Origen, Contra Celsum

Μετὰ ταῦτα οὐκ οἶδα πόθεν κινούμενος ὁ Κέλσος φησὶ δαιμόνων τινῶν ὀνόμασι καὶ κατακηλήσεσι δοκεῖν ἰσχύειν Χριστιανοὺς, ὡς οἶμαι αἰνισσόμενος τὰ περὶ τῶν κατεπᾳδόντων τοὺς δαίμονας καὶ ἐξελαυνόντων. ἔοικε δὲ σαφῶς συκοφαντεῖν τὸν λόγον. οὐ γὰρ κατακηλήσεσιν ἰσχύειν δοκοῦσιν ἀλλὰ τῷ ὀνόματι Ἰησοῦ μετὰ τῆς ἀπαγγελίας τῶν περὶ αὐτὸν ἱστοριῶν. ταῦτα γὰρ λεγόμενα πολλάκις τοὺς δαίμονας πεποίηκεν ἀνθρώπων χωρισθῆναι. καὶ μάλισθ᾿ ὅταν οἱ λέγοντες ἀπὸ διαθέσεως ὑγιοῦς καὶ πεπιστευκυίας γνησίως αὐτὰ λέγωσι, τοσοῦτον μέν γε δύναται τὸ ὄνομα τοῦ Ἰησοῦ κατὰ τῶν δαιμόνων, ὡς ἔσθ᾿ ὅτε καὶ ὑπὸ φαύλων ὀνομαζόμενον ἀνύειν· ὅπερ διδάσκων ὁ Ἰησοῦς ἔλεγε τό· „πολλοὶ ἐροῦσί μοι ἐν ἐκείνῃ τῇ ἡμέρᾳ· τῷ ὀνόματί σου δαιμόνια ἐξεβάλομεν καὶ δυνάμεις ἐποιήσαμεν.“ τοῦτο δ᾿ οὐκ οἶδα πότερον ἑκὼν παρεῖδε καὶ κακουργεῖ ὁ Κέλσος ἢ μὴ ἐπιστάμενος. κατηγορεῖ δ᾿ ἐν τοῖς ἑξῆς καὶ τοῦ σωτῆρος, ὡς γοητείᾳ δυνηθέντος ἃ ἔδοξε παράδοξα πεποιηκέναι καὶ προϊδόντος ὅτι μέλλουσι καὶ ἄλλοι τὰ αὐτὰ μαθήματα ἐγνωκότες ποιεῖν τὸ αὐτὸ, σεμνυνόμενοι τῷ θεοῦ δυνάμει ποιεῖν· οὕστινας ἀπελαύνει τῆς ἑαυτοῦ πολιτείας ὁ Ἰησοῦς. καὶ κατηγορεῖ αὐτοῦ ὅτι, εἰ δικαίως ἀπελαύνει καὶ αὐτὸς ἔνοχος ὢν τοῖς αὐτοῖς, φαῦλός ἐστιν· εἰ δ᾿ αὐτὸς οὐ φαῦλος ταῦτα ποιήσας, οὐδ᾿ οἱ ὁμοίως αὐτῷ πράττοντες. ἄντικρυς δὲ, κἂν δοκῇ ἀνέλεγκτον εἶναι τὸ περὶ τοῦ Ἰησοῦ, πῶς ταῦτα ἐποίησε, σαφὲς ὅτι Χριστιανοὶ οὐδεμιᾷ μελέτῃ ἐπῳδῶν χρώμενοι τυγχάνουσιν ἀλλὰ τῷ ὀνόματι τοῦ Ἰησοῦ καὶ ἄλλων λόγων πεπιστευμένων κατὰ τὴν θείαν γραφήν.

