This page copyright © 2002 Blackmask Online.
http://www.blackmask.com
1. WHEN false witnesses testified against our Lord and Saviour
Jesus Christ, He remained silent; and when unfounded charges were
brought against Him, He returned no answer, believing that His whole
life and conduct among the Jews were a better refutation than any
answer to the false testimony, or than any formal defence against the
accusations. And I know not, my pious Ambrosius,[1] why you wished me
to write a reply to the false charges brought by Celsus against the
Christians, and to his accusations directed against the faith of the
Churches in his treatise; as if the facts themselves did not furnish a
manifest refutation, and the doctrine a better answer than any writing,
seeing it both disposes of the false statements, and does not leave to
the accusations any credibility or validity. Now, with respect to our
Lord's silence when false witness was borne against Him, it is
sufficient at present to quote the words of Matthew, for the testimony
of Mark is to the same effect. And the words of Matthew are as follow:
"And the high priest and the council sought false witness against Jesus
to put Him to death, but found none, although many false witnesses came
forward. At last two false witnesses came and said, This fellow said, I
am able to destroy the temple of God, and after three days to build it
up. And the high priest arose, and said to Him, Answerest thou nothing
to what these witness against thee? But Jesus held His peace."[2] And
that He returned no answer when falsely accused, the following is the
statement: "And Jesus stood before the governor; and he asked Him,
saying, Art Thou the King of the Jews? And Jesus said to him, Thou
sayest. And when He was accused of the chief priests and elders, He
answered nothing. Then said Pilate unto Him, Hearest thou not how many
things they witness against Thee? And He answered him to never a word,
insomuch that the governor marvelled greatly."[3]
2. It was, indeed, matter of surprise to men even of Ordinary
intelligence, that one who was accused and assailed by false testimony,
but who was able to defend Himself, and to show that He was guilty of
none of the charges (alleged), and who might have enumerated the
praiseworthy deeds of His own life, and His miracles wrought by divine
power, so as to give the judge an opportunity of delivering a more
honourable judgment regarding Him, should not have done this, but
should have disdained such a procedure, and in the nobleness of His
nature have contemned His accusers.[4] That the judge would, without
any hesitation, have set Him at liberty if He had offered a defence, is
clear from what is related of him when he said, "Which of the two do ye
wish that I should release unto you, Barabbas or Jesus, who is called
Christ?"[5] and from what the Scripture adds, "For he knew that for
envy they had delivered Him."[6] Jesus, however, is at all times
assailed by false witnesses, hand, while wickedness remains in the
world, is ever exposed to accusation. And yet even now He continues
silent before these things, and makes no audible answer, but places His
defence in the lives of His genuine disciples, which are a pre-eminent
testimony, and one that rises superior to all false witness, and
refutes and overthrows all unfounded accusations and charges.
3. I venture, then, to say that this "apology" which you require
me to compose will somewhat weaken that defence (of Christianity) which
rests on facts, and that power of Jesus which is manifest to those who
are not altogether devoid of perception. Notwithstanding, that we may
not have the appearance of being reluctant to undertake the task which
you have enjoined, we have endeavoured, to the best of our ability, to
suggest, by way of answer to each of the statements advanced by Celsus,
what seemed to us adapted to refute them, although his arguments have
no power to shake the faith of any (true) believer. And forbid, indeed,
that any one should be found who, after having been a partaker in such
a love of God as was (displayed) in Christ Jesus, could be shaken in
his purpose by the arguments of Celsus, or of any such as he. For Paul,
when enumerating the innumerable causes which generally separate men
from the love of Christ and from the love of God in Christ Jesus (to
all of which, the love that was in himself rose superior), did not set
down argument among the grounds of separation. For observe that he
says, firstly: "Who shall separate us from the love of Christ? Shall
tribulation, or distress, or persecution, or famine, or nakedness, or
peril, or sword? (as it is written, For Thy sake we are killed all the
day long; we are accounted as sheep for the slaughter.) Nay, in all
these things we are more than conquerors through Him that loved us."[1]
And secondly, when laying down another series of causes which naturally
tend to separate those who are not firmly grounded in their religion,
he says: "For I am persuaded that neither death, nor life, nor angels,
nor principalities, nor powers, nor things present, nor things to come,
nor height, nor depth, nor any other creature, shall be able to
separate us from the love of God, which is in Christ Jesus our
Lord."[2]
4. Now, truly, it is proper that we should feel elated because
afflictions, or those other causes enumerated by Paul, do not separate
us (from Christ); but not that Paul and the other apostles, and any
other resembling them, (should entertain that feeling), because they
were far exalted above such things when they said, "In all these things
we are more than conquerors through Him that loved us,"[3] which is a
stronger statement than that they are simply "conquerors." But if it be
proper for apostles to entertain a feeling of elation in not being
separated from the love of God that is in Christ Jesus our Lord, that
feeling will be entertained by them, because neither death, nor life,
nor angels, nor principalities, nor any of the things that follow, can
separate them from the love of God which is in Christ Jesus our Lord.
And therefore I do not congratulate that believer in Christ whose faith
can be shaken by Celsus—who no longer shares the common life of men,
but has long since departed—or by any apparent plausibility of
argument.[4] For I do not know in what rank to place him who has need
of arguments written in books in answer to the charges of Celsus
against the Christians, in order to prevent him from being shaken in
his faith, and confirm him in it. But nevertheless, since in the
multitude of those who are considered believers some such persons might
be found as would have their faith shaken and overthrown by the
writings of Celsus, but who might be preserved by a reply to them of
such a nature as to refute his statements and to exhibit the truth, we
have deemed it right to yield to your injunction, and to furnish an
answer to the treatise which you sent us, but which I do not think that
any one, although only a short way advanced in philosophy, will allow
to be a "True Discourse," as Celsus has entitled it.
5. Paul, indeed, observing that there are in Greek philosophy
certain things not to be lightly esteemed, which are plausible in the
eyes of the many, but which represent falsehood as truth, says with
regard to such: "Beware lest any man spoil you through philosophy and
vain deceit, after the tradition of men, after the rudiments of the
world, and not after Christ."[5] And seeing that there was a kind of
greatness manifest in the words of the world's wisdom, he said that the
words of the philosophers were "according to the rudiments of the
world." No man of sense, however, would say that those of Celsus were
"according to the rudiments of the world." Now those words, which
contained some element of deceitfulness, the apostle named "vain
deceit," probably by way of distinction from a deceit that was not
"vain;" and the prophet Jeremiah observing this, ventured to say to
God," O LORD, Thou hast deceived me, and I was deceived; Thou art
stronger than I, and hast prevailed."[6] But in the language of Celsus
there seems to me to be no deceitfulness at all, not even that which is
"vain;" such deceitfulness, viz., as is found in the language of those
who have founded philosophical sects, and who have been endowed with no
ordinary talent for such pursuits. And as no one would say that any
ordinary error in geometrical demonstrations was intended to deceive,
or would describe it for the sake of exercise in such matters;[7] so
those opinions which are to be styled "vain deceit," and the "tradition
of men," and "according to the rudiments of the world," must have some
resemblance to the views of those who have been the founders of
philosophical sects, (if such titles are to be appropriately applied to
them). 6. After proceeding with this work as far as the place where
Celsus introduces the Jew disputing with Jesus, I resolved to prefix
this preface to the beginning (of the treatise), in order that the
reader of our reply to Celsus might fall in with it first, and see that
this book has been composed not for those who are thorough believers,
but for such as are either wholly unacquainted with the Christian
faith, or for those who, as the apostle terms them, are "weak in the
faith;" regarding whom he says, "Him that is weak in the faith receive
ye."[1] And this preface must be my apology for beginning my answer to
Celsus on one plan, and carrying it on on another. For my first
intention was to indicate his principal objections, and then briefly
the answers that were returned to them, and subsequently to make a
systematic treatise of the whole discourse.[2] But afterwards,
circumstances themselves suggested to me that I should be economical of
my time, and that, satisfied with what I had already stated at the
commencement, I should in the following part grapple closely, to the
best of my ability, with the charges of Celsus. I have therefore to ask
indulgence for those portions which follow the preface towards the
beginning of the book. And if you are not impressed by the powerful
arguments which succeed, then, asking similar indulgence also with
respect to them, I refer you, if you still desire an argumentative
solution of the objections of Celsus, to those men who are wiser than
myself, and who are able by words and treatises to overthrow the
charges which he brings against us. But better is the man who, although
meeting with the work of Celsus, needs no answer to it at all, but who
despises all its contents, since they are contemned, and with good
reason, by every believer in Christ, through the Spirit that is in him.
The first point which Celsus brings forward, in his desire to
throw discredit upon Christianity, is, that the Christians entered into
secret associations with each other contrary to law, saying, that "of
associations some are public, and that these are in accordance with the
laws; others, again, secret, and maintained in violation of the laws."
And his wish is to bring into disrepute what are termed the
"love-feasts "[3] of the Christians, as if they had their origin in the
common danger, and were more binding than any oaths. Since, then, he
babbles about the public law, alleging that the associations of the
Christians are in violation of it, we have to reply, that if a man were
placed among Scythians, whose laws were unholy,[4] and having no
opportunity of escape, were compelled to live among them, such an one
would with good reason, for the sake of the law of truth, which the
Scythians would regard as wickedness,[5] enter into associations
contrary to their laws, with those like-minded with himself; so, if
truth is to decide, the laws of the heathens which relate to images,
and an atheistical polytheism, are "Scythian" laws, or more impious
even than these, if there be any such. It is not irrational, then, to
form associations in opposition to existing laws, if done for the sake
of the truth. For as those persons would do well who should enter into
a secret association in order to put to death a tyrant who had seized
upon the liberties of a state, so Christians also, when tyrannized over
by him who is called the devil, and by falsehood, form leagues contrary
to the laws of the devil, against his power, and for the safety of
those others whom they may succeed in persuading to revolt from a
government which is, as it were, "Scythian," and despotic.
Celsus next proceeds to say, that the system of doctrine, viz.,
Judaism, upon which Christianity depends, was barbarous in its origin.
And with an appearance of fairness, he does not reproach
Christianity[6] because of its origin among barbarians, but gives the
latter credit for their ability in discovering (such) doctrines. To
this, however, he adds the statement, that the Greeks are more skilful
than any others in judging, establishing, and reducing to practice the
discoveries of barbarous nations. Now this is our answer to his
allegations, and our defence of the truths contained in Christianity,
that if any one were to come from the study of Grecian opinions and
usages to the Gospel, he would not only decide that its doctrines were
true, but would by practice establish their truth, and supply whatever
seemed wanting, from a Grecian point of view, to their demonstration,
and thus confirm the truth of Christianity. We have to say, moreover,
that the Gospel has a demonstration of its own, more divine than any
established by Grecian dialectics. And this diviner method is called by
the apostle the "manifestation of the Spirit and of power:" of "the
Spirit," on account of the prophecies, which are sufficient to produce
faith in any one who reads them, especially in those things which
relate to Christ; and of "power," because of the signs and wonders
which we must believe to have been performed, both on many other
grounds, and on this, that traces of them are still preserved among
those who regulate their lives by the precepts of the Gospel.
After this, Celsus proceeding to speak of the Christians teaching
and practising their favourite doctrines in secret, and saying that
they do this to ,some purpose, seeing they escape the penalty of death
which is imminent, he compares their dangers with those which were
encountered by such men as Socrates for the sake of philosophy; and
here he might have mentioned Pythagoras as well, and other
philosophers. But our answer to this is, that in the case of Socrates
the Athenians immediately afterwards repented; and no feeling of
bitterness remained in their minds regarding him, as also happened in
the history, of Pythagoras. The followers of the latter, indeed, for a
considerable time established their schools in that part of Italy
called Magna Graecia; but in the case of the Christians, the Roman
Senate, and the princes of the time, and the soldiery, and the people,
and the relatives of those who had become converts to the faith, made
war upon their doctrine, and would have prevented (its progress),
overcoming it by a confederacy of so powerful a nature, had it not, by
the help of God, escaped the danger, and risen above it, so as
(finally) to defeat the whole world in its conspiracy against it.
Let us notice also how he thinks to cast discredit upon our
system of morals,[1] alleging that it is only common to us with other
philosophers, and no venerable or new branch of instruction. In reply
to which we have to say, that unless all men had naturally impressed
upon their minds sound ideas of morality, the doctrine of the
punishment of sinners would have been excluded by those who bring upon
themselves the righteous judgments of God. It is not therefore matter
of surprise that the same God should have sown in the hearts of all men
those truths which He taught by the prophets and the Saviour, in order
that at the divine judgment every man may be without excuse, having the
"requirements[2] of the law written upon his heart,"—a truth obscurely
alluded to by the Bible[3] in what the Greeks regard as a myth, where
it represents God as having with His own finger written down the
commandments, and given them to Moses, and which the wickedness of the
worshippers of the calf made him break in pieces, as if the flood of
wickedness, so to speak, had swept them away. But Moses having again
hewn tables of stone, i God wrote the commandments a second time, and
gave them to him; the prophetic word preparing the soul, as it were,
after the first transgression, for the writing of God a second time.
Treating of the regulations respecting idolatry as being peculiar
to Christianity, Celsus establishes their correctness, saying that the
Christians do not consider those to be gods that are made with hands,
On the ground that it is not in conformity with right reason (to
suppose) that images, fashioned by the most worthless and depraved of
workmen, and in many instances also provided by wicked men, can be
(regarded as) gods. In what follows, however, wishing to show that this
is a common opinion, and one not first discovered by Christianity, he
quotes a saying of Heraclitus to this effect: "That those who draw near
to lifeless images, as if they were gods, act in a similar manner to
those who would enter into conversation with houses." Respecting this,
then, we have to say, that ideas were implanted in the minds of men
like the principles of morality, from which not only Heraclitus, but
any other Greek or barbarian, might by reflection have deduced the same
conclusion; for he states that the Persians also were of the same
opinion, quoting Herodotus as his authority. We also can add to these
Zeno of Citium, who in his Polity, says: "And there will be no need to
build temples, for nothing ought to be regarded as sacred, or of much
value, or holy, which is the work of builders and of mean men." It is
evident, then, with respect to this opinion (as well as others), that
there has been en-graven upon the hearts of men by the finger of God a
sense of the duty that is required.
After this, through the influence of some motive which is unknown
to me, Celsus asserts that it is by the names of certain demons, and by
the use of incantations, that the Christians appear to be possessed of
(miraculous) power; hinting, I suppose, at the practices of those who
expel evil spirits by incantations. And here he manifestly appears to
malign the Gospel. For it is not by incantations that Christians seem
to prevail (over evil spirits), but by the name of Jesus, accompanied
by the announcement of the narratives which relate to Him; for the
repetition of these has frequently been the means of driving demons out
of men, especially when those who repeated them did so in a sound and
genuinely believing spirit. Such power, indeed, does the name of Jesus
possess over evil spirits, that there have been instances where it was
effectual, when it was pronounced even by bad men, which Jesus Himself
taught (would be the case), when He said: "Many shall say to Me in that
day, In Thy name we have cast out devils, and done many wonderful
works."[1] Whether Celsus omitted this from intentional malignity, or
from ignorance, I do not know. And he next proceeds to bring a charge
against the Saviour Himself, alleging that it was by means of sorcery
that He was able to accomplish the wonders which He performed; and that
foreseeing that others would attain the same knowledge, and do the same
things, making a boast of doing them by help of the power of God, He
excludes such from His kingdom. And his accusation is, that if they are
justly excluded, while He Himself is guilty of the same practices, He
is a wicked man; but if He is not guilty of wickedness in doing such
things, neither are they who do the same as He. But even if it be
impossible to show by what power Jesus wrought these miracles, it is
clear that Christians employ no spells or incantations, but the simple,
name of Jesus, and certain other words in which they repose faith,
according to the holy Scriptures.
Moreover, since he frequently calls the Christian doctrine a
secret system (of belief), we must confute him on this point also,
since almost the entire world is better acquainted with what Christians
preach than with the favourite opinions of philosophers. For who is
ignorant of the statement that Jesus was born of a virgin, and that He
was crucified, and that His resurrection is an article of faith among
many, and that a general judgment is announced to come, in which the
wicked are to be punished according to their deserts, and the righteous
to be duly rewarded? And yet the mystery of the resurrection, not being
understood,[2] is made a subject of ridicule among unbelievers. In
these circumstances, to speak of the Christian doctrine as a secret
system, is altogether absurd. But that there should be certain
doctrines, not made known to the multitude, which are (revealed) after
the exoteric ones have been taught, is not a peculiarity of
Christianity alone, but also of philosophic systems, in which certain
truths are exoteric and others esoteric. Some of the hearers of
Pythagoras were content with his ipse dixit; while others were taught
in secret those doctrines which were not deemed fit to be communicated
to profane and insufficiently prepared ears. Moreover, all the
mysteries that are celebrated everywhere throughout Greece and
barbarous countries, although held in secret, have no discredit thrown
upon them, so that it is in vain that he endeavours to calumniate the
secret doctrines of Christianity, seeing he does not correctly
understand its nature.
