Book ιν. ORIGEN AGAINST CELSUS. |. 195 note.” And further, in answer to the statement that “they were never held in any reputation or account,” we say, that living apart as a “chosen nation and a royal priesthood,” and shunning intercourse with the many nations around them, in order that their morals might escape corruption, they enjoyed the protection of the divine power, neither coveting like the most of mankind the acquisition of other kingdoms, nor yet being abandoned so as to become, on account of their smallness, an easy object of attack to others, and thus be altogether destroyed; and this lasted so long as they were worthy of the divine protection. But when it became necessary for them, as a nation wholly given to sin, to be brought back by their sufferings to their God, they were abandoned [by Him], sometimes for a longer, sometimes for a shorter period, until in the time of the Romans, having committed the greatest of sins in putting Jesus to death, they were completely deserted.
CHAPTER XXXIII.
CHAPTER XXXIII.
Immediately after this, Celsus, assailing the contents of the first book of Moses, which is entitled ** Genesis,” asserts that * the Jews accordingly endeavoured to derive their origin from the first race of jugglers and deceivers,’ appealing to the testimony of dark and ambiguous words, whose meaning was veiled in obscurity, and which they misinterpreted? to the un- learned and ignorant, and that, too, when' such a point had never been called in question during the long preceding period." Now Celsus appears to me in these words to have expressed very obscurely the meaning which he intended to convey. It is probable, indeed, that his obscurity on this subject is inten- tional, inasmuch as he saw the strength of the argument which establishes the descent of the Jews from their ancestors; while again, on the other hand, he wished not to appear ignorant that the question regarding the Jews and their descent was one that could not be lightly disposed of. It is certain, however, that the Jews trace their genealogy back to the three fathers, Abraham, Isaac, and Jacob. And the names of these individuals possess such efficacy, when united with the name of God, that not 1 dao πρώτη; σπορᾶς γοήτων καὶ πλάνων ἀνθρώπων. 3 χαρεξηγούμεενοι.
196 ORIGEN AGAINST CELSUS. [Book 1v.
only do those belonging to the nation employ in their prayers to God, and in the exorcising of demons, the words, “ God of Abraham, and God of Isaac, and God of Jacob,” but so also do almost all those who occupy themselves with incantations and magical rites. For there is found in tréatises on magic in many countries such an invocation of God, and assumption of the divine name, as implies a familiar use of it by these men in their dealings with demons. These facts, then—adduced by Jews and Christians to prove the sacred character of Abraham, and Isaac, and Jacob, the fathers of the Jewish race—appear to me not to have been altogether unknown to Celsus, but not to have been distinctly set forth by him, because he was unable to answer the argument which might be founded on them.
CHAPTER XXXIV.
CHAPTER XXXIV.
For we inquire of all those who employ such invocations of God, saying: Tell us, friends, who was Abraham, and what sort of person was Isaac, and what power did Jacob possess, that the appellation * God,” when joined with their name, could effect such wonders? And from whom have you learned, or can you learn, the facts relating to these individuals? And who has occupied himself with writing a history about them, either directly magnifying these men by ascribing to them mysterious powers, or hinting obscurely at their possession of certain great and marvellous qualities, patent to those who are qualified to see them?! And when, in answer to our inquiry, no one can show from what history—whether Greek or barbarian—or, if not a history, yet at least from what mystical narrative,” the accounts of these men are derived, we shall bring forward the book entitled ** Genesis,” which contains the acts of these men, and the divine oracles addressed to them, and will say, Does not the use by you of the names of these three ancestors of the race, establishing in the clearest manner that effects not to be lightly regarded are produced by the invocation of them, 1 εἴτε καὶ αὐτόθεν σερονύνουσαν ἐν ἀποῤῥχτοι; τοὺς ἄνδρας, εἴτε καὶ δὲ ὑπονοιῶν αἰνισσομένην τινὰ μεγάλο καὶ θαυμάσια τοῖς θεωρῆσαι αὐτὰ dure μένοις.
2 μυστικῆς ἀναγραφῆς.
Boox 1v.] ORIGEN AGAINST CELSUS. 197 evidence the divinity of the men?! And yet we know them from no’ other source than the sacred books of the Jews! Moreover, the phrases, * the God of Israel," and “ the God of the Hebrews," and *the God who drowned in the Red Sea the king of Egypt and the Egyptians," are formule frequently employed against demons and certain wicked powers. And we learn the history of the names and their interpretation from those Hebrews, who in their national literature and national tongue dwell with pride upon these things, and explain their meaning. How, then, should the Jews attempt to derive their origin from the first race of those whom Celsus supposed to be jugglers and deceivers, and shamelessly endeavour to trace themselves and their beginning back to these?—whose names, being Hebrew, are an evidence to the Hebrews, who have their sacred books written in the Hebrew language and letters, that their nation is akin to these men. For up to the present time, the Jewish names belonging to the Hebrew language were either taken from their writings, or generally from words the meaning of which was made known by the Hebrew language.
CHAPTER XXXV.
CHAPTER XXXV.
And let any one who peruses the treatise of Celsus observe whether it does not convey some such insinuation as the above, whien he says: “ And they attempted to derive their origin from the first race of jugglers and deceivers, appealing to the testi- mony of dark and ambiguous words, whose meaning was veiled in obscurity.” For these names are indeed obscure, and not within the comprehension and knowledge of many, though not in our opinion of doubtful meaning, even although assumed by those who are aliens to our religion; but as, according to Celsus, they do not? convey any ambiguity, I am at a loss to know why he has rejected them. And yet, if he had wished honestly to overturn the genealogy which he deemed the Jews to have so shamelessly arrogated, in boasting of Abraham and his l spovpeey τὲ" ὅτι μήποτε TO καὶ ὑφ᾽ ὑμῶν παραλαρμβάνεσθαι Ta ὀνόματω τῶν τριῶν τούτων γεναρχῶν τοῦ ἔθνους, τὴ ἐναργείᾳ καταλαρμιβανόντων, οὐκ εὐκατα- Φρόνητα ἀνύεσθαι ἐκ τῆς κατεπικλήσεως αὐτῶν, παρίστησι τὸ θεῖον τῶν ἀνδρῶν; Guietus would expunge the words τῇ ἐναργείᾳ καταλαριβανόντων.
3 xard δὲ Κέλσον, ob παριστάντα. Libri editi ad oram ὡς παριστάντα.
198 ORIGEN AGAINST CELSUS. [Boox rv.
descendants [as their progenitors], he ought to have quoted alZ the passages bearing on the subject; and, in the first place, to have advocated his cause with such arguments as he thought likely to be convincing, and in the next to have bravely’ refuted, by means of what appeared to him to be the true meaning, and by arguments in its favour, the errors existing on the subject. But neither Celsus nor any one else will be able, by their discus- sions regarding the nature of names employed for miraculous purposes, to lay down the correct doctrine regarding them, and to demonstrate that those men were to be lightly esteemed whose names merely, not among their countrymen alone, but also amongst foreigners, could accomplish [such results]. He ought to have shown, moreover, how we, in misinterpreting? the - passages in which these names are found, deceive our hearers, as he imagines, while he himself, who boasts that he is not ignorant or unintelligent, gives the true interpretation of them. And he hazarded the assertion? in speaking of those names, from which the Jews deduce their genealogies, that “never, during the long antecedent period, has there been any dispute about these names, but that at the present time the Jews dispute about them with certain others,” whom he does not mention. Now, let him who chooses show who these are that dispute with the Jews, and who adduce even probable arguments to show that Jews and Christians do not decide correctly on the points relating to these names, but that there are others who have discussed these questions with the greatest learning and accuracy. But we are well assured that none can establish anything of the sort, it being manifest that these names are derived from the Hebrew language, which is found only among the Jews.
CHAPTER XXXVI.
Celsus in the next place, producing from history other than that of the divine record, those passages which bear upon the claims to great antiquity put forth by many nations, as the Athenians, and Egyptians, and Arcadians, and Phrygians, who assert that certain individuals have existed among them who sprang from the earth, and who each adduce proofs of these 1 γενναίως. 3 χιρεξηγούμενοι. 3 χαρέῤῥεψε.
