But it somehow seems to me now, I said, that the doctrine of the Resurrection necessarily comes on for our discussion; a doctrine which I think is even at first sight true as well as credible117    ἰδεῖν…ἵνα μὴ ἀμφιβάλλη. This is the reading of the Paris Editt.: ἰδεῖν seems to go closely with ἀληθὲς: so that Krabinger’s δεῖν is not absolutely necessary., as it is told us in Scripture; so that that will not come in question between us: but since the weakness of the human understanding is strengthened still farther by any arguments that are intelligible to us, it would be well not to leave this part of the subject, either, without philosophical examination. Let us consider, then, what ought to be said about it.

_Γ. Ἀλλ' ἔοικέ πως, εἶπον, ἐξ ἀκολουθίας ἡμῖν τὸ δόγμα τῆς ἀναστάσεως ἐπεισεληλυθέναι τῷ λόγῳ, ὅ μοι δοκεῖ ἰδεῖν ἀληθὲς μὲν καὶ πιστὸν ἐκ τῆς τῶν Γραφῶν διδασκαλίας, ἵνα μὴ ἀμφιβάλλῃ: ἐπειδὴ πῶς ἡ ἀσθένεια τῆς ἀνθρωπίνης διανοίας, τοῖς χωρητοῖς ἡμῖν λογισμοῖς, μᾶλλον πρὸς τοιαύτην πίστιν ἐπιστηρίζεται, καλῶς ἂν ἔχοι μηδὲ τοῦτο τὸ μέρος παραδραμεῖν ἀθεώρητον. Τί οὖν χρὴ λέγειν, περισκεψώμεθα.