It is with a certain eloquence,[3] indeed, that he appears to
advocate the cause of those who bear witness to the truth of
Christianity by their death, in the following words: "And I do not
maintain that if a man, who has adopted a system of good doctrine, is
to incur danger from men on that account, he should either apostatize,
or feign apostasy, or openly deny his opinions." And he condemns those
who, while holding the Christian views, either pretend that they do
not, or deny them, saying that "he who holds a certain opinion ought
not to feign recantation, or publicly disown it." And here Celsus must
be convicted of self-contradiction. For from other treatises of his it
is ascertained that he was an Epicurean; but here, because he thought
that he could assail Christianity with better effect by not professing
the opinions of Epicurus, he pretends that there is a something better
in man than the earthly part of his nature, which is akin to God, and
says that "they in whom this element, viz., the soul, is in a healthy
condition, are ever seeking after their kindred nature, mean ing God,
and are ever desiring to hear something about Him, and to call it to
remembrance." Observe now the insincerity of his character! Having said
a little before, that "the man who had embraced a system of good
doctrine ought not, even if exposed to danger on that account from men,
to disavow it, or pretend that he had done so, nor yet openly disown
it," he now involves himself in all manner of contradictions. For he
knew that if he acknowledged himself an Epicurean, he would not obtain
any credit when accusing those who, in any degree, introduce the
doctrine of Providence, and who place a God over the world. And we have
heard that there were two individuals of the name of Celsus, both of
whom were Epicureans; the earlier of the two having lived in the time
of Nero, but this one in that of Adrian, and later.
He next proceeds to recommend, that in adopting opinions we
should follow reason and a rational guide,[4] since he who assents to
opinions without following this course is very liable to be deceived.
And he compares inconsiderate believers to Metragyrtae, and
soothsayers, and Mithrae, and Sabbadians, and to anything else that one
may fall in with, and to the phantoms of Hecate, or any other demon or
demons. For as amongst such persons are frequently to be found wicked
men, who, taking advantage of the ignorance of those who are easily
deceived, lead them away whither they will, so also, he says, is the
case among Christians. And he asserts that certain persons who do not
wish either to give or receive a reason for their belief, keep
repeating, "Do not examine, but believe!" and, "Your faith will save
you!" And he alleges that such also say, "The wisdom of this life is
bad, but that foolishness is a good thing!" To which we have to answer,
that if it were possible for all to leave the business of life, and
devote themselves to philosophy, no other method ought to be adopted by
any one, but this alone. For in the Christian system also it will be
found that there is, not to speak at all arrogantly, at least as much
of investigation into articles of belief, and of explanation of dark
sayings, occurring in the prophetical writings, and of the parables in
the Gospels, and of countless other things, which either were narrated
or enacted with a symbolical signification,[1] (as is the case with
other systems). But since the course alluded to is impossible, partly
on account of the necessities of life, partly on account of the
weakness of men, as only a very few individuals devote themselves
earnestly to study,[2] what better method could be devised with a view
of assisting the multitude, than that which was delivered by Jesus to
the heathen? And let us inquire, with respect to the great multitude of
believers, who have washed away the mire of wickedness in which they
formerly wallowed, whether it were better for them to believe without a
reason, and (so) to have become reformed and improved in their habits,
through the belief that men are chastised for sins, and honoured for
good works or not to have allowed themselves to be converted on the
strength of mere faith, but have waited) until they could give
themselves to a thorough examination of the (necessary) reasons. For it
is manifest that, (on such a plan), all men, with very few exceptions,
would not obtain this (amelioration of conduct) which they have
obtained through a simple faith, but would continue to remain in the
practice of a wicked life. Now, whatever other evidence can be
furnished of the fact, that it was not without divine intervention that
the philanthropic scheme of Christianity was introduced among men, this
also must be added. For a pious man will not believe that even a
physician of the body, who restores the sick to better health, could
take up his abode in any city or country without divine permission,
since no good happens to men without the help of God. And if he who has
cured the bodies of many, or restored them to better health, does not
effect his cures without the help of God, how much more He who has
healed the souls of many, and has turned them (to virtue), and improved
their nature, and attached them to God who is over all things, and
taught them to refer every action to His good pleasure, and to shun all
that is displeasing to Him, even to the least of their words or deeds,
or even of the thoughts of their hearts ?
In the next place, since our opponents keep repeating those
statements about faith, we must say that, considering it as a useful
thing for the multitude, we admit that we teach those men to believe
without reasons, who are unable to abandon all other employments, and
give themselves to an examination of arguments; and our opponents,
although they do not acknowledge it, yet practically do the same. For
who is there that, on betaking himself to the study of philosophy, and
throwing himself into the ranks of some sect, either by chance,[3] or
because he is provided with a teacher of that school, adopts such a
course for any other reason, except that he believes his particular
sect to be superior to any other? For, not waiting to hear the
arguments of all the other philosophers, and of all the different
sects, and the reasons for condemning one system and for supporting
another, he in this way elects to become a Stoic, e.g., or a Platonist,
or a Peripatetic, or an Epicurean, or a follower of some other school,
and is thus borne, although they will not admit it, by a kind of
irrational impulse to the practice, say of Stoicism, to the disregard
of the others; despising either Platonism, as being marked by greater
humility than the others; or Peripateticism, as more human, and as
admitting with more fairness[4] than other systems the blessings of
human life. And some also, alarmed at first sight[5] about the doctrine
of providence, from seeing what happens in the world to the vicious and
to the virtuous, have rashly concluded that there is no divine
providence at all, and have adopted the views of Epicurus and Celsus.
Since, then, as reason teaches, we must repose faith in some one
of those who have been the introducers of sects among the Greeks or
Barbarians, why should we not rather believe in God who is over all
things, and in Him who teaches that worship is due to God alone, and
that other things are to be passed by, either as non-existent, or as
existing indeed, and worthy of honour, but not of worship and
reverence? And respecting these things, he who not only believes, but
who contemplates things with the eye of reason, will state the
demonstrations that occur to him, and which are the result of careful
investigation. And why should it not be more reasonable, seeing all
human things are dependent upon faith, to believe God rather than them?
For who enters on a voyage, or contracts a marriage, or becomes the
father of children, or casts seed into the ground, without believing
that better things will result from so doing, although the contrary
might and sometimes does happen? And yet the belief that better things,
even agreeably to their wishes, will follow, makes all men venture upon
uncertain enterprises, which may turn out differently from what they
expect. And if the hope and belief of a better future be the support of
life in every uncertain enterprise, why shall not this faith rather be
rationally accepted by him who believes on better grounds than he who
sails the sea, or tills the ground, or marries a wife, or engages in
any other human pursuit, in the existence of a God who was the Creator
of all these things, and in Him who with surpassing wisdom and divine
greatness of mind dared to make known this doctrine to men in every
part of the world, at the cost of great danger, and of a death
considered infamous, which He underwent for the sake of the human race;
having also taught those who were persuaded to embrace His doctrine at
the first, to proceed, under the peril of every danger, and of ever
impending death, to all quarters of the world to ensure the salvation
of men?
In the next place, when Celsus says in express words, "If they
would answer me, not as if I were asking for information, for I am
acquainted with all their opinions, but because I take an equal
interest in them all, it would be well. And if they will not, but will
keep reiterating, as they generally do, 'Do not investigate,' etc.,
they must, he continues, explain to me at least of what nature these
things are of which they speak, and whence they are derived," etc. Now,
with regard to his statement that he "is acquainted with all our
doctrines," we have to say that this is a boastful and daring
assertion; for if he had read the prophets in particular, which are
full of acknowledged difficulties, and of declarations that are obscure
to the multitude, and if he had perused the parables of the Gospels,
and the other writings of the law and of the Jewish history, and the
utterances of the apostles, and had read them candidly, with a desire
to enter into their meaning, he would not have expressed himself with
such boldness, nor said that he "was acquainted with all their
doctrines." Even we ourselves, who have devoted much study to these
writings, would not say that "we were acquainted with everything," for
we have a regard for truth. Not one of us will assert, "I know all the
doctrines of Epicurus," or will be confident that he knows all those of
Plato, in the knowledge of the fact that so many differences of opinion
exist among the expositors of these systems. For who is so daring as to
say that he knows all the opinions of the Stoics or of the
Peripatetics? Unless, indeed, it should be the case that he has heard
this boast, "I know them all," from some ignorant and senseless
individuals, who do not perceive their own ignorance, and should thus
imagine, from having had such persons as his teachers, that he was
acquainted with them all. Such an one appears to me to act very much as
a person would do who had visited Egypt (where the Egyptian savans,
learned in their country's literature, are greatly given to
philosophizing about those things which are regarded among them as
divine, but where the vulgar, hearing certain myths, the reasons of
which they do not understand, are greatly elated because of their
fancied knowledge), and who should imagine that he is acquainted with
the whole circle of Egyptian knowledge, after having been a disciple of
the ignorant alone, and without having associated with any of the
priests, or having learned the mysteries of the Egyptians from any
other source. And what I have said regarding the learned and ignorant
among the Egyptians, I might have said also of the Persians; among whom
there are mysteries, conducted on rational principles by the learned
among them, but understood in a symbolical sense by the more
superficial of the multitude.[1] And the same remark applies to the
Syrians, and Indians, and to all those who have a literature and a
mythology.
But since Celsus has declared it to be a saying of many
Christians, that "the wisdom of this life is a bad thing, but that
foolishness is good," we have to answer that he slanders the Gospel,
not giving the words as they actually occur in the writings of Paul,
where they run as follow: "If any one among you seemeth to be wise in
this world, let him become a fool, that he may become wise. For the
wisdom of this world is foolishness with God."[2] The apostle,
therefore, does not say simply that "wisdom is fool- ishness with God,"
but "the wisdom of this world." And again, not, "If any one among you
seemeth to be wise, let him become a fool universally;" but, "let him
become a fool in this world, that he may become wise." We term, then,
"the wisdom of this world," every false system of philosophy, which,
according to the Scriptures, is brought to nought; and we call
foolishness good, not without restriction, but when a man becomes
foolish as to this world. As if we were to say that the Platonist, who
believes in the immortality of the soul, and in the doctrine of its
metempsychosis,, incurs the charge of folly with the Stoics, who
discard this opinion; and with the Peripatetics, who babble about the
subtleties of Plato; and with the Epicureans, who call it superstition
to introduce a providence, and to place a God over all things.
Moreover, that it is in agreement with the spirit of Christianity, of
much more importance to give our assent to doctrines upon grounds of
reason and wisdom than on that of faith merely, and that it was only in
certain circumstances that the latter course was desired by
Christianity, in order not to leave men altogether without help, is
shown by that genuine disciple of Jesus, Paul, when he says: "For after
that, in the wisdom of God, the world by wisdom knew not God, it
pleased God by the foolishness of preaching to save them that
believe."[2] Now by these words it is clearly shown that it is by the
wisdom of God that God ought to be known. But as this result did not
follow, it pleased God a second time to save them that believe, not by
"folly" universally, but by such foolishness as depended on preaching.
For the preaching of Jesus Christ as crucified is the "foolishness" of
preaching, as Paul also perceived, when he said, "But we preach Christ
crucified, to the Jews a stumbling-block, and to the Greeks
foolishness; but to them who are called, both Jews and Greeks, Christ
the power of God, and wisdom of God."[3]
Celsus, being of opinion that there is to be found among many
nations a general relationship of doctrine, enumerates all the nations
which gave rise to such and such opinions; but for some reason, unknown
to me, he casts a slight upon the Jews, not including them amongst the
others, as having either laboured along with them, and arrived at the
same conclusions, or as having entertained similar opinions on many
subjects. It is proper, therefore, to ask him why he gives credence to
the histories of Barbarians and Greeks respecting the antiquity of
those nations of whom he speaks, but stamps the histories of this
nation alone as false. For if the respective writers related the events
which are found in these works in the spirit of truth, why should we
distrust the prophets of the Jews alone? And if Moses and the prophets
have recorded many things in their history from a desire to favour
their own system, why should we not say the same of the historians of
other countries? Or, when the Egyptians or their histories speak evil
of the Jews, are they to be believed on that point; but the Jews, when
saying the same things of the Egyptians, and declaring that they had
suffered great injustice at their hands, and that on this account they
had been punished by God, are to be charged with falsehood? And this
applies not to the Egyptians alone, but to others; for we shall find
that there was a connection between the Assyrians and the Jews, and
that this is recorded in the ancient histories of the Assyrians. And so
also the Jewish historians (I avoid using the word "prophets," that I
may not appear to prejudge the case) have related that the Assyrians
were enemies of the Jews. Observe at once, then, the arbitrary
procedure of this individual, who believes the histories of these
nations on the ground of their being learned, and condemns others as
being wholly ignorant. For listen to the statement of Celsus: "There
is," he says, "an authoritative account from the very beginning,
respecting which there is a constant agreement among all the most
learned nations, and cities, and men." And yet he will not call the
Jews a learned nation in the same way in which he does the Egyptians,
and Assyrians, and Indians, and Persians, and Odrysians, and
Samothracians, and Eleusinians.
How much more impartial than Celsus is Numenius the Pythagorean,
who has given many proofs of being a very eloquent man, and who has
carefully tested many opinions, and collected together from many
sources what had the appearance of truth; for, in the first hook of his
treatise On the Good, speaking of those nations who have adopted the
opinion that God is incorporeal, he enumerates the Jews also among
those who hold this view; not showing any reluctance to use even the
language of their prophets in his treatise, and to give it a
metaphorical signification. It is said, moreover, that Hermippus has
recorded in his first book, On Lawgivers, that it was from the Jewish
people that Pythagoras derived the philosophy which he introduced among
the Greeks. And there is extant a work by the historian Hecataeus,
treat ing of the Jews, in which so high a character is bestowed upon
that nation for its learning, that Herennius Philo, in his treatise on
the Jews, has doubts in the first place, whether it is really the
composition of the historian; and says, in the second place, that if
really his, it is probable that he was carried away by the plausible
nature of the Jewish history, and so yielded his assent to their system.
I must express my surprise that Celsus should class the
Odrysians, and Samothracians, and Eleusinians, and Hyperboreans among
the most ancient and learned nations, and should not deem the Jews
worthy of a place among such, either for their learning or their
antiquity, although there are many treatises in circulation among the
Egyptians, and Phoenicians, and Greeks, which testify to their
existence as an ancient people, but which I have considered it
unnecessary to quote. For any one who chooses may read what Florins
Josephus has recorded in his two books, On the Antiquity, of the Jews,
where he brings together a great collection of writers, who bear
witness to the antiquity of the Jewish people; and there exists the
Discourse to the Greeks of Tatian the younger,[2] in which with very
great learning he enumerates those historians who have treated of the
antiquity of the Jewish nation and of Moses. It seems, then, to be not
from a love of truth, but from a spirit of hatred, that Celsus makes
these statements, his object being to asperse the origin of
Christianity, which is connected with Judaism. Nay, he styles the
Galactophagi of Homer, and the Druids of the Gauls, and the Getae, most
learned and ancient tribes, on account of the resemblance between their
traditions and those of the Jews, although I know not whether any of
their histories survive; but the Hebrews alone, as far as in him lies,
he deprives of the honour both of antiquity and learning. And again,
when making a list of ancient and learned men who have conferred
benefits upon their contemporaries (by their deeds), and upon posterity
by their writings, he excluded Moses from the number; while of Linus,
to whom Celsus assigns a foremost place in his list, there exists
neither laws nor discourses which produced a change for the better
among any tribes; whereas a whole nation, dispersed throughout the
entire world, obey the laws of Moses. Consider, then, whether it is not
from open malevolence that he has expelled Moses from his catalogue of
learned men, while asserting that Linus, and Musaeus, and Orpheus, and
Pherecydes, and the Persian Zoroaster, and Pythagoras, discussed these
topics, and that their opinions were deposited in books, and have thus
been preserved down to the present time. And it is intentionally also
that he has omitted to take notice of the myth, embellished chiefly by
Orpheus, in which the gods are described as affected by human
weaknesses and passions.
In what follows, Celsus, assailing the Mosaic history, finds
fault with those who give it a tropical and allegorical signification.
