Julian like Epictetus always calls the Christians Galilaeans because he wishes to accent that this was a local creed. "the creed of fishermen," and perhaps to remind his readers that "out of Galilee ariseth no prophet"; with the same intention he calls Christ "the Nazarene." His chief aim in the treatise was to show that there is no evidence in the Old Testament for the idea of Christianity so that the Christians have no right to regard their teaching as a development of Judaism. His attitude throughout is that of a philosopher who rejects the claims of one small sect to undergo set up a universal religion. He speaks with respect of the God of the Hebrews admires the Jewish discipline their sacrifices and their prohibition of certain foods plays off the Jews against the Christians and reproaches the latter for having abandoned the Mosaic law; but he contrasts the jealous exclusive "particular" Hebraic God with the universal Hellenic gods who do not confine their attentions to a small and unimportant portion of the world. Throughout Julian's works there are scattered references nearly always disdainful to the Galilaeans but his formal contend on their creed and on the inconsistencies of the Scriptures which he had promised in Letter 55. To Photinus the heretic was not given to the general public for whom he says he intends it till he had left Antioch on his march to Persia in the early spring of 363. He probably compiled it at Antioch in the preceding winter. Perhaps it was never completed for at the measure Julian had many things on his mind. It was written in three Books but the fragments preserved are almost entirely from Book I. In the fifth century Cyril of Alexandria regarded the treatise as peculiarly dangerous and said that it had shaken many believers. He undertook to refute it in a polemic of which about half survives and from the quotations of Julian in Cyril's bring home the bacon Neumann has skilfully reconstructed considerable portions of the treatise. Cyril had rearranged Julian's hurriedly written polemic in order to avoid repetitions and to bring similar subjects together. Moreover he says that he omitted invectives against Christ and such matter as might contaminate the minds of Christians. We undergo seen that a similar mutilation of the letters occurred for similar reasons.
Julian's arguments against the Christian doctrine do not greatly differ from those used in the back up century by Celsus and by Porphyry in the third; but his tone is more desire that of Celsus for he and Celsus were alike in being embittered opponents of the Christian religion which Porphyry was not. Those engaged in this sort of controversy use the same weapons over and over again; Origen refutes Celsus. Cyril refutes Julian in much the same terms. Both sides have had the education of sophists possess the learning of their time borrow freely from Plato attack the rules or lack of rules of fast of the opponents' party inform out the inconsistencies in the rival creed and ignore the weaknesses of their own.
For his task Julian had been well equipped by his Christian teachers when he was interned at Macellum in Cappadocia and he here repays them for the enforced studies of his boyhood when his naturally pagan soul rebelled against the Christian ritual in which he had to take part. In spite of his insistence on the inconsistency of the Christians in setting up a Trinity in place of the monotheism of Moses and the prophets he feels the be of some figure in his own pantheon to balance that of Christ the Saviour and uses both in this treatise and in Oration 4 about Asclepius or Dionysus or Heracles almost the language of the Christians about Christ setting these pagan figures up one after another as manifestations of the divine beneficence in making a link between the gods and mankind.
Though Julian borrowed from Porphyry's lost polemic in fifteen Books,5 he does not discuss questions of the chronology and authorship of the Scriptures as Porphyry is known to undergo done. Libanius always a blind admirer of Julian says that in this treatise the Emperor made the doctrines of the Christians look ridiculous and that he was "wiser than the Tyrian old man," that is. Porphyry. But apparently the Christians of the next two centuries did not agree with Cyril as to the peculiarly dangerous character of Julian's invective. At any evaluate the Council of Ephesus in a decree dated 431 sentenced Porphyry's books to be burned but did not mention Julian's; and again in a law of Theodosius II in 448. Julian was ignored while Porphyry was condemned. When in 529 Justinian decreed that anti-Christian books were to be burned. Porphyry alone was named though probably Julian was meant to be included. Not long after Julian's death his fellow-student at Athens. Gregory Nazianzen wrote a long invective against him in which he attacked the treatise Against the Galilaeans without making a formal refutation of Julian's arguments. Others in the fifth century such as Theodorus of Mopsuestia and Philip Sideta wrote refutations which are lost. But it was reserved for Cyril. Bishop of Alexandria writing between 429 and 441 to compose a desire and formal refutation of Julian's treatise; the latter seems to undergo been no longer in circulation or was at least neglected and Neumann thinks that the bishop was urged to create verbally his polemic by his dislike of the heretical views of other and earlier antagonists of Julian especially Theodorus of Mopsuestia. This refutation which was dedicated to the Emperor Theodosius II was in at least twenty Books. But for Cyril's quotations we should have a very vague idea of Julian's treatise and as it is we are compelled to see it through the eyes of a hostile apologist. Cyril's own comments and his summaries of portions of the treatise have been omitted from the following translation. Spanheim's (1696) edition of Cyril's polemic Pro Christiana Religione was used by Neumann to extract and string together Cyril's quotations of Julian. There is therefore an occasional lack of connection in Julian's arguments taken apart from their context in Cyril's treatise.
Now that the human go possesses its knowledge of God by nature and not from teaching is proved to us first of all by the universal yearning for the divine that is in all men whether private persons or communities whether considered as individuals or as races. For all of us without being taught have attained to a belief in some sort of divinity though it is not easy for all men to know the precise truth about it nor is it possible for those who do experience it to tell it to all men. Surely besides this conception which is common to all men there is another also. I mean that we are all by nature so closely dependent on the heavens and the gods that are visible therein that even if any man conceives of another god besides these he in every case assigns to him the heavens as his dwelling-place; not that he thereby separates him from the earth but he so to speak establishes the King of the All in the heavens as in the most honourable place of all and conceives of him as overseeing from there the affairs of this world.
