Against Celsus 5.45–5.60

But since Celsus thinks it makes no difference whether one calls the Most High Zeus, or Zen, or Adonai, or Sabaoth, or, as the Egyptians do, Amoun, or, as the Scythians do, Papaeus, come, let us discuss these matters briefly too, reminding the reader at the same time of what was said above on this problem, when Celsus's words called us to such matters. We say now too that the nature of names is not a matter of conventions made by those who assign them, as Aristotle thinks. For the languages among human beings do not have their origin from human beings, as is clear to those who can attend to the nature of incantations, which are appropriated, according to the different languages and the different sounds of the names, by the fathers of those languages. About these we spoke briefly above, saying that what naturally has power in a given language, when translated into another language, no longer accomplishes anything as it did in its own sounds. This is found even with human beings: for if someone has been called by a certain name from birth in the Greek language, we would not, by translating it into the language of the Egyptians or the Romans or any other people, make him suffer or do what he would suffer or do when called by the original form of his name. Nor, if we translated into Greek the name of someone called from the beginning in the Roman tongue, would we accomplish what the incantation promises to do while keeping the name first given him. If these things said about human names are true, what must we think about names that are for whatever reason referred to the divine? For something is translated into Greek, for example, from the name Abraham, and something is signified by the name Isaac, and something shown by the word Jacob. And if the one who invokes or adjures names "the God of Abraham and the God of Isaac and the God of Jacob," he may accomplish a certain thing, whether through the nature of these names or through their power, demons being overcome and made subject to the one who says them; but if he says "the God of the chosen father of the echo, and the God of laughter, and the God of the heel-grabber," what is named accomplishes nothing, like anything else without power. So too, if we translate the name Israel into Greek or another language, we will accomplish nothing; but if we keep it, attaching it to what those skilled in these things thought fit to combine it with, then something might happen, according to the promise of such invocations, from such a word. We will say the same about the word Sabaoth too, which is used in many incantations: if we translate the name as "Lord of the powers" or "Lord of hosts" or "Almighty" (for its interpreters have understood it differently), we will accomplish nothing; but if we keep it in its own sounds, we will accomplish something, as those skilled in these things say. We will say the same about Adonai too. If, then, neither Sabaoth nor Adonai, translated into what they seem to mean in the Greek tongue, accomplishes anything, how much less would it accomplish or have any power among those who think it makes no difference whether one calls the Most High Zeus, or Zen, or Adonai, or Sabaoth?

Knowing these and similar secret matters, Moses and the prophets forbid us to name "the name of other gods" with a mouth trained to pray to the God over all alone, or to call them to mind in a heart taught to be pure of all vanity of thoughts and words. And for such reasons we choose to endure every outrage rather than acknowledge Zeus as God. For we do not suppose Zeus and Sabaoth to be the same; indeed we do not think Zeus divine at all, but a certain demon who delights in being so named, no friend to human beings or to the true God. And even if the Egyptians hold out Amoun to us, threatening punishment, we will die rather than proclaim Amoun a god, who is probably invoked in certain Egyptian incantations that call up this demon. And let the Scythians say that Papaeus is the God over all; but we will not be persuaded. We do acknowledge the God over all, but we do not name God by Papaeus as a proper name, as pleases the one to whom the Scythian wilderness and their nation and language fell. For one who names God by the common noun in Scythian, or Egyptian, or any language in which he has been brought up, will not sin.

The reason for the circumcision of the Jews is not the same as the reason for the circumcision of the Egyptians or the Colchians; so it would not be considered the same circumcision. And just as one who sacrifices does not sacrifice to the same being, even if he seems to sacrifice in the same way, and one who prays does not pray to the same being, even if he asks for the same things in his prayers, so, if someone is circumcised, it is not at all indifferent compared with another's circumcision. For the purpose, the law, and the intent of the one who circumcises make the thing different. To make the subject still more understood, it must be said that the name of justice is the same among all the Greeks; yet it is shown that justice according to Epicurus is one thing, according to the Stoics, who deny that the soul has three parts, another, and according to the Platonists, who say that justice is each part of the soul doing its own work, another. So too Epicurus's courage, who endures pains to escape greater pains, is one thing; that of the Stoic, who chooses every virtue for its own sake, another; and that of the Platonist, who says it is the virtue of the spirited part of the soul and assigns it a place about the chest, another. So too circumcision would differ according to the different doctrines of those circumcised; but there is no need to speak of it now in such a treatise. Whoever wishes to see what moved us on this subject, let him read about it in what we have written on Paul's Letter to the Romans.

