Hortatory Address to the Greeks

As I begin my exhortation to you, men of Greece, I pray to God that it may be granted to me to say to you what I ought, and to you, putting aside your former contentiousness and freed from the error of your ancestors, to choose now what is profitable; not supposing that you will be committing any offence against your ancestors if the opposite of what they formerly wrongly thought should now appear useful to you. For an exact examination of matters often shows that even things that seemed to be right are otherwise, testing the truth by a more exact trial. Since, then, the subject before us is the true worship of God (than which nothing, I think, is held more precious by those who have chosen to live without danger, because of the judgment that is to come after the end of this life; a judgment proclaimed not only by our ancestors according to God, prophets and lawgivers, but also by those among you who were thought to be wise, not only poets but also philosophers, who profess among you to know the true and divine knowledge), it seemed good to me first to examine the teachers of religion, both ours and yours: who and how many they were, and at what times they lived; so that those who formerly received from their ancestors a falsely named religion may now at least perceive it and be freed from that old error, while we may show clearly and plainly that we follow the religion of our ancestors according to God.

Whom, then, men of Greece, do you claim as the teachers of your religion? The poets? It will not help you with men who know the writings of the poets; for they know the most ridiculous theogony of the gods told by them, as we can learn from Homer, the foremost and first of your poets. For he says, first, that the generation of the gods had its beginning from water; for he wrote thus: "Ocean, the origin of the gods, and mother Tethys." Then it is necessary to recall what he says about the one considered among them the first god, whom he often calls "father of men and gods"; for he said: "Zeus, who is the steward of war for men." He says that this god was not only the steward of war for the army, but also the cause of perjury to the Trojans through his own daughter; and Homer brings him on stage as in love, complaining, lamenting, and plotted against by the other gods; at one time saying over his own son: "Ah me, that it is fated that Sarpedon, dearest of men to me, be subdued by Patroclus son of Menoetius"; and at another over Hector: "Alas, I see with my eyes a man dear to me chased around the wall, and my heart laments." What he says also about the plot of the other gods against Zeus, those who read these verses know: "when the other Olympians wished to bind him, Hera and Poseidon and Pallas Athena"; … and if the blessed gods had not feared him whom the gods call Briareus, Zeus would have been bound by them. And what Homer says about the amorous licentiousness of Zeus it is necessary to recall through the very words he spoke. For he represents him as speaking thus to Hera: "For never yet did love of goddess or of woman so flood the heart in my breast and overcome it, not when I loved the wife of Ixion, nor Danaë of the fair ankles, daughter of Acrisius, nor the daughter of far-famed Phoenix, nor Semele, nor Alcmene in Thebes, nor Demeter, the fair-tressed queen, nor glorious Leto, nor yet yourself." And what we may learn from Homer's poetry about the other gods too, and all they suffered at the hands of men, it is fitting to recall now. For he says that Ares and Aphrodite were wounded by Diomedes, and he recounts (the sufferings) of many other gods. For we can learn it from (Dione) consoling her daughter; for she said to her: "Endure, my child, and bear up, though grieved; for many of us who have dwellings on Olympus have endured things from men, laying grievous pains on one another. Ares endured it, when Otus and mighty Ephialtes, sons of Aloeus, bound him in a strong bond, and he lay in a bronze jar for thirteen months. Hera endured it, when the mighty son of Amphitryon struck her on the right breast with a three-barbed arrow; then incurable pain seized her. Huge Hades too endured a swift arrow among them, when the same man, son of aegis-bearing Zeus, struck him at Pylos among the dead and gave him over to pains; but he went to the house of Zeus and to high Olympus, grieving at heart, pierced through with pains, for the arrow had been driven into his strong shoulder and was distressing his spirit." And if it is fitting to recall also the battle of the rest of the gods against one another, your own poet reminds you, saying: "So great a din arose as the gods came together in strife. For against lord Poseidon stood Phoebus Apollo with his winged arrows, and against Enyalius the goddess grey-eyed Athena; against Hera stood the huntress of the golden distaff, Artemis of the loud cry, sister of the Far-Shooter; against Leto stood the strong helper Hermes." Such things about the gods Homer has taught you, and not Homer only, but also Hesiod. So if you believe your foremost poets, who drew up the genealogies of your gods, you must either believe them to be such, or not believe them to be gods at all.

And if you excuse the poets, saying that they are permitted to invent myths and to relate in myth many things about the gods that are contrary to the truth, whom else do you think you have as teachers of your religion, or how do you say they learned it? For it is impossible for those who have not first learned from those who know to know matters so great and divine. You will surely say: the wise men and philosophers. For to them, as to a strong wall, you are accustomed to flee whenever anyone reports to you the opinions of the poets about the gods. Since it is fitting to begin from the ancient and first ones, beginning there I will set out the opinion of each, which is much more ridiculous than the theology of the poets. Thales of Miletus, who first began natural philosophy, declared that water is the first principle of all beings; for he says that all things are from water and all are dissolved into water. Anaximander after him, setting out from the same Miletus, said that the infinite is the principle of all things; for from it all things come to be, and into it all things perish. Third, Anaximenes, also from Miletus, says that air is the principle of the universe; for he says that from it all things come to be, and into it all are again dissolved. Heraclitus and Hippasus of Metapontum (say) that fire is the principle of all things; for from fire all things come to be, and in fire all things end. Anaxagoras of Clazomenae said that the principles of all things are the homoeomeries (parts like the whole). Archelaus son of Apollodorus …

Then in turn, from another starting point, Pythagoras son of Mnesarchus, of Samos, calls the numbers the principles, with their symmetries and the harmonies in them, and the elements compounded of both; and further the monad and the indefinite dyad. Epicurus son of Neocles, an Athenian, says that the principles of beings are bodies perceptible by reason, having no share of void, unbegotten, imperishable, unable to be broken, to take on shaping from parts, or to be altered; and therefore perceptible by reason. Empedocles son of Meton, of Acragas, (holds) four elements, fire, air, water, earth, and two original powers, love and strife, of which the one unites and the other divides. See, then, the disorder of those who were thought among you to be wise, whom you claim as the teachers of your religion: some declaring water to be the principle of all things, others air, others fire, others something else of those mentioned; and all of them using certain plausible arguments to establish their mistaken opinions, and trying to show their own doctrine to be superior. These things were said by them. How, then, is it safe, men of Greece, for those who wish to be saved to think that they can learn the true religion from these men, who could not even persuade themselves not to quarrel with one another, nor to appear opposed to one another's opinions?

