On Free Will 10.1–22.10

Methodius of Olympus · On Free Will · late 3rd cent. (disputed) · place unknown · 56 passages

Greek text: Bonwetsch, GCS 27 (Greek text: G. N. Bonwetsch, Methodius (GCS 27, 1917), digitized by the First Thousand Years of Greek project (Open Greek and Latin), CC BY-SA 4.0).English: Claude (claude-opus-5-5), public domain (CC0). Compare: Ante-Nicene Fathers, vol. 6 (1886).

Chapter 10

10.1Bonwetsch, 170–171

Οὐ δοκεῖς δέ μοι δεόντως εἰρηκέναι τὴν ὕλην ἄνωθεν ποιότητας ἔχειν. εἰ γὰρ τοῦθʼ οὕτως ἔχει, τίνος ἔσται ποιητὴς ὁ θεός; εἴτε γὰρ οὐσίας ἐροῦμεν, προεῖναι ταύτας φαμέν· εἴτʼ αὖ πάλιν ποιότητας, καὶ ταύτας ὑπάρχειν λέγομεν. οὐκοῦν οὐσίας τε οὔσης καὶ ποιοτήτων περιττὸν εἶναί μοι δοκεῖ δημιουργὸν λέγειν τὸν θεόν.

Ou dokeis de moi deontōs eirēkenai tēn hylēn anōthen poiotētas echein. ei gar touthʼ houtōs echei, tinos estai poiētēs ho theos? eite gar ousias eroumen, proeinai tautas phamen; eitʼ au palin poiotētas, kai tautas hyparchein legomen. oukoun ousias te ousēs kai poiotētōn peritton einai moi dokei dēmiourgon legein ton theon.

But you do not seem to me to have spoken rightly in saying that matter had qualities from the beginning. For if this is so, of what will God be the maker? If we say substances, we say that these existed beforehand; if again qualities, we say that these too exist. Since, then, both substance and qualities exist, it seems to me superfluous to call God a creator.

Notes and citation

Summary: If matter always had qualities, God made nothing and is no creator.

Notes on the original text

Digital text corrected (split word): φαμ. έν → φαμέν; ποι- οτήτων → ποιοτήτων.

Cite (SBL): Methodius, Autex. 10.1 (Bonwetsch, 170–171; trans. Sophia Scriptura, https://sophiascriptura.com/fathers/methodius-autexusio/10-1/#p-10-1). (abbreviation not yet checked)

BibTeX · RIS (whole work; this passage's key: sophiascriptura-methodius-autexusio-10-1) · Report an error

Translation: Translated by Claude (Opus) from the Greek of Bonwetsch (GCS 27, 1917; only the parts surviving in Greek); each batch compared afterwards with the public-domain translation in ANF 6 (1886).

10.2Bonwetsch, 171

ἵνα δὲ μὴ ἐμαυτῷ κατασκευάξειν τινὰ δόξω λόγον, ἀπόκριναί μοι νῦν ἐρωτώμενος· τίνι τρόπῳ δημιουργὸν εἶναι φῂς τὸν θεόν; πότερον ὅτι τὰς οὐσίας ἔτρεψεν εἰς τὸ μηκέτι ὑπάρχειν ἐκείνας, ὅπερ ἡσάν ποτε, ἀλλʼ ἑτέρας παρʼ αὐτὰς γενέσθαι, ἢ ὅτι τὰς μὲν οὐσίας ἐφύλαξεν ἐκείνας, αἴπερ ἦσαν πρὸ τούτου, τὰς δὲ ποιότητας ἔτρεψεν αὐτῶν;

hina de mē emautǭ kataskeuaxein tina doxō logon, apokrinai moi nyn erōtōmenos; tini tropǭ dēmiourgon einai phę̄s ton theon? poteron hoti tas ousias etrepsen eis to mēketi hyparchein ekeinas, hoper hēsan pote, allʼ heteras parʼ autas genesthai, ē hoti tas men ousias ephylaxen ekeinas, aiper ēsan pro toutou, tas de poiotētas etrepsen autōn?

But so that I may not seem to be constructing an argument for myself, answer me now when I ask: in what way do you say God is a creator? Was it that he changed the substances, so that they no longer were what they once were but others came to be besides them, or that he kept the substances that existed before this, but changed their qualities?

Notes and citation

Summary: Did God change substances or only qualities?

Notes on the original text

Digital text corrected (OCR slip; split word): ἔστεψεν → ἔτρεψεν; πότε- ρον → πότερον; ἐφύλα- ξεν → ἐφύλαξεν.

Cite (SBL): Methodius, Autex. 10.2 (Bonwetsch, 171; trans. Sophia Scriptura, https://sophiascriptura.com/fathers/methodius-autexusio/10-1/#p-10-2). (abbreviation not yet checked)

BibTeX · RIS (whole work; this passage's key: sophiascriptura-methodius-autexusio-10-2) · Report an error

10.3Bonwetsch, 171

ΕΤΑΙΡ. Οὔ τι μοι δοκεῖ ἀλλαγήν τινα οὐσιῶν γεγονέναι· καὶ γὰρ ἄτοπον τοῦτο λέγειν μοι φαίνεται· τροπὴν δέ τινα τῶν ποιοτήτων γεγονέναι φημί, καθʼ ἃς δημιουργὸν εἶναι λέγω τὸν θεόν. καὶ ὥσπερ εἰ τύχοι λέγειν ἐκ λίθων οἰκίαν γεγονέναι, ἐφʼ ὧν οὐκ ἔστιν εἰπεῖν ὡς οὐκέτι Μοι μένουσι τῇ οὐσίᾳ οἰκία γενόμενοι οἱ λίθοι — τῇ

ETAIR. Ou ti moi dokei allagēn tina ousiōn gegonenai; kai gar atopon touto legein moi phainetai; tropēn de tina tōn poiotētōn gegonenai phēmi, kathʼ has dēmiourgon einai legō ton theon. kai hōsper ei tychoi legein ek lithōn oikian gegonenai, ephʼ hōn ouk estin eipein hōs ouketi Moi menousi tę̄ ousią oikia genomenoi hoi lithoi — tę̄

Companion: It does not seem to me that any change of substances took place; for that seems to me absurd to say. But I say that a change of the qualities took place, and in respect of these I say God is a creator. And just as one might say that a house came from stones, of which it cannot be said that the stones, having become a house, no longer remain stones in substance —

Notes and citation

Summary: The Companion holds that God changed only the qualities, as stones become a house.

The sentence continues in 10.4.

Notes on the original text

Digital text corrected (OCR slip; split word): ποιοτή- των → ποιοτήτων; ἐκ λέθων → ἐκ λίθων.

Cite (SBL): Methodius, Autex. 10.3 (Bonwetsch, 171; trans. Sophia Scriptura, https://sophiascriptura.com/fathers/methodius-autexusio/10-1/#p-10-3). (abbreviation not yet checked)

BibTeX · RIS (whole work; this passage's key: sophiascriptura-methodius-autexusio-10-3) · Report an error

10.4Bonwetsch, 171–172

γὰρ ποιότητι τῆς συνθέσεως τὴν οἰκίαν γεγονέναι φημί, τραπείσης δηλονότι τῆς προτέρας τῶν λίθων ποιότητος — οὕτω μοι δοκεῖ καὶ τὸν θεόν, ὑπομενούσης τῆς οὐσίας, τροπήν τινα τῶν ποιοτήτων αὐτῆς πεποιηκέναι, καθʼ ἥν τὴν τοῦδε τοῦ κόσμου γένεσιν πρὸς τοῦ θεοῦ γεγονέναι λέγω.

gar poiotēti tēs syntheseōs tēn oikian gegonenai phēmi, trapeisēs dēlonoti tēs proteras tōn lithōn poiotētos — houtō moi dokei kai ton theon, hypomenousēs tēs ousias, tropēn tina tōn poiotētōn autēs pepoiēkenai, kathʼ hēn tēn toude tou kosmou genesin pros tou theou gegonenai legō.

for I say that the house came about by the quality of the construction, the former quality of the stones having evidently been changed — so it seems to me that God too, while the substance remained, made a change of its qualities, and in respect of this I say that the coming into being of this world was from God.

Notes and citation

Summary: God, on this view, formed the world by changing the qualities of persisting matter.

Cite (SBL): Methodius, Autex. 10.4 (Bonwetsch, 171–172; trans. Sophia Scriptura, https://sophiascriptura.com/fathers/methodius-autexusio/10-1/#p-10-4). (abbreviation not yet checked)

BibTeX · RIS (whole work; this passage's key: sophiascriptura-methodius-autexusio-10-4) · Report an error

10.5Bonwetsch, 172

ΟΡΘΟΔ. Ἐπεὶ τοίνυν τροπήν τινα τῶν ποιοτήτων πρὸς τοῦ θεοῦ γεγονέναι φᾐς, ἀπόκριναί μοι βραχέα πυθέσθαι προαιρουμενῳ. λέγε δή. εἰ ὁμοίως καὶ σοὶ δοκεῖ τὰ κακὰ ποιότητας εἶναι τῶν οὐσιῶν; ΕΤΑΙΡ. Δοκεῖ.

ORThOD. Epei toinyn tropēn tina tōn poiotētōn pros tou theou gegonenai phę̄s, apokrinai moi brachea pythesthai proairoumenǭ. lege dē. ei homoiōs kai soi dokei ta kaka poiotētas einai tōn ousiōn? ETAIR. Dokei.

Orthodox: Since, then, you say that a change of the qualities was made by God, answer me, as I choose to ask a few questions. Tell me, do evils seem to you likewise to be qualities of substances? Companion: They do.

Notes and citation

Summary: The Companion agrees that evils are qualities.

Cite (SBL): Methodius, Autex. 10.5 (Bonwetsch, 172; trans. Sophia Scriptura, https://sophiascriptura.com/fathers/methodius-autexusio/10-1/#p-10-5). (abbreviation not yet checked)

BibTeX · RIS (whole work; this passage's key: sophiascriptura-methodius-autexusio-10-5) · Report an error

10.6Bonwetsch, 172

ΟΡΘΟΔ. Ἄνωθεν δὲ ἦσαν αἱ ποιότητες αὖται ἐν τῇ ὕλῃ, ἢ ἀρχὴν ἴσχον τοῦ εἶναι; ΕΤΔΙΡ. Συνεῖναί φημι ἀγενήτως τῇ ὕλῃ ταυτασὶ τὰς ποιότητας.

ORThOD. Anōthen de ēsan hai poiotētes autai en tę̄ hylę̄, ē archēn ischon tou einai? ETDIR. Syneinai phēmi agenētōs tę̄ hylę̄ tautasi tas poiotētas.

Orthodox: And were these qualities in matter from the beginning, or did they have a beginning of being? Companion: I say that these qualities coexist with matter without having come into being.

Notes and citation

Summary: He holds that these qualities are uncreated.

Cite (SBL): Methodius, Autex. 10.6 (Bonwetsch, 172; trans. Sophia Scriptura, https://sophiascriptura.com/fathers/methodius-autexusio/10-1/#p-10-6). (abbreviation not yet checked)

BibTeX · RIS (whole work; this passage's key: sophiascriptura-methodius-autexusio-10-6) · Report an error

10.7Bonwetsch, 172

ΟΡΘΟΔ. Οὑχὶ δὲ τὸν θεὸν φῂς τροπήν τινα τῶν ποιοτήτων πεποιηκεναι; ΕΤΑΙΡ̣ Τοῦτό φημι.

ORThOD. Houchi de ton theon phę̄s tropēn tina tōn poiotētōn pepoiēkenai? ETAIR Touto phēmi.

Orthodox: And do you not say that God made a change of the qualities? Companion: I say so.

Notes and citation

Summary: God changed the qualities.

Cite (SBL): Methodius, Autex. 10.7 (Bonwetsch, 172; trans. Sophia Scriptura, https://sophiascriptura.com/fathers/methodius-autexusio/10-1/#p-10-7). (abbreviation not yet checked)

BibTeX · RIS (whole work; this passage's key: sophiascriptura-methodius-autexusio-10-7) · Report an error

10.8Bonwetsch, 172

ΟΡΘΟΔ. Πότερον οὑν εἰς τὸ κρεῖττον ἢ εἰς τὸ χεῖρον; ΕΤΑΙΡ. Εἰς τὸ κρεῖττον λέγειν μοι δοκεῖ.

ORThOD. Poteron houn eis to kreitton ē eis to cheiron? ETAIR. Eis to kreitton legein moi dokei.

Orthodox: For the better, or for the worse? Companion: It seems to me right to say for the better.

Notes and citation

Summary: The change was for the better.

Cite (SBL): Methodius, Autex. 10.8 (Bonwetsch, 172; trans. Sophia Scriptura, https://sophiascriptura.com/fathers/methodius-autexusio/10-1/#p-10-8). (abbreviation not yet checked)

BibTeX · RIS (whole work; this passage's key: sophiascriptura-methodius-autexusio-10-8) · Report an error

Chapter 11

11.1Bonwetsch, 172–173

ΟΡΘΟΔ. Οὐκοῦν εἰ ποιότητες ὕλης τὰ κακά, τὰς δὲ ποιότητας αὐτῆς εἰς τὸ κρεῖττον ἔτρεψεν ὁ θεός, πόθεν τὰ κακὰ ζητεῖν ἀνάγκη. οὐ γὰρ ἔμειναν αἱ ποιότητες ὁποῖαί ποτʼ ἦσαν τῇ φύσει.

ORThOD. Oukoun ei poiotētes hylēs ta kaka, tas de poiotētas autēs eis to kreitton etrepsen ho theos, pothen ta kaka zētein anankē. ou gar emeinan hai poiotētes hopoiai potʼ ēsan tę̄ physei.

Orthodox: Then if evils are qualities of matter, and God changed its qualities for the better, we must ask where evils come from. For the qualities did not remain such as they once were by nature.

Notes and citation

Summary: If God improved matter’s qualities, where do evils come from?

Notes on the original text

Digital text corrected (split word): ποι- ότητας → ποιότητας.

Cite (SBL): Methodius, Autex. 11.1 (Bonwetsch, 172–173; trans. Sophia Scriptura, https://sophiascriptura.com/fathers/methodius-autexusio/10-1/#p-11-1). (abbreviation not yet checked)

BibTeX · RIS (whole work; this passage's key: sophiascriptura-methodius-autexusio-11-1) · Report an error

11.2Bonwetsch, 173

ἤ, εἰ μὲν πρότερον οὐκ ἠσαν αἱ ποιότητες κακαί, ἐκ δὲ τοῦ τραπῆναι πρὸς τοῦ θεοῦ τὰς πρώτας τοιαύτας περὶ τὴν ὅλην γεγονέναι ποιότητας φῄς, αἴτιος ἔσται τῶν κακῶν ὸ θεός, τρέψας τὰς οὐκ οὔσας ποιότητας κακὰς εἰς τὸ εἶναι κακάς· ἢ τὰς μὲν κακὰς ποιότητας εἰς τὸ κρεῖττον οὐ δοκεῖ σοι τρέψαι τὸν θεόν, τὰς δὲ λοιπὰς καὶ μόνας, ὅσαι ἀδιάφοροι ἐτύγχανον, τῆς διακοσμήσεως ἕνεκα πρὸς τοῦ θεοῦ τετράφθαι λέγεις; ΕΤΑΙΡ̣ Οὕτως ἄνωθεν εἶχον ἐγώ.

ē, ei men proteron ouk ēsan hai poiotētes kakai, ek de tou trapēnai pros tou theou tas prōtas toiautas peri tēn holēn gegonenai poiotētas phę̄s, aitios estai tōn kakōn o theos, trepsas tas ouk ousas poiotētas kakas eis to einai kakas; ē tas men kakas poiotētas eis to kreitton ou dokei soi trepsai ton theon, tas de loipas kai monas, hosai adiaphoroi etynchanon, tēs diakosmēseōs heneka pros tou theou tetraphthai legeis? ETAIR Houtōs anōthen eichon egō.

Either, if the qualities were not evil before, but you say that from being changed by God the first such qualities came to be in matter, God will be the cause of evils, having changed qualities that were not evil into being evil; or does it seem to you that God did not change the evil qualities for the better, and you say that only the rest, as many as were indifferent, were changed by God for the sake of ordering? Companion: That is what I held from the beginning.

Notes and citation

Summary: The Companion holds that God left the evil qualities unchanged and ordered only the indifferent ones.

Notes on the original text

Digital text corrected (OCR slip; split word): γεγο- νέναι → γεγονέναι; δικοσμήσεως → διακοσμήσεως.

Cite (SBL): Methodius, Autex. 11.2 (Bonwetsch, 173; trans. Sophia Scriptura, https://sophiascriptura.com/fathers/methodius-autexusio/10-1/#p-11-2). (abbreviation not yet checked)

BibTeX · RIS (whole work; this passage's key: sophiascriptura-methodius-autexusio-11-2) · Report an error

11.3Bonwetsch, 173

ΟΡΘΟΔ. Πῶς τοίνυν αὐτὸν τὰς τῶν φαύλων ποιότητας ὡς εἶχον καταλελοιπέναι λέγεις; πότερον δυνάμενον μὲν κἀκείνας ἀνελεῖν, οὐ βουληθέντα δέ, ἢ τὸ δύνασθαι μὴ ἔχοντα; εἰ μὲν γὰρ δυνάμενον λέξεις, οὐ βουληθέντα δέ, αὐτὸν αἴτιον τούτων εἰπεῖν ἀνάγκη, ὅτι δυνάμενος ποιῆσαι μὴ εἶναι κακὰ συνεχώρησεν αὐτὰ μένειν ὡς ἦν, καὶ μάλιστα ὅτε δημιουργεῖν τὴν ὅλην ἤρξατο.

ORThOD. Pōs toinyn auton tas tōn phaulōn poiotētas hōs eichon kataleloipenai legeis? poteron dynamenon men kakeinas anelein, ou boulēthenta de, ē to dynasthai mē echonta? ei men gar dynamenon lexeis, ou boulēthenta de, auton aition toutōn eipein anankē, hoti dynamenos poiēsai mē einai kaka synechōrēsen auta menein hōs ēn, kai malista hote dēmiourgein tēn holēn ērxato.

Orthodox: How, then, do you say that he left the qualities of base things as they were? Was he able to remove those too but unwilling, or did he lack the power? If you say he was able but unwilling, we must say that he is their cause, since, being able to make evils not exist, he allowed them to remain as they were, especially when he had begun to craft matter.

Notes and citation

Summary: If God could have removed evil qualities but did not, he is responsible for them.

Notes on the original text

Digital text corrected (OCR slip): κακκὰ → κακὰ.

Cite (SBL): Methodius, Autex. 11.3 (Bonwetsch, 173; trans. Sophia Scriptura, https://sophiascriptura.com/fathers/methodius-autexusio/10-1/#p-11-3). (abbreviation not yet checked)

BibTeX · RIS (whole work; this passage's key: sophiascriptura-methodius-autexusio-11-3) · Report an error

11.4Bonwetsch, 173–174

εἰ γὰρ μηδʼ ὅλως ἔμελεν αὐτῷ τῆς ὕλης, οὐκ ἂν αἴτιος ἦν ὦν συνεχώρει μένειν· ἐπεὶ δὲ μέρος μέν τι αὐτῆς δημιουργεῖ, μέρος δέ τι αὐτῆς οὔτως ἐᾷ, δυνάμενος κἀκεῖνο τρέπειν εἰς τὸ κρεῖττον, αἰτίαν ὁφλισκάνειν ἄξιος εἶναί μοι δοκεῖ, καταλιπὼν μέρος ὕλης εἶναι πονηρὸν ἐπʼ ὁλέθρῳ οὑ ἐδημιούργησε μέρους.

ei gar mēdʼ holōs emelen autǭ tēs hylēs, ouk an aitios ēn ōn synechōrei menein; epei de meros men ti autēs dēmiourgei, meros de ti autēs outōs eą, dynamenos kakeino trepein eis to kreitton, aitian hophliskanein axios einai moi dokei, katalipōn meros hylēs einai ponēron epʼ holethrǭ hou edēmiourgēse merous.

For if he had not cared about matter at all, he would not have been the cause of what he allowed to remain. But since he crafts one part of it and leaves another part of it as it is, though able to turn that too to the better, he seems to me to deserve blame, having left a part of matter evil to the ruin of the part he crafted.

Notes and citation

Summary: By ordering part of matter and leaving the rest evil, God would be to blame.

Notes on the original text

Digital text corrected (split word): δυνάμε- νος → δυνάμενος.

Cite (SBL): Methodius, Autex. 11.4 (Bonwetsch, 173–174; trans. Sophia Scriptura, https://sophiascriptura.com/fathers/methodius-autexusio/10-1/#p-11-4). (abbreviation not yet checked)

BibTeX · RIS (whole work; this passage's key: sophiascriptura-methodius-autexusio-11-4) · Report an error

11.5Bonwetsch, 174

ἀλλὰ μὴν καὶ τὰ μέγιστα κατὰ τοῦτο τὸ μέρος ἠδικῆσθαί μοι δοκεῖ, τοῦθʼ ὅπερ κατεσκεύασε τῆς ὕλης μέρος ἀντιλαμβανόμενον τανῦν τῶν κακῶν. εἰ γὰρ τις ἐξετάζοι ἐπʼ ἀκριβὲς τὰ πράγματα, χαλεπώτερον νῦν εὑρήσει τὴν ὕλην πεπονθυῖαν τῆς προτέρας ἀκοσμίας. πρὶν γὰρ αὐτὴν διακριθῆναι τὸ μὴ αἰσθέσθαι τῶν κακῶν παρῆν αὐτῇ· νυνὶ δὲ ἕκαστον τῶν μερῶν αὐτῆς αἴσθησιν λαμβάνει τῶν κακῶν.

alla mēn kai ta megista kata touto to meros ēdikēsthai moi dokei, touthʼ hoper kateskeuase tēs hylēs meros antilambanomenon tanyn tōn kakōn. ei gar tis exetazoi epʼ akribes ta pragmata, chalepōteron nyn heurēsei tēn hylēn peponthuian tēs proteras akosmias. prin gar autēn diakrithēnai to mē aisthesthai tōn kakōn parēn autę̄; nyni de hekaston tōn merōn autēs aisthēsin lambanei tōn kakōn.

Indeed, it seems to me that this part has been wronged in the greatest degree, in that the part of matter which he fashioned now perceives evils. For if one examines things carefully, he will find that matter now suffers worse than in its former disorder. For before it was separated out, it did not perceive evils; but now each of its parts receives perception of evils.

Notes and citation

Summary: The ordered part of matter now suffers worse, since it can feel evil.

“Did not perceive”: the digital text reads Με for μή here.

Notes on the original text

Digital text corrected (OCR slip; stray mark; stray marks): μοι δοκεῖ,.. τοῦθʼ → μοι δοκεῖ, τοῦθʼ; ἀντιλαμβανόμενον » τανῦν → ἀντιλαμβανόμενον τανῦν; τὸ Με αἰσθέσθαι → τὸ μὴ αἰσθέσθαι.

Cite (SBL): Methodius, Autex. 11.5 (Bonwetsch, 174; trans. Sophia Scriptura, https://sophiascriptura.com/fathers/methodius-autexusio/10-1/#p-11-5). (abbreviation not yet checked)

BibTeX · RIS (whole work; this passage's key: sophiascriptura-methodius-autexusio-11-5) · Report an error

11.6Bonwetsch, 174

καί μοι ἐπʼ ἀνθρώπου τὸ παράδειγμα λάβε. πρὶν γὰρ εἰκονισθῇ καὶ ζῷον γἐνηται τῇ τοῦ δημιούργου τέχνῃ, τὸ μηδενὸς ἀντιλαμβάνεσθαι τῶν κακῶν παρὰ τῆς φύσεως εἶχεν. ἀφʼ οὑ δὲ πρὸς τοῦ θεοῦ ἄνθρωπος γίνεται, καὶ τὴν αἴσθησιν τοῦ προσπελάζοντος κακοῦ προσλαμβάνει. καὶ τοῦθʼ, ὅπερ ἐπὶ εὐεργεσίᾳ τῆς ὕλης πρὸς τοῦ θεοῦ γεγονέναι λέγεις, εὐρίσκεται μᾶλλον ἐπὶ τῷ χείρονι προσγενόμενον αὐτῇ.

kai moi epʼ anthrōpou to paradeigma labe. prin gar eikonisthę̄ kai zǭon genētai tę̄ tou dēmiourgou technę̄, to mēdenos antilambanesthai tōn kakōn para tēs physeōs eichen. aphʼ hou de pros tou theou anthrōpos ginetai, kai tēn aisthēsin tou prospelazontos kakou proslambanei. kai touthʼ, hoper epi euergesią tēs hylēs pros tou theou gegonenai legeis, eurisketai mallon epi tǭ cheironi prosgenomenon autę̄.

Take the example of a man. Before he was formed into an image and became a living creature by the Creator’s art, he had from nature the condition of perceiving no evils. But from the time he is made a man by God, he also takes on the perception of the evil that approaches him. And this very thing, which you say was done by God for the benefit of matter, turns out rather to have befallen it for the worse.

Gen 2:7 (echo, low confidence)

Notes and citation

Summary: Man, once formed, can feel evil; so God’s ordering would harm matter.

Notes on the original text

Digital text corrected (OCR slip): γενονέναι → γεγονέναι.

Cite (SBL): Methodius, Autex. 11.6 (Bonwetsch, 174; trans. Sophia Scriptura, https://sophiascriptura.com/fathers/methodius-autexusio/10-1/#p-11-6). (abbreviation not yet checked)

BibTeX · RIS (whole work; this passage's key: sophiascriptura-methodius-autexusio-11-6) · Report an error

11.7Bonwetsch, 174–175

εἰ δʼ ἐκ τοῦ μὴ δύνασθαι τὸν θεὸν ἀνελεῖν τὰ κακὰ τὸ μὴ πεπαῦσθαι λέγεις, ἀδύνατον τὸν θεὸν φήσεις ὑπάρχειν. τὸ δὲ ἀδύνατον ἤτοι τῷ φύσει ἀσθενῆ ὑπάρχειν αὐτὸν ἔσται, ἢ τῷ νικᾶσθαι τῷ φόβῳ δεδουλωμένον πρὸς τινος κρείττονος.

ei dʼ ek tou mē dynasthai ton theon anelein ta kaka to mē pepausthai legeis, adynaton ton theon phēseis hyparchein. to de adynaton ētoi tǭ physei asthenē hyparchein auton estai, ē tǭ nikasthai tǭ phobǭ dedoulōmenon pros tinos kreittonos.

But if you say that evils have not ceased because God cannot remove them, you will be saying that God is powerless. And powerlessness will be either because he is weak by nature, or because he is overcome by fear, enslaved by someone stronger.

Notes and citation

Summary: If God cannot remove evil, he is powerless, whether by weakness or by fear of someone stronger.

Notes on the original text

Digital text corrected (OCR slip): ἀδένατον → ἀδύνατον.

Cite (SBL): Methodius, Autex. 11.7 (Bonwetsch, 174–175; trans. Sophia Scriptura, https://sophiascriptura.com/fathers/methodius-autexusio/10-1/#p-11-7). (abbreviation not yet checked)

BibTeX · RIS (whole work; this passage's key: sophiascriptura-methodius-autexusio-11-7) · Report an error

11.8Bonwetsch, 175

εἱ μὲν οὐν τὸν θεὸν φύσει άσθενῆ ὄντα τολμήσεις εἰπεῖν, περὶ τῆς αὐτῆς αὐτῆς κινδυνεύειν μοι δοκεῖς. εἱ δὲ τῷ νικᾶσθαι φόβῳ πρός του μείζονος, μείζονα λέξεις τοῦ Μοῦ τὰ κακά, νικῶντα τῆς προαιρέσεως αὐτοῦ τὴν ὁρμήν· ὅπερ ἄτοπον εἶναί μοι λέγειν περὶ θεοῦ δοκεῖ. διὰ τί γὰρ οὐχὶ μᾶλλον ταῦτʼ ἔσονται Μοί, νικᾶν κατὰ τὸν λόγον τὸν σὸν δυνάμενα τὸν θεόν, εἴπερ θεὸν ἐκεῖνό φαμεν, ὃ τὴν ἁπάντων ἐξουσίαν ἔχει;

hei men oun ton theon physei asthenē onta tolmēseis eipein, peri tēs autēs autēs kindyneuein moi dokeis. hei de tǭ nikasthai phobǭ pros tou meizonos, meizona lexeis tou Mou ta kaka, nikōnta tēs proaireseōs autou tēn hormēn; hoper atopon einai moi legein peri theou dokei. dia ti gar ouchi mallon tautʼ esontai Moi, nikan kata ton logon ton son dynamena ton theon, eiper theon ekeino phamen, ho tēn hapantōn exousian echei?

If, then, you dare to say that God is weak by nature, you seem to me to be putting your very salvation in danger. And if it is because he is overcome by fear of someone greater, you will be saying that evils are greater than God, overcoming the impulse of his will; which seems to me absurd to say about God. For why will these things not rather be gods, since on your account they can overcome God, if indeed we call God that which has authority over all things?

Textual problem in this passage: see the notes.

Notes and citation

Summary: To call God weak or overpowered by evil would make evil greater than God.

“Your very salvation”: the digital text is defective (τῆς αὐτῆς αὐτῆς); translated by sense. “God” and “gods” are corrupt in the digital text (Μοῦ, Μοί) and translated by sense.

Notes on the original text

Digital text corrected (OCR slip): εἰκεῖνό → ἐκεῖνό.

Cite (SBL): Methodius, Autex. 11.8 (Bonwetsch, 175; trans. Sophia Scriptura, https://sophiascriptura.com/fathers/methodius-autexusio/10-1/#p-11-8). (abbreviation not yet checked)

BibTeX · RIS (whole work; this passage's key: sophiascriptura-methodius-autexusio-11-8) · Report an error

Chapter 12

12.1Bonwetsch, 175–176

Βραχέα δέ σου καὶ περὶ τῆς ὕλης αὐτῆς πυθέσθαι βούλομαι, καί μοι φέρων λέγε· πότερον ἁπλῆ τις ἦν ἡ ὕλη ἢ σύνθετος; ἡ γὰρ διαφορὰ τῶν γεγονότων εἰς τοιαύτην με περιίστησιν ἐξέτασιν τοῦδε τοῦ λόγου. εἰ γὰρ ἁπλῆ τις ἐτύγχανεν ἡ ὕλη καὶ μονοειδής σύνθετος δὲ ὁ κόσμος καὶ ἐκ διαφόρων οὐσιῶν τε καὶ κράσεων τὴν σύστασιν ἔχει, ἀδύνατον τοῦτον ἐξ ὕλης γεγονέναι λέγειν, τῷ τὰ σύνθετα μὴ οἷόν τε ἐξ ἑνὸς ἁπλοῦ τὴν σύστασιν ἔχειν· τὸ γὰρ σύνθετον ἁπλῶν τινων μῖξιν μηνύει.

Brachea de sou kai peri tēs hylēs autēs pythesthai boulomai, kai moi pherōn lege; poteron haplē tis ēn hē hylē ē synthetos? hē gar diaphora tōn gegonotōn eis toiautēn me periistēsin exetasin toude tou logou. ei gar haplē tis etynchanen hē hylē kai monoeidēs synthetos de ho kosmos kai ek diaphorōn ousiōn te kai kraseōn tēn systasin echei, adynaton touton ex hylēs gegonenai legein, tǭ ta syntheta mē hoion te ex henos haplou tēn systasin echein; to gar syntheton haplōn tinōn mixin mēnyei.

I want to ask you a few questions about matter itself too; come, tell me: was matter simple or composite? For the variety of the things that have come into being leads me to such an examination of this argument. For if matter was simple and uniform, while the world is composite and has its constitution from various substances and mixtures, it is impossible to say that it came from matter, since composite things cannot have their constitution from one simple thing; for what is composite indicates a mixture of certain simple things.

Notes and citation

Summary: The Orthodox speaker asks whether matter is simple or composite; a composite world cannot come from simple matter.

Notes on the original text

Digital text corrected (split word): σύνθε- τος → σύνθετος.

Cite (SBL): Methodius, Autex. 12.1 (Bonwetsch, 175–176; trans. Sophia Scriptura, https://sophiascriptura.com/fathers/methodius-autexusio/10-1/#p-12-1). (abbreviation not yet checked)

BibTeX · RIS (whole work; this passage's key: sophiascriptura-methodius-autexusio-12-1) · Report an error

12.2Bonwetsch, 176

εἰ δʼ αὖ πάλιν τὴν ὕλην σύνθετον λέγειν ἐθέλοις, πάντως ἐξ ἁπλῶν τινων συντεθεῖσθαι φήσεις. εἰ δὲ ἐξ ἁπλῶν συνετέθη, ἦν ποτε καθʼ ἑαυτὰ τὰ ἁπλᾶ, ὧν συντεθέντων γέγονεν ἡ ὕλη, ἐξ οὗπερ καὶ γενητὴ οὖσα δείκνυται.

ei dʼ au palin tēn hylēn syntheton legein ethelois, pantōs ex haplōn tinōn syntetheisthai phēseis. ei de ex haplōn synetethē, ēn pote kathʼ heauta ta hapla, hōn syntethentōn gegonen hē hylē, ex houper kai genētē ousa deiknytai.

