Against Celsus, Book 5

Origen · a new plain-English translation from the Greek

It is not in pursuit of the forbidden much-speaking — in which there is no escaping "sin" — that we now begin our fifth book against Celsus’s treatise, holy Ambrose; rather, we are trying, as far as we are able, to pass over nothing that he has said without examination, especially where he might seem to some to have made an intelligent accusation against us or against the Jews. And if it were possible, having entered along with the argument

into the conscience of each and every reader of his treatise, to draw out each dart that wounds the one not entirely fenced about with the whole armor of God, and to apply the rational remedy that heals the wound inflicted by Celsus, so that those who attend to his words no longer remain unsound "in the faith", this we would have done. But since this is God's work — to be present invisibly, according to his own spirit together with the spirit of Christ, with those whom he judges it right to visit — while our task, since we try through words and writings to make people believe, is to do everything we can in order to be accredited as unashamed workers, rightly dividing "the word of truth",

it appears to us that one thing among all these is, as far as we are able, to refute Celsus's plausible arguments, faithfully doing what has been commanded by you.

Come then, having set out the continuation of Celsus's words, to which we have already responded above (the reader will judge whether we have also refuted them), let us add our replies to them. And may God grant that our mind and reason attain the object before us not by a bare and naked show of divinity, so that the faith of those we pray may be benefited "may not rest in the wisdom of men", but, having received the "mind" of "Christ"

from his Father who alone gives it, and being helped toward participation in the word of God, we might pull down "every high thing that exalts itself against the knowledge of God" — including the conceit of Celsus, raised up against us and against our Jesus, and further against Moses and the prophets — so that, through the one who gives "a word to those who proclaim good news, with great power," supplying this to us as well

and granting the great power, faith may come to be in those who read, through the word and power of God. Our task, then, is now to refute his statement, which runs as follows: no god, O Jews and Christians, nor child of a god, either came down or would come down. But if you speak of certain angels, whom do you mean by these — gods, or some other kind of being? Some other kind, in all likelihood — the demons.

There is no need to argue at greater length against Celsus as he repeats these points (for they have already been said to him many times above); what has been said by us on this matter will suffice. But we shall set forth a few points, out of many more that could be made, which we think are in harmony with what has already been said, though not entirely of the same import as those; in which we shall show that, by declaring in general terms that no god

has come down to men, he does away also with the child of a god, and with what is believed by the many concerning a divine manifestation, and what was said above even by Celsus himself. For if the statement made universally by Celsus — that no god and no child of a god either came down or would come down — is true, then clearly it does away with there being gods on earth who have come down from heaven, whether in order to give oracles to

people, or heal them through oracles, then neither Pythian Apollo nor Asclepius nor any other of the gods reputed to do such things could be a god who has come down from heaven; he would rather be a god who has been allotted always to dwell on earth, a kind of exile from the region of the gods, or else he would be one of those who have no share in fellowship with the divine beings above.

Or else Apollo and Asclepius and all the others believed to accomplish something on earth are not gods at all but certain demons, far inferior to the wise among men who ascend to the vault of heaven through their virtue. Now observe that in his wish to destroy our doctrines, this man—who nowhere in the whole treatise admits to being an Epicurean—

is caught deserting to Epicurus's side. It is time, then, for you who read Celsus's arguments and assent to what he has proposed, either to deny that God visits the earth in his providential care for individual human beings, or, if you grant such a thing, to expose Celsus's argument as false. If, then, you deny providence altogether, you will falsify his own arguments, in which he posits gods and providence, so that you may claim these things are true; but if

you nonetheless posit providence, without agreeing with Celsus when he says that neither God nor a child of God has come down or comes down to human beings, why will you not carefully examine, from what has been said among us about Jesus and from what has been prophesied about him, which one it is more fitting to regard as God or a child of God having come down to human beings—the one who has arranged and accomplished such great things, namely Jesus, or those who under the pretext

of oracles and divinations do not correct the characters of those they serve, but in addition depart from the sincere and pure reverence owed to the maker of all things, and split the soul of those who attend to them—under the pretext of honoring a multitude of gods—away from the one and only manifest and true God? Since after this, as though Jews or Christians would answer

concerning those who come down to human beings that they are angels, he says: "But if you say there are certain angels," and he further asks, saying, "Whom do you mean by these—gods, or some other kind of being?" Then again, as if answering on our behalf, he leads us to say that they are, as is likely, something else—demons. Come, let us examine this point too. We do indeed admit and affirm that there are angels, being "ministering spirits" and "sent out to serve"

those who are to inherit salvation—ascending to bring before God the petitions of human beings in the purest regions of the world, the heavenly ones, or even the ones purer still, the regions above heaven, and in turn descending from there to bring to each, according to his worth, whatever service has been ordered for them from God to those being benefited. Having come to know, from what they do, that these beings are to be called angels, we find that they are also

sometimes named "gods" in the sacred scriptures, because they are divine—but not in such a way that we are commanded to worship and venerate as God those who minister to us and bring us the things of God, in place of God. For every petition, prayer, intercession, and thanksgiving must be sent up to the God over all, through the agency of the high priest set over every one of the angels, who is himself the ensouled Word, God. But we shall make our petitions

and of the Word itself, and we will entreat him and give him thanks, and we will also pray to him, if we are able to grasp the proper and the extended senses of the term 'prayer.' For it is not reasonable to invoke angels without having acquired a knowledge of them that surpasses human capacity. And even granting, for argument's sake, that this knowledge of them, being something marvelous and ineffable, were grasped, this very knowledge, by making plain their nature

and the offices to which each of them is assigned, will not allow one to venture to pray with confidence to anyone other than the God who is sufficient for all things over all, through our savior, the Son of God, who is 'Word' and wisdom and truth and whatever else the scriptures of God's prophets and of the apostles of Jesus say about him. It is enough, with a view to his being gracious

toward us, that the holy angels belong to God and do everything on our behalf, for our own disposition toward God, so far as human nature is capable, imitating their resolve, they themselves imitating God; and our conception of his Son the Word, to the extent attainable by us, not opposed to the clearer conception of him held by the holy angels, but ever pressing on

day by day toward that clearer and more articulate conception. So it is that Celsus, not having read our sacred scriptures, answers on our behalf, as though speaking for us, that we say the beings who descend for the benefit of mankind are some race other than God's, and he says that it would be reasonable for them to be called by us 'daimons' — not seeing that the term 'daimons' is not even

a middle term the way 'human beings' is, among whom some are decent and some base, nor yet a fine term such as 'gods' is, which is applied not to base things but to daimonic beings or images or animals; rather, by those who know the things of God it is applied to beings that are truly more divine and blessed. The name 'daimons,' by contrast, is always applied to base powers outside the coarser body

who lead men astray and distract them and drag them down away from God and the realms above heaven to the affairs of this place. After this he sets out the following statement about the Jews: 'First of all, then, it is worthy of wonder in the case of the Jews that, while they worship heaven and the angels in it, they pass over its most majestic and most powerful parts — sun

and moon and the other stars, both fixed and wandering — they send these on their way, as though it were possible for the whole to be a god while its parts are not divine. Or that those who through some crooked sorcery are blind in some darkness, or who dream through dim apparitions, and are said to cling to them, should be reckoned as worshipping quite properly, while those who prophesy to everyone so plainly and so brilliantly

— through whom rains and warmth and clouds and thunder (which they worship) and lightning and fruits and every act of generation are dispensed, through whom God is unveiled to them, the most manifest heralds of the beings above, the truly heavenly angels — these they should count as nothing: in all this it seems to me that Celsus has grown confused, and has written from mishearings which he did not rightly know.'

For it is clear, to anyone who studies the practices of the Jews and sets these side by side with the practices of Christians, that Jewish observers, following the law which speaks in God's own person — "You shall have no other gods besides me; you shall not make for yourself an idol, nor any image of what exists in the sky above, or on the earth below, or in the waters beneath the earth; you shall not"

bow down to them or serve them" — worship nothing other than the God over all things, who made heaven and everything else. It is plain that persons whose conduct follows the law, while worshiping the maker of heaven, do not thereby include heaven itself as a fellow object of worship alongside God; and further, none of those who serve the law of Moses worship the angels who are in heaven either.

In the same way that they do not worship the sun, the moon, and the stars, "the ordered array of heaven," they likewise refrain from worshiping heaven and the angels within it, obeying the law that says, "and lest you lift up your eyes to heaven, and, upon seeing sun, moon, and stars, the whole array of heaven, be led astray and bow down to them and serve them,

which the LORD your God has allotted to all the nations." But Celsus, taking it upon himself to claim that the Jews therefore consider heaven a god, brings this forward as something absurd, accusing those who worship heaven but not also the sun, the moon, and the stars, on the grounds that the Jews do this as though it were possible for the whole to be a god while its parts

are not divine. And he seems to mean that heaven is the whole, while the sun, the moon, and the stars are its parts. Now neither the Jews nor the Christians say plainly that heaven is a god. But let it be granted, on his own terms, that heaven is said by the Jews to be a god, and let the sun, the moon, and the stars also be parts of heaven (which is not

altogether true — for neither are the living creatures and plants on the earth parts of the earth). Where, then, is it true, even by Greek reckoning, that if some whole is a god, its parts are therefore also divine? It is the Stoics who plainly say that the whole cosmos is a god — the first kind, as they reckon it — while the followers of Plato call it the second kind, and some among them a third kind instead.

Is it then to be granted, on the reasoning of such people, that since the whole cosmos is a god, its parts are also divine, so that not only human beings but also all the irrational animals are divine, given that they form parts of the world — and the plants too, besides these? And if the mountains and the rivers and the seas are also parts of the cosmos,

then, since the whole cosmos is a god, are the rivers and the seas also gods? But not even the Greeks will say this. Rather, they would say that the beings set over rivers and seas — whether demons or gods, as they call them — are the gods in question. And so Celsus's universal claim turns out false even by Greek standards, among those who introduce providence: that if something is a whole...

...is god. In any case, its parts are divine. But it follows from Celsus's argument that, if the cosmos is god, everything in it must be divine, since they are parts of the cosmos. And on this reasoning, flies and gnats and worms and every kind of snake will be divine animals — but also every kind of bird and every kind of fish; which

not even those who say that the cosmos is god would assert. But those Jews whose life follows Moses' law, even if they know nothing of how to grasp the hidden meaning intended by the law and the secret sense it points to, will say that neither heaven nor the angels are god. Since we claim that he has been confused by certain mishearings, come, let us also, as far as we are able,

clarify these matters and show that, although Celsus supposes it to be Jewish to worship heaven and its angels, such a practice is not Jewish but a transgression of Judaism, just as worshiping the sun and moon and stars — and also images — is. You will find, especially in Jeremiah, the word of God, through the prophet, reproaching the people of the Jews

for worshiping such things and sacrificing 'to the queen of heaven' and 'to all the host of heaven.' The words of the Christians also make this clear, when they accuse the Jews of the sins committed among them, saying that God abandoned that people because of certain sins, and that these very sins were committed by them. For the Acts of the Apostles records concerning the Jews that 'God turned away'

and gave them up to serve the host of heaven, as the book of the prophets has it recorded: 'Did you offer me slain victims and sacrifices for forty years in the wilderness, house of Israel, and did you take up the tent of Moloch and the star of the god Rompha, the images which you made to worship them?' And in Paul, who was precisely trained in the ways of the Jews and later, through a marvelous appearance of Jesus, became a Christian —

such things are said in the letter to the Colossians: 'let no one disqualify you, insisting on it in humility and worship of angels, taking his stand on what he has seen, vainly puffed up by the mind of his flesh, and not holding fast to the head, from whom the whole body, supplied and joined together through joints and ligaments, grows with the growth of God.' These things,

which Celsus neither read nor learned, he has, I do not know how, represented the Jews as not transgressing the law in worshiping heaven and the angels in it. Moreover, being somewhat confused and not having examined the passage carefully, he thought that the Jews had been led, by certain apparitions appearing through the tricks and sorceries of those who chant incantations, to worship the

angels in heaven — not perceiving that this too was against the law for those who do such things, since it says: 'you shall not follow ventriloquists, and you shall not attach yourselves to enchanters so as to become polluted through them; it is I, the Lord your God.' He ought, therefore, either not to attribute these things to the Jews at all, keeping the Jews as observers of the law and saying that they are the ones who according to

to live according to the law, or to point out and refer to the fact that it was the lawless Jews who did such things. But again, those who worship in some dark place and by sorcery are transgressing the law just as much—blind, dreaming through dim apparitions, bowing down to those said to draw near in such practices; so too those who sacrifice to the sun, moon, and stars are transgressing the law quite thoroughly. And it was not consistent to say that

the same people, the Jews, both kept themselves from bowing down to sun, moon, and stars, and yet did not keep themselves from the same thing with respect to heaven and angels. But if we must offer a defense—since we equally do not bow down to angels, sun, moon, or stars—regarding the fact that we do not even bow down to those called by the Greeks visible and perceptible gods, we will say that the law of Moses too

knows that these were allotted by God "to all the nations under heaven," but not to those who were taken as a special portion for God beyond all the nations on earth. For it is written in Deuteronomy: "and lest, looking up to heaven and seeing sun, moon, and stars — the whole array of heaven,

you be led astray and bow down to them and serve them, which the Lord your God allotted to all the nations under the whole of heaven. But the Lord God took us and brought us out of the iron furnace, out of Egypt, to be a people of inheritance to him, as we are this day." A "chosen race," then, and "a royal priesthood," "a holy nation," and

a "people for his possession"—these the Hebrew people were called by God to be, concerning whom it had earlier been told to Abraham, from the voice the Lord spoke to him: "Look up to heaven and count the stars, if you are able to number them. And he said to him: So shall your seed be." He was not about to have this hope so that he would bow down to those stars in heaven

as to beings to whom, by understanding and keeping the law of God, they were destined to become like. For indeed it is said to them: "The Lord your God has multiplied you, and behold, you are today as the stars of heaven in multitude." And in Daniel too such things are prophesied concerning the resurrection: "And at that time your people shall be saved,

everyone found written in the book; and many of those sleeping in the dust of the earth shall rise up, some into eternal life, and some into reproach and eternal shame; and those who understand shall shine like the brightness of the firmament, and some of the many righteous like the stars, forever and ever." Hence Paul too, taking this up in

his discussion of the resurrection, says: "there are heavenly bodies and earthly bodies; but the glory of the heavenly is one thing, and that of the earthly another. The sun has one glory, the moon another, and the stars yet another; for one star differs from another star in brightness. So it is also with the resurrection of the dead." It was hardly reasonable, then, that those who had been taught in so exalted a fashion should transcend all the

works of craftsmanship, and to hope for the best things concerning themselves from God on the basis of the most excellent life, and, having heard "You are the world's light" and "Let your light shine before men, that they may see your good works and give glory to your Father who is in the heavens," to practice and possess that shining and unfading wisdom, or

and having received it, being as it is a "radiance" of "eternal light," to be so overwhelmed by the perceptible light of the sun, moon, and stars in such measure that, owing to that perceptible light, they should consider themselves to be somewhere down below, even though they possess so great an intelligible light of knowledge, and "true light," and "light of the world," and "light of men" — and should worship those bodies instead. But if indeed they had to be worshiped, it should not be

on account of the perceptible light admired by the many that they ought to be worshiped, but on account of the intelligible and true light — supposing indeed that the stars in heaven are living beings, rational and virtuous, and were illumined with the light of knowledge by wisdom, which is the "radiance" of "eternal light." For their perceptible light is a work of the Maker of all things, while their intelligible light

has perhaps come also from themselves, from the free will within them. But this too ought not to be worshiped by the one who sees and understands the true light, by participation in which these very bodies have accordingly been illumined, nor by the one who sees the Father of the true light, God — concerning whom it has rightly been said, "God is light, and darkness has no place in him

at all." And just as those who worship the sun and moon and stars because they are perceptible and heavenly light would not worship a spark of fire or a lamp on earth, seeing how incomparably superior are the things they judge worthy of worship compared to the glow given off by sparks and lamps, in the same way those who have understood in what sense "God is light," and have grasped in what sense the Son

of God is "true light," "which enlightens every man coming into the world," and who likewise understand in what sense this one declares, "I myself am light for the world," would not sensibly bow down to what is, so to speak, a small spark set beside the light of God's true light in the sun and moon and stars. And it is not that we dishonor such great

works of craftsmanship of God, nor do we, in Anaxagoras's fashion, say that the sun and moon and stars are "a fiery mass" — we do not say such things about the sun, moon, and stars — but rather, perceiving that the divinity of God surpasses them with an ineffable superiority, and further that his only-begotten also surpasses the rest, and being persuaded that the sun and moon and stars themselves pray to the God over all through

his only-begotten, we judge that we ought not to pray to those who pray. For they themselves wish us rather to send our prayer up to the God to whom they pray, than to draw it down to themselves, or to divide our power of prayer between God and themselves. And I will use, on this point too, this example concerning them, suited to the topic: our Savior and Lord, having once heard, "Teacher,

good one," referring the one who says this to his own Father, saying: "Why do you call me good? No one is good except the one God, the Father." But if the Son, being rightly an "image" of the goodness of God, has spoken this as the Son "of the love" of the Father, how would it not have been far more reasonable for the sun to say to those who worship it: Why do you worship me? For "the Lord your

God you shall worship, and him alone you shall serve" — whom I too, and all who are with me, worship and serve. And even if someone is not so great as this, let such a person nonetheless direct his prayer to God's Word, capable of bringing him healing, and even more to that Word's Father, who likewise "sent forth his word to the righteous of former times and healed them and

delivered them from their corruptions." God, then, according to his goodness, condescends to human beings not locally but providentially. And the child of God is present not only at that time but always with his own disciples, fulfilling the saying, "Behold, I am with you all the days, until the end of the age." And if "a branch cannot bear

fruit" "unless it remains in the vine," it is clear that the disciples of the Word too, being the intelligible "branches" of the true vine, the Word, cannot bear the fruits of virtue unless they remain within that true vine, God's own Christ, who is also with us here below on earth in a bodily sense, being present with all those everywhere who are grafted onto him,

and being now also with those who do not know him, he is everywhere present. And this is what John, who wrote the gospel, shows through the person of John the Baptist, who says: "There stands among you one whom you do not know, who comes after me." It would be absurd, then, that the one who fills heaven and earth, and who has said, "Do I not

fill heaven and earth? says the Lord" — who is with us and stands close beside us (since I trust him when he declares, "I am a God nearby, not a God far off, says the Lord") — should be sought in prayer to the sun or the moon or one of the stars, which does not reach all things at once. But let it be, to use Celsus's own words, that sun, moon, and stars possess the gift of prophecy over rains and warmth and clouds and

thunder. Well then, if these prophesy such great things, ought we not much rather to worship and revere the God whom they serve in their prophesying, than his prophets? Let them then also prophesy lightning and crops and every kind of birth, and let them dispense all such things; but we shall not for this reason worship those who worship, any more than we worship Moses and those after him

who prophesied from God things greater than rains and warmth and clouds and thunder and lightning and crops and every kind of perceptible birth. But even if the sun and moon and stars are able to prophesy prophecies greater than those of rain, not even so shall we worship them, but rather the Father of the prophecies within them, and their minister, the Word of God. But let there also be heralds

his, and truly heavenly angels, how then should not the god proclaimed by them, and the one they announce, be worshiped rather than their heralds and angels? Celsus takes it upon himself to claim that we consider sun and moon and stars to be nothing. Concerning these we confess that they too "await the revelation of the sons of God,"

having been "subjected" for the present to the "futility" of material bodies, "because of him who subjected them in hope." Yet had Celsus read the countless other things we say about sun and moon and stars, and "praise him, all you stars and light," and "praise him, you heavens of heavens," he would not have declared about us that

we say such great things, greatly praising God, while holding it to be nothing. Celsus does not even know the verse, "for the earnest expectation of creation awaits the revelation of the sons of God. For creation was subjected to futility—not by its own will, but through him who subjected it—in hope, that creation itself also will be set free from the slavery of decay into

the freedom belonging to the glory of God's children." With this, then, let our defense concerning our not worshiping sun, moon, and stars come to its conclusion. Let us set out the next passage as well, so that afterward, God granting it, we may say in reply to it what will be given us from the light of truth. He says this: "It is foolish of them, too,

to suppose that, when God, like a cook, brings on the fire, every other race will be roasted, while they alone will remain — not only the living, but also those who died long ago, rising up from the earth in those very same flesh: it is simply the hope of worms. For what human soul would still long for a rotted body? Since not even you all hold this doctrine

in common — some of the Christians themselves declare it to be both utterly foul and repugnant, and at the same time impossible. For what body, once wholly destroyed, could be restored to that first composition, out of which it was dissolved, and to its original nature? Having nothing to answer, they take refuge in a most absurd retreat: that everything is possible for God. But surely

God cannot do shameful things, nor does he will what is contrary to nature; nor, if you should desire something loathsome in keeping with your own depravity, will God be able to do this, and one must at once believe that it will happen. For God is the founder not of faulty desire nor of wandering disorder, but of right and just nature. And he could indeed grant the soul an eternal life;

but "corpses," says Heraclitus, "are more fit to be thrown out than dung." Flesh, then, full of things not even decent to name, God will neither absurdly wish nor be able to declare eternal. For he himself is the reason (logos) of all things that exist; he is therefore not capable of doing anything irrational, or contrary to himself. See, then, from this point on how...

Slandering with mockery the conflagration of the world, he wants to portray us as introducing God's role in the conflagration as though he were a cook — not realizing that, just as it seemed to some of the Greeks (perhaps having taken the idea from the most ancient nation, the Hebrews), a purifying fire is brought upon the world, and it is likely that it also comes upon each person who needs the justice, and at the same time the healing, that comes through fire — burning

but not consuming those who have no material needing to be destroyed by that fire, while burning and consuming those who have built, in the figuratively-called edifice constructed of deeds and words and thoughts, with "wood, hay, or stubble." The divine oracles say that the Lord will come to dwell with each one who needs it "like the fire of a smelting-furnace and like fullers' soap," because of

the base, molten material from wickedness that has been mixed in — I mean, with those who need fire, as it were smelting those who have been mixed with "bronze," "and tin and lead." Whoever wishes can learn this from the prophet Ezekiel. And that we do not say God brings the fire as a cook would, but as a God who benefits those who are in need of toil and fire, the

prophet Isaiah too will testify, in whom it is written to have been said to a certain sinful nation: "For you have coals of fire, sit upon them; these will be a help to you." And Scripture, arranged to suit the multitudes who will encounter it, speaks with wisdom, in a veiled manner, of grim things meant to instill fear in those who cannot otherwise be turned back from the flood of their sins; yet even so, one who watches closely will find made evident

the end brought upon those who suffer, arising out of the grim and painful things. For the present it is enough to cite from Isaiah: "For the sake of my name I will show you my wrath, and I will bring my glorious deeds upon you, so that I may not utterly destroy you." We have been compelled to speak in riddles of matters unsuited to those who believe more simply and who need the simpler management of these things in words,

so that we should not seem to leave Celsus's accusation unrefuted, where he says: whenever God, like a cook, brings on the fire. The foregoing remarks make plain enough, to those who listen more intelligently, how one must answer also the claim that the whole rest of humankind will be roasted, while they alone will remain. It is not surprising if he has understood in such a way the things among us that are called "foolish

of the world" and "base" and "despised" and "things that are not" — things which, "through the foolishness of the preaching, God was pleased to save those who believe in him, since the world through its wisdom did not know God by wisdom" — being unable to articulate matters of interpretation, nor willing to devote leisure to the searching of Scripture, even though

Jesus says, "Search the Scriptures" — and has formed such notions about the fire brought by God and about what will happen to sinners. And perhaps, just as it is fitting that certain things be said to children suited to their infancy, so as to turn them, as utterly small children, toward what is better, so too for those whom Scripture has called the fools of the world and the base and

For those who have been reduced to nothing, the ready-at-hand interpretation of punishments is fitting, since they cannot receive any other conversion than the one produced through fear and the imagination of punishments, along with abstention from most evils. Reason, then, says that only those remain untasting of the fire and of the punishments who have thoroughly purified their doctrines, their character, and their governing faculty; but those who are not such, in proportion to

their desert, will need the dispensation of punishment by fire, and among these he says there will be some end, which it is fitting for God to bring upon those made "according to the image" of himself, yet who have lived in defiance of what that image-bearing nature intends. And this bears on the point that the whole rest of the race will be burned up, while these alone will remain. Then, next in order, having misheard either the sacred

writings, or those who have not understood the sacred writings, he says that we assert that only those will remain — at the time when the purifying fire is to be brought upon the world — not only those then living but also those who died long ago; not grasping that a certain hidden wisdom lay behind what Jesus's apostle declared: "sleep will not claim us all, yet a change will come upon every one of us, in

an instant, in an eye's twinkling, at the final trumpet; for a trumpet-call will sound, and the dead will rise imperishable, and we ourselves shall be changed." He ought to have paused to consider what the one who says these things had in mind, when — by no means separating himself from the dead as though he were dead — he spoke of himself and those like him after saying "and the dead will rise imperishable": "and we ourselves shall be changed." And as confirmation that the apostle had

understood some such things when he wrote this, the passages I cited from the first letter to the Corinthians, I will also set alongside them those from the first letter to the Thessalonians, in which Paul, speaking as one living and awake and other than those who have fallen asleep, says such things as: "For this we declare to you by the Lord's own word, that those of us still living, remaining until the Lord's coming, shall by no means go before

those who have fallen asleep, because the Lord himself will descend from heaven with a cry of command, with the voice of an archangel, and with the trumpet of God." Then again, next after these, knowing that the dead in Christ are others besides himself and those like him, he adds, saying: "the dead in Christ will rise first, then we who are alive, who remain, will together with them be caught up in the clouds to

meet the Lord in the air." Since he has made even more of a mockery of the resurrection of the flesh — proclaimed in the churches but understood more clearly by those of greater discernment — and since it is not necessary to set out again his statement already given once, come, let us also speak concerning this problem, as in the defense addressed to one alien to the faith, written for the sake of those still infants and

tossed about and carried around "by every wind of teaching, in the cunning of men, (in craftiness) for the scheming of error," let us set forth and present a few points, aimed as best we can at those who will read this. Neither we ourselves, then, nor the divine writings say that those who died long ago will live in these very flesh, having undergone no change for the better, rising up out of the earth just as they were;

Celsus slanders us by saying this. For we hear many scriptures speak of resurrection in terms befitting God, but for the present it is enough to cite Paul's words from the first letter to the Corinthians, where he says: "But someone will say, how are the dead raised? With what body do they come? Fool! What you sow is not brought to life unless it dies; and what you sow,

you do not sow the body that will come to be, but a bare kernel, of wheat perhaps, or of one of the other grains; and God gives it a body as he wished, and to each of the seeds its own body." Notice, then, in what manner he says here that it is not the body that will come to be that is sown, but from what is sown and cast naked upon the ground, he says, God gives

"to each of the seeds its own body," so that a kind of resurrection takes place, an ear of grain rising from the seed that has been cast down in such cases as these, whether in a mustard seed, or, on a larger tree, in an olive stone, or in some other fruit-tree seed. "God, then, gives" "to each" "a body, as he wished," just as in the case of things sown, so also in the case of things that are, so to speak, sown in dying, and,

at the fitting time, receive from among the things sown the "body" fitted to each according to its worth by God. And we hear the reasoning that teaches at greater length the difference between what is, so to speak, sown and what is, as it were, raised from it, saying: "Sown in corruption, it rises in incorruption; sown in dishonor, it rises in glory; sown in weakness, it rises in power;

it is sown a soulish body; what is raised is a spiritual body." Let whoever is able still grasp what is meant by the one who says: "As is the man of dust, such also are those of dust; and as is the heavenly man, such also are the heavenly. And just as we bore the image of the man made of dust, so let us likewise bear the image of the heavenly one." And yet, although the apostle wished to keep hidden the secrets belonging to this subject

and things not fitting for the more simple and for the common hearing of those being led toward what is better through believing, he was nevertheless compelled afterward, so that we might not fail to heed his words, to add, following the phrase "let us also carry the image of the heavenly one," these words: "this I declare, brothers: flesh and blood are unable to obtain the kingdom of God as an inheritance, nor can decay inherit what does not decay."

Then, knowing that there was something secret and mystical involved in this subject, as was fitting for one leaving in writing to those who came after him the thoughts he had conceived, he adds and says: "Behold, I tell you a mystery," which is just the phrase customarily added by the deeper and more mystical writers, and rightly kept hidden from the many; just as it is also written in Tobit: "It is good to keep hidden the mystery of a king,"

but as for what is glorious and fitting for the many, together with what is true in a manner suited to God's economy, "it is good" "to reveal gloriously the works of God." Our expectation is thus not one shared with worms, and our soul does not yearn for the rotted body; yet, should it require a body for the sake of transitions from place to place, the soul that has cultivated "wisdom," according to the saying "the mouth of the righteous will meditate on wisdom," perceives the distinction between an earthly house

in which is the tent, when the tent too is dissolved, in which "those who are" righteous groan "being burdened," not wishing to strip off the tent but to "put on" the tent over it, so that from this "putting on over" "the mortal may be swallowed up by life." "For it is necessary," since every bodily nature is corruptible, that "this corruptible" tent "put on incorruption," and that its other part, which is "mortal" and

receptive of the death that follows upon sin, "put on immortality"; so that, when "the corruptible" "shall put on incorruption and the mortal shall put on immortality, then shall come about" that which was long ago foretold by the prophets: the destruction of death's victory, by which, having conquered us, it subjected us to itself, and of the sting that comes from it, with which, stinging the soul that is not entirely fenced about, it inflicts on it the

wounds of sin. But since our own views concerning the resurrection have been stated, so far as was possible, in part, for the present occasion (for we have composed a treatise on the resurrection elsewhere, examining more fully the matters bearing on the subject), we must now take up Celsus's remarks as reason requires, since he neither understood what has been written by us nor was able to judge that one ought not

to suppose that the intention of those wise men is being invoked as an authority by people who profess nothing more credible than the Christian doctrine. Come, let us show that things quite discordant with logical inquiry and dialectical investigation have been said by men not to be despised. And if it is necessary to sneer at certain accounts as lowly and old-womanish, it is those accounts, rather than ours, that deserve it. For the Stoics say that

a periodic conflagration of the whole universe occurs, and after it an ordering of the world, with everything exactly the same as in the previous ordering. And those of them who felt some shame at the doctrine said that a small and very slight variation occurs, period by period, relative to those of the preceding period. But these men say that in the following period such things will happen: that Socrates will again be the son of Sophroniscus

and an Athenian, and that Phaenarete, married to Sophroniscus, will again bear him. And even if they do not use the name "resurrection," they nonetheless indicate the very thing, namely that Socrates, beginning from the seed of Sophroniscus, will rise again and be formed in the womb of Phaenarete, and having been raised at Athens will practice philosophy, as though the former philosophy too were rising again and would be exactly the same as the former. And

Anytus and Meletus will again arise as Socrates's accusers, and the council of the Areopagus will condemn Socrates. And what is more ridiculous than this, Socrates will put on garments exactly the same as those of the former period, being in exactly the same poverty and in exactly the same city, Athens, as in the former period. And Phalaris will once more rule as tyrant, and his brazen

bull will bellow with the voice of those inside it, men exactly the same as those condemned in the former period of humanity. And Alexander of Pherae will again play the tyrant, having the same cruelty as before and condemning the same men as before. And why should I catalogue the doctrine on such matters philosophized by the Stoics, which is not laughed at by Celsus but

Perhaps he even boasts of this, since he thinks Zeno wiser than Jesus. And the followers of Pythagoras and Plato, even though they seem to maintain that the world is imperishable, nevertheless fall into similar difficulties. For they say that, since the stars, in certain fixed periods, take on the same configurations and relations to one another, everything on earth is likewise similar to what it was

when the world contained the same configuration of the stars' relation. It is therefore necessary, according to this account, that once the stars have come round, after a long period, to the same relation to one another that they had in Socrates' time, Socrates will again be born from the same parents and suffer the same things, being accused by Anytus and Meletus and condemned by the

council from the Areopagus. And the learned among the Egyptians, who hand down such teachings, are held in reverence and are not laughed at by Celsus and his like — while we, saying that the whole is governed by God in accordance with the analogy of the relation of what is within each person's own power, and that it is always led, so far as is possible, toward what is better, and knowing the nature of what is within our power, that it admits of whatever it admits

(for that which is wholly unchangeable in God cannot be contained by it), do not seem to be saying things worthy of scrutiny and examination. But let no one suppose that in saying this we belong to those who are called Christians but reject the doctrine of the resurrection according to the scriptures. For they are utterly unable to point to the ear of grain or tree that rises, as it were, from a grain of wheat or of any of the other seeds,

so far as their own preferred view goes. We, however, are persuaded that what is sown "is not made alive unless it dies," and that "it is not the body that shall be" that is sown (for "God gives it a body just as he willed," raising it, after it is sown "in corruption," "in incorruption," and after it is sown "in dishonor," raising it "in glory," and after

it is sown "in weakness" and raised "in power," and what is sown as a "natural body" is raised as "a spiritual" one) — we hold fast both to the will of the church of Christ and to the greatness of God's promise, establishing its possibility not by mere assertion but also by argument, knowing that even if "heaven and earth" and what is in them should pass away, yet the

"principles" concerning each thing, being as it were parts within a whole or species within a genus of the Logos who existed "in the beginning" "with God," the Word of God, will in no way pass away. For we wish to heed him who said, "Heaven and earth will pass away, but my words will not pass away." We, then, do not say that the corrupted body returns to its original

nature, just as neither does the corrupted "grain" of "wheat" return to the "grain" of "wheat." For we say that, just as an ear of grain rises up from the grain of "wheat," so too a certain principle is implanted in the body, from which, since it is not destroyed, the body "is raised" "in incorruption." The Stoics, however, say that the body, though wholly corrupted, returns to its original nature

because of their doctrines about the unvarying recurrences that occur in each cycle, and they say that that very first configuration, from which it was dissolved, will again be constituted, presenting these things by dialectical necessities (as they suppose). And we are not withdrawing into the most absurd of retreats when we say that everything is possible for God; for we know that 'everything' is not to be understood of things that do not exist, nor of things that are unthinkable. But we say

also that God is not able to do shameful things, since then God would be capable of not being God; for if God does something shameful, he is not God. But since he also lays it down that God does not will the things that are contrary to nature, we make a distinction in what is meant: if by 'contrary to nature' one means vice, we too say that God does not will the

things contrary to nature, neither those that arise from vice nor those that happen irrationally. But if the things that happen according to God's reason and his will are meant, it is immediately necessary that they not be contrary to nature; for what is done by God is not contrary to nature, even if it is paradoxical or seems paradoxical to some. But if one must give it a forced name, we will say that, relative to the more commonly

understood nature, there are certain things beyond nature which God might at some time do, raising a person above human nature and making him change into a better and more divine nature, and keeping him such, to the degree that the one so kept shows, through what he does, that this is what he wills. And having once said that God wills nothing unbefitting himself, since this would be destructive of his

being God, we will say that if a person, out of his own depravity, wills something disgusting, God will not be able to bring this about. In this way we are not being contentious toward what is said by Celsus, but examining it with a love of truth we will agree that God belongs not to disordered desire nor to wandering disorder, but to right and just nature, since he is the source

of everything good. And we further confess that he is able to grant the soul eternal life, and not only is he able but he also grants it. And because of what has already been said, nothing troubles us at all, not even the saying of Heraclitus that Celsus has taken up, that 'corpses are more fit to be thrown out than dung.' And yet one might say about this too, that dung indeed is fit to be thrown out, but

the corpses that come from a human being, because of the soul that dwelt in them, and especially if it was a more refined one, are not fit to be thrown out. For according to the more refined laws they are deemed worthy of burial with whatever honor is possible in such matters, so that we may not insult, in the very power that dwelt there, the soul that dwelt there, by throwing the body away once that soul has departed, as if it were the body of a beast. Let God, then, not will

unreasonably to declare eternal neither the 'grain' of 'wheat,' but rather the ear that comes from it, nor the thing that is sown 'in corruption,' but the thing that is raised from it 'in incorruption.' But also the Word of all things is, according to Celsus, God himself, but according to us, his Son; concerning whom, philosophizing, we say: 'In the beginning was'

the Word, and the Word existed alongside God, and God was what the Word was." But even in our view God is incapable of doing anything irrational or contrary to himself. Let us now look at the next passage of Celsus, which reads as follows: The Jews, then, having become a distinct nation and having established laws according to their own local custom,

and still observing these among themselves even now, and keeping a form of worship, whatever it may be, but at any rate their ancestral one, do the same thing as other peoples, in that each group cherishes its own ancestral customs, whatever they happen to be. And this seems to be advantageous, not only because it occurred to different peoples to hold different beliefs, and it is necessary to preserve what has been established for the common good, but also because it is likely that the regions of

the earth were from the beginning allotted, each to different overseers, and were divided according to certain spheres of authority, and are governed accordingly. And indeed the customs practiced by each people would be rightly performed if done in the way that is pleasing to those overseers; and it would not be pious to abolish what has been established from the beginning according to each region. In these words Celsus indicates that the Jews, once Egyptians, later became a distinct nation, and,

having established laws, now observe them. And so as not to repeat the passages of Celsus already quoted, he says that it is also advantageous for them to practice their ancestral worship, just as other nations cherish their own. And he sets forth a somewhat deeper reason why it is advantageous for the Jews to cherish their ancestral customs, hinting that the laws of each people were established by the overseers who were allotted the earth, working together with the lawgivers,

in cooperation with them. He seems, then, to be indicating that some one or several beings oversee the land of the Jews and the nation dwelling in it, and that the laws of the Jews were laid down with that being, or those beings, cooperating with Moses. And, he says, one must keep the laws, not only because it occurred to different peoples to hold different beliefs, and because it is necessary to preserve what has been established for the common good, but

also because it is likely that, from the beginning, each region of the earth was assigned to a different overseer, apportioned according to certain spheres of authority, and so administered. Then, as though forgetting what he had said against the Jews, Celsus now, in his general praise of all who keep their ancestral customs, includes them as well, saying: And indeed the customs practiced by each people would be rightly performed if done in the way

that is pleasing to those overseers. And observe whether he is not, quite openly, insofar as it lies in his power, wanting the Jew who lives by his own laws not to depart from them, on the ground that he would be acting impiously if he did depart; for he says that it would not be pious to abolish what has been established from the beginning according to each region. Now I should like to ask him, or those who share his views, on this point, who then

is the one who from the beginning allotted the regions of the earth, each to different overseers, and clearly assigned the land of the Jews and the Jews themselves to whoever was allotted it, or to whoever were allotted it. For was it, as Celsus would presumably name him, Zeus, who allotted the Jewish nation and their land to some one being or several beings, and who wished the one allotted Judea to establish such people in it

...Jewish laws? Or has this come about against his will? Let him answer however he likes—you can see that his argument will be hemmed in. But if the regions of the earth have not been apportioned by some single being to their respective overseers, then it follows that each region was divided up by lot, at random and without any overseer presiding, as chance would have it. But this too is absurd, and would to a considerable degree do away with the providence of the God who rules over all.

Let whoever wishes explain how and by what spheres of authority the regions of the earth, once divided up, are administered by those who oversee them; and let him tell us as well how what is done among each people is done rightly, in whatever way is pleasing to their overseers—and whether, say, the Scythian laws permitting the killing of parents are right, or the Persian laws, which place no prohibition on

sons from marrying their own mothers, nor fathers from marrying their own daughters. And why should I go on raising further difficulties, drawing on those who have written treatises on the laws found among the various nations, asking how the laws practiced rightly among each people—rightly, that is, as is pleasing to their overseers—can be so? Let Celsus tell us how it is not impious to abolish ancestral laws permitting marriage with mothers

and daughters. Or the belief that it is a blessed thing to depart from life by hanging, or that those who deliver themselves over to fire are altogether purified by that fiery release from life. And how is it not impious to abolish the laws found, for instance, among the Taurians concerning the sacrifice of strangers as victims to Artemis, or among certain Libyans concerning the sacrifice of their

children to Cronus? Yet it follows from Celsus's own position that it is not impious for the Jews to abolish the ancestral laws forbidding the worship of any god other than the Creator of the universe. And so, on his account, what is pious will not be so by nature but by some convention and custom regarded as divine—since among some it is pious to worship the crocodile and to eat what among others

is an object of reverence, and pious for others to worship the calf, while among yet others the goat is held to be a god. In this way the same person will be acting piously with respect to these laws and impiously with respect to those—which is the most absurd thing of all. But no doubt they will say in reply to this that the one who keeps his ancestral customs is pious, and in no way impious, simply because he does not

also observe the customs of others; and conversely, that the one judged impious by certain peoples is not impious at all, when, in keeping with his ancestral customs, he reveres his own gods while making war on and devouring those who hold opposing laws. But consider whether this does not reveal a great confusion regarding justice and piety and reverence—since reverence is not being clearly defined, nor shown to possess

some nature of its own that marks out as pious those who act in accordance with it. If, then, piety and holiness and justice are relative terms, such that the same act is both pious and impious depending on differing circumstances and laws, then consider whether temperance too will not likewise turn out to be relative, and courage as well

prudence, and knowledge, and the rest of the virtues — nothing could be more absurd than that. Now for those who take a simpler and more general stand toward the passages Celsus has set out, what has been said is sufficient; but since we suppose that some of the more discerning readers will also encounter this treatise, come, let us venture to set forth briefly a few of the deeper points, which contain a certain mystical and unspeakable theory concerning the

apportionment from the beginning of different regions of the earth to different overseers; and among the absurdities that have been listed, let us present the argument as clean as we are able. Now Celsus seems to me to have half-heard something from certain people about the distribution among nations of the earth in these more mystical accounts, which Greek history too somehow touches upon, when it introduces certain of the so-called gods as contending with one another over Attica, and represents

among the poets certain of the so-called gods as acknowledging that certain places are more their own. Barbarian history too, and especially that of the Egyptians, shows forth certain such things concerning the division of the so-called nomes of Egypt, saying that the same Athena who obtained Sais by lot also holds Attica. The learned among the Egyptians will say countless such things — I do not

know, however, whether they also include the Jews and their land in some such distribution to one deity or another. But concerning what is said outside the divine word, let this suffice for the present. We say that Moses, the prophet of God recognized among us and his true servant, sets forth in the Song of Deuteronomy the apportionment of those upon the earth

words such as these: "When the Highest apportioned out the nations, when he dispersed abroad the sons of Adam, he fixed the borders of every nation to match the number of God's angels, and Jacob became the LORD's own share, Israel the measured portion of his inheritance." And regarding how the nations were divided, this same Moses, in the book called Genesis, writes in historical style as follows: "Now the whole earth had one

lip, all sharing a single language. And it came to pass that, as they journeyed from the east, they discovered a plain in Shinar's land, where they settled"; and shortly after: "The LORD descended," it says, "to view the city and tower the sons of men had raised. Then the LORD declared: Behold, they are one people, one language among them all; this is but the start of what they intend, and henceforth"

nothing they set out to do will be beyond them. Come, let us go down and confuse their tongue there, so that each may not understand the voice of his neighbor. And the LORD scattered them from there across the whole face of the earth, and they ceased building the city and the tower. Therefore its name was called Confusion, because there the LORD 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 of the confusion of tongues, in which the apportionment of those upon the earth took place — of the earth. Such things are said about wisdom: "She, even in the union of wickedness"

of nations having been thrown into confusion, he knew the righteous one, and kept him blameless before God, and kept him strong even upon the inward parts of a child." Much is the account concerning these things, and mystical, to which the saying fits: "It is good to hide the secret of a king" — so that the account concerning souls not being clothed in a body by transmigration might not be flung out to chance hearers, nor the holy things be given to "

the dogs," nor the pearls be thrown before swine. For such a thing is impious, involving a betrayal of the hidden sayings of God's wisdom, concerning which it is well written: "wisdom will not enter into an evil-contriving soul, nor dwell in a body enslaved to sin." It is enough to set forth, in the manner of a history, the things spoken in a hidden way as though in the manner of a history, so that those who are able may work out for themselves

the matters concerning this passage. Let all who are upon the earth, then, be conceived as using one divine language, and insofar as they agree with one another let them be kept within the divine language; and let them remain unmoved "from the risings," so long as they are thinking the things of the light and of the radiance from the "eternal light." And these, whenever they move "from the risings," thinking things foreign to "the risings,"

let them find "a plain in the land of Sennaar," which is interpreted "a shaking out of teeth," as a symbol of their destroying the very things by which they are nourished, and let them dwell there. Then, wishing to gather the things of matter and to fasten together things not naturally fitted to be fastened to heaven, so that through material things they might plot against the immaterial, let them say: "Come, let us make bricks and bake them with fire." So then, as ones hardening and fixing the

clay and material things, and wishing to make the brick into stone and the clay into bitumen, and through these to build "a city and a tower, whose head," so far as their supposition goes, "will reach unto heaven" — corresponding to the heights lifted up against the knowledge of God — let each be handed over according to the proportion of the movement "from the risings" that has taken place in them, whether more or less,

as has occurred in their case, and according to the proportion of the making of the bricks into stones and of the clay into bitumen and of the building constructed from these, let them be handed over to angels, harsher or milder in greater or lesser degree, and of one sort or another, until they pay the penalty for what they have dared; and let each be led by the angels who formed for them their own peculiar language, into the parts of

the earth according to their own worth — these to, say, a scorching region, others to one that punishes its inhabitants through extreme cold, and some to a land more difficult to farm, others to one less so, and some to a land full of wild beasts, others to one having fewer of them. Then, if anyone is able, as in

the form of a history — a history which has something true in itself, but also displays something hidden — let him also observe those who kept the language from the beginning, by not having moved "from the risings," remaining in the east and in the eastern language; and let him understand that these alone became "the Lord's portion and his people," the one called "Jacob," and that there also came to be "the measuring-line of his inheritance, Israel";

And let these alone be overseen by a ruler who has not taken charge of those under him for the sake of punishment, as the others have. And let whoever is capable of it observe how, as among human beings, in the commonwealth of those assigned to the portion that specially belongs to the Lord, the sins that occur are at first tolerable, of such a kind that those who commit them do not altogether deserve to be abandoned; but later they become more numerous, yet still...

...tolerable. And observing this happening over a longer time, with treatment continually being applied and these people turning back at intervals, let him see them being abandoned in proportion to their sins, just as happened to those allotted the other regions: at first punished only to a lesser degree, paying the penalty as though being disciplined, and returning to their own lands; but later let him see them being handed over to harsher rulers, whom...

...the scriptures would name Assyrians, and then Babylonians. Then, as further remedies are applied, let him see them nonetheless increasing their sins, and for this reason being scattered abroad among the other portions by the rulers of the remaining nations who plunder them. And let their own ruler deliberately overlook their being plundered by the rulers among the remaining nations, so that he himself, with good reason, as though avenging himself, taking...

...the authority to draw off from the remaining nations whomever he is able, might do this very thing, setting laws for them and showing them a way of life by which they must live, so as to lead them up to the same goal to which he used to lead those who had not sinned from the former nation. And through this let those capable of seeing such great matters learn that the one allotted those who had not previously sinned is far more powerful...

...than the rest, since he has been able, taking chosen ones out of the portion belonging to all, to remove them from those who had taken them for punishment, and to bring them over to laws and a way of life that contributes toward an amnesty for their former sins. But, as we said before, let these things be spoken by us only in veiled terms. They set forth things which those men failed to heed properly who said that the parts of the earth were from the beginning apportioned to different overseers, divided according to certain spheres of dominion,...

...and administered accordingly; and it was from these that Celsus, taking his cue, spoke the words quoted above. But since those who were stirred up "from the east," on account of what they had sinned, were handed over "to a debased mind" and "to dishonorable passions" and, "in the desires of their hearts, to uncleanness," so that, having had their fill of sin, they might come to hate it, we will not submit to what pleases Celsus when he claims that, because of the overseers allotted to the parts of the earth, whatever is done among each people is done rightly. Rather, we wish...

...not to do things the way it happens to please those overseers, but to do what belongs to them only as far as is right. For we see that it is a holy thing to dissolve the customs established from the beginning according to localities by better and more divine laws — the laws which, as the most powerful one, Jesus established, having rescued us from the present evil age and from the rulers of this age,...

...who are being brought to nothing; but it is an unholy thing not to cast oneself upon the one who has appeared and been shown to be more powerful than all rulers. To him God spoke, as the prophets foretold many generations beforehand: "Ask of me, and I will give you the nations as your inheritance, and the ends of the earth as your possession." For indeed "he himself" has become our "expectation." Of the...

from "nations" who have believed in him and in the God who is over all, his Father. Now this has been said not only in reply to what has been laid out concerning the mystic initiates, but it also fairly well anticipates what Celsus goes on to say against us. There he says: "Let the second come forward: I shall ask them where they have come from, or who is the founder of their ancestral laws." They will say, no one,

since they set out from that same place, and they too derive their teacher and choir-leader from nowhere else; and yet they have broken away from the Jews. We, then, each of us have come "in the last days," when our Jesus made his sojourn among us, to "the mountain of the Lord that is manifest," the Word who stands "above" every word there is, and to the household "of God"—the household which "is the assembly of the living God,

a pillar and foundation of the truth." And we see in what manner this house is built "on the tops of the mountains," of all the prophetic words, which are its foundation. This "house" is raised up "above the hills," above those things which seem among men to promise something exceptional in wisdom and in truth. Toward it "every nation" makes its way, and the many peoples advance, and

we say to one another, urging one another on toward the reverence for God that has shone forth "in the last days" through Jesus Christ: "Come, let us go up to the Lord's mountain, to the house of Jacob's God. He will teach us his own way, and in it we will walk." For "the law" went out from those in "Zion" and passed over to us in spiritual form. But also "the word of the Lord"

went out from that "Jerusalem," so that it could be spread everywhere and could render judgment "in the midst of the nations," choosing those whom it sees to be obedient, but reproving the "many people" who are disobedient. And indeed we say to those who ask us where we have come from or who is our founder, that we have come, in accordance with the instructions of Jesus, to beat our warlike rational "swords" and our insolent ones "into ploughshares,"

and we are reworking "our" former warlike "spears into sickles." For no longer do we lift up "sword against nation," nor any longer do we "practice for war," since through Jesus we became sons of peace — he who is our leader — instead of our ancestral ways, in which we had once been "strangers to the covenants." We have taken up a law, and for it we render thanks, confessing to the one who rescued us from error, we say: "As false

idols our fathers acquired, and there is among them no one who sends rain." Our choir-leader and teacher, then, having come out from the Jews, distributes to himself, by the word of his teaching, the whole inhabited world as his portion. Having anticipated these points, we have refuted, to the best of our ability, the lengthy statement of Celsus that follows, joining it to the passages of his that were set out. But so that we may not pass over what was said in between

by Celsus, come, let us set this out as well. One might also use Herodotus as a witness on this point, who speaks as follows: "For those who dwell in the city of Marea and in Apis, in the part of Egypt bordering on Libya, considering themselves to be Libyans and not Egyptians, and being burdened by the observance concerning sacred rites — wishing not to be barred from female cattle — sent to Ammon, saying

that they had nothing in common with the Egyptians, for they lived outside the Delta and did not agree with them, and wished to be permitted to eat of everything. But the god did not permit them to act in this way, saying that this was Egypt, which the Nile waters as it floods, and that those were Egyptians who, dwelling below the city of Elephantine, drink from this river." This is what Herodotus

has recorded. And Ammon was no worse at conveying divine messages than the messengers of the Jews, so that it is no wrong for each people to worship according to their own customs. Indeed we shall find that the greatest difference among them runs by nation, and yet each people themselves seem to consider their own practices best: among the Ethiopians, those who dwell at Meroe worship "Zeus and Dionysus alone," while the Arabians worship Urania and Dionysus

these two alone. All the Egyptians worship Osiris and Isis, but the people of Sais worship Athena, and the people of Naucratis, who began only recently, worship Sarapis, and the rest according to their districts, each as they see fit. Some abstain from sheep, holding them sacred, others from goats, others from crocodiles; others abstain from female cattle, and shun pigs with abhorrence. Among the Scythians, on the other hand, it is thought fine even to feast on human beings,

and some of the Indians consider it a holy act even to eat their own fathers. And somewhere this same Herodotus says—I will again use his own words for the sake of credibility; he records it thus: "For if one were to set before all mankind a choice, bidding them select the finest customs from among all customs there are, each people, upon consideration, would choose its own; so completely do they all believe"

"their own customs to be by far the finest. It is therefore not likely that anyone but a madman would make sport of such things. That all mankind hold this view about their own customs can be established by many other proofs, and by this one in particular: Darius, during his own reign, summoned the Greeks who were present at his court and asked them for what price they would be willing"

"to eat their fathers when they died. They replied that they would do this for no price whatsoever. Darius then afterward summoned those of the Indians called the Callatiae, who do eat their parents, and asked them, in the presence of the Greeks, who learned what was said through an interpreter, for what price they would agree to burn their dead fathers with fire. And they cried out loudly and bade him say nothing so ill-omened. Such, then, is how these matters"

"stand by custom, and Pindar seems to me to have spoken rightly when he called custom king of all." Through these citations Celsus's argument seems to move toward the conclusion that all people ought to live according to their ancestral customs, and would not be blamed for doing so, but that Christians, having abandoned their ancestral customs and not being some single nation as the Jews are, deserve blame for adhering to Jesus's teaching. Let him then

tell us whether those who pursue philosophy and are taught not to be superstitious rightly abandon their ancestral customs, to the point even of eating what is forbidden in their own countries, or whether in doing this they act contrary to what is proper. For if, on account of philosophy and teachings against superstition, people do not keep their ancestral customs and would even eat of what is forbidden to them by their fathers, why should not Christians too,

since reason chooses not to fuss over the images and shrines, or even over the works of God's craftsmanship, but to rise above them and to present the soul to the Craftsman himself, then in doing so, proportionately, they would be acting just as philosophers do, without reproach. But if Celsus, or those who approve of his views, will say, in order to safeguard the position he has set for himself, that even a person who has taken up philosophy will still keep

his ancestral customs — it would be time to say that the most ridiculous philosophers, for instance, would have arisen among the Egyptians, taking care not to eat onion, so as to keep their ancestral customs, or not to eat certain parts of the body, such as the head or the shoulder, so as not to transgress what had been handed down to them by their fathers. Nor am I yet speaking of those who shudder at the nonsensical taboos of the body concerning the genitals among the Egyptians — that if someone should take up philosophy on the basis of such things

and yet keep the ancestral customs, he would be a ridiculous philosopher doing unphilosophical things. In just this way, then, the person led by reason to the worship of the God of all, yet remaining, on account of ancestral custom, down below among the images and the human-made shrines, and unwilling in his purpose to ascend to the Craftsman, would be similar to those who have learned the doctrines

of philosophy but fear things that are not to be feared, and consider it impiety to eat such-and-such foods. And of what sort is Herodotus's Ammon, whose words Celsus has taken up as if for a proof that each person ought to keep his ancestral customs? For their Ammon does not allow those who dwell in the regions bordering Libya, from the city of Marea and from Apis,

to be indifferent about the use of female cattle — a matter which is not only in its own nature indifferent, but which also does not prevent someone from being noble and good. And if their Ammon had forbidden the use of female cattle because of the animal's usefulness for farming, and moreover because it is especially through the females that their

stock is increased, the argument would perhaps have some plausibility. But as it stands, he simply wants those who drink from the Nile to keep the Egyptians' laws concerning female cattle. And in mocking this, Celsus, regarding the angels among the Jews who serve as ambassadors of God's affairs, said that Ammon was no worse at conveying the messages of the daimones than the angels of the Jews — whose

arguments and manifestations he did not examine, to see what they intend. For had he looked closely, he would have recognized that in the passage where he seems to be legislating about cattle or irrational animals, it is not "cattle" that God is concerned with, but rather that what was written for the sake of human beings, under the guise of dealing with irrational animals, contains a certain natural philosophy. Celsus, then, says that no one does anything unjust in wishing to practice the customary rites of his own people;

and it follows, on his view, that the Scythians do nothing unjust, since according to their ancestral custom they feast on human beings. And among the Indians, those who eat their fathers consider that they are doing something holy � and, according to Celsus, they are, at any rate, not doing anything unjust. He accordingly sets out a passage of Herodotus supporting the view that each people rightly keeps to its own ancestral customs, and seems to commend the Indians called Callatiae under Darius, who ate their parents

who eat their own dead — since, when Darius asked them for what price they would be willing to set aside this custom, they cried out loudly and told him to hold his tongue. Since two laws stand before us in general, the one being the law of nature, which God himself would have legislated, and the other being the written law found in cities, it is a good thing, wherever the written law is not opposed to the law of God, not to trouble

the citizens on the pretext of foreign laws. But where the law of nature — that is, of God — commands things opposed to the written law, see whether reason does not require us to bid a long farewell to what has been written and to the intention of the lawgivers, and to give ourselves over to God as lawgiver, and to choose to live according to his reason, even if this must be done amid dangers and countless hardships

and deaths and disrepute. For it is indeed absurd that, when the things that please God are other than the things that please certain of the laws found in cities, and when it is impossible to please both God and those who champion such laws, one should despise the actions by which one would please the maker of all things, and choose instead those by which one will indeed be displeasing

to God, yet pleasing to those who are not really laws at all, and to their friends. And if, in other matters, one ought to give precedence to nature's law—which is God's law—over a written statute enacted by human beings contrary to God's law, how much more must this hold true in matters that concern God directly? And we shall not, like the Ethiopians,

— that is, those who dwell around Meroë — worship Zeus and Dionysus alone, as pleases them, nor shall we honor Ethiopian gods in the Ethiopian manner at all; nor shall we, like the Arabians, consider Urania and Dionysus alone to be gods, but shall not consider them gods at all — gods among whom the female and the male are glorified (for the Arabians worship Urania as female and

Dionysus as male); nor, like all the Egyptians, shall we reckon Osiris and Isis among the gods, nor shall we place Athena beside them as the people of Sais imagine. And if it also pleased the elders of Naucratis to worship other gods, while those who began only yesterday or the day before worship Sarapis, a god who never existed at all, we shall not for this reason say that the one who was newly

— who did not exist before and was not known to human beings — is a god either. For the Son of God, the "firstborn of all creation," even though he seems to have become human only recently, is not for this reason new. For the divine scriptures know him to be older than all created things, and know that God said to him concerning the making of man, "Let us make man according to our image and"

likeness." Now I want to show in what way it is not reasonable for Celsus to say that each people should worship its own ancestral gods. For he says that the Ethiopians who dwell around Meroë know only two gods, Zeus and Dionysus, and worship only these; and that the Arabians likewise know only two, Dionysus, as the Ethiopians do, and Urania as their own — according to the account.

his — neither do the Ethiopians worship Ourania, nor the Arabians Zeus. If, then, some Ethiopian, coming to be among the Arabians through some circumstance, is judged impious for not worshiping Ourania, and on this account comes into danger of death, will it be fitting for the Ethiopian to die rather than act against his ancestral customs and worship Ourania? For if it is fitting for him to act against ancestral customs

— it will not be a holy act, so far as Celsus's arguments are concerned; but if he is led away to death, let him set forth the reasonableness of choosing death. I do not know whether the Ethiopian's reasoning teaches philosophy about the immortality of the soul and the honor due to piety, if they worship, according to their ancestral laws, the gods that are so reckoned. The same thing can be said also concerning the Arabians

who through some circumstance have come to dwell among the Ethiopians around Meroe. For these too, having been taught to worship only Ourania and Dionysus, will not worship Zeus along with the Ethiopians; and if, being judged impious, they were led away to death, what would they be doing reasonably? Let Celsus say. As for the myths about Osiris and Isis, it is superfluous for us to recount them now, and not the right occasion.

And even if the myths are given an allegorical turn, they will teach us to worship lifeless water and the earth that underlies human beings and all living creatures. For that, I suppose, is how they interpret Osiris as water and Isis as earth. Concerning Sarapis there is a great deal of conflicting report, since it was only yesterday or the day before that he came into public view through certain contrivances, when a certain Ptolemy wished to display him as it were manifest

to the people of Alexandria as a god. We have read in Numenius the Pythagorean about his fabrication, how he partakes of the substance of all things governed by nature, both animals and plants — so that he might seem, along with the imperfect rites and the incantations that summon daemons, to have been fashioned not only by makers of images but also by magicians and sorcerers and by the daemons charmed by their spells.

One must therefore inquire what is fitting, for a rational and gentle creature that does everything by reasoning, to eat and not to eat, and not to worship sheep or goats or female cattle by mere lot. To abstain from these is a moderate practice, for much benefit comes to human beings from these animals; but to spare crocodiles as well, and to hold them sacred, I do not know

in honor of what mythical god — how is this not the most foolish thing of all? For it is the mark of the utterly senseless to spare animals that do not spare us, and to cherish creatures that devour human beings. Yet Celsus is pleased with those who, in accordance with some ancestral custom, worship and cherish crocodiles, and he has written no argument against them; but Christians appear blameworthy to him, though they are taught to abhor vice and to turn away from the deeds that come from vice

and to worship and honor virtue as having come into being from God and as being the Son of God. For one must not, because of the feminine gender of the word, think that wisdom and righteousness are, in their essence, female — which, according to us, is the Son of God, as his true disciple showed when he said of him: "who became for us wisdom from"

"the righteousness and sanctification and redemption of God." So even if we speak of a second God, let them understand that by "second God" we mean nothing other than the virtue that comprehends all virtues, and the reason that comprehends every reason whatsoever of the things that have come into being according to nature and by way of precedence, and that tends toward the useful reason of the whole; and we say that this reason has been made most closely one's own to Jesus, and united to him, above every soul,

since he alone has been able to receive perfectly the utmost participation in the very Reason itself, and in Wisdom itself, and in Righteousness itself. Now since after saying such things about the various laws Celsus adds that Pindar seems to him to have spoken rightly in calling law "king of all," let us also discuss this. What law, sir, do you say is king of all? If you mean the laws

that hold in each city, that claim is false; for not all people are ruled by the same law. And in that case one ought rather to have said: laws are kings of all, for over each of all the nations some law is king. But if you mean law in its proper sense, this is the one who is by nature king of all — even if some, like brigands, having deserted from the law,

deny him and live out their lives in the manner of robbers and wrongdoers. We Christians, then, having come to know the law that is king of all by nature — the very law that is identical with the law of God — try to live according to it, having bidden a long farewell to laws that are not laws. Let us also look at what Celsus says next. Among these things very little indeed concerns Christians, while most concerns the Jews. He says:

"Now if the Jews observe their own law according to these things, they are not to be blamed for it — rather those are, who have abandoned their own ways and taken up the ways of the Jews. But if, as though they knew something wiser, they pride themselves on it and turn away from association with others, on the ground that others are not equally pure, they have already heard that even their doctrine about heaven is not their own but, to leave everything else aside,

had also long been held, as Herodotus somewhere shows, by the Persians. For he says, "they are accustomed to go up to the highest peaks of the mountains and offer sacrifices to Zeus, calling the whole circle of the heaven Zeus." I think it makes no difference, then, whether one calls Zeus "the Most High," or Zeus, or Adonai, or Sabaoth, or Amoun, as the Egyptians do, or Papaeus, as the Scythians do. Nor indeed on this account

would they be any holier than others. That they are circumcised — the Egyptians and Colchians did this before them; that they abstain from pork — the Egyptians do this too, and moreover from goats, sheep, and cattle, and fish as well, and Pythagoras and his disciples abstain even from beans, and from everything that has a soul. Nor indeed is it likely that they are especially esteemed by God and loved beyond

other peoples, or that messengers are sent from there to them alone, as if some blessed country had fallen to their lot; for we can see for ourselves both these people and the land they have been judged worthy of. Let this chorus, then, go its way, having suffered the penalty of its own arrogance, not knowing the great God but seduced and deluded by the sorcery of Moses, having become a pupil of that sorcery to no beneficial end."

It is clear that in these remarks he is accusing the Jews of falsely supposing themselves to be a portion chosen, above all the nations, by the God who is over all things. And indeed he charges them with arrogance, on the ground that while they boast of the great God, they do not actually know him, but were led astray by the sorcery of Moses and deceived by him, having become his disciples not to any good end.

Now we have already said in part, in what precedes, something about the venerable and exceptional constitution of the Jews, at the time when there still existed among them the token representing God's city, his temple, and the priestly service carried out there at the altar. But if someone were to fix his mind on the intention of the lawgiver and, examining their affairs in the light of the constitution that accords with him,

were to compare it with the present manner of life of the other nations, he would find no people more worthy of admiration for having, among human beings, stripped away everything not useful to the human race while retaining only what is genuinely beneficial. This is why there were among them no athletic, theatrical, or equestrian contests, nor women selling their bloom to any man who wished to sow seed in vain and to do violence to the nature of

human seed. And what a thing it was, that from their tenderest years they were taught to rise above the whole sensible world and never to suppose that God was situated anywhere within it, but to seek him above and beyond bodies! And how great a thing it was that, almost from birth and from the very completion of reason, they were taught the immortality of the soul, and the tribunals of judgment beneath the earth,

and the honors due to those who have lived well! These things were proclaimed to them, while they were still children and thought as children, in a more mythic form; but for those who now seek reason and wish to make progress in it, the things that were until then myths, so to call them, were transformed into the truth hidden within them. And I think it fitting for those who are called a portion of God that they should have utterly despised all divination, as vainly bewitching

human beings, and coming rather from wicked demons than from any superior nature; and that they should seek the knowledge of things to come in souls that, through extreme purity, have received the spirit of the God who is over all. But as for the rule that one who starts from the same doctrines may not be kept as a slave for more than six years, how is that not something well reasoned, and doing injustice neither to the master nor to the slave?

What need is there to say more? The Jews would not, then, observe their own law in the same manner as the rest of the nations do theirs; for it would be a matter of blame to them, and would bring upon them a charge of insensibility, regarding the superiority of their laws, if they supposed their laws to have been written in the same way as those written for the other nations according to their several customs. And even if Celsus does not wish it, the Jews know something wiser than not only the multitude

but also than those who are reputed to practice philosophy — namely, that those who philosophize, after their solemn discourses in philosophy, fall down before images and demons, while even the least of the Jews fixes his gaze solely on the God above all things; and rightly, so far as this goes, they take pride in it and shun fellowship with others as unclean and irreligious. Would that they had not

had sinned in transgressing the law, first by killing "the prophets" and later even by plotting against Jesus—so that we might have an example of a heavenly city, which Plato too sought to sketch out, though I do not know whether he was as capable of it as Moses and those who came after him, who nurtured a certain "chosen race" and "holy nation" devoted to God with pure teachings free from all superstition. But since

Celsus wants to make out that the sacred practices of the Jews are held in common with the laws of certain other nations, come, let us examine this too. He thinks, then, that the doctrine concerning heaven is no different from the doctrine concerning God, and he says that, like the Jews, the Persians offer sacrifices to Zeus, climbing up onto the highest of the mountains—not seeing that the Jews knew of one God. In the same way, one

sacred house of prayer, a single altar for whole burnt offerings, a single altar for incense, and a single high priest of God. There was therefore nothing shared between the Jews and the Persians, who, being many, ascend the highest of the mountains and perform sacrifices bearing no resemblance to those laid down by the law of Moses, under which the priests of the Jews performed service to "a pattern and shadow" of "the heavenly things,"

the priests of the Jews, who explain in secret what the law intends concerning the sacrifices, and what these sacrifices symbolized. Let the Persians, then, call the whole circuit of heaven Zeus; but we say that heaven is neither Zeus nor God, since we know that even certain beings lesser than God have risen above the heavens and all sensible nature. And it is in this way

that we understand the verse: "You heavens of heavens, praise God, and you waters above the heavens; sing praise unto His name, the Lord." But since Celsus supposes it makes no difference whether one calls him Zeus Hypsistos, or Zeus, or Adonai, or Sabaoth, or, as the Egyptians do, Amoun, or, as the Scythians do, Papaios, come, let us discuss these matters briefly as well, at the same time reminding the reader

of what was said above concerning this same problem, when Celsus's own words called us to such considerations. So now we say that the nature of names is not a matter of laws laid down by convention, as Aristotle supposes. For human languages do not have their origin from human beings, as is clear to those capable of grasping the natural power of incantations, which belong properly to the different dialects,

and to the different sounds of names belonging to the founders of those dialects—matters we have already treated briefly above, where we said that even names transferred into another dialect, though by nature capable of accomplishing something in the dialect to which they belong, no longer accomplish anything, as they did in their own proper sounds. This is already found to be true even among human beings: for someone called from birth by a certain name in the Greek dialect,

if we transferred him into the dialect of the Egyptians or the Romans or some other people, we would not thereby make him suffer or do what he would suffer or do when called by the original form of his name. Nor indeed, if we transferred someone called from the outset by a Roman-sounding name into the Greek dialect, would we achieve what the incantation professes to achieve, since it preserves the name given to him

the first name. But if these things said about human names are true, what should we think about names that are applied to the divine for whatever reason? For instance, when translated into the Greek tongue, something is conveyed from the name Abraham, and something is signified from the appellation Isaac, and something is made clear from the word Jacob. And if the one calling upon God

or the one who swears an oath invokes him as "Abraham's God, Isaac's God, and Jacob's God," he would bring something about—whether through the very nature of those names themselves or through their inherent power—demons being defeated and subjected to the speaker; but if he says instead, "the god of the elect father of resonance, and the god of mirth, and the god of the supplanter," then in this way

what is named accomplishes nothing, no more than anything else that has no power at all. Likewise, should we render the name Israel into Greek or some other tongue, we will accomplish nothing; but if we keep it as it is, attaching to it what those skilled in these matters have thought fit to combine with it, then something would come about, according to the promise attached to such invocations, from that particular sound. The

same we will say also about the word Sabaoth, which is employed in many incantations: that if we translate the name as "Lord of powers" or "Lord of hosts" or "Almighty" (for those who have interpreted it have understood it in various ways), we will accomplish nothing; but if we keep it in its own native sounds, we will accomplish something, as those skilled in these matters say. And we will say the same

about Adonai as well. If, then, neither Sabaoth nor Adonai, when translated into what they are thought to signify in the Greek tongue, accomplishes anything, how much less could it accomplish anything, or have any power, among those who suppose it makes no difference whether one calls Zeus Hypsistos or Zeus or Adonaios or Sabaoth? Knowing these things, then, and other secret matters analogous to them, Moses and the prophets

forbid naming "the name of other gods" with the mouth, since one has trained oneself to pray to none but the God who presides over all things, and to call him to mind in the heart, a heart taught to keep itself pure from every vanity of thoughts and words. And because of such things we choose to endure every torment rather than to confess Zeus as god. For we do not suppose that Zeus and Sabaoth are the same, but rather that Zeus

is not divine at all, but some demon who delights in being called by that name, one who is no friend to human beings nor to the true God. And even if the Egyptians hold out Amoun to us, threatening punishment, we will die rather than proclaim Amoun to be god, since he is, as is likely, invoked in certain Egyptian incantations that call upon this demon. And let the Scythians say too that Papaios is the god who is over all things; but we will not

be persuaded, while positing the God who is over all. But as it is pleasing to the one who has been allotted the desolate land of the Scythians, and their nation and their language, we do not err by naming God, not by the proper name Papaios, but by the appellative term for God in the Scythian tongue, and in the Egyptian, and in every language in which each person has been raised. The cause of the Jews' circumcision is not

is the same as the cause of the circumcision of the Egyptians or the Colchians. Hence the same circumcision would not be reckoned identical. And just as one who offers sacrifice does not thereby sacrifice to the identical god, even if the manner of sacrifice looks alike, and one who offers prayer does not thereby pray to the identical god, even if he requests the same things in his prayers—so too, if someone is circumcised, it does not at all follow that this is indifferent to being circumcised for someone else.

For the intention, the law, and the will of the one who circumcises make the act a different thing. And so that what is meant on this point may be understood still more, it must be said that the name "justice" is the same among all Greeks; yet it is shown that the justice according to Epicurus is one thing, and that according to the Stoics, who deny the

tripartite division of the soul, is another, and that according to the followers of Plato, who say that justice is each part of the soul doing its own proper work, is yet another. So too the courage of Epicurus is one thing—enduring hardships in order to escape greater hardships—and that of the Stoic is another, who chooses every virtue for its own sake; and that of the Platonist is another, who says that courage is the proper virtue

of the spirited part of the soul, and assigns it a place around the chest. In the same way, circumcision would differ according to the differing doctrines of those who are circumcised—a matter it is not necessary to discuss now in a work of this kind; for whoever wishes to see what has moved us on this point may read what we have written about it in our treatise on Paul's Letter to the Romans.

If, then, the Jews pride themselves on circumcision, they will have to distinguish it from the circumcision practiced by the Egyptians and Colchians alike, and also from that of the Ishmaelite Arabs, even though these are descended from Abraham, their forefather, through Ishmael, and were circumcised along with him. The Jews say that circumcision on the eighth day is the primary form, while circumcision performed otherwise is due to circumstance; and perhaps because of a

certain angel hostile to the Jewish nation, this rite was performed—an angel able to harm those of them who were not circumcised, but powerless against those who were circumcised. This, one might say, is shown by what is written in Exodus, where the angel was able to act against Moses before the circumcision of Eliezer, but once he was circumcised the angel had no power at all. And having learned such things, "Zipporah took

a stone and circumcised" her child—according to the common copies she is recorded as saying, "the blood of my child's circumcision has stopped," but according to the Hebrew itself, "you are a bridegroom of blood to me." For she knew the account concerning such an angel, who could act before the blood but was stopped by the blood of the circumcision; and it was on this account that it was said to her,

"you are a bridegroom of blood to me." But let these things, which seem to be somewhat overly curious and not risked to the extent that the common hearing of the multitude would expect, be said only up to this point; and adding one thing more, as befits a Christian, I will move on to what follows. For this angel, I think, was able to act against those among the people lacking circumcision, and, quite simply, against all who worshiped only the Creator,

And he had power to this extent, that Jesus had not yet taken on a body. But when he had taken on a body, and that body of his was circumcised, all his power against those who are circumcised within this worship of God was destroyed; for by an ineffable divinity Jesus brought him down. That is why his disciples are forbidden to be circumcised, and it is said to them: "if you are circumcised, Christ will benefit you nothing." But

the Jews do not take pride in abstaining from swine as though it were some great matter; rather they take pride in this, that they have come to understand which animals are clean and which unclean, have grasped the reason behind that distinction, and know the pig to be ranked among the unclean ones. And these things too were symbols of certain matters until the coming of Jesus, after whose arrival a word was spoken to his disciple, who as yet grasped nothing of the teaching concerning them and was saying,

"nothing common or unclean has entered my mouth," the word: "what God has cleansed, do not you call common." So it applies neither to Jews nor to us when Egyptian priests keep away not merely from swine but also from goats, sheep, cattle, and fish. Rather, since "it is not what enters the mouth that defiles a person." And "food

will not commend us to God," it is not for lack of eating that we grow proud, nor have we turned to eating out of gluttony. Therefore, so far as it concerns us, let the followers of Pythagoras who abstain from ensouled creatures rejoice in doing so. But observe also the difference between the reason for abstinence from ensouled creatures among the followers of Pythagoras and among our own ascetics. For they abstain because of the

myth about the soul being transmigrated into other bodies, and abstain from ensouled creatures; and "who, taking up his own dear son, would slay him praying — what a great fool!" But we, even if we do such a thing, do it because we "buffet the body" and bring it into subjection, and wish to put to death "the members that belong to the earth: fornication, uncleanness, wantonness, passion, evil desire"; and indeed we do everything so that we may put to death "the deeds of the body." Further, concerning

the Jews, declaring his view, Celsus says: it is not likely that they should be held in high esteem by God and be loved differently from others, and that to them alone messengers should be sent from there, as if some tract of the blessed had fallen to them as their portion; since we can observe both them and the sort of region they have been thought worthy of. We shall refute this too, saying that this nation's being held in esteem by God is shown also from the fact that

the God over all is called God even by those foreign to our faith, the Hebrews. And that, being held in esteem, they were as good as never abandoned, though few in number, they continued to be guarded by a divine power, so that not even under Alexander the Macedonian did they suffer anything at his hands, even though, because of certain treaties and oaths, they were unwilling to take up arms against

Darius. At that time, they say, the Jewish high priest, having put on his priestly robe, was even bowed down to by Alexander, who declared that he had appeared to him in this very garb — [that he had] seen someone who promised him "in his sleep" that he would subject the whole of Asia. We Christians, then, say that being held in esteem by God and being loved differently from others has happened to them in the highest degree, this

the plan of management and the grace have shifted to us, since he transferred the power that was among the Jews to those from the nations who believed in Jesus. This is why the Romans, though they wished many things against the Christians in order to stop them from continuing to exist, have not been able to; for a divine hand was fighting on their behalf and wished the word of God to be sown from a single corner of the land of Judea

over the whole race of humankind. But since we have said, to the extent possible for us, what needed to be said in reply to Celsus as he accuses the Jews and their doctrine of the things set out, come, let us set forth what follows and show that we neither boast in claiming to know the great God, nor, as Celsus supposes, have we been led astray by sorcery, whether that of Moses or even of our savior Jesus himself, but rather

toward a good end, and we both hear the God who is in Moses, and have received as Son of God the God testified to by him, namely Jesus, hoping for the best things, whenever we live according to his word. But we will willingly pass over saying anything about what we have already set out beforehand, teaching from where we have come and what founder we have, and what law follows from him. And even if Celsus wants us to differ in no way from those

who worship the goat, the ram, the crocodile, the ox, the river-horse, the dog-headed one, or the cat, as the Egyptians do, Celsus himself would know, and so would anyone who shares his opinion on this. But we, to the extent of our power, have made our defense at length in what came before concerning the honor we give to Jesus, showing that it is better

we have found; and we alone, declaring that what is purely and without admixture of falsehood true is found in the teaching of Jesus Christ, commend not ourselves but the teacher, who was attested by the God over all through many things, both through the prophetic words among the Jews and through the very evidence of the facts themselves; for it is shown that he was not without God's help when he was able to accomplish such great things. Now, the passage we wish to examine

of Celsus reads as follows: "And indeed we pass over whatever they say in refutation concerning the teacher, and let someone be regarded as truly an angel. But did this one come first and alone, or did others come before him as well? If they should say that he alone came, they would be refuted, lying in contradiction of themselves. For they say that others too came, often, and indeed together sixty or seventy of them; and these, they say, became

evil, and were punished by being cast into bonds in the earth, and that is why the hot springs are the tears of those beings. And indeed, they say that an angel came to this man's very tomb as well — one, according to some, or two according to others — and it was this angel, or these angels, who told the women he had risen. For the son of God, it seems, was not able to open the tomb himself, but needed another to roll away

the stone. And further, on behalf of Mary, while she was pregnant, an angel came to the carpenter, and on behalf of those who had to snatch up the infant and flee, another angel came. And what need is there to go through everything in detail and enumerate those reportedly sent to Moses and to the others among them as well? If, then, others too were sent, it is clear that this one also came from the same God. But to announce something greater"

let it be assumed, if you like, that the Jews are somehow at fault, or falsifying their piety, or doing unholy things — for this is what these words hint at. Now what has already been said above, in our examination of the points about our savior Jesus Christ in particular, in reply to Celsus's words, would have been enough; but so that we should not seem to be deliberately passing over some passage of his writing, as though unable to answer it, come, if

we are indeed going to say the same things again, since Celsus provokes us to this, let us cut the discussion as short as we can, in case something more vivid or more novel about the same matters should turn up. He says that he is passing over the points on which Christians are refuted concerning their teacher, without in fact passing over anything he was able to say — which is plain from what he has said above; rather, he does this by way of a rhetorical device, following his usual practice.

But that we are not in fact refuted concerning so great a savior as ours — even though the one bringing the charge may seem to refute us — will be clear to all who read, with a love of truth and a spirit of inquiry, everything that has been prophesied and recorded about him. Next, since he is supposed to be speaking concessively about the savior, saying, 'let someone suppose that he really is an angel,' we say that we do not take this

as a concession granted by Celsus; rather, we discern it in his very work, since he has come to dwell among the whole human race in accordance with his own reason and teaching, to the extent that each of those who received him could make room for it. And this was the work not, as the prophecy about him named it, simply of 'an angel,' but of the angel of 'great counsel'; for he was announcing to men the great

counsel of God, the father of all things, concerning them — for those who yielded to living in pure reverence toward God, as ascending to God through great deeds; but not receiving those who, as it were, distanced themselves from God and were journeying toward destruction through unbelief concerning God. Then next he says: 'even if this one came to men as an angel, did he come first and alone, or did

others come before him as well?' And he thinks he answers both alternatives at length, though no genuine Christian says that Christ alone has come to dwell among the human race; and Celsus says that others too have appeared to men — supposing, that is, that they should say he alone did. Then he answers himself, as he wishes: 'in that case he is not recorded as the only one to have come to dwell among the human race.' just as

those who, under pretext of the teaching that bears the name of Jesus, have abandoned the creator, treating him as a lesser being, and have turned instead to some superior deity, as though he were father of the one who visited us, claim that even prior to him, others too had visited the human race, sent from the creator. Since we are examining the point at issue with a love of truth, we shall say that Apelles, the disciple of Marcion, who became the father of a certain heresy and

regarded the writings of the Jews as myth, says that this one alone has come to dwell among the human race. So not even against him, who says that Jesus alone has come to men from God, could Celsus reasonably bring the charge of disbelieving the claim that others too have come — as we said above — from the scriptures of the Jews, which report things rather more extraordinary; much less will he accept what appears

having misheard something, Celsus has, it seems, set it down from what is written in Enoch. No one, then, convicts us of lying and asserting contraries — both that our savior alone came, and that many others have come many times — since we never said any such thing. In his inquiry concerning the angels who have come to men he sets down, in a very confused way, things that reached him indistinctly from what is written in

Enoch — writings which he does not even appear to have read himself, nor to have recognized that in the churches the books entitled 'of Enoch' are not at all widely accepted as divine. Hence one might suppose that he has flung out the claim that sixty or seventy together came down, having become evil. But, so that we may deal with him more fairly, let us grant him what he has not seen from what is written in Genesis, that 'the sons of

God, seeing that the daughters of men were beautiful, took for themselves wives from all whom they chose.' Nonetheless, concerning this too we shall show those able to hear the prophetic intention that one of those before us referred this passage to the doctrine concerning souls, souls that had come to desire a life in a human body — which, interpreting figuratively, he said was what was meant by 'daughters of men.' Still, however

matters may stand concerning the sons of God who desired the daughters of men, this account contributes nothing toward showing that Jesus was not the only one to have visited mankind as an angel, having plainly become a savior and benefactor to all who turn away from the flood of wickedness. Then, jumbling and confusing whatever he happened to have heard and whatever was written wherever,

whether held to be divine among Christians or not, he says that the sixty or seventy who came down together are being punished, thrown into bonds in the earth. And he brings forward, as though from Enoch, without naming him, the claim that the hot springs are the tears of those angels — a thing never spoken of nor heard among God's churches. For no one was so foolish

as to give bodily form to tears resembling those of men, attributing them to the angels descended from heaven. Yet if indeed one must jest in response to what Celsus so earnestly presses against us, it must be said that no one would call the hot springs — most of which are sweet — the tears of the angels, since the nature of tears is salty; unless, then, the

angels of Celsus weep sweet tears. Then, next, mixing together things unmixable and dissimilar and treating them as alike, he adds to the account of the sixty or seventy angels who, as he says, came down and, according to him, wept the springs of hot water, the further point that at the very tomb of Jesus it is recorded that angels came — by some accounts two, by others one — not, I think, having noticed

that Matthew and Mark recorded one, while Luke and John recorded two. These were not contradictory. For those who wrote of one say that this was the one who rolled away 'the stone' from the tomb, while those who wrote of two mean the two who stood by 'in dazzling clothing' before the women who had come to the tomb, or the ones seen within 'sitting in white.' Each of these

Now it is possible to point out that this too has actually happened, and is indicative of a certain figurative interpretation, concerning the things that appear beforehand to those who are prepared to contemplate the resurrection of the Word — but that is not the business of the present work, but rather of commentaries on the Gospel. That extraordinary things have sometimes appeared to human beings has been recorded even among the Greeks, not only by those who might be suspected of myth-making but also by those who

showed themselves to be genuinely devoted to philosophy and to setting forth, in a truth-loving way, what had come to their attention. Such accounts we have read in Chrysippus of Soli, and some in Pythagoras, and by now also in certain more recent writers, of only yesterday and the day before, as in Plutarch of Chaeronea in his work On the Soul, and in the Pythagorean Numenius in the second book On the Incorruptibility of the Soul. Are the Greeks, then,

if they relate such things, and especially those among them who philosophize — are their words not mockery nor laughter nor fabrications and myths, while if those devoted to the God of the universe, who in order never to speak even a single false word about God accept every kind of outrage up to death, report as eyewitnesses the appearances of angels, are they not judged worthy of belief, nor

are their accounts classed among the true ones? But it is not reasonable to judge the matter of who is speaking truly or falsely in this way. For those who practice avoiding deception, after much careful inquiry and examination of the particulars, pronounce more slowly and cautiously on the question of which sort of people speak truly and which sort speak falsely among the extraordinary things they report, since neither do all who put forward a claim deserve to be believed, nor

have all who demonstrate clearly handed down fabrications and myths to mankind. Further, concerning the resurrection of Jesus from the dead, this too must be said: that at that time one or perhaps two angels were seen, announcing that he had risen and that he was caring for those who, for their own benefit, believe this — that is not surprising. But that those who always believe in the raising of

Jesus, showing as the fruit of their belief a by no means negligible thing — a robust life and a change away from the flood of evils — do not come to this without the touch of angels who assist them in their turning toward God, does not seem to me unreasonable. Celsus also attacks the account which says that an angel had rolled away 'the stone' from the tomb where the body of Jesus lay,

like a schoolboy seizing on it to level a local accusation in a rhetorical exercise, and he says, as though he had discovered something clever against the Word, that the son of God, it seems, was not able to open the tomb, but needed someone else to move the stone away. And so that I not busy myself excessively with matters concerning the place, nor, by setting out a figurative interpretation at this point, seem to be philosophizing on these things out of season,

I will speak about the narrative itself: that it appears, on the face of it, more fitting for the lesser figure, a servant, to have rolled away 'the stone,' than for the one who rises for the benefit of mankind to have done this himself. I do not mean, however, that those who plotted against the Word and wished to kill him and to show everyone that he was dead and amounted to nothing wanted the tomb to be opened at all,

so that no one would see the Word alive after their plot against him. But he who came to dwell among men for their salvation, an angel of God stronger than those who plotted against him, and a fellow-worker with the angel, rolls away the heavy stone, so that those who suppose the Word to be dead might be persuaded that he is "not" "among the dead" but lives and "goes before" those who wish to follow him, in order that he might display the things that follow to those

to whom he had earlier displayed things, those who at the earlier time of their instruction were not yet able to receive greater things than these. Then I do not know how, after this, he tosses in—I do not know to what end he thinks it useful for his purpose—the matter of the angel who came to Joseph concerning Mary's being pregnant, and again the matter of those who, to save the infant once born and being plotted against, snatched him up and fled into Egypt.

We have already discussed these matters above, in reply to what he said. But what does Celsus intend to achieve by pointing out that Moses and the others record, in the scriptures, the sending of angels? For it seems to me to contribute nothing at all toward what he wants, especially since none of those angels struggled on behalf of the human race, to turn it, as far as possible,

away from its sins. Let others, then, be sent by God as well, and let this one too proclaim something more, and, when the Jews were transgressing and corrupting true piety and doing unholy things, let him have handed over the kingdom of God to "other tenants," to those everywhere in their own churches who take care of these things and do everything to bring forward the resources that come from the teaching of Jesus, through a life

that is pure and a reasoned account that follows that life, toward the God of all things. Then next Celsus says: So then, the same god belongs both to the Jews and to these people—clearly meaning the Christians; and as though gathering together something that could not be granted, he says this: it is clear, at any rate, that those of the great church confess this, and accept as true the account of the world's creation current among the Jews, concerning at least

regarding the seventh day following the six, on which, as scripture says, God "rested" "from his works," withdrawing into his own watch-post—whereas Celsus, not attending to what is written nor understanding it, says "having taken his rest," which is not what is written. But concerning the making of the world and the sabbath-keeping that remains after it for

the people of God, the account would be "lengthy" and mystical and deep and "hard to explain." Then it seems to me that, wanting to fill out his book and make it appear to be something great, he adds certain things at random, of the kind found also in what concerns the first man—namely, that we say he is the same man as the Jews say, and that we trace the succession from him by genealogy in the same way as they do. But also

we know of no plotting 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. Had that been so, Celsus would have been consistent in saying that we record the same mutual plots of brothers against each other as the Jews do. Let it also be granted that our account of the flight into Egypt

that they mean the same thing by "sojourn abroad" as those others do, and the same return from there, and not a flight, as Celsus supposes. What, then, does this contribute to the accusation against us or against the Jews? Where he thought he would mock us in his account of the Hebrews, he called it a flight; but where it was a matter of practical inquiry into the plagues recorded as having come upon Egypt

from God, he deliberately kept silent about this. But if we are to speak precisely to Celsus, who supposes that we hold the same views as the Jews about the matters set forth, we will say this: both of us agree that the books were composed by a divine spirit, but concerning 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, in that we do not think that

the literal interpretation of the laws is what contains the intention of the legislation. And we say that "whenever Moses is read, a veil lies over the heart" for those who have not welcomed the way through Jesus Christ, because the intention of the law of Moses has been hidden from them. And we know that "if anyone turns to the Lord" ("and the Lord

is the spirit"), once "the veil" has been removed, that person, "with unveiled face," gazes as in a mirror upon the "glory of the Lord" that lies in the hidden meanings according to the letters, and partakes of what is called the divine glory, transforming it into his own glory (the word "face" being used figuratively, or, as one might put it more plainly, meaning the mind). In this is the face "according to the inner man," filled with light

and glory from the truth concerning the laws. Next after this he says: let no one suppose me ignorant that some of them will agree that the god they hold is the same as the Jews', while others hold that he is different, opposed to that one, and that the Son came from that other one. But if he supposes that the existence of several sects among Christians is an accusation against Christianity,

why should not the disagreement among the sects of philosophers likewise be reckoned, by the same reasoning, an accusation against philosophy—a disagreement not about small and incidental matters but about the most essential ones? It would then be time also to accuse medicine on account of the sects within it. Let there be, then, among us those who do not call the god they speak of the same as the God of the Jews; but they are not

on that account to be accused who, from those same scriptures, demonstrate that there is one and the same God of the Jews and of the nations—just as Paul too says plainly, having come to Christianity from among the Jews: "I owe gratitude to my God, in whose service I stand, following my ancestors, with an unstained conscience." And let there also be a third class, of those who call some people "soul-bound" and others "spiritual"; I suppose

he means by this the followers of Valentinus. And what has this to do with us who belong to the church, who accuse those who introduce natures that are saved or destroyed by their very constitution? And let there be also some who profess to be Gnostics, corresponding to those who proclaim themselves philosophers among the Epicureans. But neither can those who do away with providence truly be philosophers, nor can those who fashion strange and monstrous inventions and

those who introduce what is not pleasing to the successors of Jesus would not really be Christians. But suppose there are some who accept Jesus and on this ground boast of being Christians, while still wishing to live according to the Jewish law, just as the Jewish masses do — these are the two kinds of Ebionites, who confess either that Jesus was born of a virgin, as we do, or that he was not born

in this way but as the rest of humankind. What accusation does this bring against those from the church, whom Celsus named after the multitude? He also said that there are some called Sibyllists, perhaps having overheard some who accuse those who suppose the Sibyl to have been a prophetess, and who have called such people Sibyllists. Then, heaping up a great pile of names for us, he says he knows also of Simonians, who honor Helen —

or, revering their teacher Helenus, are called Helenians. But it escapes Celsus's notice that the Simonians nowhere confess that Jesus is the Son of God; rather they call Simon the power of God, telling marvelous tales about him, since Simon supposed that if he made a pretense of things similar to what Jesus was thought to have done, he too would be able to gain as much standing among people as Jesus has among the many. But neither Celsus nor Simon was able

to understand how Jesus, as a good "farmer" of the word of God, has managed to scatter seed across most of Greece and most of the barbarian world alike, filling them with his teachings, transforming the soul away from every evil and leading it up to the maker of all things. Celsus, then, knows also of Marcellians named after Marcellina, and Harpocratians named after Salome, and others named after Mariamme, and others named after Martha; but we —

who, out of our love of learning as far as we are able, have examined not only the matters within our own teaching and the differences among them, but have also inquired, so far as we have had power, into the doctrines of those who philosophized in love of truth — have never had any dealings with these people. Celsus also mentioned the Marcionites, whose leader is Marcion. Then, so as to seem to know still others besides those he has named, he says, in his usual manner, that

different people follow different teachers and demons, wandering badly and wallowing about in deep darkness, more lawlessly and foully than the devotees of Antinous in Egypt. And it seems to me that, touching lightly on the facts, he has said something true — that certain people, wandering badly after one demon or another, have found for themselves a patron amid the great darkness of ignorance. But as for the matters concerning Antinous,

whom he compares to our Jesus, we will not repeat what we have said about them earlier. And he says that these people utter against one another all sorts of terrible things, both speakable and unspeakable, and that they would not yield in any respect toward concord, hating one another in every way. To this too we have replied, that even in philosophy one can find sects warring against sects, and likewise in medicine. Those, however, who

follow the word of Jesus, and have practiced thinking, speaking, and acting according to his words, "when reviled, we bless; when persecuted, we endure; when slandered, we entreat"; and we would not speak things speakable and unspeakable against those who hold opinions different from what we have supposed. Rather, if we are able, we would do everything to bring them over to what is better, through attending solely to the Maker and doing everything

to act as those who are going to be judged. But if those who hold different opinions are not persuaded, we keep the word that commanded us concerning them: "Reject a heretical person after a first and second admonition, knowing that such a one has been perverted and sins, being self-condemned." Moreover, those who have understood "blessed are the peacemakers" and "blessed are the gentle" would not utterly loathe those who falsify the teachings of Christianity, nor would they call the deceived "Circes" and

"seductive brews." He seems to me to have misheard, both the apostolic saying which states, "in later times some will depart from the faith, giving heed to deceiving spirits and teachings of demons, through the hypocrisy of liars whose own conscience has been seared, forbidding marriage, requiring abstinence from foods which God created to be received with thanksgiving by the faithful" — he has misheard this — and also misheard those who have used these very

words of the apostle against those who falsify the teachings of Christianity. That is why Celsus said that certain people among Christians are called "brands upon the hearing." He himself also says that some are called "riddles," which we have not found recorded. But truly the word "stumbling-block" occurs a great deal in these writings, which we are accustomed to use concerning those who turn aside from sound teaching the more simple and easily deceived. As for certain "Sirens"

who dance wildly, and sorceresses who seal up ears and turn those who trust them into swine — we do not know of any so named, and I think that no one else either, among those versed in the doctrine or among the sects. But this man who professes to know everything says such things as this too: you will hear, he says, from all of them, distant from one another as they are, and refuting one another most shamefully in their quarrels, all alike saying

this: "To me the world has been crucified, and I to the world." For this seems to be the only thing Celsus has remembered from Paul. Why then do we not also mention countless other things that are written, such as: "for while we walk about in flesh, our campaign is not conducted according to flesh; the weapons with which we campaign are not of flesh but are mighty through God to tear down fortified strongholds, tearing down calculations and every

height that is raised up against the knowledge of God"? But since he says that you will hear, from all who are so far apart from one another, the saying "to me the world has been crucified, and I to the world," we will also refute this as false. For there are certain sects that do not accept the epistles of the apostle Paul, such as both kinds of Ebionites and those called Encratites. Those who do not make use of the apostle as

someone blessed and wise, then, would not say "to me the world has been crucified, and I to the world" — and so in this too Celsus lies. And he lingers on, accusing the disagreement among the sects; but he does not seem to me to articulate very clearly what he says, nor to have examined it carefully, nor to have understood how those Christians who are advanced in reasoning claim to know more than the Jews, and whether

they agree with the Jews' books while interpreting the meaning differently, or do not agree with those writings at all — for we would find both cases among the sects. After this he says: come then, even if they have no basis at all for their doctrine, let us examine the teaching itself; but first we must state how much they corrupt through ignorance of what they have misheard, presumptuously asserting from the outset, and without due care, things about which they know nothing.

These are as follows. And straightaway he sets certain expressions—ones repeatedly used by those who trust the Christian message—alongside statements drawn from the philosophers, wishing to show that the good things Celsus supposes are said among Christians have been said better and more clearly by those who philosophize, so that he might draw off, toward philosophy, those who are captivated by the goodness and piety that appear directly in the doctrines themselves. And so, having brought the fifth

book to a close at this point, let us begin the sixth from what follows.

← All of Origen: Against Celsus