Book II.

Chapter I.

The first book of our answer to the treatise of Celsus, entitled A True Discourse, which concluded with the representation of the Jew addressing Jesus, having now extended to a sufficient length, we intend the present part as a reply to the charges brought by him against those who have been converted from Judaism to Christianity.141    τὴν καλουμένην ἀγάπην.    [Comp. Justin, Dial. with Trypho (passim), vol. i., this series.]  And we call attention, in the first place, to this special question, viz., why Celsus, when he had once resolved upon the introduction of individuals upon the stage of his book, did not represent the Jew as addressing the converts from heathenism rather than those from Judaism, seeing that his discourse, if directed to us, would have appeared more likely to produce an impression.142    ἀθέσμους.    πιθανώτατος.  But probably this claimant to universal knowledge does not know what is appropriate in the matter of such representations; and therefore let us proceed to consider what he has to say to the converts from Judaism.  He asserts that “they have forsaken the law of their fathers, in consequence of their minds being led captive by Jesus; that they have been most ridiculously deceived, and that they have become deserters to another name and to another mode of life.”  Here he has not observed that the Jewish converts have not deserted the law of their fathers, inasmuch as they live according to its prescriptions, receiving their very name from the poverty of the law, according to the literal acceptation of the word; for Ebion signifies “poor” among the Jews,143    παρανομίαν.    ןוֹיבְאֶ. and those Jews who have received Jesus as Christ are called by the name of Ebionites.  Nay, Peter himself seems to have observed for a considerable time the Jewish observances enjoined by the law of Moses, not having yet learned from Jesus to ascend from the law that is regulated according to the letter, to that which is interpreted according to the spirit,—a fact which we learn from the Acts of the Apostles.  For on the day after the angel of God appeared to Cornelius, suggesting to him “to send to Joppa, to Simon surnamed Peter,” Peter “went up into the upper room to pray about the sixth hour.  And he became very hungry, and would have eaten:  but while they made ready he fell into a trance, and saw heaven opened, and a certain vessel descending unto him, as it had been a great sheet knit at the four corners, and let down to the earth; wherein were all manner of four-footed beasts, and creeping things of the earth, and fowls of the air.  And there came a voice to him, Rise, Peter; kill, and eat.  But Peter said, Not so, Lord; for I have never eaten anything that is common or unclean.  And the voice spake unto him again the second time, What God hath cleansed, that call thou not common.”144    Cf. Acts x. 9–15.  Now observe how, by this instance, Peter is represented as still observing the Jewish customs respecting clean and unclean animals.  And from the narrative that follows, it is manifest that he, as being yet a Jew, and living according to their traditions, and despising those who were beyond the pale of Judaism, stood in need of a vision to lead him to communicate to Cornelius (who was not an Israelite according to the flesh), and to those who were with him, the word of faith.  Moreover, in the Epistle to the Galatians, Paul states that Peter, still from fear of the Jews, ceased upon the arrival of James to eat with the Gentiles, and “separated himself from them, fearing them that were of the circumcision;”145    Cf. Gal. ii. 12. and the rest of the Jews, and Barnabas also, followed the same course.  And certainly it was quite consistent that those should not abstain from the observance of Jewish usages who were sent to minister to the circumcision, when they who “seemed to be pillars” gave the right hand of fellowship to Paul and Barnabas, in order that, while devoting themselves to the circumcision, the latter might preach to the Gentiles.  And why do I mention that they who preached to the circumcision withdrew and separated themselves from the heathen, when even Paul himself “became as a Jew to the Jews, that he might gain the Jews?”  Wherefore also in the Acts of the Apostles it is related that he even brought an offering to the altar, that he might satisfy the Jews that he was no apostate from their law.146    Cf. Acts xxi. 26.  Now, if Celsus had been acquainted with all these circumstances, he would not have represented the Jew holding such language as this to the converts from Judaism:  “What induced you, my fellow-citizens, to abandon the law of your fathers, and to allow your minds to be led captive by him with whom we have just conversed, and thus be most ridiculously deluded, so as to become deserters from us to another name, and to the practices of another life?”

Ἐν τῷ πρώτῳ τόμῳ τῶν ὑπαγορευθέντων ἡμῖν πρὸς τὸν Κέλσου ἐπιγραφέντα ἀληθῆ λόγον καταλήξαντες εἰς τὴν τοῦ Ἰουδαίου πρὸς τὸν Ἰησοῦν προσωποποιΐαν, αὐτάρκη περιγραφὴν εἰληφότι, τοῦτον συντάσσειν προαιρούμεθα, ἀπολογούμενοι πρὸς τὰ φερόμενα ὑπ' αὐτοῦ ἐγκλήματα κατὰ τῶν ἀπὸ τοῦ λαοῦ τῶν Ἰουδαίων εἰς τὸν Ἰησοῦν πιστευσάντων. Καὶ αὐτό γε τοῦτο πρῶτον ἐφίσταμεν, τί δή ποτε ἅπαξ κρίνας προσωποποιεῖν ὁ Κέλσος οὐ προσωποποιεῖ Ἰουδαῖον πρὸς τοὺς ἀπὸ τῶν ἐθνῶν πιστεύοντας λέγοντα ἀλλὰ πρὸς τοὺς ἀπὸ Ἰουδαίων· πιθανώτατος δ' ἂν καὶ ἔδοξεν ὁ λόγος εἶναι αὐτῷ πρὸς ἡμᾶς γραφόμενος. Ἀλλὰ μή ποτε ὁ πάντ' ἐπαγγελλόμενος εἰδέναι τὸ ἀκόλουθον οὐκ εἶδε κατὰ τὸν τόπον τῆς προσωποποιΐας. Τί οὖν καὶ λέγει πρὸς τοὺς ἀπὸ Ἰουδαίων πιστεύοντας, κατανοητέον. Φησὶν αὐτοὺς καταλιπόντας τὸν πάτριον νόμον τῷ ἐψυχαγωγῆσθαι ὑπὸ τοῦ Ἰησοῦ ἠπατῆσθαι πάνυ γελοίως καὶ ἀπηυτομοληκέναι εἰς ἄλλο ὄνομα καὶ εἰς ἄλλον βίον, μηδὲ τοῦτο κατανοήσας, ὅτι οἱ ἀπὸ Ἰουδαίων εἰς τὸν Ἰησοῦν πιστεύοντες οὐ καταλελοίπασι τὸν πάτριον νόμον. Βιοῦσι γὰρ κατ' αὐτόν, ἐπώνυμοι τῆς κατὰ τὴν ἐκδοχὴν πτωχείας τοῦ νόμου γεγενημένοι. Ἐβίων τε γὰρ ὁ πτωχὸς παρὰ Ἰουδαίοις καλεῖται, καὶ Ἐβιωναῖοι χρηματίζουσιν οἱ ἀπὸ Ἰουδαίων τὸν Ἰησοῦν ὡς Χριστὸν παραδεξάμενοι. Καὶ ὁ Πέτρος δὲ μέχρι πολλοῦ φαίνεται τὰ κατὰ τὸν Μωϋσέως νόμον ἰουδαϊκὰ ἔθη τετηρηκέναι, ὡς μηδέπω ἀπὸ τοῦ Ἰησοῦ μαθὼν ἀναβαίνειν ἀπὸ τοῦ κατὰ τὸ γράμμα νόμου ἐπὶ τὸν κατὰ τὸ πνεῦμα· ὅπερ ἀπὸ τῶν Πράξεων τῶν ἀποστόλων μεμαθήκαμεν. "Τῇ" γὰρ "ἐπαύριον" τοῦ ἑωρᾶσθαι ἄγγελον θεοῦ τῷ Κορνηλίῳ, ὑποτιθέμενον αὐτῷ πέμψαι "εἰς Ἰόππην" ἐπὶ Σίμωνα τὸν καλούμενον Πέτρον, "ἀνέβη Πέτρος εἰς τὸ ὑπερῷον προσεύξασθαι περὶ ὥραν ἕκτην. Ἐγένετο δὲ πρόσπεινος καὶ ἤθελε γεύσασθαι. Παρασ κευαζόντων δ' αὐτῶν ἐγένετο ἔκστασις ἐπ' αὐτόν, καὶ θεωρεῖ τὸν οὐρανὸν ἀνεῳγμένον καὶ καταβαῖνον σκεῦός τι ὡς ὀθόνην μεγάλην, τέσσαρσιν ἀρχαῖς