Contra Celsum: Defending "Orthodoxy" in the Third Century
A portrait, placed in the center of a cross, of a Christian family. Women were frequently the principle agents in bringing Christianity into Roman households, a point not lost on the anti-Christian writer, Celsus (see below).
Celsus against the Church
Celsus' True Discourse is the earliest literary attack on Christianity to have survived in any degree of detail. Some 90% of the text is preserved in Origen's 8 volume reply, Contra Celsum, composed around the late 240's. In the extracts below, some of which include Origen's editorial introductions and links, we discover some of main objections that an educated person of the C2nd leveled at Christianity. Following the order of these extracts, Celsus accuses Christians of compromising monotheism in their veneration of Christ; ridicules talk of God's "descent" to the world; debunks the virginal conception of Jesus and the resurrection; attacks "anti-intellectualism" amongst Christians; disputes Christian claims for Jesus' uniqueness on the basis of his miracles; criticizes Christian mission as an exploitation of the weak and foolish carried out by the socially inferior and uneducated; and charges Christians with political irresponsibility.
I.
If these men worshipped no other God but one, perhaps they would have had a valid argument against the others. But in fact they worship to an extravagant degree this man who appeared recently, and yet think it is not inconsistent with monotheism if they also worship His servant... . If you taught them that Jesus is not his Son, but that God is Father of all, and that we really ought to worship him alone, they would no longer be willing to listen to you unless you included Jesus as well, who is the author of their sedition. Indeed, when they call him Son of God, it is not because they are paying very great reverence to God, but because they are exalting Jesus greatly.
II.
The assertion made both by some of the Christians and by the Jews, the former saying that some God or son of God has come down to the earth as judge of mankind, the latter saying that he will come, is most shameful, and no lengthy argument is required to refute it... . What is the purpose of such a descent on the part of God? …Was it in order to learn what was going on among men? …Does he not know everything? …If, then, he does know, why does he not correct men, and why can he not do this by divine power? …Was he then unable to correct men merely by divine power, without sending some one specially endowed for the purpose?
III.
After this [Celsus] represents the Jew as having a conversation with Jesus himself and refuting him on many charges, as he thinks: first, because "he fabricated the story of his birth from a virgin; and [the Jew] reproaches him because he came from a Jewish village and from a poor country woman who earned her living by spinning." He says that "she was driven out by her husband, who was a carpenter by trade, as she was convicted of adultery" Then he says that "after she had been driven out by her husband and while she was wandering about in a disgraceful way she secretly gave birth to Jesus …Let us return, however, to the words put into the mouth of the Jew, where "the mother of Jesus" is described as having been "turned out by the carpenter who was betrothed to her, as she had been convicted of adultery and had a child by a certain soldier named Panthera."
Come now, let us believe your view that he actually said this. How many others produce wonders like this to convince simple hearers whom they exploit by deceit? They say that Zamolxis, the slave of Pythagoras, also did this among the Scythians, and Pythagoras him-self in Italy, and Rhampsinitus in Egypt. The last-named played dice with Demeter in Hades and returned bearing a gift from her, a golden napkin. Moreover, they say that Orpheus did this among the Odrysians, and Protesilaus in Thessaly, and Heracles at Taenarum, and Theseus. But we must examine this question whether anyone who really died ever rose again with the same body. Or do you think that the stories of these others really are the legends which they appear to be, and yet that the ending of your tragedy is to be regarded as noble and convincing-his cry from the cross when he expired, and the earthquake and the darkness? While he was alive he did not help himself, but after death he rose again and showed the marks of his punishment and how his hands had been pierced. But who saw this? A hysterical female, as you say, and perhaps some other one of those who were deluded by the same sorcery, who either dreamt in a certain state of mind and through wishful thinking had a hallucination due to some mistaken notion (an experience which has happened to thousands), or, which is more likely, wanted to impress the others by telling this fantastic tale, and so by this cock-and-bull story to provide a chance for other beggars.
IV.
After this [Celsus] urges us to "follow reason and a rational guide in ac-cepting doctrines" on the ground that "anyone who believes people without so doing is certain to be deceived." And he compares those who believe without rational thought to the "begging priests of Cybele and soothsayers, and to worshippers of Mithras and Sabazius, and whatever else one might meet, apparitions of Hecate or of some other daemon or daemons. For just as among them scoundrels frequently take advantage of the lack of education of gullible people and lead them wherever they wish, so also," he says, "this happens among the Christians." He says that "some do not even want to give or to receive a reason for what they believe, and use such expressions as 'Do not ask questions; just believe,' and 'Thy faith will save thee.'" And he affirms that they say: "The wisdom in the world is an evil, and foolishness a good thing."
