Against Celsus 5.18–5.31

Since he has further mocked the resurrection of the flesh, which is preached in the churches but understood more clearly by the more intelligent, and there is no need to set out again his passage, already quoted once, come, let us set out and present a few things on this problem too, as best we can, aiming at those who will read, since this is a defence written against a man alien to the faith, for the sake of those who are still infants and tossed to and fro and carried about "by every wind of doctrine, by human trickery, by craftiness in deceitful scheming." Neither we nor the divine writings say that those who died long ago will rise from the earth and live in the very same flesh, having undergone no change for the better; Celsus slanders us in saying this. For we hear many scriptures speaking about the resurrection in a way worthy of God, but it is enough for the present to cite Paul's passage from the First Letter to the Corinthians, where he says: "But someone will say: How are the dead raised? With what kind of body do they come? Fool! What you sow does not come to life unless it dies. And what you sow is not the body that is to be, but a bare seed, perhaps of wheat or of some other grain. But God gives it a body as he has chosen, and to each of the seeds its own body." See how he says in these words that it is "not the body that is to be" that is sown, but that from what is sown and thrown bare onto the earth, with God giving "to each of the seeds its own body," a kind of resurrection takes place, an ear rising from the seed cast down, in such things as these, or, as it were, in mustard, or, with a larger tree, in an olive stone or one of the fruit trees.

"God," then, "gives to each a body as he has chosen," as with things that are sown, so also with those who are, as it were, sown in dying, and who at the appropriate time receive from what is sown the "body" that God puts upon each according to his worth. We hear also the Word teaching at greater length the difference between what is, as it were, sown and what is, as it were, raised from it, and saying: "It is sown in corruption, it is raised in incorruption; it is sown in dishonour, it is raised in glory; it is sown in weakness, it is raised in power; it is sown a natural body, it is raised a spiritual body." Let one who is able grasp further what is meant by the one who says: "As was the man of dust, so are those who are of dust; and as is the heavenly man, so are those who are heavenly. And as we have borne the image of the man of dust, so let us also bear the image of the heavenly man." And although the apostle wished to conceal the secret meanings of the passage, which are not suited to the simpler and to the common hearing of those led to what is better by believing, he was nevertheless compelled afterwards, so that we might not misunderstand his words, to say after "let us bear the image of the heavenly man": "But I say this, brothers, that flesh and blood cannot inherit the kingdom of God, nor does corruption inherit incorruption." Then, knowing that there was something secret and mystical in the passage, as befitted one leaving his meaning in writing to those after him, he adds: "Behold, I tell you a mystery," which is the customary formula for things that are deeper and more mystical and are rightly hidden from the many; as it is written in Tobit too: "It is good to hide the secret of a king," while, as regards what is glorious and suited to the many, with what is true in the manner of the dispensation, it is "good" "to reveal the works of God gloriously." Our hope, then, is not that of worms, nor does our soul long for the body that has rotted; but, even if it needs a body for moving from place to place, the soul that has meditated on "wisdom," according to "the mouth of the righteous will meditate on wisdom," understands the difference between the earthly house, in which the tent is, which is being destroyed, and the tent in which the righteous, "being" in it, groan, "being burdened," not wishing to put off the tent but to "put on" over the tent, so that by "putting on" over it "what is mortal may be swallowed up by life." For since every nature of body is corruptible, "this corruptible" tent "must put on incorruption," and the other part of it, being "mortal" and liable to the death that follows sin, "must put on immortality"; so that when "the corruptible puts on incorruption and the mortal immortality, then" there "will come about" what was foretold long ago by the prophets: the abolition of the victory of death, by which it conquered us and subjected us to itself, and of its sting, with which it stings the soul that is not fully protected and inflicts on it the wounds of sin.

