# Greek Questions to Christians - Author: Anonymous - Latin title: *Quaestiones Gentilium ad Christianos* - Date: 5th century (disputed) (disputed) - Source: J.-P. Migne, ed., Patrologiae cursus completus, Series Graeca 6 (Paris: Migne, 1857) - Translation: Claude, from the original text, unless a passage says otherwise; each passage below gives the translator - Editions and translations: J. C. T. Otto, Corpus apologetarum christianorum saeculi secundi 3–5, 3rd ed. (Jena: Fischer, 1879–1881) - Work page: https://sophiascriptura.com/fathers/ps-justin-quaestiones-gentilium/ - Passages: 32 ## Greek Questions to the Christians 1.0 - URL: https://sophiascriptura.com/fathers/ps-justin-quaestiones-gentilium/1-0/#p-1-0 - Source: PG 6:406 - Translation: Claude (claude-opus-5-5), 2026-09-27 Summary: The Greek questions: whether there is an incorporeal being, what God is and how he makes, whether what is made can be imperishable, and how the dead can rise if their flesh has been eaten by others. ### Greek text Περὶ τοῦ ἀσωμάτου, καὶ περὶ τοῦ. Θεοῦ καὶ περὶ τῆς ἀναστάσεως τῶν γεχρῶν. β'. Πόθεν δῆλον, ὅτι αὐτὸ ἐφ᾽ ἑαυτοῦ δύναται εἶναι σου ἢ ματον; ἰβοοτρο- Υ΄. Πόθεν δῆλον εἰ ἔστι κάλλιον τὸ ἀσώματον πὸ ᾶτος; Τί ἐστι τὸ ἀσώματον - πότερον ψυχὴ, ἣ χρεῖτ- ὃ ε'. Καὶ τίνι διαφέρει ψυχὴ Θεοῦ; Εἰ υπάρ δου ς΄. Καὶ πόθεν δῆλον εἰ ὅλως ἐστὶ Θεός : Ἵ. Ας ἴδοθ- ζ'. Καὶ εἰ ἔστι Θεὸς, ζητητέον εἴτε ποιεῖ, ἐποίησέ ποτε, εἴτε καὶ μέλλει ποιεῖν τὸ ὅ τί ποτε; Ὁ θ’. Καὶ τί ποιεῖ, καὶ πῶς ποιεῖ, εἴτε μετὰ βουλῆς, (. Καὶ εἰ μετὰ βουλῆς, ὀργάνῳ χεχρημένο;, ἢ ἂπ ἄνευ διανοίας καὶ ἐπισχέψεως, ἢ μετά τινος ἢ σεως; Καὶ εἰ μετὰ ἐπικρίσεως, τίνος ἐνδείᾳ ἐπιχρί" σεως δεῖται; εἰ δὲ ἀκρίτως, ποίῳ τῷ λόγῳ διερεννῆ" ἢ ιγ΄. Καὶ εἰ δοίημεν γίνεσθαί τι παρ᾽ αὐτοῦ, φθαρτὸν, ἀποροῦμεν εἰ τὸ ὅλως γενητὸν ἄφθαρτον δύναται εἶναι, καὶ ποίῳ τῷ λόγῳ; Καὶ εἰ φθείρεται, τ Εἰ ἱ ἂν διαφέρει τὰ τοῦ ἀθανάτου ἔργα τῶν ποίῳ.. πολλαπλασίονα χρόνον πολλάχις πολλὰ τούτων δια- Α μένει τοῦ ποιήσαντος αὐτοῦ φθαρέντος, αὐτὰ ἄφθαρτα, ἣν τέως ὡς ἐπὶ οἰκοδόμων.... τοιούτων. ιδ΄. Καὶ εἰ φθείρεται τὸ γινόμενον παρὰ τοῦ Θεοῦ, τίνος χαχίᾳ φθείρεται, τοῦ ποιήσαντος ἣ τοῦ γεγονότος, ἢ τινος ἔξωθεν ὑπεναντίου γινομένου τῷ ποιήσαντι; ὋὍ τι δ᾽ ἂν αὐτῶν ὑποθώμεθα, δῆλον, ὅτι ποῦ ποιήσαντος ἡ χαχία. Εἴτε γὰρ τὸ γεγονὸς διά τινα ἔμφυτον ἑαυτοῦ χαχίαν ὀφείλει φθαρῆναι, ὁ ποιήσας αἴτιος, ὅτι τοιοῦτον αὐτὸ ἐποίησεν, ὥστε ὑπολιμπάνεσθαι ἐν ἑαυτῷ χαχόν τι" εἴτε ἔξωθέν ἐστί τι ὑπεναντίον τῷ ποιήσαντι, καὶ οὕτως χαχία τοῦ πεποιηχότος, διὰ τὸ μὴ δύνασθαι χαταχρατεῖν τῶν ἐναντίων " εἴτε ἐκ τοῦ ποιήσαντος ἡ χαχία, λρίδηλον, ὡς αὐτὸς ὁ χαχός. Ταῦτα μὲν περὶ τούτων, τέως ἔχ πολλῶν ὀλίγα " εἰ γὰρ ἐθέλομεν, ζητητέον καὶ τί ἐστι σῶμα καὶ ἐχ τίνων τὸ σῶμα,, καὶ τὰς ἐπὶ τούτοις ἀπορίας. Ταῦτα δὲ τέως ἐάσαντες ὡς ἰνούντων μηδὲν τῶν ἀπόρων, τέως τῶν γενναιοτέρων ὄντι θαύματος ἀξιουμένῳ ἀπὸ τῶν περὶ τῆς ἀναστάσεως λόγων. Ἕν γάρ τι τῶν εὐτελῶν ἀπόρων τῶν παρὰ τοῖς λιθοχαρδίοις χινουμένων ἐστὶ καὶ τοῦτο. Εἰ γὰρ δεῖ, φησὶ, σώους ἀνίστασθαι τοὺς τετελευτηχότας, πῶς, εἰ συμδαίη ἄνθρωπον ἀποθανεῖν εἰς βάλατταν, εἶτα βρωθέντα τοῦτον ὑπὸ ἰχθύων, αὖθις ὑπὸ ἄλλων ἀνθρώπων χαταδρωθῆναι διὰ μέσων τῶν ἰχθύων, πῶς ἂν ἀναλάδοι τὰς σάρχας τὰς εἰς ἄλλους ἀνθρώπους καταδαπανηθείσας : Ἢ γὰρ τοῦτον ἀνάγχη ταρὰ τὰς σάρχας ἀναστῆναι ἃς ἔφαγον οἱ ἄλλοι ἄνθρωποι διὰ μέσων τῶν ἰχθύων, χαθὼς πολλάχις εἴρηται - ἢ ἐχείνους, μέλη τῶν ἑαυτῶν σαρχῶν ἀπαιτουμένους, ἀποθέσθαι καὶ ἑλλιπεῖς γενέσθαι, ἵνα ἀποπληρώσωσι τὸ ἐλλεῖπον τῶν ὑπ᾽ αὐτῶν ἀδίχως χαταθρωθέντων. Καὶ ταῦτα οἷα γελῶντες οἱ λιθοχἀρδιοί φασιν. Ἐγὼ δὲ παραχαλῶ ἐχτὸς ἀπορίας χατασχευαστιχὸν λόγον τῆς ἀναστάσεως μαθεῖν, τὸν ἐξ ἀνάγχης ἀποδειχνύντα, ὅτι ἀνάγχη εἶναι ἀνάστασιν διά τινων ἀποδειχτικῶν καὶ ἀληθῶν λόγων. Τῶν τὰρ ἀποδείξεων ἐῤῥωμένων ταῖς ἀληθείαις, οὐδένα τῶν ἀποριῶν λόγον εὖ ἴστε ποιήσομαι καὶ γὰρ ἄτοπον καὶ φιλόνειχον πρὸς ἐῤῥωμένην ἀπόδειξιν ἐθέλειν ἐρίζειν. ### English translation (Claude) Greek questions to the Christians, on the incorporeal, on God, and on the resurrection of the dead. [1] … [2] Whence is it clear that it can exist by itself, apart from body? [3] Whence is it clear whether the incorporeal is better than body? [4] What is the incorporeal: the soul, or something higher than the soul, such as God? [5] And in what does the soul differ from God? [6] And whence is it clear whether God exists at all? [7] And if God exists, we must inquire whether he makes, or made at some time, or will make anything whatever. [8] … [9] And what he makes, and how he makes, whether with will or without will. [10] And if with will, whether using an instrument or without an instrument. [11] … whether without thought and consideration, or with some … [12] And if with deliberation, through lack of what does he need deliberation? And if without deliberation, by what reasoning does he decide? [13] And if we grant that something comes into being from him, … perishable, we are at a loss whether what has come into being at all can be imperishable, and by what reasoning. And if it perishes, … in what would the works of the immortal differ from those of … since many of these often last many times longer after their maker has perished, being imperishable for a time, as with the works of builders … and the like? [14] And if what comes into being from God perishes, by whose badness does it perish: that of the maker, that of the thing made, or that of something outside that has come to oppose the maker? Whichever of these we suppose, clearly the badness is the maker's. For if the thing made must perish because of some inborn badness of its own, the maker is responsible, since he made it such that some evil remained in it; if there is something outside opposed to the maker, then too the badness is the maker's, since he cannot master his opponents; and if the badness comes from the maker, plainly he himself is bad. So much on these matters for now, a few out of many; for if we wished, we should also inquire what body is, and of what body is composed, and the difficulties that attach to these. But leaving these aside for now … let us turn meanwhile to the nobler difficulties, which are thought worthy of wonder, from the arguments about the resurrection. For this too is one of the cheap difficulties raised among the stony-hearted: “If the dead must rise whole,” he says, “how, if it happened that a man died at sea, and then was eaten by fish, and again was eaten by other men by way of the fish, how would he recover the flesh that was consumed into other men? For either this man must rise without the flesh that the other men ate by way of the fish, as has often been said; or those men, when asked for members of their own flesh, must give them up and become deficient, in order to fill up what is lacking in those whom they unjustly devoured.” And the stony-hearted say such things as if laughing. But I ask to learn, apart from difficulties, a constructive argument for the resurrection, one that shows of necessity, by demonstrative and true arguments, that there must be a resurrection. For when the demonstrations are made strong by the truth, be assured that I will make no account of the difficulties; for it is absurd and contentious to wish to quarrel with a strong demonstration. ### Translation notes - Pseudonymous: transmitted among the works of Justin Martyr, but a later work (often ascribed to Theodoret of Cyrus, 5th century). Text: archive.org OCR of Migne PG 6, where the Greek questions are printed in a column beside Migne's Latin; the Latin fragments are removed by logged corrections. Questions 1 and 8, and parts of 11 and 13, are lost in the scan text (“…”); the bracketed numbers follow Migne's numerals α–ιδ. - “Stony-hearted” (λιθοκάρδιοι): the Greek questioner's name for those who mock the resurrection. ### Citation (SBL) Ps.-Justin, Quaest. Gent. Christ. 1.0 (PG 6:406; trans. Sophia Scriptura, https://sophiascriptura.com/fathers/ps-justin-quaestiones-gentilium/1-0/#p-1-0). ## Greek Questions to the Christians 2.1 - URL: https://sophiascriptura.com/fathers/ps-justin-quaestiones-gentilium/1-0/#p-2-1 - Source: PG 6:1109 - Translation: Claude (claude-opus-5-5), 2026-09-27 Summary: The Christian answers that the Greek questions are not true logical difficulties, and gives a series of short proofs that there is an incorporeal reality, beginning with the fact that reasoning itself is not the work of body. ### Greek text πρὸς τὰς προῤῥηθείσας ἐρωτήσεις ἀπὸ τῆς εὐσεθείας τῶν φυσιχῶν Οὗτοι οἱ λόγοι οὐχ εἰσὶ λογικαὶ ἀπορίαι, ἀλλ᾽ ἐρωτήσεις ἄτεχνοι. Ὁ γὰρ λόγος ὁ χατασχενάξων λογιχὰς ἀπορίας, ἐν τοῖς ἀχολούθως πως λεγομένοις συνάγε τὸ ἄτοπον " οἷον, μόνος ὁ ἄνθρωπος γελαστιχόν' πᾶν γελαστιχὸν ζῶον" μόνος ἄρα ὁ ἄνθρωπος ζῶον" εἰς λύσιν τῶν ἀπόρων.; δὶ εἴ τὶς, σοῦ, Α αἵπερ εἰσὶν ἀχόλουθοι προτάσεις μὲν, ἄτοπον δὲ τὸ συμπέρασμα. Ἐν δὲ τοῖς προχειμένοις λόγοις οὐδὲν ἄτοπον χατὰ ἀχολουθίαν συνήχθη " διὸ οὐχ εὐλόγως ἐχλήθησαν ἀπορίαι. Εἰ ἀδύνατον τὸ αὐτὸ τὰ αὐτὰ καὶ ἀγνοεῖν καὶ γινώσχειν (ἐπὶ παντὸς γὰρ ἀληθῆ τὴν χατάφασιν εἶναι δεῖ ἢ τὴν ἀπόφασιν)" πῶς ὁ ἀγνοῶν εἰ ἔστιν ἀσώματον, γινώσχει βούλησίν τε καὶ ἐπίχρισιν, διάνοιάν τε καὶ ἐπίσχεψιν. νοῦν τι καὶ λόγον, ἅτινά ἐστι τοῦ ἀσωμάτου ἐνεργήματα; Τὸ γὰρ ἐν ἀγνωσίᾳ τῆς τοῦ ἀσωμάτου ὑπάρξεως γιγώσχειν τοῦ ἀσωμάτου τὰ ἐνεργήματα τῶν οὖχ εἰδότῶν ὅ φασίν ἐστι. Τὸ χατασχευάζειν ἀπορίαν, καὶ λύειν ἀπορίαν, οὐχ ἔστιν αἰσθήσεως τοῦτο, οὐδὲ σώματός ἔστι. Τὸ δὲ μὴ ὃν σώματος, τοῦτο ἀνάγχη εἷναι τοῦ ἀσωμάτου. Ὅθεν ζητοῦμεν τῆς τοῦ ἀσωμάτου ὑπάρξεως τὴν δήλωσιν; εἰ μὲν γὰρ τὸ ζητεῖν περί τινος, εἰ ἔστιν ἢ οὐχ ἔστι, λόγου ἐστίν" ὁ δὲ λόγος τοῦ λογιχοῦ ὑπάρχει ἐνέργημα " ἄλογον ὃΣ τὸ σῶμα χαθ᾽ ἑαυτό" δῆλον, ὅτι ἔστι τι ἀσώματον, ᾧ ἴδιον ὑπάρχει τὸ ζηπεῖν καὶ χρίνειν. “Α1λ1ο. Τῷ μὴ ὁμολογοῦντι εἶναί τι ἀσώματον, ἀνοίχειον ὑπάρχει τὸ λόγῳ ζητεῖν καὶ χρίνειν, εἰ ἔστι τι ἀσώματον. ἤλλογον γὰρ τὸ χεχρῆσθαι μὲν ταῖς τοῦ ἀσωμάτου ἐνεργείαις, ἀγνοεῖν δὲ τοῦ ἀσω- Δύο εἰσὶν ἐν ἡμῖν χαταληπτικαὶ τῶν πραγ- ( μάτων δυνάμεις, ἢ τε αἴσθησις καὶ ἡ νόησις " ὧν αἱ ἐνέργειαι τοσούτῳ ἀλλήλων διαφέρουσιν, ὅσῳ τὰ ὑτὸ γεσθαι ὑπὸ τοῦ ἑτέρου. ᾿Αλλ᾽ ἐπειδὴ πᾶσαι δυνάμεις οὐσιῶν εἰσι δυνάμεις, διὰ τοῦτο ἀνάγχη εἶναι οὐσίας δύο, ὧν τῆς μὲν ἴδιον τὸ αἰσθάνεσθαι, τῆς δὲ τὸ νοεῖν. ᾽Ἂλλ᾽ εἰ τοῦτο, ἔστιν ἄρα οὐσία τις ἀσώματος, ἧς ἴδιον ὑπάρχει τὸ νοεῖν, ὥσπερ τὸ αἰσθάνεσθαι τῷ οὐ- ἐ ματι. "Δ.1.1ο. Εἰ ἔστι τι ἔμψυχον, ἀνάγκη͵ εἶναι τὴν φ.χήν" τῇ γὰρ τῆς ψυχῆς μετοχῇ τὸ ἔμψυχον ὑπάρχει ἕμψυχον. Εἰ ἡ ἐπιστήμη οὐχ ἔστιν ἐφ᾽ ἑαυτῆς, ἀλλ᾽ ἐν τῇ ψυχῇ, ἀνάγκη ἄρα εἶναι τὴν ψυχὴν ἐφ᾽ ἑαυτῆς, ἐν ἦ ὑπάρχει ἢ ἐπιστήμη. Δ.1.1.ο. Εἰ τὸ μὲν σῶμα δεῖται τῆς ψυχῆς πρὸς τὸ Ὁ ζῇν τε καὶ αἰσθάνεσθαι, ἡ δὲ ψυχὴ οὐ δεῖται: τοῦ σώματος οὔτε πρὸς τὸ ζὴν οὔτε πρὸς τὸ νοεῖν, ἕτερον ἄρα ἣ ψυχὴ παρὰ τὸ σῶμα. "Λ1,1ο. Εἰ ἡ μὲν ψυχὴ προστάσσει τῷ σώματι, τὸ δὲ σῶμα ὑπουργεῖ τοῖς τῆς ψυχῆς προστάγμασιν, ἕτερον ἄρα τι ἡ ψυχὴ παρὰ τὸ σῶμα. Εἰ ἡ μὲν ψυχὴ τεχνέτου λόγο" ἐπέχει, τὸ δὲ σῶμα ὀργάνου, οὗ ταὐτὸν δὲ ὑπάρχει τῷ τεχνίτῃ τὰ ὄργανα, οὐ ταὐτὸν ἄρα τῇ ψυχῇ τὸ σῶμα. Ἄλλο. Εἰ πρῶτος ὁ λόγος, καὶ ὕστερον τὸ χατὰ τὸν λόγον (ἐν μὲν γὰρ τῇ ψυχῇ ὁ λόγος, ἐν δὲ τῇ ὕλῃ τὸ κατὰ τὸν λόγον), ἕτερον ἄρα τι ἡ ὕλη παρὰ τὴν ψυχήν. Τὸ δὲ ὕλης ἕτερον, τοῦτο καὶ σώματος Α ἕτερον. “ἈΛ1ο. Εἰ τὸ μὴ ὃν σῶμα οὐδὲ οὐσία ἐστὶ, πῶς διαιρεῖται ἡ οὐσία εἰς σῶμα καὶ ἀσώματον, τοῦ διαιρουμένου ἀνάγχῃ ὑπάρχοντος ἐν τοῖς εἰς ἃ ὃδιαι- ### English translation (Claude) Christian answers to the questions set out above, from the piety of natural reasoning. [Answer 1] These arguments are not logical difficulties but artless questions. For an argument that constructs logical difficulties draws an absurdity from statements that follow one another, for example: “Only man is capable of laughter; everything capable of laughter is an animal; therefore only man is an animal”; arguments in which the premises follow but the conclusion is absurd. In the arguments put forward, nothing absurd was drawn by consequence; hence they were not reasonably called difficulties … for the solution of the difficulties. If it is impossible for the same person both to be ignorant of and to know the same things (for in every case either the affirmation or the denial must be true), how does one who is ignorant whether there is an incorporeal know will and deliberation, thought and consideration, mind and reason, which are activities of the incorporeal? For to know the activities of the incorporeal while ignorant of the existence of the incorporeal belongs to those who do not know what they are saying. To construct a difficulty and to solve a difficulty is not the work of sense, nor of body. What is not of body must belong to the incorporeal. Why then do we look for evidence of the existence of the incorporeal? For if inquiring about something, whether it is or is not, belongs to reason, and reason is the activity of what is rational, while body by itself is irrational, then clearly there is something incorporeal, to which inquiring and judging properly belong. Another. For one who does not admit that there is something incorporeal, it is inappropriate to inquire and judge by reason whether there is something incorporeal; for it is irrational to use the activities of the incorporeal and be ignorant of the existence of the incorporeal. Another. There are in us two powers that apprehend things, sense and intellect, whose activities differ from one another as much as … what is apprehended by the one cannot be apprehended by the other. But since all powers are powers of essences, there must be two essences, to one of which perceiving properly belongs, and to the other understanding. And if this is so, there is an incorporeal essence to which understanding properly belongs, as perceiving belongs to body. Another. If there is something ensouled, there must be soul; for what is ensouled is ensouled by participation in soul. If knowledge does not exist by itself but in the soul, the soul must exist by itself, the soul in which knowledge exists. Another. If the body needs the soul in order to live and perceive, but the soul does not need the body either to live or to understand, then the soul is other than the body. Another. If the soul commands the body and the body serves the soul's commands, then the soul is something other than the body. Another. If the soul holds the place of a craftsman and the body that of an instrument, and the instruments are not the same as the craftsman, then the body is not the same as the soul. Another. If the reason comes first and what is according to the reason afterward (for the reason is in the soul, and what is according to the reason is in matter), then matter is something other than the soul. And what is other than matter is other than body too. Another. If what is not body is not an essence either, how is essence divided into body and incorporeal, when what is divided must exist in the things into which it is divided? ### Translation notes - Christian answer 1 (Migne's Latin heads the answers “Quaest. I,” “II,” etc.), answering Greek question 1, whether there is anything incorporeal. A note of Migne's run into the text, and his Latin column, are removed by logged corrections. ### Citation (SBL) Ps.-Justin, Quaest. Gent. Christ. 2.1 (PG 6:1109; trans. Sophia Scriptura, https://sophiascriptura.com/fathers/ps-justin-quaestiones-gentilium/1-0/#p-2-1). ## Greek Questions to the Christians 2.2 - URL: https://sophiascriptura.com/fathers/ps-justin-quaestiones-gentilium/1-0/#p-2-2 - Source: PG 6:1109 - Translation: Claude (claude-opus-5-5), 2026-09-27 Summary: The soul, which gives life and thought to the body and knows truth, exists by itself; God is called incorporeal and uncreated not because he belongs among incorporeal creatures but because he is beyond both body and the incorporeal. ### Greek text ἘΡΩΤΗΣΙΣ. Εἰ ἔστι τι ἀσώματον, πόθεν δῆλον, ὅτι αὐτὸ ἐφ᾽ ἑαυτοῦ δύναται εἶναι; ἌΠΟΚΡΙΣΙΣ. Οὗ τῇ παρουσίᾳ τὸ σῶμα τὸ χαθ' ἑαυτὸ ζωῆς τε καὶ αἰσθήσεως καὶ διανοίας ἀμέτοχον, καὶ τῇ ἀπουσίᾳ πάλιν νγεχρόν τε καὶ ἀναίσθητον καὶ ἀδιανόητον γίνεται, τοῦτο ἀνάγχη εἶναι ἐφ᾽ ἑαυτοῦ, ὡς τῇ ἑαυτοῦ φύσει ὑπάρχον ἄφθαρτον. Τὸ χατασχευάζειν ἐπιστημόνως τὰς λογιχὰς ἀπορίας, καὶ ταύτας ὁμοίως ἐπιστημόνως λύειν, οὐχ ἔστιν αἰσθήσεως ἔργον. ᾿ΩὩμολόγηται γὰρ τὸ μὴ δύνασθαι τὴν αἴσθησιν οὐσίας τε καὶ ἀληθείας ἐφάπτεσθαι γνώσεως. Εἰ δὲ τοῦτο, καὶ ἐπιστήμης μὲν ἔστι τὸ ἐφάπτεσθαι οὐσίας τε καὶ ἀληθείας γνώσίως, αἰσθήσεως δὲ οὐχ ἔστι" τὸ δὲ μὴ ὃν τῆς αἰσθήσεως οὐδὲ σώματός ἔστιν " ἀνάγχη ἄρα εἶναί τε ἀσώματον ἐφ᾽ ἑαυτοῦ, ἐν ᾧ ὑπάρχει ἡ ἐπι- ἌΔ1ο. Εἰ δεῖ τὴν οὐσίαν εἶναι ἐφ᾽ ἑαυτῆς, διαιρεῖται δὲ ἡ οὐσία χατὰ τὴν πρώτην διαίρεσιν εἰς σῶμα καὶ ἀσώματον, πῶς οὐχ ἔστι τὸ ἀσώματον οὐσία ἐφ᾽ ἑαυτῆς ὑπάρχουσα; ΄ Τὸ δυνάμενον ἑαυτὸ χωρίζειν τοῦ προσπάσχειν σώματι, καὶ μὴ φθείρεσθαι, δύναται καὶ χωρι- ς΄ σθῆναι τοῦ σώματος καὶ μὴ φθείρεσθαι - διὸ χάλλιον καὶ τιμιώτερόν ἐστι τοῦ σώματος, ὡς αἴτιον ὑπάρχον τοῦ χαλὸν εἶναι: τὸ σῶμα τῇ αὑτοῦ παρουσίᾳ. Τὸ τοιοῦτόν φαμεν εἶναι τὴν λογιχὴν ψυχὴν, πνεῦμα οὖσαν, νοερὸν, ζωτικήν τε καὶ γνωστιχὴν καὶ αὐτοχίνητον᾽ ἧς ὁμοουσίους εἶναί φαμεν τούς τε ἀγγέλους καὶ τοὺς δαίμονας. Καὶ χαθόλου εἰπεῖν, πᾶν ἑνούσιον τὸ ὑπό τινος μὴ δυνάμενον χρατεῖσθαι, σῶμά ἔστι τῷ χρατοῦντι αὐτό. Καὶ τὸ Θεῖόν φαμεν εἶναι ἀσώματον, οὐχὅτι ἔστιν ἀσώματον (ἐπέχεινα γάρ ἔστιν ὁ Θεὸς τῇ αὑτοῦ οὐσέᾳ, ὥσπερ τοῦ σώματος, οὕτω καὶ τοῦ ἀτωμάτου, ὡς ἑκατέρου τούτων ὑπάρχων δημιουρ- Υός' οὐδὲ γὰρ ἐποίησεν ὁ Θεὸς ἃ αὐτὸς ὑπάρχει), ἀλλ' ὥσπερ εἰώθαμεν ἐν τοῖς παρ᾽ ἡμῖν τιμιωτέροις ᾿ ᾿ ὑλικοῖς ἀεὶ γεραίρειν τὸ Θεῖον, οὕτω καὶ ἐν τοῖς ὀνό- Ὁ μασιν, οὐχ ὡς τοῦ Θεοῦ τούτων δεομένου, ἀλλ᾽ ἡμῶν τὴν περὶ αὐτοῦ ἔννοιαν αὐτοῖς ἐνδεικνυμένων. Ἑούτῳ οὖν τῷ τρόπῳ ὀνομάζομεν αὐτὸν ἀσώματον, καίτοι εἰδότες αὐτὸν ἐπέχεινα ὑπάρχοντα τοῦ ἀσωμάτου, ὡς τούτου δημιουργόν. Κείσθω δὲ ὅλως καὶ τοῦτο ἐν τῷ λόγῳ δειχτιχὸν ὑπάρχον τοῦ εἶναί τι ἀσώματον. Εἰ δὲ μηδὲν ἣν ἐν τοῖς οὖσιν ἀσώματον, οὐδ᾽ ἂν τὸ σῶμα. ᾿Αλλ' ἐπειδή ἐστί τι ἀσώματον, ὥσπερ ἐστί τι σῶμα, Α διὰ τοῦτο ἀνάγχη τοῖς ἐναντίοις ὀνόμασι τὰ ἔναντέα ἀλλή- Τοῦ οἱ ποθὴ λων διαστέλλειν. Καὶ γὰρ τὸν Θεὸν καλοῦμεν ἄχτεστον, τῷ τοῦ ἀχτίστου ὀνόματι τῶν χτιστῶν αὐτὸν διαστέλλον τες. Καὶ εἰ μὴ ἦσαν τὰ χτιστὰ, οὐδὲ Θεὸς τούτων διεστέλλετο τῷ τοῦ ἀχτίστου ὀνόματι. Κατὰ ταύτην οἷν τὴν γινομένην τῷ τοῦ ἀχτίστου ὀνόματι διαστολὴν δείχνυται ὁ Θεὸς σωμάτων τε καὶ ἀσωμάτων ὅδκάρχων ἐπέχεινα. Εἰ γὰρ τὸ χτιστὸν ὄνομα πάντα λήθδην περιέχει τὰ σώματά τε καὶ τὰ ἀσώματα, δῖλον, ὅτι ὁ τούτῳ τῷ ὀνόματι τῶν χτιστῶν δεαστελλόμενος ἐξ ἀνάγχης καὶ σωμάτων τε καὶ ἀσωμάτεν διέσταλται. Καὶ ὅπερ πρόσεστι τοῖς ἄλλοις ἀπωμάτοῖς, τὸ μὴ χρατεῖσθαι ὑπὸ σωμάτων, τοῦτο πρόσεσιι καὶ τῷ θεῷ, ὡς τῷ ἀσωμάτῳ οὐχὶ, ἀλλ᾽ ὡς τῷ ἐπτέχεινατοῦ ἀσωμάτου. Καὶ ἐπειδὴ τὸ μὴ ἔχεεν Β γὸν καὶ δεσπότην τοῦ ἔχειν δημιουργὸν καὶ δεσπότην στη. τιμιώτερόν ἔστι, διὰ τοῦτο τὸν Θεὸν καλοῦ μεν ἄχτιστον. Τὸ γὰρ ὑπάρχον ἄχτιστον οὔτε δημεουργὸν δύναται ἔχειν οὔτε δεσπότην. Ὡσαύτως δὲ, ἐπειδὴ τὸ μὴ κρατεῖσθαι ὑπό τινος τοῦ χρατεῖσθαι τεμεώτερόν ἔστι, διὰ τοῦτο χαλοῦμεν αὐτὸν ἀσώματον. ### English translation (Claude) Question. If there is something incorporeal, whence is it clear that it can exist by itself? Answer. That by whose presence the body, which of itself has no share in life, sense, and thought, comes to have them, and by whose absence it becomes again dead, insensible, and without thought, must exist by itself, as being by its own nature imperishable. Another. To construct logical difficulties with knowledge, and to solve them likewise with knowledge, is not the work of sense. For it is agreed that sense cannot attain the knowledge of essence and truth. If this is so, attaining the knowledge of essence and truth belongs to knowledge, not to sense; and what does not belong to sense does not belong to body either; so there must be something incorporeal existing by itself, in which knowledge exists. Another. If essence must exist by itself, and essence is divided by the first division into body and incorporeal, how is the incorporeal not an essence existing by itself? Another. What can separate itself from being affected along with the body, and not perish, can also be separated from the body and not perish; hence it is finer and more honorable than the body, being the cause of the body's beauty by its presence. Such, we say, is the rational soul, which is a spirit, intellectual, living, knowing, and self-moving; and we say that the angels and the demons are of the same essence with it. And, generally speaking, everything that has an essence and cannot be held by anything is body to that which holds it. And we say that the Divine is incorporeal, not because it is incorporeal (for God in his essence is beyond the incorporeal as he is beyond body, being the Creator of each of these; for God did not make what he himself is), but as we are accustomed always to honor the Divine with the more precious of the material things among us, so we do with names too, not because God needs them, but because by them we show our notion of him. In this manner, then, we name him incorporeal, though we know that he is beyond the incorporeal, as its Creator. Let this too be laid down in the argument as showing that there is something incorporeal. If there were nothing incorporeal among the things that exist, neither would there be body. But since there is something incorporeal, as there is something that is body, we must distinguish opposites from one another by opposite names. For we call God uncreated, distinguishing him from created things by the name “uncreated”; and if there were no created things, God would not be distinguished from them by the name “uncreated.” By this distinction, made by the name “uncreated,” God is shown to be beyond both bodies and incorporeal things. For if the name “created” comprises altogether both bodies and incorporeal things, clearly he who is distinguished from created things by this name is necessarily distinguished from both bodies and incorporeal things. And what belongs to the other incorporeal things, not to be held by bodies, belongs also to God, not as to something incorporeal, but as to what is beyond the incorporeal. And since not having a creator and master is more honorable than having a creator and master, we therefore call God uncreated; for what is uncreated can have neither creator nor master. Likewise, since not to be held by anything is more honorable than to be held, we therefore call him incorporeal. ### Translation notes - Christian answer 2, to Greek question 2. - “Everything that has an essence and cannot be held by anything is body to that which holds it”: the sentence is obscure as printed (perhaps “that can be held”); translated as it stands. - Angels and demons “of the same essence” (ὁμοουσίους) as the rational soul: the answer's own view, translated as written. A note of Migne's on ἀμέτοχον, run into the text, is removed by a logged correction. ### Citation (SBL) Ps.