Theophany 2.38–2.54

English translation by Samuel Lee (1843); the original is not shown

Of the Earth, you say, and the Heavens, the Ocean and Tethys were the progeny: and again, Phorcys, Saturn, and Rhea. And so after all these, Jupiter and Juno! Jupiter, after the Earth and Heavens! Jupiter, after Saturn! and Rhea, after the whole of these! What say you, O Combatant ?—Where is the great Jupiter, who drove the flying chariot in the Heavens? Or, Is not that a sentiment of thine, over which every body cries out and wonders, when thou thus sayest :—

English translation by Samuel Lee (1843); the original is not shown

‘The same great Jupiter therefore, drove and guided the flying chariot in the heavens, and to the same adhered the hosts (both) of the Gods and of the Demons? ?”

English translation by Samuel Lee (1843); the original is not shown

But, I know not whence Jupiter is to be viewed, after these (viz.) the Earth, the Sea, the Ocean, Rhea, and Saturn, mortals! or How, according to this sentiment of thine, we can give our assent to that of those who said before us, that “‘ they are the sons of the Gods, just as they affirmed ; as they clearly knew their own Fathers. It is impossible therefore, we should not approve of the sons of the Gods, when, behold! they advance neither probabilities nor strong proofs.” And he adds; ‘“'Thus therefore just as they affirmed a generation, respecting these Gods (so) let it be, and be affirmed.” After this he makes a long story, which is that of the generation of the Gods, (as) related by the Poets. And, upon this He assures us and says, that from Saturn and Rhea were Jupiter and Juno, and all those whom we know; and the brothers of these, are they all said to be; and others again, who were the children of these.

English translation by Samuel Lee (1843); the original is not shown

Do you observe then, how this man goes on stating, —stating too not things that are not difficult, but impious, and those which are directly opposed to his own Philosophy? For this is he who in the Republics’, drives away contemptuously (and) entirely from his commonwealth, those whom he here calls the sons of the Gods! —those ancients (I say} who spoke of the Divinity of these; Homer himself, Hesiod, and prior to these, Orpheus! But now, the same Philosopher advises, that we give credence to these; calling them the sons of the Gods! He supplicates too,—~subsequently to the earth and the heavens, and to that humid substanee which he names the Ocean, (implicated) in generation and corruption !—that Father of all, both of men and Gods; and Juno, with those others succeeding them, who—as he affirms—are said to be their brothers; and confesses, that they are the sons of those who are of the Earth, and of the Ocean: and he afterwards advises, that we should worship-these as Gods’! Where then is that multitude of intellectual Essences? And, Where that incorporeal Form which is beyond the world? or, that Divine story about the nature that has neither colour nor form’? And, if indeed every soul be immortal, Why dost thou subject to mortal beings, those that are immortal ? And, to the bodies of Demons, that which is Incorporeal ? The intelligent and rational Essence too, to those that are. of sense, and subject to corruption? It seems right to me therefore, to consider this man more reprehensible than (all) the rest; since an attachment, on account of the kindred character of his doctrines, drew me to him. For, as it appears to me, this man alone of all the Greeks, attached himself to the outward portals of the truth, and shewed, in many (of his) sentiments, a relationship with us. Nevertheless, such cannot be honoured by the truth; because he is, as it appears to me, more reprehensible by it than all .) the immortality of the soul, because he made the notion of the vulgar his own. For, it was not (according to this) that the souls of men only were immortal; but also, (those) of dogs, hedgehogs, ants, horses, asses, and of the rest of the irrational animals; and, that (these) differed in nothing, as to their essence, from the souls of the Philosophers! He (also) affirmed after the Egyptian manner‘, that these same effected a change into every sort of body ; those of men being transfusable into the beastly nature. On these accounts, he is as worthy of reprobation in this case, as in that in which he gave his approval, but lied on the other side! And, although this was (such) an astonishing man, that he could apprehend the Maker and Creator of this whole; nevertheless, as he put not forth the word of righteousness, he is particularly deserving of the reprehension of every man: because “he knew God, but honoured Him not as God ; but worshipped and served the creature, exclusive of the Creator.” He also named those Gods, and worshipped them (as such), which were (supposed to be) fixed in visible bodies; the Sun, the Moon, and the Stars, confessing at once, and at the same time, that they were made, were perishable, and compounded in their nature of fire, earth, and at the same time, of the rest of the elements! And these same he worshipped, he honoured, and called them Gods! And then again, he afterwards confessed that these very same (Deities) were both dissoluble, and subject to corruption! But we may hear him,—as the thing said is at hand,—saying in the Timzeus :—

