ARGUMENTS OF CELSUS, PORPHYRY, and THE EMPEROR JULIAN, AGAINST THE CHRISTIANS;
ALSO EXTRACTS FROM DIODORUS SICULUS, JOSEPHUS, AND TACITUS, RELATING TO THE JEWS, TOGETHER WITH AN APPENDIX;
CONTAINING: THE ORATION OF LIBANIUS IN DEFENCE OF THE TEMPLES OF THE HEATHENS, TRANSLATED BY DR. LARDNER; AND EXTRACTS FROM BINGHAM'S ANTIQUITIES OF THE CHRISTIAN CHURCH.
By [Thomas Taylor]
MDCCCXXX.
"For if indeed Julian had caused all those that were under his dominion to be richer than Midas, and each of the cities greater than Babylon once was, and had also surrounded each of them with a golden wall, but had corrected none of the existing errors respecting divinity, he would have acted in a manner similar to a physician, who receiving a body full of evils in each of its parts, should cure all of them except the eyes."—Liban. Parental, in Julian, p. 285.
CONTENTS
INTRODUCTION.
THE ARGUMENTS OF CELSUS AGAINST THE CHRISTIANS
EXTRACTS FROM, AND INFORMATION RELATIVE TO, THE TREATISE OF PORPHYRY
A FRAGMENT OF THE THIRTY-FOURTH BOOK OF DIODORUS SICULUS.
FROM MANETHO RESPECTING THE ISRAELITES.
EXTRACTS FROM THE FIFTH BOOK OF TACITUS RESPECTING THE JEWS, AS
EXTRACTS FROM THE WORKS OF THE EMPEROR JULIAN RELATIVE TO THE
APPENDIX
EXTRACTS FROM BINGHAM'S ANTIQUITIES OF THE CHRISTIAN CHURCH*,
ILLUSTRATIONS
Celsus
Porphyry
Julian
INTRODUCTION.
"I HAVE often wished," says Warburton in a letter to Dr. Forster, October 15, 1749, "for a hand capable of collecting all the fragments remaining of Porphyry, Celsus, Hierocles, and Julian, and giving them to us with a just, critical and theological comment, as a defy to infidelity. It is certain we want something more than what their ancient answerers have given us. This would be a very noble work*."
The author of the following Collectanea has partially effected what Dr. Warburton wished
to see accomplished; for as he is not a divine, he has not attempted in his Notes to confute Celsus, but has confined himself solely to an illustration of his meaning, by a citation of parallel passages in other ancient authors.
As the answer, however, of Origen to the arguments of Celsus is very futile and inefficient, it would be admirable to see some one of the learned divines with which the church at present abounds, leap into the arena, and by vanquishing Celsus, prove that the Christian religion is peculiarly adapted to the present times, and to the interest of the priests by whom it is professed and disseminated.
The Marquis D'Argens published a translation in French, accompanied by the Greek text, of the arguments of the Emperor Julian against the Christians; and as an apology for the present work, I subjoin the following translation of a part of his preliminary discourse, in which he defends that publication.
"It may be that certain half-witted gentleman
may reproach me for having brought forward a work composed in former times against the Christians, in the vulgar tongue. To such I might at once simply reply, that the work was preserved by a Father of the Church; but I will go further, and tell them with Father Petau, who gave a Greek edition of the works of Julian, that if those who condemn the authors that have published these works, will temper the ardour of their zeal with reason and judgement, they will think differently, and will distinguish between the good use that may be made of the book, and the bad intentions of the writer.
