Freethought & Rationalism Archive

Roger Pearse · 04-09-2007, 11:45 AM

I've been translating some parts of Cyril of Alexandria, Against Julian the Apostate book 2, and found myself reading the following. I post it as I thought that it might be interesting as an insight into ideas about how Genesis was composed, ca. 430 AD.

Quote:

20. The divine Moses does not appear before our eyes as one who composed doubtful stories, nor one who launched himself out on this road from simple ambition. He had in mind primarily to contribute to making lives led better. And in fact he did not attempt to discourse subtly on the nature of the things, by speaking about what the first principles are named, or about the elements which proceed from it; these things are, in my opinion, too obscure, and inaccessible to some minds. His goal was to form the spirits of his contemporaries with the doctrines of the truth: because they were being misled and had taken to worshipping each according to his imagination. Their extreme ignorance made them ignore the one God, God by nature, and to worship his creations. Some thought that the sky was god, others the disc of the sun; there were even some wretched enough to allot the glory of the supreme nature to the moon, the stars, the earth, to plants, to the watery element, birds, or to brute animals! They had come to this, and such a terrible sickness had affected all the inhabitants of the earth, when Moses came to their help and revealed himself as the initiator into knowledge of great value for all. He proclaimed clearly that there exists by nature only one Creator of the universe, and radically distinguished Him from all other realities which He had merely brought into being and existence. Considering what was useful, and as clearly as possible, neglecting every excessively subtle point, he restricted himself to deal only with that which was strictly essential.

21. How was it useful to him to say what is the nature of the waters, and how they were present at the beginning, or to probe the deeps and the nature of the heavens, to detour into the mode of existence of the angels? It would be difficult for anyone to cover such subjects, which I think that no one understands anyway! Would anyone even be able to do it (thanks to a knowledge lent by God, who had been there tell him), or been able to understand a so subtle speech - or rather one so inaccessible to the spirit? In fact, we find among men, at the time when the book of the very wise Moses was written, an ignorance which exceeds even that of the Greeks. That which should have made possible for those people to understand fully the glory of God was lost, it is obvious from the account, in the pit of the deepest stupidity.

Such of the book as I have done so far is here, although I don't commit to do any more.

All the best,

Roger Pearse

mountainman · 04-10-2007, 04:03 PM

It certainly makes good reading so far.

Two things I have noted:

In attempting to explain why Julian uses the term "Galilaeans"
it appears to me that Cyril was not aware of Josephus, and
Josephus' specific use of the term "Galilaeans". Is this possible?

Secondly,
I was interested to note that Cyril makes a number of references
to the neopythagorean author Porphyry, in what appears to be
a section of eminent citations:

Quote:

But our man has put Plato apart from the others, and he especially likes to linger over his doctrines. However I will say at once that Plato and Pythagoras offer more reasonable ideas about God and the cosmos than the others, because they collected their teaching or rather their knowledge during their stays in Egypt, where the very wise Moses is held in great regard, and where his doctrines are held in reverence and admiration. It is however claimed that Plato contradicted himself in his opinions, and that Aristotle, who was his disciple, not chose to adhere to the ideas of his Master, but to attack him thoroughly and to contradict him! Porphyry tells us that in expressing his ideas on the sky, Plato professed that the material part of it was composed of the four elements, the bond between them being a soul. "Also," Porphyry continues, "it is still today of a mixed nature, and it has received its name by misuse of terminology".

17. Porphyry speaks here, I believe, as an etymologist, and affirms that the sky is called 'ouranos' because it is visible [in Greek: 'oratos']: i.e. the sky was so-called because it is 'seen'. Aristotle had a different opinion on this subject ---- and how could he not, since he does not regard the sky as a compound, still less containing four elements, but considers it like a fifth type of body, independent of the first four and without anything in common with them? Plato himself, professes that the world has a soul and that it is a living being endowed with intelligence; he subordinates it to providence.

Roger Pearse · 04-11-2007, 12:48 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by mountainman

It certainly makes good reading so far.

I think so, which is why I persist. I think that book 1, which contains no direct quotes from Julian, is also interesting.

One thing that is becoming apparent is that the Loeb sequence of material by Julian is not that preserved by Cyril. I wonder if R.J.Hoffmann follows the order in the Loeb or that in the CJ?

Quote:

Two things I have noted:

In attempting to explain why Julian uses the term "Galilaeans"
it appears to me that Cyril was not aware of Josephus, and
Josephus' specific use of the term "Galilaeans". Is this possible?

I don't know whether Cyril knew all the works of Josephus; a search through his works online for the word 'Josephus' would probably tell you. The preface to the Oxford movement translation of Contra Nestorium refers to knowledge of the Jewish War.

Cyril would certainly be familiar with the idea that the inhabitants of Gallilee were called Galileans.

Quote:

Secondly, I was interested to note that Cyril makes a number of references to the neopythagorean author Porphyry, in what appears to be
a section of eminent citations:

One reason why Contra Julianum should be interesting is that it certainly contains quotations from other authors than just Julian. This is all probably down to the influence of Eusebius on all subsequent writers, with his habit of verbatim citation. Someone should do a book on how the HE affected the way that people quote things.

But Porphyry is certainly quoted in CJ. I was scanning Porphyry, De abstinentia, and as is my custom, I wanted to know how the text reached us, and scribbled a few notes on this. There are various manuscripts, all late and the text rather damaged; but there are substantial quotations of it in Eusebius, Praeparatio Evangelica and Cyril Contra Julianum, preserving a rather better text than the direct transmission. (There are also quotes in Theodoret, but these duplicate those in Eusebius and probably derive from it).

All the best,

Roger Pearse

Thread Tools	Search this Thread
Show Printable Version	Search this Thread: Advanced Search

Freethought & Rationalism Archive

The archives are read only.