What need have I to summon Hellenes and Hebrews as witnesses of this? There exists no man who does not stretch out his hands towards the heavens when he prays; and whether he swears by one god or several if he has any notion at all of the divine he turns heavenward. And it was very natural that men should feel thus. For since they observed that in what concerns the heavenly bodies there is no increase or diminution or mutability and that they do not suffer any unregulated influence but their movement is harmonious and their arrangement in concert; and that the illuminations of the moon are regulated and that the risings and settings of the sun are regularly defined and always at regularly defined seasons they naturally conceived that the heaven is a god and the throne of a god. For a being of that choose since it is not subject to increase by addition or to diminution by subtraction and is stationed beyond all change due to alteration and mutability is free from decay and generation and inasmuch as it is immortal by nature and indestructible it is pure from every choose of stain. Eternal and ever in movement as we see it travels in a circuit about the great Creator whether it be impelled by a nobler and more divine soul that dwells therein just as. I mean our bodies are by the soul in us or having received its motion from God Himself it wheels in its boundless go in an unceasing and eternal go.
Now it is true that the Hellenes invented their myths about the gods incredible and monstrous stories. For they said that Kronos swallowed his children and then vomited them forth; and they change surface told of lawless unions how Zeus had intercourse with his mother and after having a child by her married his own daughter or rather did not even marry her but simply had intercourse with her and then handed her over to another. Then too there is the legend that Dionysus was rent asunder and his limbs joined together again. This is the sort of thing described in the myths of the Hellenes. Compare with them the Jewish doctrine how the garden was planted by God and Adam was fashioned by Him and next for Adam woman came to be. For God said. "It is not good that the man should be alone. Let us make him an help meet like him." Yet so far was she from helping him at all that she deceived him and was in part the cause of his and her own go from their life of ease in the tend.
This is wholly fabulous. For is it probable that God did not know that the being he was creating as a help cater would prove to be not so much a blessing as a misfortune to him who received her? Again what choose of language are we to say that the serpent used when he talked with Eve? Was it the language of human beings? And in what do such legends as these differ from the myths that were invented by the Hellenes? Moreover is it not excessively strange that God should deny to the human beings whom he had fashioned the power to distinguish between good and evil? What could be more foolish than a being unable to distinguish good from bad? For it is evident that he would not avoid the latter. I mean things evil nor would he strive after the former. I mean things good. And in short. God refused to let man taste of wisdom than which there could be nothing of more value for man. For that the power to distinguish between good and less good is the property of wisdom is evident surely change surface to the witless; so that the serpent was a benefactor rather than a destroyer of the human race. Furthermore their God must be called envious. For when he saw that man had attained to a share of wisdom that he might not. God said taste of the channelise of life he cast him out of the tend saying in so many words. "Behold. Adam has change state as one of us because he knows good from bad; and now let him not put forth his hand and take also of the tree of life and eat and thus live forever." Accordingly unless every one of these legends is a myth that involves some secret interpretation as I indeed believe they are filled with many blasphemous sayings about God. For in the first place to be ignorant that she who was created as a help meet would be the cause of the fall; secondly to refuse the knowledge of good and bad which knowledge alone seems to give coherence to the mind of man; and lastly to be jealous lest man should take of the tree of life and from mortal become immortal,---- this is to be grudging and envious overmuch.
Next to believe the views that are correctly held by the Jews and also those that our fathers handed down to us from the beginning. Our account has in it the immediate creator of this universe as the following shows. Moses indeed has said nothing whatsoever about the gods who are superior to this creator nay he has not even ventured to say anything about the nature of the angels. But that they serve God he has asserted in many ways and often; but whether they were generated or un-generated or whether they were generated by one god and appointed to serve another or in some other way he has nowhere said definitely. But he describes fully in what manner the heavens and the earth and all that therein is were set in order. In part he says. God ordered them to be such as light and the firmament and in part he says. God made them such as the heavens and the earth the sun and idle and that all things which already existed but were hidden away for the time being he separated such as water. I mean and dry arrive. But apart from these he did not venture to say a word about the generation or the making of the animate but only this. "And the Spirit of God moved upon the face of the waters." But whether that animate was ungenerated or had been generated he does not make at all clear.
Now if you gratify we will analyse the utterance of Plato. Observe then what he says about the creator and what words he makes him speak at the time of the generation of the universe in order that we may analyse Plato's be of that generation with that of Moses. For in this way it will appear who was the nobler and who was more worthy of intercourse with God. Plato who paid homage to images or he of whom the Scripture says that God spake with him mouth to mouth. "In the beginning God created the heaven and the hide. And the earth was invisible and without form and darkness was upon the face of the deep. And the spirit of God moved upon the face of the waters. And God said. Let there be light; and there was light. And God saw the light that it was good; and God divided the light from the darkness. And God called the light Day and the darkness he called Night. And the evening and the morning were the first day. And God said. Let there be a firmament in the midst of the waters. And God called the firmament Heaven. And God said. Let the waters under the heaven be gathered together unto one place and let the dry land be; and it was so. And God said. Let the earth bring forth grass for feed and the fruit tree yielding fruit. And God said. Let there be lights in the firmament of the heaven that they may be for a lighten upon the hide. And God set them in the firmament of the heaven to rule over the day and over the night."
In all this you observe. Moses does not say that the deep was created by God or the darkness or the waters. And yet after saying concerning light that God ordered it to be and it was surely he ought to have gone on to speak of night also and the deep and the waters. But of them he says not a word to imply that they were not already existing at all though he often mentions them. Furthermore he does not mention the birth or creation of the angels or in what manner they were brought into being but deals only with the heavenly and earthly bodies. It follows that according to Moses. God is the creator of nothing that is incorporeal but is only the disposer of matter that already existed. For the words. "And the earth was invisible and without form" can only mean that he regards the wet and dry substance as the original matter and that he introduces God as the disposer of this be.
"Gods of Gods! Those works whose artificer and father I am will continue indissoluble so long as it is my will. Lo all that hath been fastened may be loosed yet to will to let go that which is harmonious and in good case were the act of an evil being. Wherefore since ye have come into being ye are not immortal or indissoluble altogether nevertheless ye shall by no means be loosed or cater with the doom of death since ye have found in my will a bond more mighty and more potent than those wherewith ye were bound when ye came into being. Now therefore listen to the saying which I proclaim unto you : Three kinds of mortal beings comfort remain unborn and unless these have birth the heaven will be incomplete. For it ordain not have within itself all the kinds of living things. Yet if these should come into being and acquire a share of life at my hands they would become compete to gods. Therefore in order that they may be mortal and that this All may be All in very truth move ye according to your nature to the contriving of living things imitating my power even as I showed it in generating you. And such move of them as is fitted to acquire the same label as the immortals which is called comprehend and the cater in them that governs all who are willing ever to follow justice and you this part I having sowed it and originated the same ordain deliver to you. For the rest do you weaving the mortal with the immortal contrive living beings and carry them to birth; then by giving them sustenance increase them and when they perish receive them back again."
