On the Anger of God 1.1–9.8
Latin text: CSEL 27.1 (Latin text: S. Brandt and G. Laubmann (CSEL 27.1, 1893), digitized by Open Greek and Latin, University of Leipzig (csel-dev), CC BY-SA 4.0).English: Claude (claude-opus-5-5), public domain (CC0). Compare: Ante-Nicene Fathers, vol. 7 (1886).
Chapter 1
1.1CSEL 27.1:67
Animaduerti saepe, Donate, plurimos id existimare, quod etiam nonnulli philosophorum putauerunt, non irasci deum, quoniam uel benefica sit tantummodo natura diuina nec cuiquam nocere praestantissimae atque optimae congruat potestati uel certe nihil curet omnino, ut neque ex beneficentia eius quicquam boni perueniat ad nos neque ex maleficentia quicquam mali.
I have often noticed, Donatus, that very many people hold the opinion, which some of the philosophers also held, that God is not angry: either because the divine nature is only beneficent, and it does not befit the most excellent and best power to harm anyone; or at least because it cares for nothing at all, so that neither does any good reach us from its beneficence nor any evil from its ill will.
Notes and citation
Summary: Many, following some philosophers, think God is never angry, either because he only does good or because he cares for nothing.
Cite (SBL): Lactantius, Ira 1.1 (CSEL 27.1:67; trans. Sophia Scriptura, https://sophiascriptura.com/fathers/lactantius-ira/1-1/#p-1-1).
BibTeX · RIS (whole work; this passage's key: sophiascriptura-lactantius-ira-1-1) · Report an error
Translation: Translated by Claude from the Latin text of CSEL 27.1; made independently of existing English translations.
1.2CSEL 27.1:67–68
quorum error quia maximus est et ad euertendum uitae humanae statum spectat, coarguendus est nobis, ne et ipse fallaris inpulsus auctoritate hominum qui se putant esse.
Since their error is very great and tends to overturn the order of human life, it must be refuted by us, lest you too be deceived, driven by the authority of men who think themselves
Notes and citation
Summary: This error threatens human life and must be refuted.
Cite (SBL): Lactantius, Ira 1.2 (CSEL 27.1:67–68; trans. Sophia Scriptura, https://sophiascriptura.com/fathers/lactantius-ira/1-1/#p-1-2).
BibTeX · RIS (whole work; this passage's key: sophiascriptura-lactantius-ira-1-2) · Report an error
Translation: Translated by Claude from the Latin text of CSEL 27.1; made independently of existing English translations.
1.3CSEL 27.1:68
sapientes. nec tamen nos adrogantes sumus, ut conprehensam nostro ingenio ueritatem gloriemur, sed doctrinam dei sequimur, qui scire solus potest et reuelare secreta.
wise. Yet we are not arrogant, so as to boast that we have grasped the truth by our own talent; rather, we follow the teaching of God, who alone can know and reveal secrets.
Dan 2:28 (echo, low confidence)
Notes and citation
Summary: Lactantius claims no wisdom of his own but follows God's teaching, since God alone knows and reveals secrets.
Topics: Scripture and canon
Cite (SBL): Lactantius, Ira 1.3 (CSEL 27.1:68; trans. Sophia Scriptura, https://sophiascriptura.com/fathers/lactantius-ira/1-1/#p-1-3).
BibTeX · RIS (whole work; this passage's key: sophiascriptura-lactantius-ira-1-3) · Report an error
Translation: Translated by Claude from the Latin text of CSEL 27.1; made independently of existing English translations.
1.4CSEL 27.1:68
cuius doctrinae philosophi expertes existimauerunt naturam rerum coniectura posse deprehendi. quod nequaquam fieri potest, quia mens hominis tenebroso corporis domicilio circumsaepta longe a ueri perspectione submota est et hoc differt ab humanitate diuinitas, quod humanitatis est ignoratio, diuinitatis scientia.
The philosophers, having no share in this teaching, supposed that the nature of things could be discovered by conjecture. This can by no means be done, because the mind of man, fenced round by the dark dwelling of the body, is far removed from the sight of the truth; and divinity differs from humanity in this, that ignorance belongs to humanity and knowledge to divinity.
Notes and citation
Summary: Philosophers tried to reach truth by guesswork, but the human mind, shut in the body, cannot; knowledge belongs to God.
Cite (SBL): Lactantius, Ira 1.4 (CSEL 27.1:68; trans. Sophia Scriptura, https://sophiascriptura.com/fathers/lactantius-ira/1-1/#p-1-4).
BibTeX · RIS (whole work; this passage's key: sophiascriptura-lactantius-ira-1-4) · Report an error
Translation: Translated by Claude from the Latin text of CSEL 27.1; made independently of existing English translations.
1.5CSEL 27.1:68
unde nobis aliquo lumine opus est ad depellendas tenebras quibus obfusa est hominis cogitatio, quoniam in carne mortali agentes nostris sensibus diuinare non possumus.
Hence we need some light to drive away the darkness with which man's thought is overspread, since, living in mortal flesh, we cannot divine by our own senses.
Notes and citation
Summary: We need a light from outside ourselves to drive away our darkness.
Cite (SBL): Lactantius, Ira 1.5 (CSEL 27.1:68; trans. Sophia Scriptura, https://sophiascriptura.com/fathers/lactantius-ira/1-1/#p-1-5).
BibTeX · RIS (whole work; this passage's key: sophiascriptura-lactantius-ira-1-5) · Report an error
Translation: Translated by Claude from the Latin text of CSEL 27.1; made independently of existing English translations.
1.6CSEL 27.1:68
lumen autem mentis humanae deus est, quem qui cognouerit et in pectus admiserit, inluminato corde mysterium ueritatis adgnoscet. remoto autem deo caelestique doctrina omnia erroribus plena sunt recteque Socrates, is cum esset omnium philosophorum doctissimus, tamen ut ceterorum argueret inscitiam qui se aliquid tenere arbitrabantur, ait se nihil scire nisi unum, quod nihil sciret.
But the light of the human mind is God; whoever has known him and admitted him into his breast will recognize, with enlightened heart, the mystery of the truth. But when God and heavenly teaching are removed, all things are full of errors; and rightly did Socrates, though he was the most learned of all the philosophers, nevertheless, to expose the ignorance of the others who thought they held something, say that he knew nothing except one thing: that he knew nothing.
Notes and citation
Summary: God is the mind's light; without him all is error, as Socrates admitted when he said he knew only that he knew nothing.
- Compare Plato, Apol. 21d; the formula is Cicero's (Acad. 1.16).
Extrabiblical texts: Plato, Apol. 21d (Plato (works); allusion)
Cite (SBL): Lactantius, Ira 1.6 (CSEL 27.1:68; trans. Sophia Scriptura, https://sophiascriptura.com/fathers/lactantius-ira/1-1/#p-1-6).
BibTeX · RIS (whole work; this passage's key: sophiascriptura-lactantius-ira-1-6) · Report an error
Translation: Translated by Claude from the Latin text of CSEL 27.1; made independently of existing English translations.
1.7CSEL 27.1:68–69
intellexit enim doctrinam illam nihil habere in se certi, nihil ueri nec, ut putabant quidam, dissimulauit ipse doctrinam, ut alios refelleret, sed uidit ex parte aliqua ueritatem testatusque est etiam in iudicio, sicut traditur a Platone, quod nulla esset humana sapientia: adeo doctrinam qua tum philosophi gloriabantur, contempsit derisit abiecit, ut id ipsum pro summa doctrina profiteretur, quod nihil scire didicisset.
For he understood that that learning had nothing certain, nothing true in it; nor, as some thought, did he himself hide his learning in order to refute others; but he saw the truth in some part, and testified even at his trial, as Plato records, that there was no human wisdom. So much did he despise, deride, and reject the learning in which the philosophers then gloried, that he professed as the highest learning this very thing: that he had learned that he knew nothing.
Notes and citation
Summary: Socrates saw in part that there is no human wisdom, as he said at his trial according to Plato.
- Plato, Apol. 23a.
Extrabiblical texts: Plato, Apol. 23a (Plato (works); allusion)
Cite (SBL): Lactantius, Ira 1.7 (CSEL 27.1:68–69; trans. Sophia Scriptura, https://sophiascriptura.com/fathers/lactantius-ira/1-1/#p-1-7).
BibTeX · RIS (whole work; this passage's key: sophiascriptura-lactantius-ira-1-7) · Report an error
Translation: Translated by Claude from the Latin text of CSEL 27.1; made independently of existing English translations.
1.8CSEL 27.1:69
si ergo nulla est sapientia humana, ut Socrates docuit, ut Plato tradidit, apparet esse diuinam nec ulli alii quam deo ueritatis notitiam subiacere.
If, then, there is no human wisdom, as Socrates taught and Plato handed down, it is plain that there is a divine one, and that the knowledge of the truth is subject to no one but God.
Notes and citation
Summary: If there is no human wisdom, true wisdom is divine and belongs to God alone.
Cite (SBL): Lactantius, Ira 1.8 (CSEL 27.1:69; trans. Sophia Scriptura, https://sophiascriptura.com/fathers/lactantius-ira/1-1/#p-1-8).
BibTeX · RIS (whole work; this passage's key: sophiascriptura-lactantius-ira-1-8) · Report an error
Translation: Translated by Claude from the Latin text of CSEL 27.1; made independently of existing English translations.
1.9CSEL 27.1:69
deus igitur noscendus est. in quo solo ueritas est, ille mundi parens et conditor rerum qui oculis non uidetur, mente uix cernitur: cuius religio multis modis inpugnari solet ab iis qui neque ueram sapientiam tenere potuerunt neque magni et caelestis arcani conprehendere rationem.
God, therefore, must be known, in whom alone is truth: he, the parent of the world and founder of all things, who is not seen with the eyes and is scarcely discerned by the mind; whose religion is commonly attacked in many ways by those who have been able neither to hold true wisdom nor to grasp the meaning of the great and heavenly mystery.
Notes and citation
Summary: We must know God, the invisible Creator in whom alone is truth, whose religion is attacked by those without true wisdom.
Notes on the original text
- Digital text corrected (letters dropped in the digital text): conor rerum → conditor rerum.
Cite (SBL): Lactantius, Ira 1.9 (CSEL 27.1:69; trans. Sophia Scriptura, https://sophiascriptura.com/fathers/lactantius-ira/1-1/#p-1-9).
BibTeX · RIS (whole work; this passage's key: sophiascriptura-lactantius-ira-1-9) · Report an error
Translation: Translated by Claude from the Latin text of CSEL 27.1; made independently of existing English translations.
Chapter 2
2.1CSEL 27.1:69
Nam cum sint gradus multi per quos ad domicilium ueritatis ascenditur, non est facile cuilibet euehi ad summum. caligantibus enim ueritatis fulgore luminibus qui stabilem gressum tenere non possunt, reuoluuntur in planum.
For since there are many steps by which one climbs to the dwelling of truth, it is not easy for just anyone to be carried to the top. For those whose eyes are dimmed by the brightness of the truth, who cannot keep a steady step, roll back down to the level ground.
Notes and citation
Summary: There are many steps up to the truth, and those dazzled by it fall back.
Cite (SBL): Lactantius, Ira 2.1 (CSEL 27.1:69; trans. Sophia Scriptura, https://sophiascriptura.com/fathers/lactantius-ira/1-1/#p-2-1).
BibTeX · RIS (whole work; this passage's key: sophiascriptura-lactantius-ira-2-1) · Report an error
Translation: Translated by Claude from the Latin text of CSEL 27.1; made independently of existing English translations.
2.2CSEL 27.1:69
primus autem gradus est intellegere falsas religiones et abicere inpios cultus humana manu fabricatorum, secundus uero, perspicere animo quod unus sit deus summus, cuius potestas ac prouidentia effecerit a principio mundum et gubernet in posterum, tertius, cognoscere ministrum eius ac nuntium quem legauit in terram, quo docente liberati ab errore quo inplicati tenebamur formatique ad ueri dei cultum iustitiam disceremus.
The first step is to understand that false religions are false and to cast off the impious worship of things made by human hands; the second, to perceive with the mind that there is one supreme God, whose power and providence made the world from the beginning and governs it hereafter; the third, to know his minister and messenger whom he sent as envoy to earth, by whose teaching we might be freed from the error in which we were held entangled and, formed for the worship of the true God, might learn righteousness.
