Friday, April 21, 2023

Dialogue Against the Jews by Peter Alphonsus

The Dialogue of Peter, surnamed Alphonsus, a Christian convert from Judaism, and Moses the Jew, in which the impious opinions of the Jews are refuted by the most evident arguments of both natural and celestial philosophy, and some more obscure passages of the prophets are explained. (Biblioth. Petr. Lugdun., XXI, 172.)

The book is divided into twelve titles and is arranged as a dialogue in order to engage the reader’s mind. Peter explains his conversion to Christianity, and refutes objections to the Christian faith with reason and authority. The book aims to show that the Christian law is superior to all others, and to provide a defense of Christian beliefs.

Note that a more professional edition and translation of this book has been published by Catholic University of America Press.

Preface of Peter Alphonsus.

To the One and eternal first, who has no beginning and no end, the Omnipotent, the Creator of all things, the knower of all things, the doer of all that He wills, who has endowed man with reason and wisdom, and placed him above all animals, by these two virtues he may desire what is just and avoid what is contrary to salvation, to Him be honor and glory, and may His marvelous name be blessed forever and ever. Amen.

The author of the following work said: The Almighty has inspired us with His Spirit and guided us to the path of righteousness, first removing the thin film from our eyes and then the heavy veil of our corrupted soul. Then the mysteries of the prophecies were opened to us, and their secrets were revealed, and we applied our mind to understanding their true meaning, and we lingered over explaining it. Hence, we have considered both what is to be understood in them and what is to be believed from them, namely that there is one God in a Trinity of persons, which are neither preceded by any time nor separated by any division, which Christians call the Father, the Son, and the Holy Spirit, and that the blessed Mary, conceiving by the Holy Spirit, without male intercourse, gave birth to Christ, forming a body with a soul, which would be the dwelling place of the incomprehensible Deity. So, Christ is one, perfect in three substances, that is, body, soul, and deity, He is both God and man, and the Jews crucified Him by their disposition and will, so that as He was the creator, He would also become the redeemer of the whole holy Church, namely of the faithful who came before and those who follow. He died in the body and was buried, and on the third day He rose from the dead, and He also ascended into heaven, and there He is together with the Father, coming on the day of judgment to judge the living and the dead, as the prophets spoke and foretold the future. So, by the impulse of divine mercy, having reached such a high degree of this faith, I cast off the cloak of falsehood, and I was stripped of the garment of iniquity, and I was baptized in the city of Osca, in the name of the Father, and the Son, and the Holy Spirit, purified by the hands of Stephen, the glorious and legitimate bishop of the same city. At the time of baptism, in addition to what has been mentioned, I believed in the blessed apostles and the holy Catholic Church. This happened in the year 1106 from the birth of the Lord, in the forty-fourth year of my life, in the month of July, on the feast day of the apostles Peter and Paul. Hence, in honor and memory of that apostle, I imposed the name Peter on myself. My spiritual father was Alfonso, the glorious emperor of Spain, who took me from the sacred font, so I added his name to my aforementioned name, and imposed the name Peter Alphonsus on myself. Now, when it was known to the Jews who had known me before , and having a not insignificant part in all liberal arts, that I had accepted the law and faith of the Christians, and I was one of them, some of them thought that I had not done this, unless it was because I had completely thrown off all modesty, that I had despised both God and the law. Others, however, said that I did it because I had not understood the words of the prophets and the law as I should have. Still, others attributed it to vain glory, and they slandered me for having done this for the honor of the world, since I saw that the Christian nation surpassed all others. Therefore, I composed this little book so that everyone may know my intention and hear my reasoning, in which I first laid out the destruction of the credibility of all other nations, and afterward concluded that the Christian law is superior to all others. Lastly, I also addressed all the objections of any adversary of the Christian law and refuted them according to my wisdom, with reason and authority. I arranged the entire book as a dialogue, so that the reader’s mind may be more eager to understand. In defending the arguments of the Christians, I used the name that I now have as a Christian; in refuting the arguments of the adversary, I used the name that I had before baptism, that is, Moses. I also divided the book into twelve titles, so that each reader may more quickly find what they desire in them.

Here Begins the Dialogue

Peter: From an early age, I had a very close friend named Moses, who had been my companion and fellow student since childhood. When he heard that I had left my father’s law and chosen the Christian faith, he hastily left his post and came to me, wearing the expression of an indignant man upon his arrival. He greeted me not as a friend, but as a stranger, and began: “Ah, Peter Alphonsus! Much time has passed since I desired to come to you, see you, talk with you, and spend time with you. My affection lacked effect until now when I see you with a joyful face, thanks to God’s grace. Now, please, reveal to me your intention, and explain your reasoning for leaving your old law and embracing the new one. For I knew you to be well-versed in the writings of the prophets and the words of our doctors since childhood, a champion of the law above all your peers, and if there was an adversary, you opposed them as a shield of defense; you preached to the Jews in synagogues that they should never depart from their faith, taught the knowledgeable, and led the learned to greater heights. Yet, I see you changed in some way and estranged from the path of righteousness, which, in my opinion, seems to be a mistake.” To which I replied: “It is the custom of the common and unlearned people that if they see someone doing something against their own customs, even if it is right and most just, it is still considered unjust and blameworthy in their estimation and judgment. But you, who were nurtured in the cradle of philosophy and suckled by its breasts, how can you blame me before you can prove whether my actions were just or unjust?”

Moses: Since two opposing thoughts come to my mind: one, that I think a wise man like you could not have departed from the law you held, unless you truly recognized the one you accepted as better; the other, that I consider the law I hold, and which you left, to be better, so I regard your action as a mistake, and I don’t know which side to support. Therefore, I ask you to remove this doubt from my mind, and let us both run in the field of alternate reasoning until I reach the investigation of this matter and can determine whether your action was just or unjust.

Peter: Human nature has it that a troubled mind lacks discernment in distinguishing between truth and falsehood. Now, unless you remove all perturbation from your heart, so that we can wisely praise what is just and reject what is unjust without contention, we will never reach the end of our task, and our words will be wasted in vain. [539C]

Moses: I willingly accept this agreement and ask you to accept the same for yourself.

Peter: I certainly agree with joy.

Moses: I also implore this: if you bring any authority from the Scriptures, please do so according to the Hebrew truth. If you do otherwise, please acknowledge that I will not accept it. But if I bring any, as it is among us, I ask you to accept it as I intend, and not to contradict what you recognize as true.

Peter: I certainly do not deny this, for I greatly desire to slay you with your own sword.

Moses: Moreover, if something ever occurs that seems foreign to the laws, I ask you not to hesitate but to respond to the questions as they pertain to other disciplines when the occasion demands it. Please allow me to ask questions, respond, and even oppose you, as the conversation permits.

Peter: I agree. Now you may ask about whatever you want to know, with any intention.

Moses: Do you admit that Moses, the son of Amram, was a true prophet of the Israelite people and was truly sent by God (Exodus 3), and that he faithfully announced and spoke whatever he prophesied in the name of God?

Peter: I certainly do.

Moses: Do you also admit that all the prophets after Moses came to confirm his law and not to refute it in any way?

Peter: I also concede this.

Moses: Nor do you deny that the law which the Jews currently uphold, and which they assert was written by Moses, remains entirely the same as Moses wrote it?

Peter: How could I deny it, especially since the same law, translated in Moses’ words by our teachers, in whom we trust, and written among us, remains the same except for a few places where the words may change but the meaning remains the same?

Moses: Then how do I see you as having transgressed it and strayed from its paths?

Peter: That is not the case, but now I preserve its complete faith, as I ought, and proceed with the right step through its straightest paths.

Moses: From your words, it can be understood that you grasp the correct meaning of the law and the words of the prophets, while the Jews, who follow the same law, seem to deviate from its true intention. Thus, in your opinion, they seem to understand it poorly.

Peter: You have penetrated the meaning of my words well.

Moses: So let me know in what way the Jews seem to have erred in their interpretation of the law and how you understand it better.

Peter: I see that they pay attention only to the surface of the law, and interpret the letter not spiritually, but carnally, from which they are greatly deceived by error.

Moses: I do not fully understand what you mean by these words, so I ask you to speak more clearly.

Peter: Do you not remember your learned men who wrote your doctrine, which according to you is based on your law, asserting that God has a body and form and attributing to His ineffable majesty things that have no consistent reason? They even expressed opinions about Him that seem like nothing more than the words of jesters in children’s schools or gossips in women’s public places. Furthermore, when explaining the law according to your understanding, you hope to escape captivity in a way that is impossible. Also, you hope for such an extraordinary miracle in escaping captivity that your dead will be raised to inhabit the earth anew as before. Yet, while you are in captivity, I see you observing only a minimal part of the law’s commandments, even according to your interpretation. You believe that what you do pleases God and is acceptable, and you trust that He will not blame you for what you neglect. You seem to think you have fulfilled everything, which is clearly the greatest area of error. There are many other errors into which you have been led by unsound interpretations of the law.

Moses: You delve too deeply into our disgrace and seek to oppress the Jewish people. Indeed, the words are few and light, but there is much and heavy meaning in them [541A]. And if we want to conclude the whole matter under one judgment and comprehend many things under one title, while we ought to elucidate each individually, you mix everything indiscriminately, bringing obscurity. Therefore, if it seems good to you, let us assign individual titles to each point of reasoning, so that, with each one discussed in turn, we may orderly proceed to the next, thus setting a fitting end to our work.

Peter: What you have said well should be done, and what you have advised fittingly should be fulfilled. Therefore, with individual titles assigned to each point, inquire first about what you wish, since I am prepared to respond.

Title I: Showing that the Jews understand the words of the prophets carnally, and falsely expound them.

Moses: First, let us establish the title that contains the reasons for which you attack us and our teachers, specifically, that we attribute a body and form to God, and we ascribe to His nature things that the truth of reason abhors. Therefore, let us discuss this matter diligently until we reach its investigation through reason and argument.

Peter: I approve of what has been said.

Moses: First, I want you to show me where our teachers have said that God has a body and form, and how they have spoken on this matter.

Peter: If you wish to know where it is written, it is in the first part of your doctrine, which is called “blessings.” If you want to know how they said God [541C] has a head and arms, and carries a box tied with a strap in his hair, and the knot of the strap is fixed at the back of the head under the brain, and inside the box, there are four tablets containing the praises of the Jews, and at the top of the left arm, he carries another box, similarly tied with a strap, and a paper is there containing all the praises that are said to be written in the aforementioned four. Do you concede that all these things are written in that place in this way?

Moses: I cannot deny what is evident.

Peter: What authority do they have on this matter?

Moses: Concerning the box that he carries in his hair and the knot of the strap, they draw their authority from that [541D] place where the Lord said to Moses, “You shall see my back, but my face shall not be seen” (Exodus 33). For then Moses saw the knot of the strap. However, it is necessary that the knot itself be of some box. As for the one he carries on his arm, the authority is taken from Isaiah saying, “The Lord has sworn by His right hand and by the arm of His strength” (Isaiah 62). For by the arm of strength, he means the left arm, in which the power of that box is contained.

Peter: You have brought it to my memory. For I remember now that I have read this place, but this authority does not grant you any protection. For although the law states that God said to Moses, “You shall see my back,” and since it is certain that God cannot lie, [542A] so it happened afterward, although the Scripture is silent, we do not doubt, yet the law does not mention that Moses saw anything in His back. How then do you say that he saw the knot of the strap, which can hardly be said without laughter? Moreover, since by “back” not only the neck but also any part of the body can more conveniently be understood, you prove that he saw the neck, not by reason or the authority of the law, but by your own will alone.

Moses: Our teachers say that by “back” the neck should be understood.

Peter: According to the sequence of your foolish explanation, which lacks the support of Scripture and reason, I am willing to proceed. For even if I grant that God has a neck, which is both unwise and seems, and is, wicked to a wise man, [542B] it could still happen that Moses saw nothing in him but his neck. Or if we imagine he saw something else, he could have seen a cap or a knot of a strap, that is, of the crown you say the angel, named Metatron, places on God’s head every day.

Moses: Our teachers, indeed, argue that what he saw was a knot of a strap; therefore, they claim that God showed his neck to Moses so that he could see the knot of the strap.

Peter: Let us grant what you assert for your own destruction. For even if we lie that Moses saw the knot of the crown, when he did not see his face at all, how did he prove that God carried a box on the front part of his head? [542C]

Moses: Just as Moses saw the knotted strap, the teachers understood that the box, which was tied to it, was on God’s head.

Peter: This understanding is not entirely sound, for we should not say that God carries anything; however, that strap could have been tied to a cymbal or a bell, or any precious gem, or something of that sort. Yet to take away all your foolish responses, I will grant that it is as you want and say. But granted that, I ask you, how could Moses have understood that the papers were contained inside, let alone say that he knew what was written on them? Moreover, what is most worthy of wonder above all these things is that in that paper, as you believe, nothing else is written but the verses which [542D] Moses, long after dying, taught the Israelite people, praising himself, and after many years, Solomon, adoring God, composed about their praise; there is no reason why it should be believed to have been written on God’s head.

Moses: What Moses did not see with his fleshly eyes, he knew by the revelation of the Holy Spirit. But I admit that I have no reason for the writings of the papers.

Peter: Glory to God. Now you lack a foolish response for a short time. Again, if we grant that Moses saw some of these things, and knew some others by the revealing Holy Spirit, since neither Moses himself left it in writing nor did any prophet after him reveal it, how was the secret of such a hidden thing disclosed to your teachers? [543A]

Moses: Through the successors of the ancients, it came to the knowledge of our teachers at last.

Peter: When your argument flees to such an irrational conclusion through the successions of the ancients, you will be able to establish any lie. Yet it is very hard to bear, because you attribute to your teachers what they themselves perhaps do not want when they do not testify that they have this from the ancients’ account through Moses, but they themselves invent such things in the explanation of the verses.

Moses: I answered not by the reason of right but by the occasion of escape.

Peter: So let us hold the truth and avoid vanity since, in the beginning of reason, we both agreed to do so.

Moses: I think it is right. [543B]

Peter: Please say, do you know how much your narrative is verified by reason, apart from this and also that it is now unsupported by any authority?

Peter: You argue that God has a head, arms, and the entire form of a body. If this is the case, then you must admit that God consists of dimensions of length and height. But if He is confined by these three dimensions, He is necessarily limited by six parts of the body, which is inappropriate, as will be shown in its place. Concerning the strap that you say He has on his head, I propose two things to you. Your strap, either it is of Him or it is from elsewhere. If it is of Him, then God is divided from Himself; but if it is from elsewhere, it is either a creator or a creature. If it is a creator, then there are two creators; if it is a creature, then some creature is greater than a part of the Creator, which is inappropriate. Furthermore, I ask: Does He wear this on His head or arm by some necessity or without necessity? If He wears it by necessity, then the Creator needs a creature, which is another inappropriateness. Now, therefore, you can clearly recognize that I have shown you by the reason you requested, namely how vile it is that you believe in the strap.

Moses: I understand. [543D]

Peter: Again, your teachers in the book of doctrines assert that God is only in the west, confirming this by the authority of Ezra, saying: The army of heaven worships you (2 Esdras 9). They explain this by saying that when all the stars fall in the west, then the army of heaven worships God, and since this worship of the stars takes place in the west, they assert that God is in the west. This is their opinion. Although they are far from the knowledge of God, if they at least acknowledged the shape of the world, they would not think such unworthy things about God.

Moses: I want you to show me, if you please, how from this word it can be weighed that they have not acknowledged the shape of the world.

Peter: Since we do not speak of the east, except for that place where the star first appears, nor the west, except where it is withdrawn from our sight.

Moses: Now, I beg you to show me the certain place of the east and the west, and discuss the knowledge of this matter subtly.

Peter: As you have asked me to show this matter to you subtly, you must also look at it with a subtle eye. Consider it in this way: Stand in any place you want and from there direct a straight line to the eastern part. When it reaches the place beyond which you cannot see, recognize that place as the east for you. In the same way, if you direct a straight line from the place where you stand to the west, when it reaches such a place that sets a limit to your sight, consider it the place of the west for you. [544B]

Moses: Now, I desire the hour of the true rising and the hour of the true setting to be shown to me.

Peter: When the star rises, extend the aforementioned line to the very place of the star and fix the line in the center of the star, so that half appears above the earth and half is still hidden, and you will call this the rising hour of the star. Therefore, when the sun begins to rise above the earth in this way, that hour is the true sunrise for astrologers. In the same way, if you direct the line to the western part of the star when it sets, fix the top of the line in the center of the star so that half is above the earth and half is below the earth, you will call that hour the setting. When the sun sets in this [544C] way, that hour is the true sunset for astrologers and the beginning of the night.

Moses: Based on your reasoning, this conclusion follows: although the eastern part of the world is the same for everyone, the place of the east is not the same for everyone. Similarly, since the western part is not the same for everyone, neither is the sunrise hour the same for us and other nations, nor is the sunset hour the same for us and other nations, but the place of the east and west and the hour of sunrise and sunset vary according to the longitude of the Earth’s locations.

Peter: I am glad that you grasp the truth of the matter.

Moses: Please, speak more clearly and show such a subtle matter through some analogy.

Peter: Let us, therefore, establish the sun at the first degree of Aries [544D] and at the first point of the degree and say that it has just risen for the city of Arin, which is situated in the first of the seven climates of the Earth, having ninety degrees to the east and as many to the west, and also having ninety degrees to the North Pole and as many to the South Pole. When the sun, I say, has begun to rise for this city, what hour will it be for the city that is sixty degrees away from the west of Arin?

Moses: According to what I have found written in the books of astrologers, there are still two hours remaining from the previous night.

Peter: When the sun sets for Arin city, what hour will it be for the aforementioned city?

Moses: Similarly, two hours remain of the day. [545A]

Peter: When the sun begins to rise for that city, what hour is it already for Arin city?

Moses: With two hours having passed, the third hour begins.

Peter: When the sun sets for that city, what hour will it be for Arin city?

Moses: Two hours of the night have already been completed.

Peter: If you draw a straight line from Arin through the city, and lead one end to the east and the other to the west, and similarly do the same in the other city, extending from it a straight line, one end reaching the east and the other to the west, can the ends of both lines from either side come together at the same time?

Moses: Not at all, but the ends of the lines on both sides will be as far apart as the cities themselves are distant from each other, namely thirty degrees. [545B]

Peter: Now it is very clear to you that the locations of the east and west, and the hours of sunrise and sunset are not the same for everyone, but vary according to the various longitudes of the Earth.

Moses: I finally understand well.

Peter: Also, when the sun rises for the city of Arin, at the same hour, if we draw a line from the east to the west of the same city to the other city we mentioned, which point of the sky will each summit of the line touch?

Moses: The summit that faces east will occupy the first point of the first degree of Pisces, and the one that faces west will hit the first point of the first degree of Virgo.

Peter: Again, if we make the same line when the sun sets for Arin, which points of the sky will each summit of the line touch for the other city?

Moses: The summit facing east will hit the first point of the first degree of Virgo, and the one facing west will encounter the first point of the first degree of Pisces.

Peter: Once again, if we draw lines from the city of Arin to the east and west of the other city, which points of the sky will each summit touch?

Moses: The one facing east will hit the first part of the first degree of Taurus, and the one facing west will meet the first point of the first degree of Scorpio.

Peter: But if we draw the same line when the sun sets for that city, which points of the sky will each summit touch?

Moses: The summit facing east will touch the beginning of the first degree of Scorpio, and the one facing west will touch the beginning of the first degree of Taurus.

Peter: Now you can understand that the degree of the sign that is in the east for Arin when the sun appears is not the same as the one that appears at the same hour for the other city. Similarly, the degree in the west for Arin when the sun sets is not the same as the one that appears at the same hour for the other city. Therefore, it happens to all cities, depending on their longitude.

Moses: I understand everything clearly.

Peter: Also, the part of the sky that appears in the east at sunrise in any place on Earth is not the same as the part that will appear at the same hour the next day at the same location.

Moses: That is very clear.

Peter: This variation in degrees in the sky occurs every day, just as the sun moves constantly through the same degrees. Since this is the case, it is necessary to admit that locations of the east and west and the hours of sunrise and sunset are not equal for all places on Earth, but vary according to the different longitudes of the Earth. Therefore, it is foolish to claim that the place where stars supplicate God is in the west.

Moses: Although I cannot refute your clear reasoning, I would like you to show me how the distances between distant cities can be determined or known, so that we may better understand the differences in the hours of sunrise and sunset at the same time in different places.

Peter: Let us then assume that the sun is at the first degree of Aries, and that a solar eclipse is just beginning in the city of Arin at the first hour of the seventh day. If you desire to know what time this same eclipse begins in another city situated 60 degrees west of Arin, upon careful inspection you will find that it begins at the first hour of the fifth day. At the same moment, the first degree of Gemini will appear in the east of that city, making it clear that there are thirty degrees of longitude between the two cities. This is how astrologers determine the distance between two cities.

Moses: Removing the veil of great blindness from my heart, you have shed a bright light of truth, for which you will be rewarded by God. But since you said earlier that Arin is located in the middle of the hemisphere, equidistant from all sides and situated in the first of seven climates of the Earth, with ninety degrees to both the east and west and to the North and South poles, I want you to describe this location more clearly so that I can imagine myself standing in that city. For when you say that Arin is in the middle of the earth, it seems to suggest that the surface of the earth is flat, but you have previously established the roundness of the earth based on the east and west. Yet, every round object lacks a beginning and end, and wherever you seek a beginning or end, there you will undoubtedly find the middle.

Peter: Consider Arin to be located in such a position on the terrestrial sphere that it is equidistant from both the North and South poles, and that the first points of Aries and Libra pass through it every day. It will therefore have ninety degrees to both poles and will be located in the first part of the first climate with respect to longitude.

Moses: From your words, it can be inferred that the entire habitable part of the earth exists in only one part. I want to know which part that is.

Peter: From the middle of the earth to the northern part.

Moses: I wish to see this geometric figure demonstrated visibly, for I do not doubt that different peoples have had different opinions on this matter based on the writings of their books. They also divide the earth into five zones, considering the middle zone, which is scorched by the heat of the sun, to be uninhabitable, and also considering the two extreme zones farthest from the sun to be uninhabitable due to extreme cold, but they regard the two middle zones, which are tempered by both heat and cold, to be the only habitable ones.

Peter: This opinion contradicts reality. For we can see that Arin is located in the middle of the Earth, and the beginning of Aries and Libra progress over it in a straight line. The air there is very temperate, so that the time is almost always equal there in spring, summer, autumn, and winter. There, aromatic plants of beautiful color and honeyed taste grow. Human bodies are not too lean or too fat, but are pleasingly proportioned. The temperature also makes the human body suitable for it, and the animals, because they are endowed with ineffable wisdom and natural justice. Therefore, how can anyone presume to say that the place where the sun passes directly over it is uninhabitable? Rather, the entire habitable space of the Earth exists continuously from the aforementioned place to the northern globe, which the ancients divided into seven parts, which they called seven climates, according to the number of seven planets. The first of these is in the middle, where the city of Arin was founded, and the seventh holds the extreme of the northern sphere, while the rest contains the middle space. There is no uninhabitable place, except where either the dryness of many sands with a little water or the roughness of mountains does not allow the plow’s burden. All these things are demonstrated by the figure placed before our eyes:

Figure

Peter: You have satisfied my desire. Therefore, I ask you to show me why the part of the Earth beyond Arin to the south is not inhabited, as this part beyond to the north is, so that Arin is in the middle of the habitable region, or why that part beyond is uninhabitable, and that on this side towards the north is uninhabitable.

Peter: Because the center of the circle of the sun is outside the center of the circle of the Earth on the northern side, when the sun, descending from Libra to Aries, passes over the meridian signs, the earth, then closer, burning it with the heat of proximity, renders it infertile and completely sterile, and therefore uninhabitable. Therefore, from the first climate to the north, the habitable space remained divided into seven climates. Whatever lies beyond the seventh climate, when the sun declines from there to the meridian signs of the six parts, remains devoid of all heat and abounds in the excess of rain, clouds, and cold, so that all animals lack habitation. However, the description placed before our eyes clearly shows how the center of the circle of the sun is outside the center of the circle of the Earth on the northern side:

Figure

Moses: You have demonstrated a previously unknown matter to me in a brief but clear manner, and I see that those who hold a different opinion on the division of the Earth’s regions have been sufficiently answered.

Peter: With God’s present discourse fulfilled, let us return to the subject at hand.

Moses: I consider it worthy.

Peter: Your teachers, in the third book of doctrine, assert that God is in a place defined by six parts, affirming this by the testimony of Daniel who says: “When I was going out, behold, the prince of the Greeks entered (Dan. 10).” For they conceive from this that God is in such a place where there is an entrance and an exit. But if this is the case, it is clear that God exists in a place defined by six parts. If, however, He is limited by a place, then there is some place that is empty of God. And if that is the case, how does He know what is happening in another place where He is not, or how does He work in it?

Moses: Indeed, He can have such wisdom and will that He knows what is elsewhere through wisdom, and works through will.

Peter: So I want you to answer me, whether that wisdom and will are always in Him and with Him, or outside of Him, and thus also without Him. For if you say that they are in Him and not outside of Him, the same will happen with them as with Himself, because they will not be in every place. So how can He know what is happening elsewhere or work? But if you say that they are outside of Him and fill every place, then they are separate from Him. For they know something that He does not know, and they work by themselves what He does not work. Therefore, they are creators, and the world does not need God.

Moses: Indeed, they can be in Him and shine forth in all places, knowing and working, as the sun, while it is in one place, spreads its warming rays everywhere and illuminates.

Peter: If this is the case, then that wisdom and will do not equally exist everywhere. For whatever spreads out like this does not have the same power at the end as it does at its beginning, which is not fitting for God. However, since you dare to impose a limit on God, would that you at least believed simply and did not attribute corporeal accidents to Him!

Moses: How do you say we believe this?

Peter: You say, indeed, that He is angry once a day, bringing forth the testimony of David, who says: “The Mighty One is angry every day (Psalm 7).” You also assert that He is angry at the first hour of the day, saying that the cause of this anger is that at that hour, the wicked kings rise up, put on their crowns, and worship the sun. Do you see how absurd this speech is, and how foolish are those who brought this forth, since they completely ignore the distinction of anger? For if they knew it, they would not think this about God.

Moses: What then do you think anger is?

Peter: Anger occurs when, upon hearing a displeasing word, the bile turns red, that is, the gall boils, and it spreads over the liver and mixes with the blood. Then the person becomes hot, and their face turns pale. This characteristic belongs to no thing unless it is composed of the four elements. But God is not subject to such characteristics.

Moses: I cannot contradict the truth.

Peter: No less abhorrent is their claim that God becomes angry about something he cannot avenge. If he could, his anger would surely subside. They also say that no one has ever known the exact moment when he becomes angry, except Balaam, the son of Beor. However, in this claim, you contradict yourselves, because on one hand Moses calls him a soothsayer (Numbers 22), and you call him wicked, but on the other hand, you suggest that he is wiser than Moses because he knows the moment of anger that Moses did not. Although this statement is quite astonishing, it becomes insignificant when compared to the greater absurdity that you claim: the irrational rooster knows the precise moment of God’s anger every day. Do you admit that they have said all these things?

Moses: Although I would like to deny it, I cannot.

Peter: Nor is it enough for them to say these things about God, but they also claim that he weeps once a day, and that his two tears fall from his eyes into the great sea, and they affirm that these tears are the flashes of light that appear to fall from the stars at night. This reasoning shows that God is composed of the four elements. For tears are only produced by an abundance of moisture descending from the head. If this is so, then the elements are the material of God. But every material is simpler and more basic than form. Therefore, these things are prior and more basic than God, which is blasphemous to believe. So, if God is as you say, he neither eats nor drinks and emits two tears daily, he must diminish unless he continually drinks from the waters above the sky. From their words, it is also evident that they do not know what that flash of light is.

Moses: I wish to know your thoughts on that flash of light.

Peter: A smoky vapor rises from the earth, very dry, and thus passes through the place of the clouds, reaching a place where there is not much heat since it is far from the motion of the firmament. When it arrives there and accumulates in one place, it is gradually burned by the small heat of that place and disappears as it is consumed. That is what we see moving through the air.

Moses: Since I am continuously learning from you, I rightfully give thanks without ceasing.

Peter: They also say that the very weeping which they undeservedly attribute to God is the cause of the Jews’ captivity; indeed, they even assert that because of his sorrow, he roars like a lion three times a day, and because of this, he strikes the heavens with his feet as if treading grapes in a winepress, and also makes a sound like the cooing of a dove, and every time he moves his head, he says in a sorrowful voice: “Alas for me, alas for me! Why have I turned my house into a desert, and burned my temple, and sent my children among the nations? Woe to the father who sent [551A] his children away! And woe to the children who were taken from their father’s table!” They also say that one of your learned men heard this voice in a certain noisy place. Moreover, they say that he strikes his feet together like a woman in labor, claps his hands in sorrow, and prays daily that his mercy might be upon his anger, and that he might go among his people in mercy. Tell me, Moses, when God prays, whom, I ask, does he worship? Himself or another? If another, then the one he worships is more powerful than he is. If he worships himself, he is either powerful for what he prays for, or he is powerless. If he is powerless, he worships himself in vain; if indeed he is powerful, he either wants what he prays for, or he does not want it. If he does not want it, he prays for nothing. But if he wants it, there is no need to pray. You see then, Moses, how completely this people [551B] is estranged from the knowledge of the divine?

If it is indeed true that God weeps for you, roars like a lion, strikes the heavens with his feet, moans like a dove, moves his head, and cries out in great sorrow, “Alas for me!”, and moreover that he strikes his feet together in pain, claps his hands, and prays daily that he might have mercy on you, then what prevents your release from captivity? Does this delay come from you, or from him? By showing that he is less powerful to fulfill his will when you attribute to him the weeping of a child who wants to accomplish something but cannot, you show that he is impotent. If he is now powerless, tell me whether he will have power in the future or not? If he will ever have power, then both your and his sorrow will come to an end, and your prayer is empty, and there is no hope. If [551C] he will indeed have power, either he has not yet had it, but at a predetermined and certain time he will have it, and when he has it, he will free you from captivity, or he has already had it, but because of the intervention of certain events, he has lost it, and when those events are removed, he will regain it and lead you out of captivity.

If he is going to have power at a certain time, it remains for you to say what it is that now prevents him from having it, namely whether you attribute this to the scarcity of his years, to the weakness of his limbs, or to the obstacle of any thing from which he cannot defend himself. But it is impious to believe this of God. For we read in the Holy Scriptures, which you and we both believe, that God performed greater miracles in ancient times than if he were to free you from captivity, such as when he struck Egypt with ten plagues (Exod. VII, VIII), and then led you out with a strong hand, dividing the Red Sea, into which he submerged Pharaoh and his army (Exod. XIV). He also fed you with manna and quail from heaven in the desert (Psal. LXXVII; Exod. XVI; Num. XI), and he made the waters of the Jordan stand still in one place like a mountain (Joshua III). He fixed the sun and the moon at Joshua’s prayer (Joshua X), and he caused one hundred and eighty-five thousand soldiers of Sennacherib’s army to be killed in one night (IV Kings XIX; Eccl. XLVIII). In the days of Hezekiah, he commanded the sun to go back fifteen steps (IV Kings XX). He delivered Daniel from the lions’ den (Dan. XVI), and Shadrach, Meshach, and Abednego from the fire (Dan. III), as well as freeing you from the Babylonian captivity (I Esdras VII), and performing many other miracles which would take too long to list. Therefore, you cannot say that he was not powerful in ancient days. If you admit that he was indeed powerful, as is fitting, but claim that he was made powerless by the intervention of accidents, and that after their departure he will recover his power, then you must acknowledge one of these two things: either those accidents came from him and existed within him, as an illness afflicting a person, preventing the effects of his will until he recovers; or they were imposed upon him by another, as captivity imposed by a king deprives a person of the power of their will until they regain their freedom. If you say that they came from him and existed within him, then you claim that God has a body that is susceptible to opposites, which is not fitting to believe about God. If, however, you say that they were imposed upon him by another, then you show that the one who imposed them is more powerful than God, which is no less inappropriate. If you say that you yourselves are the cause of your captivity, as if it were better for you to be in captivity now than in freedom previously, it is clearly a lie to anyone, for captivity can never be compared to freedom. If, on the other hand, you do not delay your freedom with this intention, but resist his will with obstinacy as he desires to free you, because he put you in captivity and you want to persist in captivity more than he wishes, then he should indeed satisfy your will and not continually depress himself with such great sorrow, or spare you and not cause you so much sadness. But this cannot stand, since you pray to him daily to rescue you from captivity. Therefore, I beseech you, Moses, to remove the twists and turns of such a great circuit from my heart.

Moses: None of the things you listed prevent our captivity, but we admit that God has always been and will always be omnipotent, and we do not deny that we want to escape captivity, but we say that God has set a certain limit to our captivity, and until the time He has established, sworn, and confirmed arrives, we cannot be liberated in any way.

Peter: In this statement, you ascribe ignorance to God when you say that He established and swore to such a thing, which later He regrets having sworn and confirmed. The sign of this is that He is constantly afflicted for your sake in so many ways. If He had foreseen this, He would not have established it beforehand. So according to you, He was unwise. Since you agree on this, you should indulge Him and not disturb Him with constant prayers. For the more often you pray, the more you renew His pain, and the more you cease from praying and do not disturb Him, the more you allow Him to be consoled. But tell me, please, oh Moses, tell me, should anyone believe such teachers and entrust their faith to their treatises?

Moses: When they confirm their own words with the authority of the prophets, why do you attack them so harshly, and say nothing about the prophets? Or do you not know that the prophets said that God has a head, eyes, nostrils, hands, arms, and all the features of a body? [553A] They even said that He gets angry every day, roars like a lion, and many other things that are proven by their authority.

Peter: The statements of the prophets are obscure and not clear enough to everyone. For this reason, when we find such things in the prophets that, if we take them literally, would lead us astray from reason, we interpret them allegorically so that we can bring them back to the path of righteousness. Necessity compels us to act this way, because otherwise the meaning of the text cannot stand. However, your teachers did not know God as they should, so in explaining the statements of the prophets on a superficial level, they have erred against Him. Therefore, for this reason and many others like it, I have said that I understand the statements of the prophets according to what healthy sense requires. [553B]

Moses: Now I want you to show me a passage that we must understand allegorically, because if it is explained literally, it cannot stand, so that what you say may be proven true.

Peter: I will show you what you ask. For example, when Moses said to Pharaoh, “The locust will cover the eye of all the earth” (Exod. X), did the earth have an eye? Similarly, when Moses spoke of the sons of Korah, “The earth opened its mouth and swallowed them” (Num. XVI), did the earth have a mouth? Also, in the book of Judges, Gaal said to Zebul, “Behold, a people descends from the belly of the earth” (Judic. IX). But does the earth have a belly? Again, Isaiah says, “We have heard praises from the ends of the earth” (Isa. XXIV). Does the earth have wings? David also said, “The fields will rejoice, and everything in them” (Psal. XCV). And also, “The rivers will clap their hands, and the mountains will exult” (Psal. XCVII). Can fields rejoice, rivers have hands, or mountains exult? Solomon also said, “The birds of the air will carry your word, and those who have wings will announce your judgment” (Eccle. X). Can a bird speak or someone with wings announce anything? And the prophet Habakkuk said, “The stone from the wall will cry out, and the wood that is between the joints of the buildings will answer” (Habac. II). Can a stone cry out or wood respond?

Moses: It is true what you say, that in many cases a figurative sense is necessary, but when the prophets speak of the physical attributes of God, if it is interpreted literally, I do not know why you call it absurd.

Peter: Physical attributes ascribed to God only fit with physical substance and imaginary things. It is indecent to believe that God is like this. Therefore, it is not appropriate to interpret literally what is said about God as corporeal. If someone thinks this, it is contrary to both Scripture and reason.

Moses: I want you to show why someone who interprets Scripture in this way is contrary to it.

Peter: Because we say that God has no image or likeness, we contradict many prophet’s authorities. For Moses said to the children of Israel, “Take heed therefore to your souls, for you saw no likeness on the day that the Lord spoke to you in Horeb from the midst of the fire, lest perhaps being deceived, you might make to yourselves a graven similitude, or image of male or female, the similitude of any beasts that are upon the earth, or of birds that fly under heaven, or of creeping things that move on the earth, or of fishes that are in the waters under the earth” (Deut. IV). After forbidding them from assimilating God to composed bodies, he also feared that they might conform to Him with simple bodies, adding, “Lest perhaps lifting up thy eyes to heaven, thou see the sun and the moon, and all the stars of heaven, and being deceived by error, thou adore and serve them, which the Lord thy God created for all nations that are under heaven.” Do not think that Moses commanded the people to worship the figures or images of the above-mentioned bodies when they did not doubt that they were creatures. Rather, he feared that they would believe that God had the image of any of these things and therefore worshiped these similitudes in place of Him.

Moses: This is a very subtle idea, and not easy for anyone to understand. I still need something clearer.

Peter: The prophet Isaiah asks, “To whom will you liken me, and make me equal?” (Isaiah 40) And again, “To whom then will you compare me, that I should be like him?” (Ibid.) And once more, “To whom then will you compare me, or who is my equal?” (Ibid.) David also proves that God is not confined to a particular location, which consequently implies that He is not corporeal. He says, “Where shall I go from your Spirit? Or where shall I flee from your presence? If I ascend to heaven, you are there! If I make my bed in Sheol, you are there! If I take the wings of the morning and dwell in the uttermost parts of the sea, even there your hand shall lead me, and your right hand shall hold me.” (Psalm 139) Solomon also has the same understanding and says, “But will God indeed dwell on the earth? Behold, heaven and the highest heaven cannot contain you; how much less this house that I have built!” (2 Chronicles 2) And elsewhere, “For the eyes of the Lord run to and fro throughout the whole earth, to give strong support to those whose heart is blameless toward him.” (2 Chronicles 16) And Jeremiah says, “Am I a God at hand, declares the Lord, and not a God far away? Can a man hide himself in secret places so that I cannot see him? declares the Lord. Do I not fill heaven and earth? declares the Lord.” (Jeremiah 23) Now you can clearly see that if we interpret the Scriptures literally and claim that God has a body and bodily parts, all of the aforementioned passages contradict that notion.

Moses: Since I see how contrary my understanding is to the Scriptures and how far it deviates from reason, I desire to listen according to the promise.

Peter: In the great palace of reason, let us spread the floor with certain sentences like flowers, so that we may later sit more delightfully to reason in it. These sentences will be like steps for us to prove that God exists and to know what He is. For we must first prove that God exists, and then show that there is nothing similar to Him [555A]. For some people deny the existence of God and affirm that the world has existed from eternity and without a Creator. This necessity compels us to first show that there is a God who created the world.

Moses: Why did you not do this in the aforementioned discussion of the Scriptures, first showing that God exists?

Peter: Those who place their faith in the Scriptures do not deny the existence of God; therefore, it was not necessary to prove this to believers in Scripture, but only to those who do not believe in any written word.

Moses: Since you do not want to prove the existence of God through the Scriptures, and since He cannot be grasped by any bodily sense, I am eager to hear how philosophical reasoning can prove His existence [555B].

Peter: If I show that the world, along with everything in it, was created, then I will necessarily conclude that there is a God, who is the Creator.

Moses: And how can you prove this?

Peter: Wisdom is said to be in three ways. For one thing is that which is perceived by some bodily sense, another is that which is known only by necessary reason, and another is that which is found by the likeness of other things. That which is perceived by some sense cannot be proven by any other argument, as someone blind from birth can only distinguish the varieties of colors by hearing alone, and hearing does not completely satisfy his mind, and so on with the other bodily senses. That which is known by necessary reason, however, is such as when we say that a body cannot move and stand still at the same [555C] moment; or that “is and is not” cannot be truthfully predicated of anything. That which is perceived through similarity, however, is such as when you hear a voice somewhere, you understand that there is something vocal there, even though you do not see it, or when you see smoke anywhere, you know that there is fire there, even if you do not see it. Similarly, if we see some vessel made, we certainly know that there was some maker of it (Rom. 1), even if we do not see him. Thus, we must first prove that the world was created, so that it is clear that there was some Creator of it. And when we have proven the Creator of the world, we will consequently show by reason that the Creator Himself has no similarity [555D].

Moses: It is fitting for me to bless your words, from which I believe I will receive great benefit. Fulfill your promise, then, and now spread the palace with the flowers you have mentioned.

Peter: In this, indeed, all philosophers agree that the principle of things is perfect wisdom, a splendid light, the substance of substances, the argument of all things; after this is the world of the universal soul, and after that, matter. These two, namely the universal soul and matter, are simple and the first of all creations, and the origin and cause of the whole composite thing, from which the firmament was gradually made, with all the forms and images it possesses.

Moses: From your words, it is understood that the firmament, along with everything in it, is composite. However, I have found in many places that it is written that everything below the circle of the moon is composite, while everything above is simple.

Peter: Indeed, the firmament, along with everything it contains, is composite in reality. However, in relation to the things that are subject to the circle of the moon, it is called simple. This is how it is in all things: something is said to be composite in relation to what it is made of, but simple in relation to what is made of it. In the same way, everything above the moon is simple in relation to the things below the moon, which are made from it. But it is composite in relation to the matter it is made from.

Moses: I want to understand more clearly how the firmament, being a single substance, can be called composite.

Peter: Every body is composite, and every composite thing is either substantial or partial: substantial, for example, when one substance is joined to another; partial, when the parts of one substance are joined. A substance is joined, as a head is composed of bones, flesh, and veins joined together, or as a door is composed of wood and iron. Thus, everything that is completed by the conjunction of different substances is called a substantial composite. The composition of partial composites, however, is more subtle. This is evident because every body, having length, width, and height, is not joined to a different body, but is composed of parts of its own substance, as when many parts of silver are joined together until they make something heavy and solid. This composite is simpler than the former. Something is said to be entirely simple when it is devoid of both types of composition. And since the firmament is a body, consisting of three dimensions, it is indeed composite.

Moses: I desire to know the reason why every body consisting of length, width, and height is composite.

Peter: Every body whose nature is movable in some direction does not move in that direction except by its nature. It is known, however, that the part that moves to a certain place by nature, that is its natural place. And since this is the case, it is impossible for any dimension to exist in another direction, which is contrary to its natural place. If it is found to have a dimension in another direction, one of two things is the cause of this: either it is composed externally, like a wall made of stones piled on top of each other, or internally, like the parts of a tree emerging from its core, spreading in various directions, and taking on a certain dimension. From this, it can be understood that anything having a certain dimension in a direction contrary to the natural movement of its part is composite. Therefore, the firmament, even though it is a single substance, is composite.

Moses: Reason has now shown that the firmament, along with everything it possesses, is composite. However, I do not know how the universal soul and matter can be found in it, and how they can be simple.

Peter: Since the firmament has been proven to be composite, it necessarily follows that there must be some material from which it is composed, like a bed, which is made of wood, or a knife, which is made of iron. This material must be simpler than the firmament, just as wood is simpler than a bed, and iron is simpler than a knife. And since every material is simpler than the thing made from it and does not have the form or image of its composite, it is clear that the material of the firmament has no bodily form within it, and therefore must be entirely simple. If we say that there is something composite in it, there must be another material from which it is composed, and this material must be simpler. But if we say that this material is also composite, we must admit that it has an even simpler material, and so on to infinity. To avoid this, we must admit that the material is simple. Behold, it is sufficiently proven that there is material in the firmament, and that it is simple. We will likewise find the soul in the same way, because those forms by which the material is informed were not made solely for the body’s completion. Forms, indeed, are spoken of in two ways. Some only show the limit of the body, such as triangular or round, or any other shape; in a stone, they have no other function but to produce the shape of the body itself. Others, however, not only inform the body but are also made suitable for some usefulness by the compulsion of nature, such as the shape of the ear for hearing, the eye for seeing, and the individual shapes of other members are suitable for their function. Likewise, the shape of a knife is for cutting, that of a saw for sawing, and that of a rake is suitable for digging. And since the material has taken on various forms within it that it never had before, it is clear that it did not receive them from itself, but from the addition of something else, which is both more powerful and simpler, which made different forms and images within it, especially since there was no necessity for such forms or images to be made within it. But this was done more out of the desire of the soul, which wished to mix with such a thing to which it had never been mixed before and to be glued together, and from this new mixture, the material was informed with new forms. Since, therefore, the firmament with all the things it possesses is undoubtedly composite according to the philosophers, it is necessary that it is believed to have a beginning. For every composite has some beginning. In this way, it is clear that the world was created. Moreover, every composite must have a composer. For nothing can compose itself, and in the same way, every created thing must necessarily have a creator. For nothing can create itself. Therefore, it is necessary for the creator of the world, who is called God, to exist.

Moses: Therefore, an adversary can insist, saying that this composer is the force of the universal soul, which is called nature. Which, I say, the soul joined to matter, composed the firmament and everything in it, and no other composer or creator of things exists.

Peter: What you say cannot stand. For since we see the forms with which the material is informed to be various and suitable for various uses, it is clear that nature itself, by whose mixture and power the forms were made, cannot be entirely loose but in some way must have restraint. But this restrained nature must have a restrainer, who is, however, restrained by no one.

Moses: I respond that this restrainer is the soul itself, which has restrained its own force as it pleases.

Peter: The workings of the soul cannot be like that, but rather, they must be like the workings of a creator who is perfect in wisdom by himself. However, the soul does not possess perfect wisdom.

Moses: How can you show that the soul does not have perfect wisdom?

Peter: Because the soul is mixed with matter, and matter is incorporated into the soul, the soul never afterwards lacks the alternation of pain and pleasure. Indeed, no pleasure arises unless pain has preceded it, just as no one ever delights in drinking unless they first suffered from thirst, or in eating unless they first experienced hunger, or in resting unless they first felt pain from labor. Likewise, in all feelings. When the soul, however, strips itself of its bodily contamination and considers itself in its pure state, it realizes that there is nothing better and more dignified than that which does not subject itself to the many varied accidents of passions. Therefore, it is clear that the soul does not possess perfect wisdom. Another argument can be made about the same matter, namely that when the soul abandons reason, it immediately indulges in luxury, theft, murder, and other vices which are detested by the perfect wisdom of reason; hence, it is evident that the soul’s wisdom is imperfect. It has thus been sufficiently proven to those who do not believe in the Scriptures that there is another creator, whose wisdom is perfect in itself, as is evident through the reason attributed to us that the soul’s deeds without reason are faulty and somewhat shameful. Consequently, it follows that the one through whom we received reason is not the soul, but another, since it is impossible that the one who abhors or detests something would want to create it. It also follows from this that the soul is of imperfect wisdom, but the giver of reason is of perfect wisdom. Since reason operates in the soul, it is necessary that the giver of reason is the creator of the soul. Since this is the case, and as it was proven earlier that the soul forms everything composed of matter, it can be undeniably concluded that the one who gave reason, created everything, and is the cause of all things. This philosophical view of the soul maintains that the rational soul proceeds from the universal. However, the Jews, as you know, claim that all souls were created simultaneously at the beginning of the world, stored in one place, and that the day of judgment will not come until all souls are embodied, and that as soon as they are embodied, the end of the world will occur. Christians, on the other hand, argue that new souls are created daily and are infused into newly formed bodies in the womb. Whatever you choose to believe about the soul, without a doubt, as previously mentioned, the one who gave reason created everything and is the cause of all things. This Creator, who possesses perfect wisdom, must be eternal and neither created nor new, for if He is believed to be created or new, He must necessarily have another creator or renewer. Nothing can ever create or renew itself, and so the number of creators or renewers will be without end. With an endless number of creators, creation will never reach a definite end. Therefore, it must be believed that the first creator is neither created nor renewed, but necessarily eternal. Moreover, it is appropriate to believe that He is not composed, but simple. Every composition is motion and the action of a simple thing. Furthermore, what is prior cannot have a beginning. Every composition, however, has some beginning. Thus, the first creator is not composed, nor is He corporeal. Indeed, everything corporeal, as we have discussed at length earlier, is composed. He is also not changeable. Everything that moves consists of parts. But whatever is composed of parts is composite. However, that which is first of all things is not composite. Therefore, it is also not mobile. Furthermore, all motion occurs in a body, whether it be straight motion, as when someone leaves one place and occupies another, or circular motion, as when something in the same place, like the firmament, revolves in an orbit, or the motion of parts of some thing in relation to one another [559C], from the extremes to the middle or from the middle to the extremes, as happens in the parts of air, or the motion of a thing existing in the same place, but through certain quasi-increments moving here and there, as happens in the branches of trees gradually growing in all directions. However, all these motions can only occur in a body. But that which is first of all things has been proven not to be corporeal. Therefore, it neither changes nor corrupts. Again, it does not grow by itself, nor is it increased from elsewhere. For everything that receives an increase or an augmentation is undoubtedly composite. But that which is first of all things, as we have shown above, is not composite. Therefore, it neither grows nor is augmented. Moreover, it does not decrease. For that which decreases is corrupted. But [559D] that which is first of all things has been proven not to be corrupted: therefore, it does not decrease. Furthermore, it bears no resemblance to any creature in any way. For resemblance is a quality. But that which is first of all things is not subject to any quality: therefore, it bears no resemblance. Moreover, let us suppose that it has a resemblance to some creature. But it is evident that the resemblance of two things makes one equal to the other, as if they are said to be similar in whiteness, the whiteness of one must be equal to the whiteness of the other; similarly with blackness, and with everything that creates similarity between any two things. Therefore, if this were the case, that which is first of all things would be both first and last simultaneously; and that which is last, both last and first at the same time. How inconvenient both of these are is clear to everyone. Again, since created matter has no form or image in itself, much less should God, the Creator of its nature, who is of a simpler and more subtle nature, be considered to have any resemblance. Thus, fulfilling our promise, we have clearly proven, in my opinion, through reason that God has no resemblance.

Moses: Thanks be to God and to you, for I have come to know without any obstacle of doubt that the Creator of all is not like any creature, has no beginning or end. It is also clear from your words that God, the Creator of all things, is principally the root and foundation; secondarily, the soul, matter, and that God made the soul, and that the soul, made by God, operates in matter. However, there is one doubt [560B] that still gnaws at my mind, which I ask your wisdom to untangle. For I have read in many books of philosophers that there were five things before the creation of the world, namely God, who holds the origin of all things, and after him, the soul, matter, time, and space. Since you have discussed the first three, I am very surprised that you have made no mention of the last two.

Peter: Because it does not pertain to the present discussion, I have deemed speaking of them to be superfluous.

Moses: Even if it seems unrelated to the discussion, I still wish to hear your thoughts on these matters, because the wise Catholics, whose faith you have converted to, have thought very differently about these issues than the books of ancient philosophers suggest. For Catholics believe that these principles had a beginning, while the ancient philosophers claim they are eternal.

Peter: Without a doubt, I place my faith in those who have said that these principles did not come into being with the world, but have existed since antiquity.

Moses: I desire to understand this through reason.

Peter: Place is said to be in two ways. Sometimes it is the cause of another thing, and sometimes it is in itself. It is called the cause of another when some thing is inserted into a place, and that place is said to be the place of that thing when the thing exists in it, and the place is called partial. But if that thing were to depart from the place itself, the place would lose one of the attributes it previously had, namely the relation, because it would no longer be called the place of that thing. Place in itself, which is called universal, is referred to as any emptiness, and we should not think that it exists as the cause of the thing that is in it, for the place must always precede the thing that is to be in it. Concerning this place, such is Plato’s syllogism: Everything, he says, that exists entirely through another whole, if any part of it is destroyed, the cause of its existence is undoubtedly also destroyed, and the part of it that exists because of that cause. But if the part of that which exists through another is destroyed, it is not necessary for any part of that which is the cause of existence to be destroyed. Since place is the cause of existence for the thing that is in it, it necessarily follows that no part of the place is destroyed because any part of the thing existing in it is destroyed. With this granted, it also follows that place does not exist as the cause of another thing. To demonstrate this reasoning, let us bring forth the following example: If we say that a mountain has been removed from any part of the world, it does not mean that the place where it stood has been diminished. The name has indeed been lost, because it can no longer be called the place of that mountain, but the universal place remains there in both name and nature. Again, let us say that any man’s slave has died. Does the master cease to exist because the slave has died? No, but the master’s name, which he had in relation to the slave, is lost. It is clear, then, that when the thing that is in any place is removed, the name of the partial place changes, but the substance of the place is not destroyed. Moreover, time is said to be a substance existing in itself, and not an accident, that exists as the cause of another thing. For example, if we suppose a vessel with water to discern the time of individual hours, we should not think that the vessel is the cause of the existence of time, but rather a sign to distinguish time. For time would occur even if the vessel did not exist. In the same way, we must understand that the firmament is not the cause of time, but only the measure and sign of it, while time itself would exist simply, without sign or measure, and without any distinction, just as the time of the day’s hours would remain undistinguished if the marked vessel with water did not exist. Now, let us briefly conclude everything. It has been proven that God is the creator of all things, as his works indicate to us, since they come from perfect wisdom; the soul is both created and creative, because it does something [561C] in matter, yet it is not corporeal; time and place are non-corporeal existences in themselves, but they are still substantial; as for matter, it is indeed created, but not creative.

Moses: The clarity of open reasoning has dispelled the darkness of all doubt from my heart. I have indeed come to know that the world, along with everything in it, has been created, not eternal. But what remains for you to complete your work is to provide a reason against those who say the world has existed from eternity. They say this: What did it seem to the Supreme Creator in such a sudden and new creation of things, since he had not created them long ago? For it is impious, they say, to believe that God either remembered something, or suddenly saw something that he had either forgotten [561D] or not seen before. Against this question of theirs, I have not found a solution before.

Peter: You should know that there are three roots of all actions. For one action is what ought to be, another what should not be, and another simply good. That which ought to be is such that if you do it, you will be thanked; but if you do not do it, you will be blamed. That which should not be, if you do it, you will be pleasing; but if you do not do it, you will not be blamed. This last action lacks both measure and time, as if someone were to give alms today, it is not to be asked why they did not do it yesterday. Likewise, if they gave one coin, it is not to be investigated why they did not give two. And since the creation of the whole world is good, as even Scripture attests, which says: “God saw [562A] all that he had made, and it was very good (Gen. 1),” it is not to be asked why he did not do this before.

Moses: I sincerely wish for you to receive a great reward from God because you have so subtly resolved the question of non-believers concerning the world’s constitution against believers. Now, I want you to explain what you mentioned earlier, about how everything was made gradually through the conjunction of the soul with matter.

Peter: Philosophers say that when the soul is first united and bound to matter, the great firmament is formed and composed, in which there are no stars, and which makes all circles move. After that, the circle of the zodiac is formed, in which twelve signs shine. In the third place, the circle of fixed stars is created, which always maintain their positions in their respective places. In the fourth place, the circle of Saturn is positioned. In the fifth place, the orbit of Jupiter is positioned. The sixth place is claimed by the orbit of Mars. In the seventh place, the circle of the Sun shines. The eighth place is occupied by the sphere of Venus. The ninth is allotted to Mercury, and the tenth, lower place is given to the Moon. After all these circles are completed and everything in them, the round motion called simple and perfect began, and that motion generated heat in the matter, which spread through it and was received by it, and from this, the four elements were formed: fire, air, water, and earth.

It is well known that all motion that proceeds from a mover, and all power of any powerful thing, gain greater force and strength the closer they are to their origin, and the farther they are from it, the weaker and more yielding they become. Since this is the case, it is clear that the heat that proceeded from the motion of the firmament became much hotter in the places closer to it and congealed, turning into fire of a dry and hot nature. As this heat moved slightly farther from the firmament, it lost some of its power, becoming somewhat lukewarm and weaker, and also moved this way and that, resulting in the warm and humid nature of air. For all heat, as long as it is very strong, dries and burns. But when it becomes lukewarm, it softens and liquefies things.

As it moved even farther from the firmament, it lost its vigor due to the distance from its source, and thus persisted as a cold nature, becoming liquid and heavy. And as it moved even farther from the firmament, this nature of coldness, due to its extreme remoteness, became stronger, denser, more frozen, and harder, turning into a dry and cold substance, which is the earth. Thus, having completed the elements in this way, the nature and power of the firmament moved them to carry out the will and command of God. And when the power of the firmament had moved all of these things in such a way, they mingled and joined together, and from their mixture, other smaller bodies were born, both inanimate, animate, and living creatures. Inanimate bodies, such as stones, metals, and other things that are contained within the earth and do not grow, like quicksilver, sulfur, and the like; animate ones, such as trees and plants; and living creatures, both irrational, such as animals, and rational, that is, humans, who were made after everything else. Thus, every creature began with the universal soul and ended in the human being, gradually migrating from one thing to another. The soul and matter are therefore simple and, by the ineffable providence of the supreme Creator, create all things. Whatever is below them, obeying the will of the heavenly ruler, holds the role of both the created and the creator. For each of them is both made by its superior and makes its inferior in turn. Hence, the prophet David sings of them in this way: “Bless the Lord, all His works, in every place of His dominion (Psalm 102).” Although all of these things are diverse, divine power restrains them in such a way that they do not appear to be at all discordant or inconsistent with one another. David also attests to this in another place, saying, “Praise the name of the Lord, for He spoke, and they were made; He commanded, and they were created. He has established them forever, even forever and ever; He has set a decree which shall not pass away (Psalms 148).” But each of the lower beings is considered simple in relation to the superior, and composite in relation to the inferior. The human body, which is lower than all others because there is nothing beneath it to which it can be called simple, is rightly called completely composite, and humanity was made from an entirely simple creation, being both a soul and a completely composite body. Therefore, God imbued and enlightened humanity with the wisdom of His highness, through which they would know and discern all things. Thus, the human species is better, more elegant, and superior in all respects among all animal species. Hence, it is not unjustly called a lesser world.

Moses: You have demonstrated a difficult, obscure, and unknown matter with clear and sufficiently open speech. Now, from your words, I clearly understand what Moses might have meant in the beginning of the Book of Genesis according to philosophy. He says, “In the beginning, God created the heavens and the earth (Genesis 1),” that is, the universal soul and matter. Gradually, he enumerated all creatures until he came to humanity, which was created on the sixth day. But another question arises for some who do not believe that God is the Creator of the world: If all worldly things are not created by themselves, but there is another Creator who created everything, and He is omnipotent as you say, why did He not complete all these things in one day, but rather work for a while over several days? I do not know what should be answered to this.

Peter: It is not reasonable that, because one creature is created more slowly than another, the supreme Creator of them should be believed to be less powerful. Indeed, it was not due to His impotence but because one of the creatures was softer and another harder in receiving its creation and form. For example, if you take a mass in which iron, bronze, lead, tin, pitch, and wax are placed together and you put this entire mixed mass into the fire at the same time, will they all melt at the same moment? Certainly not, but first the wax, then the pitch, next the tin, afterwards the lead, then the bronze, and finally the iron will melt. Do you attribute this to the power of the fire, that some things melt more quickly than others, or do you ascribe it to their varying weakness?

Moses: No one doubts that the power of fire is the same for all things, but those that are softer melt more quickly, while those that are harder melt more slowly.

Peter: In the same way, in the creation of the world, the delay of so many days passed for no other reason than because some things were slower in receiving their form.

Moses: With the removal of doubt, I now see the light of truth.

Peter: This argument is clear and strong enough for anyone, supported by evidence and reason on all sides. But your teachers, while stubbornly trying to resist us in some matters, are also found to be contrary to themselves.

Moses: If you please, could you show me what this error is?

Peter: They say that when God created the firmament, He deliberately left a large gap in the north that was not perfect, in order to oppose anyone who might claim to be God and equal to Him, by saying: “If you are God as I am, then close the space which I left open.” But it is clear to anyone’s eyes that this is a blatant lie, as the axis of the northern pole is always above us, and we never see it obscured, but we see it whole, complete and perfect. Do you see how obvious this error is?

Moses: I do see it, and I recognize that this argument is devoid of all rational force.

Peter: Isn’t the lie they concocted about the keys of Korah even more dishonorable and absurd?

Moses: How do you mean they lied?

Peter: They say, as you know, that when Korah passed the wilderness with Moses and the sons of Israel, he had three hundred camels carrying nothing but the keys to his treasure, which keys were all made from cowhide to make them lighter. Let us assume that each key weighs six pounds at least, and that each camel carries at least six hundred pounds. Therefore, the keys that one camel carried alone weighed three thousand six hundred pounds. Thus, the keys of three hundred camels make one million eighty thousand pounds. But since each key fits only one box, there will be just as many boxes as there are keys. Therefore, at least two boxes are given to each camel, and there will be five hundred and forty thousand camels carrying boxes. According to the custom of the wealthy, who take greater care to guard their riches, at least two camels should be assigned to each of the three hundred and sixty-five keepers of the camels, who would keep the treasures with the utmost diligence, scarcely even sleeping. Therefore, there were two hundred and forty thousand keepers of the camels. But we have learned from the book how the army of Korah, consisting of his households, families, and tribes, amounted to only eight thousand six hundred. It is even more ridiculous to say that when the sons of Jacob were carrying their father to the grave, the sons of Esau, carrying their father to the same grave, met them with a great retinue. And since both sides had great armies and each wanted to claim the grave, they say that the son of Dan climbed a mountain, cut off a stone of such enormous size as the whole army of Esau could be, and brought the stone, which was as big as his head, and threw it on the wedge of the enemy, destroying them all at once. When he arrived and found both armies to be in agreement, he threw the stone into the sea, and the wave it created was so large that it destroyed two cities, and these cities were the ones that Pharaoh, king of Egypt, commanded the sons of Israel to build for a long time afterwards. Please tell me, isn’t this invention worthy of the highest ridicule? After all, when Jacob had only twelve sons, there were already four hundred men in Esau’s tribe. Now, with the increase in the number of Jacob’s sons, how much greater must the number of Esau’s sons have been estimated? Therefore, there must have been such a great multitude of them that they could have withstood both the sons of Jacob and the whole Egyptian nation that had come with Joseph. Now, tell me what is more worthy of admiration, namely, where did he find such a large stone, or from which mountain did he carry such a massive boulder, or how was he able to carry a stone of such great weight on his head so that he could knock down such a large cohort? Equally amazing is the monster which King Og of Bashan saw, when he saw the vast army of Israel, namely six hundred thousand and four thousand, and five hundred men over twenty years of age, not including women and children who could not be counted, he placed a block of unheard-of size on his head, and with it he wanted to overthrow the entire expedition, but a hoopoe bird, the smallest bird, perched on the mass and, with its beak, hammered away at it until a large hole was made proportionate to the size of the king’s head, and the mass, passing through his head, settled on his shoulders. But with his head intact and his whole body unharmed, he would have lifted it from his neck to his shoulder, unless the sudden increase in the size of his teeth had prevented him. For as the stone descended on his neck, his teeth suddenly increased in size so that, when he wanted to lift it, he could not. Moses, whose body you assert was ten cubits long and whose staff was also ten cubits long, stood up on the ground, leaping ten cubits, so that he could strike him with the staff in some part of his body. Therefore, if you calculate the ten cubits by which he was raised from the ground, and the ten cubits of his body, and the ten others that the staff held up high, you will find thirty cubits from the ground to the top of the staff. But although Moses had been raised so high, the tip of the staff he intended to strike him with could not reach any further than the knot where the calf is attached to the foot, which is commonly called the ankle. In this, when he struck him, he immediately fell dead. In this, anyone can understand that he had thirty cubits from the foot fixed in the ground to the knot where he was struck. From that place, therefore, up to the top, there were not less than eight hundred cubits, and only the head could easily be ten cubits. Hence it follows that the bird pierced through the mass itself with its ten cubits. In this event, how many wonders there are, or what should I wonder at when I consider, I am astonished. For where could he find such a large stone, or how could he carry such a heavy weight? Or how could such a small bird so quickly penetrate such a hard, dense body of rock, or how could its teeth grow so quickly? Or how is it believed that he was so immense and unheard of, especially since the law says that his iron bed was only nine cubits long (Deuteronomy III), and how did such a large man fall so easily with a small wound? I would like to reveal another ridiculous example of their foolishness. They say that Moses ascended to heaven to receive the law and there he argued with the angels. The angels, they say, spoke to him, “We will not allow you to bear this law, which we know is more necessary for us than for the children of Israel.” Terrified by this unusual vision, Moses did not dare to respond, but strengthened by the Lord to answer securely, he said to the angels, “Since this law contains precepts for governing the body, I do not understand why it would be necessary for you, who are only spiritual creatures.” The angels, having nothing to say to this, were silenced. You say that after Moses’ victory, God laughed and was very happy, and Moses descended happily with the law. How many different absurdities are contained in this frivolity? For how could Moses, weighed down by the weight of his body, ascend to the height of heaven, or how could the angels forbid God’s law when he desired to give it? What is more foolish than to say that God rejoiced in the defeat of the angels and laughed like a child? Also, if the angels, as you say, were so eager to retain the law, why did they not ask for it from God first? Or what good did it do them to quarrel? For they could have observed the law at the same time as the Jews, and there was no reason why they should have prevented Moses from receiving it. All of these things are equally ridiculous, but there is another incident that they mention which is even more absurd. They say that the angel of death appeared to a man named Joshua, son of Levi, a doctor, and said to him, “Know that I have come to take your soul and that you will die.” “By no means,” he said, “I will not do anything you ask until you show me paradise.” So the angel took him on his wings and led him to the place where he could see paradise. However, the man was clever and slipped from the angel’s wings and allowed himself to fall into paradise. The angel, feeling deceived, said with an angry face, “Leave, so that you may die.” “No,” he said, “I will not leave.” When the angel repeated this with a great outcry a second and third time and the man ignored his words, the angel became too agitated and went to God to complain about this. God asked him to return and instruct the man to leave paradise in God’s name. When the angel returned to paradise, he said, “God has commanded you to leave.” The man swore and said, “By God, I will not leave.” The angel returned to God and said, “He has sworn that he will never leave.” Giving judgment, God replied, “Examine all the books of his life and actions carefully. If you find that he has ever sworn falsely, then even his current oath will mean nothing. But if you have never found him to be perjured, then do not fear this time.” So the angel, having diligently searched through all the books, found that he had never been perjured. Therefore, he left him alone and he, as you say, remains alive and well to this day. Consider, I beg you, how worthy of laughter this little story is. What is more amazing? The foolishness of the angel who did not recognize the cleverness of the man, or the man who dared to swear an oath against the command of God, which he heard through an angel? Or should we say that God was impotent in that He could only expel him from Paradise through a messenger, or should we attribute to God ignorance that He could not know if the man was a perjurer except by ordering his life’s books to be reviewed? Are not all these things extremely foolish? If we were to include everything your scholars have written that is similar to this, we would fill many books with nonsense stories. We have included only a few examples, so that their wisdom or foolishness might be evident to all. Therefore, Moses, please tell me, do you think such men or their law are worthy of acceptance or approval? May divine mercy deliver you from their abominable teachings and counsel, just as it has saved me, though not by my own merits, and may it also join you with me under the salutary rule, so that both of us may be enriched with its ineffable rewards.

Title II: Discussing knowledge of the cause of the present captivity of the Jews, and how long it should last.

Moses: Since you have shown that everything our teachers attribute to the divine majesty in an unworthy manner cannot stand up to the light of irrefutable reason, neither by the authority of Scripture nor by the strength of any reasoning, let us now come to the second part of the propositions, in which you spoke about our captivity, if you please. For you said (unless I have forgotten) that we hope to escape our captivity in such a way that we cannot, in fact, escape. Now, therefore, I ask whether you grant that we can escape in a different way from what we believe [568A], or even in no way at all (God forbid).

Peter: I do not believe that you will escape in the way you yourselves think, but I do not deny that you will escape in another way.

Moses: I desire to hear why we cannot be liberated in the way we say, and what the mode of liberation is.

Peter: Since you deny that Christ is the Son of God or that he came into the world for the redemption of humankind, and you refuse to keep his commandments, you cannot be freed from captivity. But if you believe that he is the Son of God and has already come, and you keep his commandments, you will immediately be released from captivity. [568B]

Moses: What authority can you bring to support such a statement?

Peter: First, we must see what the cause of your captivity was, so that we may better recognize the way to escape it, following the example of a wise physician who first examines the illness in order to know what medicine is needed.

Moses: I approve of your well-spoken words.

Peter: First, I want you to tell me the cause of the Babylonian captivity, which lasted only seventy years, because when we hear it, it will help us to understand the cause of this great captivity.

Moses: Many sins, too many to enumerate, were the cause of the former captivity.

Peter: I agree that this is true, but still, I want to hear some of them from you. [568C]

Moses: I will mention a few that are supported by prophetic authority: usury, or receiving bribes for injustice, swearing falsely, giving counterfeit money in buying and selling, bearing false witness, slandering others, dishonoring parents and sacred places and Sabbath days; revealing the shame of a mother, sister, daughter, mother-in-law, or any illicit woman, committing murder, worshiping idols, sacrificing to stars, denying God, and killing the prophets of God, like Uriah, Zechariah, and Isaiah, and many other things which, as I said before, are too numerous to list. These sins grew to such an extent that God said to the prophet Jeremiah: “Go around the streets of Jerusalem, and look and consider, [568D] seek in its squares if you find a man doing justice and seeking faith, I will be merciful to him (Jer. 5).” Also, Ezekiel says: “I sought among them a man who would build a wall and stand in the gap before me for the land, so that I would not destroy it, but I found none (Ezek. 22).”

Peter: I rejoice and give thanks because I now recognize that you see a spark of truth. So, tell me, if you know, what has been the cause of this long and dire captivity, which has already lasted for one thousand four hundred years.

Moses: These same sins and others like them.

Peter: You cannot support this reasoning with any authority, because for three hundred years before the destruction of Jerusalem, there was no prophet in Israel who predicted or wrote about this, especially since your doctors say that the only reason for the destruction of Jerusalem was that one person envied and hated another without cause. Furthermore, to destroy your argument, they add that after the temple was built, God handed the leader of their sins over to them, whom they blinded and from that day on, he has no power to deceive in murder and idolatry or reveal incest. Therefore, not all of the things that were the cause of the first captivity were the cause of the second as well. They also say that while the temple existed, there were many men of good character who should have been prophets if it were the time of prophecy. They also did many other miracles, such as saying that John, son of Zacharias, was of such great holiness that when he sat in his chair to read his books, God, to show the merit of his virtue, made all the birds flying over him burn and fall to the ground. They also tell of another such miracle about Hunni, namely that during his time, they say the land suffered from drought. He entered a circle made of stones and said to God, “I swear by your name, God, that I will not leave here unless rain falls on the ground.” It began to rain slowly, but when he asked for more rain, such a large downpour came that it almost devastated all the lands. However, when he asked for moderate rain, it descended and the earth overflowed with goodness. They also say about Ananiah, son of Dosa, that a voice testified to his sanctity every day from Mount Horeb, saying, “Because of the goodness of Ananiah, son of Dosa, I govern the whole world, even though the world is not satisfied with him.” They also tell another miracle about him. When he and his wife lived a very poor life for God, he ordered the oven to be heated every Friday so that his neighbors and those nearby would believe he was living well. One day when he ordered the oven to be heated as usual and noticed some of his neighbors wondering why, he suddenly came to the oven to reveal their actions and embarrass them. So when he came to the oven and looked inside, he saw it was full of bread, and he quickly told the woman about it. She, thinking he said this not out of truth but to shame her, refused to believe until she saw it for herself. So she went and saw it just as her neighbor said it was and happily returned to her husband to tell him how God had changed the will of the wicked woman into honor. He, judging it unworthy that he should take for himself what God had done for a miracle, said he would give it all to the poor. They also say that in the same times, Nicodemus, son of Gurion, was a man of very laudable life. During his days, such a drought hit the land that those going to the temple for prayer could not have anything to drink on the way. However, there was a cistern belonging to a certain gentile prince on the way. Nicodemus approached this prince and said, “If it pleases you, give me your cistern for the use of the whole people, and until that day, I will give you either the same amount of money or something of equal value for the cistern with water.” What more can I say? He obtained what he requested and quenched the thirst of the people. But when the creditor who was to collect the payment on the appointed day arrived and found that the cistern had no water due to the excessive drought, Nicodemus, with a prayer poured out to God, obtained rain from heaven over the entire land and restored the cistern, as he had received it, full to its owner. However, since at the time when the same rain fell the day had already turned towards evening, the prince said to Nicodemus, “I indeed accept the water by your prayer, but since the entire day that was appointed has passed, you must pay me the debt.” Therefore, he made another prayer and held back the course of the sun, and with the light of the sun illuminating the entire world, he settled the debt issue. It is also written of Achiba that he obtained whatever he asked of God. This is an indication of the magnitude of his holiness. When Moses was on the mountain for receiving the law and had predicted all future times and all generations of ages by the Holy Spirit, and had seen that Achiba would lead a life far surpassing that of human beings and endowed with great merits, he said to God, “Since this man is going to have such a probable life, why, O Lord, is it your pleasure to administer your law to the people through me rather than him?” To this God replied, “Because, the law is necessary in the present world, but Achiba is going to live in a far-off time.” From this, it can be understood that Moses foresaw that the man he spoke of would be much better. These and others like them were your elders and judges, who commanded the good for the common people, and to whose admonitions the rest willingly obeyed. If even one similar to them had existed during the time of the first captivity, as we showed above, when God said through Jeremiah (Jeremiah 5), the captivity would not have occurred. And more astonishingly, during the days when these people were the better ones, the Jews were taken captive after the destruction of the temple. Therefore, tell me, O Moses, what was the cause of this captivity, because what you said before does not stand firm for any reason other than many sins gradually accumulated over a long period while the temple was still standing, as our teachers have said.

Moses: What else can I say, except that with the temple standing for a long time, sins gradually accumulated with it, as our teachers have said, but with multiplied transgression.

Peter: What you say about the temple standing for a long time is not true, as it only stood for ten cycles of years, whereas the previous temple of Solomon stood before it. Also, the reason you give for sins accumulating with sins is not valid. During the first captivity, sins were added to sins because the wicked kings set a bad example, putting God aside and worshiping idols, and forced the people to do the same, as Ochozias, Achas, Manasses, Amon, and Sedecias did. On the other hand, the leaders of the second period were completely different, as they lived a good life and compelled the people to do the same by their example. Therefore, how can it be shown that so many sins had accumulated that the captivity was brought about? As for your statement that the captivity was caused by the animosity they had towards each other, it is not based on sound reasoning. This sin was just one of many committed during the first captivity, and they should not have been captured just for it, unless other sins greater than it had occurred as well. We cannot discern the quantity of major and minor crimes, except according to the mode of punishment inflicted by God. The punishment for this sin was only forty lashes. There are other crimes, for which a greater punishment is inflicted, such as when someone is ordered to be beheaded, hanged by the neck, stoned to death, or burned with fire. Therefore, how can it be true that the crime of animosity should be equated with greater crimes? Moreover, it is unreasonable to believe that this crime prevailed to such an extent during those times, when the words of the prophet Aggaeus testify that God said of the temple built, “The glory of this latter house shall be greater than of the former, saith the Lord of hosts: and in this place will I give peace” (Agg. II).

Moses: Since all my arguments have failed, please unlock the door to this question with the key to your solution.

Peter: Since you don’t know the origin and cause of the captivity, you cannot answer why it was so harsh, cruel, and unbearable. During the first captivity, when they were taken to Babylon like other captive people, they did not suffer any punishment other than servitude. They cultivated fields, planted vines, built houses, and lived with their wives and children in safety. But in the second captivity, they suffered so many and such great outrages that have never been seen or heard of before. They were killed, burned, and sold like other captives, and the sale grew to the point that thirty captives were given for one silver coin, and yet no one was found to buy them, as Moses had promised, saying, “You will be sold to your enemies as male and female slaves, but no one will buy you” (Deut. 28). Ships were also filled with them and sent to sail on the sea without any oars or rudder, to their disgrace and humiliation. Furthermore, after you were defeated in this captivity, you were given unbearable commands, namely, not to read the law, nor to teach it to your children. If anyone reading it or teaching his children was found, he was either burned or tortured with sharp iron combs. Furthermore, you were not allowed to celebrate the Sabbath or Passover. But if anyone was found doing this, he was severely punished. You were also forbidden to circumcise your sons in the old way, and a long time passed when no one dared to circumcise his son except in secret. And anyone found circumcising was severely punished. Furthermore, a very harsh decree was promulgated to you that if any of you wanted to marry a virgin girl, he had to take her first to the provincial governor, sleep with her, and then return and marry her to a Jew. This so crushed you that no one wanted to betroth a virgin girl. Thus, different commandments of evil were imposed on you throughout the succession of times, as is proved by the testimonies of your own books.

Moses: I certainly grant all kinds of evils, but I have long been eagerly desiring to hear the cause of such great tribulation.

Peter: Because you are ignorant of the cause of your troubles, you do not know why they have lasted so long. For now, with 1,440 years having passed, you still have no certain written record of how much longer it should continue. However, civil justice demands that once those who committed a crime have been punished or have died, their descendants should be set free from captivity, as it is written in the law that the explorers who were sent to examine the promised land and rebelled against God’s will, remained in the wilderness for forty years, so that their sin would not go unpunished, and all those wrongdoers died during that time. After they were punished with such a death, the innocent sons of their fathers entered the promised land. Also, during the Babylonian exile, they remained there for seventy years until all those who were responsible for the sins that caused their captivity had died, and then the innocent sons were set free from their yoke. However, in this captivity caused by Titus, countless generations have passed and it has not yet come to an end. This is contrary to what the Lord said to Moses: “Parents shall not be put to death for their children, nor children for their parents; each person shall be put to death for his own sin” (Deuteronomy 24). Ezekiel also says: “As surely as I live, declares the Sovereign Lord, you will no longer quote this proverb in Israel. For every living soul belongs to me, the father as well as the son—both alike belong to me. The one who sins is the one who will die” (Ezekiel 18).

Moses: Although the length of our captivity contradicts these examples, it is in agreement with other scriptures of the law. For the Lord says in Exodus: “I am the Lord your God, a jealous God, punishing the children for the sin of the parents to the third and fourth generation of those who hate me” (Exodus 20). Also, Jeremiah says: “Our ancestors sinned and are no more, and we bear their punishment” (Lamentations 5).

Peter: Your understanding is mistaken. For if the prophet’s words were as you say, they would contradict themselves. However, both can be explained. What is meant by saying that children shall not bear the iniquity of their fathers (Ezekiel 17) is that if the children do not commit the same iniquity as their fathers, they will not be punished. What is meant by saying that children shall bear the iniquity of their fathers (Exodus 20) is that they will be punished if they commit the same sins as their fathers.

Moses: If the reason for our long captivity is due to the sins of our fathers, as you say, then all subsequent generations of followers are also remaining in captivity because they are following in their fathers’ footsteps. If their fathers had abandoned their sins, they could have been set free from captivity.

Peter: That is how I see it.

Moses: If it pleases you, please reveal the magnitude of our guilt.

Peter: Because you killed Christ, the Son of God, saying that he was a magician, born of a prostitute, and that he led the whole nation into error. Your ancestors testified to this and similar things, until they made the whole people, who were willing participants in their wickedness, unjustly judge a righteous man as guilty, crucify and kill him. Therefore, the magnitude of your guilt is the cause of such a long captivity. And as long as you remain in the same will and faith of your fathers, you undoubtedly exist in the tribulation of damnation.

Moses: It will be necessary to discuss later whether that man was the Son of God, because such a great question requires the strongest arguments. For now, I want to show you in what way or by what authority you attempt to assert that the man you speak of was the cause of our tribulation.

Peter: Why do you demand authority from me on this matter when you already conceded earlier that this unheard of affliction was indeed caused by sin? And since you cannot prove that, it is only fair that you hear me out and not ask me for proof, but try to destroy my argument if you can, or concede what you cannot deny. But even though I am not bound by the judgment of others, I will bring many authorities on this matter.

Moses: That is what I desire with all my heart.

Peter: You should know that forty years after the death of Christ, the city of Jerusalem was destroyed by Titus. Likewise, forty years before it was destroyed, signs and wonders were seen in it, clearly indicating that the destruction of the temple and the city was to come, as your holy books testify. For they say that forty years before it was overthrown, the red wool that was tied to the horns of a goat did not turn white, as it usually did, and the candle that faced west on the lampstand was extinguished before its appointed time. Moreover, the doors of the temple opened spontaneously with a great noise, without anyone touching them. When a certain one of your teachers, named John, son of Zachai, saw them open in this way many times, he cried out, greatly moved: “Stop!” And he added: “I know for sure that your end will come in flames, just as the prophet says: ‘Open, Lebanon, your gates and let fire devour your cedars’ (Zach. XI).” Since these wonders were seen forty years before the destruction, and the city was destroyed by Titus forty years after the death of Christ, it is clear that these signs were made at the time of the death of Christ. And John, along with other teachers of yours, understood that the death of Christ was the cause of your captivity. They did not say that it was envy and malice, but rather they said that it was the cause of captivity, but they kept silent about the true cause. For the envy and malice of the Jews was the cause of the death of Christ, but the death of Christ was the cause of the captivity.

Moses: If it were clear that this man, as you say, was such, and that his death was the cause of our tribulation, none of us would be worthy of living. For such a sin is greater than denying God. For he who denies God merely separates himself from the faith that he received from others, but he who kills the Son of God not only denies the invisibility of God, but also adds to this sin by separating himself from the visible reality that he sees with his own eyes, whereas that which is seen should bring more credibility to the mind than that which is not seen. Moreover, our fathers spat on him, beat him, and subjected him to many and various injuries, and crucified him unjustly. Therefore, it was not unjust that this crime was greater than the one they committed in the wilderness, when they adored the golden calf as God. Then we read that God wished to utterly destroy Israel, had not Moses intervened for them, fasting and praying for forty days and forty nights, in order to turn away the Lord’s anger from them, and afflicting himself with constant fasting and mortification for the same sin, as the law says: “I fell down before the Lord as at the first, forty days and forty nights, and did neither eat bread nor drink water, because of all your sins which ye sinned, in doing wickedly in the sight of the Lord, to provoke him to anger… for I was afraid of the anger and hot displeasure, wherewith the Lord was wroth against you to destroy you.” Therefore, if Moses’ prayer had not intervened, none of the people would have survived. But since they presumed to commit a greater crime, namely killing God’s Son, and no one was there to intervene for them, no one should have been allowed to live. But as you can see, God allows us to live and shows us His love every day, granting us grace in the sight of our enemies, enriching us with wealth, and exalting us with honors, as the prophet Moses promised us: “Though ye were cast out unto the uttermost parts of the earth, yet will I not utterly cast you away, nor will I forget the covenant I have made with you. For I am the Lord your God” (Lev. 26).

Peter: You do not have a correct understanding of this matter. For God does not allow the remnants of your people to live because He has any thought for their welfare, but only so that you may serve all nations and be a reproach, a byword, and a curse in everyone’s eyes, as the lawgiver promised you, saying: “You shall become a byword and a fable among all the peoples to whom the Lord will lead you (Deut. XVIII),” and that you may be a parable and a proverb to all who ask one another. What do you think is the reason that God has subjected this nation to perpetual servitude everywhere on earth and condemned it to so many evils? The other will answer: Because of their sin in killing the Son of God out of envy, they have fallen into these evils. If at the very time when you committed this sin, He had utterly destroyed the entire Jewish race, after many ages had passed, the guilt would have been forgotten and no mortal would know of it; thus, you would avoid both the disgrace of infamy and the danger of the evils, as has happened to many other nations and kings whose deeds have been erased by the passage of time. There is another reason why God did not want to destroy the Jewish nation. For He saw that some of your descendants would one day believe in Him and be saved, and so for their sake, He did not want to destroy your race completely, as Isaiah says: “As if a grain is found in a cluster, and it is said: Do not scatter it, for it is a blessing; so will I do for my servants, that I may not destroy all (Isa. LXV).” The testimony of divine piety that you have brought forth from the book of the law, which was promised to Moses, refers not to the present, but to the past captivity in Babylon, for it was from there that He was to lead you out.

Moses: By what authority do you prove that this promise pertains only to the captivity in Babylon?

Peter: Because in the place where God made this promise to Moses, if you pay attention to what precedes it, you will find that Moses said: “Then the land shall keep its sabbaths, all the days of its desolation, when you are in the land of your enemies; it shall rest and be refreshed in its sabbaths (Lev. XXVI).” This was fulfilled when they were led to Babylon, as Ezra proves in the book of Chronicles, saying among other things: “Israel was led to Babylon and served the king and his sons until the land celebrated its sabbaths. For all the days of its desolation it kept the sabbath (II Chr. XXXVI).” In these words, it is clear that he is speaking of the first captivity.

Moses: This authority does not satisfy my doubt, for it does not show that we fell into this captivity because of that man.

Peter: What more evident testimony do you seek for your captivity being caused by the death of Christ than what you yourselves read in your scriptures? At the very beginning of this captivity, a certain prince of your land, Ananias, the son of Teradion, Simeon, the son of Gamaliel, Ishmael, the son of Eliseus, and others, sent ten of the best men of the whole Israelite people, including those who had been captured and imprisoned, inquiring why they had sold a just man. For the law, he said, judges that whoever sells a Jew must be sentenced to death. And therefore, according to the judgment of the law, you should die. “The decree is spoken; death is given in various forms.” For not all were punished with the same penalty, but each was given a different kind of death, just as your doctrine explains these deaths. But your doctors changed the name of this just man for whom they were punished, and were completely silent about Christ in this matter. For they said that the prince, by the name of Joseph, the son of Jacob, whom his brothers had sold to Egypt, understood him and demanded his blood from them, and punished them with such tortures because of him. But it seems absurd to reason that he would demand this from them when it was at least fifteen hundred years before. Especially since at the time Joseph was sold, there was no law by which the prince could convict them of a death sentence.

Moses: Your reasons do not suffice for me, because you do not confirm them with any authority, but rather make them up by your own judgment. And there is no necessity in them that should compel me to believe you. However, if you are able, I want you to bring some authority from the prophets which necessarily proves that this captivity happened because of that man (Jesus), and that we cannot have a certain end to this tribulation.

Peter: The prophet Isaiah says, “From the ends of the earth we have heard praises, the glory of the just.” These words show that the praises of this just man were everywhere in the world. But we have never heard such great praises of any just man that they reached the ends of the earth. And because he foresaw the tribulations that he would suffer without cause from the prophets who foretold the coming of God, he has compassion on them with these words, saying, “Woe to me: the transgressors have transgressed, and with the transgression of the transgressors, they have transgressed.” For the prophet foresaw what tribulations would be inflicted on those who foretold the coming of God. But he also saw that they would not be content with tormenting only his members, but would also oppress his head with envy by any means possible, and would kill him according to the vulnerability of his body. Therefore, he repeated the name of the transgression, and thus added, “by the transgression of the transgressors.” But because they would be punished for this sin, the spirit foretold that he would immediately add, saying, “Strength and a pit and a snare upon thee, O inhabitant of the earth.” Among other things, he says about the same people, “For their iniquity shall be heavy upon them, and they shall fall and not rise again,” where he completely crushes any hope of your escape from captivity. The Lord put forth a similar statement through the same prophet in another place, saying, “Now, go and write on a tablet for them, inscribe it on a scroll, that for the time to come it may be an everlasting witness. For this is a rebellious people, faithless children, children who refuse to listen to the LORD’s instruction. They say to the seers, “See no more visions!” and to the prophets, “Give us no more visions of what is right! Tell us pleasant things, prophesy illusions.” (Isaiah 30:8-10) Buxus wood is hard and indestructible. Therefore, the prophet commanded it to be written on buxus wood and carefully inscribed on a scroll, so that it might endure forever and remain as a testimony to their disbelief and shame until the last day. By saying, “it will be a testimony until the last day,” he hinted that the error of the Jews would continue until the end of time.

Regarding what should be written and why, the prophet hints at both in one verse, saying, “For this is a rebellious people, faithless children, children who refuse to listen to the LORD’s instruction.” Which law of God did he speak of? For if he wanted to speak of the law God gave through Moses, he would not say “children who refuse to listen to the LORD’s instruction” because they had already heard it frequently, but rather “children who refuse to obey.” Therefore, he understood the law that Christ was going to give, and that the prophet already knew they would not listen to it.

What he added, “They say to the seers, ‘See no more visions!’ and to the prophets, ‘Give us no more visions of what is right! Tell us pleasant things, prophesy illusions. Turn aside from the way, leave the path, let us hear no more about the Holy One of Israel” (Isaiah 30:10-11), he added this because of John, the son of Zachariah, the precursor of Christ, and others who not only predicted the coming of Christ but also pointed to Him with their finger. He knew that the Jews would not believe them, but would speak such words.

Regarding what he says in the following verses, it is not to be passed over lightly, for he says, “Get away from us, and leave us alone with your holiness, O Holy One of Israel.” Who is this Holy One of Israel? Is God visible, that they would say, “Get away from us?” Or can it be said of an invisible thing that it should depart from human sight when it cannot be seen? If you seek God who can be seen, you will find none but Christ. For He is one with the Father and is God (John 10), yet He appeared to the visible world in human form (Titus 3).

After listing all of their transgressions, he alludes to the punishment for their sin, saying, “Because you have rejected this word, and trust in oppression and deceit and rely on them, therefore this iniquity will be to you like a break in a high wall, bulging out and about to collapse, whose crash comes suddenly, in an instant. It will break in pieces like pottery, shattered so mercilessly that among its pieces not a fragment will be found for taking coals from a hearth or scooping water out of a cistern.” (Isaiah 30:12-14)

Christ is the Word of God (John 1). Therefore, whoever rejects Christ also rejects the Word, and vice versa. Those who are punished have rejected the Word of God and are therefore punished for having rejected Christ, trusting in the words of their own teachers. The punishment for their sin will be severe and unbearable. Suddenly, they will be cut off, and it will be more harmful because it will come from a high place, and anything that falls from a higher place is more easily shattered when it reaches the ground. The destruction is compared to the breaking of a potter’s jar, so great that there will be nothing left of it. The breaking of any vessel can be repaired and put to some useful purpose, but if a jar is broken, the broken parts are of no use. And the more the jar is broken, the more it becomes fragile. So, the comparison is made to their shattered jar, which is neither good for putting out a fire nor for drawing water from a well. This clearly shows that their captivity has led to such a great downfall that they will never regain their former freedom.

However, for some who will at some point believe in Christ and therefore be saved, God wanted to preserve their offspring. Therefore, the prophet speaks of the blessed grace under the description of a grain found in a cluster, saying, “As the new wine is found in the cluster, and one saith, Destroy it not; for a blessing is in it” (Isaiah 65). In the same way, God promised not to destroy everything but to save his servants, saying, “And I will bring forth a seed out of Jacob, and out of Judah an inheritor of my mountains: and mine elect shall inherit it, and my servants shall dwell there” (Isaiah 65). The mountains refer to the apostles who are like lofty mountains visible to the whole world. Although in the following verses, the holy mountain is specifically mentioned as Christ in the singular number, the chosen and faithful are also called saints, reserved for their future salvation. As for those who will not believe, listen to the sentence pronounced against them: “Ye that forsake the Lord, that forget my holy mountain, that prepare a table for that troop, and that furnish the drink offering unto that number, Therefore will I number you to the sword, and ye shall all bow down to the slaughter: because when I called, ye did not answer; when I spake, ye did not hear” (Isaiah 65).

Their iniquity is condemned in this way, and their infidelity is rebuked by praising their faithful, saying, “Therefore thus saith the Lord God, Behold, my servants shall eat, but ye shall be hungry: behold, my servants shall drink, but ye shall be thirsty: behold, my servants shall rejoice, but ye shall be ashamed: Behold, my servants shall sing for joy of heart, but ye shall cry for sorrow of heart, and shall howl for vexation of spirit” (Isaiah 65). Because after all these evils, there could be no hope of escaping captivity, another statement is added to take away all their comfort. For God says, “And ye shall leave your name for a curse unto my chosen: for the Lord God shall slay thee” (Isaiah 65). One who is killed is never restored to life. Therefore, those who remain in unbelief cannot be restored. After pronouncing this against the unbelievers, he says the following about the believers: “And he shall call his servants by another name” (Isaiah 65). Since they are the servants of Christ, they will be called Christians by Christ (Acts 11). What follows, “and you will leave your name for a curse to my chosen ones,” means that my chosen ones will swear an oath in your name, just as Christians do today when they are asked to do something they don’t want to do, saying “I am a Jew if I do it.” This is confirmed by the prophet Amos when he says, “Hear this word that I take up over you in lamentation, O house of Israel: ‘Fallen, no more to rise, is maiden Israel; forsaken on her land, with no one to raise her up’” (Amos 5:1-2). And elsewhere he says, “The end has come upon my people Israel; I will never again pass them by” (Amos 8:2). Both of these passages completely remove any hope of escaping captivity. He also confirms that this calamity has come upon them because of Christ, saying, “Thus says the Lord God: For three transgressions of Israel, and for four, I will not revoke the punishment; because they sell the righteous for silver, and the needy for a pair of sandals” (Amos 2:6). In this place he uses “four” instead of “the fourth,” just as if he had said “on the four,” which is similar to what Solomon says, as recorded in the Hebrew books, “Three things are too wonderful for me; four I do not understand” (Proverbs 30:18). If you take three and four separately, there will be seven. But he only counts four, implying that there is something he doesn’t understand. Therefore, we must understand “four” in this prophecy as equivalent to “the fourth.” The fourth crime, which he immediately mentions, is that “they sell the righteous for silver,” and it is clear that this righteous one is Christ.

Moses: So far, you have spoken fittingly and worthily of praise, if it were not for this authority you introduced, which has no basis in reason, especially when many opposing arguments can be brought against it. Many ancient writers before you have frequently brought up this same verse against the Jews as evidence, but they could not support it with any reason. But I am very surprised that you, a wise man, would introduce such a weak argument, which has no foundation of solidity, especially since you know very well all the things that can be said against it.

Peter: Considering that all those who have rightly used this authority against the Jews before me are said not to have sufficiently or clearly demolished the Jewish objections, I deliberately introduced it in this present passage, so that you may make all the possible objections you can, and in turn undertake their destruction.

Moses: This can be rightly objected to in the first place, because when the prophet says, upon three transgressions, he immediately adds, showing that Israel committed these three sins. However, Christ, whom you want to understand, was not killed by Israel, but by Judah.

Peter: Your objection poses no obstacle to me, as many volumes testify that Israel is often used for Judah.

Moses: I do not doubt that what you assert is true. But since he recounted Judah’s sin first and then added Israel’s sin, it is clear enough that Israel’s sin is different from Judah’s sin.

Peter: Nor does this hinder my reasoning. He calls the sin that only Judah committed “Judah’s sin,” but the sin that both Judah and Israel committed is called “Israel’s sin.”

Moses: Since the entire population of Israel was scattered across all lands and did not inhabit Jerusalem at that time, how could they be held accountable for Christ’s death?

Peter: Do you deny that a large portion of the sons of Benjamin and Levi were in Jerusalem with Judah at that time?

Moses: Who would dare deny what is certain to everyone?

Peter: Therefore, a part of the whole should rightly take on the name. There is another reason, no less significant: although the people of Israel were not physically present at the death, they became accomplices in the crime, approvers, and participants in the will when they heard what their associates had done. Therefore, their will should be considered as their deed.

Moses: Although I concede that what you say is true, I still do not see how it can pertain to Israel that the book says this happened to them for selling the just one. For they themselves are not said to have sold Christ, whom you speak of, but only to have bought him from Judas Iscariot. (Matt. 26; Luke 22; Mark 4).

Peter: Your objection has no anchor in reason, because those who gave their consent and help to have Christ sold, incurred guilt no less than if they themselves had sold him. For Solomon did not make idols, but because he gave his consent to his wives and concubines who made them, Scripture says he made them. (3 Kings 11)

Moses: Although I confess that you have spoken the truth in the above, there is still no necessity that forces me to admit that this just one must be understood as Christ, when Joseph can be rightly understood, whom his brothers sold for thirty pieces of silver (Genesis 37).

Peter: If the prophet had meant Joseph, he would have spoken of the first sin, not the fourth, for that was the sin they committed earlier, because of which they later suffered the most severe yoke of Pharaoh (Exodus 12). But since they have repented and are now freed from punishment, why should they be accused again of a sin that has been forgiven?

Moses: And even if I cannot defend that this was said about Joseph, I can still assert that it could have been said about any other just person.

Peter: It seems unworthy and unreasonable that, when there is such a great crime for which no indulgence follows and because of which divine judgment rages against the whole people of Israel, the person on whom the crime was committed should be concealed and ignored, especially since this guilt is described in the Hebrew language with such a term as is applied to someone who denies God. But the selling of the Jews does not equal the denial of God. However, they sold such a great man, Christ, the Son of God, that they are guilty just like those who deny God.

Moses: I want you to show four sins, all of which are equal to denying God.

Peter: What the book has kept silent, I do not know how to reveal, but perhaps the first sin was when they adored the molten calf as God in the desert (Exodus 32), in which act they truly denied God, and since this sin was committed by all, it was therefore common to all. The second sin is when they similarly denied God, and all sinned together when Jeroboam made similar calves and established that they should be worshiped by all (1 Kings 12). The third sin is when they all killed the prophets of God with the same will, and despised their words (2 Chronicles 36). The fourth sin, which is greater and more serious than all, and is said not to be forgivable, is when they unjustly sold Christ, the Son of God and a man free from all sin (Isaiah 53; 1 Peter 2), and condemned him to an unjust death. Behold, in this authority which I brought against you, I have proven that all the objections you could have raised have no strength, and I have concluded that it is reasonable for Christ to be understood this way. Therefore, based on this and all the aforementioned authorities, which are firmly established, I consider it to be undoubtedly proven that this long-lasting captivity has occurred due to Christ’s death and malice. And when it is concluded that the captivity has happened because of Christ, it follows that you will not leave it until you correct the sin of your fathers in yourselves, and believe what they did not believe. Once someone’s mind is cleansed from guilt, divine mercy will immediately follow them. This is also what one of your wise teachers wanted to express more subtly and secretly in words, if only the hardness of your minds had penetrated it. For when asked when the son of David was to come, he said, “Today, if you believe his words.” For by these words he meant that whoever, at any hour, is obedient and faithful to Christ’s commandments, the Son of God immediately comes to him. I clearly and openly believe that whatever I have proven with the testimony of your books is evident to you. Therefore, brother, join me in imploring the mercy of the same Christ, that by removing the error of all falsehood, he may pour into your eyes the brightness and love of true faith and all goodness, and reward you in the future with worthy compensation for your right faith, so that you may escape from captivity through it. Amen.

Title III: Refuting the foolish credulity of the Jews on the resurrection of their dead, whom they believe will be resurrected and inhabit the earth again.

Moses: Concerning the present title, which is, the cause of our long captivity and how we may escape it, you have proven everything necessary with unassailable and most evident arguments. I see no further doubts or questions on this matter, so I wish to move on to other topics as they are arranged in order above. You said at the beginning of the book that we were mistaken in believing that God would resurrect the dead to inhabit the earth again after our escape from captivity, an unprecedented miracle. I pray that you explain why you think our faith in this matter is erroneous.

Peter: You yourselves claim that this miracle is beyond the usual. Whatever happens beyond the customary should not be believed without authority or reason before it happens. I judge it an error to believe in something you cannot prove with any authority.

Moses: Indeed, we can prove this with many authorities. For Moses testifies to this when speaking to the people of Israel: “See now that I, even I, am he, and there is no god with me: I kill, and I make alive; I wound, and I heal (Deut. XXXII).” Since God promises to kill and bring to life, why does our faith on this matter seem to be rejected by you?

Peter: That authority strays from the path of reason. This statement is made to demonstrate God’s omnipotence, not that He will resurrect your dead.

Moses: From the day God promised to do this until the present, do you concede that He has sometimes performed these miracles?

Peter: Indeed, He has done everything. He struck and healed Mary, the sister of Moses the prophet, Job, Hezekiah, Naaman, and many others as He wished (Num. XII; Job. XII; IV Kings III; XX). In one night, He killed all the firstborn of Egypt (Exod. XII), and in one night, He killed one hundred eighty-five thousand in Sennacherib’s camp (IV Kings XIX). But on the contrary, in the hand of Elijah, He raised the widow’s son (III Kings XVII), and in the hand of Elisha, He raised the son of the Shunammite (IV Kings IV).

Moses: Since you believe He has already performed these miracles, what prevents you from believing that He will perform the same in the future?

Peter: I do not deny that the Omnipotent can raise the dead (I Cor. XV); indeed, I confess and believe that all men will be resurrected by Him on the Day of Judgment (John V; Matt. XXIV), but I do not believe what you add, that they will inhabit the earth again.

Moses: Nor should this seem contrary to your faith when those raised by Elijah or Elisha afterward led a long life, had a wife, begot children, and fulfilled all the duties of human life.

Peter: It is true and it could have been, either by miracle or by the prayer of a holy man because the body had not yet dissolved, although we would not believe it unless we had prophetic testimony on this matter. However, people’s faith does not easily accept things that are contrary to custom unless they are confirmed by the authority of prophets who have the favor of all listeners and speak very clearly. But no prophet has openly proclaimed this. And when your teachers said this, none of those who came before Christ predicted this. Followers found this error to keep the Jewish people in their unbelief.

Moses: And if you claim that our teachers invented these things to deceive, what will you say about the prophets who did the same thing? For Isaiah says, “Your dead shall live; their bodies shall rise. You who dwell in the dust, awake and sing for joy!” (Isaiah 26).

Peter: These words by no means indicate that your dead will be resurrected to inhabit the land, for if we pay close attention to what is said, we will not find the resurrection of the dead clearly indicated there. Otherwise, the prophet would seem to contradict himself when he says earlier, “The dead do not live, the giants do not rise” (ibid.). Therefore, it should not be interpreted contrary to the sense of nature based on the whims of each person, since it can be understood differently with a sound mind, unless necessary reasoning forces us to accept it.

Moses: It is pleasing to hear how this sentence can be rightly understood in another way.

Peter: This phrase can be understood in two ways, namely, either that it is believed to refer to the resurrection at the end of judgment or that it signifies the liberation of captivity by the name of resurrection. The latter meaning seems to pertain more to the literal sense, since the prophet had just lamented the captivity and affliction of his people a little earlier and immediately brought the consolation of divine promise and mercy, saying, “Your dead shall live” and so on. And he insinuates that this liberation will happen not at any uncertain time, but after a short time, saying, “Go, my people, enter your chambers, and shut your doors behind you; hide for a little while until the wrath is past” (ibid.). This refers appropriately to the captivity.

Moses: Can you find anything to object to the prophet Daniel? For he says, “Many of those who sleep in the dust of the earth shall awake, some to everlasting life, and some to shame and everlasting contempt” (Dan. 12).

Peter: This authority differs so much from your intention, as it is more clearly understood to have been spoken about the last judgment. For in that resurrection, they will either go into eternal life or eternal disgrace (John 5; Matt. 25).

Moses: Can you find anything to object to the prophet Ezekiel? He, by divine power, raised many dead and prophesied about them with these words, “Thus says the Lord God: Behold, I will open your graves and raise you from your graves, O my people. And I will bring you into the land of Israel” (Ezek. 37). And a little later, “And I will place you in your own land” (ibid.). Look, the prophet clearly and unmistakably shows that they will be resurrected and inhabit their land.

Peter: We must first discuss how he raised them so that we can recognize in what manner. Whether after the resurrection, they fulfilled all the functions of the human body or not, is often in doubt.

Moses: Our teachers testify that he made them rise not in a dream but while awake. And to make this even more true, they say that all the dead he raised were from the tribe of Ephraim, who are said to have died in the region of the Philistines during the people’s exodus from Egypt. But this resurrection was a sign of the future, that just as all of them were raised by him, so also all the others would be believed to be resurrected someday.

Peter: How did he give them true and perfect resurrection when he did not restore their rational soul?

Moses: How do you argue that they did not receive a rational soul when the same prophet prophesies to the spirit by God’s command with these words? “Thus says the Lord: Come from the four winds, O breath, and breathe upon these slain, that they may live. So I prophesied as He commanded me, and breath entered into them, and they lived and stood upon their feet, a great and exceedingly mighty army (ibid.).”

Peter: The spirit here, which is commanded to come from the four winds, is not the rational soul, but rather that which comes from the conjunction of the four elements.

Moses: From your words, it is understood that there is a difference between the bodily spirit and the rational soul; and if this is so, then their works are also different.

Peter: No wise person doubts that this is the case.

Moses: I wish to hear the difference between the two.

Peter: The bodily spirit is indeed a very light and subtle body, which is formed in the human body by the conjunction of the four elements, and from there it spreads into all the veins, giving life, breath, and continual pulse to the arteries, and the natural movement of the human body. This spirit perishes along with the body it animates. On the other hand, the rational soul is a self-subsistent incorporeal substance, causing the body to move voluntarily while remaining itself immovable, existing incorruptibly even when the body to which it is attached is corrupted, and perfecting the species of man to which it is joined.

Moses: I remember many before us said that the rational soul is created from the conjunction of the four elements. They argued that if this conjunction is subtle, having nothing dense within itself, the soul is subtle; but if it has some darkness and thickness, they said the soul is sluggish and dull. They argued that from the combination of certain things, we often see such things produced, namely colors, virtues, and works that do not come from any of them if they are taken separately. Similarly, they argued that the rational soul is produced by the conjunction of fire, air, water, and earth; however, if sought in each element individually, it is not found manifestly.

Peter: If the rational soul is born from the perfect conjunction of the four elements of the body, then the strength of the soul should fail as the body’s strength declines. But if the power of the soul fails when the body’s strength declines, it follows that as the dissolution of bodily vigor begins, the power of the soul dissolves as well. If this is conceded, it is concluded that when the body is corrupted, the soul is also corrupted.

Moses: The correct order of consequence shows that this is the case.

Peter: But the conclusion of the argument contradicts the testimony of our eyes. For it often happens that the more a body is weakened and approaches death, the more the soul seems to grow strong, just as it frequently happens to many sick people that the closer they are to death, the more they remember with greater mental acuity than usual, foresee everything, and just when their soul is most vigorous, the person dies. Moreover, as the soul has such great acuity, as I said, all the functions of the weakening body decrease even more. We also find that many elderly people, when they reach such an old age that they have no bodily strength, their soul becomes more powerful in counsel and wisdom. Hence, it is clearly deduced that the rational soul does not come from a combination of elements but is, as we said earlier, a self-subsisting substance. For whatever exists as one in number and remains unchangeable in its nature, is susceptible to opposites and is indeed a self-subsisting substance. Therefore, since the soul is one in number, like the soul of Plato, Socrates, or any one person, and it does not change in its nature but is susceptible to good and evil, it necessarily follows that it is a self-subsisting substance. In this way, it is proven that it is not corporeal. Every quality of a body is subject to human senses. However, if the qualities of a thing do not belong to any corporeal sense, it is not considered corporeal. The qualities of the soul are good and evil, which are not perceived by any corporeal sense. Therefore, the soul is not corporeal. Also, the same is proven by another argument. Every body is perceived by some corporeal sense. But the soul is not subject to any bodily sense. Therefore, it is not corporeal. Furthermore, when the body is corrupted, the soul is not corrupted. For the corruption of the body occurs in three ways: either when something withers and dries up, as we see in trees and plants, or when it suffers loss, as salt or hay when moved from place to place, or when it is dissolved, as a house when it is destroyed, or a vessel when it is broken. None of these corruptions occur except in a body or something that happens to a body. But the soul is neither a body nor founded on a body. Therefore, it is not corrupted in any of these ways. Moreover, the rational soul of man completes its species, since it makes man rational.

Moses: I have clearly recognized the difference between the corporeal spirit and the rational soul. But since philosophers say there are three souls in humans, I ask that you reveal what these are.

Peter: The three souls they speak of are the vegetative soul, the animal soul, and the rational soul.

Moses: I demand that you explain the works and functions of each of these souls.

Peter: I prefer to ascend gradually from the lowest to the highest. The vegetative soul has two functions. It causes the growth of things and provides nourishment to the bodies themselves. But it can only do both of these through the four natural powers, namely the appetitive, retentive, digestive, and expulsive. This soul is found in all plants growing from the earth and in all species of animals. The functions of the animal soul are the senses of the body and movement from place to place. This soul is only found in animals and is joined with the corporeal spirit through certain connections. The functions of the rational soul, however, are to meditate, to recall what has been meditated upon, to discern, [586A] to establish something fixed and certain, to have memory, and to desire to discuss the causes of things, and to arrive at the truth of the matter after the discussion. These faculties are found in no other species of animal but in man alone.

Moses: I am both ignorant of and greatly admire the manner in which these three souls have come together in one man: two in irrational animals and the third alone in all those born of the earth.

Peter: I have read in the books of certain philosophers that when it pleased the creator of all things to create the bodies of all living and thriving animals and plants, he mixed the four elements together, and tempered their opposing qualities with one another, and from this mixture were born the aforementioned bodies. From the tempering of these qualities came the four natures, which we have previously called powers: the appetitive, retentive, digestive, and expulsive. To these bodies thus created, the vegetative soul was attached in all of them and exercised its functions, specifically growing, nourishing, and generating. In the more subtle bodies, the animal soul was joined, so that it could perform its functions in them, specifically providing sensation and movement from place to place. The rational soul then joined itself to that which was the most subtle, lightest, and most temperate of all of them, and most suited to receiving reason, and it exercised its aforementioned functions there. So, in this way, according to the will of God and his disposition, all three souls came together in man, while in irrational animals there are only two [586C] and the third alone in trees and plants that grow from the earth.

Moses: Thanks to you, I have learned something that I did not know, but there remains one point that I ask to be explained. Since all bodies are made up of the four elements, I greatly admire why some are lighter than others.

Peter: This occurs either because of the different amounts of elements in the creation of bodies, which are unequally joined together, or because of the different temperaments of their qualities. If you wish to know more about this, you will find it in the books of philosophers, because at present we have neither the time nor the place to explain such matters, and it is more appropriate for us to return to your [586D] proposed question.

Moses: You have discussed the difference between the corporeal spirit and the rational soul in a sufficiently philosophical manner so far. But since the minds of the less educated cannot penetrate the depths of subtle reasoning, I ask you to prove the same difference by the testimony of the law or the prophets, if you can, so that the authority may instill faith in those whose minds the weight of deep reasoning has not enlightened.

Peter: At the beginning of the book of Genesis, the prophet Moses says, “God formed man of the dust of the ground, and breathed into his nostrils the breath of life, and man became a living soul” (Gen. 2), meaning that through the breath of life, he received a physical spirit, and through the living soul, a rational and intelligent soul.

Moses: We can understand by the breath of life the rational soul.

Peter: What you say cannot stand. In the same book, it is written shortly afterwards, “All in whose nostrils was the breath of life, of all that was on the dry land, died” (Gen. 7). It lists the birds, animals, and creeping things, as well as humans, and suddenly declares that all in whom there is the breath of life died. Therefore, if he meant the rational soul by the breath of life, then all creatures, including birds, animals, and creeping things, as well as humans, would have a rational soul. But since no creature besides humans has a rational soul, it is clear that he did not signify the rational soul by the breath of life. Solomon, the wisest of men, holds the same view, saying, “Who knows whether the spirit of man goes upward, and the spirit of the beast goes down to the earth?” (Ecclesiastes 3). He thus shows that the spirit of man, because it remains incorruptible after death, goes upward, but the spirit of the beast, which perishes along with the body, goes down to the earth.

Moses: I clearly know that the rational soul and the physical spirit are distinct, and that the physical spirit is formed by the combination of the four elements. Thus, I know that the physical spirit which the prophet Ezekiel commanded to come from the four corners of the world by the command of God (Ezekiel 37) should be understood, and I confess that I find no authority for the view held by many that the dead who were resurrected received a rational soul. However, I do believe that the resurrection itself, in whatever way it happened, was a sign of the future resurrection, as the same prophet above shows, saying, “And ye shall know that I am the Lord, when I have opened your graves, O my people, and brought you up out of your graves, And shall put my spirit in you, and ye shall live, and I shall place you in your own land” (ibid.).

Peter: That may well have been said about the resurrection of the dead on the Day of Judgment.

Moses: If he meant to refer to the judgment, he should not have said at the end of the sentence, “and I shall place you in your own land.” For then, no one will be allowed to rest on his own land.

Peter: That rest can be understood to mean that the soul will rest in the body, which is rightly expressed by the word “earth,” from which it was taken, as Scripture also testifies, which frequently calls it by the name of “earth.” For Moses says, “God formed man of the dust of the ground” (Gen. 2). Thus, when man is perfectly united with the four elements, he is said to be made of the earth only, which is one of the elements, but not improperly, because the word “earth” signifies the body. Therefore, we can understand that what he said, “I shall make them rest on their own land,” means that the soul will return to the body, and both will be judged (1 Corinthians 15; 2 Corinthians 5; 1 Thessalonians 4). This interpretation of that prophecy can be understood with a sound mind, so that neither Scripture nor reason appears contrary to it. Whatever can be interpreted in many ways in the obscure sayings of the prophets, so that whoever explains them does not deviate from the testimony of Scripture or the path of reason, nothing is inconsistent if someone explains it differently but in a just sense. But if someone’s explanation is such that it is extraneous to Scripture or reason, it must be judged to be without force. Therefore, since your explanation is found to be contrary to both Scripture and reason, it must be rejected on the grounds of fairness. [588B]

Moses: I am pleased to hear in what way my opinion is contrary to Scripture.

Peter: The prophet David speaks of the dead as follows: “Their graves shall be their houses forever, their dwelling places to all generations” (Psalm 49:11). Also on the same subject: “He shall go to the generation of his fathers; they shall never see light” (ibid.). And elsewhere: “Like the slain who lie in the grave, whom You remember no more, and who are cut off from Your hand” (Psalm 88:5). Job, who shares the same view, says: “Remember that my life is a breath; my eye will never again see good. The eye of him who sees me will see me no more; while your eyes are upon me, I shall be gone. As a cloud fades and vanishes away, so he who goes down to the grave does not come up. He shall never return to his house, nor shall his place know him anymore” (Job 7:7-10). And again: “I shall go to the place from which I shall not return, to the land of darkness and the shadow of death” (Job 10:21). Also the same: “Man lies down and does not rise. Till the heavens are no more, they will not awake nor be roused from their sleep” (Job 14:12). Solomon also shares this sentiment, saying: “The living know that they will die; but the dead know nothing, and they have no more reward, for the memory of them is forgotten. Also their love, their hatred, and their envy have now perished; nevermore will they have a share in anything done under the sun” (Ecclesiastes 9:5-6). Behold, the very wise Solomon agrees with the opinions of the others, that the dead are not to be resurrected to inhabit the earth, and yet he also says that they will rise again someday, saying that they will have no share in things done under the sun, meaning earthly things, thus implying that they will have a share in things that are above the sun, that is, in heavenly things.

Moses: A wise person would be satisfied with a partial introduction of reasons or authorities. Nevertheless, since you said that my interpretation is contrary to both Scripture and reason, you must show in what way it dissents from reason.

Peter: Do you not believe that when your dead rise again at the coming of the anointed one, Adam and Seth, Methuselah, Abraham, Isaac and Jacob, Moses and Aaron, the other patriarchs and prophets, and all the righteous who died before his coming will also rise with them, performing and experiencing all the bodily functions and observing the ancient rites, inhabiting the earth once again in the old way, offering sacrifice like Aaron and his sons, and wearing the priestly garments like Moses?

Moses: I cannot deny that our teachers have said all these things.

Peter: Then who will be the greatest high priest?

Moses: Who can be greater than Aaron?

Peter: What, then, will happen to Eleazar and many others who were once the highest priests? Will they all be greatest at the same time, or will they be deprived of their rank? If you say that they cannot serve as high priests while Aaron is alive, then what good is the resurrection to them? For it will be more shameful and harmful than honorable and beneficial to them to rise again, and it would have been better for them to remain dead than to lead a miserable life, even though this would destroy the law of Moses, which forbids anyone who has been elevated to a higher rank to be reduced to a lower one. But if you concede that all will be equal in the order of the high priesthood, then you take away Aaron’s honor, for no one among several equals can have an excellent honor. Moreover, many priests need many necessary temples. Therefore, another inconvenience and the destruction of the law will follow, which prescribes that no more than one priest and no more than one temple should exist.

Moses: I have no argument that can stand against your reason. For I see that we must either have a new law or that the law of Moses cannot stand in its entirety.

Peter: I am glad that the light of truth is beginning to shine in your mind. Tell me, then, will you have more than one king or only one?

Moses: We must have only one, as the prophet Ezekiel says, “They shall all have one shepherd” (Ezek. 37). For if there are many, they cannot be in agreement and will deprive the kingdom of peace.

Peter: You have begun to respond wisely. But who will be that king?

Moses: The anointed one, in whose coming we will escape captivity and our dead will be raised, and he rightly deserves to govern.

Peter: That would be good if that anointed one were both human and God. But if, as you believe, he will only be human, then what will Abraham, Isaac, and Jacob do? What about Moses and the other prophets? Will they be subject to his authority?

Moses: It should not seem strange if they are subject to his power. For Samuel was subject to Saul, and Elijah to King Ahab, and Elisha to Joram, and many other prophets to their kings.

Peter: The comparison of present things is not appropriate. Although the prophets who were not kings were subject to kings, it is neither necessary nor appropriate for an earthly king to be subject to a prophetic king like Abraham, David, and Joshua, each of whom was both a king and a prophet. Even Moses, who was a king, a prophet, and the legislator of the whole people, is given such a testimony in the Book of Deuteronomy: “Never since has there arisen a prophet in Israel like Moses, whom the Lord knew face to face, in all the signs and wonders that he sent him to perform.” So, when these great men who were subject to that anointed one are resurrected, wouldn’t it have been better for them not to be resurrected? Besides, two inconveniences arise from this. If Moses is inferior to him, then the scripture is lying. But if he is superior, then he is even more vilified.

Moses: So let us propose that Moses himself is a king.

Peter: Then what will the anointed one do? What about Abraham, Isaac, and Jacob, whom Moses himself held in such high esteem while he was alive, as Exodus 32 says, that he prayed to God that he would gain something for their sake? There is a big difference here. But I want you to tell me, if you know, whether those who are to be resurrected will have the nature and ability to generate offspring.

Moses: I will deny that they will be able to generate offspring.

Peter: I want you to answer first whether nature prohibits them from the duty of generation or whether the command of the law prohibits them.

Moses: I respond that they must be bound by the command of the law to procreate offspring.

Peter: Therefore, since the law of Moses commands the procreation of children, you show that you will have a new law, which is against your faith.

Moses: I will prove that nature has not changed, and that they are not prohibited by the law from generating offspring.

Peter: What you say cannot stand. For the ears recoil, and the mind refuses to believe that there could be an animal that cannot generate naturally unless some intervening force causes it to lose the power of generation. And if you say that it is a new nature, then you should not say that they will be resurrected, but that a new creature will be created, similar only in form to the first, not in the whole nature, for they will eat and drink, but not generate offspring.

Moses: Everything we have said in this changed argument is not so much a defense of the truth as it is a result of syllogistic complexities. For our faith is that, just as all other human duties, they will also have the nature of generation, so that we believe that a woman will conceive every day and give birth every day.

Peter: What you say is almost unbearable for human ears to hear. For if what you say is true, namely that all will believe in the anointed one and be resurrected, and if they were to have children every day, then even if the earth were twice as large, it could not contain them, and if the sea were turned into land, they would still be cramped for space, and they would not have enough land to cultivate, and there would always be strife and conflict among them over the narrowness of the earth. When all are resurrected, will each man return to his wife whom he had, or will he have a new one?

Moses: Each man will certainly have his own wife. For this will be the consummation of their joy.

Peter: So, the woman who had three or more husbands and died, in the resurrection which of them will she be married to? If you say the first one, then the law of Moses will be destroyed which says that she should not return to her first husband after the second. But if you say someone other than the first, then it also destroys the law, because the law says that while her first husband is alive and she does not reject him, she cannot marry anyone else. But if so many people are resurrected and born after them, won’t they all eventually die?

Moses: They will remain immortal.

Peter: Your statement cannot stand. When a person eats, drinks, and engages in procreation, it is necessary that they are composed of the four elements. Whatever is composed in this way must also necessarily corrupt. Therefore, they must also be subject to death and corruption, as they are composed in this way. Furthermore, if they are immortal, they are no longer subject to the specific definition of a human being. The definition of a human being is a rational, mortal animal. But this definition cannot be applied to immortal humans. Therefore, they are not a special kind of human being. By this reasoning, it is rightly concluded that those whom you call human beings are not human, which is absurd. Moreover, as we said before, even if we assume that the largest number of immortals is generated continuously, they could not fit in the entire space of the earth if we place them on top of each other like stones, even if the earth’s surface were doubled.

Moses: Since I cannot defend their immortality, I will at least concede that they are mortal.

Peter: Since you concede that they will die, I want you to say whether their resurrection will be for punishment or reward.

Moses: The resurrection will be for glory and honor, so that the anointed ones may see glory and the kingdom and have perfect joy in their bodies and hearts.

Peter: I want to hear what you think about the state of the righteous until they are resurrected, whether they remain in punishment or in peace.

Moses: It is certain that they will enjoy blessedness and peace with God.

Peter: If what you say is true, then the resurrection will be for punishment rather than reward. For if they now boast of the gift of eternal life, why would they be thrown back into the prisons of their bodies, where they will be tortured again with hunger, thirst, sleeplessness, and various other tortures? Moreover, according to your view, they will endure the fear and punishment of the second death. All of these things clearly show that the resurrection will bring them more shame than honor and glory.

Moses: Even if they now enjoy peace and pleasure, to which they will return to the narrowness of their bodies, yet their joy in seeing the presence of the anointed one and rejoicing in his kingdom will be so great that they will live in Jerusalem as before, sacrifice in the old temple, and have no punishment for their bodies, and what they have now will be considered rest afterwards, at the very least.

Peter: What you say strays from the path of truth. For no honor or glory of this world can be compared with the pleasures and peace of eternal life, even for a single moment. The glory of that blessed life remains eternal and continuous, especially since your own teachers testify that all the honor and glory of this world is as one to sixty in comparison with the pleasures of that life. Moreover, it is evident to anyone who is not devoid of reason that it is incomparably greater joy to see God than what you call the anointed one.

Moses: Whatever we have said so far, we have said for the sake of reasoning and arguing. This is the certainty of our faith, that we will be resurrected, eat and drink, and generate offspring, and both their nature and use will inhabit forever in the kingdom of eternal happiness and immortality, without any death after a thousand years.

Peter: If you admit immortality, you fall back into the previous inconsistency. Within a thousand years, their population will increase so much that they will no longer fit within the confines of the earth. Much less will there be any space left for cultivating land. Moreover, what we said before is in question because the patriarchs, prophets, and all the righteous who were already shining in glory, are subjected once again to new punishments and brought back to their bodies. Another thing: everything that eats, drinks, and generates offspring undoubtedly consists of the four elements and is also delighted and saddened. How can it be that what is composed of them and affected by the aforementioned passions will be transferred to that kingdom with the same passions without any change? But even if we concede everything, what will you say about those who are born after the coming of the anointed one? Will they die or not?

Moses: They will certainly die at the end of Christ’s kingdom.

Peter: What, then, will their parents do at their death? It would be better for them not to be resurrected than to suffer so much grief from their death.

Moses: Let us say that they will not die.

Peter: Then, the Scripture is lying, which says, namely, David in the psalm: “What man is he that liveth, and shall not see death?” (Psalm LXXXVIII). Therefore, if you consider it, all the paths of reason and escape are closed to you, and it is impossible for the resurrection of the dead to happen in the way you describe it, which we also refuted earlier with the testimony of the law. So how can your soul, brother, listening to such fables, indulge in them? Therefore, pray with me for the mercy of the Lord to absolve you from this error of unbelief, as He has done for me. Amen.

Title IV: Showing that the Jews, from the whole law of Moses, observe little, and that little is not pleasing to God.

Moses: I do not unjustly give thanks to the Enlightener of Hearts, who, though late, has dispelled the darkness of such great blindness from our minds. I also repay you with the greatest thanks, who, by the light of the clearest and invincible reason, have removed this error of unbelief from me. Now, if it pleases you, continue with the order we began, and open the next part of our proposals. For you said that we do very little concerning the commandments of the law, and that very little is not pleasing to God. I eagerly desire to hear why or with what intention you have said this.

Peter: What I said, that you observe very little of the commandments of the law, needs no proof of authority or reason, as it is clearly evident, such as in the sacrifices which you do not celebrate at all. [593C] For neither do you sacrifice the lamb as you once did in the morning and evening, nor do you celebrate the new moons, Sabbaths, and burnt offerings of ceremonies, nor do you offer the libations of bread, wine, and oil that you likewise neglected (Num. XXVIII; Psal. LXXX), or even the daily arrangement of the table, on which your fathers were accustomed to serve the showbread every seventh day (Exod. XXV). They also prepared the lights in the morning and lit them in the evening, and at the same time, they made the incense burn in the temple by putting it on the censers, and they also maintained the ordinations and anointings of the priests, as well as the various changes of clothing (Exod. XXX), and the many different ways of consuming food, and the alternation of services throughout each week, according to the precepts of the law [593D] (Lev. VIII). They also ordained the Levites according to the law (Deut. XIV), and they made them sing with musical instruments, as Moses had instructed (Levit. III; Psal. LXXX). They also redeemed the firstborn of men and unclean animals with a price (Num. X), and they offered the first fruits of the trees on the altar for the Lord’s consumption (Exod. XIII), which they believed were for the consumption of the priests (Lev. XXIII). For the first three years, they did not use the fruits of the trees for any benefit. In the fourth year, all their fruits were sanctified to the praise of the Lord. They also offered the first fruits to the priests (Num. XVIII; Exod. XXXVI), and from the two tithes, they gave one to the Levites and transported the other to Jerusalem to be eaten in the holy place [594A]. The Levites also paid the tenth of the tithe that they received to the same priests. The seventh year was the Sabbath of the land, and the fiftieth year was the jubilee (Lev. XXV). The law also governed every trace of leprosy and the scars of houses, the bright spots of erupting pimples, and the changes in various colors, so that it could be determined at what time something was clean or unclean; this was subjected to the judgment of the priests. The law also concerned the man who suffered from a discharge of semen and the woman who was separated during her menstrual periods (Lev. XV), and their purification sacrifices were determined by the judgment of the priests. tent where a dead person lay or touched the corpse of a slain person, or touched the bones or grave of that person or anything in the tent, it was unclean until the ashes of a burnt heifer were sprinkled on it (Deuteronomy 14). Furthermore, there are many other precepts in the law (Leviticus 4) that you have entirely neglected for some time.

Moses: We are not to be refuted regarding the precepts of the law which we do not observe, since we are exiles from our homeland and lack the temple and legitimate means.

Peter: You have put forth an invalid excuse. For if your sacrifices were acceptable to God, he would not have cast you out of your land in such a way that you could not fulfill what he had commanded.

Moses: God did not cast us out of our homeland so that we could not obey his commands, for it is not the nature of a wise and just God to command something and then later prohibit it. And as for why we did not fulfill those commands, it is for God to demand an explanation from us. But it is because we sinned in his sight that he was angry with us and cast us out of the land where we cannot fulfill his commands. Therefore, our inability to obey is not blameworthy until the time comes when we return to the land of our dwelling, and then we will fulfill with deeds what the Lord has commanded us, and our sacrifice will be acceptable to Him, as the prophet Malachi testifies: “And the sacrifice of Judah and Jerusalem will please God, as in the days of old and as in former years” (Malachi 3).

Peter: This prophecy of yours is irrelevant to our purpose. For if you examine the preceding and following history, you will find that it is said of the sacrifices of the temple that was built during the time of Ezra (3 Ezra 8). As for your exile that I mentioned, I confirm the same, namely, that you were cast out of the land so that you would not offer sacrifices, observe new moons or any festivals in the old way, nor tread the thresholds of the temple. For when God commanded sacrifices through Moses, he did so in order that those who believed rightly in Him and loved Him with all their heart would diligently and cleanly keep His law, not so that they would treat His law unworthily by committing thefts, homicides, robberies, and other vices, nor by sacrificing to idols, and thus defile themselves with many polluting contagions, and unworthily enter His holy temple as those who would sacrifice to Him, as the prophet Jeremiah testifies: “Behold, you trust in lying words that cannot profit you: Steal, murder, commit adultery, swear falsely, offer incense unto Baalim, and walk after other gods whom you know not; And come and stand before me in this house, which is called by my name, and say, We are delivered to do all these abominations” (Jeremiah 7). Therefore, God abhorred your works and your sacrifices with songs, and expelled you from His temple and land, as the prophet Isaiah plainly implies with these words: “What to me is the multitude of your sacrifices? says the Lord; I have had enough of burnt offerings of rams and the fat of well-fed beasts; I do not delight in the blood of bulls, or of lambs, or of goats. When you come to appear before me, who has required of you this trampling of my courts? Bring no more vain offerings; incense is an abomination to me. New moon and Sabbath and the calling of convocations—I cannot endure iniquity and solemn assembly. Your new moons and your appointed feasts my soul hates; they have become a burden to me; I am weary of bearing them” (Isaiah 1). Jeremiah also confirms this, saying: “Why do you bring me frankincense from Sheba, or sweet cane from a distant land? Your burnt offerings are not acceptable, and your sacrifices do not please me” (Jeremiah 6). And elsewhere he says: “Even when they fast, I will not hear their cries; and when they offer burnt offerings and grain offerings, I will not accept them” (Jeremiah 14). Amos the prophet also speaks of this, saying: “I hate, I despise your feasts, and I take no delight in your solemn assemblies. Even though you offer me your burnt offerings and grain offerings, I will not accept them; and the peace offerings of your fattened animals, I will not look upon. Take away from me the noise of your songs; to the melody of your harps I will not listen” (Amos 5). Malachi also speaks of this, saying: “I have no pleasure in you, says the Lord of hosts, and I will not accept an offering from your hand” (Malachi 1). And the Psalmist says: “Sacrifice and offering you did not desire, but my ears you have opened” (Psalm 40). Hosea the prophet also says: “I will put an end to all her mirth, her feasts, her new moons, her Sabbaths, and all her appointed feasts” (Hosea 2), and many others, which would take too long to enumerate. These are the chief and major precepts of your law, which, as the prophetic authority and the age of present times indicate, God does not want to receive from your hand.

Moses: All the words of the prophets that you have mentioned regarding the Babylonian captivity, we Jews say and believe were predicted and fulfilled. After the captivity, God looked upon us, and accepted our sacrifices.

Peter: Your explanation agrees with my understanding. When God brought you out of captivity and back to your temple and homeland, it is clear that He fulfilled the threats of the prophets and accepted your sacrifices with your sins forgiven. But when you returned to your previous sins, you were punished again, and the second captivity was even greater than the first, indicating a greater indignation from God towards you.

Moses: Your words contradict yourself, as you previously said that the people of that time were religious and just, and faithfully kept the commandments of the law. Now you confirm that their actions displeased God.

Peter: I do not deny that they kept the law as it was given by God through Moses. But after Christ came and revealed the secrets of the prophets, and uncovered the spiritual meaning that was hidden in the law, they should have followed the law according to the spirit of life, not just the letter of the law. God who gave the law understood it better than the prophets who were only listeners. But because they neglected to do this, God refused to accept their ancient observances, just as He prohibited the old rituals that were practiced before the law was given through Moses, such as marrying two sisters, or taking an aunt as a wife, or eating all kinds of animals. These and similar things were not regarded as sins before the law, but after it was given, no one could do them without sin.

Moses: I believe that the law that Moses gave and that our fathers observed from ancient times should be observed by us in all things.

Peter: If the ancient observances of the law had been acceptable to the Lord while you were performing them, He would not have cast you out of the temple and your homeland. But to agree with your words, I must show you that you are being rebuked by your own judgment, as you only observe a few of the precepts of the law, and do not even keep them fully. For example, you do not observe the Sabbath, or your festivals, or your fasts, or your sacrifices, or other necessary precepts. Also, the prayers that you offer instead of sacrifices do not ascend to the Lord’s ears. You cannot attribute this to my malice, as your own teachers testify that God has not accepted your prayers since the temple was destroyed. This is also confirmed by the authority of the prophet Jeremiah, who said, “When I cry and plead, He shuts out my prayer.” And again, “You have covered yourself with a cloud, so that no prayer can pass through.” And Isaiah said, “When you spread out your hands, I will hide my eyes from you, even when you make many prayers, I will not listen.” Furthermore, according to the law of Moses, all of you are unclean. For there is no one among you who has not been defiled by touching a dead body. This defilement cannot be removed except by sprinkling the ashes of a red heifer, which you do not have at present. Your women are all considered unclean because there are no more priests to judge between menstruation and post-childbirth bleeding, and the children born of such women are also considered unclean. All of your food is also considered unclean by the law. Therefore, O Moses, since your entire people is considered unclean, all your women are unclean due to their menstrual cycles, and all your children are considered unclean because of this, and all your food is unclean, and your prayers and actions are not pleasing to God. How, I ask, can you have any assurance that you will have a good end or that you will be of any value to God? I give thanks to God for having delivered me from their error, and I beseech you to deliver me as well. Amen.

Title V: Destroying the Saracen law, and refuting their foolish opinions.

Moses: So far, you have shown the faith of the Jewish people to be empty and inconsistent in every way, and how their service is irrational and ungrateful to God, as well as why you left that faith and demonstrated the most evident reasons. You have also shown me the extent of my error in remaining in it. But when you left your father’s faith, I wonder why you chose the faith of the Christians and not rather that of the Saracens, with whom you have always lived and been raised. I am eager, just as in the Hebrew faith, to raise any obstacles I can to this sect, so that you may provide a reason to destroy it, just as you did with our own. For as I said, you have always lived and been nurtured among them, you have read their books, and you understand their language. Indeed, as one of them, you should have chosen this faith above all others, as it is more honorable and capable than the others. The law is indeed generous, with many commandments regarding the delights of this present life, showing that God’s love for them was great, and it also promises unspeakable joys to its followers. If you seek the root of this law, you will find it based on an unshakable foundation of reason. The fact that God loved them and did not want to burden them with many commandments, but spared them, is a sign that he commanded them to pray only five times a day, and even before they pray, they wash their buttocks, genitals, hands, arms, face, mouth, nostrils, ears, eyes, hair, and finally their feet, most decently, so that they have perfect cleanliness. After this, they publicly proclaim, confessing one God who has no equal or likeness, and that Mahomet is his prophet. They also fast for an entire month each year. While fasting, they eat during the night and abstain during the day, so that from the moment they can distinguish a black thread from a white thread by sight until sunset, no one dares to eat, drink, or defile themselves with marital intercourse. After sunset, however, until twilight the next day, they are always free to eat and drink and be with their wives as they please. If, however, one is burdened by illness or on a journey, they may eat and drink as they wish for as long as the time of sickness or travel lasts, but they must make up for any deficiency in fasting when it becomes possible. Once a year, everyone is commanded to go to God’s house, which is in Mecca, to see and worship it, and to circle it dressed in seamless garments, and to throw stones according to the law, specifically between their thighs, to stone the devil. They say that Adam, after being exiled from paradise, built this house by the command of the Lord, and it remained a place of prayer for all his sons until it came to Abraham. Abraham, the faithful servant of God, strengthened and restored it, and made vows and offered sacrifices to the Lord in it, and after his death left it to his son Ishmael, and it remained a house of prayer for him and all his sons for many years, until Mahomet was born. With his birth, God promised, as they themselves claim, to give the same house as an inheritance to him and all his generations. They are also commanded to plunder, capture, kill, and destroy the enemies of God and their prophet in every way, unless they repent and convert to their faith, or pay the imposed tribute of servitude. Indeed, all flesh is lawful for them, except for the flesh of pigs and blood, as well as carrion for eating. They also reject anything that has been consecrated in the name of something other than God. Apart from this, they are allowed to have four lawful wives at the same time, and to always take another when one is divorced, as long as the number does not exceed four. In divorce, it is also observed that a man may divorce and take back the same woman up to three times. As for purchased and captive women, they may have as many as they wish, and they will have the freedom to sell and buy them again, provided that once they have made them pregnant, they cannot be subjected to the yoke of servitude to another. They are also allowed to marry from their own kin so that their bloodline may increase and the bond of friendship among them may grow stronger.

Regarding the recovery of possessions, their legal system is similar to the Hebrews, as you know well, where the plaintiff proves their case with witnesses, and the defendant clears themselves with a single oath. They only accept very suitable and proven witnesses, in whom they can trust without an oath. They also follow some other aspects of Mosaic law, such as punishing the one who sheds human blood with the same penalty (Gen. IX), and stoning both the adulterer and the adulteress who have been caught in the act (Lev. XX). Those who fornicate with anyone else will be subject to eighty lashes. Theft is punished in such a way that the thief receives eighty lashes for the first and second offenses, loses a hand for the third, and a foot for the fourth, and whoever has taken a limb from someone else will have to redeem it at a worthy price. All these precepts are set forth by God so that if there were too much freedom to do anything, the entire nation would quickly fall into ruin. They are always commanded to abstain from wine, as it is the fuel and breeding ground for all sin.

These are the main commandments of the law since it would be lengthy to dwell on each one individually. God has therefore promised paradise to those who believe in Him and His faithful prophet Muhammad, and who fulfill the commandments of His law. Paradise is a garden of delights, irrigated by flowing waters, where they will have eternal dwellings. The shade of trees will protect them, and they will not be afflicted by cold or heat. They will eat from all kinds of fruits and all types of food. Whatever their desires suggest, they will find it immediately before them. They will be dressed in multicolored silk garments. They will recline in luxury, and angels will walk among them, serving as cupbearers with golden and silver vessels, offering milk in golden cups and wine in silver cups, saying, “Eat and drink with all joy, and see that what God promised you has been fulfilled.” They will be joined with virgins, whom neither human nor demonic touch has violated, and who are more beautiful in form than the splendor of hyacinth and coral.

These blessings will be given to believers, but for those who do not believe in God and His prophet Muhammad, there will be eternal hellish punishment. However, no matter how burdened with sins someone may be, if they believe in God and Muhammad on the day of their death, they will be saved on the Day of Judgment through Muhammad’s intercession. Knowing all this and much more, which would be lengthy to enumerate, since you have known these things from your childhood and they are held in great esteem by all Saracen people, why have you chosen to follow the Christian faith rather than the Muslim faith, when you would have enjoyed a better life in both this present world and in the hereafter?

Peter: Although the context of your speech, having much elegance and sweetness, can win favor from those who consider bodily pleasures to be the highest good, it is surprising that you hope to convince me of something in which you believe I cannot be deceived. For I am certain that I know who Muhammad was, how he feigned to be a prophet with cunning simulation, and who were his advisors in this deception. Only one thing remains uncertain for you, which is the doctrine of Muhammad himself, which I judge to be empty. So when you hear his life and morals narrated by me, then you can easily discern whether I know the truth about him or not.

Moses: I am eagerly waiting to hear from you.

Peter: Therefore, Muhammad, orphaned by both parents, spent his childhood under the patronage of his uncle, serving the worship of idols, along with the entire Arab people. As he himself testifies in his Quran, God said to him: “You were an orphan and I took you in, in error, and I guided you, poor, and I made you rich.” After some years, he became a hired man for a noble widow named Khadijah, and quickly won her heart, so that he could legally marry her and become the master of all her possessions. With her wealth, he became incredibly proud and proclaimed that he could become the king of the Arabs if he did not fear his fellow citizens, because they did not consider him to be their king, since they were his equals or superiors. However, by devising a way to become a king, he wanted to pretend to be a prophet, relying on his skillful eloquence, which he had acquired through various nations while sweating through his business dealings, and also on the fact that at that time, most of the soldiers and farmers themselves were idolaters, except for some who followed Moses’ law according to the Samaritans and some Christians who were Nestorians and Jacobites. The Jacobites, named after a certain Jacob, were heretics who preached circumcision and believed that Christ was not God, but only a just man conceived of the Holy Spirit and born of a virgin, but not crucified or dead. At that time, there was also a certain archdeacon friend of Muhammad in the region of Antioch, who was a Jacobite. He was called to a council and condemned. Ashamed of his condemnation, he fled the region and joined Muhammad. Therefore, he relied on the advice of this man to carry out his plan, which he had thought of but could not fulfill by himself. There were also two Jews from that same Arabia, whom we mentioned as heretics, named Abdias and Cahbalahabar. They joined Muhammad and helped him fulfill his foolishness. These three, each according to his own heresy, adapted Muhammad’s law, and showed him sayings that were believed to be true by the heretical Jews and heretical Christians who were in Arabia, and those who did not want to believe voluntarily, believed by force of sword and fear. And we know of no other prophecies or miracles from him, as we have heard of Moses, Joshua, Samuel, Elijah, and Elisha, whom we read performed many miracles.

Moses: We believe in most of the prophets, of whom we have read of no miracles, such as Jeremiah, Obadiah, Amos, Hosea, and others.

Peter: No miracles need to be sought in them, because they did not introduce any novelty into the law, nor did they in any way contradict the Mosaic doctrine, and we know that what they predicted was fulfilled in part.

Moses: There is no doubt that God gave new commands to Noah and Abraham, such as sacrifices, eating meat, circumcision, and other rituals. So why wasn’t faith exhibited to their descendants without the light of miracles?

Peter: They are truly believed because they have a prophet attesting to them, Moses, whose testimony no one doubts. So how can Muhammad be received as a prophet when he is not comparable to any prophet in any way?

Moses: Why do you say that he is not a prophet when you have heard that he performed many miracles? Did not the dumb animal, the ox named Doregele, call him a prophet? Did not the moon, entering and exiting both sides, designate him as a miraculous prophet? Did he not give the people milk from a sheep’s teat after rubbing his hand over it to demonstrate his prophethood? It was also miraculous that when he called a fig tree to come to him, the tree came to him, and he ate its fruit. Furthermore, he spoke with an arm of a poisoned sheep that had been placed in a bowl and said, “Do not eat me because I am poisoned.”

Peter: What you are saying is frivolous, and not all of your beliefs are proven by credible evidence, especially since Muhammad himself did not mention anything of the sort in his Quran, and in fact prohibited believing anything that was not written in the Quran. He said that many have lied about everything, so only what is supported by the authority of the Quran should be considered true. Muhammad did not show any evidence of performing miracles, so how can he be considered a true prophet? The signs of a true prophet are honesty in life, exhibition of miracles, and the firm truth of all words. Muhammad’s goodness of life was violence, which made him proclaim himself as the prophet of God by force, enjoying theft and robbery, and being consumed by lust to the point that he would not hesitate to commit adultery with another man’s wife, such as with Zanab, the wife of Zet. He said that the Lord ordered him to divorce his wife Zet, but then he continued to have sex with her after the divorce. His true prophecy was revealed through the shameful behavior of his wife Iassa, who was caught in adultery but falsely confirmed by the messenger Gabriel because Muhammad did not want to divorce her. He praised the power of his vice and his lust, saying that he was pleased because the sweet smell and beauty of women pleased him greatly. We have already discussed his miracles. The wars that he initiated and promised victory in the name of God, resulted in his teeth being broken in battle, his face being scarred, and many of his own followers being killed or fleeing, which demonstrates the truth. If an angel of God had been guarding him, as you claim, none of these events would have happened to him, as we read about in the stories of Elijah and Elisha, whom God always protected from their enemies. Even if he was a true prophet, as you say, he would know that he might not be successful in battle. So why do you say that I should follow his law instead of the Christian law that I have adopted, especially since I have abandoned his law?

Moses: Your reasoning seems certain to me, and whoever looks clearly into it sees the truth.

Peter: You previously said that I have read their books, know their language, and was raised among the Saracens, but that does not mean that I should follow their law.

Moses: Because I believed that it was good, I said that you should adopt it.

Peter: You also said that their law is rooted in the unshakable foundation of reason, so let us engage in a debate, exchanging words and commands, if we can find it well-founded.

Moses: Agreed.

Peter: You say that Muhammad commanded five prayers a day in order to make his law a mediator between the Jewish and Christian laws, not out of his own righteousness or with the help of God. The Jews pray three times a day according to their law, and Christians seven, but Muhammad set a limit of five prayers. Before they pray, they wash their hands, arms, and other parts of their bodies, but this does not pertain to prayer. It pertains to purification, which comes from within, not from without. The washing of limbs pertained to the worshipers of Venus, who, wanting to pray to her, made themselves like women. However, because the king was made by a certain point in Venus, he commanded this. You admit that they are proclaimed with a public voice during prayer time, which is not suitable for prayer, except that he cannot impose another new sign. You say he commanded them to fast for a full month to restrain the vices of the flesh, which is the beginning of repentance. But tell me, what profit is there in fasting for a day and eating three or four times a night, and enjoying good meats and the best foods, and using women? These things do not weaken but rather strengthen the flesh. You say that once a year they go to the house of God in Mecca for recognition and pray there, where they say Adam and Abraham prayed, but they have no authority for this, but they invent it as a sort of commentary. Before he preached the law, this house was full of idols. But if you, oh Moses, knew what kind of house it was, and what secret was in it, and why Muhammad went there, and what the law found to be done there, you would be greatly amazed.

Moses: Please explain what you are insinuating. For although I preach this law to you, I do not know why it commanded that journey and other things to be done there.

Peter: I wanted to inform you briefly, but now that you have asked, I will show you clearly. The sons of Lot, Ammon and Moab, honored this house, and two idols were worshipped there, one made of white stone and the other of black stone. The name of the black stone idol was Mercury, and the name of the other was Chamos. The one made of black stone was built in honor of Saturn, and the one made of white stone was built in honor of Mars. The worshipers of these idols ascended twice a year to worship them, to Mars when the sun enters the first degree of Aries, because Aries is the honor of Mars. As they departed, stones were thrown as was the custom. To Saturn, when the sun enters the first degree of Libra, because Libra is the honor of Saturn. This is still celebrated today in India, as I said, with the Arabians worshipping the idols of Ammon and Moab. Muhammad, coming after a long time, could not remove the ancient custom, but allowed them to circle the house with unsown coverings, with a change of practice. But so as not to seem to command sacrifice to the idols, he constructed a statue of Saturn in the wall, in the corner of the house, so that the face would not appear, but only the back was placed outside. As for the idol of Mars, because it was sculpted on all sides, he buried it underground and placed a stone on top of it. He instructed people who came to worship there to kiss those stones and to throw them backwards between their legs while bowing with their heads shaven, which is a sign of the ancient law. So tell me, Moses, with what intention did he give these instructions, if not the one I have described?

Moses: I told you I don’t know the intention because I haven’t found it written anywhere. However, I do know about throwing stones, which they say is done to ward off demons. In their books, I saw it written that a certain Bomar, one of Muhammad’s ten companions, began in the usual manner by kissing the stones. “I say to you, stones,” he said, “I know you can neither help nor harm, but since Muhammad did it, I follow his example.”

Peter: What you said about throwing stones to drive away demons doesn’t seem logical, because anything that is not perceived by some bodily sense cannot be easily driven away. Demons, however, are driven away by the divine name.

Moses: Since I have heard some people say they have seen and heard demons and even conversed with them, I am surprised that you say they cannot be perceived by bodily senses.

Peter: Although an angel cannot be perceived by bodily senses, they can become visible to those who walk according to God’s commandments. Similarly, the devil appears visible to his friends.

Moses: I would indeed like to know by what teaching or art I could see or converse with them.

Peter: Why do you desire to know something that does not pertain to you?

Moses: Not to practice it, but only for the sake of knowledge.

Peter: How can you want to learn something that will only increase your error?

Moses: You have corrected me well, and I have learned my lesson from your words.

Peter: Now that we have said enough, let’s return to the beginning. Since Muhammad commanded the enemies of God to be plundered, taken captive, and killed until they either believed or paid tribute, this is not from the works of God, nor did any prophet command anyone to be forced to believe. Instead, Muhammad did this out of greed for money and to destroy his enemies. As you know, this should not be done. Rather, if anyone wants to convert someone, they should do so gently and kindly, as Muhammad himself testifies in his Quran, where he speaks in the person of the Lord saying: “If your Lord God willed, all the nations of the world would believe. So why do you force them to believe? No one believes unless it is by the will of God.” And in another place, he says: “The truth of God has now come to you, people. Whoever believes does so for their own sake, and whoever errs does so for their own sake, and I am not a burden-bearer for you.” And he continues: “Follow, O God, what is revealed to you, and wait until God judges, for He is the judge over all.” Also, in the same book, he says: “If your Lord God wished, He could put everyone under one law without discord.” And in another place, he pretends as if God is speaking to him: “There should be no compulsion in religion; the truth and justice have now become clear. Let whoever wishes believe willingly.” And again in the Quran: “You unbelievers do not pray as I do, nor do you pray to whom I pray, and I do not worship whom you worship; there is discord between my law and your law.” And in another place, he says: “Do not argue with people of other laws except with gentle words. So why did he order plundering, taking captives, and forcing people to believe by force, and yet confess that all these are the ways of God? Tell me, Moses, why do you command me to believe in a law that contradicts itself?”

Moses: The Quran is such a book that the later part destroys the order of the first.

Peter: The Quran was not written by the hand of Muhammad; if he had done so, it would have been ordered. After his death, however, his companions who had lived with him, each, so to speak, recounting his own lesson, composed the Quran, so we do not know which order was first and which was last. Muhammad commanded plunder, enslavement, and the killing of nations because the Arabs, who were ignorant of God and lived in the desert, delighted in plundering, and so that they would believe him most of all.

Moses: I think what you say is true.

Peter: As for what you said about all flesh being permissible for them, except for pork, blood, and carrion, all flesh is also permissible for us [604D] except for pork. Muhammad did this to make us Christians differ from his law in this regard. As for what you said about it being allowed to take four wives and to replace any one of them with another, this is not prescribed by any reason. Taking a wife is only prescribed for the purpose of procreating children (Lev. XVIII). As for having any number of purchased or captive women, this is considered adultery to us, as a father often buys a woman who has been violated by his son, and vice versa, the son or brother buys one who has been corrupted by the father.

Moses: The truth is believed in your words. But since there was such disagreement between these commandments, why did Muhammad, who seemed so wise, command it?

Peter: Muhammad loved women very much, and [605A] he was extremely lascivious, and as he himself confessed, the power of lust of forty men remained in him. And especially because the Arabs were very lustful, he satisfied their desires so that they would believe. As for having wives from their own kin, it was the custom at that time for everyone to strengthen the bond of friendship among themselves. As for the judgments you mentioned earlier, they agree with the law of Moses in some respects and disagree in others, which Muhammad did to make his law somewhat different from the law of Moses. They are always commanded to abstain from wine so that their companions, when drunk, would not expose the ruin of their people. The things you preached about paradise should be passed over because they cannot be proven by reason. When the soul is separated from the body and the four elements are separated from each other, a person will not use these worldly things in the same way [605B] as before, which we condemned earlier in the third title, where we spoke of the resurrection of the dead. The wise do not believe in such a paradise, nor are they deceived by such words. However, the people of Muhammad’s time, without law, without scripture, ignorant of all good, except for warfare and plowing, craving luxury, and given to gluttony, could easily be preached to according to their desires. For if he did otherwise, he would not drive them to his law.

Moses: Such a great nation would not believe in him without God’s help.

Peter: If he had accomplished everything with God’s help, he would not have been defeated many times, nor, as we mentioned earlier, would his teeth have been shattered in battle, for like other kings, he was sometimes conquered and sometimes victorious. But after his death, everyone wanted to abandon his law. For he had said that on the third day his body would be carried to heaven. When they realized he was a liar and saw the corpse beginning to stink, a large part of them left without burying the body. However, another man, Abithar’s son, one of Muhammad’s ten companions, gained power after his death. He preached gently and cleverly urged people to believe, saying that they did not understand Muhammad’s words correctly. “Muhammad,” he said, “did not say that he would be lifted up to heaven before his burial or while being seen by people. He indeed said that after the burial of the body, angels would carry him to heaven without anyone knowing. Because they did not bury him immediately, that’s why the body began to stink, so it needed to be buried immediately.” For this reason, he held the people in their previous error for a while. Two of Muhammad’s scribes, named Hazan and Hozain, weakened their bodies with fasting and vigils almost to the point of death. Their father often advised his sons not to wear out their bodies through such prolonged mortification. But seeing that they were foolish and had already come to death’s door due to excessive labor, he revealed the truth about Muhammad as it was. When they learned of his wickedness from their father, they began to eat and drink wine, and although they did not completely abandon their law, they no longer adhered to it as strongly as before. But some part of the people followed them in their customs. So, in every way, Moses, we can recognize that he is neither a true prophet nor are his words true. Although we may omit many things we could say about him, let us at least consider one thing that both you and we believe: that Christ, whom we equally believe was dead and crucified, he denies. He says: They did not kill Christ nor crucify him, but it seemed so to them. Not only will you find him lying in this matter, but read all the books and sayings of the prophets, and in everything he said about them, you will find him lying. So how do you encourage me to believe in a liar when you find deceit in everything? I beseech the mercy of Almighty God to free me from his error and to complete the law I have begun to fulfill. Amen.

Title VI: On the Trinity.

Moses: So far, we have debated against our sect and the sect of the Saracens. You have refuted both by reason and by authority. Now, explain your faith and distinguish the manner of your belief under specific headings.

Peter: In the beginning of my book, I have already outlined the manner of my belief under specific titles for you. Now, inquire under each title by debating the same, and if you can, you may try to destroy what I have said.

Moses: I desire to do so if I can. Now, therefore, I shall begin to inquire about the first part of your belief, namely, how God is one and three persons, so that none of these is naturally prior to another in time, nor is any one of them substantially separated from another. Christians call these the Father, the Son, and the Holy Spirit. Then we shall discuss the other parts of your belief, until we cover them all. Explain these three persons and first, do so rationally.

Peter: I want to call the three persons substance, wisdom, and will. I call the first person substance because wisdom and will are in and from it, and it is from no one, although all three persons are one substance.

Moses: Can these three be found by reason?

Peter: They can. In the first part of my book, we have discussed the substance quite firmly, so we need not inquire further about it. But whether wisdom and will are inherent in the substance remains to be explained.

Moses: I ask this.

Peter: Since it is evident that there is a true substance, and that it is the creator of all things, the beginning of what has a beginning, and the maker of what is to be made, it must have wisdom and will, so that it knows what it wants to make before it wants to make it because it makes it, and so that the work is first formed in the mind by imagining before it is demonstrated. This imagination is wisdom. Now, when it thus knows, it either makes or does not make. It does not make if it does not will. But if it makes and wills, this is the will. Therefore, it appears in our speech that the work is preceded by wisdom and will. The Creator of the world, therefore, could not create anything before there was wisdom and will in him.

Moses: That is true.

Peter: Therefore, God is substance, wisdom, and will.

Moses: That is true. But you still have to prove that this wisdom and will are eternally in God, inseparable from him, and not prior to them in time, as you believe.

Peter: I will verify this. Since it is established that God has wisdom and will, we should know whether this wisdom and will existing in him are not separated from him or outside of him, whether they are sometimes with him and sometimes not.

Moses: It is true that they are in him and not separated from him because if it were otherwise, then God would be non-wise after he was wise, and he would be without will after he had will, for it is not possible that they would be separated from him after being in him, except by accident, and accident is not found in him.

Peter: May God bless you, for you have understood the truth well and have granted it, and you have shown yourself to have good faith. But you still need to inquire whether this wisdom and will are eternal or have a beginning.

Moses: Let it be assumed for now that they had a beginning.

Peter: Then your words contradict themselves. For you said that God cannot be non-wise after he was wise, nor without will after he had will. And then, because you said his wisdom and will had a beginning, sometimes they are in Him, and sometimes they are not.

Moses: This is not contrary to my assertion at all. For I said earlier that God cannot lack wisdom and will after He has had them. But since I granted that they had a beginning, I did not contradict that He could have what He did not have.

Peter: Indeed, if they had a beginning, either God created them, or they created themselves.

Moses: Without a doubt, God created them, for no thing creates itself.

Peter: Therefore, if God created them, when they had a beginning [607D], the Creator Himself needed other wisdom and will by which to create them, and as was said, it is necessary for the operator to have wisdom and will before doing anything, and so on to infinity. Therefore, it is necessary that wisdom and will be eternally in God, inseparable from Him, and not prior to them in time. And this is what we wish to explain.

Moses: It is true, for it is right and useful for us to agree with the truth.

Peter: But it remains to be said which of these, namely wisdom and will, is called the Son and which the Holy Spirit.

Moses: Since none of them is prior to the other in [608A] time, nor is substance prior to them, can any of these three be prior in any order of speech?

Peter: Indeed, it can be and is by the order of names, not by nature. For in substance are wisdom and will, and so it is first. Wisdom, however, is prior to will because, before a creator wants something, he must know what he wants. So by this ordered reasoning of names, substance is prior to wisdom and will, and wisdom is prior to will. Similarly, in these names, namely Father, Son, and Holy Spirit. But we have dealt with this kind of thing so coarsely with you, so that you, who do not perceive subtleties, may at least be able to perceive something in this way. If we were talking to a Christian about this [608B], we could argue much more subtly with them.

Moses: Since you have shown by reason that God has wisdom and will, can it be found in any authoritative book series that the Creator Himself used wisdom and will in the creation of the world?

Peter: Yes. For Solomon says of wisdom in Proverbs: The Lord founded the earth by wisdom, He established the heavens by understanding (Prov. III). But of will, David says in the Psalm: He did all that He willed (Ps. CIII).

Moses: And what is it that you now call the second person of your Trinity by the name of wisdom, when it is called the Word by others?

Peter: In this, indeed, there is no contradiction. For the Word[608C] of God is His perfect wisdom: which the Psalmist also shows when he says: By the Word of the Lord the heavens were established (Ps. XXXII). Therefore, it is clear that the wisdom of God and His Word are the same.

Moses: So far, you have dealt with the explanation of the Trinity quite philosophically, but I would like at least one Scripture authority to confirm that there are more persons in God.

Peter: I will not prove it by one but by several, neither by hidden ones but by open ones for the understanding.

Moses: Unfold them, then.

Peter: What is more obvious and convincing than an explanation of God’s names, such as Elohim and Adonai? Elohim indicates plurality, and its singular is Eloha. But when I say Elohai, it is as if I say “my God,” indicating a plurality of gods but only one speaking person. But when I say Elohemi, it is as if I say “our Gods,” indicating the plurality of both the gods and those speaking. Although Elohi may be used, it is never found in Hebrew scripture that anyone called God Elohi, even though it can be said according to the rules of the Hebrew language.

Moses: But in your Gospel, Christ on the cross called God Elohi (Mark 15, Matthew 27).

Peter: This is not contradictory to what I said. Christ called upon God the Father, only one of the three persons, using that name. Similarly, in the name Adon, meaning Lord, when we say Adon, it indicates singularity, but when we say Adonai, it is as if we say “my Lords,” indicating plurality of lords but only one speaking person. When we say Adonemi, it is as if we say “our Lords,” indicating multiple lords and those who speak. But when we say Adoni, it is as if we say “my Lord” and “one Lord,” indicating one. No human being ever called God Adon, but God is never called by man in this way. Therefore, in sacred scriptures, when God is called Eloha or Adon, it indicates singularity, but when Elohim or Adonai is used, it indicates plurality, which seems contradictory. But in God, there is no contradiction. He who calls himself by a singular name refers to one substance, and when he uses a plural name, he refers to multiple persons, for there is one God in many persons.

Moses: The fact that Elohim and Adonai indicate plurality is based on the rules of literature. But God named himself so, not constrained by any rules, but by his own will. Therefore, his will should not be subject to any rules.

Peter: Indeed, those names should not be subject to any rules if they are proper, not appellative. But since they are appellative, they should be subject to rules, as we explained earlier. Thus, when used singularly, they indicate singularity, but when used plurally, they indicate plurality, as we find in Genesis, where Lot called the angels Adonai, meaning “my Lords,” because there were indeed two angels. And in the same book, when Laban rebuked Jacob, he said, “Why have you stolen my gods (Elohai)?” And in Psalms, it is written, “I said, ‘You are gods (Elohim)’” (Psalm 82). And the Lord, speaking to the Israelites through Moses, said, “You shall have no other gods (Elohim) before me” (Exodus 20). The books of the prophets provide plenty of similar testimonies.

Moses: Although it has been shown that Elohim and Adonai signify plurality, when they are spoken of God, they signify singularity, which is noted by the act to which they are joined, as it is said in the singular voice. For it says of God, “fecit” (“made”, singular), “dixit” (“said”, singular), (Gen. 1) or something else like that, and it is not said, “fecerunt” (“made”, plural), or “dixerunt” (“said”, plural). (Gen. 1)

Peter: This is my authority, that the name of God is spoken in the plural, and the act is singular, and by this it is clear that God is one in many persons. And yet, to cut off all your objections, I can indeed show that both the name of God and the act itself are spoken in the plural. Although this is the case, since it has already been shown above by many reasons that there is only one [610A] God, we cannot refer this to multiple gods. Therefore, it must necessarily refer to one God and many persons.

Moses: If you indeed show this, your proposal will be very well proven.

Peter: And if, with God’s help, I show you this, will you believe in one and many persons?

Moses: I will certainly not make any agreement with you on this matter, but only wish to listen attentively.

Peter: I certainly know the hardness of your heart, but now I will show you that, for by this you may perhaps remember some good. In the book of Samuel it is written, when the Philistines saw the ark of the Lord coming against them, they said, Elehem Elohim (II Reg. IV), that is, these are the gods who struck [610B] Egypt with every plague in the desert. For here both the name of God and the act are spoken in the plural.

Moses: I certainly do not concede that you have proven what you proposed by this. For this was said by a people who believed in not one, but many gods, and thought that there were many gods of Israel, just as there were of their own.

Peter: Since you do not concede this, I will now show you a similar speech in the books of the prophets. For it is written in Genesis: The Lord spoke to Jacob: Arise, and go up to Bethel, and dwell there, and make an altar to God, who appeared to you when you fled from your brother (Gen. XXXV). Here indeed both the name of God and the act are spoken in the singular. Then it is written in the same book that Jacob fulfilled the command of the Lord [610C]. For it follows: And he built an altar there, and called the name of the place the house of God. For there God appeared to him when he fled from his brother. But here both God and appeared are spoken in the plural in Hebrew. For there is Elohim and Niglu, which signifies appeared in the plural. For if he wanted to say appeared in the singular, he would have put Nigla. Also in the book of Samuel, David praising God, says: And who is, as your people Israel, a nation on earth, for which God went to redeem it for himself as a people? (II Reg. VII) Here again, both God and went are plural in Hebrew. For here also there is Elohim and Halcu, which is they went, of which the singular is Halac. But redeem and for himself are singular. Again, in Jeremiah it is read: But the Lord [610D] God is true, the living God, and the eternal king (Jer. X). Here again both God and living are spoken in the plural in Hebrew. Therefore, it is clear from the Scriptures that both the name and actions of God are sometimes expressed in the singular and sometimes in the plural, which shows that God is one, but has multiple persons.

Moses: Since it has been shown from the names of God that there is one God in multiple persons, the question remains why there are only three persons, as you believe, and not two, or four, or more.

Peter: Indeed, we have already demonstrated above that there are three persons when we were discussing this through reason. However, if you disagree, since you have already conceded from the names of God that there are multiple persons, tell me how many persons you would like to believe in, and I, if I can, will weaken your arguments.

Moses: I certainly do not believe in two or three or any number of persons. I asked this question only to oppose your arguments.

Peter: The Trinity is indeed a subtle and ineffable matter, difficult to explain, about which the prophets spoke only in secret and under a veil until Christ came, who revealed it to the minds of the faithful according to their capacity. However, if you pay closer attention and inspect the name of God, which is found explained in the secret of secrets, יהוה, a name of three letters, although in four forms, for one of them is written twice, if you inspect it, you will see that the same name is both one and three. But what is one refers to the unity of substance, and what is three refers to the Trinity of persons. That name is composed of these four forms, י and ה and ו and ה: if you only join the first and second, namely י and ה, it will indeed be one name. Likewise, if you join the second and third, namely ה and ו, you will have another. Similarly, if you only join the third and the fourth, namely ו and ה, you will find a third. Again, if you connect all of them in order, there will be only one name, as shown in this geometrical figure.

Figure
The figure shown in the Patrologia Latina at this point.

The figures in these manuscripts are probably closer to the one originally drawn by Peter Alphonsus. The basic idea seems to be a triangle with “ie”, “eu”, “ue” at the corners and “ieue” in the center.

Consider, therefore, O Moses, how secret, subtle, and ineffable this name is, and how it can only be recognized by the sharp insight of the mind and profound investigation, as Moses testifies in Deuteronomy: ”Know therefore this day, and consider it in thine heart, that the LORD he is God in heaven above, and upon the earth beneath: there is none else (Deut. 4:39).“ Where in Latin the word Dominus is used, in Hebrew you find the aforementioned name, and where Deus is used in Latin, in Hebrew it is written Elohim, which signifies plurality. However, to make clear that the same God is called by both the singular proper name and the plural appellative, and lest they think there are multiple gods, he added, ”and there is none else.“

What Moses said, ”know and consider in your heart (Exod. 20),“ truly implies that the profound subtlety of this name can be understood neither by sight nor hearing, nor any corporeal sense, but only by the clear intellect of the mind and wonderful ingenuity. The Trinity can also be denoted in many other ways, such as the fringes that the Lord commanded the children of Israel to have on their garments through Moses, saying: ”Speak unto the children of Israel, and tell them to make fringes in the borders of their garments, and to put a blue ribbon on the fringe, that they may look upon it, and remember all the commandments of the Lord (Num. 15:38-39).“

Indeed, those fringes were composed of four doubled threads, with three knots in the upper part and two in the lower part. The four threads represent the four seasons of the year, and the doubling of the threads signifies day and night, so that throughout the year, in every season, day and night, they would be mindful of God’s commandments. [612B] By the three upper knots, the Trinity of persons is indicated, while by the two lower knots, the two Testaments are suggested, namely the Law of Moses and the Gospel. The Trinity is also denoted in the three blessings with which Aaron and his sons blessed the children of Israel by the command of the Lord, who said to Moses: “Speak to Aaron and his sons: This is how you shall bless the children of Israel, and you shall say to them: May the Lord bless you and keep you, may the Lord show His face to you and have mercy on you, may the Lord turn His countenance toward you and give you peace (Num. VI).” Indeed, while a priest was pronouncing these blessings, he would hold both his palms extended before his face. When he said “Lord,” which in Hebrew was expressed by the aforementioned name of three-in-one, he would raise the three first fingers [612C], namely the thumb, index, and middle finger, of both hands upright, and after saying “Lord,” would lower the fingers as before. But tell me, O Moses, what better allegory of the excellence of the Trinity can there be than the elevation of the three fingers? If you know and can indicate anything else about this matter, please explain it to me.

Moses: Truly, we have never noticed what you have said, nor anything else about this matter. Neither have our teachers said anything noteworthy about it.

Peter: What else, if not the Trinity of persons, can be indicated in what the prophet Isaiah says, namely the triple voice of the angels praising God and saying: “Holy, holy, holy, Lord God of Hosts? (Isa. VI.)” Why do they say “holy” only three times rather than once, twice, ten times, a hundred times, or any other number? Why, if they wanted to praise briefly, would they not say “holy” just once? But if they wanted to praise greatly, why not offer a hundredfold, a thousandfold, or innumerable praise?

Moses: As for the triple voice in the angels’ praise, we know no reason for it except for their own pleasure.

Peter: If you cannot answer each of the points I raise, what else can you admit but that you are defeated and ignorant of how to refute them? Indeed, David also testifies to the Trinity of persons when he says: “Seek the Lord [and be strengthened, etc.] and His power, and seek His face always (Psalm 104).” What does it mean when he said: “seek the Lord and His power, and seek His face,” if not to seek the Father, and the Son, and the Spirit? For who else can be understood by the power of the Lord but His Son, and who else by His face but the Holy Spirit? If you understand otherwise, please explain. These testimonies of the Holy Scriptures concerning the Trinity of persons will suffice for those who understand. If I were to bring forth all the testimonies I could on this matter, a large book would not contain them. So much for this subject. If you have any other questions, please do not hesitate.

Title VII: How the Virgin Mary, conceiving by the Holy Spirit without the mixture of man, gave birth.

Moses: Now I want you to discuss Mary, how you believe she gave birth without the union of a man (Luke I; Matthew I), and I, if I can, will refute it.

Peter: We indeed believe that the Holy Spirit came upon her, the power of the Most High overshadowed her, and by the will of God, the forces within her body came together, and so she conceived without the union of a man.

Moses: Indeed, it is a wonderful and difficult thing to understand how a son could be born from a mother without a carnal father. For we see in the usual human generation that a person cannot be generated without the union of two natures, man and woman. [613C]

Peter: Why does this generation seem wonderful and ineffable to you, when you have already heard of a similar one, which we and you believe, namely that Eve was created without a mother from her father, that is, from the flesh of Adam? (Genesis II.)

Moses: That generation, as well as this one, could indeed happen by miracle, but for that one we have authority, namely from Moses (Genesis II), whom no legitimate person contradicts, but for this one, I think you will find no authority, unless you have heard of any from the books of the prophets.

Peter: I will not speak of one authority on such a matter, but many, since the prophets have spoken of the future birth of Christ in many places. [613D]

Moses: If you accomplish what you say, you will undoubtedly defend your faith.

Peter: Firstly, remember what was said through Isaiah to King Ahaz of Judah: when his enemies, the king of Armenia and the king of Israel, came upon him, Isaiah spoke to him like this: “Do not fear, O Ahaz, for Jerusalem will not be destroyed, and do not doubt. Ask for a sign from the Lord your God, either in the depths of hell or in the heights above”; and Ahaz said, “I will not ask, and I will not tempt the Lord (Isaiah VII).” But when Isaiah knew that Ahaz had not spoken in good faith, or that he did not fear or love God, he replied, “Hear then, O house of David: is it not enough for you to be troublesome to men, that you are also troublesome to my God? Therefore, the Lord himself will give you a sign: Behold, a virgin shall conceive and bear a son, and shall call his name Emmanuel (Luke I; Matthew I).” And this prophecy was spoken for Christ and repeated to the blessed Mary by an angel.

Moses: And how can this stand, that what Isaiah announced to Ahaz was said for Christ, as you assert, and for Mary, when many, as you know, centuries of years have passed from Ahaz to Mary?

Peter: If you do not believe that it was said for Christ and Mary, for whom do you think it was spoken?

Moses: Surely for the wife of Ahaz, and [614B] for his son Hezekiah, who was born of her.

Peter: What you say is false, and you assert it out of ignorance, or because you show neither reverence nor honor to God, presuming to lie and think badly of Him. At the time when this was said to Ahaz, he himself was already king, and his son Hezekiah had already reigned for nine years. For on the first day of Ahaz’s reign, he was twenty years old, and he reigned for sixteen years. Hezekiah, his son, who succeeded him in the kingdom, was twenty-five years old when he began to reign. Therefore, Hezekiah was nine years old when his father became king. This prophecy that we are discussing was not said for the sake of Ahaz’s wife or his son Hezekiah.

Moses: Then show me and explain to me how this prophecy was spoken for the sake of Mary and her son.

Peter: Certainly, I will find many things in the very words of the prophecy that will convince you that it was not spoken for the sake of Ahaz or his son, but rather for the sake of Mary and her son Christ. Although the prophet was speaking to Ahaz, the prophecy was not only spoken to him or for his time. For this reason, it is said: “Hear, O house of David,” not “Hear, O Ahaz.” Also, when the prophet says, “The Lord Himself will give you a sign,” because he added “Himself,” it can be understood that the Lord Himself will be the sign. Also, when he says “to you” in the plural, and not “to you” in the singular, it is implied that this prophecy was not spoken for Ahaz alone. Moreover, when he says, “Behold, a virgin shall conceive and bear a son, and his name shall be called Emmanuel,” it is clearly indicated that the prophet did not speak of Ahaz’s wife or son. For he would not have called a married woman a virgin, nor would it have been a miracle or a sign for a woman who has a husband to conceive or bear a son. Also, in the fact that it is written “she shall call,” two things are to be noted: that God Himself wanted to be called “Son,” and that the virgin would give birth to a child without a carnal father. For this reason, it is said “she shall call,” as if to say, she herself shall call and not the father. Moreover, we know that neither Ahaz’s son nor any other man of his time was called by the name Emmanuel.

Moses: I am amazed at you, a man so skilled in our language, that you confuse words in this way and pervert the Scriptures. For as you know, the prophet did not use a Hebrew word that means “virgin” in Latin. If he wanted to do so, he would certainly have used the word “bethula.” But he used the word “halma,” which only means “young woman.”

Peter: You are unjustly contradicting me, Moses, and you do not seem to recognize the use of the Hebrew language or nature. For a woman, whether young or old, as long as she is young, she is a virgin, and if she is not corrupted, she can be called “nahra.” “Halma,” on the other hand, is called no one, unless she is both young and intact. As for the prophet’s words about the boy eating “butter and honey, that he may know to refuse the evil and choose the good,” tell me, Moses, do you understand what the prophet meant by that honey and butter? Did he intend to convey some allegory or did he simply mention honey and butter?

Moses: We cannot understand that statement unless we take it simply, namely that he will be wise, and will have the ability to discern good from evil, therefore he says, “he will eat butter and honey,” which is sweet and good.

Peter: It is not to be considered wise to eat butter and honey. For even though they are sweet, if they are not healthy, they are not good. And if someone eats something that is neither healthy nor good, how can they be considered wise? And if you understand the phrase in another way, such as that he will eat butter and honey in order to know how to reject evil and choose good, that is, by eating honey and butter he will have knowledge of what is good and what is evil, and thus be wise, then I say, you do not seem wise to me. For where in the nature of things is it implied that eating butter or honey confers wisdom? Nowhere. Therefore, we must understand this phrase allegorically.

Moses: And how can you understand an allegory there?

Peter: In fact, both the Law of Moses and the Gospel can be understood by these two words. For we find in many places in the prophets that the words of the Lord are compared to honey and milk (Psalm 18, 118; Ezekiel 3).

Moses: What does the prophet mean by the words “Before the boy knows how to reject evil and choose good, the land whose two kings you dread will be laid waste” (Isaiah 7)? For these words suggest that the boy mentioned in the prophecy was born at that time.

Peter: Please, Moses, do not interpret the words of the prophets according to the usual order of human speech. For their words are like a dream, and just as the words of people who are suffering from a fever or other delirium are not connected in any order, so the words of the prophets are not connected in any order unless the Holy Spirit reveals them. Therefore, these words should be connected in this way: “He will eat butter and honey, so that he may know how to reject evil and choose good,” because it is understood that he will know how to reject evil and choose good before he eats. For this is the Hebrew truth, and this prophecy, which was spoken to the house of David because of Achaz’s unbelief, ends here. For what immediately follows, “the land will be deserted,” and so on, is said for another reason, as we find elsewhere. For in Exodus it is written, “Moses said to the Lord, ‘Who am I that I should go to Pharaoh and bring the Israelites out of Egypt?’ He said to him, ‘I will be with you; and this shall be the sign for you that it is I who sent you: when you have brought the people out of Egypt, you shall worship God on this mountain.’” (Exodus 3), etc. The sign seems to be what he says, “that I have sent you,” but it is not. For when the people were brought out of Egypt and Moses sacrificed on that mountain, everyone knew that Moses was a prophet sent by the Lord. Therefore, Moses began to say something different from what he had said before, just as we find elsewhere. But if you disagree, and ask what that sign was, know that it was the sign he said: “I will be with you” (Isaiah 8).

Moses: If that is so, what is it that is read in the following passage, “Before the child knows how to call his father or his mother, the strength of Damascus and the spoils of Samaria shall be carried away before the king of Assyria?” For wasn’t all of this said about the same child, the one who was born before the destruction?

Peter: We do not understand all of these things to have been said about Christ. These things could have been said about that child who was born at that time, about whom the Lord said to the prophet, “Call his name, hasten to take spoils, hurry to take prey” (Isaiah 8), or about someone else.

Moses: I will certainly show you that the child who is called Emmanuel was born at that time, because he was born at that time. For when the prophet spoke of the coming of the king of Assyria upon the land of Judah, he said of him, “And his wings shall fill the breadth of thy land, O Emmanuel” (Isaiah 8). For he shows here that Emmanuel was already present at the time of his coming.

Peter: This does not prove that Emmanuel was born at that time. For his name was not according to his body, but according to his divinity, according to which he was always Emmanuel, both at that time, and before and after.

Moses: I understand from your words something that you did not say before. It seems that you are suggesting that the child you speak of will be both God and man.

Peter: Without a doubt, I believe so, and I noted this in my explanation of my faith, and I will show it to you if you ever ask about it.

Moses: I am not asking about that now. Rather, I want you to first answer if you have any authority from the prophet that that child, the son of Mary, was born of a mother without a carnal father.

Peter: I certainly do. For it is said, “Drop down, ye heavens, from above, and let the skies pour down righteousness: let the earth open, and let them bring forth salvation, and let righteousness spring up together; and, I the Lord have created him” (Isaiah 45:8). By this, when it says “Drop down, ye heavens, from above,” the Holy Spirit is said to descend from heaven. And by what follows, “let the earth open, and let them bring forth salvation,” we understand the body of the Virgin, who, with the Holy Spirit coming upon her, was about to conceive and bear the Savior. And by what is said, “I the Lord have created him,” it is implied that without the aid of a human father, the Lord begot him (Psalm 110). Hence, against those who do not believe this, it is said in the following passage: “Woe unto him that striveth with his Maker! Let the potsherd strive with the potsherds of the earth. Shall the clay say to him that fashioneth it, What makest thou? or thy work, He hath no hands?” (Isaiah 45:9). And again, speaking against the unbelievers, the prophet says, “Woe unto him that saith unto his father, What begettest thou? or to the woman, What hast thou brought forth?” (Isaiah 45:10). For he reproaches those who doubt this and ask how God begot him and they cause Mary to be blessed because she gave birth without the union with a man. And speaking again against the unbelievers, the prophet says, “Shall I bring to the birth, and not cause to bring forth? saith the Lord: shall I cause to bring forth, and shut the womb? saith thy God” (Isaiah 66:9). For it is shown that God begot him without a human father. These things, indeed, I believe to be sufficient for those who understand that the boy was born from his mother without a human father.

Title VIII: How the Word of God became incarnate in the body of Christ, and how Christ was both man and God at the same time.

Moses: You have sufficiently dealt with the generation of the child by authority up to this point, and reason allows that it could have been done, but it is more wondrous to everyone how divinity, which is simple, could be joined and united to the human body, which is composite. Therefore, I pray, as you have promised, explain how this could have been done by reason.

Peter: Certainly, there was no necessary reason for it to have happened, as it was done solely by God’s will and goodness (Tit. III). For unless He Himself had willed it, He would not have united Himself to human nature [617D]. However, it is not said that it had to happen for any particular reason. Just as the soul, which is simple, is joined to the composite body, and those two become one person, and this without contradiction of reason, so also, without any opposing reason, could God have united Himself to man.

Moses: I also wish to hear from you, if you please, another thing. For since you have said and believe the Father, the Son, and the Holy Spirit to be one, please tell me how you believe only the Son to have become incarnate, and not the Father or the Holy Spirit.

Peter: To you, I think, it is certainly strange and impossible, but we do not consider it strange. Although this cannot be shown in the Deity because it is subtle and [618A] spiritual, we can still find something similar in physical things, through which you can recognize that, just as in fire, which is a substance, brightness always exists with heat. For you will not find the substance of fire without brightness and heat, nor brightness with heat without the substance of fire. However, sometimes heat comes to us without brightness, and sometimes even brightness without heat.

Moses: It is true that sometimes brightness comes to us without heat. For we can perceive this from a candle, of which we see the brightness and do not feel the heat. But I do not see how heat can come to us without brightness.

Peter: This, I can easily show. For if you were to take some metal and heat it [618B] so that it could heat another body, if you were to apply yourself to it, you would feel the heat but not see the brightness.

Moses: Now, from your words, you seem to believe that just as sometimes brightness comes without heat, and heat comes without brightness, and yet they are not separated from fire, so also the Son took flesh without the Father and the Holy Spirit, and nevertheless did not depart from them.

Peter: Indeed, I believe this, and you have understood it well if you would believe. For Truth itself said: I am in the Father, and the Father is in me (John 14); and again: I and the Father are one (John 10, 17).

Moses: I concede that Divinity could unite itself to man; but since it was not necessary for it to happen in this way [618C], why should we believe that it happened?

Peter: We, who do not believe that the prophets were liars, when they foretold that Christ would be both God and man, must believe that they spoke the truth about this as well.

Moses: I would like you to show me where the prophets say this about him. For above all, I desire to hear this from you.

Peter: Indeed, we read in Genesis that the Lord said: “Let us make man in our image and likeness,” and elsewhere, “God created man in his own image and likeness” (Gen. 1). Tell me, what is this image or likeness of God? In what way are the image of God and the image of man similar?

Moses: It is good to recognize the truth, and I truthfully say that they are not similar in any way. For it has already been shown both by reason and authority that God has no likeness to anything.

Peter: So then, Scripture lies when it says that “God created man in his own image and likeness”?

Moses: Not at all.

Peter: So which of the two prophets should we believe, the one who said that God has no likeness to anything or the one who said “God created man”? Which one of them spoke the truth?

Moses: Neither of them lied.

Peter: How can two opposing statements, namely that God has an image and that he does not, be true at the same time?

Moses: I want you to explain to me how you understand this.

Peter: Indeed, it is true that God, as we have already said, has no likeness to anything, and we know that Moses truthfully said that “God created man in his own image and likeness.” For he was truthful in all things. But by the image of God of which Moses spoke, we must necessarily understand the image, that is, the human form, which the Son of God took on when he became incarnate.

Moses: And how can this be true, since at the time when Adam was created, he had not yet taken on that image which you believe God took on?

Peter: And even if that image was not yet in existence, it was nevertheless in his providence and will. But since his will does not change, there is nothing to prevent us from believing that his image has always existed. Moreover, we find this elsewhere in the prophets (Num. 2, 3; Mal. 3), who speak of a future event as if it had already occurred. For example, Isaiah, speaking in the person of the Lord, says, “The day of vengeance is in my heart, and the year of my redemption has come” (Isa. 64). The day or year had not yet come, but he said it had already come because it was already in his heart.

Moses: Do you have any other authority by which you can more clearly show that the child should be both God and man?

Peter: I certainly do. Isaiah says of him, “For unto us a child is born, unto us a son is given, and his name shall be called Wonderful, Counselor, Mighty God, Everlasting Father, Prince of Peace” (Isa. 9). All these names belong only to deity.

Moses: You misunderstand Scripture. For it is not to be read that the child will be called Wonderful or Counselor, etc., but rather: “He who is wonderful, who is counselor, who is mighty God, who is the father of the future age; he, I say, shall be called the prince of peace.” But if that is the case, then who is it that will call him that?

Peter: This presents no problem to me, since God called himself by those names. And this is well accepted in Hebrew, as it is found in the Book of Numbers: “This is the law of consecration: When the days he vowed are fulfilled, he shall bring him to the door of the tabernacle of the covenant (Num. VI).” This statement is also made about him, “and bring him.” Also, what the prophet says in the same place: “His empire shall be multiplied, and there shall be no end of peace: he shall sit upon the throne of David, and upon his kingdom; to establish it and strengthen it with judgment and with justice, from henceforth and forever (Isa. IX).” This, I say, shows that the child had to be God and man. For whatever belongs to man will have an end, but God and what belongs to him remains forever (Psal. XVI). Besides, you unjustly contradict me about the aforementioned names, for your doctors said that Christ would have seven names, and they gave these same names. But in the beginning of our debate, you did not agree to this, so that you contradict me unfairly.

Moses: I remember, and it is true, that our doctors said that.

Peter: I will give you another authority, if you wish, to prove that the child was to be God and man. For the same prophet says about him: “And there shall come forth a rod out of the root of Jesse, and a flower shall rise up out of his root, and the Spirit of the Lord shall rest upon him, the spirit of wisdom and understanding, the spirit of counsel and fortitude, the spirit of knowledge and piety, and he shall be filled with the spirit of the fear of the Lord. He shall not judge according to the sight of the eyes, nor reprove according to the hearing of the ears. But he shall judge the poor with justice, and shall reprove with equity for the meek of the earth: and he shall strike the earth with the rod of his mouth, and with the breath of his lips he shall slay the wicked (Isa. XI).” For what he says, “he shall not judge according to the sight of the eyes,” and the other things that follow, doubtless, they do not apply to anyone else but God alone. For a man cannot rightly judge anything except what he sees or hears.

Moses: Part of this authority that you brought to help you proves to be an obstacle to what you are trying to prove. For it is written there: “And the Spirit of the Lord shall rest upon him, the spirit of wisdom and understanding, the spirit of counsel and fortitude, the spirit of knowledge and piety, and he shall be filled with the spirit of the fear of the Lord.” For if he were to be God, he would surely give these things and not receive them.

Peter: You have not said anything that contradicts me. For in the beginning of my explanation of my belief, I said that Christ had three substances: a body, a soul, and God. And according to His deity, He had seven attributed names, and according to His soul, He could receive those seven gifts mentioned before. For this soul, besides being attached to Deity, was by itself the most worthy of all souls.

Moses: Since, therefore, He received seven names according to His Deity and those seven gifts according to His soul, please tell me what you attribute to Him according to His body.

Peter: Although you say this in a mocking manner, yet, if you wish, I will tell you what I attribute to Him according to the flesh. For Isaiah also says: “I will put in the wilderness the cedar, the acacia, the myrtle, and the olive. I will set in the desert the cypress, the plane and the pine together” (Isaiah 41). Truly, through these seven trees, the body of Christ is designated. For why else would the prophet mention a desert when such trees always grow there? Therefore, by the desert, the world is understood, which, at the time of Christ’s coming, was devoid of all good and desolate.

Moses: Since he designated his body by means of trees, why did he not use fruit-bearing and more precious trees in his description?

Peter: He did this with great foresight and reason. For just as those trees always remain green and never lose their leaves, so too, the body of Christ always remains alive, whole and complete. Moreover, I have another argument from authority to prove that man and God could be united. For Isaiah says: “And they shall say in that day: Behold our God, whom we have waited for, and he will save us” (Isaiah 25). Certainly, your teachers explained this verse in the same way that we did, namely, that it teaches that there would be a time when the world would see God and He would show His power to His people. This could not happen unless someone became both God and man. The prophet also says: “The voice of thy watchmen; they shall lift up the voice, together they shall praise, because they shall see eye to eye when the Lord shall convert Sion” (Isaiah 52). Your teachers explained this verse in the same way as we did, because of the phrase “they shall see eye to eye.” Also, the prophet says: “And the glory of the Lord shall be revealed, and all flesh together shall see, that the mouth of the Lord hath spoken” (Isaiah 40). For the word of God can be heard spiritually, as the children of Israel heard the voice of the Lord on Mount Sinai (Exodus 20). But the speaker cannot be seen unless it is something physical. Also, the prophet Zacharias says: “In that day the Lord will protect the inhabitants of Jerusalem, and he that offends, shall be as David, and the house of David as God, and the angel of the Lord shall go forth and come in the sight of them all” (Zacharias 12). For by the phrase “the house of David as God,” it is clearly meant that from the house of David, one would be born who would be considered God by all. Moreover, the prophet Micah says: “But thou, Bethlehem Ephrata, art a little one among the thousands of Judah: out of thee shall he come forth unto me that is to be the ruler in Israel: and his going forth is from the beginning, from the days of eternity” (Micah 5). For the phrase “out of thee shall he come forth unto me that is to be the ruler in Israel” refers to his body, that he was going to be born in due time. But the phrase “his going forth is from the beginning, from the days of eternity” implies the perpetuity of his divinity. For such an attribute belongs to divinity and not, I think, to humanity. David also testifies to this in the Psalms when he says, “You have made him a little less than the angels” (Ps. 8). Likewise, Micah says, “But thou, Bethlehem Ephrata, art a little one among the thousands of Judah; out of thee shall he come forth unto me that is to be the ruler in Israel, and his going forth is from the beginning, from the days of eternity” (Mic. 5). When he says, “Out of thee shall he come forth unto me that is to be the ruler in Israel,” he speaks of the body, insofar as that prince was to come at a certain time. But what follows, “And his going forth is from the beginning, from the days of eternity,” suggests the perpetuity of the Deity. For it is something that belongs to God, and not to man, I think. David also shows in the Psalms that he is talking about someone who is both God and man when he says, “Your throne, O God, is for ever and ever; the sceptre of your kingdom is a sceptre of uprightness. You have loved justice and hated iniquity; therefore God, your God, has anointed you with the oil of gladness above your fellows” (Ps. 45). When he says, “Your throne, O God, is for ever and ever, the sceptre of your kingdom is a sceptre of uprightness,” is he not clearly calling him God? And when he says, “You love righteousness and hate wickedness; therefore God, your God, has set you above your companions by anointing you with the oil of joy,” we understand that he is speaking to a man. For God does not have God or companions. Likewise, David says elsewhere in the Psalms, “Endow the king with your justice, O God, the royal son with your righteousness” (Psalm 72), and whatever else is in the psalm, now tell me who is this royal son? Solomon or Christ, who was to come from David himself, and to be called his son?

Moses: I do not want to tire you with this. Our teachers have taught us about Christ.

Peter: Since you admit that the psalms are about Christ, let us examine whether these passages in the same psalm are about a pure human or about God: “He shall endure as long as the sun and moon, through all generations...His name shall endure forever; His name shall continue as long as the sun. And all nations shall call Him blessed...They shall serve Him forever” (Psalm 72). Therefore, we must say that Christ is both human and divine, as David, through the Holy Spirit, knew and foresaw the miracles He would perform, which is why he ended the psalm with: “Blessed be the Lord God of Israel, who alone does wondrous things. And blessed be His glorious name forever! And let the whole earth be filled with His glory. Amen and Amen” (Psalm 72:18-19). Similarly, in the book of Dabrejamin (Chronicles), David wanted to build a house for the Lord, but Nathan the prophet told him that his son would build the house and that his kingdom would be established forever. Nathan said, “I will be his father, and he shall be my son. I will not take my mercy away from him, as I took it from him who was before you. And I will establish him in my house and in my kingdom forever, and his throne shall be established forever” (1 Chronicles 17:11-14). Tell me, Moses, who is this prophecy about?

Moses: It is about Solomon.

Peter: This cannot be true. When Nathan said, “When your days are fulfilled and you rest with your fathers, I will set up your seed after you, who will come from your body, and I will establish his kingdom. He shall build a house for My name, and I will establish the throne of his kingdom forever” (2 Samuel 7:12-13), it is clear that this was not about Solomon. For Solomon was already king while his father was still alive. If Nathan were talking about Solomon, he would not have said, “who will come from your body” but rather “who will come from you.” Moreover, the statement “and I will establish the throne of his kingdom forever” clearly indicates that it was not about Solomon. Solomon was not established in the house of God or in His kingdom forever, but only Christ can fulfill this prophecy as He is both human and divine.

Moses: When you say this, Peter, it is clear that you are referring to Christ. But what was the house that Christ was going to build?

Peter: That house refers to the Holy Church, which Christ built on a firm foundation.

Moses: What did Nathan reply to David when he said he wanted to build a house for the Lord?

Peter: Nathan replied that David had shed too much blood and fought too many battles to build a house for the Lord. The Lord said, “Behold, a son shall be born to you, who shall be a man of rest. I will give him peace and quietness in Israel all his days. He shall build a house for my name, and I will establish the throne of his kingdom forever” (1 Chronicles 22). I agree that this was said about Solomon because it says, “Behold, a son shall be born to you,” and later, “he shall be called Solomon.” David also speaks of him to the children of Israel, saying, “Of my sons, the Lord has given me many, and he has chosen my son Solomon” (1 Chronicles 28). This conversation between David and Solomon is completely different from the one between Nathan and David about Christ. In that conversation, it says, “A son shall be born to you, and he shall be called Solomon,” but in the other, it says, “I will raise up your offspring after you, who shall come from your body, and I will establish his kingdom. He shall build a house for my name” (2 Samuel 7). It does not give him a name. It also says, “I will establish the throne of his kingdom forever, and his throne shall be established forever” (1 Chronicles 17). This shows that as long as the kingdom of Israel existed, there would be no lack of a king from Solomon’s offspring, but Christ’s kingdom would always be without end (Isaiah 9; Luke 1). Christ’s kingdom was also promised unconditionally, but Solomon’s was promised conditionally. It says in the book of Kings, where David speaks to his son Solomon, “May the Lord establish his word that he spoke concerning me, saying, ‘If your sons keep their way, to walk before me in faithfulness with all their heart and with all their soul, there shall not fail you a man on the throne of Israel’” (1 Kings 2). David himself testifies that the prophecy we mentioned earlier, “When your days are fulfilled,” etc., was spoken for Christ. When he heard it and understood it as we have explained, he gave thanks to God and said, “Who am I, O Lord God, and what is my house, that you have brought me thus far? And this was a small thing in your eyes, O God. You have also spoken of your servant’s house for a great while to come” (2 Samuel 7). When he says, “Who am I, O Lord God, and what is my house, that you have brought me thus far?” he is talking about himself and his son Solomon, but when he later says, “You have also spoken of your servant’s house for a great while to come,” he is definitely talking about Christ, whom he saw coming from his house. And by saying, “And you have seen me as a man of exalted estate, O Lord God,” he is definitely referring to Christ, indicating that he must be exalted, human, and divine.

Title IX: That Christ came at the time when the prophets had predicted He would come, and all that they had foretold about Him was revealed in Him and His works.

Moses: Since you have shown with many authorities that the one you call Christ could be both man and God, by what authority can you show that He has, as you believe, already come? For perhaps He has not yet come, but will come in time.

Peter: Indeed, there are many things, O Moses, that clearly show that He has come. For both the time when the prophets predicted He would come has passed, and we know that He came during that time, and besides that, many other things that we recognize in Him and His words and works, as was predicted by the prophets.

Moses: First, I ask you to show me about the time when and how the prophets spoke about it and how they determined it.

Peter: We read that Jacob, speaking to his sons and blessing them when each was called to him, said, “The scepter shall not depart from Judah, nor a ruler from his thigh until he comes who is to be sent, and to him shall the nations be gathered (Gen. XLIX).” I will not interpret this prophecy differently than your ancient teachers did. For they also said, “The scepter, that is, the rod, shall not depart from the kingdom of Judah, and a ruler from his thigh, that is, from his sons’ sons forever, until he comes who is to be sent, that is, Christ, whose kingdom it is, and to him shall the nations be gathered.” And we indeed know that after Christ came, there was no longer a king or ruler from Judah. Therefore, we must believe that this determined the time of Christ’s coming, and that he who came at that time was Christ without a doubt. Likewise, in the book of Daniel, about the time of Christ’s coming, the angel spoke with Daniel as follows: “Seventy weeks are determined upon thy people and upon thy holy city, to finish the transgression, and to make an end of sins, and to make reconciliation for iniquity, and to bring in everlasting righteousness, and to seal up the vision and prophecy, and to anoint the most Holy. Know therefore and understand, that from the going forth of the commandment to restore and to build Jerusalem unto the Messiah the Prince shall be seven weeks, and threescore and two weeks: the street shall be built again, and the wall, even in troublous times. And after threescore and two weeks shall Messiah be cut off, but not for himself: and the people of the prince that shall come shall destroy the city and the sanctuary; and the end thereof shall be with a flood, and unto the end of the war desolations are determined. And he shall confirm the covenant with many for one week: and in the midst of the week he shall cause the sacrifice and the oblation to cease, and for the overspreading of abominations he shall make it desolate, even until the consummation, and that determined shall be poured upon the desolate (Dan. IX).” This prophecy, O Moses, is indeed closed and difficult to understand, with many designated terms, but all are placed to reveal the coming of Christ. First of all, it must be understood that these weeks of years are weeks. Therefore, when he says, “Seventy weeks are decreed for your people and your holy city, to put an end to transgression, to put an end to sin, and to atone for iniquity, to bring in everlasting righteousness, to seal both vision and prophet, and to anoint a most holy place,” he wanted it to be noted that seventy times seven, that is, forty-nine years were decreed from the year of the prophecy until the destruction of Jerusalem and the temple, which was done by the Roman emperor Titus, at whose time of destruction Christ had already come, who was both the righteousness of the ages and the Holy of Holies, through whom all sin and iniquity were deleted, and all prophecy was fulfilled. The rest that follows is all placed for the division and determination of these four hundred and ninety years. Therefore, by saying “from the going forth of the word to restore and build Jerusalem until the coming of an anointed one, a prince,” it is implied that from this day of prophecy until Cyrus the Persian leader, who was called Christ by God himself through Isaiah (Isaiah 45), there were seven weeks of years, that is, fifty-nine years, during whose commandment of Cyrus Jerusalem began to be rebuilt. In the rebuilding and after the work was completed, until the coming of Titus upon Jerusalem, there were four hundred and thirty-four years, and this is what is said: “Sixty-two weeks,” that is, four hundred and thirty-four years, “and the street shall be built again, and the wall, even in troublesome times, and after sixty-nine weeks the anointed one shall be killed,” which is after seventy weeks and after the anointed one is killed. “The people of the ruler who will come will destroy the city and the sanctuary,” namely the Romans, “and its end shall come with a flood, and to the end there shall be war, and desolations are decreed.” What follows, “he shall make a strong covenant with many for one week,” that week is indeed seven years of siege. For seven years the city was besieged by the Roman army, and within those seven years they were so forced and afflicted that they could not make sacrifices, and this is what it says: “In the middle of the week,” that is, within the week, “the sacrifice and offering shall cease, and on the wing of abominations shall come one who makes desolate.” What is also added, “until the decreed end is poured out on the desolator,” suggests that captivity and desolation will eventually end. Therefore, there are seventy weeks from Cyrus, sixty-two weeks from Cyrus to Titus, and one week of siege, which are indeed seventy weeks.

Moses: After you have asserted the time of Christ’s arrival from the testimonies of the prophets, about which it was enough, as you said, I want you to continue with those other things that were evident in him, his works, and his words, which, as you claim, were also foretold by the prophets.

Peter: We read in Deuteronomy that Moses, with death already imminent, spoke to the people of Israel thus: “A Prophet, he says, from among your own people, from your brothers, the Lord your God will raise up for you, like me; you shall listen to him, just as you asked the Lord your God at Horeb when the assembly was gathered together and said, ‘I do not want to hear the voice of the Lord my God anymore, or see this great fire, lest I die.’ And the Lord said to me: ‘They have spoken well. I will raise up a Prophet for them from among their brothers, like you, and I will put [626B] my words in his mouth, and he shall speak to them all that I command him. Whoever does not listen to his words, which he speaks in my name, I will take vengeance (Deut. XVIII).’” But who, O Moses, who is he whom the Lord says will be raised up like Moses, and he commands to be listened to?

Moses: It could certainly have been said of Joshua, son of Nun, who rose up after Moses and took his place.

Peter: It cannot be about Joshua at all. Scripture clearly speaks of him, as we read in the Book of Numbers: “Moses responded to the Lord: ‘May the Lord, the God of the spirits of all flesh, provide a man who can be over this multitude, able to go out and come in before them, and to lead them out or bring them in, so that the people of the Lord will not be like sheep without a shepherd.’ [626C] _And the Lord said to him: ‘Take Joshua, son of Nun, a man in whom is the Spirit of God, and lay your hand upon him. He shall stand before Eleazar the priest and the entire assembly, and you shall give him your orders in the sight of all, and part of your glory, so that the whole congregation of the children of Israel may listen to him (Num. XXVII).’ Since Joshua is spoken of so openly here, why should that other prophecy, which is so concealed, that is, the prophecy, ‘The Lord your God will raise up for you’, and the rest; why, I say, should it be understood to be about him? Moreover, by reading: ‘You shall give him part of your glory’, as if he were saying not all your glory, it is shown that he was not like Moses, and at the end of Deuteronomy: ‘_No prophet has arisen again in Israel [626D] like Moses (Deut. XXXIV)’; by these things, I say, it is hinted that it was not said about Joshua: ‘The Lord your God will raise up for you’, etc., since it follows in the same, ‘like you’. But that prophecy which is: ‘The Lord will raise up’, etc., and those words which are said about Joshua, also differ in other ways. In that prophecy, it is said, ‘Whoever does not listen to his words, I will take vengeance’, but about Joshua, it is read, ‘Whoever contradicts your mouth, and does not obey all the words you command him, shall die’. It is therefore clear in every way that this prophecy was not pronounced about Joshua.

Moses: So, about whom then?

Peter: About Christ, who was like Moses, because just as Moses gave the law, so did He.

Moses: Now, show me the individual parts of the prophecy [627A] and how you can apply them all to Him.

Peter: Indeed, this prophecy answers the request of the children of Israel. For they had asked, as it is written (Exod. XX), on Mount Horeb, that they no longer visibly hear the voice of the Lord, nor look at the great fire lest they die. In response to this, the Lord says to Moses (Deut. XVIII): “I will raise up for them a Prophet from among their brethren, like you,” as if to say: The one I will raise up will be of their own Jewish lineage, and will also be like you, that is, just as you gave the law, so will He, which is also indicated by the fact that He placed “a Prophet” specifically and excellently. For if He Himself was not going to give the law, He would have said, “I will raise up prophets,” not “I will raise up a Prophet.” Indeed, God raised up many prophets [627B] who announced His words, but none of them gave the law like Moses, except Christ. “And I will put My words in His mouth,” which means, since they cannot endure the force of My voice, I will speak to them through Him under the veil of flesh. “He shall speak to them all that I command Him.” As if to say openly: He will say nothing but what I will and command: “And whoever will not listen to My words which He shall speak in My name, I will be the avenger,” that is, whoever refuses to obey His commands will not be killed, nor punished in any other carnal way, but I Myself will mercifully exact vengeance upon him according to My will. Therefore, since Christ was born of the Jewish lineage, and like Moses, He was a lawgiver and the Word of God hidden under the veil of His flesh, and taught nothing [627C] other than what God the Father commanded, Himself bearing witness in the Gospel and saying: “The word which you heard is not Mine, but the Father’s who sent Me (John XII),” He Himself wanted no one to be killed or bodily punished, but preached mercy throughout, surely nothing prevents the whole prophecy from being said about Him.

Moses: There is still one thing left for you to answer me. Since Christ, as you believe, was both God and man, how can He be called a prophet?

Peter: It seems you consider a prophet to be merely a man’s name, but not at all, indeed a prophet is called whoever speaks about the things that are to come. In Isaiah, it is also read: “Behold my servant, I have upheld him, my elect, in whom my soul is pleased. I have put my spirit upon him, he shall bring forth judgment to the Gentiles. He shall not cry, nor lift up, nor cause his voice to be heard outside. A bruised reed shall he not break, and the smoking flax shall he not quench, he shall bring forth judgment in truth, he shall not fail nor be discouraged, till he has set judgment in the earth, and his law the islands shall wait for (Isa. XLII).” But this prophecy, O Moses, to whom can we better apply it than to Christ? For he was both God’s servant and his elect, in whom God was pleased. And this was said about him according to the body. What follows, “I have put my spirit upon him”, was spoken about the soul. “Judgment,” that is the law, “he shall bring forth to the Gentiles.” For Christ revealed the law that was closed and hidden, and only among the Jews, that is, he clarified, opened, and drew out the marrow so that the Gentiles could receive it. It follows, “He shall not cry, nor lift up, nor cause his voice to be heard outside.” And we know that Christ was not clamorous, not arrogant, not a seeker of empty glory (John XIII; Matt. II), but rather, he loved humility above all things. “A bruised reed shall he not break, and the smoking flax shall he not quench.” We clearly see that a bruised reed can easily be broken, while the smoking flax, that is, the burned linen, can be easily extinguished. But what better represents the fragility of a sinner, who is shaken and almost extinguished in sin, than a bruised reed or nearly extinguished flax? Christ did not break the bruised reed, and he did not quench the smoking flax, because he did not command sinners who were almost dead in their sins to be killed, but rather he mercifully tolerated them (Matt. III) and called them to repentance (Matt. XI), which the prophet also indicated in the following: “He shall bring forth judgment in truth.” Indeed, truth and justice are the same. In the Law of Moses, there was a judgment and a command to kill the sinner. But Christ led to truth and justice in judgment when He commanded that sinners not be killed, but rather, more justly, be tolerated until they repented, when He said: “I do not wish the death of the sinner, but rather that he convert and live (Ezek. XXXIII). He will not fail or flee until He establishes judgment on earth.” [628C] The prophet wanted to note Christ’s death by failure, and His ascension into heaven by fleeing. As if he were saying: He will not die or leave the earth, that is, ascend into heaven, until He sends the law on earth. And Christ, before dying according to the flesh or ascending to the Father in heaven, established judgment on earth when He gave us the law, that is, the Gospel. However, he did not say He would not die, but “He will not fail,” because Christ’s death was not really death, but rather a kind of transition and failure. For whoever dies as a man no longer lives. But Christ rose on the third day and now lives eternally (John XIII), “and the islands shall wait for His law.” By islands, we understand the nations. The nations awaited Christ’s law because they received it not from Him, but from [628D] His disciples, that is, from the apostles. For He Himself did not preach to the nations; rather, the apostles did. Again, in Isaiah: “I, the Lord, have called You in righteousness, and have taken hold of Your hand, and have preserved You, and have given You as a covenant for the people, as a light for the nations, to open the eyes of the blind, and to bring out the prisoner from confinement, from the house of prison those who sit in darkness. I am the Lord; this is My name: I will not give My glory to another, nor My praise to carved images (Isa. XLII).” And Isaiah also spoke of Christ. For the Lord called Him from the Virgin’s womb in righteousness, that is, without sin and fleshly desire; Christ was born of the holy and just Virgin in pure flesh (Luke I; Isa. VII). He took hold of His hand, which is a sign [629A] of protection and patronage, and preserved Him, as He rescued Him from Herod’s hand as an infant, led Him into Egypt and brought Him back (Matt. II), and frequently saved Him from the hands of the Jews who wanted to stone and kill Him (Luke IV; John VIII), and was His guardian and protector in His many adversities. The Lord gave Him as a covenant for the Israelite people, that is, He gave Him for the purpose of showing the truth of the Law to the people of Israel. And the Lord gave Him as a light for the nations (John XVIII) because the nations, having abandoned error and dispelled the darkness of their unbelief, were sprinkled with the light of Christ’s Law. And He sent Him to open the eyes of the blind, and to bring out the prisoner from confinement, and from the house of prison those who sit in darkness. And Christ opened the eyes of the blind when He revealed the hearts of the unbelievers [629B] and showed the light after dispelling the shadow of the Law. He brought out the prisoner from confinement because He frees and releases those who believe in Him from all captivity to this day. He also brought out those who were sitting in the dark prison of hell when He Himself descended into the underworld. The Lord did not give His glory and praise to anyone other than Christ, because He never shared His divinity with any other man, nor attributed such great praise to anyone else. Likewise, Isaiah says: “Seek the Lord while he may be found; call upon him while he is near; let the wicked forsake his way, and the unrighteous man his thoughts; let him return to the Lord, that he may have compassion on him, and to our God, for he will abundantly pardon. For my thoughts are not your thoughts, neither are your ways my ways, says the Lord. For as the heavens are higher than the earth, so are my ways higher than your ways and my thoughts than your thoughts. For as the rain and the snow come down from heaven and do not return there but water the earth, making it bring forth and sprout, giving seed to the sower and bread to the eater, so shall my word be that goes out from my mouth; it shall not return to me empty, but it shall accomplish that which I purpose (Isa. 55).” And tell me, Moses, how do you explain this whole passage? When is the Lord found, and when is He not found? When is He near, and when is He far?

Moses: Indeed, finding God and being near Him are the same thing. He is near and found by those who faithfully serve Him. [629D]

Peter: The Lord indeed wishes to be nearer and offers Himself more to sinners and those who seem far away than to the righteous and faithful, who are near, as you say. The prophet also bears witness to this elsewhere, where he says: “Peace, peace, to the far and to the near, says the Lord (Isa. 57).” For by the one who is far from God, do we not understand a sinner, and by the one who is near, a righteous person? And the prophet first said the one who is far away, and afterward the one who is near, thus showing that God is nearer to the sinner than the righteous.

Moses: We can also say that God is near during those ten days, which are from the first day of the seventh month until the day of atonement, for so our teachers have said.

Peter: And this is also wrong. For if God is only near and found during those ten [630A] days, then if a sinner wishes to repent and seek God at another time, and does not find Him because He is far away, it will be God’s fault, not the sinner’s, that he cannot turn to God.

Moses: Our teachers also say something else, namely, that God was near and could be found while the Lord’s temple stood, but after the temple was destroyed, He withdrew and no longer wished to be found.

Peter: And in this too they were foolish. For against this, Moses says to the children of Israel that if at any time they provoked God to anger so that He would scatter them captive among the nations, if they sought Him even at the last, they would undoubtedly find Him (Exod. 34; Deut. 32). [630B]

Moses: Since you contradict both this and that, when and how do you assert that God can be found or is near?

Peter: Indeed, the Lord was found and near when he took flesh from the Holy Virgin and lived among us in his presence, and then the prophet commanded him to be sought and invoked, when he said, “seek the Lord,” etc. For he foresaw that this would happen through the revelation of the Holy Spirit, hence he added in the following: “Let the wicked man forsake his way, and the unrighteous man his thoughts, and let him return to the Lord,” namely so that they would not think wickedly of him, or doubt that he is God because of the assumed flesh, but rather believe faithfully, for faith is in the thought alone (John XVII). And man’s thought is indeed different from God’s thought. Hence it follows: “For my thoughts are not your thoughts, neither are my ways your ways, says the Lord,” as if he were saying: Do not think that what you see and hear, that is, the Son without a carnal Father, you know to be against usage, for I think differently, and you think differently. You only think in a physical way, but I think spiritually. I also walk differently, and you walk differently. For you do not know any way except what is in use, but I also know the one that is against use, and I can do whatever I want. And this is: “As the heavens are exalted above the earth,” etc. But what follows: “As the rain and snow come down from heaven and do not return there but water the earth and make it bring forth and sprout, and give seed to the sower and bread to the eater; so shall my word be that goes forth from my mouth; it shall not return to me empty, but it shall accomplish that which I purpose,” he added this to show through the likeness of visible things what could not be so clearly seen in the subtlety of the deity, and he said: Just as the rain, when it comes down from heaven, does not return to heaven again before it moistens the earth, fertilizes it and makes it sprout, so shall my word that goes forth from my mouth, that is, my Son, whom I am about to send into the world to take on flesh, not return to me empty, but, before he returns, he shall accomplish whatever I will, that is, as I have arranged, he shall assume flesh, be scourged, die, rescue his own from hell, rise again, and open the law that is closed to the less understanding. If God wanted to be understood to have said this about his word, that is, about his speech, when he said, “my word that goes forth from my mouth,” he would not have added, “it shall not return to me,” etc. For the word, that is, the speech, does not return to the mouth again after it has once gone forth. Therefore, by this he clearly showed that he was speaking of the person of the Son as his word.

Moses: Now from your words, it is implied that snow and rain, after being sent from heaven, return to heaven again.

Peter: That’s true.

Moses: I would like you to show me how this can be proven by reason.

Peter: You must first inquire where clouds and rains come from, and thus more easily find what you are now seeking (631B).

Moses: Please explain this to me.

Peter: You must see, O Moses, that when the sun is directly above the sea and the land, moist vapor rises from the sea, while dry vapor rises from the land. Both ascend upward due to the sun’s heat, like the steam of water through the heat of fire. When these two vapors rise upward, mixing with each other, they form dense clouds. When the clouds have grown about sixteen miles high, they find cold air there, from which they can no longer pass higher, and so they fall back to the earth, and from them come the rains. God made the hollows of the mountains so that the rains would be received there as in a sort of treasury. He also made small holes at the base of these mountains, through which water is gradually channeled, as if held in a hidden treasury, and these are the springs from which all rivers flow. By these rivers, all fish are nourished, meadows and vineyards are watered, and crops for men and animals are grown; small villages and great cities are supplied with water. The proof of this matter is that when there is a lack of rain, springs and rivers dry up, as we find in the third book of Kings, when Elijah said: “After some days the brook dried up, for there was no rain on the earth (1 Kings 17)”. After rivers have run for a long time over the earth, they eventually reach the sea and merge with the ocean waves, and thus the sea vapor rises up again, as we mentioned earlier, and from it clouds are once again formed, and there is no end to this cycle of rising and falling since God created the world, nor will there be as long as it pleases the Creator of all things, as Solomon says in Ecclesiastes: “All rivers run into the sea, yet the sea is not full; unto the place from whence the rivers come, thither they return again (Ecclesiastes 1)”.

Moses: Indeed, you have brought forth many authorities from the books of the prophets and explained them according to your will, but I wish that at least one clear proof would be shown to me, through which what you intend can be manifestly approved.

Peter: The hardness of your heart and of those like you is certainly not new. For you did not even believe when the prophets spoke to you openly and without allegory, so it is no wonder if my words of explanation seem deaf to you. But in order to cut off all your excuses and objections, I will now tell you one very clear authority from Isaiah himself. For Isaiah says: “Behold, My servant shall deal prudently, He shall be exalted and extolled, and be very high. Just as many were astonished at you, so His appearance and His form will be marred more than any man, and His beauty more than the sons of men. So shall He sprinkle many nations. Kings shall shut their mouths at Him, for what had not been told them they shall see, and what they had not heard they shall consider. Who has believed our report? And to whom has the arm of the LORD been revealed? For He shall grow up before Him as a tender plant, and as a root out of dry ground. He has no form or comeliness; and when we see Him, there is no beauty that we should desire Him. He is despised and rejected by men, a Man of sorrows and acquainted with grief. And we hid, as it were, our faces from Him; He was despised, and we did not esteem Him. Surely He has borne our griefs and carried our sorrows; yet we esteemed Him stricken, smitten by God, and humiliated. But he was wounded for our iniquities, crushed for our sins. The chastisement of our peace was upon him, and by his bruises we are healed. We all, like sheep, have gone astray; each of us has turned to our own way, and the Lord has laid on him the iniquity of us all. He was oppressed and afflicted, yet he did not open his mouth. Like a lamb led to the slaughter, and like a sheep before its shearers is silent, he did not open his mouth. He was taken away in anguish and in judgment. Who can speak of his descendants? (Jer. XI; Act. VIII) For he was cut off from the land of the living. Because of the sin of my people he was beaten, and he was given a grave with the wicked and with the rich in his death, though he had done no wrong and there was no deceit in his mouth (I Pet. II), and the Lord willed to crush him and make him suffer. If he would offer his soul for sin, he would see a seed, and time would be prolonged, and the will of the Lord in his hand would be accomplished. From the labor of his soul, he will see and be satisfied. In his knowledge, he will justify the righteous to many, and he will bear their iniquities. Therefore, I will make him share in many, and with the strong he will divide the spoils, because he poured out his life unto death and was numbered with the transgressors, and he bore the sin of many, and interceded for the transgressors (Isa. LII; LIII). In this prophecy, O Moses, I have worked hard, above all others, to introduce it according to what is among you, even in the true translation of blessed Jerome. I have done this to remove all your objections. But because we apply it to Christ, and perhaps you do not agree, I would like you to say who you understand it to be about.

Moses: Indeed, some of our learned men assert that it was said about Jeremiah, because he was whipped, beaten, and imprisoned (Jer. XI), and many other evils that are too long to list befell him. But according to others, we understand it to be about King Josiah (IV Reg. XXIII), who, although he was a holy and righteous man, was killed not for his sins but for the sins of the people.

Peter: It cannot be about either of them. For you will not be able to apply the whole prophecy to either. For if you understand it to be about Jeremiah, Jeremiah indeed endured beatings, prison, and much affliction, but he was not killed, nor did he remain silent when beaten, nor did he bear our sins, nor will you apply the other things to him. As for Josiah, you will find nothing that could be said about him in the prophecy except that he was both holy and killed for the sins of the people.

Moses: So who do you understand the prophecy to be about, to whom can you apply all its parts?

Peter: I understand it to be about Christ. For what it says, “Behold, my servant shall understand, he shall be exalted and lifted up, and shall be very high,” we know that Christ is both the servant of God and of great understanding, and he is exalted and raised above all the servants of God. His works were also wonderful and astounding, and he never sought glory for himself. And this is what it says, ”As many were astonished at you, so his visage was inglorious among men, and his form among the sons of men. It follows: He shall sprinkle many nations.“ And indeed, the Lord Christ rained down on the Israelite nation like a great rain, when he came among them as ”his own (John 1)“, and showed them his works and great deeds. But he sprinkled many other nations because he did not reach them through the presence of miracles, but by their hearing and fame as if by some distant dew, and he made everyone amazed and silent with admiration. Hence it is: ”Upon him, kings shall shut their mouths, because what had not been told them they have seen, and what they had not heard they have considered,“ as it was told to the Jews about him, and they heard. And the prophet himself, marveling, said: ”Who has believed our report, and to whom has the arm of the Lord been revealed?“ As if he said: The things I predict to come are so astonishing that there will hardly be anyone who believes they should be believed, namely, that the arm of the Lord should be revealed, that is, his Son should be incarnated, and thus be visibly shown to the world through the flesh he assumed. ”And he shall grow up as a tender plant before him, and as a root out of a thirsty ground.“ We indeed see that from the thirsty ground, that is, from the dry earth, neither a rod nor a root can be produced without moisture. For moisture is like the male of the earth itself. Christ, however, rose like a root or tender plant from the dry earth before the Lord when God the Father begot him from the flesh of the Virgin without the union of a man. But what he added, ”there is no beauty in him nor comeliness, and we saw him, and there was no sightliness, and we desired him, despised and the last of men,“ he added to show his humility and his contempt for worldly pomp. ”A man of sorrows,“ he said. He was indeed a man of sorrows because neither in infancy, nor in childhood, nor in youth did he lack the treachery of the malicious, and he labored, from which he gained even greater fame and greater knowledge, which is ”known by infirmity.“ For by this infirmity, the prophet meant nothing other than the miseries and labors that Christ bore according to the flesh in the world. It follows: ”As if his face were hidden and despised, so we did not esteem him.“ Christ’s face was as if hidden because both the splendor of divinity was hidden under his flesh, and he chose not to resist those who attacked him when he could have, which is why he was despised and not esteemed, that is, not appreciated. ”And truly he has borne our infirmities and carried our sorrows,“ when he bore the pains and torments that were due to our sins. “We thought him as one struck and afflicted by God and humbled,” which means, we thought that the blow, that is, the scourge and the beating, and the humiliation, would befall him on account of himself, but not at all. And this is what he says: “He was wounded for our iniquities, and crushed for our sins.” “And the chastisement of our peace was upon him,” that is, the discipline and correction that we were to suffer for the sake of having peace, he himself bore for us, being merciful and kind. Hence it follows, “By his bruises we are healed,” namely by the bruises of the scourges and wounds which he suffered for us. It follows: “We all like sheep have gone astray, and every one has turned to his own way.” For sheep are indeed simple and very foolish animals and wanderers. “We, being foolish, have gone astray like sheep,” because we did not know who or what he was, “but each one has turned to his own way,” that is, hardly anyone believed in his doctrine, but each one retained his old way. “And the Lord laid on him the iniquity of us all,” that is, the original sin by which we are all ensnared, through him, that is, through the baptism which the Lord himself gave, he pardons and washes away. “He was oppressed and afflicted, yet he opened not his mouth, and as a lamb led to the slaughter, and as a sheep before its shearers is dumb, so he opened not his mouth.” This whole passage needs no explanation, indeed it is clear to everyone. For Christ, being brought before Pilate and falsely accused, was beaten and even struck with blows, but remained silent, and when Pilate questioned him at length, he barely answered a word. But what follows: “He was taken away by distress and judgment,” is said by way of a hendiadys. “By distress and judgment,” he says, “means by a narrow judgment.” And indeed, we call an unjust judgment a narrow judgment. But Christ was taken away by a narrow judgment, that is, by a narrow and unjust judgment, when he was seized, having committed no offense. “Who shall declare his generation?” This is certainly about the divine generation which is inexpressible and ineffable, and through this, he showed that he would become God. Hence it follows: “He was cut off from the land of the living. For the transgression of my people he was stricken,” which is the same as what he said before, “He was wounded for our iniquities, and crushed for our sins. And they made his grave with the wicked, and with the rich in his death.” With the wicked and the rich is the same thing. For the rich of this world are almost all impious. Among the Jews, it was customary for the impious and those killed for their crimes to be buried outside the community of people. And Christ was crucified with the impious, that is, with thieves, and having died, was buried outside the common burial place, although he did no iniquity, nor was there deceit in his mouth, but the Lord wanted it this way, as it is written in the following: And the Lord wanted to crush him and weaken him, that is, to suffer. If he shall lay down his life for sin, he shall see offspring, etc. We certainly know that in ancient times, Scripture called the sacrifice made for sin by the name of sin. Hence, the prophet says here: If you lay down, Lord, your life, that is, the life of Christ, for sin, that is, for the sacrifice of sin, this is, if he will be sacrificed for our sin, he will see offspring, that is, a great offspring, and he will have many heirs (II Cor. V). And Christ, through the sacri[635B]fice of his body, and his death, saw a great offspring, and very many heirs, and the time was extended, and the will of the Lord in him was fulfilled: He shall see of the travail of his soul, and shall be satisfied. It is as if he said: His soul will work so hard that when he sees that labor because it was so great, he will be satisfied, that is, it will seem excessive to him, just as it is even said today, I have endured so much evil and distress that I have become satisfied with it. And Christ endured great distress and labor. By his knowledge shall my righteous servant justify many, that is, through his knowledge, the Lord will show him who is righteous to be just to many. But Christ was both righteous and the Lord showed him to be righteous to many. But also what follows, and he shall bear their iniquities, is the same as what was said above, surely[635C] he has borne our griefs, and carried our sorrows. Therefore, says the Lord, I will divide him a portion with the many, and he shall divide the spoil with the strong. And Christ shared in many, for many from various nations believed in him. And he divided the spoils with the strong, because with the rulers of hell who had plundered this world, as if dividing the spoils, he carried away his share when he snatched away those who believed that he would come. It follows: Because he poured out his soul unto death. He indeed repeats the reason why he shared in many, namely, because out of his immense compassion, he endured death for the redemption of the world. Then it follows. And he was numbered with the transgressors. And Christ, as we have predicted, was numbered with the transgressors, because he [635D] was hung with thieves. And he bore the sin of many, not of all, for, because he did not save all, but many. Then it follows: And he shall make intercession for the transgressors. And Christ interceded for the transgressors when he prayed for those crucifying him, saying: Father, forgive them, for they know not what they do (Luke XXIII). Therefore, O Moses, since both the time and all other things that the prophets foretold about Christ have been revealed in him whom we believe to be him, and also in his words and deeds, it is truly evident that he has already come, and you should not doubt it any longer.

Moses: I understand what you have said. But if it is so, why haven’t all the other things that are written about Christ in the prophets [636A] been fulfilled in the man you say has come?

Peter: Which ones?

Moses: Isaiah says about Christ: “And He shall judge the nations, and rebuke many people: and they shall beat their swords into plowshares, and their spears into pruning hooks: nation shall not lift up sword against nation, neither shall they learn war any more (Isa. II).” And these things have not yet been fulfilled, which will undoubtedly be fulfilled after Christ’s coming. For even today, nations still fight against each other.

Peter: You do not consider how that is said. For the prophet did not say that the nations would beat their swords into plowshares, and their spears into pruning hooks, and not lift up their swords against each other, or no longer learn war, as a description of what the nations would do, but rather as a demonstration of what Christ would teach. Just as elsewhere, Zechariah speaks of Him, saying, “And He shall speak peace unto the nations (Zach. IX).” Just as we understand this to be said about Him teaching peace (John XIV), so it is there as well. And when He taught it, if it was not fulfilled, it was not His fault.

Moses: For Jeremiah says: “In those days,” that is, of Christ, “Judah shall be saved, and Israel shall dwell safely (Jer. XXIII).” But this has not yet been fulfilled either, which should have been fulfilled after the coming of that man whom you call Christ if He were the Christ. For Judah and Israel are still in misery and captivity. [636C]

Peter: Indeed, this promise, Moses, was made only to those who would believe from Israel and Judah, so it was not fulfilled among the unbelievers. Just as some of the people of Israel who were led out of Egypt did not enter the Promised Land because they sinned and turned away from the Lord’s commandments (Psalm XCIV; Num. XIV), which the Lord promised to Moses, saying, “I am come down to deliver them out of the hand of the Egyptians, and to bring them out of that land unto a good land and a large (Exod. III),” indeed, all of them died in the desert.

Moses: Again, another prophecy from Isaiah that has not yet been fulfilled, which he said would happen at the coming of Christ: “The wolf shall dwell with the lamb, and the leopard shall lie down with the kid; the calf and the young lion and the fatling together; and a little child shall lead them. The cow and the bear shall feed; their young ones shall lie down together: and the lion shall eat straw like the ox (Isa. XI: LXV).” [636D]

Peter: Of all people, Moses, you understand this prophecy most foolishly in its literal sense.

Moses: Yes.

Peter: In this, the ignorance of your heart is evident. For if, as you say, the wolf has no peace except with the lamb, nor the leopard except with the kid, nor the lion except with the sheep and the calf, what good is such a confederation? The wolf will disturb the kid, the lion the lamb, and the leopard the sheep and the calf. [637A]

Moses: So how do you understand it?

Peter: We certainly understand by those beasts that live by plunder and flesh, wicked men, and robbers; but by the rest of the cattle, the meek and simple. The prophet said that Christ would command them to live together and have peace. That he meant this to be understood about men is suggested by the following words of the prophet when he adds, “for the earth shall be full of the knowledge of the Lord (Isaiah 11).” For he did not say this because of the cattle, which, since they have no rational soul, nor can they have the knowledge of the Lord, that is, the recognition of the Lord. But to destroy your understanding of this prophecy, your teachers said that there will be no distance between the present time and the time of Christ, except that during his time you will leave all captivity and misery.

Moses: Here is another thing from Isaiah that we do not yet know to be fulfilled; he also says, “And the light of the moon shall be as the light of the sun, and the light of the sun shall be sevenfold, as the light of seven days, in the day when the Lord shall bind up the breach of his people (Isaiah 30).”

Peter: There is no nation in the whole world more foolish than you, who think that God will increase the body or light of the moon or the sun: for if the sun were to be only twice as large as it is now, it would surely burn up the whole world, not to mention if it were seven times greater; and if its light were also seven times greater, it would blind our eyes with excessive brightness. If the light of the moon were to become equal to the brightness of the sun, no one would rest any longer, for it would always be day. By the increase of the lunar or solar light, the prophet wanted to signify the faith and glory of those who would believe in Christ. And if he says, “Their faith and glory will be multiplied and more brilliant than those of the ancients,” he is testifying in the following when he adds, “You will no longer have the sun for light by day, nor will the brightness of the moon illuminate you, but the Lord will be your everlasting light, and your God will be your glory, and your sun will no longer set, nor will your moon wane, for the Lord will be your everlasting light” (Isaiah 60).

Because if he were properly speaking about the sun or moon, what he says, “You will no longer have the sun for light by day, nor will the brightness of the moon illuminate you,” would contradict what he said above, namely, that there will be light like the light of the sun, and it will be seven times brighter. It is clear, therefore, that the prophet is speaking here of the splendor and glory of the holy faith of the Church, which is also indicated in the following when he says, “But the Lord will be your everlasting light, and your God will be your glory.” As if to say, “You will no longer need the light of this cruel world, which is like this passing sun or moon, for the glory of the Lord’s light will eternally illuminate you.” But also what follows, “Your sun will no longer set, nor will your moon wane,” if understood simply in this way, that the brightness of the sun or moon will be continuous, there would be no longer day or night, month or year, all of which come from the alternation of the sun and moon. Therefore, we rightly understand it to be spiritually spoken of the light and glory of our faith, which neither wanes nor sets.

Moses: What does Isaiah say about this: “Then you will see and be radiant, and your heart will tremble and swell with joy, because the abundance of the sea will be turned to you, the wealth of nations will come to you. A multitude of camels will cover you, the young camels of Midian and Ephah; all those from Sheba will come. They will bring gold and incense, and they will proclaim the praise of the Lord.” (Isa. 60) For these things have not yet been fulfilled.

Peter: Indeed, they were fulfilled during the time of the second temple, which was built by Ezra at the command of Cyrus, as testified by the prophet Haggai, who said: “This is what the Lord Almighty says: ‘In a little while I will once more shake the heavens and the earth, the sea and the dry land. I will shake all nations, and what is desired by all nations will come, and I will fill this house with glory,’ says the Lord Almighty. ‘The glory of this present house will be greater than the glory of the former house,’ says the Lord Almighty. ‘And in this place, I will grant peace,’ declares the Lord Almighty.” (Hag. 2) And indeed, what Isaiah had said would come to pass, Haggai indicates would be fulfilled in the temple that was already being rebuilt in his time.

Moses: It may indeed be as you say.

Peter: But tell me, Moses, what does Haggai mean when he says, “the glory of this present house will be greater than the glory of the former house?” For in what way was the glory of the latter house greater than that of the former, when in the latter there were not those precious insignia that were in the first? For there was no Ark of the Lord in the second, they did not use the breastplate in it, nor did fire come down from heaven to consume the burnt offerings, nor was there a prophet or anointed one at that time, and many other things as well.

Moses: We certainly do not know about this, except that we have heard it from our teachers, but they themselves said nothing else, except that the second house lasted ten years longer than the first.

Peter: This is certainly no glory.

Moses: Therefore, Haggai undoubtedly lied.

Peter: Far be it! But in this, the glory of the latter house was greater than that of the former: that Christ came while it was still standing, whose coming was a greater glory than all those aforementioned things. But we can also understand this much more subtly, namely, that it was said of the same house, “the latter” and “the former,” referring to its beginning and end. For when Christ came near its end (Colossians 2), through whom the deity dwelt in that very house, its glory was indeed greater in the end than in the beginning. By the coming of Christ, all that Isaiah and Haggai speak of and testify to were fulfilled. For when He came, the multitude of the sea and the earth turned to Him, heaven, earth, and seas were shaken. I say they were shaken, that is, the heavens and the earth and their inhabitants rejoiced, and from everywhere they brought various offerings to Jerusalem in praise of Christ Himself.

Moses: Why should I object to you any further when you explain all my authorities according to your own will?

Peter: Truth has strong pillars on which to lean.

Title X: That Christ was crucified and killed by the Jews by their own free will.

Moses: Let’s get back to the point, Peter, I want you to answer some questions about other aspects of your faith. So, since you believe that Christ was both man and God, why did he allow himself to be crucified and not free himself from the hands of the Jews? How could the power of omnipotence be diminished in this way?

Peter: Indeed, he could have defended and saved himself if he had wanted to, but he willingly endured this for the salvation of his people, although it was not pleasing to the flesh, which was of the world. For the Word of God would not have taken on flesh for any other reason than to free those who believed and would believe in him from the captivity of the devil (John I).

Moses: From your speech, several questions arise: first, what is the devil; second, why did man come under his power; third, why did God free men from his hand, when he allowed them to fall into it; fourth, why did he not redeem them by his power alone, but rather chose to become incarnate and suffer?

Peter: Since you have said many things at once, and it is not possible to answer them all fully, I would like you to ask about each one separately, and I will respond with my thoughts.

Moses: First, then, I would like to hear what the devil is.

Peter: Moses, the devil is a subtle and spiritual being, and was once one of the good orders of angels. Two of the princes of this order were called Huza and Hazazel in Hebrew, and Haroth and Maroth in Arabic. This devil, weighed down by his sin and iniquity, became somewhat heavier, as it were, and thus fell from the highest heavens, descending a little lower, and his dwelling is here below the firmament.

Moses: Indeed, it is written among us that there are devils and that their princes are called Huza and Hazazel, but I would gladly hear how you can show by philosophical reasoning what they are or why they exist.

Peter: First of all, you should know that there are nine parts to the art called necromancy. The first four deal with the four elements, and how we can physically operate within them. The remaining five concern how one can only operate through the invocation of evil spirits. These evil spirits are called devils by humans.

Moses: But perhaps these devils were never good angels, as you say, but were always wicked spirits.

Peter: This is not true. For God did not create anything except what is good, as it is written in the most accurate Scripture, “God saw everything that he had made, and, behold, it was very good (Gen. 1:31).” But because they chose evil, they became evil.

Moses: Since we know from experimental evidence and the approval of scholars that the devil exists, we should not doubt their existence any further, and we do not need a long discussion on this topic. So let us leave this matter and inquire why man has fallen under their control.

Peter: Since God created Adam in His own image and likeness (Gen. 1:26), and therefore superior among creatures, He created him both composite and simple: composite so that he could inhabit this world, have power and dominion over it, and be susceptible to dissolution; simple so that when it pleased the Creator, he could pass to the heavenly homeland of the angels without the death of the flesh. When the devil saw that God had created Adam in such a way, he envied him and sought his damnation as much as he could, even inspiring him to transgress God’s commandment and eat the forbidden fruit, so that Adam would fall from his dignity, just as the devil himself had fallen.

Moses: Before you say anything else, I want you to answer me, Peter: What do you mean when you say Adam was created both simple and composite? It seems to be a contradiction. You also denied that any body could be both simple and composite when we were discussing the resurrection of the dead. There is another contradiction: you said Adam was created susceptible to death, but also able to pass to the angelic homeland without dying. One implies he is mortal, the other immortal.

Peter: You should know that all animals are composed of the four elements. These elements have varied in their composition according to their qualities and quantities, resulting in the diversity of species. Since the elements that make up these animals are opposed to one another (heat opposes cold, wetness opposes dryness, emptiness opposes solidity, heaviness opposes lightness, and subtlety opposes bluntness), the qualities in them are likewise contrary to one another. This is why animals grow and diminish, heat up and cool down, and are affected by other changes. When one quality increases and another decreases, it causes illness. If one quality abounds beyond measure and the other is so deficient that it can hardly oppose it, the connected elements dissolve, the joined parts separate, the composites are destroyed, and this dissolution is called death. When God created Adam, He wanted to create him in such a way that he could both die and not die. So He made him from more subtle elements, evenly balanced, so that their qualities would not have much power to overcome one another. In this way, Adam was made so that he could not die, and I therefore called him simple and immortal. He was immortal in the same way that all other simple things are immortal. Some animals provide clear evidence for this, because they live much longer since they are composed more evenly of the elements. However, since Adam was made of the four elements, and everything made from them is susceptible to dissolution, I called him mortal and composite.

Moses: I accept what you say. But since, as you assert, both death and immortality were not possible, why has mortality overcome immortality, so that even today every human being is mortal?

Peter: This is what I intended to explain, and this is the reason why Adam came under the power of the devil. When he therefore decided to disobey the Creator, he thought about it; after he thought about it, he chose, after he chose, he desired; after he desired, he acted, and when he acted, he sinned; after he sinned, he lost the quality of immortality he had and, as is the nature of composite things, he took on mortality, so that he could no longer be separated from it, and thus he received the definition that he was rational and mortal, as well as everyone who came from his seed had the same nature as he did. It is indeed just that if something comes from another, it takes on the likeness of its nature. Now, since Adam’s soul was of a more subtle and stronger nature than his body, because it consented to the sin, and since it did not resist when it could have, every soul that mingled with a body born from that corruption, because of that guilt, when it left the body, could no longer transcend the summit of heaven which was its nature, but rather remained in the lower air near the earth. Because the soul came to this place as a stranger and was a citizen of the devil, the devil had power over it and his desire, which he had desired, was fulfilled. Indeed, since Adam’s sin was twofold, both spiritual and corporeal: spiritual, because he chose to believe and obey the devil rather than God, which pertains to the spirit, and corporeal, because he delighted in the sweetness of the forbidden fruit, which is of the body, he therefore suffered the double punishment of the death of the flesh and the death of the soul.

Moses: It seems to me that you have explained quite well and orderly how Adam, because of his sin, and thus every human being, has come under the control of the devil. But I would also like to know, if you can reveal it to me, how and why, according to physics, because of the transgression of the commandment, Adam lost the equality he had in his composition.

Peter: Know then that Adam, since he was made equally of all the elements, should also have had an equal balance of passions, such as anger and sadness, eating and drinking, and the rest, none of which are abundant or diminished in humans except through the abundance or diminution of the elements’ qualities. But when the devil advised him to transgress his Lord’s commandment, and he thought about it so that he chose to do it, and his soul did not prevent it as it could have, he then began to sin and lose his equality, because he lost that balance, and he desired to eat what he did not need, and what was forbidden to him, and so gradually he arrived at the act and ate, and then completely lost his equality. If at first, he had thought about whether it was good or evil, only looking at what he heard but not choosing it, he would have undoubtedly not sinned nor lost his equilibrium. For example, when someone is neither too happy nor too sad but balanced in both, if they hear a rumor that could make them angry or not, and they think about it so much that they can’t bear what they heard, the red bile from which anger arises is stirred up by such thoughts, and that person becomes heated and angry, and the more they heat up, the more the bile is stirred, until they are completely angry, and thus the moderation and balance between sadness and happiness that they had before is destroyed. But if they think about that rumor without being bothered by it, neither is the bile stirred up nor does the person become heated or angry, and that balance is not separated from them.

Moses: We indeed believe that Adam sinned through the serpent’s counsel (Genesis III), and from his sin, all humans became subject to death. Our teachers testify that there were many men who would not have died at all had it not been for the serpent’s counsel and Adam’s sin. However, we do not believe that the souls of the saints descended into hell after death. If you have any authority on this matter, please show it to me.

Peter: I will briefly reveal it to you, but I will also present some clear authorities on the matter. In Genesis, it is written about Jacob that when his daughters gathered to console him about his son Joseph, he refused to be consoled, saying, “For I will go down mourning to my son in the underworld (Genesis XXXVII).”

Moses: Jacob indeed said this in reference to his body. By “underworld,” he meant the earth in which everyone is buried, as if he were saying, “Until I die and am buried in the earth with my son, I will always mourn even in my death.” (643A)

Peter: That is not true what you say. He knew that his son was not buried in the earth, but rather thought that he had been devoured by some beast. Therefore, he said this in reference to the soul: “For I will go down mourning to my son in the underworld.” As if he were saying, “Since my son is dead, I will die, and I will come mourning to the underworld where his soul is, and where all the souls of the dead are.” Furthermore, David also testifies to this in the Psalms when he says: “What man is he that liveth and shall not see death, and shall deliver his soul from the hand of the grave? (Psalm LXXXVIII.)” By saying, “What man is he that liveth and shall not see death,” he implies that there is no human who will not die, and by saying, “and shall deliver his soul from the hand of the grave,” he suggests that no soul could be saved from the hand of the underworld in its time. Although Hezekiah, as we read in Isaiah, was a good and holy man, as he himself testifies in his prayer when he says: “I beseech you, Lord, remember, I pray, how I have walked before you in truth and with a perfect heart, and have done what is good in your eyes (IV Kings XX),” although, I say, he was holy, he nevertheless shows that he was about to descend to the underworld when he says in the following: “I said, in the middle of my days I will go to the gates of the underworld (Isaiah XXXVIII).”

Moses: If it is as you assert, then the souls of the patriarchs, prophets, and all the other saints who died before the death of him whom you call Christ, along with the souls of the impious, were detained in one place. [643C]

Peter: It is indeed true that they were all in darkness and shadows, but they were not all in places of punishment or torture, for according to their merits, rewards were given to each one; however, they were all in the underworld and under the rule of the devil. For no one who died from Adam to the death of Christ avoided the gates of the underworld, and we perceive this from the words of Moses, who, when he admonished the children of Israel to do the commandments of the Lord and preached to them what rewards they would receive from this, never promised anything about the happiness of paradise. For it was already known to everyone that no one would enter there before the death of Christ.

Moses: I do not think that Moses postponed speaking about paradise for the reason you mentioned, but he recognized that either by these visible goods which they desired above all, he could admonish them to obey God’s commandments, or by the present evils and labors which they feared, he could deter them from their iniquities; rather than if he were to preach about future punishments or the heavenly happiness they did not know.

Peter: Your opinion is wrong. For if he dealt with both a double reward and a double punishment, he would have admonished them even more to avoid evil and embrace good. Moreover, if you wish, I will show you, according to your own belief, that the souls of the saints were in the underworld and under the rule of the devil before the death of Christ. [644A]

Moses: I certainly desire nothing but the truth.

Peter: First of all, I ask you in what place the souls of the saints were, since you believe they were not in the underworld.

Moses: They were certainly in heaven.

Peter: Concerning this also, I ask you to answer, if you have ever read or heard about it, how high the power of those who practice necromantic arts can ascend.

Moses: Only up to the firmament.

Peter: And can it pass through that to some extent?

Moses: It is strange that you ask, since you have heard not only from wise men but also from old women in proverbs that you have as much power in this as the devil has in heaven. [644B]

Peter: Now, therefore, I want you to say how you believe what is read in the first book of Kings (chapter XXVIII), that Samuel was raised through a woman who had a python spirit, whether it was true or imaginary?

Moses: In many ways, it is certainly shown to be true, first because it openly speaks of how he ascended from the earth, what his form, age, and clothing were like, and how, on behalf of God, he truthfully answered all the questions Saul asked, and nothing he said was false. Secondly, because Saul knew that he was in the power of the woman who could raise Samuel, he would not have asked for Samuel to be raised. Thirdly, because our teachers assert that God forgave Saul his sin in his death [644C], from the words of Samuel himself to Saul. For they confirm that Saul went to the place of rest with Samuel, because he said: “Tomorrow you and your sons will be with me (ibid.)”.

Peter: Whether it was true or false, I do not wish to argue further. But if it is as you claim, how could he have been raised by necromantic arts if he was in heaven? But if he was not in heaven, he was undoubtedly under the devil’s jurisdiction and rested in hell.

Moses: You have set a trap for me, and you have defeated me well, and it has been shown sufficiently how man came into the hands of the devil. Therefore, you must explain why God led him out of there, having suffered a fall. [644D]

Peter: Therefore, after the human race was condemned by the serpent’s counsel and the sin of the first parent, Adam, condemned, I say, and punished with a double death, as we have said, because there were many holy men who had not fallen into the snare of the devil by their own deeds, except by that old sin and as if it were now natural, the Creator of mankind, moved by pity and mercy, wanted them to be set free from there.

Moses: And when, as you assert, he was moved with pity for them, why did he allow them to be detained there for so long, namely until the time of the one whom you call Christ?

Peter: Indeed, he did not do this out of justice, but out of his own mercy and simple goodness, and simple [645A] goodness, as we said at the beginning of our conversation, should have neither measure nor limit.

Moses: And why, as I said before, did he not redeem them under this power but preferred to have his Word incarnated and suffer?

Peter: That he rescued them in this way was indeed the most perfect wisdom, as it is found in his other ancient works. For once, as you yourself know, when He was preparing to lead His people Israel out of Egyptian captivity, and desired to kill the firstborn of the Egyptians with an evil spirit, He commanded them to slaughter a lamb or goat in each of their homes, and to smear the doorways of their houses (Exodus 12), so that the evil spirit would pass over the house marked by blood. But if He wanted to protect them this way, couldn’t He have done so without this act?

Moses: Certainly, He could have.

Peter: So why did He need this kind of deliverance?

Moses: His wisdom, indeed, is to attribute a cause to each thing, through which He wants to bring it into effect, just as through the sacrifice of a lamb or goat, He wanted to redeem them from that death, but we cannot perceive all the causes of things.

Peter: Indeed, the mysteries of God are so profound and inscrutable that no one can penetrate them. So why do you wonder, by searching, why the Lord sent His Word to become incarnate and die for the redemption of mankind? [645C]

Moses: And why did He not redeem them from that sin of Adam by the immolation of any animal, as is commanded in the law (Leviticus IV; Numbers V) to be sacrificed for sin from some cattle?

Peter: Most foolish of all, where could he find so many cattle? For as many men as there have been from the beginning of the world, and as many as were to be until its consummation, so many cattle would necessarily have to be sacrificed. Besides this, that sin which had occupied both the body and the soul could not be reasonably wiped out, except by a sacrifice that had both a body and a soul.

Moses: Therefore, since He wanted to redeem it by such a sacrifice, why could not that sacrifice be made by some prophet or any other holy man [645D], rather than promising that His Word would take on flesh and undergo death?

Peter: Because it was necessary that the man who would die for the redemption of such a great and grave sin be free from all sin. For if he did not need to redeem his own sins by his death, this indeed could not be found in anyone who was only human. For the nature of the body does not allow itself to avoid sin, as God testifies in Genesis, and says that the mind of man is diligently inclined to evil from his youth (Genesis VIII). Solomon also says in Ecclesiastes: “There is not a man on earth who does good and does not sin (Ecclesiastes VII).” Therefore, it was by the wisdom of God that His Word took on a human body [646A], which would preserve itself free from the contamination and sin of all, so that it could redeem that general sin in such a pure and unblemished state, and that having been assumed by Him who is the beginning of all things, it would first of all wipe out the original sin, and as it was born without a carnal father, it would remove the sin committed by him who was created without a father. Moreover, so that God might justly condemn, on the day of judgment, those who, after being freed from the snare of the devil by the death of His Son, had relapsed into their own wickedness.

Moses: Since you assert that the one whom you call Christ died willingly for the redemption of mankind, why do you condemn his killers and accuse them of sin when they only fulfilled his will? [646B]

Peter: If they had indeed done it with that intention, namely, to fulfill his will, and believed that they would be released from the power of the devil by his death, they would undoubtedly have incurred no sin. However, because they denied him and killed him out of envy, they are guilty of such a great crime and will not escape misery and tribulation in this age or the next, as long as they persist in their wickedness. But I will show you by a similar example that they are both guilty and deserving of condemnation, and you will also judge it to be right.

Moses: I will certainly judge it to be right when I hear it if it is right.

Peter: A certain man had a ship, and it was his will to burn it so that he would have the nails separately, and make charcoal for himself from the wood. But as he was thinking about this, an enemy of his came to the ship at night, and, not knowing his will, burned it out of hatred. In the morning, however, the aforementioned man found the nails of his ship as he wished in one part, and the charcoal in another. Likewise another example: There was a certain stone house for a man, which he wanted to destroy in order to build another structure from the stones; by chance one day, an enemy of his destroyed it in such a way that not a stone remained upon a stone, and he did this not to fulfill the will of which he was ignorant, but out of hatred. The aforementioned man, when he came to his house the next day, found the effect he had planned and wanted. Now, since neither he who burned the ship nor he who destroyed the house did so to fulfill the will of their enemy, but out of hatred and envy, what will you judge of them?

Moses: I indeed judge them to be guilty and deserving of punishment.

Peter: By the same reasoning, those who killed Christ are guilty and deserving of judgment, not for fulfilling his will, but out of hatred and the poison of envy.

Moses: Without a doubt, they would be guilty if they had done it in the way you say. But they did not do it that way; instead, they killed him with judgment.

Peter: And what fault did they impute to him, that they sentenced him to death?

Moses: Because he was a magician, and through the art of magic led the children of Israel into error, and besides this called himself the Son of God.

Peter: It is not surprising if they said these and other lies about him, although he came to redeem them. For Hosea prophesied about them: “Woe to them, for they have strayed from me. They shall be wasted because they have transgressed against me. And I have redeemed them, and they have spoken lies against me (Hosea 7).” Moreover, where could he have learned so much magic art that he turned water into wine (John 2), fed five thousand people from five loaves of bread (John 6), healed lepers (Luke 18), and dropsical patients (Luke 14), restored walking to the lame, hearing to the deaf, speech to the mute (Matthew 9), sight to the blind, and, greater than all these, raised the dead (Mark 7; John 11; Luke 7), among other miracles too numerous to list?

Moses: Indeed, our teachers say that he learned it in Egypt.

Peter: Therefore, from your words, it is proven that there were people in Egypt at that time who performed the same works themselves.

Moses: It is possible.

Peter: So why were their works not widespread and heard of, just as his were? Why did the wise men of Egypt accept his teaching and law if they recognized him as a magician?

Moses: About this, I certainly do not know how to answer you. For I have not heard of them ever believing in him, nor how or when they did it.

Peter: Let us leave this for now, and inquire into his individual works, so that we may investigate whether they were done through magic art, or through some other physical means, or rather through the power of God.

Moses: You speak well. And I also do not care much about investigating lesser matters. For if you demonstrate that the major works were done by the power of God, I will not doubt the minor ones.

Peter: You speak wisely. And I agree, as you say, that we should first inquire about each matter.

Moses: First of all, I want a response about how the lepers were cleansed (Matthew 8; Luke 17) and how the blind were given sight (Luke 18).

Peter: Know that leprosy can be cured in no other way than either through medicine or by the power of God. If it is through medicine, it is purified either by potions taken internally or by ointments applied externally. However, when no man saw any medicine being used by him, but he cured them by his word alone and in an instant, it is certain that it was done by the power of God.

Moses: Do we not read about the magician Firminus, who cleansed a leper?

Peter: It is entirely false that he cured him; instead, he deceived the eyes of men through his magical art and made something appear that was not real. The proof of this is that the patient relapsed into his illness after some time, and although his skin appeared clean to others, he never stopped feeling the disease within, as he himself said. Moreover, nowhere in the whole of necromancy is it truly written that a leper can be cured through it. As for the blind, especially those born blind, it is contrary to natural medicine that they can be given sight. The magician Assitha testifies that through necromancy, true light is not restored to them.

Moses: It is possible. But what will you say about the dead, since the same Assitha claims that a man can raise them and speak with them, and he shows the way to do it in his book, and on the other hand, in the Book of Kings, as we have said, we read about how Samuel was raised by the woman who was a medium? (1 Samuel 28)

Peter: It is indeed true, as you say, that Assitha testifies to this. But there is a vast difference between the work of God and what is done through magical arts in the resurrection of the dead. For the dead who are raised by a magician cannot walk further than their own shadow, but when they reach its end, they fall dead to the ground again. Those who are raised by the power of God, however, eat and drink, walk wherever and as far as they wish, and live like other men for as long as it pleases God, just like those raised by Elijah, Elisha, and Christ (3 Kings 17; 4 Kings 4; Luke 7).

Moses: Since it has been sufficiently shown that he accomplished everything not through magical arts but through the power of God, as the other prophets did, I want you to explain why he presumed to call himself not a prophet but the Son of God.

Peter: Indeed, he did so because he truly was the Son of God. As we have shown above with many authorities, when we were discussing that he was both God and man (John 1), we now no longer need to prove this further. However, if you wish, let us enter into a narrow discussion, and I will show you through reason that when he called himself the Son of God (John 11), he spoke the truth.

Moses: I agree.

Peter: Therefore, whoever works through the power of God, can they do anything without God’s will? (648D)

Moses: It seems to me that it is necessary for someone who does something through the power of God to operate in no way except by the will of that same God.

Peter: And whoever works through the power of God and according to his will, is it not true that they are a friend of God and a faithful servant of his?

Moses: It certainly follows. For we find this in our readings, that the holy prophets who once performed miracles were loved by God and faithful to him, like Moses, Elijah, and Elisha, and many others who performed numerous miracles in their lives (Exodus 2, 3; 1 Kings 17 and 18; Ecclesiasticus 48; 2 Kings 2, 4, 5, 6).

Peter: And whoever is a friend of God and faithful to him, it is necessary that they do not say anything false about God or on God’s behalf. (649A)

Moses: That is true.

Peter: Therefore, since Christ, as proven above, performed miracles through the power and will of God, and from this it follows that he was a friend and faithful servant of God, it is undoubtedly concluded that he never spoke anything false about God or on his behalf. Since this is the case, he truly called himself the Son of God (John 10).

Moses: What you said makes sense. But I am greatly astonished at this, that although there were many men of great intellect and wisdom at that time, they did not perceive him to be such. And if they recognized him, why did they reject his teachings [649B] and crucify him, knowingly bringing about the condemnation of their souls?

Peter: Indeed, as we have said, they did this out of envy, because they feared they would lose their dignity and reputation through him (John 11). We find a similar situation during the reign of King Jeroboam of Israel. When Solomon died, his kingdom was divided in two, as Scripture attests. His son Rehoboam obtained one part, while his servant Jeroboam obtained the other. Jeroboam, with the advice of his nobles, made two golden calves for the people to worship, so that they would not frequently go up to Jerusalem to pray and offer sacrifices as was the custom. He feared that if they did, they might eventually remain there and join Rehoboam’s side, causing Jeroboam to lose his dignity [649C]. Scripture teaches this, saying: “And Jeroboam said in his heart: ‘Now the kingdom will return to the house of David. If this people go up to offer sacrifices in the house of the Lord in Jerusalem, then the heart of this people will turn again to their lord, to Rehoboam king of Judah, and they will kill me and return to him.’ And having taken counsel, he made two golden calves, and said to them, ‘You shall not go up to Jerusalem anymore. Behold your gods, O Israel, who brought you up out of the land of Egypt (1 Kings 12).’”

Although Jeroboam and his nobles were endowed with great wisdom, both through Solomon, who preceded them and was the wisest of all before or after him according to Scripture (1 Kings 4), and through the great peace that existed in Solomon’s time [649D], which provided ample opportunity to learn wisdom, it is evident that they did this out of envy and fear for their kingdom. So you should not be surprised if the teachers of the law and the scribes killed Christ out of envy, fearing that they would lose their glory and dignity through him.

Moses: What you say is plausible. But I am still greatly astonished, even though I have asked about this elsewhere. I wonder, if he was indeed powerful as you say, why did he not immediately defend himself?

Peter: He did this because of his great goodness and mercy. We understand this from his words [650A] when he was hanging on the cross, saying: “Father, forgive them, for they do not know what they are doing (Luke 23).” By this, it is shown that he loved them very much, even though they were acting unjustly against him, as the prophet Zechariah testifies: “And it will be said to him, ‘What are these wounds in the middle of your hands?’ And he will say, ‘With these I was wounded in the house of those I loved (Zechariah 13).’”

But, oh Moses, if it pleases God, the time will still come when the descendants of their fathers will recognize their wickedness and mourn and grieve for their sins, and they will turn to the Lord and return, as the prophet Zechariah says: “And I will pour out on the house of David and the inhabitants of Jerusalem a spirit of grace and pleas for mercy, so that, when they look on me, on him whom they have pierced, they shall mourn for him, as one mourns for an only child, and weep bitterly over him, as one weeps over a firstborn” (Zechariah 12).

And may the Almighty God grant that you be one of those who turn back to Him. Amen.

Title XI: On the Resurrection and Ascension of Christ into Heaven.

Moses: Up to this point, it has been sufficiently shown that the man willingly accepted death for the redemption of humankind. Now, I want to talk with you about the fact that, as you said in the exposition of your faith, he rose again on the third day. It could indeed be so, since the fullness of deity, as you say, dwelt in him (Col. II), and he restored life to the other dead, that he raised himself up. But I ask you in this way if, after he rose, he was both God and man [650C] as before, or not?

Peter: I believe without a doubt that it was so. For when his soul, separated from his body, descended to the underworld to rescue the good from there, the divine nature itself never left him. Hence, when it returned to the body, it always remained with him, and therefore he was and is and will be both man and God forever.

Moses: I think it is enough that you believe so, but there remains one more thing about which I want you to answer me. Since he took on flesh for no other reason than to rescue the children of Adam from the yoke of the devil, after he completed this, as you say, why did he burden himself with the weight of a body again?

Peter: Christ’s body was indeed subtle and most pure from all sin (Isa. LIII; I Pet. II) [650D]. For he contracted no sin, either from the first parent Adam or from himself, and being such, was it right for him to die when Adam died only because of sin, and moreover when the deity dwelt in him?

Moses: No.

Peter: Therefore, since he took on death not because of any fault he had committed, but solely for the sake of saving his own, should he not have deserved to be raised?

Moses: The order of reason indeed requires so. But why did he hasten to be raised, and not wait until the good who are dead, like others, are raised at the end of the world (I Cor. XV; Matt. XXV)?

Peter: For the other dead committed many sins in this world [651A], and even for Adam’s sin, they received death, namely the punishment of sin; therefore, they cannot be resurrected until it pleases God. He, however, had neither Adam’s nor any other sin, as we said, but willingly and for our redemption, died on one day, and on another descended into hell to lead the good out of there. Since he had fulfilled everything for which he had come, and there was no longer, so to speak, anything he was going to do, he rightly rose again on the third day. Moreover, Enoch and Elijah, because they were holy men and worthy, as we and you believe, still live (Gen. V; IV Reg. II), and although they will die at the end of the world, they will immediately be resurrected because of their holiness. Therefore, should not Christ’s body, the most holy[651B] of all and the purest from sin, have been resurrected as soon as he wished? It was also necessary for him to be resurrected so that, just as by his death descending to hell, he liberated the dead from the devil’s law, so also by his resurrection, he would free those who would come from the same devil’s hand, because when they hear that he has risen, they believe and thus depart from his yoke.

Moses: There is reason in what you say. But could you show by some authority of the prophets that he should have been resurrected?

Peter: I certainly can. For David says in the psalm: You will add days to the days of the king, and his years to the day of generation and generation (Psal. LX). [651C] Of which king could this prophecy be spoken if not of Christ? The prophet wanted to indicate the definite time during which Christ lived in the world before his passion, by the days of the king; by the days, however, which he said were to be added to the days of the king, and which he placed without determination, he understood the time after his resurrection, which he also indicated would be without end, when he added, his years to the day of generation and generation. In Isaiah, we also read: Now I will rise, says the Lord, now I will be exalted, now I will be lifted up (Isa. XXXIII). And the Lord wanted three things to be understood here. What he says: Now I will rise, he spoke of the resurrection of his body from death; what follows: Now I will be exalted, he referred to his ascension into heaven; the third, which is: Now I will be lifted up, he added concerning the exalta[651D]tion and glory of those believing in him.

Moses: Since you mentioned the ascension, I have long intended to inquire about it, so now, if it pleases you, I ask you to explain how you believe it happened. For reason prevents a heavy thing from ascending or being supported by something lighter.

Peter: Indeed, my faith is that he ascended into heaven, and I also believe that his omnipotent power is so great that in whatever way it was done, it was possible for it to be as it pleased. If I were dealing with a believer, I would certainly not answer otherwise. But since you are an unbeliever and understand nothing but what is coarse and as if it can be touched, I will respond to you a little more coarsely, and because I desire you to believe something good through this.

Moses: I demand that you do so.

Peter: So you know that geese and hens, sparrows and larks are all made of the four elements and have wings?

Moses: I certainly know that.

Peter: So tell me why sparrows and larks ascend so high when flying, but geese and hens cannot do the same?

Moses: Because they are small-bodied, and therefore lighter, and the latter are larger and therefore heavier.

Peter: If lightness comes from quantity, why does the vulture or eagle, which is larger than all of these, ascend higher in flight?

Moses: Because its body is more subtly composed of elements.

Peter: And although it is light and subtle, what is it that causes that body to descend upward?

Moses: Undoubtedly the spirit, without which it could not only not fly but could not move at all.

Peter: Therefore, when Christ’s body after the resurrection was very light and subtle, especially since in death it lost all its weight and density, the proof of which is that it no longer needed food or drink; when, I say, it was such, and had the spirit, that is, the soul, with it, and in addition to the deity, which dominates and excels all the spirits of the flesh, as Moses attests, could it not ascend into heaven when it pleased? Also, concerning Elijah, whose body did not undergo any subtlety through death, and yet ascended on high before his disciple Elisha, how do you believe it was done rationally and according to physics?

Moses: Elijah certainly fasted a lot and ate little, and therefore his body gained such lightness and subtlety that it could ascend into the air, where even the angels received him and carried him away to where God pleased (IV Reg. II, IV).

Peter: Therefore, when the body of Christ, having been made subtle through death, and for this reason that after the resurrection it did not necessarily eat or drink, [652D] and even possessed the fullness of divinity, which is above angels, why, as we have said, could it not ascend into heaven? But there is also a reason that it ascended. For if the place where Moses stood when the Lord appeared to him in the burning bush is called holy by the Lord because of its proximity for an hour, and because of its holiness, He commands Moses to take off his sandals, saying: “Remove the sandals from your feet; for the place where you are standing is holy ground (Exodus 3:5),” should the body of Christ, in which the fullness of divinity dwelt not momentarily, but permanently, remain in the filth of this world after the resurrection? Rather, as we have said, with just reason, it left and ascended into heaven.

Moses: Indeed, you have proved this with clear reasoning, and [653A] have brought in good examples. But can any authority from the prophets be found about his ascension?

Peter: It certainly can. In Genesis, we read that the Lord spoke to Abraham about this, although in a hidden way. For it is written: “He took him outside and said, ‘Look up at the sky and count the stars—if indeed you can count them.’ Then he said to him, ‘So shall your offspring be.’ And Abraham believed the Lord, and he credited it to him as righteousness (Genesis 15:5-6).” But tell me, Moses, what does it mean when he says, “he took him outside?” Why did he do this? Did Abraham not know, both inside and outside, that he could not count the stars? Or could God not have said what he wanted to say to him inside just as he could outside? Also, when he says, “so shall your offspring be,” why did he not say, “I will make your offspring like [653B] the stars of heaven,” if someone can count the stars of heaven and your offspring will be counted, just as he says elsewhere: “I will make your offspring like the sand of the sea, which cannot be counted because there are so many (Genesis 32:12)?”

Moses: I certainly do not know anything else, except that God chose to speak in this way.

Peter: I want you to understand the whole discourse, and know that Scripture does not place any word recklessly. Therefore, what is written, “he brought him outside,” was done by the Lord for two reasons. One, indeed, to show him the place of heaven, which is designated by this, “look at the sky (Gen. V).” The other, to show the multitude of stars, and this is what he says, “count the stars, if you can number them.” What follows, “so shall your seed be,” in Hebrew, indeed, is such a word that it translates to “and here” and “and so” in Latin, namely because it signifies both place and likeness. For if he wanted to place such a word that signified “place” only, he would certainly say הבה, henna; but if such a word that rendered only “so,” he would put ככה, cacha. Therefore, by putting כה here, he wanted to indicate both the place in which Abraham’s seed was to be, namely Christ after his ascension, and the multitude of his seed.

Moses: I know that in Hebrew co translates to “so” in Latin, but I don’t think it signifies “place” anywhere.

Peter: It does, indeed: In Exodus we read of Moses that “he saw an Egyptian man striking one of his Hebrew brothers. And when he had looked this way and that way, and saw that there was no one present, he hid the beaten Egyptian in the sand (Exod. II).” Where “this way and that way” is placed, in Hebrew indeed you will find co and co. But to confirm this view, it follows in the same passage: “Abraham believed God, and it was accounted to him for righteousness (Gen. XV).” Why, in this promise, did Abraham “believe God” more than in the other promises that were made to him by God?

Moses: In all of them, he certainly believed, for he was never unbelieving.

Peter: And why in individual promises does Scripture not say that “he believed God,” as it does here; or, since he was always believing, why, as it was silent on this in other instances, did it not remain silent here as well?

Moses: I don’t know, but that’s what it says.

Peter: Did we not say above that Scripture does not place any word recklessly?

Moses: So you say, why did it say this?

Peter: Certainly, because it was against custom and unbelievable that promise of his seed’s ascension into heaven; therefore, it is added to show his holiness: “Abraham believed God.” Indeed, since it would not be surprising if he doubted, he did not doubt, but believed; therefore it follows, “and it was accounted to him for righteousness.” But David also speaks of Christ’s ascension in the psalm when he refers to what was promised to him by the Lord about his seed: “His seed,” he says, “shall endure forever, and his throne as the sun before me, and as the moon, perfect forever, and a faithful witness in heaven forever (Psalm LXXXVIII).” Was this promise made on behalf of someone from David’s seed other than Christ, or only of Christ?

Moses: Since I gain nothing by contradicting, I indeed do not deny that it was done for the sake of Christ. Hence the argument is that the promise made by the Lord to David concerning his seed always accompanies another condition, as we find in the third book of Kings, where David, when his death approached, chastised Solomon his son, saying to him: Be strong and be a man, etc., and immediately added the reason why he chastised him, saying: If your sons keep my way, and walk before me in truth with all their heart and with all their soul, there shall not fail you a man on the throne of Israel (1 Kings 2). But that promise which was made to him concerning Christ, even if your sons should sin, they would certainly be punished, but it is promised to be fulfilled, as it is read in the same Psalm: If his children forsake my law, and walk not in my judgments, if they profane my righteousness, and keep not my commandments, I will visit their iniquities with a rod and their sins with stripes; but my mercy I will not utterly take from him, nor will I make my truth void (Psalm 89).

Peter: You have spoken well, and demonstrated that you understand the Scriptures well, and you have not set forth anything contrary. [654D] But how will Christ abide forever, unless he is God, and his throne shall be as the sun or the moon in the sight of the Lord, and he himself will be a faithful witness in heaven forever, unless he is in heaven? Therefore, the Psalmist indicated that Christ was to ascend into heaven. However, we could not believe that anyone could do this unless he was both God and man.

Moses: Indeed, it seems to me that the order of the discourse requires it to be so.

