Philo of Alexandria (Alexandria, 25 BC – 50 AD), a Jewish scholar and expert on the works of Greek philosophers, wrote numerous biblical commentaries in Greek. He lived in the city where, in the 3rd century BC, the Bible was translated into Greek and where Hellenistic culture flourished. His observations inaugurated reflection and understanding of the biblical text and were a source of inspiration for the first Christian commentators.
For an introduction to the commentaries on Genesis 1:1, see the page Genesis 1:1 Bereshit
For the Greek lexicon (arkhế, lógos, génesis), see: Lexicon of the commentaries on Genesis 1:1
Philo, Περι της κατα Μωυσεα κοσμοποιιας, On the Creation of the World According to Moses, ch. 13.15-22.24-28.129-130
The Greek text used for the translation is that provided by the Perseus Digital Library:
13. Ἓξ δὲ ἡμέραις δημιουργηθῆναί φησι τὸν κόσμον, οὐκ ἐπειδὴ προσεδεῖτο χρόνων μήκους ὁ ποιῶν — ἅμα γὰρ πάντα δρᾶν εἰκὸς θεόν, οὐ προστάττοντα μόνον ἀλλὰ καὶ διανοούμενον —, ἀλλ’ ἐπειδὴ τοῖς γινομένοις ἔδει τάξεως.
He [Moses] says that the world was created (δημιουργηθῆναί dêmiourgêthễnai) in six days, yet the creator is not bound by the length of time—for it is natural for God to do everything at once, not only by giving an order but also by thinking—but because what comes into being must have order.
The six days of creation (hexaemeron) therefore account for order (τάξις) and not for a succession of time.
[…]
15. ἑκάστῃ δὲ τῶν ἡμερῶν ἀπένειμεν ἔνια τῶν τοῦ παντὸς τμημάτων τὴν πρώτην ὐπεξελόμενος, ἣν αὐτὸς οὐδὲ πρώτην, ἵνα μὴ ταῖς ἄλλαις συγκαταριθμῆται, καλεῖ, μίν δ’ ὀνομάσας ὀνόματι εὐθυβόλῳ προσαγορεύει, τὴν μονάδος φύσιν καὶ πρόσρησιν ἐνιδών τε καὶ ἐπιφημίσας αὐτῇ.
To each of the days he assigned some of the parts of the whole, excluding the first, which he does not call first, so that it would not be counted with the others; having given it the name “one,” he designates it by a name that suits it, giving it the nature and denomination of unity (μονάδος) and conferring that name to it.
λεκτέον δὲ ὅσα οἷόν τέ ἐστι τῶν ἐμπεριεχομένων, ἐπειδὴ πάντα ἀμήχανον· περιέχει γὰρ τὸν νοητὸν κόσμον ἐξαίρετον, ὡς ὁ περὶ αὐτῆς λόγος μηνύει.
We must enumerate as much as possible of what is contained [in this day], since there is no way to enumerate everything: for [this day] it includes the intelligible world that is not attainable [to the senses], as the logós reveals it about it [the day one].
16. προλαβὼν γὰρ ὁ […] θεὸς ὅτε θεὸς ὅτι μίμημα καλὸν οὐκ ἄν ποτε γένοιτο δίχα καλοῦ παραδείγματος οὐδέ τι τῶν αἰσθητῶν ἀνυπαίτιον, ὃ μὴ πρὸς ἀρχέτυπον καὶ νοητὴν ἰδέαν ἀπεικονίσθη, βουληθεὶς τὸν ὁρατὸν κόσμον τουτονὶ δημιουργῆσαι προεξετύπου τὸν νοητόν, ἵνα χρώμενος ἀσωμάτῳ καὶ θεοειδεστάτῳ παραδείγματι τὸν σωματικὸν ἀπεργάσηται, πρεσβυτέρου νεώτερον ἀπεικόνισμα, τοσαῦτα περιέξοντα αἰσθητὰ γένη ὅσαπερ ἐν ἐκείνῳ νοητά.
God, in his quality of God, understands in advance that a beautiful imitation cannot come into being without a beautiful model, and that nothing among the things perceptible to the senses is without defect if it is not made in the image of an archetype and an intelligible idea; wanting to create this visible world from a prior model [that is] intelligible, so that the corporeal might be made using an incorporeal model and as much as possible in the image of God, the youngest in the image of the oldest, comprising as many kinds perceptible by the senses as there are intelligibles in the other.
17. Tὸν δ’ ἐκ τῶν ἰδεῶν συνεστῶτα κόσμον ἐν τόπῳ τινὶ λέγειν ἢ ὑπονοεῖν οὐ θεμιτόν· ᾗ δὲ συνέστηκεν, εἰσόμεθα παρακολουθήσαντες εἰκόνι τινὶ τῶν παρ’ ἡμῖν. ἐπειδὰν πόλις κτίζηται κατὰ πολλὴν φιλοτιμίαν βασιλέως ἤ τινος ἡγεμόνος αὐτοκρατοῦς ἐξουσίας μεταποιουμένου καὶ ἅμα τὸ φρόνημα λαμπροῦ τὴν εὐτυχίαν συνεπικοσμοῦντος, παρελθὼν ἔστιν ὅτε τις τῶν ἀπὸ παιδείας ἀνὴρ ἀρχιτεκτονικὸς καὶ τὴν εὐκρασίαν καὶ εὐκαιρίαν τοῦ τόπου θεασάμενος διαγράφει πρῶτον ἐν ἑαυτῷ τὰ τῆς μελλούσης ἀποτελεῖσθαι πόλεως μέρη σχεδὸν ἅπαντα, ἱερὰ γυμνάσια πρυτανεῖα ἀγορὰς λιμένας νεωσοίκους στενωπούς, τειχῶν κατασκευάς, ἐρύσεις οἰκιῶν καὶ δημοσίων ἄλλων οἰκοδομημάτων·
It would not be appropriate to say or imagine the world formed by ideas in any place: by what it is formed, we will know by pursuing a certain image of the things that are near us. When a city is built according to the great ambition of a king or an absolute ruler, who displays his power and is at the same time gifted with a brilliant mind and good fortune, it happens that a trained architect appears, who, having observed the good climate and favorable position of the place, first sketches out in his mind the parts of the city that are to be built: temples, gymnasiums, residences for magistrates (prytaneia), squares, ports, boat storage areas, narrow passages, walls, private and public dwellings, and other buildings.
18. εἶθ’ ὥσπερ ἐν κηρῷ τῇ ἑαυτοῦ ψυχῇ τοὺς ἑκάστων δεξάμενος τύπους ἀγαλματοφορεῖ νοητὴν πόλιν, ἧς ἀνακινήσας τὰ εἴδωλα μνήμῃ τῇ συμφύτῳ καὶ τοὺς χαρακτῆρας ἔτι μᾶλλον ἐνσφραγισάμενος, οἷα δημιουργὸς ἀγαθός, ἀποβλέπων εἰς τὸ παράδειγμα τὴν ἐκ λίθων καὶ ξύλων ἄρχεται κατασκευάζειν, ἑκάστῃ τῶν ἀσωμάτων ἰδεῶν τὰς σωματικὰς ἐξομοιῶν οὐσίας.
Then, having received in his psykhế, as if on wax, the types of each building, he carries within himself the intelligible city, whose representations he elaborates in the memory with which he is endowed by nature, imprinting even more characteristics on it; like a good creator (dêmiourgós), turning his gaze to the model, he begins to build it [the city made] from stones and wood, making the beings (ousiai) corporeal, similar to each of the incorporeal ideas.
19. τὰ παραπλήσια δὴ καὶ περὶ θεοῦ δοξαστέον, ὡς ἄρα τὴν μεγαλόπολιν κτίζειν διανοηθεὶς ἐνενόησε πρότερον τοὺς τύπους αὐτῆς, ἐξ ὧν κόσμον νοητὸν συστησάμενος ἀπετέλει καὶ τὸν αἰσθητὸν παραδείγματι χρώμενος ἐκείνῳ.
About God, we must think of similarities, such as that of someone who, thinking of building a great city, first thought of its models (τύπους), and then created the sensible [world] using as a model (παραδείγματι) those of which the intelligible world is made up.