After this, prompted by I know not what, Celsus says that Christians appear to get their power from the names of certain daimones [demons] and from incantations, hinting, I think, at those who charm the daimones with spells and drive them out. But he clearly seems to be slandering the teaching. For it is not from incantations that they appear to get their power, but from the name of Jesus together with the recital of the stories about him. For these, when spoken, have often made the daimones depart from people, especially when those who speak them say them from a sound and genuinely believing disposition. Indeed, the name of Jesus has such power against the daimones that sometimes it is effective even when named by bad men; teaching this, Jesus said: “Many will say to me on that day, In your name we cast out daimonia [demons] and did mighty works.” Whether Celsus passed over this deliberately and with malice, or in ignorance, I do not know. In what follows he also accuses the Saviour of having been able to do the extraordinary things he appeared to do by goēteia [sorcery], and of having foreseen that others too, having learned the same lore, were going to do the same, boasting that they did it by the power of God; and these Jesus drives out of his commonwealth. And he accuses him [thus]: if he drives them out justly while being guilty of the same things himself, he is bad; but if he is not bad for having done these things, neither are those who act as he did. But plainly, even if the question about Jesus, how he did these things, should seem beyond proof, it is clear that Christians make use of no practice of incantations, but of the name of Jesus and of other words believed in accordance with divine scripture.

Μετὰ ταῦτα τὸ περιτέμνεσθαι τὰ αἰδοῖα μὴ διαβαλὼν ὁ Κέλσος ὑπὸ Ἰουδαίων γινόμενον, φησὶν ἀπὸ Αἰγυπτίων αὐτὸ ἐληλυθέναι, Αἰγυπτίοις μᾶλλον ἢ Μωϋσεῖ πιστεύσας, λέγοντι πρῶτον ἐν ἀνθρώποις περιτετμῆσθαι τὸν Ἀβραάμ. τοῦ δ᾿ Ἀβραὰμ τὸ ὄνομα οὐ Μωυσῆς ἀναγράφει μόνος οἰκειῶν αὐτὸν θεῷ, ἀλλὰ γὰρ καὶ πολλοὶ τῶν ἐπᾳδόντων δαίμονας χρῶνται ἐν τοῖς λόγοις αὐτῶν τῷ „ὁ θεὸς Ἀβραὰμ,“ ποιοῦντες μὲν διὰ τὸ ὄνομα καὶ τὴν πρὸς τὸν δίκαιον τοῦ θεοῦ οἰκειότητα, διὸ παραλαμβάνουσι τὴν „(ὁ) θεὸς Ἀβραὰμ“ λέξιν. οὐκ ἐπιστάμενοι δὲ, τίς ἐστιν ὁ Ἀβραάμ. τὰ δ᾿ αὐτὰ λεκτέον καὶ περὶ τοῦ Ἰσαὰκ καὶ περὶ τοῦ Ἰακὼβ καὶ περὶ τοῦ Ἰσραήλ· ἅτινα ὁμολογουμένως Ἑβραῖα ὄντα ὀνόματα πολλαχοῦ τοῖς Αἰγυπτίοις ἐπαγγελλομένοις ἐνέργειάν τινα ἐνέσπαρται μαθήμασι. τὸν δὲ λόγον τῆς περιτομῆς, ἀρξάμενον ἀπὸ τοῦ Ἀβραὰμ καὶ κωλυόμενον ὑπὸ τοῦ Ἰησοῦ, μὴ βουλομένου τοὺς ἑαυτοῦ μαθητὰς τὸ αὐτὸ ποιεῖν. οὐ πρόκειται νῦν ἑρμηνεύειν. οὐ γὰρ τῆς περὶ τούτων διδασκαλίας ὁ παρὼν καιρὸς ἀλλ᾿ ἀγῶνος καθαιροῦντος τὰ φερόμενα ὑπὸ Κέλσου κατὰ τοῦ Ἰουδαίων λόγου ἐγκλήματα, οἰομένου τάχιον ψευδοποιήσειν τὸν χριστιανισμὸν, ἐὰν τῆς ἀρχῆς αὐτοῦ ἐν τοῖς Ἰουδαϊκοῖς οὔσης λόγοις κατηγορῶν παραστήσῃ κἀκεῖνον ψευδῆ.

