AGAINST  THE   GALILAEANS

[Translated by Wilmer Cave WRIGHT,
PH.D.]

Book I

It is, I think, expedient to set forth to all mankind the reasons by
which I was convinced that the fabrication of the Galilaeans is a
fiction of men composed by wickedness. Though it has in it nothing
divine, by making full use of that part of the soul which loves fable
and is childish and foolish, it has induced men to believe that the
monstrous tale is truth. Now since I intend to treat of all their first
dogmas, as they call them, I wish to say in the first place that if my
readers desire to try to refute me they must proceed as if they were in
a court of law and not drag in irrelevant matter, or, as the saying is,
bring counter-charges until they have defended their own views. For
thus it will be better and clearer if, when they wish to censure any
views of mine, they undertake that as a separate task, but when they
are defending themselves against my censure, they bring no
counter-charges.

It is worth while to recall in a few words whence and how we first
arrived at a conception of God; next to compare what is said about the
divine among the Hellenes and Hebrews; and finally
|321 to enquire of those
who are neither Hellenes nor Jews, but belong to the sect of the
Galilaeans, why they preferred the belief of the Jews to ours; and
what, further, can be the reason why they do not even adhere to the
Jewish beliefs but have abandoned them also and followed a way of their
own. For they have not accepted a single admirable or important
doctrine of those that are held either by us Hellenes or by the Hebrews
who derived them from Moses; but from both religions they have gathered
what has been engrafted like powers of evil, as it were, on these
nations—-atheism from the Jewish levity, and a sordid and slovenly
way of living from our indolence and vulgarity; and they desire that
this should be called the noblest worship of the gods.

Now that the human race 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 know it to tell it to all
men. . . .¹
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
|323 the All in the heavens ² 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.³
For a being of that sort, 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 sort 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
circuit, in an unceasing and eternal career.
|325

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 even told
of lawless unions, how Zeus had intercourse with his mother, and after
having a child by her, married his own daughter,⁴ or rather did not even marry her, but simply had intercourse with her and then handed her over to another.⁵
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."
⁶
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 fall from their life of ease
in the garden.

This is wholly fabulous. For is it probable that God did not know
that the being he was creating as a help meet would prove to be not so
much a blessing as a misfortune to him who received her? Again, what
sort 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
|327 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
even 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 tree of life, he cast him out
of the garden, saying in so many words, "Behold, Adam has become 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."
⁷ Accordingly, unless every one of these legends is a myth that involves some secret interpretation, as I indeed believe,
⁸
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
|329 tree of life and from mortal become immortal,—- this is to be grudging and envious overmuch.

Next to consider 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. . . .⁹
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 moon, and that all
things which already existed but were hidden away for the time being,
he separated, such as water, I mean, and dry land. But apart from these
he did not venture to say a word about the generation or the making of
the Spirit, but only this, "And the Spirit of God moved upon the face
of the waters." But whether that spirit was ungenerated or had been
generated he does not make at all clear.

Now, if you please, we will compare the utterance of Plato.¹⁰ Observe then what he says about the creator, and what words he makes him speak
|331 at the time of the
generation of the universe, in order that we may compare Plato’s
account 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.¹¹
"In the beginning God created the heaven and the earth. 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 appear; and it was so.
And God said, Let the earth bring forth grass for fodder, 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 light upon the earth. And God set
them in the firmament of the heaven to rule over the day and over the
night."
¹²

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
|333 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 matter.

Now on the other hand hear what Plato says about the universe : "Now
the whole heaven or the universe,—-or whatever other name would be
most acceptable to it, so let it be named by us,—-did it exist
eternally, having no beginning of generation, or has it come into being
starting from some beginning? It has come into being. For it can be
seen and handled and has a body; and all such things are the objects of
sensation, and such objects of sensation, being apprehensible by
opinion with the aid of sensation are things that came into being, as
we saw, and have been generated. . .
¹³
It follows, therefore, according to the reasonable theory, that we
ought to affirm that this universe came into being as a living creature
possessing soul and intelligence in very truth, both by the providence
of God."
¹⁴

Let us but compare them, point by point.    What |335
and what sort of speech does the god make in the account of Moses, and what the god in the account of Plato?

"And God said, Let us make man in our image, and our likeness; and
let them have dominion over the fish of the sea, and over the fowl of
the air, and over the cattle, and over all the earth, and over every
creeping thing that creepeth upon the earth. So God created man, in the
image of God created he him; male and female created he them, and said,
Be fruitful and multiply and replenish the earth, and subdue it; and
have dominion over the fish of the sea, and over the fowl of the air,
and over all the cattle and over all the earth."
¹⁵

Now, I say, hear also the speech which Plato puts in the mouth of the Artificer of the All.

"Gods of Gods! Those works whose artificer and father I am will
abide indissoluble, so long as it is my will. Lo, all that hath been
fastened may be loosed, yet to will to loose 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 meet 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 hearken to the saying which I proclaim unto you : Three kinds
of mortal beings still remain unborn, and unless these have birth the
heaven will be incomplete. For it will not have within itself all the
kinds of living things. Yet if these should come into being and receive
a share of life at
|337 my hands they would
become equal to gods. Therefore in order that they may be mortal, and
that this All may be All in very truth, turn ye according to your
nature to the contriving of living things, imitating my power even as I
showed it in generating you. And such part of them as is fitted to
receive the same name as the immortals, which is called divine and the
power in them that governs all who are willing ever to follow justice
and you, this part I, having sowed it and originated the same, will
deliver to you. For the rest, do you, weaving the mortal with the
immortal, contrive living beings and bring them to birth; then by
giving them sustenance increase them, and when they perish receive them
back again."
¹⁶

But since ye are about to consider whether this is only a dream, do
ye learn the meaning thereof. Plato gives the name 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,¹⁷ and again the moon which is visible to our eyes and every one of the stars are likenesses of the intelligible.¹⁸
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
account 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
|339 the earth and the sea and the stars, and begat in the intelligible world the archetypes of these.

Observe 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 become
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 fate, it follows that one set of gods were the
creative cause of mortals, and another of immortals.

Accordingly, since Moses, as it seems, has failed |341
also to give a complete account of the immediate creator of this
universe, let us go on and set one against another the opinion of the
Hebrews and that of our fathers about these nations.

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.¹⁹
However of this I shall speak a little later. Now I will 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, assert 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 people go that they may serve me. But thou didst refuse
to let them go."
²⁰
And a little later, "And they say unto him, The God of the Hebrews hath
summoned us; we will go therefore three days’ journey into the desert,
that we may sacrifice unto the Lord our God."
²¹ And soon he speaks again in the same way, "The Lord the God of the Hebrews hath sent
|343 me unto thee, saying, Let my people go that they may serve me in the wilderness."
²²

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 well; 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 match the rocks,²³
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 think that he is the God of Jews only, but also
of Gentiles : yea of Gentiles also."
²⁴
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."
²⁵
And finally God sent unto them Jesus also, but unto us no prophet, no
oil of anointing, no teacher, no herald to announce his love for man
which should one day, though late, reach even unto us also. Nay he even
looked on for
myriads, or if you prefer, 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
|345 little tribe which
less than two thousand years before had settled in one part 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 case 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?
²⁶

But now consider 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
|347 attempt 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 experience bears
witness to our account and in no case does anything appear to harmonise
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,²⁷
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 name of the
creator himself, and instruct me. As for men’s laws, it is evident that
men have established them to correspond 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 discipline to the natural characters and
aptitudes of men. Accordingly the Scythians would not receive
Anacharsis
²⁸ among them when he |349
was inspired by a religious frenzy, and with very few exceptions you will not find that any men of the Western nations
²⁹
have any great inclination for philosophy or geometry or studies of
that sort, although the Roman Empire has now so long been paramount.
But those who are unusually talented delight only in debate and the art
of rhetoric, and do not adopt any other study; 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 confound 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 Lord came down to see the city and the tower,
which the children of men had builded. And the Lord said, Behold, the
people 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 purpose
to do. Go to, let us go down, and there confound 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 earth : and they left
off to build the city and the tower."
³⁰ And then you demand that we should |351believe
this account, while you yourselves disbelieve Homer’s narrative of the
Aloadae, namely that they planned to set three mountains one on
another, "that so the heavens might be scaled."
³¹
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
discredit 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 build a tower that will reach to the heavens, even though
they should turn the whole earth into bricks. For such a tower 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, even 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 reason came down to
earth to confound 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 have one language and were of one
mind, they would first construct for themselves a path to the heavens
and then do some
|353 mischief against him.
But how he carried this out Moses does not say at all, but only that he
first came down from heaven,—-because he could not, as it seems, do
it from on high, without coming down to earth. But with respect 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 marry 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 short 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 worship 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 still 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,
|355 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 feel gratitude to
him?

But consider whether God has not given to us also gods ³²
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, down 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,³³
a demon, a hero, and a peculiar order of spirits which obey 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 fire should mount upwards by chance and earth
|357 sink down? Was it not
necessary, in order that the ordinance of God should be fulfilled, for
the former to be light and the latter to weigh heavy? And in the case
of other things also this is equally true. . . .
³⁴ Likewise
with respect to things divine. 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 subject 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 harmonise with one another, so
too should it be with the political constitutions of the nations, then
it was not by a special, isolated decree that he gave these
constitutions their essential characteristics, or framed us also to
match this lack of agreement.³⁵
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
bare decree, and does not the climate or the country have a joint
influence with the gods in determining what sort of complexion they
have?

Furthermore, Moses also consciously drew a veil over this  sort of enquiry, and  did not assign the
|359 confusion of dialects to God alone. For he says
³⁶ 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 purpose 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 reason: 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
master 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 power, 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 better, I say, than to honour one who has been assigned
the lordship over a very small portion, instead of the creator of all
things.

That is a surprising law of Moses,  I mean  the |361
famous decalogue! "Thou shalt not steal." "Thou shalt not kill." "Thou
shalt not bear false witness." But let me write out word for word every
one of the commandments which he says were written by God himself.

"I am the Lord thy God, which have brought thee out of the land of Egypt."
³⁷ Then follows the second: "Thou shalt have no other gods but me." "Thou shalt not make unto thee any graven image."
³⁸ 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 name of the Lord thy God in
vain." "Remember the sabbath day." "Honour thy father and thy mother."
" Thou shalt not commit adultery." "Thou shalt not kill." "Thou shalt
not steal." "Thou shalt not bear false witness." "Thou shalt not covet
anything that is thy neighbour’s."
³⁹

Now except for the command "Thou shalt not worship other gods," and
"Remember the sabbath day," what nation is there, I ask in the name of
the gods, which does not think that it ought to keep the other
commandments? So much so that penalties have been ordained against
those who transgress them, sometimes more severe, and sometimes similar
to those enacted by Moses, though they are sometimes more humane.

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."
⁴⁰ Then if a man is jealous and envious you think him blameworthy, whereas if God
|363 is called jealous you
think it a divine quality? And yet how is it reasonable to speak
falsely of God in a matter 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 wish
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 will that none
other should be worshipped, why do you worship 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. . . .⁴¹

Nowhere ⁴²
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 wound
through
|365 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.”
⁴³
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 down 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. . . .⁴⁴

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 compare 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,
|367 is, I suppose,
evident, even 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 like 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 observe from what follows that God did not take 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 possess many successors of Hermes, I
mean of Hermes who in his third manifestation visited Egypt;
⁴⁵ while the Chaldaeans and Assyrians can boast of the successors of Oannes
⁴⁶ and Belos;⁴⁷ the Hellenes can boast of countless successors of Cheiron.⁴⁸
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. . . .⁴⁹ |369 

But has God granted to you to originate any science or any
philosophical study? 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.⁵⁰
And the study of geometry took its rise 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 sense of hearing an agreement that was infallible, or
something very near to it.⁵¹

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 will be found that even 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
|371 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. . . .⁵²

But when after her ⁵³
foundation many wars encompassed her, she won and prevailed in them
all; and since she ever increased in size in proportion to her very
dangers and needed greater security, then Zeus set over her the great
philosopher Numa.⁵⁴ 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.
. . .⁵⁵ It
was he who established most of the laws concerning temple worship. 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
⁵⁶ and the head which appeared on the hill,⁵⁷ from which,
I suppose, |373
the seat of mighty Zeus received its name, 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 father Ares sent down to give us a
warrant, not in word but in deed, that he will forever hold 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
engrave 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 have gone over to the corpse of the Jew.⁵⁸
. . . 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
⁵⁹
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
⁶⁰ a means of enquiry by which we may obtain the aid that suffices for our needs.
|375

I had almost forgotten the greatest of the gifts of Helios and Zeus.
But naturally I kept it for the last. And indeed it is not peculiar to
us Romans only, but we share it, I think, with the Hellenes our
kinsmen. I mean to say that Zeus engendered Asclepius from himself
among the intelligible gods,⁶¹
and through the life of generative Helios he revealed him to the
earth. 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 gift of this sort do the Hebrews boast of as bestowed
on them by God, the Hebrews who have persuaded you to desert to them?
If you had at any rate paid heed to their teachings, you would not have
fared altogether ill, and though worse than you did before, when you
were with us, still 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.⁶² 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,
|377 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 blind 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,⁶³
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,⁶⁴ because they did not wail over the corpse
⁶⁵
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 delude maidservants and slaves, and through them the
women, and men like Cornelius
⁶⁶ and Sergius.⁶⁷
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.
|379

