{"slug":"khazarzar-iustinus-quaestiones-et-responsiones-ad-orthodoxos","id":"greek:khazarzar:khazarzar-iustinus-quaestiones-et-responsiones-ad-orthodoxos","title":"Quaestiones et responsiones ad orthodoxos","title_source":"Quaestiones et responsiones ad orthodoxos","author":"Iustinus","genre":"commentary","date":null,"tradition":"greek","coverage":"not-located","coverage_claim":{"status":"not-located","text":"No English translation could be identified: a language model asked twice could not name one, though it could not rule one out either. That is not proof that none exists — translations in dissertations, recent books and other modern languages are easily missed."},"publication":{"status":"machine-draft","reviewed_by":null,"model":"deepseek/deepseek-v4.1-flash:floor","provider":"Baidu","generated":"2026-11-15T18:06:30Z","cost_usd":0.014725},"source":{"registry_id":"greek:khazarzar:khazarzar-iustinus-quaestiones-et-responsiones-ad-orthodoxos","work_id":"khazarzar-iustinus-quaestiones-et-responsiones-ad-orthodoxos","edition":"khazarzar","language":"","license":null,"url":null},"stats":{"passages":146,"english_words":35244,"coptic_letters":0,"source_letters":141534,"commentary_units":0,"commentary_kinds":0,"derived_notes":0,"ambiguities":0,"work_notes":0,"external_links":0,"timeline":0},"summary":{},"links":[],"checks":{"work":"khazarzar-iustinus-quaestiones-et-responsiones-ad-orthodoxos","status":"pass","blocking":[],"warnings":[],"stats":{"passages":146,"translated":146,"commentary_passages":0,"commentary_units":0,"english_words":35244,"source_letters":141534,"commentary_kinds":0},"model":"deepseek/deepseek-v4.1-flash:floor"},"work_notes":[],"derived_work_notes":[{"kind":"coverage","severity":"info","text":"No English translation could be identified: a language model asked twice could not name one, though it could not rule one out either. That is not proof that none exists — translations in dissertations, recent books and other modern languages are easily missed."},{"kind":"limit","severity":"caution","text":"The English is a machine draft produced passage by passage from the transcribed Greek; no human has verified it. The commentary is model-written and cites only keys the pipeline could resolve."},{"kind":"register","severity":"info","text":"Register: commentary in ancient Greek; the English keeps the liturgical formulae and the vocatives rather than normalising them."},{"kind":"structure","severity":"info","text":"Passages: 146 narrative."},{"kind":"source","severity":"info","text":"Source edition: khazarzar."}],"derived_structure":{"narrative":146},"term_index":[],"citations":{},"segments":[{"i":1,"ref":"p1","source":"Τ Υ Γ Υ ΥΣΤ Ν Υ Φ Λ Σ Φ Υ Κ Μ ΡΤΥΡ Σ Π ΚΡ Σ Σ ΠΡ Σ Τ ΥΣ ΡΘ Δ Ξ ΥΣ Π Ρ Τ ΝΩΝ Ν ΓΚ ΩΝ Ζ Τ Μ ΤΩΝ.\n\nἘρώτησις α.\n\nἰ τὴν ἀρχαίαν μὲν λατρείαν ἀνεῖλεν ὁ θεὸς ὡς αὐτὴν μὴ ἀρεσκόμενος, τὴν δὲ τῶν Χριστιανῶν ὡς ἀρεστὴν αὑτῷ ἀντεισ ήγαγεν, οἱ δὲ ὀρθόδοξοι, οἱ μόνοι θεῷ ἀρέσκοντες, τῶν Ἑλλήνων τε καὶ Ἰουδαίων καὶ πάντων τῶν αἱρετικῶν οὐκ ἴσοι τὸν ἀριθμὸν τυγχάνουσιν ἀλλ' ἥσσονες, τίς ἡ ἀπόδειξις τοῦ μὴ κατὰ πτωχείαν δυνάμεως τοῦ ταύτην ἀντ' ἐκείνης ἑλομένου τὴν λατρείαν μένειν ἀνεκρίζωτον τὴν πλάνην; Πῶς δὲ οὐκ ἀνωφελὴς ἡ ἐκείνης τῆς λατρείας λύσις, πλάνης ἔτι πολλῆς κατεχούσης τὸν κόσμον;\n\nἈπόκρισις ἤτοι λύσις τῆς ἐρωτήσεως. Τὴν ἀρχαίαν τοῦ θεοῦ λατρείαν λύσαντος, τὴν νέαν δὲ ἀντεισαγαγεῖν διὰ τῆς παλαιᾶς διαθήκης προθεμένου, εἰ μὲν ἀντεισήγαγε ταύτην ἀντ' ἐκείνης, πρῶτον μὲν κηρυττομένην λόγοις θείαις δυνάμεσι μαρτυρουμένοις, ἀνεῖλεν ἰουδαϊσμόν τε καὶ ἑλληνισμόν· ὕστερον δὲ ἔργοις θείαις ὡσαύτως δυνάμεσι γινομένοις πάσης τῆς ἐν ἀνθρώποις τε καὶ δαίμοσι πλάνης ποιεῖ τὴν ἐκρίζωσιν, σὺν ταύτῃ δὲ καὶ πάντων τῶν ἐν τῷ κόσμῳ κακῶν αἱρέσεων ἀνεῖλε τὴν λατρείαν καὶ πονηρίαν πίστεώς τε καὶ ποιήσεως. ἰ μὴ πάντες οἱ δεξάμενοι τὴν λατρείαν τὴν αὐτὴν δόξαν περὶ τῶν αὐτῶν πραγμάτων τηροῦσι καὶ ἔχουσιν, ἀλλ' οἱ μὲν ὀρθῶς, ἄλλοι δὲ οὐκ ὀρθῶς, τοῦτο οὐκ ἔστι κατηγόρημα τοῦ θεοῦ ἐπὶ πτωχείᾳ δυνάμεως τὸ ἐκείνους ἐκ τῆς οἰκείας ἀμελείας ἢ ἑτέρας ἀσθενείας ὀρθῶς μὴ νοεῖν τὰ ὑπ' αὐτῶν πιστευόμενα, ἀλλὰ τῆς ἐκείνων ἀμε λείας.","english":"Question 1.\n\nWhy did God abolish the ancient worship as not pleasing to himself, and introduce in its place the worship of the Christians as pleasing to him, when the orthodox, who alone are pleasing to God, are not equal in number to the Greeks and Jews and all the heretics, but are fewer? What is the proof that it was not through poverty of power that the one who chose this worship in place of that one left the error unrooted? And how is the abolition of that worship not useless, when much error still holds the world?\n\nAnswer, or solution of the question. When God abolished the ancient worship and purposed through the old covenant to introduce the new in its place, if he introduced this in place of that, first, being proclaimed by divine words attested by divine powers, he abolished Judaism and Hellenism; later, by works likewise becoming divine powers, he brings about the eradication of all error among men and demons, and with this he abolished the worship and wickedness of all the evil heresies of faith and practice in the world. But if not all who received the worship keep and hold the same opinion about the same matters, but some rightly and others not rightly, this is not a charge against God of poverty of power—that those who do not rightly understand what they believe do so from their own negligence or some other weakness—but it is due to their negligence.","structure":"narrative","commentary":[],"ambiguities":[],"confidence":"","notes":[]},{"i":2,"ref":"p2","source":"ἴρηται δὲ ἐν τῇ εἰσαγομένῃ λατρείᾳ περὶ τῆς τῶν ὀρθοδόξων ὀλιγότητος ποτὲ μὲν Πολλοὶ μέν εἰσι κλητοί, ὀλίγοι δὲ ἐκλεκτοί, ποτὲ δὲ Ὅτι στενὴ καὶ τεθλιμμένη ἡ ὁδὸς ἡ ἀπάγουσα εἰς τὴν ζωήν, καὶ ὀλίγοι εἰσὶν οἱ εὑρίσκοντες αὐτήν. Ὡσαύτως καὶ περὶ τῶν αἱρέσεων, ἃς ὁ κύριος ἐν ταῖς ἑαυ τοῦ παραβολαῖς ζιζάνια καὶ σαπροὺς καλεῖ ἰχθύας. ἰ τοίνυν μηδὲν ἐψευσμένον ἐστὶν ἐν τῇ τῶν Χριστιανῶν λατρείᾳ, ὡς ἡ τῶν πραγμάτων μαρτυρεῖ ἀλήθεια, ἐκ τῶν προλαβόντων πεπιστευμένα ποιοῦσα τὰ μέλλοντα, οὐδαμῶς ἄρα ὑπολέλειπται πρόφασις τοῦ διαβάλλειν τὸν θεὸν ἐπὶ πτωχείᾳ δυνάμεως ἢ τοῦ ἀνωφελῆ λέγειν τὴν ἀντὶ λατρείας λατρείαν εἰσαγομένην, τὴν νῦν μὲν λυτικὴν οὖσαν ἰουδαϊσμοῦ τε καὶ ἑλληνισμοῦ, ὕστε ρον δὲ καὶ τῶν αἱρέσεων.\n\nἘρώτησις β.\n\nἰ τὰ μέλλοντα γίνεσθαι, οἷον πολέμων τρόπαια, ἐχθρῶν ἔφοδον καὶ πόλεων ἀναιρέσεις διὰ τῶν ἐπιτιθεμένων αὐταῖς, προειρήκασι προφῆται καὶ ἀπόστολοι, προεῖπον δὲ καὶ παρ' Ἕλλησι χρησμῶν λόγοι, πόθεν οἱ τούτων κρείττους γνωρίζον ται τῶν ἔξωθεν, παρ' ἑκατέρου μέρους τῆς τῶν ἐσομένων","english":"It has been said in the worship that is being introduced, concerning the fewness of the orthodox, at one time, \"Many are called, but few are chosen,\" and at another, \"Narrow and constricted is the way that leads to life, and few are those who find it.\" Likewise also concerning the heresies, which the Lord in his own parables calls tares and rotten fish. If, therefore, nothing false is found in the worship of the Christians, as the truth of the facts bears witness, since it makes the things that are to come believed from the things that have gone before, then no pretext at all is left for slandering God on account of poverty of power, or for calling the worship introduced in place of worship useless—the worship that is now destructive of Judaism and Hellenism, and later also of the heresies.\n\nQuestion 2.\n\nIf the prophets and apostles foretold the things that were to come to pass—such as trophies of wars, the assault of enemies, and the destruction of cities by those who attack them—and the oracles of the Greeks also foretold them, how are those who are superior to these recognized from among the outsiders, when from each side of the things that are to come","structure":"narrative","commentary":[],"ambiguities":[],"confidence":"","notes":[]},{"i":3,"ref":"p3","source":"γεγενημένης προῤῥήσεως;\n\nἈπόκρισις.\n\nΤοῦ αὐτοῦ θεοῦ ἐστι πάντα ταῦτα, καὶ ἡ πρόῤῥησις τῶν λόγων καὶ ἡ ἔκβασις τῶν ἔργων, τοῦ καὶ διὰ τῶν προφητῶν τε καὶ ἀποστόλων προμηνύσαντος ἃ ἔμελλε ποιεῖν· ὡσαύτως δὲ καὶ διὰ τῶν ἔξωθεν τῆς εὐσεβείας αὐτὸς προεμήνυσεν ἃ ἔμελλε ποιεῖν. Ὥσπερ γὰρ διὰ τοῦ μάντεως Βαλαὰμ τὸν μὲν Ἰσραὴλ εὐλόγησε, τοὺς δὲ ἐχθροὺς αὐτοῦ κατηράσατο, ἑκάτερον δὲ ποιήσας διὰ τῆς προμηνύσεως τῶν ἐσομένων, ὡσαύτως δὲ καὶ διὰ μαντείας τῷ Ναβουχοδονόσορ βασιλεῖ Βαβυλῶνος τὴν ἅλωσιν τῆς Ἱερουσαλὴμ προεμήνυσε, καθά φησιν ὁ προφήτης Ἰεζεκιήλ· Καὶ στήσεται βασιλεὺς Βαβυλῶνος ἐπὶ τὴν ἀρχαίαν ὁδόν, ἐπ' ἀρχῆς τῶν δύο, τοῦ μαντεύσασθαι μαντείαν καὶ τοῦ ἀναβράσαι·άβδον καὶ ἐπερωτῆσαι ἐν τοῖς γλυπτοῖς καὶ κατασκοπήσασθαι ἐκ δεξιῶν αὑτοῦ· καὶ ἐγένετο ἐπὶ Ἱερου σαλήμ, καὶ τὰ ἑξῆς. ὕτως καὶ διὰ τῶν παρ' Ἕλλησι μάντεων ὅσα διὰ τῶν ἔργων τὴν ἔκβασιν ἐδέξατο αὐτὸς προεμήνυσε. Διαφορὰ δὲ τῶν προφητῶν καὶ τῶν μάντεων πολλή· πρῶτον μὲν ὅτι θεόν, οὗ τῷ ὀνόματι προεφήτευσαν οἱ προ φῆται καὶ οἱ ἀπόστολοι, τούτου ἐσχήκασι τὴν γνῶσιν καὶ τὴν πίστιν καὶ τὴν λατρείαν, καὶ πάντα ὅσα περί τε τῆς τῶν ἑλληνικῶν θεῶν τε καὶ μαντείων καθαιρέσεως καὶ τῆς τῶν χριστιανικῶν πραγμάτων συστάσεως προεῖπον οἱ προφῆται τὴν ἔκβασιν ἐδέξατο· ἔπειτα δὲ οὐδὲν ὧν προεῖπον οἱ μάντεις, ἢ κατὰ τοῦ τῆς ἀληθείας θεοῦ καὶ τῶν σεβομένων αὐτὸν ἢ ὑπὲρ τῆς συστάσεως τῶν ἑλληνικῶν πραγμάτων, τὴν ἔκβασιν ἐδέξατο.","english":"Was there a prediction?\n\nAnswer.\n\nAll these things belong to the same God—both the foretelling of words and the fulfillment of deeds—who foretold through the prophets and apostles what he was going to do; and in the same way he himself also foretold through those outside piety what he was going to do. For just as through the seer Balaam he blessed Israel and cursed its enemies, doing both through the foretelling of things to come, so too through divination he foretold to Nebuchadnezzar king of Babylon the capture of Jerusalem, as the prophet Ezekiel says: \"And the king of Babylon shall stand at the ancient road, at the head of the two roads, to practice divination, to shake the arrow, to inquire among the graven images, and to look at his right side; and it came to pass against Jerusalem,\" and the rest. In the same way, through the seers among the Greeks, he himself foretold whatever received fulfillment through deeds. But the difference between the prophets and the seers is great: first, that the God whose name the prophets and apostles prophesied by—of this God they had the knowledge and the faith and the worship, and all that the prophets foretold concerning the overthrow of the Greek gods and oracles and the establishment of Christian affairs received fulfillment; and then, that none of the things the seers foretold—whether against the God of truth and those who worship him, or in support of the establishment of Greek affairs—received fulfillment.","structure":"narrative","commentary":[],"ambiguities":[],"confidence":"","notes":[]},{"i":4,"ref":"p4","source":"Καὶ τούτων μάρτυς ἡ τῶν Ἀσσυρίων ἀναίρεσις, οἳ ἀπὸ τῆς οἰκείας μαντείας ὁρμώμενοι ἔλεγον μὴ ἄνευ κυρίου ἀναβῆναι ἐπὶ τὴν γῆν ταύτην τοῦ ἐρημῶσαι αὐτήν· Κύριός μοι εἶπεν Ἀνάβηθι καὶ ἐρήμωσον αὐτήν· καὶ ἀναβὰς παρὰ τὴν μαν τείαν ἠρημώθη.\n\nἘρώτησις γ.\n\nἰ πάντες μὲν ἐν τῇ ἀναστάσει οἱ ἡμαρτηκότες κολάζον ται, πλέον δὲ οἱ ἐγνωκότες τὸ τοῦ θεοῦ θέλημα καὶ μὴ ποιή σαντες, τί τὸ κέρδος τοῦ Χριστιανοῦ καὶ τοῦ Ἕλληνος, τοῦ βαπτισθέντος καὶ τοῦ μὴ βαπτισθέντος, τοῦ ὀρθοδόξου καὶ τοῦ μὴ ὀρθοδόξου;\n\nἈπόκρισις.\n\nἰ κατὰ τὸν ἀπόστολον Παῦλον ὁ πιστὸς ὁ μὴ προνοῶν τῶν ἰδίων ἀρνησίθεός ἐστι καὶ τῶν ἀπίστων χείρων, ὁ μὴ σὺν τῇ γνώσει καὶ πίστει καὶ τῷ βαπτίσματι καὶ τὸν τρόπον ἐπαγόμενος χαρακτηριστικὸν τῆς τοῦ Χριστοῦ μαθητείας, ἀλλὰ μόρφωσιν μὲν ἔχων εὐσεβείας, τὴν δὲ δύναμιν αὐτῆς ἠρνημένος, χείρων ἐστὶ τῶν ἀπίστων. ὕτως τοσοῦτον χεῖρόν ἐστι τὸ μετὰ γνώσεως ἁμαρτάνειν τοῦ ἄνευ γνώσεως, ὅσον τὸ ἀναπολόγητον ἁμάρτημα τοῦ ἀπολογίαν ἔχοντος ἁμαρτήματος. Ἐρώτησις δ.","english":"And witness to these things is the destruction of the Assyrians, who, starting from their own oracle, said that they had not come up against this land to desolate it without the Lord: \"The Lord said to me, Go up and desolate it\"; and having gone up, contrary to the oracle, they were destroyed.\n\nQuestion 3.\n\nIf all who have sinned are punished in the resurrection, but more so those who knew the will of God and did not do it, what is the advantage of the Christian over the Greek, of the baptized over the unbaptized, of the orthodox over the non-orthodox?\n\nAnswer.\n\nAccording to the apostle Paul, the believer who does not provide for his own is a denier of God and worse than the unbelievers; the one who does not, together with knowledge and faith and baptism, bring in his manner of life as a mark of discipleship to Christ, but has a form of godliness while denying its power, is worse than the unbelievers. Thus, to sin with knowledge is as much worse than to sin without knowledge as an inexcusable sin is worse than a sin that has an excuse.\n\nQuestion 4.","structure":"narrative","commentary":[],"ambiguities":[],"confidence":"","notes":[]},{"i":5,"ref":"p5","source":"ἰ πάσῃ δυνάμει ἔσπευσαν οἱ αἱρετικοὶ γνῶναι καὶ φυ λάξαι τὴν τῶν δογμάτων ἀλήθειαν καὶ οὐκ ἴσχυσαν, πῶς οὐκ\n\nἄδικον τὸ τούτους ὡς ἀποσφαλέντας τῆς ἀληθείας ὑποβάλλειν κολάσεσιν;\n\nἈπόκρισις.\n\nΤοσοῦτον οὐκ ἐζήτησαν οἱ αἱρετικοὶ πάσῃ δυνάμει τὴν ἀλήθειαν, ὅτι καὶ ἀποδεικνυμένην αὐτοῖς παρὰ τῶν ταύτην εὑρηκότων οὔτε ἤκουσαν οὔτε ἠνέσχοντο δέξασθαι αὐτήν. Καὶ εἰ μὲν ἀληθὴς αὕτη ἡ ἀπολογία, ἐχρῆν αὐτοὺς ἀλλήλοις συγ γινώσκειν σφαλλομένοις, ὡς ἀσθενείᾳ δυνάμεως καὶ οὐ πονηρίᾳ γνώμης τὰς αἱρέσεις συστησαμένοις μαχομένας ἑαυταῖς τε καὶ τῇ ἀληθείᾳ. Νῦν δέ, καθὰ κατακρίνουσιν ἀλλήλους ἐπὶ τῷ ἀλλοτρίῳ τοῦ φρονήματος, δῆλοί εἰσιν ὅτι ἐκ φιλοδοξίας ἢ ἀντιπαθείας τῶν αἱρεσιαρχῶν πᾶσαι αἱ αἱρέσεις τὰς ἀφορμὰς ἐσχήκασι τῆς συστάσεως αὐτῶν· δι' ἣν αἰτίαν λύκοι βαρεῖς ὑπὸ τοῦ ἀποστόλου ὠνομάσθησαν οἱ τῶν αἱρέσεων ἀρχηγοί. Ὅτι δὲ ἀδύνατόν ἐστι μὴ τυχεῖν τῆς εὑρέσεως τῷ ἐν ὅλῃ καρ δίᾳ τε καὶ δυνάμει ἐπιζητοῦντι τὴν ἀλήθειαν, μαρτυρεῖ ὁ κύριος λέγων· Πᾶς ὁ αἰτῶν λαμβάνει, καὶ ὁ ζητῶν εὑρήσει, καὶ τῷ κρούοντι ἀνοιγήσεται.","english":"If the heretics hastened with all their power to know and guard the truth of the doctrines and could not, how is it not unjust to subject them to punishments as though they had fallen away from the truth?\n\nAnswer.\n\nThe heretics did not seek the truth with all their power to such a degree that, even when it was demonstrated to them by those who had found it, they neither listened nor endured to receive it. And if this defense were true, they ought to forgive one another for erring, as having established their heresies through weakness of power and not through wickedness of mind—heresies that fight both against themselves and against the truth. But as it is, inasmuch as they condemn one another for a mindset alien to their own, they are clearly shown that all heresies have received the occasions of their establishment from love of glory or from the antipathy of the heresiarchs; for which reason the leaders of the heresies were called grievous wolves by the apostle. And that it is impossible for one who seeks the truth with his whole heart and power to fail to find it, the Lord bears witness, saying: Everyone who asks receives, and he who seeks will find, and to him who knocks it will be opened.","structure":"narrative","commentary":[],"ambiguities":[],"confidence":"","notes":[]},{"i":6,"ref":"p6","source":"Ἐρώτησις ε.\n\nἰ ἐν ταῖς ἐκκλησίαις τῶν αἱρετικῶν δυνάμεις ἐνεργοῦν ται, οἷον νοσημάτων ἰάσεις καὶ πνευμάτων διωγμοὶ ἀκαθάρ των, καρπῶν γῆς φορὰ καὶ ἐλαίου ἀναβλύσεις, πῶς οὐκ ἀνάγκη ἐκ τούτων ἐν τῇ πλάνῃ βεβαιοῦσθαι ἐκείνους; Ἀπόκρισις.\n\nὭσπερ τὸ ἀνατέλλειν τὸν ἥλιον ἐπὶ πονηροὺς καὶ ἀγα θοὺς καὶ βρέχειν ἐπὶ δικαίους καὶ ἀδίκους οὐκ ἔστι βεβαιω τικὸν πονηρῶν καὶ ἀδίκων ἐν τῇ πονηρίᾳ καὶ ἀδικίᾳ ἀλλὰ παρασκευαστικὸν εἰς δικαίαν τιμωρίαν, οὕτως οὐκ ἔστι βεβαιωτικὸν τῶν αἱρετικῶν ἐν τῇ πλάνῃ τὸ ἐνεργεῖν τινας ἐν αὐτοῖς δυνάμεις. ἰ γὰρ ἦν ἀπόδειξις καὶ σημεῖον εὐσεβείας τὸ ἐνεργεῖν δυνάμεις, οὐκ ἂν ὁ κύριος ἀδοκίμους τε καὶ ἀναξίους τῆς πρὸς αὑτὸν οἰκειώσεως ἀπεφαίνετο τοὺς εἰρηκότας· Κύριε, οὐ τῷ σῷ ὀνόματι προεφητεύσαμεν καὶ τῷ σῷ ὀνό ματι δαιμόνια ἐξεβάλομεν καὶ τῷ σῷ ὀνόματι δυνάμεις πολλὰς ἐποιήσαμεν; λέγων πρὸς αὐτούς· ὐδέποτε ἔγνων ὑμᾶς, ἀπο χωρεῖτε ἀπ' ἐμοῦ οἱ ἐργαζόμενοι τὴν ἀνομίαν! ὐκ εἰπών, διδάξας ἡμᾶς, ψωμίζειν καὶ ποτίζειν τὸν πεινῶντα καὶ διψῶντα, πολὺ μᾶλλον αὐτὸς τὰ ὅμοια ὧν ἐδίδαξεν ἡμᾶς ποιεῖ, σωρεύων πῦρ ἐπὶ τὰς κεφαλὰς αὐτῶν τῶν ἀξίως τὸν δωτῆρα τῆς πίστεως οὐκ ἐγνωκότων;","english":"Question 5.\n\nIf powers are active in the churches of the heretics, such as healings of diseases and expulsions of unclean spirits, abundance of the fruits of the earth and gushings of oil, how is it not necessary that they be confirmed in their error by these things? Answer.\n\nJust as the sun's rising upon the evil and the good and its raining upon the just and the unjust is not a confirmation of the evil and unjust in their wickedness and injustice but a preparation for just punishment, so too the activity of certain powers among the heretics is not a confirmation of them in their error. For if the working of powers were a proof and sign of piety, the Lord would not have declared those who said, \"Lord, did we not prophesy in your name, and in your name cast out demons, and in your name perform many mighty works?\" to be reprobate and unworthy of fellowship with him, saying to them, \"I never knew you; depart from me, you workers of lawlessness!\" Did he not say this, having taught us to feed and give drink to the hungry and thirsty? Much more does he himself do the like of what he taught us, heaping fire upon the heads of those who did not worthily acknowledge the giver of faith?","structure":"narrative","commentary":[],"ambiguities":[],"confidence":"","notes":[]},{"i":7,"ref":"p7","source":"Ἐρώτησις.\n\nἰ ἐν τοῖς ἀλγοῦσι καὶ ἡδομένοις τὸ παθητικὸν διαδείκνυται, τούτου δὲ οἱ ἁμαρτωλοὶ κἀκείνου οἱ δίκαιοι ἐν τῇ κρίσει, πῶς ἀληθεύει ὁ λέγων ἀπάθειαν τοῖς ἀνθρώποις μετὰ τὴν ἀνάστασιν κομίζεσθαι;\n\nἈπόκρισις.\n\nἈπαθεῖς λέγομεν ἀναστήσεσθαι, ὅτι ἀφ' ὧν ἐσμεν κατὰ φύσιν τροπὴν οὐ δεχόμεθα, οὔτε εἰς τὰ ἀντικείμενα κατὰ τὸ ὂν καὶ μὴ ὄν, οὔτε εἰς τὰ ἐναντία κατὰ τὸ μᾶλλον καὶ ἧττον·\n\nοἷον ἐκ τῆς χαρᾶς οὐ τρεπόμεθα εἰς τὴν λύπην, οὔτε χαίρομεν ἐπὶ τοῦ αὐτοῦ ἀγαθοῦ ποτὲ μὲν μᾶλλον, ποτὲ δὲ ἧττον, κἂν ἐπὶ μείζονος ἀγαθοῦ μᾶλλον χαίρωμεν, ἐπὶ ἐλάττονος δὲ ἧτ τον· ἀλλὰ καὶ οὕτως κατὰ τὴν ἀναλογίαν τῶν ἀγαθῶν μένει τὸ ποσὸν τῆς χαρᾶς ἄτρεπτον. Καὶ τοῦτο μὲν ἐπὶ τῶν εἰς ζωὴν ἀνισταμένων· ἐπὶ δὲ τῶν εἰς κρίσιν ἀνισταμένων ὁ αὐτὸς λόγος, ὅταν ἀπαλλάττωνται ὥσπερ τοῦ θανάτου κρίσεως· καὶ γὰρ τῶν ἀνισταμένων οἱ μὲν εἰς ζωήν, οἱ δὲ εἰς κρίσιν ἀνί στανται.\n\nἘρώτησις ζ.\n\nἰ τροπῆς γνώρισμα τὸ τὰ καλὰ καὶ τὰ φαῦλα λαμβάνειν εἰς ἔννοιαν, πῶς ἄτρεπτοι οἱ κολαζόμενοι καὶ τὴν τῶν δικαίων λογιζόμενοι ἄνεσιν, ἢ πάλιν οἱ ἐν ἀνέσει τυγχάνοντες καὶ τὴν τῶν ἁμαρτωλῶν ἐνθυμούμενοι κόλασιν; Τότε γὰρ ἑκάτερον ἐν θατέρῳ δίδωσι πλείονα τὴν αἴσθησιν, ὅτε τῶν ἐναντίων ἡ παράθεσις γίνεται.","english":"Question.\n\nIf the passible is displayed in those who feel pain and those who feel pleasure, and in the judgment the sinners belong to the one and the righteous to the other, how is it true that the one who says that impassibility is brought to human beings after the resurrection?\n\nAnswer.\n\nWe say that they will rise impassible, because in respect of what we are by nature we do not admit change, neither into the things that are opposed according to being and not being, nor into the contraries according to more and less;\n\nfor example, we are not turned from joy into grief, nor do we rejoice in the same good sometimes more and sometimes less, even if we rejoice more in a greater good and less in a lesser; but even so, according to the proportion of the goods, the quantity of joy remains unchangeable. And this applies to those who rise to life; but for those who rise to judgment the same account holds, whenever they are released as from the death of judgment; for of those who rise, some rise to life and some to judgment.\n\nQuestion 7.\n\nIf it is a mark of change to receive the good and the base things into thought, how are those who are punished unchangeable, even when they reckon the relief of the righteous, or again those who happen to be in relief, when they think on the punishment of sinners? For then each gives the greater perception in the other, when the juxtaposition of contraries occurs.","structure":"narrative","commentary":[],"ambiguities":[],"confidence":"","notes":[]},{"i":8,"ref":"p8","source":"Ἀπόκρισις.\n\nἘν τῷ μέλλοντι αἰῶνι τὸ ποσὸν τῆς αἰσθήσεως τιμῆς τε καὶ τιμωρίας ἐν τῷ μέτρῳ κεῖται, καὶ οὐκ ἐνδέχεται τῇ παρα θέσει τῶν ἀντικειμένων δέξασθαι τὴν αἴσθησιν τὴν αὔξησιν ἢ τὴν μείωσιν. Ἄτρεπτα γὰρ τὰ ἐκεῖ πάντα, ὥσπερ κατὰ τὸ ποιὸν οὕτως καὶ κατὰ τὸ ποσόν.\n\nἘρώτησις η.\n\nἰ τὴν γνῶσιν καλοῦ τε καὶ κακοῦ παρὰ τοῦ θεοῦ καὶ τὸ εἶναι εἰλήφαμεν, πῶς οὐκ ἔστιν αἴτιος ἑκατέρου ὁ καὶ τὴν γνῶσιν ἀμφοτέρων καὶ δύναμιν ἐγκαταβεβλημένος τῇ φύσει πρὸς τὴν ἐκείνων ἐκπλήρωσιν;\n\nἈπόκρισις.\n\nὐ μόνον τοῦ εἶναι ἡμᾶς καὶ τοῦ γινώσκειν τε καὶ πράττειν τὸ καλόν τε καὶ τὸ κακὸν δέδωκεν ἡμῖν τὴν δύναμιν ὁ θεός, ἀλλὰ καὶ τὸ αὐθαίρετον ἡμῖν ἐχαρίσατο καὶ τοῦ κατὰ προτίμησιν αἱρεῖσθαι τῶν γινωσκομένων τὸ δοκοῦν κατέστησεν ἡμᾶς κυρίους, καὶ τὸ ἀγαθοὺς ἡμᾶς εἶναι ἢ κακοὺς οὐκ ἐν τῇ γνώσει ἔθηκε τῶν γινωσκομένων ἀλλὰ ἐν τῇ αἱρέσει τῶν αἱ ρουμένων. ὐκ ἄρα ὁ θεός ἐστιν αἴτιος τοῦ εἶναι ἡμᾶς ἀγα θοὺς ἢ κακούς, ἀλλὰ ἡ προαίρεσις. Ὥσπερ γὰρ ὁ ὁρῶν γυναῖκα πόρνην καὶ γινώσκων ταύτην εἶναι πόρνην οὐκ ἔστι πόρνος ἀπὸ τῆς γνώσεως, ἀλλ' οὔτε εἰ ἡ γνῶσις ἐξυπνίσει τὸ τῆς ἐπιθυμίας πάθος οὐδ' οὕτως πόρνος ἐστίν, ἐὰν δὲ συγ κατατίθηται τῷ πάθει ἡ προαίρεσις τότε ἐστὶ πόρνος ἢ κατὰ τὴν πρᾶξιν ἢ κατὰ τὴν διάθεσιν, οὕτως καὶ τῶν ἀγαθῶν καὶ κακῶν ἀνθρώπων οὐχ ἡ γνῶσίς ἐστιν αἰτία τοῦ ἀγαθοὺς αὐ τοὺς εἶναι ἢ κακούς, ἀλλ' ἡ προαίρεσις κατὰ προτίμησιν τὸ δοκοῦν αἱρησαμένη.","english":"Answer.\n\nIn the age to come, the quantity of sensation, whether of honor or of punishment, is fixed by measure, and it is not possible for sensation to receive increase or diminution by the comparison of opposites. For all things there are unchangeable, both in quality and in quantity.\n\nQuestion 8.\n\nIf we have received from God both the knowledge of good and evil and our being, how is he not the cause of each, who has implanted in our nature both the knowledge of both and the power for their fulfillment?\n\nAnswer.\n\nGod has given us not only our being and the power to know and to do good and evil, but he has also granted us free will and has made us masters of choosing by preference whatever seems good among the things known; and he has placed our being good or evil not in the knowledge of the things known but in the choice of the things chosen. Therefore God is not the cause of our being good or evil, but our free choice is. For just as one who sees a prostitute and knows that she is a prostitute is not a fornicator because of the knowledge, nor, even if the knowledge stirs up the passion of desire, is he a fornicator on that account, but if the free choice consents to the passion, then he is a fornicator either in deed or in disposition, so also it is not the knowledge of good and evil men that is the cause of their being good or evil, but the free choice, which has chosen what seems good according to preference.","structure":"narrative","commentary":[],"ambiguities":[],"confidence":"","notes":[]},{"i":9,"ref":"p9","source":"Ἐρώτησις θ.\n\nἰ τὰ προλεχθέντα δέδωκεν ὁ θεός, στεφανοῖ δὲ καὶ κολάζει πρὸς τὴν πρᾶξιν τῶν ἀνθρώπων ἕκαστον, πῶς δικαίως ποιεῖται ἀμφότερα, ἑκάτερα παρ' αὐτοῦ τοῦ ἀνθρώπου ἔχοντος; Ἀπόκρισις.\n\nΤὸ ἡμῖν καὶ τὸ ἐφ' ἡμῖν ἀλλήλων διαφέρει. Ἡμεῖς μὲν ἄῤῥενες καὶ θήλειαί ἐσμεν, ἐφ' ἡμῖν δὲ τὸ εἶναι σώφρονας ἢ πόρνους. Στεφανούμεθα οὖν ἢ κολαζόμεθα διὰ τὸ ἐφ' ἡμῖν· ἐφ' ἃ γὰρ ἡ προαίρεσις ἡμῶν ἄγει ἡμᾶς, διὰ ταῦτα ἢ στεφα νούμεθα ἢ κολαζόμεθα. Καὶ γὰρ πρὸς τὸ πράττειν δέδωκεν ἡμῖν ὁ θεὸς δυνάμεις, ἀλλὰ ταύτας ὑπέταξε τῇ ἐξουσίᾳ τῆς προαιρέσεως, καὶ πρὸς τὴν προαίρεσιν ἔχει ὁ θεὸς τὴν δίκην, κυβερνητικὴν τῶν ἐν ἡμῖν προαιρετικῶν δυνάμεων, καὶ οὐ πρὸς τὴν φύσιν. Ἐλάβομεν δὲ παρὰ τοῦ θεοῦ τοῦ πράττειν καὶ τοῦ μὴ πράττειν τὴν δύναμιν· πράττειν μὲν τὰ δίκαια, οὐ πράττειν δὲ τὰ ἄδικα. Ὅταν οὖν οὕτως πράττωμεν καὶ μὴ πράττωμεν, δικαίως στεφανούμεθα· μετατιθέντες δὲ τὸ πράττειν καὶ τὸ μὴ πράττειν εἰς τὸ ἀντικείμενον, δικαίως κολα ζόμεθα.","english":"Question 9.\n\nIf God has given the things previously mentioned, and crowns and punishes each person according to their actions, how does he do both justly, when both come from the human being himself? Answer.\n\nThe \"by us\" and the \"within our power\" differ from one another. We are male and female, but it is within our power to be chaste or fornicators. We are therefore crowned or punished because of what is within our power; for the things to which our choice leads us, it is for these that we are either crowned or punished. For God has given us powers for acting, but he has subjected these to the authority of choice, and God's judgment is according to choice, as the governing principle of the powers of choice within us, and not according to nature. We have received from God the power to act and not to act: to act justly, and not to act unjustly. When, then, we act and do not act in this way, we are justly crowned; but when we transfer acting and not acting to the opposite, we are justly punished.","structure":"narrative","commentary":[],"ambiguities":[],"confidence":"","notes":[]},{"i":10,"ref":"p10","source":"Ἐρώτησις ι.\n\nἰ τὰ σωματικὰ περὶ τῶν ἐν Ἕλλησι θεῶν παρὰ τῶν ποιητῶν καὶ περὶ τοῦ θεοῦ παρὰ τῶν προφητῶν εἰρημένα κατ' ἀλληγορίαν ἑτέραν ἔχει τὴν νόησιν, πῶς οὐ μῦθος ἀμφότερα δείκνυται;\n\nἈπόκρισις.\n\nΤὰ ἀλληγορικῶς παρὰ τῶν προφητῶν περὶ τοῦ θεοῦ λε χθέντα κατ' ἀναφορὰν ἐλέχθη ἐκ τῶν φύσει εἰς τὸ οὐ φύσει, οἷον ὡς τὸ Ὠσφράνθη κύριος ὀσμὴν εὐωδίας. Ἐπὶ μὲν τῶν ἀνθρώπων ὠσφράνθη κατὰ φύσιν, ἐπὶ δὲ τοῦ θεοῦ καταχρηστικῶς καὶ οὐ φύσει. Τὰ δὲ παρὰ τῶν ποιητῶν μυθικῶς περὶ τῶν θεῶν λεγόμενα οὐ λέγεται κατ' ἀναφορὰν ἐκ τῶν φύσει εἰς τὸ μὴ φύσει· οὐ γὰρ καταπίνει ἄνθρωπος ἄνθρωπον κατὰ φύσιν, ἵνα κατ' ἀναφορὰν νοήσωμεν καὶ τὸν Κρόνον καταπιόντα τὸν Δία· ἔστι δὲ ὁ περὶ τοῦ καταποθῆναι τὸν Δία μῦθος πλὴν τοῦ ψεύδους οὐκ ἔχων ἄλλο τι. Ἐρώτησις ια.\n\nἰ τὸ περιέχον μεῖζον μέν ἐστι τοῦ περιεχομένου κατ' οὐσίαν, ἧττον δὲ κατ' ἀξίαν, οἷον οὐρανὸς καὶ γῆ ἀγγέλων καὶ ἀνθρώπων, οἶκος οἰκούντων, σῶμά τε ψυχῆς, περιέχει δὲ τὸ πᾶν ὁ θεός, πῶς οὐκ ἔστιν ἥττων τοῦ παντὸς τῷ λόγῳ τῆς ἀναξίας;","english":"Question 10. If the things said bodily by the poets about the gods among the Greeks and by the prophets about God have another meaning by a different allegory, how is it that both are shown to be myth?\n\nAnswer. The things said allegorically by the prophets about God were spoken by way of reference from things natural to things not natural, as for instance, \"The Lord smelled a sweet savour.\" In the case of human beings he smelled naturally, but in the case of God it is said by catachresis and not naturally. But the things said mythically by the poets about the gods are not said by way of reference from things natural to things not natural; for a human being does not swallow a human being naturally, so that we might understand by way of reference also Cronus swallowing Zeus; but the myth about Zeus being swallowed has nothing other than falsehood. Question 11. If the container is greater than the contained in essence, but less in worth, as for instance heaven and earth than angels and human beings, a house than those who dwell in it, and a body than the soul, and God contains the universe, how is he not inferior to the universe by the account of unworthiness?","structure":"narrative","commentary":[],"ambiguities":[],"confidence":"","notes":[]},{"i":11,"ref":"p11","source":"Ἀπόκρισις.\n\nὉ λόγος οὗτος οὐκ ἔστι καθόλου· διὸ οὔτε ὑγιῶς ἠρωτήθη. Ὧν γὰρ τὸ ἐναντίον διὰ τῶν αὐτῶν ἐνδέχεται εὑρε θῆναι, ταῦτα ὡς μὴ ἔχοντα τὸ ἀναγκαῖον οὐδὲ τὸ πιστὸν ἔχει. Ἔστι γάρ τινα περιεχόμενα ἥσσονα ὄντα τῶν περιεχόντων, καὶ τῇ οὐσίᾳ καὶ τῇ ἀξίᾳ, ὡς τὰ γίγαρτα τῶν ὀπωρῶν. Ἔτι δὲ τὰ λεχθέντα περιεκτικὰ τῷ εἶναι περιέχει τὰ περιεχόμενα· μόνος δὲ ὁ θεὸς περιέχει τῇ βουλήσει τὸ πᾶν. Καὶ τὰ μὲν ἄλλα περιέχοντα χρῄζουσι καὶ αὐτὰ τοῦ περιέχοντος· ὁ δὲ θεὸς οὐ χρῄζει τοῦ περιέχοντος αὐτόν. Καὶ τοῖς μὲν ἄλλοις περιε χομένοις τὸ εἶναι καὶ τὸ διαμένειν οὐκ ἔστιν ἐκ τῶν περιεχόντων αὐτά· τῷ δὲ παντὶ ἀμφότερα ὑπάρχει ἐκ τοῦ θεοῦ. Καὶ τὰ μὲν λεχθέντα περιεκτικὰ διὰ τὰ περιεχόμενα ὑπάρχουσιν·\n\nὁ δὲ θεὸς οὐ διὰ τὸ πᾶν ὑπάρχει. Διὸ μείζων ὁ θεὸς τοῦ παντός, ὥσπερ τῇ οὐσίᾳ οὕτως καὶ τῇ ἀξίᾳ. Ἐρώτησις ιβ.\n\n*) ἰ τὸ περιέχον ἐπὶ φρουρᾷ καὶ συντηρήσει ἐστὶ τοῦ περιεχομένου, πῶς ὁ θεὸς περιέχων τὸ πᾶν οὐκ ἐπὶ φρουρᾷ τοῦ κακοῦ καὶ διαμονῇ περιέχει τὸ πᾶν; Καὶ γὰρ ἐν τῷ μέρει τοῦ παντὸς τὸ κακὸν θεωρεῖται.","english":"Answer.\n\nThis argument is not universal; therefore it was not soundly put as a question either. For those things whose opposite can be found through the same means do not possess the necessary, nor do they possess the credible. For there are certain things that are contained and are lesser than the things that contain them, both in substance and in worth, as the pips are lesser than the fruits. Furthermore, the things said to be containing contain the contained by their very being; but God alone contains the whole by his will. And other containing things themselves need that which contains them; but God does not need that which contains him. And for other contained things, their being and their remaining do not come from the things that contain them; but for the whole, both belong to it from God. And the things said to be containing exist because of the things contained; but God does not exist because of the whole. Therefore God is greater than the whole, both in substance and in worth. Question 12.\n\nIf that which contains exists for the guarding and preserving of what is contained, how is it that God, containing the whole, does not contain the whole for the guarding and continuance of evil? For evil is observed in a part of the whole.","structure":"narrative","commentary":[],"ambiguities":[],"confidence":"","notes":[]},{"i":12,"ref":"p12","source":"Ἀπόκρισις.\n\nΤὸ πᾶν ἔργον ἐστὶ τοῦ θεοῦ, καὶ τηρῶν ὁ θεὸς τὸ πᾶν τὸ ἔργον ἑαυτοῦ τηρεῖ· καὶ ὥσπερ οὐκ ἐποίησεν ὁ θεός τι φύσει κακόν, οὕτως οὐδὲ τηρεῖ τι φύσει κακόν. Ἐρώτησις ιγ.\n\nἰ γίνεται ἡ ἀνάστασις διὰ τὴν τῶν βεβιωμένων ἑκάστῳ ἀντίδοσιν, πῶς τὰ βρέφη ἢ καὶ τὰ ἐν γαστρὶ τελευτήσαντα περιττῶς οὐκ ἀνίστανται, οὔτ' ἔργων ἀμοιβὰς κομιζόμενα οὔτε ἀνέσεως ἢ θλίψεως διὰ τὸ τῆς ἡλικίας ἄωρον λαβεῖν δυνάμενα αἴσθησιν;\n\nἈπόκρισις.\n\nΤῷ πιστεύοντι ἀληθὲς εἶναι τὸ Σπείρεται ἐν ἀσθενείᾳ, ἐγείρεται ἐν δυνάμει, τούτῳ δυνατὸν καὶ πρέπον ἐστὶ τὸ πι στεύειν καὶ τῶν βρεφῶν τὴν ἀνάστασιν. Ὁ γὰρ τὴν ἀφθαρσίαν αὐτοῖς παρέχων δύναται καὶ τὴν αἰσθητικὴν τῶν προσόντων ἀγαθῶν χαρίσασθαι αὐτοῖς δύναμιν. Ὧν εἰ μὴ γίνεται ἀνά στασις, εὑρεθήσεται ὁ θεὸς μάτην πλασάμενος αὐτά· εἰ δὲ μάτην ποιεῖ ὁ θεὸς οὐδέν, ἀνάγκη ἄρα καὶ τὰ βρέφη εἰς τὸ εἶναι παραγενέσθαι διὰ τῆς ἀναστάσεως. Πῶς δ' οὐκ ἄκαιρον τὸ πρὸς τὴν ἐκδίκησιν τῆς τῶν βρεφῶν ἀναιρέσεως κατακρί νειν τὸν Ἡρώδην, τῶν βρεφῶν οὐκ ὄντων τῶν ἐκδικουμένων; Μαρτυρεῖ δὲ τούτοις τὰ τοῦ βαπτιστοῦ Ἰωάννου ἐν τῇ κοιλίᾳ τῆς μητρὸς τῆς ἀγαλλιάσεως σκιρτήματα καὶ ὁ ὕμνος τῶν νηπίων καὶ θηλαζόντων.","english":"Answer.\n\nEvery work is God's, and God, keeping every work of his own, keeps it; and just as God did not make anything evil by nature, so he does not keep anything evil by nature. Question 13.\n\nIf the resurrection comes about for the requital of each person's deeds, how is it that infants, or even those who died in the womb, do not rise again to no purpose, since they receive neither recompense for works nor are able to experience relief or affliction because of the immaturity of their age?\n\nAnswer.\n\nFor one who believes that \"it is sown in weakness, it is raised in power\" is true, it is both possible and fitting to believe also in the resurrection of infants. For he who grants them incorruptibility is able also to bestow on them the perceptive power of the good things that are present. If there is no resurrection of these, God will be found to have fashioned them in vain; but if God does nothing in vain, then it is necessary that infants too come into being through the resurrection. And how is it not out of place to condemn Herod for the avenging of the infants' murder, when the infants are not the ones avenged? The leaping for joy of John the Baptist in his mother's womb bears witness to these things, and the hymn of infants and nursing babes.","structure":"narrative","commentary":[],"ambiguities":[],"confidence":"","notes":[]},{"i":13,"ref":"p13","source":"Ἐρώτησις ιδ.\n\nἰ ἐψευσμένον τυγχάνει καὶ μάταιον τὸ ὑπὸ τῶν αἱρετι κῶν διδόμενον βάπτισμα, διὰ τί οἱ ὀρθόδοξοι τὸν προσφεύγοντα τῇ ὀρθοδοξίᾳ αἱρετικὸν οὐ βαπτίζουσιν, ἀλλ' ὡς ἐν ἀληθεῖ τῷ νόθῳ ἐῶσι βαπτίσματι; ἰ δὲ καὶ χειροτονίαν τύχοι παρ' ἐκείνων δεξάμενος, καὶ ταύτην ὡς βεβαίαν αὐτοὶ ἀπο δέχονται. Πῶς οὖν ὁ δεχθεὶς καὶ οἱ δεξάμενοι τὸ ἄμεμπτον ἔχουσιν;\n\nἈπόκρισις.\n\nΤοῦ αἱρετικοῦ ἐπὶ τὴν ὀρθοδοξίαν ἐρχομένου τὸ σφάλμα διορθοῦται τῆς μὲν κακοδοξίας τῇ μεταθέσει τοῦ φρονήματος, τοῦ δὲ βαπτίσματος τῇ ἐπιχρίσει τοῦ ἁγίου μύρου, τῆς δὲ χειροτονίας τῇ χειροθεσίᾳ, καὶ οὐδὲν τῶν πάλαι μένει ἄλυτον.\n\nἘρώτησις ιε.\n\nἰ οὐχ ἥμαρτεν ὁ Ἰὼβ ἀρασάμενος τὴν ἡμέραν, δῆλον ὅτι ὡς δίκαιος ἠκούσθη. Καὶ εἰ μὲν ἠκούσθη, τὸν οἰκεῖον ὁ θεὸς ἀνέτρεψεν ὅρον, καὶ ἀνάγκη ζητεῖν ἐν τῇ θείᾳ γραφῇ τὴν\n\nἐκείνης τῆς ἡμέρας ἀπώλειαν. ἰ δὲ οὐκ ἠκούσθη, πῶς οὐ δεῖ λέγειν ὅτι ἁμαρτωλὸς ὢν παρηκούσθη; Θέλημα γὰρ τῶν φοβουμένων αὐτὸν ποιήσει ὁ θεός. Περὶ δὲ τῶν ἁμαρτωλῶν εἴρηται ὅτι Ἐὰν πληθύνητε τὴν δέησιν, οὐκ εἰσακούσομαι ὑμῶν.","english":"Question 14.\n\nIf the baptism given by the heretics is false and vain, why do the orthodox not baptize a heretic who flees to orthodoxy, but leave him in the counterfeit baptism as though it were true? And if he happens to have received ordination from them, they themselves accept this too as valid. How then do the one received and those who receive him remain blameless?\n\nAnswer.\n\nWhen a heretic comes to orthodoxy, his error is corrected: his false belief by the change of his mind, his baptism by the anointing of holy myron, and his ordination by the laying on of hands, and nothing of the former things remains unresolved.\n\nQuestion 15.\n\nIf Job did not sin when he cursed the day, it is clear that he was heard as a righteous man. And if he was heard, God overturned his own decree, and one must seek in the divine Scripture the destruction of that day. But if he was not heard, how should one not say that, being a sinner, he was disregarded? For God will do the will of those who fear him. But concerning sinners it has been said, Even if you multiply your prayer, I will not listen to you.","structure":"narrative","commentary":[],"ambiguities":[],"confidence":"","notes":[]},{"i":14,"ref":"p14","source":"Ἀπόκρισις.\n\nὉ σκοπὸς τοῦ Ἰὼβ οὗτος ἦν ἐν τῇ προκειμένῃ κατάρᾳ ὡς εἰ ἔλεγεν· ἴθε ἦν ἡ ἡμέρα ἐκείνη, ἐν ᾗ ἐγεννήθην, κατὰ τὴν κατάραν ταύτην κεκατηραμένη! Διὰ τί; Ἵνα ἐγώ, φησί, μὴ ἐγεννήθην. ὐ γὰρ ἐνδέχεταί τινα γεννηθῆναι ἐν τῇ τοιαύτῃ ἡμέρᾳ τῇ οὕτως κεκατηραμένῃ. ὐκ ἔστιν οὖν ἡ κατάρα αὕτη οὕτως κεκατηραμένη ὡς ἀναμένουσα τὴν ἔκβασιν· εἰ γὰρ ἦν οὕτως γεγενημένη ἡ κατάρα ὡς ἀναμένουσα τὴν ἔκβασιν, ἀνεκαλέσατο ἂν τὴν ἰδίαν φωνήν, ἀπαλλαγέντος αὐτοῦ τῶν θλί ψεων καὶ ἐν τοῖς κρείττοσι γενομένου. Διὰ γοῦν τὴν ὑπερ βολὴν τῆς αὐτοῦ θλίψεως τὰ τῆς καρδίας ἐφθέγξατο·ήματα· ἧς ἀπ' αὐτοῦ, δῆλον ὅτι οὐκέτι τὴν αὐτὴν περὶ τῆς αὐτῆς ἡμέρας ἔσχε τὴν γνώμην.\n\nἘρώτησις ι.\n\nἰ κατὰ τὴν ἡμετέραν φύσιν, εἴ τι γέννημα, τοῦτο τῷ γεννήσαντι ὁμοούσιον, πῶς οὐχὶ κατὰ ταύτην, εἴ τι γεγέννηται, μεθυπάρχει τοῦ γεννήσαντος; ἰ δὲ μὴ τὸ δεύτερον, οὐδ' ἄρα τὸ πρῶτον ὁμοίως ἡμῖν ἐπὶ τῆς θείας γεννήσεως νοη θήσεται.\n\nἈπόκρισις.","english":"Answer.\n\nJob's intent in the aforementioned curse was as if he were saying: Would that that day on which I was born had been cursed with this curse! Why? So that, he says, I had not been born. For it is not possible for anyone to be born on such a day, so cursed as that. This curse, then, is not so cursed as to await its outcome; for if the curse had been made in such a way as to await its outcome, he would have retracted his own utterance, once he had been released from his afflictions and had come into better circumstances. At any rate, because of the excess of his affliction he uttered the words of his heart; and since it was from him, it is clear that he no longer held the same opinion about that same day.\n\nQuestion 10.\n\nIf according to our nature whatever is begotten is consubstantial with the one who begot it, how is it not also according to this nature that whatever has been begotten is later in existence than the one who begot it? And if the second is not so, then neither, surely, will the first be understood by us in the same way in the case of the divine generation.\n\nAnswer.","structure":"narrative","commentary":[],"ambiguities":[],"confidence":"","notes":[]},{"i":15,"ref":"p15","source":"Ἡμεῖς, ὡς προηγουμένην τῆς γεννήσεως ἔχοντες τὴν ὕπαρ ξιν, μετὰ τὴν ὕπαρξιν γεννῶμεν· ὁ δὲ θεὸς ἅμα τῷ ὑπάρχειν ἐγέννησε. Διὸ οὐκ ἔστι παρὰ τῷ θεῷ μεθύπαρξις γεννήμα τος, ἐπειδὴ οὐδὲ προΰπαρξις γεννήσεως. Ἐρώτησις ιζ.\n\nἰ τῶν θείων ὑποστάσεων ἡ ἕνωσίς ἐστιν ἀδιαίρετος, πῶς δύνανται τρεῖς ὑποστάσεις καὶ τρία ὀνομάζεσθαι πρόσωπα καὶ οὐχὶ μᾶλλον μία ὑπόστασις τριώνυμος ἢ τριπρόσωπος; Ἀπόκρισις.\n\nΤῶν θείων ὑποστάσεων τὸ μὲν τῆς οὐσίας ἕν ἐστιν ἀδιαί ρετον, τὸ δὲ αὐτῶν τρεῖς ἐστι διαιρετόν. Διὸ αἱ τρεῖς ὑπο στάσεις ἰδιάζουσιν ὀνόμασίν εἰσι τρεῖς· καὶ τὴν ὑπόστασιν ἣν καλοῦμεν πατέρα, οὐκέτι τὴν αὐτὴν ὑπόστασιν καλοῦμεν καὶ υἱὸν ἀλλ' ἄλλην. Τὴν γὰρ τριάδα τῶν ὀνομάτων τῆς τριάδος λέγομεν εἶναι τῶν ὑποστάσεων, οὐχὶ τῆς μονάδος αὐτῶν. Διὸ εἷς ἐστιν ὁ θεὸς τῷ ἑνὶ καὶ ἀδιαιρέτῳ τῆς οὐσίας, τρία δὲ τὰ πρόσωπα τῇ διαιρέσει τῶν ὑποστάσεων. Ἐρώτησις ιη.\n\nἰ τὸ μὲν θεὸς τῆς οὐσίας, τὸ δὲ πατὴρ τοῦ προσώπου ἐστὶ δηλωτικόν, πῶς ταὐτὸν τὸ λέγειν υἱὸν θεοῦ τῷ λέγειν υἱὸν τοῦ πατρός;","english":"We, since we have existence as prior to birth, give birth after existence; but God generated at the same time as existing. Therefore there is no after-existence of an offspring in God, since there is no prior existence of generation either. Question 17.\n\nIf the union of the divine hypostases is indivisible, how can three hypostases and three persons be named, and not rather one hypostasis with three names or three persons? Answer.\n\nOf the divine hypostases, the one of essence is indivisible, but the three of them is divisible. Therefore the three hypostases are three by their distinctive names; and the hypostasis which we call Father, we no longer call the same hypostasis also Son, but another. For we say that the triad of names belongs to the triad of hypostases, not to their unity. Therefore God is one by the one and indivisible essence, but the persons are three by the division of the hypostases. Question 18.\n\nIf \"God\" is indicative of the essence, but \"Father\" of the person, how is saying \"Son of God\" the same as saying \"Son of the Father\"?","structure":"narrative","commentary":[],"ambiguities":[],"confidence":"","notes":[]},{"i":16,"ref":"p16","source":"Ἀπόκρισις.\n\nἘὰν διεζευγμένως λέγωμεν τὸν υἱόν, ποτὲ μὲν υἱὸν τοῦ πατρὸς ποτὲ δὲ υἱὸν τοῦ θεοῦ, ἀλλὰ διεζευγμένως αὐτὸν οὐδέ\n\nποτε νοοῦμεν. Υἱὸς οὖν ἐστι τοῦ πατρὸς ὁ υἱὸς τοῦ κατ' οὐ σίαν θεοῦ. Ταὐτὸν δὲ τὸ λέγειν υἱὸν τοῦ πατρὸς τῷ λέγειν υἱὸν τοῦ θεοῦ, ἐπειδή, εἴ τί ἐστι τοῦ προσώπου, τοῦτό ἐστι καὶ τῆς τοῦ προσώπου οὐσίας.\n\nἘρώτησις ιθ.\n\nἰ ἐν τοῖς ἀπηγορευμένοις ὑπὸ τῶν εὐσεβῶν ἡ τῶν παλ μῶν ἐστι παρατήρησις, διὰ τί οἱ εὐσεβεῖς πάσῃ δυνάμει ταύ την ἀπωθεῖν βουλόμενοι οὐκ ἰσχύουσιν, ἢ φαιδρὸν ἢ σκυθρω πὸν μηνυούσης ταύτης; Καὶ εἰ μὲν φαῦλον τοῦτο, πῶς παρὰ τὴν ἡμετέραν ἐπιγίνεται πρόθεσιν; ἰ δὲ ἀγαθόν, ὅπερ οὐκ οἶμαι, τίνος ἕνεκεν ἀπηγόρευται; Ἀπόκρισις.\n\nἩ μὲν πρόγνωσις τῶν μελλόντων τῆς ψυχῆς ἐστιν ὑπὸ τοῦ θείου πνεύματος φωτιζομένης πρὸς τὴν εἴδησιν τῶν τέως ἀδήλων, καὶ οὐχ ὑπὸ τῆς ἀβουλήτου κινήσεως τοῦ σώματος· ὁ δὲ παλμὸς πάθος ἐστὶ σωματικὸν ἐκ τῆς διαδρομῆς τοῦ φυσικοῦ πνεύματος ἐν τῷ σώματι ὑφισταμένου πάντων τῶν ζώων. Διὸ ἀνάξιον ἔκρινον οἱ ἅγιοι εἶναι κριτήριον τῶν μελλόντων τὸ τοιοῦτον σωματικὸν κίνημα. Καὶ καθάπερ οἱ πταρμοὶ·ινῶν καὶ οἱ ἦχοι ὤτων παρὰ τὴν ἡμετέραν ἐπιγίνονται πρόθεσιν, οὕτως καὶ ὁ παλμός. Ἔτι δὲ τοῖς εἰληφόσι τῆς μελλούσης καταστάσεως τὴν ἐλπίδα, καὶ ἕνα ἔχουσι τὸν σκο πὸν τὸ πρὸς ἐκείνην διὰ παντὸς παρεσκευασμένως ἀποβλέ πειν, περιττόν ἐστι τὸ φαιδρὸν ἢ σκυθρωπὸν ἐνταῦθα διὰ παλμῶν προγινώσκειν.","english":"Answer.\n\nIf we speak of the Son in a separated way, sometimes as Son of the Father and sometimes as Son of God, we never understand him as separated. The Son is therefore Son of the Father, of God who is Father in essence. And saying \"Son of the Father\" is the same as saying \"Son of God,\" since whatever belongs to the person belongs also to the essence of the person.\n\nQuestion 19.\n\nWhether the observation of pulsations is among the things forbidden by the pious, and why the pious, wishing with all their might to reject this, are unable to do so, since it indicates either a cheerful or a gloomy outcome. And if this is a bad thing, how does it occur contrary to our intention? But if it is good, which I do not think, for what reason has it been forbidden?\n\nAnswer.\n\nThe foreknowledge of future things belongs to the soul when it is illuminated by the divine Spirit for the knowledge of things hitherto unknown, and not to the involuntary motion of the body. But the pulsation is a bodily affection arising from the coursing of the natural spirit in the body, which exists in all living things. Therefore the saints judged such a bodily movement unworthy to be a criterion of future things. And just as sneezings of the nostrils and noises of the ears occur contrary to our intention, so too does the pulsation. Moreover, for those who have received the hope of the future state and have one goal, to look toward it at all times in readiness, it is superfluous to foreknow here the cheerful or the gloomy through pulsations.","structure":"narrative","commentary":[],"ambiguities":[],"confidence":"","notes":[]},{"i":17,"ref":"p17","source":"Καὶ εἰ ὁ αὐτὸς παλμὸς ὁ προμηνύων πλοῦτον προσγίνεται τῷ βιωτικῷ ἀνθρώπῳ καὶ τῷ ἀσκητῇ, πῶς οὐ διέψευσται ἡ διὰ παλμοῦ προμήνυσις τοῦ πλούτου τῆς προαιρέσεως τοῦ ἀσκητοῦ, οὐ μόνον τὴν ἐπίκτησιν τῶν οὐ παρόντων οὐχ αἱρουμένης ἀλλ' οὐδὲ τὴν κτῆσιν τῶν παρ όντων;\n\nἘρώτησις κ.\n\nἰ πρὸς θάνατον καὶ φθορὰν οἱ ἁλιεῖς τοὺς ἰχθύας ἀπὸ τῶν ὑδάτων λαμβάνουσι, πῶς εἰς ζωὴν αἰώνιον ὁ δεσπότης Χριστὸς μέλλων διὰ τῶν ἀποστόλων τοὺς ἀνθρώπους εἰσαγαγεῖν ἁλιέας αὐτοὺς ποιεῖν ἀνθρώπων ἐπηγγείλατο; Ἀπόκρισις.\n\nἘπειδὴ ἐχρῆν τοὺς ὑπὸ τῶν ἀποστόλων ἀγρευομένους ἀνθρώπους τῇ σαγήνῃ τῆς βασιλείας ἀποθανεῖν ἀπὸ τῆς προ τέρας αὐτῶν ἐν ἁμαρτίαις ζωῆς, διὰ τοῦτο τῇ ἄγρᾳ τῶν ἰχθύων παρείκασεν ὁ κύριος τὴν ἄγραν τῶν ἀνθρώπων· προσέθηκε δὲ τὸ εἰς ζωήν, τὸ ἐλλεῖπον τοῦ ὑποδείγματος τῷ ὑποδεικνυμένῳ προσθέμενος.\n\nἘρώτησις κα.\n\nἰ σώφρονι λογισμῷ κατεχόμενοι οἱ μοναχοὶ τὰς γαμικὰς ἡδονὰς ἀπεστράφησαν, διὰ τί ἐν ταῖς καθ' ὕπνον φαντασίαις τὰ ἀβούλητα πάσχουσι, καὶ οὐ μόνον εἰς τὰς τυχούσας, ἀλλ' ἔστιν ὅτε καὶ μητράσι καὶ ἀδελφαῖς ὁμιλεῖν ἐν τῇ φαντασίᾳ νομίζουσι; Τίσιν οὖν χρηστέον πρὸς τὴν ἀπαλλαγὴν τοῦ τοιού του πολέμου; Καὶ εἰ τὸν πολεμηθέντα δεῖ τῶν μυστηρίων","english":"And if the same pulsation that foretells wealth occurs to the man of ordinary life and to the ascetic, how is the foretelling of wealth by pulsation not falsified by the ascetic's disposition, which chooses not only not the acquisition of things not present but not even the possession of things present?\n\nQuestion 20.\n\nIf fishermen take fish from the waters unto death and corruption, how is it that the Lord Christ, who was about to lead men into eternal life through the apostles, promised to make them fishers of men? Answer.\n\nSince the men caught by the apostles with the net of the kingdom had to die to their former life in sins, for this reason the Lord compared the catching of men to the catching of fish; and he added \"unto life,\" supplying what was lacking in the example to that which was indicated by it.\n\nQuestion 21.\n\nIf monks, held by a sober reason, have turned away from the pleasures of marriage, why do they suffer involuntary things in fantasies during sleep, and not only in chance ones, but sometimes they think in fantasy that they converse with mothers and sisters? With what, then, should one deal for deliverance from such a war? And if the one who has been warred against must [partake] of the mysteries","structure":"narrative","commentary":[],"ambiguities":[],"confidence":"","notes":[]},{"i":18,"ref":"p18","source":"ἀπέχεσθαι, καί, εἰ προσιέναι αὐτοῖς ἀναγκαῖον, ἢ λουσάμενον ἢ ἑτέρῳ τοιούτῳ τινὶ χρησάμενον, ὥστε μὴ ἰουδαϊκῶς καθαί ρεσθαι, δίδαξον· ἐπειδὴ πολλή ἐστι περὶ τούτου καὶ παρ' αὐτῶν ἡ ζήτησις.\n\nἈπόκρισις.\n\nἘπειδὴ οἱ ἀνακείμενοι θεῷ ἄγρυπνον ἔχουσιν ἀντίπαλον, τὸν πᾶσι τοῖς δυνατοῖς αὐτῷ τρόποις μηχανώμενον θεῖναι τοῖς εὐσεβέσι μῶμον, διὰ τοῦτο ἀβούλητα καθ' ὕπνους πάσχουσι. Καίτοι εἰδὼς ὁ ἀντίπαλος ὅτι ἐν τοῖς οὐκ ἐφ' ἡμῖν οὔτ' ἐπὶ τοῖς σεμνοῖς ἐπαινούμεθα οὔτ' ἐπὶ τοῖς αἰσχροῖς ψεγόμεθα (οἱ γὰρ ἔπαινοι καὶ οἱ ψόγοι τῶν μετὰ συγκαταθέσεως τοῦ λογισμοῦ ὑφ' ἡμῶν πραττομένων εἰσί) καὶ ὅτι τὰ ἐνύπνια τῶν οὐκ ἐφ' ἡμῖν ἐστιν, ἀλλ' ὅμως καὶ διὰ τῶν ἐνυπνίων κινεῖ ἐν ἡμῖν ἀμφοτέρων τὰς πράξεις, καὶ τῶν σεμνῶν καὶ τῶν αἰσχρῶν, ταύτας ἔχων ἐν αὑτῷ τὰς ἐλπίδας, μήπως ἢ τῇ τῶν σεμνῶν ἐργασίᾳ ἐξεγείραι ἡμᾶς εἰς ματαίαν καύχησιν τῶν ἡμῖν μὴ πεπραγμένων, ἢ τῇ τῶν αἰσχρῶν ἐργασίᾳ δυνηθείη εὑ ρεῖν ἡμᾶς ἐπὶ ἀνόμῳ πράξει τερπομένους. Ἀλλὰ τὸ μὲν ἰδεῖν τὰ τοιαῦτα ἐνύπνια οὐκ ἔστιν ἐφ' ἡμῖν, τὸ δὲ τερφθῆναι ἐπὶ τῇ οὕτως ἀβουλήτῳ πράξει ἢ λυπηθῆναι τοῦτο ἐφ' ἡμῖν ἐστι. Κἂν μὲν οὖν εὕρῃ ἡμᾶς ἐπὶ τῇ ἀβουλήτῳ πράξει τερπομένους, καυχᾶται ὡς νικητὴς ὁ ἀντίπαλος, ἐὰν δὲ λυπουμένους, μα ταιοῦται τῇ βουλῇ ἡττώμενος. Ἱκανὸν οὖν ὑπάρχει πρὸς τὴν ἀπαλλαγὴν τοῦ κακοῦ μηχανήματος τὸ λυπηθῆναι ἐπὶ τῷ ἀβουλήτως συμβεβηκότι καὶ δάκρυσιν ἀποπλύνειν τὸ μυσαρὸν τῶν οὕτως ἀβουλήτως ἐν ἡμῖν ὑφισταμένων φαντασιῶν. Ἀπέχεσθαι δὲ τοὺς οὕτως τὰ ἀβούλητα πάσχοντας τῆς κοινω νίας τῶν θείων μυστηρίων, οὐδ' ὅλως δίκαιόν ἐστιν·","english":"to abstain from them, and, if it is necessary to approach them, either after bathing or after using some other such thing, so as not to be cleansed in a Jewish manner, teach; since there is much inquiry about this even from them.\n\nAnswer.\n\nSince those who are devoted to God have a wakeful adversary, who by every means in his power contrives to place blame upon the pious, for this reason they suffer involuntary things in their sleep. And yet the adversary knows that in matters not within our control we are neither praised for honorable things nor blamed for shameful things (for praises and blames pertain to things done by us with the assent of reason), and that dreams are among the things not within our control; nevertheless, even through dreams he stirs up in us the activities of both, both the honorable and the shameful, holding these hopes within himself: that either by the working of honorable things he might rouse us to vainglorious boasting over things we have not done, or by the working of shameful things he might be able to find us delighting in an unlawful deed. But to see such dreams is not within our control; yet to be delighted at the deed thus involuntarily done, or to be grieved by it, this is within our control. And so, if he finds us delighting in the involuntary deed, the adversary boasts as a victor; but if he finds us grieving, he is made vain, defeated in his design. Sufficient, then, for deliverance from the evil device is to grieve over what has happened involuntarily and to wash away with tears the foulness of the phantasies thus involuntarily arising in us. But that those who suffer such involuntary things should abstain from the communion of the divine mysteries is not at all just.","structure":"narrative","commentary":[],"ambiguities":[],"confidence":"","notes":[]},{"i":19,"ref":"p19","source":"εἰ δὲ μή γε, ἀναιροῦμεν κατὰ τοῦτο τῶν βουλητῶν τε καὶ τῶν ἀβουλήτων κακῶν τὴν διαφοράν.\n\nἘρώτησις κβ.\n\nἰ τῷ σίτῳ συναυξάνεσθαι τὰ ζιζάνια ὁ δεσπότης Χρι στὸς ἀπεφήνατο, πῶς τὰ μὲν ζιζάνια πεπλήθυνται, σχεδὸν δὲ ὁ σῖτος ἐξέλιπε; Καὶ τίς ἡ ἀπόδειξις τοῦ εἶναι σῖτον τὸν ἐκλείψαντα; Πῶς δὲ τῆς συναυξήσεως τούτων ἡ πρόῤῥησις οὐ διέψευσται;\n\nἈπόκρισις.