Letter Against Celsus - Origen - Book II
Advanced Information
Translated by the Rev. Frederick Crombie, D.D.
Text edited by Rev. Alexander Roberts and James Donaldson and
first published by T&T Clark in Edinburgh in 1867. Additional
introductionary material and notes provided for the American
edition by A. Cleveland Coxe, 1886.
Book II
Chapter I.
The first book of our answer to the treatise of Celsus, entitled A True
Discourse, which concluded with the representation of the Jew addressing
Jesus, having now extended to a sufficient length, we intend the present
part as a reply to the charges brought by him against those who have been
converted from Judaism to Christianity. [2960] And we call attention, in the
first place, to this special question, viz., why Celsus, when he had once
resolved upon the introduction of individuals upon the stage of his book,
did not represent the Jew as addressing the converts from heathenism rather
than those from Judaism, seeing that his discourse, if directed to us, would
have appeared more likely to produce an impression. [2961] But probably this
claimant to universal knowledge does not know what is appropriate in the
matter of such representations; and therefore let us proceed to consider
what he has to say to the converts from Judaism. He asserts that "they have
forsaken the law of their fathers, in consequence of their minds being led
captive by Jesus; that they have been most ridiculously deceived, and that
they have become deserters to another name and to another mode of life."
Here he has not observed that the Jewish converts have not deserted the law
of their fathers, inasmuch as they live according to its prescriptions,
receiving their very name from the poverty of the law, according to the
literal acceptation of the word; for Ebion signifies "poor" among the Jews,
[2962] and those Jews who have received Jesus as Christ are called by the
name of Ebionites. Nay, Peter himself seems to have observed for a
considerable time the Jewish observances enjoined by the law of Moses, not
having yet learned from Jesus to ascend from the law that is regulated
according to the letter, to that which is interpreted according to the
spirit,'a fact which we learn from the Acts of the Apostles. For on the day
after the angel of God appeared to Cornelius, suggesting to him "to send to
Joppa, to Simon surnamed Peter," Peter "went up into the upper room to pray
about the sixth hour. And he became very hungry, and would have eaten: but
while they made ready he fell into a trance, and saw heaven opened, and a
certain vessel descending unto him, as it had been a great sheet knit at the
four corners, and let down to the earth; wherein were all manner of
four-footed beasts, and creeping things of the earth, and fowls of the air.
And there came a voice to him, Rise, Peter; kill, and eat. But Peter said,
Not so, Lord; for I have never eaten anything that is common or unclean. And
the voice spake unto him again the second time, What God hath cleansed, that
call thou not common." [2963] Now observe how, by this instance, Peter is
represented as still observing the Jewish customs respecting clean and
unclean animals. And from the narrative that follows, it is manifest that
he, as being yet a Jew, and living according to their traditions, and
despising those who were beyond the pale of Judaism, stood in need of a
vision to lead him to communicate to Cornelius (who was not an Israelite
according to the flesh), and to those who were with him, the word of faith.
Moreover, in the Epistle to the Galatians, Paul states that Peter, still
from fear of the Jews, ceased upon the arrival of James to eat with the
Gentiles, and "separated himself from them, fearing them that were of the
circumcision; " [2964] and the rest of the Jews, and Barnabas also, followed
the same course. And certainly it was quite consistent that those should not
abstain from the observance of Jewish usages who were sent to minister to
the circumcision, when they who "seemed to be pillars" gave the right hand
of fellowship to Paul and Barnabas, in order that, while devoting themselves
to the circumcision, the latter might preach to the Gentiles. And why do I
mention that they who preached to the circumcision withdrew and separated
themselves from the heathen, when even Paul himself "became as a Jew to the
Jews, that he might gain the Jews? "Wherefore also in the Acts of the
Apostles it is related that he even brought an offering to the altar, that
he might satisfy the Jews that he was no apostate from their law. [2965]
Now, if Celsus had been acquainted with all these circumstances, he would
not have represented the Jew holding such language as this to the converts
from Judaism: "What induced you, my fellow-citizens, to abandon the law of
your fathers, and to allow your minds to be led captive by him with whom we
have just conversed, and thus be most ridiculously deluded, so as to become
deserters from us to another name, and to the practices of another life? "
Chapter II.
Now, since we are upon the subject of Peter, and of the teachers of
Christianity to the circumcision, I do not deem it out of place to quote a
certain declaration of Jesus taken from the Gospel according to John, and to
give the explanation of the same. For it is there related that Jesus said:
"I have yet many things to say unto you, but ye cannot bear them now.
Howbeit when He, the Spirit of truth, is come, He will guide you into all
the truth: for He shall not speak of Himself; but whatsoever He shall hear,
that shall He speak." [2966] And when we inquire what were the "many
things" referred to in the passage which Jesus had to say to His disciples,
but which they were not then able to bear, I have to observe that, probably
because the apostles were Jews, and had been trained up according to the
letter of the Mosaic law, He was unable to tell them what was the true law,
and how the Jewish worship consisted in the pattern and shadow of certain
heavenly things, and how future blessings were foreshadowed by the
injunctions regarding meats and drinks, and festivals, and new moons, and
sabbaths. These were many of the subjects which He had to explain to them;
but as He saw that it was a work of exceeding difficulty to root out of the
mind opinions that have been almost born with a man, and amid which he has
been brought up till he reached the period of maturity, and which have
produced in those who have adopted them the belief that they are divine, and
that it is an act of impiety to overthrow them; and to demonstrate by the
superiority of Christian doctrine, that is, by the truth, in a manner to
convince the hearers, that such opinions were but "loss and dung," He
postponed such a task to a future season'to that, namely, which followed His
passion and resurrection. For the bringing of aid unseasonably to those who
were not yet capable of receiving it, might have overturned the idea which
they had already formed of Jesus, as the Christ, and the Son of the living
God. And see if there is not some well-grounded reason for such a statement
as this, "I have many things to say unto you, but ye cannot hear them now;
"seeing there are many points in the law which require to be explained and
cleared up in a spiritual sense, and these the disciples were in a manner
unable to bear, having been born and brought up amongst Jews. I am of
opinion, moreover, that since these rites were typical, and the truth was
that which was to be taught them by the Holy Spirit, these words were added,
"When He is come who is the Spirit of truth, He will lead you into all the
truth; "as if He had said, into all the truth about those things which,
being to you but types, ye believed to constitute a true worship which ye
rendered unto God. And so, according to the promise of Jesus, the Spirit of
truth came to Peter, saying to him, with regard to the four-footed beasts,
and creeping things of the earth, and fowls of the air: "Arise, Peter; kill,
and eat." And the Spirit came to him while he was still in a state of
superstitious ignorance; for he said, in answer to the divine command, "Not
so Lord; for I have never yet eaten anything common or unclean." He
instructed him, however, in the true and spiritual meaning of meats, by
saying, "What God hath cleansed, that call not thou common." And so, after
that vision, the Spirit of truth, which conducted Peter into all the truth,
told him the many things which he was unable to bear when Jesus was still
with him in the flesh. But I shall have another opportunity of explaining
those matters, which are connected with the literal acceptation of the
Mosaic law.
Chapter III.
Our present object, however, is to expose the ignorance of Celsus, who makes
this Jew of his address his fellow-citizen and the Israelitish converts in
the following manner: "What induced you to abandon the law of your fathers?
"etc. Now, how should they have abandoned the law of their fathers, who are
in the habit of rebuking those who do not listen to its commands, saying,
"Tell me, ye who read the law, do ye not hear the law? For it is written,
that Abraham had two sons; "and so on, down to the place, "which things are
an allegory," [2967] etc.? And how have they abandoned the law of their
fathers, who are ever speaking of the usages of their fathers in such words
as these: "Or does not the law say these things also? For it is written in
the law of Moses, Thou shalt not muzzle the mouth of the ox that treadeth
out the corn. Doth God care for oxen? or saith He it altogether for our
sakes? for for our sakes it was written," and so on? [2968] Now, how
confused is the reasoning of the Jew in regard to these matters (although he
had it in his power to speak with greater effect) when he says: "Certain
among you have abandoned the usages of our fathers under a pretence of
explanations and allegories; and some of you, although, as ye pretend,
interpreting them in a spiritual manner, nevertheless do observe the customs
of our fathers; and some of you, without any such interpretation, are
willing to accept Jesus as the subject of prophecy, and to keep the law of
Moses according to the customs of the fathers, as having in the words the
whole mind of the Spirit." Now how was Celsus able to see these things so
clearly in this place, when in the subsequent parts of his work he makes
mention of certain godless heresies altogether alien from the doctrine of
Jesus, and even of others which leave the Creator out of account altogether,
and does not appear to know that there are Israelites who are converts to
Christianity, and who have not abandoned the law of their fathers? It was
not his object to investigate everything here in the spirit of truth, and to
accept whatever he might find to be useful; but he composed these statements
in the spirit of an enemy, and with a desire to overthrow everything as soon
as he heard it.
Chapter IV.
The Jew, then, continues his address to converts from his own nation thus:
"Yesterday and the day before, when we visited with punishment the man who
deluded you, ye became apostates from the law of your fathers; "showing by
such statements (as we have just demonstrated) anything but an exact
knowledge of the truth. But what he advances afterwards seems to have some
force, when he says: "How is it that you take the beginning of your system
from our worship, and when you have made some progress you treat it with
disrespect, although you have no other foundation to show for your doctrines
than our law? "Now, certainly the introduction to Christianity is through
the Mosaic worship and the prophetic writings; and after the introduction,
it is in the interpretation and explanation of these that progress takes
place, while those who are introduced prosecute their investigations into
"the mystery according to revelation, which was kept secret since the world
began, but now is made manifest in the Scriptures of the prophets," [2969]
and by the appearance of our Lord Jesus Christ. But they who advance in the
knowledge of Christianity do not, as ye allege, treat the things written in
the law with disrespect. On the contrary, they bestow upon them greater
honour, showing what a depth of wise and mysterious reasons is contained in
these writings, which are not fully comprehended by the Jews, who treat them
superficially, and as if they were in some degree even fabulous. [2970]
And what absurdity should there be in our system'that is, the Gospel'having
the law for its foundation, when even the Lord Jesus Himself said to those
who would not believe upon Him: "If ye had believed Moses, ye would have
believed Me, for he wrote of Me. But if ye do not believe his writings, how
shall ye believe My words? " [2971] Nay, even one of the
evangelists'Mark'says: "The beginning of the Gospel of Jesus Christ, as it
is written in the prophet Isaiah, Behold, I send My messenger before Thy
face, who shall prepare Thy way before Thee," [2972] which shows that the
beginning of the Gospel is connected with the Jewish writings. What force,
then, is there in the objection of the Jew of Celsus, that "if any one
predicted to us that the Son of God was to visit mankind, he was one of our
prophets, and the prophet of our God? "Or how is it a charge against
Christianity, that John, who baptized Jesus, was a Jew? For although He was
a Jew, it does not follow that every believer, whether a convert from
heathenism or from Judaism, must yield a literal obedience to the law of
Moses.
Chapter V.
After these matters, although Celsus becomes tautological in his statements
about Jesus, repeating for the second time that "he was punished by the Jews
for his crimes," we shall not again take up the defence, being satisfied
with what we have already said. But, in the next place, as this Jew of his
disparages the doctrine regarding the resurrection of the dead, and the
divine judgment, and of the rewards to be bestowed upon the just, and of the
fire which is to devour the wicked, as being stale [2973] opinions, and
thinks that he will overthrow Christianity by asserting that there is
nothing new in its teaching upon these points, we have to say to him, that
our Lord, seeing the conduct of the Jews not to be at all in keeping with
the teaching of the prophets, inculcated by a parable that the kingdom of
God would be taken from them, and given to the converts from heathenism. For
which reason, now, we may also see of a truth that all the doctrines of the
Jews of the present day are mere trifles and fables, [2974] since they
have not the light that proceeds from the knowledge of the Scriptures;
whereas those of the Christians are the truth, having power to raise and
elevate the soul and understanding of man, and to persuade him to seek a
citizenship, not like the earthly [2975] Jews here below, but in heaven.
And this result shows itself among those who are able to see the grandeur of
the ideas contained in the law and the prophets, and who are able to commend
them to others.
Chapter VI.
But let it be granted that Jesus observed all the Jewish usages, including
even their sacrificial observances, what does that avail to prevent our
recognising Him as the Son of God? Jesus, then, is the Son of God, who gave
the law and the prophets; and we, who belong to the Church, do not
transgress the law, but have escaped the mythologizings [2976] of the
Jews, and have our minds chastened and educated by the mystical
contemplation of the law and the prophets. For the prophets themselves, as
not resting the sense of these Words in the plain history which they relate,
nor in the legal enactments taken according to the word and letter, express
themselves somewhere, when about to relate histories, in words like this,
"I will open my mouth in parables, I will utter hard sayings of old; "
[2977] and in another place, when offering up a prayer regarding the law as
being obscure, and needing divine help for its comprehension, they offer up
this prayer, "Open Thou mine eyes, that I may behold wondrous things out of
Thy law." [2978]
Chapter VII.
