Übersetzung
ausblenden
Widerlegung aller Häresien (BKV)
Inhalt
S. 15 Der Inhalt des ersten Buches der Widerlegung aller Häresien ist folgender:
Die Namen und die Lehren der Naturphilosophen, die der Ethiker und die der Dialektiker.
Naturphilosophen sind Thales, Pythagoras, Empedokles, Heraklitus, Anaximander, Anaximenes, Anaxagoras, Archelaos, Parmenides, Leukippos, Demokritus, Xenophanes, Elephantos und Hippo.
Ethiker sind Sokrates, der Schüler des Naturphilosophen Archelaos, und Plato, des Sokrates Schüler. Plato vereinigt die drei Fächer der Philosophie.
Dialektiker ist Aristoteles, Platos Schüler; er schuf ein System der Dialektik; Stoiker sind Chrysippos und Zeno.
Epikur arbeitete ein fast allen anderen Philosophen entgegen gesetztes Lehrsystem aus.
Der Akademiker Pyrrho; er lehrte die Unbegreiflichkeit aller Dinge.
Die Brahmanen bei den Indern, die Druiden bei den Kelten und Hesiodos.
Man darf keine von den Lehren, die bei den Griechen in Geltung sind, mißachten. Denn selbst ihre unwissenschaftlichen Anschauungen erscheinen noch wahrscheinlich, wenn man sie mit der grenzenlosen Tollheit der Häretiker vergleicht, die nur durch Verschweigung ihrer Geheimnisse sich den Ruf der Gottesfurcht erhalten. Ihre Lehrsätze haben wir schon früher1 dargelegt, sie aber, ohne in Einzelheiten einzugehen, nur obenhin widerlegt; denn wir hielten es nicht für angezeigt, ihre Geheimnisse ans Licht zu ziehen; wir hofften, sie würden sich schämen, wenn wir andeutungsweise ihre Anschauungen berührten, und würden ihre unvernünftigen S. 16 Ansichten und ihr unrechtes Beginnen aufgeben aus Furcht, wir könnten ihre Geheimnisse ganz bloßlegen und sie so der Gottlosigkeit überführen. Doch sie achten meine Rücksicht nicht, noch bedenken sie, daß Gott nur darum ihre Lästerungen mit Langmut erträgt, damit sie sich schämen und bekehren oder damit sie als Verstockte ihr gerechtes Urteil erhalten. So gehe ich denn notgedrungen weiter und enthülle die Geheimnisse, die sie ihren Jüngern mit großer Überzeugungskraft anvertrauen; doch darf sie keiner inne werden, bevor sie ihn nicht lange Zeit in Spannung gehalten, zum Gotteslästerer herangebildet und sich ganz unterwürfig gemacht haben und er dann vor Neugierde nach ihren Aufschlüssen brennt. Wenn sie dann überzeugt sind, er sei in die Sünde verstrickt, eröffnen sie ihm den Abgrund der Verworfenheit, weihen ihn ein und verpflichten ihn eidlich, nichts auszusagen oder einem anderen mitzuteilen, wenn sich dieser nicht gleichfalls knechten läßt; ergibt er sich nur einmal, dann war der Eid freilich nicht nötig. Denn wer wirklich ihre tiefsten Geheimnisse über sich ergehen läßt und erlernt, der ist durch diese Tatsache selbst auf Grund seines Schuldbewußtseins gebunden, anderen gegenüber zu schweigen. Denn wenn er einem Menschen dies zügellose Treiben verriete, würde er nicht mehr zu den Menschen gerechnet werden und wert gehalten werden, das Licht zu schauen, [er stünde unter]2 dem unvernünftigen [Tier]3, das solche Frevel, von denen am einschlägigen Ort die Rede sein wird, nicht wagt. Da wir nun aus zwingenden Gründen in eine abgrundtiefe Untersuchung uns einlassen, so wollen wir nichts verschweigen, vielmehr die Lehren aller ausnahmslos darstellen. Wir wollen die Untersuchung, so lang sie auch dauern mag, nicht aufgeben. Wir können den Menschen einen guten Schutz gegen den Irrtum bieten dadurch, daß sie die geheim gehaltenen Kulthandlungen der Häretiker klar sehen, die diese wie einen Schatz hüten und nur den Eingeweihten offenbaren. Es wird sie aber niemand anderer des Irrtums überführen als der in der Kirche gespendete Hl. Geist, den zuerst die S. 17 Apostel empfangen haben und den sie dann den Rechtgläubigen mitteilten. Da wir als deren Nachfolger