But since our views on the resurrection have now been stated in part, as far as the occasion allowed (for we have composed a work on the resurrection elsewhere, examining the subject at greater length), we must now reasonably take up Celsus's views. He neither understood what is written among us nor could judge that one must not think the meaning of those wise men is represented by people who profess nothing more than faith in the Christian message. Come, let us show that men not to be despised for their rational contemplation and dialectical inquiries have said things that are very incongruous; and if anyone must be scorned for low and old-wives' talk, it should be they rather than we. The Stoics say that periodically a conflagration of the universe takes place, and after it a new ordering, which has everything indistinguishable from the previous ordering. Those of them who were ashamed of the doctrine have said that there is a slight and very small difference in each cycle from those in the cycle before it. These men say that in the next cycle things will be such that Socrates will again be the son of Sophroniscus and an Athenian, and Phaenarete, married to Sophroniscus, will again bear him. So even if they do not use the word resurrection, they indicate the thing: that Socrates, starting from the seed of Sophroniscus, will rise again and be formed in the womb of Phaenarete, and, brought up in Athens, will practise philosophy, as though his former philosophy too were rising again and would be likewise indistinguishable from the former. And Anytus and Meletus will rise again as Socrates's accusers, and the council of the Areopagus will condemn Socrates. And what is more ridiculous than these, Socrates will wear clothes indistinguishable from those of the former cycle, and will live in indistinguishable poverty and in a city, Athens, indistinguishable from that of the former cycle. And Phalaris will again be tyrant, and his bronze bull will bellow with the voices of those inside, men indistinguishable from those condemned in the former cycle. And Alexander of Pherae will again be tyrant, with a cruelty indistinguishable from the former, condemning men indistinguishable from the former ones. And why must I list the doctrine on such matters taught by the Stoics, which is not mocked by Celsus but perhaps even revered, since he thinks Zeno wiser than Jesus?

And the followers of Pythagoras and Plato, even if they seem to keep the world indestructible, fall into similar absurdities. For since the stars, at certain appointed periods, take up the same configurations and relations to one another, they say that everything on earth is in the same state as when the world contained the same configuration of the stars' relation. By this reasoning, then, when the stars, after a long period, come to the same relation to one another that they had in the time of Socrates, Socrates must be born again of the same parents and suffer the same things, accused by Anytus and Meletus and condemned by the council of the Areopagus. And the learned among the Egyptians, who hand down such things, are held in honour and not mocked by Celsus and those like him; while we, who say that the universe is administered by God in proportion to the free will of each person, and is always being led, as far as possible, toward what is better, and who know the nature of our free will, which admits of what it admits (for it cannot hold the complete unchangeableness of God), are not thought to say anything worthy of testing and examination.

Let no one suspect, because we say these things, that we are among those who are called Christians but reject the doctrine of the resurrection according to the Scriptures. For they, as far as their own opinion goes, can in no way show the ear or the tree rising, as it were, from a grain "of wheat or of some other kind"; but we, persuaded that what is sown "does not come to life unless it dies," and that "not the body that is to be" is sown (for "God gives it a body as he has chosen," raising it "in incorruption" after it has been sown "in corruption," raising it "in glory" after it has been sown "in dishonour," raising it "in power" after it has been sown "in weakness," and raising it "spiritual" after it has been sown "a natural body"), keep both the mind of the church of Christ and the greatness of God's promise, showing its possibility not by bare assertion but also by reason; knowing that even if "heaven and earth" and what is in them pass away, yet the "words" (logoi) concerning each thing, being like parts in a whole or species in a genus of the Word who was "in the beginning with God," God the Word, will never pass away. For we wish to heed the one who said: "Heaven and earth will pass away, but my words will not pass away."