V.
Because he was poor he [Jesus] hired himself out as a workman in Egypt, and there tried his hand at certain magical powers on which the Egyptians pride themselves; he returned full of conceit because of these powers, and on account of them gave himself the title of God. …After this, suspecting that the great works done by Jesus would be pointed out, of which, although there is much to say, we have only said a little, Celsus pretends to grant that the Scriptures may be true when they speak of "cures or resurrection or a few loaves feeding many people, from which many fragments were left over, or any other monstrous tales," as he thinks, "related by the disciples." And he goes on to say: "Come, let us believe that these miracles really were done by you." Then he at once puts them on a level with "the works of sorcerers who profess to do wonderful miracles, and the accomplish-ments of those who are taught by the Egyptians, who for a few obols make known their sacred lore in the middle of the market-place and drive daemons out of men and blow away diseases and invoke the souls of heroes, displaying expensive banquets and dining- tables and cakes and dishes which are non existent, and who make things move as though they were alive although they are not really so, but only appear as such in the imagination." And he says: "Since these men do these wonders, ought we to think them sons of God? Or ought we to say that they are the practices of wicked men possessed by an evil daemon?"
VI.
In private houses also we see wool-workers, cobblers, laundry-workers, and the most illiterate and bucolic yokels, who would not dare to say anything at all in front of their elders and more intelligent masters. But whenever they get hold of children in private and some stupid women with them, they let out some astounding statements as, for example, that they must not pay any attention to their father and school-teachers, but must obey them; they say that these talk nonsense and have no understanding, and that in reality they neither know nor are able to do anything good, but are taken up with mere empty chatter. But they alone, they say, know the right way to live, and if the children would believe them, they would become happy and make their home happy as well. And if just as they are speaking they see one of the school-teachers coming, or some intelligent person, or even the father himself, the more cautious of them flee in all directions; but the more reckless urge the children on to rebel. They whisper to them that in the presence of their father and their schoolmasters they do not feel able to explain anything to the children, since they do not want to have anything to do with the silly and obtuse teachers who are totally corrupted and far gone in wickedness, and who inflict punishment on the children. But, if they like, they should leave father and their schoolmasters, and go along with the women and little children who are their playfellows to the wooldresser's shop, or to the cobbler's or the washerwoman's shop, that they may learn perfection. And by saying this they persuade them."
VII.
Celsus says: "Even if someone is told to take an oath by an emperor among men, that is also nothing dreadful. For earthly things have been given to him, and whatever you receive in this life you receive from him." Then Celsus next says "that we ought not to disbelieve the ancient man who long ago declared: Let there be a king, him to whom the son of crafty Kronos gave the power." And he continues: "For, if you overthrow this doctrine, it is probable that the emperor will punish you. If everyone were to do the same as you, there would be nothing to prevent him from being abandoned, alone and deserted, while earthly things would come into the power of the most lawless and savage barbarians, and nothing more would be heard among men either of your worship or of the true wisdom. …You will surely not say that if the Romans were convinced by you and were to neglect their customary honors to both gods and men and were to call upon your Most High, or whatever name you prefer, He would come down and fight on their side, and they would have no need for any other defense. In earlier times also the same God made these promises and some far greater than these, so you say, to those who pay regard to him. But see how much help he has been to both them and you. Instead of being masters of the whole world, they have been left no land or home of any kind. While in your case, if anyone does still wander about in secret, yet he is sought out and condemned to death."
Origen's Defense
The extract below is taken from Origin's defense - in Contra Celsum - of the crucial Christian claim that "God was in Christ, reconciling the world to himself."
After this the most estimable Celsus for some unknown reason brings up the objection against us that we affirm that God Himself will come down to men. And he thinks it follows from this that He leaves his throne. He does not understand the power of God, and that 'the Spirit of the Lord has filled the world, and that which holds all things together has knowledge of every voice'. Nor is he able to understand the words, 'Do not I fill heaven and earth, saith the Lord?' Nor does he see that according to the Christian doctrine in Him we all 'live and move and have our being' as Paul also taught in his public speech to the Athenians. Even, then, if the God of the universe descends with Jesus into human life by His power, and even if the Word who 'was in the beginning with God', who was himself God, comes to us, He does not go away from where He was, nor does He leave His throne, as though one place were deprived of him, and another which previously did not possess him were filled. The power and divinity of God come to dwell among men through the man whom God wills to choose and in whom He finds room without any changing from one place to another or leaving His former place empty and filling another. Even supposing that we do say that He leaves one place and fills another, we would not mean this in a spatial sense. We would say that the soul of the bad man who is deluged with evil is deserted by God, and would maintain that the soul of the man who desires to live virtuously, or has even made some progress, or is even already living virtuously, is filled by or shares in a divine spirit. Therefore, it is not necessary for the descent of Christ or the movement of God towards men that He should forsake an exalted throne and change things on earth, as Celsus thinks when he says: For if you changed any one quite ins insignificant thing on earth, you would upset and destroy everything. But if one may say that certain things change by the presence of God's power and the advent of the Word to man, we will not hesitate to affirm that anyone who has received the coming of the Word of God into his own soul changes from bad to good, from licentiousness to self-control, and from superstition to piety.