"Father Petau also judiciously remarks, that if the times were not gone by when dæmons took the advantage of idolatry to seduce mankind, it would be prudent not to afford any aid, or give the benefit of any invective against Jesus, or the Christian religion to the organs of those dæmons; but since by the blessing of God and the help of the cross, which have brought about our salvation, the monstrous dogmas of Paganism are buried in oblivion,
we have nothing to fear from that pest; there is no weighty reason for our rising up against the monuments of Pagan aberration that now remain, and totally destroying them. On the contrary, the same Father Petau says, that it is better to treat them as the ancient Christians treated the images and temples of the gods. At first, in the provinces in which they were in power, they razed them to the very foundations, that nothing might be visible to posterity that could perpetuate impiety, or the sight of which could recall mankind to an abominable worship. But when the same Christians had firmly established their religion, it appeared more rational to them, after destroying the altars and statues of the gods, to preserve the temples, and by purifying them, to make them serviceable for the worship of the true God. The same Christians also, not only discontinued to break the statues and images of the gods, but they took the choicest of them, that were the work of the most celebrated artists, and set them up in public places to ornament their cities, as well as to recall to the memory of those who beheld them, how gross
the blindness* of their ancestors had been, and how powerful
The Marquis d'Argens further observes: "It were to be wished, that Father Petau, having so judiciously considered the works of Julian, had formed an equally correct idea of the person of that Emperor. I cannot discover through what caprice he takes it amiss, that a certain learned Professor** has praised the civil virtues of Julian, and condemned the evidently false calumnies that almost all the ecclesiastical authors have lavished upon him; and amongst the rest Gregory and Cyril, who to the good arguments they have adduced against the false reasoning of Julian, have added insults which ought never to have been used by any defender of truth. They have cruelly
the greater blindness of the two,— ours, in worshipping the
images of deiform processions from the ineffable principle
of things, and who are eternally united to him; or that of
the Papists, in worshipping the images of worthless men
** Monsieur de la Bletric.
calumniated this Emperor to favour their good cause, and confounded the just, wise, clement, and most courageous prince, with the Pagan philosopher and theologian; when they ought simply to have refuted him with argument, in no case with insult, and still less with calumnies so evidently false, that during fourteen centuries, in which they have been so often repeated, they have never been accredited, nor enabled to assume even an air of truth."
A wise Christian philosopher, La Mothe, Le Vayer, in reflecting on the great virtues with which Julian was endowed, on the contempt he manifested for death, on the firmness with which he consoled those who wept around him, and on his last conversation with Maximus and Priscus on the immortality of the soul, says, "that after such testimonies of a virtue, to which nothing appears to be wanting but the faith to give its professor a place amongst the blessed*, we have cause to wonder that
not only all the confessedly wise and virtuous
Heathens that lived posterior, but those also who lived anterior to the promulgation of the Christian religion, will have no place hereafter among the blessed.
Cyril should have tried to make us believe, that Julian was a mean and cowardly prince*. Those who judge of men that lived in former ages by those who have lived in more recent times, may feel little surprise at the proceedings of Cyril. It has rarely happened that long animosity and abuse have not been introduced into religious controversies."
After what has been above said of Julian, I deem it necessary to observe, that Father Petau is egregiously mistaken in supposing that Cyril has preserved the whole of that Emperor's arguments against the Christians: and the Marquis D'Argêns is also mistaken when he says, that "the passages of Julian's text which are
that he is, with the strongest reason, suspected of being
the cause of the murder of Hypatia, who was one of the
brightest ornaments of the Alexandrian school, and who was
not only a prodigy of learning, but also a paragon of
beauty.
abridged or omitted, aire very few." For Hieronymus in Epist. 83. Ad Magnum Oratorem Romanum, testifies that this work consisted of seven books; three of which only Cyril attempted to confute, as is evident from his own words, [—Greek—] "Julian wrote three books against the holy Evangelists." But as Fabricius observes, (in Biblioth. Græc. tom. vii. p. 89.) in the other four books, he appears to have attacked the remaining books of the Scriptures, i. e. the books of the Old Testament.
With respect, however, to the three books which Cyril has endeavoured to confute, it appears to me, that he has only selected such parts of these books as he thought he could most easily answer. For that he has not given even the substance of these three books, is evident from the words of Julian himself, as recorded by Cyril. For Julian, after certain invectives both against Christ and John, says, "These things, therefore, we shall shortly discuss, when we come particularly to consider
the monstrous deeds and fraudulent machinations of the Evangelists*." There is no particular discussion however of these in any part of the extracts preserved by Cyril.