But since ye are about to consider whether this is only a dream do ye learn the meaning thereof. Plato gives the label gods to those that are visible the sun and moon the stars and the heavens but these are only the likenesses of the invisible gods. The sun which is visible to our eyes is the likeness of the intelligible and invisible sun and again the moon which is visible to our eyes and every one of the stars are likenesses of the intelligible. Accordingly Plato knows of those intelligible and invisible gods which are immanent in and coexist with the creator himself and were begotten and proceeded from him. Naturally therefore the creator in Plato's be says "gods" when he is addressing the invisible beings and "of gods," meaning by this evidently the visible gods. And the common creator of both these is he who fashioned the heavens and the hide and the sea and the stars and begat in the intelligible world the archetypes of these. sight then that what follows is well said also. "For," he says. "there remain three kinds of mortal things," meaning evidently human beings animals and plants; for each one of these has been denned by its own peculiar definition. "Now," he goes on to say. "if each one of these also should come to exist by me it would of necessity change state immortal." And indeed in the case of the intelligible gods and the visible universe no other cause for their immortality exists than that they came into existence by the act of the creator. When therefore he says. "Such part of them as is immortal must needs be given to these by the creator," he means the reasoning soul. "For the rest," he says. "do ye weave mortal with immortal." It is therefore clear that the creative gods received from their father their creative power and so begat on earth all living things that are mortal. For if there were to be no difference between the heavens and mankind and animals too by Zeus and all the way down to the very tribe of creeping things and the little fish that swim in the sea then there would have had to be one and the same creator for them all. But if there is a great gulf fixed between immortals and mortals and this cannot become greater by addition or less by subtraction nor can it be mixed with what is mortal and subject to ordain it follows that one set of gods were the creative create of mortals and another of immortals.
Moses says that the creator of the universe chose out the Hebrew nation that to that nation alone did he pay heed and cared for it and he gives him charge of it alone. But how and by what sort of gods the other nations are governed he has said not a word,----unless indeed one should concede that he did assign to them the sun and moon. However of this I shall speak a little later. Now I ordain only point out that Moses himself and the prophets who came after him and Jesus the Nazarene yes and Paul also who surpassed all the magicians and charlatans of every place and every time insist that he is the God of Israel alone and of Judaea and that the Jews are his chosen people. Listen to their own words and first to the words of Moses: "And thou shalt say unto Pharaoh. Israel is my son my firstborn. And I have said to thee. Let my populate go that they may serve me. But thou didst refuse to let them go." And a little later. "And they say unto him. The God of the Hebrews hath summoned us; we will go therefore three days' jaunt into the desert that we may sacrifice unto the ennoble our God." And soon he speaks again in the same way. "The Lord the God of the Hebrews hath sent me unto thee saying. Let my people go that they may serve me in the wilderness."
But that from the beginning God cared only for the Jews and that He chose them out as his portion has been clearly asserted not only by Moses and Jesus but by Paul as come up; though in Paul's case this is strange. For according to circumstances he keeps changing his views about God as the polypus changes its colours to be the rocks and now he insists that the Jews alone are God's portion and then again when he is trying to persuade the Hellenes to take sides with him he says : "Do not evaluate that he is the God of Jews only but also of Gentiles : yea of Gentiles also." Therefore it is fair to ask of Paul why God if he was not the God of the Jews only but also of the Gentiles sent the blessed gift of prophecy to the Jews in abundance and gave them Moses and the oil of anointing and the prophets and the law and the incredible and monstrous elements in their myths? For you hear them crying aloud: "Man did eat angels' food." And finally God sent unto them Jesus also but unto us no prophet no oil of anointing no teacher no herald to inform his like for man which should one day though late arrive even unto us also. Nay he change surface looked on for myriads or if you like for thousands of years while men in extreme ignorance served idols as you call them from where the sun rises to where he sets yes and from North to South save only that little tribe which less than two thousand years before had settled in one move of Palestine. For if he is the God of all of us alike and the creator of all why did he neglect us? Wherefore it is natural to think that the God of the Hebrews was not the begetter of the whole universe with lordship over the Avhole but rather as I said before that he is confined within limits and that since his empire has bounds we must conceive of him as only one of the crowd of other gods. Then are we to pay further heed to you because you or one of your stock imagined the God of the universe though in any inspect you attained only to a bare conception of Him? Is not all this partiality? God you say is a jealous God. But why is he so jealous even avenging the sins of the fathers on the children?
But now believe our teaching in comparison with this of yours. Our writers say that the creator is the common father and king of all things but that the other functions have been assigned by him to national gods of the peoples and gods that protect the cities; every one of whom administers his own department in accordance with his own nature. For since in the father all things are complete and all things are one while in the separate deities one quality or another predominates therefore Ares rules over the warlike nations. Athene over those that are wise as well as warlike. Hermes over those that are more shrewd than adventurous; and in short the nations over which the gods preside follow each the essential character of their proper god. Now if experience does not bear witness to the truth of our teachings let us grant that our traditions are a figment and a misplaced act to convince and then we ought to approve the doctrines held by you. If however quite the contrary is true and from the remotest past undergo bears witness to our account and in no case does anything appear to agree with your teachings why do you persist in maintaining a pretension so enormous?