Let us see also what great claims Celsus makes next when he talks as follows. Furthermore, he says, let us take up the argument again with further proof. I have nothing new to say, but only ancient doctrines. God is good and beautiful and happy, and exists in the most beautiful state. If then He comes down to men, He must undergo change, a change from good to bad, from beautiful to shameful, from happiness to misfortune, and from what is best to what is most wicked. Who would choose a change like this? It is the nature only of a mortal being to undergo change and remoulding, whereas it is the nature of an immortal being to remain the same without alteration. Accordingly, God could not be capable of undergoing this change. I think that I made the necessary reply to this when I discussed what is called in the Bible God's descent to human affairs. In this respect it is not that He must undergo change, as Celsus thinks we say; nor must He turn from good to bad, or from beautiful to shameful or from happiness to misfortune, or from what is best to what is most wicked. While remaining unchanged in essence, He comes down in His providence and care over human affairs. We show that the divine scriptures also say that God is not subject to change in the words 'But thou art the same', and 'I change not'. But the gods of Epicurus, who are compounded of atoms and, in so far as they are com-pounded, are liable to dissolution, are at pains to throw off the atoms which may cause their destruction. Furthermore, the God of the Stoics, in that He is corporeal, at one time when the conflagration occurs consists entirely of mind, while at another time, when the new world order comes, He becomes a part of it. Not even they have been able to perceive clearly the true conception of God's nature, as being entirely incorruptible, simple, uncompounded, and indivisible.
He who came down to men was originally 'in the form of God' and because of his love to men 'emptied himself' that men might be able to receive him. But he underwent no change from good to bad; for 'he did no sin'; nor from beautiful to shameful, for 'he knew no sin'. Nor did he pass from happiness to misfortune; although 'he humbled himself', nevertheless he was happy, even when he humbled himself in the way expedient for our race. Moreover, he underwent no change from what is best to what is most wicked; for in what way is goodness and love to man most wicked? It is relevant to observe that a physician also, who 'sees terrible things and touches unpleasant wounds' in order to heal the sick, does not pass from good to bad, or from beautiful to shameful, or from happiness to misfortune, although the physician who sees the terrible things and touches the unpleasant wounds does not wholly avoid the possibility that he may fall into the same plight. But he who heals the wounds of our souls through the divine Word within him was incapable of any evil. If the immortal divine Word assumes both a human body and a human soul, and by so doing appears to Celsus to be subject to change and remolding, let him learn that the Word remains Word in essence. He suffers nothing of the experience of the body or the soul. But sometimes he comes down to the level of him who is unable to look upon the radiance and brilliance' of the Deity, and becomes as it were flesh, and is spoken of in physical terms, until he who has accepted him in this form is gradually lifted up by the Word and can look even upon, so to speak, his absolute form.
There are, as it were, different forms of the Word. For the Word appears to each of those who are led to know him in a form corresponding to the state of the individual, whether he is a beginner, or has made a little progress, or is considerably advanced, or has nearly attained to virtue already, or has in fact attained it. For this reason it is not true, as Celsus and those like him would say, that our God was transformed when he went up a high mountain and showed his other form, which was far superior to that which was seen by the people down below, who were unable to follow him to the high place. For the people down below had not eyes capable of seeing the transfiguration of the Word into something wonderful and more divine. They were hardly able to receive him as he was, so that it was said of him by those not able to see his higher nature, 'We saw him, and he had no form or beauty, but his form was dishonor-able, deserted more than the sons of men.' Let this, then, be our reply to the opinion assumed by Celsus: that he failed to understand the 'changes' (to use the word common in ordinary literature) or transfigurations of Jesus, and the fact that he had both immortal and mortal nature.
Surely these narratives, particularly when properly understood, will appear more impressive than that of Dionysus, that he was deceived by the Titans so that he left the throne of Zeus and was torn in pieces by them, that after this he was put together again and was, as it were, restored to life, and went up to heaven? Or are the Greeks allowed to explain and allegorize this story as referring to the soul, while against us the door has been closed so that we may not give any consistent explana-tion which harmonizes and agrees in all respects with the scriptures inspired by the divine Spirit dwelling in pure souls? Celsus does not under-stand the meaning of our scriptures at all. On this account his criticism touches his own interpretation and not that of the Bible. If he had understood what is appropriate for a soul which will have everlasting life, and what is the right view of its essence and origin, he would not have ridiculed in this way the idea of an immortal person entering a mortal body; (our view here does not accept the Platonic doctrine of the transmigration of souls, but a different and more sublime view). He would also have understood how because of His great love to man, God made one special descent in order to convert those whom the divine scripture mystically calls 'the lost sheep of the house of Israel,' which had strayed down from the mountains; in certain parables the shepherd is said to have come down to them, leaving on the mountains those which had not gone astray.
Although he has not understood these things, Celsus persists in talking about them, and so is responsible for our repetitions, since we do not want even to appear to have left any of his statements unexamined. He next says: Either God really does change, as they say, into a mortal body; and it has already been said that this is an impossibility. Or He does not change, but makes those who see him think He does so, and leads them astray and tells lies. Deceit and lying are in all other cases wrong except only when one uses them as a medicine for friends who are sick and mad in order to heal them, or with enemies when the intention is to escape danger. But no sick or mad man is God's friend, nor is God afraid of anyone so that he has to mislead him to avoid danger. My reply to this would argue partly from the nature of the divine Word, who is God, and partly from the soul of Jesus. Concerning the nature of the Word, just as the quality of food changes in a mother into milk suitable for the nature of her infant, or is prepared by a physician with the intention of restoring a sick man to health, while it is prepared in a different way for a stronger man, who is more able to digest it in this form; so also God changes for men the power of the Word, whose nature it is to nourish the human soul, in accordance with the merits of each individual. To one he becomes 'the rational milk which is without guile,' as the Bible calls it; to another who is weaker he becomes like a 'herb'; while to another who is perfect, 'solid food' is given. Surely the Word is not false to his own nature when he becomes nourish-ment for each man according to his capacity to receive him; in so doing he does not mislead or tell lies.
Concerning Jesus' soul, if anyone supposes that there was a change when it entered a body, we will ask what he means by a 'change'. If he means a change of essence, we do not grant this, either of his soul, or of any other rational soul. But if he means that it undergoes something because it has been mixed with the body and because of the place into which it has come, then what difficulty is there if the Word out of great love to mankind brings down a Savior to the human race? None of those who had previously claimed to cure men were able to do such a great work as this soul displayed by the miracles which he performed, even descending of his own free will to accept the limitations of humanity on behalf of our race. In reference to this the divine Word frequently speaks in several passages of the Bible. It is enough for the moment to quote one passage of Paul, which reads as follows: 'Have this mind in you which was also in Christ Jesus, who being in the form of God counted it not a prize to be on an equality with God, but emptied himself, taking the form of a servant; and being found in fashion as a man, he humbled himself, becoming obedient unto death, yea the death of the cross. Wherefore God also highly exalted him, and gave him a name which is above every name."
Others may agree with Celsus that He does not change, but makes those who see Him think that He has changed. But we, who are persuaded that the advent of Jesus to men was not a mere appearance, but a reality and an indisputable fact, are unaffected by Celsus' criticism. Nevertheless we will reply thus: Do you not say, Celsus, that sometimes it is allowable to use deceit and lying as a medicine? Why, then, is it unthinkable that something of this sort occurred with the purpose of bringing salvation? For some characters are reformed by certain doctrines which are more false than true, just as physicians sometimes use similar words to their patients. This. however, has been our defense on other points. But further, there is nothing wrong if the person who heals sick friends healed the human race which was dear to him with such means as one would not use for choice, but to which he was confined by force of circumstances. Since the human race was mad, it had to be cured by methods which the Word saw to be beneficial to lunatics that they might recover their right mind. Celsus says that one also does this with enemies when the intention is to escape danger. But God is not afraid of any that He has to mislead those who conspire against Him in order to avoid danger. It is entirely superfluous and unreasonable to reply to an assertion which is not made about our Savior by anyone. In making our defense of other points we have already dealt with the following remark: But no sick or mad man is God's friend. We affirm in reply that providence has not done this for the sake of sick men or lunatics who have already become friends, but for those who, because their soul is diseased and their natural reasoning powers distracted, are still enemies, so that they may become friends of God. Moreover, Jesus is clearly said to have accepted everything for the sake of sinners, that he might deliver them from sin and make them righteous.
Taken from Henry Chadwick's translation of Contra Celsum.
A C3rd representation - found in Tertullian's Carthage - of the Church as the "ark of salvation," a common ecclesiological image in the "Orthodox" churches.