That the work, indeed, of Julian against the Christians was of considerable extent, is evident from the testimony of his contemporary, Libanius; who, in his admirable funeral oration on this most extraordinary man, has the following remarkable passage: "But when the winter had extended the nights, Julian, besides many other beautiful works, attacked the books which make a man of Palestine to be a God, and the son of God; and in a long contest, and with strenuous arguments, evinced that what is said in these writings is ridiculous and nugatory. And in the execution of this work he appears to have excelled in wisdom the Tyrian old man.**
** viz. Porphyry, who was of Tyre, and who, as is well
known, wrote a work against the Christians, which was
publicly burnt by order of the Emperor Constantine.
In asserting this however, may the Tyrian be propitious to me, and benevolently receive what I have said, he having been vanquished by his son*."
With respect to Celsus, the author of the following Fragments, he lived in the time of the Emperor Adrian. and was, if Origen may be credited, an Epicurean philosopher. That he might indeed, at some former period of his life, have been an Epicurean maybe admitted; but it would be highly absurd to suppose that he was so when he wrote this invective against the Christians; for the arguments which he mostly employs show that he was well skilled m the philosophy of Plato: and to suppose, as Origen does, that he availed himself of arguments in
which he did not believe, and consequently conceived to be erroneous, in order to confute doctrines which he was persuaded are false, would be to make him, instead of a philosopher, a fool. As to Origen, though he abandoned philosophy for Christianity, he was considered as heterodox by many of the Christian sect. Hence, with some of the Catholics, his future salvation became a matter of doubt*; and this induced the celebrated Johannes Picus Mirandulanus, in the last of his Theological conclusions according to his own opinion, to say: "Rationabilius est credere Uriginem esse salvum, quam credere ipsum esse damnatum," i. e. It is more reasonable to believe that Origen is saved, than that he is damned.
I shall conclude this Introduction with the following extract.
et à Johanne Diacono, lib. ii. c. 45. vitas B. Gregorii
narratur fevelatio, qua Origines viras est in Gehenna ignis
cum Alio et Netftorio."*—Fobric. BMiotk Grate torn. v. p.
216
Directions of Dr. Barlow, Bishop of Lincoln, to a young divine.
"It will be of great use for a divine to be acquainted with the arts, knavery, and fraud of the Roman inquisitor, in purging, correcting, or rather corrupting authors in all arts and faculties. For this purpose we may consult the Index Expurgatorius. By considering this Index, we come to know the best editions of many good books.
"1st. The best books; that is, those that are condemned.
"2nd. The best editions; viz. those that are dated before the Index, and consequently not altered.
"3rd. The Index is a good common place book, to point out who has written well against the Church, p. 70.
"Ockam is damned in the Index, and therefore we may be sure he was guilty of telling some great truth, p. 41.*"
another, and every church has its Index.
THE ARGUMENTS OF CELSUS AGAINST THE CHRISTIANS
"THE Christians are accustomed to have private assemblies, which are forbidden by the law. For of assemblies some are public, and these are conformable to the law of the land; but others are secret, and these are such as are hostile to the laws; among which are the Love Feasts of the Christians *.
"It is commonly regarded as a very curious and remarkable
fact, that, although the Romans were disposed to tolerate
every other religious sect, yet they frequently persecuted
the Christians with unrelenting cruelty. This exception, so
fatal to a peaceable and harmless sect, must have originated
in circumstances which materially distin-...
