Basilides

[MrMacSon]

.
There have been a few recent posts mentioning 'Basilides' [Greek - Basilides = King's son] -

• http://www.earlywritings.com/forum/view ... des#p48961
  
  http://www.earlywritings.com/forum/view ... 997#p49997
  
  http://www.earlywritings.com/forum/view ... 007#p50007
  
  http://www.earlywritings.com/forum/view ... des#p50677
  
  • citing Irenaeus, Against Heresies 3.2.1-3:

    [they allege] that the truth was not delivered by means of written documents, but vivâ voce: wherefore also Paul declared, "But we speak wisdom among those that are perfect, but not the wisdom of this world." And this wisdom each one of them alleges to be the fiction of his own inventing, forsooth; so that, according to their idea, the truth properly resides at one time in Valentinus, at another in Marcion, at another in Cerinthus, then afterwards in Basilides, or has even been indifferently in any other opponent, who could speak nothing pertaining to salvation. For every one of these men, being altogether of a perverse disposition, depraving the system of truth, is not ashamed to preach himself.

We are often told or led to believe that Basilides was variably either an early Christian or a Gnostic-Christian religious teacher in Alexandria, Egypt, who taught from 117 to 138 AD. It is often claimed he inherited his teachings from Matthew. Clement said he was a pupil of 'an interpreter of Peter named Glaucias' (Stromata Bk 7, chap 17); and Eusebius said he was a pupil of Menander.

• http://www.newworldencyclopedia.org/entry/Basilides
  
  http://hermetic.com/sabazius/basilides.htm

Is there more than one Basilides in antiquity? Have two or more Basilides been conflated?


Here's a few mentions of the name in antiquity: starting with Tacitus Histories where the name is associated with Vespasian in a couple of events (~68-70 AD/CE), (also documented by Suetonius); and somewhat associated with some other theology-related events.

Tacitus Histories, 2.78 (as an interesting aside, note the reference to omens, the cypress tree, & prophesy in the first part)-

78. After this [rousing] speech from Mucianus [Hist 2.76-77], the other officers crowded round Ve spasian with fresh confidence, encouraging him, and reminding him of the responses of prophets and the movements of the heavenly bodies. Nor was Vespasian proof against this superstition, for afterwards, when master of the world, he openly retained one Seleucus, an astrologer, to direct his counsels, and to foretell the future. Old omens now recurred to his thoughts. A cypress tree of remarkable height on his estate had suddenly fallen, and rising again the following day on the very same spot, had flourished with majestic beauty and even broader shade. This, as the Haruspices agreed, was an omen of brilliant success, and the highest distinction seemed prophesied to Vespasian in early youth. At first, however, the honours of a triumph, his consulate, and the glory of his victories in Judaea, appeared to have justified the truth of the omen. When he had won these distinctions, he began to believe that it portended the Imperial power.

Between Judaea and Syria is Mount Carmel; this is the name both of the mountain and the Deity. They have no image of the god nor any temple; the tradition of antiquity recognises only an altar and its sacred association. While Vespasian was there offering sacrifice and pondering his secret hopes, Basilides the priest, after repeated inspections of the entrails, said to him,

• "Whatever be your purposes, Vespasian, whether you think of building a house, of enlarging your estate, or augmenting the number of your slaves, there is given you a vast habitation, boundless territory, a multitude of men."

These obscure intimations popular rumour had at once caught up, and now began to interpret. Nothing was more talked about by the common people. In Vespasian's presence the topic was more frequently discussed, because to the aspirant himself men have more to say.

79. With purposes no longer doubtful they parted, Mucianus for Antioch, Vespasian for Caesarea. These cities are the capitals of Syria and Judaea respectively. The initiative in transferring the Empire to Vespasian was taken at Alexandria under the prompt direction of Tiberius Alexander, who on the 1st of July made the legions swear allegiance to him. That day was ever after celebrated as the first of his reign, though the army of Judaea on July 3rd took the oath to Vespasian in person with such eager alacrity that they would not wait for the return of his son Titus, who was then on his way back from Syria, acting as the medium between Mucianus and his father for the communication of their plans. All this was done by the impulsive action of the soldiers without the preliminary of a formal harangue or any concentration of the legions.

http://www.sacred-texts.com/cla/tac/h02070.htm

via http://carrington-arts.com/cliff/FlavSyn.htm

There is concurrence with this account of Tacitus, in less words, by Suetonius in Life of Vespasian, 5 -

In Judea, Vespasian consulted the God of Carmel and was given a promise that he would never be disappointed in what he planned or desired, however lofty his ambitions.

