OpenLLM-France/wikimedia huggingface dataset:
# Ante-Nicene Fathers/Volume IV/Origen/Origen Against Celsus/Book VII/Chapter XXII

Chapter XXII.
If I must now explain how the just man “slays his enemies,” and prevails everywhere, it is to be observed that, when he says, “Every morning will I destroy the wicked of the land, that I may cut off all workers of iniquity from the city of Jehovah,” by “the land” he means the flesh whose lusts are at enmity with God; and by “the city of Jehovah” he designates his own soul, in which was the temple of God, containing the true idea and conception of God, which makes it to be admired by all who look upon it. As soon, then, as the rays of the Sun of righteousness shine into his soul, feeling strengthened and invigorated by their influence, he sets himself to destroy all the lusts of the flesh, which are called “the wicked of the land,” and drives out of that city of the Lord which is in his soul all thoughts which work iniquity, and all suggestions which are opposed to the truth. And in this way also the just give up to destruction all their enemies, which are their vices, so that they do not spare even the children, that is, the early beginnings and promptings of evil. In this sense also we understand the language of the 137th Psalm: “O daughter of Babylon, who art to be destroyed; happy shall he be that rewardeth thee as thou hast served us: happy shall he be that taketh and dasheth thy little ones against the stones.” For “the little ones” of Babylon (which signifies confusion) are those troublesome sinful thoughts which arise in the soul and he who subdues them by striking, as it were, their heads against the firm and solid strength of reason and truth, is the man who “dasheth the little ones against the stones;” and he is therefore truly blessed. God may therefore have commanded men to destroy all their vices utterly, even at their birth, without having enjoined anything contrary to the teaching of Christ; and He may Himself have destroyed before the eyes of those who were “Jews inwardly” all the offspring of evil as His enemies. And, in like manner, those who disobey the law and word of God may well be compared to His enemies led astray by sin; and they may well be said to suffer the same fate as they deserve who have proved traitors to the truth of God.
* ↑ Ps. cxxxvii. 8, 9. [An instance of Origen’s characteristic spiritualizing.]
* ↑ Rom. ii. 29.
# Ante-Nicene Fathers/Volume IV/Origen/Origen Against Celsus/Book VII/Chapter XXIV

Chapter XXIV.
The pursuit of human glory, we maintain, is forbidden not only by the teaching of Jesus, but also by the Old Testament. Accordingly we find one of the prophets, when imprecating upon himself certain punishments for the commission of certain sins, includes among the punishments this one of earthly glory. He says, “O Lord my God, if I have done this; if there be iniquity in my hands; if I have rewarded evil unto him that was at peace with me; (yea, rather, I have delivered him that without cause is mine enemy;) let the enemy persecute my soul, and take it; yea, let him tread down my life upon the earth, and set my glory up on high.” And these precepts of our Lord, “Take no thought what ye shall eat, or what ye shall drink. Behold the fowls of the air, or behold the ravens: for they sow not, neither do they reap; yet your heavenly Father feedeth them. How much better are ye than they! And why take ye thought for raiment? Consider the lilies of the field;”—these precepts, and those which follow, are not inconsistent with the promised blessings of the law, which teaches that the just “shall eat their bread to the full;” nor with that saying of Solomon, “The righteous eateth to the satisfying of his soul, but the belly of the wicked shall want.” For we must consider the food promised in the law as the food of the soul, which is to satisfy not both parts of man’s nature, but the soul only. And the words of the Gospel, although probably containing a deeper meaning, may yet be taken in their more simple and obvious sense, as teaching us not to be disturbed with anxieties about our food and clothing, but, while living in plainness, and desiring only what is needful, to put our trust in the providence of God.
* ↑ Ps. vii. 3–5. Origen follows the reading εἰς χοῦν (LXX.) instead of εἰς χνοῦν, “make my glory abide in the dust.”
* ↑ Matt. vi. 25–28.
* ↑ Lev. xxvi. 5.
* ↑ Prov. xiii. 25.
# Ante-Nicene Fathers/Volume IV/Origen/Origen Against Celsus/Book VII/Chapter XX

Chapter XX.
Celsus adds, that it was foretold to the Jews, that if they did not obey the law, they would be treated in the same way as they treated their enemies; and then he quotes from the teaching of Christ some precepts which he considers contrary to those of the law, and uses that as an argument against us. But before proceeding to this point, we must speak of that which precedes. We hold, then, that the law has a twofold sense,—the one literal, the other spiritual,—as has been shown by some before us. Of the first or literal sense it is said, not by us, but by God, speaking in one of the prophets, that “the statutes are not good, and the judgments not good;” whereas, taken in a spiritual sense, the same prophet makes God say that “His statutes are good, and His judgments good.” Yet evidently the prophet is not saying things which are contradictory of each other. Paul in like manner says, that “the letter killeth, and the spirit giveth life,” meaning by “the letter” the literal sense, and by “the spirit” the spiritual sense of Scripture. We may therefore find in Paul, as well as in the prophet, apparent contradictions.  Indeed, if Ezekiel says in one place, “I gave them commandments which were not good, and judgments whereby they should not live,” and in another, “I gave them good commandments and judgments, which if a man shall do, he shall live by them,” Paul in like manner, when he wishes to disparage the law taken literally, says, “If the ministration of death, written and engraven in stones, was glorious, so that the children of Israel could not stedfastly behold the face of Moses for the glory of his countenance, which glory was to be done away; how shall not the ministration of the Spirit be rather glorious?” But when in another place he wishes to praise and recommend the law, he calls it “spiritual,” and says, “We know that the law is spiritual;” and, “Wherefore the law is holy, and the commandment holy, and just, and good.”
* ↑ Ezek. xx. 25.
* ↑ 2 Cor. iii. 6.
* ↑ [Ezek. xx. 21, 25. S.]
* ↑ 2 Cor. iii. 7, 8.
* ↑ Rom. vii. 12, 14.
# Ante-Nicene Fathers/Volume IV/Origen/Origen Against Celsus/Book VII/Chapter XXI

Chapter XXI.
When, then, the letter of the law promises riches to the just, Celsus may follow the letter which killeth, and understand it of worldly riches, which blind men; but we say that it refers to those riches which enlighten the eyes, and which enrich a man “in all utterance and in all knowledge.” And in this sense we “charge them that are rich in this world, that they be not high-minded, nor trust in uncertain riches, but in the living God, who giveth us richly all things to enjoy; that they do good, that they be rich in good works, ready to distribute, willing to communicate.” For, as Solomon says, “riches” are the true good, which “are the ransom of the life of a man;” but the poverty which is the opposite of these riches is destructive, for by it “the poor cannot bear rebuke.” And what has been said of riches applies to dominion, in regard to which it is said, “The just man shall chase a thousand, and two put ten thousand to flight.” Now if riches are to be taken in the sense we have just explained, consider if it is not according to God’s promise that he who is rich in all utterance, in all knowledge, in all wisdom, in all good works, may not out of these treasures of utterance, of wisdom, and of knowledge, lend to many nations. It was thus that Paul lent to all the nations that he visited, “carrying the Gospel of Christ from Jerusalem, and round about unto Illyricum.” And as the divine knowledge was given to him by revelation, and his mind was illumined by the Divine Word, he himself therefore needed to borrow from no one, and required not the ministry to any man to teach him the word of truth. Thus, as it had been written, “Thou shalt have dominion over many nations, and they shall not have dominion over thee,” he ruled over the Gentiles whom he brought under the teaching of Jesus Christ; and he never “gave place by subjection to men, no, not for an hour,” as being himself mightier than they. And thus also he “filled the earth.”
* ↑ 1 Tim. vi. 17, 18.
* ↑ Prov. xiii. 8.
* ↑ Deut. xxxii. 30.
* ↑ Rom. xv. 19.
* ↑ Gal. ii. 5.
# Ante-Nicene Fathers/Volume IV/Origen/Origen Against Celsus/Book VII/Chapter XXIII

Chapter XXIII.
From what has been said, it is clear then that Jesus, “the man of Nazareth,” did not promulgate laws opposed to those just considered in regard to riches, when He said, “It is hard for the rich man to enter into the kingdom of God;” whether we take the word “rich” in its simplest sense, as referring to the man whose mind is distracted by his wealth, and, as it were, entangled with thorns, so that he brings forth no spiritual fruit; or whether it is the man who is rich in the sense of abounding in false notions, of whom it is written in the Proverbs, “Better is the poor man who is just, than the rich man who is false.” Perhaps it is the following passages which have led Celsus to suppose that Jesus forbids ambition to His disciples: “Whoever of you will be the chiefest, shall be servant of all;” “The princes of the Gentiles exercise dominion over them,” and “they that exercise authority upon them are called benefactors.” But there is nothing here inconsistent with the promise, “Thou shalt rule over many nations, and they shall not rule over thee,” especially after the explanation which we have given of these words. Celsus next throws in an expression in regard to wisdom, as though he thought that, according to the teaching of Christ, no wise man could come to the Father. But we would ask in what sense he speaks of a wise man. For if he means one who is wise in “the wisdom of this world,” as it is called, “which is foolishness with God,” then we would agree with him in saying that access to the Father is denied to one who is wise in that sense. But if by wisdom any one means Christ, who is “the power and wisdom of God,” far from such a wise man being refused access to the Father, we hold that he who is adorned by the Holy Spirit with that gift which is called “the word of wisdom,” far excels all those who have not received the same grace.
* ↑ Matt. xix. 23.
* ↑ Prov. xxviii. 6.
* ↑ Mark x. 44.
* ↑ Matt. xx. 25.
* ↑ Luke xxii. 25.
* ↑ 1 Cor. iii. 19.
# Ante-Nicene Fathers/Volume IV/Origen/Origen Against Celsus/Book VII/Chapter XXIX

Chapter XXIX.
If, then, the whole earth has been cursed in the deeds of Adam and of those who died in him, it is plain that all parts of the earth share in the curse, and among others the land of Judea; so that the words, “a good land and a large, a land flowing with milk and honey, cannot apply to it, although we may say of it, that both Judea and Jerusalem were the shadow and figure of that pure land, goodly and large, in the pure region of heaven, in which is the heavenly Jerusalem. And it is in reference to this Jerusalem that the apostle spoke, as one who, “being risen with Christ, and seeking those things which are above,” had found a truth which formed no part of the Jewish mythology. “Ye are come,” says he, “unto Mount Sion, and unto the city of the living God, the heavenly Jerusalem, and to an innumerable company of angels.” And in order to be assured that our explanation of “the good and large land” of Moses is not contrary to the intention of the Divine Spirit, we have only to read in all the prophets what they say of those who, after having left Jerusalem, and wandered astray from it, should afterwards return and be settled in the place which is called the habitation and city of God, as in the words, “His dwelling is in the holy place;” and, “Great is the Lord, and greatly to be praised in the city of our God, in the mountain of His holiness, beautiful for situation, the joy of the whole earth.” It is enough at present to quote the words of the thirty-seventh Psalm, which speaks thus of the land of the righteous, “Those that wait upon the Lord they shall inherit the earth;” and a little after, “But the meek shall inherit the earth, and shall delight themselves in the abundance of peace;” and again, “Those who bless Him shall inherit the earth;” and, “The righteous shall inherit the land, and dwell therein for ever.” And consider whether it is not evident to intelligent readers that the following words from this same Psalm refer to the pure land in the pure heaven: “Wait on the Lord, and keep His way; and He shall exalt thee to inherit the land.”
* ↑ Heb. xii. 22.
* ↑ Ps. lxxvi. 2; English version, “In Salem is His tabernacle.”
* ↑ Ps. xlviii. 1, 2.
* ↑ Ps. xxxvii. 9, 11, 22, 29, 34.
# Ante-Nicene Fathers/Volume IV/Origen/Origen Against Celsus/Book VII/Chapter XXV

Chapter XXV.
Celsus then extracts from the Gospel the precept, “To him who strikes thee once, thou shalt offer thyself to be struck again,” although without giving any passage from the Old Testament which he considers opposed to it. On the one hand, we know that “it was said to them in old time, An eye for an eye, and a tooth for a tooth;” and on the other, we have read, “I say unto you, Whoever shall smite thee on the one cheek, turn to him the other also.” But as there is reason to believe that Celsus produces the objections which he has heard from those who wish to make a difference between the God of the Gospel and the God of the law, we must say in reply, that this precept, “Whosoever shall strike thee on the one cheek, turn to him the other,” is not unknown in the older Scriptures. For thus, in the Lamentations of Jeremiah, it is said, “It is good for a man that he bear the yoke in his youth: he sitteth alone, and keepeth silence, because he hath borne it upon him. He giveth his cheek to him that smiteth him; he is filled full with reproach.” There is no discrepancy, then, between the God of the Gospel and the God of the law, even when we take literally the precept regarding the blow on the face. So, then, we infer that neither “Jesus nor Moses has taught falsely.” The Father in sending Jesus did not “forget the commands which He had given to Moses:” He did not “change His mind, condemn His own laws, and send by His messenger counter instructions.”
* ↑ Ex. xxi. 24.
* ↑ Matt. v. 39.
* ↑ Lam. iii. 27, 28, 30.
# Ante-Nicene Fathers/Volume IV/Origen/Origen Against Celsus/Book VII/Chapter XXVI

Chapter XXVI.
However, if we must refer briefly to the difference between the constitution which was given to the Jews of old by Moses, and that which the Christians, under the direction of Christ’s teaching, wish now to establish, we would observe that it must be impossible for the legislation of Moses, taken literally, to harmonize with the calling of the Gentiles, and with their subjection to the Roman government; and on the other hand, it would be impossible for the Jews to preserve their civil economy unchanged, supposing that they should embrace the Gospel. For Christians could not slay their enemies, or condemn to be burned or stoned, as Moses commands, those who had broken the law, and were therefore condemned as deserving of these punishments; since the Jews themselves, however desirous of carrying out their law, are not able to inflict these punishments. But in the case of the ancient Jews, who had a land and a form of government of their own, to take from them the right of making war upon their enemies, of fighting for their country, of putting to death or otherwise punishing adulterers, murderers, or others who were guilty of similar crimes, would be to subject them to sudden and utter destruction whenever the enemy fell upon them; for their very laws would in that case restrain them, and prevent them from resisting the enemy. And that same providence which of old gave the law, and has now given the Gospel of Jesus Christ, not wishing the Jewish state to continue longer, has destroyed their city and their temple: it has abolished the worship which was offered to God in that temple by the sacrifice of victims, and other ceremonies which He had prescribed. And as it has destroyed these things, not wishing that they should longer continue, in like manner it has extended day by day the Christian religion, so that it is now preached everywhere with boldness, and that in spite of the numerous obstacles which oppose the spread of Christ’s teaching in the world. But since it was the purpose of God that the nations should receive the benefits of Christ’s teaching, all the devices of men against Christians have been brought to nought; for the more that kings, and rulers, and peoples have persecuted them everywhere, the more have they increased in number and grown in strength.
# An Etymological Dictionary of the German Language/Tonne

| Expand abbreviations An Etymological Dictionary of the German Language/Annotated/Tonne | Random word Special:RandomInCategory/Kluge's Etymological Dictionary of the German Language |
​ Tonne, f., ‘tun, cask, barrel,’ from the equiv. MidHG. tunne, OHG. tunna, f. A corresponding word with a similar form is preserved by Du. ton, AS. tunne, E. tun; according to these LG. cognates the HG. word ought to have an initial z, or rather the cognates an initial d. Hence the word must have been borrowed by one or the other, which is all the more probable since ​it is wanting in Swab. and Bav. The Rom. languages have Fr. tonne (tonneau), Span. and Portug. tonel. Probably Kelt. is the ultimate source of the word; comp. Ir. and Gael. tunna, ‘tun, cask.’ In that case, the word passed into HG. after 700 A.D., When the t could not be permutated to z. The form of OSwed. þyn, ‘tun, cask,’ shows that it was borrowed at a much earlier period.
# An Etymological Dictionary of the German Language/Topas

| Expand abbreviations An Etymological Dictionary of the German Language/Annotated/Topas | Random word Special:RandomInCategory/Kluge's Etymological Dictionary of the German Language |
​ Topas, m., ‘topaz,’ from the equiv. MidHG. topâȥe (topazîe), m.; derived, like most of the terms for precious stones, through a Lat. medium from Gr. Comp. Gr. τόπαζος, τοπάζιον, ‘topaz.’
# An Etymological Dictionary of the German Language/Tochter

| Expand abbreviations An Etymological Dictionary of the German Language/Annotated/Tochter | Random word Special:RandomInCategory/Kluge's Etymological Dictionary of the German Language |
​ Tochter, f., ‘daughter,’ from the equiv. MidHG. tohter, OHG. tohter, f.; a common Teut., and also a primit. Aryan term; comp. Goth. daúhtar, AS. dohtor, E. daughter, Du. dochter, OSax. dohtar, ‘daughter.’ The primit Aryan dhuktêr (dhugatêr), on which the Teut. cognates are based, is indicated also by Lith. duktě, OSlov. dŭšti; comp. further Gr. θυγάτηρ, Sans. duhitâr, Zend duγδar, ‘daughter.’ The Aryan word is usually considered to be a derivative of the Sans. root dugh, ‘to milk,’ regarding Tochter as equiv. to ‘milker.’ This assumption is, however, quite as dubious as the derivation of Vater, Mutter, and Bruder.
# An Etymological Dictionary of the German Language/Ton

| Expand abbreviations An Etymological Dictionary of the German Language/Annotated/Ton | Random word Special:RandomInCategory/Kluge's Etymological Dictionary of the German Language |
​ Ton, m., ‘tone, sound,’ from MidHG. tôn, dôn, m., ‘sound, tone, voice, song melody’; from Gr.-Lat. tŏnus (τόνος), with lengthening of the ŏ; comp. Thron. Hence ModHG. tönen, vb., ‘to sound, resound,’ from MidHG. tœnen, dœnen.
# An Etymological Dictionary of the German Language/Topp

| Expand abbreviations An Etymological Dictionary of the German Language/Annotated/Topp | Random word Special:RandomInCategory/Kluge's Etymological Dictionary of the German Language |
​ Topp, m., ‘top’ (of a mast), ModHG. only, borrowed, like most nautical terms, from LG. Comp. Du. top, E. top. For further cognates see under Zopf.
# An Etymological Dictionary of the German Language/Tornister

| Expand abbreviations An Etymological Dictionary of the German Language/Annotated/Tornister | Random word Special:RandomInCategory/Kluge's Etymological Dictionary of the German Language |
​ Tornister, m., ‘haversack, knapsack,’ adopted in the last cent. from Hungar. tarisznya, ‘satchel.’
# An Etymological Dictionary of the German Language/Tod

| Expand abbreviations An Etymological Dictionary of the German Language/Annotated/Tod | Random word Special:RandomInCategory/Kluge's Etymological Dictionary of the German Language |
​ Tod, m., ‘death,’ from the equiv. MidHG. tôt (d), OHG. tôd, m.; corresponding to Goth. dauþus, OSax. dôth, Du. dood, AS. deáþ, E. death. A verbal abstract of the Teut. verbal root dau, which has been preserved in OIc. deyja, str. vb. (whence the equiv. E. to die); comp. OSax. dôian (from daujan), OHG. and MidHG. touwen (MidHG. töuwen), wk. vb., ‘to die.’ Teut. dau-þu- has the Lat.-Sans. suffix tu- (base dháu-tu-s). The adj. cognate ModHG. tot, ‘dead,’ is based on the to partic. of the same root, dhā̆u (partic. dhautó), With these are connected in the non-Teut. languages OSlov. daviti, ‘to strangle,’ Lith. dóvyti, ‘to torment,’ which correspond as causatives to Goth. dôjan (for *dôwjan), ‘to torment’ (lit. ‘to put to death’). The orig. form of the root was dhē̆w, dhō̆w.
# An Etymological Dictionary of the German Language/Topf

| Expand abbreviations An Etymological Dictionary of the German Language/Annotated/Topf | Random word Special:RandomInCategory/Kluge's Etymological Dictionary of the German Language |
​ Topf, m., ‘pot,’ from the equiv. MidHG. topf (with the diminutive variant tüpfen), m.; this word, which is rare in MidHG., is wanting in OHG. The primit. word is unknown to UpG. (Hafen being used), yet Alem. has preserved dipfi, düpfi, ‘iron pot with three legs,’ Hess. dippen, ‘pot’ (Luther Töpfen); in Du. and E. the divergent form pot occurs. MidHG. topf, ‘olla,’ is probably more closely related to MidHG. topf, topfe, OHG. topf, tof (topfo), ‘top’ (toy), so too ModHG. dial. Topf, ‘top’ (toy); AS. and E. top is exceptional. The word is based on the Teut. root dup, ‘to be deep, hollow’ (see tief); Topf, lit. ‘that which has been hollowed out.’
# An Etymological Dictionary of the German Language/Torf

| Expand abbreviations An Etymological Dictionary of the German Language/Annotated/Torf | Random word Special:RandomInCategory/Kluge's Etymological Dictionary of the German Language |
​ Torf, m., ‘turf, peat,’ ModHG. only, a LG. loan-word unknown to Bav.; comp. LG. torf, Du., AS., and E. turf, and the equiv. OIc. torf. In OHG. we find a genuine HG. form zurba, ‘sward,’ with a normal permutation, for which Swiss now has turbe, with the LG. permutation. The OTeut. word passed (in a LG. form) into Rom.; comp. Ital. torbo, Fr. tourbe, ‘turf.’ This form Torf (lit. ‘sward’), orig. common to Teut., is based on pre-Teut. drbh, and is connected with Sans. darbhá, ‘tuft of grass.’
# An Etymological Dictionary of the German Language/Torkel

| Expand abbreviations An Etymological Dictionary of the German Language/Annotated/Torkel | Random word Special:RandomInCategory/Kluge's Etymological Dictionary of the German Language |
​ Torkel, f., ‘wine-press,’ from MidHG. torkel, OHG. torkula, f., ‘wine or oil press.’ From Lat. torcula, torculum.