"Men who irrationally assent to anything, resemble those who are delighted with jugglers and enchanters, &c. For as most of these are depraved characters, who deceive the vulgar, and persuade them to assent to whatever they please, this also takes place with the Christians. Some of these are not willing either to give or receive a reason for what they believe; but are accustomed to say, 'Do not investigate, but believe, your faith will save you.
causes and the pretexts of persecution may have varied at
various periods; but there seems to have been one general
cause which will readily be apprehended by those who are
intimately acquainted with the Roman jurisprudence. From the
most remote period of their history, the Romans had
conceived extreme horror against all nocturnal meetings of a
secret and mysterious nature. A law prohibiting nightly
vigils in a temple has even been ascribed, perhaps with
little probability, to the founder of their state. The laws
of the twelve tables declared it a capital offence to attend
nocturnal assemblies in the city. This, then, being the
spirit of the law, it is obvious that the nocturnal meetings
of the primitive Christians must have rendered them objects
of peculiar suspicion, and exposed them to the animadversion
of the magistrate. It was during the night that they usually
held their most solemn and religious assemblies; for a
practice which may be supposed to have arisen from their
fears, seems to have been continued from the operation of
other causes. Misunderstanding the purport of certain
passages of Scripture, they were...
'For the wisdom of the world is bad, but folly is good*,'
"The world, according to Moses, was created at a certain time, and has from its commencement existed for a period far short of ten thousand years,—The world, however, is without a beginning; in consequence of which there have been from all eternity many conflagrations, and many deluges, among the latter of which the most recent is that of Deucalion**.
in constant expectation, would take place during the night;
and they were accustomed to celebrate nightly vigils at the
tombs of the saints and martyrs. In this case, therefore,
they incurred no penalties peculiar to the votaries of a new
religion, but only such as equally attached to those who,
professing the public religion of the state, were yet guilty
of this undoubted violation of its laws."—Observations on
the Study of the Civil Law, by Dr. Irving, Edin. 1820. p.
11.
"It is not true that the primitive Christians held their assemblies in the night time to avoid the interruptions of the civil power: but the converse of that proposition is true in the utmost latitude; viz. that they met with molestations from that quarter, because their assemblies were nocturnal."—Elements of Civil Law, by Dr. Taylor, p. 579.
** See on this subject the Tinusus of Plato.
"Goatherds and shepherds among the Jews, following Moses as their leader, and being allured by rustic deceptions, conceived that there is [only] one God.
"These goatherds and shepherds were of opinion that there is one God, whether they delight to call him the Most High, or Adonai, or Celestial, or Sabaoth, or to celebrate by any other name the fabricator of this world*; for they knew nothing farther. For it is of no consequence, whether the God who is above all things, is denominated, after the accustomed manner of the Greeks, Jupiter, or is called by any other name, such as that which is given to him by the Indians or Egyptians."
Celsus, assuming the person of a Jew, represents him as speaking to Jesus, and reprehending him for many things. And in the first place he reproaches him with feigning that he was born of a virgin; and says, that to his disgrace he was born in a Judaic village from a poor Jewess, who obtained the means
e. this world; but it is necessary to read, conformably to
the above translation, [—Greek—]. For the Jews did not
celebrate the world, but the Maker of the world, by these
names.
of subsistence by manual labour. He adds, That she was abandoned by her husband, who was a carpenter, because she had been found by him to have committed adultery. Hence, in consequence of being expelled by her husband, becoming an ignominious vagabond, she was secretly delivered of Jesus, who, through poverty being obliged to serve as a hireling in Egypt, learnt there certain arts for which the Egyptians are famous. Afterwards, returning from thence, he thought so highly of himself, on account of the possession of these [magical] arts, as
"Was therefore the mother of Jesus beautiful, and was God connected with her on account of her beauty, though he is not adapted to be in love with a corruptible body? Or is it not absurd to suppose that God would be enamoured of a woman who was neither fortunate nor of royal extraction, nor even scarcely known to her neighbours; and who was also hated and ejected by the carpenter her
Gospel according to the Jews, or Toldoth Jesu." See Chap. I.
and II. of that work.
husband, so as neither to be saved by her own credulity nor by divine power? These things, therefore, do not at all pertain to the kingdom of God."
Celsus, again personifying a Jew, says to Christ, "When you were washed by John, you say that the spectre of a bird flew to you from the air. But what witness worthy of belief saw this spectre? Or who heard a voice from heaven, adopting you for a son of God, except yourself, and some one of your associates, who was equally a partaker of your wickedness and punishment?
"Jesus having collected as his associates ten or eleven infamous men, consisting of the most wicked publicans and sailors, fled into different places, obtaining food with difficulty, and in a disgraceful manner."
Again, in the person of a Jew, Celsus says to Christ, "What occasion was there, while you were yet an infant, that you should be brought to Egypt, in order that you might not be slain? For it was not fit that a God should be afraid of death. But an angel came from heaven, ordering you and your associates to fly, lest being taken you should be put to death. For the great God [it seems] could not
preserve you, his own son, m your own country, but sent two angels on your account."
The same Jew in Celsus also adds, "Though we do not believe in the ancient fables, which ascribe a divine origin to Perseus, Amphion, Æacus, and Minos, yet at the same time their deeds are demonstrated to be mighty and admirable, and truly superhuman, in order that what is narrated of their origin may not appear to be improbable." But (speak-ing to Jesus) he says, "What beautiful or admirable thing have you said or done, though you was (sp) called upon in the temple to give some manifest sign that you were the son of God?"
Celsus, pretending not to disbelieve in the miracles ascribed to Christ, says to him, "Let us grant that these things were performed by you; but they are common with the works of enchanters, who promise to effect more wonderful deeds than these, and also with what those who have been taught by the Egyptians to perform in the middle of the forum for a few oboli; such as expelling dæmons from men, dissipating diseases by a puff, evocating the souls of heroes, exhibiting sumptuous suppers, and tables covered with food, which have no reality. These magicians also represent animals as moving, which are not in reality animals, but merely appear
to the imagination to be such.—Is it fit, therefore» that we should believe these men to be the sons of God, because they worked these wonders? Or ought we not rather to say, that these are the arts of depraved and unhappy men!"
Again the Jew says, "It is but recently, and as it were yesterday, since we punished Christ; and you, who are [in no respect superior to] keepers of oxen, have abandoned the laws of your ancestors and country. Why likewise do you begin from our sacred institutions, but afterwards in the progress [of your iniquity] despise them? For you have no other origin of your dogma, than our law. Many. other such persons also as Jesus was, may be seen by those who wish to be deceived. How too is it probable that we, who have declared to all men that a person would be sent by God as a punisher of the unjust, should treat him ignominiously, if such a person had appeared among us? Again: How can we think him to be a God, who, that I may omit other things, performed, as we learn, nothing that was promised? And when, being condemned by us, he was thought worthy of punishment, having concealed himself and fled, was most disgracefully made a prisoner; being betrayed by those whom he called his disciples? If, however, he was a God, it was not proper that he should either fly, or be led
away captive. And much less was it fit, that, being considered as a saviour and the son of the greatest God, and; also the messenger of this God, by his familiars and private associates, he should be deserted and betrayed by them. But what excellent general, who was the leader of many myriads of men, was ever betrayed by his soldiers? Indeed, this has not happened even to the chief of a band of robbers, though a man depraved, and the captain of men still more depraved than himself, when to his associates he appeared to be useful. But Christ, who was betrayed by those of whom he was the leader, though not as a good commander, nor in such a way as robbers would behave to their captain, could not obtain the benevolence of his deluded followers.—Many other things also, and such as are true, respecting Jesus might be adduced, though they are not committed to writing by his disciples; but these I willingly omit. His disciples also falsely pretended, that he foreknew and foretold every thing that happened to him.
"The disciples of Jesus, not being able to adduce any thing respecting him that was obviously manifest, falsely assert that he foreknew all things; and have written other things of a similar kind respecting lum. This, however, is just the same as if some one should assert that a certain person is a just
man, and notwithstanding this should show that he acted unjustly; that he is a pious man, and yet a murderer; and, though immortal, died; at the same time adding to all these assertions, that he had a foreknowledge of all things.