Moreover, let them show where there is to be found even the appearance of
language dictated by arrogance [2979] and proceeding from Jesus. For how
could an arrogant man thus express himself "Learn of Me, for I am meek and
lowly of heart, and you shall find rest for your souls? " [2980] or how
can He be styled arrogant, who after supper laid aside His garments in the
presence of His disciples, and, after girding Himself with a towel, and
pouring water into a basin, proceeded to wash the feet of each disciple, and
rebuked him who was unwilling to allow them to be washed, with the words,
"Except I wash thee, thou hast no part with Me? [2981] Or how could He be
called such who said, "I was amongst you, not as he that sitteth at meat,
but as he that serveth? " [2982] And let any one show what were the
falsehoods which He uttered, and let him point out what are great and what
are small falsehoods, that he may prove Jesus to have been guilty of the
former. And there is yet another way in which we may confute him. For as one
falsehood is not less or more false than another, so one truth is not less
or more true than another. And what charges of impiety he has to bring
against Jesus, let the Jew of Celsus especially bring forward. Was it
impious to abstain from corporeal circumcision, and from a literal Sabbath,
and literal festivals, and literal new moons, and from clean and unclean
meats, and to turn the mind to the good and true and spiritual law of God,
while at the same time he who was an ambassador for Christ knew how to
become to the Jews as a Jew, that he might gain the Jews, and to those who
are under the law, as under the law, that he might gain those who are under
the law?
Chapter VIII.
He says, further, that "many other persons would appear such as Jesus was,
to those who were willing to be deceived." Let this Jew of Celsus then show
us, not many persons, nor even a few, but a single individual, such as Jesus
was, introducing among the human race, with the power that was manifested in
Him, a system of doctrine and opinions beneficial to human life, and which
converts men from the practice of wickedness. He says, moreover, that this
charge is brought against the Jews by the Christian converts, that they have
not believed in Jesus as in God. Now on this point we have, in the preceding
pages, offered a preliminary defence, showing at the same time in what
respects we understand Him to be God, and in what we take Him to be man.
"How should we," he continues, "who have made known to all men that there is
to come from God one who is to punish the wicked, treat him with disregard
when he came? "And to this, as an exceedingly silly argument, it does not
seem to me reasonable to offer any answer. It is as if some one were to say,
"How could we, who teach temperance, commit any act of licentiousness? or
we, who are ambassadors for righteousness, be guilty of any wickedness? "For
as these inconsistencies are found among men, so, to say that they believed
the prophets when speaking of the future advent of Christ, and yet refused
their belief to Him when He came, agreeably to prophetic statement, was
quite in keeping with human nature. And since we must add another reason, we
shall remark that this very result was foretold by the prophets. Isaiah
distinctly declares: "Hearing ye shall hear, and shall not understand; and
seeing ye shall see, and shall not perceive: for the heart of this people
has become fat," [2983] etc. And let them explain why it was predicted to
the Jews, that although they both heard and saw, they would not understand
what was said, nor perceive what was seen as they ought. For it is indeed
manifest, that when they beheld Jesus they did not see who He was; and when
they heard Him, they did not understand from His words the divinity that was
in Him, and which transferred God's providential care, hitherto exercised
over the Jews, to His converts from the heathen. Therefore we may see, that
after the advent of Jesus the Jews were altogether abandoned, and possess
now none of what were considered their ancient glories, so that there is no
indication of any Divinity abiding amongst them. For they have no longer
prophets nor miracles, traces of which to a considerable extent are still
found among Christians, and some of them more remarkable than any that
existed among the Jews; and these we ourselves have witnessed, if our
testimony may be received. [2984] But the Jew of Celsus exclaims: "Why did
we treat him, whom we announced beforehand, with dishonour? Was it that we
might be chastised more than others? "To which we have to answer, that on
account of their unbelief, and the other insults which they heaped upon
Jesus, the Jews will not only suffer more than others in that judgment which
is believed to impend over the world, but have even already endured such
sufferings. For what nation is an exile from their own metropolis, and from
the place sacred to the worship of their fathers, save the Jews alone? And
these calamities they have suffered, because they were a most wicked nation,
which, although guilty of many other sins, yet has been punished so severely
for none, as for those that were committed against our Jesus.
Chapter IX.
The Jew continues his discourse thus: "How should we deem him to be a God,
who not only in other respects, as was currently reported, performed none of
his promises, but who also, after we had convicted him, and condemned him
as. deserving of punishment, was found attempting to conceal himself, and
endeavouring to escape in a most disgraceful manner, and who was betrayed by
those whom he called disciples? And yet," he continues, "he who was a God
could neither flee nor be led away a prisoner; and least of all could he be
deserted and delivered up by those who had been his associates, and had
shared all things in common, and had had him for their teacher, who was
deemed to be a Saviour, and a son of the greatest God, and an angel." To
which we reply, that even we do not suppose the body of Jesus, which was
then an object of sight and perception, to have been God. And why do I say
His body? Nay, not even His soul, of which it is related, "My soul is
exceeding sorrowful, even unto death." [2985] But as, according to the
Jewish manner of speaking, "I am the Lord, the God of all flesh," and,
"Before Me there was no God formed, neither shall there be after Me," God is
believed to be He who employs the soul and body of the prophet as an
instrument; and as, according to the Greeks, he who says,
"I know both the number of the sand, and the measures, of the sea,
And I understand a dumb man, and hear him who does not speak,"
[2986] is considered to be a god when speaking, and making himself heard
through the Pythian priestess; so, according to our view, it was the Logos
God, and Son of the God of all things, who spake in Jesus these words, "I am
the way, and the truth, and the life; "and these, "I am the door; "and
these, "I am the living bread that came down from heaven; "and other
expressions similar to these. We therefore charge the Jews with not
acknowledging Him to be God, to whom testimony was borne in many passages by
the prophets, to the effect that He was a mighty power, and a God next to
[2987] the God and Father of all things. For we assert that it was to Him
the Father gave the command, when in the Mosaic account of the creation He
uttered the words, "Let there be light," and "Let there be a firmament," and
gave the injunctions with regard to those other creative acts which were
performed; and that to Him also were addressed the words, "Let Us make man
in Our own image and likeness; "and that the Logos, when commanded, obeyed
all the Father's will. And we make these statements not from our own
conjectures, but because we believe the prophecies circulated among the
Jews, in which it is said of God, and of the works of creation, in express
words, as follows: "He spake, and they were made; He commanded, and they
were created." [2988] Now if God gave the command, and the creatures were
formed, who, according to the view of the spirit of prophecy, could He be
that was able to carry out such commands of the Father, save Him who, so to
speak, is the living Logos and the Truth? And that the Gospels do not
consider him who in Jesus said these words, "I am the way, and the truth,
and the life," to have been of so circumscribed a nature [2989] as to have
an existence nowhere out of the soul and body of Jesus, is evident both from
many considerations, and from a few instances of the following kind which we
shall quote. John the Baptist, when predicting that the Son of God was to
appear immediately, not in that body and soul, but as manifesting Himself
everywhere, says regarding Him: "There stands in the midst of you One whom
ye know not, who cometh after me." [2990] For if he had thought that the
Son of God was only there, where was the visible body of Jesus, how could he
have said, "There stands in the midst of you One whom ye know not? "And
Jesus Himself, in raising the minds of His disciples to higher thoughts of
the Son of God, says: "Where two or three are gathered together in My name,
there am I in the midst of you." [2991] And of the same nature is His
promise to His disciples: "Lo, I am with you alway, even to the end of the
world." [2992] And we quote these passages, making no distinction between
the Son of God and Jesus. For the soul and body of Jesus formed, after the
one being with the Logos of God. Now if, according to Paul's
teaching, "he that is joined unto the Lord is one spirit," [2993] every
one who understands what being joined to the Lord is, and who has been
actually joined to Him, is one spirit with the Lord; how should not that
being be one in a far greater and more divine degree, which was once united
with the Logos of God? [2994] He, indeed, manifested Himself among the
Jews as the power of God, by the miracles which He performed, which Celsus
suspected were accomplished by sorcery, but which by the Jews of that time
were attributed I know not why, to Beelzebub, in the words "He casteth out
devils through Beelzebub, the prince of the devils." [2995] But these our
Saviour convicted of uttering the greatest absurdities, from the fact that
the kingdom of evil was not yet come to an end. And this will be evident to
all intelligent readers of the Gospel narrative, which it is not now the
time to explain.
Chapter X.
But what promise did Jesus make which He did not perform? Let Celsus produce
any instance of such, and make good his charge. But he will be unable to do
so, especially since it is from mistakes, arising either from
misapprehension of the Gospel narratives, or from Jewish stories, that he
thinks to derive the charges which he brings against Jesus or against
ourselves. Moreover, again, when the Jew says, "We both found him guilty,
and condemned him as deserving of death," let them show how they who sought
to concoct false witness against Him proved Him to be guilty. Was not the
great charge against Jesus, which His accusers brought forward, this, that
He said, "I am able to destroy the temple of God, and after three days to
raise it up again? " [2996] But in so saying, He spake of the temple of
His body; while they thought, not being able to understand the meaning of
the speaker, that His reference was to the temple of stone, which was
treated by the Jews with greater respect than He was who ought to have been
honoured as the true Temple of God'the Word, and the Wisdom, and the Truth.
And who can say that "Jesus attempted to make His escape by disgracefully
concealing Himself? "Let any one point to an act deserving to be called
disgraceful. And when he adds, "he was taken prisoner," I would say that, if
to be taken prisoner implies an act done against one's will, then Jesus was
not taken prisoner; for at the fitting time He did not prevent Himself
falling into the hands of men, as the Lamb of God, that He might take away
the sin of the world. For, knowing all things that were to come upon Him, He
went forth, and said to them, "Whom seek ye? "and they answered, "Jesus of
Nazareth; "and He said unto them, "I am He." And Judas also, who betrayed
Him, was standing with them. When, therefore, He had said to them, "I am
He," they went backwards and fell to the ground. Again He asked them, "Whom
seek ye? "and they said again, "Jesus of Nazareth." Jesus said to them, "I
told you I am He; if then ye seek Me, let these go away." [2997] Nay, even
to Him who wished to help Him, and who smote the high priest's servant, and
cut off his ear, He said: "Put up thy sword into its sheath: for all they
who draw the sword shall perish by the sword. Thinkest thou that I cannot
even now pray to My Father, and He will presently give Me more than twelve
legions of angels? But how then should the Scriptures be fulfilled, that
thus it must be?" [2998] And if any one imagines these statements to be
inventions of the writers of the Gospels, why should not those statements
rather be regarded as inventions which proceeded from a spirit of hatred and
hostility against Jesus and the Christians? and these the truth, which
proceed from those who manifest the sincerity of their feelings towards
Jesus, by enduring everything, whatever it may be, for the sake of His
words? For the reception by the disciples of such power of endurance and
resolution continued even to death, with a disposition of mind that would
not invent regarding their Teacher what was not true, is a very evident
proof to all candid judges that they were fully persuaded of the truth of
what they wrote, seeing they submitted to trials so numerous and so severe,
for the sake of Him whom they believed to be the Son of God.
Chapter XI.