\n\nἈπόδειξις τοῦ σῖτον εἶναι τὸν ἐκλείψαντα αὕτη ἐστὶν ἡ παρ' αὐτοῦ πρόῤῥησις λέγουσα· Διὰ τὸ πληθυνθῆναι τὴν ἀνομίαν ψυγήσεται ἡ ἀγάπη τῶν πολλῶν. Καὶ πάλιν· Ἐν ὑστέροις καιροῖς ἀφίστανταί τινες τῆς πίστεως καὶ προσέχουσι πνεύμασι πλάνοις καὶ διδασκαλίαις ἀνθρώπων. Καὶ πάλιν· Ἀπὸ μὲν τῆς ἀληθείας ἀποστρέφονται, πρὸς δὲ τοὺς μύθους ἐκτραπήσονται. Καὶ πάλιν· ἰσελεύσονται εἰς ὑμᾶς λύκοι βαρεῖς, μὴ φειδόμενοι τοῦ ποιμνίου, τοῦ ἀποσπᾶν τοὺς μα θητὰς ὀπίσω αὑτῶν. Ὅτι δὲ ἕως τῆς συντελείας τοῦ αἰῶνος οὐκ ἐκλείπει ὁ σῖτος, δηλοῖ ὁ κύριος λέγων· Διὰ δὲ τοὺς ἐκλεκτούς, οὓς ἐξελέξατο ὁ πατήρ, κολοβωθήσονται αἱ ἡμέραι ἐκεῖναι. Ἀλλ' εἰ μὲν συνέβη τι τῷ σίτῳ τὸ μὴ εἰρημένον περὶ","english":"If not, in this respect we abolish the difference between evils that are wished for and evils that are not wished for.\n\nQuestion 22.\n\nIf the Master Christ declared that the tares grow together with the wheat, how is it that the tares have multiplied, while the wheat has almost failed? And what is the proof that what has failed is wheat? And how has the prediction of their growing together not proved false?\n\nAnswer.\n\nThis is the proof that what has failed is wheat: the prediction from him that says, \"Because lawlessness has multiplied, the love of many will grow cold.\" And again: \"In later times some will fall away from the faith and attend to deceiving spirits and teachings of men.\" And again: \"They turn away from the truth, and will be turned aside to myths.\" And again: \"Fierce wolves will come in among you, not sparing the flock, to draw away the disciples after themselves.\" But that the wheat does not fail until the end of the age, the Lord makes clear when he says, \"But for the sake of the elect, whom the Father chose, those days will be shortened.\" But if something has happened to the wheat that was not spoken of concerning","structure":"narrative","commentary":[],"ambiguities":[],"confidence":"","notes":[]},{"i":20,"ref":"p20","source":"αὐτοῦ αὐξομένου τε καὶ ἐκλείποντος, δῆλον ὅτι διέψευσται ὁ περὶ αὐτοῦ λόγος· εἰ δὲ ἐξ ἀρχῆς τοῦ κηρύγματος ἕως τῆς συντελείας τοῦ αἰῶνος πάντα τὰ συμβησόμενα αὐτῷ διὰ τῶν προῤῥήσεων δέδοται, φανερὸν ὑπάρχει ὅτι οὐδαμῶς διέψευσται ὁ περὶ αὐτοῦ λόγος. Ἀλλ' εἰ μὲν ἔστι τὰ ζιζάνια, ἀνάγκη εἶναι καὶ τὸν σῖτον· ἐκ γὰρ τῆς ἀλλήλων παραθέσεως ὁ μὲν σῖτος γνωρίζεται ὅπερ ἐστίν, ὡσαύτως καὶ τὰ ζιζάνια· καὶ θατέρου μὴ ὄντος οὐδὲ τὸ ἕτερον γνωρίζεται ὅπερ ἐστίν. Ἐρώτησις κγ.\n\nἰ πρὸ μὲν τοῦ πάθους ὁ κύριος ηὔχετο ἁγιασθῆναι ὑπὸ τοῦ πατρὸς τοὺς μαθητάς, μετὰ δὲ ταῦτα ὁ Ἰούδας ἀπώλετο, πῶς ἡ ὑπὲρ αὐτῶν προσενεχθεῖσα εὐχὴ φαίνεται δεδεγμένη; Πῶς δὲ δείκνυται ἀληθὲς καὶ τὸ ἶδα ὅτι πάντοτέ μου ἀκούεις;\n\nἈπόκρισις.\n\nἩ μὲν τοῦ Ἰούδα ἀπώλεια ἔκτοτε γεγένηται, ἐξ ὅτου λα βὼν ὁ Χριστὸς τὸ ψωμίον καὶ βάψας αὐτῷ δέδωκε· καὶ λα βὼν τὸ ψωμίον ὁ Ἰούδας εἰσῆλθεν εἰς αὐτὸν ὁ σατανᾶς, καὶ ἐξελθὼν ἀπέῤῥηξεν ἑαυτὸν τῶν λοιπῶν μαθητῶν. Ἡ δὲ ὑπὲρ τῶν μαθητῶν εὐχὴ μετὰ τὸν χωρισμὸν τοῦ Ἰούδα ἐγένετο· καὶ τοῦτο δείκνυται ἐξ αὐτῆς τῆς εὐχῆς, ὅτε εὐξάμενος ὁ κύριος ἔλεγεν· ὓς δέδωκάς μοι ἐφύλαξα, καὶ οὐδεὶς ἐξ αὐτῶν ἀπώ λετο, εἰ μὴ ὁ υἱὸς τῆς ἀπωλείας, ἵνα ἡ γραφὴ πληρωθῇ. Γέγονε μὲν οὖν πρῶτον ἡ τοῦ Ἰούδα ἀπώλεια, ὕστερον δὲ ἡ ὑπὲρ τῶν μαθητῶν εὐχή, ἔπειτα δὲ τὸ πάθος τοῦ σωτῆρος. Ἐρώτησις κδ.","english":"Since it is increased and diminished, it is clear that the account concerning it is false; but if from the beginning of the proclamation until the consummation of the age all things that will befall it have been given through the prophecies, it is evident that the account concerning it is in no way false. But if the tares exist, the wheat must also exist; for from their juxtaposition the wheat is recognized for what it is, and likewise the tares; and if one of the two does not exist, neither is the other recognized for what it is. Question 23.\n\nIf before the passion the Lord prayed that the disciples be sanctified by the Father, but after these things Judas perished, how does the prayer offered on their behalf appear to have been received? And how is that also shown to be true, \"I knew that you always hear me\"?\n\nAnswer.\n\nThe perdition of Judas came to pass from that time when Christ, having taken the morsel and dipped it, gave it to him; and Judas, having taken the morsel, Satan entered into him, and he went out and separated himself from the rest of the disciples. But the prayer on behalf of the disciples was made after the departure of Judas; and this is shown from the prayer itself, when the Lord, having prayed, said: \"Those whom you have given me I have guarded, and none of them perished except the son of perdition, that the scripture might be fulfilled.\" First, then, came the perdition of Judas, later the prayer on behalf of the disciples, and then the passion of the Savior. Question 24.","structure":"narrative","commentary":[],"ambiguities":[],"confidence":"","notes":[]},{"i":21,"ref":"p21","source":"ἰ θεός ἐστι δημιουργὸς καὶ δεσπότης τῆς κτίσεως, πῶς τὰ Ἀπολλωνίου τελέσματα ἐν τοῖς μέρεσι τῆς κτίσεως δύ νανται; Καὶ γὰρ θαλάττης ὁρμὰς καὶ ἀνέμων φορὰς καὶ μυῶν καὶ θηρίων ἐπιδρομάς, ὡς ὁρῶμεν, κωλύουσι. Καὶ εἰ τὰ ὑπὸ τοῦ κυρίου μὲν γινόμενα θαύματα ἐν μόνῃ τῇ διηγήσει φέρεται, τὰ δὲ παρ' ἐκείνου πλεῖστα καὶ ἐπ' αὐτῶν τῶν πραγμάτων δεικνύμενα, πῶς οὐκ ἀπατᾷ τοὺς ὁρῶντας; Καὶ εἰ μὲν κατὰ θείαν τοῦτο συγχώρησιν γέγονε, πῶς ὁδηγὸς εἰς ἑλληνισμὸν οὐ γέγονεν ἡ τοιαύτη συγχώρησις; ἰ δὲ μὴ τοῦτο, πῶς οὐ δυνάμει τῶν δαιμόνων ἐκεῖνα γεγένηνται; Πάλιν δὲ εἴπερ θεὸς ὡς ἀγαθῷ τῷ γινομένῳ ἡδόμενος ἐκείνῳ συνήρ γησε, διὰ τί μὴ διὰ προφητῶν ἢ ἀποστόλων τὰ τοιαῦτα γεγένηνται; ἰ δὲ μὴ ἠρέσκετο ὡς φαύλῳ, τίνος ἕνεκεν τὸ φαῦλον ἢ εὐθὺς οὐκ ἐκώλυσεν ἢ μετὰ βραχὺ οὐ κατέλυσεν, ἀλλ' ἕως αἰῶνος τῶν ἡμερῶν τῆς κτίσεως κρατεῖν συνεχώρησεν; Ἀπόκρισις.\n\nὉ μὲν Ἀπολλώνιος, ὡς ἀνὴρ ἐπιστήμων τῶν φυσικῶν δυνάμεων καὶ τῶν ἐν αὐταῖς συμπαθειῶν τε καὶ ἀντιπαθειῶν, κατὰ ταύτην τὴν ἐπιστήμην τὰ τελέσματα ἐποιεῖτο, οὐ κατὰ τὴν θείαν αὐθεντίαν· διὸ ἐν ἅπασι τοῖς ἀποτελέσμασιν ἐδεήθη τῆς τῶν ἐπιτηδείων ὑλῶν παραλήψεως, συνεργούσης αὐτῷ πρὸς τὴν τοῦ τελουμένου ἐκπλήρωσιν. Ὁ δὲ σωτὴρ ἡμῶν Χριστός, κατὰ τὴν θείαν αὑτοῦ αὐθεντίαν ποιῶν τὰ θαύματα, οὐδα","english":"If God is the creator and master of creation, how can the works of Apollonius be in the parts of creation? For, as we see, they hinder the surges of the sea and the blasts of the winds and the onrush of mice and wild beasts. And if the wonders done by the Lord are reported only in the narrative, while those done by that one are very many and are displayed in the very facts themselves, how does he not deceive those who see them? And if this has come about by divine permission, how has such permission not become a guide to Hellenism? But if not this, how have those things been done not by the power of demons? And again, if God, as one who takes pleasure in the good that is done, cooperated with that one, why were such things not done through prophets or apostles? But if he was not pleased with it as something base, for what reason did he either not immediately prevent the base thing or shortly afterward not destroy it, but permitted it to prevail until the end of the days of creation? Answer.\n\nApollonius, as a man learned in the natural powers and in the sympathies and antipathies within them, performed his works according to this knowledge, not according to divine authority; therefore in all his accomplishments he needed the procurement of suitable materials, cooperating with him for the fulfillment of what was being accomplished. But our Savior Christ, performing his wonders according to his own divine authority, in no way","structure":"narrative","commentary":[],"ambiguities":[],"confidence":"","notes":[]},{"i":22,"ref":"p22","source":"μῶς ἐδεήθη ὕλης, ἀλλὰ τοῖς προστάγμασί τε καὶ προῤῥήσεσιν αὐτοῦ ἠκολούθει καὶ ἀκολουθοῦσι τὰ πράγματα. Καὶ τὰ μὲν ὑπὸ τοῦ Ἀπολλωνίου γεγονότα τελέσματα, ἐπειδὴ κατὰ τὴν ἐπιστήμην γεγένηνται τῶν φυσικῶν δυνάμεων πρὸς τὴν σωματικὴν ἐργασίαν ἀνθρώπων, οὐκ ἀνέτρεψεν ὁ κύριος· αὐτὸν δὲ τὸν δαίμονα τὸν ἐν τῷ ἐκείνου ἀγάλματι ἱδρυμένον, τὸν ἐν ταῖς μαντείαις ἀπατήσαντα τοὺς ἀνθρώπους, ὡς θεὸν σέβειν καὶ τιμᾶν τὸν Ἀπολλώνιον, ἐφίμωσε, καταργήσας αὐ τοῦ τὰς μαντείας· σὺν αὐτῷ δὲ καὶ τῶν λοιπῶν δαιμόνων τῶν ἐν τῷ θεῶν ὀνόματι ὑπὸ τῶν Ἑλλήνων τιμωμένων καθεῖλε τὴν δυναστείαν, καθὼς ὁρᾶται τὰ πράγματα. Ἔχοντες δὲ ἐν τούτοις τῆς τοῦ Χριστοῦ θείας δυνάμεως τὰ γνωρίσματα, οὐ χρὴ λέγειν τὰ τοῦ Χριστοῦ θαύματα ἐν ψιλῇ κεῖσθαι διηγήσει. Ἐρώτησις κε.\n\nἰ ἐπαιδεύθη Μωϋσῆς ἐν πάσῃ σοφίᾳ ἰγυπτίων καὶ ἦν δυνατὸς ἐν ἔργοις καὶ λόγοις, καθώς φησιν ἡ θεία γραφή, πῶς ἀστρονομίαν καὶ γεωμετρίαν καὶ ἀστρολογίαν καὶ τὰ τού τοις ἑπόμενα μετῆλθεν ὁ αὐτὸς μακάριος προφήτης; Τῶν γὰρ ἰγυπτίων τότε ἡ σοφία τὰ τῆς πλάνης ὑπῆρχε διδάσκουσα διδάγματα. Διὰ τί οὖν ἐπὶ τοιούτοις λόγοις ἢ ἔργοις ὑπὸ τῆς γραφῆς θαυμάζεται;","english":"did not need matter, but his commands and declarations were followed, and things followed them. And the works performed by Apollonius, since they were done according to the knowledge of natural powers for the bodily activity of humans, the Lord did not overturn; but the demon himself established in his image, who deceived humans in the oracles to worship and honor Apollonius as a god, he silenced, having abolished his oracles; together with him he also brought down the dominion of the other demons honored by the Greeks in the name of gods, as the facts are seen to be. And having in these things the marks of the divine power of Christ, one must not say that the miracles of Christ lie in mere narrative. Question 25.\n\nIf Moses was educated in all the wisdom of the Egyptians and was powerful in deeds and words, as the divine Scripture says, how did this same blessed prophet pursue astronomy and geometry and astrology and the things that follow these? For the wisdom of the Egyptians at that time was teaching the doctrines of error. Why then is he admired by the Scripture for such words or deeds?","structure":"narrative","commentary":[],"ambiguities":[],"confidence":"","notes":[]},{"i":23,"ref":"p23","source":"Ἀπόκρισις.\n\nΘαυμάζει τὸν προφήτην ἡ θεία γραφὴ ἐπὶ τῇ δυναστείᾳ τῶν λόγων καὶ τῶν ἔργων, οὐχ ἕνεκεν τῶν λόγων καὶ τῶν ἔρ γων καθ' αὑτά· ἀνάξια γὰρ ἦν ἐκεῖνα καθ' αὑτὰ πρὸς τὰ ἐγκώμια τοῦ προφήτου. Ἀλλ' ἐπειδὴ δι' ἑκατέρας μὲν περί βλεπτος ὑπῆρχε τοῖς ἰγυπτίοις ὁ προφήτης, τῆς δὲ τοῦ λόγου παιδείας καὶ τῆς τοῦ βίου κοσμικῆς λαμπρότητος, ἀμφοτέρων δὲ τὴν εἰς θεὸν εὐσέβειαν τιμήσας, διὰ τοῦτο αὐτὸν ἐθαύ μασεν ἡ θεία γραφή. Ἀστρονομία δὲ καὶ ἀστρολογία καὶ γεωμετρία παρ' ἰγυπτίοις τότε χυδαῖά τε καὶ πεζὰ καὶ ἀγο ραῖα μαθήματα λελόγιστο. Τίμια δὲ ἦν τότε παρ' αὐτοῖς μαθήματα τὰ ἱερογλυφικὰ καλούμενα, τὰ ἐν τοῖς ἀδύτοις οὐ τοῖς τυχοῦσιν ἀλλὰ τοῖς ἐγκρίτοις παραδιδόμενα· ὧν ὁ προ φήτης εἰ καὶ τὴν εἴδησιν ἔσχεν, ἀλλ' οὐκέτι καὶ τὴν χρῆσιν, ὡς ἀντικειμένην τῇ κατὰ θεὸν πολιτείᾳ τῶν Ἑβραίων, δι' ἣν καταφρονήσας τῆς ἐν ἰγύπτῳ πάσης βασιλικῆς δυναστείας εἵλετο συγκακουχεῖσθαι τῷ λαῷ τοῦ θεοῦ. Ἐρώτησις κ.","english":"Answer.\n\nDivine Scripture marvels at the prophet for the power of his words and deeds, not because of the words and deeds in themselves; for those things were in themselves unworthy of the prophet's praises. But since through both he was conspicuous to the Egyptians—through his education in letters and through the worldly splendor of his life—and since he honored the piety toward God above both, for this reason divine Scripture marveled at him. But astronomy and astrology and geometry were at that time reckoned by the Egyptians to be vulgar, pedestrian, and marketplace subjects. Honorable among them at that time were the subjects called hieroglyphic, which were handed down in the inner sanctuaries not to just anyone but to those approved; and even if the prophet had knowledge of these, he no longer had their use either, as being opposed to the Hebrews' way of life according to God, for which reason, despising all the royal power in Egypt, he chose to be mistreated together with the people of God. Question 20.","structure":"narrative","commentary":[],"ambiguities":[],"confidence":"","notes":[]},{"i":24,"ref":"p24","source":"ἰ πάντα τὰ ὕδατα αἷμα ὑπὸ Μωϋσέως γεγένηνται, πῶς ἐπάγει ἡ γραφὴ τὸ Ἐποίησαν δὲ καὶ οἱ ἐπαοιδοὶ τῶν ἰ γυπτίων ὡσαύτως; Ἢ γὰρ ψευδὲς τὸ πάντα τὰ ὕδατα γενέ σθαι αἷμα ὑπὸ Μωϋσέως, ἢ πάλιν τὸ τοὺς ἐπαοιδοὺς πεποιη κέναι ὡσαύτως. Καὶ περὶ τῶν λοιπῶν τῶν κατ' αὐτοὺς θαυ μάτων ὁ αὐτὸς λόγος.\n\nἈπόκρισις.\n\nΠάντων τῶν ὑδάτων τῶν ἐπάνω τῆς γῆς αἷμα γενομένων, ἠναγκάζοντο οἱ ἰγύπτιοι κύκλῳ τοῦ ποταμοῦ ὀρύττειν φρέατα καὶ ἀντλεῖν ὕδωρ καὶ ποτίζειν ἐξ αὐτοῦ ἑαυτούς τε καὶ τὰ ζῶα\n\nαὐτῶν καὶ τὰ θρέμματα. Ἐκ τούτου τοῦ ὕδατος τοῦ ἐκ τῶν φρεάτων ἀντλουμένου ἐποίησαν οἱ ἐπαοιδοὶ τὸ αἷμα, καὶ οὐ δαμῶς διέψευσται ὁ λόγος. Καὶ τὰ μὲν ὑπὸ Μωϋσέως γενό μενα θαύματα, ἅτε κατὰ τὴν θείαν γεγενημένα ἐνέργειαν, κατὰ μεταβολὴν γεγένηνται φύσεως τοῦ προκειμένου εἰς τὴν φύσιν τοῦ ἐκτελουμένου, τὰ δὲ ὑπὸ τῶν ἐπαοιδῶν γενόμενα κατὰ τὴν ἐνέργειαν ἐγένοντο τῶν δαιμόνων, τῶν φαντασάντων τὰς ὄψεις τῶν ὁρώντων, τὸν μὴ ὄφιν ὁρᾶν ὡς ὄφιν, καὶ τὸ μὴ αἷμα ὡς αἷμα, καὶ τοὺς μὴ βατράχους ὡς βατράχους. Ἐρώτησις κζ.","english":"If all the waters were turned into blood by Moses, how does Scripture add, \"And the magicians of the Egyptians did likewise\"? For either it is false that all the waters were turned into blood by Moses, or again that the magicians did likewise. And the same account applies to the rest of the wonders done by them.\n\nAnswer.\n\nWhen all the waters upon the earth had become blood, the Egyptians were compelled to dig wells round about the river and to draw water and to give drink from it to themselves and their animals and their livestock. From this water drawn from the wells the magicians made blood, and in no way is the account false. And the wonders done by Moses, since they were done by divine power, came about by a change of the nature of what was set before them into the nature of what was accomplished; but those done by the magicians came about by the operation of demons, who deceived the eyes of the beholders, so that they saw what was not a snake as a snake, and what was not blood as blood, and what were not frogs as frogs. Question 27.","structure":"narrative","commentary":[],"ambiguities":[],"confidence":"","notes":[]},{"i":25,"ref":"p25","source":"ἰ ἐναντία ἑαυτῷ Μωϋσῆς οὐκ ἐδίδασκε τὰ μὲν ὀστέα τοῦ Ἰωσὴφ ἐπαγόμενος, τὸν δὲ ἁπτόμενον νεκροῦ ὡς ἀκάθαρ τον μυσαττόμενος; Καὶ εἰ ἦν τις εὔλογος παρὰ τούτῳ αἰτία, ταύτην μὲν νυνὶ μάθωμεν. Τίνος δὲ ἕνεκεν ἡ γραφὴ οὐκ εἶπε, δι' ἣν αἰτίαν ἐκεῖνα ποιῶν Μωϋσῆς ταῦτα ἐδίδασκεν; Ἀπόκρισις.\n\nἘπειδὴ τελευτῶν ὁ Ἰωσὴφ περὶ τῆς μετακομιδῆς τῶν ὀστέων αὑτοῦ ὥρκισε τοὺς υἱοὺς Ἰσραήλ, καὶ ἦν ἀμφότερα τῷ Μωϋσῇ εἰς φυλακὴν προκείμενα, τὸ μὴ παραβαίνειν τὸν ὅρκον καὶ τὸ μὴ ἅπτεσθαι νεκροῦ, διὰ τοῦτο τῇ λύσει τοῦ νόμου λέ γοντος μὴ ἅψασθαι νεκροῦ ἐφύλαξε τὸν ὅρκον ἀπαράβατον· ἀδύνατον γὰρ ἦν αὐτῷ ἀμφότερα φυλάξαι ἀπαράβατα, καὶ τὸν νόμον καὶ τὸν ὅρκον. Τῇ μείζονι οὖν φυλακῇ τοῦ ὅρκου ἔλυσε τὴν ἐλάττονα φυλακὴν τοῦ νόμου· πανταχοῦ γὰρ τὸ ἔλαττον κακὸν αἱρετώτερον τοῦ μείζονος. Καὶ τοιαῦτα πολλὰ εὑ ρίσκεται ἐν τῇ θείᾳ γραφῇ, ἅτινα οὐ λογίζεται ὁ θεὸς εἰς ἁμαρτίαν τῶν παραβαινόντων αὐτὰ διὰ τὴν ἐν αὐτοῖς συμβεβη κυῖαν ἀνάγκην, ὡς τὴν ὀκταήμερον περιτομὴν καὶ τὴν ἑπτα ήμερον περικύκλωσιν τῆς Ἱεριχὼ καὶ τὴν ἐν σαββάτῳ προσ αγωγὴν τῶν θυσιῶν, ἅτινα περιέχουσι τοῦ σαββάτου τὴν λύσιν. Ἔτι εἰ ἔταξεν ὁ προφήτης τοὺς ἐκ διαδοχῆς βαστάζοντας τοῦ Ἰωσὴφ τὰ ὀστέα καὶ κατὰ ἑπτὰ ἡμέρας ἀκαθάρτους ὄντας διὰ τῆς ἐν τῷ καθαρσίῳ κατὰ τὸν νόμον τοῦ Μωϋσέως τού του τοῦ ἀριθμοῦ διατηρήσεως καθαρίζεσθαι, οὐδ' ἐναντίον ὧν εἶπέ τι διεπράξατο ὁ προφήτης. Τὸ δὲ ζητεῖν, διὰ τί οὐκ εἶπεν ὁ προφήτης τούτων τὴν αἰτίαν, ὅμοιόν ἐστι τῷ λέγειν, διὰ τί μὴ πᾶσαι αἱ γραφαὶ ἡρμηνευμέναι παρεδόθησαν παρὰ τῶν ἐκτεθεικότων αὐτάς·","english":"Did Moses not teach things contrary to himself, on the one hand bringing the bones of Joseph with him, and on the other loathing as unclean the one who touches a corpse? And if there was some reasonable cause in his case, let us now learn it. But for what reason did Scripture not state the cause for which Moses, doing those things, taught these? Answer.\n\nSince Joseph, when he was dying, put the sons of Israel under oath concerning the removal of his bones, and both things lay before Moses to be kept—not to transgress the oath and not to touch a corpse—for this reason, by the relaxation of the law that says not to touch a corpse, he kept the oath unbroken; for it was impossible for him to keep both unbroken, both the law and the oath. By the greater keeping of the oath, then, he dissolved the lesser keeping of the law; for everywhere the lesser evil is preferable to the greater. And many such things are found in the divine Scripture, which God does not reckon as sin for those who transgress them because of the necessity that has befallen them in these matters, such as the circumcision on the eighth day and the seven-day encirclement of Jericho and the offering of sacrifices on the Sabbath, which involve the dissolution of the Sabbath. Further, if the prophet appointed those who, in succession, carried the bones of Joseph, and who were unclean for seven days, to be cleansed by the observance of this number in the place of purification according to the law of Moses, the prophet did nothing contrary to what he said. But to inquire why the prophet did not state the cause of these things is like saying why all the Scriptures were not handed down translated by those who set them forth.","structure":"narrative","commentary":[],"ambiguities":[],"confidence":"","notes":[]},{"i":26,"ref":"p26","source":"ἐπειδὴ ἐν τῇ τοῦ πράγματος διηγήσει ἐμφαντικῶς περιέχεται ἡ τοῦ πράγματος ἔννοια. Διότι οὐκ ἐδοκίμασεν ἡ γραφὴ τὸ ἐκθετικῶς ταύτην δηλῶσαι. Ἐρώτησις κη.\n\nἰ τὴν τῶν Φαρισαίων ἐσχηματισμένην εὐλάβειαν ἐλέγχων ὁ κύριος ἔλεγεν ὅτι τάφοι κεκονιαμένοι εἰσίν, πεπληρωμένοι ὀστέων νεκρῶν καὶ πάσης ἀκαθαρσίας, καὶ ἐν τῷ νόμῳ ὁ ἁπτόμενος νεκροῦ ἀκάθαρτος ἐλογίζετο, ὡς ἄτοπον ἐργαζό μενός τι, τούς τε νεκροὺς καὶ τοὺς τούτων μυσαττόμεθα τά φους, ὑπό τε παλαιᾶς καὶ καινῆς ἀκαθάρτου τοῦ νεκροῦ κα λουμένου· πῶς ἀμφοτέρων ὁ Χριστὸς ἐναντίως οὐκ ἔπραξεν, ὅτι τὸν υἱὸν τῆς χήρας ἀνιστῶν ἥψατο τῆς σοροῦ καὶ τὴν\n\nθυγατέρα τοῦ Ἰαείρου τῆς χειρὸς ἐκράτησεν; ἰ γὰρ καὶ ἀμ φότεροι τελευταῖον ἀνέστησαν, ἀλλὰ τὴν ἁφὴν τὰ νεκρὰ ἐδέ ξαντο σώματα.\n\nἈπόκρισις.\n\nΤῶν πτωμάτων τὰ νεκρὰ σώματα καὶ οἱ τούτων τάφοι μυσάττονται διὰ τὴν ἑπομένην αὐτοῖς βαρεῖαν δυσωδίαν καὶ οὐ διὰ τὴν νέκρωσιν. ἰ γὰρ ἁπλῶς διὰ τὴν νέκρωσιν ἐμυσάττοντο τῶν νεκρῶν τὰ σώματα, οὐκ ἄρα ἐχρῆν τοῖς τῶν ζώων νεκρῶν σωμάτων μέρεσι κεχρῆσθαι πρὸς τὴν τῶν ζώντων χρείαν, ὡς τοῖς δέρμασι καὶ τοῖς κέρασι καὶ θριξὶ καὶ χολαῖς καὶ τοῖς στέασι καὶ ταῖς σαρξίν, ἅτινα οὐδεὶς λόγος δύναται ὑπεξελεῖν τῆς προσούσης αὐτοῖς νεκρώσεως.","english":"Since the meaning of the matter is contained expressively in the narrative of the matter. For the Scripture did not deem it fit to declare this by way of exposition. Question 28.\n\nWhen the Lord was refuting the pretentious piety of the Pharisees, he said that they are whitewashed tombs, full of dead men's bones and all uncleanness; and in the Law the one who touches a dead body was reckoned unclean, as though he were doing something absurd, and we loathe both the dead and their tombs, since the dead body is called unclean by both the old and the new covenant. How then did Christ not act contrary to both, when raising the widow's son he touched the bier, and grasped the hand of Jairus's daughter? For even if both were ultimately raised, nevertheless their dead bodies received the touch.\n\nAnswer.\n\nThe dead bodies of the fallen and their tombs are loathed because of the heavy stench that attends them, and not because of the death. For if they loathed the bodies of the dead simply because of the death, then it would not have been right to use parts of dead animals for the needs of the living, such as hides and horns and hair and gall and fat and flesh, which no argument can exempt from the death that belongs to them.","structure":"narrative","commentary":[],"ambiguities":[],"confidence":"","notes":[]},{"i":27,"ref":"p27","source":"ἰ δὲ νεκρὰ μὲν καὶ ταῦτα, οὐ μυσαττόμενα δὲ διὰ τὴν ἐξ αὐτῶν χρείαν, πῶς οὐκ ἔστι τῶν ἀτοπωτάτων τὸ καθαρὰ μὲν ἡγεῖσθαι ταῦτα διὰ τὴν ἐξ αὐτῶν χρείαν, μυσάττεσθαι δὲ τῶν ἁγίων μαρτύρων τὰ σώματα καὶ τοὺς τάφους ὑπὸ Ἑλλήνων, φυλακτικὰ ὄντα ἀπὸ τῆς τῶν δαιμόνων ἐπιβουλῆς καὶ ἰαματικὰ νοσημάτων τῶν κατὰ τὴν ἰατρικὴν τέχνην ἀνιάτων; Παρείκαζε δὲ ὁ κύριος τὴν τῶν Φαρισαίων ἐσχηματισμένην εὐλάβειαν τάφοις κεκονιαμένοις, ὅτι ὥσπερ τῇ νοήσει τῶν ζώντων βδελυκτή ἐστι τῶν νε κρῶν σωμάτων ἡ δυσωδία καὶ ἀκαθαρσία, οὕτως καὶ ἡ ἐκεί νων ἀνομία βδελυκτή ἐστι τῇ νοήσει τῶν εὐσεβῶν, τρόπον τινὰ οὖσα αὐτῶν ψυχῆς νέκρωσις καὶ δυσωδία καὶ ἀκαθαρσία. Ὥσπερ γὰρ χωρισθείσης τῆς ψυχῆς τοῦ σώματος νεκρὸν τὸ σῶμα καὶ δυσῶδες καὶ ἀκάθαρτον, οὕτως χωρισθέντος τοῦ φόβου τοῦ θεοῦ τῆς ψυχῆς νεκρὰ ὑπάρχει ἡ ψυχὴ καὶ δυσώδης καὶ ἀκάθαρτος. Κατ' ἐναντίωσιν δὲ ἔπραξεν ὁ κύριος οὐδὲν οὔτε τῇ παλαιᾷ οὔτε τῇ καινῇ. ὐκ ἦν γὰρ ὑπὸ τὸν νόμον, ὅτε τοὺς ἐν τῇ ἐρωτήσει εἰρημένους νεκροὺς ἤγειρεν. Ἀπὸ γὰρ τοῦ βαπτίσματος ἤρξατο ὁ κύριος τῆς εὐαγγελικῆς πολιτείας, οὔσης ἔξωθεν τῆς τοῦ νόμου φυλακῆς· διὸ οὐκ ἐμιάνθη ἁψά μενος τοῦ νεκροῦ. Κατὰ δὲ τὴν καινὴν ἐκεῖνα μόνα ἦν μιαν τικὰ ἀνθρώπων τὰ ἐκ τῆς καρδίας ἐξερχόμενα κακά· τὸ δὲ ἅπτεσθαι νεκροῦ οὐ μιαίνει τὸν ἄνθρωπον. Ἐρώτησις κθ.","english":"But if these things too are dead, yet are not loathed because of the use derived from them, how is it not among the most absurd things to regard these as clean because of the use derived from them, but to loathe the bodies and tombs of the holy martyrs among the Greeks, though they are preservative against the plots of demons and healing of diseases that are incurable by the medical art? And the Lord likened the feigned piety of the Pharisees to whitewashed tombs, because just as the stench and uncleanness of dead bodies is loathsome to the understanding of the living, so also the lawlessness of those men is loathsome to the understanding of the pious, being in a certain manner a deadening and stench and uncleanness of their soul. For just as, when the soul is separated from the body, the body is dead and foul-smelling and unclean, so when the fear of God is separated from the soul, the soul is dead and foul-smelling and unclean. And the Lord did nothing in opposition either to the old or to the new. For he was not under the law when he raised the dead mentioned in the question. For from his baptism the Lord began the evangelical conduct of life, which is outside the keeping of the law; therefore he was not defiled by touching the dead man. But according to the new, those things alone were defiling to men—the evils that proceed out of the heart; but touching a dead man does not defile a man. Question 29.","structure":"narrative","commentary":[],"ambiguities":[],"confidence":"","notes":[]},{"i":28,"ref":"p28","source":"ἰ πεπλήρωτο ὁ οἶκος, ἔνθα ὁ κύριος ἦν ὁπηνίκα ὁ παράλυτος ἔμελλε θεραπεύεσθαι, καὶ διὰ τοῦτο ἠναγκάσθησαν οἱ βαστάζοντες αὐτὸν καταλῦσαι τὴν ὀροφὴν καὶ δι' αὐτῆς καθεῖναι τὸν ἀσθενοῦντα, πῶς οἱ ἐν τῷ οἴκῳ ἠθροισμένοι ὄχλοι οὐκ ἐπλήγησαν τῆς ὀροφῆς λυομένης; Ἀπόκρισις.\n\nἰσθανόμενοι οἱ ἐν τῷ οἴκῳ μελλούσης τῆς ὀροφῆς ἀποστεγοῦσθαι πάντως ὑπεχώρησαν. ὐ γὰρ οὕτως ἦσαν ἀνόητοι οἱ τὴν ὀροφὴν ἀποστεγοῦντες, ὥστε μὴ βοᾶν τοῖς ἐν τῷ οἴκῳ ὑποχωρεῖν ἵνα μὴ πλήσσωνται. ὐδὲ γὰρ ὅλης τῆς ὀροφῆς ἦν χρεία ἀποστεγοῦσθαι, ἀλλὰ τόσον ὅσον ἤρκει εἰς τὴν ὑπο χάλασιν τοῦ παραλύτου.\n\nἘρώτησις λ.\n\nἰ ἑκάστῳ ἀνθρώπῳ ἄγγελος παρέπεται φύλαξ, καθὼς\n\nἡ θεία γραφὴ λέγει, οἱ δὲ ἄνθρωποι ποτὲ μὲν αὔξησιν, ποτὲ δὲ μείωσιν, ὡς ἐπὶ τοῦ κατακλυσμοῦ καὶ τῶν λοιπῶν συμφο ρῶν, διὰ τὰς ἑαυτῶν πράξεις ὑπέμειναν, οἱ τῆς αὐξήσεως καὶ μειώσεως ὄντες ἀνεπίδεκτοι ποίαν τότε λειτουργίαν ἐπλή ρουν, ἑκάστου τῶν ἀγγέλων παρὰ θεοῦ λειτουργίαν ἐξ ἀρχῆς εἰληφότος;","english":"If the house where the Lord was had been filled, when the paralytic was about to be healed, and for this reason those carrying him were compelled to break up the roof and through it to lower the sick man, how were the crowds gathered in the house not struck when the roof was being broken up? Answer.\n\nThose in the house, perceiving that the roof was about to be stripped off, certainly withdrew. For those stripping off the roof were not so senseless as not to shout to those in the house to withdraw so that they might not be struck. Nor indeed was the whole roof needed to be stripped off, but only as much as sufficed for the lowering of the paralytic.\n\nQuestion 30.\n\nIf a guardian angel accompanies each human being, as the divine Scripture says, and human beings sometimes underwent increase and sometimes diminution, as in the case of the flood and the other calamities, on account of their own deeds—those who are incapable of increase and diminution, what ministry did they then fulfill, since each of the angels had received a ministry from God from the beginning?","structure":"narrative","commentary":[],"ambiguities":[],"confidence":"","notes":[]},{"i":29,"ref":"p29","source":"Ἀπόκρισις.\n\nἱ μὲν ἄγγελοι πάντες, ἄρχοντές τε καὶ ἀρχόμενοι, λει τουργίαν ἐκπληροῦσι χρειώδη τοῖς οὐρανοῖς καὶ τοῖς διὰ τὸν ἄνθρωπον· οἱ δὲ λειτουργεῖν εἰληφότες τὸ παρέπεσθαι τοῖς ἀνθρώποις φύλακες ἀεὶ μὲν αὔξονται, μειοῦνται δὲ οὐδέποτε. Ἢ γὰρ παρέπονται τῷ συναμφοτέρῳ, ψυχῇ λέγω καὶ σώματι, ἢ παρέπονται τῇ ψυχῇ μετὰ τὴν ἐκ τοῦ σώματος ἔξοδον τῆς ψυχῆς ἕως τοῦ καιροῦ τῆς τοῦ κόσμου ἀνακτίσεως. Πρὶν ἢ δὲ ταγῶσι παρέπεσθαι τοῖς ἀνθρώποις καὶ φυλάττειν αὐτούς, ἐν ταῖς ἄλλαις ὑπὲρ ἀνθρώπων λειτουργίαις λειτουργοῦσι τοῖς οἰκείοις ἄρχουσιν.\n\nἘρώτησις λα.\n\nἰ νεύματι θείῳ αἱ νεφέλαι τὸν ὑετὸν τῇ γῇ καταπέμπουσι, διὰ τί τὰς νεφέλας οἱ καλούμενοι νεφοδιῶκται ἐπαοι δίαις τισὶ κατασκευάζονται, ἔνθα βούλονται, χαλάζας καὶ ἀμέτρους ὑετοὺς ἀκοντίζειν;\n\nἈπόκρισις.\n\nΤοῦτο ἐπειδὴ κατὰ τὰς ἁγίας γραφὰς μαρτυρεῖς, τοὺς ὑετοὺς εἶναι ἐκ τῶν ἐπαοιδῶν ἄπιστον. Καὶ γὰρ αὐτὸς ὁ ταύτην περὶ τούτου ἐρωτήσας τὴν ἐρώτησιν οὐκ ἀφ' ὧν ἐθεάσω γινομένων τὴν ἐρώτησιν πεποίηκας, ἀλλ' ἀφ' ὧν ἤκουσας.","english":"Answer.\n\nAll the angels, both rulers and those ruled, fulfill a ministry that is necessary for the heavens and for the things that exist on account of man; but those who have received the ministry of attending upon men as guardians are always increased, and are never diminished. For either they attend upon the composite whole, I mean the soul and the body, or they attend upon the soul after the soul's departure from the body until the time of the world's restoration. But before they were appointed to attend upon men and to guard them, they ministered in the other ministries on behalf of men to their own rulers.\n\nQuestion 31.\n\nIf by a divine nod the clouds send down rain upon the earth, why are the clouds, by those called cloud-chasers, made by certain incantations to hurl hail and immoderate rains wherever they wish?\n\nAnswer.\n\nSince you testify according to the holy Scriptures, it is incredible that the rains come from incantations. For you yourself, who have asked this question about this matter, have not made the inquiry from things you have seen happening, but from things you have heard.","structure":"narrative","commentary":[],"ambiguities":[],"confidence":"","notes":[]},{"i":30,"ref":"p30","source":"Ἐρώτησις λβ.\n\nἰ θνητὴν ὁ θεὸς τὴν ἡμετέραν ἔκτισε φύσιν, πῶς λέγεις ὅτι Ὁ θεὸς θάνατον οὐκ ἐποίησεν; Ἀπόκρισις.\n\nὐκ, εἴ τι θνητὸν τῇ φύσει, τοῦτο ἀνάγκη πάντως ἀπο θανεῖν· καὶ τούτου ἡ ἀπόδειξις τὸ θνητοὺς ὄντας τὴν φύσιν τόν τε Ἐνὼχ καὶ τὸν Ἡλίαν ἐν ἀθανασίᾳ ἔτι διαμένειν, τοῦ Γῆ εἶ καὶ εἰς γῆν ἀπελεύσῃ γενομένους ἀνωτέρω. Ἀληθὲς οὖν τὸ θνητὴν τὴν φύσιν ἡμῶν πεποιηκέναι τὸν θεόν, καὶ εἰσ ελθεῖν τὸν θάνατον εἰς τὸν κόσμον τῇ τοῦ ἀνθρώπου παρακοῇ. ἰ μὲν γὰρ ὥσπερ ἐποίησεν ὁ θεὸς θνητὴν τὴν φύσιν οὕτως ἐποίησε καὶ τὸν θάνατον, οὐκ ἂν διὰ τῆς παρακοῆς ὁ θάνα τος· καὶ εἰ ὁ θεὸς τὴν παρακοὴν οὐκ ἐποίησεν, οὐδ' ἄρα τὸν θάνατον.\n\nἘρώτησις λγ.\n\nἰ τῶν ἀνθρώπων ἡ φύσις ὡς θνητῶν μὲν τὸ οἰκεῖον ἐπιγινώσκει πέρας, ὁ δὲ ἑκάστου χρόνος οὐ κατά τινά ἐστιν ὅρον, ὅπερ καλοῦσιν οἱ ἐκτὸς εἱμαρμένην, πῶς τῷ Ἐζεκίᾳ προσετέθησαν χρόνοι; Τὸ γὰρ προστεθὲν ἐπὶ τοῦ προορισθέντος ἀριθμοῦ δῆλον ὅτι λαμβάνεται. Πόθεν οὖν ἐπὶ τῶν τελευτώντων τὸ τοῦ χρόνου ἀόριστον δείκνυται;","english":"Question 32.\n\nIf God created our nature mortal, how do you say that \"God did not make death\"? Answer.\n\nIt is not the case that whatever is mortal by nature must in every way necessarily die; and the proof of this is that Enoch and Elijah, though mortal by nature, still remain in immortality, having become higher than the words \"Dust you are and to dust you shall return.\" True, then, is it that God made our nature mortal, and that death entered the world through man's disobedience. For if God had made death just as he made our nature mortal, death would not have come about through disobedience; and if God had not made disobedience, neither then would he have made death.\n\nQuestion 33.\n\nIf the nature of men, as being mortal, recognizes its own proper limit, but the time of each individual is not determined by any fixed boundary—which those outside the faith call fate—how were times added to Hezekiah? For what is added is clearly taken from a number previously ordained. Whence, then, is the indefiniteness of time shown in the case of those who die?","structure":"narrative","commentary":[],"ambiguities":[],"confidence":"","notes":[]},{"i":31,"ref":"p31","source":"Ἀπόκρισις.\n\nὍτι δὲ οὐχ ὥρισται τῆς ἑκάστου ζωῆς ὁ χρόνος, δείκνυται ἐκ τῶν γραφικῶν φωνῶν οὕτως· Ἐάν, φησίν, ἐν τῷ πεδίῳ εὕρῃ ἄνθρωπος νεάνιδα μεμνηστευμένην καὶ βιασάμενος αὐτὴν κοιμηθῇ μετ' αὐτῆς, τὸν μὲν ἄνδρα ἀποκτείνατε, τὴν δὲ νεάνιδα μὴ ἀποκτείνητε. Ὃν γὰρ τρόπον ἐπάταξεν ἄνθρωπος ἐπὶ τὸν πλησίον αὐτοῦ, καὶ πατάσσων αὐτὸν οὐχὶ παρῆν ὁ βοηθῶν, οὕτως ἐγένετο τὸ πρᾶγμα τοῦτο. Καὶ ἐβόησεν ἡ νεᾶνις, καὶ ὁ βοηθῶν αὐτῇ οὐκ ἦν. ὐκ ἂν δὲ παρείκασεν ἡ θεία γραφὴ τὴν βεβιασμένην κοίμησιν τῇ βεβιασμένῃ ἀναιρέσει, εἰ ἦν ὁ θάνατος ὡρισμένος· τὸ γὰρ παρὰ θεοῦ ὡρισμένον ἀβίαστόν τε καὶ ἀπαράβατον. Ἀλλ' εἰ τοῦτο, δῆλον ὅτι οὐ τῇ προωρισμένῃ ζωῇ τοῦ Ἐζεκίου προσετέθησαν χρόνοι ζωῆς, ἀλλὰ τοῖς ἀορίστως προλαβοῦσιν ἔτεσιν αὐτοῦ, ὧν τὸ τέλος ἐγίνετο διὰ τοῦ θανατικοῦ πάθους, μὴ τοῦ θεοῦ ἐκ τοῦ πά θους ἰασαμένου αὐτὸν καὶ εἰς τὸ ζῆν αὐτὸν ἀποκαταστήσαντος. Ἐρώτησις λδ.\n\nἰ, καθώς τινές φασιν, ὁ κατακλυσμὸς ἐν παντὶ τόπῳ τῆς γῆς οὐ γέγονεν, ἀλλ' ἐν ᾧ οἱ τότε ἄνθρωποι ᾤκουν, πῶς ἀληθὲς ὅτι ὑψώθη τὸ ὕδωρ ἐπάνω πάντων τῶν ὑψηλῶν ὀρέων δεκατέσσαρας πήχεις;","english":"Answer.\n\nThat the time of each person's life is not fixed is shown from the scriptural voices as follows: \"If,\" it says, \"a man finds in the field a young woman who is betrothed and, having forced her, lies with her, put the man to death, but do not put the young woman to death. For in the same way that a man strikes his neighbor, and when he strikes him there was no one to help, so this matter happened. And the young woman cried out, and there was no one to help her.\" Now divine Scripture would not have compared the forced lying-together to the forced killing, if death were fixed; for what is fixed by God is both without force and cannot be transgressed. But if this is so, it is clear that the years of life were not added to the foreordained life of Hezekiah, but to his years that had previously run on without a fixed limit, the end of which was coming about through the mortal suffering, when God healed him from the suffering and restored him to life. Question 34.\n\nIf, as some say, the flood did not occur in every place of the earth, but only where the people of that time lived, how is it true that the water rose fifteen cubits above all the high mountains?","structure":"narrative","commentary":[],"ambiguities":[],"confidence":"","notes":[]},{"i":32,"ref":"p32","source":"Ἀπόκρισις.\n\nὐ δοκεῖ ἀληθὲς εἶναι τὸ μὴ ἐν παντὶ τῷ κόσμῳ τὸν κατακλυσμὸν γεγονέναι, εἰ μή τι ἄρα κοιλότεροι ἦσαν οἱ τόποι, ἔνθα ὁ κατακλυσμὸς ἐγένετο, τῶν λοιπῶν τόπων τῆς γῆς. Ἐρώτησις λε.\n\nἰ τῶν ἀλόγων ἁπάντων δημιουργός ἐστιν ὁ θεός, διὰ τί τὸ διχηλοῦν ὁπλὴν καὶ μηρυκισμὸν ἔχον καθαρὸν εἶναι ἀπεφήνατο; Καὶ πάλιν διὰ τί τὸ μηρυκισμὸν μὲν ἔχον, οἷον κάμηλος, ὁπλὴν δὲ μὴ διχηλοῦν, ἐν τοῖς κακοῖς τέτακται, καὶ τὸ διχηλοῦν μὲν τὴν ὁπλήν, μηρυκισμὸν δὲ μὴ ἔχον, οἷον χοῖρος, ἐν τοῖς μὴ καθαροῖς λελόγισται; Καὶ ἐν τοῖς ἰχθύσι δὲ τὰ ἀλεπίδωτα; Καὶ τὰ πετεινὰ διὰ τί διῄρηνται, καίτοι τινῶν καθαρῶν, εἴ γε συγχωροῦνται, ταὐτὰ τοῖς ἀκαθάρτοις ἐσθιόντων καὶ πραττόντων;\n\nἈπόκρισις.\n\nΦύσει μὲν καθαρὰ ὑπάρχει πάντα τὰ ζῶα καὶ καλὰ ὑπὸ τοῦ θεοῦ ἐξ ἀρχῆς γεγονότα κατὰ τὸ εἰρημένον· Καὶ εἶδεν ὁ θεὸς πάντα ὅσα ἐποίησε, καὶ ἰδοὺ καλὰ λίαν· καὶ τῆς θείας τετυχηκότα εὐλογίας λεγούσης· ὐξάνεσθε καὶ πληθύνεσθε. Ἀλλ' ἐπειδὴ ἐβούλετο ὁ θεὸς ὥσπερ ἐν πᾶσι τοῖς ἐσθιομέ νοις ὑπὸ τὸν ζυγὸν τῆς τοῦ νόμου δουλείας ποιήσασθαι τοὺς Ἰουδαίους, διὰ τοῦτο τῶν ζώων καὶ πετεινῶν καὶ ἰχθύων τινὰ μὲν ὠνόμασε καθαρά, ὧν καὶ τὴν σφαγὴν καὶ τὴν βρῶσιν τοῖς Ἰουδαίοις ἐπέτρεψε, τινὰ δὲ ἀκάθαρτα ὠνόμασεν, ὧν τὴν βρῶ σιν αὐτοὺς ἀπεῖργε. Καθαρὰ οὖν ταῦτα καὶ ἀκάθαρτα λέ γονται· καθαρὰ μὲν διὰ τὴν φύσιν, ἀκάθαρτα δὲ διὰ τὸν νόμον. Ἄλλως δὲ πάλιν καθαρὰ καὶ ἀκάθαρτα λέγονται διὰ ταύτην τὴν αἰτίαν· ἐπειδὴ ἐν τῇ ἰγύπτῳ τότε πάντα τὰ ζῶα","english":"Answer.\n\nIt does not seem to be true that the flood occurred over the whole world, unless perhaps the places where the flood occurred were lower-lying than the rest of the earth. Question 35.\n\nIf God is the creator of all irrational animals, why did he declare that what has a cloven hoof and chews the cud is clean? And again, why is what chews the cud but does not have a cloven hoof, such as the camel, reckoned among the unclean, and what has a cloven hoof but does not chew the cud, such as the pig, counted among the unclean? And among the fish, why the scaleless? And why have birds been divided, although some of them are clean, if indeed those who eat and do the same things as the unclean are permitted?\n\nAnswer.\n\nBy nature all animals are clean and were made good by God from the beginning, according to what is said: \"And God saw all things that he had made, and behold, they were very good\"; and they obtained the divine blessing that says: \"Increase and multiply.\" But since God wished to place the Jews, as it were, among all things eaten under the yoke of the slavery of the law, for this reason he named some of the animals and birds and fish clean, whose slaughter and eating he permitted to the Jews, and he named others unclean, from whose eating he restrained them. So these are called clean and unclean: clean by nature, but unclean by the law. And again, in another way they are called clean and unclean for this reason: because in Egypt at that time all the animals","structure":"narrative","commentary":[],"ambiguities":[],"confidence":"","notes":[]},{"i":33,"ref":"p33","source":"πλὴν τοῦ χοίρου ἐθεοποιοῦντο, διὰ τοῦτο τῶν ζώων τὰ μὲν καθαρά, τὰ δὲ ἀκάθαρτα ὠνόμασε· καὶ τὰ μὲν καθαρὰ ἐπέ τρεψεν αὐτοῖς θύειν, τὰ δὲ μὴ ἐσθίειν ὡς ἀκάθαρτα, δι' ἑκατέρου δεικνύων αὐτὰ ἀνάξια ὄντα τῆς τοῦ θεοῦ προσηγορίας τε καὶ τιμῆς, καὶ διὰ τοῦ θύεσθαι καὶ ἐσθίεσθαι, καὶ πάλιν διὰ τοῦ καλεῖσθαι αὐτὰ ἀκάθαρτα. Ἐρώτησις λ.\n\nἰ τὸ θεῖον τροπῆς ἀνεπίδεκτον, διὰ τί περὶ τῆς χρί σεως τοῦ Σαοὺλ λέγει μεταμελεῖσθαι καὶ περὶ τῆς καταστροφῆς τῆς Νινευῒ ὅτι μετενόησεν;\n\nἈπόκρισις.\n\nὉ δεσπότης θεὸς καὶ κατὰ τὸ ὑπάρχειν καὶ κατὰ τὸ πράττειν τὰς πρεπούσας αὐτῷ πράξεις ἄτρεπτός ἐστι. Προ νοῶν δὲ τῶν τρεπομένων πρὸς τὸ λυσιτελὲς τοῖς ὑπ' αὐτοῦ προνοουμένοις τρέπει τὰ πράγματα· διὸ καὶ πρὸς τὸ συγγινώσκειν καὶ πρὸς τὸ μὴ συγγινώσκειν ἀτρέπτως ἔχει. Συγ γινώσκει γὰρ ἀτρέπτως τοῖς διορθοῦσι τὰ ἑαυτῶν πταίσματα, τοῖς δὲ ἀδιορθώτως ἔχουσι πρὸς τὰ κακὰ ἀτρέπτως οὐ συγγινώσκει. Τὸ οὖν Μεταμεμέλημαι τὸ ἄτρεπτον αὐτοῦ ἐμφαίνει τὸ κατὰ τὸ μὴ συγγινώσκειν, τὸ δὲ Μετενόησεν ὁ κύριος τὸ ἄτρεπτον αὐτοῦ δηλοῖ τὸ κατὰ τὸ συγγινώσκειν. Ἄτρεπτος γάρ ἐστιν ὁ θεός, καὶ ἀεὶ ἐν τοῖς αὐτῷ πρέπουσι ποιεῖν δια μένει· τροπὴν δ' εἰς τὸ ποιεῖν τὰ μὴ πρέποντα αὐτῷ οὐ δέχεταί ποτε.","english":"...except for the pig, they were deifying, for this reason he named some of the animals clean and others unclean; and the clean ones he permitted them to sacrifice, but the unclean ones he forbade them to eat, showing through both that they were unworthy of the name and honor of God—both through being sacrificed and eaten, and again through being called unclean. Question 30.\n\nIf the divine nature is incapable of change, why does he say concerning Saul's anointing that he repents, and concerning the destruction of Nineveh that he repented?\n\nAnswer.\n\nThe Lord God, both in his being and in his doing the actions that befit him, is unchangeable. But foreknowing the changes of those who change for the benefit of those under his providence, he changes circumstances; therefore he is unchangeably disposed both to forgive and not to forgive. For he unchangeably forgives those who correct their own faults, but to those who remain incorrigibly disposed toward evil he unchangeably does not forgive. The phrase \"I have repented\" reveals his unchangeable disposition with respect to not forgiving, while \"the Lord repented\" makes clear his unchangeable disposition with respect to forgiving. For God is unchangeable and always remains in the things that befit him to do; he never admits a change into doing things that do not befit him.","structure":"narrative","commentary":[],"ambiguities":[],"confidence":"","notes":[]},{"i":34,"ref":"p34","source":"Ἐρώτησις λζ.\n\nἰ τὸ Ἰωάννου βάπτισμα μὴ κατὰ νόμον ἦν, ὥσπερ οὖν οὔτοι ἦν, πῶς οὐκ ἦν παρὰ τὸν νόμον, καὶ πῶς ὑπὸ τῶν ἐννόμων ἐδέχθη; Πῶς δὲ οὐ παράνομοι οἱ ὑπὸ τὸν νόμον ὄντες καὶ τὸ παρὰ τὸν νόμον δεξάμενοι βάπτισμα; ἰ δὲ ὑπὸ τὸν νόμον ἐτύγχανε τὸ τῆς χάριτος βάπτισμα, μήτε κατὰ νόμον μήτε ὑπὲρ νόμον μήτε παρὰ νόμον λεγόμενον, κατὰ τί γινόμενον εὑρεθήσεται;\n\nἈπόκρισις.\n\nΤὸ βάπτισμα Ἰωάννου προοίμιον ἦν τοῦ εὐαγγελίου τῆς χάριτος· διὸ καὶ ὑπὲρ τὸν νόμον οὐκ ἦν. ὐδὲ γὰρ ἐνεδέχετο τοὺς κατὰ τὸν νόμον ἁμαρτήσαντας ἐν τούτῳ διὰ μετανοίας τε καὶ πίστεως τοῦ Χριστοῦ δέξασθαι τὴν συγχώρησιν. Ἐρώτησις λη.\n\nἰ πιστώσασθαι τοὺς μαθητὰς ὁ Ἰωάννης περὶ τοῦ Χριστοῦ, ὅτι αὐτός ἐστιν, ἐβούλετο, ὅτε ἀπέστειλεν αὐτοὺς πρὸς αὐτόν (τοῦτο γάρ τινες εἰρήκασι), διὰ τί μὴ κατὰ ἀπόφασιν εἶπεν αὐτοῖς, ἀλλὰ πεῦσιν δι' αὐτῶν τῷ Χριστῷ προσήγαγεν; ἰ δὲ αὐτὸς διὰ τὸ τῇ εἱρκτῇ ἑαυτὸν ἐμβεβλῆσθαι ἐκ τῶν νοουμένων ποικίλως εἰς τὴν περὶ αὐτοῦ ἀμφιβολίαν κατέστη (καὶ γὰρ τοῦτο εἰρήκασιν ἕτεροι), διὰ τί ὡς μηδέπω αὐτὸν ἐλθόντα ἐγνωκὼς ἐρωτᾷ; Τὸ γὰρ Σὺ εἶ ὁ ἐρχόμενος ἢ ἕτερον προσδοκῶμεν; ὡς μηδέπω μὲν τὸν Χριστὸν παραγενόμενον, ἔρχεσθαι δὲ αὐτὸν προσδοκώμενον τὴν ὑπόνοιαν δίδωσι. Πεπεισμένος γὰρ τοῦτο οὐκ ἂν ἐπηρώτησε· Σὺ εἶ ὁ Χριστὸς ἢ","english":"Question 37.\n\nIf John's baptism was not according to the law, as indeed these things were not, how was it not contrary to the law, and how was it received by those who were under the law? And how were those who were under the law not lawbreakers, having received a baptism contrary to the law? But if the baptism of grace happened to be under the law, being called neither according to the law nor above the law nor contrary to the law, by what standard will it be found to have come about?\n\nAnswer.\n\nJohn's baptism was a prelude to the gospel of grace; therefore it was not above the law. Nor was it possible for those who had sinned under the law to receive forgiveness in it through repentance and faith in Christ. Question 38.\n\nIf John wished to assure his disciples concerning Christ, that he is the one, when he sent them to him (for some have said this), why did he not speak to them by way of declaration, but brought a question through them to Christ? But if he himself, because he had been cast into prison, was brought from various considerations into doubt concerning him (for others too have said this), why does he ask as though he had not yet known him as having come? For the words \"Are you the one who is coming, or should we expect another?\" give the impression that Christ had not yet arrived, but was expected to come. For being convinced of this, he would not have asked: \"Are you the Christ, or","structure":"narrative","commentary":[],"ambiguities":[],"confidence":"","notes":[]},{"i":35,"ref":"p35","source":"ἕτερός τις παρ' ἐκεῖνον;\n\nἈπόκρισις.\n\nἘπειδὴ διάφοροι φῆμαι περὶ ὧν ἐποιήσατο θαυμάτων ὁ Ἰησοῦς διέτρεχον, τῶν μὲν λεγόντων· Ἡλίας ἐστὶν ὁ ταῦτα ποιῶν, τῶν δέ· Ἱερεμίας, τῶν δέ· Ἄλλος τις τῶν προφητῶν, ταύτας τὰς φήμας ἀκούων ὁ Ἰωάννης ἐν τῇ εἱρκτῇ πέμπει τοὺς μαθητὰς αὑτοῦ μαθεῖν, εἰ ὁ τὰ σημεῖα ποιῶν αὐτός ἐστιν ὁ ὑπ' αὐτοῦ μαρτυρηθείς, ἢ ἕτερός τις ὁ παρὰ τῶν πολλῶν θρυλλούμενος. Γνοὺς δὲ ὁ Ἰησοῦς τοῦ Ἰωάννου τὸν σκοπὸν ἐπὶ τῆς παρουσίας τῶν μαθητῶν Ἰωάννου ἐποίησε πολλὰ θαύματα, πείθων αὐτοὺς καὶ τὸν Ἰωάννην δι' αὐτῶν, ὡς αὐτὸς εἴη ὁ πεποιηκὼς καὶ τὰ ἐπ' ὀνόματι ἑτέρων φημιζόμενα θαύ ματα, ὁ ὑπ' αὐτοῦ μαρτυρηθείς.\n\nἘρώτησις λθ.\n\nἰ πάντας ἕλκειν πρὸς ἑαυτὸν ὁ δεσπότης Χριστὸς μετὰ τὴν οἰκείαν ὕψωσιν ἐπηγγείλατο, πῶς οὐ πάντες τῇ εἰς αὐτὸν πίστει προσέδραμον; Πῶς δὲ αὐτὸς ἐπαγγειλάμενος πρὸς αὑ τὸν ἕλκειν οὐκ ἐναντιοῦται τῷ ὐδεὶς ἔρχεται πρός με, ἐὰν μὴ ὁ πατήρ μου ἑλκύσῃ αὐτόν;\n\nἈπόκρισις.","english":"Is it someone else besides him?\n\nAnswer.\n\nSince various reports were circulating about the wonders Jesus performed—some saying, \"It is Elijah who does these things,\" others, \"Jeremiah,\" and others, \"Some other of the prophets\"—John, hearing these reports in prison, sends his disciples to learn whether the one performing the signs is himself the one testified to by him, or whether it is someone else, the one rumored by the many. And Jesus, knowing John's purpose, in the presence of John's disciples performed many wonders, persuading them and through them John that he himself was the one who had also done the wonders reported in the name of others—the one testified to by him.\n\nQuestion 39.\n\nIf the Lord Christ promised after his own exaltation to draw all people to himself, how is it that not all ran to faith in him? And how is he who promised to draw people to himself not in conflict with \"No one comes to me unless my Father draws him\"?\n\nAnswer.","structure":"narrative","commentary":[],"ambiguities":[],"confidence":"","notes":[]},{"i":36,"ref":"p36","source":"Ἀπὸ τοῦ οἰκείου τέλους πᾶς λόγος κρίνεται. Τέλος δέ, τὸ πάντας ἕλκειν πρὸς ἑαυτόν, ὅταν καταργήσῃ πᾶσαν ἀρχὴν καὶ ἐξουσίαν καὶ δύναμιν. ὐ χρὴ οὖν πρὸ τοῦ τέλους τὰ τοῦ τέλους ἀπαιτεῖν. Ἕλκει δὲ ὁ πατὴρ πρὸς τὸν υἱὸν τῷ διδόναι καὶ τῷ υἱῷ ἐξουσίαν καὶ δύναμιν τοῦ δύνασθαι πάντας ἕλκειν πρὸς ἑαυτόν. ὐκ ἄλλοτε οὖν ἕλκει ὁ πατὴρ πρὸς τὸν υἱὸν καὶ ἄλλοτε ὁ υἱὸς πρὸς ἑαυτόν· διὸ οὐδὲν ἐναντίον ἐν τοῖς λόγοις.\n\nἘρώτησις μ.\n\nἰ ἐν τοῖς δαιμονῶσιν οἱ δαίμονες διηνεκῶς ἐνοικοῦσι, πῶς ἑτέροις κατασκευάζουσι βλάβας; ἰ δὲ τοῦτο ποιοῦσι τῶν πασχόντων πρὸς βραχὺ χωριζόμενοι, πῶς, ὅτε ἀοράτῳ δυνάμει ἀπ' αὐτῶν διωχθῶσιν, οὐκέτι ἐν αὐτοῖς ἴχνη τῆς οἰκείας παρουσίας δεικνύουσιν;\n\nἈπόκρισις.\n\nἈδύνατον τὸν τοῖς δαίμοσι κάτοχον ποιῆσαί τι ἀπόν τος τοῦ δαίμονος· ὅσα γὰρ ποιεῖ τῇ παρουσίᾳ παρόντος τοῦ δαίμονος ποιεῖ, οὗ ἀποχωρήσαντος οὐδὲ τὰ ἴχνη αὐτοῦ πάρ εστιν· ἡ γὰρ ἀπελαύνουσα αὐτὸν ἀόρατος δύναμις φόβον αὐτῷ ἐντίθησι τοῦ μηκέτι πλησιάζειν τῷ τεθεραπευμένῳ. Ἐρώτησις μα.","english":"Every account is judged by its own end. And the end is to draw all to himself, when he has abolished every rule and authority and power. It is necessary, then, not to demand the things of the end before the end. And the Father draws to the Son by giving also to the Son authority and power to be able to draw all to himself. So it is not at one time the Father drawing to the Son and at another time the Son drawing to himself; therefore there is nothing contradictory in the accounts.\n\nQuestion 41.\n\nIf the demons dwell continually in those who are demon-possessed, how do they cause harm to others? And if they do this by departing for a short time from those who suffer, how is it that when they are driven away from them by an invisible power, they no longer show traces of their own presence in them?\n\nAnswer.\n\nIt is impossible for one possessed by demons to do anything with the demon absent; for whatever he does, he does by the presence of the demon when present, and when the demon has departed, not even his traces are present; for the invisible power that drives him away instills in him fear of approaching the healed person any longer.\n\nQuestion 42.","structure":"narrative","commentary":[],"ambiguities":[],"confidence":"","notes":[]},{"i":37,"ref":"p37","source":"ἰ μόνου θεοῦ ἐστι ζωὴν καὶ ἰσχὺν διδόναι τοῖς σώμασι, πῶς τοῦτο ποιοῦσιν οἱ δαίμονες, ἐνισχύοντες τῶν δαιμονώντων τὰ σώματα, ὥστε τὰ δεσμὰ καὶ τὰς ἁλύσεις συντρίβειν; Ἐδεσμεῖτο γὰρ ἁλύσεσι καὶ πέδαις, καὶ διαῤῥήσσων τὰ δεσμὰ ἠλαύνετο ὑπὸ τοῦ δαίμονος εἰς τὴν ἔρημον. Ἀπόκρισις.\n\nὐ τῷ σώματι παρέσχεν ὁ δαίμων τὴν δύναμιν πρὸς τὸ δύνασθαι συντρίβειν καὶ διαῤῥήσσειν τὰ δεσμὰ καὶ τὰς ἁλύ\n\nσεις, ἀλλὰ αὐτὸς ὁ δαίμων συνέτριβε καὶ διέῤῥηξε τὰ δεσμὰ καὶ τὰς ἁλύσεις, εἰ καὶ ἡ θεία γραφὴ τῷ δαιμονιῶντι προσῆψε τοῦ δαίμονος τὰ ἔργα.\n\nἘρώτησις μβ.\n\nἰ τῶν μερῶν τῆς κτίσεως οἱ δαίμονες οὐκ ἐξουσιάζουσι, διὰ τί παρακουσθέντων τῶν χρησμῶν τοῖς Ἕλλησι τιμωρίας ἐπήγαγον, καὶ θεραπευθέντων τῶν εἰδώλων ταύτας ἀνέσχον καὶ ἀγαθὰ αὐτοῖς ἀντὶ τούτων παρέσχον; Πόθεν οὖν αὐτοῖς δυνατὸν εἰς τὴν ἑκατέρου ἔννοιαν; Ἀπόκρισις.\n\nἜθος ἦν τοῖς δαίμοσι πρὸς πλάνην ἀνθρώπων προστι θέναι ἑαυτοῖς ὥσπερ τοῦ θεοῦ τὸ ὄνομα οὕτως καὶ τὴν ἰσχύν. Ὅτι δὲ οὐκ ἔστι τοῖς δαίμοσιν ἰσχὺς ἀμυντικὴ τῶν ἀνηκόων καὶ εὐεργετικὴ τῶν ὑπηκόων, δείκνυται ἐκ τῆς καταλύσεως ἧς ὑπέμεινεν ὁ ἑλληνισμὸς ὑπὸ τοῦ χριστιανισμοῦ. Φανερῶς γὰρ ὤφθη ὁ ἑλληνισμὸς οὐχ ἑτέρᾳ δυνάμει κατὰ τοῦ χριστιανισμοῦ χρησάμενος πλὴν τῇ διὰ χειρὸς ἀνθρώπων καὶ ξιφῶν· εἰ γὰρ εὐπόρει ὁ ἑλληνισμὸς θείας δυνάμεως ὑπερμαχούσης αὐτοῦ καταλυομένου, οὐκ ἂν τῇ ἀνθρωπίνῃ δυνάμει ἐχρήσατο σώζειν ἑαυτόν, μάτην προσδοκήσας θεοὺς αὑτοῦ, ἐκ τῆς καταλύσεως·","english":"If it belongs to God alone to give life and strength to bodies, how do the demons do this, strengthening the bodies of those possessed, so that they break their bonds and chains? For he was bound with chains and fetters, and breaking the bonds he was driven by the demon into the wilderness. Answer.\n\nThe demon did not give the body the power to be able to break and shatter the bonds and chains, but the demon himself broke and shattered the bonds and chains, even if the divine Scripture attributed the works of the demon to the one possessed.\n\nQuestion 42.\n\nIf the demons do not have authority over the parts of creation, why, when the oracles were disobeyed, did they bring punishments upon the Greeks, and when the idols were worshipped, did they withhold these and provide good things to them instead? From where, then, is it possible for them to have understanding of either? Answer.\n\nIt was a custom among the demons, for the deception of humans, to attribute to themselves both the name of God and his strength. But that the demons do not have strength to defend the disobedient and to benefit the obedient is shown from the dissolution which Hellenism suffered under Christianity. For it was plainly seen that Hellenism used no other power against Christianity except that through the hand of men and swords; for if Hellenism had possessed divine power fighting on its behalf when it was being destroyed, it would not have used human power to save itself, having vainly expected its own gods, from the dissolution—","structure":"narrative","commentary":[],"ambiguities":[],"confidence":"","notes":[]},{"i":38,"ref":"p38","source":"ὅπερ ἐστὶ μέγιστος ἔλεγχος τῆς τῶν δαιμόνων ἀσθενείας καὶ τοῦ μηδέποτε αὐτοὺς δυνηθῆναι θεῖα ἔργα ἐκτελεῖν, τιμωρη τικὰ τῶν ἀνηκόων καὶ εὐεργετικὰ τῶν ὑπηκόων. Ἔτι δὲ εἰ πᾶσα θεραπεία ἐστὶ ζώντων τε καὶ αἰσθανομένων, πῶς οὐκ ἔστι προδήλως ψευδὲς τὸ Θεραπευθέντων δὲ τῶν εἰδώλων ἀνέσχον τὰς τιμωρίας, τῶν μήτε ζώντων μήτε αἰσθανομένων, ἀλλ' ὥσπερ πρὸς τὰς θεραπείας οὕτως καὶ πρὸς τὴν παρακοὴν τῶν χρησμῶν ἀναισθήτως ἐχόντων; Ἐρώτησις μγ.\n\nἰ ἐν τῷ καιρῷ τοῦ κατακλυσμοῦ λέγει ὅτι δύο δύο καὶ ἑπτὰ ἑπτὰ ἐν τῇ κιβωτῷ εἰσηνέχθησαν ἀλογίστως, οὐ τέσσαρα καὶ δεκατέσσαρα ἐκ τῶν ἀκαθάρτων καὶ καθαρῶν, καί τινες τέσσαρα εἰρήκασι, τινὲς δὲ ὅτι δύο ἀκάθαρτα μόνον, ὁτιοῦν ἐκ τῶν δύο ἀληθέστερον;\n\nἈπόκρισις.\n\nἈληθέστερον εἶπεν ὁ εἰπὼν τέσσαρα καὶ δεκατέσσαρα τοῦ εἰπόντος δύο καὶ ἑπτά· τὰ γὰρ δύο δύο εἶπεν ἀντὶ τοῦ δύο ἄῤῥενα καὶ δύο θήλεα, καὶ ἑπτὰ ἑπτὰ ἀντὶ τοῦ ἑπτὰ ἄῤῥενα καὶ ἑπτὰ θήλεα. Ἀκάθαρτα δὲ τὰ δύο δύο. Ἐρώτησις μδ.","english":"This is the greatest proof of the weakness of the demons and that they could never accomplish divine works—works that are punitive for the disobedient and beneficent for the obedient. Moreover, if all healing is of the living and the sentient, how is it not plainly false that \"when their idols were healed, they held back their punishments\"—idols that neither live nor perceive, but are insensible both to the healings and likewise to the disobedience of the oracles? Question 43.\n\nIn the time of the flood, he says that two by two and seven by seven were brought into the ark without reason, not four and fourteen from the unclean and the clean; and some have said four, and some that only two unclean—which of the two is truer?\n\nAnswer.