Against Celsus 1.25

And perhaps the danger is no less for one who brings down the name of God, or the name of the good, to things to which it should not be applied, than for one who exchanges names that belong to some secret doctrine, applying those of lesser things to greater and those of greater things to lesser. And I do not say that with the name Zeus there is at once heard also the son of Cronus and Rhea, the husband of Hera, the brother of Poseidon, the father of Athena and Artemis, the one who had intercourse with his daughter Persephone; or that with Apollo there is heard the son of Leto and Zeus, the brother of Artemis, and half-brother of Hermes on his father's side—and all the other things brought forward by Celsus's wise fathers of doctrine and the ancient theologians of the Greeks. For what arbitrary choice is it that Zeus should be named properly, but that his father should not be Cronus and his mother Rhea? The same must be done with the other so-called gods. But this charge in no way touches those who, according to some secret doctrine, apply Sabaoth to God, or Adonai, or any of the other names. And when someone can philosophize about the secret teachings on names, he may find much also about the naming of God's angels, of whom one is called Michael, another Gabriel, and another Raphael, in accordance with the tasks they serve in the universe by the will of the God of all. The name of our Jesus also belongs to the same philosophy of names; it has already been clearly seen to drive countless demons out of souls and bodies, exerting its power on those from whom they were driven out. Further, on the subject of names, we must say that those skilled in the use of incantations report that when the same incantation is spoken in its own language it can accomplish what the incantation promises, but when translated into any other language whatever it can be seen to be weak and powerless. So it is not the things signified but the qualities and properties of the sounds that have some power in themselves for this or that. In this way we will also defend Christians who struggle even to death rather than proclaim Zeus as god or name him in another language. For they confess either the common name "God" without further qualification, or with the addition: "the maker of the universe, the creator of heaven and earth, who sent down to the human race such-and-such wise men"—so that the name "God," when joined to this name, accomplishes a certain power among human beings. Much else could be said on names against those who think we should be indifferent about using them. And if Plato is admired for saying in the Philebus, "My fear, Protarchus, about the names of the gods is not small," because Philebus, Socrates' partner in conversation, had called pleasure a god, how much more shall we approve the reverence of Christians who attach to the maker of the universe none of the names used in the making of myths? But enough of this for now.