We, then, do not say that the body that has been corrupted returns to its original nature, just as the corrupted "grain" of "wheat" does not return to being the "grain" of "wheat." For we say that, just as an ear rises from the grain of "wheat," so a certain principle (logos) is present in the body, from which, since it is not corrupted, the body "is raised in incorruption." It is the Stoics who say that the body utterly corrupted returns to its original nature, because of their doctrines about indistinguishable things in each cycle, and they say that the very first composition, from which it was dissolved, will be composed again, establishing this, as they think, by dialectical necessities. Nor do we flee to "a most absurd escape" in saying that "everything is possible for God"; for we know how to understand "everything" as not applying to things that do not exist, or to things that are inconceivable. And we also say that God cannot do shameful things, since then God would be able not to be God; for if God does something shameful, he is not God. And since he states that God does not will "what is contrary to nature" either, we distinguish what is said: if someone calls vice contrary to nature, we too say that God does not will what is contrary to nature, whether what comes from vice or what happens irrationally; but if things happen according to God's reason and will, it follows at once that they are not contrary to nature; for what God does is not contrary to nature, even if it is marvellous or seems marvellous to some. And if we must use a forced expression, we will say that, in relation to what is more commonly understood as nature, there are some things above nature which God might sometimes do, raising man above human nature and making him change into a better and more divine nature, and keeping him such, as long as the one kept shows by his actions that he wishes it.

Having said once that God wills nothing unbefitting himself, which would do away with his being God, we will say that, if a man in his wickedness wills something loathsome, God will not be able to do it. We are not contentious toward what Celsus says, but, examining it with love of truth, we will agree that God is the author not of faulty appetite nor of wandering disorder, but of right and just nature, since he is the founder of everything good. And we also acknowledge that he can provide everlasting life for the soul; and not only can, but does provide it. And, especially because of what was said before, we are not at all troubled by the saying of Heraclitus that Celsus quoted, that "corpses are more fit to be thrown out than dung." Yet one might say of this too that dung is fit to be thrown out, but human corpses, because of the soul that dwelt in them, and especially if it was a better one, are not fit to be thrown out. For according to the better laws they are thought worthy of burial with such honour as is possible for such things, so that we may not, as far as in us lies, insult the soul that dwelt in the body by throwing the body away, after the soul has left it, like the bodies of cattle. Let God, then, not will to make everlasting, contrary to reason, the "grain" of "wheat," but rather the ear that comes from it; nor what is sown "in corruption," but what is raised from it "in incorruption." But the Reason (Logos) of all things is, according to Celsus, God himself; according to us, his Son, concerning whom we say in our philosophy: "In the beginning was the Word, and the Word was with God, and the Word was God." But according to us too, God cannot do anything contrary to reason or contrary to himself.

Let us look also at Celsus's next passage, which runs thus: "The Jews, then, having become a nation of their own and made laws according to their country's custom, and still maintaining these among themselves, and keeping a worship, whatever sort it may be, but at any rate ancestral, act like other human beings, since each people cherishes its ancestral customs, whatever they happen to be. And this seems to be beneficial, not only because it has occurred to different peoples to think differently and one must keep what has been established for the community, but also because, as is likely, the parts of the earth were from the beginning allotted to different overseers and divided into certain dominions, and are administered in this way. And indeed, the things done among each people would be rightly done in the way that pleases those overseers; while it is not holy to abolish what has been customary in each place from the beginning." In this Celsus shows that the Jews, formerly Egyptians, later became a nation of their own, and having made laws they maintain them. And, not to repeat Celsus's words set out above, he says it is beneficial for them to practise their ancestral worship, as other nations cherish their own. And he sets out a deeper reason why it is beneficial for the Jews to cherish their ancestral customs, hinting that the laws of each people were made by those allotted to be overseers of the earth, who cooperated with the lawgivers of the lands being given laws. He seems, then, to indicate that someone, or some beings, oversee the land of the Jews and the nation in it, by whose cooperation Moses made the Jews' laws.

"And one must keep the laws," he says, "not only because it has occurred to different peoples to think differently and one must keep what has been established for the community, but also because, as is likely, the parts of the earth were from the beginning allotted to different overseers and divided into certain dominions, and are administered in this way." Then, as though forgetting what he said against the Jews, Celsus now includes them in his general praise of all who keep their ancestral customs, saying: "And indeed, the things done among each people would be rightly done in the way that pleases those overseers." And see whether he does not, as far as in him lies, plainly wish the Jew living by his own laws not to depart from them, as though he would act unholily if he did; for he says that "it is not holy to abolish what has been customary in each place from the beginning." I would like to ask him, or those who agree with him, in reply to this, who it was that from the beginning allotted the parts of the earth to different overseers, and clearly the land of the Jews and the Jews themselves to the one or ones to whom it fell. Did Zeus, as Celsus might call him, allot the Jewish nation and their land to someone or some beings, and did he wish the one to whom Judaea fell to make such laws among the Jews? Or did this happen against his will? Whichever way he answers, you see that the argument will be hemmed in. And if the parts of the earth were not allotted to their overseers by some one being, then each took a share of the earth by lot, as it happened, without anyone presiding; but this too is absurd, and in some measure does away with the providence of the God over all.

