Home About Network of subjects Linked subjects heatmap Book indices included Search by subject Search by reference Browse subjects Browse texts

Tiresias: The Ancient Mediterranean Religions Source Database

Origen, Against Celsus, 6.40

nanAfter these things, Celsus appears to me to act like those who, in their intense hatred of the Christians, maintain, in the presence of those who are utterly ignorant of the Christian faith, that they have actually ascertained that Christians devour the flesh of infants, and give themselves without restraint to sexual intercourse with their women. Now, as these statements have been condemned as falsehoods invented against the Christians, and this admission made by the multitude and those altogether aliens to our faith; so would the following statements of Celsus be found to be calumnies invented against the Christians, where he says that he has seen in the hands of certain presbyters belonging to our faith barbarous books, containing the names and marvellous doings of demons; asserting further, that these presbyters of our faith professed to do no good, but all that was calculated to injure human beings. Would, indeed, that all that is said by Celsus against the Christians was of such a nature as to be refuted by the multitude, who have ascertained by experience that such things are untrue, seeing that most of them have lived as neighbours with the Christians, and have not even heard of the existence of any such alleged practices!

Intertexts (texts cited often on the same page as the searched text):

9 results
1. Hebrew Bible, Exodus, 22.17 (9th cent. BCE - 3rd cent. BCE)

22.17. מְכַשֵּׁפָה לֹא תְחַיֶּה׃ 22.17. Thou shalt not suffer a sorceress to live."
2. Irenaeus, Refutation of All Heresies, 2.32.5 (2nd cent. CE - 3rd cent. CE)

3. Tertullian, On Idolatry, 21, 20 (2nd cent. CE - 3rd cent. CE)

20. But, however, since the conduct according to the divine rule is imperilled, not merely by deeds, but likewise by words, (for, just as it is written, Behold the man and his deeds; so, Out of your own mouth shall you be justified Matthew 12:37), we ought to remember that, even in words, also the inroad of idolatry must be foreguarded against, either from the defect of custom or of timidity. The law prohibits the gods of the nations from being named, not of course that we are not to pronounce their names, the speaking of which common intercourse extorts from us: for this must very frequently be said, You find him in the temple of Æsculapius; and, I live in Isis Street; and, He has been made priest of Jupiter; and much else after this manner, since even on men names of this kind are bestowed. I do not honour Saturnus if I call a man so, by his own name. I honour him no more than I do Marcus, if I call a man Marcus. But it says, Make not mention of the name of other gods, neither be it heard from your mouth. Exodus 23:13 The precept it gives is this, that we do not call them gods. For in the first part of the law, too, You shall not, says He, use the name of the Lord your God in a vain thing, Exodus 20:7 that is, in an idol. Whoever, therefore, honours an idol with the name of God, has fallen into idolatry. But if I speak of them as gods, something must be added to make it appear that I do not call them gods. For even the Scripture names gods, but adds their, viz. of the nations: just as David does when he had named gods, where he says, But the gods of the nations are demons. But this has been laid by me rather as a foundation for ensuing observations. However, it is a defect of custom to say, By Hercules, So help me the god of faith; while to the custom is added the ignorance of some, who are ignorant that it is an oath by Hercules. Further, what will an oath be, in the name of gods whom you have forsworn, but a collusion of faith with idolatry? For who does not honour them in whose name he swears?
4. Babylonian Talmud, Eruvin, None (3rd cent. CE - 6th cent. CE)

64b. בעל בנכסי אשתו,רבא אמר אפילו עבד עיסקא ורווח רב פפא אמר אפי' מצא מציאה אמר רב נחמן בר יצחק אפילו כתב בהו תפילין,ואמר רב חנין ואיתימא ר' חנינא מאי קראה דכתיב (במדבר כא, ב) וידר ישראל נדר וגו',אמר רמי בר אבא דרך מיל ושינה כל שהוא מפיגין את היין אמר רב נחמן אמר רבה בר אבוה לא שנו אלא ששתה כדי רביעית אבל שתה יותר מרביעית כל שכן שדרך טורדתו ושינה משכרתו,ודרך מיל מפיגה היין והתניא מעשה בר"ג שהיה רוכב על החמור והיה מהלך מעכו לכזיב והיה רבי אילעאי מהלך אחריו מצא גלוסקין בדרך אמר לו אילעאי טול גלוסקין מן הדרך מצא נכרי אחד אמר לו מבגאי טול גלוסקין הללו מאילעאי,ניטפל לו ר' אילעאי אמר לו מהיכן אתה אמר לו מעיירות של בורגנין ומה שמך מבגאי שמני כלום היכירך רבן גמליאל מעולם אמר לו לאו,באותה שעה למדנו שכוון רבן גמליאל ברוח הקודש ושלשה דברים למדנו באותה שעה למדנו שאין מעבירין על האוכלין,ולמדנו שהולכין אחרי רוב עוברי דרכים ולמדנו שחמצו של נכרי אחר הפסח מותר בהנאה,כיון שהגיע לכזיב בא אחד לישאל על נדרו אמר לזה שעמו כלום שתינו רביעית יין האיטלקי אמר לו הן אם כן יטייל אחרינו עד שיפיג יינינו,וטייל אחריהן ג' מילין עד שהגיע לסולמא של צור כיון שהגיע לסולמא דצור ירד ר"ג מן החמור ונתעטף וישב והתיר לו נדרו,והרבה דברים למדנו באותה שעה למדנו שרביעית יין האיטלקי משכר ולמדנו שיכור אל יורה ולמדנו שדרך מפיגה את היין ולמדנו שאין מפירין נדרים לא רכוב ולא מהלך ולא עומד אלא יושב,קתני מיהת שלשה מילין שאני יין האיטלקי דמשכר טפי,והאמר רב נחמן אמר רבה בר אבוה לא שנו אלא ששתה רביעית אבל שתה יותר מרביעית כל שכן דרך טורדתו ושינה משכרתו,רכוב שאני השתא דאתית להכי לרמי בר אבא נמי לא קשיא רכוב שאני,איני והאמר רב נחמן מפירין נדרים בין מהלך בין עומד ובין רכוב,תנאי היא דאיכא למאן דאמר פותחין בחרטה,ואיכא למאן דאמר אין פותחין בחרטה,דאמר רבה בר בר חנה אמר רבי יוחנן מאי פתח ליה רבן גמליאל לההוא גברא (משלי יב, יח) יש בוטה כמדקרות חרב ולשון חכמים מרפא כל הבוטה ראוי לדוקרו בחרב אלא שלשון חכמים מרפא,אמר מר ואין מעבירין על האוכלין אמר רבי יוחנן משום רבי שמעון בן יוחאי לא שנו אלא בדורות הראשונים שאין בנות ישראל פרוצות בכשפים אבל בדורות האחרונים שבנות ישראל פרוצות בכשפים מעבירין,תנא שלימין מעבירין פתיתין אין מעבירין אמר ליה רב אסי לרב אשי ואפתיתין לא עבדן והכתיב (יחזקאל יג, יט) ותחללנה אותי אל עמי בשעלי שעורים ובפתותי לחם דשקלי באגרייהו,אמר רב ששת משום רבי אלעזר בן עזריה 64b. ba husbandwho acquired rights bto his wife’s propertythat she had brought into the marriage as her dowry should use part of the profits for the acquisition of a Torah scroll., bRava said: Even if he entered into a business venture and made alarge bprofit,he should act in a similar manner. bRav Pappa said: Even if he found a lost article,he should do the same. bRav Naḥman bar Yitzḥak said:He need not use the money to commission the writing of a Torah scroll, as beven ifhe bwrotea set of bphylacteries with it,this, too, is a mitzva whose merit will enable him to retain the rest of the money., bRav Ḥanin said, and some sayit was bRabbi Ḥaninawho said: bWhat is the versethat alludes to this? bAs it is written: “And Israel vowed a vowto the Lord and said: If You will indeed deliver this people into my hand, then I will consecrate their cities” (Numbers 21:2), which shows that one who wishes to succeed should sanctify a portion of his earnings for Heaven.,The Gemara now cites additional teachings relating to the drinking of wine. bRami bar Abba said:Walking a bpath of a imil /i, andsimilarly, bsleepingeven ba minimal amount,will bdispel theeffect of bwinethat one has drunk. bRav Naḥman saidthat bRabba bar Avuh said: They only taughtthis with regard to one bwho has drunk a quarter-ilogof wine, bbutwith regard to bone who has drunk more than a quarter-ilog /i, this advice is not useful. In that case, walking a bpathof such a distance bwill preoccupyand exhaust bhim all the more, anda small amount bof sleep willfurther bintoxicate him. /b,The Gemara poses a question: bDoeswalking ba path ofonly ba imildispel theeffects of bwine? Wasn’tit btaughtin a ibaraita /i: bThere was an incident involving Rabban Gamliel, who was riding a donkey and traveling from Akko to Keziv, andhis student bRabbi Elai was walking behind him.Rabban Gamliel bfoundsome bfine loavesof bread bon the road, and he said tohis student: bElai, take the loaves from the road.Further along the way, Rabban Gamliel bencountered a certain gentileand bsaid to him: Mavgai, take these loaves from Elai. /b, bElai joinedthe gentile band said to him: Where are you from?He bsaid to him: From thenearby btowns of guardsmen.He asked: bAnd what is your name?The gentile replied: bMy name is Mavgai.He then inquired: bHas Rabban Gamliel ever met you before,seeing as he knows your name? He bsaid to him: No. /b,The Gemara interrupts the story in order to comment: bAt that time we learned that Rabban Gamliel divinedthe gentile’s name bby way of divine inspirationthat rested upon him. bAnd at that time wealso blearned three mattersof ihalakhafrom Rabban Gamliel’s behavior: bWe learned that one may not pass by food,i.e., if a person sees food lying on the ground, he must stop and pick it up., bWealso blearned that we follow the majority of travelers.Since the area was populated mostly by gentiles, Rabban Gamliel assumed that the loaf belonged to a gentile, and was consequently prohibited to be eaten by a Jew. Therefore, he ordered that it be given to a gentile. And bwefurther blearned thatwith regard to bleavened bread belonging to a gentile, it is permittedto bbenefitfrom this food bafter Passover.The incident recounted above occurred not long after the festival of Passover. By giving the loaf to the gentile instead of burning it in accordance with the ihalakhotof leavened bread that remains after Passover, Rabban Gamliel gained a certain benefit from it in the form of the gentile’s gratitude. This benefit is regarded as having monetary value.,The Gemara resumes the narrative: bWhenRabban Gamliel barrived in Keziv, aperson bcamebefore him bto requestthat he dissolve bhis vow.Rabban Gamliel bsaid to the one who was with him,i.e., Rabbi Elai: bDid we drink a quarter-ilog bof Italian wineearlier? He bsaid to him: Yes.Rabban Gamliel replied: bIf so, let him journey after us untilthe effect of bour wine is dispelled,after which we may consider his issue., bAndthat person bjourneyed after themfor bthree imil /i, untilRabban Gamliel barrived at the Ladder of Tyre. When he arrived at the Ladder of Tyre, Rabban Gamliel alighted from his donkey and wrapped himselfin his shawl in the customary manner of a judge, who wraps himself in a shawl in order to sit in awe at the time of judgment, band he sat and dissolved his vow. /b,The Gemara continues: bAt that time we learned many mattersof ihalakhafrom Rabban Gamliel’s conduct. bWe learned that a quarter-ilog bof Italian wine intoxicates, and we learnedthat bone who is intoxicated may not issue ahalakhic bruling, and we learned thatwalking on ba path dispelsthe effect bof wine, andlastly bwe learned that one may not annul vowswhen he is beither mountedon an animal, bor walking, oreven bstanding, butonly when he is bsitting. /b, bIn any event,the ibaraita bis teachingthat Rabban Gamliel found it necessary to walk bthree imil /iin order to become sober after drinking wine. The Gemara resolves the contradiction. bItalian wine is differentin that bit is more intoxicating,therefore more extended activity is required in order to dispel its effects.,The Gemara poses a question: bBut didn’t Rav Naḥman saythat bRabba bar Avuh said: They taughtthis bonlywith regard to one bwho has drunk a quarter-ilogof wine, bbutwith regard to bone who has drunk more than a quarter-ilog /i, bwalkingthat distance bwill preoccupyand exhaust bhim all the more, anda small amount of bsleep willfurther bintoxicate him?If Italian wine is more intoxicating than other wine, shouldn’t a quarter- ilogbe considered like a larger quantity of other wine?,The Gemara answers: Being bmountedon an animal bis differentfrom walking; since he is not on foot it is not such a tiring activity. Accordingly, riding three imilwill not exhaust him; rather, it will dispel the effect of the wine. The Gemara adds: bNow that you have arrived at thisconclusion, baccording to Rami bar Abba,who says that walking one imilis sufficient, bit is also not difficult,as he too can say that briding is differentfrom walking. Since one is not on foot, the effects of the wine are not dispelled as quickly. Therefore, three imilis necessary.,The Gemara poses a question with regard to one of the details of the story: bIs that so,that Rabban Gamliel was required to alight from his donkey in order to annul the vow? bBut didn’t Rav Naḥman say: One may annul vows walking, standing, or mounted?Why, then, did Rabban Gamliel dismount his donkey?,The Gemara answers: bThis isa dispute between itanna’im /i, as there isan authority bwho saysthat bonemay bopenthe possibility for dissolution of a vow bby means of regretalone. In other words, there is no need to search for a special reason in order to dissolve a person’s vow; it is enough to ascertain that he regrets making it. This can be done easily, even while walking, standing, or riding., bAnd there isanother authority bwho saysthat bonemay bnot openthe possibility for dissolution of a vow bby means of regretalone. Rather, one must find an opening, i.e., a particular reason to dissolve the vow in question, which requires a thorough analysis of the circumstances of the vow. This task must be performed free of distractions, which means one must be seated ( iTosafot /i)., bAs Rabba bar bar Ḥana saidthat bRabbi Yoḥa said:With bwhat did Rabban Gamliel openthe possibility for dissolving his vow bfor that man,i.e., what opening did he find for him? Rabban Gamliel cited the verse: b“There is one who utters like the piercings of a sword; but the tongue of the wise is health”(Proverbs 12:18) and explained it as follows: bWhoever uttersa vow bdeserves to be pierced by a sword,as he might fail to fulfill it. Therefore, one should not vow at all. Had you known that whoever vows is liable to be executed, would you have vowed? bRather, it is the tongue of the wise that heals,as when a Sage dissolves a vow, he dissolves it retroactively, and it is as though one had never taken the vow.,The Gemara continues with its analysis of the ibaraita /i. bThe Master saidpreviously: One of the ihalakhotlearned from the incident involving Rabban Gamliel was that bone may not pass by food;rather, one must treat the food with respect and pick it up. bRabbi Yoḥa said in the name of Rabbi Shimon bar Yoḥai: They taughtthis ruling bonly in the early generations, when Jewish women were not accustomed to using witchcraft. However, in the later generations, when Jewish women are accustomed to using witchcraft, one may pass byfood, as a spell might have been cast on the bread, and one must not put himself in unnecessary danger.,A Sage btaught:If the loaves are bwhole, onemay bpassthem bby,as they might have been placed there for the purposes of witchcraft; however, if they are in bpieces, onemay bnot passthem bby,because bread in pieces is not used for witchcraft. bRav Asi said to Rav Ashi:Do bthey not performmagic with bpiecesof bread? bIsn’t it writtenin the verse that deals with witchcraft: b“And you have profaned Me among My people for handfuls of barley and for pieces of bread”(Ezekiel 13:19)? The Gemara answers: The verse does not mean that they used pieces of bread in their witchcraft, but rather that bthey tooksuch pieces bas their wages. /b, bRav Sheshet said in the name of Rabbi Elazar ben Azarya: /b
5. Babylonian Talmud, Pesahim, None (3rd cent. CE - 6th cent. CE)

111a. חוץ מן המים ור' יוחנן אמר אפילו מים אמר רב פפא לא אמרן אלא חמימי לגו קרירי וקרירי לגו חמימי אבל חמימי לגו חמימי וקרירי לגו קרירי לא,אמר ריש לקיש ארבעה דברים העושה אותן דמו בראשו ומתחייב בנפשו אלו הן הנפנה בין דקל לכותל והעובר בין שני דקלים והשותה מים שאולין והעובר על מים שפוכין ואפילו שפכתו אשתו בפניו,הנפנה בין דקל לכותל לא אמרן אלא דלית ליה ארבע אמות אבל אית ליה ארבע אמות לית לן בה וכי לית ליה ארבע אמות לא אמרן אלא דליכא דירכא אחרינא אבל איכא דירכא אחרינא לית לן בה,והעובר בין שני דקלים לא אמרן אלא דלא פסקינהו רשות הרבים אבל פסקינהו רשות הרבים לית לן בה השותה מים שאולין לא אמרן אלא דשיילינהו קטן אבל גדול לית לן בה,ואפילו שיילינהו קטן נמי לא אמרן אלא בשדה דלא שכיחי אבל בעיר דשכיחי לית לן בה ואפילו בשדה נמי לא אמרן אלא מיא אבל חמרא ושיכרא לית לן בה,והעובר על מים שפוכין לא אמרן אלא דלא אפסקינהו בעפרא ולא תף בהו רוקא אבל אפסקינהו או תף בהו רוקא לית לן בה ולא אמרן אלא דלא עבר עלייהו שימשא ולא עבר עלייהו שיתין ניגרי אבל עבר עלייהו שימשא ועבר עלייהו שיתין ניגרי לית לן בה ולא אמרן אלא דלא רכיב חמרא ולא סיים מסני אבל רכיב חמרא וסיים מסני לית לן בה,וה"מ היכא דליכא למיחש לכשפים אבל היכא דאיכא למיחש לכשפים אע"ג דאיכא כל הני חיישינן (וההוא) גברא דרכיב חמרא וסיים מסני וגמוד מסאניה וצוו כרעיה,ת"ר שלשה אין ממצעין ולא מתמצעין ואלו הן הכלב והדקל והאשה וי"א אף החזיר וי"א אף הנחש,ואי ממצעין מאי תקנתיה אמר רב פפא נפתח באל ונפסיק באל,א"נ נפתח בלא ונפסיק בלא,הני בי תרי דמצעא להו אשה נדה אם תחלת נדתה היא הורגת א' מהן אם סוף נדתה היא מריבה עושה ביניהן מאי תקנתיה נפתח באל ונפסיק באל,הני תרי נשי דיתבן בפרשת דרכים חדא בהאי גיסא דשבילא וחדא באידך גיסא ומכוונן אפייהו להדדי ודאי בכשפים עסיקן מאי תקנתיה אי איכא דירכא אחרינא ליזיל בה ואי ליכא דירכא אחרינא אי איכא איניש אחרינא בהדיה נינקטו לידייהו בהדי הדדי וניחלפו ואי ליכא איניש אחרינא נימא הכי אגרת אזלת אסיא בלוסיא מתקטלא בחיק קבל,האי מאן דפגע באיתתא בעידנא דסלקא מטבילת מצוה אי איהו קדים ומשמש אחדא ליה לדידיה רוח זנונים אי איהי קדמה ומשמשה אחדא לה לדידה רוח זנונים מאי תקנתיה לימא הכי (תהלים קז, מ) שופך בוז על נדיבים ויתעם בתוהו לא דרך,א"ר יצחק מאי דכתיב (תהלים כג, ד) גם כי אלך בגיא צלמות לא אירא רע כי אתה עמדי זה הישן בצל דקל יחידי ובצל לבנה ובצל דקל יחידי לא אמרן אלא דלא נפיל טולא דחבריה עילויה אבל נפל טולא דחבריה עילויה לית לן בה,אלא הא דתניא הישן בצל דקל יחידי בחצר והישן בצל לבנה דמו בראשו היכי דמי אי לימא דלא נפל טולא דחבריה עילויה אפילו בשדה נמי אלא לאו שמע מינה בחצר אף על גב דנפיל טולא דחבריה עילויה שמע מינה,ובצילה של לבנה לא אמרן אלא במערבה אבל במדינחתא לית לן בה 111a. bexcept for water.If one mixes water with other water, it is not considered diluted and does not count toward the number of cups. bAnd Rabbi Yoḥa said: Even waterjoins the number of cups. bRav Pappa said: We said this statement onlyabout bhotwater poured binto coldwater, band coldwater poured binto hot water.Rabbi Yoḥa maintains that these cups are considered diluted. bHowever,everyone agrees that bhotwater poured binto hotwater bor coldwater poured binto coldwater, bno,they are not considered diluted.,The Gemara cites more statements concerning superstitions and witchcraft. bReish Lakish said:There are bfour matters. The one who performs them, his blood is upon hisown bhead, andhe is held bliable for his own life,due to the evil spirit that rests upon him: bOne who relieves himselfin a spot bbetween a palm tree and a wall, one who passes between two palm trees, one who drinks borrowed water, and one who passes over spilled water, even if his wife poured it out in front of him. /b,The Gemara elaborates: With regard to bone who relieves himself between a palm tree and a wall, we saidthat he places himself in danger bonly when there are not four cubitsof space between the two objects. bHowever,if bthere are four cubits, we have noproblem bwith it.The demons have enough room to pass, and he will not obstruct them. bAndfurthermore, even bwhen there are not four cubits, we saidthere is a problem bonly whenthe demons bhave no other routebesides that one. bHowever,if they bhave another route, we have noproblem bwith it. /b, bAndwith regard to bone who passes between two palm trees, we saidthat he is in danger bonly if a public domain does not cross between them. However,if ba public domain crosses between them, we have noproblem bwith it,as demons are not permitted to cause harm in a public place. bAndwith regard to bone who drinks borrowed water, we saidit is dangerous bonly if a minor borrowed it. However,if ban adultborrowed the water, bwe have noproblem bwith it. /b, bAnd evenif ba minor borrowed it, we saidthis poses a danger bonlyif it occurred bin a field, wherewater bis not found. However, in a city, wherewater bcan be found, we have noproblem bwith it. And even in a field, we saidthere is cause for concern bonlyin a case of borrowed bwater; however,with regard to bwine and beer, we have noproblem bwith it. /b, bAndwith regard to bone who passes over spilled water, we saidhe places himself in danger bonly if no one sprinkled dirt over it and no one spat in it. However, ifsomeone bsprinkled dirt over it or spat in it, we have noproblem bwith it. And we saidthis is a concern bonly if the sun did not pass over it,i.e., it occurred at night, band sixty stepsof people walking in the area bhave not passed over it. However,if bthe sun passed over it and sixty steps passed over it, we have noproblem bwith it. And we saidthis concern bonly if he was not riding a donkey and not wearing shoes; however, if he was riding a donkey and wearing shoes, we have noproblem bwith it. /b,The Gemara comments: bAndall bthisapplies only bwhere there is noreason for bconcern for witchcraft,as no one is interested in harming him. bHowever, where there isreason for bconcern for witchcraft, even if all of theselimiting conditions barein place, bwe arenevertheless bconcerned. Andthis is similar to what happened to ba certain man who was riding a donkey and wearing shoes.Nevertheless, he passed over water band his shoes shrank and his feet shriveled up. /b,The Gemara continues to discuss this issue. bThe Sages taught: Threeobjects should bnotbe allowed to bpass betweentwo people walking along a road, and people should bnot walk betweentwo of them: bA dog, a palm tree, and a woman. And some say: Also a pig. And some say: Also a snake.All of these were associated with witchcraft.,The Gemara asks: bAnd if they pass between them, what is the remedyto prevent one from harm? bRav Pappa said: Heshould bbeginreciting a verse that starts bwiththe word bGod and conclude witha verse that ends with the word bGod.In other words, he should recite the passage: “God Who brought them out of Egypt is for them like the lofty horns of the wild ox. For there is no enchantment with Jacob, nor is there any divination with Israel; now is it said of Jacob and of Israel: What has been performed by God” (Numbers 23:22–23). This verse indicates that spells do not affect the Jewish people., bAlternatively, heshould bopenwith a verse that begins with the word ilo /i,no, bandshould bconcludewith the same verse that ends with ilo /i:“No [ ilo /i] man is God that he should lie; neither the son of man that he should repent. When He has said will He not do it, or when He has spoken will He not [ ilo /i] make it good?” (Numbers 23:19).,Similarly, bthese twomen, bbetween whom a menstruating woman passes, if she is at the beginning of her menstruation she kills one of them,i.e., she causes the death of one of the two men. bIf she isat bthe end of her menstruationshe does not kill, but she bcauses a fight between them. What is his remedy? Heshould bopenwith a verse that begins bwiththe word bGod and heshould bconclude witha verse that ends with the word bGod,as explained above.,The Gemara further states: bThese two women, who are sitting at a crossroads, one on this side of the road and the other on the other side, and they are facing each other, they are certainly engaging in witchcraft. What isthe bremedyfor one who walks by? bIf there is another route, heshould bgo by it. And if there is no other route, if there is another person with him, theyshould bhold hands and switchplaces. bAnd if there is no other person with him, heshould bsay as follows: Iggeret, Azlat, Asiya, Belusiya are killed by arrows.These are names of demons invoked by witches.,The Gemara cites a related statement: bOne who meets a woman when she is ascending from the ritual immersion of a mitzva,after her menstruation, bif he has intercoursewith any woman bfirst, a spirit of immorality overtakes him; if she has intercourse first, a spirit of immorality overtakes her. What is his remedy? Heshould bsay this: “He pours contempt upon princes, and causes them to wander in the waste, where there is no way”(Psalms 107:40)., bRav Yitzḥak said: Whatis the meaning of that which bis written: “Though I walk through the valley of the shadow of death, I will fear no evil, for You are with me”(Psalms 23:4)? bThis isa person bwho sleeps in the shadow of a single palm tree, and in the shadow of the moon.Despite his dangerous position, he trusts God and is not afraid. The Gemara qualifies the previous statement: bAnd with regard toone who sleeps bin the shadow of a single palm tree, we saidhe is in danger bonly if the shadow of anotherpalm tree bdoes not fall upon him. However,if bthe shadow of anotherpalm tree bfalls upon him, we have noproblem bwith it. /b,The Gemara asks: bButwhat about bthatwhich bwas taughtin a ibaraita /i: With regard to one bwho sleeps in the shadow of a single palm tree in a courtyard and one who sleeps in the shadow of the moon, his blood is upon hisown bhead. What are the circumstances? If we say that the shadow of anotherpalm tree bdoes not fall on him,he would balsobe harmed if he were bin a field. Rather,must bone not conclude fromthis ibaraitathat if one is in a bcourtyard, even if the shadow of anothertree bfell on him,it remains dangerous? The Gemara concludes: Indeed, blearn from itthat this is so.,The Gemara adds: bAndwith regard bto the shadow of the moon, we saidit is dangerous to sleep there bonlyat the end of the month when the moon shines in the east, and therefore its shadow is bin the west. However,at the start of the month, when the moon shines in the west and its shadow is bin the east, we have noproblem bwith it. /b
6. Babylonian Talmud, Sanhedrin, None (3rd cent. CE - 6th cent. CE)

67a. סימנא בעלמא:, big strongמתני׳ /strong /big המסית זה הדיוט והמסית את ההדיוט אמר יש יראה במקום פלוני כך אוכלת כך שותה כך מטיבה כך מריעה,כל חייבי מיתות שבתורה אין מכמינין עליהם חוץ מזו,אמר לשנים הן עדיו ומביאין אותו לב"ד וסוקלין אותו אמר לאחד הוא אומר יש לי חבירים רוצים בכך,אם היה ערום ואינו יכול לדבר בפניהם מכמינין לו עדים אחורי הגדר והוא אומר לו אמור מה שאמרת ביחוד והלה אומר לו והוא אומר לו היאך נניח את אלהינו שבשמים ונלך ונעבוד עצים ואבנים אם חוזר בו הרי זה מוטב ואם אמר כך היא חובתנו כך יפה לנו העומדין מאחורי הגדר מביאין אותו לבית דין וסוקלין אותו,האומר אעבוד אלך ואעבוד נלך ונעבוד אזבח אלך ואזבח נלך ונזבח אקטיר אלך ואקטיר נלך ונקטיר אנסך אלך ואנסך נלך וננסך אשתחוה אלך ואשתחוה נלך ונשתחוה:, big strongגמ׳ /strong /big המסית זה הדיוט טעמא דהדיוט הא נביא בחנק והמסית את ההדיוט טעמא דיחיד הא רבים בחנק,מתני׳ מני ר"ש היא דתניא נביא שהדיח בסקילה ר' שמעון אומר בחנק מדיחי עיר הנדחת בסקילה ר"ש אומר בחנק,אימא סיפא המדיח זה האומר נלך ונעבוד עבודת כוכבים ואמר רב יהודה אמר רב מדיחי עיר הנדחת שנו אתאן לרבנן רישא ר"ש וסיפא רבנן,רבינא אמר כולה רבנן היא ולא זו אף זו קתני,רב פפא אמר כי קתני מסית זה הדיוט להכמנה,דתניא ושאר כל חייבי מיתות שבתורה אין מכמינין עליהן חוץ מזו,כיצד עושין לו מדליקין לו את הנר בבית הפנימי ומושיבין לו עדים בבית החיצון כדי שיהו הן רואין אותו ושומעין את קולו והוא אינו רואה אותן והלה אומר לו אמור מה שאמרת לי ביחוד והוא אומר לו והלה אומר לו היאך נניח את אלהינו שבשמים ונעבוד עבודת כוכבים אם חוזר בו מוטב ואם אמר כך היא חובתנו וכך יפה לנו העדים ששומעין מבחוץ מביאין אותו לבית דין וסוקלין אותו:,[הוספה מחסרונות הש"ס: וכן עשו לבן סטדא בלוד ותלאוהו בערב הפסח,בן סטדא בן פנדירא הוא אמר רב חסדא בעל — סטדא בועל — פנדירא בעל פפוס בן יהודה הוא אלא אֵימא אמו סטדא אמו מרים מגדלא נשיא הואי כדאמרי בפומדיתא סטת דא מבעלה:], big strongמתני׳ /strong /big המדיח זה האומר נלך ונעבוד עבודת כוכבים,המכשף העושה מעשה חייב ולא האוחז את העינים ר"ע אומר משום ר' יהושע שנים לוקטין קשואין אחד לוקט פטור ואחד לוקט חייב העושה מעשה חייב האוחז את העינים פטור:, big strongגמ׳ /strong /big אמר רב יהודה אמר רב מדיחי עיר הנדחת שנו כאן:,המכשף זה העושה מעשה וכו': תנו רבנן מכשפה אחד האיש ואחד האשה א"כ מה ת"ל מכשפה מפני שרוב נשים מצויות בכשפים,מיתתן במה רבי יוסי הגלילי אומר נאמר כאן (שמות כב, יז) מכשפה לא תחיה ונאמר להלן (דברים כ, טז) לא תחיה כל נשמה מה להלן בסייף אף כאן בסייף,ר' עקיבא אומר נאמר כאן מכשפה לא תחיה ונאמר להלן (שמות יט, יג) אם בהמה אם איש לא יחיה מה להלן בסקילה אף כאן בסקילה,אמר לו ר' יוסי אני דנתי לא תחיה מלא תחיה ואתה דנת לא תחיה מלא יחיה,אמר לו רבי עקיבא אני דנתי ישראל מישראל שריבה בהן הכתוב מיתות הרבה ואתה דנת ישראל מעובדי כוכבים שלא ריבה בהן הכתוב אלא 67a. It is bmerely a mnemonic.The verse is not relevant to this ihalakha /i, and it is cited merely as a sign indicating that just as the ihalakhaof a betrothed young woman pertains to her first act of sexual intercourse, so too, the ihalakhaof the daughter of a priest who committed adultery pertains to a case where it is her first disqualification from the priesthood., strongMISHNA: /strong With regard to the case of ban inciter,listed among those liable to be executed by stoning, bthis is an ordinary person,not a prophet. bAndit is referring to bone who incites an ordinary personand not a multitude of people. What does the inciter do? bHe says: There is an idol in such and such a place,which beats like this, drinks like this, does goodfor its worshippers blike this,and bharmsthose who do not worship it blike this. /b,The mishna states a principle with regard to the ihalakhaof an inciter: With regard to ball of thosementioned bin the Torahwho bare liable toreceive bthe deathpenalty, if there are no witnesses to their transgressions, the court bdoes not hidewitnesses in order btoensnare and punish bthem, except for thiscase of an inciter.,The mishna elaborates: If the inciter bsaidhis words of incitement bto twomen, bthey are his witnesses, andhe does not need to be warned before the transgression; bthey bring him to court and stone him.If bhe saidhis words of incitement bto oneman alone, that man’s testimony would not be sufficient to have the inciter executed. Therefore bhe saysto the inciter: bI have friends who are interested in this;tell them too. This way there will be more witnesses.,The mishna continues: bIfthe inciter bis cunning, andhe knows that bhe cannot speak in front oftwo men, the court bhides witnesses for him behind the fenceso that he will not see them, bandthe man whom the inciter had previously tried to incite bsays to him: Say what you saidto me when we were bin seclusion. And the otherperson, the inciter, bsays to himagain that he should worship the idol. bAnd he says tothe inciter: bHow can we forsake our God in Heaven and go and worship wood and stones? Ifthe inciter bretractshis suggestion, bthat is good. But if he says: Thisidol worship bis our duty; thisis what bsuits us,then bthose standing behind the fence bring him to court and have him stoned. /b,The ihalakhaof an inciter includes bone who says: I shall worshipidols, or one of the following statements: bI shall go and worshipidols, or: blet us go and worshipidols, or: bI shall sacrificean idolatrous offering, or: bI shall go and sacrificean idolatrous offering, or: bLet us go and sacrificean idolatrous offering, or: bI shall burnincense as an idolatrous offering, or: bI shall go and burnincense, or: bLet us go and burnincense, or: bI shall pouran idolatrous libation, or: bI shall go and poura libation, or: bLet us go and poura libation, or: bI shall bowto an idol, or: bI shall go and bow,or: bLet us go and bow. /b, strongGEMARA: /strong The mishna teaches: With regard to the case of ban inciter, this is an ordinary person.The Gemara infers: bThe reasonhe is executed by stoning is bthat he is an ordinary person, butif he is ba prophethe is executed bby strangulation,not by stoning. The mishna states further: bAndit is referring to bone who incites an ordinary person.The Gemara infers: bThe reasonhe is executed by stoning is bthathe incited ban individual, butif he subverted ba multitudeof people, he is executed bby strangulation. /b,Consequently, bwhoseopinion is expressed in bthe mishna? It isthe opinion of bRabbi Shimon, as it is taughtin a ibaraita /i: bA prophet who subvertedothers to participate in idol worship is executed bby stoning. Rabbi Shimon says:He is executed bby strangulation.Likewise, bthe subverters of an idolatrous cityare executed bby stoning. Rabbi Shimon says: By strangulation. /b,The Gemara challenges: bSay the last clauseof the mishna, i.e., say the following mishna: With regard to the case of bthe subverterlisted among those liable to be executed by stoning, bthis is one who says: Let us go and worship idols. And Rav Yehuda saysthat bRav says:In this mishna the Sages btaughtthe case of bthe subverters of an idolatrous city.Here bwe arrive atthe opinion of bthe Rabbis,who hold that those who incite a multitude of people are also executed by stoning. Is it possible that bthe first clauseof the mishna expresses the opinion of bRabbi Shimon, and the last clauseexpresses that of bthe Rabbis? /b, bRavina says: The entiremishna bisin accordance with the opinion of bthe Rabbis, andthe itanna bteachesthe mishna employing the style of: bNotonly bthisbut balso that.In other words, the mishna should be explained as follows: Not only is one who incites an individual executed by stoning, but even one who subverts an entire city is executed by stoning., bRav Pappa says: Whenthe mishna bteacheswith regard to one who bincitesthat bthis isreferring to ban ordinary person,it is not indicating that a prophet is not included in this ihalakha /i. Rather, it is referring btothe bhidingof witnesses behind a fence in order to ensnare the inciter, as his life is treated with contempt and derision, as though he were an ordinary person, i.e., a simpleton., bAs it is taughtin a ibaraita /i: bAndwith regard to ball the rest of those liable toreceive the bdeathpenalty bby Torahlaw, the court bdoes not hidewitnesses in order btoensnare bthemand punish them bexcept for thiscase of an inciter., bHowdoes the court bdothis bto him?The agents of the court blight a candle for him in an inner room, andthey bplace witnesses for him in an outer roomin the dark, bso that they can see him and hear his voice but he cannot see them. And the otherperson, whom the inciter had previously tried to incite, bsays to him: Say what you said to mewhen we were bin seclusion. And he says to himagain that he should worship the idol. bAnd the otherperson bsays to him: How can we forsake our God in Heaven and worship idols? Ifthe inciter bretractshis suggestion, bthat is good. But if he says: Thisidol worship bis our duty, and thisis what bsuits us, the witnesses, who are listening from outside, bring him to court, andthey bhave him stoned. /b, bAndthe court bdid the same toan inciter named bben Setada, fromthe city of bLod, and they hanged him on Passover eve. /b,The Gemara asks: Why did they call him bben Setada,when bhe was the son of Pandeira? Rav Ḥisda says:Perhaps his mother’s bhusband,who acted as his father, was named bSetada,but his mother’s bparamour,who fathered this imamzer /i, was named bPandeira.The Gemara challenges: But his mother’s bhusband was Pappos ben Yehuda,not Setada. bRather,perhaps bhis motherwas named bSetada,and he was named ben Setada after her. The Gemara challenges: But bhis mother was Miriam, who braided women’s hair.The Gemara explains: That is not a contradiction; Setada was merely a nickname, bas they say in Pumbedita: This one strayed [ isetat da /i] from her husband. /b, strongMISHNA: /strong With regard to the case of bthe subverterlisted among those liable to be executed by stoning, bthis is one who saysto a multitude of people: bLet us go and worship idols. /b, bThe warlockis also liable to be executed by stoning. bOne who performsa real bactof sorcery bis liable, but not one who deceives the eyes,making it appear as though he is performing sorcery, as that is not considered sorcery. bRabbi Akiva says in the name of Rabbi Yehoshua:For example, btwopeople can each bgather cucumbersby sorcery. bOneof them bgatherscucumbers and he is bexempt, andthe other bone gatherscucumbers and he is bliable.How so? bThe one who performsa real bactof sorcery is bliable,and bthe one who deceives the eyes is exempt. /b, strongGEMARA: /strong With regard to the case of subverters mentioned in the mishna, bRav Yehuda saysthat bRav says:The Sages btaught herethe case of bthe subverters of an idolatrous city.Accordingly, there is no halakhic difference between one who incites individuals to idolatry and one who subverts an entire city; both are liable to be executed by stoning.,The mishna teaches that the case of bthe warlock isreferring to bone who performsa real bactof sorcery. bThe Sages taughtin a ibaraita /i: The verse: b“You shall not allow a witch to live”(Exodus 22:17), does not refer only to a female who practices sorcery; bboth a man and a womanare included. bIf so, whydoes bverse state “a witch”?This is bbecause most women are familiar with witchcraft. /b, bIn whatmanner is btheir deathsentence administered? bRabbi Yosei HaGelili says: It is stated here: “You shall not allow a witch to live,” and it is stated there,with regard to the conquest of the Canaanites: b“You shall allow nothing that breathes to live”(Deuteronomy 20:16). bJust as there,the Canaanites were to be killed bbythe bsword(see Numbers 21:24), bso too here,the execution of a witch is administered bbythe bsword. /b, bRabbi Akiva says: It is stated here: “You shall not allow a witch to live,” and it is stated there,with regard to Mount Sinai: “No hand shall touch it, for he shall be stoned, or thrown down; bwhether it be animal or man, it shall not live”(Exodus 19:13). bJust as there,the verse speaks bof stoning, so too here,a witch is executed bby stoning. /b, bRabbi YoseiHaGelili bsaid to him: I derivedthe meaning of the verse b“You shall not allowa witch bto live” fromthe verse b“You shall allow nothingthat breathes bto live”via a verbal analogy between two similar phrases, bbut you derivedthe meaning of the verse b“You shall not allowa witch bto live” fromthe verse b“It shall not live,”which is a less similar phrase., bRabbi Akiva said to him: I deriveda ihalakhaconcerning bJews froma ihalakhaconcerning bJews, with regard to whom the verse included manytypes of bdeathpenalties. Therefore, the fact that the expression “It shall not live” refers to stoning when stated with regard to Jews is especially significant. bBut you deriveda ihalakhaconcerning bJews froma ihalakhaconcerning bgentiles, with regard to whom the verse included only /b
7. Origen, Commentary On John, 1.37 (3rd cent. CE - 3rd cent. CE)

