Against Celsus 1 part 12/42

And yet, if sedition had been the cause of the Christians' coming together—those who took their origin from the Jews, to whom it was permitted both to take up arms on behalf of their own and to slay enemies—the lawgiver of the Christians would not have wholly forbidden the killing of a human being, never teaching it to be just for his own disciples to act audaciously against a man, even were that man most unjust; for he did not deem it fitting for his divinely inspired legislation to permit the killing of any human being whatsoever.

Nor would Christians, had they begun from sedition, have accepted laws so gentle, by which it came about that they were slaughtered like sheep and were never able to defend themselves against their persecutors, since, having been taught not to retaliate against their enemies, they kept the gentle and humane legislation.

For this very thing which, even had they been granted authority to make war and had they been altogether powerful, they would not have achieved, this they have received from God, who has ever fought on their behalf and from time to time put a stop to those who rose up against the Christians and wished to destroy them.

And exceedingly few have died for the sake of the Christians' piety, since God hindered the whole of their nation from being warred down to destruction.

For he willed that it should stand together, and that the whole earth should be filled with this saving and most godly teaching.

And again, in turn, so that the weaker might gain respite from anxiety about death, God exercised forethought for those who believed, dispersing by his mere will every plot against them, so that neither kings nor local rulers nor the populace might be able to be inflamed against them to any great extent.

These things, then, are said in reply to what Celsus has said about there having been a revolt at the origin, both anciently of the Jews' forming a community and later of the Christians' coming into being.

And since in what follows he manifestly lies, come, let us set out his very words as he says:

"If all men should be willing to be Christians, these [Christians] would no longer be willing to be so."

That such a statement is false is clear from the fact that Christians, so far as in them lies, do not neglect to sow the word everywhere throughout the inhabited world.

Indeed, some have made it their task to go about not only cities but also villages and country estates, in order that they might render others also pious toward God.

And no one could say that they do this for the sake of wealth, since at times they do not even take what is needed for sustenance; and if ever they are compelled by such want, they content themselves with the bare necessity alone, even though many are willing to share with them and to give beyond their needs.

Now perhaps at present, when, on account of the multitude of those coming to the word, even rich people and some of those in positions of honour and delicate, well-born ladies welcome the preachers of the word, someone will venture to say that some take the lead in the teaching of the Christians for the sake of a little glory.

But certainly at the beginning, when there was great danger especially for those who taught, it is not reasonable to suspect any such thing.

And even now the dishonour among the rest [of mankind] is greater than the reputation reckoned as glory among those of the same faith—and that not even among all of them.

It is therefore self-evidently false that "if all men should be willing to be Christians, these would no longer be willing to be so."

But see also what he alleges to be the proof of this.

"For at their beginning," he says, "they were few in number and of one mind;"

"but having been scattered into a multitude, they are again and again cut up and split apart, and each group wishes to have its own factions;"

"for this is what they craved from the beginning."

Now that, in comparison with the subsequent multitude, the Christians at the beginning were few is clear; and yet they were not altogether few.

For what stirred up envy against Jesus and provoked the Jews to plot against him was the multitude of those who followed him into the deserts, since five thousand and four thousand men followed him, apart from the number of the women and children.

For there was so great a spell, as it were, in the words of Jesus, that not only men wished to follow him into the wildernesses, but women too, heedless of feminine weakness and of how it might appear to follow the teacher into the wildernesses.

And the most innocent little children, either following their parents or perhaps even drawn by his divinity, that divinity might be sown into them, followed along together with those who had begotten them.

But let it be granted that they were few at the beginning.

What does this contribute toward proving that Christians would be unwilling to instil in all men persuasion concerning the word? And he also says that they were all of one mind, not seeing even in this that from the very beginning there arose differences among believers concerning the interpretation of the things in the books believed to be divine.

At any rate, while the apostles were still preaching and the eyewitnesses of Jesus were still teaching his doctrines, no small inquiry arose among the believers from among the Jews, with one another, concerning the Gentiles coming over to the word—whether they ought to observe the Jewish customs, or whether the burden concerning clean and unclean foods should be removed as not pressing upon those of the Gentiles who, having abandoned their ancestral ways, believed in Jesus.

There also arose [a dispute] concerning the day of the Lord, whether it is already present or not.

And also the [saying], "avoiding the profane empty chatter and contradictions of the falsely named knowledge, which some, professing, have made shipwreck concerning the faith," is indicative that from the beginning there arose certain misinterpretations, when, as Celsus supposes, the believers had not yet become many.