• Interestingly, Josephus was in the company of Vespasian at the time of the Carmel affair*: why did he not mention it? Even though Josephus wrote well after the event, like Tacitus & Seutonius, he could have included the story but did not. Perhaps he wanted to stress his own contribution to Vespasian’s success? -- http://carrington-arts.com/cliff/FlavSyn.htm
  
  * https://www.academia.edu/396910/A_Heali ... ianic_Rome
  
  After Seutonius mentions the ‘God of Carmel’, he goes on to mention the prophecy of Josphus in the next sentence. -
  
  Life of Vespasian, 5.

  Also, a distinguished Jewish prisoner of Vespasian’s, Josephus by name, insisted that he would soon be released by the very man who had now put him in fetters, and who would then be emperor. [And they were, see Josephus’ account in War 4. 10. 3].

Moving on a couple of books of Histories; Hist. 4.81 is about Vespasian healing the blind-man and the man with the diseased hand: both men are said to have sought Vespasian's counsel under the 'advice' of the God Serapis -

81. In the months during which Vespasian was waiting at Alexandria for the periodical return of the summer gales and settled weather at sea, many wonders occurred which seemed to point him out as the object of the favour of heaven and of the partiality of the Gods. One of the common people of Alexandria, well known for his blindness, threw himself at the Emperor's knees, and implored him with groans to heal his infirmity. This he did by the advice of the God Serapis, whom this nation, devoted as it is to many superstitions, worships more than any other divinity. He begged Vespasian that he would deign to moisten his cheeks and eye-balls with his spittle. Another with a diseased hand, at the counsel of the same God, prayed that the limb might feet the print of a Caesar's foot. At first Vespasian ridiculed and repulsed them. They persisted; and he, though on the one hand he feared the scandal of a fruitless attempt, yet, on the other, was induced by the entreaties of the men and by the language of his flatterers to hope for success. At last he ordered that the opinion of physicians should be taken, as to whether such blindness and infirmity were within the reach of human skill. They discussed the matter from different points of view. "In the one case," they said, "the faculty of sight was not wholly destroyed, and might return, if the obstacies were removed; in the other case, the limb, which had fallen into a diseased condition, might be restored, if a healing influence were applied; such, perhaps, might be the pleasure of the Gods, and the Emperor might be chosen to be the minister of the divine will; at any rate, all the glory of a successful remedy would be Caesar's, while the ridicule of failure would fall on the sufferers." And so Vespasian, supposing that all things were possible to his good fortune, and that nothing was any longer past belief, with a joyful countenance, amid the intense expectation of the multitude of bystanders, accomplished what was required. The hand was instantly restored to its use, and the light of day again shone upon the blind. Persons actually present attest both facts, even now when nothing is to be gained by falsehood.

Then Histories 4.82-

82. Vespasian thus came to conceive a deeper desire to visit the sanctuary of Serapis, that he might consult the God about the interests of his throne. He gave orders that all persons should be excluded from the temple. He had entered, and was absorbed in worship, when he saw behind him one of the chief men of Egypt, named Basilides, whom he knew at the time to be detained by sickness at a considerable distance, as much as several days journey from Alexandria. He enquired of the priests, whether Basilides had on this day entered the temple. He enquired of others whom he met, whether he had been seen in the city. At length, sending some horsemen, he ascertained that at that very instant the man had been eighty miles distant. He then concluded that it was a divine apparition, and discovered an oracular force in the name of Basilides.

http://www.sacred-texts.com/cla/tac/h04080.htm

Seuteonius, in Life of Vespasian, 7, again concurs, though referring to Basilides as 'a vision' of Vespasian's 'freedman'

So Vespasian began a new civil war; having sent troops ahead to Italy, he crossed into Africa and occupied Alexandria, the key to Egypt. There he dismissed his servants and entered the Temple of Serapis, alone, to consult the auspices and discover how long he would last as emperor. After many propitiatory sacrifices he turned to go, but was granted a vision of his freedman Basilides handing him the customary branches, garlands and bread - although Basilides had for a long time been nearly crippled by rheumatism and was moreover far away. Almost at once dispatches from Italy brought him news of Vitellus’s defeat at Cremona, and his assassination at Rome.

http://penelope.uchicago.edu/Thayer/E/R ... sian*.html

via http://carrington-arts.com/cliff/FlavSyn.htm

[MrMacSon]

The School of Gnosticism was divided into two major parts, commonly called the Syrian Cult and the Alexandrian Cult. These schools agreed in essentials, but the latter division was more inclined to be pantheistic, while the former was dualistic. While the Syrian cult was largely Simonian, the Alexandrian School was the outgrowth of the philosophical deductions of a clever Egyptian Christian, Basilides by name, who claimed to have received his instructions from the Apostle Matthew. Like Simon Magus, he was an emanationist, with Neo-Platonic inclinations. In fact, the entire Gnostic Mystery is based upon the hypothesis of emanations as being the logical connection between the irreconcilable opposites Absolute Spirit and Absolute Substance, which the Gnostics believed to have been coexistent in Eternity. Some assert that Basilides was the true founder of Gnosticism, but there is much evidence to the effect that Simon Magus laid down its fundamental principles in the preceding century.

The Alexandrian Basilides inculcated Egyptian Hermeticism, Oriental occultism, Chaldean astrology, and Persian philosophy in his followers and, in his doctrines, sought to unite the schools of early Christianity with the ancient pagan Mysteries*. To him is attributed the formulation of that peculiar concept of the Deity which carries the name of Abraxas ...

... Basilides [taught] that the powers of the universe were divided into 365 Æons, or spiritual cycles, and that the sum of all these together was the Supreme Father, and to Him he gave the Qabbalistical appellation Abraxas, as being symbolical, numerologically, of His divine powers, attributes, and emanations. Abraxas is usually symbolized as a composite creature, with the body of a human being and the head of a rooster, and with each of his legs ending in a serpent.

C. W. King, in his Gnostics and Their Remains, gives the following concise description of the Gnostic philosophy of Basilides, quoting from the writings of the early Christian bishop and martyr, St. Irenæus:

• "He asserted that God, the uncreated, eternal Father, had first brought forth Nous, or Mind; this the Logos, Word; this again Phronesis, Intelligence; from Phronesis sprung Sophia, Wisdom, and Dynamis, Strength."

The Gnostics declared that the Christ was not crucified, as this Divine Nous could not suffer death, but that Simon, the Cyrenian, offered his life instead and that the Nous, by means of its power, caused Simon to resemble Jesus. Irenæus makes the following statement concerning the cosmic sacrifice of the Christ:

• "When the uncreated, unnamed Father saw the corruption of mankind, He sent His firstborn, Nous, into the world, in the form of Christ, for the redemption of all who believe in Him, out of the power of those that have fabricated the world (the Demiurgus, and his six sons, the planetary genii). He appeared amongst men as the Man Jesus, and wrought miracles."

After the death of Basilides, Valentinus became the leading inspiration of the Gnostic movement. He still further complicated the system of Gnostic philosophy by adding infinitely to the details. He increased the number of emanations from the Great One (the Abyss) to fifteen pairs and also laid much emphasis on the Virgin Sophia, or Wisdom. In the Books of the Savior, parts of which are commonly known as the Pistis Sophia, may be found much material concerning this strange doctrine of Æons and their strange inhabitants. James Freeman Clarke, in speaking of the doctrines of the Gnostics, says: "These doctrines, strange as they seem to us, had a wide influence in the Christian Church."

http://www.sacred-texts.com/eso/sta/sta05.htm

* I wonder if Basilidies really "sought to unite the schools of early Christianity with the ancient pagan Mysteries" or if that is a later re-writing of history.

.

[MrMacSon]

The first direct reference to a Gospel of Basilides is ... found in Origen (c.185 – c.254), who reports;

• The Church has four Gospels. Heretics have many. One of them is entitled ‘According to the Egyptians’, another is ‘According to the twelve apostles’. Basilides too dared to write a ‘Gospel according to Basilides' .[6][7]

Origen’s notice is the source for references to the Gospel of Basilides in Jerome,[8] Ambrose,[9] Philip of Side,[10] and the Venerable Bede.[11] But none of these authors report any quotations from the supposed gospel, nor are they able to give an indication as to its content or character.[12][13][14] Much more is known about Basilides major work in twenty-four books;[15] for which Clement of Alexandria records the title Exegetica (or 'Treatises')[16][17] and provides quotations from book twenty-three, while other quotations are preserved in the works of Hegemonius.[18][19] Eusebius of Caesarea reports Agrippa Castor (mid 2nd century) as describing the Exegetica as twenty-four books on the Gospel,[20][21] and this notice has been interpreted as characterising the full Exegetica as an extended commentary, whose base text might be inferred as being the lost 'Gospel of Basilides'.

From this assumption and the surviving quotations from the Exegetica, a range of theories have been developed as to the nature of the Gospel of Basilides:[22] that it was a redaction of the Gospel of Luke; that it combined the Gospels of Luke and Matthew; that it was a ‘’diatessaron’’ or harmony of all four gospels; that it was an independent account of the life of Jesus; and even that it was an abstract treatise or homily on the religious significance of Jesus, with no specific relation to his teachings of the events of his earthly ministry, similar in this respect to the Gospel of Truth,[23] another Gnostic work.[24] Some scholars maintain that Origen’s notice of a Gospel of Basilides was referring to the Exegetica itself; and that the two titles are therefore to be identified.[25] Otherwise, the Gospel of Basilides could denote a second or third century Gnostic text (whether lost or surviving under another title) with no connection to Basilides himself, other than being preserved within the sect that bore his name.[26]

Account of the Crucifixion
Basilides is reported as having taught a docetic doctrine of Christ's passion. Although Irenaeus’s makes no mention of Basilides having written a gospel, he does record [Basilides] as teaching that Christ in Jesus, as a wholly divine being, could not suffer bodily pain and did not die on the cross; ...the person crucified was, in fact, Simon of Cyrene.[28][29] --

• "He appeared on earth as a man and performed miracles. Thus he himself did not suffer. Rather, a certain Simon of Cyrene was compelled to carry his cross for him. It was he who was ignorantly and erroneously crucified, being transfigured by him, so that he might be thought to be Jesus. Moreover, Jesus assumed the form of Simon, and stood by laughing at them."[30][31]

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Gospel_of_Basilides

[Ben C. Smith]

He appeared on earth as a man and performed miracles. Thus he himself did not suffer. Rather, a certain Simon of Cyrene was compelled to carry his cross for him. It was he who was ignorantly and erroneously crucified, being transfigured by him, so that he might be thought to be Jesus. Moreover, Jesus assumed the form of Simon, and stood by laughing at them.[30][31]

I read an interesting take on that passage in Irenaeus recently; this is Birger A. Pearson (famous for his article questioning the authenticity of 1 Thessalonians 2.13-16) in A Companion to Second-Century Christian Heretics, edited by Antti Marjanen and Petri Luomanen, chapter 1, pages 22-23:

What follows in Irenaeus’ account is very strange, for Jesus is credited with being a “shape-changer,” exchanging shapes with Simon of Cyrene, who turns out to be the one crucified. I doubt very much that this is what Basilides taught. I suspect that Irenaeus, or his source, has misinterpreted what Basilides taught. Perhaps a clue to how this misinterpretation could have come about can be found in the following passage from the Second Treatise of the Great Seth (NHC VII,2): "For my death which they think happened, (happened) to them in their error and blindness. They nailed their man up to their death. For their minds did not see me, for they were deaf and blind. But in doing these things, they render judgment against themselves. As for me, on the one hand they saw me; they punished me. Another, their father, was the one who drank the gall and the vinegar; it was not I. They were hitting me with the reed; another was the one who lifted up the cross on his shoulder, who was Simon. Another was the one on whom they put the crown of thorns. But I was rejoicing in the height over all the riches of the archons and the offspring of their error and their conceit, and I was laughing at their ignorance. And all their powers I brought into subjection. For when I came down no one saw me. For I kept changing my forms above, transforming from appearance to appearance. And on account of this, when I was at their gates I kept taking their likeness. For I passed them by quietly, and I was viewing the places, and I did not fear nor was I ashamed, for I was undefiled."

Early interpreters of this passage read it in light of what Irenaeus reports about Basilides, and regarded it as a piece of Basilidian tradition. But the text does not teach the doctrine attributed by Irenaeus to Basilides. What it does say is that the sufferings endured at the crucifixion were not suffered by the real Jesus, but only by the physical body which he inhabited, the creation of the archons, whose crucifixion brought about the archons’ own destruction. Those whose faith is centered upon a crucified savior (i.e. “orthodox” Christians) espouse “the doctrine of a dead man” (Treat. Seth 60.22). The real Jesus, laughing at the archons’ folly, ascended safely into heaven.

Something similar to that was probably Basilides’ view. For him, the divine Nous-Christ descended into the human Jesus and displaced his human soul—Basilides probably thought this occurred at Jesus’ baptism—and, following Jesus’ crucifixion, ascended to the Father who had sent him. That Jesus did in fact suffer is affirmed in a quotation of Basilides preserved by Clement (Strom. 4.83.1), a passage to which we shall return.

[MrMacSon]

That is interesting, Ben; especially the mention of 'archons' which is very hermetic.

As is references to 'Nous', and 'the Logos', as per Irenaeus -

CW King, in his Gnostics and Their Remains, gives the following concise description of the Gnostic philosophy of Basilides, quoting from the writings of the early Christian bishop and martyr, St. Irenæus:

• "He asserted that God, the uncreated, eternal Father, had first brought forth Nous, or Mind; this the Logos, Word; this again Phronesis, Intelligence; from Phronesis sprung Sophia, Wisdom, and Dynamis, Strength."

The Gnostics declared that the Christ was not crucified, as this Divine Nous could not suffer death, but that Simon, the Cyrenian, offered his life instead and that the Nous, by means of its power, caused Simon to resemble Jesus. Irenæus makes the following statement concerning the cosmic sacrifice of the Christ:

• "When the uncreated, unnamed Father saw the corruption of mankind, He sent His firstborn, Nous, into the world, in the form of Christ, for the redemption of all who believe in Him, out of the power of those that have fabricated the world (the Demiurgus, and his six sons, the planetary genii). He appeared amongst men as the Man Jesus, and wrought miracles."

http://www.sacred-texts.com/eso/sta/sta05.htm

[MrMacSon]

Marvin Meyer writes, "What makes the crucifixion laughable [in Second Discourse of Great Seth 81,15-24] is the ignorance of the powers who think they can execute the real, living Jesus. The mention made of Simon in the text is reminiscent of the role of Simon the Cyrene in the New Testament (Matthew 27:32; Mark 15:21; Luke 23:26), where it is said that he carries the cross for Jesus; --or it may call to mind the observations of Irenaeus (Against Heresies 1.24.4) and Epiphanius (Panarion 24.3), who claim that, according to the Gnostic teacher Basilides, Simon of Cyrene was crucified in place of Jesus.

Yet in the Second Discourse of Great Seth Simon is never actually crucified, and Jesus says that it is 'their man' that the world rulers put to death - the physical body that the heavenly Savior borrowed. Further, the comment by Jesus in the Second Discourse, 'Though they punished me, I did not die in actuality (hen outajro) but only in appearance (hem petouoneh)' (55,16-19), may recall classic formulations of docetic views of the crucifixion, and even the position of the Qur'an, which states (in Sura 4) that the opponents of 'Isa - Jesus - did not kill him for sure, but 'he was made to resemble another for them' or 'they thought they did'."

(The Nag Hammadi Scriptures, p. 475)

http://www.earlychristianwritings.com/greatseth.html

[andrewcriddle]

He appeared on earth as a man and performed miracles. Thus he himself did not suffer. Rather, a certain Simon of Cyrene was compelled to carry his cross for him. It was he who was ignorantly and erroneously crucified, being transfigured by him, so that he might be thought to be Jesus. Moreover, Jesus assumed the form of Simon, and stood by laughing at them.[30][31]

I read an interesting take on that passage in Irenaeus recently; this is Birger A. Pearson (famous for his article questioning the authenticity of 1 Thessalonians 2.13-16) in A Companion to Second-Century Christian Heretics, edited by Antti Marjanen and Petri Luomanen, chapter 1, pages 22-23:

What follows in Irenaeus’ account is very strange, for Jesus is credited with being a “shape-changer,” exchanging shapes with Simon of Cyrene, who turns out to be the one crucified. I doubt very much that this is what Basilides taught.89 I suspect that Irenaeus, or his source, has misinterpreted what Basilides taught. Perhaps a clue to how this misinterpretation could have come about can be found in the following passage from the Second Treatise of the Great Seth (NHC VII,2):

• "For my death which they think happened, (happened) to them in their error and blindness. They nailed their man up to their death. For their minds did not see me, for they were deaf and blind. But in doing these things, they render judgment against themselves. As for me, on the one hand they saw me; they punished me. Another, their father, was the one who drank the gall and the vinegar; it was not I. They were hitting me with the reed; another was the one who lifted up the cross on his shoulder, who was Simon. Another was the one on whom they put the crown of thorns. But I was rejoicing in the height over all the riches of the archons and the offspring of their error and their conceit, and I was laughing at their ignorance. And all their powers I brought into subjection. For when I came down no one saw me. For I kept changing my forms above, transforming from appearance to appearance. And on account of this, when I was at their gates I kept taking their likeness. For I passed them by quietly, and I was viewing the places, and I did not fear nor was I ashamed, for I was undefiled."

