Hortatory Address to the Greeks

I BEGIN THIS EXHORTATION TO YOU: men of Greece, and I pray to God that I may know what I should say to you, and that you, shaking off your habitual love of disputing and being freed from the error of your fathers, may now choose what is beneficial; not thinking that you commit any offense against your forefathers, even if the things you once considered by no means beneficial now seem useful to you. For careful investigation of matters, examining truth with a more thorough scrutiny, often reveals that things which have been considered excellent are quite the opposite. Since we intend to discuss the true religion (which I believe is valued most by those who wish to pass through life safely, due to the judgment that comes after this life, as announced not only by our forefathers according to God, the prophets, and lawgivers but also by those among you who have been regarded as wise, not just poets but also philosophers, who claimed among you that they attained true and divine knowledge), I think it appropriate first to examine the teachers of religion, both ours and yours, who they were, how great they were, and in what times they lived; so that those who have previously accepted the false religion from their fathers may now, upon realizing this, be freed from that deep-rooted error; and so that we may clearly and openly show that we ourselves follow the religion of our forefathers according to God.

WHO: then, you people of Greece, do you call your teachers of religion? The poets? It will not help your case to say so to those who know the poets, for they understand how very ridiculous a theogony they have composed, as we can learn from Homer, your most distinguished and prince of poets. For he states, first, that the gods were originally generated from water, as he has written: "Both ocean, the origin of the gods, and their mother Tethys."

AND THEN WE MUST ALSO REMIND YOU OF WHAT HE FURTHER SAYS ABOUT HIM WHOM YOU CONSIDER THE FIRST OF THE GODS: and whom he often calls "the father of gods and men;" for he said:—"Zeus, who is the dispenser of war to men."

INDEED: he says that he was not only the bringer of war to the army but also the cause of perjury to the Trojans, through his daughter; and Homer introduces him in love, bitterly complaining, mourning, and being plotted against by the other gods, and at one point exclaiming about his own son:—"Alas! He falls, my most beloved of men! Sarpedon, vanquished by Patroclus, falls. So will the fates."

AND AT ANOTHER TIME CONCERNING HECTOR: "Ah! I see a warrior dear to me being driven around the walls of Ilium, and I grieve for Hector."

AND THOSE WHO READ THESE WORDS KNOW WHAT HE SAYS ABOUT THE CONSPIRACY OF THE OTHER GODS AGAINST ZEUS: “When the other Olympians—Juno, Neptune, and Minerva—wanted to bind him.” And if the blessed gods had not feared him, whom the gods call Briareus, Zeus would have been bound by them. And regarding what Homer says about his unrestrained loves, we must remind you of the exact words he used. For he said that Zeus spoke thus to Juno:— “For never did any goddess, nor woman yet, fill my heart with such a tide of love; I never loved Ixion’s wife this much, nor sweet Acrisian Danaë, from whom Perseus, the noblest of mankind, was born; nor Phœnix’s lovely daughter, from whom were born Minos, unrivaled except by the gods, and Rhadamanthus; nor Semele, nor Alcmene, who in Thebes gave birth to the brave Hercules; and even though Bacchus, the joy of man, was my son with Semele; nor Ceres with her golden hair, nor high-throned Latona in the heavens; no—not even yourself as now I love you, and my soul is overwhelmed with the sweetness of intense desire.”

IT IS APPROPRIATE FOR US TO NOW DISCUSS WHAT ONE CAN LEARN FROM THE WORK OF HOMER ABOUT THE OTHER GODS AND WHAT THEY ENDURED AT THE HANDS OF MEN: For he says that Mars and Venus were wounded by Diomed, and he recounts the sufferings of many other gods. We can infer this from the instance of Dione comforting her daughter; she said to her: "Have patience, dearest child; though greatly provoked, restrain your anger: we, who dwell in heaven, have much to endure from mortals; and we often inflict suffering upon each other. Mars suffered when Otus and Ephialtes, sons of Alöeus, bound him strongly, and for thirteen months he lay in brazen fetters. Juno also suffered when Amphitryon's son sent a three-barbed arrow through her right breast: dire and unheard of were the pangs she bore. Even great Pluto felt the stinging arrow when that same son of Ægis-bearing Jove attacked him at the very gates of hell, causing him sharpest anguish; pierced with pain, he came to high Olympus, to the courts of Jove, groaning, as the bitter shaft remained deeply fixed in his shoulder, grieving his soul."

IF IT IS APPROPRIATE TO REMIND YOU OF THE BATTLE OF THE GODS: who were opposed to each other, your own poet will recount it, saying: "Such was the clash when gods met in battle; for there stood royal Neptune against Phœbus Apollo with his sharp arrows; the blue-eyed Pallas against the god of war; against Juno, stood Diana, the heavenly archer, sister of Phœbus, the queen with golden shafts. Stout Hermes, the helpful god, faced Latona."

Homer taught you these things and others like them; and not Homer only, but also Hesiod. So if you believe your most distinguished poets, who have given the genealogies of your gods, you must necessarily either assume that the gods are such beings as these or believe that there are no gods at all.

AND IF YOU DECLINE CITING THE POETS BECAUSE YOU SAY IT IS ACCEPTABLE FOR THEM TO CREATE MYTHS AND TO TELL UNTRUE STORIES ABOUT THE GODS: do you think you have other religious teachers, or how do you claim to have learned this religion of yours? For it is impossible to know matters so great and divine without having first learned them from the initiated. You will likely say, “The sages and philosophers.” For you tend to turn to them like a fortified wall when anyone quotes your poets' opinions about the gods.

Therefore, since it is appropriate to start with the ancients and the earliest, I will begin there and present the opinion of each, which is much more ridiculous than the theology of the poets. Thales of Miletus, who led the study of natural philosophy, declared that water was the primary principle of all things; he said that all things come from water and return to water. After him, Anaximander, also from Miletus, claimed that the infinite was the first principle of everything; from this all things are produced, and to this all decay.

Thirdly, Anaximenes, also from Miletus, stated that air is the primary principle of all things; he said that all things are produced from air and dissolve back into it. Heraclitus and Hippasus, from Metapontus, argued that fire is the first principle; from fire all things come, and in fire all things end. Anaxagoras of Clazomenae believed that the homogeneous parts are the first principles of everything. Archelaus, the son of Apollodorus, an Athenian, argued that the infinite air and its density and rarity are the first principle of everything.

All these thinkers, following Thales, pursued what they called physical philosophy.

THEN: in regular succession from another starting point, Pythagoras the Samian, son of Mnesarchus, calls numbers, with their proportions and harmonies, and the elements composed of both, the first principles; and he includes also unity and the indefinite binary. Epicurus, an Athenian, the son of Neocles, says that the first principles of the things that exist are bodies perceptible by reason, admitting no vacuity, unbegotten, indestructible, which can neither be broken, nor admit of any formation of their parts, nor alteration, and are therefore perceptible by reason.

Empedocles of Agrigentum, son of Meton, maintained that there were four elements—fire, air, water, earth; and two elementary powers—love and hate, of which the former is a power of union, the latter of separation. You see, then, the confusion of those who are considered by you to have been wise men, whom you claim to be your teachers of religion: some of them declaring that water is the first principle of all things; others, air; others, fire; and others, some other of these aforementioned elements; and all of them using persuasive arguments to establish their own errors and attempting to prove their own peculiar beliefs to be the most valuable.

