CHAPTER XVIII.
After this the Jew makes another silly remark, saying, « How is it that, if Jesus pointed out beforehand both the traitor and the perjurer, they did not fear him as a God, and cease, the one from his intended treason, and the other from his perjury?" Here the learned Celsus did not see the con- tradiction in his statement: for if Jesus foreknew events as a God, then it was impossible for His foreknowledge to prove untrue; and therefore it was impossible for him who was known to Him as going to betray Him not to execute his purpose, nor for him who was rebuked as going to deny Him not to have been guilty of that crime. For if it had been possible for the one to abstain from the act of betrayal, and the other from that of denial, as having been warned of the consequences of these actions beforehand, then His words were no longer true, who predicted that the one would betray Him and the other deny Him. For if He had foreknowledge of the traitor, He knew the wickedness in which the treason Boox π.ἢ ORIGEN AGAINST CELSUS. 25 originated, and this wickedness was by no means taken away by the foreknowledge. And, again, if He had ascertained that one would deny Him, He made that prediction from seeing the weakness out of which that act of denial would arise, and yet this weakness was not to be taken away thus at once’ by the foreknowledge. But whence he derived the statement, “ that these persons betrayed and denied him with- out manifesting any concern about him,” I know not; for it was proved, with respect to the traitor, that it is false to say that he betrayed his master without an exhibition of anxiety regarding Him. And this was shown to be equally true of him who denied Him; for he went out, after the denial, and wept bitterly. CHAPTER XIX.
Superficial also is his objection, that “ it is always the case when a man against whom a plot is formed, and who comes to the knowledge of it, makes known to the conspirators that he is acquainted with their design, that the latter are turned from their purpose, and keep upon their guard.” For many have continued to plot even against those who were acquainted with their plans. And then, as if bringing his argument toa conclusion, he says: “ὁ Not because these things were predicted did they come to pass, for that is impossible; but since they have come to pass, their being predicted is shown to be a falsehood: for it is altogether impossible that those who heard beforehand of the discovery of their designs, should carry out their plans of betrayal and denial!” But if his premisses are overthrown, then his conclusion also falls to the ground, viz. “that we are not to believe, because these things were predicted, that they have come to pass.” Now we maintain that they not only came to pass as being possible, but also that, because they came to pass, the fact of their being predicted is shown to be true; for the truth regarding future events is judged of by results. It is false, therefore, as asserted by him, that the pre- diction of these events is proved to be untrue; and it is to no purpose that he says, “It is altogether impossible for those who heard beforehand that their designs were discovered, to carry out their plans of betrayal and denial.”
1 οὕτως ἀθρόως.
1 οὕτως ἀθρόως.
26 ORIGEN AGAINST CELSUS. [Boox rr.
CHAPTER XX.
Let us see how he continues after this: * These events," he says, “he predicted as being a God, and the prediction must by all means come to pass. God, therefore, who above all others ought to do good to men, and especially to those of his own household, led on his own disciples and prophets, with whom he was in the habit of eating and drinking, to such a degree of wickedness, that they became impious and unholy men. Now, of a truth, he who shared a man’s table would not be guilty of conspiring against him; but after ban- queting with God, he became a conspirator. And, what is still more absurd, God himself plotted against the members of his own table, by converting them into traitors and villains!” Now, since you wish me to answer even those charges of Celsus which seem to me frivolous,’ the following is our reply to such statements. Celsus imagines that an event, pre- dicted through foreknowledge, comes to pass because it was predicted; but we do not grant this, maintaining that he who foretold it was not the cause of its happening, because he fore- told it would happen; but the future event itself, which would have taken place though not predicted, afforded the occasion to him, who was endowed with foreknowledge, of foretelling its occurrence. Now, certainly this result is present to the fore- knowledge of him who predicts an event, when it is possible that it may or may not happen, viz. that one or other of these things will take place. For we do not assert that he who fore- knows an event, by secretly taking away the possibility of its happening or not, makes any such declaration as this: “ This shall infallibly happen, and it is impossible that it can be other- wise.” And this remark applies to all the foreknowledge of events dependent upon ourselves, whether contained in the sacred Scriptures or in the histories of the Greeks. Now, what is called by logicians an “idle argument,”? which is a sophism, will be no sophism as far as Celsus can help, but according to sound reasoning it is a sophism. And that this may be seen, I shall take from the Scriptures the predictions regarding Judas, or the foreknowledge of our Saviour regarding him as the traitor; and from the Greek histories the oracle that was given 1 εὐτελέσι. 2 ἀργὸς λόγος.
Boox n.] ORIGEN AGAINST CELSUS. 27 to Laius, conceding for the present its truth, since it does not affect the argument. Now, in Ps. cix., Judas is spoken of by the mouth of the Saviour, in words beginning thus: * Hold not Thy peace, O God of my praise; for the mouth of the wicked and the mouth of the deceitful are opened against me.” Now, if you carefully observe the contents of the psalm, you will find that, as it was foreknown that he would betray the Saviour, so also was he considered to be himself the cause of the betrayal, and deserving, on account of his wickedness, of the imprecations contained in the prophecy. For let him suffer these things, * because," says the psalmist, 4 he remembered not to show mercy, but persecuted the poor and needy man." Wherefore it was possible for him to show mercy, and not to persecute him whom he did persecute. But although he might have done these things, he did not do them, but carried out the ‘act of treason, so as to merit the curses pronounced against him in the prophecy. And in answer to the Greeks we shall quote the following oracular response to Laius, as recorded by the tragic poet, either in the exact words of the oracle or in equivalent terms. Future events are thus made known to him by the oracle: “Do not try to beget children against the will of the gods. For if you beget a son, your son shall murder you; and all your household shall wade in blood.”* Now from this it is clear that it was within the power of Laius not to try to beget children, for the oracle would not have commanded an impossi- bility; and it was also in his power to do the opposite, so that neither of these courses was compulsory. And the consequence of his not guarding against the begetting of children was, that he suffered from so doing the calamities described in the tragedies relating to CEdipus and Jocasta and their sons. Now that which is called the *idle argument," being a quibble, is such as might be applied, say in the case of a sick man, with the view of sophistically preventing him from employing a physician to promote his recovery; and it is something like this: “If it is decreed that you should recover from your disease, you will recover whether you call in a physician or not; but if it is decreed that you should not recover, you will 1 Euripid. Phenisse, 18-20.
28 ORIGEN AGAINST CELSUS. [Book rr.
not recover whether you call in a physician or no. But it is certainly decreed either that you should recover, or that you should not recover; and therefore it is in vain that you call in a physician.” Now with this argument the following may be wittily compared: “If it is decreed that you should beget children, you will beget them, whether you have inter- course with a woman or not. But if it is decreed that you should not beget children, you will not do so, whether you have intercourse with a woman or no. Now, certainly, it is decreed either that you should beget children or not; therefore it is in vain that you have intercourse with a woman." For, as in the latter instance, intercourse with a woman is not employed in vain, seeing it is an utter impossibility for him who does not use it to beget children; so, in the former, if recovery from disease is to be accomplished by means of the healing art, of necessity the physician is summoned, and it is therefore false to say that “in vain do you call in a physician." We have brought forward all these illustrations on account of the asser- tion of this learned Celsus, that “being a God he predicted these things, and the predictions must by all means come to pass.” Now, if by * by all means” he means “ necessarily," we cannot admit this. For it was quite possible, also, that they might not come to pass. But if he uses “ by all means” in the sense of “simple futurity,” > which nothing hinders from being true (although it was possible that they might not happen), he does not at all touch my argument; nor did it follow, from Jesus having predicted the acts of the traitor or the perjurer, that it was the same thing with His being the cause of such impious and unholy proceedings. For He who was amongst us, and knew what was in man, seeing his evil disposition, and foreseeing what he would attempt from his spirit of covetous- ness, and from his want of stable ideas of duty towards his Master, along with many other declarations, gave utterance to this also: * He that dippeth his hand with me in the dish, the same shall betray me.”?
CHAPTER XXI.
Observe also the superficiality and manifest falsity of such 1 ἀντὶ τοῦ ἔσται. 3 Matt. xxvi. 23.
Boox 11. ] ORIGEN AGAINST CELSUS. 29 a statement of Celsus, when he asserts “that he who was par- taker of a man's table would not conspire against him; and if he would not conspire against a man, much less would he plot against a God after banqueting with him.” For who does not know that many persons, after partaking of the salt on the table,’ have entered into a conspiracy against their entertainers? The whole of Greek and barbarian history is full of such in- stances. And the Iambic poet of Paros? when upbraiding Lycambes with having violated covenants confirmed by the salt of the table, says to him: * But thou hast broken a mighty oath—that, viz., by the salt of the table.” And they who are interested in historical learning, and who give themselves wholly to it, to the neglect of other branches of knowledge more necessary for the conduct of life,® can quote numerous instances, showing that they who shared in the hos- pitality of others entered into conspiracies against them.
CHAPTER XXII.
CHAPTER XXII.
He adds to this, as if he had brought together an argu- ment with conclusive demonstrations and consequences, the following: “And, which is still more absurd, God himself conspired against those who sat at his table, by converting them into traitors and impious men." But how Jesus could either conspire or convert His disciples into traitors or impious men, it would be impossible for him to prove, save by means of such a deduction as any one could refute with the greatest ease.
CHAPTER XXIII.
He continues in this strain: *If he had determined upon these things, and underwent chastisement in obedience to his Father, it is manifest that, being a God, and submitting volun- tarily, those things that were done agreeably to his own deci- sion were neither painful nor distressing.” But he did not observe that here he was at once contradicting himself. For if he granted that He was chastised because He had deter- mined upon these things, and had submitted Himself to His Father, it is clear that He actually suffered punishment, and it 1 ἁλῶν καὶ τραπέζης. 2 Archilochus. * Guietus would expunge these words as ‘‘ inept.”
80 ORIGEN AGAINST CELSUS. [Boox τι.
was impossible that what was inflicted on Him by His chastisers should not be painful, because pain is an involuntary thing. But if, because He was willing to suffer, His inflictions were neither painful nor distressing, how did He grant that “ He was chastised?” He did not perceive that when Jesus had once, by His birth, assumed a body, He assumed one which was capable both of suffering pains, and those distresses incidental to humanity, if we are to understand by distresses what no one ‘voluntarily chooses. Since, therefore, He voluntarily assumed a body, not wholly of a different nature from that of human flesh, so along with His body He assumed also its sufferings and distresses. which it was not in His power to avoid enduring, it being in the power of those who inflicted them to send upon Him things distressing and painful. And in the preceding pages we have already shown, that He would not have come into the hands of men had He not so wiled. But He did come, because He was willing to come, and because it was manifest beforehand that His dying upon behalf of men would be of advantage to the whole human race.
CHAPTER XXIV.
CHAPTER XXIV.
After this, wishing to prove that the occurrences which befell Him were painful and distressing, and that it was impossible for Him, had He. wished, to render them otherwise, he proceeds: *« Why does he mourn, and lament, and pray to escape the fear of death, expressing himself in terms like these: * O Father, if it be possible, let this cup pass from me?’”? Now in these words observe tlie malignity of Celsus, how not accepting the love of truth which actuates the writers of the Gospels (who might have passed over in silence those points which, as Celsus - thinks, are censurable, but who did not omit them. for many reasons, which any one, in expounding the Gospel, can give in their proper place), he brings an accusation against the Gospel statement, grossly exaggerating the facts, and quoting what is not written in the Gospels, seeing it is nowhere found that Jesus lamented. And he changes the words in the expression, * Father, if it be possible, let this cup pass from me," and does not give what follows immediately after, which manifests at 1 Matt. xxvi. 39.
