This page copyright © 2002 Blackmask Online.
http://www.blackmask.com
THE first book of our answer to the treatise of Celsus, entitled
A True Discourse, which con-eluded with the representation of the Jew
addressing Jesus, having now extended to a sufficient length, we intend
the present part as a reply to the charges brought by him against those
who have been converted from Judaism to Christianity.[1] And we call
attention, in the first place, to this special question, viz., why
Celsus, when he had once resolved upon the introduction of individuals
upon the stage of his book, did not represent the Jew as addressing the
converts from heathenism rather than those from Judaism, seeing that
his discourse, if directed to us, would have appeared more likely to
produce an impression.[2] But probably this claimant to universal
knowledge does not know what is appropriate in the matter of such
representations; and therefore let us proceed to consider what he has
to say to the converts from Judaism. He asserts that "they have
forsaken the law of their fathers, in consequence of their minds being
led captive by Jesus; that they have been most ridiculously deceived,
and that they have become deserters to another name and to another mode
of life." Here he has not observed that the Jewish converts have not
deserted the law of their fathers, inasmuch as they live according to
its prescriptions, receiving their very name from the poverty of the
law, according to the literal acceptation of the word; for Ebion
signifies "poor" among the Jews,[3] and those Jews who have received
Jesus as Christ are called by the name of Ebionites. Nay, Peter himself
seems to have observed for a considerable time the Jewish observances
enjoined by the law of Moses, not having yet learned from Jesus to
ascend from the law that is regulated according to the letter, to that
which is interpreted according to the spirit,—a fact which we learn
from the Acts of the Apostles. For on the day after the angel of God
appeared to Cornelius, suggesting to him "to send to Joppa, to Simon
surnamed Peter," Peter "went up into the upper room to pray about the
sixth hour. And he became very hungry, and would have eaten: but while
they made ready he fell into a trance, and saw heaven opened, and a
certain vessel descending unto him, as it had been a great sheet knit
at the four corners, and let down to the earth; wherein were all manner
of four-footed beasts, and creeping things of the earth, and fowls of
the air. And there came a voice to him, Rise, Peter; kill, and eat. But
Peter said, Not so, Lord; for I have never eaten anything that is
common or unclean. And the voice spake unto him again the second time,
What God hath cleansed, that call thou not common."[4] Now observe how,
by this instance, Peter is represented as still observing the Jewish
customs respecting clean and unclean animals. And from the narrative
that follows, it is manifest that he, as being yet a Jew, and living
according to their traditions, and despising those who were beyond the
pale of Judaism, stood in need of a vision to lead him to communicate
to Cornelius (who was not an Israelite according to the flesh), and to
those who were with him, the word of faith. Moreover, in the Epistle to
the Galatians, Paul states that Peter, still from fear of the Jews,
ceased upon the arrival of James to eat with the Gentiles, and
"separated himself from them, fearing them that were of the
circumcision;"[5] and the rest of the Jews, and Barnabas also, followed
the same course. And certainly it was quite consistent that those
should not abstain from the observance of Jewish usages who were sent
to minister to the circumcision, when they who "seemed to be pillars"
gave the right hand of fellowship to Paul and Barnabas, in order that,
while devoting themselves to the circumcision, the latter might preach
to the Gentiles. And why do I mention that they who preached to the
circumcision withdrew and separated themselves from the heathen, when
even Paul himself "became as a Jew to the Jews, that he might gain the
Jews?" Wherefore also in the Acts of the Apostles it is related that he
even brought an offering to the altar, that he might satisfy the Jews
that he was no apostate from their law.[1] Now, if Celsus had been
acquainted with all these circumstances, he would not have represented
the Jew holding such language as this to the converts from Judaism:
"What induced you, my fellow-citizens, to abandon the law of your
fathers, and to allow your minds to be led captive by him with whom we
have just conversed, and thus be most ridiculously deluded, so as to
become deserters from us to another name, and to the practices of
another life?"
Now, since we are upon the subject of Peter, and of the teachers
of Christianity to the circumcision, I do not deem it out of place to
quote a certain declaration of Jesus taken from the Gospel according to
John, and to give the explanation of the same. For it is there related
that Jesus said: "I have yet many things to say unto you, but ye cannot
bear them now. Howbeit when He, the Spirit of truth, is come, He will
guide you into all the truth: for He shall not speak of Himself; but
whatsoever He shall hear, that shall He speak."[2] And when we inquire
what were the "many things" referred to in the passage which Jesus had
to say to His disciples, but which they were not then able to bear, I
have to observe that, probably because the apostles were Jews, and had
been trained up according to the letter of the Mosaic law, He was
unable to tell them what was the true law, and how the Jewish worship
consisted in the pattern and shadow of certain heavenly things, and how
future blessings were foreshadowed by the injunctions regarding meats
and drinks, and festivals, and new moons, and sabbaths. These were many
of the subjects which He had to explain to them; but as He saw that it
was a work of exceeding difficulty to root out of the mind opinions
that have been almost born with a man, and amid which he has been
brought up till he reached the period of maturity, and which have
produced in those who have adopted them the belief that they are
divine, and that it is an act of impiety to overthrow them; and to
demonstrate by the superiority of Christian doctrine, that is, by the
truth, in a manner to convince the hearers, that such opinions were but
"loss and dung," He postponed such a task to a future season—to that,
namely, which followed His passion and resurrection. For the bringing
of aid unseasonably to those who were not yet capable of receiving it,
might have overturned the idea which they had already formed of Jesus,
as the Christ, and the Son of the living God. And see if there is not
some well-grounded reason for such a statement as this, "I have many
things to say unto you, but ye cannot hear them now;" seeing there are
many points in the law which require to be explained and cleared up in
a spiritual sense, and these the disciples were in a manner unable to
bear, having been born and brought up amongst Jews. I am of opinion,
moreover, that since these rites were typical, and the truth was that
which was to be taught them by the Holy Spirit, these words were added,
"When He is come who is the Spirit of truth, He will lead you into all
the truth;" as if He had said, into all the truth about those things
which, being to you but types, ye believed to constitute a true worship
which ye rendered unto God. And so, according to the promise of Jesus,
the Spirit of truth came to Peter, saying to him, with regard to the
four-footed beasts, and creeping things of the earth, and fowls of the
air: "Arise, Peter; kill, and eat." And the Spirit came to him while he
was still in a state of superstitious ignorance; for he said, in answer
to the divine command, "Not so Lord; for I have never yet eaten
anything common or unclean." He instructed him, however, in the true
and spiritual meaning of meats, by saying, "What God hath cleansed,
that call not thou common." And so, after that vision, the Spirit of
truth, which conducted Peter into all the truth, told him the many
things which he was unable to bear when Jesus was still with him in the
flesh. But I shall have another opportunity of explaining those
matters, which are connected with the literal acceptation of the Mosaic
law.
Our present object, however, is to expose the ignorance of
Celsus, who makes this Jew of his address his fellow-citizen and the
Israelitish converts in the following manner: "What induced you to
abandon the law of your fathers?" etc. Now, how should they have
abandoned the law of their fathers, who are in the habit of rebuking
those who do not listen to its commands, saying, "Tell me, ye who read
the law, do ye not hear the law? For it is written, that Abraham had
two sons;" and so on, down to the place, "which things are an
allegory,"[3] etc.? And how have they abandoned the law of their
fathers, who are ever speaking of the usages of their fathers in such
words as these: "Or does not the law say these things also? For it is
written in the law of Moses, Thou shalt not muzzle the mouth of the ox
that treadeth out the corn. Doth God care for oxen? or saith He it
altogether for our sakes? for for our sakes it was written," and so
on?[1] Now, how confused is the reasoning of the Jew in regard to these
matters (although he had it in his power to speak with greater effect)
when he says: "Certain among you have abandoned the usages of our
fathers under a pretence of explanations and allegories; and some of
you, although, as ye pretend, interpreting them in a spiritual manner,
nevertheless do observe the customs of our fathers; and some of you,
without any such interpretation, are willing to accept Jesus as the
subject of prophecy, and to keep the law of Moses according to the
customs of the fathers, as having in the words the whole mind of the
Spirit." Now how was Celsus able to see these things so clearly in this
place, when in the subsequent parts of his work he makes mention of
certain godless heresies altogether alien from the doctrine of Jesus,
and even of others which leave the Creator out of account altogether,
and does not appear to know that there are Israelites who are converts
to Christianity, and who have not abandoned the law of their fathers?
It was not his object to investigate everything here in the spirit of
truth, and to accept whatever he might find to be useful; but he
composed these statements in the spirit of an enemy, and with a desire
to overthrow everything as soon as he heard it.
The Jew, then, continues his address to converts from his own
nation thus: "Yesterday and the day before, when we visited with
punishment the man who deluded you, ye became apostates from the law of
your fathers;" showing by such statements (as we have just
demonstrated) anything but an exact knowledge of the truth. But what he
advances afterwards seems to have some force, when he says: "How is it
that you take the beginning of your system from our worship, and when
you have made some progress you treat it with disrespect, although you
have no other foundation to show for your doctrines than our law?" Now,
certainly the introduction to Christianity is through the Mosaic
worship and the prophetic writings; and after the introduction, it is
in the interpretation and explanation of these that progress takes
place, while those who are introduced prosecute their investigations
into "the mystery according to revelation, which was kept secret since
the world began, but now is made manifest in the Scriptures of the
prophets,"[2] and by the appearance of our Lord Jesus Christ. But they
who advance in the knowledge of Christianity do not, as ye allege,
treat the things written in the law with disrespect. On the contrary,
they bestow upon them greater honour, showing what a depth of wise and
mysterious reasons is contained in these writings, which are not fully
comprehended by the Jews, who treat them superficially, and as if they
were in some degree even fabulous.[3] And what absurdity should there
be in our system—that is, the Gospel—having the law for its
foundation, when even the Lord Jesus Himself said to those who would
not believe upon Him: "If ye had believed Moses, ye would have believed
Me, for he wrote of Me. But if ye do not believe his writings, how
shall ye believe My words?"[4] Nay, even one of the
evangelists—Mark—says: "The beginning of the Gospel of Jesus Christ,
as it is written in the prophet Isaiah, Behold, I send My messenger
before Thy face, who shall prepare Thy way before Thee,"[5] which shows
that the beginning of the Gospel is connected with the Jewish writings.
What force, then, is there in the objection of the Jew of Celsus, that
"if any one predicted to us that the Son of God was to visit mankind,
he was one of our prophets, and the prophet of our God?" Or how is it a
charge against Christianity, that John, who baptized Jesus, was a Jew?
For although He was a Jew, it does not follow that every believer,
whether a convert from heathenism or from Judaism, must yield a literal
obedience to the law of Moses.
After these matters, although Celsus becomes tautological in his
statements about Jesus, repeating for the second time that "he was
punished by the Jews for his crimes," we shall not again take up the
defence, being satisfied with what we have already said. But, in the
next place, as this Jew of his disparages the doctrine regarding the
resurrection of the dead, and the divine judgment, and of the rewards
to be bestowed upon the just, and of the fire which is to devour the
wicked, as being stale[6] opinions, and thinks that he will overthrow
Christianity by asserting that there is nothing new in its teaching
upon these points, we have to say to him, that our Lord, seeing the
conduct of the Jews not to be at all in keeping with the teaching of
the prophets, inculcated by a parable that the kingdom of God would be
taken from them, and given to the converts from heathenism. For which
reason, now, we may also see of a truth that all the doctrines of the
Jews of the present day are mere trifles and fables,[1] since they have
not the light that proceeds from the knowledge of the Scriptures;
whereas those of the Christians are the truth, having power to raise
and elevate the soul and understanding of man, and to persuade him to
seek a citizenship, not like the earthly[2] Jews here below, but in
heaven. And this result shows itself among those who are able to see
the grandeur of the ideas contained in the law and the prophets, and
who are able to commend them to others.
But let it be granted that Jesus observed all the JewiSh usages,
including even their sacrificial observances, what does that avail to
prevent our recognising Him as the Son of God? Jesus, then, is the Son
of God, who gave the law and the prophets; and we, who belong to the
Church, do not transgress the law, but have escaped the
mythologizings[3] of the Jews, and have our minds chastened and
educated by the mystical contemplation of the law and the prophets. For
the prophets themselves, as not resting the sense of these Words in the
plain history which they relate, nor in the legal enactments taken
according to the word and letter, express themselves somewhere, when
about to relate histories, in words like this, "I will open my mouth in
parables, I will utter hard sayings of old;"[4] and in another place,
when offering up a prayer regarding the law as being obscure, and
needing divine help for its comprehension, they offer up this prayer,
"Open Thou mine eyes, that I may behold wondrous things out of Thy
law."[5]
Moreover, let them show where there is to be found even the
appearance of language dictated by arrogance[6] and proceeding from
Jesus. For how could an arrogant man thus express himself "Learn of Me,
for I am meek and lowly of heart, and you shall find rest for your
souls?"[7] or how can He be styled arrogant, who after supper laid
aside His garments in the presence of His disciples, and, after girding
Himself with a towel, and pouring water into a basin, proceeded to wash
the feet of each disciple, and rebuked him who was unwilling to allow
them to be washed, with the words, "Except I wash thee, thou hast no
part with Me?[8] Or how could He be called such who said, "I was
amongst you, not as he that sitteth at meat, but as he that
serveth?"[9] And let any one show what were the falsehoods which He
uttered, and let him point out what are great and what are small
falsehoods, that he may prove Jesus to have been guilty of the former.
And there is yet another way in which we may confute him. For as one
falsehood is not less or more false than another, so one truth is not
less or more true than another. And what charges of impiety he has to
bring against Jesus, let the Jew of Celsus especially bring forward.
Was it impious to abstain from corporeal circumcision, and from a
literal Sabbath, and literal festivals, and literal new moons, and from
clean and unclean meats, and to turn the mind to the good and true and
spiritual law of God, while at the same time he who was an ambassador
for Christ knew how to become to the Jews as a Jew, that he might gain
the Jews, and to those who are under the law, as under the law, that he
might gain those who are under the law?
He says, further, that "many other persons would appear such as
Jesus was, to those who were willing to be deceived." Let this Jew of
Celsus then show us, not many persons, nor even a few, but a single
individual, such as Jesus was, introducing among the human race, with
the power that was manifested in Him, a system of doctrine and opinions
beneficial to human life, and which converts men from the practice of
wickedness. He says, moreover, that this charge is brought against the
Jews by the Christian converts, that they have not believed in Jesus as
in God. Now on this point we have, in the preceding pages, offered a
preliminary defence, showing at the same time in what respects we
understand Him to be God, and in what we take Him to be man. "How
should we," he continues, "who have made known to all men that there is
to come from God one who is to punish the wicked, treat him with
disregard when he came?" And to this, as an exceedingly silly argument,
it does not seem to me reasonable to offer any answer. It is as if some
one were to say, "How could we, who teach temperance, commit any act of
licentiousness? or we, who are ambassadors for righteousness, be guilty
of any wickedness?" For as these inconsistencies are found among men,
so, to say that they believed the prophets when speaking of the future
advent of Christ, and yet refused their belief to Him when He came,
agreeably to prophetic statement, was quite in keeping with human
nature. And since we must add another reason, we shall remark that this
very result was foretold by the prophets. Isaiah distinctly declares:
"Hearing ye shall hear, and shall not understand; and seeing ye shall
see, and shall not perceive: for the heart of this people has become
fat,"[1] etc. And let them explain why it was predicted to the Jews,
that although they both heard and saw, they would not understand what
was said, nor perceive what was seen as they ought. For it is indeed
manifest, that when they beheld Jesus they did not see who He was; and
when they heard Him, they did not understand from His words the
divinity that was in Him, and which transferred God's providential
care, hitherto exercised over the Jews, to His converts from the
heathen. Therefore we may see, that after the advent of Jesus the Jews
were altogether abandoned, and possess now none of what were considered
their ancient glories, so that there is no indication of any Divinity
abiding amongst them. For they have no longer prophets nor miracles,
traces of which to a considerable extent are still found among
Christians, and some of them more remarkable than any that existed
among the Jews; and these we ourselves have witnessed, if our testimony
may be received? But the Jew of Celsus exclaims: "Why did we treat him,
whom we announced beforehand, with dishonour? Was it that we might be
chastised more than others?" To which we have to answer, that on
account of their unbelief, and the other insults which they heaped upon
Jesus, the Jews will not only suffer more than others in that judgment
which is believed to impend over the world, but have even already
endured such sufferings. For what nation is an exile from their own
metropolis, and from the place sacred to the worship of their fathers,
save the Jews alone? And these calamities they have suffered, because
they were a most wicked nation, which, although guilty of many other
sins, yet has been punished so severely for none, as for those that
were committed against our Jesus.