\n\nHe who said four and fourteen spoke more truly than he who said two and seven; for \"two by two\" he said in place of two male and two female, and \"seven by seven\" in place of seven male and seven female. And the unclean were two by two. Question 44.","structure":"narrative","commentary":[],"ambiguities":[],"confidence":"","notes":[]},{"i":39,"ref":"p39","source":"Ἐπειδὴ τὴν τῶν πολυομμάτων ζώων Ἡσαΐας καὶ Ἰεζεκιὴλ ἐθεάσαντο ὀπτασίαν, ἆρα ἀμφοτέροις ἕν τι ἀπεκαλύπτετο ἢ θατέρῳ ἐδείκνυτο θάτερον; Τί δὲ καὶ ἐδείκνυτο δεικνύμενον;\n\nἈπόκρισις.\n\nΔιὰ μὲν τῆς κατὰ τὸν προφήτην Ἡσαΐαν ὀπτασίας τὸ κατὰ τὸν Χριστὸν ἐδήλου μυστήριον, καθήμενον ἐπὶ θρόνου δόξης καὶ τῇ βρώσει τῆς ἁγίας αὐτοῦ σαρκὸς καθαρισμὸν ποι οῦντα ἁμαρτίας ἀσεβῶν ἀνθρώπων, τῶν ἐν πάσῃ τῇ γῇ δοξα\n\nζόντων τὴν ἁγίαν καὶ ὁμότιμον τριάδα ἐπὶ τῷ μεγέθει τῶν θείων δωρεῶν, ἧς τῷ ὀνόματι βαπτισθέντες ἐδικαιώθησαν λαβόντες τῆς τῶν οὐρανίων καὶ αἰωνίων ἀγαθῶν μετουσίας τὴν ἐλπίδα. Ὃν γὰρ ἐθεάσατο ὁ προφήτης ἄνθρακα τοῖς ἀκα θάρτοις αὑτοῦ χείλεσι προσαγόμενον εἰς κάθαρσιν ἀνομιῶν τε καὶ ἁμαρτιῶν, μήνυμα εἶχε τῆς δεσποτικῆς σαρκὸς καθαρι ζούσης τὸ συνειδὸς τῶν ἐσθιόντων αὐτὴν ἀπὸ πάσης ἀσεβείας. Διὰ δὲ τῆς κατὰ τὸν προφήτην Ἰεζεκιὴλ ὀπτασίας τὰ μέλλοντα ἐδήλου συμβήσεσθαι τῷ Ναβουχοδονόσορ, βασιλεῖ Βαβυλῶνος, ψυχαγωγίαν ὄντα τῶν ἐν τῇ αἰχμαλωσίᾳ ἐν Βαβυλῶνι ὄντων Ἰσραηλιτῶν. Ἐθεάσατο δὲ ὁ προφήτης τετραπρόσωπα ζῶα, ὁμοιώματα ἔχοντα ἀνθρώπου τε καὶ λέοντος, μόσχου τε καὶ ἀετοῦ· λέγει δὲ καὶ ὁ προφήτης Δανιὴλ περὶ τοῦ Ναβουχοδονόσορ, ὅτι ηὐξήνθησαν οἱ ὄνυχες αὐτοῦ ὡς ἀετοῦ καὶ αἱ τρίχες αὐτοῦ ὡς λέοντος, καὶ χόρτον ἐψώμισαν αὐτὸν ὡς τὸν μόσχον, καὶ καρδία ἀνθρώπου ἐδόθη αὐτῷ.","english":"Since Isaiah and Ezekiel beheld the vision of the many-eyed creatures, was one and the same thing revealed to both, or was one thing shown to the one and another to the other? And what was it that was shown?\n\nAnswer.\n\nThrough the vision seen by the prophet Isaiah, the mystery concerning Christ was signified—him who sits upon a throne of glory and by the eating of his holy flesh works purification of the sins of impious men, of those who in all the earth glorify the holy and consubstantial Trinity for the greatness of the divine gifts, by whose name having been baptized they were justified, receiving the hope of participation in the heavenly and eternal good things. For the coal which the prophet saw brought to his unclean lips for the cleansing of lawlessnesses and sins was a token of the master's flesh, which cleanses the conscience of those who eat it from all impiety. And through the vision seen by the prophet Ezekiel, he signified the things that were to befall Nebuchadnezzar, king of Babylon, which were an encouragement to the Israelites who were in captivity in Babylon. And the prophet saw four-faced creatures, having likenesses of a man and a lion, a calf and an eagle; and the prophet Daniel also says concerning Nebuchadnezzar that his nails grew like an eagle's and his hair like a lion's, and they fed him grass like the calf, and a man's heart was given to him.","structure":"narrative","commentary":[],"ambiguities":[],"confidence":"","notes":[]},{"i":40,"ref":"p40","source":"Ἐκ ταύτης δὲ τῆς ὀπτα σίας ψυχαγωγίαν τινὰ ἐντίθησι τοῖς Ἰσραηλίταις, τοὺς πρὸς τὴν κραταιάν τε καὶ ἰσχυρὰν σφόδρα τῶν Βαβυλωνίων δυνα στείαν ἀποβλεψαμένους καὶ ἐν ἀπογνώσει καθεστῶτας τοῦ μὴ δύνασθαι ἔτι ἐκ τῆς τοιαύτης αἰχμαλωσίας τυχεῖν ἐλευθερίας· ἵνα οὖν ἀπὸ ταύτης τῆς ἀπογνώσεως μεταστήσῃ τοὺς Ἰσραηλίτας ὁ θεὸς καὶ παρασκευάσῃ αὐτοὺς πρὸς τὴν αὐτοῦ δυνα στείαν ἀποβλέπειν, δείκνυσι τῷ προφήτῃ ἡμέρου τε καὶ ἀνη μέρου ζώου τὴν σύζευξιν καὶ βαρυσώμου καὶ πετεινοῦ τὴν σύμπηξιν· ἥμερον μὲν γὰρ ζῶον ὁ ἄνθρωπος, ἀνήμερον δὲ ὁ λέων, καὶ βαρύσωμον μὲν ζῶον ὁ μόσχος, πετεινὸν δὲ καὶ κοῦφον ζῶον ὁ ἀετός. Ἐν ἐκείνοις μὲν οὖν δηλοῖ τὴν τῆς βασιλείας ἐξ ἀνημέρου εἰς ἡμερότητα μετάστασιν, ἐν τούτοις δὲ τῆς βαρύτητος τῆς δουλείας εἰς τὴν ἐλευθερίαν μεταβολήν· ὑπό ζυγος γὰρ ὁ μόσχος, ζυγοῦ δὲ ἐλεύθερος ὁ ἀετός. Δείκνυσι δὲ τῷ προφήτῃ καὶ τροχὸν ἐν τῷ τροχῷ, μηνύων δι' αὐτῶν τὴν τῶν Ἰουδαίων ἀπαγωγὴν εἰς αἰχμαλωσίαν καὶ ἀπαγωγὴν εἰς τὰ ἴδια.","english":"But by this vision he instills a certain encouragement in the Israelites, who were looking toward the mighty and exceedingly strong dominion of the Babylonians and were in despair that they could no longer obtain freedom from such captivity. So then, in order that God might remove the Israelites from this despair and prepare them to look toward his own dominion, he shows the prophet the yoking together of a tame and a wild animal, and the joining of a heavy-bodied creature and a bird. For the tame animal is man, the wild animal is the lion; the heavy-bodied animal is the calf, and the bird, a light creature, is the eagle. In those, then, he makes clear the transition of the kingdom from wildness to tameness; in these, the change from the heaviness of slavery to freedom. For the calf is under the yoke, but the eagle is free from the yoke. He also shows the prophet a wheel within a wheel, signifying by them the leading away of the Jews into captivity and their leading back to their own land.","structure":"narrative","commentary":[],"ambiguities":[],"confidence":"","notes":[]},{"i":41,"ref":"p41","source":"Ἐρώτησις με.\n\nΔιὰ τί ἐπὶ τοῦ Ἰεζεκιὴλ κατακέχρηται ὁ θεῖος ὁρισμὸς τῷ τοῦ υἱοῦ τοῦ ἀνθρώπου προσρήματι, ὅπερ ἐπὶ τῶν ἄλλων προφητῶν οὐκ ἐποίησε; Καὶ εἰ τὴν παγκόσμιον ἀνάστασιν ἐπὶ τῶν ξηρῶν ὀστέων ὁ αὐτὸς προφήτης τεθέαται, καὶ εἰ τῷ ὄντι ἀνέστησαν τὰ ὀστέα ἄνθρωποι γενόμενοι τέλειοι, καθὼς ἡ τοῦ αὐτοῦ προφήτου διδάσκει βίβλος; Ἀπόκρισις.\n\nἘπειδὴ ἔμελλε διὰ τοῦ προφήτου Ἰεζεκιὴλ κατ' ὀπτασίαν προγράφεσθαι τῶν νεκρῶν ἡ ἀνάστασις, μέλλουσα γίνεσθαι ἐπὶ πραγμάτων διὰ τοῦ υἱοῦ τοῦ ἀνθρώπου κατὰ τὸ εἰρημέ νον· Ἔρχεται ἡμέρα καὶ νῦν ἐστίν, ὅτε πάντες οἱ ἐν τοῖς μνημείοις ἀκούσονται τῆς φωνῆς τοῦ υἱοῦ τοῦ ἀνθρώπου, καὶ οἱ ἀκούσαντες ζήσονται· διὰ τοῦτο καλεῖται τῷ τοῦ υἱοῦ τοῦ ἀνθρώπου ὀνόματι. Καθάπερ Ἰησοῦς, ὁ τοῦ Ναυῆ, μέλλων κατ' αὐθεντίαν ἡλίῳ καὶ σελήνῃ προστάσσειν τὴν στάσιν,\n\nλαμβάνει τοῦ Ἰησοῦ τὸ ὑπὸ τῆς κτίσεως τῇ ὑπακοῇ τοῦ προστάγματος τιμώμενον, οὕτως καὶ ὁ Ἰεζεκιὴλ λαμβάνει τοῦ υἱοῦ τοῦ ἀνθρώπου τὸ ὄνομα καὶ διὰ τῆς ὀπτασίας ἐγείρει τοὺς νεκροὺς τῇ δυνάμει τοῦ προσρήματος. Ἠν δὲ ἐπὶ τοῦ Ἰεζεκιὴλ τὰ πάντα ὀπτασία, καὶ τὰ ὀστέα καὶ ἡ τούτων ἀνάστασις. Δείκνυσι δὲ τῷ προφήτῃ ταύτην τὴν ὀπτασίαν ὁ θεός, προηγουμένως μὲν μηνύων δι' αὐτῆς τὴν ἐσομένην διὰ Χριστοῦ πάντων κοσμικὴν ἀνάστασιν τὴν ἐκ νεκρῶν, ἔπειτα δὲ διὰ τὴν ψυχαγωγίαν τῶν Ἰσραηλιτῶν τῶν ἀπογνόντων ἑαυτοὺς τῷ δεδουλῶσθαι ὅτι ἐλεύθεροι ἔσονται τῆς τῶν Βαβυλωνίων βασι λείας.","english":"Question 45.\n\nWhy does the divine ordinance use the title \"son of man\" in the case of Ezekiel, which it did not do in the case of the other prophets? And did the same prophet behold the worldwide resurrection in the dry bones, and did the bones truly rise up, becoming perfect human beings, as the book of the same prophet teaches? Answer.\n\nBecause the resurrection of the dead was about to be foretold in a vision through the prophet Ezekiel—the resurrection that was to take place in reality through the son of man, according to what was said: \"The hour is coming and now is, when all who are in the tombs will hear the voice of the son of man, and those who hear will live.\" For this reason he is called by the name \"son of man.\" Just as Joshua, the son of Nun, when he was about to command the sun and the moon to stand still by his own authority, received the name of Jesus, which is honored by creation through the obedience of his command, so too Ezekiel receives the name \"son of man\" and through the vision raises the dead by the power of the title. And in the case of Ezekiel everything was a vision—both the bones and their resurrection. God shows this vision to the prophet, first of all signifying through it the universal resurrection from the dead that will come about through Christ, and then for the encouragement of the Israelites, who had despaired of themselves in their enslavement, that they would be free from the kingdom of the Babylonians.","structure":"narrative","commentary":[],"ambiguities":[],"confidence":"","notes":[]},{"i":42,"ref":"p42","source":"Καθάπερ γὰρ τὰ νεκρὰ σώματα ἐν τοῖς μνημείοις κεί μενα, ἐλπίδα οὐκ ἔχοντα ἐγέρσεως, οὕτως ἑαυτοὺς ἐλογίσαντο εἶναι ἐν Βαβυλῶνι, χωρὶς πάσης ἐλπίδος τῆς ἐπανόδου. Δηλοῖ δὲ τοῦτο ὁ αὐτὸς προφήτης ἐν οἷς λέγει· Καὶ ἐλάλησε κύριος πρός με λέγων· Υἱὲ ἀνθρώπου, τὰ ὀστᾶ ταῦτα πᾶς οἶκος Ἰσραήλ ἐστιν. ὐτοὶ λέγουσι· Ξηρὰ γέγονε τὰ ὀστᾶ ἡμῶν, ἀπώλετο ἡ ἐλπὶς ἡμῶν, καὶ τὰ ἑξῆς. Ἐρώτησις μ.\n\nἰ καλὰ τὰ τοῦ βίου πάντα, διὰ τί οἱ τούτων ἀπεχόμενοι ἐν γραφαῖς ἐπαινοῦνται, καὶ οἱ ἀντεχόμενοι αὐτῶν διαβάλλονται; ἰ δὲ φαῦλα τυγχάνει, διὰ τί τὰ φαῦλα τῇ ἡμετέρᾳ ζωῇ συμπαρέζευκται, καὶ ταῦτα ἀγαθοῦ τοῦ δημιουργοῦ τυγχά νοντος;\n\nἈπόκρισις.\n\nὐχ ἁπλῶς ἐπαινετὸν τὸ ἀπέχεσθαι τῶν τοῦ βίου κα λῶν, οὔτε ἁπλῶς ψεκτὸν τὸ ἀντέχεσθαι αὐτῶν, ἀλλ' ἑκάτερον πρέποντι λόγῳ γιγνόμενον, καὶ τὸ ἀπέχεσθαι καὶ τὸ ἀντέχεσθαι αὐτῶν, ἐστὶν ἐπαινετόν· ἐναντίως δὲ γιγνόμενον, ἀμφότερά ἐστι ψεκτά. Ὅτι δὲ οὐδὲν φαῦλον κατ' οὐσίαν συμ παρέζευκται τῇ ἡμετέρᾳ ζωῇ, δηλοῖ ἡ θεία γραφὴ τῶν δημιουργημάτων ἐπαινοῦσα τὴν γένεσιν, λέγουσα· Καὶ εἶδεν ὁ θεὸς πάντα ὅσα ἐποίησε, καὶ ἰδοὺ καλὰ λίαν. Παρατρεψάν των δὲ ἡμῶν ἑκουσίως τὰ καλά, φαῦλα ὑφίσταται. ὐκ ἔστι γὰρ φαῦλον ἐν τῷ ὑγιεῖ, τῶν ἐν αὐτῷ καλῶν ἀνατρέπτων με νόντων· ὥστε μηδὲν εἶναι φαῦλον παρὰ τὴν παρατροπὴν τοῦ καλοῦ. ὐδὲν οὖν συμπαρέζευκται φαῦλον τῇ ἡμετέρᾳ ζωῇ· τὰ γὰρ φαῦλα χρήσει ἀλόγῳ εἰσὶ φαῦλα καὶ οὐ φύσει, προαιρετὸν δὲ τὸ κεχρῆσθαι ἢ καλῶς ἢ φαύλως. Ἐρώτησις μζ.","english":"For just as dead bodies lying in tombs have no hope of resurrection, so they considered themselves to be in Babylon, without any hope of return. The same prophet makes this clear in what he says: \"And the Lord spoke to me, saying: Son of man, these bones are the whole house of Israel. They say: Our bones have become dry, our hope has perished,\" and so on. Question 46.\n\nIf all the things of life are good, why are those who abstain from them praised in the Scriptures, and those who cling to them condemned? But if they are evil, why have evil things been yoked together with our life, and this when the Creator is good?\n\nAnswer.\n\nAbstaining from the good things of life is not simply praiseworthy, nor is clinging to them simply blameworthy; but each, when done with fitting reason, both abstaining and clinging to them, is praiseworthy; but when done in the opposite way, both are blameworthy. That nothing evil by nature has been yoked together with our life, divine Scripture makes clear when it praises the creation of the created things, saying: \"And God saw all things whatsoever he made, and behold, they were very good.\" But when we pervert good things willingly, evil things come to exist. For evil is not in what is healthy, since the good things in it remain and do not overturn it; so that nothing is evil except by the perversion of the good. Nothing evil, therefore, has been yoked together with our life; for evil things are evil by irrational use and not by nature, and it is a matter of choice whether to use them well or badly. Question 47.","structure":"narrative","commentary":[],"ambiguities":[],"confidence":"","notes":[]},{"i":43,"ref":"p43","source":"ἰ τοῖς στοιχείοις οὐ πρόσεστιν αἴσθησις, διὰ τί Μωϋσῆς μὲν οὐρανὸν καὶ γῆν τῷ λαῷ διαμαρτύρεται, Ἡσαΐας δὲ κατη γορῶν τοῦ αὐτοῦ λαοῦ τούτοις ἀκούειν ἐγκελεύεται; Ἀπόκρισις.\n\nΤὰ λεγόμενα πρὸς τὸν οὐρανὸν καὶ τὴν γῆν πρὸς τοὺς ἐν αὐτοῖς λέγεται λογικούς, ὡς τὰ λεγόμενα πρὸς τὴν πόλιν πρὸς τοὺς πολίτας λέγεται, ὡς τὸ Ἱερουσαλὴμ Ἱερουσαλὴμ ἡ ἀποκτείνουσα τοὺς προφήτας καὶ λιθοβολοῦσα τοὺς ἀπεσταλμένους πρὸς αὐτήν. ὐ γὰρ ἡ πόλις ἀπέκτεινε καὶ ἐλιθοβόλησεν ἀλλὰ οἱ πολῖται.\n\nἘρώτησις μη.\n\nΔιὰ τί ὁ κύριος ἔλεγε πρὸς τὴν Μαρίαν μετὰ τὴν ἔγερσιν· Μή μου ἅπτου· οὔπω γὰρ ἀναβέβηκα πρὸς τὸν πατέρα μου; ἰ μὲν οὖν πρὸ τῆς ἀναλήψεως οὐδενὶ ἐξῆν αὐτοῦ ἅπτε σθαι, πῶς μετὰ μικρὸν τοῖς μαθηταῖς καὶ τῷ Θωμᾷ ποιεῖν ἐπέτρεπε τοῦτο; ἰ δὲ ἐξῆν, πῶς ὃ ἔμελλε μετὰ μικρὸν τοῖς πολλοῖς ἐπιτρέπειν ἀπηγόρευσε τῇ Μαρίᾳ πρὸ μικροῦ; Ἀπόκρισις.\n\nΤὸ Μή μου ἅπτου εἴρηται πρὸς τὴν Μαρίαν ὑπὸ τοῦ σω τῆρος κατὰ τὴν ἔννοιαν τοῦ Μή μοι ἀκολούθει, ὥστε διὰ παντὸς συνεῖναί μοι κατὰ τὴν πρὸ τοῦ σταυροῦ μου διαγωγήν. Ἐβούλετο γὰρ κατὰ μικρὸν ἀπεθίζειν τοὺς μαθητὰς τῆς τοῦ σώματος αὐτοῦ θέας τε καὶ παρουσίας· διὸ οὔτε διὰ παντὸς ὡρᾶτο τοῖς μαθηταῖς ἐν ταῖς ἡμέραις ἐν αἷς διέτριβεν ἐπὶ τῆς γῆς μετὰ τὴν ἀνάστασιν, οὔτε πάντη ἀθέατον αὐτοῖς ἑαυ τὸν κατέστησεν, ἀλλ' ἐκ διαλείμματος ἀμφότερα ἐποιεῖτο, καὶ τὸ ὁρᾶσθαι αὐτοῖς καὶ τὸ μὴ ὁρᾶσθαι. Ἐρώτησις μθ.","english":"If the elements have no perception, why does Moses call heaven and earth to witness to the people, and Isaiah, when accusing the same people, command them to hear? Answer.\n\nWhat is said to heaven and earth is said to the rational beings in them, just as what is said to a city is said to its citizens, as in \"Jerusalem, Jerusalem, the one killing the prophets and stoning those sent to her.\" For it was not the city that killed and stoned, but the citizens.\n\nQuestion 49.\n\nWhy did the Lord say to Mary after the resurrection, \"Do not touch me, for I have not yet ascended to my Father\"? If, then, before the ascension it was not permitted to anyone to touch him, how did he shortly afterward permit the disciples and Thomas to do this? But if it was permitted, why did he forbid Mary shortly before what he was about to permit to many shortly afterward? Answer.\n\n\"Do not touch me\" was said to Mary by the Savior in the sense of \"Do not follow me,\" so as to be with me continually in the manner of life I had before my cross. For he wished gradually to wean the disciples from the sight and presence of his body; therefore he was neither visible to the disciples at all times during the days he spent on earth after the resurrection, nor did he make himself entirely invisible to them, but at intervals he did both—both being seen by them and not being seen. Question 49.","structure":"narrative","commentary":[],"ambiguities":[],"confidence":"","notes":[]},{"i":44,"ref":"p44","source":"Τίς ἡ ἀπόδειξις τοῦ μόνα δύο θηρία τε καὶ κτήνη, ἄρσεν καὶ θῆλυ, ἐν τῇ κοσμοποιΐᾳ παρῆχθαι, ἐπειδὴ τοῦτό τινες τῶν εὐσεβῶν εἰρήκασι πρὸς σύστασιν τοῦ μὴ ἐξ ἀλόγων δορᾶς τοὺς δερματίνους χιτῶνας τοῖς πρώτοις ἀνθρώποις ὑπὸ τοῦ θεοῦ δίδοσθαι;\n\nἈπόκρισις.\n\nἰ ἐν ἑκάστῳ γένει ἐστί τινα γεναρχῆ, καὶ τὰ μὲν γεναρχῆ ἐστιν ἔργα θεοῦ, τὰ δὲ ὑπὸ τὰ γεναρχῆ εἰσιν ἔργα φύσεως διὰ σπορᾶς καὶ γενέσεως ὑφεστῶτα, δῆλον ὅτι ἑκάστου γένους πλὴν τῆς μιᾶς ζυγῆς ἀῤῥενοθήλεος οὐκ ἐποίησεν ὁ θεός. Χιτῶνας δὲ δερματίνους ἐποίησεν ὁ θεὸς οὐκ ἀνθρωπίνως ἀλλὰ δημιουργικῶς· οὐ γὰρ ζῶα σφάξας καὶ τούτων τὰ δέρματα συῤ ῥάψας χιτῶνας ἐποίησεν, ἀλλ' αὐτοὺς τοὺς χιτῶνας ἐδημιούρ γησε τοὺς δερματίνους. Ἀλλ' ἴσως ἐρεῖ τις ὅτι ἰ ἐδημιούρ γησεν ὁ θεὸς τοὺς δερματίνους χιτῶνας μετὰ τὰς ἑπτὰ ἡμέρας τῆς δημιουργίας, πῶς λέγει ἡ θεία γραφὴ ὅτι Κατέπαυσεν ὁ θεὸς ἐν τῇ ἡμέρᾳ τῇ ἑβδόμῃ ἀπὸ πάντων τῶν ἔργων ὧν ἤρξατο ποιεῖν; Κατέπαυσε τὴν ποίησιν, τουτέστι τοῦ ποιεῖν τὰ μὴ ὄντα· τὰ δὲ δέρματα, ἃ νῦν ποιεῖ, οὐ νῦν ἄρχεται ποιεῖν, ἀλλ' ἐν τῇ ποιήσει τῶν ζώων καὶ τὰ δέρματα αὐτῶν ἐγίνοντο πάλαι. Κατὰ ταῦτα δὲ καὶ τὸ Ἔπλασεν ἔτι κύριος ὁ θεὸς ἀπὸ τῆς γῆς πάντα τὰ κτήνη καὶ τὰ θηρία τῆς γῆς, καὶ ἤγαγεν αὐτὰ πρὸς τὸν Ἀδάμ, καὶ τὰ ἑξῆς· τὸ γὰρ ἔτι τὴν δευτέραν σημαίνει τούτων γένεσιν.","english":"What is the proof that only two beasts and cattle, male and female, were brought forth in the creation of the world, since some of the pious have said this to establish that the leathern tunics were not given by God to the first humans from the skins of irrational animals?\n\nAnswer.\n\nIn each kind there are certain things that are the originators of the kind, and the originators of the kind are works of God, while the things under the originators of the kind are works of nature subsisting through seed and generation; it is clear that God did not make, of each kind, except the one male-female pair. But God made the leathern tunics not in a human way but in a creative way; for he did not slaughter animals and sew their skins together to make tunics, but he created the leathern tunics themselves. But perhaps someone will say, If God created the leathern tunics after the seven days of creation, how does the divine Scripture say that God rested on the seventh day from all the works that he had begun to do? He rested from creation, that is, from making the things that are not; but the skins, which he now makes, he did not now begin to make, but in the making of the animals their skins also came into being long ago. In accordance with these things also is the passage, And the Lord God still formed from the earth all the cattle and the beasts of the earth, and brought them to Adam, and the rest; for the word still signifies their second generation.","structure":"narrative","commentary":[],"ambiguities":[],"confidence":"","notes":[]},{"i":45,"ref":"p45","source":"Ἐρώτησις ν.\n\nἘπειδὴ πάλαι μὲν οἱ παῖδες, νῦν δὲ ἡμεῖς ὑμνοῦντες τῇ ὠσαννὰ φωνῇ καὶ τῇ τοῦ ἀλληλούϊα κεχρήμεθα, τίς ἐστιν ἡ τούτων ἑρμηνεία;\n\nἈπόκρισις.\n\nἙρμηνεία ἐστὶ τοῦ μὲν ἀλληλούϊα τὸ ὑμνήσατε μετὰ μέ λους τὸ ὄν, τοῦ δὲ ὠσαννὰ μεγαλωσύνη ὑπερκειμένη.\n\nἘρώτησις να.\n\nἰ ἄτρεπτον τὸ θεῖον, πῶς βλασφημούμενον καὶ εὐφη μούμενον τὰς ἀμοιβὰς ἀμφοτέροις τῆς ἑκατέρων πράξεως πολλάκις ἀξίας ἀπέδωκεν;\n\nἈπόκρισις.\n\nΜένων ὁ θεὸς ἐν τῇ οἰκείᾳ αἰσθήσει τε καὶ δικαιοσύνῃ ἀτρέπτως ἑκάστῳ τὰ κατ' ἀξίαν ἀποδίδωσιν· οὐ μὴν κατὰ παρατροπὴν τοῦτο ποιεῖ εὑρών, ἀλλ' ἀεὶ ἐσχηκὼς ἔχει τὸ ἐν τούτοις ἄτρεπτον· καὶ ἔχων ἐν ἴσῃ τάξει ἔχει περί τε βλασφήμους καὶ τοὺς ὑπὸ ἀναισθησίας κατεχομένους ἢ ἀδικίας, ἅπερ ἐστὶ τὰ ἀλλότρια.\n\nἘρώτησις νβ.\n\nἰ εὐσεβεῖ ζήλῳ κινούμενος ὁ Σαοὺλ τὰς ἐγγαστριμύθους ἀνεῖλε, διὰ τί συνηλάθη ὥστε παρὰ ἐγγαστριμύθου ζη τῆσαι πρόῤῥησιν; Καὶ εἰ τῷ ὄντι ἐκείνη τὸν Σαμουὴλ ἀνήγαγεν, ἐπειδὴ τοῦτό φησιν ἡ γραφή; Καὶ ὅτι ἀληθεύει μὲν αὕτη, τὸ δὲ πρᾶγμα ἀσεβὲς δῆλον.","english":"Question 50.\n\nSince formerly the children, but now we ourselves, in singing have used the word hosanna and the word alleluia, what is the interpretation of these?\n\nAnswer.\n\nThe interpretation of alleluia is \"praise with songs the One who is,\" and of hosanna, \"greatness that is supreme.\"\n\nQuestion 51.\n\nIf the divine nature is immutable, how is it that when blasphemed and when spoken well of, it has often rendered to both the recompense worthy of each one's deeds?\n\nAnswer.\n\nGod, remaining in his own perception and righteousness immutably, renders to each according to worth; yet he does not do this by way of alteration upon discovering it, but always having it, he possesses immutability in these matters; and holding it in equal order, he holds it concerning both blasphemers and those possessed by insensibility or injustice, which are things alien to him.\n\nQuestion 52.\n\nSaul, moved by pious zeal, destroyed the ventriloquists; why then was he brought to the point of seeking a foretelling from a ventriloquist? And did that woman really bring up Samuel, since the Scripture says this? And that she speaks truth, but the matter is plainly impious.","structure":"narrative","commentary":[],"ambiguities":[],"confidence":"","notes":[]},{"i":46,"ref":"p46","source":"Ἀπόκρισις.\n\nὉ ζήλῳ θείῳ ποιῶν τι οὗτος οὐ θεομαχεῖ. Ὑπόνοιαν δὲ ὁ Σαοὺλ ἐσχηκὼς εἰς τὸν Δαυΐδ, ὡς εἰς αὐτὸν μετέθηκεν ὁ θεὸς τὴν αὐτοῦ βασιλείαν, παντελῶς ἐμηχανᾶτο ἀναιρεῖν τὸν Δαυΐδ, ἵνα εἰς ἔργον μὴ ἐκβῇ ἐπ' αὐτὸν ἡ θεία ψῆφος. Ἀνεῖλε δὲ τὰς ἐγγαστριμύθους, τούτῳ προσδοκήσας διαλλάξαι τὸν θεόν, ὥστε ἀναστρέψαι τὴν ἀποδοκιμάσασαν αὐτὸν τῆς βασι λείας οἰκείαν ψῆφον, οὐ τὴν ἀσέβειαν τῶν ἐγγαστριμύθων μι σῶν, ἀλλὰ τὴν βασιλείαν φιλῶν· καὶ ἐπειδὴ οὐ προσεδέξατο ὁ θεὸς τὸν σκοπὸν αὐτοῦ, διὰ τοῦτο αὐτὸν ἐγκατέλιπεν ἐπι δεηθῆναι ὧν οὐκ ἀγαθῷ σκοπῷ ἐποιήσατο τὴν ἀναίρεσιν. Τὰ δὲ ἄλλα πάντα ὑπὸ τῆς ἐγγαστριμύθου γεγονότα κατὰ τὴν ἐνέργειαν τοῦ δαίμονος τοῦ τὰς ὄψεις φαντάσαντος τῶν ὁρώντων τὸν οὐκ ὄντα Σαμουήλ. Ἡ δὲ ἀλήθεια τῶν·ημάτων γέγονεν ἐκ τοῦ θεοῦ τοῦ δεδωκότος τῷ δαίμονι ἐν σχήματι τοῦ Σαμουὴλ ὀφθῆναι τῇ ἐγγαστριμύθῳ καὶ δεῖξαι τοῦ μέλλοντος τὴν δή λωσιν. Καὶ ἐπειδὴ τοῦ Σαμουὴλ οὐκ ἤκουσεν ὁ Σαοὺλ τοῦ εἰρηκότος αὐτῷ τῆς βασιλείας τὴν ἀφαίρεσιν, ἀλλὰ καὶ μετὰ τὴν θείαν ψῆφον ἀποδοκιμάσασαν αὐτὸν τῆς βασιλείας ἔτι ἀντεποιεῖτο τῆς βασιλείας, διὰ τοῦτο ἀνάξιον αὐτὸν ἔκρινεν ὁ θεὸς τοῦ διὰ τῶν ἀνακειμένων αὐτῷ προμηνῦσαι αὐτῷ τὰ ἐσόμενα, καθάπερ πεποίηκε καὶ ἐπὶ τὸν Ἀχαὰβ βασιλέα τοῦ Ἰσραήλ, τὸν ἀπιστήσαντα τοῖς τῆς ἀληθείας προφήταις καὶ πιστεύσαντα τοῖς ψευδοπροφήταις, δι' ἣν αἰτίαν ἔπεμψεν αὐτῷ πνεῦμα ψευδές, καθώς φησιν ἡ βίβλος τῶν Βασιλειῶν, καὶ πιστεύσας ὁ Ἀχαὰβ καὶ πλανηθεὶς ἀπῆλθεν εἰς τὴν Ῥεμμὰθ καὶ ζῶν οὐκ ἀνέκαμψεν.","english":"Answer.\n\nHe who does something with divine zeal does not fight against God. But Saul, having conceived a suspicion regarding David, that God had transferred his kingdom to him, contrived by every means to kill David, so that the divine sentence might not be carried out against him. And he destroyed the ventriloquists, hoping by this to reconcile God, so as to reverse the verdict of his own household that had rejected him from the kingdom—not hating the impiety of the ventriloquists, but loving the kingdom. And since God did not accept his purpose, for this reason he abandoned him to petition for the things whose removal he had undertaken with no good purpose. But all the other things that happened by the ventriloquist were according to the operation of the demon who presented to the sight of the beholders the appearance of Samuel, who was not there. But the truth of the words came from God, who granted the demon to appear in the form of Samuel to the ventriloquist and to show the revelation of what was to come. And since Saul did not listen to Samuel, who had told him of the removal of the kingdom, but even after the divine sentence that rejected him from the kingdom still laid claim to the kingdom, for this reason God judged him unworthy to have the future foretold to him through those consecrated to him, just as he also did in the case of Ahab, king of Israel, who disbelieved the prophets of truth and believed the false prophets; for which cause he sent him a lying spirit, as the book of Kings says, and Ahab, having believed and been deceived, went to Ramoth and did not return alive.","structure":"narrative","commentary":[],"ambiguities":[],"confidence":"","notes":[]},{"i":47,"ref":"p47","source":"Ἐρώτησις νγ.\n\nἰ ἄρσεν καὶ θῆλυ ἕνεκεν τῆς παιδοποιΐας ἐκτίσθη, τῆς ἀναστάσεως γινομένης ἆρα ἀνίστανται οἱ ἄνθρωποι τὴν τῶν παιδοποιῶν μορίων διαφορὰν ἔχοντες; Καὶ εἰ τοῦτο, πῶς οὐκ ἔστι περιττὸν τὸ μέλη ἐπάγεσθαι ἄπρακτα;\n\nἈπόκρισις.\n\nἰ καὶ πρὸς παιδοποιΐαν οὐκ ἔστι χρήσιμα τὰ γεννητικὰ μόρια μετὰ τὴν ἀνάστασιν, ἀλλὰ πρὸς ἀνάμνησιν τοῦ διὰ τῶν τοιούτων μορίων εἰληφέναι τοὺς ἀνθρώπους τὴν γένεσίν τε καὶ τὴν αὔξησιν καὶ τὴν διαμονήν ἐστι χρήσιμα· εἰσαγόμεθα γὰρ δι' αὐτῶν εἰς ἔννοιαν τῆς τηλικαύτης Χριστοῦ σοφίας τῆς ταῦτα κτισάσης, καὶ τῆς ἀνθρωπότητος διὰ τοῦ θανάτου αὐξανομένης, φυλακῆς τε τοῦ γένους ἡμῶν ἐν ἀθανασίᾳ τῇ διαδοχῇ τῶν τικτομένων.\n\nἘρώτησις νδ.\n\nἰ διὰ τὴν παράβασιν τὴν μέλλουσαν ταύτην ἐπάγεσθαι τῷ λαῷ τιμωρίαν ὁ Μωϋσῆς προεφήτευσε, διὰ τί μετ' ᾠδῆς αὐτὰ ἔλεγε, χαύνωσιν μᾶλλον ἤπερ ὠφέλειαν εἰδότων τῶν σμάτων τοῖς ἀνθρώποις ἐνεργάζεσθαι; Ἀπόκρισις.\n\nΚατὰ τὰ ἐν ταῖς ᾠδαῖς ἐμφερόμενα διηγήματα ἁρμοδίως οἱ·υθμοὶ τῶν μελῶν ἐγίνοντο, ἄγοντες τὰς ψυχὰς εἰς τὴν πρέ πουσαν τοῖς δομένοις αἵρεσιν. Ἢ γὰρ γοερῶς τὰ δεινὰ τοῦ λαοῦ ἁμαρτήματα καὶ τὰς ἐπενεχθείσας αὐτοῖς πικρὰς τιμωρίας καταλέγουσιν, ἢ γανυρῶς τὰς φιλόφρονας τοῦ θεοῦ παρηγορίας καὶ τὴν ἐναργῶς δι' αὐτοῦ μετανοοῦντι τῷ λαῷ ἐπιφανεῖσαν ἀπαλλαγὴν μελῳδοῦσιν. Ἐρώτησις νε.","english":"Question 53.\n\nIf male and female were created for the sake of procreation, when the resurrection comes, will humans rise possessing the difference of the procreative parts? And if so, how is it not superfluous to bring along members that are inactive?\n\nAnswer.\n\nEven if the generative parts are not useful for procreation after the resurrection, they are useful for the remembrance that it was through such parts that humans received their generation and growth and continuance; for through them we are led to the thought of the great wisdom of Christ which created these things, and that humanity is increased through death, and of the preservation of our race in immortality by the succession of those who are born.\n\nQuestion 54.\n\nIf Moses foretold the punishment that was going to be brought upon the people because of their transgression, why did he speak these things with a song, since songs are known to produce relaxation rather than benefit in humans?\n\nAnswer.\n\nThe rhythms of the melodies were fitted to the narratives contained in the songs, leading the souls to the choice that was appropriate to the things given. For either they recount in mournful strain the dreadful sins of the people and the bitter punishments brought upon them, or they sing in glad strain the kindly consolations of God and the deliverance that clearly appeared through him to the people when they repented.\n\nQuestion 55.","structure":"narrative","commentary":[],"ambiguities":[],"confidence":"","notes":[]},{"i":48,"ref":"p48","source":"ἰ ἡ ἰατρικὴ τέχνη συμφέρει λίαν τοῖς ἀνθρώποις, πῶς διὰ τῶν ἐναντίων ἡ τοῦ τοιούτου ἀγαθοῦ γεγένηται εὕρεσις; Ἀπόκρισις.\n\nΠολλὰ μὲν εὕρηται καὶ ὑπὸ τῶν εὐσεβῶν ἰαματικὰ τῶν σωματικῶν νοσημάτων, καὶ ὑπὸ Σολομῶνος τοῦ βασιλέως μέν, οὐδεὶς δὲ τῶν ἔξωθεν τῆς εὐσεβείας εἶχε τὴν κατάληψιν ἰατρικὴν τῶν ψυχῶν.\n\nἘρώτησις ν.\n\nἰ τὰ τελευτῶντα βρέφη ἔπαινον ἢ μέμψιν οὐκ ἔχουσιν ἐξ ἔργων, τίς ἡ διαφορὰ ἐν τῇ ἀναστάσει τῶν ὑπὸ ἄλλων μὲν βαπτισθέντων καὶ μηδὲν πραξάντων, καὶ τῶν μὴ βαπτισθέντων καὶ ὁμοίως μηδὲν πραξάντων; Ἀπόκρισις.\n\nὕτη ἐστὶν ἡ διαφορὰ τῶν βαπτισθέντων πρὸς τὰ μὴ βαπτισθέντα, τοῦ τυχεῖν μὲν τὰ βαπτισθέντα τῶν διὰ τοῦ βαπτίσματος ἀγαθῶν, τὰ δὲ μὴ βαπτισθέντα μὴ τυχεῖν· ἀξιοῦνται δὲ τῶν διὰ τοῦ βαπτίσματος ἀγαθῶν τῇ πίστει τῶν προσφερόντων αὐτὰ τῷ βαπτίσματι. Ἐρώτησις νζ.\n\nἰ δύο ἡμῖν ὁ Μωϋσῆς οὐρανῶν ἐξέθετο τὴν γένεσιν, πῶς πλειόνων διδάσκει ἡμᾶς ἡ γραφὴ ὕπαρξιν, ποτὲ μὲν λέ γουσα· ἱ οὐρανοὶ τῶν οὐρανῶν, ποτὲ δέ. Ἀνεῴχθησαν αὐτῷ οἱ οὐρανοί, καί· Θεωρῶ τοὺς οὐρανοὺς ἀνεῳγμένους, καί· Ἡρπάγη ἕως τρίτου οὐρανοῦ· καὶ οὐκ εἶπεν· Ἕως τοῦ τρίτου μέρους τοῦ οὐρανοῦ, ἀλλ' ἀπολύτως· Ἕως τρίτου οὐ ρανοῦ; Καὶ πολλὰ δὲ τούτοις εὑρήσεις ἐν τῇ γραφῇ παραπλή","english":"If the art of medicine is very beneficial to humans, how was the discovery of such a good thing brought about through opposites? Answer.\n\nMany remedies for bodily diseases have been discovered also by the pious, and by King Solomon, but none of those outside piety had the understanding of the medicine of souls.\n\nQuestion 55.\n\nIf infants at the end have neither praise nor blame from works, what is the difference in the resurrection between those baptized by others and having done nothing, and those not baptized and likewise having done nothing? Answer.\n\nThis is the difference between the baptized and the unbaptized: that the baptized attain the goods that come through baptism, while the unbaptized do not attain them; and they are deemed worthy of the goods that come through baptism by the faith of those who bring them to baptism. Question 57.\n\nIf Moses set forth to us the creation of two heavens, how does the Scripture teach us the existence of more, sometimes saying, \"the heavens of heavens,\" and sometimes, \"The heavens were opened to him,\" and, \"I see the heavens opened,\" and, \"He was caught up to the third heaven\"—and it did not say, \"to the third part of heaven,\" but absolutely, \"to the third heaven\"? And you will find many things similar to these in the Scripture.","structure":"narrative","commentary":[],"ambiguities":[],"confidence":"","notes":[]},{"i":49,"ref":"p49","source":"σια. Πῶς οὖν οὐ τἀναντία ἑαυτοῖς λέγουσι, κατ' ἀμφότερα δ' ὅμως ἀληθεύουσιν;\n\nἈπόκρισις.\n\nὉ Μωϋσῆς μὲν εἶπεν αὐτὸς οὐρανούς, ἀριθμῷ δὲ οὐ δέ δωκεν οὔτε ἕνα οὔτε δύο οὔτε πλείονας. Ἔμελλε δὲ ἡ θεία γραφὴ τὰ διαστήματα ἐν τῷ ἀέρι ὑπερκείμενα οὐρανοὺς ὀνο μάζειν, ὡς Τὰ πετεινὰ τοῦ οὐρανοῦ, καὶ Ἄρτος ἐξ οὐρα νοῦ, καὶ Τὰ ἄστρα τοῦ οὐρανοῦ. Ἐκ τῆς ἀκολουθίας οὖν τῶν κειμένων φωνῶν νοοῦμεν οὐρανοὺς κατ' οὐσίαν μὲν δύο, κατὰ διαστήματα δὲ πλείονας· οὕτω δὲ νοουμένων τῶν οὐρα νῶν, οὐδεμία ἐναντίωσις ἐν τοῖς λόγοις ὑποληφθήσεται. Ἐρώτησις νη.\n\nἰ τὸ προσάπτειν τῷ Χριστῷ ἄγνοιάν ἐστιν ἀσεβές, δῆλον ὅτι πάντων ἔχει τελείαν τὴν πρόγνωσιν. Πῶς οὖν οὐκ ἔστιν αἴτιος τῆς τοῦ Ἰούδα προδοσίας καὶ τῆς τοῦ Πέτρου ἐνωμότου ἀρνήσεως, ὁ ταῦτα μὲν προγνούς, μὴ κωλύσας δέ; Καὶ περὶ τῆς τοῦ διαβόλου καὶ τοῦ πρωτοπλάστου ἀπὸ τοῦ θεοῦ ἐκ πτώσεως ὁ αὐτὸς λόγος ἁρμόσειεν. Ἀπόκρισις.\n\nἰ ἔδει τὸν Χριστὸν δι' ἑνὸς τῶν αὑτοῦ μαθητῶν παρα δοθῆναι, ἵνα ἡ γραφὴ πληρωθῇ, δῆλον ὅτι αἴτιός ἐστιν Χρι στὸς τῆς ἐκπληρώσεως τῆς γραφῆς καὶ οὐ τῆς προδοσίας τοῦ Ἰούδα· ταύτης γὰρ αὐτὸς ὁ Ἰούδας ἦν αἴτιος, ἣν μέλλουσαν ὁ θεὸς προειδὼς προεῖπε διὰ τῆς γραφῆς. Καὶ οὐκ ἔστιν ἡ πρόγνωσις αἰτία τοῦ μέλλοντος ἔσεσθαι, ἀλλὰ τὸ μέλλον ἔσε σθαι αἴτιον τῆς προγνώσεως· οὐ γὰρ τῇ προγνώσει ἕπεται τὸ μέλλον, ἀλλὰ τῷ μέλλοντι ἡ πρόγνωσις, καὶ οὐδαμῶς ὁ προ γινώσκων αἴτιός ἐστι τοῦ μέλλοντος ἔσεσθαι. Ὥστε οὐχὶ ὁ Χριστὸς αἴτιός ἐστι τῆς προδοσίας, ἀλλ' ἡ προδοσία αἰτία τῆς τοῦ κυρίου προγνώσεως.","english":"...sia. How then do they not say things contrary to themselves, yet in both respects speak the truth?\n\nAnswer.\n\nMoses indeed spoke of heavens, but he did not specify their number, neither one nor two nor more. But the divine Scripture was going to call the spaces that lie above in the air \"heavens,\" as in \"the birds of the heaven,\" and \"bread from heaven,\" and \"the stars of the heaven.\" From the sequence, then, of the expressions that are set down, we understand the heavens to be two in essence, but more in their spaces; and when the heavens are understood in this way, no contradiction will be supposed in the statements.\n\nQuestion 58.\n\nTo attribute ignorance to Christ is impious; it is clear that he has perfect foreknowledge of all things. How then is he not the cause of Judas's betrayal and of Peter's sworn denial, since he foreknew these things but did not prevent them? And the same argument would apply concerning the fall of the devil and of the first-formed man from God.\n\nAnswer.\n\nIt was necessary that Christ be betrayed by one of his own disciples, so that the Scripture might be fulfilled; it is clear that Christ is the cause of the fulfillment of the Scripture, and not of Judas's betrayal; for Judas himself was the cause of that betrayal, which God, foreknowing that it would come to be, foretold through the Scripture. And foreknowledge is not the cause of what is going to be, but what is going to be is the cause of the foreknowledge; for what is going to be does not follow upon the foreknowledge, but the foreknowledge follows upon what is going to be, and in no way is the one who foreknows the cause of what is going to be. So then, Christ is not the cause of the betrayal, but the betrayal is the cause of the Lord's foreknowledge.","structure":"narrative","commentary":[],"ambiguities":[],"confidence":"","notes":[]},{"i":50,"ref":"p50","source":"Καὶ ἐπὶ τοῦ διαβόλου καὶ τοῦ πρωτοπλάστου ὁ αὐτὸς λόγος.\n\nἘρώτησις νθ.\n\nἰ ἐν τῇ νυκτὶ ὁ ἥλιος ἀποκρύπτεται, πῶς οὐ σφαῖρα ὁ οὐρανὸς ἀποδείκνυται; Ὁ γὰρ ἀπὸ φιλοσόφων θεῖος ἀνὴρ εἶπε τὸν ἥλιον τῇ ἡμετέρᾳ ὄψει ἀποκρύπτεσθαι, οὐ σώματι. ὗ τος ὁ οὐρανὸς ἐπίκειται τῇ γῇ· καὶ ὁ μὲν διὰ τὸ κοῦφον ἀνωφερής, ἡ δὲ διὰ τὸ βαρύ ἐστι κατωφερής· διὸ διὰ τὴν ἀνθολκὴν ὑπὸ ἀλλήλων συνέχονται. ἰ δὲ τοῦτο ἀληθές, ὅλου τοῦ οὐρανίου κύκλου εἰς τὴν τοῦ παντὸς καταύγασιν λειτουργοῦν τος πρὸς τὸ ὑπάρχειν τοὺς φωστῆρας καὶ φαίνειν ἀεί, πῶς οὖν ἀποκρύπτονται;\n\nἈπόκρισις.\n\nἰ ὁμολογουμένως πολλά ἐστιν ἕτερα τὰ ἐν τῷ αὐτῷ καὶ ἴσῳ ἐπιπέδῳ ὄντα καὶ διὰ τὸ μῆκος τοῦ διαστήματος κεκρυμ μένα ὄντα τῆς ὄψεως, οἷον τὰ πλοῖα τὰ ἐν τῇ θαλάσσῃ ὑπὸ ἀλλήλων μὴ ὁρώμενα, τοῦ πλάτους τῇ τῶν ὑδάτων ἐπιφανείᾳ περιορίζοντος τὴν ὄψιν περαιτέρω μὴ ἀποτείνεσθαι τοῦ ὁρί ζοντος, τί θαυμαστὸν εἰ καὶ ἐπὶ τῶν φωστήρων γίνεται ἡ ἐπί κρυψις διὰ τὴν αὐτὴν αἰτίαν; Ἠι δὲ διὰ τὴν ἀνθολκὴν οὐρα","english":"And the same account applies to the devil and the first-formed man.\n\nQuestion 59.\n\nIf the sun is hidden in the night, how is the heaven not shown to be a sphere? For the divine man from among the philosophers said that the sun is hidden from our sight, not by a body. This heaven lies upon the earth; and the one, being light, is borne upward, while the other, being heavy, is borne downward; therefore by their mutual attraction they are held together. But if this is true, since the whole celestial circle serves for the illumination of the universe, so that the luminaries may exist and shine always, how then are they hidden?\n\nAnswer.\n\nIf it is agreed that many other things are on the same and equal plane and are hidden from sight because of the length of the distance—for example, ships at sea not seen by one another, since the expanse of the waters limits the sight so that it does not extend beyond the horizon—what wonder if the hiding of the luminaries also happens for the same cause? But if by mutual attraction the heaven...","structure":"narrative","commentary":[],"ambiguities":[],"confidence":"","notes":[]},{"i":51,"ref":"p51","source":"νοῦ καὶ γῆς ἵστασθαι τὸν οὐρανὸν καὶ τὴν γῆν, ἐπὶ μὲν τοῦ πρώτου οὐρανοῦ καὶ τῆς γῆς ἐστι τοῦτο εἰκάσαι διὰ τὸ ἅμα γεγενῆσθαι αὐτά, ἐπὶ δὲ τοῦ στερεώματος καὶ τῆς γῆς οὐκέτι δυνατὸν τοῦτο νοηθῆναι· ἵστατο γὰρ ἡ γῆ πρὸ τοῦ στερεώματος, τὴν ἅπασαν βαστάζουσα ὑγρὰν οὐσίαν χωρὶς ἀνθολκῆς τοῦ στερεώματος· ὕστερον γὰρ τῆς γῆς γέγονε τὸ στερέωμα. Ἐρώτησις ξ.\n\nἰ ἡ διαφορὰ κατὰ τὰς μορφὰς χρήσιμος ἡμῖν ὑπάρχει ἐνταῦθα διὰ τὰς τοῦ σώματος χρείας καὶ τὰ ἐπιτηδεύματα καὶ τὰ συναλλάγματα, ἀνενδεοῦς ἐν τῇ ἀναστάσει ἀνισταμένου τοῦ σώματος, εἰ μὲν τῇ αὐτῇ τῶν μορφῶν διαφορᾷ ἀνιστάμεθα, πῶς οὐκ ἄχρηστος αὕτη; ἰ δὲ ἐν ὁμοιώματι τῷ αὐτῷ, τίς ἡ τούτου ἀπόδειξις; Πῶς δὲ καὶ ἡ τοῦ Λαζάρου καὶ τοῦ πλου σίου παραβολὴ τῶν μορφῶν οὐ δείκνυσι τὸ διάφορον; Πάν τως γὰρ ἐκ ταύτης δῆλον. ἰ δὲ λέγοιέν τινες ὡς γνῶσίς τις ἐδόθη αὐτῷ πρὸς τὴν τοῦ Λαζάρου καὶ τοῦ Ἀβραὰμ ἐπίγνω σιν, πόθεν τοῦτο παραστήσουσι καὶ ἐπὶ τοῦ κυρίου, ἡνίκα σώματα τῶν ἁγίων τῶν κεκοιμημένων ἀνέστη καὶ ἐνεφανίσθη σαν πολλοῖς; Πάντως τῇ ἰδίᾳ μορφῇ τοῖς γνωρίμοις ἕκαστος εὐεπίγνωστος γέγονεν.","english":"that the heaven and the earth stand apart from mind and earth—for in the case of the first heaven and the earth this can be conjectured because they came into being together, but in the case of the firmament and the earth this can no longer be understood; for the earth stood before the firmament, supporting the whole liquid substance without the firmament's counter-pull; for the firmament came into being later than the earth. Question 60.\n\nWhether the difference in forms is useful to us here because of the body's needs and occupations and dealings—since the body rises in the resurrection without need—if we rise with the same difference of forms, how is this not useless? And if in the same likeness, what is the proof of this? And how does the parable of Lazarus and the rich man not show the difference of forms? For from it this is entirely clear. And if some should say that some knowledge was given to him for the recognition of Lazarus and Abraham, from where will they establish this also in the case of the Lord, when the bodies of the holy ones who had fallen asleep rose and appeared to many? Certainly each became easily recognizable to those who knew him by his own form.","structure":"narrative","commentary":[],"ambiguities":[],"confidence":"","notes":[]},{"i":52,"ref":"p52","source":"Ἀπόκρισις.\n\nΠολλαὶ μέν εἰσιν αἱ αἰτίαι δι' ἃς χρὴ τοὺς ἀνισταμένους ἐν τῇ οἰκείᾳ ἀνίστασθαι μορφῇ. Πρῶτον μὲν πρὸς τὴν ἔν δειξιν τῆς μεγάλης τε καὶ θείας γνώσεως τοῦ θεοῦ, τοῦ δύνασθαι ἐν τοσούτῳ ἀναριθμήτῳ πλήθει τῶν ἀνισταμένων ἑκάστῳ ἀποσωθῆναι τὴν οἰκείαν μορφήν. Ἔπειτα δὲ ἵνα μὴ νομισθῇ δημιουργῶν καινοὺς ἀνθρώπους καὶ μὴ τοὺς τεθνηκότας ἀνιστῶν, διὰ τοῦτο ἕκαστον τῶν ἀνισταμένων τὴν οἰκείαν ἔχειν μορφήν. Ἀγνοουμένων γὰρ τῶν μορφῶν τοῦ τε ἀδικήσαντος καὶ τοῦ ἀδικηθέντος ἀπόλλυται τῆς κρίσεως τὸ δίκαιον. Ἔτι δὲ εἰ λυθεισῶν τῶν χρειῶν, δι' ἃς ἀναγκαία γέγονε τῶν μορ φῶν ἡ διαφορά, περιττὴ καὶ ἄχρηστος εὑρίσκεται αὕτη, περιττὴ καὶ ἄχρηστός ἐστι καὶ τῶν ὀνομασιῶν ἡ διαφορά. Πῶς οὖν ὁ πλούσιος τὸν Ἀβραὰμ καὶ τὸν Λάζαρον ἐξ ὀνόματος καλεῖ, ἐκ τῆς κατὰ τὴν ὀνομασίαν διαφορᾶς μὴ γνωριζομένων τῶν προσώπων; Τὸ δὲ κατὰ τὸν Λάζαρον καὶ τὸν πλούσιον διήγημα οὔτε παραβολή ἐστιν οὔτε ἱστορία· εἴγε ἡ μὲν παρα βολή ἐστι λόγος ὁμοιότητα περιέχων τοῦ γεγονότος πράγματος πρὸς τὸ ἐσόμενον, ἱστορία δὲ λόγος διήγησιν περιέχων τοῦ ἤδη γεγονότος πράγματος· οὔτε γὰρ πρὸ τῆς ἀναστάσεως τῶν ἑκάστῳ βεβιωμένων ἡ ἀνταπόδοσις γίνεται, οὔτε μετὰ τὴν ἀνά στασιν ἀληθὲς τὸ Ἔχουσι Μωϋσέα καὶ τοὺς προφήτας, ἀκου σάτωσαν αὐτῶν. Ἔστι δὲ τὸ περὶ τοῦ Λαζάρου καὶ τοῦ πλου σίου διήγημα ὑποτύπωσις λόγου διδασκαλίαν ἔχοντος τοῦ μὴ δύνασθαι μετὰ τὴν ἐκ τοῦ σώματος ἔξοδον τῆς ψυχῆς κατὰ πρόνοιάν τινα ἢ σπουδὴν ὠφελείας τινὸς τυχεῖν τοὺς ἀν θρώπους.","english":"Answer.\n\nThere are many reasons why those who rise should rise in their own form. First, to demonstrate the great and divine knowledge of God—that in so vast and countless a multitude of those who rise, each one's own form can be preserved. Then, so that he not be thought to be creating new men and not raising the dead, for this reason each of those who rise has his own form. For if the forms of the wrongdoer and the wronged are unknown, the justice of the judgment is destroyed. Moreover, if the uses for which the difference of forms became necessary were dissolved, this difference would be found superfluous and useless; and the difference of names is likewise superfluous and useless. How then does the rich man call Abraham and Lazarus by name, if persons are not recognized by the difference in name? Now the account concerning Lazarus and the rich man is neither a parable nor a history—since a parable is a discourse containing a likeness of a thing that has happened to what will be, while a history is a discourse containing a narrative of a thing that has already happened—for neither does the recompense for what each has lived occur before the resurrection, nor after the resurrection is it true that \"They have Moses and the prophets; let them hear them.\" Rather, the account concerning Lazarus and the rich man is an outline of a discourse that contains the teaching that after the soul's departure from the body, men cannot obtain any benefit by providence or effort.","structure":"narrative","commentary":[],"ambiguities":[],"confidence":"","notes":[]},{"i":53,"ref":"p53","source":"Ἐρώτησις ξα.\n\nἰ μόνος ἀθάνατός ἐστιν ὁ θεὸς κατὰ τὸν ἀπόστολον,\n\nπῶς ἀληθὲς κατ' αὐτὸν τὸ Πάντες μὲν οὐ κοιμηθησόμεθα; Ἀπόκρισις.\n\nΜόνος ἔχων τὴν ἀθανασίαν λέγεται ὁ θεός, ὅτι οὐκ ἐκ θελήματος ἄλλου ταύτην ἔχει, καθάπερ οἱ λοιποὶ πάντες ἀθάνατοι, ἀλλ' ἐκ τῆς οἰκείας οὐσίας. Ἐρώτησις ξβ.\n\nἰ τῇ τετάρτῃ ἡμέρᾳ τῶν φωστήρων ἡ ποίησις γέγονεν, ἐξ αὐτῶν δὲ τῶν ἡμερῶν ὁ ἀριθμὸς συνίσταται, πῶς αἱ πρὸ τῆς παραγωγῆς τῶν φωστήρων τρεῖς ἡμέραι ἀμφίβολον τὸν μετὰ τὴν παραγωγὴν τῶν φωστήρων ἀριθμὸν τῶν ἡμερῶν οὐ δεικνύουσιν;\n\nἈπόκρισις.\n\nἘκ τῆς παραγωγῆς τοῦ φωτὸς ὁ διαχωρισμὸς γέγονε φω τὸς καὶ σκότους, καὶ ἐκ τοῦ διαχωρισμοῦ φωτὸς καὶ σκότους ἡ ἡμέρα ὑπέστη καὶ ἡ νύξ. Πρὸ δὲ τῆς τῶν φωστήρων ποιή σεως ἡ κατὰ τὸν ὅρον τοῦ θεοῦ ἐπικράτεια φωτὸς ἐποίει τὴν ἡμέραν καὶ ἡ ἐπικράτεια τοῦ σκότους τὸ σκότος ἤτοι τὴν νύκτα. Γενομένων δὲ τῶν φωστήρων ἐτάχθησαν ἐξουσιάζειν, ὁ μὲν τοῦ φωτὸς καὶ τῆς ἡμέρας, ἡ δὲ τοῦ σκότους καὶ τῆς νυκτός. Ὁ γὰρ δημιουργὸς τὸ φῶς μετὰ τῆς ὡρισμένης αὐτοῦ ἐπικρα τείας τῷ μείζονι τῶν φωστήρων ἐκληρώσατο, καὶ τοιαύτας ἡμέρας ἃς ποιεῖ νῦν τὸ φῶς μετὰ τοῦ φωστῆρος τοιαύτας ἐποίει καὶ πρὸ τῆς ποιήσεως τῶν φωστήρων, κατὰ τὸν ὅρον τοῦ θεοῦ τοῦ τὴν ἐπικράτειαν αὐτοῦ ὁρίσαντος δωδεκάωρον· ἐκεῖνος ὁ ὅρος ἐπείγει τὸν ἥλιον πρὸς τὴν ἐξ ἀρχῆς ἔμμετρον δωδεκάωρον κίνησιν.","english":"Question 61.\n\nIf God alone is immortal according to the apostle, how is it true according to him that \"We shall not all sleep\"? Answer.\n\nGod is said to be the only one having immortality, because he does not have it by the will of another, as all the rest who are immortal do, but from his own essence. Question 62.\n\nIf the creation of the luminaries took place on the fourth day, and the number of days is constituted from the days themselves, how do the three days before the production of the luminaries not show the number of days after the production of the luminaries to be doubtful?\n\nAnswer.\n\nFrom the production of light came the separation of light and darkness, and from the separation of light and darkness day and night came into being. But before the making of the luminaries, the dominion of light according to God's decree made the day, and the dominion of darkness made the darkness, that is, the night. But when the luminaries came into being, they were appointed to have dominion—the one over light and day, the other over darkness and night. For the Creator assigned the light, together with its defined dominion, to the greater of the luminaries, and such days as the light now makes with the luminary, such it also made before the making of the luminaries, according to the decree of God who defined its dominion as twelve hours; that decree urges the sun to its original measured twelve-hour motion.","structure":"narrative","commentary":[],"ambiguities":[],"confidence":"","notes":[]},{"i":54,"ref":"p54","source":"Ἐρώτησις ξγ.\n\nἘπειδὴ διαφόρως τινὲς ἡρμήνευσαν καὶ ἀσαφῶς τὸ Ἐν τῷ ἡλίῳ ἔθετο τὸ σκήνωμα αὐτοῦ, τὴν σαφήνειαν αὐτοῦ δί δαξον.\n\nἈπόκρισις.\n\nἴπομεν ἐν τοῖς ἀνωτέρω ὅτι οὐρανοὺς οἶδεν ἡ θεία γραφὴ καλεῖν ἢ τοὺς κατ' οὐσίαν, ὡς τὸν πρῶτον οὐρανὸν καὶ τὸ στερέωμα, ἢ τὰ κατὰ τὸν ἀέρα διαστήματα. Τὸ οὖν Ἐν τῷ ἡλίῳ ἔθετο τὸ σκήνωμα αὐτοῦ, ἵνα εἴπῃ· Τοὺς οὐρανοὺς ἔθετο σκήνωμα τοῦ ἡλίου. Ἡ γὰρ ἐκ τῆς τῶν Ἑβραίων γλώττης εἰς τὴν τῶν Σύρων γλῶτταν μεταγωγὴ τῆς λέξεως οὕτως γεγένη ται· Ἐν αὐτοῖς ἔθετο τοῦ ἡλίου τὸ σκήνωμα. Δηλοῖ δὲ δι' ἑτέρου ψαλμοῦ ὁ προφήτης Δαυῒδ αὐτὸ τοῦτο, καί φησιν· Ὁ ἐκτείνων τὸν οὐρανὸν ὡσεὶ δέριν (ἡ γὰρ ἔκτασις τῶν δέρεων τὴν σκηνὴν ἀποτελεῖ), τῇ ποικιλίᾳ οὖν τῶν οὐσιῶν καὶ τῇ διαφορᾷ τῶν χρειῶν δεικνύων αὐτοὺς εἶναι γενητούς· ἡ γὰρ ἀγένητος φύσις πρὸς τὴν ἀγένητον φύσιν κατὰ φύσιν οὐκ ἔχει διαφοράν, τὸ δὲ καὶ χρείας ἕνεκα τοιόνδε ἢ τοιόνδε ἀλλότριόν ἐστι τῆς ἀγενήτου φύσεως. Ἐρώτησις ξδ.","english":"Question 63.\n\nSince some have interpreted \"In the sun he set his tabernacle\" in various and unclear ways, explain its clear meaning.\n\nAnswer.\n\nWe said in the earlier passages that divine Scripture is known to call \"heavens\" either those by nature, such as the first heaven and the firmament, or the regions in the air. So then, \"In the sun he set his tabernacle\" means: He set the heavens as a tabernacle for the sun. For the transfer of the phrase from the Hebrew language into the Syriac language was made thus: \"In them he set the tabernacle of the sun.\" And the prophet David makes this same thing clear through another psalm, saying: \"Who stretches out the heaven like a skin\" (for the stretching out of skins makes a tent), showing by the variety of essences and the difference of uses that they are created; for uncreated nature has no natural difference from uncreated nature, but to be such or such for the sake of use is foreign to uncreated nature. Question 64.","structure":"narrative","commentary":[],"ambiguities":[],"confidence":"","notes":[]},{"i":55,"ref":"p55","source":"ἰ ὥσπερ ὁ Ἰωνᾶς ἐν τῇ κοιλίᾳ τοῦ κήτους τὸ τριήμερον οὕτως καὶ ὁ Χριστὸς ἐν τῇ καρδίᾳ τῆς γῆς, πῶς οὐ δοκήσει τοῦ κυρίου ὁ θάνατος γέγονεν; Ἰωνᾶς γὰρ μὴ θανὼν ἐνομίσθη\n\nτεθνάναι. ἰ δὲ κατ' ἀλήθειαν ὁ κύριος τοῦ θανάτου ἐγεύσατο, πῶς τὸ κατὰ τὸν Ἰωνᾶν ὑπόδειγμα οὐ διέψευσται; Ἀπόκρισις.\n\nὐ θανάτῳ τὸν θάνατον συμπαρέβαλεν, ἀλλὰ τὴν τριή μερον ἐν τῷ τάφῳ παραμονὴν τοῦ σωτῆρος τῇ τριημέρῳ ἐν τῷ κήτει παραμονῇ τοῦ Ἰωνᾶ. Ἄλλως τε εἰ κατὰ τὰ ὅμοια ἦν τὰ κατὰ τὸν Ἰωνᾶν τοῖς κατὰ τὸν σωτῆρα, οὐκέτι ἠδύνατο ἐκεῖνα τούτων εἶναι τύπος ἢ εἰκών. Χρὴ οὖν τὴν ἀλήθειαν πλέον τι τοῦ τύπου ἔχειν, κατὰ τὸ εἰρημένον· Πλέον Ἰωνᾶ ὧδε. Ὑπόδειγμα δὲ ἀψευδὲς νοεῖται τὸ κατὰ τὸν Ἰωνᾶν τοῦ κατὰ τὸν σωτῆρα τοῦτον τὸν τρόπον, ὅτι, ὥσπερ ὁ Ἰωνᾶς σημεῖον πίστεως εἶχε τοῦ παρὰ τοῦ θεοῦ ἀποσταλῆναι αὐτὸν κήρυκα τῆς καταστροφῆς τῶν Νινευϊτῶν τὴν τριήμερον ἐκ τοῦ κήτους ἀναγωγήν, οὕτως καὶ ὁ σωτὴρ σημεῖον πίστεως εἶχε τοῦ παρὰ τοῦ θεοῦ ἀποσταλῆναι αὐτὸν κήρυκα τῆς βασιλείας τῶν οὐρα νῶν τὴν τριήμερον ἐκ τοῦ τάφου ἀνάστασιν. Ἐρώτησις ξε.","english":"If Jonah was in the belly of the sea monster for three days, and so too Christ in the heart of the earth, how is it that the Lord's death was not merely in appearance? For Jonah, though he did not die, was thought to have died. But if the Lord truly tasted death, how is the figure of Jonah not falsified? Answer. He did not compare death with death, but the Savior's three-day stay in the tomb with Jonah's three-day stay in the sea monster. Besides, if the things concerning Jonah were in all respects like those concerning the Savior, those things could no longer be a type or image of these. The truth must therefore have something more than the type, according to what is said: \"A greater than Jonah is here.\" The figure of Jonah is understood to be a truthful pattern of the things concerning the Savior in this way: that just as Jonah had the three-day return from the sea monster as a sign of faith that he had been sent by God as a herald of the destruction of the Ninevites, so too the Savior had the three-day resurrection from the tomb as a sign of faith that he had been sent by God as a herald of the kingdom of heaven. Question 65.","structure":"narrative","commentary":[],"ambiguities":[],"confidence":"","notes":[]},{"i":56,"ref":"p56","source":"Ἐπειδή τινες τὴν τοῦ κυρίου παράδοσιν τῇ τετράδι λέ γουσι γεγονέναι, ἐκ τῆς ποσότητος τοῦτο τῶν τότε πραχθέν των στοχαζόμενοι, τίς ἡ ἀπόδειξις τῆς ἡμέρας ἐν ᾗ ἡ παρά δοσις γέγονεν;\n\nἈπόκρισις.\n\nἈπόδειξις τοῦ μὴ τῇ τετράδι ἀλλὰ τῇ πέμπτῃ παραδε δόσθαι τὸν Χριστὸν αὕτη ἐστίν. Ἐν τῇ νυκτὶ ᾗ παρεδόθη, ἐν ταύτῃ ὑπὸ τῶν ἀρχιερέων καὶ πρεσβυτέρων ἐκρίθη καὶ κατε κρίθη· τῷ πρωῒ δὲ ἐχομένῳ τῆς νυκτὸς ταύτης παρέδωκαν αὐτὸν τῷ Πιλάτῳ· ἐν ᾗ δὲ ἡμέρᾳ παρέλαβεν αὐτὸν ὁ Πιλάτος, ἐν ταύτῃ αὐτὸν καὶ ἐσταύρωσε· παραλαβὼν δὲ αὐτὸν τῷ πρωῒ τῆς παρασκευῆς, τῇ ἕκτῃ ὥρᾳ τῆς αὐτῆς παρασκευῆς ἐσταύ ρωσεν. ὐ χρὴ οὖν ταῖς γραφικῶς ὡρισμέναις ὥραις προστι θέναι κατὰ στοχασμὸν τὸ ἀσύστατον. Φησὶ γὰρ Ματθαῖος ὁ εὐαγγελιστὴς οὕτως· Πρωΐας δὲ γενομένης συμβούλιον ἔλαβον πάντες οἱ ἀρχιερεῖς καὶ οἱ πρεσβύτεροι τοῦ λαοῦ κατὰ τοῦ Ἰησοῦ, ὅπως θανατώσωσιν αὐτόν· καὶ δήσαντες αὐτὸν ἀπή γαγον καὶ παρέδωκαν αὐτὸν Ποντίῳ Πιλάτῳ τῷ ἡγεμόνι. Ὡσαύτως δὲ καὶ Ἰωάννης ὁ εὐαγγελιστής φησιν· Ἄγουσι τὸν Ἰησοῦν ἀπὸ τοῦ Καϊάφα εἰς τὸ πραιτώριον· ἦν δὲ πρωΐ. Καὶ πάλιν· Ὁ Πιλάτος οὖν ἀκούσας τούτων τῶν λόγων ἤγαγεν ἔξω τὸν Ἰησοῦν, καὶ ἐκάθισεν ἐπὶ τοῦ βήματος εἰς τόπον λεγόμενον Λιθόστρωτον, ἑβραϊστὶ δὲ Γαββαθᾶ· ἦν δὲ παρα σκευὴ τοῦ πάσχα, ὥρα δὲ ὡσεὶ ἕκτη. ἰ τοίνυν τῇ νυκτὶ μὲν παρεδόθη καὶ ἐκρίθη ὑπὸ τῶν ἀρχιερέων καὶ κατεκρίθη, τῷ πρωῒ δὲ παρεδόθη τῷ Πιλάτῳ καὶ τῇ ἕκτῃ ὥρᾳ τῆς παρα σκευῆς ἐσταυρώθη, δῆλον ὅτι τῇ πέμπτῃ ἡ παράδοσις γε γένηται.","english":"Since some say that the Lord's betrayal took place on the fourth day, conjecturing this from the quantity of things done at that time, what is the proof of the day on which the betrayal took place?\n\nAnswer.\n\nThe proof that Christ was betrayed not on the fourth day but on the fifth is this. In the night in which he was betrayed, in that same night he was judged and condemned by the chief priests and elders; and at the morning following that night they handed him over to Pilate; and on the day on which Pilate received him, on that same day he also crucified him; for having received him at the morning of the Preparation, at the sixth hour of the same Preparation he crucified him. It is necessary, therefore, not to add the inconsistent by conjecture to the hours defined in Scripture. For Matthew the evangelist says thus: \"When morning came, all the chief priests and the elders of the people took counsel against Jesus, that they might put him to death; and having bound him, they led him away and handed him over to Pontius Pilate the governor.\" Likewise also John the evangelist says: \"They lead Jesus from Caiaphas into the praetorium; and it was early.\" And again: \"Pilate therefore, having heard these words, brought Jesus outside, and sat down on the judgment seat at a place called the Stone Pavement, but in Hebrew Gabbatha; and it was the Preparation of the Passover, and about the sixth hour.\" So then, in the night he was betrayed and judged and condemned by the chief priests, but in the morning he was handed over to Pilate and at the sixth hour of the Preparation he was crucified, it is clear that the betrayal took place on the fifth day.","structure":"narrative","commentary":[],"ambiguities":[],"confidence":"","notes":[]},{"i":57,"ref":"p57","source":"Ἐρώτησις ξ.