駁尤利安 第 1 章 第 3/6 段

Are they not, then, at variance with one another, being conjecturers rather than discerners of the truth, drunk as it were with such manifold opinions? And yet those who know the truth truly and without error ought in no way to be opposed to one another's conceptions, just as, indeed, one may observe in our own case as well.

But someone, I think, will say in reply to this:

"…among them as well, and are not some divided so as to think and say different things from one another?" But those, O most excellent friend, I would reply, who were the very first, the original teachers of our sacred doctrines, all agree with one another, and those who came after — the middle ones and the last — agree with the first.

For Moses did not hold one view, while those after him taught things in conflict with his; rather, as I said, there is one and the same doctrine concerning God held by all, down to the holy apostles and evangelists.

For all confess one God, who is over all, and through all, and in all — without beginning and eternal, unbegotten, incorruptible, life and life-giving, maker of heaven and earth and, in short, of all things that are in them.

But if indeed some of those who came after them, not understanding their teachings, have missed the truth, then, by right reasoning, the charge of having erred will attach not to those former ones, but rather to these.

If, then, the inventors of the folly inherent in them, who became teachers of unholy doctrines, agreed with one another's opinions, let them show it — and I will cease.

But if the first among them are themselves at variance with one another and hold divergent opinions, how is it not evident to all that they walk outside the straight path, and have gone astray? For if indeed someone should wish to learn thoroughly the account, correct and unadulterated, concerning the God who is above all things, whose opinion should he receive and not miss the mark? For Thales and Anaximander, and others whom we have just mentioned, would be caught babbling at random.

But Pythagoras and Plato, having spent time in Egypt and encountered many things there, being as they were most eager for learning and fond of inquiry, were not ignorant of the virtue of Moses;

for what concerned him was held by the Egyptians in no small wonder.

From this source, I think, having learned the account concerning God not without skill, they came to hold opinions about him somewhat more reasonable than the others, and indeed chose to think so.

And we shall find also that some of the Athenians agree with what is rightly supposed among them.

This Hermes, then, in Egypt, although he was an initiator into the mysteries and always attached to the precincts of idols, is found to have held the same views as Moses — even if not entirely rightly and blamelessly, yet at least in part;

and mention of him has also been made, in his own writings, by the man who composed at Athens the fifteen books called the Hermaic;

and he writes thus about him in the first book, having introduced a certain priest speaking:

So that we may come to similar matters, do you not hear that our Hermes too divided the whole of Egypt into portions and allotments, measuring the fields with the surveyor's cord, and cut canals for irrigation, and established the nomes, and named the districts after them, and instituted the exchanges of contracts, and recently produced a catalogue of the risings of the stars, and classified herbs, and moreover, having discovered numbers and calculation and geometry, astronomy and astrology, and music and all grammar, handed them down?

I shall, then, give an account of the opinions of each one, and I shall also mention others who have obtained among them no inconsiderable reputation for learning;

and I say that those who are about to read must approach what has been written with the utmost love of learning, rather than with a merely fastidious and cursory attitude.

…is a mingling of all the ages, and light of his own powers and works, beginning of all things, luminary in heaven, and father of all, mind and ensoulment of the universe, motion of all the circles.

Behold, then, he clearly says that the God of all things is one, and the beginning of all things, the worker of his own powers, the luminary and the ensoulment — that is, the life-giving — of all things, and the motion of all the circles;

for nothing is self-moved, but all things have been brought forth by him, and it appears that they have obtained their motion from not-being into being.

And Plato speaks somewhat as follows:

For to find the father and maker of this universe is a task, and having found him, it is impossible to declare him to all.

For he is beyond every concept, and we see the things concerning him, as it were, through a mirror and in a riddle, as the all-wise Paul says.

Porphyry says, in the fourth book of the History of Philosophy, that Plato held the opinion and also declared again concerning the one God, that no name fits him, nor does human knowledge grasp him, but that the appellations spoken of him are predicated of him by later men in a derivative and improper sense.