And here one might say to this great man, who inscribed upon his own
work the title of a True Discourse, "Why, good sir, do you make it a
boast to have it recorded that the gods should engage in such
adventures as are described by your learned poets and philosophers, and
be guilty of abominable intrigues, and of engaging in wars against
their own fathers, and of cutting off their secret parts, and should
dare to commit and to suffer such enormities; while Moses, who gives no
such accounts respecting God, nor even regarding the holy angels, and
who relates deeds of far less atrocity regarding men (for in his
writings no one ever ventured to commit such crimes as Kronos did
against Uranus, or Zeus against his father, or that of the father of
men and gods, who had intercourse with his own daughter), should be
considered as having deceived those who were placed under his laws, and
to have led them into error?" And here Celsus seems to me to act
somewhat as Thrasymachns the Platonic philosopher did, when he would
not allow Socrates to answer regarding justice, as he wished, but said,
"Take care not to say that utility is justice, or duty, or anything of
that kind." For in like manner Celsus as sails (as he thinks) the
Mosaic histories, and finds fault with those who understand them
allegorically, at the same time bestowing also some praise upon those
who do so, to the effect that they are more impartial (than those who
do not); and thus, as it were, he prevents by his cavils those who are
able to show the true state of the case from offering such a defence as
they would wish to offer.[3]
And challenging a comparison of book with book, I would say,
"Come now, good sir, take down the poems of Linus, and of Musaeus, and
of Orpheus, and the writings of Pherecydes, and carefully compare these
with the laws of Moses—histories with histories, and ethical
discourses with laws and commandments—and see which of the two are the
better fitted to change the character of the hearer on the very spot,
and which to harden[1] him in his wickedness; and observe that your
series of writers display little concern for those readers who are to
peruse them at once unaided,[2] but have composed their philosophy (as
you term it) for those who are able to comprehend its metaphorical and
allegorical signification; whereas Moses, like a distinguished orator
who meditates some figure of Rhetoric, and who carefully introduces in
every part language of twofold meaning, has done this in his five
books: neither affording, in the portion which relates to morals, any
handle to his Jewish subjects for committing evil; nor yet giving to
the few individuals who were endowed with greater wisdom, and who were
capable of investigating his meaning, a treatise devoid of material for
speculation. But of your learned poets the very writings would seem no
longer to be preserved, although they would have been carefully
treasured up if the readers had perceived any benefit (likely to be
derived from them); whereas the works of Moses have stirred up many,
who were even aliens to the manners of the Jews, to the belief that, as
these writings testify, the first who enacted these laws and delivered
them to Moses, was the God who was the Creator of the world. For it
became the Creator of the universe, after laying down laws for its
government, to confer upon His words a power which might subdue all men
in every part of the earth.[3] And this I maintain, having as yet
entered into no investigation regarding Jesus, but still demonstrating
that Moses, who is far inferior to the Lord, is, as the Discourse will
show, greatly superior to your wise poets and philosophers."
After these statements, Celsus, from a secret desire to cast
discredit upon the Mosaic account of the creation, which teaches that
the world is not yet ten thousand years old, but very much under that,
while concealing his wish, intimates his agreement with those who hold
that the world is uncreated. For, maintaining that there have been,
from all eternity, many conflagrations and many deluges, and that the
flood which lately took place in the time of Deucalion is comparatively
modern, he clearly demonstrates to those who are able to understand
him, that, in his opinion, the world was uncreated. But let this
assailant of the Christian faith tell us by what arguments he was
compelled to accept the statement that there have been many
conflagrations and many cataclysms, and that the flood which occurred
in the time of Deucalion, and the conflagration in that of Phaethon,
were more recent than any others. And if he should put forward the
dialogues of Plato (as evidence) on these subjects, we shall say to him
that it is allowable for us also to believe that there resided in the
pure and pious soul of Moses, who ascended above all created things,
and united himself to the Creator of the universe, and who made known
divine things with far greater clearness than Plato, or those other
wise men (who lived) among the Greeks and Romans, a spirit which was
divine. And if he demands of us our reasons for such a belief, let him
first give grounds for his own unsupported assertions, and then we
shall show that this view of ours is the correct one.
And yet, against his will, Celsus is entangled into testifying
that the world is comparatively modern, and not yet ten thousand years
old, when he says that the Greeks consider those things as ancient,
because, owing to the deluges and conflagrations, they have not beheld
or received any memorials of older events. But let Celsus have, as his
authorities for the myth regarding the conflagrations and inundations,
those persons who, in his opinion, are the most learned of the
Egyptians, traces of whose wisdom are to be found in the worship of
irrational animals, and in arguments which prove that such a worship of
God is in conformity with reason, and of a secret and mysterious
character. The Egyptians, then, when they boastfully give their own
account of the divinity of animals, are to be considered wise; but if
any Jew, who has signified his adherence to the law and the lawgiver,
refer everything to the Creator of the universe, and the only God, he
is, in the opinion of Celsus and those like him, deemed inferior to him
who degrades the Divinity not only to the level of rational and mortal
animals, but even to that of irrational also!—a view which goes far
beyond the mythical doctrine of transmigration, according to which the
soul falls down from the summit of heaven, and enters into the body of
brute beasts, both tame and savage! And if the Egyptians related fables
of this kind, they are believed to convey a philosophical meaning by
their enigmas and mysteries; but if Moses compose and leave behind him
histories and laws for an entire nation, they are to be considered as
empty fables, the language of which admits of no allegorical meaning!
The following is the view of Celsus and the Epicureans: "Moses
having," he says, "learned the doctrine which is to be found existing
among wise nations and eloquent men, obtained the reputation of
divinity." Now, in answer to this we have to say, that it may be
allowed him that. Moses did indeed hear a somewhat ancient doctrine,
and transmitted the same to the Hebrews; that if the doctrine which he
heard was false, and neither pious nor venerable, and if
notwithstanding, he received it and handed it down to those under his
authority, he is liable to censure; but if, as you assert, he gave his
adherence to opinions that were wise and true, and educated his people
by means of them, what, pray, has he done deserving of condemnation?
Would, indeed, that not only Epicurus, but Aristotle, whose sentiments
regarding providence are not so impious (as those of the former), and
the Stoics, who assert that God is a body, had heard such a doctrine !
Then the world would not have been filled with opinions which either
disallow or enfeeble the action of providence, or introduce a corrupt
corporeal principle, according to which the god of the Stoics is a
body, with respect to whom they are not afraid to say that he is
capable of change, and may be altered and transformed in all his parts,
and, generally, that he is capable of corruption, if there be any one
to corrupt him, but that he has the good fortune to escape corruption,
because there is none to corrupt. Whereas the doctrine of the Jews and
Christians, which preserves the immutability and unalterableness of the
divine nature, is stigmatized as impious, because it does not partake
of the profanity of those whose notions of God are marked by impiety,
but because it says in the supplication addressed to the Divinity,
"Thou art the same,"[1] it being, moreover, an article of faith that
God has said, "I change not."[2]
After this, Celsus, without condemning circumcision as practised
by the Jews, asserts that this usage was derived from the Egyptians;
thus believing the Egyptians rather than Moses, who says that Abraham
was the first among men who practised the rite. And it is not Moses
alone who mentions the name of Abraham, assigning to him great intimacy
with God; but many also of those who give themselves to the practice of
the conjuration of evil spirits, employ in their spells the expression
"God of Abraham," pointing out by the very name the friendship (that
existed) between that just man and God. And yet, while making use of
the phrase "God of Abraham," they do not know who Abraham is! And the
same remark applies to Isaac, and Jacob, and Israel; which names,
although confessedly Hebrew, are frequently introduced by those
Egyptians who profess to produce some wonderful result by means of
their knowledge. The rite of circumcision, however, which began with
Abraham, and was discontinued by Jesus, who desired that His disciples
should not practise it, is not before us for explanation; for the
present occasion does not lead us to speak of such things, but to make
an effort to refute the charges brought against the doctrine of the
Jews by Celsus, who thinks that he will be able the more easily to
establish the falsity of Christianity, if, by assailing its origin in
Judaism, he can show that the latter also is untrue.
After this, Celsus next asserts that "Those herdsmen and
shepherds who followed Moses as their leader, had their minds deluded
by vulgar deceits, and so supposed that there was one God." Let him
show, then, how, after this irrational departure, as he regards it, of
the herdsmen and shepherds from the worship of many gods, he himself is
able to establish the multiplicity of deities that are found amongst
the Greeks, or among those other nations that are called Barbarian. Let
him establish, therefore, the existence of Mnemosyne, the mother of the
Muses by Zeus; or of Themis, the parent of the Hours; or let him prove
that the ever naked Graces can have a real, substantial existence. But
he will not be able to show, from any actions of theirs, that these
fictitious representations[3] of the Greeks, which have the appearance
of being invested with bodies, are (really) gods. And why should the
fables of the Greeks regarding the gods be true, any more than those of
the Egyptians for example, who in their language know nothing of a
Mnemosyne, mother of the nine Muses; nor of a Themis, parent of the
Hours; nor of a Euphrosyne, one of the Graces; nor of any other of
these names? How much more manifest (and how much better than all these
inventions!) is it that, convinced by what we see, in the admirable
order of the world, we should worship the Maker of it as the one Author
of one effect, and which, as being wholly in harmony with itself,
cannot on that account have been the work of many makers; and that we
should believe that the whole heaven is not held together by the
movements of many souls, for one is enough, which bears the whole of
the non-wandering[4] sphere from east to west, and embraces within it
all things which the world requires, and which are not self-existing!
For all are parts of the world, while God is no part of the whole. But
God cannot be imperfect, as a part is imperfect. And perhaps profounder
consideration will show, that as God is not a part, so neither is He
properly the whole, since the whole is composed of parts; and reason
will not allow us to believe that the God who is over all is composed
of parts, each one of which cannot do what all the other parts, can.
After this he continues: "These herdsmen and shepherds concluded
that there was but one God, named either the Highest, or Adonai, or the
Heavenly, or Sabaoth, or called by some other of those names which they
delight to give this world; and they knew nothing beyond that." And in
a subsequent part of his work he says, that "It makes no difference
whether the God who is over all things be called by the name of Zeus,
which is current among the Greeks, or by that, e.g., which is in use
among the Indians or Egyptians," Now, in answer to this, we have to
remark that this involves a deep and mysterious subject—that, viz.,
respecting the nature of names: it being a question whether, as
Aristotle thinks, names were bestowed by arrangement, or, as the Stoics
hold, by nature; the first words being imitations of things, agreeably
to which the names were formed, and in conformity with which they
introduce certain principles of etymology; or whether, as Epicurus
teaches (differing in this from the Stoics), names were given by
nature,—the first men having uttered certain words varying with the
circumstances in which they found themselves. If, then, we shall be
able to establish, in reference to the preceding statement, the nature
of powerful names, some of which are used by the learned amongst the
Egyptians, or by the Magi among the Persians, and by the Indian
philosophers called Brahmans, or by the Samanaeans, and others in
different countries; and shall be able to make out that the so-called
magic is not, as the followers of Epicurus and Aristotle suppose, an
altogether uncertain thing, but is, as those skilled in it prove, a
consistent system, having words which are known to exceedingly few;
then we say that the name Sabaoth, and Adonai, and the other names
treated with so much reverence among the Hebrews, are not applicable to
any ordinary created things, but belong to a secret theology which
refers to the Framer of all things. These names, accordingly, when
pronounced with that attendant train of circumstances which is
appropriate to their nature, are possessed of great power; and other
names, again, current in the Egyptian tongue, are efficacious against
certain demons who can only do certain things; and other names in the
Persian language have corresponding power over other spirits; and so on
in every individual nation, for different purposes. And thus it will be
found that, of the various demons upon the earth, to whom different
localities have been assigned, each one bears a name appropriate to the
several dialects of place and country. He, therefore, who has a nobler
idea, however small, of these matters, will be careful not to apply
differing names to different things; lest he should resemble those who
mistakenly apply the name of God to lifeless matter, or who drag down
the title of "the Good" from the First Cause, or from virtue and
excellence, and apply it to blind Plutus, and to a healthy and
well-proportioned mixture of flesh and blood and bones, or to what is
considered to be noble birth.[1]
And perhaps there is a danger as great as that which degrades the
name of "God," or of "the Good," to improper objects, in changing the
name of God according to a secret system, and applying those which
belong to inferior beings to greater, and vice versa. And I do not
dwell on this, that when the name of Zeus is uttered, there is heard at
the same time that of the son of Kronos and Rhea, and the husband of
Hera, and brother of Poseidon, and father of Athene, and Artemis, who
was guilty of incest with his own daughter Persephone; or that Apollo
immediately suggests the son of Leto and Zeus, and the brother of
Artemis, and half-brother of Hermes; and so with all the other names
invented by these wise men of Celsus, who are the parents of these
opinions, and the ancient theologians of the Greeks. For what are the
grounds for deciding that he should on the one hand be properly called
Zeus, and yet on the other should not have Kronos for his father and
Rhea for his mother? And the same argument applies to all the others
that are called gods. But this charge does not at all apply to those
who, for some mysterious reason, refer the word Sabaoth, or Adonai, or
any of the other names to the (true) God. And when one is able to
philosophize about the mystery of names, he will find much to say
respecting the titles of the angels of God, of whom one is called
Michael, and another Gabriel, and another Raphael, appropriately to the
duties which they discharge in the world, according to the will of the
God of all things. And a similar philosophy of names applies also to
our Jesus, whose name has already been seen, in an unmistakeable
manner, to have expelled myriads of evil spirits from the souls and
bodies (of men), so great was the power which it exerted upon those
from whom the spirits were driven out. And while still upon the subject
of names, we have to mention that those who are skilled in the use of
incantations, relate that the utterance of the same incantation in its
proper language can accomplish what the spell professes to do; but when
translated into any other tongue, it is observed to become
inefficacious and feeble. And thus it is not the things signified, but
the qualities and peculiarities of words, which possess a certain power
for this or that purpose. And so on such grounds as these we defend the
conduct of the Christians, when they struggle even to death to avoid
calling God by the name of Zeus, or to give Him a name from any other
language. For they either use the common name—God—indefinitely, or
with some such addition as that of the "Maker of all things," "the
Creator of heaven and earth"—He who sent down to the human race those
good men, to whose names that of God being added, certain mighty works
are wrought among men. And much more besides might be said on the
subject of names, against those who think that we ought to be
indifferent as to our use of them. And if the remark of Plato in the
Philebus should surprise us, when he says, "My fear, O Protagoras,
about the names of the gods is no small one," seeing Philebus in his
discussion with Socrates had called pleasure a "god," how shall we not
rather approve the piety of the Christians, who apply none of the names
used in the mythologies to the Creator of the world? And now enough on
this subject for the present.
But let us see the manner in which this Celsus, who professes to
know everything, brings a false accusation against the Jews, when he
alleges that "they worship angels, and are addicted to sorcery, in
which Moses was their instructor." Now, in what part of the writings of
Moses he found the lawgiver laying down the worship of angels, let him
tell, who professes to know all about Christianity and Judaism; and let
him show also how sorcery can exist among those who have accepted the
Mosaic law, and read the injunction, "Neither seek after wizards, to be
defiled by them."[1] Moreover, he promises to show afterwards "how it
was through ignorance that the Jews were deceived and led into error."
Now, if he had discovered that the ignorance of the Jews regarding
Christ was the effect of their not having heard the prophecies about
Him, he would show with truth how the Jews fell into error. But without
any wish whatever that this should appear, he views as Jewish errors
what are no errors at all. And Celsus having promised to make us
acquainted, in a subsequent part of his work, with the doctrines of
Judaism, proceeds in the first place to speak of our Saviour as having
been the leader of our generation, in so far as we are Christians,[2]
and says that "a few years ago he began to teach this doctrine, being
regarded by Christians as the Son of God." Now, with respect to this
point—His prior existence a few years ago—we have to remark as
follows. Could it have come to pass without divine assistance, that
Jesus, desiring during these years to spread abroad His words and
teaching, should have been so successful, that everywhere throughout
the world, not a few persons, Greeks as well as Barbarians, learned as
well as ignorant, adopted His doctrine, so that they struggled, even to
death in its defence, rather than deny it, which no one is ever related
to have done for any other system? I indeed, from no wish to flatter[3]
Christianity, but from a desire thoroughly to examine the facts, would
say that even those who are engaged in the healing of numbers of sick
persons, do not attain their object—the cure of the body—without
divine help; and if one were to succeed in delivering souls from a
flood of wickedness, and excesses, and acts of injustice, and from a
contempt of God, and were to show, as evidence of such a result, one
hundred persons improved in their natures (let us suppose the number to
be so large), no one would reasonably say that it was without divine
assistance that he had implanted in those hundred individuals a
doctrine capable of removing so many evils. And if any one, on a candid
consideration of these things, shall admit that no improvement ever
takes place among men without divine help, how much more confidently
shall he make the same assertion regarding Jesus, when he compares the
former lives of many converts to His doctrine with their after conduct,
and reflects in what acts of licentiousness and injustice and
covetousness they formerly indulged, until, as Celsus, and they who
think with him, allege, "they were deceived," and accepted a doctrine
which, as these individuals assert, is destructive of the life of men;
but who, from the time that they adopted it, have become in some way
meeker, and more religious, and more consistent, so that certain among
them, from a desire of exceeding chastity, and a wish to worship God
with greater purity, abstain even from the permitted indulgences of
(lawful) love.
Any one who examines the subject will see that Jesus attempted
and successfully accomplished works beyond the reach of human power.
