駁瑟蘇斯 第 1 章 第 7/42 段

"For he spoke, and they came into being; he commanded, and they were created." For if God commanded, and the works of creation were created, who, according to what pleases the prophetic Spirit, would be the one able to fulfill so great a command of the Father, except the one who is, so to speak, a living Word and Truth? And that the Gospels too know of no one circumscribed who, being in Jesus, said:

"I am the way, and the truth, and the life"—as though he were nowhere outside the soul and body of Jesus, this is clear both from many passages and from the few that we shall set forth, which are as follows.

John the Baptist, prophesying that the Son of God would presently be at hand—not being confined in that body and soul, but rather reaching everywhere—says concerning him:

"Among you stands one whom you do not know, coming after me." If, then, he had thought that the Son of God was only there where the visible body of Jesus was, how could he have said:

"Among you stands one whom you do not know"? And Jesus himself, lifting up the minds of those who became his disciples to think more loftily concerning the Son of God, says:

"Where two or three are gathered together in my name, there am I in the midst of them." Of the same kind also is his promise to the disciples when he says:

"And behold, I am with you always, to the close of the age." But we say these things without separating the Son of God from Jesus;

for above all, after the incarnation, the soul and body of Jesus became one with the Word of God.

For if, according to the teaching of Paul when he says:

—and everyone who has understood is spirit—what "to be joined to the Lord" means, and that "he who is joined to him is one spirit with the Lord," how is the once-composite being not far more divinely and greatly one with the Word of God? This one indeed showed himself among the Jews to be the power of God by means of the marvels he performed, which were supposed by Celsus to have come about by sorcery, and by the Jews of that time—who had learned, I know not whence, the things about Beelzebul—to be a casting out of demons by Beelzebul, the ruler of the demons.

Our Savior there refuted them as speaking most absurdly, by pointing out that the kingdom of evil does not yet have an end;

which will be clear to those who read the Gospel writing with discernment—something which it is not the time now to expound.

But what did Jesus promise that he did not do? Let Celsus present and demonstrate it.

But he will not be able to, especially since, whether from things misheard, or from readings of the Gospels, or from Jewish tales, he supposes he is bringing forward what he says against Jesus or against us.

But since the Jew again says that "having convicted and condemned him, we judged him worthy of punishment," let them show how those who sought to fabricate false testimony against him convicted him;

unless indeed the great accusation against Jesus was the one which the accusers stated, that "This man said:

I am able to destroy the temple of God and to raise it up in three days";

whereas he was in fact speaking of the temple of his body, but they, as not understanding, supposed they were hearing—according to the intention of the speaker—that his word was about the stone temple, which was honored among the Jews more than was fitting, instead of honoring as one ought the one who is truly the temple of God the Word, and of Wisdom, and of Truth.

But let someone tell how Jesus most shamefully hid himself and tried to escape.

For let someone point out what is worthy of reproach.

But since he also says that Jesus was captured, I would reply that, if being captured is something involuntary, then Jesus was not captured;

for he did not prevent himself from falling into the hands of men at the appointed time, as the Lamb of God who takes away the sin of the world.

Knowing, then, all the things that were coming upon him, he went out and said to them:

"Whom do you seek?" And they answered.

And Judas, who betrayed him, was also standing with them.

"I am he." They drew back and fell to the ground.

So again he asked them:

"Whom do you seek?" And again they said.

"If, then, you seek me, let these men go." Moreover, to the one who wished to help him and struck the servant of the high priest and cut off his ear, he said:

"Put your sword back into its place;

for all who take the sword will perish by the sword.

Or do you think that I cannot now appeal to my Father, and he will at once send me more than twelve legions of angels? But how then should the Scriptures be fulfilled, that it must be so?" And if anyone supposes that these too are fabrications of those who wrote the Gospels, why are not rather the words of those who out of enmity and hatred toward him and the Christians speak the fabrications, while the truth lies with those who proved the genuineness of their disposition toward Jesus by enduring whatever they did endure for the sake of his teachings? For that the disciples of Jesus should have undertaken such great endurance and steadfastness even unto death, while harboring a disposition that invented things about their teacher which were not true—

And to fair-minded people it is abundantly clear that they were convinced of the things they recorded, from the fact that they endured such great and so many sufferings for the sake of him whom they believed to be the Son of God.

Then, that he was betrayed by those whom he called disciples, the Jew in Celsus learned from the Gospels; for he spoke of "disciples," though there was only one, Judas, in order to seem to magnify the accusation;

but he did not further investigate all the things written about Judas: that Judas, falling into conflicting and opposing judgments concerning his teacher, was neither wholly bent against him with all his soul, nor with all his soul kept the reverence which a pupil owes his teacher.

He gave to the crowd that had come to arrest Jesus a sign, saying:

"Whomever I shall kiss, he it is;

seize him"—thereby preserving something of his reverence for him;

for if he had not preserved it, he would have handed him over openly, without the pretense of a kiss.

This, then, will persuade not everyone concerning Judas' purpose—that, along with his avarice and his wicked purpose to betray his teacher, he had mingled in his soul something implanted in him from the words of Jesus, bearing the appearance of a remnant, so to speak, of goodness. For it is written: "When Judas, who betrayed him, saw that he was condemned, he repented and returned the thirty pieces of silver to the chief priests and elders, saying:

I have sinned in betraying innocent blood."

And throwing down the pieces of silver in the temple, he departed; and he went and hanged himself.

But if the avaricious Judas, who also stole what was put into the money box for the account of the poor, repented and returned the thirty pieces of silver to the chief priests and elders, it is plain that the teachings of Jesus were able to produce some repentance in him, and were not in every respect despised and spat upon by the betrayer;

and the words "I have sinned in betraying innocent blood" belonged to one who was confessing the sin he had committed.

And consider how burning and how vehement the grief became in him from his repentance over what he had done, so that he could no longer endure even to live, but, throwing the silver into the temple, withdrew, went away, and hanged himself.

For he condemned himself, showing how powerful—even in the sinful Judas, the thief and betrayer—the teaching of Jesus was, since he could not utterly despise what he had learned from Jesus.

Or will Celsus and his party say that the things which indicate that Judas was not wholly apostate—even after his daring acts against his teacher—are fabrications, and that only this is true, that one of the disciples betrayed him; and will they add to what is written that he betrayed him with his whole soul? But this is implausible—to treat everything in the same documents as one would an enemy's, both believing and disbelieving.

But if it is necessary to set forth also some persuasive argument concerning Judas, we will say that in the book of Psalms the whole one hundred and eighth psalm contains the prophecy concerning Judas, the beginning of which is:

"O God of my praise, be not silent, for the mouth of the sinner and the mouth of the deceitful is opened against me."

And it is prophesied in it also that Judas separated himself, because of his sin, from the number of the apostles, and that another was chosen into his place;

and this is shown in the words "and may another take his office." But come now, suppose that he had been betrayed by one of the disciples worse disposed than Judas and, as it were, pouring out all the words he had heard from Jesus;

what does this contribute to an accusation of Jesus or of Christianity? And how does this prove the doctrine false? But we have already given a defense concerning the points that follow, and in those preceding these, showing that Jesus was not captured while fleeing, but willingly handed himself over for us all.

From which it follows that, even if he was bound, he was bound willingly, teaching us not unwillingly to undertake such things for the sake of piety.

Childish, too, seem to me arguments such as these: that a good general who has led many myriads was never betrayed; nor even a wicked robber-chief and leader of utter scoundrels, who seemed to be of benefit to his associates;

but he, having been betrayed by those under him, neither ruled as a good general, nor, having deceived the disciples, did he instill in those he deceived even the goodwill one has toward a robber-chief, so to speak.

For one might find many accounts of generals betrayed by their own people, and of robber-chiefs captured because of those who did not keep their compacts with them.

But grant that no general or robber-chief has ever been betrayed;

that Aristotle, after departing, accused the doctrine of the immortality of the soul, and called the Ideas of Plato mere prattle? And, raising still further difficulties, we might say such things as these:

Was Plato then no longer capable in dialectic, nor able to set forth his thoughts, because Aristotle departed from him; and on this account are Plato's doctrines false? Or is it possible, even though Plato is true (as those who philosophize after his manner would say), that Aristotle became wicked and ungrateful toward his teacher? Moreover, Chrysippus too in many places of his writings is found attacking Cleanthes, innovating beyond what had been held by that man, who had been his teacher while he was still young and at the beginnings of philosophy.

And yet Aristotle is said to have studied under Plato for twenty years, and Chrysippus too to have spent no little time pursuing his studies with Cleanthes;

but Judas spent not even three years with Jesus.

And from the things written in the Lives of the philosophers one might find many such instances of the kind for which Celsus accuses Jesus on account of Judas.

The Pythagoreans, moreover, used even to build cenotaphs for those who, after being turned toward philosophy, relapsed into the life of laymen;

and on this account Pythagoras and his followers were not the weaker in argument and demonstration.

After this the Jew in Celsus says that, though he has many true things to say about what happened in the case of Jesus, things not at all like those written by the disciples of Jesus, he willingly passes them over.

What, then, are the true things, not such as are written in the Gospels, which the Jew in Celsus passes over? Or, employing a seeming rhetorical cleverness, does he pretend to have something to say, while in fact he had nothing to bring forward outside the Gospel that could strike the hearer as true and as plainly accusing Jesus and his teaching? And he charges the disciples with having fabricated the claim that Jesus foreknew and foretold everything that befell him.

And this too, being true—even if Celsus is unwilling—we will establish from many other things prophetically spoken by the Savior, in which he foretold the things that would happen to Christians in later generations as well.

And who would not marvel at the prediction "And you will be brought before governors and kings for my sake, as a testimony to them and to the Gentiles," and whatever else he foretold about his disciples being persecuted?

For on account of what doctrine among those that have arisen among men are others also punished, that one of the accusers of Jesus might say that, seeing the impious or false doctrines being accused, he thought to dignify even this by ostensibly foretelling concerning himself? For if men ought indeed to be brought before governors and kings on account of doctrines, who else ought it to be than the Epicureans, who altogether abolish providence, and also the Peripatetics, who say that prayers and sacrifices offered to the divine accomplish nothing? But someone will say that the Samaritans too are persecuted on account of their own religion.

The Sicarii are put to death on account of circumcision, as mutilating contrary to the established laws and to what is permitted to the Jews alone.

And one cannot hear a judge inquiring whether the Sicarius, contending to live according to this so-called religion, will be released if he changes his mind, but if he persists will be led away to death;

but rather it suffices that circumcision be shown for the destruction of him who has undergone it.

But Christians alone, according to the things spoken by their Savior, who says:

"You will be brought before governors and kings for my sake"—even to their last breath are permitted by the judges, if they abjure Christianity and sacrifice according to the common customs and swear, to go home and live without danger.

And see whether it is not with much authority that the saying is uttered: "Everyone who confesses me before men, I also will confess him before my Father who is in heaven;

and everyone who denies me before men," and what follows.

Ascend with me in thought to Jesus speaking these things, and observe that they were being prophesied while not yet come to pass—unless, disbelieving him, you will say that he babbles these things and speaks in vain (for the things spoken will not come about), or, doubting whether to assent to his words, you will say: only if these things be fulfilled and the teaching of Jesus' words be established, so that the governors and kings take pains to destroy those who confess Jesus, then we shall believe that he says these things as one who has received great authority from God to sow this word among the human race, and being confident that it would prevail.

And who would not marvel, ascending in thought to that one teaching and saying at that time:

"This gospel will be preached in all the world as a testimony to them and to the Gentiles," and beholding, according to what was spoken by him, the gospel of Jesus Christ proclaimed in every creature under heaven, to Greeks and barbarians, to wise and foolish? For the word spoken with power has prevailed over every nature of men;

and there is no nation of men to be seen that has escaped receiving the teaching of Jesus.

But let the unbelieving Jew in Celsus, concerning Jesus' foreknowing all that befell him, consider in what manner, while Jerusalem still stood and all the Jewish worship was being carried on in it, Jesus foretold the things that would befall it at the hands of the Romans.

For surely they will not say that Jesus' own acquaintances and hearers handed down the teaching of the Gospels without writing, and left the disciples without written records concerning Jesus.

For it is written in them: "But when you see Jerusalem surrounded by armies, then know that its desolation has drawn near." And in no way were there then armies around Jerusalem encircling, hemming in, and besieging it.

For this began while Nero was still reigning, and continued until the rule of Vespasian;

whose son Titus destroyed Jerusalem—as Josephus writes, on account of James the Just, the brother of Jesus called the Christ, but as the truth attests, on account of Jesus the Christ of God.

Celsus, indeed, having accepted or conceded that Jesus foreknew the things that would befall him, could have made light of this, as he did in the matter of the miracles, asserting that they were done by sorcery; and he could indeed have said that many people, by divinations from omens, or birds, or sacrifices, or astrology, have come to know what would befall them.

But this he was unwilling to concede as being too great, while, having somehow accepted that Jesus performed the miracles, he seems to have slandered it under the pretext of sorcery.

Phlegon, however, in the thirteenth or fourteenth book, I think, of his Chronicles, even attributed to Christ the foreknowledge of certain future events—though he was confused, taking matters concerning Peter as if concerning Jesus—and bore witness that the things spoken came to pass in accordance with what had been foretold by him.

Yet even he, through the matter of foreknowledge, declared, as it were unwillingly, that the word concerning the doctrines among our forefathers was not devoid of a more divine power.

Celsus says that the disciples of Jesus, having nothing to allege in a conspicuous affair, devised this—to say that he had foreknown all things; not having attended, or not willing to attend, to the love of truth in the writers, who confessed that Jesus had also foretold to his disciples, "You will all fall away because of me this night," and that they spoke the truth when they fell away, and that he had also prophesied to Peter:

"Before the cock crows you will deny me three times," and that Peter denied him three times.

For if they had not been lovers of truth, but, as Celsus supposes, were recording fabrications, they would not have recorded Peter denying him, or the disciples of Jesus falling away.

For who, even if these things had happened, would have refuted the account, alleging that it turned out so? And yet, in all likelihood, these things ought to have been kept silent by men who wished to teach those who read the Gospels to despise death for the sake of the confession of Christianity;

but seeing that the word would prevail over men by its power, they set down even such things as these, which, I know not how, would neither harm those who read them nor furnish any excuse for denial.

He says very foolishly that the disciples wrote such things about Jesus by way of excusing what concerned him.

It is, he says, as if someone calling a man righteous should show him doing wrong, and calling him holy should show him committing murder, and calling him immortal should show him dead—adding to all these that he happened to have foretold them.

For at the outset his illustration is dissimilar, since there is nothing absurd that one who had taken on the goal set before men—concerning how one ought to live—should have shown how one ought to die for the sake of piety; apart from the fact that his dying for men became of benefit to the whole, as we showed in the preceding book.

Then he thinks that the whole confession of the passion confirms the charge and does not dissolve it.

For he did not see how much has been philosophically expounded about this even in Paul, and said by the prophets.

And it escaped him that some among the heretical sects say that Jesus suffered these things only in appearance, not really having suffered them.

For neither did you (Christians) say this, that he seemed to impious men to suffer these things but did not suffer; rather you openly confess that he truly suffered.

But we do not apply the word 'seeming' to his suffering, lest his resurrection too be false rather than true.

For he who truly died, if he rose, truly rose; but he who only seemed to have died did not truly rise.

Since the unbelievers scoff at the resurrection of Jesus Christ, we will adduce both Plato saying that Er the son of Armenius rose from the funeral pyre after twelve days and reported the things in Hades; and, as against unbelievers, the account of the man without breath in Heraclides will not be wholly useless to the topic.

And many are recorded to have returned from their tombs, not only on the same day but indeed on the following day too.

What wonder, then, if he who did many marvellous deeds beyond man, and so manifest that those unable to face the fact of their having happened maligned them by making them common with sorceries, also had something more about his own death—

namely, that his soul willingly left the body, and having arranged certain things outside it returned again when it willed? Such a saying is recorded in John as having been spoken by Jesus, in the words:

'No one takes my soul (life) from me, but I lay it down of myself.'

'I have authority to lay it down, and again I have authority to take it up.'

And perhaps for this reason he departed from the body beforehand, in order to preserve it and that its legs might not be broken as were those of the robbers crucified with him.

For of the first the soldiers broke the legs, and of the other crucified with him;

but coming to Jesus and seeing that he had already expired, they did not break his legs. We have therefore also spoken to this point:

'Whence, then, is the foretelling credible?' And as to 'whence is the dead man immortal?'—let whoever wishes learn that it is not the dead man who is immortal, but he who rose from the dead.

Therefore not only is the dead man not immortal, but neither was Jesus the composite being, before death, immortal, seeing that he was about to die.

For no one who is about to die is immortal; rather he is immortal when he will no longer die.

But Christ, raised from the dead, dies no more;

death no longer has dominion over him;

even though those who are unable to comprehend how these things are said do not wish to understand.

'What god or daemon or sensible man, foreknowing that such things would befall him, would not—if indeed he could—have turned aside, instead of falling in with what he foreknew? And Socrates at any rate knew that he would die from drinking the hemlock, and could, had he been persuaded by Crito, have escaped from prison and suffered none of these things; yet he chose, according to what seemed reasonable to him, that it was better to die as a philosopher than to live unphilosophically.'

Moreover Leonidas the Spartan general, knowing that he would presently die with those at Thermopylae, did not contrive to live disgracefully, but said to those with him:

'Let us breakfast as men who shall dine in Hades.'

They will find many such instances to gather together.

And what wonder is it if Jesus, knowing the things that would befall him, did not turn aside but fell in with what he foreknew? Even Paul his disciple, on hearing what would befall him as he went up to Jerusalem, went to meet the dangers, rebuking those who wept over him and tried to hinder him from going up to Jerusalem.

And many even of our own people, knowing that by confessing Christianity they will die, but by denying it will be released and recover their property, despised life and willingly chose death for piety's sake.

Next to this the Jew in Celsus says another silly thing: how is it that, if he foretold both the one who would betray him and the one who would deny him, they did not fear him as a god, so that the one should not betray and the other should not deny? And the most wise Celsus did not see the self-contradiction in this point: that if he, as a god, foreknew, and his foreknowledge could not be falsified, then it was impossible either that the one known as betrayer should not betray, or that the one declared to be the denier should not deny;

but if it were possible that the one should not betray and the other should not deny—so that the not-betraying and the not-denying could come to pass in those who had foreknowledge of these things—then he who said 'this one will betray and that one will deny' was no longer telling the truth.

For even if he foreknew the betrayer, he saw the wickedness from which he would betray, which was by no means overturned by the foreknowledge.

And again, if he had grasped the one who would deny, seeing the weakness from which he would deny, he foretold that he would deny;

and the weakness was not going to be overturned all at once by the foreknowledge.

'But did they themselves betray and deny, taking no thought of him?' For it was shown concerning the betrayer that it is false that he betrayed his teacher with no concern at all;

and no less is this shown concerning the denier, who, after denying, went out and wept bitterly. And superficial too is this:

For already even a man who is plotted against and perceives it beforehand, if he warns the plotters, they desist and are on their guard;

yet many have carried out plots even against those who were plotted against and had foreknowledge of it.

Next, as if drawing the conclusion of his argument, he says:

'It is not because these things were foretold that they happened, for that is impossible;

but because they happened, the foretelling is convicted of falsehood;

for it is utterly impossible that those who had heard beforehand should still betray and deny.'

And with the overthrow of the premises, the conclusion too was overthrown:

'It is not because these things were foretold that they happened.'

But we say that they did happen, as was possible; and since they happened, the foretelling is shown to be true;

for the truth concerning future things is judged by the outcomes.

False, therefore, is what was thus said by him, that 'the foretelling is convicted of falsehood'; and Celsus said in vain:

'for it is utterly impossible that those who had heard beforehand should still betray and deny.'

After this let us see how he says:

'These things,' he says, 'being a god he foretold, and it was wholly necessary that what was foretold should come to pass.'

'A god, then, led his own disciples and prophets, with whom he ate and drank, to this—that they became impious and unholy; whereas above all men he ought to have benefited them, and especially his own table-companions.'

'Or would one who shared a man's table not afterward plot against him, while one who feasted with a god became a plotter? And what is still more absurd, the god himself plotted against his table-companions, making them traitors and impious.'

And to these things, since you wish that we should also confront what seem to me the paltry arguments of Celsus, we will say the following.

Celsus thinks that what is decreed by some foreknowledge comes to pass because it was decreed;

but we, not granting this, say that it is not the one who decreed that is the cause of what will be, in that he foretold it as going to happen; rather it is the future event—which would be future even if not decreed—that furnished to the one who foreknows the occasion for foretelling it.

And the whole of this lies in the foreknowledge of the one who decrees it;

namely, that of some particular thing capable both of happening and of not happening, one or the other of these two—this particular one—will be.

And we do not say that the one who foreknows, taking away the possibility of its happening and not happening, says as it were something like this:

'This will wholly be, and it is impossible for it to happen otherwise.'

And such a consideration applies to every foreknowledge of something that lies in our power, whether according to the divine Scriptures or according to the histories of the Greeks.

And the so-called 'idle argument' among the dialecticians, being a sophism, will not be a sophism so far as Celsus is concerned, yet according to sound reasoning it is a sophism.

That such a thing may be understood, from Scripture I will use the prophecies concerning Judas, or our Saviour's foreknowledge of him as the one who would betray;

and from the Greek histories, the oracle given to Laius—granting for the present that it is true, since it does not harm the argument.

Concerning Judas, then, it is said in the one hundred and eighth Psalm, from the person of the Saviour, whose beginning is:

'O God, do not pass over my praise in silence;