After this Celsus, without attacking the circumcision of the genitals as practised by the Jews, says that it came from the Egyptians, believing the Egyptians rather than Moses, who says that Abraham was the first among humans to be circumcised. And it is not Moses alone who records the name of Abraham, claiming him as God's own; many of those who charm daimones [demons] with spells also use in their formulas “the God of Abraham,” achieving [results] through the name and through God's close relationship with the righteous man, which is why they adopt the phrase “the God of Abraham,” though they do not know who Abraham is. The same must be said of Isaac and of Jacob and of Israel: these names, which are admittedly Hebrew, are sown in many places through the Egyptian lore that promises some magical effect. The reason for circumcision, which began with Abraham and was stopped by Jesus, who did not wish his disciples to do the same, it is not our purpose now to explain. For the present occasion is not for teaching about these things but for a contest to demolish the charges brought by Celsus against the doctrine of the Jews, since he thinks he will the more quickly prove Christianity false if, by attacking its origin, which lies in the Jewish writings, he shows that too to be false.

Μετὰ ταῦτά φησιν ὅτι οἱ αἰπόλοι καὶ ποιμένες ἕνα ἐνόμισαν θεὸν, εἴτε ὕψιστον εἴτ᾿ Ἀδωναῒ εἴτ᾿ οὐράνιον εἴτε Σαβαὼθ, εἴτε καὶ ὅπῃ καὶ ὅπως χαίρουσιν ὀνομάζοντες τόνδε τὸν κόσμον· καὶ πλεῖον οὐδὲν ἔγνωσαν. καὶ ἑξῆς δέ φησι μηδὲν διαφέρειν τῷ παρ᾿ Ἕλλησι φερομένῳ ὀνόματι τὸν ἐπὶ πᾶσι θεὸν καλεῖν Δία ἢ τῷ δεῖνα, φέρ᾿ εἰπεῖν. παρ᾿ Ἰνδοῖς ἢ τῷ δεῖνα παρ᾿ Αἰγυπτίοις. λεκτέον δὲ καὶ πρὸς τοῦτο ὅτι ἐμπίπτει εἰς τὸ προκείμενον λόγος βαθὺς καὶ ἀπόῤῥητος. ὁ περὶ φύσεως ὀνομάτων· πότερον. ὡς οἴεται Ἀριστοτέλης, θέσει εἰσὶ τὰ ὀνόματα ἢ. ὡς νομίζουσιν οἱ ἀπὸ τῆς Στοᾶς, φύσει, μιμουμένων τῶν πρώτων φωνῶν τὰ πράγματα, καθ᾿ ὧν τὰ ὀνόματα, καθὸ καὶ στοιχεῖά τινα (τῆς) ἐτυμολογίας εἰσάγουσιν, ἢ, ὡς διδάσκει Ἐπίκουρος, ἑτἐρως ἢ ὡς οἴονται οἱ ἀπὸ τῆς Στοᾶς, φύσει ἐστὶ τὰ ὀνόματα, ἀποῤῥηξάντων τῶν πρώτων ἀνθρώπων τινὰς φωνὰς κατὰ τῶν πραγμάτων. ἐὰν τοίνυν δυνηθῶμεν ἐν προηγουμένῳ λόγῳ παραστῆσαι φύσιν ὀνομάτων ἐνεργῶν, ὧν τισι χρῶνται Αἰγυπτίων οἱ σοφοὶ ἢ τῶν παρὰ Πέρσαις μάγων οἱ λόγιοι ἢ τῶν παρ᾿ Ἰνδοῖς φιλοσοφούντων Βραχμᾶνες ἢ Σαμαναῖοι. καὶ οὕτω καθ᾿ ἕκαστον τῶν ἐθνῶν, καὶ κατασκευάσαι οἷοί τε γενώμεθα ὅτι καὶ ἡ καλουμένη μαγεία οὐχ, ὡς οἴονται οἱ ἀπὸ Ἐπικούρου καὶ Ἀριστοτέλους, πρᾶγμά ἐστιν ἀσύστατον πάντῃ ἀλλ᾿, ὡς οἱ περὶ ταῦτα δεινοὶ ἀποδεικνύουσι, συνεστὸς μὲν λόγους δ᾿ ἔχον σφόδρα ὀλίγοις γινωσκομένους· τότ᾿ ἐροῦμεν ὅτι τὸ μὲν Σαβαὼθ ὄνομα καὶ τὸ Ἀδωναῒ καὶ (ὅσα) ἄλλα παρ᾿ Ἑβραίοις μετὰ πολλῆς σεμνολογίας παραδιδόμενα οὐκ ἐπὶ τῶν τυχόντων καὶ γενητῶν κεῖται πραγμάτων ἀλλ᾿ ἐπί τινος θεολογίας ἀποῤῥήτου, ἀναφερομένης εἰς τὸν τῶν ὅλων δημιουργόν. διὸ καὶ δύναται ταῦτα τὰ ὀνόματα. λεγόμενα μετά τινος τοῦ συνυφοῦς αὐτοῖς εἱρμοῦ. ἄλλα δὲ κατὰ Αἰγυπτίαν φερόμενα φωνὴν ἐπί τινων δαιμόνων. τῶν τάδε μόνα δυναμένων, καὶ ἄλλα κατὰ τὴν Περσῶν διάλεκτον ἐπὶ ἄλλων δυνάμεων, καὶ οὕτω καθ᾿ ἕκαστον τῶν ἐθνῶν, εἰς χρείας τινὰς παραλαμβάνεσθαι. καὶ οὕτως εὑρεθήσεται τῶν ἐπὶ γῆς δαιμόνων, λαχόντων διαφόρους τόπους, φέρεσθαι τὰ ὀνόματα οἰκείως ταῖς κατὰ τόπον καὶ ἔθνος διαλέκτοις. ὁ τοίνυν μεγαλοφυέστερον κἂν ὀλίγην τούτων περίνοιαν εἰληφὼς εὐλαβηθήσεται ἄλλα ἄλλοις ἐφαρμόζειν ὀνόματα πράγμασι, μή ποτε ὅμοιον πάθῃ τοῖς τὸ θεὸς ὄνομα ἐσφαλμένως φέρουσιν ἐπὶ ὕλην ἄψυχον. ἢ τὴν τοῦ ἀγαθοῦ προσηγορίαν κατασπῶσιν ἀπὸ τοῦ πρώτου αἰτίου ἢ ἀπὸ τῆς ἀρετῆς καὶ τοῦ καλοῦ ἐπὶ τὸν τυφλὸν πλοῦτον καὶ ἐπὶ τὴν σαρκῶν καὶ αἱμάτων καὶ ὀστέων συμμετρίαν ἐν ὑγείᾳ καὶ εὐεξίᾳ ἢ τὴν νομιζομένην εὐγένειαν.

After this he says that the goatherds and shepherds believed in one god, whether they call it the Most High, or Adonai, or the Heavenly One, or Sabaoth, or however and in whatever way they like to name this world; and they knew nothing more. And next he says that it makes no difference to call the God over all by the name current among the Greeks, Zeus, or by such-and-such a name, say, among the Indians, or by such-and-such among the Egyptians. To this too it must be said that there falls under the present subject a deep and secret doctrine, the one concerning the nature of names: whether, as Aristotle thinks, names are by convention, or, as the Stoics hold, by nature, the first sounds imitating the things to which the names apply, which is why they also introduce certain elements of etymology; or, as Epicurus teaches, names are by nature, but otherwise than the Stoics think, the first humans having burst out with certain sounds about things. If, then, in a treatise devoted to the matter we can set out the nature of effective names, some of which are used by the wise men of the Egyptians, or the learned among the magi of the Persians, or the Brahmans or Samanaeans among the philosophers of the Indians, and so on for each of the nations; and if we are able to prove that what is called magic is not, as the followers of Epicurus and Aristotle think, a thing utterly without coherence, but, as those skilled in these matters demonstrate, something coherent, though with principles known to very few: then we shall say that the name Sabaoth, and Adonai, and all the others handed down among the Hebrews with great solemnity, are not applied to ordinary and created things but belong to a secret theology that refers to the Creator of the universe. That is why these names have power when they are spoken with a certain sequence woven together with them; and others, current in the Egyptian tongue, [apply] to certain daimones [demons] who have power over these things only, and others in the language of the Persians to other powers, and so on for each of the nations, and are taken up for certain uses. And so it will be found that the names of the daimones on earth, who have been allotted different places, are current in a manner proper to the languages of each place and nation. So whoever has, with some largeness of mind, gained even a little understanding of these things will be careful about fitting different names to different things, lest he suffer the same as those who wrongly apply the name 'god' to lifeless matter, or drag down the title 'good' from the First Cause, or from virtue and the noble, to blind wealth, and to the right proportion of flesh and blood and bones in health and good condition, or to what is considered noble birth.

Ἐπεὶ δὲ καὶ προσωποποιεῖ, τρόπον τινὰ μιμησάμενος ἓν ῥήτορος εἰσαγόμενον παιδίον, καὶ εἰσάγει Ἰουδαῖον πρὸς τὸν Ἰησοῦν λέγοντά τινα μειρακιωδῶς καὶ οὐδὲν φιλοσόφου πολιᾶς ἄξιον· φέρε κατὰ δύναμιν καὶ ταῦτα ἐξετάσαντες ἐξελέγξωμεν ὅτι οὐδὲ τὸ ἁρμόζον πάντῃ τῷ Ἰουδαίῳ πρόσωπον ἐν τοῖς λεγομένοις τετήρηκε. μετὰ ταῦτα προσωποποιεῖ Ἰουδαῖον αὐτῷ διαλεγόμενον τῷ Ἰησοῦ καὶ ἐλέγχοντα αὐτὸν περὶ πολλῶν μὲν, ὡς οἴεται, πρῶτον δὲ ὡς πλασαμένου αὐτοῦ τὴν ἐκ παρθένου γένεσιν· ὀνειδίζει δ᾿ αὐτῷ καὶ ἐπὶ τῷ ἐκ κώμης αὐτὸν γεγονέναι Ἰουδαϊκῆς καὶ ἀπὸ γυναικὸς ἐγχωρίου καὶ πενιχρᾶς καὶ χερνήτιδος. φησὶ δ᾿ αὐτὴν καὶ ὑπὸ τοῦ γήμαντος, τέκτονος τὴν τέχνην ὄντος, ἐξεῶσθαι ἐλεγχθεῖσαν ὡς μεμοιχευμένην. εἶτα λέγει ὡς ἐκβληθεῖσα ὑπὸ τοῦ ἀνδρὸς καὶ πλανωμένη ἀτίμως σκότιον ἐγέννησε τὸν Ἰησοῦν· καὶ ὅτι οὗτος διὰ πενίαν εἰς Αἴγυπτον μισθαρνήσας κἀκεῖ δυνάμεών τινων πειραθεὶς, ἐφ᾿ αἷς Αἰγύπτιοι σεμνύνονται. ἐπανῆλθεν ἐν ταῖς δυνάμεσι μέγα φρονῶν, καὶ δι᾿ αὐτὰς θεὸν αὑτὸν ἀνηγόρευσε. ταῦτα δὲ πάντα τῷ μηδὲν δυναμένῳ ἀβασάνιστον ἐᾶν τῶν λεγομένων ὑπὸ τῶν ἀπιστούντων ἀλλὰ τὴν ἀρχὴν τῶν πραγμάτων ἐξετάζοντι δοκεῖ μοι συμπνεῖν τῷ ἄξιον γεγονέναι τῆς προῤῥήσεως περὶ τοῦ θεοῦ υἱὸν εἶναι τὸν Ἰησοῦν.