If again you wish to call matter composite, you will certainly say that it was composed of certain simple things. And if it was composed of simple things, the simple things once existed by themselves, and matter came into being when they were composed; from which it is shown to be begotten.

Notes and citation

Summary: If matter is composite, it came into being and is not unbegotten.

Cite (SBL): Methodius, Autex. 12.2 (Bonwetsch, 176; trans. Sophia Scriptura, https://sophiascriptura.com/fathers/methodius-autexusio/10-1/#p-12-2). (abbreviation not yet checked)

BibTeX · RIS (whole work; this passage's key: sophiascriptura-methodius-autexusio-12-2) · Report an error

12.3Bonwetsch, 176

εἰ γὰρ σύνθετος ἡ ὕλη, τὰ δὲ σύνθετα ἐξ ἁπλῶν τὴν σύστασιν ἔχει, ἦν ποτε καιρὸς ὅτε ἡ ὕλη οὐκ ἦν, τουτέστι πρὶν τὰ ἁπλᾶ συνελθεῖν. εἰ δὲ ἦν ποτε καιρὸς ὅτε ἡ ὕλη οὐκ ἦν δέ ποτε καιρὸς ὅτε τὸ ἀγένητον οὐκ ἦν, οὐκ ἔσται ἀγένητος ἡ ὕλη.

ei gar synthetos hē hylē, ta de syntheta ex haplōn tēn systasin echei, ēn pote kairos hote hē hylē ouk ēn, toutesti prin ta hapla synelthein. ei de ēn pote kairos hote hē hylē ouk ēn de pote kairos hote to agenēton ouk ēn, ouk estai agenētos hē hylē.

For if matter is composite, and composite things have their constitution from simple ones, there was once a time when matter did not exist, that is, before the simple things came together. And if there was once a time when matter did not exist, [and there was never] a time when the unbegotten did not exist, matter will not be unbegotten.

Notes and citation

Summary: Matter, once non-existent, cannot be unbegotten.

Words are missing in the digital text; “and there was never” is supplied by sense, as the argument requires.

Cite (SBL): Methodius, Autex. 12.3 (Bonwetsch, 176; trans. Sophia Scriptura, https://sophiascriptura.com/fathers/methodius-autexusio/10-1/#p-12-3). (abbreviation not yet checked)

BibTeX · RIS (whole work; this passage's key: sophiascriptura-methodius-autexusio-12-3) · Report an error

12.4Bonwetsch, 176

τὸ δʼ ἐντεῦθεν ἔσται πολλὰ τὰ ἀγένητα. εἰ γὰρ ἦν ἀγένητος ὁ θεός, ἦν δὲ ἀγένητα καὶ τὰ ἁπλᾶ

to dʼ enteuthen estai polla ta agenēta. ei gar ēn agenētos ho theos, ēn de agenēta kai ta hapla

From this it will follow that the unbegottens are many. For if God was unbegotten, and the simple things too were unbegotten

Notes and citation

Summary: There would then be many unbegotten beings.

The sentence continues in 12.5.

Notes on the original text

Digital text corrected (stray marks): ἁπλᾶ.. → ἁπλᾶ.

Cite (SBL): Methodius, Autex. 12.4 (Bonwetsch, 176; trans. Sophia Scriptura, https://sophiascriptura.com/fathers/methodius-autexusio/10-1/#p-12-4). (abbreviation not yet checked)

BibTeX · RIS (whole work; this passage's key: sophiascriptura-methodius-autexusio-12-4) · Report an error

12.5Bonwetsch, 176–177

ἐξ ὧν ἡ ὕλη συνετέθη, οὐκ ἔσται δύο καὶ μόνα τὰ ἀγένητα. — δοκεῖ δέ σοι μηδὲν τῶν ὄντων αὐτὸ ἑαυτῷ ἀντικεῖσθαι; ΕΤΑΙΡ. Δοκεῖ. ΟΡΘΟΔ. Ἀντίκειται δὲ τῷ πυρὶ τὸ ὕδωρ; ΕΤΑΙΡ. Ἀντικεῖσθαί μοι φαίνεται. ΟΡΘΟΔ. Ὁμοίως δὲ καὶ τῷ φωτὶ τὸ σκότος καὶ τῷ ψυχρῷ τὸ θερμόν, πρὸς δὲ τούτοις καὶ τῷ ξηρῷ τὸ ὑγρόν; ΕΤΑΙΡ. Οὕτως ἔχειν μοι δοκεῖ. ΟΡΘΟΔ. Οὐκοῦν εἰ μηδὲν τῶν ὄντων αὐτὸ ἑαυτῷ ἀντίκειται, ἀλλήλοις δὲ ταῦτα ἀντίκειται, οὐκ ἔσονται ὕλη μία, οὐδὲ μὴ ἐξ ὕλης μιᾶς. — ὅμοιον δέ τινα τούτῳ λόγον πάλιν πυθέσθαι βούλομαι.

ex hōn hē hylē synetethē, ouk estai dyo kai mona ta agenēta. — dokei de soi mēden tōn ontōn auto heautǭ antikeisthai? ETAIR. Dokei. ORThOD. Antikeitai de tǭ pyri to hydōr? ETAIR. Antikeisthai moi phainetai. ORThOD. Homoiōs de kai tǭ phōti to skotos kai tǭ psychrǭ to thermon, pros de toutois kai tǭ xērǭ to hygron? ETAIR. Houtōs echein moi dokei. ORThOD. Oukoun ei mēden tōn ontōn auto heautǭ antikeitai, allēlois de tauta antikeitai, ouk esontai hylē mia, oude mē ex hylēs mias. — homoion de tina toutǭ logon palin pythesthai boulomai.

from which matter was composed, the unbegottens will not be two only. — Does it seem to you that nothing that exists is opposed to itself? Companion: It does. Orthodox: And is water opposed to fire? Companion: It seems to me to be opposed. Orthodox: And likewise darkness to light, and hot to cold, and moreover moist to dry? Companion: So it seems to me. Orthodox: Then if nothing that exists is opposed to itself, but these are opposed to one another, they will not be one matter, nor indeed from one matter. — I want to ask again an argument similar to this.

Notes and citation

Summary: Since the elements oppose one another, they cannot be one matter.

Notes on the original text

Digital text corrected (OCR slip): ΟΠΘΟΔ. → ΟΡΘΟΔ.; περὸς δὲ → πρὸς δὲ; Οἰκοῦν → Οὐκοῦν.

Cite (SBL): Methodius, Autex. 12.5 (Bonwetsch, 176–177; trans. Sophia Scriptura, https://sophiascriptura.com/fathers/methodius-autexusio/10-1/#p-12-5). (abbreviation not yet checked)

BibTeX · RIS (whole work; this passage's key: sophiascriptura-methodius-autexusio-12-5) · Report an error

12.6Bonwetsch, 177

δοκεῖ σοι τὰ μέρη μὴ ἀναιρετικὰ τυγχάνειν ἀλλήλων; ΕΤΑΙΡ. Δοκεῖ. ΟΡΘΟΔ. Εἶναι δὲ τῆς ὕλης μέρη τό τε πῦρ καὶ τὸ ὕδωρ, ὡσαύτως δὲ καὶ τὰ λοιπά; ΕΤΑΙΡ. Οὕτως ἔχω. ΟΡΘΟΔ. Τί δέ; οὐ δοκεῖ σοι ἀναιρετικὸν μὲν εἶναι τοῦ πυρὸς τὸ ὕδωρ, τοῦ δὲ σκότους τὸ φῶς, καὶ τὰ ἄλλα ὅσα τούτοις παραπλήσια; ΕΤΑΙΡ. Δοκεῖ.

dokei soi ta merē mē anairetika tynchanein allēlōn? ETAIR. Dokei. ORThOD. Einai de tēs hylēs merē to te pyr kai to hydōr, hōsautōs de kai ta loipa? ETAIR. Houtōs echō. ORThOD. Ti de? ou dokei soi anairetikon men einai tou pyros to hydōr, tou de skotous to phōs, kai ta alla hosa toutois paraplēsia? ETAIR. Dokei.

Does it seem to you that parts are not destructive of one another? Companion: It does. Orthodox: And that fire and water are parts of matter, and likewise the rest? Companion: So I hold. Orthodox: What then? Does it not seem to you that water is destructive of fire, and light of darkness, and so with all the others like these? Companion: It does.

Notes and citation

Summary: Parts do not destroy each other, but the elements do.

Cite (SBL): Methodius, Autex. 12.6 (Bonwetsch, 177; trans. Sophia Scriptura, https://sophiascriptura.com/fathers/methodius-autexusio/10-1/#p-12-6). (abbreviation not yet checked)

BibTeX · RIS (whole work; this passage's key: sophiascriptura-methodius-autexusio-12-6) · Report an error

12.7Bonwetsch, 177–178

ΟΡΘΟΔ. Οὐκοῦν εἰ τὰ μέρη οὐκ ἔστιν ἀλλήλων ἀναιρετικά, ταῦτα δὲ ἀλλήλων ἀναιρετικὰ τυγχάνει, οὐκ ἔσται ἀλλήλων μέρη· εἰ δὲ οὐκ ἔστιν ἀλλήλων μέρη, οὐκ ἔσονται ὕλης μιᾶς. ἀλλὰ μὴν οὐδʼ αὐτὰ ἔσονται ὕλη, τῷ μηδέν τι τῶν ὄντων αὐτὸ ἑαυτοῦ ἀναιρετικὸν ὑπάρχειν κατὰ τὸν τοῦ ἀντικειμένου λόγον.

ORThOD. Oukoun ei ta merē ouk estin allēlōn anairetika, tauta de allēlōn anairetika tynchanei, ouk estai allēlōn merē; ei de ouk estin allēlōn merē, ouk esontai hylēs mias. alla mēn oudʼ auta esontai hylē, tǭ mēden ti tōn ontōn auto heautou anairetikon hyparchein kata ton tou antikeimenou logon.

Orthodox: Then if parts are not destructive of one another, but these are destructive of one another, they will not be parts of one another; and if they are not parts of one another, they will not belong to one matter. Indeed, they will not themselves be matter either, since nothing that exists is destructive of itself, according to the definition of what is opposed.

Notes and citation

Summary: So the elements are not parts of one matter.

Notes on the original text

Digital text corrected (stray mark): ἔσονται. ὕλη, → ἔσονται ὕλη,.

Cite (SBL): Methodius, Autex. 12.7 (Bonwetsch, 177–178; trans. Sophia Scriptura, https://sophiascriptura.com/fathers/methodius-autexusio/10-1/#p-12-7). (abbreviation not yet checked)

BibTeX · RIS (whole work; this passage's key: sophiascriptura-methodius-autexusio-12-7) · Report an error

12.8Bonwetsch, 178

οὐδὲ γάρ ἐστί τι αὑτῷ ἀντικείμενον· τὰ γὰρ ἀντικείμενα ἑτέροις ἀντικεῖσθαι πέφυκεν. οἷον τὸ λευκὸν αὐτὸ ἑαυτῷ οὐκ ἀντίκειται, πρὸς δὲ τὸ μέλαν ἀντικείμενον λέγεται· καὶ τὸ φῶς ὁμοίως αὐτὸ ἑαυτῷ μὴ ἀντικεῖσθαι δείκνυται, πρὸς δὲ τὸ σκότος οὕτως ἔχον φαίνεται, καὶ ἄλλα γοῦν ὁμοίως πλεῖστα ὅσα. εἰ τοίνυν καὶ ὕλη μία τις ἦν, οὐκ ἂν αὐτὴ ἑαυτῇ ἀντέκειτο. οὕτως δὲ τῶν ἀντικειμένων ἐχόντων τὸ μὴ εἶναι τὴν ὕλην δείκνυται.

oude gar esti ti hautǭ antikeimenon; ta gar antikeimena heterois antikeisthai pephyken. hoion to leukon auto heautǭ ouk antikeitai, pros de to melan antikeimenon legetai; kai to phōs homoiōs auto heautǭ mē antikeisthai deiknytai, pros de to skotos houtōs echon phainetai, kai alla goun homoiōs pleista hosa. ei toinyn kai hylē mia tis ēn, ouk an autē heautę̄ antekeito. houtōs de tōn antikeimenōn echontōn to mē einai tēn hylēn deiknytai.

For nothing is opposed to itself; opposites are by nature opposed to other things. For example, white is not opposed to itself, but is said to be opposed to black; and light likewise is shown not to be opposed to itself, but appears to be so toward darkness; and so with ever so many other things. If, then, matter were some one thing, it would not be opposed to itself. Since opposites are such, it is shown that matter does not exist.

Notes and citation

Summary: One matter could not contain opposites, so such a matter does not exist.

“Matter” here is the single uncreated matter of the Companion’s view.

Notes on the original text

Digital text corrected (OCR slip): ἀντικεμένων → ἀντικειμένων.

Cite (SBL): Methodius, Autex. 12.8 (Bonwetsch, 178; trans. Sophia Scriptura, https://sophiascriptura.com/fathers/methodius-autexusio/10-1/#p-12-8). (abbreviation not yet checked)

BibTeX · RIS (whole work; this passage's key: sophiascriptura-methodius-autexusio-12-8) · Report an error

12.9Bonwetsch, 178

ἐπεὶ καὶ σὲ οἶμαι περὶ τοῦ κακοῦ τὴν ζήτησιν ἑτοίμως ἔχειν ποιεῖσθαι, τὸν μὲν περὶ τῆς ὕλης παραλιπεῖν μοι λόγον δοκεῖ. πρὸς γὰρ τὴν ἀπόδειξιν τοῦ μὴ τὴν ὕλην ὑπάρχειν αὐτάρκως εἰρῆσθαί μοι φαίνεται.

epei kai se oimai peri tou kakou tēn zētēsin hetoimōs echein poieisthai, ton men peri tēs hylēs paralipein moi logon dokei. pros gar tēn apodeixin tou mē tēn hylēn hyparchein autarkōs eirēsthai moi phainetai.

Since I think that you too are ready to make the inquiry about evil, I think I should leave aside the argument about matter. For it seems to me that enough has been said to prove that matter does not exist.

Notes and citation

Summary: The Orthodox speaker closes the argument about matter.