Ps 115:4 (113:12 Vulg.) (echo, low confidence)
Notes and citation
Summary: The three steps are rejecting idols, knowing the one Creator God, and knowing his messenger, Christ, who teaches righteousness.
Topics: Christology
Cite (SBL): Lactantius, Ira 2.2 (CSEL 27.1:69; trans. Sophia Scriptura, https://sophiascriptura.com/fathers/lactantius-ira/1-1/#p-2-2).
BibTeX · RIS (whole work; this passage's key: sophiascriptura-lactantius-ira-2-2) · Report an error
Translation: Translated by Claude from the Latin text of CSEL 27.1; made independently of existing English translations.
2.3CSEL 27.1:69
ex quibus omnibus gradibus, ut dixi, pronus est lapsus et facilis ad ruinam, nisi pedes inconcussa stabilitate figantur.
From all these steps, as I have said, the slide is steep and the fall easy, unless the feet are planted with unshaken firmness.
Notes and citation
Summary: One can fall from any of these steps unless one stands firm.
Cite (SBL): Lactantius, Ira 2.3 (CSEL 27.1:69; trans. Sophia Scriptura, https://sophiascriptura.com/fathers/lactantius-ira/1-1/#p-2-3).
BibTeX · RIS (whole work; this passage's key: sophiascriptura-lactantius-ira-2-3) · Report an error
Translation: Translated by Claude from the Latin text of CSEL 27.1; made independently of existing English translations.
2.4CSEL 27.1:69–70
de primo gradu eos excuti uidemus qui cum falsa intellegant, tamen uerum non inueniunt contemptisque terrenis fragilibusque simulacris non ad colendum se deum conferunt, quem ignorant, sed mundi elementa mirantes caelum terram mare solem ceteraque astra uenerantur. sed horum inperitiam iam coarguimus in secundo Diuinarum Institutionum libro.
From the first step we see those shaken off who, though they understand what is false, yet do not find what is true, and, having despised earthly and fragile images, do not betake themselves to worship God, whom they do not know, but, marveling at the elements of the world, venerate heaven, earth, sea, sun, and the other stars. But we have already refuted their ignorance in the second book of the Divine Institutes.
Rom 1:25 (echo, low confidence)
Notes and citation
Summary: Some fall from the first step: rejecting idols, they worship the heavens and elements instead of God.
- Lactantius, Inst. 2.5–6.
Cite (SBL): Lactantius, Ira 2.4 (CSEL 27.1:69–70; trans. Sophia Scriptura, https://sophiascriptura.com/fathers/lactantius-ira/1-1/#p-2-4).
BibTeX · RIS (whole work; this passage's key: sophiascriptura-lactantius-ira-2-4) · Report an error
Translation: Translated by Claude from the Latin text of CSEL 27.1; made independently of existing English translations.
2.5CSEL 27.1:70
de secundo uero gradu eos dicimus cadere qui cum sentiant unum esse summum deum, idem tamen a philosophis inretiti et falsis argumentationibus capti aliter de unica illa maiestate sentiunt quam ueritas habet: qui aut figuram negant habere ullam deum aut nullo adfectu commoueri putant, quia sit omnis adfectus inbecillitatis, quae in deo nulla est.
From the second step, we say, those fall who, though they perceive that there is one supreme God, yet, ensnared by the philosophers and captured by false arguments, think otherwise about that unique majesty than the truth holds: who either deny that God has any form, or think he is moved by no emotion, since every emotion belongs to weakness, which in God there is none.
Notes and citation
Summary: Some fall from the second step: knowing one God, they deny him any form or emotion, as the philosophers taught.
Cite (SBL): Lactantius, Ira 2.5 (CSEL 27.1:70; trans. Sophia Scriptura, https://sophiascriptura.com/fathers/lactantius-ira/1-1/#p-2-5).
BibTeX · RIS (whole work; this passage's key: sophiascriptura-lactantius-ira-2-5) · Report an error
Translation: Translated by Claude from the Latin text of CSEL 27.1; made independently of existing English translations.
2.6CSEL 27.1:70
de tertio uero ii praecipitantur qui cum sciant legatum dei eundemque diuini et inmortalis templi conditorem, tamen aut non accipiunt eum aut aliter accipiunt quam fides poscit: quos ex parte iam refutauimus in quarto supra dicti operis libro et refutabimus postea diligentius, cum respondere ad omnes sectas coeperimus, quae ueritatem dum dissipant, perdiderunt.
From the third step those are cast headlong who, though they know the envoy of God, who is also the founder of the divine and immortal temple, yet either do not receive him or receive him otherwise than faith demands. These we have already refuted in part in the fourth book of the work mentioned above, and will refute more carefully later, when we begin to answer all the sects, which, in scattering the truth, have lost it.
Notes and citation
Summary: Some fall from the third step: they reject Christ or receive him wrongly, as the heretical sects do.
- Lactantius, Inst. 4 (especially 4.30). The promised work against all the heresies is not known to survive.
Topics: Christology, Heresy
Cite (SBL): Lactantius, Ira 2.6 (CSEL 27.1:70; trans. Sophia Scriptura, https://sophiascriptura.com/fathers/lactantius-ira/1-1/#p-2-6).
BibTeX · RIS (whole work; this passage's key: sophiascriptura-lactantius-ira-2-6) · Report an error
Translation: Translated by Claude from the Latin text of CSEL 27.1; made independently of existing English translations.
2.7CSEL 27.1:70
nunc uero contra eos disserimus qui de secundo gradu lapsi praua de summo deo sentiunt. aiunt enim quidam nec gratificari eum cuiquam nec irasci, sed securum et quietum inmortalitatis suae bonis perfrui.
But now we are arguing against those who, having slipped from the second step, think wrongly about the supreme God. For some say that he neither shows favor to anyone nor is angry, but, free from care and at rest, enjoys the goods of his immortality.
Notes and citation
Summary: This treatise answers those who say God neither favors nor is angry but rests untroubled.
- The Epicurean view; compare Lucretius 1.44–49 and 2.646–651.
Extrabiblical texts: Epicurus (Epicurus (sayings and fragments); allusion)
Cite (SBL): Lactantius, Ira 2.7 (CSEL 27.1:70; trans. Sophia Scriptura, https://sophiascriptura.com/fathers/lactantius-ira/1-1/#p-2-7).
BibTeX · RIS (whole work; this passage's key: sophiascriptura-lactantius-ira-2-7) · Report an error
Translation: Translated by Claude from the Latin text of CSEL 27.1; made independently of existing English translations.
2.8CSEL 27.1:70
alii uero iram tollunt, gratiam relinquunt deo: naturam enim summa uirtute praestantem ut non maleficam, sic beneficam esse debere. ita omnes philosophi de ira consentiunt, de gratia discrepant.
Others take away anger but leave favor to God: for a nature excelling in supreme virtue ought, as it is not maleficent, so to be beneficent. Thus all the philosophers agree about anger and disagree about favor.
Notes and citation
Summary: Others allow God kindness but not anger; all philosophers deny him anger.
Cite (SBL): Lactantius, Ira 2.8 (CSEL 27.1:70; trans. Sophia Scriptura, https://sophiascriptura.com/fathers/lactantius-ira/1-1/#p-2-8).
BibTeX · RIS (whole work; this passage's key: sophiascriptura-lactantius-ira-2-8) · Report an error
Translation: Translated by Claude from the Latin text of CSEL 27.1; made independently of existing English translations.
2.9CSEL 27.1:70–71
sed ut ad propositam materiam per ordinem descendat oratio, huiusmodi facienda nobis et sequenda partitio est: cum diuersa et repugnantia sint ira et gratia, aut ira tribuenda est deo et gratia detrahenda, aut utrumque pariter detrahendum, aut ira demenda est et gratia tribuenda, aut utrumque tribuendum.
But so that the discussion may come down to the subject proposed in order, we must make and follow a division of this kind: since anger and favor are different and opposed, either anger must be attributed to God and favor taken away, or both taken away alike, or anger removed and favor attributed, or both attributed.
Notes and citation
Summary: There are four possibilities: God has anger only, neither, favor only, or both.
Cite (SBL): Lactantius, Ira 2.9 (CSEL 27.1:70–71; trans. Sophia Scriptura, https://sophiascriptura.com/fathers/lactantius-ira/1-1/#p-2-9).
BibTeX · RIS (whole work; this passage's key: sophiascriptura-lactantius-ira-2-9) · Report an error
Translation: Translated by Claude from the Latin text of CSEL 27.1; made independently of existing English translations.
2.10CSEL 27.1:71
aliud amplius praeter haec nihil potest capere natura, ut necesse sit in uno istorum aliquo uerum quod quaeritur inueniri. consideremus singula, ut nos ad latebras ueritatis et ratio et ordo deducat.
Nature can admit nothing further beyond these, so that the truth we seek must be found in one of them. Let us consider each, so that both reason and order may lead us to the hiding places of the truth.
Notes and citation
Summary: The truth must lie in one of these four, so each will be examined.
Cite (SBL): Lactantius, Ira 2.10 (CSEL 27.1:71; trans. Sophia Scriptura, https://sophiascriptura.com/fathers/lactantius-ira/1-1/#p-2-10).
BibTeX · RIS (whole work; this passage's key: sophiascriptura-lactantius-ira-2-10) · Report an error
Translation: Translated by Claude from the Latin text of CSEL 27.1; made independently of existing English translations.
Chapter 3
3.1CSEL 27.1:71
Primum illud nemo de deo dixit umquam, irasci eum tantummodo, gratia non moueri: est enim inconueniens deo ut huiusmodi potestate sit praeditus qua noceat et obsit, prodesse uero ac bene facere nequeat.
First, no one has ever said of God that he is only angry and is not moved by favor: for it is unfitting for God to be endowed with a power by which he may harm and injure, but be unable to help and do good.
Notes and citation
Summary: No one holds that God has anger only, for a God who can harm but not help is unworthy.
Cite (SBL): Lactantius, Ira 3.1 (CSEL 27.1:71; trans. Sophia Scriptura, https://sophiascriptura.com/fathers/lactantius-ira/1-1/#p-3-1).
BibTeX · RIS (whole work; this passage's key: sophiascriptura-lactantius-ira-3-1) · Report an error
Translation: Translated by Claude from the Latin text of CSEL 27.1; made independently of existing English translations.
3.2CSEL 27.1:71
quae igitur ratio, quae spes salutis hominibus proposita est, si malorum tantummodo auctor est deus? quod si fit, iam maiestas illa uenerabilis non ad iudicis potestatem, cui licet seruare ac liberare, sed ad tortoris et carnificis officium deducetur.
What reason, then, what hope of salvation is set before men, if God is the author of evils only? If that were so, that venerable majesty would be brought down, not to the power of a judge, who is allowed to save and set free, but to the office of a torturer and executioner.
Notes and citation
Summary: A God who only did evil would be an executioner, not a judge, and would leave no hope of salvation.
Cite (SBL): Lactantius, Ira 3.2 (CSEL 27.1:71; trans. Sophia Scriptura, https://sophiascriptura.com/fathers/lactantius-ira/1-1/#p-3-2).
BibTeX · RIS (whole work; this passage's key: sophiascriptura-lactantius-ira-3-2) · Report an error
Translation: Translated by Claude from the Latin text of CSEL 27.1; made independently of existing English translations.
3.3CSEL 27.1:71
cum autem uideamus non modo mala esse in rebus humanis, sed etiam bona, utique si deus est auctor malorum, esse alterum necesse est qui contraria deo faciat et det nobis bona.
But since we see that there are not only evils in human affairs but goods too, then certainly, if God is the author of evils, there must be another who does the opposite to God and gives us good things.
Notes and citation
Summary: If God caused only evil, another god would be needed as the source of good.
Cite (SBL): Lactantius, Ira 3.3 (CSEL 27.1:71; trans. Sophia Scriptura, https://sophiascriptura.com/fathers/lactantius-ira/1-1/#p-3-3).
BibTeX · RIS (whole work; this passage's key: sophiascriptura-lactantius-ira-3-3) · Report an error
Translation: Translated by Claude from the Latin text of CSEL 27.1; made independently of existing English translations.