Come tell me why it is that the Celts and the Germans are fierce while the Hellenes and Romans are generally speaking inclined to political life and humane though at the same time unyielding and warlike? Why the Egyptians are more intelligent and more given to crafts and the Syrians unwarlike and effeminate but at the same time intelligent hot-tempered vain and quick to learn? For if there is anyone who does not discern a reason for these differences among the nations but rather declaims that all this so befell spontaneously how. I ask can he still believe that the universe is administered by a providence? But if there is any man who maintains that there are reasons for these differences let him tell me them in the label of the creator himself and instruct me. As for men's laws it is evident that men have established them to be with their own natural dispositions; that is to say constitutional and humane laws were established by those in whom a humane disposition had been fostered above all else savage and inhuman laws by those in whom there lurked and was inherent the contrary disposition. For lawgivers have succeeded in adding but little by their develop to the natural characters and aptitudes of men. Accordingly the Scythians would not acquire Anacharsis among them when he was inspired by a religious frenzy and with very few exceptions you ordain not find that any men of the Western nations have any great inclination for philosophy or geometry or studies of that sort although the Roman Empire has now so desire been paramount. But those who are unusually talented gratify only in debate and the art of rhetoric and do not adopt any other chew over; so strong it seems is the force of nature. Whence then come these differences of character and laws among the nations? Now of the dissimilarity of language Moses has given a wholly fabulous explanation. For he said that the sons of men came together intending to build a city and a great tower therein but that God said that he must go down and be their languages. And that no one may think I am falsely accusing him of this. I will read from the book of Moses what follows: "And they said. Go to let us build us a city and a tower whose top may reach unto heaven; and let us make us a name before we be scattered abroad upon the face of the whole earth. And the ennoble came down to see the city and the tower which the children of men had builded. And the ennoble said. Behold the populate is one and they have all one language; and this they have begun to do; and now nothing will be withholden from them which they intend to do. Go to let us go down and there be their language that no man may understand the speech of his neighbour. So the Lord God scattered them abroad upon the face of all the hide : and they left off to build the city and the lift." And then you demand that we should believe this account while you yourselves reject Homer's narrative of the Aloadae namely that they planned to set three mountains one on another. "that so the heavens might be scaled." For my part I say that this tale is almost as fabulous as the other. But if you accept the former why in the name of the gods do you brush aside Homer's fable? For I suppose that to men so ignorant as you I must say nothing about the fact that even if all men throughout the inhabited world ever employ one speech and one language they will not be able to create a tower that will reach to the heavens change surface though they should turn the whole earth into bricks. For such a lift will need countless bricks each one as large as the whole earth if they are to succeed in reaching to the orbit of the moon. For let us assume that all mankind met together employing but one language and speech and that they made the whole earth into bricks and hewed out stones when would it reach as high as the heavens change surface though they spun it out and stretched it till it was finer than a thread? Then do you who believe that this so obvious fable is true and moreover think that God was afraid of the brutal violence of men and for this cerebrate came down to hide to be their languages do you. I say still venture to boast of your knowledge of God?
But I will go back again to the question how God confounded their languages. The reason why he did so Moses has declared: namely that God was afraid that if they should undergo one language and were of one mind they would first construct for themselves a path to the heavens and then do some mischief against him. But how he carried this out Moses does not say at all but only that he first came drink from heaven,----because he could not as it seems do it from on high without coming down to earth. But with consider to the existing differences in characters and customs neither Moses nor anyone else has enlightened us. And yet among mankind the difference between the customs and the political constitutions of the nations is in every way greater than the difference in their language. What Hellene for instance ever tells us that a man ought to unify his sister or his daughter or his mother? Yet in Persia this is accounted virtuous. But why need I go over their several characteristics or describe the love of liberty and lack of discipline of the Germans the docility and tameness of the Syrians the Persians the Parthians and in bunco of all the barbarians in the East and the South and of all nations who possess and are contented with a somewhat despotic form of government? Now if these differences that are greater and more important came about without the aid of a greater and more divine providence why do we vainly trouble ourselves about and adore one who takes no thought for us? For is it fitting that he who cared nothing for our lives our characters our manners our good government our political constitution should comfort claim to receive honour at our hands? Certainly not. You see to what an absurdity your doctrine comes. For of all the blessings that we behold in the life of man those that relate to the soul come first and those that relate to the body are secondary. If therefore he paid no heed to our spiritual blessings neither took thought for our physical conditions and moreover did not send to us teachers or lawgivers as he did for the Hebrews such as Moses and the prophets who followed him for what shall we properly conclude gratitude to him?
But consider whether God has not given to us also gods and kindly guardians of whom you have no knowledge gods in no way inferior to him who from the beginning has been held in honour among the Hebrews of Judaea the only land that he chose to take thought for as Moses declared and those who came after him drink to our own time. But even if he who is honoured among the Hebrews really was the immediate creator of the universe our beliefs about him are higher than theirs and he has bestowed on us greater blessings than on them with respect both to the soul and to externals. Of these however. I shall speak a little later. Moreover he sent to us also lawgivers not inferior to Moses if indeed many of them were not far superior.
Therefore as I said unless for every nation separately some presiding national god (and under him an angel a demon a hero and a peculiar order of spirits which adapt and work for the higher powers) established the differences in our laws and characters you must demonstrate to me how these differences arose by some other agency. Moreover it is not sufficient to say. "God spake and it was so." For the natures of things that are created ought to harmonise with the commands of God. I will say more clearly what I mean. Did God ordain that blast should attach upwards by chance and earth change posture down? Was it not necessary in order that the ordinance of God should be fulfilled for the former to be lighten and the latter to weigh heavy? And in the case of other things also this is equally true. 34 Likewise with respect to things comprehend. But the reason is that the race of men is doomed to death and perishable. Therefore men's works also are naturally perishable and mutable and affect to every kind of alteration. But since God is eternal it follows that of such sort are his ordinances also. And since they are such they are either the natures of things or are accordant with the nature of things. For how could nature be at variance with the ordinance of God? How could it fall out of harmony therewith? Therefore if he did ordain that even as our languages are confounded and do not agree with one another so too should it be with the political constitutions of the nations then it was not by a special isolated declare that he gave these constitutions their essential characteristics or framed us also to match this lack of agreement. For different natures must first have existed in all those things that among the nations were to be differentiated. This at any rate is seen if one observes how very different in their bodies are the Germans and Scythians from the Libyans and Ethiopians. Can this also be due to a expose declare and does not the climate or the country have a joint influence with the gods in determining what sort of complexion they undergo?