These things were said by them. How then, people of Greece, can it be safe for those who wish to be saved to think that they can learn the true religion from these philosophers, who were neither able so to convince themselves as to prevent sectarian wrangling with one another, and not to appear definitely opposed to each other’s opinions?

BUT SOME PEOPLE: unwilling to give up their long-held errors, claim they received the teachings of their religion not from those previously mentioned, but from those esteemed as the most renowned philosophers among them: Plato and Aristotle. They assert that these philosophers have discovered the perfect and true religion.

However, I would like to ask, first of all, from whom they claim these men learned this knowledge, because it’s impossible for men who haven’t learned such great and divine matters from others who knew them, to understand them or teach them correctly.

Secondly, I think we should examine the opinions of these philosophers. For we will see whether each of them doesn’t plainly contradict the other. If we find that even they don’t agree with each other, it’s easy to see they too are ignorant. For Plato, with the authority of one who claims to have descended from above and has seen all that is in heaven, states that the most high God exists in a fiery substance.

But Aristotle, in a book addressed to Alexander the Great, clearly contradicts Plato, saying that God does not exist in a fiery substance.

Instead, he invents a fifth substance, some kind of ethereal and unchangeable matter, claiming that God exists in it.

Thus, he wrote: "Not, as some of those who have erred regarding the Deity say, that God exists in a fiery substance." Then, as if dissatisfied with this rejection of Plato's view, he further attempts to prove his idea about the ethereal body by citing as a witness him whom Plato had banished from his republic as a liar and imitation of the truth three times removed, for that is how Plato refers to Homer.

Aristotle wrote, "Thus at least did Homer speak, ‘And Zeus obtained the wide heaven in the air and the clouds,’" trying to lend his own opinion more credibility with Homer's testimony, not realizing that if he used Homer to prove he spoke truthfully, many of his beliefs would be shown to be false. For Thales of Miletus, the founder of their philosophy, will contradict Aristotle's initial opinions about first principles. Aristotle himself, having said that God and matter are the first principles of all things, is contradicted by Thales, the eldest of their sages, who claims that water is the first principle of everything.

He argues that all things come from water and eventually return to it. Thales bases this on the fact that the seed of all living creatures, which is their first principle, is moist, and because all plants grow and bear fruit in moisture but wither without it.

Then, as if still unsatisfied with his reasoning, he cites Homer as a most trustworthy source, who said: “Ocean, who is the origin of everything.”

Couldn’t Thales fairly say to him, “Why, Aristotle, do you pay attention to Homer as if he speaks truth when you want to challenge Plato's opinions, but when you express an opinion contrary to ours, you consider Homer untruthful?"

AND THAT THESE VERY WISE SAGES OF YOURS DO NOT EVEN AGREE IN OTHER WAYS: can be easily learned from this. For while Plato says that there are three first principles of all things—God, matter, and form—God is the maker of everything; matter is the subject of the first production of all that is created and gives God the chance for His work; and form is the type of each of the things produced. Aristotle, however, makes no mention of form as a first principle, but says that there are two: God and matter.

And again, while Plato says that the highest God and the ideas exist in the prime place of the highest heavens, in a fixed sphere, Aristotle says that, next to the most high God, there are not ideas, but certain gods who can be perceived by the mind. So, they differ on heavenly matters. It is clear that they not only fail to understand earthly matters, but also, being in disagreement among themselves regarding these things, they appear untrustworthy when they talk about heavenly matters.

That even their doctrine about the human soul as it currently exists does not align is evident from what each has said about it. For Plato says that it has three parts, with the faculties of reason, affection, and appetite.

But Aristotle says that the soul is not so comprehensive as to include corruptible parts, but only reason. And Plato strongly asserts that "the whole soul is immortal." However, Aristotle, calling it "the actuality," believes it to be mortal, not immortal.

Furthermore, Plato says it is always in motion, but Aristotle claims that it is immovable since it must itself precede all motion.

IN THESE MATTERS: they are found guilty of being inconsistent in their thoughts. If anyone carefully analyzes their writings, they have not even decided to agree with their own views.

For instance, Plato sometimes says that there are three primary principles of the universe—God, matter, and form; but at another time, he mentions four, as he adds the universal soul.

Furthermore, even after initially claiming that matter is eternal, he later states that it is created; and after giving form its distinct status as a primary principle and asserting its self-existence, he later declares that it is among the things perceived by the mind.

Additionally, having first indicated that everything created is mortal, he later claims that some created things are indestructible and immortal. Why, then, do those who are considered wise among you disagree not only with each other but also with themselves? Clearly, it is their unwillingness to learn from those who know and their desire to achieve precise knowledge of heavenly things through their own excessive human wisdom, even though they could not understand earthly matters.

Indeed, some of your philosophers say that the human soul is within us; others claim it is around us.

They did not choose to agree even on this, but instead spread ignorance in various ways among themselves, arguing and debating with each other even about the soul. Some claim the soul is fire, others that it is air; some say it is the mind, others say it is motion; some argue it is an exhalation, while certain others suggest it is a power flowing from the stars; some say it is a number capable of motion, and others that it is generating water.

A completely confused and discordant opinion has prevailed among them, which appears commendable in only one aspect to those who can judge correctly—that they have been eager to prove each other wrong and false.

SINCE: therefore, it is impossible to learn anything true about religion from your teachers, who, by their mutual disagreement, have provided sufficient proof of their own ignorance, I consider it reasonable to turn to our ancestors, who have a great precedence in time over your teachers. They taught us nothing from their own personal ideas, nor did they disagree or try to undermine each other's positions. Instead, without arguing or contending, they received from God the knowledge that they passed on to us. It is neither by nature nor by human thought that people can know things so great and divine; it is by the gift that descended from above upon the holy men. These men had no need for rhetorical skill or for speaking contentiously, but only to present themselves pure to the energy of the Divine Spirit. Thus, the divine influence itself, coming from heaven and using righteous men as instruments like a harp or lyre, revealed to us the knowledge of divine and heavenly things. Therefore, as if with one mouth and one tongue, they have successively and harmoniously taught us about God, the creation of the world, the formation of man, the immortality of the human soul, the judgment after this life, and all things necessary for us to know, providing us with divine instruction at different times and places.

I WILL BEGIN WITH OUR FIRST PROPHET AND LAWGIVER: Moses, first explaining the times in which he lived based on authorities that you consider credible. I do not intend to prove these things solely from our divine histories, which you currently distrust due to the ingrained error of your ancestors, but also from your own histories, and those that have no connection to our worship, so you may understand that, among all your teachers—whether sages, poets, historians, philosophers, or lawgivers—the oldest, as Greek histories reveal, was Moses, who was our first religious teacher.

During the times of Ogyges and Inachus, whom some of your poets claim to have been born from the earth, Moses is noted as the leader and ruler of the Jewish nation. He is mentioned in this way by Polemon in the first book of his Hellenics, and by Apion son of Posidonius in his book against the Jews, as well as in the fourth book of his history, where he states that during Inachus’s rule over Argos, the Jews revolted from Amasis, king of the Egyptians, and Moses led them.

Ptolemaeus the Mendesian, in his account of Egyptian history, agrees with this. Those who wrote the Athenian history, such as Hellanicus and Philochorus (the author of The Attic History), Castor and Thallus, and Alexander Polyhistor, along with the highly informed writers on Jewish affairs, Philo and Josephus, have mentioned Moses as a very ancient and esteemed leader of the Jews. Josephus, indeed, wanting to emphasize the antiquity and age of history by the title of his work, commenced it with these words: “The Jewish Antiquities of Flavius Josephus,”—highlighting the history's age with the word “antiquities.” And your most famous historian Diodorus, who spent thirty years summarizing the libraries and, as he wrote, traveled throughout Asia and Europe for the sake of accuracy, becoming an eyewitness to many things, composed forty complete books of his history.