an derselben Gnade, Hohenpriesterwürde und Lehre teilhaben und zu den Hütern der Kirche gehören, so halten wir die Augen offen und verkündigen die wahre Lehre. Wir wollen, auch wenn wir mit allen Leibes- und Seelenkräften arbeiten müssen, nicht ermüden, sondern in würdiger Weise Gott, unserm Wohltäter, zu vergelten suchen; können wir ihm doch nicht anders in geziemender Weise danken als dadurch, daß wir in der uns anvertrauten Arbeit fortfahren, die uns zugemessene Zeitspanne ausnützen und die Gaben des Hl. Geistes allen neidlos mitteilen. Wir wollen nicht nur Irriges feststellen; es soll auch all das, was die Wahrheit durch die Gnade des Vaters empfangen und den Menschen dargeboten hat, klar gemacht, aus der Schrift bewiesen und rückhaltlos verkündet werden. Wir wollen also die Gottlosigkeit der Häretiker in ihrer Denkart, ihrem Charakter und ihrer Handlungsweise aufzeigen, sowie die Quellen, aus denen sie ihre Erfindungen schöpften. Sie sind ans Erfinden gegangen ohne Anlehnung an die Hl. Schrift, und ohne sich auf einen Heiligen berufen zu können; ihre Lehren stammen aus der Griechenweisheit, aus philosophischen Anschauungen, aus Mysterien4 und aus der Irrwege gehenden Astrologie. Wir legen also zuerst die Lehren der griechischen Philosophen dar und werden unsern Lesern beweisen, daß diese Lehren älter und Gottes würdiger sind als die der Häretiker; dann wollen wir die einzelnen Sekten miteinander vergleichen und sehen, wie sich die Sektenstifter über die griechische Philosophie hermachten, deren Grundlagen für sich verwerteten und immer tiefer sinkend ihre Lehre zusammenschmiedeten. Freilich ist dies Beginnen mühevoll und bedarf eingehender Forschung; doch wollen wir nicht nachlassen; später wird es uns Befriedigung gewähren, wie dem Wettringer der mühsam errungene Kranz, dem Kaufmann der trotz gewaltiger Seenot erzielte Gewinn, dem Landmann die mit vielem Schweiße eingeheimsten Früchte oder wie dem S. 18 Seher die Erfüllung seiner Weissagungen nach erlittener Schmähung und Mißhandlung.
Wir stellen nunmehr die Frage, wer bei den Griechen zuerst Naturphilosophie gelehrt hat. Denn gerade von den Naturphilosophen haben die Sektengründer ihre Lehren gestohlen, wie wir durch Vergleichung feststellen werden. Dadurch, daß wir jedem sein geistiges Eigentum zuteilen, werden wir die Häresiarchen in ihrer schamlosen Nacktheit an den Pranger stellen.
Übersetzung
ausblenden
The Refutation of All Heresies
Contents.
The following are the contents of the first book of The Refutation of all Heresies. 1
We propose to furnish an account of the tenets of natural philosophers, and who these are, as well as the tenets of moral philosophers, and who these are; and thirdly, the tenets of logicians, and who these logicians are.
Among natural philosophers 2 may be enumerated Thales, Pythagoras, Empedocles, Heraclitus, Anaximander, Anaximenes, Anaxagoras, Archelaus, Parmenides, Leucippus, Democritus, Xenophanes, Ecphantus, Hippo.
Among moral philosophers are Socrates, pupil of Archelaus the physicist, (and) Plato the pupil of Socrates. This (speculator) combined three systems of philosophy.
Among logicians is Aristotle, pupil of Plato. He systematized the art of dialectics. Among the Stoic (logicians) were Chrysippus (and) Zeno. Epicurus, however, advanced an opinion almost contrary to all philosophers. Pyrrho was an Academic; 3 this (speculator) taught the incomprehensibility of everything. The Brahmins among the Indians, and the Druids among the Celts, and Hesiod (devoted themselves to philosophic pursuits).
The Prooemium.--Motives for Undertaking the Refutation; Exposure of the Ancient Mysteries; Plan of the Work; Completeness of the Refutation; Value of the Treatise to Future Ages.