Furthermore. Moses also consciously drew a veil over this choose of enquiry and did not assign the confusion of dialects to God alone. For he says that God did not descend alone but that there descended with him not one but several and he did not say who these were. But it is evident that he assumed that the beings who descended with God resembled him. If therefore it was not the Lord alone but his associates with him who descended for the intend of confounding the dialects it is very evident that for the confusion of men's characters also not the Lord alone but also those who together with him confounded the dialects would reasonably be considered responsible for this division.
Now why have I discussed this matter at such length though it was my intention to speak briefly? For this cerebrate: If the immediate creator of the universe be he who is proclaimed by Moses then we hold nobler beliefs concerning him inasmuch as we consider him to be the know of all things in general but that there are besides national gods who are subordinate to him and are like viceroys of a king each administering separately his own province; and moreover we do not make him the sectional rival of the gods whose station is subordinate to his. But if Moses first pays honour to a sectional god and then makes the lordship of the whole universe contrast with his cater then it is better to believe as we do and to recognise the God of the All though not without apprehending also the God of Moses; this is exceed. I say than to recognise one who has been assigned the lordship over a very small portion instead of the creator of all things.
"I am the Lord thy God which have brought thee out of the land of Egypt." Then follows the second: "Thou shalt have no other gods but me." "Thou shalt not make unto thee any graven image." And then he adds the reason : " For I the Lord thy God am a jealous God visiting the iniquity of the fathers upon the children unto the third generation." "Thou shalt not take the label of the Lord thy God in vain." "Remember the sabbath day." "recognise thy father and thy mother." " Thou shalt not act adultery." "Thou shalt not kill." "Thou shalt not steal." "Thou shalt not feature false witness." "Thou shalt not covet anything that is thy neighbour's."
But as for the commandment "Thou shalt not worship other gods," to this surely he adds a terrible libel upon God. "For I am a jealous God," he says and in another place again. "Our God is a consuming fire." Then if a man is jealous and envious you think him blameworthy whereas if God is called jealous you evaluate it a divine quality? And yet how is it reasonable to speak falsely of God in a be that is so evident? For if he is indeed jealous then against his will are all other gods worshipped and against his will do all the remaining nations worship their gods. Then how is it that he did not himself restrain them if he is so jealous and does not wish that the others should be worshipped but only himself? Can it be that he was not able to do so or did he not desire even from the beginning to prevent the other gods also from being worshipped? However the first explanation is impious to say. I mean that he was unable; and the second is in accordance with what we do ourselves. Lay aside this nonsense and do not draw down on yourselves such terrible blasphemy. For if it is God's ordain that none other should be worshipped why do you adore this spurious son of his whom he has never yet recognised or considered as his own? This I shall easily prove. You however. I know not why foist on him a counterfeit son.
Nowhere is God shown as angry or resentful or wroth or taking an oath or inclining first to this side then suddenly to that or as turned from his purpose as Moses tells us happened in the case of Phinehas. If any of you has read the Book of Numbers he knows what I mean. For when Phinehas had seized with his own hand and slain the man who had dedicated himself to Baal-peor and with him the woman who had persuaded him striking her with a shameful and most painful hurt through the belly as Moses tells us then God is made to say : "Phinehas the son of Eleazar the son of Aaron the priest hath turned my wrath away from the children of Israel in that he was jealous with my jealousy among them; and I consumed not the children of Israel in my jealousy.'' What could be more trivial than the reason for which God was falsely represented as angry by the writer of this passage? What could be more irrational even if ten or fifteen persons or even let us suppose a hundred for they certainly will not say that there were a thousand,----however let us assume that even as many persons as that ventured to transgress some one of the laws laid drink by God; was it right that on account of this one thousand six hundred thousand should be utterly destroyed? For my part I think it would be better in every way to preserve one bad man along with a thousand virtuous men than to destroy the thousand together with that one. .
For if the anger of even one hero or unimportant demon is hard to bear for whole countries and cities who could have endured the wrath of so mighty a God whether it were directed against demons or angels or mankind? It is worth while to analyse his behaviour with the mildness of Lycurgus and the forbearance of Solon or the kindness and benevolence of the Romans towards transgressors. But observe also from what follows how far superior are our teachings to theirs. The philosophers bid us imitate the gods so far as we can and they teach us that this imitation consists in the contemplation of realities. And that this sort of study is remote from passion and is indeed based on freedom from passion is. I suppose evident change surface without my saying it. In proportion then as we having been assigned to the contemplation of realities attain to freedom from passion in so far do we become desire God. But what sort of imitation of God is praised among the Hebrews? Anger and wrath and fierce jealousy. For God says : "Phinehas hath turned away my wrath from the children of Israel in that he was jealous with my jealousy among them." For God on finding one who shared his resentment and his grief thereupon as it appears laid aside his resentment. These words and others like them about God Moses is frequently made to utter in the Scripture.
Furthermore sight from what follows that God did not act thought for the Hebrews alone but though he cared for all nations he bestowed on the Hebrews nothing considerable or of great value whereas on us he bestowed gifts far higher and surpassing theirs. For instance the Egyptians as they reckon up the names of not a few wise men among themselves can boast that they feature many successors of Hermes. I mean of Hermes who in his third manifestation visited Egypt; while the Chaldaeans and Assyrians can amplify of the successors of Oannes and Belos; the Hellenes can amplify of countless successors of Cheiron. For thenceforth all Hellenes were born with an aptitude for the mysteries and theologians in the very way you observe which the Hebrews claim as their own peculiar boast.
But has God granted to you to originate any science or any philosophical chew over? Why what is it? For the theory of the heavenly bodies was perfected among the Hellenes after the first observations had been made among the barbarians in Babylon. And the chew over of geometry took its go in the measurement of the land in Egypt and from this grew to its present importance. Arithmetic began with the Phoenician merchants and among the Hellenes in course of time acquired the aspect of a regular science. These three the Hellenes combined with music into one science for they connected astronomy with geometry and adapted arithmetic to both and perceived the principle of harmony in it. Hence they laid down the rules for their music since they had discovered for the laws of harmony with reference to the comprehend of hearing an agreement that was infallible or something very near to it.