\n\nἘπειδὴ συνεχῶς ὁ κύριος υἱὸν τοῦ ἀνθρώπου καὶ οὐχὶ τῆς ἀνθρώπου ἑαυτὸν ὀνομάζει, καὶ διὰ τοῦτο πειρῶνται οἱ ἄπι στοι δεικνύναι ὡς ἐκ γαμικῆς συναφείας ὁ δεσποτικὸς γέγονε\n\nτόκος· τὸ γὰρ τοῦ ἀνθρώπου, φασίν, οὐ θηλείας ἐστὶν ἀλλὰ ἄῤῥενος τὸ ὄνομα· τίσιν οὖν λόγοις χρησάμενοι τὴν τοιαύτην λοιδορίαν μάτην λεγομένην ἐλέγξομεν; Ἀπόκρισις.\n\nἰ ἐκ γαμικῆς συναφείας ὁ δεσποτικὸς τόκος ἐγένετο, οὐκ ἂν εἶπεν ἡ γραφὴ τὸ Ὡς ἐνομίζετο υἱὸς τοῦ Ἰωσήφ. Τὸ γὰρ Ὡς ἐνομίζετο ἐπὶ τῶν ἐκ γαμικῆς συναφείας τικτομένων·η θῆναι χώραν οὐκ ἔχει. Τὸ δὲ διὰ μιᾶς ἀσαφοῦς τε καὶ ἐλλιποῦς φωνῆς πάσας τὰς φωνὰς ἐκείνας τὰς προδήλως καταγγελ λούσας τὸν Χριστὸν ἐκ πνεύματος ἁγίου καὶ Μαρίας τῆς παρ θένου γεγεννημένον ἀνατρέπειν τῶν ἀτοπωτάτων ἐστί. Πρὸς ἀναίρεσιν δὲ τῆς ματαίας αὐτῶν ἐπιχειρήσεως κεχρήμεθα λό γοις τοιούτοις. ἰ διὰ τὸ μὴ εἰπεῖν ἑαυτὸν τὸν Χριστὸν υἱὸν τῆς ἀνθρώπου οὐκ ἔστι διὰ τοῦτο υἱὸς τῆς ἀνθρώπου δηλονότι, ἄρα καὶ διὰ τὸ μὴ εἰπεῖν ἑαυτὸν υἱόν τινος ἀνθρώπου οὐκ ἔστιν υἱός τινος ἀνθρώπου. ἰ δὲ μή τινος ἀνθρώπου ἐστὶν ὁ Χριστὸς υἱός, ἐξ ἀνάγκης οὐδὲ ἀνθρώπου ἐστὶν υἱός. Ἔτι δὲ εἰ καθώσπερ υἱὸς τοῦ Ἡλεὶ ἐχρηματίσθη ὁ Ἰωσὴφ κατὰ τὸν νόμον χωρὶς γαμικῆς συναφείας, τοῦ θεοῦ τούτῳ τῷ τρόπῳ βουληθέντος δοῦναι τὸν Ἰωσὴφ υἱὸν τῷ Ἡλεί, τί ἄτοπον τὸ οὕτως δοῦναι καὶ υἱὸν χωρὶς γαμικῆς συναφείας τῷ Ἰωσήφ;","english":"Question 57.\n\nSince the Lord continually calls himself Son of Man and not son of a woman, and for this reason those who are foolish attempt to show that the Lord's birth came about from marital union—for \"of Man,\" they say, is not the name of a female but of a male—by what arguments, then, shall we refute such slander, which is spoken in vain? Answer.\n\nIf the Lord's birth had come about from marital union, the Scripture would not have said, \"As it was supposed, the son of Joseph.\" For the phrase \"as it was supposed\" has no place in the case of those born from marital union. But to overturn by means of one obscure and defective expression all those expressions which plainly proclaim that Christ was born of the Holy Spirit and Mary the virgin is among the most absurd things. For the refutation of their vain attempt we have used arguments such as these. If, because Christ did not call himself son of the woman, he is therefore not the son of the woman—obviously—then also, because he did not call himself son of some man, he is not the son of some man. But if Christ is not the son of some man, then by necessity he is not the son of a man either. Further, if Joseph was designated son of Heli according to the law without marital union, since God willed in this way to give Joseph as a son to Heli, what is absurd about his thus giving a son to Joseph also without marital union?","structure":"narrative","commentary":[],"ambiguities":[],"confidence":"","notes":[]},{"i":58,"ref":"p58","source":"Τούτου γὰρ ἕνεκεν προῳκονόμησεν ἡ θεία χάρις τὴν παρθένον μνηστευθῆναι ἀνδρὶ δύο πατέρας ἐσχηκότι, ἕνα μὲν κατὰ φύσιν ἐκ γαμικῆς συναφείας, ἕτερον δὲ κατὰ τὸν νόμον χωρὶς γαμικῆς συναφείας, ἐν τῇ ἐκείνου γεννήσει προζωγραφοῦσα τοῦ Χριστοῦ τὴν γέννησιν, τοῦ γεννηθέντος μὲν ἐκ πνεύματος ἁγίου υἱοῦ τῷ θεῷ, γεννηθέντος δὲ ἐκ τῆς γυναικὸς τοῦ Ἰωσὴφ υἱοῦ τῷ Ἰωσήφ. Πνεῦμα, φησίν, ἅγιον ἐπελεύσεται ἐπὶ σέ, καὶ δύναμις ὑψίστου ἐπισκιάσει σοι· διὸ καὶ τὸ γεννώμενον ἐκ σοῦ ἅγιον τῷ κυρίῳ κληθήσεται υἱὸς θεοῦ. Ἀλλ' εἰ τὸ γεννώμενον ἐκ τῆς γυναικὸς τοῦ Ἡλεὶ υἱός ἐστι τοῦ Ἡλεὶ κατὰ τὸν νόμον τοῦ θεοῦ, πολὺ μᾶλλον ἐκ τῆς γυναικὸς τοῦ Ἰωσὴφ κατὰ τὴν θείαν εὐδοκίαν υἱός ἐστι τοῦ Ἰωσὴφ χωρὶς γαμικῆς συναφείας. Ἐρώτησις ξζ.\n\nἘπειδὴ ὁ Ἡσαΐας εἰς τὸν δεσπότην Χριστὸν προφητεύων φησί· Τὴν γενεὰν αὐτοῦ τίς διηγήσεται; ἐπὶ δυσδιηγήτου ἄρα ἢ ἀδιηγήτου τῆς γενεᾶς, καὶ ἐπὶ τῆς θεότητος ἢ τῆς σαρκὸς ταύτην ἐκληπτέον τὴν λέξιν;","english":"For this reason divine grace beforehand arranged for the virgin to be betrothed to a man who had two fathers, one by nature from marital union, the other by law without marital union, prefiguring in that man's birth the birth of Christ—who was born of the Holy Spirit as a son to God, and born of the wife of Joseph as a son to Joseph. \"The Holy Spirit,\" he says, \"will come upon you, and the power of the Most High will overshadow you; therefore the holy one born of you will be called the Son of God.\" But if the one born of the wife of Eli is a son of Eli according to the law of God, much more is the one born of the wife of Joseph, according to the divine good pleasure, a son of Joseph without marital union. Question 67.\n\nSince Isaiah, prophesying of the Lord Christ, says, \"Who will declare his generation?\"—is this saying to be understood of a generation hard to declare or indescribable, and of his divinity or of his flesh?","structure":"narrative","commentary":[],"ambiguities":[],"confidence":"","notes":[]},{"i":59,"ref":"p59","source":"Ἀπόκρισις.\n\nἩ μὲν κατὰ σάρκα γέννησις τοῦ Χριστοῦ γενεαλογεῖται, καὶ ὁ τρόπος ταύτης ἐν γραφικῇ διηγήσει καταγγέλλεται· ἐκ πνεύματος γὰρ ἁγίου καὶ τῆς παρθένου Μαρίας· ἡ δὲ κατὰ τὴν θεότητα αὐτοῦ γέννησίς ἐστιν ἀγενεαλόγητος, διὸ καὶ ἀδιήγητος. Ἐμφαίνει οὖν ἡ προφητικὴ·ῆσις τὸ ἀδιήγητον, οὐ τὸ δυσδιήγητον τῆς γεννήσεως.\n\nἘρώτησις ξη.\n\nἰ μὴ τὸ αἷμα τοῦ ἀνθρώπου ἐστὶν ἡ ψυχὴ διὰ τὸ ἐκ χυθέντος ἐκείνου τὸ ζῶον ἀπόλλυσθαι, διὰ ποίων λόγων καὶ ὑποδειγμάτων δείκνυται ὅτι ἐστὶ ψυχὴ ἐν τῷ σώματι ἕτερόν\n\nτι κτίσει καὶ ἀόρατον;\n\nἈπόκρισις.\n\nἜχοντες τὰς φωνὰς τοῦ δημιουργοῦ τῆς κτίσεως τὰς δια στελλούσας ψυχὴν σώματος, ἀξιοπιστότερα τούτων ὑποδείγματα εἰς παράστασιν τῆς τοῦ ζητουμένου ἀληθείας οὐκ ὀφεί λουσιν ἀπαιτεῖν. Τὸ γὰρ δοῦναι τῷ διαβόλῳ κατὰ πάσης τῆς σωματικῆς τοῦ Ἰὼβ συστάσεως τὴν ἐξουσίαν τοῦ πατάξαι αὐτὴν ὡς βούλεται, καὶ κωλῦσαι αὐτὸν τοῦ ἅψασθαι αὐτοῦ τῆς ψυχῆς, δείκνυσι τὴν ἀσώματον ψυχὴν ἕτερόν τι παρὰ τὴν πε πληγμένην σάρκα αὐτοῦ. Ὡσαύτως δὲ καὶ τὸ Μὴ φοβεῖσθε ἀπὸ τῶν ἀποκτεινόντων τὸ σῶμα, τὴν δὲ ψυχὴν μὴ δυναμένων ἀποκτεῖναι, τοῦτο δηλοῖ τὸ εἶναί τι τοῦ ἀναιρεθέντος ἀνθρώ που τὸ ἐν ἀθανασίᾳ διαμένον καὶ μετὰ τὸν τοῦ σώματος θάνατον. Ὥστε ἄτοπον λέγειν αἷμα τὸ ἐκχυθὲν καὶ φθαρὲν ψυχήν. Πρόδηλον ἄρα ἐστὶν ὅτι ἡ ψυχὴ ἀόρατον τοῖς ἀνθρώποις κατὰ τὴν οἰκείαν φύσιν.","english":"Answer.\n\nThe generation of Christ according to the flesh is traced in a genealogy, and its manner is proclaimed in the scriptural narrative; for it is from the Holy Spirit and the virgin Mary. But his generation according to his divinity is without genealogy, and therefore also beyond narration. The prophetic utterance, then, indicates that the generation is beyond narration, not that it is hard to narrate.\n\nQuestion 67.\n\nIf the blood of a man is not the soul, because when that is poured out the living being perishes, by what arguments and examples is it shown that the soul in the body is something else, both in creation and invisible?\n\nAnswer.\n\nSince we have the utterances of the Creator of creation which distinguish the soul from the body, they ought not to demand examples more trustworthy than these for the demonstration of the truth of what is sought. For the fact that he gave to the devil authority over the whole bodily constitution of Job to strike it as he wished, and restrained him from touching his soul, shows that the incorporeal soul is something other than his smitten flesh. Likewise also the saying, Do not fear those who kill the body but cannot kill the soul, makes clear that there is something of the slain man that remains in immortality even after the death of the body. So it is absurd to say that the blood which is poured out and corrupted is the soul. It is evident, therefore, that the soul is invisible to men by its own nature.","structure":"narrative","commentary":[],"ambiguities":[],"confidence":"","notes":[]},{"i":60,"ref":"p60","source":"Ἐρώτησις ξθ.\n\nΔιὰ τί ὁ ἑπτὰ ἀριθμὸς ἐναλλαγὴν δέχεται; Καὶ γὰρ ἐν σαββάτῳ ὡς τὰ πολλὰ ὁ ἀὴρ μεταβάλλεται, καὶ ἡ τοῦ ἀνθρώ που κατὰ τὴν ἡλικίαν προκοπὴ ἐν τούτῳ τῷ ἀριθμῷ λαμβάνει ἐπίδοσιν, ὀδόντων μὲν φυομένων τῷ ἑβδόμῳ μηνί, τῷ δ' αὐτῷ ἔτει ἀλλασσομένων τούτων, διπλασιασθέντων δὲ πάλιν σπερ ματικὴν προσκτωμένων δύναμιν, καί, ἵνα συντόμως εἴπω, ὁ ἀριθμὸς τῶν ἑπτὰ τὴν αὔξησιν καὶ λῆξιν τῶν ἀνθρώπων ἐρ γάζεται, καὶ τῶν νοσημάτων ποιεῖται διάκρισιν, καὶ ἐν νόμῳ τῶν λοιπῶν ἀριθμῶν τὸ αἰδέσιμον κέκτηται. Ἀπόκρισις.\n\nΠρὸς τὴν δύναμιν τῆς φύσεως τῶν ἔργων τῆς φύσεως ἡ ἐκπλήρωσις γίνεται, καὶ οὐ πρὸς τὴν χρονικὴν παράστασιν ἑβδομάδι μηνῶν ἢ ἐνιαυτῶν ὡρισμένην. Διὸ τὰ ὀνομασθέντα ἔργα τῆς φύσεως ἐν τῇ ἐρωτήσει πολλάκις θᾶττον ἢ βραδύτερον τῶν ἑπτὰ ἀριθμῶν ἐπὶ τὴν οἰκείαν ἄγει ἡ φύσις τελειό τητα· ἅπερ οὐκ ἂν ἐγίνετο, εἰ ἡ φύσις τῇ ἑβδομάδι καὶ μὴ ἡ ἑβδομὰς τῇ φύσει ἠκολούθει. ὐχ ἡ ἑβδομὰς οὖν ἐστιν αἰτία τῆς ἐκπληρώσεως τῶν ἔργων τῆς φύσεως, ἀλλὰ ἡ δύναμις τῆς φύσεως αἰτία τῆς ἑβδομάδος, καθ' ἣν οὖν λαμβάνει τῇ φύσει τὰ οἰκεῖα ἔργα ἐκτελέσαι. Ὡσαύτως δὲ καὶ περὶ τῶν ἄλλων ἀριθμῶν μηνῶν τε καὶ ἐνιαυτῶν, δι' ὧν ἐκπληροῦται τὸ ἔργον τῆς φύσεως ἐν τοῖς λοιποῖς ζώοις τε καὶ φυτοῖς, ἡ δύναμις τῆς φύσεώς ἐστιν αἰτία τοῦ ἴσου χρόνου, καὶ τοῦ πλείονος καὶ τοῦ ἐλάττονος. ἰδεσιμώτερος δὲ ἐν τῇ θείᾳ γραφῇ ὁ ἑπτὰ ἀριθμὸς παρὰ τοὺς λοιποὺς ἀριθμούς, ὅτι ἐν αὐτῷ ὁ πᾶς χρόνος τῆς τε τοῦ κόσμου ποιήσεως καὶ τῆς τοῦ πεποιηκότος αὐτὸν καταπαύσεως· ἑξὰς μὲν τῆς ποιήσεως, μονὰς δὲ τῆς καταπαύσεως.","english":"Question 69.\n\nWhy does the number seven admit of variation? For on the Sabbath, for the most part, the air changes, and a person's advancement according to age receives its progress in this number, teeth indeed growing in the seventh month, and in the same year these being changed, and again, having been doubled, acquiring seminal power; and, to speak briefly, the number of seven brings about the growth and the end of human beings, and makes a distinction of diseases, and in the law it possesses the reverence of the remaining numbers. Answer.\n\nThe fulfillment of the works of nature comes about in relation to the power of nature, and not in relation to the temporal presentation defined by a week of months or years. Therefore the works of nature named in the question are often brought by nature to their proper perfection sooner or later than the numbers seven; which would not happen if nature followed the week and not the week nature. The week, then, is not the cause of the fulfillment of the works of nature, but the power of nature is the cause of the week, according to which it [nature] receives [the ability] to accomplish its proper works. Likewise also concerning the other numbers of months and years, through which the work of nature is fulfilled in the remaining animals and plants, the power of nature is the cause of the equal time, and of the greater and the lesser. But the number seven is more revered in the divine Scripture than the remaining numbers, because in it is the whole time both of the making of the world and of the rest of the one who made it: six of the making, and one of the rest.","structure":"narrative","commentary":[],"ambiguities":[],"confidence":"","notes":[]},{"i":61,"ref":"p61","source":"Ἵνα οὖν φυλαχθῇ ἡ μνήμη τῆς τοῦ κόσμου ποιήσεως ἐν τοῖς ἀνθρώποις, διὰ τοῦτο τιμιώτερον τῶν ἄλλων εὑρίσκειν ἔταξε τὸν ἑπτὰ ἀριθμὸν ἐν τῇ θείᾳ γραφῇ. Ἐρώτησις ο.\n\nἰ τὸ χαίρειν καὶ γαυριᾶν ἐπὶ τοῖς χαρίσμασιν ἀπηγόρευ\n\nται ὡς ὑπερηφανείας ποιητικόν, ταπεινοφροσύνη δὲ καὶ ἐπιείκεια τοῖς ταῦτα εἰληφόσιν ὑπὸ τῆς θείας γραφῆς παραδέδοται, πῶς οὐκ ἀνωφελῆ αὐτοῖς τὰ δωρήματα, αἴσθησιν ἐπὶ τοῦ παρόντος ἐκείνοις τοῦ οἰκείου καλοῦ παρασχεῖν μὴ δυνάμενα; Ἀπόκρισις.\n\nΤὸ χαίρειν ἐπὶ τοῖς χαρίσμασι μετὰ τῆς ὑπερηφανείας ἀπαγορεύει ὡς ἀναιρετικὸν τοῦ χαίρειν καλῶς, τὸ χαίρειν δὲ ἐπὶ τοῖς χαρίσμασι μετὰ τῆς ἐπιεικείας οὐ μόνον οὐκ ἀπο τρέπει, ἀλλὰ τοὐναντίον ἐπὶ τὴν τοιαύτην χαρὰν καὶ ἐπιτρέπει ποτὲ μὲν λέγων ὁ σωτήρ· Χαίρετε δὲ ὅτι τὰ ὀνόματα ὑμῶν ἐγράφη ἐν τοῖς οὐρανοῖς· ποτὲ δὲ ὁ ἀπόστολός φησιν· Ἀδελ φοί, χαίρετε ἐν κυρίῳ πάντοτε· πάλιν ἐρῶ, χαίρετε· τὸ ἐπιεικὲς ὑμῶν γνωσθήτω πᾶσιν ἀνθρώποις· τῷ διπλασιασμῷ τοῦ χαίρετε τὴν ἐπίτασιν τῆς χαρᾶς ἐμφαίνων. ὔτε οὖν ἡ χαρὰ ἀναιρεῖ τὴν ἐπιείκειαν, οὔτε ἡ ἐπιείκεια ἀναιρεῖ τὴν αἴσθησιν τῆς χαρᾶς, ἀλλὰ δι' ἑκατέρας ἑκατέρα φυλάττεται. Ἐρώτησις οα.","english":"So then, in order that the memory of the creation of the world might be preserved among men, for this reason he ordained that the number seven be found more honored than the others in the divine Scripture. Question 70.\n\nIf rejoicing and exulting over charisms is forbidden as producing arrogance, while humility and gentleness are handed down by the divine Scripture to those who have received them, how are the gifts not useless to them, since they are not able at present to give them a perception of their own good? Answer.\n\nHe forbids rejoicing over charisms together with arrogance, as being destructive of right rejoicing; but rejoicing over charisms together with gentleness he not only does not turn away from, but on the contrary he even permits such joy, sometimes when the Savior says: Rejoice that your names have been written in the heavens; and sometimes when the apostle says: Brothers, rejoice in the Lord always; again I will say, rejoice; let your gentleness be known to all men—by the doubling of \"rejoice\" showing the intensity of the joy. Therefore neither does joy destroy gentleness, nor does gentleness destroy the perception of joy, but by each the other is preserved. Question 71.","structure":"narrative","commentary":[],"ambiguities":[],"confidence":"","notes":[]},{"i":62,"ref":"p62","source":"Ἐπειδή τινες περὶ τῆς τοῦ κόσμου συστάσεως ἔφασαν στοχαζόμενοι ὡς ἑξακισχίλια μόνα ἔτη συστήσεται, εἰ ἀληθὲς τοῦτο δι' ὑποδειγμάτων ἐναργῶν δείκνυται, εἰ δὲ ἐκ τῆς θείας γραφῆς, καὶ εἰ ἄδηλον, μάθωμεν. Ἀπόκρισις.\n\nἜνεστι διὰ πολλῶν γραφικῶν φωνῶν τεκμήρασθαι ἀλη θεύειν τοὺς λέγοντας ἑξακισχίλια ἔτη εἶναι τὸν χρόνον τῆς παρούσης τοῦ κόσμου συστάσεως, ποτὲ μὲν λέγουσα· Ἐπ' ἐσχάτων τῶν ἡμερῶν τούτων ἐλάλησεν ἡμῖν ἐν υἱῷ· ποτὲ δέ· ἰς οὓς τὰ τέλη τῶν αἰώνων κατήντησε· ποτὲ δέ· Ὅτε ἦλθε τὸ πλήρωμα τοῦ χρόνου. Πᾶσαι δὲ αἱ τοιαῦται φωναὶ ἐν τῇ ἕκτῃ ἐῤῥήθησαν χιλιάδι.\n\nἘρώτησις οβ.\n\nἰ τότε ἄφθονος δείκνυται ἕκαστος, ὅτε ὅπερ ἐπίσταται ἢ καὶ δύναται καλὸν ποιεῖν τοῖς πλησίον χαρίζεται, πῶς οὐ φθονερὸς ὁ θεός, πάντας δυνάμενος ποιῆσαι θεοὺς καὶ μὴ ποιήσας, ἐπεὶ καλὸν ὁ θεός; ἰ δὲ οὐ φθονερός, ἀλλ' ἀδύ νατος ὢν τοῦτο οὐκ ἐποίησε· δυοῖν γὰρ θάτερον λέγειν ἀνάγκη.\n\nἈπόκρισις.\n\nὐχ ὅμοιός ἐστιν ὁ θεὸς τοῖς χαριζομένοις τοῖς πλησίον ἃ δύνανται ποιεῖν ἢ ἐπίστανται καλά. Τὸ γὰρ πλησίον θεοῦ οὐ χρῄζει θεοῦ εἰς παροχήν· ἔχει γὰρ πρὸς αὐτὸν ἐν ἅπασι τὸ ἴσον. Ἔτι δὲ εἰ θεοὺς μόνον ἐποίει ὁ θεός, τὸν κόσμον οὐκ ἂν ἐποίει· ἀναγκαίως γὰρ χρῄζει ὁ κόσμος τῶν μερῶν τῶν καθ' ὑπέρβασιν καὶ ὑπόβασιν θέσεως ἀλλήλων διαφερόντων. Ἔτι δὲ εἰ τῶν ἀδυνάτων γίνεται οὐδέν, ἀδύνατον δὲ γενέσθαι θεόν (ἄκτιστος γὰρ καὶ ἀποίητος ὁ θεός), πῶς οὐκ ἔστιν ἄλο γον τό τε λέγειν τὸν θεὸν ἄφθονον, ὅτι τὰ μὴ ἐνδεχόμενα ποιεῖ; Ἔτι δὲ καλόν ἐστιν ὁ θεός, ὅτι ἄκτιστός ἐστι καὶ κτί στης·","english":"Since some have said, conjecturing about the constitution of the world, that it will last only six thousand years, let us learn whether this is shown to be true by clear examples, and whether it is from the divine Scripture, and whether it is unclear. Answer.\n\nIt is possible to infer from many scriptural utterances that those who say the time of the present constitution of the world is six thousand years speak the truth, since it says at one time: \"In these last days he spoke to us in a Son\"; and at another: \"on whom the ends of the ages have come\"; and at another: \"When the fullness of time came.\" And all such utterances were spoken in the sixth thousand.\n\nQuestion 72.\n\nIf each one is shown to be generous precisely when he grants to his neighbors the good that he knows or is able to do, how is God not envious, since he was able to make all things gods and did not make them, seeing that God is good? But if he is not envious, but being unable, he did not do this—for one of the two must be said.\n\nAnswer.\n\nGod is not like those who grant to their neighbors the good things that they are able to do or know. For what is near to God does not need God for a supply, for it has equality with him in all things. Moreover, if God made only gods, he would not have made the world; for the world necessarily needs its parts, which differ from one another by position in exaltation and subordination. Moreover, if nothing of impossible things comes to be, and it is impossible for God to come to be (for God is uncreated and unmade), how is it not unreasonable both to say that God is not envious, because he does things that are not possible? Moreover, God is good, because he is uncreated and a creator;","structure":"narrative","commentary":[],"ambiguities":[],"confidence":"","notes":[]},{"i":63,"ref":"p63","source":"οὐδὲν δὲ τῶν κτιστῶν κατ' οὐσίαν δύναται γενέσθαι ἄκτιστον, τουτέστι θεός. Ἔοικε δὲ αὕτη ἡ ἐρώτησις τῷ λέγοντι\n\nλόγῳ· Καλός ἐστιν ὁ ὀφθαλμὸς καὶ τιμιώτερος τῶν ποδῶν· ἀλλ' εἰ ἄφθονός ἐστιν ὁ θεός, διὰ τί οὐκ ἐποίησε τοὺς πόδας ὀφθαλμούς; Συνάγει γὰρ καὶ ὁ λόγος οὗτος τὴν αὐτὴν ἄλογον ἀτοπίαν, τὸ ἢ διὰ φθόνον ἢ δι' ἀδυναμίαν μὴ πεποιηκέναι τὸν θεὸν τοὺς πόδας ὀφθαλμούς.\n\nἘρώτησις ογ.\n\nἰ τότε τὸ καλὸν φαίνεται καλόν, ὅτε συγκρίνεται τῷ κακῷ, καλὸν δὲ ὁ κόσμος, δῆλον ὅτι κακὸν ὁ μὴ κόσμος, του τέστι τὸ πρὸ κόσμου. Καὶ εἰ μὲν ἀμφότερα ἐκ θεοῦ, τουτέστι τὸ πρὸ κόσμου καὶ ὁ κόσμος, πῶς οὐχ ἑκάτερα ἐξ αὐτοῦ, του τέστι τὸ καλὸν καὶ τὸ φαῦλον; ἰ δὲ θάτερον μὲν ἐξ αὐτοῦ, ἕτερον δὲ οὐκ ἐξ αὐτοῦ, πῶς οὐκ ἔστιν αὐτόματον καὶ μὴ ὑπ' αὐτὸν τὸ μὴ ἐξ αὐτοῦ; Πῶς δὲ ἀληθεύει ὁ λέγων· Ὅτι ἐξ αὐτοῦ τὰ πάντα; Ἐν γὰρ τοῖς πᾶσι καὶ τὰ πρώην οὐκ ὄντα καὶ τὰ νῦν ὄντα περιέχεται.\n\nἈπόκρισις.\n\nΤὸ κακὸν οὐδὲν ἕτερόν ἐστι παρὰ τὴν ἐκτροπὴν τοῦ κα λοῦ· διὸ ὕστερόν ἐστι τοῦ καλοῦ τὸ κακόν· ἐκτροπὴ γάρ ἐστι τοῦ καλοῦ. Ἀλλὰ τοῦτο δῆλον ὅτι οὐκ ἐκ τῆς συγκρίσεως τοῦ κακοῦ τὸ καλὸν φαίνεται καλόν, ἀλλ' ἐκ τῆς οἰκείας φύσεως. Τὸ δὲ πρὸ τοῦ κόσμου μὴ ὄν, πάντη μὴ ὄν, οὔτε καλὸν ἦν οὔτε κακόν· διὸ τῷ οὕτω μὴ ὄντι οὐδὲν συγκρίνεται. Ἔτι δὲ τὸ πάντη μὴ ὂν οὔτε ἐκ τοῦ θεοῦ οὔτε ἐξ ἄλλου οὔτε αὐτόματόν ἐστι. Πρὸ τοῦ κόσμου οὖν οὐδὲν ἕτερον πλὴν θεοῦ ἦν· τοίνυν τῆς συγκρίσεως τῶν ὄντων οὔσης πρὸς τὰ ὄντα, οὐκ ἄρα συγ κρίνεται ὁ κόσμος τῷ μὴ κόσμῳ, οὐδὲ ἐν τῷ κόσμῳ περιέχεται τὸ μὴ κόσμος.","english":"But none of created things can become uncreated in essence, that is, God. This question seems to resemble the argument that says: The eye is beautiful and more honorable than the feet; but if God is without envy, why did he not make the feet eyes? For this argument also draws the same irrational absurdity, namely that God did not make the feet eyes either through envy or through inability.\n\nQuestion 73.\n\nIf the good appears good only when it is compared with evil, and the world is good, it is clear that what is not world is evil, that is, what is before the world. And if both are from God, that is, what is before the world and the world, how is it that both are not from him, that is, the good and the base? But if one is from him and the other is not from him, how is what is not from him not automatic and not under him? And how is the one who says, \"For all things are from him,\" telling the truth? For in \"all things\" are included both the things that formerly were not and the things that now are.\n\nAnswer.\n\nEvil is nothing other than the deviation of the good; therefore evil is later than the good, for it is a deviation of the good. But it is clear that the good appears good not from comparison with evil, but from its own nature. What was before the world, being altogether non-existent, was neither good nor evil; therefore nothing is compared with what is thus non-existent. Moreover, what is altogether non-existent is neither from God nor from another, nor is it automatic. Before the world, then, there was nothing other than God; therefore, since comparison is of existing things with existing things, the world is not compared with what is not world, nor is what is not world contained in the world.","structure":"narrative","commentary":[],"ambiguities":[],"confidence":"","notes":[]},{"i":64,"ref":"p64","source":"Τὸ γὰρ μὴ κόσμος οὐδέν ἐστι, τὸ δὲ περιεχό μενόν ἐστί τι. Καὶ ὅτε λέγομεν ἐκ τοῦ μὴ ὄντος τὸν θεὸν πε ποιηκέναι τὰ ὄντα, οὐ θέσιν τοῦ ὄντος διδόαμεν τῷ μὴ ὄντι, ἀλλὰ τὴν παντελῆ ἀναίρεσιν τοῦ μὴ ὄντος. Ἐρώτησις οδ.\n\nἰ διὰ τὸ νενικῆσθαι τὸν ἑλληνισμὸν ὑπὸ τοῦ χριστια νισμοῦ ἐλπίδα οὐκ ἔχει ὁ ἑλληνισμὸς ἀνακλήσεως, πῶς πάλαι ὑπὸ τοῦ ἑλληνισμοῦ νικηθεῖσα ἡ ἀληθὴς θεοσέβεια νυνὶ τὴν ἀνάκλησιν δέδεκται; Ὅτι γὰρ πρὸ τῆς πλάνης ἐπεκράτει ἡ ἀλήθεια μαρτυροῦσιν αἱ θείαι γραφαί, τὸν Ἀδὰμ καὶ πολλοὺς ἐφεξῆς μετ' αὐτὸν δηλοῦσαι οὐκ εἰδώλοις ἀλλὰ τῷ θεῷ λατρεύ σαντας, κἄν τινες αὐτῶν ἐν ἀτόποις ἐξητάσθησαν πράξεσιν. Ἀπόκρισις.\n\nἰ τῆς παρούσης καταστάσεως τὸ τέλος ἐστὶν ἡ διὰ τοῦ πυρὸς κρίσις τῶν ἀσεβῶν, καθά φασιν αἱ γραφαὶ προφητῶν τε καὶ ἀποστόλων, ἔτι δὲ καὶ τῆς Σιβύλλης, καθώς φησιν ὁ μακάριος Κλήμης ἐν τῇ πρὸς Κορινθίους ἐπιστολῇ, γίνε ται δὲ αὕτη ἡ κρίσις διὰ Ἰησοῦ Χριστοῦ τοῦ σταυρωθέντος ὑπὸ τῶν Ἰουδαίων, τοῦ αἰωνίως βασιλεύοντος τῶν Χριστιανῶν βασιλείαν ἀτελεύτητον, τὴν κατὰ τὸν προφήτην Δανιὴλ δο θεῖσαν αὐτῷ, διὰ τοῦτο οὐδεμίαν ἀνακλήσεως ἔχει ὁ ἑλληνισμὸς τὴν ἐλπίδα. Ἄλλως τε εἰ, καθ' ἣν ἐκράτει δυναστείαν ὁ ἑλληνισμὸς τὸν λαὸν τοῦ θεοῦ, λυθείσης ταύτης οὐδαμῶς πάλιν","english":"For that which is not a world is nothing, but that which contains is something. And when we say that God made the things that are out of that which is not, we do not give to that which is not a position of being, but the complete removal of that which is not. Question 74.\n\nIf, because Hellenism has been conquered by Christianity, Hellenism has no hope of recall, how is it that true religion, which was formerly conquered by Hellenism, has now received recall? For that the truth prevailed before the error, the divine Scriptures testify, showing that Adam and many after him in succession served not idols but God, even if some of them were found in improper deeds. Answer.\n\nThe end of the present state is the judgment of the impious through fire, as the Scriptures of the prophets and apostles say, and also the Sibyl, as the blessed Clement says in his epistle to the Corinthians; and this judgment comes about through Jesus Christ, who was crucified by the Jews, who reigns eternally over the Christians with an endless kingdom, which was given to him according to the prophet Daniel; for this reason Hellenism has no hope of recall. And besides, if, when the dominion by which Hellenism ruled the people of God was dissolved, it is in no way again","structure":"narrative","commentary":[],"ambiguities":[],"confidence":"","notes":[]},{"i":65,"ref":"p65","source":"αὐτὴν ἀνέλαβε, πῶς οὐ μάτην νῦν προσδοκᾷ τὴν ἀνάκλησιν τῆς παλαιᾶς αὑτοῦ δυναστείας; Τίνος δὲ ἕνεκεν προσδοκᾷ ὁ ἑλληνισμὸς τῆς παλαιᾶς αὑτοῦ δυναστείας τὴν ἀνάκλησιν; Πάντως ἵνα βασάνοις ἀναγκάσῃ τοὺς Χριστιανοὺς ἀφίστασθαι μὲν τῆς τοῦ υἱοῦ τοῦ θεοῦ λατρείας τε καὶ πίστεως, προσέχον τας δὲ ἕπεσθαι τῇ θρησκείᾳ τῶν δαιμόνων. Ἀλλ' αἱ βάσανοι αὗται, αἷς καὶ πρώην ἦν χρησάμενος ὁ ἑλληνισμὸς προσδο κήσας δι' αὐτῶν ἄλυτον φυλάττειν ἑαυτόν, τὸν μὲν ἑλληνισμὸν κατέπαυσαν, τὸν δὲ χριστιανισμὸν ἔστησαν παγιώτερον. Ἐρώτησις οε.\n\nἰ ἕως τῆς τῶν σωμάτων ἐγέρσεως ἡ ψυχὴ τοῦ σώμα τος ἀπαλλαγεῖσα τὰς ἀμοιβὰς οὐ κομίζεται, ἆρα ἐν τῷ με ταξὺ ὑπόκειται τῇ ἐξετάσει μέχρι τῆς ἀναστάσεως; Ἀπόκρισις.\n\nὐχ, ἣν ἔχουσιν αἱ ψυχαὶ ἐνταῦθα μετὰ τοῦ σώματος κα τάστασιν, ταύτην ἔχουσι καὶ μετὰ τὴν ἐντεῦθεν ἀπὸ τοῦ σώ ματος ἔξοδον. Ἐνταῦθα μὲν γὰρ τὰ τῆς ἑνώσεως πάντα κοινὰ ὑπάρχει δικαίων τε καὶ ἀδίκων, καὶ οὐδεμία ἐστὶν ἐν αὐτοῖς διαφορὰ κατὰ τοῦτο· οἷον τὸ γενέσθαι καὶ τὸ ἀποθνήσκειν, καὶ τὸ ὑγιαίνειν καὶ τὸ νοσεῖν, καὶ τὸ πλουτεῖν καὶ τὸ πένεσθαι, καὶ τὰ ἄλλα τὰ τούτοις ὅμοια. Μετὰ δὲ τὴν ἐκ τοῦ σώματος ἔξοδον εὐθὺς γίνεται τῶν δικαίων τε καὶ ἀδίκων ἡ διαστολή. Ἄγονται γὰρ ὑπὸ τῶν ἀγγέλων εἰς ἀξίους αὐτῶν τόπους· αἱ μὲν τῶν δικαίων ψυχαὶ εἰς τὸν παράδεισον, ἔνθα συντυχία τε καὶ θέα ἀγγέλων τε καὶ ἀρχαγγέλων, κατ' ὀπτα σίαν δὲ καὶ τοῦ σωτῆρος Χριστοῦ κατὰ τὸ εἰρημένον· Ἐκδημοῦντες ἐκ τοῦ σώματος καὶ ἐνδημοῦντες πρὸς τὸν κύριον·","english":"took it up, how does it not now vainly expect the recall of its former dominion? And for what reason does Hellenism expect the recall of its former dominion? Certainly so that by torments it might compel the Christians to fall away from the worship and faith of the Son of God, and to attend to and follow the religion of the demons. But these torments, which Hellenism had also used before, hoping by them to keep itself unbroken, put an end to Hellenism, but established Christianity more firmly. Question 75.\n\nIf the soul, having been released from the body, does not receive its recompenses until the resurrection of bodies, is it then in the meantime subject to examination until the resurrection? Answer.\n\nNo; the condition that souls have here with the body, this same they have also after their departure from the body from here. For here all the things of union are common to both the righteous and the unrighteous, and there is no difference among them in this respect: such as being born and dying, being healthy and being sick, being rich and being poor, and the other things similar to these. But after the departure from the body, immediately the distinction between the righteous and the unrighteous takes place. For they are led by the angels to places worthy of them: the souls of the righteous to paradise, where there is converse and vision of angels and archangels, and by sight also of the Savior Christ, according to what is said: Being absent from the body and present with the Lord.","structure":"narrative","commentary":[],"ambiguities":[],"confidence":"","notes":[]},{"i":66,"ref":"p66","source":"αἱ δὲ τῶν ἀδίκων ψυχαὶ εἰς τοὺς ἐν τῷ ᾅδῃ τόπους κατὰ τὸ εἰρημένον περὶ τοῦ Ναβουχοδονόσορ βασιλέως Βαβυλῶνος· Ὁ ᾅδης κάτωθεν ἐπικράνθη συναντήσας σοι, καὶ τὰ ἑξῆς. Καί εἰσιν ἐν τοῖς ἀξίοις αὑτῶν τόποις φυλαττόμεναι ἕως τῆς ἡμέρας τῆς ἀναστάσεως καὶ ἀνταποδόσεως. Ἐρώτησις ο.\n\nἰ πρὸ τῆς ἀναστάσεως οὐκ ἔστιν ἡ τῶν ἔργων ἀντίδοσις, ποῖον τῷ λῃστῇ προσγέγονεν ὄφελος, πρὸς τὸν παράδεισον αὐτοῦ τῆς ψυχῆς εἰσαχθείσης, καὶ μάλιστα ὅτι ὁ μὲν παράδεισος αἰσθητός, οὐκ αἰσθητὴ δέ ἐστι τῆς ψυχῆς ἡ οὐσία; Ἀπόκρισις.\n\nὌφελος γέγονε τῷ λῃστῇ εἰς τὸν παράδεισον εἰσελθόντι τὸ ἔργοις μαθεῖν τῆς πίστεως τὸ ὠφέλιμον, δι' ἧς ἠξιώθη τοῦ συναθροίσματος τῶν ἁγίων, ἐν ᾧ φυλάττεται ἕως τῆς ἡμέρας τῆς ἀναστάσεώς τε καὶ ἀνταποδόσεως. Ἔχει τε τοῦ παραδεί σου τὴν αἴσθησιν κατὰ τὴν ἐννοηματικὴν λεγομένην αἴσθησιν, καθ' ἣν ὁρῶσιν αἱ ψυχαὶ ἑαυτάς τε καὶ τὰ ὑπ' αὐτάς, ἔτι δὲ καὶ τοὺς ἀγγέλους τε καὶ τοὺς δαίμονας· οὐ γὰρ νοεῖ οὔτε ὁρᾷ ψυχὴ ψυχὴν οὔτε ἄγγελος ἄγγελον οὔτε δαίμων δαίμονα, ἀλλὰ κατὰ τὴν·ηθεῖσαν ἐννοηματικὴν αἴσθησιν ὁρῶσιν ἑαυτούς τε καὶ ἀλλήλους, ἔτι δὲ καὶ τὰ σωματικὰ πάντα. Ἐρώτησις οζ.","english":"But the souls of the unjust are kept in the places in Hades, as it is said concerning Nebuchadnezzar, king of Babylon: Hades below was embittered at meeting you, and the rest. And they are guarded in places worthy of them until the day of resurrection and recompense. Question 76.\n\nIf there is no recompense of works before the resurrection, what benefit accrued to the robber, since his soul was brought into paradise, and especially since paradise is perceptible, but the substance of the soul is not perceptible? Answer.\n\nThe benefit that accrued to the robber who entered into paradise was to learn by works the usefulness of faith, through which he was deemed worthy of the assembly of the saints, in which he is guarded until the day of resurrection and recompense. And he has the perception of paradise according to what is called the conceptual perception, according to which souls see themselves and the things under them, and further also the angels and the demons; for neither does a soul understand or see a soul, nor an angel an angel, nor a demon a demon, but according to the aforementioned conceptual perception they see themselves and one another, and further also all bodily things. Question 77.","structure":"narrative","commentary":[],"ambiguities":[],"confidence":"","notes":[]},{"i":67,"ref":"p67","source":"ἰ τῇ συνεργίᾳ τῶν τοῦ σώματος αἰσθήσεων τῶν αἰσθη τῶν ἡ ψυχὴ λαμβάνει τὴν αἴσθησιν, αἰσθητὰ δὲ τὰ καλὰ καὶ τὰ φαῦλα τυγχάνουσι, πῶς οὐκ ἀναισθητεῖ ἡ ψυχὴ χωρισθεῖσα τοῦ σώματος; ἰ δὲ ἀναισθητεῖ, δῆλον ὅτι νενέκρωται· νε κρῶν γὰρ καὶ ζώντων διαφορὰν ἀναισθησία διακρίνει καὶ αἴσθησις.\n\nἈπόκρισις.\n\nΠᾶσαι αἱ κτισταί τε καὶ λογικαὶ οὐσίαι διπλᾶς ἔχουσι καταληπτικὰς δυνάμεις, αἰσθητικήν τε καὶ νοητικήν· καὶ ἐννοητικὴν μὲν λεγομένην, καθ' ἣν καταλαμβάνουσιν αὑτάς τε καὶ ἀλλήλας· νοητικὴν δέ, καθ' ἣν δέχονται τὴν γνῶσιν τοῦ ὑπὲρ αὐτάς. ὐ συνεργίᾳ οὖν τοῦ σώματος αἱ ψυχαὶ τῶν αἰ σθητῶν λαμβάνουσι τὴν αἴσθησιν, ἀλλὰ αὐτὴ ἡ ψυχὴ αἴσθησιν παρέχουσα τῇ αὑτῆς παρουσίᾳ αἰσθητικὸν τὸ ζῶον ποιεῖ· καὶ ὡς μὲν πρὸς τὸ ζῶόν ἐστιν αἰσθητικόν, ὡς δὲ πρὸς ἑαυ τήν ἐστιν αἰσθητική, καὶ οὐδέποτε γίνεται νεκρὰ ἡ ψυχή· νέκρωσις τοῦ ἐμψύχου γὰρ ὑπάρχει, καὶ οὐ τῆς ψυχῆς. Συνεργίας οὖν δέεται τοῦ σώματος πρὸς τὴν κατάληψιν τῶν αἰ σθητῶν τὸ ἔμψυχον καὶ ἡ ἐμψυχία, οὐχὶ ἡ ψυχή· ἄλλο γὰρ τὸ ἔμψυχον καὶ ἄλλο ἡ ψυχή, καὶ ἄλλο τὸ κατὰ μετουσίαν καὶ ἄλλο τὸ κατ' οὐσίαν.","english":"If the soul receives sensation through the cooperation of the body's senses, and sensible things happen to be both good and bad, how is the soul not without sensation when separated from the body? And if it is without sensation, it is clear that it has died; for insensibility and sensation distinguish the difference between the dead and the living.\n\nAnswer.\n\nAll created and rational essences have two apprehensive powers, the sensitive and the noetic; and the one called conceptual, by which they apprehend themselves and one another; and the noetic, by which they receive the knowledge of what is above them. So the souls do not receive the sensation of sensible things through cooperation with the body, but the soul itself, providing sensation by its own presence, makes the living being sensitive; and as it is in relation to the living being, it is sensitive, and as it is in relation to itself, it is sensitive, and the soul never becomes dead; for death belongs to the ensouled being, and not to the soul. So the ensouled being and the ensoulment need the cooperation of the body for the apprehension of sensible things, not the soul; for the ensouled being is one thing and the soul another, and one thing is that which is by participation and another that which is by essence.","structure":"narrative","commentary":[],"ambiguities":[],"confidence":"","notes":[]},{"i":68,"ref":"p68","source":"Ἐρώτησις οη.\n\nἰ κατὰ τὴν ἑαυτοῦ καρδίαν εἶναι τὸν Δαυῒδ ὁ θεὸς ἀπε φήνατο, πῶς μετὰ ταῦτα μοιχείαν καὶ φόνον ὁ αὐτὸς προφή της εἰργάσατο; Καὶ εἰ ταῦτα ὑπὸ θεοῦ ὡς φαῦλα μεμίσηνται, διὰ τί ἐκ τῆς μοιχαλίδος τὸ γένος ὁ θεὸς τοῦ προφήτου συν έστησε, καὶ τὸν δεσπότην Χριστὸν ἐξ αὐτῆς γενεαλογεῖσθαι ἐποίησε; Τούτου δὲ ἔχοντος οὕτως, πῶς ἡ γραφὴ ἀληθεύει λέγουσα ὅτι Τέκνα μοιχῶν ἀτέλεστα; Ἀπόκρισις.\n\nΚαὶ γὰρ ὁ διὰ μετανοίας τὰ οἰκεῖα σφάλματα διορθωσάμενος Δαυῒδ καὶ κατὰ τοῦτο εὑρέθη ὡς καρδία θεοῦ, τοῦ μὴ βουλομένου τὸν θάνατον τοῦ ἁμαρτωλοῦ ὡς τὸ ἐπιστρέψαι καὶ ζῆν αὐτόν. Καὶ ὃν μὲν μοιχικῶς ἐγέννησεν ἐκ τῆς τοῦ ὐρίου τοῦτον ἐθανάτωσεν ὁ θεός, διὰ τὸ εἶναι τέκνα μοιχῶν ἀτέλεστα, τοὺς δὲ μετὰ τοῦτον γεννηθέντος οὐκ ἐθανάτωσε, διὰ τὸ λαβεῖν αὐτὸν ταύτην μετὰ τὴν ἀναίρεσιν τοῦ ὐρίου εἰς γυναῖκα ἐπιεικῶς. Τιμῶν δὲ τὴν μετάνοιαν ὁ θεὸς ἐν τοῖς ἐκ τῆς τοῦ ὐρίου γεννηθεῖσι συνεστήσατο τοῦ Δαυῒδ τὸ γένος ὁ θεός, καὶ τὸν Χριστὸν διὰ τὴν αὐτὴν αἰτίαν ἐξ αὐτῆς κατά γεσθαι ἐποίησεν.","english":"Question 78.\n\nIf God declared David to be according to his own heart, how did the same prophet afterward commit adultery and murder? And if these things are hated by God as base, why did God establish the race of the prophet from the adulteress, and cause the Lord Christ to be genealogized from her? And this being so, how does the Scripture speak truth when it says, The children of adulterers are imperfect? Answer.\n\nFor David, who corrected his own faults through repentance, was found even in this to be as the heart of God, of him who does not will the death of the sinner as he wills that he turn and live. And the one whom he begot adulterously from the wife of Uriah, God put to death, because the children of adulterers are imperfect; but those born after him he did not put to death, because he took her as a wife after the removal of Uriah, with equity. And God, honoring repentance, established the race of David in those born from the wife of Uriah, and for the same cause he caused Christ to be born from her.","structure":"narrative","commentary":[],"ambiguities":[],"confidence":"","notes":[]},{"i":69,"ref":"p69","source":"Ἐρώτησις οθ.\n\nἰ πάντων τῶν βασιλέων Ἰσραὴλ καὶ Ἰούδα τὸν περὶ εὐ σέβειαν ζῆλον ὁ Ἰωσίας θερμότατον ἐπεδείξατο, τὰς στήλας τῶν εἰδώλων συντρίψας, καὶ σὺν τοῖς εἰδωλικοῖς θυσιαστηρίοις τῶν Ἑλλήνων τὰ ὀστέα τεφρώσας, καὶ τὰ ἄλση τῆς πλάνης ἄρδην ἐκκόψας, καὶ τοὺς ἐν τοῖς ὑψηλοῖς θυμιῶντας καὶ θύοντας τοῦ ταῦτα ἐκτελεῖν ἀποστήσας, καὶ τὴν θείαν ἀνυψώσας λατρείαν, καὶ λαμπρῶς τὰς τοῦ νόμου ἑορτάς, ὡς μαρτυρεῖ ἡ\n\nγραφή, τὸν λαὸν ἐπιτελέσαι ποιήσας, καὶ ξίφει μὲν ἑλληνικῷ τὴν ζωὴν ἐκεῖνος βιαίως ἀπέθετο, οἱ δὲ τούτου παῖδες αἰχμάλωτοι εἰς Βαβυλῶνα ἀπήχθησαν καὶ πρὸς δουλείαν ἐξεδόθη σαν πολυχρόνιον Ἕλλησι, πῶς ἐπὶ τούτοις οὐκ ἂν εἴποιεν ἀλη θεύοντες Ἕλληνες, ὅτι ἀνθ' ὧν εἰς τὰ σεβάσματα αὐτῶν ἐπλημμέλησεν ἡ οὕτως αὐτῷ πικρὰ συνήντησεν ἔκβασις; Ποῦ δὲ καὶ εὑρήσομεν αὐτὸν ἀμοιβὰς τοσούτων κατορθωμάτων δεξάμενον; Καὶ πρὸς ποῖον τῶν ἔπειτα ὄφελος αἱ μετὰ τοσούτων κατορ θωμάτων μέγεθος τοῖς περὶ τὸν Ἰωσίαν συναντήσασαι συμ φοραὶ γραφῇ παρεδόθησαν;","english":"Question 79.\n\nIf Josiah displayed the most fervent zeal for piety of all the kings of Israel and Judah, smashing the pillars of the idols and reducing the bones of the Greeks to ashes along with their idolatrous altars, and cutting down the groves of error root and branch, and causing those who burned incense and sacrificed on the high places to desist from doing these things, and exalting the divine worship, and making the people celebrate the festivals of the law splendidly, as the Scripture testifies—and yet he himself violently laid down his life by a Greek sword, and his children were led away captive to Babylon and given over to long-lasting slavery to the Greeks—how, in the face of these things, would the Greeks not speak the truth when they say that in return for his offenses against their objects of reverence such a bitter outcome befell him? And where shall we find that he received recompense for so many achievements? And for the benefit of which of those who came after were the calamities that befell Josiah and his people, of such magnitude despite such great achievements, handed down in Scripture?","structure":"narrative","commentary":[],"ambiguities":[],"confidence":"","notes":[]},{"i":70,"ref":"p70","source":"Ἀπόκρισις.\n\nὉ καιρὸς τῆς ἀμοιβῆς τῶν ἐν εὐσεβείᾳ μετ' ἀρετῆς κατορθωσάντων οὐχ ὁ παρών ἐστιν ἀλλ' ὁ μέλλων, καθ' ὃν αἱ ἀμοιβαὶ ἀναφαίρετοι εἰς ἀεὶ προσμένουσι τοῖς ἐκδεχομένοις αὐτάς. Ὀδυνηρὸν δὲ τέλος ἐδέξατο τῆς ζωῆς Ἰωσίας, διὰ τὸ παρακοῦσαι αὐτὸν τοῦ προστάγματος Ἱερεμίου εἰρηκότος αὐτῷ ἐκ προστάγματος θεοῦ μὴ ἐξελθεῖν εἰς συνάντησιν τοῦ βασιλέως ἰγύπτου εἰς πόλεμον, καθώς φησιν ὁ Ἱερεμίας. Ἵνα οὖν καθαρὸν αὐτὸν ἁμαρτημάτων παραλάβῃ ἐκ τοῦ βίου ὁ δεσπό της θεός, διὰ τοῦτο συνεχώρησεν ἑλληνικῷ ξίφει δίκας δοῦναι ταύτης τῆς παρακοῆς, πρὸς τὴν διδασκαλίαν τῶν ἑξῆς ἀν θρώπων, τοῦ τε μὴ ἀπειθεῖν τοῖς προφήταις καὶ τοῦ ἰ ὁ δίκαιος μόλις σώζεται, ὁ ἁμαρτωλὸς καὶ ἀσεβὴς ποῦ φανεῖ ται; ἱ δὲ υἱοὶ τοῦ Ἰωσίου εἰ μεινάντων αὐτῶν ἐν τῇ εὐσεβείᾳ τοῦ πατρὸς αὐτῶν αἰχμάλωτοι ἐγένοντο, εἶχεν ἂν χώραν ὁ τῶν Ἑλλήνων λόγος, ὅτι ἀνθ' ὧν ἐπλημμέλησεν ὁ Ἰωσίας εἰς τὰ τῶν εἰδώλων σεβάσματα οἱ υἱοὶ αὐτοῦ αἰχμάλωτοι ἐγένοντο· εἰ δὲ ἀπέστησαν μὲν τῆς εὐσεβείας τοῦ πατρὸς αὐτῶν, ἀνέλαβον δὲ τῶν εἰδώλων τὴν λατρείαν καὶ εἰδωλολατροῦντες ᾐχμαλωτίσθησαν, προδήλως ψευδὴς ὁ λόγος τῶν Ἑλλήνων. Ἐρώτησις π.","english":"Answer.\n\nThe time of recompense for those who have succeeded in piety with virtue is not the present but the future, in which the recompenses remain forever beyond revocation for those who await them. But Josiah received a painful end to his life because he disobeyed the command of Jeremiah, who told him by God's command not to go out to meet the king of Egypt in war, as Jeremiah says. In order, then, that the Lord God might take him from this life clean of sins, for this reason he permitted him to pay the penalty for this disobedience by a Greek sword, for the instruction of subsequent men, both that they not disobey the prophets and that, if the righteous man is scarcely saved, where will the sinner and the impious appear? But if the sons of Josiah, while they remained in their father's piety, were taken captive, the argument of the Greeks would have a place, that in return for the sins Josiah committed against the objects of idol worship, his sons were taken captive. But if they departed from their father's piety, and took up the worship of idols and were taken captive while practicing idolatry, the argument of the Greeks is plainly false. Question 80.","structure":"narrative","commentary":[],"ambiguities":[],"confidence":"","notes":[]},{"i":71,"ref":"p71","source":"ἰ μακροθυμεῖν ἡμᾶς πρὸς πάντας ἡ γραφὴ διδάσκει, πῶς οὐκ ἔπταισεν Ἐλισσαῖος, θανατώσας δι' ἀρᾶς τοὺς ὑβρίσαντας αὐτὸν παῖδας καὶ μάλιστα βρέφεσιν ἀπειροκάκοις μνησικακήσας, καὶ τὸν διὰ τῶν θηρίων αὐτοῖς ἀντὶ ψιλῆς τῆς εἰς αὐτὸν ὕβρεως ἐπήγαγε θάνατον;\n\nἈπόκρισις.\n\nὍτε διὰ τῆς μακροθυμίας τῶν ὑβριζομένων οὐ γίνεται ἡ διόρθωσις, τότε ἡ ἀποτομία τῆς μακροθυμίας τοῖς ἀδιορθώτοις μάλιστά ἐστι χρησιμωτέρα. ὐ χρὴ οὖν διαβάλλειν τὸν προφήτην ἐπὶ τῇ ἀποτομίᾳ. ὑρηκὼς γὰρ τὴν μακροθυμίαν μὴ παρέχουσαν τοῖς ἁμαρτάνουσι τῆς ἁμαρτίας τὴν αἴσθησιν, καὶ ἐπειδὴ τὰς φωνὰς ταύτας, ἃς ἀτιμάζοντες τὸν προφήτην ἔλεγον οἱ παῖδες, παρὰ τῶν γονέων αὐτῶν ἐδιδάχθησαν ἀεὶ πρὸς τοὺς προφήτας ἀπεχθῶς ἐσχηκότων (τὸ γὰρ Ἀνάβαινε φαλακρέ! πρὸς διασυρμὸν ἔλεγον τῆς τοῦ Ἡλία ἀναλήψεως, ὡς ἂν εἰ τοῦτο λέγοντες· Λαμβανέτω καί σε πνεῦμα καὶ·ι ψάτω σε εἰς ὄρος ἄβατον ὡς κἀκεῖνον ἔῤῥιψεν, ἵν' ἀπαλλαγῶ μεν καὶ σοῦ ὡς κἀκείνου ἀπηλλάγημεν!), διὰ τοῦτο τῇ ἀναιρέσει","english":"Does the Scripture not teach us to be patient toward all? How then did Elisha not err when he put to death by a curse the boys who insulted him, and especially when he bore a grudge against innocent infants who knew no evil, and brought death upon them through wild beasts in return for a mere insult against himself?\n\nAnswer.\n\nWhen correction does not come about through the patience of those who are insulted, then the severity that follows patience is most useful for those who cannot be corrected. One must not therefore slander the prophet for his severity. For he had seen that patience did not give those who sin any perception of their sin, and since those words which the boys spoke in dishonoring the prophet had been taught them by their parents, who had always held the prophets in hatred (for they said \"Go up, baldhead!\" in mockery of Elijah's assumption, as if to say: \"Let a spirit take you too and cast you onto a mountain that cannot be climbed, just as it threw him, so that we may be rid of you as we were rid of him!\"), for this reason, by the destruction","structure":"narrative","commentary":[],"ambiguities":[],"confidence":"","notes":[]},{"i":72,"ref":"p72","source":"τῶν παίδων ἐμαστίγωσε τοὺς γονεῖς, ἵνα μάθωσι μὴ ἀτιμάζειν τοὺς προφήτας καὶ δι' αὐτῶν τὸν θεόν. Ἐρώτησις πα.\n\nἰ πᾶσα πλάνη τῇ Χριστοῦ παρουσίᾳ κατήργηται, πῶς διὰ τῶν καλουμένων ἐγγαστριμύθων οἱ δαίμονες φθέγγονται; Πῶς δὲ οὐκ εὐτελῆ καὶ καταφρονήσεως ἄξιον τὸν χριστιανισμὸν παριστῶσιν, ὅταν ἐν σώμασι Χριστιανῶν τὰ μὲν τῆς ἀπάτης ἐπιδείκνυνται ἔργα, τὰ δὲ τῆς μαντείας ἀποφθέγγονται λόγια; Ἀπόκρισις.\n\nἰ κατὰ τὸ εἰρημένον οὐδέπω τὰ πάντα αὐτῷ ὑποτεταγμένα εἰσίν, ἄχρις ἂν καταργήσῃ πᾶσαν ἀρχὴν καὶ ἐξουσίαν, ὡς εἶναι δῆλον ὅτι οὔπω κατήργηται πᾶσα τῶν δαιμόνων ἡ πλάνη· ἀλλ' οἷς μὲν ὁ Χριστὸς πεπίστευται ἐν τούτοις πᾶσα τῶν δαιμόνων ἡ πλάνη κατήργηται, οἷς δὲ ὁ Χριστὸς ἔτι ἀπιστεῖται ἐν αὐτοῖς ἐνεργοῦσιν οἱ δαίμονες τὴν πλάνην. Καὶ τὰ φαντάσματα, οἷς οἱ ἐγγαστρίμυθοι κέχρηνται πρὸς τὸ λα λεῖν καὶ πράττειν τὰ τῆς μαντείας λόγια καὶ ἔργα, οὐκ ἔστιν ἀληθινὰ σώματα, ἀλλὰ φαντάζουσιν οἱ δαίμονες τὰς ὄψεις τῶν ὁρώντων, ὡς σώματα ὁρᾶν τὰ μὴ σώματα. Ἐρώτησις πβ.","english":"He scourged the parents of the boys, so that they might learn not to dishonor the prophets and through them God. Question 81.\n\nIf every error has been abolished by the coming of Christ, how do the demons speak through those called ventriloquists? And how do they not present Christianity as cheap and worthy of contempt, when in the bodies of Christians they display some works of deceit and utter some oracles of divination? Answer.\n\nAccording to what has been said, not yet are all things subjected to him, until he abolishes every rule and authority, so that it is clear that not yet has every error of the demons been abolished; but in those who have believed in Christ, every error of the demons has been abolished, while in those who still disbelieve in Christ, the demons work their error. And the apparitions that ventriloquists use to speak and perform the oracles and works of divination are not real bodies, but the demons fashion the sight of those who see, so that they see as bodies things that are not bodies. Question 82.","structure":"narrative","commentary":[],"ambiguities":[],"confidence":"","notes":[]},{"i":73,"ref":"p73","source":"ἰ οὐδαμοῦ ὀνόματα δαιμόνων ἡ γραφὴ τοῖς ἀνθρώποις ἔδειξε, πῶς οἱ Ἰουδαῖοι ἐπὶ τοῦ κυρίου τὸ τοῦ Βεελζεβοὺλ ὡς ἐγνωσμένον ὠνόμαζον ὄνομα, ἐν τούτῳ φάσκοντες αὐτὸν τοὺς δαίμονας ἐκβάλλειν; Πῶς δὲ καὶ αὐτὸς ὁ δεσπότης ὡς γινώ σκουσι τοῖς μαθηταῖς τὴν τοῦ δαίμονος κλῆσιν ἔλεγεν· ἰ τὸν οἰκοδεσπότην Βεελζεβοὺλ ἐκάλεσαν; Τίς δὲ ἡ ἑρμηνεία τοῦ τοιούτου ὀνόματος;\n\nἈπόκρισις.\n\nὭσπερ τὸ εἶναι δαίμονας ὑπ' αὐτῶν τῶν δαιμόνων ἐμάν θανον οἱ ἄνθρωποι, οὕτως καὶ τὰς ὀνομασίας αὐτῶν παρ' αὐτῶν ἐδιδάχθησαν. Πρῶτον γὰρ ἔθυσαν οἱ ἄνθρωποι τοῖς δαίμοσι, καὶ ὕστερον εἶπεν ἡ θεία γραφὴ τὸ Ἔθυσαν δαιμο νίοις καὶ οὐ θεῷ. Καὶ καθάπερ περὶ τοῦ εἶναι τοὺς δαίμονας οὐδὲν φαίνεται ἡ γραφὴ εἰρηκυῖα, ὅμως δὲ λέγει· Ἔθυσαν τοῖς δαιμονίοις καὶ οὐ θεῷ· οὕτως καὶ περὶ τῆς ὀνομασίας αὐτῶν μηδὲν εἰρηκυῖα λέγει τὰ ὀνόματα τῶν δαιμόνων, τοῦ τε Βεελζεβοὺλ καὶ τοῦ Βελίαρ. Ποία, φησί, συμφώνησις Χριστῷ πρὸς Βελίαρ; ἷς γὰρ ἐκέχρηντο οἱ ἐπαοιδοὶ ὀνόμασι πρὸς τὰ προκείμενα αὐτοῖς ἔργα, ταῦτα ἀναγκαίως παρ' αὐτῶν ἐμάνθανον· κατὰ γὰρ τὸν τρόπον τῆς θεραπείας οὕτως καὶ τὴν προσηγορίαν τῆς κλήσεως αὐτῶν ὠνόμαζον. ἴρηται δὲ τῷ Ὠριγένει τούτων τῶν ὀνομάτων ἡ ἑρμηνεία ἐν τῇ Ἑρμηνείᾳ τῶν ἑβραϊκῶν ὀνομάτων.","english":"If the Scripture nowhere showed the names of demons to men, how did the Jews in the Lord's time name Beelzebub as a known name, saying in this that he cast out demons? And how did the Master himself speak to his disciples of the demon's name as one known to them: \"They called the master of the house Beelzebub\"? And what is the interpretation of such a name?\n\nAnswer.\n\nJust as men learned that demons exist from the demons themselves, so also they were taught their names by them. For first men sacrificed to the demons, and later the divine Scripture said, \"They sacrificed to demons and not to God.\" And just as the Scripture appears to have said nothing about the existence of demons, yet it says, \"They sacrificed to demons and not to God,\" so also, having said nothing about their names, it records the names of demons, both of Beelzebub and of Beliar. \"What,\" it says, \"is the agreement of Christ with Beliar?\" For the names which the sorcerers used for the works set before them, these they necessarily learned from them; for in the manner of their worship, so also did they name the invocation of their calling. And the interpretation of these names has been spoken of by Origen in the Interpretation of Hebrew Names.","structure":"narrative","commentary":[],"ambiguities":[],"confidence":"","notes":[]},{"i":74,"ref":"p74","source":"Ἐρώτησις πγ.\n\nἰ ταῖς τῶν ἀλόγων θυσίαις τὸ θεῖον οὐχ ἥδετο, καθώς τινες ἔφασαν καὶ ἡ νῦν δὲ διδάσκει κατάστασις, διὰ τί πρὸ τοῦ νόμου τῷ Νῶε τὸ θύειν προσέταττε, καὶ μάλιστα ὅτε εἰ δωλικαὶ θυσίαι οὐδέπω ἐγίνοντο; ἰ δὲ ἥδετο ταύταις, διὰ τί μετὰ τὸν νόμον ἡ τούτων χρῆσις ἐπαύσατο;\n\nἈπόκρισις.\n\nὐδεὶς τῶν θυσάντων τὰ ἄλογα θυσίαν τῷ θεῷ πρὸ τοῦ νόμου κατὰ τὴν θείαν διάταξιν ἔθυσε, κἂν φαίνηται ὁ θεὸς ταύτην προσδεξάμενος, τῇ ταύτης ἀποδοχῇ δεικνύων τὸν θύ σαντα εὐάρεστον αὐτῷ. Ἂ δὲ προσέταξε τῷ Ἀβραὰμ λαβεῖν ζῶα τριετίζοντα, ὡσαύτως δὲ καὶ κριὸν ὃν ὑπὲρ τοῦ Ἰσαὰκ προσήνεγκε θῦσαι, οὐχ ὡς ταῖς τούτου θυσίαις ἡδόμενος, ἀλλὰ χρείας ἕνεκα προμηνυτικῆς τῶν ἐσομένων. Τῷ δὲ Νῶε οὐδαμοῦ φαίνεται ὁ θεὸς προστάξας προσαγαγεῖν αὐτῷ τὴν τῶν ἀλόγων θυσίαν.\n\nἘρώτησις πδ.\n\nἰ διπλοῦν τὸ ἐν Ἡλίᾳ χάρισμα λαβεῖν Ἐλισσαῖος ἠκού σθη, πῶς οὔτε ἁπλᾶ οὔτε διπλᾶ θαύματα ἐποίησεν, οἷον ὑετὸν ἐπέχειν καὶ λιμῷ πιέζειν τὴν γῆν, πυρὸς κατὰ θυσιῶν οὐρανίου φοράν, ἱερέων ἀνομούντων σφαγάς, πεντηκοντάρχων ὁλοκαύτωσιν, καὶ τὰ λοιπά; Πόθεν οὖν Ἐλισσαῖος δειχθή σεται τὴν ἑαυτοῦ αἴτησιν καὶ τὴν τοῦ Ἡλία ὑπόσχεσιν κομι σάμενος;","english":"Question 83.\n\nIf the Deity took no pleasure in the sacrifices of irrational animals, as some have said and as the present dispensation also teaches, why did he command Noah to sacrifice before the Law, and especially when idolatrous sacrifices were not yet being offered? But if he did take pleasure in them, why did their use cease after the Law?\n\nAnswer.\n\nNone of those who sacrificed irrational animals to God before the Law sacrificed according to divine ordinance, even if God appears to have accepted this sacrifice, showing by his acceptance of it that the sacrificer was well-pleasing to him. But the command to Abraham to take three-year-old animals, and likewise the ram which he offered in sacrifice on behalf of Isaac, was not because he took pleasure in his sacrifices, but for the sake of a need that foretold things to come. But to Noah God nowhere appears to have commanded him to offer to him the sacrifice of irrational animals.\n\nQuestion 84.\n\nIf Elisha was heard to receive a double grace in Elijah, how is it that he performed neither simple nor double wonders, such as holding back rain and oppressing the land with famine, a heavenly descent of fire upon sacrifices, the slaughter of lawless priests, the consuming of fiftieth-captains, and the rest? From where, then, will Elisha be shown to have obtained his own request and Elijah's promise?","structure":"narrative","commentary":[],"ambiguities":[],"confidence":"","notes":[]},{"i":75,"ref":"p75","source":"Ἀπόκρισις.\n\nὐκ ᾐτήσατο Ἐλισσαῖος τὸ διπλοῦν τοῦ πνεύματος πρὸς ποίησιν τῶν αὐτῶν διπλῶν ἔργων, ἀλλὰ πρὸς τὸ ἰσχύειν ἁπλῶς ἐκτελεῖν ὅσα ἦν χρεία τοῦ γενέσθαι ὑπ' αὐτοῦ μετὰ μείζονος περιουσίας δυνάμεως. Τῆς δὲ αἰτήσεως ὅτι οὐκ ἀπέτυχε μαρτυροῦσι τὰ δι' αὐτοῦ γεγονότα θαύματα, ὧν τινὰ μὲν διπλᾶ, τινὰ δὲ ἁπλᾶ ἐξετέλεσε. Τὸ γὰρ ἐγεῖραι δύο νεκρούς, ἕνα μὲν ζῶντος αὐτοῦ, ἕνα δὲ τελευτήσαντος, τὸ διπλοῦν ἐδήλου τῆς ἐν τοῖς λοιποῖς θαύμασιν, εἰ ἐβούλετο, περιουσίας τῆς ἐν αὐτῷ θείας τοῦ πνεύματος χάριτος. Καὶ ἐπὶ μὲν τοῦ Ἡλία πρὸς τὴν χρείαν ἐγίνετο τοῦ ἐλαίου ἡ ἐπίδοσις, ἐπὶ δὲ τοῦ Ἐλισσαίου καὶ ὑπὲρ τὴν χρείαν. Καὶ ὁ μὲν Ἡλίας πῦρ κατή γαγεν ἐκ τοῦ οὐρανοῦ πρὸς τὴν ἄμυναν τῶν ἐχθρῶν, ὁ δὲ Ἐλισ σαῖος ἵππους καὶ ἀναβάτας πυρὸς κατήγαγεν ἐκ τοῦ οὐρανοῦ πρὸς βοήθειαν τῷ Ἰσραήλ.\n\nἘρώτησις πε.\n\nἰ τότε ἐστὶ τελεία ἀνάστασις, ὅτε ὁ τέλειος ἀνίσταται ἄνθρωπος, πῶς λέγει μετὰ τὸ δεσποτικὸν πάθος ἡ γραφὴ ὅτι πολλὰ σώματα τῶν κεκοιμημένων ἁγίων ἠγέρθη; Ὅπερ οὐκ εἶπεν ἐπὶ τῶν ἄλλων ὧν ὁ κύριος ἤγειρεν, οἷον ἐπὶ Λαζάρου καὶ ἐπὶ τοῦ υἱοῦ τῆς χήρας ἢ περὶ τῆς θυγατρὸς Ἰαείρου, ἀλλ' ἀπολύτως ὅτι τόνδε ἢ τήνδε ἀνέστησε. Πῶς οὖν ἐπὶ τού των μόνων σωμάτων ἀναστάσεως μέμνηται καὶ ἐπάγει ὅτι ἐνεφανίσθησαν πολλοῖς; Ὅπερ τῷ πλείστῳ μέρει φαντασίας ὑπόνοιαν δίδωσι. Καὶ εἰ τῷ ὄντι ἔμψυχα ἀνέστησαν σώματα, καὶ εἰ ἐπεβίωσαν ἢ εὐθέως ἐτελεύτησαν, ἢ μένουσιν ἐν ἀθανασίᾳ καὶ ὅποι, καὶ τί τοῖς μετ' ἐκείνους ἐκ τῶν ἐπ' αὐτοῖς γεγονότων τὸ ὄφελος δίδωσι, δίδαξον. Ἀπόκρισις.","english":"Answer.\n\nElisha did not ask for the double portion of the spirit for the performance of the same works twice over, but for the strength simply to accomplish whatever needed to be done by him with a greater abundance of power. That he did not fail in his request the wonders wrought through him bear witness, some of which he performed doubly and some singly. For the raising of two dead persons, one while he was alive and one after he had died, indicated the double portion of the divine grace of the spirit that was in him, in comparison with the abundance in the remaining wonders, had he wished it. And in the case of Elijah the supply of oil was given according to need, but in the case of Elisha even beyond need. And Elijah brought fire down from heaven for the defense against enemies, but Elisha brought down horses and riders of fire from heaven for the help of Israel.