3.4CSEL 27.1:71
si est, quo nomine appellandus est? aut cur nobis qui male facit notior est quam ille qui bene? si autem nihil potest esse praeter deum, absurdum est et uanum putare diuinam potestatem, qua nihil est maius, nihil melius, nocere posse, prodesse non posse, et ideo nemo extitit qui auderet id dicere, quia nec rationem habet nec ullo modo potest credi.
If there is one, by what name is he to be called? Or why is he who does evil better known to us than he who does good? But if nothing can exist besides God, it is absurd and empty to think that the divine power, than which nothing is greater, nothing better, can harm but cannot help. And therefore no one has come forward who dared to say it, because it has no reason in it and can in no way be believed.
Notes and citation
Summary: Since there is no other god, a God able only to harm is absurd, and no one has ever claimed it.
Notes on the original text
- Digital text corrected (word broken by a line-end hyphen in the digital text): ab-, surdum → absurdum.
Cite (SBL): Lactantius, Ira 3.4 (CSEL 27.1:71; trans. Sophia Scriptura, https://sophiascriptura.com/fathers/lactantius-ira/1-1/#p-3-4).
BibTeX · RIS (whole work; this passage's key: sophiascriptura-lactantius-ira-3-4) · Report an error
Translation: Translated by Claude from the Latin text of CSEL 27.1; made independently of existing English translations.
3.5CSEL 27.1:71–72
quod quia conuenit, transeamus et ueritatem alibi requiramus.
Since this is agreed, let us pass on and seek the truth elsewhere.
Notes and citation
Summary: This first option being excluded, Lactantius moves on.
Cite (SBL): Lactantius, Ira 3.5 (CSEL 27.1:71–72; trans. Sophia Scriptura, https://sophiascriptura.com/fathers/lactantius-ira/1-1/#p-3-5).
BibTeX · RIS (whole work; this passage's key: sophiascriptura-lactantius-ira-3-5) · Report an error
Translation: Translated by Claude from the Latin text of CSEL 27.1; made independently of existing English translations.
Chapter 4
4.1CSEL 27.1:72
Quod sequitur, de schola Epicuri est: sicut iram in deo non esse, ita ne gratiam quidem. nam cum putaret Epicurus alienum esse a deo male facere ac nocere, quod ex adfectu iracundiae plerumque nascitur, ademit ei etiam beneficentiam, quoniam uidebat consequens esse ut si habeat iram deus, habeat et gratiam.
The next view is from the school of Epicurus: that, just as there is no anger in God, so there is not even favor. For since Epicurus thought it foreign to God to do evil and to harm, which usually arises from the passion of anger, he took beneficence from him too, since he saw it followed that if God has anger, he has favor also.
Notes and citation
Summary: Epicurus denied God both anger and kindness, seeing that one implies the other.
Extrabiblical texts: Epicurus (Epicurus (sayings and fragments); allusion)
Cite (SBL): Lactantius, Ira 4.1 (CSEL 27.1:72; trans. Sophia Scriptura, https://sophiascriptura.com/fathers/lactantius-ira/1-1/#p-4-1).
BibTeX · RIS (whole work; this passage's key: sophiascriptura-lactantius-ira-4-1) · Report an error
Translation: Translated by Claude from the Latin text of CSEL 27.1; made independently of existing English translations.
4.2CSEL 27.1:72
itaque ne illi uitium concederet, etiam uirtutis fecit expertem. ex hoc inquit beatus est et incorruptus, quia nihil curat neque ipse habet negotium neque alteri exhibet.
So, lest he grant him a vice, he made him devoid of virtue as well. “From this,” he says, “he is blessed and incorrupt, because he cares for nothing and neither has business himself nor causes it for another.”
Notes and citation
Summary: To spare God any vice, Epicurus stripped him of virtue, saying he is blessed because he cares for nothing.
- Epicurus, Principal Doctrines 1 (Diogenes Laertius 10.139), as rendered by Cicero, Nat. d. 1.45 and 1.85.
Notes on the original text
- Digital text corrected (letter misread in the digital text): ne llli → ne illi.
Extrabiblical texts: Epicurus, Principal Doctrines 1 (Epicurus (sayings and fragments); quotation)
Cite (SBL): Lactantius, Ira 4.2 (CSEL 27.1:72; trans. Sophia Scriptura, https://sophiascriptura.com/fathers/lactantius-ira/1-1/#p-4-2).
BibTeX · RIS (whole work; this passage's key: sophiascriptura-lactantius-ira-4-2) · Report an error
Translation: Translated by Claude from the Latin text of CSEL 27.1; made independently of existing English translations.
4.3CSEL 27.1:72
deus igitur non est, si nec mouetur, quod est proprium uiuentis, nec facit aliquid inpossibile homini, quod est proprium dei, si omnino nullam habet uoluntatem, nullum actum, nullam denique administrationem quae deo digna sit.
He is therefore not God, if he is neither moved, which is proper to a living being, nor does anything impossible for man, which is proper to God; if he has no will at all, no action, in short no administration worthy of God.
Notes and citation
Summary: A god without movement, will, or action would be no god at all.
Cite (SBL): Lactantius, Ira 4.3 (CSEL 27.1:72; trans. Sophia Scriptura, https://sophiascriptura.com/fathers/lactantius-ira/1-1/#p-4-3).
BibTeX · RIS (whole work; this passage's key: sophiascriptura-lactantius-ira-4-3) · Report an error
Translation: Translated by Claude from the Latin text of CSEL 27.1; made independently of existing English translations.
4.4CSEL 27.1:72
et quae maior, quae dignior administratio deo adsignari potest quam mundi gubernatio, quam cura uiuentium maximeque generis humani, cui omnia terrena subiecta sunt?
And what greater, what worthier administration can be assigned to God than the governing of the world, than the care of living things, and above all of the human race, to which all earthly things are subject?
Gen 1:28 (allusion, low confidence)
Notes and citation
Summary: God's worthiest work is to govern the world and care for mankind.
Notes on the original text
- Digital text corrected (letters misread in the digital text): admimstratio → administratio.
Cite (SBL): Lactantius, Ira 4.4 (CSEL 27.1:72; trans. Sophia Scriptura, https://sophiascriptura.com/fathers/lactantius-ira/1-1/#p-4-4).
BibTeX · RIS (whole work; this passage's key: sophiascriptura-lactantius-ira-4-4) · Report an error
Translation: Translated by Claude from the Latin text of CSEL 27.1; made independently of existing English translations.
4.5CSEL 27.1:72
quae igitur in deo potest esse beatitudo, si semper quietus et inmobilis torpet, si precantibus surdus est, si colentibus caecus? quid tam dignum, tam proprium deo quam prouidentia?
What blessedness, then, can there be in God, if he is always at rest and motionless and inert, if he is deaf to those who pray, blind to those who worship? What is so worthy, so proper to God, as providence?
Notes and citation
Summary: A God deaf to prayer and blind to worship would have no blessedness; providence is what is most proper to him.
Topics: Prayer
Cite (SBL): Lactantius, Ira 4.5 (CSEL 27.1:72; trans. Sophia Scriptura, https://sophiascriptura.com/fathers/lactantius-ira/1-1/#p-4-5).
BibTeX · RIS (whole work; this passage's key: sophiascriptura-lactantius-ira-4-5) · Report an error
Translation: Translated by Claude from the Latin text of CSEL 27.1; made independently of existing English translations.
4.6CSEL 27.1:72
sed si nihil curat, nihil prouidet, amisit omnem diuinitatem. qui ergo totam uim, totam substantiam deo tollit, quid aliud dicit nisi deum omnino non esse?
But if he cares for nothing and foresees nothing, he has lost all divinity. Whoever, then, takes away from God all his power and all his substance, what else is he saying but that God does not exist at all?
Notes and citation
Summary: Denying God's care and providence amounts to denying that he exists.
Cite (SBL): Lactantius, Ira 4.6 (CSEL 27.1:72; trans. Sophia Scriptura, https://sophiascriptura.com/fathers/lactantius-ira/1-1/#p-4-6).
BibTeX · RIS (whole work; this passage's key: sophiascriptura-lactantius-ira-4-6) · Report an error
Translation: Translated by Claude from the Latin text of CSEL 27.1; made independently of existing English translations.
4.7CSEL 27.1:72–73
denique Marcus Tullius a Posidonio dictum refert id Epicurum sensisse, nullos deos esse, sed ea quae de dis locutus sit depellendae inuidiae causa dixisse: itaque uerbis illum deos relinquere, re autem ipsa tollere, quibus nullum motum, nullum tribuit officium.
Indeed, Marcus Tullius reports that Posidonius said Epicurus held that there are no gods, but that he said what he said about the gods to avert odium: so in words he left the gods, but in reality he took them away, since he assigned them no motion and no office.
Notes and citation
Summary: Cicero reports Posidonius's view that Epicurus was really an atheist who kept the gods in name only.
- Cicero, Nat. d. 1.123 (and 1.85).
Extrabiblical texts: Cicero, Nat. d. 1.123 (Cicero; allusion)
Cite (SBL): Lactantius, Ira 4.7 (CSEL 27.1:72–73; trans. Sophia Scriptura, https://sophiascriptura.com/fathers/lactantius-ira/1-1/#p-4-7).
BibTeX · RIS (whole work; this passage's key: sophiascriptura-lactantius-ira-4-7) · Report an error
Translation: Translated by Claude from the Latin text of CSEL 27.1; made independently of existing English translations.
4.8CSEL 27.1:73
quod si ita est, quid eo fallacius? quod a sapienti et graui uiro esse debet alienum. hic uero si aliud sensit et aliud locutus est, quid aliud appellandus est quam deceptor bilinguis malus et propterea stultus?
If that is so, what is more deceitful than he? Such a thing ought to be foreign to a wise and serious man. But if he thought one thing and said another, what else is he to be called than a double-tongued deceiver, wicked, and therefore foolish?
Notes and citation
Summary: If Epicurus said one thing and meant another, he was a double-tongued deceiver.
Cite (SBL): Lactantius, Ira 4.8 (CSEL 27.1:73; trans. Sophia Scriptura, https://sophiascriptura.com/fathers/lactantius-ira/1-1/#p-4-8).
BibTeX · RIS (whole work; this passage's key: sophiascriptura-lactantius-ira-4-8) · Report an error
Translation: Translated by Claude from the Latin text of CSEL 27.1; made independently of existing English translations.
4.9CSEL 27.1:73
sed non erat tam uersutus Epicurus, ut fallendi studio ista loqueretur, cum haec etiam scriptis ad aeternam memoriam consignaret, sed ignorantia ueritatis errauit. inductus enim a principio ueri similitudine unius sententiae, necessario in ea quae sequebantur incurrit.
But Epicurus was not so crafty as to say these things from a desire to deceive, since he committed them to writing as an eternal record; rather, he erred through ignorance of the truth. For, led on from the beginning by the plausibility of one opinion, he necessarily ran into the things that followed.
Notes and citation
Summary: Epicurus erred not by deceit but by following one plausible premise to its consequences.
Cite (SBL): Lactantius, Ira 4.9 (CSEL 27.1:73; trans. Sophia Scriptura, https://sophiascriptura.com/fathers/lactantius-ira/1-1/#p-4-9).
BibTeX · RIS (whole work; this passage's key: sophiascriptura-lactantius-ira-4-9) · Report an error
Translation: Translated by Claude from the Latin text of CSEL 27.1; made independently of existing English translations.
4.10CSEL 27.1:73
prima autem sententia fuit iram in deum non conuenire. quod cum illi uerum et inexpugnabile uideretur, non poterat consequentia resecare, quia uno adfectu amputato etiam ceteros adfectus adimere deo necessitas ipsa cogebat.
His first opinion was that anger does not befit God. Since this seemed to him true and unassailable, he could not cut off the consequences, because, once one emotion was cut away, necessity itself forced him to take the other emotions from God as well.
Notes and citation
Summary: Having denied God anger, Epicurus was forced to deny him every emotion.
Cite (SBL): Lactantius, Ira 4.10 (CSEL 27.1:73; trans. Sophia Scriptura, https://sophiascriptura.com/fathers/lactantius-ira/1-1/#p-4-10).