Boo ιν. ORIGEN AGAINST CELSUS. 199 assertions, says: * The Jews, then, leading a grovelling life! in some corner of Palestine, and being a wholly uneducated people, who had not heard that these matters had been com- mitted to verse long ago by Hesiod and innumerable other inspired men, wove together some most incredible and insipid stories,” viz. that a certain man was formed by the hands of God, and had breathed into him the breath of life, and that a woman was taken from his side, and that God issued certain commands, and that a serpent opposed these, and gained a victory over the commandments of God; thus relating certain old wives' fables, and most impiously representing God as weak at the very beginning [of things], and unable to convince even a single human being whom He Himself had formed.” By these instances, indeed, this deeply read and learned Celsus, who accuses Jews and Christians of ignorance and want of instruction, clearly evinces the accuracy of his knowledge of ᾿ the chronology of the respective historians, whether Greek or Barbarian, since he imagines that Hesiod and the “ innumer- able” others, whom he styles “inspired” men, are older than Moses and his writings—that very Moses who is shown to be much older than the time of the Trojan war! It is not the Jews, then, who have composed incredible and insipid stories regarding the birth of man from the earth, but these “inspired” men of Celsus, Hesiod and his other *innumer- able" companions, who, having neither learned nor heard of the far older and most venerable accounts existing in Palestine, have written such histories as their Theogonies, attributing, so far as in their power, “ generation" to their deities, and innumerable other absurdities. And these are the writers whom Plato expels from his “State” as being corrupters of the youth,’—Homer, viz., and those who have composed poems of a similar description! Now it is evident that Plato did not regard as “inspired” those men who had left behind them such works. But perhaps it was from a desire to cast reproach upon us, that this Epicurean Celsus, who is better able to judge than Plato (if it be the same Celsus who composed two other books against the Christians), called those individuals “ inspired” whom he did not in reality regard as such. 1 συγκύψαντες. %duovocrara. * Cf. Plato, de Repub. Book ii. etc.
200 ORIGEN AGAINST CELSUS. [Book 1v.
CHAPTER XXXVII.
He charges us, moreover, with introducing “a man formed by the hands of God,” although the book of Genesis has made no mention of the “hands” of God, either when relating the creation or the “ fashioning” * of the man; while it is Job and David who have used the expression, *'Thy hands have made me and fashioned me;"? with reference to which it would need a lengthened discourse to point out the sense in which these words were understood by those who used them, both as regards the difference between “making” and “ fashioning,” and also the “hands” of God. For those who do not under- stand these and similar expressions in the sacred Scriptures, imagine that we attribute to the God who is over all things a form? such as that of man; and according to their conceptions, it follows that we consider the body of God to be furnished with wings, since the Scriptures, literally understood, attribute such appendages to God. The subject before us, however, does not require us to interpret these expressions; for, in our explanatory remarks upon the book of Genesis, these matters have been made, to the best of our ability, a special subject of investigation. Observe next the malignity * of Celsus in what follows. For the Scripture, speaking of the “fashioning "5 of the man, says, “ And breathed into his face the breath of life, and the man became a living soul.”* Whereon Celsus, wish- ing maliciously to ridicule the “inbreathing into his face of the breath of life,” and not understanding the sense in which the expression was employed, states that “they composed a story that a man was fashioned by the hands of God, and was inflated by breath blown into him,"? in order that, taking the word “inflated” to be used in a similar way to the inflation of skins, he might ridicule the statement, * He breathed into his face the breath of life,"—terms which are used figuratively, and require to be explained in order to show that God coml ἐπὶ τῆς πλάσεως. 3 Cf. Job x. 8 and Ps. cxix. 73. 3 σχῆμα. * κακοήθειαν.
5 “λάσεως. ἢ 6 Gen. ii. 7; Heb. YEN, LXX. vpocezor. ? exQuowpesvos. S: Book iv.] ORIGEN AGAINST CELSUS. 201 municated to man of His incorruptible Spirit; as it is said, «5 For Thine incorruptible Spirit is in all things." ὦ CHAPTER XXXVIII.