In his first book, after learning from Egyptian priests that Moses was an ancient lawgiver and even the first, he wrote of him in these words: “Following the ancient ways of living in Egypt, which gods and heroes are said to have governed, they claim that Moses first persuaded the people to follow written laws and live by them; he is noted to have been a man both great in spirit and in social matters.” Then, after proceeding a little further, and wishing to mention the ancient lawgivers, he mentions Moses first.

He spoke with these words: “Among the Jews, they say Moses attributed his laws to that God called Jehovah, whether because they considered it a marvelous and divine idea promising to benefit many people, or because they believed that the people would be more obedient when they reflected on the majesty and power of those said to have created the laws. They say Sasunchis was the second Egyptian legislator, a man of great understanding. The third, they say, was Sesonchosis the king, who not only achieved the most outstanding military exploits in Egypt but also united that martial race through legislation.

The fourth lawgiver, they say, was Bocchoris the king, a wise and highly skilled man. After him, it is said that Amasis the king assumed power, and he is credited with organizing all related to the provincial rulers and the general administration of Egypt. They also say that Darius, the father of Xerxes, was the sixth to legislate for the Egyptians.”

THESE THINGS: men of Greece, have been recorded in writing about the antiquity of Moses by those who were not of our religion; and they said that they learned all these things from the Egyptian priests, among whom Moses was not only born, but also was seen as worthy of partaking in all the education of the Egyptians, because he was adopted by the king’s daughter as her son. For the same reason, he was given great attention, according to the wisest historians who wrote about his life, actions, and lineage—I refer to Philo and Josephus.

These historians, in their accounts of Jewish history, say that Moses descended from the race of the Chaldaeans and was born in Egypt when his ancestors had migrated due to famine from Phoenicia to that country. God chose to honor him on account of his exceeding virtue and judged him worthy to become the leader and lawgiver of his own people when it was time for the Hebrews to return from Egypt to their own land. To him, God first communicated the divine prophetic gift that, in those days, came upon holy men.

He was the first to be appointed as our teacher in religion, followed by the other prophets who received the same gift as he did and taught us the same doctrines on the same subjects. We assert that these were our teachers, who conveyed nothing from their own human minds, but from the gift granted to them by God from above.

HOWEVER: since you do not see the need to abandon the ancient errors of your ancestors in obedience to these teachers, what teachers of your own do you claim have lived in a way worthy of trust in matters of religion? For, as I have often said, it is impossible for those who have not learned these great and divine things from knowledgeable individuals to either know them themselves or teach others correctly. Since it has been clearly shown that the opinions of your philosophers are obviously filled with ignorance and deceit, having perhaps now completely abandoned the philosophers as you once abandoned the poets, you might turn to the deceit of the oracles; for I have heard some speak in this manner. Therefore, I find it appropriate to share with you at this point in our discussion what I once heard among you about their statements. For when someone inquired at your oracle—it is your own story—about what religious individuals had ever lived, you say that the oracle answered: "Only the Chaldæans have obtained wisdom, and the Hebrews, who worship God Himself, the self-begotten King."

SINCE YOU BELIEVE THAT TRUTH CAN BE LEARNED FROM YOUR ORACLES: when you read histories and accounts of Moses' life written by those outside our religion, and when you know that Moses and the other prophets were descended from the Chaldeans and Hebrews, do not find it incredible that a man from a godly lineage, who lived worthily of his ancestors' godliness, was chosen by God to be honored with this great gift and to be appointed as the first of all the prophets.

I FIND IT NECESSARY TO CONSIDER THE TIMES IN WHICH YOUR PHILOSOPHERS LIVED SO YOU CAN SEE THAT THE PERIOD THAT PRODUCED THEM FOR YOU IS VERY RECENT AND SHORT: This will help you recognize the antiquity of Moses. To avoid being overly detailed, I believe the following will suffice: Socrates was the teacher of Plato, and Plato taught Aristotle. These men thrived during the time of Philip and Alexander of Macedon, when the Athenian orators also flourished, as the Philippics of Demosthenes clearly show.

Those who have recounted the deeds of Alexander clearly prove that during his reign, Aristotle was associated with him. With all available evidence, it is clear that the history of Moses is much older than all non-religious histories.

Moreover, it's important for you to understand that nothing was accurately recorded by the Greeks before the era of the Olympiads, and there is no ancient work detailing any actions of the Greeks or Barbarians. Before that period, there existed only the history of the prophet Moses, which he wrote in Hebrew by divine inspiration.

The Greek alphabet was not yet in use, as language experts inform us, saying that Cadmus first brought the letters from Phoenicia to the Greeks. Your first philosopher, Plato, confirms they were a recent discovery. In the "Timaeus," he wrote that Solon, the wisest of the wise men, upon returning from Egypt, told Critias that he heard from a very old Egyptian priest who said to him, “O Solon, Solon, you Greeks are always children, and there is no aged Greek.” He further said, “You are all young in soul because you hold no ancient opinion passed down through tradition or any system of instruction aged with time; all these things are unknown to you because for many generations, the descendants of those ancient times died silent, without the use of letters.” It is essential, therefore, that you understand that all history has been written in these newly discovered Greek letters.

If anyone mentions old poets, legislators, historians, orators, or philosophers, they will find that they composed their works in the Greek alphabet.

IF ANYONE CLAIMS THAT THE WRITINGS OF MOSES AND THE OTHER PROPHETS WERE ALSO WRITTEN IN GREEK: let them read secular histories and learn that Ptolemy, the king of Egypt, after building the library in Alexandria and gathering books from everywhere, discovered that very ancient histories written in Hebrew were carefully preserved. Wanting to know their contents, he summoned seventy wise men from Jerusalem who knew both Greek and Hebrew and appointed them to translate the books. To ensure they could complete the translation quickly without disturbance, he had built, not within the city, but seven stadia away (where the Pharos was built), as many small huts as there were translators, so each could work independently. He instructed the officers responsible for this task to attend to them but prevented them from communicating with each other so that the accuracy of the translation could be verified by their agreement. When he learned that the seventy men not only conveyed the same meaning but used the same words, without disagreement even to one word, he was amazed and believed the translation was done by divine power, realizing that the men were worthy of all honor as beloved of God. He sent them back to their country with many gifts. Naturally, he marveled at the books and deemed them divine, consecrating them in the library.

These, people of Greece, are not myths, nor do we tell tales. Having been in Alexandria, we saw the remains of the small huts at the Pharos still preserved and heard these stories from the locals who received them as part of their tradition. We now share with you what you can also learn from others, especially from the wise and esteemed who have written about these things, like Philo and Josephus, and many others. If anyone prone to contradiction claims these books don't belong to us but to the Jews, and argues we falsely profess to have learned from them, let them know from what is written in these books that their teachings refer not to them, but to us. It is by Divine Providence for our sake that the books related to our religion are still preserved among the Jews. To avoid accusations of fraud by producing them only from the Church, we demand they also come from the Jewish synagogue, so that it may be evident that the laws written by holy men for instruction pertain to us.

