Against Celsus 2.51–2.64

Celsus had some inkling of Scripture when he made Jesus say that a certain Satan will contrive such things. But he also snatches at the argument, claiming that Jesus does not deny that these things have nothing divine but are the works of wicked men; for he has made them of one kind when they are of different kinds. And just as a wolf is not of one kind with a dog, even if it seems to have something similar in the shape of its body and its voice, nor a wood-pigeon with a dove, so what is accomplished by the power of God has nothing like what comes from sorcery. We shall say this too against Celsus's malicious tricks: do miracles happen by sorcery from wicked daemons, while no miracle is accomplished by the divine and blessed nature? Has human life borne the worse and in no way admitted the better? It seems to me one should set this down as a rule for all cases: where something worse pretends to be of the same kind as the better, there must certainly be, on the opposite side, something better. So too with those who perform things by sorcery: there must certainly also be things done in life by divine working. And it follows for the same person either to do away with both and say that neither happens, or, positing the one, and especially the worse, to acknowledge the better too. If anyone should posit that things happen by sorcery, but not posit that things happen by divine power, he seems to me like one who posits that there are sophisms and plausible arguments that miss the truth while pretending to present it, but that truth and a dialectic free of sophisms dwell nowhere among human beings. If we once accept that it follows from the real existence of magic and sorcery, worked by wicked daemons who are charmed by curious invocations and obey sorcerers, that there must also be found among human beings works of divine power, why should we not test those who profess miracles closely, by their life and character and by what follows their miracles, whether to people's harm or to the correction of their morals: who does such things serving daemons through certain incantations and trickery, and who, having come to a pure and holy standing before God in his soul and spirit, and I think in his body too, and having received some divine spirit, does such things for people's benefit and to turn them to believe in the true God? And if we must once inquire, without being carried away by the miracles, who does such things from the better and who from the worse, so that we neither slander all nor admire and accept all as divine, how will it not be evident from what happened in the case of Moses and of Jesus, when whole nations were formed after their signs, that these men did by divine power what they are recorded to have done? For wickedness and trickery would not have formed a whole nation that passed beyond not only images and things set up by human beings but all created nature, and rose to the uncreated source of the God of the universe.

Since the one who says these things in Celsus is a Jew, we might say to him: “You, sir, why have you believed that what is written in your books as accomplished by God through Moses is divine, and try to argue against those who slander it as done by sorcery like the works of the wise men of Egypt, while you, imitating the Egyptians who oppose you, accuse what Jesus did, which even you admit happened, of not being divine? For if the outcome, and the whole nation formed through the wonders in Moses, establishes clearly that it was God who did these things in the time of Moses, how will this not be shown still more in the case of Jesus, who did a greater work than Moses? Moses took those of the nation descended from Abraham, who had kept circumcision by succession and were zealous for the customs of Abraham, and so were more ready, and led them out of Egypt, setting before them the divine laws which you have believed. But Jesus, daring something greater, brought in the way of life according to the gospel in place of the established way of life, ancestral customs, and upbringing according to the existing laws. And just as there was need, for Moses to be believed not only by the elders but also by the people, of the signs he is recorded to have done, why would Jesus not also, to be believed by those of the people who had learned to ask for ‘signs and wonders,’ need such miracles as, being greater and more divine than those through Moses, could draw them away from Jewish fables and the human traditions among them, and make them accept the one who taught and did these things as greater than the prophets? For how was he not greater than the prophets, who was proclaimed by the prophets as the Christ and Savior of the human race?”