-Justin, Quaest. Gent. Christ. 2.2 (PG 6:1109; trans. Sophia Scriptura, https://sophiascriptura.com/fathers/ps-justin-quaestiones-gentilium/1-0/#p-2-2). ## Greek Questions to the Christians 2.3 - URL: https://sophiascriptura.com/fathers/ps-justin-quaestiones-gentilium/1-0/#p-2-3 - Source: PG 6:1109 - Translation: Claude (claude-opus-5-5), 2026-09-27 Summary: God's existence is known from the order and endurance of creation and from the teaching of the prophets, the Lord, and the apostles, confirmed by miracles. ### Greek text ἘΡΩΤΗΣΙΣ. Πόθεν δῆλον εἰ ὅλως ἔστι Θεός; ἌΠΟΚΡΙΣΙΣ. Ἔχ τῆς τῶν ὄντων συστάσεώς τε καὶ διαμονῆς. Οὐ γὰρ ἂν ἦν τὰ ὄντα, μὴ τοῦ Θεοῦ προῦὐπάρχοντος αὐτῶν, τοῦ πάντα τὰ μέρη τῆς χτί σεως χρειωδῶς πρὸς λυσιτέλειαν τῆς ὅλης χτίσεως ὑποστησαμένου, τοῦ ἡμῖν γνωσθέντος διὰ προῤῥέ σεως καὶ διδασχαλίας τῶν προφητῶν τε καὶ τοῦ Κυρίου ἀποστόλων λόγοις θείαις δυνάμεσι μεμαρτυρημένοις. ### English translation (Claude) Question. Whence is it clear whether God exists at all? Answer. From the constitution and the continuance of the things that exist. For the things that exist would not exist if God did not exist before them, who established all the parts of creation usefully, for the benefit of the whole creation; the God who has been made known to us through the prediction and teaching of the prophets, and of the Lord and the apostles, words attested by divine powers. ### Translation notes - Christian answer 3, to Greek question 6 (Migne's Latin heads it “Quaest. III. 6”). ### Citation (SBL) Ps.-Justin, Quaest. Gent. Christ. 2.3 (PG 6:1109; trans. Sophia Scriptura, https://sophiascriptura.com/fathers/ps-justin-quaestiones-gentilium/1-0/#p-2-3). ## Greek Questions to the Christians 2.4 - URL: https://sophiascriptura.com/fathers/ps-justin-quaestiones-gentilium/1-0/#p-2-4 - Source: PG 6:1109 - Translation: Claude (claude-opus-5-5), 2026-09-27 Summary: God made, sustains, and will renew the world by his will, decided before creation; that he made one sun when he could have made many shows that he acts by will. ### Greek text ἜΡΩΤΗΣΙΣ. Εἰ ποιεῖ Θεὸς, ἣ ἐποίησεν, ἢ μέλλει ποιεῖν, μετὰ βουλῆς, ἣ ἄνευ βουλῆς; ἌΠΟΚΡΙΣΙΣ. Ἐποίησεν ὁ Θεὸς, καὶ ποιεῖ, καὶ ποιήσει διὰ τῆς οἰχείας βουλήσεως. Ἐποίησε γὰρ τὴν χτίσιν οὐχ οὖσαν πρότερον βουληθεὶς αὐτός" ἣν τῇ ἑαυτοῦ προνοίᾳ ἐν τῷ εἶναι διατηρεῖ" ὅπερ ἐστὶ ποιεῖ" ἦν καὶ μέλλει ἀναχτίζειν, καὶ εἰς τὴν βελτίονα ἀγαγεῖν χατάστασιν διὰ τῆς ἀναχτίσεως᾽" ὅπερ ἐστὶ ποιήσει" ἵνα χαθαρίσῃ αὐτὴν ἀπὸ πάσης ἀτοπίας τῆς ἐχ τῆς τῶν λογιχῶν ῥᾳθυμέας σὴς αὑτῇ οὐχ ἐχ τῆς ἐπιχρίσεώς τε καὶ ἐπισχέψεως Ὀ ὕστερον εὑρὼν τὸ βέλτιον, ἀλλὰ ἄνωθεν καὶ πρὸ τῆς; τοῦ χόσμου ποιήσεως ἣν αὐτῷ δεδογμένον τὸ, ποιεῖν. Οὔτε γὰρ πρὸς γνῶσιν οὔτε πρὸς δύναμιν δυνατὸν προσγενέσθαι τῷ Θεῷ ὕστερον, ὃ μὴ πρότερον εἶχε. Δεῖγμα δὲ τοῦ βουλήσει τὸν Θεὸν ποιεῖν τὸν χόσμην τοῦτό ἐστι, τὸ, δυναμένου τοῦ Θεοῦ πλείονας ποιεῖν ἡλίους, οὐκ ἐποίησε πλείονας, ἀλλ᾽ ἕνα μόνον ἐποίῃσεν. Ὁ γὰρ μὴ δυνάμενος πλείονας ποιῆσαι ἡλίους, οὔτε ἕνα δύναται ποιεῖν καὶ ὁ τὸν ἕνα ἧλιον δυνάμενος ποιῆσαι, ἐξ ἀνάγκης καὶ πλείονας δύναται ποιεῖν. Πῶς οὖν οὐχ ἐποίησεν ὁ Θεὸς πλείονας ἡλίους, οὖς ἐδύνατο ποιεῖν, εἰ μή τι ἄρα οὐχ ἐδούλετο πλείο- Α οἱ νας ποιεῖν ἡλίους; Εἰ δὲ οὖς οὐχ ἐποίησεν ἡλίους, βουλήσει οὐχ ἐποίησε, δῆλον ἄρα, ὅτι καὶ ὃν ἐποίησε, βουλήσει γε ἐποίησε" καὶ χαθάπερ τὸν ἥλιον, οὕτω χα τὰ λοιπὰ πάντα τὰ μέρη τῆς χτίσεως, τά τε ἄφθαρτα καὶ τὰ φθαρτὰ, τὰ ἐχ τῆς τοῦ Θεοῦ βουλῆς τό τε εἶναι καὶ τὸ τοιάδε εἶναι ἔχοντα. ### English translation (Claude) Question. Whether God makes, or has made, or will make, with will or without will? Answer. God made, and makes, and will make, by his own will. For he made the creation, which did not exist before, willing it himself; this he keeps in being by his providence, which is what “he makes” means; and this he will also re-create and bring into a better state through the re-creation, which is what “he will make” means, in order to cleanse it of every disorder that has come upon it from the negligence of rational beings. He did not find the better course later, by deliberation and consideration; rather, from above and before the making of the world, the making had been decided by him. For nothing can be added to God later, either in knowledge or in power, that he did not have before. A proof that God makes the world by will is this: although God could make several suns, he did not make several, but made only one. For one who cannot make several suns cannot make one either; and one who can make one sun can necessarily make several. Why then did God not make several suns, which he could make, unless he did not will to make several suns? And if he did not make by will the suns that he did not make, clearly the one he made he made by will; and as with the sun, so with all the other parts of creation, both the imperishable and the perishable, which have from God's will both their being and their being of such a kind. ### Translation notes - Christian answer 4, to Greek questions 7–9. ### Citation (SBL) Ps.-Justin, Quaest. Gent. Christ. 2.4 (PG 6:1109; trans. Sophia Scriptura, https://sophiascriptura.com/fathers/ps-justin-quaestiones-gentilium/1-0/#p-2-4). ## Greek Questions to the Christians 2.5 - URL: https://sophiascriptura.com/fathers/ps-justin-quaestiones-gentilium/1-0/#p-2-5 - Source: PG 6:1109 - Translation: Claude (claude-opus-5-5), 2026-09-27 Summary: Short arguments that the incorporeal is better than body and that the soul is incorporeal and exists by itself. ### Greek text ἘΡΩΤΗΣΙΣ, Εἰ χάλλιον τὸ ἀσώματον τοῦ σώματος; χὸν γίνεται, οὐ σώματος ἑτέρου παρουσίᾳ, ἀλλὰ τῇ τοῦ ἀσωμάτου, πῶς οὐχ ἔστι τὸ ἀσώματον τοῦ σώματος ὑπάρχον χάλλιον : Ἄλλο. Εἰ ἐχ τῆς ὕλης καὶ τοῦ εἴδους ἐστὶ πᾶσα ἡ σωυματιχὴ οὐσία, καὶ οὐχ ἐχ τῆς ὕλης τὸ εἶδος, ἀλλ᾽ ὠλαχόθεν παραγίνεται τῇ ὕλῃ, πῶς οὐχ ἔστι τὸ Ὦ ἀσώματον κάλλιον τῆς ὕλης, ἐξ οὗ παραγίνεται εἰς τὴν ὕλην τὸ εἶδος; Ἄλλο. Ἐὶ οὐχ ἐνδέχεται γνωσθῆναι τὸ ἴσον τοῦ ἀνίοου ἀγνοουμένου, πῶς ἐνδέχεται γνωσθῆναι τὸ οῶμα τοῦ ἀσωμάτου ἀγνοουμένου; ἌΛλ1ο. Εἰ τὰ σωματιχὰ πάντα ἐν σώματι μὲν ὑπάρχει εἰδωλικῶς, ἡ ψυχὴ δὲ λογιχῶς, πῶς οὐχ ἔστιν ἣ ψυχὴ ἀσώματος; Ἄλλο. Εἰ δυνατὸν τῇ ψυχῇ χατὰ νοῦν ἐνεργεῖν" ἐνεργεῖ δὲ κατὰ νοῦν ἡ ψυχὴ, ὅταν χωρίζῃ ἑαυτὴν πάσης αἰσθήσεως, πῶς οὐχ ἔστιν ἐφ᾽ ἑαυτῆς ἡ ψυχή; ### English translation (Claude) Question. Whether the incorporeal is better than body? Answer. … becomes beautiful, not by the presence of another body but by that of the incorporeal, how is the incorporeal not better than body? Another. If every bodily essence is composed of matter and form, and the form does not come from matter but comes to matter from elsewhere, how is the incorporeal, from which the form comes to matter, not better than matter? Another. If the equal cannot be known while the unequal is unknown, how can body be known while the incorporeal is unknown? Another. If all bodily things exist in a body as images but in the soul as concepts, how is the soul not incorporeal? Another. If the soul can act according to mind, and the soul acts according to mind when it separates itself from all sense, how does the soul not exist by itself? ### Translation notes - Christian answer 5, to Greek questions 3–4 (Migne's Latin heads it “Quaest. V. 3”). The beginning of the answer is lost in the scan text (“…”). ### Citation (SBL) Ps.-Justin, Quaest. Gent. Christ. 2.5 (PG 6:1109; trans. Sophia Scriptura, https://sophiascriptura.com/fathers/ps-justin-quaestiones-gentilium/1-0/#p-2-5). ## Greek Questions to the Christians 2.6 - URL: https://sophiascriptura.com/fathers/ps-justin-quaestiones-gentilium/1-0/#p-2-6 - Source: PG 6:1109 - Translation: Claude (claude-opus-5-5), 2026-09-27 Summary: God differs from the soul as Creator and Master from creature, and as what is beyond being from what is. ### Greek text ἘΡΩΤΗΣΙΣ. Τί διαφέρει Θεὸς ψυχῆς; ἌΠΟΚΡΙΣΙΣ. Ἧ διαφέρει τὸ δημιουργὸν καὶ δεσπότὴν εἶναι τοῦ δημιουργὸν καὶ δεσπότην ἔχειν, καὶ ἧ ν διαφέρει τὸ ὑπὲρ τὸ ὃν τοῦ ὄντος. ### English translation (Claude) Question. In what does God differ from the soul? Answer. As being Creator and Master differs from having a Creator and Master; and as what is beyond being differs from what is. ### Translation notes - Christian answer 6, to Greek question 5. ### Citation (SBL) Ps.-Justin, Quaest. Gent. Christ. 2.6 (PG 6:1109; trans. Sophia Scriptura, https://sophiascriptura.com/fathers/ps-justin-quaestiones-gentilium/1-0/#p-2-6). ## Greek Questions to the Christians 2.7 - URL: https://sophiascriptura.com/fathers/ps-justin-quaestiones-gentilium/1-0/#p-2-7 - Source: PG 6:1109 - Translation: Claude (claude-opus-5-5), 2026-09-27 Summary: God makes without instruments, since what he wills comes to be at once; and he knows his works by reason, needing no deliberation, since he neither gains nor loses knowledge. ### Greek text ἘΡΩΤΗ͂ΣΙΣ. Εἰ μετὰ βουλῆς ποιεῖ ὃ Θεὸς, ὀργάνῳ χεχρημένος ἣ ἄνευ ὀργάνου : ἌΠΟΚΡΙΣΙΣ. ᾿Ανενδεής ἔστιν ὁ Θεὸς παντὸς τοῦ ἔξωθεν τῆς ἑαυτοῦ φύσεως - καὶ ὥσπερ ἄνευ ὀργάνου βούλεται, οὕτω καὶ ἄνευ ὀργάνου ποιεῖ. Εἰ γὰρ ἅμα τῷ βούλεσθαι αὐτὸν γενέσθαι τι, ὑφίσταται βουληθέντος αὑτοῦ, πῶς οὐ περιττὴ τῶν ὀργάνων ἡ χρῆσις τῶν γινομένων; βὺν ἀλόγως ποιεῖ ἄνευ διανοίας καὶ ἐπισχέψεως ἣ μετά τινος ἐπικρίσεως; Καὶ εἰ μετὰ ἐπιχρίσεως, τίνος ἐνδείᾳ ἐπιχρίσεως δεῖται; Εἰ δὲ ἀχρίτως, ποίῳ τῷ λόγῳ; ἌΠΟΚΡΙΣΙΣ. Εἰ γνωστὰ τῷ Θεῷ τὰ ἔργα αὐτοῦ, τὰ δὲ γνωστὰ λόγῳ ἐστὶ γνωστά " πῶς οὐ λόγῳ γιγώσχει ὁ Θεὸς ἃ ποιεῖ; Τὸ δὲ μετὰ διανοίας καὶ ἐπισχέψεως καὶ ἐπιχρίσεως ποιεῖν τι, τῶν παρ᾽ ἡμῖν τεχνιτῶν ἔστιν ἴδιον, τῶν τούτοις πρὸς ἄμεινον τέλος τῶν γινομένων ἀφιχνουμένων" ὁ δὲ Θεὸς, ἅτε μῆτε προσλαμδάνων γνῶσιν μήτε ἀποδαλὼν γνῶσιν, οὐδενὸς τούτων δεῖται. ### English translation (Claude) Question. If God makes with will, does he use an instrument or make without an instrument? Answer. God has no need of anything outside his own nature; and as he wills without an instrument, so he also makes without an instrument. For if, at the same moment as he wills something to come into being, it comes to subsist because he has willed it, how is the use of instruments for the things that come into being not superfluous? [8] … whether he makes irrationally, without thought and consideration, or with some deliberation? And if with deliberation, through lack of what does he need deliberation? And if without judgment, by what reasoning? Answer. If God's works are known to God, and what is known is known by reason, how does God not know by reason what he makes? But to make something with thought, consideration, and deliberation is proper to the craftsmen among us, who by these means reach a better end for the things they make; but God, since he neither acquires knowledge nor loses knowledge, needs none of these. ### Translation notes - Christian answer 7, to Greek question 10. Answer 8, to Greek questions 11–12, begins inside this reference; its heading and the start of its question are lost in the scan text (“…”), and its beginning is marked [8]. ### Citation (SBL) Ps.