Then, since as though accusing the word he reproaches us concerning the heresies in Christianity, saying:

"but having been scattered into a multitude, they are again and again split apart and cut up, and each group wishes to have its own factions;"

and he says that "by their multitude, again being separated, they refute their own selves;"

"having in common still, so to speak, but one thing—if indeed they have even that in common—the name."

"And even this alone they are nevertheless ashamed to abandon;"

"but as for the rest, different people are arrayed in different ways."

And to this we shall reply that of no matter whose origin is serious and useful to life have there failed to arise differing schools of thought.

For since medicine is useful and necessary to the human race, and many are the questions investigated in it concerning the manner of treating bodies, on this account schools of thought are found in medicine—admittedly more numerous among the Greeks, and, I suppose, also among the barbarians, at least among all who profess to practise medicine.

And again, since philosophy, professing truth and knowledge of existing things, lays down how one ought to live and attempts to teach the things beneficial to our race, while the matters investigated admit of much divergence, on this account very many schools of thought have arisen in philosophy, of which some are more distinguished and others not so.

But Judaism too had as the occasion for the rise of its sects the differing interpretation of the writings of Moses and the prophetic words.

Thus, then, since Christianity appeared to men to be something venerable—not only to the more servile, as Celsus supposes, but also to many of the learned among the Greeks—there necessarily arose sects, by no means altogether on account of factions and contentiousness, but because of the earnest endeavour to understand the things of Christianity on the part of the more numerous among the learned as well.

And there followed from this—since they interpreted differently the words believed by all alike to be divine—the rise of sects named after those who, while admiring the origin of the word, were yet moved, somehow or other, by certain plausibilities toward their mutual disagreements.

But neither would anyone reasonably shun medicine on account of the schools within it, nor would anyone aiming at what is fitting hate philosophy, making the many schools a pretext for hating it.

In the same way, neither on account of the sects among the Jews ought one to condemn the sacred books of Moses and the prophets.

And if these things follow consistently, how shall we not similarly make our defence also concerning the sects among the Christians? Concerning which Paul seems to me to have spoken quite admirably in the saying:

"For there must also be factions among you, so that those who are approved may become evident among you." For just as the man approved in medicine is the one who, having trained in various schools and conscientiously examined the greater number of them, chooses the superior one, and just as the man who has greatly advanced in philosophy is the one who, from having come to know the more numerous teachings and having trained himself in them, attaches himself to the doctrine that has prevailed,

so too I would say that the one who has carefully examined the various schools of Judaism and Christianity would become a most wise Christian.

But the one who blames our doctrine on account of its factions would also have to blame the teaching of Socrates, from whose school of instruction arose many circles of disciples who did not hold the same opinions;

and one might likewise blame the doctrines of Plato on account of Aristotle, who departed from his school with innovations;

concerning which we have also spoken in the foregoing.

It seems to me that Celsus has come to know certain sects that do not even share with us the name of Jesus.

For perhaps he had heard rumors about those called the Ophians and the Cainites, and any other such sect that has formed an opinion that has wholly departed from Jesus;

yet this is nothing to the point as regards whether the doctrine of the Christians is to be blamed.

[He says that the doctrine would be refuted, unless it] were proven to be established on a worthy foundation.

But, [he says,] there is a worthy foundation: the strife, and the benefit arising from it, and the fear of those outside;

these things confirm their faith.

And to this we shall reply that our compact is so far from resting on a [mere human] foundation—or rather not on a foundation at all but on divine energy—that its beginning is God, who in the prophets taught men to hope for the coming of Christ, who would save mankind.

For inasmuch as this is not truly refuted—even if it seems to be refuted by unbelievers—to that same degree the Word is established as the Word of God, and Jesus is demonstrated to be the Son of God, both before He became man and after He became man.

And I say that even after His becoming man, He is always found, by those who possess the keenest eyes of the soul, to be most worthy of God and truly to have come down to us from God, having the beginning, and what follows the beginning, not from human understanding but from the manifestation of God, who with manifold wisdom and manifold powers first established Judaism and after it Christianity;

and it has been refuted [to suppose] that strife and the benefit arising from strife should be regarded as the origin of a doctrine that has converted and improved so many.

And that not even the fear of those outside holds our compact together is clear from the fact that this too, by God's will, has now for a considerable time ceased.

And it is likely that the freedom from fear concerning this present life, which has come upon believers, will cease, whenever those who in every way slander the doctrine come again to suppose that the cause of the present so-great expansion among the multitude of believers lies in their not being warred against by the rulers as in former times.

For we have learned from the doctrine neither to grow slack in peace and give ourselves over to ease, nor, when warred against by the world, to lose heart and fall away from love toward the God of all in Jesus Christ.

