ΒΙΒΛΙΟΝ ΕΝΑΕΚΑΤΟΝ
Eleventh Book
Eleventh Book
ΕΥΣΕΒΙΟΥ ΤΟΥ ΠΑΜΦΙΛΟΥ ΠΡΟΠΑΡΑΣΚΕΥΗΣ ΕΥΑΓΓΕΛΙΚΗΣ ΒΙΒΛΙΟΝ ΕΝΔΕΚΑΤΟΝ
ΠΡΟΟΙΜΙΟΝ ΠΕΡΙ ΤΗΣ ΥΠΟΘΕΣΕΩΣ
EUSEBIUS PAMPHILI’S PREPARATION FOR THE GOSPEL — BOOK ELEVEN PREFACE ON THE SUBJECT MATTER
EUSEBIUS PAMPHILI’S PREPARATION FOR THE GOSPEL — BOOK ELEVEN PREFACE ON THE SUBJECT MATTER
Preface
This preface and opening two chapters serve as the introduction (prooimion) to Book XI of Eusebius’s Praeparatio Evangelica:
Recap of Book X: Eusebius notes that the previous book established, using non-Christian pagan sources, that the Greeks borrowed heavily from "barbarian" (Hebrew) sources, engaged in literary theft, and possessed a intellectual history far younger than that of the Hebrews.
Purpose of Book XI: Having shown the historical priority of the Hebrew Scriptures, Eusebius turns to demonstrating the substantive agreement in doctrine between Greek philosophy and Hebrew theology, particularly focusing on Plato as the supreme representative of Greek wisdom.
Pagan Testimonies & Method: He announces that he will quote respected Platonic commentators (such as Atticus and Aristocles) to outline Plato’s system. While acknowledging that Plato is not without errors, Eusebius argues that where Plato speaks truly, he mirrors older Hebrew wisdom.
The Threefold Division of Philosophy: Citing the Platonic philosopher Atticus, Eusebius shows that philosophy is divided into three branches: Ethics, Physics (including theology/metaphysics), and Logic. Atticus highlights how Plato unified these three distinct strands—which had previously been pursued separately by Pre-Socratic naturalists, lawmakers, and Eleatic logicians—into one complete, living body of philosophy.
Parallel to Hebrew Wisdom: Eusebius introduces the core thesis of Book XI: that this threefold structure and its core insights were already fully present in Hebrew thought long before Plato.
| 1 Ὁ μὲν δὴ τοῦ μετὰ χεῖρας προάγων τῆς Εὐαγγελικῆς Προπαρασκευῆς θέματος ὢν τόμος οὐκ ἐμαῖς φωναῖς, ταῖς δ’ ἔξωθεν συνίστη μαρτυρίαις τὸ μὴ ἀπεικὸς εἶναι Ἕλληνας μηδὲν σοφὸν ἐπενηνεγμένους, εἰ μὴ ὅτι μόνην τὴν ἐν λόγοις δεινότητά τε καὶ εὐγλωττίαν, τὰ πάντα δὲ παρὰ βαρβάρων ἐσκευωρημένους, μηδὲ τὰ Ἑβραίων ἀγνοῆσαι λόγια, καὶ τούτων δὲ ἐν μέρει καθάψασθαι, ὅτι μηδὲ τῆς τῶν σφετέρων ἐν συγγράμμασι φιλοτιμίας καθαρὰς ἐφυλάξαντο κλοπῆς τὰς χεῖρας· κλέπτας γὰρ αὐτοὺς οὐχ ὁ παρ’ ἡμῶν, ὡς ἔφην, λόγος, ὁ δ’ ἐξ αὐτῶν παρεστήσατο. | 1. The volume preceding the present topic of our Preparation for the Gospel established—not by my own words, but by external testimonies—that it was by no means improbable that the Greeks, who brought forward no wisdom of their own save only their mastery in speech and eloquence, and who contrived all their doctrines from barbarians, were also not ignorant of the Hebrew scriptures and touched upon them in part, inasmuch as they did not keep their hands clean from stealing in their own ambitious writings. For it was not our argument, as I said, but their own authors who proved them to be thieves. |
| 2 οὐ μὴν ἀλλὰ καὶ σφόδρα νέους ὁμοῦ τῇ φρονήσει καὶ τὴν ἡλικίαν αὐτούς, παρὰ πλεῖστον ὅσον τῆς Ἑβραϊκῆς λειπομένους ἀρχαιολογίας, ἐν ταὐτῷ διὰ τῆς τῶν χρόνων παραθέσεως ἔγνωμεν. | 2. Moreover, we demonstrated at the same time, by a comparative table of dates, that they were exceedingly young both in wisdom and in age, falling far short of Hebrew antiquity. |
| 3 ταῦτα μὲν οὖν ὁ πρὸ τούτου· ὁ δέ γε παρὼν ἐπείγεται λοιπὸν ἤδη, ὥσπερ τι χρέος, τὴν ἐπηγγελμένην ὑπόσχεσιν ἀποδοῦναι καὶ τὴν ἔν τισιν, εἰ καὶ μὴ ἐν πᾶσι, τοῖς δογματικοῖς θεωρήμασι πρὸς τὰ Ἑβραίων λόγια συμφωνίαν τῶν παρ’ Ἕλλησι φιλοσόφων ἐκφᾶναι· ὧν τοὺς περιττοὺς παραιτησάμενος τὸν κορυφαῖον ἁπάντων ἀνακαλεῖται, μόνῳ χρῆναι ἀντὶ πάντων ἡγούμενος γνώμονι χρήσασθαι τοῦ προβλήματος Πλάτωνι, ἐπεὶ καὶ οὗτος μόνος ἔοικε τῇ δόξῃ τοὺς πάντας ὑπερακοντίσας αὐτάρκης ἡμῖν ἔσεσθαι πρὸς τὴν τοῦ ζητουμένου σύστασιν. | 3. Such, then, were the contents of the preceding book. But the present book now presses on, as if paying a debt, to discharge the promised undertaking and to set forth the agreement of the Greek philosophers with the Hebrew scriptures in certain dogmatic principles, even if not in all. Waiving superfluous thinkers, this account calls upon the leader of them all, considering that Plato alone ought to be used as our standard for this inquiry instead of all others; since he alone, having by his reputation outstripped all the rest, seems sufficient for us to establish the matter under investigation. |
| 4 εἰ δέ που δέοι, σαφηνείας ἕνεκα τῆς τοῦ ἀνδρὸς διανοίας, καὶ τοῖς τὴν κατ’ αὐτὸν ἐζηλωκόσι φιλοσοφίαν μάρτυσι χρήσομαι, τὰς αὐτῶν ἐκθησόμενος φωνὰς ἐπὶ συστάσει τοῦ προκειμένου. | 4. And if it should be necessary anywhere for the sake of clarifying this man's thought, I shall also employ as witnesses those who have zealously followed his philosophy, setting forth their own words to establish the topic before us. |
| 5 τετηρήσθω δέ μοι τὸ μὴ πάντ’ ἐπιτυχῶς εἰρῆσθαι τῷ ἀνδρί, εἰ καὶ τὰ πλεῖστα αὐτῷ σὺν ἀληθείᾳ ἐκπεφώνηται. ὃ δὴ καὶ αὐτὸ κατὰ τὸν δέοντα καιρὸν παραστήσομεν, οὐκ αὐτοῦ διαβολῆς, ἀπολογίας δὲ ἡμετέρας χάριν, δι’ ἣν τὴν βάρβαρον φιλοσοφίαν τῆς Ἑλληνικῆς ὁμολογοῦμεν προησμενικέναι. | 5. But let this observation be reserved by me: that not everything was stated successfully by the man, even if the greater part was uttered by him with truth. This very point we shall present at the fitting moment, not for the sake of defaming him, but by way of our own defense, on account of which we confess that we have preferred the barbarian philosophy over the Greek. |
Chapter 1
| 1.1 Εἰς τρία διελόντος μέρη τοῦ Πλάτωνος τὸν πάντα τῆς φιλοσοφίας λόγον, εἰς φυσικόν, ἠθικόν, λογικόν, εἶτ’ αὖ πάλιν τὸν φυσικὸν διελομένου εἴς τε τὴν τῶν αἰσθητῶν θεωρίαν καὶ τὴν τῶν ἀσωμάτων κατανόησιν, εὕροις ἂν καὶ παρ’ Ἑβραίοις τὸ τριμερὲς τοῦτο τῆς διδασκαλίας εἶδος, ὅτι δὴ καὶ παρ’ αὐτοῖς τὰ ὅμοια πρόσθεν ἢ Πλάτωνα γενέσθαι πεφιλοσόφητο. | 1.1 Since Plato divided the whole system of philosophy into three parts—into physics, ethics, and logic—and then divided physics again into the contemplation of sensible objects and the comprehension of incorporeal realities, you will find this threefold form of instruction among the Hebrews as well, showing that similar philosophical principles were cultivated among them prior to Plato’s existence. |
| 1.2 πρῶτον δὲ τῶν Πλάτωνος ἀκοῦσαι ἄξιον, εἶθ’ οὕτω καὶ τὰ Ἑβραίων ἐπισκοπῆσαι. θήσω δὲ τὰ ἀρέσκοντα Πλάτωνι ἀπὸ τῶν τὰ αὐτοῦ πρεσβευόντων, ὧν Ἀττικὸς διαφανὴς ἀνὴρ τῶν Πλατωνικῶν φιλοσόφων ὧδέ πῃ τὰ δοκοῦντα τῷ ἀνδρὶ διέξεισιν, ἐν οἷς ἵσταται πρὸς τοὺς διὰ τῶν Ἀριστοτέλους τὰ Πλάτωνος ὑπισχνουμένους. | 1.2 But it is worth hearing Plato's doctrines first, and then examining those of the Hebrews. I shall set forth Plato’s tenets from those who represent his school, among whom Atticus, a distinguished man among the Platonic philosophers, expounds the thinker's views somewhat as follows, in a passage where he stands against those who profess to explain Plato through the works of Aristotle: |
Chapter 2
| 2.1 «Τριχῇ τοίνυν διαιρουμένης τῆς ἐντελοῦς φιλοσοφίας, εἴς τε τὸν ἠθικὸν καλούμενον τόπον καὶ τὸν φυσικὸν καὶ ἔτι τὸν λογικόν, καὶ τοῦ μὲν πρώτου κατασκευάζοντος ἡμῶν ἕκαστον καλὸν καὶ ἀγαθόν, καὶ τοὺς οἴκους ὅλους εἰς τὸ ἄριστον ἐπανορθοῦντος, ἤδη δὲ καὶ δῆμον σύμπαντα πολιτείᾳ τῇ διαφερούσῃ καὶ νόμοις τοῖς ἀκριβεστάτοις κοσμοῦντος, τοῦ δευτέρου δὲ πρὸς τὴν περὶ τῶν θείων γνῶσιν διήκοντος, αὐτῶν τε τῶν πρώτων καὶ τῶν αἰτίων καὶ τῶν ἄλλων, ὅσα ἐκ τούτων γίνεται, ἃ δὴ περὶ φύσεως ἱστορίαν ὁ Πλάτων ὠνόμακεν· | 2.1 “Complete philosophy being divided into three parts—into the branch called ethical, the physical, and further the logical—the first renders each of us noble and good, restoring whole households to the best condition, and moreover adorning an entire people with an excellent polity and the most precise laws; while the second reaches toward the knowledge of divine things, both the first principles and the causes and all other things that arise from them, which Plato indeed named the 'inquiry concerning nature'; |
| 2.2 εἰς δὲ τὴν περὶ τούτων ἀμφοτέρων διάκρισίν τε καὶ εὕρεσιν τοῦ τρίτου παραλαμβανομένου· ὅτι μὲν Πλάτων πρῶτος καὶ μάλιστα συναγείρας εἰς ἓν πάντα τὰ τῆς φιλοσοφίας μέρη, τέως ἐσκεδασμένα καὶ διερριμμένα ὥσπερ τὰ τοῦ Πενθέως μέλη, καθάπερ εἶπέ τις, σῶμά τι καὶ ζῷον ὁλόκληρον ἀπέφηνε τὴν φιλοσοφίαν, δῆλα παντὶ λεγόμενα. | 2.2 and the third being taken up for the discrimination and discovery of both of these—that Plato was the first and most eminent in gathering into one all the parts of philosophy, which until then were scattered and dispersed like the limbs of Pentheus (as someone has said), presenting philosophy as a complete body and a living organism, is clear to everyone when stated. |
| 2.3 οὔτε γὰρ οἱ περὶ Θαλῆν καὶ Ἀναξιμένην καὶ Ἀναξαγόραν, καὶ ὅσοι κατὰ ταὐτὸ γεγόνασι τούτοις, ἀγνοοῦνται περὶ μόνην τὴν ὑπὲρ τῆς φύσεως τῶν ὄντων σκέψιν διατρίψαντες· οὐ μὴν οὐδὲ Πιττακὸς καὶ Περίανδρος καὶ Σόλων καὶ Λυκοῦργος καὶ οἱ παραπλήσιοι τούτοις λανθάνουσί τινας τὴν αὑτῶν φιλοσοφίαν εἰς πολιτείαν καταθέντες· Ζήνων δὲ καὶ πᾶν τὸ Ἐλεατικὸν τοῦτο διδασκαλεῖον καὶ αὐτὸ γνώριμον ἐπὶ τῇ τέχνῃ τῶν λόγων μάλιστα σπουδάσαν. | 2.3 For neither are Thales, Anaximenes, Anaxagoras, and those who lived at the same time with them unknown as having spent their time solely on the investigation concerning the nature of existing things; nor indeed do Pittacus, Periander, Solon, Lycurgus, and those like them escape anyone's notice as having placed their philosophy into statecraft; while Zeno and that whole Eleatic school are themselves well known for having devoted themselves chiefly to the art of dialectic. |
| 2.4 τούτοις δὲ ἐπιγενόμενος Πλάτων, ἀνὴρ ἐκ φύσεως ἀρτιτελὴς καὶ πολὺ διενεγκών, οἷα κατάπεμπτος ὡς ἀληθῶς ἐκ θεῶν, ἵν’ ὁλόκληρος ὀφθῇ ἡ δι’ αὐτοῦ φιλοσοφία, παρῆκέ τε οὐδὲν καὶ ἕκαστα ἠκρίβωσε, μήτε ἐλλείπων πρὸς τὸ ἀναγκαῖον μήτε πρὸς τὸ ἄχρηστον ἐξενεχθείς. | 2.4 But Plato coming after these—a man completely endowed by nature and vastly superior, sent down as it were truly from the gods, so that the philosophy given through him might be seen as whole—omitted nothing and brought every detail to perfection, neither falling short of what was necessary nor being carried away toward what was useless. |
| 2.5 ἐπεὶ τοίνυν πάντων ἔφαμεν μετεῖναι τῷ Πλατωνικῷ καὶ περὶ ἠθῶν λέγοντι καὶ διαλεγομένῳ, φέρε καθ’ ἕκαστον ἐπισκεψώμεθα.» | 2.5 Since, therefore, we said that the Platonist has a share in all these parts, both speaking and debating on ethics, come, let us examine each part individually.” |
| 2.6 Ταῦτα μὲν ὁ Ἀττικός. ἐπιμαρτυρεῖ δὲ τοῖς αὐτοῖς καὶ ὁ Περιπατητικὸς Ἀριστοκλῆς, ἐν ἑβδόμῳ συγγράμματι ὧν Περὶ φιλοσοφίας συνέταξεν, ὧδε λέγων πρὸς ῥῆμα· | 2.6 Thus far Atticus. And the Peripatetic Aristocles also testifies to the same things, writing verbatim as follows in the seventh book of his treatise On Philosophy: |
Chapter 3
In this chapter, Eusebius continues setting up his comparison between Platonic and Hebrew philosophy by quoting the Peripatetic philosopher Aristocles of Messene (from Book VII of his work On Philosophy):
Deficiencies of Pre-Platonic Philosophy: Aristocles critiques earlier Greek philosophers for their partial or flawed approaches:
The Ionian naturalists (physiologoi) focused solely on nature.
The Pythagoreans kept their doctrines secret and esoteric.
Xenophanes and the Eleatic dialecticians brought confusion and vertigo rather than positive solutions.
Socrates introduced ethics, politics, and the definition of forms, but left his inquiry incomplete upon his death ("fire upon fire").
Socrates's followers fragmented into divergent sects (Cynics vs. Hedonists, dogmatists vs. skeptics, recluses vs. public figures).
Plato's Comprehensive Synthesis: Plato realized that divine and human knowledge form a unified whole. He successfully integrated philosophy into its three distinct branches: Physics (study of the universe), Ethics (human conduct/politics), and Logic (dialectic/discourse).
Divine Knowledge as the Prerequisite: Plato held that human matters cannot be comprehended without first understanding divine things—just as a physician cannot treat an isolated body part without considering the whole body.
The Anecdote of the Indian Sage: Aristocles relates a story from Aristoxenus the musician about an Indian traveler who met Socrates in Athens. When Socrates claimed his philosophy was an inquiry into human life, the Indian laughed, stating that one cannot understand human things while ignorant of the divine.
Eusebius's Application: Eusebius concludes by emphasizing that this exact three-fold arrangement (Ethics, Logic, Physics/Theology) was taught and practiced by the Hebrews long before Plato.
| 3.1 «Ἐφιλοσόφησε δὲ Πλάτων, εἰ καί τις ἄλλος τῶν πώποτε, γνησίως καὶ τελείως. οἱ μὲν γὰρ ἀπὸ Θαλοῦ φυσιολογοῦντες διετέλεσαν, οἱ δὲ περὶ Πυθαγόραν ἐπεκρύψαντο πάντα· Ξενοφάνης δὲ καὶ οἱ ἀπ’ ἐκείνου τοὺς ἐριστικοὺς κινήσαντες λόγους πολὺν μὲν ἐνέβαλον ἴλιγγον τοῖς φιλοσόφοις, οὐ μὴν ἐπόρισάν γέ τινα βοήθειαν. | 3.1 “Plato, however, philosophized genuinely and completely, if ever anyone did. For those starting from Thales continued to be mere natural philosophers; those around Pythagoras kept everything secret; and Xenophanes together with those after him who set eristic arguments into motion cast great dizziness upon philosophers, without providing any real help. |
| 3.2 οὐχ ἥκιστα δὲ καὶ Σωκράτης, αὐτὸ δὴ τὸ λεγόμενον, ἐγένετο πῦρ ἐπὶ πυρί, καθάπερ αὐτὸς ἔφη Πλάτων. εὐφυέστατος γὰρ ὢν καὶ δεινὸς ἀπορῆσαι περὶ παντὸς ὁτουοῦν ἐπεισήνεγκε τάς τε ἠθικὰς καὶ πολιτικὰς σκέψεις, ἔτι δὲ τὴν περὶ τῶν ἰδεῶν πρῶτος ἐπιχειρίσας ὁρίζεσθαι· πάντα δὲ ἐγείρων λόγον καὶ περὶ πάντων ζητῶν ἔφθη τελευτήσας. | 3.2 And Socrates not least became, as the saying goes, 'fire upon fire,' just as Plato himself said. For being exceptionally gifted and clever at raising doubts about anything whatever, he introduced ethical and political inquiries, and was furthermore the first who undertook to define the doctrine of ideas; yet, while raising every argument and inquiring into all things, he was overtaken by death. |
| 3.3 ἄλλοι δ’ ἀποτεμόμενοι μέρη τινὰ περὶ ταῦτα διέτριψαν, οἱ μὲν ἰατρικήν, οἱ δὲ τὰς μαθηματικὰς ἐπιστήμας, ἔνιοι δὲ περὶ τοὺς ποιητὰς καὶ τὴν μουσικήν. | 3.3 Others, cutting off specific parts, occupied themselves with these: some devoted themselves to medicine, others to the mathematical sciences, and some to the poets and music. |
| 3.4 οἱ μέντοι πολλοὶ τὰς τῶν λόγων δυνάμεις ἐθαύμασαν, ὧν οἱ μὲν ῥήτορας, οἱ δὲ διαλεκτικοὺς προσεῖπον ἑαυτούς. οἱ μέντοι Σωκράτην διαδεξάμενοι καὶ πάνυ τινὲς ἐγένοντο παντοῖοι καὶ ὑπεναντίοι τὰς γνώμας. οἱ μὲν γὰρ κυνισμοὺς καὶ ἀτυφίας καὶ ἀπαθείας ὕμνουν, ἄλλοι δ’ αὖ πάλιν ἡδονάς. καὶ οἱ μὲν εἰδέναι πάντα ἐκόμπαζον, οἱ δὲ ἁπλῶς μηθέν. | 3.4 Most, however, marveled at the powers of rhetoric and discourse, some calling themselves orators and others dialecticians. Moreover, those who succeeded Socrates became extraordinarily varied and opposed to one another in their opinions. For some praised Cynicism, freedom from pride, and freedom from passion, while others praised pleasures; and some boasted that they knew everything, while others maintained they knew nothing at all. |
| 3.5 ἔτι δ’ οἱ μὲν ἐν μέσῳ καὶ ἐν ὄψει πάντων ἐκαλινδοῦντο, τοῖς πολλοῖς ἐξομιλοῦντες, ἄλλοι δ’ αὖ τοὐναντίον ἀπρόσιτοι καὶ ἀπροσαύδητοι διετέλουν ὄντες. | 3.5 Furthermore, some wallowed in public view before everyone, conversing with the crowds, while others on the contrary continued to be inaccessible and unreachable. |
| 3.6 Πλάτων μέντοι κατανοήσας ὡς εἴη μία τις ἡ τῶν θείων καὶ ἀνθρωπίνων ἐπιστήμη, πρῶτος διεῖλε, καὶ ἔφη τὴν μέν τινα περὶ τῆς τοῦ παντὸς φύσεως εἶναι πραγματείαν, τὴν δὲ περὶ τῶν ἀνθρωπίνων, τρίτην δὲ τὴν περὶ τοὺς λόγους. | 3.6 Plato, however, recognizing that knowledge of divine and human things is one, was the first to divide it into parts, stating that one branch of study concerns the nature of the universe, another concerns human affairs, and a third concerns discourse and reasoning. |
| 3.7 ἠξίου δὲ μὴ δύνασθαι τὰ ἀνθρώπινα κατιδεῖν ἡμᾶς, εἰ μὴ τὰ θεῖα πρότερον ὀφθείη· καθάπερ γὰρ οἱ ἰατροὶ μέρη τινὰ θεραπεύοντες ἐπιμελοῦνται τῶν ὅλων σωμάτων πρῶτον, οὕτω χρῆναι καὶ τὸν μέλλοντα τἀνθάδε κατόψεσθαι τὴν τῶν ὅλων φύσιν εἰδέναι πρότερον· μέρος τε εἶναι τῶν ὄντων τὸν ἄνθρωπον, καὶ τἀγαθὸν διττόν, τὸ μὲν ἡμέτερον, τὸ δὲ τοῦ παντός, κυριώτερον δὲ τὸ τοῦ παντός· διὰ γὰρ ἐκείνου καὶ τοῦτο γίγνεσθαι. | 3.7 He maintained that we cannot comprehend human affairs unless divine things have first been contemplated; for just as physicians when treating specific parts care for the whole body first, so also must he who intends to discern things here below first know the nature of the whole. For man is a part of existing things, and the Good is twofold—one being our own good, and the other being the Good of the universe, but the Good of the universe is superior; for through the latter, the former also comes to be. |
| 3.8 φησὶ δ’ Ἀριστόξενος ὁ μουσικὸς Ἰνδῶν εἶναι τὸν λόγον τοῦτον. Ἀθήνησι γὰρ ἐντυχεῖν Σωκράτει τῶν ἀνδρῶν ἐκείνων ἕνα τινά, κἄπειτα αὐτοῦ πυνθάνεσθαι τί ποιῶν φιλοσοφοίη· τοῦ δὲ εἰπόντος ὅτι ζητῶν περὶ τοῦ ἀνθρωπίνου βίου, καταγελάσαι τὸν Ἰνδόν, λέγοντα μὴ δύνασθαί τινα τὰ ἀνθρώπινα κατιδεῖν, ἀγνοοῦντά γε τὰ θεῖα. | 3.8 Aristoxenus the musician says that this doctrine belongs to the Indians. For he says that one of those men met Socrates in Athens, and then asked him what he was doing in his philosophy; and when Socrates replied that he was inquiring into human life, the Indian laughed at him, saying that one cannot comprehend human affairs while being ignorant of divine things. |
| 3.9 τοῦτο μὲν οὖν εἰ ἀληθές ἐστιν οὐκ ἂν δύναιτό τις διατεινόμενος εἰπεῖν. διεῖλε δ’ οὖν ὁ Πλάτων τήν τε περὶ τῶν ὅλων φιλοσοφίαν καὶ τὴν πολιτικήν, ἔτι δὲ τὴν λογικήν.» | 3.9 Whether this story is true or not, no one could state with certainty. At any rate, Plato divided philosophy into the study of the universe, politics, and logic.” |
| 3.10 Τοιαύτης οὔσης τῆς κατὰ Πλάτωνα φιλοσοφίας καιρὸς καὶ τὴν Ἑβραίων ἐπισκέψασθαι, μακρῷ πρόσθεν ἢ Πλάτωνα γενέσθαι τὸν ὅμοιον πεφιλοσοφηκότων τρόπον. εὕροις δ’ ἂν οὖν καὶ παρ’ αὐτοῖς τήνδε σύμφωνον τὴν τριμέρειαν ἠθικῶν τε καὶ λογικῶν καὶ φυσικῶν μαθημάτων, τόνδε ἐπιστήσας τὸν τρόπον. | 3.10 Such being the nature of philosophy according to Plato, it is time to examine that of the Hebrews, who philosophized in a similar manner long before Plato existed. You will find among them, too, this agreeing three-fold division of ethical, logical, and physical studies, if you direct your attention in the following way. |
Chapter 4
In this chapter, Eusebius explains how the Hebrews possessed and practiced the ethical branch of philosophy long before the Greeks:
Practical Ethics Prior to Theory: Hebrew ethics was lived through concrete deeds long before Greek formal discourse. The ultimate goal (telos) of human life for the Hebrews was defined as piety (eusebeia) and friendship with God through moral virtue.
Rejection of Greek Ethical Views: Eusebius contrasts Hebrew ethics with major Greek philosophical schools:
1) Epicureanism: Rejects pleasure as the supreme good.
2) Aristotelianism: Rejects the "threefold division of goods" (placing bodily and external goods on equal footing with spiritual ones).
3) Skepticism: Rejects ultimate ignorance / epochē (suspension of judgment).
4) Stoicism / Pure Human Virtue: Argues that human virtue alone, apart from God, cannot achieve a life free from sorrow (alypor bios).
The Role of Moses and Solomon: Moses first recorded the practical and civic life of the ancient Hebrew patriarchs, beginning with universal principles (creation of the cosmos and humanity) before giving specific moral laws. Later, King Solomon codified ethical instruction into concise, memorable proverbs in his Book of Proverbs.
| 4.1 Τὰ μὲν οὖν ἠθικὰ πρώτιστα πάντων φιλοτίμως ἐσπουδασμένα παρ’ αὐτοῖς ἔργοις πολὺ πρότερον τῶν λόγων μάθοις ἂν τὰ κατὰ τοὺς ἄνδρας διασκοπούμενος, ἐπεὶ καὶ τέλος ἀγαθῶν τοῦ τε μακαρίως ζῆν ὕστατον ὅρον τὴν εὐσέβειαν τήν τε διὰ τῆς τῶν ἠθῶν κατορθώσεως πρὸς τὸν θεὸν φιλίαν ἠγάσαντό τε καὶ μετεδίωξαν, ἀλλ’ οὐ σωμάτων ἡδονήν, κατ’ Ἐπίκουρον· οὐδ’ αὖ τὴν τριγένειαν τῶν ἀγαθῶν, κατ’ Ἀριστοτέλην, τὰ περὶ σῶμα καὶ τὰ ἐκτὸς ἐν ἴσῳ τοῖς ψυχῆς ἀγαθοῖς ἐκτετιμηκότα. | 4.1 You may learn, then, that ethical principles were first of all most zealously cultivated among them in actual deeds long before formal arguments, if you consider the life of those men. For as the end of goods and the ultimate boundary of a blessed life, they admired and pursued piety and friendship with God achieved through the right ordering of morals—not bodily pleasure, according to Epicurus; nor again the threefold division of goods, according to Aristotle, who valued bodily and external goods equally with the goods of the soul. |
| 4.2 οὐ μὴν οὐδὲ τὴν ἐσχάτην ἄγνοιάν τε καὶ ἀμαθίαν, ἣν ὀνόματικῶς σεμνοτέρῳ τινὲς ἐποχὴν ἀνειρήκασιν· ἀλλ’ οὐδ’ αὖ τῆς ψυχῆς τὴν ἀρετήν· πόση γὰρ ἐν ἀνθρώποις αὕτη, καὶ τί καθ’ ἑαυτὴν ἄνευ θεοῦ πρὸς τὸν ἄλυπον συντείνοι ἂν βίον; δι’ ὅν τὰ πάντα τῆς εἰς τὸν θεὸν ἐλπίδος, πείσματος ὥσπερ ἀρραγοῦς, ἐξάψαντες, τὸν θεοφιλῆ μόνον ἀπέφηναν εἶναι μακάριον, | 4.2 Nor indeed did they accept that ultimate ignorance and lack of learning which some have proclaimed under a more venerable name as "suspension of judgment" (epochē); nor yet did they rely solely on the virtue of the soul itself. For how great is this virtue in human beings, and what could it accomplish by itself without God toward a life free from sorrow? On His account, attaching all things to hope in God as to an unbreakable anchor, they declared that only the one who is beloved of God is truly blessed, |
| 4.3 ὅτι δὴ ὁ πάντων ἀγαθῶν ταμίας θεός, ζωῆς ὢν πάροχος καὶ αὐτῆς ἀρετῆς πηγὴ, τῶν τε περὶ σῶμα καὶ τῶν ἐκτὸς ἀπάντων χορηγὸς ὑπάρχων, μόνος ἂν εἴη πρὸς τὸν μακάριον βίον τῷ τὴν πρὸς αὐτὸν φιλίαν διὰ τῆς παναληθοῦς εὐσεβείας στειλαμένῳ αὐτάρκης. | 4.3 since God, the dispenser of all good things, being the giver of life and the fountain of virtue itself, as well as the provider of all bodily and external needs, alone would be sufficient for a blessed life to one who has equipped himself with friendship toward Him through all-true piety. |
| 4.4 ἔνθεν ὁ πάνσοφος Μώσης πρῶτος ἁπάντων ἀνθρώπων γραφῇ παραδοὺς τὸν τῶν πρὸ αὐτοῦ θεοφιλῶν Ἑβραίων βίον, τὸν πολιτικὸν ὁμοῦ καὶ πρακτικὸν δι’ ὑφηγήσεως ἱστορικῆς ὑποτέθειται τρόπον. ἧς ἀρχόμενος ἀπὸ τῶν καθόλου τὴν διδασκαλίαν ἐποιήσατο, θεὸν τῶν ὅλων αἴτιον ὑποστησάμενος, κοσμογονίαν τε καὶ ἀνθρωπογονίαν ὑπογράψας. | 4.4 Hence the all-wise Moses, being the first of all men to commit to writing the life of the God-loving Hebrews before him, set forth the civic and practical way of life through historical narration. Beginning from universal principles, he constructed his teaching by establishing God as the cause of all things, outlining both the creation of the world and the creation of man. |
| 4.5 εἶθ’ οὕτως ἀπὸ τῶν καθόλου ἐπὶ τὰ κατὰ μέρος προελθὼν τῷ λόγῳ, καὶ διὰ τῆς τῶν παλαιῶν ἀνδρῶν μνήμης εἰς τὸν τῆς ἐκείνων ἀρετῆς τε καὶ θεοσεβείας ζῆλον τοὺς φοιτητὰς παρορμήσας, οὐ μὴν ἀλλὰ καὶ αὐτὸς αὐθέντης νόμων εὐσεβῶν τῶν πρὸς αὐτοῦ τεθέντων ἀποφανθείς, κατὰ πάντα δῆλος ἂν εἴη τοῦ φιλοθέου τρόπου διὰ τῆς τῶν ἠθῶν ἐπιμελείας πρόνοιαν πεποιημένος, ὥσπερ οὖν καὶ τοῦτο προλαβὼν ὁ λόγος ἐν τοῖς πρόσθεν φανερὸν κατεστήσατο. | 4.5 Then, having proceeded in his account from universal principles to particular details, and having incited his hearers through the memory of ancient men to zeal for their virtue and godliness, and moreover having himself been revealed as the author of godly laws enacted by him, he would be clearly seen to have exercised foresight in every way for the God-loving way of life through care for morals—just as our argument previously demonstrated in what went before. |
| 4.6 μακρὸν δ’ ἂν εἴη καὶ τοὺς ἐξῆς μετὰ Μωσέα προφήτας, τούς τε τούτων προτρεπτικοὺς μὲν ἀρετῆς, ἀποτρεπτικοὺς δὲ κακίας ἁπάσης λόγους ἐν τῷδε καταβάλλεσθαι. τί δ’ εἴ σοι τοῦ σοφωτάτου Σολομῶνος τὰς ἠθικὰς παραφέροιμι διδασκαλίας, αἷς οἰκεῖον λόγον ἀνέθηκε, σύγγραμμα Παροιμίας ἐπονομάσας, ἐπιτόμους γνώμας ἀποφθέγμασιν ἐοικυίας ὑποθέσει περιλαβὼν μιᾷ; | 4.6 It would be tedious to set down here the prophets who followed after Moses, as well as their arguments exhorting to virtue and turning away from all vice. But what if I should present to you the ethical teachings of the most wise Solomon, to which he dedicated a specific treatise, naming the work Proverbs, comprising concise maxims resembling aphorisms under a single theme? |
| 4.7 καὶ τὸν μὲν ἠθικὸν τρόπον ταύτῃ πῃ παῖδες Ἑβραίων, ἐκ παλαιῶν πρὶν ἢ καὶ τὰ πρῶτα στοιχεῖα μαθεῖν Ἕλληνας, αὐτοί τε ἐπαιδεύοντο καὶ τοῖς προσιοῦσι τῆς αὐτῆς ἀφθόνως ἐκοινώνουν παιδείας. | 4.7 In this way, then, the children of the Hebrews were themselves educated in the ethical method from ancient times, long before the Greeks learned even their first letters, and they shared this same education abundantly with all who came to them. |
Chapter 5
In Chapter 5, Eusebius addresses the Logic (Logikon) branch of Hebrew philosophy, demonstrating how it compares to—and surpasses—Greek dialectic and rhetoric:
Truth vs. Sophistry: The Hebrews did not practice logic through deceptive arguments or sophistical trickery (deinotēti sophismatōn). Instead, their logical method was rooted in the direct apprehension of divine truth, revealed by light imparted to their god-wise prophets (theosophoi).
Pedagogy from Youth: From early childhood, Hebrew students were trained in logic through sacred recitations, noble histories, metrical songs, riddles, allegories, and beautiful linguistic expressions.
The Role of Interpreters (Deuterōtai): Scholars and expounders (deuterōtai / rabbinic teachers) unsealed obscure or enigmatic texts for those prepared to hear their deeper meanings.
Solomon's Logical Method: Solomon explicitly framed the Book of Proverbs as a handbook for logical and moral discernment—training the mind to understand parables, figures of speech, riddles, and dark sayings.
Hebrew Poetic Metrics: Eusebius notes that Hebrew scriptures contain formal poetic meters—such as Moses's Great Song (Deuteronomy 32) and Psalm 118 (LXX) / 119 (MT), which he describes as composed in hexameters, as well as other passages written in trimeters and tetrameters.
Correctness of Names: Finally, Eusebius asserts that Hebrew precision in language is demonstrated by the correctness of their word designations (orthotēs tōn onomatōn), a principle he notes Plato himself acknowledged in agreement with Hebrew philosophy (referencing the Cratylus).
| 5.1 Καὶ τὸν λογικὸν δὲ τρόπον τῆς Ἑβραίων φιλοσοφίας οὐ, καθάπερ Ἕλλησι φίλον, δεινότητι σοφισμάτων καὶ λογισμοῖς πρὸς ἀπάτην τετεχνασμένοις δεῖν ᾤοντο μετιέναι, καταλήψει δὲ αὐτῆς ἀληθείας, ἣν ὑπὸ θείου φωτὸς τὰς ψυχὰς καταυγασθέντες οἱ παρ’ αὐτοῖς θεόσοφοι εὗρόν τε καὶ ἐφωτίσθησαν. | 5.1 And as for the logical method of the Hebrew philosophy, they did not think it necessary to pursue it—as is pleasing to the Greeks—by the cleverness of sophisms and reasoning crafted for deception, but rather by the comprehension of truth itself, which the divinely wise men among them discovered and were illuminated by, having had their souls radiant with divine light. |
| 5.2 ἐφ’ ἣν ἀκονῶντες τοὺς τὰ οἰκεῖα μαθήματα παιδευομένους λόγων τε αὐτοῖς ἱερῶν ἀπαγγελίας, ἱστοριῶν τε σεμνῶν διηγήματα, ᾠδῶν τε καὶ ἐπῳδῶν ἐμμέτρους συνθέσεις, καὶ ἔτι προβλήματα καὶ αἰνίγματα, καί τινας σοφὰς καὶ ἀλληγορικὰς θεωρίας μετὰ κάλλους εὐεπείας, καὶ τῆς κατὰ τὴν οἰκείαν γλῶτταν εὐφραδοῦς ἀπαγγελίας, ἐξ ἔτι νηπίας αὐτοῖς παρεδίδοσαν ἡλικίας. | 5.2 Sharpening those who were being instructed in their own lessons toward this truth, they handed down to them from infancy the recitation of sacred words, narratives of venerable histories, metrical compositions of songs and chants, and furthermore problems and riddles, as well as certain wise and allegorical contemplations accompanied by the beauty of fine expression and eloquent recitation in their own native language. |
| 5.3 ναὶ μὴν καὶ τῶν πρώτων μαθημάτων δευτερωταί τινες ἦσαν αὐτοῖς (οὕτω δὲ φίλον τοὺς ἐξηγητὰς τῶν παρ’ αὐτοῖς γραφῶν ὀνομάζειν·) οἳ τὰ δι’ αἰνιγμάτων ἐπεσκιασμένα, εἰ καὶ μὴ τοῖς πᾶσι, τοῖς γοῦν πρὸς τὴν τούτων ἀκοὴν ἐπιτηδείοις δι’ ἑρμηνείας καὶ σαφηνείας ἐξέφαινον. | 5.3 Indeed, they also had certain expounders (deuterōtai) of the primary lessons—for so it is customary to name the interpreters of their scriptures—who brought to light through interpretation and clarity those things shaded in riddles, if not to all people, at least to those suited for hearing them. |
| 5.4 ταύτῃ τοι πάλιν ὁ σοφώτατος παρὰ τοῖσδε Σολομῶν ἐνθένδε ποθὲν τὴν καταρχὴν τοῦ τῶν Παροιμιῶν ἐποιήσατο συγγράμματος, μονονουχὶ τὴν αἰτίαν αὐτῷ τῆς γραφῆς ταύτην εἶναι διδάξας, δι’ ὧν αὐτοῖς ῥήμασι δεῖν ἔφησε πάντα ἄνδρα γνῶναι σοφίαν καὶ παιδείαν καὶ νοῆσαι λόγους φρονήσεως, δέξασθαί τε στροφὰς λόγων, νοῆσαί τε δικαιοσύνην ἀληθῆ καὶ κρίμα κατευθύνειν, ἵνα δῷ, φησίν, ἀκάκοις πανουργίαν, παιδί τε νέῳ αἴσθησίν τε καὶ ἔννοιαν. τῶνδε γὰρ ἀκούσας ὁ σοφὸς σοφώτερος ἔσται, ὁ δὲ νοήμων κυβέρνησιν κτήσεται· νοήσει τε παραβολὴν καὶ σκοτεινὸν λόγον ῥήσεις τε σοφῶν καὶ αἰνίγματα. | 5.4 For this very reason, Solomon, the wisest among them, made this the starting point of his work Proverbs, all but teaching us that this was his reason for writing, in the very words by which he said that every man must "know wisdom and instruction, and comprehend words of prudence, to receive turning-points of speech, and to comprehend true righteousness and to direct judgment; in order that I may give," he says, "shrewdness to the simple, and to the young child perception and thought. For hearing these things, the wise man will be wiser, and the man of understanding will acquire guidance; and he will comprehend a parable and a dark saying, the utterances of the wise and their riddles." |
| 5.5 καὶ τὰ μὲν τῆς τοῦ δηλωθέντος συγγράμματος ἐπαγγελίας τοιαῦτά τινα ἦν· τὰς δ’ ἐν μέρει τῶν λεχθέντων προτάσεις, καὶ τούτων τὰς ἐπιλύσεις, τήν τε λογικὴν πραγματείαν οἰκείως τῇ τῶν ἀνδρῶν σοφίᾳ τε καὶ φωνῇ διὰ πασῶν τῶν παρ’ αὐτοῖς προφητικῶν γραφῶν φερομένην, ὅτῳ φίλον, τῆς τούτων ἐντεύξεως τὰς βίβλους ἐπὶ σχολῆς μετὰ χεῖρας λαβὼν εἴσεται. | 5.5 Such, then, were the promises of the declared work; and anyone who wishes, taking their books into hand at leisure for reading, will know the individual propositions of these sayings, their solutions, and the logical treatment carried appropriately through all their prophetic writings in accordance with these men's wisdom and language. |
| 5.6 εἰ δέ τις καὶ τῆς γλώσσης αὐτῆς φιλοκάλως γένοιτο ἐν πείρᾳ, ἴδοι ἂν, οἷα παρὰ βαρβάροις, ἄνδρας λογικωτάτους οὐδὲν σοφιστῶν οὐδὲ ῥητόρων ἀποδέοντας τῇ οἰκείᾳ γλώσσῃ. | 5.6 And if anyone were to gain an appreciative experience of the language itself, he would see—considering it is among barbarians—men of the greatest logical skill, in no way inferior to sophists or rhetoricians in their own language. |
| 5.7 εἶεν δ’ ἂν αὐτοῖς καὶ ἔμμετροι ποιήσεις, ὡς ἡ μεγάλη Μώσεως ᾠδὴ, καὶ τοῦ Δαβὶδ ὁ ριη Ψαλμὸς, τῷ καλουμένῳ παρ’ Ἕλλησιν ἡρῴῳ μέτρῳ συντεταγμένοι. φασὶ γοῦν ἑξάμετρα εἶναι ταῦτα, δι’ ἑκκαίδεκα συλλαβῶν πεποιημένα. καὶ τὰ λοιπὰ δὲ τὰ παρ’ αὐτοῖς στιχήρη δι’ ἐπῶν λέγεται τριμέτρων τε καὶ τετραμέτρων κατὰ τὴν οἰκείαν αὐτῶν συγκεῖσθαι φωνήν. | 5.7 They also possess metrical compositions, such as the Great Song of Moses and the 118th Psalm of David, composed in what is called among the Greeks the heroic meter. At any rate, they say these are hexameters, constructed of sixteen syllables. And the remaining poetic works among them are said to be composed of verse in trimeters and tetrameters according to their own native tongue. |
| 5.8 καὶ τὰ μὲν τῆς λέξεως αὐτοῖς ὧδέ πῃ λογικῆς συνέσεως ἔχει, τὰ δὲ δὴ τῆς διανοίας οὐδ’ ἔστι παραβαλεῖν ἀνθρώποις· θεοῦ γὰρ καὶ αὐτῆς ἀληθείας λόγια δι’ αὐτῶν ἐκπεφωνημένα, θεσπίσματα καὶ προρρήσεις, μαθήματά τε εὐσεβῆ, καὶ τῆς τῶν ὄντων ἐπιγνώσεως δόγματα περιειλήφασι. | 5.8 In this way, then, stands their logical intelligence regarding diction; but as for their thought, it is not even possible to compare it to human origin. For they encompass oracles spoken through them by God and Truth itself—divine decrees, prophecies, pious teachings, and doctrines for the true knowledge of real existence. |
| 5.9 τεκμήρια δ’ ἂν λάβοις τῆς παρὰ τοῖς ἀνδράσι λογικῆς ἀκριβείας ἀπὸ τῆς ὀρθότητος τῆς τῶν ὀνομάτων θέσεως, ἧς πέρι καὶ ὁ Πλάτων τῇ Ἑβραίων μαρτυρῶν δόξῃ δῆλος ἂν εἴη, καὶ κατ’ αὐτό γε τοῦτο σύμφωνος ὢν τῇ κατὰ τοὺς ἄνδρας φιλοσοφίᾳ, ὡς γοῦν ἐκ τούτων διαγνῶναι ῥᾴδιον. | 5.9 You may also take proof of the logical precision among these men from the correctness of their assignment of names (orthotēs tōn onomatōn), concerning which even Plato would be clearly seen bearing witness to the opinion of the Hebrews, being in agreement on this very point with the philosophy of these men, as is easy to discern from what follows. |
Chapter 6
In Chapter 6, Eusebius demonstrates how Plato’s doctrine of the natural correctness of names (orthotēs tōn onomatōn) from the Cratylus derives directly from Moses and the ancient Hebrews:
Moses and Hebrew Onomastics: Long before the Greeks, Moses demonstrated that names are given by nature (physei) rather than mere convention (thesei). Examples include Adam (derived from earth/red clay), Enos (denoting mortal/forgetful human reason), Cain (zeal/jealousy), Abel (mourning), and Abraham (father of many nations).
Plato's Dependence on Barbarian / Hebrew Wisdom: Eusebius quotes heavily from Plato’s Cratylus (383a–b, 389d, 390c, 409d, 399c, etc.), showing Plato’s admission that the correctness of names is common to both Greeks and Barbarians, that name-giving requires a wise lawgiver guided by a dialectician, and that many Greek names were borrowed from Barbarians.
Divine Renaming and Etymologies: Eusebius details how divine power renamed figures like Abram to Abraham, and Jacob to Israel ("one who sees God"). He contrasts Moses's natural etymologies with Plato's fanciful Greek word associations (e.g., anthrōpos from anathrein, anēr from anō rhoē, theos from theein).
The Hebrew Alphabet and Word Origins: Eusebius breaks down the Hebrew alphabet, showing that letters themselves carry intrinsic instruction (Aleph = learning, Beth = house → learning of a house; Gimel = fulfillment, Deleth = tablets → written learning is the fulfillment of tablets). He notes the sacred Tetragrammaton and its reflection in Greek mystical poetry.