Cite (SBL): Methodius, Autex. 12.9 (Bonwetsch, 178; trans. Sophia Scriptura, https://sophiascriptura.com/fathers/methodius-autexusio/10-1/#p-12-9). (abbreviation not yet checked)

BibTeX · RIS (whole work; this passage's key: sophiascriptura-methodius-autexusio-12-9) · Report an error

Chapter 13

13.1Bonwetsch, 178–180

Ἐπὶ δὲ τὴν τῶν κακῶν ἐξέτασιν ἔρχεσθαι δεῖ καὶ ἀναγκαίως ἀναζητεῖν τὰ παρὰ ἀνθρώποις. τὰ παρʼ ἀνθρώποις κακὰ πότερον εἴδη τυγχάνει κακοῦ ἢ μέρη; εἰ γὰρ εἴδη ταῦτα ἐκείνου φάναι θέλοις, οὐκ ἔστιν ἕτερον παρὰ ταῦτα καθʼ ἑαυτὸ τὸ κακὸν τῷ τὰ γένη ἐν τοῖς εἴδεσιν ἐξετάζεσθαι· οἷον τὸ ζῷον γένος ἐστὶν κατʼ εἶδος κατηγορούμενον, τουτέστιν κατά γε ἀνθρώπου καὶ τῶν ὁμοίων, ὅσα τε ἔμψυχα ὄντα τὴν προαιρετικὴν κίνησιν ἔχει· ἄλλʼ οὐχ οἷόν τε δείκνυται τοῦτο. οὐ γὰρ γένος εἶναί φαμεν ἕτερόν τι καθʼ ἑαυτὸ ὑπάρχον παρὰ τὰ εἴδη· οὕτω δὴ καὶ περὶ τοῦ κακοῦ λέγειν ἀνάγκη. τὸ γὰρ γένος εἴπαμεν τὴν σύστασιν ἐν τοῖς εἴδεσιν ἔχειν, μὴ εἶναι δέ τι ἕτερον καθʼ ἑαυτό. εἰ δὲ οὕτως ἔχει, γενητὸν ἔσται τὸ κακόν· τὰ γὰρ εἴδη γενητὰ ὄντα δείκνυται, οἷον φόνος καὶ μοιχεία καὶ τὰ τούτοις παραπλήσια. εἰ δʼ αὖ πάλιν μέρη τινὸς κακοῦ ταῦτα εἶναι ἐθέλοις, ἔστιν δὲ ταῦτα γενητά, ἀνάγκη κἀκεῖνο γενητὸν ὑπάρχειν. ὧν γὰρ τὰ μέρη γενητά, ταῦτα ὁμοίως ἐξ ἀνάγκης εἶναι γενητά· τὸ γὰρ ὅλον ἐκ μερῶν συνέστηκεν. καὶ τὸ μὲν ὅλον οὐκ ἔσται μὴ τῶν μερῶν ὄντων, ἔσται δὲ τὰ μέρη, κἂν μὴ τὸ ὅλον παρῇ. οὐδενὸς δὲ τῶν ὄντων μέρος μέν ἐστιν γενητόν, μέρος δὲ <πάλιν> ἀγένητον, εἰ δὲ καὶ τοῦτο συγχωρήσαιμι τῷ λόγῳ, ἦν ποτε τὸ κακόν, ὅτε ὁλόκληρον οὐκ ἦν, τουτέστιν πρὶν δημιουργῆσαι τὴν ὕλην τὸν θεόν. τότε δὲ ὁλόκληρον γίνεται, ὅτε πρὸς τοῦ θεοῦ γέγονεν ἄνθρωπος· τῶν γὰρ μερῶν τοῦ κακοῦ ἄνθρωπος ὑπάρχει ποιητής. καὶ τοῦ ἐντεῦθεν τοῦ ὁλόκληρον εἶναι τὸ κακὸν αἴτιος ἔσται δημιουργήσας ὁ θεός, ὅπερ οὐκ εὖ ἔχειν μοι τοῦτο περὶ θεοῦ <λέγειν> δοκεῖ, εἰ οὐδʼ ὁπότερον τούτων εἰπεῖν ἐθέλοις, πρᾶξιν δέ τινος κακοῦ εἶναι λέγοις, γενητὸν αὐτὸ ὑπάρχειν μηνύεις· ἡ γὰρ τοῦ τινὸς πρᾶξις ἀρχὴν τοῦ εἶναι λαμβάνει. πρὸς δὴ τούτοις οὐδὲν ἕτερον παρὰ ταῦτα τὸ κακὸν εἰπεῖν ἔχεις. ποίαν γὰρ πρᾶξιν κακὴν ἑτέραν παρὰ τὰς ἐν ἀνθρώποις δεικνύειν ἔχεις; ὅτι γὰρ ὁ ἐνεργῶν οὐ κατὰ τὸν τῆς οὐσίας λόγον ὑπάρχει κακία, κατὰ δὲ τὸν τῆς προαιρέσεως τρόπον, τοιαῦτα πράττειν ἐπαναιρούμενος, ἐξ ὧν τοῦ κακῶς λέγεσθαι τὴν προσηγορίαν λαμβάνει, προλαβὼν ἔδειξα τῷ λόγῳ.

Epi de tēn tōn kakōn exetasin erchesthai dei kai anankaiōs anazētein ta para anthrōpois. ta parʼ anthrōpois kaka poteron eidē tynchanei kakou ē merē? ei gar eidē tauta ekeinou phanai thelois, ouk estin heteron para tauta kathʼ heauto to kakon tǭ ta genē en tois eidesin exetazesthai; hoion to zǭon genos estin katʼ eidos katēgoroumenon, toutestin kata ge anthrōpou kai tōn homoiōn, hosa te empsycha onta tēn proairetikēn kinēsin echei; allʼ ouch hoion te deiknytai touto. ou gar genos einai phamen heteron ti kathʼ heauto hyparchon para ta eidē; houtō dē kai peri tou kakou legein anankē. to gar genos eipamen tēn systasin en tois eidesin echein, mē einai de ti heteron kathʼ heauto. ei de houtōs echei, genēton estai to kakon; ta gar eidē genēta onta deiknytai, hoion phonos kai moicheia kai ta toutois paraplēsia. ei dʼ au palin merē tinos kakou tauta einai ethelois, estin de tauta genēta, anankē kakeino genēton hyparchein. hōn gar ta merē genēta, tauta homoiōs ex anankēs einai genēta; to gar holon ek merōn synestēken. kai to men holon ouk estai mē tōn merōn ontōn, estai de ta merē, kan mē to holon parę̄. oudenos de tōn ontōn meros men estin genēton, meros de <palin> agenēton, ei de kai touto synchōrēsaimi tǭ logǭ, ēn pote to kakon, hote holoklēron ouk ēn, toutestin prin dēmiourgēsai tēn hylēn ton theon. tote de holoklēron ginetai, hote pros tou theou gegonen anthrōpos; tōn gar merōn tou kakou anthrōpos hyparchei poiētēs. kai tou enteuthen tou holoklēron einai to kakon aitios estai dēmiourgēsas ho theos, hoper ouk eu echein moi touto peri theou <legein> dokei, ei oudʼ hopoteron toutōn eipein ethelois, praxin de tinos kakou einai legois, genēton auto hyparchein mēnyeis; hē gar tou tinos praxis archēn tou einai lambanei. pros dē toutois ouden heteron para tauta to kakon eipein echeis. poian gar praxin kakēn heteran para tas en anthrōpois deiknyein echeis? hoti gar ho energōn ou kata ton tēs ousias logon hyparchei kakia, kata de ton tēs proaireseōs tropon, toiauta prattein epanairoumenos, ex hōn tou kakōs legesthai tēn prosēgorian lambanei, prolabōn edeixa tǭ logǭ.

We must come to the examination of evils and must necessarily inquire into those among men. Are the evils among men species of evil, or parts? If you wish to say that they are species of it, evil does not exist by itself as something other than these, since genera are found in their species. For example, “living creature” is a genus predicated of a species, that is, of man and of things like him, whatever are animate and have voluntary motion; but [a genus existing by itself] is shown to be impossible. For we do not say that a genus is something else existing by itself apart from the species. So one must say about evil too; for we said that the genus has its constitution in the species and is not something else by itself. And if this is so, evil will be begotten; for the species are shown to be begotten, such as murder and adultery and the like. If again you wish these to be parts of some evil, and these are begotten, that too must be begotten. For things whose parts are begotten must necessarily likewise be begotten; for the whole is composed of parts. And the whole will not exist unless the parts exist, but the parts will exist even if the whole is not present. Of nothing that exists is one part begotten and another unbegotten; and even if I were to grant this to the argument, there was once a time when evil was not complete, that is, before God crafted matter; and it becomes complete when man has been made by God, for man is the maker of the parts of evil. And from this God, by creating, will be the cause of evil’s being complete; which does not seem to me right to say about God. If you wish to say neither of these, but say that evil is the action of someone, you show that it is begotten; for the action of someone receives a beginning of being. Besides this, you cannot name evil as anything other than these. For what evil action can you show other than those among men? For I showed earlier in the argument that the one who acts is not evil in respect of his substance, but in respect of the manner of his choice, choosing to do such things as give him the title of being called evil.

Notes and citation

Summary: Whether evils among humans are species or parts of evil, evil turns out to have a beginning; it lies in human choice, not substance.

Notes on the original text

Digital text corrected (OCR slip; leaked number; split word): πό τερον → πότερον; ὑπάρχον 2 παρὰ → ὑπάρχον παρὰ; ἐθέλοις, 3 ἔστιν → ἐθέλοις, ἔστιν; καὶ 4 τοῦτο → καὶ τοῦτο; ὁλόκληρον οὐν ἦν → ὁλόκληρον οὐκ ἦν; ἔχεινς → ἔχεις.

Topics: Ethics

Cite (SBL): Methodius, Autex. 13.1 (Bonwetsch, 178–180; trans. Sophia Scriptura, https://sophiascriptura.com/fathers/methodius-autexusio/10-1/#p-13-1). (abbreviation not yet checked)

BibTeX · RIS (whole work; this passage's key: sophiascriptura-methodius-autexusio-13-1) · Report an error

Chapter 14

14Bonwetsch GCS 27:180

Translated by Claude from N. Bonwetsch's German translation (1917) of the Old Church Slavonic; neither is shown

For our discussion, then, my friend, enough seems to me to have been said. Nor, I think, has it escaped you that every man is inclined to think little of his neighbor. For an examination of matter carried through to the end gives clear proof. So, if you please, allow me too a word of questioning, since I wish to ask a few things. For in this way, it seems to me, the truth will be clearly found, without your argument being destroyed by my questioning. When the conversation has been conducted evenly by each of us, the truth will show itself as it is; for truth often hides when it is not searched out by a discussion conducted as truth requires. So I wish to receive the same in return from you. For when the greater has thus shown itself, it will be clear to each with certainty what is fitting to choose. Nor do I myself wish, my friend, that my own argument go unexamined, not even in what I said above, even if it is contrary to what is sought. I say this, and with all willingness I wish it to be questioned. And I beg you with all my strength to keep to the questioning, for I think I shall gain great profit from it. For if the matter has been clearly examined, it will be given me to hold to the truth not by opinion but by exact (complete) inquiry. So come, begin the argument. — Do you say that God is good? — I say that he is good. — And is the good to do nothing at all of what we call evil? — (I say so.) — How do you ask about this evil? About murder and sexual immorality and other such things? Or about what is brought by the judgment of God upon those who have dared to do these things, which, while they are justly punished, seems evil to those who receive judgment for having dared to do evil? If you have spoken of what was mentioned first, I do not say that God is its creator, for it seems to me unreasonable to bring it near to God, since those who have chosen to do such things are manifest. But if you speak of what happens from God on account of evil deeds, I do not call it evil, but just. For the evildoer must in justice, having done evil, receive a just judgment. And no one calls what is just evil except the one who rightly receives it. For of the murderers of today too, when they receive judgment from the elders, I say that they receive it rightly. I say they receive good, but in return for evil. For it is the way of every man who does evil to hold what is just to be unjust. But we do not say that this is evil; for I myself say that this is truly just. As to what you spoke of first, these questions, I have shown above, my friend, when treating of matter, that God is not their creator. — What then does this evil seem to you to be? On the evil you asked about I have given judgment, distinguishing by definition. But you do not yet say what it is: whether like a substance, or like an accident of substances. If you say that it is like a substance, you err in the concept; but if like an accident, I say that it is so. But since you wish to define my question, say how you call this an accident, and of what, and from where, setting it out clearly for me. — That none of the evils is evil in the sense of a substance I said above in the discussion, and you, I think, remember what I spoke of, when I tied evil to each one's free choice. But since you wish me to speak to you about evil from the beginning, as well as I understand it, I will tell you clearly, as far as I can, what has been examined, keeping to the argument.

Textual problem in this passage: see the notes.

Notes and citation

Summary: The dialogue on evil begins: both speakers agree God is good and does no evil; just punishment is not evil, and evil is an accident tied to free choice, not a substance.

The Greek of this chapter is lost; it survives in Old Slavonic, and this passage is translated from Bonwetsch's German rendering of it (his apparatus and the Greek variants he prints in the German pages are not translated). The German does not name the speakers here; changes of speaker are marked by dashes. "The elders" are presumably the magistrates; Bonwetsch cites a parallel in Eznik ("as murderers in punishment call the punishers not good but evil").

Cite (SBL): Methodius, Autex. 14 (Bonwetsch GCS 27:180; trans. Sophia Scriptura from the German of N. Bonwetsch, 1917, https://sophiascriptura.com/fathers/methodius-autexusio/10-1/#p-14). (abbreviation not yet checked)

BibTeX · RIS (whole work; this passage's key: sophiascriptura-methodius-autexusio-14) · Report an error

Translation: translated from N. Bonwetsch's German translation (GCS 27, 1917) of the Old Slavonic

Chapter 15

15.1Bonwetsch, 183

Ἐγὼ πρῶτον [μὲν] τῇ φύσει οὐδὲν φαῦλον λέγω, τῷ δὲ τῆς χρήσεως τρόπῳ κακὸν εἶναι λέγεσθαι... τὸ γὰρ τῆς μοιχείας ὄνομα κοινωνίας ἐστὶν ἀνδρὸς καὶ γυναικὸς σημαντικόν· ἀλλʼ ἐὰν κοινωνῇ τις τῇ γυναικὶ παιδοποιίας ἕνεκα καὶ τῆς τοῦ γένους διαδοχῆς, ἀγαθή τις ἡ κοινωνία γίνεται. εἰ δέ τις καταλιπὼν τὴν νομίμην κοινωνίαν ἐνυβρίζοι γάμοις ἀλλοτρίοις, [λίαν] ἔργον πράττει κακόν·

Egō prōton [men] tę̄ physei ouden phaulon legō, tǭ de tēs chrēseōs tropǭ kakon einai legesthai... to gar tēs moicheias onoma koinōnias estin andros kai gynaikos sēmantikon; allʼ ean koinōnę̄ tis tę̄ gynaiki paidopoiias heneka kai tēs tou genous diadochēs, agathē tis hē koinōnia ginetai. ei de tis katalipōn tēn nomimēn koinōnian enybrizoi gamois allotriois, [lian] ergon prattei kakon;

I say first that nothing is base by nature, but that a thing is called evil by the manner of its use. … For the name of adultery signifies an intercourse of man and woman; but if someone has intercourse with his wife for the sake of begetting children and the continuation of the race, the intercourse is good. But if someone abandons lawful intercourse and outrages another’s marriage, he does an evil deed.

Textual problem in this passage: see the notes.

Notes and citation

Summary: Nothing is evil by nature; intercourse is good within marriage and evil in adultery.

The Greek of this part survives only in excerpts; the dots mark omissions in the source. The editor deletes μέν and λίαν (“very”).

Notes on the original text

Digital text corrected (stray marks): γυναικὶ.. παιδοποιίας → γυναικὶ παιδοποιίας; ἀλλοτρίοις.., → ἀλλοτρίοις,.

Topics: Marriage, Ethics

Cite (SBL): Methodius, Autex. 15.1 (Bonwetsch, 183; trans. Sophia Scriptura, https://sophiascriptura.com/fathers/methodius-autexusio/10-1/#p-15-1). (abbreviation not yet checked)

BibTeX · RIS (whole work; this passage's key: sophiascriptura-methodius-autexusio-15-1) · Report an error

15.2Bonwetsch, 183–184

καὶ ἡ μὲν κοινωνία ἡ αὐτή, ὁ δὲ τῆς χρήσεως τρόπος οὐχ ὅμοιος... καὶ ἐπὶ τῆς πορνείας δὲ ὁ αὐτὸς λόγος... ἡ κοινωνία τοίνυν χωρὶς τοῦ τρόπου τῆς χρήσεως ἐξεταζομένη κακὸν οὐκ ἔστι· τότε δὲ γίνεται ὁπότε ὁ τρόπος ἔσται σαφής.

kai hē men koinōnia hē autē, ho de tēs chrēseōs tropos ouch homoios... kai epi tēs porneias de ho autos logos... hē koinōnia toinyn chōris tou tropou tēs chrēseōs exetazomenē kakon ouk esti; tote de ginetai hopote ho tropos estai saphēs.

The intercourse is the same, but the manner of its use is not alike. … And the same argument holds for sexual immorality. … Intercourse, then, examined apart from the manner of its use, is not evil; it becomes so when the manner is made plain.

Notes and citation

Summary: The same act differs morally by the manner of its use.

The digital text repeats the end of this section at the start of 15.3; the repetition is removed here.

Notes on the original text

Digital text corrected (OCR slip; text repeated in the next section): σαφής.—ἀλλὰ καὶ τὸν φόνον ὁμοίως ἔχειν → σαφής.; ὁ αὐτὸ λόγος → ὁ αὐτὸς λόγος.

Topics: Marriage, Ethics

Cite (SBL): Methodius, Autex. 15.2 (Bonwetsch, 183–184; trans. Sophia Scriptura, https://sophiascriptura.com/fathers/methodius-autexusio/10-1/#p-15-2). (abbreviation not yet checked)

BibTeX · RIS (whole work; this passage's key: sophiascriptura-methodius-autexusio-15-2) · Report an error

15.3Bonwetsch, 184

ἀλλὰ καὶ τὸν φόνον ὁμοίως ἔχειν φημί. ἐὰν γάρ τις τὸν ἐπὶ μοιχείᾳ ληφθέντα ἀποκτεῖναι θέληῃ, δίκας ὧν ἐτόλμησεν ἀπαιτῶν, κακὸν οὐκ ἐργάζεται. ἐὰν δέ τις τὸν μηδέν τι τῶν ἀπηγορευμένων πεποιηκότα ἀναιρήσῆ οὐδενὸς ἄλλης προφάσεως [λόγου] χάριν, ἀλλὰ τῆς τῶν οἰκείων ἀφαιρέσεως ἕνεκα, τουτέστιν ἢ χρημάτων ἢ κτημάτων, φαῦλον ἐργάζεται. καὶ τὸ μὲν ἔργον τὸ αὐτὸ ἐπʼ ἀμφοτέρων γίνεται, ὁ δὲ τρόπος τοῦ ἔργου τὴν διαφορὰν ἐμποιεῖ.

alla kai ton phonon homoiōs echein phēmi. ean gar tis ton epi moicheią lēphthenta apokteinai thelēę̄, dikas hōn etolmēsen apaitōn, kakon ouk ergazetai. ean de tis ton mēden ti tōn apēgoreumenōn pepoiēkota anairēsē oudenos allēs prophaseōs [logou] charin, alla tēs tōn oikeiōn aphaireseōs heneka, toutestin ē chrēmatōn ē ktēmatōn, phaulon ergazetai. kai to men ergon to auto epʼ amphoterōn ginetai, ho de tropos tou ergou tēn diaphoran empoiei.