1.37. Again, let any one consider how Jesus was to His disciples, not as He who sits at meat, but as He who serves, and how though the Son of God He took on Him the form of a servant for the sake of the freedom of those who were enslaved in sin, and he will be at no loss to account for the Father's saying to Him: You are My servant, and a little further on: It is a great thing that you should be called My servant. For we do not hesitate to say that the goodness of Christ appears in a greater and more divine light, and more according to the image of the Father, because Philippians 2:6, 8 He humbled Himself, becoming obedient unto death, even the death of the cross, than if He had judged it a thing to be grasped to be equal with God, and had shrunk from becoming a servant for the salvation of the world. Hence He says, Isaiah 49:5-6 desiring to teach us that in accepting this state of servitude He had received a great gift from His Father: And My God shall be My strength. And He said to Me, It is a great thing for You to be called My servant. For if He had not become a servant, He would not have raised up the tribes of Jacob, nor have turned the heart of the diaspora of Israel, and neither would He have become a light of the Gentiles to be for salvation to the ends of the earth. And it is no great thing for Him to become a servant, even if it is called a great thing by His Father, for this is in comparison with His being called with an innocent sheep and with a lamb. For the Lamb of God became like an innocent sheep being led to the slaughter, that He may take away the sin of the world. He who supplies reason (λογος) to all is made like a lamb which is dumb before her shearer, that we might be purified by His death, which is given as a sort of medicine against the opposing power, and also against the sin of those who open their minds to the truth. For the death of Christ reduced to impotence those powers which war against the human race, and it set free from sin by a power beyond our words the life of each believer. Since, then, He takes away sin until every enemy shall be destroyed and death last of all, in order that the whole world may be free from sin, therefore John points to Him and says: John 1:29 Behold the Lamb of God which takes away the sin of the world. It is not said that He will take it away in the future, nor that He is at present taking it, nor that He has taken it, but is not taking it away now. His taking away sin is still going on, He is taking it away from every individual in the world, till sin be taken away from the whole world, and the Saviour deliver the kingdom prepared and completed to the Father, a kingdom in which no sin is left at all, and which, therefore, is ready to accept the Father as its king, and which on the other hand is waiting to receive all God has to bestow, fully, and in every part, at that time when the saying 1 Corinthians 5:28 is fulfilled, That God may be all in all. Further, we hear of a man who is said to be coming after John, who was made before him and was before him. This is to teach us that the man also of the Son of God, the man who was mixed with His divinity, was older than His birth from Mary. John says he does not know this man, but must he not have known Him when he leapt for joy when yet a babe unborn in Elisabeth's womb, as soon as the voice of Mary's salutation sounded in the ears of the wife of Zacharias? Consider, therefore, if the words I know Him not may have reference to the period before the bodily existence. Though he did not know Him before He assumed His body, yet he knew Him when yet in his mother's womb, and perhaps he is here learning something new about Him beyond what was known to him before, namely, that on whomsoever the Holy Spirit shall descend and abide on him, that is he who is to baptize with the Holy Spirit and with fire. He knew him from his mother's womb, but not all about Him. He did not know perhaps that this is He who baptizes with the Holy Spirit and with fire, when he saw the Spirit descending and abiding on Him. Yet that He was indeed a man, and the first man, John did not know.
8. Origen, Against Celsus, 1.5-1.6, 1.8-1.9, 1.13, 1.28, 1.38, 1.41, 1.62, 1.67-1.68, 2.55, 3.5, 3.7-3.8, 3.14, 3.39, 3.44-3.47, 3.49-3.52, 3.54, 3.65, 4.11, 5.25, 5.46, 6.10, 6.12, 7.39, 7.53, 7.62, 7.68-7.69, 8.2, 8.9, 8.11-8.12, 8.14, 8.24-8.27, 8.33-8.36, 8.38, 8.41, 8.43, 8.45, 8.48-8.49, 8.69 (3rd cent. CE - 3rd cent. CE)

1.5. Treating of the regulations respecting idolatry as being peculiar to Christianity, Celsus establishes their correctness, saying that the Christians do not consider those to be gods that are made with hands, on the ground that it is not in conformity with right reason (to suppose) that images, fashioned by the most worthless and depraved of workmen, and in many instances also provided by wicked men, can be (regarded as) gods. In what follows, however, wishing to show that this is a common opinion, and one not first discovered by Christianity, he quotes a saying of Heraclitus to this effect: That those who draw near to lifeless images, as if they were gods, act in a similar manner to those who would enter into conversation with houses. Respecting this, then, we have to say, that ideas were implanted in the minds of men like the principles of morality, from which not only Heraclitus, but any other Greek or barbarian, might by reflection have deduced the same conclusion; for he states that the Persians also were of the same opinion, quoting Herodotus as his authority. We also can add to these Zeno of Citium, who in his Polity, says: And there will be no need to build temples, for nothing ought to be regarded as sacred, or of much value, or holy, which is the work of builders and of mean men. It is evident, then, with respect to this opinion (as well as others), that there has been engraven upon the hearts of men by the finger of God a sense of the duty that is required. 1.6. After this, through the influence of some motive which is unknown to me, Celsus asserts that it is by the names of certain demons, and by the use of incantations, that the Christians appear to be possessed of (miraculous) power; hinting, I suppose, at the practices of those who expel evil spirits by incantations. And here he manifestly appears to malign the Gospel. For it is not by incantations that Christians seem to prevail (over evil spirits), but by the name of Jesus, accompanied by the announcement of the narratives which relate to Him; for the repetition of these has frequently been the means of driving demons out of men, especially when those who repeated them did so in a sound and genuinely believing spirit. Such power, indeed, does the name of Jesus possess over evil spirits, that there have been instances where it was effectual, when it was pronounced even by bad men, which Jesus Himself taught (would be the case), when He said: Many shall say to Me in that day, In Your name we have cast out devils, and done many wonderful works. Whether Celsus omitted this from intentional malignity, or from ignorance, I do not know. And he next proceeds to bring a charge against the Saviour Himself, alleging that it was by means of sorcery that He was able to accomplish the wonders which He performed; and that foreseeing that others would attain the same knowledge, and do the same things, making a boast of doing them by help of the power of God, He excludes such from His kingdom. And his accusation is, that if they are justly excluded, while He Himself is guilty of the same practices, He is a wicked man; but if He is not guilty of wickedness in doing such things, neither are they who do the same as He. But even if it be impossible to show by what power Jesus wrought these miracles, it is clear that Christians employ no spells or incantations, but the simple name of Jesus, and certain other words in which they repose faith, according to the holy Scriptures. 1.8. It is with a certain eloquence, indeed, that he appears to advocate the cause of those who bear witness to the truth of Christianity by their death, in the following words: And I do not maintain that if a man, who has adopted a system of good doctrine, is to incur danger from men on that account, he should either apostatize, or feign apostasy, or openly deny his opinions. And he condemns those who, while holding the Christian views, either pretend that they do not, or deny them, saying that he who holds a certain opinion ought not to feign recantation, or publicly disown it. And here Celsus must be convicted of self-contradiction. For from other treatises of his it is ascertained that he was an Epicurean; but here, because he thought that he could assail Christianity with better effect by not professing the opinions of Epicurus, he pretends that there is a something better in man than the earthly part of his nature, which is akin to God, and says that they in whom this element, viz., the soul, is in a healthy condition, are ever seeking after their kindred nature, meaning God, and are ever desiring to hear something about Him, and to call it to remembrance. Observe now the insincerity of his character! Having said a little before, that the man who had embraced a system of good doctrine ought not, even if exposed to danger on that account from men, to disavow it, or pretend that he had done so, nor yet openly disown it, he now involves himself in all manner of contradictions. For he knew that if he acknowledged himself an Epicurean, he would not obtain any credit when accusing those who, in any degree, introduce the doctrine of Providence, and who place a God over the world. And we have heard that there were two individuals of the name of Celsus, both of whom were Epicureans; the earlier of the two having lived in the time of Nero, but this one in that of Adrian, and later. 1.9. He next proceeds to recommend, that in adopting opinions we should follow reason and a rational guide, since he who assents to opinions without following this course is very liable to be deceived. And he compares inconsiderate believers to Metragyrt, and soothsayers, and Mithr, and Sabbadians, and to anything else that one may fall in with, and to the phantoms of Hecate, or any other demon or demons. For as among such persons are frequently to be found wicked men, who, taking advantage of the ignorance of those who are easily deceived, lead them away whither they will, so also, he says, is the case among Christians. And he asserts that certain persons who do not wish either to give or receive a reason for their belief, keep repeating, Do not examine, but believe! and, Your faith will save you! And he alleges that such also say, The wisdom of this life is bad, but that foolishness is a good thing! To which we have to answer, that if it were possible for all to leave the business of life, and devote themselves to philosophy, no other method ought to be adopted by any one, but this alone. For in the Christian system also it will be found that there is, not to speak at all arrogantly, at least as much of investigation into articles of belief, and of explanation of dark sayings, occurring in the prophetical writings, and of the parables in the Gospels, and of countless other things, which either were narrated or enacted with a symbolic signification, (as is the case with other systems). But since the course alluded to is impossible, partly on account of the necessities of life, partly on account of the weakness of men, as only a very few individuals devote themselves earnestly to study, what better method could be devised with a view of assisting the multitude, than that which was delivered by Jesus to the heathen? And let us inquire, with respect to the great multitude of believers, who have washed away the mire of wickedness in which they formerly wallowed, whether it were better for them to believe without a reason, and (so) to have become reformed and improved in their habits, through the belief that men are chastised for sins, and honoured for good works or not to have allowed themselves to be converted on the strength of mere faith, but (to have waited) until they could give themselves to a thorough examination of the (necessary) reasons. For it is manifest that, (on such a plan), all men, with very few exceptions, would not obtain this (amelioration of conduct) which they have obtained through a simple faith, but would continue to remain in the practice of a wicked life. Now, whatever other evidence can be furnished of the fact, that it was not without divine intervention that the philanthropic scheme of Christianity was introduced among men, this also must be added. For a pious man will not believe that even a physician of the body, who restores the sick to better health, could take up his abode in any city or country without divine permission, since no good happens to men without the help of God. And if he who has cured the bodies of many, or restored them to better health, does not effect his cures without the help of God, how much more He who has healed the souls of many, and has turned them (to virtue), and improved their nature, and attached them to God who is over all things, and taught them to refer every action to His good pleasure, and to shun all that is displeasing to Him, even to the least of their words or deeds, or even of the thoughts of their hearts? 1.13. But since Celsus has declared it to be a saying of many Christians, that the wisdom of this life is a bad thing, but that foolishness is good, we have to answer that he slanders the Gospel, not giving the words as they actually occur in the writings of Paul, where they run as follow: If any one among you seems to be wise in this world, let him become a fool, that he may become wise. For the wisdom of this world is foolishness with God. The apostle, therefore, does not say simply that wisdom is foolishness with God, but the wisdom of this world. And again, not, If any one among you seems to be wise, let him become a fool universally; but, let him become a fool in this world, that he may become wise. We term, then, the wisdom of this world, every false system of philosophy, which, according to the Scriptures, is brought to nought; and we call foolishness good, not without restriction, but when a man becomes foolish as to this world. As if we were to say that the Platonist, who believes in the immortality of the soul, and in the doctrine of its metempsychosis, incurs the charge of folly with the Stoics, who discard this opinion; and with the Peripatetics, who babble about the subtleties of Plato; and with the Epicureans, who call it superstition to introduce a providence, and to place a God over all things. Moreover, that it is in agreement with the spirit of Christianity, of much more importance to give our assent to doctrines upon grounds of reason and wisdom than on that of faith merely, and that it was only in certain circumstances that the latter course was desired by Christianity, in order not to leave men altogether without help, is shown by that genuine disciple of Jesus, Paul, when he says: For after that, in the wisdom of God, the world by wisdom knew not God, it pleased God by the foolishness of preaching to save them that believe. Now by these words it is clearly shown that it is by the wisdom of God that God ought to be known. But as this result did not follow, it pleased God a second time to save them that believe, not by folly universally, but by such foolishness as depended on preaching. For the preaching of Jesus Christ as crucified is the foolishness of preaching, as Paul also perceived, when he said, But we preach Christ crucified, to the Jews a stumbling-block, and to the Greeks foolishness; but to them who are called, both Jews and Greeks, Christ the power of God, and wisdom of God. 1.28. And since, in imitation of a rhetorician training a pupil, he introduces a Jew, who enters into a personal discussion with Jesus, and speaks in a very childish manner, altogether unworthy of the grey hairs of a philosopher, let me endeavour, to the best of my ability, to examine his statements, and show that he does not maintain, throughout the discussion, the consistency due to the character of a Jew. For he represents him disputing with Jesus, and confuting Him, as he thinks, on many points; and in the first place, he accuses Him of having invented his birth from a virgin, and upbraids Him with being born in a certain Jewish village, of a poor woman of the country, who gained her subsistence by spinning, and who was turned out of doors by her husband, a carpenter by trade, because she was convicted of adultery; that after being driven away by her husband, and wandering about for a time, she disgracefully gave birth to Jesus, an illegitimate child, who having hired himself out as a servant in Egypt on account of his poverty, and having there acquired some miraculous powers, on which the Egyptians greatly pride themselves, returned to his own country, highly elated on account of them, and by means of these proclaimed himself a God. Now, as I cannot allow anything said by unbelievers to remain unexamined, but must investigate everything from the beginning, I give it as my opinion that all these things worthily harmonize with the predictions that Jesus is the Son of God. 1.38. But, moreover, taking the history, contained in the Gospel according to Matthew, of our Lord's descent into Egypt, he refuses to believe the miraculous circumstances attending it, viz., either that the angel gave the divine intimation, or that our Lord's quitting Judea and residing in Egypt was an event of any significance; but he invents something altogether different, admitting somehow the miraculous works done by Jesus, by means of which He induced the multitude to follow Him as the Christ. And yet he desires to throw discredit on them, as being done by help of magic and not by divine power; for he asserts that he (Jesus), having been brought up as an illegitimate child, and having served for hire in Egypt, and then coming to the knowledge of certain miraculous powers, returned from thence to his own country, and by means of those powers proclaimed himself a god. Now I do not understand how a magician should exert himself to teach a doctrine which persuades us always to act as if God were to judge every man for his deeds; and should have trained his disciples, whom he was to employ as the ministers of his doctrine, in the same belief. For did the latter make an impression upon their hearers, after they had been so taught to work miracles; or was it without the aid of these? The assertion, therefore, that they did no miracles at all, but that, after yielding their belief to arguments which were not at all convincing, like the wisdom of Grecian dialectics, they gave themselves up to the task of teaching the new doctrine to those persons among whom they happened to take up their abode, is altogether absurd. For in what did they place their confidence when they taught the doctrine and disseminated the new opinions? But if they indeed wrought miracles, then how can it be believed that magicians exposed themselves to such hazards to introduce a doctrine which forbade the practice of magic? 1.41. But, that we may not have the appearance of intentionally passing by his charges through inability to refute them, we have resolved to answer each one of them separately according to our ability, attending not to the connection and sequence of the nature of the things themselves, but to the arrangement of the subjects as they occur in this book. Let us therefore notice what he has to say by way of impugning the bodily appearance of the Holy Spirit to our Saviour in the form of a dove. And it is a Jew who addresses the following language to Him whom we acknowledge to be our Lord Jesus: When you were bathing, says the Jew, beside John, you say that what had the appearance of a bird from the air alighted upon you. And then this same Jew of his, continuing his interrogations, asks, What credible witness beheld this appearance? Or who heard a voice from heaven declaring you to be the Son of God? What proof is there of it, save your own assertion, and the statement of another of those individuals who have been punished along with you? 1.62. And after such statements, showing his ignorance even of the number of the apostles, he proceeds thus: Jesus having gathered around him ten or eleven persons of notorious character, the very wickedest of tax-gatherers and sailors, fled in company with them from place to place, and obtained his living in a shameful and importunate manner. Let us to the best of our power see what truth there is in such a statement. It is manifest to us all who possess the Gospel narratives, which Celsus does not appear even to have read, that Jesus selected twelve apostles, and that of these Matthew alone was a tax-gatherer; that when he calls them indiscriminately sailors, he probably means James and John, because they left their ship and their father Zebedee, and followed Jesus; for Peter and his brother Andrew, who employed a net to gain their necessary subsistence, must be classed not as sailors, but as the Scripture describes them, as fishermen. The Lebes also, who was a follower of Jesus, may have been a tax-gatherer; but he was not of the number of the apostles, except according to a statement in one of the copies of Mark's Gospel. And we have not ascertained the employments of the remaining disciples, by which they earned their livelihood before becoming disciples of Jesus. I assert, therefore, in answer to such statements as the above, that it is clear to all who are able to institute an intelligent and candid examination into the history of the apostles of Jesus, that it was by help of a divine power that these men taught Christianity, and succeeded in leading others to embrace the word of God. For it was not any power of speaking, or any orderly arrangement of their message, according to the arts of Grecian dialectics or rhetoric, which was in them the effective cause of converting their hearers. Nay, I am of opinion that if Jesus had selected some individuals who were wise according to the apprehension of the multitude, and who were fitted both to think and speak so as to please them, and had used such as the ministers of His doctrine, He would most justly have been suspected of employing artifices, like those philosophers who are the leaders of certain sects, and consequently the promise respecting the divinity of His doctrine would not have manifested itself; for had the doctrine and the preaching consisted in the persuasive utterance and arrangement of words, then faith also, like that of the philosophers of the world in their opinions, would have been through the wisdom of men, and not through the power of God. Now, who is there on seeing fishermen and tax-gatherers, who had not acquired even the merest elements of learning (as the Gospel relates of them, and in respect to which Celsus believes that they speak the truth, inasmuch as it is their own ignorance which they record), discoursing boldly not only among the Jews of faith in Jesus, but also preaching Him with success among other nations, would not inquire whence they derived this power of persuasion, as theirs was certainly not the common method followed by the multitude? And who would not say that the promise, Follow Me, and I will make you fishers of men, had been accomplished by Jesus in the history of His apostles by a sort of divine power? And to this also, Paul, referring in terms of commendation, as we have stated a little above, says: And my speech and my preaching was not with enticing words of man's wisdom, but in demonstration of the Spirit and of power; that your faith should not stand in the wisdom of men, but in the power of God. For, according to the predictions in the prophets, foretelling the preaching of the Gospel, the Lord gave the word in great power to them who preached it, even the King of the powers of the Beloved, in order that the prophecy might be fulfilled which said, His words shall run very swiftly. And we see that the voice of the apostles of Jesus has gone forth into all the earth, and their words to the end of the world. On this account are they who hear the word powerfully proclaimed filled with power, which they manifest both by their dispositions and their lives, and by struggling even to death on behalf of the truth; while some are altogether empty, although they profess to believe in God through Jesus, inasmuch as, not possessing any divine power, they have the appearance only of being converted to the word of God. And although I have previously mentioned a Gospel declaration uttered by the Saviour, I shall nevertheless quote it again, as appropriate to the present occasion, as it confirms both the divine manifestation of our Saviour's foreknowledge regarding the preaching of His Gospel, and the power of His word, which without the aid of teachers gains the mastery over those who yield their assent to persuasion accompanied with divine power; and the words of Jesus referred to are, The harvest is plenteous, but the labourers are few; pray therefore to the Lord of the harvest, that He will send forth labourers into His harvest. 1.67. After the above, this Jew of Celsus, as if he were a Greek who loved learning, and were well instructed in Greek literature, continues: The old mythological fables, which attributed a divine origin to Perseus, and Amphion, and Æacus, and Minos, were not believed by us. Nevertheless, that they might not appear unworthy of credit, they represented the deeds of these personages as great and wonderful, and truly beyond the power of man; but what have you done that is noble or wonderful either in deed or in word? You have made no manifestation to us, although they challenged you in the temple to exhibit some unmistakeable sign that you were the Son of God. In reply to which we have to say: Let the Greeks show to us, among those who have been enumerated, any one whose deeds have been marked by a utility and splendour extending to after generations, and which have been so great as to produce a belief in the fables which represented them as of divine descent. But these Greeks can show us nothing regarding those men of whom they speak, which is even inferior by a great degree to what Jesus did; unless they take us back to their fables and histories, wishing us to believe them without any reasonable grounds, and to discredit the Gospel accounts even after the clearest evidence. For we assert that the whole habitable world contains evidence of the works of Jesus, in the existence of those Churches of God which have been founded through Him by those who have been converted from the practice of innumerable sins. And the name of Jesus can still remove distractions from the minds of men, and expel demons, and also take away diseases; and produce a marvellous meekness of spirit and complete change of character, and a humanity, and goodness, and gentleness in those individuals who do not feign themselves to be Christians for the sake of subsistence or the supply of any mortal wants, but who have honestly accepted the doctrine concerning God and Christ, and the judgment to come. 1.68. But after this, Celsus, having a suspicion that the great works performed by Jesus, of which we have named a few out of a great number, would be brought forward to view, affects to grant that those statements may be true which are made regarding His cures, or His resurrection, or the feeding of a multitude with a few loaves, from which many fragments remained over, or those other stories which Celsus thinks the disciples have recorded as of a marvellous nature; and he adds: Well, let us believe that these were actually wrought by you. But then he immediately compares them to the tricks of jugglers, who profess to do more wonderful things, and to the feats performed by those who have been taught by Egyptians, who in the middle of the market-place, in return for a few obols, will impart the knowledge of their most venerated arts, and will expel demons from men, and dispel diseases, and invoke the souls of heroes, and exhibit expensive banquets, and tables, and dishes, and dainties having no real existence, and who will put in motion, as if alive, what are not really living animals, but which have only the appearance of life. And he asks, Since, then, these persons can perform such feats, shall we of necessity conclude that they are 'sons of God,' or must we admit that they are the proceedings of wicked men under the influence of an evil spirit? You see that by these expressions he allows, as it were, the existence of magic. I do not know, however, if he is the same who wrote several books against it. But, as it helped his purpose, he compares the (miracles) related of Jesus to the results produced by magic. There would indeed be a resemblance between them, if Jesus, like the dealers in magical arts, had performed His works only for show; but now there is not a single juggler who, by means of his proceedings, invites his spectators to reform their manners, or trains those to the fear of God who are amazed at what they see, nor who tries to persuade them so to live as men who are to be justified by God. And jugglers do none of these things, because they have neither the power nor the will, nor any desire to busy themselves about the reformation of men, inasmuch as their own lives are full of the grossest and most notorious sins. But how should not He who, by the miracles which He did, induced those who beheld the excellent results to undertake the reformation of their characters, manifest Himself not only to His genuine disciples, but also to others, as a pattern of most virtuous life, in order that His disciples might devote themselves to the work of instructing men in the will of God, and that the others, after being more fully instructed by His word and character than by His miracles, as to how they were to direct their lives, might in all their conduct have a constant reference to the good pleasure of the universal God? And if such were the life of Jesus, how could any one with reason compare Him with the sect of impostors, and not, on the contrary, believe, according to the promise, that He was God, who appeared in human form to do good to our race? 2.55. The Jew continues his address to those of his countrymen who are converts, as follows: Come now, let us grant to you that the prediction was actually uttered. Yet how many others are there who practise such juggling tricks, in order to deceive their simple hearers, and who make gain by their deception?- as was the case, they say, with Zamolxis in Scythia, the slave of Pythagoras; and with Pythagoras himself in Italy; and with Rhampsinitus in Egypt (the latter of whom, they say, played at dice with Demeter in Hades, and returned to the upper world with a golden napkin which he had received from her as a gift); and also with Orpheus among the Odrysians, and Protesilaus in Thessaly, and Hercules at Cape T narus, and Theseus. But the question is, whether any one who was really dead ever rose with a veritable body. Or do you imagine the statements of others not only to be myths, but to have the appearance of such, while you have discovered a becoming and credible termination to your drama in the voice from the cross, when he breathed his last, and in the earthquake and the darkness? That while alive he was of no assistance to himself, but that when dead he rose again, and showed the marks of his punishment, and how his hands were pierced with nails: who beheld this? A half-frantic woman, as you state, and some other one, perhaps, of those who were engaged in the same system of delusion, who had either dreamed so, owing to a peculiar state of mind, or under the influence of a wandering imagination had formed to himself an appearance according to his own wishes, which has been the case with numberless individuals; or, which is most probable, one who desired to impress others with this portent, and by such a falsehood to furnish an occasion to impostors like himself. Now, since it is a Jew who makes these statements, we shall conduct the defense of our Jesus as if we were replying to a Jew, still continuing the comparison derived from the accounts regarding Moses, and saying to him: How many others are there who practise similar juggling tricks to those of Moses, in order to deceive their silly hearers, and who make gain by their deception? Now this objection would be more appropriate in the mouth of one who did not believe in Moses (as we might quote the instances of Zamolxis and Pythagoras, who were engaged in such juggling tricks) than in that of a Jew, who is not very learned in the histories of the Greeks. An Egyptian, moreover, who did not believe the miracles of Moses, might credibly adduce the instance of Rhampsinitus, saying that it was far more credible that he had descended to Hades, and had played at dice with Demeter, and that after stealing from her a golden napkin he exhibited it as a sign of his having been in Hades, and of his having returned thence, than that Moses should have recorded that he entered into the darkness, where God was, and that he alone, above all others, drew near to God. For the following is his statement: Moses alone shall come near the Lord; but the rest shall not come near. We, then, who are the disciples of Jesus, say to the Jew who urges these objections: While assailing our belief in Jesus, defend yourself, and answer the Egyptian and the Greek objectors: what will you say to those charges which you brought against our Jesus, but which also might be brought against Moses first? And if you should make a vigorous effort to defend Moses, as indeed his history does admit of a clear and powerful defense, you will unconsciously, in your support of Moses, be an unwilling assistant in establishing the greater divinity of Jesus. 3.5. Immediately after these points, Celsus, imagining that the Jews are Egyptians by descent, and had abandoned Egypt, after revolting against the Egyptian state, and despising the customs of that people in matters of worship, says that they suffered from the adherents of Jesus, who believed in Him as the Christ, the same treatment which they had inflicted upon the Egyptians; and that the cause which led to the new state of things in either instance was rebellion against the state. Now let us observe what Celsus has here done. The ancient Egyptians, after inflicting many cruelties upon the Hebrew race, who had settled in Egypt owing to a famine which had broken out in Judea, suffered, in consequence of their injustice to strangers and suppliants, that punishment which divine Providence had decreed was to fall on the whole nation for having combined against an entire people, who had been their guests, and who had done them no harm; and after being smitten by plagues from God, they allowed them, with difficulty, and after a brief period, to go wherever they liked, as being unjustly detained in slavery. Because, then, they were a selfish people, who honoured those who were in any degree related to them far more than they did strangers of better lives, there is not an accusation which they have omitted to bring against Moses and the Hebrews, - not altogether denying, indeed, the miracles and wonders done by him, but alleging that they were wrought by sorcery, and not by divine power. Moses, however, not as a magician, but as a devout man, and one devoted to the God of all things, and a partaker in the divine Spirit, both enacted laws for the Hebrews, according to the suggestions of the Divinity, and recorded events as they happened with perfect fidelity. 3.7. In like manner, as the statement is false that the Hebrews, being (originally) Egyptians, dated the commencement (of their political existence) from the time of their rebellion, so also is this, that in the days of Jesus others who were Jews rebelled against the Jewish state, and became His followers; for neither Celsus nor they who think with him are able to point out any act on the part of Christians which savours of rebellion. And yet, if a revolt had led to the formation of the Christian commonwealth, so that it derived its existence in this way from that of the Jews, who were permitted to take up arms in defense of the members of their families, and to slay their enemies, the Christian Lawgiver would not have altogether forbidden the putting of men to death; and yet He nowhere teaches that it is right for His own disciples to offer violence to any one, however wicked. For He did not deem it in keeping with such laws as His, which were derived from a divine source, to allow the killing of any individual whatever. Nor would the Christians, had they owed their origin to a rebellion, have adopted laws of so exceedingly mild a character as not to allow them, when it was their fate to be slain as sheep, on any occasion to resist their persecutors. And truly, if we look a little deeper into things, we may say regarding the exodus from Egypt, that it is a miracle if a whole nation at once adopted the language called Hebrew, as if it had been a gift from heaven, when one of their own prophets said, As they went forth from Egypt, they heard a language which they did not understand. 3.8. In the following way, also, we may conclude that they who came out of Egypt with Moses were not Egyptians; for if they had been Egyptians, their names also would be Egyptian, because in every language the designations (of persons and things) are kindred to the language. But if it is certain, from the names being Hebrew, that the people were not Egyptians, - and the Scriptures are full of Hebrew names, and these bestowed, too, upon their children while they were in Egypt - it is clear that the Egyptian account is false, which asserts that they were Egyptians, and went forth from Egypt with Moses. Now it is absolutely certain that, being descended, as the Mosaic history records, from Hebrew ancestors, they employed a language from which they also took the names which they conferred upon their children. But with regard to the Christians, because they were taught not to avenge themselves upon their enemies (and have thus observed laws of a mild and philanthropic character); and because they would not, although able, have made war even if they had received authority to do so - they have obtained this reward from God, that He has always warred in their behalf, and on certain occasions has restrained those who rose up against them and desired to destroy them. For in order to remind others, that by seeing a few engaged in a struggle for their religion, they also might be better fitted to despise death, some, on special occasions, and these individuals who can be easily numbered, have endured death for the sake of Christianity - God not permitting the whole nation to be exterminated, but desiring that it should continue, and that the whole world should be filled with this salutary and religious doctrine. And again, on the other hand, that those who were of weaker minds might recover their courage and rise superior to the thought of death, God interposed His providence on behalf of believers, dispersing by an act of His will alone all the conspiracies formed against them; so that neither kings, nor rulers, nor the populace, might be able to rage against them beyond a certain point. Such, then, is our answer to the assertions of Celsus, that a revolt was the original commencement of the ancient Jewish state, and subsequently of Christianity. 3.14. After this he continues: Their union is the more wonderful, the more it can be shown to be based on no substantial reason. And yet rebellion is a substantial reason, as well as the advantages which accrue from it, and the fear of external enemies. Such are the causes which give stability to their faith. To this we answer, that our union does thus rest upon a reason, or rather not upon a reason, but upon the divine working, so that its commencement was God's teaching men, in the prophetical writings, to expect the advent of Christ, who was to be the Saviour of mankind. For in so far as this point is not really refuted (although it may seem to be by unbelievers), in the same proportion is the doctrine commended as the doctrine of God, and Jesus shown to be the Son of God both before and after His incarnation. I maintain, moreover, that even after His incarnation, He is always found by those who possess the acutest spiritual vision to be most God-like, and to have really come down to us from God, and to have derived His origin or subsequent development not from human wisdom, but from the manifestation of God within Him, who by His manifold wisdom and miracles established Judaism first, and Christianity afterwards; and the assertion that rebellion, and the advantages attending it, were the originating causes of a doctrine which has converted and improved so many men was effectually refuted. 3.39. We must notice the remarks which Celsus next makes, when he says to us, that faith, having taken possession of our minds, makes us yield the assent which we give to the doctrine of Jesus; for of a truth it is faith which does produce such an assent. Observe, however, whether that faith does not of itself exhibit what is worthy of praise, seeing we entrust ourselves to the God who is over all, acknowledging our gratitude to Him who has led us to such a faith, and declaring that He could not have attempted or accomplished such a result without the divine assistance. And we have confidence also in the intentions of the writers of the Gospels, observing their piety and conscientiousness, manifested in their writings, which contain nothing that is spurious, or deceptive, or false, or cunning; for it is evident to us that souls unacquainted with those artifices which are taught by the cunning sophistry of the Greeks (which is characterized by great plausibility and acuteness), and by the kind of rhetoric in vogue in the courts of justice, would not have been able thus to invent occurrences which are fitted of themselves to conduct to faith, and to a life in keeping with faith. And I am of opinion that it was on this account that Jesus wished to employ such persons as teachers of His doctrines, viz., that there might be no ground for any suspicion of plausible sophistry, but that it might clearly appear to all who were capable of understanding, that the guileless purpose of the writers being, so to speak, marked with great simplicity, was deemed worthy of being accompanied by a diviner power, which accomplished far more than it seemed possible could be accomplished by a periphrasis of words, and a weaving of sentences, accompanied by all the distinctions of Grecian art. 3.44. After these points Celsus quotes some objections against the doctrine of Jesus, made by a very few individuals who are considered Christians, not of the more intelligent, as he supposes, but of the more ignorant class, and asserts that the following are the rules laid down by them. Let no one come to us who has been instructed, or who is wise or prudent (for such qualifications are deemed evil by us); but if there be any ignorant, or unintelligent, or uninstructed, or foolish persons, let them come with confidence. By which words, acknowledging that such individuals are worthy of their God, they manifestly show that they desire and are able to gain over only the silly, and the mean, and the stupid, with women and children. In reply to which, we say that, as if, while Jesus teaches continence, and says, Whosoever looks upon a woman to lust after her, has already committed adultery with her in his heart, one were to behold a few of those who are deemed to be Christians living licentiously, he would most justly blame them for living contrary to the teaching of Jesus, but would act most unreasonably if he were to charge the Gospel with their censurable conduct; so, if he found nevertheless that the doctrine of the Christians invites men to wisdom, the blame then must remain with those who rest in their own ignorance, and who utter, not what Celsus relates (for although some of them are simple and ignorant, they do not speak so shamelessly as he alleges), but other things of much less serious import, which, however, serve to turn aside men from the practice of wisdom. 3.45. But that the object of Christianity is that we should become wise, can be proved not only from the ancient Jewish writings, which we also use, but especially from those which were composed after the time of Jesus, and which are believed among the Churches to be divine. Now, in the fiftieth Psalm, David is described as saying in his prayer to God these words: The unseen and secret things of Your wisdom You have manifested to me. Solomon, too, because he asked for wisdom, received it; and if any one were to peruse the Psalms, he would find the book filled with many maxims of wisdom: and the evidences of his wisdom may be seen in his treatises, which contain a great amount of wisdom expressed in few words, and in which you will find many laudations of wisdom, and encouragements towards obtaining it. So wise, moreover, was Solomon, that the queen of Sheba, having heard his name, and the name of the Lord, came to try him with difficult questions, and spoke to him all things, whatsoever were in her heart; and Solomon answered her all her questions. There was no question omitted by the king which he did not answer her. And the queen of Sheba saw all the wisdom of Solomon, and the possessions which he had and there was no more spirit in her. And she said to the king, The report is true which I heard in my own land regarding you and your wisdom; and I believed not them who told me, until I had come, and my eyes have seen it. And, lo, they did not tell me the half. You have added wisdom and possessions above all the report which I heard. It is recorded also of him, that God gave Solomon wisdom and understanding exceeding much, and largeness of heart, even as the sand that is on the seashore. And the wisdom that was in Solomon greatly excelled the wisdom of all the ancients, and of all the wise men of Egypt; and he was wiser than all men, even than Gethan the Ezrahite, and Emad, and Chalcadi, and Aradab, the sons of Madi. And he was famous among all the nations round about. And Solomon spoke three thousand proverbs, and his songs were five thousand. And he spoke of trees, from the cedar that is in Lebanon even to the hyssop which springs out of the wall; and also of fishes and of beasts. And all nations came to hear the wisdom of Solomon, and from all the kings of the earth who had heard of the fame of his wisdom. And to such a degree does the Gospel desire that there should be wise men among believers, that for the sake of exercising the understanding of its hearers, it has spoken certain truths in enigmas, others in what are called dark sayings, others in parables, and others in problems. And one of the prophets- Hosea - says at the end of his prophecies: Who is wise, and he will understand these things? Or prudent, and he shall know them? Daniel, moreover, and his fellow-captives, made such progress in the learning which the wise men around the king in Babylon cultivated, that they were shown to excel all of them in a tenfold degree. And in the book of Ezekiel it is said to the ruler of Tyre, who greatly prided himself on his wisdom, Are you wiser than Daniel? Every secret was not revealed to you. 3.46. And if you come to the books written after the time of Jesus, you will find that those multitudes of believers who hear the parables are, as it were, without, and worthy only of exoteric doctrines, while the disciples learn in private the explanation of the parables. For, privately, to His own disciples did Jesus open up all things, esteeming above the multitudes those who desired to know His wisdom. And He promises to those who believe upon Him to send them wise men and scribes, saying, Behold, I will send unto you wise men and scribes, and some of them they shall kill and crucify. And Paul also, in the catalogue of charismata bestowed by God, placed first the word of wisdom, and second, as being inferior to it, the word of knowledge, but third, and lower down, faith. And because he regarded the word as higher than miraculous powers, he for that reason places workings of miracles and gifts of healings in a lower place than the gifts of the word. And in the Acts of the Apostles Stephen bears witness to the great learning of Moses, which he had obtained wholly from ancient writings not accessible to the multitude. For he says: And Moses was learned in all the wisdom of the Egyptians. And therefore, with respect to his miracles, it was suspected that he wrought them perhaps, not in virtue of his professing to come from God, but by means of his Egyptian knowledge, in which he was well versed. For the king, entertaining such a suspicion, summoned the Egyptian magicians, and wise men, and enchanters, who were found to be of no avail as against the wisdom of Moses, which proved superior to all the wisdom of the Egyptians. 3.47. But it is probable that what is written by Paul in the first Epistle to the Corinthians, as being addressed to Greeks who prided themselves greatly on their Grecian wisdom, has moved some to believe that it was not the object of the Gospel to win wise men. Now, let him who is of this opinion understand that the Gospel, as censuring wicked men, says of them that they are wise not in things which relate to the understanding, and which are unseen and eternal; but that in busying themselves about things of sense alone, and regarding these as all-important, they are wise men of the world: for as there are in existence a multitude of opinions, some of them espousing the cause of matter and bodies, and asserting that everything is corporeal which has a substantial existence, and that besides these nothing else exists, whether it be called invisible or incorporeal, it says also that these constitute the wisdom of the world, which perishes and fades away, and belongs only to this age, while those opinions which raise the soul from things here to the blessedness which is with God, and to His kingdom, and which teach men to despise all sensible and visible things as existing only for a season, and to hasten on to things invisible, and to have regard to those things which are not seen - these, it says, constitute the wisdom of God. But Paul, as a lover of truth, says of certain wise men among the Greeks, when their statements are true, that although they knew God, they glorified Him not as God, neither were thankful. And he bears witness that they knew God, and says, too, that this did not happen to them without divine permission, in these words: For God showed it unto them; dimly alluding, I think, to those who ascend from things of sense to those of the understanding, when he adds, For the invisible things of God from the creation of the world are clearly seen, being understood by the things that are made, even His eternal power and Godhead; so that they are without excuse: because that, when they knew God, they glorified Him not as God, neither were thankful. 3.49. This statement also is untrue, that it is only foolish and low individuals, and persons devoid of perception, and slaves, and women, and children, of whom the teachers of the divine word wish to make converts. Such indeed does the Gospel invite, in order to make them better; but it invites also others who are very different from these, since Christ is the Saviour of all men, and especially of them that believe, whether they be intelligent or simple; and He is the propitiation with the Father for our sins; and not for ours only, but also for the sins of the whole world. After this it is superfluous for us to wish to offer a reply to such statements of Celsus as the following: For why is it an evil to have been educated, and to have studied the best opinions, and to have both the reality and appearance of wisdom? What hindrance does this offer to the knowledge of God? Why should it not rather be an assistance, and a means by which one might be better able to arrive at the truth? Truly it is no evil to have been educated, for education is the way to virtue; but to rank those among the number of the educated who hold erroneous opinions is what even the wise men among the Greeks would not do. On the other hand, who would not admit that to have studied the best opinions is a blessing? But what shall we call the best, save those which are true, and which incite men to virtue? Moreover, it is an excellent thing for a man to be wise, but not to seem so, as Celsus says. And it is no hindrance to the knowledge of God, but an assistance, to have been educated, and to have studied the best opinions, and to be wise. And it becomes us rather than Celsus to say this, especially if it be shown that he is an Epicurean. 3.50. But let us see what those statements of his are which follow next in these words: Nay, we see, indeed, that even those individuals, who in the market-places perform the most disgraceful tricks, and who gather crowds around them, would never approach an assembly of wise men, nor dare to exhibit their arts among them; but wherever they see young men, and a mob of slaves, and a gathering of unintelligent persons, there they thrust themselves in, and show themselves off. Observe, now, how he slanders us in these words, comparing us to those who in the market-places perform the most disreputable tricks, and gather crowds around them! What disreputable tricks, pray, do we perform? Or what is there in our conduct that resembles theirs, seeing that by means of readings, and explanations of the things read, we lead men to the worship of the God of the universe, and to the cognate virtues, and turn them away from contemning Deity, and from all things contrary to right reason? Philosophers verily would wish to collect together such hearers of their discourses as exhort men to virtue - a practice which certain of the Cynics especially have followed, who converse publicly with those whom they happen to meet. Will they maintain, then, that these who do not gather together persons who are considered to have been educated, but who invite and assemble hearers from the public street, resemble those who in the market-places perform the most disreputable tricks, and gather crowds around them? Neither Celsus, however, nor any one who holds the same opinions, will blame those who, agreeably to what they regard as a feeling of philanthropy, address their arguments to the ignorant populace. 3.51. And if they are not to be blamed for so doing, let us see whether Christians do not exhort multitudes to the practice of virtue in a greater and better degree than they. For the philosophers who converse in public do not pick and choose their hearers, but he who likes stands and listens. The Christians, however, having previously, so far as possible, tested the souls of those who wish to become their hearers, and having previously instructed them in private, when they appear (before entering the community) to have sufficiently evinced their desire towards a virtuous life, introduce them then, and not before, privately forming one class of those who are beginners, and are receiving admission, but who have not yet obtained the mark of complete purification; and another of those who have manifested to the best of their ability their intention to desire no other things than are approved by Christians; and among these there are certain persons appointed to make inquiries regarding the lives and behaviour of those who join them, in order that they may prevent those who commit acts of infamy from coming into their public assembly, while those of a different character they receive with their whole heart, in order that they may daily make them better. And this is their method of procedure, both with those who are sinners, and especially with those who lead dissolute lives, whom they exclude from their community, although, according to Celsus, they resemble those who in the market-places perform the most shameful tricks. Now the venerable school of the Pythagoreans used to erect a cenotaph to those who had apostatized from their system of philosophy, treating them as dead; but the Christians lament as dead those who have been vanquished by licentiousness or any other sin, because they are lost and dead to God, and as being risen from the dead (if they manifest a becoming change) they receive them afterwards, at some future time, after a greater interval than in the case of those who were admitted at first, but not placing in any office or post of rank in the Church of God those who, after professing the Gospel, lapsed and fell. 3.52. Observe now with regard to the following statement of Celsus, We see also those persons who in the market-places perform most disreputable tricks, and collect crowds around them, whether a manifest falsehood has not been uttered, and things compared which have no resemblance. He says that these individuals, to whom he compares us, who perform the most disreputable tricks in the market-places and collect crowds, would never approach an assembly of wise men, nor dare to show off their tricks before them; but wherever they see young men, and a mob of slaves, and a gathering of foolish people, there do they thrust themselves in and make a display. Now, in speaking thus he does nothing else than simply load us with abuse, like the women upon the public streets, whose object is to slander one another; for we do everything in our power to secure that our meetings should be composed of wise men, and those things among us which are especially excellent and divine we then venture to bring forward publicly in our discussions when we have an abundance of intelligent hearers, while we conceal and pass by in silence the truths of deeper import when we see that our audience is composed of simpler minds, which need such instruction as is figuratively termed milk. 3.54. We acknowledge, however, although Celsus will not have it so, that we do desire to instruct all men in the word of God, so as to give to young men the exhortations which are appropriate to them, and to show to slaves how they may recover freedom of thought, and be ennobled by the word. And those among us who are the ambassadors of Christianity sufficiently declare that they are debtors to Greeks and Barbarians, to wise men and fools, (for they do not deny their obligation to cure the souls even of foolish persons,) in order that as far as possible they may lay aside their ignorance, and endeavour to obtain greater prudence, by listening also to the words of Solomon: Oh, you fools, be of an understanding heart, and Who is the most simple among you, let him turn unto me; and wisdom exhorts those who are devoid of understanding in the words, Come, eat of my bread, and drink of the wine which I have mixed for you. Forsake folly that you may live, and correct understanding in knowledge. This too would I say (seeing it bears on the point), in answer to the statement of Celsus: Do not philosophers invite young men to their lectures? And do they not encourage young men to exchange a wicked life for a better? And do they not desire slaves to learn philosophy? Must we find fault, then, with philosophers who have exhorted slaves to the practice of virtue? With Pythagoras for having so done with Zamolxis, Zeno with Perseus, and with those who recently encouraged Epictetus to the study of philosophy? Is it indeed permissible for you, O Greeks, to call youths and slaves and foolish persons to the study of philosophy, but if we do so, we do not act from philanthropic motives in wishing to heal every rational nature with the medicine of reason, and to bring them into fellowship with God, the Creator of all things? These remarks, then, may suffice in answer to what are slanders rather than accusations on the part of Celsus. 3.65. He imagines, however, that we utter these exhortations for the conversion of sinners, because we are able to gain over no one who is really good and righteous, and therefore open our gates to the most unholy and abandoned of men. But if any one will fairly observe our assemblies we can present a greater number of those who have been converted from not a very wicked life, than of those who have committed the most abominable sins. For naturally those who are conscious to themselves of better things, desire that those promises may be true which are declared by God regarding the reward of the righteous, and thus assent more readily to the statements (of Scripture) than those do who have led very wicked lives, and who are prevented by their very consciousness (of evil) from admitting that they will be punished by the Judge of all with such punishment as befits those who have sinned so greatly, and as would not be inflicted by the Judge of all contrary to right reason. Sometimes, also, when very abandoned men are willing to accept the doctrine of (future) punishment, on account of the hope which is based upon repentance, they are prevented from so doing by their habit of sinning, being constantly dipped, and, as it were, dyed in wickedness, and possessing no longer the power to turn from it easily to a proper life, and one regulated according to right reason. And although Celsus observes this, he nevertheless, I know not why, expresses himself in the following terms: And yet, indeed, it is manifest to every one that no one by chastisement, much less by merciful treatment, could effect a complete change in those who are sinners both by nature and custom, for to change nature is an exceedingly difficult thing. But they who are without sin are partakers of a better life. 4.11. After this, being desirous to show that it is nothing either wonderful or new which we state regarding floods or conflagrations, but that, from misunderstanding the accounts of these things which are current among Greeks or barbarous nations, we have accorded our belief to our own Scriptures when treating of them, he writes as follows: The belief has spread among them, from a misunderstanding of the accounts of these occurrences, that after lengthened cycles of time, and the returns and conjunctions of planets, conflagrations and floods are wont to happen, and because after the last flood, which took place in the time of Deucalion, the lapse of time, agreeably to the vicissitude of all things, requires a conflagration and this made them give utterance to the erroneous opinion that God will descend, bringing fire like a torturer. Now in answer to this we say, that I do not understand how Celsus, who has read a great deal, and who shows that he has perused many histories, had not his attention arrested by the antiquity of Moses, who is related by certain Greek historians to have lived about the time of Inachus the son of Phoroneus, and is acknowledged by the Egyptians to be a man of great antiquity, as well as by those who have studied the history of the Phœnicians. And any one who likes may peruse the two books of Flavius Josephus on the antiquities of the Jews, in order that he may see in what way Moses was more ancient than those who asserted that floods and conflagrations take place in the world after long intervals of time; which statement Celsus alleges the Jews and Christians to have misunderstood, and, not comprehending what was said about a conflagration, to have declared that God will descend, bringing fire like a torturer. 