In the next place, as it is his object to slander our Scriptures, he ridicules the following statement: * And God caused a deep sleep to fall upon Adam, and he slept: and He took one of his ribs, and closed up the flesh instead thereof. And the rib, which He had taken from the man, made He a woman,"? and so on; without quoting the words, which would give the hearer the impression that they are spoken with a figurative meaning. He would not even have it appear that the words were used alle- gorically, although he says afterwards, that “ the more modest among Jews and Christians are ashamed of these things, and endeavour to give them somehow an allegorieal signification." Now we might say to him, Are the statements of your “inspired” Hesiod, which he makes regarding the woman in the form of a myth, to be explained allegorically, in the sense that she was given by Jove to men as an evil thing, and as a retribution for the theft of “the fire;"? while that regarding the woman who was taken from the side of the man (after he had been buried in deep slumber), and was formed by God, appears to you to be related without any rational meaning and secret signification? * But is it not uncandid, not to ridicule the former as myths, but to admire them as philosophical ideas in a mythical dress, and to treat with contempt? the latter, as offending the under- standing, and to declare that they are of no account? For if, because of the mere phraseology, we are to find fault with what is intended to have a secret meaning, see whether the following lines of Hesiod, a man, as you say, “inspired,” are not better fitted to excite laughter: ει * Son of Iapetus!’ with wrathful heart, Spake the cloud-gatherer: ‘Oh, unmatched in art! Exultest thou in this the flame retrieved, And dost thou triumph in the God deceived?
Bat thou, with the posterity of man, Shalt rue the fraud whence mightier ills began; 1 Wisd. of Solom. xii. 1. 3 Cf. Gen. ii. 21, 22. δ ἀντὶ τοῦ πυρός. 4 apis παντὸς λόγου καί Tivos ἐπικρύψεως. 5 μοχθίζει».
ORIGEN AGAINST CELSUS. [Book rv.
I will send evil for thy stealthy fire, While all embrace it, and their bane desire.'
The sire, who rules the earth, and sways the pole, Had said, and laughter fill’d his secret soul.
He bade the artist-god his hest obey, And mould with tempering waters ductile clay: Infuse, as breathing life and form began, The supple vigour, and the voice of man: Her aspect fair as goddesses above, A virgin's likeness, with the brows of love.
He bade Minerva teach the skill that dyes The web with colours, as the shuttle flies; He called the magic of Love's Queen to shed A nameless grace around her courteous head; Instil the wish that longs with restless aim, And cares of dress that feed upon the frame: Bade Hermes last implant the craft refined Of artful manners, and a shameless mind.
He said; their king th' inferior powers obeyed: The fictile likeness of a bashful maid Rose from the temper'd earth, by Jove's behest, Under the forming God; the zone and vest Were clasp'd and folded by Minerva's hand: The heaven-born graces, and persuasion bland Deck'd her round limbs with chains of gold: the hours Of loose locks twined her temples with spring flowers, The whole attire Minerva's curious care Form'd to her shape, and fitted to her air.
But in her breast the herald from abore, Full of the counsels of deep thundering Jove, Wrought artful manners, wrought perfidious lies, And speech that thrills the blood, and lulls the wise. Her did th’ interpreter of Gods proclaim, And named the woman with Pandora's name; Since all the gods conferr'd their gifts, to charm, For man's inventive race, this beauteous harm."!
Moreover, what is said also about the casket is fitted of itself to excite laughter; for example: ** Whilome on earth the sons of men abode From ills apart, and labour’s irksome load, And sore diseases, bringing age to man; Now the sad life of mortals is a span.
1 Hesiod, Works and Days, i. v. 73-114 (Elton’s translation).
Book tv. ] ORIGEN AGAINST CELSUS. 203 The woman's hands a mighty casket bear; She lifts the lid; she scatters griefs in air: Alone, beneath the vessels' rims detained, Hope still within th' unbroken cell remained, Nor fled abroad; so will'd cloud-gatherer Jove: The woman's hand had dropp'd the lid above."!
