Saturday, November 2, 2013


PORPHYRY OF TYRE (circa. 234-305 C.E.): “...Let us explore completely this matter of THE MONARCHY OF THE ONLY GOD and the manifold rule of those who are revered as gods. Your [the Christian] idea of THE [ MON-ARCHY ] SINGLE RULE is amiss, FOR A MONARCH IS NOT THE ONLY MAN ALIVE BUT THE ONLY MAN WHO RULES. He rules, obviously, over his kinsmen and those like himself. Take for example the emperor Hadrian: he was a monarch because he ruled over those who were like him by race and nature - not because he existed alone somewhere or lorded it over oxen and sheep, as some poor shepherd might do. In the same way: the supreme God would not be supreme unless he ruled over other gods. Only this sort of power would do justice to the greatness of God and redound to his honor...” - (Book 4, Chapter 20, “Against the Christians,” quoted in Macarius, “Apocriticus,” 4.20, as found in Pages 83-84 “Porphyry, Porphyry's Against the Christians, the Literary Remains,” Edited by R. Joseph Hoffman, Prometheus Books, 1994.)

PORPHYRY OF TYRE (circa. 234-305 C.E.): “...But let us make a thorough investigation concerning THE [ MON-ARCHY ] SINGLE RULE{291} OF THE ONLY GOD and the manifold rule of those who are worshipped as gods. You do not know how to expound the doctrine even of THE SINGLE RULE. FOR A MONARCH IS NOT ONE WHO IS ALONE IN HIS EXISTENCE, BUT WHO IS ALONE IN HIS RULE. Clearly he rules over those who are his fellow-tribesmen, men like himself, just as the Emperor Hadrian was a monarch, not because he existed alone, nor because he ruled over oxen and sheep (over which herdsmen or shepherds rule), but because he ruled over men who shared his race and possessed the same nature. Likewise God would not properly be called a monarch, unless He ruled over other gods; for this would befit His divine greatness and His heavenly and abundant honour...” - (Book 4, Chapter 20, “Against the Christians,” quoted in Macarius, “Apocriticus,” 4.20, as found in “Translations of Christian Literature,” Series 1, Greek Texts “The Apocriticus of Macarius Magnes,” by T. W. Crafer, D.D. Society For Promoting Christian Knowledge, London, The Macmillan Company, New York, 1919.)
[FOOTNOTE 290]: This objection and the next, and also the answers contained in chapters xxvi., xxvii., and xxviii. are quoted by Nicephorus, in his Antirrhetica, and are to be found in D. Pitra's Spicil. Solesm. t. I. p. 309 et seq. See Introd., pp. x, xi, xxvii. One interest of Nicephorus lies in the difference of his text from the Athens MS. The most notable in this chapter occurs in the first sentence, where he omits the words Gk., ( TOU MONOU THEOU KAI ) tou~ mo&nou qeou~ kai\ th~j poluarxi/aj.
[FOOTNOTE 291]: The word Monarchia Gk., ( MONARCHIA ) seems to require translating thus, in order to bring it into contrast with the Gk., ( POLUARCHIA ) which follows.


PHILO JUDAEUS (circa. 20 B.C.E-50 C.E.): “...Why does (Scripture) say, as if (speaking) of another god, "in the image of God He made man" AND NOT "IN HIS OWN IMAGE"? Most excellently and veraciously this oracle was given by God. For nothing mortal can be made in the likeness of THE MOST HIGH ONE AND FATHER OF THE UNIVERSE but (only) in that of the second god who is his Logos. For it was right that the rational part fo the human soul should be formed as an impression by the divine Logos, since THE PRE-LOGOS GOD IS SUPERIOR to every rational nature. But HE WHO IS ABOVE the Logos exists in the best and in a special form – what thing that comes into being can rightly bear His likeness? Moreover, Scripture wishes to show that God most justly avenges the virtuous and decent men because they have a certain kinship with His Logos, of which the human mind is a likeness and image...” - (Book 2, Chapter/Section 62, “Questions In Genesis,” also Eusebius of Caesarea Book 7, Chapter 13, Section 1, “Prep. Evang.,” Page 150, Philo Supplement 1, Translation by R. Marcus, quoted on Page 164, Part 3, The Extra-Rabbinic Evidence and Conclusions, Chapter 9, Philo, “Two Powers in Heaven: Early Rabbinic Reports About Christianity and Gnosticism,” By Alan F. Segal 1977.)
[FOOTNOTE]: Compare Somn. 2.45 “...[God] stamped [Heb. 1:3] the entire universe with His image and an ideal form, even His own word [or to/by-the of-Him-self Logos]...” also Compare Leg. 3:96 “...just as God is the Patern ( of ) the image … even so the image [Gk., ( EIKWN )] becomes the pattern of other beings...” Compare also Opif. 36 “...Now that the incorporeal cosmos had been completed and established [Prov. 8:22 LXX] in the divine Logos, the sense-perceptible cosmos began to be formed as perfect offspring, with the incorporeal serving as model...” (On the Creation 54, trans. Runia) Compare also Somn. 2.45 “...the substance of the universe was without shape and figure, God gave it these ; when it had no definite character God molded it into definiteness, and when He had perfected it, ( stamped ) the entire universe with His image and ideal form, even His own word...” (PLCL) see

PHILO JUDAEUS (circa. 20 B.C.E-50 C.E.): “...Why as if speaking of another God does He say, “In the image of God I made man,”{63} and not in the image of Himself? With consummate beauty and wisdom is this oracle expressed. For nothing mortal could be made in the likeness of THE MOST HIGH GOD AND FATHER OF THE UNIVERSE, but in the likeness of the second God, who is the Word of the former. For it was right that the rational character in the soul of man should be impressed on it by the divine Word; since the God who is PRIOR TO the Word IS SUPERIOR TO every rational nature; and it was not lawful for any created thing to be made like TO HIM WHO IS SET ABOVE the Word in THE MOST excellent and unique nature...” - (Book 7, Chapter 13, Section 1, “Praeparatio Evangelica,” or “Preparation for the Gospel,” Eusebius of Caesarea, Translated by E.H. Gifford 1903.)
[FOOTNOTE 62]: Philo Iudaeus, a Fragment preserved by Eusebius alone
[FOOTNOTE 63]: Gen. ix. 6