IT IS THEREFORE NECESSARY: Greeks, that you contemplate what is to come and consider the judgment predicted by all, not only by the godly but also by those who are irreligious. Do not, without investigation, commit yourselves to the error of your ancestors, nor assume that if they have been mistaken and passed it down to you, what they taught you is true. Instead, recognizing the danger of such a grave mistake, inquire and investigate carefully into those matters which, as you say, are even spoken of by your own teachers. For even unwillingly, they were compelled for your sake to say many things due to the Divine regard for humanity, especially those among them who were in Egypt and benefited from the godliness of Moses and his ancestry. I believe that some of you, even when reading carelessly the histories of Diodorus and others who wrote about these matters, cannot help but notice that Orpheus, Homer, Solon, who wrote the laws of the Athenians, Pythagoras, Plato, and some others, after being in Egypt and learning from the history of Moses, later published teachings about the gods that were quite contrary to those they had previously, mistakenly, promoted.

IN ANY CASE: we must remind you of what Orpheus, who was, you might say, your first teacher of polytheism, later said to his son Musaeus and to the other legitimate listeners, concerning the one and only God. And he spoke like this: “I speak to those who may lawfully hear: All others, you profane, now close the doors, And, O Musaeus! listen to me, You who are offspring of the light-bringing moon: The words I say now are truly indeed; And if you have previously seen my thoughts, Let them not rob you of the blessed life, But instead turn the depths of your own heart To the place where light and knowledge dwell.

Take the divine word to guide your steps, And walking well in the straight certain path, Look to the one and universal King— One, self-begotten, and the only One, Of whom all things and we ourselves are born. All things are open to His piercing gaze, While He Himself is still invisible. Present in all His works, though still unseen, He gives to mortals evil out of good, Sending both chilling wars and tearful griefs; And other than the great King there is none.

The clouds forever settle around His throne, And mortal eyes in mere mortal heads Are too weak to see Jove reigning over all. He sits established in the brazen heavens Upon His golden throne; under His feet He treads the earth and stretches His right hand To all the ends of the ocean, and around Tremble the mountain ranges and the streams, The depths, too, of the blue and gray sea.”

AND AGAIN: in another place he says, "There is one Zeus alone, one sun, one hell, one Bacchus; and in all things but one God; nor let me speak of all these as different."

AND WHEN HE SWEARS: he says: "Now I command you by the highest heaven, the work of the great God, the only wise; and I command you by the Father's voice, which He first uttered when He established the whole world by His counsel."

What does he mean by “I adjure you by the Father’s voice, which He first uttered?” It is the Word of God he refers to as "the voice," through whom heaven, earth, and all creation were made, as the divine prophecies of the holy men teach us; and he himself also studied these in Egypt and understood that all creation was made by the Word of God. Therefore, after he states, “I adjure you by the Father’s voice, which He first uttered,” he adds, “when by His counsel He established the whole world.” He uses the term "voice" for the Word for the sake of the poetic metre. This is clear from the fact that a little further on, where the metre allows, he calls it "Word." For he said: “Take the divine Word to guide your steps.”

WE MUST ALSO MENTION WHAT THE ANCIENT AND EXCEEDINGLY REMOTE SIBYL: whom Plato, Aristophanes, and others have referred to as a prophetess, taught you in her prophetic verses about the one true God. She says this:—“There is one only unbegotten God, Omnipotent, invisible, most high, All-seeing, but Himself seen by no flesh.”

THEN ELSEWHERE LIKE THIS: "But we have strayed from the Immortal’s ways, and worship with a dull and senseless mind idols, the workmanship of our own hands, and images and figures of dead men."

AND ELSEWHERE IT IS WRITTEN: "Blessed will be those people on earth who love the great God above all else, praising Him when they eat and drink, relying solely on their piety. They will renounce all shrines they see, all altars and idols made of mute stones, worthless and stained with the blood of animals, and sacrifices of the four-footed creatures, recognizing the great glory of the One God."

HERE ARE THE WORDS OF THE SIBYL:

AND THE POET HOMER: using poetic license and competing with the original views of Orpheus about the many gods, mentions several gods in a mythical style. He did this so he would not appear to sing in a different way from Orpheus, whose work he clearly sought to rival, even suggesting this connection in the first line of his poem. As Orpheus began his poem with, “O goddess, sing the wrath of Demeter, who brings the goodly fruit,” Homer started with, “O goddess, sing the wrath of Achilles, son of Peleus.” He preferred, it seems to me, to disrupt the poetic meter in his first line rather than forget the names of the gods. But shortly after, he clearly and explicitly expresses his opinion about only one God when he makes Phœnix say to Achilles, “Not though God Himself were to promise that He would peel off my old age and give me the vigor of my youth,” where he refers to the real and true God. Elsewhere, he has Ulysses speak to the Greek host, saying, “The rule of many is not a good thing; let there be one ruler.” He argued that the rule of many is not good, but actually evil, by telling of the wars caused by having many rulers, along with the fights, factions, and mutual plots. For monarchy is free from contention. Thus is the poet Homer.

IF WE MUST PROVIDE TESTIMONIES ABOUT ONE GOD: even from the playwrights, listen to Sophocles, who speaks like this: "There is one God, indeed there is only one, who made the heavens and the wide earth below, the shimmering ocean waves, and the winds. But many of us mortals are mistaken in heart and create for comfort in our sorrows images of the gods in stone and wood, or figures carved in brass or ivory. We offer sacrifices and elaborate rites to these creations of our own hands, believing that in doing so we perform a pious act."

THUS: then, Sophocles.

AND PYTHAGORAS: son of Mnesarchus, who explained his philosophical teachings through symbols, as those who have written his life show, seems to have held thoughts about the unity of God that reflect his time in Egypt. When he says that unity is the first principle of everything and the cause of all good, he indicates through an allegory that God is one and alone. This is evident from his claim that unity and one are quite different. He states that unity belongs to the category of things understood by the mind, while one belongs to numbers. If you want clearer evidence of Pythagoras's view on one God, consider his own words: “God is one; and He Himself does not, as some think, exist outside the world, but within it, being fully present throughout the entire universe, observing all generations; serving as the guiding force of all ages and the manager of His own powers and works, the first principle of everything, the light of heaven, and Father of all, the intelligence and life-giving spirit of the universe, the motion of all orbits.” Thus spoke Pythagoras.

BUT PLATO: although he likely accepted the doctrine of Moses and the other prophets about one only God, which he learned in Egypt, feared, because of what happened to Socrates, that he might also provoke someone like Anytus or Meletus against himself, accusing him before the Athenians and saying, “Plato is harmful and causing trouble by not acknowledging the state-recognized gods.” Afraid of the hemlock poison, he crafted an elaborate and ambiguous discourse about the gods, providing gods in his writings for those who wanted them, and none for those who were otherwise inclined, as can be seen from his statements.

For when he asserted that everything made is mortal, he later said that the gods were made. If he would make God and matter the origin of all things, it is clearly necessary to say that the gods were made of matter; but if they were made of matter, from which he also said evil originated, he leaves it to thoughtful people to consider what kind of beings the gods should be thought to be, produced from matter. For this reason, he stated that matter was eternal, so as not to suggest that God is the creator of evil.

Regarding the gods made by God, he certainly said: “Gods of gods, of whom I am the creator.” And he clearly held the correct opinion about the truly existing God. For having heard in Egypt that God said to Moses, when sending him to the Hebrews, “I am that I am,” he understood that God had not revealed His actual name.

