CELSUS
491
CELSUS
thers", allowed themselves to be deceived by one
whom their nation had condemned, and changed
their name from Hebrew to Christian. Jesus did not
fulfil His promises to the Jews; instead of succeeding
as they should have expected the Messiaa to succeed,
He failed even to keep the confidence and loyalty of
His chosen followers. His alleged prediction of His
death is an invention of His Disciples, and the fable
of His Resurrection is nothing new to those who re-
member the similar stories related of Zamolxis, Py-
thagoras, and Rhampsinit. If Christ rose from the
dead, why did He appear to His Disciples only, and
not to His persecutors and to those who mocked Him?
In the third portion (cf. Origen, op. cit., Ill) Celsus
inaugurates a general attack on Christianity from the
point of view of philosophy. He upbraids both Jews
and Christians with their ridiculous disagreement in
matters of religion, whereas, in fact, both religions
rest on the same principles: the Jews revolted from
the Egyptians and the Christians from the Jews;
sedition was in both cases the true cause of separation.
Next, he upbraids the Christians with lack of unity
among themselves; so many sects are there, and so
different, that they have nothing in common save the
name Christian. Like almost all the pagan oppo-
nents of Christianity he finds fault with Christians
because they exclude from their fellowship the "wise
and good", and consort only with the ignorant and
sinful. He misunderstands the Christian teaching
regarding the Incarnation, "as if", he says, "God
could not by His own power accomplish the work
which lie sent Christ on earth to accomplish". With
this misunderstanding is connected Celsus's false view
of the Christian teaching on the subject of Divine
Providence and God's special care of mankind as
compared with the plants and animals. The world,
he says, was not "made for man's use and benefit",
but for the perfection and completion of God's plan
of the universe. In the fourth part of his "True Dis-
course" (cf. Origen, op. cit., V) Celsus takes up the
teachings of the Christians in detail and refutes them
from the point of view of the history of philosophy.
Whatever is true in the doctrines of the Christians
was borrowed, he contends, from the Greeks, the
Christians having added nothing except their own
perverse misunderstanding of the tenets of Plato,
Heraclitus, Socrates, and other Greek thinkers. " The
Greeks", he says, "tell us plainly what is wisdom and
what is mere appearance, the Christians ask us at the
in believe what we do not understand, and
invoke the authority of one who was discredited even
among his own followers." In like manner the
( Ihristian teaching concerning the Kingdom of God is
merely a corruption of Plato's doctrine; when the
Christians tell us that God is a spirit, they are merely
repeating the Baying of the Stoics that God is "a
spirit penetrating all and encompassing all". Final-
ly, the Christian idea of a future life is borrowed from
tin- < ireek poets and philosophers; the doctrine of
the resurrection <>f the body is simply a corruption of
the world-old idea of transmigration of souls. In the
fifth, ami last, portion of his work (cf. Origen, op. cit.,
VII, l\ii sqq.; VIII) Celsus invites the Christians to
hi their "cult" and join the religion of the
majority. He defends the worship of idols, the in-
vocation of demons (Sal/tovcs), the celebration of
popular feasts, urging among other considerations,
that the Christian who enjoys the bounties of nature
ought, in common gratitude, to render thanks to the
powers of nature. He concludes his treatise by an
appeal to Christians to abandon their "vain hope" of
establishing the rule of Christianity over all the
earth: he invites them to give tip their "life apart",
and take their place among those who by word and
deed and active service contribute to the welfare of
the empire. In an epilogue he promises another
work (whether it was ever written we do not know)
in which he is to explain in detail how those who would
and could follow his philosophy of life should live.
The aim of Celsus's work is different from that of the other opponents of Christianity in the early cen- turies. He exhibits comparatively little of the bitter- ness which characterized their attacks. He does not descend to the lower level of pagan polemics. For instance, he omits the customary accusation of athe- ism, immorality, "Thyestian leasts and CEdipodean gatherings", accusations which were very commonly urged against the Christians for the purpose of rousing popular indignation. His aim was, perhaps, eirenic. His appeal to his Christian contemporaries to abandon their separatism ami make common cause with the pagan subjects of the empire may have been more than a rhetorical device. It may have been inspired by a sincere wish to "convert." the Christians to an appreciation and adoption of the pagan philosophy of life. Indeed, Origen acknowledges that his op- ponent is not blind to the unfavourable side of pagan religion, especially to the abuses of particular cults and the absurdities of popular mythology. It is only just to Celsus, therefore, to ascribe to him all possible sincerity in his wish to "help all men", and to bring all men to the ideal of "one religion". On the other hand, Celsus's attitude towards the Christian religion was, it hardly need be said, that of a pagan not well informed on all points and devoid of that sympathy which alone would enable him to understand the meaning of the most essential tenets of Christianity. He was remarkably well read in pagan literature, and, besides, was acquainted with the religious ideas of the " barbarous" peoples.
His knowledge of Judaism and Christianity was such as could not have been obtained from books alone. He must have consorted with Jewish and Christian teachers, and with the representatives of the Gnostic sects. Hence arose the danger of con- founding with the official doctrine of Christianity the tenets of a particular school of Gnostic interpreta- tions, a danger which Celsus did not succeed in escaping, as is evident in many passages of his work, and as Origen was very careful to point out. He was acquainted with the Old Testament only in part. He used the "books of the Christians", the Gospels and,
fiossibly, some of the Pauline Epistles, but on the atter point there is room for doubt. Celsus may have obtained his knowledge of St. Paul's teaching by conversation with Christians. There can be no doubt, however, that he used the Gospels, not merely some proto-evangelical documents, but the four nar- ratives substantially as we have them to-day. Celsus took pains to make himself acquainted with the be- liefs of his Christian contemporaries, and he is un- questionably conscious of his knowledge of Chris- tianity. Yet, he has no suspicion of the distinction between the universally accepted teachings of the "great Church" of the Christians and the doctrines peculiar to Ophites, Marcionites, and other heretical sects. Moreover, he is, if indeed well-intentioned, yet a partisan; he adopts the current Roman notion that Christianity is merely an offshoot of Judaism; in regard to the person of Christ he exhibits none of that respect which the later Platonists manifested towards the founder of Christianity: towards the miracles ascribed to Christ he shows a sceptical spirit, at one time describing them as fables invented by the Disciples, at another paralleling them with the wonders wrought by Egyptian sorcerers; he looks upon the Resurrection of Christ as either a silly story invented by the followers of Jesus, or a ghost-appan- t mil inli as is narrated of many of the heroes of anti- quity. Above all. he fails to attain a correct under- standing of the doctrine of Incarnation and atone- ment. When he comes t" speak of the manner of life of his Christian neighbours, he, in common with all his pagan fellow-writers, cannot see the reasonable-