Since he also speaks through a persona, in a way imitating a child brought on by a rhetoric teacher, and introduces a Jew saying to Jesus things that are juvenile and in no way worthy of a philosopher's grey hairs, come, let us examine these things too as best we can, and show that he has not even kept the character wholly fitting to the Jew in what is said. After this he brings on a Jew in character conversing with Jesus himself and refuting him on many points, as he thinks, but first for having fabricated his birth from a virgin; and he reproaches him also for having come from a Jewish village and from a local woman, poor and working with her hands for hire. He says that she was also driven out by her husband, a carpenter by trade, having been convicted of adultery. Then he says that, cast out by her husband and wandering in disgrace, she gave birth to Jesus in secret; and that he, having hired himself out in Egypt because of poverty, and having there tried his hand at certain powers on which the Egyptians pride themselves, came back thinking much of himself because of these powers, and on account of them proclaimed himself a god. But all this, to one who cannot leave untested anything said by unbelievers but examines the origin of things, seems to me to bear out that Jesus was worthy of the prophecy that he is the Son of God.

Ἀλλὰ γὰρ ἐπανέλθωμεν εἰς τὴν τοῦ Ἰουδαίου προσωποποιΐαν, ἐν ᾗ ἀναγέγραπται ἡ τοῦ Ἰησοῦ μήτηρ ὡς ἐξωσθεῖσα ὑπὸ τοῦ μνηστευσαμένου αὐτὴν τέκτονος, ἐλεγχθεῖσα ἐπὶ μοιχείᾳ καὶ τίκτουσα ἀπό τινος στρατιώτου Πανθήρα τοὔνομα· καὶ ἴδωμεν εἰ μὴ τυφλῶς οἱ μυθοποιήσαντες τὴν μοιχείαν τῆς παρθένου καὶ τοῦ Πανθήρα καὶ τὸν τέκτονα ἐξωσάμενον αὐτὴν ταῦτα πάντα ἀνέπλασαν ἐπὶ καθαιρέσει τῆς παραδόξου ἀπὸ ἁγίου πνεύματος συλλήψεως· ἐδύναντο γὰρ ἄλλως ψευδοποιῆσαι διὰ τὸ σφόδρα παράδοξον τὴν ἱστορίαν καὶ μὴ ὡσπερεὶ ἀκουσίως συγκαταθέσθαι ὅτι οὐκ ἀπὸ συνήθων ἀνθρώποις γάμων ὁ Ἰησοῦς ἐγεννήθη. καὶ ἀκόλουθόν γε ἦν τοὺς μὴ συγκαταθεμένους τῇ παραδόξῳ γενέσει τοῦ Ἰησοῦ πλάσαι τι ψεῦδος· τὸ δὲ μὴ πιθανῶς αὐτοὺς τοῦτο ποιῆσαι ἀλλὰ μετὰ τοῦ τηρῆσαι ὅτι οὐκ ἀπὸ τοῦ Ἰωσὴφ παρθένος συνέλαβε τὸν Ἰησοῦν, τοῖς ἀκούειν καὶ ἐλέγχειν ἀναπλάσματα δυναμένοις ἐναργὲς ἦν ψεῦδος. ἆρα γὰρ εὔλογον τὸν τοσαῦτα ὑπὲρ τοῦ γένους τῶν ἀνθρώπων τολμήσαντα, ἵνα τὸ ὅσον ἐπ᾿ αὐτῷ πάντες Ἕλληνες καὶ βάρβαροι κρίσιν θείαν προσδοκήσαντες ἀποστῶσι μὲν τῆς κακίας πάντα δὲ πράττωσιν ἀρεσκόντως τῷ τῶν ὅλων δημιουργῷ, παράδοξον μὲν μὴ ἐσχηκέναι γένεσιν πασῶν δὲ γενέσεων παρανομωτάτην καὶ αἰσχίστην; ἐρῶ δὲ ὡς πρὸς Ἕλληνας καὶ μάλιστα Κέλσον, εἴτε φρονοῦντα εἴτε μὴ, πλὴν παρατιθέμενον τὰ Πλάτωνος· ἆρα ὁ καταπέμπων ψυχὰς εἰς ἀνθρώπων σώματα τὸν τοσαῦτα τολμήσοντα καὶ τοσούτους διδάξοντα καὶ ἀπὸ τῆς χύσεως τῆς κατὰ τὴν κακίαν μεταστήσοντα πολλοὺς ἀνθρώπων ἐπὶ τὴν πασῶν αἰσχροτέραν