For although, from the very beginning, all things opposed the spread of
His doctrine in the world, —both the princes of the times, and their
chief captains and generals, and all, to speak generally, who were
possessed of the smallest influence, and in addition to these, the
rulers of the different cities, and the soldiers, and the people,—yet
it proved victorious, as being the Word of God, the nature of which is
such that it cannot be hindered; and becoming more powerful than all
such adversaries, it made itself master of the whole of Greece, and a
considerable portion of Barbarian lands, and convened countless numbers
of souls to His religion. And although, among the multitude of converts
to Christianity, the simple and ignorant necessarily outnumbered the
more intelligent, as the former class always does the latter, yet
Celsus, unwilling to take note of this, thinks that this philanthropic
doctrine, which reaches to every soul under the sun, is vulgar,[1] and
on account of its vulgarity and its want of reasoning power, obtained a
hold only over the ignorant. And yet he himself admits that it was not
the simple alone who were led by the doctrine of Jesus to adopt His
religion; for he acknowledges that there were amongst them some persons
of moderate intelligence, and gentle disposition, and possessed of
understanding, and capable of comprehending allegories.
And since, in imitation of a rhetorician training a pupil, he
introduces a Jew, who enters into a personal discussion with Jesus, and
speaks in a very childish manner, altogether unworthy of the grey hairs
of a philosopher, let me endeavour, to the best of my ability, to
examine his statements, and show that he does not maintain, throughout
the discussion, the consistency due to the character of a Jew. For he
represents him disputing with Jesus, and confuting Him, as he thinks,
on many points; and in the first place, he accuses Him of having
"invented his birth from a virgin," and upbraids Him with being "born
in a certain Jewish village, of a poor woman of the country, who gained
her subsistence by spinning, and who was turned out of doors by her
husband, a carpenter by trade, because she was convicted of adultery;
that after being driven away by her husband, and wandering about for a
time, she disgracefully gave birth to Jesus, an illegitimate child, who
having hired himself out as a servant in Egypt on account of his
poverty, and having there acquired some miraculous powers, on which the
Egyptians greatly pride themselves, returned to his own country, highly
elated on account of them, and by means of these proclaimed himself a
God." Now, as I cannot allow anything said by unbelievers to remain
unexamined, but must investigate everything from the beginning, I give
it as my opinion that all these things worthily harmonize with the
predictions that Jesus is the Son of God.
For birth is an aid towards an individual's becoming famous, and
distinguished, and talked about; viz., when a man's parents happen to
be in a position of rank and influence, and are possessed of wealth,
and are able to spend it upon the education of their son, and when the
country of one's birth is great and illustrious; but when a man having
all these things against him is able, notwithstanding these hindrances,
to make himself known, and to produce an impression on those who hear
of him, and to become distinguished and visible to the whole world,
which speaks of him as it did not do before, how can we help admiring
such a nature as being both noble in itself, and devoting itself to
great deeds, and possessing a courage which is not by any means to be
despised ? And if one were to examine more fully the history of such an
individual, why should he not seek to know in what manner, after being
reared up in frugality and poverty, and without receiving any complete
education, and without having studied systems and opinions by means of
which he might have acquired confidence to associate with multitudes,
and play the demagogue, and attract to himself many hearers, he
nevertheless devoted himself to the teaching of new opinions,
introducing among men a doctrine which not only subverted the customs
of the Jews, while preserving due respect for their prophets, but which
especially overturned the established observances of the Greeks
regarding the Divinity? And how could such a person—one who had been
so brought up, and who, as his calumniators admit, had learned nothing
great from men—have been able to teach, in a manner not at all to be
despised, such doctrines as he did regarding the divine judgment, and
the punishments that are to overtake wickedness, and the rewards that
are to be conferred upon virtue; so that not only rustic and ignorant
individuals were won by his words, but also not a few of those who were
distinguished by their wisdom, and who were able to discern the hidden
meaning in those more common doctrines, as they were considered, which
were in circulation, and which secret meaning enwrapped, so to speak,
some more recondite' signification still? The Seriphian, in Plato, who
reproaches Themistocles after he had become celebrated for his military
skill, saying that his reputation was due not to his own merits, but to
his good fortune in having been born in the most illustrious country in
Greece, received from the good-natured Athenian, who saw that his
native country did contribute to his renown, the following reply:
"Neither would I, had I been a Seriphian, have been so distinguished as
I am, nor would you have been a Themistocles, even if you had had the
good fortune to be an Athenian!" And now, our Jesus, who is reproached
with being born in a village, and that not a Greek one, nor belonging
to any nation widely esteemed, and being despised as the son of a poor
labouring woman, and as having on account of his poverty left his
native country and hired himself out in Egypt, and being, to use the
instance already quoted, not only a Seriphian, as it were, a native of
a very small and undistinguished island, but even, so to speak, the
meanest of the Seriphians, has yet been able to shake[1] the whole
inhabited world not only to a degree far above what Themistocles the
Athenian ever did, but beyond what even Pythagoras, or Plato, or any
other wise man in any part of the world whatever, or any prince or
general, ever succeeded in doing?
Now, would not any one who investigated with ordinary care the
nature of these facts, be struck with amazement at this man's
victory?—with his complete success in surmounting by his reputation
all causes that tended to bring him into disrepute, and with his
superiority over all other illustrious individuals in the world ? And
yet it is a rate thing for distinguished men to succeed in acquiring a
reputation for several things at once. For one man is admired on
account of his wisdom, another for his military skill, and some of the
Barbarians for their marvellous powers of incantation, and some for one
quality, and others for another; but not many have been admired and
acquired a reputation for many things at the same time; whereas this
man, in addition to his other merits, is an object of admiration both
for his wisdom, and for his miracles, and for his powers of government.
For he persuaded some to withdraw themselves from their laws, and to
secede to him, not as a tyrant would do, nor as a robber, who arms[3]
his followers against men; nor as a rich man, who bestows help upon
those who come to him; nor as one of those who confessedly are
deserving of censure; but as a teacher of the doctrine regarding the
God of all things, and of the worship which belongs to Him, and of all
moral precepts which are able to secure the favour of the Supreme God
to him who orders his life in conformity therewith. Now, to
Themistocles, or to any other man of distinction, nothing happened to
prove a hindrance to their reputation; whereas to this man, besides
what we have already enumerated, and which are enough to cover with
dishonour the soul of a man even of the most noble nature, there was
that apparently infamous death of crucifixion, which was enough to
efface his previously acquired glory, and to lead those who, as they
who disavow his doctrine assert, were formerly deluded by him to
abandon their delusion, and to pass condemnation upon their deceiver.
And besides this, one may well wonder how it happened that the
disciples—if, as the calumniators of Jesus say, they did not see Him
after His resurrection from the dead, and were not persuaded of His
divinity—were not afraid to endure the same sufferings with their
Master, and to expose themselves to danger, and to leave their native
country to teach, according to the desire of Jesus, the doctrine
delivered to them by Him. For I think that no one who candidly examines
the facts would say that these men devoted themselves to a life of
danger for the sake of the doctrine of Jesus, without profound belief
which He had wrought in their minds of its truth, not only teaching
them to conform to His precepts, but others also, and to conform,
moreover, when manifest destruction to life impended over him who
ventured to introduce these new opinions into all places and before all
audiences, and who could retain as his friend no human being who
adhered to the former opinions and usages. For did not the disciples of
Jesus see, when they ventured to prove not only to the Jews from their
prophetic Scriptures that this is He who was spoken of by the prophets,
but also to the other heathen nations, that He who was crucified
yesterday or the day before underwent this death voluntarily on behalf
of the human race,—that this was analogous to the case of those who
have died for their country in order to remove pestilence, or
barrenness, or tempests? For it is probable that there is in the nature
of things, for certain mysterious tea-sons which are difficult to be
understood by the multitude, such a virtue that one just man, dying a
voluntary death for the common good, might be the means of removing
wicked spirits, which are the cause of plagues, or barrenness, or
tempests, or similar calamities. Let those, therefore, who would
disbelieve the statement that Jesus died on the cross on behalf of men,
say whether they also refuse to accept the many accounts current both
among Greeks and Barbarians, of persons who have laid down their lives
for the public advantage, in order to remove those evils which had
fallen upon cities and countries? Or will they say that such events
actually happened, but that no credit is to be attached to that account
which makes this so-called man to have died to ensure the destruction
of a mighty evil spirit, the ruler of evil spirits, who had held in
subjection the souls of all men upon earth? And the disciples of Jesus,
seeing this and much more (which, it is probable, they learned from
Jesus in private), and being filled, moreover, with a divine power
(since it was no mere poetical virgin that endowed them with strength
and courage, but the true wisdom and understanding of God), exerted all
their efforts "to become distinguished among all men," not only among
the Argives, but among all the Greeks and Barbarians alike, and "so
bear away for themselves a glorious renown."[1]
But let us now return to where the Jew is introduced, speaking of
the mother of Jesus, and saying that "when she was pregnant she was
turned out of doors by the carpenter to whom she had been betrothed, as
having been guilty of adultery, and that she bore a child to a certain
soldier named Panthera;" and let us see whether those who have blindly
concocted these fables about the adultery of the Virgin with Panthera,
and her rejection by the carpenter, did not invent these stories to
overturn His miraculous conception by the Holy Ghost: for they could
have falsified the history in a different manner, on account of its
extremely miraculous character, and not have admitted, as it were
against their will, that Jesus was born of no ordinary human marriage.
It was to be expected, indeed, that those who would not believe the
miraculous birth of Jesus would invent some falsehood. And their not
doing this in a credible manner, but (their) preserving the fact that
it was not by Joseph that the Virgin conceived Jesus, rendered the
falsehood very palpable to those who can understand and detect such
inventions. Is it at all agreeable to reason, that he who dared to do
so much for the human race, in order that, as far as in him lay, all
the Greeks and Barbarians, who were looking for divine condemnation,
might depart from evil, and regulate their entire conduct in a manner
pleasing to the Creator of the world, should not have had a miraculous
birth, but one the vilest and most disgraceful of all? And I will ask
of them as Greeks, and particularly of Celsus, who either holds or not
the sentiments of Plato, and at any rate quotes them, whether He who
sends souls down into the bodies of men, degraded Him who was to dare
such mighty acts, and to teach so many men, and to reform so many from
the mass of wickedness in the world, to a birth more disgraceful than
any other, and did not rather introduce Him into the world through a
lawful marriage? Or is it not more in conformity with reason, that
every soul, for certain mysterious reasons (I speak now according to
the opinion of Pythagoras, and Plato, and Empedocles, whom Celsus
frequently names), is introduced into a body, and introduced according
to its deserts and former actions? It is probable, therefore, that this
soul also, which conferred more benefit by its residence in the flesh
than that of many men (to avoid prejudice, I do not say "all"), stood
in need of a body not only superior to others, but invested with all
excellent qualities.
Now if a particular soul, for certain mysterious reasons, is not
deserving of being placed in the body of a wholly irrational being, nor
yet in that of one purely rational, but is clothed with a monstrous
body, so that reason cannot discharge its functions in one so
fashioned, which has the head disproportioned to the other parts, and
altogether too short; and another receives such a body that the soul is
a little more rational than the other; and another still more so, the
nature of the body counteracting to a greater or less degree the
reception of the reasoning principle; why should there not be also some
soul which receives an altogether miraculous body, possessing some
qualities common to those of other men, so that it may be able to pass
through life with them, but possessing also some quality of
superiority, so that the soul may be able to remain untainted by sin?
And if there be any truth in the doctrine of the physiognomists,
whether Zopyrus, or Loxus, or Polemon, or any other who wrote on such a
subject, and who profess to know in some wonderful way that all bodies
are adapted to the habits of the souls, must there have been for that
soul which was to dwell with miraculous power among men, and work
mighty deeds, a body produced, as Celsus thinks, by an act of adultery
between Panthera and the Virgin?! Why, from such unhallowed intercourse
there must rather have been brought forth some fool to do injury to
mankind,—a teacher of licentiousness and wickedness, and other evils;
and not of temperance, and righteousness, and the other virtues!
But it was, as the prophets also predicted, from a virgin that
there was to be born, according to the promised sign, one who was to
give His name to the fact, showing that at His birth God was to be with
man. Now it seems to me appropriate to the character of a Jew to have
quoted the prophecy of Isaiah, which says that Immanuel was to be born
of a virgin. This, however, Celsus, who professes to know everything,
has not done, either from ignorance or from an unwillingness (if he had
read it and voluntarily passed it by in silence) to furnish an argument
which might defeat his purpose. And the prediction runs thus: "And the
Lord spake again unto Ahaz, saying, Ask thee a sign of the RD thy God;
ask it either in the depth or in the height above· But Ahaz said, I
will not ask, neither will I tempt the LORD. And he said, Hear ye now,
O house of David; is it a small thing for you to weary men, but will ye
weary my God also? Therefore the Lord Himself shall give you a sign.
Behold, a virgin shall conceive, and bear a son, and shall call His
name Immanuel, which is, being interpreted, God with us."[1] And that
it was from intentional malice that Celsus did not quote this prophecy,
is clear to me from this, that although he makes numerous quotations
from the Gospel according to Matthew, as of the star that appeared at
the birth of Christ, and other miraculous occurrences, he has made no
mention at all of this. Now, if a Jew should split words, and say that
the words are not, "Lo, a virgin," but, "Lo, a young woman,"[3] we
reply that the word "Olmah"—which the Septuagint have rendered by "a
virgin," and others by "a young woman"—occurs, as they say, in
Deuteronomy, as applied to a "virgin," in the following connection: "If
a damsel that is a virgin be betrothed unto an husband, and a man find
her in the city, and lie with her; then ye shall bring them both out
unto the gate of that city, and ye shall stone them with stones that
they die; the damsel,[3] because she cried not, being in the city; and
the man, because he humbled his neighbour's wife."[4] And again: "But
if a man find a betrothed damsel in a field, and the man force her, and
lie with her: then the man only that lay with her shall die: but unto
the damsel[5] ye shall do nothing; there is in her no sin worthy of
death."
But that we may not seem, because of a Hebrew word, to endeavour
to persuade those who are unable to determine whether they ought to
believe it or not, that the prophet spoke of this man being born of a
virgin, because at his birth these words, "God with us," were uttered,
let us make good our point from the words themselves. The Lord is
related to have spoken to Ahaz thus: "Ask a sign for thyself from the
LORD thy God, either in the depth or height above; "[6] and afterwards
the sign is given, Behold, a virgin shall conceive, and bear a son."[7]
What kind of sign, then, would that have been—a young woman who was
not a virgin giving birth to a child ? And which of the two is the more
appropriate as the mother of Immanuel (i.e., "God with us"),—whether a
woman who has had intercourse with a man, and who has conceived after
the manner of women, or one who is still a pure and holy virgin? Surely
it is appropriate only to the latter to produce a being at whose birth
it is said, "God with us." And should he be so captious l as to say
that it is to Ahaz that the command is addressed, "Ask for thyself a
sign from the LORD thy God," we shall ask in return, who in the times
of Ahaz bore a son at whose birth the expression is made use of,
"Immanuel," i.e., "God with us?" And if no one can be found. then
manifestly what was said to Ahaz was said to the house of David,
because it is written that the Saviour was born of the house of David
according to the flesh; and this sign is said to be "in the depth or in
the height," since "He that descended is the same also that ascended up
far above all heavens, that He might fill all things."[8] And these
arguments I employ as against a Jew who believes in prophecy. Let
Celsus now tell me, or any of those who think with him, with what
meaning the prophet utters either these statements about the future, or
the others which are contained in the prophecies? Is it with any
foresight of the future or not? If with a foresight of the future, then
the prophets were divinely inspired; if with no foresight of the
future, let him explain the meaning of one who speaks thus boldly
regarding the future, and who is an object of admiration among the Jews
because of his prophetic powers.
And now, since we have touched upon the subject of the prophets,
what we are about to advance will be useful not only to the Jews, who
believe that they spake by divine inspiration, but also to the more
candid among the Greeks. To these we say that we must necessarily admit
that the Jews had prophets, if they were to be kept together under that
system of law which had been given them, and were to believe in the
Creator of the world, as they had learned, and to be without pretexts,
so far as the law was concerned, for apostatizing to the polytheism of
the heathen· And we establish this necessity in the following manner.
"For the nations," as it is written in the law of the Jews itself,
"shall hearken unto observers of times, and diviners; "[1] but to that
people it is said: "But as for thee, the LORD thy God hath not suffered
thee so to do."[1] And to this is subjoined the promise: "A prophet
shall the LORD thy God raise up unto thee from among thy brethren."[2]
Since, therefore, the heathen employ modes of divination either by
oracles or by omens, or by birds, or by ventriloquists, or by those who
profess the art of sacrifice, or by Chaldean genealogists—all which
practices were forbidden to the Jews—this people, if they had no means
of attaining a knowledge of futurity, being led by the passion common
to humanity of ascertaining the future would have despised their own
prophets, as not having in them any particle of divinity; and would not
have accepted any prophet after Moses, nor committed their words to
writing, but would have spontaneously betaken themselves to the
divining usages of the heathen, or attempted to establish some such
practices amongst themselves. There is therefore no absurdity in their
prophets having uttered predictions even about events of no importance,
to soothe those who desire such things, as when Samuel prophesies
regarding three she-asses which were lost,[3] or when mention is made
in the third book of Kings respecting the sickness of a king's son.[4]
And why should not those who desired to obtain auguries from idols be
severely rebuked by the administrators of the law among the Jews?—as
Elijah is found rebuking Ahaziah, and saying, "Is it because there is
not a God in Israel that ye go to inquire of Baalzebub, god of Ekron?"