We must not overlook 4 any figment devised by those denominated philosophers among the Greeks. For even their incoherent tenets must be received as worthy of credit, on account of the excessive madness of the heretics; who, from the observance of silence, and from concealing their own ineffable mysteries, have by many been supposed worshippers of God. 5 We have likewise, on a former occasion, 6 expounded the doctrines of these briefly, not illustrating them with any degree of minuteness, but refuting them in coarse digest; not having considered it requisite to bring to light their secret 7 doctrines, in order that, when we have explained their tenets by enigmas, they, becoming ashamed, lest also, by our divulging their mysteries, we should convict them of atheism, might be induced to desist in some degree from their unreasonable opinion and their profane attempt. 8 But since I perceive that they have not been abashed by our forbearance, and have made no account of how God is long-suffering, though blasphemed by them, in order that either from shame they may repent, or should they persevere, be justly condemned, I am forced to proceed in my intention of exposing those secret mysteries of theirs, which, to the initiated, with a vast amount of plausibility they deliver who are not accustomed first to disclose (to any one), till, by keeping such in suspense during a period (of necessary preparation), and by rendering him blasphemous towards the true God they have acquired complete ascendancy over him, and perceive him eagerly panting after the promised disclosure. And then, when they have tested him to be enslaved by sin, they initiate him, putting him in possession of the perfection of wicked things. Previously, however, they bind him with an oath neither to divulge (the mysteries), nor to hold communication with any person whatsoever, unless he first undergo similar subjection, though, when the doctrine has been simply delivered (to any one), there was no longer any need of an oath. For he who was content to submit to the necessary purgation, 9 and so receive the perfect mysteries of these men, by the very act itself, as well as in reference to his own conscience, will feel himself sufficiently under an obligation not to divulge to others; for if he once disclose wickedness of this description to any man, he would neither be reckoned among men, nor be deemed worthy to behold the light, since not even irrational animals 10 would attempt such an enormity, as we shall explain when we come to treat of such topics.
Since, however, reason compels us to plunge 11 into the very depth of narrative, we conceive we should not be silent, but, expounding the tenets of the several schools with minuteness, we shall evince reserve in nothing. Now it seems expedient, even at the expense of a more protracted investigation, not to shrink from labour; for we shall leave behind us no trifling auxiliary to human life against the recurrence of error, when all are made to behold, in an obvious light, the clandestine rites of these men, and the secret orgies which, retaining under their management, they deliver to the initiated only. But none will refute these, save the Holy Spirit bequeathed unto the Church, which the Apostles, having in the first instance received, have transmitted to those who have rightly believed. But we, as being their successors, and as participators in this grace, high-priesthood, and office of teaching, 12 as well as being reputed guardians of the Church, must not be found deficient in vigilance, 13 or disposed to suppress correct doctrine. 14 Not even, however, labouring with every energy of body and soul, do we tire in our attempt adequately to render our Divine Benefactor a fitting return; and yet withal we do not so requite Him in a becoming manner, except we are not remiss in discharging the trust committed to us, but careful to complete the measure of our particular opportunity, and to impart to all without grudging whatever the Holy Ghost supplies, not only bringing to light, 15 by means of our refutation, matters foreign (to our subject), but also whatsoever things the truth has received by the grace of the Father, 16 and ministered to men. These also, illustrating by argument and creating testimony 17 by letters, we shall unabashed proclaim.
In order, then, as we have already stated, that we may prove them atheists, both in opinion and their mode (of treating a question) and in fact, and (in order to show) whence it is that their attempted theories have accrued unto them, and that they have endeavoured to establish their tenets, taking nothing from the holy Scriptures--nor is it from preserving the succession of any saint that they have hurried headlong into these opinions;--but that their doctrines have derived their origin 18 from the wisdom of the Greeks, from the conclusions of those who have formed systems of philosophy, and from would-be mysteries, and the vagaries of astrologers,--it seems, then, advisable, in the first instance, by explaining the opinions advanced by the philosophers of the Greeks, to satisfy our readers that such are of greater antiquity than these (heresies), and more deserving of reverence in reference to their views respecting the divinity; in the next place, to compare each heresy with the system of each speculator, so as to show that the earliest champion of the heresy availing himself 19 of these attempted theories, has turned them to advantage by appropriating their principles, and, impelled from these into worse, has constructed his own doctrine. The undertaking admittedly is full of labour, and (is one) requiring extended research. We shall not, however, be wanting in exertion; for afterwards it will be a source of joy, just like an athlete obtaining with much toil the crown, or a merchant after a huge swell of sea compassing gain, or a husbandman after sweat of brow enjoying the fruits, or a prophet after reproaches and insults seeing his predictions turning out true. In the commencement, therefore, we shall declare who first, among the Greeks, pointed out (the principles of) natural philosophy. For from these especially have they furtively taken their views who have first propounded these heresies, 20 as we shall subsequently prove when we come to compare them one with another. Assigning to each of those who take the lead among philosophers their own peculiar tenets, we shall publicly exhibit these heresiarchs as naked and unseemly.
from home, not domestic.