GOD CANNOT BE CALLED BY ANY PROPER NAME: as names are given to identify and distinguish different subjects, which are many and varied. No one existed before God to give Him a name, nor did He think it right to name Himself, recognizing that He is one and unique, as He testifies through His own prophets, when He says, “I, God, am the first,” and afterward, “And beside me there is no other God.” Therefore, as I mentioned earlier, when God sent Moses to the Hebrews, He did not mention any name but mystically used a participle to teach them that He is the one and only God. “For,” He says, “I am the Being,” clearly contrasting Himself, “the Being,” with those who are not, so that those who had been deceived could see they were attaching themselves, not to real beings, but to those who had no being.

Since God knew that the first humans remembered the old delusion of their forefathers—by which the deceptive demon tricked them, saying, “If you obey me by transgressing God's command, you shall be as gods,” calling those beings gods which had no existence—this deception led them to believe there were other gods, and thus they might become gods themselves. On this account, He told Moses, “I am the Being,” using the participle “being” to show the difference between God, who is, and those who are not.

People, deceived by the demon, dared to disobey God and were expelled from Paradise, remembering the name of gods but no longer being taught by God that there are no other gods. It was not just for those who failed to keep the first, simple commandment to continue being taught; rather, they were rightly driven to punishment. Banished from Paradise and thinking their expulsion was solely due to disobedience—unaware that it was also because they believed in non-existent gods—they even gave the name of gods to men born afterward.

This first false idea regarding gods originated with the father of lies. Knowing that the mistaken belief in many gods oppressed the human soul like a disease, and wishing to remove it, God appeared first to Moses, saying, “I am He who is.” It was necessary, I believe, for the one who would lead the Hebrew people to first know the living God. Therefore, God appeared to Moses in the way He could appear to a man and said, “I am He who is.” Then, about to send him to the Hebrews, He further instructed him to say, “He who is has sent me to you.”

PLATO: after learning this in Egypt and being greatly impressed by the idea of one God, carefully avoided mentioning Moses because of Moses' teaching about the one true God. Plato feared repercussions from the Areopagus. Nonetheless, in his detailed work, the *Timaeus*, he expresses similar ideas about God, not as if he had learned them from Moses, but as if they were his own thoughts. Plato says, "In my opinion, we must first define what exists eternally and has no origin, and what is always being formed but never truly is." Doesn't this statement, people of Greece, appear to those who understand to be essentially the same, differing only in phrasing? Moses said, "He who is," while Plato said, "That which is." Both expressions seem to refer to the ever-existent God, who alone exists eternally without beginning.

We must carefully consider what this second concept is, which contrasts with the ever-existent, that Plato describes as, "always being generated, but never really is." We find that he clearly states that one who is uncreated is eternal, while those that are created come into being and perish—as he described, "gods of gods, of whom I am maker." He elaborates, saying, "We must first define what is always existent and has no birth, and what is always being generated but never really is.

The former is understood through reflection combined with reason, always existing in the same way; the latter is perceived by opinion formed through the senses without reason, never truly existing but coming into being and perishing." These statements reveal, to those who can understand, the mortality and decline of the gods that have been created. I think it's important to note that Plato never calls Him the creator but the fashioner of the gods, showing there is a considerable difference in Plato's view.

The creator makes by his own power and needs nothing else, while the fashioner shapes his work with materials he has received.

BUT: perhaps, some who are unwilling to abandon the doctrines of polytheism will say that to these fashioned gods the maker said, “Since you have been produced, you are not immortal, nor at all imperishable; yet you will not perish nor succumb to the fatality of death, because you have obtained my will, which is a still greater and mightier bond.” Here Plato, out of fear of the followers of polytheism, introduces his “maker” speaking words that contradict himself. For having previously stated that he said that everything which is produced is perishable, he now introduces him saying the very opposite; and he does not see that it is absolutely impossible for him to escape the charge of falsehood.

For he either initially spoke falsely when he said that everything which is produced is perishable, or now, when he proposes the very opposite to what he previously said. For if, according to his earlier definition, it is absolutely necessary that every created thing be perishable, how can he consistently make possible what is absolutely impossible? So that Plato seems to grant an empty and impossible prerogative to his “maker,” when he proposes that those who were once perishable because made from matter should again, by his intervention, become imperishable and enduring.

For it is quite natural that the power of matter, which, according to Plato’s opinion, is uncreated and coeval with the maker, should resist his will. For he who has not created has no power, in respect of that which is uncreated, so that it is not possible that it (matter), being free, can be controlled by any external necessity.

Therefore, Plato himself, considering this, has written thus: “It is necessary to affirm that God cannot suffer violence.”

HOW: then, does Plato banish Homer from his republic, since, in the embassy to Achilles, he has Phœnix say to Achilles, "Even the gods themselves are not inflexible," although Homer referred not to the supreme king and Platonic creator of the gods, but to some of the multitude whom the Greeks consider as gods, as one can infer from Plato's phrase, "gods of gods?" For Homer, with that golden chain, attributes all power and might to the one highest God.

And he said the rest of the gods were so distant from His divinity that he deemed it suitable to mention them alongside humans. At least he has Ulysses say to Achilles about Hector, "He is raging terribly, trusting in Zeus, and values neither men nor gods." In this passage, Homer seems to me undoubtedly to have learned in Egypt, like Plato, about the one God, and openly declares this: that one who trusts in the truly existent God disregards those that do not exist.

For likewise, in another passage, using a different but equivalent word, namely, a pronoun, the poet used the same participle employed by Plato to denote the truly existent God, about whom Plato said, "That which always exists, and has no birth." Not without a double meaning does this expression of Phœnix appear: "Not even if God Himself were to promise me that, having polished off my old age, He would set me in the bloom of youth." For the pronoun "Himself" signifies the truly existing God.

The oracle given to you concerning the Chaldeans and Hebrews likewise indicates this. For when someone inquired what men had ever lived godly, you say the answer was: "Only the Chaldeans and the Hebrews found wisdom, Worshipping God Himself, the unbegotten King."

HOW: then, does Plato blame Homer for saying that the gods can change their minds, although, as is clear from the context, Homer said this for a practical reason? It is natural for those who hope to gain mercy through prayer and sacrifices to stop and repent of their sins. Those who believe that the Deity cannot change are not motivated to give up their sins, as they assume they will gain nothing from repentance. How, then, does Plato the philosopher criticize the poet Homer for saying, “Even the gods themselves can change,” yet himself describe the creator of the gods as so easily swayed that he sometimes claims the gods are mortal and at other times claims they are immortal? And this inconsistency applies not only to the gods but also to matter, from which, he says, the created gods have been made; he sometimes states it is uncreated and at other times that it is created. Yet, he does not recognize that he, by saying the maker of the gods can be easily swayed, has made the very mistakes he criticizes Homer for, though Homer said the very opposite about the maker of the gods. Homer asserted that he spoke thus of himself: “For my promise shall never deceive, fail, or be withdrawn if confirmed by a nod.”

BUT IT SEEMS THAT PLATO RELUCTANTLY ENGAGED IN THESE STRANGE DISCUSSIONS ABOUT THE GODS BECAUSE HE FEARED THOSE WHO WERE DEVOTED TO POLYTHEISM: Whatever he considered worth telling about what he had learned from Moses and the prophets regarding one God, he preferred to express in a mystical manner. In this way, those who wanted to worship God might catch a hint of his own views. He was captivated by what God said to Moses, “I am the really existing,” and carefully considered the concise expression, realizing that God meant to convey His eternity to Moses.

