12

of wisdom? For we are not speaking simply about philosophy in what we are saying now, but about the philosophy of such people. For if, according to Paul, one cannot “drink the cup of the Lord and the cup of demons,” how could one have the wisdom of God and be inspired by demons? This is not so, it is not so. For even if Paul says somewhere that “in the wisdom of God the world did not know God,” he did not call the wisdom engendered in those unwise wise men “the wisdom of God”—far from it—but rather that which was implanted by the Creator in His creations, which he who knows it to be an angel of God, recognized God who is announced through it and has true knowledge of things that are and the wisdom of God in another way, having become an expert in the wisdom of God. “For,” says the great Dionysius, “true philosophers ought to be led up through the knowledge of things that are to the cause of things that are.”

If, then, the true philosopher is led up to the cause, he who is not led up is not true, nor does he have wisdom, but rather a deceptive idol of true wisdom and a privation of wisdom, but not wisdom. How then could one call the privation of wisdom “the wisdom of God”? Besides, the demonic mind, insofar as it is mind, is good, but insofar as it uses itself wrongly, it is evil; and yet it knows the measures of the world, the passages and conjunctions and demarcations of moving things better than we, but by not using its knowledge in a God-loving way, it is a mindless and darkened mind. In the same way then, the wisdom according to the Greeks, through the wisdom of God in the (p. 102) creations, according to which He made the corruption of one thing the generation of another, by attempting to show that God is not Lord of all, nor Creator of the universe, by not perceiving that nothing comes from nothing in any way, and thus rejecting the worship of the true God and, according to the great Dionysius himself, using divine things for divine things not piously, and on account of this having become foolish and unwise, how could it be the wisdom of God? Wherefore Paul, showing us here a twofold kind of wisdom, says, “in the wisdom of God, the world through wisdom did not know God.” Do you see that he spoke of the one as the wisdom of God, and the other as mere wisdom and the cause of not knowing God? And this is the one discovered by the Greeks, other than that of God, made manifest by the duplication of the name “wisdom”. For what does this divinely wise one say as he proceeds? “But we speak the wisdom of God”; so then, are they according to him or is he according to them? Not at all; wherefore he himself, forbidding this, says, “we speak the wisdom of God among the perfect, but a wisdom not of this age, nor of the rulers of this age, who are passing away,” and “which none of the rulers of this age has known.” And this wisdom is in us in Christ Jesus, “who became for us wisdom from God.” But that wisdom was not in them, but in the creations investigated by them, whose principles they sought throughout their lives, they came somehow to a notion of God, with nature and creation furnishing no small starting-points, and the demons not demonically preventing it; for how could they have been considered gods if the notion of God had in no way entered the human mind?

Therefore they came to a notion of God by having examined the nature of perceptible things, but not one that was worthy and befitting the (p. 104) blessed nature; “for their foolish heart was darkened” by the evil demons who initiated them with evil contrivances; for how could these have been considered gods, how could they have been believed while teaching polytheism, if a notion of God worthy of Him had appeared to their mind? For this reason those who laid hold of that unintelligent and foolish wisdom and uninstructed instruction lied against both God and nature, raising the one to sovereignty, and bringing down the one who has sovereignty, as far as it depended on them, and ascribing the divine name to demons, and being so far from finding the knowledge of things that are, which was their task and pursuit, that they called inanimate things animate, and moreover said they partook of a soul better than ours, and irrational things rational, for of the