-Justin, Quaest. Gent. Christ. 2.7 (PG 6:1109; trans. Sophia Scriptura, https://sophiascriptura.com/fathers/ps-justin-quaestiones-gentilium/1-0/#p-2-7). ## Greek Questions to the Christians 2.9 - URL: https://sophiascriptura.com/fathers/ps-justin-quaestiones-gentilium/1-0/#p-2-9 - Source: PG 6:1109 - Translation: Claude (claude-opus-5-5), 2026-09-27 Summary: What is imperishable by another's will is not unoriginated: God alone has immortality by nature, while imperishable creatures, composed of originated elements, remain originated. ### Greek text ἘΡΩΤΗΣΙΣ. Εἰ τὸ ὅλως γενητὸν δύναται ἄφθαρτὸν εἶναι, ποίῳ τῷ λόγῳ; ἌΠΟΚΡΙΣΙΣ. Ὧν ἡ ἀφθαρσία ἐχ τῆς ἑτέρου βουτὶ Οὐ Τ. (δεῖς ποίᾶ ἐδὲν Α λῆς ἐξήρτηται, ταῦτα οὐ δύναται ἀγενήτως ἄφθαρτα μόνον τὸν Θεὸν λέγομεν ἔχειν ἀθανασίαν, ὅτι ἐχ τῆς οἰχείας φύσεως, καὶ οὐχ ἐχ τῆς ἑτέρου βουλῆς, πρόσεστιν αὐτῷ ταῦτα. ᾿ "Αλ1λο. Ὁ Θεὸς εἰ ὑπὲρ μὲν τοὺς ἀφθάρτους ἐστὶν, ὡς τούτων ποιητὴς, ὑπὲρ δὲ τὸ ἀγένητον οὐχ ἔστιν - οὐδὲ γάρ ἐστιν τῶν ἀγενήτων δημιουργός" οὐκ ἄρα ἕπεται τῷ ἀφθάρτῳ τὸ ἀγένητον. "Α.1λο. Εἰ φθαρτός ἐστιν ὁ Θεὸς τῇ αὑτοῦ φύσει, ἄφθαρτος δὲ καὶ ἡ ψυχὴ τῇ ἑαυτοῦ βουλήσει τοῦ δημιουργοῦ - πῶς ἐν τοσαύτῃ ἀφθαρσίας διαφορᾷ ἕπεται καθ᾽ ἡμᾶς τῷ ἀφθάρτῳ τὸ ἀγένητον; "Αλλο. Ἐὶ οὖν τελεῖ τι πρὸς σύστασιν τῶν φθαρτῶν, πῶς οὐχ εἰσὶ τῶν φθορίμων πραγμάτων τὰ ἄφθαρτα ὑπουργιχὰ, τῆς αἰτίας τῆς ἀφθαρσίας αὖτῶν πρὸς τὴν τοιαύτην ἀγούσης αὐτὰ ὑπουργᾷαν; "Ἀλλ᾽ εἰ τοῦτο, δῆλον, ὅτι ἀφθαρσίαν μὲν διὰ χρειώδη τινὰ δύναταί τις ἔχειν, ἀγεννησίαν δὲ οὐχέτι" τὸ γὰρ ἀγένητον, χωρὶς πάσης χρειώδους αἰτίας, δεῖ ὑπάρχειν ἀγένητον. ρὴν δὲ σῶμα τὸ ἐχ στοιχείων τὸ δὲ ἐχ στοιχείων σῶμα οὐχ ἐνδέχεται εἶναι ἀγένητον" οὐδὲν γὰρ ἀγένητον ὕστερον εἶναι δύναται γενητοῦ " πῶς, εἰ ἔστι τὰ ἐχ στοιχείων σώματα ἄφθαρτα, οὐ γενητὰ ἔσονται ἄφθαρτα; Εἰ γενητὰ πάντα τὰ στοιχεῖα, “πῶς οὐχ ἔστι ληρῶδες τὸ τὰ ἐχ στοιχείων λέγειν ἀγένητα᾽ Εἰ γὰρ ἡ ὕλη χαθ᾽ ἑαυτὴν μὲν οὐχ ἔστιν οὔτε στοιχεῖον οὔτε οὐσία, προσλαδοῦσα δὲ ποιότητά τε καὶ ποσότητα, στοιχεῖον γίνεται καὶ οὐσία - πῶς τὰ ἐχ τῶν τοιούτων στοιχείων ἀποτελούμενα δύναται εἶναι καὶ ἀγένητα, εἰ συμθδαίη αὑτοῖς εἶναι ἄφθαρτα; "Αλ1ο. Ἐὺ ἄλλο τὸ σῶμα, καὶ ἄλλο τὸ ἄφθαρτον σῶμα, καὶ ἄλλο τὸ φθαρτὸν σῶμα " κατὰ δὲ τὴν δια φορὰν ἀφθαρσίας τε καὶ φθορᾶς διαιρεῖται τὸ σῶμα εἰς ἄφθαρτόν τε καὶ φθαρτὸν σῶμα" πῶς οὐχ ἔστιν ἀνάγκη ἴδιον εἶναι τοῦ διαιρουμένου σώματος τὸ γενητὸν ἢ τὸ ἀγένητον; Εἰ δὲ οὐδὲν τούτων ἴδιόν ἔστι μένον σῶμα οὔτε γενητὸν οὔτε ἀγένητον; Εἰ δὲ τοῦτε ἀδύνατον τὸ μηδέτερον εἶναι τὸ διαιρούμενον σῶμα, ἀνάγχη ἄρα ἐστὶ τεθῆναι τὸ διαιρούμενον σῶμα, τοῦτο εἶναι τὸ ἄφθαρτον σῶμα καὶ τὸ φθαρτὸν, εἰς ἃ διαιρεῖται τὸ διαιρούμενον σῶμα. ### English translation (Claude) Question. Whether what has come into being at all can be imperishable, and by what reasoning? Answer. Things whose imperishability depends on the will of another cannot be imperishable as unoriginated things; therefore we say that God alone has immortality, because these attributes belong to him from his own nature and not from the will of another. Another. If God is above the imperishable beings, as their maker, but is not above the unoriginated, since he is not the creator of unoriginated things, then “unoriginated” does not follow from “imperishable.” Another. If God is imperishable by his own nature, and the soul too is imperishable, but by the will of its Creator, how, with so great a difference in imperishability, does “unoriginated” follow from “imperishable,” as you hold? Another. If, then, the imperishable contributes anything to the constitution of perishable things, how are imperishable things not servants of perishable things, since the cause of their imperishability leads them to such service? But if this is so, clearly one can have imperishability because of some useful purpose, but not unoriginatedness; for the unoriginated must be unoriginated apart from any cause of usefulness. … a body composed of elements; but a body composed of elements cannot be unoriginated, for nothing unoriginated can be later than what is originated. How then, if bodies composed of elements are imperishable, will they not be originated imperishable things? Another. If all the elements are originated, how is it not nonsense to call the things composed of elements unoriginated? For if matter by itself is neither an element nor an essence, but becomes an element and an essence when it has taken on quality and quantity, how can the things produced from such elements be unoriginated, even if it should happen that they are imperishable? Another. If body is one thing, imperishable body another, and perishable body another, and body is divided into imperishable and perishable body according to the difference between imperishability and perishability, how is it not necessary that originated or unoriginated be proper to the body that is divided? And if neither of these is proper to it, … the body that is divided is neither originated nor unoriginated? But if it is impossible for the body that is divided to be neither, it must be laid down that the body that is divided is the very body that is imperishable and perishable, into which the divided body is divided. ### Scripture references - 1 Tim 6:16: allusion, high confidence ### Translation notes - Christian answer 9, to Greek question 13 (Migne's Latin heads it “Quaest. IX. 13”). Lost words are marked “…”. - “God alone has immortality”: the wording of 1 Tim 6:16. - In the third argument the scan text reads φθαρτός (“perishable”) of God; the argument requires ἄφθαρτος (“imperishable”), and it is translated so. ### Citation (SBL) Ps.-Justin, Quaest. Gent. Christ. 2.9 (PG 6:1109; trans. Sophia Scriptura, https://sophiascriptura.com/fathers/ps-justin-quaestiones-gentilium/1-0/#p-2-9). ## Greek Questions to the Christians 2.10 - URL: https://sophiascriptura.com/fathers/ps-justin-quaestiones-gentilium/1-0/#p-2-10 - Source: PG 6:1109 - Translation: Claude (claude-opus-5-5), 2026-09-27 Summary: Created things perish not through anyone's badness but by the limit God sets, which brings perishing to individuals while preserving the kind. ### Greek text ἜΡΩΤΗΣΙΣ. Εἰ φθείρεται τὸ γινόμενον ὑπὸ τῶ Θεοῦ, τίνος χκαχίᾳ φθείρεται " τοῦ ποιήσαντος, ἣ τοῦ γεγονότος, ἢ τινος ἔξωθεν ὑπεναντίου γινομένου τῷ ποιήσαντι : ΓΑΠΟΚΡΙΣΙΣ. Οὔτε ἐχ τῆς τοῦ πεποιηχότος χαχίς οὔτε ἐχ τῆς τοῦ ὑπεναντίου φθείρεται τὰ φθειρόμενα, Α τῷ ὅρῳ τοῦ δημιουργοῦ τοῦ ἐργαζομένου ἐν μὲν τοῖς χαθέχαστον τὴν φθορὰν, ἐν δὲ τοῖς χαθόλου τὴν ἀφθαρσίαν. Ἐξ γὰρ ἐχ τῶν εἰρημένων τινὸς καχίας ἐφθείρετο τὰ φθειρόμενα, ὅλον ἂν τὸ γένος ἐφθεέρετο, καὶ πὸ χαθέχαστον καὶ τὸ χαθόλου. Εἰ γὰρ δῶμεν ἔχ τινος χαχίας εἶναι τὴν φθορὰν, οὐχ ἂν διεσώθη ἐν τοῖς φθειρομένοις τὸ γένος τῶν γινομένων ἄφθαρτον, εἧς χαχίας ὥσπερτοῦ χαθέχαστον, οὕτω καὶ τοῦ χαθὅλου χυριευούσης, Εἰ δέ τινος χαχίᾳ τὸ καθόλου φθαρῆναι ἀδύνατον, οὐδ᾽ αὖ τὸ καθέχαστον τινὸς φθείρέται χαχίᾳ, ἀλλὰ τῷ ὅρῳ τοῦ Θεοῦ. Εἰ γὰρ οὐχ ἔστιν ἐν τοῖς οὖσι χαχία τις δυναμένη χωλῦσαι τὴ» γένεσιν, οὐδ᾽ ἄρα ἐστὶν ἐν τοῖς οὖσι χαχία τις ἡ φθείρου: τὸ γένος. Ξ πρὸς τὰς προῤῥηθείσας ἐρωτήσεις περὶ αὐτῆς. ### English translation (Claude) Question. If what comes into being from God perishes, by whose badness does it perish: that of the maker, that of the thing made, or that of something outside that has come to oppose the maker? Answer. The things that perish perish neither from the badness of their maker nor from that of an opponent, but by the limit set by the Creator, who works perishing in individual things but imperishability in the universal. For if the things that perish perished from the badness of any of those mentioned, the whole kind would perish, both the individual and the universal. For if we grant that perishing comes from some badness, the kind of the things that come into being would not have been preserved imperishable among the things that perish, since the badness would rule the universal as it rules the individual. But if it is impossible for the universal to perish by anyone's badness, neither does the individual perish by anyone's badness, but by the limit set by God. For if there is no badness among the things that exist that can prevent coming into being, neither then is there any badness among the things that exist that destroys the kind. [Answers on the resurrection,] to the questions set out above about it. ### Translation notes - Christian answer 10, to Greek question 14. The last line is the heading of the next part of the work (“Answers on the resurrection, to the questions set out above about it”), whose first words are lost in the scan text; it is kept here where the text places it. ### Citation (SBL) Ps.-Justin, Quaest. Gent. Christ. 2.10 (PG 6:1109; trans. Sophia Scriptura, https://sophiascriptura.com/fathers/ps-justin-quaestiones-gentilium/1-0/#p-2-10). ## Greek Questions to the Christians 3.1 - URL: https://sophiascriptura.com/fathers/ps-justin-quaestiones-gentilium/3-1/#p-3-1 - Source: PG 6 - Translation: Claude (claude-opus-5-5), 2026-09-27 Summary: Bodies eaten by fish or by other bodies are dissolved into their elements, from which God, who has already raised Christ, can re-create them as he created them in the beginning. ### Greek text Τὸ τὸν ἄνθρωπον εἶναι ἣ γενέσθαι ἰχθυόδρωτον, καὶ τὸν ἰχθὺν ἀνθρωπόδρωτον, οὔτε τὸν ἄνθρωπον εἰς ἰχθὺν ἀναλύει οὔτε τὸν ἰχθὺν εἰς ἄνθρωπον " ἀλλ᾽ ἑχατέρου ἣ ἀνάλυσις γίνεται εἰς τὰ στοιχεῖα ἐξ ὧν τὴν ἀρχὴν συνετέθησαν. Εἰ καὶ ὁ τρόπος τῆς ἐτέφων ἀναλύσεως γίνεται διὰ τῆς ὑπ᾽ ἀλλήλων βρώσεως" ἀλλὰ πάσης ἀναλύσεως τῆς χαθ᾽ οἱονδήποτε τρόπον γινομένης τὸ τέλος ἐστὶ τὸ εἰς τὰ στοιχεῖα χωρεῖν τὰ ἀναλυόμενα. Οὐ χρὴ οὖν διὰ τὴν ὑπ᾽ ἀλλήλων βρῶσιν ἀνθρώπου καὶ ἰχθύος σεσοφισμένην χαταπρὸς τὴν δύναμιν ἀφορᾷν τοῦ Θεοῦ, τοῦ μὴ μόνον α ἐπαγγελλομένου ποιεῖν τῶν νεχρῶν τὴν ἀνάστασιν, ἀλλὰ καὶ διὰ τῆς ἤδη ἡργμένης ἀναστάσεως τοῦ Σωτῆρος ἡμῶν Χριστοῦ βεδαίαν παρεσχηκότος ἡμῖν ταύτης τὴν πίστιν. ᾿Αλλ᾽ εἰ τὰ στοιχεῖα ὑπόχειται εἰς τὴν χτίσιν τῶν γινομένων καὶ εἰς ἀνάχτισιν τῶν φθαρέντων, πῶς, εἰ ἄπιστον καὶ ἀδύνατον ἡγεῖται ὃν τὴν ἀνάχτισιν τῶν φθαρέντων, οὐχ ἄπιστος καὶ ἀδύνατος ἔσται καὶ ἡ χτίσις τῶν γινομένων τὴν ἀρχήν; Ὅπερ ἐστὶν ἄτοπον. ### English translation (Claude) [1] For a human being to be or become food for fish, and a fish food for a human being, does not dissolve the human being into a fish or the fish into a human being; rather, the dissolution of each takes place into the elements from which they were composed in the beginning, even if the manner of the dissolution of the one comes about through their eating one another. The end of every dissolution, in whatever manner it takes place, is that the things dissolved go back into the elements. So one should not, because of a sophistical argument about human being and fish eating one another, look away from the power of God, who not only promises to bring about the resurrection of the dead, but has also given us a firm faith in it through the resurrection of our Savior Christ, which has already begun it. But if the elements underlie both the creation of the things that come into being and the re-creation of the things that have perished, how, if one considers the re-creation of the things that have perished incredible and impossible, will not the creation of the things that came into being in the beginning also be incredible and impossible? Which is absurd. ### Translation notes - The answers on the resurrection are numbered α, β, γ… in Migne; the refs 3.1, 3.2… follow those numerals. Text: archive.org OCR of Migne PG 6, with the Latin column removed by logged corrections. ### Citation (SBL) Ps.-Justin, Quaest. Gent. Christ. 3.1 (PG 6; trans. Sophia Scriptura, https://sophiascriptura.com/fathers/ps-justin-quaestiones-gentilium/3-1/#p-3-1). ## Greek Questions to the Christians 3.2 - URL: https://sophiascriptura.com/fathers/ps-justin-quaestiones-gentilium/3-1/#p-3-2 - Source: PG 6 - Translation: Claude (claude-opus-5-5), 2026-09-27 Summary: Since the parts of time are earlier and later, time is not eternal, and neither is the world that exists in time. ### Greek text Οὔτε τὴν χτίσιν τοῦ χόσμου οὔτε τὴν ἀνάχτισιν αὐτοῦ πιστεύουσιν Ἕλληνες. ᾿Αλλ᾽ εἰ μὲν ἀληθεύουσι τὸ πρῶτον, οὕτως ἂν γένοιτο δῆλον. Λέγουσι γὰρ τὸν χρόνον εἶναι ἀΐδιον. ᾿Αλλ᾽ εἰ μὲν ὁ χρόνος ἐστὶν τουτέστ:, τάς τε ὥρας, καὶ τὰς ἡμέρας, τούς τε μῇνας, καὶ τὸν ἐνιαυτόν. Εἰ δὲ ταῦτα οὐχ ἔστιν ἀΐδια διὰ τὸ εἶναι ἐν αὐτοῖς τὰ μὲν πρότερα, τὰ δὲ ὕστερα, οὐδὲ ἄρα ὁ χόσμος, ὧν ἐν τῷ χρόνῳ, δύναται εἶναι ἀγένητος, ### English translation (Claude) [2] The Greeks believe neither in the creation of the world nor in its re-creation. Whether they speak truly about the first would become clear as follows. They say that time is eternal. But if time is … that is, the hours, the days, the months, and the year. And if these are not eternal, because among them some are earlier and some later, neither then can the world, which exists in time, be unoriginated. ### Translation notes - Several lines are lost in the scan text at “…”. ### Citation (SBL) Ps.-Justin, Quaest. Gent. Christ. 3.2 (PG 6; trans. Sophia Scriptura, https://sophiascriptura.com/fathers/ps-justin-quaestiones-gentilium/3-1/#p-3-2). ## Greek Questions to the Christians 3.3 - URL: https://sophiascriptura.com/fathers/ps-justin-quaestiones-gentilium/3-1/#p-3-3 - Source: PG 6:479 - Translation: Claude (claude-opus-5-5), 2026-09-27 Summary: Disbelief in the resurrection rests either on the impious denial of God's power or on the ridiculous claim that imperishability would not benefit the risen. ### Greek text Διὰ δύο πράγματα χρὴ ἀπιστεῖν τῶν νεχρῶν τὴν ἀνάστασιν, ἣ διὰ τὸ μὴ δύνασθαι τὸν Θεὸν ἐγείβειν τοὺς νεχροὺς, ἣ διὰ τὸ μὴ λυσιτελεῖν τοῖς ἀνι- Α σταμένοις εἶναι αὐτοὺς ἀφθάρτους. Τούτων δὲ τὸ μὲν ἐϊα ἔστιν ἀσεδὲς, τὸ δὲ γελοῖον. ᾿Αλλ᾽ εἰ τοῦτο, πώς οὐχ ἐχ τῆς ἀσαφείας καὶ γέλωτος συνέστηχεν ὁ λόγος τῶν ἀπιστούντων τῶν νεχρῶν τὴν ἀνάστασιν; ### English translation (Claude) [3] There are two reasons why one might disbelieve the resurrection of the dead: either because God cannot raise the dead, or because it is not profitable for those who rise to be imperishable. Of these, the first is impious and the second ridiculous. But if this is so, how is the argument of those who disbelieve the resurrection of the dead not made up of obscurity and ridicule? ### Translation notes - A note of Migne's on a variant reading in the preceding answer, run into the text here, is removed by a logged correction. ### Citation (SBL) Ps.-Justin, Quaest. Gent. Christ. 3.3 (PG 6:479; trans. Sophia Scriptura, https://sophiascriptura.com/fathers/ps-justin-quaestiones-gentilium/3-1/#p-3-3). ## Greek Questions to the Christians 3.4 - URL: https://sophiascriptura.com/fathers/ps-justin-quaestiones-gentilium/3-1/#p-3-4 - Source: PG 6:479 - Translation: Claude (claude-opus-5-5), 2026-09-27 Summary: God creates by command, and the dead need nothing but his command to rise. ### Greek text “Ἃ ποιεῖ ὁ Θεὸς αὐτουργιχῶς, ταῦτα προστά:ματι ποιεῖ" σύγχρονος δὲ τῷ προστάγματι τοῦ Θεοῦ ἡ ὕπαρξις τῶν ὑπ᾽ αὐτοῦ ποιουμένων. Διεγοήθης, φησὶ, καὶ παρέστης. ᾿Αλλ᾽ εἰ τοῦτο ἀρμοδίως εἴρηται περὶ τοῦ Θεοῦ, πῶς ὁ ἀπιστῶν τὴν ἀνάστασιν οὐχ ἀπιστεῖ καὶ τῷ Θεῷ τὸ ἔχειν τὴν τοιαύτην δύναμιν; Οὐδὲ γὰρ ἑτέρου τινὸς δέονται οἱ ἀνιστάμενοι ἐκ τῶν νεχρῶν, πλὴν τοῦ προστάγματος ποῦ Θεοῦ. ### English translation (Claude) [4] What God makes by his own working he makes by command; and the existence of the things he makes is simultaneous with God's command. “You thought,” it says, “and it stood before you.” But if this is fittingly said of God, how does one who disbelieves the resurrection not also disbelieve that God has such power? For those who rise from the dead need nothing else than the command of God. ### Extrabiblical texts - Jdt 9:5–6 (Judith): allusion, medium confidence ### Translation notes - “You thought, and it stood before you”: apparently Judith 9:5–6 (“what you intended came to pass, and what you willed presented itself”), quoted loosely. ### Citation (SBL) Ps.-Justin, Quaest. Gent. Christ. 3.4 (PG 6:479; trans. Sophia Scriptura, https://sophiascriptura.com/fathers/ps-justin-quaestiones-gentilium/3-1/#p-3-4). ## Greek Questions to the Christians 3.5 - URL: https://sophiascriptura.com/fathers/ps-justin-quaestiones-gentilium/3-1/#p-3-5 - Source: PG 6:479 - Translation: Claude (claude-opus-5-5), 2026-09-27 Summary: The poet's line that God finds a way for the unexpected tells against disbelief in the resurrection. ### Greek text Εἰ ἀληθές ἔστι τὸ, Τῶν ἀδοκήτων πόρον εὗρε Θεὸς, καθάπερ οὖν καὶ ἀληθὲς, πῶς οὐ ψευδῆ τὸν λόγον ποιεῖ ὁ τῶν νεχρῶν ἀπιστῶν τὴν ἀνάστασιν; ### English translation (Claude) [5] If the saying “For things unlooked-for God has found a way” is true, as indeed it is true, how does one who disbelieves the resurrection of the dead not make the saying false? ### Extrabiblical texts - Euripides, Med. 1417 (Euripides (plays and fragments)): quotation, high confidence ### Translation notes - The line is the closing tag of several plays of Euripides (Alcestis, Medea, Andromache, Helen, Bacchae). ### Citation (SBL) Ps.-Justin, Quaest. Gent. Christ. 3.5 (PG 6:479; trans. Sophia Scriptura, https://sophiascriptura.com/fathers/ps-justin-quaestiones-gentilium/3-1/#p-3-5). ## Greek Questions to the Christians 3.6 - URL: https://sophiascriptura.com/fathers/ps-justin-quaestiones-gentilium/3-1/#p-3-6 - Source: PG 6:479 - Translation: Claude (claude-opus-5-5), 2026-09-27 Summary: The re-creation, ending all disputes about God, crowns creation; denying it makes creation itself evil. ### Greek text Εἰ, γινομένης τῆς ἀναχτίσεως, ἐξ ἀνάγχης ἀναιρεῖται πᾶσα ἡ περὶ τοῦ δημιουργοῦ τοῦ χόσμην κατὰ τῶν ἔργων αὐτοῦ ἐν ἀνθρώποις διχόνοια, πῶς οὐχ ἔσται τοῦ χόσμου ἡ ἀνάχτισις χαλλίων τῆς ποῦ χόσμου χτίσεως; Διὰ γὰρ τὴν ἀνάχτισιν χαλὴ καὶ ἡ χτίσις ᾿ ἐχείνης δὲ ἀπιστουμένης ὡς ἀδυνάτοῦ, πῶς οὐ χάχιστος ἔσται ἢ τοῦ χύσμου χτίσις; ### English translation (Claude) [6] If, when the re-creation takes place, all the discord among human beings about the Creator of the world, arising from his works, is necessarily removed, how will the re-creation of the world not be finer than the creation of the world? For because of the re-creation the creation too is good; but if the re-creation is disbelieved as impossible, how will the creation of the world not be the worst of things? ### Citation (SBL) Ps.-Justin, Quaest. Gent. Christ. 3.6 (PG 6:479; trans. Sophia Scriptura, https://sophiascriptura.com/fathers/ps-justin-quaestiones-gentilium/3-1/#p-3-6). ## Greek Questions to the Christians 3.7 - URL: https://sophiascriptura.com/fathers/ps-justin-quaestiones-gentilium/3-1/#p-3-7 - Source: PG 6:479 - Translation: Claude (claude-opus-5-5), 2026-09-27 Summary: The resurrection is impossible only in the relative sense in which all things are possible for God; and without the hope of the future, piety and impiety would not differ. ### Greek text ΓΆΑλλο τὸ πάντη ἀδύνατον, καὶ ἄλλο τὸ τινὶ ἀδύνατον. Πάντη μὲν ἀδύνατόν ἐστιν ὡς τῇ διαμέτρῳ τὸ ΄ σύμμετρον εἶναι τῇ πλευρᾷ τινὶ δὲ ἀδύνατόν ἔστω ὡς τῇ φύσει τὸ χωρὶς σπέρματος ποιεῖν ζῶον. Τίνι τούτων τῶν ἀδυνάτων ὑποδάλλουσι τὴν ἀνάστασιν οἱ ταύτην ἀπιστοῦντες; ᾿Αλλ᾽ εἰ μὲν τῷ πρώτῳ, ψευδὴς ἔστιν ὁ λόγος" οὐ γὰρ χατὰ ἀνάχτισιν ἀσύμμετρος γίνεται ἡ διάμετρος τῇ πλευρᾷ" οἱ δὲ ἀνιστάμενοι χατὰ ἀνάχτισιν ἀνίστανται. Εἰ δὲ τῷ τινὶ, ἀλλὰ τῷ Θεῷ πάντα δυνατὰ τὰ τινὶ ἀδύνατα. ἡη!. Εἰ ἐπὶ τοῦ παρόντος βίου ὁ εὐσεδὴς τοῦ ἀσεδοὺς ἐλπίδι μόνῃ διαφέρει, πῶς ὁ ἀναιρῶν τῶν μελλόντων τὴν ἐλπίδα οὐχ ἀναιρεῖ εὐσεδοῦς τε καὶ ἀσεδοῦς τὶν διαφοράν; ### English translation (Claude) [7] What is impossible in every way is one thing, and what is impossible for someone another. Impossible in every way is, for example, that the diagonal be commensurable with the side; impossible for someone is, for example, that nature should make an animal without seed. To which of these impossibilities do those who disbelieve the resurrection assign it? If to the first, the argument is false; for it is not by re-creation that the diagonal becomes incommensurable with the side, but those who rise rise by re-creation. If to the second, all things impossible for someone are possible for God. [8] If in the present life the pious man differs from the impious by hope alone, how does one who does away with the hope of things to come not do away with the difference between the pious and the impious? ### Scripture references - Matt 19:26: allusion, medium confidence ### Translation notes - “All things are possible for God”: the language of Matt 19:26. - Item 8 begins inside this reference (its numeral is damaged in the scan text). ### Citation (SBL) Ps.-Justin, Quaest. Gent. Christ. 3.7 (PG 6:479; trans. Sophia Scriptura, https://sophiascriptura.com/fathers/ps-justin-quaestiones-gentilium/3-1/#p-3-7). ## Greek Questions to the Christians 3.9 - URL: https://sophiascriptura.com/fathers/ps-justin-quaestiones-gentilium/3-1/#p-3-9 - Source: PG 6:479 - Translation: Claude (claude-opus-5-5), 2026-09-27 Summary: Since individual human beings are created, so is humanity and the world; an eternal world would admit no re-creation, but the world is not eternal. ### Greek text Εἰ χωρὶς τοῦ χαθέχαστον ἀδύνατόν ἐστιν ὑπάρχειν τὸ χαϑόλου, πῶς, εἰ χτιστὸν τὸ χαθέχαστον, οὐ Ὁ χτιστὸν ἔσται καὶ τὸ γαθόλου; ᾿Αλλ᾽ εἰ τοῦτο, πῶς οὐχ ἔστι ψευδὲς τὸ συναΐδιον εἶναι τὸν ἄνθρωπον καὶ τὰ λοιπὰ μέρη τῆς χτίσεως τῷ Θεῷ; οἷον, εἰ χεῖστὸς ὁ Πλάτων, πῶς οὐ χτιστὸς ὁ ἄνθρωπος; ὑ. Πῶς οἱ Ἕλληνες, ὑποθέμενοι τὸ ἀΐδιον εἶνα: τὸν χόσμον, τὰ τῇ ὑποθέσει ἐξ ἀνάγχης ἑπόμενα ἐδογμάτισαν; ᾿Αλλ' εἰ μὲν ἣν χατ᾽ αὐτοὺς ἀΐδιος ὁ χόσμος, τῶν ἔργων. εὐλόγως ἂν ἔλεγον μὴ ἔσεσθαι τοῦ χόσμου τὴν ἀνά- Α Ὁ χτισιν. Τοῦ γὰρ κτιστοῦ χόσμου ἐστὶν ἡ ἀνάχτισις, καὶ οὐχὶ τοῦ ἀχτίστου " ὅτι δὲ οὐχ ἔστιν ἀΐδιος ὁ χόσμος, δῆλον ἐκ τοῦ μὴ εἶναι τὸν ἄνθρωπον συναῖδιον τῷ Θεῷ. Εὶ γὰρ συναΐδιον τῷ Θεῷ τὸ καθόλου, ἐξ ἀνάγχης καὶ τὸ χαθέχαστον " εἰ δὲ μὴ τὸ καθέχαστον, οὐδὲ τὸ χαθόλου. ### English translation (Claude) [9] If the universal cannot exist apart from the individual, how, if the individual is created, will the universal not also be created? But if this is so, how is it not false that the human being and the other parts of creation are co-eternal with God? For example, if Plato is created, how is the human being not created? [10] How did the Greeks, having supposed that the world is eternal, lay down the things that follow necessarily from that supposition? If the world were eternal, according to them, they would reasonably say that there will be no re-creation of the world; for re-creation belongs to the created world and not to the uncreated. But that the world is not eternal is clear from the fact that the human being is not co-eternal with God. For if the universal is co-eternal with God, the individual necessarily is too; and if the individual is not, neither is the universal. ### Translation notes - A note of Migne's on the Euripides line in 3.5, run into the text here, is removed by a logged correction. Item 10 begins inside this reference (numeral damaged). ### Citation (SBL) Ps.