And everything the Jew in Celsus says to those who believe in Jesus can be turned equally into an accusation against Moses, so that one could say that Jesus' sorcery does not differ from Moses', or is like it, since both, as far as the words of the Jew in Celsus go, can be brought under the same charges. For example, about Christ the Jew in Celsus says: “But O light and truth! With his own voice Jesus expressly declares these things, as you yourselves have written, that others too will come to you using similar powers, wicked men and sorcerers.” But about Moses one who disbelieves the writings of Moses, whether an Egyptian or anyone else, might say to the Jew: “But O light and truth! With his own voice Moses expressly declares, as you yourselves have written, that others will come to you using similar powers, wicked men and sorcerers. For it is written in your law: ‘If a prophet or one who dreams a dream arises among you and gives you a sign or a wonder, and the sign or wonder comes to pass of which he spoke to you, saying, Let us go and follow other gods whom you do not know, and let us serve them, you shall not listen to the words of that prophet or of that dreamer of dreams,’” and what follows. And as the one who slanders Jesus' words says that he names a certain Satan as contriving such things, so the one who applies this equally to Moses will say that he names a prophet who dreams as contriving such things. And as the Jew in Celsus says about Jesus, “So that not even he denies that these things are in no way divine but are the works of wicked men,” so one who disbelieves Moses will say the same to him, setting out the passage quoted: “So that not even Moses himself denies that these things are in no way divine but are the works of wicked men.” And he will do the same with this: “Compelled by the truth, Moses both revealed what others do and convicted himself.” And when the Jew also says, “How then is it not wretched to consider him a god because of the same works, and them sorcerers?”, someone might say to him, because of the words of Moses that were set out: “How then is it not wretched to consider him a prophet and servant of God because of the same works, and them sorcerers?” And since Celsus, dwelling on the passage, added to what I have set out as applying equally, “Why, on the basis of these, should we think the others wicked rather than him, when we use him as witness?”, we too shall add to what has been said something like this: “Why, on the basis of these, should we think those wicked whom Moses forbids us to obey when they display signs and wonders, rather than Moses, from the things by which he slandered others concerning signs and wonders?” Saying more to the same effect, so as to seem to strengthen his argument, he says: “He himself admitted that these are the marks not of a divine nature but of certain deceivers and utterly wicked men.” Who, then, is “he himself”? You, Jew, say it is Jesus; but the one who accuses you as liable to the same charges will refer “he himself” to Moses.

After this, the Jew of Celsus, in his speech to his fellow citizens who have believed (to keep the character originally assigned to the Jew), says to us, forsooth: “What then led you on, except that he foretold that he would rise after he died?” This too will be applied equally to Moses, like what went before. For we shall say to him: “What then led you on, except that he wrote such things about his own death: ‘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 Phogor. And no one knows his burial place to this day’?” For just as the Jew disparages Jesus because he foretold that he would rise after he died, so one who says something similar about Moses will say in reply that Moses too wrote (for Deuteronomy too is his) that “no one knows his burial place to this day,” glorifying and exalting even his burial as unknown to the human race.