The Name "Hebrew" (Eber): Finally, he explains that the name "Hebrew" (Eber) means "one who crosses over" (diaperōn), signifying a mind that crosses over from visible, material creation to invisible, divine contemplation.
| 6.1 Πρὸ τοῦ Μώσεως μακρῷ πρόσθεν ἢ τὸ φιλοσοφίας ὄνομα εἰς Ἕλληνας ἐλθεῖν διὰ πάσης αὐτοῦ τῆς γραφῆς μυρία περὶ τῆς τῶν ὀνομάτων θέσεως πεπραγματευμένου, καὶ τοτὲ μὲν φυσικώτατα τῶν παρ’ αὐτῷ πάντων τὰς ἐπωνυμίας διατεταγμένου, τοτὲ δὲ τῷ θεῷ τὴν κρίσιν τῆς τῶν εὐσεβῶν ἀνδρῶν μετωνυμίας ἀναθέντος, φύσει τε, ἀλλ’ οὐ θέσει τὰ ὀνόματα κατὰ τῶν πραγμάτων κεῖσθαι πεπαιδευκότος, ἑπόμενος ὁ Πλάτων συμφέρεται τοῖς αὐτοῖς, οὐκ ἄλλως ἢ βαρβάρων μνησθεὶς, καὶ παρὰ τοῖσδε φήσας τόνδε σώζεσθαι τὸν τρόπον, τάχα που τοὺς Ἑβραίους αἰνιττόμενος, ἐπεὶ μηδὲ παρ’ ἑτέροις βαρβάροις ῥᾀδιον τὴν τοιάνδε παραφυλάξαι θεωρίαν. | 6.1 Long before Moses—far earlier than when the name of philosophy reached the Greeks—had treated in full throughout his entire writing ten thousand things concerning the position of names, ordering the designations of all things among him most naturally at one time, and at another time entrusting to God the judgment of renaming pious men, having taught that names are assigned to things by nature (physei) and not by convention (thesei), Plato, following him, agrees on these same points. He does so not otherwise than by mentioning Barbarians and stating that this principle is preserved among them—perhaps hinting at the Hebrews, since among no other Barbarians is it easy to observe such a theory. |
| 6.2 λέγει δ’ οὖν ἐν Κρατύλῳ· «Καὶ οὐ τοῦτο εἶναι ὄνομα ὃ ἄν τινες συνθέμενοι καλεῖν καλῶσι, τῆς αὐτῶν φωνῆς μόριον ἐπιφθεγγόμενοι, ἀλλ’ ὀρθότητά τινα τῶν ὀνομάτων πεφυκέναι καὶ Ἕλλησι καὶ βαρβάροις τὴν αὐτὴν ἅπασιν.» | 6.2 At any rate, he says in the Cratylus: “And that a name is not whatever people agree to call something, uttering a particle of their own voice, but that there is a certain correctness of names inherent by nature, the same for all, both Greeks and Barbarians.” |
| 6.3 Καὶ προϊὼν ἑξῆς φησιν· «Οὐκοῦν οὕτως ἀξιώσεις καὶ τὸν νομοθέτην τόν τε ἐνθάδε καὶ τὸν ἐν τοῖς βαρβάροις, ἕως ἂν καὶ τὸ τοῦ ὀνόματος εἶδος ἀποδιδῷ τὸ προσῆκον ἑκάστῳ ἐν ὁποιαισοῦν συλλαβαῖς, οὐδὲν χείρω νομοθέτην εἶναι τὸν ἐνθάδε ἢ τὸν ὁπουοῦν ἄλλοθι;» | 6.3 And proceeding further, he says: “Will you not then hold that the lawgiver—both the one here and the one among the Barbarians—so long as he renders the appropriate form of the name for each thing in whatever syllables, is no worse a lawgiver here than anywhere else?” |
| 6.4 Εἶθ’ ἑξῆς πάλιν τὸν ἐπιστήμονα τῆς ὀρθότητος τῶν ὀνομάτων διαλεκτικὸν εἶναι φήσας καὶ νομοθέτην οὕτω λέγει· «Τέκτονος μὲν ἄρα ἔργον ἐστὶν τὸ ποιῆσαι πηδάλιον ἐπιστατοῦντος κυβερνήτου, εἰ μέλλει καλὸν εἶναι τὸ πηδάλιον. — Φαίνεται.» | 6.4 Then next, having said that the one knowledgeable in the correctness of names is a dialectician and a lawgiver, he speaks thus: “‘Is it not then the work of a carpenter to make a rudder under the direction of a pilot, if the rudder is to be good?’ — ‘It appears so.’” |
| 6.5 «Νομοθέτου δέ γε, ὡς ἔοικεν, ὄνομα, ἐπιστάτην ἔχοντος διαλεκτικὸν ἄνδρα, εἰ μέλλει καλῶς ὄνομα τεθήσεσθαι. — Ἔστι ταῦτα. — Κινδυνεύει ἄρα, ὦ Ἑρμόγενες, εἶναι οὐ φαῦλον, ὡς σὺ οἴει, ἡ τοῦ ὀνόματος θέσις, οὐδὲ φαύλων ἀνδρῶν, οὐδὲ τῶν ἐπιτυχόντων. καὶ Κρατύλος ἀληθῆ λέγει, λέγων φύσει τὰ ὀνόματα εἶναι τοῖς πράγμασι, καὶ οὐ πάντα δημιουργὸν ὀνομάτων εἶναι, ἀλλὰ μόνον ἐκεῖνον τὸν ἀποβλέποντα εἰς τὸ τῇ φύσει ὄνομα ὂν ἑκάστῳ, καὶ δυνάμενον αὐτοῦ τὸ εἶδος τιθέναι εἰς τά τε γράμματα καὶ τὰς συλλαβάς.» | 6.5 “‘And it belongs to a lawgiver, as it seems, to make a name, having a dialectician as his supervisor, if a name is to be assigned well.’ — ‘That is so.’ — ‘Then the assignment of names, Hermogenes, risks being no trivial matter, as you think, nor the work of trivial or chance men. And Cratylus speaks the truth when he says that names belong to things by nature, and that not everyone is a craftsman of names, but only he who looks to the name existing by nature for each thing, and who is able to embody its form into both letters and syllables.’” |
| 6.6 Τοσαῦτα εἰπὼν μετὰ πλεῖστα βαρβάρων αὖθις ἀναφέρει τὴν μνήμην, κἄπειτα εἰς Ἕλληνας παρὰ βαρβάρων ἥκειν τὰ πολλὰ τῶν ὀνομάτων διαρρήδην ὁμολογεῖ, φάσκων αὐτοῖς ῥήμασιν· | 6.6 Having said these things, after many other remarks he again brings up the memory of Barbarians, and then explicitly confesses that most names came to the Greeks from Barbarians, stating in these very words: |
| 6.7 «Ἐννοῶ ὅτι πολλὰ Ἕλληνες ὀνόματα, ἄλλως τε καὶ οἱ ὑπὸ τοῖς βαρβάροις οἰκοῦντες, παρὰ τῶν βαρβάρων εἰλήφασιν. — Τί οὖν δή; — Εἴ τις ζητοίη ταῦτα κατὰ τὴν Ἑλληνικὴν φωνὴν ὡς εἰκότως κεῖται, ἀλλὰ μὴ κατ’ ἐκείνην ἐξ ἧς τὸ ὄνομα τυγχάνει ὄν, οἶσθα ὅτι ἀποροίη ἄν. — Εἰκότως.» | 6.7 “‘I observe that the Greeks have received many names from Barbarians, especially those who dwell under Barbarian rule.’ — ‘What then?’ — ‘If someone should inquire how these names are reasonably assigned according to the Greek language, rather than according to that language from which the name happens to originate, you know that he would be at a loss.’ — ‘Naturally.’” |
| 6.8 Ταῦτα ὁ Πλάτων. φθάνει γε μὴν αὐτὸν Μωυσῆς, ὃς οἷα δὴ σοφὸς νομοθέτης ὢν ὁμοῦ καὶ διαλεκτικὸς ἐπάκουσον τί φησι· «καὶ ἔπλασεν ὁ θεὸς ἐκ τῆς γῆς πάντα τὰ θηρία τοῦ ἀγροῦ καὶ πάντα τὰ πετεινὰ τοῦ οὐρανοῦ, καὶ ἤγαγεν αὐτὰ πρὸς τὸν Ἀδὰμ, ἰδεῖν τί καλέσει αὐτά. καὶ πᾶν ὃ ἂν ἐκάλεσεν αὐτὸ Ἀδὰμ ψυχὴν ζῶσαν, τοῦτο ἦν ὄνομα αὐτοῦ.» | 6.8 Such are the words of Plato. Moses, however, anticipates him—who, being a wise lawgiver and dialectician at once, hear what he says: “And God formed out of the earth all the beasts of the field and all the birds of the heaven, and brought them to Adam to see what he would call them; and whatever Adam called each living creature, that was its name.” |
| 6.9 διὰ γὰρ τοῦ φάναι «τοῦτο ἦν ὄνομα αὐτοῦ» τί ἄλλο ἢ κατὰ φύσιν τεθεῖσθαι τὰς προσηγορίας παρίστησι; τὸ γὰρ ἐπικληθὲν ἄρτι, φησί, τοῦτο καὶ πάλαι πρότερον ἐν τῇ φύσει περιέχεσθαι, εἶναί τε καὶ προϋπάρχειν ἑκάστῳ τῶν ἐπωνομασμένων τοῦτο ὄνομα, ὅπερ ὁ δηλούμενος ἄνθρωπος ἐπιθειάσας δυνάμει κρείττονι τέθειται. | 6.9 For by saying “that was its name,” what else does he demonstrate than that designations are assigned according to nature? For he means that what was just called this was also contained long ago in nature, and that this name exists and pre-exists for each named thing, which the mentioned man assigned by inspiration through a superior power. |
| 6.10 καὶ αὐτὸ δὲ τὸ Ἀδὰμ, Ἑβραῖον ὑπάρχον ὄνομα, παρὰ τῷ Μωσεῖ τοῦ γηγενοῦς ἀνθρώπου γένοιτ’ ἂν ἐπώνυμον, ὅτι δὴ παρ’ Ἑβραίοις Ἀδὰμ ἡ γῆ καλεῖται, παρ’ ὃ καὶ ὁ πρῶτος γηγενὴς ἐτύμως Ἀδὰμ ὑπὸ Μώσεως ἀνείρηται. | 6.10 And the name Adam itself, being a Hebrew name, would be in Moses an appropriate designation for the earth-born man, because among the Hebrews earth is called Adam (adamah), from which the first earth-born man was rightly called Adam by Moses. |
| 6.11 ἔχοι δ’ ἂν καὶ ἄλλην ἡ προσηγορία διάνοιαν, εἰς τὸ ἐρυθρὸν μεταλαμβανομένη καὶ τὴν τοῦ σώματος παριστῶσα φύσιν. ἀλλὰ τὸν μὲν γεώδη καὶ γήινον καὶ γηγενῆ, ἢ τὸν σωματικὸν καὶ σάρκινον ἄνθρωπον, τῷ τοῦ Ἀδὰμ ἐπεσημήνατο προσρήματι. | 6.11 The designation would also carry another meaning, being translated into "red" and displaying the physical nature of the body. But whether as earthy, terrestrial, and earth-born, or as bodily and fleshly, he designated man with the appellation of Adam. |
| 6.12 καλοῦσι δὲ καὶ ἄλλως παῖδες Ἑβραίων τὸν ἄνθρωπον, Ἐνὼς ἐπονομάζοντες, ὃν δή φασιν εἶναι τὸν ἐν ἡμῖν λογικόν, ἕτερον ὄντα τὴν φύσιν τοῦ γεώδους Ἀδάμ. διάνοιαν δὲ περιέχει καὶ ὁ Ἐνὼς οἰκείαν, ἐπιλήσμων τῇ Ἑλλήνων ἑρμηνευόμενος φωνῇ. | 6.12 The children of the Hebrews also call man by another name, calling him Enos, which they say represents the rational element within us, being different in nature from the earthy Adam. Enos also contains its own meaning, being interpreted in the Greek tongue as "forgetful." |
| 6.13 τοιοῦτον δὲ πέφυκεν ὑπάρχειν τὸ ἐν ἡμῖν λογικόν, τῆς πρὸς τὸ θνητὸν καὶ ἄλογον συμπλοκῆς ἕνεκα. τὸ μὲν γὰρ πάντῃ καθαρὸν καὶ ἀσώματον καὶ θεῖον καὶ λογικὸν οὐ μόνον τῶν πρόσθεν γενομένων τὴν μνήμην, ἀλλὰ καὶ τῶν μελλόντων ἔσεσθαι τὴν γνῶσιν, δι’ ἄκραν ἀρετὴν θεωρίας περιείληφε. τὸ δ’ ἐν σαρξὶ πεπιλημένον, ὀστέοις τε καὶ νεύροις καταπεπαρμένον, ὄγκον τε μέγαν καὶ βαρὺν ἐπηχθισμένον τὸ σῶμα, λήθης πολλῆς καὶ ἀμαθίας συνιδὼν ὁ Ἑβραίοις λόγιος εὐθυβόλῳ κέκληκε προσρήματι Ἐνὼς ἐπονομάσας, ὅπερ δηλοῖ τὸν ἐπιλήσμονα. | 6.13 And the rational element within us is naturally such on account of its entanglement with the mortal and irrational. For the element that is entirely pure, incorporeal, divine, and rational encompasses through the supreme virtue of contemplation not only the memory of past events, but also the knowledge of future things. But recognizing the element pressed into flesh, pierced through with bones and sinews, and burdened with the great and heavy mass of the body, the Hebrew scholar called it by an apt appellation in naming it Enos, which signifies "the forgetful one." |
| 6.14 κεῖται γοῦν παρά τινι προφήτῃ· «τί ἐστιν ἄνθρωπος, ὅτι μιμνήσκῃ αὐτοῦ; ἢ υἱὸς ἀνθρώπου, ὅτι ἐπισκέπτῃ αὐτόν;» ἀνθ’ οὗ τὸ Ἑβραϊκὸν ἐπὶ μὲν τῆς πρώτης τοῦ ἀνθρώπου κλήσεως τὸ Ἐνὼς περιείληφεν, ὡσεὶ ἔλεγε σαφέστερον, τί οὗτός ἐστιν ὁ ἐπιλήσμων, ὅτι σύ, ὦ θεέ, μιμνήσκῃ αὐτοῦ, καίπερ ὄντος ἐπιλήσμονος; | 6.14 At any rate, it is written in a certain prophet: “What is man (Enos), that you are mindful of him? Or the son of man (Adam), that you visit him?” Instead of which, the Hebrew text contains Enos for the first designation of man, as if it said more clearly: “What is this forgetful one, that you, O God, are mindful of him, even though he is forgetful?” |
| 6.15 τὸ δὲ «ἢ υἱὸς ἀνθρώπου, ὅτι ἐπισκέπτῃ αὐτόν» — «ἢ υἱὸς Ἀδάμ» κεῖται παρὰ τοῖς δηλουμένοις, ὡς εἶναι τὸν αὐτὸν καὶ Ἀδὰμ καὶ Ἐνώς, τοῦ μὲν σαρκικοῦ διὰ τοῦ Ἀδὰμ, τοῦ δὲ λογικοῦ διὰ τοῦ Ἐνὼς παρισταμένου. | 6.15 And the phrase “or the son of man, that you visit him”—“or the son of Adam”—stands in the cited texts, so that Adam and Enos are the same, the fleshly aspect being represented through Adam, and the rational aspect through Enos. |
| 6.16 Καὶ τὰ μὲν Ἑβραίων λόγια οὕτω πως διαιρεῖ τὴν ἐτυμολογίαν· ὁ δὲ Πλάτων τὸν ἄνθρωπον τῇ Ἑλλήνων φωνῇ παρὰ τὸ ἀναθρεῖν φησι κεκλῆσθαι λέγων· «Ὁ δὲ ἄνθρωπος ἅμα ἑώρακε, τοῦτο δέ ἐστιν ὄπωπε, καὶ ἀναθρεῖ καὶ λογίζεται τοῦτο ὃ ὄπωπεν, ἵνα ᾖ ἀναθρῶν ἃ ὄπωπε.» | 6.16 The Hebrew oracles divide the etymology in this way; Plato, however, says that man (anthrōpos) is named in the Greek tongue from "looking up" (anathrein), saying: “Man has at once seen—and this is opōpe—and looks up (anathrei) and calculates what he has seen (opōpen), so that he is one who looks up at what he has seen.” |
| 6.17 πάλιν Ἑβραῖοι τὸν ἄνδρα εἶς καλοῦσι. παρῆκται δὲ αὐτοῖς τοὔνομα ἀπὸ τοῦ ἒς, δι’ οὗ σημαίνουσι τὸ πῦρ, ἵνα ᾖ παρὰ τὸ θερμὸν καὶ διάπυρον τῆς τοῦ ἀνδρὸς φύσεως ὁ ἀνὴρ ὠνομασμένος. | 6.17 Again, the Hebrews call a man eis (’îsh). This name is derived among them from es (’ēsh), by which they signify fire, so that man is named from the warm and fiery nature of man. |
| 6.18 ἡ δὲ γυνὴ, ἐπείπερ εἴρηται ἐκ τοῦ ἀνδρὸς εἰλῆφθαι, καὶ τὴν προσηγορίαν ἐπικοινωνεῖ τῷ ἀνδρί. ἐσσὰ γὰρ ἡ γυνὴ λέγεται παρ’ αὐτοῖς, ὥσπερ εἶς ὁ ἀνήρ. ὁ δὲ Πλάτων τὸν ἄνδρα παρὰ τὴν ἄνω ῥοὴν ὀνομάζεσθαι λέγει· καὶ ἐπιλέγει· «Ἡ δὲ γυνὴ γονή μοι φαίνεται βούλεσθαι εἶναι.» | 6.18 And woman, since she is said to have been taken from man, also shares the designation with man. For woman is called essa (’ishshāh) among them, just as man is eis (’îsh). Plato, however, says that man (anēr) is named from the upward flow (anō rhoē); and he adds: “And woman (gynē) seems to me to wish to be offspring (gonē).” |
| 6.19 πάλιν Μώσης τὸν οὐρανὸν ἐτύμως τῇ Ἑβραίων γλώσσῃ στερέωμα προσαγορεύει, παρὰ τὸ πρῶτον εἶναι μετὰ τὴν ἀσώματον καὶ νοερὰν οὐσίαν τοῦδε τοῦ κόσμου στερεὸν καὶ αἰσθητὸν σῶμα. ὁ δὲ Πλάτων τῷ οὐρανῷ φησιν ὀρθῶς ὄνομα κεῖσθαι διὰ τὸ ἄνω ὁρᾶν ποιεῖν. | 6.19 Again, Moses rightly addresses the heaven in the Hebrew tongue as "firmament" (ster eōma / raqia), because it is the first solid and sensible body of this cosmos after the incorporeal and intellectual essence. Plato, on the other hand, says that heaven (ouranos) is correctly named because it causes one to look upward (anō horan). |
| 6.20 πάλιν Ἑβραῖοι τὸ μὲν ἀνωτάτω τοῦ θεοῦ κύριον ὄνομα ἄρρητον εἶναι καὶ ἄφθεγκτον, οὐδὲ φαντασίᾳ διανοίας ληπτὸν εἶναί φασιν· αὐτὸ δὲ τοῦτο καθ’ ὃ θεὸν ὀνομάζομεν Ἐλωεὶμ καλοῦσι, παρὰ τὸ Ἠλ, ὡς ἔοικε· τοῦτο δὲ ἑρμηνεύουσιν ἰσχὺν καὶ δύναμιν· ὥστ’ εἶναι τοῦ θεοῦ τοὔνομα παρ’ αὐτοῖς ἀπὸ τῆς ἀμφὶ αὐτὸν δυνάμεώς τε καὶ ἰσχύος ἐπιλελογισμένον, δι’ ἧς νοεῖται παντοδύναμος καὶ πάντα ἰσχύων, ὡς ἂν τὰ πάντα συστησάμενος. ὁ δὲ Πλάτων θεὸν καὶ θεοὺς παρὰ τὸ θέειν, ὅπερ ἐστὶ τρέχειν, τοὺς ἐν οὐρανῷ φωστῆρας ἐπικεκλῆσθαί φησι. | 6.20 Again, the Hebrews say that the highest proper name of God is unutterable and unspoken, not even graspable by the imagination of the mind; but this very term by which we name God they call Elohim, derived, as it seems, from El, which they interpret as strength and power—so that the name of God among them is calculated from the power and strength surrounding Him, through which He is understood as almighty and all-powerful, as having constituted all things. Plato, however, says that God (theos) and gods were named from "running" (theein), referring to the heavenly luminaries. |
| 6.21 Τοιαῦτα δή τινα, ὡς ἐν τύπῳ φάναι, τὰ παρ’ Ἑβραίοις καὶ τὰ παρὰ Πλάτωνι περὶ ὀρθότητος ὀνομάτων διηκρίβωται. καὶ τὰς ἐν ἀνθρώποις δὲ προσηγορίας μετά τινος διανοίας φησὶν ὁ Πλάτων τεθεῖσθαι, καὶ τόν γε λόγον ἀποδιδόναι πειρᾶται, οὐκ οἶδ’ ὅπως τὸν Ἕκτορα κεκλῆσθαι εἰπὼν ἀπὸ τοῦ ἔχειν καὶ κρατεῖν, διὰ τὸ βασιλέα εἶναι τῶν Τρώων, τὸν δὲ Ἀγαμέμνονα διὰ τὸ ἄγαν μένειν, καὶ τοῖς δόξασι περὶ τῶν Τρώων εὐτόνως καὶ καρτερῶς παραμένειν· τὸν δὲ Ὀρέστην διὰ τὸ ὀρεινὸν καὶ ἄγριον καὶ θηριῶδες τοῦ τρόπου· καὶ τὸν μὲν Ἀτρέα διὰ τὸ ἀτηρόν τινα γεγονέναι τὸ ἦθος· τὸν δὲ Πέλοπα οἷόν τινα οὐ τὰ πόρρω, ἀλλὰ μόνα τὰ πέλας καὶ ἐγγὺς ὁρῶντα· τὸν δὲ Τάνταλον ταλάντατόν τινα φησι, διὰ τὰ περὶ αὐτὸν δυστυχήματα, σημαίνειν. | 6.21 Such, then, in outline, are the matters regarding the correctness of names precisely investigated among the Hebrews and in Plato. Plato also says that human designations were assigned with a certain intent, and he attempts to give an explanation, saying I know not how that Hector was named from "having" (echein) and "holding" (kratein) because he was king of the Trojans; Agamemnon from "remaining much" (agan menein) and enduring steadfastly; Orestes from the mountainous (oreinon), wild, and beastly nature of his character; Atreus from his ruinous (atēron) disposition; Pelops as one who sees not things far off, but only things near (pelas); and Tantalus as signifying most wretched (talantaton) due to his misfortunes. |
| 6.22 ταῦτα καὶ τοιαῦτα μυρία ἄλλα εὕροις ἂν εἰρημένα τῷ Πλάτωνι, φύσει τεθεῖσθαι, ἀλλ’ οὐ θέσει τοῖς πρώτοις τὰ ὀνόματα διδάσκειν πειρωμένῳ. | These and ten thousand other such things you may find stated in Plato, as he attempts to teach that names were assigned to primary things by nature, and not by convention. |
| 6.23 ἀλλ’ οὐ καὶ τὰ παρὰ Μωσεῖ βεβιασμένα ἂν εἴποις, οὐδέ γε κατά τινα σοφιστικὴν εὑρεσιλογίαν πεποιημένα, μαθὼν ὡς ὁ μὲν παρ’ Ἑβραίοις Κάϊν «ζῆλος» παρ’ Ἕλλησι μεταλαμβάνεται, τούτου δ’ ἠξιώθη τοῦ προσρήματος ὁ δηλούμενος διὰ τὸ ζηλῶσαι τὸν ἀδελφὸν τὸν Ἄβελ. | 6.23 But you could not say that the examples in Moses are forced, nor crafted according to some sophistical inventiveness, when you learn that among the Hebrews Cain is translated into Greek as "zeal" (zēlos), and was granted this appellation because he was zealous against his brother Abel. |
| 6.24 καὶ ὁ Ἄβελ δὲ ἑρμηνεύεται «πένθος», τοῦ τοιοῦδε πάθους γεγονὼς καὶ αὐτὸς τοῖς γονεῦσιν αἴτιος, οἳ κατά τινα θειοτέραν προμήθειαν γενομένοις τοῖς παισὶ ταύτας τέθεινται τὰς ἐπωνυμίας. | 6.24 And Abel is interpreted as "mourning" (penthos), having himself become the cause of such suffering to his parents, who by a certain divine providence assigned these names to their children when they were born. |
| 6.25 τί δ’ εἴ σοι τὸν Ἁβραὰμ παραφέροιμι; μετεωρολόγος τις οὗτος καὶ τῆς τῶν ἄστρων θεωρίας τῶν τε κατ’ οὐρανὸν μαθημάτων εἰδήμων τὸ πρίν, ὅτε τῆς Χαλδαικῆς μετεποιεῖτο σοφίας, γεγονὼς Ἅβραμ ἐκαλεῖτο· τοῦτο δ’ Ἑλλήνων φωνῇ «πατέρα μετέωρον» σημαίνει. | 6.25 What if I should present Abraham to you? He was a meteorologist and knowledgeable in the contemplation of stars and heavenly studies formerly, when he claimed Chaldean wisdom, and was called Abram—which in the Greek tongue signifies "exalted father." |
| 6.26 ἀλλ’ ὁ θεός γε αὐτὸν τῶν τῇδε ἐπὶ τὰ ἀφανῆ καὶ τῶν ὁρωμένων ἐπέκεινα προάγων εὐθυβόλῳ κέχρηται μετωνυμίᾳ, «Οὐκέτι,» φήσας, «κληθήσεται τὸ ὄνομά σου Ἅβραμ, ἀλλ’ Ἄβραὰμ ἔσται τὸ ὄνομά σου, ὅτι πατέρα πολλῶν ἐθνῶν τέθεικά σε.» | 6.26 But God, leading him from things here below to invisible things beyond what is seen, used an apt renaming, saying: “No longer shall your name be called Abram, but Abraham shall be your name, because I have made you father of many nations.” |
| 6.27 τοῦτο δ’ ὁποίας ἔχεται διανοίας μακρὸς ἂν εἴη λόγος. ἀπαρκεῖ δὲ κἀν τούτῳ τὸν Πλάτωνα μάρτυρα τοῦ λόγου παραθέσθαι, ὑπὸ θειοτέρας δυνάμεως ἔνια τῶν ὀνομάτων τεθεῖσθαι φάμενον. λέγει δ’ οὖν αὐτοῖς ῥήμασιν· | 6.27 What meaning this holds would be a long story to tell. But it suffices here too to cite Plato as a witness to our argument, when he states that certain names were assigned by a divine power. At any rate, he says in these very words: |
| 6.28 «Ἐσπουδάσθαι γὰρ ἐνταῦθα μάλιστα πρέπει τὴν θέσιν τῶν ὀνομάτων· ἴσως δὲ ἔνια αὐτῶν καὶ ὑπὸ θειοτέρας δυνάμεως ἢ τῆς τῶν ἀνθρώπων ἐγενήθη.» | 6.28 “‘For here especially it is fitting that serious attention be paid to the assignment of names; and perhaps some of them were even created by a power more divine than that of men.’” |
| 6.29 Τοῦτό γέ τοι αὐτὸ διὰ πλειόνων καὶ ἡ παρ’ Ἑβραίοις ἱερὰ πιστοῦται γραφή· πρῶτός τε Μώσης ἁπάντων, ὃς ἐκ θειοτέρας δυνάμεως τὸν Ἁβραὰμ καὶ τὸν τούτου παῖδα τὸν Ἰσαὰκ καὶ ἔτι τὸν Ἰσραὴλ ἐπωνομάσθαι ἐδίδαξε. «γέλως» δὲ ὁ Ἰσαὰκ ἑρμηνεύεται, τὸ τῆς ἐναρέτου χαρᾶς ἐπαγόμενος σύμβολον, ἣν τοῖς θεοφιλέσι γέρας ἐξαίρετον δώσειν ὁ θεὸς ἐπήγγελται. | 6.29 This very point is confirmed through many examples by the sacred scripture among the Hebrews, and Moses first of all taught that Abraham, his son Isaac, and furthermore Israel were named by a divine power. Isaac is interpreted as "laughter," bringing the symbol of virtuous joy, which God promised to give as a special reward to those who love Him. |
| 6.30 ὁ δὲ τούτου παῖς Ἰσραὴλ ἦν μὲν τὸ πρὶν τὸ τοῦ Ἰακὼβ ὄνομα ἐπενηνεγμένος, ἀντὶ δὲ τοῦ Ἰακὼβ ὁ θεὸς αὐτῷ τὸ τοῦ Ἰσραὴλ ὄνομα δωρεῖται, τὸν ἀσκητὴν καὶ πρακτικὸν ἐπὶ τὸν θεωρητικὸν μεταστησάμενος. | 6.30 His son Israel had previously borne the name of Jacob, but instead of Jacob, God granted him the name Israel, transferring him from the practitioner and man of action to the contemplative man. |
| 6.31 «πτερνιστὴς» γὰρ ὁ Ἰακὼβ ἑρμηνεύεται ὡς τὸν ἀρετῆς ἐναθλῶν ἀγῶνα· Ἰσραὴλ δὲ «ὁρῶν θεόν», ὁποῖος ἂν εἴη ὁ γνωστικὸς καὶ θεωρητικὸς ἐν ἀνθρώπῳ νοῦς. | 6.31 For Jacob is interpreted as "supplanter" (pternistēs), as one competing in the contest of virtue; but Israel as "one who sees God," such as would be the gnostic and contemplative mind in man. |
| 6.32 τί με δεῖ νῦν τοῦ πανσόφου Μώσεως ἢ τῶν παρ’ Ἑβραίοις ἱερῶν λογίων διὰ μυρίων ἄλλων τὴν ὀρθότητα τῆς τῶν οἰκείων ὀνομάτων θέσεως ἐξαπλοῦν, μακροτέρας σχολῆς δεομένων τῶν κατὰ τὸν τόπον; | 6.32 Why need I now unfold through ten thousand other examples the correctness of name-assignment from the all-wise Moses or the sacred Hebrew oracles, when these matters require longer leisure? |
| 6.33 αὐτίκα δὴ καὶ τῶν πρώτων τῆς γραμματικῆς στοιχείων Ἕλληνες μὲν οὐκ ἂν ἔχοιεν τὰς ἐτυμολογίας εἰπεῖν, οὐδ’ αὐτός γ’ ἂν φαίη Πλάτων τὸν λόγον ἢ τὸν λογισμὸν τῶν φωνηέντων ἢ τῶν συμφώνων. | 6.33 Immediately, indeed, concerning even the first elements of grammar, the Greeks would not be able to state their etymologies, nor would Plato himself state the reason or logic of the vowels or consonants. |
| 6.34 Ἑβραίων δ’ ἂν εἴποιεν παῖδες τοῦ τε Ἄλφα τὴν αἰτίαν, ὃ παρ’ αὐτοῖς καλεῖται Ἄλφ, τοῦτο δὲ σημαίνει «μάθησιν»· καὶ τοῦ Βῆτα, ὅπερ Βὴθ φίλον αὐτοῖς προσαγορεύειν, οὕτω δὲ τὸν «οἶκον» ὀνομάζουσιν· ὥστε δηλοῦν τὴν διάνοιαν, «μάθησις οἴκου»· ὡσεὶ σαφέστερον ἐλέγετο, διδαχή τις καὶ μάθησις οἰκονομίας. | 6.34 But the children of the Hebrews could state the cause of Alpha, which among them is called Aleph, signifying "learning"; and of Beta, which they call Beth, naming a "house" in this way—so that it demonstrates the meaning "learning of a house," as if said more clearly, instruction and learning of household management. |
| 6.35 καὶ τὸ Γάμμα δὲ παρ’ αὐτοῖς τρίτον κέκληται Γῖμελ· οὕτω δὲ τὴν «πλήρωσιν» ὀνομάζουσιν. εἶτ’ ἐπειδὴ τὰς δέλτους Δὲλθ καλοῦσι, τὸ τέταρτον στοιχεῖον οὕτω προσεῖπον, ὁμοῦ διὰ τῶν δύο στοιχείων σημαίνοντες ὡς ὅτι ἡ ἔγγραφος μάθησις πλήρωσίς ἐστι δέλτων. | 6.35 And the third letter, Gamma, is called Gimel among them, by which they name "fulfillment." Then, since they call tablets Deleth (Daleth), they called the fourth element thus, signifying through both elements together that written learning is the fulfillment of tablets. |
| 6.36 ἐπιὼν δέ τις καὶ τὰ λοιπὰ τῆς γραμματικῆς στοιχεῖα, μετά τινος αἰτίας καὶ λογισμοῦ εὕροι ἂν ἕκαστα παρ’ αὐτοῖς ὠνομασμένα, ἐπεὶ καὶ τῶν ἑπτὰ φωνηέντων τὴν ἐπὶ τὸ αὐτὸ σύνθεσιν μιᾶς τινος ἀπορρήτου προσηγορίας περιέχειν φασὶν ἐκφώνησιν, ἣν διὰ τεσσάρων στοιχείων παῖδες Ἑβραίων σημειούμενοι ἐπὶ τῆς ἀνωτάτω τοῦ θεοῦ δυνάμεως κατατάττουσιν, ἄλεκτόν τι τοῖς πολλοῖς καὶ ἀπόρρητον τοῦτ’ εἶναι παῖς παρὰ πατρὸς εἰληφότες. | 6.36 If one goes through the remaining grammatical elements, he would find each named among them with reason and logic, since they say that the combination of the seven vowels contains the pronunciation of an unutterable name, which the children of the Hebrews, noting through four letters, assign to the supreme power of God, having received from father to son that this is unutterable and secret to the many. |
| 6.37 καὶ τῶν παρ’ Ἕλλησι δὲ σοφῶν, οὐκ οἶδ’ ὁπόθεν, τις τοῦτο μαθὼν ᾐνίξατο, ὧδέ πῃ δι’ ἐπῶν φήσας· «ἑπτά με φωνήεντα θεὸν μέγαν ἄφθιτον αἰνεῖ γράμματα, τὸν πάντων ἀκάματον πατέρα· εἰμὶ δ’ ἐγὼ πάντων χέλυς ἄφθιτος, ἣ τὰ λυρώδη ἡρμοσάμην δίνης οὐρανίοιο μέλη.» | 6.37 And one of the wise men among the Greeks, having learned this from I know not where, hinted at it, speaking in verse somewhat thus: “Seven vowels praise me as the great imperishable God, the tireless Father of all; and I am the imperishable lyre of all, who tuned the melodic songs of the heavenly whirl.” |
| 6.38 εὕροις δ’ ἂν καὶ τῶν λοιπῶν παρ’ Ἑβραίοις στοιχείων, ἐπιστήσας ἑκάστῳ, τὰ σημαινόμενα· τοῦτο δὲ ἤδη καὶ διὰ τῶν πρόσθεν ἡμῖν συνέστη, ὁπηνίκα παρὰ βαρβάροις τὰ πάντα ὠφελῆσθαι τοὺς Ἕλληνας ἀπεδείκνυμεν. | 6.38 You would also find the meanings of the remaining letters among the Hebrews if you pay attention to each; and this has already been established by us in what went before, when we demonstrated that the Greeks were benefited in all things by the Barbarians. |
| 6.39 πολλὴν δ’ ἄν τις καταμάθοι, τὴν Ἑβραίων γλῶσσαν πολυπραγμονῶν, ὀνομάτων ὀρθότητα παρὰ τοῖς ἀνδράσι φερομένην, ἐπεὶ καὶ αὐτὸ τοῦ παντὸς ἔθνους τὸ προσηγορικὸν ὄνομα ἀπὸ τοῦ Ἔβερ τὸ παρωνύμιον εἴληφε. σημαίνει δὲ τοῦτο τὸν «διαπερῶντα», ἐπεὶ καὶ διάβασις καὶ διαπερῶν τῇ Ἑβραίων φωνῇ Ἔβερ ὀνομάζεται. | 6.39 One could observe much correctness of names maintained among these men if he inquires closely into the Hebrew language, since even the proper name of the whole nation derived its derivative name from Eber. And this signifies "one who crosses over," since crossing over and one who crosses over are named Eber in the Hebrew tongue. |
| 6.40 διδάσκει δὲ ὁ λόγος διαπερᾶν καὶ διαβαίνειν ἀπὸ τῶν τῇδε ἐπὶ τὰ θεῖα, μηδαμῶς τε ἐναπομένειν καὶ ἵστασθαι ἐπὶ τῇ θέᾳ τῶν ὁρωμένων, ἀπὸ δὲ τούτων ἐπὶ τὰ ἀφανῆ καὶ ἀόρατα τῆς περὶ τοῦ τῶν ὅλων ποιητοῦ τε καὶ δημιουργοῦ θεολογίας διαβαίνειν. ταύτῃ τοι τοὺς πρώτους μόνῳ τῷ πανηγεμόνι καὶ αἰτίῳ τῶν ὅλων ἀνακειμένους, εὐσεβείᾳ τε καθαρᾷ καὶ ἀληθεῖ προσανέχοντας, Ἑβραίους ἐφώνουν, περατικούς τινας καὶ διαβεβηκότας τῇ διανοίᾳ τοὺς τοιούσδε ἀποκαλοῦντες. | 6.40 And the teaching instructs us to cross over and pass from things here below to divine things, by no means remaining and standing at the sight of visible things, but crossing from these to the invisible and unseen theology concerning the Maker and Creator of all. For this reason, they called those first men who were dedicated to the sole Leader and Cause of all, adhering to pure and true piety, "Hebrews," calling such persons "passers-over" and "those who have crossed over in mind." |
| 6.41 καὶ τί με δεῖ ἐπὶ πλέον μηκύνειν τὰ πάντα συνάγοντα τῆς τῶν Ἑβραϊκῶν ὀνομάτων ὀρθότητός τε καὶ ἀκριβείας, τοῦ προβλήματος οἰκείας δεομένου πραγματείας; πλὴν ὡς ἐν τύπῳ φάναι, ἡγοῦμαι καὶ διὰ τῶν λεχθέντων τῆς παρ’ Ἑβραίοις λογικῆς διδασκαλίας τὴν ἀπόδειξιν παρεσχηκέναι, εἰ δὴ κατὰ τὸν Πλάτωνα οὐ φαύλων ἦν ἀνδρῶν οὐδὲ τῶν τυχόντων, ἀλλὰ σοφοῦ καὶ διαλεκτικοῦ τινος νομοθέτου, φύσιν ὀνομάτων οἰκείαν τοῖς πράγμασιν εὑρέσθαι, οἷος ἡμῖν ὁ Μώσης καὶ τὰ Ἑβραίων ἀποδέδεικται λόγια. τί δὴ οὖν μετὰ τὰ λογικὰ ἕπεται ἢ τὰ φυσικὰ ἐπισκέψασθαι, ὅπως ποτὲ καὶ περὶ ταῦτα εἶχον Ἑβραίων παῖδες; | 6.41 And why need I lengthen my account further by gathering everything concerning the correctness and precision of Hebrew names, when the problem requires its own treatise? Except that, to speak in outline, I consider that I have provided proof through what has been said of the logical teaching among the Hebrews—if indeed, according to Plato, it belonged to no trivial or chance men, but to a wise and dialectical lawgiver, to discover the proper nature of names for things, such as Moses and the Hebrew oracles have been shown to be for us. What then follows after logical matters than to examine natural philosophy, how the children of the Hebrews stood regarding these things as well? |
Chapter 7
In Chapter 7, Eusebius details the Natural Philosophy (To Physikon) of the Hebrews and demonstrates how Plato and later Greek thinkers derived their understanding of nature and metaphysics from Hebrew prophetic wisdom:
Prophetic Origin of Hebrew Natural Philosophy: Eusebius explains that Hebrew natural philosophy encompassed both the contemplation of intelligible, incorporeal realities and the study of physical, sensible nature. The prophets did not arrive at this knowledge through mortal guesswork or human teachers, but through divine inspiration (theophorēsis) and the illumination of the Holy Spirit.
Biblical Scope of Natural Knowledge: He highlights the vast breadth of biblical natural history—from plant life and animal behavior to the properties of stones (used on the High Priest's breastplate) and astronomy (the Pleiades, Orion, Arcturus/Bootes). He cites Solomon as the prime exemplar of divine natural wisdom (1 Kings 4:32–34 / Wisdom of Solomon 7:17–22 / Ecclesiastes 1:2, 9).
Metaphysics and the Divine Hierarchy: Eusebius emphasizes that the Hebrew scriptures contained deep insights into the First Cause of all things, the theology of the Logos (the Second Cause), providence, and the soul. Later Greek philosophers followed these venerable Hebrew teachings as youth following elders.
Esoteric vs. Exoteric Teaching: Finally, Eusebius outlines the Hebrew method of instruction: basic physical truths (that the universe is not random, but governed by divine Logos and wisdom) were taught openly to the general public to promote a pious life, whereas deep metaphysical and spiritual mechanics were kept as sacred mysteries (in aporrētois) reserved for those qualified to be initiated into them.
| 7.1 Καὶ τὸ τρίτον δὲ μέρος τῆς καθ’ Ἑβραίους φιλοσοφίας, — τοῦτο δ’ ἦν τὸ φυσικὸν, διαιρούμενον καὶ παρ’ αὐτοῖς εἴς τε τὴν τῶν νοητῶν καὶ ἀσωμάτων ἐποπτείαν καὶ εἰς τὴν τῶν αἰσθητῶν φυσιολογίαν, — οἱ κατὰ πάντα τέλειοι προφῆται ᾔδεσάν τε καὶ τοῖς οἰκείοις, ὅτε δὴ καιρὸς ἐκάλει, κατεμίγνυον λόγοις, οὐ στοχασμοῖς καὶ θνητῆς διανοίας ἐπιτηδεύσει μαθόντες, οὐδ’ ἐπὶ διδασκάλοις ἀνδράσι σεμνυνόμενοι, θεοφορήσει δὲ κρείττονος δυνάμεως καὶ θείου πνεύματος ἐπιπνοίᾳ τὴν γνῶσιν ἀνατιθέντες. | 7.1 And as for the third branch of philosophy according to the Hebrews—this was natural philosophy (to physikon), which among them was divided both into the contemplation of intelligible and incorporeal things and into the physical investigation of sensible things—the prophets, who were in every respect perfect, both knew it and, whenever occasion called, mingled it into their own discourses. They learned it not by conjectures or by the practice of mortal intellect, nor did they pride themselves on human teachers, but ascribed their knowledge to the divine inspiration (theophorēsis) of a superior power and the inbreathing of the Holy Spirit. |
| 7.2 ἔνθεν μυρία μὲν αὐτοῖς περὶ τῶν μελλόντων τεθέσπιστο, μυρία δὲ περὶ τῆς τοῦ παντὸς συστάσεως πεφυσιολόγητο, καὶ αὖ πάλιν μυρία περὶ ζῴων φύσεως διείληπτο, πλεῖστα δὲ ὅσα καὶ περὶ φυτῶν ταῖς οἰκείαις ἕκαστος προφητείαις κατεβέβλητο. | 7.2 Hence, ten thousand things were prophesied by them concerning the future, ten thousand things were physically explained concerning the constitution of the universe, and again ten thousand things were detailed concerning the nature of animals, while vast amounts concerning plants were set down by each in his own prophecies. |
| 7.3 Μώσης δὲ καὶ λίθων δυνάμεις εὖ μάλα ἐξεπιστάμενος οὐ παρέργως ἐπὶ τῆς τοῦ ἀρχιερέως στολῆς τῇ τούτων κέχρητο θεωρίᾳ. καὶ αὖ πάλιν Σολομῶν, εἰ καί τις ἄλλος, ἐν τῇ περὶ τούτων διαπρέψαι φυσιολογίᾳ πρὸς τῆς θείας μαρτυρεῖται γραφῆς, ὧδε περιεχούσης· | 7.3 Moses, too, knowing full well the powers of stones, made no mere casual use of their contemplation upon the vestment of the High Priest. And Solomon again, if anyone ever did, is testified by Holy Scripture to have excelled in the physical study of these matters, which contains the following: |
| 7.4 «καὶ ἐλάλησε Σολομῶν τρισχιλίας παραβολὰς, καὶ ἦσαν ᾠδαὶ αὐτοῦ πεντακισχίλιαι, καὶ ἐλάλησε περὶ τῶν ξύλων, ἀπὸ τῆς κέδρου τῆς ἐν τῷ Λιβάνῳ καὶ ἕως τῆς ὑσσώπου τῆς ἐκπορευομένης διὰ τοῦ τοίχου. καὶ ἐλάλησε περὶ τῶν κτηνῶν καὶ περὶ τῶν πετεινῶν καὶ περὶ τῶν ἰχθύων. καὶ παρεγένοντο πάντες οἱ λαοὶ ἀκοῦσαι τῆς σοφίας Σολομῶντος, καὶ ἐλάμβανε δῶρα παρὰ πάντων τῶν βασιλέων τῆς γῆς, ὅσοι ἤκουσαν τῆς σοφίας αὐτοῦ.» | 7.4 “And Solomon spoke three thousand parables, and his songs were five thousand. And he spoke of trees, from the cedar that is in Lebanon even unto the hyssop that springs out of the wall; he spoke also of beasts, and of birds, and of creeping things, and of fishes. And all peoples came to hear the wisdom of Solomon, and he received gifts from all the kings of the earth, as many as heard of his wisdom.” |
|
7.5
ἐντεῦθεν ὁρμώμενος καὶ ὁ τὴν πανάρετον σοφίαν εἰς αὐτοῦ πρόσωπον ἀναθεὶς ἔφη· «αὐτὸς γάρ μοι ἔδωκε τῶν ὄντων γνῶσιν ἀψευδῆ, εἰδέναι σύστασιν κόσμου, καὶ ἐνέργειαν στοιχείων, ἀρχὴν καὶ τέλος καὶ μεσότητα χρόνων, τροπῶν ἀλλαγὰς καὶ μεταβολὰς καιρῶν, ἐνιαυτοῦ κύκλους, καὶ ἀστέρων θέσεις, φύσεις ζῴων καὶ θυμοὺς θηρίων, πνευμάτων βίας, καὶ διαλογισμοὺς ἀνθρώπων, καὶ διαφορὰς φυτῶν, καὶ δυνάμεις ῥιζῶν, ὅσα τέ ἐστι κρυπτὰ καὶ ἀφανῆ ἔγνων. ἡ γὰρ πάντων τεχνῖτις ἐδίδαξέ με σοφία.» |
7.5
Setting out from this point, the author who attributed all-virtuous wisdom to his person said: “For He Himself gave me unerring knowledge of things that exist: to know the constitution of the world, the operation of the elements, the beginning, end, and middle of times, the alternations of the solstices and changes of seasons, the cycles of the year and positions of the stars, the natures of animals and impulses of wild beasts, the violence of winds and reasonings of men, the varieties of plants and powers of roots. Whatever is hidden or manifest I learned; for wisdom, the fashioner of all things, taught me.” |
|
7.6
πάλιν τε ὁ αὐτὸς Σολομῶν τὴν ῥευστὴν τῶν σωμάτων οὐσίαν φυσιολογῶν ἐν Ἐκκλησιαστῇ φησι·
«ματαιότης ματαιοτήτων, τὰ πάντα ματαιότης. τίς περισσεία τῷ ἀνθρώπῳ ἐν παντὶ μόχθῳ αὐτοῦ, ᾧ μοχθεῖ ὑπὸ τὸν ἥλιον;» καὶ ἐπιλέγει· «τί τὸ γεγονός; αὐτὸ τὸ γενησόμενον· καὶ τί τὸ πεποιημένον; αὐτὸ τὸ ποιηθησόμενον. καὶ οὐκ ἔστι πᾶν πρόσφατον ὑπὸ τὸν ἥλιον.» |
7.6
And again the same Solomon, in explaining the physical nature of the flux of bodies, says in Ecclesiastes: “Vanity of vanities; all is vanity. What advantage has a man in all his labor wherein he labors under the sun?” And he adds: “What is that which has been? The very thing that shall be. And what is that which has been done? The very thing that shall be done. And there is nothing new under the sun.” |
| 7.7 ταῦτα γὰρ αὐτῷ καὶ τὰ τοιαῦτα πεφυσιολόγητο περὶ τῆς σωματικῆς οὐσίας. εὕροις δ’ ἂν καὶ τοὺς ἄλλους Ἑβραίους ἐπιὼν σοφοὺς τῆς ὁμοίας οὐκ ἀμοίρους ἐπιστήμης. φυτῶν γοῦν, ὡς ἔφην ἤδη πρότερον, μυρία καὶ ζῴων πέρι, χερσαίων τε καὶ ἐνύδρων, καὶ προσέτι πτηνῶν φύσεως εἴρηται αὐτοῖς. | 7.7 For these and suchlike things were physically explained by him concerning bodily essence. And if you go through the other Hebrew sages, you would find them not without share in similar knowledge. At any rate, as I said before, ten thousand things concerning plants and animals—both terrestrial and aquatic—and furthermore concerning the nature of birds, have been stated by them. |
| 7.8 ναὶ μὴν καὶ περὶ τῶν ἐν οὐρανῷ ἄστρων, ἐπεὶ καὶ ἄρκτου καὶ Πλειάδος, Ὠρίωνός τε καὶ ἀρκτούρου, ὃν ἀρκτοφύλακα καὶ Βοώτην Ἕλλησι φίλον ὀνομάζειν, μνήμη τις οὐχ ἡ τυχοῦσα τοῖς τῶν δηλουμένων ἐμφέρεται γράμμασιν. | 7.8 Yea, truly, no ordinary mention is contained in the writings of the men in question concerning the stars in heaven—concerning the Bear, the Pleiades, Orion, and Arcturus (which it is customary for Greeks to name Arctophylax and Bootes). |
| 7.9 ἀλλὰ καὶ περὶ συστάσεως κόσμου, τά τε περὶ τῆς τοῦ παντὸς τροπῆς τε καὶ ἀλλοιώσεως, ψυχῆς τε περὶ οὐσίας, καὶ λογικῶν ἁπάντων φύσεως ὁρωμένης τε καὶ ἀφανοῦς δημιουργίας, τῆς τε καθόλου προνοίας, καὶ τούτων ἔτι πρότερον τὰ περὶ τοῦ πρώτου τῶν ὅλων αἰτίου, τῆς τε τοῦ δευτέρου θεολογίας, καὶ τῶν ἄλλων τῶν διανοίᾳ μόνῃ ληπτῶν τοὺς λόγους καὶ τὰς θεωρίας εὖ μάλα καὶ ἀκριβῶς περιειλήφασιν, ὡς μὴ ἂν ἁμαρτεῖν τοὺς μετὰ ταῦτα παρ’ Ἕλλησι τὴν τούτων φύσιν ἀνηρευνηκότας πρεσβύταις οἷα νεωτέρους κατηκολουθηκέναι φάναι. | 7.9 But also concerning the constitution of the world, the turning and transformation of the universe, the essence of the soul, the creation of all rational nature (both visible and invisible), general providence, and prior even to these, matters concerning the First Cause of all things, the theology of the Second, and other things graspable by intellect alone—they encompassed these doctrines and contemplations very well and accurately. Thus, those who later investigated the nature of these things among the Greeks would not err in saying that they followed these old men as youth follow elders. |
| 7.10 ταῦτα μὲν δὴ καὶ περὶ τῆς τοῦ παντὸς φυσιολογίας. διχῆ δὲ καὶ τὸν περὶ τούτων διαστειλάμενοι λόγον, τὸν μὲν περὶ τῶν αἰσθητῶν οὐκ εἰς ἄκρον ᾤοντο δεῖν εἰς τοὺς πολλοὺς ἐκφέρειν, οὐδέ γε τὰς αἰτίας τῆς τε τῶν ὄντων φύσεως τὸ δημῶδες πλῆθος ἐκδιδάσκειν, πλὴν ὅσον ἦν ἀναγκαῖον εἰδέναι, ὅτι τε μὴ ἀπηυτομάτισται τὸ πᾶν, μηδ’ εἰκῆ καὶ ὡς ἔτυχεν ἐξ ἀλόγου φορᾶς ὑφέστηκεν, ἄγεται δ’ ὑφ’ ἡνιόχῳ θεοῦ λόγῳ, καὶ δυνάμει σοφίας ἀρρήτου διακυβερνᾶται. | 7.10 Such, then, are the facts concerning the physical study of the universe. But having divided their doctrine on these matters in two, they thought it unnecessary to carry the study of sensible things to its extreme before the general public, nor to teach the common crowd the causes of the nature of things—except as much as was necessary to know that the universe has not happened automatically (apautomatizō), nor does it subsist at random and by chance from an irrational impulse, but is driven under the guidance of the Logos of God and governed by the power of unutterable wisdom. |
| 7.11 περὶ δὲ τῶν νοητῶν, ὅτι μέν ἐστι καὶ τίνα, ὅπη τε διατάξεως ἔχει δυνάμεώς τε καὶ διαφορᾶς, εἴρηται μὲν καὶ ταῖς ἱεραῖς βίβλοις ἐγκαταβέβληται, εἰς ἐξάκουστόν τε τοῖς πᾶσι παραδέδοται, καθ’ ὅσον εἰδέναι χρῆν τοὺς εὐσεβείας μεταποιουμένους εἰς ἀνάληψι εὐλαβοῦς καὶ σώφρονος βίου. | 7.11 But regarding intelligible realities—what they are and of what kind, how they stand in order, power, and distinction—these things are stated and embedded in the sacred books and handed down for all to hear, as far as it was necessary for those making claim to piety to know for the adoption of a reverent and temperate life. |
| 7.12 τὸν δὲ δὴ βαθὺν καὶ λεληθότα περὶ τούτων λόγον ἐν ἀπορρήτοις ζητεῖν τε καὶ διδάσκεσθαι κατελίμπανον τοῖς οἵοις τε τὰ τοιάδε μυεῖσθαι. βραχέα δὲ καὶ ὡς ἐν τύπῳ φάναι εὖ ἂν ἔχοι καὶ τῆς τούτων διελθεῖν ἐποπτείας, τόν τε Πλάτωνα κἀν τούτῳ τὰ φίλα πεφρονηκότα τοῖς δηλουμένοις παραστῆσαι. | 7.12 But as for the deep and hidden doctrine concerning these matters, they left it to be sought and taught in secret (in aporrētois) to those capable of being initiated into such things. It would be well to go through a few items in outline regarding their contemplation of these things, and to demonstrate that Plato in this respect held views friendly to those here set forth. |
Chapter 8
In chapters 8 and 9, Eusebius argues that Plato (“the admirable one”) derived his foundational philosophical distinctions—specifically between true intelligible Being and transient sensible Becoming —directly or indirectly from the Hebrew Scriptures.
To prove this dependency, Eusebius pairs key scriptural concepts with passages from Plato's dialogues (primarily the Timaeus):
Being vs. Becoming: God’s self-revelation to Moses (“I am He who IS”, Exod 3:14) matches Plato’s definition of eternal intelligible reality (Timaeus 27d).