But I know not whence I was as it were inspired to utter these remarks. However, to return to the point at which I digressed,⁶⁸
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? Look 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 house of bondage out of
Egypt "with a stretched out arm"?
⁶⁹
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,⁷⁰
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,⁷¹
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 rate 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 believe me I will 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 name in the governorship of Cyrenius.⁷²
|381

But when he became man what benefits did he confer on his own
kinsfolk? Nay, the Galilaeans answer, they refused to hearken unto
Jesus. What? How was it then that this hardhearted
⁷³ and stubborn-necked people hearkened unto Moses; but Jesus, who commanded the spirits
⁷⁴
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 consider 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 live in
obedience to the will of others? No man is so lacking in self-respect
as to choose the latter by preference. Again, will 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 general 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
|383 more admiration than all the generals put together whom the Jews have had.

Further, as regards the constitution of the state 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
⁷⁵ will
have it that poems in hexameters are to be found even 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, find that the son of
Theodoras is superior to their "wisest" king. "But," they answer,
"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?
⁷⁶
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 call 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
|385 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,⁷⁷ 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,⁷⁸
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 even 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 effect 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 well endowed, and
|387 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. . .
⁷⁹

Now this would be a clear proof: Choose out children from among you
all and train 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 regard 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 acquire courage,
wisdom and justice, these you ascribe to Satan and to those who serve
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 true, whether you consider
the useful arts or the imitative arts whose end is beauty, such as the
statuary’s art,
|389 painting, or household
management, and the art of healing derived from Asclepius whose oracles
are found everywhere on earth, and the god grants to us a share in them
perpetually. At any rate, when I have 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 better 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.⁸⁰
For from both sides you have drawn what is by no means their best but
their inferior teaching, and so have made for yourselves a border
⁸¹
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 ";
⁸² though he did not say this only, but methinks added also "Thou shalt not revile the
|391 gods";⁸³
yet the shamelessness and audacity of later generations, desiring to
root out all reverence from the mass 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 source; 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 have cast off,
and have acquired only the habit of eating all things, "even as the
green herb."
⁸⁴
But to tell the truth, you have taken pride in outdoing our vulgarity,
(this, I think, 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 sort,
shopkeepers,⁸⁵ 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 have blushed, yes, even if those
|393 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 inherit 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."
⁸⁶
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 purify when it shall go down into the
soul? And baptism does not take 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? . . .⁸⁷

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 obey 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
|395 Jesus that was to be.
Moses, then, not once or twice or thrice but very many times says that
men ought to honour 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
like 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,"
⁸⁸
were certainly not said of the son of Mary. And even though, to please
you, one should concede that they were said of him, Moses says that the
prophet will 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,"
⁸⁹
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 even 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 trace Joseph back to Judah, you could not invent
|397 even this plausibly. For Matthew and Luke are refuted by the fact that they disagree concerning his genealogy.⁹¹ However, as I intend to examine closely into the truth of this matter in my Second Book, I leave it till then.⁹²
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."
⁹³ But, say you, we are told in the Book of Numbers also : "There shall arise a star out of Jacob, and a man out of Israel."
⁹⁴ 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."
⁹⁵
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."
⁹⁶ And again, "Hear, O Israel: the Lord our God is one Lord."
⁹⁷ And again, "See that I am and there is no God save me."
⁹⁸
These then are the words of Moses when he insists that there is only
one God. But perhaps the Galilaeans will reply: "But we do not assert
that there are two gods or three." But I will show that they do assert
this
|399 also, and I call John to witness, who says : "In the beginning was the Word, and the Word was with God and the Word was God."
⁹⁹
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
¹⁰⁰
at the same time,—-this now makes no difference; indeed I leave 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.’ "¹⁰¹
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 "
¹⁰² and "the firstborn of all creation"?
¹⁰³ But as for the saying of John, "All things were made by him; and without him was not any thing made that was made,"
¹⁰⁴
can anyone point this out among the utterances of the prophets? But now
listen to the sayings that I point out to you from those same prophets,
one after another. "O Lord our God, make us thine; we know none other
beside thee."
¹⁰⁵ And Hezekiah the king has been represented by |401
them as praying as follows : "O Lord God of Israel, that sittest upon the Cherubim, thou art God, even thou alone."
¹⁰⁶
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,"
¹⁰⁷ 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 that they were fair;
and they took them wives of all which they chose."
¹⁰⁸
And a little further on: "And also after that, when the sons of God
came in unto the daughters of men, and they bare children to them, the
same became the giants which were of old, the men of renown."
¹⁰⁹
Now that he means the angels is evident, and this has not been foisted
on him from without, but it is clear also from his saying that not men
but giants were born from them. For it is clear that if he had thought
that men and not beings of some higher and more powerful nature were
their fathers, he would not have said that the giants were their
offspring. For it seems to me that he declared that the race of giants
arose from the mixture of mortal and immortal. Again, when Moses speaks
of many sons of God and calls them not men but angels, would he not
then have revealed to mankind, if he had known thereof, God
|403 the "only begotten
Word," or a son of God or however you call him? But is it because he
did not think this of great importance that he says concerning Israel,
"Israel is my firstborn son?"
¹¹⁰
Why did not Moses say this about Jesus also? He taught that there was
only one God, but that he had many sons who divided the nations among
themselves. But the Word as firstborn son of God or as a God, or any of
those fictions which have been invented by you later, he neither knew
at all nor taught openly thereof. You have now heard Moses himself and
the other prophets. Moses, therefore, utters many sayings to the
following effect and in many places: "Thou shalt fear the Lord thy God
and him only shalt thou serve."
¹¹¹
How then has it been handed down in the Gospels that Jesus commanded :
"Go ye therefore and teach all nations, baptising them in the name of
the Father, and of the Son, and of the Holy Ghost,"
¹¹²
if they were not intended to serve him also? And your beliefs also are
in harmony with these commands, when along with the Father you pay
divine honours to the son. . . .¹¹³

And now observe again how much Moses says about the deities that
avert evil: "And he shall take two he-goats of the goats for a
sin-offering, and one ram for a burnt offering. And Aaron shall bring
also his bullock of the sin-offering, which is for
|405 himself, and make an
atonement for himself and for his house. And he shall take the two
goats and present them before the Lord at the door of the tabernacle of
the covenant. And Aaron shall cast lots upon the two goats; one lot for
the Lord and the other lot for the scape-goat”
¹¹⁴ so
as to send him forth, says Moses, as a scape-goat, and let him loose
into the wilderness. Thus then is sent forth the goat that is sent for
a scape-goat. And of the second goat Moses says: "Then shall he kill
the goat of the sin-offering that is for the people before the Lord,
and bring his blood within the vail, and shall sprinkle the blood upon
the altar-step,¹¹⁵
and shall make an atonement for the holy place, because of the
uncleanness of the children of Israel and because of their
transgressions in all their sins."
¹¹⁶
Accordingly it is evident from what has been said, that Moses knew the
various methods of sacrifice. And to show that he did not think them
impure as you do, listen again to his own words. "But the soul that
eateth of the flesh of the sacrifice of peace-offerings that pertain
unto the Lord, having his uncleanness upon him, even that soul shall be
cut off from his people."
¹¹⁷ So cautious is Moses himself with regard to the eating of the flesh of sacrifice.

But now I had better remind you of what I said earlier,¹¹⁸
since on account of that I have said this also. Why is it, I repeat,
that after deserting us you do not accept the law of the Jews or abide
by the sayings of Moses? No doubt some sharp-sighted
|407 person will answer,
"The Jews too do not sacrifice." But I will convict him of being
terribly dull-sighted, for in the first place I reply that neither do
you also observe any one of the other customs observed by the Jews;
and, secondly, that the Jews do sacrifice in their own houses, and even
to this day everything that they eat is consecrated; and they pray
before sacrificing, and give the right shoulder to the priests as the
firstfruits; but since they have been deprived of their temple, or, as
they are accustomed to call it, their holy place, they are prevented
from offering the firstfruits of the sacrifice to God.¹¹⁹
But why do you not sacrifice, since you have invented your new kind of
sacrifice and do not need Jerusalem at all? And yet it was superfluous
to ask you this question, since I said the same thing at the beginning,
when I wished to show that the Jews agree with the Gentiles, except
that they believe in only one God. That is indeed peculiar to them and
strange to us; since all the rest we have in a manner in common with
them—-temples, sanctuaries, altars, purifications, and certain
precepts. For as to these we differ from one another either not at all
or in trivial matters. . . .¹²⁰

