OpenLLM-France/wikimedia huggingface dataset:
# An Etymological Dictionary of the German Language/Riß

| Expand abbreviations An Etymological Dictionary of the German Language/Annotated/Riß | Random word Special:RandomInCategory/Kluge's Etymological Dictionary of the German Language |
​ Riß, m., ‘cleft, gap, schism,’ from MidHG. riȥ, m., ‘cleft’; the corresponding OHG. riȥ, m., in contrast to the MidHG. and ModHG. which are connected with the vb. reißen, preserves the earlier meaning ‘letter’ (Goth. writs, ‘stroke, point’), which connects it with Goth. wrîtan, ‘to write, draw’ (see reißen). Comp., moreover, Riß, in the earlier sense of ‘sketch.’
# An Etymological Dictionary of the German Language/Rinne

| Expand abbreviations An Etymological Dictionary of the German Language/Annotated/Rinne | Random word Special:RandomInCategory/Kluge's Etymological Dictionary of the German Language |
​ Rinne, f., ‘channel, gutter, groove,’ from MidHG. rinne, f., OHG. rinna, f., ‘watercourse,’ MidHG. also ‘gutter, eavestrough.’ Comp. Goth. rinnô, f., ‘brook,’ and AS. rynele, E. rindle. Connected with the following word.
# An Etymological Dictionary of the German Language/Ritter

| Expand abbreviations An Etymological Dictionary of the German Language/Annotated/Ritter | Random word Special:RandomInCategory/Kluge's Etymological Dictionary of the German Language |
​ Ritter, n., ‘chevalier, knight,’ from MidHG. ritter, riter, m., ‘horseman, knight’ (also rîtœre); the form with tt is due to a confusion with OHG. ritto, ‘horseman’ (from ridjo). See reiten and Reuter.
# An Etymological Dictionary of the German Language/Ritze

| Expand abbreviations An Etymological Dictionary of the German Language/Annotated/Ritze | Random word Special:RandomInCategory/Kluge's Etymological Dictionary of the German Language |
​ Ritze, f., ‘rift, rent,’ from MidHG. riz (gen. ritzes), m., ‘rift, wound,’ like rißen, from MidHG. ritzen, ‘to scratch, wound,’ OHG. rizzen, rizzân; allied to reißen.
# An Etymological Dictionary of the German Language/Rist

| Expand abbreviations An Etymological Dictionary of the German Language/Annotated/Rist | Random word Special:RandomInCategory/Kluge's Etymological Dictionary of the German Language |
​ Rist, m., ‘wrist, instep; withers,’ from MidHG. rist, riste, m., f., and n., ‘wrist, instep’; OHG. *rist, as well as the implied earlier *wrist, are by chance not recorded; comp. Du. wrist (dial. Frist), AS. wyrst, wrist, E. wrist, OFris. riust, wirst, ‘wrist, ankle,’ OIc. rist, f., ‘instep’; Goth. *wrists is not recorded. The primit. meaning of the cognates is usually assumed to be ‘turning-point,’ Rist being referred to a ​Teut. root wrī̆þ, ‘to turn,’ which has been reserved in E. to writhe, as well as in ModHG. Reitel, ‘packing-stick’ (MidHG. reitel for an earlier *wreitel), Other etymologists connect the word with Gr. ῥίζα (from *ϝρισδα?), ‘root.’ Yet OHG. rîho (for earlier *wrîho), ModHG. Reihen, is probably most closely connected with the cognates of Rist, so that Goth. *wristi- would represent wrihsti-, and thus imply an Aryan root wrī̆k.
# An Etymological Dictionary of the German Language/Ritt

| Expand abbreviations An Etymological Dictionary of the German Language/Annotated/Ritt | Random word Special:RandomInCategory/Kluge's Etymological Dictionary of the German Language |
​ Ritt, m., ‘ride,’ first occurs in early ModHG.; a derivative of reiten.
# An Etymological Dictionary of the German Language/Ritten

| Expand abbreviations An Etymological Dictionary of the German Language/Annotated/Ritten | Random word Special:RandomInCategory/Kluge's Etymological Dictionary of the German Language |
​ Ritten, m., ‘fever,’ from the equiv. MidHG. rite, ritte, OHG. rito, ritto, m., for an earlier *hriþjo, ‘fever’; so too AS. hriþa, m., ‘fever’; allied to OHG. rîdon, MidHG. rîden, ‘to shiver,’ AS. hriþian, ‘to shiver in a fever,’ OHG. rîdo, ‘shivering,’ AS. hriþ, ‘storm.’ The root hrī̆þ, pre-Teut. krī̆t, ‘to move wildly,’ appears also in OIr. crith, ‘shivering.’
# Ante-Nicene Fathers/Volume IV/Origen/Origen Against Celsus/Book III/Chapter XXXII