20. καθάπερ οὖν ἡ ἐν τῷ ἀρχιτεκτονικῷ προδιατυπωθεῖσα πόλις χώραν ἐκτὸς οὐκ εἶχεν, ἀλλ’ ἐνεσφράγιστο τῇ τοῦ τεχνίτου ψυχῇ, τὸν αὐτὸν τρόπον οὐδ’ ὁ ἐκ τῶν ἰδεῶν κόσμος ἄλλον ἄν ἔχοι τόπον ἢ τὸν θεῖον λόγον τὸν ταῦτα διακοσμήσαντα· ἐπεὶ τίς ἄν εἴη τῶν δυνάμεων αὐτοῦ τόπος ἕτερος, ὃς γένοιτ’ ἄν ἱκανὸς οὐ λέγω πάσας ἀλλὰ μίαν ἄκρατον ἡντινοῦν δέξασθαί τε καὶ χωρῆσαι;
According to this, therefore, the city that was designed in [the mind of] the architect does not have a place outside, but is imprinted in the psykhế of the expert; the world [formed] by ideas could have no other place than the divine logos that arranged [all] this: for what other place could there be for its powers, which would be capable of receiving and containing them, not all of them, but even one in its true nature as it is?
21. δύναμις δὲ καὶ ἡ κοσμοποιητικὴ πηγὴν ἔχουσα τὸ πρὸς ἀλήθειαν ἀγαθόν. εἰ γάρ τις ἐθελήσειε τὴν αἰτίαν ἧς ἕνεκα τόδε τὸ πᾶν ἐδημιουργεῖτο διερευνᾶσθαι, δοκεῖ μοι μὴ διαμαρτεῖν σκοποῦ φάμενος, ὅπερ καὶ τῶν ἀρχαίων εἶπέ τις, ἀγαθὸν εἶναι τὸν πατέρα καὶ ποιητήν· οὗ χάριν τῆς ἀρίστης αὑτοῦ φύσεως οὐκ ἐφθόνησεν οὐσίᾳ μηδὲν ἐξ αὑτῆς ἐχούσῃ καλόν, δυναμένῃ δὲ πάντα γίνεσθαι.
The creative power of the world is that which has as its source the good that is close to the truth. If, in fact, someone had as his goal to investigate this particular cause by which everything was created, it seems to me that he would not miss his goal by saying, as one of the ancients said, that the father and the creator are good. Thanks to this, he did not deny the excellence of his nature to a being (ousia) that does not have beauty in itself, but which has the power to become everything.
22. ἦν μὲν γὰρ ἐξ αὑτῆς ἄτακτος ἄποιος ἄψυχος <ἀνόμοιος>, ἀναρμοστίας ἀσυμφωνίας μεστή· τροπὴν δὲ καὶ μεταβολὴν ἐδέχετο τὴν εἰς τἀναντία καὶ τὰ βέλτιστα, τάξιν ποιότητα ἐμψυχίαν […] ὁμοιότητα ταυτότητα, τὸ εὐάρμοστον, τὸ σύμφωνον, πᾶν ὅσον τῆς κρείττονος ἰδέας.
For of itself [this being] was without order, without quality, without psykhế , filled with disharmony and discord; but [this being] received a reversal and a change towards its opposite and the best: order, quality, presence of psykhế , equality, identity, harmonious disposition, agreement, and everything that can be with excellent characteristics.
A similar idea can be found in Augustine: he speaks of the creation of “formality” first, of spiritual and corporeal creatures that must receive their form after turning to God, contemplating their model in him and conforming to it.
[…]
24. εἰ δέ τις ἐθελήσειε γυμνοτέροις χρήσασθαι τοῖς ὀνόμασιν, οὐδὲν ἂν ἕτερον εἴποι τὸν νοητὸν κόσμον εἶναι ἢ θεοῦ λόγον ἤδη κοσμοποιοῦντος· οὐδὲ γὰρ ἡ νοητὴ πόλις ἕτερόν τί ἐστιν ἢ ὁ τοῦ ἀρχιτέκτονος λογισμὸς ἤδη τὴν [νοητὴν]. πόλιν κτίζειν διανοουμένου.
If someone wanted to use more explicit words, he would not say that the intelligible world is other than the logos of God who already creates the world [when he has an intellection of it]: for the intelligible city is not other than the reasoning of the architect already when he imagines building the city.
25. τὸ δὲ δόγμα τοῦτο Μωυσέως ἐστίν, οὐκ ἐμόν· τὴν γοῦν ἀνθρώπου γένεσιν ἀναγράφων ἐν τοῖς ἔπειτα διαρρήδην ὁμολογεῖ, ὡς ἄρα κατ’ εἰκόνα θεοῦ διετυπώθη (Gen. 1,27). εἰ δὲ τὸ μέρος εἰκὼν εἰκόνος [δῆλον ὅτι] καὶ τὸ ὅλον […] εἶδος, σύμπας οὗτος ὁ αἰσθητὸς κόσμος, εἰ μείζων τῆς ἀνθρωπίνης ἐστίν, μίμημα θείας εἰκόνος, δῆλον ὅτι καὶ ἡ ἀρχέτυπος σφραγίς, ὅν φαμεν νοητὸν εἶναι κόσμον, αὐτὸς ἄν εἴη [τὸ παράδειγμα, ἀρχέτυπος ἰδέα τῶν ἰδεῶν] ὁ θεοῦ λόγος.
This is the teaching of Moses, not mine: it is certain that, in writing down the genesis of man, he explicitly acknowledges in what follows that he was modeled according to the image of God (Genesis 1:27). If, therefore, the part is the image of the image and the whole is the image, taken all together this is the sensible world; if it is greater than man, the image of divine likeness, it is clear that the archetypal seal that we say is the intelligible world is the logos of God.
Philo says, “This is the teaching of Moses, not mine,” not to dissociate himself from this teaching, but on the contrary, to invite us to recognize in Moses’ own text what he has just affirmed.
26. Φησὶ δ’ ὡς ,,ἐν ἀρχῇ ἐποίησεν ὁ θεὸς τὸν οὐρανὸν καὶ τὴν γῆν, τὴν ἀρχὴν παραλαμβάνων οὐχ ὡς οἴονταί τινες τὴν κατὰ χρόνον· […] χρόνος γὰρ οὐκ ἦν πρὸ κόσμου, ἀλλ’ ἢ σὺν αὐτῷ γέγονεν ἢ μετ’ αὐτόν· ἐπεὶ γὰρ διάστημα τῆς τοῦ κόσμου κινήσεως ἐστιν ὁ χρόνος, προτέρα δὲ τοῦ κινουμένου κίνησις οὐκ ἄν γένοιτο, ἀλλ’ ἀναγκαῖον αὐτὴν ἢ ὕστερον ἢ ἅμα συνίστασθαι, ἀναγκαῖον ἄρα καὶ τὸν χρόνον ἢ ἰσήλικα κόσμου γεγονέναι ἡ νεώτερον ἐκείνου· πρεσβύτερον δ’ ἀποφαίνεσθαι τολμᾶν ἀφιλόσοφον.
He says, therefore, “in the arkhế God made heaven and earth,” taking the arkhế not as some think according to time, for time did not exist before the world, but it came into being either with it or after it; for time is the interval of the movement of the world, therefore, movement cannot come into being before that which moves, but it is necessary that this [the interval] be produced before or at the same time; it is therefore also necessary that time come into being either at the same time as the world or that it be younger than it: to assert that it is older is anti-philosophical temerity.
Here Philo introduces the different understandings of the word arkhế, parallels of which can be found in Greek philosophy, as well as a classical and Aristotelian consideration that links time to movement. (See Aristotle’s text on time and movement).
27. εἰ δ’ ἀρχὴ μὴ παραλαμβάνεται τανῦν ἡ κατὰ χρόνον, εἰκὸς ἄν εἴη μηνύεσθαι τὴν κατ’ ἀριθμόν, ὡς τὸ ,,ἐν ἀρχῇ ἐποίησεν ἴσον εἶναι τῷ πρῶτον ἐποίησε τὸν οὐρανόν· καὶ γὰρ εὔλογον τῷ ὄντι πρῶτον αὐτὸν εἰς γένεσιν ἐλθεῖν, ἄριστόν τε ὄντα τῶν γεγονότων κἀκ τοῦ καθαρωτάτου τῆς οὐσίας παγέντα, διότι θεῶν ἐμφανῶν τε ’ καὶ αἰσθητῶν ἔμελλεν οἶκος ἔσεσθαι ἱερώτατος.
Now, if the arkhé is not that which is considered according to time, it is likely that it turns out to be that which is according to number, so “in the arkhé he made” would be the same as “first he made the sky”: for it is reasonable for this being (the sky) to have come into being (εἰς γένεσιν) first, being the best of those that came into being and united with the purest of being (ousia), because it was to be the most sacred dwelling place of the manifest and sensible gods.
In classical cosmology, the stars and planets are called the visible gods. We find this worldview also in Aristotle, who, in seeking the final object of first philosophy, the separate, eternal, and immobile being, the origin of all movement, also speaks of separate beings, eternally in motion, moved by the former, and also calls them gods. This designation may seem surprising and apparently contradict Philo’s monotheism. However, it is only a borrowing from classical cosmology and the conception of the stars as eternally created by God to preside over the order of the cosmos (kosmos in Greek also means that which is well ordered, well arranged). See Philon’s other work on the eternity of the world, which, while affirming a single creator God, maintains that this creation and the subsistence of the world are eternally willed by God. We find a similar approach in Averroes (Ibn Rushd), when he defends the ideas of philosophers, and Aristotle in particular, on the eternity of the world, explaining that affirming an eternal world does not detract from the creative act of God, who eternally wills this world and gives it life. The world therefore remains a creature and not a god, in the sense of a creator god.
28. καὶ γὰρ εἰ πάνθ’ ἅμα ὁ ποιῶν ἐποίει, τάξιν οὐδὲν ἧττον εἶχε τὰ καλῶς γινόμενα· καλὸν γὰρ οὐδὲν ἐν ἀταξίᾳ. τάξις δ’ ἀκολουθία καὶ εἱρμός ἐστι προηγουμένων τινῶν καὶ ἑπομένων, εἰ καὶ μὴ τοῖς ἀποτελέσμασιν, ἀλλά τοι ταῖς τῶν τεκταινομένων ἐπινοίαις· οὕτως γὰρ ἔμελλον ἠκριβῶσθαί τε καὶ ἀπλανεῖς εἶναι καὶ ἀσύγχυτοι.
For if the creator had made everything at once, what came into being with beauty would have no less order: for there is no beauty in disorder. Order, on the other hand, is a sequence and succession of what is produced and put in order, even if this is not in the realizations, but rather in the thoughts of those who make the plan: thus, in fact, they are completed and they are [the works realized] without error and without confusion.
[…]
129. Ἐπιλογιζόμενος δὲ τὴν κοσμοποιίαν κεφαλαιώδει τύπῳ φησίν· « Αὕτη ἡ βίβλος γενέσεως οὐρανοῦ καὶ γῆς ὅτε ἐγένετο, ᾗ ἡμέρᾳ ἐποίησεν ὁ θεὸς τὸν οὐρανὸν καὶ τὴν γῆν, καὶ πᾶν χλωρὸν ἀγροῦ πρὸ τοῦ γενέσθαι ἐπὶ τῆς γῆς καὶ πάντα χόρτον ἀγροῦ πρὸ τοῦ ἀνατεῖλαι“ (Gen. 2, 4. 5). ἀρ’ οὐκ ἐμφανῶς τὰς ἀσωμάτους καὶ νοητὰς ἰδέας παρίστησιν, ἃς τῶν αἰσθητῶν ἀποτελεσμάτων σφραγῖδας εἶναι συμβέβηκε; πρὶν γὰρ χλοῆσαι τὴν γῆν, αὐτὸ τοῦτο ἐν τῇ φύσει τῶν πραγμάτων χλόη, φησίν, ἦν, καὶ πρὶν ἀνατεῖλαι χόριον ἐν ἀγρῷ, χόρτος ἦν οὐχ ὁρατός.
Considering the creation of the world in summary, he [Moses] says: “This is the book of the genesis [generation] of heaven and earth when they came into being, in the day when God made heaven and earth and all the green of the field before it came into being (γενέσθαι) on the earth and all the grass of the field before it grew” (Genesis 2:4-5). Does he not thus clearly establish the ideal forms (ἰδέας) that are incorporeal and intelligible, which he has made to correspond to the seals [that give form] to sensible realizations? For before the earth became green, he says that this same green grass was in the nature of things, and that before the grass grew in the field, there was grass that was not visible.
Idea (ἰδέα) is the form with the characteristics of something as it appears in its intellectual representation, as visualized by the mind. Etymologically, the word idea is related to the root *vid-, to see, in Latin video.
130. ὑπονοητέον δ’ ὅτι καὶ ἑκάστου τῶν ἄλλων ἃ δικάζουσιν αἰσθήσεις τὰ πρεσβύτερα εἴδη καὶ μέτρα, οἷς εἰδοποιεῖται καὶ μετρεῖται τὰ γινόμενα, προυπῆρχε· καὶ γὰρ εἰ μὴ κατὰ μέρος <ἀλλ᾿> ἀθρόα πάντα διεξελήλυθε φροντίζων εἰ καί τις ἄλλος βραχυλογίας, οὐδὲν ἧττον τὰ ῥηθέντα ὀλίγα δείγματα τῆς τῶν συμπάντων ἐστὶ φύσεως, ἥτις ἄνευ ἀσωμάτου παραδείγματος οὐδὲν τελεσιουργεῖ τῶν ἐν αἰσθήσει.