Flux of the Sensible World: Solomon’s observation on the repetitive nature of creation (“What has been is what will be...”, Eccl 1:9) corresponds to Plato's description of time, motion, and generation (Timaeus 27d, 37e–38a).
| 8.1 Οὐ μὴν ἀλλὰ καὶ περὶ τῆς τῶν νοητῶν καὶ ἀσωμάτων παιδεύσεως τε καὶ θεωρίας τῷ πανσόφῳ Μωσεῖ καὶ τοῖς Ἑβραίων προφήταις Πλάτων ὁ θαυμάσιος ἐπηκολουθηκέναι διὰ τῶν οἰκείων φωνῶν ἐστι δῆλος, εἴτ’ ἐξ ἀκοῆς εἰς αὐτὸν ἡκούσης μαθών (ἐπεὶ καὶ συνίσταται παρ’ Αἰγυπτίοις τηνικάδε τὰς διατριβὰς πεποιημένος, καθ’ ὃν Ἑβραῖοι τῆς οἰκείων δεύτερον ἀποπεσόντες γῆς Αἰγυπτίοις ἐπεχωρίαζον, Περσῶν ἐπικρατούντων), εἴτε καὶ παρ’ ἑαυτοῦ τῇ τῶν πραγμάτων ἐπιβαλὼν φύσει, εἴτε ὁπωσοῦν ὑπὸ τοῦ θεοῦ καταξιωθεὶς τῆς γνώσεως. «Ὁ θεὸς γάρ» (φησιν) «αὐτοῖς ἐφανέρωσε. Τὰ γὰρ ἀόρατα αὐτοῦ ἀπὸ κτίσεως κόσμου τοῖς ποιήμασι νοούμενα καθοράται, ἥ τε ἀΐδιος αὐτοῦ δύναμις καὶ θειότης, εἰς τὸ εἶναι αὐτοὺς ἀναπολογήτους.» Μάθοις δ’ ἂν τὸ εἰρημένον ὧδέ πῃ διασκοπούμενος. | 8.1 Moreover, that the admirable Plato followed the all-wise Moses and the prophets of the Hebrews in his own phrasing regarding the instruction and contemplation of intelligible and incorporeal realities is evident—whether he learned this from report that reached him (since it is established that he made his stay among the Egyptians at the very time when the Hebrews, having fallen from their own land for the second time, were dwelling in Egypt under Persian rule), or whether he reached it by himself through applying his mind to the nature of things, or however else he was deemed worthy of this knowledge by God. “For God,” as it says, “revealed it to them. For since the creation of the world His invisible attributes are clearly seen, being understood through the things that are made, even His eternal power and Godhead, so that they are without excuse.” And you may learn the truth of what has been said by considering it in the following way: |
Chapter 9
| 9.1 Μώσεως ἐν ταῖς ἱεροφαντίαις χρησμὸν ἐκ προσώπου τοῦ θεοῦ φήσαντος· «Ἐγώ εἰμι ὁ ὤν· οὕτως ἐρεῖς τοῖς υἱοῖς Ἰσραήλ· Ὁ ὢν ἀπέσταλκέ με πρὸς ὑμᾶς», παραθεμένου δὲ καὶ τὸν θεὸν ἄντικρυς μόνον ὄντα, καὶ τῆσδε κυρίως καὶ ἁρμοδίως ἠξιωμένον τῆς κλήσεως ἀποφηναμένου· | 9.1 When Moses, in his sacred revelations, delivered an oracle in the person of God, saying: “I am He who IS; thus shall you say to the children of Israel: 'He who IS has sent me to you,'” he set forth God directly as the only true Being, and declared Him alone worthy of this title in the strict and proper sense. |
| 9.2 πάλιν τε αὖ Σολομῶνος περὶ τῆς τῶν αἰσθητῶν καὶ σωματικῶν γενέσεώς τε καὶ φθορᾶς ἀνειπόντος· «Τί τὸ γεγονός; Αὐτὸ τὸ γενησόμενον. Καὶ τί τὸ πεποιημένον; Αὐτὸ τὸ ποιηθησόμενον. Καὶ οὐκ ἔστι πᾶν πρόσφατον ὑπὸ τὸν ἥλιον, ὃ λαλήσει καὶ ἐρεῖ· Ἴδε τοῦτο καινόν ἐστιν· ἤδη γέγονεν ἐν τοῖς αἰῶσι τοῖς γενομένοις ἀπὸ ἔμπροσθεν ἡμῶν·» | 9.2 And again, when Solomon proclaimed concerning the origin and destruction of sensible and corporeal things: “What is that which has been? The very thing that shall be. And what is that which has been done? The very thing that shall be done. And there is nothing altogether new under the sun; if anyone should speak and say, 'Look, this is new,' it has already happened in the ages that were before us.” |
| 9.3 τούτοις δὲ καὶ ἡμῶν ἀκολούθως εἰς δύο τὸ πᾶν διαιρούντων, εἴς τε νοητὸν καὶ αἰσθητόν, καὶ τὸ μὲν νοητὸν ἀσώματον καὶ λογικὸν τὴν φύσιν, ἄφθαρτόν τε καὶ ἀθάνατον εἶναι ὁριζομένων, τὸ δ’ αἰσθητὸν ἐν ῥύσει καὶ φθορᾷ, μεταβολῇ τε καὶ τροπῇ τῆς οὐσίας ὑπάρχειν· πάντων δ’ ἐπὶ μίαν ἀρχὴν ἀνακεφαλαιουμένων, ἕν τε εἶναι τὸ ἀγέννητον καὶ τὸ κυρίως καὶ ἀληθῶς ὂν δογματιζόντων, τὸ πάντων ἀσωμάτων τε καὶ σωμάτων αἴτιον· | 9.3 And when we, following these scriptures, divide the universe into two—namely, the intelligible and the sensible—defining the intelligible as incorporeal and rational in its nature, imperishable and immortal, while the sensible exists in flux and decay, change and alteration of essence; and when we summarize all things under one First Principle, holding that the Unbegotten alone is strictly and truly Being, the Cause of all things both incorporeal and corporeal; |
| 9.4 θέα τίνα τρόπον οὐ μόνον τὴν διάνοιαν, ἀλλὰ καὶ τὰς λέξεις αὐτὰς καὶ τὰ ῥήματα τῆς Ἑβραίων γραφῆς παραξέων ὁ Πλάτων ἐξοικειοῦται τὸ δόγμα, πλατύτερον ὧδέ πῃ διασαφῶν· «Τί τὸ ὂν ἀεί, γένεσιν δὲ οὐκ ἔχον, καὶ τί τὸ γιγνόμενον μὲν ἀεί, ὂν δὲ οὐδέποτε; Τὸ μὲν δὴ νοήσει μετὰ λόγου περιληπτὸν ἀεὶ κατὰ τὰ αὐτὰ ὄν, τὸ δ’ αὖ δόξῃ μετ’ αἰσθήσεως ἀλόγου δοξαστόν, γιγνόμενον καὶ ἀπολλύμενον, ὄντως δὲ οὐδέποτε ὄν.» | 9.4 observe in what manner Plato, paring down not only the thought but the very diction and phrasing of the Hebrew Scripture, makes the doctrine his own, explaining it more broadly in these words: “What is that which always IS, but has no becoming; and what is that which is always becoming, but never IS? The one is subject to comprehension by thought accompanied by reason, remaining always the same; the other, again, is subject to opinion through unreasoning perception, becoming and perishing, but never truly IS.” |
| 9.5 Ἆρ’ οὐ σαφῶς πέφηνεν ὁ θαυμάσιος τὸ μὲν παρὰ Μωσεῖ φῆσαν λόγιον «Ἐγώ εἰμι ὁ ὤν» μεταποιήσας διὰ τοῦ «Τί τὸ ὂν ἀεί, γένεσιν δὲ οὐκ ἔχον;» καὶ τοῦτό γε λευκότερον διασαφήσας ἐν τῷ φάναι μηδ’ ἄλλο εἶναι τὸ ὂν ἢ τὸ οὐ σαρκὸς ὀφθαλμοῖς ὁρώμενον, νῷ δὲ καταλαμβανόμενον; Ἐρωτήσας γοῦν «Τί τὸ ὄν;», αὐτὸς ἑαυτῷ ἀποκρίνεται λέγων· «Τὸ δὴ νοήσει μετὰ λόγου περιληπτὸν ὄν.» | 9.5 Is it not clearly evident that this admirable writer transformed the divine oracle given to Moses (“I am He who IS”) into the question: “What is that which always IS, but has no becoming?”—clarifying it even more explicitly by asserting that true Being is nothing other than that which is unperceived by eyes of flesh, but grasped by the mind? At any rate, having asked “What is that which IS?”, he answers himself, saying: “That which is subject to comprehension by thought accompanied by reason, being eternally the same.” |
| 9.6 Τὸ δὲ Σολομώντειον φῆσαν· «Τί τὸ γεγονός; Αὐτὸ τὸ γενησόμενον· καὶ τί τὸ πεποιημένον; Αὐτὸ τὸ ποιηθησόμενον·» αὐτοῖς σχεδὸν ῥήμασι διερμηνεύσας δῆλος ἂν εἴη λέγων· «Τὸ δ’ αὖ δόξῃ μετ’ αἰσθήσεως ἀλόγου δοξαστόν, γιγνόμενον καὶ ἀπολλύμενον, ὄντως δὲ οὐδέποτε ὄν.» Οἷς καὶ ἐπιφέρει· | 9.6 And as for the saying of Solomon: “What is that which has been? The very thing that shall be; and what is that which has been done? The very thing that shall be done,” he clearly interprets this in almost the very same words, saying: “That, again, which is subject to opinion through unreasoning perception, becoming and perishing, but never truly IS.” To which he also adds: |
| 9.7 «Ταῦτα γὰρ πάντα μέρη χρόνου, τὸ ἦν καὶ ἔσται, ἃ δὴ φέροντες λανθάνομεν ἐπὶ τὴν ἀΐδιον οὐσίαν οὐκ ὀρθῶς. Λέγομεν γὰρ δὴ ὡς ἦν ἐστί τε καὶ ἔσται, τῇ δὲ τὸ ἔστι μόνον κατὰ τὸν ἀληθῆ λόγον προσήκει· τὸ δὲ ἦν τὸ τ’ ἔσται περὶ τὴν ἐν χρόνῳ γένεσιν ἰοῦσαν πρέπει λέγεσθαι—κινήσεις γάρ ἐστον—τὸ δὲ ἀεὶ κατὰ τὰ αὐτὰ ἔχον ἀκινήτως οὔτε πρεσβύτερον οὔτε νεώτερον προσήκει γίγνεσθαι διὰ χρόνον, οὐδὲ γενέσθαι ποτέ, οὐδὲ γεγονέναι νῦν, οὐδ’ εἰσαῦθις ἔσεσθαι τὸ παράπαν, οὐδ’ ὅλως ὅσα γένεσις τοῖς ἐν αἰσθήσει φερομένοις προσῆψεν, ἀλλὰ χρόνου ταῦτα αἰῶνα μιμουμένου καὶ κατ’ ἀριθμὸν κυκλουμένου γέγονεν εἴδη. Καὶ πρὸς τούτοις ἔτι τὰ τοιάδε· τὸ γεγονὸς εἶναι γεγονὸς καὶ τὸ γιγνόμενον εἶναι γιγνόμενον, ἔτι τε τὸ γενησόμενον εἶναι γενησόμενον.» | 9.7 “For these are all parts of time—'was' and 'will be'—which we mistakenly assign to the eternal essence without noticing. For we say that it 'was', 'is', and 'will be', whereas according to true reason 'IS' alone belongs to it; but 'was' and 'will be' are properly said of generation proceeding in time, for they are motions. But that which is eternally motionless and unchanged ought not to become older or younger through time, nor to have become so in the past, nor to be so now, nor to be so hereafter; nor at all to admit any of those things which generation has attached to the objects carried about in perception—rather, these are forms of time that imitates eternity and moves in a cycle according to number. And besides these, further things such as: that what has happened is happened, and what is becoming is becoming, and further that what will be is what will be.” |
| 9.8 Καὶ ἵνα γε μή τις ἡμᾶς παρερμηνεύειν ἡγήσηται τὰς τοῦ φιλοσόφου φωνάς, ὑπομνήμασι χρήσομαι τῶνδε τῶν λόγων τὴν διάνοιαν ἐκφαίνουσι. Πλείους μὲν οὖν εἰς τὴν τούτων ἐπιβεβλήκασι θεωρίαν, ἐμοὶ δ’ ἐξαρκεῖ τὰ νῦν ἀνδρὸς ἐπιφανοῦς Νουμηνίου τοῦ Πυθαγορείου παραθέσθαι λέξεις, ἃς ἐν τῷ Περὶ τἀγαθοῦ δευτέρῳ συγγράμματι ὧδέ πῃ διέξεισιν. | 9.8 And lest anyone suppose that we are misinterpreting the philosopher’s words, I shall employ commentaries that make clear the meaning of these passages. Now, several thinkers have applied themselves to the contemplation of these matters; but for my present purpose it suffices to quote the words of a distinguished man, Numenius the Pythagorean, which he sets forth in his second treatise On the Good roughly as follows... |
Chapter 10
In this chapter, Eusebius continues to demonstrate that Platonic metaphysics—specifically the distinction between immutable Being (To On) and mutable Becoming (To Gignomenon)—is fundamentally dependent on Hebrew Scripture. To substantiate this thesis without relying solely on his own interpretations, Eusebius brings forward testimonies from Middle Platonist and Neopythagorean philosophers:
Quotations from Numenius of Apamea (On the Good, Book 2): Numenius articulates the true nature of the incorporeal Being (ousia). He asserts that true Being exists strictly in an eternal present ("IS"), free from time, generation, decay, or motion. Numenius explicitly credits Plato while aligning Plato's doctrine with the teachings of Moses. Eusebius notes Numenius's famous dictum: "For what else is Plato than Moses speaking Attic Greek?"
Harmonization with Scriptural Theology: Eusebius demonstrates how these philosophical formulations directly mirror Yahweh's divine self-revelations and prophetic declarations in Scripture, such as "I am He who IS" (Exodus 3:14), "I am the Lord your God, and I change not" (Malachi 3:6), and "Thou art the same, and thy years shall not fail" (Psalm 102:27).
Transition to Plutarch: Finally, Eusebius introduces Plutarch of Chaeronea (On the E at Delphi) as an additional pagan witness whose exposition of divine, unchangeable Being directly expands upon these same scriptural principles.
| 10.1 «Φέρε οὖν, ὅση δύναμις, ἐγγύτατα πρὸς τὸ ὂν ἀναγώμεθα, καὶ λέγωμεν· τὸ ὂν οὔτε ποτὲ ἦν οὔτε ποτὲ μὴ γένηται, ἀλλ’ ἔστιν ἀεί, οὐχ ἐν χρόνῳ ὡρισμένῳ, τῷ ἐνεστῶτι μόνῳ. | 10.1 [Quotations from Numenius]: “Come then, as far as our strength permits, let us ascend as near as possible to Being, and let us say: Being was never at any time past, nor can it ever not become; rather, it IS always, not in a defined time, but in the present alone. |
| 10.2 τοῦτον μὲν οὖν τὸν ἐνεστῶτα εἴ τις ἐθέλει ἀνακαλεῖν αἰῶνα, κἀγὼ συμβούλομαι· τὸν δὲ παρελθόντα χρόνον οἴεσθαι χρὴ ἡμᾶς διαπεφευγότα ἤδη διαπεφευγέναι ἀποδεδρακέναι τε εἰς τὸ εἶναι μηκέτι· ὅ τε αὖ μέλλων ἐστὶ μὲν οὐδέπω, ἐπαγγέλλεται δὲ οἷός τε ἔσεσθαι ἥξειν εἰς τὸ εἶναι. | 10.2 Now, if anyone wishes to call this present 'eternity' (aiōn), I too agree. But as for past time, we must consider that having already escaped, it has escaped and fled away into no longer being; while future time, on the other hand, does not yet exist, but promises that it is capable of coming into being hereafter. |
| 10.3 οὐκοῦν εἰκός ἐστιν ἐνί γε τρόπῳ νομίζειν τὸ ὂν ἤτοι μὴ εἶναι, ἢ μηκέτι, ἢ μηδέπω. ὡς τούτου γε οὕτως λεγομένου, ἐγγίνεται μέγα τι ἐν τῷ λόγῳ ἀδύνατον, εἶναί τε ὁμοῦ ταὐτὸν καὶ μὴ εἶναι. | 10.3 It is not reasonable, therefore, in any way to think that true Being either IS NOT, or IS NO LONGER, or IS NOT YET. For if it were spoken of in this manner, a great impossibility arises in the argument: namely, that the very same thing both IS and IS NOT at the same time. |
| 10.4 εἰ δὲ οὕτως ἔχει, σχολῇ γ’ ἂν ἄλλο τι εἶναι δύναιτο, τοῦ ὄντος αὐτοῦ μὴ ὄντος κατὰ αὐτὸ τὸ ὄν. τὸ γὰρ ὂν ἀΐδιόν τε βέβαιόν τε ἐστίν, ἀεὶ κατὰ ταὐτόν, οὐδὲ γέγονε μέν, ἐφθάρη δέ, οὐδ’ ἐμεγεθύνθη μέν, ἐμειώθη δέ· οὐδὲ μὴν ἐγένετό πω πλέον ἢ ἔλασσον· καὶ μὴν δὴ τά τε ἄλλα καὶ οὐδὲ τοπικῶς κινηθήσεται. | 10.4 But if this is so, hard would it be for anything else to exist if Being itself were not existent according to Being itself. For Being is both eternal and steadfast, always remaining in the same state; it has neither come to be nor been destroyed, nor has it grown larger nor been diminished; nor indeed has it yet become more or less; and moreover, among other things, it will not even be moved spatially. |
| 10.5 οὐδὲ γὰρ θέμις αὐτῷ κινηθῆναι, οὐδὲ μὴν ὀπίσω, οὐδὲ πρόσθεν, οὔτε ἄνω ποτὲ οὔτε κάτω· οὐδ’ εἰς δεξιά, οὐδ’ εἰς ἀριστερὰ μεταβήσεταί ποτε τὸ ὄν· οὔτε περὶ τὸ μέσον ποτὲ ἑαυτοῦ κινηθήσεται, ἀλλὰ μᾶλλον καὶ ἐστήξεται καὶ ἀραρότως ἑστηκὸς ἔσται, κατὰ ταὐτὰ ἔχον ἀεὶ καὶ ὡσαύτως.» Καὶ ἐξῆς μεθ’ ἕτερα ἐπιλέγει· «Τοσαῦτα μὲν οὖν μοι πρὸ ὁδοῦ. | 10.5 For it is not lawful for it to be moved—neither backward, nor forward, nor ever upward, nor downward; nor will Being ever shift to the right or to the left; nor will it ever be moved about its own center, but rather it will stand fast, firmly fixed and established, remaining always in the same state and in the same manner.” And following this, after other remarks, he adds: “So much, then, by way of preliminary. |
| 10.6 αὐτὸς δ’ οὐκέτι σχηματισθήσομαι, οὐδ’ ἀγνοεῖν φήσω τὸ ὄνομα τοῦ ἀσωμάτου· καὶ γὰρ κινδυνεύει νῦν ἤδη ἥδιον εἶναι εἰπεῖν μᾶλλον ἢ μὴ εἰπεῖν. καὶ δῆτα λέγω τὸ ὄνομα αὐτῷ εἶναι τοῦτο τὸ πάλαι ζητούμενον. | 10.6 But for my part, I shall no longer pretend or claim to be ignorant of the name of the Incorporeal; for indeed it now risks being sweeter to speak than not to speak. And so I say that its name is this which has long been sought. |
| 10.7 ἀλλὰ μὴ γελασάτω τις, ἐὰν γῶ τοῦ ἀσωμάτου εἶναι ὄνομα οὐσίαν καὶ ὄν. ἡ δὲ αἰτία τοῦ ὄντος ὀνόματός ἐστι τὸ μὴ γεγονέναι, μηδὲ φθαρήσεσθαι, μηδ’ ἄλλην μήτε κίνησιν μηδεμίαν δέχεσθαι μήτε μεταβολὴν κρείττω ἢ φαύλην· εἶναι δὲ ἁπλοῦν καὶ ἀναλλοίωτον, καὶ ἐν ἰδέᾳ τῇ αὐτῇ, καὶ μήτε ἐθελούσιον ἐξίστασθαι τῆς ταὐτότητος μήθ’ ὑφ’ ἑτέρου προσαναγκάζεσθαι. | 10.7 But let no one laugh if I declare that the name of the Incorporeal is Essence (ousia) and Being (on). And the reason for the name 'Being' is its not having come into existence, nor being about to be destroyed, nor admitting any other movement whatever or change for better or worse; but being simple and unalterable, in the very same form, neither willingly departing from its identity nor being forced to do so by another. |
| 10.8 ἔφη δὲ καὶ ὁ Πλάτων ἐν Κρατύλῳ τὰ ὀνόματα ὁμοιώσει τῶν πραγμάτων εἶναι αὐτοῖς ἐπίθετα. ἔστω οὖν καὶ δεδόχθω εἶναι τὸ ὂν ἀσώματον.» | 10.8 And Plato also said in the Cratylus that names are epithets applied to things according to their likeness. Let it be assumed, then, and agreed that Being is incorporeal.” |
| 10.9 Εἶθ’ ὑποκαταβὰς ἐπιλέγει· «Τὸ ὂν εἶπον ἀσώματον, τοῦτο δὲ εἶναι τὸ νοητόν. τὰ μὲν οὖν λεχθέντα, ὅσα μνημονεύειν ἐστί μοι, τοιαῦτα γοῦν ἦν. τὸν δ’ ἐπιζητοῦντα λόγον ἐθέλω παραμυθήσασθαι, τοσόνδε ὑπειπών, ὅτι ταῦτα τοῖς δόγμασι τοῖς Πλάτωνος εἰ μὴ συμβαίνει, ἀλλ’ ἑτέρου γ’ ἐχρῆν οἴεσθαί τινος ἀνδρὸς μεγάλου, μέγα δυναμένου, οἵου Πυθαγόρου. | 10.9 Then, further down, he adds: “I have declared Being to be incorporeal, and that this is the Intelligible. The things that were said, as far as I recall them, were such as these. But I wish to give comfort to the inquirer of this doctrine, adding this much: that even if these things do not agree with the doctrines of Plato, yet one ought to suppose them to belong to some other great man of high authority, such as Pythagoras. |
| 10.10 λέγει γοῦν Πλάτων, φέρ’ ἀναμνησθῶ πῶς λέγει· “τί τὸ ὂν ἀεί, γένεσιν δὲ οὐκ ἔχον; καὶ τί τὸ γιγνόμενον μέν, ὂν δὲ οὐδέποτε; τὸ μὲν δὴ νοήσει μετὰ λόγου περιληπτόν, τὸ δ’ αὖ δόξῃ μετ’ αἰσθήσεως ἀλόγου δοξαστόν, γιγνόμενον καὶ ἀπολλύμενον, ὄντως δὲ οὐδέποτε ὄν.” | 10.10 At any rate, Plato says—come, let me recall how he says it: 'What is that which always IS, but has no becoming; and what is that which is becoming, but never IS? The one is subject to comprehension by thought accompanied by reason, while the other, again, is subject to opinion through unreasoning perception, becoming and perishing, but never truly IS.' |
| 10.11 ἤρετο γάρ, τί ἐστι τὸ ὄν, φὰς αὐτὸ ἀγέννητον ἀναμφιλέκτως. γένεσιν γὰρ οὐκ ἔφη εἶναι τῷ ὄντι· ἐτρέπετο γὰρ ἄν· τρεπόμενον δὲ οὐκ ἦν ἀΐδιον.» | 10.11 For he asked what Being is, affirming it beyond dispute to be unbegotten. For he said that becoming does not belong to Being; for then it would undergo change; and if it underwent change, it would not be eternal.” |
| 10.12 Εἶτα ὑποβάς φησιν· «Εἰ μὲν δὴ τὸ ὂν πάντως πάντῃ ἀΐδιόν τέ ἐστι καὶ ἄτρεπτον καὶ οὐδαμῶς οὐδαμῇ ἐξιστάμενον ἐξ ἑαυτοῦ, μένει δὲ κατὰ τὰ αὐτὰ καὶ ὡσαύτως ἕστηκε, τοῦτο δήπου ἂν εἴη τὸ τῇ νοήσει μετὰ λόγου περιληπτόν. | 10.12 Then, further below, he says: “If, then, Being is in every way and entirely eternal, unchangeable, and in no wise or manner departing from itself, but remains in the same state and stands established in the same manner, this surely would be that which is subject to comprehension by thought accompanied by reason. |
| 10.13 εἰ δὲ τὸ σῶμα ῥεῖ καὶ φέρεται ὑπὸ τῆς εὐθὺ μεταβολῆς, ἀποδιδράσκει καὶ οὐκ ἔστιν. ὅθεν οὐ πολλὴ μανία μὴ οὐ τοῦτο εἶναι ἀόριστον, δόξῃ δὲ μόνῃ δοξαστόν, καί, ὥς φησι Πλάτων, γιγνόμενον καὶ ἀπολλύμενον, ὄντως δὲ οὐδέποτε ὄν;» | 10.13 But if body flows and is borne along by continuous change, it flees away and IS NOT. Whence, is it not utter madness not to admit that this [body] is indeterminate, subject to opinion alone, and, as Plato says, 'becoming and perishing, but never truly IS'?” |
| 10.14 Ταῦτα μὲν οὖν ὁ Νουμήνιος, ὁμοῦ τὰ Πλάτωνος καὶ πολὺ πρότερον τὰ Μώσεως ἐπὶ τὸ σαφέστερον διερμηνεύων. εἰκότως δῆτα εἰς αὐτὸν ἐκεῖνο τὸ λόγιοι περιφέρεται, δι’ οὗ φάναι μνημονεύεται· «τί γάρ ἐστι Πλάτων, ἢ Μωσαῆς ἀττικίζων;» | 10.14 [Eusebius resumes]: Such are the statements of Numenius, interpreting more clearly the doctrines of Plato together with those of Moses, which were written long before. Rightly, then, is that saying circulated concerning him, by which he is remembered to have said: “For what else is Plato than Moses speaking Attic Greek?” |
| 10.15 Θέα δὲ πρὸς τούτοις εἰ μὴ τὸν παρόντα νοῦν ἐπὶ πλέον καὶ ὁ Πλούταρχος ἐξαπλῶν συντρέχοι ἂν ταῖς τε προκειμέναις φωναῖς τῶν φιλοσόφων καὶ ταῖς αὖθις Ἑβραίων κειμέναις ἐν ἑτέραις θεολογίαις, δι’ ὧν τοτὲ μὲν εἰσάγεται λέγων ὁ χρηματίζων θεός· «Διότι ἐγὼ κύριος ὁ θεὸς ὑμῶν, καὶ οὐκ ἠλλοίωμαι»· | 10.15 Consider further in addition to these things whether Plutarch, expanding upon this same thought at greater length, does not concur both with the cited words of the philosophers and again with those of the Hebrews laid down in other theological passages, through which the divine oracle is introduced saying at one time: “For I am the Lord your God, and I change not”; |
| 10.16 τοτὲ δ’ εἰς αὐτὸν ἀφορῶν ὁ προφήτης ἀποτείνεται· «ὅτι δὴ τὰ μὲν ὁρατὰ πάντα τραπείη ἄν ποτε καὶ μεταβληθείη, σὺ δὲ ὁ αὐτὸς εἶ, καὶ τὰ ἔτη σοῦ οὐκ ἐκλείψουσιν.» Σκόπει γοῦν εἰ μὴ ὡς ἐν προτάσει τοῦ τε παρὰ Μωσεῖ φήσαντος· «Ἐγώ εἰμι ὁ ὤν» καὶ τοῦ· «Ἐγὼ κύριος ὁ θεὸς ὑμῶν, καὶ οὐκ ἠλλοίωμαι» καὶ τοῦ· «Σὺ δὲ ὁ αὐτὸς εἶ», δόξαι ἂν ὁ Πλούταρχος ἐν τῷ Περὶ τοῦ Εἶ τοῦ ἐν Δελφοῖς τὴν διάνοιαν ἐφερμηνεύειν, τάδε λέγων πρὸς λέξιν· | 10.16 and at another time the prophet, looking unto Him, addresses Him: “For all visible things may at some time be turned and changed, but Thou art the same, and Thy years shall not fail.” Consider, therefore, whether Plutarch—in his work On the E at Delphi—might be seen as interpreting the sense of these passages (serving as his premise, namely, the saying in Moses: “I am He who IS”, and “I am the Lord your God, and I change not”, and “Thou art the same”), when he says word for word as follows... |
Chapter 11
In chapter 11, Eusebius quotes extensively from Plutarch of Chaeronea (On the E at Delphi, 392A–393B) to further demonstrate how pagan philosophy converges with Hebrew monotheism regarding the nature of God and true Being (To On):
The Meaning of the Delphic Inscription "EI" ("Thou Art"): Plutarch explains that the inscription EI on the Delphic temple is not a conjunction, number, or fragment, but an absolute divine address. While the god greets visitors with "Know thyself," humans answer the god with "Thou art" (EI), affirming God's true, unchangeable, and unique existence.
The Impermanence of Human and Material Nature: Human and physical nature possesses no real being (ousia). It exists in a perpetual flux between generation and decay. Attempting to grasp flux is like squeezing water in one's hand—it slips away. Citing Heraclitus ("you cannot step into the same river twice"), Plutarch highlights how human identity constantly dies and shifts through the stages of life (infancy, youth, adulthood, old age) and emotional variation.
The Illusory Nature of Time: Time is fluid, moving, and bound to matter. Past and future do not exist ("no longer" and "not yet"), while the present ("now") instantly slips away into past or future.
The Eternal, Immutable Nature of God: True Being belongs to God alone, who exists in an unchanging, timeless, and undivided eternity (aiōn). God does not become, age, or pass away. God is ONE, lacking multiplicity or composition, in direct contrast to human instability and physical change.
| 11.1 «Οὔτε οὖν ἀριθμὸν οὔτε τάξιν οὔτε σύνδεσμον οὔτε ἄλλο τῶν ἐλλιπῶν μορίων οὐδὲν οἶμαι τὸ γράμμα σημαίνειν· ἀλλ’ ἔστιν αὐτοτελὴς τοῦ θεοῦ προσαγόρευσις καὶ προσφώνησις, ἅμα τῷ ῥήματι τὸν φθεγγόμενον εἰς ἔννοιαν καθιστᾶσα τῆς τοῦ θεοῦ δυνάμεως. | 11.1 [Quoting Plutarch]: “I do not think, therefore, that this letter [the Delphic EI] signifies a number, or an order, or a conjunction, or any other of the deficient parts of speech; but rather it is a complete addressing and salutation of God, which, simultaneously with the word, brings the speaker into a true comprehension of God’s power. |
| 11.2 ὁ γὰρ θεὸς ἕκαστον ἡμῶν τῶν ἐνταῦθα προσιόντων οἷον ἀσπαζόμενος προσαγορεύει τὸ «γνῶθι σαυτόν», ὃ τοῦ «χαῖρε» δὴ οὐδὲν μεῖόν ἐστιν· ἡμεῖς δὲ πάλιν ἀμειβόμενοι τὸν θεὸν «εἶ» φαμέν, ὡς ἀληθῆ καὶ ἀψευδῆ καὶ μόνην μόνῳ προσήκουσαν τὴν τοῦ «εἶ» προσαγόρευσιν ἀποδιδόντες. | 11.2 For God, as if welcoming each of us who approaches here, addresses us with 'Know thyself,' which is surely in no way inferior to 'Welcome'; while we in turn, answering God, say 'Thou art' (EI), rendering to Him as true, unerring, and uniquely appropriate to Him alone the salutation 'Thou art.' |
| 11.3 ἡμῖν γὰρ ὄντως τοῦ εἶναι μέτεστιν οὐδέν, ἀλλὰ πᾶσα θνητὴ φύσις ἐν μέσῳ φθορᾶς καὶ γενέσεως γενομένη φάσμα παρέχει καὶ δόκησιν ἀμυδρὰν καὶ ἀβέβαιον αὑτῆς. | 11.3 For in reality we have no share at all in being; but every mortal nature, situated in the midst between destruction and generation, presents an illusion and a dim, uncertain representation of itself. |
| 11.4 ἂν δὲ τὴν διάνοιαν ἐπερείσῃ τις λαβέσθαι βουλόμενος, ὥσπερ ἡ σφοδρὰ περίδραξις ὕδατος τῷ πιέζειν καὶ εἰς ταὐτὸ συνάγειν διαρρέον ἀπόλλυσι τὸ περιλαμβανόμενον, οὕτω τῶν παθητῶν καὶ μεταβλητῶν ἑκάστου τὴν ἄγαν ἐνέργειαν ὁ λόγος διώκων ἀποσφάλλεται, τῇ μὲν εἰς τὸ γινόμενον αὐτοῦ, τῇ δὲ εἰς τὸ φθειρόμενον, οὐδενὸς λαβέσθαι μένοντος, οὐδὲ ὄντος ὄντως δυνάμενος. | 11.4 And if anyone should strain his intellect in a desire to grasp it, then just as a tight clutching of water squeezes it and by pressing it together loses the substance flowing through, so reason, in pursuing the over-exact activity of each passive and changeable thing, is disappointed—turning on the one hand to its becoming and on the other hand to its destruction, unable to grasp anything enduring or truly existent. |
| 11.5 ποταμῷ γὰρ οὐκ ἔστιν ἐμβῆναι δὶς τῷ αὐτῷ καθ’ Ἡράκλειτον, οὐδὲ θνητῆς οὐσίας δὶς ἅψασθαι κατὰ ἕξιν· ἀλλ’ ὀξύτητι καὶ τάχει μεταβολῆς σκίδνησι καὶ πάλιν συνάγει, μᾶλλον δὲ οὐδὲ πάλιν οὐδὲ ὕστερον, ἀλλ’ ἅμα συνίσταται καὶ ἀπολείπει, καὶ πρόσεισι καὶ ἄπεισιν. | 11.5 For 'it is impossible to step twice into the same river,' according to Heraclitus, nor can one touch mortal essence twice in the same state; but by the swiftness and speed of its change, it scatters and again gathers—or rather, not again nor later, but at once it coalesces and leaves, comes and goes. |
| 11.6 ὅθεν οὐδ’ εἰς τὸ εἶναι περαίνει τὸ γινόμενον αὐτῆς, τῷ μηδέποτε λήγειν μηδ’ ἵστασθαι τὴν γένεσιν, ἀλλ’ ἀπὸ σπέρματος ἀεὶ μεταβάλλουσαν ἔμβρυον ποιεῖν, εἶτα βρέφος, εἶτα παῖδα, μειράκιον ἐφεξῆς, νεανίσκον, ἄνδρα, πρεσβύτην, γέροντα, τὰς πρώτας φθείρουσαν γενέσεις καὶ ἡλικίας ταῖς ἐπιγινομέναις. | 11.6 Whence its becoming never even reaches unto true being, because generation never ceases nor stands still; but altering continually from seed, it makes an embryo, then a infant, then a child, next a youth, a young man, a mature man, an elder, an old man—destroying its former generations and ages by those that succeed them. |
| 11.7 ἀλλ’ ἡμεῖς ἵνα φοβούμεθα γελοίως θάνατον, ἤδη τοσούτους τεθνηκότες καὶ θνήσκοντες. οὐ γὰρ μόνον, ὡς Ἡράκλειτος ἔλεγε, πυρὸς θάνατος ἀέρι γένεσις, ἀλλ’ ἔτι σαφέστερον ἐπ’ αὐτῶν ἡμῶν· φθείρεται μὲν ὁ ἀκμάζων γενομένου γέροντος, ἐφθάρη δὲ ὁ νέος εἰς τὸν ἀκμάζοντα, καὶ ὁ παῖς εἰς τὸν νέον, εἰς δὲ τὸν παῖδα τὸ νήπιον, ὁ δὲ χθὲς εἰς τὸν σήμερον τέθνηκεν, ὁ δὲ σήμερον εἰς τὸν αὔριον· μένει δὲ οὐδὲ εἷς, οὐδ’ ἔστιν εἷς, ἀλλὰ γινόμηθα πολλοί, περὶ ἕν τι φάντασμα καὶ κοινὸν ἐκμαγεῖον ὕλης περιελαυνομένης καὶ ὀλισθαινούσης. | 11.7 But we ridiculously fear one death, when we have already died and are dying so many deaths! For not only, as Heraclitus used to say, is 'death of fire generation to air,' but even more clearly in our own selves: the man in his prime perishes when he becomes an old man, the youth was destroyed into the man in his prime, the child into the youth, the infant into the child, and yesterday died into today, and today dies into tomorrow! No one remains, nor is anyone one person; but we become many, driven around one phantom and common mold of matter that slips away and glides by. |
| 11.8 ἐπεὶ πῶς οἱ αὐτοὶ μένοντες ἑτέροις χαίρομεν νῦν, ἑτέροις πρότερον, τἀναντία φιλοῦμεν καὶ μισοῦμεν, καὶ θαυμάζομεν καὶ ψέγομεν, ἄλλοις χρώμεθα λόγοις, ἄλλοις πάθεσιν, οὐκ εἶδος, οὐ μορφήν, οὐ διάνοιαν ἔτι τὴν αὐτὴν ἔχοντες; | 11.8 For how, if we remained the same persons, could we delight in different things now than previously, love and hate opposite things, admire and blame, or use different words and experience different passions, having no longer the same appearance, form, or intellect? |
| 11.9 οὔτε γὰρ ἄνευ μεταβολῆς ἕτερα πάσχειν εἰκός, οὔτε μεταβάλλων ὁ αὐτὸς ἂν εἴη. εἰ δὲ ὁ αὐτὸς οὐκ ἔστιν, οὐδ’ ἔστιν, ἀλλ’ ἐκ τοῦ αὐτὸν μεταβάλλειν, γινόμηνος ἕτερος ἐξ ἑτέρου· ψεύδεται δὲ ἡ αἴσθησις ἀγνοίᾳ τοῦ ὄντος εἶναι τὸ φαινόμενον. | 11.9 For without change it is not reasonable to experience different affections, nor could one who changes be the very same person; and if he is not the same person, he does not even exist, but is changing from his very self, becoming one person out of another; and sensation lies through ignorance of true Being, thinking that what merely appears actually IS. |
| 11.10 Τί οὖν ὄντως ὄν ἐστι; τὸ ἀΐδιον καὶ ἀγένητον καὶ ἄφθαρτον, ᾧ χρόνος οὐδεὶς μεταβολὴν ἐπάγει. κινητὸν γάρ τι καὶ κινουμένῃ συμφανταζόμενον ὕλῃ καὶ ῥέον ἀεὶ καὶ μὴ στέγον, ὥσπερ ἀγγεῖον φθορᾶς καὶ γενέσεως, ὁ χρόνος. οὗ δὴ τὸ μὲν ἔπειτα καὶ τὸ πρότερον καὶ τὸ ἔσται λεγόμενον, καὶ τὸ γέγονεν, αὐτόθεν ἐξομολόγησίς ἐστι τοῦ μὴ ὄντος. | 11.10 What then is truly Being? That which is eternal, unbegotten, and incorruptible, upon which no time brings about change. For time is something moving, appearing together with moving matter, always flowing and retaining nothing—like a vessel of corruption and generation. That of which 'hereafter,' 'before,' 'shall be,' and 'has been' are spoken is, on its very face, a confession of non-being. |
| 11.11 τὸ γὰρ ἐν τῷ εἶναι μηδέπω γεγονός, ἢ πεπαυμένον ἤδη τοῦ εἶναι λέγειν ὡς ἔστιν, εὔηθες καὶ ἄτοπον. ἐν ᾧ δὲ μάλιστα τὴν νόησιν ἐπερείδοντες τοῦ χρόνου τὸ «ἐν» ἕστηκε καὶ τὸ «πάρεστι» καὶ τὸ «νῦν» φθεγγόμεθα, τοῦτ’ αὖ πάλιν ἐκλυόμενος ὁ λόγος ἀπόλλυσιν. | 11.11 For to say that what has not yet come to be in existence, or what has already ceased from being, IS—this is foolish and absurd. And as for that point in time whereon we chiefly rest our intellect, uttering the words 'instant,' 'present,' and 'now,' reason, when it relaxes its hold, promptly loses it again. |
| 11.12 ἐκθλίβεται γὰρ εἰς τὸ μέλλον καὶ τὸ παρῳχημένον, ὥσπερ αὐγή, βουλομένοις ἰδεῖν, ἐξ ἀνάγκης διιστάμενον. εἰ δὲ ταὐτὰ τῷ μετροῦντι πέπονθεν ἡ μετρουμένη φύσις, οὐδὲ αὐτῇ μένον, οὐδ’ ὄν ἐστι, ἀλλὰ γινομένη καὶ φθειρομένη κατὰ τὴν πρὸς τὸν χρόνον συννέμησιν. | 11.12 For it is squeezed out into the future and the past, just like a ray of light, split apart of necessity when we try to look upon it. And if measured nature suffers the same as that which measures it, it possesses no permanence nor real being, but is becoming and perishing according to its allotment with time. |
| 11.13 ὅθεν οὐδὲν τοιοῦτόν ἐστιν ἐπὶ τοῦ ὄντος λέγειν ὡς ἦν, ἢ ἔσται· ταῦτα γὰρ ἐγκλίσεις τινὲς καὶ μεταβάσεις καὶ παραλλάξεις τοῦ μένειν ἐν τῷ εἶναι μὴ πεφυκότος. | 11.13 Wherefore it is improper to say of true Being that it 'was' or 'will be'; for these are certain inflections, transitions, and deviations of that which is not suited by nature to abide in being. |
| 11.14 Ἀλλ’ ἔστιν ὁ θεός, εἰ χρὴ φάναι, καὶ ἔστι κατ’ οὐδένα χρόνον, ἀλλὰ κατὰ τὸν αἰῶνα τὸν ἀκίνητον καὶ ἄχρονον καὶ ἀνέγκλιτον, καὶ οὗ πρότερον οὐδέν ἐστιν, οὐδὲ ὕστερον, οὐδὲ μέλλον, οὐδὲ παρῳχημένον, οὐδὲ πρεσβύτερον, οὐδὲ νεώτερον· ἀλλ’ εἷς ὢν ἐνὶ τῷ νῦν τὸ ἀεὶ πεπλήρωκε· καὶ μόνον ἐστὶ τὸ κατ’ αὐτὸ ὄντως ὄν, οὐ γεγονός, οὐδ’ ἐσόμενον, οὐδ’ ἀρξάμενον, οὐδ’ παυσόμενον. | 11.14 But God IS, if one must say it; and He IS according to no time, but according to the motionless, timeless, and unswerving eternity (aiōn), before which nothing exists, nor after, nor future, nor past, nor older, nor younger; but being One, He has filled eternal 'now' with the single 'IS'; and that alone truly IS according to Him—not having come into being, nor about to be, nor having begun, nor about to cease. |
| 11.15 οὕτως οὖν αὐτὸ δεῖ σεβομένους ἀσπάζεσθαι καὶ προσαγορεύειν, ἢ καὶ νὴ Δί’, ὡς ἔνιοι τῶν παλαιῶν, «εἶ ἕν». οὐ γὰρ πολλὰ τὸ θεῖόν ἐστιν, ὡς ἡμῶν ἕκαστος, ἐκ μυρίων διαφορῶν ἐν πάθεσι γινομένων ἄθροισμα παντοδαπὸν καὶ πανηγυρικὸν μεμιγμένον· ἀλλ’ ἓν εἶναι δεῖ τὸ ὄν, ὥσπερ ὄν τὸ ἕν· ἡ δὲ ἑτερότης, διαφορὰ τοῦ ὄντος, εἰς γένεσιν ἐξίσταται τοῦ μὴ ὄντος.» | 11.15 Thus, therefore, ought we in worship to salute and address Him, or even, by Zeus, as some of the ancients did: 'Thou art One' (EI HEN). For the Divine is not many, as each of us is—a chaotic and festive assembly gathered together from ten thousand differences arising in passions; rather, Being must be One, just as One must be Being; whereas otherness—the differentiation of Being—devolves into the generation of Non-Being.” |
Chapter 12
In this chapter which could be entitled "Divine Ineffability and Uncreated Light," Eusebius argues that Moses and the Hebrew prophets taught that the Divine is ineffable (signified by the unpronounceable Tetragrammaton). He quotes Plato’s Seventh Letter (341C–D) to show that Plato taught the exact same truth: knowledge of the divine cannot be expressed in words like other subjects, but ignites suddenly in the soul like a leaping flame. Eusebius couples this with biblical imagery of divine light (Psalms 4:6 and 36:9).
| 12.1 Μώσεως καὶ τῶν παρ’ Ἑβραίοις προφητῶν ἁπάντων ἄρρητον εἶναι τὸ θεῖον διδασκόντων, καὶ τῆς ἀρρήτου προσηγορίας τὸ σύμβολον διὰ τῆς παρ’ αὐτοῖς ἀνεκφωνήτου σημειώσεως ὑποφαινόντων, τούτοις καὶ ὁ Πλάτων συμφώνως αὐτοῖς ῥήμασιν ἐν τῇ μεγάλῃ Ἐπιστολῇ οἷά φησιν ἄκουε· | 12.1 Since Moses and all the prophets among the Hebrews teach that the Divine is ineffable, and indicate the symbol of this unutterable title through their unspoken notation [the Tetragrammaton], listen to how Plato agrees with them in these very words in his great Letter [Seventh Letter, 341C–D]: |
| 12.2 «Ῥητὸν γὰρ οὐδαμῶς ἐστιν ὡς ἄλλα μαθήματα, ἀλλ’ ἐκ πολλῆς συνουσίας γιγνομένης περὶ τὸ πρᾶγμα αὐτὸ καὶ τοῦ συζῆν, ἐξαίφνης, οἷον ἀπὸ πυρὸς πηδήσαντος ἐξαφθὲν φῶς, τῇ ψυχῇ γενόμενον αὐτὸ ἑαυτὸ ἤδη τρέφει.» Καὶ τόδε δὲ τοῦ φωτὸς τὸ παράδειγμα προλαβὼν ἄλλος Ἑβραίων προφήτης παρέστησεν εἰπών· «Ἐσημειώθη ἐφ’ ἡμᾶς τὸ φῶς τοῦ προσώπου σου, κύριε»· καὶ ἄλλος πάλιν· «Ἐν τῷ φωτί σου ὀψόμεθα φῶς.» | 12.2 “For it is by no means expressible in words like other subjects of instruction, but after long association spent upon the matter itself and living together, suddenly—like light kindled from a leaping spark—it is born in the soul and henceforth nourishes itself.” And another prophet of the Hebrews anticipates this very example of light, stating: “The light of thy countenance has been signed upon us, O Lord” [Psalm 4:6]; and another again says: “In thy light shall we see light” [Psalm 36:9]. |
Chapter 13
In this chapter Eusebius parallels the Shema (Deuteronomy 6:4: "Hear, O Israel...") with Plato’s assertion in the Timaeus (31A–B) that the cosmos is one because its divine exemplar is one. He further cites Plato’s Thirteenth Letter (363B)—where Plato reveals his private code using "God" (singular) for serious letters and "gods" (plural) for trivial ones—to prove Plato was a monotheist at heart.
Eusebius quotes Plato’s Laws (Book IV, 715E–716B) on God holding the beginning, middle, and end of all things, accompanied by Justice (Dike), who punishes the arrogant. Eusebius then explicitly matches Plato's key phrases point-by-point with citations from Hebrew scripture (Isaiah, Psalms, Deuteronomy, Proverbs).
Eusebius quotes Plato’s Laws (Book IV, 715E–716B) on God holding the beginning, middle, and end of all things, accompanied by Justice (Dike), who punishes the arrogant. Eusebius then explicitly matches Plato's key phrases point-by-point with citations from Hebrew scripture (Isaiah, Psalms, Deuteronomy, Proverbs).
| 13.1 Μώσεως περὶ τοῦ τῶν ὅλων θεοῦ φήσαντος· «Ἄκουε Ἰσραήλ, κύριος ὁ θεὸς ἡμῶν κύριος εἷς ἐστί», πάλιν ὁ Πλάτων τούτῳ συντρέχων ἕνα θεὸν εἶναι ὡς καὶ οὐρανὸν ἕνα διδάσκει, ὧδέ πῃ λέγων ἐν Τιμαίῳ· | 13.1 When Moses says concerning the God of all: “Hear, O Israel, the Lord our God, the Lord is one” [Deuteronomy 6:4], Plato again concurs with him by teaching that God is one, just as the heaven [cosmos] is one, saying somewhere thus in the Timaeus [31A–B]: |
| 13.2 «Πότερον οὖν ὀρθῶς ἕνα οὐρανὸν προσειρήκαμεν, ἢ πολλοὺς καὶ ἀπείρους λέγειν ἦν ὀρθότερον; ἕνα, εἴπερ κατὰ τὸ παράδειγμα δεδημιουργημένος ἔσται. τὸ γὰρ περιέχον πάντα ὁπόσα νοητὰ ζῷα, μεθ’ ἑτέρου δεύτερον οὐκ ἄν ποτε εἴη.» | 13.2 “Have we then rightly called the heaven one, or was it more correct to speak of many and infinite? One, if indeed it is crafted according to the exemplar. For that which contains all intelligible living beings could never be second alongside another.” |
| 13.3 Δῆλος δέ ἐστιν ἕνα θεὸν εἰδώς, εἰ καὶ συνηθῶς Ἕλλησι τῇ τῶν πλειόνων εἴωθε χρῆσθαι προσηγορίᾳ, καὶ ἀπὸ τῆς πρὸς Διονύσιον ἐπιστολῆς, ἐν ᾗ σύμβολα διδοὺς τῶν τε διὰ σπουδῆς αὐτῷ γραφομένων ἐπιστολῶν καὶ τῶν ἄλλως ἀπερριμμένων, τῶν μὲν μηδὲν ἐχουσῶν σπουδαῖον σημεῖον τὸ τῶν θεῶν ὄνομα προτάξειν ἔφησε, τῶν δὲ πεφροντισμένως αὐτῷ συνταττομένων, τὸ τοῦ θεοῦ. Λέγει δ’ οὖν ὧδε κατὰ λέξιν· | 13.3 And it is clear that he knew one God—even if, according to the custom of the Greeks, he was accustomed to use the plural designation—also from his Letter to Dionysius [Thirteenth Letter, 363B], in which he gives tokens concerning both the letters written by him with serious care and those thrown together casually. For he stated that the token of those containing nothing serious is placing the name of 'gods' [plural] at the beginning, but of those composed with thoughtful care by him, 'God' [singular]. He says thus word for word: |
| 13.4 «Περὶ δὲ δὴ τοῦ ξυμβόλου τοῦ περὶ τὰς ἐπιστολάς, ὅσας τε ἂν ἐπιστέλλω σπουδῇ καὶ ὅσας μή, οἶμαι μέν σε μεμνῆσθαι, ὅμως δ’ ἐννόει καὶ σφόδρα πρόσεχε τὸν νοῦν· πολλοὶ γὰρ οἱ κελεύοντες γράφειν, οὓς οὐ ῥᾴδιον φανερῶς διωθεῖσθαι. τῆς μὲν οὖν σπουδαίας ἐπιστολῆς ὁ θεὸς ἄρχει, θεοὶ δὲ τῆς ἑτέρας.» | 13.4 “Concerning the token about the letters, whichever ones I send with serious intent and whichever not, I think you remember, but nevertheless reflect and pay close attention; for many are those who bid me write, whom it is not easy to refuse openly. Of the serious letter, God begins it, but gods begin the other.” |
| 13.5 Διαρρήδην δὲ ὁ αὐτὸς ὁμολογεῖ ἐκ παλαιῶν τὸ περὶ τοῦ θεοῦ δόγμα μεμαθηκέναι, λέγων ἐν τοῖς Νόμοις· «Ὁ μὲν δὴ θεός, ὥσπερ καὶ ὁ παλαιὸς λόγος, ἀρχὴν καὶ τελευτὴν καὶ μέσα τῶν ὄντων ἁπάντων ἔχων, εὐθείᾳ περαίνει κατὰ φύσιν περιπορευόμενος. τῷ δ’ αἰεὶ ξυνέπεται δίκη, τῶν ἀπολειπομένων τοῦ θείου νόμου τιμωρός· ἧς ὁ μὲν εὐδαιμονήσειν μέλλων ἐχόμενος ξυνέπεται ταπεινός, κεκοσμημένος, ὁ δέ τις ἐξαρθεὶς ὑπὸ μεγαλαυχίας, ἢ χρήμασιν ἐπαιρόμενος, ἢ τιμαῖς, ἢ καὶ σώματος εὐμορφίᾳ, ἅμα νεότητι καὶ ἀνοίᾳ, φλέγεται τὴν ψυχὴν μεθ’ ὕβρεως, ὥστε οὔτε ἄρχοντος οὔτε τινὸς ἡγεμόνος δεόμενος, ἀλλὰ καὶ ἄλλοις ἱκανὸς ὢν ἡγεῖσθαι, καταλείπεται ἔρημος θεοῦ· καταλειφθεὶς δέ, καὶ ἔτι ἄλλους τοιούτους προσλαβών, σκιρτᾷ ταράττων πάντα ἅμα, καὶ πολλοῖς τισιν ἔδοξεν εἶναί τις, μετὰ δὲ χρόνον οὐ πολὺν ὑποσχὼν τιμωρίαν οὐ μεμπτὴν τῇ δίκῃ, ἑαυτόν τε καὶ οἶκον καὶ πόλιν ἄρδην ἀνάστατον ἐποίησε.» | 13.5 And the same author explicitly confesses that he learned the doctrine concerning God from ancient sources, saying in the Laws [Book IV, 715E–716B]: “God indeed, as the ancient saying goes, holding the beginning, the end, and the middle of all things that exist, completes his course directly, moving according to nature. And Justice (Dike) always follows him, the avenger of those who fall short of the divine law. Cleaving to her, he who intends to be happy follows along humble and orderly; but he who is lifted up with boastfulness, or exalted by riches, or honors, or beauty of body combined with youth and folly, burns in his soul with insolence, so that needing neither ruler nor any guide, but thinking himself fit to guide others, he is left deserted by God. And having been left behind, and taking to himself others like him, he prances about, throwing everything into confusion at once; and to many he seems to be somebody, but after no long time, suffering no blameworthy retribution from Justice, he utterly destroys himself, his house, and his city.” |
| 13.6 Ταῦτα ὁ Πλάτων. Σὺ δέ γε τῷ «Ὁ μὲν δὴ θεὸς ἀρχὴν καὶ τελευτὴν καὶ μέσα τῶν ὄντων ἁπάντων ἔχων» παράθες ἀπὸ τῆς Ἑβραίων προφητείας τὸ «Ἐγὼ θεὸς πρῶτος, καὶ ἐγὼ μετὰ ταῦτα»· τῷ δὲ «εὐθείᾳ περαίνει κατὰ φύσιν περιπορευόμενος» τὸ «εὐθύτητας εἶδε τὸ πρόσωπον αὐτοῦ.» | 13.6 Thus far Plato. Now set alongside his phrase, “God indeed, holding the beginning, the end, and the middle of all things that exist,” this passage from the Hebrew prophecy: “I am God, the first, and I am after these things” [Isaiah 44:6 / 48:12]; and to “completes his course directly, moving according to nature,” set this: “His face beheld uprightness” [Psalm 11:7]. |
| 13.7 καὶ πρὸς τὸ «τῷ δ’ αἰεὶ ξυνέπεται δίκη τῶν ἀπολειπομένων τοῦ θείου νόμου τιμωρός» σύγκρινον τὸ «Δίκαιος κύριος καὶ δικαιοσύνας ἠγάπησεν»· καὶ τὸ «Ἐμοὶ ἐκδίκησις, ἐγὼ ἀνταποδώσω, λέγει κύριος»· καὶ τὸ «Διότι ἔκδικος κύριος καὶ ἀνταποδίδωσι τοῖς περισσῶς ποιοῦσιν ὑπερηφανίαν.» | 13.7 And against “And Justice always follows him, the avenger of those who fall short of the divine law,” compare: “The Lord is righteous, and he loved righteousness” [Psalm 11:7]; and “Vengeance is mine, I will repay, says the Lord” [Deuteronomy 32:35 / Romans 12:19]; and “Because the Lord is an avenger, and repays those who deal exceedingly in pride” [Psalm 31:23]. |
| 13.8 τῷ δὲ «ἧς ὁ εὐδαιμονήσειν μέλλων ἐχόμενος ξυνέπεται ταπεινός», ἑπόμενόν ἐστι τὸ «Ὀπίσω κυρίου τοῦ θεοῦ σου πορεύσῃ.» τῷ δὲ «ὁ δ’ ἐξαρθεὶς ὑπὸ μεγαλαυχίας καταλείπεται ἔρημος θεοῦ» τὸ «Ὁ θεὸς ὑπερηφάνοις ἀντιτάσσεται, ταπεινοῖς δὲ δίδωσι χάριν»· καὶ «Χαρμονὴ δὲ ἀσεβῶν πτῶμα ἐξαίσιον.» Ταῦτα μὲν οὖν ἀπὸ μυρίων σμικρὰ περὶ τοῦ ἐπὶ πάντων θεοῦ. Θέα δὲ καὶ τὰ περὶ τοῦ δευτέρου αἰτίου οἷα τῇ διανοίᾳ εἰσίν. | 13.8 To “cleaving to her, he who intends to be happy follows along humble,” corresponds: “You shall walk behind the Lord your God” [Deuteronomy 13:4]. And to “he who is lifted up with boastfulness is left deserted by God,” set: “God sets himself against the proud, but gives grace to the humble” [Proverbs 3:34 / James 4:6]; and “The joy of the ungodly is an extraordinary ruin” [Job 20:5]. These, then, are a few items out of ten thousand concerning the God over all. Now behold also what his thoughts are regarding the second cause! |
Chapter 14
In this chapter, Eusebius turns from the First Cause (God the Father) to the Second Cause—the Logos (Word) or Wisdom (Sophia) of God, who is "God from God":
The Second Cause in the Old Testament: Eusebius cites Mosaic and Prophetic texts to show that Hebrew Scriptures explicitly speak of two Lordship entities. He adduces Genesis 19:24 ("The Lord rained fire... from the Lord"), noting that the unutterable Tetragrammaton appears twice.