Chapter XXXII.
But as Celsus next mentions the case of the Clazomenian, subjoining to the story about him this remark, “Do they not report that his soul frequently quitted his body, and flitted about in an incorporeal form? and yet men did not regard him as a god,” we have to answer that probably certain wicked demons contrived that such statements should be committed to writing (for I do not believe that they contrived that such a thing should actually take place), in order that the predictions regarding Jesus, and the discourses uttered by Him, might either be evil spoken of, as inventions like these, or might excite no surprise, as not being more remarkable than other occurrences. But my Jesus said regarding His own soul (which was separated from the body, not by virtue of any human necessity, but by the miraculous power which was given Him also for this purpose):  “No one taketh my life from Me, but I lay it down of Myself. I have power to lay it down, and I have power to take it again.” For as He had power to lay it down, He laid it down when He said, “Father, why hast Thou forsaken Me? And when He had cried with a loud voice, He gave up the ghost,” anticipating the public executioners of the crucified, who break the legs of the victims, and who do so in order that their punishment may not be further prolonged. And He “took His life,” when He manifested Himself to His disciples, having in their presence foretold to the unbelieving Jews, “Destroy this temple, and in three days I will raise it up again,” and “He spake this of the temple of His body;” the prophets, moreover, having predicted such a result in many other passages of their writings, and in this, “My flesh also shall rest in hope:  for Thou wilt not leave my soul in hell, neither wilt Thou suffer Thine Holy One to see corruption.”
* ↑ Cf. John x. 18.
* ↑ Cf. Matt. xxvii. 46–50.
* ↑ Cf. John ii. 19.
* ↑ Ps. xvi. 9, 10.
# Ante-Nicene Fathers/Volume IV/Origen/Origen Against Celsus/Book III/Chapter XXXIV

Chapter XXXIV.
I am, however, of opinion that these individuals are the only instances with which Celsus was acquainted. And yet, that he might appear voluntarily to pass by other similar cases, he says, “And one might name many others of the same kind.” Let it be granted, then, that many such persons have existed who conferred no benefit upon the human race: what would each one of their acts be found to amount to in comparison with the work of Jesus, and the miracles related of Him, of which we have already spoken at considerable length? He next imagines that, “in worshipping him who,” as he says, “was taken prisoner and put to death, we are acting like the Getæ who worship Zamolxis, and the Cilicians who worship Mopsus, and the Acarnanians who pay divine honours to Amphilochus, and like the Thebans who do the same to Amphiaraus, and the Lebadians to Trophonius.” Now in these instances we shall prove that he has compared us to the foregoing without good grounds. For these different tribes erected temples and statues to those individuals above enumerated, whereas we have refrained from offering to the Divinity honour by any such means (seeing they are adapted rather to demons, which are somehow fixed in a certain place which they prefer to any other, or which take up their dwelling, as it were, after being removed (from one place to another) by certain rites and incantations), and are lost in reverential wonder at Jesus, who has recalled our minds from all sensible things, as being not only corruptible, but destined to corruption, and elevated them to honour the God who is over all with prayers and a righteous life, which we offer to Him as being intermediate between the nature of the uncreated and that of all created things, and who bestows upon us the benefits which come from the Father, and who as High Priest conveys our prayers to the supreme God.
# Ante-Nicene Fathers/Volume IV/Origen/Origen Against Celsus/Book III/Chapter XXXV

Chapter XXXV.
But I should like, in answer to him who for some unknown reason advances such statements as the above, to make in a conversational way some such remarks as the following, which seem not inappropriate to him. Are then those persons whom you have mentioned nonentities, and is there no power in Lebadea connected with Trophonius, nor in Thebes with the temple of Amphiaraus, nor in Acarnania with Amphilochus, nor in Cilicia with Mopsus? Or is there in such persons some being, either a demon, or a hero, or even a god, working works which are beyond the reach of man? For if he answer that there is nothing either demoniacal or divine about these individuals more than others, then let him at once make known his own opinion, as being that of an Epicurean, and of one who does not hold the same views with the Greeks, and who neither recognises demons nor worships gods as do the Greeks; and let it be shown that it was to no purpose that he adduced the instances previously enumerated (as if he believed them to be true), together with those which he adds in the following pages. But if he will assert that the persons spoken of are either demons, or heroes, or even gods, let him notice that he will establish by what he has admitted a result which he does not desire, viz., that Jesus also was some such being; for which reason, too, he was able to demonstrate to not a few that He had come down from God to visit the human race. And if he once admit this, see whether he will not be forced to confess that He is mightier than those individuals with whom he classed Him, seeing none of the latter forbids the offering of honour to the others; while He, having confidence in Himself, because He is more powerful than all those others, forbids them to be received as divine because they are wicked demons, who have taken possession of places on earth, through inability to rise to the purer and diviner region, whither the grossnesses of earth and its countless evils cannot reach.
* ↑ ἀδολεσχῆσαι.
* ↑ τὰς τουτων ἀποδοχάς.
# Ante-Nicene Fathers/Volume IV/Origen/Origen Against Celsus/Book III/Chapter XXX

Chapter XXX.
For the Church of God, e.g., which is at Athens, is a meek and stable body, as being one which desires to please God, who is over all things; whereas the assembly of the Athenians is given to sedition, and is not at all to be compared to the Church of God in that city. And you may say the same thing of the Church of God at Corinth, and of the assembly of the Corinthian people; and also of the Church of God at Alexandria, and of the assembly of the people of Alexandria. And if he who hears this be a candid man, and one who investigates things with a desire to ascertain the truth, he will be filled with admiration of Him who not only conceived the design, but also was able to secure in all places the establishment of Churches of God alongside of the assemblies of the people in each city. In like manner, also, in comparing the council of the Church of God with the council in any city, you would find that certain councillors of the Church are worthy to rule in the city of God, if there be any such city in the whole world; whereas the councillors in all other places exhibit in their characters no quality worthy of the conventional superiority which they appear to enjoy over their fellow-citizens. And so, too, you must compare the ruler of the Church in each city with the ruler of the people of the city, in order to observe that even amongst those councillors and rulers of the Church of God who come very far short of their duty, and who lead more indolent lives than others who are more energetic, it is nevertheless possible to discover a general superiority in what relates to the progress of virtue over the characters of the councillors and rulers in the various cities.
* ↑ ἐκκλησία.
* ↑ ἐκκλησία.
* ↑ παροικούσας.
* ↑ βουλήν.
* ↑ βουλευταί.
* ↑ εὕροις ἂν τίνες μὲν τῆς ἐκκλησίας βουλευταὶ ἄξιοί εἰσιν, εἴ τίς ἐστιν ἐν τῷ πάντι πόγις τοῦ Θεοῦ, ἐν ἐκεινῇ πολιτεύεσθαι.  Boherellus conjectures εὕροις ἂν ὅτι τινὲς μὲν, κ.τ.λ.
* ↑ τῆς ἐκ κατατάξεως ὑπεροχῆς.
* ↑ ὅτι και ἐπὶ τῶν σφόδρα ἀποτυγχανομένων βουλευτῶν καὶ ἀρχόντων ἐκκλησίας Θεοῦ, καὶ ῥαθυμότερον παρὰ τοὺς εὐτονωτέρως βιοῦντας, οὐδὲν ἧττόν ἐστιν εὑρεῖν ὡς ἐπίπαν ὑπεροχὴν, τὴν ἐν τῇ ἐπὶ τὰς ἀρετὰς προκοπῆ, παρὰ τὰ ἔθη τῶν ἐν ταῖς πόλεσι βουλευτῶν καὶ ἀρχόντων.  Boherellus conjectures ῥαθυμοτερων.
# Ante-Nicene Fathers/Volume IV/Origen/Origen Against Celsus/Book III/Chapter XXXI

Chapter XXXI.
Now if these things be so, why should it not be consistent with reason to hold with regard to Jesus, who was able to effect results so great, that there dwelt in Him no ordinary divinity? while this was not the case either with the Proconnesian Aristeas (although Apollo would have him regarded as a god), or with the other individuals enumerated by Celsus when he says, “No one regards Abaris the Hyperborean as a god, who was possessed of such power as to be borne along like an arrow from a bow.” For with what object did the deity who bestowed upon this Hyperborean Abaris the power of being carried along like an arrow, confer upon him such a gift? Was it that the human race might be benefited thereby, or did he himself obtain any advantage from the possession of such a power?—always supposing it to be conceded that these statements are not wholly inventions, but that the thing actually happened through the co-operation of some demon. But if it be recorded that my Jesus was received up into glory, I perceive the divine arrangement in such an act, viz., because God, who brought this to pass, commends in this way the Teacher to those who witnessed it, in order that as men who are contending not for human doctrine, but for divine teaching, they may devote themselves as far as possible to the God who is over all, and may do all things in order to please Him, as those who are to receive in the divine judgment the reward of the good or evil which they have wrought in this life.
* ↑ ὥστε ὀϊστῷ βέλει συμφέρεσθαι.  Spencer and Bohereau would delete βέλει as a gloss.
* ↑ Guietus would insert ἤ before ἵνα τὶ ὠφεληθῇ. This emendation is adopted in the translation.
* ↑ Cf. 1 Tim. iii. 16.
* ↑ την οἰκονομίαν.
# Ante-Nicene Fathers/Volume IV/Origen/Origen Against Celsus/Book III/Chapter XXXIII

Chapter XXXIII.
Celsus, however, shows that he has read a good many Grecian histories, when he quotes further what is told of Cleomedes of Astypalæa, “who,” he relates, “entered into an ark, and although shut up within it, was not found therein, but through some arrangement of the divinity, flew out, when certain persons had cut open the ark in order to apprehend him.” Now this story, if an invention, as it appears to be, cannot be compared with what is related of Jesus, since in the lives of such men there is found no indication of their possessing the divinity which is ascribed to them; whereas the divinity of Jesus is established both by the existence of the Churches of the saved, and by the prophecies uttered concerning Him, and by the cures wrought in His name, and by the wisdom and knowledge which are in Him, and the deeper truths which are discovered by those who know how to ascend from a simple faith, and to investigate the meaning which lies in the divine Scriptures, agreeably to the injunctions of Jesus, who said, “Search the Scriptures,” and to the wish of Paul, who taught that “we ought to know how to answer every man;” nay, also of him who said, “Be ready always to give an answer to every man that asketh of you a reason of the faith that is in you.” If he wishes to have it conceded, however, that it is not a fiction, let him show with what object this supernatural power made him, through some arrangement of the divinity, flee from the ark. For if he will adduce any reason worthy of consideration, and point out any purpose worthy of God in conferring such a power on Cleomedes, we will decide on the answer which we ought to give; but if he fail to say anything convincing on the point, clearly because no reason can be discovered, then we shall either speak slightingly of the story to those who have not accepted it, and charge it with being false, or we shall say that some demoniac power, casting a glamour over the eyes, produced, in the case of the Astypalæan, a result like that which is produced by the performers of juggling tricks, while Celsus thinks that with respect to him he has spoken like an oracle, when he said that “by some divine arrangement he flew away from the ark.”
* ↑ τῶν ὠφελουμένων.
* ↑ John v. 39.
* ↑ Cf. Col. iv. 6.
* ↑ πίστεως.
* ↑ 1 Pet. iii. 15.
* ↑ ἢτοι διαβαλοῦμεν τοῖς αὐτὴν μὴ παραδεξαμένοις, καὶ ἐγκαλέσομεν τῇ ἱστορία ὡς οὐκ ἀληθεὶ, ἤ δαιμόνιόν τι φησομεν παραπλήσιον τοῖς ἐπιδεικνυπένοις γόησιν ἀπατῆ ὀφθαλμῶν πεποιηκέναι καὶ περὶ τὸν ᾽Αστυπαλαιέα.  Spencer in his edition includes μὴ in brackets, and renders, “Aut eos incusabimus, qui istam virtutem admiserint.”
# Ante-Nicene Fathers/Volume IV/Origen/Origen Against Celsus/Book III/Chapter XXVII

Chapter XXVII.
Now, in answer to this account of Aristeas, we have to say, that if Celsus had adduced it as history, without signifying his own assent to its truth, it is in a different way that we should have met his argument. But since he asserts that he “disappeared through the intervention of the divinity,” and “showed himself again in an unmistakeable manner,” and “visited many parts of the world,” and “made marvellous announcements;” and, moreover, that there was “an oracle of Apollo, enjoining the Metapontines to treat Aristeas as a god,” he gives the accounts relating to him as upon his own authority, and with his full assent. And (this being the case), we ask, How is it possible that, while supposing the marvels related by the disciples of Jesus regarding their Master to be wholly fictitious, and finding fault with those who believe them, you, O Celsus, do not regard these stories of yours to be either products of jugglery or inventions? And how, while charging others with an irrational belief in the marvels recorded of Jesus, can you show yourself justified in giving credence to such statement as the above, without producing some proof or evidence of the alleged occurrences having taken place? Or do Herodotus and Pindar appear to you to speak the truth, while they who have made it their concern to die for the doctrine of Jesus, and who have left to their successors writings so remarkable on the truths which they believed, entered for the sake of “fictions” (as you consider them), and “myths,” and “juggleries,” upon a struggle which entails a life of danger and a death of violence? Place yourself, then, as a neutral party, between what is related of Aristeas and what is recorded of Jesus, and see whether, from the result, and from the benefits which have accrued from the reformation of morals, and to the worship of the God who is over all things, it is not allowable to conclude that we must believe the events recorded of Jesus not to have happened without the divine intervention, but that this was not the case with the story of Aristeas the Proconnesian.
* ↑ τερατείαν.
* ↑ Guietus conjectures, καὶ πῶς, ὧ λῷστε.
# Ante-Nicene Fathers/Volume IV/Origen/Origen Against Celsus/Book III/Chapter XXXVI