The Jew continues his discourse thus: "How should we deem him to
be a God, who not only in other respects, as was currently reported,
performed none of his promises, but who also, after we had convicted
him, and condemned him as. deserving of punishment, was found
attempting to conceal himself, and endeavouring to escape in a most
disgraceful manner, and who was betrayed by those whom he called
disciples? And yet," he continues, "he who was a God could neither flee
nor be led away a prisoner; and least of all could he be deserted and
delivered up by those who had been his associates, and had shared all
things in common, and had had him for their teacher, who was deemed to
be a Saviour, and a son of the greatest God, and an angel." To which we
reply, that even we do not suppose the body of Jesus, which was then an
object of sight and perception, to have been God. And why do I say His
body? Nay, not even His soul, of which it is related, "My soul is
exceeding sorrowful, even unto death."[3] But as, according to the
Jewish manner of speaking, "I am the Lord, the God of all flesh," and,
"Before Me there was no God formed, neither shall there be after Me,"
God is believed to be He who employs the soul and body of the prophet
as an instrument; and as, according to the Greeks, he who says,
"I know both the number of the sand, and the measures
of the sea,
And I understand a dumb man, and hear him who does not speak,"[4]
is considered to be a god when speaking, and making himself heard through the Pythian priestess; so, according to our view, it was the Logos God, and Son of the God of all things, who spake in Jesus these words, "I am the way, and the truth, and the life;" and these, "I am the door;" and these, "I am the living bread that came down from heaven;" and other expressions similar to these. We therefore charge the Jews with not acknowledging Him to be God, to whom testimony was borne in many passages by the prophets, to the effect that He was a mighty power, and a God next to[5] the God and Father of all things. For we assert that it was to Him the Father gave the command, when in the Mosaic account of the creation He uttered the words, "Let there be light," and "Let there be a firmament," and gave the injunctions with regard to those other creative acts which were performed; and that to Him also were addressed the words, "Let Us make man in Our own image and likeness;" and that the Logos, when commanded, obeyed all the Father's will. And we make these statements not from our own conjectures, but because we believe the prophecies circulated among the Jews, in which it is said of God, and of the works of creation, in express words, as follows: "He spake, and they were made; He commanded, and they were created."[1] Now if God gave the command, and the creatures were formed, who, according to the view of the spirit of prophecy, could He be that was able to carry out such commands of the Father, save Him who, so to speak, is the living Logos and the Truth? And that the Gospels do not consider him who in Jesus said these words, "I am the way, and the truth, and the life," to have been of so circumscribed a nature? as to have an existence nowhere out of the soul and body of Jesus, is evident both from many considerations, and from a few instances of the following kind which we shall quote. John the Baptist, when predicting that the Son of God was to appear immediately, not in that body and soul, but as manifesting Himself everywhere, says regarding Him: "There stands in the midst of you One whom ye know not, who cometh after me."[3] For if he had thought that the Son of God was only there, where was the visible body of Jesus, how could he have said, "There stands in the midst of you One whom ye know not?" And Jesus Himself, in raising the minds of His disciples to higher thoughts of the Son of God, says: "Where two or three are gathered together in My name, there am I in the midst of you."[4] And of the same nature is His promise to His disciples: "Lo, I am with you alway, even to the end of the world."[5] And we quote these passages, making no distinction between the Son of God and Jesus. For the soul and body of Jesus formed, after the oikonomia , one being with the Logos of God. Now if, according to Paul's teaching, "he that is joined unto the Lord is one spirit,"[6] every one who understands what being joined to the Lord is, and who has been actually joined to Him, is one spirit with the Lord; how should not that being be one in a far greater and more divine degree, which was once united with the Logos of God?[7] He, indeed, manifested Himself among the Jews as the power of God, by the miracles which He performed, which Celsus suspected were accomplished by sorcery, but which by the Jews of that time were attributed I know not why, to Beelzebub, in the words "He casteth out devils through Beelzebub, the prince of the devils."[8] But these our Saviour convicted of uttering the greatest absurdities, from the fact that the kingdom of evil was not yet come to an end. And this will be evident to all intelligent readers of the Gospel narrative, which it is not now the time to explain.
But what promise did Jesus make which He did not perform? Let
Celsus produce any instance of such, and make good his charge. But he
will be unable to do so, especially since it is from mistakes, arising
either from misapprehension of the Gospel narratives, or from Jewish
stories, that he thinks to derive the charges which he brings against
Jesus or against ourselves. Moreover, again, when the Jew says, "We
both found him guilty, and condemned him as deserving of death," let
them show how they who sought to concoct false witness against Him
proved Him to be guilty. Was not the great charge against Jesus, which
His accusers brought forward, this, that He said, "I am able to destroy
the temple of God, and after three days to raise it up again?"[9] But
in so saying, He spake of the temple of His body; while they thought,
not being able to understand the meaning of the speaker, that His
reference was to the temple of stone, which was treated by the Jews
with greater respect than He was who ought to have been honoured as the
true Temple of God—the Word, and the Wisdom, and the Truth. And who
can say that "Jesus attempted to make His escape by disgracefully
concealing Himself?" Let any one point to an act deserving to be called
disgraceful. And when he adds, "he was taken prisoner," I would say
that, if to be taken prisoner implies an act done against one's will,
then Jesus was not taken prisoner; for at the fitting time He did not
prevent Himself falling into the hands of men, as the Lamb of God, that
He might take away the sin of the world. For, knowing all things that
were to come upon Him, He went forth, and said to them, "Whom seek ye?"
and they answered, "Jesus of Nazareth;" and He said unto them, "I am
He." And Judas also, who betrayed Him, was standing with them. When,
therefore, He had said to them, "I am He," they went backwards and fell
to the ground. Again He asked them, "Whom seek ye?" and they said
again, "Jesus of Nazareth." Jesus said to them, "I told you I am He; if
then ye seek Me, let these go away."[10] Nay, even to Him who wished to
help Him, and who smote the high priest's servant, and cut off his ear,
He said: "Put up thy sword into its sheath: for all they who draw the
sword shall perish by the sword. Thinkest thou that I cannot even now
pray to My Father, and He will presently give Me more than twelve
legions of angels? But how then should the Scriptures be fulfilled,
that thus it must be?"[1] And if any one imagines these statements to
be inventions of the writers of the Gospels, why should not those
statements rather be regarded as inventions which proceeded from a
spirit of hatred and hostility against Jesus and the Christians? and
these the truth, which proceed from those who manifest the sincerity of
their feelings towards Jesus, by enduring everything, whatever it may
be, for the sake of His words? For the reception by the disciples of
such power of endurance and resolution continued even to death, with a
disposition of mind that would not invent regarding their Teacher what
was not true, is a very evident proof to all candid judges that they
were fully persuaded of the truth of what they wrote, seeing they
submitted to trials so numerous and so severe, for the sake of Him whom
they believed to be the Son of God.
In the next place, that He was betrayed by those whom He called
His disciples, is a circumstance which the Jew of Celsus learned from
the Gospels; calling the one Judas, however, "many disciples," that he
might seem to add force to the accusation. Nor did he trouble himself
to take note of all that is related concerning Judas; how this Judas,
having come to entertain opposite and conflicting opinions regarding
his Master neither opposed Him with his whole soul, nor yet with his
whole soul preserved the respect due by a pupil to his teacher. For be
that betrayed Him gave to the multitude that came to apprehend Jesus, a
sign, saying, "Whomsoever I shall kiss, it is he; seize ye
him,"—retaining still some element of respect for his Master: for
unless he had done so, he would have betrayed Him, even publicly,
without any pretence of affection. This circumstance, therefore, will
satisfy all with regard to the purpose of Judas, that along with his
covetous disposition, and his wicked design to betray his Master, he
had still a feeling of a mixed character in his mind, produced in him
by the words of Jesus, which had the appearance (so to speak) of some
remnant of good. For it is related that, "when Judas, who betrayed Him,
knew that He was condemned, he repented, and brought back the thirty
pieces of silver to the high priest and elders, saying, I have sinned,
in that I have betrayed the innocent blood. But they said, What is that
to us? see thou to that;"[2]—and that, having thrown the money down in
the temple, he departed, and went and hanged himself. But if this
covetous Judas, who also stole the money placed in the bag for the
relief of the poor, repented, and brought back the thirty pieces of
silver to the chief priests and elders, it is clear that the
instructions of Jesus had been able to produce some feeling of
repentance in his mind, and were not altogether despised and loathed by
this traitor. Nay, the declaration, "I have sinned, in that I have
betrayed the innocent blood," was a public acknowledgment of his crime.
Observe, also, how exceedingly passionate[3] was the sorrow for his
sins that proceeded from that repentance, and which would not suffer
him any longer to live; and how, after he had cast the money down in
the temple, he withdrew, and went away and hanged himself: for he
passed sentence upon himself, showing what a power the teaching of
Jesus had over this sinner Judas, this thief and traitor, who could not
always treat with contempt what he had learned from Jesus. Will Celsus
and his friends now say that those proofs which show that the apostasy
of Judas was not a complete apostasy, even after his attempts against
his Master, are inventions, and that this alone is true, viz., that one
of His disciples betrayed Him; and will they add to the Scriptural
account that he betrayed Him also with his whole heart? To act in this
spirit of hostility with the same writings, both as to what we are to
believe and what we are not to believe, is absurd.[4] And if we must
make a statement regarding Judas which may overwhelm our opponents with
shame, we would say that, in the book of Psalms, the whole of the 108th
contains a prophecy about Judas, the beginning of which is this: "O
God, hold not Thy peace before my praise; for the mouth of the sinner,
and the mouth of the crafty man, are opened against me."[5] And it is
predicted in this psalm, both that Judas separated himself from the
number of the apostles on account of his sins, and that another was
selected in his place; and this is shown by the words: "And his
bishopric let another take."[6] But suppose now that He had been
betrayed by some one of His disciples, who was possessed by a worse
spirit than Judas, and who had completely poured out, as it were, all
the words which he had heard from Jesus, what would this contribute to
an accusation against Jesus or the Christian religion? And how will
this demonstrate its doctrine to be false? We have replied in the
preceding chapter to the statements which follow this, showing that
Jesus was not taken prisoner when attempting to flee, but that He gave
Himself up voluntarily for the sake of us all. Whence it follows, that
even if He were bound, He was bound agreeably to His own will; thus
teaching us the lesson that we should undertake similar things for the
sake of religion in no spirit of unwillingness.
And the following appear to me to be childish assertions, viz.,
that "no good general and leader of great multitudes was ever betrayed;
nor even a wicked captain of robbers and commander of very wicked men,
who seemed to be of any use to his associates; but Jesus, having been
betrayed by his subordinates, neither governed like a good general,
nor, after deceiving his disciples, produced in the minds of the
victims of his deceit that feeling of good-will which, so to speak,
would be manifested towards a brigand chief." Now one might find many
accounts of generals who were betrayed by their own soldiers, and of
robber chiefs who were captured through the instrumentality of those
who did not keep their bargains with them. But grant that no general or
robber chief was ever betrayed, what does that contribute to the
establishment of the fact as a charge against Jesus, that one of His
disciples became His betrayer? And since Celsus makes an ostentatious
exhibition of philosophy, I would ask of him, If, then, it was a charge
against Plato, that Aristotle, after being his pupil for twenty years,
went away and assailed his doctrine of the immortality of the soul, and
styled the ideas of Plato the merest trifling?[1] And if I were still
in doubt, I would continue thus: Was Plato no longer mighty in
dialectics, nor able to defend his views, after Aristotle had taken his
departure; and, on that account, are the opinions of Plato false? Or
may it not be, that while Plato is true, as the pupils of his
philosophy would maintain, Aristotle was guilty of wickedness and
ingratitude towards his teacher? Nay, Chrysippus also, in many places
of his writings, appears to assail Cleanthes, introducing novel
opinions opposed to his views, although the latter had been his teacher
when he was a young man, and began the study of philosophy. Aristotle,
indeed, is said to have been Plato's pupil for twenty years, and no
inconsiderable period was spent by Chrysippus in the school of
Cleanthes; while Judas did not remain so much as three years with
Jesus.[2] But from the narratives of the lives of philosophers we might
take many instances similar to those on which Celsus founds a charge
against Jesus on account of Judas. Even the Pythagoreans erected
cenotaphs[3] to those who, after betaking themselves to philosophy,
fell back again into their ignorant mode of life; and yet neither was
Pythagoras nor his followers, on that account, weak in argument and
demonstration.
This Jew of Celsus continues, after the above, in the following
fashion: "Although he could state many things regarding the events of
the life of Jesus which are true, and not like those which are recorded
by the disciples, he willingly omits them." What, then, are those true
statements, unlike the accounts in the Gospels, which the Jew of Celsus
passes by without mention? Or is he only employing what appears to be a
figure of speech,[4] in pretending to have something to say, while in
reality he had nothing to produce beyond the Gospel narrative which
could impress the hearer with a feeling of its truth, and furnish a
clear ground of accusation against Jesus and His doctrine? And he
charges the disciples with having invented the statement that Jesus
foreknew and foretold all that happened to Him; but the truth of this
statement we shall establish, although Celsus may not like it, by means
of many other predictions uttered by the Saviour, in which He foretold
what would befall the Christians in after generations. And who is there
who would not be astonished at this prediction: "Ye shall be brought
before governors and kings for My sake, for a testimony against them
and the Gentiles;"[5] and at any others which He may have delivered
respecting the future persecution of His disciples? For what system of
opinions ever existed among men on account of which others are
punished, so that any one of the accusers of Jesus could say that,
foreseeing the impiety or falsity of his opinions to be the ground of
an accusation against them he thought that this would redound to his
credit, that he had so predicted regarding it long before? Now if any
deserve to be brought, on account of their opinions, before governors
and kings, what others are they, save the Epicureans, who altogether
deny the existence of providence? And also the Peripatetics, who say
that prayers are of no avail, and sacrifices offered as to the
Divinity? But some one will say that the Samaritans suffer persecution
because of their religion. In answer to whom we shall state that the
Sicarians,[6] on account of the practice of circumcision, as mutilating
themselves contrary to the established laws and the customs permitted
to the Jews alone, are put to death. And you never hear a judge
inquiring whether a Sicarian who strives to live according to this
established religion of his will be released from punishment if he
apostatizes, but will be led away to death if he con- tinues firm; for
the evidence of the circumcision is sufficient to ensure the death of
him who has undergone it. But Christians alone, according to the
prediction of their Saviour, "Ye shall be brought before governors and
kings for My sake," are urged up to their last breath by their judges
to deny Christianity, and to sacrifice according to the public customs;
and after the oath of abjuration, to return to their homes, and to live
in safety. And observe whether it is not with great authority that this
declaration is uttered: "Whosoever therefore shall confess Me before
men, him will I confess also before My Father who is in heaven. And
whosoever shall deny Me before men,"(1) etc. And go back with me in
thought to Jesus when He uttered these words, and see His predictions
not yet accomplished. Perhaps you will say, in a spirit of incredulity,
that he is talking folly, and speaking to no purpose, for his words
will have no fulfilment; or, being in doubt about assenting to his
words, you will say, that if these predictions be fulfilled, and the
doctrine of Jesus be established, so that governors and kings think of
destroying those who acknowledge Jesus, then we shall believe that he
utters these prophecies as one who has received great power from God to
implant this doctrine among the human race, and as believing that it
will prevail. And who will not be filled with wonder, when he goes back
in thought to Him who then taught and said, "This Gospel shall be
preached throughout the whole world, for a testimony against them and
the Gentiles,"(2) and beholds, agreeably to His words, the Gospel of
Jesus Christ preached in the whole world under heaven to Greeks and
Barbarians, wise and foolish alike? For the word, spoken with power,
has gained the mastery over men of all sorts of nature, and it is
impossible to see any race of men which has escaped accepting the
teaching of Jesus. But let this Jew of Celsus, who does not believe
that He foreknew all that happened to Him, consider how, while
Jerusalem was still standing, and the whole Jewish worship celebrated
in it, Jesus foretold what would befall it from the hand of the Romans.
For they will not maintain that the acquaintances and pupils of Jesus
Himself handed down His teaching contained in the Gospels without
committing it to writing, and left His disciples without the memoirs of
Jesus contained in their works.(3) Now in these it is recorded, that
"when ye shall see Jerusalem compassed about with armies, then shall ye
know that the desolation thereof is nigh."(4) But at that time there
were no armies around Jerusalem, encompassing and enclosing and
besieging it; for the siege began in the reign of Nero, and lasted till
the government of Vespasian, whose son Titus destroyed Jerusalem, on
account, as Josephus says, of James the Just, the brother of Jesus who
was called Christ, but in reality, as the truth makes dear, on account
of Jesus Christ the Son of God.
Celsus, however, accepting or granting that Jesus foreknew what
would befall Him, might think to make light of the admission, as he did
in the case of the miracles, when he alleged that they were wrought by
means of sorcery; for he might say that many persons by means of
divination, either by auspices, or auguries, or sacrifices, or
nativities, have come to the knowledge of what was to happen. But this
concession he would not make, as being too great a one; and although he
somehow granted that Jesus worked miracles, he thought to weaken the
force of this by the charge of sorcery. Now Phlegon, in the thirteenth
or fourteenth book, I think, of his Chronicles, not only ascribed to
Jesus a knowledge of future events (although falling into confusion
about some things which refer to Peter, as if they referred to Jesus),
but also testified that the result corresponded to His predictions. So
that he also, by these very admissions regarding foreknowledge, as if
against his will, expressed his opinion that the doctrines taught by
the fathers of our system were not devoid of divine power.
Celsus continues: "The disciples of Jesus, having no undoubted
fact on which to rely, devised the fiction that he foreknew everything
before it happened;" not observing, or not wishing to observe, the love
of truth which actuated the writers, who acknowledged that Jesus had
told His disciples beforehand, "All ye shall be offended because of Me
this night,"—a statement which was fulfilled by their all being
offended; and that He predicted to Peter, "Before the cock crow, thou
shall deny Me thrice," which was followed by Peter's threefold denial.
Now if they had not been lovers of truth, but, as Celsus supposes,
inventors of fictions, they would not have represented Peter as
denying, nor His disciples as being offended. For although these events
actually happened, who could have proved that they turned out in that
manner? And yet, according to all probability, these were matters which
ought to have been passed over in silence by men who wished to teach
the readers of the Gospels to despise death for the sake of confessing
Christianity. But now, seeing that the word, by its power, will gain
the mastery over men, they related those facts which they have done,
and which, I know not how, were neither to do any harm to their
readers, nor to afford any pretext for denial.