But if it is necessary at all to venture to say something about him from the names current among us, one ought rather to apply to him the appellation of 'the One' and of 'the Good.'

For 'the One' signifies the simplicity that pertains to him, and on this account his self-sufficiency;

for he needs nothing — neither parts, nor essence, nor powers, nor activities — but is the cause of all these; and 'the Good' establishes that from him is everything that is good, while other things imitate, as far as possible, his — if one may say so — distinctive property, and through it are preserved.

And the thrice-greatest Hermes speaks somewhat as follows:

To conceive of God is difficult, but to declare him is impossible even for one who is able to conceive of him;

for it is impossible for the incorporeal to be signified by the corporeal, and it is not possible for the perfect to be comprehended by the imperfect, and it is difficult for the eternal to have communion with the short-lived;

for the one always exists, but the other passes away, and the one is true, while the other is overshadowed by mere appearance.

By as much, then, as the weaker is distant from the stronger, and the lesser from the greater, by so much is the mortal distant from the divine and immortal.

If, then, there is any incorporeal eye, let it go forth from the body to the vision of the beautiful, and let it fly up and be lifted aloft, seeking to behold not shape, not body, not forms, but rather that which is productive of these — the tranquil, the serene, the steadfast, the unchangeable, that which is itself all things and alone, the One, the same from itself, the same in itself, like unto itself, which is neither like anything else nor unlike itself.

Never, then, when thinking about that One and only Good, say that anything is impossible for him;

for he himself is all power; and do not think of him as being in anything, nor again as being possessed by anything;

for he himself, being unbounded, is the boundary of all things, and, being contained by nothing, contains all things within himself.

For what difference is there between bodies and the incorporeal, and between things that have come to be and that which has not come to be, and between things subject to necessity and that which is self-determining, or between earthly things and heavenly things, and between corruptible things and eternal things? Is it not that the one is self-determining, while the other is subject to necessity, and that the things below, being imperfect, are corruptible? But indeed Sophocles too speaks thus concerning God:

One in very truth, one alone is God, who fashioned heaven and the far-stretching earth, the sea's grey-gleaming swell, and the might of the winds;

but we mortals, many in number, erring in heart, have set up, as solace for our sorrows, images of gods made of stone and wood, or forms wrought of gold or ivory; and, offering to these sacrifices and empty festal gatherings, we thus suppose that we are pious.

And indeed the most wise Xenophon [says]:

He who shakes all things and keeps them steady is manifest, as being something great and powerful;

but of what sort he is in form is unseen;

indeed, even the sun, which seems to be all-radiant, does not itself seem to permit itself to be looked upon, but if anyone gazes upon it shamelessly, it takes away his sight.

That God, then, is one according to nature and in truth, above all mind and reason, incomprehensible, formless, life-giving, and the beginning of all things, unbegotten, incorruptible, the maker of the coming-to-be of all things, has been clearly testified both by the God-inspired Scripture and by the voice of the poets and prose-writers among them;

but that they too knew the Son begotten from him by nature, his demiurgic Logos, we shall demonstrate through what they have written, by setting alongside them the citations concerning these matters.

For Porphyry says, in the fourth book of the History of Philosophy, that Plato spoke thus concerning the Good:

and from him, in a manner inconceivable to men, Mind came to be, whole and subsisting by itself, in which indeed are the things that truly are, and the whole essence of existing things;

which indeed, being primally beautiful and beauty-itself, having from itself the form of beauty, came forth pre-eternal, having set out from God as cause, being self-begotten and self-father.

For its procession did not come about through God being moved toward its coming-to-be, but through this Mind coming forth self-generated from God — coming forth, moreover, not from a temporal beginning, for time did not yet exist; nor, indeed, even when time came to be, is time anything in relation to it;

for the Mind is ever timeless and alone eternal.

