pecting, I suppose, that these things would come to light, but imagining that they were inventing stories merely for young children.” Now in these remarks observe the hostility—so unbecoming a philosopher—displayed by this man towards this very ancient Jewish narrative. For, not being able to say any- thing against the history of the deluge, and not perceiving what he might have urged against the ark and its dimensions, — viz. that, according to the general opinion, which accepted the statements that it was three hundred cubits in length, and fifty in breadth, and thirty in height, it was impossible to maintain that it contained [all] the animals that were upon the earth, fourteen specimens of every clean and four of every unclean beast,—he merely termed it “ monstrous, containing all things within it." Now wherein was its “ monstrous” character, seeing it is related to have been a hundred years in building, and to have had the three hundred cubits of its length and the fifty of its breadth contracted, until the thirty cubits of its height ter- minated in a top one cubit long and one cubit broad? Why should we not rather admire a structure which resembled an extensive city, if its measurements be taken to mean what they are capable of meaning,’ so that it was nine myriads of cubits long in the base, and two thousand five hundred in breadth? And why should we not admire the design evinced in having it so compactly built, and rendered capable of sustaining a tempest which caused a deluge? For it was not daubed with pitch, or any material of that kind, but was securely coated with bitumen. And is it not a subject of admiration, that by the providential arrangement of God, the elements of all the races were brought into it, that the earth might receive again the seeds of all living things, while God made use of a most righteous man to be the Dioemtor of those who were to be born after the deluge?
CHAPTER XLII.
In order to show that he had read the book of Genesis, Celsus rejects the story of the dove, although unable to adduce any reason which might prove it to be a fiction. In the next place, as his habit i is, in order to put the narrative in a more ridiculous 1 τῷ δυνάμει λέγεσθαι τὼ μέτρα.
208 ORIGEN AGAINST CELSUS. [Boor rv.
light, he converts the “raven” into a “ crow,” and imagines that Moses so wrote, having recklessly altered the accounts related of the Grecian Deucalion; unless perhaps he regards the nar- rative as not having proceeded from Moses, but from several individuals, as appears from his employing the plural number in the expressions, “ falsifying and recklessly altering the story of Deucalion,"! as well as from the words, “ For they did not expect, I suppose, that these things would come to light." But how should they, who gave their Scriptures to the whole nation, not expect that they would come to light, and who predicted, moreover, that this religion should be proclaimed to all nations? Jesus declared, “The kingdom of God shall be taken from you, and given to a nation bringing forth the fruits thereof;᾽ 5 and in uttering these words to the Jews, what other meaning did He intend to convey than this, viz. that He Himself should, through His divine power, bring forth into light the whole of the Jewish Scriptures, which contain the mysteries of the king- dom of God? If, then, they peruse the Theogonies of the Greeks, and the stories about the twelve gods, they impart to them an air of dignity, by investing them with an allegorical signification; but when they wish to throw contempt upon our biblical narratives, they assert that they are fables, clumsily invented for infant children!
CHAPTER XLIII.
CHAPTER XLIII.
“ Altogether absurd, and out of season,” ® he continues, “ is the [account of the] begetting of children,” where, although he has mentioned no names, it is evident that he is referring to the history of Abraham and Sarah. Cavilling also at the “con- spiracies of the brothers,” he alludes either to the story of Cain plotting against Abel,* or, in addition, to that of Esau against Jacob;° and [speaking] of “a father’s sorrow," he probably refers to that of Isaac on account of the absence of Jacob, and perhaps also to that of Jacob because of Joseph having been sold into Egypt. And when relating the “crafty procedure of mothers,” I suppose he means the conduct of Rebecca, who contrived that the blessing of Isaac should descend, not upon 1 χαραχαράττοντες καὶ ῥᾳδιουργοῦντες. 3 Cf. Matt. xxi. 43. 3 ἔξωρον. * Cf. Gen. iv. 8. 5 Cf. Gen. xxi. 2.