Why in your diet are you not as pure as the Jews, and why do you say that we ought to eat everything "even as the green herb,"
¹²¹ putting your faith in Peter, because, as the Galilaeans say, he declared, "What God hath cleansed, that make not thou common"?
¹²² What proof is there of this, that of old |409
God held certain things abominable, but now has made them pure? For
Moses, when he is laying down the law concerning four-footed things,
says that whatsoever parteth the hoof and is cloven-footed and cheweth
the cud
¹²³
is pure, but that which is not of this sort is impure. Now if, after
the vision of Peter, the pig has now taken to chewing the cud, then let
us obey Peter; for it is in very truth a miracle if, after the vision
of Peter, it has taken to that habit. But if he spoke falsely when he
said that he saw this revelation,—-to use your own way of
speaking,—-in the house of the tanner, why are we so ready to believe
him in such important matters? Was it so hard a thing that Moses
enjoined on you when, besides the flesh of swine, he forbade you to eat
winged things and things that dwell in the sea, and declared to you
that besides the flesh of swine these also had been cast out by God and
shown to be impure?

But why do I discuss at length these teachings of theirs,¹²⁴
when we may easily see whether they have any force? For they assert
that God, after the earlier law, appointed the second. For, say they,
the former arose with a view to a certain occasion and was
circumscribed by definite periods of time, but this later law was
revealed because the law of Moses was circumscribed by time and place.
That they say this falsely I will clearly show by quoting from the
books of Moses not merely ten but ten thousand passages as evidence,
where he says that the law is for all time. Now listen to a passage
from Exodus: "And this day shall be unto you for a memorial; and ye shall keep it a feast to the Lord
|411 throughout your
generations; ye shall keep it a feast by an ordinance forever; the
first day shall ye put away leaven out of your houses." . . .¹²⁵
Many passages to the same effect are still left, but on account of
their number I refrain from citing them to prove that the law of Moses
was to last for all time. But do you point out to me where there is any
statement by Moses of what was later on rashly uttered by Paul, I mean
that "Christ is the end of the law."
¹²⁶
Where does God announce to the Hebrews a second law besides that which
was established? Nowhere does it occur, not even a revision of the
established law.¹²⁷
For listen again to the words of Moses : " Ye shall not add unto the
word which I command you, neither shall ye diminish aught from it. Keep
the commandments of the Lord your God which I command you this day."
¹²⁸ And "Cursed be every man who does not abide by them all."
¹²⁹
But you have thought it a slight thing to diminish and to add to the
things which were written in the law; and to transgress it completely
you have thought to be in every way more manly and more high-spirited,
because you do not look to the truth but to that which will persuade
all
men ¹³⁰. |413

But you are so misguided that you have not even remained faithful to
the teachings that were handed down to you by the apostles. And these
also have been altered., so as to be worse and more impious, by those
who came after. At any rate neither Paul nor Matthew nor Luke nor Mark
ventured to call Jesus God. But the worthy John, since he perceived
that a great number of people in many of the towns of Greece and Italy
had already been infected by this disease,¹³¹
and because he heard, I suppose, that even the tombs of Peter and Paul
were being worshipped
—-secretly, it is true, but still he did hear this,—-he, I say, was
the first to venture to call Jesus God. And after he had spoken briefly
about John the Baptist he referred again to the Word which he was
proclaiming, and said, "And the Word was made flesh, and dwelt among
us."
¹³²
But how, he does not say, because he was ashamed. Nowhere, however,
does he call him either Jesus or Christ, so long as he calls him God
and the Word, but as it were insensibly and secretly he steals away our
ears, and says that John the Baptist bore this witness on behalf of
Jesus Christ, that in very truth he it is whom we must believe to be
God the Word. But that John says this concerning Jesus Christ I for my
part do not deny. And yet certain of the impious think that Jesus
Christ is quite distinct from the Word that was proclaimed by John.
That however is not the case. For he whom John himself calls God the
Word, this is he who, says he, was recognised by John the Baptist to be
Jesus Christ. Observe accordingly how cautiously, how quietly and
|415 insensibly he
introduces into the drama the crowning word of his impiety; and he is
so rascally and deceitful that he rears his head once more to add, "No
man hath seen God at any time; the only begotten Son which is in the
bosom of the Father, he hath declared him."
¹³³
Then is this only begotten Son which is in the bosom of the Father the
God who is the Word and became flesh? And if, as I think, it is indeed
he, you also have certainly beheld God. For "He dwelt among you, and ye
beheld his glory."
¹³⁴
Why then do you add to this that "No man hath seen God at any time"?
For ye have indeed seen, if not God the Father, still God who is the
Word.¹³⁵ But if the only begotten Son is one person and the God who is the Word another, as
I have heard from certain of your sect, then it appears that not even John made that rash statement.¹³⁶