And just as the first God is ever one and alone, even though all things come to be from him, because he is not numbered together with them, nor can their worth be ranked together with his existence, so also the Mind, alone eternal and having subsisted timelessly, is itself as time to the things that exist in time, while remaining in the sameness of its own eternal subsistence.

And indeed Orpheus, again, speaks somewhat as follows:

I adjure you, Heaven, wise work of the great God;

I adjure you by the voice of the Father, which he uttered first, when he established the whole universe by his own counsels.

By 'the voice of the Father which he uttered first,' he means his only-begotten Logos, ever coexisting with the Father;

for there was no time when God and Father could be thought to exist apart from his own Logos;

and at the same time he declared that he [the Logos] is God, the demiurge of all things.

And Hermes Trismegistus speaks thus concerning God:

For his Logos, having come forth, being all-perfect and fecund, and a demiurge, falling in fecund nature upon fecund water, made the water pregnant.

'The pyramid, then,' he says, 'underlies nature and the intelligible world;'

for it has, set over it as ruler, the demiurgic Logos of the Master of all, who, after him, is the first power, unbegotten, unbounded, having sprung forth from him, and who both presides over and rules the things brought into being through him; and he is the offspring of the all-perfect one, and a perfect and fecund, genuine Son.

And again the same [Hermes], as though someone among the temple-attendants in Egypt had asked, saying:

'I said this before also, but you did not understand.'

'The nature of his intellectual Logos is a generative and demiurgic nature;'

'call this, as it were, either his begetting, or his nature, or his custom, or whatever you wish to call it — understanding only this, that he is perfect in the Perfect, and from the Perfect works perfect goods, and creates and gives life.'

'Since, then, he possesses such a nature, he has rightly been given this name.'

And the same [Hermes], in the first of the Discourses to Tat, speaks thus concerning God:

'The Logos of the Demiurge, O child, is eternal, self-moved, without increase, without diminution, unchangeable, incorruptible, alone ever like unto himself, equal and even, well-established, well-ordered, being one, next after the God foreknown;'

and by this, I think, he means the Father.

These things, then, suffice for the most complete proof that they too had a conception of the only-begotten Logos of God.

The things said among them concerning the Holy Spirit.

For Porphyry says, setting forth Plato's opinion, that the divine essence proceeded as far as three hypostases: that the highest God is the Good, and after him, second, the Demiurge, and third, the Soul of the world;

for the divinity proceeded as far as the soul.

Behold, then, in these words he clearly maintains that the divine essence proceeded as far as three hypostases;

for the God of all is one, yet the knowledge concerning him is, as it were, extended broadly into a holy and consubstantial Trinity — into Father, I say, and Son, and Holy Spirit, whom Plato also calls the Soul of the world;

The Spirit gives life, and proceeds from the living Father through the Son, and in him we live and move and have our being.

For our Lord Jesus Christ speaks truly:

It is the Spirit that gives life.

And again the same Porphyry, concerning Plato, says:

All things are around the king, and all things exist for his sake, and he is the cause of all good things; the second things are around the second, and the third around the third.

For as all things are around the three gods, yet primarily around the king of all, secondarily around the god who is from him, and thirdly around the god who is from this one.

He has not, then, contemplated this altogether soundly, but on a par with those who have held the opinions of Arius, he divides and subordinates the persons, introducing hypostases seated one beneath another, and supposes the holy and consubstantial Trinity to be, in a divided manner, three gods.

Yet he has not been altogether ignorant of the truth, and I think that, had he spoken and thought soundly, he would even have declared to all the others as well the sound view concerning God which he holds even now — were it not, perhaps, that he feared the indictment of Anytus and Meletus, and the hemlock of Socrates.

And Hermes too says, in the third discourse of the books To Asclepius:

For it is not permitted to impart such mysteries to the uninitiated:

There was only one intelligible light before the intelligible light, and it exists always, a mind luminous with mind;

and there was nothing else but the unity of this.

always being in himself, he always encompasses all things by his own mind and light and spirit.