Chapter XXXVI.
But as he next introduces the case of the favourite of Adrian (I refer to the accounts regarding the youth Antinous, and the honours paid him by the inhabitants of the city of Antinous in Egypt), and imagines that the honour paid to him falls little short of that which we render to Jesus, let us show in what a spirit of hostility this statement is made. For what is there in common between a life lived among the favourites of Adrian, by one who did not abstain even from unnatural lusts, and that of the venerable Jesus, against whom even they who brought countless other charges, and who told so many falsehoods, were not able to allege that He manifested, even in the slightest degree, any tendency to what was licentious? Nay, further, if one were to investigate, in a spirit of truth and impartiality, the stories relating to Antinous, he would find that it was due to the magical arts and rites of the Egyptians that there was even the appearance of his performing anything (marvellous) in the city which bears his name, and that too only after his decease,—an effect which is said to have been produced in other temples by the Egyptians, and those who are skilled in the arts which they practise. For they set up in certain places demons claiming prophetic or healing power, and which frequently torture those who seem to have committed any mistake about ordinary kinds of food, or about touching the dead body of a man, that they may have the appearance of alarming the uneducated multitude. Of this nature is the being that is considered to be a god in Antinoopolis in Egypt, whose (reputed) virtues are the lying inventions of some who live by the gain derived therefrom; while others, deceived by the demon placed there, and others again convicted by a weak conscience, actually think that they are paying a divine penalty inflicted by Antinous. Of such a nature also are the mysteries which they perform, and the seeming predictions which they utter.  Far different from such are those of Jesus. For it was no company of sorcerers, paying court to a king or ruler at his bidding, who seemed to have made him a god; but the Architect of the universe Himself, in keeping with the marvellously persuasive power of His words, commended Him as worthy of honour, not only to those men who were well disposed, but to demons also, and other unseen powers, which even at the present time show that they either fear the name of Jesus as that of a being of superior power, or reverentially accept Him as their legal ruler. For if the commendation had not been given Him by God, the demons would not have withdrawn from those whom they had assailed, in obedience to the mere mention of His name.
* ↑ ὡς κἄν τὸ τυχὸν ἀκολασίας κἂν ἐπ᾽ ὀλίγον γευσαμένου.
* ↑ οὗ ἀρετὰς οἱ μέν τινες κυβευτικώτερον ζῶντες καταψεύδονται.
* ↑ ἀκολούθως τῇ ἐν τῷ λέγειν τεραστὶως πιστικῇ δυνάμει.
* ↑ ὡς κατὰ νόμους αὐτῶν ἄρχοντος.
# Ante-Nicene Fathers/Volume IV/Origen/Origen Against Celsus/Book III/Chapter XXXIX

Chapter XXXIX.
We must notice the remarks which Celsus next makes, when he says to us, that “faith, having taken possession of our minds, makes us yield the assent which we give to the doctrine of Jesus;” for of a truth it is faith which does produce such an assent. Observe, however, whether that faith does not of itself exhibit what is worthy of praise, seeing we entrust ourselves to the God who is over all, acknowledging our gratitude to Him who has led us to such a faith, and declaring that He could not have attempted or accomplished such a result without the divine assistance. And we have confidence also in the intentions of the writers of the Gospels, observing their piety and conscientiousness, manifested in their writings, which contain nothing that is spurious, or deceptive, or false, or cunning; for it is evident to us that souls unacquainted with those artifices which are taught by the cunning sophistry of the Greeks (which is characterized by great plausibility and acuteness), and by the kind of rhetoric in vogue in the courts of justice, would not have been able thus to invent occurrences which are fitted of themselves to conduct to faith, and to a life in keeping with faith. And I am of opinion that it was on this account that Jesus wished to employ such persons as teachers of His doctrines, viz., that there might be no ground for any suspicion of plausible sophistry, but that it might clearly appear to all who were capable of understanding, that the guileless purpose of the writers being, so to speak, marked with great simplicity, was deemed worthy of being accompanied by a diviner power, which accomplished far more than it seemed possible could be accomplished by a periphrasis of words, and a weaving of sentences, accompanied by all the distinctions of Grecian art.