I think, then, that it has been pretty well established not only
that our Saviour was to be born of a virgin, but also that there were
prophets among the Jews who uttered not merely general predictions
about the future,—as, e.g., regarding Christ and the kingdoms of the
world, and the events that were to happen to Israel, and those nations
which were to believe on the Saviour, and many other things concerning
Him,—but also prophecies respecting particular events; as, for
instance, how the asses of Kish, which were lost, were to be
discovered, and regarding the sickness which had fallen upon the son of
the king of Israel, and any other recorded circumstance of a similar
kind. But as a further answer to the Greeks, who do not believe in the
birth of Jesus from a virgin, we have to say that the Creator has
shown, by the generation of several kinds of animals, that what He has
done in the instance of one animal, He could do, if it pleased Him, in
that of others, and also of man himself. For it is ascertained that
there is a certain female animal which has no intercourse with the male
(as writers on animals say is the case with vultures), and that this
animal, without sexual intercourse, preserves the succession of race.
What incredibility, therefore, is there in supposing that, if God
wished to send a divine teacher to the human race, He caused Him to be
born in some manner different from the common![6] Nay, according to the
Greeks themselves, all men were not born of a man and woman. For if the
world has been created, as many even of the Greeks are pleased to
admit, then the first men must have been produced not from sexual
intercourse, but from the earth, in which spermatic elements existed;
which, however, I consider more incredible than that Jesus was born
like other men, so far as regards the half of his birth. And there is
no absurdity in employing Grecian histories to answer Greeks, with the
view of showing that we are not the only persons who have recourse to
miraculous narratives of this kind. For some have thought fit, not in
regard to ancient and heroic narratives, but in regard to events of
very recent occurrence, to relate as a possible thing that Plato was
the son of Amphictione, Ariston being prevented from having marital
intercourse with his wife until she had given birth to him with whom
she was pregnant by Apollo. And yet these are veritable fables, which
have led to the invention of such stories concerning a man whom they
regarded as possessing greater wisdom and power than the multitude, and
as having received the beginning of his corporeal substance from better
and diviner elements than others, because they thought that this was
appropriate to persons who were too great to be human beings. And since
Celsus has introduced the Jew disputing with Jesus, and tearing in
pieces, as he imagines, the fiction of His birth from a virgin,
comparing the Greek fables about Danae, and Melanippe, and Auge, and
Antiope, our answer is, that such language becomes a buffoon, land not
one who is writing in a serious tone.
But, moreover, taking the history, contained in the Gospel
according to Matthew, of our Lord's descent into Egypt, he refuses to
believe the miraculous circumstances attending it, viz., either that
the angel gave the divine intimation, or that our Lord's quitting Judea
and residing in Egypt was an event of any significance; but he invents
something altogether different, admitting somehow the miraculous works
done by Jesus, by means of which He induced the multitude to follow Him
as the Christ. And yet he desires to throw discredit on them, as being
done by help of magic and not by divine power; for he asserts "that he
(Jesus), having been brought up as an illegitimate child, and having
served for hire in Egypt, and then coming to the knowledge of certain
miraculous powers, returned from thence to his own country, and by
means of those powers proclaimed himself a god." Now I do not
understand how a magician should exert himself to teach a doctrine
which persuades us always to act as if God were to judge every man for
his deeds; and should have trained his disciples, whom he was to employ
as the ministers of his doctrine, in the same belief. For did the
latter make an impression upon their hearers, after they had been so
taught to work miracles; or was it without the aid of these? The
assertion, therefore, that they did no miracles at all, but that, after
yielding their belief to arguments which were not at all convincing,
like the wisdom of Grecian dialectics,[1] they gave themselves up to
the task of teaching the new doctrine to those persons among whom they
happened to take up their abode, is altogether absurd. For in what did
they place their confidence when they taught the doctrine and
disseminated the new opinions? But if they indeed wrought miracles,
then how can it be believed that magicians exposed themselves to such
hazards to introduce a doctrine which forbade the practice of magic?
I do not think it necessary to grapple with an argument advanced
not in a serious but in a scoffing spirit, such as the following: "If
the mother of Jesus was beautiful, then the god whose nature is not to
love a corruptible body, had intercourse with her because she was
beautiful;" or, "It was improbable that the god would entertain a
passion for her, because she was neither rich nor of royal rank, seeing
no one, even of her neighbours, knew her." And it is in the same
scoffing spirit that he adds: "When hated by her husband, and turned
out of doors, she was not saved by divine power, nor was her story
believed. Such things, he says, have no connection with the kingdom of
heaven." In what respect does such language differ from that of those
who pour abuse on others on the public streets, and whose words are
unworthy of any serious attention?
After these assertions, he takes from the Gospel of Matthew, and
perhaps also from the other Gospels, the account of the dove alighting
upon our Saviour at His baptism by John, and desires to throw discredit
upon the statement, alleging that the narrative is a fiction. Having
completely disposed, as he imagined, of the story of our Lord's birth
from a virgin, he does not proceed to deal in an orderly manner with
the accounts that follow it; since passion and hatred observe no order,
but angry and vindictive men slander those whom they hate, as the
feeling comes upon them, being prevented by their passion from
arranging their accusations on a careful and orderly plan. For if he
had observed a proper arrangement, he would have taken up the Gospel,
and, with the view of assailing it, would. have objected to the first
narrative, then passed on to the second, and so on to the others. But
now, after the birth from a virgin, this Celsus, who professes to be
acquainted with all our history, attacks the account of the appearance
of the Holy Spirit in the form of a dove at the baptism. He then, after
that, tries to throw discredit upon the prediction that our Lord was to
come into the world. In the next place, he runs away to what
immediately follows the narrative of the birth of Jesus—the account of
the star, and of the wise men who came from the east to worship the
child. And you yourself may find, if you take the trouble, many
confused statements made by Celsus throughout his whole book; so that
even in this account he may, by those who know how to observe and
require an orderly method of arrangement, be convicted of great
rashness and boasting, in having inscribed upon his work the title of A
True Discourse,—a thing which is never done by a learned philosopher.
For Plato says, that it is not an indication of an intelligent man to
make strong assertions respecting those matters which are somewhat
uncertain; and the celebrated Chrysippus even, who frequently states
the reasons by which he is decided, refers us to those whom we shall
find to be abler speakers than himself. This man, however, who is wiser
than those already named, and than all the other Greeks, agreeably to
his assertion of being acquainted with everything, inscribed upon his
book the words, A True Discourse!
But, that we may not have the appearance of intentionally passing
by his charges through inability to refute them, we have resolved to
answer each one of them separately according to our ability, attending
not to the connection and sequence of the nature of the things
themselves, but to the arrangement of the subjects as they occur in
this book. Let us therefore notice what he has to say by way of
impugning the bodily appearance of the Holy Spirit to our Saviour in
the form of a dove. And it is a Jew who addresses the following
language to Him whom we acknowledge to be our Lord Jesus: "When you
were bathing," says the Jew, "beside John, you say that what had the
appearance of a bird from the air alighted upon you." And then this
same Jew of his, continuing his interrogations, asks, "What credible
witness beheld this appearance? or who heard a voice from heaven
declaring you to be the Son of God? What proof is there of it, save
your own assertion, and the statement of another of those individuals
who have been punished along with you?"
Before we begin our reply, we have to remark that the endeavour
to show, with regard to almost any history, however true, that it
actually occurred, and to produce an intelligent conception regarding
it, is one of the most difficult undertakings that can be attempted,
and is in some instances an impossibility. For suppose that some one
were to assert that there never had been any Trojan war, chiefly on
account of the impossible narrative interwoven therewith, about a
certain Achilles being the son of a sea-goddess Thetis and of a man
Peleus, or Sarpedon being the son of Zeus, or Ascalaphus and Ialmenus
the sons of Ares, or AEneas that of Aphrodite, how should we prove that
such was the case, especially under the weight of the fiction attached,
I know not how, to the universally prevalent opinion that there was
really a war in Ilium between Greeks and Trojans? And suppose, also,
that some one disbelieved the story of OEdipus and Jocasta, and of
their two sons Eteocles and Polynices, because the sphinx, a kind of
half-virgin, was introduced into the narrative, how should we
demonstrate the reality of such a thing? And in like manner also with
the history of the Epigoni, although there is no such marvellous event
interwoven with it, or with the return of the Heracleidae, or countless
other historical events. But he who deals candidly with histories, and
would wish to keep himself also from being imposed upon by them, will
exercise his judgment as to what statements he will give his assent to,
and what he will accept figuratively, seeking to discover the meaning
of the authors of such inventions, and from what statements he will
withhold his belief, as having been written for the gratification of
certain individuals. And we have said this by way of anticipation
respecting the whole history related in the Gospels concerning Jesus,
not as inviting men of acuteness to a simple and unreasoning faith, but
wishing to show that there is need of candour in those who are to read,
and of much investigation, and, so to speak, of insight into the
meaning of the writers, that the object with which each event has been
recorded may be discovered.
We shall therefore say, in the first place, that if he who
disbelieves the appearance of the Holy Spirit in the form of a dove had
been described as an Epicurean, or a follower of Democritus, or a
Peripatetic, the statement would have been in keeping with the
character of such an objector. But now even this Celsus, wisest of all
men, did not perceive that it is to a Jew, who believes more incredible
things contained in the writings of the prophets than the narrative of
the appearance of the dove, that he attributes such an objection! For
one might say to the Jew, when expressing his disbelief of the
appearance, and thinking to assail it as a fiction, "How are you able
to prove, sir, that the Lord spake to Adam, or to Eve, or to Cain, or
to Noah, or to Abraham, or to Isaac, or to Jacob, those words which He
is recorded to have spoken to these men?" And, to compare history with
history, I would say to the Jew, "Even your own Ezekiel writes,
saying,' The heavens were opened, and I saw a vision of God." After
relating which, he adds, ' This was the appearance of the likeness of
the glory of the LORD; and He said to me,'"[2] etc. Now, if what is
related of Jesus be false, since we cannot, as you suppose, clearly
prove it to be true, it being seen or heard by Himself alone, and, as
you appear to have observed, also by one of those who were punished,
why should we not rather say that Ezekiel also was dealing in the
marvellous when he said, "The heavens were opened," etc.? Nay, even
Isaiah asserts, "I saw the Lord of hosts sitting on a throne, high and
lifted up; and the seraphim stood round about it: the one had six
wings, and the other had six wings."[3] How can we tell whether he
really saw them or not? Now, O Jew, you have believed these visions to
be true, and to have been not only shown to the prophet by a diviner
Spirit, but also to have been both spoken and recorded by the same. And
who is the more worthy of belief, when declaring that the heavens were
opened before him, and that he heard a voice, or beheld the Lord of
Sabaoth sitting upon a throne high and lifted up,—whether Isaiah and
Ezekiel or Jesus? Of the former, indeed, no work has been found equal
to those of the latter; whereas the good deeds of Jesus have not been
confined solely to the period of His tabernacling in the flesh, but up
to the present time His power still produces conversion and
amelioration of life in those who believe in God through Him. And a
manifest proof that these things are done by His power, is the fact
that, although, as He Himself said, and as is admitted, there are not
labourers enough to gather in the harvest of souls, there really is
nevertheless such a great harvest of those who are gathered together
and conveyed into the everywhere existing threshing-floors and Churches
of God.
And with these arguments I answer the Jew, not disbelieving, I
who am a Christian, Ezekiel and Isaiah, but being very desirous to
show, on the footing of our common belief, that this man is far more
worthy of credit than they are when He says that He beheld such a
sight, and, as is probable, related to His disciples the vision which
He saw, and told them of the voice which He heard. But another party
might object, that not all those who have narrated the appearance of
the dove and the voice from heaven heard the accounts of these things
from Jesus, but that that Spirit which taught Moses the history of
events before his own time, beginning with the creation, and descending
down to Abraham his father, taught also the writers of the Gospel the
miraculous occurrence which took place at the time of Jesus' baptism.
And he who is adorned with the spiritual gift,[1] called the "word of
wisdom," will explain also the reason of the heavens opening, and the
dove appearing, and why the Holy Spirit appeared to Jesus in the form
of no other living thing than that of a dove. But our present subject
does not require us to explain this, our purpose being to show that
Celsus displayed no sound judgment in representing a Jew as
disbelieving, on such grounds, a fact which has greater probability in
its favour than many events in which he firmly reposes confidence.
And I remember on one occasion, at a disputation held with
certain Jews who were reputed learned men, having employed the
following argument in the presence of many judges: "Tell me, sirs," I
said, "since there are two individuals who have visited the human race,
regarding whom are related marvellous works surpassing human
power—Moses, viz., your own legislator, who wrote about himself, and
Jesus our teacher, who has left no writings regarding Himself, but to
whom testimony is borne by the disciples in the Gospels—what are the
grounds for deciding that Moses is to be believed as speaking the
truth, although the Egyptians slander him as a sorcerer, and as
appearing to have wrought his mighty works by jugglery, while Jesus is
not to be believed because you are His accusers? And yet there are
nations which bear testimony in favour of both: the Jews to Moses; and
the Christians, who do not deny the prophetic mission of Moses, but
proving from that very source the truth of the statement regarding
Jesus, accept as true the miraculous circumstances related of Him by
His disciples. Now, if ye ask us for the reasons of our faith in Jesus,
give yours first for believing in Moses, who lived before Him, and then
we shall give you ours for accepting the latter. But if you draw back,
and shirk a demonstration, then we, following your own example, decline
for the present to offer any demonstration likewise; Nevertheless,
admit that ye have no proof to offer for Moses, and then listen to our
defence of Jesus derived from the law and the prophets. And now observe
what is almost incredible! It is shown from the declarations concerning
Jesus, contained in the law and the prophets, that both Moses and the
prophets were truly prophets of God."
For the law and the prophets are full of marvels similar to those
recorded of Jesus at His baptism, viz., regarding the dove and the
voice from heaven. And I think the wonders wrought by Jesus are a proof
of the Holy Spirit's having then appeared in the form of a dove,
although Celsus, from a desire to cast discredit upon them, alleges
that He performed only what He had learned among the Egyptians. And I
shall refer not only to His miracles, but, as is proper, to those also
of the apostles of Jesus. For they could not without the help of
miracles and wonders have prevailed on those who heard their new
doctrines and new teachings to abandon their national usages, and to
accept their instructions at the danger to themselves even of death.
And there are still preserved among Christians traces of that Holy
Spirit which appeared in the form of a dove. They expel evil spirits,
and perform many cures, and foresee certain events, according to the
will of the Logos. And although Celsus, or the Jew whom he has
introduced, may treat with mockery what I am going to say, I shall say
it nevertheless,—that many have been converted to Christianity as if
against their will, some sort of spirit having suddenly transformed
their minds from a hatred of the doctrine to a readiness to die in its
defence, and having appeared to them either in a waking vision or a
dream of the night. Many such instances have we known, which, if we
were to commit to writ- ing, although they were seen and witnessed by
ourselves, we should afford great occasion for ridicule to unbelievers,
who would imagine that we, like those whom they suppose to have
invented such things, had ourselves also done the same. But God is
witness of our conscientious desire, not by false statements, but by
testimonies of different kinds, to establish the divinity of the
doctrine of Jesus. And as it is a Jew who is perplexed about the
account of the Holy Spirit having descended upon Jesus in the form of a
dove, we would say to him, "Sir, who is it that says in Isaiah, 'And
now the Lord hath sent me and His Spirit?[1] In which sentence, as the
meaning is doubtful—viz., whether the Father and the Holy Spirit sent
Jesus, or the Father sent both Christ and the Holy Spirit—the latter
is correct. For, because the Saviour was sent, afterwards the Holy
Spirit was sent also, that the prediction of the prophet might be
fulfilled; and as it was necessary that the fulfilment of the prophecy
should be known to posterity, the disciples of Jesus for that reason
committed the result to writing.
I would like to say to Celsus, who represents the Jew as
accepting somehow John as a Baptist, who baptized Jesus, that the
existence of John the Baptist, baptizing for the remission of sins, is
related by one who lived no great length of time after John and Jesus.