Outside of him there is no god, no angel, no daemon, no other substance whatsoever:

for he is Lord and Father and God of all things, and fountain and life and power and light and mind and spirit, and all things are in him and under him.

For by 'mind from mind,' as I think, he means the Son, and 'as light from light':

and he makes mention also of the Spirit, as encompassing all things:

and he says that neither angel nor daemon, nor indeed any other nature or substance, lies outside the divine transcendence, or rather authority, but determines that all things exist under it and through it.

And again the same Hermes, in the same third discourse of the books To Asclepius, as though someone had asked concerning the divine Spirit, speaks thus:

Had there not been some providence of the Lord of all, that I should reveal this discourse, such a desire as now possesses you to inquire concerning this would not have possessed you;

but now hear the rest of the discourse:

All things have need of this Spirit, of which I have often spoken before;

bearing all things, it gives life to all things and nourishes them according to their worth, and it is suspended from the holy fountain, being ever a helper to spirits and fruitful of life for all, being one.

He knows it, then, both as existing distinctly in its own right, and as giving life to and nourishing all things, and as suspended, as from a holy fountain, from God the Father.

For it proceeds from him by nature, and is furnished to creation through the Son.

...that not a few of the wise men among the Greeks, holding to their own private judgment, have gone astray, and have held opinions set up against one another; but there are those who have not been without a share in the Mosaic teachings, on account of their having gone as far as Egypt for the sake of the love of learning;

these have thought somewhat better than the rest, having come near to the truth, though not having the eye of their understanding altogether unclouded;

whom, I think, one would not fail of reasonable judgment in calling purblind.

That the doctrines of the Christians, then, are both more ancient and full of truth, and have been deemed by the elect among the chosen to be excellent, and are incomparably superior to the trumpery of the Greeks — our discourse, I think, has sufficiently demonstrated.

[End of the first book of the Refutations of the God-wise Cyril.] Book Two, by the same author. Having conceived nothing unreasonable — indeed, having judged it useful and necessary first to state who came before whom in time, and moreover what opinions each held concerning God — we have given a most accurate account of them.

And perhaps someone might object, saying:

Why, having chosen to speak in support of the doctrines of the Christians, and being eager to bring the prevailing argument against the blasphemies of Julian, did you not resolve to walk this very road, but instead, diverting, as it were, the impulse of your discourse that was proceeding straight toward what was fitting, released yourself into genealogies, and set yourself to investigate at length the opinions of the Hebrews and the Greeks? Let us, then, remove the charges made on these grounds, maintaining that it was fitting to bring the discourse to this point.

For since he who has rivaled the Babylonian Rabshakeh does not fear, with unbridled tongue, to deride the glory of God, and, unholily crying out against our pure religion, repeatedly makes mention of the wise men among the Greeks, and crowns their false opinions with every kind of good report, while he audaciously assails the sacred doctrines of the Church, and derides the histories of Moses, and speaks against absolutely all the saints without exception — for this reason (and quite reasonably so), we have stored up beforehand, as a kind of material for our counter-arguments, the clear and most evident proof both that the writing of the most excellent Moses came into being earlier than the works of the wise men among the Greeks, and moreover that one may see that the tradition of the Christian faith is, by incomparable superiority, better than the things glorified among them.

It was thus, and not otherwise, in order also to free the subsequent discourses from any lengthier digression, and from ever seeming to be carried far away from the sense of the matters before us.

We must now, then, proceed to his very writing, and, setting forth its lines word for word, we shall bring against his utterances what is our own, in the order that is fitting, having judged it not ignoble to answer him point by point.

But since, as I said, opening a gateless mouth he has made the greatest possible slander against Christ, the Savior of us all, and hurls blasphemous words against him, of such things I shall make no mention; but passing over — and quite prudently — those things by contact with which one would be defiled even merely by touching upon his words, I shall rise up against him with what is necessary, showing him everywhere to be fond of mockery and a reckless talker, and one who has utterly failed in the power to say anything true.

