Chapter IX. Moses and Plato on True Being

MOSES in his declarations of sacred truth uttered a response in the person of God: ‘I AM THAT I AM. Thus shalt thou say unto the children of Israel, I AM hath sent me unto you,’ [1] and so represented God as the sole absolute Being, and declared Him to have been properly and fitly honoured with this name.

And Solomon again spake concerning the origin and the decay of things corporeal and sensible: ‘What is that which hath been? The very thing that shall be. And what is that which hath been done? The very thing that shall be done. And there is nothing new under the sun, whereof a man shall speak and say, See, this is new. It hath been already, in the ages which were before us.’ [2]

In accordance with them we also divide the All into two parts, that which can be perceived only by the mind, and that which can be perceived by the senses: and the former we define as incorporeal and rational in its nature, and imperishable and immortal; but the sensible as being always in flux and decay, and in change and conversion of its substance. And all things being summed up and referred to one beginning, we hold the doctrine that the uncreate, and that which has proper and true being, is One, which is the cause of all things incorporeal and corporeal.

Now see in what manner Plato, having imitated not only the thought, but also the very expressions and words of the Hebrew Scripture, appropriates the doctrine, explaining it more at large, as follows:

‘What is that which always is and has no becoming? And what is that which is always becoming and never is? The former is that which may be comprehended by intelligence combined with reason, being always in the same conditions. The latter is that which may be conjectured by opinion with the help of unreasoning sensation, becoming and perishing but never really being.’ [3]

Does it not plainly appear that the admirable philosopher has altered the oracle which in Moses declared ‘I AM THAT I AM’ [4] into ‘What is that which always is and has no becoming?’ And this he has made still clearer when he says that true ‘being’ is nothing else than that which is not seen by eyes of flesh, but is conceived by the mind. So having asked, What is ‘being’? he makes answer to himself, saying: ‘That which may be comprehended by intelligence combined with reason.’

And as to Solomon’s maxim which said, ‘What is that which hath been? The very thing that shall be. And what is that which hath been done? The very thing that shall be done,’ [5] it must be evident that he translated this almost in the very words, saying, ‘But that which may be conjectured by means of irrational sensation is becoming and perishing, but never really “being.”’ To which he also adds: [6]

‘For all these are parts of time, the “was” and “shall be”; which we unconsciously but wrongly transfer to the eternal essence. For we say that “It was, and is, and shall be.” But to this essence the “is” alone is truly appropriate; and the “was” and the “will be” are proper to be spoken of the generation in time, for they are movements. But to that which is always immovably in the same conditions it belongs not to become either older or younger through time: nor that it ever became, nor has now become, nor will be hereafter at all, nor be subject to any of the conditions which becoming attaches to the things which pass to and fro in sensation: but these are forms of time, imitating eternity and moving by number in a circle. And besides these there are such expressions as the following; what has become is become, and what becomes is becoming, and what will become is about to become.’

And lest any one should suppose that I am misinterpreting the philosopher’s words, I will make use of commentaries which explain the meaning of these statements. There are indeed many who have set themselves to the consideration of these matters; but at present it is enough for me to quote the expressions of an illustrious man, Numenius the Pythagorean, which he uses in his second Book Concerning the Good,as follows: