駁瑟蘇斯 第 1 章 第 19/42 段

Son of Iapetus, knowing schemes beyond all others, you rejoice that you have stolen fire and beguiled my mind—a great calamity to yourself and to men who shall be.

To them, in exchange for fire, I will give an evil, in which they all may delight in their hearts, embracing their own evil.'

And the father of men and gods finished it; and he ordered the renowned Hephaestus, as quickly as possible, to mix earth with water and to set in it the voice and strength of a human, and to make it like to the immortal goddesses in form—the fair, lovely shape of a maiden;

but ordered Athena to teach her crafts, to weave the richly-wrought web;

and golden Aphrodite to shed grace about her head, and cruel longing and cares that gnaw the limbs;

and to put in her a shameless mind and a deceitful nature he commanded Hermes, the guide, the slayer of Argus. So he spoke;

and they obeyed Zeus, the lord, son of Cronus.

...like a revered maiden, through the counsels of the son of Cronus;

and the goddess, gray-eyed Athena, girded and adorned her; and about her the Graces, the goddesses, and queenly Persuasion put golden necklaces upon her skin; and around her the fair-haired Seasons crowned her with spring flowers;

and Pallas Athena fitted all adornment upon her skin;

and then in her breast the guide, the slayer of Argus, wrought lies and wheedling words and a deceitful nature, by the will of loud-thundering Zeus;

and the herald of the gods put a voice in her, and named this woman Pandora, because all who dwell in the Olympian halls gave her as a gift, a bane to enterprising men.

And ridiculous from the outset is also the tale told about the jar, that: 'For before this the tribes of men lived upon the earth apart and free from evils, and from grievous toil, and from harsh diseases which give men their deaths.

But the woman, lifting off with her hands the great lid of the jar, scattered them;

and she devised baneful sorrows for men.

Only Hope remained there within, in the unbreakable home, beneath the rim of the jar, and did not fly out of doors;

for before that she cast the lid back upon the jar.

But to him who solemnly allegorizes these things—whether he succeeds in the allegory or not—we shall say:

Is it permitted to the Greeks alone to philosophize in deeper meaning, and to the Egyptians too, and to as many of the barbarians as pride themselves on mysteries and truth;

but only the Jews, and their lawgiver and their writers, seemed to you to be the most foolish of all men, and only this nation to have partaken of no power of God—this nation which has been so loftily taught to ascend to the uncreated nature of God, and to look upon Him alone, and to await its hopes from Him alone? Now since Celsus also makes comedy of the matters concerning the serpent, as opposing the commands of God to the man, supposing the account to be some myth like those handed down to old women, and willingly named neither the paradise of God, nor how God is said to have planted in Eden toward the east, and afterward to have made spring up out of the earth every tree fair to the sight and good for food, and the tree of life in the midst of the paradise, and the tree of the knowledge of good and evil, and the things said upon these—things able of themselves to move the well-disposed reader to perceive that all these are not unworthily allegorized;

come, let us set alongside, from Plato's Symposium, the things said about Eros, attributed to Socrates as the most dignified of all who spoke about it in the Symposium.

Now the wording of Plato is as follows:

When Aphrodite was born, the gods held a feast, and among the others was Poros, the son of Metis.

And when they had dined, Penia came to beg, as is natural when a feast is going on, and she was about the doors.

Now Poros, being drunk with nectar—for wine did not yet exist—entered into the garden of Zeus and, heavy with drink, fell asleep.

Then Penia, plotting because of her own want to make a child by Poros, lay down beside him and conceived Eros.

Therefore Eros became a follower and attendant of Aphrodite, having been begotten on her birthday, and being by nature a lover concerning the beautiful, since Aphrodite too is beautiful.

Since, then, Eros is the son of Poros and Penia, he is established in such a fortune.

First, he is always poor; and far from being tender and beautiful, as most suppose, he is rather hard and squalid and unshod and homeless, ever lying on the ground and without bedding, sleeping in the open at doors and in the roads, having the nature of his mother, ever dwelling with need.

But again, after his father, he is a schemer after the beautiful and the good, being courageous and bold and intense, a clever hunter, ever weaving devices, a desirer of wisdom and resourceful, philosophizing throughout his whole life, a clever sorcerer and druggist and sophist;

and he is by nature neither immortal nor mortal, but at one time on the same day he flourishes and lives, whenever he is well supplied, and at another time he dies, and comes back to life again through his father's nature.

But what is provided ever slips away, so that Eros is never either in want or wealthy.