BibTeX · RIS (whole work; this passage's key: sophiascriptura-lactantius-ira-4-10) · Report an error
Translation: Translated by Claude from the Latin text of CSEL 27.1; made independently of existing English translations.
4.11CSEL 27.1:73
ita qui non irascitur, utique nec gratia mouetur, quod est irae contrarium; iam si nec ira in eo nec gratia est, utique nec metus nec laetitia nec maeror nec misericordia.
Thus one who is not angry is certainly not moved by favor either, which is the opposite of anger; and if there is neither anger nor favor in him, then certainly neither fear nor joy nor grief nor pity.
Notes and citation
Summary: Without anger there is no favor, and then no joy, grief, or pity either.
Cite (SBL): Lactantius, Ira 4.11 (CSEL 27.1:73; trans. Sophia Scriptura, https://sophiascriptura.com/fathers/lactantius-ira/1-1/#p-4-11).
BibTeX · RIS (whole work; this passage's key: sophiascriptura-lactantius-ira-4-11) · Report an error
Translation: Translated by Claude from the Latin text of CSEL 27.1; made independently of existing English translations.
4.12CSEL 27.1:73
una est enim ratio cunctis adfectibus, una commotio, quae in deum cadere non potest. quod si nullus adfectus in deo est, quia quidquid adficitur inbecillum est, ergo nec cura ullius rei nec prouidentia est in eo.
For all emotions have one principle, one motion, which cannot befall God. But if there is no emotion in God, because whatever is affected is weak, then there is neither care for anything nor providence in him.
Notes and citation
Summary: If God has no emotion, he has no care or providence either.
Cite (SBL): Lactantius, Ira 4.12 (CSEL 27.1:73; trans. Sophia Scriptura, https://sophiascriptura.com/fathers/lactantius-ira/1-1/#p-4-12).
BibTeX · RIS (whole work; this passage's key: sophiascriptura-lactantius-ira-4-12) · Report an error
Translation: Translated by Claude from the Latin text of CSEL 27.1; made independently of existing English translations.
4.13CSEL 27.1:73–74
hucusque peruenit sapientis hominis disputatio, cetera quae secuntur obticuit, scilicet quia nec cura sit in eo nec prouidentia, ergo nec cogitationem aliquam nec sensum in eo esse ullum: quo efficitur ut non sit omnino. ita cum gradatim descendisset, in extremo gradu restitit, quia iam praecipitium uidebat.
So far the wise man's argument went; the rest that follows he passed over in silence: namely, that since there is neither care nor providence in him, therefore there is no thought or sense of any kind in him either; from which it follows that he does not exist at all. So, having gone down step by step, he stopped on the last step, because he now saw the precipice.
Notes and citation
Summary: Epicurus stopped short of the conclusion his argument required: that God does not exist.
Cite (SBL): Lactantius, Ira 4.13 (CSEL 27.1:73–74; trans. Sophia Scriptura, https://sophiascriptura.com/fathers/lactantius-ira/1-1/#p-4-13).
BibTeX · RIS (whole work; this passage's key: sophiascriptura-lactantius-ira-4-13) · Report an error
Translation: Translated by Claude from the Latin text of CSEL 27.1; made independently of existing English translations.
4.14CSEL 27.1:74
sed quid prodest reticuisse ac periculum dissimulasse? necessitas illum uel inuitum cadere coegit: dixit enim quod noluit, quia argumentum sic ordinauit, ut ad illud quod deuitabat necessario deueniret. uides igitur quo perueniat, ira sublata et deo adempta.
But what use was it to keep silent and hide the danger? Necessity forced him to fall even against his will; for he said what he did not want to say, because he arranged his argument in such a way that he necessarily came to what he was avoiding. You see, then, where it leads when anger is removed and taken away from God.
Notes and citation
Summary: His silence could not save him: denying God's anger ends in denying God.
Cite (SBL): Lactantius, Ira 4.14 (CSEL 27.1:74; trans. Sophia Scriptura, https://sophiascriptura.com/fathers/lactantius-ira/1-1/#p-4-14).
BibTeX · RIS (whole work; this passage's key: sophiascriptura-lactantius-ira-4-14) · Report an error
Translation: Translated by Claude from the Latin text of CSEL 27.1; made independently of existing English translations.
4.15CSEL 27.1:74
denique aut nullus id credit aut admodum pauci et quidem scelerati ac mali, qui sperant peccatis suis inpunitatem. quod si et hoc falsum esse inuenitur, nec iram in deo esse nec gratiam, ueniamus ad illud quod tertio loco positum est.
In fact either no one believes this, or very few, and those wicked and evil men who hope for impunity for their sins. But if this too is found to be false, that there is neither anger nor favor in God, let us come to the view placed in the third position.
Notes and citation
Summary: Only the wicked, hoping to sin unpunished, believe it; Lactantius turns to the third view.
Cite (SBL): Lactantius, Ira 4.15 (CSEL 27.1:74; trans. Sophia Scriptura, https://sophiascriptura.com/fathers/lactantius-ira/1-1/#p-4-15).
BibTeX · RIS (whole work; this passage's key: sophiascriptura-lactantius-ira-4-15) · Report an error
Translation: Translated by Claude from the Latin text of CSEL 27.1; made independently of existing English translations.
Chapter 5
5.1CSEL 27.1:74
Existimantur Stoici et alii nonnulli aliquanto melius de diuinitate sensisse, qui aiunt gratiam in deo esse, iram non esse.
The Stoics and some others are thought to have held a rather better view of the divinity, who say that there is favor in God but not anger.
Notes and citation
Summary: The Stoics and others hold that God has kindness but no anger.
Cite (SBL): Lactantius, Ira 5.1 (CSEL 27.1:74; trans. Sophia Scriptura, https://sophiascriptura.com/fathers/lactantius-ira/1-1/#p-5-1).
BibTeX · RIS (whole work; this passage's key: sophiascriptura-lactantius-ira-5-1) · Report an error
Translation: Translated by Claude from the Latin text of CSEL 27.1; made independently of existing English translations.
5.2CSEL 27.1:74
fauorabilis admodum ac popularis oratio, non cadere in deum hanc animi pusillitatem, ut ab ullo se laesum putet qui laedi non potest, ut quieta illa et sancta maiestas concitetur perturbetur insaniat, quod est terrenae fragilitatis: iram enim commotionem mentis esse ac perturbationem, quae sit a deo aliena.
It is a very attractive and popular argument: that this littleness of spirit does not befall God, that he should think himself injured by anyone, when he cannot be injured; that that tranquil and holy majesty should be roused, disturbed, and made mad, which belongs to earthly frailty. For anger, they say, is a commotion and disturbance of mind, which is foreign to God.
Notes and citation
Summary: Their popular argument is that anger is a disturbance of mind, unworthy of the calm and holy God.
Cite (SBL): Lactantius, Ira 5.2 (CSEL 27.1:74; trans. Sophia Scriptura, https://sophiascriptura.com/fathers/lactantius-ira/1-1/#p-5-2).
BibTeX · RIS (whole work; this passage's key: sophiascriptura-lactantius-ira-5-2) · Report an error
Translation: Translated by Claude from the Latin text of CSEL 27.1; made independently of existing English translations.
5.3CSEL 27.1:74–75
quod si hominem quoque, qui modo sit sapiens et grauis, ira non deceat, siquidem cum in animum cuiusque incidit, uelut saeua tempestas tantos excitet fluctus, ut statum mentis inmutet, ardescant oculi, tremat os, lingua titubet, dentes concrepent, alternis uultum maculet nunc suffusus rubor nunc pallor albescens, quanto magis deum non deceat tam foeda mutatio?
And if anger does not befit even a man, provided he is wise and serious, since when it falls upon anyone's mind it raises, like a savage storm, such great waves that it changes the state of the mind; the eyes blaze, the mouth trembles, the tongue stammers, the teeth chatter, and the face is stained by turns now with a flush of red, now with a whitening pallor, how much less does so foul a change befit God?
Notes and citation
Summary: If anger, with its blazing eyes and trembling lips, disgraces a wise man, how much more would it disgrace God?
- The description of the angry man resembles Seneca, De ira 1.1.3–4 (uncertain).
Cite (SBL): Lactantius, Ira 5.3 (CSEL 27.1:74–75; trans. Sophia Scriptura, https://sophiascriptura.com/fathers/lactantius-ira/1-1/#p-5-3).
BibTeX · RIS (whole work; this passage's key: sophiascriptura-lactantius-ira-5-3) · Report an error
Translation: Translated by Claude from the Latin text of CSEL 27.1; made independently of existing English translations.
5.4CSEL 27.1:75
et si homo qui habeat imperium ac potestatem, late noceat per iram, sanguinem fundat, urbes subuertat, populos deleat, prouincias ad solitudinem redigat, quanto magis deum qui habeat totius generis humani et ipsius mundi potestatem, perditurum fuisse uniuersa credibile sit, si irasceretur?
And if a man who has command and power does widespread harm through anger, sheds blood, overthrows cities, destroys peoples, and reduces provinces to desolation, how much more credible is it that God, who has power over the whole human race and the world itself, would have destroyed everything if he were angry?
Notes and citation
Summary: An angry ruler destroys cities; an angry God, with power over all, would destroy everything.
Cite (SBL): Lactantius, Ira 5.4 (CSEL 27.1:75; trans. Sophia Scriptura, https://sophiascriptura.com/fathers/lactantius-ira/1-1/#p-5-4).
BibTeX · RIS (whole work; this passage's key: sophiascriptura-lactantius-ira-5-4) · Report an error
Translation: Translated by Claude from the Latin text of CSEL 27.1; made independently of existing English translations.
5.5CSEL 27.1:75
abesse igitur ab eo tam magnum, tam perniciosum malum oportere. et si absit ab eo ira et concitatio, quia et deformis et noxia est, nec cuiquam male faciat, nihil aliud superesse nisi ut sit lenis tranquillus propitius beneficus conseruator.
So great and so pernicious an evil, then, ought to be far from him. And if anger and agitation are far from him, because they are both ugly and harmful, and he does evil to no one, nothing else remains but that he is gentle, calm, gracious, beneficent, and a preserver.
Notes and citation
Summary: Without anger, God would be simply gentle, gracious, and a preserver.
Cite (SBL): Lactantius, Ira 5.5 (CSEL 27.1:75; trans. Sophia Scriptura, https://sophiascriptura.com/fathers/lactantius-ira/1-1/#p-5-5).
BibTeX · RIS (whole work; this passage's key: sophiascriptura-lactantius-ira-5-5) · Report an error
Translation: Translated by Claude from the Latin text of CSEL 27.1; made independently of existing English translations.
5.6CSEL 27.1:75
ita enim demum et communis omnium pater et optimus maximus dici poterit, quod expetit diuina caelestisque natura.
For only so could he be called both the common Father of all and Best and Greatest, which the divine and heavenly nature demands.
Notes and citation
Summary: Only so, they argue, could he be the common Father and the Best and Greatest.
- "Best and Greatest" (optimus maximus) is the traditional title of Jupiter.
Cite (SBL): Lactantius, Ira 5.6 (CSEL 27.1:75; trans. Sophia Scriptura, https://sophiascriptura.com/fathers/lactantius-ira/1-1/#p-5-6).
BibTeX · RIS (whole work; this passage's key: sophiascriptura-lactantius-ira-5-6) · Report an error
Translation: Translated by Claude from the Latin text of CSEL 27.1; made independently of existing English translations.
5.7CSEL 27.1:75
nam si inter homines laudabile uidetur prodesse potius quam nocere, uiuificare quam occidere, saluare quam perdere nec inmerito innocentia inter uirtutes numeratur et qui haec fecerit, diligitur praefertur ornatur benedictis omnibus uotisque celebratur. denique ob merita et beneficia deo simillimus iudicatur, quanto magis ipsum deum par est diuinis perfectisque uirtutibus praecellentem atque ab omni labe terrena submotum diuinis et caelestibus beneficiis omne genus hominum promereri?
For if among men it seems praiseworthy to help rather than to harm, to give life rather than to kill, to save rather than to destroy, and innocence is not undeservedly counted among the virtues, and whoever has done these things is loved, preferred, honored, and celebrated with every blessing and prayer, and in the end, because of his merits and benefits, is judged most like God: how much more fitting is it that God himself, excelling in divine and perfect virtues and removed from every earthly stain, should win the gratitude of the whole human race by divine and heavenly benefits?