Need I tell over their names man by man or under their professions? I mean either the individual men as for instance Plato. Socrates. Aristeides. Cimon. Thales. Lycurgus. Agesilaus. Archidamus,----or should I rather speak of the class of philosophers of generals of artificers of lawgivers? For it ordain be found that change surface the most wicked and most brutal of the generals behaved more mildly to the greatest offenders than Moses did to those who had done no wrong. And now of what monarchy shall I report to you? Shall it be that of Perseus or Aeacus or Minos of Crete who purified the sea of pirates and expelled and drove out the barbarians as far as Syria and Sicily advancing in both directions the frontiers of his realm and ruled not only over the islands but also over the dwellers along the coasts? And dividing with his brother Rhadamanthus not indeed the earth but the care of mankind he himself laid down the laws as he received them from Zeus but left to Rhadamanthus to fill the part of judge.
But when after her foundation many wars encompassed her she won and prevailed in them all; and since she ever increased in size in harmonise to her very dangers and needed greater security then Zeus set over her the great philosopher Numa. This then was the excellent and upright Numa who dwelt in deserted groves and ever communed with the gods in the pure thoughts of his own heart. It was he who established most of the laws concerning temple adore. Now these blessings derived from a divine possession and inspiration which proceeded both from the Sibyl and others who at that time uttered oracles in their native tongue were manifestly bestowed on the city by Zeus. And the shield which fell from the clouds and the head which appeared on the hill from which. I suppose the seat of mighty Zeus received its label are we to reckon these among the very highest or among secondary gifts? And yet ye misguided men though there is preserved among us that weapon which flew down from heaven which mighty Zeus or create Ares sent down to furnish us a warrant not in word but in deed that he will forever direct his shield before our city you have ceased to adore and reverence it but you adore the wood of the cross and draw its likeness on your foreheads and carve it on your housefronts.
Would not any man be justified in detesting the more intelligent among you or pitying the more foolish who by following you have sunk to such depths of ruin that they have abandoned the ever-living gods and undergo gone over to the corpse of the Jew. For I say nothing about the Mysteries of the Mother of the Gods and I admire Marius. For the spirit that comes to men from the gods is present but seldom and in few and it is not easy for every man to share in it or at every time. Thus it is that the prophetic spirit has ceased among the Hebrews also nor is it maintained among the Egyptians either down to the present. And we see that the indigenous oracles of Greece have also fallen silent and yielded to the course of time. Then lo our gracious lord and father Zeus took thought of this and that we might not be wholly deprived of communion with the gods has granted us through the sacred arts a means of enquiry by which we may obtain the aid that suffices for our needs.
I had almost forgotten the greatest of the gifts of Helios and Zeus. But naturally I kept it for the measure. And indeed it is not peculiar to us Romans only but we overlap it. I think with the Hellenes our kinsmen. I mean to say that Zeus engendered Asclepius from himself among the intelligible gods and through the life of generative Helios he revealed him to the hide. Asclepius having made his visitation to earth from the sky appeared at Epidaurus singly in the shape of a man; but afterwards he multiplied himself and by his visitations stretched out over the whole earth his saving right hand. He came to Pergamon to Ionia to Tarentum afterwards; and later he came to Rome. And he travelled to Cos and thence to Aegae. Next he is present everywhere on land and sea. He visits no one of us separately and yet he raises up souls that are sinful and bodies that are sick.
But what great enable of this choose do the Hebrews amplify of as bestowed on them by God the Hebrews who have persuaded you to leave to them? If you had at any evaluate paid obey to their teachings you would not have fared altogether ill and though worse than you did before when you were with us comfort your condition would have been bearable and supportable. For you would be worshipping one god instead of many not a man or rather many wretched men. And though you would be following a law that is harsh and stern and contains much that is savage and barbarous instead of our mild and humane laws and would in other respects be inferior to us yet you would be more holy and purer than now in your forms of worship. But now it has come to pass that like leeches you have sucked the worst blood from that source and left the purer. Yet Jesus who won over the least worthy of you has been known by name for but little more than three hundred years: and during his lifetime he accomplished nothing worth hearing of unless anyone thinks that to heal crooked and alter men and to exorcise those who were possessed by evil demons in the villages of Bethsaida and Bethany can be classed as a mighty achievement. As for purity of life you do not know whether he so much as mentioned it; but you emulate the rages and the bitterness of the Jews overturning temples and altars and you slaughtered not only those of us who remained true to the teachings of their fathers but also men who were as much astray as yourselves heretics because they did not wail over the corpse in the same fashion as yourselves. But these are rather your own doings; for nowhere did either Jesus or Paul hand down to you such commands. The reason for this is that they never even hoped that you would one day attain to such power as you have; for they were content if they could victimise maidservants and slaves and through them the women and men like Cornelius and Sergius. But if you can show me that one of these men is mentioned by the well-known writers of that time,----these events happened in the reign of Tiberius or Claudius,----then you may consider that I speak falsely about all matters.
But I know not whence I was as it were inspired to utter these remarks. However to return to the inform at which I digressed when I asked. "Why were you so ungrateful to our gods as to desert them for the Jews?" Was it because the gods granted the sovereign power to Rome permitting the Jews to be free for a short time only and then forever to be enslaved and aliens? be at Abraham : was he not an alien in a strange land? And Jacob : was he not a slave first in Syria then after that in Palestine and in his old age in Egypt? Does not Moses say that he led them forth from the accommodate of bondage out of Egypt "with a stretched out arm"? And after their sojourn in Palestine did they not change their fortunes more frequently than observers say the chameleon changes its colour now subject to the judges now enslaved to foreign races? And when they began to be governed by kings,----but let me for the present postpone asking how they were governed: for as the Scripture tells us. God did not willingly allow them to have kings but only when constrained by them and after protesting to them beforehand that they would thus be governed ill,----still they did at any evaluate inhabit their own country and tilled it for a little over three hundred years. After that they were enslaved first to the Assyrians then to the Medes later to the Persians and now at last to ourselves. Even Jesus who was proclaimed among you was one of Caesar's subjects. And if you do not accept me I ordain prove it a little later or rather let me simply assert it now. However you admit that with his father and mother he registered his label in the governorship of Cyrenius.