\n\nQuestion 85.\n\nIf the perfect resurrection is then, when the perfect man rises, how does the Scripture say after the Lord's passion that many bodies of the saints who had fallen asleep were raised? Which it did not say concerning the others whom the Lord raised, such as Lazarus and the son of the widow or the daughter of Jairus, but absolutely that he raised this one or that one. How then does it mention the resurrection of these bodies only, and add that they appeared to many? Which gives to the majority an occasion for suspicion of illusion. And if bodies truly animated rose, and whether they survived or died immediately, or remain in immortality and where, and what benefit the events concerning them give to those after them, teach.\n\nAnswer.","structure":"narrative","commentary":[],"ambiguities":[],"confidence":"","notes":[]},{"i":76,"ref":"p76","source":"ἰ τελείαν ἀνάστασιν ταύτην καλοῦμεν τῶν ἀνισταμένων ἀνθρώπων, τῶν ψυχῶν εἰσοικιζομένων πάλιν εἰς τὰ σώματα\n\nτῶν ἀνισταμένων, δῆλον ὅτι πάντες οἵ τε ἀναστάντες οἵ τε μέλλοντες ἀνίστασθαι ὑπὸ τοῦ κυρίου τέλειοι ἀνέστησαν· ἀδύνατον γὰρ γενέσθαι νεκρῶν ἀνάστασιν, τῆς ψυχῆς μὴ εἰσοι κιζομένης εἰς τὸ οἰκεῖον σῶμα. Κἂν οὖν εἴπῃ ἡ θεία γραφὴ ὅτι ὁ δεῖνα ἀνέστη ἐκ τῶν νεκρῶν ἢ ὅτι σώματα ἀνέστησαν ἐκ τῶν νεκρῶν, χρὴ ἡμᾶς δι' ἑκατέρας φωνῆς τὴν τελείαν νοεῖν ἀνάστασιν, τὴν κατὰ ἀπόδοσιν ψυχῆς τῷ σώματι γινομένην. Καὶ καθάπερ, ὅταν εἴπῃ ἡ θεία γραφή· Ὁ ἐγείρας τὸν κύριον ἡμῶν Ἰησοῦν Χριστὸν ἐκ τῶν νεκρῶν ζωοποιήσει τὰς ψυ χὰς καὶ τὰ σώματα ἡμῶν, οὔτε ἀτελῆ λέγει τὴν ἀνάστασιν οὔτε φαντασίας δίδωσιν ὑπόνοιαν, ἀλλὰ τελείαν ἀναστάσεως τὴν πίστιν, οὕτως καί, ὅταν λέγῃ· Ἠγέρθη πολλὰ σώματα τῶν κεκοιμημένων ἁγίων ἐκ νεκρῶν, τὴν τελείαν λέγει ἀνάστασιν. Γέγονε δὲ τούτων τῶν ἁγίων ἡ ἀνάστασις ἀπόδειξις τοῦ λύτρον εἶναι τὸν τοῦ Χριστοῦ θάνατον τοῦ θανάτου πάντων ἀνθρώπων τοῖς ἐν τῷ παρόντι βίῳ καὶ πάσαις ταῖς ἐν τῷ ᾅδῃ ψυχαῖς. Δι' ἣν αἰτίαν οὐδὲ ἐτελεύτησαν πάλιν, ἀλλὰ μέ νουσιν ἐν ἀθανασίᾳ, καθάπερ ὁ Ἐνὼχ καὶ ὁ Ἡλίας, καί εἰσι σὺν αὐτοῖς ἐν τῷ παραδείσῳ ἀναμένοντες τὴν ἤδη αἰωνίαν τῆς τοῦ Χριστοῦ ἀναστάσεως γινομένην κατὰ ἐναλλαγήν, καθ' ἥν, ὥς φησιν ὁ θεῖος ἀπόστολος, πάντες ἀλλαγησόμεθα. ἰς γὰρ ἀθάνατόν τε καὶ ἄφθαρτον ζωὴν οὔπω γέγονέ τινος ἡ ἀνάστασις, πλὴν τοῦ σωτῆρος Χριστοῦ· διὸ καὶ πρωτότοκος τῶν νεκρῶν καὶ ἀπαρχὴ τῶν κεκοιμημένων ἀνηγόρευται. Ἐρώτησις π.","english":"We call this the perfect resurrection of the men who rise, when their souls are again settled into their bodies. Since all who have risen and all who are going to rise have risen perfectly by the Lord—for it is impossible for a resurrection of the dead to take place unless the soul is settled into its own body—therefore, even if the divine Scripture says that a certain person rose from the dead, or that bodies rose from the dead, we must understand through either expression the perfect resurrection, which comes about by the restoration of the soul to the body. And just as, when the divine Scripture says, \"He who raised our Lord Jesus Christ from the dead will give life to our souls and our bodies,\" it neither calls the resurrection imperfect nor gives any suggestion of illusion, but rather the faith of a perfect resurrection, so also, when it says, \"Many bodies of the saints who had fallen asleep were raised from the dead,\" it means the perfect resurrection. And the resurrection of these saints became a proof that the death of Christ is the ransom from the death of all men, both those in the present life and all the souls in Hades. For this reason they did not die again, but remain in immortality, just as Enoch and Elijah, and they are with them in paradise, awaiting the already eternal resurrection of Christ, which comes about by change, according to which, as the divine apostle says, \"we shall all be changed.\" For the resurrection of anyone into immortal and incorruptible life has not yet happened, except for the Savior Christ; therefore he is proclaimed both firstborn of the dead and firstfruits of those who have fallen asleep. Question 80.","structure":"narrative","commentary":[],"ambiguities":[],"confidence":"","notes":[]},{"i":77,"ref":"p77","source":"Τί ἑρμηνεύεται ἡ μνᾶ, τὸ οἶφι, τὸ νέβελ, τὸ γόμορ, τὸ σίκλον, τὸ βασιλικόν, τὸ ἅγιον, ὁ στατήρ, ἡ δραχμή, ὁ κοδράντης, ὁ ὁρμίσκος, τὸ δίδραχμον, τὸ τάλαντον, τὸ ἀσσάριον, τὸ σεραφείμ, τὸ βεζέλ, τὸ σαβαώθ, τὸ ἀδωναΐ, τὸ ἐφούδ; Ἀμφοτέρων γὰρ ἡμῖν ἀναγκαία ἡ γνῶσις, ἐπειδὴ ἑκάτερα τῇ γραφῇ περιέχεται.\n\nἈπόκρισις.\n\nἴρηται τῷ Ὠριγένει, ἀνδρὶ ἐπισταμένῳ τὴν τῶν Ἑβραίων διάλεκτον, πάντων τῶν ἐν ταῖς θείαις γραφαῖς φερομένων ἑβραϊκῶν ὀνομάτων ἢ μέτρων ἡ ἑρμηνεία. Ἐκείνην ζητήσας εὑρήσεις ἐν αὐτῇ τὴν πάντων ἑρμηνείαν ὧν ἐζήτησας. Ἐρώτησις πζ.\n\nἰ πρὸ τῆς τοῦ Βαπτιστοῦ ἀναιρέσεως τῇ ποιήσει τῶν θαυμάτων ὁ δεσπότης διέπρεπεν, ὥς φησιν ὁ Ματθαῖος, καὶ πάντας ἡ περὶ τούτου φήμη τοὺς ἐν τῇ Ἰουδαίᾳ κατέλαβε, πῶς μετὰ τὴν τοῦ προδρόμου ἀναίρεσιν ἀκούων τὰ ὑπὸ τοῦ Χριστοῦ γινόμενα θαύματα ὁ Ἡρώδης σὺν τοῖς Ἰουδαίοις ἔλεγεν ὅτι Ἰωάννης ἐστὶ πρὸς ζωὴν ὑποστρέψας καὶ ποιῶν τὰ σημεῖα; Ταῦτα γὰρ ἡμῖν διηγεῖται ὁ μακάριος Μάρκος. Ἀπόκρισις.","english":"What is the meaning of the mina, the oiphi, the nebel, the gomor, the shekel, the royal (coin), the holy (coin), the stater, the drachma, the quadrans, the hormiskos, the didrachmon, the talent, the assarion, the seraphim, the bezel, the sabaoth, the adonai, the ephod? For the knowledge of both is necessary for us, since both are contained in the Scripture.\n\nAnswer.\n\nIt has been said by Origen, a man versed in the Hebrew language, that the interpretation of all the Hebrew names or measures borne in the divine Scriptures is (available). Having sought it out, you will find in it the interpretation of all the things you have asked about. Question 87.\n\nWhy, before the slaying of the Baptist, did the Master shine forth in the working of miracles, as Matthew says, and the report about this reach all those in Judea, (but) how, after the slaying of the Forerunner, did Herod, hearing of the miracles done by Christ, say together with the Jews that it was John who had returned to life and was working the signs? For the blessed Mark recounts these things to us. Answer.","structure":"narrative","commentary":[],"ambiguities":[],"confidence":"","notes":[]},{"i":78,"ref":"p78","source":"Ὅτι μὴ πάντα τὰ ὑπὸ τοῦ σωτῆρος γεγονότα θαύματα πάντες οἱ ἀκούσαντες ἐν ἑνὶ καιρῷ ἤκουσαν, ἀλλ' οἱ μὲν πρό τερον, ἄλλοι δὲ ὕστερον, μαρτυροῦσιν αἱ φωναὶ τῶν εἰρηκότων τὸν Ἰωάννην εἶναι ἐργάτην τῶν θαυμάτων τῶν γεγενημένων\n\nὑπὸ τοῦ σωτῆρος μετὰ τὴν ἀναίρεσιν τοῦ Ἰωάννου· οὐκ ἂν γὰρ ἔλεγον τοῦτο, εἰ ἦσαν ἀκούσαντες τὰ πρὸ τῆς ἀναιρέσεως Ἰωάννου γεγονότα θαύματα ὑπὸ τοῦ σωτῆρος. ὐδὲν οὖν ἦν θαυμαστόν, εἰ καὶ ὁ Ἡρώδης μετὰ τὴν ἀναίρεσιν τοῦ Ἰωάννου ἀκούει τὰ ἔργα τῶν μαθητῶν τοῦ Ἰησοῦ, τὰ ἐπ' ὀνόματι τοῦ Ἰησοῦ γεγονότα· τότε γὰρ ἤκουσεν ὁ Ἡρώδης τὸ ὄνομα τοῦ Ἰη σοῦ, ὅτε ἀπέστειλεν ὁ Ἰησοῦς τοὺς μαθητὰς αὑτοῦ εἰς τὰς κώμας καὶ πόλεις κηρύττειν τὴν μετάνοιαν καὶ θεραπεύειν τὰς νόσους, καθά φησι Μάρκος ὁ εὐαγγελιστής. Καὶ γὰρ αὐτὸς ὁ Ἰωάννης πρὸ τῆς ἐγέρσεως τοῦ υἱοῦ τῆς χήρας οὐκ ἦν ἀκού σας πάντα ὅσα ἐποίησεν ὁ Ἰησοῦς ἐν τῇ Γαλιλαίᾳ τε καὶ τῇ Ἱερουσαλήμ, καίτοι πολλῶν ὄντων τῶν ἤδη γεγενημένων ὑπὸ τοῦ σωτῆρος θαυμάτων, καὶ πρὸ τοῦ βληθῆναι τὸν Ἰωάννην εἰς φυλακὴν καὶ μετὰ τὸ βληθῆναι αὐτὸν εἰς φυλακήν· τότε γὰρ ἀπέστειλε τοὺς μαθητὰς αὑτοῦ ὁ Ἰωάννης πρὸς τὸν Ἰησοῦν μαθεῖν, εἰ αὐτὸς εἶ ὁ προσδοκώμενος ἐλθεῖν. Καθά φησι Μάρκος μὲν ὁ εὐαγγελιστὴς τοῦτο, Ματθαῖος δὲ ὁ εὐαγγελιστὴς ἐκεῖνο.","english":"That not all who heard the wonders performed by the Savior heard them at one and the same time, but some earlier and others later, the statements of those who said that John was a worker of the wonders that were performed by the Savior after the removal of John bear witness. For they would not have said this if they had heard the wonders performed by the Savior before the removal of John. It was nothing surprising, then, if even Herod, after the removal of John, heard of the works of the disciples of Jesus, the works done in the name of Jesus. For Herod heard the name of Jesus at that time when Jesus sent out his disciples into the villages and cities to preach repentance and to heal diseases, as Mark the evangelist says. For John himself, before the raising of the widow's son, had not heard all that Jesus did in Galilee and in Jerusalem, although there were already many wonders performed by the Savior, both before John was cast into prison and after he was cast into prison. For at that time John sent his disciples to Jesus to learn whether he was the one who was expected to come. As Mark the evangelist says this, and Matthew the evangelist says that.","structure":"narrative","commentary":[],"ambiguities":[],"confidence":"","notes":[]},{"i":79,"ref":"p79","source":"Ἐρώτησις πη.\n\nἰ, καθὼς ἡ θεία διδάσκει γραφὴ καὶ ἡμεῖς πεπιστεύκαμεν, ἁμαρτίαν γεννηθεὶς ὁ Χριστὸς οὐκ ἐποίησε, πῶς πάλιν ἀληθεύει ἡ γραφὴ μεθ' ὅρκου βοῶσα ὅτι ὐδεὶς γεννηθεὶς ὃς οὐχ ἥμαρτεν, οὐδὲ πεφυκὼς ὃς οὐκ ἠνόμησε; Πῶς δὲ καὶ βρέφος, τὸ σύγχρονον τῷ τόκῳ τέλος δεξάμενον ἢ βραχὺ μέρος ζωῆς κομισάμενον, ἁμαρτίαν καὶ ἀνομίαν ἢ τὰ τούτων ἐναντία ποιῆσαι ἠδύνατο;\n\nἈπόκρισις.\n\nΤὸ ὐδεὶς γεννηθεὶς ὃς οὐχ ἥμαρτεν, οὐδὲ πεφυκὼς ὃς οὐκ ἠνόμησεν, οὐ δείκνυσι ψευδὲς τὸ περὶ τοῦ Χριστοῦ εἰρη μένον, τὸ Ἁμαρτίαν οὐκ ἐποίησε. Περὶ γὰρ τοῦ ἐξ ἀνδρὸς καὶ γυναικὸς γεννηθέντος εἴρηται ὁ λόγος οὗτος. Ὁ δὲ Χριστὸς ἐκ πνεύματος ἁγίου καὶ τῆς ἁγίας ἐγεννήθη παρθένου. Νοεῖ ται δὲ ὁ λόγος οὕτως· ὐδεὶς πεφυκὼς ἁμαρτάνειν ἢ ἀνομεῖν, ὃς οὐχ ἥμαρτεν ἢ οὐκ ἠνόμησε· πέφυκε δὲ ἁμαρτάνειν ὁ κατὰ τὴν αὐθαίρετον προαίρεσιν ἄγων ἑαυτὸν εἰς τὸ πράττειν ἃ βούλεται, εἴτε ἀγαθὰ εἴτε φαῦλα. Τὸ δὲ βρέφος, ἅτε οὔπω ὂν τῆς τοιαύτης δυνάμεως, δῆλον ὅτι οὐδὲ πέφυκεν ἁμαρτάνειν. Καὶ τὸ Τίς γὰρ καθαρὸς ἔσται ἀπὸ·ύπου; Ἀλλ' οὐδείς, ἐὰν καὶ μία ἡμέρα ὁ βίος αὐτοῦ ἐπὶ τῆς γῆς, –οὐδενὶ τρόπῳ ἁρμόζει τῷ βρέφει· τὸ γὰρ βίος ἀντὶ τῆς πολιτείας ἔλεξε ἡ γραφή· τῷ δὲ βρέφει ὥσπερ οὐκ ἔστι πολιτεία οὕτως οὐδὲ βίος.","english":"Question 88.\n\nIf, as the divine Scripture teaches and we have believed, Christ, though born, committed no sin, how again is the Scripture true when it cries out with an oath that no one born has not sinned, nor anyone by nature has not transgressed the law? And how could an infant, whether it received its end at the same time as its birth or was granted a brief portion of life, have done sin and lawlessness, or the opposites of these?\n\nAnswer.\n\nThe statement \"no one born has not sinned, nor anyone by nature has not transgressed the law\" does not show to be false what was said concerning Christ, namely \"He committed no sin.\" For this saying was spoken concerning one born of a man and a woman. But Christ was born of the Holy Spirit and the holy virgin. And the saying is understood thus: no one who is by nature capable of sinning or transgressing the law has not sinned or not transgressed the law; and he is by nature capable of sinning who by his own free choice leads himself to do what he wishes, whether good or evil. But an infant, since it is not yet possessed of such a capacity, is clearly not by nature capable of sinning either. And the saying \"For who shall be pure from stain? But no one, even if his life on earth be but one day\" — in no way applies to an infant; for the Scripture used \"life\" in place of \"conduct\"; and as an infant has no conduct, so neither has it life.","structure":"narrative","commentary":[],"ambiguities":[],"confidence":"","notes":[]},{"i":80,"ref":"p80","source":"Ἐρώτησις πθ.\n\nἰ τὸ σκεῦος, ὅπερ ὁ Πέτρος ἐν τῇ ὀπτασίᾳ τεθέαται, εἶχε τὰ καθαρά τε καὶ ἀκάθαρτα πάντα, καθὼς ἡμῖν ἡ γραφὴ παραδίδωσι· ἡ γὰρ τοῦ πάντα φωνὴ περιληπτικὴ ἀμφοτέρων τῶν προλεχθέντων καθὼς ἕστηκεν· εἶτα θῦσαι καὶ φαγεῖν ἐκ τῶν δειχθέντων ὁ αὐτὸς ἀπόστολος ἀπροσδιορίστως κελευόμενος παρῃτήσατο, Μηδαμῶς, κύριε, λέγων, ὅτι οὐδέποτε\n\nκοινὸν ἢ ἀκάθαρτον ἔφαγον· πῶς διὰ τῶν τοιούτων·ημάτων οὐ δείκνυται πάντα μὲν ἀπαγορεύων τὰ ἄλογα ὡς ἀκάθαρτα, μεμφόμενος δὲ τῷ τὴν βρῶσιν ἀπὸ τῆς ἐξ αὐτῶν ἐπιτρέψαντι, ὡς ἀκαθάρτου ἐδωδῆς κελεύσαντι ἀπογεύεσθαι; Ἀπόκρισις.\n\nἈπὸ τῆς τοῦ Πέτρου ἀποκρίσεως μανθάνομεν τίνα ἦν τὰ ἐνόντα ἐν τῇ σινδόνι, τουτέστι τὰ ἀκάθαρτα μόνα, καὶ οὐκ ἐξ ἀνάγκης ἡ τοῦ πάντα φωνὴ περιέχει καὶ τὰ καθαρά· δυνατὸν γὰρ πάντα τὰ τετράποδα καὶ τὰ πετεινὰ τῆς γῆς λέγεσθαι καὶ τὰ ἀκάθαρτα. Τὸ δὲ ὐδαμῶς, κύριε· οὐδέποτε κοινὸν οὔτε ἀκάθαρτον ἔφαγον· πρὸς τὴν θέαν πάντων τῶν ἐν τῇ σινδόνι δειχθέντων αὐτῷ ἀπεκρίνατο καὶ οὐ περὶ τινῶν. Τὸ οὖν Σκεῦος ἐν ᾧ ἦν πάντα τὰ πετεινὰ καὶ τὰ τετράποδα καὶ τὰ ἑρπετὰ κατὰ παράληψιν εἴρηται τοῦ ἀκαθάρτου, ἀντὶ τοῦ Σκεῦος ἐν ᾧ ἦν πάντα τὰ ἀκάθαρτα πετεινὰ καὶ πάντα τὰ τετράποδα τῆς γῆς. Καὶ ὥσπερ, ὅταν λέγῃ ἡ θεία γραφή· Παντὸς ἀνδρὸς ἡ κεφαλὴ ὁ Χριστός ἐστιν, ἡ τοῦ παντὸς φωνὴ οὐ περιέχει πιστόν τε καὶ ἄπιστον ἄνδρα, ἀλλὰ πιστὸν μόνον· ὁ γὰρ πιστὸς ἀνήρ ἐστι σῶμα τοῦ Χριστοῦ, καὶ ὁ Χριστὸς τοῦ πιστοῦ ἀνδρὸς λέγεται κεφαλή·","english":"Question 89.\n\nIf the vessel that Peter saw in the vision contained all things, both clean and unclean, as the Scripture hands down to us—for the word \"all\" is inclusive of both of the things previously mentioned, just as it stands—and then the same apostle, when commanded without distinction to sacrifice and eat from what was shown, refused, saying, \"By no means, Lord, for I have never eaten anything common or unclean\"—how is it not shown by such words that he rejects all irrational animals as unclean, and blames the one who permitted eating from them, as though he had commanded him to taste unclean food? Answer.\n\nFrom Peter's answer we learn what things were in the sheet—that is, the unclean things only—and the word \"all\" does not necessarily include the clean things as well; for it is possible that all the four-footed animals and the birds of the earth are called unclean. And the words \"By no means, Lord, I have never eaten anything common or unclean\" were his answer to the sight of all the things shown to him in the sheet, and not concerning certain ones. Therefore the vessel in which were all the birds and four-footed animals and creeping things is spoken by way of inclusion of the unclean, instead of \"the vessel in which were all the unclean birds and all the four-footed animals of the earth.\" And just as, when the divine Scripture says, \"The head of every man is Christ,\" the word \"every\" does not include both the believer and the unbeliever, but the believer only—for the believing man is the body of Christ, and Christ is called the head of the believing man—","structure":"narrative","commentary":[],"ambiguities":[],"confidence":"","notes":[]},{"i":81,"ref":"p81","source":"οὕτως οὐδὲ ἡ τοῦ πάντα φωνὴ περιεκτική ἐστι καθαρῶν τε καὶ ἀκαθάρτων, ἀλλὰ τῶν ἀκαθάρτων μόνων, δι' ὧν προεμηνύθη τῷ Πέτρῳ ἡ παράληψις τῶν ἀκαθάρτων ἐθνῶν, ὧν τῇ πίστει τοῦ Χριστοῦ ὁ θεὸς ἐκαθάρισε τὰς καρδίας.\n\nἘρώτησις %.\n\nἰ εὐσεβεῖ λογισμῷ οἱ πατριάρχαι κινούμενοι ἑαυτοῖς καὶ τοῖς παισὶ τὰς γαμετὰς ἐκ τῆς οἰκείας συγγενείας εἰλήφασι, πῶς οὐ παρὰ τὸν εὐσεβῆ τῶν προγόνων σκοπὸν Ἰωσὴφ καὶ Μωϋσῆς διεπράξαντο, ὁ μὲν ἰγυπτίαν, ὁ δὲ Μαδιανίτιδα γυναῖκα γημάμενος;\n\nἈπόκρισις.\n\nἰ μὲν πατριάρχαι φόβῳ τοῦ μὴ ἐκτραπῆναι τοὺς υἱοὺς αὐτῶν τῆς εὐσεβείας οὐκ ἐπέτρεπον αὐτοὺς ἐκ τῶν ἐθνικῶν λαβεῖν γαμετάς, ὁ δὲ Μωϋσῆς καὶ ὁ Ἰωσὴφ τοῦ τοιούτου φό βου ἦσαν ἀνώτεροι, οὐδὲν οὖν κατὰ παράβασιν τοῦ σκοποῦ τῶν πατέρων πεποιηκότες φαίνονται ὅ τε Μωϋσῆς καὶ ὁ Ἰωσὴφ λαβόντες ἐθνικὰς γαμετάς. ὐ γὰρ μόνον αὐτοὶ οὐκ ἐξετράπησαν τῆς εὐσεβείας ὑπὸ τῶν ἑαυτῶν γυναικῶν, ἀλλὰ καὶ τὰς ἑαυτῶν γυναῖκας εἰς τὴν ἑαυτῶν μετέφερον εὐσέβειαν. Ἐρώτησις %α.","english":"Thus neither is the word \"all\" inclusive of clean and unclean things, but of unclean things only, through which was foretold to Peter the reception of the unclean nations, whose hearts God cleansed by faith in Christ.\n\nQuestion 10.\n\nIf the patriarchs, moved by pious reasoning, took wives for themselves and their sons from their own kindred, how is it that Joseph and Moses acted contrary to the pious purpose of their forefathers, the one having married an Egyptian woman, the other a Midianite woman?\n\nAnswer.\n\nThe patriarchs, for fear that their sons should be turned aside from piety, did not permit them to take wives from among the Gentiles; but Moses and Joseph were above such fear. Therefore Moses and Joseph appear to have done nothing contrary to the purpose of the fathers in taking Gentile wives. For not only were they themselves not turned aside from piety by their own wives, but they also brought their own wives over to their own piety.\n\nQuestion 11.","structure":"narrative","commentary":[],"ambiguities":[],"confidence":"","notes":[]},{"i":82,"ref":"p82","source":"ἰ πρὸ τῆς παραβάσεως ὁ Ἀδὰμ λογικοῦ ἢ ἀλόγου οὐ τεθέαται θάνατον, πῶς ὃν οὐκ εἶδεν, ὡς ἑωρακώς, ἀπειληθέντα ἐδειλίασε θάνατον; Πῶς δὲ τοῦτον ἀγνοούμενον αὐτῷ ὡς ἐγνωσμένον ἠπείλησεν ὁ θεός; Ἀπόκρισις.\n\nἰ λογικὸν ἐκεῖνον καλοῦμεν τὸν ἔχοντα ἐν ἑαυτῷ τῶν ὑπὸ τῶν λόγων σημαινομένων τὰς ἐννοίας, δῆλον ὅτι καὶ ὁ Ἀδὰμ λογικὸς ὢν εἶχεν ἐν ἑαυτῷ τοῦ θανάτου τὴν ἔννοιαν. Καὶ καθώσπερ μὴ ἑωρακὼς μὲν ὁ Ἀδὰμ λογικὸν ἐπὶ τῇ ἑαυτοῦ γυ\n\nμνώσει αἰσχυνόμενον, ὅμως δὲ γυμνωθεὶς ᾐσχύνθη, ἐσχηκὼς ἐν ἑαυτῷ τῆς αἰσχύνης τὸ ὄνομα καὶ τὴν ἔννοιαν, οὕτως εἶχεν ἐν ἑαυτῷ καὶ τοῦ θανάτου τὴν ἔννοιαν, κἂν τὸ πρᾶγμα ἐν ἄλλῳ μήπω ἦν θεασάμενος. Διὸ εὐλόγως ἐδειλίασε τὸν θάνατον, εἰδὼς αὐτὸν ἀπὸ τῆς ἐννοίας αὐτοῦ ἀντικείμενον ὄντα τῆς ζωῆς. Ἐρώτησις %β.\n\nἘπειδὴ ἡ γραφὴ λέγει κρίματα καὶ δικαιώματα, καὶ μαρτύρια καὶ νόμον, ἐντολὰς καὶ προστάγματα, εἰ ταὐτά εἰσιν ἀμφότερα ἀλλήλοις ἢ ἑκάτερον ἔχει λόγον ἰδιάζοντα, δίδαξον. Ἀπόκρισις.","english":"If Adam before the transgression had not seen rational or irrational death, how did he fear death when it was threatened, as though he had seen it? And how did God threaten it to him as something known, when it was unknown to him? Answer.\n\nWe call that being rational which has within itself the concepts of the things signified by words; clearly, then, Adam, being rational, had within himself the concept of death. And just as Adam, though he had not seen a rational being ashamed at his own nakedness, nevertheless was ashamed when he was naked, having within himself the name and concept of shame, so too he had within himself the concept of death, even though he had not yet beheld the thing itself in another. Therefore he reasonably feared death, knowing from its concept that it is opposed to life. Question 2.\n\nSince the Scripture speaks of judgments and ordinances, testimonies and law, commandments and precepts, teach whether both are the same as each other, or each has its own distinct meaning. Answer.","structure":"narrative","commentary":[],"ambiguities":[],"confidence":"","notes":[]},{"i":83,"ref":"p83","source":"Κρίματα μὲν λέγει τοὺς λόγους τοὺς διαστείλαντας τῶν οὐ πρακτέων τὰ πρακτέα, καὶ τιμὴν μὲν τὴν ἐπὶ τῇ ὑπακοῇ, ἀτιμίαν δὲ τὴν ἐπὶ τῇ παρακοῇ ὡρισμένας· δικαιώματα δὲ λέγει τῶν κριμάτων τὴν ὀρθότητα ἀπονεμητικὴν τῶν κατ' ἀξίαν ἑκάστῳ. Νόμον δὲ λέγει τὴν ἔγγραφον περίληψιν πάσης τῆς ἰουδαϊκῆς λατρείας τε καὶ πολιτείας· μαρτυρίαν δὲ καλεῖ τὴν ἐπὶ τοῖς πεπραγμένοις ὑπὸ τῶν δεξαμένων τὸν νόμον δι' εὐλογίας καὶ κατάρας ἀμοιβήν, ἣν οὐρανὸν καὶ γῆν ὁ Μωϋσῆς διαμαρτυρόμενος ἔλεγε τοῖς Ἰουδαίοις συμβήσεσθαι αὐτοῖς πειθομένοις ἢ ἀπειθοῦσιν. Ἐντολὰς δὲ καὶ προστάγματα λέγει τὸν κατὰ * λόγων ὀνομάζων τοὺς λόγους ἐνταλτικῶς ἢ προσ τακτικῶς λεχθέντας, κατὰ τὴν ἔμφασιν τῆς θείας αὐθεντίας τοῦ ταῦτα ἐντειλαμένου ἢ προστάξαντος. Ἐρώτησις %γ.\n\nἰ τὰ νῶτα τοῦ οὐρανοῦ πεφόρτωται ὕδασι, καθώς φησιν ἡ γραφή, ὅπερ τινὲς ἔφασαν γεγονέναι διὰ τὴν πυρώδη τῶν φωστήρων οὐσίαν, ὥστε τοῖς ἐπικειμένοις τὸν οὐρανὸν πιαινόμενον ὕδασι τῇ ὑποκειμένῃ τῶν φωστήρων φλογὶ μένειν ἀχείρωτον, πῶς οἱ ταῦτα λέγοντες ἀληθεύουσι, τῶν φωστήρων οὐκ ἐν τῷ οὐρανῷ ἀλλ' ὑπὸ τὸν οὐρανὸν κινουμένων; ἰ δὲ τούτους ἐν τῷ οὐρανῷ λέγομεν εἶναι, πῶς τὴν κινητικὴν ἐνέργειαν ἔχουσι, τοῦ οὐρανίου σώματος τὸ ἀκίνητον ἔχοντος; ἰ δὲ σὺν τῷ οὐρανῷ τὰ ἄστρα λαμβάνει τὴν κίνησιν, πῶς οὐκ ἀληθεύει ὁ σφαῖραν τὸν οὐρανὸν προσαγορεύων μῦθος; ἰ δὲ τοῦτο μὲν ἀπρεπές, τὸ δὲ προλεχθὲν περὶ τῶν φωστήρων νοῆσαι ἀκόλουθον, πῶς οὐκ ἄχρηστος τῶν ἄνω ὑδάτων ἡ σύ στασις;","english":"He calls \"judgments\" the words that distinguish things that should be done from things that should not be done, and \"honor\" the reward appointed for obedience, and \"dishonor\" that for disobedience. He calls \"righteous ordinances\" the uprightness of the judgments, distributing to each according to his worth. He calls \"law\" the written summary of the whole Jewish worship and way of life. He calls \"testimony\" the recompense for what has been done by those who received the law, through blessing and curse, which Moses, calling heaven and earth to witness, said would happen to the Jews if they obeyed or disobeyed. He calls \"commandments\" and \"precepts\" the words spoken in the manner of commands or precepts, according to the meaning of the divine authority of the one who commanded or enjoined these things. Question 93.\n\nIf the back of heaven is loaded with waters, as the Scripture says, which some have said came to be because of the fiery nature of the luminaries, so that the heaven, being fattened by the waters lying upon it, remains unharmed by the underlying flame of the luminaries—how do those who say these things speak the truth, when the luminaries move not in heaven but under heaven? But if we say that they are in heaven, how do they have the power of motion, when the heavenly body has immobility? And if the stars receive motion together with heaven, how is the myth that calls heaven a sphere not true? But if this is unfitting, and what was said before about the luminaries is consistent to understand, how is the placing of the waters above not useless?","structure":"narrative","commentary":[],"ambiguities":[],"confidence":"","notes":[]},{"i":84,"ref":"p84","source":"Τίς δὲ καὶ αὐτὴ ἐν τῇ συντελείᾳ γενήσεται, ἄνω μὲν τῶν δικαίων, κάτω δὲ τῶν ἁμαρτωλῶν τὰς τῶν πρακτέων ἀμοιβὰς τότε μελλόντων κομίζεσθαι; Ἀπόκρισις.\n\nΚἂν ὑπὸ τὸν οὐρανόν εἰσιν οἱ φωστῆρες, ἀλλ' ἡ φορὰ τῆς τῶν πυρωδῶν οὐσιῶν ἐνεργείας κατὰ φύσιν ἐπὶ τὰ ἄνω γίνεται· διὸ εὔλογον αἰτίαν ἐπιδεδώκασιν οἱ εἰρηκότες πρὸς διαμονὴν τοῦ στερεώματος πεφορτῶσθαι τὰ νῶτα τοῦ οὐρανοῦ τοῖς ὕδασιν. ὐ τοῦτο δὲ μόνον ἐστὶν αἴτιον τοῦ εἶναι τὰ ὕδατα ἐν τοῖς νώτοις τοῦ οὐρανοῦ, τὸ ἀχείρωτον αὐτὸν εἶναι τῇ ὑποκειμένῃ φλογὶ τῶν φωστήρων, ἀλλὰ καὶ τὸ βαρεῖσθαι αὐτὸν ἐπὶ τὸ κάτω ὑπὸ τοῦ πλήθους τῶν ἐν νώτοις αὐτοῦ ὑδάτων, καὶ μὴ δονεῖσθαι ὑπὸ τῆς βιαίας τῶν ἀνέμων φορᾶς,\n\nκαὶ τὸ τὴν ἄκραν ἐξ αὐτῶν ἐπὶ τὸ κάτω πέμπεσθαι ψυχρότητα, ἀφ' ἧς μιγείσης τῇ ἄκρᾳ τοῦ ἡλίου θερμότητι ἀποτε λεῖται τῶν ἀέρων ἡ εὐκρασία πρὸς τὴν διαμονὴν τῶν ἐπὶ γῆς ζώων τε καὶ φυτῶν. Ἐν δὲ τῇ συντελείᾳ οὐκ ἐν τῷ νῦν οὐ ρανῷ καὶ ἐν τῇ νῦν γῇ κομίζονται τῶν πρακτέων τὰς ἀμοιβὰς οἱ ἄνθρωποι, ἀλλ' ἐν τῷ καινῷ οὐρανῷ καὶ ἐν τῇ καινῇ γῇ κατὰ τὸ εἰρημένον, ὥσπερ τὸ Ὁ οὐρανὸς καινὸς καὶ ἡ γῆ καινή, ἣν ἐγὼ ποιῶ, μένει ἐνώπιόν μου εἰς τοὺς αἰῶνας. Καὶ πάλιν· Κατ' ἀρχὰς σύ, κύριε, τὴν γῆν ἐθεμελίωσας, καὶ ἔργα τῶν χειρῶν σου εἰσὶν οἱ οὐρανοί· καὶ αὐτοὶ μὲν ἀπολοῦν ται, σὺ δὲ διαμένεις· καὶ πάντες ὡς ἱμάτιον παλαιωθήσονται, καὶ ὡσεὶ περιβόλαιον ἑλίξεις αὐτούς, καὶ ἀλλαγήσονται. Καὶ πάλιν· Ἔτι ἅπαξ ἐγὼ σείω οὐ μόνον τὴν γῆν ἀλλὰ καὶ τὸν οὐρανόν. Τὸ δὲ σαλευόμενον δηλοῖ τὴν αὐτοῦ μετάστασιν, ἵνα μείνῃ τὰ μὴ σαλευόμενα ἀκίνητα. Ἐρώτησις %δ.","english":"What will that [place] itself be at the consummation, when the righteous are above and the sinners below, about then to receive the rewards of things to be done? Answer.\n\nEven if the luminaries are under the heaven, yet the natural motion of the activity of the fiery substances is upward; therefore those who said that the back of the heaven is burdened with waters for the stability of the firmament have given a reasonable cause. And this alone is the cause of the waters being on the back of the heaven—that it is not overcome by the underlying flame of the luminaries, but also that it is weighed down below by the multitude of the waters on its back, and is not shaken by the violent motion of the winds,\n\nand that the extreme cold from them is sent downward, from which, when mixed with the extreme heat of the sun, the temperateness of the airs is produced for the preservation of the living creatures and plants on the earth. But at the consummation, humans do not receive the rewards of things to be done in the present heaven and the present earth, but in the new heaven and the new earth, according to what is said, as: The new heaven and the new earth, which I make, remain before me forever. And again: In the beginning you, Lord, founded the earth, and the heavens are the works of your hands; and they indeed will perish, but you remain; and all will grow old like a garment, and like a cloak you will roll them up, and they will be changed. And again: Yet once I shake not only the earth but also the heaven. But what is shaken indicates its removal, so that what is not shaken may remain immovable. Question 4.","structure":"narrative","commentary":[],"ambiguities":[],"confidence":"","notes":[]},{"i":85,"ref":"p85","source":"ἰ ὡς βιβλίον τὸν οὐρανὸν εἱλίσσεσθαι, καὶ τὰ ἄστρα ὡς φύλλα πίπτειν ἐπὶ τῆς γῆς προλέγει μὲν ὁ κύριος, καὶ ὁ προφήτης δὲ τούτοις προκατήγγειλε σύμφωνα, πῶς ἡ παντελὴς τοῦ στερεώματος ἀπώλεια διὰ τῶν ἐκείνων λόγων οὐ δείκνυ ται; Τίς οὖν ἡ τῶν τοιούτων·ημάτων διάνοια; Καὶ πῶς τὸ τῶν στοιχείων συνίστασθαι ἄφθαρτον δύναται; Ἀπόκρισις.\n\nὭσπερ τοῦ στερεώματος τὴν ποίησιν παραβολικῶς ἡ θεία γραφὴ παρείκασε ποτὲ μὲν τῇ ἐκτάσει τῆς δέρεως, λέγουσα· Ὁ ἐκτείνων τὸν οὐρανὸν ὡσεὶ δέριν· ποτὲ δὲ τῷ καπνῷ ἐστε ρεωμένῳ· Ὁ οὐρανός, φησίν, ὡσεὶ καπνὸς ἐστερεώθη· ποτὲ δὲ τῷ περιφερεῖ τῆς καμάρας· Ὁ τανύσας, φησί, τὸν οὐρανὸν ὡσεὶ καμάραν· οὕτως καὶ τὴν ἀνάλυσιν αὐτοῦ παραβολικῶς παρείκασε ποτὲ μὲν βιβλίῳ εἱλισσομένῳ, ποτὲ δὲ στοιχείῳ λυομένῳ πυρί, καθά φησιν ὁ ἀπόστολος Πέτρος ἐν τῇ δευ τέρᾳ αὐτοῦ καθολικῇ ἐπιστολῇ, ποτὲ δὲ ἱματίῳ παλαιουμένῳ. Ἀνάγκη γὰρ τῇ εἰσαγωγῇ τοῦ κρείττονος οὐρανοῦ τοῦ καινῶς γινομένου ἀναιρεῖσθαι τὸ στερέωμα, ὡς ἄχρηστον ὂν πρὸς ἐκείνην τὴν κατάστασιν, ἵνα τῇ αὐτοῦ ἀπωλείᾳ κἂν τότε τὸ μάταιον τοῦ περὶ τῆς ἀγενεσίας καὶ ἀφθαρσίας τοῦ οὐρα νοῦ φερομένου δόγματος γινώσκωσιν ὅσοι ἀγένητόν τε καὶ ἀΐδιον κατὰ τρόπον ἄφρονα τοῦτον εἰρηκότες. Ἐρώτησις %ε.","english":"The Lord foretells that the heaven will be rolled up like a book, and that the stars will fall upon the earth like leaves, and the prophet also announced things in agreement with these; how then is the complete destruction of the firmament not shown through those words? What, then, is the meaning of such words? And how can the elements be established as incorruptible? Answer.\n\nJust as divine Scripture once likened the making of the firmament figuratively to the stretching out of a skin, saying, \"He stretches out the heaven as a skin\"; and once to smoke made solid: \"The heaven,\" it says, \"was made solid like smoke\"; and once to the curve of a vault: \"He who stretched out,\" it says, \"the heaven like a vault\"—so also it likened its dissolution figuratively, sometimes to a book being rolled up, sometimes to an element dissolved by fire, as the apostle Peter says in his second catholic epistle, and sometimes to a garment growing old. For by the introduction of the better heaven, which is made new, it is necessary that the firmament be abolished, as being useless for that state, so that by its destruction even then those who have foolishly said that this heaven is unbegotten and eternal may come to know the vanity of the doctrine held concerning the unbegottenness and incorruptibility of the heaven. Question 95.","structure":"narrative","commentary":[],"ambiguities":[],"confidence":"","notes":[]},{"i":86,"ref":"p86","source":"ἰ διὰ τὴν ἡμετέραν χρείαν καὶ ὠφέλειαν ἡ παραγωγὴ τῆς κτίσεως γέγονε, καὶ διὰ τὴν ἡμετέραν ὁμοίως χρείαν τὰ μὲν φθείρεται, τὰ δὲ ἀφθαρσίαν ἐν τῇ συντελείᾳ ἐνδύσονται, οἷον κτήνη μὲν καὶ πετεινὰ καὶ θηρία φθείρεται, οὐρανὸς δὲ καὶ ἡ γῆ φθορᾶς ἀπαλλάττεται· καὶ τὰ μὲν φθείρεται, ὡς ἀνενδεοῦς ἡμῶν ἀνισταμένου τοῦ σώματος, ἐν ἀφθαρσίᾳ δὲ τὰ δηλωθέντα διαμένει στοιχεῖα, τῶν πραχθέντων ἡμῖν μελλόντων ἡμῶν ἐν αὐτοῖς κομίζεσθαι τὴν ἀντίδοσιν· ἀὴρ καὶ θάλαττα πῶς οὐκ ἄχρηστα, εἰ τότε μένει ἄφθαρτα, οὔτε εἰς ἀναπνοὰς οὔτε εἰς ἐμπορίας οὔτε ἰχθυοφαγίας ἢ ἑτέρας τινὸς βοηθείας\n\nἐξ αὐτῶν χρῃζόντων ἡμῶν, διὰ τὸ ἀνενδεές, καθὼς ἔφην, τοῦ σώματος;\n\nἈπόκρισις.\n\nἰ κατὰ τὸν ἀπόστολον Παῦλον παράγει τὸ σχῆμα τοῦ κόσμου τούτου ὁ θεός, δῆλον ὅτι ἐξ ἀνάγκης καὶ τὰ ἄλλα πάντα τὰ τοῦ σχήματος ἕνεκεν τοῦ κόσμου γεγονότα συμπαραχθή σεται τῷ τοῦ κόσμου σχήματι. ἰσαχθήσεται δὲ καινὸς οὐ ρανὸς καὶ καινὴ γῆ, ἐν οἷς μέλλουσι δίδοσθαι δικαίοις τε καὶ ἀδίκοις τῶν πρακτέων αἱ ἀμοιβαί. Τῷ δὲ ἀέρι εἰ καὶ πρὸς ἀναπνοὴν τότε οὐ χρῄζομεν, ἀλλὰ πρὸς τὴν κίνησίν τε καὶ τοπικὴν μετάστασιν ἀναγκαίως αὐτῷ χρησόμεθα. Ἁρπαγησόμεθα γάρ, φησίν, ἐν νεφέλαις εἰς ἀπάντησιν τοῦ κυρίου εἰς ἀέρα.","english":"For our need and benefit the creation was brought forth, and likewise for our need some things are destroyed, while others will put on incorruption at the consummation; for example, cattle and birds and wild beasts are destroyed, but heaven and earth are released from corruption. And some things are destroyed, since our body rises without need of them, while the elements indicated remain in incorruption, since we who have done these things are to receive the recompense for them in them. How then are air and sea not useless, if they then remain incorruptible, when we need them neither for breathing nor for trade nor for eating fish nor for any other assistance from them, because the body is without need, as I said?\n\nAnswer.\n\nAccording to the apostle Paul, God is passing away the form of this world; it is clear that of necessity all the other things that came to be for the sake of the form of the world will also be passed away together with the form of the world. But a new heaven and a new earth will be established, in which the recompenses for deeds done are to be given to the righteous and the unrighteous. And even if we do not then need the air for breathing, we will necessarily use it for motion and local removal. For we shall be caught up, he says, in clouds to meet the Lord in the air.","structure":"narrative","commentary":[],"ambiguities":[],"confidence":"","notes":[]},{"i":87,"ref":"p87","source":"Ἐρώτησις %.\n\nἰ μὴ τοῖς παρὰ γνώμην ἀλλὰ τοῖς κατὰ γνώμην καλοῖς παρὰ θεοῦ ὁ ἔπαινος δίδοται, οἱ παῖδες οἱ παρὰ Ἡρώδου τὴν διὰ τὸν Χριστὸν λαβόντες ἀναίρεσιν, καὶ τὰ ἐπὶ τοῦ αὐ τοῦ, ἡνίκα ἐπὶ τοῦ κτήνους καθήμενος τὴν Ἱερουσαλὴμ κατε λάμβανε, τὸν ὕμνον φθεγξάμενα πλήθη, πότερον ἔχουσι δι καίως χρεωστούμενον ἔπαινον, ἐπειδὴ κἀκεῖνοι τὴν σφαγὴν παρὰ γνώμην ἐδέξαντο, καὶ ταῦτα οὐ γνώμῃ οἰκείᾳ ἀλλὰ χάριτι θείᾳ ἐν Ἱερουσαλὴμ τὸν ὕμνον ἐκεῖνον ἐφθέγξαντο; Ἀπόκρισις.\n\nἰ χάρισμα θεοῦ ἐστι τὸ ὑπὲρ Χριστοῦ πάσχειν (Ἡμῖν, φησίν, ἐχαρίσθη οὐ μόνον τὸ εἰς αὐτὸν πιστεύειν, ἀλλὰ καὶ τὸ ὑπὲρ αὐτοῦ πάσχειν), ἔπασχον δὲ καὶ τὰ βρέφη ὑπὲρ Χριστοῦ, θείας ἄρα ἠξιώθησαν χάριτος. Τίς οὖν οὐκ ἐπαινέσειε ταῦτα δικαίως τῇ δόσει τῆς θείας χάριτος ἐπαινεθέντα ὑπὸ τοῦ θεοῦ, τοῦ καὶ τοῖς παρὰ γνώμην καλοῖς τὸν ἔπαινον δα ψιλευομένου; Ἔτι δὲ εἰ πρὸς τὸν ἔπαινον τῶν διὰ τὴν εὐσέβειαν θλιβομένων ἀνταποδίδωσιν ὁ θεὸς θλίψιν τοῖς θλίψα σιν, ἀνάγκη ἄρα καὶ τὰ βρέφη τὰ ἀναιρούμενα ὑπὸ Ἡρώδου ἐπαινεῖσθαι τούτῳ τῷ ἐπαίνῳ τῷ διὰ τὴν ἐκδίκησιν τῶν θλί ψεων. Δίκαιον, φησὶν ὁ ἀπόστολος Παῦλος, παρὰ τῷ θεῷ ἀνταποδοῦναι τοῖς θλίψασιν ὑμᾶς θλίψιν, ὑμῖν δὲ τοῖς θλιβομένοις ἄνεσιν μεθ' ἡμῶν ἐν τῇ βασιλείᾳ αὐτοῦ. Ἐρώτησις %ζ.","english":"Question 87.\n\nIf praise is given by God not for things done against one's will but for things done according to one's will, then the children who received death at Herod's hands because of Christ, and the crowds who, in the same account, when he was sitting on the beast and entering Jerusalem, uttered the hymn—do these have praise justly owed to them, since those children received slaughter against their will, and these crowds uttered that hymn in Jerusalem not by their own will but by divine grace? Answer.\n\nIf suffering for Christ is a gift of God (\"For to you,\" he says, \"it was granted not only to believe in him, but also to suffer for him\"), and the infants also suffered for Christ, then they were deemed worthy of divine grace. Who, then, would not justly praise these things, which have been praised by God through the bestowal of divine grace—God who lavishes praise even on things done against the will? Moreover, if God repays affliction to those who afflict, in return for the praise of those who are afflicted for the sake of piety, then necessarily the infants slain by Herod are also praised with that praise which comes through the avenging of their afflictions. \"It is just,\" says the apostle Paul, \"with God to repay affliction to those who afflict you, and to you who are afflicted, rest with us in his kingdom.\" Question 97.","structure":"narrative","commentary":[],"ambiguities":[],"confidence":"","notes":[]},{"i":88,"ref":"p88","source":"ἰ ἡ χάρις διὰ τοῦτο κέκληται χάρις, διὰ τὸ τοῖς παριοῦσι τοῦ νόμου συγχωρεῖν ἑτοιμότερον, πῶς τὰ τῇ χάριτι πρέποντα ἐν τῷ νόμῳ μᾶλλον εὑρίσκεται; Ὁ μὲν γὰρ·αντισμοῖς τισι καὶ θυσίαις ἀλόγων καὶ διαφοραῖς βαπτισμάτων τοὺς πταίοντας καθ' ἑκάστην ἀπολύει τῆς μέμψεως, ἡ δὲ χάρις ἓν μόνον χαρίζεται βάπτισμα. Ἅπαξ δὲ μόνον εἰ μὲν ὑπεπίπτομεν πταίσμασιν, ἅπαξ μόνον καὶ τῆς ἀφέσεως ἐδεόμεθα· πολλά κις δὲ ἁμαρτάνοντες δῆλον ὅτι καὶ πολλάκις τῆς ἀφέσεως χρῄ ζομεν· ὅπερ οὐχ ἡ χάρις ἀλλ' ὁ νόμος διὰ τῶν προλεχθέντων·αντισμῶν καὶ τῶν λοιπῶν παρέχειν ἐπίσταται. Πῶς οὖν δειχθήσεται τοῦ νόμου ἡ χάρις φιλανθρωποτέρα περὶ τοὺς ἁμαρτάνοντας, ὥσπερ εἴρηται ἐχόντων τῶν πραγμάτων;\n\nἈπόκρισις.\n\nΤῶν τοιούτων πταισμάτων ὁ νόμος διὰ τοῦ βαπτίσματος καὶ θυσίας δίδωσι τὴν ἄφεσιν τῶν μηδὲν συντελούντων εἰς βλάβην πολιτείας καὶ ζωῆς ἀνθρώπων, οἷον ὡς τὸ ἅψασθαι νεκροῦ ἢ λεπροῦ ἤ τινος τῶν τοιούτων. Τῶν δὲ ἄλλων πται σμάτων γεγενημένων εἰς βλάβην πολιτείας ἢ ζωῆς ἀνθρώπων, τῶν τοιούτων πταισμάτων οὐ δίδωσι συγχώρησιν, οὔτε διὰ τοῦ βαπτίσματος οὔτε διὰ τῆς τῶν ἀλόγων θυσίας, ἀλλὰ δικαίαν τε καὶ ἀξίαν ἀμοιβὴν δίδωσι τοῖς πταίσασι διὰ τοῦ ἴσου τῆς ἀντιπλήξεως. Ψυχήν, φησίν, ἀντὶ ψυχῆς, ὀφθαλμὸν ἀντὶ ὀφθαλμοῦ, ὀδόντα ἀντὶ ὀδόντος. Ὅπου δὲ τὸ ἴσον τῆς ἀντι δόσεώς ἐστιν ἀπρεπές, ἐκεῖ τὸν διὰ πυρὸς ἢ λίθου ἢ ξίφους θάνατον ἀνταποδίδωσι τοῖς πταίσασι· τὴν μὲν γὰρ θυγατέρα τοῦ ἱερέως πορνεύουσαν διὰ πυρὸς ἀναλίσκει, τὴν δὲ τοῦ λαϊκοῦ ἀνδρὸς διὰ λίθου, τὴν δὲ ὕπανδρον διὰ ξίφους.","english":"If grace is called grace for this reason, that it more readily forgives those who transgress the law, how is what befits grace found more in the law? For the law, by certain purifications and sacrifices of irrational animals and various baptisms, releases those who sin from blame each time, whereas grace grants only one baptism. And if we fell into sins only once, we would need forgiveness only once; but since we sin many times, it is clear that we also need forgiveness many times—which not grace but the law knows how to provide through the aforementioned purifications and the rest. How, then, will it be shown that grace is more philanthropic toward sinners than the law, as has been said, when matters stand as they do?\n\nAnswer.\n\nFor such sins as contribute nothing to the harm of a community or of human life—for example, touching a corpse or a leper or any such thing—the law gives forgiveness through baptism and sacrifice. But for other sins that have been committed to the harm of a community or of human life, it gives no pardon for such sins, neither through baptism nor through the sacrifice of irrational animals, but it gives a just and worthy recompense to those who have sinned through the principle of equal retaliation. A soul, it says, for a soul, an eye for an eye, a tooth for a tooth. But where the equality of recompense is unseemly, there it repays those who have sinned with death by fire or stone or sword: for it consumes the daughter of the priest who commits fornication by fire, the daughter of a layman by stone, and a married woman by the sword.","structure":"narrative","commentary":[],"ambiguities":[],"confidence":"","notes":[]},{"i":89,"ref":"p89","source":"Καὶ οὐ δαμοῦ ἰσχὺς τῷ νόμῳ ἐκ φιλανθρωπίας διὰ βαπτισμῶν τε καὶ θυσιῶν σῶσαι τῶν τοιούτων τινά. Τῆς δὲ χάριτος πολλή τίς ἐστι πρὸς τὴν τῶν ἁμαρτανόντων ἡ ἰσχύς· αὕτη γὰρ καὶ τοῦ νόμου κρατοῦντος εἰ μὴ κατέλαβε τὸν βασιλέα Δαυῒδ διπλοῖς θανατηφόροις περιπεπτωκότα ἁμαρτήμασιν, ἀνοίξασα αὐτῷ τῆς μετανοίας τὴν θύραν, οὐκ ἂν εὗρε παρὰ τῷ νόμῳ σωστικὴν ἁμαρτωλῶν φιλανθρωπίαν. ὕτη ἔταξεν ἐν τῷ κόσμῳ τῶν ἁμαρτωλῶν ἰατρὸν δόκιμον τὴν μετάνοιαν, τὴν δυναμένην καὶ τοὺς ἑβδομηκοντάκις ἑπτὰ πταίοντας ἰᾶσθαι, μόνον εἰ βουλη θεῖεν χρήσασθαι τῷ τῆς μετανοίας βουλήματι. Ἐρώτησις %η.\n\nἰ τὸν φόβον ὁ κύριος οὐκ ἀναγκαῖον δι' ὧν λέγει παρίστησι· φησὶ γὰρ Ὁ φοβούμενος οὐ τετελείωται ἐν τῇ ἀγάπῃ· πῶς πάλιν ὁ αὐτὸς διδάσκει τοὺς μαθητὰς Φοβεῖσθε, λέγων, τὸν τὴν ψυχὴν καὶ τὸ σῶμα ἐν γεέννῃ ἀπολέσαι δυνάμενον; Ἀπόκρισις.\n\nὐκ εἴρηται μὲν τῷ κυρίῳ τὸ Ὁ φοβούμενος οὐ τετελείωται ἐν τῇ ἀγάπῃ, εἰ καὶ ὁ εἰρηκὼς τοῦτο κατὰ κύριον εἴρηκε· τὸ δὲ Φοβεῖσθε μᾶλλον τὸν δυνάμενον καὶ ψυχὴν καὶ σῶμα ἀπολέσαι ἐν γεέννῃ οὐκ εἴρηται πρὸς ἀναίρεσιν τῆς τελείας ἀγάπης. Ὁ γὰρ τῷ μείζονι φόβῳ τοῦ θεοῦ τὸν ἐλάττονα ἐκλύων τῶν ἀνθρώπων φόβον τῇ ἀγάπῃ τοῦ θεοῦ τοῦτο ποιεῖ, ὥστε εἶναι τὸν μείζονα φόβον τοῦ θεοῦ ἕνεκεν τοῦ μὴ ἐκπεσεῖν τῶν ἠγαπημένων. Ὅσον γὰρ τίμιόν ἐστι τὸ πιστευόμενον, τοσοῦτον ἀγαπᾶται· καὶ ὅσον ἀγαπᾶται, τοσοῦτον ὁ ἀγαπῶν τὴν ἔκ πτωσιν αὐτοῦ φοβεῖται, ἕως ἂν ᾖ ἐν τῷ ὑπὲρ τοῦ ἀγαπωμένου ἀγῶνι. Λυθέντος δὲ τοῦ ἀγῶνος σὺν ἐκείνῳ λύεται καὶ ὁ φόβος τῆς τῶν ἀγαπωμένων ἐκπτώσεως.","english":"And the law has no power, out of love for humanity, through baptisms and sacrifices, to save any of such people. But the power of grace toward those who sin is very great; for if this grace had not overtaken King David when the law was still in force, after he had fallen into double deadly sins, opening to him the door of repentance, he would not have found in the law a saving love for sinners. This grace appointed in the world a proven physician of sinners, repentance, which is able to heal even those who stumble seventy times seven, if only they are willing to make use of the will of repentance. Question 98.\n\nThe Lord does not present fear as necessary by what he says; for he says, \"The one who fears has not been made perfect in love.\" How again does the same one teach his disciples, saying, \"Fear the one who is able to destroy both soul and body in Gehenna\"? Answer.\n\nThe statement \"The one who fears has not been made perfect in love\" was not spoken by the Lord, even if the one who said it spoke it in accordance with the Lord; but \"Fear rather the one who is able to destroy both soul and body in Gehenna\" was not spoken to abolish perfect love. For the one who, by the greater fear of God, dispels the lesser fear of men, does this by the love of God, so that the greater fear of God exists for the sake of not falling away from the beloved. For insofar as what is believed is precious, so much is it loved; and insofar as it is loved, so much does the one who loves fear its falling away, as long as he is in the struggle on behalf of the beloved. But when the struggle is dissolved, along with it is dissolved also the fear of the falling away of the beloved.","structure":"narrative","commentary":[],"ambiguities":[],"confidence":"","notes":[]},{"i":90,"ref":"p90","source":"Ὥστε ἕως τότε ἀναγκαῖός ἐστιν ὁ τοῦ θεοῦ φόβος· οὐδὲ γὰρ ὡς τὸ μισεῖν ἀναιρετικόν ἐστι τῆς ἀγάπης (ἀδύνατον γὰρ τὸ τὸν αὐτὸν καὶ ἀγαπᾶν καὶ μισεῖν), οὕτως καὶ τὸ φοβεῖσθαι· ἐνδέχεται γὰρ τὸν αὐτὸν καὶ ἀγαπᾶν καὶ φοβεῖσθαι. Ἐρώτησις %θ.\n\nἰ τὰς τῶν ἀλόγων θυσίας ὁ θεὸς ἐν τῷ νόμῳ προσέταξε\n\nγίνεσθαι, ὥστε ταύταις τὴν περὶ αὐτὸν τοὺς ἀνθρώπους τιμὴν ἐπιδείκνυσθαι, πῶς διὰ τὸ θύειν ἀνθρώπους Ἕλληνες δείκνυνται αὐτῶν ἀσεβέστεροι; Ὅπερ φάσκουσιν ὑπὸ τῶν παλαιῶν γεγονέναι χάριν τοῦ πλείονος τιμῆς τὸν παρ' αὐτοῖς νομιζό μενον θεὸν μείζονα ἀξιοῦσθαι, τιμώντων αὐτὸν τῇ τῶν λογι κῶν θυσίᾳ· ὅσῳ γὰρ τοῦ ἀλόγου τὸ λογικὸν τιμιώτερον, το σούτῳ καὶ ἡ τούτου θυσία σεμνοτέρα ἐκείνης. Καὶ τοῦτο δείκνυται ἐκ τῶν κατὰ τὸν Ἰεφθάε σαφέστερον, ὅς, τὴν ἰδίαν θυγατέρα προσκομίσας θυσίαν, ἐν τῇ πρὸς Ἑβραίους ἐπι στολῇ ὑπὸ τοῦ ἀποστόλου ἐν τῷ καταλόγῳ τῶν εὐσεβῶν μνη μονεύεται.\n\nἈπόκρισις.\n\nὐ χρὴ σκοπεῖν τὴν κατὰ τὸν νόμον θεῷ προσφερομέ νην θυσίαν, ὅτι τῶν ἀλόγων ἐστὶν αἵματα, ἀλλὰ τὸ πῶς προσ εδέξατο ταύτην ὁ θεὸς προσαγομένην αὐτῷ. ἰ μὲν γὰρ τὸ αἷμα τῶν ἀλόγων ζώων τὸ προσφερόμενον οὕτως προσεδέξατο ὡς εἰ τὴν ἑαυτοῦ ψυχὴν προσήνεγκεν ὁ τοῦτο προσφέρων, δῆλον ὅτι ἡ μὲν θυσία τὴν πρώτην τάξιν ἔλαβεν ἀπὸ τῆς εὐδοκίας τοῦ ταύτην οὕτως προσδεξαμένου καὶ ὁ θεὸς τὴν πρώ την τιμήν. Ὅτι δὲ ὡς τὴν ἑαυτοῦ ψυχὴν οὕτως προσέφερε τῷ θεῷ ὁ τὸ αἷμα τῶν ἀλόγων προσενέγκας, μαρτυρεῖ ἡ θεία γραφὴ λέγουσα· Ἀντὶ τῆς ψυχῆς, φησί, τῶν προσφερόντων τὸ αἷμα τῶν θυσιῶν αὐτῶν προσφέρεται εἰς τὰ ἅγια τῶν ἁγίων.","english":"So until then the fear of God is necessary; for just as hating is destructive of love (for it is impossible for the same person both to love and to hate), so too is fearing; for it is possible for the same person both to love and to fear. Question 9.\n\nIf God commanded in the law that the sacrifices of irrational animals be offered, so that by these humans might display the honor due to him, how do the Greeks, by sacrificing humans, show themselves more impious than they? This is what they claim was done by the ancients for the sake of greater honor, deeming the god believed among them worthy of greater honor, honoring him with the sacrifice of rational beings; for by as much as the rational is more honorable than the irrational, by so much is the sacrifice of the latter more august than that. And this is shown more clearly from the account of Jephthah, who, having offered his own daughter as a sacrifice, is mentioned by the apostle in the epistle to the Hebrews in the list of the pious.\n\nAnswer.\n\nOne should not consider the sacrifice offered to God according to the law, that it is the blood of irrational animals, but how God accepted it when it was brought to him. For if he accepted the blood of irrational animals offered in such a way as if the one offering it had offered his own soul, it is clear that the sacrifice received the first rank from the good pleasure of the one who thus accepted it, and God received the first honor. And that the one who brought the blood of irrational animals offered it to God as his own soul, the divine Scripture testifies, saying: \"Instead of the soul,\" it says, \"of those who offer, the blood of their sacrifices is offered into the holy of holies.","structure":"narrative","commentary":[],"ambiguities":[],"confidence":"","notes":[]},{"i":91,"ref":"p91","source":"Μὴ οὖν ἀπὸ τῆς φύσεως τοῦ προσαγομένου ἀλλ' ἀπὸ τῆς δια θέσεως τοῦ προσδεχομένου κριτέον τῆς θυσίας τὴν τάξιν καὶ τοῦ θεοῦ τὴν τιμήν, τοῦ διὰ τὸ φείδεσθαι τοῦ γένους τῶν ἀν θρώπων μὴ βουληθέντος ἀναλῶσαι τοὺς ἀνθρώπους εἰς θυσίαν καθ' ἡμέραν προσαγομένους καὶ ἀφανίσαι τὸ γένος, ἀλλὰ δεδωκότος τοῖς μὲν ἀνθρώποις τὸ αὐξάνεσθαί τε καὶ τὸ διαμέ νειν, ταῖς δὲ θυσίαις αὐτῶν τὴν μεγίστην τάξιν. ἱ δὲ παρ' Ἕλλησι θρησκευόμενοι θεοί, ἅτε δαίμονες ὄντες πονηροί τε καὶ μισάνθρωποι, θυσίαις ἔχαιρον μειωτικαῖς τε καὶ ἀφανι στικαῖς τοῦ γένους τῶν ἀνθρώπων· ὅπερ ἐστὶ δεῖγμα μέγιστον τῆς μὲν τῶν ἑλληνικῶν θεῶν θηριώδους ἀπανθρωπίας, τῆς δὲ τῶν Ἑλλήνων ἀθεότητος, τῷ ἀφανισμῷ τοῦ γένους τῶν ἀνθρώπων μειζόνως, ὥς φασι, μᾶλλον δὲ αἰσχίστως πειρωμένων τιμᾶν τοὺς ἑαυτῶν θεούς. ἰτία δέ, δι' ἣν ὁ Ἰεφθάε ἐν τῷ καταλόγῳ τῶν εὐσεβῶν ἠριθμήθη, ἔστιν αὕτη. Ἠιτήσατο ὁ Ἰεφθάε νίκην κατὰ τῶν ἐχθρῶν· ὑπὲρ δὲ ταύτης τῆς νίκης εὐχαριστικὴν εὐχὴν ἀορίστως ηὔξατο, τὸ προσαγαγεῖν εἰς θυ σίαν τὸ ἐκ τοῦ οἴκου αὐτοῦ ἐξερχόμενον εἰς ἀπάντησιν αὐτῷ ἐκ τοῦ πολέμου τροπαιούχῳ ἐπανερχομένῳ. Δεξάμενος δὲ ὁ διά βολος τὸ ἀόριστον τῆς εὐχῆς ἐμηχανᾶτο ἐξ αὐτοῦ θεῖναι τῷ Ἰεφθάε παγίδα παραβάσεως, καὶ κινεῖ τὴν θυγατέρα αὐτοῦ, μονογενῆ οὖσαν, μετὰ κιθάρας ἐξελθεῖν ἐκ τοῦ οἴκου εἰς συνάντησιν αὐτῷ, ἵνα φεισαμένου τοῦ Ἰεφθάε τῆς θυγατρὸς ἀναγκασθῇ ποιήσασθαι τῆς εὐχῆς τὴν ἀθέτησιν. Ἀλλ' ὅμως παγίδα θεὶς ὁ διάβολος τοῦ θηράματος οὐκ ἔτυχε, προτιμοτέραν ἡγησαμένου τοῦ Ἰεφθάε τῆς ζωῆς τῆς θυγατρὸς τὴν ἀπόδοσιν","english":"Therefore the order of the sacrifice and the honor of God must be judged not from the nature of what is offered but from the disposition of the one who receives it, since God, because he spared the race of humans, did not wish to destroy humans by consuming those offered daily as sacrifice and to wipe out the race, but granted to humans both to increase and to remain, and to their sacrifices the greatest order. But the gods worshipped among the Greeks, being evil demons and haters of humanity, delighted in sacrifices that diminished and destroyed the race of humans; which is the greatest proof of the beastly inhumanity of the Greek gods, and of the godlessness of the Greeks, who, as they say, tried to honor their own gods by the destruction of the race of humans more greatly, or rather most shamefully. And the reason for which Jephthah was numbered in the list of the pious is this. Jephthah asked for victory over his enemies; and for this victory he vowed a thank-offering prayer without defining it, namely to bring as a sacrifice whatever came out of his house to meet him as he returned from war bearing the trophy. But the devil, having received the undefined nature of the vow, contrived from it to set a trap of transgression for Jephthah, and moved his daughter, who was his only child, to come out of the house with citharas to meet him, so that, if Jephthah spared his daughter, he would be compelled to make a cancellation of his vow. But nevertheless the devil, having set the trap, did not obtain the prey, since Jephthah considered the payment of the vow more honorable than the life of his daughter","structure":"narrative","commentary":[],"ambiguities":[],"confidence":"","notes":[]},{"i":92,"ref":"p92","source":"τῆς εὐχῆς. Συνεχώρησε δὲ ὁ θεὸς προσενεχθῆναι αὐτὴν εἰς θυσίαν, οὐχ ὡς ἀνθρωπίνου αἵματος τερπόμενος, ἀλλὰ πρὸς διδασκαλίαν τῶν ἑξῆς ἀνθρώπων τοῦ μηδέποτε ἀορίστως εὔξασθαι τῷ θεῷ. Πολλὰ γάρ ἐστιν ἄτοπα κατὰ τὴν οὕτως ἀόριστον εὐχὴν εὐλαβησόμενα, ὧν τοῦ μὴ γενέσθαι ὁ θεὸς προνοησάμενος συνεχώρησε θυσίαν γενέσθαι τοῦ Ἰεφθάε τὴν θυγατέρα· ὅπερ οὐκ ἦν τῆς προαιρέσεως προηγουμένως οὔτε τοῦ θεοῦ οὔτε τοῦ Ἰεφθάε, ἀλλὰ συμβεβηκός πως τῷ ἀορίστῳ τῆς εὐχῆς. Ἐπειδὴ οὖν ὁ Ἰεφθάε τὴν εἰς θεὸν εὐσέβειαν φυλάττων διὰ τῆς θυσίας τῆς θυγατρὸς ἀνεδείχθη, διὰ τοῦτο αὐ τοῦ γέγονεν ἡ μνήμη ἐν τῷ καταλόγῳ τῶν δικαίων. Ἐρώτησις ρ.\n\nἰ πρὸς σύστασιν τοῦ ἀληθῆ εἶναι τὴν παρὰ τῶν ὀρθο δόξων γενομένην λατρείαν τὴν τῶν θαυμάτων χάριν ἐν ταῖς αὐτῶν ἐκκλησίαις κατ' ἀρχὰς ὁ δεσπότης δεδώρηται, διὰ τί, ἡνίκα αἱρετικοὶ ἐν αὐταῖς λατρεύσαντες ἀπ' αὐτῶν τῶν ὀρθο δόξων ἀπέστησαν, οὐ συναπέστη τοῖς ὀρθοδόξοις ἀπὸ τῶν ἐκκλησιῶν καὶ τὰ θεῖα χαρίσματα, ἀλλ' ἡ μὲν τῆς πλάνης λα τρεία ταῖς ἐκκλησίαις ἐπεισέφρησε, τὰ δὲ πρὸς τὴν αὔξησιν τῆς ὀρθοδοξίας ὑπὸ τοῦ θεοῦ δωρηθέντα καὶ ἐπὶ τῶν αἱρετι κῶν τὴν αὐτὴν ἐν ταῖς ἐκκλησίαις εἶχεν ἐνέργειαν; Ἀπόκρισις.","english":"of the prayer. But God allowed her to be offered as a sacrifice, not as taking pleasure in human blood, but for the instruction of subsequent humans, that they should never pray to God indefinitely. For many absurd things would be guarded against in such an indefinite prayer, and God, foreseeing that these should not come to pass, allowed the daughter of Jephthah to become a sacrifice; which was not primarily of the purpose either of God or of Jephthah, but somehow incidental to the indefiniteness of the prayer. Since, therefore, Jephthah, preserving his piety toward God, was shown forth through the sacrifice of his daughter, for this reason his remembrance has come to be in the catalogue of the righteous. Question 100.\n\ni. For the confirmation that the worship performed by the orthodox is true, the Lord at the beginning granted the grace of miracles in their churches. Why, when heretics who had worshipped in them departed from the orthodox themselves, did the divine gifts not depart from the churches together with the orthodox, but the worship of error was poured into the churches, while the things granted by God for the increase of orthodoxy had the same activity in the churches even among the heretics? Answer.","structure":"narrative","commentary":[],"ambiguities":[],"confidence":"","notes":[]},{"i":93,"ref":"p93","source":"ἰ μὲν διὰ τῶν αἱρετικῶν ζώντων ἢ ἀποθανόντων ἡ θεία χάρις ἐνήργει τὰ χαρίσματα, εἶχεν ἂν τὸ γινόμενον εὔλογον ἀπο ρίαν· εἰ δὲ οἱ τὰ θεῖα θαύματα ἐν ταῖς ἐκκλησίαις ἐνεργοῦντες ἅγιοί εἰσιν ἀπόστολοι, προφῆταί τε καὶ μάρτυρες, δῆλον ὅτι τοῖς θείοις ἔργοις διαμαρτύρεται τῷ κόσμῳ ὁ θεὸς ἐκείνων εἶναι τὰς ἐκκλησίας, δι' ὧν θαύματα ἐκτελεῖται, τουτέστι τῶν ὀρθοδόξων.\n\nἘρώτησις ρα.\n\nἰ μελέτῃ λογικὸς ἅπας τὴν γνῶσιν κομίζεται, γνώσεως δὲ νόμος τῶν μειζόνων προτάσσειν τὰ ἥσσονα, ὅπερ κρατῆσαν ἐπὶ τῶν Ἰουδαίων σαφέστερον δείκνυται, πρότερον τὰ τοῦ νό μου, εἶθ' οὕτως τὰ εὐαγγέλια παρειληφότων μαθήματα, πῶς ἡμεῖς οὐκ ἀνακολούθως μανθάνομεν, πρὸ τῶν ἡσσόνων τὰ μείζονα διδασκόμενοι; Λέγω δὴ τὰ τοῦ νόμου ἥσσονα, τὰ δὲ τῶν εὐαγγελίων μείζονα. Μιᾶς γὰρ ἡμῶν τε καὶ τῆς αὐτῶν φύσεως, μίαν εἶναι καὶ τὴν τάξιν ἐχρῆν τῆς μαθήσεως, ἐπειδὴ καί, ἐὰν μὴ ἐν τοῖς μαθήμασι φθάσῃ τὰ χείρονα, τὰ ἀμείνω κωλύεται.\n\nἈπόκρισις.","english":"If the divine grace performed the gifts through heretics, whether living or dead, what happens would have a plausible difficulty. But if those who perform the divine wonders in the churches are holy apostles, prophets, and martyrs, it is clear that by the divine works God testifies to the world that the churches are theirs, through whom the wonders are accomplished—that is, of the orthodox.\n\nQuestion 111.\n\nIf every rational person acquires knowledge by study, and the law of knowledge is to place the lesser before the greater—which, having prevailed among the Jews, is shown more clearly: they first received the teachings of the law, and then the gospels—how do we not learn inconsistently, being taught the greater before the lesser? I mean the lesser things of the law, and the greater things of the gospels. For since our nature and theirs is one, the order of learning should also be one, since even in studies, if the worse things do not come first, the better things are hindered.\n\nAnswer.","structure":"narrative","commentary":[],"ambiguities":[],"confidence":"","notes":[]},{"i":94,"ref":"p94","source":"ἰ τὴν ἀνάγκην, ἣν ἔχει ἐκεῖνα τὰ μαθήματα, ὧν, εἰ μὴ προηγεῖται τῶν ἡσσόνων ἡ μάθησις, τὰ ἀμείνω κωλύεται, ταύ την εἶχε τὰ ἡμέτερα μαθήματα, καὶ ἀνακολούθως μαθεῖν τὰ ἡμέτερα μαθήματα· ἀλλ' ἐπειδὴ δυνατὸν τὰ ἡμέτερα μαθή ματα καὶ ἀνακολούθως μαθεῖν, δῆλον ὅτι ἀπήλλακται τὰ ἡμέ τερα μαθήματα ἐκείνης τῆς ἀνάγκης. Τὸ ἀνάγκης δὲ ἀπηλ λαγμένον, ὡς ἂν γίνηται, ἀδιάβλητόν ἐστιν ἐπὶ τῇ ἀνακολου θίᾳ. Καὶ ταῦτα μὲν ὡς πρὸς τὴν λύσιν τοῦ ἐν τῇ ἐρωτήσει\n\nσοφίσματος· πρὸς αὐτὴν δὲ τὴν ἐρώτησιν οὕτως ἀποκρινόμεθα, ὅτι οὐδὲ ἡμεῖς ἀνακολούθως διδασκόμεθα, ἀλλ' ὡς ἐμάνθανον οἱ ἀπόστολοι, πρῶτον μὲν τὰ τοῦ νόμου, ὕστερον δὲ τὰ εὐαγ γέλια, οὕτως καὶ ἡμᾶς ἐδίδαξαν. Μαρτυροῦσι δὲ τοῦτο αἱ αὐτῶν φωναί, ἐν αἷς κατήγγειλαν τὸ εὐαγγέλιον· πανταχοῦ γὰρ ἐκ τοῦ νόμου τὸν Χριστὸν κηρύξαντες, ἐκ τῶν πρώτων τὰ ὕστερα καὶ ἐκ τῶν ἡσσόνων τὰ μείζονα. Τὸ γὰρ Προφήτην ὑμῖν ἀναστήσει κύριος ὁ θεὸς ἡμῶν ἐκ τῶν ἀδελφῶν ἡμῶν κατ' ἐμέ· καὶ τὸ ἶπεν ὁ κύριος τῷ κυρίῳ μου Κάθου ἐκ δεξιῶν μου, ἕως ἂν θῶ τοὺς ἐχθρούς σου ὑποπόδιον τῶν ποδῶν σου· καὶ Ὅτι οὐκ ἐγκατέλειψας τὴν ψυχήν μου εἰς ᾅδην, οὐδὲ ἡ σάρξ μου εἶδε διαφθοράν· φωναί εἰσι τοῦ νόμου προκαταγγείλασαι ἐν αὐταῖς τὸν Χριστόν, αἷς καὶ ὁ ἀπόστολος χρησάμενος τοῖς Ἰουδαίοις τὸ εὐαγγέλιον ἐκήρυξε. Καὶ ὡς μὲν πρὸς τὴν μάθησιν, οὐδὲν διέστηκε τὰ εὐαγγέλια τοῦ νόμου· ὡς δὲ πρὸς τὴν ἐπαγγελίαν καὶ ἀπόδοσιν, διέστηκε. Τί γάρ ἐστιν ὁ νόμος; ὐαγγέλιον προκατηγγελμένον. Τί δὲ τὸ εὐαγγέλιον; Νόμος πεπληρωμένος.","english":"The necessity that those subjects of study have, where if the learning of the lesser things does not come first, the better things are hindered—our subjects of study had this necessity, and it would be possible to learn our subjects of study in a non-sequential order. But since it is possible to learn our subjects of study even non-sequentially, it is clear that our subjects of study are freed from that necessity. And what has been freed from necessity, however it comes about, is beyond reproach in its non-sequential order. And this much, then, as regards the solution of the sophism in the question.\n\nBut to the question itself we answer as follows: that we too are not taught non-sequentially, but just as the apostles learned—first the things of the law, later the gospels—so they also taught us. And their own voices bear witness to this, in which they proclaimed the gospel; for everywhere, having preached Christ from the law, they [taught] the later things from the first and the greater from the lesser. For \"The Lord our God will raise up for you a prophet from your brothers, like me,\" and \"The Lord said to my Lord, Sit at my right hand until I put your enemies as a footstool for your feet,\" and \"That you did not abandon my soul to Hades, nor did my flesh see corruption\"—these are voices of the law that foretold Christ in themselves, which the apostle also used when he preached the gospel to the Jews. And as regards learning, the gospels differ in no way from the law; but as regards the promise and its fulfillment, they differ. For what is the law? A gospel foretold. And what is the gospel? A law fulfilled.","structure":"narrative","commentary":[],"ambiguities":[],"confidence":"","notes":[]},{"i":95,"ref":"p95","source":"Ἐρώτησις ρβ.\n\nἰ περιττὸν καὶ λεῖπον ἐν τῇ τοῦ σώματος ἡμῶν κατα σκευῇ ὁ δημιουργὸς οὐ πεποίηται, διὰ τί ὡς περιττὸν τὸ τῆς ἀκροβυστίας μέρος τῶν Ἰουδαίων ἀπετέμνετο; ἰς τί δὲ χρή σιμον οὐκ ἐν ἑτέρῳ μέρει, ἀλλ' ἐν τῷ παιδοποιῷ μορίῳ τὴν περιτομὴν οἱ πρὸ τῆς τοῦ δεσπότου Χριστοῦ παρουσίας εἰλή φασι; Διὰ τί δέ, ἐκείνων ὡς χρησίμην ταύτην λαβόντων, τῇ τοιαύτῃ χειρουργίᾳ ὁμοίως καὶ ἡμεῖς οὐ κεχρήμεθα; Ἀπόκρισις.\n\nἘπειδὴ διὰ τὸ γῆρας αὐτοῦ τε καὶ τῆς ἐλευθέρας γαμετῆς ἐν ἀπογνώσει τοῦ παιδοποιεῖν ἐκ τῆς ἐλευθέρας καθιστάμενος ὁ Ἀβραὰμ ἐπαγγελίαν παιδοποιΐας ἐδέξατο παρὰ τοῦ θεοῦ, καὶ πιστεύσας θεῷ παρὰ τὸν χρόνον τῆς ἡλικίας ἔσεσθαι πατὴρ τοῦ ἐκ τῆς γεγηρακυίας στείρας αὐτῷ γενομένου υἱοῦ, διὰ τοῦτο ἔδωκεν αὐτῷ ὁ θεὸς σφραγῖδα ταύτης τῆς πίστεως τὴν περιτομὴν τῆς ἀκροβυστίας μορίου τοῦ διὰ μὲν τὸ γῆρας πρὸς παιδοποιΐαν ἀχρήστου γενομένου, διὰ δὲ τὴν πίστιν τοῦ Ἀβραὰμ εἰς παιδοποιΐαν γεγονότος χρησίμου. Παρέ πεμψε δὲ ταύτην τὴν περιτομὴν εἰς ὅλον τὸ γένος τὸ ἐκ τοῦ παρ' ἐλπίδα πατρὸς γενομένου, ὑφιστάμενον εἰς ἀνεξάλειπτον μνημόσυνον τῆς τε τοῦ Ἀβραὰμ πίστεως καὶ τῆς τοῦ θεοῦ δυνάμεως, τοῦ ζωοποιοῦντος τοὺς νεκροὺς καὶ καλοῦντος τὰ μὴ ὄντα ὡς ὄντα. Περιτεμνόμεθα δὲ καὶ ἡμεῖς τῇ περιτομῇ τοῦ Χριστοῦ διὰ τοῦ βαπτίσματος, ἐκδυόμενοι τὸν Ἀδάμ, δι' ὃν ἁμαρτωλοὶ γεγονότες τεθνήκαμεν, καὶ ἐνδυόμενοι τὸν Χριστόν, δι' ὃν δικαιωθέντες ἀνιστάμεθα ἐκ τῶν νεκρῶν· ἐν ᾧ, φησὶν ὁ ἀπόστολος, περιετμήθητε περιτομὴν ἀχειροποίητον τῇ ἀπεκ δύσει τοῦ σώματος ὑμῶν.","english":"Question 102.\n\nIf the Creator has made nothing superfluous or deficient in the constitution of our body, why was the part of the foreskin cut off among the Jews as something superfluous? And for what usefulness did those before the coming of the Master Christ receive circumcision, not in another part, but in the generative member? And why, since they received it as useful, do we not likewise employ such a surgical operation? Answer.\n\nSince Abraham, being past hope of begetting children from his free wife because of his own old age and hers, received from God a promise of offspring, and believing God that beyond the time of his age he would become a father of the son born to him from the aged barren woman, for this reason God gave him the circumcision of the part of the foreskin as a seal of this faith—of the member that had become useless for procreation because of old age, but became useful for procreation because of Abraham's faith. And he passed this circumcision down to the whole race that came from the father who was born contrary to hope, established as an indelible memorial both of Abraham's faith and of God's power, who gives life to the dead and calls the things that are not as though they were. And we too are circumcised with the circumcision of Christ through baptism, putting off Adam, through whom we became sinners and died, and putting on Christ, through whom we were justified and rise from the dead; in whom, says the apostle, you were circumcised with a circumcision made without hands, in the putting off of the body of your flesh.","structure":"narrative","commentary":[],"ambiguities":[],"confidence":"","notes":[]},{"i":96,"ref":"p96","source":"Ἐρώτησις ργ.\n\nἰ ὁ προσταχθεὶς ποιῆσαι τὰ κατὰ δύναμιν ἔπαινον ἢ μέμψιν ἐν τῷ ποιῆσαι ἢ μὴ ποιῆσαι κομίζεται, δῆλον ὅτι ὁ\n\nτὰ ὑπὲρ δύναμιν μὴ ποιήσας, ἐπεί εἰσιν ἀδύνατα, ὑπάρχει ἀνεύθυνος. Πῶς οὖν ὁ θεὸς τὰ ὑπὲρ δύναμιν ἐπιτάττων, τουτέστι τὸ μὴ ἁμαρτάνειν, τὸν ἁμαρτάνοντα ὑποβάλλει κολά σεσι, τοῦ ἀνθρώπου ἀδυνάτου ὄντος πρὸς τὴν τοῦ νόμου ἐκ πλήρωσιν; Μαρτυρεῖ δὲ τούτοις καὶ ὁ ἀπόστολος, ὐ δικαιωθήσεται, λέγων, ἐξ ἔργων νόμου πᾶσα σάρξ. Ἀπόκρισις.\n\nΤὸ παντὶ ἀνθρώπῳ ἀδύνατον τοῦτο καὶ τινὶ ἀνθρώπῳ ὑπάρχει ἀδύνατον, οἷον τὸ πέτεσθαι ἐν τῷ ἀέρι ὡς ἀετὸς τινὶ ἀνθρώπῳ ἀδύνατόν ἐστιν, ὅτι καὶ παντὶ ἀνθρώπῳ ἐστὶν ἀδύνατον· καὶ ἀνάπαλιν τὸ τινὶ ἀνθρώπῳ δυνατόν, ὡς τὸ πλεῖν, καὶ παντὶ ἀνθρώπῳ δυνατὸν ὑπάρχει. Ἀλλ' εἰ, καθώς φησιν ἡ θεία γραφή, τινὲς τῶν ὑπὸ τὸν νόμον δικαιοσύνῃ γεγόνασιν ἄμεμπτοι, δῆλον ὅτι καὶ πᾶσι τοῖς ὑπὸ τὸν νόμον ὑπῆρχε δυ νατὸν τῷ ὁμοίῳ τρόπῳ κατὰ τὴν ἐκ νόμου δικαιοσύνην γενέσθαι ἀμέμπτοις. Λέγει γὰρ ὁ μὲν μακάριος Παῦλος ὁ ἀπόστολος περὶ ἑαυτοῦ ὅτι Κατὰ τὴν δικαιοσύνην τὴν ἐκ νόμου γενόμενος ἄμεμπτος· ὁ δὲ μακάριος Λουκᾶς ὁ εὐαγγελιστὴς περὶ τοῦ Ζαχαρίου καὶ τῆς γυναικὸς αὐτοῦ Ἐλισσάβετ ὅτι Ἠσαν δί καιοι ἀμφότεροι ἐναντίον τοῦ θεοῦ, πορευόμενοι ἐν πάσαις ταῖς ἐντολαῖς καὶ δικαιώμασι τοῦ κυρίου ἄμεμπτοι. Τί δέ ἐστι πᾶσα ἡ κατὰ τὸν νόμον δικαιοσύνη; Τὸ ἀγαπᾶν τὸν θεὸν μὲν ὑπὲρ ἑαυτόν, τὸν πλησίον δὲ ὡς ἑαυτόν· ὅπερ οὐκ ἔστιν ἀδύνατον ἀνθρώποις βουληθεῖσι.","english":"Question 103.\n\nIf the one who has been commanded to do what is within his power receives praise or blame for doing it or not doing it, it is clear that the one who has not done what is beyond his power, since such things are impossible, is not liable. How, then, does God, by commanding what is beyond our power—that is, not to sin—subject the one who sins to punishments, when man is unable to fulfill the law? The apostle also testifies to this, saying, \"No flesh shall be justified by the works of the law.\" Answer.\n\nWhat is impossible for every man is also impossible for a particular man; for example, to fly through the air like an eagle is impossible for a particular man, because it is also impossible for every man. And conversely, what is possible for a particular man, such as to sail, is also possible for every man. But if, as the divine Scripture says, some of those under the law have become blameless in righteousness, it is clear that it was also possible for all those under the law to become blameless in the same way according to the righteousness that comes from the law. For the blessed Paul the apostle says of himself, \"According to the righteousness that is from the law, having become blameless\"; and the blessed Luke the evangelist says of Zacharias and his wife Elizabeth, \"They were both righteous before God, walking in all the commandments and ordinances of the Lord blameless.\" And what is all the righteousness according to the law? To love God above oneself, and one's neighbor as oneself—which is not impossible for men who are willing.","structure":"narrative","commentary":[],"ambiguities":[],"confidence":"","notes":[]},{"i":97,"ref":"p97","source":"Τὸ οὖν Ἐξ ἔργων νόμου μὴ δικαιωθῆναι πᾶσαν σάρκα οὐ διὰ τὸ μὴ δύνασθαι τὰ ἀδύνατα λέγει, ἀλλὰ διὰ τὸ μὴ βούλεσθαι τὰ δυνατά. Τῇ γὰρ βουλήσει πρὸς τὰ δυνατὰ κεχρήμεθα, οὐ πρὸς τὰ ἀδύνατα· τοῖς γὰρ δυνατοῖς καὶ ἐφ' ἡμῖν οὖσιν ὁ ἔπαινος ἢ ὁ ψόγος γίνεται πραχθεῖσιν ἢ μὴ πραχθεῖσι. Τοῦ δὲ Διὰ τὸ μὴ αἱρεῖσθαι καὶ οὐ διὰ τὸ μὴ δύνασθαι ἁμαρτάνομεν ἄνθρωποι ἔστι τοῦτο σημεῖον, τὸ μὴ πάντας ἀνθρώπους πᾶσι τοῖς τῆς ἁμαρτίας εἴδεσιν ἐμπεσεῖν, ἀλλὰ τινὰς μὲν τούτῳ τῷ εἴδει τῆς ἁμαρτίας ἐμπεσεῖν, τινὰς δὲ ἐκείνῳ, καὶ τινὰς μὲν πλείοσι, τινὰς δὲ ἐλάττοσι, τινὰς δὲ οὐδενὶ κατὰ τοὺς προει ρημένους δικαίους· ὅπερ οὐκ ἂν συνέβη ἀνθρώποις, τὸ τινὶ μὲν εἴδει τῆς ἁμαρτίας ἁμαρτάνειν, τινὶ δὲ οὐδέποτε ἁμαρ τάνειν, εἰ ἀδυναμίᾳ φύσεως καὶ οὐκ ἀβουλίᾳ προαιρέσεως ἡμάρτανον οἱ ἄνθρωποι.\n\nἘρώτησις ρδ.\n\nἰ ἐπὶ τῶν ἐγκλημάτων χώραν μετανοίας τοῖς ἡμαρτη κόσιν ὁ νόμος οὐ δίδωσιν, ἀλλὰ κίνδυνον αὐτοῖς ἐπάγει ἀπαραίτητον, πῶς μοιχείαν καὶ φόνον ὁ προφήτης Δαυῒδ ἐργα σάμενος οὐ παρὰ τὸν νόμον συγγνώμης ἠξίωται; Καὶ εἰ μὲν ἀγαθὸν ἡ συγγνώμη, διὰ τί τὸ ἀσύγγνωστον τῷ νόμῳ συνέ ζευκται; ἰ δὲ φαῦλον, ὅπερ οὐκ οἶμαι, πῶς ὁ τῶν ἀγαθῶν χορηγὸς τὸ φαῦλον τῷ προφήτῃ κεχάρισται; Ἀπόκρισις.","english":"Therefore the statement \"by works of law shall no flesh be justified\" does not speak of the impossible because of inability, but because of the unwillingness to do what is possible. For it is by the will that we apply ourselves to what is possible, not to what is impossible; for praise or blame attaches to things that are possible and within our power, whether they are done or not done. And that we humans sin \"because we do not choose, and not because we are unable,\" there is this sign: that not all humans fall into all the forms of sin, but some fall into this form of sin and some into that, and some into more and some into fewer, and some into none at all, like the righteous mentioned before. This would not have happened to humans—that some sin in one form of sin and never sin in another—if humans sinned through weakness of nature and not through unwillingness of choice.\n\nQuestion 104.\n\nIf the law gives no room for repentance to those who have sinned in the case of crimes, but brings upon them an inexorable danger, how is it that the prophet David, having committed adultery and murder, was deemed worthy of pardon contrary to the law? And if pardon is good, why has the unpardonable been joined to the law? But if it is base—which I do not think—how has the provider of good things granted the base thing to the prophet? Answer.","structure":"narrative","commentary":[],"ambiguities":[],"confidence":"","notes":[]},{"i":98,"ref":"p98","source":"ἰ ἐπὶ τῶν ἐγκλημάτων χώραν μετανοίας τῷ ἡμαρτηκότι ὁ νόμος οὐ δίδωσι, πῶς ἐν τῇ ἐνενηκοστῇ ἑβδόμῃ ἐρωτήσει\n\nπροτέτακται τῆς χάριτος ὁ νόμος, ὥστε τις ἑτοιμότερος καὶ φιλανθρωπότερος εἰς ἄφεσιν ἁμαρτημάτων τοῖς ἁμαρτάνου σιν, οὓς καθ' ἑκάστην ἡμέραν διὰ τοῦ βαπτίσματός τε καὶ τῆς τῶν ἀλόγων θυσίας τῆς μέμψεως ἀπολύει, νῦν δὲ ἐν τῇ προκειμένῃ ἐρωτήσει·ανὶς οὐχ ὑπολέλειπται τῷ νόμῳ φιλανθρωπίας, ἀλλὰ συνέζευκται αὐτῷ τὸ ἀσύγγνωστον, κίνδυνον ἐπάγον τῷ ἡμαρτηκότι ἀπαραίτητον; Καὶ πρὸς μὲν τὸ μὴ ἀνεπισήμαντον καὶ τῶν ἐρωτήσεων τὴν ἐναντίωσιν εἰρήσθω ταῦτα· πρὸς δὲ τὴν ἐρώτησιν ἀποκρινόμεθα, ὅτι εἰ καὶ ὁ νόμος τὸ ἀσύγγνωστον ἔχει, ἀλλὰ καὶ ἡ χάρις μετάνοιαν δέδωκε τῷ ἡμαρτηκότι. Τὸ γὰρ ἱ χεῖρες ὑμῶν αἵματος πλήρεις, ἀλλὰ λούσασθε καὶ καθαροὶ γένεσθε, καί, ἐὰν ὦσιν αἱ ἁμαρ τίαι ὑμῶν ὡς φοινικοῦν, ὡς χιόνα λευκανῶ, καὶ τὸ ὐ βού λομαι τὸν θάνατον τοῦ ἁμαρτωλοῦ ὡς τὸ ἐπιστρέψαι καὶ ζῆν αὐτόν, φωναί εἰσι τῆς θείας χάριτος ἁμαρτωλοὺς καλοῦσαι εἰς εὐπάθειαν τοῦ νόμου, διὰ μετανοίας εἰληφότας τῶν προημαρτημένων τὴν συγγνώμην. Ἀγαθὴ μὲν οὖν ἐστιν ἡ συγ γνώμη καὶ τῆς θείας χάριτος δῶρον, οὐκ ἔστι δὲ οὐδὲ κατὰ τὸν νόμον οὐδὲ κατὰ τοῦ νόμου, ἀλλ' ὑπὲρ τὸν νόμον καὶ ὑπὲρ τοῦ νόμου· ὑπὲρ τὸν νόμον μέν, ὅτι χάρις, ὑπὲρ τοῦ νόμου δέ, ὅτι διὰ μετανοίας ἄγει τοὺς ἁμαρτωλοὺς εἰς εὐπάθειαν τοῦ νόμου, καθάπερ καὶ τὸν Δαυΐδ.","english":"If the law does not give the sinner room for repentance in the case of accusations, how is it that in the ninety-seventh question the law has been set before grace, so that one might be more ready and more humane toward the forgiveness of sins for those who sin, whom each day through baptism and the sacrifice of irrational animals he releases from blame—but now, in the question presently before us, no humanity has been left to the law, but rather unforgivability has been yoked together with it, bringing upon the sinner an inexorable danger? And to the end that the opposition of the questions not go unremarked, let these things be said; but to the question we answer that even if the law has unforgivability, yet grace has also given repentance to the sinner. For \"your hands are full of blood, but wash and become clean,\" and \"if your sins be as scarlet, I will make them white as snow,\" and \"I do not will the death of the sinner, but that he turn and live\"—these are voices of divine grace calling sinners to the law's well-being, having received through repentance the forgiveness of their former sins. Good, then, is forgiveness, and a gift of divine grace; yet it is neither according to the law nor against the law, but above the law and on behalf of the law: above the law, because it is grace; on behalf of the law, because through repentance it leads sinners to the law's well-being, just as it did David also.","structure":"narrative","commentary":[],"ambiguities":[],"confidence":"","notes":[]},{"i":99,"ref":"p99","source":"Ἐρώτησις ρε.\n\nἰ πᾶσι μὲν ἀνθρώποις διὰ τὸ ἀσθενὲς τῆς φύσεως ἀναγ καία ἡ διὰ τῆς εὐχῆς ὑπάρχει βοήθεια, ταῦτα δὲ οὐ πρόσεστι τῷ δεσπότῃ Χριστῷ, οἷα δεσπότῃ καὶ ἀρκοῦσαν πρὸς πάντα κεκτημένῳ τὴν δύναμιν, διὰ τί τῶν ἀποστόλων συχνότερον ὑπὸ τῆς γραφῆς τὸν Χριστὸν μανθάνομεν προσευχόμενον; Ἀπόκρισις.\n\nὭσπερ πεινάσας ὁ κύριος καὶ διψήσας καὶ κοπιάσας, δακρύσας τε καὶ ἱδρώσας, καίτοι δυνάμενος διὰ περιουσίας δυνάμεως μηδὲν τούτων ὑπομένειν, διὰ δὲ τὸ παρέχειν γνώ ρισμα τῆς ἀνθρωπίνης αὑτοῦ φύσεως ἑκουσίως ὑπέμεινε τὰ τῆς φύσεως ἀσθενῆ, οὕτως καὶ τὸ εὔξασθαι διὰ τὴν αὐτὴν αἰ τίαν. ἰ γὰρ ἑκουσίως ὑπομεμενηκότος αὐτοῦ τὰ ἀσθενήματα τῆς ἑαυτοῦ φύσεως τολμῶσί τινες λέγειν μὴ ὑπάρχειν αὐτὸν τῆς ἡμετέρας φύσεως, πῶς οὐκ ἂν ἔλεγον αὐτὸ τοῦτο μετὰ τῆς περιουσίας τῆς ἀποδείξεως, εἰ συνέβη αὐτῷ μηδαμῶς αὐτὸν εὔξασθαι τῷ θεῷ καὶ πατρί; Καὶ ἐπειδὴ περὶ τῶν ἀποστό λων οὐδεμία γέγονεν ἀμφιβολία εἰ ἄνθρωποι ἦσαν, περὶ δὲ τοῦ σωτῆρος ἔμελλε γίνεσθαι ἀμφιβολία, διὰ τοῦτο συχνότερον αὐτῶν τε καὶ τῶν λοιπῶν ἀνθρώπων καὶ τὸ εὔξασθαι αὐτὸν κατήγγειλεν ἡ θεία γραφή. ἰ γὰρ τῶν τῆς σαρκὸς ἀσθενειῶν ἀνώτερος διὰ τῆς ἀναστάσεως γενόμενος ὡς ἀρχιερεὺς τῆς ὁμολογίας ἡμῶν ἐντυγχάνει τῷ θεῷ ὑπὲρ ἡμῶν, πῶς οὐχὶ μᾶλλον ἔτι ὑποκειμένου αὐτοῦ τῇ ἀσθενείᾳ τῆς σαρκὸς ἐδεῖτο με γάλης κραυγῆς καὶ ἰσχυρᾶς καὶ δακρύων, μεθ' ὧν τὴν δέησιν προσέφερε τῷ δυναμένῳ·ύσασθαι αὐτὸν ἐκ θανάτου; Ἐρώτησις ρ.","english":"Question 115.\n\nIf the help that comes through prayer is necessary for all human beings because of the weakness of nature, but these things do not belong to the Lord Christ, inasmuch as he is Lord and possesses a power sufficient for all things, why do we learn from Scripture that Christ prayed more frequently than the apostles?\n\nAnswer.\n\nJust as the Lord, having hungered and thirsted and grown weary, and having wept and sweated, although he was able by the abundance of his power to endure none of these things, yet willingly endured the weaknesses of nature in order to provide a token of his human nature, so also he prayed for the same reason. For if, when he had willingly endured the infirmities of his own nature, some dare to say that he is not of our nature, how would they not have said this very thing with an abundance of proof, if it had happened that he in no way prayed to God and Father? And since there had been no doubt at all about the apostles, whether they were human beings, but doubt was going to arise about the Savior, for this reason the divine Scripture proclaimed more frequently than them and than the rest of human beings that he also prayed. For if, having become superior to the weaknesses of the flesh through the resurrection, as high priest of our confession he intercedes with God on our behalf, how much more, while he was still subject to the weakness of the flesh, did he need a great and strong cry and tears, with which he offered his supplication to the one who was able to save him from death?\n\nQuestion 116.","structure":"narrative","commentary":[],"ambiguities":[],"confidence":"","notes":[]},{"i":100,"ref":"p100","source":"ἰ πάντων τῶν ἀνθρώπων μίαν ἔχει ἡ σὰρξ καὶ μίαν ἡ ψυχὴ οὐσίαν, πῶς ὁ μὲν ἀργός, ὁ δὲ περὶ τὴν νόησίν ἐστιν ὀξύτερος; Ἀλλ' εἰ μὲν ἡ ψυχὴ τῆς τοιαύτης ἐστὶ διαφορᾶς αἰτία, ἀνάγκη τῶν ψυχῶν ὑπονοεῖν τὴν οὐσίαν διάφορον κατὰ τὴν διαφορὰν τῆς νοήσεως· εἰ δὲ ἡ σάρξ, ὁ αὐτὸς καὶ περὶ αὐτῆς λόγος ἁρμόσειεν. ἰ δὲ ἔκ τινος χυμοῦ, οἷον ξηροῦ ἢ ὑγροῦ ἢ θερμοῦ ἢ ψυχροῦ, πλεονασμοῦ ἢ ἐλλείψεως τοῦ θατέρου τὸ ἕτερον ἐπικρατέστερον γίνεται, οἷον ἀφροσύνη ἢ φρό νησις, πόθεν ἢ ὅπως γέγονέ τις τοιαύτης ποιότητος ἡ ἐπικράτεια, ἡ παρασκευάσασα τὸ ἔννουν ἢ ἄνουν ἐν ἡμῖν πλεονάζειν; Ἀπόκρισις.\n\nΤῆς τοῦ νοεῖν ὀξύτητος ἢ νωθρότητος αἰτίαν ἀποδεδώκασί τινες τῶν τε στοιχείων, ἐξ ὧν σύγκειται τὰ ἡμέτερα σώματα, τὴν εὐκρασίαν καὶ τὴν δυσκρασίαν καὶ τῶν ὀργανικῶν μορίων τὴν συμμετρίαν, καὶ δοκοῦσιν ὀρθῶς ἀποδεδωκέναι τούτων τὰς αἰτίας. ἰσὶ γάρ τινες ἐν μέν γε νεότητι γεννητικοί τε καὶ ἐπιδεκτικοὶ νοημάτων τυγχάνοντες, ἐν δὲ τῷ γήρᾳ εἰς τὸ ἐναντίον μεταβαλλόμενοι γίνονται περὶ τὸ νοεῖν ἀργοί· ἔστι δὲ τοῦτο σημεῖον τοῦ τὴν εὐκρασίαν τε καὶ δυσκρασίαν εἶναι αἰτίαν τῆς τοιαύτης μετοχῆς. Ὡσαύτως δὲ καὶ οἱ λίαν μεγα λοκέφαλοι, λεγόμενοι βαρυκέφαλοι, διὰ τὸ μὴ σώζειν σύμμε τρον ἀναλογίαν πρὸς τὰ ἄλλα μέρη τοῦ σώματος δι' ὑπερβολὴν μικρότητος ἢ μεγέθους, καὶ αὐτοὶ ἀνεπιτήδειοί εἰσι τοῦ δύνα σθαι εἶναι γεννητικοί τε καὶ ἐπιδεκτικοὶ νοημάτων.","english":"If the flesh of all human beings has one substance and the soul one substance, how is one person sluggish while another is sharper in understanding? But if the soul is the cause of such a difference, one must suppose that the substance of souls differs in accordance with the difference in understanding; and if the flesh is the cause, the same account will apply to it as well. But if it is from some humor—such as dry or moist or hot or cold—when one of the two is in excess or deficiency, the other becomes more dominant, such as folly or prudence, whence or how has the predominance of such a quality come about, which has prepared the intelligent or the unintelligent in us to prevail? Answer.\n\nSome have assigned as the cause of sharpness or sluggishness of thought the good or bad temperament of the elements of which our bodies are composed, and the symmetry of the organic parts, and they seem to have correctly assigned these causes. For there are some who in youth are productive and receptive of thoughts, but in old age, changing to the opposite, become sluggish in thought; and this is a sign that good and bad temperament is the cause of such participation. Likewise also those who are very large-headed, called heavy-headed, because they do not preserve a symmetrical proportion to the other parts of the body due to excess of smallness or greatness, are themselves unfit to be able to be productive and receptive of thoughts.","structure":"narrative","commentary":[],"ambiguities":[],"confidence":"","notes":[]},{"i":101,"ref":"p101","source":"Γίνονται δὲ καὶ ἄλλοι πρὸς τὴν κατάληψιν τῶν τῇ φύσει συνεστώτων πραγμάτων ὀξεῖς τε καὶ ἕτοιμοι, καὶ ἀπὸ τῆς θείας χάριτος, ὡς τὸ Ὁ κύριος ἔδωκε τῷ Σολομῶντι πλάτος καρδίας, ὡς τὴν ἄμμον τὴν παρὰ τὸ χεῖλος τῆς θαλάσσης· καὶ ὡς τὸ ἷς δέδοται μὲν διὰ πνεύματος λόγος σοφίας, ἄλλοις δὲ λόγος γνώσεως.\n\nἘρώτησις ρζ.\n\nἰ ὑπὸ τῶν ἀπίστων πρὸς ἀπάτην εὑρέθη τὰ ᾄσματα, τοῖς δὲ ἐν νόμῳ εἰσηγήθη διὰ φρενῶν νηπιότητα, οἱ τῆς χάριτος τέλεια καὶ τῶν·ηθέντων τρόπων ἀλλότρια παρειληφότες μα θήματα διὰ τί ἐν ταῖς ἐκκλησίαις κατὰ τοὺς ἐν τῷ νόμῳ νη πίους τοῖς ᾄσμασι κέχρηνται;\n\nἈπόκρισις.\n\nὐ τὸ ¶σαι ἁπλῶς ἐστι τοῖς νηπίοις ἁρμόδιον, ἀλλὰ τὸ μετὰ τῶν ἀψύχων ὀργάνων ¶σαι καὶ μετὰ ὀρχήσεως καὶ κροτάλων· διὸ ἐν ταῖς ἐκκλησίαις προαιρεῖται ἐκ τῶν σμάτων ἡ χρῆσις τῶν τοιούτων ὀργάνων καὶ τῶν ἄλλων τῶν νηπίοις ὄντων ἁρμοδίων, καὶ ὑπολέλειπται τὸ ¶σαι ἁπλῶς. Ἡδύνει γὰρ τὴν ψυχὴν πρὸς ζέοντα πόθον τοῦ ἐν τοῖς ᾄσμασιν δο μένου, κοιμίζει τὰ ἐκ τῆς σαρκὸς ἐπανιστάμενα πάθη, τοὺς ὑπὸ τῶν ἀοράτων ἐχθρῶν ἐμβαλλομένους ἡμῖν λογισμοὺς πονηροὺς ἀπωθεῖται, ἀρδεύει τὴν ψυχὴν πρὸς καρποφορίαν θείων ἀγαθῶν, γενναίους πρὸς τὴν ἐν τοῖς δεινοῖς καρτερίαν τοὺς ἀγωνιστὰς ἐργάζεται τῆς εὐσεβείας, πάντων τῶν ἐν τοῖς βιω τικοῖς λυπηρῶν ἰαματικὸν γίνεται τοῖς εὐσεβέσι. Μάχαιραν","english":"Others too become sharp and ready for the apprehension of things that exist by nature, and this from divine grace, as it is written, \"The Lord gave Solomon breadth of heart, as the sand by the shore of the sea\"; and as it is written, \"To one is given through the Spirit the word of wisdom, and to another the word of knowledge.\"\n\nQuestion 107.\n\nSince the songs were invented by the unbelievers for deception, but to those under the law were introduced through the mind as childishness, why do those who have received the perfect things of grace and teachings foreign to the ways that have been mentioned use songs in the churches, like the children under the law?\n\nAnswer.\n\nIt is not simply singing that is fitting for children, but singing with lifeless instruments and with dancing and clappers; therefore in the churches the use of such instruments and of the other things fitting for children is preferred over the songs, and simple singing has been left behind. For it sweetens the soul toward a burning longing for what is given in the songs, it lulls to rest the passions that rise up from the flesh, it drives away the evil thoughts cast into us by the unseen enemies, it waters the soul for the bearing of fruit of divine goods, it makes the champions of piety noble for endurance in dangers, and it becomes a healing of all the sorrows of life for the pious. A sword","structure":"narrative","commentary":[],"ambiguities":[],"confidence":"","notes":[]},{"i":102,"ref":"p102","source":"τοῦ πνεύματος τοῦτο ὁ Παῦλος ὀνομάζει, ἐν ᾧ κατὰ τῶν ἀοράτων πολεμίων ὁπλίζει τοὺς ὁπλίτας τῆς εὐσεβείας· ῥῆμα γάρ ἐστι θεοῦ, ὃ καὶ ἐνθυμούμενον καὶ δόμενον καὶ ἀνα κρουόμενον δαιμόνων γίνεται ἀπελατικόν. Ἔστιν οὖν τὰ τοιαῦτα τελειωτικὰ τῆς ψυχῆς ἐν ταῖς κατ' εὐσέβειαν ἀρεταῖς, διὰ τῶν σμάτων τῶν ἐκκλησιαστικῶν τοῖς εὐσεβέσι προσ γινόμενα.\n\nἘρώτησις ρη.\n\nἰ συγγνώμην ἡ ἀκούσιος ἐφέλκεται ἄγνοια, καθὼς ὑπὸ τῆς γραφῆς διδασκόμεθα, πῶς οἱ μὲν πάλαι Ἰουδαῖοι, τὸν Χριστὸν ἐξ ἀγνοίας σταυρώσαντες, πλείστων καὶ ἀνυποίστων δεινῶν ἐπειράθησαν, ὡς ἐν τοῖς Περὶ τῆς ἁλώσεως λόγοις μαρτυρεῖ ὁ Ἰώσηπος, οἱ δὲ νῦν τῷ Χριστῷ ἀπειθοῦντες αὐτῶν, τῆς μὲν οἰκείας πατρίδος ἀπελαθέντες, εἰς πᾶσαν τὴν γῆν ἐλικμήθησαν, τοῖς δὲ ἔθνεσιν εἰς δουλείαν ἐξεδόθησαν ἄτιμον, ὡς τὰ πράγματα στήλης βοᾷ περιφανέστερον; Τὴν δὲ ἐν ἑκα τέροις αὐτῶν συνίστησιν ἄγνοιαν ποτὲ μὲν ὁ κύριος, Πάτερ, λέγων, ἄφες αὐτοῖς, οὐ γὰρ οἴδασι τί ποιοῦσι· ποτὲ δὲ ὁ ἀπό στολος φάσκων· ἰ γὰρ ἔγνωσαν, οὐκ ἂν τὸν κύριον τῆς δόξης ἐσταύρωσαν. Καὶ ταῦτα μὲν περὶ τῶν πάλαι Ἰουδαίων· περὶ δὲ τῶν νῦν, Μαρτυρῶ, φησίν, αὐτοῖς ὅτι ζῆλον θεοῦ ἔχου σιν, ἀλλ' οὐ κατ' ἐπίγνωσιν.","english":"Paul calls this [gift] of the Spirit, in which he arms the soldiers of piety against the invisible enemies; for it is a word of God which, when pondered and given and struck forth, becomes a driver-away of demons. Such things, then, are perfective of the soul in the virtues that accord with piety, coming to the pious through the church's chants.\n\nQuestion 118.\n\nIf involuntary ignorance draws forgiveness, as we are taught by the Scripture, how is it that the Jews of old, who crucified Christ out of ignorance, experienced very many unbearable evils, as Josephus testifies in his account On the Capture [of Jerusalem], while those of the present who disobey Christ himself have been driven from their own homeland, scattered over all the earth, and handed over to the nations for dishonorable slavery, as the facts cry out more clearly than any monument? And he establishes the ignorance in both cases—sometimes the Lord, saying, \"Father, forgive them, for they do not know what they are doing\"; sometimes the apostle, saying, \"For if they had known, they would not have crucified the Lord of glory.\" And this concerns the Jews of old; but concerning those of the present, he says, \"I bear them witness that they have a zeal for God, but not according to knowledge.","structure":"narrative","commentary":[],"ambiguities":[],"confidence":"","notes":[]},{"i":103,"ref":"p103","source":"Ἀπόκρισις.\n\nὍτε ἡ ἀκούσιος ἄγνοια τοῖς ἀγνοοῦσι νομισθῇ γνῶσις, τότε ἡ ἀπόβασις τοῦ κατ' ἄγνοιαν πραττομένου πράγματος δείκνυσι κατ' ἀλήθειαν οὖσαν γνῶσιν ἢ κατὰ πλάνην καὶ ἄγνοιαν. Δειχθείσης δὲ τῆς νομιζομένης γνώσεως διὰ τῆς ἀποβάσεως ἀγνοίας ὑπαρχούσης τοῦ πράγματος, ἂν ἐμμένῃ τῇ αὐτῇ ἀγνοίᾳ ὁ ἀγνοήσας, οὐδεμίαν ἐφέλκεται συγγνώμην ἀλλὰ τιμωρίαν ἀπαραίτητον. Ἀλλ' ὅτι μὲν οὕτως ἐσταύρωσαν οἱ Ἰουδαῖοι τὸν Χριστὸν ὡς γινώσκοντες αὐτὸν ἀντίθεον καὶ σύμψηφον ἔχοντες τὸν θεὸν ἐν τῇ ἀναιρέσει αὐτοῦ, παντί που δῆλον· οὐκ ἂν γὰρ αὐτὸν ἐσταύρωσαν, εἰ ἦσαν γινώσκοντες ὅτι μετὰ τὸν θάνατον αὐτὸν ὁ θεὸς ἐγερεῖ ἐκ τῶν νεκρῶν. Ἐγερθεὶς δὲ ἐκ τῶν νεκρῶν ὑπὸ τοῦ θεοῦ ἔδειξε τὴν νομιζομένην κατὰ Χριστοῦ γνῶσιν τῶν Ἰουδαίων κατὰ ἀλήθειαν ἄγνοιαν οὖσαν. Ἐπειδὴ οὖν μετὰ τὸ ἀναστῆναι τὸν κύριον ἐκ νεκρῶν, καὶ δειχθῆ ναι μήτε τὸν θεὸν σύμψηφον γεγονότα τοῖς Ἰουδαίοις ἐν τῷ θανάτῳ τοῦ Χριστοῦ μήτε τὸν Χριστὸν ἀνεγέρτως μένειν ἐν τῷ θανάτῳ κατὰ τὴν προσδοκίαν τῶν αὐτὸν σταυρωσάντων, ἔτι τοὺς Ἰουδαίους ἐν τῇ ἀπειθείᾳ μένειν, διὰ τοῦτο οὐκ ἦσαν συγγνώμης ἄξιοι. Τὸ γὰρ ἐξαργυρίζειν αὐτοῦ τὴν ἀνάστασιν καὶ κλοπὴν ταύτην νομίζειν, καὶ κωλύειν τοὺς ἀποστόλους ἐπὶ τῷ ὀνόματι αὐτοῦ μὴ ἐκτελεῖν θεῖα ἔργα ἐν τῇ δυνάμει τοῦ ἁγίου πνεύματος γινόμενα, οὐκ ἔστιν ἀκουσίου ἀγνοίας συγ γνώμην ἐφελκομένης, ἀλλ' ἐγνωσμένης ἑκουσίου θεομαχίας τι μωρίαν ἐφελκομένης.","english":"Answer.\n\nWhen involuntary ignorance is regarded as knowledge by those who are ignorant, then the outcome of the thing done in ignorance shows whether it was truly knowledge or rather error and ignorance. But when the supposed knowledge is shown by the outcome to be ignorance of the matter, if the one who was ignorant remains in the same ignorance, he draws no forgiveness but rather unavoidable punishment. That the Jews crucified Christ in the belief that he was opposed to God and that they had God as an ally in his destruction is clear to everyone; for they would not have crucified him if they had known that after death God would raise him from the dead. But when he was raised from the dead by God, he showed that the supposed knowledge of the Jews against Christ was in truth ignorance. Since, therefore, after the Lord rose from the dead and it was shown that neither had God become an ally of the Jews in the death of Christ, nor does Christ remain unraised in death according to the expectation of those who crucified him, the Jews still remain in disobedience; for this reason they were not worthy of forgiveness. For to silver over his resurrection and regard it as a theft, and to prevent the apostles from performing divine works in his name by the power of the Holy Spirit, is not the forgiveness that involuntary ignorance draws with it, but the punishment that knowingly chosen hostility to God draws with it.","structure":"narrative","commentary":[],"ambiguities":[],"confidence":"","notes":[]},{"i":104,"ref":"p104","source":"ἰ μὲν γὰρ ταύτῃ τῇ ἐλπίδι ἐσταύρωσαν τὸν Χριστὸν οἱ Ἰουδαῖοι, τοῦ μὴ κρατῆσαι τὴν διδασκαλίαν αὐτοῦ καὶ τοῦ μὴ λυθῆναι τὸν ἰουδαϊσμόν, πῶς οὐκ ἔστιν ἀμφο\n\nτέρων ἀποτυχία λυτικὴ τῆς Ἰουδαίων κατὰ Χριστοῦ ἀκουσίου ἀγνοίας; Τὸ δὲ Σὺ πάτερ ἄφες αὐτοῖς, οὐ γὰρ οἴδασι τί ποιοῦσι, κατὰ ταύτην εἴρηται τὴν ἔννοιαν· Ὅτι, γνόντες ὅτι κατ' ἄγνοιάν με ἐσταύρωσαν, καὶ αἰτοῦσι λύτρον τῶν πλημμελειῶν αὑτῶν, παράσχοις αὐτοῖς. ὐ γὰρ δίδοται ἄφεσις τῷ νομίζοντι τὴν ἑαυτοῦ ἁμαρτίαν μὴ εἶναι ἁμαρτίαν ἀλλὰ δι καιοσύνην. Καὶ τὸ εἰρημένον τῷ Παύλῳ, τὸ Μαρτυρῶ αὐ τοῖς ὅτι ζῆλον θεοῦ ἔχουσιν, ἀλλ' οὐ κατ' ἐπίγνωσιν, πεφεισμένως εἴρηται τῇ τοῦ λόγου συγκαταβάσει· ἀσθενὴς τοῖς ἀσθενέσι γινόμενος, ἵνα κατὰ τὸ εἰρημένον σώσῃ τοὺς ἀσθενεῖς. Ἐρώτησις ρθ.\n\nἰ τὸ τῆς ἀναστάσεως δῶρον πᾶσι τοῖς θανοῦσιν ὁ θεὸς διδόναι ὑπέσχετο, καὶ πάντες ἐκ τῶν τάφων ἀναστάντες τῷ κριτῇ παρίστασθαι μέλλουσι, πῶς πληρωθήσεται τὸ κρίνειν νεκροὺς καὶ ζῶντας τὸν κύριον; Πῶς δὲ νεκροὶ κριθῆναι δυ νήσονται, ὧν τὰ μὲν σώματα ἐν μνήμασιν ἔῤῥιπται, αἱ δὲ ψυχαὶ τῶν σωμάτων κεχωρισμέναι εἰσίν; Ἀπόκρισις.","english":"For if the Jews crucified Christ in this hope—that his teaching would not prevail and Judaism would not be dissolved—how is the failure of both not a release from the involuntary ignorance of the Jews regarding Christ? And the saying, \"Father, forgive them, for they do not know what they are doing,\" was spoken with this meaning: that, having come to know that they crucified me in ignorance, they also ask for a ransom for their own transgressions, and you would grant it to them. For forgiveness is not given to one who thinks his own sin is not sin but righteousness. And what was said to Paul—\"I bear them witness that they have a zeal for God, but not according to knowledge\"—was said with forbearance, by the condescension of the word, becoming weak to the weak, so that, as it is said, he might save the weak. Question 109.\n\nIf God promised to give the gift of resurrection to all who have died, and all who have risen from the tombs are going to stand before the judge, how will the Lord's judging the dead and the living be fulfilled? And how will the dead be able to be judged, whose bodies have been cast into tombs, while their souls are separated from their bodies? Answer.","structure":"narrative","commentary":[],"ambiguities":[],"confidence":"","notes":[]},{"i":105,"ref":"p105","source":"ὐ πάντες, φησί, κοιμηθησόμεθα. Κρινεῖ οὖν ζῶντας μὲν τοὺς τότε ζῶντας, νεκροὺς δὲ τοὺς ἀνισταμένους ἐκ τῶν νεκρῶν. Ἔρχεται, φησίν, ὥρα καὶ νῦν ἐστίν, ὅτε πάντες οἱ ἐν τοῖς μνήμασιν ἀκούσονται τῆς φωνῆς τοῦ υἱοῦ τοῦ θεοῦ, καὶ ἐξέρχονται οἱ τὰ ἀγαθὰ ποιήσαντες εἰς ἀνάστασιν ζωῆς, οἱ δὲ τὰ φαῦλα πράξαντες εἰς ἀνάστασιν κρίσεως. Ἐχρῆν οὖν κατὰ τὸ πιστὸν τοῦ λόγου θεωρεῖν τὸ δυνατὸν τοῦ πράγματος καὶ μὴ ἀπορεῖν τὴν ἄλογον ἀπορίαν.\n\nἘρώτησις ρι.\n\nἰ τοῖς καταλιμπάνουσι πατέρα ἢ μητέρα ἢ τέκνα καὶ τὰ ἑξῆς ἑκατονταπλασίονα ἐπηγγείλατο διδόναι ὁ κύριος, ἆρα καὶ γυναῖκας ἑκατὸν οἱ τοιοῦτοι ἀντιλήψονται; Πῶς δέ, πολ λῶν τὰ εἰρημένα διὰ τὴν ἐντολὴν καταλιπόντων ἐν πτωχείᾳ καὶ μονότητι καὶ ἐρημίᾳ τελευτησάντων, οὐ διέψευσται ἡ τοι αύτη ὑπόσχεσις;\n\nἈπόκρισις.\n\nὭσπερ πατέρας καὶ μητέρας καὶ ἀδελφοὺς καὶ ἀδελφὰς λέγει τοὺς κατ' οἰκειωτικὴν διάθεσιν προσλαμβανομένους τὸν Χριστόν, καταλείψαντας πατέρα τε καὶ μητέρα, ἀδελφούς τε καὶ ἀδελφάς, οὕτως καὶ γυναῖκα λέγει τὴν ἐν καιρῷ τῆς διὰ Χριστὸν ἐγκαταλείψεως προνοουμένην τοῦ καταλείψαντος τὴν φύσει γυναῖκα. Ἡ δὲ ἐκκλησία τοῦ δεσπότου Χριστοῦ, ἡ ἐξ ἀρχῆς τοῦ χριστιανικοῦ κηρύγματος ὑπὸ τῶν αὐτῇ ἀντικειμένων Ἑλλήνων τε καὶ Ἰουδαίων διωκομένη καὶ ἁρπαζομένη πολυχρονίως, πόθεν ἔν τε τοῖς πνευματικοῖς καὶ ἐν τοῖς ἀνθρωπικοῖς τοσαύτην ἣν ὁρῶμεν ἐπίδοσιν ἐδέξατο, μὴ τῆς θείας τε καὶ ζώσης τοῦ σωτῆρος φωνῆς, τῆς κατὰ πολυπλασιασμὸν ὑπο σχομένης, καὶ τὴν ἀντίδοσιν ἐνεργησάσης ἐν αὐτῇ;","english":"Not all,\" he says, \"will we fall asleep.\" He will judge, then, the living—those living at that time—and the dead—those raised from the dead. \"The hour is coming,\" he says, \"and now is, when all who are in the tombs will hear the voice of the Son of God, and those who have done good will come forth to a resurrection of life, but those who have practiced evil to a resurrection of judgment.\" It was necessary, then, in accordance with the trustworthiness of the word, to contemplate the possibility of the matter and not to be at a loss with an irrational perplexity.\n\nQuestion 101.\n\nIf the Lord promised to give a hundredfold to those who leave father or mother or children and the rest, will such persons also receive a hundred wives? And how is it, when many who left the things said for the sake of the commandment have died in poverty and solitude and desolation, that this promise has not proved false?\n\nAnswer.\n\nJust as he calls fathers and mothers and brothers and sisters those who, by a disposition of affinity, receive Christ, having left father and mother, brothers and sisters, so too he calls a wife the woman who, at the time of the abandonment for Christ's sake, is provided for by the one who has left his wife by nature. But the Church of the Lord Christ, which from the beginning of the Christian preaching was persecuted and plundered for many years by the Greeks and Jews who opposed her, from where did she receive so great an increase, both in spiritual and in human things, as we see, if not from the divine and living voice of the Savior, which promised in accordance with multiplication and brought about the recompense in her?","structure":"narrative","commentary":[],"ambiguities":[],"confidence":"","notes":[]},{"i":106,"ref":"p106","source":"Πόθεν δὲ πλούσιοι ἄνδρες τε καὶ γυναῖκες τὰς ἑαυτῶν ὑπάρξεις ἐπιφε ρόμενοι ἐν τῇ ἐρήμῳ τοὺς ἐκεῖσε ἀναχωρητὰς ἐζήτησαν καὶ τούτων τὰ ὑστερήματα ἐπλήρωσαν, καθὰ ἔγνωμεν ἐκ τῆς ἱστο\n\nρίας τῶν ἁγίων ἀρχαίων ἀνδρῶν, μηδὲ τοῦ δεσπότου Χριστοῦ δι' αὐτῶν τὴν ἰδίαν ὑπόσχεσιν ἀγαγόντος εἰς πέρας; Ἐρώτησις ρια.\n\nἰ πρὸς σύστασιν τῆς τῶν σωμάτων ἀναστάσεως ὡς και ρίῳ τῷ κατὰ τὰ σπέρματα ὑποδείγματι ὁ ἀπόστολος ἐν τῇ πρὸς Κορινθίους ἐχρήσατο, πῶς οἱ τεμνόμενοι ἢ καιόμενοι ἀναστήσονται, τῶν σπερμάτων μετὰ τομὴν ἢ καῦσιν οὐ βλαστανόντων ἀλλὰ εἰς τὸ παντελὲς φθειρομένων; Ἀπόκρισις.\n\nΤῆς φύσεως οὔσης τῆς ἐργαζομένης τὰ ἐκ τῶν σπερμάτων γιγνόμενα, ὡς ἔμμετρον λαβούσης παρὰ τοῦ δημιουργοῦ τὴν δύναμιν, ἀνάγκη ἐπιτήδεια εἶναι τὰ σπέρματα πρὸς ποίησιν τῶν ἐξ αὐτῶν γιγνομένων· διὸ ἐὰν καῇ ἢ τμηθῇ τὰ σπέρματα, ἄχρηστα γίγνεται τῇ φύσει πρὸς ποίησιν τῶν ἐξ αὐτῶν γιγνο μένων. Ὁ δὲ θεὸς οὐκ ἔμμετρον ἔχει τὴν δύναμιν· διὰ τοῦτο οὐδὲν αὐτῷ ἐστιν ἀνεπιτήδειον πρὸς ποίησιν πάντων ὧν βούλεται, οὐδὲ κωλύεται ὑπὸ τῆς τομῆς καὶ καύσεως τῶν σωμά των τοῦ ποιήσασθαι αὐτῶν τὴν ἀνάστασιν. ὐ γὰρ νόμῳ καὶ μέτρῳ φύσεως ἐργάζεται ὁ θεός, ἀλλ' αὐθεντίᾳ βουλῆς τῆς ἐν μηδενὶ ἀπορουμένης πρὸς ποίησιν ὧν βούλεται ποιεῖν.","english":"Whence is it that rich men and women, carrying their own possessions with them into the desert, sought out the ascetics there and supplied their needs, as we have learned from the history of the holy men of old, and the Lord Christ did not through them bring his own promise to fulfillment? Question 111.\n\nIf the apostle used the example of seeds in his letter to the Corinthians as a principal proof for the establishment of the resurrection of bodies, how will those who have been cut or burned rise again, since seeds do not sprout after cutting or burning but are utterly destroyed? Answer.\n\nSince nature is what produces the things that come from seeds, having received a measured power from the Creator, it is necessary that the seeds be suitable for producing the things that come from them; therefore if the seeds are burned or cut, they become useless to nature for producing the things that come from them. But God does not have a measured power; for this reason nothing is unsuitable to him for producing all that he wills, nor is he hindered by the cutting and burning of bodies from bringing about their resurrection. For God does not work by the law and measure of nature, but by the authority of a will that is at no loss for producing what it wills to make.","structure":"narrative","commentary":[],"ambiguities":[],"confidence":"","notes":[]},{"i":107,"ref":"p107","source":"Ἐχρή σατο δὲ ὁ ἀπόστολος τῷ κατὰ τὰ σπέρματα ὑποδείγματι εἰς πίστωσιν τῆς τῶν νεκρῶν ἀναστάσεως, ἵνα κατὰ ἀναλογίαν πιστώσηται τῆς ἀναστάσεως τὸν λόγον, ὅτι, ὥσπερ οὐκ ἀπιστοῦμεν τὴν βλάστησιν τοῦ σπέρματος, ὁρῶντες ἐν τῇ γῇ ἀπο θανόντος καὶ ἀποβεβληκότος τοῦ σπέρματος τὴν φύσιν, οὕτως οὐκ ὀφείλομεν ἀπιστεῖν τῶν νεκρῶν τὴν ἀνάστασιν· ὁ γὰρ θεός, ὁ δεδωκὼς τῇ φύσει τὸ διὰ τοῦ σπέρματος ἐργάσασθαι τὴν βλάστην, πολὺ μᾶλλον αὐτὸς δύναται ἐκ τοῦ θανάτου ἐγεῖραι τοὺς νεκρούς.\n\nἘρώτησις ριβ.\n\nἰ τὴν βασιλείαν τοῦ Ἰσραὴλ δόξαν καὶ τρυφὴν καὶ ἄνεσιν ἐπίγειον οἱ ἀπόστολοι ὑπελάμβανον, καθά τινες ἔφασαν, διὰ τί ὁ κύριος περὶ ταύτης πρὸς αὐτῶν ἐρωτώμενος οὐ μόνον αὐ τοὺς οὐ διωρθώσατο, ἀλλὰ καὶ ἐπέσφιγξεν αὐτῶν τὴν ἄγνοιαν φήσας πρὸς αὐτούς· ὐχ ὑμῶν ἐστὶ γνῶναι χρόνους ἢ και ρούς, οὓς ὁ πατὴρ ἔθετο ἐν τῇ ἰδίᾳ ἐξουσίᾳ; ὕτη δὲ ἡ ἀπό κρισις βεβαιοῖ τὴν ἐκείνων ἐρώτησιν. Ἀπόκρισις.\n\nΚαὶ τοῦτο ἕν ἐστι τῶν πρὸ τῆς ἐπιφοιτήσεως τοῦ ἁγίου πνεύματος μὴ δυναμένων γνωσθῆναι ὑπὸ τῶν ἀποστόλων κατὰ τὸ εἰρημένον· Πολλὰ ἔχω λέγειν ὑμῖν, ἀλλ' οὐ δύνασθε βα στάζειν ἄρτι· ὅταν δὲ ἔλθῃ τὸ πνεῦμα τῆς ἀληθείας, ἐκεῖνο ὁδηγήσει ὑμᾶς πρὸς πᾶσαν τὴν ἀλήθειαν. Μαθόντες δὲ ὑπὸ τοῦ πνεύματος τὸ Τὴν κοιλίαν καὶ τὰ βρώματα ὁ θεὸς καταρ γεῖ, ἐκ τῆς ἰουδαϊκῆς ὑπολήψεως εἰς τὴν ἔννοιαν μετηνέχθησαν τὴν πρέπουσαν τῇ καταστάσει τῶν ἀνισταμένων ἐκ τῶν νε κρῶν, ἐν ᾗ οὔτε βρῶσις οὔτε πόσις οὔτε γάμος, ἀλλὰ ἰσάγγελοι ἔσονται οἱ τῆς ἀναστάσεως υἱοί.","english":"But the apostle used the example of seeds as a confirmation of the resurrection of the dead, so that by analogy he might establish the doctrine of the resurrection: that just as we do not disbelieve the sprouting of the seed, seeing it in the earth after it has died and cast off its nature as a seed, so we ought not to disbelieve the resurrection of the dead; for God, who has given to nature the power to produce the sprout through the seed, is much more able himself to raise the dead from death.\n\nQuestion 112.\n\nWhether the apostles supposed the kingdom of Israel to be earthly glory and luxury and ease, as some have said; why, when the Lord was asked by them about this, did he not only not correct them, but even tightened their ignorance, saying to them: \"It is not for you to know the times or seasons which the Father has set in his own authority\"? And this answer confirms their question. Answer.\n\nThis also is one of the things that could not be known by the apostles before the coming of the Holy Spirit, according to what is said: \"I have many things to say to you, but you cannot bear them now; but when the Spirit of truth comes, he will guide you into all the truth.\" But having learned from the Spirit that \"God will destroy both the belly and the foods,\" they were transferred from the Jewish supposition to the understanding that befits the state of those who rise from the dead, in which there is neither eating nor drinking nor marriage, but the sons of the resurrection will be equal to the angels.","structure":"narrative","commentary":[],"ambiguities":[],"confidence":"","notes":[]},{"i":108,"ref":"p108","source":"Τὸ οὖν ὐχ ὑμῶν ἐστὶ γνῶναι χρόνους ἢ καιρούς, οὓς ὁ πατὴρ ἔθετο ἐν τῇ ἰδίᾳ ἐξου\n\nσίᾳ, οὐκ ἔχει σχῆμα βεβαιωτικὸν ἐρωτησάντων ἐν τῇ κατ' ἄγνοιαν ὑπολήψει, ἀλλὰ ἀπορητικὸν ἀμφοτέρων, τῆς τε κατὰ τὸν χρόνον καὶ τῆς κατὰ τὸν τρόπον ὑπολήψεως τῶν ἐρωτησάντων. Δηλοῖ δὲ καὶ ὁ ἀπόστολος Παῦλος τὸν τρόπον ἐκεί νης τῆς καταστάσεως ἐν οἷς λέγει· Ἡ βασιλεία τοῦ θεοῦ οὐκ ἔστι βρῶσις καὶ πόσις, ἀλλὰ δικαιοσύνη καὶ εἰρήνη καὶ χαρὰ ἐν πνεύματι ἁγίῳ.\n\nἘρώτησις ριγ.\n\nἰ τέλειον τότε νοοῦμεν τὸ τέλειον κατὰ τὸ εἰωθὸς ὅτε πάντα κέκτηται τέλεια, τέλειον δὲ ἄκρως τὸ καθ' ὁτιοῦν προσ θήκην ἢ αὔξησιν μὴ δεχόμενον, πῶς ὁ θεὸς μὲν προϋπάρχων τῆς κτίσεως, ὕστερον δὲ τὴν κτίσιν ποιησάμενος, οὕτω θεὸς τὸ δημιουργὸς ὄνομά τε καὶ πρᾶγμα προσέλαβε, καὶ ἐκ τοῦ θεὸς εἰς τὸ καὶ δημιουργὸς εἶναι τὴν αὔξησίν τε καὶ τὴν γένεσιν δέδεκται;\n\nἈπόκρισις.\n\nἌλλο τὸ αὐτὸ εἶναι, καὶ ἄλλο τὸ ἄλλου εἶναι· ἄσχετον μὲν τὸ αὐτὸ εἶναι, σχετικὸν δὲ τὸ ἄλλου εἶναι. Ἐπειδὴ οὖν τὸ τέλειον τοῦ θεοῦ ἐν τῷ αὐτὸ εἶναι, διὰ τοῦτο οὐκ αὔξει αὐτὸν τὸ ἄλλου εἶναι. Καὶ καθάπερ τὸ ἀρχὴν εἶναι ἀριθμοῦ οὐδὲν συντελεῖ τῷ ἑνὶ πρὸς τὴν αὐτοῦ τελειότητα (καὶ γὰρ μὴ ὄντος αὐτοῦ ἀρχῆς ἀριθμοῦ τέλειον ἦν, καὶ γινομένου αὐτοῦ ἀρχῆς ἀριθμοῦ οὐκ ηὐξήθη), οὕτως καὶ ὁ θεὸς πρὸ τῆς κτίσεως ἦν τέλειος, καὶ μετὰ τὴν κτίσιν οὐκ ηὐξήθη.","english":"Therefore the saying, \"It is not for you to know times or seasons which the Father has set by his own authority,\" does not have the form of an affirmation on the part of those who asked in their assumption of ignorance, but is aporetic regarding both—both the assumption of those who asked concerning the time and that concerning the manner. And the apostle Paul also makes clear the manner of that state when he says: \"The kingdom of God is not eating and drinking, but righteousness and peace and joy in the Holy Spirit.\"\n\nQuestion 113.\n\nIf we then understand \"perfect\" in the customary sense when all things have been acquired perfectly, and \"perfect\" in the absolute sense as that which does not admit any addition or increase in any respect, how is it that God, who existed before the creation but afterward made the creation, thus received the name and the reality of \"Creator,\" and from being God has admitted increase and coming-to-be in becoming also Creator?\n\nAnswer.\n\nOne thing is to be the same, and another thing is to be of another; \"to be the same\" is without relation, but \"to be of another\" is relational. Since, therefore, the perfection of God lies in his being the same, for this reason his being of another does not increase him. And just as being the beginning of number contributes nothing to the one with respect to its own perfection (for even when it was not the beginning of number it was perfect, and when it became the beginning of number it was not increased), so also God was perfect before the creation, and after the creation he was not increased.","structure":"narrative","commentary":[],"ambiguities":[],"confidence":"","notes":[]},{"i":109,"ref":"p109","source":"ὐδὲν οὖν τῶν διὰ τῆς κτίσεως αὔξει θεόν (Σὺ γάρ, φησίν, ὁ αὐτὸς εἶ), ἀλλὰ τὴν σχέσιν ἣν ἔχει πρὸς τὴν κτίσιν πολυτρόπως (Σφόδρα, φησίν, ὑπερυψώθης ὑπὲρ πάντας τοὺς θεούς), καὶ γὰρ ὡς πατὴρ καὶ δεσπότης καὶ κριτὴς καὶ ποιμὴν καὶ τὰ τούτοις ὅμοια. Καὶ καθάπερ ὁ θεὸς μὴ ποιήσας πλείονας κόσμους, καίπερ τοῦτο καὶ δύναται ποιεῖν, οὐκ ἀτελὴς ἐκ τούτου ἐδείχθη ἡ αὐτοῦ τελειότης εἰς τὸ ὑπερυψοῦσθαι αὐτόν· εἰ δὲ μὴ ποιήσας πλείονας κόσμους ὁ θεὸς οὐκ ἐμειώθη, οὐδ' ἄρα ποιήσας ἕνα κόσμον ηὐξήθη.\n\nἘρώτησις ριδ.\n\nἰ τὸ εἶναι τῇ δυνάμει τοῦ εἶναι τῇ ἐνεργείᾳ καθέστηκεν ἔλαττον, πῶς ὁ τοῦ κόσμου ποιητής, πρὸ τῆς τοῦ κόσμου ποιήσεως ποιητὴς ὢν δυνάμει καὶ οὐκ ἐνεργείᾳ, τῷ τῆς ἐλαττώσεως οὐχ ὑποπίπτει ὀνόματι;\n\nἈπόκρισις.\n\nὯν ἡ δύναμις τῆς ἐνεργείας φυσικῇ τινι ἀνάγκῃ ὑφέστηκεν, τούτων ἡ δύναμις ἐλάττων τῆς ἐνεργείας καθέστηκεν· οὗ δὲ ἡ δύναμις τῆς ἐνεργείας οὐ φυσικῇ ἀνάγκῃ ἀλλὰ ἰδίᾳ βουλῇ ὑφέστηκεν, οὗτος ἀνυπόβλητος τῷ τῆς ἐλαττώσεως ὀνόματι. Διενοήθης, φησί, καὶ πάντα σοι πάρεστιν. Ἐρώτησις ριε.","english":"Nothing, then, of the things that through creation magnify God (for you are the same, it says), but the relation he has toward creation in many ways (for you are greatly exalted above all gods, it says), for as father and master and judge and shepherd and things like these. And just as God, not having made more worlds, although he is also able to do this, was not shown by this to be imperfect in his perfection with respect to being exalted, so if God was not diminished by not making more worlds, neither then was he increased by making one world.\n\nQuestion 114.\n\nIf being in potential is inferior to being in actuality, how is the maker of the world, who before the making of the world was a maker in potential and not in actuality, not subject to the name of diminution?\n\nAnswer.\n\nFor those whose potential exists by some natural necessity of actuality, the potential of these is inferior to the actuality; but for one whose potential exists not by natural necessity but by his own will, this one is not subject to the name of diminution. You were thought of, it says, and all things are present to you. Question 115.","structure":"narrative","commentary":[],"ambiguities":[],"confidence":"","notes":[]},{"i":110,"ref":"p110","source":"ἰ τὸ κλίνειν τὸ γόνυ ἐν ταῖς προσευχαῖς τοῦ ἑστῶτας εὔχεσθαι μᾶλλον θεῷ τοὺς εὐχομένους παρίστησι καὶ πλεῖον ἐφέλκεται τὴν θείαν συμπάθειαν, διὰ τί ἐν ταῖς κυριακαῖς ἡμέραις καὶ ἀπὸ τοῦ πάσχα ἕως τῆς πεντηκοστῆς γόνυ οὐ κλί\n\nνουσιν οἱ εὐχόμενοι; Πόθεν δὲ καὶ ἡ τοιαύτη ἐν ταῖς ἐκκλη σίαις εἰσῆλθε συνήθεια;\n\nἈπόκρισις.\n\nἘπειδὴ ἀμφοτέρων ἐχρῆν ἡμᾶς ἀεὶ μεμνῆσθαι, καὶ τῆς ἐν ταῖς ἁμαρτίαις πτώσεως ἡμῶν καὶ τῆς χάριτος τοῦ Χριστοῦ ἡμῶν, δι' ἧς ἐκ τῆς πτώσεως ἀνέστημεν, διὰ τοῦτο ἡ ἐν ταῖς ἓξ ἡμέραις ἡμῶν γονυκλισία σύμβολόν ἐστι τῆς ἐν ταῖς ἁμαρ τίαις πτώσεως ἡμῶν, τὸ δὲ ἐν τῇ κυριακῇ μὴ κλίνειν γόνυ σύμβολόν ἐστι τῆς ἀναστάσεως, δι' ἧς τῇ τοῦ Χριστοῦ χάριτι τῶν τε ἁμαρτημάτων καὶ τοῦ ἐπ' αὐτῶν τεθανατωμένου θανάτου ἠλευθερώθημεν. Ἐκ τῶν ἀποστολικῶν δὲ χρόνων ἡ τοι αύτη συνήθεια ἔλαβε τὴν ἀρχήν, καθώς φησιν ὁ μακάριος ἰρηναῖος, ὁ μάρτυς καὶ ἐπίσκοπος Λουγδούνου, ἐν τῷ Περὶ τοῦ πάσχα λόγῳ, ἐν ᾧ μέμνηται καὶ περὶ τῆς πεντηκοστῆς, ἐν ᾗ οὐ κλίνομεν γόνυ, ἐπειδὴ ἰσοδυναμεῖ τῇ ἡμέρᾳ τῇ κυριακῇ κατὰ τὴν·ηθεῖσαν περὶ αὐτῆς αἰτίαν. Ἐρώτησις ρι.","english":"The bending of the knee in prayers shows that those who pray are rather standing before God and draws to them more of the divine compassion. Why, then, on the Lord's days and from Pascha until Pentecost do those who pray not bend the knee? And from where did this custom also enter the churches?\n\nAnswer.\n\nSince it was necessary for us always to remember both our fall into sins and the grace of our Christ, through which we rose from the fall, for this reason the kneeling on our six days is a symbol of our fall into sins, while not bending the knee on the Lord's day is a symbol of the resurrection, through which, by the grace of Christ, we were freed both from sins and from the death that had put us to death on account of them. And this custom took its beginning from the apostolic times, as the blessed Irenaeus, the martyr and bishop of Lugdunum, says in his discourse On Pascha, in which he also mentions Pentecost, on which we do not bend the knee, since it is equivalent to the Lord's day according to the reason customarily given concerning it. Question 110.","structure":"narrative","commentary":[],"ambiguities":[],"confidence":"","notes":[]},{"i":111,"ref":"p111","source":"ἰ ἀνιστάμενος ὁ δεσπότης ἀπὸ τοῦ μνήματος τὰ ἐντάφια ἐν τῷ τάφῳ κατέλιπε, πῶς μετὰ τὴν ἀνάστασιν ἢ γυμνὸν αὐτὸν ὀφθέντα ἢ ἑτέρωθεν αὐτὸν ἐσθῆτα κομισάμενον ἡ γραφὴ οὐχ ἱστόρησεν; ἰ δὲ μήτε ἑτέρωθεν ἀμφιάσματα εἴληφε μήτε γυμνὸς τοῖς τότε αὐτὸν ὁρῶσιν ἐφαίνετο, πῶς ἀληθὲς ὅτι τὰ ἱμάτια ἐν τῷ τάφῳ κατέλιπεν;\n\nἈπόκρισις.\n\nΤὰ μὲν ἱμάτια τοῦ σωτῆρος μετὰ τὸ σταυρωθῆναι αὐτὸν οἱ στρατιῶται διεμερίσαντο, τὰ δὲ μετ' αὐτοῦ εἰσενεχθέντα εἰς τὸν τάφον εἰς ὑπηρεσίαν τοῦ ζῶντος ἀνεπιτήδεια ἦν. Τὰ δὲ ἱμάτια, ἃ ἐφόρει ὁ κύριος μετὰ τὴν ἀνάστασιν, ἢ ἐδημιούρ γησεν ἢ ἔλαβεν ἀλλαχόθεν, ὡς ἔλαβε καὶ τὸν πῶλον εἰς κάθισμα· ἑκάτερον γὰρ ἠδύνατο, καὶ τὸ δημιουργῆσαι καὶ τὸ λα βεῖν ἀλλαχόθεν. Πολλῶν δὲ ὄντων τῶν ὑπὸ τοῦ κυρίου πρα χθέντων, ὧν ἡ θεία γραφὴ τὰς ἱστορίας οὐ περιέχει, ἐξ ἀνάγκης καὶ τὰ μετὰ τὴν ἀνάστασιν ἐνδύματα ἐν τοῖς ἀνιστορήτοις τίθενται· καὶ οὐκ ἔστιν εὔλογον τὸ ἐκ πάντων τῶν ἀνιστο ρήτων μόνου τούτου ἀνιστορήτου ζητεῖν τὴν αἰτίαν, οὐδ' ἐκ τοῦ ἀνιστορήτου κατασκευάζειν τὴν ἀπορίαν περὶ τοῦ ἐνδύματος τοῦ κυρίου, ἀλλ' ἐκ τῆς δυνάμεως αὐτοῦ λαβεῖν τὴν πίστιν περὶ τοῦ ἐνδύματος αὐτοῦ.","english":"If the Lord, rising from the tomb, left the grave-clothes in the tomb, how is it that the Scripture has not recorded that after the resurrection he was either seen naked or that he obtained clothing from elsewhere? And if he neither received garments from elsewhere nor appeared naked to those who saw him at that time, how is it true that he left the garments in the tomb?\n\nAnswer.\n\nThe garments of the Savior, after he was crucified, the soldiers divided among themselves, and those that were brought with him into the tomb were unfit for the service of the living. But the garments that the Lord wore after the resurrection he either created or received from elsewhere, as he also received the colt to sit upon; for either was possible, both to create and to receive from elsewhere. And since there are many things done by the Lord whose histories the divine Scripture does not contain, of necessity the garments after the resurrection are also placed among the things not recorded; and it is not reasonable to seek the cause of this one alone being unrecorded out of all the unrecorded things, nor to construct the difficulty concerning the Lord's garment from what is unrecorded, but to receive faith concerning his garment from his power.","structure":"narrative","commentary":[],"ambiguities":[],"confidence":"","notes":[]},{"i":112,"ref":"p112","source":"Ἐρώτησις ριζ.\n\nἰ σῶμα παχυμερὲς θυρῶν κεκλεισμένων κεκωλυμένην ἔχει τὴν πάροδον, πῶς μετὰ τὴν ἀνάστασιν πρὸς τοὺς μα θητὰς τῶν θυρῶν κεκλεισμένων εἰσῆλθεν ὁ κύριος; Ἀλλ' εἰ μὲν ἀληθὲς ὅτι τὸ κεκλεισμένων τῶν θυρῶν ἔνδον ὁρώμενον σῶμα ἐτύγχανε, πῶς ὁ λίθος ὁ τῷ δεσποτικῷ ἐπικείμενος μνή ματι ὑπὸ τοῦ ἀγγέλου ἀπεκυλίσθη διὰ τὴν αὐτοῦ τοῦ σώματος ἔγερσιν; ἰ δὲ ἀληθεύει ἡ γραφὴ περὶ τῆς τῶν θυρῶν λέγουσα κλείσεως, δῆλον ὅτι οὐ σῶμα ἀλλὰ πνεῦμα εἰσῆλθεν. ἰ δὲ τὸ σῶμα ποτὲ μὲν ἦν σῶμα, ποτὲ δὲ πνεῦμα ἐγίνετο, πῶς οὐχὶ τροπὴν τὰ τῆς τοῦ σώματος οὐσίας ἐδέχετο;\n\nἈπόκρισις.\n\nὭσπερ οὐ κατὰ τὴν ἐκ τοῦ σώματος εἰς τὸ πνεῦμα τρο πὴν περιεπάτησεν ὁ κύριος ἐπὶ τὴν θάλασσαν, ἀλλὰ τῇ θείᾳ αὑτοῦ δυνάμει βατὴν ἐποίησε τὴν εἰς περιπάτησιν ἄβατον θάλασσαν οὐ μόνον τῷ ἑαυτοῦ σώματι ἀλλὰ καὶ τῷ τοῦ Πέτρου, οὕτως τῇ ἑαυτοῦ θείᾳ δυνάμει καὶ τοῦ μνήματος ἐξῆλθε τοῦ λίθου ἐπικειμένου τῷ μνήματι, καὶ πρὸς τοὺς μαθητὰς εἰσῆλθε τῶν θυρῶν κεκλεισμένων. ὐ γὰρ διὰ τὴν αὐτοῦ ἔγερσιν τοῦ λίθου ἐκ τοῦ μνήματος ἐγένετο ἡ ἀφαίρεσις, ἀλλὰ διὰ τὸ δηλωθῆναι τοῖς ὁρῶσι τὴν ἀνάστασιν· τὸ γὰρ ἐν τῷ μνήματι τὰ μὲν τοῦ ἐνταφιασμοῦ αὐτοῦ ὁρᾶν ἱμάτια, αὐτὸν δὲ μὴ ὁρᾶν, δεῖγμα τῆς αὐτοῦ ἐναργέστατον γέγονεν ἀναστάσεως. Χρὴ δὲ ἡμᾶς ἐννοῆσαι ὅτι τὰ ἰσοδύναμα τὴν αὐτὴν ἔχει πίστιν συγχω ρουμένων αὐτῶν καὶ τὴν αὐτὴν ἔχει πίστιν ἀναιρουμένων αὐτῶν· ἰσοδυναμεῖ δὲ τὸ περιπατεῖν ἐπὶ τὴν θάλασσαν ἐν ἀτρέπτῳ σώματι τῷ εἰσελθεῖν πρὸς τοὺς ἀποστόλους ἐν ἀτρέπτῳ σώματι τῶν θυρῶν κεκλεισμένων.","english":"Question 117.\n\nIf a body of dense substance has its passage blocked by closed doors, how is it that after the resurrection the Lord entered to the disciples when the doors were closed? But if it is true that the body seen inside when the doors were closed was really there, how was the stone lying on the Lord's tomb rolled away by the angel for the sake of his body's rising? And if the Scripture is true when it speaks of the closing of the doors, it is clear that it was not a body but a spirit that entered. And if the body was sometimes a body and sometimes became a spirit, how did it not undergo a change in the substance of the body?\n\nAnswer.\n\nJust as the Lord did not walk on the sea by a change from body into spirit, but by his divine power made the sea, impassable for walking, passable not only for his own body but also for Peter's, so too by his own divine power he came out of the tomb while the stone lay upon the tomb, and entered to the disciples when the doors were closed. For the removal of the stone from the tomb did not take place for the sake of his rising, but so that the resurrection might be made known to those who saw; for to see the burial clothes in the tomb but not to see him was a most evident proof of his resurrection. And we must understand that things of equal force have the same credibility whether they are granted or denied; and walking on the sea in an unchanging body is of equal force with entering to the apostles in an unchanging body when the doors were closed.","structure":"narrative","commentary":[],"ambiguities":[],"confidence":"","notes":[]},{"i":113,"ref":"p113","source":"Καὶ ὅτι τὰ ὑπὲρ φύσιν ἐν τῇ φύσει γιγνόμενα κατὰ τὴν θείαν δύναμιν ἀδύνατον κατὰ τὸν λόγον τῆς φύσεως ποιήσασθαι τὴν παράστασιν, διὸ πτοηθέντων τῶν μαθητῶν ἐπὶ τῇ τοιαύτῃ εἰσόδῳ ἐπέτρεψεν αὐτοῖς ψηλαφᾶν τοὺς πεπονθότας τόπους τοῦ σώματος αὑτοῦ, ὅτι οὐ κατὰ τροπὴν τοῦ σώματος εἰς τὸ πνεῦμα ἐποίησεν εἰς αὐτοὺς τὴν εἴσοδον, ἀλλὰ ἐν παχυμερεῖ σώματι τῇ θείᾳ αὑ τοῦ δυνάμει ποιητικῇ τῶν ὑπὲρ φύσιν. Ἐρώτησις ριη.\n\nἰ πάντα ὁ θεὸς ποιήσας κατὰ κύκλον τῆς φύσεως τοῦ παντὸς δεσπότης καθέστηκε, διὸ καὶ Δαυῒδ ἐν παντὶ τόπῳ τῆς τοῦ κυρίου δεσποτείας εὐλογεῖν ἡμῖν τὸν κύριον ἐγκελεύεται, ὁμοίως δὲ καὶ ὁ ἀπόστολος ἐν παντὶ τόπῳ ἐπαίρειν ἡμᾶς πρὸς τὸν θεὸν ὁσίους χεῖρας ἐντέλλεται, διὰ τί, ὡς σεμνὸν ἔργον τε καὶ οἰκητήριον θεῖον τὸ πρὸς τὸ ἡλιακὸν κλίμα νομί ζοντες, ἐν αὐτῷ ἀφορῶντες τοὺς ὕμνους καὶ τὰς προσευχὰς τῷ θεῷ ἀναπέμπομεν; Τίνες δὲ καὶ οἱ ταύτην τὴν συνήθειαν τοῖς Χριστιανοῖς ἐκδιδάξαντες;\n\nἈπόκρισις.","english":"And that things which happen contrary to nature in nature by divine power cannot be presented according to the principle of nature; therefore, when the disciples were terrified at such an entrance, he permitted them to touch the wounded places of his body, because he did not make his entrance to them by a transformation of the body into spirit, but in a body of dense substance by his divine power, which is productive of things beyond nature. Question 118.\n\nIf God, having made all things, is established as Lord of the whole according to the circle of nature, therefore David also enjoins us to bless the Lord in every place of the Lord's dominion, and likewise the apostle commands us to lift up holy hands to God in every place, why is it that, considering the region toward the sun's rising as a venerable work and a divine dwelling, we send up hymns and prayers to God while facing toward it? And who were those who taught this custom to the Christians?\n\nAnswer.","structure":"narrative","commentary":[],"ambiguities":[],"confidence":"","notes":[]},{"i":114,"ref":"p114","source":"Ἐπειδὴ τῶν παρ' ἡμῖν τὰ τιμιώτερα εἰς τιμὴν τοῦ θεοῦ ἀφορίζομεν, κατὰ δὲ τὴν τῶν ἀνθρώπων ὑπόληψιν τιμιωτέρα ἐστὶν ἡ ἀνατολὴ τῶν ἄλλων μερῶν τῆς κτίσεως, διὰ τοῦτο ἐν τῷ καιρῷ τῆς προσευχῆς νεύομεν πρὸς ἀνατολὴν πάντες. Κα θάπερ τῇ δεξιᾷ χειρὶ ἐν ὀνόματι Χριστοῦ κατασφραγίζομεν τοὺς τῆς σφραγῖδος ταύτης δεομένους, ἐπειδὴ τιμιωτέρα νενόμισται τῆς ἀριστερᾶς, καίτοι θέσει καὶ οὐ φύσει διαφέρουσα ταύτης ὑπάρχει, οὕτως καὶ ἡ ἀνατολή, ὡς τιμιώτερον μέρος τῆς κτίσεως, εἰς προσκύνησιν θεοῦ ἀφώρισται. ὐκ ἐναντιοῦ ται δὲ τῇ προφητικῇ τε καὶ ἀποστολικῇ φωνῇ τὸ πρὸς τὴν ἀνατολὴν ποιεῖν ἡμᾶς τὰς εὐχάς. Ἐν παντὶ γὰρ τόπῳ ὑπάρχει ἡ ἀνατολὴ τοῖς εὐχομένοις· καὶ ἐπειδὴ ἐφ' ὃ μέρος τὴν ὁρατὴν αἴσθησιν κεκτήμεθα κατὰ τοῦτο τὸ μέρος προσκυνοῦμεν, ἀδύνατον δὲ ἐν τῷ καιρῷ τῆς προσευχῆς εἰς τὰ τέσσαρα μέρη τῆς\n\nκτίσεως ἀποβλέπειν, διὰ τοῦτο εἰς τὸ ἓν μέρος τῆς κτίσεως ἀφορῶντες ποιοῦμεν τὴν προσκύνησιν, οὐχ ὡς μόνον ἔργον τοῦ θεοῦ οὐδ' ὡς εἰς κατοικητήριον τοῦ θεοῦ τοῦτο ἀφωρισμένον, ἀλλ' εἰς τόπον προσκυνήσεως τῆς παρ' ἡμῶν προσαγομένης θεῷ τεταγμένον. Τὸ δὲ ἔθος, παρ' ὧν εἴληφεν ἡ ἐκκλησία τὸ εὔχεσθαι, παρὰ τούτων εἴληφε καὶ τὸ ποῦ εὔχεσθαι, τοῦτο δὲ παρὰ τῶν ἁγίων ἀποστόλων.","english":"Since we set apart the more honorable things among us for the honor of God, and according to human estimation the east is more honorable than the other parts of creation, for this reason at the time of prayer we all bow toward the east. And just as with the right hand we seal in the name of Christ those who need this seal, since it has been considered more honorable than the left, although it differs from it by position and not by nature, so too the east, as a more honorable part of creation, has been set apart for the worship of God. Nor is it contrary to the prophetic and apostolic voice that we make our prayers toward the east. For the east exists in every place for those who pray; and since we worship in that direction in which we possess visible perception, and it is impossible at the time of prayer to look toward the four parts of creation, for this reason, looking toward one part of creation, we perform the worship, not as though this alone were a work of God, nor as though it were set apart as a dwelling place of God, but as a place of worship appointed for what is offered by us to God. And the custom—from those from whom the church received the practice of praying, from these it has received also where to pray, and this from the holy apostles.","structure":"narrative","commentary":[],"ambiguities":[],"confidence":"","notes":[]},{"i":115,"ref":"p115","source":"Ἐρώτησις ριθ.\n\nἰ μήτε τοὺς ἐκ τῶν δένδρων καρποὺς μήτε τῆς τῶν κρεῶν ἐδωδῆς οἱ πρὸ τοῦ κατακλυσμοῦ μετελάμβανον, καθώς τινες τῶν πατέρων ἐδίδαξαν, πῶς ὁ Ἄβελ ἐκ τῶν στεάτων τῶν προβάτων ὧν ἐποίμαινε, καὶ ὁ Κάϊν ἐξ ὧν ἐγεώργει καρ πῶν τῆς γῆς ὁμοίως προσέφερε; Καὶ δῆλον ὡς ἑκάτερος αὐ τῶν, τῆς οἰκείας βρώσεως προτιμῶν τὸ θεῖον, τῇ τοιαύτῃ θυ σίᾳ ἐκέχρητο. ἰ δὲ τὰ ἄχρηστα αὐτοῖς τῷ θεῷ προσεκόμιζον, πῶς τῇ τοιαύτῃ προσφορᾷ τὸ ἀεὶ ὂν οὐχ ὕβριζον; Ἀζήμιον γὰρ αὐτῷ καὶ χλευαστικὴν χάριν ἕκαστος αὐτῶν κατε τίθετο. Πῶς οὖν ἡ μὲν τοῦ Κάϊν θυσία ἀπόβλητος, τὰ δὲ τοῦ Ἄβελ δῶρα αἰδέσιμα γέγονεν; Ἀπόκρισις.\n\nὉ μακάριος ἀπόστολος, ὁ τῶν πατέρων πατὴρ καὶ εὐσεβείας διδάσκαλος, φησί· Τίς φυτεύει ἀμπελῶνα, καὶ ἐκ τοῦ καρποῦ αὐτοῦ οὐκ ἐσθίει; Τίς ποιμαίνει ποίμνιον, καὶ ἐκ τοῦ γάλακτος τῆς ποίμνης οὐκ ἐσθίει; –ἀντὶ τοῦ οὐδείς. Ἀλλ' εἰ μηδείς, δῆλον ἄρα ὅτι οὐδὲ ὁ Ἄβελ ἐποίμαινε τὴν ποίμνην, ἵνα μὴ ἐσθίῃ τοῦ γάλακτος τῆς ποίμνης αὑτοῦ, οὔτε ὁ Κάϊν ἐγεώργει τὴν γῆν, ἵνα μὴ ἐσθίῃ τῶν καρπῶν αὐτῆς. Ἔτι δὲ εἰ ἄχρηστοι ἦσαν τῷ Κάϊν οἱ καρποὶ τῆς γῆς, τίνος ἕνεκεν τοῖς χείροσι μὲν ἐτίμα τὸν θεόν, τοῖς κρείττοσι δὲ αὑτὸν τοῦ θεοῦ προετίμησε (διὸ ἀπόβλητος αὐτοῦ γέγονεν ἡ θυσία), μὴ χρῄ ζων τῶν καρπῶν τῆς γῆς; ἰ δὲ προετίμησεν ὁ μὲν Ἄβελ τῆς ἰδίας χρείας τὸν θεόν, ὁ δὲ Κάϊν τὴν ἰδίαν χρείαν τοῦ θεοῦ, δῆλον ἄρα ὅτι ἕκαστος αὐτῶν τῆς ἐκ τῶν οἰκείων πόνων ἔχρῃζε θεραπείας.","english":"Question 119.\n\nIf neither the fruits of trees nor the eating of meats were partaken of by those before the flood, as some of the fathers taught, how did Abel offer from the fat of the sheep which he shepherded, and Cain likewise from the fruits of the earth which he farmed? And it is clear that each of them, preferring the divine to his own food, employed such a sacrifice. But if they were bringing to God the things useless to them, how were they not insulting the ever-existing One by such an offering? For each of them was rendering him a thankless and mocking favor. How then was Cain's sacrifice rejected, but Abel's gifts held in honor? Answer.\n\nThe blessed apostle, the father of the fathers and teacher of piety, says: Who plants a vineyard and does not eat of its fruit? Who shepherds a flock and does not eat of the milk of the flock? — meaning, no one. But if no one, it is clear therefore that neither did Abel shepherd the flock so as not to eat of the milk of his flock, nor did Cain farm the earth so as not to eat of its fruits. Moreover, if the fruits of the earth were useless to Cain, for whose sake did he honor God with the worse things, while preferring himself to God with the better things (for which reason his sacrifice was rejected), if he had no need of the fruits of the earth? But if Abel preferred God to his own need, and Cain preferred his own need to God, it is clear therefore that each of them needed the care that comes from his own labors.","structure":"narrative","commentary":[],"ambiguities":[],"confidence":"","notes":[]},{"i":116,"ref":"p116","source":"Ἐρώτησις ρκ.\n\nἰ βασιλείαν τοῦ θεοῦ τὴν ἀνάστασίν τινες ὑπειλήφασι, δίκαιοι δὲ καὶ ἁμαρτωλοὶ ταύτης ἀξιωθῆναι πιστεύονται, πῶς τοὺς τὰ ἀπηγορευμένα ποιήσαντας ἀποκληρονόμους ὁ Παῦλος ἀπέφαινε, φήσας ὅτι ὔτε πόρνοι οὔτε μοιχοὶ καὶ οἱ ἐφεξῆς βασιλείαν θεοῦ κληρονομήσουσιν; Ἀπόκρισις.\n\nΒασιλείαν θεοῦ οἶδεν ἡ θεία γραφὴ ὀνομάζειν οὐ τὴν ἀνάστασιν ἁπλῶς, ἀλλὰ τὴν μετὰ τὴν ἀνάστασιν ἀποκατάστα σιν, ἐν ᾗ γίνεται κολαζομένων τε καὶ δοξαζομένων ἡ διαίρεσις, τοῦ θεοῦ ὑπὸ πάντων ἀναμφιβόλως ὁμολογουμένου, τοῦ τὴν δόξαν ἐν τοῖς δοξαζομένοις ἐνεργοῦντος καὶ τὴν κόλασιν ἐν τοῖς κολαζομένοις. Ἀκούσονται, φησί, τῆς φωνῆς τοῦ υἱοῦ τοῦ θεοῦ οἱ ἐν τοῖς μνημείοις, καὶ ἐξελεύσονται οἱ τὰ ἀγαθὰ ποιήσαντες εἰς ἀνάστασιν ζωῆς, οἱ δὲ τὰ φαῦλα πράξαντες εἰς\n\nἀνάστασιν κρίσεως. Διῄρηται οὖν ἡ ἀνάστασις εἰς ζωὴν καὶ κρίσιν, κατὰ τὰς διαφορὰς δικαίων τε καὶ ἀδίκων. Ἐπὶ πλέον γὰρ ἡ ἀνάστασις τῆς βασιλείας τοῦ θεοῦ· ἡ μὲν γὰρ ἀνάστασις δικαίους τε καὶ ἀδίκους περιέχει, ἡ δὲ βασιλεία τοῦ θεοῦ μόνους τοὺς δικαίους περιέχει.","english":"Question 120.\n\nSome have supposed that the kingdom of God is the resurrection, and it is believed that both the righteous and sinners are deemed worthy of it. How then did Paul declare those who have done the forbidden things to be disinherited, saying that neither fornicators nor adulterers and those next in order will inherit the kingdom of God? Answer.\n\nDivine Scripture knows how to name as the kingdom of God not the resurrection simply, but the restoration after the resurrection, in which the division between those being punished and those being glorified takes place, God being confessed by all without doubt, who works glory in those being glorified and punishment in those being punished. They shall hear, it says, the voice of the Son of God, those in the tombs, and they shall come forth—those who have done good to a resurrection of life, but those who have practiced evil to a resurrection of judgment. The resurrection, then, is divided into life and judgment, according to the differences between the righteous and the unrighteous. For the resurrection is broader than the kingdom of God: the resurrection contains both the righteous and the unrighteous, but the kingdom of God contains only the righteous.","structure":"narrative","commentary":[],"ambiguities":[],"confidence":"","notes":[]},{"i":117,"ref":"p117","source":"Ἐρώτησις ρκα.\n\nἰ ἀναθεματισμὸν μόνον ἐπὶ τῶν ἀτόπων ἡ παλαιά τε καὶ νέα διαθήκη ἐπίσταται, πῶς ὁ μακάριος Πέτρος, ἐν τῷ πάθει τὸν δεσπότην ἀρνούμενος, ἀναθεματίζειν ἤρξατο; Τίς δὲ ἡ διαφορὰ ἑκατέρων, τουτέστι τοῦ ἀναθεματισμοῦ, καὶ τοῦ καταθεματισμοῦ, καὶ τί τὸ ὑπὸ θατέρου σημαινόμενον; Ἀπόκρισις.\n\nἈνάθεμα λέγεται τὸ ἀνακείμενον καὶ ἀφωρισμένον θεῷ καὶ εἰς κοινὴν χρῆσιν μηκέτι λαμβανόμενον, ἢ τὸ ἀπηλλοτριωμένον θεοῦ διὰ κακίαν· κατάθεμα δέ ἐστι τὸ συνθέσθαι τοῖς ἀναθεματίζουσιν.\n\nἘρώτησις ρκβ.\n\nἰ ὥραις καὶ ἡμέραις τὰ καθ' ἡμᾶς οὐ κατέχεται, πῶς ἐν τῷ γάμῳ ὁ κύριος ἔλεγε τὸ ὔπω ἥκει ἡ ὥρα μου; καὶ ὁ εὐαγγελιστὴς περὶ αὐτοῦ τὸ ὐδεὶς ἔβαλε τὰς χεῖρας ἐπ' αὐ τόν, ὅτι οὔπω ἦλθεν ἡ ὥρα αὐτοῦ; Ἀπόκρισις.\n\nἰ καὶ ὥραις καὶ ἡμέραις τὰ καθ' ἡμᾶς οὐ κατέχεται, ἀλλ' ὅμως τῶν παρ' ἡμῶν ἢ περὶ ἡμᾶς γιγνομένων τὰ μὲν γίνεται ἐν ἐπιτηδείῳ καιρῷ, τὰ δὲ ἐν ἀνεπιτηδείῳ. Καλεῖ οὖν ἡ θεία γραφὴ τὸν ἐπιτήδειον πρὸς τὸ γινόμενον πρᾶγμα καιρὸν παρου σίαν τῆς ὥρας, τὸν δὲ ἀνεπιτήδειον ἀπουσίαν τῆς ὥρας. Καὶ ἐπειδὴ μετὰ τὴν ποίησιν τοῦ οἴνου καιρὸν ἐπιτήδειον ἡγεῖτο ὁ κύριος τῆς ἐκ τοῦ γάμου ἀναχωρήσεως, διὰ τοῦτο πρὸ τῆς ποιήσεως τοῦ οἴνου εἶπεν ὁ κύριος· ὔπω ἧκεν ἡ ὥρα μου. Καὶ πάλιν ἐπειδὴ ἐν τῷ καιρῷ τοῦ πάσχα τῶν Ἰουδαίων ἐχρῆν τὸν κύριον συλληφθῆναι καὶ παθεῖν ἃ ἔπαθε, διὰ τοῦτο πρὸ τοῦ πάσχα ἐῤῥήθη περὶ αὐτοῦ τὸ Ἀλλ' οὐδεὶς ἐπέβαλεν ἐπ' αὐτὸν τὰς χεῖρας, ὅτι οὔπω ἐλήλυθεν ἡ ὥρα αὐτοῦ· οὐ τῆς ἀνάγκης τῆς ὥρας κωλυούσης αὐτοῦ τὴν σύλληψιν, ἀλλ' ἡ τοῦ θεοῦ πρόνοια ἄλλον αὐτῇ τόπον προωρίσατο·","english":"Question 121.\n\nIf the old and new covenants know only anathema upon the wicked, how did the blessed Peter, when he denied the Lord in his passion, begin to anathematize? And what is the difference between the two, that is, between anathema and katathema, and what is signified by each? Answer.\n\nAnathema is said of that which is set up and set apart for God and no longer taken for common use, or of that which has been alienated from God through wickedness; katathema is to agree with those who anathematize.\n\nQuestion 122.\n\nIf our affairs are not governed by hours and days, how did the Lord say at the marriage, \"My hour has not yet come\"? And the evangelist said concerning him, \"No one laid hands on him, because his hour had not yet come\"? Answer.\n\nEven if our affairs are not governed by hours and days, nevertheless of the things that happen by us or concerning us, some happen at a suitable time and some at an unsuitable time. So divine Scripture calls the time suitable for the thing that is done a presence of the hour, and the unsuitable time an absence of the hour. And since after the making of the wine the Lord considered it a suitable time to withdraw from the marriage, for this reason before the making of the wine the Lord said, \"My hour has not yet come.\" And again, since at the time of the Jews' Passover the Lord had to be arrested and suffer what he suffered, for this reason before the Passover it was said concerning him, \"But no one laid hands on him, because his hour had not yet come\"—not that the necessity of the hour prevented his arrest, but the providence of God had foreordained another place for it.","structure":"narrative","commentary":[],"ambiguities":[],"confidence":"","notes":[]},{"i":118,"ref":"p118","source":"ἄλλως γὰρ τῇ ἀνάγκῃ τῆς ὥρας ἐκωλύετο τοῦ κυρίου ἡ σύλληψις, καὶ οὐκ ἂν ταύτην προσῆψεν ἡ θεία γραφὴ τῷ χωρίῳ τῷ τοῦ τόπου. Ἀνεχώρησε, φησίν, ὁ Ἰησοῦς εἰς τὴν Γαλιλαίαν· οὐ γὰρ ἤθε λεν ἐν τῇ Ἰουδαίᾳ περιπατεῖν, ὅτι οἱ Ἰουδαῖοι ἐζήτουν αὐτὸν ἀποκτεῖναι. Ἀλλ' οὐδὲ πρὸ τούτου εἰς ἴγυπτον ἀνεχώρει, ἱκανῆς οὔσης τῆς ἀνάγκης τῆς ὥρας φυλάττειν αὐτὸν ἀσύλ ληπτον.\n\nἘρώτησις ρκγ.\n\nἰ τὸ ἀγαθὸν ἁπάντων ἐστὶ τὸ κάλλιστον, καὶ τὸ κακυ νόμενον τῶν ὄντων ἐστὶ τὸ χείριστον, καὶ ἀγαθὸς μέν ἐστιν ὁ θεός, κακυνόμενος δὲ ὁ ἄνθρωπος, πῶς οὐχ ὁ ἄνθρωπος ἁπάντων τὸ κάκιστον; ὐδὲ γὰρ τῶν ὄντων ἕτερον, οὐρανοῦ λέγω καὶ γῆς, ἀέρος, φωστήρων καὶ τῶν τοιούτων δυνάμεων,\n\nκακύνεσθαι κέκτηται.\n\nἈπόκρισις.\n\nἰ ἀνθρώπου ἕνεκεν τὰ ἄλλα ὀνομασθέντα ἔστι, τὰ δέ τινος ἕνεκεν ὑπάρχοντα ἐλάττονα ἐκείνου ἐστί, κάλλιστος ἄρα ἐστὶν ὁ ἄνθρωπος, ὁ ὑπὲρ τὰ δι' αὐτὸν ὑπάρχοντα. ἰ δὲ καὶ αὐτὸ τὸ κακύνεσθαι συντελεῖ τι πρὸς τὴν βελτίωσιν τοῦ ἀνθρώπου, κάλλιστόν ἐστιν ὁ ἄνθρωπος, καὶ κατὰ τοῦτο ὑπὸ τῆς θείας προνοίας τοῖς κακωτικοῖς ἰατρευόμενος ἀπὸ τῆς ἰδίας γνωμικῆς αὐτοῦ κακίας. Χρὴ δὲ τὸν βουλόμενον τὸ ἀγαθὸν ἀνθρώπου καταμαθεῖν πρὸς τὸ τέλος ἀποβλέπειν τὸ μετὰ τὴν ἀποβίωσιν ἀποκείμενον ἀνθρώπῳ· ἐκεῖνος γὰρ τῆς παρούσης ζωῆς ἐστιν ὁ καρπός, τουτέστι μακαριότης ἀτελεύ τητος ἀντὶ τῆς ὀλιγοχρονίου κακυνομένης ζωῆς. Ἐρώτησις ρκδ.","english":"For otherwise the Lord's arrest was prevented by the necessity of the hour, and the divine Scripture would not have attached this to the place of the place. He withdrew, it says, Jesus into Galilee; for he did not wish to walk in Judea, because the Jews were seeking to kill him. But not even before this did he withdraw into Egypt, since the necessity of the hour was sufficient to keep him unarrested.\n\nQuestion 123.\n\nIf the good is the most beautiful of all things, and the thing that is defiled is the worst of existing things, and God is good, while man is defiled, how is man not the worst of all things? For neither does any other of existing things—I mean heaven and earth, air, luminaries, and such powers—possess being defiled.\n\nAnswer.\n\nIf the other things that have been named exist for the sake of man, and things that exist for the sake of something are lesser than that thing, then man is most beautiful, being above the things that exist for his sake. And if defilement itself contributes something toward the improvement of man, man is most beautiful, and in this respect is healed by the divine providence through afflictions from his own willful wickedness. But one who wishes to understand the good of man must look to the end that is laid up for man after death; for that is the fruit of the present life, that is, endless blessedness in exchange for the short-lived defiled life.\n\nQuestion 124.","structure":"narrative","commentary":[],"ambiguities":[],"confidence":"","notes":[]},{"i":119,"ref":"p119","source":"ἰ τῆς ἑκάστου βιώσεως προγνώστης ὁ δεσπότης καθέστηκε, διὰ τί μὴ τῶν εὐσεβῶν τὰς ψυχὰς ἐν σώμασιν εὐσθε νέσιν εἰσῴκισεν; ἰ δέ, θησαυρίζων αὐτοῖς τὰς ἀμοιβὰς ἐν τοῖς μέλλουσιν, ἐν τοῖς παροῦσιν αὐτοὺς συνεχώρησε θλίβεσθαι, διὰ τί μὴ πάντες ἐν ταῖς θλίψεσιν ὁμοίως οἱ εὐσεβεῖς ἐξητάζοντο, ὥστε δῆλον ἐκ τούτου τὸ καλὸν καὶ τὸ δεινὸν διαδείκνυσθαι; ἰ δὲ ἀμφότερα παρ' ἀμφοτέροις εὑρίσκεται, πῶς οὐκ ἄδηλος ὁ τὸ κρεῖττον ἑλόμενος; Πῶς δὲ ὡς ἔτυχε τὰ πάντα φερόμενα ἀπρονόητα τὰ ἐν τῷ κόσμῳ οὐ δείκνυσιν, εὐσεβοῦς καὶ ἀσεβοῦς οὐκ οὔσης τινὸς διακρίσεως; Ἀπόκρισις.\n\nὐκ ἐβούλετο ὁ θεὸς τοῖς παροῦσιν ὑπὲρ ἀρετῆς τιμῆσαι τοὺς αὐτῷ ἀνακειμένους. Τὰ γὰρ ἐν τῷ θανάτῳ τῶν εὐσεβῶν οὐκ ἔστι μισθὸς ἀρετῆς· καὶ καθώσπερ λέγονται οἱ εὐσεβεῖς μὴ εἶναι ἐκ τοῦ κόσμου, οὕτως καὶ ἡ δόξα αὐτῶν καὶ ὁ πλοῦ τος οὐκ ἔστι γήϊνα. Ὅταν οὖν ὁρῶμεν προσόντα τοῖς εὐσε βέσιν ἃ πρόσεστι καὶ τοῖς ἀσεβέσιν, ἀναλογισώμεθα ἐκ τού του μὴ εἶναι ἄξια τὰ παρόντα τῶν τῆς ἀρετῆς πόνων. Καὶ εἰ φαίνεται θεὸς τοῖς ἀνθρώποις ποτὲ ὑψώσας τινὰς τῶν αὐτῷ ἀνακειμένων, ὡς τὸν Ἰωσὴφ καὶ τὸν Δαυΐδ, ἀλλ' ὅμως οὐ τὰς ἀρετὰς αὐτῶν τούτοις ἀμειβόμενος, ἀλλὰ διὰ μὲν τοῦ Ἰωσὴφ τῆς τοῦ ἰσραηλιτικοῦ γένους αὐξήσεως προνοησάμενος, διὰ δὲ τοῦ Δαυῒδ τὴν τοῦ πνεύματος βασιλείαν συνεστήσατο. Δια φέρουσι δ' οἱ εὐσεβεῖς τῶν ἀσεβῶν ἐν τοῖς ὑλικοῖς τε καὶ σω ματικοῖς οὐδαμῶς· πάντα γὰρ πάρεστιν ἀμφοτέροις, τά τε ἡδέα καὶ τὰ λυπηρά·","english":"Since the Master is the foreknower of each person's life, why did he not settle the souls of the pious in bodies that are well and strong? But if, storing up their rewards for them in the things to come, he allowed them to be afflicted in the present, why were not all the pious tested alike in afflictions, so that by this the good and the terrible might be clearly shown? But if both are found in both, how is the one who has chosen the better not unclear? And how does everything being borne along at random not show the things in the world to be without providence, when there is no distinction between the pious and the impious? Answer.\n\nGod did not wish to honor those consecrated to him in the present for the sake of virtue. For the things that come at the death of the pious are not a reward of virtue; and just as the pious are said not to be of the world, so also their glory and their wealth are not earthly. When, then, we see present among the pious the things that are also present among the impious, let us reason from this that the present things are not worthy of the labors of virtue. And if God ever appears to have exalted certain of those consecrated to him among men, as Joseph and David, nevertheless he was not repaying their virtues with these things, but through Joseph he provided for the increase of the Israelite race, and through David he established the kingdom of the spirit. But the pious differ in no way from the impious in material and bodily things; for all things are present to both, both the pleasant and the painful.","structure":"narrative","commentary":[],"ambiguities":[],"confidence":"","notes":[]},{"i":120,"ref":"p120","source":"διαφέρουσι δὲ ἀλλήλων προηγουμένως μὲν τῇ τε ἐλπίδι τῶν μελλόντων καὶ τοῖς ὑπὲρ τῆς εὐσεβείας παθήμασιν, ἔπειτα δὲ καὶ ταῖς θείαις συμμαχίαις, ἐν αἷς πολλάκις περιβλέπτους ἐποίησεν ὁ θεὸς τοὺς ἰδίους, ποτὲ μὲν τὴν τῶν ἰγυπτίων δυναστείαν καταλύων, ποτὲ δὲ τοὺς Χαναναίους τοῖς Ἰσραηλίταις ὑποτάσσων, ποτὲ δὲ τῶν Ἀσσυρίων τὸ θράσος κοιμίζων, ποτὲ δὲ τῶν Βαβυλωνίων καθαιρῶν τὴν βασιλείαν, ποτὲ δὲ δρόμον τε καὶ στάσιν παρὰ φύσιν προστάσσων τῷ ἡλίῳ. Ἐν τούτοις μὲν ἡ πρόνοια διαδείκνυται τοῦ θεοῦ, ἐν ἐκείνοις δὲ παρασκευάζει τοὺς εὐσεβεῖς πρὸς\n\nἄλλον βίον ἀφορᾶν, ἐν ᾧ γίνεται κατὰ δόξαν τε καὶ ἀδοξίαν δικαίων τε καὶ ἀδίκων ἡ διάκρισις. Ἐρώτησις ρκε.\n\nἰ ἀποδιδόναι κακὸν ἀντὶ κακοῦ ἢ λοιδορίαν ἀντὶ λοιδο ρίας ὁ ἀπόστολος Παῦλος ἀπηγόρευσε, πῶς αὐτὸς ὧν εἶπεν ἐναντία ἔπραξε, ποτὲ μὲν τῷ ἀρχιερεῖ ποτὲ δὲ Ἀλεξάνδρῳ τῷ χαλκεῖ ἀρασάμενος;\n\nἈπόκρισις.\n\nἰ μὲν ἀντέτυπτεν ὁ Παῦλος τὸν τυπτήσαντα αὐτὸν ἀρχιερέα, ἢ ἀντεκάκωσε τὸν κακώσαντα αὐτὸν Ἀλέξανδρον, ἐνῆν λέγειν ὅτι τὰ ἐναντία ὧν ἐδίδαξεν ἔπραττε. Τὸ δὲ λέγειν τὰ ἑκάστῳ μέλλοντα συμβήσεσθαι παρὰ τοῦ θεοῦ, τῷ μὲν ἀρχιε ρεῖ· Τύπτειν σε μέλλει ὁ θεός, τοῖχε κεκονιαμένε· τῷ δὲ Ἀλεξάνδρῳ τὸ Ἀποδῴη αὐτῷ κύριος ἐν ἐκείνῃ τῇ ἡμέρᾳ· οὐκ ἔστιν οὔτε κατάρα οὔτε λοιδορία, ἀλλὰ προῤῥήσεις πρέπουσαι ἀνδρὶ ἀποστόλῳ, μὴ ἐκδικοῦντι ἑαυτὸν ἀλλὰ διδόντι τόπον τῇ ὀργῇ.","english":"They differ from one another primarily in their hope of things to come and in their sufferings for the sake of piety, and then also in the divine alliances, in which God often made his own people conspicuous, sometimes overthrowing the dominion of the Egyptians, sometimes subjecting the Canaanites to the Israelites, sometimes lulling the insolence of the Assyrians, sometimes destroying the kingdom of the Babylonians, sometimes commanding the sun to run and stand still contrary to nature. In these things the providence of God is displayed, while in those things he prepares the pious to look toward another life, in which the distinction between the righteous and the unrighteous is made according to glory and dishonor. Question 125.\n\nIf the apostle Paul forbade returning evil for evil or reviling for reviling, how did he himself do things contrary to what he said, at one time cursing the high priest and at another Alexander the coppersmith?\n\nAnswer.\n\nIf Paul had struck back at the high priest who struck him, or had returned evil to Alexander who wronged him, it would be possible to say that he did things contrary to what he taught. But to declare what was going to happen to each from God—to the high priest, \"God is about to strike you, you whitewashed wall,\" and to Alexander, \"May the Lord repay him on that day\"—is neither a curse nor a reviling, but foretellings befitting an apostolic man, who does not avenge himself but gives place to wrath.","structure":"narrative","commentary":[],"ambiguities":[],"confidence":"","notes":[]},{"i":121,"ref":"p121","source":"Ἐρώτησις ρκ.\n\nἰ τοὺς εὐσεβεῖς ἀμείβεται ὁ θεὸς τῇ κατὰ τόνδε τὸν βίον λαμπρότητι, ὡς τὸν Ἀβραὰμ καὶ Ἰσαὰκ καὶ Ἰακὼβ καὶ τοὺς ἐξ αὐτῶν πλούτῳ καὶ εὐπαιδίᾳ καὶ καρπῶν εὐφορίᾳ, πόθεν καὶ τὰ ὅμοια παρείχοντο Ἕλλησιν, ἡνίκα τὰ εἴδωλα πανταχοῦ ἐθεράπευον; Πῶς δὲ ὁ ἑλληνισμὸς οὐ δείκνυται ὁσιώτερος, ὅτι, ἕως μὲν ἐκεῖνος κατεῖχε τὰς πόλεις, πᾶσαν αἱ πόλεις καὶ οἱ ἀγροὶ εὐπραγίαν καὶ εὐθηνίαν ἐκέκτηντο, καὶ ταῦτα συχνότερον πολεμούμεναι, ἀφ' οὗ δὲ αὐτὰς τὸ χριστιανικὸν κατέλαβε κήρυγμα, καὶ οἴκων καὶ οἰκούντων καὶ τῆς λοιπῆς εὐθηνίας κατέστησαν ἔρημοι, καὶ μόλις τὰ λείψανα τῶν πάλαι ὑπὸ τῶν Ἑλλήνων γεγενημένων κτισμάτων κατέχουσαι τό ποτε πόλεις γεγενῆσθαι δεικνύουσι, τῆς παλαιᾶς εὐθηνίας καὶ τῆς νέας ἐρημίας ἑκατέρας τὰς θρησκείας αἰτίας ἀμφοτέρων προ φέρουσαι;\n\nἈπόκρισις.\n\nΠαρὰ τοῦ δεσπότου θεοῦ, τοῦ τὸν ἥλιον αὑτοῦ ἀνατέλ λοντος ἐπὶ πονηρούς τε καὶ ἀγαθοὺς καὶ βρέχοντος ἐπὶ δι καίους καὶ ἀδίκους, ἀμφοτέροις χορηγεῖται ἡ κατὰ τὸν παρόντα βίον σωματικὴ λαμπρότης (οὗ γὰρ τῇ δυνάμει ὁ κόσμος γε γένηται, τούτου καὶ τῇ προνοίᾳ διοικεῖται), ἵνα γοῦν ἑαυτοὺς ὁρῶντες οἱ δίκαιοι πλεονάζοντας μὲν ἐν τοῖς ὑπὲρ τῆς εὐσεβείας πόνοις, ἰσαζομένους δὲ τοῖς ἀσεβέσι τοῖς βιωτικοῖς, βίον ἕτερον προσδοκήσωσιν, ἐν ᾧ γίνεταί τις διαφορὰ τιμῆς τε καὶ τιμωρίας, δικαίων τε καὶ ἀδίκων τὴν διανομήν, καθάπερ εἴρηται. Ὅτι δὲ κρατοῦντος τοῦ ἑλληνισμοῦ ἐγίνοντο οἱ ἀφανισμοὶ πόλεών τε καὶ ἀγρῶν, μαρτυρεῖ ἡ ἐρημία τῶν Βαβυ λωνίων καὶ Ἀσσυρίων καὶ τῆς Νινευῒ καὶ ἑτέρων πολλῶν ἐθνῶν·","english":"Question 120.\n\nIf God rewards the pious with splendor in this present life, as he did Abraham, Isaac, and Jacob and their descendants with wealth, many children, and abundance of crops, from where did the Greeks too receive similar things, when they were worshipping idols everywhere? And how is Greek religion not shown to be more holy, since while it prevailed in the cities, all the cities and the countryside possessed prosperity and abundance, and that even though they were more frequently at war, whereas after the Christian preaching took them over, they became desolate of houses and inhabitants and the rest of their abundance, and scarcely retaining the remnants of the buildings once made by the Greeks, they show that they were once cities, bringing forward the religions of both as the causes of both the old abundance and the new desolation?\n\nAnswer.\n\nFrom the Lord God, who makes his sun rise on the evil and the good and sends rain on the just and the unjust, bodily splendor in the present life is supplied to both (for the world that came to be by his power is also governed by his providence), so that the righteous, seeing themselves abounding in labors for the sake of piety but on a level with the impious in the things of this life, may expect another life, in which there is a difference of honor and punishment, and a distribution between the just and the unjust, as has been said. And that while Greek religion prevailed there were destructions of cities and countryside, the desolation of the Babylonians and Assyrians and of Nineveh and many other nations bears witness.","structure":"narrative","commentary":[],"ambiguities":[],"confidence":"","notes":[]},{"i":122,"ref":"p122","source":"ποία δὲ πόλις τῶν ἀμφοτέρων πόλεων κρατοῦντος τοῦ χριστιανισμοῦ ἠρημώθη, οὐκ ἔστι δεῖξαι. Ἀπὸ δὲ τῆς εὐθηνίας τε καὶ εὐφορίας οἰκήσεών τε καὶ ἐρημίας πόλεών τε καὶ ἀγρῶν οὐκ ἔνεστι τεκμήρασθαι τῶν κρειττόνων τὴν ὁσιό\n\nτητα, τοῦ δεσπότου θεοῦ τῶν τοιούτων πρὸς τὸ λυσιτελὲς πᾶσι τοῖς ἀνθρώποις τὴν παροχὴν ποιοῦντος καὶ τὴν ἀφαίρεσιν· κρίνεται δὲ τῶν κρειττόνων ἡ ὁσιότης ἐκ τῶν κατὰ προ αίρεσιν ὑπ' αὐτῶν πραττομένων καλῶν. Τὸ δὲ ἀνθρώπους προσαγαγεῖν τοῖς δαίμοσιν εἰς θυσίαν (Ἔθυσαν, φησί, τοὺς υἱοὺς αὑτῶν καὶ τὰς θυγατέρας αὑτῶν τοῖς δαιμονίοις) καὶ τὸ τοῖς ἀψύχοις τὴν θεῷ πρέπουσαν προσφέρειν τιμὴν τῶν Ἑλλήνων κρατούντων ἐγίνετο· τὸ δὲ κωλύεσθαι τὰς τοιαύτας ἑλληνικὰς ἀνοσιουργίας τῶν Χριστιανῶν κρατούντων ἐγίνετο. Χρὴ οὖν ἀπὸ τῶν τοιούτων Χριστιανῶν γνωρίζειν τὴν ὁσιότητα, καὶ μὴ ἀπὸ τῆς εὐθηνίας τε καὶ οἰκήσεως, πόλεών τε καὶ ἀγρῶν. Τοσοῦτον δὲ πλεονάζει ὁ χριστιανισμὸς καὶ ἐν τού τοις, ὅσον κρατοῦντος αὐτοῦ ἔλαττον πολεμεῖται ὁ κόσμος ὧν ἐπολεμεῖτο κρατήσαντος τοῦ ἑλληνισμοῦ. Ἐρώτησις ρκζ.","english":"But which city of the two, while Christianity prevailed, was laid waste, it is not possible to show. And from prosperity and fertility, and from dwellings and desolation, and from cities and fields, it is not possible to infer the piety of the better, since the master God makes the provision and the removal of such things for the benefit of all men; but the piety of the better is judged from the good things done by them according to their own choice. And that men were brought to the demons for sacrifice (They sacrificed, it says, their sons and their daughters to the demons) and that honor befitting God was offered to lifeless things, happened while the Greeks prevailed; and that such Greek impieties were prevented happened while the Christians prevailed. It is necessary, then, to recognize the piety of Christians from such things, and not from prosperity and habitation, and from cities and fields. And Christianity abounds so much even in these respects, in that while it prevails the world is less warred upon than it was warred upon when Hellenism prevailed. Question 127.","structure":"narrative","commentary":[],"ambiguities":[],"confidence":"","notes":[]},{"i":123,"ref":"p123","source":"ἰ τὸ ἀναιρούμενον ὑπὸ τοῦ ἀναιροῦντος ἀπόλλυται, καὶ τὸ ἀναιροῦν φαυλότητι τὰ τῆς ἀπωλείας ἐργάζεται, πλεῖστα δὲ τοιαῦτα ἐν τοῖς ἐμψύχοις πάντων τῶν ἀλόγων εὑρίσκεται, καὶ ἐν αὐτοῖς ἔστι θεάσασθαι οὐ μόνον κατ' ἀλλήλων ἀλλὰ καὶ κατ' ἀνθρώπων τὰ τῆς ἐπιβουλῆς ἐπεκτεινόμενα, πῶς ἀληθεύει ὁ λέγων ὅτι ὁ θεὸς πάντα καλὰ καὶ λίαν καλὰ ἐποίησεν; ἰ δὲ ἀληθεύει, ἀγαθὰ δὲ καὶ φαῦλα ἐν τῇ κτίσει ὑπάρχουσι, πῶς τὰ μὲν ἀγαθὰ ἀγαθοῦ, τὰ δὲ φαῦλα φαύλου δημιουργοῦ οὐ γνωρίζονται, καὶ δύο ἐναντίαι ἀρχαὶ κατὰ Μανιχαίους δείκνυνται; ἰ δὲ ἡ ἀναίρεσις τῶν ἀναιρουμένων ἐπ' ἀγαθῷ τινι γίνεται, καθὼς τοῦτο παρ' ἐνίοις ὑπείληπται, πῶς οὐκ ἦν ἀγαθώτερον τὸ ἐν ἀρχῇ ἐκ τοῦ μὴ ὄντος εἰς τὸ εἶναι αὐτῶν κωλυθῆναι τὴν πάροδον;\n\nἈπόκρισις.\n\nὉ ἐκ τῆς δημιουργίας τῶν ἐμψύχων λογικῶν τε καὶ ἀλό γων περὶ τοῦ δημιουργοῦ ἀκόλουθον ποιούμενος τὴν ζήτησιν, κατὰ τὴν φύσιν αὐτῶν, ὀφείλει ἀποβλέπειν τὴν κατὰ τὸν τοῦ δημιουργοῦ ὅρον ἄγουσαν τὰ θνητὰ πάντα ὥσπερ εἰς γένεσιν, οὕτως καὶ εἰς φθορὰν αὐτὰ καὶ ἀπώλειαν. ἰ δὲ κατὰ ταῦτα μὲν ζώου κατὰ λόγον οὐκ ἔστι διαφορά, τῶν δὲ ἀδιαφόρων εἷς καὶ ὁ αὐτός ἐστι δημιουργός, ἣν δὲ ἐκ τῆς ἀλλήλων ἐπι βουλῆς ὑπομένουσιν ἀπώλειαν, κατὰ τὴν θείαν πρόνοιαν συγκεχώρηται συμβαίνειν αὐτοῖς. ἰ γάρ, ὑποκειμένων αὐτῶν τῇ τε κατὰ φύσιν καὶ τῇ κατὰ ἐπιβουλὴν φθορᾷ τε καὶ ἀπωλείᾳ, οὐ παρῃτήσαντό τινες θεοποιῆσαι αὐτά, πόσῳ μᾶλλον ἂν ἐθεοποιοῦντο, εἰ βλάβης τε καὶ ἀπωλείας διὰ παντὸς μεμενήκασιν ἐκτός;","english":"If what is destroyed perishes by the destroyer, and the destroyer by its own baseness works the things of destruction, and very many such things are found among living creatures, more than among all irrational beings, and in them one can observe the plots extending not only against one another but also against humans, how is he who says that God made all things good and exceedingly good speaking the truth? But if he speaks the truth, and good and evil things exist in creation, how are the good things not recognized as belonging to a good creator, and the evil things to an evil one, and how are two contrary principles shown, according to the Manichaeans? But if the destruction of those being destroyed comes about for some good, as this has been supposed by some, how was it not better that their passage from non-being into being be prevented at the beginning?\n\nAnswer.\n\nHe who makes the inquiry concerning the creator from the creation of living creatures, both rational and irrational, ought to look to their nature, which, according to the decree of the creator, leads all mortal things as to birth, so also to corruption and destruction. But if in these respects there is no difference of a living creature according to reason, and of things indifferent there is one and the same creator, the destruction which they undergo from plotting against one another has been permitted by divine providence to happen to them. For if, when they were subject both to natural and to plotting-induced corruption and destruction, some did not decline to deify them, how much more would they have been deified, if they had remained forever free from harm and destruction?","structure":"narrative","commentary":[],"ambiguities":[],"confidence":"","notes":[]},{"i":124,"ref":"p124","source":"Ἵνα οὖν ἀφ' ὧν ὑπομένουσι γνωρισθῶσιν ἅπερ εἰσί, τουτέστιν ἀνάξια τῆς τοῦ θεοῦ τιμῆς τε καὶ προσηγορίας, διὰ τοῦτο καὶ φύσει καὶ ἐπιβουλῇ ὑπὸ ἀλλήλων φθοράν τε καὶ ἀπώλειαν ὑπομένουσι. Γέγονε δὲ τὰ ἄλογα ζῶα τὰ μὲν ἐπὶ ὑπουργίᾳ ἀνθρώπου, τὰ δὲ εἰς τροφήν, τὰ δὲ εἰς παιδείαν, ὡς τὸ Ὀδόντας θηρίων ἐπαποστελῶ ἐπ' αὐτοὺς μετὰ θυμοῦ συρόντων ἐπὶ γῆς. Ἀλλ' εἰ ἀγαθόν ἐστι τὸ τρέφεσθαι τὸν ἄνθρωπον ἐκ τῶν ἀλόγων ζώων καὶ ὑπουργεῖσθαι ὑπ' αὐτῶν\n\nκαὶ παιδεύεσθαι δι' αὐτῶν, ἀγαθὴ ἄρα ἡ εἰς τὸ εἶναι αὐτῶν πάροδος καὶ ἀδιάβλητος ἐπὶ φαυλότητι φύσεώς τε καὶ τῆς ἐξ αὐτῶν χρείας. ἰ δὲ τοῦτο, δῆλον ὅτι ἑνὸς δημιουργοῦ ἀγαθοῦ ἐστι πάντα τὰ ἄλογα ζῶα δημιουργήματα. Ἐρώτησις ρκη.\n\nἰ τὴν προλεχθεῖσαν φαυλότητα φθόνῳ τῆς τῶν ἀνθρώπων σωτηρίας ἐν τοῖς ἀνθρώποις ὁ ἐχθρὸς κατεργάζεται, μηχανώμενος διὰ τούτων ταῖς μελλούσαις αὐτοὺς ὑποβάλλειν κολάσεσι, τὰ ἄλογα δὲ μήτε σωτηρίαν μήτε τιμωρίαν ἐν τοῖς μέλλουσι κομίζεσθαι μέλλοντα, καὶ διὰ τοῦτο ἀπολέμητον ἔχοντα τὴν φαυλότητα, πῶς οὐ μόνῃ φαυλότητι φύσεως τὰ φαῦλα μετέρχονται;","english":"So that from what they endure they may be recognized for what they are—that is, unworthy of God's honor and name—for this reason they undergo destruction and perishing from one another both by nature and by design. The irrational animals have come to be: some for the service of man, some for food, some for instruction, as it is written, \"I will send the teeth of beasts upon them with fury, dragging them upon the earth.\" But if it is good for man to be fed from the irrational animals and to be served by them and instructed through them, then their passage into being is good and not to be blamed for wickedness of nature or of the use made of them. And if this is so, it is clear that all the irrational animals are the creations of one good Creator. Question 128.\n\nIf the enemy works the aforementioned wickedness among men out of envy for the salvation of men, contriving through these things to subject them to the punishments that are to come, while the irrational animals are to receive neither salvation nor punishment in the things that are to come, and for this reason have wickedness that cannot be warred against—how is it that they pursue evil things by the wickedness of nature alone?","structure":"narrative","commentary":[],"ambiguities":[],"confidence":"","notes":[]},{"i":125,"ref":"p125","source":"Ἀπόκρισις.\n\nΤὸ ἐπὶ φαυλότητι πράξεως διαβάλλειν τῶν ἀλόγων τὰς φύσεις οὐκ ἔστιν εὔλογον. Τῶν γὰρ λόγου μετεχόντων ἐστὶ τὸ ἀγαθῶς ἢ φαύλως διαπράξασθαι, οὐχὶ τῶν λόγου ἀμετόχων. Καὶ ἐπειδὴ διὰ τὴν προλεχθεῖσαν χρείαν γέγονε τῶν ἀλόγων ἡ φύσις, διὰ τοῦτο δῆλον ὅτι, ἀγαθῆς οὔσης τῆς χρείας, ἀγα θόν ἐστι καὶ ἡ φύσις.\n\nἘρώτησις ρκθ.\n\nἰ ἁπλοῦν μὲν τὸ καθ' ἑαυτό, ὡς ἐπὶ τῶν κατὰ τὰ γράμ ματα στοιχείων, οἷον ἰῶτα, σύνθετον δὲ τὸ μεθ' ἑτέρου, οἷον πῖ, καὶ τῷ τῆς αὐτῆς εἶναι οὐσίας ἀμφότερα, τό τε ἰῶτα καὶ τὸ ἐκ τριῶν ἰῶτα συγκείμενον, οὐκ ἀφαιρεῖται τὸ ἐξ ἀμφοτέ ρου συγκειμένου σύνθετον, πῶς ὁ θεὸς ἀσύνθετος λέγεται, τὴν ἐκ δύο προσώπων ὁμοουσίων νοουμένων, πατρὸς λέγω καὶ υἱοῦ, καὶ ἑνὸς προσώπου ἰδιαζούσης οὐσίας ἐκ τοῦ προχείρου ὑπόνοιαν διδόντος, τοῦ πνεύματός φημι τοῦ ἁγίου, τὴν σύν θεσιν ἔχων, καὶ εἷς καλεῖται καὶ ἀπερίγραπτος, τοσαύτης καὶ τοιαύτης οὔσης τῆς τῶν ὑποστάσεων αὐτοῦ, εἴτουν τῶν προσ ώπων, διακρίσεως καὶ διαιρέσεως; Ἀπόκρισις.","english":"Answer.\n\nIt is not reasonable to slander the natures of irrational creatures on account of the wickedness of an action. For it belongs to those who partake of reason to act well or wickedly, not to those who do not partake of reason. And since the nature of irrational creatures came to be for the need previously mentioned, it is therefore clear that, since the need is good, the nature is also good.\n\nQuestion 129.\n\nIf the simple is what is simple in itself, as in the case of the letters of the alphabet—for example, iota—and the composite is what is [composed] with another, for example pi, and both are of the same substance, both the iota and the [pi] composed of three iotas, [and] the composite [nature] composed of both does not remove [simplicity], how is God said to be incomposite, having composition from two persons understood as consubstantial, I mean the Father and the Son, and one person of a distinct substance, which readily gives rise to the suspicion—I mean the Holy Spirit—and is called one and uncircumscribed, when such and so great is the distinction and division of his hypostases, that is, of his persons? Answer.","structure":"narrative","commentary":[],"ambiguities":[],"confidence":"","notes":[]},{"i":126,"ref":"p126","source":"Τὸ ἰῶτα καὶ τὸ πῖ κατ' οὐσίαν ἀλλήλων οὐδὲν διαφέ ρουσι. Γραμμὴ γὰρ ὑπάρχει ἑκάτερον. Γραμμὴ δὲ γραμμῆς, ᾗ γραμμή, οὐδὲν διαφέρει. Διαφέρει δὲ τὸ ἰῶτα τοῦ πῖ τῇ τοιᾷδε θέσει, καθ' ἣν τοῦτο μὲν ἰῶτα, τοῦτο δὲ πῖ ὑπάρχει. Καὶ τὸ μὲν πῖ, ᾗ γραμμή ἐστιν, ἕν ἐστιν· ᾗ δὲ πῖ ἐστι, τριάς ἐστι, καὶ σύνθετον καὶ γενητόν. Κατὰ μέρος γὰρ καὶ χρονικῇ παρατάσει τὸ εἶναι πῖ ὑπέστη ὑπὸ τοῦ συμβεβληκότος καὶ πεποιηκότος αὐτό. Χρὴ οὖν τὸν κατά τινα φυσικὴν ἀναλο γίαν θεωρεῖν πειρώμενον τὸν ὑπὲρ φύσιν ὄντα ἐκεῖνα μόνα λαβεῖν ἐκ τῆς ἀναλογίας τὰ ἁρμόττοντα τῷ ἐκ τῆς ἀναλογίας θεωρουμένῳ· οἷον τὸ ἓν καὶ τὸ τρεῖς πρόσεστι τῷ πῖ καὶ τῷ θεῷ, ἀλλὰ τῷ μὲν πῖ γενητῶς καὶ συνθέτως, τῷ δὲ θεῷ ἀγε νήτως τε καὶ ἀσυνθέτως· ὁ γὰρ μὴ ἔχων τὸν πεποιηκότα καὶ συντεθεικότα οὔτε γενητός ἐστιν οὔτε σύνθετος. Διὸ ἐπὶ μὲν τοῦ θεοῦ τὴν ἀΐδιον λέγομεν συνύπαρξιν, οὐκέτι δὲ καὶ σύν θεσιν, ἐπὶ δὲ τοῦ πῖ τὴν σύνθεσιν, διὰ τὴν κατὰ μέρος αὐτοῦ γένεσιν. ἷς τοίνυν ἐστὶν ὁ θεός, ἡ τριὰς τῇ μονάδι τῆς οὐ","english":"The iota and the pi differ from each other in essence in no way. For each of them is a line. And a line differs from a line, insofar as it is a line, in no way. But the iota differs from the pi by its particular position, according to which this one is an iota and that one is a pi. And the pi, insofar as it is a line, is one; but insofar as it is a pi, it is a triad, and composite and generated. For it received its being a pi part by part and by temporal extension from the one who brought it together and made it. It is necessary, then, for one who attempts to contemplate by some natural analogy the one who is beyond nature to take from the analogy only those things that are fitting to what is contemplated from the analogy; for example, the one and the three are present in the pi and in God, but in the pi in a generated and composite way, while in God in an ungenerated and incomposite way. For the one who does not have the one who made and composed it is neither generated nor composite. Therefore in the case of God we speak of eternal coexistence, but no longer of composition; while in the case of the pi we speak of composition, because of its generation part by part. In what way, then, is God a triad in the unity of the essence","structure":"narrative","commentary":[],"ambiguities":[],"confidence":"","notes":[]},{"i":127,"ref":"p127","source":"σίας, χωρὶς πάσης κατὰ τοῦτο διαιρέσεως καὶ διακρίσεως, ὥσπερ ἓν τὸ πῖ τῇ μονάδι τῆς γραμμῆς χωρὶς πάσης τῆς κατὰ τοῦτο διαιρέσεως καὶ διακρίσεως. Διαφορὰ δέ ἐστιν ἐν μὲν τῇ ἁγίᾳ τριάδι κατὰ τοὺς τρόπους τῆς τῶν ὑποστάσεων ὑπάρ ξεως, ἐν δὲ τῷ πῖ κατὰ τὴν ποιὰν θέσιν τῆς γραμμῆς. Ἐρώτησις ρλ.\n\nἰ διὰ τὸ καθ' Ἕλληνας σφαῖραν εἶναι τὸν οὐρανὸν καὶ κινεῖσθαι ἐν τόπῳ, πῶς διὰ τὸ ὡς καμάραν πεπῆχθαι ἢ ὡς δέριν κατὰ τὴν γραφὴν ἐκτετάσθαι ὁ οὐρανὸς οὐκ ἐν τόπῳ ἐστίν; Ὥσπερ γὰρ τὸ κινούμενον, οὕτως καὶ τὸ πηγνύμενον ἐν τόπῳ ἀνάγκη νομίζεσθαι. ἰ δὲ τοῦτο, πῶς τὴν ἐπὶ τῇ περιγραφῇ τοῦ οὐρανοῦ παρ' ἀλλήλων κατάγνωσιν δικαίαν οὐχ ἕξομεν; ἰ δ' ὁ οὐρανὸς κατ' ἀμφοτέρους ἐν τόπῳ, καὶ ἑκα τέροις ἡ τοῦ τόπου ποιότης καὶ ποσότης καθέστηκεν ἄγνωστος, τί πλέον θάτεροι θατέρων κατεγνῶσθαι δυνάμεθα, τῆς περὶ τῶν προλελεγμένων καταγνώσεως καὶ ἀγνοίας ἑκατέρους ἐπ' ἴσης κατεχούσης;\n\nἈπόκρισις.\n\nἰ μὲν γὰρ ἔλεγον οἱ Χριστιανοὶ τὸν οὐρανὸν μὴ εἶναι ἐν τόπῳ, καθάπερ λέγουσιν οἱ Ἕλληνες, ἴση ἂν ἔμελλεν εἶναι ἡ παρ' ἀλλήλων κατάγνωσις, λεγόντων μὲν μὴ εἶναι τὸν οὐ ρανὸν ἐν τόπῳ, φωναῖς δὲ σημαντικαῖς τοῦ ἐν τόπῳ εἶναι τὸν οὐρανὸν πρὸς ἀλλήλους χρησαμένων. ἰ δὲ τοῦ μὲν σφαῖραν εἶναι τὸν οὐρανὸν καὶ σφαιρικῶς κινεῖσθαι ἀδυνάτου ὄντος, τοῦ δὲ ὡς καμάραν εἶναι αὐτὸν δυνατοῦ δεικνυμένου, οὐδεμία ἄρα ἡ τῶν Χριστιανῶν ἐπὶ τῇ ἀγνοίᾳ κατάγνωσις.","english":"...without any division or distinction in this respect, just as the pi is one by the unity of the line, without any division or distinction in this respect. And there is a difference in the Holy Trinity according to the modes of the subsistence of the hypostases, and in the pi according to the particular position of the line. Question 130.\n\nIf, according to the Greeks, heaven is a sphere and moves in place, how is it that, because heaven has been fixed like a vault or stretched out like a skin according to the Scripture, it is not in place? For just as what moves, so also what is fixed must be considered to be in place. And if this is so, how shall we not have a just condemnation of one another regarding the description of heaven? But if heaven, according to both, is in place, and the quality and quantity of the place remain unknown to both, how can we be able to condemn the one more than the other, when the condemnation and ignorance concerning the things previously stated possess both equally?\n\nAnswer.\n\nIf the Christians said that heaven is not in place, just as the Greeks say, the condemnation of one another would be equal, when they say that heaven is not in place, but use significant words to one another of heaven being in place. But if heaven being a sphere and moving spherically is impossible, while its being like a vault is shown to be possible, then there is no condemnation of the Christians for ignorance.","structure":"narrative","commentary":[],"ambiguities":[],"confidence":"","notes":[]},{"i":128,"ref":"p128","source":"Περὶ δὲ τοῦ τόπου ἐκ τῶν καθ' ἡμᾶς στοχαζόμεθα περὶ αὐτοῦ ὅτι, ὥσπερ παρ' ἡμῖν, ὅταν ᾖ περιφερές τι σῶμα ὁμαλόν τε καὶ κοῖλον, πανταχόθεν ἰσοπεριμέτρητον, ἐὰν πωμασθῇ ἐπὶ τὰ ὕδατα, βαστάζεται ὑπὸ τῶν ὑδάτων, τούτῳ τῷ τρόπῳ βαστά ζεται ὁ οὐρανὸς ὑπὸ τῶν ὑδάτων. Ὁ τανύσας, φησί, τὸν οὐρανὸν ὡς καμάραν. Τῷ τῆς καμάρας ὀνόματι τὸ περιφερὲς ἐδήλωσε τοῦ σώματος τοῦ οὐρανοῦ. Βαστάζει οὖν τὸν μὲν οὐρανὸν τὰ ὕδατα, τὰ δὲ ὕδατα ἡ γῆ, τὴν δὲ γῆν τὸ θεῖον πρόσταγμα. Ὁ κρεμάσας, φησί, τὴν γῆν ἐπ' οὐδενός. Ἐρώτησις ρλα.\n\nἰ οἱ εὐαγγελισταὶ Ματθαῖός τε καὶ Λουκᾶς, τὸ κατὰ σάρκα γενεαλογοῦντες τὸν κύριον, ὁ μὲν τὴν κατὰ φύσιν, ὁ δὲ τὴν κατὰ νόμον γενεαλογίαν συνέγραψε, διὰ τὸ οὕτως τὰ κατὰ τῶν Ἰουδαίων συνίστασθαι, πῶς ὁ μακάριος Λουκᾶς οὐ δείκνυται τῷ Ματθαίῳ μαχόμενος, πλείονας τοὺς κατὰ νόμον τῶν κατὰ φύσιν τοῦ Χριστοῦ γεννήτορας διὰ τοῦ οἰκείου εὐαγ γελίου ἐκθέμενος, τοὐναντίον παρ' αὐτοῦ γραφῆναι ὀφείλοντας, ἐπειδὴ ἥσσονας τοὺς κατὰ θέσιν τῶν κατὰ φύσιν πατέρων ἀναλογίζεσθαι ἀνάγκη; Ἐνδέχεται γὰρ γενέσθαι κατὰ νόμον πατέρα, τετελευτηκότος τοῦ κατὰ φύσιν πατρὸς τοῦ παῖδα γεννήσαντος. Πῶς οὖν, καθάπερ ἔφην, παρὰ τοῖς εὐαγγελι σταῖς ἡ γενεαλογία οὐκ ἀντέστραπται, καὶ ὁ Λουκᾶς, ἴσους μᾶλλον δὲ ἥσσονας τοὺς κατὰ νόμον τῶν κατὰ φύσιν ὀφείλων","english":"Concerning place, we conjecture from what is with us that, just as among us, when there is a certain spherical body, smooth and hollow, equidistant on every side, if it is covered over upon the waters, it is borne up by the waters, in this way the heaven is borne up by the waters. He who stretched out, it says, the heaven like a vault. By the name of vault he indicated the spherical nature of the body of heaven. The waters, then, bear up the heaven, and the earth the waters, and the divine command the earth. He who hung, it says, the earth upon nothing. Question 131.\n\nWhy do the evangelists Matthew and Luke, when giving the genealogy of the Lord according to the flesh—the one writing the genealogy according to nature, the other according to law—because the matters concerning the Jews are thus established, how is it that the blessed Luke is not shown to be in conflict with Matthew, since he set forth in his own gospel more ancestors of Christ according to law than according to nature, when the opposite ought to have been written by him, since it is necessary to reckon the fathers according to position fewer than those according to nature? For it is possible for one to become a father according to law when the natural father of the child who begot him has died. How then, as I said, among the evangelists has the genealogy not been reversed, and Luke, who ought to have the fathers according to law equal, or rather fewer, than those according to nature—","structure":"narrative","commentary":[],"ambiguities":[],"confidence":"","notes":[]},{"i":129,"ref":"p129","source":"τοὺς τοῦ Χριστοῦ ὀνομάζειν γεννήτορας, πλείονας ὀνομάζων εὑρίσκεται; ἰ δὲ ἐν τῇ γενεαλογίᾳ ἑαυτοῖς καὶ ἀλλήλοις μαχό μενα λέγουσι, πῶς ἐν τοῖς λοιποῖς περὶ τοῦ σωτῆρος διδάγμασι τὸ ἀξιόπιστον κεκτῆσθαι δυνήσονται, ἐκ προοιμίων πρὸς ἀντίῤῥησιν κινοῦντες τὸν μετὰ λόγου τῇ ἡμετέρᾳ θρησκείᾳ προσ τεθῆναι βουλόμενον;\n\nἈπόκρισις.\n\nἘν τῇ γενεαλογίᾳ τῇ κατὰ Λουκᾶν ὁ Ἡλεὶ μόνος ἐστὶ πατὴρ τοῦ Ἰωσὴφ κατὰ τὸν νόμον· ἀπὸ δὲ τοῦ Ἡλεὶ ἕως τοῦ Ναθὰν πάντες οἱ ὑποτεταγμένοι κατὰ φύσιν εἰσὶν υἱοὶ τῶν ὑπερτεταγμένων, τῶν διὰ τὴν σχέσιν, ἣν ἔχει ὁ Ἡλεὶ πρὸς τὸν Ἰωσήφ, πάππων καταλογιζομένων, τοῦ Ἰωσὴφ μὲν μό νου κατὰ τὸν νόμον, τῶν λοιπῶν δὲ πάντων κατὰ φύσιν. Τούτου δὲ οὕτως νοουμένου, ἀναιρεῖται πᾶσα ἡ τῶν εὐαγγελι στῶν ἐπὶ τῇ ἀντιλογίᾳ διαβολή, ἡ ἐκ τῆς παρανοίας τῶν ἐκεί νων φωνῶν νομισθεῖσα τοῖς παρανοήσασιν. Ἐρώτησις ρλβ.\n\nἰ κατὰ τὸν μωσαϊκὸν νόμον ὁ ἀδελφὸς τοῦ τελευτήσαντος ἄπαιδος τὴν γυναῖκα τοῦ μετηλλαχότος λαμβάνων ἐπαιδο ποίει ἐξ αὐτῆς, κατὰ φύσιν μὲν ἑαυτῷ, κατὰ νόμον δὲ τῷ ἀδελφῷ, ἆρα, εἰ συνέβη τὸν περιόντα ἀδελφὸν ἔχειν γαμετήν, σὺν ταύτῃ καὶ τὴν τοῦ τελευτήσαντος ἀδελφοῦ γαμετὴν εἰς γυναῖκα ἐλάμβανε; Καὶ πῶς τοῦτο οὐκ ἄτοπον; ἰ δὲ ἡ τοιαύτη καὶ στεῖρα ἐτύγχανε, πῶς πρὸς τῷ ἀτόπῳ καὶ τὸ ἀνωφελὲς ὁ γάμος οὐκ ἐπήγετο, καὶ τοῦ νόμου τὸ πρόσταγμα πανταχόθεν ἐδείκνυτο ἄπορον, τοῦ τελευτήσαντος οὐ λαμβάνοντος τὸ διὰ παιδοποιΐας μνημόσυνον; Τί δὲ καὶ τῷ ἀποθανόντι προσγίνεται τὸ ὄφελος, τὸ διὰ παιδοποιΐας ἑτέρου ἐκεῖνον μετὰ τέλος πατέρα ἀλλοτρίας γονῆς ὀνομάζεσθαι; Ἀπόκρισις.","english":"to call the parents of Christ by name, is he found to name more? And if in the genealogy they say things that conflict with themselves and with one another, how will they be able to possess credibility in the remaining teachings about the Savior, stirring up from the outset to contradiction the one who wishes to be brought with reason to our religion?\n\nAnswer.\n\nIn the genealogy according to Luke, Eli alone is the father of Joseph according to the law; but from Eli to Nathan, all those set below are sons by nature of those set above, being reckoned as grandfathers through the relationship that Eli has to Joseph—Joseph alone according to the law, but all the rest by nature. Since this is understood in this way, every slander of the evangelists concerning the contradiction is removed, the slander that was supposed by those who misunderstood, from the folly of their words.\n\nQuestion 132.\n\nIf according to the Mosaic law the brother of one who died childless, taking the wife of the deceased, raised up children from her—by nature for himself, but according to the law for the brother—then, if it happened that the surviving brother had a wife, did he take along with her also the wife of the deceased brother as a wife? And how is this not absurd? And if such a woman also happened to be barren, how did the marriage not bring with it, in addition to the absurdity, also uselessness, and the command of the law be shown from every side to be impracticable, since the deceased did not receive the memorial through childbearing? And what benefit accrues to the dead man, that through the childbearing of another he should be called after the end a father of another's offspring?\n\nAnswer.","structure":"narrative","commentary":[],"ambiguities":[],"confidence":"","notes":[]},{"i":130,"ref":"p130","source":"Τοῦ νόμου μὴ κωλύσαντος τοὺς Ἰσραηλίτας γυναῖκα λα βεῖν εἰ βούλοιντο, οὐ μόνον συγγενίδα ἀλλὰ καὶ αἰχμαλωτίδα καὶ παλλακίδα, οὐδὲν ἄρα ἄτοπον οὐδὲ βλάπτει ἐκ τοῦ γυναῖκα ἐπὶ γυναικὶ λαβεῖν τὸν περιόντα ἀδελφὸν τοῦ τετελευτηκότος, τοῦ νόμου μὴ καταλυομένου. Πᾶσα γὰρ ἀτοπία ἐπὶ τῇ παραβάσει τοῦ νόμου ὑφίσταται. Κἂν συμβαίη δὲ στεῖραν τὴν τοῦ τελευτήσαντος γυναῖκα ὑπάρχειν, ἀλλ' ἄδηλον τοῦτο εἶναι δύναται τῇ γυναικί· τῷ δὲ ἀδήλῳ οὐκ ἔστι παραβῆναι ἢ παριδεῖν τὸν νόμον. Ἐτέθη δὲ ὁ νόμος οὗτος, ἵνα ὧν ἀφείλετο ὁ θάνατος τὸν τετελευτηκότα, τουτέστι τῆς τε πατρότητος καὶ τοῦ κληρονόμου, ταῦτα παράσχῃ αὐτῷ τῇ τοῦ νόμου προ νοίᾳ. ἰ γὰρ μνημοσύνης ἕνεκεν καὶ κληρονομίας πρὸς τὸν γάμον οἱ ἄνθρωποι ἔρχονται, δῆλον ὅτι, ᾧτινι ἂν τρόπῳ παρακληθείη θεὸς ταῦτα παρασχεῖν ἀνθρώποις, ἀνωφελὲς οὐ γίνεται τὸ πρᾶγμα. Πρόσεστι δὲ τούτῳ τῷ νόμῳ καὶ ἕτερόν τι ὠφέλιμον, ἵνα ταύτῃ τῇ ἐπιγαμίᾳ ὁ κληρονόμος μείνῃ ἐν τῇ αὐτῇ φυλῇ καὶ μὴ μεταβῇ εἰς ἑτέραν φυλήν. Καὶ ἐπειδὴ ἅπαξ συναφθεῖσα ἡ γυνὴ τῷ ἀνδρὶ τῷ πρώτῳ ἓν σῶμα γέγονε, διὰ τοῦτο οὐ γίνεται πατὴρ ἀλλοτρίας γονῆς ὁ τελευτήσας, ἀλλὰ","english":"Since the law did not prevent the Israelites from taking a woman if they wished—not only a kinswoman but also a captive woman and a concubine—it is therefore nothing absurd or harmful for the surviving brother to take the wife of the deceased in addition to a wife, since the law is not being abolished. For every absurdity arises from transgression of the law. And even if it should happen that the deceased man's wife is barren, this can be unknown to the woman; but it is not possible to transgress or overlook the law in what is unknown. This law was established so that whatever death took away from the deceased—that is, both fatherhood and an heir—the law's provision might supply to him. For if people enter into marriage for the sake of remembrance and inheritance, it is clear that in whatever way God is entreated to supply these things to people, the matter does not become useless. There is also something else beneficial attached to this law: that by this intermarriage the heir may remain in the same tribe and not pass over into another tribe. And since a woman, once joined to her first husband, has become one body, for this reason the deceased does not become the father of another's offspring, but","structure":"narrative","commentary":[],"ambiguities":[],"confidence":"","notes":[]},{"i":131,"ref":"p131","source":"τοῦ ἐκ τοῦ ἰδίου αὐτοῦ σώματος τικτομένου. Ὥσπερ γὰρ ὁ τικτόμενος ἐκ τῆς τοιαύτης συναφείας ὀνομάζεται τοῦ τελευ τήσαντος, οὕτως καὶ ἡ γυνὴ ἐκείνου ὀνομάζεται γυνή. Ἐρώτησις ρλγ.\n\nἰ ὁ προλεχθεὶς νόμος πρὸ τῶν χρόνων τοῦ Δαυῒδ τοῖς Ἰσραηλίταις ἐντέταλται, πῶς ὁ εὐαγγελιστὴς Ματθαῖος τῶν κατὰ φύσιν πατέρων πρὸ τοῦ Δαυῒδ καὶ μετὰ τὸν Δαυῒδ ἐμνη μόνευσεν, ὁ δὲ Λουκᾶς πρὸ μὲν τοῦ Δαυῒδ τῶν κατὰ φύσιν, μετὰ δὲ τὸν Δαυῒδ τῶν κατὰ νόμον πατέρων τὴν μνήμην πε ποίηται; Καὶ εἰ τὰ ὀνόματα τῶν κατὰ φύσιν καὶ κατὰ νόμον πατέρων ἀπαραλείπτως μετὰ τὴν μετοίκησιν Βαβυλῶνος ἐν ταῖς θείαις γραφαῖς οὐχ εὑρίσκεται, ἀλλὰ κατὰ ἀπόφασιν γέ γραπται, πῶς τὰ κατὰ ἀπόφασιν γραφέντα ὑπὸ τῶν ἀκριβεστέρων ἀποδεχθῆναι δυνήσονται; Ἀπόκρισις.\n\nΚαὶ ὁ Λουκᾶς τῶν κατὰ φύσιν πατέρων τοῦ Ἡλεὶ ἐμνή σθη, τῶν τε πρὸ τοῦ Δαυῒδ καὶ τῶν μετὰ τὸν Δαυΐδ. Ὁ δὲ Ἡλεὶ μόνος ἦν κατὰ τὸν νόμον πατὴρ τοῦ Ἰωσήφ, τοῦ διὰ τὴν κατὰ νόμον υἱότητα ἕως τοῦ Ναθὰν κατὰ τὴν αὐτὴν σχέσιν ἀναγομένου. Τὸ δὲ τὸν δεσπότην Χριστὸν ὀνομασθῆναι υἱὸν τοῦ Ἰωσὴφ δύο πατέρας ἐσχηκότος, τὸν μὲν κατὰ νόμον, τὸν δὲ κατὰ φύσιν, ἡ θεία χάρις ᾠκονόμησεν, ἵνα, ὅταν ἀκούωμεν τὸν Χριστὸν υἱὸν μὲν ὄντα τοῦ Ἰωσήφ, μὴ γεννηθέντα δὲ κατὰ φύσιν ἐξ αὐτοῦ, μὴ ξενισθῶμεν. Ὥσπερ γὰρ αὐτὸς ὁ Ἰωσὴφ υἱὸς μὲν ἐκλήθη τοῦ Ἡλεῖ, μὴ γεννηθεὶς δὲ ἐξ αὐτοῦ, ὅτι τῷ θείῳ νόμῳ οὕτως ἔδοξεν ἐκ τῆς γυναικὸς τοῦ Ἡλεῖ δοῦναι υἱὸν τῷ Ἡλεί, οὕτως ἔδοξε τῷ θεῷ ἐκ τῆς γυναικὸς τοῦ Ἰωσὴφ δοῦναι υἱὸν τῷ Ἰωσὴφ μὴ γεννηθέντα κατὰ φύσιν ἐξ αὐτοῦ.","english":"of him who is born from his own body. For just as the one born from such a union is named after the deceased, so also the woman is named the wife of that man. Question 133.\n\nIf the aforementioned law was enjoined upon the Israelites before the times of David, how is it that the evangelist Matthew made mention of the natural fathers before David and after David, while Luke made mention before David of the natural fathers, but after David of the fathers according to the law? And if the names of the natural and legal fathers are not found without omission in the divine Scriptures after the Babylonian deportation, but have been written by negation, how can things written by negation be accepted by the more accurate? Answer.\n\nLuke also made mention of the natural fathers of Eli, both those before David and those after David. But Eli alone was the father of Joseph according to the law, Joseph being traced through legal sonship up to Nathan according to the same relation. And that the Lord Christ should be named a son of Joseph, who had two fathers, one according to the law and the other according to nature, divine grace arranged, so that when we hear that Christ is a son of Joseph but was not begotten of him according to nature, we should not be surprised. For just as Joseph himself was called a son of Eli but was not begotten of him, because the divine law so decreed that a son be given to Eli from the wife of Eli, so it seemed good to God to give to Joseph a son from the wife of Joseph, not begotten of him according to nature.","structure":"narrative","commentary":[],"ambiguities":[],"confidence":"","notes":[]},{"i":132,"ref":"p132","source":"Ἰωσήφ, φησίν, υἱὸς Δαυΐδ, μὴ φοβηθῇς παραλαβεῖν Μαριὰμ τὴν γυναῖκά σου. Τὸ γὰρ ἐκ γυναικός τινος χωρὶς πορνείας τικτόμενον υἱός ἐστιν ἐξ ἀνάγκης τοῦ ἀνδρὸς καὶ τῆς γυναικός, ᾧ τρόπῳ βούλεται ὁ θεὸς δοῦναι υἱὸν τῷ ἀνδρί, ἢ διὰ συναφείας ἢ χωρὶς συναφείας. ὐκ ἀποφάσει δὲ χρώμενοι οἱ εὐαγγελισταὶ τὴν ἔκθεσιν ἐποιήσαντο τῶν ἐν ταῖς γενεαλογίαις ὀνομασθέντων, ἀλλὰ ταῖς ἐγγράφοις ἱστορίαις. Ἑβραῖοι γὰρ ἦσαν ἐξ Ἑβραίων οἱ τὰς γενεαλογίας συγγραψάμενοι ἅγιοι εὐαγγελισταί, παρ' οἷς πολλή τις ἦν σπουδὴ τοῦ ἐγγράφως ἔχειν τῆς βασιλικῆς τε καὶ ἱερατικῆς φυλῆς τὴν γενεαλογίαν. Ἀμέ λει μετὰ τὴν ἐκ Βαβυλῶνος ἐπάνοδον ὁ Ἔσδρας, οὓς οὐχ εὗρεν ἐν τῷ τῶν ἱερέων καταλόγῳ γενεαλογουμένους, τούτους ἐξέβαλεν ἀπὸ τῆς ἱερατικῆς λειτουργίας. Καὶ τοῦτο δείκνυται ἐκ τῆς βίβλου τῶν Παραλειπομένων.\n\nἘρώτησις ρλδ.\n\nἰ τὸν νόμον τοῖς Ἰσραηλίταις ὁ θεὸς διὰ Μωϋσέως κατέπεμψε, πῶς ἐν πλείοσι τόποις τῆς θείας γραφῆς οὐ νόμος ἀλλ' αὐτὸς ὁ νομοθέτης ὁ Μωϋσῆς ὀνομάζεται; Ἀπόκρισις.","english":"Joseph, it says, son of David, do not fear to take Mary as your wife. For the one born from a woman without fornication is by necessity the son of the man and the woman, in whatever way God wishes to give a son to the man, whether through union or without union. The evangelists did not make their exposition of those named in the genealogies by assertion, but from written histories. For the holy evangelists who composed the genealogies were Hebrews from Hebrews, among whom there was great zeal for having in writing the genealogy of the royal and priestly tribe. Accordingly, after the return from Babylon, Ezra removed from the priestly service those whom he did not find enrolled in the register of the priests. And this is shown from the book of Paraleipomena.\n\nQuestion 134. If God sent down the law to the Israelites through Moses, how is it that in many places of the divine Scripture it is not the law but Moses himself, the lawgiver, who is named? Answer.","structure":"narrative","commentary":[],"ambiguities":[],"confidence":"","notes":[]},{"i":133,"ref":"p133","source":"Ἔθος ἐστὶν οὐ μόνον τοῖς ἀνθρώποις, ἀλλὰ καὶ τῇ θείᾳ γραφῇ, τῷ τοῦ εἰρηκότος τὸν λόγον ὀνόματι ὀνομάζειν τὸν λό\n\nγον, εἰς δήλωσιν τοῦ τίνος ἐστὶν ὁ λόγος, ὡς τὸ Ἐκάθητο ὁ εὐνοῦχος ἐπὶ τοῦ ἅρματος καὶ ἀνεγίνωσκε τὸν προφήτην Ἡσαΐαν, καὶ πάλιν Τὸ βδέλυγμα, φησί, τῆς ἐρημώσεως τὸ εἰρημένον τῷ προφήτῃ Δανιήλ. Ὡσαύτως δὲ καὶ ἡμῖν ἔθος λέγειν· Ἐκτη σάμην τὸν προφήτην Ἱερεμίαν ἢ τὸν ἀπόστολον. Ἐρώτησις ρλε.\n\nἰ ἀληθινός ἐστιν ὁ Χριστὸς ὁ τὴν πρᾶξιν καὶ τὴν κλῆσιν κατὰ τὴν θείαν γραφὴν ἐπιδεικνύμενος, Ἐμμανουὴλ δὲ καλεῖ σθαι τὸν Χριστὸν ἡ θεία γραφὴ προηγόρευσε, πῶς ἀληθινὸς ὁ κύριος νομισθήσεται ὁ μετὰ τὸ τεχθῆναι μηδαμοῦ τοῦ Ἐμ μανουὴλ τὴν προσηγορίαν δεξάμενος; ὐδεὶς γὰρ τὸν ἐλθόντα Χριστὸν τῇ κλήσει τοῦ Ἐμμανουὴλ ἐπὶ λέξεως προσηγό ρευσεν.\n\nἈπόκρισις.\n\nἰ ἐν τοῖς εὐαγγελικοῖς διηγήμασι περιέχεται τῶν θείων περὶ Χριστοῦ προῤῥήσεων ἡ ἔκβασις, παραδέδωκε δὲ ἡμῖν αὐτὸν εἶναι τὸν κατὰ θείαν πρόῤῥησιν προορισθέντα τῷ τοῦ Ἐμμανουὴλ καλεῖσθαι ὀνόματι ὁ μακάριος Ματθαῖος, πῶς οὐ καλεῖται τῷ τοῦ Ἐμμανουὴλ ὀνόματι; ὐ διέλιπε δὲ ἡ ἁγία τοῦ θεοῦ ἐκκλησία, μαθοῦσα ἐκ τῆς διδασκαλίας τοῦ ἁγίου εὐαγγελίου, Ἐμμανουὴλ ὀνομάζειν τὸν κύριον. Ἔχομεν δὲ ἐν τῇ ὀνομασίᾳ τοῦ Χριστοῦ πάσας τὰς λοιπὰς ὀνομασίας τοῦ Χριστοῦ περιεχομένας, εἰ καὶ μὴ πάσαις ἀεὶ κεχρήμεθα. ὐδὲ γὰρ ἐπειδὴ καλεῖται Ἐμμανουὴλ ἔστι, ἀλλ' ἐπειδὴ ἔστι κα λεῖται.","english":"It is a custom not only among men but also in the divine Scripture, by the name of the one who spoke the word to name the word, to make clear whose the word is, as in \"The eunuch was sitting on the chariot and was reading the prophet Isaiah,\" and again, \"The abomination, it says, of desolation, the one spoken of by the prophet Daniel.\" And in the same way it is also our custom to say, \"I acquired the prophet Jeremiah,\" or \"the apostle.\" Question 135.\n\nIf the Christ who demonstrates his action and his calling according to the divine Scripture is true, and the divine Scripture foretold that the Christ was to be called Emmanuel, how will the Lord be considered true, who after being born nowhere received the name Emmanuel? For no one literally addressed the Christ who came by the name Emmanuel.\n\nAnswer.\n\nIf in the Gospel narratives the fulfillment of the divine predictions about Christ is contained, and the blessed Matthew handed down to us that he is the one foreordained by divine prediction to be called by the name Emmanuel, how is he not called by the name Emmanuel? But the holy Church of God has not ceased, having learned from the teaching of the holy Gospel, to name the Lord Emmanuel. And we have in the naming of Christ all the other names of Christ contained, even if we have not always used them all. For it is not because he is called Emmanuel that he is, but because he is, he is called.","structure":"narrative","commentary":[],"ambiguities":[],"confidence":"","notes":[]},{"i":134,"ref":"p134","source":"Ἐρώτησις ρλ.\n\nἰ τὸ τοὺς γονέας ἀθετεῖν ὑπὸ τῆς θείας γραφῆς ἀπηγό ρευται, καὶ ὁ μετιὼν τὰ ἀπηγορευμένα ἁμαρτωλὸς ὀνομάζεται, πῶς ἐν διαφόροις τόποις τοὺς οἰκείους γονεῖς ὁ δεσπότης Χριστὸς ἀθετήσας ἀναμάρτητος δείκνυται; Ἐν μὲν γὰρ τῷ γάμῳ, διὰ τὸ Τί ἐμοὶ καὶ σοὶ γύναι; τῇ μητρὶ λέγειν, ἐπέπληξεν. Ἡνίκα δὲ θεάσασθαι αὐτὸν ἡ μήτηρ ἠθέλησε, μη τέρα καὶ ἀδελφοὺς τοὺς τὸ θέλημα τοῦ θεοῦ ποιοῦντας ὠνό μασε. Καὶ πάλιν, ὅτε ἐμακαρίζετο ἡ βαστάσασα αὐτὸν κοιλία καὶ οἱ μαστοὶ οὓς ἐθήλασε, τοὺς ποιοῦντας τὸ θέλημα τοῦ θεοῦ αὐτὸς ἐμακάριζεν. Ἅπερ ἅπαντα ἐφ' ὕβρει τῆς μητρὸς παρ' αὐτοῦ νομίζονται λέγεσθαι, διότι, τῆς μητρὸς αὐτοῦ ὀνομασθείσης καὶ μακαρισθείσης, κατὰ ἀντιδιαστολὴν αὐτῆς ὑπ' αὐτοῦ ἐμακαρίσθησαν ἕτεροι. Ἡ δὲ ἀντιδιαστολὴ δῆλον ὅτι ἐπ' ἐναντίων πραγμάτων λαμβάνεται. Ἄλλως τε εἰ τὴν ἁγίαν παρθένον εἰς τὴν τοσαύτης οἰκονομίας ὑπουργίαν ἐκλέ λεκται, πῶς ἀναξία μακαρισμοῦ κατὰ τὰ προλεχθέντα ἡ παρ θένος νενόμισται; ἰ δὲ τὰ·ηθέντα ἐναντίως ἔχει πρὸς ἄλ ληλα, πῶς τὰ ἀλλήλοις ἐναντία τὴν παρ' ἀλλήλων οὐ λαμ βάνει κατάλυσιν;","english":"Question 130.\n\nIf it is forbidden by the divine Scripture to dishonor one's parents, and the one who pursues what is forbidden is called a sinner, how is it that in various places the Lord Christ, having dishonored his own parents, is shown to be without sin? For at the wedding, by saying to his mother, \"What is it to me and to you, woman?\" he rebuked her. And when his mother wished to see him, he named as mother and brothers those who do the will of God. And again, when the womb that bore him and the breasts that he sucked were being blessed, he himself blessed those who do the will of God. All these things are thought to have been said by him in insult to his mother, because, when his mother had been named and blessed, by way of contrast with her others were blessed by him. But contrast is manifestly taken between opposite things. Besides, if the holy virgin had been chosen for the service of so great a dispensation, how is the virgin reckoned unworthy of blessing according to what has been said before? And if the things said are contrary to one another, how do things contrary to one another not receive their dissolution from one another?","structure":"narrative","commentary":[],"ambiguities":[],"confidence":"","notes":[]},{"i":135,"ref":"p135","source":"Ἀπόκρισις.\n\nΤὸ Τί ἐμοὶ καὶ σοὶ γύναι; οὐ πρὸς ἐπίπληξιν εἴρηται τῇ μητρὶ ὑπὸ τοῦ σωτῆρος, ἀλλὰ πρὸς ἔνδειξιν τοῦ μὴ ἡμᾶς, φησίν, εἶναι τοὺς ἀναδεδεγμένους τοῦ ἐν τῷ γάμῳ ἀναλισκο\n\nμένου οἴνου τὴν φροντίδα· ὅμως ἐκ πολλῆς ἀγάπης, εἰ θέλεις, ἵνα μὴ λείψῃ αὐτοῖς οἶνος, εἰπὲ τοῖς ὑπηρέταις ἵνα ποιήσωσιν ἃ λέγω αὐτοῖς, καὶ βλέπεις ὅτι οὐ μὴ λείψει αὐτοῖς οἶνος· ὅπερ καὶ γέγονεν. ὐκ ἂν οὖν λέξει τὴν μητέρα ἐπέπληξεν, ἣν τοῖς ἔργοις ἐτίμα. Ἐν δὲ ταῖς ἄλλαις φωναῖς οὐχ ὡς ἀποστερῶν τὴν μητέρα τῆς πρεπούσης τιμῆς, ἀλλὰ δείκνυσι κατὰ ποίαν μητρότητα μακαριστή ἐστιν ἡ παρθένος. ἰ γὰρ ὁ ἀκούων τὸν λόγον τοῦ θεοῦ καὶ φυλάττων αὐτὸς ἀδελφός ἐστι τοῦ θεοῦ καὶ ἀδελφὴ καὶ μήτηρ, προσῆν δὲ τῇ μητρὶ αὐτοῦ ἀμφότερα, δῆλον ὅτι κατὰ ταύτην τὴν μητρότητα ἐχρῆν μακα ρίζεσθαι τὴν μητέρα αὐτοῦ· τὸ γὰρ ἀκούειν τὸν λόγον τοῦ θεοῦ καὶ φυλάττειν ἀρετῆς ἐστι καὶ καθαρᾶς ψυχῆς, ὅλης πρὸς τὸν θεὸν βλεπούσης. Καὶ ἐπειδὴ οὐ τὴν τυχοῦσαν γυναῖκα ἐπε λέξατο ὁ θεὸς γενέσθαι μητέρα τοῦ Χριστοῦ, ἀλλὰ τὴν πασῶν γυναικῶν ταῖς ἀρεταῖς ὑπερκειμένην, διὰ τοῦτο καὶ ὁ Χριστὸς ἀπὸ ταύτης τῆς ἀρετῆς ἐβούλετο μακαρίζεσθαι τὴν μητέρα αὑ τοῦ, δι' ἧς ἠξιώθη παρθένος μήτηρ γενέσθαι. Ὅτι δὲ πρὸς ἀτιμίαν ἢ ἀπείθειαν γονέων οὐδαμῶς ἐμφαίνεται ὁ Χριστὸς πεποιηκώς τι, μαρτυρεῖ Λουκᾶς ὁ εὐαγγελιστής, λέγων περὶ αὐτοῦ ὅτι Κατέβη μετὰ Ἰωσὴφ καὶ Μαρίας ἀπὸ Ἱερουσαλήμ, καὶ ἦν ὑποτασσόμενος αὐτοῖς.","english":"Answer.\n\nThe words \"What is it to me and to you, woman?\" were not spoken by the Savior to his mother as a rebuke, but to show, he says, that we are not the ones who have taken on the care of the wine consumed at the wedding. Nevertheless, out of great love, if you wish that wine not fail them, tell the servants to do what I tell them, and you will see that wine will by no means fail them—which indeed happened. He would not, then, have rebuked his mother in word, whom he was honoring in deeds. And in the other sayings, it is not as though he were depriving his mother of the honor due her, but he shows according to what kind of motherhood the virgin is blessed. For the one who hears the word of God and keeps it is himself brother of God and sister and mother, and both of these belonged to his mother; it is clear that it was according to this motherhood that his mother ought to be called blessed. For to hear the word of God and keep it belongs to virtue and to a pure soul, wholly looking toward God. And since God did not choose any ordinary woman to become the mother of Christ, but the one surpassing all women in virtues, for this reason Christ also wished his mother to be called blessed from this virtue, through which she was deemed worthy to become a virgin mother. And that Christ is in no way shown to have done anything toward dishonoring or disobeying his parents, Luke the evangelist testifies, saying of him that he went down with Joseph and Mary from Jerusalem, and was subject to them.","structure":"narrative","commentary":[],"ambiguities":[],"confidence":"","notes":[]},{"i":136,"ref":"p136","source":"Ἐρώτησις ρλζ.\n\nἰ πρὸ τοῦ τάφου ἡ Μαρία τὸν κύριον τῷ μύρῳ ἤλειψεν, ἡμεῖς δὲ τοῦ πάθους καὶ τῆς ἀναστάσεως αὐτοῦ ἐν τῷ βαπτί σματι τελοῦμεν τὰ σύμβολα, πῶς πρῶτον μὲν ἐλαίῳ χριόμεθα, ἔπειτα δὲ τὰ προλεχθέντα ἐν τῇ κολυμβήθρᾳ τελέσαντες σύμβολα τῷ μύρῳ σφραγιζόμεθα ὕστερον, καὶ κατ' ἐναντίωσιν τῶν περὶ τὸν κύριον γεγονότων ταῦτα ποιεῖν οὐ νομίζομεν, εἴ γε πρῶτον ὁ κύριος τῷ μύρῳ ἠλείψατο καὶ ὕστερον ἔπαθε; Πῶς δὲ καὶ οὐ περιττὴ ἡ χρῖσις τοῦ ἐλαίου προσφέρεται τοῖς βαπτίζεσθαι μέλλουσιν, εἴ γε μόνῳ τῷ μύρῳ πρὸς τῷ πάθει ἐχρίσθη ὁ κύριος;\n\nἈπόκρισις.\n\nἘπειδὴ ἃ ποιεῖ ἡ ἐκκλησία πρὸς τὸν ἐνταφιασμὸν μετὰ τὸν θάνατον αὐτοῦ ποιεῖ τοῦ ἐνταφιαζομένου, ἡ δὲ μακαρία Μαρία πρὸ τοῦ θανάτου ἐμύρισε τὸν κύριον (κατὰ τὸ γεγραμ μένον· Ὃ ἐποίησε, φησίν, αὕτη πρὸς ἐνταφιασμόν μου ἐποίησε· προλαβοῦσα γὰρ ἐμύρισέ μου τὸ σῶμα· τὸ δὲ Προ λαβοῦσα ἀντὶ τοῦ Πρὸ τοῦ δέοντος καιροῦ ἐμύρισέ μου τὸ σῶμα), διὰ τοῦτο οὐδὲν γίνεται κατ' ἐναντίωσιν, ἀλλὰ τὸ ἐπὶ τοῦ κυρίου γεγονὸς πρὸ τοῦ καιροῦ τοῦτο ἐπὶ τῶν βαπτιζομέ νων γίνεται ἐν τῷ δέοντι καιρῷ. Χριόμεθα δὲ τῷ παλαιῷ ἐλαίῳ ἵνα γινώμεθα χριστοί, τῷ δὲ μύρῳ πρὸς ἀνάμνησιν τοῦ τὴν χρῖσιν τοῦ μύρου ἐνταφιασμὸν ἑαυτοῦ λογιζομένου, καὶ τύπῳ μὲν ἐπὶ τοῦ παρόντος, ἀληθείᾳ δὲ ἐπὶ τοῦ μέλλοντος εἰς τὴν κοινωνίαν τῶν τε ἑαυτοῦ παθημάτων καὶ τῆς δόξης ἡμᾶς καλεσαμένου σωτῆρος Χριστοῦ. Ἐρώτησις ρλη.","english":"Question 137.\n\nIf Mary anointed the Lord with myrrh before the tomb, but we in baptism perform the symbols of his passion and resurrection, how is it that we are first anointed with oil, and then, after performing the aforementioned symbols in the font, are afterward sealed with myrrh, and we do not consider that we do this in opposition to what happened concerning the Lord, since the Lord was first anointed with myrrh and afterward suffered? And how is the anointing of oil not superfluous when it is applied to those about to be baptized, since the Lord was anointed with myrrh alone in addition to his passion?\n\nAnswer.\n\nSince what the church does, it does for the burial of the one being buried after his death, but the blessed Mary anointed the Lord before his death (according to what is written: \"What she did,\" he says, \"she did for my burial; for she came beforehand and anointed my body\"; and \"she came beforehand\" is instead of \"before the proper time she anointed my body\"), for this reason nothing happens in opposition, but what happened concerning the Lord before the time happens concerning those being baptized at the proper time. And we are anointed with ordinary oil so that we may become christs, and with myrrh for a remembrance of him who counted the anointing of myrrh as his own burial, and who has called us, in type for the present but in truth for the future, to communion with both his sufferings and his glory, our Savior Christ. Question 138.","structure":"narrative","commentary":[],"ambiguities":[],"confidence":"","notes":[]},{"i":137,"ref":"p137","source":"ἰ δίκαιός ἐστιν ὁ τὸν ἡμαρτηκότα ὑπὲρ ὧν ἥμαρτε τι\n\nμωρούμενος, πῶς δίκαιος ὁ θεὸς ὁ τοσοῦτον λαὸν διὰ πταί σματα θανατώσας ἑτέρων; Λέγω δὲ πταίσαντας τὸν Ἰωνάθαν καὶ τὸν Δαυΐδ· τὸν μὲν ἐξ ἀγνοίας λύσαντα τὴν νηστείαν τῇ γεύσει τοῦ μέλιτος, τὸν δὲ προπετῶς τὸν λαὸν ἀριθμήσαντα. ἰ δέ τις λέγοι ὡς τῶν ὑπηκόων ὁ θάνατος ἐπὶ τιμωρίᾳ τῶν ἀρχόντων ἐγίνετο, πῶς οὐκ ἀδικεῖ τοὺς ἀναιτίους ὑποβάλλων κολάσεσιν; Ἐναντιοῦται δὲ τῇ λεγούσῃ γραφῇ ὅτι Ψυχὴ ἡ ἁμαρτήσασα αὐτὴ ἀποθανεῖται.\n\nἈπόκρισις.\n\nὍτι πικροτάτη τιμωρία τῶν ἡμαρτηκότων βασιλέων ἡ τι μωρία τοῦ λαοῦ, δηλοῖ αὐτὸς ὁ μακάριος Δαυΐδ, δεόμενος τοῦ θεοῦ εἰς αὑτόν τε καὶ εἰς τὸν οἶκον αὑτοῦ μεταγαγεῖν ἀπὸ τοῦ λαοῦ τὴν πληγήν. Σάλος γάρ ἐστι τῆς βασιλείας ἡ μείωσις τῶν βασιλευομένων. Ὡσαύτως δὲ καὶ ὁ Σαοὺλ ἔμελλεν ἀναι ρεῖν τὸν υἱὸν αὑτοῦ Ἰωνάθαν, ἵνα τῇ ἀναιρέσει αὐτοῦ τὴν πληγὴν ἰάσηται τοῦ λαοῦ, εἰ μὴ φθάσας ὁ λαὸς ὤμοσε μὴ ἀπο θανεῖν ἐᾶσαι τὸν Ἰωνάθαν. Καὶ ὡς σύγκειται ὁ ἄνθρωπος ἐκ ψυχῆς καὶ σώματος, οὕτως καὶ ἡ βασιλεία σύγκειται ἐκ τοῦ βασιλέως καὶ τῶν βασιλευομένων. Καὶ ὥσπερ, ἁμαρτήσας ὁ ἄνθρωπος ἁμάρτημα διὰ χειρὸς κἂν τυπτηθῇ εἰς τὸν νῶτον, οὐκ ἀδικεῖ ὁ τυπτήσας αὐτόν, οὕτως οὐκ ἀδικεῖ θεὸς ἐπὶ τοῖς τῶν βασιλέων πταίσμασιν τὸν λαὸν τιμωρούμενος. Μεγάλως γὰρ οἶδεν ἀνιᾶν τοὺς βασιλεῖς ἡ πληγὴ τοῦ λαοῦ. Τῆς γὰρ βασιλείας ἐστὶ τιμωρία ἡ πληγὴ τοῦ λαοῦ. Ἐρώτησις ρλθ.","english":"If it is just for one who has sinned to be punished for the sins he committed, how is God just when he put to death so great a people for the transgressions of others? I mean Jonathan and David as having sinned: the one who broke the fast in ignorance by tasting honey, and the other who rashly numbered the people. But if someone should say that the death of the subjects came as a punishment for the rulers, how does he not wrong the innocent by subjecting them to chastisements? And this is contrary to the Scripture that says, \"The soul that has sinned, it shall die.\"\n\nAnswer.\n\nThat the bitterest punishment of sinning kings is the punishment of the people, the blessed David himself shows, beseeching God to transfer the plague from the people to himself and to his own house. For the diminution of the ruled is a shaking of the kingdom. Likewise also Saul was about to put to death his own son Jonathan, in order that by his death he might heal the plague of the people, if the people had not forestalled him by swearing not to allow Jonathan to die. And as man is composed of soul and body, so also the kingdom is composed of the king and the ruled. And just as, when a man has sinned a sin with his hand, even if he is struck on the back, the one who strikes him does no wrong, so God does no wrong when he punishes the people for the transgressions of kings. For the plague of the people greatly grieves kings, as he knows. For the plague of the people is a punishment of the kingdom. Question 139.","structure":"narrative","commentary":[],"ambiguities":[],"confidence":"","notes":[]},{"i":138,"ref":"p138","source":"ἰ εἷς ἐστι θεὸς ὁ θεός, δῆλον ὅτι καὶ πάντα κέκτηται τὸ εἶναι ἕν· οἷον τὸ ἁπλοῦν ἢ τὸ σύνθετον, τὸ θνητὸν ἢ τὸ ἀθάνατον, τὸ γεννητὸν ἢ τὸ ἀγέννητον, τὸ γεννᾶν ἢ τὸ μὴ γεν νᾶν. Πῶς οὖν, τοῦ μὲν πατρὸς γεννήσαντος καὶ τοῦ υἱοῦ μὴ γεννήσαντος, καὶ τοῦ υἱοῦ γεννηθέντος, τοῦ δὲ πατρὸς μὴ γεν νηθέντος, δύναται εἷς θεὸς καλεῖσθαι ὁ πατὴρ καὶ ὁ υἱὸς καὶ τὸ πνεῦμα, ἐξ αὐτοῦ τοῦ γεννᾶσθαι ἢ μὴ γεννᾶσθαι, καὶ τοῦ γεννᾶν καὶ μὴ γεννᾶν, τὴν ἐναντίωσιν κεκτῆσθαι νομιζομένου; Ἀπόκρισις.\n\nἷς ἐστιν ὁ θεὸς τῇ συνυπάρξει τῶν τριῶν θείων ὑπο στάσεων, τῶν διαφερουσῶν ἀλλήλων οὐ τῇ οὐσίᾳ ἀλλὰ τοῖς τῆς ὑπάρξεως τρόποις. Ἡ διαφορὰ δὲ τῶν τῆς ὑπάρξεως τρό πων οὐ διαιρεῖ τὸ ἓν τῇ οὐσίᾳ. Καὶ ὥσπερ ἐπὶ τοῦ Ἀδὰμ καὶ τῆς ὔας καὶ τοῦ Σὴθ εἷς μέν ἐστιν ὁ τῆς οὐσίας λόγος (ψυχὴ γὰρ λογικὴ καὶ σῶμα θνητόν), τρόποι δὲ τῆς ὑπάρξεως διάφοροι (ὁ μὲν γὰρ Ἀδὰμ γέγονεν ἀπὸ τῆς γῆς, ἡ δὲ ὔα ἐκ τῆς πλευρᾶς, ὁ δὲ Σὴθ ἐκ τοῦ σπέρματος), καὶ ἐν διαφόροις τῆς ὑπάρξεως τρόποις μένει ὁ τῆς οὐσίας λόγος εἷς ἀδιαίρετός τε καὶ ἀπαράλλακτος, οὕτως καὶ ἐπὶ τοῦ θεοῦ, τῇ ταὐτότητι τῆς τῶν προσώπων οὐσίας, εἷς θεὸς πεπίστευται, ὅ τε πατὴρ καὶ ὁ υἱὸς καὶ τὸ ἅγιον πνεῦμα. ὐδὲν γὰρ συντελεῖ πρὸς τὸν τῆς οὐσίας λόγον ὁ τρόπος τῆς ὑπάρξεως. Τὰ μὲν οὖν ἐπὶ τῶν θείων τριῶν ὑποστάσεων ὡσαύτως ἀπαραλλάκτως λεγό μενα, ἐν τούτοις νόει τὸ ἓν τῆς οὐσίας· τὰ δὲ μὴ ὡσαύτως,","english":"If God is one, it is clear that all things also possess being as one—for example, the simple or the composite, the mortal or the immortal, the generated or the ungenerated, the begetting or the not-begetting. How then, since the Father begets and the Son does not beget, and the Son is begotten while the Father is not begotten, can the Father and the Son and the Spirit be called one God, when from this very fact of being begotten or not being begotten, and of begetting and not begetting, they are thought to possess opposition? Answer.\n\nGod is one by the co-existence of the three divine hypostases, which differ from one another not in essence but in the modes of existence. But the difference of the modes of existence does not divide the one in essence. And just as in the case of Adam and Eve and Seth there is one principle of essence (for a rational soul and a mortal body), but the modes of existence are different (for Adam came to be from the earth, Eve from the side, and Seth from seed), and in the different modes of existence the one principle of essence remains undivided and unalterable, so also in the case of God, by the identity of the essence of the persons, Father and Son and Holy Spirit are believed to be one God. For the mode of existence contributes nothing to the principle of essence. Therefore, the things said in the same unalterable way concerning the three divine hypostases—in these understand the unity of essence; but the things not said in the same way,","structure":"narrative","commentary":[],"ambiguities":[],"confidence":"","notes":[]},{"i":139,"ref":"p139","source":"ταῦτα νόει τῷ τρόπῳ τῆς τῶν προσώπων ὑπάρξεως. Ἐρώτησις ρμ.\n\nἰ κληρονόμον ἑαυτὸν ὁ Χριστὸς ὀνομάζει, τοῦτον δὲ κατὰ τὴν παραβολὴν οἱ γεωργοί, τουτέστιν οἱ Ἰουδαῖοι, ἐπέ γνωσαν, καί, τῆς γεωργίας δεσπόται γενέσθαι ποθήσαντες, ὡς κληρονόμον τὸν κληρονόμον ἀπέκτειναν, πῶς αὐτὸς ὁ Χριστὸς καὶ ὁ ἀπόστολος Παῦλος τοῦ τολμήματος αὐτοῖς ἐμαρτύρησαν ἄγνοιαν, ὁ μὲν λέγων· Ἄφες αὐτοῖς, οὐ γὰρ οἴδασι τί ποι οῦσιν· ὁ δὲ φάσκων· ἰ ἔγνωσαν, οὐκ ἂν τὸν κύριον τῆς δόξης ἐσταύρωσαν;\n\nἈπόκρισις.\n\nΔιχῶς ἡ ἄγνοια λέγεται. Ἢ γὰρ μὴ βουλόμενός τις ἀγνοεῖ, ὅταν τὰ πράγματα ὁδηγοῦντα εἰς γνῶσιν οὐκ ἔχῃ· ἢ βουλόμενος ἀγνοεῖ, ὅταν τὰ μὲν πράγματα ἔχῃ ὁδηγοῦντα εἰς γνῶσιν, μὴ βουλόμενος δὲ γνῶναι. Ταύτην δὲ τὴν βουλητὴν ἄγνοιαν οἶδεν ἡ θεία γραφὴ ποτὲ μὲν ἄγνοιαν, ποτὲ δὲ γνῶ σιν ὀνομάζειν. Γνῶσιν μέν, ὡς ὅταν λέγῃ· Καὶ ἐμὲ οἴδατε καὶ πόθεν εἰμὶ οἴδατε· ἀντὶ τοῦ Δύνασθε ἀφ' ὧν ἐργάζομαι γνῶναι τῆς τε ὀνομασίας τῆς ἐμῆς καὶ τῶν λόγων μου τὴν ἀλήθειαν· ψευδόμενος γὰρ οὐ δύναται τοιαῦτα ἔργα ποιεῖν. Τὸ δὲ ὑπὸ τῶν γεωργῶν γνωρισθῆναι τὸν κληρονόμον, καθὸ ἐθεάσαντο τοῦτον ὑπὲρ πάντα εἶναι ἄνθρωπον ἐν τῇ παρούσῃ ζωῇ, τοῖς ἔργοις οἷς ἐποίει, καὶ τῇ κλήσει τοῦ υἱοῦ, κατὰ τὴν ὑποτύπωσιν τῆς παραβολῆς. Ὅτι δὲ μετὰ τὸ ἀποθανεῖν αὐτὸν ἀνίστησιν αὐτὸν ὁ θεὸς ἐκ τῶν νεκρῶν εἰς ἀθάνατον ζωὴν καὶ τίθησιν αὐτὸν πάντων κληρονόμον, οὐκ ἔγνωσαν· οὔτε γὰρ ἡ ὑποτύπωσις τῆς παραβολῆς ἔσχε τούτου τὴν ἔμφασιν. Κατὰ ταύτην οὖν τὴν ἄγνοιαν εἶπεν ὁ Χριστός· Πάτερ ἄφες αὐ τοῖς, οὐ γὰρ οἴδασι τί ποιοῦσιν.","english":"Understand these things in the manner of the existence of the persons. Question 140.\n\nIf Christ calls himself an heir, and the farmers in the parable—that is, the Jews—recognized this one, and, desiring to become masters of the vineyard, killed the heir as an heir, how did Christ himself and the apostle Paul testify that they had ignorance of the deed, the one saying, \"Forgive them, for they do not know what they are doing,\" and the other declaring, \"If they had known, they would not have crucified the Lord of glory\"?\n\nAnswer.\n\nIgnorance is spoken of in two ways. For either someone is ignorant unwillingly, when he does not have the things that lead to knowledge; or he is ignorant willingly, when he does have the things that lead to knowledge but does not wish to know. This willing ignorance divine Scripture sometimes calls ignorance, and sometimes knowledge. Knowledge, as when it says, \"And you know me, and you know where I am from\"—instead of: You are able from the works I do to know the truth of my name and of my words; for one who lies cannot do such works. But that the heir was recognized by the farmers, insofar as they beheld him to be beyond every man in the present life, by the works he did and by the calling of the son, according to the figure of the parable. But that after his death God raises him from the dead to immortal life and appoints him heir of all things, they did not know; for neither did the figure of the parable contain an indication of this. According to this ignorance, then, Christ said, \"Father, forgive them, for they do not know what they are doing.","structure":"narrative","commentary":[],"ambiguities":[],"confidence":"","notes":[]},{"i":140,"ref":"p140","source":"Ὡσαύτως δὲ καὶ ὁ ἀπό στολος· ἰ γὰρ ἔγνωσαν, οὐκ ἂν τὸν κύριον τῆς δόξης ἐσταύρωσαν.\n\nἘρώτησις ρμα.\n\nἰ μόνος ὁ Χριστὸς τὸν θεῖον νόμον ἀκριβῶς ἐξετέλεσε, πῶς ἐπορεύοντο ἐν τῷ νόμῳ ἄμεμπτοι ὅ τε Ζαχαρίας καὶ ἡ Ἐλισσάβετ, περὶ ὧν ταῦτα ὁ Λουκᾶς ἐμαρτύρησε, καὶ ὁ Παῦλος δέ, κατὰ δικαιοσύνην τὴν ἐν νόμῳ γενόμενος ἄμεμπτος; Ἀπόκρισις.\n\nἌλλο τὸ ἄμεμπτον καὶ ἄλλο τὸ ἀναμάρτητον. Ὁ μὲν γὰρ ἀναμάρτητος ἐκ παντὸς καὶ ἄμεμπτος, οὐκέτι δὲ ὁ ἄμεμπτος ἐξ ἀνάγκης καὶ ἀναμάρτητός ἐστιν. Ὁ γὰρ ἁμαρτάνων παρὰ τὸν νόμον συγγνωστὴν ἁμαρτίαν, τῇ προσαγωγῇ τῶν θυσιῶν καὶ τῇ ἐξαγορεύσει τοῦ πταίσματος λαβὼν τὴν ἄφεσιν, γίνεται καθαρὸς καὶ ἄμεμπτος κατὰ τὴν ἐκ νόμου δικαιοσύνην. Ὁ δὲ Χριστός, ἅτε ἀναμάρτητος ὢν καὶ οὐδαμῶς παραβὰς τὸν νόμον, οὔτε διεπράξατό τι διορθώσεως δεόμενον· ἐδέξατο δὲ καὶ τὸν βαπτιστὴν Ἰωάννην καὶ ἐβαπτίσθη ὑπ' αὐτοῦ, ἵνα πληρώσῃ πᾶσαν δικαιοσύνην, ἣν ὁ Παῦλος πρὸ τοῦ πιστεῦσαι Χριστῷ οὔπω ἦν δεξάμενος· ἐπεὶ οὐκ ἂν ἐδίωξε τὴν ἐκκλη σίαν. Διὰ τοῦτο ὁ Χριστὸς μόνος λέγεται ἀναμάρτητος γε","english":"Likewise also the apostle: for had they known, they would not have crucified the Lord of glory.\n\nQuestion 141.\n\nIf Christ alone fulfilled the divine law exactly, how did both Zacharias and Elisabeth walk blamelessly in the law, concerning whom Luke testified these things, and also Paul, who became blameless according to the righteousness that is in the law? Answer.\n\nOne thing is \"blameless\" and another is \"sinless.\" For the sinless one is in every respect also blameless, but the blameless one is not necessarily also sinless. For he who sins contrary to the law with a pardonable sin, having received forgiveness through the offering of sacrifices and the confession of his transgression, becomes clean and blameless according to the righteousness that is from the law. But Christ, being sinless and in no way transgressing the law, neither did anything needing correction; yet he received John the Baptist and was baptized by him, in order to fulfill all righteousness, which Paul had not yet received before believing in Christ; otherwise he would not have persecuted the church. Therefore Christ alone is said to be sinless","structure":"narrative","commentary":[],"ambiguities":[],"confidence":"","notes":[]},{"i":141,"ref":"p141","source":"γονέναι.\n\nἘρώτησις ρμβ.\n\nἰ ὁ ἄγγελος τοῦ ἀνθρώπου ἀνώτερος, καὶ θεοὺς τοὺς ἀνθρώπους ἡ γραφὴ ὀνομάζει, πῶς οὐχ ἁρμόζει καὶ τοὺς ἀγ γέλους θεοὺς παρ' ἡμῶν ὀνομάζεσθαι; Ἀπόκρισις.\n\nΤῶν ἀγγέλων ὅσοι ἐν τάξει θεοῦ ὤφθησαν ἢ ἐλάλησαν τοῖς ἀνθρώποις ἐσχήκασι καὶ αὐτοὶ τοῦ θεοῦ τὴν κλῆσιν, ὡς ὁ λαλήσας τῷ Ἰακὼβ καὶ τῷ Μωϋσῇ. Ἐκλήθησαν δὲ καὶ οἱ ἄνθρωποι θεοί. Ἑκατέροις δὲ διὰ τὴν ἐγχειρισθεῖσαν αὐτοῖς χρείαν ἐδόθη τοῦ θεοῦ τὴν τάξιν καὶ τὴν προσηγορίαν ἔχειν· πληρωθείσης δὲ τῆς χρείας παύονται τοῦ καλεῖσθαι θεοὶ οἱ χρείας τινὸς ἕνεκεν εἰληφότες τοῦ θεοῦ τὴν κλῆσιν. Ὅτε μὲν γὰρ ἐνεχείρισε τῷ ἀγγέλῳ τὴν ἐπιστασίαν τοῦ λαοῦ, ἔφασκε τῷ Μωϋσεῖ περὶ αὐτοῦ· Μὴ ἀπειθήσῃς αὐτῷ, ὅτι ὄνομά μου κεῖται ἐπ' αὐτόν. Ὅτε δὲ ἐνεχείρισε τοῖς ἄρχουσι τὴν κρίσιν τοῦ λαοῦ, φησὶ πρὸς αὐτούς· Δικαίαν κρίσιν κρίνατε, ὅτι ἡ κρίσις τοῦ θεοῦ ἐστι. Καὶ πάλιν· Ἐγὼ εἶπα Θεοί ἐστε καὶ υἱοὶ ὑψίστου πάντες. Θεοὺς αὐτοὺς ἔλεγεν ἀντὶ τοῦ Ἔδωκα ὑμῖν τὴν τιμὴν τὴν ἐμὴν καὶ τὴν τάξιν καὶ τὴν κλῆσιν· ὡς οὖν ἐμοῦ κρίνοντος οὕτως κρίνατε τὸν λαόν. Ἐρώτησις ρμγ.","english":"Question 142. If the angel is superior to man, and the Scripture calls men gods, how is it not fitting that angels also be called gods by us? Answer. All the angels who appeared or spoke to men in the rank of God have themselves also had the appellation of God, as the one who spoke to Jacob and to Moses. But men also were called gods. To both, however, it was given because of the service entrusted to them to have the rank and the designation of God; but when the service is fulfilled, those who received the appellation of God for the sake of some service cease to be called gods. For when he entrusted to the angel the oversight of the people, he said to Moses concerning him: Do not disobey him, for my name is upon him. And when he entrusted to the rulers the judgment of the people, he says to them: Judge a righteous judgment, because the judgment is God's. And again: I said, You are gods and all sons of the Most High. He called them gods instead of: I have given you my honor and rank and appellation; as I judge, so judge the people. Question 143.","structure":"narrative","commentary":[],"ambiguities":[],"confidence":"","notes":[]},{"i":142,"ref":"p142","source":"ἰ ὑπεραναβέβηκε μὲν ὁ θεός, ὑποβέβηκε δὲ τὸ ἄνθρωπος, πῶς οὐκ ἀτάκτως ὁ ἄνθρωπος θεὸς προσηγόρευται; Ἀπόκρισις.\n\nὕτη ἡ ἐρώτησις οὔτε Χριστιανῷ ἁρμόττει οὔτε Ἕλληνι. Καθ' ἕτερον δὲ εἰς τοὺς ὑποβεβηκότας μετενήνεκται τοῦ ὑπεραναβεβηκότος ἡ κλῆσις, κατὰ τὴν ἑκάστου δόξαν. ὐ χρὴ δὲ ἐκ τῶν ὁμολογουμένων κατασκευάζειν τὴν ἀπορίαν, ἀλλὰ ἐκ τῶν ἀμφιβόλων.\n\nἘρώτησις ρμδ.\n\nἰ ἔχει ὁ θεὸς ὑπόστασιν ὑπάρχουσαν καὶ βουλὴν ἐνυπάρχουσαν καὶ υἱὸν ὑπάρχοντα, πῶς, ἐκ τοσούτων συγκείμενος, ἁπλοῦς ὀνομάζεται;\n\nἈπόκρισις.\n\nὉ θεὸς ὥσπερ ὅλος ἐστὶ πανταχοῦ καὶ ὅλος ἐν ἑκάστῳ καὶ ὅλος ἐφ' ἑαυτοῦ, καὶ τούτου πίστιν ἔχομεν, οὕτως καὶ τὸ ἁπλοῦν αὐτοῦ ὅλον υἱός ἐστι καὶ ὅλον υἱὸν ἔχον ἐστί, καὶ ὅλον βουλή ἐστι καὶ ὅλον βουλὴν ἔχον ἐστίν. ὐ γάρ ἐστι κατὰ τὴν κτιστὴν φύσιν ὁ θεός, ὥστε τὸ εἶναι αὐτὸν καὶ τὸ ἔχειν νοηθῇ ἐν συνθέσει, ὥσπερ ἐν τῇ κτιστῇ φύσει· ἀλλ', ὥσπερ τὴν φύσιν ὤν, οὕτως καὶ τὸ εἶναι αὐτὸν καὶ τὸ ἔχειν ἐστὶν ὑπὲρ τὴν σύνθεσιν.","english":"If God has surpassed and man has fallen below, how is man not improperly called god? Answer.\n\nThis question suits neither a Christian nor a Greek. But the name of the one who has surpassed has been transferred to those who have fallen below, according to each one's opinion. One should not construct the difficulty from things agreed upon, but from things doubtful.\n\nQuestion 144.\n\nIf God has a substance that exists and a counsel that exists within him and a Son that exists, how, being composed of so many things, is he called simple?\n\nAnswer.\n\nJust as God is wholly everywhere and wholly in each thing and wholly in himself, and we have faith in this, so also his simplicity is wholly Son and wholly having a Son, and is wholly counsel and wholly having counsel. For God is not according to created nature, so that his being and his having should be understood in composition, as in created nature; but just as he is by nature, so also his being and his having are beyond composition.","structure":"narrative","commentary":[],"ambiguities":[],"confidence":"","notes":[]},{"i":143,"ref":"p143","source":"Ἐρώτησις ρμε.\n\nἰ δι' ὧν ἡ σάρξ, διὰ τούτων καὶ τὸ αἷμα συνίσταται, διὰ τί τὴν μὲν βρῶσιν τῆς τῶν ζώων σαρκὸς ὁ θεὸς ἐπιτρέ πει, τὴν δὲ ἐν τῷ αἵματι ἀπαγορεύει μετάληψιν, Πλὴν κρέας, λέγων, ἐν αἵματι οὐ φάγεσθε;\n\nἈπόκρισις.\n\nἽνα καὶ ἐν τούτῳ χωρίσῃ ἡμᾶς ὁ θεὸς τῆς τῶν θηρίων ὁμοιότητος, τῶν σὺν τῇ βρώσει τῆς σαρκὸς λαπτόντων καὶ τὸ αἷμα ὧν τὰς σάρκας ἐσθίουσιν. Ἐρώτησις ρμ.\n\nἰ ὁ θεὸς ἐπὶ τῶν ἀληθῆ τὴν ἔκβασιν ἐσχηκότων καὶ διὰ τῶν παρ' Ἕλλησι μάντεων τὸ μέλλον ἔσεσθαι προεμήνυσε, πῶς, ὁπηνίκα Ἕλληνες πρὸς Ἕλληνας διεμάχοντο, πολλάκις κατὰ χρησμὸν πράξαντές τι, ὧν ἡ θεία γραφὴ τὴν πρᾶξιν ἀπη γόρευσε, τῶν ἐν τῇ δευτέρᾳ πεύσει κειμένων δεινῶν ἀπηλλάγησαν; ἷον ἐπὶ μὲν πολέμου, ὡς ὅταν οἱ ἑπτὰ ἐπὶ Θήβαις ἄρδην μὲν καταστρέφειν τὴν προῤῥηθεῖσαν πόλιν ἔμελλον, μαντευσαμένου δὲ Τειρεσίου ὁ Μενοικεὺς κατὰ τὸ δοκοῦν τῇ μαντείᾳ ἑαυτὸν ἑτοίμως κατέσφαξε, καὶ οὕτως κατὰ τὴν πρόῤ ῥησιν τῆς μαντείας ἡ μὲν πόλις διεσώθη, οἱ δὲ πολέμιοι ὑπὸ τῶν ἐν τῇ πόλει ἀνῃρέθησαν. Καὶ τοῦτο μὲν περὶ τῶν ἐν πολέμοις τροπαίων ἓν ἐκ πολλῶν ἡμῖν εἴρηται. Ἀπόκρισις.","english":"Question 145.\n\nSince blood is composed of the same things as flesh, why does God permit the eating of the flesh of animals but forbid the partaking of blood, saying, \"Except the flesh with the blood you shall not eat\"?\n\nAnswer.\n\nSo that in this too God may separate us from the likeness of wild beasts, which, along with eating flesh, also lap up the blood of the animals whose flesh they eat.\n\nQuestion 140.\n\nSince God foretold through the prophets among the Greeks that the future would come to pass, and it did truly come to pass, how is it that whenever Greeks fought against Greeks and often acted according to an oracle in ways that divine Scripture forbade, they were delivered from the evils set forth in the second question? For example, in war, as when the seven against Thebes were about to utterly destroy the city foretold, and when Teiresias gave his oracle, Menoeceus, in accordance with what the oracle deemed right, readily slew himself, and thus according to the prophecy of the oracle the city was saved and the enemy were slain by those in the city. And this one example out of many has been told by us concerning victories in wars.\n\nAnswer.","structure":"narrative","commentary":[],"ambiguities":[],"confidence":"","notes":[]},{"i":144,"ref":"p144","source":"Ὁ ποιῶν τὴν λύσιν τῶν ζητουμένων πρῶτον ὀφείλει θεῖ ναι τὰ ὁμολογήματα, εἶτα ἐξ αὐτῶν ποιήσασθαι τῶν ζητου μένων τὴν λύσιν. Ἔστι δὲ τῶν ὁμολογουμένων τὸ ἕνα εἶναι θεὸν δημιουργόν τε καὶ προνοητὴν τοῦ κόσμου παντός, ὃν καταγγέλλουσιν αἱ θεῖαι τῶν Χριστιανῶν γραφαὶ λόγοις θείαις δυνάμεσι μεμαρτυρημένοις· παρ' οὗ ἐστι τῶν μελλόντων ἥ τε πρόῤῥησις καὶ ἡ ἔκβασις. Ἐκβάλλουσι δὲ αἱ γραφαί, αἱ τοῦτον καταγγέλλουσαι, τοὺς τῶν Ἑλλήνων θεούς· ἰ ἀλλάξουσι, φησί, τὰ ἔθνη τοὺς θεοὺς αὑτῶν, καὶ αὐτοὶ οὐκ εἰσὶ θεοί. Ὧν δὲ οὐκ εἰσὶν οἱ θεοὶ θεοί, τούτων οὐδὲ οἱ μάντεις εἰσὶν ἀλη θείας προφῆται, οὐδ' ἡ αὐτῶν πρόῤῥησις ἀναπόδραστόν τε καὶ ἀληθῆ ἔχει τὴν ἔκβασιν. Ὥσπερ γάρ εἰσι μακρὰν τῆς ἀληθι νῆς θεότητος, οὕτως καὶ τῆς τῶν μελλόντων προγνώσεως. Ὅτι δὲ καὶ ἐν τῇ μάχῃ τῶν Ἑλλήνων πρὸς Ἕλληνας, τῶν πολυτρόπως, μάλιστα ἐν τοῖς πολέμοις, ταῖς μαντείαις χρησαμένων, ὁ τῶν Χριστιανῶν θεὸς τὴν ἰδίαν ἔστησε βούλησιν, μαρτυρεῖ μὲν ἡ μάχη Ἀλεξάνδρου καὶ Δαρείου, τοῦ μὲν κρατύνας τὰς μαντείας, τοῦ δὲ καταργήσας, μαρτυρεῖ δὲ καὶ τοῦ Ἀσσυρίου ἡ μάχη ἣν εἶχε πρὸς τὰ ἄλλα πολλὰ καὶ ἰσχυρὰ ἔθνη, ὃν ὁ θεὸς·άβδον τῆς ὀργῆς καὶ πρίονα ἐκάλεσε, ποτὲ μὲν λέγων· Ἰδοὺ ὁ Ἀσσύριος·άβδος ἐστὶ τῆς ὀργῆς μου, ἐπὶ ἔθνος ἁμαρτωλὸν ἀποστελῶ αὐτόν· ποτὲ δὲ λέγων περὶ αὐ τοῦ· Μὴ ὑψωθήσεται πρίων ἄνευ τοῦ ἕλκοντος αὐτόν;","english":"The one who provides the solution to the questions must first lay down the agreed premises, and then from them make the solution of the questions. Now, among the agreed premises is that there is one God, creator and provident ruler of the whole world, whom the divine writings of the Christians proclaim with words attested by divine powers; from whom is both the foretelling and the fulfillment of things to come. But the writings that proclaim this God cast out the gods of the Greeks: \"The nations,\" it says, \"shall exchange their gods, and they themselves are not gods.\" And those whose gods are not gods, neither are their seers true prophets, nor does their foretelling have an inescapable and true fulfillment. For just as they are far from the true divinity, so too are they from the foreknowledge of things to come. And that even in the battle of Greeks against Greeks—who in many ways, especially in wars, made use of oracles—the God of the Christians established his own will, the battle of Alexander and Darius bears witness, the one confirming his oracles, the other abolishing them; and the battle of the Assyrian also bears witness, which he had against the many other and strong nations, whom God called the rod of his anger and a saw, sometimes saying: \"Behold, the Assyrian is the rod of my anger; against a sinful nation I will send him\"; and sometimes saying concerning him: \"Shall the saw exalt itself without the one who draws it?","structure":"narrative","commentary":[],"ambiguities":[],"confidence":"","notes":[]},{"i":145,"ref":"p145","source":"Καί τοι πρόδηλός ἐστιν ὁ Ἀσσύριος ὅτι κατὰ τὰς ἐπιτυχίας τῶν χρησμολογημένων, ἃ εἴληφε παρὰ τῶν θεῶν αὑτοῦ διὰ τῶν μάντεων, πρίζει καὶ σπαράσσει τὰ ἐλεεινὰ ἔθνη, τὰ ὁμοίως αὐτῷ τῇ πεποιθήσει τῶν χρησμῶν συμβεβληκότα αὐτῷ εἰς πό λεμον, καὶ ἀποτετυχηκότα τῆς διὰ χρησμῶν ἐλπίδος, τοῦ θεοῦ συγχωρήσαντος ἐπιτυχεῖν μὲν τῶν χρησμῶν τὸν Ἀσσύριον, ἀπο τυχεῖν δὲ τὰ ἔθνη. Περὶ ὧν ὁ μὲν θεὸς διὰ τοῦ προφήτου Ἡσαΐου φησίν· Ὁ θεὸς ἀνῆκα τὴν χεῖρά μου, καὶ ἐξηράν θησαν· ὁ δὲ Ἀσσύριός φησι· Μὴ ἐῤῥύσαντο οἱ θεοὶ τῶν ἐθνῶν\n\nτὴν γῆν αὐτῶν ἐκ τῶν χειρῶν μου, ὅτι·ύσεται κύριος τὴν Ἱερουσαλὴμ ἐκ τῆς χειρός μου; Κατὰ δὲ τοὺς χρησμούς, οὓς ἐδέξατο ὁ Ἀσσύριος παρὰ τῶν μάντεων, τοιαύτας ἐφθέγξατο φωνάς, καὶ κατὰ τῶν ἐθνῶν καὶ κατὰ τῆς Ἱερουσαλήμ· καὶ τοῦ θεοῦ συγχωρήσαντος ἐπέτυχεν ὁ Ἀσσύριος τῶν χρησμῶν κατὰ τῶν ἐθνῶν, κατὰ δὲ τῆς Ἱερουσαλὴμ ἀπέτυχε τῶν χρησμῶν τοῦ θεοῦ μὴ συγχωρήσαντος. Πῶς οὖν ἀπέτυχον τῆς μαν τείας οἱ ἑπτὰ ἐπὶ Θήβαις τοῦ ἄρδην ἀπολέσαι τὴν πόλιν; Ἡ γὰρ ἀποτυχία τῆς μαντείας ἔλεγχος γίνεται τῆς ἀσθενείας τοῦ θεοῦ, τοῦ διὰ τῆς μαντείας προμηνύσαντος τὰ ἀνέκβατα. Καὶ εἰ κατὰ τὴν ἀψευδῆ τοῦ σωτῆρος φωνὴν χωρὶς θεοῦ στρουθίον οὐ πεσεῖται ἐπὶ τῆς γῆς, πολὺ μᾶλλον ἔθνος ὅλον ἢ πόλις ὅλη οὐκ ἂν ἀπόλοιτο μὴ τοῦ θεοῦ συγχωρήσαντος. Ὅτι δὲ πᾶν ἔθνος ἑλληνικὸν ὑπὸ ἔθνους ἑλληνικοῦ ἀπολλύμενον ὑπὸ·άβδου καὶ πρίονος τῆς ὀργῆς τοῦ θεοῦ ἀπόλλυται, φανερὸν καθέστη κεν ἐκ τῶν περὶ τοῦ Ἀσσυρίου εἰρημένων.","english":"And yet it is manifest that the Assyrian, according to the successes of the oracles which he received from his own gods through the seers, saws and tears in pieces the pitiable nations, which had likewise joined battle with him in reliance on the oracles, and had failed of the hope that came through the oracles, God having permitted the Assyrian to succeed in the oracles, but the nations to fail. Concerning which God indeed says through the prophet Isaiah: \"God, I have let down my hand, and they are dried up\"; and the Assyrian says: \"Did the gods of the nations deliver their land out of my hands, that the Lord shall deliver Jerusalem out of my hand?\" And according to the oracles which the Assyrian received from the seers, he uttered such words both against the nations and against Jerusalem; and God having permitted it, the Assyrian succeeded in the oracles against the nations, but against Jerusalem he failed of the oracles, God not permitting it. How then did the seven against Thebes fail of the prophecy to destroy the city utterly? For the failure of the prophecy becomes a proof of the weakness of the god who foretold through the prophecy things that did not come to pass. And if, according to the truthful voice of the Savior, not a sparrow shall fall on the earth without God, much more would not a whole nation or a whole city perish without God's permission. But that every Greek nation, when being destroyed by a Greek nation, is destroyed by the rod and saw of the wrath of God, has been made evident from what has been said about the Assyrian.","structure":"narrative","commentary":[],"ambiguities":[],"confidence":"","notes":[]},{"i":146,"ref":"p146","source":"Ἔτι δὲ εἰ τὰ παρὰ τῶν Ἑλλήνων περὶ τοῦ μάντεως Τειρεσίου εἰρημένα παντάπασίν ἐστι καταγέλαστα, πῶς ἐνδέχεται τὰ δι' αὐτοῦ λεχθέντα εἶναι ἀληθῆ; Φασὶ γὰρ περὶ αὐτοῦ ἄνδρα καὶ γυναῖκα γεγονέναι αὐ τόν, καὶ ἀμφοτέρων ἔχειν τὰς πλάσεις, καί, πολλὰς μάχας τῶν θεῶν διαλύσαντος, διὰ ταύτην τὴν αἰτίαν ἡ μὲν Ἥρα χολωθεῖσα αὐτῷ ἐπήρωσεν αὐτόν, ὁ δὲ Ζεὺς εἰς παραμυθίαν τῆς πηρώσεως αὐτοῦ ἐχαρίσατο αὐτῷ τὴν μαντικήν. Ἀλλ' εἰ ἀλλότρια πίστεως ὑπάρχει τὰ περὶ αὐτοῦ μυθευόμενα, πῶς ἐνδέχεται ἀληθῆ εἶναι τὰ ὑπ' αὐτοῦ μυθευόμενα; Ἔτι δὲ εἰ, καθώς φασιν Ἕλληνες, τὰ ὑπὸ τῶν Μοιρῶν ἐπικλωθόμενα ἀδύνατόν ἐστιν ἀνακλωθῆναι, πῶς οὐκ εἰσὶν ἀνωφελεῖς αἱ μαν τεῖαι τοῖς αὐταῖς χρωμένοις, τῶν Μοιρῶν ἐπὶ τὸ ἀναπόδραστον τέλος ἀναγκαίως ἀγουσῶν τὰ ὑπ' αὐτῶν ἐπικλωθόμενα; Ἀλλ' εἰ ταῦτα οὕτως ἔχει, πῶς οὐκ εἰσὶ ψευδεῖς αἵ τε Μοῖραι καὶ αἱ μαντεῖαι, ὑπ' ἀλλήλων ἀναιρούμεναι; Πῶς δὲ οὐκ ἔστιν ὁ Μενοικεὺς μάτην κατασφάξας ἑαυτὸν κατὰ τὸ δοκοῦν τῇ μαν τείᾳ, τῆς αἰτίας τοῦ ἀναιρεῖσθαι μὲν τοὺς πολεμίους, σώζεσθαι δὲ τὴν πόλιν, μὴ ἐκ τοῦ δαίμονος τοῦ διὰ μάντεως χρηματί σαντος ὑπαρχούσης, ἀλλ' ἐκ τῆς τοῦ δεσπότου τοῦ ἀληθινοῦ θεοῦ συγχωρήσεως;","english":"Moreover, if what the Greeks have said about the seer Tiresias is altogether ridiculous, how can what was spoken through him be true? For they say of him that he became both a man and a woman, and had the forms of both, and that when he settled many quarrels of the gods, for this reason Hera in her anger blinded him, while Zeus, to console him for his blindness, granted him the gift of prophecy. But if the tales told about him are foreign to faith, how can the tales told by him be true? Further, if, as the Greeks say, it is impossible for what the Fates have spun to be spun back, how are the oracles not useless to those who consult them, since the Fates necessarily lead what has been spun by them to an inescapable end? But if this is so, how are the Fates and the oracles not false, since they destroy one another? And how is it that Menoeceus did not slaughter himself in vain, according to what seemed good to the oracle, since the cause of the enemy being destroyed and the city being saved did not come from the daemon who gave the response through the seer, but from the permission of the Master, the true God?","structure":"narrative","commentary":[],"ambiguities":[],"confidence":"","notes":[]}]}