In the next place, that He was betrayed by those whom He called His
disciples, is a circumstance which the Jew of Celsus learned from the
Gospels; calling the one Judas, however, "many disciples," that he might
seem to add force to the accusation. Nor did he trouble himself to take note
of all that is related concerning Judas; how this Judas, having come to
entertain opposite and conflicting opinions regarding his Master neither
opposed Him with his whole soul, nor yet with his whole soul preserved the
respect due by a pupil to his teacher. For be that betrayed Him gave to the
multitude that came to apprehend Jesus, a sign, saying, "Whomsoever I shall
kiss, it is he; seize ye him,"'retaining still some element of respect for
his Master: for unless he had done so, he would have betrayed Him, even
publicly, without any pretence of affection. This circumstance, therefore,
will satisfy all with regard to the purpose of Judas, that along with his
covetous disposition, and his wicked design to betray his Master, he had
still a feeling of a mixed character in his mind, produced in him by the
words of Jesus, which had the appearance (so to speak) of some remnant of
good. For it is related that, "when Judas, who betrayed Him, knew that He
was condemned, he repented, and brought back the thirty pieces of silver to
the high priest and elders, saying, I have sinned, in that I have betrayed
the innocent blood. But they said, What is that to us? see thou to that; "
[2999] 'and that, having thrown the money down in the temple, he departed,
and went and hanged himself. But if this covetous Judas, who also stole the
money placed in the bag for the relief of the poor, repented, and brought
back the thirty pieces of silver to the chief priests and elders, it is
clear that the instructions of Jesus had been able to produce some feeling
of repentance in his mind, and were not altogether despised and loathed by
this traitor. Nay, the declaration, "I have sinned, in that I have betrayed
the innocent blood," was a public acknowledgment of his crime. Observe,
also, how exceedingly passionate [3000] was the sorrow for his sins that
proceeded from that repentance, and which would not suffer him any longer to
live; and how, after he had cast the money down in the temple, he withdrew,
and went away and hanged himself: for he passed sentence upon himself,
showing what a power the teaching of Jesus had over this sinner Judas, this
thief and traitor, who could not always treat with contempt what he had
learned from Jesus. Will Celsus and his friends now say that those proofs
which show that the apostasy of Judas was not a complete apostasy, even
after his attempts against his Master, are inventions, and that this alone
is true, viz., that one of His disciples betrayed Him; and will they add to
the Scriptural account that he betrayed Him also with his whole heart? To
act in this spirit of hostility with the same writings, both as to what we
are to believe and what we are not to believe, is absurd. [3001] And if we
must make a statement regarding Judas which may overwhelm our opponents with
shame, we would say that, in the book of Psalms, the whole of the Psalms 108
contains a prophecy about Judas, the beginning of which is this: "O God,
hold not Thy peace before my praise; for the mouth of the sinner, and the
mouth of the crafty man, are opened against me." [3002] And it is
predicted in this psalm, both that Judas separated himself from the number
of the apostles on account of his sins, and that another was selected in his
place; and this is shown by the words: "And his bishopric let another
take." [3003] But suppose now that He had been betrayed by some one of His
disciples, who was possessed by a worse spirit than Judas, and who had
completely poured out, as it were, all the words which he had heard from
Jesus, what would this contribute to an accusation against Jesus or the
Christian religion? And how will this demonstrate its doctrine to be false?
We have replied in the preceding Chapter to the statements which follow
this, showing that Jesus was not taken prisoner when attempting to flee, but
that He gave Himself up voluntarily for the sake of us all. Whence it
follows, that even if He were bound, He was bound agreeably to His own will;
thus teaching us the lesson that we should undertake similar things for the
sake of religion in no spirit of unwillingness.
Chapter XII.
And the following appear to me to be childish assertions, viz., that "no
good general and leader of great multitudes was ever betrayed; nor even a
wicked captain of robbers and commander of very wicked men, who seemed to be
of any use to his associates; but Jesus, having been betrayed by his
subordinates, neither governed like a good general, nor, after deceiving his
disciples, produced in the minds of the victims of his deceit that feeling
of good-will which, so to speak, would be manifested towards a brigand
chief." Now one might find many accounts of generals who were betrayed by
their own soldiers, and of robber chiefs who were captured through the
instrumentality of those who did not keep their bargains with them. But
grant that no general or robber chief was ever betrayed, what does that
contribute to the establishment of the fact as a charge against Jesus, that
one of His disciples became His betrayer? And since Celsus makes an
ostentatious exhibition of philosophy, I would ask of him, If, then, it was
a charge against Plato, that Aristotle, after being his pupil for twenty
years, went away and assailed his doctrine of the immortality of the soul,
and styled the ideas of Plato the merest trifling? [3004] And if I were
still in doubt, I would continue thus: Was Plato no longer mighty in
dialectics, nor able to defend his views, after Aristotle had taken his
departure; and, on that account, are the opinions of Plato false? Or may it
not be, that while Plato is true, as the pupils of his philosophy would
maintain, Aristotle was guilty of wickedness and ingratitude towards his
teacher? Nay, Chrysippus also, in many places of his writings, appears to
assail Cleanthes, introducing novel opinions opposed to his views, although
the latter had been his teacher when he was a young man, and began the study
of philosophy. Aristotle, indeed, is said to have been Plato's pupil for
twenty years, and no inconsiderable period was spent by Chrysippus in the
school of Cleanthes; while Judas did not remain so much as three years with
Jesus. [3005] But from the narratives of the lives of philosophers we
might take many instances similar to those on which Celsus founds a charge
against Jesus on account of Judas. Even the Pythagoreans erected cenotaphs
[3006] to those who, after betaking themselves to philosophy, fell back
again into their ignorant mode of life; and yet neither was Pythagoras nor
his followers, on that account, weak in argument and demonstration.
Chapter XIII.
This Jew of Celsus continues, after the above, in the following fashion:
"Although he could state many things regarding the events of the life of
Jesus which are true, and not like those which are recorded by the
disciples, he willingly omits them." What, then, are those true statements,
unlike the accounts in the Gospels, which the Jew of Celsus passes by
without mention? Or is he only employing what appears to be a figure of
speech, [3007] in pretending to have something to say, while in reality he
had nothing to produce beyond the Gospel narrative which could impress the
hearer with a feeling of its truth, and furnish a clear ground of accusation
against Jesus and His doctrine? And he charges the disciples with having
invented the statement that Jesus foreknew and foretold all that happened to
Him; but the truth of this statement we shall establish, although Celsus may
not like it, by means of many other predictions uttered by the Saviour, in
which He foretold what would befall the Christians in after generations. And
who is there who would not be astonished at this prediction: "Ye shall be
brought before governors and kings for My sake, for a testimony against them
and the Gentiles; " [3008] and at any others which He may have delivered
respecting the future persecution of His disciples? For what system of
opinions ever existed among men on account of which others are punished, so
that any one of the accusers of Jesus could say that, foreseeing the impiety
or falsity of his opinions to be the ground of an accusation against them he
thought that this would redound to his credit, that he had so predicted
regarding it long before? Now if any deserve to be brought, on account of
their opinions, before governors and kings, what others are they, save the
Epicureans, who altogether deny the existence of providence? And also the
Peripatetics, who say that prayers are of no avail, and sacrifices offered
as to the Divinity? But some one will say that the Samaritans suffer
persecution because of their religion. In answer to whom we shall state that
the Sicarians, [3009] on account of the practice of circumcision, as
mutilating themselves contrary to the established laws and the customs
permitted to the Jews alone, are put to death. And you never hear a judge
inquiring whether a Sicarian who strives to live according to this
established religion of his will be released from punishment if he
apostatizes, but will be led away to death if he continues firm; for the
evidence of the circumcision is sufficient to ensure the death of him who
has undergone it. But Christians alone, according to the prediction of their
Saviour, "Ye shall be brought before governors and kings for My sake," are
urged up to their last breath by their judges to deny Christianity, and to
sacrifice according to the public customs; and after the oath of abjuration,
to return to their homes, and to live in safety. And observe whether it is
not with great authority that this declaration is uttered: "Whosoever
therefore shall confess Me before men, him will I confess also before My
Father who is in heaven. And whosoever shall deny Me before men," [3010]
etc. And go back with me in thought to Jesus when He uttered these words,
and see His predictions not yet accomplished. Perhaps you will say, in a
spirit of incredulity, that he is talking folly, and speaking to no purpose,
for his words will have no fulfilment; or, being in doubt about assenting to
his words, you will say, that if these predictions be fulfilled, and the
doctrine of Jesus be established, so that governors and kings think of
destroying those who acknowledge Jesus, then we shall believe that he utters
these prophecies as one who has received great power from God to implant
this doctrine among the human race, and as believing that it will prevail.
And who will not be filled with wonder, when he goes back in thought to Him
who then taught and said, "This Gospel shall be preached throughout the
whole world, for a testimony against them and the Gentiles," [3011] and
beholds, agreeably to His words, the Gospel of Jesus Christ preached in the
whole world under heaven to Greeks and Barbarians, wise and foolish alike?
For the word, spoken with power, has gained the mastery over men of all
sorts of nature, and it is impossible to see any race of men which has
escaped accepting the teaching of Jesus. But let this Jew of Celsus, who
does not believe that He foreknew all that happened to Him, consider how,
while Jerusalem was still standing, and the whole Jewish worship celebrated
in it, Jesus foretold what would befall it from the hand of the Romans. For
they will not maintain that the acquaintances and pupils of Jesus Himself
handed down His teaching contained in the Gospels without committing it to
writing, and left His disciples without the memoirs of Jesus contained in
their works. [3012] Now in these it is recorded, that "when ye shall see
Jerusalem compassed about with armies, then shall ye know that the
desolation thereof is nigh." [3013] But at that time there were no armies
around Jerusalem, encompassing and enclosing and besieging it; for the siege
began in the reign of Nero, and lasted till the government of Vespasian,
whose son Titus destroyed Jerusalem, on account, as Josephus says, of James
the Just, the brother of Jesus who was called Christ, but in reality, as the
truth makes dear, on account of Jesus Christ the Son of God.
Chapter XIV.
Celsus, however, accepting or granting that Jesus foreknew what would befall
Him, might think to make light of the admission, as he did in the case of
the miracles, when he alleged that they were wrought by means of sorcery;
for he might say that many persons by means of divination, either by
auspices, or auguries, or sacrifices, or nativities, have come to the
knowledge of what was to happen. But this concession he would not make, as
being too great a one; and although he somehow granted that Jesus worked
miracles, he thought to weaken the force of this by the charge of sorcery.
Now Phlegon, in the thirteenth or fourteenth book, I think, of his
Chronicles, not only ascribed to Jesus a knowledge of future events
(although falling into confusion about some things which refer to Peter, as
if they referred to Jesus), but also testified that the result corresponded
to His predictions. So that he also, by these very admissions regarding
foreknowledge, as if against his will, expressed his opinion that the
doctrines taught by the fathers of our system were not devoid of divine
power.
Chapter XV.
Celsus continues: "The disciples of Jesus, having no undoubted fact on which
to rely, devised the fiction that he foreknew everything before it happened;
"not observing, or not wishing to observe, the love of truth which actuated
the writers, who acknowledged that Jesus had told His disciples beforehand,
"All ye shall be offended because of Me this night,"'a statement which was
fulfilled by their all being offended; and that He predicted to Peter,
"Before the cock crow, thou shall deny Me thrice," which was followed by
Peter's threefold denial. Now if they had not been lovers of truth, but, as
Celsus supposes, inventors of fictions, they would not have represented
Peter as denying, nor His disciples as being offended. For although these
events actually happened, who could have proved that they turned out in that
manner? And yet, according to all probability, these were matters which
ought to have been passed over in silence by men who wished to teach the
readers of the Gospels to despise death for the sake of confessing
Christianity. But now, seeing that the word, by its power, will gain the
mastery over men, they related those facts which they have done, and which,
I know not how, were neither to do any harm to their readers, nor to afford
any pretext for denial.
Chapter XVI.
Exceedingly weak is his assertion, that "the disciples of Jesus wrote such
accounts regarding him, by way of extenuating the charges that told against
him: as if," he says, "any one were to say that a certain person was a just
man, and yet were to show that he was guilty of injustice; or that he was
pious, and yet had committed murder; or that he was immortal, and yet was
dead; subjoining to all these statements the remark that he had foretold all
these things." Now his illustrations are at once seen to be inappropriate;
for there is no absurdity in Him who had resolved that He would become a
living pattern to men, as to the manner in which they were to regulate their
lives, showing also how they ought to die for the sake of their religion,
apart altogether from the fact that His death on behalf of men was a benefit
to the whole world, as we proved in the preceding book. He imagines,
moreover, that the whole of the confession of the Saviour's sufferings
confirms his objection instead of weakening it. For he is not acquainted
either with the philosophical remarks of Paul, [3014] or the statements of
the prophets, on this subject. And it escaped him that certain heretics have
declared that Jesus underwent His sufferings in appearance, not in reality.
For had he known, he would not have said: "For ye do not even allege this,
that he seemed to wicked men to suffer this punishment, though not
undergoing it in reality; but, on the contrary, ye acknowledge that he
openly suffered." But we do not view His sufferings as having been merely in
appearance, in order that His resurrection also may not be a false, but a
real event. For he who really died, actually arose, if he did arise; whereas
he who appeared only to have died, did not in reality arise. But since the
resurrection of Jesus Christ is a subject of mockery to unbelievers, we
shall quote the words of Plato, [3015] that Erus the son of Armenius rose
from the funeral pile twelve days after he had been laid upon it, and gave
an account of what he had seen in Hades; and as we are replying to
unbelievers, it will not be altogether useless to refer in this place to
what Heraclides [3016] relates respecting the woman who was deprived of
life. And many persons are recorded to have risen from their tombs, not only
on the day of their burial, but also on the day following. What wonder is
it, then, if in the case of One who performed many marvellous things, both
beyond the power of man and with such fulness of evidence, that he who could
not deny their performance, endeavoured to calumniate them by comparing them
to acts of sorcery, should have manifested also in His death some greater
display of divine power, so that His soul, if it pleased, might leave its
body, and having performed certain offices out of it, might return again at
pleasure? And such a declaration is Jesus said to have made in the Gospel of
John, when He said: "No man 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."
