Chapter XXII.—Studied ambiguity of Plato.

Plato accordingly having learned this in Egypt, and being greatly taken with what was said about one God, did indeed consider it unsafe to mention the name of Moses, on account of his teaching the doctrine of one only God, for he dreaded the Areopagus; but what is very well expressed by him in his elaborate treatise, the Timæus, he has written in exact correspondence with what Moses said regarding God, though he has done so, not as if he had learned it from him, but as if he were expressing his own opinion. For he said, “In my opinion, then, we must first define what that is which exists eternally, and has no generation,45    That is, “is not produced or created; has no birth.” and what that is which is always being generated, but never really is.” Does not this, ye men of Greece, seem to those who are able to understand the matter to be one and the same thing, saving only the difference of the article? For Moses said, “He who is,” and Plato, “That which is.” But either of the expressions seems to apply to the ever-existent God. For He is the only one who eternally exists, and has no generation. What, then, that other thing is which is contrasted with the ever-existent, and of which he said, “And what that is which is always being generated, but never really is,” we must attentively consider. For we shall find him clearly and evidently saying that He who is unbegotten is eternal, but that those that are begotten and made are generated and perish46    Or, “are born and die.” —as he said of the same class, “gods of gods, of whom I am maker”—for he speaks in the following words: “In my opinion, then, we must first define what that is which is always existent and has no birth, and what that is which is always being generated but never really is. The former, indeed, which is apprehended by reflection combined with reason, always exists in the same way;47    κατὰ ταὐτά “according to the same things,” i.e., in eternal immutability. while the latter, on the other hand, is conjectured by opinion formed by the perception of the senses unaided by reason, since it never really is, but is coming into being and perishing.” These expressions declare to those who can rightly understand them the death and destruction of the gods that have been brought into being. And I think it necessary to attend to this also, that Plato never names him the creator, but the fashioner48    Or, “demiurge or maker.” of the gods, although, in the opinion of Plato, there is considerable difference between these two. For the creator creates the creature by his own capability and power, being in need of nothing else; but the fashioner frames his production when he has received from matter the capability for his work.

Ταῦτα τοίνυν ἐν Αἰγύπτῳ μαθὼν ὁ Πλάτων, καὶ σφόδρα ἀρεσθεὶς τοῖς περὶ ἑνὸς θεοῦ εἰρημένοις, τοῦ μὲν ὀνόματος Μωϋσέως, διὰ τὸ ἕνα καὶ μόνον διδάσκειν θεόν, μνημονεῦσαι παρ' Ἀθηναίοις οὐκ ἀσφαλὲς ἡγεῖτο, δεδιὼς τὸν Ἄρειον πάγον, τὸ δὲ καλῶς εἰρημένον ὑπ' αὐτοῦ οὐχ ὡς παρ' ἐκείνου μαθών, ἀλλ' ὡς ἑαυτοῦ ἐκτιθέμενος δόξαν ἐν τῷ ἐσπουδασμένῳ αὐτοῦ λόγῳ Τιμαίῳ, ἐν ᾧ καὶ θεολογεῖν ἐπιχείρει, τὸ αὐτὸ ὃ καὶ περὶ θεοῦ Μωϋσῆς γέγραφεν. Ἔφη γάρ: Ἔστιν οὖν κατ' ἐμὴν δόξαν διαιρετέον πρῶτον, τί τὸ ὂν ἀεί, γένεσιν δὲ οὐκ ἔχον, καὶ τί τὸ γινόμενον μὲν ἀεί, ὂν δὲ οὐδέποτε. Τοῦτο, ὦ ἄνδρες Ἕλληνες, τοῖς νοεῖν δυναμένοις οὐ δοκεῖ ἓν καὶ ταὐτὸν εἶναι, τῷ ἄρθρῳ μόνῳ διαλλάττον; Ὁ μὲν γὰρ Μωϋσῆς ὁ ὢν ἔφη, ὁ δὲ Πλάτων τὸ ὄν. Ἑκάτερον δὲ τῶν εἰρημένων τῷ ἀεὶ ὄντι θεῷ προσήκειν φαίνεται: αὐτὸς γάρ ἐστι μόνος ὁ ἀεὶ ὤν, γένεσιν δὲ μὴ ἔχων. Τί τοίνυν ἐστὶν ἕτερον τὸ τῷ ἀεὶ ὄντι ἀντιδιαστελλόμενον, περὶ οὗ αὐτὸς ἔφη: Καὶ τί τὸ γινόμενον μὲν ἀεί, ὂν δὲ οὐδέποτε, ἀκριβῶς σκοπεῖν προσήκει. Εὑρήσομεν γὰρ αὐτὸν σαφῶς καὶ φανερῶς τὸν μὲν ἀγένητον ἀΐδιον εἶναι λέγοντα, τοὺς δὲ γενητοὺς ἢ δημιουργητοὺς (ὡς αὐτὸς περὶ τῶν αὐτῶν εἰρῆσθαι ἔφη: Θεοὶ θεῶν, ὧν ἐγὼ δημιουργός) γινομένους καὶ ἀπολλυμένους. Οὕτω τοῦτο γὰρ αὐτὸς λέγει: Ἔστιν οὖν κατ' ἐμὴν δόξαν πρῶτον διαιρετέον, τί τὸ ὂν ἀεί, γένεσιν δὲ οὐκ ἔχον, καὶ τί τὸ γινόμενον, ὂν δὲ οὐδέποτε. Τὸ μὲν οὖν νοήσει μετὰ τοῦ λόγου περιληπτόν, ἀεὶ κατὰ ταὐτὰ ὄν, τὸ δ' αὖ δόξῃ μετ' αἰσθήσεως ἀλόγου δοξαστόν, γινόμενον καὶ ἀπολλύμενον, ὂν δὲ οὐδέποτε. Ταῦτα τὰ ῥητὰ τοῖς ὀρθῶς νοεῖν δυναμένοις ἀναίρεσιν καὶ ἀπώλειαν τῶν γενομένων κηρύττει θεῶν. Ἀναγκαῖον δὲ οἶμαι καὶ τούτῳ προσέχειν τὸν νοῦν, ὅτι οὐδὲ ποιητὴν αὐτὸν ὁ Πλάτων ἀλλὰ δημιουργὸν ὀνομάζει θεῶν, καίτοι πολλῆς διαφορᾶς ἐν τούτοις οὔσης κατὰ τὴν αὐτοῦ Πλάτωνος δόξαν: ὁ μὲν γὰρ ποιητής, οὐδενὸς ἑτέρου προσδεόμενος, ἐκ τῆς ἑαυτοῦ δυνάμεως καὶ ἐξουσίας ποιεῖ τὸ ποιούμενον, ὁ δὲ δημιουργός, τὴν τῆς δημιουργίας δύναμιν ἐκ τῆς ὕλης εἰληφώς, κατασκευάζει τὸ γινόμενον.