κατὰ τὴν θεωρίαν ἐν τοῖς φυσικοῖς, μετὰ ταῦτα δηλωθήσεται, ἐπὴν περὶ γενέσεως κόσμου διαλαμβάνειν ἀρξώμεθα.

 

 

The true Gnostic ought sometimes to spend time on the most important matters; but if there is leisure and opportunity, apart from what has already been discussed, he also takes up Greek philosophy, just as someone who, after dinner, listens to a tragedy—without neglecting the better things, but taking up these too, as far as is appropriate, for the reasons I mentioned earlier. Those who have grasped only the unnecessary and superfluous parts of philosophy, and who attend only to contentious sophistries, have been deprived of what is necessary and most important, since they pursue only the shadows of words. It is, of course, good to know everything; but to the extent that the soul is too weak to extend itself into wide-ranging experience, it will choose the first and better things alone. For true knowledge, which we say belongs only to the Gnostic, is a firm grasp by means of true and sure arguments, leading to the knowledge of causes. The knower of what is true also has knowledge of what is false in relation to the same thing. And indeed that saying seems to me to hold well: one should philosophize about it, for something in it is connected with what follows; but even if one should not philosophize about it—since no one is led to this who has not first learned it—still one must philosophize after all.

 

Given these things, the Greeks should learn from the Law and the Prophets to worship one God only, the one who truly is, the Almighty. Then they should be taught by the Apostle: “For us there is no idol in the world,” since no image of God can exist among things that have come to be. They should also be instructed that even among the things that are made, the statues are not truly images of those beings, for the class of soul is not at all such as the Greeks’ carved images represent. Souls are invisible, not only rational souls but also those of other living creatures; and the bodies of these creatures are never parts of the souls themselves, but rather instruments—some shaped in one way, others in another. Nor can the images of these organs be effectively imitated: for even if someone were to fashion the sun, as it were, or depict the rainbow by colors, once the idols are gone, then Scripture will be heard: “Unless your righteousness exceeds that of the scribes and Pharisees,” those justified by mere abstinence from evil, together with the perfection found in these matters and the love of neighbor, and unless you are able to do good, you will not be royal. For the increase and intensification of righteousness according to the Law shows the Gnostic. Thus someone, arranging the head in relation to the ruling part of his own body, and separating it toward the excellence of faith, will obtain knowledge itself—about which all the senses are concerned—and will likewise obtain the highest inheritance. The ruling part of knowledge is clearly shown by the Apostle to those capable of discerning, when he writes to those Greek Corinthians: “Having hope that, as your faith increases among you, we may be magnified according to our rule, unto abundance, to preach the gospel to regions beyond you.” He is not speaking of geographical extension of preaching; for he also says in “Love” that their faith has abounded. The same thing appears in the Acts of the Apostles, and in Athens, where he preached the Word; but he teaches knowledge, the completion of faith, as something that should overflow beyond catechesis in accordance with the greatness of the Lord’s teaching and the ecclesiastical rule. Hence he adds, “Even if I am unskilled in speech, yet not in knowledge.” Still, let those Greeks who boast that they have grasped the truth tell us from whom they learned it. They will not say “from God,” but from human beings they admit it. And if that is so, then from those others—or else from their own associates, as some of them do when they grow arrogant and puffed up, or from others like them. But human teachers who speak about God are not trustworthy simply because they are human; for a human being is not sufficiently credible, being human, to speak about God, the uncreated, the incorruptible, and the work of the Maker. Then, if one is unable to speak adequately about him, should one therefore trust even less what is said about God? For just as far as human beings fall short of the power of God, so far does their speech fail, even if they speak not of God himself but about God and about the divine Word. Human speech is weak by nature and incapable of expressing God—not his name, for that is a common usage among philosophers and poets alike, nor his essence, which is impossible—but his power and his works. And indeed those who bear the title “divine teacher” are directed by God alone in thought, with grace helping them toward all knowledge; and they train themselves to contemplate the Holy Spirit with the Holy Spirit, for “the Spirit searches the depths of God.” The natural man does not receive the things of the Spirit. Therefore the wisdom among us is the only wisdom taught by God, from which all the springs of wisdom depend, so far as they aim at truth. Consider, too, how, since the Lord came among human beings and taught us, there were myriads of heralds, announcers, arrangers, and forerunners—foretelling from above, from the foundation of the world, by deeds and by words, that he would come, where, how, and what the signs would be. The Law and the Prophets had already foretold it. Then the forerunner points out the One who is present; and after him the heralds of the manifestation proclaim its power, announcing it not only to some but to all. Plato had Socrates as his own teacher, Xenocrates had Plato, Aristotle had Theophrastus, and Zeno had Cleanthes; these instructed only their own adherents. But the word of our Teacher did not remain in Judea alone, as philosophy did in Greece; it spread through the whole inhabited world, persuading Greeks and barbarians alike, in every nation and region, in every city, in every household, and in each individual within the provinces, and already moving not a few even of the philosophers themselves to the truth. And while the Greek philosophy can be blocked by any ruler who happens to interfere, our teaching is opposed from the very first proclamation by kings and tyrants, by local rulers and governors, with all their mercenaries, and by countless ordinary people, who are marshaled against us and try in every way to cut it down; yet it flourishes even more. For it does not die like a merely human teaching, nor fade like a weak gift; no weak thing is a gift of God. It remains unimpeded, having been persecuted even to the end. Plato also writes concerning poetry, “A certain thing is a cosmos and a sacred maker,” and “I do not know who, before he becomes inspired and out of his mind.” Democritus likewise says, “Whatever a poet writes with enthusiasm and a holy spirit is beautiful.” We know what poets say. But who would not be astonished at the prophets of God Almighty, who became instruments of a divine voice? So, just as in fashioning the Gnostic I have shown his stature and the beauty of his character, as it were in outline, I have indicated what he is like; for what he will be in the contemplation of natural things will be made clear afterward, when we begin to discuss the genesis of the world.