But perhaps those who do not wish to depart from that ancient and old error say that they have received the doctrine of religion not from those mentioned, but from the philosophers who are thought among them the most renowned and most perfect in virtue, Plato and Aristotle; for these, they say, learned the perfect and true religion. But I would gladly first ask those who say this from whom they say these men learned it; for it is impossible for those who have not learned matters so great and divine from some who know either to know them themselves or to be able to teach others rightly. Second, I think we must examine their opinions too; for we shall see whether each of them too does not appear to say the opposite of the other. And if we find that these too do not agree with each other, it is easy, I think, to recognize their ignorance clearly. For Plato, as if he had come down from above and had accurately learned and seen everything in heaven, says that the highest God is in the fiery substance. But Aristotle, setting out a short definition of his own philosophy in his discourse to Alexander the Macedonian, clearly and plainly overthrows Plato's opinion, saying that God is not in the fiery substance; but fashioning a fifth, ethereal and unchangeable body, he says that God is in it. At any rate he wrote thus: "Not, as some of those who err about the divine say, that God is in a fiery substance." Then, as if not content with his blasphemy against Plato, he also calls as witness, in proof of what he says about the ethereal body, Homer, whom Plato expelled from his republic as a liar and, as he himself said, an imitator third from the truth; for he wrote: "Thus Homer too said: Zeus obtained the broad heaven in the ether and the clouds"; wishing to make his own opinion credible from Homer's testimony, not knowing that if he used Homer as a witness to prove that he speaks the truth, many of his own opinions will appear untrue. For Thales of Miletus, the first among them to begin philosophy, taking his pretext from him, will overturn Aristotle's first opinions about principles. For whereas Aristotle has said that God and matter are the principles of all things, Thales, the oldest of all of them, says that water is the principle of beings; for he says that all things are from water and all are dissolved into water. He conjectures this, first, from the fact that the seed of all living things, which is their beginning, is moist; second, that all plants are nourished by moisture and bear fruit, but wither when they have no share of moisture. Then, as if not content with what he conjectures, he (calls) Homer as a credible witness, who says: "Ocean, which is the origin of all." Will not Thales, then, rightly say to him: "For what reason, Aristotle, when you wish to overthrow Plato's opinions, do you heed Homer as speaking the truth, but when we have declared an opinion opposite to yours, you think that Homer does not speak the truth?"

That your exceedingly admired sages do not agree even in other matters is easy to recognize from these points too. For whereas Plato says there are three principles of the universe, God, matter, and form (God, the maker of all things; matter, which underlies the first coming-to-be of the things that come to be and furnishes him the occasion for his craftsmanship; and form, the pattern of each of the things that come to be), Aristotle makes no mention at all of form as a principle, but says that there are two principles, God and matter. And whereas Plato says that the first God and the ideas are in the first, unwandering sphere of the highest heaven, Aristotle says that after the first God there are not ideas but certain intelligible gods. So they differ from one another about the things in heaven; so that one should know that those who could not even know the things here among us, but differed from one another about these too, will not appear trustworthy when they tell of the things in heaven. That their account of the human soul within us does not agree either is plain from what each of them said about it. For Plato says it is threefold, calling one part rational, another spirited, and another appetitive; but Aristotle says that the soul is not the common (whole), in which the perishable parts are also included, but only the rational part. And Plato cries out, saying, "Every soul is immortal"; but Aristotle, calling it an entelechy, holds it to be not immortal but mortal. And the one says that it is ever-moving; but Aristotle says that it is unmoved, preceding all motion.

But in these matters they are convicted of thinking the opposite of each other. And if one wished to examine their teachings carefully, (it would be seen that) they do not even abide by their own opinions. (For Plato at one time) says that there are three principles of the universe, God and matter and form; at another, four, for he adds the universal soul. And again, having first said that matter is unbegotten, he later says that it is begotten; and having first given form a principle of its own and declared that it subsists by itself, later he says that it is among the objects of thought. And having first declared that everything that has come to be is perishable, he later says that some of the things that have come to be can be indissoluble and imperishable. What, then, is the cause of those who were thought to be wise among you being at odds not only with one another but also with themselves? Clearly, that they were unwilling to learn from those who know, but thought that by human cleverness they could know clearly the things in heaven, though they could not even know the things on earth. At any rate, some of your philosophers say that the human soul is in us, others that it is around us. For they have chosen not to agree with one another even in this, but, as if they had divided ignorance among themselves in different shares, they have chosen to quarrel and be at odds with one another about the soul too. For some of them say the soul is fire, others air, others mind, others motion, others an exhalation, others a power flowing from the stars, others a self-moving number, others generative water. And altogether a disordered and discordant (teaching) prevails among them, appearing worthy of praise to those able to judge rightly in one thing only: that they have chosen to convict one another of error and of not speaking the truth.

Since, then, it is impossible to learn anything true about religion from your teachers, who by their discord with one another have furnished you sufficient proof of their own ignorance, I think it follows to go back to our ancestors, who far preceded the times of your teachers, and who taught us nothing from their own fancy, nor differed with one another, nor tried to overturn one another's teachings, but without contention and discord received the knowledge from God and taught it to us. For neither by nature nor by human thought is it possible for men to know things so great and divine, but by the gift that then came down from above upon the holy men, who had no need of skill in words …, but to present themselves pure to the working of the divine Spirit, so that the divine (plectrum) itself, coming down from heaven and using righteous men … a lyre …, might reveal to us the knowledge of things divine and heavenly. Therefore, as if from one mouth and one tongue, they taught us consistently and in agreement with one another about God, about the creation of the world, about the formation of man, about the immortality of the human soul and the judgment that is to come after this life, and about all things we need to know; and that although they gave us the divine teaching in different places and times.

I will begin, then, with the first of our prophets and lawgivers, Moses, first setting out the times in which he lived, with every testimony that is credible among you. For I do not try to show this only from the divine histories among us, which you do not yet wish to believe because of the old error of your ancestors, but from your own histories, which have nothing to do with our worship; so that you may know that by far the oldest of all those among you, whether sages, poets, historians, philosophers, or lawgivers, was Moses, who became the first teacher of our religion, as the histories of the Greeks show us. For in the times of Ogyges and Inachus, whom some among you have supposed to be earth-born, Moses is mentioned as the leader and ruler of the race of the Jews. Thus Polemon mentions him in the first book of his Greek Histories, and Apion son of Posidonius in his book against the Jews and in the fourth book of his histories, saying that in the time of Inachus king of Argos, when Amasis reigned over the Egyptians, the Jews revolted, and Moses led them. And Ptolemy of Mendes, writing the history of Egypt, concurs with all these. And those who write the history of Athens, Hellanicus and Philochorus the author of the Atthis, Castor and Thallus and Alexander Polyhistor, and further the very wise Philo and Josephus, who wrote the history of the Jews, mention Moses as a very ancient and old ruler of the Jews. Josephus, at any rate, wishing to indicate the antiquity and age of his history also by the title of his books, wrote thus at the beginning of his history: "The Jewish Antiquities of Flavius Josephus," calling the old history "antiquities." And the most renowned of your historians, Diodorus, who spent thirty whole years epitomizing the libraries, and travelled through Asia and …, as he himself wrote, …, and became an eyewitness of most things, wrote forty whole books of his history. In the first book, saying that he learned from the priests in Egypt that Moses was an ancient and the first lawgiver, he writes about him in these very words: "After the ancient settlement of life in Egypt, which is told in myth to have taken place under gods and heroes, they say that Moses first persuaded the multitudes to use written laws, a man both great in soul and recorded as most capable in his life." Then, going on a little, and wishing to mention the ancient lawgivers, he mentions Moses first. For he said, in these words: "Among the Jews (they say) that Moses (referred his laws) to the one called God, either judging it a wonderful and wholly divine conception that would benefit a multitude of people, or looking to the superiority and power of those said to have found the laws, judging that the crowd would obey them more. Second … lawgiver …, excelling in understanding. Third they say was Sesonchosis the king, who not only accomplished the most illustrious warlike deeds of those in Egypt, but also organized the warrior class by legislation. Fourth they say became lawgiver Bocchoris the king, a wise man excelling in shrewdness. After him Amasis the king is said to have applied himself to the laws, whom they record …; … Darius the father … to have attended to the laws of the Egyptians."