Notes and citation
Summary: If a benefactor among men is praised as godlike, how much more should God himself be purely a benefactor?
Cite (SBL): Lactantius, Ira 5.7 (CSEL 27.1:75; trans. Sophia Scriptura, https://sophiascriptura.com/fathers/lactantius-ira/1-1/#p-5-7).
BibTeX · RIS (whole work; this passage's key: sophiascriptura-lactantius-ira-5-7) · Report an error
Translation: Translated by Claude from the Latin text of CSEL 27.1; made independently of existing English translations.
5.8CSEL 27.1:75
speciose ista populariterque dicuntur et multos inliciunt ad credendum, sed qui haec sentiunt, ad ueritatem quidem propius accedunt, sed in parte labuntur naturam rei parum considerantes.
These things are said attractively and popularly, and they lure many to believe; but those who hold this view come nearer to the truth indeed, yet slip in part, not considering sufficiently the nature of the matter.
Notes and citation
Summary: This view is closer to the truth but still mistaken.
Cite (SBL): Lactantius, Ira 5.8 (CSEL 27.1:75; trans. Sophia Scriptura, https://sophiascriptura.com/fathers/lactantius-ira/1-1/#p-5-8).
BibTeX · RIS (whole work; this passage's key: sophiascriptura-lactantius-ira-5-8) · Report an error
Translation: Translated by Claude from the Latin text of CSEL 27.1; made independently of existing English translations.
5.9CSEL 27.1:75–76
nam si deus non irascitur inpiis et iniustis, nec pios utique iustosque diligit. ergo constantior est error illorum qui et iram simul et gratiam tollunt. in rebus enim diuersis aut in utramque partem moueri necesse est aut in neutram.
For if God is not angry with the impious and unjust, he certainly does not love the pious and just either. So the error of those who take away both anger and favor at once is more consistent. For in opposite things one must be moved either to both sides or to neither.
Notes and citation
Summary: If God is not angry with the wicked, he cannot love the righteous; with opposites, it is both or neither.
Cite (SBL): Lactantius, Ira 5.9 (CSEL 27.1:75–76; trans. Sophia Scriptura, https://sophiascriptura.com/fathers/lactantius-ira/1-1/#p-5-9).
BibTeX · RIS (whole work; this passage's key: sophiascriptura-lactantius-ira-5-9) · Report an error
Translation: Translated by Claude from the Latin text of CSEL 27.1; made independently of existing English translations.
5.10CSEL 27.1:76
ita qui bonos diligit, et malos odit, et qui malos non odit, nec bonos diligit, quia et diligere bonos ex odio malorum uenit et malos odisse ex bonorum caritate descendit.
So one who loves the good hates the bad too, and one who does not hate the bad does not love the good either; because loving the good comes from hatred of the bad, and hating the bad comes down from love of the good.
Ps 45:7 (44:8 Vulg.) (echo, low confidence)
Notes and citation
Summary: Love of the good and hatred of evil go together.
Topics: Ethics
Cite (SBL): Lactantius, Ira 5.10 (CSEL 27.1:76; trans. Sophia Scriptura, https://sophiascriptura.com/fathers/lactantius-ira/1-1/#p-5-10).
BibTeX · RIS (whole work; this passage's key: sophiascriptura-lactantius-ira-5-10) · Report an error
Translation: Translated by Claude from the Latin text of CSEL 27.1; made independently of existing English translations.
5.11CSEL 27.1:76
nemo est qui amet uitam sine odio mortis, nec adpetit lucem nisi qui tenebras fugit: adeo natura ista conexa sunt, ut alterum sine altero fieri nequeat.
There is no one who loves life without hating death, and no one seeks light except him who flees darkness: so closely are these things joined by nature that one cannot be without the other.
Notes and citation
Summary: As loving life means hating death, loving good means hating evil.
Cite (SBL): Lactantius, Ira 5.11 (CSEL 27.1:76; trans. Sophia Scriptura, https://sophiascriptura.com/fathers/lactantius-ira/1-1/#p-5-11).
BibTeX · RIS (whole work; this passage's key: sophiascriptura-lactantius-ira-5-11) · Report an error
Translation: Translated by Claude from the Latin text of CSEL 27.1; made independently of existing English translations.
5.12CSEL 27.1:76
si quis dominus habet in familia seruos bonum ac malum, utique non aut ambos odit aut ambos beneficiis et honore prosequitur — quod si faciat, et iniquus et stultus est —, sed bonum et adloquitur amice et ornat et domui ac familiae suisque rebus omnibus praeficit, malum uero maledictis uerberibus nuditate fame siti conpedibus punit, ut et hic exemplo ceteris sit ad non peccandum et ille ad promerendum, ut alios metus coerceat, alios honor prouocet.
If a master has a good slave and a bad one in his household, he certainly does not either hate both or pursue both with kindnesses and honor (if he did, he would be both unjust and foolish); but the good one he speaks to in a friendly way, honors, and puts in charge of his house and household and all his affairs, while the bad one he punishes with reproaches, blows, nakedness, hunger, thirst, and fetters, so that the latter may be an example to the rest not to sin and the former an example of deserving well, so that fear may restrain some and honor spur on others.
Matt 24:45 (echo, low confidence)
Notes and citation
Summary: A master rewards a good slave and punishes a bad one, so that both serve as examples to others.
Cite (SBL): Lactantius, Ira 5.12 (CSEL 27.1:76; trans. Sophia Scriptura, https://sophiascriptura.com/fathers/lactantius-ira/1-1/#p-5-12).
BibTeX · RIS (whole work; this passage's key: sophiascriptura-lactantius-ira-5-12) · Report an error
Translation: Translated by Claude from the Latin text of CSEL 27.1; made independently of existing English translations.
5.13CSEL 27.1:76
qui ergo diligit. et odit, qui odit, et diligit: sunt enim qui diligi debeant.
He, then, who loves also hates, and he who hates also loves: for there are those who ought to be loved,
Notes and citation
Summary: Whoever loves also hates; some deserve love,
Cite (SBL): Lactantius, Ira 5.13 (CSEL 27.1:76; trans. Sophia Scriptura, https://sophiascriptura.com/fathers/lactantius-ira/1-1/#p-5-13).
BibTeX · RIS (whole work; this passage's key: sophiascriptura-lactantius-ira-5-13) · Report an error
Translation: Translated by Claude from the Latin text of CSEL 27.1; made independently of existing English translations.
5.14CSEL 27.1:76
sunt qui odio haberi. et sicut is qui diligit, confert bona in eos quos diligit, ita qui odit, inrogat mala iis quos odio habet: quod argumentum quia uerum est, dissolui nullo pacto potest.
and there are those who ought to be held in hatred. And just as one who loves confers good things on those he loves, so one who hates inflicts evils on those he holds in hatred; and since this argument is true, it can in no way be refuted.
Notes and citation
Summary: and some deserve hatred; love confers good and hatred inflicts evil.
Cite (SBL): Lactantius, Ira 5.14 (CSEL 27.1:76; trans. Sophia Scriptura, https://sophiascriptura.com/fathers/lactantius-ira/1-1/#p-5-14).
BibTeX · RIS (whole work; this passage's key: sophiascriptura-lactantius-ira-5-14) · Report an error
Translation: Translated by Claude from the Latin text of CSEL 27.1; made independently of existing English translations.
5.15CSEL 27.1:76
uana ergo et falsa est sententia eorum qui cum alterum deo tribuant, alterum detrahunt, non minus <quam> illorum qui utrumque detrahunt. sed illi, ut ostendimus, ex parte non errant, sed id quod melius est e duobus retinent, hi uero, quos ratio et ueritas argumenti huius inducit, falsa omnino sententia suscepta in maximum errorem cadunt.
Vain and false, then, is the opinion of those who, attributing one to God, take away the other, no less than that of those who take away both. But the former, as we have shown, are not wrong in part, but keep the better of the two; while the latter, led on by the logic and truth of this argument, fall into the greatest error, having taken up a wholly false opinion.
Notes and citation
Summary: Both views are false, though the Stoics at least keep the better half; the Epicureans fall into total error.
- The angle brackets mark a word supplied by the editor.
Cite (SBL): Lactantius, Ira 5.15 (CSEL 27.1:76; trans. Sophia Scriptura, https://sophiascriptura.com/fathers/lactantius-ira/1-1/#p-5-15).
BibTeX · RIS (whole work; this passage's key: sophiascriptura-lactantius-ira-5-15) · Report an error
Translation: Translated by Claude from the Latin text of CSEL 27.1; made independently of existing English translations.
5.16CSEL 27.1:76–77
non enim sic oportebat eos argumentari: quia deus non irascitur, ergo nec gratia commouetur, sed ita: quia gratia deus <com>mouetur, ergo et irascitur. si enim certum et indubitatum fuisset non irasci deum, tunc ad illud alterum ueniri esset necesse.
For they ought not to have argued thus: “Since God is not angry, therefore he is not moved by favor either”; but thus: “Since God is moved by favor, therefore he is also angry.” For if it had been certain and beyond doubt that God is not angry, then one would necessarily have come to that other conclusion.
Notes and citation
Summary: Epicurus should have argued the other way: since God shows favor, he must also be angry.
- The angle brackets mark letters supplied by the editor.
Notes on the original text
- Digital text corrected (stray character in the digital text): non » enim → non enim.
Cite (SBL): Lactantius, Ira 5.16 (CSEL 27.1:76–77; trans. Sophia Scriptura, https://sophiascriptura.com/fathers/lactantius-ira/1-1/#p-5-16).
BibTeX · RIS (whole work; this passage's key: sophiascriptura-lactantius-ira-5-16) · Report an error
Translation: Translated by Claude from the Latin text of CSEL 27.1; made independently of existing English translations.
5.17CSEL 27.1:77
cum autem magis sit ambiguum de ira, paene manifestum de gratia, absurdum est ex incerto certum uelle subuertere, cum sit promptius de certis incerta firmare.
But since the matter of anger is more doubtful, and that of favor almost manifest, it is absurd to want to overturn the certain from the uncertain, when it is readier to confirm the uncertain from the certain.
Notes and citation
Summary: One should reason from the certain (God's kindness) to the uncertain (his anger), not the reverse.
Cite (SBL): Lactantius, Ira 5.17 (CSEL 27.1:77; trans. Sophia Scriptura, https://sophiascriptura.com/fathers/lactantius-ira/1-1/#p-5-17).
BibTeX · RIS (whole work; this passage's key: sophiascriptura-lactantius-ira-5-17) · Report an error
Translation: Translated by Claude from the Latin text of CSEL 27.1; made independently of existing English translations.
Chapter 6
6.1CSEL 27.1:77
Hae sunt de deo philosophorum sententiae, aliud praeterea nihil quisquam dixit. quod si haec quae dicta sunt, falsa esse deprehendimus, unum illud extremum superest in quo solo possit ueritas inueniri, quod a philosophis nec susceptum est umquam nec aliquando defensum, consequens esse ut irascatur deus, quoniam gratia commouetur.
These are the opinions of the philosophers about God; no one has said anything else besides. And if we find the things that have been said to be false, that one last view remains in which alone the truth can be found, which the philosophers have never taken up or at any time defended: that it follows that God is angry, since he is moved by favor.
Notes and citation
Summary: Since the other views fail, the truth must be the one no philosopher defended: God shows favor and therefore also anger.
Cite (SBL): Lactantius, Ira 6.1 (CSEL 27.1:77; trans. Sophia Scriptura, https://sophiascriptura.com/fathers/lactantius-ira/1-1/#p-6-1).
BibTeX · RIS (whole work; this passage's key: sophiascriptura-lactantius-ira-6-1) · Report an error
Translation: Translated by Claude from the Latin text of CSEL 27.1; made independently of existing English translations.
6.2CSEL 27.1:77
haec tuenda nobis et adserenda sententia est: in eo enim summa omnis et cardo religionis pietatisque uersatur. nam neque honos ullus deberi potest deo, si nihil praestat colenti, nec ullus metus, si non irascitur non colenti.
This opinion must be maintained and asserted by us: for on it turns the whole sum and hinge of religion and piety. For neither can any honor be owed to God if he gives nothing to him who worships, nor any fear if he is not angry with him who does not worship.
