Against Celsus 3.34–3.48

I think these were the only ones Celsus knew; and so as to seem to have deliberately left out similar cases, he said, “And one could name many others of this kind.” Suppose it granted that there were many more of this kind, who did the human race no good: what would each of them be found to be compared with the work of Jesus and the marvels about him, of which we have spoken at length? After this he thinks we have done something similar in worshiping one who, as Celsus says, “was taken and died,” to the Getae who revere Zamolxis, the Cilicians Mopsus, the Acarnanians Amphilochus, the Thebans Amphiaraus, and the Lebadeans Trophonius. Here too we shall show that he has not reasonably likened us to those mentioned. For they built temples and statues to those listed, whereas we have removed from the divine the honor paid through such things (as more suited to daemons, who are somehow established in a certain place, which they either seize beforehand or, drawn by certain rites and charms, as it were inhabit), and we are amazed at Jesus, who transferred our minds from everything perceptible, as not only corruptible but destined to perish, and leads them up to the honor paid, with an upright life, to the God over all, with prayers which we offer to him through Jesus, as one who is between the nature of the unbegotten and that of all begotten things, who brings us the benefits from the Father and, like a high priest, conveys our prayers to the God over all.

I would like to talk, as befits him, with one who, I know not how, says such things, in this way: “Are these beings you listed nothing at all, and is there no power at Lebadea in Trophonius, or at Thebes around the temple of Amphiaraus, or in Acarnania around Amphilochus, or in Cilicia around Mopsus? Or is there in such places some being, whether a daemon or a hero or even a god, working things greater than human?” If he says that there is nothing else, neither daemonic nor divine, about them, let him admit his opinion at least now, that he is an Epicurean who does not think the same as the Greeks, who neither recognizes daemons nor worships gods as the Greeks do; and let him be convicted of having brought forward in vain both what was said before, as if he accepted it as true, and what he adds later. But if he says that those listed are daemons or heroes or even gods, let him see that by what he has said he will establish what he does not wish, that Jesus too was something of this kind; which is why he was able to convince not a few people that he had come from God to the human race. And once he accepts this, see whether he will not be forced to say that he is more powerful than those with whom he has numbered him. For none of them forbids honors to the others, but this one, confident that he is more powerful than all of them, forbids their acceptance, as of wicked daemons who have seized places on earth, since they cannot reach the purer and more divine region, where the grossness of the earth and its countless evils does not reach.

Since after this he thinks that what concerns Hadrian's favorite (I mean the youth Antinous and the honors paid him by the people of Antinoopolis in Egypt) falls in no way short of our honor for Jesus, come, let us refute this too as spoken out of hostility. For what has the life of Hadrian's favorite, who did not keep even his manhood free from womanish disease, in common with our dignified Jesus, against whom not even those who brought countless accusations and told so many lies could allege that he tasted even the least licentiousness, even for a little while? If one examines the case of Antinous truthfully and impartially, one would find that Egyptian sorceries and rites are the causes of his seeming to do something at Antinoopolis even after his death. The same is related by the Egyptians, and by those skilled in such things, of other temples: they establish in certain places daemons that give oracles or heal, and often also torment those thought to have transgressed about common foods or about touching a dead human body, so that they may seem to frighten the ignorant multitude. Such also is the one thought to be a god at Antinoopolis in Egypt, whose powers some who live rather like gamblers falsely proclaim, while others are deceived by the daemon established there, and others, convicted by a weak conscience, think they are paying a god-sent penalty from Antinous. Such are also their mysteries performed and their supposed oracles, from which the things of Jesus are very far removed. For it was not sorcerers meeting together, doing a favor to some king who ordered it or a governor who commanded it, who seemed to have made him a god; but the Creator of the universe himself, in keeping with the marvelously persuasive power of his speaking, commended him as worthy of honor not only to human beings who wish to think rightly but also to daemons and other invisible powers, which to this day show that they either fear the name of Jesus as stronger, or reverently accept him as their lawful ruler. For if his commendation had not been given him by God, daemons would not yield and withdraw from those they were attacking at the mere pronouncing of his name.