-
The four of the mss. of the first book extant prior to the recent discovery of seven out of the remaining nine books of The Refutation, concur in ascribing it to Origen. These inscriptions run thus: 1. "Refutation by Origen of all Heresies;" 2. "Of Origen's Philosophumena...these are the contents;" 3. "Being estimable (Dissertations) by Origen, a man of the greatest wisdom." The recently discovered ms. itself in the margin has the words, "Origen, and Origen's opinion." The title, as agreed upon by modern commentators, is: 1. "Book I. of Origen's Refutation of all Heresies" (Wolf and Gronovius); 2. "A Refutation of all Heresies;" 3. "Origen's Philosophumena, or the Refutation of all Heresies." The last is Miller's in his Oxford edition, 1851. The title might have been, "Philosophumena, and the Refutation (therefrom) of all Heresies." There were obviously two divisions of the work: (1) A résumé of the tenets of the philosophers (books i., ii., iii., iv.), preparatory to (2) the refutation of heresies, on the ground of their derivative character from Greek and Egyptian speculation. Bunsen would denominate the work "St. Hippolytus' (Bishop and Martyr) Refutation of all Heresies; what remains of the ten books." ↩
-
Most of what follows in book i. is a compilation from ancient sources. The ablest résumé followed by Cicero in the De Nat. Deor., of the tenets of the ancient philosophers, is to be found in Aristotle's Metaphysics. The English reader is referred to the Metaphysics, book i. pp. 13-46 (Bohn's Classical Library), also to the translator's analysis prefixed to this work, pp. 17-25. See also Diogenes' Lives of the Philosophers, and Tenneman's Manual of Philosophy (translated in Bohn's Library); Plutarch, De Placitis Philosophorum; Lewes' Biographical History of (Ancient) Philosophy; and Rev. Dr. F. D. Maurice's History of (Ancient) Metaphysical and Moral Philosophy. The same subject is discussed in Ritter's History of Philosophy (translated by Morrison). ↩
-
This word is variously given thus: Academian, Academeian, Academaic, Academe, Cademian, and Cadimian. The two last would seem to indicate the character rather than the philosophy of Pyrrho. To favour this view, the text should be altered into kai ademos, i.e., apodemos = ↩
-
Some hiatus at the beginning of this sentence is apparent. ↩
-
An elaborate defence of this position forms the subject of Cudworth's great work, The True Intellectual System of the Universe. ↩
-
This statement has been urged against Origen's authorship, in favour of Epiphanius, who wrote an extended treatise on the Heresies, with an abridgment. ↩
-
That is, their esoteric mysteries, intended only for a favoured few, as contrasted with the exoteric, designed for more general diffusion. ↩
-
One ms. has--"the profane opinion and unreasonable attempt." ↩
-
"To learn" (Roeper). ↩
-
"And those that are irrational animals do not attempt," (or) "because irrational," etc. The last is Sancroft's reading; that in the text, Roeper's. ↩
-
"Ascend up to" (Roeper). ↩
-
This passage is quoted by those who impugn the authorship of Origen on the ground of his never having been a bishop of the Church. It is not, however, quite certain that the words refer to the episcopal office exclusively. ↩
-
The common reading is in the future, but the present tense is adopted by Richter in his Critical Observations, p. 77. ↩
-
It might be, "any opinion that may be subservient to the subject taken in hand." This is Cruice's rendering in his Latin version. A different reading is, "we must not be silent as regards reasons that hold good," or, "as regards rational distinctions," or, "refrain from utterances through the instrument of reasoning." The last is Roeper's. ↩
-
Another reading is, "bringing into a collection." ↩
-
Or, "the Spirit." ↩
-
Or, "indicating a witness;" or, "having adduced testimony." ↩
-
Or, "a starting-point." ↩
-
Or, "devoting his attention to;" or, "having lighted upon." ↩
-
The chief writers on the early heresies are: Irenaeus, of the second century; Hippolytus, his pupil, of the third; Philastrius, Epiphanius, and St. Augustine, of the fourth century. The learned need scarcely be reminded of the comprehensive digest furnished by Ittigius in the preface to his dissertation on the heresies of the apostolic and post-apostolic ages. A book more within the reach of the general reader is Dr. Burton's Inquiry into the Heresies of the Apostolic Age. ↩