Let anyone who wishes explain how, and according to what dominions, the parts of the earth are divided and administered by those who oversee them; and let him tell us also how the things done among each people are rightly done, in the way that pleases the overseers, and whether, for example, the laws of the Scythians about killing fathers are right, or those of the Persians, which do not forbid mothers to be married by their own sons nor daughters by their fathers. And why need I, selecting from those who have written about the laws among different nations, raise further difficulties about how the laws among each people are rightly practised as it pleases the overseers? Let Celsus tell us how it is unholy to abolish ancestral laws about marrying mothers and daughters, or about its being blessed to depart from life by hanging, or about those who give themselves up to the fire and to release from life by fire being wholly purified; and how it is unholy to abolish laws, for example, among the Taurians about offering strangers as sacrifices to Artemis, or among some of the Libyans about sacrificing children to Cronus. Yet it follows for Celsus that it is not holy for the Jews to abolish their ancestral laws about not worshipping any other God besides the Creator of the universe. And on his view holiness will be divine not by nature but by some convention and custom: for among some it is holy to revere the crocodile and to eat something that others worship; for others it is holy to revere the calf, and among others to consider the goat a god. So the same person will act holily with regard to these laws and unholily with regard to others; which is the most absurd of all.

But perhaps they will say in reply to this that one who keeps his ancestral customs is holy and in no way unholy, since he does not also keep those of others; and again that one thought unholy by certain people is not unholy when, according to his ancestral customs, he reveres his own objects of worship and makes war on, and feasts on, those revered among people with contrary laws. But see whether this does not show great confusion about justice, holiness, and piety, as if piety were not clearly defined, nor had any nature of its own that marks out as pious those who act according to it. If, then, piety, holiness, and justice are relative, so that the same thing is holy and unholy according to different relations and laws, see whether self-control too will not consequently be relative, and courage, and prudence, and knowledge, and the other virtues; than which nothing could be more absurd. For those who take their stand more simply and in common terms against Celsus's passages, what has been said is sufficient. But since we think that some of the more inquiring will also read this work, come, let us venture to set out a few of the deeper matters, which contain a certain mystical and secret contemplation, concerning the allotment from the beginning of different regions of the earth to different overseers; and, as far as we can, let us show that the doctrine is clear of the absurdities listed.