Box nr] ORIGEN AGAINST CELSUS. 31 once the ready obedience of Jesus to His Father, and His greatness of mind, and which runs thus: ‘ Nevertheless, not as I will, but as Thou wilt"! Nay, even the cheerful obedience of Jesus to the will of His Father in those things which He was condemned to suffer, exhibited in the declaration, * If this cup cannot pass from me except I drink it, Thy will be done,” he pretends not to have observed, acting here like those wicked individuals who listen to the Holy Scriptures in a malignant spirit, and “‘ who talk wickedness with lofty head." For they appear to have heard the declaration, “TI kill"? and they often make it to us a subject of reproach; but the words, * I will make alive,” they do not remember,—the whole sentence show- ing that those who live amid public wickedness, and who work wickedly, are put to death by God, and that a better life is infused into them instead, even one which God will give to those who have died to sin. And so also these men have heard the words, *I will smite;” but they do not see these, “and I will heal,” which are like the words of a physician, who cuts bodies asunder, and inflicts severe wounds, in order to extract from them substances that are injurious and prejudicial to health, and who does not terminate his work with pains and lacerations, but by his treatment restores the body to that state of soundness which he has in view. Moreover, they have not heard the whole of the announcement, * For He maketh sore, and again bindeth up;” but only this part, * He maketh sore." So in like manner acts this Jew of Celsus, who quotes the words, * O Father, would that this cup might pass from me;” but who does not add what follows, and which exhibits the firmness of Jesus, and His preparedness for suffering. But. these matters, which afford great room for explanation from the wisdom of God, and which may reasonably be pondered over? by those whom Paul calls “ perfect" when he said, “ We speak wisdom among them who are perfect," * we pass by for the present, and shall speak for a little of those matters which are useful for our present purpose.
1 Matt. xxvi. 39.? Deut. xxxii. 39. * xai ταῦτα δὲ, πολλὴν ἔχοντα διήγησιν ἀπὸ σοφίας Θεοῦ οἷς ὁ YlaUAog ὠνόμασε τελείοις εὐλόγως παραδοθησομένην.
82 ORIGEN AGAINST CELSUS. [Book 1.
CHAPTER XXV.
We have mentioned in the preceding pages that there are some of the declarations of Jesus which refer to that Being in Him which was the “ first-born of every creature," such as, ‘ I am the way, and the truth, and the life,” and such like; and others, again, which belong to that in Him which is understood to be man, such as, ^ But now ye seek to kill me, a man that hath told you the truth which I have heard of the Father."! And here, accordingly, he describes the element of weakness belonging to human flesh, and that of readiness of spirit which existed in His humanity: the element of weakness in the expression, “ Father, if it be possible, let this cup pass from me;” the readiness of the spirit in this, “ Nevertheless, not as I will, but as Thou wilt.” And since it is proper to observe the order of our quotations, observe that, in the first place, there is men- tioned only the single instance, as one would say, indicating the weakness of the flesh; and afterwards those other instances, greater in number, manifesting the willingness of the spirit. For the expression, * Father, if it be possible, let this cup pass from me," is only one: whereas more numerous are those others, viz., “ Not as I will, but as Thou wilt;" and, * O my Father, if this cup cannot pass from me except I drink it, Thy will be done.” It is to be noted also, that the words are not, “let this cup depart from me;" but that the whole expression is marked by a tone of piety and reverence, “ Father, if it be possible, let this cup pass from me.” I know, indeed, that there is another explanation of this passage to the following effect:—The Saviour, foreseeing the sufferings which the Jewish people and the city of Jerusalem were to undergo in requital of the wicked deeds which the Jews had dared to perpetrate upon Him, from no other motive than that of the purest philanthropy towards them, and from a desire that they might escape the impending calamities, gave utterance to the prayer, * Father, if it be pos- sible, let this cup pass from me." It is asif He had said, “Because of my drinking this cup of punishment, the whole nation will be forsaken by Thee, I pray, if it be possible, that this cup may pass from me, in order that Thy portion, which was guilty of John viii. 40.
Boor 11.] ORIGEN AGAINST CELSUS. 33 such crimes against me, may not be altogether deserted by Thee.” But if, as Celsus would allege, * nothing at that time was done to Jesus which was either painful or distressing,” how could men afterwards quote the example of Jesus as enduring sufferings for the sake of religion, if He did not suffer what are human sufferings, but only had the appearance of so doing 1 CHAPTER XXVI.
This Jew of Celsus still accuses the disciples of Jesus of having invented these statements, saying to them: “ Even although guilty of falsehood, ye have not been able to give a colour of credibility to your inventions." In answer to which we have to say, that there was an easy method of concealing these occurrences —that, viz., of not recording them at all. For if the Gospels had not contained the accounts of these things, who could have reproached us with Jesus having spoken such words during His stay upon the earth? Celsus, indeed, did not see that it was an inconsistency for the same persons both to be deceived regarding Jesus, believing Him to be God, and the subject of prophecy, and to invent fictions about Him, knowing manifestly that these statements were false. Of a truth, there- fore, they were not guilty of inventing untrutlis, but such were their real impressions, and they recorded them truly; or else they were guilty of falsifying the histories, and did not enter- tain these views, and were not deceived when they acknowledged Him to be God.
CHAPTER XXVII.
After this he says, that certain of the Christian believers, like persons who in a fit of drunkenness lay violent hands upon themselves, have corrupted the Gospel from its original inte- grity, to a threefold, and fourfold, and many-fold degree, and have remodelled it, so that they might be able to answer objec- tions. Now I know of no others who have altered the Gospel, save the followers of Marcion, and those of Valentinus, and, I think, also those of Lucian. But such an allegation is no charge against the Christian system, but against those who dared so to trifle with the Gospels. And as it is no ground of accusation against philosophy, that there exist Sophists, or ORIG.—VOL. II. c 34 ORIGEN AGAINST CELSUS. - [Boox 1r.
Epicureans, or Peripatetics, or any others, whoever they may be, who hold false opinions; so neither is it against genuine Christianity that there are some who corrupt the Gospel his- tories, and who introduce heresies opposed to the meaning of the doctrine of Jesus.
CHAPTER XXVIII.
And since this Jew of Celsus makes it a subject of reproach that Christians should make use of the prophets, who predicted the events of Christ's life, we have to say, in addition to what we have already advanced upon this head, that it became him to spare individuals, as he says, and to expound the prophecies themselves; and after admitting the probability of the Chris- tian interpretation of them, to show how the use which they make of them may be overturned.’ For in this way he would not appear hastily to assume so important a position on small grounds, and particularly when he asserts that the “ prophe- cles agree with ten thousand other things more credibly than with Jesus." And he ought to have carefully met this power- ful argument of the Christians, as being the strongest which they adduce, and to have demonstrated with regard to each particular prophecy, that it can apply to other events with greater probability than to Jesus. He did not, however, per- ceive that this was a plausible argument to be advanced against the Christians only by one who was an opponent of the pro- phetic writings; but Celsus has here put in the mouth of a Jew an objection which a Jew would not have made. For a Jew will not admit that the prophecies may be applied to countless other things with greater probability than to Jesus; but he will endeavour, after giving what appears to him the © meaning of each, to oppose the Christian interpretation, not indeed by any means adducing convincing reasons, but only attempting to do so.
l'The original here is probably corrupt: Ὅτι ἐχρῆν αὐτὸν (ὥς Φησι») Φειδόμενον ἐνθρώπων αὐτὰς ἐκθέσθαι τὰς προφητείας, xal συναγορεύσανται ταῖς αιθανότησιν αὑτῶν, τὴν Φαινομένην αὐτῶν οἰνατροπὴν τῆς χρήσιως τῶν προ- Φητικὼν ἐκθέσθαι. For Φειδόμενον Boherellus would read κηδόμενον, and τὴν φαινομένην αὐτῷ dvarpoxgy.
Book um. | ORIGEN AGAINST CELSUS. 85 CHAPTER XXIX.
In the preceding pages we have already spoken of this point, viz. the prediction that there were to be two advents of Christ to the human race, so that it is not necessary for us to reply to the objection, supposed to be urged by a Jew, that * the prophets declare the coming one to be a mighty poten- tate, Lord of all nations and armies.” But it is in the spirit of 8 Jew, I think, and in keeping with their bitter animosity, and baseless and even improbable calumnies against Jesus, that he adds: * Nor did the prophets predict such a pestilence."! For neither Jews, nor Celsus, nor any other, can bring any argument to prove that a pestilence converts men from the practice of evil to a life which is according to nature, and dis- tinguished by temperance and other virtues.
CHAPTER XXX.
CHAPTER XXX.