καθιέμενον ἐπὶ τῆς γῆς, ἐν ᾧ ὑπῆρχε πάντα τὰ τετράποδα καὶ ἑρπετὰ τῆς γῆς καὶ πετεινὰ τοῦ οὐρανοῦ. Καὶ ἐγένετο φωνὴ πρὸς αὐτόν· Ἀναστάς, Πέτρε, θῦσον καὶ φάγε. Ὁ δὲ Πέτρος εἶπε· Μηδαμῶς, κύριε, ὅτι οὐδέ ποτε ἔφαγον πᾶν κοινὸν καὶ ἀκάθαρτον. Καὶ φωνὴ ἐκ δευτέρου πρὸς αὐτόν· Ἃ ὁ θεὸς ἐκαθάρισε σὺ μὴ κοίνου." Ὅρα γὰρ ἐν τούτοις, τίνα τρόπον παρίσταται τὰ ἰουδαϊκὰ ἔθη περὶ καθαρῶν καὶ ἀκαθάρτων ἔτι τηρῶν ὁ Πέτρος. Καὶ ἐκ τῶν ἑξῆς δηλοῦται ὅτι ὀπτασίας ἐδεήθη, ἵνα κοινωνήσῃ τῶν λόγων τῆς πίστεως τῷ μὴ κατὰ σάρκα Ἰσραηλίτῃ Κορνηλίῳ καὶ τοῖς σὺν αὐτῷ ὡς ἔτι Ἰουδαῖος καὶ κατὰ τὰς Ἰουδαίων παραδόσεις ζῶν, καταφρονῶν τῶν ἔξω τοῦ ἰουδαϊσμοῦ. Καὶ ἐν τῇ πρὸς Γαλάτας δὲ ἐπιστολῇ Παῦλος ἐμφαίνει ὅτι Πέτρος ἔτι φοβούμενος τοὺς Ἰουδαίους, παυσάμενος τοῦ μετὰ τῶν ἐθνῶν συνεσθίειν, ἐλθόντος Ἰακώβου πρὸς αὐτὸν "ἀφώριζεν ἑαυτὸν" ἀπὸ τῶν ἐθνῶν, "φοβούμενος τοὺς ἐκ τῆς περι τομῆς"· καὶ τὸ αὐτὸ πεποιήκασιν αὐτῷ οἱ λοιποὶ Ἰουδαῖοι καὶ Βαρνάβας. Καὶ ἀκόλουθόν γε ἦν μὴ ἀποστῆναι τῶν ἰουδαϊκῶν ἐθῶν τοὺς εἰς τὴν περιτομὴν ἀποσταλέντας, ὅτε "οἱ δοκοῦντες στῦλοι εἶναι δεξιὰς ἔδωκαν Παύλῳ καὶ Βαρνάβᾳ κοινωνίας", "αὐτοὶ εἰς τὴν περιτομὴν" ἀπιόντες, ἵν' ἐκεῖνοι τοῖς ἔθνεσι κηρύξωσι. Τί δὲ λέγω ὅτι οἱ κηρύσσοντες "εἰς τὴν περιτομὴν" ὑπέστελλον ἑαυτοὺς ἀπὸ τῶν ἐθνῶν καὶ ἀφώ ριζον; ὅτε καὶ αὐτὸς ὁ Παῦλος "τοῖς Ἰουδαίοις Ἰουδαῖος" ἐγίνετο, "ἵνα Ἰουδαίους" κερδήσῃ. ∆ιό, ὡς καὶ ἐν ταῖς Πράξεσι τῶν ἀποστόλων γέγραπται, καὶ προσφορὰν προσή νεγκεν ἐπὶ τὸ θυσιαστήριον, ἵνα πείσῃ Ἰουδαίους περὶ τοῦ μὴ εἶναι ἀποστάτης νόμου. Ταῦτα δὲ πάντα εἰ ἠπίστατο ὁ Κέλσος, οὐκ ἂν ἐπροσωποποίησεν τὸν Ἰουδαῖον λέγοντα πρὸς τοὺς ἀπὸ ἰουδαϊσμοῦ πιστεύοντας τό· Τί παθόντες, ὦ πολῖται, κατελίπετε τὸν πάτριον νόμον καὶ ὑπ' ἐκείνου, πρὸς ὃν ἄρτι διειλέγμεθα, ψυχαγωγηθέντες πάνυ γελοίως ἐξηπατήθητε καὶ ἀφ' ἡμῶν ἀπηυτομολήσατε εἰς ἄλλο ὄνομα καὶ εἰς ἄλλον βίον;