Even if the Jews pride themselves on circumcision, they will distinguish it not only from the circumcision of the Colchians and Egyptians but also from that of the Ishmaelite Arabs, although Ishmael was born of their forefather Abraham and was circumcised with him. The Jews say that circumcision on the eighth day is the principal one, and that which is not so is from circumstance; and perhaps it was performed because of an angel hostile to the Jewish nation, who was able to harm those of them who were not circumcised but was powerless against those who were circumcised. Someone will say this is shown by what is written in Exodus, where the angel was able to act against Moses before the circumcision of Eliezer, but when he was circumcised had no strength. And having learned such things, "Zipporah took a stone and circumcised" her child; according to the common copies she is recorded to have said, "The blood of my child's circumcision is stanched," but according to the Hebrew itself, "You are a bridegroom of blood to me." For she knew the account of this angel, who had power before the blood and ceased because of the blood of circumcision; for which reason it was said to him: "You are a bridegroom of blood to me." But let these matters, which seem rather curious and not suited to the hearing of the many, be ventured thus far; I will add one thing to them, as befits a Christian, and pass on to what follows. This angel, I think, had power against those of the people who were not circumcised, and in general against all who worship the Creator alone, and had power as long as Jesus had not taken a body. But when he took one, and his body was circumcised, all this angel's power against those circumcised in this religion was destroyed; for Jesus destroyed him by his unspeakable divinity. That is why his disciples are forbidden to be circumcised, and it is said to them: "If you are circumcised, Christ will be of no benefit to you."

Nor do the Jews pride themselves on abstaining from pigs as something great, but on having learned the nature of clean and unclean animals and known the reason for it, and that the pig is placed among the unclean. These things too were symbols of certain realities until the coming of Jesus; after him it was said to his disciple, who did not yet understand the meaning of these things and said, "Nothing common or unclean has entered my mouth": "What God has cleansed, do not call common." It is nothing, then, either to the Jews or to us, that the priests of the Egyptians abstain not only from pigs but also from goats, sheep, oxen, and fish. But since "it is not what enters the mouth that defiles a man," and "food will not commend us to God," we do not think much of ourselves for not eating, nor do we come to eating out of gluttony. Therefore, as far as we are concerned, let the followers of Pythagoras, who abstain from living things, go their way. And see the difference between the reason for abstaining from living things among the followers of Pythagoras and among the ascetics among us. They abstain from living things because of the myth of the soul's transmigration: "And who, lifting up his dear son, will slay him with a prayer, the great fool?" But we, if we do such a thing, do it because we pommel "the body" and bring it into subjection, and wish to put to death "the members that are on earth: sexual immorality, impurity, licentiousness, passion, evil desire"; and we do everything in order to put to death "the deeds of the body."

Still pronouncing on the Jews, Celsus says: "Nor is it likely that they are in favour with God and loved in any way differently from others, and that angels are sent from there to them alone, as though they had been allotted some land of the blessed; for we see what sort of fortune both they and their land have been thought worthy of." We will refute this too, saying that this nation's being in favour with God is shown also by the fact that the God over all is called the God of the Hebrews even by those alien to our faith. And, being in favour, as long as they were not forsaken, although they were few in number, they continued to be guarded by divine power, so that not even in the time of Alexander of Macedon did they suffer anything from him, although, because of certain treaties and oaths, they had refused to take up arms against Darius. They say that at that time the high priest of the Jews, having put on his priestly robe, was even bowed to by Alexander, who said that someone in this very dress had appeared to him and promised him "in his sleep" that he would subdue all Asia. We Christians, then, say that being in favour with God and loved in a way different from others did indeed belong to them; but that this dispensation and the grace have passed over to us, since Jesus transferred the power that was among the Jews to those from the nations who believed in him. That is why the Romans, though they have wished to do much against the Christians to prevent their continuing to exist, have not been able to; for a divine hand was fighting for them, wishing to sow the Word of God from one corner of the land of Judaea among the whole human race.