Davidic Prophecies: He quotes Psalm 110:1 ("The Lord said to my Lord, 'Sit at my right hand'"), arguing that the second Lord occupies the right hand of unbegotten Deity as the Creator of all things ("By the word of the Lord were the heavens established," Ps. 33:6) and Savior ("He sent His word and healed them," Ps. 107:20).
Solomonic Literature on Wisdom: He cites Proverbs (8:12, 8:22–25, 8:27, 3:19) and the Wisdom of Solomon (7:21–22, 6:22, 7:22–26, 8:1) to show that Solomonic wisdom personifies the Logos as the "artificer of all things" (panton technitis), the unspotted mirror (esoptron akēlidōton) of God's activity, the vapor of God's power, and an effulgence (apaugasma) of eternal light who orders all creation from end to end.
| 14.1 Τὰ μὲν δὴ περὶ τοῦ πρώτου τῶν ὅλων αἰτίου τοῦτον ἡμῖν ἀνωμολογήσθω τὸν τρόπον. Ἐπίσκεψαι δὲ καὶ τὰ περὶ τοῦ δευτέρου, ὃν δὴ θεοῦ λόγον καὶ θεὸν ἐκ θεοῦ εἶναι τὰ Ἑβραίων παιδεύει λόγια, καθάπερ καὶ ἡμεῖς αὐτοὶ θεολογεῖν δεδιδάγμεθα. | 14.1 Let the matters concerning the First Cause of all things be agreed upon by us in this manner. Now examine also the teachings concerning the Second Cause, whom the Hebrew oracles instruct us to be the Logos of God and God from God, precisely as we ourselves have been taught to hold as theology. |
| 14.2 Ὁ μὲν οὖν Μωϋσῆς διαρρήδην δύο θεολογεῖ κυρίους, ἐν οἷς φησι· «Καὶ ἔβρεξε κύριος παρὰ κυρίου πῦρ καὶ θεῖον ἐπὶ τὴν τῶν ἀσεβῶν πόλιν»· ἔνθα συνήθως ἐπὶ τῶν δύο τὴν ὁμοίαν τῶν παρ’ Ἑβραίοις χαρακτήρων ἐποιήσατο παράθεσιν· αὕτη δέ ἐστιν ἡ διὰ τῶν τεσσάρων στοιχείων ἀνεκφώνητος παρ’ αὐτοῖς θεολογία. | 14.2 Moses explicitly speaks in his theology of two Lords, in the passage where he says: “And the Lord rained upon the city of the ungodly fire and brimstone from the Lord” [Genesis 19:24]; where, according to custom regarding the two, he made use of the identical placement of characters among the Hebrews—this being the unspoken theology among them indicated by the four letters [the Tetragrammaton]. |
| 14.3 Τούτῳ δὲ καὶ ὁ Δαυίδ, ἄλλος προφήτης ὁμοῦ καὶ βασιλεὺς Ἑβραίων, συνᾴδων φησίν· «Εἶπεν ὁ κύριος τῷ κυρίῳ μου· κάθου ἐκ δεξιῶν μου»· τὸν μὲν ἀνωτάτω θεὸν διὰ τοῦ πρώτου κυρίου, τὸν δὲ τοῦτου δεύτερον διὰ τῆς δευτέρας ὑποφήνας προσηγορίας. Τίνι γὰρ ἄλλῳ θέμις ὑπονοεῖν τὰ δεξιὰ τῆς ἀγεννήτου θεότητος παραχωρεῖσθαι ἢ μόνῳ τῷ περὶ οὗ ὁ λόγος; | 14.3 And David too, another prophet and simultaneously king of the Hebrews, sings in harmony with him, saying: “The Lord said unto my Lord: 'Sit at my right hand'” [Psalm 110:1]; indicating the supreme God through the first 'Lord,' and the second under Him through the second designation. For to whom else is it lawful to suppose the right hand of unbegotten Deity is conceded, save to Him alone concerning whom is our discourse? |
| 14.4 Ὃν ὁ αὐτὸς προφήτης ἐν ἑτέροις λευκότερον διασαφεῖ λόγον τοῦ πατρός, δημιουργὸν τῶν ὅλων ὑφιστάμενος εἶναι τὸν θεολογούμενον, ἐν οἷς φησι· «Τῷ λόγῳ κυρίου οἱ οὐρανοὶ ἐστερεώθησαν.» | 14.4 Whom the same prophet in other passages sets forth more clearly as the Word of the Father, presenting the one spoken of divine things as Creator of all: “By the word of the Lord were the heavens established” [Psalm 33:6]. |
| 14.5 Καὶ σωτῆρα δὲ τὸν αὐτὸν τῶν δεομένων τῆς παρ’ αὐτοῦ θεραπείας εἰσάγει, λέγων· «Ἀπέστειλε τὸν λόγον αὐτοῦ καὶ ἰάσατο αὐτούς.» | 14.5 And he also introduces Him as Savior of those needing healing from Him, saying: “He sent His word and healed them” [Psalm 107:20]. |
| 14.6 Καὶ ὁ τούτου δὲ παῖς ὁμοῦ καὶ διάδοχος Σολομῶν, ἑτέρῳ προσρήματι τὴν αὐτὴν παριστὰς διάνοιαν, ἀντὶ λόγου σοφίαν εἰπών, τάδε ὡς ἐξ αὐτῆς προσώπου διέξεισιν· | 14.6 And his son and successor, Solomon, setting forth the same idea under another title, spoke of Wisdom instead of the Word, expounding these things as if from her own person: |
| 14.7 «Ἐγὼ ἡ σοφία κατεσκήνωσα βουλήν, καὶ γνῶσιν καὶ ἔννοιαν ἐγὼ ἐπεκαλεσάμην.» Εἶθ’ ἑξῆς ἐπιλέγει· «Κύριος ἔκτισέν με ἀρχὴν ὁδῶν αὐτοῦ εἰς ἔργα αὐτοῦ· πρὸ τοῦ αἰῶνος ἐθεμελίωσέ με, ἐν ἀρχῇ πρὸ τοῦ τὴν γῆν ποιῆσαι, πρὸ τοῦ ὄρη ἑδρασθῆναι· πρὸ δὲ πάντων βουνῶν γεννᾷ με. Ἡνίκα ἡτοίμαζε τὸν οὐρανόν, συμπαρήμην αὐτῷ.» | 14.7 “I, Wisdom, have inhabited counsel, and knowledge and understanding I have called upon” [Proverbs 8:12]. And then next he adds: “The Lord created me as the beginning of His ways for His works; before the age He established me, in the beginning before He made the earth, before the mountains were settled; before all the hills He begets me. When He prepared the heaven, I was present with Him” [Proverbs 8:22–25, 27]. |
| 14.8 Τοῦ δ’ αὐτοῦ πάλιν καὶ τάδε ἐστίν· «Ὁ θεὸς τῇ σοφίᾳ ἐθεμελίωσε τὴν γῆν, ἡτοίμασε δὲ οὐρανοὺς ἐν φρονήσει.» Ἔτι δὲ καὶ τάδε λέγεται εἶναι τοῦ αὐτοῦ· «Καὶ ὅσα ἐστὶ κρυπτὰ καὶ ἐμφανῆ ἔγνων· ἡ γὰρ πάντων τεχνῖτις ἐδίδαξέ με σοφία.» | 14.8 And again from the same author are these words: “God by Wisdom founded the earth, and prepared the heavens by understanding” [Proverbs 3:19]. And further, these words also are said to be by the same: “And whatever things are hidden or manifest I knew; for Wisdom, the artificer of all things, taught me” [Wisdom of Solomon 7:21–22]. |
| 14.9 Εἶτ’ ἐπιλέγει· «Τί δ’ ἐστὶ σοφία καὶ πῶς ἐγένετο, ἐγὼ ἀπαγγελῶ καὶ οὐκ ἀποκρύψω ὑμῖν μυστήρια, ἀλλ’ ἐξ ἀρχῆς γενέσεως ἐξιχνιάσω.» | 14.9 Then he adds: “And what Wisdom is, and how she came to be, I will declare and will not hide mysteries from you, but will trace her out from the beginning of generation” [Wisdom of Solomon 6:22]. |
| 14.10 Καὶ ἑξῆς διασαφεῖ τὰ τοιάδε· «Ἔστι γὰρ ἐν αὐτῇ πνεῦμα νοερόν, ἅγιον, μονογενές, πολυμερές, λεπτόν, εὐκίνητον, τρανόν, ἀμόλυντον, παντοδύναμον, πανεπίσκοπον, καὶ διὰ πάντων χωροῦν πνευμάτων νοερῶν, καθαρῶν, λεπτοτάτων. Πάσης γὰρ κινήσεως κινητικώτερον σοφία· διήκει δὲ καὶ χωρεῖ διὰ πάντων διὰ τὴν καθαρότητα. Ἀτμὶς γάρ ἐστι τῆς τοῦ θεοῦ δυνάμεως καὶ ἀπόρροια τῆς τοῦ παντοκράτορος δόξης εἰλικρινής· διὰ τοῦτο οὐδὲν μεμολυσμένον εἰς αὐτὴν παρεμπίπτει. Ἀπαύγασμα γάρ ἐστι φωτὸς ἀϊδίου καὶ ἔσοπτρον ἀκηλίδωτον τῆς τοῦ θεοῦ ἐνεργείας καὶ εἰκὼν τῆς ἀγαθότητος αὐτοῦ. Διατείνει δὲ ἀπὸ πέρατος εἰς πέρας εὐρώστως καὶ διοικεῖ τὰ πάντα χρηστῶς.» Ταῦτα μὲν ἡ γραφή. Τὴν δὲ τοῦ δόγματος διάνοιαν Φίλων ὁ Ἑβραῖος λευκότερον ἑρμηνεύων τοῦτον παρίστησι τὸν τρόπον· | 14.10 And next he clarifies as follows: “For in her there is an understanding spirit, holy, unique, manifold, subtle, mobile, clear, undefiled, all-powerful, all-surveying, and penetrating through all understanding, pure, and most subtle spirits. For Wisdom is more mobile than all motion; she passes and penetrates through all things by reason of her purity. For she is a vapor of the power of God and a pure emanation of the glory of the Almighty; wherefore nothing defiled falls into her. For she is an effulgence of eternal light, an unspotted mirror of the working of God, and an image of His goodness. She reaches vigorously from end to end and orders all things graciously” [Wisdom of Solomon 7:22–26, 8:1]. Such are the words of Scripture. And Philo the Hebrew, interpreting the meaning of this doctrine more clearly, sets it forth in this manner: |
Chapter 15
In this chapter, Eusebius concludes his demonstration of the Jewish doctrine of the Second Cause (the Logos) by quoting extensively from Philo of Alexandria (De Confusione Linguarum 97 and 146–147) and providing his own transitional editorial synthesis:
Philo on the Logos as Divine Image and Firstborn: Philo advises those seeking knowledge to strive to contemplate True Being; failing that, they should contemplate the Logos, which is God's most sacred image. Even if one is not yet worthy to be called a son of God, one should strive to conform to the firstborn Logos—the oldest of angels, the archangel of many names (Beginning, Name of God, Word, Man after God's Image, Seeing Israel).
The Logos as "The East" / "Rising" (Anatole): Quoting Zechariah 6:12 ("Behold, the man whose name is the East/Branch"), Philo explains that this name does not refer to a physical man composed of body and soul, but to the incorporeal, divine Idea—the oldest Son whom the Father brought forth as the Firstborn, and who models creation after the Father's archetypal patterns.
Eusebius' Synthesis & Transition: Eusebius notes that these quotes come from Philo (specifically referencing De Confusione Linguarum and Quod Deterius Potiori Insidiari Soleat). Having established that Hebrew tradition recognizes a divine Second Cause, Eusebius turns back to Greek philosophy to show that Plato teaches the exact same doctrine (specifically pointing toward the Epinomis).
| 15.1 «Εὐπρεπὲς γὰρ τοῖς ἑταιρείαν πρὸς ἐπιστήμην θεμένοις ἐφίεσθαι μὲν τοῦ τὸ ὂν ἰδεῖν· εἰ δὲ μὴ δύναιντο, τὴν γοῦν εἰκόνα αὐτοῦ, τὸν ἱερώτατον λόγον.» | 15.1 [Quoting Philo]: “For it is fitting for those who have formed a friendship with knowledge to desire to see True Being; but if they should be unable to do so, at least to behold His image, the most sacred Logos.” |
| 15.2 Ἐν τῷ δ’ αὐτῷ συγγράμματι καὶ τάδε φησί· «Κἂν μηδέπω μέντοι τυγχάνῃ τις ἀξιόχρεως υἱὸς θεοῦ προσαγορεύεσθαι, σπουδαζέτω κοσμεῖσθαι κατὰ τὸν πρωτόγονον αὐτοῦ λόγον, τὸν ἀγγέλων πρεσβύτατον, ὡς ἂν ἀρχάγγελον πολυώνυμον ὑπάρχοντα· | 15.2 And in the same work he says these things also: “And even if one is not yet worthy to be addressed as a son of God, let him earnestly strive to adorn himself according to His firstborn Logos, the oldest of the angels, existing as it were as an archangel of many names; |
| 15.3 καὶ γὰρ ἀρχὴ καὶ ὄνομα θεοῦ καὶ λόγος καὶ ὁ κατ’ εἰκόνα ἄνθρωπος καὶ ὁ ὁρῶν Ἰσραὴλ προσαγορεύεται. Διὸ προήχθην ὀλίγῳ πρότερον ἐπαινέσαι τὰς ἀρετὰς τῶν φασκόντων ὅτι "πάντες ἐσμὲν υἱοὶ ἑνὸς ἀνθρώπου." | 15.3 for he is called Beginning, and Name of God, and Word, and the Man after God's Image, and Seeing Israel. Wherefore I was led a little earlier to praise the virtues of those who say: 'We are all sons of one man' [Genesis 42:11]. |
| 15.4 Καὶ γὰρ εἰ μήπω ἱκανοὶ θεοῦ παῖδες νομίζεσθαι γεγόναμεν, ἀλλά τοι τῆς ἀϊδίου εἰκόνος αὐτοῦ, λόγου τοῦ ἱερωτάτου· θεοῦ γὰρ εἰκὼν λόγος ὁ πρεσβύτατος.» | 15.4 For even if we have not yet become fit to be considered children of God, yet at least we are children of His eternal image, the most sacred Logos; for the oldest Logos is the image of God.” |
| 15.5 Καὶ πάλιν ἐπιλέγει· «Ἤκουσα μέντοι καὶ τῶν Μώσεως ἑταίρων τινὸς ἀποφθεγξαμένου τοιόνδε λόγιον· "Ἰδοὺ ἄνθρωπος ᾧ ὄνομα Ἀνατολή." Καινοτάτη πρόσρησις, ἐάν γε τὸν ἐκ σώματος καὶ ψυχῆς συνεστῶτα λέγεσθαι νομίσῃς· ἐὰν δὲ τὸν ἀσώματον ἐκεῖνον θείαν ἰδέαν φοροῦντα, ἱκανῶς ὁμολογήσεις ὅτι εὐθυβολώτατον ὄνομα ἐπεφημίσθη τὸ "Ἀνατολὴ" αὐτῷ. | 15.5 And again he adds: “Moreover, I heard also one of the companions of Moses uttering such an oracle as this: 'Behold, a man whose name is the East [or Rising]' [Zechariah 6:12]. A most novel designation, if indeed you suppose it to be said of a man composed of body and soul; but if of that incorporeal man who bears the divine image, you will readily agree that the name 'East' was most appropriately applied to him. |
| 15.6 Τοῦτον μὲν γὰρ πρεσβύτατον υἱὸν ὁ τῶν ὅλων ἀνέτειλε πατήρ, ὃν ἑτέρωθι πρωτόγονον ὠνόμασε· καὶ ὁ γεννηθεὶς μέντοι μιμούμενος τὰς τοῦ πατρὸς ὁδοὺς πρὸς παραδείγματα ἀρχέτυπα τὰ ἐκείνου βλέπων ἐμόρφου τὰ εἴδη.» | 15.6 For him as His oldest Son did the Father of all cause to spring up, whom elsewhere he named the Firstborn; and he, being begotten, imitating the ways of the Father and looking to His archetypal patterns, formed the species of creation.” |
| 15.7 Ταῦτά μοι ἀπὸ τοῦ Ἑβραίου Φίλωνος ἐνταῦθα κείσθω, ληφθέντα ἐκ συγγράμματος ᾧ τέθειται ἐπιγραφή Περὶ τοῦ τὸ χεῖρον τῷ κρείττονι φιλεῖν ἐπιτίθεσθαι. Ἤδη δέ μοι καὶ ἄλλοτε τὰ τῆς τῶν παλαιῶν Ἑβραίων εὐσεβείας δόγματα παρατιθεμένῳ ἐν τοῖς τῆς Εὐαγγελικῆς Προπαρασκευῆς καὶ τὰ περὶ τοῦ δευτέρου αἰτίου διείληπται αὐταρκῶς, ἐφ’ ἃ καὶ νῦν τοὺς φιλομαθεῖς ἀναπέμψω. Τοσούτων οὖν παρ’ Ἑβραίοις καὶ τόνδε τὸν τρόπον περὶ τοῦ δευτέρου τῶν ὅλων αἰτίου τεθεολογημένων, καιρὸς ἤδη καὶ τοῦ Πλάτωνος ἐν τῇ Ἐπινομίδι τάδε λέγοντος ἐπακοῦσαι· | 15.7 Let these passages from Philo the Hebrew be set down here by me, taken from the treatise entitled That the Worse is Wont to Attack the Better. And already at other times, as I set forth the doctrines of the piety of the ancient Hebrews in the books of the Evangelical Preparation, the matters concerning the Second Cause have been treated sufficiently, to which I will now refer those who are eager to learn. Since, therefore, so many things have been set forth in this manner among the Hebrews concerning the Second Cause of all things, it is high time to listen also to Plato saying these things in the Epinomis: |
Eusebius cites the work as On the Plot of the Worse against the Better (Quod Deterius Potiori Insidiari Soleat), though the quoted excerpts from Philo in 15.1–15.6 actually come from Philo's On the Confusion of Tongues (De Confusione Linguarum §§ 97, 146–147), reflecting an ancient manuscript misattribution or thematic grouping by Eusebius.
Chapter 16
In this chapter, Eusebius turns directly to Plato (and sets up a reference to Plotinus) to demonstrate that Greek philosophy agrees with Hebrew theology regarding a Second Cause and a Supreme Father:
Plato's Epinomis (986c–d): Eusebius cites Plato to show that the cosmos and celestial order were established by the "most divine Logos of all" (logos ho pantōn theiotatos), which the happy man marvels at and seeks to understand.
Plato's Sixth Letter (323d): Eusebius quotes Plato’s letter to Hermias, Erastus, and Coriscus, highlighting where Plato urges them to swear an oath by both "the God who is ruler of all things present and future" and "the Father and Lord of that ruler and cause."
Eusebius' Analytical Commentary: Eusebius argues that Plato could only have derived this distinct hierarchy—speaking of a primary Creator/Ruler and an even higher Father and "Lord" (kyrios)—from Hebrew Scriptures, as no prior Greek philosopher had ever introduced such terminology.
Transition to Plotinus: To cement the argument that Platonic philosophy maintains this triad/hierarchy of principles, Eusebius prepares to quote Plotinus' treatise On the Three Primary Hypostases (Enneads V.1).
| 16.1 «Καὶ τιμὰς ἀποδιδῶμεν μὴ τῷ μὲν ἐνιαυτόν, τῷ δὲ μῆνα, τοῖς δὲ μή τινα μοῖραν τάττωμεν, μηδέ τινα χρόνον, ἐν ᾧ διεξέρχεται τὸν αὑτοῦ πόλον, συναποτελῶν κόσμον, ὃν ἔταξε λόγος ὁ πάντων θειότατος· ὃν ὁ μὲν εὐδαίμων πρῶτον μὲν ἐθαύμασεν, ἔπειτα δὲ ἔρωτα ἔσχε τοῦ καταμαθεῖν ὁπόσα θνητῇ φύσει δυνατά.» | 16.1 [Quoting Plato, Epinomis 986c–d]: “And let us render honors, not giving a year to one and a month to another, nor assigning no portion to others, nor any time in which it completes its own circuit, perfecting together the cosmic order which the most divine Logos of all has established; which the happy man first marveled at, and then felt a passion to comprehend as much as is possible for mortal nature.” |
| 16.2 Καὶ ἐν ἐπιστολῇ δὲ τῇ πρὸς Ἑρμείαν Ἔραστόν τε καὶ Κορίσκον εὖ μάλα πεφυλαγμένως τέθειται τὸ δόγμα, ὧδε πρὸς λέξιν ἐπιστέλλων· «Ταύτην τὴν ἐπιστολὴν πάντας ὑμᾶς τρεῖς ὄντας ἀναγνῶναι χρή, μάλιστα μὲν ἀθρόους, εἰ δὲ μή, κατὰ δύο κοινῇ κατὰ δύναμιν ὡς οἷόν τ’ ἐστὶ πλειστάκις, καὶ χρῆσθαι συνθήκῃ καὶ νόμῳ κυρίῳ τούτῳ, ὅ ἐστι δίκαιον ἐπομνύντας σπουδῇ τε ἅμα μὴ ἀμούσῳ καὶ τῇ τῆς σπουδῆς ἀδελφῇ παιδείᾳ, καὶ τὸν τῶν πάντων θεὸν ἡγεμόνα τῶν τε ὄντων καὶ τῶν μελλόντων, τοῦ τε ἡγεμόνος καὶ αἰτίου πατέρα κύριον ἐπομνύντας· ὃν, ἐὰν ὀρθῶς φιλοσοφῶμεν, εἰσόμεθα πάντες σαφῶς εἰς δύναμιν ἀνθρώπων εὐδαιμόνων.» | 16.2 And in his letter to Hermias, Erastus, and Coriscus [Sixth Letter 323d], this doctrine is set forth exceedingly guardedly, as he writes word for word as follows: “It is necessary for all three of you to read this letter, especially together as a group, but if not, two by two in common as often as possible according to your ability, and to make use of this covenant and binding law, swearing as is right with earnestness that is not uncultured and with education, the sister of earnestness, swearing both by the God who is ruler of all things present and future, and by the Father and Lord of that ruler and cause; whom, if we truly practice philosophy, we shall all know clearly as far as is possible for happy human beings.” |
| 16.3 Ἀρά σοι δοκεῖ ταῦτα λέγων ὁ Πλάτων τοῖς Ἑβραίων ἐπηκολουθηκέναι δόγμασιν, ἢ πόθεν ἄλλοθεν ἐπῆλθεν αὐτῷ τοῦ πάντων τῶν γενητῶν αἰτίου κρείττονα ἄλλον θεόν, τὸν δὴ καὶ πατέρα τοῦ πανηγεμόνος, προσειπεῖν; Πόθεν δ’ αὐτῷ τὸ τοῦ κυρίου ἐπὶ τοῦ πατρὸς τοῦ δημιουργοῦ τάξαι ὄνομα, μηδενός πω πρὸ αὐτοῦ Ἑλλήνων ἀκοαῖς, ἀλλὰ μηδὲ εἰς νοῦν ταῦτα καταβεβλημένου; | 16.3 Does it seem to you that in saying these things Plato followed the doctrines of the Hebrews, or from where else did it occur to him to address another God superior to the cause of all created things—namely, the Father of the ruler of all? And from where did he get the idea to apply the title 'Lord' (kyrios) to the Father of the Creator, when no one among the Greeks before him had ever brought such things to hearing, nor even cast them into thought? |
| 16.4 Εἰ δὲ καὶ ἑτέρων ἡμῖν πάλιν μαρτύρων δεῖ εἰς ἀναμφίλεκτον παράστασιν τῆς τε τοῦ φιλοσόφου διανοίας καὶ τῆς τοῦ λόγου κατασκευῆς, ἐπάκουσον οἷά σοι Πλωτῖνος ἐν οἷς Περὶ τῶν τριῶν ἀρχικῶν ὑποστάσεων συνέταξε διασαφεῖ γράφων· | 16.4 And if we need yet other witnesses for an indisputable demonstration both of the philosopher's intention and of the structure of our argument, listen to the sort of things Plotinus clarifies, writing in what he composed On the Three Primary Hypostases: |
Chapter 17
In this chapter, Eusebius quotes extensively from Plotinus (Enneads V.1.2–3 and V.1.6–8) to demonstrate that Neoplatonism recognizes a divine Triad (The One / The Good, Intellect / Logos, and World Soul) that corresponds directly to the Hebrew and Christian understanding of the First and Second Causes:
Ascent from the Physical to the Intellect (17.1–17.2): Plotinus explains that contemplating the beauty, order, and motion of the sensible cosmos leads the soul upward to the intelligible archetype—where all things exist eternally under the guidance of pure Intellect (Nous) and unapproachable Wisdom. He identifies the generator of Intellect as the One (to Hen), simple and prior to all multiplicity.
The Generation of the Second Cause (17.3–17.7): Plotinus uses physical analogies—such as the light encircling the sun, the heat emitted by fire, and the cold of snow—to show how Intellect emanates eternally from the One without diminishing the Source. As the highest possible emanation after the One, Intellect is generated as a second principle that gazes upon the First Cause.
The Relationship of Love and Image (17.8): The generated Intellect loves its Begetter, separated from the First Cause only by distinctness/otherness (heterotēs). Intellect is thus the image (eikōn) of the One.
Platonic Heritage & The Triad (17.9–17.11): Plotinus explicitly connects this hierarchy to Plato (citing the Second Letter 312e and the Timaeus), noting that Plato’s three levels—the King of all, the second, and the third—refer to the Good, Intellect (the Creator/Cause), and Soul. Plotinus stresses that these doctrines are not new, but ancient truths that Neoplatonists merely interpret. Eusebius then transitions to Numenius of Apamea as another witness.
| 17.1 «Κόσμον αἰσθητὸν τόνδε εἴ τις θαυμάζει, εἴς τε τὸ μέγεθος καὶ τὸ κάλλος καὶ τὴν τάξιν τῆς φορᾶς τῆς ἀϊδίου βλέπων, καὶ θεοὺς τοὺς ἐν αὐτῷ, τοὺς μὲν ὁρωμένους, τοὺς δὲ καὶ ἀφανεῖς ὄντας, καὶ δαίμονας καὶ ζῷα φυτά τε πάντα, ἐπὶ τὸ ἀρχέτυπον αὐτοῦ καὶ τὸ ἀληθινώτερον ἀναβάς, κἀκεῖ πάντα ἰδέτω νοητά, καὶ παρ’ αὐτῶν ἀΐδια ἐν οἰκείᾳ συνέσει καὶ ζωῇ, καὶ τούτων τὸν ἀκήρατον νοῦν προστάτην καὶ σοφίαν ἀμήχανον.» | 17.1 [Quoting Plotinus, Enneads V.1.2]: “If anyone admires this sensible cosmos, looking at its magnitude, beauty, and the order of its eternal motion, and the gods within it—some visible, others invisible—and the spirits, animals, and all plants, let him ascend to its archetype and its truer reality, and there let him behold all intelligible things, existing eternally in their own understanding and life, and over these the pure Intellect as ruler and incomprehensible Wisdom.” |
| 17.2 Εἶθ’ ἑξῆς τούτοις ἐπιφέρει λέγων· «Τίς οὖν ὁ τοῦτον γεννήσας; Ὁ ἁπλοῦς καὶ ὁ πρὸ τοῦ τοιούτου, ὁ αἴτιος τοῦ καὶ εἶναι καὶ πολὺν εἶναι τοῦτον, ὁ τὸν ἀριθμὸν ποιῶν· ὁ γὰρ ἀριθμὸς οὐ πρῶτος· καὶ γὰρ πρὸ τῆς δυάδος τὸ ἕν· δεύτερον δὲ δυάς, καὶ παρὰ τοῦ ἑνὸς γενομένη.» | 17.2 Then next to these things he adds, saying: “Who then generated this Intellect? He who is simple and prior to such a nature, the Cause of its being and of its being manifold, He who makes number; for number is not first; for prior to the dyad is the One, and the dyad is second, coming into being from the One.” |
| 17.3 Καὶ πάλιν ὑποβὰς ἐπιλέγει· «Πῶς οὖν, καὶ τί δεῖ νοῆσαι περὶ ἐκεῖνο μένον; Περίλαμψιν ἐξ αὐτοῦ μέν, ἐξ αὐτοῦ δὲ μένοντος· οἷον ἡλίου τὸ περὶ αὐτὸν λαμπρὸν φῶς περιθέον, ἐξ αὐτοῦ ἀεὶ γεννώμενον, μένοντος δέ. | 17.3 And again, proceeding further down, he adds: “How then, and what must we conceive concerning Him while He abides? A radiance from Him, coming from Him while He abides—like the bright light surrounding the sun, running around it, constantly generated from it while it abides. |
| 17.4 Καὶ πάντα τὰ ὄντα ἕως μένει, ἐκ τῆς αὐτῶν οὐσίας, ἀναγκαίαν τὴν περὶ αὐτὰ πρὸς τὸ ἔξω αὐτῶν ἐκ τῆς παρούσης δυνάμεως δίδωσιν αὐτῶν ἐξηρτημένην ὑπόστασιν, εἰκόνα οὖσαν οἷον ἀρχετύπων, ὧν ἐξέφυ. | 17.4 And all existing things, as long as they abide, produce from their own essence a necessary reality directed outward around them, dependent on their present power—a image, as it were, of the archetypes from which it sprang. |
| 17.5 Πῦρ μὲν τὴν παρ’ αὐτῷ θερμότητα, καὶ χιὼν οὐκ εἴσω μόνον τὸ ψυχρὸν κατέχει· μάλιστα δὲ ὅσα εὐώδη μαρτυρεῖ τούτῳ· ἕως γάρ ἐστι, πρόεισί τι ἐξ αὐτῶν περὶ αὐτά, ὧν ἀπολαύει ὑποστάντων ὅτι πλησίον. | 17.5 Fire emits the heat that is in it, and snow does not retain its coldness merely within itself; but aromatic things testify to this above all, for as long as they exist, something goes forth from them into the surrounding space, which whatever is near enjoys. |
| 17.6 Καὶ πάντα δὲ ὅσα ἤδη τέλεια γεννᾷ· τὸ δὴ ἀεὶ τέλειον ἀεὶ καὶ ἀΐδιον γεννᾷ· καὶ ἔλαττον δὲ ἑαυτοῦ γεννᾷ. | 17.6 And all things, as soon as they reach perfection, generate; that which is eternally perfect generates eternally and imperishably, generating something lesser than itself. |
| 17.7 Τί οὖν χρὴ περὶ τοῦ τελειοτάτου λέγειν; Μηδὲν ἀπ’ αὐτοῦ, ἢ τὰ μέγιστα μετ’ αὐτό. Μέγιστον δὲ μετ’ αὐτὸν νοῦς καὶ δεύτερον. Καὶ γὰρ ὁρᾷ ὁ νοῦς ἐκεῖνον, καὶ δεῖται αὐτοῦ μόνου, ἐκεῖνος δὲ τούτου οὐδέν. Καὶ τὸ γεννώμενον ἀπὸ κρείττονος νοῦ νοῦν εἶναι· καὶ κρείττων ἁπάντων νοῦς, ὅτι τἄλλα μετ’ αὐτόν.» | 17.7 What then ought we to say concerning the most Perfect? Nothing comes from Him except what is greatest after Him. And the greatest after Him is Intellect, which is second. For Intellect beholds Him and needs Him alone, whereas He needs Intellect not at all. And that which is generated from a principle superior to Intellect must itself be Intellect; and Intellect is superior to all things, because all other things are after it.” |
| 17.8 Τούτοις ἐξῆς ἐπιφέρει λέγων· «Ποθεῖ δὲ πᾶν τὸ γεννῆσαν καὶ τοῦτο ἀγαπᾷ, καὶ μάλιστα ὅταν ὦσι μόνοι τὸ γεννῆσαν καὶ τὸ γεγεννημένον. Ὅταν δὲ καὶ τὸ ἄριστον ᾖ τὸ γεννῆσαν, ἐξ ἀνάγκης σύνεστιν αὐτῷ, ὡς τῇ ἑτερότητι μόνον κεχωρίσθαι. Εἰκόνα δὲ ἐκείνου εἶναι λέγομεν τὸν νοῦν. Δεῖ γὰρ σαφέστερον λέγειν.» | 17.8 Following these things he adds, saying: “Every generating principle desires that which it generates and loves it, especially when the generator and the generated exist alone. And when that which generates is the Best, the generated is necessarily joined with it, so as to be separated only by otherness (heterotēs). And we say that Intellect is the image of that First Cause; for one must speak with greater clarity.” |
| 17.9 Καὶ πάλιν τούτοις ἐπιλέγει· «Καὶ διὰ τοῦτο καὶ τὰ Πλάτωνος τριττά· "πάντα περὶ τὸν πάντων βασιλέα φησὶ τὰ πρῶτα· καὶ δεύτερον περὶ τὰ δεύτερα, καὶ περὶ τὰ τρίτα τρίτον." Λέγει δὲ καὶ τοῦ αἰτίου εἶναι πατέρα, αἴτιον μὲν τὸν νοῦν λέγων· δημιουργὸς γὰρ ὁ νοῦς αὐτῷ. | 17.9 And again to these things he adds: “And on this account the teachings of Plato are threefold: 'All things,' he says, 'are around the King of all, and these are first; and second things around the second, and third things around the third' [Second Letter 312e]. And he also speaks of a Father of the Cause, calling Intellect the Cause; for Intellect is Creator for him. |
| 17.10 Τοῦτον δέ φησι τὴν ψυχὴν ποιεῖν ἐν τῷ κρατῆρι ἐκείνῳ. Τοῦ δὲ αἰτίου νοῦ ὄντος, πατέρα φησὶ τἀγαθὸν καὶ τὸ ἐπέκεινα νοῦ καὶ ἐπέκεινα οὐσίας. Πολλαχοῦ δὲ τὸ ὂν καὶ τὸν νοῦν τὴν ἰδέαν λέγει. Ὥστε Πλάτωνα εἰδέναι ἐκ μὲν τοῦ ἀγαθοῦ τὸν νοῦν, ἐκ δὲ τοῦ νοῦ τὴν ψυχήν· καὶ εἶναι τοὺς λόγους τούσδε μὴ καινούς, μηδὲ νῦν, ἀλλὰ πάλαι μὲν εἰρῆσθαι μὴ ἀναπεπταμένως· τοὺς δὲ νῦν λόγους ἐξηγητὰς ἐκείνων γεγονέναι, μαρτυρίοις πιστωσαμένους τὰς δόξας ταύτας παλαιὰς εἶναι τοῖς αὐτοῦ Πλάτωνος γράμμασιν.» | 17.10 And he says that Intellect crafts the Soul in that mixing bowl [Timaeus 41d]. But while the Cause is Intellect, he calls the Good the Father—that which is beyond Intellect and beyond Being. And in many places he calls True Being and Intellect 'the Idea.' Thus Plato knew that Intellect proceeds from the Good, and Soul from Intellect; and that these teachings are not new, nor of today, but were stated long ago, though not openly; and today's discourses have become interpreters of those ancient statements, confirming by testimonies from Plato's own writings that these opinions are ancient.” |
| 17.11 Ταῦτα μὲν ὁ Πλωτῖνος· ὁ δὲ Νουμήνιος τὰ Πλάτωνος πρεσβεύων ἐν τοῖς Περὶ τἀγαθοῦ τάδε καὶ αὐτὸς περὶ τοῦ δευτέρου αἰτίου λέγων διερμηνεύει· | 17.11 Such are the words of Plotinus; and Numenius, championing the doctrines of Plato in his work On the Good, interprets these matters, speaking as follows concerning the Second Cause: |
Chapter 18
In this chapter, Eusebius draws upon Numenius of Apamea (a 2nd-century Pythagorean/Platonist philosopher) to show that Greek thinkers directly mirrored Hebrew theology regarding the relationship between the First Cause (God the Father) and the Second Cause (the Demiurge/Logos):
The Nature of the First and Second God (18.1–18.10): Numenius distinguishes between the First God (pure, simple, abiding in Himself, idle with respect to worldly works) and the Second God/Demiurge (who interacts with matter, holds creation together, and governs it). When God gazes toward us, creation lives; when He turns back to His own contemplation, physical bodies perish while the soul lives.
Scriptural Parallel from David (18.11–18.12): Eusebius demonstrates how Numenius’ description of God's gaze giving life or causing decay mirrors Psalm 104:24–30 ("When You open Your hand, they are filled with good... when You hide Your face, they are troubled").
The Agricultural Parable & Emanative Knowledge (18.13–18.19): Citing Jesus' words ("I am the vine, my Father is the vinedresser"), Eusebius pairs them with Numenius' analogy: the First God sow the seeds of all souls, while the Demiurge/Lawgiver plants and distributes them. Numenius explains that the Second Cause receives from the First Cause without diminishing the Source—like a torch lit from another torch (λύνχος ἀφ' ἑτέρου λύχνου) or Prometheus bringing fire.
Rest and Motion / The Helmsman Analogy (18.20–18.24): Numenius asserts that the First God stands motionless in pure contemplation, while the Second God moves and governs creation like a helmsman (kybernētēs) on a ship. The helmsman steers the vessel below while keeping his gaze fixed on the stars above.
Johannine Parallel & Transition to Amelius (18.25–18.26): Eusebius highlights how Numenius' helmsman looking above reflects John 5:19 ("The Son can do nothing of Himself, but what He sees the Father do"). Eusebius concludes that Plato and later Platonists derived these insights from Hebrew theologians, introducing Amelius as the next witness who explicitly comments on John's Gospel.
| 18.1 «Τὸν μέλλοντα δὲ συνήσειν θεοῦ πέρι πρώτου καὶ δευτέρου χρὴ πρότερον διελέσθαι ἕκαστα ἐν τάξει καὶ ἐν εὐθημοσύνῃ τινί· κἄπειτα ἐπειδὰν δοκῇ ἤδη εὖ ἔχειν, τότε καὶ δεῖ ἐπιχειρεῖν εἰπεῖν κοσμίως, ἄλλως δὲ μή, ἢ τῷ πρωϊαίτερον πρὶν τὰ πρῶτα γενέσθαι ἁπτομένῳ σποδὸς ὁ θησαυρὸς γίνεσθαι λέγεται. | 18.1 [Quoting Numenius]: “He who is about to understand concerning the First and Second God must first distinguish each thing in order and in a certain good arrangement; and then, whenever it seems to be well in hand, only then should he attempt to speak decorously—otherwise not, lest to him who takes hold too early before the first principles are established, the treasure be said to turn to ashes. |
| 18.2 Μὴ δὴ πάθωμεν ἡμεῖς ταὐτόν· θεὸν δὲ προσκαλεσάμενοι, ἑαυτοῦ γνώμονα γενόμενον τῷ λόγῳ, δεῖξαι θησαυρὸν φροντίδων, ἀρχώμεθα οὕτως. Εὐκτέον μὲν ἤδη, διελέσθαι δὲ δεῖ. | 18.2 Let us not suffer the same fate; but having called upon God, who becomes the guide of the discourse to reveal a treasure of thoughts, let us begin thus. Prayer indeed must be made now, and distinction must be drawn. |
| 18.3 Ὁ θεὸς ὁ μὲν πρῶτος ἐν ἑαυτῷ ὤν ἐστιν ἁπλοῦς, διὰ τὸ ἑαυτῷ συγγινόμενος διόλου μή ποτε εἶναι διαιρετός· ὁ θεὸς μέντοι ὁ δεύτερος καὶ τρίτος ἐστὶν εἷς· συμφερόμενος δὲ τῇ ὕλῃ δυάδι οὔσῃ ἑνοῖ μὲν αὐτήν, σχίζεται δὲ ὑπ’ αὐτῆς, ἐπιθυμητικὸν ἦθος ἐχούσης καὶ ῥεούσης. | 18.3 The First God, existing in Himself, is simple, because dwelling with Himself entirely He is never divisible; however, the Second and Third God is one. But coming together with matter, which is a dyad, He unites it, yet is divided by it, since matter possesses a lustful disposition and is in flux. |
| 18.4 Τῷ οὖν μὴ εἶναι πρὸς τῷ νοητῷ, ἦν γὰρ ἂν πρὸς ἑαυτῷ, διὰ τὸ τὴν ὕλην βλέπειν, ταύτης ἐπιμελούμενος ἀπερίοπτος ἑαυτοῦ γίνεται. | 18.4 Thus, through not abiding at the intelligible—for He would then be with Himself—by looking toward matter, because He takes care of it, He becomes oblivious of Himself. |
| 18.5 Καὶ ἅπτεται τοῦ αἰσθητοῦ καὶ περιέπει, ἀνάγει τε ἔτι εἰς τὸ ἴδιον ἦθος ἐπορεξάμενος τῆς ὕλης.» | 18.5 And He touches the sensible and attends to it, and still raises it up to His own character, having reached out after matter.” |
| 18.6 Καὶ μεθ’ ἕτερά φησι· «Καὶ γὰρ οὔτε δημιουργεῖν ἐστι χρεὼν τὸν πρῶτον, καὶ τοῦ δημιουργοῦντος δὲ θεοῦ χρὴ εἶναι νομίζεσθαι πατέρα τὸν πρῶτον θεόν. | 18.6 And after other things he says: “For neither is it right for the First God to act as Demiurge, and the First God must be considered the Father of the creator God. |
| 18.7 Εἰ μὲν οὖν περὶ τοῦ δημιουργικοῦ ζητοῖμεν, φάσκοντες δεῖν τὸν πρότερον ὑπάρξαντα, οὕτως ἂν ποιεῖν ἔχειν διαφερόντως, οἰκεία ἡ πρόσοδος αὕτη γεγονυῖα ἂν εἴη τοῦ λόγου· εἰ δὲ περὶ τοῦ δημιουργοῦ μή ἐστιν ὁ λόγος, ζητοῦμεν δὲ περὶ τοῦ πρώτου, ἀφοσιοῦμαί τε τὰ λεχθέντα καὶ ἔστω μὲν ἐκεῖνα ἄρρητα, μέτειμι δὲ ἑλεῖν τὸν λόγον, ἑτέρωθεν θηράσας. | 18.7 If, then, we were seeking concerning the demiurgic principle, claiming that the one who pre-existed must act in a distinguished manner, this approach of the argument would be appropriate; but if our discourse is not concerning the Demiurge, but we are seeking concerning the First God, I excuse myself from what has been said and let those things be unsaid, and I will proceed to lay hold of the argument, hunting it from another direction. |
| 18.8 Πρὸ μέντοι τοῦ λόγου τῆς ἁλώσεως διομολογησώμεθα ἡμῖν αὐτοῖς ὁμολογίαν οὐκ ἀμφισβητήσιμον ἀκοῦσαι, τὸν μὲν πρῶτον θεὸν ἀργὸν εἶναι ἔργων ξυμπάντων καὶ βασιλέα, τὸν δημιουργικὸν δὲ θεὸν ἡγεμονεῖν δι’ οὐρανοῦ ἰόντα. | 18.8 Before the capture of the argument, however, let us make an indisputable agreement among ourselves to hear: that the First God is idle with respect to all works and is King, while the demiurgic God rules going through heaven. |
| 18.9 Διὰ δὲ τούτου καὶ ὁ στόλος ἡμῖν ἐστι, κάτω τοῦ νοῦ πεμπομένου ἐν διεξόδῳ πᾶσι τοῖς κοινωνῆσαι συντεταγμένοις. | 18.9 And through Him also our journey proceeds, as intellect is sent down in a circuit to all who are ordained to participate. |
| 18.10 Βλέποντος μὲν οὖν καὶ ἐπεστραμμένου πρὸς ἡμῶν ἕκαστον τοῦ θεοῦ συμβαίνει ζῆν τε καὶ βιώσκεσθαι τότε τὰ σώματα, κηδεύοντος τοῦ θεοῦ τοῖς ἀκροβολισμοῖς· μεταστρέφοντος δὲ εἰς τὴν ἑαυτοῦ περιωπὴν τοῦ θεοῦ ταῦτα μὲν ἀποσβέννυσθαι, τὸν δὲ νοῦν ζῆν βίου ἐπαυρόμενον εὐδαίμονος.» | 18.10 When God looks toward and is turned toward each of us, it happens that our bodies then live and are quickened, while God cares for us with His rays; but when God turns back to His own lookout, these physical bodies are extinguished, while the intellect lives, enjoying a blessed life.” |
| 18.11 Ταῦτα μὲν ὁ Νουμήνιος. Σὺ δέ γε παράθες αὐτοῖς τὰ ἀπὸ τῆς τοῦ Δαυὶδ προφητείας πάλαι παρ’ Ἑβραίοις τοῦτον ᾀδόμενα τὸν τρόπον· «Ὡς ἐμεγαλύνθη τὰ ἔργα σου, κύριε· πάντα ἐν σοφίᾳ ἐποίησας. Ἐπληρώθη ἡ γῆ τῆς κτίσεώς σου· πάντα πρός σε προσδοκῶσι, δοῦναι τὴν τροφὴν αὐτοῖς εἰς εὔκαιρον. Δόντος σου αὐτοῖς συλλέξουσιν, ἀνοίξαντος δέ σου τὴν χεῖρα τὰ πάντα πληρωθήσεται χρηστότητος. Ἀποστρέψαντος δέ σου τὸ πρόσωπον ταραχθήσονται. Ἀντανελεῖς τὸ πνεῦμα αὐτῶν, καὶ ἐκλείψουσι καὶ εἰς τὸν χοῦν αὐτῶν ἐπιστρέψουσιν. Ἐξαποστελεῖς τὸ πνεῦμά σου, καὶ κτισθήσονται, καὶ ἀνακαινιεῖς τὸ πρόσωπον τῆς γῆς.» | 18.11 Such are the words of Numenius. And do you compare with them those things sung of old among the Hebrews from the prophecy of David in this manner: “How magnified are Your works, O Lord! In wisdom You have made them all. The earth is filled with Your creation... All expect You to give them their food in due season. When You give it to them, they will gather it; when You open Your hand, all things shall be filled with goodness. But when You turn away Your face, they shall be troubled. You will take away their breath, and they shall fail and return to their dust. You will send forth Your Spirit, and they shall be created, and You will renew the face of the earth” [Psalm 104:24, 27–30]. |
| 18.12 Τί γὰρ ταῦτα διαφέροι ἂν τῆς φασκούσης τοῦ φιλοσόφου διανοίας ὡς ἄρα «βλέποντος μὲν καὶ ἐπεστραμμένου πρὸς ἡμῶν ἕκαστον τοῦ θεοῦ συμβαίνει ζῆν τε καὶ βιώσκεσθαι τότε τὰ σώματα κηδεύοντος τοῦ θεοῦ τοῖς ἀκροβολισμοῖς, μεταστρέφοντος δὲ εἰς τὴν ἑαυτοῦ περιωπὴν τοῦ θεοῦ ταῦτα μὲν ἀποσβέννυσθαι;» | 18.12 For how do these things differ from the thought of the philosopher stating that “when God looks toward and is turned toward each of us, it happens that our bodies then live and are quickened while God cares for us with His rays; but when God turns back to His own lookout, these physical bodies are extinguished?” |
| 18.13 Πάλιν δ’ αὖ τοῦ σωτηρίου λόγου παρ’ ἡμῖν φάντος· «Ἐγώ εἰμι ἡ ἄμπελος, ὁ πατήρ μου ὁ γεωργός, ὑμεῖς τὰ κλήματα,» ὁ Νουμήνιος ἐπάκουσον οἷα περὶ τοῦ δευτέρου αἰτίου θεολογεῖ· | 18.13 And again, when the saving Word among us says: “I am the vine, my Father is the vinedresser, and you are the branches” [John 15:1, 5], listen to what sort of theology Numenius expresses concerning the Second Cause: |
| 18.14 «Ὥσπερ δὲ πάλιν λόγος ἐστὶ γεωργῷ πρὸς τὸν φυτεύοντα ἀναφερόμενος, τὸν αὐτὸν λόγον μάλιστά ἐστιν ὁ πρῶτος θεὸς πρὸς τὸν δημιουργόν. Ὁ μέν γε ὢν σπέρμα πάσης ψυχῆς σπείρει εἰς τὰ μεταλαγχάνοντα αὐτοῦ χρήματα σύμπαντα· ὁ νομοθέτης δὲ φυτεύει καὶ διανέμει καὶ μεταφυτεύει εἰς ἡμᾶς ἑκάστους τὰ ἐκεῖθεν προκαταβεβλημένα.» | 18.14 “And just as there is a relation of the vinedresser referred to the planter, in precisely the same relation stands the First God to the Demiurge. For being the seed of all soul, He sows it into all things that share in Him; while the Lawgiver plants, distributes, and replants into each of us the seeds cast down from above.” |
| 18.15 Καὶ ἑξῆς δὲ πάλιν περὶ τοῦ πῶς ἀπὸ τοῦ πρώτου αἰτίου τὸ δεύτερον ὑπέστη τοιάδε φησίν· «Ὁπόσα δὲ δοθέντα μέτεισι πρὸς τὸν λαμβάνοντα, ἀπελθόντα ἐκ τοῦ δεδωκότος, ἐστὶ θεραπεία, χρήματα, νόμισμα κοῖλον, ἐπίσημον· ταυτὶ μὲν οὖν ἐστι θνητὰ καὶ ἀνθρώπινα, τὰ δὲ θεῖά ἐστιν οἷα μεταδοθέντα ἐνθένδ’ ἐκεῖθι γεγενημένα, ἐνθένδε τε οὐκ ἀπελήλυθε, κἀκεῖθι γενόμενα τὸν μὲν ὤνησε, τὸν δ’ οὐκ ἔβλαψε, καὶ προσώνησε τῇ περὶ ὧν ἠπίστατο ἀναμνήσει. | 18.15 And next again concerning how the Second Cause subsisted from the First Cause, he says as follows: “Whatever things when given pass over to the receiver, departing from the giver—such as service, money, or hollow, stamped coinage—these are mortal and human things. But divine things are such that when imparted and coming to be there, they have not departed from here, and coming to be there, they benefited the one and harmed not the other, and brought additional benefit through the remembrance of what he understood. |
| 18.16 Ἔστι δὲ τοῦτο τὸ καλὸν χρῆμα ἐπιστήμη ἡ καλή, ἧς ὤνατο μὲν ὁ λαβών, οὐκ ἀπολείπεται δ’ αὐτῆς ὁ δεδωκώς. Οἷον ἂν ἴδοις ἐξαφθέντα ἀφ’ ἑτέρου λύχνου λύχνον φῶς ἔχοντα, ὃ μὴ τὸν πρότερον ἀφείλατο, ἀλλὰ τῆς ἐν αὐτῷ ὕλης πρὸς τὸ ἐκείνου πῦρ ἐξαφθείσης. | 18.16 And this fair thing is noble knowledge (epistēmē), which he who receives enjoys, while he who gave is not deprived of it. Just as you might see a lamp lit from another lamp having light, which did not rob the former, but its own matter was kindled by the other's fire. |
| 18.17 Τοιοῦτον τὸ χρῆμά ἐστι τὸ τῆς ἐπιστήμης, ἣ δοθεῖσα καὶ ληφθεῖσα παραμένει μὲν τῷ δεδωκότι, σύνεστι δὲ τῷ λαβόντι ἡ αὐτή. | 18.17 Such a thing is knowledge, which when given and received remains with the giver, and is present as the very same with the receiver. |
| 18.18 Τούτου δὲ τὸ αἴτιον, ὦ ξένε, οὐδέν ἐστιν ἀνθρώπινον· ἀλλ’ ὅτι ἕξις τε καὶ οὐσία ἡ ἔχουσα τὴν ἐπιστήμην ἡ αὐτή ἐστι παρά τε τῷ δεδωκότι θεῷ καὶ παρὰ τῷ εἰληφότι ἐμοὶ καὶ σοί. | 18.18 And the cause of this, O stranger, is nothing human; but that the state and essence possessing knowledge is the same both with the God who gave it and with me and you who received it. |
| 18.19 Διὸ καὶ ὁ Πλάτων τὴν σοφίαν ὑπὸ Προμηθέως ἐλθεῖν εἰς ἀνθρώπους μετὰ φανοτάτου τινὸς πυρὸς ἔφη.» Καὶ πάλιν ὑποβὰς ἐξῆς φησιν· | 18.19 Wherefore Plato also said that wisdom came to men from Prometheus along with a most brilliant fire.” And again proceeding further down, he says: |
| 18.20 «Εἰσὶ δ’ οὗτοι βίοι ὁ μὲν πρώτου, ὁ δὲ δευτέρου θεοῦ. Δηλονότι ὁ μὲν πρῶτος θεὸς ἔσται ἑστώς, ὁ δὲ δεύτερος ἔμπαλίν ἐστι κινούμενος. Ὁ μὲν οὖν πρῶτος περὶ τὰ νοητά, ὁ δὲ δεύτερος περὶ τὰ νοητὰ καὶ αἰσθητά. | 18.20 “And these are the lives—the one of the First God, the other of the Second God. Clearly, the First God will be at rest, while the Second on the contrary is in motion. The First God, then, is concerned with intelligible things, and the Second with both intelligibles and perceptibles. |
| 18.21 Μὴ θαυμάσῃς δ’ εἰ τοῦτ’ ἔφην· πολὺ γὰρ ἔτι θαυμαστότερον ἀκούσῃ. Ἀντὶ γὰρ τῆς προσούσης τῷ δευτέρῳ κινήσεως τὴν προσοῦσαν τῷ πρώτῳ στάσιν φημὶ εἶναι κίνησιν σύμφυτον, ἀφ’ ἧς ἥ τε τάξις τοῦ κόσμου καὶ ἡ μονὴ ἀΐδιος καὶ ἡ σωτηρία ἀναχεῖται εἰς τὰ ὅλα.» | 18.21 Do not marvel if I said this; for you shall hear something far more marvelous. For instead of the motion belonging to the Second God, I say that the rest belonging to the First God is an innate motion, from which both the order of the cosmos, its eternal permanence, and its preservation are poured forth into the whole.” |
| 18.22 Ἐπὶ τούτοις καὶ ἐν τῷ ἕκτῳ προστίθησι ταῦτα· «Ἐπειδὴ ᾔδει ὁ Πλάτων παρὰ τοῖς ἀνθρώποις τὸν μὲν δημιουργὸν γινωσκόμενον μόνον, τὸν μέντοι πρῶτον νοῦν, ὅστις καλεῖται αὐτὸ ὄν, παντάπασιν ἀγνοούμενον παρ’ αὐτοῖς, διὰ τοῦτο οὕτως εἶπεν, ὥσπερ ἄν τις οὕτω λέγοι· | 18.22 In addition to these things, in the sixth book he adds these words: “Since Plato knew that among men the Demiurge alone is known, while the First Intellect, who is called Very Being (Auto On), is completely unknown among them, on this account he spoke thus, as if someone were to say: |
| 18.23 'Ὦ ἄνθρωποι, ὃν τοπάξετε ὑμεῖς νοῦν οὐκ ἔστι πρῶτος, ἀλλὰ ἕτερος πρὸ τούτου νοῦς πρεσβύτερος καὶ θειότερος.'» | 18.23 'O men, the intellect whom you conjecture is not the First, but another intellect prior to this one, older and more divine.'” |
| 18.24 Καὶ μεθ’ ἕτερα ἐπιλέγει· «Κυβερνήτης μέν που ἐν μέσῳ πελάγει φορούμενος ὑπὲρ πηδαλίων ὑψίζυγος τοῖς οἴαξι διιθύνει τὴν ναῦν ἐφεζόμενος, ὄμματα δ’ αὐτοῦ καὶ νοῦς εὐθὺ τοῦ αἰθέρος ξυντέταται πρὸς τὰ μετάρσια, καὶ ἡ ὁδὸς αὐτῷ ἄνω δι’ οὐρανοῦ ἄπεισι, πλέοντι κάτω κατὰ τὴν θάλατταν· οὕτω καὶ ὁ δημιουργὸς τὴν ὕλην, τοῦ μήτε διακροῦσαι μήτε ἀποπλαγχθῆναι αὐτήν, ἁρμονίᾳ ξυνδησάμενος αὐτὸς μὲν ὑπὲρ ταύτης ἵδρυται, οἷον ὑπὲρ νεὼς ἐπὶ θαλάττης, τῆς ὕλης· τὴν ἁρμονίαν δὲ ἰθύνει, ταῖς ἰδέαις οἰακίζων, βλέπει τε ἀντὶ τοῦ οὐρανοῦ εἰς τὸν ἄνω θεὸν προσαγόμενος αὐτοῦ τὰ ὄμματα, λαμβάνει τε τὸ μὲν κριτικὸν ἀπὸ τῆς θεωρίας, τὸ δὲ ὁρμητικὸν ἀπὸ τῆς ἐφέσεως.» | 18.24 And after other things he adds: “A helmsman carried in mid-ocean sitting high on the bench above the rudders directs the ship by the tillers, while his eyes and mind are stretched straight toward the ether unto high heavenly things; and his path goes upward through heaven while he sails below along the sea. So also the Demiurge—having bound matter with harmony that it might neither strike against nor stray away from Him—is Himself seated above it as above a ship on the sea of matter; and He directs the harmony, steering by the Forms (ideai), and looks instead of the sky toward the God above, drawing His eyes upward, receiving the critical power from contemplation, and the impelling power from desire.” |
| 18.25 Καὶ ὁ σωτήριος παρ’ ἡμῖν λόγος· «Οὐδέν,» φησί, «δύναται ὁ υἱὸς ποιεῖν ἀφ’ ἑαυτοῦ, ἐὰν μή τι βλέπῃ τὸν πατέρα ποιοῦντα.» Ἀλλὰ γὰρ τοσαῦτα καὶ περὶ τοῦδε ὁ Νουμήνιος. Ὅτι δὲ οὐκ οἰκεῖα, τὰ δὲ Πλάτωνι δοκοῦντα διεσάφει, οὐδὲν ἐπιλέγειν δεῖ ταῖς αὐτοῦ φωναῖς. | 18.25 And the saving Word among us says: “The Son can do nothing of Himself, unless He sees the Father doing it” [John 5:19]. But indeed, so much concerning this man Numenius. And that he was clarifying not his own opinions, but those that seemed true to Plato, there is no need to add to his own words. |
| 18.26 Ὁ δέ γε Πλάτων ὅτι μὴ πρῶτος ταῖσδε κέχρηται ταῖς ἐπιβολαῖς, φθάνουσι δ’ αὐτὸν προειληφότες Ἑβραίων οἱ σοφοί, δέδεικται διὰ τῶν ἐκτεθειμένων. Εἰκότως δῆτα καὶ τῶν νέων φιλοσόφων διαφανὴς γεγονὼς Ἀμέλιος, τῆς Πλάτωνος καὶ αὐτὸς, εἰ καί τις ἄλλος, ζηλωτὴς φιλοσοφίας, πλὴν ἀλλὰ βάρβαρον ὀνομάσας τὸν Ἑβραῖον θεολόγον, εἰ καὶ μὴ ἐξ ὀνόματος ἠξίωσε τοῦ εὐαγγελιστοῦ Ἰωάννου μνήμην ποιήσασθαι, ἐπιμαρτυρεῖ δ’ οὖν ὅμως ταῖς αὐτοῦ φωναῖς, αὐτὰ δὴ ταῦτα πρὸς ῥῆμα γράφων· | 18.26 But that Plato was not the first to use these approaches, but the wise men of the Hebrews anticipated and preceded him, has been shown through what has been set forth. Appropriately indeed, Amelius—who became conspicuous among the newer philosophers, being himself a zealot of Plato's philosophy if ever anyone was—though calling the Hebrew theologian a barbarian and not deeming the Evangelist John worthy of mention by name, nevertheless bears testimony to his words, writing these very things word for word: |
Chapter 19
In Chapters 19 and 20, Eusebius concludes his demonstration of how Greek philosophy—specifically Neoplatonism and Platonism—mirrors Hebrew and Christian doctrine regarding the divine hierarchy:
Amelius' Testimony to John's Gospel (19.1–19.3): Eusebius quotes the Platonist philosopher Amelius (a senior student of Plotinus), who explicitly quotes the Prologue of John's Gospel without naming John directly (referring to him as "the barbarian"). Amelius acknowledges that the Logos exists eternally, made all things, took on flesh to appear as a man, and returned to divinity after death—showing that pagan Platonists recognized the divine truth in Johannine theology.