And I say that murder is likewise. For if someone wishes to kill a man caught in adultery, demanding punishment for what he dared, he does no evil. But if someone kills one who has done nothing forbidden, for no other pretext but to take away what is his, that is, either money or property, he does a base thing. The deed is the same in both cases, but the manner of the deed makes the difference.

Lev 20:10 (echo, low confidence)

Notes and citation

Summary: Killing too is judged by its manner: punishment differs from murder for gain.

Methodius’s example assumes the legal punishment of an adulterer (compare Lev 20:10); it is stated as written.

Notes on the original text

Digital text corrected (stray marks; text repeated from the previous section): ὁπότε ὁ τρόπος ἔσται σαφής.—ἀλλὰ → ἀλλὰ; ληφθέντα.. ἀποκτεῖναι → ληφθέντα ἀποκτεῖναι.

Topics: Ethics

Cite (SBL): Methodius, Autex. 15.3 (Bonwetsch, 184; trans. Sophia Scriptura, https://sophiascriptura.com/fathers/methodius-autexusio/10-1/#p-15-3). (abbreviation not yet checked)

BibTeX · RIS (whole work; this passage's key: sophiascriptura-methodius-autexusio-15-3) · Report an error

15.4Bonwetsch, 184

πρὸς δὴ τούτοις καὶ τὸ χρήματα λαμβάνειν τινὸς τῶ τρόπῳ τῆς λήψεως γίνεται κακόν. ἐὰν μὲν γάρ τις δῴη κοινωνῶν ἐξ ὧν ἔχει, ὁ λαμβάνων οὐδὲν φαῦλον ποιεῖ· εἰ δʼ αὖ πάλιν ἄκοντος ἀφέλοιτο ἢ λεληθότως, ἔργον τι πονηρὸν πράττει. καὶ τὸ μὲν ἀλλότρια λαμβάνειν ἐπʼ ἀμφοτέρων ἐστίν, ὁ δὲ τῆς λήψεως τρόπος κακὸν λέγεσθαι τοῦτο <ἢ ἀγαθὸν> ποιεῖ.

pros dē toutois kai to chrēmata lambanein tinos tō tropǭ tēs lēpseōs ginetai kakon. ean men gar tis dǭē koinōnōn ex hōn echei, ho lambanōn ouden phaulon poiei; ei dʼ au palin akontos apheloito ē lelēthotōs, ergon ti ponēron prattei. kai to men allotria lambanein epʼ amphoterōn estin, ho de tēs lēpseōs tropos kakon legesthai touto <ē agathon> poiei.

Moreover, taking someone’s money also becomes evil by the manner of taking. For if someone gives, sharing from what he has, the one who takes does nothing base; but if again one takes it against the owner’s will or secretly, he does a wicked deed. Taking what belongs to another occurs in both cases, but the manner of taking makes it called evil or good.

Notes and citation

Summary: Taking another’s money is good or evil according to the manner.

Notes on the original text

Digital text corrected (stray marks): κοινωνῶν.. ἐξ → κοινωνῶν ἐξ; ἄκοντος.. ἀφέλοιτο → ἄκοντος ἀφέλοιτο.

Topics: Ethics

Cite (SBL): Methodius, Autex. 15.4 (Bonwetsch, 184; trans. Sophia Scriptura, https://sophiascriptura.com/fathers/methodius-autexusio/10-1/#p-15-4). (abbreviation not yet checked)

BibTeX · RIS (whole work; this passage's key: sophiascriptura-methodius-autexusio-15-4) · Report an error

15.5Bonwetsch, 184–185

ὁμοίως δὲ καὶ τὸ θεοσεβεῖν τρόπῳ <ἀγαθὸν ἢ> κακὸν γίνεται. εἰ μὲν γάρ τις <τὸν> ἀληθῆ σέβει θεόν, ἔργον ποιεῖ ἀγαθόν· εἰ δὲ τοῦτον καταλιπὼν τὸν οὐκ ὄντα σεβει, καὶ τὴν τοῦ κρείττονος τιμὴν ξύλοις ἢ λίθοις προσάπτειν ἐθέλει, κακὸν πράττει. καὶ τὸ μὲν τῆς θεοσεβείας ὄνομα τὸ αὐτό, ὁ δὲ τῆς χρήσεως τρόπος ἐναλλάσσει τὸ γινόμενον.

homoiōs de kai to theosebein tropǭ <agathon ē> kakon ginetai. ei men gar tis <ton> alēthē sebei theon, ergon poiei agathon; ei de touton katalipōn ton ouk onta sebei, kai tēn tou kreittonos timēn xylois ē lithois prosaptein ethelei, kakon prattei. kai to men tēs theosebeias onoma to auto, ho de tēs chrēseōs tropos enallassei to ginomenon.

Likewise reverence toward God becomes good or evil by its manner. For if someone worships the true God, he does a good deed; but if he abandons him and worships what does not exist, and wishes to attach the honor of the better one to wood or stones, he does evil. The name of reverence is the same, but the manner of its use alters what is done.

Notes and citation

Summary: Worship is good when directed to the true God and evil when given to idols.

Notes on the original text

Digital text corrected (OCR slip): κρείττοντος → κρείττονος.

Cite (SBL): Methodius, Autex. 15.5 (Bonwetsch, 184–185; trans. Sophia Scriptura, https://sophiascriptura.com/fathers/methodius-autexusio/10-1/#p-15-5). (abbreviation not yet checked)

BibTeX · RIS (whole work; this passage's key: sophiascriptura-methodius-autexusio-15-5) · Report an error

Chapter 16

16.1Bonwetsch, 186

ΕΤΑΙΡ. Ἐπεὶ τοίνυν περὶ τῶν κακῶν ἐποιήσω τὸν λόγον, δεικνύναι βουλόμενος ὡς ἔστιν τὰ κακά, καὶ ὅτι τούτων οἱ ἄνθρωποι τυγχάνουσι ποιηταί, βραχύ τι πάλιν πυθέσθαι βούλομαι· πότερον οἱ ἂνθρωποι τὴν ἀφορμὴν ἀφʼ ἑαυτῶν λαμβάνοντες ἔχουσι, τουτέστιν αὐτοὶ τῆς τοιαύτης χρήσεως εὑρεταὶ γενόμενοι, ἢ τοιοῦτοι ὑπὸ θεοῦ γεγόνασιν, ἢ αὖ πάλιν ἕτερός τις ὑπάρχει ὁ εἰς τὰ τοιαῦτα τοὺς ἀνθρώπους παρορμῶν;

ETAIR. Epei toinyn peri tōn kakōn epoiēsō ton logon, deiknynai boulomenos hōs estin ta kaka, kai hoti toutōn hoi anthrōpoi tynchanousi poiētai, brachy ti palin pythesthai boulomai; poteron hoi anthrōpoi tēn aphormēn aphʼ heautōn lambanontes echousi, toutestin autoi tēs toiautēs chrēseōs heuretai genomenoi, ē toioutoi hypo theou gegonasin, ē au palin heteros tis hyparchei ho eis ta toiauta tous anthrōpous parormōn?

Companion: Since, then, you have made your argument about evils, wishing to show how evils exist and that men are their makers, I want to ask a brief question again: do men have the occasion from themselves, that is, becoming themselves the inventors of such use, or were they made such by God, or again is there someone else who urges men on to such things?

Notes and citation

Summary: The Companion asks whether evil originates in humans themselves, in God, or in another tempter.

Notes on the original text

Digital text corrected (Latin letters for Greek): ETAIP. → ΕΤΑΙΡ..

Cite (SBL): Methodius, Autex. 16.1 (Bonwetsch, 186; trans. Sophia Scriptura, https://sophiascriptura.com/fathers/methodius-autexusio/10-1/#p-16-1). (abbreviation not yet checked)

BibTeX · RIS (whole work; this passage's key: sophiascriptura-methodius-autexusio-16-1) · Report an error

16.2Bonwetsch, 186

ΟΡΘΟΔ. Πρὸς μὲν τοῦ θεοῦ τοὺς ἀνθρώπους τοιούτους γεγονέναι οὔτι μοι δοκεῖ λέγειν· αὐτεξούσιον δὲ τὸν πρῶτον ἄνθρωπον γεγονέναι λέγω, τουτέστιν ἐλεύθερον, ἀφʼ οὖ καὶ οἱ διάδοχοι τοῦ γένους τὴν ὁμοίαν ἐλευθερίαν ἐκληρώσαντο. φημὶ τοιγαροῦν ἐλεύθερον γεγονέναι τὸν ἄνθρωπον, δουλεύοντα δὲ αὐτὸν ᾧ βούλεται·

ORThOD. Pros men tou theou tous anthrōpous toioutous gegonenai outi moi dokei legein; autexousion de ton prōton anthrōpon gegonenai legō, toutestin eleutheron, aphʼ ou kai hoi diadochoi tou genous tēn homoian eleutherian eklērōsanto. phēmi toigaroun eleutheron gegonenai ton anthrōpon, douleuonta de auton hǭ bouletai;

Orthodox: I do not think it right to say that men were made such by God. I say that the first man was made with free will, that is, free, and from him the successors of the race too inherited the like freedom. I say, then, that man was made free, serving whom he wishes.

Notes and citation

Summary: God made the first man with free will, inherited by his descendants.

“With free will” renders αὐτεξούσιον.

Notes on the original text

Digital text corrected (repeated syllables): γεγονέναι νέναι → γεγονέναι.

Topics: Ethics

Cite (SBL): Methodius, Autex. 16.2 (Bonwetsch, 186; trans. Sophia Scriptura, https://sophiascriptura.com/fathers/methodius-autexusio/10-1/#p-16-2). (abbreviation not yet checked)

BibTeX · RIS (whole work; this passage's key: sophiascriptura-methodius-autexusio-16-2) · Report an error

16.3Bonwetsch, 186–187

τοῦτο γὰρ αὐτῷ καὶ μέγιστον πρὸς τοῦ θεοῦ κεχαρίσθαι λέγω. [ὅτι] τὰ μὲν γὰρ ἄλλα πάντα ἀνάγκῃ δουλεύει τῷ θείῳ προστάγματι· ἐάν τε γὰρ οὐρανὸν εἴπῃς, ἔστηκε φέρων τὸν δεσπότην, οὐ μετακινούμενος τοῦ ὡρισμένου τόπου· καὶ ἐάν τε περὶ ἡλίου τὸν λόγον ποιεῖσθαι θέλῃς, ἐκτελεῖ οὗτος τὴν ὡρισμένην κίνησιν, οὐ παραιτούμενος τὸν δρόμον, ἀλλὰ ἀνάγκῃ τινὶ δουλεύων τῷ δεσπότῃ. καὶ γῆν ὁμοίως πεπηγυῖαν ὁρᾷς καὶ φέρουσαν τὸ πρόσταγμα τοῦ κεκελευκότος.

touto gar autǭ kai megiston pros tou theou kecharisthai legō. [hoti] ta men gar alla panta anankę̄ douleuei tǭ theiǭ prostagmati; ean te gar ouranon eipę̄s, estēke pherōn ton despotēn, ou metakinoumenos tou hōrismenou topou; kai ean te peri hēliou ton logon poieisthai thelę̄s, ektelei houtos tēn hōrismenēn kinēsin, ou paraitoumenos ton dromon, alla anankę̄ tini douleuōn tǭ despotę̄. kai gēn homoiōs pepēguian horąs kai pherousan to prostagma tou kekeleukotos.

For I say that this was the greatest gift granted him by God. For all other things serve the divine command by necessity. If you speak of the heaven, it stands bearing its master, not moved from its appointed place; and if you wish to speak of the sun, it completes its appointed motion, not refusing its course, but serving its master by a certain necessity. And you see the earth likewise fixed and bearing the command of him who ordered it.

Textual problem in this passage: see the notes.

Notes and citation

Summary: All other creatures obey God by necessity; man alone is free.

The editor deletes ὅτι (“that”).

Notes on the original text

Digital text corrected (split word): μετακινούμε- νος → μετακινούμενος.

Cite (SBL): Methodius, Autex. 16.3 (Bonwetsch, 186–187; trans. Sophia Scriptura, https://sophiascriptura.com/fathers/methodius-autexusio/10-1/#p-16-3). (abbreviation not yet checked)

BibTeX · RIS (whole work; this passage's key: sophiascriptura-methodius-autexusio-16-3) · Report an error

16.4Bonwetsch, 187

ὁμοίως δὲ καὶ τὰ ἄλλα ἀνάγκῃ δουλεύει τῷ πεποιηκότι. οὐδʼ ὁπότερον αὐτῶν δυνάμενον ἕτερόν τι παρὰ τὸ εἰς ὃ γέγονεν ποιεῖν. διόπερ οὐκ ἐπαινοῦμεν ταῦτα οὕτω πειθόμενα τῷ δεσπότῃ, οὐδέ τις αὐτοῖς ἀπόκειται κρείττων ἐλπίς, ὅτι τὸ προσταχθὲν ἄκοντες ἐφύλαξαν.

homoiōs de kai ta alla anankę̄ douleuei tǭ pepoiēkoti. oudʼ hopoteron autōn dynamenon heteron ti para to eis ho gegonen poiein. dioper ouk epainoumen tauta houtō peithomena tǭ despotę̄, oude tis autois apokeitai kreittōn elpis, hoti to prostachthen akontes ephylaxan.

Likewise the other things too serve their maker by necessity, none of them able to do anything other than that for which it was made. That is why we do not praise them for obeying their master in this way, nor is any better hope laid up for them, since they kept the command unwillingly.

Notes and citation

Summary: Creatures that obey by necessity earn no praise or reward.

Cite (SBL): Methodius, Autex. 16.4 (Bonwetsch, 187; trans. Sophia Scriptura, https://sophiascriptura.com/fathers/methodius-autexusio/10-1/#p-16-4). (abbreviation not yet checked)

BibTeX · RIS (whole work; this passage's key: sophiascriptura-methodius-autexusio-16-4) · Report an error

16.5Bonwetsch, 187

ἄνθρωπος δὲ τὴν ᾧ βούλεται πείθεσθαι προσέλαβεν ἐξουσίαν ἑαυτὸν δουλαγωγῶν, οὐκ ἀνάγκῃ τῆς φύσεως κρατούμενος, οὐδὲ τῆς δυνάμεως ἀφαιρούμενος· ὅπερ αὐτῷ τῶν κρειττόνων ἕνεκα κεχαρίσθαι φημί, ἵνα τι πλεῖον ὧν ἔχει προσλάβῃ παρὰ τοῦ κρείττονος, ὅπερ αὐτῷ ἐκ τῆς ὑπακοῆς προσγίνεται καὶ ὡς ὀφειλὴν ἀπαιτεῖ παρὰ τοῦ πεποιηκότος.

anthrōpos de tēn hǭ bouletai peithesthai proselaben exousian heauton doulagōgōn, ouk anankę̄ tēs physeōs kratoumenos, oude tēs dynameōs aphairoumenos; hoper autǭ tōn kreittonōn heneka kecharisthai phēmi, hina ti pleion hōn echei proslabę̄ para tou kreittonos, hoper autǭ ek tēs hypakoēs prosginetai kai hōs opheilēn apaitei para tou pepoiēkotos.

But man received the authority to obey whom he wishes, leading himself into service, not held by necessity of nature nor deprived of the power. This, I say, was granted him for the sake of better things, so that he might receive from the better one something more than he has; and this comes to him from obedience, and he claims it as a debt from his maker.

Notes and citation

Summary: Man’s freedom was given so that obedience might earn him a reward.