But since what was set out has been answered as best we could against Celsus's accusation of the Jews and their doctrine, come, let us set out what follows and show that we are not boasting when we profess to know the great God, nor were we led on, as Celsus thinks, by the sorcery of Moses, or even of our Saviour Jesus himself; but for a good end we both listen to the God who spoke in Moses and have received Jesus, to whom he bears witness as God, as the Son of God, hoping for the best things if we live according to his word. We will willingly pass over saying again what we set out in anticipation, teaching where we have come from, and whom we have as founder, and what law comes from him. And if Celsus wishes us to differ in no way from the Egyptians who revere the goat, or the ram, or the crocodile, or the ox, or the hippopotamus, or the baboon, or the cat, he and anyone who agrees with him about this may know it for themselves. But we, as best we could, have defended at length in what went before our honour toward our Jesus, showing that we have found something better; and we alone, declaring the truth pure and unmixed with falsehood to be in the teaching of Jesus Christ, commend not ourselves but our teacher, who has been attested by the God over all in many ways, both by the prophetic words among the Jews and by the plain evidence itself; for it is shown that he did not accomplish such great things without God.

The passage of Celsus that we now wish to examine runs thus: "Let us pass over, then, the arguments by which they are refuted about their teacher; and let him be regarded as truly an angel. Did he come first and alone, or did others come before? If they said that he alone came, they would be convicted of lying and contradicting themselves. For they say that others too came often, and indeed sixty or seventy together, who became wicked and are punished, being cast in chains under the earth, whence also the hot springs are their tears. And moreover an angel came to this man's own tomb (some say one, others two) who answered the women that he had risen. For the child of God, it seems, could not open the tomb, but needed another to roll away the rock. And again, about Mary's pregnancy an angel came to the carpenter, and another angel so that they might snatch up the infant and flee. And why need I go through everything in detail, and count up those said to have been sent to Moses and others among them? If, then, others too were sent, it is clear that this one also came from the same God. But let him be regarded as announcing something more, as though the Jews were doing wrong, or debasing piety, or not doing holy things; for this is what they hint."

What was said earlier, in our separate examination of Celsus's words about our Saviour Jesus Christ, would suffice; but so that we may not seem to pass over any part of his writing deliberately, as though unable to answer him, come, even if we are going to repeat ourselves, since Celsus challenges us to it, let us cut the discussion as short as we can, in case something clearer or newer on the same subjects occurs to us. He says that he passes over the arguments by which Christians are refuted about their teacher, though he has passed over nothing he could say, as is evident from what he said above; he does this simply following a rhetorical device. But that we are not refuted about so great a Saviour of ours, even if the accuser seems to refute us, will be clear to those who read, with love of truth and careful examination, all that has been prophesied and recorded about him. Next, since he is thought to speak by way of concession about the Saviour, "let him be regarded as truly an angel," we say that we do not accept this as conceded by Celsus, but look to the work of the one who came to the whole human race according to his own word and teaching, as each of those who received him could contain it. This was the work of one who, as the prophecy about him named him, is not simply an angel but the angel "of great counsel"; for he announced to human beings the great counsel of God, the Father of the universe, concerning them: of those who yield to live in pure worship of God, as ascending to God through great deeds, and of those who do not receive it, as putting themselves far from God and travelling toward destruction through unbelief concerning God. Then he says next: "If this one too came to human beings as an angel, did he come first and alone, or did others come before?" And he thinks he answers both alternatives at length, though no true Christian says that Christ alone came to the human race; and Celsus says that others too appeared to human beings, "if they said that he alone came."

Then he answers himself as he wishes; yet he is not reported to have come to the human race alone, so that even those who, on the pretext of the teaching of the name of Jesus, have departed from the Creator as an inferior being and gone over to some supposedly higher God, Father of the one who came, say that even before him some came to the human race from the Creator. But since we examine the subject with love of truth, we will say that Apelles, the pupil of Marcion, who became the father of a certain heresy and considered the writings of the Jews a myth, says that this one alone came to the human race. Not even against him, then, who says that Jesus alone came to human beings from God, could Celsus reasonably bring the claim that others too have come, since Apelles, as we said before, disbelieves the Jewish Scriptures that tell of more marvellous things; and much less will he accept what Celsus seems to have set down having misheard it from what is written in Enoch. No one, then, convicts us of lying and contradicting ourselves, both that our Saviour alone came and that many others have often come. And in examining the angels who have come to human beings, Celsus sets down, very confusedly, what came to him indistinctly from what is written in Enoch; he does not seem to have read these writings himself, nor to know that the books inscribed with the name of Enoch are not at all accepted as divine in the churches. Hence he might be thought to have thrown out the "sixty or seventy together" who came down and became wicked.

But, to grant him more generously what he did not see in what is written in Genesis, that "the sons of God, seeing the daughters of men that they were beautiful, took for themselves wives from all whom they chose," we will nonetheless persuade those able to hear the prophetic intent on this subject too that one of those before us referred these words to the doctrine of souls that came to desire life in a human body, which, he said, is figuratively called "daughters of men." However things stand concerning the sons of God who desired the daughters of men, the account contributes nothing to Celsus's claim that Jesus was not the only one who came to human beings as an angel, having clearly become the Saviour and benefactor of all who turn from the flood of vice. Then, mixing and confusing whatever he heard in whatever way, and what is written wherever it may be, whether considered divine among Christians or not, he says that the sixty or seventy who came down together are punished, being cast in chains under the earth. And he brings in, as from Enoch, without naming him: "whence also the hot springs are their tears," a thing neither said nor heard in the churches of God. For no one was so foolish as to give bodily form to tears like those of human beings in the angels who came down from heaven. And if we may jest in reply to what Celsus earnestly urges against us, it must be said that no one would have said that hot springs, most of which are fresh, are the tears of angels, since the nature of tears is salty; unless perhaps Celsus's angels weep fresh tears.

Then, next, mixing and likening things that cannot be mixed and are unlike, he adds to his account of the sixty or seventy angels who, as he says, came down and wept hot springs, as he would have it, that some report two angels and some one as having come to the tomb of Jesus himself. He did not observe, I think, that Matthew and Mark reported one, and Luke and John two; which are not contradictory. For those who recorded one say that this is the one who rolled away "the stone" from the tomb; the others speak of the two who stood by the women who came to the tomb "in dazzling clothing," or who were seen inside "sitting in white." To show now that each of these both happened and indicates some figurative meaning, concerning what appears to those prepared to contemplate the resurrection of the Word, belongs not to the present treatise but rather to commentaries on the Gospel.

That marvellous things have sometimes appeared to human beings has been reported even by the Greeks, not only by those who might be suspected of making up myths, but also by those who have shown in many ways that they practise philosophy genuinely and set out truthfully what reached them. We have read such things in Chrysippus of Soli, some in Pythagoras, and even in some more recent writers who lived only yesterday or the day before, such as Plutarch of Chaeronea in his work On the Soul and Numenius the Pythagorean in the second book of On the Incorruptibility of the Soul. Or is it that if Greeks, and especially the philosophers among them, narrate such things, what they say is not mockery or laughter, nor fictions and myths; but if those devoted to the God of the universe, who for the sake of not uttering even with their voice a falsehood about God accept every outrage even to death, report appearances of angels as having seen them, they are judged unworthy of belief and their words are not ranked among true ones? But it is not reasonable to judge thus about those who tell the truth or lie. For those who train themselves not to be deceived, after much careful research and examination of each subject, declare more slowly and securely that such people are truthful and such others lie in the marvels they report, since not all show themselves worthy of belief, nor are all plainly shown to have handed down fictions and myths to human beings. Further, concerning the resurrection of Jesus from the dead, this too must be said: that at that time one or two angels were seen, announcing that he had risen and caring for those who believed this to their own benefit, is no wonder. And it seems to me not unreasonable that those who always so believe that Jesus has risen, and who show as a fruit of their belief, not to be despised, a vigorous life and a change from the flood of evils, do not live without angels who help them in their turning to God taking hold of them.