Celsus seems to me to have misheard certain more mystical accounts of the distribution of things on earth, which Greek history also touches on in a way, when it presents some of those considered gods as contending with one another over Attica, and when in the poets it makes some of the so-called gods acknowledge certain places as more their own. And barbarian history too, especially that of the Egyptians, shows something of this sort about the division of the so-called nomes of Egypt, saying that Athena, to whom Sais fell, is the same who also has Attica. The learned among the Egyptians will say countless things of this kind, though I do not know whether they also include the Jews and their land in the distribution to some being. But about what is said on these matters outside the divine word, enough for the present. We say that Moses, the prophet of God according to us and his genuine servant, sets out in the Song of Deuteronomy the following about the division of things on earth: "When the Most High divided the nations, when he scattered the sons of Adam, he set the boundaries of the nations according to the number of the angels of God; and the Lord's portion became his people Jacob, Israel the lot of his inheritance." And the same Moses, in the book entitled Genesis, speaks of the distribution of the nations in the form of a narrative thus: "And the whole earth was one lip, and there was one speech for all. And it came to pass, as they moved from the east, they found a plain in the land of Shinar, and they settled there"; and a little later: "The Lord came down," it says, "to see the city and the tower which the sons of men had built. And the Lord said: Behold, they are one race and all have one lip; and this they have begun to do, and now nothing that they set out to do will fail them. Come, let us go down and confuse their language there, so that they may not understand each one the speech of his neighbour. And the Lord scattered them from there over the face of all the earth, and they stopped building the city and the tower. Therefore its name was called Confusion, because there the Lord God confused the lips of all the earth, and from there the Lord God scattered them over the face of all the earth." And in the book entitled the Wisdom of Solomon, concerning wisdom and the events at the confusion of languages, at which the division of those on the earth took place, the following is said about wisdom: "She too, when the nations had been confused in their wicked agreement, recognized the righteous man and kept him blameless before God, and kept him strong against his compassion for his child." The account of these things is long and mystical, and to it applies: "It is good to hide the secret of a king," so that the doctrine of souls bound into a body, not by transmigration, may not be thrown to any chance hearers, nor holy things be given "to the dogs," nor pearls cast before swine. For such a thing would be impious, involving betrayal of the secret oracles of God's wisdom, of which it is well written: "Wisdom will not enter a soul that plots evil, nor dwell in a body enslaved to sin." It is enough to present what is said in a hidden way, as in the form of a narrative, according to the manner of the narrative, so that those who are able may work out for themselves the meaning of the passage.

Let all those on earth, then, be understood as using one divine language, and as long as they are in harmony with one another, let them be kept in the divine language; and let them remain unmoved "from the east," as long as they think the thoughts of the light and of the radiance from "eternal light." And these, when they move themselves "from the east," thinking thoughts foreign to "the east," let them find "a plain in the land of Shinar," which is interpreted "shaking out of teeth," as a symbol of their losing the means by which they are nourished; and let them settle there. Then, wishing to gather together the things of matter and to join to heaven what cannot by nature be joined to it, so as to plot against immaterial things by means of material ones, let them say: "Come, let us make bricks and bake them with fire." So, as they harden and set fast the clay and material things, wishing to make brick into stone and clay into bitumen, and by these to build "a city and a tower whose" (as far as their supposition goes) "top will reach to heaven," according to the lofty things raised up against the knowledge of God, let them each be handed over, in proportion to their movement "from the east," which has happened to a greater or lesser degree, and in proportion to their making bricks into stones and clay into bitumen and building from these, to angels, harsher to a greater or lesser degree, and of this kind or that, until they pay the penalty for what they have dared. And let them be led by the angels, each of whom produced for them their own language, to the parts of the earth according to their deserts: some, for example, to a scorching land, others to one that punishes its inhabitants by its cold, some to one harder to farm and others to one less so, some to one full of wild beasts and others to one with fewer.

Then, if anyone can, as in the form of a narrative, which has something true in itself but also indicates something secret, let him see also those who have kept the original language, remaining in the east and in the eastern language because they did not move "from the east"; and let him understand that these alone became the Lord's portion and his people called "Jacob," and became "Israel the lot of his inheritance"; and let these alone be governed by a ruler who did not receive those under him for punishment, as the others did. And let one who is able see, as among human beings, sins arising in the commonwealth of those assigned to the Lord as his distinct portion: at first tolerable, and such that they were not wholly deserving to be forsaken; later more numerous, but still tolerable. And understanding that this went on for a long time, with healing always applied and these people turning back at intervals, let him see them left, in proportion to their sins, to those to whom the other lands fell: at first punished to a lesser degree and paying the penalty, as though disciplined, and returning to their own land; but later let him see them handed over to harsher rulers, as the Scriptures would name them, the Assyrians and then the Babylonians. Then, as healing is applied, let him see them nonetheless increasing their sins, and for this reason scattered by the rulers of the other nations who plunder them among the other portions. And let their ruler deliberately overlook their being plundered by the rulers in the other nations, so that he too, with good reason, as though avenging himself, having received authority to draw away from the other nations whomever he can, may do so, and give them laws and show them a life by which to live, so as to lead them up to the end to which he used to lead those of the former nation who did not sin.