Topics: Ethics

Cite (SBL): Methodius, Autex. 16.5 (Bonwetsch, 187; trans. Sophia Scriptura, https://sophiascriptura.com/fathers/methodius-autexusio/10-1/#p-16-5). (abbreviation not yet checked)

BibTeX · RIS (whole work; this passage's key: sophiascriptura-methodius-autexusio-16-5) · Report an error

16.6Bonwetsch, 187–188

οὐ γὰρ ἐπὶ βλάβῃ οὕτω γεγονέναι τὸν ἄνθρωπον φημί, ἕνεκα δὲ τῶν κρειττόνων. εἰ γὰρ ὡς ἕν τι γέγονεν τῶν στοιχείων ἢ τῶν ὁμοίως ἀνάγκῃ δουλευόντων θεῷ, οὐκέτι μισθὸν ἄξιον τῆς προαιρέσεως λαμβάνει, ἀλλʼ ὥσπερ ὄργανον ἂν ἦν τοῦ δημιουργοῦ, τὴν ἐφʼ οἷς οὐ καλῶς ἔπραξεν ἀλόγως μέμψιν ὑπομένων· τούτων γὰρ αἴτιος ἦν ὁ χρώμενος. ἀλλʼ οὐδὲ τὸ κρεῖττον ἄνθρωπος ἠπίστατο, μηδὲν ἕτερον εἰδώς, ἀλλʼ ἐκεῖνο μόνον εἰς ὃ πέφυκεν εἶναι.

ou gar epi blabę̄ houtō gegonenai ton anthrōpon phēmi, heneka de tōn kreittonōn. ei gar hōs hen ti gegonen tōn stoicheiōn ē tōn homoiōs anankę̄ douleuontōn theǭ, ouketi misthon axion tēs proaireseōs lambanei, allʼ hōsper organon an ēn tou dēmiourgou, tēn ephʼ hois ou kalōs epraxen alogōs mempsin hypomenōn; toutōn gar aitios ēn ho chrōmenos. allʼ oude to kreitton anthrōpos ēpistato, mēden heteron eidōs, allʼ ekeino monon eis ho pephyken einai.

For I say that man was made thus not for harm but for better things. For if he had been made like one of the elements, or of the things that likewise serve God by necessity, he would no longer receive a reward worthy of his choice, but would have been like an instrument of the craftsman, unreasonably incurring blame for what he did not do well; for the user would have been the cause of these things. Nor would man have known the better, knowing nothing else but only that for which he was made.

Notes and citation

Summary: Without freedom man would be a mere instrument, deserving neither reward nor blame.

Notes on the original text

Digital text corrected (stray marks): δημιουργοῦ,.. τὴν → δημιουργοῦ, τὴν.

Topics: Ethics

Cite (SBL): Methodius, Autex. 16.6 (Bonwetsch, 187–188; trans. Sophia Scriptura, https://sophiascriptura.com/fathers/methodius-autexusio/10-1/#p-16-6). (abbreviation not yet checked)

BibTeX · RIS (whole work; this passage's key: sophiascriptura-methodius-autexusio-16-6) · Report an error

16.7Bonwetsch, 188

φημὶ τοιγαροῦν τὸν θεὸν οὕτω τὸν ἄνθρωπον τιμῆσαι προαιρούμενον καὶ τῶν κρειττόνων ἐπιστήμονα γίνεσθαι, τὴν ἐξουσίαν αὐτῷ τοῦ δύνασθαι ποιεῖν ἃ βούλεται δεδωκέναι, καὶ τὴν ἐξουσίαν αὐτοῦ εἰς κρεῖττον <τρέπειν> παραινεῖν, οὐκ ἀφαιρούμενον πάλιν τὸ αὐτεξούσιον, ἀλλὰ τὸ κρεῖττον μηνύειν θέλοντα. τὸ μὲν γὰρ δύνασθαι πάρεστιν αὐτῷ, κἂν τὴν ἐντολὴν λαμβάνῃ, τὴν δὲ τοῦ δύνασθαι προαίρεσιν εἰς τὸ κρεῖττον τρέπει ὁ θεὸς παραινεῖ.

phēmi toigaroun ton theon houtō ton anthrōpon timēsai proairoumenon kai tōn kreittonōn epistēmona ginesthai, tēn exousian autǭ tou dynasthai poiein ha bouletai dedōkenai, kai tēn exousian autou eis kreitton <trepein> parainein, ouk aphairoumenon palin to autexousion, alla to kreitton mēnyein thelonta. to men gar dynasthai parestin autǭ, kan tēn entolēn lambanę̄, tēn de tou dynasthai proairesin eis to kreitton trepei ho theos parainei.

I say, then, that God, choosing to honor man in this way and that he should come to know the better, gave him the authority to be able to do what he wishes, and exhorts him to turn his authority to the better, not taking away his free will again, but wishing to show him the better. For the ability is present to him even when he receives the commandment; but God exhorts him to turn the choice of his ability to the better.

Notes and citation

Summary: God gave man power to choose and exhorts him to choose the better without removing his freedom.

The last clause is garbled in the digital text (τρέπει ὁ θεὸς παραινεῖ); translated by sense.

Topics: Ethics

Cite (SBL): Methodius, Autex. 16.7 (Bonwetsch, 188; trans. Sophia Scriptura, https://sophiascriptura.com/fathers/methodius-autexusio/10-1/#p-16-7). (abbreviation not yet checked)

BibTeX · RIS (whole work; this passage's key: sophiascriptura-methodius-autexusio-16-7) · Report an error

16.8Bonwetsch, 188

ὥσπερ γὰρ πατὴρ παιδὶ παραινεῖ, ἐξουσίαν ἔχοντι ἐκμανθάνειν τὰ μαθήματα καὶ <μὴ μανθάνειν>, μᾶλλον ἔχεσθαι τῶν μαθημάτων, ὅτι κρεῖττον τοῦτο μηνύων, οὐ τὴν τοῦ δύνασθαι τοῦ παιδὸς ἐξουσίαν ἀφαιρεῖ, κἂν μὴ ἑκὼν μανθάνειν βούληται, οὕτω μοι καὶ τὸν θεὸν οὐ δοκεῖ προτρέποντα τὸν ἄνθρωπον πείθεσθαι τοῖς προστάγμασιν ἀφαιρεῖν αὐτοῦ τὴν ἐξουσίαν τῆς προαιρέσεως, τοῦ δύνασθαι καὶ μὴ ὑπακούειν τοῖς προστάγμασιν.

hōsper gar patēr paidi parainei, exousian echonti ekmanthanein ta mathēmata kai <mē manthanein>, mallon echesthai tōn mathēmatōn, hoti kreitton touto mēnyōn, ou tēn tou dynasthai tou paidos exousian aphairei, kan mē hekōn manthanein boulētai, houtō moi kai ton theon ou dokei protreponta ton anthrōpon peithesthai tois prostagmasin aphairein autou tēn exousian tēs proaireseōs, tou dynasthai kai mē hypakouein tois prostagmasin.

For just as a father exhorts his child, who has the authority to learn his lessons or not to learn them, to apply himself rather to his lessons, showing that this is better, and does not take away the child’s power of ability, even if he does not wish to learn willingly, so it seems to me that God too, in urging man to obey his commands, does not take away his authority of choice, of being able also not to obey the commands.

Notes and citation

Summary: As a father urges a child to study without forcing him, God urges obedience without removing freedom.

Topics: Ethics

Cite (SBL): Methodius, Autex. 16.8 (Bonwetsch, 188; trans. Sophia Scriptura, https://sophiascriptura.com/fathers/methodius-autexusio/10-1/#p-16-8). (abbreviation not yet checked)

BibTeX · RIS (whole work; this passage's key: sophiascriptura-methodius-autexusio-16-8) · Report an error

16.9Bonwetsch, 188–189

καὶ γὰρ τὴν ἀρχὴν τὸ οὕτως παραινεῖν ὅτι μὴ ἀφεῖλεν τὴν ἐξουσίαν μηνύει. προστάττει δέ, ἵνα τῶν κρειττόνων ἂνθρωπος ἀπολαύειν δυνηθῇ· τοῦτο γὰρ ἕπεται τῷ πεισθῆναι τῷ τοῦ θεοῦ προστάγματι. ὥστε οὐχ ἵνα τὴν ἐξουσίαν ἣν ἔδωκεν ἀφέλῃ προστάττειν βούλεται, ἀλλʼ ἵνα κρεῖττον δωρήσηται ὡς ἀξίῳ μειζόνων τῦχειν, ἀνθʼ ὧν ὑπήκουσεν τῷ θεῷ καὶ τὴν τοῦ μὴ ὑπακούειν ἐξουσίαν ἔχων …

kai gar tēn archēn to houtōs parainein hoti mē apheilen tēn exousian mēnyei. prostattei de, hina tōn kreittonōn anthrōpos apolauein dynēthę̄; touto gar hepetai tǭ peisthēnai tǭ tou theou prostagmati. hōste ouch hina tēn exousian hēn edōken aphelę̄ prostattein bouletai, allʼ hina kreitton dōrēsētai hōs axiǭ meizonōn tychein, anthʼ hōn hypēkousen tǭ theǭ kai tēn tou mē hypakouein exousian echōn …

Indeed, the very fact of exhorting in this way shows that he did not take away the authority. He commands so that man may be able to enjoy better things; for this follows from obeying God’s command. So he wishes to command not in order to take away the authority he gave, but in order to bestow something better, as on one worthy to obtain greater things, in return for having obeyed God while having also the authority not to obey …

Notes and citation

Summary: God’s commands presuppose freedom and aim at rewarding obedience.

The Greek breaks off here in the source.

Topics: Ethics

Cite (SBL): Methodius, Autex. 16.9 (Bonwetsch, 188–189; trans. Sophia Scriptura, https://sophiascriptura.com/fathers/methodius-autexusio/10-1/#p-16-9). (abbreviation not yet checked)

BibTeX · RIS (whole work; this passage's key: sophiascriptura-methodius-autexusio-16-9) · Report an error

Chapter 17

17.1Bonwetsch, 189

Αὐτεξούσιον δέ φημι γεγονέναι τὸν ἄνθρωπον· οὐχ ὡς προϋποκειμένου τινὸς ἤδη κακοῦ, οὗ τὴν ἐξουσίαν εἰ βούλοιτο τοῦ ἑλέσθαι, ὁ ἄνθρωπος ἐλάμβανεν, ἀλλὰ τὴν τοῦ ὑπακούειν τῷ θεῷ καὶ μὴ ὑπακούειν αἰτίαν μόνην. τοῦτο γὰρ τὸ αὐτεξούσιον ἐβούλετο.

Autexousion de phēmi gegonenai ton anthrōpon; ouch hōs proÿpokeimenou tinos ēdē kakou, hou tēn exousian ei bouloito tou helesthai, ho anthrōpos elambanen, alla tēn tou hypakouein tǭ theǭ kai mē hypakouein aitian monēn. touto gar to autexousion ebouleto.

I say that man was made with free will, not as though some evil already lay ready beforehand, of which man received the authority to choose if he wished, but as the sole cause of obeying God or not obeying. For this is what free will meant.

Notes and citation

Summary: Free will is not a choice among pre-existing evils but the power to obey or disobey God.

Notes on the original text

Digital text corrected (OCR slip): γενονέναι → γεγονέναι.

Topics: Ethics

Cite (SBL): Methodius, Autex. 17.1 (Bonwetsch, 189; trans. Sophia Scriptura, https://sophiascriptura.com/fathers/methodius-autexusio/10-1/#p-17-1). (abbreviation not yet checked)

BibTeX · RIS (whole work; this passage's key: sophiascriptura-methodius-autexusio-17-1) · Report an error

17.2Bonwetsch, 189

καὶ γενόμενος ὁ ἄνθρωπος ἐντολὴν λαμβάνει παρὰ τοῦ θεοῦ, καὶ ἐντεῦθεν ἤδη τὸ κακὸν ἄρχεται· οὐ γὰρ πείθεται τῷ θείῳ προστάγματι. καὶ τοῦτο καὶ μόνον ἦν τὸ κακόν, ἡ παρακοή, ἥτις τοῦ εἶναι ἤρξατο. οὐδὲ γὰρ ἀγένητον ταύτην τις εἰπεῖν ἔχει, τοῦ ποιήσαντος αὐτὴν ὄντος γενητοῦ.

kai genomenos ho anthrōpos entolēn lambanei para tou theou, kai enteuthen ēdē to kakon archetai; ou gar peithetai tǭ theiǭ prostagmati. kai touto kai monon ēn to kakon, hē parakoē, hētis tou einai ērxato. oude gar agenēton tautēn tis eipein echei, tou poiēsantos autēn ontos genētou.

And man, having been made, receives a commandment from God, and from this point evil already begins; for he does not obey the divine command. And this alone was evil: disobedience, which began to be. For no one can call it unbegotten, since the one who committed it was begotten.

Gen 2:16–17 (allusion, high confidence) · Gen 3:6 (allusion, medium confidence)

Notes and citation

Summary: Evil began with the first man’s disobedience to God’s command.

Topics: Ethics

Cite (SBL): Methodius, Autex. 17.2 (Bonwetsch, 189; trans. Sophia Scriptura, https://sophiascriptura.com/fathers/methodius-autexusio/10-1/#p-17-2). (abbreviation not yet checked)

BibTeX · RIS (whole work; this passage's key: sophiascriptura-methodius-autexusio-17-2) · Report an error

17.3Bonwetsch, 189–190

πάντως δὲ πόθεν τοῦτο τὸ παρακοῦσαι ζητήσεις. ἀλλὰ κεῖται <τοῦτο> σαφῶς ἔν <τινι> θείᾳ γραφῇ. ὅθεν οὐδὲ τοιοῦτον τὸν ἄνθρωπον πρὸς τοῦ θεοῦ γεγονέναι φημί, κατὰ δὲ τήν τινος διδασκαλίαν τοῦτο πεπονθέναι λέγω· οὐδὲ γὰρ τοιαύτην φύσιν εἰληφὼς ὁ ἄνθρωπος. εἰ γὰρ αὕτως εἶχεν, οὐκ ἂν αὐτῷ κατὰ διδασκαλίαν τοῦτο προσεγένετο, τῆς φύσεως αὐτῆς οὕτως ἐχούσης.

pantōs de pothen touto to parakousai zētēseis. alla keitai <touto> saphōs en <tini> theią graphę̄. hothen oude toiouton ton anthrōpon pros tou theou gegonenai phēmi, kata de tēn tinos didaskalian touto peponthenai legō; oude gar toiautēn physin eilēphōs ho anthrōpos. ei gar hautōs eichen, ouk an autǭ kata didaskalian touto prosegeneto, tēs physeōs autēs houtōs echousēs.

But you will certainly ask where this disobedience came from. It is clearly set down in a certain divine Scripture. Hence I say that man was not made such by God, but that he suffered this through someone’s teaching; for man did not receive such a nature. For if he had been so, this would not have come to him through teaching, since his nature itself would have been so.

Gen 3:1–5 (allusion, medium confidence)

Notes and citation

Summary: Disobedience was not in man’s nature but came by another’s teaching, as Scripture shows.

The teacher is the serpent of Gen 3, as the longer Latin and Slavonic tradition makes explicit.

Topics: Scripture and canon

Cite (SBL): Methodius, Autex. 17.3 (Bonwetsch, 189–190; trans. Sophia Scriptura, https://sophiascriptura.com/fathers/methodius-autexusio/10-1/#p-17-3). (abbreviation not yet checked)

BibTeX · RIS (whole work; this passage's key: sophiascriptura-methodius-autexusio-17-3) · Report an error

Chapter 18

18Bonwetsch GCS 27:191

Translated by Claude from N. Bonwetsch's German translation (1917) of the Old Church Slavonic; neither is shown

But you will ask about this too: if no one was evil, where did the serpent, which is called the devil, get the knowledge of evil? The answer to this is well put: the devil recognized disobedience to God as evil, and therefore he incited man to it. Suppose an enemy hides his enmity, wishing secretly to surround someone with evil, yet not knowing the way of evil by which he could do what he plans. He asks one skilled in medicine, who has made known to his neighbor (the man the enemy wished to harm) the way by which he could be healthy: whether he has fixed a time at which alone to take food, or abstinence from many foods, or avoiding only this one food. As soon as he has heard it, the enemy comes as if in friendship, slanders the physician as having prescribed something harmful, and bids the man do the opposite of what the physician commanded; and so, winning his trust, he harmed the man, not knowing the way of evil beforehand but learning it from the physician's command. Understand the devil in the same way: first he was envious, and then he did not know the way to do evil. For there was no evil before from which he could have taken the knowledge. But he knew that God had given man a law that did not allow him to eat food from a certain tree: not, it seems to me, as though the tree contained death, but as God having recognized that it was not suitable as food for man (and not as though the plant gave death, and therefore man was kept from taking of it, from which man seemed also to die), but rather that disobedience to God was the cause of death to man, as having done what God forbade. He persuaded man to transgress God's commandment, not yet knowing what its evil was; but when afterwards he perceived God rebuking man for having transgressed his commandment, and man receiving the wages of condemnation, then he recognized what evil is: not from some earlier substance, but from God's threat. So we do not blame a physician who has declared how a man can be healthy, even though the enemy did not know before how he could harm him, but learned it from the physician's advice. For it was not fitting for the one who knew to hide what was beneficial; for without knowing, the man might perhaps have taken the very thing (the enemy) took from the physician's direction, and would have been guilty of receiving some harm from it, though he did not then know he was bringing suffering on himself, so that he would not receive punishment; and the enemy's plot would have succeeded, but he could not have received judgment for his unreasoning enmity, since the enmity was not admitted. In the same way we say that, even though the devil had become wholly an enemy of men, he did not yet have knowledge of evil, but recognized it from the commandment, when God threatened, making known to man that if he ate of the tree against his will he would have death as punishment. For if he had not made known to man beforehand that he did not yet wish him to eat of the tree, man would perhaps have eaten in complete ignorance and come to the end of his life as well, either as not yet able to bear the fruit of the tree (as a child still fed on milk cannot take solid food), or as having taken from the tree against God's will; and the serpent's plots would have been fulfilled, but it would not seem to receive judgment fairly for its unreasoning enmity against man, since, having dared no deed, it would not clearly be worthy of punishment. (We say) that even if this is not at all evil in its substance, it is evil because God does not wish it to happen, and because men are taught to do it. But to say that the devil, as soon as he came into being, knew from God that disobedience to God is evil, not good, seems right to me. For he was not made irrational by God, so as to be unaware that it is not good to do anything against God's will. For this reason, I say, he is rightly punished: because, created rational by God and knowing that resisting God's will is evil, he dared to do it. I call disobedience evil, not as though I said the devil had knowledge of some element existing beforehand, but as one who willed that something of the order of accidents should happen. So I say that man too rightly receives punishment for what he does; for by his own will he gives himself to learning, and he leaves off learning when he himself wishes. For he has the power to will and not to will. And it follows that he can also do what he wills.

Gen 3:1 (allusion, high confidence) · Rev 12:9 (allusion, medium confidence) · Gen 2:17 (allusion, high confidence) · Gen 3:17 (allusion, medium confidence) · 1 Cor 3:2 (allusion, medium confidence)

Notes and citation

Summary: Using the parable of an enemy who learns from a physician's advice how to harm a man, the speaker argues that the devil learned what evil is from God's command, and that both devil and man are punished justly because they act by free will.

Translated from Bonwetsch's German rendering of the Old Slavonic. The German is obscure in places and the long parable is translated by sense. The passage both says the devil did not yet know evil and that he knew from the first that disobedience is evil; the second clause ("seems right to me"; the German has only "seems to me to be") is translated as the German stands. The Greek of the end of this chapter survives and is published separately (18.8). The milk and solid food: compare 1 Cor 3:2; Heb 5:12.

Cite (SBL): Methodius, Autex. 18 (Bonwetsch GCS 27:191; trans. Sophia Scriptura from the German of N. Bonwetsch, 1917, https://sophiascriptura.com/fathers/methodius-autexusio/10-1/#p-18). (abbreviation not yet checked)

BibTeX · RIS (whole work; this passage's key: sophiascriptura-methodius-autexusio-18) · Report an error

Translation: translated from N. Bonwetsch's German translation (GCS 27, 1917) of the Old Slavonic

18.8Bonwetsch, 194

Τὴν μὲν οὖν ἀρχὴν τοῦ κακοῦ τὸν φθόνον εἶπον ἔγωγε, τὸν δὲ φθόνον ἐκ τοῦ κρείττονι τιμῇ κατηξιῶσθαι τὸν ἄνθρωπον πρὸς τοῦ θεοῦ· τὸ δὲ κακὸν ἡ παρακοὴ ἐκ τοῦ προστίμῳ περιπεσεῖν τὸν ἄνθρωπον ὑπερβάντα τὴν τοῦ θεοῦ ἐντολήν... πολλάκις εἰ καὶ τὰ μάλιστα τὸ γινόμενον τῇ φύσει φαῦλον οὐκ ἔστιν, ἀλλά γε δὴ διὰ τὸ μὴ βούλεσθαι τὸν θεὸν γίνεσθαι αὐτό σαφῶς <τοῦτο> ὑπάρχειν κακόν.

Tēn men oun archēn tou kakou ton phthonon eipon egōge, ton de phthonon ek tou kreittoni timę̄ katēxiōsthai ton anthrōpon pros tou theou; to de kakon hē parakoē ek tou prostimǭ peripesein ton anthrōpon hyperbanta tēn tou theou entolēn... pollakis ei kai ta malista to ginomenon tę̄ physei phaulon ouk estin, alla ge dē dia to mē boulesthai ton theon ginesthai auto saphōs <touto> hyparchein kakon.

I said, then, that the beginning of evil was envy, and that the envy arose from man’s having been deemed worthy of better honor by God; and that evil is disobedience, from man’s falling under penalty by transgressing God’s commandment. … Often, even if what is done is not base by nature, yet because God does not wish it to be done, it is clearly evil.

Notes and citation

Summary: Evil began in envy at man’s honor and consists in disobedience to God.

Compare Wis 2:24 (“through the devil’s envy death entered the world”).

Notes on the original text

Digital text corrected (stray marks): αὐτό.. σαφῶς.. → αὐτό σαφῶς.

Extrabiblical texts: Wis 2:24 (Wisdom of Solomon [in RC, EO, ETH canons]; allusion)

Topics: Ethics

Cite (SBL): Methodius, Autex. 18.8 (Bonwetsch, 194; trans. Sophia Scriptura, https://sophiascriptura.com/fathers/methodius-autexusio/10-1/#p-18-8). (abbreviation not yet checked)

BibTeX · RIS (whole work; this passage's key: sophiascriptura-methodius-autexusio-18-8) · Report an error

Chapter 19

19Bonwetsch GCS 27:195

Translated by Claude from N. Bonwetsch's German translation (1917) of the Old Church Slavonic; neither is shown

Question. Since, my friend, you say that God is not the creator of evil, but that it is done by those who follow the devil's working and have given themselves over to his will, and that they are therefore rightly punished, since though able to reject his will they do not wish to, I will ask you about him, the devil himself. Did God create him so, or did he turn himself to evil, not having been so before? If he was so from God, he ought not to receive punishment, since he kept to the nature in which God created him. But if he was made good by God and turned his will to evil, leaving the better, he rightly receives punishment for what he dared to do. For I said above that he was not made so by God, saying in a word that envy was the cause of such a choice for him. Answer. Since you ask me again to speak, I begin the argument. I say that the devil was not by nature a rebel against God, but a certain power serving the better. But when he became envious of man, I say that he became devil by his own choice; for leaving obedience to God, he began to be disobedient and began to teach what contradicts God, having left the better and become, so to speak, a deserter from God. A holy word bears me witness in saying this, calling him a deserter and a serpent, when it says: "By his command he slew the apostate serpent." For it was truly the word of God that slew the devil, since he gave earthly men the power to trample on him. Holy Scripture would not have called him an apostate if he had remained as he was created by God, and had not left what he was and passed over to what he was not. For the name apostate shows that he is not now the same as he was before. This also shows that he is not uncreated. For if he were uncreated, he would not have fallen from his nature. And even if I grant that this were possible, one must (still) say, since the devil is now evil, that there was once a time when the devil was not evil; and so too that evil proves not to be a substance. For the same nature (or "substance"), while it remains, does not undergo being now evil and now good again. Question. But if the devil too was created, yet not created so by God, but turned himself from the better to the worse, that is, from obedience to disobedience, tell me: did God not know that he would become such, and so create him, or did he create him knowing what he would become? For if he knew beforehand, what guilt will the devil have? But if he did not know of the devil's falling away from the greater, he will be guiltless, but less than the pagan soothsayers. Answer. To say that there is any ignorance in God seems to me unfitting, for this is foreign to the divine nature. But again, that he is guilty of evil if he created the devil knowing the future, this too I say is unfitting. Nevertheless I will state the cause for which God, foreknowing the future, created him. I say this: that God, being good in his nature, did not wish his righteous dealing to remain hidden and himself therefore to remain unknown. Therefore, though he knew beforehand that the devil would fall away, and how he would make men sin and transgress his commandment, God created him, so that free will might rather show itself in man, and that the abundance of his goodness might become known to men through his granting "the remission of former sins," and so that they would not always hold fast to the evil for whose sake they disobeyed him and obeyed the created servant. So I say that God, though he knew very well that he would become such, created the devil in order to show his goodness to men, that man might recognize the grace of God, and that men might recognize his manifold (goodness). For if there were not the opposite composition of evil, the good itself would not be recognizable as good, since we would have knowledge of this alone, without knowing the difference of the better. Besides, free will would also have been taken from man, since he would know only how to serve by obedience alone; and the end of all men would also be the same, since each one's choice would not be distinguished, and he who is evil today would claim the same gift.

Job 26:13 (quotation, high confidence) · Luke 10:19 (allusion, medium confidence) · Rom 3:25 (quotation, high confidence)

Notes and citation

Summary: The devil was created good and became devil by his own envious choice, as Scripture's name apostate shows; God foreknew his fall but created him so that free will and God's goodness in forgiveness might be made known.

Translated from Bonwetsch's German rendering of the Old Slavonic. "By his command he slew the apostate serpent": Job 26:13 in the Greek form. "The remission of former sins": Rom 3:25. The German "vom Gröberen" is read as "from the greater" (Größeren). The answer on God's foreknowledge is translated as written.

Cite (SBL): Methodius, Autex. 19 (Bonwetsch GCS 27:195; trans. Sophia Scriptura from the German of N. Bonwetsch, 1917, https://sophiascriptura.com/fathers/methodius-autexusio/10-1/#p-19). (abbreviation not yet checked)

BibTeX · RIS (whole work; this passage's key: sophiascriptura-methodius-autexusio-19) · Report an error

Translation: translated from N. Bonwetsch's German translation (GCS 27, 1917) of the Old Slavonic

Chapter 20

20Bonwetsch GCS 27:199

Translated by Claude from N. Bonwetsch's German translation (1917) of the Old Church Slavonic; neither is shown

Question. If God, wishing to show the goodness of his nature for the sake of the remission of sins, created the devil in the meantime, knowing him to be such, why did he not kill the devil after he had shown himself evil and God's goodness had become manifest to men, so that very many men might not die? Answer. Not because it was impossible for God to destroy the devil, nor because he rejoices in the death of men; he undergoes nothing of the kind, I say. But first, God would have done nothing great by destroying the devil himself, a small and created creature, capable of being dissolved into non-being. Secondly, because the kindness of God would not have become known to the men who came later, if he had killed the devil beforehand. And every man, not having the proof clearly in himself, would call himself good, and would have wished to imitate God, as bearing the same nature as he. So he took no account of him (the devil), so that all men might receive the knowledge of the better. And they conquer him, who were once conquered by him. For this was wonderful and great, that a man of God should conquer the devil, taught the contest by God himself. Consider a trainer who has taken every care for his boys and taught them every hold by which they can throw their opponents: he lets them out into the wrestling school to fight with their opponents, and shows them how to learn victory and strive for it, yet bids them not to care for their lives, only not to carry off shameful disgrace. Whoever holds fast steadily to the trainer's command and the proofs of victory conquers the adversary, and, joyfully wearing the crown, comes to the trainer bearing the proof of his labor, the defeat of his opponent. But whoever does not keep the trainer in memory, but has given over to forgetfulness the contest against the adversary as well, and cares little for his victory, soon falls before the adversary; and so, completely defeated and beaten, he is justly reproached for not enduring the labor of the contest. So I think God too, having taught his people by his commandments to fight well with the adversary, praises the victor, as one who has not put to shame the instruction of the good Teacher. But if anyone counts God's commandments as nothing and comes to grips with the devil, he will at once fall to the ground, no longer having the ways of victory. So such a one will rightly receive condemnation too, because he has not labored like his neighbor. That is why, I said, God took no account of him, while the devil fought in the world as in a wrestling school with God's pupils. Conquered by them, he (the devil) falls, and the glory of his old victory too is now destroyed by just such men, who, obedient to the good example of his passion, have been taught the power to conquer. For he is trampled under our feet and lies dead, conquered by the hope of the better. Here let the discussion about evil end.

Ezek 18:32 (echo, medium confidence) · 1 Cor 9:25 (echo, low confidence) · Rom 16:20 (allusion, high confidence) · 1 Pet 2:21 (echo, low confidence)

Notes and citation

Summary: God did not destroy the devil at once, because that would have been no great deed and would have hidden his kindness; instead he trains men like wrestlers to conquer the devil themselves.

Translated from Bonwetsch's German rendering of the Old Slavonic. The chapter numeral (XX) stands at the start in the German. "Trampled under our feet": compare Rom 16:20. "He undergoes nothing of the kind" renders the German literally; compare Ezek 18:23, 32. One phrase in the trainer simile is uncertain in the German.

Topics: Ethics

Cite (SBL): Methodius, Autex. 20 (Bonwetsch GCS 27:199; trans. Sophia Scriptura from the German of N. Bonwetsch, 1917, https://sophiascriptura.com/fathers/methodius-autexusio/10-1/#p-20). (abbreviation not yet checked)

BibTeX · RIS (whole work; this passage's key: sophiascriptura-methodius-autexusio-20) · Report an error

Translation: translated from N. Bonwetsch's German translation (GCS 27, 1917) of the Old Slavonic

Chapter 22

22.1Bonwetsch GCS 27:202

Translated by Claude from N. Bonwetsch's German translation (1917) of the Old Church Slavonic; neither is shown

Question. But I wish to return to the question of matter, and I ask you likewise to finish the discussion about it, and to show me clearly what is the cause of its existing now, when before it did not. For if matter was not with God, why did God begin to make the world exist? Answer. To give the reason for God's will seems to me impossible and superfluous for a man, since no one can declare even the mind of our neighbors. But since the Lord of all has shown such fruit of his love for mankind as to sow in some people testimonies of his mind, I will confess openly what I think I know.

Rom 11:34 (echo, medium confidence) · 1 Cor 2:11 (echo, medium confidence)

Notes and citation

Summary: Asked why God began to create the world if matter did not exist beside him, the speaker says God's reasons cannot be fully known, but offers what he thinks he knows.

Translated from Bonwetsch's German rendering of the Old Slavonic. The answer continues in Greek in 22.3 (published separately). "No one can declare the mind": compare Rom 11:34; 1 Cor 2:11.

Cite (SBL): Methodius, Autex. 22.1 (Bonwetsch GCS 27:202; trans. Sophia Scriptura from the German of N. Bonwetsch, 1917, https://sophiascriptura.com/fathers/methodius-autexusio/10-1/#p-22-1). (abbreviation not yet checked)

BibTeX · RIS (whole work; this passage's key: sophiascriptura-methodius-autexusio-22-1) · Report an error

Translation: translated from N. Bonwetsch's German translation (GCS 27, 1917) of the Old Slavonic

22.3Bonwetsch, 203

Φημὶ τοιγαροῦν πολλὰς ὑποθέσεις ὑπάρχειν τῷ θεῷ, καθʼ ἃς δημιουργεῖν αὐτὸν ἔδει· πρῶτον μὲν τῆς τέχνης ἐπιστήμην, ἣν ἀργεῖν μὲν οὐκ ἐχρῆν, ἡττωμένου τοῦ δύνασθαι ποιεῖν ταῦτα ἅπερ ἠπίστατο· ὕστερον δὲ καὶ τὸ τῇ φύσει ἀγαθὸν ὑπάρχειν αὐτῷ, ὅπερ ἀνωφελὲς μένειν οὐκ ἐδόκει· πολλὰ δὲ καὶ τούτοις ὅμοια προσῆν τῷ θεῷ, διʼ ἅπερ κόσμου γένεσιν ἤρξατο ποιεῖν.

Phēmi toigaroun pollas hypotheseis hyparchein tǭ theǭ, kathʼ has dēmiourgein auton edei; prōton men tēs technēs epistēmēn, hēn argein men ouk echrēn, hēttōmenou tou dynasthai poiein tauta haper ēpistato; hysteron de kai to tę̄ physei agathon hyparchein autǭ, hoper anōpheles menein ouk edokei; polla de kai toutois homoia prosēn tǭ theǭ, diʼ haper kosmou genesin ērxato poiein.

I say, then, that God had many grounds on which he had to create: first, the knowledge of his art, which ought not to be idle, as though his ability to make what he knew were defeated; secondly, that he is good by nature, which did not seem fit to remain unprofitable; and many other things like these belonged to God, on account of which he began to make the world come into being.