Notes and citation
Summary: This is the hinge of religion: without favor God deserves no honor, and without anger no fear.
Cite (SBL): Lactantius, Ira 6.2 (CSEL 27.1:77; trans. Sophia Scriptura, https://sophiascriptura.com/fathers/lactantius-ira/1-1/#p-6-2).
BibTeX · RIS (whole work; this passage's key: sophiascriptura-lactantius-ira-6-2) · Report an error
Translation: Translated by Claude from the Latin text of CSEL 27.1; made independently of existing English translations.
Chapter 7
7.1CSEL 27.1:77
Cum saepe philosophi per ignorantiam ueritatis a ratione desciuerint atque in errores inciderint inextricabiles — id enim solet his euenire quod uiatori uiam nescienti et non fatenti se ignorare, ut uagetur, dum percontari obuios erubescit —, illud tamen nullus philosophus adseruit umquam, nihil inter hominem ac pecudes interesse.
Although the philosophers, through ignorance of the truth, have often departed from reason and fallen into inextricable errors (for the same thing usually happens to them as to a traveler who does not know the way and will not admit that he does not know it, so that he wanders about while he is ashamed to ask those he meets), yet no philosopher ever asserted that there is no difference between man and the beasts.
Notes and citation
Summary: Philosophers have erred much, but none ever said that man is no different from the beasts.
Cite (SBL): Lactantius, Ira 7.1 (CSEL 27.1:77; trans. Sophia Scriptura, https://sophiascriptura.com/fathers/lactantius-ira/1-1/#p-7-1).
BibTeX · RIS (whole work; this passage's key: sophiascriptura-lactantius-ira-7-1) · Report an error
Translation: Translated by Claude from the Latin text of CSEL 27.1; made independently of existing English translations.
7.2CSEL 27.1:77–78
nec omnino quisquam, qui modo uel leuiter sapiens uideri uellet, rationale animal cum mutis et inrationabilibus coaequauit: quod faciunt quidam inperiti atque ipsis pecudibus similes, qui cum uentri ac uoluptati se uelint tradere, aiunt eadem ratione se natos qua uniuersa quae spirant; quod dici ab homine fas non est.
Nor indeed has anyone who wished to seem even slightly wise made the rational animal equal to the dumb and irrational ones. This is done by certain ignorant men, like the beasts themselves, who, wishing to give themselves up to the belly and to pleasure, say they were born on the same principle as all things that breathe: which it is not right for a man to say.
Notes and citation
Summary: Only ignorant, beastlike men who want to live for pleasure say they are no different from animals.
Notes on the original text
- Digital text corrected (stray letter in the digital text): faciunt M quidam → faciunt quidam.
Cite (SBL): Lactantius, Ira 7.2 (CSEL 27.1:77–78; trans. Sophia Scriptura, https://sophiascriptura.com/fathers/lactantius-ira/1-1/#p-7-2).
BibTeX · RIS (whole work; this passage's key: sophiascriptura-lactantius-ira-7-2) · Report an error
Translation: Translated by Claude from the Latin text of CSEL 27.1; made independently of existing English translations.
7.3CSEL 27.1:78
quis enim tam indoctus ut nesciat, quis tam inprudens ut non sentiat inesse aliquid in homine diuini?
For who is so unlearned as not to know, who so imprudent as not to perceive, that there is something divine in man?
Notes and citation
Summary: Everyone can see that there is something divine in man.
Cite (SBL): Lactantius, Ira 7.3 (CSEL 27.1:78; trans. Sophia Scriptura, https://sophiascriptura.com/fathers/lactantius-ira/1-1/#p-7-3).
BibTeX · RIS (whole work; this passage's key: sophiascriptura-lactantius-ira-7-3) · Report an error
Translation: Translated by Claude from the Latin text of CSEL 27.1; made independently of existing English translations.
7.4CSEL 27.1:78
nondum uenio ad uirtutes animi et ingenii, quibus homini cum deo manifesta cognatio est: nonne ipsius corporis status et oris figura declarat non esse nos cum mutis pecudibus aequales? illarum natura in humum pabulumque prostrata est nec habet quicquam commune cum caelo, quod non intuetur.
I do not yet come to the virtues of the soul and intellect, by which man has a manifest kinship with God: does not the very posture of the body and the shape of the face declare that we are not equal with the dumb beasts? Their nature is bent down toward the ground and their fodder and has nothing in common with heaven, which it does not look upon.
Notes and citation
Summary: Even man's upright body shows he is not a beast, whose nature is bent toward the ground.
Cite (SBL): Lactantius, Ira 7.4 (CSEL 27.1:78; trans. Sophia Scriptura, https://sophiascriptura.com/fathers/lactantius-ira/1-1/#p-7-4).
BibTeX · RIS (whole work; this passage's key: sophiascriptura-lactantius-ira-7-4) · Report an error
Translation: Translated by Claude from the Latin text of CSEL 27.1; made independently of existing English translations.
7.5CSEL 27.1:78
homo autem recto statu, ore sublimi ad contemplationem mundi excitatus confert cum deo uultum et rationem ratio cognoscit.
But man, raised up with upright posture and lofty face to the contemplation of the world, compares his countenance with God, and reason recognizes reason.
Notes and citation
Summary: Upright man looks toward heaven, and his reason recognizes God's reason.
- Compare Ovid, Metam. 1.84–86, and Lactantius, Opif. 8.2.
Extrabiblical texts: Ovid, Metam. 1.84–86 (Ovid; echo)
Cite (SBL): Lactantius, Ira 7.5 (CSEL 27.1:78; trans. Sophia Scriptura, https://sophiascriptura.com/fathers/lactantius-ira/1-1/#p-7-5).
BibTeX · RIS (whole work; this passage's key: sophiascriptura-lactantius-ira-7-5) · Report an error
Translation: Translated by Claude from the Latin text of CSEL 27.1; made independently of existing English translations.
7.6CSEL 27.1:78
propterea nullum est animal, ut ait Cicero, praeter hominem quod habeat notitiam aliquam dei. solus enim sapientia instructus est, ut religionem solus intellegat, et haec est hominis atque mutorum uel praecipua uel sola distantia.
Therefore there is no animal, as Cicero says, except man that has any knowledge of God. For he alone is furnished with wisdom so that he alone may understand religion; and this is either the chief or the only difference between man and the dumb animals.
Notes and citation
Summary: As Cicero says, man alone knows God; religion is the chief, perhaps only, difference between men and beasts.
- Cicero, Leg. 1.24.
Extrabiblical texts: Cicero, Leg. 1.24 (Cicero; allusion)
Cite (SBL): Lactantius, Ira 7.6 (CSEL 27.1:78; trans. Sophia Scriptura, https://sophiascriptura.com/fathers/lactantius-ira/1-1/#p-7-6).
BibTeX · RIS (whole work; this passage's key: sophiascriptura-lactantius-ira-7-6) · Report an error
Translation: Translated by Claude from the Latin text of CSEL 27.1; made independently of existing English translations.
7.7CSEL 27.1:78
nam cetera quae uidentur esse homini propria, etsi non sunt talia in mutis, tamen similia uideri possunt. proprius est homini sermo, est tamen et in illis quaedam similitudo sermonis. nam et dinoscunt inuicem se uocibus et cum irascuntur, edunt sonum iurgio similem et cum se ex interuallo uident, gratulandi officium uoce declarant.
For the other things that seem proper to man, though they are not such in the dumb animals, can nevertheless seem similar. Speech is proper to man, yet there is in them also a certain likeness of speech. For they recognize one another by their voices, and when they are angry they give out a sound like quarreling, and when they see one another after an interval, they declare the courtesy of greeting by their voice.
Notes and citation
Summary: Animals have something like speech: they recognize, quarrel with, and greet one another by sounds.
Cite (SBL): Lactantius, Ira 7.7 (CSEL 27.1:78; trans. Sophia Scriptura, https://sophiascriptura.com/fathers/lactantius-ira/1-1/#p-7-7).
BibTeX · RIS (whole work; this passage's key: sophiascriptura-lactantius-ira-7-7) · Report an error
Translation: Translated by Claude from the Latin text of CSEL 27.1; made independently of existing English translations.
7.8CSEL 27.1:78–79
nobis quidem uoces eorum uidentur inconditae sicut et illis fortasse nostrae, sed ipsis quia se intellegunt, uerba sunt. denique in omni adfectu certas uoces notis exprimunt quibus habitum mentis ostendant.
To us their voices seem inarticulate, as perhaps ours do to them; but to them, since they understand one another, they are words. In fact, in every emotion they express fixed sounds as signs by which they show the state of their mind.
Notes and citation
Summary: Their sounds, meaningless to us, are words to them.
Cite (SBL): Lactantius, Ira 7.8 (CSEL 27.1:78–79; trans. Sophia Scriptura, https://sophiascriptura.com/fathers/lactantius-ira/1-1/#p-7-8).
BibTeX · RIS (whole work; this passage's key: sophiascriptura-lactantius-ira-7-8) · Report an error
Translation: Translated by Claude from the Latin text of CSEL 27.1; made independently of existing English translations.
7.9CSEL 27.1:79
risus quoque est homini proprius et tamen uidemus in aliis animalibus quaedam signa laetitiae, cum ad lusum gestiunt, aures demulcent, rictum contrahunt, frontem serenant, oculos in lasciuiam resoluunt.
Laughter too is proper to man, and yet we see in other animals certain signs of joy, when they frisk about in play, lay back their ears, draw back their mouths, smooth their brows, and relax their eyes in playfulness.
Notes and citation
Summary: Animals too show signs of joy that resemble laughter.
Cite (SBL): Lactantius, Ira 7.9 (CSEL 27.1:79; trans. Sophia Scriptura, https://sophiascriptura.com/fathers/lactantius-ira/1-1/#p-7-9).
BibTeX · RIS (whole work; this passage's key: sophiascriptura-lactantius-ira-7-9) · Report an error
Translation: Translated by Claude from the Latin text of CSEL 27.1; made independently of existing English translations.
7.10CSEL 27.1:79
quid tam homini proprium quam ratio et prouidentia futuri? atquin sunt animalia quae latibulis suis diuersos et plures exitus pandant, ut si quod periculum inciderit, fuga pateat obsessis: quod non facerent, nisi inesset illis intellegentia et cogitatio.
What is so proper to man as reason and foresight of the future? And yet there are animals that open several different exits from their dens, so that if any danger arises, escape may lie open to the besieged: which they would not do unless there were understanding and thought in them.
Notes and citation
Summary: Some animals show foresight, digging extra exits from their dens.
Cite (SBL): Lactantius, Ira 7.10 (CSEL 27.1:79; trans. Sophia Scriptura, https://sophiascriptura.com/fathers/lactantius-ira/1-1/#p-7-10).
BibTeX · RIS (whole work; this passage's key: sophiascriptura-lactantius-ira-7-10) · Report an error
Translation: Translated by Claude from the Latin text of CSEL 27.1; made independently of existing English translations.
7.11CSEL 27.1:79
alia prouident in futurum, ut ingentem formicae farris aceruum cum populant hiemis memores tectoque reponunt, ut apes, quae patriam solae et certos nouere penates uenturaeque hiemis memores aestate laborem experiuntur et in medium quaesita reponunt.
Others provide for the future, as ants, “when they plunder a huge heap of grain, mindful of winter, and store it under their roof”; as bees, which “alone know a fatherland and a fixed home, and, mindful of the winter to come, undergo labor in summer and store up their gains for the common stock.”
Prov 6:6 (echo, low confidence)
Notes and citation
Summary: Ants and bees, as Virgil says, store up food for winter.
- The quotations are Virgil, Aen. 4.402–403 and Georg. 4.155–157.
Extrabiblical texts: Virgil, Aen. 4.402–403 (Virgil; quotation); Virgil, Georg. 4.155–157 (Virgil; quotation)
Cite (SBL): Lactantius, Ira 7.11 (CSEL 27.1:79; trans. Sophia Scriptura, https://sophiascriptura.com/fathers/lactantius-ira/1-1/#p-7-11).
BibTeX · RIS (whole work; this passage's key: sophiascriptura-lactantius-ira-7-11) · Report an error
Translation: Translated by Claude from the Latin text of CSEL 27.1; made independently of existing English translations.
7.12CSEL 27.1:79
longum est si exsequi uelim quae a singulis generibus animalium fieri soleant humanae sollertiae simillima. quod si horum omnium quae adscribi homini solent, in mutis quoque deprehenditur similitudo, apparet solam esse religionem cuius in mutis nec uestigium aliquod nec ulla suspicio inueniri potest.
It would be long if I wished to go through the things that each kind of animal usually does, most like human skill. But if a likeness of all these things usually ascribed to man is found in the dumb animals too, it is plain that religion alone is the thing of which no trace and no hint can be found in the dumb animals.
Notes and citation
Summary: Animals share a likeness of every human trait except religion, which is found in man alone.
Cite (SBL): Lactantius, Ira 7.12 (CSEL 27.1:79; trans. Sophia Scriptura, https://sophiascriptura.com/fathers/lactantius-ira/1-1/#p-7-12).
BibTeX · RIS (whole work; this passage's key: sophiascriptura-lactantius-ira-7-12) · Report an error
Translation: Translated by Claude from the Latin text of CSEL 27.1; made independently of existing English translations.
7.13CSEL 27.1:79–80
religionis est propria iustitia, quae nullum aliud animal attingit. homo enim solus inpertit, cetera sibi conciliata sunt. iustitiae autem dei cultus adscribitur: quem qui non suscipit, hic a natura hominis alienus uitam pecudum sub humana specie uiuet.
Righteousness is proper to religion, and no other animal attains it. For man alone shares; the other animals are attached only to themselves. And the worship of God is counted as part of righteousness; whoever does not take it up is estranged from the nature of man and will live the life of a beast under human form.
Notes and citation
Summary: Righteousness, which includes the worship of God, belongs to man alone; without it he lives like a beast in human shape.
Topics: Ethics
Cite (SBL): Lactantius, Ira 7.13 (CSEL 27.1:79–80; trans. Sophia Scriptura, https://sophiascriptura.com/fathers/lactantius-ira/1-1/#p-7-13).
BibTeX · RIS (whole work; this passage's key: sophiascriptura-lactantius-ira-7-13) · Report an error
Translation: Translated by Claude from the Latin text of CSEL 27.1; made independently of existing English translations.
7.14CSEL 27.1:80
cum uero a ceteris animalibus hoc paene solo differamus, quod soli omnium diuinam uim potestatemque sentimus, in illis autem nullus sit intellectus dei, certe illud fieri non potest ut in hoc uel muta plus sapiant uel humana natura desipiat, cum homini ob sapientiam et cuncta quae spirant et omnis rerum natura subiecta sit.
But since we differ from the other animals almost in this alone, that we alone of all perceive the divine force and power, while in them there is no understanding of God, it surely cannot be that in this the dumb animals are wiser or human nature foolish, since because of wisdom all things that breathe and the whole of nature have been made subject to man.
Notes and citation
Summary: Since knowing God is what sets man apart, human nature cannot be mistaken in it.
Cite (SBL): Lactantius, Ira 7.14 (CSEL 27.1:80; trans. Sophia Scriptura, https://sophiascriptura.com/fathers/lactantius-ira/1-1/#p-7-14).
BibTeX · RIS (whole work; this passage's key: sophiascriptura-lactantius-ira-7-14) · Report an error
Translation: Translated by Claude from the Latin text of CSEL 27.1; made independently of existing English translations.
7.15CSEL 27.1:80
quare si ratio, si uis hominis hoc praecellit et superat ceteras animantes, quod solus notitiam dei capit, apparet religionem nullo modo posse dissolui.
Therefore, if man's reason and power surpass and excel the other living creatures in this, that he alone receives the knowledge of God, it is clear that religion can in no way be dissolved.
Notes and citation
Summary: Since knowledge of God is man's distinctive mark, religion cannot be abolished.
Cite (SBL): Lactantius, Ira 7.15 (CSEL 27.1:80; trans. Sophia Scriptura, https://sophiascriptura.com/fathers/lactantius-ira/1-1/#p-7-15).
BibTeX · RIS (whole work; this passage's key: sophiascriptura-lactantius-ira-7-15) · Report an error
Translation: Translated by Claude from the Latin text of CSEL 27.1; made independently of existing English translations.
Chapter 8
8.1CSEL 27.1:80
Dissoluitur autem religio, si credamus Epicuro illa dicenti: omnis enim per se diuum natura necesse est inmortali aeuo summa cum pace fruatur semota a nostris rebus seiunctaque longe. nam priuata dolore omni, priuata periclis, ipsa suis pollens opibus, nil indiga nostri, nec bene promeritis capitur neque tangitur ira.
But religion is dissolved if we believe Epicurus when he says: “For the whole nature of the gods must of itself enjoy immortal life in the deepest peace, removed and separated far from our affairs. For, free from all pain, free from dangers, strong in its own resources, needing nothing from us, it is neither won by good service nor touched by anger.”
Notes and citation
Summary: Religion collapses if we accept Epicurus's view, voiced by Lucretius, that the gods live apart, untouched by our service or by anger.
- The quotation is Lucretius 1.44–49 (= 2.646–651), put in Epicurus's mouth.
Notes on the original text
- Digital text corrected (doubled punctuation in the digital text): longe., nam → longe. nam.
Extrabiblical texts: Lucretius, 1.44–49 (Lucretius, On the Nature of Things; quotation); Epicurus (Epicurus (sayings and fragments); allusion)
Cite (SBL): Lactantius, Ira 8.1 (CSEL 27.1:80; trans. Sophia Scriptura, https://sophiascriptura.com/fathers/lactantius-ira/1-1/#p-8-1).
BibTeX · RIS (whole work; this passage's key: sophiascriptura-lactantius-ira-8-1) · Report an error
Translation: Translated by Claude from the Latin text of CSEL 27.1; made independently of existing English translations.
8.2CSEL 27.1:80–81
quae cum dicit, utrum aliquem cultum deo putat esse tribuendum an euertit omnem religionem? si enim deus nihil cuiquam boni tribuit, si colentis obsequio nullam gratiam refert, quid tam uanum, tam stultum quam templa aedificare, sacrificia facere, dona conferre, rem familiarem minuere, ut nihil adsequamur?
When he says this, does he think any worship should be paid to God, or does he overturn all religion? For if God gives no good to anyone, if he returns no favor for the obedience of the worshiper, what is so empty, so foolish, as to build temples, offer sacrifices, bring gifts, and diminish our estates, only to gain nothing?
Notes and citation
Summary: If God gives nothing in return, all worship and offerings are foolish.
Cite (SBL): Lactantius, Ira 8.2 (CSEL 27.1:80–81; trans. Sophia Scriptura, https://sophiascriptura.com/fathers/lactantius-ira/1-1/#p-8-2).
BibTeX · RIS (whole work; this passage's key: sophiascriptura-lactantius-ira-8-2) · Report an error
Translation: Translated by Claude from the Latin text of CSEL 27.1; made independently of existing English translations.
8.3CSEL 27.1:81
at enim naturam excellentem honorari oportet. quis honos deberi potest nihil curanti et ingrato? an aliqua ratione obstricti esse possumus ei qui nihil habeat commune nobiscum? deus inquit Cicero si talis est ut nulla gratia, nulla hominum caritate teneatur, ualeat. quid enim dicam propitius sit? esse enim propitius potest nemini. quid contemptius dici potuit in deum?
“But an excellent nature ought to be honored.” What honor can be owed to one who cares for nothing and is ungrateful? Or can we be bound by any obligation to one who has nothing in common with us? “If God,” says Cicero, “is such that he is held by no favor, no love of men, farewell to him. For why should I say, ‘May he be gracious’? He can be gracious to no one.” What more contemptuous thing could be said of God?
Notes and citation
Summary: As Cicero says, a god who cares for no one deserves only a farewell, since he can be gracious to no one.
- Cicero, Nat. d. 1.124.
Extrabiblical texts: Cicero, Nat. d. 1.124 (Cicero; quotation)
Cite (SBL): Lactantius, Ira 8.3 (CSEL 27.1:81; trans. Sophia Scriptura, https://sophiascriptura.com/fathers/lactantius-ira/1-1/#p-8-3).
BibTeX · RIS (whole work; this passage's key: sophiascriptura-lactantius-ira-8-3) · Report an error
Translation: Translated by Claude from the Latin text of CSEL 27.1; made independently of existing English translations.
8.4CSEL 27.1:81
ualeat inquit, id est abeat ac recedat, quandoquidem prodesse nulli potest.
“Farewell to him,” he says; that is, let him go away and withdraw, since he can help no one.
Notes and citation
Summary: Such a god might as well depart, since he helps no one.
Cite (SBL): Lactantius, Ira 8.4 (CSEL 27.1:81; trans. Sophia Scriptura, https://sophiascriptura.com/fathers/lactantius-ira/1-1/#p-8-4).
BibTeX · RIS (whole work; this passage's key: sophiascriptura-lactantius-ira-8-4) · Report an error
Translation: Translated by Claude from the Latin text of CSEL 27.1; made independently of existing English translations.
8.5CSEL 27.1:81
quod si negotium deus nec habet nec exhibet, cur ergo non delinquamus, quotiens hominum conscientiam fallere licebit ac leges publicas circumscribere? ubicumque nobis latendi occasio adriserit, consulamus rei, auferamus aliena uel sine cruore uel etiam cum sanguine, si praeter leges nihil est amplius quod uerendum sit.
But if God neither has business nor causes it, why then should we not do wrong whenever we can escape men's notice and get round the public laws? Wherever a chance of hiding smiles on us, let us look to our own interest, let us take what belongs to others, either without bloodshed or even with blood, if beyond the laws there is nothing more to be feared.
Notes and citation
Summary: If God does not care, nothing stops us from secret crime whenever we can escape the law.
- "Neither has business nor causes it" echoes Epicurus's maxim quoted at 4.2.
Topics: Ethics
Cite (SBL): Lactantius, Ira 8.5 (CSEL 27.1:81; trans. Sophia Scriptura, https://sophiascriptura.com/fathers/lactantius-ira/1-1/#p-8-5).
BibTeX · RIS (whole work; this passage's key: sophiascriptura-lactantius-ira-8-5) · Report an error
Translation: Translated by Claude from the Latin text of CSEL 27.1; made independently of existing English translations.
8.6CSEL 27.1:81
haec dum sentit Epicurus, religionem funditus delet: qua sublata confusio ac perturbatio uitae sequetur.
In holding these views Epicurus destroys religion utterly; and when it is taken away, confusion and disorder of life will follow.
Notes and citation
Summary: Epicurus's view destroys religion, and with it the order of life.
Cite (SBL): Lactantius, Ira 8.6 (CSEL 27.1:81; trans. Sophia Scriptura, https://sophiascriptura.com/fathers/lactantius-ira/1-1/#p-8-6).
BibTeX · RIS (whole work; this passage's key: sophiascriptura-lactantius-ira-8-6) · Report an error
Translation: Translated by Claude from the Latin text of CSEL 27.1; made independently of existing English translations.
8.7CSEL 27.1:81–82
quod si religio tolli non potest, ut et sapientiam, qua distamus a beluis, et iustitiam retineamus. qua communis uita sit tutior, quomodo religio ipsa sine metu teneri aut custodiri potest? quod enim non metuitur, contemnitur, quod contemnitur, utique non colitur. ita fit ut religio et maiestas et honor metu constet, metus autem non est ubi nullus irascitur.
But if religion cannot be taken away, so that we may keep both wisdom, by which we differ from the beasts, and righteousness, by which common life is safer, how can religion itself be held or guarded without fear? For what is not feared is despised, and what is despised is certainly not worshiped. So it comes about that religion, majesty, and honor rest on fear; but there is no fear where no one is angry.
Notes and citation
Summary: Religion rests on fear, and there is no fear of a God who is never angry.
Cite (SBL): Lactantius, Ira 8.7 (CSEL 27.1:81–82; trans. Sophia Scriptura, https://sophiascriptura.com/fathers/lactantius-ira/1-1/#p-8-7).
BibTeX · RIS (whole work; this passage's key: sophiascriptura-lactantius-ira-8-7) · Report an error
Translation: Translated by Claude from the Latin text of CSEL 27.1; made independently of existing English translations.