12

σοφίας; Οὐ γάρ περί φιλοσοφίας ἡμεῖς ἁπλῶς λέγομεν ἅττα λέγομεν νῦν, ἀλλά περί τῆς τῶν τοιούτων φιλοσοφίας. Εἰ γάρ καί κατά Παῦλον οὐ δύναταί τις «ποτήριον Κυρίου πίνειν καί ποτήριον δαιμονίων», πῶς ἄν δυνηθείη τις Θεοῦ σοφίαν ἔχειν καί ὑπό δαιμόνων ἐμπνεῖσθαι; Οὐκ ἔστι τοῦτο, οὐκ ἔστιν. Εἰ γάρ καί Παῦλος ἔστιν οὗ φησιν ὡς «ἐν σοφίᾳ τοῦ Θεοῦ οὐκ ἔγνω ὁ κόσμος τόν Θεόν», οὐ τήν ἐν τοῖς ἀσόφοις ἐκείνοις ἐγγεγενημένην σοφοῖς «Θεοῦ σοφίαν» ἐκάλεσεν, ἄπαγε, τήν δ᾿ ἐγκαταβεβλημένην ὑπό τοῦ κτίστου τοῖς κτίσμασιν, ἥν ὁ γνούς ἄγγελον οὖσαν Θεοῦ, Θεόν ἐπέγνω τόν δι᾿ αὐτῆς ἀγγελλόμενον καί γνῶσιν ἔχει τῶν ὄντων ἀληθῆ καί Θεοῦ σοφίαν τρόπον ἕτερον, Θεοῦ σοφίας ἐπιγνώμων γενόμενος. «Ἐχρῆν γάρ», φησίν ὁ μέγας ∆ιονύσιος, «διά τῆς γνώσεως τῶν ὄντων πρός τόν αἴτιον τῶν ὄντων ἀνάγεσθαι τούς γε ἀληθεῖς φιλοσόφους».

Εἰ γοῦν ὁ ἀληθής φιλόσοφος ἀνάγεται πρός τόν αἴτιον, ὁ μή ἀναγόμενος οὐκ ἀληθής, οὐδ᾿ ἔχων σοφίαν, ἀλλ᾿ οἷον σοφίας ἀληθινῆς ἀπατηλόν εἴδωλον καί στέρησιν σοφίας, ἀλλ᾿ οὐ σοφίαν. Τήν γοῦν τῆς σοφίας στέρησιν, πῶς ἄν εἴη «Θεοῦ σοφίαν» προσεπεῖν; Ἄλλως τε καί ὁ δαιμόνιος νοῦς, ᾗ νοῦς, καλόν, ᾗ δ᾿ ἑαυτῷ κακῶς χρῆται, πονηρόν˙ καίτοι μέτρα κόσμου, διεξόδους τε καί συνόδους καί διορισμούς τῶν κινουμένων κρεῖττον οἶδεν ἠ καθ᾿ ἡμᾶς, μή θεοφιλῶς δέ τῇ γνώσει χρώμενος, νοῦς ἐστιν ἄνους καί ἐσκοτισμένος. Τόν ἴσον ἄρα τρόπον καί ἡ καθ᾿ Ἕλληνας σοφία διά τῆς ἐν τοῖς (σελ. 102) κτίσμασι Θεοῦ σοφίας, καθ᾿ ἥν τήν ἑτέρου φθοράν γένεσιν ἐποίησεν ἑτέρου, πειρωμένη δεῖξαι τόν Θεόν οὐ τῶν ὅλων Κύριον, οὐδέ κτίστην τοῦ παντός, τῷ μή συνορᾶν μηδέν ἐκ μηδαμῇ μηδαμῶς γινόμενον καί οὕτω τό τοῦ ὄντως Θεοῦ ἀποσαμένη σέβας καί τοῖς θείοις οὐχ ὁσίως, κατ᾿ αὐτόν τόν μέγαν ∆ιονύσιον ἐπί τά θεῖα χρησαμένη καί παρά τοῦτο μωρά καί ἄσοφος γεγονυῖα, πῶς ἄν εἴη Θεοῦ σοφία. ∆ιό καί ὁ Παῦλος διττόν ἡμῖν ἐνταυθοῖ δεικνύς τό τῆς σοφίας εἶδος, «ἐν σοφίᾳ», φησί, «Θεοῦ, διά τῆς σοφίας οὐκ ἔγνω ὁ κόσμος τόν Θεόν». Ὁρᾷς ὅτι τήν μέν σοφίαν εἶπε τοῦ Θεοῦ, τήν δέ ψιλήν σοφίαν καί αἰτίαν τοῦ μή γνῶναι τόν Θεόν; Αὕτη δέ ἐστιν ἡ τοῖς Ἕλλησιν ἐξευρημένη, παρά τήν τοῦ Θεοῦ ἑτέρα, τῷ διπλασιασμῷ τοῦ τῆς «σοφίας» ὀνόματος φανερωθεῖσα. Τί γάρ καί προϊών φησιν οὗτος ὁ θεόσοφος; «Ἡμεῖς δέ λαλοῦμεν Θεοῦ σοφίαν»˙ ἄρ᾿ οὖν ἤ ἐκεῖνοι κατά τοῦτον ἤ οὗτος κατ᾿ αὐτούς; Οὐμενοῦν˙ διό καί αὐτός τοῦτ᾿ ἀπαγορεύων, «σοφίαν» φησίν, «Θεοῦ λαλοῦμεν ἐν τοῖς τελείος, σοφίαν δέ οὐ τοῦ αἰῶνος τούτου, οὐδέ τῶν ἀρχόντων τοῦ αἰῶνος τούτου τῶν καταργουμένων» καί «ἥν οὐδείς τῶν ἀρχόντων τοῦ αἰῶνος τούτου ἔγνωκεν». Αὕτη δ᾿ ἡ σοφία ἐν ἡμῖν ἐστινἐν Χριστῷ Ἰησοῦ, «ὅς ἐγενήθη ἡμῖν σοφία ἀπό Θεοῦ». Ἐκείνη δ᾿ ἐν ἐκείνοις οὐκ ἦν, ἀλλ᾿ ἐν τοῖς ὑπ᾿ ἐκείνων ἐρευνωμένοις κτίσμασιν, ὧν τούς λόγους ἐζητηκότες διά βίου, ἦλθον μέν πως εἰς ἔννοιαν Θεοῦ, τῆς μέν φύσεως καί τῆς κτίσεως ἀφορμάς χορηγούσης οὐ μικράς, τῶν δέ δαιμόνων δαιμονίως οὐκ ἀπειργόντων˙ πῶς γάρ ἄν θεοί ἐνομίσθησαν μηδαμῶς Θεοῦ ἐννοίας τήν ἀνθρωπίνην εἰσελθούσης διάνοιαν;