[3017] And perhaps it was on this account that He hastened His departure
from the body, that He might preserve it, and that His legs might not be
broken, as were those of the robbers who were crucified with Him. "For the
soldiers brake the legs of the first, and of the other who was crucified
with Him; but when they came to Jesus, and saw that He was dead, they brake
not His legs." [3018] We have accordingly answered the question," How is
it credible that Jesus could have predicted these things? "And with respect
to this, "How could the dead man be immortal? "let him who wishes to
understand know, that it is not the dead man who is immortal, but He who
rose from the dead. So far, indeed, was the dead man from being immortal,
that even the Jesus before His decease'the compound being, who was to suffer
death'was not immortal. [3019] For no one is immortal who is destined to
die; but he is immortal when he shall no longer be subject to death. But
"Christ, being raised from the dead, dieth no more: death hath no more
dominion over Him; " [3020] although those may be unwilling to admit this
who cannot understand how such things should be said.
Chapter XVII.
Extremely foolish also is his remark, "What god, or spirit, or prudent man
would not, on foreseeing that such events were to befall him, avoid them if
he could; whereas he threw himself headlong into those things which he knew
beforehand were to happen? "And yet Socrates knew that he would die after
drinking the hemlock, and it was in his power, if he had allowed himself to
be persuaded by Crito, by escaping from prison, to avoid these calamities;
but nevertheless he decided, as it appeared to him consistent with fight
reason, that it was better for him to die as became a philosopher, than to
retain his life in a manner unbecoming one. Leonidas also, the Lacedaemonian
general, knowing that he was on the point of dying with his followers at
Thermopylae, did not make any effort to preserve his life by disgraceful
means but said to his companions, "Let us go to breakfast, as we shall sup
in Hades." And those who are interested in collecting stories of this kind
will find numbers of them. Now, where is the wonder if Jesus, knowing all
things that were to happen, did not avoid them, but encountered what He
foreknew; when Paul, His own disciple, having heard what would befall him
when he went up to Jerusalem, proceeded to face the danger, reproaching
those who were weeping around him, and endeavouring to prevent him from
going up to Jerusalem? Many also of our contemporaries, knowing well that if
they made a confession of Christianity they would be put to death, but that
if they denied it they would be liberated, and their property restored,
despised life, and voluntarily selected death for the sake of their
religion.
Chapter XVIII.
After this the Jew makes another silly remark, saying, "How is it that, if
Jesus pointed out beforehand both the traitor and the perjurer, they did not
fear him as a God, and cease, the one from his intended treason, and the
other from his perjury? "Here the learned Celsus did not see the
contradiction in his statement: for if Jesus foreknew events as a God, then
it was impossible for His foreknowledge to prove untrue; and therefore it
was impossible for him who was known to Him as going to betray Him not to
execute his purpose, nor for him who was rebuked as going to deny Him not to
have been guilty of that crime. For if it had been possible for the one to
abstain from the act of betrayal, and the other from that of denial, as
having been warned of the consequences of these actions beforehand, then His
words were no longer true, who predicted that the one would betray Him and
the other deny Him. For if He had foreknowledge of the traitor, He knew the
wickedness in which the treason originated, and this wickedness was by no
means taken away by the foreknowledge. And, again, if He had ascertained
that one would deny Him, He made that prediction from seeing the weakness
out of which that act of denial would arise, and yet this weakness was not
to be taken away thus at once [3021] by the foreknowledge. But whence he
derived the statement, "that these persons betrayed and denied him without
manifesting any concern about him," I know not; for it was proved, with
respect to the traitor, that it is false to say that he betrayed his master
without an exhibition of anxiety regarding Him. And this was shown to be
equally true of him who denied Him; for he went out, after the denial, and
wept bitterly.
Chapter XIX.
Superficial also is his objection, that "it is always the case when a man
against whom a plot is formed, and who comes to the knowledge of it, makes
known to the conspirators that he is acquainted with their design, that the
latter are turned from their purpose, and keep upon their guard." For many
have continued to plot even against those who were acquainted with their
plans. And then, as if bringing his argument to a conclusion, he says: "Not
because these things were predicted did they come to pass, for that is
impossible; but since they have come to pass, their being predicted is shown
to be a falsehood: for it is altogether impossible that those who heard
beforehand of the discovery of their designs, should carry out their plans
of betrayal and denial!" But if his premises are overthrown, then his
conclusion also falls to the ground, viz., "that we are not to believe,
because these things were predicted, that they have come to pass." Now we
maintain that they not only came to pass as being possible, but also that,
because they came to pass, the fact of their being predicted is shown to be
true; for the truth regarding future events is judged of by results. It is
false, therefore, as asserted by him, that the prediction of these events is
proved to be untrue; and it is to no purpose that he says, "It is altogether
impossible for those who heard beforehand that their designs were
discovered, to carry out their plans of betrayal and denial."
Chapter XX.
Let us see how he continues after this: "These events," he says, "he
predicted as being a God, and the prediction must by all means come to pass.
God, therefore, who above all others ought to do good to men, and especially
to those of his own household, led on his own disciples and prophets, with
whom he was in the habit of eating and drinking, to such a degree of
wickedness, that they became impious and unholy men. Now, of a truth, he who
shared a man's table would not be guilty of conspiring against him; but
after banqueting with God, he became a conspirator. And, what is still more
absurd, God himself plotted against the members of his own table, by
converting them into traitors and villains!" Now, since you wish me to
answer even those charges of Celsus which seem to me frivolous, [3022] the
following is our reply to such statements. Celsus imagines that an event,
predicted through foreknowledge, comes to pass because it was predicted; but
we do not grant this, maintaining that he who foretold it was not the cause
of its happening, because he foretold it would happen; but the future event
itself, which would have taken place though not predicted, afforded the
occasion to him, who was endowed with foreknowledge, of foretelling its
occurrence. Now, certainly this result is present to the foreknowledge of
him who predicts an event, when it is possible that it may or may not
happen, viz., that one or other of these things will take place. For we do
not assert that he who foreknows an event, by secretly taking away the
possibility of its happening or not, makes any such declaration as this:
"This shall infallibly happen, and it is impossible that it can be
otherwise." And this remark applies to all the foreknowledge of events
dependent upon ourselves, whether contained in the sacred Scriptures or in
the histories of the Greeks. Now, what is called by logicians an" idle
argument," [3023] which is a sophism, will be no sophism as far as Celsus
can help, but according to sound reasoning it is a sophism. And that this
may be seen, I shall take from the Scriptures the predictions regarding
Judas, or the foreknowledge of our Saviour regarding him as the traitor; and
from the Greek histories the oracle that was given to Laius, conceding for
the present its truth, since it does not affect the argument. Now, in Ps.
cviii., Judas is spoken of by the mouth of the Saviour, in words beginning
thus: "Hold not Thy peace, O God of my praise; for the mouth of the wicked
and the mouth of the deceitful are opened against me." Now, if you carefully
observe the contents of the psalm, you will find that, as it was foreknown
that he would betray the Saviour, so also was he considered to be himself
the cause of the betrayal, and deserving, on account of his wickedness, of
the imprecations contained in the prophecy. For let him suffer these
things," because," says the psalmist, "he remembered not to show mercy, but
persecuted the poor and needy man." Wherefore it was possible for him to
show mercy, and not to persecute him whom he did persecute. But although he
might have done these things, he did not do them, but carried out the act of
treason, so as to merit the curses pronounced against him in the prophecy.
And in answer to the Greeks we shall quote the following oracular response
to Laius, as recorded by the tragic poet, either in the exact words of the
oracle or in equivalent terms. Future events are thus made known to him by
the oracle: "Do not try to beget children against the will of the gods. For
if you beget a son, your son shall murder you; and all your household shall
wade in blood." [3024] Now from this it is clear that it was within the
power of Laius not to try to beget children, for the oracle would not have
commanded an impossibility; and it was also in his power to do the opposite,
so that neither of these courses was compulsory. And the consequence of his
not guarding against the begetting of children was, that he suffered from so
doing the calamities described in the tragedies relating to (Edipus and
Jocasta and their sons. Now that which is called the "idle argument," being
a quibble, is such as might be applied, say in the case of a sick man, with
the view of sophistically preventing him from employing a physician to
promote his recovery; and it is something like this: "If it is decreed that
you should recover from your disease, you will recover whether you call in a
physician or not; but if it is decreed that you should not recover, you will
not recover whether you call in a physician or no. But it is certainly
decreed either that you should recover, or that you should not recover; and
therefore it is in vain that you call in a physician." Now with this
argument the following may be wittily compared: "If it is decreed that you
should beget children, you will beget them, whether you have intercourse
with a woman or not. But if it is decreed that you should not beget
children, you will not do so, whether you have intercourse with a woman or
no. Now, certainly, it is decreed either that you should beget children or
not; therefore it is in vain that you have intercourse with a woman." For,
as in the latter instance, intercourse with a woman is not employed in vain,
seeing it is an utter impossibility for him who does not use it to beget
children; so, in the former, if recovery from disease is to be accomplished
by means of the healing art, of necessity the physician is summoned, and it
is therefore false to say that "in vain do you call in a physician." We have
brought forward all these illustrations on account of the assertion of this
learned Celsus, that "being a God He predicted these things, and the
predictions must by all means come to pass." Now, if by "by all means" he
means "necessarily," we cannot admit this. For it was quite possible, also,
that they might not come to pass. But if he uses "by all means" in the sense
of "simple futurity," [3025] which nothing hinders from being true
(although it was possible that they might not happen), he does not at all
touch my argument; nor did it follow, from Jesus having predicted the acts
of the traitor or the perjurer, that it was the same thing with His being
the cause of such impious and unholy proceedings. For He who was amongst us,
and knew what was in man, seeing his evil disposition, and foreseeing what
he would attempt from his spirit of covetousness, and from his want of
stable ideas of duty towards his Master, along with many other declarations,
gave utterance to this also: "He that dippeth his hand with Me in the dish,
the same shall betray Me." [3026]
Chapter XXI.
Observe also the superficiality and manifest falsity of such a statement of
Celsus, when he asserts "that he who was partaker of a man's table would not
conspire against him; and if he would not conspire against a man, much less
would he plot against a God after banqueting with him." For who does not
know that many persons, after partaking of the salt on the table, [3027]
have entered into a conspiracy against their entertainers? The whole of
Greek and Barbarian history is full of such instances. And the Iambic poet
of Paros, [3028] when upbraiding Lycambes with having violated covenants
confirmed by the salt of the table, says to him:'
"But thou hast broken a mighty oath'that, viz., by the salt of the
table."And they who are interested in historical learning, and who give
themselves wholly to it, to the neglect of other branches of knowledge more
necessary for the conduct of life, [3029] can quote numerous instances,
showing that they who shared in the hospitality of others entered into
conspiracies against them.
Chapter XXII.
He adds to this, as if he had brought together an argument with conclusive
demonstrations and consequences, the following: "And, which is still more
absurd, God himself conspired against those who sat at his table, by
converting them into traitors and impious men." But how Jesus could either
conspire or convert His disciples into traitors or impious men, it would be
impossible for him to prove, save by means of such a deduction as any one
could refute with the greatest ease.
Chapter XXIII.
He continues in this strain: "If he had determined upon these things, and
underwent chastisement in obedience to his Father, it is manifest that,
being a God, and submitting voluntarily, those things that were done
agreeably to his own decision were neither painful nor distressing." But he
did not observe that here he was at once contradicting himself. For if he
granted that He was chastised because He had determined upon these things,
and had submitted Himself to His Father, it is clear that He actually
suffered punishment, and it was impossible that what was inflicted on Him by
His chastisers should not be painful, because pain is an involuntary thing.
But if, because He was willing to suffer, His inflictions were neither
painful nor distressing, how did He grant that "He was chastised? "He did
not perceive that when Jesus had once, by His birth, assumed a body, He
assumed one which was capable both of suffering pains, and those distresses
incidental to humanity, if we are to understand by distresses what no one
voluntarily chooses. Since, therefore, He voluntarily assumed a body, not
wholly of a different nature from that of human flesh, so along with His
body He assumed also its sufferings and distresses, which it was not in His
power to avoid enduring, it being in the power of those who inflicted them
to send upon Him things distressing and painful. And in the preceding pages
we have already shown, that He would not have come into the hands of men had
He not so willed. But He did come, because He was willing to come, and
because it was manifest beforehand that His dying upon behalf of men would
be of advantage to the whole human race.
Chapter XXIV.