Indeed we plainly set forth the dignity of our beginning, and do not, as Celsus thinks, conceal it, since to those who are first being introduced we instill contempt for idols and for all images, and besides this, lifting up their minds, we lead them up from serving things created in place of God, to the Creator of all things;

plainly setting forth the One who was foretold, both from the prophecies concerning Him—and these are many—and from those things which are accurately handed down, to those who are able to hear more intelligently, out of the Gospels and the apostolic utterances.

But as to what sorts of all manner of things we draw [men] by, or what terrors we fabricate—as Celsus writes without proof—let whoever wishes set it forth.

Unless indeed by "fabricated terrors" Celsus means to call the teaching concerning a God who judges, and concerning men being judged for all that they have done—set forth with manifold demonstration, partly from the Scriptures and partly also from probable reasoning.

And yet—for truth is dear—Celsus says toward the end that neither for these, nor for me, nor for any other man, would it be possible to set aside the doctrine that the unjust will be punished and the just deemed worthy of rewards.

What terrors, then, do we fabricate to draw men, if you do away with the doctrine concerning punishment? But also when he says that, fabricating distorted echoes of the ancient teaching, we use them to pipe and to catechize men beforehand, like those who buzz around men in Corybantic frenzy, we shall say to him:

Distorted echoes of what ancient teaching? For whether it be the Greek—which taught about the tribunals beneath the earth—or the Jewish, which, among other things, also prophesied about the life that follows this present one, he would not be able to show that we, who at any rate strive to believe with reason, live in accordance with such doctrines by way of having distorted the truth.

He wishes to compare the matters of our faith with the affairs of the Egyptians;

[saying that] to one who penetrates further in, there is beheld, being worshiped, a cat or an ape or a crocodile or a goat or a dog.

For what is there among us analogous to the things of the Egyptians that appear august to those who approach? And what is analogous to the irrational animals worshiped within, beyond the august vestibules? Are the prophecies, and the God who is over all, and the things [taught] against the images, that which we are to understand as august in accordance with Him—while Jesus Christ crucified is the analogue to the irrational animal that is worshiped? But if he says this—for I do not think he will say anything else—we shall reply that more has been said by us in the foregoing toward the establishment of the things concerning Jesus: namely, that even the things that seem to have befallen Him after the manner of men came to pass usefully for the whole, and savingly for the entire world.

Then he says that the Egyptians—who speak solemnly even about the irrational animals, asserting that these are certain symbols of God, or however it pleases their oracle-givers to name them—send forth an impression upon those who have learned these things, that they have not been initiated in vain;

but as for the things in our doctrines, which are set forth—from what Paul calls a gift of grace, in the word of wisdom through the Spirit, and in the word of knowledge according to the Spirit—to those of great learning in Christianity, Celsus seems to me not even to have had an inkling, not only from these matters but also from what he says in what follows, when accusing the system of the Christians: that they drive away every wise man from the doctrine of their faith, and call only the senseless and the slavish—concerning which we shall learn in due season, when we come to that passage.

And he says that we ridicule the Egyptians—although they offer many riddles, and not trivial ones—whenever they teach that such things are honors paid to eternal ideas, and not, as the many suppose, to ephemeral animals;

but [he says] we are silly, since in our accounts about Jesus we introduce nothing more august than the goats and dogs of the Egyptians.

And to this too we shall say:

Is it then, my good sir, that you with reason exalt in your discourse the fact that the Egyptians offer many and not trivial riddles and obscure narratives about the animals among them, while you act improperly in accusing us—being persuaded that we say nothing [of worth], but that everything is of no account and trivial—whenever we expound the things concerning Jesus according to the wisdom of the Word, to those who are, as it were, perfect in Christianity?

Concerning whom Paul, teaching that they are competent to hear the wisdom in Christianity, says:

"We do speak wisdom among the perfect, yet a wisdom not of this age nor of the rulers of this age, who are being brought to nothing;

but we speak God's wisdom in a mystery, the hidden wisdom, which God foreordained before the ages unto our glory, which none of the rulers of this age has known." And we say to those who agree with Celsus: Was Paul, then, imagining no surpassing wisdom when he professed to speak wisdom among the perfect? But when, in his own audacity, he asserts that Paul, having nothing wise, professed these things, we shall answer him back, saying:

First clarify the epistles of the one who says these things, and fixing your attention on the intent of each expression in them—say, in the Epistle to the Ephesians, and to the Colossians, and to the Thessalonians, and to the Philippians, and to the Romans—demonstrate both things: that you have understood Paul's words, and that you are able to set forth certain things [in them] as silly or foolish.

For if he gives himself to reading with attention, I know well that either he will marvel at the mind of the man, who in unsophisticated language conceives great things, or, not marveling, he will himself appear ridiculous—whether expounding [the text] as one who has understood the man's intent, or attempting to contradict and overturn the things he imagined the man had meant.

And I am not yet speaking about the careful observation, in the Gospels, of all that is written;

[for example, concerning those] who come to Him privately in the house.

And one who has understood will marvel: what reason there is for some to be called "those outside" and others to be "in the house."

And again, who among those able to behold the transitions of Jesus would not be astounded—as He goes up into a mountain for such words or deeds, or for His own transfiguration, while below He heals the sick and those unable to go up to where His disciples follow Him? But to expound now the things in the Gospels that are truly august and divine, or the mind of Christ in Paul—that is, of the Wisdom and the Word—is not opportune.

But even these things are sufficient against the unphilosophical mockery of Celsus, who likens the inner and mystical things of the Church of God to the cats or apes or crocodiles or goats or dogs of the Egyptians.

And leaving out no form of disparagement and derision against us, the buffoon Celsus, in his discourse against us, names the Dioscuri and Heracles and Asclepius and Dionysus—those believed among the Greeks to have become gods out of men—and says that we, on the one hand, do not tolerate regarding these as gods, because they were men and that originally, even though they displayed many noble deeds on behalf of men;

but as for Jesus, we say that after His death He was seen by His own devotees;

and he further accuses us of saying that He was seen—and that too as a mere shadow.

And to these things we shall say that Celsus, cunningly, neither plainly set forth [the position] of not revering these as gods—for he was wary of the opinion of those who would read his writing, who would suppose him to be an atheist if he championed what appeared to him to be the truth—nor again did he himself pretend to regard them as gods;

for to each of the two [positions] we would have replied.

Come then, against those who do not regard them as gods, let us say these things:

Do these beings not exist at all, but—just as some suppose concerning the soul of men, that it is destroyed immediately [at death]—has the soul of these too been destroyed?

Or, according to the opinion of those who say that [the soul] survives or is immortal, do these survive or are they immortal—and are they not gods but heroes?

Or are they not even heroes, but simply souls? If, then, you suppose that they do not exist, the prior argument concerning the soul must first be established by us;

but if they do exist, then likewise the argument concerning immortality must be demonstrated, not only from those Greeks who have spoken well about it, but also according to what is approved in the divine teachings.

And we shall show that it is not possible for these, having become polytheistic, to have come to be in a better region and portion after their departure hence—adducing the histories about them, in which are recorded the great licentiousness of Heracles and his womanish servitude to Omphale, and the things about Asclepius, how he was struck by a thunderbolt of their own Zeus.

And the things about the Dioscuri shall also be told—how "at one time they live on alternate days, but at another in turn they are dead";

and how those who repeatedly die have been allotted honor equal to the gods.

How then, in accordance with reason, is it possible for any of these to be regarded as a god or a hero? And we, demonstrating the things concerning our Jesus from the prophetic [writings], and after this comparing the history about Him with the histories about those others, will show that no licentiousness is recorded of Him.

For not even those who plotted against Him and sought false witness against Him found even any plausibility for their false testimony against Him, so that they might accuse Him on a charge of licentiousness;

but even His death came about through the plot of men, and had nothing in common with the thunderbolt against Asclepius.

And what is august about the raving Dionysus, decked out in women's garb, that he should be worshiped as a god? But if those who make a defense concerning these things take refuge in allegories, then on the one hand the allegories must be examined separately, [to see] whether they are sound; and on the other, separately [to see] whether [these beings] can have real subsistence and be worthy of veneration and worship—they who were torn apart by the Titans and cast down from the heavenly throne.

And let the contents of the histories about those others be examined alongside that concerning Jesus.

Or does Celsus wish those things to be true, while these—recorded by those who beheld [them] and who by their very deeds demonstrated the clarity of their apprehension concerning what they had witnessed, and who displayed their disposition by the things they readily suffered on behalf of His doctrine—are fabrications? And who, wishing to act in everything according to reason, would arbitrarily give assent to the things about those others, yet, rushing in without examination concerning the things about this One, would disbelieve the things concerning Him? And again, when it is said about Asclepius that a great multitude of men, both Greeks and barbarians, confess to have often seen and still to see—this very being, not as a phantom but as healing and conferring benefits and foretelling things to come—Celsus deems us worthy to believe and does not blame those who believe in Asclepius; but he does blame those faithful to Jesus, whenever we believe these things [about Him].

But whenever we give our assent to the disciples who beheld the marvels of Jesus and who plainly set forth the conscientiousness of their own conscience—as we observe their guilelessness, insofar as it is possible to discern a conscience from writings—then we are named by Celsus as certain silly persons, though he is unable to set forth, as he claims, "a countless multitude of men, both Greeks and barbarians, confessing" to Asclepius.

For we, if he considers this to be august, plainly show a countless multitude, both of Greeks and of barbarians, confessing to Jesus.

And some display signs of having received something more extraordinary through this faith, in those whom they heal, calling upon nothing else over those who need healing than the God who is over all and the name of Jesus together with the history concerning Him.

For by these means we too have seen many delivered from grievous afflictions and from derangements and madnesses and countless other ills, which neither men nor demons could heal.

But even granting that some demon called Asclepius heals bodies, I would say to those who marvel at such a thing, or at the oracular art of Apollo, that—if indeed the healing of bodies is a thing intermediate, a matter falling not only to the virtuous but also to the base, and the foreknowledge of things to come is likewise intermediate (for the one who foreknows does not by any means thereby manifest virtue)—let them set forth how it is that those who heal or those who foreknow are by no means base, but are by every means demonstrated to be virtuous and not far from being supposed to be gods.

But they will not be able to demonstrate that those who heal or those who foreknow are virtuous, since many even of those unworthy of life are said to be healed—whom not even a man who was a wise physician would have wished to heal, seeing that they live unbecomingly.

And in the oracles of the Pythian [Apollo] too you would find certain things enjoined that are not reasonable.

Of which I will adduce two for the present: that he bade Cleomedes—the boxer, I think—be honored with honors equal to the gods, though I do not know what august thing he ever saw in that man's boxing; yet he honored neither Pythagoras nor Socrates with the honors of the boxer.

But also, calling Archilochus "a servant of the Muses"—a man who displayed his own poetic craft in a most base and lewd theme, and who presented a lewd and impure character—inasmuch as he was [thus called] a servant of the Muses, who are reckoned to be gods, [Apollo] proclaimed him to be a certain pious man.

But I do not know whether even the ordinary man would say that the pious one is not adorned with all moderation and virtue—and would an orderly man utter such things as are contained in the unseemly iambics of Archilochus?

But if nothing divine is manifested of itself from the medicine of Asclepius and the divination of Apollo, how could anyone reasonably—even granting that these things are so—revere them as gods who are pure and undefiled? And especially when, through the Pythian mouthpiece, into the so-called prophetess seated round about, the prophetic spirit enters by way of the female parts—[this is] Apollo, the pure one [supposedly] free from any earthly body!

But we hold no such opinion concerning Jesus and His power.

For the body that was born of the virgin was composed of human substance, capable of receiving human wounds and death.

These things Celsus says, citing from histories marvels that are in themselves like incredible tales, yet are not disbelieved by him so far as his own words go.

And first, the things concerning Aristeas of Proconnesus, about whom he says the following:

"Then there is Aristeas of Proconnesus, who in so supernatural a manner vanished from among men and again appeared manifestly, and many years afterward visited many places throughout the inhabited world and announced marvellous things; and when Apollo charged the Metapontines to reckon Aristeas among the gods—yet no one any longer regards this man as a god."

He seems to have taken the story from Pindar and Herodotus.

It suffices now to set down the words of Herodotus from the fourth book of his Histories, which run thus concerning him:

"And whence Aristeas, who said these things, came, I have told;

but the tale which I heard about him in Proconnesus and Cyzicus, I shall now relate.

For they say that Aristeas, who in birth was inferior to none of the citizens, entered a fuller's shop in Proconnesus and there died;

and the fuller, locking up his workshop, went away to announce the matter to the dead man's relatives.

When the report had already spread throughout the city that Aristeas was dead, a man of Cyzicus, who had come from the city of Artace, fell into dispute with those who said so, declaring that he had met him as he was journeying toward Cyzicus and had conversed with him.

And while this man vehemently disputed it, the relatives of the dead man came to the fuller's shop bringing the things needful to take up the body for burial;

but when the room was opened, Aristeas appeared neither alive nor dead.

And afterward, in the seventh year, having appeared in Proconnesus, he composed those verses which are now called by the Greeks the Arimaspea; and having composed them, he vanished a second time.

These things, then, are what these cities relate;

but the following things I know happened to the Metapontines in Italy two hundred and forty years after the second disappearance of Aristeas, as I found by reckoning at Proconnesus and Metapontum.