The Egyptians, then, taught to worship Antinous, will tolerate it if you compare Apollo or Zeus with (him), exalting Antinous by numbering him with them; for here too Celsus plainly lies when he says, “Even if you compare Apollo or Zeus with him, they will not tolerate it.” But Christians, who have learned that eternal life for them is to know “the only true God” over all “and Jesus Christ whom” he “has sent,” and have learned that “all the gods of the nations are demons,” gluttonous, rolling about sacrifices, blood, and the portions from the sacrifices, to deceive those who have not fled for refuge to the God over all, while the divine and holy angels of God are of another nature and will than all the demons on earth, and that these are known to very few who have inquired into such matters intelligently and carefully: Christians will not tolerate it if you compare Apollo and Zeus, or any of those worshiped with the savor of sacrifice, blood, and offerings. Some do so from great simplicity, not knowing how to give an account of what they do, but faithfully keeping what they have received; others with arguments not to be despised, deeper, and, as a Greek might say, esoteric and belonging to the higher initiation, in which there is much teaching about God and about those honored by God, through the only-begotten God the Word, with a share in divinity and therefore also in the name. There is much teaching too about the divine angels and about those who oppose the truth, who have been deceived and out of deception proclaim themselves gods, or angels of God, or good daemons, or heroes formed by a good transformation of a human soul. Such Christians … will show that, just as many in philosophy think they are in the truth, either deceiving themselves with plausible arguments or rashly assenting to those offered and devised by others, so also among souls outside bodies, angels, and daemons there are some who have been drawn by plausibilities to proclaim themselves gods. And because such matters cannot be found out with perfect exactness among human beings, it was considered safe that no one, being a man, should entrust himself to anyone as to God except to Jesus Christ alone, who is, as it were, the arbiter over all, and who contemplated these things most deeply and handed them on to a few.

Faith concerning Antinous, or any other such figure, whether among Egyptians or Greeks, is, if I may so call it, an unlucky faith; but faith concerning Jesus would seem either lucky or thoroughly examined: lucky among the many, thoroughly examined among very few. And if I say that a certain faith is, as the many would call it, lucky, in this too I refer the matter to God, who knows the causes of what is allotted to each who comes into human life. The Greeks too will say that even among those considered wisest, good fortune is in many respects the cause, for example regarding what teachers one had and falling in with the better ones, when there are also those who teach opposite doctrines, and regarding upbringing among better people. For many have had an upbringing in such circumstances that they were not allowed even to form an impression of better things, but always, from earliest youth, were either the favorites of licentious men or masters, or in some other misery that prevented the soul from looking up. The causes of these things are surely to be found in the reasons of providence, but they are not easily grasped by human beings. It seemed good to me to say this in a digression, because of how much a faith, of whatever kind, does when it takes hold first. For one had to say that differences in people's faiths arise from different upbringings, as they believe more or less fortunately; and from this to rise to the point that what is called good fortune and what is called misfortune would seem to contribute even for the more accomplished to their seeming more rational and to their more rationally adhering to most doctrines. But enough of this.

We must consider what Celsus says next, in which he says that faith, having taken possession of our soul beforehand, produces in us such assent concerning Jesus. It is true that faith produces such assent in us; but see whether faith itself does not at once show what is praiseworthy, when we entrust ourselves to the God over all, giving thanks to the one who guides us to such faith and saying that he did not dare and accomplish so great a thing without God. And we trust also the intentions of those who wrote the Gospels, judging from their piety and conscience, which show in their writings, which have nothing spurious, gambling, fabricated, or crafty. For it is evident to us that souls which had not learned such things as are taught by the crafty sophistry among the Greeks, with its great plausibility and sharpness, and by the rhetoric that rolls about the law courts, could not have invented things able of themselves to lead to faith and to a life in keeping with that faith. I think that Jesus wished to use such men as teachers of his doctrine for this reason: so that no suspicion of plausible sophisms should have any room, but it should be brilliantly evident to those able to understand that the guilelessness of the writers' intention, which had much, so to speak, simplicity, was deemed worthy of a more divine power, which achieves much more than elaborate speech, composition of phrases, and a chain of argument with divisions and Greek technical rules seem able to achieve.

See whether the teachings of our faith, agreeing from the beginning with the common notions, do not change those who hear what is said with good will. For even if perversion, aided by much instruction, has been able to implant in the many the doctrine that images are gods, and that things made of gold, silver, ivory, and stone are worthy of worship, yet the common notion requires one to think that God is in no way corruptible matter, and is not honored when shaped by human beings in lifeless materials made as his “image” or certain symbols of him. Therefore it is said at once of images “that they are not gods,” and of such works of craftsmen that they are not comparable with the Creator; and a little is said about the God over all, who created, holds together, and governs the universe. And at once, as if recognizing its kin, the rational soul casts away what it formerly thought to be gods and takes up a natural love for its Creator; and because of this love for him it welcomes all the more the one who first presented these things to all the nations through the disciples he trained, whom he sent out with divine power and authority to proclaim the word about God and his kingdom.

Since he accuses us, I no longer know how many times, concerning Jesus, that we consider one who was of a mortal body to be God and think that in this we act piously, it is superfluous to say anything more in reply, for more has been said above. Nevertheless, let those who accuse us know this: the one whom we consider and are persuaded to be from the beginning God and Son of God is the very Word, the very Wisdom, and the very Truth; but his mortal body and the human soul in him, we say, received the greatest gifts not only by communion with him but also by union and blending, and, having shared in his divinity, were changed into God. And if anyone takes offense that we say these things also about his body, let him consider what the Greeks say about matter, which by its own nature is without qualities and is clothed with such qualities as the Creator wishes to put around it, and which often lays aside its former qualities and takes on better and different ones. For if such teachings are sound, what wonder is it that the quality of mortality in the body of Jesus, by the providence of God who so willed, should have been changed into an ethereal and divine quality?

Celsus did not speak like a skilled dialectician, then, when he compared the human flesh of Jesus with gold, silver, and stone and said that it is more corruptible than they. For in strict reasoning, neither is an incorruptible thing more incorruptible than another incorruptible thing, nor a corruptible thing more corruptible than another corruptible thing. But even if it is more corruptible, we shall still say this in reply: if the matter that underlies all qualities can exchange its qualities, how is it not possible that the flesh of Jesus too, having exchanged its qualities, became such as it had to be to dwell in the ether and the places above it, no longer having the properties of fleshly weakness and those which Celsus called “more defiled”? Nor was he acting as a philosopher in this; for what is properly defiled is such because of vice, and the nature of a body is not defiled; for insofar as it is the nature of a body, it does not have vice, which is what generates defilement. Then, since he suspected our defense concerning the change of his body, he says: “But when he has laid these aside, then he will be a god? Why not rather Asclepius, Dionysus, and Heracles?” We shall say: What so great a thing did Asclepius or Dionysus or Heracles accomplish? And whom will they be able to show improved in character and made better by their words and life, so that they should become gods? For after reading the many stories about them, let us see whether they were pure of licentiousness, injustice, folly, or cowardice. And if nothing of the sort were found in them, Celsus's argument, which puts those just named on a level with Jesus, would be strong. But if it is clear that, even if some rather good things are reported of them, they are recorded to have done countless things contrary to right reason, how can you still reasonably say that they, rather than Jesus, became gods by laying aside the mortal body?

After this he says of us that we laugh at those who worship Zeus because his tomb is shown in Crete, and yet we revere no less the one from the tomb, “not knowing how and in what sense the Cretans do such a thing.” Notice, then, that in these words he defends the Cretans, Zeus, and his tomb, hinting at figurative meanings according to which the myth about Zeus is said to have been fashioned; but he accuses us, who acknowledge that our Jesus was buried but declare that he also was raised from the tomb, which the Cretans do not go on to relate about Zeus. And since he seems to speak up for the tomb of Zeus in Crete when he says, “not knowing how and in what sense the Cretans do this,” we shall say that even Callimachus of Cyrene, who read a great many poems and gathered up nearly all Greek history, knows no figurative interpretation in what is said about Zeus and his tomb. That is why he accuses the Cretans in the hymn he wrote to Zeus, saying: “Cretans are always liars; for the Cretans even built a tomb, O lord, for you; but you did not die, for you are forever.” And he who said, “you did not die, for you are forever,” while denying the burial of Zeus in Crete, relates that the beginning of death happened to Zeus; for the beginning of death is birth on earth. He says this: “And in Parrhasia Rhea bore you, having lain in love.” But he should have seen, since he denied the birth of Zeus in Crete because of his tomb, that from his birth in Arcadia it followed that the one who was born also died. Callimachus says such things about these matters too: “Zeus, some say you were born on the Idaean mountains, Zeus, others in Arcadia; which of them, father, lied? Cretans are always liars,” and so on. Celsus has led us into these things by being unfair about Jesus, agreeing with what is written, that he died and was buried, but thinking it a fiction that he also rose from the dead, and that although countless prophets foretold this too, and there are many signs of his appearance after death.