Exceedingly weak is his assertion, that "the disciples of Jesus
wrote such accounts regarding him, by way of extenuating the charges
that told against him: as if," he says, "any one were to say that a
certain person was a just man, and yet were to show that he was guilty
of injustice; or that he was pious, and yet had committed murder; or
that he was immortal, and yet was dead; subjoining to all these
statements the remark that he had foretold all these things." Now his
illustrations are at once seen to be inappropriate; for there is no
absurdity in Him who had resolved that He would become a living pattern
to men, as to the manner in which they were to regulate their lives,
showing also how they ought to die for the sake of their religion,
apart altogether from the fact that His death on behalf of men was a
benefit to the whole world, as we proved in the preceding book. He
imagines, moreover, that the whole of the confession of the Saviour's
sufferings confirms his objection instead of weakening it. For he is
not acquainted either with the philosophical remarks of Paul,(1) or the
statements of the prophets, on this subject. And it escaped him that
certain heretics have declared that Jesus underwent His sufferings in
appearance, not in reality. For had he known, he would not have said:
"For ye do not even allege this, that he seemed to wicked men to suffer
this punishment, though not undergoing it in reality; but, on the
contrary, ye acknowledge that he openly suffered." But we do not view
His sufferings as having been merely in appearance, in order that His
resurrection also may not be a false, but a real event. For he who
really died, actually arose, if he did arise; whereas he who appeared
only to have died, did not in reality arise. But since the resurrection
of Jesus Christ is a subject of mockery to unbelievers, we shall quote
the words of Plato,(2) that Erus the son of Armenius rose from the
funeral pile twelve days after he had been laid upon it, and gave an
account of what he had seen in Hades; and as we are replying to
unbelievers, it will not be altogether useless to refer in this place
to what Heraclides(3) relates respecting the woman who was deprived of
life. And many persons are recorded to have risen from their tombs, not
only on the day of their burial, but also on the day following. What
wonder is it, then, if in the case of One who performed many marvellous
things, both beyond the power of man and with such fulness of evidence,
that he who could not deny their performance, endeavoured to calumniate
them by comparing them to acts of sorcery, should have manifested also
in His death some greater display of divine power, so that His soul, if
it pleased, might leave its body, and having performed certain offices
out of it, might return again at pleasure? And such a declaration is
Jesus said to have made in the Gospel of John, when He said: "No man
taketh My life from Me, but I lay it down of Myself. I have power to
lay it down, and I have power to take it again."(4) And perhaps it was
on this account that He hastened His departure from the body, that He
might preserve it, and that His legs might not be broken, as were those
of the robbers who were crucified with Him. "For the soldiers brake the
legs of the first, and of the other who was crucified with Him; but
when they came to Jesus, and saw that He was dead, they brake not His
legs."(5) We have accordingly answered the question," How is it
credible that Jesus could have predicted these things?" And with
respect to this, "How could the dead man be immortal?" let him who
wishes to understand know, that it is not the dead man who is immortal,
but He who rose from the dead. So far, indeed, was the dead man from
being immortal, that even the Jesus before His decease—the compound
being, who was to suffer death—was not immortal.(6) For no one is
immortal who is destined to die; but he is immortal when he shall no
longer be subject to death. But "Christ, being raised from the dead,
dieth no more: death hath no more dominion over Him;"(7) although those
may be unwilling to admit this who cannot understand how such things
should be said.
Extremely foolish also is his remark, "What god, or spirit, or
prudent man would not, on foreseeing that such events were to befall
him, avoid them if he could; whereas he threw himself headlong into
those things which he knew beforehand were to happen?" And yet Socrates
knew that he would die after drinking the hemlock, and it was in his
power, if he had allowed himself to be persuaded by Crito, by escaping
from prison, to avoid these calamities; but nevertheless he decided, as
it appeared to him consistent with fight reason, that it was better for
him to die as became a philosopher, than to retain his life in a manner
unbecoming one. Leonidas also, the Lacedaemonian general, knowing that
he was on the point of dying with his followers at Thermopylae, did not
make any effort to preserve his life by disgraceful means but said to
his companions, "Let us go to breakfast, as we shall sup in Hades." And
those who are interested in collecting stories of this kind will find
numbers of them. Now, where is the wonder if Jesus, knowing all things
that were to happen, did not avoid them, but encountered what He
foreknew; when Paul, His own disciple, having heard what would befall
him when he went up to Jerusalem, proceeded to face the danger,
reproaching those who were weeping around him, and endeavouring to
prevent him from going up to Jerusalem? Many also of our
contemporaries, knowing well that if they made a confession of
Christianity they would be put to death, but that if they denied it
they would be liberated, and their property restored, despised life,
and voluntarily selected death for the sake of their religion.
After this the Jew makes another silly remark, saying, "How is it
that, if Jesus pointed out beforehand both the traitor and the
perjurer, they did not fear him as a God, and cease, the one from his
intended treason, and the other from his perjury?" Here the learned
Celsus did not see the contradiction in his statement: for if Jesus
foreknew events as a God, then it was impossible for His foreknowledge
to prove untrue; and therefore it was impossible for him who was known
to Him as going to betray Him not to execute his purpose, nor for him
who was rebuked as going to deny Him not to have been guilty of that
crime. For if it had been possible for the one to abstain from the act
of betrayal, and the other from that of denial, as having been warned
of the consequences of these actions beforehand, then His words were no
longer true, who predicted that the one would betray Him and the other
deny Him. For if He had foreknowledge of the traitor, He knew the
wickedness in which the treason originated, and this wickedness was by
no means taken away by the foreknowledge. And, again, if He had
ascertained that one would deny Him, He made that prediction from
seeing the weakness out of which that act of denial would arise, and
yet this weakness was not to be taken away thus at once, by the
foreknowledge. But whence he derived the statement, "that these persons
betrayed and denied him without manifesting any concern about him," I
know not; for it was proved, with respect to the traitor, that it is
false to say that he betrayed his master without an exhibition of
anxiety regarding Him. And this was shown to be equally true of him who
denied Him; for he went out, after the denial, and wept bitterly.
Superficial also is his objection, that "it is always the case
when a man against whom a plot is formed, and who comes to the
knowledge of it, makes known to the conspirators that he is acquainted
with their design, that the latter are turned from their purpose, and
keep upon their guard." For many have continued to plot even against
those who were acquainted with their plans. And then, as if bringing
his argument to a conclusion, he says: "Not because these things were
predicted did they come to pass, for that is impossible; but since they
have come to pass, their being predicted is shown to be a falsehood:
for it is altogether impossible that those who heard beforehand of the
discovery of their designs, should carry out their plans of betrayal
and denial!" But if his premises are overthrown, then his conclusion
also falls to the ground, viz., "that we are not to believe, because
these things were predicted, that they have come to pass." Now we
maintain that they not only came to pass as being possible, but also
that, because they came to pass, the fact of their being predicted is
shown to be true; for the truth regarding future events is judged of by
results. It is false, therefore, as asserted by him, that the
prediction of these events is proved to be untrue; and it is to no
purpose that he says, "It is altogether impossible for those who heard
beforehand that their designs were discovered, to carry out their plans
of betrayal and denial."
Let us see how he continues after this: "These events," he says,
"he predicted as being a God, and the prediction must by all means come
to pass. God, therefore, who above all others ought to do good to men,
and especially to those of his own household, led on his own disciples
and prophets, with whom he was in the habit of eating and drinking, to
such a degree of wickedness, that they became impious and unholy men.
Now, of a truth, he who shared a man's table would not be guilty of
conspiring against him; but after banqueting with God, he became a
conspirator. And, what is still more absurd, God himself plotted
against the members of his own table, by converting them into traitors
and villains!" Now, since you wish me to answer even those charges of
Celsus which seem to me frivolous,(1) the following is our reply to
such statements. Celsus imagines that an event, predicted through
foreknowledge, comes to pass because it was predicted; but we do not
grant this, maintaining that he who foretold it was not the cause of
its happening, because he foretold it would happen; but the future
event itself, which would have taken place though not predicted,
afforded the occasion to him, who was endowed with foreknowledge, of
foretelling its occurrence. Now, certainly this result is present to
the foreknowledge of him who predicts an event, when it is possible
that it may or may not happen, viz., that one or other of these things
will take place. For we do not assert that he who foreknows an event,
by secretly taking away the possibility of its happening or not, makes
any such declaration as this: "This shall infallibly happen, and it is
impossible that it can be otherwise." And this remark applies to all
the foreknowledge of events dependent upon ourselves, whether contained
in the sacred Scriptures or in the histories of the Greeks. Now, what
is called by logicians an" idle argument,"(2) which is a sophism, will
be no sophism as far as Celsus can help, but according to sound
reasoning it is a sophism. And that this may be seen, I shall take from
the Scriptures the predictions regarding Judas, or the foreknowledge of
our Saviour regarding him as the traitor; and from the Greek histories
the oracle that was given to Laius, conceding for the present its
truth, since it does not affect the argument. Now, in Ps. cviii., Judas
is spoken of by the mouth of the Saviour, in words beginning thus:
"Hold not Thy peace, O God of my praise; for the mouth of the wicked
and the mouth of the deceitful are opened against me." Now, if you
carefully observe the contents of the psalm, you will find that, as it
was foreknown that he would betray the Saviour, so also was he
considered to be himself the cause of the betrayal, and deserving, on
account of his wickedness, of the imprecations contained in the
prophecy. For let him suffer these things," because," says the
psalmist, "he remembered not to show mercy, but persecuted the poor and
needy man." Wherefore it was possible for him to show mercy, and not to
persecute him whom he did persecute. But although he might have done
these things, he did not do them, but carried out the act of treason,
so as to merit the curses pronounced against him in the prophecy.
And in answer to the Greeks we shall quote the following oracular
response to Laius, as recorded by the tragic poet, either in the exact
words of the oracle or in equivalent terms. Future events are thus made
known to him by the oracle: "Do not try to beget children against the
will of the gods. For if you beget a son, your son shall murder you;
and all your household shall wade in blood."(3) Now from this it is
clear that it was within the power of Laius not to try to beget
children, for the oracle would not have commanded an impossibility; and
it was also in his power to do the opposite, so that neither of these
courses was compulsory. And the consequence of his not guarding against
the begetting of children was, that he suffered from so doing the
calamities described in the tragedies relating to (Edipus and Jocasta
and their sons. Now that which is called the "idle argument," being a
quibble, is such as might be applied, say in the case of a sick man,
with the view of sophistically preventing him from employing a
physician to promote his recovery; and it is something like this: "If
it is decreed that you should recover from your disease, you will
recover whether you call in a physician or not; but if it is decreed
that you should not recover, you will not recover whether you call in a
physician or no. But it is certainly decreed either that you should
recover, or that you should not recover; and therefore it is in vain
that you call in a physician." Now with this argument the following may
be wittily compared: "If it is decreed that you should beget children,
you will beget them, whether you have intercourse with a woman or not.
But if it is decreed that you should not beget children, you will not
do so, whether you have intercourse with a woman or no. Now, certainly,
it is decreed either that you should beget children or not; therefore
it is in vain that you have intercourse with a woman." For, as in the
latter instance, intercourse with a woman is not employed in vain,
seeing it is an utter impossibility for him who does not use it to
beget children; so, in the former, if recovery from disease is to
be accomplished by means of the healing art, of necessity the physician
is summoned, and it is therefore false to say that "in vain do you call
in a physician." We have brought forward all these illustrations on
account of the assertion of this learned Celsus, that "being a God He
predicted these things, and the predictions must by all means come to
pass." Now, if by "by all means" he means "necessarily," we cannot
admit this. For it was quite possible, also, that they might not come
to pass. But if he uses "by all means" in the sense of "simple
futurity,"(4) which nothing hinders from being true (although it was
possible that they might not happen), he does not at all touch my
argument; nor did it follow, from Jesus having predicted the acts of
the traitor or the perjurer, that it was the same thing with His being
the cause of such impious and unholy proceedings. For He who was
amongst us, and knew what was in man, seeing his evil disposition, and
foreseeing what he would attempt from his spirit of covetousness, and
from his want of stable ideas of duty towards his Master, along with
many other declarations, gave utterance to this also: "He that dippeth
his hand with Me in the dish, the same shall betray Me."(1)
Observe also the superficiality and manifest falsity of such a
statement of Celsus, when he asserts "that he who was partaker of a
man's table would not conspire against him; and if he would not
conspire against a man, much less would he plot against a God after
banqueting with him." For who does not know that many persons, after
partaking of the salt on the table,(2) have entered into a conspiracy
against their entertainers? The whole of Greek and Barbarian history is
full of such instances. And the Iambic poet of Paros,(3) when
upbraiding Lycambes with having violated covenants confirmed by the
salt of the table, says to him:—
"But thou hast broken a mighty oath—that, viz., by the salt of the table."
And they who are interested in historical learning, and who give themselves wholly to it, to the neglect of other branches of knowledge more necessary for the conduct of life,(4) can quote numerous instances, showing that they who shared in the hospitality of others entered into conspiracies against them.
He adds to this, as if he had brought together an argument with
conclusive demonstrations and consequences, the following: "And, which
is still more absurd, God himself conspired against those who sat at
his table, by converting them into traitors and impious men." But how
Jesus could either conspire or convert His disciples into traitors or
impious men, it would be impossible for him to prove, save by means of
such a deduction as any one could refute with the greatest ease.
He continues in this strain: "If he had determined upon these
things, and underwent chastisement in obedience to his Father, it is
manifest that, being a God, and submitting voluntarily, those things
that were done agreeably to his own decision were neither painful nor
distressing." But he did not observe that here he was at once
contradicting himself. For if he granted that He was chastised because
He had determined upon these things, and had submitted Himself to His
Father, it is clear that He actually suffered punishment, and it was
impossible that what was inflicted on Him by His chastisers should not
be painful, because pain is an involuntary thing. But if, because He
was willing to suffer, His inflictions were neither painful nor
distressing, how did He grant that "He was chastised?" He did not
perceive that when Jesus had once, by His birth, assumed a body, He
assumed one which was capable both of suffering pains, and those
distresses incidental to humanity, if we are to understand by
distresses what no one voluntarily chooses. Since, therefore, He
voluntarily assumed a body, not wholly of a different nature from that
of human flesh, so along with His body He assumed also its sufferings
and distresses, which it was not in His power to avoid enduring, it
being in the power of those who inflicted them to send upon Him things
distressing and painful. And in the preceding pages we have already
shown, that He would not have come into the hands of men had He not so
willed. But He did come, because He was willing to come, and because it
was manifest beforehand that His dying upon behalf of men would be of
advantage to the whole human race.
After this, wishing to prove that the occurrences which befell
Him were painful and distressing, and that it was impossible for Him,
had He wished, to render them otherwise, he proceeds: "Why does he
mourn, and lament, and pray to escape the fear of death, expressing
himself in terms like these: 'O Father, if it be possible, let this cup
pass from Me?'"(4) Now in these words observe the malignity of Celsus,
how not accepting the love of truth which actuates the writers of the
Gospels (who might have passed over in silence those points which, as
Celsus thinks, are censurable, but who did not omit them for many
reasons, which any one, in expounding the Gospel, can give in their
proper place), he brings an accusation against the Gospel statement,
grossly exaggerating the facts, and quoting what is not written in the
Gospels, seeing it is nowhere found that Jesus lamented. And he changes
the words in the expression, "Father, if it be possible, let this cup
pass from Me," and does not give what follows immediately after, which
manifests at once the ready obedience of Jesus to His Father, and His
greatness of mind, and which runs thus: "Nevertheless, not as I will,
but as Thou wilt."(1) Nay, even the cheerful obedience of Jesus to the
will of His Father in those things which He was condemned to suffer,
exhibited in the declaration, "If this cup cannot pass from Me except I
drink it, Thy will be done," he pretends not to have observed, acting
here like those wicked individuals who listen to the Holy Scriptures in
a malignant spirit, and "who talk wickedness with lofty head." For they
appear to have heard the declaration, "I kill,"(2) and they often make
it to us a subject of reproach; but the words, "I will make alive,"
they do not remember,—the whole sentence showing that those who live
amid public wickedness, and who work wickedly, are put to death by God,
and that a better life is infused into them instead, even one which God
will give to those who have died to sin. And so also these men have
heard the words, "I will smite;" but they do not see these, "and I will
heal," which are like the words of a physician, who cuts bodies
asunder, and inflicts severe wounds, in order to extract from them
substances that are injurious and prejudicial to health, and who does
not terminate his work with pains and lacerations, but by his treatment
restores the body to that state of soundness which he has in view.
Moreover, they have not heard the whole of the announcement, "For He
maketh sore, and again bindeth up;" but only this part, "He maketh
sore." So in like manner acts this Jew of Celsus who quotes the words,
"O Father, would that this cup might pass from Me;" but who does not
add what follows, and which exhibits the firmness of Jesus, and His
preparedness for suffering. But these matters, which afford great room
for explanation from the wisdom of God, and which may reasonably be
pondered over(3) by those whom Paul calls "perfect" when he said, "We
speak wisdom among them who are perfect,"(4) we pass by for the
present, and shall speak for a little of those matters which are useful
for our present purpose.
We have mentioned in the preceding pages that there are some of
the declarations of Jesus which refer to that Being in Him which was
the "first-born of every creature," such as, "I am the way, and the
truth, and the life," and such like; and others, again, which belong to
that in Him which is understood to be man, such as, "But now ye seek to
kill Me, a man that hath told you the truth which I have heard of the
Father."(5) And here, accordingly, he describes the element of weakness
belonging to human flesh, and that of readiness of spirit which existed
in His humanity: the element of weakness in the expression, "Father, if
it be possible, let this cup pass from Me;" the readiness of the spirit
in this, "Nevertheless, not as I will, but as Thou wilt." And since it
is proper to observe the order of our quotations, observe that, in the
first place, there is mentioned only the single instance, as one would
say, indicating the weakness of the flesh; and afterwards those other
instances, greater in number, manifesting the willingness of the
spirit. For the expression, "Father, if it be possible, let this cup
pass from Me," is only one: whereas more numerous are those others,
viz., "Not as I will, but as Thou wilt;" and, "O My Father, if this cup
cannot pass from Me except I drink it, Thy will be done." It is to be
noted also, that the words are not, "let this cup depart from Me;" but
that the whole expression is marked by a tone of piety and reverence,
"Father, if it be possible, let this cup pass from Me." I know, indeed,
that there is another explanation of this passage to the following
effect:—The Saviour, foreseeing the sufferings which the Jewish people
and the city of Jerusalem were to undergo in requital of the wicked
deeds which the Jews had dared to perpetrate upon Him, from no other
motive than that of the purest philanthropy towards them, and from a
desire that they might escape the impending calamities, gave utterance
to the prayer, "Father, if it be possible, let this cup pass from Me."
It is as if He had said, "Because of My drinking this cup of
punishment, the whole nation will be forsaken by Thee, I pray, if it be
possible, that this cup may pass from Me, in order that Thy portion,
which was guilty of such crimes against Me, may not be altogether
deserted by Thee." But if, as Celsus would allege, "nothing at that
time was done to Jesus which was either painful or distressing," how
could men afterwards quote the example of Jesus as enduring sufferings
for the sake of religion, if He did not suffer what are human
sufferings, but only had the appearance of so doing?
This Jew of Celsus still accuses the disciples of Jesus of having
invented these statements. saying to them: "Even although guilty of
falsehood, ye have not been able to give a colour of credibility to
your inventions." In answer to which we have to say, that there was an
easy method of concealing these occurrences,—that, viz., of not
recording them at all. For if the Gospels had not contained the
accounts of these things, who could have reproached us with Jesus
having spoken such words during His stay upon the earth? Celsus,
indeed, did not see that it was an inconsistency for the same persons
both to be deceived regarding Jesus, believing Him to be God, and the
subject of prophecy, and to invent fictions about Him, knowing
manifestly that these statements were false. Of a truth, therefore,
they were not guilty of inventing untruths, but such were their real
impressions, and they recorded them truly; or else they were guilty of
falsifying the histories, and did not entertain these views, and were
not deceived when they acknowledged Him to be God.
After this he says, that certain of the Christian believers, like
persons who in a fit of drunkenness lay violent hands upon themselves,
have corrupted the Gospel from its original integrity, to a threefold,
and fourfold, and many-fold degree, and have remodelled it, so that
they might be able to answer objections. Now I know of no others who
have altered the Gospel, save the. followers of Marcion, and those of
Valentinus, and, I think, also those of Lucian. But such an allegation
is no charge against the Christian system, but against those who dared
so to trifle with the Gospels. And as it is no ground of accusation
against philosophy, that there exist Sophists, or Epicureans, or
Peripatetics, or any others, whoever they may be, who hold false
opinions; so neither is it against genuine Christianity that there are
some who corrupt the Gospel histories, and who introduce heresies
opposed to the meaning of the doctrine of Jesus.
And since this Jew of Celsus makes it a subject of reproach that
Christians should make use of the prophets, who predicted the events of
Christ's life, we have to say, in addition to what we have already
advanced upon this head, that it became him to spare individuals, as
he says, and to expound the prophecies themselves, and after admitting
the probability of the Christian interpretation of them, to show how
the use which they make of them may be overturned.[1] For in this way
he would not appear hastily to assume so important a position on small
grounds, and particularly when he asserts that the "prophecies agree
with ten thousand other things more credibly than with Jesus." And he
ought to have carefully met this powerful argument of the Christians,
as being the strongest which they adduce, and to have demonstrated with
regard to each particular prophecy, that it can apply to other events
with greater probability than to Jesus. He did not, however, perceive
that this was a plausible argument to be advanced against the
Christians only by one who was an opponent of the prophetic writings;
but Celsus has here put l in the mouth of a Jew an objection which a
Jew would not have made. For a Jew will not admit that the prophecies
may be applied to countless other things with greater probability than
to Jesus; but he will endeavour, after giving what appears to him the
meaning of each, to oppose the Christian interpretation, not indeed by
any means adducing convincing reasons, but only attempting to do so.
In the preceding pages we have already spoken of this point,
viz., the prediction that there were to be two advents of Christ to the
human race, so that it is not necessary for us to reply to the
objection, supposed to be urged by a Jew, that "the prophets declare
the coming one to be a mighty potentate, Lord of all nations and
armies." But it is in the spirit of a Jew, I think, and in keeping with
their bitter animosity, and baseless and even improbable calumnies
against Jesus, that he adds: "Nor did the prophets predict such a
pestilence."[2] For neither Jews, nor Celsus, nor any other, can bring
any argument to prove that a pestilence converts men from the practice
of evil to a life which is according to nature, and distinguished by
temperance and other virtues.
This objection also is cast in our teeth by Celsus: "From such
signs and misinterpretations, and from proofs so mean, no one could
prove him to be God, and the Son of God." Now it was his duty to
enumerate the alleged misinterpretations, and to prove them to be such,
and to show by reasoning the meanness of the evidence, in order that
the Christian, if any of his objections should seem to be plausible,
might be able to answer and confute his arguments. What he said,
however, regarding Jesus, did indeed come to pass, because He was a
mighty potentate, although Celsus refuses to see that it so happened,
notwithstanding that the clearest evidence proves it true of Jesus.
"For as the sun," he says, "which enlightens all other objects, first
makes himself visible, so ought the Son of God to have done." We would
say in reply, that so He did; for righteousness has arisen in His days,
and there is abundance of peace, which took its commencement at His
birth, God preparing the nations for His teaching, that they might be
under one prince, the king of the Romans, and that it might not, owing
to the want of union among the nations, caused by the existence of many
kingdoms, be more difficult for the apostles of Jesus to accomplish the
task enjoined upon them by their Master, when He said, "Go and teach
all nations." Moreover it is certain that Jesus was born in the reign
of Augustus, who, so to speak, fused together into one monarchy the
many populations of the earth. Now the existence of many kingdoms would
have been a hindrance to the spread of the doctrine of Jesus throughout
the entire world; not only for the reasons mentioned, but also on
account of the necessity of men everywhere engaging in war, and
fighting on behalf of their native country, which was the case before
the times of Augustus, and in periods still more remote, when necessity
arose, as when the Peloponnesians and Athenians warred against each
other, and other nations in like manner. How, then, was it possible for
the Gospel doctrine of peace, which does not permit men to take
vengeance even upon enemies, to prevail throughout the world, unless at
the advent of Jesus[1] a milder spirit had been everywhere introduced
into the conduct of things?
He next charges the Christians with being "guilty of sophistical
reasoning, in saying that the Son of God is the Logos Himself." And he
thinks that he strengthens the accusation, because "when we declare the
Logos to be the Son of God, we do not present to view a pure and holy
Logos, but a most degraded man, who was punished by scourging and
crucifixion." Now, on this head we have briefly replied to the charges
of Celsus in the preceding pages, where Christ was shown to be the
first-born of all creation, who assumed a body and a human soul; and
that God gave commandment respecting the creation of such mighty things
in the world, and they were created; and that He who received the
command was God the Logos. And seeing it is a Jew who makes these
statements in the work of Celsus, it will not be out of place to quote
the declaration, "He sent His word, and healed them, and delivered them
from their destruction,"[2]—a passage of which we spoke a little ago.
Now, although I have conferred with many Jews who professed to be
learned men, I never heard any one expressing his approval of the
statement that the Logos is the Son of God, as Celsus declares they do,
in putting into the mouth of the Jew such a declaration as this: "If
your Logos is the Son of God, we also give out assent to the same."
We have already shown that Jesus can be regarded neither as an
arrogant man, nor a sorcerer; and therefore it is unnecessary to repeat
our former arguments, lest, in replying to the tautologies of Celsus,
we ourselves should be guilty of needless repetition. And now, in
finding fault with our Lord's genealogy, there are certain points which
occasion some difficulty even to Christians, and which, owing to the
discrepancy between the genealogies, are advanced by some as arguments
against their correctness, but which Celsus has not even mentioned. For
Celsus, who is truly a braggart, and who professes to be acquainted
with all matters relating to Christianity, does not know how to raise
doubts in a skilful manner against the credibility of Scripture. But he
asserts that the "framers of the genealogies, from a feeling of pride,
made Jesus to be descended from the first man, and from the kings of
the Jews." And he thinks that he makes a notable charge when he adds,
that "the carpenters wife could not have been ignorant of the fact, had
she been of such illustrious descent." But what has this to do with the
question? Granted that she was not ignorant of her descent, how does
that affect the result? Suppose that she were ignorant, how could her
ignorance prove that she was not descended from the first man, or could
not derive her origin from the Jewish kings? Does Celsus imagine that
the poor must always be descended from ancestors who are poor, or that
kings are always born of kings? But it appears folly to waste time upon
such an argument as this, seeing it is well known that, even in our own
days, some who are poorer than Mary are descended from ancestors of
wealth and distinction, and that rulers of nations and kings have
sprung from persons of no reputation.
"But," continues Celsus, "what great deeds did Jesus perform as
being a God? Did he put his enemies to shame, or bring to a ridiculous
conclusion what was designed against him?" Now to this question,
although we are able to show the striking and miraculous character of
the events which befell Him, yet from what other source can we furnish
an answer than from the Gospel narratives, which state that "there was
an earthquake, and that the rocks were split asunder, and the tombs
opened, and the veil of the temple rent in twain from top to bottom,
and that darkness prevailed in the day-time, the sun failing to give
light?"[1] But if Celsus believe the Gospel accounts when he thinks
that he can find in them matter of charge against the Christians, and
refuse to believe them when they establish the divinity of Jesus, our
answer to him is: "Sir,[2] either disbelieve all the Gospel narratives,
and then no longer imagine that you can found charges upon them; or,
in yielding your belief to their statements, look in admiration on the
Logos of God, who became incarnate, and who desired to confer benefits
upon the whole human race. And this feature evinces the nobility of
the work of Jesus, that, down to the present time, those whom God wills
are healed by His name.[3] And with regard to the eclipse in the time
of Tiberius Caesar, in whose reign Jesus appears to have been
crucified, and the great earthquakes which then took place, Phlegon
too, I think, has written in the thirteenth or fourteenth book of his
Chronicles."[4]
This Jew of Celsus, ridiculing Jesus, as he imagines, is
described as being acquainted with the Bacchae of Euripides, in which
Dionysus says:—
"The divinity himself will liberate me whenever I wish."[5]
NOW the Jews are not much acquainted with Greek literature; but suppose that there was a Jew so well versed in it (as to make such a quotation on his part appropriate), how (does it follow) that Jesus could not liberate Himself, because He did not do so? For let him believe from our own Scriptures that Peter obtained his freedom after having been bound in prison, an angel having loosed his chains; and that Paul, having been bound in the stocks along with Silas in Philippi of Macedonia, was liberated by divine power, when the gates of the prison were opened. But it is probable that Celsus treats these accounts with ridicule, or that he never read them; for he would probably say in reply, that there are certain sorcerers who are able by incantations to unloose chains and to open doors, so that he would liken the events related in our histories to the doings of sorcerers. "But," he continues, "no calamity happened even to him who condemned him, as there did to Pentheus, viz., madness or discerption."[6] And yet he does not know that it was not so much Pilate that condemned Him (who knew that "for envy the Jews had delivered Him"), as the Jewish nation, which has been condemned by God, and rent in pieces, and dispersed over the whole earth, in a degree far beyond what happened to Pentheus. Moreover, why did he intentionally omit what is related of Pilate's wife, who beheld a vision, and who was so moved by it as to send a message to her husband, saying: "Have thou nothing to do with that just man; for I have suffered many things this day in a dream because of Him?"[7] And again, passing by in silence the proofs of the divinity of Jesus, Celsus endeavours to cast reproach upon Him from the narratives in the Gospel, referring to those who mocked Jesus, and put on Him the purple robe, and the crown of thorns, and placed the reed in His hand. From what source now, Celsus, did you derive these statements, save from the Gospel narratives? And did you, accordingly, see that they were fit matters for reproach; while they who recorded them did not think that you, and such as you, would turn them into ridicule; but that others would receive from them an example how to despise those who ridiculed and mocked Him on account of His religion, who appropriately laid down His life for its sake? Admire rather their love of truth, and that of the Being who bore these things voluntarily for the sake of men, and who endured them with all constancy and long-suffering. For it is not recorded that He uttered any lamentation, or that after His condemnation He either did or uttered anything unbecoming.
But in answer to this objection, "If not before, yet why now, at
least, does he not give some manifestation of his divinity, and free
himself from this reproach, and take vengeance upon those who insult
both him and his Father?" We have to reply, that it would be the same
thing as if we were to say to those among the Greeks who accept the
doctrine of providence, and who believe in portents, Why does God not
punish those who insult the Divinity, and subvert the doctrine of
providence? For as the Greeks would answer such objections, so would
we, in the same, or a more effective manner. There was not only a
portent from heaven—the eclipse of the sun—but also the other
miracles, which show that the crucified One possessed something that
was divine, and greater than was possessed by the majority of men.
Celsus next says: "What is the nature of the ichor in the body of
the crucified Jesus? Is it 'such as flows in the bodies of the
immortal gods?'"[8] He puts this question in a spirit of mockery; but
we shall show from the serious narratives of the Gospels, although
Celsus may not like it, that it was no mythic and Homeric ichor which
flowed from the body of Jesus, but that, after His death, "one of the
soldiers with a spear pierced His side, and there came there-out blood
and water. And he that saw it bare record, and his record is true, and
he knoweth that he saith the truth."[1] Now, in other dead bodies the
blood congeals, and pure water does not flow forth; but the miraculous
feature in the case of the dead body of Jesus was, that around the dead
body blood and water flowed forth from the side. But if this Celsus,
who, in order to find matter of accusation against Jesus and the
Christians, extracts from the Gospel even passages which are
incorrectly interpreted, but passes over in silence the evidences of
the divinity of Jesus, would listen to divine portents, let him read
the Gospel, and see that even the centurion, and they who with him kept
watch over Jesus, on seeing the earthquake, and the events that
occurred, were greatly afraid, saying, "This man was the Son of God."[2]
After this, he who extracts from the Gospel narrative those
statements on which he thinks he can found an accusation, makes the
vinegar and the gall a subject of reproach to Jesus, saying that "he
rushed with open mouth[3] to drink of them, and could not endure his
thirst as any ordinary man frequently endures it." Now this matter
admits of an explanation of a peculiar and figurative kind; but on the
present occasion, the statement that the prophets predicted this very
incident may be accepted as the more common answer to the objection.
For in the sixty-ninth Psalm there is written, with reference to
Christ: "And they gave me gall for my meat, and in my thirst they gave
me vinegar to drink,"[4] Now, let the Jews say who it is that the
prophetic writing represents as uttering these words; and let them
adduce from history one who received gall for his food, and to whom
vinegar was given as drink. Would they venture to assert that the
Christ whom they expect still to come might be placed in such
circumstances? Then we would say, What prevents the prediction from
having been already accomplished? For this very prediction was uttered
many ages before, and is sufficient, along with the other prophetic
utterances, to lead him who fairly examines the whole matter to the
conclusion that Jesus is He who was prophesied of as Christ, and as the
Son of God.
The few next remarks: "You, O sincere believers,[5] find fault
with us, because we do not recognise this individual as God, nor agree
with you that he endured these (sufferings) for the benefit of mankind,
in order that we also might despise punishment." Now, in answer to
this, we say that we blame the Jews, who have been brought up under the
training of the law and the prophets (which foretell the coming of
Christ), because they neither refute the arguments which we lay before
them to prove that He is the Messiah,[6] adducing such refutation as a
defence of their unbelief; nor yet, while not offering any refutation,
do they believe in Him who was the subject of prophecy, and who clearly
manifested through His disciples, even after the period of His
appearance in the flesh, that He underwent these things for the benefit
of mankind; having, as the object of His first advent, not to condemn
men and their actions[7] before He had instructed them, and pointed out
to them their duty,[8] nor to chastise the wicked and save the good,
but to disseminate His doctrine in an extraordinary[9] manner, and with
the evidence of divine power, among the whole human race, as the
prophets also have represented these things. And we blame them,
moreover, because they did not believe in Him who gave evidence of the
power that was in Him, but asserted that He cast out demons from the
souls of men through Beelzebub the prince of the demons; and we blame
them because they slander the philanthropic character of Him, who
overlooked not only no city, but not even a single village in Judea,
that He might everywhere announce the kingdom of God, accusing Him of
leading the wandering life of a vagabond, and passing an anxious
existence in a disgraceful body. But there is no disgrace in enduring
such labours for the benefit of all those who may be able to understand
Him.
And how can the following assertion of this Jew of Celsus appear
anything else than a manifest falsehood, viz., that Jesus, "having
gained over no one during his life, not even his own disciples,
underwent these punishments and sufferings?" For from what other source
sprang the envy which was aroused against Him by the Jewish high
priests, and elders, and scribes, save from the fact that multitudes
obeyed and followed Him, and were led into the deserts not only by the
persuasive[1] language of Him whose words were always appropriate to
His hearers, but who also by His miracles made an impression on those
who were not moved to belief by His words? And is it not a manifest
falsehood to say that "he did not gain over even his own disciples,"
who exhibited, indeed, at that time some symptoms of human weakness
arising from cowardly fear—for they had not yet been disciplined to
the exhibition of full courage—but who by no means abandoned the
judgments which they had formed regarding Him as the Christ? For Peter,
after his denial, perceiving to what a depth of wickedness he had
fallen, "went out and wept bitterly;" while the others, although
stricken with dismay on account of what had happened to Jesus (for they
still continued to admire Him), had, by His glorious appearance,[2]
their belief more firmly established than before that He was the Son of
God.
It is, moreover, in a very unphilosophical spirit that Celsus
imagines our Lord's pre-eminence among men to consist, not in the
preaching of salvation and in a pure morality, but in acting contrary
to the character of that personality which He had taken upon Him, and
in not dying, although He had assumed mortality; or, if dying, yet at
least not such a death as might serve as a pattern to those who were to
learn by that very act how to die for the sake of religion, and to
comport themselves boldly through its help, before those who hold
erroneous views on the subject of religion and irreligion, and who
regard religious men as altogether irreligious, but imagine those to be
most religious who err regarding God, and who apply to everything
rather than to God the ineradicable[3] idea of Him (which is implanted
in the human mind), and especially when they eagerly rush to destroy
those who have yielded themselves up with their whole soul (even unto
death), to the clear evidence of one God who is over all things.
In the person of the Jew, Celsus continues to find fault with
Jesus, alleging that "he did not show himself to be pure from all
evil." Let Celsus state from what "evil" our Lord did not, show Himself
to be pure. If he means that, He was not pure from what is properly
termed "evil," let him clearly prove the existence of any wicked work
in Him. But if he deems poverty and the cross to be evils, and
conspiracy on the part of wicked men, then it is clear that he would
say that evil had happened also to Socrates, who was unable to show
himself pure from evils. And how great also the other band of poor men
is among the Greeks, who have given themselves to philosophical
pursuits, and have voluntarily accepted a life of poverty, is known to
many among the Greeks from what is recorded of Democritus, who allowed
his property to become pasture for sheep; and of Crates, who obtained
his freedom by bestowing upon the Thebans the price received for the
sale of his possessions. Nay, even Diogenes himself, from excessive
poverty, came to live in a tub; and yet, in the opinion of no one
possessed of moderate understanding, was Diogenes on that account
considered to be in an evil (sinful) condition.
But further, since Celsus will have it that "Jesus was not
irreproachable," let him instance any one of those who adhere to His
doctrine, who has recorded anything that could truly furnish ground of
reproach against Jesus; or if it be not from these that he derives his
matter of accusation against Him, let him say from what quarter he has
learned that which has induced him to say that He is not free from
reproach. Jesus, however, performed all that He promised to do, and by
which He conferred benefits upon his adherents. And we, continually
seeing fulfilled all that was predicted by Him before it happened,
viz., that this Gospel of His should be preached throughout the whole
world, and that His disciples should go among all nations and announce
His doctrine; and, moreover, that they should be brought before
governors and kings on no other account than because of His teaching;
we are lost in wonder at Him, and have our faith in Him daily
confirmed. And I know not by what greater or more convincing proofs
Celsus would have Him confirm His predictions; unless, indeed, as seems
to be the case, not understanding that the Logos had become the man
Jesus, he would have Him to be subject to no human weakness, nor to
become an illustrious pattern to men of the manner in which they ought
to bear the calamities of life, although these appear to Celsus to be
most lamentable and disgraceful occurrences, seeing that he regards
labour[4] to be the greatest of evils, and pleasure the perfect
good,—a view accepted by none of those philosophers who admit the
doctrine of providence, and who allow that courage, and fortitude, and
magnanimity are virtues. Jesus, therefore, by His sufferings cast no
discredit upon the faith of which He was the object; but rather
confirmed the same among those who would approve of manly courage, and
among those who were taught by Him that what was truly and properly the
happy life was not here below, but was to be found in that which was
called, according to His own words, the "coming world;" whereas in what
is called the "present world" life is a calamity, or at least the first
and greatest struggle of the soul.[1]
Celsus next addresses to us the following remark: "You will not,
I suppose, say of him, that, after failing to gain over those who were
in this world, he went to Hades to gain over those who were there." But
whether he like it or not, we assert that not only while Jesus was in
the body did He win over not a few persons merely, but so great a
number, that a conspiracy was formed against Him on account of the
multitude of His followers; but also, that when He became a soul,
without the covering of the body, He dwelt among those souls which were
without bodily covering, converting such of them as were willing to
Himself, or those whom He saw, for reasons known to Him alone, to be
better adapted to such a course.[2]
Celsus in the next place says, with indescribable silliness: "If,
after inventing defences which are absurd, and by which ye were
ridiculously deluded, ye imagine that you really make a good defence,
what prevents you from regarding those other individuals who have been
condemned, and have died a miserable death, as greater and more divine
messengers of heaven (than Jesus)?" Now, that manifestly and clearly
there is no similarity between Jesus, who suffered what is described,
and those who have died a wretched death on account of their sorcery,
or whatever else be the charge against them, is patent to every one.
For no one can point to any acts of a sorcerer which turned away souls
from the practice of the many sins which prevail among men, and from
the flood of wickedness (in the world).[3] But since this Jew of Celsus
compares Him to robbers, and says that "any similarly shameless fellow
might be able to say regarding even a robber and murderer whom
punishment had overtaken, that such an one was not a robber, but a god,
because he predicted to his fellow-robbers that he would suffer such
punishment as he actually did suffer," it might, in the first place, be
answered, that it is not because He predicted that He would suffer such
things that we entertain those opinions regarding Jesus which lead us
to have confidence in Him, as one who has come down to us from God.
And, in the second place, we assert that this very comparison[4] has
been somehow foretold in the Gospels; since God was numbered with the
transgressors by wicked men, who desired rather a "murderer" (one who
for sedition and murder had been cast into prison) to be released unto
them, and Jesus to be crucified, and who crucified Him between two
robbers. Jesus, indeed, is ever crucified with robbers among His
genuine disciples and witnesses to the truth, and suffers the same
condemnation which they do among men. And we say, that if those persons
have any resemblance to robbers, who on account of their piety towards
God suffer all kinds of injury and death, that they may keep it pure
and unstained, according to the teaching of Jesus, then it is clear
also that Jesus, the author of such teaching, is with good reason
compared by Celsus to the captain of a band of robbers. But neither was
He who died for the common good of mankind, nor they who suffered
because of their religion, and alone of all men were persecuted because
of what appeared to them the right way of honouring God, put to death
in accordance with justice, nor was Jesus persecuted without the charge
of impiety being incurred by His persecutors.
But observe the superficial nature of his argument respecting the
former disciples of Jesus, in which he says: "In the next place, those
who were his associates while alive, and who listened to his voice, and
enjoyed his instructions as their teacher, on seeing him subjected to
punishment and death, neither died with him, nor for him, nor were even
induced to regard punishment with contempt, but denied even that they
were his disciples, whereas now ye die along with him." And here he
believes the sin which was committed by the disciples while they were
yet beginners and imperfect, and which is recorded in the Gospels, to
have been actually committed, in order that he may have matter of
accusation against the Gospel; but their upright conduct after their
transgression, when they behaved with courage before the Jews, and
suffered countless cruelties at their hands, and at last suffered death
for the doctrine of Jesus, he passes by in silence. For he would
neither hear the words of Jesus, when He predicted to Peter, "When thou
shalt be old, thou shalt stretch forth thy hands,"[5] etc., to which
the Scripture adds, "This spake He, signifying by what death he should
glorify God;" nor how James the brother of John—an apostle, the
brother of an apostle—was slain with the sword by Herod for the
doctrine of Christ; nor even the many instances of boldness displayed
by Peter and the other apostles because of the Gospel, and "how they
went forth from the presence of the Sanhedrim after being scourged,
rejoicing that they were counted worthy to suffer shame for His
name,"[1] and so surpassing many of the instances related by the Greeks
of the fortitude and courage of their philosophers. From the very
beginning, then, this was inculcated as a precept of Jesus among His
hearers, which taught men to despise the life which is eagerly sought
after by the multitude, but to be earnest in living the life which
resembles that of God.
But how can this Jew of Celsus escape the charge of falsehood,
when he says that Jesus, "when on earth, gained over to himself only
ten sailors and tax-gatherers of the most worthless character, and not
even the whole of these?" Now it is certain that the Jews themselves
would admit that He drew over not ten persons merely, nor a hundred,
nor a thousand, but on one occasion five thousand at once, and on
another four thousand; and that He attracted them to such a degree that
they followed Him even into the deserts, which alone could contain the
assembled multitude of those who believed in God through Jesus, and
where He not only addressed to them discourses, but also manifested to
them His works. And now, through his tautology, he compels us also to
be tautological, since we are careful to guard against being supposed
to pass over any of the charges advanced by him; and therefore, in
reference to the matter before us following the order of his treatise
as we have it, be says: "Is it not the height of absurdity to maintain,
that if, while he himself was alive, he won over not a single person to
his views, after his death any who wish are able to gain over such a
multitude of individuals?" Whereas he ought to have said, in
consistency with truth, that if, after His death, not simply those who
will, but they who have the will and the power, can gain over so many
proselytes, how much more consonant to reason is it, that while He was
alive He should, through the greater power of His words and deeds, have
won over to Himself manifold greater numbers of adherents?
He represents, moreover, a statement of his own as if it were an
answer to one of his questions, in which be asks: "By what train of
argument were you led to regard him as the Son of God?" For he makes us
answer that "we were won over to him, because[2] we know that his
punishment was undergone to bring about the destruction Of the father
of evil." Now we were won over to His doctrine by innumerable other
considerations, of which we have stated only the smallest part in the
preceding pages; but, if God permit, we shall continue to enumerate
them, not only while dealing with the so-called True Discourse of
Celsus, but also on many other occasions. And, as if we said that we
consider Him to be the Son of God because He suffered punishment, he
asks: "What then? have not many others, too, been punished, and that
not less disgracefully?" And here Celsus acts like the most
contemptible enemies of the Gospel, and like those who imagine that it
follows as a consequence from our history of the crucified Jesus, that
we should worship those who have undergone crucifixion!
Celsus, moreover, unable to resist the miracles which Jesus is
recorded to have performed, has already on several occasions spoken of
them slanderously as works of sorcery; and we also on several occasions
have, to the best of our ability, replied to his statements. And now he
represents us as saying that "we deemed Jesus to be the Son of God,
because he healed the lame and the blind." And he adds: "Moreover, as
you assert, he raised the dead." That He healed the lame and the blind,
and that therefore we hold Him to be the Christ and the Son of God, is
manifest to us from what is contained in the prophecies: "Then the eyes
of the blind shall be opened, and the ears of the deaf shall hear; then
shall the lame man leap as an hart."[3] And that He also raised the
dead, and that it is no fiction of those who composed the Gospels, is
shown by this, that if it had been a fiction, many individuals would
have been represented as having risen from the dead, and these, too,
such as had been many years in their graves. But as it is no fiction,
they are very easily counted of whom this is related to have happened;
viz., the daughter of the ruler of the synagogue (of whom I know not
why He said, "She is not dead, but sleepeth," stating regarding her
something which does not apply to all who die); and the only son of the
widow, on whom He took compassion and raised him up, making the bearers
of the corpse to stand still; and the third instance, that of Lazarus,
who had been four days in the grave. Now, regarding these cases we
would say to all persons of candid mind, and especially to the Jew,
that as there were many lepers in the days of Elisha the prophet, and
none of them was healed save Naaman the Syrian, and many widows in the
days of Elijah the prophet, to none of whom was Elijah sent save to
Sarepta in Sidonia (for the widow there had been deemed worthy by a
divine decree of the miracle which was wrought by the prophet in the
matter of the bread); so also there were many dead in the days of
Jesus, but those only rose from the grave whom the Logos knew to be
fitted for a resurrection, in order that the works done by the Lord
might not be merely symbols of certain things, but that by the very
acts themselves He might gain over many to the marvellous doctrine of
the Gospel. I would say, moreover, that, agreeably to the promise of
Jesus, His disciples performed even greater works than these miracles
of Jesus, which were perceptible only to the senses.[1] For the eyes of
those who are blind in soul are ever opened; and the ears of those who
were deaf to virtuous words, listen readily to the doctrine of God, and
of the blessed life with Him; and many, too, who were lame in the feet
of the "inner man," as Scripture calls it, having now been healed by
the word, do not simply leap, but leap as the hart, which is an animal
hostile to serpents, and stronger than all the poison of vipers. And
these lame who have been healed, receive from Jesus power to trample,
with those feet in which they were formerly lame, upon the serpents and
scorpions of wickedness, and generally upon all the power of the enemy;
and though they tread upon it, they sustain no injury, for they also
have become stronger than the poison of all evil and of demons.
Jesus, accordingly, in turning away the minds of His disciples,
not merely from giving heed to sorcerers in general, and those who
profess in any other manner to work miracles—for His disciples did not
need to be so warned—but from such as gave themselves out as the
Christ of God, and who tried by certain apparent[2] miracles to gain
over to them the disciples of Jesus, said in a certain passage: "Then,
if any man shall say unto you, Lo, here is Christ, or there; believe it
not. For there shall arise false Christs, and false prophets, and shall
show great signs and wonders; insomuch that, if it were possible, they
shall deceive the very elect. Behold, I have told you before.
Wherefore, if they shall say unto you, Behold, he is in the desert, go
not forth; behold, he is in the secret chambers, believe it not. For as
the lightning cometh out of the east, and shineth even to the west, so
also shall the coming of the Son of man be."[3] And in another passage:
"Many will say unto Me in that day, Lord, Lord, have we not eaten and
drunk in Thy name, and by Thy name have cast out demons, and done many
wonderful works? And then will I say unto them, Depart from Me, because
ye are workers of iniquity."[4] But Celsus, wishing to assimilate the
miracles of Jesus to the works of human sorcery, says in express terms
as follows: "O light and truth! he distinctly declares, with his own
voice, as ye yourselves have recorded, that there will come to you even
others, employing miracles of a similar kind, who are wicked men, and
sorcerers; and he calls him who makes use of such devices, one Satan.
So that Jesus himself does not deny that these works at least are not
at all divine, but are the acts of wicked men; and being compelled by
the force of truth, he at the same time not only laid open the doings
of others, but convicted himself of the same acts. Is it not, then, a
miserable inference, to conclude from the same works that the one is
God and the other sorcerers? Why ought the others, because of these
acts, to be accounted wicked rather than this man, seeing they have him
as their witness against himself? For he has himself acknowledged that
these are not the works of a divine nature, but the inventions of
certain deceivers, and of thoroughly wicked men." Observe, now, whether
Celsus is not clearly convicted of slandering the Gospel by such
statements, since what Jesus says regarding those who are to work signs
and wonders is different from what this Jew of Celsus alleges it to be.
For if Jesus had simply told His disciples to be on their guard against
those who professed to work miracles, without declaring what they would
give themselves out to be, then perhaps there would have been some
ground for his suspicion. But since those against whom Jesus would have
us to be on our guard give themselves out as the Christ—which is not a
claim put forth by sorcerers—and since He says that even some who lead
wicked lives will perform miracles in the name of Jesus, and expel
demons out of men, sorcery in the case of these individuals, or any
suspicion of such, is rather, if we may so speak, altogether banished,
and the divinity of Christ established, as well as the divine missions
of His disciples; seeing that it is possible that one who makes use of
His name, and who is wrought upon by some power, in some way unknown,
to make the pretence that he is the Christ, should seem to perform
miracles like those of Jesus, while others through His name should do
works resembling those of His genuine disciples.
Paul, moreover, in the second Epistle to the Thessalonians, shows
in what manner there will one day be revealed "the man of sin, the son
of perdition, who opposeth and exalteth himself above all that is
called God, or that is wor-shipped; so that he sitteth in the temple of
God, showing himself that he is God."[1] And again he says to the
Thessalonians: "And now ye know what withholdeth that he might be
revealed in his time. For the mystery of iniquity doth already work:
only he who now letteth will let, until he be taken out of the way: and
then shall that Wicked be revealed, whom the Lord will consume with the
spirit of His mouth, and shall destroy with the brightness of His
coming: even him, whose cunning is after the working of Satan, with all
power, and signs, and lying wonders, and with all deceivableness of
unrighteousness in them that perish."[2] And in assigning the reason
why the man of sin is permitted to continue in existence, he says:
"Because they received not the love of the truth, that they might be
saved. And for this cause God shall send them strong delusion, that
they should believe a lie; that they all might be damned who believed
not the truth, but had pleasure in unrighteousness."[3] Let any one now
say whether any of the statements in the Gospel, or in the writings of
the apostle, could give occasion for the suspicion that there is
therein contained any prediction of sorcery. Any one, moreover, who
likes may find the prophecy in Daniel respecting antichrist.[4] But
Celsus falsities the words of Jesus, since He did not say that others
would come working similar miracles to Himself, but who are wicked men
and sorcerers, although Celsus asserts that He uttered such words. For
as the power of the Egyptian magicians was not similar to the
divinely-bestowed grace of Moses, but the issue clearly proved that the
acts of the former were the effect of magic, while those of Moses were
wrought by divine power; so the proceedings of the antichrists, and of
those who feign that they can work miracles as being the disciples of
Christ, are said to be lying signs and wonders, prevailing with all
deceivableness of unrighteousness among them that perish; whereas the
works of Christ and His disciples had for their fruit, not deceit, but
the salvation of human souls. And who would rationally maintain that an
improved moral life, which daily lessened the number of a man's
offences, could proceed from a system of deceit?
Celsus, indeed, evinced a slight knowledge of Scripture when he
made Jesus say, that it is "a certain Satan who contrives such
devices;" although he begs the question s when he asserts that "Jesus
did not deny that these works have in them nothing of divinity, but
proceed from wicked men," for he makes things which differ in kind to
be the same. Now, as a wolf is not of the same species as a dog,
although it may appear to have some resemblance in the figure of its
body and in its voice, nor a common wood-pigeon[6] the same as a
dove,[7] so there is no resemblance between what is done by the power
of God and what is the effect of sorcery. And we might further say, in
answer to the calumnies of Celsus, Are those to be regarded as miracles
which are wrought through sorcery by wicked demons, but those not which
are performed by a nature that is holy and divine? and does human life
endure the worse, but never receive the better? Now it appears to me
that we must lay it down as a general principle, that as, wherever
anything that is evil would make itself to be of the same nature with
the good, there must by all means be something that is good opposed to
the evil; so also, in opposition to those things which are brought
about by sorcery, there must also of necessity be some things in human
life which are the result of divine power. And it follows from the
same, that we must either annihilate both, and assert that neither
exists, or, assuming the one, and particularly the evil, admit also the
reality of the good. Now, if one were to lay it down that works are
wrought by means of sorcery, but would not grant that there are also
works which are the product of divine power, he would seem to me to
resemble him who should admit the existence of sophisms and plausible
arguments, which have the appearance of establishing the truth,
although really undermining it, while denying that truth had anywhere a
home among men, or a dialectic which differed from sophistry. But if we
once admit that it is consistent with the existence of magic and
sorcery (which derive their power from evil demons, who are spell-bound
by elaborate incantations, and become subject to sorcerers) that some
works must be found among men which proceed from a power that is
divine, why shall we not test those who profess to perform them by
their lives and morals, and the consequences of their miracles, viz.,
whether they tend to the injury of men or to the reformation of
conduct? What minister of evil demons, e.g., can do such things? and by
means of what incantations and magic arts? And who, on the other hand,
is it that, having his soul and his spirit, and I imagine also his
body, in a pure and holy state, receives a divine spirit, and performs
such works in order to benefit men, and to lead them to believe on the
true God? But if we must once investigate (without being carded away by
the miracles themselves) who it is that performs them by help of a
good, and who by help of an evil power, so that we may neither slander
all without discrimination, nor yet admire and accept all as divine,
will it not be manifest, from what occurred in the times of Moses and
Jesus, when entire nations were established in consequence of their
miracles, that these men wrought by means of divine power what they are
recorded to have performed? For wickedness and sorcery would not have
led a whole nation to rise not only above idols and images erected by
men, but also above all created things, and to ascend to the uncreated
origin of the God of the universe.
But since it is a Jew who makes these assertions in the treatise
of Celsus, we would say to him: Pray, friend, why do you believe the
works which are recorded in your writings as having been performed by
God through the instrumentality of Moses to be really divine, and
endeavour to refute those who slanderously assert that they were
wrought by sorcery, like those of the Egyptian magicians; while, in
imitation of your Egyptian opponents, you charge those which were done
by Jesus, and which, you admit, were actually performed, with not being
divine? For if the final result, and the founding of an entire nation
by the miracles of Moses, manifestly demonstrate that it was God who
brought these things to pass in the time of Moses the Hebrew lawgiver,
why should not such rather be shown to be the case with Jesus, who
accomplished far greater works than those of Moses? For the former took
those of his own nation, the descendants of Abraham, who had observed
the rite of circumcision transmitted by tradition, and who were careful
observers of the Abrahamic usages, and led them out of Egypt, enacting
for them those laws which you believe to be divine; whereas the latter
ventured upon a greater undertaking, and superinduced upon the
pre-existing constitution, and upon ancestral customs and modes of life
agreeable to the existing laws, a constitution in conformity with the
Gospel. And as it was necessary, in order that Moses should find credit
not only among the elders, but the common people, that there should be
performed those miracles which he is recorded to have performed, why
should not Jesus also, in order that He may be believed on by those of
the people who had learned to ask for signs and wonders, need[1] to
work such miracles as, on account of their greater grandeur and
divinity (in comparison with those of Moses), were able to convert men
from Jewish fables, and from the human traditions which prevailed among
them, and make them admit that He who taught and did such things was
greater than the: prophets? For how was not He greater than the
prophets, who was proclaimed by them to be the Christ, and the Saviour
of the human race?
All the arguments, indeed, which this Jew of Celsus advances
against those who believe on Jesus, may, by parity of reasoning, be
urged as ground of accusation against Moses: so that there is no
difference in asserting that the sorcery practised by Jesus and that by
Moses were similar to each other,[2]—both of them, so far as the
language of this Jew of Celsus is concerned, being liable to the same
charge; as, e.g., when this Jew says of Christ, "But, O light and
truth! Jesus with his own voice expressly declares, as you yourselves
have recorded, that there will appear among you others also, who will
perform miracles like mine, but who are wicked men and sorcerers," some
one, either Greek or Egyptian, or any other party who disbelieved the
Jew, might say respecting Moses, "But, O light and truth! Moses with
his own voice expressly declares, as ye also have recorded, that there
will appear among you others also, who will perform miracles like mine,
but who are wicked men and sorcerers. For it is written in your law,
'If there arise among you a prophet, or a dreamer of dreams, and giveth
thee a sign or a wonder, and the sign or wonder come to pass whereof he
spake unto thee, saying, Let us go after other gods which thou hast not
known, and let us serve them; thou shall not hearken to the words of
that prophet, or dreamer of dreams,'" etc. Again, perverting the words
of Jesus, he says, "And he terms him who devises such things, one
Satan;" while one, applying this to Moses, might say, "And he terms him
who devises such things, a prophet who dreams." And as this Jew asserts
regarding Jesus, that "even he himself does not deny that these works
have in them nothing of divinity, but are the acts of wicked men;" so
any one who disbelieves the writings of Moses might say, quoting what
has been already said, the same thing, viz., that, "even Moses does not
deny that these works have in them nothing of divinity, but are the
acts of wicked men." And he will do the same thing also with respect to
this: "Being compelled by the force of truth, Moses at the same time
both exposed the doings of others, and convicted himself of the same."
And when the Jew says, "Is it not a wretched inference from the same
acts, to con- clude that the one is a God, and the others sorcerers?"
one might object to him, on the ground of those words of Moses already
quoted, "Is it not then a wretched inference from the same acts, to
conclude that the one is a prophet and servant of God, and the others
sorcerers?" But when, in addition to those comparisons which I have
already mentioned, Celsus, dwelling upon the subject, adduces this
also: "Why from these works should the others be accounted wicked,
rather than this man, seeing they have him as a witness against
himself?"—we, too, shall adduce the following, in addition to what has
been already said: "Why, from those passages in which Moses forbids us
to believe those who exhibit signs and wonders, ought we to consider
such persons as wicked, rather than Moses, because he calumniates some
of them in respect of their signs and wonders?" And urging more to the
same effect, that he may appear to strengthen his attempt, he says: "He
himself acknowledged that these were not the works of a divine nature,
but were the inventions of certain deceivers, and of very wicked men."
Who, then, is "himself?" You O Jew, say that it is Jesus; but he who
accuses you as liable to the same charges, will transfer this "himself"
to the person of Moses.
After this, forsooth, the Jew of Celsus, to keep up the character
assigned to the Jew from the beginning, in his address to those of his
countrymen who had become believers, says: "By what, then, were you
induced (to become his followers)? Was it because he foretold that
after his death he would rise again?" Now this question, like the
others, can be retorted upon Moses. For we might say to the Jew "By
what, then, were you induced (to become the follower of Moses)? Was it
because he put on record the following statement about his own death:
'And Moses, the servant of the LORD died there, in the land of Moab,
according to the word of the Loud; and they buried him in Moab, near
the house of Phogor: and no one knoweth his sepulchre until this
day?'"[1] For as the Jew casts discredit upon the statement, that
"Jesus foretold that after His death He would rise again," another
person might make a similar assertion about Moses, and would say in
reply, that Moses also put on record (for the book of Deuteronomy is
his composition) the statement, that "no one knoweth his sepulchre
until this day," in order to magnify and enhance the importance of his
place of burial, as being unknown to mankind.
The Jew continues his address to those of his countrymen who are
converts, as follows: "Come now, let us grant to you that the
prediction was actually uttered. Yet how many others are there who
practise such juggling tricks, in order to deceive their simple
hearers, and who make gain by their deception?—as was the case, they
say, with Zamolxis[2] in Scythia, the slave of Pythagoras; and with
Pythagoras himself in Italy; and with Rhampsinitus[3] in Egypt (the
latter of whom, they say, played at dice with Demeter in Hades, and
returned to the upper world with a golden napkin which he had received
from her as a gift); and also with Orpheus[4] among the Odrysians, and
Protesilaus in Thessaly, and Hercules[4] at Cape Taenarus, and Theseus.
But the question is, whether any one who was really dead ever rose with
a veritable body.[5] Or do you imagine the statements of others not
only to be myths, but to have the appearance of such, while you have
discovered a becoming and credible termination to your drama in the
voice from the cross, when he breathed his last, and in the earthquake
and the darkness? That while alive he was of no assistance to himself,
but that when dead he rose again, and showed the marks of his
punishment, and how his hands were pierced with nails: who beheld this?
A half-frantic[6] woman, as you state, and some other one, perhaps, of
those who were engaged in the same system of delusion, who had either
dreamed so, owing to a peculiar state of mind,[7] or under the
influence of a wandering imagination bad formed to himself an
appearance according to his own wishes,[8] which has been the case with
numberless individuals; or, which is most probable, one who desired to
impress others with this portent, and by such a falsehood to furnish an
occasion to impostors like himself."
Now, since it is a Jew who makes these statements, we shall
conduct the defence of our Jesus as if we were replying to a Jew, still
continuing the comparison derived from the accounts regarding Moses,
and saying to him: "How many others are there who practise similar
juggling tricks to those of Moses, in order to deceive their silly
hearers, and who make gain by their deception?" Now this objection
would be more appropriate in the mouth of one who did not believe in
Moses (as we might quote the instances of Zamolxis and Pythagoras, who
were engaged in such juggling tricks) than in that of a Jew, who is not
very learned in the histories of the Greeks. An Egyptian, moreover, who
did not believe the miracles of Moses, might credibly adduce the
instance of Rhampsinitus, saying that it was far more credible that he
had descended to Hades, and had played at dice with Demeter, and that
after stealing from her a golden napkin he exhibited it as a sign of
his having been in Hades, and of his having returned thence, than that
Moses should have recorded that he entered into the darkness, where God
was, and that he alone, above all others, drew near to God. For the
following is his statement: "Moses alone shall come near the LORD; but
the rest shall not come nigh."[1] We, then, who are the disciples of
Jesus, say to the Jew who urges these objections: "While assailing our
belief in Jesus, defend yourself, and answer the Egyptian and the Greek
objectors: what will you say to those charges which you brought against
our Jesus, but which also might be brought against Moses first? And if
you should make a vigorous effort to defend Moses, as indeed his
history does admit of a clear and powerful defence, you will
unconsciously, in your support of Moses, be an unwilling assistant in
establishing the greater divinity of Jesus."
But since the Jew says that these histories of the alleged
descent of heroes to Hades, and of their return thence, are juggling
impositions,[2] maintaining that these heroes disappeared for a certain
time, and secretly withdrew themselves from the sight of all men, and
gave themselves out afterwards as having returned from Hades,—for such
is the meaning which his words seem to convey respecting the Odrysian
Orpheus, and the Thessalian Protesilaus, and the Taenarian Hercules,
and Theseus also,—let us endeavour to show that the account of Jesus
being raised from the dead cannot possibly be compared to these. For
each one of the heroes respectively mentioned might, had he wished,
have secretly withdrawn himself from the sight of men, and returned
again, if so determined, to those whom he had left; but seeing that
Jesus was crucified before all the Jews, and His body slain in the
presence of His nation, how can they bring themselves to say that He
practised a similar deception[3] with those heroes who are related to
have gone down to Hades, and to have returned thence? But we say that
the following consideration might be adduced, perhaps, as a defence of
the public crucifixion of Jesus, especially in connection with the
existence of those stories of heroes who are supposed to have been
compelled[4] to descend to Hades: that if we were to suppose Jesus to
have died an obscure death, so that the fact of His decease was not
patent to the whole nation of the Jews, and afterwards to have actually
risen from the dead, there would, in such a case, have been ground for
the same suspicion entertained regarding the heroes being also
entertained regarding Himself. Probably, then, in addition to other
causes for the crucifixion of Jesus, this also may have contributed to
His dying a conspicuous death upon the cross, that no one might have it
in his power to say that He voluntarily withdrew from the sight of men,
and seemed only to die, without really doing so; but, appearing again,
made a juggler's trick s of the resurrection from the dead. But a clear
and unmistakeable proof of the fact I hold to be the undertaking of His
disciples, who devoted themselves to the teaching of a doctrine which
was attended with danger to human life,—a doctrine which they would
not have taught with such courage had they invented the resurrection of
Jesus from the dead; and who also, at the same time, not only prepared
others to despise death, but were themselves the first to manifest
their disregard for its terrors.
But observe whether this Jew of Celsus does not talk very
blindly, in saying that it is impossible for any one to rise from the
dead with a veritable body, his language being: "But this is the
question, whether any one who was really dead ever rose again with a
veritable body?" Now a Jew would not have uttered these words, who
believed what is recorded in the third and fourth books of Kings
regarding little children, of whom the one was raised up by Elijah,[6]
and the other by Elisha.[7] And on this account, too, I think it was
that Jesus appeared to no other nation than the Jews, who had become
accustomed to miraculous occurrences; so that, by comparing what they
themselves believed with the works which were done by Him, and with
what was related of Him, they might confess that He, in regard to whom
greater things were done, and by whom mightier marvels were performed,
was greater than all those who preceded Him.
Further, after these Greek stories which the Jew adduced
respecting those who were guilty of juggling practices, [1] and who
pretended to have risen from the dead, he says to those Jews who are
converts to Christianity: "Do you imagine the statements of others not
only to be myths, but to have the appearance of such, while you have
discovered a becoming and credible termination to your drama in the
voice from the cross, when he breathed his last?" We reply to the Jew:
"What you adduce as myths, we regard also as such; but the statements
of the Scriptures which are common to us both, in which not you only,
but we also, take pride, we do not at all regard as myths. And
therefore we accord our belief to those who have therein related that
some rose from the dead, as not being guilty of imposition; and to Him
especially there mentioned as having risen, who both predicted the
event Himself, and was the subject of prediction by others. And His
resurrection is more miraculous than that of the others in this
respect, that they were raised by the prophets Elijah and Elisha, while
He was raised by none of the prophets, but by His Father in heaven. And
therefore His resurrection also produced greater results than theirs.
For what great good has accrued to the world from the resurrection of
the children through the instrumentality of Elijah and Elisha, such as
has re-suited from the preaching of the resurrection of Jesus, accepted
as an article of belief, and as effected through the agency of divine
power?"
He imagines also that both the earthquake and the darkness were
an invention; [2] but regarding these, we have in the preceding pages,
made our defence, according to our ability, adducing the testimony of
Phlegon, who relates that these events took place at the time when our
Saviour suffered. [3] And he goes on to say, that "Jesus, while alive,
was of no assistance to himself, but that he arose after death, and
exhibited the marks of his punishment, and showed how his hands had
been pierced by nails." We ask him what he means by the expression,
"was of no assistance to himself?" For if he means it to refer to want
of virtue, we reply that He was of very great assistance. For He
neither uttered nor committed anything that was improper, but was truly
"led as a sheep to the slaughter, and was dumb as a lamb before the
shearer;" [4] and the Gospel testifies that He opened not His mouth.
But if Celsus applies the expression to things indifferent and
corporeal, [5] (meaning that in such Jesus could render no help to
Himself,) we say that we have proved from the Gospels that He went
voluntarily to encounter His sufferings. Speaking next of the
statements in the Gospels, that after His resurrection He showed the
marks of His punishment, and how His hands had been pierced, he asks,
"Who beheld this?" And discrediting the narrative of Mary Magdalene,
who is related to have seen Him, he replies, "A half-frantic woman, as
ye state." And because she is not the only one who is recorded to have
seen the Saviour after His resurrection, but others also are mentioned,
this Jew of Celsus calumniates these statements also in adding, "And
some one else of those engaged in the same system of deception!"
In the next place, as if this were possible, viz., that the image
of a man who was dead could appear to another as if he were still
living, he adopts this opinion as an Epicurean, and says, "That some
one having so dreamed owing to a peculiar state of mind, or having,
under the influence of a perverted imagination, formed such an
appearance as he himself desired, reported that such had been seen; and
this," he continues, "has been the case with numberless individuals."
But even if this statement of his seems to have a considerable degree
of force, it is nevertheless only fitted to confirm a necessary
doctrine, that the soul of the dead exists in a separate state (from
the body); and he who adopts such an opinion does not believe without
good reason in the immortality, or at least continued existence, of the
soul, as even Plato says in his treatise on the Soul that shadowy
phantoms of persons already dead have appeared to some around their
sepulchres. Now the phantoms which exist about the soul of the dead are
produced by some substance, and this substance is in the soul, which
exists apart in a body said to be of splendid appearance. [6] But
Celsus, unwilling to admit any such view, will have it that some
dreamed a waking dream, [7] and, under the influence of a perverted
imagination, formed to themselves such an image as they desired. Now
it is not irrational to believe that a dream may take place while one
is asleep; but to suppose a waking vision in the case of those who are
not altogether out of their senses, and under the influence of delirium
or hypochondria, is incredible. And Celsus, seeing this, called the
woman "half-mad,"— a statement which is not made by the history
recording the fact, but from which he took occasion to charge the
occurrences with being untrue.
Jesus accordingly, as Celsus imagines, exhibited after His death
only the appearance of wounds received on the cross, and was not in
reality so wounded as He is described to have been; whereas, according
to the teaching of the Gospel—some portions of which Celsus
arbitrarily accepts, in order to find ground of accusation, and other
parts of which he rejects-Jesus called to Him one of His disciples who
was sceptical, and who deemed the miracle an impossibility. That
individual had, indeed, expressed his belief in the statement of the
woman who said that she had seen Him, because he did not think it
impossible that the soul of a dead man could be seen; but he did not
yet consider the report to be true that He had been raised in a body,
which was the antitype of the former. [1] And therefore he did not
merely say, "Unless I see, I will not believe;" but he added, "Unless I
put my hand into the print of the nails, and lay my hands upon His
side, I will not believe." These words were spoken by Thomas, who
deemed it possible that the body of the soul [2] might be seen by the
eye of sense, resembling in all respects its former appearance, "Both
in size, and in beauty of eyes, And in voice;" and frequently, too,
"Having, also, such garments around the person [3] (as when alive)."
Jesus accordingly, having called Thomas, said, "Reach hither thy
finger, and behold My hands; and reach hither thy hand, and thrust it
into My side: and be not faithless, but believing." [4]
Now it followed from all the predictions which were uttered
regarding Him —amongst which was this prediction of the resurrection
—and, from all that was done by Him, and from all the events which
befell Him, that this event should be marvellous above all others. For
it had been said beforehand by the prophet in the person of Jesus: "My
flesh shall rest in hope, and Thou wilt not leave my soul in Hades, and
wilt not suffer Thine Holy One to see corruption." [5] And truly, after
His resurrection, He existed in a body intermediate, as it were,
between the grossness of that which He had before His sufferings, and
the appearance of a soul uncovered by such a body. And hence it was,
that when His disciples were together, and Thomas with them, there
"came Jesus, the doors being shut, and stood in the midst, and said,
Peace be unto you. Then saith He to Thomas, Reach hither thy finger,"
[6] etc. And in the Gospel of Luke also, while Simon and Cleopas were
conversing with each other respecting all that had happened to them,
Jesus "drew near, and went with them. And their eyes were holden, that
they should not know Him. And He said unto them, What manner of
communications are these that ye have one to another, as ye walk?" And
when their eyes were opened, and they knew Him, then the Scripture
says, in express words, "And He vanished out of their sight." [7] And
although Celsus may wish to place what is told of Jesus, and of those
who saw Him after His resurrection, on the same level with imaginary
appearances of a different kind, and those who have invented such, yet
to those who institute a candid and intelligent examination, the events
will appear only the more miraculous.
After these points, Celsus proceeds to bring against the Gospel
narrative a charge which is not to be lightly passed over, saying that
"if Jesus desired to show that his power was really divine, he ought to
have appeared to those who had ill-treated him, and to him who had
condemned him, and to all men universally." For it appears to us also
to be true, according to the Gospel account, that He was not seen after
His resurrection in the same manner as He used formerly to show
Himself—publicly, and to all men. But it is recorded in the Acts, that
"being seen during forty days," He expounded to His disciples "the
things pertaining to the kingdom of God." [8] And in the Gospels [9] it
is not stated that He was always with them; but that on one occasion He
appeared in their midst, after eight days, when the doors were shut,
and on another in some similar fashion. And Paul also, in the
concluding portions of the first Epistle to the Corinthians, in
reference to His not having publicly appeared as He did in the period
before He suffered, writes as follows: "For I delivered unto you first
of all that which I also received, how that Christ died for our sins
according to the Scriptures; and that He was seen of Cephas, then of
the twelve: after that He was seen of above five hundred brethren at
once, of whom the greater part remain unto the present time, but some
are fallen asleep. After that He was seen of James, then of all the
apostles. And last of all He was seen of me also, as of one born out of
due time." [10] I am of opinion now that the statements in this passage
contain some great and wonderful mysteries, which are beyond the grasp
not merely of the great multitude of ordinary believers, but even of
those who are far advanced (in Christian knowledge), and that in them
the reason would be explained why He did not show Himself, after His
resurrection from the dead, in the same manner as before that event.
And in a treatise of this nature, composed in answer to a work directed
against the Christians and their faith, observe whether we are able to
adduce a few rational arguments out of a greater number, and thus make
an impression upon the hearers of this apology.
Although Jesus was only a single individual, He was nevertheless
more things than one, according to the different standpoint from which
He might be regarded; [1] nor was He seen in the same way by all who
beheld Him. Now, that He was more things than one, according to the
varying point of view, is clear from this statement, "I am the way, and
the truth, and the life;" and from this, "I am the bread;" and this, "I
am the door," and innumerable others. And that when seen He did not
appear in like fashion to all those who saw Him, but according to their
several ability to receive Him, will be clear to those who notice why,
at the time when He was about to be transfigured on the high mountain,
He did not admit all His apostles (to this sight), but only Peter, and
James, and John, because they alone were capable of beholding His glory
on that occasion, and of observing the glorified appearance of Moses
and Elijah, and of listening to their conversation, and to the voice
from the heavenly cloud. I am of opinion, too, that before He ascended
the mountain where His disciples came to Him alone, and where He taught
them the beatitudes, when He was somewhere in the lower part of the
mountain, and when, as it became late, He healed those who were brought
to Him, freeing them from all sickness and disease, He did not appear
the same person to the sick, and to those who needed His healing aid,
as to those who were able by reason of their strength to go up the
mountain along with Him. Nay, even when He interpreted privately to His
own disciples the parables which were delivered to the multitudes
without, from whom the explanation was withheld, as they who heard them
explained were endowed with higher organs of hearing than they who
heard them without explanation, so was it altogether the same with the
eyes of their soul, and, I think, also with those of their body. [2]
And the following statement shows that He had not always the same
appearance, viz., that Judas, when about to betray Him, said to the
multitudes who were setting out with him, as not being acquainted with
Him, "Whomsoever I shall kiss, the same is He." [3] And I think that
the Saviour Himself indicates the same thing by the words: "I was daily
with you, teaching in the temple, and ye laid no hold on Me." [4]
Entertaining, then, such exalted views regarding Jesus, not only with
respect to the Deity within, and which was hidden from the view of the
multitude, but with respect to the transfiguration of His body, which
took place when and to whom He would, we say, that before Jesus had
"put off the governments and powers," [5] and while as yet He was not
dead unto sin, all men were capable of seeing Him; but that, when He
had "put off the governments and powers," and had no longer anything
which was capable of being seen by the multitude, all who had formerly
seen Him were not now able to behold Him. And therefore, sparing them,
He did not show Himself to all after His resurrection from the dead.
And why do I say "to all?" For even with His own apostles and
disciples He was not perpetually present, nor did He constantly show
Himself to them, because they were not able without intermission [6] to
receive His divinity. For His deity was more resplendent after lie had
finished the economy [7] (of salvation): and this Peter, surnamed
Cephas, the first-fruits as it were of the apostles, was enabled to
behold, and along with him the twelve (Matthias having been substituted
in room of Judas); and after them He appeared to the five hundred
brethren at once, and then to James, and subsequently to all the others
besides the twelve apostles, perhaps to the seventy also, and lastly to
Paul, as to one born out of due time, and who knew well how to say,
"Unto me, who am less than the least of all saints, is this grace
given;" and probably the expression "least of all" has the same meaning
with "one born out of due time." For as no one could reasonably blame
Jesus for not having admitted all His apostles to the high mountain,
but only the three already mentioned, on the occasion of His
transfiguration, when He was about to manifest the splendour which
appeared in His garments, and the glory of Moses and Elias talking with
Him, so none could reasonably object to the statements of the apostles,
who introduce the appearance of Jesus after His resurrection as having
been made not to all, but to those only whom He knew to have received
eyes capable of seeing His resurrection. I think, moreover, that the
following statement regarding Him has an apologetic value [1] in
reference to our subject, viz.: "For to this end Christ died, and rose
again, that He might be Lord both of the 'dead and living.'' [2] For
observe, it is conveyed in these words, that Jesus died that He might
be Lord of the dead; and that He rose again to be Lord not only of the
dead, but also of the living. And the apostle understands, undoubtedly,
by the dead over whom Christ is to be Lord, those who are so called in
the first Epistle to the Corinthians, "For the trumpet shall sound, and
the dead shall be raised incorruptible; " [3] and by the living, those
who are to be changed, and who are different from the dead who are to
be raised. And respecting the living the words are these, "And we shall
be changed ;" an expression which follows immediately after the
statement, "The dead shall be raised first." [4] Moreover, in the first
Epistle to the Thessalonians, describing the same change in different
words, he says, that they who sleep are not the same as those who are
alive; his language being, "I would not have you to be ignorant,
brethren, concerning them who are asleep, that ye sorrow not, even as
others which have no hope. For if we believe that Jesus died, and rose
again, even so them also that sleep in Jesus will God bring with Him.
For this we say unto you by the word of the Lord, that we who are alive
and remain unto the coming of the Lord, shall not prevent them that are
asleep." [5] The explanation which appeared to us to be appropriate to
this passage, we gave in the exegetical remarks which we have made on
the first Epistle to the Thessalonians.
And be not surprised if all the multitudes who have believed on
Jesus do not behold His resurrection, when Paul, writing to the
Corinthians, can say to them, as being incapable of receiving greater
matters, "For I determined not to know anything among you, save Jesus
Christ, and Him crucified;" [6] which is the same as saying, "Hitherto
ye were not able, neither yet now are ye able, for ye are still
carnal." [7] The Scripture, therefore, doing everything by appointment
of God, has recorded of Jesus, that before His sufferings He appeared
to all indifferently, but not always; while after His sufferings He no
longer appeared to all in the same way, but with a certain
discrimination which measured out to each his due. And as it is related
that "God appeared to Abraham," or to one of the saints, and this
"appearance" was not a thing of constant occurrence, but took place at
intervals, and not to all, so understand that the Son of God appeared
in the one case on the same principle that God appeared to the latter.
[8]
To the best of our ability, therefore, as in a treatise of this
nature, we have answered the objection, that "if Jesus had really
wished to manifest his divine power, he ought to have shown himself to
those who ill-treated him, and to the judge who condemned him, and to
all without reservation." There was, however, no obligation on Him to
appear either to the judge who condemned Him, or to those who
ill-treated Him. For Jesus spared both the one and the other, that they
might not be smitten with blindness, as the men of Sodom were when they
conspired against the beauty of the angels entertained by Lot. And here
is the account of the matter: "But the men put forth their hand, and
pulled Lot into the house to them, and shut to the door. And they smote
the men who were at the door of the house with blindness, both small
and great; so that they wearied themselves to find the door." [9]
Jesus, accordingly, wished to show that His power was divine to each
one who was capable of seeing it, and according to the measure of His
capability. And I do not suppose that He guarded against being seen on
any other ground than from a regard to the fitness of those who were
incapable of seeing Him. And it is in vain for Celsus to add, "For he
had no longer occasion to fear any man after his death, being, as you
say, a God; nor was he sent into the world at all for the purpose of
being hid." Yet He was sent into the world not only to become known,
but also to be hid. For all that He was, was not known even to those to
whom He was known, but a certain part of Him remained concealed even
from them; and to some He was not known at all. And He opened the gates
of light to those who were the sons of darkness and of night, and had
devoted themselves to becoming the sons of light and of the day. For
our Saviour Lord, like a good physician, came rather to us who were
full of sins, than to those who were righteous.
But let us observe how this Jew of Celsus asserts that, "if this
at least would have helped to manifest his divinity, he ought
accordingly to have at once disappeared from the cross." Now this seems
to me to be like the argument of those who oppose the doctrine of
providence, and who arrange things differently from what they are, and
allege that the world would be better if it were as they arrange it.
Now, in those instances in which their arrangement is a possible one,
they are proved to make the world, so far as depends upon them, worse
by their arrangement than it actually is; while in those cases in which
they do not portray things worse than they really are, they are shown
to desire impossibilities; so that in either case they are deserving of
ridicule. And here, accordingly, that them was no impossibility in His
coming, as a being of diviner nature, in order to disappear when He
chose, is clear from the very nature of the case; and is certain,
moreover, from what is recorded of Him, in the judgment of those who do
not adopt certain portions merely of the narrative that they may have
ground for accusing Christianity, and who consider other portions to be
fiction. For it is related in St. Luke's Gospel, that Jesus after His
resurrection took bread, and blessed it, and breaking it, distributed
it to Simon and Cleopas; and when they had received the bread, "their
eyes were opened, and they knew Him, and He vanished out of their
sight," [1]
But we wish to show that His instantaneous bodily disappearance
from the cross was not better fitted to serve the purposes of the whole
economy of salvation (than His remaining upon it was). For the mere
letter and narrative of the events which happened to Jesus do not
present the whole view of the truth. For each one of them can be shown,
to those who have an intelligent apprehension of Scripture, to be a
symbol of something else. Accordingly, as His crucifixion contains a
truth, represented in the words, "I am crucified with Christ," and
intimated also in these, "God forbid that I should glory, save in the
cross of our Lord Jesus Christ, by whom the world is crucified to me,
and I unto the world; " [2] and as His death was necessary, because of
the statement, "For in that He died, He died unto sin once," [3] and
this, "Being made conformable to His death,' [4] and this, "For if we
be dead with Him, we shall also live with Him:" [5] so also His burial
has an application to those who have been made conformable to His
death, who have been both crucified with Him, and have died with Him;
as is declared by Paul, "For we were buried with Him by baptism, and
have also risen with Him." [6] These matters, however, which relate to
His burial, and His sepulchre, and him who buried Him, we shall expound
at greater length on a more suitable occasion, when it will be our
professed purpose to treat of such things. But, for the present, it is
sufficient to notice the clean linen in which the pure body of Jesus
was to be enwrapped, and the new tomb which Joseph had hewn out of the
rock, where "no one was yet lying," [7] or, as John expresses it,
"wherein was never man yet laid." [8] And observe whether the harmony
of the three evangelists here is not fitted to make an impression: for
they have thought it right to describe the tomb as one that was
"quarried or hewn out of the rock;" so that be who examines the words
of the narrative may see something worthy of consideration, both in
them and in the newness of the tomb,—a point mentioned by Matthew and
John [9]— and in the statement of Luke and John, [10] that no one had
ever been interred therein before. For it became Him, who was unlike
other dead men (but who even in death manifested signs of life in the
water and the blood), and who was, so to speak, a new dead man, to be
laid in a new and clean tomb, in order that, as His birth was purer
than any other (in consequence of His being born, not in the way of
ordinary generation, but of a virgin), His burial also might have the
purity symbolically indicated in His body being deposited in a
sepulchre which was new, not built of stones gathered from various
quarters, and having no natural unity, but quarried and hewed out of
one rock, united together in all its parts. Regarding the explanation,
however, of these points, and the method of ascending from the
narratives themselves to the things which they symbolized, one might
treat more profoundly, and in a manner more adapted to their divine
character, on a more suitable occasion, in a work expressly devoted to
such subjects. The literal narrative, however, one might thus explain,
viz., that it was appropriate for Him who had resolved to endure
suspension upon the cross, to maintain all the accompaniments of the
character He had assumed, in order that He who as a man had been put to
death, and who as a man had died, might also as a man be buried. But
even if it had been related in the Gospels, according to the view of
Celsus, that Jesus had immediately disappeared from the cross, he and
other unbelievers would have found fault with the narrative, and would
have brought against it some such objection as this: "Why, pray, did he
disappear after he had been put upon the cross, and not disappear
before he suffered?" If, then, after learning from the Gospels that He
did not at once disappear from the cross, they imagine that they can
find fault with the narrative, because it did not invent, as they
consider it ought to have done, any such instantaneous disappearance,
but gave a true account of the matter, is it not reasonable that they
should accord their faith also to His resurrection, and should believe
that He, according to His pleasure, on one occasion, when the doors
were shut, stood in the midst of His disciples, and on another, after
distributing bread to two of His acquaintances, immediately disappeared
from view, after He had spoken to them certain words?
But how is it that this Jew of Celsus could say that Jesus
concealed Himself? For his words regarding Him are these: "And who that
is sent as a messenger ever conceals himself when he ought to make
known his message?" Now, He did not conceal Himself, who said to those
who sought to apprehend Him, "I was daily teaching openly in the
temple, and ye laid no hold upon Me." Bat having once already answered
this charge of Celsus, now again repeated, we shall content ourselves
with what we have formerly said. We have answered, also, in the
preceding pages, this objection, that "while he was in the body, and no
one believed upon him, he preached to ail without intermission; but
when he might have produced a powerful belief in himself after rising
from the dead, he showed himself secretly only to one woman, and to his
own boon companions." [1] Now it is not true that He showed Himself
only to one woman; for it is stated in the Gospel according to Matthew,
that "in the end of the Sabbath, as it began to dawn towards the first
day of the week, came Mary Magdalene, and the other Mary, to see the
sepulchre. And, behold, there had been a great earthquake: for the
angel of the Lord had descended from heaven, and come and rolled back
the stone." [2] And, shortly after, Matthew adds: "And, behold, Jesus
met them" — clearly meaning the afore-mentioned Marys -"saying, All
hail. And they came and held Him by the feet, and worshipped Him." [3]
And we answered, too, the charge, that "while undergoing his punishment
he was seen by all, but after his resurrection only by one," when we
offered our defence of the fact that "He was not seen by all." And now
we might say that His merely human attributes were visible to all men
but those which were divine in their nature — I speak of the
attributes not as related, but as distinct [4]— were not capable of
being received by all But observe here the manifest contradiction into
which Celsus falls. For having said, a little before, that Jesus had
appeared secretly to one woman and His own boon companions, he
immediately subjoins: "While undergoing his punishment he was seen by
all men, but after his resurrection by one, whereas the opposite ought
to have happened." And let us hear what he means by "ought to have
happened." The being seen by all men while undergoing His punishment,
but after His resurrection only by one individual, are opposites. [5]
Now, so far as his language conveys a meaning, he would have that to
take place which is both impossible and absurd, viz., that while
undergoing His punishment He should be seen only by one individual, but
after His resurrection by all men! or else how will you explain his
words, "The opposite ought to have happened?"
Jesus taught us who it was that sent Him, in the words, "None
knoweth the Father but the Son;'' [6] and in these, "No man hath seen
God at any time; the only-begotten Son, who is in the bosom of the
Father, He hath declared Him." [7] He, treating of Deity, stated to His
true disciples the doctrine regarding God; and we, discovering traces
of such teaching in the Scripture narratives, take occasion from such
to aid our theological conceptions, [8] hearing it declared in one
passage, that "God is light, and in Him there is no darkness at all;"
[9] and in another, "God is a Spirit, and they that worship Him must
worship Him in spirit and in truth." [10] But the purposes for which
the Father sent Him are innumerable; and these any one may ascertain
who chooses, partly from the prophets who prophesied of Him, and partly
from the narratives of the evangelists. And not a few things also will
he learn from the apostles, and especially from Paul. Moreover, those
who are pious He leadeth to the light, and those who sin He will
punish, — a circumstance which Celsus not observing, has represented
Him "as one who will lead the pious to the light, and who will have
mercy on others, whether they sin or repent." [11]
After the above statements, he continues: "If he wished to remain
hid, why was there heard a voice from heaven proclaiming him to be the
Son of God? And if he did not seek to remain concealed, why was he
punished? or why did he die?" Now, by such questions he thinks to
convict the histories of discrepancy, not observing that Jesus neither
desired all things regarding Himself to be known to all whom He
happened to meet, nor yet all things to be unknown. Accordingly, the
voice from heaven which proclaimed Him to be the Son of God, in the
words, "This is my beloved Son, in whom I am well pleased," (1) is not
stated to have been audible to the multitudes, as this Jew of Celsus
supposed. The voice from the cloud on the high mountain, moreover, was
heard only by those who had gone up with Him. For the divine voice is
of such a nature, as to be heard only by those whom the speaker wishes
to hear it. And I maintain, that the voice of God which is referred to,
is neither air which has been struck, nor any concussion of the air,
nor anything else which is mentioned in treatises on the voice; (2) and
therefore it is heard by a better and more divine organ of hearing than
that of sense. And when the speaker will not have his voice to be heard
by all; he that has the finer ear hears the voice of God, while he who
has the ears of his soul deadened does not perceive that it is God who
speaks. These things I have mentioned because of his asking, "Why was
there heard a voice from heaven proclaiming him to be the Son of God?"
while with respect to the query, "Why was he punished, if he wished to
remain hid?" what has been stated at greater length in the preceding
pages on the subject of His suffering may suffice.
The Jew proceeds, after this, to state as a consequence what does
not follow from the premises; for it does not follow from "His having
wished, by the punishments which He underwent, to teach us also to
despise death," that after His resurrection He should openly summon all
men to the light, and instruct them in the object of His coming. For He
had formerly summoned all men to the light in the words, "Come unto Me,
all ye that labour and are heavy laden, and I will give you rest." (3)
And the object of His coming had been explained at great length in His
discourses on the beatitudes, and in the announcements which followed
them, and in the parables, and in His conversations with the scribes
and Pharisees. And the instruction afforded us by the Gospel of John,
shows that the eloquence of Jesus consisted not in words, but in
deeds; while it is manifest from the Gospel narratives that His speech
was "with power," on which account also they marvelled at Him.
In addition to all this, the Jew further says: "All these
statements are taken from your own books, in addition to which we need
no other witness; for ye fail upon your own swords." (4)
Now we have proved that many foolish assertions, opposed to the
narratives of our Gospels, occur in the statements of the Jew, either
with respect to Jesus or ourselves. And I do not think that he
has,shown that "we fall upon our own swords;" but he only so imagines.
And when the Jew adds, in a general way, this to his former remarks: "O
most high and heavenly one! what God, on appearing to men, is received
with incredulity?" we must say to him, that according to the accounts
in the law of Moses, God is related to have visited the Hebrews in a
most public manner, not only in the signs and wonders performed in
Egypt, and also in the passage of the Red Sea, and in the pillar of
fire and cloud of light, but also when the Decalogue was announced to
the whole people, and yet was received with incredulity by those who
saw these things: for had they believed what they saw and heard, they
would not have fashioned the calf, nor changed their own glory into the
likeness of a grass-eating calf; nor would they have said to one
another with reference to the calf, "These be thy gods, O Israel, who
brought thee up out of the land of Egypt." (5) And observe whether it
is not entirely in keeping with the character of the same people, who
formerly refused to believe such wonders and such appearances of
divinity, throughout the whole period of wandering in the wilderness,
as they are recorded in the law of the Jews to have done, to refuse to
be convinced also, on occasion of the glorious advent of Jesus, by the
mighty words which were spoken by Him with authority, and the marvels
which He performed in the presence of all the people.
I think what has been stated is enough to convince any one that
the unbelief of the Jews with regard to Jesus was in keeping with what
is related of this people from the beginning. For I would say in reply
to this Jew of Celsus, when he asks, "What God that appeared among men
is received with incredulity, and that, too, when appearing to those
who expect him? or why, pray, is he not recognized by those who have
been long looking for him?" what answer friends, would you have us
return to your questions? Which class of miracles, in your judgment, do
you regard as the greater? Those which were wrought in Egypt and the
wilderness, or those which we declare that Jesus performed among you?
For if the former are in your opinion greater than the latter, does it
not appear from this very fact to be in conformity with the character
of those who disbelieved the greater to despise the less? And this is
the opinion entertained with respect to our accounts of the miracles of
Jesus. But if those related of Jesus are considered to be as great as
those recorded of Moses, what strange thing has come to pass among a
nation which has manifested incredulity with regard to the commencement
of both dispensations? (2) For the beginning of the legislation was in
the time of Moses, in whose work are recorded the sins of the
unbelievers and wicked among you, while the commencement of our
legislation and second covenant is admitted to have been in the time of
Jesus. And by your unbelief of Jesus ye show that ye are the sons of
those who in the desert discredited the divine appearances; and thus
what was spoken by our Saviour will be applicable also to you who
believed not on Him: "Therefore ye bear witness that ye allow the deeds
of your fathers." (3) And there is fulfilled among you also the
prophecy which said: "Your life shall hang in doubt before your eyes,
and you will have no assurance of your life." (4) For ye did not
believe in the life which came to visit the human race.
Celsus, in adopting the character of a Jew, could not discover
any objections to be urged against the Gospel which might not be
retorted on him as liable to be brought also against the law and the
prophets. For he censures Jesus in such words as the following: "He
makes use of threats, and reviles men on light grounds, when he says,
'Woe unto you,' and 'I tell you beforehand.' For by such expressions he
manifestly acknowledges his inability to persuade; and this would not
be the case with a God, or even a prudent man." Observe, now, whether
these charges do not manifestly recoil upon the Jew. For in the
writings of the law and the prophets God makes use of threats and
revilings, when He employs language of not less severity than that
found in the Gospel, such as the following expressions of Isaiah: "Woe
unto them that join house to house, and lay field to field;" (5) and,
"Woe unto them that rise up early in the morning that they may follow
strong drink;" (6) and, "Woe unto them that draw their sins after them
as with a long rope;" (7) and, "Woe unto them that call evil good, and
good evil;" (8) and, "Woe unto those of you who are mighty to drink
wine;" (9) and innumerable other passages of the same kind. And does
not the following resemble the threats of which he speaks: "Ah sinful
nation, a people laden with iniquity, a seed of evildoers, children
that are corrupters?" (10) and so on, to which he subjoins such threats
as are equal in severity to those which, he says, Jesus made use of.
For is it not a threatening, and a great one, which declares, "Your
country is desolate, your cities are burned with fire: your land,
strangers devour it in your presence, and it is desolate, as overthrown
by strangers?" (11) And are there not revilings in Ezekiel directed
against the people, when the Lord says to the prophet, "Thou dwellest
in the midst of scorpions?'' (12) Were you serious, then, Celsus, in
representing the Jew as saying of Jesus, that "he makes use of threats
and revilings on slight grounds, when he employs the expressions, 'Woe
unto you,' and 'I tell you beforehand?'" Do you not see that the
charges which this Jew of yours brings against Jesus might be brought
by him against God? For the God who speaks in the prophetic writings is
manifestly liable to the same accusations, as Celsus regards them, of
inability to persuade. I might, moreover, say to this Jew, who thinks
that he makes a good charge against Jesus by such statements, that if
he undertakes, in support of the scriptural account, to defend the
numerous curses recorded in the books of Leviticus and Deuteronomy, we
should make as good, or better, a defence of the revilings and
threatenings which are regarded as having been spoken by Jesus. And as
respects the law of Moses itself, we are in a position to make a better
defence of it than the Jew is, because we have been taught by Jesus to
have a more intelligent apprehension of the writings of the law. Nay,
if the Jew perceive the meaning of the prophetic Scriptures, he will be
able to show that it is for no light reason that God employs
threatenings and revilings, when He says, "Woe unto you," and "I tell
you beforehand." And how should God employ such expressions for the
conversion of men, which Celsus thinks that even a prudent man would
not have recourse to? But Christians, who know only one God—the same
who spoke in the prophets and in the Lord (Jesus)—can prove the
reasonableness of those threatenings and revilings, as Celsus considers
and entitles them. And here a few remarks shall be addressed to this
Celsus, who professes both to be a philosopher, and to be acquainted
with all our system. How is it, friend, when Hermes, in Homer, says to
Odysseus,
"Why, now, wretched man, do you come wandering alone over the mountain-tops?" (1)
that you are satisfied with the answer, which explains that the Homeric Hermes addresses such language to Odysseus to remind him of his duty, (2) because it is characteristic of the Sirens to flatter and to say pleasing things, around whom
"Is a huge heap of bones," (3) and who say, "Come hither, much
landed Odysseus, great glory of the Greeks;" (4) whereas, if our
prophets and Jesus Himself, in order to turn their hearers from evil,
make use of such expressions as "Woe unto you," and what you regard as
revilings, there is no condescension in such language to the
circumstances of the hearers, nor any application of such words to them
as healing (5) medicine? Unless, indeed, you would have God, or one who
partakes of the divine nature, when conversing with men, to have regard
to His own nature alone, and to what is worthy of Himself, but to have
no regard to what is fitting to be brought before men who are under the
dispensation and leading of His word, and with each one of whom He is
to converse agreeably to his individual character. And is it not a
ridiculous assertion regarding Jesus, to say that He was unable to
persuade men, when you compare the state of matters not only among the
Jews, who have many such instances recorded in the prophecies, but also
among the Greeks, among whom all of those who have at-rained great
reputation for their wisdom have been unable to persuade those who
conspired against them, or to induce their judges or accusers to cease
from evil, and to endeavour to attain to virtue by the way of
philosophy?
After this the Jew remarks, manifestly in accordance with the
Jewish belief: "We certainly hope that there will be a bodily
resurrection, and that we shall enjoy an eternal life; and the example
and archetype of this will be He who is sent to us, and who will show
that nothing is impossible with God." We do not know, indeed, whether
the Jew would say of the expected I Christ, that He exhibits in Himself
an example of the resurrection; but let it be supposed that he both
thinks and says so. We shall give this answer, then, to him who has
told us that he drew his information from our own writings: "Did you
read those writings, friend, in which you think you discover matter of
accusation against us, and not find there the resurrection of Jesus,
and the declaration that He was the first-born from the dead? Or
because you will not allow such things to have been recorded, were they
not actually recorded?" But as the Jew still admits the resurrection of
the body, I do not consider the present a suitable time to discuss the
subject with one who both believes and says that there is a bodily
resurrection, whether he has an articulate (6) understanding of such a
topic, and is able to plead well on its behalf, (7) or not, but has
only given his assent to it as being of a legendary character. (8) Let
the above, then, be our reply to this Jew of Celsus. And when he adds,
"Where, then, is he, that we may see him and believe upon him?" we
answer: Where is He now who spoke in the prophecies, and who wrought
miracles, that we may see and believe that He is part of God? Are you
to be allowed to meet the objection, that God does not perpetually show
Himself to the Hebrew nation, while we are not to be permitted the same
defence with regard to Jesus, who has both once risen Himself, and led
His disciples to believe in His resurrection, and so thoroughly
persuaded them of its truth, that they show to all men by their
sufferings how they are able to laugh at all the troubles of life,
beholding the life eternal and the resurrection clearly demonstrated to
them both in word and deed?
The Jew continues: "Did Jesus come into the world for this
purpose, that we should not believe him?" To which we immediately
answer, that He did not come with the object of producing incredulity
among the Jews; but knowing beforehand that such would be the result,
He foretold it, and made use of their unbelief for the calling of the
Gentiles. For through their sin salvation came to the Gentiles,
respecting whom the Christ who speaks in the prophecies says, "A people
whom I did not know became subject to Me: they were obedient to the
hearing of My ear;" (9) and, "I was found of them who sought Me not; I
became manifest to those who inquired not after Me." (1) It is certain,
moreover, that the Jews were punished even in this present life, after
treating Jesus in the manner in which they did. And let the Jews assert
what they will when we charge them with guilt, and say, "Is not the
providence and goodness of God most wonderfully displayed in your
punishment, and in your being deprived of Jerusalem, and of the
sanctuary, and of your splendid worship?" For whatever they may say in
reply with respect to the providence of God, we shall be able more
effectually to answer it by remarking, that the providence of God was
wonderfully manifested in using the transgression of that people for
the purpose of calling into the kingdom of God, through Jesus Christ,
those from among the Gentiles who were strangers to the covenant and
aliens to the promises. And these things were foretold by the prophets,
who said that, on account of the transgressions of the Hebrew nation,
God would make choice, not of a nation, but of individuals chosen from
all lands; (2) and, having selected the foolish things of the world,
would cause an ignorant nation to become acquainted with the divine
teaching, the kingdom of God being taken from the one and given to the
other. And out of a larger number it is sufficient on the present
occasion to adduce the prediction from the song in Deuteronomy
regarding the calling of the Gentiles, which is as follows, being
spoken in the person of the Lord "They have moved Me to jealousy with
those who are not gods; they have provoked Me to anger with their
idols: and I will move them to jealousy with those who are not a
people; I will provoke them to anger with a foolish nation." (3)
The conclusion of all these arguments regarding Jesus is thus
stated by the Jew: "He was therefore a man, and of such a nature, as
the truth itself proves, and reason demonstrates him to be." I do not
know, however, whether a man who had the courage to spread throughout
the entire world his doctrine of religious worship and teaching, (4)
could accomplish what he wished without the divine assistance, and
could rise superior to all who withstood the progress of his
doctrine—kings and rulers, and the Roman senate, and governors in all
places, and the common people. And how could the nature of a man
possessed of no inherent excellence con-yen so vast a multitude? For it
would not be wonderful if it were only the wise who were so convened;
but it is the most irrational of men, and those devoted to their
passions, and who, by reason of their irrationality, change with the
greater difficulty so as to adopt a more temperate course of life. And
yet it is because Christ was the power of God and the wisdom of the
Father that He accomplished, and still accomplishes, such results,
although neither the Jews nor Greeks who disbelieve His word will so
admit. And therefore we shall not cease to believe in God, according to
the precepts of Jesus Christ, and to seek to convert those who are
blind on the subject of religion, although it is they who are truly
blind themselves that charge us with blindness: and they, whether Jews
or Greeks, who lead astray those that follow them, accuse us of
seducing men—a good seduction, truly!—that they may become temperate
instead of dissolute, or at least may make advances to temperance; may
become just instead of unjust, or at least may tend to become so;
prudent instead of foolish, or be on the way to become such; and
instead of cowardice, meanness, and timidity, may exhibit the virtues
of fortitude and courage, especially displayed in the struggles
undergone for the sake of their religion towards God, the Creator of
all things. Jesus Christ therefore came announced beforehand, not by
one prophet, but by all; and it was a proof of the ignorance of Celsus,
to represent a Jew as saying that one prophet only had predicted the
advent of Christ. But as this Jew of Celsus, after being thus
introduced, asserting that these things were indeed in conformity with
his own law, has somewhere here ended his discourse, with a mention of
other matters not worthy of remembrance, I too shall here terminate
this second book of my answer to his treatise. But if God permit, and
the power of Christ abide in my soul, I shall endeavour in the third
book to deal with the subsequent statements of Celsus.
ORIGEN AGAINST CELSUS.