Peter: Likewise, David elsewhere in the Psalm concerning the same: Awake, my glory, awake, psaltery and harp, I will awake the dawn. Be exalted above the heavens, O God, and above all the earth be your glory (Psalm 57). Here, indeed, David implies both the resurrection of Christ and his ascension, and some other things. For when he says: Awake, my glory, he indicates the resurrection of Christ. As if he were saying: Christ, who is my glory, will rise from the dead. But that which is: Awake, psaltery and harp, he introduces on account of the joy and gladness which were to come from Christ’s resurrection, which are well represented by the psaltery and the harp, since such instruments are used in times of prosperity and joy. As if he were saying: With Christ rising, all joy and gladness will rise with him. Now, through the third part which is: I will awake the dawn, where it must be understood as at dawn, it is noted that David himself was to be rescued from the darkness of hell with Christ rising. For we understand light here through the dawn, just as in many places through the name which is evening, we understand darkness and night. As if he were saying openly: [655B] With Christ rising, I too will rise from the darkness with him in glory and great light. But the fourth thing he said: Be exalted above the heavens, O God, and above all the earth be your glory, he added concerning the exaltation and ascension of Christ into heaven, from which ascension glory was to come to him throughout the whole world. As if he were saying: You will be exalted above the heavens and ascend, and from there, glory will be accumulated for you throughout the whole earth. What he said, “God,” we necessarily understand to be about Christ, who was both man and God. For pure God, since He does not move from place to place, undoubtedly does not descend, nor ascend or be exalted.

Moses: I concede what you have said about the ascension. But in your faith’s explanation, you also touched on one more thing, [655C] namely that He will come to judge the living and the dead on the day of judgment. I do not require an argument or reasoning for this matter. If, as you believe, He is both God and man, I grant that He is also a sufficient judge for the world. But do you have any scriptural authority for this?

Peter: Indeed, I do. For we read in the book of Daniel: “I beheld till the thrones were cast down, and the Ancient of Days did sit (Dan. VII).” And later in the same book: “The judgment was set, and the books were opened.” Then also in the same vision: “I beheld then,” he says, “in the vision of the night, and lo, with the clouds of heaven there came one like the Son of man, and he came even to the Ancient of Days, and they brought him before Him. And there was given him dominion, and glory, and a kingdom, that all peoples, [655D] nations, and languages should serve him. His dominion is an everlasting dominion, which shall not pass away, and his kingdom that which shall not be destroyed (ibid.).” The Ancient of Days who sat is indeed God the Father. And by what he said: “The judgment was set, and the books were opened,” the judgment is designated, which will happen at the end of the world, in which, as if in books, the merits of each individual will be discussed (Matt. XXV). But he who came with the clouds of heaven is Christ, who is rightly not called the Son of man absolutely but “like the Son of man,” because he was not born of a carnal father and mother, but of a virgin and God the Father. And by the fact that the judgment is prepared, and the books are opened, “the Ancient of Days gave him dominion, and glory, and a kingdom,” and promises him the servitude of all peoples, tribes, and languages [656A], it is indeed clear that the judgment of all has been granted to him at the consummation of the world. By this also, “his dominion is an everlasting dominion, which shall not pass away, and his kingdom that which shall not be destroyed,” which pertains only to the divine kingdom, and by what precedes, “like the Son of man came,” it is undoubtedly indicated that he to whom such judgment and kingdom were given is Christ, who, as we said, was to be both God and man. May the Lord grant you, my friend, to be one of those who are to be placed on the right side in that judgment (ibid.). Amen.

Title XII: That the law of Christians is not contrary to the law of Moses.

Moses: Up to now, we have sufficiently discussed each part of your alleged cruelty, but in the beginning of the discussion, you mentioned that at the hour of your baptism you believed in the apostles. I now ask you to explain this belief - whether you believe them to have been good and holy men only, or that what they preached was true, and that you also believe what they themselves believed.

Peter: I certainly believe both, that they were holy men, and that they preached the truth in all things, and I strive to follow what they preached according to my ability.

Moses: Now you have fallen into a trap from which you cannot escape. For when I asked you at the beginning about the law of Moses, whether you observed it as given by him, which seemed to me that you were transgressing, you answered that you indeed fulfilled it, observed it truthfully, and walked the straight path of its teachings. He whom you call Christ also kept it in all things, as he himself testifies when he says: “I have come not to abolish the law, but to fulfill it (Matt. 5).” But the apostles, whom you claim to have believed, abolished it and taught other things contrary to its precepts (Gal. 4). Therefore, when you say that you believe in them, it seems that you believe in one thing and its opposite.

Peter: The apostles were indeed true disciples of Christ, and they did everything they preached through Christ, and they did not abolish the law of Moses, but fulfilled it.

Moses: And how can we know that they preached it through Christ, when it is well known that they made no proclamation except after his death?

Peter: How can we doubt this, when we know that they preached nothing other than Christ and his teachings? The fact that they preached both him and his teachings is an argument that they themselves traveled barefoot to different and distant lands to spread his faith, enduring thirst, hunger, nakedness, cold and heat, hardship and labor, scourging and martyrdom for his confession. For how could they have endured these things for him and yet have been contrary or disobedient to his teachings?

Moses: If, as you say, the apostles did not dissent from Christ, nor Christ from the law of Moses in any way, why then were the apostles contrary to Moses?

Peter: In what way were they contrary?

Moses: In all things.

Peter: You have said too much. For they preached fasting, almsgiving, and mercy, commanded the love of God above all things and of one’s neighbor as oneself, condemned murder, fornication, theft, false witness, envy, and other vices that reason abhors and Moses forbids. They also forbade these things (Eph. 5; Rom. 6). So how can you say that they were contrary to Moses in all things?

Moses: If they agreed with Moses in the aforementioned matters, why did they disagree with him in certain other matters?

Peter: In what matters?

Moses: The first is that circumcision, which God commanded to both Abraham and Moses, and even Christ whom you claim was circumcised, was disregarded by the apostles, and they even prohibited it (Gal. 5).

Peter: We should first consider why circumcision was commanded and for what purpose it served, and then we will better understand whether it is just or unjust what the apostles did.

Moses: I agree.

Peter: So tell me, what benefit do you think circumcision could bring, or why was it commanded to be performed on the eighth day? (Gen. XVII; Levit. XII.)

Moses: I know of no reason for it to be on the eighth day other than it being God’s decree. It did bring benefits, [657C] as it was an opportunity for salvation.

Peter: From your words, it can be inferred that anyone circumcised on any day will be saved, and thus it is pointless and without benefit to command it to be done on the eighth day. But I have another question. Does that circumcision require something else for salvation, or is it itself alone sufficient to confer salvation?

Moses: It indeed requires something else, because for perfect salvation, besides circumcision, the Law of Moses must be fulfilled, and you can hear the manner in which it is done, if you please. For if someone is circumcised and faithfully keeps the whole law, they will undoubtedly be saved. If, however, they are circumcised and presume not to observe the law in some aspects, they will indeed suffer punishment for their transgression, but will still proceed to salva[657D]tion. But if they keep the whole law and are not circumcised, through no punishments they endure will they ever be able to be saved.

Peter: Where does such a belief come from, when neither Abraham’s God nor Moses ever promised it, nor has any prophet ever said this?

Moses: We indeed understand it from the words the Lord speaks to Abraham: “Any male who is not circumcised in the flesh of his foreskin, that soul will be cut off from his people (Gen. XVII)”. For by this it is implied that one who is circumcised will not perish but will be saved.

Peter: According to your explanation of this authority, anyone who does not fast on the tenth day of the seventh month, even if circumcised, will have no salvation. For it is written in Leviticus: “Every soul that does not afflict itself on this day will be cut off from its people (Lev. XXIII)”. If they will perish because of this, circumcision will undoubtedly not be effective.

Moses: Your argument seems reasonable.

Peter: What then do you say about Adam, Seth, Enoch, Methuselah, Noah, and his son Shem, and many others whom we believe were not circumcised but were still saved?

Moses: Indeed, they lived before circumcision was commanded, so they could be saved without it.

Peter: And what do you say about Job and his friends, who [658B] existed after the commandment of circumcision and were uncircumcised but were still saved?

Moses: Indeed, they were not from the people to whom the commandment of circumcision was given.

Peter: What, then, made all those mentioned above saved?

Moses: I truly don’t know, but I think it was because of their good faith and the sacrifices they practiced.

Peter: What, then, do you say about Ishmael, to whom circumcision was commanded but not the Law, and whose descendants are circumcised to this day? For are they saved through that circumcision? If you say yes, then circumcision alone confers salvation, without the fulfillment of the Law of Moses. But if you say no, you will contradict yourself, as you said earlier that circumcision is a cause of salvation. [658C]

Moses: Your argument is reasonable.

Peter: What will you also think about Jewish women who cannot be circumcised and yet are believed to be saved?

Moses: They are indeed saved because they are born from circumcised men.

Peter: What about Sarah and Rebecca, Rachel and Leah, and Moses’ wife Zipporah, who was a Midianite, and Ruth, who we all believe were saved, yet were not born from Jews? If they were not to be saved, their husbands, who were both holy and prophets, would not have taken them as wives or fathered children with them.

Moses: I cannot give you an answer to that, as it has never been shown to me. You, however, if you know, explain the usefulness of circumcision to me.

Peter: Circumcision was indeed given so that the Lord’s people could be distinguished and recognized from other nations. For the greater distinction of this nation, another commandment was given: that no one should marry a woman from another tribe (Num. 36). This was commanded because Christ was to come from the seed of Abraham, the law of Moses, and the tribe of Judah, so that when he came, he could be recognized as the one, and no one from another nation would rise up claiming to be Christ, and thus lead the world astray. We have two solid arguments that circumcision was commanded for the distinction of the nation, not, as you said, for salvation. One is that it was commanded to be done on the eighth day, not earlier, because the child is not separated from the mother before the eighth day, nor is there any fear that the child will mix with others. On the eighth day, when the woman is commanded to cleanse herself and wash away pollution, before she does this, the child is circumcised, so that when the mother is removed, the child is not exchanged or mixed with another (Lev. 12). The other argument is that for the forty years the children of Israel lived in the desert, all those born there were not circumcised; but when they came to the inhabited land, so that they would not mix with other nations, they were immediately commanded by the Lord through Joshua to be circumcised, as those who read the book of Joshua find (Josh. 5). As for your statement that circumcision is the cause of salvation, circumcision alone was not the cause of this; rather, it was good faith, sacrifices, and righteous deeds, both before and after circumcision, as is evident in Adam, Seth, Enoch, Methuselah, Noah and Shem, Job and his companions, and Jewish women, who were all saved without circumcision, by their right faith and good works. Indeed, none of the aforementioned types of salvation could save anyone unless they believed in Christ’s coming and did not think they could be saved without him. When Christ, the Savior they were waiting for, came, he wanted to be circumcised to fulfill the law of Moses, and also to make it clear that he was to come from the seed of Abraham, the law of Moses, and the tribe of Judah, as we have said. Therefore, after all the reasons for circumcision were fulfilled, no one needed circumcision any longer, as there was no longer any need for any distinction of race (Col. 3). For whoever turns to the law of Christ, of whatever race or language, and wishes to be a believer only, is equal to other Christians. Furthermore, after baptism came, as it is the general salvation for men and women, circumcision was no longer necessary for salvation. Therefore, since it has been shown in every way that circumcision is not necessary after Christ’s coming, you can openly recognize why the apostles did not command it to be done.

Moses: And if they did not command it, why did they also forbid it?

Peter: They certainly did so, so that people would not think that baptism, like circumcision, confers salvation, or that circumcision, along with baptism itself, confers salvation, and thus fall into error, as the Nestorians and Jacobites do, who believe that no one can be saved unless they undergo both, and as you yourselves, whoever today from external lineage wishes to convert to your law, if a man, first circumcise, and then you command to be baptized; if a woman, only to be baptized.

Moses: From these words you imply that we only performed baptism after Christ’s coming, as if we had learned it from Christ himself.

Peter: If not from him, then from whom did you learn it?

Moses: From Moses.

Peter: That is false. And we have two arguments for this. One, when the Lord gave Moses a commandment concerning strangers, saying: “If any foreigner wants to join your community and celebrate the Passover of the Lord, all his males must first be circumcised, and then he may properly celebrate it; he will be like a native of the land (Exodus 12).” If baptism were necessary at that time, he would certainly command it just as he did circumcision. And since neither here, where it should have been mentioned if what you say were true, nor anywhere else did Moses make mention of it, you can in no way prove that you learned it from him. The other argument is that your teachers, those who were before Christ, never spoke of that baptism, which shows that you did not receive it from Moses. Those who came after Christ’s coming learned baptism from him and thus, by combining it with circumcision, led the people into error.

Moses: You have answered satisfactorily about circumcision. But what will you say now about the Sabbath day, which the Lord commanded to be observed in many places through Moses, and speaking to the children of Israel from Mount Sinai himself, and the commandment of whose observance was written on stone tablets thus: “Remember,” says God, “to sanctify the Sabbath day? (Exodus 20; Deuteronomy 5)” And he adds the reason in the following, saying: “For in six days God made heaven and earth and sea, and everything that is in them, and rested on the seventh day. Therefore the Lord blessed the Sabbath day and sanctified it (ibid.)”, and also commanded to stone those who did not observe it (Numbers 15). But the apostles rejected it, and commanded another day to be observed.

Peter: Indeed, the Lord commanded that day to be observed in memory of the beginning of the world, as you said, and also made it a sign of another thing that was to come.

Moses: And what was that thing to come?

Peter: The coming of Christ, who completed all his works which he accomplished while living in the world on the sixth day, that is, on Friday, when he took death upon himself for us. On the seventh day, that is, the Sabbath day, he rested, and even made all those who had died believing in him before his death rest with him from the pains of hell. But after the completion of that event, of which the observance of the Sabbath was a sign, it was no longer necessary to observe it.

Moses: According to your words, if the observance of the Sabbath was a sign of that event you mentioned, when it was completed, it should have been observed all the more, both for the memory of the beginning of the world and for the saints’ rest from the pains of hell.

Peter: The situation is not as you think. Indeed, your ancestors who lived before the coming of Christ observed the Sabbath day, both for the memory of the beginning of the world, as mentioned, and because on the same day through Christ they believed they would rest from the pains of hell. However, after the resurrection of Christ, which was the cause of Christian faith, and faith the cause of salvation, although salvation came from the death of Christ, without faith it provided no benefit; after the resurrection, I say, of Christ, observing the Sabbath was no longer necessary for all those who believed in him, rather the Lord’s Day, that is, the day of resurrection, which was the cause of their salvation.

Moses: And why didn’t they observe both the Sabbath, that is, for the memory of the world’s origin, and the other day for the memory of their salvation?

Peter: We said that the Sabbath was observed for the memory of the world’s origin, and it was indeed observed for the creation of things, which was completed at that time, as it is written: “And on the seventh day God ended his work which he had made; and he rested on the seventh day from all his work which he had made” (Gen. 1). However, because that same day was the first day of the damnation of souls, and this happened through Adam, who sinned at the twelfth hour of the evening of the previous day, therefore falling from glory into damnation, after the salvation of souls came through the resurrection of Christ, the day of damnation should no longer be celebrated, but rather the one that was the beginning of salvation. And if you please, I can demonstrate this to you with an example. A certain king built a city in which he founded precious buildings, planted gardens and vineyards all around, led streams of water through the middle of it here and there, and even made it fruitful and overflowing with all kinds of delights, against which a king of another nation began to wage war. So whenever anyone went out from that city, the enemy was ready and lying in wait, capturing them and casting them into a dark prison. However, the king who built the city promised its inhabitants that the time would come when he would free them from that enemy. He demanded no other tribute or compensation from them except that they should honor the very day on which the city was completed, and also because on that same day he would free them from the aforementioned enemy, and they celebrated it for a long time as the king had commanded them. But after some time had passed, he took pity and compassion on them and decided to personally free them from that captivity, so he sent his son. The son, having defeated the enemy, released the captives from his hand. So, having been freed from the yoke of the enemy, the aforementioned king arranged the city in such a way that they no longer needed to fear the captivity of the enemy. But tell me, Moses, which day should rather be celebrated, the one on which the city was completed but the people fell into the hands of the enemy, or the one on which it was so arranged that they no longer feared being captured by that enemy?

Moses: Without a doubt, the day when it was arranged in that manner.

Peter: By the same reasoning, we should indeed celebrate the Lord’s Day [662A] on account of Christ’s resurrection, which, as we have said, was both the cause of faith and of the greatest salvation, because whoever died believing in him before Christ’s death, when he himself died they were saved, but they first went through the darkness of hell. But those who believed after the resurrection, they are saved through his death, and yet they did not know Tartarus. Therefore, this is the reason why the apostles especially commanded it to be observed, and not the Sabbath, although our Lord Christ observed it himself, but he did so only to fulfill the Law of Moses, and because the day of the resurrection had not yet come for him to keep.

Moses: And what will you say about the Feast of Passover, which the Lord commanded to observe, and to sacrifice a lamb in it [662B], and to eat it with unleavened bread and bitter herbs (Exod. XII), which the apostles altogether left off, and commanded another feast, and in another order, since Christ (whom you say) never wanted to celebrate it that way while he lived, and as the apostles commanded?

Peter: First of all, O Moses, we must carefully examine the rites and the reasons for the rites by which the Passover was commanded to be celebrated in Egypt, and why it was afterward commanded to be celebrated in another way in the wilderness (Lev. XXIII; Num. XVIII). When we have done this, we will indeed see whether we should or should not celebrate the Feast of Passover after the death of Christ.

Moses: Agreed.

Peter: These are the rites and rituals of it [662C]. On the tenth day of the month, it is commanded that a lamb or a goat be taken and kept until the fourteenth day. It is also commanded that it be male, young, and without any infirmity, and that it be sacrificed by the entire assembly of the children of Israel on the fourteenth day between the two evenings, and that its blood be placed on both doorposts and on the thresholds of the houses, and this only in those houses where it was to be eaten. Furthermore, it is commanded that its flesh be eaten, not raw or boiled in water, but roasted with fire, whole with its head, feet, and intestines, and eaten hastily at night. Its bones should not be broken, and it should be eaten with unleavened bread and bitter herbs (Exod. XII).

Moses: It is indeed as you have said [662D].

Peter: Tell me then, for what reasons were these rites commanded?

Moses: I do not know, but the Lord wanted it to be done this way. About the blood, however, I know that it was commanded to be placed on both doorposts and on the thresholds so that when the malicious angel came, he would pass over the house marked with the blood.

Peter: Have I not often told you above that no word ever came from the Lord’s mouth in vain?

Moses: You tell me then, why were those rites commanded to be observed?

Peter: That lamb of Egypt and its rites were indeed a figure and likeness of the Lamb of God, who was to be sacrificed, that is, Christ [663A]. For just as the faithful were saved from the hand of the angel who killed the bodies through that lamb, so too through Christ, those who believed in him were to be redeemed from the devil, who damned souls, and that lamb was like one announcing him who was to come after it.

Moses: You have answered well about the lamb, but how can you apply the aforementioned rites of the lamb to Christ, whom you call the Lamb of God?

Peter: For just as that lamb was commanded to be taken on the tenth day of the month and preserved until the fourteenth (Exodus 12), so on the tenth day of the month, specifically the day of the moon, your teachers received counsel concerning observing Christ (John 11). Indeed, on the preceding Sunday, Christ came to Jerusalem to celebrate the Passover (Matthew 21; John 12; Mark 11; Luke 19), and the whole crowd received Him with great joy, pomp, and honor. As a result, the envy and malevolence of the teachers grew, and on the following day, they began to conspire with one another concerning observing and killing Him. However, this counsel remained hidden and concealed until the fourteenth day. And just as that lamb was commanded to be male, young, and without any infirmity, so Christ was male, young, and without any infirmity, that is, without sin (1 Peter 2). The fact that the sacrifice was commanded to be taken from a sheep or a goat and not a cow, even though a cow was among the animals whose sacrifice was commanded in the law, was done for this reason: a sheep or a goat does not resist when captured, as a cow does. It was also a sign that Christ, when captured, did not resist or defend Himself as He could have. Moreover, the fact that He was commanded to be sacrificed by the entire multitude of the children of Israel, even though not all sacrificed one, but each one sacrificed according to their households and families, signified that the entire multitude of Jews killed Christ. For although not everyone was present, everyone consented. Now, concerning the fourteenth day and between the two evenings, we must see what the two evenings of the day are. One is when the sun begins to descend from the middle point of the sky, and the other is when it sets completely before night. And Christ expired on the fourteenth day and between the two evenings of the same day, that is, at the ninth hour as you yourselves believe (Revelation 1). By the two evenings, your two captivities can also be understood, namely those of Babylon and Titus. And Christ died between the two evenings because it was after the Babylonian captivity and before the captivity of Titus. Furthermore, the fact that the blood of the lamb was commanded to be placed on both doorposts and on the lintels of the houses as a sign, specifically of the cross, signified the blood of Christ, which was shed on the cross. And just as the blood of that lamb, as we have said, protected the faithful of the Lord from physical death, so the blood of Jesus Christ redeemed His faithful from the destruction of the soul. Also, just as that blood saved no house except those in which it was eaten, and so it was commanded to be placed only in those houses, so the blood of Christ, which was shed on the cross, saves no one except the one in whom the Lamb of God is eaten, that is, the one who eats the body of Christ. Moreover, just as the lamb was commanded to be eaten at night, so Christ was captured during the night so that He could not be freed or defended by the people. And just as it was commanded not to be eaten raw or boiled in water, but roasted with fire, so Christ was not condemned without judgment, nor with a just judgment, but with an unjust one, just as the flesh roasted with fire is neither completely raw nor well-cooked. And for the same reason, it was commanded to be eaten hastily and with unleavened bread. For just as unleavened bread does not wait for the dough to be leavened but is made quickly, so in Christ they did not wait for any righteousness of judgment, but he was condemned hastily. By the bitter herbs with which that lamb was commanded to be eaten, it is signified that from that unjust condemnation came calamity and bitterness. And that it was commanded to be cooked whole, with its head, feet, and intestines, and after eating its bones were not to be broken, indicates that neither was any member of Christ cut off in his killing; rather, he was hung with all his limbs intact, and after his death not a single bone of his was broken, nor did he suffer any other dissolution, but he rose whole and complete. You see, therefore, that as has been said, that lamb of Egypt and its rite were the figure and likeness of the Lamb of God, that is, of Christ. And if we have left any part of the rite unexplained, if you search carefully, you can similarly apply it to Christ. [664C]

Moses: Since, Peter, you have explained the Egyptian Passover as you saw fit, I want you to tell me, if you please, why the second Passover was commanded to be celebrated in the desert (Lev. XXIII; Num. XXVIII).

Peter: There was indeed no reason or benefit in doing so, except to remember the Egyptian Passover and to announce that Christ, the Lamb of God, was to be sacrificed. And Christ celebrated that Passover always while he lived, both to fulfill the Law of Moses (Matt. V) and because those rites had not yet been completed. But after his death, when everything was completed, it was no longer necessary for that Passover to be observed; instead, we now have the Passover ordained by our apostles. It is fitting that we should exchange the day of the salvation of souls, which is more worthy to be observed, for the day of the salvation of bodies. For when the greater joy comes, the lesser recedes, and when the sun rises, the brightness of the stars fades away. But we must also let go of the memory of the first Passover for the memory of the second, just as the Lord promised through the prophet Jeremiah: “Behold, the days are coming, says the Lord, and it shall no longer be said: As the Lord lives, who brought the children of Israel out of the land of Egypt, but: As the Lord lives, who brought and led the children of Israel out of the land of the north (Jer. XVI).”

Moses: Indeed, that promise will be fulfilled with the arrival of Christ.

Peter: It is true that it should be fulfilled with the arrival of Christ. But since it has already been proven that Christ has come, then the prophecy was also fulfilled when He came [665A]. This is to be understood as follows: we should no longer remember that the Lord led the children of Israel out of Egypt, but rather out of the land of the north, that is, from hell, since the devil is understood by the north, whose land and dwelling is hell, as the prophet Joel says: I will remove far off from you the northern one, and will drive him into a land barren and desolate, with his face toward the eastern sea, and his end toward the western sea, and his stench shall come up, and his rottenness shall rise, because he has done great things (Joel. II). I, for my part, do not care to explain how we can understand the devil through the north, for your teachers have explained this well enough. Moreover, how can you say that you celebrate Passover when you do not offer a sacrifice, have no altar, nor a priest to perform it? [665B] Do you think that just by eating herbs and unleavened bread [665B] you can fulfill Passover? You even change the very day of Passover, sometimes postponing it to the next day, because you never celebrate it on Monday, Wednesday, or Friday. Please tell me why you do this.

Moses: I know nothing else but that our teachers have arranged it this way, and Gamaliel above all.

Peter: And do you know why Gamaliel did this?

Moses: No.

Peter: Gamaliel was indeed a holy and faithful Christian (Acts V). And because he knew that on Monday the Jews entered into a plot to condemn Christ, on Wednesday they provided evidence for the handing over of Christ, and on Friday he was nailed to the cross, because, I say, he knew this, and he did not want any rejoicing to be practiced on those days, therefore he forbade Passover to be celebrated on those days (Exodus XII), and ordered it to be postponed to the next day. But he did not want to reveal this secret to everyone.

Moses: Since you have condemned the Passover feast, which precedes and surpasses all others, and about which it is commanded that whoever does not observe it will perish, it would now be in vain for us to dispute about the lesser ones, since you could condemn them much more lightly. But I ask you to answer me about the fast of the tenth day of the seventh month (Lev. XXIII), which the Lord ordered to be observed for the expiation of our sins to such an extent that He said whoever does not observe it will be cut off from his people, and your apostles have neglected it. [665D]

Peter: First I want you to tell me about that fast, whether it alone is enough for the destruction of sins, or whether one needs repentance along with it.

Moses: Surely there can be no expiation without repentance.

Peter: Again, I ask you about the power of that expiation - do you claim that it consists in the day of fasting or in repentance?

Moses: In both.

Peter: Also answer this: if someone, having neglected the fast, repents and so dies, while another, fasting but not repenting, likewise dies, which of them should be saved? [666A]

Moses: Without a doubt, the one who repents.

Peter: Therefore, we can affirm that the power of that expiation consists in repentance, not in fasting, as Isaiah testifies, saying: Is this not the fast that I have chosen? Loose the bonds of wickedness, undo the heavy burdens (Isa. LVIII).

Moses: What then is the value of fasting?

Peter: It is indeed the beginning of all good, which is prescribed for weakening the human body and restraining it from vices.

Moses: According to your words, whoever fasts and repents on any day will have the remission of sins.

Peter: That is true.

Moses: Why then did God specifically command the day of that fast? (Lev. XXIII)

Peter: So that on a determined day, everyone would gather and fast while doing penance.

Moses: And why did your apostles abandon this entirely?

Peter: Because Christ came, and fulfilled the whole law, and fasted for forty days (Matt. IV; Luke. IV; Mark. I), therefore the apostles, being His disciples, prescribed forty days instead of one, because the fast of forty days is more powerful than one, and penance for forty days is more beneficial than one.

Moses: You have answered about fasting as it pleased you. But what will you say about the sacrifices that the Lord commanded to be made from oxen, goats, and sheep, which your apostles neglected, and ordered the sacrifice to be made only from bread and wine?

Peter: All the sacrifices that were commanded and ordained to be made in the Law of Moses were nothing but the figure and the sign of the main sacrifice that was to come, and so that the people would become accustomed to sacrifices and through them recognize that, just as these customary ones cleanse sins, through the greatest sacrifice the greatest sin could be washed away. But when Christ, the Holy of Holies (Dan. IX), and the main sacrifice came, and was sacrificed for our redemption, it was no longer necessary for those ancient sacrifices to be made. Therefore, since Christ Himself came, we now use that sacrifice, namely bread and wine, which [666D] the apostles ordained for us, rather Christ Himself gave (Matt. XXVI; Mark. XIV; Luke. XXII; I Cor. XI). And this sacrifice is like that sacrifice which He commanded in the Law of Moses, called the sacrifice toda, that is, of praise (Exod. XXV; Lev. II, VII, XXIV; Num. XXVIII), and which He commanded to be made from bread and wine in the figure of our own. David, foreseeing its coming and despising all other sacrifices before it, says in the psalm: Will I eat the flesh of bulls, or drink the blood of goats? Offer unto God the sacrifice of praise (Psalm. XLIX). By this, he implied that all other sacrifices should be set aside and that sacrifice called the sacrifice of praise should be made. And indeed, our sacrifice is one of praise. For by doing it, we praise God for the benefit [667A] He has done for us, by saving us through His Son Jesus.

Moses: And what will you say about those meats which Moses prohibited from being eaten in the law (Lev. XI), and your Christ did not eat them, but the apostles not only did not prohibit them from being eaten, but also ate them themselves?

Peter: Since everything God made is good, as Scripture testifies, saying: “And God saw all that He had made, and it was very good” (Gen. I). And when God spoke to Noah and his sons, He said: “Every moving thing that lives shall be food for you; as I gave the green plants, I give you everything” (Gen. IX). And since Abraham and Isaac and the other patriarchs ate whatever they wanted until the time of Moses, and even Moses himself before he received the law, why then were certain meats forbidden to be eaten in the law?

Moses: Because at the beginning of the world, people were still wild and beast-like, and could not be easily admonished to obey God’s commandments. God, in His wisdom, did not want to give them all His commandments at once, but rather gave them gradually. He gave one to Adam, namely, not to eat of the fruit He had forbidden (Gen. II), another to Noah, namely, not to eat meat with blood and not to commit murder (Gen. IX), and He commanded Abraham to offer sacrifices and to be circumcised (Gen. XVII). When Moses came, and God wanted to join the children of Israel to Himself and distinguish them from other nations, He gave them His commandments as He pleased, and He prohibited them from eating unclean meats so that they would not be defiled by them, and He gave them a sign of discrimination between clean and unclean meats (Lev. XI).

Peter: And this uncleanness you spoke of regarding meats, is it the body itself, or something that happens to the body?

Moses: Neither, it is a spiritual thing that descends upon the body, but does not attribute any growth or harm to it. It prohibits something that was never prohibited before, and it attaches to the body in four ways. First, when it adheres to the body from its creation, and never separates from it, like inheriting it from one’s father and mother, as we see with pigs and other forbidden meats. Second, when it is attached to someone who was not previously attached to it, but is not separated later, as in the case of the dead and lepers. Third, when it is applied to the body for some reason, and then removed for another reason, as in the case of those who touch the dead, who are unclean until they are purified by the sprinkling of ashes (Num. XIX). Fourth, when it is attached to the body for some reason, and then departs without any work, like those who touch something unclean and are unclean for the whole day, but are clean when the sun sets (Lev. XI). But because those meats were unclean, they were prohibited by Moses, namely, so that those who ate them would not become unclean. And as your teachers assert, they were also prohibited so as not to make their hearts stubborn or dull in understanding (Lev. XI).

Peter: Indeed, those two impurities, namely uncleanness and dullness, used to afflict bodies and flesh when they were still trapped in general sin and did not have the fullness of the Holy Spirit. But when Christ came and purified the bodies of believers through baptism and poured out the fullness of the Holy Spirit, no flesh could defile the human body or dull the mind. And your own teachers testify to this, for they said that after the coming of Christ, the inedible should be converted into the edible. This reasoning can be applied to all forms of impurities. Moses also prophesied the absolution of meats after the coming of Christ, speaking to the people of Israel in these words: “When the Lord your God shall enlarge your borders, as he hath spoken unto you, and thou wilt eat flesh according to the desire of thy soul, and the place which the Lord thy God shall choose, that his name may be there, shall be far off, then thou shalt kill of thy herds and of thy flocks, which the Lord hath given thee, as I have commanded thee, and thou shalt eat in thy cities according to thy pleasure, both the clean and the unclean shall eat of it alike, as of the roebuck and the hart” (Deuteronomy XII). Indeed, before the coming of Christ, the borders of Israel were narrow because they did not even have all the land that the Lord promised them through Moses. But the Lord enlarged the borders of Israel after the coming of Christ, when the apostles preached the law throughout the world. Moreover, the place that the Lord had chosen for his name is now far away, for the ancient temple of the Lord has been destroyed. Therefore, anyone can now eat any kind of meat, whether clean or unclean, according to their own preference, without any transgression. Moses also prophesied that a prophet like Moses, that is, Christ, would come to give a new law, just as Moses himself promised through Moses, as we have said before (Deuteronomy XVIII). Isaiah also prophesied about the new law in this way: “And it shall come to pass in the last days, that the mountain of the house of the Lord shall be prepared in the top of the mountains, and it shall be exalted above the hills, and all nations shall flow unto it. And many people shall go and say, Come ye, and let us go up to the mountain of the Lord, and to the house of the God of Jacob; and he will teach us of his ways, and we will walk in his paths: for out of Zion shall go forth the law, and the word of the Lord from Jerusalem” (Isaiah XI). For who is this mountain of the Lord, O Moses? For if you wanted to say it is the mountain of Zion, where the temple of the Lord was, reason contradicts this, for it is not situated on the top of the mountains, since there are other hills around it that are even higher, nor can it be said that it will be exalted above the hills. What does it mean when it says, “And many people shall go and say, Come ye, and let us go up to the mountain of the Lord, and to the house of the God of Jacob; and he will teach us of his ways, and we will walk in his paths: for out of Zion shall go forth the law, and the word of the Lord from Jerusalem?” For what are these ways and paths of the Lord, and what law and word is going forth from Zion and Jerusalem? It cannot refer to the Mosaic law, which is well-known to everyone, nor to the old law that came from Mount Horeb, nor to Jerusalem, but rather to the word of the Lord that Moses announced from Sinai (Exodus 20; Deuteronomy 5). This prophecy must be understood in this way: the Holy Church is without doubt the house of the Lord, and kings are usually compared to mountains and prophets to hills. The mountain is therefore the King of the Holy Church, Christ himself, on whom the Church itself was built and who is prepared and exalted on the top of mountains and hills, because he is elevated and honored above all kings and prophets. And the prophet rightly speaks of the Holy Church and Christ: “All nations shall flow to him,” that is, to Christ, “and many peoples shall say, ‘Come, let us go up to the mountain of the Lord, to the house of the God of Jacob, that he may teach us his ways and that we may walk in his paths,’ ” that is, in the observances of his law, which is new, just as we call new ways and paths. And what follows, “For out of Zion shall go forth the law, and the word of the Lord from Jerusalem,” suggests that the law of Christ will go forth from Zion, and his word will go forth from Jerusalem. For the Holy Spirit came upon the apostles in Zion, whose advent was the foundation of the law, and it was given and preached by him and through him, and it was preached in Jerusalem before anywhere else by the apostles and Christ himself, and from there it went out throughout the whole world. Therefore, it is clear that Isaiah prophesied about this new law. Likewise, Jeremiah speaks about the new law as follows: “Behold, the days are coming, declares the Lord, when I will make a new covenant with the house of Israel and the house of Judah, not like the covenant that I made with their fathers on the day when I took them by the hand to bring them out of the land of Egypt” (Jeremiah 31). Where the Latin reads “new covenant,” in Hebrew you will find ברית חדשה, “berith hadasa,” which means “new law,” as Moses attests, who calls the precepts of his law “berith” in many places. For Jeremiah clearly refers to this new law when he says, “Not like the covenant that I made with their fathers on the day when I took them by the hand to bring them out of the land of Egypt.” He speaks plainly here about the covenant, that is, the law that the Lord gave to Moses in the desert after they left Egypt.

Moses: We have been discussing our respective laws for some time now, and you have addressed all of my objections to your satisfaction. However, there is one thing that I have kept in reserve that I believe could defeat you without defense, because you will not find a response that can withstand it.

Peter: And what is this thing of such power and strength that you presume so much about and threaten me with?

Moses: It is indeed something that you do against God and all the prophets, namely that you cut down a certain tree in the woods and then seek out a skilled woodworker who will chop it up, carve it, and fashion it into the likeness of a human being. You then polish and paint this image, and place it in a high place in your churches, where you worship it. Therefore, Isaiah rebukes and insults you with these words: “The carpenter stretcheth out his rule, he marketh it out with a line; he fitteth it with planes, and he marketh it out with the compass, and maketh it after the figure of a man, according to the beauty of a man; that it may remain in the house.” And later in the same passage: “They have not known nor understood: for he hath shut their eyes, that they cannot see; and their hearts, that they cannot understand. And none considereth in his heart, neither is there knowledge nor understanding to say, I have burned part of it in the fire; yea, also I have baked bread upon the coals thereof; I have roasted flesh, and eaten it: and shall I make the residue thereof an abomination? shall I fall down to the stock of a tree? He feedeth on ashes: a deceived heart hath turned him aside, that he cannot deliver his soul, nor say, Is there not a lie in my right hand?” (Isa. 44:13-20)

Peter: This is not at all what you think. We do not make or worship idols. Rather, we make a cross and place an image of a man on it. Through the cross, we designate the altar, and through the image, we designate the sacrifice that is on the altar. Just as animals were sacrificed on the altar in the past, so too was the Lamb of God sacrificed on the cross. And just as no one cared what was done with the remnants of the stones used to build the altar, we also do not care what is done with the remnants of the cross or the image placed upon it. Just as Solomon and others who prostrated themselves before the altar did not worship it, but only God alone. Similarly, when we kneel before the cross, we do not worship the cross or the image placed upon it, but rather we worship God the Father and His Son Jesus Christ.

Moses: Your argument would be sound if you had the very cross upon which the Lamb of God was sacrificed. But now you worship another cross upon which that Lamb was never sacrificed.

Peter: Of course, we cannot have that cross everywhere. Therefore, it is neither strange nor evil if we make other crosses to resemble it so that those who have not seen Christ’s cross can at least see those that are made in its likeness and remember and understand the sacrifice that was made upon it, just as the sons of Reuben built an altar on the other side of the Jordan River in the likeness of the altar in Jericho, so that their children and wives who could not climb it would see it as a witness and a sign, as you can find in the Book of Joshua (Josh. 22).

Moses: Indeed, God has given you much wisdom and illuminated you with great reasoning, so that I cannot surpass your understanding of Scripture, nor even contradict you.

Peter: This is undoubtedly a gift of the grace of the Holy Spirit that we receive through baptism, which illuminates our hearts so that we do not presume to believe anything false. If you were to believe what we believe and undergo baptism, you would also have the same illumination of the Holy Spirit, so that you would recognize what is true and reject what is false. But now, since I have compassion for you, I implore the mercy of God to enlighten you with the fullness of His Spirit, and grant you a better end than beginning. Amen.

at

No comments:

Post a Comment

Subscribe to: Post Comments (Atom)