Therefore, He said, “I am the really existing,” as this term “existing” refers to the past, present, and future. When Plato uses the phrase “and which never really is,” he uses the verb “is” to indicate an indefinite time. The word “never” is related, not to the past as some think, but to the future. Even secular writers have accurately understood this. So, when Plato aimed to explain to the uninitiated the mystical expression about the eternity of God, he said: “God indeed, as the old tradition states, includes the beginning, end, and middle of all things.” Here, he clearly and openly refers to the law of Moses as “the old tradition,” out of fear of the hemlock-cup, avoiding directly naming Moses.

He understood that the teaching of Moses was disliked by the Greeks and implies Moses by indicating the ancient nature of the tradition. We have sufficiently demonstrated with evidence from Diodorus and other historians in previous chapters that the law of Moses is not only ancient but even the first. Diodorus states that Moses was the first of all lawgivers, and the letters used by the Greeks to write their histories had not yet been discovered.

AND LET NO ONE BE SURPRISED THAT PLATO SHOULD BELIEVE MOSES REGARDING THE ETERNITY OF GOD: For you will find him mystically attributing the true knowledge of realities to the prophets, next in order after the truly existent God. In the Timæus, when discussing certain first principles, he wrote: “This we establish as the first principle of fire and the other bodies, proceeding according to probability and necessity.

But God above knows the first principles of these, and whoever among men is favored by Him.” And who does he consider favored by God, but Moses and the other prophets? For he read their prophecies, and, having learned from them the doctrine of judgment, he presents it in the first book of the Republic: “When a man begins to think he is soon to die, fear overtakes him, and concerns arise about matters that had never before crossed his mind.

Those stories about what happens in Hades, which say that the unjust man here must be punished there, once mocked, now haunt his soul with the fear that they might be true. And he, whether due to the weakness of age, or because he is closer to the things of the other world, observes them more keenly. He becomes, therefore, filled with apprehension and dread, and starts to examine himself, considering whether he has wronged anyone. And the man who finds many sins in his life, and who often awakes from sleep as children do, lives in terror, facing a bleak outlook.

But for him who is aware of no wrongdoing, sweet hope is the constant companion and kind nurturer of old age, as Pindar says. For this, Socrates, he has gracefully expressed, that ‘whoever leads a life of holiness and justice, sweet hope, the nurturer of age, accompanies, comforting his heart, for she powerfully influences the changeful mind of mortals.’” This is what Plato wrote in the first book of the Republic.

IN THE TENTH BOOK: he clearly and openly wrote what he had learned from the prophets about the judgment.

However, due to his fear of the Greeks, he presented it as if he had heard it from a man who had been killed in battle, rather than directly from the prophets themselves. He invented a story about this man, who, when he was about to be buried on the twelfth day and was lying on the funeral pyre, came back to life and described the other world.

Here are his exact words: "For he said that he was present when someone asked another person where the great Ardiæus was. This Ardiæus had been a prince in a certain city of Pamphylia and had killed his elderly father and older brother, and committed many other unholy acts, as was reported. He said that the person who was asked responded: He neither comes here nor ever will. Among other terrifying sights, we saw this as well. When we were near the mouth of the pit and were about to return to the upper air, having undergone everything else, we suddenly saw both him and others like him, most of whom were tyrants.

There were also some private sinners who had committed great crimes. When they thought they were going to ascend, the mouth would not allow them, but roared when any of those who were so irredeemably wicked tried to ascend, unless they had paid the full penalty. Then fierce, fiery-looking men stood nearby, and upon hearing the noise, took some and led them away.

But Ardiæus and the rest, having been bound hand and foot, were dragged to the road outside with their heads lowered and their skin flayed, being torn with thorns.

The men indicated to those present the reason for their suffering and that they were being led away to be cast into Tartarus. He said that among all their various fears, this was the greatest, that the mouth would roar when they ascended, because if it was silent, everyone would gladly ascend. The punishments and torments were such as these, while, on the other hand, the rewards were the opposite." Here, Plato seems to me to have learned not only the doctrine of judgment from the prophets but also of the resurrection, which the Greeks refuse to believe.

His claim that the soul is judged along with the body proves nothing more clearly than his belief in the doctrine of the resurrection. How could Ardiæus and the rest have undergone such punishment in Hades if they had left their bodies on earth, with head, hands, feet, and skin? For certainly, they will never claim that the soul has a head, hands, feet, and skin.

But Plato, having encountered the testimonies of the prophets in Egypt and accepting their teachings concerning the resurrection of the body, teaches that the soul is judged along with the body.

NOT ONLY PLATO: but Homer also, having received similar enlightenment in Egypt, said that Tityus was punished in the same way. For Ulysses speaks to Alcinous when he recounts his visions in the land of the dead: “There Tityus, large and long, bound in chains, spreads across nine acres of infernal ground; Two ravenous vultures, furious for their food, scream over the fiend and feast on his blood, endlessly tearing at the liver in his chest. The immortal liver grows back and provides an eternal feast.”

IT IS CLEAR THAT IT IS NOT THE SOUL: but the body, which has a liver. Similarly, Homer described both Sisyphus and Tantalus as suffering punishment with the body. Diodorus, a highly respected historian, clearly shows us that Homer had been in Egypt and incorporated much of what he learned there into his own work. He stated that while in Egypt, Homer learned that Helen received a drug from Theon’s wife, Polydamna, which eased all sorrow and melancholy and caused forgetfulness of all troubles, and brought it to Sparta.

Homer recounted that Helen used this drug to end Menelaus's lamentation caused by Telemachus's presence. He also referred to Venus as "golden" based on what he saw in Egypt, where there was a temple called "the temple of golden Venus" and a plain named "the plain of golden Venus." Why do I mention this? To show that the poet incorporated much from the divine writings of the prophets into his work. First, he included what Moses had described as the beginning of the world's creation.

Moses wrote, "In the beginning God created the heaven and the earth," then the sun, the moon, and the stars. Having learned this in Egypt and being greatly impressed with what Moses wrote in the Genesis of the world, Homer fictionalized that Vulcan fashioned on Achilles' shield a representation of the world's creation. He wrote: "There he described the earth, the heaven, the sea, the sun that never rests, and the full-orbed moon; there also, all the stars which, like a radiant crown, encircle the skies."

HE ALSO ARRANGED FOR THE GARDEN OF ALCINOUS TO RESEMBLE PARADISE: and through this resemblance, he depicted it as ever-blooming and full of all fruits. He wrote:

"Tall thriving trees acknowledged the fruitful soil; the reddening apple ripens here to gold. Here the blue fig overflows with luscious juice, and the full pomegranate glows a deeper red; the branch here bends beneath the weighty pear, and verdant olives flourish all year round. The balmy spirit of the western breeze eternally breathes on fruits, ensuring they do not fail; each dropping pear is followed by another, apples succeed apples, figs follow figs. The same mild season causes the blooms to blossom, the buds to harden, and the fruits to grow. Here arranged vines appear in equal ranks, with all the united labors of the year. Some run to unload the fertile branches, some dry the darkening clusters in the sun, others join to tread the liquid harvest. The presses groan, foaming with floods of wine. Here are the vines in early flower discovered, here grapes discolored on the sunny side, and there dyed in autumn’s richest purple."

Do not these words clearly mirror what the first prophet Moses said about Paradise? And if someone wants to learn about the construction of the tower by which people of that time thought they could reach heaven, they will find a reasonably accurate allegorical imitation of this in what the poet attributed to Otus and Ephialtes. For he wrote about them as follows: "Proud of their strength, and more than mortal size, the gods they challenge, and aim for the skies. Olympus tottering under Ossa stood; on Ossa, Pelion nods with all its wood."