Οὐκοῦν ἦλθον μέν εἰς ἔννοιαν ἐκεῖνοι Θεοῦ τήν τῶν αἰσθητῶν φύσιν ἐξητακότες, ἀλλ᾿ οὐχί τήν ἀξίαν καί τῇ (σελ. 104) μακαρίᾳ φύσει προσήκουσαν˙ «ἐσκοτίσθη γάρ ἡ ἀσύνετος αὐτῶν καρδία» ὑπό τῶν κακομηχάνως μυούντων πονηρῶν δαιμόνων˙ πῶς γάρ ἄν οὗτοι θεοί ἐνομίσθησαν, πῶς δ᾿ ἄν ἐπιστεύθησαν πολυθεΐαν διδάσκοντες, ἀξίας Θεοῦ ἐννοίας ἐπιφαινομένης τῇ διανοίᾳ; ∆ιά τοῦτο οἱ τῆς ἀνοήτου καί μωρᾶς σοφίας ἐκείνης καί ἀπαιδεύτου παιδείας ἐπειλημμένοι καί Θεοῦ καί φύσεως κατεψεύσαντο, τήν μέν εἰς δεσποτείαν ἀναγαγόντες, τόν δέ τῆς δεσποτείας, τό γε εἰς αὐτούς ἧκον, κατενεγκόντες, δαίμοσί τε τό θεῖον ἐπιφημίσαντες ὄνομα καί τήν τῶν ὄντων γνῶσιν εὑρεῖν, ὅ προὔργου καί διά σπουδῆς ἦν αὐτοῖς, τοσούτου δεήσαντες, ὡς ἔμψυχα μέν εἰπεῖν τά ἄψυχα, πρός δέ καί κρείττονος ἤ τῆς καθ᾿ ἡμᾶς μετειληχέναι ψυχῆς, λογικά δέ τά ἄλογα, τῆς γάρ