These things, men of Greece, those outside our religion have written in their histories about the antiquity of Moses; and they say they learned all these things from the Egyptian priests, among whom Moses was not only born but was also thought worthy to share in all the education of the Egyptians, because he was adopted by the king's daughter as a son, and for that reason was thought worthy of much care, as the wisest of the historians relate, who chose to record his life and deeds and the dignity of his race, Philo and Josephus. For these, narrating the deeds of the Jews, say that Moses was of the race of the Chaldeans, and that, his ancestors having moved from Phoenicia to Egypt because of famine, the man was born there; and that God, because of his surpassing virtue, chose to honour him, and thought him worthy to become ruler and lawgiver of his own race, when he decided that the multitude of the Hebrews should return from Egypt to their own land. To him first God granted the divine and prophetic gift that then came down from above upon holy men, and prepared him to become the first teacher of our religion; and then, after him, the other prophets, who received the same gift as he and taught the same things about the same matters. These we (hold to be the teachers) of our religion, … (who taught from the) gift given by God.

But you, since because of the former error of your fathers you do not think you should give it up in favour of these, whom do you say have been trustworthy teachers of your religion? For it is impossible, as I have often said, for those who have not first learned such great and divine things from those who know either to know them themselves or to be able to teach others rightly. Since, then, the teachings of your philosophers have been sufficiently refuted by what has been said, having appeared full of all ignorance and deceit, perhaps, having now altogether given up the philosophers as earlier the poets, you will turn to the deceit of the oracles; for so I have heard some say. I think it follows, then, to tell you now, at the right moment, what I formerly heard among you said about them. For when someone, as you yourselves say, asked your oracle what men had ever been godly, you say the oracle said thus: "Only the Chaldeans obtained wisdom, and the Hebrews, worshipping the self-begotten King, God himself." Since, then, you think you can learn the truth from your oracles, read the histories and what was written about the life of Moses by those outside our religion; and knowing that Moses and the other prophets sprang from the race of the Chaldeans and Hebrews, do not think it strange if God chose to honour with this great gift, and to show forth as the first of all the prophets, a man of a godly race who had lived worthily of the godliness of his ancestors.

I think it necessary also to consider the times in which your philosophers lived, so that you may know that the time that produced them for you is very recent and short. For in this way you will also be able easily to know the antiquity of Moses. But lest, in going through the times, I seem to drag out (the discourse) by using many proofs, I think I can show it sufficiently from these. Socrates was the teacher of Plato, and Plato of Aristotle. These flourished in the times of Philip and Alexander of Macedon, in which also the orators of Athens (flourished), as the speeches of Demosthenes written against Philip clearly show us. And that Aristotle was with Alexander during the time of his reign, those who wrote the history of Alexander's deeds sufficiently show. From every side, then, it is easy to know that the history of Moses is by far the most ancient of all the histories outside (ours). Besides, you ought not to be ignorant of this either: that nothing accurate was recorded by the Greeks before the Olympiads, nor is there any ancient writing indicating any deed of Greeks or barbarians. Only the history of the prophet Moses existed before, which Moses wrote by divine inspiration in the letters of the Hebrews. For the letters of the Greeks did not yet exist, as even the teachers of letters themselves show, saying that Cadmus first brought them from Phoenicia and gave them to the Greeks. And Plato, the first of your philosophers, bears witness that they were found later. For he wrote in the Timaeus that Solon, the wisest of the wise, on his return from Egypt, told Critias that he had heard these things from a very old Egyptian priest, who said to him: "O Solon, Solon, you Greeks are always children; there is no old Greek." Then again he said: "You are all young in soul; for you have in them no ancient opinion through old tradition, nor any learning grey with time; but it has escaped you, because those who survived through many generations died without letters." One should know, then, that all history happens to have been written in the Greek letters that were found later; and if anyone wished to mention any of the ancient poets, lawgivers, historians, philosophers, or orators, he will find that they wrote their works in the letters of the Greeks. And if anyone should say that the writings of Moses and the other prophets were written in the letters of the Greeks, let him learn, by reading the histories of those outside, that Ptolemy king of Egypt, having built a library in Alexandria, collected books from everywhere and filled it; then, learning that ancient histories written in the letters of the Hebrews happened to be carefully preserved, and wishing to know what was written, he sent for seventy wise men from Jerusalem who knew both the Greek and the Hebrew language, and ordered them to translate the books for him. And so that, free from all disturbance, they might translate more quickly, he ordered that, not in the city itself but seven stades away, where the Pharos has been built, small cells equal in number to the translators should be made, so that each might complete the translation by himself; and he instructed the attendants set over them to give them every care but to keep them from talking with one another, so that the accuracy of the translation might be known also through their agreement. And when he learned that the seventy men had used not only the same sense but the same words, and had not missed agreement with one another even in a single word, but had written the same things about the same matters, he was amazed; and believing that the translation had been written by divine power, he judged them worthy of every honour as men dear to God, and ordered them to return to their own country with many gifts; and the books, admiring them, as was fitting, and regarding them as divine, he deposited there. These things, men of Greece, we do not report to you as myths or invented histories; but we ourselves, having been in Alexandria and seen the remains of the cells on the Pharos still preserved, and having heard it from those there who had received it as an ancestral tradition, report these things, which you may also learn from others, and especially from those wise and esteemed men who wrote about them, Philo and Josephus, and many others.

And if any of those who are accustomed to contradict rashly should say that these books belong not to us but to the Jews, because they are still preserved even now in their synagogues, and should say that we claim in vain to have learned religion from them, let him know, from the very things written in the books, that the teaching from them concerns not them but us. That the books relating to our religion are still preserved even now among the Jews has been a work of divine providence on our behalf. For lest, by producing them from the church, we should give those who wish to slander us a pretext for (charging us with) tampering, we ask that they be produced from the synagogue of the Jews, so that from the very books still preserved among them it may appear clearly and plainly that the righteous (teachings) written by the holy men for instruction belong to us.

You must, then, men of Greece, foreseeing what is to come and looking to the judgment proclaimed by all, not only the godly but also those outside, not give heed to the unexamined error of your ancestors, nor think that whatever they handed down to you in their own mistake is true; but, looking to the danger of so terrible a failure, seek and search out carefully what was said even by those whom you yourselves call your teachers. For they too, even against their will, were compelled by the divine providence for men to say many things in our favour, especially those who had been in Egypt and had profited from the religion of Moses and his ancestors. For I think some of you are not unaware, having surely read the history of Diodorus and those of others who have written about these matters, that Orpheus and Homer and Solon, who wrote laws for the Athenians, and Pythagoras and Plato and some others, having been in Egypt and having profited from the history of Moses, afterwards declared the opposite of what they had earlier wrongly thought about the gods.

Orpheus, then, who was, as one might say, the first teacher of your polytheism, what he later proclaims to his son Musaeus and his other genuine hearers about one and only God, it is necessary to remind you. He said thus: "I will speak to those for whom it is lawful; shut the doors, you profane, all alike. But you, hear, Musaeus, child of the light-bearing Moon, Musaeus; for I will declare the truth; and let not what appeared before in your breast rob you of your dear life. Look to the divine Word and attend to it, directing the intelligent vessel of your heart; walk well on the path, and look only to the King of the world. He is one, self-begotten; from him alone all things are made, and he himself goes about among them; nor does any mortal see him, but he himself sees all. He gives to mortals evil after good, and chilling war and tearful pains; nor is there any other besides the great King. Him I do not see, for a cloud is set about him; for in mortal eyes there are mortal pupils, too weak to see Zeus who rules all. For he is established in the bronze heaven on a golden throne, and treads the earth with his feet; and he has stretched out his right hand over all the bounds of Ocean; and around him the great mountains tremble, and the rivers, and the depth of the grey-blue sea." And again elsewhere he says thus: "One Zeus, one Hades, one Helios, one Dionysus, one God in all; why should I speak of these to you separately?" And in the Oaths thus: "I adjure you by heaven, the wise work of the great God; I adjure you by the voice of the Father, which he first uttered, when he established the whole world by his counsels." What does he mean by saying, "I adjure you by the voice of the Father, which he first uttered"? Here he calls "voice" the Word of God, through whom heaven and earth and the whole creation came to be, as the divine prophecies of the holy men teach us; to these he himself paid some attention in Egypt, and learned that the whole creation came to be by the Word of God. Therefore, after saying, "I adjure you by the voice of the Father, which he first uttered," he adds to it, saying, "when he established the whole world by his counsels." Here he calls the Word "voice" because of the poetic metre. And that this is so is plain from what he said a little before, where the metre allowed him to call it Word. For he said: "Look to the divine Word, and attend to it."

And what the ancient and very old Sibyl, whom Plato and Aristophanes and many others mention as a prophetess, teaches you through her oracles about one and only God, it is necessary to remind you. She speaks thus: "One God, who alone is, exceedingly great, unbegotten, almighty, invisible, himself alone seeing all things, but himself not seen by any mortal flesh." Then elsewhere thus: "But we had wandered from the paths of the Immortal, and honour with foolish heart handmade works, idols and carved images of men who have perished." And again elsewhere thus: "Blessed on earth will be those men who love the great God, blessing him before they eat and drink, trusting in godliness; who, when they see them, will renounce all temples and altars, vain foundations of dumb stones, defiled with the blood of living creatures and with sacrifices of four-footed beasts, and will look to the great glory of the one God." So, then, the Sibyl.

And the poet Homer, using the licence of poetry and emulating at the beginning the opinion of Orpheus about the plurality of gods, mentions many gods in a mythical way, lest he seem to depart from the poetry of Orpheus, which he chose to emulate so closely as to indicate his relation to him even by the first line of his poem. For whereas Orpheus said at the beginning of his poem, "Sing, goddess, the wrath of Demeter of the glorious fruit," he wrote, "Sing, goddess, the wrath of Achilles son of Peleus," choosing, as it seems to me, even to fall out of correct metre at the beginning, lest he seem not to mention the name of the gods first. But a little later he sets out clearly and plainly his own opinion about one and only God, at one point saying through Phoenix to Achilles, "Not even if God himself should promise me, scraping off old age, to make me young again in my prime," indicating by the pronoun the God who truly is; and at another point through Odysseus, speaking thus to the multitude of the Greeks: "The rule of many is not good; let there be one ruler." And that the rule of many is not good, but on the contrary bad, he chose to show in deed, recounting the wars caused by the multitude (of rulers), and battles and factions and plots against one another. For monarchy happens to be free of strife. So much, then, for the poet Homer.

And if we must also add the (testimonies) from the stage about one God, hear Sophocles too, speaking thus: "One in truth, one is God, who made heaven and the broad earth, the grey-blue swell of the sea and the might of the winds. But we mortals, much deceived in heart, set up as a consolation for our pains images of gods of stone and wood, or figures wrought of gold or ivory; and furnishing these with sacrifices and vain festivals, we think that so we are pious." So, then, Sophocles.

And Pythagoras son of Mnesarchus, who set out the doctrines of his philosophy mystically through symbols, as those who have written his life show, he too, from his journey to Egypt, evidently holds (the doctrine) of one God. For in calling the monad the principle of all things, and saying that it is the cause of all good things, he teaches through allegory that God is one and only. That this is so is plain from his saying that the monad and the one differ greatly from each other: for he says that the monad is among the intelligible things, but the one among the numbers. And if you long to know a clearer proof of Pythagoras's opinion about one God, hear his own opinion; for he said thus: "God is one; and he himself is not, as some suppose, outside the ordering (of the world), but within it, wholly in the whole circle, overseeing all generations; he is the blending of all the ages, and the worker of his own powers and works; the principle of all things, the light-giver in heaven, and Father of all, mind and soul of the whole, the motion of all the circles." So, then, Pythagoras.

Plato, having accepted, as it seems, the teaching of Moses and the other prophets about one and only God, which he learned when he was in Egypt, but fearing, because of what happened to Socrates, that he too might raise up against himself some Anytus or Meletus to accuse him before the Athenians, saying, "Plato does wrong and meddles, not believing in the gods that the city believes in," out of fear of the hemlock presents an intricate and veiled discourse about gods, establishing by argument both that there are gods, for those who wish it, and that there are not, for those who think the opposite, as it will be easy to know from what he himself said. For having first declared that everything that has come to be is mortal, he later says that gods have come to be. If, then, he holds that God and matter are the principle of all things, it is plain that one must think that the gods came from matter; this he left for the sensible to consider. For this reason too he said that matter is unbegotten, lest he seem to say that God is the maker of evil. And about the gods fashioned by God he evidently said this: "Gods of gods, of whom I am the maker." But about the God who truly is he held the right opinion. For having heard in Egypt that God had said to Moses, "I am He Who Is," when he was about to send him to the Hebrews, he knew that God had not told him his own proper name.