However this evil doctrine did originate with John; but who could
detest as they deserve all those doctrines that you have invented as a
sequel, while you keep adding many corpses newly dead to the corpse of
long ago?
¹³⁷
You have filled the whole world with tombs and sepulchres, and yet in
your scriptures it is nowhere said that you must grovel among tombs
¹³⁸
and pay them honour. But you have gone so far in iniquity that you
think you need not listen even to the words of Jesus of Nazareth on
this
|417 matter. Listen then to
what he says about sepulchres : "Woe unto you, scribes and Pharisees,
hypocrites! for ye are like unto whited sepulchres; outward the tomb
appears beautiful, but within it is full of dead men’s bones, and of
all uncleanness."
¹³⁹ If, then, Jesus said that sepulchres are full of uncleanness, how can you invoke God at them? .  . .¹⁴⁰

Therefore, since this is so, why do you grovel among tombs? Do you
wish to hear the reason? It is not I who will tell you, but the prophet
Isaiah : "They lodge among tombs and in caves for the sake of dream
visions."
¹⁴¹
You observe, then, how ancient among the Jews was this work of
witchcraft, namely, sleeping among tombs for the sake of dream visions.
And indeed it is likely that your apostles, after their teacher’s
death, practised this and handed it down to you from the beginning, I
mean to those who first adopted your faith, and that they themselves
performed their spells more skilfully than you do, and displayed openly
to those who came after them the places in which they performed this
witchcraft and abomination.

But you, though you practise that which God from the first abhorred,
as he showed through Moses and the prophets, have refused nevertheless
to offer victims at the altar, and to sacrifice. "Yes,” say the
Galilaeans, "because fire will not descend to consume the sacrifices as
in the case of Moses." Only once, I answer, did this happen in the case
of
|419 Moses;¹⁴² and again after many years in the case of Elijah the Tishbite.¹⁴³
For I will prove in a few words that Moses himself thought that it was
necessary to bring fire from outside for the sacrifice, and even before
him, Abraham the patriarch as well. . .
¹⁴⁴

And this is not the only instance, but when the sons of Adam also
offered firstfruits to God, the Scripture says, "And the Lord had
respect unto Abel and to his offerings; but unto Cain and to his
offerings he had not respect. And Cain was very wroth, and his
countenance fell. And the Lord God said unto Cain, Why art thou wroth?
and why is thy countenance fallen? Is it not so—-if thou offerest
rightly, but dost not cut in pieces rightly, thou hast sinned?"
¹⁴⁵
Do you then desire to hear also what were their offerings? "And at the
end of days it came to pass that Cain brought of the fruits of the
ground an offering unto the Lord. And Abel, he also brought of the
firstlings of his
flock and of the fat thereof." ¹⁴⁶
You see, say the Galilaeans, it was not the sacrifice but the division
thereof that God disapproved when he said to Cain, "If thou offerest
rightly, but dost not cut in pieces rightly, hast thou not sinned?"
This is what one of your most learned bishops
¹⁴⁷
told me. But in the first place he was deceiving himself and then other
men also. For when I asked him in what way the division was blameworthy
he did not know how to get out of it, or how to make me even a frigid
explanation. And when I saw that he was greatly
|421 embarrassed, I said;
"God rightly disapproved the thing you speak of. For the zeal of the
two men was equal, in that they both thought that they ought to offer
up gifts and sacrifices to God. But in the matter of their division one
of them hit the mark and the other fell short of it. How, and in what
manner? Why, since of things on the earth some have life and others are
lifeless, and those that have life are more precious than those that
are lifeless to the living God who is also the cause of life, inasmuch
as they also have a share of life and have a soul more akin to
his—-for this reason God was more graciously inclined to him who
offered a perfect sacrifice."