...should imitate it (which be far from Christians), they will deride the myth and hold so great a man as Plato in scorn;

but if, examining philosophically the things said in the form of myth, they are able to find the intention of Plato, they will marvel at the manner in which he was able to conceal the doctrines that seemed great to him, on account of the many, in the form of myth, yet to say, as was fitting, to those who know how to find from myths the intention concerning truth of him who composed these things.

I have set out this myth in Plato on account of the garden of Zeus found in him, which seems to have something resembling the paradise of God, and Penia, who is compared to the serpent there, and Poros, who is plotted against by Penia, compared to the man plotted against by the serpent.

But it is not at all clear whether Plato fell upon these things by chance, or, as some think, in his sojourn in Egypt having met those who philosophized in the manner of the Jews and having learned certain things from them, kept some and altered others, guarding against giving offense to the Greeks by preserving the things of the Jews' wisdom in every respect—since they were slandered among the many on account of the strangeness of their laws and their peculiar way of life.

But neither the myth of Plato, nor the things concerning the serpent and the paradise of God and all that is recorded therein as having happened, was it now the time to expound;

for chiefly in our exegetical works on Genesis we have, as far as was possible, dealt with these matters.

But when he asserts that the account of Moses introduced God as most impious, weak from the very beginning and unable to persuade even one man whom He Himself had formed, to this also we shall say that what is said is like as if someone were to bring a charge concerning the existence of wickedness, which God has not been able to prevent even from a single man, so that even one man might be found from the beginning who had remained untasting of wickedness.

For as those who are concerned to make a defense concerning providence make their defense on this matter, not in few words nor in contemptible ones, so likewise concerning Adam and concerning his sin will those philosophize who have recognized that, in the Greek tongue, Adam means 'man,' and that in what seems to be about Adam, Moses is treating, in natural philosophy, of the nature of man.

For indeed 'in Adam,' as the Scripture says, 'all die,' and they were condemned 'in the likeness of Adam's transgression,' the divine Word saying these things not so much about some one individual as about the whole race.

For indeed, in the sequence of things said as about one person, the curse of Adam is common to all;

and the things said against the woman are not such as do not apply to her.

And the man cast out of paradise with the woman, clothed in the garments of skin which God made, on account of the transgression of men, for those who had sinned, holds a certain secret and mystical meaning, surpassing the Platonic descent of the soul, which sheds its wings and is borne down here, until it lays hold of something solid.

Then 'a certain flood and a strange ark, having all things within, and a certain dove and a crow'—as messengers, falsifying and forging the story of Deucalion;

for I do not think they expected that these things would come to light, but quite artlessly told them as myths to infant children.

And in these things, indeed, observe the unphilosophical hostility of the man toward the most ancient Scripture of the Jews.

For, not being able to malign the history concerning the flood, nor having attended to the things he could have said against the ark and its measurements—and how it was not possible, taking the matter according to the common understanding, that the ark, of three hundred cubits in length and fifty in breadth and thirty in height, contained the animals on the earth, the clean fourteen each and the unclean four each—

he simply called it 'strange, having all things within.'

...will come down to one cubit in length and breadth? And how was the structure not rather a marvel, resembling a very great city in the dimensions said in terms of its capacity—being ninety thousand in length at the base, and in breadth two thousand five hundred? And how was one not to admire the contrivance whereby it became firmly established and able to withstand a storm capable of producing a flood? For indeed it was coated firmly, not with pitch nor with any other such material, but with bitumen.

And how is it not marvelous that the living seeds of every kind were brought within by the providence of God, so that the earth might again have the seeds of all animals, God making use of a most righteous man, who was to be the father of those after the flood? Now Celsus threw out the matter concerning the dove, so as to seem to have read the book of Genesis, though he was unable to say anything to prove the account of the dove fictitious.

Then, as is his custom to recast the writings into something more ridiculous, he changed the raven into a crow, and supposes that Moses recorded these things, forging the account concerning Deucalion among the Greeks;

unless indeed he supposes that the Scripture is not even Moses's, but of several persons;

for his phrase 'falsifying and forging the story of Deucalion' indicates as much, and this also:

'For I do not think they expected that these things would come to light.'

But how could those who gave writings to a whole nation not expect that these would come to light—they who even prophesied that this religion would be proclaimed to all the nations? And when Jesus said to the Jews, 'The kingdom of God shall be taken from you and given to a nation producing the fruits thereof,' what else was He arranging than to bring forward Himself, by divine power, into the light the whole Jewish Scripture, which contains the mysteries of the kingdom of God? Then, if they read the Greek theogonies and the histories about the twelve gods, they dignify them with allegories, but if they wish to disparage our things, they say, quite artlessly, that they were mythologized for infant children.

And he speaks of a most absurd and ill-timed begetting of children, even though he did not name it—but it is plain that he means that of Abraham and Sarah.

And, casting out also the plots of brothers, he means either Cain who plotted against Abel, or, in addition to this, Esau against Jacob;

and a father's grief—perhaps that of Isaac at Jacob's departure, and perhaps also that of Jacob because Joseph was sold into Egypt.

And by 'the snares of mothers' I suppose he means to indicate Rebecca, who contrived that the blessings of Isaac should come not upon Esau but upon Jacob.

And, very near to all these things, if we say that God shares the citizenship, what absurdity do we commit in being persuaded that He never withdraws His own divinity from those who, by living well and vigorously, are devoted to Him? But he mocked the acquisition of property by Jacob from Laban, not understanding to what the words refer: 'And the unmarked ones were Laban's, but the marked ones Jacob's,' and he says that God gave to His sons little asses and sheep and camels;

and he did not see that 'All these things happened to them figuratively, and were written for our sake, upon whom the ends of the ages have come';

among whom the varied nations, becoming 'marked' by the Word of God, live as citizens, given as a possession to the one figuratively called Jacob.

For those from the nations who believe in Him were signified through the things written concerning Laban and Jacob.

And, being far from the intention of the things written, he says that God gave even wells to the righteous.

For he did not observe that the righteous do not construct cisterns but dig wells, seeking to find the inherent spring and source of good drinking waters, inasmuch as they take figuratively also the commandment which says:

'Drink waters from your own vessels and from the spring of your own wells.'

'Let not your waters overflow outside your own spring, but let your waters pass through into your own streets.'

'Let them be for you alone, and let no stranger share with you.' And in many places, making use of histories that actually occurred, the Word recorded them for the demonstration of greater things signified in deeper meaning;

the various unions of the righteous, concerning which one will more opportunely make things clear in the exegetical works upon those very passages.

And that wells were constructed in the land of the Philistines by the righteous, as is recorded in Genesis, is plain from the wonderful wells, worthy of being recorded, shown in Ascalon, on account of the strange and singular character of their construction as compared with the rest of the wells.

And that brides and handmaids are to be referred to figurative interpretation is not something we ourselves teach, but we have received it from of old from wise men;

one of whom said, rousing the hearer to figurative interpretation:

'Tell me, you who read the law, do you not hear the law? For it is written that Abraham had two sons, one by the bondwoman and one by the free woman.'

'But the one by the bondwoman was born according to the flesh, while the one by the free woman through the promise.'

'Which things are allegorized;

for these are two covenants, the one from Mount Sinai, bearing children unto bondage, which is Hagar;

But the Jerusalem above,' he says, 'is free, which is the mother of us all.'

And whoever wishes to take up the Epistle to the Galatians will learn in what manner the matters concerning the marriages and the unions of the handmaids have been allegorized, the Word wishing that we too should emulate, not the deeds reckoned as bodily of those who did these things, but, as the apostles of Jesus are accustomed to call them, the spiritual ones.

But he ought, having accepted the love of truth of those who recorded the divine Scriptures—who did not conceal even the things that appear unseemly—to have been led on, concerning the rest and the more paradoxical matters as well, to regard them as not fabricated; yet he did the opposite, and called the matters concerning Lot and his daughters—neither examining them according to the letter nor searching them out according to the higher meaning—more lawless than the evils of Thyestes.

Now the matters of the figurative interpretation of this passage it is not necessary now to state—what Sodom is, and what is the word spoken by the angels to him who was being saved from there, who said:

'Do not look behind you, nor stand in all the surrounding country;

flee to the mountain, lest you be swept away'—and who Lot is, and who his wife is, who became a pillar of salt because she turned back, and who his daughters are, who made their father drunk that they might become mothers from him;

but come, let us briefly offer some consolation concerning the apparent unseemliness in the literal history.

The Greeks too inquired into the nature of goods and evils and things indifferent;

and those of them who hit the mark place goods and evils in choice alone, and say that all things examined apart from choice are, by their own definition, indifferent;

and that choice, using these things rightly, is praiseworthy, but using them wrongly, is blameworthy.

I have said, then, in the discussion concerning things indifferent, that to unite with one's daughters is, by its own definition, an indifferent thing, even though one ought not to do such a thing in established commonwealths.

And for the sake of an illustration, to establish that such a thing is indifferent, they have taken the case of the wise man left alone with his only daughter, the whole human race having perished, and they inquire whether the father will fittingly unite with his daughter, in order that, on that hypothesis, the whole human race might not perish through her.