After this the Jew says to his fellow citizens who believe in Jesus: “Come now, let us even believe you that this was said. How many others tell such marvels to persuade simple hearers, making profit from their deceit? This is what they say of Zamolxis among the Scythians, the slave of Pythagoras, and of Pythagoras himself in Italy, and of Rhampsinitus in Egypt: that he even ‘played dice with Demeter’ in Hades and came up bringing ‘a golden napkin’ as ‘a gift from her’; and indeed of Orpheus among the Odrysians, Protesilaus in Thessaly, Heracles at Taenarum, and Theseus. But this must be examined: whether anyone who truly died ever rose again with the same body. Or do you think that the stories of the others are myths and seem so, while you have invented the ending of your drama becomingly or plausibly: his cry on the stake as he breathed his last, and ‘the earthquake’ and the darkness? That, although he could not help himself while alive, when dead he rose and showed the marks of his punishment: who saw this? A frantic woman, as you say, and perhaps someone else of the same sorcery, who either dreamed in a certain state of mind and, according to his own wish, had a vision in deluded fancy, which has happened to countless people, or, what is more likely, wished to astonish the rest with this marvel-mongering and by such a lie to give an opening to other beggar-priests.” Since the one saying this is a Jew, we make our defense of our Jesus as to a Jew, still applying the argument equally to Moses, and say to him: “How many others tell such marvels as Moses did, to persuade simple hearers, making profit from their deceit?” And it is more possible for one who disbelieves Moses to cite Zamolxis and Pythagoras, who told marvels, than for the Jew, who is not at all studious of Greek histories. The Egyptian, too, who disbelieves the marvels about Moses, will plausibly cite Rhampsinitus, saying that it is much more credible that he went down to Hades, played dice with Demeter, and, having snatched a golden napkin from her, showed it as a token that he had been in Hades and had come up from there, than that Moses did so, who wrote of himself that he entered “into the darkness where God was,” and that he alone drew near to God apart from the rest. For he wrote thus: “And Moses alone shall draw near to God, but the others shall not draw near.” So we, the disciples of Jesus, shall say to the Jew who says these things: “Defend yourself to us, you who accuse our faith in Jesus, and tell the Egyptian and the Greeks what you will say to the charges you have brought against our Jesus, which would first apply to Moses. And even if you strive hard to defend Moses, as indeed the account of him has a striking and clear argument, you will without noticing it, in defending Moses, have unwillingly established Jesus as more divine than Moses.”

Since the Jew in Celsus says that the heroic stories about those said to have gone down to Hades and come up from there are marvel-mongering, as if the heroes vanished for a time, stole themselves away from the sight of all people, and afterward showed themselves as though they had come up from Hades (for his words seem to suggest this about Orpheus among the Odrysians, Protesilaus in Thessaly, Heracles at Taenarum, and also Theseus), let us show that the account of Jesus' rising from the dead cannot be compared with these. Each of the heroes said to be in those places could, if he wished, have stolen himself away from people's sight and, when he decided, returned to those he had left. But since Jesus was crucified before all the Jews and his body was taken down in full view of their people, how is it possible to invent a similar story, saying that he, like the heroes of the stories, went down to Hades and came up from there? We say that perhaps this too might be said in defense of Jesus' crucifixion, especially because of the stories about heroes thought to have gone down to Hades by force: that if, hypothetically, Jesus had died an obscure death, so that his death was not evident to the whole people of the Jews, and after that had truly risen from the dead, there would have been room to say of him too what was suspected about the heroes. Perhaps, then, besides other reasons for Jesus' crucifixion, this too may contribute to his having died conspicuously on the cross: that no one could say that he deliberately withdrew from people's sight and seemed to have died but had not died, (but,) when he wished, appeared again and made a marvelous show of rising from the dead. And I think the argument from his disciples is clear and evident: they gave themselves to a teaching that was dangerous to human life, which they would not have taught so vigorously if they had invented Jesus' rising from the dead; besides which they not only prepared others to despise death but did so themselves much earlier.

Notice whether the Jew in Celsus does not speak very blindly, as if it were impossible for anyone to rise from the dead with the same body, when he says: “But this must be examined: whether anyone who truly died ever rose again with the same body.” For a Jew would not say this, believing what is recorded in the third and fourth books of Kingdoms about the boys, one of whom Elijah raised and the other Elisha. And for this reason, I think, Jesus came to no other nation than the Jews, who had become accustomed to marvels, so that by comparing what they already believed with what was done by him and recorded about him, they might accept that this one, about whom greater things happened and by whom more marvelous things were accomplished, was greater than all those.

After the Greek stories he cited about those who, as it were, told marvels and those who supposedly rose from the dead, the Jew says to those of the Jews who believe in Jesus: “Or do you think that the stories of the others are myths and seem so, while you have invented the ending of your drama becomingly or plausibly: his cry on the stake as he breathed his last?” We shall say to the Jew that we have considered the stories you cited to be myths; but we say that the contents of the Scriptures common to us and you, in which not only you but we also take pride, are in no way myths. That is why we believe those who wrote about the people raised from the dead there, as not telling marvels, and believe that the one here both foretold it, was prophesied, and rose. And he rose from the dead more marvelously than they, in that prophets, Elijah and Elisha, raised them, but none of the prophets raised him, rather the Father in heaven. That is why his resurrection also accomplished greater things than theirs. For what so great a benefit has come to the world from the boys raised through Elijah and Elisha as through the resurrection of Jesus that is preached and believed by divine power?