Early interpreters of this passage read it in light of what Irenaeus reports about Basilides, and regarded it as a piece of Basilidian tradition. 91 But the text does not teach the doctrine attributed by Irenaeus to Basilides. What it does say is that the sufferings endured at the crucifixion were not suffered by the real Jesus, but only by the physical body which he inhabited, the creation of the archons, whose crucifixion brought about the archons’ own destruction. Those whose faith is centered upon a crucified savior (i.e. “orthodox” Christians) espouse “the doctrine of a dead man” (Treat. Seth 60.22). The real Jesus, laughing at the archons’ folly, ascended safely into heaven.

Something similar to that was probably Basilides’ view. For him, the divine Nous-Christ descended into the human Jesus and displaced his human soul—Basilides probably thought this occurred at Jesus’ baptism92—and, following Jesus’ crucifixion, ascended to the Father who had sent him. That Jesus did in fact suffer is affirmed in a quotation of Basilides preserved by Clement (Strom. 4.83.1), a passage to which we shall return.

There is a general problem that the accounts of the teaching of Basilides in Irenaeus and Hippolytus cannot be reconciled and that it is disputed whether Clement of Alexandria agrees more with Irenaeus or Hippolytus.

Andrew Criddle

[MrMacSon]

I wonder if Basilides has been 'borrowed' from the accounts of Tacitus and Seutonius --ie. time-shifted; translocated from the cult of Serapis to Christianity; and embellished as a 2nd century proto-Christian character when he had not been.

[Giuseppe]

That Jesus did in fact suffer is affirmed in a quotation of Basilides preserved by Clement (Strom. 4.83.1), a passage to which we shall return.

This is the book 4 of the Stromata of Clement:
http://www.newadvent.org/fathers/02104.htm

Can someone say me where Basilides would say that "Jesus did in fact suffer"?

Thanks in advance.

[Ben C. Smith]

That Jesus did in fact suffer is affirmed in a quotation of Basilides preserved by Clement (Strom. 4.83.1), a passage to which we shall return.

This is the book 4 of the Stromata of Clement:
http://www.newadvent.org/fathers/02104.htm

Can someone say me where Basilides would say that "Jesus did in fact suffer"?

Thanks in advance.

Here it is:

Clement of Alexandria, Miscellanies 4.12.83a: 83a Then, in continuation, he says expressly concerning the Lord, as concerning man, "If, then, passing from all these observations, you were to proceed to put me to shame by saying, perchance impersonating certain parties, 'This man has then sinned, for this man has suffered" — if you permit, I will say, 'He has not sinned, but was like a child suffering.' If you were to insist more urgently, I would say that the man you name is man, but that God is righteous: 'For no one is pure,' as one said, 'from filth' (= Job 14:4). / 83a εἶθ' ὑποβὰς καὶ περὶ τοῦ κυρίου ἄντικρυς ὡς περὶ ἀνθρώπου λέγει· «ἐὰν μέντοι παραλιπὼν τούτους ἅπαντας τοὺς λόγους ἔλθῃς ἐπὶ τὸ δυσωπεῖν με διὰ προσώπων τινῶν, εἰ τύχοι, λέγων, ὁ δεῖνα οὖν ἥμαρτεν, ἔπαθεν γὰρ ὁ δεῖνα, ἐὰν μὲν ἐπιτρέπῃς, ἐρῶ, οὐχ ἥμαρτεν μέν, ὅμοιος δὲ ἦν τῷ πάσχοντι νηπίῳ· εἰ μέντοι σφοδρότερον ἐκβιάσαιο τὸν λόγον, ἐρῶ, ἄνθρωπον ὅντιν' ἂν ὀνομάσῃς ἄνθρωπον εἶναι, δίκαιον δὲ τὸν θεόν. καθαρὸς γὰρ οὐδείς, ὥσπερ εἶπέ τις, ἀπὸ ῥύπου.»