Are these things, then, soundly said among the Greeks, and does the not-to-be-despised school of the Stoics advocate them;

but when daughters, having learned but not clearly grasped the doctrine concerning the conflagration of the world, and seeing fire that had consumed their city and country, supposing that a living seed of the human race had been left in their father and themselves, should wish, on account of such a supposition, to refound the world—are they to be reckoned inferior to the wise man of the Stoic hypothesis, who fittingly unites with his daughters in the destruction of all men? Yet I am not unaware that some, taking offense at the intention of Lot's daughters, have supposed the deed to be unholy, and have said that from unholy unions there arose accursed nations, that of the Moabites and that of the Ammonites.

And in truth the divine Scripture is not found clearly approving such a thing as having been well done, nor charging and blaming it;

however the deed may stand, it is referred to figurative interpretation, yet has also some defense in its own right.

And Celsus casts out the hatred—I suppose, of Esau toward Jacob, a man acknowledged by the Scripture to be base;

and, not clearly setting out the matters concerning Simeon and Levi, who avenged the outrage upon their sister, who had been violated by the son of the king of the Shechemites, he blames them;

and he speaks of brothers selling, namely the sons of Jacob, and of a brother being sold, Joseph, and of a father being deceived, Jacob, since, suspecting nothing concerning his sons when they showed Joseph's many-colored coat but trusting them, he mourned for Joseph as dead, while he was serving as a slave in Egypt.

But observe in what manner Celsus, hostilely and not with love of truth, gathered together the things from history;

so that, where the history seemed to him to contain an accusation, he sets it out, but where there was a display of noteworthy self-control—Joseph not yielding to the lust of his supposed mistress, who at one time entreated, at another threatened—he made no mention at all of the history.

For we would see Joseph far better than the things recorded about Bellerophon, choosing to be shut up in prison rather than to forsake his chastity;

at any rate, though able to defend himself and to plead his case against his accuser, he magnanimously kept silent, committing his affairs to God.

After this Celsus, for decency's sake, with all obscurity recalls the dreams of the chief cupbearer and the chief baker and of Pharaoh, and their interpretation, by which Joseph was brought up from prison to be entrusted by Pharaoh with the second throne over the Egyptians.

What absurdity, then, did the account of the history have, even in itself, that he who entitled his work 'A True Discourse'—not setting forth doctrines but accusing Christians and Jews—placed these things in the category of accusation? And he says that the one who had been sold did a favor to his brothers, who, being famished, had been sent on a trading errand with their asses—things which Celsus did not even establish.

And he sets down the recognition scene too, I do not know with what purpose, nor what absurdity he is indicating from the recognition;

for not even Momus himself, so to speak, could reasonably bring an accusation against these things, which, even apart from figurative interpretation, have much that is attractive.

And he sets down also Joseph, sold as a slave, being set free and returning with a procession to his father's tomb, and he supposes that the account contains an accusation, saying:

'By whom'—plainly meaning Joseph—'the splendid and god-favored race of the Jews, having been scattered in multitude in Egypt, was commanded to sojourn somewhere outside and to tend flocks in the despised places.'

And he added, out of his own hateful disposition, that they were commanded to tend flocks 'in despised places,' not establishing how Goshen, the district of the Egyptians, is despised.

And the exodus of the people from Egypt he called a flight, not even recalling at all the things written in Exodus concerning the going forth of the Hebrews from the land of Egypt.

But we have set out these things too, showing that Celsus placed even the things that appear, not even according to the letter, worthy of accusation, in the category of accusation and idle chatter, not establishing by argument what he supposes to be vicious in our Scripture.

Then, as one who has given himself over only to hating and feeling enmity toward the doctrine held by Jews and Christians, he says that even the more reasonable of the Jews and Christians allegorize these things;

and he says that, being ashamed at these things, they take refuge in allegory.

But one might say to him that, if the things according to the first interpretation must be called worthy of shame, as myths and fabrications—whether written through deeper meanings or in any other way whatsoever—

of which things ought this to be said, if not of the Greek histories? In which sons who are gods castrate fathers who are gods, and fathers who are gods devour sons who are gods, and a mother goddess gives to the father of men and gods a stone in place of a son, and a father unites with his daughter, and a wife binds fast her husband, taking as helpers for the bonds the brother of him who is bound and his daughter.

Why need one recount the absurd Greek histories concerning the gods, worthy of shame from the outset even when allegorized? Seeing that Chrysippus of Soli, who is thought to have adorned the Stoa of the philosophers with many learned writings, gives a perverse interpretation of the painting in Samos, in which Hera was depicted performing an unspeakable act upon Zeus.