After this, wishing to prove that the occurrences which befell Him were
painful and distressing, and that it was impossible for Him, had He wished,
to render them otherwise, he proceeds: "Why does he mourn, and lament, and
pray to escape the fear of death, expressing himself in terms like these:
'O Father, if it be possible, let this cup pass from Me? '" [3030] Now in
these words observe the malignity of Celsus, how not accepting the love of
truth which actuates the writers of the Gospels (who might have passed over
in silence those points which, as Celsus thinks, are censurable, but who did
not omit them for many reasons, which any one, in expounding the Gospel, can
give in their proper place), he brings an accusation against the Gospel
statement, grossly exaggerating the facts, and quoting what is not written
in the Gospels, seeing it is nowhere found that Jesus lamented. And he
changes the words in the expression, "Father, if it be possible, let this
cup pass from Me," and does not give what follows immediately after, which
manifests at once the ready obedience of Jesus to His Father, and His
greatness of mind, and which runs thus: "Nevertheless, not as I will, but as
Thou wilt." [3031] Nay, even the cheerful obedience of Jesus to the will
of His Father in those things which He was condemned to suffer, exhibited in
the declaration, "If this cup cannot pass from Me except I drink it, Thy
will be done," he pretends not to have observed, acting here like those
wicked individuals who listen to the Holy Scriptures in a malignant spirit,
and "who talk wickedness with lofty head." For they appear to have heard the
declaration, "I kill," [3032] and they often make it to us a subject of
reproach; but the words, "I will make alive," they do not remember,'the
whole sentence showing that those who live amid public wickedness, and who
work wickedly, are put to death by God, and that a better life is infused
into them instead, even one which God will give to those who have died to
sin. And so also these men have heard the words, "I will smite; "but they do
not see these, "and I will heal," which are like the words of a physician,
who cuts bodies asunder, and inflicts severe wounds, in order to extract
from them substances that are injurious and prejudicial to health, and who
does not terminate his work with pains and lacerations, but by his treatment
restores the body to that state of soundness which he has in view. Moreover,
they have not heard the whole of the announcement, "For He maketh sore, and
again bindeth up; "but only this part, "He maketh sore." So in like manner
acts this Jew of Celsus who quotes the words, "O Father, would that this cup
might pass from Me; "but who does not add what follows, and which exhibits
the firmness of Jesus, and His preparedness for suffering. But these
matters, which afford great room for explanation from the wisdom of God, and
which may reasonably be pondered over [3033] by those whom Paul calls
"perfect" when he said, "We speak wisdom among them who are perfect,"
[3034] we pass by for the present, and shall speak for a little of those
matters which are useful for our present purpose.
Chapter XXV.
We have mentioned in the preceding pages that there are some of the
declarations of Jesus which refer to that Being in Him which was the
"first-born of every creature," such as, "I am the way, and the truth, and
the life," and such like; and others, again, which belong to that in Him
which is understood to be man, such as, "But now ye seek to kill Me, a man
that hath told you the truth which I have heard of the Father." [3035] And
here, accordingly, he describes the element of weakness belonging to human
flesh, and that of readiness of spirit which existed in His humanity: the
element of weakness in the expression, "Father, if it be possible, let this
cup pass from Me; "the readiness of the spirit in this, "Nevertheless, not
as I will, but as Thou wilt." And since it is proper to observe the order of
our quotations, observe that, in the first place, there is mentioned only
the single instance, as one would say, indicating the weakness of the flesh;
and afterwards those other instances, greater in number, manifesting the
willingness of the spirit. For the expression, "Father, if it be possible,
let this cup pass from Me," is only one: whereas more numerous are those
others, viz., "Not as I will, but as Thou wilt; "and, "O My Father, if this
cup cannot pass from Me except I drink it, Thy will be done." It is to be
noted also, that the words are not, "let this cup depart from Me; "but that
the whole expression is marked by a tone of piety and reverence, "Father, if
it be possible, let this cup pass from Me." I know, indeed, that there is
another explanation of this passage to the following effect:'The Saviour,
foreseeing the sufferings which the Jewish people and the city of Jerusalem
were to undergo in requital of the wicked deeds which the Jews had dared to
perpetrate upon Him, from no other motive than that of the purest
philanthropy towards them, and from a desire that they might escape the
impending calamities, gave utterance to the prayer, "Father, if it be
possible, let this cup pass from Me." It is as if He had said, "Because of
My drinking this cup of punishment, the whole nation will be forsaken by
Thee, I pray, if it be possible, that this cup may pass from Me, in order
that Thy portion, which was guilty of such crimes against Me, may not be
altogether deserted by Thee." But if, as Celsus would allege, "nothing at
that time was done to Jesus which was either painful or distressing," how
could men afterwards quote the example of Jesus as enduring sufferings for
the sake of religion, if He did not suffer what are human sufferings, but
only had the appearance of so doing?
Chapter XXVI.
This Jew of Celsus still accuses the disciples of Jesus of having invented
these statements saying to them: "Even although guilty of falsehood, ye have
not been able to give a colour of credibility to your inventions." In answer
to which we have to say, that there was an easy method of concealing these
occurrences,'that, viz., of not recording them at all. For if the Gospels
had not contained the accounts of these things, who could have reproached us
with Jesus having spoken such words during His stay upon the earth? Celsus,
indeed, did not see that it was an inconsistency for the same persons both
to be deceived regarding Jesus, believing Him to be God, and the subject of
prophecy, and to invent fictions about Him, knowing manifestly that these
statements were false. Of a truth, therefore, they were not guilty of
inventing untruths, but such were their real impressions, and they recorded
them truly; or else they were guilty of falsifying the histories, and did
not entertain these views, and were not deceived when they acknowledged Him
to be God.
Chapter XXVII.
After this he says, that certain of the Christian believers, like persons
who in a fit of drunkenness lay violent hands upon themselves, have
corrupted the Gospel from its original integrity, to a threefold, and
fourfold, and many-fold degree, and have remodelled it, so that they might
be able to answer objections. Now I know of no others who have altered the
Gospel, save the. followers of Marcion, and those of Valentinus, and, I
think, also those of Lucian. But such an allegation is no charge against the
Christian system, but against those who dared so to trifle with the Gospels.
And as it is no ground of accusation against philosophy, that there exist
Sophists, or Epicureans, or Peripatetics, or any others, whoever they may
be, who hold false opinions; so neither is it against genuine Christianity
that there are some who corrupt the Gospel histories, and who introduce
heresies opposed to the meaning of the doctrine of Jesus.
Chapter XXVIII.
And since this Jew of Celsus makes it a subject of reproach that Christians
should make use of the prophets, who predicted the events of Christ's life,
we have to say, in addition to what we have already advanced upon this head,
that it became him to spare individuals, as he says, and to expound the
prophecies themselves, and after admitting the probability of the Christian
interpretation of them, to show how the use which they make of them may be
overturned. [3036] For in this way he would not appear hastily to assume
so important a position on small grounds, and particularly when he asserts
that the "prophecies agree with ten thousand other things more credibly than
with Jesus." And he ought to have carefully met this powerful argument of
the Christians, as being the strongest which they adduce, and to have
demonstrated with regard to each particular prophecy, that it can apply to
other events with greater probability than to Jesus. He did not, however,
perceive that this was a plausible argument to be advanced against the
Christians only by one who was an opponent of the prophetic writings; but
Celsus has here put l in the mouth of a Jew an objection which a Jew would
not have made. For a Jew will not admit that the prophecies may be applied
to countless other things with greater probability than to Jesus; but he
will endeavour, after giving what appears to him the meaning of each, to
oppose the Christian interpretation, not indeed by any means adducing
convincing reasons, but only attempting to do so.
Chapter XXIX.
In the preceding pages we have already spoken of this point, viz., the
prediction that there were to be two advents of Christ to the human race, so
that it is not necessary for us to reply to the objection, supposed to be
urged by a Jew, that "the prophets declare the coming one to be a mighty
potentate, Lord of all nations and armies." But it is in the spirit of a
Jew, I think, and in keeping with their bitter animosity, and baseless and
even improbable calumnies against Jesus, that he adds: "Nor did the prophets
predict such a pestilence." [3037] For neither Jews, nor Celsus, nor any
other, can bring any argument to prove that a pestilence converts men from
the practice of evil to a life which is according to nature, and
distinguished by temperance and other virtues.
Chapter XXX.
This objection also is cast in our teeth by Celsus: "From such signs and
misinterpretations, and from proofs so mean, no one could prove him to be
God, and the Son of God." Now it was his duty to enumerate the alleged
misinterpretations, and to prove them to be such, and to show by reasoning
the meanness of the evidence, in order that the Christian, if any of his
objections should seem to be plausible, might be able to answer and confute
his arguments. What he said, however, regarding Jesus, did indeed come to
pass, because He was a mighty potentate, although Celsus refuses to see that
it so happened, notwithstanding that the clearest evidence proves it true of
Jesus. "For as the sun," he says, "which enlightens all other objects, first
makes himself visible, so ought the Son of God to have done." We would say
in reply, that so He did; for righteousness has arisen in His days, and
there is abundance of peace, which took its commencement at His birth, God
preparing the nations for His teaching, that they might be under one prince,
the king of the Romans, and that it might not, owing to the want of union
among the nations, caused by the existence of many kingdoms, be more
difficult for the apostles of Jesus to accomplish the task enjoined upon
them by their Master, when He said, "Go and teach all nations." Moreover it
is certain that Jesus was born in the reign of Augustus, who, so to speak,
fused together into one monarchy the many populations of the earth. Now the
existence of many kingdoms would have been a hindrance to the spread of the
doctrine of Jesus throughout the entire world; not only for the reasons
mentioned, but also on account of the necessity of men everywhere engaging
in war, and fighting on behalf of their native country, which was the case
before the times of Augustus, and in periods still more remote, when
necessity arose, as when the Peloponnesians and Athenians warred against
each other, and other nations in like manner. How, then, was it possible for
the Gospel doctrine of peace, which does not permit men to take vengeance
even upon enemies, to prevail throughout the world, unless at the advent of
Jesus [3038] a milder spirit had been everywhere introduced into the
conduct of things?
Chapter XXXI.
He next charges the Christians with being "guilty of sophistical reasoning,
in saying that the Son of God is the Logos Himself." And he thinks that he
strengthens the accusation, because "when we declare the Logos to be the Son
of God, we do not present to view a pure and holy Logos, but a most degraded
man, who was punished by scourging and crucifixion." Now, on this head we
have briefly replied to the charges of Celsus in the preceding pages, where
Christ was shown to be the first-born of all creation, who assumed a body
and a human soul; and that God gave commandment respecting the creation of
such mighty things in the world, and they were created; and that He who
received the command was God the Logos. And seeing it is a Jew who makes
these statements in the work of Celsus, it will not be out of place to quote
the declaration, "He sent His word, and healed them, and delivered them from
their destruction," [3039] 'a passage of which we spoke a little ago. Now,
although I have conferred with many Jews who professed to be learned men, I
never heard any one expressing his approval of the statement that the Logos
is the Son of God, as Celsus declares they do, in putting into the mouth of
the Jew such a declaration as this: "If your Logos is the Son of God, we
also give out assent to the same."
Chapter XXXII.
We have already shown that Jesus can be regarded neither as an arrogant man,
nor a sorcerer; and therefore it is unnecessary to repeat our former
arguments, lest, in replying to the tautologies of Celsus, we ourselves
should be guilty of needless repetition. And now, in finding fault with our
Lord's genealogy, there are certain points which occasion some difficulty
even to Christians, and which, owing to the discrepancy between the
genealogies, are advanced by some as arguments against their correctness,
but which Celsus has not even mentioned. For Celsus, who is truly a
braggart, and who professes to be acquainted with all matters relating to
Christianity, does not know how to raise doubts in a skilful manner against
the credibility of Scripture. But he asserts that the "framers of the
genealogies, from a feeling of pride, made Jesus to be descended from the
first man, and from the kings of the Jews." And he thinks that he makes a
notable charge when he adds, that "the carpenters wife could not have been
ignorant of the fact, had she been of such illustrious descent." But what
has this to do with the question? Granted that she was not ignorant of her
descent, how does that affect the result? Suppose that she were ignorant,
how could her ignorance prove that she was not descended from the first man,
or could not derive her origin from the Jewish kings? Does Celsus imagine
that the poor must always be descended from ancestors who are poor, or that
kings are always born of kings? But it appears folly to waste time upon such
an argument as this, seeing it is well known that, even in our own days,
some who are poorer than Mary are descended from ancestors of wealth and
distinction, and that rulers of nations and kings have sprung from persons
of no reputation.
Chapter XXXIII.
"But," continues Celsus, "what great deeds did Jesus perform as being a God?
Did he put his enemies to shame, or bring to a ridiculous conclusion what
was designed against him? "Now to this question, although we are able to
show the striking and miraculous character of the events which befell Him,
yet from what other source can we furnish an answer than from the Gospel
narratives, which state that "there was an earthquake, and that the rocks
were split asunder, and the tombs opened, and the veil of the temple rent in
twain from top to bottom, and that darkness prevailed in the day-time, the
sun failing to give light? " [3040] But if Celsus believe the Gospel
accounts when he thinks that he can find in them matter of charge against
the Christians, and refuse to believe them when they establish the divinity
of Jesus, our answer to him is: "Sir, [3041] either disbelieve all the
Gospel narratives, and then no longer imagine that you can found charges
upon them; or, in yielding your belief to their statements, look in
admiration on the Logos of God, who became incarnate, and who desired to
confer benefits upon the whole human race. And this feature evinces the
nobility of the work of Jesus, that, down to the present time, those whom
God wills are healed by His name. [3042] And with regard to the eclipse in
the time of Tiberius Caesar, in whose reign Jesus appears to have been
crucified, and the great earthquakes which then took place, Phlegon too, I
think, has written in the thirteenth or fourteenth book of his
Chronicles." [3043]
Chapter XXXIV.
This Jew of Celsus, ridiculing Jesus, as he imagines, is described as being
acquainted with the Bacchae of Euripides, in which Dionysus says:'
"The divinity himself will liberate me whenever I wish." [3044] Now the
Jews are not much acquainted with Greek literature; but suppose that there
was a Jew so well versed in it (as to make such a quotation on his part
appropriate), how (does it follow) that Jesus could not liberate Himself,
because He did not do so? For let him believe from our own Scriptures that
Peter obtained his freedom after having been bound in prison, an angel
having loosed his chains; and that Paul, having been bound in the stocks
along with Silas in Philippi of Macedonia, was liberated by divine power,
when the gates of the prison were opened. But it is probable that Celsus
treats these accounts with ridicule, or that he never read them; for he
would probably say in reply, that there are certain sorcerers who are able
by incantations to unloose chains and to open doors, so that he would liken
the events related in our histories to the doings of sorcerers. "But," he
continues, "no calamity happened even to him who condemned him, as there did
to Pentheus, viz., madness or discerption." [3045] And yet he does not
know that it was not so much Pilate that condemned Him (who knew that "for
envy the Jews had delivered Him"), as the Jewish nation, which has been
condemned by God, and rent in pieces, and dispersed over the whole earth, in
a degree far beyond what happened to Pentheus. Moreover, why did he
intentionally omit what is related of Pilate's wife, who beheld a vision,
and who was so moved by it as to send a message to her husband, saying:
"Have thou nothing to do with that just man; for I have suffered many things
this day in a dream because of Him? " [3046] And again, passing by in
silence the proofs of the divinity of Jesus, Celsus endeavours to cast
reproach upon Him from the narratives in the Gospel, referring to those who
mocked Jesus, and put on Him the purple robe, and the crown of thorns, and
placed the reed in His hand. From what source now, Celsus, did you derive
these statements, save from the Gospel narratives? And did you, accordingly,
see that they were fit matters for reproach; while they who recorded them
did not think that you, and such as you, would turn them into ridicule; but
that others would receive from them an example how to despise those who
ridiculed and mocked Him on account of His religion, who appropriately laid
down His life for its sake? Admire rather their love of truth, and that of
the Being who bore these things voluntarily for the sake of men, and who
endured them with all constancy and long-suffering. For it is not recorded
that He uttered any lamentation, or that after His condemnation He either
did or uttered anything unbecoming.
Chapter XXXV.
But in answer to this objection, "If not before, yet why now, at least, does
he not give some manifestation of his divinity, and free himself from this
reproach, and take vengeance upon those who insult both him and his Father?
"We have to reply, that it would be the same thing as if we were to say to
those among the Greeks who accept the doctrine of providence, and who
believe in portents, Why does God not punish those who insult the Divinity,
and subvert the doctrine of providence? For as the Greeks would answer such
objections, so would we, in the same, or a more effective manner. There was
not only a portent from heaven'the eclipse of the sun'but also the other
miracles, which show that the crucified One possessed something that was
divine, and greater than was possessed by the majority of men.
Chapter XXXVI.
Celsus next says: "What is the nature of the ichor in the body of the
crucified Jesus? Is it 'such as flows in the bodies of the immortal gods?
'" [3047] He puts this question in a spirit of mockery; but we shall show
from the serious narratives of the Gospels, although Celsus may not like it,
that it was no mythic and Homeric ichor which flowed from the body of Jesus,
but that, after His death, "one of the soldiers with a spear pierced His
side, and there came there-out blood and water. And he that saw it bare
record, and his record is true, and he knoweth that he saith the truth."
[3048] Now, in other dead bodies the blood congeals, and pure water does not
flow forth; but the miraculous feature in the case of the dead body of Jesus
was, that around the dead body blood and water flowed forth from the side.
But if this Celsus, who, in order to find matter of accusation against Jesus
and the Christians, extracts from the Gospel even passages which are
incorrectly interpreted, but passes over in silence the evidences of the
divinity of Jesus, would listen to divine portents, let him read the Gospel,
and see that even the centurion, and they who with him kept watch over
Jesus, on seeing the earthquake, and the events that occurred, were greatly
afraid, saying, "This man was the Son of God." [3049]
Chapter XXXVII.
After this, he who extracts from the Gospel narrative those statements on
which he thinks he can found an accusation, makes the vinegar and the gall a
subject of reproach to Jesus, saying that "he rushed with open mouth
[3050] to drink of them, and could not endure his thirst as any ordinary man
frequently endures it." Now this matter admits of an explanation of a
peculiar and figurative kind; but on the present occasion, the statement
that the prophets predicted this very incident may be accepted as the more
common answer to the objection. For in the Psalms 69 there is written, with
reference to Christ: "And they gave me gall for my meat, and in my thirst
they gave me vinegar to drink," [3051] Now, let the Jews say who it is
that the prophetic writing represents as uttering these words; and let them
adduce from history one who received gall for his food, and to whom vinegar
was given as drink. Would they venture to assert that the Christ whom they
expect still to come might be placed in such circumstances? Then we would
say, What prevents the prediction from having been already accomplished? For
this very prediction was uttered many ages before, and is sufficient, along
with the other prophetic utterances, to lead him who fairly examines the
whole matter to the conclusion that Jesus is He who was prophesied of as
Christ, and as the Son of God.
Chapter XXXVIII.
The few next remarks: "You, O sincere believers, [3052] find fault with
us, because we do not recognise this individual as God, nor agree with you
that he endured these (sufferings) for the benefit of mankind, in order that
we also might despise punishment." Now, in answer to this, we say that we
blame the Jews, who have been brought up under the training of the law and
the prophets (which foretell the coming of Christ), because they neither
refute the arguments which we lay before them to prove that He is the
Messiah, [3053] adducing such refutation as a defence of their unbelief;
nor yet, while not offering any refutation, do they believe in Him who was
the subject of prophecy, and who clearly manifested through His disciples,
even after the period of His appearance in the flesh, that He underwent
these things for the benefit of mankind; having, as the object of His first
advent, not to condemn men and their actions [3054] before He had
instructed them, and pointed out to them their duty, [3055] nor to
chastise the wicked and save the good, but to disseminate His doctrine in an
extraordinary [3056] manner, and with the evidence of divine power, among
the whole human race, as the prophets also have represented these things.
And we blame them, moreover, because they did not believe in Him who gave
evidence of the power that was in Him, but asserted that He cast out demons
from the souls of men through Beelzebub the prince of the demons; and we
blame them because they slander the philanthropic character of Him, who
overlooked not only no city, but not even a single village in Judea, that He
might everywhere announce the kingdom of God, accusing Him of leading the
wandering life of a vagabond, and passing an anxious existence in a
disgraceful body. But there is no disgrace in enduring such labours for the
benefit of all those who may be able to understand Him.
Chapter XXXIX.
And how can the following assertion of this Jew of Celsus appear anything
else than a manifest falsehood, viz., that Jesus, "having gained over no one
during his life, not even his own disciples, underwent these punishments and
sufferings? "For from what other source sprang the envy which was aroused
against Him by the Jewish high priests, and elders, and scribes, save from
the fact that multitudes obeyed and followed Him, and were led into the
deserts not only by the persuasive [3057] language of Him whose words were
always appropriate to His hearers, but who also by His miracles made an
impression on those who were not moved to belief by His words? And is it not
a manifest falsehood to say that "he did not gain over even his own
disciples," who exhibited, indeed, at that time some symptoms of human
weakness arising from cowardly fear'for they had not yet been disciplined to
the exhibition of full courage'but who by no means abandoned the judgments
which they had formed regarding Him as the Christ? For Peter, after his
denial, perceiving to what a depth of wickedness he had fallen, "went out
and wept bitterly; "while the others, although stricken with dismay on
account of what had happened to Jesus (for they still continued to admire
Him), had, by His glorious appearance, [3058] their belief more firmly
established than before that He was the Son of God.
Chapter XL.
It is, moreover, in a very unphilosophical spirit that Celsus imagines our
Lord's pre-eminence among men to consist, not in the preaching of salvation
and in a pure morality, but in acting contrary to the character of that
personality which He had taken upon Him, and in not dying, although He had
assumed mortality; or, if dying, yet at least not such a death as might
serve as a pattern to those who were to learn by that very act how to die
for the sake of religion, and to comport themselves boldly through its help,
before those who hold erroneous views on the subject of religion and
irreligion, and who regard religious men as altogether irreligious, but
imagine those to be most religious who err regarding God, and who apply to
everything rather than to God the ineradicable [3059] idea of Him (which
is implanted in the human mind), and especially when they eagerly rush to
destroy those who have yielded themselves up with their whole soul (even
unto death), to the clear evidence of one God who is over all things.
Chapter XLI.
In the person of the Jew, Celsus continues to find fault with Jesus,
alleging that "he did not show himself to be pure from all evil." Let Celsus
state from what "evil" our Lord did not, show Himself to be pure. If he
means that, He was not pure from what is properly termed "evil," let him
clearly prove the existence of any wicked work in Him. But if he deems
poverty and the cross to be evils, and conspiracy on the part of wicked men,
then it is clear that he would say that evil had happened also to Socrates,
who was unable to show himself pure from evils. And how great also the other
band of poor men is among the Greeks, who have given themselves to
philosophical pursuits, and have voluntarily accepted a life of poverty, is
known to many among the Greeks from what is recorded of Democritus, who
allowed his property to become pasture for sheep; and of Crates, who
obtained his freedom by bestowing upon the Thebans the price received for
the sale of his possessions. Nay, even Diogenes himself, from excessive
poverty, came to live in a tub; and yet, in the opinion of no one possessed
of moderate understanding, was Diogenes on that account considered to be in
an evil (sinful) condition.
Chapter XLII.
But further, since Celsus will have it that "Jesus was not
irreproachable," let him instance any one of those who adhere to His
doctrine, who has recorded anything that could truly furnish ground of
reproach against Jesus; or if it be not from these that he derives his
matter of accusation against Him, let him say from what quarter he has
learned that which has induced him to say that He is not free from reproach.
Jesus, however, performed all that He promised to do, and by which He
conferred benefits upon his adherents. And we, continually seeing fulfilled
all that was predicted by Him before it happened, viz., that this Gospel of
His should be preached throughout the whole world, and that His disciples
should go among all nations and announce His doctrine; and, moreover, that
they should be brought before governors and kings on no other account than
because of His teaching; we are lost in wonder at Him, and have our faith in
Him daily confirmed. And I know not by what greater or more convincing
proofs Celsus would have Him confirm His predictions; unless, indeed, as
seems to be the case, not understanding that the Logos had become the man
Jesus, he would have Him to be subject to no human weakness, nor to become
an illustrious pattern to men of the manner in which they ought to bear the
calamities of life, although these appear to Celsus to be most lamentable
and disgraceful occurrences, seeing that he regards labour [3060] to be
the greatest of evils, and pleasure the perfect good,'a view accepted by
none of those philosophers who admit the doctrine of providence, and who
allow that courage, and fortitude, and magnanimity are virtues. Jesus,
therefore, by His sufferings cast no discredit upon the faith of which He
was the object; but rather confirmed the same among those who would approve
of manly courage, and among those who were taught by Him that what was truly
and properly the happy life was not here below, but was to be found in that
which was called, according to His own words, the "coming world; "whereas in
what is called the "present world" life is a calamity, or at least the first
and greatest struggle of the soul. [3061]
Chapter XLIII.
Celsus next addresses to us the following remark: "You will not, I suppose,
say of him, that, after failing to gain over those who were in this world,
he went to Hades to gain over those who were there." But whether he like it
or not, we assert that not only while Jesus was in the body did He win over
not a few persons merely, but so great a number, that a conspiracy was
formed against Him on account of the multitude of His followers; but also,
that when He became a soul, without the covering of the body, He dwelt among
those souls which were without bodily covering, converting such of them as
were willing to Himself, or those whom He saw, for reasons known to Him
alone, to be better adapted to such a course. [3062]
Chapter XLIV.
