Origen Against Celsus.

Book I.

Preface.

1.  When false witnesses testified against our Lord and Saviour Jesus Christ, He remained silent; and when unfounded charges were brought against Him, He returned no answer, believing that His whole life and conduct among the Jews were a better refutation than any answer to the false testimony, or than any formal defence against the accusations.  And I know not, my pious Ambrosius,1    This individual is mentioned by Eusebius (Eccles. Hist., vi. c. 18) as having been converted from the heresy of Valentinus to the faith of the Church by the efforts of Origen.  [Lardner (Credib., vii. 210–212) is inclined to “place” Celsus in the year 176.  Here and elsewhere this learned authority is diffuse on the subject, and merits careful attention.] why you wished me to write a reply to the false charges brought by Celsus against the Christians, and to his accusations directed against the faith of the Churches in his treatise; as if the facts themselves did not furnish a manifest refutation, and the doctrine a better answer than any writing, seeing it both disposes of the false statements, and does not leave to the accusations any credibility or validity.  Now, with respect to our Lord’s silence when false witness was borne against Him, it is sufficient at present to quote the words of Matthew, for the testimony of Mark is to the same effect.  And the words of Matthew are as follow:  “And the high priest and the council sought false witness against Jesus to put Him to death, but found none, although many false witnesses came forward.  At last two false witnesses came and said, This fellow said, I am able to destroy the temple of God, and after three days to build it up.  And the high priest arose, and said to Him, Answerest thou nothing to what these witness against thee?  But Jesus held His peace.”2    Cf. Matt. xxvi. 59–63.  And that He returned no answer when falsely accused, the following is the statement:  “And Jesus stood before the governor; and he asked Him, saying, Art Thou the King of the Jews?  And Jesus said to him, Thou sayest.  And when He was accused of the chief priests and elders, He answered nothing.  Then said Pilate unto Him, Hearest thou not how many things they witness against Thee?  And He answered him to never a word, insomuch that the governor marvelled greatly.”3    Cf. Matt. xxvii. 11–14.

2.  It was, indeed, matter of surprise to men even of ordinary intelligence, that one who was accused and assailed by false testimony, but who was able to defend Himself, and to show that He was guilty of none of the charges (alleged), and who might have enumerated the praiseworthy deeds of His own life, and His miracles wrought by divine power, so as to give the judge an opportunity of delivering a more honourable judgment regarding Him, should not have done this, but should have disdained such a procedure, and in the nobleness of His nature have contemned His accusers.4    Μεγαλοφυῶς ὑπερεωρακέναι τοὺς κατηγόρους.  That the judge would, without any hesitation, have set Him at liberty if He had offered a defence, is clear from what is related of him when he said, “Which of the two do ye wish that I should release unto you, Barabbas or Jesus, who is called Christ?”5    Cf. Matt. xxvii. 17. and from what the Scripture adds, “For he knew that for envy they had delivered Him.”6    Cf. Matt. xxvii. 18.  Jesus, however, is at all times assailed by false witnesses, and, while wickedness remains in the world, is ever exposed to accusation.  And yet even now He continues silent before these things, and makes no audible answer, but places His defence in the lives of His genuine disciples, which are a pre-eminent testimony, and one that rises superior to all false witness, and refutes and overthrows all unfounded accusations and charges.

3.  I venture, then, to say that this “apology” which you require me to compose will somewhat weaken that defence (of Christianity) which rests on facts, and that power of Jesus which is manifest to those who are not altogether devoid of perception.  Notwithstanding, that we may not have the appearance of being reluctant to undertake the task which you have enjoined, we have endeavoured, to the best of our ability, to suggest, by way of answer to each of the statements advanced by Celsus, what seemed to us adapted to refute them, although his arguments have no power to shake the faith of any (true) believer.  And forbid, indeed, that any one should be found who, after having been a partaker in such a love of God as was (displayed) in Christ Jesus, could be shaken in his purpose by the arguments of Celsus, or of any such as he.  For Paul, when enumerating the innumerable causes which generally separate men from the love of Christ and from the love of God in Christ Jesus (to all of which, the love that was in himself rose superior), did not set down argument among the grounds of separation.  For observe that he says, firstly:  “Who shall separate us from the love of Christ?  Shall tribulation, or distress, or persecution, or famine, or nakedness, or peril, or sword? (as it is written, For Thy sake we are killed all the day long; we are accounted as sheep for the slaughter.)  Nay, in all these things we are more than conquerors through Him that loved us.”7    Rom. viii. 35–37.  And secondly, when laying down another series of causes which naturally tend to separate those who are not firmly grounded in their religion, he says:  “For I am persuaded that neither death, nor life, nor angels, nor principalities, nor powers, nor things present, nor things to come, nor height, nor depth, nor any other creature, shall be able to separate us from the love of God, which is in Christ Jesus our Lord.”8    Rom. viii. 38, 39.

4.  Now, truly, it is proper that we should feel elated because afflictions, or those other causes enumerated by Paul, do not separate us (from Christ); but not that Paul and the other apostles, and any other resembling them, (should entertain that feeling), because they were far exalted above such things when they said, “In all these things we are more than conquerors through Him that loved us,”9    Rom. viii. 37, ὑπερνικῶμεν. which is a stronger statement than that they are simply “conquerors.”  But if it be proper for apostles to entertain a feeling of elation in not being separated from the love of God that is in Christ Jesus our Lord, that feeling will be entertained by them, because neither death, nor life, nor angels, nor principalities, nor any of the things that follow, can separate them from the love of God which is in Christ Jesus our Lord.  And therefore I do not congratulate that believer in Christ whose faith can be shaken by Celsus—who no longer shares the common life of men, but has long since departed—or by any apparent plausibility of argument.10    ἤ τινος πιθανότητος λόγου.  For I do not know in what rank to place him who has need of arguments written in books in answer to the charges of Celsus against the Christians, in order to prevent him from being shaken in his faith, and confirm him in it.  But nevertheless, since in the multitude of those who are considered believers some such persons might be found as would have their faith shaken and overthrown by the writings of Celsus, but who might be preserved by a reply to them of such a nature as to refute his statements and to exhibit the truth, we have deemed it right to yield to your injunction, and to furnish an answer to the treatise which you sent us, but which I do not think that any one, although only a short way advanced in philosophy, will allow to be a “True Discourse,” as Celsus has entitled it.

5.  Paul, indeed, observing that there are in Greek philosophy certain things not to be lightly esteemed, which are plausible in the eyes of the many, but which represent falsehood as truth, says with regard to such:  “Beware lest any man spoil you through philosophy and vain deceit, after the tradition of men, after the rudiments of the world, and not after Christ.”11    Col. ii. 8.  And seeing that there was a kind of greatness manifest in the words of the world’s wisdom, he said that the words of the philosophers were “according to the rudiments of the world.”  No man of sense, however, would say that those of Celsus were “according to the rudiments of the world.”  Now those words, which contained some element of deceitfulness, the apostle named “vain deceit,” probably by way of distinction from a deceit that was not “vain;” and the prophet Jeremiah observing this, ventured to say to God, “O Lord, Thou hast deceived me, and I was deceived; Thou art stronger than I, and hast prevailed.”12    Cf. Jer. xx. 7.  But in the language of Celsus there seems to me to be no deceitfulness at all, not even that which is “vain;” such deceitfulness, viz., as is found in the language of those who have founded philosophical sects, and who have been endowed with no ordinary talent for such pursuits.  And as no one would say that any ordinary error in geometrical demonstrations was intended to deceive, or would describe it for the sake of exercise in such matters;13    Καὶ ὥσπερ οὐ τὸ τυχὸν τῶν ψευδομένων ἐν γεωμετρικοῖς θεωρήμασι ψευδογραφούμενόν τις ἂν λέγοι, ἢ καὶ ἀναγράφοι γυμνασίου ἕνεκεν τοῦ ἀπὸ τοιούτων.  Cf. note of Ruæus in loc. so those opinions which are to be styled “vain deceit,” and the “tradition of men,” and “according to the rudiments of the world,” must have some resemblance to the views of those who have been the founders of philosophical sects, (if such titles are to be appropriately applied to them).

6.  After proceeding with this work as far as the place where Celsus introduces the Jew disputing with Jesus, I resolved to prefix this preface to the beginning (of the treatise), in order that the reader of our reply to Celsus might fall in with it first, and see that this book has been composed not for those who are thorough believers, but for such as are either wholly unacquainted with the Christian faith, or for those who, as the apostle terms them, are “weak in the faith;” regarding whom he says, “Him that is weak in the faith receive ye.”14    Rom. xiv. 1.  And this preface must be my apology for beginning my answer to Celsus on one plan, and carrying it on on another.  For my first intention was to indicate his principal objections, and then briefly the answers that were returned to them, and subsequently to make a systematic treatise of the whole discourse.15    σωματοποιῆσαι.  But afterwards, circumstances themselves suggested to me that I should be economical of my time, and that, satisfied with what I had already stated at the commencement, I should in the following part grapple closely, to the best of my ability, with the charges of Celsus.  I have therefore to ask indulgence for those portions which follow the preface towards the beginning of the book.  And if you are not impressed by the powerful arguments which succeed, then, asking similar indulgence also with respect to them, I refer you, if you still desire an argumentative solution of the objections of Celsus, to those men who are wiser than myself, and who are able by words and treatises to overthrow the charges which he brings against us.  But better is the man who, although meeting with the work of Celsus, needs no answer to it at all, but who despises all its contents, since they are contemned, and with good reason, by every believer in Christ, through the Spirit that is in him.

ΠΡΟΣ ΤΟΝ ΕΠΙΓΕΓΡΑΜΜΕΝΟΝ ΚΕΛΣΟΥ ΑΛΗΘΗ ΛΟΓΟΝ ΩΡΙΓΕΝΟΥΣ ΤΟΜΟΣ ΠΡΩΤΟΣ