Then next Celsus, bringing forward what is said, contrary to the teaching of Jesus, by very few who are considered Christians (not, as he thinks, the more intelligent, but the most ignorant), says that commands like these are given by them: “Let no one educated approach, no one wise, no one sensible; for these things are thought evil among us. But if anyone is ignorant, if anyone is foolish, if anyone is uneducated, if anyone is a child, let him come with confidence.” “For by acknowledging outright that such people are worthy of their God, they show that they want and are able to persuade only the simple-minded, the ignoble, the dull, slaves, silly women, and little children.” To this too we say: just as, if someone, while Jesus teaches about chastity and says, “Whoever looks at a woman so as to desire her has already committed adultery with her in his heart,” were to see a few out of so many who are considered Christians living licentiously, he would very reasonably accuse them of living contrary to the teaching of Jesus, but would act most unreasonably if he attached the charge against them to the teaching itself; so, if the Christians' teaching is found to invite people to wisdom as much as any, the blame will belong to those who defend their own ignorance and say, not what Celsus recorded (for even if some are uneducated and ignorant, they do not speak so shamelessly), but other things much less serious, which yet turn people away from the pursuit of wisdom.

That the teaching wants us to be wise must be shown both from the ancient Jewish writings, which we too use, and no less from those written after Jesus and believed in the churches to be divine. It is written in the fiftieth psalm that David, in his prayer to God, says: “The unseen and hidden things of your wisdom you have made known to me.” And anyone who reads the psalms will find the book full of many wise doctrines. And Solomon, since he asked for wisdom, was approved; and the traces of his wisdom can be seen in his writings, which hold great understanding in brevity of speech; in them you would find many praises of wisdom and exhortations to the need to take up wisdom. And so wise was Solomon that the queen of Sheba, having heard “his name” “and the name of the Lord,” came “to test him with riddles.” She “also spoke to him all that was in her heart. And Solomon told her all her words; there was no word overlooked by the king which he did not tell her. And the queen of Sheba saw all the understanding of Solomon” and the things belonging to him, “and she was beside herself. And she said to the king: The report is true which I heard in my land about you and about your understanding; and I did not believe those who told me until I came and my eyes have seen; and behold, it is not even half as they told me. You have added wisdom and good things to them beyond all the report which I heard.” And it is written about him that “the Lord gave understanding to Solomon and very great wisdom, and breadth of heart like the sand by the sea. And wisdom was multiplied in Solomon greatly, beyond the understanding of all the ancients and beyond all the wise men of Egypt. And he was wiser than all men, and he was wiser than Gethan the Ezrahite, and Emad, and Chalcadi, and Arada, sons of Mad; and he was renowned among all the nations round about. And Solomon spoke three thousand parables, and his songs were five thousand. And he spoke about trees, from the cedar that is in Lebanon to the hyssop that comes out through the wall. And he spoke about fish and cattle; and all the peoples came to hear the wisdom of Solomon, and from all the kings of the earth, who heard of his wisdom.” So much does the teaching want there to be wise men among believers that, to exercise the understanding of the hearers, it has spoken some things in riddles, some in what are called dark sayings, some through parables, and others through problems. And one of the prophets, Hosea, says at the end of his words: “Who is wise, and will understand these things? Or intelligent, and will know them?” And Daniel and those taken captive with him made such progress even in the studies which the wise men around the king practiced in Babylon that they were shown to surpass them all “tenfold.” And in Ezekiel it is said to the ruler of Tyre, who was proud of his wisdom: “Are you wiser than Daniel? Has no secret been shown to you?”