He thinks that the earthquake and the darkness too are marvel-mongering; about these we have made our defense above as best we could, citing Phlegon, who records that such things occurred at the time of the Savior's passion. And he says that “though he could not help himself while alive, when dead Jesus rose and showed the marks of his punishment, and his hands, how they had been pierced.” We ask him what “help himself” means. If with regard to virtue, we shall say that he helped himself very well indeed; for he neither said nor did anything improper, but truly “was led as a sheep to the slaughter, and as a lamb before its shearer is silent”; and the Gospel testifies that “so he did not” open “his mouth.” But if he takes “help himself” in terms of indifferent and bodily things, we say that we have shown from the Gospels that he came to these things willingly. Then, after citing from the Gospel that when he rose from the dead he showed the marks of his punishment and his hands, how they had been pierced, he asks, “Who saw this?” And disparaging what is said of Mary Magdalene, who is recorded as having seen him, he said: “A frantic woman, as you say.” And since not only she is recorded to have seen Jesus risen, but others too, the Jew of Celsus maligns this as well, saying: “And perhaps someone else of the same sorcery.”

Then, as if this could happen, I mean that someone should have a vision of a dead man as living, he adds like an Epicurean that someone “dreamed in a certain state of mind, or, according to his own wish, had a vision in deluded fancy,” and reported such a thing, “which,” he says, “has happened to countless people.” Even if this seemed to be very cleverly said, it nonetheless establishes a necessary doctrine: that the soul of the dead subsists, and that one who has embraced this doctrine has not believed in vain in the soul's immortality, or at least its survival; as Plato too says in his work on the soul that “shadowy apparitions” of those already dead have appeared to some people around tombs. The “apparitions” that occur concerning the soul of the dead arise from something that really exists, from the soul subsisting in what is called the luminous body. Celsus, not wishing this, will have it that some people dream even while awake and, according to their own wish, have visions in deluded fancy. It is not unreasonable to believe that this happens in a dream; but that it happens while awake to those who are not wholly out of their minds, delirious, or melancholic is not credible. Celsus foresaw this and said the woman was frantic, which the recorded story, from which he takes his accusation, does not suggest.

So, as Celsus thinks, Jesus after death sent out an image of the wounds on the cross, and was not truly so wounded. But as the Gospel teaches, which Celsus believes in some parts when he wishes, so as to accuse, and disbelieves in others, Jesus called to him one of the disciples who disbelieved and thought the marvel impossible. For that disciple had agreed with the woman who said she had seen him, as though it were not impossible for the soul of a dead man to be seen; but he no longer thought it true that he had been raised in a solid body. So he said, “Unless I see,” “I will not believe,” and added: “Unless I put my hand into the mark of the nails and touch his side, I will not believe.” These things were said by Thomas, who judged that a soul's body could appear to the eyes of sense, “like in all things” to its former form, “in stature, and fair eyes, and voice,” and often “with such garments about its skin.” And Jesus called Thomas and said: “Bring your finger here and see my hands; and bring your hand and put it into my side; and do not be unbelieving, but believing.”