γένεσιν ὤθει, μηδὲ διὰ γάμων γνησίων αὐτὸν εἰσαγαγὼν εἰς τὸν τῶν ἀνθρώπων βίον; ἢ εὐλογώτερον ἑκάστην ψυχὴν κατά τινας ἀποῤῥήτους λόγους (λέγω δὲ ταῦτα νῦν κατὰ Πυθαγόραν καὶ Πλάτωνα καὶ Ἐμπεδοκλέα, οὓς πολλάκις ὠνόμασεν ὁ Κέλσος,) εἰσκρινομένην σώματι κατ᾿ ἀξίαν εἰσκρίνεσθαι καὶ κατὰ τὰ πρότερα ἤθη; εἰκὸς οὖν καὶ ταύτην τὴν ψυχὴν, πολλῶν (ἵνα μὴ συναρπάζειν δοκῶ, λέγων πάντων) ἀνθρώπων ὠφελιμωτέραν τῷ βίῳ τῶν ἀνθρώπων ἐπιδημοῦσαν, δεδεῆσθαι σώματος, οὐ μόνον ὡς ἐν ἀνθρωπίνοις σώμασι διαφέροντος ἀλλὰ καὶ τοῦ πάντων κρείττονος.

But let us return to the speech put in the mouth of the Jew, in which the mother of Jesus is described as having been driven out by the carpenter who was betrothed to her, having been convicted of adultery and bearing a child by a certain soldier named Panthera; and let us see whether those who made up the tale of the adultery of the virgin with Panthera, and of the carpenter who drove her out, did not fabricate all this blindly in order to overthrow the miraculous conception by the Holy Spirit. For because of the story's being so very extraordinary they could have falsified it in some other way, and not, as it were, involuntarily agreed that Jesus was not born of an ordinary human marriage. And it was consistent that those who did not assent to the miraculous birth of Jesus should invent some lie; but that they did this unconvincingly, keeping the point that the virgin did not conceive Jesus by Joseph, was a manifest lie to those able to listen and to expose fabrications. For is it reasonable that he who dared so much on behalf of the human race, so that, as far as lay with him, all Greeks and barbarians, expecting divine judgement, might turn away from wickedness and do everything in a way pleasing to the Creator of the universe, should have had no miraculous birth, but of all births the most lawless and most shameful? I will speak as to Greeks, and especially to Celsus, who, whether he holds Plato's views or not, at any rate cites them: would he who sends souls down into human bodies thrust the one who was to dare so much, to teach so many, and to turn many people away from the outpouring of wickedness, into a birth more shameful than any, not even bringing him into human life through a lawful marriage? Or is it more reasonable that each soul, being introduced into a body according to certain secret principles (I say this now in the manner of Pythagoras and Plato and Empedocles, whom Celsus often named), is introduced according to its merit and its former character? It is likely, then, that this soul too, which came to dwell among us, more beneficial to human life than many people (so that I may not seem to beg the question by saying 'all'), needed a body not only outstanding among human bodies but also better than all.

