Opening the library…

Search the Bible

Ad Nationes

Tertullian

Book 2 · Chapter 4

About this work

Author: Tertullian

Chapter IV.—Wrong Derivation of the Word Θεός . The Name Indicative of the True Deity. God Without Shape and Immaterial. Anecdote of Thales.

Some affirm that the gods (i.e. θεοί)

‹ Book 2 · Chapter 9

were

so

called

because

the

verbs

θέειν

and

σείσθαι

signify

to

run

and

to

be

moved

.

This

term

,

then

,

is

not

indicative

of

any

majesty

,

for

it

is

derived

from

running

and

motion

,

not

from

any

dominion

of

godhead

.

But

inasmuch

as

the

Supreme

God

whom

we

worship

is

also

designated

Θεός

,

without

however

the

appearance

of

any

course

or

motion

in

Him

,

because

He

is

not

visible

to

any

one

,

it

is

clear

that

word

must

have

had

some

other

derivation

,

and

that

the

property

of

divinity

,

innate

in

Himself

,

must

have

been

discovered

.

Dismissing

,

then

,

that

ingenious

interpretation

,

it

is

more

likely

that

the

gods

were

not

called

θεοί

from

running

and

motion

,

but

that

the

term

was

borrowed

from

the

designation

of

the

true

God

;

so

that

you

gave

the

name

θεοί

to

the

gods

,

whom

you

had

in

like

manner

forged

for

yourselves

.

Now

,

that

this

is

the

case

,

a

plain

proof

is

afforded

in

the

fact

that

you

actually

give

the

common

appellation

θεοί

to

all

those

gods

of

yours

,

in

whom

there

is

no

attribute

of

course

or

motion

indicated

.

When

,

therefore

,

you

call

them

both

θεοί

and

immoveable

with

equal

readiness

,

there

is

a

deviation

as

well

from

the

meaning

of

the

word

as

from

the

idea

of

godhead

,

which

is

set

aside

if

measured

by

the

notion

of

course

and

motion

.

But

if

that

sacred

name

be

peculiarly

significant

of

deity

,

and

be

simply

true

and

not

of

a

forced

interpretation

in

the

case

of

the

true

God

,

but

transferred

in

a

borrowed

sense

to

those

other

objects

which

you

choose

to

call

gods

,

then

you

ought

to

show

to

us

that

there

is

also

a

community

of

character

between

them

,

so

that

their

common

designation

may

rightly

depend

on

their

union

of

essence

.

But

the

true

God

,

on

the

sole

ground

that

He

is

not

an

object

of

sense

,

is

incapable

of

being

compared

with

those

false

deities

which

are

cognizable

to

sight

and

sense

(

to

sense

indeed

is

sufficient

)

;

for

this

amounts

to

a

clear

statement

of

the

difference

between

an

obscure

proof

and

a

manifest

one

.

Now

,

since

the

elements

are

obvious

to

all

,

(

and

)

since

God

,

on

the

contrary

,

is

visible

to

none

,

how

will

it

be

in

your

power

from

that

part

which

you

have

not

seen

to

pass

to

a

decision

on

the

objects

which

you

see

?

Since

,

therefore

,

you

have

not

to

combine

them

in

your

perception

or

your

reason

,

why

do

you

combine

them

in

name

with

the

purpose

of

combining

them

also

in

power

?

For

see

how

even

Zeno

separates

the

matter

of

the

world

from

God

:

he

says

that

the

latter

has

percolated

through

the

former

,

like

honey

through

the

comb

.

God

,

therefore

,

and

Matter

are

two

words

(

and

)

two

things

.

Proportioned

to

the

difference

of

the

words

is

the

diversity

of

the

things

;

the

condition

also

of

matter

follows

its

designation

.

Now

if

matter

is

not

God

,

because

its

very

appellation

teaches

us

so

,

how

can

those

things

which

are

inherent

in

matter

—

that

is

,

the

elements

—

be

regarded

as

gods

,

since

the

component

members

cannot

possibly

be

heterogeneous

from

the

body

?

But

what

concern

have

I

with

physiological

conceits

?

It

were

better

for

one’s

mind

to

ascend

above

the

state

of

the

world

,

not

to

stoop

down

to

uncertain

speculations

.

Plato’s

form

for

the

world

was

round

.

Its

square

,

angular

shape

,

such

as

others

had

conceived

it

to

be

,

he

rounded

off

,

I

suppose

,

with

compasses

,

from

his

labouring

to

have

it

believed

to

be

simply

without

a

beginning

.

Epicurus

,

however

,

who

had

said

,

“

What

is

above

us

is

nothing

to

us

,

”

wished

notwithstanding

to

have

a

peep

at

the

sky

,

and

found

the

sun

to

be

a

foot

in

diameter

.

Thus

far

you

must

confess

men

were

niggardly

in

even

celestial

objects

.

In

process

of

time

their

ambitious

conceptions

advanced

,

and

so

the

sun

too

enlarged

its

disk

.

Accordingly

,

the

Peripatetics

marked

it

out

as

a

larger

world

.

Now

,

pray

tell

me

,

what

wisdom

is

there

in

this

hankering

after

conjectural

speculations

?

What

proof

is

afforded

to

us

,

notwithstanding

the

strong

confidence

of

its

assertions

,

by

the

useless

affectation

of

a

scrupulous

curiosity

,

which

is

tricked

out

with

an

artful

show

of

language

?

It

therefore

served

Thales

of

Miletus

quite

right

,

when

,

star

-

gazing

as

he

walked

with

all

the

eyes

he

had

,

he

had

the

mortification

of

falling

into

a

well

,

and

was

unmercifully

twitted

by

an

Egyptian

,

who

said

to

him

,

“

Is

it

because

you

found

nothing

on

earth

to

look

at

,

that

you

think

you

ought

to

confine

your

gaze

to

the

sky

?

”

His

fall

,

therefore

,

is

a

figurative

picture

of

the

philosophers

;

of

those

,

I

mean

,

who

persist

in

applying

their

studies

to

a

vain

purpose

,

since

they

indulge

a

stupid

curiosity

on

natural

objects

,

which

they

ought

rather

(

intelligently

to

direct

)

to

their

Creator

and

Governor

.

Notes

1
This seems to mean: “because θέειν has also the sense of σείεσθαι (motion as well as progression).”
2
“Dominatione” is Oehler’s reading, but he approves of “denominatione” (Rigault’s reading); this would signify “designation of godhead.”
3
Opinione.
4
Rescinditur.
5
Interpretatorium.
6
Reprehensum.
7
Docete.
8
Sine capite.
9
Scilicet.
10
Aciem.
11
Majorem orbem. Another reading has “majorem orbe,” q.d. “as larger than the world.”
12
Morositatis.
13
Cecidit turpiter.
14
Scilicet.
15
Habituros.