Celsus in the next place says, with indescribable silliness: "If, after
inventing defences which are absurd, and by which ye were ridiculously
deluded, ye imagine that you really make a good defence, what prevents you
from regarding those other individuals who have been condemned, and have
died a miserable death, as greater and more divine messengers of heaven
(than Jesus)? "Now, that manifestly and clearly there is no similarity
between Jesus, who suffered what is described, and those who have died a
wretched death on account of their sorcery, or whatever else be the charge
against them, is patent to every one. For no one can point to any acts of a
sorcerer which turned away souls from the practice of the many sins which
prevail among men, and from the flood of wickedness (in the world).
[3063] But since this Jew of Celsus compares Him to robbers, and says that
"any similarly shameless fellow might be able to say regarding even a robber
and murderer whom punishment had overtaken, that such an one was not a
robber, but a god, because he predicted to his fellow-robbers that he would
suffer such punishment as he actually did suffer," it might, in the first
place, be answered, that it is not because He predicted that He would suffer
such things that we entertain those opinions regarding Jesus which lead us
to have confidence in Him, as one who has come down to us from God. And, in
the second place, we assert that this very comparison [3064] has been
somehow foretold in the Gospels; since God was numbered with the
transgressors by wicked men, who desired rather a "murderer" (one who for
sedition and murder had been cast into prison) to be released unto them, and
Jesus to be crucified, and who crucified Him between two robbers. Jesus,
indeed, is ever crucified with robbers among His genuine disciples and
witnesses to the truth, and suffers the same condemnation which they do
among men. And we say, that if those persons have any resemblance to
robbers, who on account of their piety towards God suffer all kinds of
injury and death, that they may keep it pure and unstained, according to the
teaching of Jesus, then it is clear also that Jesus, the author of such
teaching, is with good reason compared by Celsus to the captain of a band of
robbers. But neither was He who died for the common good of mankind, nor
they who suffered because of their religion, and alone of all men were
persecuted because of what appeared to them the right way of honouring God,
put to death in accordance with justice, nor was Jesus persecuted without
the charge of impiety being incurred by His persecutors.
Chapter XLV.
But observe the superficial nature of his argument respecting the former
disciples of Jesus, in which he says: "In the next place, those who were his
associates while alive, and who listened to his voice, and enjoyed his
instructions as their teacher, on seeing him subjected to punishment and
death, neither died with him, nor for him, nor were even induced to regard
punishment with contempt, but denied even that they were his disciples,
whereas now ye die along with him." And here he believes the sin which was
committed by the disciples while they were yet beginners and imperfect, and
which is recorded in the Gospels, to have been actually committed, in order
that he may have matter of accusation against the Gospel; but their upright
conduct after their transgression, when they behaved with courage before the
Jews, and suffered countless cruelties at their hands, and at last suffered
death for the doctrine of Jesus, he passes by in silence. For he would
neither hear the words of Jesus, when He predicted to Peter, "When thou
shalt be old, thou shalt stretch forth thy hands," [3065] etc., to which
the Scripture adds, "This spake He, signifying by what death he should
glorify God; "nor how James the brother of John'an apostle, the brother of
an apostle'was slain with the sword by Herod for the doctrine of Christ; nor
even the many instances of boldness displayed by Peter and the other
apostles because of the Gospel, and "how they went forth from the presence
of the Sanhedrim after being scourged, rejoicing that they were counted
worthy to suffer shame for His name," [3066] and so surpassing many of
the instances related by the Greeks of the fortitude and courage of their
philosophers. From the very beginning, then, this was inculcated as a
precept of Jesus among His hearers, which taught men to despise the life
which is eagerly sought after by the multitude, but to be earnest in living
the life which resembles that of God.
Chapter XLVI.
But how can this Jew of Celsus escape the charge of falsehood, when he says
that Jesus, "when on earth, gained over to himself only ten sailors and
tax-gatherers of the most worthless character, and not even the whole of
these? "Now it is certain that the Jews themselves would admit that He drew
over not ten persons merely, nor a hundred, nor a thousand, but on one
occasion five thousand at once, and on another four thousand; and that He
attracted them to such a degree that they followed Him even into the
deserts, which alone could contain the assembled multitude of those who
believed in God through Jesus, and where He not only addressed to them
discourses, but also manifested to them His works. And now, through his
tautology, he compels us also to be tautological, since we are careful to
guard against being supposed to pass over any of the charges advanced by
him; and therefore, in reference to the matter before us following the order
of his treatise as we have it, be says: "Is it not the height of absurdity
to maintain, that if, while he himself was alive, he won over not a single
person to his views, after his death any who wish are able to gain over such
a multitude of individuals? "Whereas he ought to have said, in consistency
with truth, that if, after His death, not simply those who will, but they
who have the will and the power, can gain over so many proselytes, how much
more consonant to reason is it, that while He was alive He should, through
the greater power of His words and deeds, have won over to Himself manifold
greater numbers of adherents?
Chapter XLVII.
He represents, moreover, a statement of his own as if it were an answer to
one of his questions, in which be asks: "By what train of argument were you
led to regard him as the Son of God? "For he makes us answer that "we were
won over to him, because [3067] we know that his punishment was undergone
to bring about the destruction Of the father of evil." Now we were won over
to His doctrine by innumerable other considerations, of which we have stated
only the smallest part in the preceding pages; but, if God permit, we shall
continue to enumerate them, not only while dealing with the so-called True
Discourse of Celsus, but also on many other occasions. And, as if we said
that we consider Him to be the Son of God because He suffered punishment, he
asks: "What then? have not many others, too, been punished, and that not
less disgracefully? "And here Celsus acts like the most contemptible enemies
of the Gospel, and like those who imagine that it follows as a consequence
from our history of the crucified Jesus, that we should worship those who
have undergone crucifixion!
Chapter XLVIII.
Celsus, moreover, unable to resist the miracles which Jesus is recorded to
have performed, has already on several occasions spoken of them slanderously
as works of sorcery; and we also on several occasions have, to the best of
our ability, replied to his statements. And now he represents us as saying
that "we deemed Jesus to be the Son of God, because he healed the lame and
the blind." And he adds: "Moreover, as you assert, he raised the dead." That
He healed the lame and the blind, and that therefore we hold Him to be the
Christ and the Son of God, is manifest to us from what is contained in the
prophecies: "Then the eyes of the blind shall be opened, and the ears of the
deaf shall hear; then shall the lame man leap as an hart." [3068] And
that He also raised the dead, and that it is no fiction of those who
composed the Gospels, is shown by this, that if it had been a fiction, many
individuals would have been represented as having risen from the dead, and
these, too, such as had been many years in their graves. But as it is no
fiction, they are very easily counted of whom this is related to have
happened; viz., the daughter of the ruler of the synagogue (of whom I know
not why He said, "She is not dead, but sleepeth," stating regarding her
something which does not apply to all who die); and the only son of the
widow, on whom He took compassion and raised him up, making the bearers of
the corpse to stand still; and the third instance, that of Lazarus, who had
been four days in the grave. Now, regarding these cases we would say to all
persons of candid mind, and especially to the Jew, that as there were many
lepers in the days of Elisha the prophet, and none of them was healed save
Naaman the Syrian, and many widows in the days of Elijah the prophet, to
none of whom was Elijah sent save to Sarepta in Sidonia (for the widow there
had been deemed worthy by a divine decree of the miracle which was wrought
by the prophet in the matter of the bread); so also there were many dead in
the days of Jesus, but those only rose from the grave whom the Logos knew to
be fitted for a resurrection, in order that the works done by the Lord might
not be merely symbols of certain things, but that by the very acts
themselves He might gain over many to the marvellous doctrine of the Gospel.
I would say, moreover, that, agreeably to the promise of Jesus, His
disciples performed even greater works than these miracles of Jesus, which
were perceptible only to the senses. [3069] For the eyes of those who are
blind in soul are ever opened; and the ears of those who were deaf to
virtuous words, listen readily to the doctrine of God, and of the blessed
life with Him; and many, too, who were lame in the feet of the "inner
man," as Scripture calls it, having now been healed by the word, do not
simply leap, but leap as the hart, which is an animal hostile to serpents,
and stronger than all the poison of vipers. And these lame who have been
healed, receive from Jesus power to trample, with those feet in which they
were formerly lame, upon the serpents and scorpions of wickedness, and
generally upon all the power of the enemy; and though they tread upon it,
they sustain no injury, for they also have become stronger than the poison
of all evil and of demons.
Chapter XLIX.
Jesus, accordingly, in turning away the minds of His disciples, not merely
from giving heed to sorcerers in general, and those who profess in any other
manner to work miracles'for His disciples did not need to be so warned'but
from such as gave themselves out as the Christ of God, and who tried by
certain apparent [3070] miracles to gain over to them the disciples of
Jesus, said in a certain passage: "Then, if any man shall say unto you, Lo,
here is Christ, or there; believe it not. For there shall arise false
Christs, and false prophets, and shall show great signs and wonders;
insomuch that, if it were possible, they shall deceive the very elect.
Behold, I have told you before. Wherefore, if they shall say unto you,
Behold, he is in the desert, go not forth; behold, he is in the secret
chambers, believe it not. For as the lightning cometh out of the east, and
shineth even to the west, so also shall the coming of the Son of man be."
[3071] And in another passage: "Many will say unto Me in that day, Lord,
Lord, have we not eaten and drunk in Thy name, and by Thy name have cast out
demons, and done many wonderful works? And then will I say unto them, Depart
from Me, because ye are workers of iniquity." [3072] But Celsus, wishing
to assimilate the miracles of Jesus to the works of human sorcery, says in
express terms as follows: "O light and truth! he distinctly declares, with
his own voice, as ye yourselves have recorded, that there will come to you
even others, employing miracles of a similar kind, who are wicked men, and
sorcerers; and he calls him who makes use of such devices, one Satan. So
that Jesus himself does not deny that these works at least are not at all
divine, but are the acts of wicked men; and being compelled by the force of
truth, he at the same time not only laid open the doings of others, but
convicted himself of the same acts. Is it not, then, a miserable inference,
to conclude from the same works that the one is God and the other sorcerers?
Why ought the others, because of these acts, to be accounted wicked rather
than this man, seeing they have him as their witness against himself? For he
has himself acknowledged that these are not the works of a divine nature,
but the inventions of certain deceivers, and of thoroughly wicked men."
Observe, now, whether Celsus is not clearly convicted of slandering the
Gospel by such statements, since what Jesus says regarding those who are to
work signs and wonders is different from what this Jew of Celsus alleges it
to be. For if Jesus had simply told His disciples to be on their guard
against those who professed to work miracles, without declaring what they
would give themselves out to be, then perhaps there would have been some
ground for his suspicion. But since those against whom Jesus would have us
to be on our guard give themselves out as the Christ'which is not a claim
put forth by sorcerers'and since He says that even some who lead wicked
lives will perform miracles in the name of Jesus, and expel demons out of
men, sorcery in the case of these individuals, or any suspicion of such, is
rather, if we may so speak, altogether banished, and the divinity of Christ
established, as well as the divine mission [3073] of His disciples;
seeing that it is possible that one who makes use of His name, and who is
wrought upon by some power, in some way unknown, to make the pretence that
he is the Christ, should seem to perform miracles like those of Jesus, while
others through His name should do works resembling those of His genuine
disciples.
Paul, moreover, in the second Epistle to the Thessalonians, shows in what
manner there will one day be revealed "the man of sin, the son of perdition,
who opposeth and exalteth himself above all that is called God, or that is
worshipped; so that he sitteth in the temple of God, showing himself that he
is God." [3074] And again he says to the Thessalonians: "And now ye know
what withholdeth that he might be revealed in his time. For the mystery of
iniquity doth already work: only he who now letteth will let, until he be
taken out of the way: and then shall that Wicked be revealed, whom the Lord
will consume with the spirit of His mouth, and shall destroy with the
brightness of His coming: even him, whose cunning is after the working of
Satan, with all power, and signs, and lying wonders, and with all
deceivableness of unrighteousness in them that perish." [3075] And in
assigning the reason why the man of sin is permitted to continue in
existence, he says: "Because they received not the love of the truth, that
they might be saved. And for this cause God shall send them strong delusion,
that they should believe a lie; that they all might be damned who believed
not the truth, but had pleasure in unrighteousness." [3076] Let any one
now say whether any of the statements in the Gospel, or in the writings of
the apostle, could give occasion for the suspicion that there is therein
contained any prediction of sorcery. Any one, moreover, who likes may find
the prophecy in Daniel respecting antichrist. [3077] But Celsus falsities
the words of Jesus, since He did not say that others would come working
similar miracles to Himself, but who are wicked men and sorcerers, although
Celsus asserts that He uttered such words. For as the power of the Egyptian
magicians was not similar to the divinely-bestowed grace of Moses, but the
issue clearly proved that the acts of the former were the effect of magic,
while those of Moses were wrought by divine power; so the proceedings of the
antichrists, and of those who feign that they can work miracles as being the
disciples of Christ, are said to be lying signs and wonders, prevailing with
all deceivableness of unrighteousness among them that perish; whereas the
works of Christ and His disciples had for their fruit, not deceit, but the
salvation of human souls. And who would rationally maintain that an improved
moral life, which daily lessened the number of a man's offences, could
proceed from a system of deceit?