Boox Iv. ] ORIGEN AGAINST CELSUS. 209 Esau, but upon Jacob. Now if we assert that in all these cases God interposed in a very marked degree,’ what absurdity do we commit, seeing we are persuaded that He never withdraws His providence* from those who devote themselves to Him in an honourable and vigorous? life? He ridicules, moreover, the acquisition of property made by Jacob while living with Laban, not understanding to what these words refer: ^ And those which had no spots were Laban’s, and those which were spotted were J'acob's;"* and he says that * God presented his sons with asses, and sheep, and camels," and did not see that “all these things happened unto them for ensamples, and were written for our sake, upon whom the ends of the world are come."* The varying customs [prevailing among the different nations] be- coming famous,’ are regulated by the word of God, being given as a possession to him who is figuratively termed Jacob. For those who become converts to Christ from among the heathen, are indicated by the history of Laban and Jacob.
CHAPTER XLIV.
CHAPTER XLIV.
And erring widely from the meaning of Scripture, he says that “God gave wells? also to the righteous." Now he did not observe that the righteous do not construct cisterns,’ but dig wells, seeking to discover the inherent ground and source of potable blessings," inasmuch as they receive in a figurative sense the commandment which enjoins, * Drink waters from your own vessels, and from your own wells of fresh water. Let not your water be poured out beyond your own fountain, 1 ἄγχιστα δὲ τούτοις πᾶσι συμπολιτεύομενον. 2 βθειότητα.
3 ἐῤῥωμένως.
4 Cf. Gen. xxx. 42 (LXX.). ‘The feebler were Laban’s, and the stronger Jacob’s”” (Auth. Vers.).
5 Cf. Gen. xxx. 43.
7 gap oig τὼ ποικίλα ἤθη ἐπίσημα γενόμενα, TQ λογῷ TOY Θεοῦ πολιτεύεται, δυθέντα κτῆσις τῷ Tpozixag καλουμένῳ ᾿Ιαχώβ: ἐπίσημα is the term employed to denote the ‘‘ spotted " cattle of Laban, and is here used by Origen in its figurative sense of *' distinguished," thus playing on the double meaning of the word.
8 φρέατα. 9 λάκκους.
10 τὴν ἐνυπάρχουσαν γῆν καὶ ὠἐρχὴν τῶν ποτίμων ἀγαθῶν. Boherellus proposes: τὴν ἐνυπάρχουσαν πηγὴν καὶ ἀρχὴν τῶν ποτίμων ὑδάτων. ORIG.—VOL. II. o 210 ORIGEN AGAINST CELSUS. [Boox iv.
but let it pass into your own streets. Let it belong to you alone, and let no alien partake with thee.”! Scripture fre- quently makes use of the histories of real events, in order to present to view more important truths, which are but obscurely intimated; and of this kind are the narratives relating to the * wells,” and to the “marriages,” and to the various acts of * sexual intercourse” recorded of righteous persons, respecting which, however, it will be more seasonable to offer an explana- tion in the exegetical writings referring to those very passages. But that wells were constructed by righteous men in the land of the Philistines, as related in the book of Genesis,” is manifest from the wonderful wells which are shown at Ascalon, and which are deserving of mention on account of their structure, so foreign and peculiar compared with that of other wells. Moreover, that both young women? and female servants are to be understood metaphorically, is not our doctrine merely, but one which we have received from the beginning from wise men, among whom a certain one said, when exhorting his hearers to investigate the figurative meaning: “Tell me, ye that read the law, do ye not hear the law? For it is written that Abraham had two sons; the one by a bond maid, the other by a free woman. But he who was of the bond woman was born after the flesh; but he of the free woman was by promise. Which things are an allegory: for these are the two covenants; the one from the Mount Sinai, which gendereth to bondage which is Agar.”* And a little after, “But Jerusalem which is above is free, which is the mother of us all." And any one who will take up the Epistle to the Galatians may learn how the passages relating to the “marriages,” and the intercourse with “the maid-servants,” have been allegorized; the Scripture desiring us to imitate not the literal acts of those who did these things, but (as the apostles of Jesus are accustomed to them) the spiritual. CHAPTER XLV.
