Against Celsus 2.8–2.16

He says that "many others too, of the same kind as Jesus, would appear to those who wish to be deceived." Then let Celsus's Jew show not many, nor even a few, but even one such as Jesus was, bringing to the human race, with the power that was in him, a teaching and doctrines useful for life, and turning people from the flood of sins. He says that "this charge is brought against the Jews by those who believe in Christ, that they have not believed in Jesus as God"; about this too we have already made our defense above, showing at the same time in what way we understand him as God and in what respect we call him man. "But how," he says, "would we, who made known to all men that one would come from God to punish the unrighteous, dishonor him when he came?" To answer this, since it is quite silly, does not seem to me reasonable. It is as if someone else were to say: "How could we who taught self-control do anything licentious, or we who advocate justice do wrong?" For as those things are found among human beings, so it was human that those who said they believed the prophets, who spoke of the Christ who would come, disbelieved the one who came according to the prophecies. And if we must add another reason, we will say that the prophets foretold this very thing. Isaiah, at any rate, clearly says: "Hearing you will hear and will not understand, and seeing you will see and will not perceive; for the heart of this people has grown fat," and so on. And let them tell us to whom, hearing and seeing, it is prophesied that they will not understand what is said and will not see what is seen in the way they ought, if not to the Jews. It is clear, then, that seeing Jesus they did not see who he was, and hearing him they did not understand from what he said the divinity in him, which transferred God's visitation of the Jews to those from the nations who believe in him. So one can see after the coming of Jesus that the Jews have been wholly abandoned and have nothing of what was formerly thought venerable among them, not even any sign that there is some divinity among them. For there are no longer prophets or wonders, of which traces to some extent are found among Christians, and some even "greater"; and, if we are to be believed when we say it, we too have seen them. Celsus's Jew says: "Why did we dishonor the one we proclaimed beforehand? Was it so that we might be punished more than others?" To this too one can say that because of their unbelief in Jesus and all the other insults they heaped on him, the Jews will suffer more than others not only at the judgment in which we believe, but have already suffered. For what nation has been exiled from its own capital and from the place proper to its ancestral worship except the Jews alone? And they have suffered this as the most wretched of peoples, though they sinned much, for nothing so much as for what they dared against our Jesus.

After this the Jew says: "How were we to think this man a god, who in other respects too, as was commonly heard, showed nothing of what he professed, and when we had convicted and condemned him and judged him worthy of punishment, was caught hiding and running away most disgracefully, and was betrayed by those very people whom he called disciples? Yet," he says, "if he was a god, it was not possible for him to flee, nor to be bound and led away; least of all for one thought to be a savior and the son of the greatest God and his messenger to be deserted and handed over by those who were with him, shared everything with him privately, and had him as their teacher." To this we will say that we too do not suppose that the body of Jesus, then seen and perceptible, was God. And why do I say the body? Not even the soul, about which it is said, "My soul is very sorrowful, even to death." But just as, according to the Jewish account, the one who says, "I am the Lord, the God of all flesh," and "Before me there was no other god, and after me there will be none," is believed to be God, using the soul and body of the prophet as an instrument; and, according to the Greeks, the one who says, "I know the number of the sand and the measures of the sea, and I understand the dumb and hear the one who does not speak," is thought to be a god speaking and heard through the Pythia; so in our view the Word, God and Son of the God of all, said in Jesus, "I am the way and the truth and the life," and "I am the door," and "I am the living bread that came down from heaven," and anything else similar. We blame the Jews, then, for not thinking him God, who is attested in many places by the prophets as being a great power and God next to the God and Father of all. For we say that it was to him that the Father gave the command, in the account of creation according to Moses, saying, "Let there be light," and "Let there be a firmament," and all the other things God commanded to come into being; and to him that he said, "Let us make man according to our image and likeness"; and that the Word, having been commanded, made all things that the Father enjoined on him. And we say this not on our own initiative, but believing the prophecies current among the Jews, in which it is said about God and the things he made, in these very words: "For he spoke, and they came into being; he commanded, and they were created." For if God commanded and the creatures were created, who, according to the mind of the prophetic Spirit, could be the one able to fulfill so great a command of the Father, if not the one who is, so to speak, the living Word and "the truth"? That the Gospels do not know the one who says in Jesus, "I am the way and the truth and the life," to have been circumscribed, as though he existed nowhere outside the soul and body of Jesus, is clear from many passages, and from a few that we will set out, which run thus. John the Baptist, prophesying that the Son of God would soon appear—not existing only in that body and soul but reaching everywhere—says of him: "Among you stands one whom you do not know, who comes after me." If he had thought that the Son of God was only where the visible body of Jesus was, how could he have said, "Among you stands one whom you do not know"? And Jesus himself, raising the thoughts of his disciples to think greater things about the Son of God, says: "Where two or three are gathered in my name, there am I in their midst." Such too is his promise to the disciples, saying: "And behold, I am with you always, to the end of the age." We say these things not separating the Son of God from Jesus; for after the incarnation the soul and body of Jesus became, in the highest degree, one with the Word of God. For if, according to the teaching of Paul, who says, "He who is joined to the Lord is one spirit," everyone who has understood what it is to be joined to the Lord, and has been joined to him, is one spirit with the Lord, how much more divinely and greatly is that composite being one with the Word of God? He showed among the Jews that he was "the power of God" by the wonders he did, which Celsus suspected were done by sorcery, and the Jews of that time—who had learned the things about Beelzebul I know not where—thought he cast out "the demons by Beelzebul, the ruler of the demons." Our Savior refuted them there for speaking most absurdly, since the kingdom of wickedness had not yet come to an end; this will be clear to those who read the Gospel text with understanding, which there is no time to explain now.

What did Jesus promise and not do? Let Celsus set it out and prove it. But he will not be able to, especially since he thinks he brings what he says against Jesus or against us either from misunderstandings, or from readings of the Gospels, or from Jewish stories. But since the Jew says again, "We convicted and condemned him and judged him worthy of punishment," let them show how those who sought to contrive false witness against him convicted him—unless the great proof against Jesus was what the accusers said, that "this man said: I am able to destroy the temple of God and to raise it in three days." For he "was speaking of the temple of his body," while they, not knowing how to hear according to the intention of the speaker, thought that his words were about the stone temple, which the Jews honored more than the true temple of God the Word, of wisdom and of truth, ought to be honored. And let someone say how Jesus "hid and ran away most disgracefully"; let someone point out what deserves reproach. But since he says also that he "was caught," I would say that if being caught is involuntary, Jesus was not caught. For at the suitable time he did not prevent himself from coming into the hands of men, as "the Lamb of God," that he might take away "the sin of the world." "Knowing all that was coming upon him, he went out and said to them: Whom do you seek? They answered: Jesus of Nazareth. He said to them: I am he. Judas, who was betraying him, was standing with them. When he said to them, I am he, they drew back and fell to the ground. So he asked them again: Whom do you seek? And they said again: Jesus of Nazareth. Jesus answered them: I told you that I am he; so if you seek me, let these men go." And to the one who wished to help him and struck "the high priest's slave" 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? How then would the Scriptures be fulfilled, that it must happen so?" If someone thinks these things are inventions of those who wrote the Gospels, why are not rather the words of those who speak from enmity and hatred toward him and the Christians inventions, and the words of those who showed the genuineness of their devotion to Jesus by enduring anything whatever for his words the truth? For that the disciples of Jesus took upon themselves such endurance and steadfastness even to death, while inventing things about their teacher that were not so … And to the fair-minded the evidence is great that they were persuaded of what they wrote, from their having endured such great and so many things for the one they believed to be the Son of God.