And if you come also to the books written after Jesus, you would find that the crowds of believers hear the parables as being outside and worthy only of the outward words, but the disciples learn privately the explanations of the parables; for “privately” Jesus “explained everything to his own disciples,” honoring above the crowds those who laid claim to his wisdom. And he promises to send to those who believe in him “wise men and scribes,” saying: “Behold, I will send to you wise men and scribes, and some of them they will kill and crucify.” And Paul, in the list of the gifts given by God, placed first the word of wisdom, and second, as inferior to it, the word of knowledge, and third, somewhere lower, faith. And since he valued the word above miraculous workings, he therefore puts “workings of powers” and “gifts of healings” in a lower place than the gifts of speech. And Stephen in the Acts of the Apostles bears witness to Moses' great learning, surely taking it from ancient writings that had not reached many; for he says: “And Moses was instructed in all the wisdom of the Egyptians.” For this reason he was even suspected in his miracles of doing them, perhaps, not, as he professed, by coming from God, but by the learning of the Egyptians, being wise in it. For the king, suspecting such things about him, called the enchanters of the Egyptians, the sophists, and the sorcerers, who were proved to be nothing compared with the wisdom in Moses, which surpassed all the wisdom of the Egyptians.

But it is likely that what Paul wrote in the first letter to the Corinthians, as to Greeks greatly puffed up with Greek wisdom, has moved some to think that the teaching does not want wise men. But let whoever thinks such things hear this: just as the teaching, when it censures bad men, says that they are wise not about intelligible, invisible, and eternal things, but, occupied only with things of sense and placing everything in them, are wise men of the world; so also, since there are many doctrines, those which speak for matter and bodies and say that all things that primarily subsist are bodies and that there is nothing else besides them, whether called invisible or named incorporeal, it calls “wisdom of the world,” which is being brought to nothing and made foolish, and wisdom of this age; but those which transfer the soul from the affairs of this world to the blessedness with God and to what is called his kingdom, and which teach to despise all things of sense and sight as temporary and to hasten to the invisible things and to look at the things that are not seen, these it calls the “wisdom of God.” And Paul, as a lover of truth, says of certain wise men among the Greeks, in the things in which they speak truly, “that, knowing God, they did not glorify him as God or give thanks.” And he bears them witness that they knew God; and he says too that this did not come to them without God, where he writes, “For God has shown it to them,” hinting, I think, at those who ascend from visible things to intelligible ones when he writes that “the invisible things of God from the creation of the world are clearly seen, being understood through the things that are made, both his eternal power and divinity, so that they are without excuse; because, knowing God, they did not glorify him as God or give thanks.”

Perhaps also from the words, “For consider your calling, brothers, that not many are wise according to the flesh, not many powerful, not many well-born; but God chose the foolish things of the world to shame the wise, and God chose the ignoble and despised things, and the things that are not, to bring to nothing the things that are, so that no flesh may boast before him,” some have been moved to think that no educated or wise or sensible person comes to the teaching. To such a person too we shall say that it is not said that no one is wise “according to the flesh,” but “not many are wise according to the flesh.” And it is clear that when Paul, in the characteristic description of those called bishops, sets out what sort of person the bishop must be, he also laid down that he be a teacher, saying that he must be able “also to refute those who contradict,” so that he may stop the mouths of empty talkers and deceivers by the wisdom in him. And just as he chooses for the office of bishop one married once rather than one married twice, and one “above reproach” rather than one open to reproach, and one “sober” rather than one who is not, and “self-controlled” rather than one not self-controlled, and “orderly” rather than one even slightly disorderly, so he wants the one who is to be appointed primarily to the office of bishop to be apt to teach and able “to refute those who contradict.” How then does Celsus reasonably accuse us as saying, “Let no one educated approach, no one wise, no one sensible”? No: let the educated, wise, and sensible man approach, whoever wishes; but no less let anyone approach who is ignorant, foolish, uneducated, and a child. For the teaching promises to heal such people too when they come, making them all worthy of God.