5.25. Let us next notice the statements of Celsus, which follow the preceding, and which are as follow: As the Jews, then, became a peculiar people, and enacted laws in keeping with the customs of their country, and maintain them up to the present time, and observe a mode of worship which, whatever be its nature, is yet derived from their fathers, they act in these respects like other men, because each nation retains its ancestral customs, whatever they are, if they happen to be established among them. And such an arrangement appears to be advantageous, not only because it has occurred to the mind of other nations to decide some things differently, but also because it is a duty to protect what has been established for the public advantage; and also because, in all probability, the various quarters of the earth were from the beginning allotted to different superintending spirits, and were thus distributed among certain governing powers, and in this manner the administration of the world is carried on. And whatever is done among each nation in this way would be rightly done, wherever it was agreeable to the wishes (of the superintending powers), while it would be an act of impiety to get rid of the institutions established from the beginning in the various places. By these words Celsus shows that the Jews, who were formerly Egyptians, subsequently became a peculiar people, and enacted laws which they carefully preserve. And not to repeat his statements, which have been already before us, he says that it is advantageous to the Jews to observe their ancestral worship, as other nations carefully attend to theirs. And he further states a deeper reason why it is of advantage to the Jews to cultivate their ancestral customs, in hinting dimly that those to whom was allotted the office of superintending the country which was being legislated for, enacted the laws of each land in co-operation with its legislators. He appears, then, to indicate that both the country of the Jews, and the nation which inhabits it, are superintended by one or more beings, who, whether they were one or more, co-operated with Moses, and enacted the laws of the Jews. 5.46. It was for these and similar mysterious reasons, with which Moses and the prophets were acquainted, that they forbade the name of other gods to be pronounced by him who bethought himself of praying to the one Supreme God alone, or to be remembered by a heart which had been taught to be pure from all foolish thoughts and words. And for these reasons we should prefer to endure all manner of suffering rather than acknowledge Jupiter to be God. For we do not consider Jupiter and Sabaoth to be the same, nor Jupiter to be at all divine, but that some demon, unfriendly to men and to the true God, rejoices under this title. And although the Egyptians were to hold Ammon before us under threat of death, we would rather die than address him as God, it being a name used in all probability in certain Egyptian incantations in which this demon is invoked. And although the Scythians may call Papp us the supreme God, yet we will not yield our assent to this; granting, indeed, that there is a Supreme Deity, although we do not give the name Papp us to Him as His proper title, but regard it as one which is agreeable to the demon to whom was allotted the desert of Scythia, with its people and its language. He, however, who gives God His title in the Scythian tongue, or in the Egyptian or in any language in which he has been brought up, will not be guilty of sin. 6.10. He next continues: You see how Plato, although maintaining that (the chief good) cannot be described in words, yet, to avoid the appearance of retreating to an irrefutable position, subjoins a reason in explanation of this difficulty, as even 'nothing' might perhaps be explained in words. But as Celsus adduces this to prove that we ought not to yield a simple assent, but to furnish a reason for our belief, we shall quote also the words of Paul, where he says, in censuring the hasty believer, unless you have believed inconsiderately. Now, through his practice of repeating himself, Celsus, so far as he can, forces us to be guilty of tautology, reiterating, after the boastful language which has been quoted, that Plato is not guilty of boasting and falsehood, giving out that he has made some new discovery, or that he has come down from heaven to announce it, but acknowledges whence these statements are derived. Now, if one wished to reply to Celsus, one might say in answer to such assertions, that even Plato is guilty of boasting, when in the Tim us he puts the following language in the month of Zeus: Gods of gods, whose creator and father I am, and so on. And if any one will defend such language on account of the meaning which is conveyed under the name of Zeus, thus speaking in the dialogue of Plato, why should not he who investigates the meaning of the words of the Son of God, or those of the Creator in the prophets, express a profounder meaning than any conveyed by the words of Zeus in the Tim us? For the characteristic of divinity is the announcement of future events, predicted not by human power, but shown by the result to be due to a divine spirit in him who made the announcement. Accordingly, we do not say to each of our hearers, Believe, first of all, that He whom I introduce to you is the Son of God; but we put the Gospel before each one, as his character and disposition may fit him to receive it, inasmuch as we have learned to know how we ought to answer every man. And there are some who are capable of receiving nothing more than an exhortation to believe, and to these we address that alone; while we approach others, again, as far as possible, in the way of demonstration, by means of question and answer. Nor do we at all say, as Celsus scoffingly alleges, Believe that he whom I introduce to you is the Son of God, although he was shamefully bound, and disgracefully punished, and very recently was most contumeliously treated before the eyes of all men; neither do we add, Believe it even the more (on that account). For it is our endeavour to state, on each individual point, arguments more numerous even than we have brought forward in the preceding pages. 6.12. Accordingly, let us pass on to another charge made by Celsus, who is not even acquainted with the words (of our sacred books), but who, from misunderstanding them, has said that we declare the wisdom that is among men to be foolishness with God; Paul having said that the wisdom of the world is foolishness with God. Celsus says that the reason of this has been stated long ago. And the reason he imagines to be, our desire to win over by means of this saying the ignorant and foolish alone. But, as he himself has intimated, he has said the same thing before; and we, to the best of our ability, replied to it. Notwithstanding this, however, he wished to show that this statement was an invention of ours, and borrowed from the Grecian sages, who declare that human wisdom is of one kind, and divine of another. And he quotes the words of Heraclitus, where he says in one passage, that man's method of action is not regulated by fixed principles, but that of God is; and in another, that a foolish man listens to a demon, as a boy does to a man. He quotes, moreover, the following from the Apology of Socrates, of which Plato was the author: For I, O men of Athens, have obtained this name by no other means than by my wisdom. And of what sort is this wisdom? Such, probably, as is human; for in that respect I venture to think that I am in reality wise. Such are the passages adduced by Celsus. But I shall subjoin also the following from Plato's letter to Hermeas, and Erastus, and Coriscus: To Erastus and Coriscus I say, although I am an old man, that, in addition to this noble knowledge of 'forms' (which they possess), they need a wisdom, with regard to the class of wicked and unjust persons, which may serve as a protective and repelling force against them. For they are inexperienced, in consequence of having passed a large portion of their lives with us, who are moderate individuals, and not wicked. I have accordingly said that they need these things, in order that they may not be compelled to neglect the true wisdom, and to apply themselves in a greater degree than is proper to that which is necessary and human. 7.39. Now let us hear what it is that he invites us to learn, that we may ascertain from him how we are to know God, although he thinks that his words are beyond the capacity of all Christians. Let them hear, says he, if they are able to do so. We have then to consider what the philosopher wishes us to hear from him. But instead of instructing us as he ought, he abuses us; and while he should have shown his goodwill to those whom he addresses at the outset of his discourse, he stigmatizes as a cowardly race men who would rather die than abjure Christianity even by a word, and who are ready to suffer every form of torture, or any kind of death. He also applies to us that epithet carnal or flesh-indulging, although, as we are wont to say, we have known Christ after the flesh, yet now henceforth we know Him no more, and although we are so ready to lay down our lives for the cause of religion, that no philosopher could lay aside his robes more readily. He then addresses to us these words: If, instead of exercising your senses, you look upwards with the soul; if, turning away the eye of the body, you open the eye of the mind, thus and thus only you will be able to see God. He is not aware that this reference to the two eyes, the eye of the body and the eye of the mind, which he has borrowed from the Greeks, was in use among our own writers; for Moses, in his account of the creation of the world, introduces man before his transgression as both seeing and not seeing: seeing, when it is said of the woman, The woman saw that the tree was good for food, and that it was pleasant to the eyes, and a tree to be desired to make one wise; and again not seeing, as when he introduces the serpent saying to the woman, as if she and her husband had been blind, God knows that on the day that you eat thereof your eyes shall be opened; and also when it is said, They ate, and the eyes of both of them were opened. The eyes of sense were then opened, which they had done well to keep shut, that they might not be distracted, and hindered from seeing with the eyes of the mind; and it was those eyes of the mind which in consequence of sin, as I imagine, were then closed, with which they had up to that time enjoyed the delight of beholding God and His paradise. This twofold kind of vision in us was familiar to our Saviour, who says, For judgment I have come into this world, that they which see not, might see, and that they which see might be made blind, - meaning, by the eyes that see not, the eyes of the mind, which are enlightened by His teaching; and the eyes which see are the eyes of sense, which His words do render blind, in order that the soul may look without distraction upon proper objects. All true Christians therefore have the eye of the mind sharpened, and the eye of sense closed; so that each one, according to the degree in which his better eye is quickened, and the eye of sense darkened, sees and knows the Supreme God, and His Son, who is the Word, Wisdom, and so forth. 7.53. After these remarks of Celsus, which we have done our best to refute, he goes on to address us thus: Seeing you are so eager for some novelty, how much better it would have been if you had chosen as the object of your zealous homage some one of those who died a glorious death, and whose divinity might have received the support of some myth to perpetuate his memory! Why, if you were not satisfied with Hercules or Æsculapius, and other heroes of antiquity, you had Orpheus, who was confessedly a divinely inspired man, who died a violent death. But perhaps some others have taken him up before you. You may then take Anaxarchus, who, when cast into a mortar, and beaten most barbarously, showed a noble contempt for his suffering, and said, 'Beat, beat the shell of Anaxarchus, for himself you do not beat,'- a speech surely of a spirit truly divine. But others were before you in following his interpretation of the laws of nature. Might you not, then, take Epictetus, who, when his master was twisting his leg, said, smiling and. unmoved, 'You will break my leg;' and when it was broken, he added, 'Did I not tell you that you would break it?' What saying equal to these did your god utter under suffering? If you had said even of the Sibyl, whose authority some of you acknowledge, that she was a child of God, you would have said something more reasonable. But you have had the presumption to include in her writings many impious things, and set up as a god one who ended a most infamous life by a most miserable death. How much more suitable than he would have been Jonah in the whale's belly, or Daniel delivered from the wild beasts, or any of a still more portentous kind! 7.62. Let us now see what follows. Let us pass on, says he, to another point. They cannot tolerate temples, altars, or images. In this they are like the Scythians, the nomadic tribes of Libya, the Seres who worship no god, and some other of the most barbarous and impious nations in the world. That the Persians hold the same notions is shown by Herodotus in these words: 'I know that among the Persians it is considered unlawful to erect images, altars, or temples; but they charge those with folly who do so, because, as I conjecture, they do not, like the Greeks, suppose the gods to be of the nature of men.' Heraclitus also says in one place: 'Persons who address prayers to these images act like those who speak to the walls, without knowing who the gods or the heroes are.' And what wiser lesson have they to teach us than Heraclitus? He certainly plainly enough implies that it is a foolish thing for a man to offer prayers to images, while he knows not who the gods and heroes are. This is the opinion of Heraclitus; but as for them, they go further, and despise without exception all images. If they merely mean that the stone, wood, brass, or gold which has been wrought by this or that workman cannot be a god, they are ridiculous with their wisdom. For who, unless he be utterly childish in his simplicity, can take these for gods, and not for offerings consecrated to the service of the gods, or images representing them? But if we are not to regard these as representing the Divine Being, seeing that God has a different form, as the Persians concur with them in saying, then let them take care that they do not contradict themselves; for they say that God made man His own image, and that He gave him a form like to Himself. However, they will admit that these images, whether they are like or not, are made and dedicated to the honour of certain beings. But they will hold that the beings to whom they are dedicated are not gods, but demons, and that a worshipper of God ought not to worship demons. 7.68. After all that we have already said concerning Jesus, it would be a useless repetition for us to answer these words of Celsus: It is easy to convict them of worshipping not a god, not even demons, but a dead person. Leaving, then, this objection for the reason assigned, let us pass on to what follows: In the first place, I would ask why we are not to serve demons? Is it not true that all things are ordered according to God's will, and that His providence governs all things? Is not everything which happens in the universe, whether it be the work of God, of angels, of other demons, or of heroes, regulated by the law of the Most High God? Have these not had assigned them various departments of which they were severally deemed worthy? Is it not just, therefore, that he who worships God should serve those also to whom God has assigned such power? Yet it is impossible, he says, for a man to serve many masters. Observe here again how he settles at once a number of questions which require considerable research, and a profound acquaintance with what is most mysterious in the government of the universe. For we must inquire into the meaning of the statement, that all things are ordered according to God's will, and ascertain whether sins are or are not included among the things which God orders. For if God's government extends to sins not only in men, but also in demons and in any other spiritual beings who are capable of sin, it is for those who speak in this manner to see how inconvenient is the expression that all things are ordered by the will of God. For it follows from it that all sins and all their consequences are ordered by the will of God, which is a different thing from saying that they come to pass with God's permission. For if we take the word ordered in its proper signification, and say that all the results of sin were ordered, then it is evident that all things are ordered according to God's will, and that all, therefore, who do evil do not offend against His government. And the same distinction holds in regard to providence. When we say that the providence of God regulates all things, we utter a great truth if we attribute to that providence nothing but what is just and right. But if we ascribe to the providence of God all things whatsoever, however unjust they may be, then it is no longer true that the providence of God regulates all things, unless we refer directly to God's providence things which flow as results from His arrangements. Celsus maintains also, that whatever happens in the universe, whether it be the work of God, of angels, of other demons, or of heroes, is regulated by the law of the Most High God. But this also is incorrect; for we cannot say that transgressors follow the law of God when they transgress; and Scripture declares that it is not only wicked men who are transgressors, but also wicked demons and wicked angels. 7.69. And it is not we alone who speak of wicked demons, but almost all who acknowledge the existence of demons. Thus, then, it is not true that all observe the law of the Most High; for all who fall away from the divine law, whether through heedlessness, or through depravity and vice, or through ignorance of what is right, all such do not keep the law of God, but, to use a new phrase which we find in Scripture, the law of sin. I say, then, that in the opinion of most of those who believe in the existence of demons, some of them are wicked; and these, instead of keeping the law of God, offend against it. But, according to our belief, it is true of all demons, that they were not demons originally, but they became so in departing from the true way; so that the name demons is given to those beings who have fallen away from God. Accordingly, those who worship God must not serve demons. We may also learn the true nature of demons if we consider the practice of those who call upon them by charms to prevent certain things, or for many other purposes. For this is the method they adopt, in order by means of incantations and magical arts to invoke the demons, and induce them to further their wishes. Wherefore, the worship of all demons would be inconsistent in us who worship the Supreme God; and the service of demons is the service of so-called gods, for all the gods of the heathen are demons. The same thing also appears from the fact that the dedication of the most famous of the so-called sacred places, whether temples or statues, was accompanied by curious magical incantations, which were performed by those who zealously served the demons with magical arts. Hence we are determined to avoid the worship of demons even as we would avoid death; and we hold that the worship, which is supposed among the Greeks to be rendered to gods at the altars, and images, and temples, is in reality offered to demons. 8.2. In a passage previously quoted Celsus asks us why we do not worship demons, and to his remarks on demons we gave such an answer as seemed to us in accordance with the divine word. After having put this question for the purpose of leading us to the worship of demons, he represents us as answering that it is impossible to serve many masters. This, he goes on to say, is the language of sedition, and is only used by those who separate themselves and stand aloof from all human society. Those who speak in this way ascribe, as he supposes, their own feelings and passions to God. It does hold true among men, that he who is in the service of one master cannot well serve another, because the service which he renders to the one interferes with that which he owes to the other; and no one, therefore, who has already engaged himself to the service of one, must accept that of another. And, in like manner, it is impossible to serve at the same time heroes or demons of different natures. But in regard to God, who is subject to no suffering or loss, it is, he thinks, absurd to be on our guard against serving more gods, as though we had to do with demi-gods, or other spirits of that sort. He says also, He who serves many gods does that which is pleasing to the Most High, because he honours that which belongs to Him. And he adds, It is indeed wrong to give honour to any to whom God has not given honour. Wherefore, he says, in honouring and worshipping all belonging to God, we will not displease Him to whom they all belong. 8.9. And observe the recklessness of that expression, For if you worship any other of the things in the universe, as though he would have us believe that we are led by our service of God to the worship of any other things which belong to God, without any injury to ourselves. But, as if feeling his error, he corrects the words, If you worship any other of the things in the universe, by adding, We may honour none, however, except those to whom that right has been given by God. And we would put to Celsus this question in regard to those who are honoured as gods, as demons, or as heroes: Now, sir, can you prove that the right to be honoured has been given to these by God, and that it has not arisen from the ignorance and folly of men who in their wanderings have fallen away from Him to whom alone worship and service are properly due? You said a little ago, O Celsus, that Antinous, the favourite of Adrian, is honoured; but surely you will not say that the right to be worshipped as a god was given to him by the God of the universe? And so of the others, we ask proof that the right to be worshipped was given to them by the Most High God. But if the same question is put to us in regard to the worship of Jesus, we will show that the right to be honoured was given to Him by God, that all may honour the Son, even as they honour the Father. For all the prophecies which preceded His birth were preparations for His worship. And the wonders which He wrought - through no magical art, as Celsus supposes, but by a divine power, which was foretold by the prophets- have served as a testimony from God in behalf of the worship of Christ. He who honours the Son, who is the Word and Reason, acts in nowise contrary to reason, and gains for himself great good; he who honours Him, who is the Truth, becomes better by honouring truth: and this we may say of honouring wisdom, righteousness, and all the other names by which the sacred Scriptures are wont to designate the Son of God. 8.11. He adds, And indeed he who, when speaking of God, asserts that there is only one who may be called Lord, speaks impiously, for he divides the kingdom of God, and raises a sedition therein, implying that there are separate factions in the divine kingdom, and that there exists one who is His enemy. He might speak after this fashion, if he could prove by conclusive arguments that those who are worshipped as gods by the heathens are truly gods, and not merely evil spirits, which are supposed to haunt statues and temples and altars. But we desire not only to understand the nature of that divine kingdom of which we are continually speaking and writing, but also ourselves to be of those who are under the rule of God alone, so that the kingdom of God may be ours. Celsus, however, who teaches us to worship many gods, ought in consistency not to speak of the kingdom of God, but of the kingdom of the gods. There are therefore no factions in the kingdom of God, nor is there any god who is an adversary to Him, although there are some who, like the Giants and Titans, in their wickedness wish to contend with God in company with Celsus, and those who declare war against Him who has by innumerable proofs established the claims of Jesus, and against Him who, as the Word, did, for the salvation of our race, show Himself before all the world in such a form as each was able to receive Him. 8.12. In what follows, some may imagine that he says something plausible against us. If, says he, these people worshipped one God alone, and no other, they would perhaps have some valid argument against the worship of others. But they pay excessive reverence to one who has but lately appeared among men, and they think it no offense against God if they worship also His servant. To this we reply, that if Celsus had known that saying, I and My Father are one, and the words used in prayer by the Son of God, As You and I are one, he would not have supposed that we worship any other besides Him who is the Supreme God. For, says He, My Father is in Me, and I in Him. And if any should from these words be afraid of our going over to the side of those who deny that the Father and the Son are two persons, let him weigh that passage, And the multitude of them that believed were of one heart and of one soul, that he may understand the meaning of the saying, I and My Father are one. We worship one God, the Father and the Son, therefore, as we have explained; and our argument against the worship of other gods still continues valid. And we do not reverence beyond measure one who has but lately appeared, as though He did not exist before; for we believe Himself when He says, Before Abraham was, I am. Again He says, I am the truth; and surely none of us is so simple as to suppose that truth did not exist before the time when Christ appeared. We worship, therefore, the Father of truth, and the Son, who is the truth; and these, while they are two, considered as persons or subsistences, are one in unity of thought, in harmony and in identity of will. So entirely are they one, that he who has seen the Son, who is the brightness of God's glory, and the express image of His person, has seen in Him who is the image of God, God Himself. 