English translation by Samuel Lee (1843); the original is not shown

Gods’ of the Gods, of whom I am the Creator : every thing therefore, that has been bound together, is dissoluble ; hence, because you came into being, in order to exist, you are not immortal: neither (are you) wholly indissoluble.” And again (speaking) on their being, whence this is, and how to be determined, he says: ‘¢ What fire is to air; such the air is to the water; and the water to the earth: out of which He bound up and established the visible and sensible heavens. And, by means of these things, and out of them, which are thus and the number of which is four, the body of the world came into being.” After this he says: ““ And‘, as to the existence of time, in order that time might be, the Sun, the Moon, and the five other Stars, which have the title of wandering (planetary), came into existence; (and this) for its determination, preservation, and calculation. So God made each one of these bodies, and placed them (each) in (its) course.” And again, he says of the heavens, how they existed in all time; there being no beginning of the essence (of these) not even one: or being, of what sort this was in its primitive commencement. He then turns his discourse to his soul, and says, ‘it became existent, is visible, is subject to sense, and has a body: and, that all such things are thus subject to sense, and, that those which are subject to sense, are apprehended by thought, and (so) perceived to be existences’.

English translation by Samuel Lee (1843); the original is not shown

Was it not therefore, lapsing far from soundness of mind, that he, who spoke so orderly and well of these things, should call them Gods? that he should confess also, that they were made out of the perishable and corporeal matter of fire, water, air, and earth? and affirm that they were subject to dissolution, and in their nature corruptible ? and, again, should name these selfsame beings Gods to be honoured’? For, What participation can that Name and Honour have, which is the Cause of . all things, with bodies that are subject to sense, and to dissolution? Or, What sort of companionship of the Word, inseparable from Him who is in all time, but cannot be’, (i.e. as we are, subject to corruption), with that which always was, but never had an existence (of its own), so that he should call these Deities God? For, if He is truly God, He who exists in all time, but has not that he might be (as we are); so far as He existed not thus, He was no God. But if he be God, who was at all times, but never existed (of himself): whatever he might otherwise be, he is no God. And, What sentiment can be more impious than this? For, the two things are opposed in their natures ;—this, which is apprehended by reason and knowledge; .and that, which is to be considered by irrational sense :—this too, which is capable of action: and that, which is passive. How (I ask) can such opposites deserve one (and the same) name? For, this would be, as though a man should wonder at the science of the architect, but should attach the honour (due to him) to the work that was by him; and (so) invert the order (of things)! And, should any one name the ship, the shipmaster; or the coachman, the chariot with its horses ; so likewise, would he act most foolishly, who should dare to name the Creation of God, Gods; when behold! it had not escaped him,—but he had openly confessed,— that they were bound up in the bands of God the Creator of all, and (affirmed, that they) were constituted out of the inanimate elements, fire, water, air, and earth! Nevertheless even this man thus (taught)!

English translation by Samuel Lee (1843); the original is not shown

But, What necessity can there now be, that I should bring to light, how the wise men collected themselves together in ranks, as it were, sectioned themselves off, separated, and mightily armed themselves against one another, just as in battle array, and met with shields, spears, and hosts,—as one‘ of the Poets says, ‘ Behold the abundance of the uproar thickened-—of the destroying and the perishing ?”—for Plato termed their warfare with one another, the conflict of Giants when he thus spoke, —

English translation by Samuel Lee (1843); the original is not shown

<‘And behold! the conflict between them might be assimilated to that of Giants, because of the contention they had with one another about matter.”

English translation by Samuel Lee (1843); the original is not shown

Nevertheless, Plato himself said these things either against the Philosophers who were before him, or against those who were his contemporaries: and, that these also,—-(as) he also afterwards cries out,—were those who took up arms against him, the evidence is clear. For Aristotle’, who arranged himself against Plato, went off with his whole school from his doctrines. Others again, the Juniors’ afterwards arose, who attacked the philosophical notions of Aristotle; and, on the other hand, animadverted on the Stoics. Others, the Sceptics’, put forth Pyrrho and the reserve’: and, at once, ridiculed every body! For, they all fully equipped themselves for a mighty war of soul against one another: and (this) by means of words, fell moreover, but little short of arming themselves, fighting, and attacking one another, with spears and shields! Where it was any thing but right, they divided: but, where it was necessary they should contend with all their power,—I know not how it was,—they agreed; and particularly in the error of a multiplicity of Gods! They agreed (I say) in that, which before all men, and more than all men, they knew was a non-entity! That is to say, the Epicureans, (agreeing) with the Stoics: the followers of Aristotle, with those of Plato: the professors of Physics, with the Sceptics; (these) one and all, together with their wives, their daughters, and the ignorant crowd, going to the Temples, and presenting themselves for the purpose of worshipping with (their) vows, as Gods, the inanimate Idols, (formed) in the likeness of men: and these they honoured with libations, fumes, blood, and the sacrifices of irrational animals: shewing by this means,—and in this one thing only did they relax their enmity towards one another,— that they all studiously gave their assent to this their error. And (again), when the truth was laid open to them, they opposed it! For it was right, that where their knowledge was-correct, there should they have shewn their character to be firm: that they should have contended and warred for the truth; and, had it been necessary, they should have even died for it: (and) should have received it readily in the love (thereof), as men boasting themselves that they were Philosophers. These same persons were therefore, friendly to one another in this, that they brought themselves together for the sake of falsehood: and, about those things, on which it was unbecoming they should contend,—because of the hidden and unknown properties of these,—they contended as if it had been for the truth; readily too was their contention carried on about shadows, while they attacked and reproached one another, with innumerable wounding expressions. But, What need can there be, that (I should record) the contentions of the Philosophers against one another, their controversial expressions, and the common warfare which they set up, and in which they fell; since they availed themselves of human wisdom (only), and of the reasoning of the mortal mind’: God the ‘Teacher not having presented himself to them ?