For no name can be applied to God in the proper sense; for names are given to indicate and distinguish the things they refer to, which are many and different. But for God there was no one before him to give him a name, nor did he think he should name himself, being one and only, as he himself bears witness through his own prophets, saying: "I, God, am first"; and after that: "And besides me there is no other God." For this reason, then, as I said before, God, in sending Moses to the Hebrews, does not mention any name, but by means of a participle teaches in a hidden way that he is the one and only God. For "I am," he says, "He Who Is," contrasting himself, plainly, as "He Who Is," with those who are not, so that those who had formerly been deceived might know that they had given heed not to beings but to non-beings. Since, then, God knew that the first men remembered the old deceit of their forefathers, by which … deceived them, (saying): "If you obey me and transgress the commandment of God, you will be as gods," calling gods those that are not, so that men, thinking that there are other gods too, might believe that they themselves could become gods; for this reason he said to Moses, "I am He Who Is," so that by the participle "being" he might teach the difference between God who is and those who are not. Persuaded, then, by the demon that deceived them, and daring to disobey God, men went out of paradise, remembering the name of gods, but no longer taught by God that there are no other gods. For it was not just to go on teaching those who had not kept the first commandment, which was easy to keep, but rather to bring just punishment upon them. Cast out, then, from paradise, and thinking they had been cast out only for their disobedience, not knowing that it was also because they had been persuaded that gods who are not exist, they handed down the name of gods to those who were born of them afterwards too. This, then, was the first false fancy about gods, having its origin from the father of lies. God, then, knowing that the false opinion of polytheism troubled the soul of men like a disease, and wishing to remove and overthrow it, first appeared to Moses and said to him: "I am He Who Is." For it was necessary, I think, that the one who was to be ruler and general of the race of the Hebrews should first of all know the God who is. Therefore, appearing to him first, as far as it was possible for God to appear to a man, he said to him: "I am He Who Is"; then, being about to send him to the Hebrews, he commands him to say the same things to them: "He Who Is has sent me to you."

Having learned these things in Egypt, then, Plato, greatly pleased with what was said about one God, did not think it safe to mention the name of Moses among the Athenians, because he taught one and only God, fearing the Areopagus; but what was well said by Moses he wrote, not as having learned it from him, but as setting out his own opinion, in his most elaborate discourse, the Timaeus, in which he also undertook to speak of God, the same thing that Moses wrote about God. For he said: "In my opinion, then, we must first distinguish what is that which always is and has no becoming, and what is that which is always becoming but never is." Does not this, men …, differ only in the article? For Moses said "He who is," and Plato "that which is." Both of these expressions evidently fit the God who always is. For he alone is the one who always is and has no becoming. What, then, the other thing is that is contrasted with that which always is, of which he said, "And what is that which is always becoming but never is," we must consider carefully. For we shall find him saying clearly and plainly that the unbegotten is eternal, but that the begotten or fashioned (as he said about the gods that came to be: "Gods of gods, of whom I am the craftsman") come to be and perish. For he says this: "In my opinion, then, we must first distinguish what is that which always is and has no becoming, and what is that which becomes but never is. The one is grasped by thought with reason, being always the same; the other is the object of opinion with irrational sensation, coming to be and perishing, but never truly being." These words proclaim to those able to understand rightly the destruction and perishing of the gods that have come to be. And I think it necessary also to attend to this: that Plato calls him not the maker but the craftsman of the gods, although according to Plato's own opinion there is much difference between these. For the maker, needing nothing else, makes what is made by his own power and authority; but the craftsman, having received the capacity for his craft from matter, constructs what comes to be.

But perhaps some, unwilling to depart from the doctrines of polytheism, will say that the craftsman himself said these things to the gods he had fashioned: "Since you have come to be, you are not immortal nor wholly indissoluble; yet you will not be dissolved nor meet the fate of death, having obtained my will, a still greater and stronger bond." Here Plato, fearing those who embrace polytheism, brings in his craftsman saying things contrary to himself. For having said before that everything that has come to be is perishable, now he cannot escape the charge of lying. For either in saying before that everything that has come to be is perishable he lies, or now, in promising the opposite of what he said before about them. For if, according to his former definition, it is wholly necessary that what is begotten is perishable, how does he allow what is impossible by necessity to become possible? So Plato seems vainly to grant impossibilities to his craftsman, promising that those who once became perishable because they came from matter would through him be imperishable and indissoluble. For the power of matter, which according to his opinion is unbegotten and of equal time and age with the craftsman, would likely resist his will. For one who did not make has no authority over what did not come to be; so that it is not even possible to force it, since it is free of all external necessity. For this reason Plato himself, looking to these things, wrote thus: "Not even God can be said to force necessity."

How, then, does Plato expel Homer from his republic because in the embassy to Achilles he made Phoenix say to Achilles, "Even the gods themselves can be turned," although Homer said this not about the king and, according to Plato, craftsman of the gods, but about some of the gods who are thought by the Greeks to be many, as we can learn also from Plato, who says "gods of gods"? For to the one and first God Homer ascribes the authority and power over all things through that golden chain; and the other gods he said to be so far removed from that one's deity that he thinks fit to name them even together with men. At any rate (he represents) Odysseus saying to Achilles about Hector: "He rages terribly, trusting in Zeus, and honours neither men nor gods." Here Homer too, it seems to me, having like Plato learned in Egypt about one God, shows this clearly and plainly: that one who trusts in the God who is pays no heed to those who are not. For thus the poet, elsewhere too, using another word of equivalent meaning, the pronoun, has used this participle spoken by (Moses), proclaiming the God who is, about whom Plato said, "what is that which is …". … it seems to me, is what was said by Phoenix: "Not even if God himself should promise me, scraping off old age, to make me young again in my prime." For the pronoun "himself" signifies the God who truly is. So too the oracle spoken to you about the Chaldeans and the Hebrews signifies. For when someone asked what men had ever been godly, you say it said thus: "Only the Chaldeans obtained wisdom, and the Hebrews, worshipping the self-begotten King, God himself."

How, then, does Plato blame Homer for saying that the gods can be turned, although Homer said this for a useful purpose, as is plain from the very words spoken? For it is characteristic of those who think fit to obtain kindness through prayer and sacrifices to cease from and repent of their sins. For those who think the divine cannot be turned have by no means chosen to depart from their sins, thinking that they will have no profit from repentance. How, then, does the philosopher Plato, condemning the poet Homer for saying "Even the gods themselves can be turned," himself bring in the craftsman of the gods turning so easily that he says at one time that the gods are mortal and at another that the same are immortal? And not only about them, but also about matter, from which, as he says, the fashioned gods must have come to be, he says at one time that it is unbegotten and at another that it is begotten; not knowing that he himself is convicted of falling into the very things for which he blames Homer, when he says that the craftsman of the gods turns so easily, although Homer said the opposite about him. For he represents him as saying thus about himself: "For no word of mine can be taken back, nor is it deceitful, nor unfulfilled, whatever I confirm with a nod of my head." But these strange things about gods Plato evidently sets out unwillingly, it seems, fearing those who embrace polytheism. But whatever he thinks he ought to say of what he learned from Moses and the prophets about one God, he chose to say in a hidden way, signifying his own opinion to those who wish to be godly. For pleased by what was said by God to Moses, "I am He Who Is," and receiving with much contemplation the short saying expressed through the participle, he knew that God, wishing to signify his eternity to Moses, said, "I am He Who Is"; for the word "is" indicates not one time only but all three, the past, the present, and the future. For so Plato too uses "is" of indefinite time, saying "but never is." For the "never" is said not of past time, as some think, but of future time; this has been precisely established also among those outside. For this reason, as if wishing to explain to those who do not know what was said in a hidden way about God's eternity through the participle, Plato wrote thus in these very words: "God, as the ancient word also says, holding the beginning and end and middle of all things." Here Plato clearly and plainly calls the law of Moses "the ancient word," fearing to mention the name of Moses for fear of the hemlock; for he knew that the man's teaching was hateful to the Greeks; but by the antiquity of the word he clearly indicates Moses. That the law of Moses is ancient and first has been sufficiently shown to us in what precedes from Diodorus and the other histories. For Diodorus says that he was the first lawgiver of all, when not even the letters used by the Greeks, with which they wrote their histories, had yet been found.

Let no one wonder that Plato was persuaded by Moses about the eternity of God. For you will find him, in a hidden way, referring the true knowledge of beings, after the God who truly is, to the prophets as well. For thus in the Timaeus, discussing certain principles, he wrote: "The principle of fire and of the other bodies we lay down, proceeding according to the probable account joined with necessity; but the principles still higher than these God knows, and of men whoever is dear to him." Whom else does he think to be men dear to God but Moses and the other prophets? Having read their prophecies, and learned from them the doctrine of the judgment, in the first book of the Republic he proclaims thus: "When someone comes near to thinking that he will die, fear and anxiety come over him about things that did not occur to him before. For the stories told about those in Hades, that one who did wrong here must pay the penalty there, laughed at until then, now torment his soul lest they be true. And he himself, either from the weakness of old age or as being nearer to things there, sees them more clearly. He becomes full of suspicion and dread, and now reckons up and considers whether he has wronged anyone. He who finds many wrongs of his own in his life, often waking from sleep like children, is afraid and lives with evil foreboding. But to him who is conscious of no wrong, sweet hope is always present, a good nurse of old age, as Pindar also says. For gracefully, Socrates, he said this: that whoever passes his life holily and justly, sweet Hope accompanies him, cheering his heart, the nurse of his old age, Hope who most of all steers the much-turning mind of mortals." And these things he wrote in the first book of the Republic.

And in the tenth (book) he wrote clearly and plainly what he had learned from the prophets about the judgment, not as having learned it from them, because of his fear of the Greeks, but as having heard it from someone, as he thought fit to invent, who had been killed in war and was to be buried on the twelfth day, and who, lying on the pyre, came back to life and told what is there. He wrote thus in these very words: "For he said that he was present when one was asked by another where Ardiaeus the Great was. This Ardiaeus had been tyrant in a certain city of Pamphylia, having killed his aged father and his elder brother and done many other unholy deeds, as was said. He said, then, that the one who was asked replied: He has not come, nor will he come here. For this too was one of the terrible sights we saw: when we were near the mouth, about to go up, and had gone through everything else, we suddenly caught sight of him and of others, nearly all of them tyrants; and there were also some private persons among those who had sinned greatly. These, when they thought they would now go up, the mouth would not receive, but it bellowed whenever one of those so incurably given to wickedness, or one who had not paid the penalty sufficiently, tried to go up. Then savage men, fiery to look at, standing by and perceiving the sound, seized some and led them away; but Ardiaeus and others they bound hand and foot and head, threw them down and flayed them, and dragged them along the way outside, carding them on thorns, and showing to those who passed by why they suffered this, and that they were being led away to be thrown into Tartarus. There, he said, of the many fears of every kind they had, this surpassed all: lest the mouth should bellow when they went up; and each went up most gladly when it was silent. And the penalties and punishments were such as these, and the rewards were their counterparts." Here Plato seems to me to have learned from the prophets not only the doctrine of the judgment but also that of the resurrection, which is disbelieved among the Greeks. For his saying that the soul is judged with the body shows nothing else than that he believed the doctrine of the resurrection. Otherwise how did Ardiaeus and the others, having left on earth the body that has head and hands and feet and skin, undergo such punishment in Hades? For surely they will not say that the soul has head and hands and feet and skin.

And not only Plato but Homer too, having likewise learned it in Egypt, said that Tityus is punished in the same way. For thus in the calling-up of the dead Odysseus recounts to Alcinous, saying: "And I saw Tityus, glorious son of Earth, lying on the ground; and he lay stretched over nine plethra; and two vultures, sitting on either side, were tearing at his liver." For it is plain that it is not the soul but the body that has a liver. In the same way he wrote that Sisyphus and Tantalus too undergo punishment with the body. That Homer was in Egypt, and transferred into his own poetry many things he learned there, Diodorus, the most renowned of historians, teaches us sufficiently. For he said that when he was in Egypt he learned that Helen took the drug nepenthe, which soothes grief and anger and makes one forget all ills, from Polydamna the wife of Thon, and brought it to Sparta; and Homer said that Helen, using that drug, stopped the lament that arose at Menelaus's house in the presence of Telemachus. And he named Aphrodite "golden" from the history in Egypt; for he knew of a precinct in Egypt called that of golden Aphrodite, and of a plain named the plain of golden Aphrodite. And for what reason has this been mentioned now? To show that the poet transferred into his own poetry many things also from the divine history of the prophets. And first the beginning of the making of the world, spoken by Moses; for Moses wrote thus: "In the beginning God made the heaven and the earth," then the sun and the moon and the stars. Having learned these things in Egypt, and pleased with what Moses wrote on the coming-to-be of the world, he had Hephaestus make on the shield of Achilles, as it were, an image of the making of the world. For he wrote thus: "On it he made the earth, and the heaven, and the sea, and the tireless sun and the full moon, and on it all the constellations with which heaven is crowned." And he made the garden of Alcinous preserve an image of paradise, representing it in the image as ever-blooming and full of fruits. For he wrote thus: "There tall trees grow, flourishing, pears and pomegranates and apple trees with shining fruit, sweet figs and flourishing olives. Their fruit never perishes nor fails, winter or summer, all the year round; but the west wind, always blowing, makes some grow and ripens others. Pear upon pear grows old, apple on apple, cluster on cluster, and fig on fig. There too his fruitful vineyard is planted; part of it, a warm spot on level ground, is dried by the sun; other grapes they are gathering, others they are treading; in front are unripe grapes shedding their bloom, and others turning dark." Do not these words show a plain and clear imitation of what was said by the first prophet Moses about paradise? And if anyone will look also at the building of the tower, by which the men of that time thought they could make for themselves an ascent to heaven, he will find that this too is sufficiently imitated in allegory by the poet through Otus and Ephialtes. For the poet said thus about them: "They threatened even the immortals on Olympus to raise the din of furious war; they strove to set Ossa on Olympus, and on Ossa leafy Pelion, so that heaven might be climbed." And likewise about the enemy of mankind cast down from the heavens, whom the divine Scriptures call the devil, having obtained this name from his first slander against man; if anyone will examine it carefully, he would find that the poet nowhere mentions the name of the devil, but has made his naming from his most wicked deed. For calling him Ate, the poet says that he was cast down from heaven by their god, as if remembering exactly the words spoken about him by Isaiah the prophet. Thus he wrote in his own poetry: "At once he seized Ate by her head of glossy locks, angry in his heart, and swore a mighty oath that never again would Ate, who blinds all, come to Olympus and the starry heaven. So saying, he hurled her from the starry heaven, whirling her in his hand; and quickly she came to the works of men."