8.14. Again Celsus proceeds: If you should tell them that Jesus is not the Son of God, but that God is the Father of all, and that He alone ought to be truly worshipped, they would not consent to discontinue their worship of him who is their leader in the sedition. And they call him Son of God, not out of any extreme reverence for God, but from an extreme desire to extol Jesus Christ. We, however, have learned who the Son of God is, and know that He is the brightness of His glory, and the express image of His person, and the breath of the power of God, and a pure influence flowing from the glory of the Almighty; moreover, the brightness of the everlasting light, the unspotted mirror of the power of God, and the image of His goodness. We know, therefore, that He is the Son of God, and that God is His father. And there is nothing extravagant or unbecoming the character of God in the doctrine that He should have begotten such an only Son; and no one will persuade us that such a one is not a Son of the unbegotten God and Father. If Celsus has heard something of certain persons holding that the Son of God is not the Son of the Creator of the universe, that is a matter which lies between him and the supporters of such an opinion. Jesus is, then, not the leader of any seditious movement, but the promoter of peace. For He said to His disciples, Peace I leave with you, My peace I give unto you; and as He knew that it would be men of the world, and not men of God, who would wage war against us, he added, Not as the world gives peace, do I give peace unto you. And even although we are oppressed in the world, we have confidence in Him who said, In the world you shall have tribulation; but be of good cheer, I have overcome the world. And it is He whom we call Son of God- Son of that God, namely, whom, to quote the words of Celsus, we most highly reverence; and He is the Son who has been most highly exalted by the Father. Grant that there may be some individuals among the multitudes of believers who are not in entire agreement with us, and who incautiously assert that the Saviour is the Most High God; however, we do not hold with them, but rather believe Him when He says, The Father who sent Me is greater than I. We would not therefore make Him whom we call Father inferior - as Celsus accuses us of doing - to the Son of God. 8.24. Let us now see on what grounds Celsus urges us to make use of the idol offerings and the public sacrifices in the public feasts. His words are, If these idols are nothing, what harm will there be in taking part in the feast? On the other hand, if they are demons, it is certain that they too are God's creatures, and that we must believe in them, sacrifice to them according to the laws, and pray to them that they may be propitious. In reference to this statement, it would be profitable for us to take up and clearly explain the whole passage of the first Epistle to the Corinthians, in which Paul treats of offerings to idols. The apostle draws from the fact that an idol is nothing in the world, the consequence that it is injurious to use things offered to idols; and he shows to those who have ears to hear on such subjects, that he who partakes of things offered to idols is worse than a murderer, for he destroys his own brethren, for whom Christ died. And further, he maintains that the sacrifices are made to demons; and from that he proceeds to show that those who join the table of demons become associated with the demons; and he concludes that a man cannot both be a partaker of the table of the Lord and of the table of demons. But since it would require a whole treatise to set forth fully all that is contained on this subject in the Epistle to the Corinthians, we shall content ourselves with this brief statement of the argument; for it will be evident to any one who carefully considers what has been said, that even if idols are nothing, nevertheless it is an awful thing to join in idol festivals. And even supposing that there are such beings as demons to whom the sacrifices are offered, it has been clearly shown that we are forbidden to take part in these festivals, when we know the difference between the table of the Lord and the table of demons. And knowing this, we endeavour as much as we can to be always partakers of the Lord's table, and beware to the utmost of joining at any time the table of demons. 8.25. Celsus says that the demons belong to God, and are therefore to be believed, to be sacrificed to according to laws, and to be prayed to that they may be propitious. Those who are disposed to learn, must know that the word of God nowhere says of evil things that they belong to God, for it judges them unworthy of such a Lord. Accordingly, it is not all men who bear the name of men of God, but only those who are worthy of God - such as Moses and Elias, and any others who are so called, or such as resemble those who are so called in Scripture. In the same way, all angels are not said to be angels of God, but only those that are blessed: those that have fallen away into sin are called angels of the devil, just as bad men are called men of sin, sons of perdition, or sons of iniquity. Since, then, among men some are good and others bad, and the former are said to be God's and the latter the devil's, so among angels some are angels of God, and others angels of the devil. But among demons there is no such distinction, for all are said to be wicked. We do not therefore hesitate to say that Celsus is false when he says, If they are demons, it is evident that they must also belong to God. He must either show that this distinction of good and bad among angels and men has no foundation, or else that a similar distinction may be shown to hold among demons. If that is impossible, it is plain that demons do not belong to God; for their prince is not God, but, as holy Scripture says, Beelzebub. 8.26. And we are not to believe in demons, although Celsus urges us to do so; but if we are to obey God, we must die, or endure anything, sooner than obey demons. In the same way, we are not to propitiate demons; for it is impossible to propitiate beings that are wicked and that seek the injury of men. Besides, what are the laws in accordance with which Celsus would have us propitiate the demons? For if he means laws enacted in states, he must show that they are in agreement with the divine laws. But if that cannot be done, as the laws of many states are quite inconsistent with each other, these laws, therefore, must of necessity either be no laws at all in the proper sense of the word, or else the enactments of wicked men; and these we must not obey, for we must obey God rather than men. Away, then, with this counsel, which Celsus gives us, to offer prayer to demons: it is not to be listened to for a moment; for our duty is to pray to the Most High God alone, and to the Only-begotten, the First-born of the whole creation, and to ask Him as our High Priest to present the prayers which ascend to Him from us, to His God and our God, to His Father and the Father of those who direct their lives according to His word. And as we would have no desire to enjoy the favour of those men who wish us to follow their wicked lives, and who give us their favour only on condition that we choose nothing opposed to their wishes, because their favour would make us enemies of God, who cannot be pleased with those who have such men for their friends - in the same way those who are acquainted with the nature, the purposes, and the wickedness of demons, can never wish to obtain their favour. 8.27. And Christians have nothing to fear, even if demons should not be well-disposed to them; for they are protected by the Supreme God, who is well pleased with their piety, and who sets His divine angels to watch over those who are worthy of such guardianship, so that they can suffer nothing from demons. He who by his piety possesses the favour of the Most High, who has accepted the guidance of Jesus, the Angel of the great counsel, being well contented with the favour of God through Christ Jesus, may say with confidence that he has nothing to suffer from the whole host of demons. The Lord is my light and my salvation; whom shall I fear? The Lord is the strength of my life; of whom shall I be afraid? Though an host should encamp against me, my heart shall not fear. So much, then, in reply to those statements of Celsus: If they are demons, they too evidently belong to God, and they are to be believed, to be sacrificed to according to the laws, and prayers are to be offered to them that they may be propitious. 8.33. From this it is evident that we have already met the next statement of Celsus, which is as follows: We must either not live, and indeed not come into this life at all, or we must do so on condition that we give thanks and first-fruits and prayers to demons, who have been set over the things of this world: and that we must do as long as we live, that they may prove good and kind. We must surely live, and we must live according to the word of God, as far as we are enabled to do so. And we are thus enabled to live, when, whether we eat or drink, we do all to the glory of God; and we are not to refuse to enjoy those things which have been created for our use, but must receive them with thanksgiving to the Creator. And it is under these conditions, and not such as have been imagined by Celsus, that we have been brought into life by God; and we are not placed under demons, but we are under the government of the Most High God, through Him who has brought us to God - Jesus Christ. It is not according to the law of God that any demon has had a share in worldly affairs, but it was by their own lawlessness that they perhaps sought out for themselves places destitute of the knowledge of God and of the divine life, or places where there are many enemies of God. Perhaps also, as being fit to rule over and punish them, they have been set by the Word, who governs all things, to rule over those who subjected themselves to evil and not to God. For this reason, then, let Celsus, as one who knows not God, give thank-offerings to demons. But we give thanks to the Creator of all, and, along with thanksgiving and prayer for the blessings we have received, we also eat the bread presented to us; and this bread becomes by prayer a sacred body, which sanctifies those who sincerely partake of it. 8.34. Celsus would also have us to offer first-fruits to demons. But we would offer them to Him who said, Let the earth bring forth grass, the herb yielding seed, and the fruit tree yielding fruit after his kind, whose seed is in itself upon the earth. And to Him to whom we offer first-fruits we also send up our prayers, having a great high priest, that is passed into the heavens, Jesus the Son of God, and we hold fast this profession as long as we live; for we find God and His only-begotten Son, manifested to us in Jesus, to be gracious and kind to us. And if we would wish to have besides a great number of beings who shall ever prove friendly to us, we are taught that thousand thousands stood before Him, and ten thousand times ten thousand ministered unto Him. And these, regarding all as their relations and friends who imitate their piety towards God, and in prayer call upon Him with sincerity, work along with them for their salvation, appear unto them, deem it their office and duty to attend to them, and as if by common agreement they visit with all manner of kindness and deliverance those who pray to God, to whom they themselves also pray: For they are all ministering spirits, sent forth to minister for those who shall be heirs of salvation. Let the learned Greeks say that the human soul at its birth is placed under the charge of demons: Jesus has taught us not to despise even the little ones in His Church, saying, Their angels do always behold the face of My Father which is in heaven. And the prophet says, The angel of the Lord encamps round about them that fear Him, and delivers them. We do not, then, deny that there are many demons upon earth, but we maintain that they exist and exercise power among the wicked, as a punishment of their wickedness. But they have no power over those who have put on the whole armour of God, who have received strength to withstand the wiles of the devil, and who are ever engaged in contests with them, knowing that we wrestle not against flesh and blood, but against principalities, against powers, against the rulers of the darkness of this world, against spiritual wickedness in high places. 8.35. Now let us consider another saying of Celsus, which is as follows: The satrap of a Persian or Roman monarch, or ruler or general or governor, yea, even those who fill lower offices of trust or service in the state, would be able to do great injury to those who despised them; and will the satraps and ministers of earth and air be insulted with impunity? Observe now how he introduces servants of the Most High - rulers, generals, governors, and those filling lower offices of trust and service - as, after the manner of men, inflicting injury upon those who insult them. For he does not consider that a wise man would not wish to do harm to any, but would strive to the utmost of his power to change and amend them; unless, indeed, it be that those whom Celsus makes servants and rulers appointed by the Most High are behind Lycurgus, the lawgiver of the Laced monians, or Zeno of Citium. For when Lycurgus had had his eye put out by a man, he got the offender into his power; but instead of taking revenge upon him, he ceased not to use all his arts of persuasion until he induced him to become a philosopher. And Zeno, on the occasion of some one saying, Let me perish rather than not have my revenge on you, answered him, But rather let me perish if I do not make a friend of you. And I am not yet speaking of those whose characters have been formed by the teaching of Jesus, and who have heard the words, Love your enemies, and pray for them which despitefully use you, that you may be the children of your Father which is in heaven; for He makes His sun to rise on the evil and on the good, and sends rain on the just and on the unjust. And in the prophetical writings the righteous man says, O Lord my God, if I have done this; if there be iniquity in my hands; if I have returned evil to those who have done evil to me, let me fall helpless under mine enemies: let my enemy persecute my soul, and take it; yea, let him tread down my life upon the earth. 8.36. But the angels, who are the true rulers and generals and ministers of God, do not, as Celsus supposes, injure those who offend them; and if certain demons, whom Celsus had in mind, do inflict evils, they show that they are wicked, and that they have received no office of the kind from God. And they even do injury to those who are under them, and who have acknowledged them as their masters; and accordingly, as it would seem that those who break through the regulations which prevail in any country in regard to matters of food, suffer for it if they are under the demons of that place, while those who are not under them, and have not submitted to their power, are free from all harm, and bid defiance to such spirits; although if, in ignorance of certain things, they have come under the power of other demons, they may suffer punishment from them. But the Christian- the true Christian, I mean - who has submitted to God alone and His Word, will suffer nothing from demons, for He is mightier than demons. And the Christian will suffer nothing, for the angel of the Lord will encamp about them that fear Him, and will deliver them, and his angel, who always beholds the face of his Father in heaven, offers up his prayers through the one High Priest to the God of all, and also joins his own prayers with those of the man who is committed to his keeping. Let not, then, Celsus try to scare us with threats of mischief from demons, for we despise them. And the demons, when despised, can do no harm to those who are under the protection of Him who can alone help all who deserve His aid; and He does no less than set His own angels over His devout servants, so that none of the hostile angels, nor even he who is called the prince of this world, can effect anything against those who have given themselves to God. 8.38. He next represents Christians as saying what he never heard from any Christian; or if he did, it must have been from one of the most ignorant and lawless of the people. Behold, they are made to say, I go up to a statue of Jupiter or Apollo, or some other god: I revile it, and beat it, yet it takes no vengeance on me. He is not aware that among the prohibitions of the divine law is this, You shall not revile the gods, and this is intended to prevent the formation of the habit of reviling any one whatever; for we have been taught, Bless, and curse not, and it is said that revilers shall not inherit the kingdom of God. And who among us is so foolish as to speak in the way Celsus describes, and to fail to see that such contemptuous language can be of no avail for removing prevailing notions about the gods? For it is matter of observation that there are men who utterly deny the existence of a God or of an overruling providence, and who by their impious and destructive teaching have founded sects among those who are called philosophers, and yet neither they themselves, nor those who have embraced their opinions, have suffered any of those things which mankind generally account evils: they are both strong in body and rich in possessions. And yet if we ask what loss they have sustained, we shall find that they have suffered the most certain injury. For what greater injury can befall a man than that he should be unable amidst the order of the world to see Him who has made it? And what sorer affliction can come to any one than that blindness of mind which prevents him from seeing the Creator and Father of every soul? 8.41. He then goes on to rail against us after the manner of old wives. You, says he, mock and revile the statues of our gods; but if you had reviled Bacchus or Hercules in person, you would not perhaps have done so with impunity. But those who crucified your God when present among men, suffered nothing for it, either at the time or during the whole of their lives. And what new thing has there happened since then to make us believe that he was not an impostor, but the Son of God? And forsooth, he who sent his Son with certain instructions for mankind, allowed him to be thus cruelly treated, and his instructions to perish with him, without ever during all this long time showing the slightest concern. What father was ever so inhuman? Perhaps, indeed, you may say that he suffered so much, because it was his wish to bear what came to him. But it is open to those whom you maliciously revile, to adopt the same language, and say that they wish to be reviled, and therefore they bear it patiently; for it is best to deal equally with both sides - although these (gods) severely punish the scorner, so that he must either flee and hide himself, or be taken and perish. Now to these statements I would answer that we revile no one, for we believe that revilers will not inherit the kingdom of God. And we read, Bless them that curse you; bless, and curse not; also, Being reviled, we bless. And even although the abuse which we pour upon another may seem to have some excuse in the wrong which we have received from him, yet such abuse is not allowed by the word of God. And how much more ought we to abstain from reviling others, when we consider what a great folly it is! And it is equally foolish to apply abusive language to stone or gold or silver, turned into what is supposed to be the form of God by those who have no knowledge of God. Accordingly, we throw ridicule not upon lifeless images, but upon those only who worship them. Moreover, if certain demons reside in certain images, and one of them passes for Bacchus, another for Hercules, we do not vilify them: for, on the one hand, it would be useless; and, on the other, it does not become one who is meek, and peaceful, and gentle in spirit, and who has learned that no one among men or demons is to be reviled, however wicked he may be. 8.43. Some new thing, then, has come to pass since the time that Jesus suffered - that, I mean, which has happened to the city, to the whole nation, and in the sudden and general rise of a Christian community. And that, too, is a new thing, that those who were strangers to the covets of God, with no part in His promises, and far from the truth, have by a divine power been enabled to embrace the truth. These things were not the work of an impostor, but were the work of God, who sent His Word, Jesus Christ, to make known His purposes. The sufferings and death which Jesus endured with such fortitude and meekness, show the cruelty and injustice of those who inflicted them, but they did not destroy the announcement of the purposes of God; indeed, if we may so say, they served rather to make them known. For Jesus Himself taught us this when He said, Except a grain of wheat fall into the ground and die, it abides by itself alone: but if it die, it brings forth much fruit. Jesus, then, who is this grain of wheat, died, and brought forth much fruit. And the Father is ever looking forward for the results of the death of the grain of wheat, both those which are arising now, and those which shall arise hereafter. The Father of Jesus is therefore a tender and loving Father, though He spared not His own Son, but delivered Him up as His lamb for us all, that so the Lamb of God, by dying for all men, might take away the sin of the world. It was not by compulsion, therefore, but willingly, that He bore the reproaches of those who reviled Him. Then Celsus, returning to those who apply abusive language to images, says: of those whom you load with insults, you may in like manner say that they voluntarily submit to such treatment, and therefore they bear insults with patience; for it is best to deal equally with both sides. Yet these severely punish the scorner, so that he must either flee and hide himself, or be taken and perish. It is not, then, because Christians cast insults upon demons that they incur their revenge, but because they drive them away out of the images, and from the bodies and souls of men. And here, although Celsus perceives it not, he has on this subject spoken something like the truth; for it is true that the souls of those who condemn Christians, and betray them, and rejoice in persecuting them, are filled with wicked demons. 8.45. Let us see what Celsus next goes on to say. It is as follows: What need is there to collect all the oracular responses, which have been delivered with a divine voice by priests and priestesses, as well as by others, whether men or women, who were under a divine influence?- all the wonderful things that have been heard issuing from the inner sanctuary? - all the revelations that have been made to those who consulted the sacrificial victims?- and all the knowledge that has been conveyed to men by other signs and prodigies? To some the gods have appeared in visible forms. The world is full of such instances. How many cities have been built in obedience to commands received from oracles; how often, in the same way, delivered from disease and famine! Or again, how many cities, from disregard or forgetfulness of these oracles, have perished miserably! How many colonies have been established and made to flourish by following their orders! How many princes and private persons have, from this cause, had prosperity or adversity! How many who mourned over their childlessness, have obtained the blessing they asked for! How many have turned away from themselves the anger of demons! How many who were maimed in their limbs, have had them restored! And again, how many have met with summary punishment for showing want of reverence to the temples - some being instantly seized with madness, others openly confessing their crimes, others having put an end to their lives, and others having become the victims of incurable maladies! Yea, some have been slain by a terrible voice issuing from the inner sanctuary. I know not how it comes that Celsus brings forward these as undoubted facts, while at the same time he treats as mere fables the wonders which are recorded and handed down to us as having happened among the Jews, or as having been performed by Jesus and His disciples. For why may not our accounts be true, and those of Celsus fables and fictions? At least, these latter were not believed by the followers of Democritus, Epicurus, and Aristotle, although perhaps these Grecian sects would have been convinced by the evidence in support of our miracles, if Moses or any of the prophets who wrought these wonders, or Jesus Christ Himself, had come in their way. 8.48. In the next place, Celsus, after referring to the enthusiasm with which men will contend unto death rather than abjure Christianity, adds strangely enough some remarks, in which he wishes to show that our doctrines are similar to those delivered by the priests at the celebration of the heathen mysteries. He says, Just as you, good sir, believe in eternal punishments, so also do the priests who interpret and initiate into the sacred mysteries. The same punishments with which you threaten others, they threaten you. Now it is worthy of examination, which of the two is more firmly established as true; for both parties contend with equal assurance that the truth is on their side. But if we require proofs, the priests of the heathen gods produce many that are clear and convincing, partly from wonders performed by demons, and partly from the answers given by oracles, and various other modes of divination. He would, then, have us believe that we and the interpreters of the mysteries equally teach the doctrine of eternal punishment, and that it is a matter for inquiry on which side of the two the truth lies. Now I should say that the truth lies with those who are able to induce their hearers to live as men who are convinced of the truth of what they have heard. But Jews and Christians have been thus affected by the doctrines they hold about what we speak of as the world to come, and the rewards of the righteous, and the punishments of the wicked. Let Celsus then, or any one who will, show us who have been moved in this way in regard to eternal punishments by the teaching of heathen priests and mystagogues. For surely the purpose of him who brought to light this doctrine was not only to reason upon the subject of punishments, and to strike men with terror of them, but to induce those who heard the truth to strive with all their might against those sins which are the causes of punishment. And those who study the prophecies with care, and are not content with a cursory perusal of the predictions contained in them, will find them such as to convince the intelligent and sincere reader that the Spirit of God was in those men, and that with their writings there is nothing in all the works of demons, responses of oracles, or sayings of soothsayers, for one moment to be compared. 8.49. Let us see in what terms Celsus next addresses us: Besides, is it not most absurd and inconsistent in you, on the one hand, to make so much of the body as you do - to expect that the same body will rise again, as though it were the best and most precious part of us; and yet, on the other, to expose it to such tortures as though it were worthless? But men who hold such notions, and are so attached to the body, are not worthy of being reasoned with; for in this and in other respects they show themselves to be gross, impure, and bent upon revolting without any reason from the common belief. But I shall direct my discourse to those who hope for the enjoyment of eternal life with God by means of the soul or mind, whether they choose to call it a spiritual substance, an intelligent spirit, holy and blessed, or a living soul, or the heavenly and indestructible offspring of a divine and incorporeal nature, or by whatever name they designate the spiritual nature of man. And they are rightly persuaded that those who live well shall be blessed, and the unrighteous shall all suffer everlasting punishments. And from this doctrine neither they nor any other should ever swerve. Now, as he has often already reproached us for our opinions on the resurrection, and as we have on these occasions defended our opinions in what seemed to us a reasonable way, we do not intend, at each repetition of the one objection, to go into a repetition of our defense. Celsus makes an unfounded charge against us when he ascribes to us the opinion that there is nothing in our complex nature better or more precious than the body; for we hold that far beyond all bodies is the soul, and especially the reasonable soul; for it is the soul, and not the body, which bears the likeness of the Creator. For, according to us, God is not corporeal, unless we fall into the absurd errors of the followers of Zeno and Chrysippus. 8.69. Celsus, then, as if not observing that he was saying anything inconsistent with the words he had just used, if all were to do the same as you, adds: You surely do not say that if the Romans were, in compliance with your wish, to neglect their customary duties to gods and men, and were to worship the Most High, or whatever you please to call him, that he will come down and fight for them, so that they shall need no other help than his. For this same God, as yourselves say, promised of old this and much more to those who served him, and see in what way he has helped them and you! They, in place of being masters of the whole world, are left with not so much as a patch of ground or a home; and as for you, if any of you transgresses even in secret, he is sought out and punished with death. As the question started is, What would happen if the Romans were persuaded to adopt the principles of the Christians, to despise the duties paid to the recognised gods and to men, and to worship the Most High? this is my answer to the question. We say that if two of us shall agree on earth as touching anything that they shall ask, it shall be done for them of the Father of the just, which is in heaven; for God rejoices in the agreement of rational beings, and turns away from discord. And what are we to expect, if not only a very few agree, as at present, but the whole of the empire of Rome? For they will pray to the Word, who of old said to the Hebrews, when they were pursued by the Egyptians, The Lord shall fight for you, and you shall hold your peace; and if they all unite in prayer with one accord, they will be able to put to flight far more enemies than those who were discomfited by the prayer of Moses when he cried to the Lord, and of those who prayed with him. Now, if what God promised to those who keep His law has not come to pass, the reason of its nonfulfilment is not to be ascribed to the unfaithfulness of God. But He had made the fulfilment of His promises to depend on certain conditions - namely, that they should observe and live according to His law; and if the Jews have not a plot of ground nor a habitation left to them, although they had received these conditional promises, the entire blame is to be laid upon their crimes, and especially upon their guilt in the treatment of Jesus.
9. Papyri, Papyri Graecae Magicae, 1 (3rd cent. CE - 4th cent. CE)