-Justin, Quaest. Gent. Christ. 3.9 (PG 6:479; trans. Sophia Scriptura, https://sophiascriptura.com/fathers/ps-justin-quaestiones-gentilium/3-1/#p-3-9). ## Greek Questions to the Christians 3.11 - URL: https://sophiascriptura.com/fathers/ps-justin-quaestiones-gentilium/3-1/#p-3-11 - Source: PG 6:481 - Translation: Claude (claude-opus-5-5), 2026-09-27 Summary: Imperishable life is the divine goal for which humanity was made, and the martyrs' willingness to die confirms the truth of the resurrection. ### Greek text Τὸ ἐφάπαξ πάντας τοὺς ἀνθρώδους διὰ τῆς ἀναχτίσεως εἰς τὸ εἶναι αὐτοὺς ἀφθάρτους μεταγαγεῖν, πολὺ θειωδέστερον ὑπάρχει χατὰ μ..... τοῦ αὐτοὺς εἰς τὴν θνητὴν ταύτην κατάστασιν, ἐν ἧ γῦν ἐσμεν, εἰσάγειν. Ἐφύλαττε δὲ ἡμῖν τὸ κατάλληλον καὶ θειωδέστερον ὡς ὕστερον, ὡς ἐν αὐτῷ τότε τῆς ἡμῶν ὑποστάσεως χείμενον “ οὗ εἰ ἀπεστερημένος ἣμεν χατὰ τοὺς ἀπιστοῦντας τὴν ἀνάστασιν, ττῳ μᾶλλον ἂν Ἦν κχάλλιον τὸ μὴ εἶναι τοῦ εἶναι ἡμᾶς; ΓἌχρηστον γὰῤ πᾶν τὸ στερούμενον τοῦ οἰχείου ιϑ. Εἰ δυνατόν " τινι ὑπὲρ τοῦ μὴ ὄντος πράγματος τῆς ἑαυτοῦ ζωῆς πῤοτιμῇσαι τὸν θάνατον, “ὥς, εἰ χαϑ' ὑμᾶς οὐχ ὄντος ἀληθοῦς τοῦ περὶ τῆς ἀναστάσεως δόγματος, ὑπὲρ τούτου τῆς ἑαυτῶν ζωῆς πῤοετίμησαν οἱ μάρτυῤες τὸν ἑαυτῶν θάνατον; Ποίας δὲ ἄλλης θρησχείας πολυτρόποις βασάνοις τε καὶ θἀνάτοις ἐδεδαιώθη τὸ δόγμα τῆς ἑαυτῶν θρησχείας, λέγω δῇ τὧν Χριστιανῶν περὶ τῆς τῶν νεχρῶν ἀναστάσεως; ### English translation (Claude) [11] To bring all human beings at once through the re-creation into imperishable being is far more divine, in its … , than to bring them into this mortal state in which we now are. And he kept for us the fitting and more divine thing for later, as if our very subsistence then lay in it. If, as those who disbelieve the resurrection hold, we had been deprived of this, would it not have been far better for us not to be than to be? For everything deprived of what is proper to it is useless. [12] Is it possible for anyone to prefer death to his own life for the sake of a thing that does not exist? How, if, as you hold, the teaching about the resurrection is not true, did the martyrs prefer their own death to their own life for its sake? And by what other religion has the teaching of its religion been confirmed by tortures and deaths of many kinds, I mean the teaching of the Christians about the resurrection of the dead? ### Translation notes - A few letters are lost in the scan text (“…”). Item 12 begins inside this reference. ### Citation (SBL) Ps.-Justin, Quaest. Gent. Christ. 3.11 (PG 6:481; trans. Sophia Scriptura, https://sophiascriptura.com/fathers/ps-justin-quaestiones-gentilium/3-1/#p-3-11). ## Greek Questions to the Christians 3.13 - URL: https://sophiascriptura.com/fathers/ps-justin-quaestiones-gentilium/3-1/#p-3-13 - Source: PG 6:481 - Translation: Claude (claude-opus-5-5), 2026-09-27 Summary: The Greeks' contradictions among themselves show that reality is not measured by what they believe. ### Greek text Εἰἃ μὴ πιστεύουσιν Ἕλληνες, ταῦτα οὔτε ἐστὶν εὗτε ἔσται’ ἐν τῇ γνώσει ἄρα τῶν Ἑλλήνων χεῖται τῶν ὄντων ἡ ὕπαρξις. Πῶς οὖν ἐν τοῖς πλείστοις τῶν κυριωτάτων δογμάτων ἑαυτοῖς τὲ καὶ ἀλλήλοις μα- (, χόμενοι δείχνυνται; Ἡ γὰρ τοιαύτη μάχη οὐχ ἐᾷ χεῖσθαι ἐν τῇ γνώσει τῶν Ἑλλήνων τῶν ὄντων τὴν ὕπαρξιν. ### English translation (Claude) [13] If what the Greeks do not believe neither is nor will be, then the existence of the things that are lies in the knowledge of the Greeks. How then are they shown to be at war with themselves and with one another in most of their chief doctrines? Such a war does not allow the existence of the things that are to lie in the knowledge of the Greeks. ### Citation (SBL) Ps.-Justin, Quaest. Gent. Christ. 3.13 (PG 6:481; trans. Sophia Scriptura, https://sophiascriptura.com/fathers/ps-justin-quaestiones-gentilium/3-1/#p-3-13). ## Greek Questions to the Christians 3.14 - URL: https://sophiascriptura.com/fathers/ps-justin-quaestiones-gentilium/3-1/#p-3-14 - Source: PG 6:481 - Translation: Claude (claude-opus-5-5), 2026-09-27 Summary: Against eyewitness testimony to Christ's resurrection the Greeks offer only a puzzle, not a proof, and no syllogism can overturn what has been shown to have happened. ### Greek text Εἰ τῇ παραδόσει θεασαμένων τὸν ἀρχηγὸν τῆς ἀναστάσεως ἀναστάντα ἐχ τῶν νεχρῶν εἰς ἀθάνατον ζωὴν ἀπιστοῦσιν’ ἀλύτῳ δὲ ἀποδείξει λύειν τὸ τῆς ἀναστάσεως δόγμα ἀσθενοῦσι. Τὸ γὰρ ἰχθυόδρωτον γενέσθαι τὸν ἄνθρωπον ἀπορίαν ἔχει, ἀπόδειξιν δὲ οὔ. ᾿Αδύνατον γὰρ τὸ αὐτὸ πρᾶγμα καὶ θεότητι ὑποπεϑεῖν ὡς Ὑεγονός ’ τοῦ δὲ πράγματος τῇ οὐσίᾳ ἡυνάμει ἀποδεδειγμένου, οὐδεὶς συλλογισμὸς ϑύναται ποιήσασθαι τὴν ἀνατροπήν, ### English translation (Claude) [14] They disbelieve the tradition of those who saw the author of the resurrection risen from the dead to immortal life, and they are too weak to overturn the teaching of the resurrection by an irrefutable demonstration. For that a human being should become food for fish involves a difficulty, but not a demonstration. For it is impossible that the same thing should both fall under … and be shown to have happened; and when a thing has been demonstrated in its reality by power, no syllogism can bring about its overthrow. ### Translation notes - “Fall under divinity” (θεότητι ὑποπεσεῖν) as printed makes no sense; Migne's note calls the place very corrupt. The sense required is something like “fall under doubt”; marked “…”. ### Citation (SBL) Ps.-Justin, Quaest. Gent. Christ. 3.14 (PG 6:481; trans. Sophia Scriptura, https://sophiascriptura.com/fathers/ps-justin-quaestiones-gentilium/3-1/#p-3-14). ## Greek Questions to the Christians 3.15 - URL: https://sophiascriptura.com/fathers/ps-justin-quaestiones-gentilium/3-1/#p-3-15 - Source: PG 6:481 - Translation: Claude (claude-opus-5-5), 2026-09-27 Summary: Those who wrongly hold the sun to be eternal, though its positions change, are no reliable judges of the resurrection. ### Greek text Ὁ ἥλιος ὅτε ἐστὶν ὑπὲρ τὴν γῆν, ὑπὸ τῆν γῆν ὺχ ἔστι" καὶ ὅτε ἐστὶν ὑπὸ τὴν γῆν, ὑπὲρ τὴν γῆν ὐχ ἔστι. Πῶς οὖν ἀΐδιος καθ᾽ ὑμᾶς οὗτος, τὸ εἶναι υὑτὸν ὑπὲρ τὴν γῆν ἢ ὑπὸ τὴν γῆν ἀϊδίως οὐκ ἔχων; ΕΙ δὲ τὸν οὐχ ἀΐδιον ὡς ἀΐδιον ὑπολαμδάνουσιν Ἔλμὲς. ληνες, πῶς ἔσονται ἀξιόπιστοι νομοθέται τοῦ μὴ ἔσεσθαι τῶν νεκρῶν τὴν ἀνάστασιν; ### English translation (Claude) [15] When the sun is above the earth, it is not below the earth; and when it is below the earth, it is not above the earth. How then is it eternal, as you hold, when it does not have its being above the earth or below the earth eternally? And if the Greeks suppose what is not eternal to be eternal, how will they be trustworthy lawgivers when they lay down that there will be no resurrection of the dead? ### Translation notes - Migne's notes and Latin, run into the text, are removed by logged corrections. ### Citation (SBL) Ps.-Justin, Quaest. Gent. Christ. 3.15 (PG 6:481; trans. Sophia Scriptura, https://sophiascriptura.com/fathers/ps-justin-quaestiones-gentilium/3-1/#p-3-15). ## Greek Questions to the Christians 3.16 - URL: https://sophiascriptura.com/fathers/ps-justin-quaestiones-gentilium/3-1/#p-3-16 - Source: PG 6:481 - Translation: Claude (claude-opus-5-5), 2026-09-27 Summary: The sun's changing position shows it once did not exist; those ignorant of this cannot be trusted against the resurrection, of which Christ is already the firstborn. ### Greek text Τὸ ποτὲ μὲν ἄνω, ποτὲ ὃὲ χάτω, τῶν ποτὲ οὐχ ὄντων ἐστὶν, οὔτε ἄνω, οὔτε χάτω. Πῶς οὖν ἀΐδιος ὁ ἥλιος, ὁ πρὸ τοῦ εἶναι ἄνω ἣ χάτω οὐχ ὦν; Τοῖς οὖν τὸν ἥλιον χατὰ τὴν οἰχείαν φύσιν γεννητὸν ὄντα μὴ ἐπισταμένοις, πῶς οὐχ ἄτοτον τούτοις πιστεύειν περὶ τοῦ μὴ ἀνίστασθαι τοὺς νεχροὺς, ὧν ὁ ἀρχηγὸς τῆς ἀναστάσεως πρωτότοχος αὐτῶν ἤδη γέγονεν ἐχ τῆς ἀναστάσεως; ### English translation (Claude) [16] Being now above and now below belongs to things that once were not, neither above nor below. How then is the sun eternal, when before being above or below it did not exist? To those, then, who do not understand that the sun is begotten by its own nature, how is it not absurd to trust them about the dead not rising, when the author of their resurrection has already become the firstborn among them from the resurrection? ### Scripture references - Col 1:18: allusion, high confidence ### Translation notes - “The author of the resurrection … the firstborn”: compare Col 1:18 (“the firstborn from the dead”). ### Citation (SBL) Ps.-Justin, Quaest. Gent. Christ. 3.16 (PG 6:481; trans. Sophia Scriptura, https://sophiascriptura.com/fathers/ps-justin-quaestiones-gentilium/3-1/#p-3-16). ## Greek Questions to the Christians 3.17 - URL: https://sophiascriptura.com/fathers/ps-justin-quaestiones-gentilium/3-1/#p-3-17 - Source: PG 6:481 - Translation: Claude (claude-opus-5-5), 2026-09-27 Summary: If God can raise any dead person he can raise all, even one eaten by fish; his works are not to be measured by human reasoning. ### Greek text Ὅτε ἡ δύναμις ἰσχύει τοῦ ποιοῦντος, τότε καὶ ἡ ὕλη ἐπιτέδειος πρὸς τὴν ποίησιν τοῦ γινομένου. ᾿Αλλ᾽ εἴ τις νεχρὸς ἐπιτήδειός ἐστι τῷ Θεῷ πρὸς ἔγερσιν, ἐξ ἀνάγχης καὶ πᾶ; καὶ εἰ μὴ κκαὶ πᾶς, οὐδείς. Οὐ χρὴ δὲ τοῖς ἡμετέροις ἐνθυμήμασι μετρεῖν τοῦ Θεοῦ τὰ ἔργα. Ὑπὲρ νοῦν γὰρ καὶ αἴσθησιν χεὶ λόγον τοῦ Θεοῦ τὰ ἔργα. ἐν οἷς ἐστι καὶ τὸν ἰχθυόὄρωτον νεχρὸν ἀνάγχῃ πάλιν εἰς τὸ εἶναι ἐλθεῖν, εἰ καὶ συνέθη αὐτὸν φθαρῆναι ὑπό τινος. ### English translation (Claude) [17] When the power of the maker prevails, then the matter too is fit for the making of what comes into being. But if any dead person is fit for God to raise, then necessarily every one is; and if not every one, then none. We must not measure God's works by our own reasonings; for God's works are beyond mind, sense, and reason. Among them is this, that the dead man who has been eaten by fish must come into being again, even if it happened that he was destroyed by something. ### Citation (SBL) Ps.-Justin, Quaest. Gent. Christ. 3.17 (PG 6:481; trans. Sophia Scriptura, https://sophiascriptura.com/fathers/ps-justin-quaestiones-gentilium/3-1/#p-3-17). ## Greek Questions to the Christians 3.18 - URL: https://sophiascriptura.com/fathers/ps-justin-quaestiones-gentilium/3-1/#p-3-18 - Source: PG 6:481 - Translation: Claude (claude-opus-5-5), 2026-09-27 Summary: Christ could not be Lord of the dead if he lacked power to raise them. ### Greek text Πῶς ἐστιν ἀληθὲς τὸ ζώντων καὶ νεχρῶν χυριεύειν τὸν Κύριον, χαθ᾽ ὑμᾶς οὐχ ἔχοντα δύναμιν ### English translation (Claude) [18] How is it true that the Lord is Lord of the living and the dead, if, as you hold, he does not have the power … ### Scripture references - Rom 14:9: allusion, high confidence ### Translation notes - The end of the sentence is lost in the scan text. - “Lord of the living and the dead”: Rom 14:9. ### Citation (SBL) Ps.