And Plato too, in saying that form is a third principle after God and matter, evidently took the occasion from nowhere else but from Moses, having learned the name of form from the words of Moses, but not having been taught at that time by those who knew that nothing of what was spoken by Moses can be known clearly without mystical contemplation. For Moses wrote that God said to him about the tabernacle thus: "And you shall make for me, according to all that I show you on the mountain, the pattern of the tabernacle." And again: "And you shall set up the tabernacle according to the pattern of all its furnishings, and so you shall make it." And again a little later: "So, then, you shall make it according to the type shown to you on the mountain." Plato, then, having read these, and not receiving the written words with the fitting contemplation, thought that some separate form pre-exists the sensible thing, which he also often calls the pattern of the things that come to be, since the writing of Moses about the tabernacle signifies thus: "According to the form shown to you on the mountain, so you shall make it."

Likewise he evidently erred about the earth, the heaven, and man; for he thinks that there are ideas of these too. For since Moses wrote thus: "In the beginning God made the heaven and the earth," and then joins to it, saying: "And the earth was invisible and unformed," he thought that the earth of which he said "And the earth was" was spoken of as the pre-existing earth, because Moses said, "And the earth was invisible and unformed"; but the one of which he says "God made the heaven and the earth," he thought he was calling the sensible earth that came to be by God according to the pre-existing form. Likewise also about the heaven that came to be: the heaven that was made, which he also named firmament, is the sensible one that came to be, and another is the intelligible one, about which the prophet said: "The heaven of heaven is the Lord's, but the earth he gave to the sons of men." And likewise about man: Moses first mentions the name of man, then, after many of the creatures, makes mention of the forming of man, saying thus: "And God made man, taking dust from the earth." He thought, then, that the man named first pre-existed the one who came to be, while the one formed from the earth came to be later according to the pre-existing form. And that man was formed from earth Homer too knew, having learned it from the old and divine history, which says, "Earth you are, and to earth you will depart"; he calls the lifeless body of Hector "senseless earth." For he says somewhere against Achilles, who was dragging Hector's body after his death: "For in his fury he outrages the senseless earth." And again elsewhere (he represents) Menelaus saying to those who did not readily accept Hector's challenge to single combat: "But may you all become water and earth," in his excessive anger resolving them back into their ancient and first formation from earth. These things Homer and Plato, having learned them from the ancient histories in Egypt, wrote in their own works.

For from where else did Plato learn to say that Zeus drives a winged chariot in heaven, unless he had read the histories of the prophets? For he knew it from the words of the prophet spoken about the cherubim thus: "And the glory of the Lord went out from the house and mounted the cherubim; and the cherubim lifted their wings, and the wheels beside them; and the glory of the Lord God of Israel was over them above." Taking his start from here, the loud-voiced Plato cries out with great boldness: "The great leader in heaven, Zeus, driving a winged chariot." For from where else did he learn these things and write them, if not from Moses and the prophets? And from where did he take the occasion to say that God is in the fiery substance? Was it not from the history of the third (book) of Kingdoms, where it is written: "The Lord was not in the wind; and after the wind an earthquake; the Lord was not in the earthquake; and after the earthquake a fire; the Lord was not in the fire; and after the fire a sound of a gentle breeze" …

And if anyone wishes to examine carefully also the gift that comes down from God above upon the holy men, which the sacred prophets call the Holy Spirit, he would find this too proclaimed by Plato under another name in his discourse to Meno. For fearing to call the gift of God the Holy Spirit, lest he seem, by following the teaching of the prophets, to be an enemy of the Greeks, he confesses that it comes down from God above, but thought fit to call it not the Holy Spirit but virtue. For so, to Meno, in the discourse On Recollection, having first inquired at length about virtue, whether virtue can be taught, or cannot be taught but is acquired by practice, or is neither acquired by practice nor learned but comes to men by nature or in some other way, he declares in these very words: "But if we have now inquired and spoken rightly in this whole discussion, virtue would be neither by nature nor taught, but would come by divine allotment, without understanding, to those to whom it comes." This, I think, Plato evidently learned clearly from the prophets about the Holy Spirit and transferred to the name of virtue. For just as the sacred prophets say that the one and same Spirit is divided into seven spirits, so he too, naming one and the same virtue, says that it is divided into four virtues; wishing nowhere to mention the Holy Spirit, but through a kind of allegory clearly announcing what the prophets said about the Holy Spirit. For thus at the end of his discourse to Meno he said: "From this reasoning, then, Meno, virtue appears to come to us by divine allotment, to those to whom it comes. But we shall know the clear truth about this, in what way virtue comes to men, when we first try to inquire what virtue itself is by itself." See how he calls the gift that comes down from above only "virtue"; and he still thinks it a matter for inquiry whether it ought to be called virtue or something else, fearing to call it openly the Holy Spirit, lest he seem to follow the teaching of the prophets.

And from what source did Plato learn and know that time came into being with heaven? For he wrote thus: "Time, then, came into being with heaven, so that, having come into being together, they may also be dissolved together, if ever their dissolution should take place." Did he not learn this from the divine history of Moses? For he knew that the coming-to-be of time took the beginning of its constitution from days and months and years. Since, then, the first day, which came into being with heaven, furnished the beginning of all time (for so Moses wrote: "In the beginning God made the heaven and the earth," and then joins to it, saying, "And there was one day"), Plato, indicating all time by the part, calls the day time, lest, by mentioning a day, he should be accused among the Athenians of following the words of Moses entirely. And from where … did he imagine the dissolution of heaven and write thus? Did he not learn this too from the sacred prophets, and think that it had been said thus by them?

And if anyone should examine also the account of the statues, from what starting point those who first made your gods decided that they had human forms, he will find that they learned this too from the divine history. For since the history of Moses says, in the person of God, "Let us make man according to our image and likeness," (they thought) it was said thus because men resemble God in form, and so they began to fashion their gods, thinking to make like from like. For what reason have I been led to mention these things now, men of Greece? So that you may know that it is not possible to learn the true religion from these men, who could not write anything of their own even in the things for which they were admired by those outside, but announced in their own writings, through some allegory or other, what was said by Moses and the other prophets.