Chapter LI.
Celsus, indeed, evinced a slight knowledge of Scripture when he made Jesus
say, that it is "a certain Satan who contrives such devices; "although he
begs the question [3078] when he asserts that "Jesus did not deny that
these works have in them nothing of divinity, but proceed from wicked
men," for he makes things which differ in kind to be the same. Now, as a
wolf is not of the same species as a dog, although it may appear to have
some resemblance in the figure of its body and in its voice, nor a common
wood-pigeon [3079] the same as a dove, [3080] so there is no
resemblance between what is done by the power of God and what is the effect
of sorcery. And we might further say, in answer to the calumnies of Celsus,
Are those to be regarded as miracles which are wrought through sorcery by
wicked demons, but those not which are performed by a nature that is holy
and divine? and does human life endure the worse, but never receive the
better? Now it appears to me that we must lay it down as a general
principle, that as, wherever anything that is evil would make itself to be
of the same nature with the good, there must by all means be something that
is good opposed to the evil; so also, in opposition to those things which
are brought about by sorcery, there must also of necessity be some things in
human life which are the result of divine power. And it follows from the
same, that we must either annihilate both, and assert that neither exists,
or, assuming the one, and particularly the evil, admit also the reality of
the good. Now, if one were to lay it down that works are wrought by means of
sorcery, but would not grant that there are also works which are the product
of divine power, he would seem to me to resemble him who should admit the
existence of sophisms and plausible arguments, which have the appearance of
establishing the truth, although really undermining it, while denying that
truth had anywhere a home among men, or a dialectic which differed from
sophistry. But if we once admit that it is consistent with the existence of
magic and sorcery (which derive their power from evil demons, who are
spell-bound by elaborate incantations, and become subject to sorcerers) that
some works must be found among men which proceed from a power that is
divine, why shall we not test those who profess to perform them by their
lives and morals, and the consequences of their miracles, viz., whether they
tend to the injury of men or to the reformation of conduct? What minister of
evil demons, e.g., can do such things? and by means of what incantations and
magic arts? And who, on the other hand, is it that, having his soul and his
spirit, and I imagine also his body, in a pure and holy state, receives a
divine spirit, and performs such works in order to benefit men, and to lead
them to believe on the true God? But if we must once investigate (without
being carded away by the miracles themselves) who it is that performs them
by help of a good, and who by help of an evil power, so that we may neither
slander all without discrimination, nor yet admire and accept all as divine,
will it not be manifest, from what occurred in the times of Moses and Jesus,
when entire nations were established in consequence of their miracles, that
these men wrought by means of divine power what they are recorded to have
performed? For wickedness and sorcery would not have led a whole nation to
rise not only above idols and images erected by men, but also above all
created things, and to ascend to the uncreated origin of the God of the
universe.
Chapter LII.
But since it is a Jew who makes these assertions in the treatise of Celsus,
we would say to him: Pray, friend, why do you believe the works which are
recorded in your writings as having been performed by God through the
instrumentality of Moses to be really divine, and endeavour to refute those
who slanderously assert that they were wrought by sorcery, like those of the
Egyptian magicians; while, in imitation of your Egyptian opponents, you
charge those which were done by Jesus, and which, you admit, were actually
performed, with not being divine? For if the final result, and the founding
of an entire nation by the miracles of Moses, manifestly demonstrate that it
was God who brought these things to pass in the time of Moses the Hebrew
lawgiver, why should not such rather be shown to be the case with Jesus, who
accomplished far greater works than those of Moses? For the former took
those of his own nation, the descendants of Abraham, who had observed the
rite of circumcision transmitted by tradition, and who were careful
observers of the Abrahamic usages, and led them out of Egypt, enacting for
them those laws which you believe to be divine; whereas the latter ventured
upon a greater undertaking, and superinduced upon the pre-existing
constitution, and upon ancestral customs and modes of life agreeable to the
existing laws, a constitution in conformity with the Gospel. And as it was
necessary, in order that Moses should find credit not only among the elders,
but the common people, that there should be performed those miracles which
he is recorded to have performed, why should not Jesus also, in order that
He may be believed on by those of the people who had learned to ask for
signs and wonders, need [3081] to work such miracles as, on account of
their greater grandeur and divinity (in comparison with those of Moses),
were able to convert men from Jewish fables, and from the human traditions
which prevailed among them, and make them admit that He who taught and did
such things was greater than the: prophets? For how was not He greater than
the prophets, who was proclaimed by them to be the Christ, and the Saviour
of the human race?
Chapter LIII.
All the arguments, indeed, which this Jew of Celsus advances against those
who believe on Jesus, may, by parity of reasoning, be urged as ground of
accusation against Moses: so that there is no difference in asserting that
the sorcery practised by Jesus and that by Moses were similar to each
other, [3082] 'both of them, so far as the language of this Jew of Celsus
is concerned, being liable to the same charge; as, e.g., when this Jew says
of Christ, "But, O light and truth! Jesus with his own voice expressly
declares, as you yourselves have recorded, that there will appear among you
others also, who will perform miracles like mine, but who are wicked men and
sorcerers," some one, either Greek or Egyptian, or any other party who
disbelieved the Jew, might say respecting Moses, "But, O light and truth!
Moses with his own voice expressly declares, as ye also have recorded, that
there will appear among you others also, who will perform miracles like
mine, but who are wicked men and sorcerers. For it is written in your law,
'If there arise among you a prophet, or a dreamer of dreams, and giveth thee
a sign or a wonder, and the sign or wonder come to pass whereof he spake
unto thee, saying, Let us go after other gods which thou hast not known, and
let us serve them; thou shall not hearken to the words of that prophet, or
dreamer of dreams,'" [3083] etc. Again, perverting the words of Jesus, he
says, "And he terms him who devises such things, one Satan; "while one,
applying this to Moses, might say, "And he terms him who devises such
things, a prophet who dreams." And as this Jew asserts regarding Jesus, that
"even he himself does not deny that these works have in them nothing of
divinity, but are the acts of wicked men; "so any one who disbelieves the
writings of Moses might say, quoting what has been already said, the same
thing, viz., that, "even Moses does not deny that these works have in them
nothing of divinity, but are the acts of wicked men." And he will do the
same thing also with respect to this: "Being compelled by the force of
truth, Moses at the same time both exposed the doings of others, and
convicted himself of the same." And when the Jew says, "Is it not a wretched
inference from the same acts, to conclude that the one is a God, and the
others sorcerers? "one might object to him, on the ground of those words of
Moses already quoted, "Is it not then a wretched inference from the same
acts, to conclude that the one is a prophet and servant of God, and the
others sorcerers? "But when, in addition to those comparisons which I have
already mentioned, Celsus, dwelling upon the subject, adduces this also:
"Why from these works should the others be accounted wicked, rather than
this man, seeing they have him as a witness against himself? "'we, too,
shall adduce the following, in addition to what has been already said: "Why,
from those passages in which Moses forbids us to believe those who exhibit
signs and wonders, ought we to consider such persons as wicked, rather than
Moses, because he calumniates some of them in respect of their signs and
wonders? "And urging more to the same effect, that he may appear to
strengthen his attempt, he says: "He himself acknowledged that these were
not the works of a divine nature, but were the inventions of certain
deceivers, and of very wicked men." Who, then, is "himself? "You O Jew, say
that it is Jesus; but he who accuses you as liable to the same charges, will
transfer this "himself" to the person of Moses.
Chapter LIV.
After this, forsooth, the Jew of Celsus, to keep up the character assigned
to the Jew from the beginning, in his address to those of his countrymen who
had become believers, says: "By what, then, were you induced (to become his
followers)? Was it because he foretold that after his death he would rise
again? "Now this question, like the others, can be retorted upon Moses. For
we might say to the Jew "By what, then, were you induced (to become the
follower of Moses)? Was it because he put on record the following statement
about his own death: 'And Moses, the servant of the Lord died there, in the
land of Moab, according to the word of the Loud; and they buried him in
Moab, near the house of Phogor: and no one knoweth his sepulchre until this
day? '" [3084] For as the Jew casts discredit upon the statement, that
"Jesus foretold that after His death He would rise again," another person
might make a similar assertion about Moses, and would say in reply, that
Moses also put on record (for the book of Deuteronomy is his composition)
the statement, that "no one knoweth his sepulchre until this day," in order
to magnify and enhance the importance of his place of burial, as being
unknown to mankind.
Chapter LV.
The Jew continues his address to those of his countrymen who are converts,
as follows: "Come now, let us grant to you that the prediction was actually
uttered. Yet how many others are there who practise such juggling tricks, in
order to deceive their simple hearers, and who make gain by their
deception?'as was the case, they say, with Zamolxis [3085] in Scythia,
the slave of Pythagoras; and with Pythagoras himself in Italy; and with
Rhampsinitus [3086] in Egypt (the latter of whom, they say, played at
dice with Demeter in Hades, and returned to the upper world with a golden
napkin which he had received from her as a gift); and also with Orpheus
[3087] among the Odrysians, and Protesilaus in Thessaly, and Hercules
[3088] at Cape Taenarus, and Theseus. But the question is, whether any one
who was really dead ever rose with a veritable body. [3089] Or do you
imagine the statements of others not only to be myths, but to have the
appearance of such, while you have discovered a becoming and credible
termination to your drama in the voice from the cross, when he breathed his
last, and in the earthquake and the darkness? That while alive he was of no
assistance to himself, but that when dead he rose again, and showed the
marks of his punishment, and how his hands were pierced with nails: who
beheld this? A half-frantic [3090] woman, as you state, and some other
one, perhaps, of those who were engaged in the same system of delusion, who
had either dreamed so, owing to a peculiar state of mind, [3091] or under
the influence of a wandering imagination bad formed to himself an appearance
according to his own wishes, [3092] which has been the case with
numberless individuals; or, which is most probable, one who desired to
impress others with this portent, and by such a falsehood to furnish an
occasion to impostors like himself."
Now, since it is a Jew who makes these statements, we shall conduct the
defence of our Jesus as if we were replying to a Jew, still continuing the
comparison derived from the accounts regarding Moses, and saying to him:
"How many others are there who practise similar juggling tricks to those of
Moses, in order to deceive their silly hearers, and who make gain by their
deception? "Now this objection would be more appropriate in the mouth of one
who did not believe in Moses (as we might quote the instances of Zamolxis
and Pythagoras, who were engaged in such juggling tricks) than in that of a
Jew, who is not very learned in the histories of the Greeks. An Egyptian,
moreover, who did not believe the miracles of Moses, might credibly adduce
the instance of Rhampsinitus, saying that it was far more credible that he
had descended to Hades, and had played at dice with Demeter, and that after
stealing from her a golden napkin he exhibited it as a sign of his having
been in Hades, and of his having returned thence, than that Moses should
have recorded that he entered into the darkness, where God was, and that he
alone, above all others, drew near to God. For the following is his
statement: "Moses alone shall come near the Lord; but the rest shall not
come nigh." [3093] We, then, who are the disciples of Jesus, say to the
Jew who urges these objections: "While assailing our belief in Jesus, defend
yourself, and answer the Egyptian and the Greek objectors: what will you say
to those charges which you brought against our Jesus, but which also might
be brought against Moses first? And if you should make a vigorous effort to
defend Moses, as indeed his history does admit of a clear and powerful
defence, you will unconsciously, in your support of Moses, be an unwilling
assistant in establishing the greater divinity of Jesus."
Chapter LVI.
But since the Jew says that these histories of the alleged descent of heroes
to Hades, and of their return thence, are juggling impositions, [3094]
maintaining that these heroes disappeared for a certain time, and secretly
withdrew themselves from the sight of all men, and gave themselves out
afterwards as having returned from Hades,'for such is the meaning which his
words seem to convey respecting the Odrysian Orpheus, and the Thessalian
Protesilaus, and the Taenarian Hercules, and Theseus also,'let us endeavour
to show that the account of Jesus being raised from the dead cannot possibly
be compared to these. For each one of the heroes respectively mentioned
might, had he wished, have secretly withdrawn himself from the sight of men,
and returned again, if so determined, to those whom he had left; but seeing
that Jesus was crucifie