This objection also is cast in our teeth by Celsus: * From such signs and misinterpretations, and from proofs so mean, no one could prove him to be God, and the Son of God." Now it was his duty to enumerate the alleged misinterpretations, and to prove them to be such, and to show by reasoning the meanness of the evidence, in order that the Christian, if any of his objections should seem to be plausible, might be able to answer and confute his arguments. What he said, however, regarding Jesus, did indeed come to pass, because He was a mighty potentate, although Celsus refuses to see that it so hap- pened, notwithstanding that the clearest evidence proves it true of Jesus. * For as the sun," he says, ** which enlightens all other objects, first makes himself visible, so ought the Son of God to have done.” We would say in reply,.'thg& so He did; for righteousness has arisen in His days, and Ahere is abundance of peace, which took its commencement at His birth, God pre- paring the nations for His teaching, that they might bé under one prince, the king of the Romans, and that it might not, owing to the want of union among the nations, caused by the existence of many kingdoms, be more difficult for the apostles of Jesus to accomplish the task enjoined upon them by their 1 δλεθρον.
96 ORIGEN AGAINST CELSUS. [Boox 11.
Master, when He said, * Go and teach all nations." Moreover it is certain that Jesus was born in the reign of Augustus, who, so to speak, fused together into one monarchy the many popula- tions of the earth. Now the existence of many kingdoms would have been a hindrance to the spread of the doctrine of Jesus throughout the entire world; not only for the reasons mentioned, but also on account of the necessity of men every- where engaging in war, and fighting on behalf of their native country, which was the case before the times of Augustus, and in periods still more remote, when necessity arose, as when the Peloponnesians and Athenians warred against each other, and other nations in like manner. How, then, was it possible for the gospel doctrine of peace, which does not permit men to take vengeance even upon enemies, to prevail throughout the world, unless at the advent of Jesus a milder spirit had been everywhere introduced into the conduct of things? / CHAPTER XXXI.
CHAPTER XXXI.
He next charges the Christians with being “ guilty of sophis- tical reasoning, in saying that the Son of God is the Logos Himself.” And he thinks that he strengthens the accusation, because “when we declare the Logos to be the Son of God, we do not present to view a pure and holy Logos, but a most degraded man, who was punished by scourging and cruci- fixion.” Now, on this head we have briefly replied to the charges of Celsus in the preceding pages, where Christ was shown to be the first-born of all creation, who assumed a body and a human soul; and that God gave commandment respect- ing the creation of such mighty things in the world, and they were created; and that He who received the command was God the Logos. And seeing it is à Jew who makes these statements in the work of Celsus, it will not be out of place to quote the declaration, * He sent His word, and healed them, and delivered them from their destruction,”’—a passage of which we spoke a little ago. Now, although I have conferred with many Jews who professed to be learned men, I never heard any one expressing his approval of the statement that the Logos is the Son of God, as Celsus declares they do, in putting into Boox m1. ] ORIGEN AGAINST CELSUS. 37 the mouth of the Jew such a declaration as this: “If your Logos is the Son of God, we also give our assent to the same.”
CHAPTER XXXII.
We have already shown that Jesus can be regarded neither as an arrogant man, nor a sorcerer; and therefore it is un- necessary to repeat our former arguments, lest, in replying to the tautologies of Celsus, we ourselves should be guilty of need- less repetition. And now, in finding fault with our Lord’s genealogy, there are certain points which occasion some diffi- culty even to Christians, and which, owing to the discrepancy between the genealogies, are advanced by some as arguments against their correctness, but which Celsus has not even men- tioned. For Celsus, who is truly a braggart, and who professes to be acquainted with all matters relating to Christianity, does not know how to raise doubts in a skilful manner against the credibility of Scripture. But he asserts that the “framers of the genealogies, from a feeling of pride, made Jesus to be de- scended from the first man, and from the kings of the Jews.” And he thinks that he makes a notable charge when he adds, that “the carpenter's wife could not have been ignorant of the fact, had she been of such illustrious descent.” But what has this to do with the question? Granted that she was not ignorant of her descent, how does that affect the result? Sup- pose that she were ignorant, how could her ignorance prove that she was not descended from the first man, or could not derive her origin from the Jewish kings? Does Celsus imagine that the poor must always be descended from ancestors who