"These things Jesus said after he had previously declared that he was God, and it was entirely necessary that what he had predicted should take place. He therefore, though a God, induced his disciples and prophets, with whom he ate and drank, to become impious. It was, however, requisite that he should have been beneficial to all men, and particularly to his associates. No one likewise would think of betraying the man, of whose table he had been a partaker. But here the associate of the table of God became treacherous to him; God himself, which is still more absurd, making those who had been hospitably entertained by him to be his impious betrayers."
The Jew in Celsus also says, that "What is asserted by the Jewish prophets may be much more probably adapted to ten thousand other persons than to Jesus. Besides, the prophets say, that he who was to come would be a great and powerful king, and would be the lord of the whole earth, and of all nations and armies: but no one would
infer from such like symbols and rumours, and from such ignoble arguments, that Christ is the son of God.
"As the sun, which illuminates all other things, first shows himself [to be the cause of light], thus also it is fit that this should have been done by the son of God*. But the Christians argue sophistically, when they say that the son of God is the word itself. And the accusation is strengthened by this, that the word which was announced by the Christians to be the son of God, was not a pure and holy word, but a man who was most disgracefully punished and put to death.
"What
"Why too did not Jesus, if not before, yet now at least, [i. e. when he was brought before Pilate,] exhibit some divine indication respecting himself; liberate himself from this ignominy, and punish those
evidence, by his sayings, his deeds, and by all that
happened to him, that he was the son of God.
who had insulted both him and his father? What kind of ichör also or blood dropped from his crucified body? was it,.....such as from the blest immortals flows?"*
The Jew in Celsus further adds: "Do you reproach us with this, O most faithful men, that we do not conceive Christ to be God, and that we do not accord with you in believing that he suffered these things for the benefit of mankind, in order that we also might despise punishment? Neither did he persuade any one while he lived, not even his own disciples, that he should be punished, and suffer as he did: nor did he exhibit himself [though a God] as one liberated from all evils.
"Certainly you Christians will not say, that Christ, when he found that he could not induce the inhabitants on the surface of the earth to believe in his doctrines, descended to the infernal regions, in order that he might persuade those that dwelt there. But if inventing absurd apologies by which you are ridiculously deceived, what should hinder others also, who have perished miserably, from being ranked among angels of a more divine order?"
The Jew in Celsus further observes, on comparing Christ with robbers, "Some might in a similar manner unblushingly say of a robber and a homicide, who was punished for his crimes, that he was not a robber but a God; for he predicted to his associates that he should suffer what he did suffer.
"The disciples of Jesus, living with him, hearing his voice, and embracing his doctrines, when they saw that he was punished and put to death, neither died with nor for him, nor could be persuaded to despise punishment; but denied that they were his disciples. Why, therefore, do not you Christians [voluntarily] die with your master?"
The Jew in Celsus also says, that "Jesus made converts of ten sailors, and most abandoned publicans; but did not even persuade all these to embrace his doctrines.
"Is it not also absurd in the extreme, that so many should believe in the doctrines of Christ now he is dead, though he was not able to persuade any one [genuinely] while he was living?
"But the Christians will say, We believe Jesus to be the son of God, because he cured the lame and the blind, and, as you assert, raised the dead.
"O light and truth, which clearly proclaims in its own words, as you write, that other men, and these depraved and enchanters, will come among you, possessing similar miraculous powers! Christ also feigns that a certain being, whom he denominates Satan, will be the source of these nefarious characters: so that Christ himself does not deny that these arts possess nothing divine, and acknowledges that they are the works of depraved men. At the same time likewise, being compelled by truth, he discloses both the arts of others and his own. Is it not, therefore, a miserable thing, to consider, from the performance of the same deeds, this man to be a God, but others to be nothing more than enchanters? For why, employing his testimony, should we rather think those other workers of miracles to be more depraved than himself? Indeed Christ confesses that these arts are not indications of a divine nature, but of certain impostors, and perfectly wicked characters."