Pauline Parallel (19.4–19.5): Eusebius pairs Amelius' reflection on John with the Apostle Paul's christological passage from Colossians 1:15–17 ("He is the image of the invisible God, the firstborn of all creation..."), concluding that the Greek conception of the Second Cause directly accords with Hebrew theology.
| 19.1 «Καὶ οὗτος ἄρα ἦν ὁ λόγος, καθ’ ὃν αἰεὶ ὄντα τὰ γινόμενα ἐγίνετο, ὡς ἂν καὶ ὁ Ἡράκλειτος ἀξιώσειε, καὶ νὴ Δί’ ὃν ὁ βάρβαρος ἀξιοῖ ἐν τῇ τῆς ἀρχῆς τάξει τε καὶ ἀξίᾳ καθεστηκότα πρὸς θεὸν εἶναι καὶ θεὸν εἶναι· δι’ οὗ πάνθ’ ἁπλῶς γεγενῆσθαι· ἐν ᾧ τὸ γενόμενον ζῶν καὶ ζωὴν καὶ ὂν πεφυκέναι· καὶ εἰς τὰ σώματα πίπτειν, καὶ σάρκα ἐνδυσάμενον φαντάζεσθαι ἄνθρωπον, μετὰ τοῦ καὶ τηνικαῦτα δεικνύειν τῆς φύσεως τὸ μεγαλεῖον· ἀμέλει καὶ ἀναλυθέντα πάλιν ἀποθεοῦσθαι, καὶ θεὸν εἶναι, οἷος ἦν πρὸ τοῦ εἰς τὸ σῶμα καὶ τὴν σάρκα καὶ τὸν ἄνθρωπον καταχθῆναι.» | 19.1 [Quoting Amelius]: “And this, then, was the Logos, according to whom, being eternal, the things that come to be were made, as Heraclitus also would maintain; and yes, by Zeus, the barbarian deems that, established in the rank and dignity of the Principle (archē), He is with God and is God; through whom simply all things came to be; in whom that which came to be has its nature as living, life, and existence; and that He fell into bodies and, having clothed Himself in flesh, appeared as a man, while showing even then the majesty of His nature; and indeed, having been released again, He is divine, and is God, such as He was before He was brought down into the body, the flesh, and the man.” |
| 19.2 Ταῦτα οὐκέτ’ ἐπεσκιασμένως, ἀλλ’ ἄντικρυς ἤδη γυμνῇ τῇ κεφαλῇ μεταπεφρασμένα ἐκ τῆς βαρβάρου θεολογίας δῆλα ἂν εἴη. Ὁ δέ γε βάρβαρος τίς ἦν αὐτῷ εἰ μὴ ὁ τοῦ σωτῆρος ἡμῶν εὐαγγελιστὴς Ἰωάννης, Ἑβραῖος ὢν ἐξ Ἑβραίων; | 19.2 That these things are no longer expressed obscurely, but outright and openly translated directly from the barbarian theology, is clear to all. And who was this 'barbarian' to him, if not our Savior's Evangelist John, an Hebrew of Hebrews? |
| 19.3 Ὅς που ἀρχόμενος τῆς οἰκείας γραφῆς ὧδέ πη θεολογεῖ· «Ἐν ἀρχῇ ἦν ὁ λόγος, καὶ ὁ λόγος ἦν πρὸς τὸν θεόν, καὶ θεὸς ἦν ὁ λόγος. Οὗτος ἦν ἐν ἀρχῇ πρὸς τὸν θεόν. Πάντα δι’ αὐτοῦ ἐγένετο, καὶ χωρὶς αὐτοῦ ἐγένετο οὐδὲ ἕν, ὃ γέγονεν. Ἐν αὐτῷ ζωὴ ἦν, καὶ ἡ ζωὴ ἦν τὸ φῶς τῶν ἀνθρώπων... Καὶ ὁ λόγος σὰρξ ἐγένετο, καὶ ἐσκήνωσεν ἐν ἡμῖν, καὶ ἐθεασάμεθα τὴν δόξαν αὐτοῦ, δόξαν ὡς μονογενοῦς παρὰ πατρός.» | 19.3 Who, beginning his own Gospel, expresses his theology in this manner: “In the beginning was the Word, and the Word was with God, and the Word was God. He was in the beginning with God. All things came into being through Him, and without Him not one thing came into being that has come into being. In Him was life, and the life was the light of men... And the Word became flesh and dwelt among us, and we beheld His glory, glory as of the only begotten from the Father” [John 1:1–4, 14]. |
| 19.4 Τοῦ δ’ αὐτοῦ πέρι καὶ ἄλλος Ἑβραίων θεόλογος ἐπάκουσον οἷα διέξεισιν· «Ὅς ἐστιν εἰκὼν τοῦ θεοῦ τοῦ ἀοράτου, πρωτότοκος πάσης κτίσεως, ὅτι ἐν αὐτῷ ἐκτίσθη τὰ πάντα τὰ ἐν τοῖς οὐρανοῖς καὶ τὰ ἐπὶ τῆς γῆς, εἴτε ὁρατὰ εἴτε ἀόρατα... καὶ τὰ πάντα δι’ αὐτοῦ συνέστηκε, καὶ τὰ πάντα ἐν αὐτῷ ἐκτίσθη, τά τε ὁρατὰ καὶ τὰ ἀόρατα.» | 19.4 Listen also to what another Hebrew theologian sets forth concerning the same One: “Who is the image of the invisible God, the firstborn of all creation; for in Him were all things created, those in the heavens and those on the earth, whether visible or invisible... and all things hold together through Him, and all things were created in Him, both visible and invisible” [Colossians 1:15–17]. |
| 19.5 Ἀλλὰ καὶ τὰ περὶ τῆς τοῦ δευτέρου αἰτίου συστάσεως τε καὶ οὐσιώσεως ὧδε τοῖς Ἑλλήνων σοφοῖς πρὸς τὰ Ἑβραίων συμπεφώνηται. Μετίωμεν δῆτα καὶ ἐφ’ ἕτερα. | 19.5 Thus, the teachings concerning the constitution and essential being of the Second Cause were agreed upon by the wise men of the Greeks in harmony with those of the Hebrews. Let us then pass on to other matters. |
Chapter 20
Eusebius concludes his demonstration of how Greek philosophy—specifically Neoplatonism and Platonism—mirrors Hebrew and Christian doctrine regarding the divine hierarchy:
The Holy Spirit & the Platonic Triad (20.1–20.2): Turning to the Third Person of the Trinity, Eusebius explains that Hebrew scriptures place the Holy Spirit third in order—above all created natures, but coming after the Father and the Son. He then cites Plato’s Second Letter to Dionysius (312e), where Plato cryptically speaks of a triad: "All things are around the King of all... secondary things around the second, and tertiary things around the third."
Interpretation of the Triad (20.3): Eusebius notes that Platonic commentators interpret this triad as the First God, the Second Cause, and the World Soul (as a third god). He contrasts this with divine revelation, which properly places Father, Son, and Holy Spirit in the principle (archē) of all things, before transitioning to his next topic: the nature of the Good.
| 20.1 Τῶν παρ’ Ἑβραίοις λογίων μετὰ τὸν περὶ πατρὸς καὶ υἱοῦ λόγον ἐν τρίτῃ τάξει τὸ ἅγιον πνεῦμα καταλεγόντων, καὶ τήν γε ἁγίαν καὶ μακαρίαν τριάδα τοῦτον ὑποτιθεμένων τὸν τρόπον, ὡς ἂν τῆς τρίτης δυνάμεως πᾶσαν ὑπερβεβηκυίας γενητὴν φύσιν, οὖσάν τε πρώτην μὲν τῶν διὰ τοῦ υἱοῦ συστασῶν νοερῶν οὐσιῶν, τρίτην δὲ ἀπὸ τοῦ πρώτου αἰτίου, θέα ὅπως καὶ ὁ Πλάτων τοιαῦτά τινα ᾐνίξατο διὰ τῆς πρὸς Διονύσιον ἐπιστολῆς λέγων· | 20.1 Since the divine oracles among the Hebrews enumerate the Holy Spirit in the third rank after the discourse concerning the Father and the Son, and lay down the holy and blessed Trinity in this manner—inasmuch as the Third Power surpasses all created nature, being the chief of the intellectual essences constituted through the Son, but third from the First Cause—see how Plato also riddles such things through his Letter to Dionysius, saying: |
| 20.2 «Φραστέον δή σοι δι’ αἰνιγμῶν, ἵν’ ἄν τι δέλτος ἢ πόντου ἢ γῆς ἐν πτυχαῖς πάθῃ, ὁ ἀναγνοὺς μὴ γνῷ. Ὧδε γὰρ ἔχει· περὶ τὸν πάντων βασιλέα πάντ’ ἐστί, καὶ ἐκείνου ἕνεκα πάντα, καὶ ἐκεῖνο αἴτιον ἀπάντων καλῶν· δεύτερον δὲ περὶ τὰ δεύτερα, καὶ τρίτον περὶ τὰ τρίτα. Ἡ οὖν ἀνθρωπίνη ψυχὴ περὶ αὐτὰ ὀρέγεται μαθεῖν ποῖα ἄττα ἐστί, βλέπουσα εἰς τὰ αὐτῆς συγγενῆ.» | 20.2 [Quoting Plato, Letter II]: “I must speak to you in riddles, so that if the tablet suffers any mishap in the folds of sea or land, he who reads it may not understand. For it stands thus: all things are around the King of all, and all things are for His sake, and He is the cause of all beautiful things; secondary things are around the second, and tertiary things around the third. Therefore, the human soul desires to learn what sort of things these are, looking toward the things that are akin to itself.” |
| 20.3 Ταῦτα οἱ τὸν Πλάτωνα διασαφεῖν πειρώμενοι ἐπὶ τὸν πρῶτον θεὸν ἀνάγουσιν, ἐπί τε τὸ δεύτερον αἴτιον καὶ τρίτον τὴν τοῦ κόσμου ψυχήν, θεὸν τρίτον καὶ αὐτὴν ὁριζόμενοι εἶναι· οἱ δέ γε θεῖοι λόγοι τὴν ἁγίαν καὶ μακαρίαν τριάδα, πατρὸς καὶ υἱοῦ καὶ ἁγίου πνεύματος, ἐν ἀρχῆς λόγῳ τάττουσι κατὰ τὰ ἀποδεδομένα. Ἕπεται τούτοις τὴν τοῦ ἀγαθοῦ ἐξετάσαι οὐσίαν. | 20.3 Those who attempt to explain Plato refer these statements to the First God, to the Second Cause, and thirdly to the Soul of the World, defining it also to be a third god; but the divine oracles place the holy and blessed Trinity—Father, Son, and Holy Spirit—in the account of the Principle (archē), according to the explanations given. It follows next upon these matters to examine the essence of the Good. |
Chapter 21
In this chapter, Eusebius examines how Platonism and Hebrew scripture concur on the unique nature of the Good (to Agathon) and its absolute transcendence over created reality:
Hebrew Scripture & Gospel Testimony (21.1): Eusebius cites Jeremiah (Lamentations 3:25), Psalm 106/107, and Jesus’ response to the rich young ruler ("Why do you ask me about what is good? No one is good except God alone") to prove that Hebrew revelation identifies absolute Goodness solely with God.
Plato's Timaeus & Republic (21.2–21.5): Eusebius adduces Plato's statement in Timaeus (29e) that the Creator made the world because He is good and free of envy. He then quotes the famous Sun Analogy from Republic VI (508b–509b): just as the sun bestows sight, light, and generation without being generation itself, so the Form of the Good bestows truth, knowledge, existence, and being upon intelligible entities, while existing "beyond being, surpassing it in dignity and power."
Eusebius' Theological Analysis (21.6–21.7): Eusebius argues that Plato's assertion—that intelligible realities receive their being from the Good—demonstrates that created realities are not co-essential with God nor unbegotten. Because God alone possesses Goodness by nature and exists beyond essence, He alone is properly God, whereas all derived entities receive their being and goodness from Him. Eusebius concludes by introducing Numenius' commentary On the Good.
| 21.1 Τῆς παρ’ Ἑβραίοις θείας γραφῆς διαφόρως τὴν τοῦ ἀγαθοῦ οὐσίαν καὶ αὐτὸ τὸ ἀγαθὸν οὐδὲν ἄλλο εἶναι ἢ θεὸν διδασκούσης, δι’ ὧν τέ φησιν· «Ἀγαθὸς κύριος πᾶσι τοῖς ὑπομένουσιν αὐτόν· ψυχῇ, ἣ ἐκζητήσει αὐτόν·» καὶ «Ἐξομολογεῖσθε τῷ κυρίῳ ὅτι ἀγαθός, ὅτι εἰς τὸν αἰῶνα τὸ ἔλεος αὐτοῦ·» δι’ ὧν τε ὁ σωτήριος λόγος πρὸς τὸν περὶ τοῦδε ἐρόμενον ἀπεφήνατο εἰπών· «Τί με ἐρωτᾷς περὶ τοῦ ἀγαθοῦ; Οὐδεὶς ἀγαθὸς εἰ μὴ εἷς ὁ θεός·» | 21.1 Since the divine Scripture among the Hebrews teaches in various places that the essence of the Good and the Good itself is nothing other than God—both through where it says: “Good is the Lord to those who wait for Him, to the soul that shall seek Him” [Lamentations 3:25], and “Give thanks to the Lord, for He is good, for His mercy endures forever” [Psalm 106:1]; and through where the saving Word declared to the one asking concerning this, saying: “Why do you ask me concerning the good? No one is good except God alone” [Matthew 19:17 / Luke 18:19]— |
| 21.2 ἔπακουσον τοῦ Πλάτωνος, ἅ φησιν ἐν Τιμαίῳ· «Λέγωμεν δὴ δι’ ἥντινα αἰτίαν γένεσιν καὶ τὸ πᾶν τόδε ὁ ξυνιστὰς ξυνέστησεν. Ἀγαθὸς ἦν· ἀγαθῷ δ’ οὐδεὶς περὶ οὐδενὸς οὐδέποτ’ ἐγγίνεται φθόνος. Τούτου δ’ ἐκτὸς ὢν πάντα ὅτι μάλιστα ἐβουλήθη γενέσθαι παραπλήσια ἑαυτῷ.» | 21.2 listen to what Plato says in the Timaeus: “Let us state, then, for what cause he who framed generation and this universe framed it. He was good; and in him that is good no envy concerning anything ever arises. And being far removed from this, he willed that all things should become as like unto himself as possible” [Timaeus 29e]. |
| 21.3 Καὶ ἐν τῇ Πολιτεία δὲ ταῦτά φησιν· «Ἆρ’ οὖν οὐ καὶ ὁ ἥλιος ὄψις μὲν οὐκ ἔστιν, αἴτιος δ’ ὢν αὐτῆς ὁρᾶται ὑπ’ αὐτῆς ταύτης; — Οὕτως, ἦ δ’ ὅς. — Τοῦτον τοίνυν, ἦν δ’ ἐγώ, φάναι με λέγειν τὸν τοῦ ἀγαθοῦ ἔκγονον, ὃν τὸ ἀγαθὸν ἐγέννησεν ἀνάλογον ἑαυτῷ, ὅ τί περ αὐτὸ ἐν τῷ νοητῷ τόπῳ πρός τε νοῦν καὶ τὰ νοούμενα, τοῦτον ἐν τῷ ὁρατῷ πρός τε ὄψιν καὶ τὰ ὁρώμενα.» | 21.3 And in the Republic he also says these things: “Is not the sun, then, though it is not sight, yet being the cause of sight, seen by this very sight itself? — It is so, said he. — Say then, said I, that this is what I mean by the offspring of the Good, which the Good begat analogous to itself: what the Good itself is in the intelligible realm with respect to intellect and intelligible things, this the sun is in the visible realm with respect to sight and visible things” [Republic VI, 508b–c]. |
| 21.4 Καὶ ἑξῆς ἐπιλέγει· «Τοῦτο τοίνυν τὸ τὴν ἀλήθειαν παρέχον τοῖς γιγνωσκομένοις καὶ τὸ γιγνώσκοντι τὴν δύναμιν ἀποδιδοῦν τὴν τοῦ ἀγαθοῦ ἰδέαν φάθι εἶναι.» Καὶ πάλιν φησί· | 21.4 And next he adds: “This, then, which imparts truth to the things known and renders to the knower the power to know, say that this is the Form (idea) of the Good” [Republic VI, 508e]. And again he says: |
| 21.5 «Τὸν ἥλιον τοῖς ὁρωμένοις οὐ μόνον, οἶμαι, τὴν τοῦ ὁρᾶσθαι δύναμιν παρέχειν φήσεις, ἀλλὰ καὶ τὴν γένεσιν καὶ αὔξην καὶ τροφήν, οὐ γένεσιν αὐτὸν ὄντα. — Πῶς γάρ; — Καὶ τοῖς γινωσκομένοις τοίνυν μὴ μόνον τὸ γινώσκεσθαι φάναι ὑπὸ τοῦ ἀγαθοῦ παρεῖναι, ἀλλὰ καὶ τὸ εἶναί τε καὶ τὴν οὐσίαν ὑπ’ ἐκείνου αὐτοῖς προσεῖναι, οὐκ οὐσίας ὄντος τοῦ ἀγαθοῦ, ἀλλ’ ἐπέκεινα οὐσίας πρεσβείᾳ καὶ δυνάμει ὑπερέχοντος.» | 21.5 “You will say, I think, that the sun provides to visible things not only the power of being seen, but also their generation, growth, and nourishment, though it is not generation itself. — How could it be? — Say then that to intelligible things not only is their being known present from the Good, but also that their existence and essence are present to them from it, though the Good is not an essence, but beyond essence, surpassing it in dignity and power” [Republic VI, 509b]. |
| 21.6 Σαφέστατα διὰ τούτων οὐ μόνον τὸ γινώσκεσθαι ταῖς νοηταῖς οὐσίαις, ἀλλὰ καὶ τὸ εἶναί τε καὶ τὴν οὐσίαν ἔχειν παρὰ τοῦ ἀγαθοῦ, δηλαδὴ τοῦ θεοῦ, φησὶν ὁ Πλάτων· τό τε ἀγαθὸν «μὴ εἶναι οὐσίαν, ἀλλ’ ἐπέκεινα τῆς οὐσίας, πρεσβείᾳ καὶ δυνάμει ὑπερέχον·» ὥστε μὴ ὁμοούσια αὐτὰ τίθεσθαι, ἀλλὰ μηδὲ ἀγέννητα νομίζειν, ὅτι δὴ καὶ τὸ εἶναι καὶ τὴν οὐσίαν εἴληφε παρὰ τοῦ μὴ ὄντος οὐσίας, ἀλλ’ ἐπέκεινα οὐσίας πρεσβείᾳ καὶ δυνάμει ὑπερέχοντος· ὃν δὴ καὶ μόνον εἰκότως θεὸν τὰ Ἑβραίων ἀναγορεύει λόγια, ὡς ἂν τοῖς πᾶσιν αἴτιον ὄντα. | 21.6 Most clearly through these words Plato states that intelligible essences have not only their being known, but also their existence and essence from the Good—that is to say, from God; and that the Good “is not an essence, but beyond essence, surpassing it in dignity and power.” Thus, one should not deem them co-essential (homoousia), nor consider them unbegotten, since indeed they received both existence and essence from Him who is not an essence, but beyond essence, surpassing it in dignity and power—whom alone the oracles of the Hebrews reasonably proclaim as God, as being the Cause of all things. |
| 21.7 Τὰ δὴ οὖν μήτε τὸ εἶναι μήτε τὴν οὐσίαν παρ’ ἑαυτῶν ἔχοντα, ἀλλὰ μηδὲ τῆς τἀγαθοῦ φύσεως ὄντα, οὐ δὴ εὔλογον θεοὺς ἡγεῖσθαι, οἷς μὴ φύσει τὸ ἀγαθὸν πρόσεστιν· ἐνὶ γὰρ τοῦτο μόνῳ καὶ οὐδενὶ ἄλλῳ ἀναθετέον, τῷ μόνῳ ἀγαθῷ, ὃ δὴ καὶ «ἐπέκεινα πάσης οὐσίας πρεσβείᾳ τε καὶ δυνάμει ὑπερέχον» θαυμασίως ὁ Πλάτων ἀνεφώνησε. Πάλιν δὲ καὶ ὁ Νουμήνιος ἐν τοῖς Περὶ τἀγαθοῦ, τὴν τοῦ Πλάτωνος διάνοιαν ἑρμηνεύων, τοῦτον διέξεισι τὸν τρόπον· | 21.7 Therefore, those things which have neither existence nor essence from themselves, nor belong to the nature of the Good, cannot reasonably be considered gods, since the Good does not belong to them by nature. For this must be attributed to One alone and to no other—to the only Good, which indeed Plato wondrously proclaimed as “beyond all essence, surpassing it in dignity and power.” And again Numenius also in his treatise On the Good, interpreting the thought of Plato, sets it forth in this manner: |
Chapter 22
In this chapter, Eusebius presents extensive quotations from Numenius of Apamea (On the Good, Books 1, 5, and 6) to demonstrate how Platonists conceived of the Good (to Agathon) in strict alignment with Hebrew and Christian theology:
The Solitary Vision of the Good (22.1–22.2): Numenius explains that while physical bodies can be known through sense perception and analogy, the Good cannot be grasped by any physical comparison. Like a watchman on a lookout catching a brief glimpse of a lonely fishing boat amidst the waves, one must retreat far from the senses into a divine, unspeakable solitude to commune "alone with the Alone" (monōi monon). He warns against mistaking earthly luxury or sensory shadows for the Good.
The Fourfold Hierarchy (22.3–22.5): Numenius establishes a clear distinction between the First God (the Good-in-itself, autoagathon, source of Being) and the Second God (the Demiurge, the Good by participation, source of Becoming). The First God is pure contemplation and the seed of essence, while the Second God imitates Him, fashioning both His own Form and the physical cosmos. Numenius summarizes this into four distinct entities:
1) The First God (Autoagathon / Absolute Good)
2) The Demiurge (Agathos / Good by imitation)
3) The Intelligible Being/Essence (Ousia)
4) The Sensible Cosmos (Kosmos, beautified by participating in the Good)
Intellectual Participation & Unity (22.6–22.10): Numenius asserts that entities participate in the Good solely through intellect (phronein). Since the Second God derives His goodness through participation in the First, the First God must be inherently the One and the Self-Good. He concludes by interpreting Plato's Timaeus ("He was good") and Republic ("the Form of the Good"), noting that just as individual horses or humans exist by participating in their Archetypal Form, the Demiurge is good because He participates in the First Intellect, who is the Archetype of Goodness itself.
| 22.1 «Τὰ μὲν οὖν σώματα λαβεῖν ἡμῖν ἔξεστι, σημαινομένοις ἔκ τε ὁμοίων ἀπό τε τῶν ἐν τοῖς παρακειμένοις γνωρισμάτων ἐνόντων· τὸ ἀγαθὸν δὲ οὐδενὸς ἐκ παρακειμένου οὐδ’ αὖ ἀπὸ ὁμοίου αἰσθητοῦ ἐστι λαβεῖν μηχανή τις οὐδεμία· ἀλλὰ δεήσει, οἷον εἴ τις ἐπὶ σκοπῇ καθήμενος, ναῦν ἁλιάδα βραχεῖάν τινα τούτων τῶν ἐπακτρίδων, τῶν μόνων, μίαν, μόνην, ἔρημον, μετακυμίοις ἐχομένην ὀξὺ δεδορκὼς, μιᾷ βολῇ κατεῖδε τὴν ναῦν, οὕτω δή τινα ἀπελθόντα πόρρω ἀπὸ τῶν αἰσθητῶν ὁμιλῆσαι τῷ ἀγαθῷ μόνῳ μόνον, ἔνθα μήτε τις ἄνθρωπος μήτε τι ζῷον ἕτερον, μηδὲ σῶμα μέγα μηδὲ σμικρόν, ἀλλά τις ἄφατος καὶ ἀδιήγητος ἀτεχνῶς ἐρημία θεσπέσιος, ἔνθα τοῦ ἀγαθοῦ ἤθη διατριβαί τε καὶ ἀγλαΐαι, αὐτὸ δὲ ἐν εἰρήνῃ, ἐν εὐμενείᾳ, τὸ ἤρεμον, τὸ ἡγεμονικόν, ἵλεων, ἐποχούμενον ἐπὶ τῇ οὐσίᾳ. | 22.1 [Quoting Numenius, On the Good, Book I]: “Now then, physical bodies we are able to grasp by indicating them both from things similar to them and from the characteristics present in nearby objects; but as for the Good, there is no device whatever to grasp it from any nearby object, nor again from any similar sensible thing. Rather, just as if someone sitting on a watchtower, looking keenly at a small fishing boat—one of those skiffs, solitary, alone, desolate, held between the waves—should catch sight of the boat in a single glance; so must one depart far from sensible things and commune with the Good alone with the Alone, where there is neither any man nor any other living creature, nor any body great or small, but simply an unspeakable, indescribable, truly divine solitude, where are the haunts, order, and splendors of the Good; and the Good itself in peace, in benevolence, serene, sovereign, gracious, riding upon True Being. |
| 22.2 Εἰ δέ τις πρὸς τοῖς αἰσθητοῖς λιπαρῶν τὸ ἀγαθὸν ἐφιπτάμενον φαντάζεται, κἄπειτα τρυφῶν οἴοιτο τῷ ἀγαθῷ ἐντετυχηκέναι, τοῦ παντὸς ἁμαρτάνει. Τῷ γὰρ ὄντι οὐ ῥᾳδίας, θείας δὲ πρὸς αὐτὸ δεῖ μεθόδου· καί ἐστι κράτιστον, τῶν αἰσθητῶν ἀμελήσαντι, νεανιευσαμένῳ πρὸς τὰ μαθήματα, τοὺς ἀριθμοὺς θεασαμένῳ, οὕτως ἐκμελετῆσαι μάθημα, τί ἐστι τὸ ὄν.» | 22.2 But if anyone, clinging persistently to sensible things, imagines that the Good floats near him, and then reveling in luxury thinks he has encountered the Good, he misses the mark entirely. For in truth, it requires no easy method, but a divine path to reach it; and it is best, having disregarded sensible things, having exerted oneself vigorously in the branch of learning (mathemata), having contemplated numbers, to cultivate thus the study: what True Being is.” |
| 22.3 Ταῦτα μὲν ἐν τῷ πρώτῳ· ἐν δὲ τῷ πέμπτῳ ταῦτά φησιν· «Εἰ δ’ ἐστὶ μὲν νοητὸν ἡ οὐσία καὶ ἡ ἰδέα, ταύτης δ’ ὡμολογήθη πρεσβύτερον καὶ αἴτιον εἶναι ὁ νοῦς, αὐτὸς οὗτος μόνος εὕρηται ὢν τὸ ἀγαθόν. Καὶ γὰρ εἰ ὁ μὲν δημιουργὸς θεός ἐστι γενέσεως, ἀρκεῖ τὸ ἀγαθὸν οὐσίας εἶναι ἀρχή. Ἀνάλογον δὲ τούτῳ μὲν ὁ δημιουργὸς θεός, ὢν αὐτοῦ μιμητής, τῇ δὲ οὐσίᾳ ἡ γένεσις· εἰκὼν γὰρ αὐτῆς ἐστι καὶ μίμημα. | 22.3 These things he says in the first book; and in the fifth book he says as follows: “Now if Being (Ousia) and the Form (Idea) are intelligible, and Intellect (Nous) is agreed to be prior to and the cause of this Being, then this Intellect itself alone is found to be the Good. For if the Demiurge is God of generation/becoming, it suffices that the Good is the principle of Being. Analogous to this, then, stands the creator God as an imitator of the Good, and generation stands to Being; for generation is an image and imitation of Being. |
| 22.4 Εἴπερ δὲ ὁ δημιουργὸς ὁ τῆς γενέσεως ἐστιν ἀγαθός, ἦ που ἔσται καὶ ὁ τῆς οὐσίας δημιουργὸς αὐτοάγαθον, σύμφυτον τῇ οὐσίᾳ. Ὁ γὰρ δεύτερος διττὸς ὢν αὐτοποιεῖ τήν τε ἰδέαν ἑαυτοῦ καὶ τὸν κόσμον, δημιουργὸς ὤν· ἔπειτα θεωρητικὸς ὅλως. | 22.4 If then the Demiurge of generation is good, surely the Demiurge of Being will be the Good-in-itself (Autoagathon), inherent in Being. For the Second God, being double, produces both His own Form and the cosmos, being a Demiurge; and subsequently, He is entirely contemplative. |
| 22.5 Συλλελογισμένων δ’ ἡμῶν, ὀνόματα τεσσάρων πραγμάτων τέσσαρα ἔστω ταῦτα· ὁ μὲν πρῶτος θεὸς αὐτοάγαθον· ὁ δὲ τούτου μιμητὴς δημιουργὸς ἀγαθός· ἡ δ’ οὐσία μία μὲν ἡ τοῦ πρώτου, ἑτέρα δὲ ἡ τοῦ δευτέρου· ἧς μίμημα ὁ καλὸς κόσμος, κεκαλλωπισμένος μετουσίᾳ τοῦ καλοῦ.» | 22.5 Reasoning thus, let there be four names for four things: the First God is the Good-in-itself (Autoagathon); the Demiurge, His imitator, is good; Being is one for the First, and another for the Second—of which the beautiful cosmos is an imitation, embellished by participation in the Beautiful.” |
| 22.6 Καὶ ἐν τῷ ἕκτῳ δὲ ἐπιλέγει· «Μετέχει δὲ αὐτοῦ τὰ μετέχοντα ἐν ἄλλῳ μὲν οὐδενί, ἐν δὲ μόνῳ τῷ φρονεῖν· ταύτῃ ἄρα καὶ τῆς τοῦ ἀγαθοῦ συμβάσεως ὀνίναιτ’ ἄν, ἄλλως δ’ οὔ. Καὶ μὲν δὴ τὸ φρονεῖν, τοῦτο δὴ συντετύχηκε μόνῳ τῷ πρώτῳ. Ὑφ’ οὗ οὖν τὰ ἄλλα ἀποχραίνεται καὶ ἀγαθοῦται, ἐὰν τοῦτο ἐκείνῳ μόνον μόνῳ προσῇ, ἀβελτέρας ἂν εἴη ψυχῆς ἔτι ἀμφιλογεῖν. | 22.6 And in the sixth book he adds: “Things that participate in Him participate in no other way than in thinking alone; in this way, therefore, one might profit from the attainment of the Good, but in no other way. And indeed this thinking belongs to the First God alone. By whom, then, other things are tinged and made good—if this belongs to Him alone as the solitary One—it would belong to a foolish soul to dispute it further. |
| 22.7 Εἰ γὰρ ἀγαθός ἐστιν ὁ δεύτερος οὐ παρ’ ἑαυτοῦ, παρὰ δὲ τοῦ πρώτου, πῶς οἷόν τε ὑφ’ οὗ μετουσίας ἐστὶν οὗτος ἀγαθὸς μὴ ἀγαθὸν εἶναι, ἄλλως τε κἂν τύχῃ αὐτοῦ ὡς ἀγαθοῦ μεταλαχὼν ὁ δεύτερος; | 22.7 For if the Second God is good not from Himself, but from the First, how is it possible that He through whose participation this Second God is good should not Himself be the Good—especially if it so happens that the Second God receives from Him as the Good? |
| 22.8 Οὕτω τοι ὁ Πλάτων ἐκ συλλογισμοῦ τῷ ὀξὺ βλέποντι ἀπέδωκε τὸ ἀγαθὸν ὅτι ἐστὶν ἕν.» Καὶ πάλιν ἐξῆς φησι· | 22.8 Thus indeed Plato through syllogism granted to him who sees keenly that the Good is One.” And again next he says: |
| 22.9 «Ταῦτα δὲ οὕτως ἔχοντα ἔθηκεν ὁ Πλάτων ἄλλῃ καὶ ἄλλῃ χωρίσας· ἰδίᾳ μὲν γὰρ τὸν κυκλικὸν ἐπὶ τοῦ δημιουργοῦ ἐγράψατο ἐν Τιμαίῳ εἰπών· "Ἀγαθὸς ἦν·" ἐν δὲ τῇ Πολιτείᾳ τὸ ἀγαθὸν εἶπεν ἀγαθοῦ ἰδέαν· ὡς δὴ τοῦ δημιουργοῦ ἰδέαν οὖσαν τὸ ἀγαθόν, ὅτι πέφανται ἡμῖν ἀγαθὸς μετουσίᾳ τοῦ πρώτου τε καὶ μόνου. | 22.9 “Plato set forth these matters in this way, having separated them here and there; for individually he wrote down the cyclical motion upon the Demiurge in the Timaeus, saying: 'He was good'; while in the Republic he called the Good the Form of the Good—as though the Good were the Form of the Demiurge, because He appears to us good by participation in the First and Only. |
| 22.10 Ὥσπερ γὰρ ἄνθρωποι μὲν λέγονται τυπωθέντες ὑπὸ τῆς ἀνθρώπου ἰδέας, βόες δ’ ὑπὸ τῆς βοός, ἵπποι δ’ ὑπὸ τῆς ἵππου ἰδέας· οὕτω καὶ εἰκότως ὁ δημιουργός, εἴπερ ἐστὶ μετουσίᾳ τοῦ πρώτου ἀγαθοῦ ἀγαθός, ἰδέα ἂν εἴη ὁ πρῶτος νοῦς, ὢν αὐτοάγαθον.» | 22.10 For just as men are said to be formed under the Form of Man, oxen under that of Ox, and horses under the Form of Horse; so also reasonably the Demiurge—if indeed He is good by participation in the First Good—would have as His Form the First Intellect, who is the Good-in-itself (Autoagathon).” |
Chapter 23
In this chapter, Eusebius addresses the Platonic doctrine of Archetypal Forms (Ideai) and intelligible paradigms, demonstrating how Plato and later Platonists derived these concepts from Moses and Hebrew prophecy:
Plato & Didymus on the Forms (23.1–23.6): Eusebius quotes Plato's Timaeus (30c–d, 31a) on the world being crafted as an image of an intelligible model. To clarify Plato's intention, he adduces Didymus (On the Doctrines of Plato), who explains that Forms are eternal, incorporeal archetypes—just as one seal makes many impressions, or one man yields many portraits, a single Form generates countless physical instances (man, horse, animal). The supreme Form is the archetype of the cosmos itself, shaped by God out of all essence.
Moses & Hebrew Prophecy (23.7–23.9): Eusebius demonstrates that Moses anticipated Plato by describing the creation of an incorporeal light, day, and night prior to the physical sun and stars (Genesis 1). Furthermore, the prophets speak of an incorporeal "Sun of Righteousness" (Malachi 4:2) and the ideal Form of Righteousness itself (Isaiah 41:2).
The Divine Word & Human Image (23.10–23.12): Eusebius cites the apostolic and prophetic writings (e.g., 1 Corinthians 1:30) identifying the substantial, incorporeal Word (Logos) of God as Wisdom, Righteousness, Sanctification, Life, and Truth. The material world and humanity are made according to these intelligible paradigms (Genesis 1:27; Psalm 38:7/39:6 LXX, "Man walks in an image"), leading directly into his upcoming citations from Philo of Alexandria.
| 23.1 «Οὕτω δὲ γεγενημένος (δῆλον δ’ ὅτι ὁ κόσμος) πρὸς τὸ λόγῳ καὶ φρονήσει περιληπτὸν καὶ κατὰ ταὐτὰ ἔχον δεδημιούργηται. Τούτων δὲ ὑπαρχόντων αὖ πᾶσα ἀνάγκη τόνδε τὸν κόσμον εἰκόνα τινὸς εἶναι. — Τὰ γὰρ δὴ νοητὰ ζῷα πάντα ἐκεῖνο περιλαβὸν ἔχει ἐν ἑαυτῷ, καθάπερ ὅδ’ ὁ κόσμος ἡμᾶς.» | 23.1 [Quoting Plato, Timaeus 30c–31a]: “Having come to be in this way, then (it is clear that he means the cosmos), it has been crafted in relation to that which is apprehended by reason and intelligence and which exists immutably. And these things being so, it is an absolute necessity that this cosmos is an image of something. — For that intelligible Living Being, encompassing all intelligible living creatures within itself, holds them just as this cosmos holds us.” |
| 23.2 Ταῦτα μὲν ὁ Πλάτων ἐν Τιμαίῳ. Τὴν δὲ τῶν εἰρημένων διάνοιαν ἐκ τῶν Διδύμῳ Περὶ τῶν ἀρεσκόντων Πλάτωνι συντεταγμένων ἐκθήσομαι· γράφει δὲ οὕτως· | 23.2 These things Plato says in the Timaeus. And I shall set forth the meaning of what has been said from the compilation of Didymus, On the Doctrines of Plato; and he writes as follows: |
| 23.3 «Τῶν κατὰ φύσιν αἰσθητῶν κατὰ γένος ὡρισμένα τινὰ παραδείγματα φάμενος εἶναι τὰς ἰδέας, ὧν τὰς ἐπιστήμας γίνεσθαι καὶ τοὺς ὅρους· παρὰ πάντας γὰρ ἀνθρώπους ἄνθρωπόν τινα νοεῖσθαι, καὶ παρὰ πάντας ἵππους ἵππον, καὶ κοινῶς παρὰ τὰ ζῷα ζῷον ἀγένητον καὶ ἄφθαρτον. | 23.3 “Saying that the Forms are certain fixed paradigms according to genus for sensible things according to nature, from which knowledge and definitions arise; for beyond all individual men a generic Man is conceived, and beyond all horses a Horse, and universally beyond living creatures an unbegotten and imperishable Living Creature. |
| 23.4 Ὃν τρόπον δὲ σφραγῖδος μιᾶς ἐκμαγεῖα γίνεσθαι πολλὰ καὶ συχνὰς εἰκόνας ἑνὸς ἀνδρός, οὕτως ἐκ μιᾶς ἑκάστης ἰδέας αἰσθητῶν σωμάτων φύσεις παμπληθεῖς, τῆς μὲν ἀνθρώπων ἀνθρώπους ἅπαντας, καὶ κατὰ τὸν αὐτὸν λόγον ἐπὶ τῶν ἄλλων τῶν κατὰ φύσιν. | 23.4 And in the manner that many impressions come from a single seal, and numerous portraits from one man, so from each single Form come vast multitudes of physical natures—from the Form of Man come all individual men, and by the same principle with all other natural entities. |
| 23.5 Εἶναι δὲ τὴν ἰδέαν ἀΐδιον οὐσίαν, αἰτίαν καὶ ἀρχὴν τοῦ ἕκαστον εἶναι τοιοῦτον οἵα ἐστὶν αὐτή. | 23.5 And the Form is an eternal essence, the cause and principle that each thing should be such as the Form itself is. |
| 23.6 Καθάπερ οὖν τὰ κατὰ μέρος ὥσπερ ἀρχέτυπα τῶν αἰσθητῶν προηγεῖσθαι σωμάτων, οὕτω καὶ τὴν πάσας ἐν ἑαυτῇ περιέχουσαν καλλίστην καὶ τελειοτάτην οὐσίαν ὑπάρχειν τοῦδε παράδειγμα τοῦ κόσμου· πρὸς γὰρ ταύτην ἀφομοιωθέντα ὑπὸ τοῦ δημιουργήσαντος αὐτὸν ἀπειργάσθαι θεοῦ κατὰ πρόνοιαν ἐκ τῆς πάσης οὐσίας.» | 23.6 Just as the particular archetypes precede sensible bodies, so too the most beautiful and most perfect essence, which contains all things in itself, exists as the paradigm of this cosmos; for fashioned in resemblance to this by the God who crafted it, the cosmos was completed according to providence out of all essence.” |
| 23.7 Ταῦτα καὶ ἀπὸ τοῦ δεδηλωμένου ἀνδρός. Φθάνει γε μὴν καὶ ταῦτα Μώσης ὁ πάνσοφος, πρὸ τοῦ φαινομένου ἡλίου καὶ ἄστρων καὶ πρὸ τοῦ ὁρωμένου οὐρανοῦ, ὃ δὴ στερέωμα καλεῖ, πρό τε τῆς καθ’ ἡμᾶς ξηρᾶς γῆς καὶ πρὸ τῆς παρ’ ἡμῖν ἡμέρας καὶ νυκτὸς φῶς ἕτερον παρὰ τὸ τοῦ ἡλίου ἡμέραν τε καὶ νύκτα καὶ τὰ λοιπὰ πρὸς τοῦ πανηγεμόνος καὶ αἰτίου τῶν ὅλων θεοῦ πεποιῆσθαι διδάσκων. | 23.7 These things come also from the aforementioned man. Yet all-wise Moses anticipated even these things, teaching that before the visible sun and stars, and before the visible heaven (which he calls the firmament), and before our dry land, and before our day and night, another light besides that of the sun, as well as day and night and the rest, were made by God, the supreme Ruler and Cause of all things. |
| 23.8 Ἀλλὰ καὶ οἱ μετὰ Μωσέα παῖδες Ἑβραίων ἥλιόν τινα εἶναι ἀσώματον οὐ πᾶσιν ὁρατὸν οὐδὲ θνητοῖς ὀφθαλμοῖς ὑπαγόμενον ὁρίζονται, ὡς ὁ προφήτης ἐκ προσώπου θεοῦ λέγων· «Τοῖς δὲ φοβουμένοις με ἀνατελεῖ ἥλιος δικαιοσύνης.» | 23.8 But the children of the Hebrews after Moses also define a certain incorporeal sun that is not visible to all nor subject to mortal eyes, as the prophet speaking in the person of God says: “To you who fear my name, the Sun of Righteousness shall arise” [Malachi 4:2]. |
| 23.9 Καὶ αὐτὴν δὲ δικαιοσύνην, οὐχὶ τὴν ποιὰν ἐν ἀνθρώποις, ἀλλὰ τὴν ταύτης ἰδέαν οἶδεν ἄλλος Ἑβραίων προφήτης, ὁ φήσας περὶ θεοῦ· «Τίς ἐξήγειρεν ἀπὸ ἀνατολῶν δικαιοσύνην; Ἐκάλεσεν αὐτὴν κατὰ πρόσωπον αὐτοῦ, καὶ πορεύσεται ὡς ἐνώπιον ἐθνῶν.» | 23.9 And another prophet of the Hebrews knows Righteousness itself—not the particular quality in men, but its Form—saying concerning God: “Who raised up Righteousness from the east? He called her to his presence, and she shall march before the nations” [Isaiah 41:2]. |
| 23.10 Καὶ λόγον δὲ θεῖον ἀσώματον καὶ οὐσιώδη ἀρτίως ἡμῖν ὁ κοινὸς ἡμῶν λόγος ἐν τοῖς πρόσθεν ἀπὸ τῆς Ἑβραίων παρίστη γραφῆς. Οὗ πέρι λόγου καὶ τάδε παρὰ τοῖς αὐτοῖς εἴρηται· «Ὃς ἐγεννήθη ἡμῖν σοφία ἀπὸ θεοῦ, δικαιοσύνη τε καὶ ἁγιασμὸς καὶ ἀπολύτρωσις.» | 23.10 Moreover, our common doctrine previously demonstrated to us from the Scripture of the Hebrews a divine, incorporeal, and substantial Word (Logos). Concerning which Word these things also are said among the same writers: “Who was made unto us wisdom from God, righteousness and sanctification and redemption” [1 Corinthians 1:30]. |
| 23.11 Λέγεται καὶ ζωή, λέγεται καὶ σοφία, λέγεται καὶ ἀλήθεια. Καὶ πάντα τὰ κατ’ οὐσίαν ὄντα τε καὶ ὑφεστῶτα οἱ Ἑβραίων λόγοι διδάσκουσιν (εἰ δὴ Ἑβραῖοι καὶ οἱ τοῦ σωτῆρος ἡμῶν ἀπόστολοί τε καὶ μαθηταί), ναὶ μὴν καὶ μυρίας ἄλλας ἀσωμάτους δυνάμεις, οὐρανοῦ τε ἐπέκεινα καὶ πάσης τῆς ὑλικῆς καὶ ῥοώδους οὐσίας· ὧν τὰς εἰκόνας ἐν τοῖς αἰσθητοῖς φασι κατατυπῶσαι· ἐφ’ ὧν ἤδη καὶ τοὔνομα τῆς εἰκόνος παρειλήφασι. | 23.11 He is called Life, He is called Wisdom, He is called Truth. And the teachings of the Hebrews (if indeed the apostles and disciples of our Savior are Hebrews) teach that all things exist and subsist according to essence; yes, and myriads of other incorporeal powers beyond heaven and beyond all material and fluxional essence—of which they say the images were stamped upon sensible things; and from these they have already adopted the name of 'image'. |
| 23.12 Τὸν γοῦν ἄνθρωπον εἰκόνα διαρρήδην νοητοῦ παραδείγματος εἶναι, καὶ πάντα τὸν ἀνθρώπων βίον ἐν εἰκόνι διαπορεύεσθαι εἰρήκασιν. Λέγει δ’ οὖν ὁ Μώσης· «Καὶ ἐποίησεν ὁ θεὸς τὸν ἄνθρωπον, κατ’ εἰκόνα θεοῦ ἐποίησεν αὐτόν.» Καὶ πάλιν ἄλλος Ἑβραῖος τὰ πάτρια φιλοσοφῶν· «Μέντοιγε,» φησίν, «ἐν εἰκόνι διαπορεύεται ἄνθρωπος.» Ἤδη δὲ καὶ οἱ τῶν ἱερῶν νόμων ἐξηγηταὶ ἐπάκουσον ὅπως τὴν ἐν τοῖς Μώσεως γράμμασι διάνοιαν σαφηνίζουσιν. Λέγει δ’ οὖν ὁ Ἑβραῖος Φίλων τὰ πάτρια διερμηνεύων αὐτοῖς ῥήμασιν· | 23.12 At any rate, they have explicitly said that man is the image of an intelligible paradigm, and that the whole life of men proceeds in an image. Thus Moses says: “And God made man, according to the image of God He made him” [Genesis 1:27]. And again another Hebrew, philosophizing upon his ancestral traditions, says: “Surely man walks about in an image” [Psalm 38:7 LXX / 39:6]. And now listen to how the interpreters of the sacred laws clarify the thought in the writings of Moses. At any rate, Philo the Hebrew, interpreting his ancestral traditions, speaks in these exact words: |
Chapter 24
In this chapter, Eusebius presents extensive passages from Philo of Alexandria (De Opificio Mundi 15–36) to demonstrate how Jewish theology synthesizes the Creation account of Genesis with the doctrine of the Intelligible Realm (Kosmos Noētos):
The Intelligible Cosmos as the Divine Logos (24.1–24.3): Philo argues that the intelligible world is nothing other than the Logos (Word/Reason) of God engaged in world-creation, just as an ideal city exists first as the plan within an architect's mind. Because man is made "in the image of God," the visible world—which is far greater than man—must be an image of a divine image, shaped according to the primordial seal and archetype of all Forms: the Divine Logos.