And whereas Celsus ought to have recogmised the love of truth displayed by the writers. of sacred Scripture, who have 1 Cf. Prov. v. 15-17. 3 Cf. Gen. xxvi. 15. δ γύμφας. 4 Cf. Gal. iv. 21-24.
Bookx 1v. | ORIGEN AGAINST CELSUS. 211 not concealed even what is to their discredit,! and thus been led to accept the other and more marvellous accounts as true, he has done the reverse, and has characterized the story of Lot and his daughters (without examining either its literal or its figurative meaning) as “worse than the crimes of Thyestes.” The figurative signification of that passage of history it is not necessary at present to explain, nor what is meant by Sodom, and by the words of the angels to him who was escaping thence, when they said: “ Look not behind thee, neither stay thou in al the surrounding district; escape to the mountain, lest thou be consumed;"? nor what is intended by Lot and his wife, who became a pillar of salt because she turned back; nor by his daughters intoxicating their father, that they might become mothers by him. But let us in a few words soften down the repulsive features of the history. The nature of actions—good, bad, and indifferent—has been investigated by the Greeks; and the more successful of such investigators? lay down the prin- ciple that intention alone gives to actions the character of good or bad, and that all things which are done without a purpose are, strictly speaking, indifferent; that when the intention is directed to a becoming end, it is praiseworthy; when the re- verse, it is censurable. "They have said, accordingly, in the section relating to “things indifferent," that, strictly speaking, for a man to have sexual intercourse with his daughters is a thing indifferent, although such a thing ought not to take place in established communities. And for the sake of hypothesis, in order to show that such an act belongs to the class of things indifferent, they have assumed the case of a wise man being left with an only daughter, the entire human race besides having perished; and they put the question whether the father can fitly have intercourse with his daughter, in order, agree- ably to the supposition, to prevent the extermination of man- kind. Is this to be accounted sound reasoning among the Greeks, and to be commended by the influential* sect of the Stoics; but when young maidens, who had heard of the burning of the world, though without comprehending [its full meaning], saw fire devastating their city and country, and supposing that l cà dai aírorra. 3 Gen. xix. 17. δ of ἐκιτυγχάνοντες γε αὐτῶν. 4 οὐκ εὐκωταφρόνητος αὑτοῖς.
212 ORIGEN AGAINST CELSUS. [ Boos iv.
the only means left of rekindling the flame! of human life lay in their father and themselves, should, on such a supposition, conceive the desire that the world should continue, shall their conduct be deemed worse than that of the wise man who, according to the hypothesis of the Stoics, acts becomingly in having intercourse with his daughters in the case already sup- posed, of all men having been destroyed? I am not unaware, however, that some have taken offence at the desire? of Lots daughters, and have regarded their conduct as very wicked; and have said that two accursed nations—Moab and Ammon— have sprung from that unhallowed intercourse. And yet truly sacred Scripture is nowhere found distinctly approving of their conduct as good, nor yet passing sentence upon it as blame worthy. Nevertheless, whatever be the real state of the case, it admits not only of a figurative meaning, but also of being defended on its own merits?
CHAPTEB XLVI.
CHAPTEB XLVI.
. " Celsus, moreover, sneers at the “hatred” of Esau (to which, Í suppose, he refers) against Jacob, although he was a man who, according to the Scriptures, is acknowledged to have been wicked; and not clearly stating the story of Simeon and Lev, who sallied out [on the Shechemites] on account of the insult offered to their sister, who had been violated by the son of the Shechemite king, he inveighs against their conduct. And pass ing on, he speaks of ‘brothers selling [one another],” alluding to the sons of Jacob; and of “a brother sold," Joseph to vit; and of “a father deceived,” viz. Jacob, because he entertained no suspicion of his sons when they showed him Joseph's coat of many colours, but believed their statement, and mourned for his son, who was a slave in Egypt, as if he were dead. And observe in what a spirit of hatred and falsehood Celsus collects together the statements of the sacred history; so that wherevet it appeared to him to contain a ground of accusation he pr^ duces the passage, but wherever there is any exhibition of virtue worthy of mention—as when Joseph would not gratify the lust of his mistress, refusing alike her allurements and her 1 ζώπυρον. | 3 βουλήματι. 8 ἔχει δέ τινα καὶ καθ᾽ αὑτὸ ἀπολογίαν.