It would also have to be assumed that, for each of the other things that we judge to be perceptible, the older forms and measures pre-existed, according to the form and measure of which the things that come into being are made: for it was not one by one, but all at once that [Moses] reviewed them, being mindful of brevity; the few things he said are nonetheless examples of the nature of all things as a whole, which without an incorporeal model would accomplish nothing to the end in the sensible [world].
Philo distinguishes a creation of intelligible models in the logós, arkhế of God, the principle of his wisdom; it is according to these noetic models, related to thought, that material creation will then take shape.
Note 1: Aristotle on the heavens and the planets.
For the link between time and movement (no time without movement, see Aristotle, Physics, book 4, chapters 10-14)
Physics 4, 11, 218b 34 – 219a 1
… φανερὸν ὅτι οὐκ ἔστιν ἄνευ κινήσεως καὶ μεταβολῆς [219a] χρόνος.
… it is clear that without movement and change there is no time.
Metaphysics 12, 7, 1073a 36-1074b 14
ἓν ἄρα καὶ λόγῳ καὶ ἀριθμῷ τὸ πρῶτον κινοῦν ἀκίνητον ὄν: καὶ τὸ κινούμενον ἄρα ἀεὶ καὶ συνεχῶς: εἷς ἄρα οὐρανὸς μόνος.
The first being that moves while being immobile is one by the logos and by number; and therefore also that which is moved [is moved] always and continuously; therefore, also the sky is one and only one.
The single heaven comprises the entire system of spheres on which the planets are located, and it is the movement of the spheres and their complex mechanism [described in Metaphysics 12, 8] that is moved by the first mover.
[1074b] [1] παραδέδοται δὲ παρὰ τῶν ἀρχαίων καὶ παμπαλαίων ἐν μύθου σχήματι καταλελειμμένα τοῖς ὕστερον ὅτι θεοί τέ εἰσιν οὗτοι καὶ περιέχει τὸ θεῖον τὴν ὅλην φύσιν.
[that] has been handed down to posterity in the form of myth by the ancients and the very ancients, that these are gods and that the divine surrounds the whole of nature.
τὰ δὲ λοιπὰ μυθικῶς ἤδη προσῆκται πρὸς τὴν πειθὼ τῶν πολλῶν καὶ [5] πρὸς τὴν εἰς τοὺς νόμους καὶ τὸ συμφέρον χρῆσιν: ἀνθρωποειδεῖς τε γὰρ τούτους καὶ τῶν ἄλλων ζῴων ὁμοίους τισὶ λέγουσι, καὶ τούτοις ἕτερα ἀκόλουθα καὶ παραπλήσια τοῖς εἰρημένοις,
The rest was added later in the manner of myths, for the persuasion of the many, to proclaim laws and to benefit from them. They say that these [the gods] are human in form and similar to certain other animals and other things in accordance with these and close to what has been said;
ὧν εἴ τις χωρίσας αὐτὸ λάβοι μόνον τὸ πρῶτον, ὅτι θεοὺς ᾤοντο τὰς πρώτας οὐσίας εἶναι, θείως ἂν εἰρῆσθαι [10] νομίσειεν, καὶ κατὰ τὸ εἰκὸς πολλάκις εὑρημένης εἰς τὸ δυνατὸν ἑκάστης καὶ τέχνης καὶ φιλοσοφίας καὶ πάλιν φθειρομένων καὶ ταύτας τὰς δόξας ἐκείνων οἷον λείψανα περισεσῶσθαι μέχρι τοῦ νῦν. ἡ μὲν οὖν πάτριος δόξα καὶ ἡ παρὰ τῶν πρώτων ἐπὶ τοσοῦτον ἡμῖν φανερὰ μόνον. [15]
Among these, if anyone, leaving the rest aside, takes only the first, that is to say, if they consider that the first ousiai [the first beings] are gods, one may consider that this was said divinely; and that, probably, many times, as far as possible, each art and philosophy having been rediscovered and lost again, these same opinions of those [the ancients] have survived as vestiges until now. Therefore, the opinion of the ancestors and that which was with the first ones is manifest to us only to this extent.