Now, to him who would give to these lines a grave allegorical meaning (whether any such meaning be contained in them or not) we would say: Are the Greeks alone at liberty to con- vey a philosophic meaning in a secret covering? or perhaps also the Egyptians, and those of the barbarians who pride themselves upon their mysteries and the truth [which is con- cealed within them]; while the Jews alone, with their lawgiver and historians, appear to you the most unintelligent of men? And is this the only nation which has not received a share of divine power, and which yet was so grandly instructed how to rise upwards to the uncreated nature of God, and to gaze on Him alone, and to expect from Him alone [the fulBiment of] their hopes?
CHAPTEB XXXIX.
CHAPTEB XXXIX.
But as Celsus makes a jest also of the serpent, as counter- acting the injunctions given by God to the man, taking the narrative to be an old wife's fable? and has purposely neither mentioned the paradise? of God, nor stated that God is said to have planted it in Eden towards the east, and that there after- wards sprang up from the earth every tree that was beautiful to the sight, and good for food, and the tree of life in the midst of the paradise, and the tree of the knowledge of good and evil, and the other statements which follow, which might of themselves lead a candid reader to see that all these things had not inappropriately an allegorical meaning, let us contrast with this the words of Socrates regarding Eros in the Sympo- sium of Plato, and which are put in the mouth of Socrates as being more appropriate than what was said regarding him by all the others at the Symposium. The words of Plato are as 1 Hesiod, Works and Days, i. v. 120—184 (Elton's translation). 2 μεὖθόν rive” παραπλήσιον Toig παραδιδομένοις ταῖς γραυσὶν. 8 παράδεισος.
204 ORIGEN AGAINST CELSUS. [Book rv.
follow: * When Aphrodite was born, the gods held a banquet, and there was present, along with the others, Porus the son of Metis. And after they had dined, Penia! came to beg for something (seeing there was an entertainment), and she stood at the gate. Porus meantime, having become intoxicated with the nectar (for there was then no wine), went into the garden of Zeus, and being heavy with liquor, lay down to sleep. Penia accordingly formed a secret plot, with a view of freeing herself from her condition of poverty,’ to get a child by Porus, and accordingly lay down beside him, and became pregnant with Eros. And on this account Eros has become the follower and attendant of Aphrodite, having been begotten on her birth- day feast? and being at the same time by nature a lover of the beautiful, because Aphrodite too is beautiful. Seeing, then, that Eros is the son of Porus and Penis, the following is his condition.‘ In the first place, he is always poor, and far from being delicate and beautiful, as most persons imagine; but is withered, and sunburnt,’ and unshod, and without a home, sleeping always upon the ground, and without a covering; lying in the open air beside gates, and on public roads; possess- ing the nature of his mother, and dwelling continually with indigence. But, on the other hand, in conformity with the character of his father, he is given to plotting against the beautiful and the good, being courageous, and hasty, and vehement;’ a keen? hunter, perpetually devising contrivances; both much given to forethought, and also fertile in resources;? acting like a philosopher throughout the whole of his life; a terrible sorcerer, and dealer in drugs, and a sophist as well; neither immortal by nature nor yet mortal, but on the same day, at one time he flourishes and lives when he has plenty, and again at another time dies, and once more is recalled to life through possessing the nature of his father. But the sup- plies furnished to him are always gradually disappearing, so that he is never at any time in want, nor yet rich; and, on the other hand, he occupies an intermediate position between wis- 1 Penia, poverty; Porus, abundance. 2 διὰ τὴν αὑτῆς dizopim». 3 ἐν τοῖς ἐκείνη; γενέθλιοις. 4 iy τοιαύτῃ τύχη καθέστγκε. 5 σχληρὸς καὶ αὐχριηρὸς. 6 ἐνδείᾳ. 7 σύντονος.
δ δεινός. 9 xai φρονήσεως ἐπιθυμητὴς καὶ πόριμος. 10 δεινὸς γόης.