English translation by Samuel Lee (1843); the original is not shown

How was it then?—How, that those who contended about these things, had no God; when, behold! there was a multitude of Deities among them ?—since that of Delphos', and that of Lebadia, was (each) a Diviner? —that of Colophon gave responses ?—that of Miletus was also a Diviner ?—and another was crying out from another quarter? Nevertheless, not even one of these could so teach these wise men, that they could apprehend the truth ! All of them too worshipped these, as did their Fathers; and all the Greeks confessed, that they were gods: yet, they were not the more assisted in the discovery of the doctrines which are divine; when, behold! there was nothing hindering them from being forthwith (so) instructed in the truth, (or) from availing themselves of the Gods, who were on the earth and at hand, as (their) Teachers. Nor should they have injured, and reviled one another; but, should have ceased from dispute, and have enquired of the Gods about the matters of contention ; and so have learned the truth, as it were from Physicians, and (thence) have received advantage. And first, it was . the duty of the school of Epicurus to have learned not to be godless, and not to have subjected themselves to “ Rest” (as the chief good): nor so to have infatuated themselves with ridiculous (notions), as to ascribe to subtile and indivisible bodies the power of making the universe; but to have persuaded themselves from the Gods, when (so) taught of the things respecting them. It was also the duty of the school of Aristotle,—who saw with their own eyes the Temples, Fanes, and Idols (that were) on earth: not one (only) but myriads (of these), in every city and place,—to have examined them as to their power: and, from the fact, no more to have confined their discussions about Providence, either to the (regions) above the heavens, or even to (those) above the moon’; but, to have persuaded themselves, that there were Gods also on the earth, and that they exercised a providential care over the men among whom they resided. And, as it was in their power to learn from these same their own (Deities), they should no more have contended with those that were arrayed against them, as to whether the soul was mortal, or immortal. They should therefore, have asked the God who was at hand, and (so) have received, as from the Gods, the true decision (of this question). Thus also, (it was the duty) of the Stoics; and thus too, of the Platonists: thus also, of the Sceptics who are termed Pyrrhonists: and thus also, of those who were in former times styled the Philosophers of Physics, that they should not have desisted from inquiry as to the truth, nor have supposed, as those do who play at chess, that every thing coming into their mind was truth. They should, on the contrary, have asked the Gods who were residing among them about every thing that was unknown: but not even one of the Wise Men has done this, nor did it even . . enter his mind! Was it then, that they were godless, and evil-minded towards the Gods, that (the task) was unwelcome to them, and (that) they acted thus? But, thus were they all at once godless; and the Philosophers appear to have been particularly so, and much more wicked than those who were unintellectual: those (I say), who made it no unwelcome task to enquire of the Gods about the taking of wives; the taking of a journey; blindness, or the infirmity of the body :—these too, were readily heard: and to those, who so sought did (the Gods), not invidiously, give their divinations. But, behold! it was any thing but becoming in the wise, to have enquired of those Gods who were among them, and to whom they rendered worship and honour, respecting their bodies (only); but not about the healing of their souls. And, as not even one of these marvellous Philosophers did this; it remains, that we assure ourselves of one of two things; (viz.) Either, that these men were no Philosophers; or, that those (Deities) were no Gods. For if, when (these) were really Gods, they set them at nought; they were no Philosophers, but were fools and ignorant men: but, if they had in truth made any approach to the love of wisdom, and abounded in knowledge more than the many; it is clear that they would, with pure conscience, have laughed at the folly of the many; and it is likely (they did so).

English translation by Samuel Lee (1843); the original is not shown

But, if those who have been mentioned, were really Gods; Why was it, that the conversation which is on earth, happened to be that of their lives? Was it for the common advantage of all? If indeed this was the case; Why did they not give up those (their) vain stories, and preach to all men the things, that would aid in the acquirement of virtue? And, Why did they not give themselves to the enacting of laws for man, corrective of the common conduct ? and (to the performance) of deeds, pointing out the life of virtue to all? And, Why was not their care more particularly exerted for healing the passions of the soul, than (the sufferings) of the body?—rather to deliver those who fled to them, from foolishness and ignorance, than from the loss of possessions, when they saw that men desired wisdom; that they were labouring night and day for the discovery of the truth; and were seeking (both) by labour and contention, for a decision as to the reverence due to these same Gods? And again, (these) went in among the Diviners, and offered sacrifices just as their Fathers had done; and honoured those (Gods) with the honours which they had by custom retained. Why then, did they not receive these with terms of affection? praise them for their labours? and, so delivering them from the contention which they had with one another, give them such aid from their labours, that they should become truly wise in God, and be (real) Philosophers?—and (thus) teach them the science of that true Philosophy, which is free from falsehood? But, as they did not this, they made it plain to every man’s perception, that they were no Gods: and, that those who boasted that they were Philosophers, were unworthy of that name! For, had they been truly wise, they never could have supposed that these were Gods: inasmuch as they had afforded to them nothing worthy of Deity, nor had it in their power to teach those, who were anxiously careful about the knowledge respecting them, the things pertaining to Deity. . Thus these (Philosophers) became in (appearance) what they (really) were not’: besides, they presented themselves to the many, and called those Gods, which they knew more accurately than all (other) men, were no such things ! What sort of name these deserve, it is not necessary for me further to say, except, that those who made their locks to flow down?, frequented the Temples together with tavern-keepers, with men the refuse (of society), and harlots! And, Did these wise men (then) ask of the Gods the things advantageous to the Philosophers? ‘There is no one who will say this of them!—nor, in like manner, how it was, that no instructing Deity presented himself to afford the erudition which would aid them'. But (the things asked) were,—as the Diviners (themselves) say,—the commodities and helps of life generally; the discovery of a slave, if one had happened to run away; of a broken vessel ; the purchasing of an estate; merchandise; the taking of a wife’; or, other things similar to these. About these it was, .” that their admiration and reverence were called forth to their Gods; (and this) in the little blood of a cock, the immolation of a ram or of a bull; the (offering of) cups and bowls, or of a little wheat flower, or of purchased crowns! And, Had they any truth—teaching Deity, as to the things (comporting) with virtue, or to those which respected the healing of the soul? No, not (even) one! On this account, these Philosophers appear to me, to have laboured insolently in (their) warfare against one another, greatly to have aggravated their mutual differences, and to have departed (willingly) from the real knowledge of God: and accordingly, one might hear from them in words, of the Gods, the sons of the Gods, of Demigods, and of good Demons: but in deeds, every thing was adverse: and in opposing, they boasted themselves of opposition! Just as if one should be willing to point out the sun, with the luminaries that are in the heavens; but be unwilling to lift up his eyes to Him who is above (these): should cast down both his hands and soul to the earth, and seek among the clay and mud, the Powers that are in the heavens! In this manner therefore, had the whole race of men persuaded themselves, together with their Philosophers, and Kings,—through an estrangement of the intellect, and the error of wicked Demons,—that the rational and Divine Essence which is above the heavens, and beyond the universe, existed in place, below, among material bodies, and subject to the passions of both mortals, and immortals! And, since this entire estrangement of mind had infected the whole human race, Have we not soundly affirmed that God the Saviour, a Divine Revelation, and acommon Helper of all, was required for this our state of life?

English translation by Samuel Lee (1843); the original is not shown

And again, all had been led to such a state of Insanity, that they even sacrificed their friends to those who were thought to be Gods: nor did they spare their own nature; on the contrary, they put to death, through .” the madness and bondage of their minds, even their only children', and the friends of their children! And, What madness can be greater than this, that (men) should sacrifice human beings, and pollute all their cities and houses with their own blood? And, behold! Do not all the Greeks bear testimony to these same things? And, Is not the whole of their histories filled with the records of them?

English translation by Samuel Lee (1843); the original is not shown

For, the Phoenicians annually sacrificed (some of) their friends, and their only children to Saturn! To the same again, was a man also sacrificed in Rhodes on the sixth of the month Conun (March)! This same custom too . greatly obtained, and was thus changed : They kept one of those, who had been publicly condemned to death, until the feast of Saturn; and, when the feast arrived, they brought the man out beyond the gate, over against the Image of Aristobule (Diana): they then gave him wine, and put him to death.