The time has come, then, men of Greece, for you, persuaded by the outside histories that Moses and the other prophets were by far older than all who were thought to be wise among you, to depart from the old error of your ancestors, to read the divine histories of the prophets, and to learn from them the true religion; for they do not offer you arts of speech, nor speak persuasively and plausibly (this is characteristic of those who wish to steal away the truth), but, using simply whatever names and words come to hand, they announce to you what the Holy Spirit, who came down upon them, chose to teach through them to those who wish to learn the true religion. Thrusting aside, then, all false shame, the old error of men, and the imaginary noise of pomp, by which you think you possess all enjoyment, hold fast to what is profitable for you. For you will commit no offence against your ancestors if you now wish to turn to the opposite of their error; they are now likely lamenting in Hades, repenting a repentance too late; and if it were possible for them to show you from there what has happened to them after the end of this life, you would know from how many evils they would choose to free you. But now, since it is not possible at present to learn either from them, or from those here who profess to philosophize this falsely named philosophy, it remains for you, thrusting away the error of your ancestors, to read the prophecies of the sacred men, not asking elegance of speech from them (for the matters of our religion are not in words but in deeds), and to learn from them what will bring you eternal life. For those who vainly abuse the name of philosophy are convicted of knowing nothing, as …

But if the finding of the truth is called among them a definition of philosophy, how are those who do not attain true knowledge worthy of the name of philosophy? For if Socrates, the wisest of your wise men, to whom even your oracle, as you yourselves say, bears witness, saying, "Of all men Socrates is the wisest," confesses that he knows nothing, how did those after him profess to know even the things in the heavens? For Socrates said that he was called wise for this reason: that while the rest of men pretend to know what they do not know, he himself did not hesitate to confess that he knew nothing. For he said thus: "I seem, then, to be wiser by this very small thing, that what I do not know I do not even think I know." And let no one think that Socrates pretended ignorance in irony, since he is often accustomed to do this in his dialogues. For the last saying of the Apology, which he spoke as he went away to the prison, shows that he confessed his ignorance in earnest and in truth. For he said thus: "But now it is time to go away, I to die and you to live; which of us is going to the better thing is unclear to everyone except to God." Socrates, then, having uttered this last word on the Areopagus, set off for the prison, ascribing to God alone the knowledge of things that are unclear to us; but those after him, unable to know even the things on earth, profess to know the things in heaven as if they had seen them. Aristotle at any rate, as if he had seen the things in the heavens more exactly than Plato, does not say, as Plato did, that God is in the fiery substance, but declared that he is in the ethereal fifth element; and though he thought himself worthy to be believed on these matters because of the elegance of his speech, he could not even know the nature of the Euripus at Chalcis, and departed this life grieved by great disrepute and shame. Let none of those who think rightly, then, consider the eloquence of these men more valuable than his own salvation; but, according to that old story, stopping his ears with wax, let him flee the sweet harm that troubles him from these sirens. For the men mentioned before, holding out their eloquence like bait, have chosen to lead many away from right religion, imitating the one who dared to teach polytheism to the first men. Do not obey them, I beg you, but read the prophecies of the sacred men. And if some hesitation, or the old superstition of your ancestors, still keeps you from reading the prophecies of the holy men, through which you can learn that God is one and only, which is the first mark of true religion, then at least obey Orpheus, who earlier taught you polytheism but later chose to sing a profitable and necessary recantation, saying the things I wrote a little before; and obey the others who wrote the same things about one God. For it has been a work of divine providence on your behalf that these men, even against their will, bear witness that what the prophets said about one God is true, so that the doctrine of polytheism, rejected by all, may give you an occasion for true knowledge.

It will be easy for you to learn the right religion in part also from the ancient Sibyl, who by some powerful inspiration teaches you through oracles things that seem to be near the teaching of the prophets. They say that she came from Babylon, being a daughter of Berossus, who wrote the Chaldean history; and that, having crossed, I do not know how, to the regions of Campania, she uttered her oracles there in a city called Cumae, six miles from Baiae, where the hot springs of Campania are. When we were in the city we saw a certain place in which we were shown a very large basilica cut out of a single stone, a very great thing and worthy of all wonder, where those who had received it as an ancestral tradition from their forefathers said she proclaimed her oracles. In the middle of the basilica they showed us three basins cut out of the same stone, in which, when they were filled with water, they said she bathed; and putting on her robe she went into the innermost chamber of the basilica, also cut from the same stone, and sitting in the middle of the chamber on a high platform and throne, so uttered her oracles. This Sibyl many other writers mention as a prophetess, and Plato in the Phaedrus. And Plato, it seems to me, having read her oracles, held the oracle-singers to be divine. For he saw what had been foretold by her long ago being fulfilled in deeds; and therefore, in admiration, he wrote thus in the discourse to Meno, praising the oracle-singers in these words: "We should rightly call divine those whom we now call oracle-singers. No less would we say that these are divine and inspired, being breathed upon and possessed by the god, when they succeed in saying many great things, knowing nothing of what they say"; looking clearly and plainly to the oracles of the Sibyl. For she, unlike the poets, did not have the power, after writing her poems, to correct and polish them, especially for the exactness of the metres; but at the time of inspiration she fulfilled the prophecy, and when the inspiration ceased, the memory of what she had said ceased too. This is the reason why the metre of not all the Sibyl's verses is preserved. For we ourselves, when we were in that city, learned from the guides, who also showed us the places where she uttered her oracles, and a jar made of bronze in which they said her remains were preserved. And among all the things they told us, as having heard it from their forefathers, they said this too: that those who took down the oracles at that time, being without education, often missed the exactness of the metres; and they said that this was the cause of the faulty metre of some verses, since the oracle-singer did not remember what she had said after the possession and inspiration had ceased, and the scribes, through lack of education, had fallen short of exactness in the metres. It is plain, then, that it was for this reason that Plato, looking to the oracles of the Sibyl, said this about the oracle-singers; for he said thus: "when they succeed in saying many great things, knowing nothing of what they say."

However, since, men of Greece, the matters of true religion lie not in poetic metres, nor in the education esteemed among you, give up from now on (the demand for) exactness of metres and words, and attending without contention to what was said by her, know how many goods she will cause you, foretelling clearly and plainly the coming of our Saviour Jesus Christ, who, being the Word of God, inseparable in power, having taken man formed according to the image and likeness of God, reminded us of the religion of our ancient ancestors, which the men born from them abandoned, by the teaching of an envious demon, and turned to the worship of those who are not gods. And if any hesitation troubles you about believing concerning the formation of man, believe those to whom you still think you should give heed, and know that your oracle, when asked by someone to give out a hymn of the almighty God, said thus in the middle of the hymn: "Who first formed mortals, and named him Adam." And this hymn happens to be preserved among many whom we know, for the refutation of those who are unwilling to believe the truth attested by all. If, then, men of Greece, you do not consider the false fancy about gods who are not more valuable than your own salvation, believe, as I said, the most ancient and very old Sibyl, whose books happen to be preserved throughout the world; who through oracles, by some powerful inspiration, teaches us about the so-called gods, that they are not, and foretells clearly and plainly the coming of our Saviour Jesus Christ that was to be, and all that was to be done by him. For the knowledge of these things will be for you a necessary preparatory exercise for the prophecy of the sacred men. And if anyone thinks he has learned the doctrine about God from those named among them the most ancient philosophers, let him hear Ammon and Hermes: Ammon, in the discourses about him, calling God wholly hidden; and Hermes saying clearly and plainly: "To understand God is difficult, but to speak of him is impossible, even for one who can understand." From every side, then, one should know that in no other way is it possible to learn about God or right religion than (from the prophets), who teach us …