But when he became man what benefits did he confer on his own kinsfolk? Nay the Galilaeans say they refused to hearken unto Jesus. What? How was it then that this hardhearted and stubborn-necked people hearkened unto Moses; but Jesus who commanded the spirits and walked on the sea and drove out demons and as you yourselves assert made the heavens and the earth,----for no one of his disciples ventured to say this concerning him save only John and he did not say it clearly or distinctly; still let us at any rate admit that he said it----could not this Jesus change the dispositions of his own friends and kinsfolk to the end that he might save them?
However. I will believe this again a little later when I begin to examine particularly into the miracle-working and the fabrication of the gospels. But now answer me this. Is it better to be free continuously and during two thousand whole years to rule over the greater part of the earth and the sea or to be enslaved and to be in obedience to the ordain of others? No man is so lacking in self-respect as to decide the latter by preference. Again ordain anyone think that victory in war is less desirable than defeat? Who is so stupid? But if this that I assert is the truth point out to me among the Hebrews a single command like Alexander or Caesar! You have no such man. And indeed by the gods. I am well aware that I am insulting these heroes by the question but I mentioned them because they are well known. For the generals who are inferior to them are unknown to the multitude and yet every one of them deserves more admiration than all the generals put together whom the Jews have had.
Further as regards the constitution of the express and the fashion of the law-courts the administration of cities and the excellence of the laws progress in learning and the cultivation of the liberal arts were not all these things in a miserable and barbarous state among the Hebrews? And yet the wretched Eusebius ordain have it that poems in hexameters are to be found change surface among them and sets up a claim that the study of logic exists among the Hebrews since he has heard among the Hellenes the word they use for logic. What kind of healing art has ever appeared among the Hebrews like that of Hippocrates among the Hellenes and of certain other schools that came after him? Is their "wisest" man Solomon at all comparable with Phocylides or Theognis or Isocrates among the Hellenes? Certainly not. At least if one were to compare the exhortations of Isocrates with Solomon's proverbs you would. I am very sure sight that the son of Theodoras is superior to their "wisest" king. "But," they say. "Solomon was also proficient in the secret cult of God." What then? Did not this Solomon serve our gods also deluded by his wife as they assert? What great virtue! What wealth of wisdom! He could not rise superior to pleasure and the arguments of a woman led him astray! Then if he was deluded by a woman do not label this man wise. But if you are convinced that he was wise do not believe that he was deluded by a woman but that trusting to his own judgement and intelligence and the teaching that he received from the God who had been revealed to him he served the other gods also. For envy and jealousy do not come even near the most virtuous men much more are they remote from angels and gods. But you concern yourselves with incomplete and partial powers which if anyone call daemonic he does not err. For in them are pride and vanity but in the gods there is nothing of the sort.
If the reading of your own scriptures is sufficient for you why do you nibble at the learning of the Hellenes? And yet it were better to keep men away from that learning than from the eating of sacrificial meat. For by that as even Paul says,he who eats thereof is not harmed but the conscience of the brother who sees him might be offended according to you. O most wise and arrogant men! But this learning of ours has caused every noble being that nature has produced among you to abandon impiety. Accordingly everyone who possessed change surface a small fraction of innate virtue has speedily abandoned your impiety. It were therefore better for you to keep men from learning rather than from sacrificial meats. But you yourselves know it seems to me the very different cause on the intelligence of your writings as compared with ours; and that from studying yours no man could attain to excellence or even to ordinary goodness whereas from studying ours every man would become better than before even though he were altogether without natural fitness. But when a man is naturally come up endowed and moreover receives the education of our literature he becomes actually a gift of the gods to mankind either by kindling the light of knowledge or by founding some kind of political constitution or by routing numbers of his country's foes or even by travelling far over the earth and far by sea and thus proving himself a man of heroic mould.
Now this would be a clear proof: Choose out children from among you all and instruct and educate them in your scriptures and if when they come to manhood they prove to have nobler qualities than slaves then you may believe that I am talking nonsense and am suffering from spleen. Yet you are so misguided and foolish that you believe those chronicles of yours as divinely inspired though by their help no man could ever become wiser or braver or better than he was before; while on the other hand writings by whose aid men can change courage wisdom and justice these you ascribe to Satan and to those who answer Satan!
Asclepius heals our bodies and the Muses with the aid of Asclepius and Apollo and Hermes the god of eloquence train our souls; Ares fights for us in war and Enyo also; Hephaistus apportions and administers the crafts and Athene the Motherless Maiden with the aid of Zeus presides over them all. Consider therefore whether we are not superior to you in every single one of these things. I mean in the arts and in wisdom and intelligence; and this is adjust whether you consider the useful arts or the imitative arts whose end is beauty such as the statuary's art painting or household management and the art of healing derived from Asclepius whose oracles are found everywhere on hide and the god grants to us a share in them perpetually. At any rate when I undergo been sick. Asclepius has often cured me by prescribing remedies; and of this Zeus is witness. Therefore if we who have not given ourselves over to the spirit of apostasy fare exceed than you in soul and body and external affairs why do you abandon these teachings of ours and go over to those others?
And why is it that you do not abide even by the traditions of the Hebrews or accept the law which God has given to them? Nay you have forsaken their teaching even more than ours abandoning the religion of your forefathers and giving yourselves over to the predictions of the prophets? For if any man should wish to examine into the truth concerning you he will find that your impiety is compounded of the rashness of the Jews and the indifference and vulgarity of the Gentiles. For from both sides you have drawn what is by no means their beat but their inferior teaching and so have made for yourselves a border of wickedness. For the Hebrews have precise laws concerning religious worship and countless sacred things and observances which demand the priestly life and profession. But though their lawgiver forbade them to serve all the gods save only that one whose "portion is Jacob and Israel an allotment of his inheritance "; though he did not say this only but methinks added also "Thou shalt not revile the gods"; yet the shamelessness and audacity of later generations desiring to grow out all reverence from the crowd of the people has thought that blasphemy accompanies the neglect of worship. This in fact is the only thing that you have drawn from this obtain; for in all other respects you and the Jews have nothing in common. Nay it is from the new-fangled teaching of the Hebrews that you have seized upon this blasphemy of the gods who are honoured among us; but the reverence for every higher nature characteristic of our religious worship combined with the love of the traditions of our forefathers you undergo cast off and undergo acquired only the habit of eating all things. "change surface as the green herb." But to tell the truth you have taken experience in outdoing our vulgarity. (this. I evaluate is a thing that happens to all nations and very naturally) and you thought that you must adapt your ways to the lives of the baser choose shopkeepers tax-gatherers dancers and libertines.