Then Celsus's Jew learned from the Gospels that Jesus "was betrayed by those he called disciples," calling the one Judas many disciples in order to seem to increase the charge. But he did not trouble himself further with everything recorded about Judas: that Judas, falling into conflicting and contrary judgments about his teacher, neither turned against him with his whole soul nor kept with his whole soul the respect of a pupil for his teacher. For "he who betrayed him gave" the crowd that came to arrest Jesus "a sign, saying: The one I kiss is he; seize him," preserving some of his respect for him; for if he had not preserved it, he would have betrayed him openly, without the pretense of a kiss. Will this not persuade everyone about Judas's intention—that together with his love of money and his wicked intention to betray his teacher, he had something mixed in his soul, produced in him by the words of Jesus, which showed, so to speak, a remnant of goodness? For it is written that "when Judas, who betrayed him, saw that he was condemned, he repented and brought back the thirty pieces of silver to the chief priests and elders, saying: I have sinned in betraying innocent blood. But they said: What is that to us? See to it yourself. And throwing the silver into the temple, he departed, and went and hanged himself." If Judas, the lover of money, who stole what was put into "the money box" for the poor, "repented and brought back the thirty pieces of silver to the chief priests and elders," clearly the teachings of Jesus were able to produce some repentance in him, and were not wholly despised and spat out by the traitor; and the words "I have sinned in betraying innocent blood" were those of one confessing his sin. See how burning and violent was the grief that came upon him from repentance for his sins, so that he could no longer bear to live, but threw the silver "into the temple," departed, went away, and hanged himself. For he condemned himself, showing how much power the teaching of Jesus had even in the sinner Judas, the thief and traitor, who could not wholly despise what he had learned from Jesus. Or will Celsus and his friends say that the things showing that Judas was not wholly apostate, even after what he dared against his teacher, are inventions, 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? It is implausible to do everything as an enemy with the same writings, both believing and disbelieving. And if we must also set out an argument about Judas that should put them to shame, we will say that in the book of Psalms the whole of the hundred and eighth Psalm contains the prophecy about Judas, which begins: "O God, do not keep silent at my praise, for the mouth of a sinner and the mouth of a deceitful man has been opened against me." It is also prophesied in it that Judas separated himself from the number of the apostles because of his sin, and another was chosen in his place; and this is shown in the words, "And let another take his office." But suppose he was betrayed by one of the disciples worse disposed than Judas, who, as it were, poured out all the words he had heard from Jesus: what does this contribute to an accusation of Jesus or of Christianity? And how does it prove the teaching false? We have already answered what follows in what went before, showing that Jesus was not caught fleeing but gave himself up willingly for us all. From this it follows that if he was bound, he was bound willingly, teaching us to accept such things willingly for the sake of godliness.

Childish too, it seems to me, are such things as this: that "a good general who led many thousands was never betrayed, nor even a wicked robber chief, the leader of utter villains, who seemed useful to his companions; but he, betrayed by those under him, neither ruled as a good general, nor, having deceived his disciples, produced in those deceived even the goodwill, so to speak, that robbers have toward their chief." For one could find many stories of generals betrayed by their own men and of robber chiefs caught through those who did not keep their agreements with them. But suppose no general or robber chief was ever betrayed: what does it contribute to the case against Jesus that one of his pupils became his betrayer? Since Celsus parades philosophy, we would ask him: was it an accusation against Plato that Aristotle, after twenty years of hearing him, left him and attacked the argument for the immortality of the soul, and called Plato's Forms "twitterings"? And, raising further difficulties, we might say this: was Plato no longer capable in dialectic, nor able to present his thoughts, because Aristotle left him, and are Plato's doctrines false for this reason? Or can Plato be right, as those who philosophize according to him would say, while Aristotle became wicked and ungrateful to his teacher? Chrysippus too is seen in many places in his writings to attack Cleanthes, introducing innovations against his views, though Cleanthes had been his teacher when he was still young and beginning philosophy. Yet Aristotle is said to have studied with Plato for twenty years, and Chrysippus spent no short time with Cleanthes; but Judas did not spend even three years with Jesus. And from what is written in the lives of the philosophers one could find many things like those for which Celsus blames Jesus on account of Judas. The Pythagoreans used to build cenotaphs for those who, after being turned to philosophy, ran back to ordinary life; and Pythagoras and his followers were not weak in argument and demonstration for that reason.