8.8CSEL 27.1:82
siue igitur gratiam deo siue iram siue utrumque detraxeris, religionem tolli necesse est, sine qua uita hominum stultitia scelere inmanitate conpletur. multum enim refrenat homines conscientia, si credamus nos in conspectu dei uiuere, si non tantum quae gerimus uideri desuper, sed etiam quae cogitamus aut loquimur audiri a deo putemus.
Whether, then, you take away favor from God, or anger, or both, religion must be removed, and without it the life of men is filled with folly, crime, and savagery. For conscience restrains men greatly if we believe that we live in the sight of God, if we think that not only what we do is seen from above, but also what we think or say is heard by God.
Heb 4:13 (echo, low confidence)
Notes and citation
Summary: Without religion life fills with crime; conscience restrains us when we believe God sees our deeds and hears our thoughts.
Notes on the original text
- Digital text corrected (letter misread in the digital text): iram sine utrumque → iram siue utrumque.
Topics: Ethics
Cite (SBL): Lactantius, Ira 8.8 (CSEL 27.1:82; trans. Sophia Scriptura, https://sophiascriptura.com/fathers/lactantius-ira/1-1/#p-8-8).
BibTeX · RIS (whole work; this passage's key: sophiascriptura-lactantius-ira-8-8) · Report an error
Translation: Translated by Claude from the Latin text of CSEL 27.1; made independently of existing English translations.
8.9CSEL 27.1:82
at enim prodest id credere, ut quidam putant, non ueritatis gratia, sed utilitatis, quoniam leges conscientiam punire non possunt, nisi aliquis desuper terror inpendeat ad cohibenda peccata.
“But it is useful to believe this,” as some think, “not for the sake of truth but of utility, since the laws cannot punish conscience unless some terror hangs over from above to restrain sins.”
Notes and citation
Summary: Some say belief in God is merely useful, a terror from above to restrain secret sin.
Cite (SBL): Lactantius, Ira 8.9 (CSEL 27.1:82; trans. Sophia Scriptura, https://sophiascriptura.com/fathers/lactantius-ira/1-1/#p-8-9).
BibTeX · RIS (whole work; this passage's key: sophiascriptura-lactantius-ira-8-9) · Report an error
Translation: Translated by Claude from the Latin text of CSEL 27.1; made independently of existing English translations.
8.10CSEL 27.1:82
falsa est igitur omnis religio et diuinitas nulla est, sed a uiris prudentibus uniuersa conficta sunt, quo rectius innocentiusque uiuatur. magna haec et a materia quam proposuimus aliena quaestio est, sed quia necessario incidit, debet quamuis breuiter attingi.
“All religion, then, is false, and there is no divinity; everything was made up by prudent men so that life might be lived more rightly and innocently.” This is a great question and foreign to the subject we have proposed; but since it necessarily arises, it ought to be touched on, however briefly.
Notes and citation
Summary: On that view all religion is an invention of wise men to keep order; Lactantius will answer briefly.
- The view that religion was invented by lawgivers is ascribed to Critias (Sisyphus fragment) and reported by Cicero, Nat. d. 1.118.
Cite (SBL): Lactantius, Ira 8.10 (CSEL 27.1:82; trans. Sophia Scriptura, https://sophiascriptura.com/fathers/lactantius-ira/1-1/#p-8-10).
BibTeX · RIS (whole work; this passage's key: sophiascriptura-lactantius-ira-8-10) · Report an error
Translation: Translated by Claude from the Latin text of CSEL 27.1; made independently of existing English translations.
Chapter 9
9.1CSEL 27.1:82
Cum sententiae philosophorum prioris temporis de prouidentia consensissent nec ulla esset dubitatio quin mundus. a deo et ratione esset instructus et ratione regeretur, primus omnium Protagoras extitit temporibus Socratis qui sibi diceret non liquere utrum esset aliqua diuinitas necne.
Although the opinions of the philosophers of former times had agreed about providence, and there was no doubt that the world was furnished by God and by reason and was ruled by reason, Protagoras, in the time of Socrates, was the first of all to arise who said that it was not clear to him whether there was any divinity or not.
Notes and citation
Summary: The early philosophers agreed on providence until Protagoras said he did not know whether there were gods.
- Compare Cicero, Nat. d. 1.63.
Cite (SBL): Lactantius, Ira 9.1 (CSEL 27.1:82; trans. Sophia Scriptura, https://sophiascriptura.com/fathers/lactantius-ira/1-1/#p-9-1).
BibTeX · RIS (whole work; this passage's key: sophiascriptura-lactantius-ira-9-1) · Report an error
Translation: Translated by Claude from the Latin text of CSEL 27.1; made independently of existing English translations.
9.2CSEL 27.1:82–83
quae disputatio eius adeo inpia et contra ueritatem et religionem iudicata est, ut et ipsum Athenienses expulerint suis finibus et libros eius in contione [quibus haec continebantur] exusserint. de cuius sententia non est opus disputare, quia nihil certi pronuntiauit.
This disputation of his was judged so impious and contrary to truth and religion that the Athenians both banished him from their territory and burned his books in the assembly. There is no need to dispute his opinion, because he pronounced nothing certain.
Notes and citation
Summary: The Athenians exiled Protagoras and burned his books; his uncertainty needs no refutation.
- The words in square brackets in the edition (quibus haec continebantur, "in which these things were contained") are marked for deletion and are left out.
Cite (SBL): Lactantius, Ira 9.2 (CSEL 27.1:82–83; trans. Sophia Scriptura, https://sophiascriptura.com/fathers/lactantius-ira/1-1/#p-9-2).
BibTeX · RIS (whole work; this passage's key: sophiascriptura-lactantius-ira-9-2) · Report an error
Translation: Translated by Claude from the Latin text of CSEL 27.1; made independently of existing English translations.
9.3CSEL 27.1:83
post haec Socrates ipse et auditor eius Plato et qui de schola Platonis tamquam riuuli diuersas in partes profluxerunt, Stoici et Peripatetici, in eadem fuere sententia qua priores.
After these, Socrates himself and his hearer Plato, and those who flowed out from the school of Plato like streams in different directions, the Stoics and Peripatetics, were of the same opinion as their predecessors.
Notes and citation
Summary: Socrates, Plato, the Stoics, and the Peripatetics all affirmed providence.
Cite (SBL): Lactantius, Ira 9.3 (CSEL 27.1:83; trans. Sophia Scriptura, https://sophiascriptura.com/fathers/lactantius-ira/1-1/#p-9-3).
BibTeX · RIS (whole work; this passage's key: sophiascriptura-lactantius-ira-9-3) · Report an error
Translation: Translated by Claude from the Latin text of CSEL 27.1; made independently of existing English translations.
9.4CSEL 27.1:83
postea uero Epicurus deum quidem esse dixit, quia necesse sit esse aliquid in mundo praestans et eximium et beatum, prouidentiam tamen nullam: itaque mundum ipsum nec ratione ulla nec arte nec fabrica instructum, sed naturam rerum quibusdam minutis seminibus et insecabilibus conglobatam. quo quid repugnantius dici possit non uideo.
But later Epicurus said that God indeed exists, because there must be something in the world that is excellent, outstanding, and blessed, but that there is no providence: and so the world itself was not furnished by any reason, art, or workmanship, but the nature of things was rolled together out of certain tiny and indivisible seeds. I do not see what more self-contradictory thing could be said.
Notes and citation
Summary: Epicurus admitted a god but denied providence, making the world a chance clumping of atoms, which is self-contradictory.
Extrabiblical texts: Epicurus (Epicurus (sayings and fragments); allusion)
Cite (SBL): Lactantius, Ira 9.4 (CSEL 27.1:83; trans. Sophia Scriptura, https://sophiascriptura.com/fathers/lactantius-ira/1-1/#p-9-4).
BibTeX · RIS (whole work; this passage's key: sophiascriptura-lactantius-ira-9-4) · Report an error
Translation: Translated by Claude from the Latin text of CSEL 27.1; made independently of existing English translations.
9.5CSEL 27.1:83
etenim si est deus, utique prouidens est ut deus nec aliter ei potest diuinitas tribui, nisi et praeterita teneat et praesentia sciat et futura prospiciat.
For if there is a God, he certainly has foresight, as God; nor can divinity be attributed to him in any other way, unless he both holds the past, knows the present, and foresees the future.
Notes and citation
Summary: A God must know past, present, and future; that is providence.
Cite (SBL): Lactantius, Ira 9.5 (CSEL 27.1:83; trans. Sophia Scriptura, https://sophiascriptura.com/fathers/lactantius-ira/1-1/#p-9-5).
BibTeX · RIS (whole work; this passage's key: sophiascriptura-lactantius-ira-9-5) · Report an error
Translation: Translated by Claude from the Latin text of CSEL 27.1; made independently of existing English translations.
9.6CSEL 27.1:83
cum igitur prouidentiam sustulit, etiam deum negauit esse. cum autem deum esse professus est, et prouidentiam simul esse concessit: alterum enim sine altero nec esse prorsus nec intellegi potest.
When, therefore, he took away providence, he also denied that God exists; but when he professed that God exists, he conceded at the same time that providence exists: for the one can neither exist nor be understood at all without the other.
Notes and citation
Summary: God and providence stand or fall together.
Notes on the original text
- Digital text corrected (stray line number in the digital text): etiam 15 deum → etiam deum.
Cite (SBL): Lactantius, Ira 9.6 (CSEL 27.1:83; trans. Sophia Scriptura, https://sophiascriptura.com/fathers/lactantius-ira/1-1/#p-9-6).
BibTeX · RIS (whole work; this passage's key: sophiascriptura-lactantius-ira-9-6) · Report an error
Translation: Translated by Claude from the Latin text of CSEL 27.1; made independently of existing English translations.
9.7CSEL 27.1:83–84
uerum his postea temporibus quibus iam philosophia defloruerat, extitit Melius quidam Diagoras qui nullum esse omnino deum diceret, ob eamque sententiam nominatus est atheus, item Cyrenaeus Theodorus, et ambo quia nihil noui poterant reperire omnibus iam dictis et inuentis, maluerunt contra ueritatem id negare in quo priores uniuersi sine ambiguitate consenserant. hi sunt qui tot saeculis, tot ingeniis adsertam atque defensam prouidentiam calumniati sunt.
But in later times, when philosophy had already lost its bloom, there arose a certain Diagoras of Melos, who said there was no god at all, and for that opinion was named “the atheist”; likewise Theodorus of Cyrene. Both of them, because they could find nothing new, everything having already been said and discovered, preferred, against the truth, to deny that on which all their predecessors had agreed without ambiguity. These are the men who slandered the providence asserted and defended through so many ages and by so many minds.
Notes and citation
Summary: Later, Diagoras and Theodorus, lacking anything new to say, denied God altogether, against all their predecessors.
- Compare Cicero, Nat. d. 1.2 and 1.63.
Notes on the original text
- Digital text corrected (letter misread in the digital text): uerum us postea → uerum his postea.
Cite (SBL): Lactantius, Ira 9.7 (CSEL 27.1:83–84; trans. Sophia Scriptura, https://sophiascriptura.com/fathers/lactantius-ira/1-1/#p-9-7).
BibTeX · RIS (whole work; this passage's key: sophiascriptura-lactantius-ira-9-7) · Report an error
Translation: Translated by Claude from the Latin text of CSEL 27.1; made independently of existing English translations.
9.8CSEL 27.1:84
quid ergo? utrumne istos minutos et inertes philosophos ratione an uero auctoritate praestantium uirorum refellemus an potius utroque? sed properandum est. ne longius a materia deuagetur oratio.
What then? Shall we refute these petty and idle philosophers by reason, or by the authority of eminent men, or rather by both? But we must hurry, lest the discussion wander too far from its subject.
Notes and citation
Summary: These atheists can be refuted by reason and authority, but briefly.
Cite (SBL): Lactantius, Ira 9.8 (CSEL 27.1:84; trans. Sophia Scriptura, https://sophiascriptura.com/fathers/lactantius-ira/1-1/#p-9-8).
BibTeX · RIS (whole work; this passage's key: sophiascriptura-lactantius-ira-9-8) · Report an error
Translation: Translated by Claude from the Latin text of CSEL 27.1; made independently of existing English translations.