For in the 18th book of his Antiquities[2] of the Jews, Josephus bears
witness to John as having been a Baptist, and as promising purification
to those who underwent the rite. Now this writer, although not
believing in Jesus as the Christ, in seeking after the cause of the
fall of Jerusalem and the destruction of the temple, whereas he ought
to have said that the conspiracy against Jesus was the cause of these
calamities befalling the people, since they put to death Christ, who
was a prophet, says nevertheless—being, although against his will, not
far from the truth—that these disasters happened to the Jews as a
punishment for the death of James the Just, who was a brother of Jesus
(called Christ),—the Jews having put him to death, although he was a
man most distinguished for his justice.[3] Paul, a genuine disciple of
Jesus, says that he regarded this James as a brother of the Lord, not
so much on account of their relationship by blood, or of their being
brought up together, as because of his virtue and doctrine.[4] If,
then, he says that it was on account of James that the desolation of
Jerusalem was made to overtake the Jews, how should it not be more in
accordance with reason to say that it happened on account (of the
death) of Jesus Christ, of whose divinity so many Churches are
witnesses, composed of those who have been convened from a flood of
sins, and who have joined themselves to the Creator, and who refer all
their actions to His good pleasure.
Although the Jew, then, may offer no defence for himself in the
instances of Ezekiel and Isaiah, when we compare the opening of the
heavens to Jesus; and the voice that was heard by Him, to the similar
cases which we find recorded in Ezekiel and Isaiah, or any other of the
prophets, we nevertheless, so far as we can, shall support our
position, maintaining that, as it is a matter of belief that in a dream
impressions have been brought before the minds of many, some relating
to divine things, and others to future events of this life, and this
either with clearness or in an enigmatic manner,—a fact which is
manifest to all who accept the doctrine of providence; so how is it
absurd to say that the mind which could receive impressions in a dream
should be impressed also in a waking vision, for the benefit either of
him on whom the impressions are made, or of those who are to hear the
account of them from him? And as in a dream we fancy that we hear, and
that the organs of hearing are actually impressed, and that we see with
our eyes—although neither the bodily organs of sight nor hearing are
affected, but it is the mind alone which has these sensations—so there
is no absurdity in believing that similar things occurred to the
prophets, when it is recorded that they witnessed occurrences of a
rather wonderful kind, as when they either heard the words of the Lord
or beheld the heavens opened. For I do not suppose that the visible
heaven was actually opened, and its physical structure divided, in
order that Ezekiel might be able to record such an occurrence. Should
not, therefore, the same be believed of the Saviour by every
intelligent hearer of the Gospels?—although such an occurrence may be
a stumbling-block to the simple, who in their simplicity would set the
whole world in movement, and split in sunder the compact and mighty
body of the whole heavens. But he who examines such matters more
profoundly will say, that there being, as the Scripture calls it, a
kind of general divine perception which the blessed man alone knows how
to discover, according to the saying of Solomon, "Thou shall find the
knowledge of God;"[5] and as there are various forms of this perceptive
power, such as a faculty of vision which can naturally see things that
are better than bodies, among which are ranked the cherubim and
seraphim; and a faculty of hearing which can perceive voices which have
not their being in the air; and a sense of taste which can make use of
living bread that has come down from heaven, and that giveth life unto
the world; and so also a sense of smelling, which scents such things as
leads Paul to say that he is a sweet savour of Christ unto God;[1] and
a sense of touch, by which John says that he "handled with his hands of
the Word of life;"[2]—the blessed prophets having discovered this
divine perception, and seeing and hearing in this divine manner, and
tasting likewise, and smelling, so to speak, with no sensible organs of
perception, and laying hold on the Logos by faith, so that a healing
effluence from it comes upon them, saw in this manner what they record
as having seen, and heard what they say they heard, and were affected
in a similar manner to what they describe when eating the roll of a
book that was given them.[3] And so also Isaac smelled the savour of
his son's divine garments,[4] and added to the spiritual blessing these
words: "See, the savour of my son is as the savour of a full field
which the LORD blessed."[5] And similarly to this, and more as a matter
to be understood by the mind than to be perceived by the senses, Jesus
touched the leper,[6] to cleanse him, as I think, in a twofold
sense,—freeing him not only, as the multitude heard, from the visible
leprosy by visible contact, but also from that other leprosy, by His
truly divine touch. It is in this way, accordingly, that John testifies
when he says, "I beheld the Spirit descending from heaven like a dove,
and it abode upon Him. And I knew Him not; but He that sent me to
baptize with water, the same said to me, Upon whom you will see the
Spirit descending, and abiding on Him, the same is He that baptizeth
with the Holy Ghost And I saw, and bear witness, that this is the Son
of God."[7] Now it was to Jesus that the heavens were opened; and on
that occasion no one except John is recorded to have seen them opened.
But with respect to this opening of the heavens, the Saviour,
foretelling to His disciples that it would happen, and that they would
see it, says, "Verily, verily, I say unto you, Ye shall see the heavens
opened, and the angels of God ascending and descending upon the Son of
man."[8] And so Paul was carried away into the third heaven, having
previously seen it opened, since he was a disciple of Jesus. It does
not, however, belong to our present object to explain why Paul says,
"Whether in the body, I know not; or whether out of the body, I know
not: God knoweth."[9] But I shall add to my argument even those very
points which Celsus imagines, viz., that Jesus Himself related the
account of the opening of the heavens, and the descent of the Holy
Spirit upon Him at the Jordan in the form of a dove, although the
Scripture does not assert that He said that He saw it. For this great
man did not perceive that it was not in keeping with Him who commanded
His disciples on the occasion of the vision on the mount, "Tell what ye
have seen to no man, until the Son of man he risen from the dead,"[10]
to have related to His disciples what was seen and heard by John at the
Jordan. For it may be observed as a trait of the character of Jesus,
that He on all occasions avoided unnecessary talk about Himself; and on
that account said, "If I speak of Myself, My witness is not true."[11]
And since He avoided unnecessary talk about Himself, and preferred to
show by acts rather than words that He was the Christ, the Jews for
that reason said to Him, "If Thou art the Christ, tell us plainly."[12]
And as it is a Jew who, in the work of Celsus, uses the language to
Jesus regarding the appearance of the Holy Spirit in the form of a
dove, "This is your own testimony, unsupported save by one of those who
were sharers of your punishment, whom you adduce," it is necessary for
us to show him that such a statement is not appropriately placed in the
mouth of a Jew. For the Jews do not connect John with Jesus, nor the
punishment of John with that of Christ. And by this instance, this man
who boasts of universal knowledge is convicted of not knowing what
words he ought to ascribe to a Jew engaged in a disputation with Jesus.
After this he wilfully sets aside, I know not why, the strongest
evidence in confirmation of the claims of Jesus, viz., that His coming
was predicted by the Jewish prophets—Moses, and those who succeeded as
well as preceded that legislator—from inability, as I think, to meet
the argument that neither the Jews nor any other heretical sect refuse
to believe that Christ was the subject of prophecy. But perhaps he was
unacquainted with the prophecies relating to Christ. For no one who was
acquainted with the statements of the Christians, that many prophets
foretold the advent of the Saviour, would have ascribed to a Jew
sentiments which it would have better befitted a Samaritan or a
Sadducee to utter; nor would the Jew in the dialogue have expressed
himself in language like the following: "But my prophet once declared
in Jerusalem, that the Son of God will come as the Judge of the
righteous and the Punisher of the wicked." Now it is not one of the
prophets merely who predicted the advent of Christ. But although the
Samaritans and Sadducees, who receive the books of Moses alone, would
say that there were contained in them predictions regarding Christ, yet
certainly not in Jerusalem, which is not even mentioned in the times of
Moses, was the prophecy uttered. It were indeed to be desired, that all
the accusers of Christianity were equally ignorant with Celsus, not
only of the facts, but of the bare letter of Scripture, and would so
direct their assaults against it, that their arguments might not have
the least available influence in shaking, I do not say the faith, but
the little faith of unstable and temporary believers. A Jew, however,
would not admit that any prophet used the expression, "The ' Son of
God' will come;" for the term which they employ is, "The 'Christ of
God' will come." And many a time indeed do they directly interrogate us
about the "Son of God," saying that no such being exists, or was made
the subject of prophecy. We do not of course assert that the "Son of
God" is not the subject of prophecy; but we assert that he most
inappropriately attributes to the Jewish disputant, who would not allow
that He was, such language as, "My prophet once declared in Jerusalem
that the ' Son of God' will come."
In the next place, as if the only event predicted were this, that
He was to be "the Judge of the righteous and the Punisher of the
wicked," and as if neither the place of His birth, nor the sufferings
which He was to endure at the hands of the Jews, nor His resurrection,
nor the wonderful works which He was to perform, had been made the
subject of prophecy, he continues "Why should it be you alone, rather
than innumerable others, who existed after the prophecies were
published, to whom these predictions are applicable?" And desiring, I
know not how, to suggest to others the possibility of the notion that
they themselves were the persons referred to by the prophets, he says
that "some, carried away by enthusiasm, and others having gathered a
multitude of followers, give out that the Son of God is come down from
heaven." Now we have not ascertained that such occurrences are admitted
to have taken place among the Jews. we have to remark then, in the
first place, that many of the prophets have uttered predictions! in all
kinds of ways[1] regarding Christ; some by means of dark sayings,
others in allegories or in some other manner, and some also in express
words. And as in what follows he says, in the character of the Jew
addressing the converts from his own nation, and repeating emphatically
and malevolently, that "the prophecies referred to the events of his
life may also suit other events as well," we shall state a few of them
out of a greater number; and with respect to these, any one who chooses
may say what he thinks fitted to ensure a refutation of them, and which
may turn away intelligent believers from the faith.
Now the Scripture speaks, respecting the place of the Saviour's
birth—that the Ruler was to come forth from Bethlehem—in the
following manner: "And thou Bethlehem, house of Ephrata, art not the
least among the thousands of Judah: for out of thee shall He come forth
unto Me who is to be Ruler in Israel; and His goings forth have been of
old, from everlasting."[2] Now this prophecy could not suit any one of
those who, as Celsus' Jew says, were fanatics and mob-leaders, and who
gave out that they had come from heaven, unless it were clearly shown
that He had been born in Bethlehem, or, as another might say, had come
forth from Bethlehem to be the leader of the people. With respect to
the birth of Jesus in Bethlehem, if any one desires, after the prophecy
of Micah and after the history recorded in the Gospels by the disciples
of Jesus, to have additional evidence from other sources, let him know
that, in conformity with the narrative in the Gospel regarding His
birth, there is shown at Bethlehem the cave[3] where He was born, and
the manger in the cave where He was wrapped in swaddling-clothes. And
this sight is greatly talked of in surrounding places, even among the
enemies of the faith, it being said that in this cave was born that
Jesus who is worshipped and reverenced by the Christians.[4] Moreover,
I am of opinion that, before the advent of Christ, the chief priests
and scribes of the people, on account of the distinctness and clearness
of this prophecy, taught that in Bethlehem the Christ was to be born.
And this opinion had prevailed also extensively among the Jews; for
which reason it is related that Herod, on inquiring at the chief
priests and scribes of the people, heard from them that the Christ was
to be born in Bethlehem of Judea, "whence David was." It is stated also
in the Gospel according to John, that the Jews declared that the Christ
was to be born in Bethlehem, "whence David was."[1] But after our
Lord's coming, those who busied themselves with overthrowing the belief
that the place of His birth had been the subject of prophecy from the
beginning, withheld such teaching from the people; acting in a similar
manner to those individuals who won over those soldiers of the guard
stationed around the tomb who had seen Him arise from the dead, and who
instructed these eye-witnesses to report as follows: "Say that His
disciples, while we slept, came and stole Him away. And if this come to
the governor's ears, we shall persuade him, and secure you."[2]
Strife and prejudice are powerful instruments in leading men to
disregard even those things which are abundantly clear; so that they
who have somehow become familiar with certain opinions, which have
deeply imbued their minds, and stamped them with a certain character,
will not give them up. For a man will abandon his habits in respect to
other things, although it may be difficult for him to tear himself from
them, more easily than he will surrender his opinions. Nay, even the
former are not easily put aside by those who have become accustomed to
them; and so neither houses, nor cities, nor villages, nor intimate
acquaintances, are willingly forsaken when we are prejudiced in their
favour. This, therefore, was a reason why many of the Jews at that time
disregarded the clear testimony of the prophecies, and miracles which
Jesus wrought, and of the sufferings which He is related to have
endured. And that human nature is thus affected, will be manifest to
those who observe that those who have once been prejudiced in favour of
the most contemptible and paltry traditions of their ancestors and
fellow-citizens, with difficulty lay them aside. For example, no one
could easily persuade an Egyptian to despise what he had learned from
his fathers, so as no longer to consider this or that irrational animal
as a god, or not to guard against eating, even under the penalty of
death, of the flesh of such an animal. Now, if in carrying our
examination of this subject to a considerable length, we have
enumerated the points respecting Bethlehem, and the prophecy regarding
it, we consider that we were obliged to do this, by way of defence
against those who would assert that if the prophecies current among the
Jews l regarding Jesus were so clear as we represent them, why did they
not at His coming give in their adhesion to His doctrine, and betake
them selves to the better life pointed out by Him? Let no one, however,
bring such a reproach against believers, since he may see that reasons
of no light weight are assigned by those who have learned to state
them, for their faith in Jesus.
And if we should ask for a second prophecy, which may appear to
us to have a clear reference to Jesus, we would quote that which was
written by Moses very many years before the advent of Christ, when he
makes Jacob, on his departure from this life, to have uttered
predictions regarding each of his sons, and to have said of Judah along
with the others: "The ruler will not fail from Judah, and the governor
from his loins, until that which is reserved for him come."[3] Now, any
one meeting with this prophecy, which is in reality much older than
Moses, so that one who was not a believer might suspect that it was not
written by him, would be surprised that Moses should be able to predict
that the princes of the Jews, seeing there are among them twelve
tribes, should be born of the tribe of Judah, and should be the rulers
of the people; for which reason also the whole nation are called Jews,
deriving their name from the ruling tribe. And, in the second place,
one who candidly considers the prophecy, would be surprised how, after
declaring that the rulers and governors of the people were to proceed
from the tribe of Judah, he should determine also the limit of their
rule, saying that "the ruler should not fail from Judah, nor the
governor from his loins, until there should come that which was
reserved for him, and that He is the expectation of the Gentiles."[4]
For He came for whom these things were reserved, viz., the Christ of
God, the ruler of the promises of God. And manifestly He is the only
one among those who preceded, and, I might make bold to say, among
those also who followed Him, who was the expectation of the Gentiles;
for converts from among all the Gentile nations have believed on God
through Him, and that in conformity with the prediction of Isaiah, that
in His name the Gentiles had hoped: "In Thy name shall the Gentiles
hope."[5] And this man said also to those who are in prison, as every
man is a captive to the chains of his sins, "Come forth;" and to the
ignorant, "Come into the light:" these things also having been thus
foretold: "I have given Thee for a covenant of the people, to establish
the earth, to cause to inherit the desolate heritage; saying to the
prisoners, Go forth; and to them that are in darkness, Show
yourselves."[1] And we may see at the appearing of this man, by means
of those who everywhere throughout the world have reposed a simple
faith in Him, the fulfilment of this prediction: "They shall feed in
the ways, and their pastures shall be in all the beaten tracks."[2]
And since Celsus, although professing to know all about the
Gospel, reproaches the Saviour because of His sufferings, saying that
He received no assistance from the Father, or was unable to aid
Himself; we have to state that His sufferings were the subject of
prophecy, along with the cause of them; because it was for the benefit
of mankind that He should die on their account,[3] and should suffer
stripes because of His condemnation. It was predicted, moreover, that
some from among the Gentiles would come to the knowledge of Him (among
whom the prophets are not included); and it had been declared that He
would be seen in a form which is deemed dishonourable among men. The
words of prophecy run thus: "Lo, my Servant shall have understanding,
and shall be exalted and glorified, and raised exceedingly high. In
like manner, many shall be astonished at Thee; so Thy form shall be in
no reputation among men, and Thy glory among the sons of men. Lo, many
nations shall marvel because of Him; and kings shall close their
mouths: because they, to whom no message about Him was sent, shall see
Him; and they who have not heard of Him, shall have knowledge of
Him."[4] "Lord, who hath believed our report? and to whom was the arm
of the LORD revealed? We have reported, as a child before Him, as a
root in a thirsty ground. He has no form nor glory; and we beheld Him,
and He had not any form nor beauty: but His appearance was without
honour, and deficient more than that of all men. He was a man under
suffering, and who knew how to bear sickness: because His countenance
was averted, He was treated with disrespect, and was made of no
account. This man bears our sins, and suffers pain on our behalf; and
we regarded Him as in trouble, and in suffering, and as ill-treated.
But He was wounded for our sins, and bruised for our iniquities. The
chastisement of our peace was upon Him; by His stripes we were healed.