For in his first discourse he proceeds through a great many notions, not ceasing to turn the same things about, up and down, and to wheel them round in a circle.

...whatever he might be found saying, setting this forth again both in the middle and at the end, he would perhaps show the arguments of his refutation to have come about not in proper order;

for it is altogether necessary that those who have chosen to dispute what is said by him should be seen speaking about the same things again and again, not once but very many times.

He begins, then, his discourse against us, and says:

{JULIAN} It seems good to me to set forth to all men the reasons by which I was persuaded that the contrivance of the Galilaeans is a fabrication of men put together by malicious craft, having nothing divine about it, but which, by exploiting the myth-loving, childish, and foolish part of the soul, has brought its monster-mongering to be believed as truth.

{CYRIL} By 'Galilaeans,' then, as I think, he means the holy apostles, and by 'monster-mongering' he means the writings of Moses and the predictions and divine utterances of the holy prophets.

And he has perhaps been ignorant of this — or rather, not without a certain divine dispensation, he has produced a denunciation of his own superstition instead.

For there are two Galilees, of which the one is in Judea, while the other borders on and neighbors the cities of the Phoenicians.

And indeed it is written in the Gospels concerning Christ, the Savior of us all, that as he walked beside the sea of Galilee — that is, the lake of Tiberias — he chose out his disciples.

And God said somewhere through one of the holy prophets:

'And what are you also to me, Tyre and Sidon, and all Galilee of the foreigners?' And moreover the divinely-inspired Isaiah says:

'The land of Zabulon,' he says, 'and the land of Nephthalim, and the rest who dwell along the coast, Galilee of the nations — the people who sit in darkness have seen a great light.'

'Galilaeans,' then, would surely not be understood to mean only those in Judea, but rather all the nations as well;

for, it says, 'Galilee of the nations.'

It is, then, unclear and not yet plain against whom his argument would proceed more fittingly and more truly:

whether against us, or rather against himself and those who have honored the demented superstition dear to him; for they too are Galilaeans — or rather, one could in no way doubt that the force of what has been said would fit the delusions of the Greeks.

For where is that which is so greatly mythical, and foolish, and childish, cold and reckless, and full of every unintelligence, if not among them alone, who, having contrived monstrous tales in many ways, attempt to lead falsehood into belief as truth? So unlovely and so abundant is this among them, that even their own elect — who are accustomed to philosophize most excellently among themselves — have raised the greatest possible outcry against the madness of the poets, a madness not so much inspired as outlandish, and it is fitting to say openly that it stands apart from — even surpasses — the trumpery found among them.

But indeed, though I am still able to say a great deal on this very point, I shall pass it over, so as not to seem to be carried away from what is fitting, and I shall return to the aim of the matters before us.

...they set up their contrivance for the souls of the more simple.

For they led astray those throughout all the earth, saying that heaven and the other elements were god.

And, as the all-wise Paul writes, 'professing themselves to be wise, they became fools, and exchanged the glory of the incorruptible God for the likeness of an image of corruptible man, and of birds, and four-footed beasts, and creeping things.'

But that we may also make concession to his own notions — not directing what has been said against others rather than at us, but letting it fall even upon the holy apostles, or rather, once for all, upon the all-wise Moses himself and the holy prophets — let him come forward, let him show clearly what the fabrication is that has been maliciously put together, and what he says the monster-mongering to be, and what is the myth-loving and childish element in the religion of the Christians.

Has Moses, then, composed myths for us, in saying that there is one God who exists by nature and in truth — unbegotten, eternal, incorruptible, without quantity, invisible, unchangeable, untouchable, life and life-giving, wisdom, power, the author of coming-to-be, king, Lord of all things? Has the word of the holy prophets missed the truth, having striven to follow in the footsteps of the Mosaic doctrines? Shall we find the teaching of the holy apostles to hold in some different manner? Not at all.