Celsus also accuses the account that says an angel rolled "the stone" away from the tomb where Jesus's body was, like a youth who has seized on something in a school exercise to accuse, as a set topic; and, as though he had found something clever against the account, he says: "The child of God, it seems, could not open the tomb, but needed another to roll away the rock." So as not to be overly curious about the passage, or seem to philosophize unseasonably by setting out a figurative interpretation at present, I will say about the narrative itself that it is plainly more dignified for the lesser being and servant to have rolled away "the stone" than for the one rising for the benefit of human beings to have done it. I will not dwell on the point that those who plotted against the Word, and wished to kill him and show him to all as dead and of no account, wanted his tomb never to be opened, so that no one might see the Word alive after their plot; while the angel of God, who came as fellow-worker with the Angel for the salvation of human beings and was stronger than the plotters, rolls away the heavy stone, so that those who think the Word has died may be persuaded that he "is not" "among the dead," but lives and "goes before" those who wish to follow him, so as to show them what comes next after what he showed before, to those who during the earlier period of their instruction could not yet contain greater things. Then, I do not know how, after this he throws in, for I know not what useful purpose to his aim, that when Mary was pregnant an angel came to Joseph, and again that they might snatch up the child who had been born and was being plotted against, and flee to Egypt. We have discussed these things above too, in reply to what he said. And what does Celsus mean by the fact that the Scriptures report angels sent to Moses and the others? It seems to me to contribute nothing to what he wants, especially since none of them struggled for the human race to turn it, as far as possible, from its sins. Let others, then, have been sent from God, and let this one announce something more; and since the Jews were doing wrong, debasing piety, and not doing holy things, let him give the kingdom of God "to other tenants," those everywhere in the churches who take care of themselves and do everything to bring the starting points given by Jesus's teaching to the God of the universe through a pure life and a word consistent with that life.

Then next Celsus says: "So the same God is God both of the Jews and of these," meaning clearly the Christians; and, as though drawing a conclusion that would not be granted, he says this: "Clearly those of the great church admit this, and accept as true the cosmogony current among the Jews, at least about the six days and the seventh," on which, as the Scripture says, God "rested from his works," withdrawing to his own watchtower, but, as Celsus says, not having observed or understood what is written, "took a rest," which is not written. About the making of the world, and the sabbath rest that remains after it for the people of God, there would be "much" to say, and it is mystical and deep and "hard to explain." Then, it seems to me, wishing to fill up his book and make it seem large, he adds some things at random, such as those about the first man, that we say he is the same as the Jews do, and trace the descent from him in the same way as they. And we know of no plots of brothers against one another, except that Cain plotted against Abel and Esau against Jacob; for Abel did not plot against Cain nor Jacob against Esau; if that had happened, Celsus would consistently have said that we report the same plots of brothers against one another as the Jews do. Let it be granted that we also speak of the same journey into Egypt as they do, and the return from there, and not a flight, as Celsus thinks: what, then, do these things contribute to the accusation against us or against the Jews? Where he thought he could mock us in his account of the Hebrews, he called it a flight; but where the substance lay, to examine the recorded plagues brought upon Egypt by God, he deliberately kept silent.

If we must answer Celsus precisely, since he thinks we hold the same views as the Jews on the matters set out, we will say that we both agree that the books were written by the divine Spirit, but about the interpretation of what is in the books we no longer say the same things, since we do not even live as the Jews do, because we think that the literal interpretation of the laws is not what contains the intent of the legislation. And we say that "whenever Moses is read, a veil lies over the heart," because the intent of the law of Moses has been hidden from those who have not embraced the way through Jesus Christ. And we know that "if anyone turns to the Lord" ("and the Lord is the Spirit"), having had "the veil" removed, he beholds as in a mirror, "with unveiled face," "the glory of the Lord" in the thoughts hidden in the letter, and shares in what is called the divine glory for his own glory ("face" being said figuratively, and, as one might put it more plainly, meaning the mind), in which is the face "of the inner man," filled with light and glory from the truth contained in the laws.