And it was consistent with all the prophecies about him, among which was this one too, and with his deeds and what happened to him, that this should be marvelous beyond all. For it had been foretold in the person of Jesus in the prophet: “My flesh shall dwell in hope; for you will not abandon my soul to Hades, nor let your holy one see corruption.” And at his resurrection he was, as it were, on a borderline between the density of the body before the passion and a soul appearing stripped of such a body. So, when “his disciples” were together “and Thomas with them, Jesus came, the doors being shut, and stood in the midst and said, Peace be with you. Then he said to Thomas, Bring your finger here,” and what follows. And in the Gospel according to Luke, while Simon and Cleopas were talking “with each other about all that had happened” to them, Jesus came up to them and “went with them. But their eyes were kept from recognizing him; and he said to them, What are these words that you are exchanging with each other as you walk?” And when “their eyes were opened and they recognized him,” then Scripture says in these very words: “And he vanished from their sight.” So even if Celsus wishes to put what concerns Jesus and those who saw him after the resurrection on the same level as other apparitions and others who saw visions, to those who examine the matter fairly and intelligently it will appear the more marvelous.

After this Celsus, in a way not to be despised, disparages what is written, saying that, if Jesus really wished to show divine power, he ought to have appeared to those who had insulted him, to the one who condemned him, and in short to everyone. For truly it seems to us too, according to the Gospel, that after the resurrection he was not seen in the way he appeared before, publicly and to all. Rather, it is written in the Acts that, “appearing over forty days” to the disciples, he proclaimed “the things concerning the kingdom of God”; and in the Gospels, not that he was always with them, but that once, after eight days, he appeared among them “when the doors were shut,” and at other times in similar ways. And Paul, at the end of the first letter to the Corinthians, as if he had not been seen publicly as in the time before the passion, writes thus: “For I delivered to you as of first importance what I also received, that Christ died for our sins according to the Scriptures,” “and that he appeared to Cephas, then to the twelve. Then he appeared to more than five hundred brothers at once, most of whom remain until now, though some have fallen asleep. Then he appeared to James, then to all the apostles. And last of all, as to one untimely born, he appeared to me also.” I consider what concerns this passage to be great and wonderful things, beyond the capacity not only of most believers but even of those well advanced; in them the reason could be shown why, having risen from the dead, he did not appear as in the former time. From many things, as is fitting in such a work, written in reply to a treatise against Christians and their faith, see whether by setting out a few we shall be able reasonably to reach those who will hear this defense.

Jesus, though one, was many in aspect, and was not seen alike by all who saw him. That he was many in aspect is clear from “I am the way and the truth and the life,” “I am the bread,” “I am the door,” and countless others. That even when seen he did not appear in the same way to those who saw him, but according to their capacity, will be clear to those who consider why, when he was about to be transfigured on the high mountain, he did not take even all the apostles, but only Peter, James, and John, as alone able to behold his glory at that time, and able also to perceive Moses and Elijah, who appeared in glory, and to hear them talking together and the voice from heaven out of the cloud. And I think that even before he went up the mountain, where only the disciples came to him and he taught them the Beatitudes, when he was somewhere below the mountain and, “evening having come,” healed those brought to him, delivering them from every disease and every sickness, he did not appear the same to the sick who needed his healing as to those who, being healthy, were able to go up the mountain with him. Moreover, if he privately explained to his own disciples the parables spoken with concealment to the crowds outside, then just as those who heard the explanation of the parables were superior in hearing to those who heard the parables without explanation, so too were they in seeing: certainly with the eyes of the soul, and I think also of the body. That he did not always appear the same is shown by Judas, when about to betray him, saying to the crowds who went with him, as to people who did not know him: “The one I kiss, he is the man.” I think the Savior himself also suggests something like this in the words: “Day after day I was with you in the temple teaching, and you did not seize me.” Since we hold such a view of Jesus, not only regarding the divinity within him, hidden from the many, but also regarding his body, which was transformed when he wished and for whom he wished, we say that all were able to see Jesus while he had not yet stripped off “the principalities and the powers” and had not yet died “to sin”; but when he had stripped off “the principalities and the powers” and no longer had anything that could be seen by the many, not all those who had seen him before were able to see him. Therefore, sparing them, he did not appear to all when he had risen from the dead.