Notes and citation

Summary: God created because his knowledge and goodness were not meant to remain idle.

Notes on the original text

Digital text corrected (OCR slip): ὅμοις → ὅμοια.

Cite (SBL): Methodius, Autex. 22.3 (Bonwetsch, 203; trans. Sophia Scriptura, https://sophiascriptura.com/fathers/methodius-autexusio/10-1/#p-22-3). (abbreviation not yet checked)

BibTeX · RIS (whole work; this passage's key: sophiascriptura-methodius-autexusio-22-3) · Report an error

22.4Bonwetsch, 203

ὥσπερ γὰρ εἴ τις ἐπιστήμην ἔχων ἢ μουσικῆς ἢ αὖ πάλιν ἰατρικῆς ἢ τεκτονικῆς, εἰς ὅσον τοῦ ἔργου μὴ ἔχεται μηδὲ διʼ αὐτοῦ τὴν ἐπιστήμην δείκνυσιν, μάτην τέχνην ἔχειν δοκεῖ, μήτε αὐτὸς ἀπολαύων ὧν ἐπίσταται, μήτε ἑτέροις γνῶσιν παρέχων τούτων τῶν ἔργων, καὶ τὸ ἐντεῦθεν ὅμοιος τῷ μηδὲ τὴν ἀρχὴν ἐπισταμένῳ γίνεται, μὴ οὔσης τῆς τέχνης ἐνεργοῦς (ἐκάστη γὰρ τῶν τεχνῶν διὰ τῆς ἐνεργείας τὴν δεῖξιν λαμβάνει καὶ ὡς λόγον εἰπεῖν τὴν τοῦ εἶναι σύστασιν)·

hōsper gar ei tis epistēmēn echōn ē mousikēs ē au palin iatrikēs ē tektonikēs, eis hoson tou ergou mē echetai mēde diʼ autou tēn epistēmēn deiknysin, matēn technēn echein dokei, mēte autos apolauōn hōn epistatai, mēte heterois gnōsin parechōn toutōn tōn ergōn, kai to enteuthen homoios tǭ mēde tēn archēn epistamenǭ ginetai, mē ousēs tēs technēs energous (ekastē gar tōn technōn dia tēs energeias tēn deixin lambanei kai hōs logon eipein tēn tou einai systasin);

For just as someone who has knowledge of music, or again of medicine or carpentry, so long as he does not apply himself to the work nor show his knowledge through it, seems to have his art in vain, neither himself enjoying what he knows nor giving others knowledge of these works, and from this becomes like one who does not know it at all, since his art is not active (for each of the arts receives its display through its activity and, so to speak, the constitution of its being);

Notes and citation

Summary: A craftsman who never practices his art has it in vain.

The sentence continues through 22.6.

Cite (SBL): Methodius, Autex. 22.4 (Bonwetsch, 203; trans. Sophia Scriptura, https://sophiascriptura.com/fathers/methodius-autexusio/10-1/#p-22-4). (abbreviation not yet checked)

BibTeX · RIS (whole work; this passage's key: sophiascriptura-methodius-autexusio-22-4) · Report an error

22.5Bonwetsch, 203–204

ὁμοίως δὲ πάλιν εἴ τις ἀγαθὸς ὢν μὴ ἔχοι οὓς εὐεργετῆσαι δεῖ, μάτην ἀγαθὸς εἶναι δοκεῖ (τὸ γὰρ ἀγαθὸν τῶν πρὸς ἕτερον πέφυκεν εἶναι· οὐκ ὄντων δέ τινων πρὸς οὕς ἐστιν τοῦτο, τὴν ἀρχὴν οὐδʼ ἀγαθὸν ἔσται, κρυπτόμενον ἐν ἐκείνῳ τῷ ἔχοντι καὶ μόνῳ γνωστὸν ὑπάρχον, διὰ τὸ τὴν ἀρχὴν μηδὲ παρεῖναι τοὺς τούτου δεομένους· εἰ δὲ πάρεισίν τινες οὓς εὐεργετεῖν δύναται, τηνικαῦτα δείκνυται μὲν αὐτοῦ πρῶτον τὸ ἀγαθόν· ἔπειτα δὲ τὸ εὔχρηστον γίνεται τῷ τῆς τοιαύτης φύσεως εἰληχότι, πολλῶν τῆς ἀγαθοσύνης αὐτοῦ ἀπολαύειν δυναμένων), —

homoiōs de palin ei tis agathos ōn mē echoi hous euergetēsai dei, matēn agathos einai dokei (to gar agathon tōn pros heteron pephyken einai; ouk ontōn de tinōn pros hous estin touto, tēn archēn oudʼ agathon estai, kryptomenon en ekeinǭ tǭ echonti kai monǭ gnōston hyparchon, dia to tēn archēn mēde pareinai tous toutou deomenous; ei de pareisin tines hous euergetein dynatai, tēnikauta deiknytai men autou prōton to agathon; epeita de to euchrēston ginetai tǭ tēs toiautēs physeōs eilēchoti, pollōn tēs agathosynēs autou apolauein dynamenōn), —

and likewise again, if someone good had no one to benefit, he would seem to be good in vain (for the good is by nature something relative to another; and if there are none to whom it is directed, it will not be good at all, hidden in its possessor and known to him alone, because there are none at all who need it; but if there are some whom he can benefit, then first his goodness is shown, and next it becomes useful to the one who has such a nature, since many can enjoy his goodness) —

Notes and citation

Summary: Goodness needs others to benefit.

Notes on the original text

Digital text corrected (OCR slip; split word): παρεῖναιο → παρεῖναι; εὐερ- γετεῖν → εὐεργετεῖν.

Cite (SBL): Methodius, Autex. 22.5 (Bonwetsch, 203–204; trans. Sophia Scriptura, https://sophiascriptura.com/fathers/methodius-autexusio/10-1/#p-22-5). (abbreviation not yet checked)

BibTeX · RIS (whole work; this passage's key: sophiascriptura-methodius-autexusio-22-5) · Report an error

22.6Bonwetsch, 204

τὸν αὐτὸν δὲ τρόπον καὶ περὶ τοῦ θεοῦ σκοπεῖν χρή, ὅτι πάσης τέχνης τῆν ἐπιστήμην ἔχων, εἰ μηδὲν ἐδημιούργησεν, μάτην ἐδόκει τὴν ἐπιστήμην ἔχειν, μὴ ὄντων τινῶν οἷς κἂν ὅτι ἐπιστήμων <τις> ὑπῆρχεν δεικνύναι δυνηθείη. διὰ τοῦτο τὸ ἔργον πεποιηκέναι <αὐτὸν> λέγω, τὴν τέχνην αὐτοῦ ἐν αὐτοῖς τοῖς ἔργοις ἐπιδεῖξαι προαιρούμενον· οὐ γὰρ ἤρκει ἡ ἐπιστήμη μόνη, ἄνευ τῶν ἐν οἷς ὑπάρχειν ἔδει, τῷ θεῷ. ἄχρηστον γὰρ αὐτῷ, μᾶλλον δὲ ἀργὸν τὸ τοιοῦτον μένειν ἐφαίνετο· ἥ τε δύναμις οὐκ ἐνεργοῦσα οὐκ ἂν εὔχρηστος εἴη τῷ κεκτημένῳ, καὶ ἀγαθὸς ὤν, οὐκ ἀπέλαυεν τῆς ἀγαθοσύνης αὐτοῦ, τοὺς δεομένους αὐτῆς οὐκ ἔχων.

ton auton de tropon kai peri tou theou skopein chrē, hoti pasēs technēs tēn epistēmēn echōn, ei mēden edēmiourgēsen, matēn edokei tēn epistēmēn echein, mē ontōn tinōn hois kan hoti epistēmōn <tis> hypērchen deiknynai dynētheiē. dia touto to ergon pepoiēkenai <auton> legō, tēn technēn autou en autois tois ergois epideixai proairoumenon; ou gar ērkei hē epistēmē monē, aneu tōn en hois hyparchein edei, tǭ theǭ. achrēston gar autǭ, mallon de argon to toiouton menein ephaineto; hē te dynamis ouk energousa ouk an euchrēstos eiē tǭ kektēmenǭ, kai agathos ōn, ouk apelauen tēs agathosynēs autou, tous deomenous autēs ouk echōn.

in the same way we must consider about God too: that, having knowledge of every art, if he had crafted nothing, he would seem to have his knowledge in vain, there being none to whom he could show that he was knowing. That is why I say he made the work, choosing to display his art in the works themselves; for knowledge alone, without the things in which it had to exist, was not enough for God. For such a thing appeared useless to him, or rather idle to remain so; and power that is not active would not be useful to its possessor, and, being good, he would not have enjoyed his goodness, having none who needed it.

Notes and citation

Summary: God created to display his art and goodness in his works.

Notes on the original text

Digital text corrected (OCR slip): ἐφαίντο → ἐφαίνετο.

Cite (SBL): Methodius, Autex. 22.6 (Bonwetsch, 204; trans. Sophia Scriptura, https://sophiascriptura.com/fathers/methodius-autexusio/10-1/#p-22-6). (abbreviation not yet checked)

BibTeX · RIS (whole work; this passage's key: sophiascriptura-methodius-autexusio-22-6) · Report an error

22.7Bonwetsch, 204–205

διόπερ ἀγαθὸς ὢν ἐδημιούργησεν καὶ τὰ οὐκ ὄντα πεποίηκεν, διὰ τούτου καὶ πρώτου τὴν ἀγαθοσύνην αὐτοῦ δεῖξαι προαιρούμενος (τουτὶ γὰρ ὑπερβαλλούσης φύσεως ἔστιν ἀγαθῆς τὸ εἶναι παρασχεῖν τοῖς οὐκ οὖσιν ποτέ)· ἔπειτα δὲ καὶ διὰ τῆς τῶν κρειττόνων ὑποσχέσεως, ἃ δὴ τοῖς πρὸς αὐτοῦ γενομένοις ἐπηγγείλατο· οὐ γὰρ τὸ εἶναι μόνον παρέσχεν αὐτοῖς, ἀλλὰ καὶ τῶν κρειττόνων ἀπολαύειν, οὕτως αὐτοῦ τὸ ἀγαθὸν ἐπιδεικνύναι προαιρούμενος· διὰ τούτου γὰρ καὶ ὅτι ἔστιν τὸ ἀγαθὸν φαίνεται, τοὺς χρῄζοντας ἔχων.

dioper agathos ōn edēmiourgēsen kai ta ouk onta pepoiēken, dia toutou kai prōtou tēn agathosynēn autou deixai proairoumenos (touti gar hyperballousēs physeōs estin agathēs to einai paraschein tois ouk ousin pote); epeita de kai dia tēs tōn kreittonōn hyposcheseōs, ha dē tois pros autou genomenois epēngeilato; ou gar to einai monon pareschen autois, alla kai tōn kreittonōn apolauein, houtōs autou to agathon epideiknynai proairoumenos; dia toutou gar kai hoti estin to agathon phainetai, tous chrę̄zontas echōn.

Therefore, being good, he created and made the things that were not, choosing to show his goodness first through this (for it belongs to an exceedingly good nature to give being to things that once were not); and then also through the promise of better things, which he announced to those made by him. For he gave them not only being but also the enjoyment of better things, choosing in this way to display his goodness; for through this it appears that the good exists, since it has those who need it.

Notes and citation

Summary: God showed his goodness by creating from nothing and by promising better things.

Notes on the original text

Digital text corrected (OCR slip): κρεττόνων → κρειττόνων.

Cite (SBL): Methodius, Autex. 22.7 (Bonwetsch, 204–205; trans. Sophia Scriptura, https://sophiascriptura.com/fathers/methodius-autexusio/10-1/#p-22-7). (abbreviation not yet checked)

BibTeX · RIS (whole work; this passage's key: sophiascriptura-methodius-autexusio-22-7) · Report an error

22.8Bonwetsch, 205

πρὸς δὲ τούτοις, εἰ μὴ κόσμου γένεσιν ἐποίησεν ὁ θεός, τὴν ἀρχὴν ὅτι ἐστὶν θεός, ἀγνωστος ἦν, οὐκ ὄντων τῶν γινώσκειν <αὐτὸν> δυναμένων· ὅθεν καὶ εἰς γνῶσιν ἑαυτοῦ τισιν προάγειν βουλόμενος, καὶ ὅτι ἔστιν δεῖξαι θέλων, ἐδημιούργησεν, ἐν ᾧ γνωστὸν παρασχεῖν ἑαυτόν... τὸ μὲν οὖν λοιπὸν τοῦ κόσμου σύστημα διὰ τὸν ἄνθρωπον γεγονέναι φημί, πρὸς ὑπηρεσίαν τῶν ἀναγκαίων αὐτῷ, <τὸν δὲ ἄνθρωπον διʼ αὐτὸν τὸν θεόν, > ὅπως δοξάζῃ τὸν δεσπότην, <καὶ> ὅπως τὸ ἀγαθὸν εἴς τινας ἐνεργήσῃ τοῦ θεοῦ.

pros de toutois, ei mē kosmou genesin epoiēsen ho theos, tēn archēn hoti estin theos, agnōstos ēn, ouk ontōn tōn ginōskein <auton> dynamenōn; hothen kai eis gnōsin heautou tisin proagein boulomenos, kai hoti estin deixai thelōn, edēmiourgēsen, en hǭ gnōston paraschein heauton... to men oun loipon tou kosmou systēma dia ton anthrōpon gegonenai phēmi, pros hypēresian tōn anankaiōn autǭ, <ton de anthrōpon diʼ auton ton theon, > hopōs doxazę̄ ton despotēn, <kai> hopōs to agathon eis tinas energēsę̄ tou theou.

Moreover, if God had not made the world come into being, that he is God would have been unknown from the outset, there being none able to know him. Hence, wishing to lead some to knowledge of himself and to show that he exists, he created, in order to make himself known. … The rest of the structure of the world, then, I say came into being for man’s sake, to serve his needs, and man for the sake of God himself, so that he might glorify his master, and so that God might exercise his goodness toward some.

Notes and citation

Summary: God created to be known; the world exists for man, and man for God.

The editor’s supplements (angle brackets) are translated.

Notes on the original text

Digital text corrected (OCR slip): τούτοςι → τούτοις.

Cite (SBL): Methodius, Autex. 22.8 (Bonwetsch, 205; trans. Sophia Scriptura, https://sophiascriptura.com/fathers/methodius-autexusio/10-1/#p-22-8). (abbreviation not yet checked)

BibTeX · RIS (whole work; this passage's key: sophiascriptura-methodius-autexusio-22-8) · Report an error

22.10Bonwetsch, 206

Μηδὲν τοιγαροῦν, ἄνθρωπε, αὐτοσύστατον εἶναι λέγε <σὺν> τῷ θεῷ μηδὲ τὸ μέγιστον αὐτοῦ τῆς δυνάμεως περιαιρεῖσθαι θέλε· πᾶσιν τὸ εἶναι αὐτὸς παρέσχεν, οὐκ οὖσιν πρότερον, οὐδὲ τὴν σύστασιν ἀνάρχως ἔχουσιν. τί τεχνίτην μόνον θέλεις εἶναι τὸν θεόν; τί τὴν δωρεὰν αὐτοῦ παραιτῇ, ὡς τέχνην καὶ μόνην τῇ ὕλῃ χαρισάμενον, οὐχὶ δὲ καὶ τὴν τοῦ εἶναι σύστασιν;

Mēden toigaroun, anthrōpe, autosystaton einai lege <syn> tǭ theǭ mēde to megiston autou tēs dynameōs periaireisthai thele; pasin to einai autos pareschen, ouk ousin proteron, oude tēn systasin anarchōs echousin. ti technitēn monon theleis einai ton theon? ti tēn dōrean autou paraitę̄, hōs technēn kai monēn tę̄ hylę̄ charisamenon, ouchi de kai tēn tou einai systasin?

Do not say, then, man, that anything is self-constituted together with God, nor seek to take away the greatest part of his power. He himself gave being to all things, which did not exist before and do not have their constitution without beginning. Why do you want God to be only a craftsman? Why do you refuse his gift, as though he had granted matter art alone, and not also the constitution of its being?

Notes and citation

Summary: Methodius concludes that God gave all things their very being, not merely form.

Notes on the original text

Digital text corrected (OCR slip): παριτῇ → παραιτῇ.

Cite (SBL): Methodius, Autex. 22.10 (Bonwetsch, 206; trans. Sophia Scriptura, https://sophiascriptura.com/fathers/methodius-autexusio/10-1/#p-22-10). (abbreviation not yet checked)

BibTeX · RIS (whole work; this passage's key: sophiascriptura-methodius-autexusio-22-10) · Report an error