For this venerable philosopher says in his own writings that matter, having received the seminal principles (logoi) of God, holds them within itself for the ordering of the universe.

For matter is, in the painting in Samos, Hera, and the god is Zeus.

And on account of these things, indeed, and on account of such myths and countless others, we are unwilling, even so far as the name, to call the God who is over all 'Zeus,' nor the sun 'Apollo,' nor the moon 'Artemis';

but practicing pure piety toward the Creator and speaking well of His fair works, we do not defile the divine even so far as the name, accepting Plato's statement in the Philebus, who was unwilling to admit pleasure to be a god.

'For my reverence, O Protarchus,' he says, 'concerning the names of the gods is of this sort.'

We, then, truly have reverence concerning the name of God and His fair works, so as not, even on the pretext of figurative interpretation, to admit any myth to the hurt of the young.

But if Celsus had read the Scripture without bias, he would not have said that our writings are not such as to admit allegory.

For from the prophecies, in which the things from history are written, it is possible to be led on, not as from mere history, but to take the histories also as written with figurative interpretation as their aim and most wisely arranged, having aimed both at the multitude of those who believe more simply and at the few who wish—or are able—to examine matters with understanding.

And if those reckoned today as 'reasonable,' according to Celsus, from among Jews and Christians, allegorized the writings, perhaps Celsus might be suspected of saying something plausible;

but since the very fathers of the doctrines and the writers themselves figuratively interpret such things, what else is to be supposed than that they were written so as to be figuratively interpreted according to the primary meaning? And we shall set forth a few out of very many, in order to show that Celsus vainly slanders the writings as not such as to admit allegory.

Now Paul, the apostle of Jesus, says:

'Is it for the oxen that God cares? Or does He say it altogether for our sake? For it was written for our sake, that he who plows ought to plow in hope, and he who threshes, in hope of partaking.' And elsewhere the same one says:

'For it is written, For this reason a man shall leave his father and mother and shall be joined to his wife, and the two shall be one flesh.'

'This mystery is great, but I speak concerning Christ and concerning the church.'

'And we know that all our fathers were under the cloud, and all passed through the sea, and all were baptized into Moses in the cloud and in the sea.' Then, interpreting the history concerning the manna, and that concerning the water recorded as having come forth marvelously from the rock, he says such things:

'And all ate the same spiritual food, and all drank the same spiritual drink;

for they drank of a spiritual rock that followed them, and the rock was Christ.' And Asaph, setting forth that the histories in Exodus and Numbers are problems and parables, as is written in the book of Psalms, when about to recall them, prefaces in this manner:

'Give heed, my people, to my law; incline your ear to the words of my mouth.'

'I will open my mouth in parables; I will utter problems from of old, things that we have heard and known, and that our fathers have told us.' But indeed, even if the law of Moses had nothing written that was signified through deeper meanings, the prophet, praying, would not have said to God:

...lying upon those who read and do not understand the things figuratively interpreted;

which veil is taken away when God grants it, whenever He hearkens to the one who has done all that lay in his own power and who, through habit, has exercised his faculties of perception unto the discernment of good and evil, and who in prayer most continually says:

'Open my eyes, and I will behold the wondrous things out of Your law.' And who, reading of a dragon living in the Egyptian river, and of the fish lurking in his scales, or of the mountains of Egypt being filled from the excrements of Pharaoh, is not at once moved to inquire who it is that fills the mountains of the Egyptians with so many foul excrements of his, and what the mountains of the Egyptians are, and what the rivers in Egypt are, concerning which the aforesaid Pharaoh boastfully says:

'The rivers are mine, and I made them'—and what is the dragon, corresponding to the rivers to be shown forth from the interpretation, and what are the fish in his scales? And what need have I to elaborate further on things that need no elaboration, concerning which is said: 'Who is wise, and shall understand these things? Or prudent, and shall know them?' And I have extended the discourse at greater length, wishing to establish that it was not soundly said by Celsus that 'the more reasonable of the Jews and Christians try somehow to allegorize these things, but they are not such as to admit any allegory, but have been quite ingenuously mythologized.'

For far more are the things of the Greeks mythologized not only most foolishly but also most impiously.

For our things have aimed also at the multitude of the simpler sort, which those who made the Greek fabrications did not guard against.

Therefore not without good reason does Plato cast out of his own republic such myths and such poems.

But it seems to me that he has even heard that there are writings containing the allegories of the law, which, had he read them, he would not have said: