Against Celsus 1 part 9/42

And Celsus, suffering something unphilosophical, imagines that human excellence lies not in a saving word and a pure character, but in doing something contrary to the assumption of the person he had taken on—either that, having taken up mortality, he should not die, or that he should die but not such a death as could become an example to those who would learn, from the very deed, to die for piety's sake and to speak boldly in it against those who err on the topic of piety and impiety, and who suppose that the (truly) pious are most impious, while those who go astray about God and apply to anything rather than to God their undistorted conception of him are reckoned most pious;

and especially when they even rush to destroy those who, in the clear evidence of the one God over all, have given themselves with all their soul, even unto death.

And Celsus, through the Jewish person, still further charges Jesus with not having shown himself pure of all evils.

Of what evils, let Celsus' learned man say, did Jesus not show himself pure? For if he means that he was not pure of evils in the proper sense (i.e. moral vices), let him plainly point out a work of vice in him;

but if he reckons as evils poverty and the cross and the plot of perverse men, it is clear that he says evils befell Socrates too, who was unable to show himself pure of (such) evils.

And how great a chorus of poor men there is among the Greeks who pursued philosophy and willingly took up poverty, even the many of the Greeks know from what is recorded—about Democritus, who let his estate become sheep-pasture, and about Crates, who freed himself by giving to the Thebans the money given him for his whole property when sold;

moreover Diogenes, from his surpassing frugality, dwelt in a jar, and in the judgement of no sensible man was Diogenes, even moderately, among evils for this reason.

Further, since Celsus wishes that Jesus should not have been even blameless, let him point out which of those who are pleased with his (Jesus') teaching recorded anything truly blameworthy of Jesus;

or, if he does not accuse him as blameworthy from these (records), let him show whence, having learned it, he said that he was not blameless.

Jesus, then, did do the things he promised, things trustworthy, through which he benefited those who gave heed to him.

And ever seeing fulfilled the things spoken by him before they came to pass—the preaching of the Gospel in the whole world, and his disciples going to all the nations to proclaim his word, and further that they would be brought before governors and kings for no other cause than his teaching—we are amazed at him, and daily we confirm our faith in him.

And I do not know from what greater and more evident things Celsus wished him to make the foretold matters trustworthy;

unless, as it appears, not knowing that the Word, the man Jesus who came into being, willed to suffer nothing human nor to become for men a noble example of bearing the things that befall.

Even though these things might seem to Celsus most pitiable and most reproachful—since he reckons pain the greatest of evils and pleasure the perfect good, which none of the philosophers who introduce providence and confess courage and endurance and magnanimity to be virtue has accepted—

...belonging to what, according to his (Christian) doctrines, is called the age to come; while the life spoken of in the present age (he reckons) to be a calamity, or the first and greatest contest of the soul.

After this he says to us that 'surely you will not say of him that, having failed to persuade those here, he set out for Hades to persuade those there.'

And even if he is unwilling, we say this: that even while in the body he persuaded not a few but so many, that on account of the multitude of those persuaded a plot was laid against him; and that, becoming a soul stripped of the body, he conversed with the souls stripped of bodies, turning to himself those of them that were willing, or those whom he saw to be more suited (for it) for reasons he himself knew.

And after these things he says, I do not know how, something exceedingly foolish: that 'if, finding absurd defences, at which you were ridiculously deceived, you suppose that you are truly making a defence, what prevents others also—all who, having been condemned, departed more wretchedly—from being considered greater and more divine angels than this one?' That the Jesus who suffered the things recorded has, plainly and clearly, nothing similar to those who departed more wretchedly through sorcery or any other charge whatsoever, is evident to everyone.

For no one can point out a work of sorcerers that turned souls away from the many sins among men and from the flood of wickedness.

And since the Jew in Celsus, comparing him also to robbers, says that 'one might likewise, with equal shamelessness, say even of a robber and murderer who was punished, that this man was not a robber but a god;

for he foretold to his fellow-robbers that he would suffer such things as he did suffer';

it would be said, first, that it is not because he foretold that he would suffer such things that we hold such an opinion concerning Jesus—such as we also hold and openly profess in him, as in one who came down to us from God;

and second, we also say that these things were in a manner foretold in the Gospels, since Jesus was reckoned with the lawless among the lawless, who wished a robber—one cast into prison for sedition and murder—to be released rather, but Jesus to be crucified, and who, having crucified him, did so between two robbers.

And ever, in his genuine disciples who bear witness to the truth, Jesus is crucified together with robbers and suffers the same condemnation among men as they.

And we say that, if indeed these have anything in common with robbers—these who, for the sake of piety toward the Creator, in order to keep it sincere and pure according to the teaching of Jesus, take upon themselves every torture and every kind of death—it is clear that Jesus too, the father of such teaching, is with reason compared by Celsus to robber-chiefs.

But neither does that one (the robber) die for the common good, nor do these suffer these things for piety's sake and, alone of all men, get plotted against and unjustly killed on account of the way of honouring the divine that has appeared to them; nor was Jesus impiously plotted against.

And observe too the superficiality of his argument concerning Jesus' disciples of that time, in which he says:

'Then those who in his lifetime were with him and heard his voice and used him as a teacher, seeing him punished and dying, neither died with him nor died for him, nor were persuaded to despise punishments, but even denied that they were disciples;

but now you (Christians) die with him.'

And in these things too, what was sinned—while the disciples were still being initiated and were more imperfect—and written in the Gospels, he believes did happen, that he may bring a charge against the doctrine; but what was set right in them after the sin, when they spoke boldly before Jews and suffered countless things at their hands and at last died for the teaching of Jesus, he passes over in silence.

For neither did he wish to hear Jesus foretelling to Peter:

'But when you grow old, you will stretch out your hands,' and what follows, to which the Scripture adds:

'And this he said, signifying by what kind of death he would glorify God';

after being scourged, rejoicing that they had been counted worthy to be dishonoured for the Name, and far surpassing many of the deeds recorded among the Greeks for the endurance and courage of those who practised philosophy.

From the beginning, then, this teaching of Jesus above all prevailed among those who heard him, teaching that the life prized by the many is to be despised, but that the life like the life of God is to be earnestly sought.

And how does the Jew in Celsus not lie when he says that, while present, he won over only ten sailors and tax-collectors, the most utterly abandoned, and not even all of these? For it is plain that even Jews would agree that he won over not ten only, nor a hundred, nor a thousand, but at one time five thousand all together, at another four thousand;

and he won over so many that they even followed him into the deserts—which alone could hold all at once such a multitude of those believing in God through Jesus—in which he displayed to them not only words but also deeds.

And he compels us, by his tautology, to do the like, since we are wary of being supposed to overpass any of the charges stated by him.

And in the argument now before us, according to the order we keep of his text, he says:

'If, while he himself was alive, he persuaded no one, but after his death those who wish persuade so many, how is this not utterly absurd?' Whereas one ought to say, preserving the logical sequence, that if after his death those who persuade the so many are not simply 'those who wish' but those who both wish and are able, how much more reasonable is it that he himself, when he sojourned in life, persuaded many times more by a more powerful word and by deeds? And he takes to himself, as if it were our answer, a response to his question, having said:

'By what reasoning were you led to consider this man a son of God?' For he has made us answer that we were led to this because we know that his punishment came about for the overthrow of the father of evil.

For we were led (to faith) by countless other things, a small fraction of which we set forth in what precedes, and, God granting, will set forth, treating not only in the works against what is reckoned Celsus' True Doctrine, but also in countless other (writings).

And as if we were saying that we consider him a son of God because he was punished, he says:

'What then? Were not many others also punished, and no less ignobly?' And in this Celsus does the same as the most slavish-minded of the enemies of the doctrine, who think that it follows, from the history concerning the crucified Jesus, that we worship the crucified.

And often by now Celsus, being unable to look in the face the powers (miracles) which Jesus is recorded to have done, slanders them as sorceries;

and often we have replied to the argument, so far as was possible for us.

And now he says, as it were, that we answer that we considered him to be a son of God for this reason, because he healed the lame and the blind;

and, as you say, he raised the dead.

That, then, because he healed the lame and the blind, we therefore consider him the Christ and son of God, is clear to us from its being written also in the prophecies:

'Then the eyes of the blind shall be opened, and the ears of the deaf shall hear;

then shall the lame leap like a deer.' And that he also raised the dead, and that it is not a fabrication of those who wrote the Gospels, is established from this: that if it were a fabrication, many would have been recorded as having risen, and those who had been long in the tombs;

but since it is not a fabrication, very few are mentioned: the daughter of the synagogue-ruler—concerning whom I do not know how he said:

'She is not dead but sleeping,' saying something about her which did not belong to all who had died—and the only-begotten son of the widow, over whom, moved with compassion, he raised him, halting those who carried the corpse; and third, Lazarus, who had been four days in the tomb.

For (the multitude fed) had become worthy of the prodigy wrought through the prophet in the matter of the loaves, according to a certain divine judgement;

thus many were dead in the days of Jesus, but only those rose whom the Word knew to be suited for resurrection, in order that the things done by the Lord might not be merely symbols of certain (truths), but might also of themselves bring many to the marvellous teaching of the Gospel.

And I would say that, according to Jesus' promise, his disciples have done even greater things than the perceptible things Jesus did.

For ever are the eyes of those blind in soul opened, and the ears of those deafened to words of virtue hear eagerly concerning God and the blessed life with him; and many too who were lame in the steps of, as the Scripture named it, 'the inner man,' now that the Word has healed them, not merely leap but leap like a deer—an animal hostile to serpents and superior to all the venom of vipers.

And these lame ones who have been healed receive from Jesus authority to tread with the feet by which they were formerly lame upon the serpents and scorpions of wickedness, and simply upon all the power of the enemy; and treading on them, they take no harm;

for they too have become superior to the venom of all wickedness and of the demons.

Jesus, then, in turning his disciples away—not from giving heed simply to sorcerers and to those who profess to work prodigies by any means whatever, for his disciples had no need of this—but from (heeding) those who proclaim themselves to be the Christ of God and try, by means of certain phantasms, to turn Jesus' disciples to themselves, in one place said:

'Lo, here is the Christ, or there—do not believe.'

'For false christs and false prophets will arise and will give great signs and wonders, so as to lead astray, if possible, even the elect.'

'Lo, he is in the wilderness—do not go out;

lo, he is in the inner chambers—do not believe.'

'For as the lightning comes forth from the east and shines as far as the west, so will be the coming (parousia) of the Son of Man.'

'Many will say to me in that day:

'Lord, Lord, did we not eat in your name and drink in your name and cast out demons in your name and do many mighty works?' And I will say to them:

'Depart from me, for you are workers of iniquity.' But Celsus, wishing to make Jesus' prodigies common with the sorcery practised among men, says in these very words:

'O light and truth! He, with his own voice, expressly declares—as you yourselves have recorded—that there will come to you others also employing similar powers, evil men and sorcerers; and he names a certain Satan contriving such things;

so that not even he himself denies that these things at any rate are nothing divine, but are works of evil men.'

'And, constrained by the truth, he at once both disclosed the doings of the others and convicted himself.'

'How then is it not monstrous to regard the one as a god, but the others as sorcerers, on the basis of the same works? For why, on the strength of these (works) at any rate, should the others be considered wicked rather than this one, using him as witness against himself? For these very things he himself too confessed to be tokens not of a divine nature, but of certain impostors and utterly wicked men.'

See, then, whether in these things Celsus is not clearly convicted of doing violence to the text, since one thing is what Jesus says about those who will do signs and wonders, and another is what the Jew in Celsus asserts.

For if Jesus had simply told the disciples to beware of those professing to work prodigies, without adding what they would claim themselves to be, perhaps his (Celsus') suspicion would have had some ground;

but since those from whom Jesus wishes us to beware profess to be the Christ—which the sorcerers do not do—and since he says that some, even living wickedly in the name of Jesus, will do mighty works and cast demons out of men,

...(making use) of some power in order to pretend that he is the Christ, seeming to accomplish things similar to the Christ; and others, in the name of Jesus, (do) things as it were similar to those of his genuine disciples.

And Paul too, in the Second Epistle to the Thessalonians, declares in what manner there will at some time be revealed 'the man of lawlessness, the son of perdition, who opposes and exalts himself above every so-called god or object of worship, so that he sits in the temple of God, displaying himself that he is God.' And again he says to the Thessalonians:

'And now you know what restrains, that he may be revealed in his own time.'

'For the mystery of lawlessness is already at work; only there is one now restraining, until he be taken out of the way;

and then the lawless one will be revealed, whom the Lord Jesus will slay with the breath of his mouth and abolish by the manifestation of his coming—whose coming is according to the working of Satan, with all power and signs and lying wonders, and with all deceit of unrighteousness for those who perish.' And setting forth also the cause of the lawless one's being permitted to sojourn in life, he says:

'Because they did not receive the love of the truth so as to be saved.'

'And for this cause God sends them a working of error, that they should believe the lie, so that all may be judged who did not believe the truth but took pleasure in unrighteousness.' Let someone, then, tell us whether anything in the Gospel, or in the apostle, can give place to a suspicion of sorcery foretold according to (this) passage.

It will also be possible for anyone who wishes to take from Daniel the prophecy concerning the Antichrist.

But he speaks falsely against the words of Jesus, since Jesus did not say it in the way Celsus represents.

For because Jesus said that there will come others making use of similar powers, wicked men and sorcerers, Celsus alleges that Jesus himself admitted as much.

For just as the power of the enchanters in Egypt was not like the marvelous grace given through Moses—rather, the outcome proved that the works of the Egyptians were trickery while those of Moses were divine—

so the works of the antichrists and of those who pretend to powers as though they were disciples of Jesus are said to be signs and wonders of falsehood, prevailing with all the deceit of wickedness among those who perish; whereas the works of Christ and his disciples bore fruit that was not deceit but the salvation of souls.

For who can reasonably say that a better life, one that daily diminishes the works of wickedness, comes about through deceit? And Celsus suspected that he had made Jesus say, on the basis of Scripture, that some Satan would contrive such things.

But he also distorts the argument, asserting that Jesus does not deny that these things have nothing divine in them but are works of wicked men;

for he has made out to be of the same kind things that are in fact of different kinds.

And just as a wolf is not of the same kind as a dog, even if it seems to have something closely resembling it in bodily form and in voice, nor a wild pigeon as a dove,

so that which is accomplished by the power of God has nothing in common with that which comes about by sorcery.

Furthermore, we will say this also against the malicious devices of Celsus:

Do powers indeed come about by sorcery from wicked demons, yet no power is wrought by the divine and blessed nature—as though the life of men has produced the worse but has by no means made room for the better? This, it seems to me, ought to be laid down as a general principle: wherever something worse pretends to be of the same kind as the better, there is altogether, on the opposite side, something better; so too in the case of things accomplished by sorcery, it is wholly necessary that there be also things wrought by divine working in human life.

And it belongs to the same consistency either to abolish both and say that neither comes to pass, or, while admitting the one—especially the worse—to acknowledge also the better.

But if someone should grant that things come about by sorcery, yet not grant that things come from divine power, he seems to me to resemble one who grants that there are sophistries and plausible arguments which miss the truth while pretending to present what is true, but maintains that nowhere among men do truth and dialectic—which is alien to sophistries—hold any place in public life.

Granting that magic and sorcery exist in reality, wrought by wicked demons who are charmed by elaborate incantations and obey men who are sorcerers, it follows that things from divine power too must be found among men;

why then should we not also examine rigorously those who claim such powers, by their life, their character, and the consequences attending the powers—whether they tend to harm men or to the reform of morals—asking who performs such things by serving demons through certain charms and tricks, and who, having become pure and holy in his own soul and spirit (and, I think, also in body) toward God, and having received some divine spirit, does such things for the benefit of men and for exhortation to faith in the true God? And if once we must inquire, without being swept along by the powers themselves, who performs such things from a better source and who from a worse, so that we may neither speak ill of everything nor admire and accept everything as divine—

how shall it not be plainly evident from what happened in the case of Moses and of Jesus—whole nations having been formed after their signs—that these men did by divine power the things that are recorded of them? For wickedness and trickery could not have constituted a whole nation, one that has surpassed not only idols and things set up by men, but indeed all created nature, and ascends to the uncreated first principle of the God of the universe.

But since it is a Jew who says these things in Celsus, we might say to him:

But you, sir, why on earth have you believed the things written in your own books, as accomplished by God through Moses, to be divine, and you try to argue against those who slander them as having come about by sorcery—like the works of the Egyptian sages—yet the things done by Jesus, which are even acknowledged among your own people to have happened, you condemn as not divine, imitating the Egyptians who oppose you? For if the outcome, namely that a whole nation was formed through the marvels wrought by Moses, establishes the clear evidence that the one who did these things was God in the time of Moses, how is not such a thing all the more demonstrated in the case of Jesus, who did a greater work than that of Moses? For Moses took the people of the nation, descended in succession from the seed of Abraham, who had kept circumcision and were zealous for the customs of Abraham—and so were the more ready—and led them out of Egypt, setting before them those divine laws which you have believed;

but this man dared something greater: he introduced, over against the pre-existing polity, the ancestral customs, and the upbringings according to the established laws, the polity that is according to the gospel.

And just as Moses needed, in order to be believed not only by the council of elders but also by the people, the signs which he is recorded to have performed, why should not Jesus also—in order to be believed by those of the people who had learned to ask for signs and wonders—require such powers, which by reason of their being greater and more divine in comparison with those wrought through Moses were able both to draw people away from Jewish mythology and from the human traditions among them, and to make them accept the one who taught and accomplished these things, because he was greater than the prophets? For how was he not greater than the prophets, who was proclaimed by the prophets to be the Christ and Savior of the human race? And in general, whatever the Jew in Celsus says against those who believe in Jesus can be made common to an accusation against Moses;

so that to call Jesus' work sorcery is either no different from, or closely resembles, calling Moses' work sorcery, since both—as far as the wording of the Jew in Celsus is concerned—can be brought under the same charges.

For example, concerning Christ the Jew in Celsus says:

But, O light and truth, Jesus expressly declares in his own voice, as you yourselves have recorded, that there will come to you also others making use of similar powers, wicked men and sorcerers;

and concerning Moses the one who disbelieves the works of Moses—whether an Egyptian or anyone whatever—might say to the Jew:

He expressly declares, as you yourselves have recorded, that there will come to you others making use of similar powers, wicked men and sorcerers.

For it is written in your law:

If there arise among you a prophet, or one who dreams a dream, and gives you a sign or a wonder, and the sign or the wonder comes to pass, of which he spoke to you, saying:

Let us go and follow other gods, whom you have not known, and let us serve them—you shall not listen to the words of that prophet or of that dreamer of the dream, and so forth.

And he who slanders the words of Jesus says that Jesus also names some Satan as contriving such things; but he who makes this common to Moses will say that Moses too names a dreaming prophet as contriving such things.

And just as the Jew in Celsus says concerning Jesus that so he himself does not deny that these things have nothing divine but are works of wicked men, so the one who disbelieves the works of Moses will say to him, setting forth the things mentioned above, the very same:

so Moses himself does not deny that these things have nothing divine but are works of wicked men.

And he will do the same in this case too:

Compelled by the truth, Moses at one and the same time both disclosed the works of others and convicted his own.

And to the Jew who also says:

How then is it not monstrous to reckon, from the very same works, the one a god but the others sorcerers?—someone might say to him, on account of the passages of Moses set forth:

How then is it not monstrous to reckon, from the very same works, the one a prophet of God and his servant, but the others sorcerers? And since Celsus, dwelling further on the topic, added to what I have set forth as made common the following:

For why, from these very things, should the others be considered wicked rather than this one, using him as their witness?—we too shall add to what is said the following:

For why, from these very things—namely those whom Moses forbids to be believed when they display signs and wonders—should those men be considered wicked rather than Moses, from the fact that he disparaged others on the matter of signs and wonders? And saying many things to the same effect, in order that his argument might seem to be strengthened, he says:

These things at least he himself has acknowledged to be marks not of a divine nature but of certain impostors and utterly wicked men.

Who then is "he himself"? You, O Jew, say that it is Jesus; but the one who accuses you as subject to the same charges will refer this "he himself" to Moses.

After these things, in his discourse against his own fellow-citizens who had become believers, the Jew of Celsus says to us—so that I may keep to what was proposed from the beginning for the Jew—:

By what then were you led on, except that he foretold that, having died, he would rise again? And this too will be made common to the case of Moses, like the previous instances.

By what then were you led on, except that he recorded concerning his own death such things as these:

And Moses the servant of the Lord died there in the land of Moab, by the word of the Lord;

and they buried him in the land of Moab, near the house of Peor.

And no one knows his burial place to this day? For as the Jew slanders Jesus on the ground that he foretold that, having died, he would rise again, so against the one who says this, the one who claims the like concerning Moses will say that Moses too recorded—for Deuteronomy is his—that No one knows his burial place to this day, magnifying and extolling even his burial as one unknown to the human race.

After these things the Jew says to his own fellow-citizens who believe in Jesus:

Come now, let us even grant that this was said by you.

How many others tell such marvelous tales, working upon those who listen foolishly, exploiting their error for the sake of persuasion? This is the very thing they say also of Zalmoxis among the Scythians, the slave of Pythagoras, and of Pythagoras himself in Italy, and of Rhampsinitus in Egypt;

this last, they say, even diced with Demeter in Hades and came up bringing from her as a gift a golden napkin;

and indeed they say the same of Orpheus among the Odrysians, and of Protesilaus in Thessaly, and of Heracles at Taenarum, and of Theseus.