Now I must take up this other point and ask them, Why, pray, do you
not practise circumcision? "Paul," they answer, "said that circumcision
of the heart but not of the flesh was granted unto Abraham because he
believed.¹⁴⁸
Nay it was not now of the flesh that he spoke, and we ought to believe
the pious words that were proclaimed by him and by Peter." On the other
hand hear again that God is said to have given circumcision of the
flesh to Abraham for a covenant and a sign : "This is my covenant which
ye shall keep, between me and thee and thy seed after thee in their
generations. Ye shall circumcise the flesh of your foreskin, and it
shall be in token of a covenant betwixt me and thee and betwixt me and
thy seed." . . .¹⁴⁹ Therefore when He
¹⁵⁰ has undoubtedly taught that it is proper |423
to observe the law, and threatened with punishment those who transgress
one commandment, what manner of defending yourselves will you devise,
you who have transgressed them all without exception? For either Jesus
will be found to speak falsely, or rather you will be found in all
respects and in every way to have failed to preserve the law. " The
circumcision shall be of thy flesh," says Moses.¹⁵¹ But
the Galilaeans do not heed him, and they say: "We circumcise our
hearts." By all means. For there is among you no evildoer, no sinner;
so thoroughly do you circumcise your hearts.¹⁵²
They say: "We cannot observe the rule of unleavened bread or keep the
Passover; for on our behalf Christ was sacrificed once and for all."
Very well! Then did he forbid you to eat unleavened bread? And yet, I
call the gods to witness, I am one of those who avoid keeping their
festivals with the Jews; but nevertheless I revere always the God of
Abraham, Isaac and Jacob;¹⁵³
who being themselves Chaldaeans, of a sacred race, skilled in theurgy,
had learned the practice of circumcision while they sojourned as
strangers with the Egyptians. And they revered a God who was ever
gracious to me and to those who worshipped him as Abraham did, for he
is a very great and powerful God, but he has nothing to do with you.
For you do not imitate Abraham by erecting altars to him, or building
altars of sacrifice and worshipping him as Abraham did, with
sacrificial offerings. For Abraham used to sacrifice even as we
Hellenes do, always and continually. And he used the method of
divination from shooting stars. Probably this also is an Hellenic
custom. But for higher things he augured from the flight of birds.
|425

And he possessed also a steward of his house who set signs for himself.¹⁵⁴
And if one of you doubts this, the very words which were uttered by
Moses concerning it will show him clearly : "After these sayings the
word of the Lord came unto Abraham in a vision of the night, sayings
Fear not, Abraham: I am thy shield. Thy reward shall be exceeding
great. And Abraham said. Lord God what wilt thou give me? For I go
childless, and the son of Masek the slave woman will be my heir. And
straightway the word of the Lord came unto him saying, This man shall
not be thine heir: but he that shall come forth from thee shall be
thine heir. And he brought him forth and said unto him, Look now toward
heaven, and tell the stars, if thou be able to number them : and he
said unto him, So shall thy seed be. And Abraham believed in the Lord:
and it was counted to him for righteousness."
¹⁵⁵

Tell me now why he who dealt with him, whether angel or God, brought
him forth and showed him the stars? For while still within the house
did he not know how great is the multitude of the stars that at night
are always visible and shining? But I think it was because he wished to
show him the shooting stars, so that as a visible pledge of his words
he might offer to Abraham the decision of the heavens that fulfills and
sanctions all things. And lest any man should think that such an
|427 interpretation is
forced, I will convince him by adding what comes next to the above
passage. For it is written next: "And he said unto him, I am the Lord
that brought thee out of the land of the Chaldees, to give thee this
land to inherit it. And he said, Lord God, whereby shall I know that I
shall inherit it? And he said unto him, Take me an heifer of three
years old, and a she-goat of three years old, and a ram of three years
old, and a turtle-dove and a pigeon. And he took unto him all these,
and divided them in the midst, and laid each piece one against another;
but the birds divided he not. And the fowls came down upon the divided
carcases, and Abraham sat down among them."

You see how the announcement of the angel or god who had appeared
was strengthened by means of the augury from birds, and how the
prophecy was completed, not at haphazard as happens with you, but with
the accompaniment of sacrifices? Moreover he says that by the flocking
together of the birds he showed that his message was true. And Abraham
accepted the pledge, and moreover declared that a pledge that lacked
truth seemed to be mere folly and imbecility. But it is not possible to
behold the truth from speech alone, but some clear sign must follow on
what has been said, a sign that by its appearance shall guarantee the
prophecy that has been made concerning the future. . . .¹⁵⁶

However, for your indolence in this matter there remains for you one
single excuse, namely, that you are not permitted to sacrifice if you
are outside Jerusalem, though for that matter Elijah sacrificed on
Mount Carmel, and not in the holy city.¹⁵⁷
|429

This entry was posted on Tuesday, March 6th, 2007 at 1:30 pm and is filed under Uncategorized. You can follow any responses to this entry through the RSS 2.0 feed. You can skip to the end and leave a response. Pinging is currently not allowed.