Creation Outside of Temporal Time (24.4–24.6): Philo explains that "In the beginning" (In principio) does not designate a temporal starting point, as time did not exist prior to the motion of the created universe. Rather, "beginning" signifies numerical priority (prōton), indicating the priority of the incorporeal archetype over physical matter.
The Incorporeal Archetypes of Creation (24.7–24.10): Philo traces the creation of incorporeal realities before their physical counterparts: incorporeal heaven, invisible earth, ideal darkness (air/void), abyss, water, spirit (pneuma), and an incorporeal, intelligible Light (phōs). This transcendent Light—an image of the Divine Logos—serves as the celestial source (panaugeia) from which the visible sun, moon, and stars draw their dimmer, material rays.
Day One and the Physical Firmament (24.11–24.12): Philo notes that Scripture calls the first day "Day One" (hēmera mia) rather than "First Day" to signify the unique, solitary nature of the intelligible world. Following the setup of the incorporeal world within the Divine Logos, God creates the physical sky, appropriately calling it the "firmament" (stereōma) because physical bodies are three-dimensional and solid (stereo-) in contrast to the immaterial realm.
| 24.1 «Εἰ δέ τις ἐθελήσειε γυμνότερον χρήσασθαι τοῖς ὀνόμασιν, οὐδὲν ἂν ἕτερον εἴποι τὸν νοητὸν κόσμον ἢ θεοῦ λόγον ἤδη κοσμοποιοῦντος. Οὐδὲ γὰρ ἡ νοητὴ πόλις ἕτερόν τί ἐστιν ἢ ὁ τοῦ ἀρχιτέκτονος λογισμός, ἤδη τὴν νοητὴν πόλιν κτίζειν διανοουμένου. | 24.1 [Quoting Philo of Alexandria, De Opificio Mundi 15–36]: “Now if one should wish to use terms in a more plain and unadorned manner, he would say that the intelligible world is nothing other than the Reason (Logos) of God when He is already engaged in creation. For neither is the intelligible city anything other than the reasoning of the architect who is already intending to build the intelligible city. |
| 24.2 Τὸ δὲ δόγμα τοῦτο Μώσεώς ἐστιν, οὐκ ἐμόν. Τὴν γοῦν ἀνθρώπου γένεσιν ἀναγράφων ἐν τοῖς ἔπειτα διαρρήδην ὁμολογεῖ, ὡς ἄρα κατ’ εἰκόνα θεοῦ διετυπώθη. | 24.2 And this doctrine is Moses', not mine. At any rate, in recording the creation of man in what follows, he explicitly agrees that man was formed 'according to the image of God' [Gen. 1:27]. |
| 24.3 Εἰ δὲ τὸ μέρος εἰκὼν εἰκόνος, δηλονότι καὶ τὸ ὅλον εἶδος σύμπας οὗτος ὁ αἰσθητὸς κόσμος, εἰ μείζων τῆς ἀνθρωπίνης ἐστί, μίμημα θείας εἰκόνος δηλονότι· καὶ ἡ ἀρχέτυπος σφραγίς, ὅν φαμεν νοητὸν εἶναι κόσμον, αὐτὸς ἂν εἴη τὸ παράδειγμα, ἀρχέτυπος ἰδέα τῶν ἰδεῶν, ὁ θεοῦ λόγος. | 24.3 But if the part is an image of an image, it is evident that the whole form—this entire sensible world, being greater than human nature—is clearly an imitation of the divine image; and the archetypal seal, which we call the intelligible world, would itself be the paradigm, the archetypal Form of Forms, the Logos of God. |
| 24.4 Φησὶ δ’ ὡς ἐν ἀρχῇ ἐποίησεν ὁ θεὸς τὸν οὐρανὸν καὶ τὴν γῆν, τὴν ἀρχὴν παραλαμβάνων οὐχ, ὡς οἴονταί τινες, τὴν κατὰ χρόνον· (χρόνος γὰρ οὐκ ἦν πρὸ κόσμου·) ἀλλ’ ἢ σὺν αὐτῷ γέγονεν, ἢ μετ’ αὐτόν. | 24.4 And he says that 'In the beginning God made the heaven and the earth' [Gen. 1:1], taking 'beginning' not, as some suppose, in a temporal sense; for time did not exist before the cosmos, but either came to be along with it, or after it. |
| 24.5 Ἐπεὶ γὰρ διάστημα τῆς τοῦ κόσμου κινήσεώς ἐστιν ὁ χρόνος, πρότερον δὲ τοῦ κινουμένου κίνησις οὐκ ἂν γένοιτο, ἀλλ’ ἢ ἀναγκαῖον αὐτὴν ὕστερον ἢ ἅμα συνίστασθαι, ἀναγκαῖον ἄρα καὶ τὸν χρόνον ἢ ἰσήλικα κόσμου γεγονέναι, ἢ νεώτερον ἐκείνου, πρεσβύτερον δὲ ἀποφαίνεσθαι τολμᾶν ἀφιλόσοφον. | 24.5 For since time is the interval of the motion of the cosmos, and motion could not exist prior to that which is moved, but must of necessity arise either after it or simultaneously with it, it is necessary that time also should be either coeval with the cosmos or younger than it; and to dare to declare it older is unphilosophical. |
| 24.6 Εἰ δ’ ἀρχὴ μὴ παραλαμβάνεται τανῦν ἡ κατὰ χρόνον, εἰκὸς ἂν εἴη μηνύεσθαι τὴν κατ’ ἀριθμόν, ὡς τὸ 'ἐν ἀρχῇ ἐποίησεν' ἴσον εἶναι τῷ 'πρῶτον ἐποίησε τὸν οὐρανόν'. | 24.6 If then 'beginning' is not taken at present in a temporal sense, it would be natural that numerical order is indicated, so that 'In the beginning He made' is equivalent to 'First He made the heaven'. |
| 24.7 Εἶθ’ ἑξῆς λέγει· «Πρῶτον οὖν ὁ ποιῶν ἐποίει οὐρανὸν ἀσώματον καὶ γῆν ἀόρατον καὶ ἀέρος ἰδέαν καὶ κενοῦ· ὧν τὸ μὲν ἐπεφήμισε σκότος, ἐπειδὴ μέλας ὁ ἀὴρ τῇ φύσει· τὴν δὲ ἄβυσσον· πολύβυθον γὰρ τό γε κενὸν καὶ ἀχανές. | 24.7 Then next he says: 'First, then, the Creator made an incorporeal heaven and an invisible earth and the idea of air and void; of which the one He called darkness, since air is black by nature, and the other the abyss, for the void is deep and gaping. |
| 24.8 Εἶθ’ ὕδατος ἀσώματον οὐσίαν καὶ πνεύματος, καὶ ἐπὶ πᾶσιν ἑβδόμου φωτός, ὃ πάλιν ἀσώματον ἦν, καὶ νοητὸν ἡλίου παράδειγμα, καὶ πάντων ὅσα φωσφόρα ἄστρα κατὰ τὸν οὐρανὸν ἔμελλε συνίστασθαι. | 24.8 Then the incorporeal essence of water and spirit, and upon all these a seventh, light, which again was incorporeal and an intelligible paradigm of the sun and of all the light-bearing stars that were to be established throughout heaven. |
| 24.9 Προνομίας δὲ τό τε πνεῦμα καὶ τὸ φῶς ἠξιοῦτο· τὸ μὲν γὰρ ὠνόμασε θεοῦ, διότι ζωτικώτατον τὸ πνεῦμα, ζωῆς δὲ θεὸς αἴτιος· | 24.9 And both spirit and light were deemed worthy of preeminence; for the one He named "of God", because spirit is most vital, and God is the cause of life; |
| 24.10 Τὸ δὲ φῶς, ὅτι ὑπερβάλλον καλόν· τοσούτῳ γὰρ τὸ νοητὸν τοῦ ὁρατοῦ λαμπρότερόν τε καὶ αὐγοειδέστερον, ὅσῳπερ ἥλιος, οἶμαι, σκότους καὶ ἡμέρα νυκτός, καὶ τὰ κριτήρια νοῦς, ὁ τῆς ὅλης ψυχῆς ἡγεμών, ὀφθαλμῶν σώματος. Τὸ δὲ ἀόρατον καὶ νοητὸν φῶς ἐκεῖνο θείου λόγου γέγονεν εἰκὼν τοῦ διερμηνεύσαντος τὴν γένεσιν αὐτοῦ· καὶ ἔστιν ὑπερουράνιος ἀστήρ, πηγὴ τῶν αἰσθητῶν ἀστέρων, ἣν οὐκ ἂν ἀπὸ σκοποῦ καλέσειέν τις παναύγειαν, ἀφ’ ἧς ἥλιος καὶ σελήνη καὶ οἱ ἄλλοι πλανῆται καὶ ἀπλανεῖς ἀρύονται, καθ’ ὅσον ἑκάστῳ δύναμις, τὰ πρέποντα φέγγη, τῆς ἀμιγοῦς καὶ καθαρᾶς αὐγῆς ἐκείνης ἀμαυρουμένης, οὗ ἂν ἄρξηται τρέπεσθαι κατὰ τὴν ἐκ νοητοῦ πρὸς αἰσθητὸν μεταβολήν. Εἰλικρινὲς γὰρ οὐδὲν τῶν ἐν αἰσθήσει. | 24.10 and light, because it is supremely beautiful. For by as much as the intelligible is brighter and more radiant than the visible, by so much, I think, is the sun brighter than darkness and day than night, and intellect—the ruler of the whole soul—brighter than the eyes of the body. And that invisible and intelligible light has become an image of the divine Logos who interpreted its generation; and it is a super-celestial star, the fountain of the sensible stars, which one might not inappropriately call all-radiant (panaugeia), from which the sun and moon and the other planets and fixed stars draw, according to each one's capacity, their proper beams, that unmixed and pure radiance being dimmed wherever it begins to turn according to the change from intelligible to sensible. For nothing in sense-perception is pure. |
| 24.11 Καὶ μετὰ βραχέα ἐπιλέγει· «Ἐπεὶ δὲ φῶς μὲν ἐγένετο, σκότος δ’ ἀνεχώρησεν, ὅροι δ’ ἐν τοῖς μεταξὺ διαστήμασιν ἐπάγησαν ἑσπέρα τε καὶ πρωΐα, κατ’ ἀναγκαῖον τοῦ χρόνου μέτρον ἀπετελεῖτο εὐθύς, ὃ καὶ ἡμέραν καλῶς ποιῶν ἐκάλεσεν· καὶ ἡμέραν οὐχὶ πρώτην, ἀλλὰ μίαν, ἣ λέλεκται διὰ τὴν τοῦ νοητοῦ κόσμου μόνωσιν, μοναδικὴν ἔχοντος φύσιν. | 24.11 And after a short space he adds: 'And when light came to be and darkness withdrew, and boundaries were set in the intervening spaces—evening and morning—there was immediately completed according to a necessary measure of time that which He rightly called Day; and Day not "first", but "One", which is so called because of the solitude of the intelligible world, which possesses a monadic nature. |
| 24.12 Ὁ μὲν οὖν ἀσώματος κόσμος ἤδη πέρας εἶχεν, ἱδρυθεὶς ἐν τῷ θείῳ λόγῳ· ὁ δ’ αἰσθητὸς πρὸς παράδειγμα τούτου ἐτελειογονεῖτο· καὶ πρῶτον αὐτοῦ τῶν μερῶν, ὃ καὶ πάντων ἄριστον, ἐποίει τὸν οὐρανὸν ὁ δημιουργός, ὃν ἐτύμως στερέωμα προσηγόρευσεν, ἅτε σωματικὸν ὄντα. Τὸ γὰρ σῶμα φύσει στερεόν, ὅ τι περ καὶ τριχῇ διαστατόν. Στερεοῦ δὲ καὶ σώματος ἔννοια τίς ἑτέρα πλὴν τὸ πάντῃ διεστηκός; Εἰκότως οὖν ἀντιθεὶς τῷ νοητῷ καὶ ἀσωμάτῳ τὸν αἰσθητὸν καὶ σωματοειδῆ, τοῦτον στερεὸν ἐκάλεσεν.» Ταῦτα ὁ Φίλων. Συνᾴδει δὲ αὐτῷ καὶ ὁ Κλήμης ἐν τῷ ἕκτῳ Στρωματεῖ λέγων ὧδε· | 24.12 The incorporeal world, then, had already reached its completion, established in the Divine Logos; while the sensible world was being brought to perfection according to this paradigm. And as the first of its parts, which is also the best of all, the Creator made the sky, which He appropriately named the firmament (stereōma), inasmuch as it is corporeal. For body is by nature solid (stereon), as being three-dimensional. And what other conception is there of a solid body except that which is extended in every direction? Reasonably, therefore, setting the sensible and body-like over against the intelligible and incorporeal, He called this the firmament.' Such are the words of Philo. And Clement also agrees with him in the sixth book of his Stromateis, speaking as follows:” |
Chapter 25
In this chapter, Eusebius cites Clement of Alexandria (Stromateis VI.16) to demonstrate that the "barbarian" (Hebrew) philosophy uniquely recognized the dual structure of reality—the intelligible realm (kosmos noētos) and the sensible realm (kosmos aisthētos):
The Monad and the Hexad (25.1–25.2): Clement aligns the intelligible world with the Monad (unity, invisible heaven, holy earth, intelligible light) and the physical world with the Hexad (6-day creation; a generative, fertile number in Pythagorean thought representing the solid sky, visible earth, and physical light).
Plato's Debt to Moses (25.3–25.4): Clement asks whether Plato derived his doctrine of Forms—placing the archetypal Forms of living creatures in the intelligible world while fashioning physical genera after them—directly from Moses' Creation narrative. He notes that Moses' account of the body being formed from earth and the rational soul being breathed in from above corresponds to Plato's description of the earthly "tent" (skēnos).
The Divine Image and the Human Intellect (25.5): Clement explains that the sensory organs centered in the face mark the soul's ingress into the primal man. He establishes a hierarchy of images: the divine, impassible Logos is the direct Image of God, while the human intellect (nous) is an "image of an image" (eikōn eikonos).
| 25.1 «Κόσμον τε αὖθις τὸν μὲν νοητὸν οἶδεν ἡ βάρβαρος φιλοσοφία, τὸν δὲ αἰσθητόν· τὸν μὲν ἀρχέτυπον, τὸν δὲ εἰκόνα τοῦ καλοῦ παραδείγματος. Καὶ τὸν μὲν ἀνατίθησι μονάδι, ὡς ἂν νοητόν, τὸν δὲ αἰσθητὸν ἑξάδι· γάμος γὰρ παρὰ τοῖς Πυθαγορείοις, ὡς ἂν γόνιμος ἀριθμός, ἡ ἑξὰς καλεῖται. | 25.1 [Quoting Clement of Alexandria, Stromateis VI.16]: “Again, the barbarian philosophy knows one world as intelligible and another as sensible—the one an archetype, the other an image of the beautiful paradigm. And it assigns the former to the Monad, inasmuch as it is intelligible, and the sensible world to the Hexad; for among the Pythagoreans the number six is called 'marriage', as being a fertile number. |
| 25.2 Καὶ ἐν μὲν τῇ μονάδι συνίστησιν οὐρανὸν ἀόρατον καὶ γῆν ἁγίαν καὶ φῶς νοητόν. "Ἐν ἀρχῇ γάρ," φησίν, "ἐποίησεν ὁ θεὸς τὸν οὐρανὸν καὶ τὴν γῆν· ἡ δὲ γῆ ἦν ἀόρατος. Εἶτ’ ἐπιφέρει· 'καὶ εἶπεν ὁ θεός, γενέσθω φῶς, καὶ ἐγένετο φῶς.'" Ἐν δὲ τῇ κοσμογονίᾳ τῇ αἰσθητῇ στερεὸν οὐρανὸν δημιουργεῖ—τὸ δὲ στερεὸν αἰσθητόν—γῆν τε ὁρατὴν καὶ φῶς βλεπόμενον. | 25.2 And in the Monad it establishes an invisible heaven, a holy earth, and an intelligible light. For he says: 'In the beginning God made the heaven and the earth; and the earth was invisible.' Then he adds: 'And God said, Let there be light, and there was light.' But in the creation of the sensible world He crafts a solid heaven—and the solid is sensible—a visible earth, and a seen light. |
| 25.3 Ἆρ’ οὐ δοκεῖ σοι ἐντεῦθεν ὁ Πλάτων ζῴων ἰδέας ἐν τῷ νοητῷ ἀπολείπειν κόσμῳ καὶ τὰ εἴδη τὰ αἰσθητὰ κατὰ τὰ γένη δημιουργεῖν τὰ νοητά; | 25.3 Does it not seem to you that Plato derived from here his ideas of living creatures in the intelligible world, and fashioned the sensible species according to their intelligible genera? |
| 25.4 Εἰκότως ἄρα ἐκ γῆς μὲν τὸ σῶμα διαπλάττεσθαι λέγει Μώσης, ὃ γήινον φησιν ὁ Πλάτων σκῆνος, ψυχὴν δὲ τὴν λογικὴν ἄνωθεν ἐμπνευσθῆναι ὑπὸ θεοῦ εἰς πρόσωπον. | 25.4 Reasonably, therefore, Moses says that the body was molded from the earth—which Plato calls an earthly 'tent' (skēnos)—while the rational soul was breathed in from above by God into the face. |
|
25.5
Ἐνταῦθα γὰρ τὸ ἡγεμονικὸν ἱδρῦσθαι λέγουσι, τὴν διὰ τῶν αἰσθητηρίων ἐπεισόδιον τῆς ψυχῆς ἐπὶ τοῦ πρωτοπλάστου εἴσοδον ἑρμηνεύοντες, διὸ καὶ κατ’ εἰκόνα καὶ καθ’ ὁμοίωσιν τὸν ἄνθρωπον γεγονέναι. Εἰκὼν μὲν γὰρ θεοῦ λόγος ὁ θεῖος καὶ βασιλικός, ἄνθρωπος ἀπαθής, εἰκὼν δὲ εἰκόνος ἀνθρώπινος νοῦς.»
Ἀκούσωμεν δὲ καὶ τῶν ῥηθησομένων. |
25.5
For there they say the ruling faculty (hēgemonikon) is seated, interpreting the soul's ingress into the first-formed man through the sensory organs; wherefore also man was made 'according to the image and likeness' [Gen. 1:26]. For the divine and royal Logos, the impassible man, is the image of God, while the human intellect (nous) is an image of an image.”
And let us hear also what shall be said next. |
Chapter 26
In this chapter, Eusebius argues that Plato’s doctrine of world-governing soul powers reflects Hebrew Scripture:
Plato's Dual Souls / World Powers (26.1–26.3): Citing Plato's Laws (Book X, 896e–898c, 906a–b), Eusebius highlights Plato's assertion that the universe is governed not by a single soul, but by at least two distinct forces: one beneficent and one capable of producing the opposite. Plato describes an "immortal battle" between good and evil, noting that humans, gods, and spirits are allies in this struggle.
The Hebrew Antecedents (26.4–26.6): Eusebius claims Plato inherited this concept from Hebrew tradition, which predated him by millennia. He cites the Book of Job (Job 1:6) to show the contrast between the "angels of God" (good powers) and the "devil" (diabolos, the opposing power), as well as Psalm 103:4 (LXX / Ps 104:4) regarding divine spirits and ministers.
Spiritual Warfare & Cosmic Guardians (26.7–26.8): Citing the New Testament (Ephesians 6:12), Eusebius notes the biblical view of spiritual warfare against rulers of darkness. Finally, he compares Plato's assertion that "we are possessions of gods and spirits" to Deuteronomy 32:8 (LXX), where the Most High divided the nations according to the number of the angels of God.
| 26.1 Ἔτι πρὸς τούτοις ὁ Πλάτων τοῖς Ἑβραίων ἐπακολουθήσας λόγοις οὐ μόνον ἀσωμάτους καὶ ἀγαθὰς δυνάμεις, ἀλλὰ καὶ ἐναντίας φησὶν εἶναι, ὧδέ πῃ γράφων ἐν τῷ δεκάτῳ τῶν Νόμων· | 26.1 In addition to these things, Plato, following the teachings of the Hebrews, asserts that there are not only incorporeal and good powers, but also opposing ones, writing somewhat as follows in the tenth book of the Laws [896e–898c]: |
| 26.2 «Ψυχὴν διοικοῦσαν καὶ ἐνοικοῦσαν τοῖς πάντῃ κινουμένοις πῶς οὐ καὶ τὸν οὐρανὸν ἀνάγκη διοικεῖν φάναι; — Τί μήν; — Μίαν, ἢ πλείους; — Πλείους, ἐγὼ ὑπὲρ σφῶν ἀποκρινοῦμαι· δυοῖν μέν που ἔλαττον μηδὲν τιθῶμεν, τῆς τε εὐεργέτιδος καὶ τῆς τἀναντία δυναμένης ἐξεργάζεσθαι.» | 26.2 “Must we not of necessity say that the Soul which directs and dwells in all things that move everywhere also directs the heaven? — How could it be otherwise? — Is it one Soul, or more than one? — More than one; I shall answer on your behalf. Let us set down no fewer than two at any rate: the beneficent one, and that which is capable of effecting the opposite.” |
| 26.3 Εἶθ’ ὑποβάς φησιν· «Ἐπειδὴ γὰρ συνεχωρήσαμεν ἡμῖν αὐτοῖς εἶναι μὲν τὸν οὐρανὸν πολλῶν μεστὸν ἀγαθῶν, εἶναι δὲ καὶ τῶν ἐναντίων, πλειόνων δὲ τῶν μή, μάχη δή, φαμέν, ἀθάνατός ἐσθ’ ἡ τοιαύτη καὶ φυλακῆς θαυμαστῆς δεομένη. Ξύμμαχοι δὲ ἡμῖν θεοί τε καὶ δαίμονες, ἡμεῖς δ’ αὖ κτήματα θεῶν καὶ δαιμόνων.» | 26.3 Then lower down he says [906a–b]: “For since we have agreed among ourselves that the heaven is full of many good things, but also of the opposite, and more of those that are not good, such a battle, we say, is immortal and stands in need of wondrous vigilance. And the gods and spirits (daimones) are our allies, while we in turn are the possessions of gods and spirits.” |
| 26.4 Πόθεν καὶ ταῦτα τῷ Πλάτωνι ἐγὼ μὲν οὐκ ἂν ἔχοιμι φράζειν· ὃ δ’ ἔχω φάναι ἀληθές, μυρίοις πρόσθεν ἢ Πλάτωνα γενέσθαι χρόνοις καὶ τοῦθ’ Ἑβραίοις ἀνωμολογῆσθαι τὸ δόγμα. | 26.4 From where these ideas came to Plato I could not say; but what I can state as true is that many thousands of ages before Plato was born, this doctrine was agreed upon among the Hebrews. |
| 26.5 Λέγει δ’ οὖν ἡ παρ’ αὐτοῖς γραφή· «Καὶ ἦν ὡς ἡ ἡμέρα αὕτη, καὶ ἦλθον οἱ ἄγγελοι τοῦ θεοῦ παραστῆναι ἐνώπιον τοῦ θεοῦ· καὶ ὁ διάβολος ἦλθεν ἐν μέσῳ αὐτῶν, περιελθὼν τὴν γῆν καὶ ἐμπεριπατήσας αὐτήν,» διάβολον μὲν τὴν ἐναντίαν δύναμιν, ἀγγέλους δὲ θεοῦ τὰς ἀγαθὰς προσειποῦσα. | 26.5 At any rate, the Scripture among them says: “And it was as this day came, and the angels of God came to stand before God; and the devil also came in the midst of them, having gone around the earth and walked about in it” [Job 1:6], addressing the opposing power as the “devil” (diabolos), and the good powers as “angels of God”. |
| 26.6 Ταύτας δὲ τὰς ἀγαθὰς δυνάμεις καὶ πνεύματα θεῖα καὶ λειτουργοὺς θεοῦ προσαγορεύει ἐν οἷς φησιν· «Ὁ ποιῶν τοὺς ἀγγέλους αὐτοῦ πνεύματα, καὶ τοὺς λειτουργοὺς αὐτοῦ πυρὸς φλόγα.» | 26.6 And these good powers it calls divine spirits and ministers of God, wherein it says: “He who makes His angels spirits, and His ministers a flame of fire” [Ps. 103:4 LXX / 104:4]. |
| 26.7 Ἀλλὰ καὶ τὴν διαμάχην τῶν ἐναντίων ὧδε παρίστησιν ὁ φήσας· «Οὐκ ἔστιν ἡμῖν ἡ πάλη πρὸς αἷμα καὶ σάρκα, ἀλλὰ πρὸς τὰς ἀρχάς, πρὸς τὰς ἐξουσίας, πρὸς τοὺς κοσμοκράτορας τοῦ σκότους τοῦ αἰῶνος τούτου, πρὸς τὰ πνευματικὰ τῆς πονηρίας ἐν τοῖς ἐπουρανίοις.» | 26.7 Moreover, he who declared the following presents the conflict of the opposing powers thus: “Our struggle is not against blood and flesh, but against the principalities, against the powers, against the world-rulers of the darkness of this age, against the spiritual forces of wickedness in the heavenly places” [Eph. 6:12]. |
| 26.8 Ἄντικρυς δ’ ἔοικεν ὁ Πλάτων τὸ Μώσεως λόγιον μεταφράζειν τὸ φῆσαν· «Ὅτε διεμέριζεν ὁ ὕψιστος ἔθνη, ὡς διέσπειρεν υἱοὺς Ἀδάμ, ἔστησεν ὅρια ἐθνῶν κατὰ ἀριθμὸν ἀγγέλων θεοῦ,» δι’ ὧν κτήματα θεῶν καὶ δαιμόνων τὸ πᾶν γένος ἀνθρώπων εἶναι ὡρίσατο. | 26.8 And Plato seems outright to be translating the oracle of Moses which states: “When the Most High divided the nations, when He scattered the sons of Adam, He set the boundaries of the nations according to the number of the angels of God” [Deut. 32:8 LXX], by which he determined that the whole human race is the possession of gods and spirits. |
Chapter 27
In this chapter, Eusebius demonstrates how Plato's doctrine of the immortality and nature of the soul directly parallels Mosaic teaching:
The Soul as the Divine Image (27.1–27.5): Citing Genesis 1:26–27 and Genesis 2:7, Eusebius shows that Moses defined the soul as an immortal, divine image created to rule over earthly creatures. He aligns this with Plato's First Alcibiades (133c), where Socrates asserts that the soul is the most divine part of man, reflecting God like a pure mirror, and that self-knowledge comes from beholding the divine.
The Dual Nature of Reality (27.6–27.8): Citing Plato's Phaedo (79a–e), Eusebius reproduces the argument distinguishing between two species of existence: the visible/changing (the body) and the invisible/unchanging (the soul).
The Soul's Affliction vs. Wisdom (27.9–27.14): When tied to physical senses, the soul wanders and suffers dizziness; when focused on its own pure, immortal nature, it attains wisdom (phronēsis). As the natural ruler of the body, the soul resembles the divine and immortal, whereas the body resembles the mortal and dissoluble.
The Afterlife of the Soul (27.15–27.19): Physical bodies decay, but the soul—being incorporeal and invisible—departs to the realm of Hades (the invisible) to dwell with God. A soul purified through true philosophy is freed from human evils and lives eternally with the divine, whereas an impure soul corrupted by physical desires remains tethered to the material realm.
Transition to Porphyry (27.20): Eusebius concludes by noting that Porphyry further expands upon this Platonic doctrine in his work To Boethus On the Soul.
| 27.1 Καὶ ἐν τοῖς περὶ ψυχῆς δὲ ἀθανασίας οὐδὲν Μώσεως ὁ Πλάτων διέστηκε τῇ δόξῃ. Ὁ μέν γε πρῶτος ἀθάνατον οὐσίαν εἶναι τὴν ἐν ἀνθρώπῳ ψυχὴν ὡρίσατο, εἰκόνα φήσας ὑπάρχειν αὐτὴν θεοῦ, μᾶλλον δὲ κατ’ εἰκόνα θεοῦ γεγενῆσθαι. «Εἶπε γάρ,» φησίν, «ὁ θεός· ποιήσωμεν ἄνθρωπον κατ’ εἰκόνα καὶ ὁμοίωσιν ἡμετέραν. Καὶ ἐποίησεν ὁ θεὸς τὸν ἄνθρωπον, κατ’ εἰκόνα θεοῦ ἐποίησεν αὐτόν.» | 27.1 And in his doctrines concerning the immortality of the soul, Plato differs in opinion not at all from Moses. At any rate, Moses was the first to define the soul in man as an immortal essence, stating that it exists as an image of God, or rather that it was created according to the image of God. For he says: “And God said, Let us make man according to our image and likeness. And God made man, according to the image of God He made him” [Gen. 1:26–27]. |
| 27.2 Καὶ ἑξῆς τὸν σύνθετον τῷ λόγῳ διαιρῶν εἴς τε τὸ φαινόμενον σῶμα καὶ εἰς τὸν κατὰ ψυχὴν νοούμενον ἐπιλέγει· «Καὶ ἔλαβεν ὁ θεὸς χοῦν ἀπὸ τῆς γῆς, καὶ ἔπλασεν τὸν ἄνθρωπον, καὶ ἐνεφύσησεν εἰς τὸ πρόσωπον αὐτοῦ πνοὴν ζωῆς, καὶ ἐγένετο ὁ ἄνθρωπος εἰς ψυχὴν ζῶσαν.» | 27.2 And next, dividing the composite being by argument into the visible body and the conceptual soul, he adds: “And God took dust from the earth, and formed man, and breathed into his face the breath of life, and man became a living soul” [Gen. 2:7]. |
| 27.3 Ἀλλὰ καὶ ἀρχικόν φησιν αὐτὸν καὶ βασιλικὸν γενέσθαι τῶν ἐπὶ γῆς πάντων. Λέγει δ’ οὖν· «Καὶ εἶπεν ὁ θεός· ποιήσωμεν ἄνθρωπον κατ’ εἰκόνα ἡμετέραν καὶ καθ’ ὁμοίωσιν, καὶ ἀρχέτωσαν τῶν ἰχθύων τῆς θαλάσσης, καὶ τῶν πετεινῶν τοῦ οὐρανοῦ, καὶ τῶν κτηνῶν καὶ πάσης τῆς γῆς. Καὶ ἐποίησεν ὁ θεὸς τὸν ἄνθρωπον· ἐν εἰκόνι αὐτοῦ, κατ’ εἰκόνα θεοῦ ἐποίησεν αὐτόν.» | 27.3 Furthermore, he states that man was made ruler and king over all things upon the earth. At any rate he says: “And God said, Let us make man according to our image and likeness, and let them rule over the fish of the sea, and the birds of heaven, and the cattle, and all the earth. And God made man; in His image, according to the image of God He made him” [Gen. 1:26–27]. |
| 27.4 Πῶς δ’ ἂν ἄλλως εἰκὼν ἐπινοοῖτο θεοῦ καὶ ὁμοίωμα ἢ κατὰ τὰς ἐν τῷ θεῷ δυνάμεις καὶ κατὰ τὴν τῆς ἀρετῆς ὁμοιότητα; Μωσεῖ δὴ καὶ ἐν τούτοις ὥσπερ μεμαθητευμένος ὁ Πλάτων ἐπάκουσον ἐν τῷ Ἀλκιβιάδῃ οἷά φησιν· | 27.4 But how else could an image and likeness of God be conceived except according to the powers within God and according to the likeness of virtue? Listen, then, to what Plato says in the Alcibiades [133c], as though he had been instructed by Moses in these matters: |
| 27.5 «Ἔχομεν οὖν εἰπεῖν ὅ τι τῆς ψυχῆς ἐστι θειότερον ἢ τοῦτο περὶ ὃ τὸ εἰδέναι τε καὶ φρονεῖν ἐστίν; — Οὐκ ἔχομεν. — Τῷ θεῷ ἄρα τοῦτο ἔοικεν αὐτῆς· καί τις εἰς τοῦτο βλέπων, καὶ πᾶν τὸ θεῖον γνούς, θεόν τε καὶ φρόνησιν, οὕτω καὶ ἑαυτὸν ἂν γνοίη μάλιστα. — Φαίνεται. — Ἆρ’ οὖν, ὅθ’ ὥσπερ κάτοπτρά ἐστι σαφέστερα τοῦ ἐν τῷ ὀφθαλμῷ ἐνόπτρου καὶ καθαρώτερα καὶ λαμπρότερα, οὕτω καὶ ὁ θεὸς τοῦ ἐν τῇ ἡμετέρᾳ ψυχῇ βελτίστου καθαρώτερόν τε καὶ λαμπρότερον τυγχάνει ὄν; — Ἔοικέ γε, ὦ Σώκρατες. — Εἰς τὸν θεὸν ἄρα βλέποντες ἐκείνῳ καλλίστῳ ἐνόπτρῳ χρῴμεθ’ ἂν καὶ τῶν ἀνθρωπίνων εἰς τὴν ψυχῆς ἀρετήν, καὶ οὕτως ἂν μάλιστα ὁρῷμεν καὶ γινώσκοιμεν ἡμᾶς αὐτούς. — Ναί.» | 27.5 “Can we then name anything belonging to the soul more divine than that which is concerned with knowing and thinking? — We cannot. — This part of it, therefore, resembles God; and if one looks at this, and recognizes all that is divine—both God and wisdom—he would thus best come to know himself as well. — So it appears. — Just as mirrors are clearer, purer, and brighter than the mirror in the eye, is not God likewise purer and brighter than the best part in our own soul? — It seems so, Socrates. — Looking unto God, therefore, we should use Him as the fairest mirror, and also look to human virtue of the soul, and in this way we should best see and know ourselves. — Yes.” |
| 27.6 Ταῦτα μὲν ἐν τῷ Ἀλκιβιάδῃ· ἐν δὲ τῷ Περὶ ψυχῆς ὅπως πλατύτερον ἑρμηνεύει τὰ κατὰ τοὺς τόπους ἐπάκουσον· «Θῶμεν οὖν, εἰ βούλει, δύο εἴδη τῶν ὄντων, τὸ μὲν ὁρατόν, τὸ δὲ ἀειδές; — Θῶμεν, ἔφη. — Καὶ τὸ μὲν ἀειδὲς ἀεὶ κατὰ τὰ αὐτὰ ἔχον, τὸ δὲ ὁρατὸν μηδέποτε κατὰ ταὐτά; — Καὶ ταῦτα, ἔφη, θῶμεν. | 27.6 These things he says in the Alcibiades. But listen to how he interprets these matters more broadly in the dialogue On the Soul [Phaedo 79a–81a]: “Shall we then set down, if you will, two forms of existences: the one visible, the other invisible? — Let us set them down, he said. — And that the invisible is always in the same state, while the visible is never in the same state? — Let us set down these things also, he said. |
| 27.7 Φέρε δή, ἦ δ’ ὅς, ἄλλο τι ἡμῶν αὐτῶν τὸ μὲν σῶμά ἐστι, τὸ δὲ ψυχή; — Οὐδὲν ἄλλο, ἔφη. — Ποτέρῳ οὖν ὁμοιότερον τῷ εἴδει φαῖμεν ἂν εἶναι καὶ συγγενέστερον τὸ σῶμα; — Παντί, ἔφη, τοῦτό γε δῆλον, ὅτι τῷ ὁρατῷ. — Τί δὲ ἡ ψυχή; Ὁρατὸν ἢ ἀειδές; — Οὐχ ὑπὸ ἀνθρώπων γε, ὦ Σώκρατες, ἔφη. — Ἀλλὰ μὴν ἡμεῖς γε τὰ ὁρατὰ καὶ τὰ μὴ τῇ τῶν ἀνθρώπων φύσει ἐλέγομεν· ἢ ἄλλῃ τινὶ οἴει; — Τῇ τῶν ἀνθρώπων. | 27.7 Come now, said he, is there anything else of ourselves than that the one part is body, and the other soul? — Nothing else, he said. — To which form, then, should we say the body is more like and more akin? — To everyone, he said, this at least is evident, that it is to the visible. — And what of the soul? Is it visible or invisible? — Not to men at least, Socrates, he said. — But surely we were speaking of things visible and invisible according to human nature; or do you think according to some other? — According to human nature. |
| 27.8 Τί οὖν περὶ ψυχῆς λέγομεν; Ὁρατὸν ἢ ἀόρατον εἶναι; — Οὐχ ὁρατόν. — Ἀειδὲς ἄρα; — Ναί. — Ὁμοιότερον ἄρα ψυχὴ σώματός ἐστι τῷ ἀειδεῖ, τὸ δὲ τῷ ὁρατῷ. — Πᾶσα ἀνάγκη, ὦ Σώκρατες. | 27.8 What then do we say concerning the soul? That it is visible or invisible? — Not visible. — Invisible then? — Yes. — Soul, therefore, is more like the invisible than the body is, while the body is more like the visible. — By absolute necessity, Socrates. |
| 27.9 Οὐκοῦν καὶ τόδε πάλαι ἐλέγομεν, ὅτι ἡ ψυχὴ ὅταν μὲν τῷ σώματι προσχρῆται εἰς τὸ σκοπεῖν τι, ἢ διὰ τοῦ ὁρᾶν ἢ διὰ τοῦ ἀκούειν ἢ δι’ ἄλλης τινὸς αἰσθήσεως—τοῦτο γάρ ἐστι τὸ διὰ τοῦ σώματος, τὸ δι’ αἰσθήσεως σκοπεῖν τι—τότε μὲν ἕλκεται ὑπὸ τοῦ σώματος εἰς ταῦτα τὰ μηδέποτε κατὰ ταὐτὰ ἔχοντα, καὶ αὐτὴ πλανᾶται καὶ ταράττεται καὶ ἰλιγγιᾷ ὥσπερ μεθύουσα, ἅτε τοιούτων ἐφαπτομένη; — Πάνυ γε. | 27.9 Were we not also saying long ago that whenever the soul makes use of the body to investigate anything—either through sight or hearing or some other sense (for to investigate through the body is to investigate through sense-perception)—it is then dragged by the body into things that are never in the same state, and it wanders, is troubled, and grows dizzy as if drunk, in so far as it touches upon such things? — Certainly. |
| 27.10 Ὅταν δέ γε αὐτὴ καθ’ αὑτὴν σκοπῇ, ἐκεῖσε οἴχεται, εἰς τὸ καθαρόν τε καὶ ἀεὶ ὂν καὶ ἀθάνατον καὶ ὡσαύτως ἔχον, καὶ ὡς ξυγγενὴς οὖσα αὐτοῦ ἀεὶ μετ’ ἐκείνου τε γίνεται, ὅταν περ αὐτὴ καθ’ ἑαυτὴν γένηται καὶ ἐξῇ αὐτῇ, καὶ πέπαυταί τε τοῦ πλάνου καὶ περὶ ἐκεῖνα ἀεὶ κατὰ τὰ αὐτὰ καὶ ὡσαύτως ἔχει, ἅτε τοιούτων ἐφαπτομένη· καὶ τοῦτο αὐτῆς τὸ πάθημα φρόνησις κέκληται; — | 27.10 But whenever it investigates by itself alone, it departs thither to that which is pure, eternal, immortal, and unchanging; and as being akin to it, it abides ever with it whenever it comes to be by itself and is permitted to it; and it ceases from its wandering and is always in the same state regarding those things, inasmuch as it touches upon such things; and this condition of it is called wisdom (phronēsis)? — |
| 27.11 Παντάπασιν, ἔφη, καλῶς καὶ ἀληθῆ λέγεις, ὦ Σώκρατες. — Ποτέρῳ οὖν αὖ σοι δοκεῖ τῷ εἴδει καὶ ἐκ τῶν πρόσθεν εἰρημένων καὶ ἐκ τῶν νῦν λεγομένων ἡ ψυχὴ ὁμοιότερον εἶναι καὶ συγγενέστερον; — Πᾶς ἄν, ἔμοιγε δοκεῖ, ἦ δ’ ὅς, συγχωρήσαι, Σώκρατες, ἐκ ταύτης τῆς μεθόδου καὶ ὁ δυσμαθέστατος ὅτι ὅλῳ καὶ παντὶ ὁμοιότερόν ἐστιν ψυχὴ τῷ ἀεὶ ὡσαύτως ἔχοντι μᾶλλον ἢ τῷ μή. — Τί δὲ τὸ σῶμα; — | 27.11 In every way, Socrates, he said, you speak well and truly. — To which form again does the soul seem to you to be more like and more akin, both from what was said before and from what is now being said? — Anyone, I think, said he, even the slowest learner, would agree from this method of inquiry, Socrates, that soul is wholly and entirely more like that which is ever in the same state than that which is not. — And what of the body? — |
| 27.12 Τῷ ἑτέρῳ. — Ὅρα δὴ καὶ τῇδε, ὅτι ἐπειδὰν ἐν τῷ αὐτῷ ὦσι ψυχὴ καὶ σῶμα, τῷ μὲν δουλεύειν καὶ ἄρχεσθαι ἡ φύσις προστάττει, τῇ δὲ ἄρχειν καὶ δεσπόζειν· καὶ κατὰ ταῦτα αὖ πότερόν σοι δοκεῖ ὅμοιον τῷ θείῳ εἶναι καὶ πότερον τῷ θνητῷ; Ἢ οὐ δοκεῖ σοι τὸ μὲν θεῖον οἷον ἄρχειν τε καὶ ἡγεμονεύειν πεφυκέναι, τὸ δὲ θνητὸν ἄρχεσθαί τε καὶ δουλεύειν; — Ἔμοιγε. | 27.12 To the other. — Look also at it in this way: that whenever soul and body are together, nature commands the one to serve and be ruled, and the other to rule and master; and according to these things again, which seems to you like the divine, and which like the mortal? Or does it not seem to you that the divine is by nature fitted to rule and lead, and the mortal to be ruled and serve? — To me it does. |
| 27.13 Ποτέρῳ οὖν ἡ ψυχὴ ἔοικεν; — Δηλαδὴ, ὦ Σώκρατες, ὅτι ἡ μὲν ψυχὴ τῷ θείῳ, τὸ δὲ σῶμα τῷ θνητῷ. — Σκόπει δή, ἔφη, ὦ Κέβης, εἰ ἐκ πάντων τῶν εἰρημένων τάδε ἡμῖν ξυμβαίνει· τῷ μὲν θείῳ καὶ ἀθανάτῳ καὶ νοητῷ καὶ μονοειδεῖ καὶ ἀδιαλύτῳ καὶ ἀεὶ ὡσαύτως κατὰ τὰ αὐτὰ ἔχοντι ἑαυτῷ ὁμοιότατον εἶναι ψυχήν, τῷ δὲ ἀνθρωπίνῳ καὶ θνητῷ καὶ ἀνοήτῳ καὶ πολυειδεῖ καὶ διαλυτῷ καὶ μηδέποτε κατὰ τὰ αὐτὰ ἔχοντι ἑαυτῷ ὁμοιότατον αὖ εἶναι τὸ σῶμα. | 27.13 To which, then, does the soul resemble? — Clearly, Socrates, the soul resembles the divine, and the body the mortal. — Consider then, Cebes, he said, whether from all that has been said these conclusions follow for us: that to the divine, immortal, intelligible, uniform, indissoluble, and unchangeable soul is most like; while to the human, mortal, unintelligent, multiform, dissoluble, and ever-changing, body is on the other hand most like. |
| 27.14 Ἔχομέν τι παρὰ ταῦτα ἄλλο λέγειν, ὦ φίλε Κέβης, ὡς οὐχ οὕτως ἔχει; — Οὐκ ἔχομεν. — Τί οὖν; Τούτων οὕτως ἐχόντων ἆρ’ οὐ σώματι μὲν ταχὺ διαλύεσθαι προσήκει, ψυχῇ δὲ αὖ τὸ παράπαν ἀδιαλύτῳ εἶναι, ἢ ἐγγύς τι τούτου; — | 27.14 Have we anything else to say against these things, dear Cebes, to show that it is not so? — We have not. — What then? These things being so, does it not belong to the body to be quickly dissolved, and to the soul on the other hand to be altogether indissoluble, or nearly so? — |
| 27.15 Πῶς γὰρ οὔ; — Συννοεῖς οὖν, ἔφη, ὅτι ἐπειδὰν ἀποθάνῃ ὁ ἄνθρωπος, τὸ μὲν ὁρατὸν αὐτοῦ, τὸ σῶμα, καὶ ἐν ὁρατῷ κείμενον, ὃ δὴ νεκρὸν καλοῦμεν, ᾧ προσήκει διαλύεσθαι καὶ διαπίπτειν καὶ διαπνεῖσθαι, οὐκ εὐθὺς τούτων οὐδὲν πέπονθεν, ἀλλ’ ἐπιεικῶς συχνὸν ἐπιμένει χρόνον· ἐὰν μέν τις καὶ χαριέντως ἔχων τὸ σῶμα τελευτήσῃ καὶ ἐν τοιαύτῃ ὥρᾳ, καὶ πάνυ μάλα. Συμπεσὸν γὰρ τὸ σῶμα καὶ ταριχευθέν, ὥσπερ οἱ ἐν Αἰγύπτῳ ταριχευθέντες, ὀλίγου ὅλον μένει ἀμήχανον ὅσον χρόνον. Ἔνια δὲ μέρη τοῦ σώματος, καὶ ἐὰν σαπῇ, ὀστᾶ τε καὶ νεῦρα καὶ τὰ τοιαῦτα πάντα ὅμως, ὡς ἔπος εἰπεῖν, ἀθάνατά ἐστιν· ἢ οὔ; — Ναί. | 27.15 How could it be otherwise? — Do you reflect then, he said, that when a man dies, the visible part of him—the body, lying in the visible realm, which we call a corpse, whose nature it is to dissolve, decay, and pass away in vapor—suffers none of these things immediately, but remains for a considerable time? And if anyone dies with his body in a graceful state and in such a season, it remains very well indeed. For if the body is shrunken and embalmed, as those who are embalmed in Egypt, it remains almost whole for an incredible amount of time. And even if some parts of the body rot, bones and sinews and all such things are nevertheless, so to speak, immortal; are they not? — Yes. |
| 27.16 Ἡ δὲ ψυχὴ ἄρα, τὸ ἀειδές, τὸ εἰς τοιοῦτον τόπον ἕτερον οἰχόμενον, γενναῖον καὶ καθαρὸν καὶ ἀειδῆ, εἰς Ἅιδου ὡς ἀληθῶς, παρὰ τὸν ἀγαθὸν καὶ φρόνιμον θεόν, οἷ, ἂν θεὸς ἐθέλῃ, αὐτίκα καὶ τῇ ἐμῇ ψυχῇ ἰτέον—αὕτη δὲ δὴ ἡμῖν ἡ τοιαύτη καὶ οὕτω πεφυκυῖα ἀπαλλαττομένη τοῦ σώματος εὐθὺς διαπεφύσηται καὶ ἀπόλωλεν, ὥς φασιν οἱ πολλοὶ ἄνθρωποι; — | 27.16 But the soul then—the invisible, which departs to another place of like nature, noble, pure, and invisible, to Hades in truth, to the presence of the good and wise God, whither, if God wills, my own soul must presently go—shall this soul of ours, being of such a nature and so constituted, when released from the body, be straightway blown away and perish, as the generality of men say? — |
| 27.17 Πολλοῦ γε δεῖ, φίλε Κέβης τε καὶ Σιμμία· ἀλλὰ πολλῷ μᾶλλον ὧδε ἔχει. Ἐὰν μὲν καθαρὰ ἀπαλλάττηται, μηδὲν τοῦ σώματος συνεφέλκουσα, ἅτε οὐδὲν κοινωνοῦσα αὐτῷ ἐν τῷ βίῳ ἑκοῦσα εἶναι, ἀλλὰ φεύγουσα αὐτό, καὶ συνηθροισμένη αὐτὴ εἰς ἑαυτήν, ἅτε μελετῶσα ἀεὶ τοῦτο—τοῦτο δὲ οὐδὲν ἄλλο ἐστὶν ἢ ὀρθῶς φιλοσοφοῦσα καὶ τῷ ὄντι τεθνάναι μελετῶσα ῥᾳδίως· ἢ οὐ τοῦτ’ ἂν εἴη μελέτη θανάτου; — Παντάπασί γε. | 27.17 Far from it, dear Cebes and Simmias! But much rather is it thus: if it departs pure, dragging along nothing of the body, inasmuch as it had no voluntary communion with it in life, but fled from it and gathered itself together into itself, as making this its constant practice—and this is nothing else than philosophizing rightly and in reality practicing how to die easily; or would not this be the practice of death? — In every way. |
| 27.18 Οὐκοῦν οὕτω μὲν ἔχουσα εἰς τὸ ὅμοιον αὐτῇ τὸ ἀειδὲς ἀπέρχεται, τὸ θεῖόν τε καὶ ἀθάνατον καὶ φρόνιμον, οἷ ἀφικομένῃ ὑπάρχει αὐτῇ εὐδαίμονι εἶναι, πλάνης καὶ ἀνοίας καὶ φόβων καὶ ἀγρίων ἐρώτων καὶ τῶν ἄλλων κακῶν τῶν ἀνθρωπείων ἀπηλλαγμένῃ, ὥσπερ δὲ λέγεται κατὰ τῶν μεμυημένων, ὡς ἀληθῶς τὸν λοιπὸν χρόνον μετὰ θεῶν διάγουσα· οὕτω φῶμεν, ὦ Κέβης, ἢ ἄλλως; — Οὕτως νὴ Δία, ἔφη ὁ Κέβης. | 27.18 Being in this state, then, it departs to that which is like itself—the invisible, divine, immortal, and wise; arriving where, it belongs to it to be happy, released from error, folly, fears, fierce passions, and the rest of human evils, and, as is said of the initiated, passing the remaining time in truth with the gods. Shall we say so, Cebes, or otherwise? — Thus, by Zeus! said Cebes. |
| 27.19 Ἂν δέ γε, οἶμαι, μεμιασμένη καὶ ἀκάθαρτος τοῦ σώματος ἀπαλλάττηται, ἅτε σώματι ἀεὶ ξυνοῦσα καὶ τοῦτο θεραπεύουσα καὶ ἐρῶσα καὶ γεγοητευμένη ὑπ’ αὐτοῦ, ὑπό τε τῶν ἐπιθυμιῶν καὶ ἡδονῶν, ὥστε μηδὲν ἄλλο δοκεῖν εἶναι ἀληθὲς ἀλλ’ ἢ τὸ σωματοειδές, οὗ ἄν τις ἅψαιτο καὶ ἴδοι καὶ φάγοι καὶ πίοι καὶ πρὸς τὰ ἀφροδίσια χρήσαιτο, τὸ δὲ τοῖς ὄμμασι σκοτῶδες καὶ ἀειδές, νοητὸν δὲ καὶ φιλοσοφίᾳ αἱρετόν, τοῦτο δὲ εἰθισμένη μισεῖν τε καὶ τρέμειν καὶ φεύγειν—οὕτω δὴ ἔχουσαν οἴει ψυχὴν αὐτὴν καθ’ αὑτὴν εἰλικρινῆ ἀπαλλάξεσθαι; — Οὐδ’ ὁπωστιοῦν, ἔφη.» | 27.19 But if, I think, it departs defiled and impure from the body, as having been always with the body, attending it, loving it, and bewitched by it and by its desires and pleasures, so that nothing else seems to be true except the corporeal—which one might touch, see, eat, drink, and use for carnal pleasures—while that which is dark to the eyes and invisible, but intelligible and to be comprehended by philosophy, it has been accustomed to hate, tremble at, and flee; do you think a soul in such a condition will depart pure and unalloyed by itself? — Not in any way whatever, he said.” |
| 27.20 Ταῦτα ὁ Πλάτων· ἐξαπλοῖ δὲ τὴν διάνοιαν ὁ Πορφύριος ἐν τῷ πρώτῳ τῶν Πρὸς Βοηθὸν Περὶ ψυχῆς τοῦτον γράφων τὸν τρόπον· | 27.20 Such are the words of Plato; and Porphyry unfolds his meaning in the first book of his work To Boethus On the Soul, writing in this manner: |
Chapter 28
In this chapter, Eusebius discusses the Argument from Likeness (argumentum ex similitudine) for the immortality of the soul, drawn from Plato (specifically Phaedo).