Boox 1v.] ORIGEN AGAINST CELSUS. 213 threats—he does not even mention the circumstance! He should see, indeed, that the conduct of Joseph was far superior to what is related of Bellerophon,’ since the former chose naa to be shut up in prison than do violence to his virtue. For although he might have offered a just defence against his accuser,; he magnanimously remained silent, entrusting his cause to God.
CHAPTER XLVII.
Celsus next, for form’s sake,’ and with great want of pre- cision, speaks of “the dreams of the chief butler. and chief baker, and of Pharaoh, and of the explanation of them, in con- sequence of which Joseph was taken out of prison in order to be entrusted by Pharaoh with the second place in Egypt.” What absurdity, then, did the history contain, looked at even in itself, that it should be adduced as matter of accusation by this Celsus, who gave the title of True Discourse to a treatise not containing doctrines, but full of charges against Jews and Christians? He adds: * He who had been sold behaved kindly to his brethren (who had sold him), when they were suffering from hunger, and had been sent with their asses to purchase [provisions];" although he has not related these occurrences [in his treatise]. But he does mention the circumstance of Joseph making himself known to his brethren, although I know not with what view, or what absurdity he can point out in such an occurrence; since it is impossible for Momus himself, we might say, to find any reasonable fault with events which, apart from their figurative meaning, present so much that is attractive. He relates, further, that “ Joseph, who had been sold as a slave, — was restored to liberty, and went up with ‘a solemn procession to his father's funeral," and thinks that the narrative furnishes matter of accusation against us, as he makes the following remark: “ By whom (Joseph, namely) the illustrious and divine nation of the Jews, after growing up in Egypt to be a multitude of people, was commanded to sojourn somewhere beyond the limits of the kingdom, and to pasture their flocks in districts of no repute.” Now the words, “that they were commanded to pasture their flocks in districts of no repute,” 1 Cf. Homer, Zliad, vi. 160. 2 (σία; ἕνεκεν.
214 ORIGEN AGAINST CELSUS. [Boox rv.
are an addition, proceeding from his own feelings of hatred; for he has not shown that Goshen, the district of Egypt, isa place of no repute. The exodus of the people from Egypt he calls a flight, not at all remembering what is written in the book of Exodus regarding the departure of the Hebrews from the land of Egypt. We have enumerated these instances to show that what, literally considered, might appear to furnish ground of accusation, Celsus has not succeeded in proving to be either objectionable or foolish, having utterly failed to estab- lish the evil character, as he regards it, of our Scriptures.
CHAPTER XLVIII.
In the next place, as if he had devoted himself solely to the manifestation of his hatred and dislike of the Jewish and Christian doctrine, he says: “The more modest of Jewish and Christian writers give all these things an allegorical meaning; and, “Because they are ashamed of these things, they take refuge in allegory.” Now one might say to him, that if we must admit fables and fictions, whether written with a con- cealed meaning or with any other object, to be shameful narra- tives when taken in their literal acceptation,! of what histories can this be said more truly than of the Grecian? In these histories, gods who are sons castrate the gods who are their fathers, and gods who are parents devour their own children, and a goddess-mother gives to the “father of gods and men" a stone to swallow instead of his own son, and a father has intercourse with his daughter, and a wife binds her own husband, having as her allies in the work the brother of the fettered god and his own daughter! But why should I enumerate these absurd stories of the Greeks regarding their gods, which are most shameful in themselves, even though invested with an allegorical meaning? [Take the instance] where Chrysippus of Soli, who is considered to be an ornament of the Stoic sect on account of his numerous and learned treatises, explains picture at Samos, in which Juno was represented as committing unspeakable abominations with Jupiter. This reverend philosopher says in his treatises, that matter receives the spermatic words? of the god, and retains them within herself, in order to 1 κατὰ τὴν πρώτην ἐκδοχὴν. 3 τοὺς σπερματικους λόγον!
Book 1v. ] ORIGEN AGAINST CELSUS. 215 ornament the universe. For in the picture at Samos Juno represents matter, and Jupiter God. Now it is on account of these, and of countless other similar fables, that we would not even in word call the God of all things Jupiter, or the sun Apollo, or the moon Diana. But we offer to the Creator a worship which is pure, and speak with religious respect of His noble works of creation, not contaminating even in word the things of God; approving of the language of Plato in the Philebus, who would not admit that pleasure was a goddess, “so great is my reverence, Protarchus," he says, “ for the very names of the gods.” We verily entertain such reve- rence for the name of God, and for His noble works of creation, that we would not, even under pretext of an allegorical mean- ing, admit any fable which might do injury to the young.
CHAPTER XLIX.
CHAPTER XLIX.
If Celsus had read the Scriptures in an impartial spirit, he would not have said that “our writings are incapable of admitting an allegorical meaning.” For from the prophetic . Scriptures, in which historical events are recorded (not from the historical), it is possible to be convinced that the historical portions also were written with an allegorical purpose, and were most skilfully adapted not only to the multitude of the simpler believers, but also to the few who are able or willing to inves- tigate matters in an intelligent spirit. If, indeed, those writers at the present day who are deemed by Celsus the “ more modest of the Jews and Christians” were the [first] allegorical inter- preters of our Scriptures, he would have the appearance, per- haps, of making a plausible allegation. But since the very fathers and authors of the doctrines themselves give them an allegorical signification, what other inference can be drawn than ' that they were composed so as to be allegorically understood in their chief signification?! And we shall adduce a few instances out of very many to show that Celsus brings an empty charge against the Scriptures, when he says “that they are incapable of admitting an allegorical meaning.” Paul, the apostle of Jesus, says: “It is written in the law, Thou shalt not muzzle the mouth of the ox that treadeth out the corn.
1 κατὰ τὸν ποοηγούμενον νοῦν.
216 ORIGEN AGAINST CELSUS. [Book rv.
Doth God take care for oxen? or saith He it altogether for our sakes? For our sakes, no doubt, this is written, that he that plougheth should plough in hope, and he that thresheth in hope of partaking.” And in another passage the same Paul says: “For it is written, For this cause shall a man leave his father and mother, and shall be joined to his wife, and they two shall be one flesh. This is a great mystery; but I speak concerning Christ and the church.”? And again, in another place: “We know that all our fathers were under the cloud, and all passed through the sea; and were all baptized unto Moses in the cloud, and in the sea.”* Then, explaining the history relating to the manna, and that referring to the miraculous issue of the water from the rock, he continues as follows: * And they did all eat the same spiritual meat, and did all drink the same spiritual drink. For they drank of that spiritual rock that followed them, and that rock was Christ, * Asaph, moreover, who, in showing the histories in Exodus and Numbers to be full of difficulties and parables,’ begins in the following manner, as recorded: in the book of Psalms, where he is about to make mention of these things: “Give ear, O my people, to my law: incline your ears to the words of my mouth. I will open my mouth in parables; I will utter dark sayings of old, which we have heard and known, and our fathers have told us."
CHAPTER L.
CHAPTER L.
Moreover, if the law of Moses had contained nothing which was to be understood as having a secret meaning, the prophet would not have said in his prayer to God, * Open Thou mine eyes, and I will behold wondrous things out of Thy law;" 7 whereas he knew that there was a veil of ignorance lying upon the heart of those who read but do not understand the figurative meaning, which veil is taken away by the gift of God, when He hears him who has done all that he can,? and who by reason of habit has his senses exercised to distinguish between good 1 Cf. 1 Cor. ix. 9, 10, and Deut. xxv. 4.
* Cf. 1 Cor. x. 3, 4. 5 προβλήματα καὶ πκαραβολαί. 6 Cf. Ps. Ixxxvii. 1, 2. 7 Cf. Ps. cxix. 18.