After this Celsus's Jew says: "Though I have many things to say about what happened to Jesus, both true and not like what was written by Jesus' disciples, I deliberately pass them over." What, then, are these true things, not like those written in the Gospels, which Celsus's Jew passes over? Or, using what he thinks rhetorical cleverness, does he pretend to have something to say, when he had nothing from outside the Gospel to bring forward that could strike the hearer as true and as a clear accusation of Jesus and his teaching? He charges the disciples with having invented the claim that Jesus foreknew and foretold everything that happened to him. That this is true, even if Celsus does not wish it, we will establish from many other things spoken prophetically by the Savior, in which he foretold what would happen to Christians even in later generations. Who would not marvel at the prediction, "You will be brought before governors and kings for my sake, as a testimony to them and to the nations," and whatever else he foretold about his disciples being persecuted? For what doctrine held among human beings are others also punished, so that one of Jesus' accusers could say that, seeing impious or false doctrines accused, he thought to make this too impressive by supposedly predicting it about himself? For if some had to be brought "before governors and kings" for doctrines, who should they be but the Epicureans, who wholly abolish providence, or the Peripatetics, who say that prayers and sacrifices to the Divine accomplish nothing? But someone will say that the Samaritans too are persecuted for their worship of God. To him we will say this: the Sicarii are put to death for circumcision, as mutilating themselves against the established laws and what is permitted to the Jews alone. And one does not hear a judge asking whether a Sicarius who strives to live according to this supposed worship of God will be released if he changes his mind, but led away to death if he persists; the proof of circumcision is enough to have the one who underwent it put to death. But Christians alone, according to what was said by their Savior, "You will be brought before governors and kings for my sake," are permitted by the judges, up to their last breath, to go home and live free of danger if they forswear Christianity and sacrifice and swear according to the common customs. See whether it is not said with great authority: "Everyone who acknowledges me before men, I too will acknowledge before my Father who is in heaven; and everyone who denies me before men," and so on. Go up with me in thought to Jesus as he says these things, and see them prophesied before they happened. Will you not say, if you disbelieve him, that he is talking nonsense and speaking in vain, since what he says will not happen; or, if you are in doubt about assenting to his words: "If these things are fulfilled, and the teaching of Jesus' words is established so that governors and kings take care to put to death those who acknowledge Jesus, then we will believe that he says these things as one who has received great authority from God to sow this teaching in the human race and is persuaded that it will prevail"? Who will not marvel, going up in thought to him as he taught then and said, "This gospel will be preached in the whole world as a testimony to them and to the nations," and seeing that, according to what he said, the gospel of Jesus Christ has been preached in all that is under heaven, "to Greeks and barbarians, to wise and foolish"? For the word spoken with power has prevailed over every kind of human being, and there is no race of men to be seen that has escaped accepting the teaching of Jesus. Let Celsus's Jew, who disbelieves that Jesus foreknew all that happened to him, consider how, while Jerusalem was still standing and all the Jewish worship was carried on in it, Jesus foretold what would happen to it at the hands of the Romans. For they will not say that Jesus' own acquaintances and hearers handed on the teaching of the Gospels without writing and left their disciples without written records about Jesus. In them it is written: "When you see Jerusalem surrounded by armies, then know that its desolation has come near." And at that time there were no armies around Jerusalem, surrounding, encircling, and besieging it. That began while Nero was still reigning and lasted until the rule of Vespasian, whose son Titus destroyed Jerusalem—as Josephus writes, because of James the Just, the brother of Jesus called Christ, but as the truth shows, because of Jesus the Christ of God.