Verses 1-5: Eusebius outlines the Platonic view that the human soul, bearing clear likeness to the divine, unchangeable, and invisible realm rather than the mortal and corruptible realm, must participate in divine immortality.
Verses 6–16: Eusebius quotes the Peripatetic philosopher Boethus of Sidon, who attacks and tries to strip away the force of this Platonic argument. Boethus contends that human intellect (nous) demonstrates astounding, quasi-divine capabilities—such as navigation, medicine, science, and the construction of planetariums—proving its divine affinity. However, he argues that the soul’s temporary submersion in mortality leads the unreflective masses to wrongly judge it as purely mortal.
Verses 17–19: Eusebius asserts that Moses was the true original teacher of this doctrine (man created in the image/likeness of God). He concludes by noting that where Plato agrees with Moses and the Hebrew Scriptures, his philosophy stands firm, but where he deviates into human error, his arguments fall short.
| 28.1 Αὐτίκα λόγον ἰσχυρὸν εἶναι δοκοῦντα τῷ Πλάτωνι εἰς παράστασιν τῆς ψυχῆς ἀθανασίας τὸν ἐκ τοῦ ὁμοίου· εἰ γὰρ ὁμοία τῷ θείῳ καὶ ἀθανάτῳ καὶ ἀειδεῖ καὶ ἀσκεδάστῳ καὶ ἀδιαλύτῳ καὶ οὐσιωμένῳ καὶ συνεστῶτι ἐν ἀφθαρσίᾳ, πῶς οὐ τοῦ γένους ἂν εἴη τοῦ κατὰ τὸ παράδειγμα; | 28.1 Right off, consider the argument that seems so strong to Plato in establishing the soul’s immortality—the argument from likeness. For if it is like that which is divine, immortal, invisible, unscattered, indissoluble, substantial, and subsisting in incorruptibility, how could it fail to belong to the same genus as the archetype? |
| 28.2 ὅταν γὰρ δύο τινῶν ἄκρων ἐναργῶς ἐναντίων, οἷον λογικοῦ τε καὶ ἀλόγου, ἄλλο τι ἀμφισβητῆται ποίας ἐστὶ μερίδος, εἷς ἦν καὶ οὗτος τρόπος ἀποδείξεως διὰ τοῦ δεῖξαι τίνι τῶν ἀντικειμένων ὅμοιόν ἐστιν. οὕτω γάρ, καίπερ ἐν ἀλογίᾳ κατὰ τὴν πρώτην ἡλικίαν τοῦ ἀνθρωπίνου γένους κατεσχημένου, πολλῶν τε ἄχρι γήρως ἐν τοῖς τῆς ἀλογίας ἁμαρτήμασι πλεοναζόντων, ὅμως διὰ τὸ τῷ καθαρῶς λογικῷ πολλὰς ὁμοιότητας φέρειν λογικὸν εἶναι τὸ γένος τοῦτο ἐξ ἀρχῆς ἐπιστεύθη. | 28.2 For whenever two extreme opposites clearly exist—such as the rational and the irrational—and some third thing is disputed as to which share it belongs, this too was a single method of proof: by showing which of the two opposites it resembles. Thus, even though the human race was gripped by irrationality during its earliest age, and many persist in the errors of irrationality even into old age, nevertheless, because it bears many likenesses to that which is purely rational, this race was believed from the beginning to be rational. |
| 28.3 ὄντος οὖν θείου τοῦ συστήματος καὶ ἀκηράτου καὶ ἀκινήτου προφανῶς τοῦ τῶν θεῶν, ὄντος δὲ πάλιν ἐναργῶς τοῦ χθονίου καὶ λυτοῦ καὶ ἐν διαφθορᾷ κειμένου, ἀμφισβητουμένης δὲ παρά τισι τῆς ψυχῆς τίνι τῶν προκειμένων μέρει προσκεχώρηκεν, ἐκ τῆς ὁμοιότητος ᾠήθη ὁ Πλάτων δεῖν ἀνιχνεύειν τὴν ἀλήθειαν. | 28.3 Since, therefore, the system of the gods is manifestly divine, undefiled, and immutable, while the earthly system is clearly dissoluble and lies in corruption, and since the soul is disputed among some as to which of these pre-existing parts it has attached itself, Plato thought it necessary to trace out the truth from likeness. |
| 28.4 καὶ ἐπειδὴ τῷ μὲν θνητῷ τε καὶ λυτῷ καὶ ἀνοήτῳ καὶ ζωῆς ἀμετόχῳ, καὶ διὰ τοῦτο ἁπτῷ τε καὶ αἰσθητῷ καὶ γινομένῳ καὶ ἀπολλυμένῳ, οὐδαμῶς ἔοικε, τῷ δὲ θείῳ καὶ ἀθανάτῳ καὶ ἀειδεῖ καὶ νοερῷ ζῶντί τε καὶ ἀληθείας συγγενεῖ, καὶ ὅσα ἐκεῖνος περὶ αὐτῆς ἀναλογίζεται· ἐδόκει μὴ τὰς μὲν ἄλλας ὁμοιότητας τοῦ θεοῦ ἐνεῖναι συγχωρεῖν, τὸ δὲ τῆς οὐσίας ἐμφερὲς ἀπ' αὐτῆς ἐθέλειν ἀθετεῖν, δι' ὃ καὶ τούτων αὐτὴν τυχεῖν συμβέβηκεν. | 28.4 And since it is in no way like that which is mortal, dissoluble, unintelligent, and devoid of life—and for this reason tangible, sensible, coming-into-being, and perishing—but is like that which is divine, immortal, invisible, intelligent, living, and akin to truth (and whatever else he calculates concerning it), it seemed wrong to concede that the other likenesses of God reside within it, yet wish to reject the similarity of substance from it—the very thing through which it happens to obtain these qualities. |
| 28.5 ὥσπερ γὰρ τὰ ταῖς ἐνεργείαις τῷ θεῷ ἀνόμοια εὐθὺς καὶ τῇ συστάσει τῆς οὐσίας ἐξήλλακτο, οὕτως ἀκόλουθον εἶναι τὰ τῶν αὐτῶν πως ἐνεργειῶν μέτοχα φθάνειν τὴν ὁμοιότητα τῆς οὐσίας κεκτημένα· διὰ γὰρ τὴν ποιὰν οὐσίαν ποιὰς εἶναι καὶ τὰς ἐνεργείας, ὡς ἂν ἀπ' αὐτῆς ῥεούσας καὶ αὐτῆς οὔσας βλαστήματα. | 28.5 For just as things unlike God in their operations are immediately distinct in the constitution of their substance, so it follows that things sharing in the same kinds of operations already possess the likeness of his substance. For because of the specific quality of the substance, its operations are of a corresponding quality, flowing from it and being its direct offspring. |
| 28.6 Τούτου τοίνυν τοῦ λόγου τὴν δύναμιν περιαιρῶν ὁ Βοηθὸς ἐπάκουσον εὐθὺς ἐν ἀρχῇ τοῦ λόγου ὃ πεποίηκε γράφων οὕτως· | 28.6 Now, Boethus, attempting to strip away the force of this argument, hear what he writes right at the beginning of his treatise: |
| 28.7 "Εἰ μὲν ἀθάνατός ἐστιν ἡ ψυχὴ καὶ παντὸς ὀλέθρου κρείττων τις φύσις, πολλοὺς ἀναμείναντα χρὴ καὶ περιηγησάμενον λόγους ἀποφήνασθαι. | 28.7 "If the soul is immortal and a nature superior to all destruction, one must wait and traverse many arguments before making a declaration. |
| 28.8 τὸ μέντοι τῶν περὶ ἡμᾶς ὁμοιότερον μηδὲν γενέσθαι θεῷ ψυχῆς, οὐ πολλῆς ἄν τις δεηθεὶς πραγματείας πιστεύσειεν, οὐ μόνον διὰ τὸ συνεχὲς καὶ ἄπαυστον τῆς κινήσεως, ἣν ἐν ἡμῖν ἐνδίδωσιν, ἀλλὰ καὶ διὰ τὸν καθ' ἑαυτὴν νοῦν. | 28.8 However, that nothing among things pertaining to us has become more like God than the soul, one could believe without requiring much elaborate effort—not only because of the continuous and unceasing movement it imparts within us, but also because of the intellect within itself. |
| 28.9 εἰς ὅπερ ἀπιδὼν καὶ ὁ Κροτωνιάτης φυσικὸς εἶπεν ἀθάνατον αὐτὴν οὖσαν καὶ πᾶσαν ἠρεμίαν φύσει φεύγειν, ὥσπερ τὰ θεῖα τῶν σωμάτων. | 28.9 Looking to this very thing, the natural philosopher of Croton [Alcmaeon] said that it is immortal and flees all rest by nature, just like the divine bodies. |
| 28.10 ἀλλὰ καὶ καθάπαξ τὴν ἰδέαν τῆς ψυχῆς καὶ μάλιστα τὸν ἄρχοντα ἐν ἡμῖν νοῦν, ὁπηλίκα βουλεύματα καὶ ὁρμὰς πολλάκις ὁποίας ὑποκινεῖ, τῷ κατανοήσαντι πολλή τις ἂν πρὸς τὸν θεὸν ὁμοιότης ὑποφανείη." | 28.10 Indeed, to anyone who considers the overall form of the soul, and especially the ruling intellect within us—what great counsels and impulses it often sets in motion—a great likeness to God would shine forth." |
| 28.11 Καὶ ἐξῆς ἐπιλέγει· "Εἰ γὰρ ὡς ὁμοιότατον τῷ θείῳ πάντων χρημάτων ἡ ψυχὴ δείκνυται, τίς ἔτι χρεία τῶν ἄλλων δεῖσθαι λόγων εἰς ἀπόδειξιν τῆς ἀθανασίας αὐτῆς προοιμιαζόμενον, καὶ μὴ καὶ τοῦτον ὡς ἕνα μετὰ τῶν πολλῶν καταριθμοῦντα, ἱκανὸν ὄντα ἐντρέψαι τοὺς εὐγνώμονας, ὡς οὐκ ἂν τῶν ἐμφερῶν τῷ θείῳ μετέσχεν ἐνεργειῶν μή τοι θεία γε οὖσα καὶ αὐτή; | 28.11 And next he adds: "For if the soul is shown to be the most like the divine of all things, what further need is there to require other arguments when introducing the proof of its immortality, rather than counting this one among the many, capable as it is of convincing reasonable people that it could not have shared in operations similar to God unless it were itself divine as well? |
| 28.12 εἰ γὰρ καίπερ ἐν τῷ θνητῷ καὶ λυτῷ καὶ ἀνοήτῳ καὶ καθ' ἑαυτὸ νεκρῷ καὶ ἀεὶ ἀπολλυμένῳ καὶ διαρρέοντι εἰς τὴν τῆς ἀπωλείας μεταβολὴν κατορωρυγμένη αὐτό τε ποιεῖ καὶ συνέχει, καὶ τὴν ἑαυτῆς θείαν ἀναδείκνυσιν οὐσίαν, καίπερ ἐπιπροσθουμένη καὶ ἐμποδιζομένη ὑπὸ τοῦ προκειμένου αὐτῇ πανωλέθρου πλάσματος, πῶς εἰ τῷ λόγῳ χωρισθείη, ὥσπερ χρυσίον περιπεπλασμένου πηλοῦ, οὐκ αὐτόθεν ἂν τὸ ἑαυτῆς εἶδος ἐκφήνειεν, ὡς ἐμφερὲς ὂν μόνον τῷ θεῷ, ἀλλὰ καὶ διὰ τὸ μέτοχον αὐτοῦ εἶναι, καὶ τὰς ἐν ταῖς ἐνεργείαις ὁμοιότητας διασῶζον, καὶ ἐν τῷ μάλιστα θνητῷ αὐτῆς (ὥσπερ ἐστὶν ὅταν ἐν τῷ θνητῷ καθειρχθῇ), διὰ τοῦτο μὴ διαλυόμενον, ὅτι φύσεως ἦν τῆς ἀμοίρου φθορᾶς; | 28.12 For if—even though buried in that which is mortal, dissoluble, unintelligent, inherently dead, forever perishing, and flowing away into the transformation of destruction—it enlivens and sustains it, displaying its own divine substance (despite being obscured and hindered by the all-destructive mold placed around it), how could it fail, if separated by reason like gold from the clay molded around it, to reveal its true form on the spot? Not merely as something similar to God, but also through being a partaker of Him, preserving likenesses in its operations, and—even in its most mortal aspect (as when it is imprisoned in the mortal body)—not being dissolved precisely because it was of a nature with no share in corruption?" |
| 28.13 "Καὶ ὑποκαταβάς φησιν· "Εἰκότως δὲ καὶ θεία φαίνεται ἀπὸ τῆς πρὸς τὸν ἀμέριστον ὁμοιώσεως καὶ θνητὴ ἀφ' ὧν προσπελάζει τῇ, καὶ κάτεισι καὶ ἄνεισι καὶ θνητοειδής ἐστι καὶ τοῖς ἀθανάτοις ἐμφερής. | 28.13 And further down he says: "Reasonably, it appears divine from its assimilation to the undivided, and mortal from the things it approaches, descending and ascending, being both mortal-like and similar to the immortals. |
| 28.14 ἄνθρωπος γὰρ καὶ ὁ γαστρίζων ἑαυτὸν καὶ κεκορέσθαι σπουδάζων, ὡς τὰ κτήνη· | 28.14 For a man is both he who gorges himself and strives to be filled like brute beasts; |
| 28.15 ἄνθρωπος δὲ καὶ ὁ σώζειν ἐν πελάγει δι' ἐπιστήμης ἐν κινδύνοις οἷός τε ὢν τὴν ναῦν, καὶ ὁ σώζειν ἐν νόσοις, καὶ ὅ γε τὴν μὲν ἀλήθειαν εὑρίσκων, μεθοδεύσας δὲ καὶ πρὸς γνώσεως καταλήψεις, πυρείων τε εὑρέσεις καὶ ὡροσκοπείων τηρήσεις, καὶ μιμήσεις τῶν τοῦ δημιουργοῦ ποιημάτων μηχανησάμενος. ἄνθρωπος γὰρ ἐπενόησεν ἐπὶ γῆς συνόδους τῶν ἑπτὰ μετὰ τῶν κινήσεων δημιουργῆσαι, διὰ μηχανημάτων τὰ ἐν οὐρανῷ μιμούμενος. καὶ τί γὰρ οὐκ ἐπενόησεν, ἀποδεικνὺς τὸν θεῖον καὶ θεῷ παρισωμένον ἐν ἑαυτῷ νοῦν; | 28.15 and a man is also he who can save a ship in dangers at sea through knowledge, who can cure diseases, who finds the truth, who designs methods for grasping knowledge, inventing fire-striking devices, observing sundials, and devising imitations of the Creator's works. For man devised the means to construct on earth the conjunctions and movements of the seven planets, imitating through mechanisms the things in the heavens. Indeed, what has he not devised, demonstrating the divine and god-like intellect within himself? |
| 28.16 ἀφ' ὧν Ὀλυμπίου τε καὶ θείου καὶ οὐδαμῶς θνητοῦ τολμήματα διαφαίνων τοὺς πολλοὺς διὰ φιλαυτίαν τῆς αὑτῶν εἰς τὰ κάτω ῥοπῆς ἰδεῖν αὐτὸν οὐχ οἵους τε ὄντας ἐκ τῶν ἔξωθεν φαινομένων ὁμοίως αὐτοῖς θνητοειδῆ δοξάζειν αὐτὸν ἀναπέπεικεν· ἑνὸς ὄντος καὶ τούτου τρόπου τῆς ἐκ κακίας παραμυθίας, τὸ τῇ ἀντανιδώσει τῆς αὑτῶν ἀθλιότητος διὰ τὰ ἔξωθεν φαινόμενα προσαναπαυομένους πείθειν ἑαυτούς, ὅτι ὡς τὰ ἔξω καὶ τὰ εἴσω ὅμοιοι πάντες ἄνθρωποι." | 28.16 From these achievements, though he reveals daring deeds that are Olympian, divine, and by no means mortal, the majority of men—unable through self-love and their own downward inclination to see the soul itself—have been persuaded by external appearances to judge it as mortal like themselves. This being one single mode of solace born of vice: comforting themselves through the mutual comparison of their own wretchedness based on external appearances, convincing themselves that in their inner nature, as in their outer, all men are alike." |
| 28.17 Τούτων ἁπάντων διδάσκαλος πέφηνε γεγονὼς ὁ Μώσης, ὃς διεξιὼν τὴν πρώτην ἀνθρωπογονίαν κατὰ τὰς προτεθείσας λέξεις διὰ τῆς πρὸς τὸ θεῖον ἐξομοιώσεως τοὺς περὶ ψυχῆς ἀθανασίας λόγους ἐπιστώσατο. | 28.17 Moses has shown himself to be the teacher of all these things, who, in recounting the first creation of man in the words quoted earlier, established the arguments concerning the immortality of the soul through its likeness to the Divine. |
| 28.18 ἀλλ' ἐπειδὴ τὰ περὶ τῆς ἀσωμάτου καὶ ἀφανοῦς οὐσίας σύμφωνα καὶ ὁμόδοξα Μωσεῖ καὶ Πλάτωνι συνέστη, ὥρα καὶ τὰ λοιπὰ μέρη τῆς κατὰ Πλάτωνα φιλοσοφίας ἐπιθεωρῆσαι, δεῖξαί τε τὸν ἄνδρα Ἑβραίοις κατὰ πάντα φίλον, ἐκτὸς εἰ μή που παρατραπεὶς ἀνθρωπινώτερον ἢ κατὰ τὸν ἀληθῆ φάναι τι προήχθη λόγον. | 28.18 But since the doctrines concerning the incorporeal and invisible substance have turned out to be harmonious and of the same opinion between Moses and Plato, it is time to examine the remaining parts of Plato's philosophy, and to show that the man is in all respects a friend to the Hebrews—except if perhaps he was led astray to speak somewhat more humanly than according to the true word. |
| 28.19 αὐτίκα τῶν εἰρημένων ὅσα μὲν ἐπιτυχῶς λέλεκται τῷ ἀνδρὶ συντρέχοι ἂν τοῖς Μωσεῖ δεδογμένοις, ὅσα δὲ μὴ ἀρέσκοντα Μωσεῖ καὶ τοῖς προφήταις ὑπέλαβεν οὐκ ἂν ἔχοι συνεστῶτα τὸν λόγον. τοῦτο δ' ἡμῖν ἐν καιρῷ τῷ δέοντι παραστήσεται. τέως δ', ἐπεὶ πεφώραται ἐν τῇ περὶ τῶν νοητῶν ἐποπτείᾳ συνῳδὰ καὶ σύμφωνα τὰ τεθειμένα, ὥρα ἐπανελθοῦσιν αὖθις ἐπὶ τὴν τῶν αἰσθητῶν φυσιολογίαν ἐν βραχέσι τὴν πρὸς τὰ Ἑβραίων ἐπιδραμεῖν τοῦ ἀνδρὸς συμφωνίαν. | 28.19 Immediately, whatever of his statements were spoken successfully would run in accord with the decrees of Moses, but whatever he held that did not please Moses and the prophets would fail to hold together as sound reasoning. This will be demonstrated by us at the proper time. For now, since what has been set forth regarding the contemplation of intelligible things has been caught agreeing and harmonizing, it is time for us to return briefly to the physical study of sensible things and run through the man's agreement with the Hebrews. |
Chapter 29
In this chapter (Creation of the Universe): Eusebius highlights Moses' declaration in Genesis 1:1 that God created the heavens and the earth as a generated world (genētos). He compares this directly with Plato's Timaeus (28b–30b), where Socrates/Timaeus asserts that everything that comes to be requires a cause, that the universe had a beginning, and that it was crafted through divine providence as a living, ensouled, and intelligent being by a Supreme Craftsman (dēmiourgos).
| 29.1 Μώσεως γενητὸν ἀποφηναμένου τόδε τὸ πᾶν ὑπὸ τοῦ θεοῦ γενόμενον—λέγει δ’ οὖν ἀρχόμενος τῆς ἑαυτοῦ γραφῆς· «Ἐν ἀρχῇ ἐποίησεν ὁ θεὸς τὸν οὐρανὸν καὶ τὴν γῆν,» καὶ μετὰ ταῦτα κατὰ μέρος ἐπάγει· «Αὕτη ἡ βίβλος γενέσεως οὐρανοῦ καὶ γῆς, ὅτε ἐγένετο, ᾗ ἡμέρᾳ ἐποίησεν ὁ θεὸς τὸν οὐρανὸν καὶ τὴν γῆν»—ἄκουε τοῦ Πλάτωνος ὡς οὐκ ἐκπίπτει τῆς διανοίας ὧδέ πῃ καὶ αὐτὸς γράφων· | 29.1 Moses declared that this universe is generated, having been brought into being by God—saying at the very beginning of his writing: “In the beginning God made the heaven and the earth” [Gen. 1:1]; and after this he adds in detail: “This is the book of the generation of heaven and earth, when it came to be, in the day that God made the heaven and the earth” [Gen. 2:4]. Listen to Plato, how he does not depart from this same thought, writing in this manner: |
| 29.2 «Πᾶν δὲ αὖ τὸ γιγνόμενον ὑπ’ αἰτίου τινὸς ἐξ ἀνάγκης γίγνεσθαι· παντὶ γὰρ ἀδύνατον χωρὶς αἰτίου γένεσιν ἔχειν.» | 29.2 “Everything that comes to be must of necessity come to be by some cause; for it is entirely impossible for anything to obtain generation without a cause” [Timaeus 28a]. |
| 29.3 Καὶ ἐπιλέγει· «Ὁ δὴ πᾶς οὐρανὸς ἢ κόσμος, εἴτε καὶ ἄλλο ὅ τί ποτε ὀνομαζόμενος μάλιστα ἂν δέχοιτο, τοῦθ’ ἡμῖν ὠνομάσθω· σκεπτέον οὖν περὶ αὐτοῦ πρῶτον, ὅπερ ὑπόκειται περὶ παντὸς ἐν ἀρχῇ δεῖν σκοπεῖν, πότερον ἦν ἀεί, γενέσεως ἀρχὴν ἔχων οὐδεμίαν, ἢ γέγονεν ἀπ’ ἀρχῆς τινος ἀρξάμενος. | 29.3 And he adds: “Now the whole heaven or cosmos—or by whatever other name it might most acceptably be called, let it be so named by us—we must first consider regarding it that which lies as the underlying question to be examined about everything at the beginning: whether it always was, having no beginning of generation, or whether it has come to be, having started from some beginning. |
| 29.4 Γέγονεν· ὁρατὸς γὰρ ἁπτός τέ ἐστι καὶ σῶμα ἔχων. Πάντα δὲ τὰ τοιαῦτα αἰσθητά, τὰ δ’ αἰσθητὰ δόξῃ περιληπτὰ καὶ γενητὰ ἐφάνη. Τῷ δ’ αὖ γενομένῳ φαμὲν ὑπ’ αἰτίου τινὸς ἀνάγκην εἶναι γενέσθαι. Τὸν μὲν οὖν ποιητὴν καὶ δημιουργὸν τοῦδε τοῦ παντὸς εὑρεῖν τε ἔργον καὶ εὑρόντα εἰς πάντας ἀδύνατον λέγειν.» | 29.4 It has come to be; for it is visible, tangible, and possesses a body. All such things are sensible, and sensible things, being apprehended by opinion, are shown to be generated. Moreover, for that which has come to be, we say that it is necessary that it came to be by some cause. Now to find the Maker and Father of this universe is a hard task, and having found Him, it is impossible to declare Him to all” [Timaeus 28b–c]. |
| 29.5 Καὶ αὖθις ἑξῆς φησιν· «Οὕτως οὖν δὴ κατὰ λόγον τὸν εἰκότα δεῖ λέγειν τόνδε τὸν κόσμον ζῷον ἔμψυχον ἔννουν τῇ ἀληθείᾳ διὰ τὴν τοῦ θεοῦ γενέσθαι πρόνοιαν.» | 29.5 And again he says next: “Thus, then, according to the likely account, we must say that this cosmos came to be in truth an ensouled and intelligent living being through the providence of God” [Timaeus 30b]. |
Chapter 30
In this chapter (Creation of Celestial Bodies): Eusebius notes that Moses described the creation and placement of the sun, moon, and stars in the firmament to mark times, days, and seasons (Genesis 1:14–17). He pairs this with Timaeus (38c), where Plato states that God created the heavenly bodies from divine reason and thought (ex oun logou kaì dianoías theoû) to distinguish and preserve time. Eusebius specifically notes the linguistic echo between Psalm 33:6 ("By the word of the Lord...") and Genesis 1:17 ("and God set them..."), comparing it to Plato's phrase "God set them" (éthēken).
| 30.1 Πάλιν Μώσεως καὶ τούτους εἶναι γενητοὺς διδάξαντος δι’ ὧν ἔφησε· «Καὶ εἶπεν ὁ θεός· γενηθήτωσαν φωστῆρες ἐν τῷ στερεώματι τοῦ οὐρανοῦ, ὥστε φαίνειν ἐπὶ τῆς γῆς· καὶ ἔστωσαν εἰς σημεῖα καὶ εἰς καιροὺς καὶ εἰς ἡμέρας καὶ εἰς ἐνιαυτούς. Καὶ ἐποίησεν ὁ θεὸς τοὺς δύο φωστῆρας τοὺς μεγάλους καὶ τοὺς ἀστέρας· καὶ ἔθετο αὐτοὺς ἐν τῷ στερεώματι τοῦ οὐρανοῦ.» | 30.1 Again, Moses taught that these [celestial bodies] are also generated, through what he said: “And God said, Let there be lights in the firmament of heaven to give light upon the earth, and let them be for signs and for seasons, and for days and for years. And God made the two great lights, and the stars; and God set them in the firmament of heaven” [Gen. 1:14–17]. |
| 30.2 Ὁμοίως ὁ Πλάτων· «Ἐξ οὖν λόγου καὶ διανοίας θεοῦ τοιαύτης πρὸς χρόνου γένεσιν, ἵνα γενηθῇ χρόνος, ἥλιος καὶ σελήνη καὶ πέντε ἄλλα ἄστρα, ἐπίκλην ἔχοντα πλάνητες, εἰς διορισμὸν καὶ φυλακὴν ἀριθμῶν χρόνου γέγονε. Σώματα δὲ αὐτῶν ποιήσας ὁ θεὸς ἔθηκεν εἰς τὰς περιφοράς.» | 30.2 Likewise Plato: “From such reason and intent of God, therefore, for the generation of time, in order that time might be brought into being, the sun and moon and five other stars—which bear the name of planets—came to be for the defining and preserving of the numbers of time. And having made their bodies, God set them in their orbits” [Timaeus 38c]. |
| 30.3 Ἐπιτήρει δὲ εἰ μὴ τὸ «ἐξ οὖν λόγου καὶ διανοίας θεοῦ» εἰρημένον τῷ Πλάτωνι ὅμοιον ἂν εἴη τῷ παρ’ Ἑβραίοις φάσκοντι· «Τῷ λόγῳ κυρίου οἱ οὐρανοὶ ἐστερεώθησαν, καὶ τῷ πνεύματι τοῦ στόματος αὐτοῦ πᾶσαι αἱ δυνάμεις αὐτῶν.» Ἀλλὰ καὶ Μωσέως εἰπόντος· «Καὶ ἔθετο αὐτοὺς ἐν τῷ στερεώματι,» ὁμοία κέχρηται καὶ ὁ Πλάτων φωνῇ, τῇ «ἔθηκεν,» εἰπών· «Σώματα δὲ αὐτῶν ποιήσας ὁ θεὸς ἔθηκεν εἰς τὰς περιφοράς.» | 30.3 Observe whether the phrase spoken by Plato, “From such reason and intent of God,” might not be similar to the passage among the Hebrews stating: “By the word of the Lord were the heavens established, and all the host of them by the breath of His mouth” [Psalm 33:6]. Furthermore, when Moses said, “And God set them in the firmament,” Plato used a similar expression, “He set” (éthēken), saying: “And having made their bodies, God set them in their orbits.” |
Chapter 31
In this chapter (The Goodness of Creation): Citing Genesis 1:10 and 1:31 ("And God saw that it was good" / "And behold, it was very good"), Eusebius pairs this with Timaeus (29a), where Plato states that because the world is the most beautiful of created things and its Maker is the best of causes, the Creator looked to an eternal model.
| 31.1 Τῆς Ἑβραίων γραφῆς ἐφ’ ἑκάστῳ τῶν δημιουργημάτων ἐπιφωνούσης· «Καὶ εἶδεν ὁ θεὸς ὅτι καλόν,» καὶ ἐπὶ τῇ πάντων συγκεφαλαιώσει φασκούσης· «Καὶ εἶδεν ὁ θεὸς τὰ πάντα, καὶ ἰδοὺ καλὰ λίαν,» ἄκουε τοῦ Πλάτωνος ὥς φησιν· «Εἰ μὲν δὴ καλός ἐστιν ὅδε ὁ κόσμος, ὅ τε δημιουργὸς ἀγαθός, δῆλον ὡς πρὸς τὸ ἀίδιον ἔβλεπε.» Καὶ πάλιν· «Ὁ μὲν γὰρ κάλλιστος τῶν γεγονότων, ὁ δ’ ἄριστος τῶν αἰτίων.» | 31.1 While the Hebrew Scripture proclaims over each of the creations, “And God saw that it was good” [Gen. 1:10], and at the summing up of all things states, “And God saw everything, and behold, it was very good” [Gen. 1:31], listen to Plato as he says: “If indeed this cosmos is beautiful, and its Craftsman good, it is evident that He looked toward the eternal” [Timaeus 29a]. And again: “For it is the most beautiful of generated things, and He the best of causes” [Timaeus 29a]. |
Chapter 32
In this chapter, Eusebius demonstrates how Greek philosophy—specifically Plato's Timaeus and Politicus (Statesman)—parallels Hebrew Scripture regarding the dissolution, transformation, and cosmic renewal of the universe:
vs 1: Eusebius cites Old Testament passages (Isaiah 34:4 on the heavens rolling up like a scroll; Isaiah 65:17 / 66:22 on the new heavens and new earth; and a New Testament/Pauline echoes in 1 Corinthians 7:31 on the passing away of the form of this world) to show the Judeo-Christian doctrine of cosmic transformation.
vs 2–4: Citing the Timaeus (32b–c, 38b, 41a–b), Eusebius shows Plato holding that the visible world, though beautifully bound together by divine proportion and inherently dissoluble (lutón), remains indestructible only by the sovereign will and decree of its Creator (dēmiourgós).
vs 5–11: Quoting extensively from the myth of the Politicus (269c–271c), Eusebius brings out Plato's vision of cosmic cycles, where God directly guides the universe during one period, and during another relaxes His grip, causing vast cosmic reversals (ana-kyklēsis), major cataclysms, the demise of living things, and eventual cosmic restoration. Eusebius concludes by noting how these Platonic ideas closely align with Hebrew doctrines of cosmic renewal and the resurrection of the dead.
| 32.1 Καὶ περὶ τούτου πάσης Ἑβραίων γραφῆς διαλαλούσης, τοτὲ μὲν δι’ ὧν φησι· «καὶ ἑλιγήσεται ὁ οὐρανὸς ὡς βιβλίον,» τοτὲ δὲ δι’ ὧν ἐπιλέγει· «καὶ ἔσται ὁ οὐρανὸς καινὸς καὶ ἡ γῆ καινή, ἃ ἐγὼ ποιῶ μένειν ἐνώπιόν μου, λέγει κύριος·» καὶ πάλιν ἄλλοτε δι’ ὧν φησι· «παράγει γὰρ τὸ σχῆμα τοῦ κόσμου τούτου·» | 32.1 And while all Hebrew Scripture speaks of this—at one time through what it says: “And the heaven shall be rolled up like a scroll” [Isa. 34:4], and at another through what it adds: “For the new heaven and the new earth, which I make, remain before me, says the Lord” [Isa. 66:22 / 65:17]; and again at another time through what it says: “For the form of this world is passing away” [1 Cor. 7:31]— |
| 32.2 καὶ ὁ Πλάτων· ἄκουε γοῦν ὅπως τὸ δόγμα συνίστησι λέγων ἐν Τιμαίῳ· «Καὶ ξυνεστήσατο οὐρανὸν ὁρατὸν καὶ ἁπτόν· καὶ διὰ ταῦτα ἔκ τε δὴ τούτων καὶ τῶν τοιούτων καὶ τὸν ἀριθμὸν τεττάρων τὸ τοῦ κόσμου σῶμα ἐγενήθη δι’ ἀναλογίας ὁμολογῆσαν, φιλίαν τε ἔσχεν ἐκ τούτων, ὥστε εἰς ταὐτὸν αὐτῷ ξυνελθὸν ἄλυτον ὑπὸ τῶν ἄλλων πλὴν ὑπὸ τοῦ ξυνδήσαντος γενέσθαι.» | 32.2 Plato also [agrees]. Listen, at any rate, to how he establishes the doctrine, saying in the Timaeus: “And He constructed the universe visible and tangible; and for these reasons, out of these elements and such as these—four in number—the body of the world was generated, agreeing through proportion; and from these it obtained friendship, so that having come together into unity with itself, it became indissoluble by any other except by Him who bound it together” [Timaeus 32b–c]. |
| 32.3 Εἶθ’ ἑξῆς φησι· «Χρόνος δ’ οὖν μετ’ οὐρανοῦ γέγονεν, ἵνα ἅμα γεννηθέντες ἅμα καὶ λυθῶσιν, ἄν ποτε λύσις τις αὐτῶν γίγνηται.» | 32.3 Then next he says: “Time, therefore, came into being together with the heaven, so that having been generated together they might also be dissolved together, if ever a dissolution of them should occur” [Timaeus 38b]. |
| 32.4 Καὶ πάλιν εἰπών· «Θεοὶ θεῶν, ὧν ἐγὼ δημιουργὸς πατήρ τε ἔργων, ἃ δι’ ἐμοῦ γενόμενα ἄλυτα ἐμοῦ μὴ θέλοντος·» ἐπάγει λέγων ἑξῆς· «Τὸ μὲν οὖν δὴ δεθὲν πᾶν λυτόν, τό γε μὴν καλῶς ἁρμοσθὲν καὶ ἔχον εὖ λύειν ἐθέλειν κακοῦ. Διὸ καὶ ἐπείπερ γεγένησθε, ἀθάνατοι μὲν οὐκ ἐστὲ οὐδ’ ἄλυτοι τὸ πάμπαν· οὔτι μὲν δὴ λυθήσεσθέ γε, οὐδὲ τεύξεσθε θανάτου μοίρας, τῆς ἐμῆς βουλήσεως μείζονος ἔτι δεσμοῦ καὶ κυριωτέρου λαχόντες ἐκείνων οἷς ὅτε ἐγίγνεσθε συνεδεῖσθε.» | 32.4 And again, having said: “Gods of gods, of whom I am craftsman and father of works, which having come to be through Me are indissoluble unless I so will” [Timaeus 41a], he adds next, saying: “Now everything that is bound is dissoluble, yet to wish to dissolve that which is beautifully fitted together and well-disposed belongs to an evil will. Wherefore, since you have come to be, you are not immortal nor entirely indissoluble; yet you shall by no means be dissolved, nor shall you meet with the fate of death, having obtained in My will a bond even greater and more sovereign than those by which you were bound together when you came to be” [Timaeus 41a–b]. |
| 32.5 Καὶ ἐν τῷ Πολιτικῷ δὲ τάδε ὁ αὐτός φησι· «Τὸ γὰρ πᾶν τόδε τοτὲ μὲν αὐτὸς ὁ θεὸς ξυμποδηγεῖ πορευόμενος καὶ ξυγκυκλεῖ, τοτὲ δ’ ἀνῆκεν, ὅταν αἱ περίοδοι τοῦ προσήκοντος αὐτῷ μέτρον εἰλήφωσιν ἤδη χρόνου, τὸ δὲ πάλιν αὐτόματον εἰς τἀναντία περιάγεται, ζῷον ὂν καὶ φρόνησιν εἰληφὸς ἐκ τοῦ ξυναρμόσαντος αὐτὸ κατ’ ἀρχάς. Τοῦτο δὲ αὐτῷ τὸ πάλιν ἰέναι διὰ τόδε ἐξ ἀνάγκης ἔμφυτον γέγονεν. Διὰ τὸ ποῖον δή;» | 32.5 And in the Politicus (Statesman) the same writer says as follows: “For this universe God Himself at one time guides on its way and rolls along, but at another time He lets go, when its revolutions have reached the full measure of its allotted time; and then of its own accord it revolves in the opposite direction, being a living creature and having received intelligence from Him who fitted it together in the beginning. And this reverse motion has of necessity become innate in it for the following reason.” |
| 32.6 «Τὸ κατὰ τὰ αὐτὰ καὶ ὡσαύτως ἔχειν ἀεὶ καὶ ταὐτὸν εἶναι τοῖς πάντων θειοτάτοις προσήκει μόνοις, σώματος δὲ φύσις οὐ ταύτης τῆς τάξεως. Ὃν δὲ οὐρανὸν καὶ κόσμον ἐπωνομάκαμεν, πολλῶν μὲν καὶ μακαρίων παρὰ τοῦ γεννήσαντος μετείληφεν, ἀτὰρ οὖν δὴ κεκοινώνηκέ γε καὶ σώματος· ὅθεν αὐτῷ μεταβολῆς ἀμοίρῳ γίγνεσθαι διὰ παντὸς ἀδύνατον, κατὰ δύναμίν γε μὴν ὅτι μάλιστα ἐν τῷ αὐτῷ κατὰ τὰ αὐτὰ μίαν φορὰν κινεῖται· διὸ τὴν ἀνακύκλησιν εἴληχεν, ὅτι σμικροτάτην τῆς ἑαυτοῦ κινήσεως παράλλαξιν. Αὐτὸ δὲ ἑαυτὸ στρέφειν ἀεὶ σχεδὸν οὐδενὶ δυνατὸν πλὴν τῷ τῶν κινουμένων αὖ πάντων ἡγουμένῳ· κινεῖν δὲ τούτῳ τι τοτὲ μὲν ἄλλως, αὖθις δ’ ἐναντίως οὐ θέμις.» | 32.6 “To remain always in the same state and condition, and to be identical, belongs only to the most divine of all things; but the nature of body is not of this order. Now that which we have named heaven and world has received many blessed gifts from its Begetter, yet it has also partaken of a body; hence it is impossible for it to remain entirely free from change. Nevertheless, so far as possible, it moves as far as it can in the same place and in the same way with a single motion; wherefore it has received a reverse revolution, as being the smallest possible variation of its own motion. But to turn itself continuously is hardly possible for anything except Him who leads all moving things; and for Him to move something now in one way, and again in the opposite way, is not lawful.” |
| 32.7 «Ἐκ πάντων δὴ τούτων τὸν κόσμον μήτε αὐτὸν χρὴ φάναι στρέφειν ἑαυτὸν ἀεί, μήθ’ ὅλον ὑπὸ θεοῦ στρέφεσθαι διττὰς καὶ ἐναντίας περιαγωγάς, μήτ’ αὖ τινε δύο θεὼ φρονοῦντε ἑαυτοῖς ἐναντία στρέφειν αὐτόν, ἀλλ’ ὅπερ ἄρτι ἐρρέθη καὶ μόνον λοιπόν, τοτὲ μὲν ὑπ’ ἄλλης ξυμποδηγεῖσθαι θείας αἰτίας, τὸ ζῆν πάλιν ἐπικτώμενον καὶ λαμβάνοντα ἀθανασίαν ἐπισκευαστὴν παρὰ τοῦ δημιουργοῦ, τοτὲ δ’ ὅταν ἀνεθῇ, δι’ ἑαυτοῦ αὐτὸν ἰέναι κατὰ καιρόν, ἀφεθέντα τοιοῦτον ὥστε ἀνάπαλιν πορεύεσθαι πολλὰς περιόδων μυριάδας διὰ τὸ μέγιστον ὂν καὶ ἰσορροπώτατον ἐπὶ σμικροτάτου βαῖνον ποδὸς ἰέναι.» | 32.7 “From all these things, then, we must neither say that the world turns itself continuously, nor that the whole is turned by God in two opposite revolutions, nor again that two gods with opposing minds turn it; but—what was stated just now and alone remains—that at one time it is guided by another divine cause, acquiring life again and receiving restored immortality from its Creator, while at another time, when released, it goes by itself at its proper moment, having been let go such that it travels backwards through many myriads of revolutions, because, being vast and most perfectly balanced, it moves on the smallest pivot.” |
| 32.8 «Φαίνεται γοῦν δὴ καὶ μάλα εἰκότως εἰρῆσθαι πάντα ὅσα διελήλυθας. Λογισάμενοι δὴ ξυννοήσωμεν τὸ πάθος ἐκ τῶν νῦν λεχθέντων, ὃ πάντων ἔφαμεν εἶναι τῶν θαυμαστῶν αἴτιον· ἔστι γὰρ οὖν δὴ τοῦτ’ αὐτό.» | 32.8 “Indeed, all that you have gone through seems to have been stated quite reasonably.” “Let us then, taking thought, understand from what has now been said the phenomenon which we declared to be the cause of all these wonders; for it is this very thing.” |
| 32.9 «Τὸ ποῖον;» «Τὸ τὴν τοῦ παντὸς φορὰν τοτὲ μὲν ἐφ’ ἃ νῦν κυκλεῖται φέρεσθαι, τοτὲ δ’ ἐπὶ τἀναντία.» «Πῶς δή;» «Ταύτην τὴν μεταβολὴν ἡγεῖσθαι δεῖ τῶν περὶ τὸν οὐρανὸν γινομένων τροπῶν πασῶν εἶναι μεγίστην καὶ τελεωτάτην τροπήν.» | 32.9 “What kind of thing?” “That the motion of the universe is carried at one time in the direction in which it now revolves, and at another time in the opposite direction.” “How so?” “We must regard this change as being the greatest and most complete turn of all the revolutions that occur around the heaven.” |
| 32.10 «Ἔοικε γοῦν.» «Μεγίστας τοίνυν μεταβολὰς χρὴ νομίζειν γίγνεσθαι τότε τοῖς ἐντὸς ἡμῶν οἰκοῦσιν αὐτοῦ.» «Καὶ τοῦτ’ εἰκός.» «Μεταβολὰς δέ γε μεγάλας καὶ πολλὰς καὶ παντοίας ξυμφερομένας ἆρ’ οὐκ ἴσμεν τὴν τῶν ζῴων φύσιν ὅτι χαλεπῶς ἀνέχεται;» | 32.10 “So it seems, at least.” “We must believe, then, that the greatest changes take place at that time for us who dwell within it.” “That too is likely.” “And do we not know that the nature of living creatures bears it with difficulty when large, numerous, and all kinds of changes come upon them together?” |
|
32.11
«Πῶς δ’ οὔ;» «Φθοραὶ τοίνυν ἐξ ἀνάγκης τότε μέγισται συμβαίνουσι τῶν τε ἄλλων ζῴων, καὶ δὴ καὶ τὸ τῶν ἀνθρώπων γένος ὀλίγον τι περιλείπεται· περὶ δὲ τούτους ἄλλα τε παθήματα πολλὰ καὶ θαυμαστὰ καὶ καινὰ ξυμπίπτει, μέγιστον δὲ τόδε καὶ ξυνεπόμενον τῇ τοῦ παντὸς ἀνελίξει, τότε ὅταν ἡ τῆς νῦν καθεστηκυίας ἐναντία γίγνηται τροπή.»
Τούτοις ἅπασιν ὑποβὰς ἐξῆς περὶ τῆς τῶν τετελευτηκότων ἀναβιώσεως, ὁμοίως ταῖς Ἑβραίων δόξαις κινούμενος, ταῦτ’ ἐπιλέγει· |
32.11
“How could it be otherwise?” “Naturally, then, the greatest destructions happen at that time among other living creatures, and indeed the human race is left as only a small remnant; and regarding them, many other strange and new sufferings occur, but the greatest is this, which follows upon the unrolling of the universe at that time when the revolution opposite to the present established order takes place” [Politicus 269c–270d].