But since he himself says that he has been persuaded, let him teach whence, or by whom.

For let him not boast that he alone knows this;

but if he was persuaded by himself alone, and this suffices, as at any rate he supposes and says, for a most complete proof that the affairs of the Christians are not sound, that this is mere nonsense I shall forbear to say of it;

only let him revel by himself in what he says against us; for we shall certainly not accept so hostile a judge.

But if he thinks that the arguments of those bringing charges — whatever charges may be brought against anyone — must be true and not false, let him not say merely that he alone has persuaded himself, but let him prove it through facts.

But that he rather justly indicts himself, and not us, on the charge of myth-fabrication, and that his accusation is not free from suspicion, we shall learn again from what he himself has said.

{JULIAN} But being about to make my discourse concerning all the doctrines spoken among them, I wish first to say this: that those who read this, if indeed they wish to argue against it, ought, as in a court of law, to inquire into nothing extraneous, nor bring counter-charges against what is said, until they have defended themselves concerning the first points;

for it is better and clearer thus: to institute a separate treatise of their own when they wish to bring charges against something of ours, but in those passages where they defend themselves against the charges brought by us, not to bring counter-accusations.

{CYRIL} Must the one prosecuted by you, then, tell me, be tongueless, and do you command the defendant to be convicted while remaining silent, without recalling anything at all of your charges, choosing instead to ratify the indictment against himself? And yet, this wish of yours that we should say nothing belongs to one who fears refutation, and who has not been ignorant of the unpleasantness of the shamefulness contained in his own words.

If, then, he himself, in accusing the religion of the Christians, deems it worthy of no praise whatsoever, and crowns the superstition of the Greeks with the highest honors, let him in turn demand equal treatment —

...having set up the doctrines of the Greeks alongside as superior, how can he think it right that we should be silent, and make no mention at all of what is found among them, when, wishing to plead on behalf of our own doctrines, we compose our arguments precisely on this point? If, then, we had abandoned the necessity of contending against your arguments and had turned aside solely to the need of recalling the things of the Greeks, I would say that the argument he has made on this very point is well made, and not beyond what is reasonable;

But how could he still justly rebuke those who defend themselves and wish to meet whatever is said by him, point by point, if, having chosen to plead our own case, we are eager to strip bare the shame of the Greeks' impiety? For just as among colors one can see that the sight becomes more manifest amid things of a contrasting kind (for "the light shines in the darkness," as it is said), in the same manner, I think, the beauties inherent in the virtues could become manifest to the minds of the less learned in no other way than through the ugliness of their opposites alone.

For the unloveliness of baseness persuades men to award to the better things the verdict of victory.

For this reason he is, quite reasonably, afraid of his own affairs, and does not allow the things over which he is ashamed to come out into the open; and he bids us, even when being called to account for this, to be silent. He accuses us also in other ways, speaking thus:

{JULIAN} It is worth briefly taking up whence and how the concept of God first came to us, and then to set alongside it what is said among the Greeks and among the Hebrews concerning the divine, and after this to ask in turn those who are neither Greeks nor Jews, but of the Galilaean sect, why in the world they chose what belongs to the latter over what is ours, and, moreover, why they do not even abide by those teachings either, but, having deserted them as well, turned to a way of their own — acknowledging none of the noble or serious things, neither those among us Greeks nor those among the Hebrews who come from Moses, but plucking from both, as it were, certain banes that have become attached to the nations: atheism from Jewish villainy, and a base and slovenly way of life from our own indolence and vulgarity — and they wished this to be called the finest piety.

{CYRIL} He who says that those who encounter whatever calumnies he might make against us, if they wish to reply, ought — as though in a court of law — to inquire into nothing beyond the matter at hand, nor to make a counter-accusation against what has been said, promises openly, in these very words, to set forth what is said among the Greeks and among the Hebrews concerning the divine.