Celsus, however, could have accepted or granted that Jesus foreknew what would happen to him, and then made this seem trivial, as he did with the mighty works, saying that they were done by sorcery; and he could have said that many have known what would happen to them from divination by omens, or birds, or sacrifices, or horoscopes. But this he would not grant, as too great a thing, while he seems in a way to accept that Jesus did mighty works, but to slander them on the pretext of sorcery. Phlegon, however, in the thirteenth or fourteenth book, I think, of his Chronicles, even granted Christ foreknowledge of certain future events—though he confused things concerning Peter with things concerning Jesus—and testified that what was foretold came to pass as he had said. Yet he too, even through what concerns foreknowledge, declared, as if against his will, that the teaching in the founders of our doctrines was not empty of a more divine power.

Celsus says that "the disciples of Jesus, having nothing to plead about an obvious fact, devised this: to say that he foreknew everything"—not noticing, or not wishing to notice, the truthfulness of the writers, who admitted both that Jesus foretold to the disciples, "All of you will be offended because of me this night," and that he spoke truly when they were offended; and that he 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 thinks, were recording inventions, they would not have recorded Peter denying him or Jesus' disciples being offended. For even if these things happened, who would have proved the account wrong by showing that it happened so? Indeed, in all likelihood, such things should have been kept silent by men who wished to teach the readers of the Gospels to despise death for the confession of Christianity. But as it is, seeing that the teaching would prevail over human beings by its power, they set down even such things, which, I do not know how, would not harm the readers or give them an excuse for denial.

He says, very foolishly, that the disciples wrote such things about Jesus to excuse what had happened to him: “As if,” he says, “someone who said that a man was just were to show him doing wrong, and who said he was holy were to show him committing murder, and who said he was immortal were to show him dead, adding to all this that he had foretold it.” His illustration is plainly unlike the case, since there is nothing absurd in one who had taken upon himself the task of setting before human beings a pattern of how they ought to live showing them how one ought to die for the sake of piety; quite apart from the fact that his dying for human beings was of some benefit to the whole universe, as we showed in the preceding book. Next he thinks that the whole admission of the passion confirms his refutation rather than dissolving it. For he has not seen all that Paul set out philosophically on this subject and what the prophets said. And it escaped him that one of those in the heresies said that Jesus underwent these things in appearance, not in reality. For he did not know this when he said: “For you do not even say that he seemed to impious men to suffer these things but did not suffer them; you openly admit that he suffered.” But we do not put “seeming” in the case of his suffering, so that his resurrection too may not be false but true. For if one who truly died rose, he truly rose; but one who only seemed to have died did not truly rise. And since unbelievers mock the resurrection of Jesus Christ, we shall cite Plato as well, who says that Er the son of Armenius rose from the pyre after twelve days and reported what he had seen in Hades; and, since we are addressing unbelievers, what Heraclides tells of the woman who lay without breath will not be wholly useless for the subject. Many are also recorded to have come back from their tombs, not only on the same day but even on the next. What wonder, then, if one who did many marvelous things beyond human power, and so evident that those who could not deny they had happened disparaged them by lumping them together with sorceries, had something more also in his own death, so that his soul left the body of its own will and, having accomplished certain things outside it, returned again when it wished? Such a word is recorded in John as spoken by Jesus: “No one takes my life from me, but I lay it down of myself. I have power to lay it down, and I have power to take it again.” And perhaps it was for this reason that he departed from the body beforehand, so as to preserve it and so that his legs should not be broken like those of the robbers crucified with him: “For the soldiers broke the legs of the first and of the other who was crucified with him; but when they came to Jesus and saw that he had breathed his last, they did not break his legs.” We have already answered the question, “How then is it credible that he foretold it?” As to “How is a dead man immortal?”, let anyone who wishes learn that it is not the dead man who is immortal but the one who rose from the dead. Not only is the dead man not immortal, but not even the composite Jesus before his death was immortal, since he was going to die. For no one who is going to die is immortal, but only when he will die no more. “But Christ, being raised from the dead, dies no more; death no longer has dominion over him,” even if those who cannot grasp how this is said do not wish to understand it.