-Justin, Quaest. Gent. Christ. 3.18 (PG 6:481; trans. Sophia Scriptura, https://sophiascriptura.com/fathers/ps-justin-quaestiones-gentilium/3-1/#p-3-18). ## Greek Questions to the Christians 3.19 - URL: https://sophiascriptura.com/fathers/ps-justin-quaestiones-gentilium/3-1/#p-3-19 - Source: PG 6:481 - Translation: Claude (claude-opus-5-5), 2026-09-27 Summary: God who made mortal bodies has equal power to make them imperishable. ### Greek text Εἰ ποιητὴς τῶν μὲν χειρόνων ἐστὶν ὁ Θεὸς, τῶν δὲ βελτιόνων οὐχ ἔστι, πῶς οὐχ ἔστ' τοῦτο εϊ-. μα τῆς τοῦ Θεοῦ ἀσθενείας; ὅπερ ἐστὶν ἀσεξὲ; λέγειν. Εἰ δὲ ἴση ἐστὶν ἡ τοῦ Θεοῦ δύναμις πρὸς ποίησιν ( ἑχατέρου, διὰ τί ἀπιστεῖτε τὴν ἀνάστασιν τῶν νεχρῦν τῶν εἰς ἀφθαρσίαν ἀνισταμένων : ### English translation (Claude) [19] If God is the maker of worse things but not of better ones, how is this not a sign of God's weakness? And that is impious to say. But if God's power for making each is equal, why do you disbelieve the resurrection of the dead who rise to imperishability? ### Citation (SBL) Ps.-Justin, Quaest. Gent. Christ. 3.19 (PG 6:481; trans. Sophia Scriptura, https://sophiascriptura.com/fathers/ps-justin-quaestiones-gentilium/3-1/#p-3-19). ## Greek Questions to the Christians 3.20 - URL: https://sophiascriptura.com/fathers/ps-justin-quaestiones-gentilium/3-1/#p-3-20 - Source: PG 6:481 - Translation: Claude (claude-opus-5-5), 2026-09-27 Summary: It is absurd to reject the attested resurrection while believing in the transmigration of souls into ants. ### Greek text Εἰ Θεῷ μὲν πρὸς τὸ ποιεῖν ἐστιν οὐχ ἀδύνατον. ἡμῖν ὃδὲ πρὸς τὸ γενέσθαι ἐστὶ λυσιτελὲς τὸ ἐχ -ἴ: πολυστενάχτου τε γαὶ ἐμφθάρτου ζωῆς ἀγαγεῖν ἐμᾶ: εἰς μακαρίαν τε καὶ ἄφθαρτον χατάστασιν διὰ τῆς: ἀναστάσεω; μᾶλλον ἣ ἐχ τῆς τῶν φιλοσύφων πονίας εἰς τὴν τῶν μυρμήχων φιλοπονίαν ἀναγαγεῖν ποὺς φιλοσοφοῦντας Ἕλληνας διὰ τῆς μετεμψυχώσεως, τ γελοιωδέστερον τοῦ ἐχείνῳ μὲν μεμαρτυρη μέν» ἀπιστεῖν, τοῦτο δὲ ἀσυστάτως πιστεύειν καὶ δογματ'ζειν" ὥστε τὸν πάλαι ᾿Αθηναΐζοντα φιλόσοφον Πλά- ### English translation (Claude) [20] If it is not impossible for God to do it, and it is profitable for us to have it happen, to be led out of a life full of groaning and perishable into a blessed and imperishable state through the resurrection, rather than for the Greek philosophers to be led up by transmigration from the labors of philosophers to the industry of ants, what is more ridiculous than to disbelieve the one, which has been attested, and to believe and teach the other without foundation? So that the philosopher who once played the Athenian, Pla- ### Extrabiblical texts - Plato, Phaed. 82b (Plato (works)): allusion, medium confidence ### Translation notes - The item breaks off in the scan text at the end of this reference, in the middle of Plato's name; the rest is lost. - Transmigration into ants: the Platonic myth of Phaedo 82b, where the orderly become bees, wasps, or ants. ### Citation (SBL) Ps.-Justin, Quaest. Gent. Christ. 3.20 (PG 6:481; trans. Sophia Scriptura, https://sophiascriptura.com/fathers/ps-justin-quaestiones-gentilium/3-1/#p-3-20). ## Greek Questions to the Christians 3.21 - URL: https://sophiascriptura.com/fathers/ps-justin-quaestiones-gentilium/3-1/#p-3-21 - Source: PG 6:481 - Translation: Claude (claude-opus-5-5), 2026-09-27 Summary: Transmigration contradicts the Greek view that God makes by his being, and denying that God's works perish would deny that human beings are his work. ### Greek text Εἰ χατὰ τοὺς Ἕλληνας τῷ εἶναι, καὶ οὗ τῷ βούλεσθαι ποιεῖ ὁ Θεὸς τοὺς ἀνθρώπους, πῶς ὁ Πλά- Ὁ των ποτὲ μὲν ἔστι ζῶον λογιχὸν καὶ ἄνθρωπος, πυτὲ δὲ ζῶον ἄλογον καὶ μύρμηξ διὰ τῆς μετεμψυχώσευς.. Εἰ μὲν ἕπεται τῷ Θεῷ τὸ γενέσθαι τὸν Πλάτωνα ἄνθρωπον, ἀνάγχη, μεταγομένου τοῦ Ἡλάτωνος ἐχ τοῦ εἶναι αὐτὸν ἄνθρωπον εἰς τὸ γενέσθαι αὐτὸν μύρμητα. μεταγενέσθαι καὶ τὸν Θεὸν τοῦ εἶναι δ ἐστιν εἰ δὲ ὁ Πλάτων μὲν μεταφέρεται, ὁ δὲ Θεὸς τοῦ εἶνε: ὃ ἐστιν οὐ μεταφέρεται, πῶς τῷ εἶναι, καὶ οὐ τῷ βοῦλεσθαι ὁ Θεὸς ποιεῖ τοὺς ἀνθρώπους : χθ’. Εἰ τὸ ἔργον τοῦ Θεοῦ οὐ φθείρεται, ὁ δὲ ἄνθρωπος φθεύρεται, οὐχ ἄρα ἐστὶν ὁ ἄνθρωπος ἔργον τοῦ Θεοῦ χατὰ τοὺς τοῦτο λέγοντας. ### English translation (Claude) [21] If, according to the Greeks, God makes human beings by his being and not by his willing, how is Plato at one time a rational animal and a human being, and at another time an irrational animal and an ant, through transmigration? If Plato's becoming a human being follows from God, then when Plato is changed from being a human being to becoming an ant, God too must be changed from being what he is. But if Plato is transferred, while God is not transferred from being what he is, how does God make human beings by his being and not by his willing? [22] If the work of God does not perish, but the human being perishes, then according to those who say this the human being is not the work of God. ### Translation notes - Item 22 is printed with the numeral κθ΄ (29) in the scan text; the sequence shows it is item 22. ### Citation (SBL) Ps.-Justin, Quaest. Gent. Christ. 3.21 (PG 6:481; trans. Sophia Scriptura, https://sophiascriptura.com/fathers/ps-justin-quaestiones-gentilium/3-1/#p-3-21). ## Greek Questions to the Christians 3.23 - URL: https://sophiascriptura.com/fathers/ps-justin-quaestiones-gentilium/3-1/#p-3-23 - Source: PG 6:481 - Translation: Claude (claude-opus-5-5), 2026-09-27 Summary: God cannot be the cause both of our coming to be and of our perishing merely by his being. ### Greek text Εἰ τὸ γένος ἡμῶν εἰς τὸ εἶναι εἰσάγεται διὰ τῆς γενέσεως, καὶ τοῦ εἶναι ἐξάγεται διὰ της φθορᾶς, πῶς ἐνδέχεται τὸν Θεὸν τοῦ εἶναι καὶ τοῦ μὴ αι αἴτιον εἶναι, οὐ τῷ βούλεσθαι, ἀλλὰ τῷ εἶναι Α οἱ τὸν; ### English translation (Claude) [23] If our race is brought into being through birth and brought out of being through perishing, how can God be the cause of both being and not being, not by willing but by being? … ### Translation notes - The end of the item is lost among fragments of Migne's Latin, which are removed by a logged correction. ### Citation (SBL) Ps.-Justin, Quaest. Gent. Christ. 3.23 (PG 6:481; trans. Sophia Scriptura, https://sophiascriptura.com/fathers/ps-justin-quaestiones-gentilium/3-1/#p-3-23). ## Greek Questions to the Christians 3.24 - URL: https://sophiascriptura.com/fathers/ps-justin-quaestiones-gentilium/3-1/#p-3-24 - Source: PG 6:481 - Translation: Claude (claude-opus-5-5), 2026-09-27 Summary: Since bodies return to their elements, it is not impossible for them to be formed again from them. ### Greek text Εὲ τὰ ἐχ τῶν στοιχείων πάλιν στοιχεῖα, τί ὁπὸν ἢ ἀδύνατον φαίνεται τὸ πάλιν εἶναι τὰ ἐχ τῶν οἰχείων; ### English translation (Claude) [24] If what is composed of the elements becomes elements again, what seems … or impossible about things that come from their own elements existing again? ### Translation notes - One word (ὁπὸν, perhaps ἄτοπον, “absurd”) is damaged in the scan text. ### Citation (SBL) Ps.-Justin, Quaest. Gent. Christ. 3.24 (PG 6:481; trans. Sophia Scriptura, https://sophiascriptura.com/fathers/ps-justin-quaestiones-gentilium/3-1/#p-3-24). ## Greek Questions to the Christians 3.25 - URL: https://sophiascriptura.com/fathers/ps-justin-quaestiones-gentilium/3-1/#p-3-25 - Source: PG 6:481 - Translation: Claude (claude-opus-5-5), 2026-09-27 Summary: God, master of every limit, can make human beings come to be without perishing. ### Greek text Εἰ οὐκ ἔστιν ὑπὸ τὸν ὄρον ὁ Θεὸς, ἀλλὰ πανς ὅρου ὑπάρχει δεσπότης, πῶς τοῦ μὲν γενέσθαι ἃ φθεέρεσθαι τοὺς ἀνθρώπους δεσπόζει Θεὸς, τοῦ γίνεσθαι καὶ μὴ φθείρεσθαι ἡμᾶς οὐ δεσπόζει; ### English translation (Claude) [25] If God is not under the limit but is master of every limit, how is it that God is master of human beings' coming to be and perishing, but is not master of our coming to be and not perishing? ### Citation (SBL) Ps.-Justin, Quaest. Gent. Christ. 3.25 (PG 6:481; trans. Sophia Scriptura, https://sophiascriptura.com/fathers/ps-justin-quaestiones-gentilium/3-1/#p-3-25). ## Greek Questions to the Christians 3.26 - URL: https://sophiascriptura.com/fathers/ps-justin-quaestiones-gentilium/3-1/#p-3-26 - Source: PG 6:481 - Translation: Claude (claude-opus-5-5), 2026-09-27 Summary: Twenty-three short arguments for the resurrection: God's irrevocable gifts, his power to remake as he made, the dead lying in potency in the elements, the justice owed to martyrs, and the failure of all Greek opposition to the teaching. ### Greek text Εἰ ἀναχτίζων ἡμᾶς ὁ Θεὸς εἰς ἀφθαρσίαν, μεταμελείας χαθ᾽ ὑμᾶς τοῦτο ποιεῖ, πῶς οὐ μᾶλν ἔχ μεταμελείας συνεχώρει εἶναι ἀεί; χῷ΄. ἘΠ ἀμεταμέλητα τὰ χαρίσματα τοῦ Θεοῦ, ἀρίσατο δὲ ἡμῖν τὸ εἶναι ἡμᾶς, πῶς οὐ τὸν ἐξ ᾿χῆς περὶ ἡμᾶς πληροῖ σχοπὸν ὁ Θεὸς ἀναχτίξων Βὶ ΠΟ μᾶς εἰς ἀφθαρσίαν; χη. Κατὰ τοὺς πιστεύοντας τῶν γεχρῶν τὴν ἀνάἴασιν τῇ τοῦ Θεοῦ δικαιοχρισίᾳ καὶ ἀποθνήσχομεν τὶ ἀναξωοποιούμεθα" ἐχεῖνο μὲν τῇ τοῦ ἀνθρώπου αραχοῇ, τοῦτο δὲ τῇ τοῦ ἀνθρώπου ὑπαχοῇ. Παρ᾽ ς οὖν ἄγνωστον τὸ αἴτιον τοῦ θανάτου, παρὰ τού- Ἰς καὶ ὁ τῆς φύσεως τοῦ ἀνθρώπου δημιουργός πτῖν ἄγνωστος. ᾿Αγνοούντων δὲ αὐτῶν τὸ αἴτιον τοῦ ἀνάτου καὶ τὸν δημιουργὸν τῆς φύσεως ἀνθρώπου, ὥς οὐχ ἐξ ἀγνοίας λέγουσι τὸ μὴ εἶναι τῶν γεχρῶν ἣν ἀνάστασιν; χθ΄. ΓΑλλο τὸ πάντη μὴ ὃν, καὶ ἄλλο τὸ τοιόνδε μὴ ν᾿ οἷον ἄλλο τὸ τὴν ἀρχὴν μὴ γενέσθαι ἄνθρωπον, αὶ ἄλλο τὸ μετὰ τὸ γενέσθαι αὐτὸν φθαρῆναι. Καὶ πειδὴ οὐχ ἔστι τῷ Θεῷ ἔργον ἔργου ἐργωδέστερον, "ὡς οὐχ ἔστιν ἄλογον τὸ πιστεύειν μὲν Θεῷ ἐπὶ τῇ ᾿ιῆσει τῶν πάντη οὐκ ὄντων, ἀπιστεῖν δὲ αὐτῷ ἐπὶ ἧ μεταποιήσει τῶν φθαρέντων; 'ρωπὸς δυνάμει ἦν ἐν τοῖς στοιχείοις ἐξ ὧν γέγονεν, ὕτω καὶ μετὰ τὸ φθαρῆναι αὐτὸν, ἔστι δυνάμει ἐν οἷς στοιχείοις, πῶς ἀπιστοῦσιν οἱ Ἕλληνες θεῷ, παγγειλαμένῳ, ἀνιστᾷν τοὺς νεχροὺς, ὡς ἐπ᾽ ἀδυνάῳ πράγματι, τοῦ ἀνθρώπου δυνάμει ὄντος ἐν τοῖ; ποιχείοις, ὥσπερ πάλαι χτιζομένου, οὕτως καὶ νῦν λα΄. ΕἸ οὐκ ἠδύνατο ὁ Θεὸς ἐξ ἀρχῆς ἀφθάρτους οὐλὴ ΠΟΙ, αἱ οἰ οἱ κοιεῖν τοὺς ἀνθρώπους, δῆλον ὅτι οὐδὲ νῦν δύναται. Ὁ) δὲ καὶ ἐξ ἀρχῇς ἔσχε δύναμιν τοῦτο ποιῆσαι ἡμᾶς ἰφθάρτους, καὶ οὐχ ἀπέδαλε ταύτην, πῶς οὐχ ἔστιν ὕλογον τὸ, ὡς ἐπ᾽ ἀδυνάτῳ πράγματι πίστιν Θεῷ ᾿παγγειλαμένῳ χαθ᾽ ὁμοίωσιν τοῦ ἐγερθέντος ἐχ τῶν ἐχρῶν ὑπ᾽ αὐτοῦ εἰς ἄφθαρτον ζωὴν, ἀφθάρτους ποιεῖν καὶ τοὺς λοιποὺς ἀνθρώπους; λδ', Δυνάμει τὸ ζῶον ἐν τῷ σπέρματι τῇ φύσει" δυνάμει χλίνη ἐν τῷ ξύλῳ τῇ τέχνῃ" δυνάμει οἱ ἀνιστάμενοι ἐν τοῖς στοιχείοις τῷ Θεῷ. ᾿Αλλ᾽ εἰ τοῦτο, πῶς οὐχ ἔστιν ἄτοπον τὸ πιστεύειν μὲν τῇ φύσει τὰ τοῦτα τὰ θεῖα; λγ΄. Τῇ θείᾳ αὐθεντίᾳ οὐδέν ἐστιν ἀπειθές. Ε' " θάλασσα καὶ ἡ γῇ τῷ θείῳ προστάγματι πάλαι ἑ:δωχεν ἃ οὐχ ἔλαθε, πῶς οὐ νῦν μᾶλλον δώξε : ἔλαθε, προστάξαντος τοῦ Θεοῦ; λδ΄, Εἰ, ὥσπερ ἡ φύσις ἐχ τοῦ φθαρέντος σπέρμετος οὐ δύναται ποιεῖν τὸ ζῶον, καὶ ἡ τέχνῃ ἐχ τῷ φθαρέντος ξύλου οὐ δύναται ποιεῖν τὴν χλένην, οὔτως οὐδὲ ὁ Θεὸς δύναται ἐχ τοῦ φθαρέντος ἀνθρώπω, ἐγ θαρτον ποιεῖν ἄνθρωπον" ἔμμετρος ἄρα ἔσται αὶ ἐ.ναμις τοῦ Θεοῦ, ὥσπερ τῆς φύσεως καὶ τῆς τέχνη; Εἰ δὲ τοῦτο ἄτοπον λέγειν, ἄτοπον ἄρα καὶ τὸ ἀ-στεῖν Θεῷ ποιεῖν ἐχ τοῦ φθαρέντος ἀνθρώπου ἄτθα;τὸν ἄνθρωπον. υἱνεται γενέσθαι τὴν ἀνάστασιν, οὕτως ἀδύνατόν ἐ:τῷ Θεῷ τὸ ποιεῖν τὴν ἀνάστασιν - οὐδὲν ἄρα χει; τοῦτο διαφέρει Θεὸς ἀνθρώπου. Εἰ δὲ ἀ πειράχις δ:φέρει, ὥσπερ οὖν καὶ διαφέρει, πῶς οὖκ ἔστιν τὸ πὸν τὸ ἀπιστεῖν Θεῷ τὴν ποίησιν ὧν ἔχε: ποιεῖν τὴν δύναμιν; ἃς’. Ὧν ἰσχύει θεὸς τὴν ὑπὲῤ φύσιν ποΐησεν, τοῦ των πῶς οὐχ ἔστιν ἄτοπον τὸ ἀπιστεῖν αὐτῷ τί; ὑπὲρ φύσιν μεταποίησιν; λζ΄, Εἰ τὸ μὴ κατὰ φύσιν γινόμενον, τούτου ἀτστον καὶ ἀδύνατον τὴν ποίησιν χρὴ ὑτοολαμβάνευ. πῶς οὐχ ἔσται καὶ τοῦ πρώτου γεγονότος ἀνθρώτα. ἄπιστος καὶ ἀδύνατος ἡ ποίησις, μὴ κατὰ φύσιν γς γενημένου; ᾿Αδύνατον γὰρ γενέσθαι ἐξ ἀνθρώ». ἄνθρωπον κατὰ φύσιν, μὴ πρῶτον τοῦ ἀνθρώτου γνομένου ὑπὲρ φύσιν. λη΄. Εἰ μὴ γίνομαι πάλιν ὅπερ ἤμην, πῶς ἀτολαμδάνω τῆς ἀρετῆς ἣ τῆς χαχίας τὰς ἁμοιδὰς, ὧν ἐπὶ τοῦ παρόντος οὐχ ἔτυχον; Εἰ γὰρ οὐ γένεται τῶν νεχρῶν ἡἧ ἀνάστασις, πῶς οὐχ ἔσονται ἔσοι ἀλλήλοις; οἴ τε δρῶντες τοὺς μαρτυρικοὺς ἀγῶνας καὶ οἱ ὑτν μένοντες; Εἰ δὲ ἄδιχον τοῦτο, πῶς οὐχ ἄδικον τὸ γίνεσθαι τῶν νεχρῶν τὴν ἀνάστασιν, ἐν ἧ μόνῃ ἑνϑςχεται γίνεσθαι τῶν πεποιηχότων τὰ ἄδικα, καὶ τῶν ὑπομεμενηχότων τὴν διάχρισιν, χατὰ τὴν διαφορῖν τιμῆς τε καὶ τιμωρίας; λθ’, Εἰ τὸ τί ἣν ὁ ἄνθρωπος καὶ ἔστι, πῶς πρχχώρησεν ἀποθανὼν τῆς τοῦ Θεοῦ γνώσεως, οὐχ ἀπὲττ" τὸ εἶναι αὑτὸν πάλιν ὃ ἦν. Τὰ γὰρ ἔργα τοῦ Θεοῖ, γνωστὰ αὐτῷ καὶ καὶ εἰ μὴ δυνατὰ αὐτῷ, οὐδὲ γνωστὰ αὐτῷ. μ΄. Εἰ καλὸν μὲν τὸ εἶναι ἡμᾶς ἐν τῷ παρόν: θνητοὺς, χάλλιον δὲ τὸ εἶναι ἡμᾶς ἀθανάτους ἐν τ΄ μέλλοντι " πῶς οὐχ ἔστιν ἄτοπον τὸ λέγειν τὸν Θεὸν δυνατὸν μὲν πρὸς ποίησιν τοῦ καλοῦ, ἀδύνατον δὲ πρὸς ποίησιν τοῦ χαλλίονος; μα΄. Εἰ ἀδύνατον τῷ θεῷ τὸ θνητὸν σῶμα ποτῆξει ἀθάνατον, πῶς οὐχ ἔσται ὁ θάνατος ἰσχυρότερος τοῦ Θεοῦ, ἐξ αὐτοῦ μὴ δυναμένου ῥύσασθαι τοὺς αὐτῷ ὑποχειμένους; Εἰ ὁ Θεὸς ἔχει δύναμιν ζωοποιητιχὴν τῶν νε΄ ὧν, πῶς οὐχ εἰσὶν ἐπιτήδειοι πρὸς ἀνάστασιν οἱ αὶ τστάμενοι : τοῦ Θεοῦ δὲ πρὸς πὸ ἀνιστᾷν τοὺς νε- δυνατοῦ ὑπάρχοντος, καὶ τῶν ἀνισταμένων πτηδείων πρὸς τὸ ἀνίστασθαι ὑπαρχόντων, ποίαν Ἐι χώραν ἢ ἀπιστία τῶν ἀπιστούντων τὴν ἀνά- 'ᾶσιν; ἰὸς, πῶς οὐκ ἔσται ἀπὸ τῆς αὐτῆς αὐτοῦ δεσποίας τὸ γίνεσθαι ἡμᾶς ἀθανάτους; Εἰ δὲ τὸ γενέσθαι ιᾶς ἀθανάτους, ἔξωθεν τῆς τοῦ Θεοῦ δεσποτείας ιθέστηκε, πῶς οὐχ ἔσται Θεὸς τοῦ μὴ εἶναι ἡμᾶς μὴ μδ΄. Εἰ ἣν ἔχουσι φύσιν τὰ ἀθάνατα καὶ τὰ θνητὰ, ει τῆς τοῦ Θεοῦ ἔχουσι βουλήσεως, πῶς οὐχ ἔστι δυιτὸν τὸ ἀθανατίζεσθαι τοὺς νεκροὺς βουληθέντος τοῦ τοῦ; με΄. Ὧν τὰ ἀνθιστάμενα ἀσθενεῖ, τούτων ἡ σύστα- ΄ς βεδαία. ᾿Αλλ᾽ εἰ, παντὶ ἀντιστάσεως τρόπῳ χεγημένοι οἱ Ἕλληνες πρὸς ἀναίρεσιν τοῦ τῆς ἀναἰάσεως δόγματος, ἀναιρεῖν τοῦτο οὐχ ἴσχυσαν, τῇ γῦ ποιοῦντος τὴν ἀνάστασιν Θεοῦ δυνάμει ἀσάλευτον, παῖς πολυτρόποις ἀντιστάσεσι φυλαττόμενον τὸ γμα" κατὰ τί ἄπιστος τῶν νεχρῶν ἡ ἀνάστασις, γῦ περὶ ταύτης δόγματος μήτε ὑπὸ χειρῶν μήτε ὑπὸ ῃς΄. Εἰ μέγιστόν ἐστι δεῖγμα τῆς τοῦ Θεοῦ ἀηττήυυ καὶ ἀπεριγράπτου δυνάμεως τὸ εἶναι πάνὡν τῶν ἀνθρώπων ζώντων τε καὶ νεχρῶν τάς τε δέας καὶ τὰς πράξεις ἀγαθάς τε καὶ φαύλας: πῶς χ ἔστι τῶν νεχρῶν ἡ ἀνάστασις ἀπόδειξις τῆς τοῦ κοῦ ἀπεριγράπτου δυνάμεώς τε καὶ γνώσεως, δι ἧς ὶ ἰς τὸ εἶναι πάλιν ἀποχαθιστᾷ τοὺς ἀνθρώπους; ᾿Αλλ᾽ ἰ τοῦτο, πῶς οὐχ ἔσται ἀποστερῶν τὸν Θεὸν τῆς γιαύτης ἀποδείξεως ὁ ἀποστερῶν τοὺς νεχροὺς τῆς μζ΄. Εἰ ἐλπίσαντες Ἕλληνες ἀναιρεῖν διὰ τῆς οἱ- «ἰας ἀντιστάσεως τὸ περὶ τῆς ἀναστάσεως δόγμα, ἱπέτυχον τῆς ἐλπίδος, κῶς οὐχ ἔσονται ἀποτυγχάτντες πάλιν τῆς ἐλπίδος, ἐλπίζοντες πάλιν μὴ ἔσεθαι τῶν νεχρῶν τὴν ἀνάστασιν; μη. Ἐχρῆν τοὺς Ἕλληνας, μαχεσαμένους χατὰ τοῦ περὶ τῆς ἀναστάσεως δόγματος, ἢ μὴ ἡττᾶσθαι ἐν τῇ μάχῃ, ἢ, ἡττηθέντας, μὴ ἀπιστεῖν τὴν : φαΐ μαθοῖ εἴ ποθὴ τίς, δας σιν. ΕἸ δὲ μὴ γε, ἔσται αὐτῶν ἡ πρώτη ματαιοπονία ) ἔλεγχος τῆς ἀλόγου αὐτῶν ἀπιστίας. ### English translation (Claude) [26] If God, in re-creating us for imperishability, does this, as you hold, out of repentance, how did he not rather allow us out of repentance to exist forever? [27] If the gifts of God are irrevocable, and he has given us our being, how does God not fulfill his purpose for us from the beginning by re-creating us for imperishability? [28] According to those who believe in the resurrection of the dead, it is by God's just judgment that we both die and are made alive again: the one through the disobedience of the human being, the other through the obedience of the human being. To those, then, for whom the cause of death is unknown, the Creator of human nature is also unknown. And since they do not know the cause of death and the Creator of human nature, how do they not say out of ignorance that there is no resurrection of the dead? [29] What in no way is is one thing, and what is not of such a kind is another; for example, never to have come into being as a human being in the beginning is one thing, and to have perished after coming into being is another. And since for God no work is more laborious than another, how is it not unreasonable to believe God in the making of things that in no way were, but to disbelieve him in the remaking of things that have perished? [30] … a human being was in potency in the elements from which he came into being, so too after he has perished he is in potency in his elements; how then do the Greeks disbelieve God, who has promised to raise the dead, as if it were an impossible thing, when the human being is in potency in the elements, created now as he was created of old? [31] If God could not make human beings imperishable from the beginning, clearly he cannot now either. But if he had from the beginning the power to make us imperishable, and has not lost it, how is it not unreasonable to refuse faith, as if in an impossible thing, to God, who has promised to make the rest of humankind imperishable too, after the likeness of him whom he raised from the dead to imperishable life? [32] The animal is in potency in the seed, for nature; the bed is in potency in the wood, for art; those who rise are in potency in the elements, for God. But if this is so, how is it not absurd to believe nature in what is natural, and … , but to disbelieve God in what is divine? [33] Nothing is disobedient to divine authority. If the sea and the earth at the divine command once gave what they had not received, how will they not now rather give back what they have received, when God commands? [34] If, as nature cannot make the animal from seed that has perished, and art cannot make the bed from wood that has perished, so neither can God make an imperishable human being from a human being who has perished, then the power of God will be limited, like that of nature and of art. But if it is absurd to say this, it is absurd also to disbelieve that God makes an imperishable human being from a human being who has perished. [35] … the resurrection to come into being, so it is impossible for God to bring about the resurrection; then God differs in nothing from a human being in this. But if he differs infinitely, as indeed he does differ, how is it not absurd to disbelieve that God will make what he has the power to make? [36] Since God has power for making beyond nature, how is it not absurd to disbelieve him in remaking beyond nature? [37] If we must suppose that the making of what does not come into being according to nature is incredible and impossible, how will the making of the first human being, who did not come into being according to nature, not also be incredible and impossible? For it is impossible for a human being to come from a human being according to nature unless the first human being came into being beyond nature. [38] If I do not become again what I was, how do I receive the rewards of virtue or of vice, which I did not obtain in the present life? For if there is no resurrection of the dead, how will they not be equal to one another, those who carry out the martyrs' contests and those who endure them? But if this is unjust, how is it not unjust that the resurrection of the dead should not take place, in which alone the judgment between those who have done injustice and those who have endured it can take place, by the difference of honor and punishment? [39] If what the human being was and is … how has he, having died, departed from the knowledge of God, so as not to be able to be again what he was? For the works of God are known to him and possible for him; and if they were not possible for him, neither would they be known to him. [40] If it is good for us to be mortal in the present life, but better for us to be immortal in the life to come, how is it not absurd to say that God has power to make the good but not to make the better? [41] If it is impossible for God to make the mortal body immortal, how will death not be stronger than God, if he cannot rescue from it those who are subject to it? [42] If God has the power to give life to the dead, how are those who rise not fit for the resurrection? And since God is able to raise the dead, and those who rise are fit to rise, what room is left for the unbelief of those who disbelieve the resurrection? [43] … how will our becoming immortal not come from the same mastery of his? But if our becoming immortal stands outside God's mastery, how will God be … of our not being …? [44] If immortal and mortal things have the nature they have from the will of God, how is it not possible for the dead to be made immortal, if God wills it? [45] Things whose opponents are weak have a firm standing. But if the Greeks, though they have used every kind of opposition to do away with the teaching of the resurrection, have not been able to do away with it, since the teaching is kept unshaken by the power of God who brings about the resurrection, guarded through oppositions of many kinds, in what respect is the resurrection of the dead incredible, when the teaching about it has been overcome neither by hands nor by …? [46] If the greatest proof of God's invincible and uncircumscribed power is that the thoughts and deeds, good and bad, of all human beings, living and dead, are present to him, how is the resurrection of the dead not a demonstration of God's uncircumscribed power and knowledge, by which he restores human beings to being again? But if this is so, how will one who deprives the dead of the resurrection not deprive God of such a demonstration? [47] If the Greeks, who hoped to do away with the teaching about the resurrection by their own opposition, failed in their hope, how will they not fail in their hope again when they hope again that there will be no resurrection of the dead? [48] The Greeks, having fought against the teaching about the resurrection, ought either not to have been defeated in the fight, or, having been defeated, not to have disbelieved the resurrection … Otherwise their first fruitless labor will be a refutation of their irrational unbelief. ### Scripture references - Rom 11:29: quotation, high confidence - Rom 5:19: allusion, high confidence - Rev 20:13: allusion, medium confidence ### Translation notes - This reference holds items 26–48, numbered κς–μη in Migne; several numerals are damaged (32 is printed λδ΄, 36 ἃς΄, 46 ῃς΄) and those of 30, 35, and 43 are lost with the beginnings of their items (“…”). Migne's notes and Latin, run into the text, are removed by logged corrections. - “The gifts of God are irrevocable”: Rom 11:29. “Disobedience … obedience”: Rom 5:19. The sea and the earth giving back what they received: compare Rev 20:13. ### Citation (SBL) Ps.-Justin, Quaest. Gent. Christ. 3.26 (PG 6:481; trans. Sophia Scriptura, https://sophiascriptura.com/fathers/ps-justin-quaestiones-gentilium/3-1/#p-3-26).