Chapter X. Extract From Numenius, the Pythagorean, Concerning the Good, Bk. Ii

[NUMENIUS] [1] ‘COME then, let us mount up as nearly as we possibly can to true “being,” and let us say that “being” neither at any time “was,” nor ever can “become,” but always “is” in a definite time, the present only.

‘If, however, any one wishes to rename this present time eternity, I too am willing. But the time past we ought to consider altogether gone, already so gone away and escaped as to exist no longer: and on the other hand the time to come as yet is not, but professes to be able at some future time to come into being.

‘It is not therefore reasonable to suppose “being,” at least in one and the same sense, either not to be or to be no longer, or not yet. Since when this is so stated, there arises in the statement one great impossibility, that the same thing at the same time should both be and not be.

‘For if this were so, scarcely would it be possible for anything else to be, if “being” itself in regard to its very “being” be not. For “being” is eternal and constant, ever in the same condition, nor has it been generated and destroyed, nor increased and diminished: nor did it ever yet become more or less: and certainly neither in other senses nor yet locally will it be moved.

‘For it is not right for it to be moved, either backward or forward: nor upward ever, nor downward: neither to the right hand nor to the left shall “being” ever pass: nor shall it ever be moved around its own centre; but rather it shall stand fast, and shall be fixed and set firm, ever in the same conditions and same mode.’

And then, after other statements, he adds:

‘So much then for my introduction. But for my own part I will no longer make pretences, nor say that I do not know the name of the incorporeal; for now at length it seems likely to be pleasanter to speak than not to speak it. And so then I say that its name is that which we have so long been examining.

‘But let no one laugh, if I affirm that the name of the incorporeal is “essence” and “being.” And the cause of the name “being” is that it has not been generated nor will be destroyed, nor is it subject to any other motion at all, nor any change for better or for worse; but is simple and unchangeable, and in the same idea, and neither willingly departs from its sameness, nor is compelled by any other to depart.

‘Plato too said in the Cratylus[2]that names are exactly adapted to a likeness of the things. Be it granted then and agreed that “being” is the incorporeal.’

Then lower down he adds:

‘I said that “being” is incorporeal, and that this is that which can be perceived by the mind only. Their statements then, so far as I can remember, were certainly of this kind: but any one who feels the want of an explanation I am willing to encourage with just this suggestion, that if these statements do not agree with the doctrines of Plato, yet at least he must consider them to be those of some other great man of the highest ability, such as Pythagoras.

‘Plato at all events says [3]----come, let me remember how he says it----What is that which, always is and has no becoming? And what that which is always becoming, and never is? The first that which may be comprehended by intelligence combined with reason, and the other that which may be conjectured by opinion with the aid of unreasoning sensation, becoming and perishing, but never really “being.”

‘For he was inquiring what is “being,” and saying that it is unquestionably without beginning. For he said that for “being” there is no becoming: for then it would be changed, but that which is liable to change is not eternal.’

Then below he says:

‘If then “being” is altogether and in every way eternal and unchangeable, and by no means departs in any way from itself, but abides in the same conditions, and remains fixed in the same manner, this surely must be that which can be comprehended by intelligence combined with reason.

‘But if body is in flux and is carried off by the change of the moment, it passes away and no longer exists. Wherefore is it not utter folly to deny that this is something undefinable, and that can only be conjectured by opinion, and, as Plato says, becoming and perishing, but never really “being”? ‘

Thus then speaks Numenius, explaining clearly both Plato’s doctrines and the much earlier doctrines of Moses. With reason therefore is that saying currently attributed to him, in which it is recorded that he said, ‘For what else is Plato than Moses speaking Attic Greek?’

But see, besides this, whether Plutarch in further unfolding the same thought may not agree both with the statements of philosophers which have been brought forward, and the theological doctrines of the Hebrews set forth again in other places, whereby at one time the God who makes answer is introduced as saying: [4] ‘For I am the LORD your God, and I am not changed’: and at another time the Prophet directs his speech with a view to Him, saying that the things which are seen would all some time be changed and removed, ‘but Thou art the same, and Thy years shall not fail.’ [5] Observe then whether----when He who spake in Moses, as if proposing a question, said,’I AM THAT I AM,’ and, ‘I am the LORD your God, and I am not changed’: and again, ‘But Thou art (εἶ) the same’----whether, I say. Plutarch would not seem to be interpreting the meaning of this in his treatise Concerning the Εἶ at Delphi,when he speaks word for word thus: [6]