Going on immediately after all these passages to speak of the resurrection of the dead, moved by views similar to those of the Hebrews, he adds the following words: |
Chapter 33
In the next four chapters (33–36), Eusebius connects Platonic and Classical literature with Judeo-Christian doctrines concerning the resurrection of the dead, cosmic destruction and restoration, and the heavenly Jerusalem:
Chapter 33 (Politicus 271a–c): Eusebius quotes Plato on the "earth-born" (gēgeneîs) generation, where human beings at the end of a cosmic cycle return to the earth and are later regenerated directly from it—a concept Eusebius presents as a philosophical parallel to the physical resurrection of the dead.
| 33.1 «Γένεσις δὲ τίς τότ' ἦν, ὦ ξένε, ζῴων, καὶ τίνα τρόπον ἐξ ἀλλήλων ἐγεννῶντο;» | 33.1 “And what kind of generation of living beings, O Stranger, existed then, and in what manner were they generated from one another?” |
| 33.2 «Δῆλον, ὦ Σώκρατες, ὅτι τὸ μὲν ἐξ ἀλλήλων οὐκ ἦν ἐν τῇ τότε φύσει γεννώμενον, τὸ δὲ γηγενὲς εἶναί ποτε γένος λεχθέν, τοῦτ' ἦν τὸ κατ' ἐκεῖνον τὸν χρόνον ἐκ γῆς πάλιν ἀναστρεφόμενον, ἀπεμνημονεύετο δὲ ὑπὸ τῶν ἡμετέρων προγόνων τῶν πρώτων, οἳ τελευτώσῃ μὲν τῇ προτέρᾳ περιφορᾷ τὸν ἑξῆς χρόνον ἐγειτόνουν, τῆσδε δὲ κατ' ἀρχὰς ἐφύοντο· τούτων γὰρ οὗτοι κήρυκες ἐγένονθ' ἡμῖν τῶν λόγων, οἳ νῦν ὑπὸ πολλῶν οὐκ ὀρθῶς ἀπιστοῦνται. | 33.2 “It is clear, Socrates, that generation from one another did not exist in the nature of that era, but the race once spoken of as ‘earth-born’ (gēgenes)—this was the race that at that time was returning again out of the earth. It was remembered by our earliest ancestors, who bordered upon the next period at the close of the former revolution, and were born at the beginning of this one. For these men became our heralds of these accounts, which are now disbelieved by many, though incorrectly so. |
| 33.3 Τὸ γὰρ ἐντεῦθεν, οἶμαι, χρὴ ξυννοεῖν. Ἐχόμενον γάρ ἐστι τῷ τοὺς πρεσβύτας ἐπὶ τὴν τοῦ παιδὸς ἰέναι φύσιν, ἐκ τῶν τετελευτηκότων αὖ, κειμένων δ' ἐν γῇ πάλιν ἐκεῖ συνισταμένους καὶ ἀναβιωσκομένους ἕπεσθαι τῇ τροπῇ, ξυνανακυκλουμένης εἰς τἀναντία τῆς γενέσεως, καὶ γηγενεῖς δὴ κατὰ τοῦτον τὸν τρόπον ἐξ ἀνάγκης φυομένους οὕτως ἔχειν τοὔνομα καὶ τὸν λόγον, ὅσους μὴ θεὸς αὐτῶν εἰς ἄλλην μοῖραν ἐκόμισε. Κομιδῇ μὲν οὖν τοῦτό γε ἕπεται τοῖς ἔμπροσθεν.» | 33.3 For from that point, I think, one must understand what follows. For it logically follows that just as the old men pass into the nature of the child, so again those who have died and lie in the earth are reconstituted there and brought back to life, following the cosmic turn, generation being revolved back in the opposite direction. Thus, being naturally generated in this manner out of necessity, they were called ‘earth-born’ (gēgeneîs), receiving both the name and the account, as many of them as God did not carry off to another destiny. Entirely, then, does this follow from what preceded.” |
| 33.4 Εἶτ' αὖ πάλιν ἑξῆς προϊὼν τὰ ὅμοια τοῖς Ἑβραίων δόγμασι περὶ τῆς τοῦ κόσμου συντελείας τοῦτον διέξεισι τὸν τρόπον· | 33.4 Then again next, proceeding forward, he sets forth in this manner things similar to the doctrines of the Hebrews concerning the consummation (sunteleia) of the world: |
Chapter 34
In this chapter, Plato describes the end of a cosmic era (sunteleia). When the Creator temporarily releases the helm of the universe, chaos, shaking, and destruction ensue until God reassumes control at the steering oars to repair, restore, and make the cosmos immortal (agērōn) once more.
| 34.1 «Ὅτε γὰρ πάντων τούτων χρόνος ἐτελειώθη καὶ μεταβολὴν ἔδει γίγνεσθαι καὶ δὴ καὶ τὸ γήινον ἤδη πᾶν ἀνήλωτο γένος, πάσας ἑκάστης τῆς ψυχῆς τὰς γενέσεις ἀποδεδωκυίας, καὶ ὅσα ἦν ἑκάστῃ προσταχθέν, τοσαῦτα εἰς γῆν σπέρματα πεσούσης, τότε δὴ τοῦ παντὸς ὁ μὲν κυβερνήτης, οἷον πηδαλίων οἴακος ἀφέμενος, εἰς τὴν αὑτοῦ περιωπὴν ἀπέστη, τὸν δὲ δὴ κόσμον πάλιν ἀνέστρεφεν εἱμαρμένη τε καὶ ξύμφυτος ἐπιθυμία. | 34.1 “For when the time of all these things was completed, and a change was destined to take place, and indeed when the entire earthly race had been exhausted—every soul having rendered all its generations, and having dropped into the earth as many seeds as were appointed to each—then indeed the Helmsman of the universe, letting go, as it were, of the tiller of the oars, retired to His own lookout post, and fate and innate desire turned the world back again. |
| 34.2 Πάντες οὖν οἱ κατὰ τοὺς τόπους ξυνάρχοντες τῷ μεγίστῳ δαίμονι θεοί, γνόντες ἤδη τὸ γιγνόμενον, ἀφίεσαν αὖ τὰ μέρη τοῦ κόσμου τῆς αὑτῶν ἐπιμελείας. Ὁ δὲ μεταστρεφόμενος καὶ ξυμβάλλων, ἀρχῆς τε καὶ τελευτῆς ἐναντίαν ὁρμὴν ὁρμηθείς, σεισμὸν πολὺν ἐν ἑαυτῷ ποιῶν, ἄλλην αὖ φθορὰν ζῴων παντοίων ἀπειργάσατο. | 34.2 All the gods, therefore, who rule over local places together with the supreme deity, having realized what was taking place, in turn relinquished the parts of the world under their care. And the world, reversing and colliding, having been impelled with an opposing impulse at both its beginning and end, created a great shaking within itself and wrought another destruction of all kinds of living creatures. |
| 34.3 Μετὰ δὲ ταῦτα προελθόντος ἱκανοῦ χρόνου, θορύβου τε καὶ ταραχῆς ἤδη παυόμενος καὶ τῶν σεισμῶν, γαλήνης ἐπιλαβόμενος, εἴς τε τὸν εἰωθότα δρόμον τὸν ἑαυτοῦ κατακοσμούμενος ᾔει, ἐπιμέλειαν καὶ κράτος ἔχων αὐτὸς τῶν ἐν αὐτῷ τε καὶ ἑαυτοῦ.» | 34.3 After this, when sufficient time had passed, the world, ceasing at length from its tumult, confusion, and earthquakes, attained a calm, and being ordered into its accustomed course, went on its way, holding control and mastery over the things within itself and belonging to itself.” |
| 34.4 Καὶ μετὰ βραχέα αὖ φησι· «Διὸ δὴ καὶ τότ' ἤδη θεὸς ὁ κοσμήσας αὐτόν, καθορῶν ἐν ἀπορίᾳ ὄντα, κηδόμενος ἵνα μὴ χειμασθεὶς ὑπὸ ταραχῆς διαλυθεὶς εἰς τὸν τῆς ἀνομοιότητος ἄπειρον ὄντα τόπον δύῃ, πάλιν ἔφεδρος αὐτοῦ τῶν πηδαλίων γενόμενος, τὰ νοσήσαντα καὶ λυθέντα ἐν τῇ καθ' αὑτὸν προτέρᾳ περιόδῳ στρέψας, κοσμεῖ τε καὶ ἐπανορθῶν ἀθάνατον αὐτὸν καὶ ἀγήρων ἀπεργάζεται.» Τοῦτο μὲν τέλος πάντων εἴρηται. | 34.4 And after a short space he says again: “Wherefore indeed, even then, God who ordered the universe, seeing it in distress and concerned lest, tossed in the storm of confusion, it should dissolve and sink into the boundless place of diversity, again sat as referee over its rudders; and turning back the things that had become diseased and loosened during the former period when it was left to itself, He orders and restores it, making it immortal and unaging.” This is stated as the end of all things. |
Chapter 35
In this chapter from (Republic X, 614a–d), Eusebius quotes the famous Myth of Er (Ēròs toû Armeníou), in which a soldier dies in battle, lies on a funeral pyre for twelve days, returns to life, and reports on the judgment of souls in the underworld and their journeys to upper or lower realms according to their deeds.
| 35.1 «Ταῦτα τοίνυν, ἦν δ' ἐγώ, οὐδέν ἐστι πλήθει οὐδὲ μεγέθει πρὸς ἐκεῖνα ἃ τελευτήσαντα ἑκάτερον περιμένει· χρὴ δ' αὐτὰ ἀκοῦσαι, ἵνα τελέως ἑκάτερος αὐτῶν ἀπειλήφῃ τὰ ὑπὸ τοῦ λόγου ὀφειλόμενα ἀκοῦσαι.» | 35.1 “These things, then,” said I, “are as nothing in number or magnitude compared with those which await each person after death; and these things must be heard, in order that each of them may receive in full what is owed to be heard by the discourse.” |
| 35.2 «Λέγοις ἄν, ἔφη, ὡς οὐ πολλὰ, ἀλλ' ἥδιον ἀκούοντι.» «Ἀλλ' οὐ μέντοι σοι, ἦν δ' ἐγώ, Ἀλκίνου γε ἀπόλογον ἐρῶ, ἀλλ' ἀλκίμου μὲν ἀνδρὸς Ἠρὸς τοῦ Ἀρμενίου, τὸ γένος Παμφύλου· ὅς ποτε ἐν πολέμῳ τελευτήσας, ἀναιρεθέντων δεκαταίων τῶν νεκρῶν ἤδη διεφθαρμένων, ὑγιὴς μὲν ἀνῃρέθη, κομισθεὶς δὲ οἴκαδε, μέλλων θάπτεσθαι δωδεκαταῖος ἐπὶ τῇ πυρᾷ κείμενος ἀνεβίω, ἀναβιοὺς δ' ἔλεγεν ἃ ἐκεῖ ἴδοι. | 35.2 “You may speak,” he said, “as to one who hears not many things, but with great pleasure.” “Yet I shall not tell you an Alcinous story,” said I, “but that of a valiant man, Er the son of Armenius, a Pamphylian by race. He was once slain in battle, and when the dead were picked up on the tenth day already decomposed, he was picked up intact; and having been brought home, as he was about to be buried on the twelfth day, while lying upon the pyre, he came back to life; and having come back to life, he related what he had seen there. |
| 35.3 Ἔφη δὲ, ἐπειδὴ οἱ ἐκβῆναι τὴν ψυχήν, πορεύεσθαι μετὰ πολλῶν, καὶ ἀφικνεῖσθαι σφᾶς εἰς τόπον τινὰ δαιμόνιον, ἐν ᾧ τῆς τε γῆς δύ' εἶναι χάσματα ἐχομένω ἀλλήλων, καὶ τοῦ οὐρανοῦ αὖ ἐν τῷ ἄνω ἄλλα καταντικρύ. | 35.3 He said that when his soul departed, it traveled with many others, and that they arrived at a certain wondrous place, in which there were two chasms in the earth adjacent to one another, and two others above in the heaven directly opposite them. |
| 35.4 Δικαστὰς δὲ μεταξὺ τούτων καθῆσθαι, οὕς, ἐπειδὴ δικάσαιεν, τοὺς μὲν δικαίους κελεύειν πορεύεσθαι τὴν εἰς δεξιά τε καὶ ἄνω διὰ τοῦ οὐρανοῦ, σημεῖα περιάψαντας τῶν τε δικασμένων ἐν τῷ πρόσθεν, τοὺς δὲ ἀδίκους τὴν εἰς ἀριστεράν τε καὶ κάτω, ἔχοντας καὶ τούτους ἐν τῷ ὄπισθεν σημεῖα πάντων ὧν ἔπραξαν. | 35.4 Judges sat between these, who, when they had given judgment, commanded the righteous to proceed on the road to the right and upward through the heaven, having bound signs of the judgment passed upon them on their front, but the unrighteous to proceed on the road to the left and downward, these also having behind them signs of all the things they had done. |
| 35.5 Αὐτοῦ δὲ προσελθόντος εἰπεῖν ὅτι δέοι αὐτὸν ἄγγελον ἀνθρώποις γενέσθαι τῶν ἐκεῖ καὶ διακελεύεσθαι διακούειν τε καὶ θεᾶσθαι πάντα τὰ ἐν τῷ τόπῳ.» | 35.5 But when he himself drew near, they told him that he must become a messenger to mankind of the things there, and they instructed him to hear and observe everything in that place.” |
| 35.6 Ταῦτα ὁ Πλάτων· συγγενῆ δὲ τούτοις καὶ ὁ Πλούταρχος ὧδέ πῃ ἐν τῷ Περὶ ψυχῆς πρώτῳ ἱστορεῖ· | 35.6 Thus far Plato. Akin to these things, Plutarch also records somewhere in the first book of On the Soul: |
Chapter 36
In this chapter (Plutarch & Heavenly Earth), Eusebius shares a story from Plutarch's lost On the Soul (Perì psychês) about Antyllus, who died, was mistakenly taken to the underworld instead of a shoemaker named Nicandas, and came back to life when the error was discovered. Eusebius concludes by noting that Old and New Testament promises of a "new earth" or the "Jerusalem above" (Psalm 37:11, Galatians 4:26, Isaiah 54:11–12) find their philosophical counterpart in Socrates' depiction of the pure "true earth" (Phaedo 109a–111c).
| 36.1 «Ἀντύλλῳ δὲ τούτῳ καὶ αὐτοὶ παρῆμεν· ἀλλὰ Σωσιτέλει καὶ Ἡρακλέωνι διηγησώμεθα. Νοσῶν γὰρ ἔναγχος ἀβιώτως ἔχειν ἐδόκει τοῖς ἰατροῖς· ἀνενεχθεὶς δὲ μικρὸν ἔκ τινος οὐ βεβαίου καταφορᾶς, ἄλλο μὲν οὐδὲν οὔτ' ἔπραξεν οὔτ' εἶπε παρακινητικόν, ἔλεγε δὲ τεθνάναι, καὶ πάλιν ἀφεῖσθαι, καὶ μὴ τεθνήξεσθαι τὸ παράπαν ὑπὸ τῆς ἀρρωστίας ἐκείνης, ἀλλὰ καὶ κακῶς ἀκηκοέναι τοὺς ἀγαγόντας αὐτὸν ὑπὸ τοῦ κυρίου· πεμφθέντας γὰρ ἐπὶ Νικανδᾶν αὐτὸν ἥκειν ἀντ' ἐκείνου κομίζοντας. Ὁ δὲ Νικανδᾶς ἦν σκυτοτόμος, ἄλλως δὲ τῶν ἐν παλαίστραις γεγονότων καὶ πολλοῖς συνήθης καὶ γνώριμος. Ὅθεν οἱ νεανίσκοι προσιόντες ἔσκωπτον αὐτὸν ὡς ἀποδεδρακότα καὶ διεφθαρκότα τοὺς ἐκεῖθεν ὑπηρέτας. Αὐτὸς μέντοι δῆλος ἦν εὐθὺς ὑποθραττόμενος καὶ δυσχεραίνων· τέλος δὲ πυρετοῦ προσπεσόντος ἐξαίφνης ἀπέθανε τριταῖος. Οὗτος δὲ ἀνεβίω, καὶ περίεστιν εὖ γε ποιῶν, ἡμῖν ξένων ἐπιεικέστατος.» | 36.1 “We ourselves were present with this Antyllus; but let us relate the story to Sositele and Heracleon. For having recently fallen ill, he seemed to the physicians to be beyond living. Having recovered slightly from a certain uncertain stupor, he did or said nothing else out of his mind, but said that he had died, and had been let go again, and would not die at all from that illness, but that those who had brought him under the master had been severely reprimanded; for having been sent for Nicandas, they had returned bringing him instead of that man. Now Nicandas was a shoemaker, and otherwise one of those who spent time in the wrestling schools, familiar and known to many. Whence the young men going to him teased him as having run away and corrupted the servants from that realm. He himself, however, was clearly disturbed and annoyed immediately; and finally, when a fever attacked him suddenly, he died on the third day. But Antyllus came back to life and survives, doing well—the most reasonable of guests to us.” |
| 36.2 Ταῦτά μοι κείσθω διὰ τὸ καὶ ἐν ταῖς Ἑβραίων γραφαῖς νεκρῶν ἀναβιώσεις φέρεσθαι. Ἐπεὶ δὲ καὶ γῆν τινα ἐν ἐπαγγελίαις μόνοις τοῖς θεοφιλέσι δοθήσεσθαι περιέχουσι, κατὰ τὸ φάσκον λόγιον· «Οἱ δὲ πραεῖς κληρονομήσουσι τὴν γῆν,» ταύτην δὲ ἐπουράνιον ὑπάρχειν διασαφεῖ ὁ φάσκον λόγος· «Ἡ δὲ ἄνω Ἰερουσαλὴμ ἐλευθέρα ἐστίν, ἥτις ἐστὶ μήτηρ ἡμῶν·» ὅ τε προφήτης τὴν αὐτὴν δὴ ταύτην ἐκ πολυτελῶν καὶ τιμίων συνεστάναι λίθων ἐν τρόπῳ ἀλληγορίας αἰνίττεται λέγων· «Ἰδοὺ ἐγὼ ἑτοιμάζω σοι ἄνθρακα τὸν λίθον σου, καὶ θήσω τὰς ἐπάλξεις σου ἴασπιν, καὶ τοὺς θεμελίους σου σάπφειρον, καὶ τὸν περίβολόν σου λίθους ἐκλεκτούς·» θεᾶ ὡς καὶ ὁ Πλάτων αὐτὰ δὴ ταῦτα, ἢ τὰ παραπλήσια, πεπεῖσθαι εἶναι ἀληθῆ ἐν τῷ Περὶ ψυχῆς ὁμολογεῖ, Σωκράτει ἀνατιθεὶς τὸν λόγον ὧδέ πῃ· | 36.2 Let these things be set down by me because accounts of the resurrections of the dead are also found in the Hebrew Scriptures. And since they also contain promises that a certain earth shall be given only to those beloved of God, according to the saying oracle: “The meek shall inherit the earth” [Psalm 37:11], and that this earth is heavenly is made clear by the saying oracle: “The Jerusalem above is free, which is our mother” [Galatians 4:26]; and the prophet hints in an allegorical manner that this very same city is composed of costly and precious stones, saying: “Behold, I prepare for you the carbuncle as your stone, and I will place your battlements as jasper, and your foundations as sapphire, and your enclosure as chosen stones” [Isaiah 54:11–12]—see how Plato also acknowledges in On the Soul (Phaedo) that he is persuaded that these very same things, or things very similar, are true, attributing the discourse to Socrates in this manner: |
Chapter 37
In this chapter, Eusebius quotes extensively from Plato’s Phaedo (108d–111a), presenting the Myth of the True Earth. Socrates explains to Simmias that humanity lives in a shallow, murky hollow of the earth—akin to creatures living at the bottom of the sea mistaking the water for the sky. The true, upper earth (hē hōs alēthōs gē) exists in the clear ether, where the landscape is dazzling, composed of brilliant colors, jewel-like mountains, and uncorrupted minerals (sards, jaspers, emeralds). Eusebius adduces this passage as a classical philosophical parallel to Jewish and Christian concepts of the "heavenly Jerusalem" and the "restored earth."
| 37.1 «Ἀλλὰ μέντοι, ὦ Σιμμία, οὐχὶ ἡ Γλάυκου τέχνη γέ μοι δοκεῖ εἶναι διηγήσασθαι ἅ γ' ἐστίν· ὡς μέντοι ἀληθῆ, χαλεπώτερόν μοι φαίνεται ἢ κατὰ τὴν Γλάυκου τέχνην. Καὶ ἅμα μὲν ἐγὼ ἴσως οὐδ' ἂν οἷός τε εἴην, ἅμα δέ, καὶ εἰ ἠπιστάμην, ὁ βίος μοι δοκεῖ ὁ ἐμός, ὦ Σιμμία, τῷ μήκει τοῦ λόγου οὐκ ἐξαρκεῖν. Τὴν μέντοι ἰδέαν τῆς γῆς, οἵαν πέπεισμαι εἶναι, καὶ τοὺς τόπους αὐτῆς οὐδέν με κωλύει λέγειν.» «Ἀλλ',» ἔφη ὁ Σιμμίας, «καὶ ταῦτα ἀρκεῖ.» | 37.1 “Well then, Simmias,” he said, “it does not seem to me to require the art of Glaucus to explain what these things are; however, to describe them as true appears to me harder than according to the art of Glaucus. And at the same time, I myself would probably not be able to do so; and besides, even if I knew how, my life, Simmias, seems to me insufficient for the length of the account. Nevertheless, as to the form of the earth such as I am persuaded it is, and its regions, nothing prevents me from telling you.” “Well,” said Simmias, “even that is enough.” |
| 37.2 «Πέπεισμαι τοίνυν,» ἦ δ' ὅς, «ἐγὼ πρῶτον μέν, εἰ ἔστιν ἐν μέσῳ τῷ οὐρανῷ περιφερὴς οὖσα, μηδὲν αὐτῇ δεῖν μήτε ἀέρος πρὸς τὸ μὴ πεσεῖν μήτε ἄλλης ἀνάγκης μηδεμιᾶς τοιαύτης, ἀλλ' ἱκανὴν εἶναι αὐτὴν ἴσχειν τὴν ὁμοιότητα τοῦ οὐρανοῦ αὐτοῦ ἑαυτῷ πάντῃ καὶ τῆς γῆς αὐτῆς τὴν ἰσορροπίαν· ἰσόρροπον γὰρ πρᾶγμα ὁμοίου τινὸς ἐν μέσῳ τεθὲν οὐχ ἕξει μᾶλλον οὐδ' ἧττον οὐδαμόσε κλιθῆναι, ὁμοίως δ' ἔχον ἀκλινὲς μένει. | 37.2 “I am persuaded then,” said he, “first of all, that if the earth is spherical and situated in the middle of the heaven, it needs neither air to keep it from falling nor any other such force, but that the uniformity of the heaven itself in every direction and the equilibrium of the earth itself are sufficient to hold it; for a balanced object placed in the center of a uniform medium will have no tendency to incline more or less in any direction, but being in a like condition will remain motionless. |
| 37.3 Πρῶτον μὲν δή,» ἔφη, «τοῦτο πέπεισμαι.» «Καὶ ὀρθῶς γε,» ἔφη ὁ Σιμμίας. «Ἔτι τοίνυν,» ἔφη, «πάμμεγά τι εἶναι αὐτό, καὶ ἡμᾶς οἰκεῖν τοὺς μέχρις Ἡρακλείων στηλῶν ἀπὸ Φάσιδος ἐν σμικρῷ τινι μορίῳ, ὥσπερ περὶ τέλμα μύρμηκας ἢ βατράχους περὶ τὴν θάλατταν οἰκοῦντας, καὶ ἄλλους ἄλλοθι πολλοὺς ἐν πολλοῖς τοιούτοις τόποις οἰκεῖν. | 37.3 First of all, then,” he said, “I am persuaded of this.” “And rightly so,” said Simmias. “Furthermore,” said he, “I am convinced that it is something immense in size, and that we who dwell between the Pillars of Heracles and the river Phasis inhabit only a small portion of it, like ants or frogs around a pond, dwelling around the sea; and that many others dwell elsewhere in many such places. |
| 37.4 Εἶναι γὰρ πανταχῇ περὶ τὴν γῆν πολλὰ κοῖλα καὶ παντοδαπὰ καὶ τὰς ἰδέας καὶ τὰ μεγέθη, εἰς ἃ ξυνερρυηκέναι τό τε ὕδωρ καὶ τὴν ὁμίχλην καὶ τὸν ἀέρα· αὐτὴν δὲ τὴν γῆν καθαράν τε ἐν καθαρῷ κεῖσθαι τῷ οὐρανῷ, ἐν ᾧπέρ ἐστι τὰ ἄστρα, ὃν δὴ αἰθέρα ὀνομάζειν τοὺς πολλοὺς τῶν τὰ τοιαῦτα εἰωθότων λέγειν· οὗ δὴ ὑποστάθμην εἶναι ταῦτα καὶ ξυρρεῖν ἀεὶ εἰς τὰ κοῖλα τῆς γῆς. | 37.4 For everywhere around the earth there are many hollows of all kinds of shapes and sizes, into which the water, mist, and air have collected together; but the earth itself lies pure in the pure heaven in which the stars are set, which most of those accustomed to speak on such matters call the ether. Of this ether, these collections are the sediment, flowing continually into the hollows of the earth. |
| 37.5 Ἡμᾶς οὖν οἰκοῦντας ἐν τοῖς κοίλοις αὐτῆς λεληθέναι καὶ οἴεσθαι ἄνω ἐπὶ τῆς γῆς οἰκεῖν, ὥσπερ ἂν εἴ τις ἐν μέσῳ τῷ πυθμένι τοῦ πελάγους οἰκῶν οἴοιτό τε ἐπὶ τῆς θαλάττης οἰκεῖν καὶ διὰ τοῦ ὕδατος ὁρῶν τὸν ἥλιον καὶ τὰ ἄλλα ἄστρα τὴν θάλατταν ἡγοῖτο οὐρανὸν εἶναι, διὰ δὲ βραδυτῆτά τε καὶ ἀσθένειαν μηδεπώποτε ἐπὶ τὰ ἄκρα τῆς θαλάττης εἴη ἀφιγμένος, μηδὲ ἑωρακὼς εἴη, ἐκδὺς καὶ ἀνακύψας ἐκ τῆς θαλάττης εἰς τὸν ἐνθάδε τόπον, ὅσῳ καθαρώτερος καὶ καλλίων τυγχάνει ὢν τοῦ παρὰ σφίσι, μηδὲ ἄλλου ἀκηκοὼς εἴη τοῦτο ἑωρακότος. | 37.5 We then, dwelling in its hollows, are unaware of it and imagine that we dwell above upon the earth—just as if someone dwelling down at the middle of the ocean floor were to imagine he dwelt upon the surface of the sea, and seeing the sun and the other stars through the water, should deem the sea to be heaven, but through sluggishness and weakness had never reached the surface of the sea, nor had risen up and emerged from the sea into this region here, to see how much purer and fairer it happens to be than the realm with them, nor had heard of it from anyone else who had seen it. |
| 37.6 Ταὐτὸ δὴ τοῦτο καὶ ἡμᾶς πεπονθέναι· οἰκοῦντας γὰρ ἔν τινι κοίλῳ τῆς γῆς οἴεσθαι ἐπάνω αὐτῆς οἰκεῖν, καὶ τὸν ἀέρα οὐρανὸν καλεῖν, ὡς διὰ τούτου οὐρανοῦ ὄντος τὰ ἄστρα χωροῦντα. Τὸ δὲ εἶναι ταὐτόν, ὑπ' ἀσθενείας καὶ βραδυτῆτος οὐχ οἵους τε εἶναι ἡμᾶς διεξελθεῖν ἐπ' ἔσχατον τὸν ἀέρα· ἐπεί, εἴ τις αὐτοῦ ἐπ' ἄκρα ἔλθοι ἢ πτηνὸς γενόμενος ἀνάπτοιτο, κατιδεῖν δὴ ἀνακύψαντα, ὥσπερ ἐνθάδε οἱ ἐκ τῆς θαλάττης ἰχθύες ἀνακύπτοντες ὁρῶσι τὰ ἐνθάδε, οὕτως ἄν τινα καὶ τὰ ἐκεῖ κατιδεῖν· καὶ εἰ ἡ φύσις ἱκανὴ εἴη ἀνέχεσθαι θεωροῦσα, γνῶναι ἂν ὅτι ἐκεῖνός ἐστιν ὁ ἀληθῶς οὐρανὸς καὶ τὸ ἀληθινὸν φῶς καὶ ἡ ὡς ἀληθῶς γῆ. | 37.6 Now this very same thing has happened to us as well; for dwelling in a certain hollow of the earth, we imagine we live above upon it, and we call the air 'heaven', as though the stars moved through it as the heaven. But the truth is the same: through weakness and sluggishness we are unable to pass through to the upper limit of the air. For if anyone should reach its upper edge or take wing and fly up, he would emerge and behold—just as fishes here emerging from the sea behold the things here—so someone there would behold the things above; and if his nature were capable of enduring the sight, he would realize that that is the true heaven, the true light, and the true earth. |
| 37.7 Ἥδε μὲν γὰρ ἡ γῆ καὶ οἱ λίθοι καὶ πᾶς ὁ τόπος ὁ ἐνθάδε διεφθαρμένα ἐστὶ καὶ καταβεβρωμένα, ὥσπερ τὰ ἐν τῇ θαλάττῃ ὑπὸ τῆς ἅλμης· καὶ οὔτε φύεται ἄξιον λόγου οὐδὲν ἐν τῇ θαλάττῃ οὔτε τέλειον, ὡς ἔπος εἰπεῖν, οὐδέν ἐστι, σήραγγες δὲ καὶ ἄμμος καὶ πηλὸς ἀμήχανος καὶ βόρβοροί εἰσιν, ὅπου ἂν καὶ ἡ γῆ ᾖ, καὶ πρὸς τὰ παρ' ἡμῖν καλὰ κρίνεσθαι οὐδ' ὁπωστιοῦν ἄξια. | 37.7 For this earth here, and the stones, and the whole region here are corrupted and eaten away, just as things in the sea are by the brine; and nothing worth mentioning grows in the sea, nor is anything complete, so to speak, but there are hollow caves, immense sand, trackless mud, and mire wherever there is earth, things not in any way worthy to be judged against the beauties among us. |
| 37.8 Ἐκεῖνα δὲ αὖ τῶν παρ' ἡμῖν πολὺ ἂν ἔτι πλεῖον φανείη διαφέρειν. Εἰ γὰρ δὴ καὶ μυθολογεῖν καλόν, ἄξιον ἀκοῦσαι, ὦ Σιμμία, οἷα τυγχάνει τὰ ἐπὶ τῆς γῆς ὑπὸ τῷ οὐρανῷ ὄντα.» «Ἀλλὰ μήν,» ἔφη ὁ Σιμμίας, «ὦ Σώκρατες, ἡμεῖς γε τούτου τοῦ μύθου ἡδέως ἂν ἀκούσαιμεν.» | 37.8 But those things above, on the other hand, would appear to excel the things among us by far more still. For if indeed it is fitting to tell a myth, it is worth hearing, Simmias, what the things upon the earth beneath the heaven are really like.” “Indeed,” said Simmias, “O Socrates, we would gladly hear this myth.” |
| 37.9 «Λέγεται τοίνυν,» ἔφη, «ὦ ἑταῖρε, πρῶτον μὲν εἶναι τοιαύτη ἡ γῆ αὐτὴ ἰδεῖν, εἴ τις ἄνωθεν θεῷτο, ὥσπερ αἱ δωδεκάσκυτοι σφαῖραι, ποικίλη, χρώμασι διειλημμένη, ὧν καὶ τὰ ἐνθάδε εἶναι χρώματα ὥσπερ δείγματα, οἷς δὴ οἱ γραφεῖς καταχρῶνται· ἐκεῖ δὲ πᾶσαν τὴν γῆν ἐκ τοιούτων εἶναι, καὶ πολὺ ἔτι ἐκ λαμπροτέρων καὶ καθαρωτέρων ἢ τούτων. | 37.9 “It is said then, my friend,” he said, “first of all, that the earth itself, if one were to view it from above, appears like those twelve-pieced leather balls, variegated, divided into colors, of which the colors here are like samples which painters use among us. But there the whole earth is made of such colors, and of colors far more brilliant and pure than these. |
| 37.10 Τὴν μὲν γὰρ ἁλουργῆ εἶναι θαυμαστὴν τὸ κάλλος, τὴν δὲ χρυσοειδῆ, τὴν δὲ ὅση λευκὴ γύψου καὶ χιόνος λευκοτέραν, καὶ ἐκ τῶν ἄλλων χρωμάτων συγκειμένην ὡσαύτως, καὶ ἔτι πλειόνων καὶ καλλιόνων ἢ ὅσα ἡμεῖς ἑωράκαμεν. | 37.10 For one part is sea-purple of marvelous beauty, another golden, another as much as is white is whiter than chalk or snow, and composed of the other colors in like manner—yes, of even more and fairer colors than all those we have seen. |
| 37.11 Καὶ γὰρ αὐτὰ ταῦτα τὰ κοῖλα αὐτῆς, ὕδατός τε καὶ ἀέρος ἔμπλεα ὄντα, χρώματός τι εἶδος παρέχεσθαι στίλβοντα ἐν τῇ τῶν ἄλλων χρωμάτων ποικιλίᾳ, ὥστε ἕν τι αὐτῆς εἶδος συνεχὲς καὶ ποικίλον φαντάζεσθαι. | 37.11 For even these very hollows of it, being full of water and air, present a kind of color as they glisten amid the variety of the other colors, so that its appearance seems one continuous and variegated form. |
| 37.12 Ἐν δὲ ταύτῃ οὔσῃ τοιαύτῃ ἀνάλογον τὰ φύεσθαι, δένδρα τε καὶ ἄνθη καὶ τοὺς καρπούς· καὶ αὖ τὰ ὄρη ὡσαύτως καὶ τοὺς λίθους ἔχειν κατὰ τὸν αὐτὸν λόγον τήν τε λειότητα καὶ τὴν διαφάνειαν καὶ τὰ χρώματα καλλίω· ὧν καὶ τὰ ἐνθάδε λιθίδια εἶναι ταῦτα τὰ ἀγαπώμενα μόρια, σάρδιά τε καὶ ἰάσπιδας καὶ σμαράγδους καὶ πάντα τὰ τοιαῦτα· ἐκεῖ δὲ οὐδὲν ὁτιοῦν ὃ οὐ τοιοῦτον εἶναι καὶ ἔτι τούτων καλλίω. | 37.12 And in an earth of such a nature, the things that grow—trees, flowers, and fruits—grow in proportion; and again, the mountains and the stones have, according to the same proportion, their smoothness, transparency, and colors far more beautiful. Of these, the little stones here—the prized fragments, sards, jaspers, emeralds, and all such things—are mere pieces; but there, there is nothing that is not of this kind and even fairer than these. |
| 37.13 Τὸ δ' αἴτιον τούτου εἶναι ὅτι ἐκεῖνοι οἱ λίθοι καθαροί εἰσι καὶ οὐ κατεδηδεσμένοι οὐδὲ διεφθαρμένοι ὥσπερ οἱ ἐνθάδε, ὑπὸ σηπεδόνος καὶ ἅλμης καὶ τῶν δεῦρο ξυνερρυηκότων, ἃ καὶ λίθοις καὶ γῇ καὶ τοῖς ἄλλοις ζῴοις τε καὶ φυτοῖς αἴσχη τε καὶ νόσους παρέχει. Τὴν δὲ γῆν αὐτὴν κεκοσμῆσθαι τούτοις τε ἅπασι καὶ ἔτι χρυσῷ τε καὶ ἀργύρῳ καὶ τοῖς ἄλλοις αὖ τοῖς τοιούτοις· ἐκφανῆ γὰρ αὐτὰ πεφυκέναι, ὄντα πολλά πλήθει καὶ μεγάλα καὶ πολλαχοῦ τῆς γῆς, ὥστε αὐτὴν εἶναι θέαμα εὐδαιμόνων θεατῶν.» | 37.13 And the cause of this is that those stones are pure and not eaten away or corrupted as those here are by decay, brine, and the sediment that has flowed together here, which cause ugly deformities and diseases to stones, earth, animals, and plants alike. But the earth itself is adorned with all these things, and moreover with gold and silver and all other such metals; for they are naturally visible, being many in number, large, and in many places on the earth, so that the earth itself is a spectacle for blessed beholders.” |
Chapter 38
In this concluding chapteer of Book 11, Eusebius draws a direct parallel between the Judeo-Christian doctrines of divine judgment, eternal retribution, and heavenly rewards and Plato's eschatological vision in the Phaedo (113a–115a).
After referencing the book of Daniel regarding the heavenly court and the river of fire, Eusebius quotes Plato's description of the underworld rivers (Pyriphlegethon, Cocytus, Tartarus, and the Acherusian Lake) and the post-mortem judgment of souls:
Eusebius explicitly correlates Plato's text with biblical passages:
After referencing the book of Daniel regarding the heavenly court and the river of fire, Eusebius quotes Plato's description of the underworld rivers (Pyriphlegethon, Cocytus, Tartarus, and the Acherusian Lake) and the post-mortem judgment of souls:
The Incurable: Cast into Tartarus forever.
The Curable/Penitent: Punished temporarily until forgiven by those they wronged.
The Righteous & Philosophers: Elevated to pristine heavenly dwellings (oikēseis).
Eusebius explicitly correlates Plato's text with biblical passages:
The unutterable heavenly dwellings → 1 Corinthians 2:9 ("Eye has not seen...") and John 14:2 ("many mansions").
The endless punishment in Tartarus → Isaiah 33:14 and Isaiah 66:24 ("their worm shall not die, nor their fire be quenched").
The release from earthly toil → Isaiah 35:10 ("sorrow and sighing shall flee away").
Plato’s mention of "carriages" (ochēmata) → The resurrection body in which souls undergo final judgment.
| 38.1 Τῆς παρ’ Ἑβραίοις γραφῆς θεοῦ δικαιωτήριον καὶ κρίσιν ψυχῶν μετὰ τὴν ἐνθένδε ἀπαλλαγὴν ἔσεσθαι προαγορευούσης διά τε μυρίων ἄλλων καὶ δι’ ὧν φησι· «Κριτήριον ἐκάθισε καὶ βίβλοι ἠνεῴχθησαν καὶ ὁ παλαιὸς ἡμερῶν ἐκάθητο. Ποταμὸς πυρὸς εἷλκεν ἔμπροσθεν αὐτοῦ· μύριαι μυριάδες ἐλειτούργουν αὐτῷ, καὶ χίλιαι χιλιάδες παρειστήκεσαν ἔμπροσθεν αὐτοῦ,» ἐπάκουσον τοῦ Πλάτωνος τῆς θείας κρίσεως, καὶ δὴ καὶ τοῦ ποταμοῦ ὀνομαστὶ μεμνημένου, πολλάς τε μονὰς τῶν εὐσεβῶν διαφόρους τε τῶν δυσσεβῶν τιμωρίας συμφώνως τοῖς Ἑβραίων ὑπογράφοντος λόγοις. | 38.1 Since the Scripture among the Hebrews foretells that there will be a judgment-seat of God and a trial of souls after their departure from here, through ten thousand other passages and through those where it says: "A court sat, and books were opened, and the Ancient of Days took his seat; a river of fire flowed before him; ten thousand times ten thousand ministered to him, and thousands of thousands stood before him," listen now to Plato on the divine judgment—he who even mentions the river by name, and describes many diverse abodes for the pious and various punishments for the impious in agreement with the words of the Hebrews. |
| 38.2 Φησὶ δ’ οὖν ἐν τῷ Περὶ ψυχῆς τάδε· «Τρίτος δὲ ποταμὸς τούτων κατὰ μέσον ἐκβάλλει, καὶ ἐγγὺς τῆς ἐκβολῆς ἐκπίπτει εἰς τόπον μέγαν πυρὶ πολλῷ καιόμενον, καὶ λίμνην ποιεῖ μείζω τῆς παρ’ ἡμῖν θαλάττης, ζέουσαν ὕδατος καὶ πηλοῦ· ἐντεῦθεν δὲ χωρεῖ κύκλῳ θολερὸς καὶ πηλώδης, περιελιττόμενος δέ γε τῇ γῇ ἄλλοσέ τε ἀφικνεῖται καὶ παρ’ ἔσχατα τῆς Ἀχερουσιάδος λίμνης, οὐ συμμιγνύμενος τῷ ὕδατι· περιελιχθεὶς δὲ πολλάκις ὑπὸ γῆς ἐμβάλλει κατωτέρω τοῦ Ταρτάρου. | 38.2 He says then in the treatise On the Soul [Phaedo] the following: "And a third river issues between these, and near its outlet falls into a vast region burning with much fire, forming a lake larger than our sea, boiling with water and mud. Thence it moves in a circle, turbid and muddy, and winding round within the earth it arrives, among other places, at the furthest borders of the Acherusian Lake, without mixing with its water; and having wound round many times beneath the earth, it discharges lower down into Tartarus. |
| 38.3 Οὗτος δ’ ἐστὶν ὃν ἐπονομάζουσι Πυριφλεγέθοντα, οὗ καὶ οἱ ῥύακες ἀποσπάσματα ἀναφυσῶσιν ὅπου ἂν τύχωσι τῆς γῆς. Τούτου δὲ αὖ καταντικρὺ ὁ τέταρτος ἐκπίπτει εἰς τόπον πρῶτον δεινόν τε καὶ ἄγριον, ὡς λέγεται, χρῶμα δὲ ἔχοντα ὅλον οἷον ὁ κύανός, ὃν δὴ ἐπονομάζουσι Στύγιον, καὶ τὴν λίμνην ἣν ποιεῖ ὁ ποταμὸς ἐμβάλλων Στύγα. Ὁ δ’ ἐμπεσὼν ἐνταῦθα καὶ δεινὰς δυνάμεις λαβὼν ἐν τῷ ὕδατι, δὺς κατὰ τῆς γῆς, περιελιττόμενος χωρεῖ ἐναντίως τῷ Πυριφλεγέθοντι καὶ ἀπαντᾷ ἐν τῇ Ἀχερουσίᾳ λίμνῃ ἐξ ἐναντίας, καὶ οὐδὲ τὸ τούτου ὕδωρ οὐδενὶ μίγνυται, ἀλλὰ καὶ οὗτος κύκλῳ περιελθὼν ἐμβάλλει εἰς τὸν Τάρταρον ἐναντίως τῷ Πυριφλεγέθοντι· ὄνομα δὲ τούτῳ ἐστίν, ὡς οἱ ποιηταὶ λέγουσι, Κωκυτός. | 38.3 This is the river which they call Pyriphlegethon, whose streams blow up fragments of fire wherever they happen to reach on earth. Directly opposite this, the fourth river falls out into a place terrifying and wild, as it is said, having a color entirely like dark steel, which they call the Stygian river, and the lake which the river forms by falling into it they call Styx. But the river, falling into this place and receiving dreadful powers in its water, sinks into the earth and, winding round, moves in the opposite direction to Pyriphlegethon and meets it in the Acherusian Lake from the opposite side; nor does its water mix with any other, but this one too, going round in a circle, discharges into Tartarus opposite Pyriphlegethon. And its name, as the poets say, is Cocytus. |
| 38.4 Τούτων δὲ οὕτω πεφυκότων, ἐπειδὰν ἀφίκωνται οἱ τετελευτηκότες εἰς τὸν τόπον οὗ ὁ δαίμων ἕκαστον κομίζει, πρῶτον μὲν διεδικάσαντο οἵ τε καλῶς καὶ ὁσίως καὶ δικαίως βιώσαντες καὶ οἱ μή. Καὶ οἱ μὲν ἂν δόξωσι μέσως βεβιωκέναι, πορευθέντες ἐπὶ τὸν Ἀχέροντα, ἀναβάντες ἃ δὴ αὐτοῖς ὀχήματά ἐστιν, ἐπὶ τούτων ἀφικνοῦνται εἰς τὴν λίμνην, καὶ ἐκεῖ οἰκοῦσί τε καὶ καθαιρόμενοι τῶν τε ἀδικημάτων διδόντες δίκας ἀπολύονται, εἴ τίς τι ἠδίκηκε, τῶν τε εὐεργεσιῶν τιμὰς φέρονται κατὰ τὴν ἀξίαν ἕκαστος· οἳ δ’ ἂν δόξωσιν ἀνιάτως ἔχειν διὰ τὰ μεγέθη τῶν ἁμαρτημάτων, ἢ ἱεροσυλίας πολλὰς καὶ μεγάλας ἢ φόνους ἀδίκους καὶ παρανόμους πολλοὺς ἐξειργασμένοι ἢ ἄλλα ὅσα τοιαῦτα τυγχάνει ὄντα, τούτους δὲ ἡ προσήκουσα μοῖρα ῥίπτει εἰς τὸν Τάρταρον, ὅθεν οὔποτε ἐκβαίνουσιν. | 38.4 Such being the nature of these things, when the dead arrive at the place to which his daemon brings each one, first of all they undergo judgment—both those who lived noble, holy, and just lives, and those who did not. And those who are judged to have lived an intermediate life, proceeding to Acheron and embarking upon such vessels as they have, arrive on these at the lake, and there they dwell; and being purified and paying the penalty for their wrongdoings, they are acquitted if anyone has committed any injustice, and they receive honors for their good deeds according to each man's desert. But those who are judged to be incurable on account of the magnitude of their sins—having committed many great sacrileges or many unlawful and unjust murders or other such crimes—these their fitting destiny casts into Tartarus, whence they never emerge. |
| 38.5 Οἳ δ’ ἂν ἰάσιμα μέν, μεγάλα δὲ δόξωσιν ἡμαρτηκέναι ἁμαρτήματα, οἷον πρὸς πατέρα ἢ μητέρα ὑπ’ ὀργῆς βίαιόν τι πράξαντες, καὶ μεταμέλον αὐτοῖς τὸν ἄλλον βίον βιῶσιν, ἢ ἀνδροφόνοι τοιούτῳ τινὶ ἄλλῳ τρόπῳ γένωνται, τούτοις δ’ ἐμπεσεῖν μὲν εἰς τὸν Τάρταρον ἀνάγκη, ἐμπεσόντας δὲ αὐτοὺς καὶ ἐνιαυτὸν ἐκεῖ γενομένους ἐκβάλλει τὸ κῦμα, τοὺς μὲν ἀνδροφόνους κατὰ τὸν Κωκυτόν, τοὺς δὲ πατραλῴας καὶ μητραλῴας κατὰ τὸν Πυριφλεγέθοντα· ἐπειδὰν δὲ φλεγόμενοι γένωνται κατὰ τὴν λίμνην τὴν Ἀχερουσιάδα, ἐνταῦθα βοῶσί τε καὶ καλοῦσιν, οἱ μὲν οὓς ἀπέκτειναν, οἱ δὲ οὓς ὕβρισαν, καλέσαντες δὲ ἱκετεύουσι καὶ δέονται ἐᾶσαι σφᾶς ἐκβῆναι εἰς τὴν λίμνην, καὶ ἐὰν μὲν πείσωσιν, ἐκβαίνουσί τε καὶ λήγουσι τῶν κακῶν· εἰ δὲ μή, φέρονται αὖθις εἰς τὸν Τάρταρον, κἀκεῖθεν πάλιν εἰς τοὺς ποταμούς, καὶ ταῦτα πάσχοντες οὐ πρότερον παύονται πρὶν ἂν πείσωσιν οὓς ἠδίκησαν· αὕτη γὰρ ἡ δίκη ὑπὸ τῶν δικαστῶν αὐτοῖς ἐτάχθη. | 38.5 But those who are judged to have committed sins that are curable, though great—such as having committed some act of violence against father or mother in anger, and living the rest of their lives in repentance, or having become murderers in some other such manner—these must of necessity fall into Tartarus; but when they have fallen in and been there for a year, the wave casts them out, the murderers by way of Cocytus, and the parricides and matricides by way of Pyriphlegethon. And when, as they are carried along, they come opposite the Acherusian Lake, there they cry out and call upon those whom they slew or those whom they outraged; and having called upon them, they supplicate and beg them to allow them to come out into the lake. If they persuade them, they come out and cease from their woes; but if not, they are carried back again into Tartarus, and from there back into the rivers, and they do not cease suffering these things until they persuade those whom they wronged; for this was the penalty appointed for them by the judges. |
|
38.6
Οἱ δὲ δὴ ἂν δόξωσι διαφερόντως πρὸς τὸ ὁσίως βιῶναι, οὗτοί εἰσιν οἱ τῶνδε μὲν τῶν τόπων τῶν ἐν τῇ γῇ ἐλευθερούμενοί τε καὶ ἀπαλλαττόμενοι ὥσπερ δεσμωτηρίων, ἄνω δὲ εἰς τὴν καθαρὰν οἴκησιν ἀφικνούμενοι καὶ ἐπὶ τῆς γῆς οἰκιζόμενοι. Τούτων δὲ αὐτῶν οἱ φιλοσοφία ἱκανῶς καθηράμενοι ἄνευ τε καμάτων ζῶσι τὸ παράπαν εἰς τὸν ἔπειτα χρόνον, καὶ εἰς οἰκήσεις ἔτι τούτων καλλίους ἀφικνοῦνται, ἃς οὔτε ῥᾴδιον δηλῶσαι οὔτε ὁ χρόνος ἱκανὸς ἐν τῷ παρόντι. Ἀλλὰ τούτων δὴ ἕνεκα χρὴ ὧν διεληλύθαμεν, ὦ Σιμμία, πᾶν ποιεῖν ὥστε ἀρετῆς καὶ φρονήσεως ἐν τῷ βίῳ μετασχεῖν· καλὸν γὰρ τὸ ἆθλον καὶ ἡ ἐλπὶς μεγάλη.»
Ταῦτα ὁ Πλάτων. Σὺ δέ γε παραθήσεις τῷ «καὶ εἰς οἰκήσεις καλλίους ἀφικνοῦνται, ἃς οὔτε ῥᾴδιον δηλῶσαι οὔτε χρόνος ἱκανὸς ἐν τῷ παρόντι» τὸ παρ’ ἡμῖν οὕτως ἔχον· «Ὀφθαλμὸς γὰρ οὐκ εἶδε καὶ οὖς οὐκ ἤκουσεν, καὶ ἐπὶ καρδίαν ἀνθρώπου οὐκ ἀνέβη, ἃ ἡτοίμασεν ὁ θεὸς τοῖς ἀγαπῶσιν αὐτόν.» Ταῖς δὲ εἰρημέναις οἰκήσεσι τὸ πολλὰς μονὰς εἶναι παρὰ τῷ πατρὶ τοῖς θεοφιλέσιν ἐπηγγελμένας, καὶ τοῖς περὶ τοῦ Πυριφλεγέθοντος λεχθεῖσι τὸ τοῖς ἀσεβέσιν ἠπειλημένον πῦρ αἰώνιον, κατὰ τὸν πρὸς αὐτοὺς φάσκοντα Ἑβραίων προφήτην· «Τίς ἀναγγελεῖ ὑμῖν ὅτι πῦρ καίεται; Τίς ἀναγγελεῖ ὑμῖν τὸν τόπον τὸν αἰώνιον;» Καὶ πάλιν· «Ὁ σκώληξ αὐτῶν οὐ τελευτήσει, καὶ τὸ πῦρ οὐ σβεσθήσεται, καὶ ἔσονται εἰς ὅρασιν πάσῃ σαρκί.» Τήρει δὲ ὡς καὶ ὁ Πλάτων συνᾴδων τούτοις, τοὺς ἀσεβεῖς εἰπὼν χωρήσειν εἰς Τάρταρον, ἐπιλέγει· «Ὅθεν οὔποτε ἐκβαίνουσι.» Καὶ αὖ πάλιν τοὺς εὐσεβεῖς ζήσεσθαι εἰπὼν ἐν μακαρίοις προστίθησι λέγων· «Τὸ παράπαν καὶ εἰς τὸν ἔπειτα χρόνον.» Ἀλλὰ καὶ τὸ ἄνευ καμάτων εἰρημένον ὑπ’ αὐτοῦ ὅμοιον ἂν εἴη τῷ· «Ἀπέδρα ὀδύνη καὶ λύπη καὶ στεναγμός.» Φάσκων δὲ τοὺς ἐπὶ τὸν Ἀχέροντα πορευομένους μὴ ἁπλῶς ἐπὶ τοῦτον ἀφικνεῖσθαι, ἀλλὰ ἀναβαίνοντας πρότερον ἃ δὴ αὐτοῖς ὀχήματά ἐστι, τίνα ποτὲ ἄρα τὰ ὀχήματα βούλεται σημαίνειν ἢ τὰ σώματα, εἰς ἃ ἀναβᾶσαι αἱ τῶν τετελευτηκότων ψυχαὶ σὺν αὐτοῖς τιμωροῦνται κατὰ τὰ παρ’ Ἑβραίοις νενομισμένα; Ἀλλὰ γὰρ ἱκανὴν καὶ τοῦδε τοῦ λόγου περιγραφὴν εἰληφότος ἐπὶ τὸ δωδέκατον τῆς Εὐαγγελικῆς Προπαρασκευῆς μεταβήσομαι σύγγραμμα. |
38.6
But those who are judged to have lived with exceptional holiness, these are they who are set free and released from these regions within the earth as from prisons, and ascend to the pure dwelling place above and settle upon the earth. And of these very ones, those who have sufficiently purified themselves by philosophy live entirely without toil for all remaining time, and arrive at even fairer dwellings than these, which it is neither easy to describe nor is time sufficient at present. But for the sake of these things which we have discussed, Simmias, one must do everything so as to participate in virtue and wisdom in life; for the prize is fair and the hope is great."
Thus far Plato. Now you, for your part, may juxtapose with the phrase "and they arrive at even fairer dwellings, which it is neither easy to describe nor is time sufficient at present" our own Scripture which has it thus: "For eye has not seen, and ear has not heard, nor has it entered into the heart of man, what things God has prepared for those who love him." And with the mentioned dwellings, compare the promise that "there are many mansions with the Father" for those beloved of God; and with what was said regarding Pyriphlegethon, compare the eternal fire threatened against the impious, according to the Hebrew prophet who says to them: "Who shall announce to you that a fire is burning? Who shall announce to you the eternal place?" And again: "Their worm shall not die, and their fire shall not be quenched, and they shall be a spectacle to all flesh." Observe also how Plato accords with these things when, having said that the impious shall depart into Tartarus, he adds: "whence they never emerge." And again, having said that the pious shall live in blessedness, he appends the words: "entirely, and for all remaining time." Moreover, what was said by him regarding being "without toil" would be similar to: "Pain and sorrow and sighing have fled away." And when he states that those going to Acheron do not arrive there simply, but first embark upon what are their "carriages" (ochēmata), what else can he mean by these carriages than the bodies, embarking upon which the souls of the deceased are punished together with them, according to the customary doctrines among the Hebrews? Now, since this discourse has received a sufficient boundary, I shall pass on to the twelfth book of the Evangelical Preparation. |