Subjects of this text:

subject book bibliographic info
amorites, ways of the Janowitz, Magic in the Roman World: Pagans, Jews and Christians (2002) 23
amulets Janowitz, Magic in the Roman World: Pagans, Jews and Christians (2002) 23
angels, patriarchs are Janowitz, Icons of Power: Ritual Practices in Late Antiquity (2002b) 36
celsus Neusner Green and Avery-Peck, Judaism from Moses to Muhammad: An Interpretation: Turning Points and Focal Points (2022) 175
christian exegesis Janowitz, Icons of Power: Ritual Practices in Late Antiquity (2002b) 36
christianity, critiques of Neusner Green and Avery-Peck, Judaism from Moses to Muhammad: An Interpretation: Turning Points and Focal Points (2022) 175
christianity, relationship to rome according to celsus Esler, The Early Christian World (2000) 859
constantine the great Janowitz, Magic in the Roman World: Pagans, Jews and Christians (2002) 23
cosmology, late antique Janowitz, Icons of Power: Ritual Practices in Late Antiquity (2002b) 36
daimons, names of Janowitz, Icons of Power: Ritual Practices in Late Antiquity (2002b) 36
daimons Janowitz, Magic in the Roman World: Pagans, Jews and Christians (2002) 23
divine names, automatic power of Janowitz, Icons of Power: Ritual Practices in Late Antiquity (2002b) 36
divine names, christian exegesis and Janowitz, Icons of Power: Ritual Practices in Late Antiquity (2002b) 36
divine names, jesus is a Janowitz, Icons of Power: Ritual Practices in Late Antiquity (2002b) 36
divine names, origens theory of Janowitz, Icons of Power: Ritual Practices in Late Antiquity (2002b) 36
divine names Janowitz, Icons of Power: Ritual Practices in Late Antiquity (2002b) 36
divine power, christians can achieve Janowitz, Icons of Power: Ritual Practices in Late Antiquity (2002b) 36
jesus, names of Janowitz, Icons of Power: Ritual Practices in Late Antiquity (2002b) 36
jesus Janowitz, Magic in the Roman World: Pagans, Jews and Christians (2002) 23; Neusner Green and Avery-Peck, Judaism from Moses to Muhammad: An Interpretation: Turning Points and Focal Points (2022) 175
lewy, h. Janowitz, Magic in the Roman World: Pagans, Jews and Christians (2002) 23
magic Neusner Green and Avery-Peck, Judaism from Moses to Muhammad: An Interpretation: Turning Points and Focal Points (2022) 175
magic birth of term, and religion Bremmer, Greek Religion and Culture, the Bible, and the Ancient Near East (2008) 349
magic birth of term, definition of' Bremmer, Greek Religion and Culture, the Bible, and the Ancient Near East (2008) 349
miracle Janowitz, Icons of Power: Ritual Practices in Late Antiquity (2002b) 36
moses Janowitz, Icons of Power: Ritual Practices in Late Antiquity (2002b) 36
not arbitrary, of patriarchs Janowitz, Icons of Power: Ritual Practices in Late Antiquity (2002b) 36
origen Janowitz, Icons of Power: Ritual Practices in Late Antiquity (2002b) 36; Janowitz, Magic in the Roman World: Pagans, Jews and Christians (2002) 23
philosophical opposition (to christianity) Esler, The Early Christian World (2000) 859
sabaoth Janowitz, Icons of Power: Ritual Practices in Late Antiquity (2002b) 36
sanhedrin Janowitz, Magic in the Roman World: Pagans, Jews and Christians (2002) 23
supernatural powers Janowitz, Icons of Power: Ritual Practices in Late Antiquity (2002b) 36
true discourse, of celsus, christians and the roman empire Esler, The Early Christian World (2000) 859
true discourse, of celsus, jesuss followers Esler, The Early Christian World (2000) 859
true discourse, of celsus, themes Esler, The Early Christian World (2000) 859
true doctrine (celsus) Neusner Green and Avery-Peck, Judaism from Moses to Muhammad: An Interpretation: Turning Points and Focal Points (2022) 175
witch Janowitz, Magic in the Roman World: Pagans, Jews and Christians (2002) 23
women, more likely to practice magic Janowitz, Magic in the Roman World: Pagans, Jews and Christians (2002) 23
women Janowitz, Magic in the Roman World: Pagans, Jews and Christians (2002) 23
zeus Janowitz, Icons of Power: Ritual Practices in Late Antiquity (2002b) 36