We all, like sheep, wandered from the way. A man wandered in his way,
and the Lord delivered Him on account of our sins; and He, because of
His evil treatment, opens not His mouth. As a sheep was He led to
slaughter; and as a lamb before her shearer is dumb, so He opens not
His mouth. In His humiliation His judgment was taken away. And who
shall describe His generation? because His life is taken away from the
earth; because of the iniquities of My people was He led unto death."[5]
Now I remember that, on one occasion, at a disputation held with
certain Jews, who were reckoned wise men, I quoted these prophecies; to
which my Jewish opponent replied, that these predictions bore reference
to the whole people, regarded as one individual, and as being in a
state of dispersion and suffering, in order that many proselytes might
be gained, on account of the dispersion of the Jews among numerous
heathen nations. And in this way he explained the words, "Thy form
shall be of no reputation among men;" and then, "They to whom no
message was sent respecting him shall see;" and the expression, "A man
under suffering." Many arguments were employed on that occasion during
the discussion to prove that these predictions regarding one particular
person were not rightly applied by them to the whole nation. And I
asked to what character the expression would be appropriate, "This man
bears our sins, and suffers pain on our behalf;" and this, "But He was
wounded for our sins, and bruised for our iniquities;" and to whom the
expression properly belonged, "By His stripes were we healed." For it
is manifest that it is they who had been sinners, and had been healed
by the Saviour's sufferings (whether belonging to the Jewish nation or
converts from the Gentiles), who use such language in the writings of
the prophet who foresaw these events, and who, under the influence of
the Holy Spirit, appiled these words to a person. But we seemed to
press them hardest with the expression, "Because of the iniquities of
My people was He led away unto death." For if the people, according to
them, are the subject of the prophecy, how is the man said to be led
away to death because of the iniquities of the people of God, unless he
be a different person from that people of God? And who is this person
save Jesus Christ, by whose stripes they who believe on Him are healed,
when "He had spoiled the principalities and powers (that were over us),
and had made a show of them openly on His cross?"[6] At another time we
may explain the several parts of the prophecy, leaving none of them
unexamined. But these matters have been treated at greater length,
necessarily as I think, on account of the language of the Jew, as
quoted in the work of Celsus.
Now it escaped the notice of Celsus, and of the Jew whom he has
introduced, and of all who are not believers in Jesus, that the
prophecies speak of two advents of Christ: the former characterized by
human suffering and humility, in order that Christ, being with men,
might make known the way that leads to God, and might leave no man in
this life a ground of excuse, in saying that he knew not of the
judgment to come; and the latter, distinguished only by glory and
divinity, having no element of human infirmity intermingled with its
divine greatness. To quote the prophecies at length would be tedious;
and I deem it sufficient for the present to quote a part of the
forty-fifth Psalm, which has this inscription, in addition to others,
"A Psalm for the Beloved," where God is evidently addressed in these
words: "Grace is poured into Thy lips: therefore God will bless Thee
for ever and ever. Gird Thy sword on Thy thigh, O mighty One, with Thy
beauty and Thy majesty. And stretch forth, and ride prosperously, and
reign, because of Thy truth, and meekness, and righteousness; and Thy
right hand shall lead Thee marvellously. Thine arrows are pointed, O
mighty One; the people will fall under Thee in the heart of the enemies
of the King."[1] But attend carefully to what follows, where He is
called God: "For Thy throne, O God, is for ever and ever: a sceptre of
righteousness is the sceptre of Thy kingdom. Thou hast loved
righteousness, and hated iniquity: therefore God, even Thy God, hath
anointed Thee with the oil of gladness above Thy fellows."[2] And
observe that the prophet, speaking familiarly to God, whose "throne is
for ever and ever," and "a sceptre of righteousness the sceptre of His
kingdom," says that this God has been anointed by a God who was His
God, and anointed, because more than His fellows He had loved
righteousness and hated iniquity. And I remember that I pressed the
Jew, who was deemed a learned man, very hard with this passage; and he,
being perplexed about it, gave such an answer as was in keeping with
his Judaistic views, saying that the words, "Thy throne, O God, is for
ever and ever: a sceptre of righteousness is the sceptre of Thy
kingdom," are spoken of the God of all things; and these, "Thou hast
loved righteousness and hated iniquity, therefore Thy God hath anointed
Thee," etc., refer to the Messiah.[3]
The Jew, moreover, in the treatise, addresses the Saviour thus:
"If you say that every man, born according to the decree of Divine
Providence, is a son of God, in what respect should you differ from
another?" In reply to whom we say, that every man who, as Paul
expresses it, is no longer under fear, as a schoolmaster, but who
chooses good for its own sake, is "a son of God;" but this man is
distinguished far and wide above every man who is called, on account of
his virtues, a son of God, seeing He is, as it were, a kind of source
and beginning of all such. The words of Paul are as follow: "For ye
have not received the spirit of bondage again to fear; but ye have
received the Spirit of adoption, whereby we cry, Abba, Father."[4] But,
according to the Jew of Celsus, "countless individuals will convict
Jesus of falsehood, alleging that those predictions which were spoken
of him were intended of them." We are not aware, indeed, whether Celsus
knew of any who, after coming into this world, and having desired to
act as Jesus did, declared themselves to be also the "sons of God," or
the "power" of God. But since it is in the spirit of truth that we
examine each passage, we shall mention that there was a certain Theudas
among the Jews before the birth of Christ, who gave himself out as some
great one, after whose death his deluded followers were completely
dispersed. And after him, in the days of the census, when Jesus appears
to have been born, one Judas, a Galilean, gathered around him many of
the Jewish people, saying he was a wise man, and a teacher of certain
new doctrines. And when he also had paid the penalty of his rebellion,
his doctrine was overturned, having taken hold of very few persons
indeed, and these of the very humblest condition. And after the times
of Jesus, Dositheus the Samaritan also wished to persuade the
Samaritans that he was the Christ predicted by Moses; and he appears to
have gained over some to his views. But it is not absurd, in quoting
the extremely wise observation of that Gamaliel named in the book of
Acts, to show how those persons above mentioned were strangers to the
promise, being neither "sons of God" nor "powers" of God, whereas
Christ Jesus was truly the Son of God. Now Gamaliel, in the passage
referred to, said: "If this counsel or this work be of men, it will
come to nought" (as also did the designs of those men already mentioned
after their death); "but if it be of God, ye cannot overthrow this
doctrine, lest haply ye be found even to fight against God."[3] There
was also Simon the Samaritan magician, who wished to draw away certain
by his magical arts. And on that occasion he was successful; but
now-a-days it is impossible to find, I suppose, thirty of his followers
in the entire world, and probably I have even overstated the number.
There are exceedingly few in Palestine; while in the rest of the world,
through which he desired to spread the glory of his name, you find it
nowhere mentioned. And where it is found, it is found quoted from the
Acts of the Apostles; so that it is to Christians that he owes this
mention of himself, the unmistakeable result having proved that Simon
was in no respect divine.
After these matters this Jew of Celsus, instead of the Magi
mentioned in the Gospel, says that "Chaldeans are spoken of by Jesus as
having been induced to come to him at his birth, and to worship him
while yet an infant as a God, and to have made this known to Herod the
tetrarch; and that the latter sent and slew all the infants that had
been born about the same time, thinking that in this way he would
ensure his death among the others; and that he was led to do this
through fear that, if Jesus lived to a sufficient age, he would obtain
the throne." See now in this instance the blunder of one who cannot
distinguish between Magi and Chaldeans, nor perceive that what they
profess is different, and so has falsified the Gospel narrative. I know
not, moreover, why he has passed by in silence the cause which led the
Magi to come, and why he has not stated, according to the scriptural
account, that it was a star seen by them in the east. Let us see now
what answer we have to make to these statements. The star that was seen
in the east we consider to have been a new star, unlike any of the
other well-known planetary bodies, either those in the firmament above
or those among the lower orbs, but partaking of the nature of those
celestial bodies which appear at times, such as comets, or those
meteors which resemble beams of wood, or beards, or wine jars, or any
of those other names by which the Greeks are accustomed to describe
their varying appearances. And we establish our position in the
following manner.
It has been observed that, on the occurrence of great events, and
of mighty changes in terrestrial things, such stars are wont to appear,
indicating either the removal of dynasties or the breaking out of wars,
or the happening of such circumstances as may cause commotions upon the
earth. But we have read in the Treatise an Comets by Chaeremon the
Stoic, that on some occasions also, when good was to happen, comets
made their appearance; and he gives an account of such instances. If,
then, at the commencement of new dynasties, or on the occasion of other
important events, there arises a comet so called, or any similar
celestial body, why should it be matter of wonder that at the birth of
Him who was to introduce a new doctrine to the human race, and to make
known His teaching not only to Jews, but also to Greeks, and to many of
the barbarous nations besides, a star should have arisen? Now I would
say, that with respect to comets there is no prophecy in circulation to
the effect that such and such a comet was to arise in connection with a
particular kingdom or a particular time; but with respect to the
appearance of a star at the birth of Jesus there is a prophecy of
Balaam recorded by Moses i to this effect: "There shall arise a star
out of Jacob, and a man shall rise up out of Israel."[1] And now, if it
shall be deemed necessary to examine the narrative about the Magi, and
the appearance of the star at the birth of Jesus, the following is what
we have to say, partly in answer to the Greeks, and partly to the Jews.
To the Greeks, then, I have to say that the Magi, being on
familiar terms with evil spirits, and invoking them for such purposes
as their knowledge and wishes extend to, bring about such results only
as do not appear to exceed the superhuman power and strength of the
evil spirits, and of the spells which invoke them, to accomplish; but
should some greater manifestation of divinity be made, then the powers
of the evil spirits are overthrown, being unable to resist the light of
divinity. It is probable, therefore, that since at the birth of Jesus
"a multitude of the heavenly host," as Luke records, and as I believe,
"praised God, saying, Glory to God in the highest, and on earth peace,
good-will towards men," the evil spirits on that account became feeble,
and lost their strength, the falsity of their sorcery being manifested,
and their power being broken; this overthrow being brought about not
only by the angels having visited the terrestrial regions on account of
the birth of Jesus, but also by the power of Jesus Himself, and His
innate divinity. The Magi, accordingly, wishing to produce the
customary results, which formerly they used to perform by means of
certain spells and sorceries, sought to know the reason of their
failure, conjecturing the cause to be a great one; and beholding a
divine sign in the heaven, they desired to learn its signification. I
am therefore of opinion that, possessing as they did the prophecies of
Balaam, which Moses also records, inasmuch as Balaam was celebrated for
such predictions, and finding among them the prophecy about the star,
and the words, "I shall show him to him, but not now; I deem him happy,
although he will not be near,"[1] they conjectured that the man whose
appearance had been foretold along with that of the star, had actually
come into the world; and having pro-determined that he was superior in
power to all demons, and to all common appearances and powers, they
resolved to offer him homage. They came, accordingly, to Judea,
persuaded that some king had been born; but not knowing over what
kingdom he was to reign, and being ignorant also of the place of his
birth. bringing gifts, which they offered to him as one whose nature
partook, if I may so speak, both of God and of a mortal man,—gold,
viz., as to a king; myrrh, as to one who was mortal; and incense, as to
a God; and they brought these offerings after they had learned the
place of His birth. But since He was a God, the Saviour of the human
race, raised far above all those angels which minister to men, an angel
rewarded the piety of the Magi for their worship of Him, by making
known to them that they were not to go back to Herod, but to return to
their own homes by another way.
That Herod conspired against the Child (although the Jew of
Celsus does not believe that this really happened), is not to be
wondered at. For wickedness is in a certain sense blind, and would
desire to defeat fate, as if it were stronger than it. And this being
Herod's condition, he both believed that a king of the Jews had been
born, and yet cherished a purpose contradictory of such a belief; not
seeing that the Child is assuredly either a king and will come to the
throne, or that he is not to be a king, and that his death, therefore,
will be to no purpose. He desired accordingly to kill Him, his mind
being agitated by contending passions on account of his wickedness, and
being instigated by the blind and wicked devil who from the very
beginning plotted against the Saviour, imagining that He was and would
become some mighty one. An angel, however, perceiving the course of
events, intimated to Joseph, although Celsus may not believe it, that
he was to withdraw with the Child and His mother into Egypt, while
Herod slew all the infants that were in Bethlehem and the surrounding
borders, in the hope that he would thus destroy Him also who had been
born King of the Jews. For he saw not the sleepless guardian power that
is around those who deserve to be protected and preserved for the
salvation of men, of whom Jesus is the first, superior to all others in
honour and excellence, who was to be a King indeed, but not in the
sense that Herod supposed, but in that in which it became God to bestow
a kingdom,—for the benefit, viz., of those who were to be under His
sway, who was to confer no ordinary and unimportant blessings, so to
speak, upon His subjects, but who was to train them and to subject them
to laws that were truly from God. And Jesus, knowing this well, and
denying that He was a king in the sense that the multitude expected,
but declaring the superiority of His kingdom, says: "If My kingdom were
of this world, then would My servants fight, that I should not be
delivered to the Jews: but now is My kingdom not of this world."[2]
Now, if Celsus had seen this, he would not have said: "But if, then,
this was done in order that you might not reign in his stead when you
had grown to man's estate; why, after you did reach that estate, do you
not become a king, instead of you, the Son of God, wandering about in
so mean a condition, hiding yourself through fear, and leading a
miserable life up and down?" Now, it is not dishonourable to avoid
exposing one's self to dangers, but to guard carefully against them,
when this is done, not through fear of death, but from a desire to
benefit others by remaining in life, until the proper time come for one
who has assumed human nature to die a death that will be useful to
mankind. And this is plain to him who reflects that Jesus died for the
sake of men,—a point of which we have spoken to the best of our
ability in the preceding pages.
And after such statements, showing his ignorance even of the
number of the apostles, he proceeds thus: "Jesus having gathered around
him ten or eleven persons of notorious character, the very wickedest of
tax-gatherers and sailors, fled in company with them from place to
place, and obtained his living in a shameful and importunate manner."
Let us to the best of our power see what truth there is in such a
statement. It is manifest to us all who possess the Gospel narratives,
which Celsus does not appear even to have read, that Jesus selected
twelve apostles, and that of these Matthew alone was a tax-gatherer;
that when he calls them indiscriminately sailors, he probably means
James and John, because they left their ship and their father Zebedee,
and followed Jesus; for Peter and his brother Andrew, who employed a
net to gain their necessary subsistence, must be classed not as
sailors, but as the Scripture describes them, as fishermen. The
Lebes[3] also, who was a follower of Jesus, may have been a
tax-gatherer; but he was not of the number of the apostles, except
according to a statement in one of the copies of Mark's Gospel.[1] And
we have not ascertained the employments of the remaining disciples, by
which they earned their livelihood before becoming disciples of Jesus.
I assert, therefore, in answer to such statements as the above, that it
is clear to all who are able to institute an intelligent and candid
examination into the history of the apostles of Jesus, that it was by
help of a divine power that these men taught Christianity, and
succeeded in leading others to embrace the word of God. For it was not
any power of speaking, or any orderly arrangement of their message,
according to the arts of Grecian dialectics or rhetoric, which was in
them the effective cause of converting their hearers. Nay, I am of
opinion that if Jesus had selected some individuals who were wise
according to the apprehension of the multitude, and who were fitted
both to think and speak so as to please them, and had used such as the
ministers of His doctrine, He would most justly have been suspected of
employing artifices, like those philosophers who are the leaders of
certain sects, and consequently the promise respecting the divinity of
His doctrine would not have manifested itself; for had the doctrine and
the preaching consisted in the persuasive utterance and arrangement of
words, then faith also, like that of the philosophers of the world in
their opinions, would have been through the wisdom of men, and not
through the power of God. Now, who is there on seeing fishermen and
tax-gatherers, who had not acquired even the merest elements of
learning (as the Gospel relates of them, and in respect to which Celsus
believes that they speak the truth, inasmuch as it is their own
ignorance which they record), discoursing boldly not only among the
Jews of faith in Jesus, but also preaching Him with success among other
nations, would not inquire whence they derived this power of
persuasion, as theirs was certainly not the common method followed by
the multitude? And who would not say that the promise, "Follow Me, and
I will make you fishers of men,"[2] had been accomplished by Jesus in
the history of His apostles by a sort of divine power? And to this
also, Paul, referring in terms of commendation, as we have stated a
little above, says: "And my speech and my preaching was not with
enticing words of man's wisdom, but in demonstration of the Spirit and
of power; that your faith should not stand in the wisdom of men, but in
the power of God."[3] For, according to the predictions in the
prophets, foretelling the preaching of the Gospel, "the Lord gave the
word in great power to them who preached it, even the King of the
powers of the Beloved,"[4] in order that the prophecy might be
fulfilled which said, "His words shall run very swiftly."[5] And we see
that "the voice of the apostles of Jesus has gone forth into all the
earth, and their words to the end of the world,"[6] On this account are
they who hear the word powerfully proclaimed filled with power, which
they manifest both by their dispositions and their lives, and by
struggling even to death on behalf of the truth; while some are
altogether empty, although they profess to believe in God through
Jesus, inasmuch as, not possessing any divine power, they have the
appearance only of being converted to the word of God. And although I
have previously mentioned a Gospel declaration uttered by the Saviour,
I shall nevertheless quote it again, as appropriate to the present
occasion, as it confirms both the divine manifestation of our Saviour's
foreknowledge regarding the preaching of His Gospel, and the power of
His word, which without the aid of teachers gains the mastery over
those who yield their assent to persuasion accompanied with divine
power; and the words of Jesus referred to are, "The harvest is
plenteous, but the labourers are few; pray ye therefore the Lord of the
harvest, that He will send forth labourers into His harvest."[7]
And since Celsus has termed the apostles of Jesus men of infamous
notoriety, saying that they were tax-gatherers and sailors of the
vilest character, we have to remark, with respect to this charge, that
he seems, in order to bring an accusation against Christianity, to
believe the Gospel accounts only where he pleases, and to express his
disbelief of them, in order that he may not be forced to admit the
manifestations of Divinity related in these same books; whereas one who
sees the spirit of truth by which the writers are influenced, ought,
from their narration of things of inferior importance, to believe also
the account of divine things. Now in the general Epistle of Barnabas,
from which perhaps Celsus took the statement that the apostles were
notoriously wicked men, it is recorded that "Jesus selected His own
apostles, as persons who were more guilty of sin than all other
evildoers."[8] And in the Gospel according to Luke, Peter says to
Jesus, "Depart from me, O Lord, for I am a sinful man."[9] Moreover,
Paul, who himself also at a later time became an apostle of Jesus, says
in his Epistle to Timothy, "This is a faithful saying, that Jesus
Christ came into, the world to save sinners, of whom I am the
chief."[1] And I do not know how Celsus should have forgotten or not
have thought of saying something about Paul, the founder, after Jesus,
of the Churches that are in Christ. He saw, probably, that anything he
might say about that apostle would require to be explained, in
consistency with the fact that, after being a persecutor of the Church
of God, and a bitter opponent of believers, who went so far even as to
deliver over the disciples of Jesus to death, so great a change
afterwards passed over him, that he preached the Gospel of Jesus from
Jerusalem round about to Illyricum, and was ambitious to carry the glad
tidings where he needed not to build upon another man's foundation, but
to places where the Gospel of God in Christ had not been proclaimed at
all. What absurdity, therefore, is there, if Jesus, desiring to
manifest to the human race the power which He possesses to heal souls,
should have selected notorious and wicked men, and should have raised
them to such a degree of moral excellence, that they, became a pattern
of the purest virtue to all who were converted by their instrumentality
to the Gospel of Christ?
But if we were to reproach those who have been converted with
their former lives, then we would have occasion to accuse Phaedo also,
even after he became a philosopher; since, as the history relates, he
was drawn away by Socrates from a house of bad fame[2] to the pursuits
of philosophy. Nay, even the licentious life of Polemo, the successor
of Xenocrates, will be a subject of reproach to philosophy; whereas
even in these instances we ought to regard it as a ground of praise,
that reasoning was enabled, by the persuasive power of these men, to
convert from the practice of such vices those who had been formerly
entangled by them. Now among the Greeks there was only one Phaedo, I
know, not if there were a second, and one Polemo, who betook themselves
to philosophy, after a licentious and most wicked life; while with
Jesus there were not only at the time we speak of, the twelve
disciples, but many more at all times, who, becoming a band of
temperate men, speak in the following terms of their former lives: "For
we ourselves also were sometimes foolish, disobedient, deceived,
serving divers lusts and pleasures, living in malice and envy, hateful,
and hating one another. But after that the kindness and love of God our
Saviour towards man appeared, by the washing of regeneration, and
renewing of the Holy Ghost, which He shed upon us richly,"[3] we became
such as we are. For "God sent forth His Word and healed them, and
delivered them from their destructions,"[4] as the prophet taught in
the book of Psalms. And in addition to what has been already said, I
would add the following: that Chrysippus, in his treatise on the Cure
of the Passions, in his endeavours to restrain the passions of the
human soul, not pretending to determine what opinions are the true
ones, says that according to the principles of the different sects are
those to be cured who have been brought under the dominion of the
passions, and continues: "And if pleasure be an end, then by it must
the passions be healed; and if there be three kinds of chief blessings,
still, according to this doctrine, it is in the same way that those are
to be freed from their passions who are under their dominion;" whereas
the assailants of Christianity do not see in how many persons the
passions have been brought under restraint, and the flood of wickedness
checked, and savage manners softened, by means of the Gospel. So that
it well became those who are ever boasting of their zeal for the public
good, to make a public acknowledgement of their thanks to that doctrine
which by a new method led men to abandon many vices, and to bear their
testimony at least to it, that even though not the truth, it has at all
events been productive of benefit to the human race.
And since Jesus, in teaching His disciples not to be guilty of
rashness, gave them the precept. "If they persecute you in this city,
flee ye into another; and if they persecute you in the other, flee
again into a third,"[5] to which teaching He added the example of a
consistent life, acting so as not to expose Himself to danger rashly,
or unseasonably, or without good grounds; from this Celsus takes
occasion to bring a malicious and slanderous accusation,—the Jew whom
he brings forward saying to Jesus, "In company with your disciples you
go and hide yourself in different places." Now similar to what has thus
been made the ground of a slanderous charge against Jesus and His
disciples, do we say was the conduct recorded of Aristotle. This
philosopher, seeing that a court was about to be summoned to try him,
on the ground of his being guilty of impiety on account of certain of
his philosophical tenets which the Athenians regarded as impious,
withdrew from Athens, and fixed his school in Chalcis, defending his
course of procedure to his friends by saying, "Let us depart from
Athens, that we may not give the Athenians a handle for incurring guilt
a second time, as formerly in the case of Socrates, and so prevent them
from committing a second act of impiety against philosophy." He further
says, "that Jesus went about with His disciples, and obtained His
livelihood in a disgraceful and importunate manner." Let him show
wherein lay the disgraceful and importunate element in their manner of
subsistence. For it is related in the Gospels, that there were certain
women who had been healed of their diseases, among whom also was
Susanna, who from their own possessions afforded the disciples the
means of support. And who is there among philosophers, that, when
devoting himself to the service of his acquaintances, is not in the
habit of receiving from them what is needful for his wants? Or is it
only in them that such acts are proper and becoming; but when the
disciples of Jesus do the same, they are accused by Celsus of obtaining
their livelihood by disgraceful importunity?
And in addition to the above, this Jew of Celsus afterwards
addresses Jesus: "What need, moreover, was there that you, while still
an infant, should be conveyed into Egygt? Was it to escape being
murdered? But then it was not likely that a God should be afraid of
death; and yet an angel came down from heaven, commanding you and your
friends to flee, lest ye should be captured and put to death! And was
not the great God, who had already sent two angels on your account,
able to keep you, His only Son, there in safety?" From these words
Celsus seems to think that there was no element of divinity in the
human body and soul of Jesus, but that His body was not even such as is
described in the fables of Homer; and with a taunt also at the blood of
Jesus which was shed upon the cross, he adds that it was not
"Ichor, such as flows in the veins of the blessed gods."[1]
We now, believing Jesus Himself, when He says respecting His divinity, "I am the way, and the truth, and the life,"[2] and employs other terms of similar import; and when He says respecting His being clothed with a human body, "And now ye seek to kill Me, a man that hath told you the truth,"[3] conclude that He was a kind of compound being. And so it became Him who was making provision for His sojourning in the world as a human being, not to expose Himself unseasonably to the danger of death. And in like manner it was necessary that He should be taken away by His parents, acting under the instructions of an angel from heaven, who communicated to them the divine will, saying on the first occasion, "Joseph, thou son of David, fear not to take unto thee Mary thy wife; for that which is conceived in her is of the Holy Ghost;"[4] and on the second, "Arise, and take the young Child, and His mother, and flee into Egypt; and be thou there until I bring thee word: for Herod will seek the young Child to destroy Him."[5] Now, what is recorded in these words appears to me to be not at all marvellous. For in either passage of Scripture it is stated that it was in a dream that the angel spoke these words; and that in a dream certain persons may have certain things pointed out to them to do, is an event of frequent occurrence to many individuals,—the impression on the mind being produced either by an angel or by some other thing. Where, then, is the absurdity in believing that He who had once become incarnate, should be led also by human guidance to keep out of the way of dangers? Not indeed from any impossibility that it should be otherwise, but from the moral fitness that ways and means should be made use of to ensure the safety of Jesus. And it was certainly better that the Child Jesus should escape the snare of Herod, and should reside with His parents in Egypt until the death of the conspirator, than that Divine Providence should hinder the free-will of Herod in his wish to put the Child to death, or that the fabled poetic helmet of Hades should have been employed, or anything of a similar kind done with respect to Jesus, or that they who came to destroy Him should have been smitten with blindness like the people of Sodom. For the sending of help to Him in a very miraculous and unnecessarily public manner, would not have been of any service to Him who, wished to show that as a man, to whom witness was borne by God, He possessed within that form which was seen by the eyes of men some higher element of divinity,—that which was properly the Son of God—God the Word—the power of God, and the wisdom of God—He who is called the Christ. But this is not a suitable occasion for discussing the composite nature of the incarnate Jesus; the investigation into such a subject being for believers, so to speak, a sort of private question.
After the above, this Jew of Celsus, as if he were a Greek who
loved learning, and were well instructed in Greek literature,
continues: "The old mythological fables, which attributed a divine
origin to Perseus, and Amphion, and AEacus, and Minos, were not
believed by us. Nevertheless, that they might not appear unworthy of
credit, they represented the deeds of these personages as great and
wonderful, and truly beyond the power of man; but what hast thou done
that is noble or wonderful either in deed or in word? Thou hast made no
manifestation to us, although they challenged you in the temple to
exhibit some unmistakeable sign that you were the Son of God." In reply
to which we have to say Let the Greeks show to us, among those who have
been enumerated, any one whose deeds have been marked by a utility and
splendour extending to after generations, and which have been so great
as to produce a belief in the fables which represented them as of
divine descent. But these Greeks can show us nothing regarding those
men of whom they speak, which is even inferior by a great degree to
what Jesus did; unless they take us back to their fables and histories,
wishing us to believe them without any reasonable grounds, and to
discredit the Gospel accounts even after the clearest evidence. For we
assert that the whole habitable world contains evidence of the works of
Jesus, in the existence of those Churches of God which have been
founded through Him by those who have been converted from the practice
of innumerable sins.[1] And the name of Jesus can still remove
distractions from the minds of men, and expel demons, and also take
away diseases; and produce a marvellous meekness of spirit and complete
change of character, and a humanity, and goodness, and gentleness in
those individuals who do not feign themselves to be Christians for the
sake of subsistence or the supply of any mortal wants, but who have
honestly accepted the doctrine concerning God and Christ, and the
judgment to come.
But after this, Celsus, having a suspicion that the great works
performed by Jesus, of which we have named a few out of a great number,
would be brought forward to view, affects to grant that those
statements may be true which are made regarding His cures, or His
resurrection, or the feeding of a multitude with a few loaves, from
which many fragments remained over, or those other stories which Celsus
thinks the disciples have recorded as of a marvellous nature; and he
adds: "Well, let us believe that these were actually wrought by you."
But then he immediately compares them to the tricks of jugglers, who
profess to do more wonderful things, and to the feats performed by
those who have been taught by Egyptians, who in the middle of the
market-place, in return for a few obols, will impart the knowledge of
their most venerated arts, and will expel demons from men, and dispel
diseases, and invoke the souls of heroes, and exhibit expensive
banquets, and tables, and dishes, and dainties having no real
existence, and who will put in motion, as if alive, what are not really
living animals, but which have only the appearance of life. And he
asks, "Since, then, these persons can perform such feats, shall we of
necessity conclude that they are 'sons of God,' or must we admit that
they are the proceedings of wicked men under the influence of an evil
spirit?" You see that by these expressions he allows, as it were, the
existence of magic. I do not know, however, if he is the same who wrote
several books against it. But, as it helped his purpose, he compares
the (miracles) related of Jesus to the results produced by magic. There
would indeed be a resemblance between them, if Jesus, like the dealers
in magical arts, had performed His works only for show; but now there
is not a single juggler who, by means of his proceedings, invites his
spectators to reform their manners, or trains those to the fear of God
who are amazed at what they see, nor who tries to persuade them so to
live as men who are to be justified[2] by God. And jugglers do none of
these things, because they have neither the power nor the will, nor any
desire to busy themselves about the reformation of men, inasmuch as
their own lives are full of the grossest and most notorious sins. But
how should not He who, by the miracles which He did, induced those who
beheld the excellent results to undertake the reformation of their
characters, manifest Himself not only to His genuine disciples, but
also to others, as a pattern of most virtuous life, in order that His
disciples might devote themselves to the work of instructing men in the
will of God, and that the others, after being more fully instructed by
His word and character than by His miracles, as to how they were to
direct their lives, might in all their conduct have a constant
reference to the good pleasure of the universal God? And if such were
the life of Jesus, how could any one with reason compare Him with the
sect of impostors, and not, on the contrary, believe, according to the
promise, that He was God, who appeared in human form to do good to our
race?
After this, Celsus, confusing together the Christian doctrine and
the opinions of some heretical sect, and bringing them forward as
charges that were applicable to all who believe in the divine word,
says: "Such a body as yours could not have belonged to God." Now, in
answer to this, we have to say that Jesus, on entering into the world,
assumed, as one born of a woman, a human body, and one which was
capable of suffering a natural death. For which reason, in addition to
others, we say that He was also a great wrestler;[1] having, on account
of His human body, been tempted in all respects like other men, but no
longer as men, with sin as a consequence, but being altogether without
sin. For it is distinctly clear to us that "He did no sin, neither was
guile found in His mouth; and as one who knew no sin,"[2] God delivered
Him up as pure for all who had sinned. Then Celsus says: "The body of
god would not have been so generated as you, O Jesus, were." He saw,
besides, that if, as it is written, it had been born, His body somehow
might be even more divine than that of the multitude, and in a certain
sense a body of god. But he disbelieves the accounts of His conception
by the Holy Ghost, and believes that He was begotten by one Panthera,
who corrupted the Virgin, "because a god's body would not have been so
generated as you were." But we have spoken of these matters at greater
length in the preceding pages.
He asserts, moreover, that "the body of a god is not nourished
with such food (as was that of Jesus)," since he is able to prove from.
the Gospel narratives both that He partook of food, and food of a
particular kind. Well, be it so. Let him assert that He ate the
passover with His disciples, when He not only used the words, "With
desire have I desired to eat this passover with you," but also actually
partook of the same. And let him say also, that He experienced the
sensation of thirst beside the well of Jacob, and drank of the water of
the well. In what respect do these facts militate against what we have
said respecting the nature of His body? Moreover, it appears
indubitable that after His resurrection He ate a piece of fish; for,
according to our view, He assumed a (true) body, as one born of a
woman. "But," objects Celsus, "the body of a god does not make use of
such a voice as that of Jesus, nor employ such a method of persuasion
as he." These are, indeed, trifling and altogether contemptible
objections. For our reply to him will be, that he who is believed among
the Greeks to be a god, viz., the Pythian and Didymean Apollo, makes
use of such a voice for his Pythian priestess at Delphi, and for his
prophetess at Miletus; and yet neither the Pythian nor Didymean is
charged by the Greeks with not being a god, nor any other Grecian deity
whose worship is established in one place. And it was far better,
surely, that a god should employ a voice which, on account of its being
uttered with power, should produce an indescribable sort of persuasion
in the minds of the hearers.
Continuing to pour abuse upon Jesus as one who, on account of his
impiety and wicked opinions, was, so to speak, hated by God, he asserts
that "these tenets of his were those of a wicked and God-hated
sorcerer." And yet, if the name and the thing be properly examined, it
will be found an impossibility that man should be hated by God, seeing
God loves all existing things, and "hateth nothing of what He has
made," for He created nothing in a spirit of hatred. And if certain
expressions in the prophets convey such an impression, they are to be
interpreted in accordance with the general principle by which Scripture
employs such language with regard to God as if He were subject to human
affections. But what reply need be made to him who, while professing to
bring foreward credible statements, thinks himself bound to make use of
calumnies and slanders against Jesus, as if He were a wicked sorcerer?
Such is not the procedure of one who seeks to make good his case, but
of one who is in an ignorant and unphilosophic state of mind, inasmuch
as the proper course is to state the case, and candidly to investigate
it; and, according to the best of his ability, to bring forward what
occurs to him with regard to it. But as the Jew of Celsus has, with the
above remarks, brought to a close his charges against Jesus, so we also
shall here bring to a termination the contents of our first book in
reply to him. And if God bestow the gift of that truth which destroys
all falsehood, agreeably to the words of the prayer, "Cut them off in
thy truth,"[3] we shall begin, in what follows, the consideration of
the second appearance of the Jew, in which he is represented by Celsus
as addressing those who have become converts to Jesus.