Book 1v. | ORIGEN AGAINST CELSUS. 205 dom and ignorance.” Now, if those who read these words were to imitate the malignity of Celsus—which be it far from Christians to do!—they would ridicule the myth, and would turn this great Plato into a subject of jest; but if, on investi- gating in a philosophic spirit what is conveyed in the dress of a myth, they should be able to discover the meaning of Plato, [they will admire]! the manner in which he was able to con- ceal, on account of the multitude, in the form of this myth, the great ideas which presented themselves to him, and to speak in a befitting manner to those who know how to ascertain from the myths the true meaning of him who wove them together. Now I have brought forward this myth occurring in the writings of Plato, because of the mention in it of the garden of Zeus, which appears to bear some resemblance to the paradise of God, and of the comparison between Penia and the serpent, and the plot against Porus by Penia, which may be compared with the plot of the serpent against the man. It is not very clear, indeed, whether Plato fell in with these stories by chance, or whether, as some think, meeting during his visit to Egypt with certain individuals who philosophized on the Jewish mys- teries, and learning some things from them, he may have pre- served a few of their ideas, and thrown others aside, being careful not to offend the Greeks by a complete adoption of all the points of the philosophy of the Jews, who were in bad repute with the multitude, on account of the foreign character of their laws and their peculiar polity. The present, however, is not the proper time for explaining either the myth of Plato, or the story of the serpent and the paradise of God, and all that is related to have taken place in it, as in our exposition of the book of Genesis we have especially occupied ourselves as we best could with these matters.
CHAPTER XL.
But as he asserts that “the Mosaic narrative most impiously represents God as in a state of weakness from the very com- mencement [of things], and as unable to gain over [to obe- dience] even one single man whom He Himself had formed,” 1 Boherellus, quem Ruzus sequitur, in notis; ** Ante voces: τίνα τρόπον, videtur deesse: θαυμάσονται, aut quid simile."—LOMMATZSCH.
206 ORIGEN AGAINST CELSUS. [Boox rv.
we say in answer that the objection! is much the same as if one were to find fault with the existence of evil, which God has not been able to prevent even in the case of a single individual, so that one man might be found from the very beginning of things who was born into the world untainted by sin. For as those whose business it is to defend the doctrine of providence do so by means of arguments which are not to be despised,’ so also the subjects of Adam and his son will be philosophically dealt with by those who are aware that in the Hebrew language Adam signifies man; and that in those parts of the narrative which appear to refer to Adam as an individual, Moses is dis- coursing upon the nature of man in general.” For “in Adam” (as the Scripture * says) “all die,” and were condemned in the likeness of Adam’s transgression, the word of God asserting this not so much of one particular individual as of the whole human race. For in the connected series of statements which appears to apply as to one particular individual, the curse pronounced upon Adam is regarded as common to all [the members of the race], and what was spoken with reference to the woman is spoken of every woman without exception. And the expulsion of the man and woman from paradise, and their being clothed with tunics of skins (which God, because of the transgression of men, made for those who had sinned), contain a certain secret and mystical doctrine (far transcending that of Plato) of the soul’s losing its wings,’ and being borne down- wards to earth, until it can lay hold of some stable resting-place.
CHAPTER XLI.
After this he continues as follows: “They speak, in the next place, of a deluge, and of a monstrous’ ark, having within it all things, and of a dove and a crow® as messengers, falsi- fying and recklessly altering? the story of Deucalion; not ex- 1 có λεγόβοενον.. 3 εὐκαταφρονήτων». 3 φυσιολογεῖ Mavens τὼ περὶ τῆς ToU ἐνθρώπου Φύσεως. 4 Cf. 1 Cor. xv. 22 with Rom. v. 14. δ οὐκ ἔστι καθ' no οὐ λέγεται.
6 χτεροῤῥνούσης.. This is a correction for στεροφυούσηςγ the textual reading in the Benedictine and Spencer’s edd., 7 ἀλλόκοτον. δ xopáru.
9 χαραχαράττοντες καὶ ῥαδιουργοῦντες.
Boox rv.] ORIGEN AGAINST CELSUS. 207