THE SAME IS TRUE REGARDING THE ENEMY OF MANKIND WHO WAS CAST OUT OF HEAVEN: whom the Sacred Scriptures call the Devil, a name he earned from his first act of devilry against man. If anyone carefully considers this, they would find that the poet, although never explicitly mentioning the name "the devil," gives him a name based on his most wicked action. For the poet, calling him Ate, says that he was thrown from heaven by their god, as if he had a clear recollection of the words Isaiah the prophet spoke about him. He wrote this in his poem: “And, seizing by her glossy locks the goddess Ate, in his anger he swore that never to the starry skies again, and the Olympian heights, would he allow the universal mischief to return. Then, whirling her around, he cast her down to earth. She, mingling with all works of men, caused many a pang to Jove.”

AND PLATO: too, when he says that form is the third original principle next to God and matter, clearly got this idea from no other source than Moses. He learned the name of form from Moses' words but was not instructed by the initiated that without mystic insight, it is impossible to have any distinct understanding of Moses' writings. For Moses wrote that God had spoken to him about the tabernacle in these words: “And you shall make for me according to all that I show you on the mount, the pattern of the tabernacle.” And again: “And you shall erect the tabernacle according to the pattern of all its instruments, so you shall make it.” And again, a little later: “Thus then you shall make it according to the pattern shown to you on the mount.” Plato, then, reading these passages without the proper insight, thought that form had some kind of separate existence before what the senses perceive, and he often calls it the pattern of the things that are made, since Moses’ writing spoke of the tabernacle: “According to the form shown to you on the mount, so you shall make it.”

HE WAS CLEARLY MISTAKEN IN THE SAME WAY ABOUT THE EARTH: heaven, and man. He believed that there were “ideas” of these. When Moses wrote, “In the beginning God created the heaven and the earth,” and then added, “And the earth was invisible and unfashioned,” he thought this referred to a pre-existing earth described by, “The earth was,” because Moses said, “And the earth was invisible and unfashioned.” He believed that the earth, referred to in “God created the heaven and the earth,” was the earth we experience through our senses, and that God made it according to a pre-existing form.

Similarly, he thought the created heaven, which he called the firmament, was what our senses perceive, whereas the heaven the mind perceives is what the prophet referred to as, “The heaven of heavens is the Lord’s, but the earth He has given to the children of men.” The same applies to man: Moses first mentions the name man, and then, after many other creations, refers to the formation of man, saying, “And God made man, taking dust from the earth.” He believed that the first man named existed before the man who was made, and that the one formed from the earth was later made according to a pre-existing form.

Homer, who had learned from the ancient and divine history that says, “Dust thou art, and unto dust shalt thou return,” also describes the lifeless body of Hector as dumb clay. Condemning Achilles for dragging Hector's corpse, he writes: “On the dumb clay he cast indignity, blinded with rage.”

AND AGAIN: somewhere else, he introduces Menelaus, addressing those who were not accepting Hector’s challenge to single combat with fitting eagerness, saying, “To earth and water may you all return.”

TRANSFORMING THEM IN HIS VIOLENT RAGE BACK TO THEIR ORIGINAL AND PRISTINE FORM FROM EARTH: Homer and Plato, having learned these things in Egypt from the ancient histories, wrote them in their own words.

FROM WHAT OTHER SOURCE: if not from reading the writings of the prophets, could Plato have gotten the information he gives us, that Jupiter drives a winged chariot in heaven? He knew this from the prophet's words about the cherubim: “And the glory of the Lord went out from the house and rested on the cherubim; and the cherubim lifted their wings, with the wheels beside them; and the glory of the Lord God of Israel was above them.” Borrowing this idea, the eloquent Plato confidently declares, “The great Jove, indeed, driving his winged chariot in heaven.” From what other source, if not from Moses and the prophets, did he learn and write this? And where did he get the idea to say that God exists in a fiery substance? Was it not from the third book of the Kings, where it is written, “The Lord was not in the wind; and after the wind an earthquake, but the Lord was not in the earthquake; and after the earthquake a fire, but the Lord was not in the fire; and after the fire a still small voice?” Pious people must understand these things with deeper and meditative insight. But Plato, not looking at the words with the right insight, said that God exists in a fiery substance.

If anyone carefully considers the gift that comes from God to holy people—which the sacred prophets call the Holy Ghost—they will find that Plato referred to this gift by another name in his dialogue with Meno. Plato, hesitant to call God's gift the Holy Ghost for fear of appearing to follow the prophets' teachings and thus becoming an adversary to the Greeks, acknowledges that it comes from God but chooses to call it virtue instead. In the dialogue with Meno, while discussing the nature of virtue—whether it can be taught, acquired through practice, or is an inherent trait in people, or comes in some other way—he makes this statement: "But if throughout this discussion we have reasoned correctly, virtue must not be a natural gift, nor something acquired through teaching, but is given to those who receive it by divine destiny."

PLATO: having learned these things from the prophets about the Holy Ghost, clearly applied them to what he calls virtue. Just as the prophets say that one spirit is divided into seven, Plato refers to one virtue as divided into four parts, deliberately avoiding any mention of the Holy Spirit while using allegory to convey what the prophets said of the Holy Ghost. He speaks towards the end of the dialogue with Meno: "From this argument, Meno, it seems that virtue is given to those who receive it by divine destiny. However, we will fully understand how virtue comes to people when we first examine independently what virtue itself is." You see, he only refers to the gift from above by the name virtue, yet he deems it worthy of investigation whether it should truly be called virtue or something else, carefully avoiding the name Holy Spirit to avoid the appearance of following the prophets' teachings.

And from what source did Plato obtain the information that time was created along with the heavens? For he wrote: "Time, accordingly, was created along with the heavens; so that, coming into being together, they might also be dissolved together, if ever their dissolution should occur." Did he not learn this from the divine history of Moses? For he knew that the creation of time received its original structure from days, months, and years. Since the first day, created along with the heavens, constituted the beginning of all time (for Moses wrote, "In the beginning God created the heavens and the earth," and then immediately follows with, "And one day was made," as if designating the whole of time by one part of it), Plato calls the day "time," so he would not appear to be adopting Moses' expressions entirely and thus face accusations from the Athenians. And from what source did he obtain what he wrote regarding the dissolution of the heavens? Did he not learn this from the sacred prophets and consider it their doctrine?

AND IF ANYONE INVESTIGATES THE SUBJECT OF IMAGES AND INQUIRES ON WHAT BASIS THOSE WHO FIRST FASHIONED YOUR GODS THOUGHT THEY HAD THE FORMS OF MEN: they will find that this also came from divine history. For seeing that Moses's history, speaking as God, says, "Let Us make man in our image and likeness," these people, believing this meant that men were like God in form, began to fashion their gods in this way, thinking they would create a likeness from a likeness. But why, people of Greece, am I now encouraged to recount these things? So that you may know it is not possible to learn the true religion from those who were unable, even on those subjects by which they won the admiration of the heathen, to write anything original, but merely presented through some allegorical device in their own writings what they had learned from Moses and the other prophets.