After this, the Jew in Celsus says to his fellow-citizens who believed in Jesus, as follows: "Let us grant you that Jesus predicted his resurrection: but how many others have employed such-like prodigies, in order by a fabulous narration to effect what they wished; persuading stupid auditors to believe in these miracles? Zamolxis among the
Scythians, who was a slave of Pythagoras, used this artifice; Pythagoras also himself, in Italy; and in Egypt, Rhampsinitus. For it is related of the latter that he played at dice with Ceres in Hades, and that he brought back with him as a gift from her a golden towel. Similar artifices were likewise employed by Orpheus among the Odryssians; by Protesilaus among the Thessalians; and by Hercules and Theseus in Tænarus. This, however, is to be considered,—whether any one who in reality died, ever rose again in the same body: unless you think that the narrations of others are fables,but that your catastrophe of the drama will be found to be either elegant or probable, respecting what was said by him who expired on the cross, and the earthquake, and the darkness, which then according to you ensued. To which may be added, that he who when living could not help himself, arose, as you say, after he was dead, and exhibited the marks of his punishment, and his hands which had been perforated on the cross. But who was it that saw this? A furious woman, as you acknowledge, or some other of the same magical sect; or one who was under the delusion of dreams, and who voluntarily subjected himself to fallacious phantasms,—a thing which happens to myriads of the human race. Or, which is more probable, those who pretended to see this were such as wished to astonish others by
this prodigy, and, through a false narration of this kind, to give assistance to the frauds of other impostors.
"Is it to be believed that Christ, when he was alive, openly announced to all men what he was; but when it became requisite that he should procure a strong belief of his resurrection from the dead, he should only show himself secretly to one woman and to his associates?
"If also Christ wished to be concealed, why was a voice heard from heaven, proclaiming him to be the son of God? Or, if he did not wish to be concealed, why did he suffer punishment, and why did, he [ignominiously] die?"
The Jew in Celsus likewise adds, "These things therefore we have adduced to you from your own writings, than which we have employed no other testimony, for you yourselves are by them confuted. Besides, what God that ever appeared to men, did not procure belief that he was a God, particularly when he appeared to those who expected his advent? Or why was he not acknowledged by those, by whom he had been for a long time expected? We certainly hope for a resurrection in the body, and that we shall have eternal life. We
also believe that the paradigm and primary leader of this, will be he who is to be sent to us; and who will show that it is not impossible for God to raise any one with his body that he pleases."
After this, Celsus in his own person says, "The Christians and Jews most stupidly contend with each other, and this controversy of theirs about Christ differs in nothing from the proverb about the contention for the shadow of an ass*. There is also nothing venerable in the investigation of the Jews and Christians with each other; both of them believing that there was a certain prophecy from a divine spirit, that a saviour of the human race would appear on the earth, but disagreeing in their opinion whether he who was predicted had appeared or not.
"The Jews originating from the Egyptians deserted Egypt through sedition, at the same time despising the
Ninth Book of his Metamorphosis. There is also another Greek
proverb mentioned by Menander, Plato, and many others,
[—Greek—], concerning the shadow of an ass, which is said of
those who are anxious to know things futile, frivolous, and
entirely useless. These two proverbs Apuleius has merged
into one.
same thing happened to the Christians afterwards, who abandoned the religion of the Jews, as to the Jews who revolted from the Egyptians; for the cause to both of their innovation was a seditious opposition to the common* and established rites of their country.
"The Christians at first, when they were few, had but one opinion; but when they became scattered through their multitude, they were again and again divided into sects, and each sect wished to have an establishment of its own. For this was what they desired to effect from the beginning.
"But after they were widely dispersed one sect opposed the other, nor did any thing remain common
to them except the name of Christians; and even this they were at the same time ashamed to leave as a common appellation: but as to other things, they were the ordinances of men of a different persuasion.
"What however is still more wonderful is this, that their doctrine may be [easily] confuted, as consisting of no hypothesis worthy of belief. But their