8 ἐπὰν ἐπακούσῃ TOU wap ἑαυτοῦ πάντα ποιήσαντος. ἥ Book 1v. | ORIGEN AGAINST CELSUS. 217 and evil, and who continually utters the prayer, “Open Thou mine eyes, and I will behold wondrous things out of Thy law.” And who is there that, on reading of the dragon that lives in the Egyptian river,’ and of the fishes which lurk in his scales, or of the excrement of Pharaoh which fills the mountains of Egypt,’ is not led at once to inquire who he is that fills the Egyptian mountains with his stinking excrement, and what the Egyptian mountains are; and what the rivers-in Egypt are, of which the aforesaid Pharaoh boastfully says, ‘The rivers are mine, and I have made them;"? and who the dragon is, and the fishes in its scales,—and this so as to harmonize with the interpretation to be given of the rivers? But why establish at greater length what needs no demonstration? For to these things applies the saying: * Who is wise, and he shall under- stand these things? or who is prudent, and he shall know them?”* Now I have gone at some length into the subject, because I wished to show the unsoundness of the assertion of Celsus, that “the more modest among the Jews and Christians endeavour somehow to give these stories an allegorical significa- tion, although some of them do not admit of this, but on the contrary are exceedingly silly inventions.” Much rather are the stories of the Greeks not only very silly, but very impious inventions. For our narratives keep expressly in view the multitude of simpler believers, which was not done by those who invented the Grecian fables. And therefore not without propriety does Plato expel from.his state all fables and poems of such a nature as those of which we have been speaking.
CHAPTER LI.
Celsus appears to me to have heard that there are treatises in existence which contain allegorical explanations of the law of Moses. These, however, he could not have read; for if he had, he would not have said: * The allegorical explanations, however, which have been devised, are much more shameful and absurd than the fables themselves, inasmuch as they endea- vour to unite with marvellous and altogether insensate folly things which cannot at all be made to harmonize.” He seems 1 Cf. Ezek. xxix. 8. 3 Cf. Ezek. xxxii. 6. 3 Cf. Ezek. xxix. 8. 4 Cf. Hos. xiv. 9.
218 ORIGEN AGAINST CELSUS. [Booz rv.
to refer in these words to the works of Philo, or to those of still older writers, such as Aristobulus. But I conjecture that Celsus has not read their books, since it appears to me that in many passages they have so successfully hit the meaning [of the sacred writers], that even Greoian philosophers would have been captivated by their explanations; for in their writings we find not only a polished style, but exquisite thoughts and doctrines, and a rational use of what Celsus imagines to be fables in the sacred writings. I know, moreover, that Nume- nius the Pythagorean—a surpassingly excellent expounder of Plato, and who held a foremost place as a teacher of the doctrines of Pythagoras—in many of his works quotes from the writings of Moses and the prophets, and applies to the passages in question a not improbable allegorical meaning, as in his work called Epops, and in those which treat of “Numbers” and of “Place.” And in the third book of his dissertation on The Good, he quotes also a narrative regarding Jesus—without, however, mentioning His name—and gives it an allegorical signification, whether successfully or the reverse I may state on another occasion. He relates also the account respecting Moses, and Jannes, and Jambres! But we are not elated on account of this instance, though we express our approval of Numenius, rather than of Celsus and other Greeks, because he was willing to investigate our histories from a desire to acquire knowledge and was [duly] affected by them as narratives which were to be allegorically understood, and which did not belong to the cate- gory of foolish compositions.
CHAPTER LII.
After this, selecting from all the treatises which contain allegorical explanations and interpretations, expressed in a lan- guage and style not to be despised, the least important, such as might contribute, indeed, to strengthen the faith of the multitude of simple believers, but were not adapted to impress those of more intelligent mind, he continues: “Of such & nature do I know the work to be, entitled Controversy between one Papiscus and Jason, which is fitted to excite pity and ha instead of laughter. It is not my purpose, however, to confute 1 Cf. 2 Tim. iii. 8. 2 τὸ εὐτελέστερον.
Book 1v. ] ORIGEN AGAINST CELSUS. 219