THE TIME HAS NOW COME: people of Greece, that you, having been convinced by secular histories that Moses and the other prophets were much older than any of those you consider sages among you, abandon the ancient delusion of your ancestors. Read the divine histories of the prophets and learn from them the true religion. They do not present to you artful discourses or speak in a convincing and plausible manner, which is typical of those who wish to deprive you of the truth. Instead, they use simple words and expressions to declare whatever the Holy Ghost, who descended upon them, chose to teach to those who seek the true religion.

Set aside all false shame and the deep-rooted error of humankind, with all its boastful show and empty noise. Though through it, you may believe you possess all advantages, focus on what truly benefits you. You will not offend your ancestors by showing a desire to turn to what is contrary to their error, as it is likely they are now lamenting in Hades and repenting too late. If they could show you from there what has happened to them after this life ended, you would understand the dire consequences they wish to save you from.

Since it is not possible in this life for you to either learn from them or from those who falsely profess to teach philosophy, the only option left for you is to renounce the error of your ancestors and read the prophecies of the sacred writers. Do not require impeccable diction from them, for our religion is based on deeds, not words. Learn from them what will give you everlasting life. Those who unjustly taint the name of philosophy are shown to know nothing at all, as they are forced to admit, however unwillingly, since not only do they disagree with each other, but they also express their own opinions inconsistently.

If "the discovery of the truth" is considered one definition of philosophy among them, how can those who lack true knowledge be worthy of the name of philosophy? For if Socrates, who is deemed the wisest of your wise men and even acknowledged by your oracle, as you claim, saying, "Of all men Socrates is the wisest"—if he admits that he knows nothing, how did those who came after him claim to understand even heavenly things? Socrates said he was called wise because, while others pretended to know what they did not, he did not hesitate to confess his ignorance.

HE SAID: "I seem to myself to be wisest by this little particular, that what I do not know, I do not suppose I know." Let no one think Socrates was pretending to be ignorant, even though he often used irony in his dialogues. His final words in his apology, spoken as he was being led to prison, show that he was sincerely admitting his ignorance: "But now it is time to go away, I indeed to die, but you to live.

And which of us goes to the better state is known only to God." Socrates, having spoken these last words in the Areopagus, went to the prison, leaving the knowledge of hidden things to God alone; but those who followed him, though they cannot comprehend even earthly things, claim to understand heavenly ones as if they have seen them. Aristotle at least—claiming to have more accurate heavenly visions than Plato—stated that God did not exist in the fiery substance, as Plato said, but in the fifth element, air.

While he demanded belief in his views due to his eloquent speech, he ended his life overwhelmed by the disgrace of failing to understand even the nature of the Euripus in Chalcis.

Therefore, let no one of sound judgment prefer the elegant speech of these men over their own salvation. Like the story of old, stop your ears with wax and flee the enticing harm these sirens would cause. These men, using elegant language as bait, have tried to lead many away from the true religion, imitating the one who first dared to teach polytheism to humanity.

Do not be swayed by these individuals, I urge you, but read the prophecies of the sacred writers. If laziness or old inherited superstitions keep you from reading the prophecies of the holy men through which you can learn about the one true God, the first tenet of true religion, then believe him who, though he initially taught you polytheism, later chose to recant with a useful and necessary correction—I mean Orpheus, who said what I quoted a little earlier; and believe the others who wrote the same things about one God.

Through Divine Providence, it was arranged on your behalf that they, even unwillingly, confirmed that what the prophets said about one God was true, so that, as the belief in many gods was dismissed by all, you might have the opportunity to know the truth.

YOU CAN EASILY LEARN THE TRUE RELIGION FROM THE ANCIENT SIBYL: who, through some kind of powerful inspiration, teaches you through her prophetic predictions truths that seem very similar to the teachings of the prophets. She is said to have been of Babylonian descent, the daughter of Berosus, who wrote the Chaldean History. After crossing over (how, I do not know) into the area of Campania, she delivered her prophecies in a city called Cumae, six miles from Baiae, where the hot springs of Campania are located.

While in that city, we also saw a certain place where we were shown a very large basilica carved out of one stone; a massive structure worthy of admiration. Those who had heard it from their forefathers as part of their country's tradition told us that this was where she used to deliver her oracles. In the middle of the basilica, they showed us three receptacles carved from a single stone, and when they were filled with water, they said she washed there.

After putting on her robe again, she would retreat into the innermost chamber of the basilica, also carved from the same stone; sitting in the middle of the chamber on a high platform and throne, she would proclaim her oracles. The Sibyl has been mentioned as a prophetess by many other writers and also by Plato in his "Phaedrus." Plato seems to have regarded prophets as divinely inspired when he read her prophecies. For he observed that what she had predicted long ago had come to pass, and thus he expressed his wonder and admiration for prophets in his dialogue with Meno in these terms: “Those whom we now call prophetic persons we should rightly name divine.

We rightly say they are divine, and are lifted to prophetic ecstasy by the inspiration and possession of God, when they correctly speak of many and important matters, yet know nothing of what they are saying," which clearly refers to the prophecies of the Sibyl. Unlike poets who can revise and refine their work after writing, especially to improve the precision of their verse, she was filled with prophecy during the time of inspiration, but as soon as the inspiration ended, so did her memory of what she had said.

This was the reason why only some, not all, of the Sibyl's verses were preserved. During our visit to that city, we learned from our guide, who showed us the places where she used to prophesy, that there was a brass coffer said to contain her remains.

Additionally, other things they told us, as they had heard them from their ancestors, included that those who originally recorded her prophecies, being uneducated, often strayed from accurately capturing the metres; and this, they said, was why some verses lacked metre.

The prophetess had no memory of what she had said after the inspiration ceased, and the recorders, due to their lack of education, failed to record the metres accurately. Because of this, it is clear that Plato was referring to the Sibyl's prophecies when he commented on prophets, saying, “When they correctly speak of many and important matters, and yet know nothing of what they are saying.”

BUT SINCE: you men of Greece, the matters of the true religion don't lie in the poetic forms, nor in the culture which is highly valued among you, pay less attention to the exactness of poetry and language; and listen without arguing to the words of the Sibyl. Recognize the great benefits she will provide by clearly predicting the coming of our Savior Jesus Christ. He, being the Word of God and inseparable from Him in power, took on man, who was made in the image and likeness of God, and restored the knowledge of the religion of our ancient forefathers, which people abandoned through the deceitful advice of the envious devil, turning to the worship of those who were not gods.

And if you still hesitate and are stopped from believing regarding the creation of man, believe those you previously thought right to listen to, and know that your own oracle, when asked to praise the Almighty God, in the middle of the hymn said, “Who formed the first of men, and called him Adam.” This hymn is kept by many we know, for the conviction of those unwilling to believe the truth which everyone bears witness to. If therefore, you men of Greece, you do not value the false ideas about those that are not gods more than your own salvation, believe, as I said, the most ancient and respected Sibyl, whose books are preserved worldwide.

Through some kind of powerful inspiration, she teaches us in her oracles about those called gods, who have no existence, and clearly prophesies about the predicted coming of our Savior Jesus Christ and all the things He would do. Knowing these things will be your necessary preparation for studying the prophecies of the sacred writers. If anyone thinks they have learned about God from the most ancient of those you call philosophers, let them listen to Ammon and Hermes: Ammon, who in his discourse about God calls Him wholly hidden, and Hermes, who clearly says, “that it is difficult to comprehend God, and that it is impossible even for the person who can comprehend Him to explain Him to others.” From every perspective, therefore, it's clear that in no other way than from the prophets, who teach us through divine inspiration, is it possible to learn anything about God and the true religion.