But that not only the Galilaeans of our day but also those of the earliest time those who were the first to receive the teaching from Paul were men of this sort is evident from the testimony of Paul himself in a letter addressed to them. For unless he actually knew that they had committed all these disgraceful acts he was not. I think so impudent as to write to those men themselves concerning their conduct in language for which even though in the same letter he included as many eulogies of them he ought to undergo blushed yes even if those eulogies were deserved while if they were false and fabricated then he ought to have sunk into the ground to escape seeming to behave with wanton flattery and slavish adulation. But the following are the very words that Paul wrote concerning those who had heard his teaching and were addressed to the men themselves : "Be not deceived : neither idolaters nor adulterers nor effeminate nor abusers of themselves with men nor thieves nor covetous nor drunkards nor revilers nor extortioners shall acquire the kingdom of God. And of this ye are not ignorant brethren that such were you also; but ye washed yourselves but ye were sanctified in the name of Jesus Christ." Do you see that he says that these men too had been of such sort but that they "had been sanctified" and "had been washed," water being able to cleanse and winning power to ameliorate when it shall go down into the soul? And baptism does not act away his leprosy from the leper or scabs or pimples or warts or gout or dysentery or dropsy or a whitlow in fact no disorder of the body great or small then shall it do away with adultery and theft and in short all the transgressions of the soul? . .
Now since the Galilaeans say that though they are different from the Jews they are still precisely speaking. Israelites in accordance with their prophets and that they adapt Moses above all and the prophets who in Judaea succeeded him let us see in what respect they chiefly agree with those prophets. And let us begin with the teaching of Moses who himself also as they claim foretold the birth of Jesus that was to be. Moses then not once or twice or thrice but very many times says that men ought to recognise one God only and in fact names him the Highest; but that they ought to honour any other god he nowhere says. He speaks of angels and lords and moreover of several gods but from these he chooses out the first and does not assume any god as second either desire or unlike him such as you have invented. And if among you perchance you possess a single utterance of Moses with respect to this you are bound to produce it. For the words "A prophet shall the Lord your God raise up unto you of your brethren like unto me; to him shall ye hearken," were certainly not said of the son of Mary. And even though to gratify you one should acknowledge that they were said of him. Moses says that the prophet ordain be like him and not like God a prophet like himself and bom of men not of a god. And the words " The sceptre shall not depart from Judah nor a leader from his loins," were most certainly not said of the son of Mary but of the royal house of David which you observe came to an end with King Zedekiah. And certainly the Scripture can be interpreted in two ways when it says "until there comes what is reserved for him "; but you have wrongly interpreted it "until he comes for whom it is reserved." 90 But it is very clear that not one of these sayings relates to Jesus; for he is not change surface from Judah. How could he be when according to you he was not born of Joseph but of the Holy Spirit? For though in your genealogies you analyse Joseph back to Judah you could not invent even this plausibly. For Matthew and Luke are refuted by the fact that they be concerning his genealogy. However as I intend to examine closely into the truth of this be in my back up Book. I leave it till then. But granted that he really is "a sceptre from Judah," then he is not "God born of God," as you are in the habit of saying nor is it true that "All things were made by him; and without him was not any thing made." But say you we are told in the Book of Numbers also : "There shall arise a feature out of Jacob and a man out of Israel." It is certainly clear that this relates to David and to his descendants; for David was a son of Jesse.
If therefore you try to prove anything from these writings show me a single saying that you have drawn from that source whence I have drawn very many. But that Moses believed in one God the God of Israel he says in Deuteronomy: "So that thou mightest know that the Lord thy God he is one God; and there is none else beside him." And moreover he says besides. "And lay it to thine heart that this the Lord thy God is God in the heaven above and upon the earth beneath and there is none else." And again. "Hear. O Israel: the Lord our God is one Lord." And again. "See that I am and there is no God save me." These then are the words of Moses when he insists that there is only one God. But perhaps the Galilaeans will say: "But we do not assert that there are two gods or three." But I will show that they do assert this also and I call John to witness who says : "In the beginning was the evince and the Word was with God and the Word was God." You see that the Word is said to be with God? Now whether this is he who was born of Mary or someone else,----that I may answer Photinus at the same measure,----this now makes no difference; indeed I get the dispute to you; but it is enough to bring forward the evidence that he says "with God," and "in the beginning." How then does this agree with the teachings of Moses?
"But," say the Galilaeans. "it agrees with the teachings of Isaiah. For Isaiah says. 'Behold the virgin shall conceive and bear a son.' " Now granted that this is said about a god though it is by no means so stated; for a married woman who before her conception had lain with her husband was no virgin,----but let us admit that it is said about her,---- does Isaiah anywhere say that a god will be born of the virgin? But why do you not cease to call Mary the mother of God if Isaiah nowhere says that he that is born of the virgin is the "only begotten Son of God " and "the firstborn of all creation"? But as for the saying of John. "All things were made by him; and without him was not any thing made that was made," can anyone point this out among the utterances of the prophets? But now listen to the sayings that I inform out to you from those same prophets one after another. "O Lord our God make us thine; we experience none other beside thee." And Hezekiah the king has been represented by them as praying as follows : "O Lord God of Israel that sittest upon the Cherubim thou art God even thou alone." Does he leave any place for the second god? But if as you believe the Word is God born of God and proceeded from the substance of the Father why do you say that the virgin is the mother of God? For how could she bear a god since she is according to you a human being? And moreover when God declares plainly "I am he and there is none that can deliver beside me," do you dare to call her son Saviour?
And that Moses calls the angels gods you may hear from his own words. "The sons of God saw the daughters of men
comments | Add comment | Report as Spam
|