Πρὸς μὲν οὖν Ἕλληνας, ὅτι μάγοι δαίμοσιν ὁμιλοῦντες καὶ τούτους ἐφ᾿ ἃ μεμαθήκασι καὶ βούλονται καλοῦντες ποιοῦσι μὲν τὸ τοιοῦτον, ὅσον οὐδὲν θειότερον καὶ ἰσχυρότερον τῶν δαιμόνων καὶ τῆς καλούσης αὐτοὺς ἐπῳδῆς ἐπιφαίνεται ἢ λέγεται· ἐὰν δὲ θειοτέρα τις ἐπιφάνεια γένηται, καθαιροῦνται αἱ τῶν δαιμόνων ἐνέργειαι, μὴ δυνάμεναι ἀντιβλέψαι τῷ τῆς θειότητος φωτί. εἰκὸς οὖν καὶ κατὰ τὴν τοῦ Ἰησοῦ γένεσιν, ἐπεὶ „πλῆθος στρατιᾶς οὐρανίου,“ ὡς ὁ Λουκᾶς ἀνέγραψε κἀγὼ πείθομαι, ᾔνεσε τὸν θεὸν καὶ ἔλεγε· „δόξα ἐν ὑψίστοις θεῷ καὶ ἐπὶ γῆς εἰρήνη, ἐν ἀνθρώποις εὐδοκία,“ διὰ τοῦτο οἱ δαίμονες ἠτόνησαν καὶ ἐξησθένησαν, ἐλεγχθείσης αὐτῶν τῆς γοητείας καὶ καταλυθείσης τῆς ἐνεργείας, οὐ μόνον ὑπὸ τῶν ἐπιδημησάντων τῷ περιγείῳ τόπῳ ἀγγέλων διὰ τὴν Ἰησοῦ γένεσιν καθαιρεθέντες ἀλλὰ καὶ ὑπὸ τῆς ψυχῆς τοῦ Ἰησοῦ καὶ τῆς ἐν αὐτῷ θειότητος. οἱ τοίνυν μάγοι τὰ συνήθη πράττειν θέλοντες, ἅπερ πρότερον διά τινων ἐπῳδῶν καὶ μαγγανειῶν ἐποίουν, ἐζήτησαν τὴν αἰτίαν, μεγάλην αὐτὴν εἶναι τεκμαιρόμενοι, καὶ ἰδόντες θεοσημίαν ἐν οὐρανῷ ἐβούλοντο τὸ σημαινόμενον ἀπ᾿ αὐτῆς ἰδεῖν. δοκεῖ μοι οὖν ὅτι ἔχοντες τοῦ Βαλαὰμ ἃς καὶ Μω(??)σῆς ἀνέγραψε προφητείας, ὡς καὶ αὐτοῦ περὶ τὰ τοιαῦτα γενομένου δεινοῦ, καὶ εὑρόντες ἐκεῖ περὶ τοῦ ἄστρου καὶ τὸ „δείξω αὐτῷ. καὶ οὐχὶ νῦν· μακαρίζω, καὶ οὐκ ἐγγιεῖ“ ἐστοχάσαντο τὸν μετὰ τοῦ ἄστρου προφητεύομενον ἄνθρωπον ἐπιδεδημηκέναι τῷ βίῳ, καὶ ὡς πάντων δαιμόνων καὶ τῶν ἐν ἔθει αὐτοῖς φανταζομένων καὶ ἐνεργούντων κρείττονα προλαβόντες „προσκυνῆσαι“ ἠθέλησαν. ἧκον οὖν ἐπὶ τὴν Ἰουδαίαν, ὅτι μὲν „βασιλεύς“ τις γεγέννηται πειθόμενοι ἢ ποῦ γεννηθήσεται γινώσκοντες, τίνα δὲ βασιλείαν βασιλεύσων οὐκ ἐπιστάμενοι· φέροντες μὲν „δῶρα“, (ἃ), ἵν᾿ οὕτως ὀνομάσω, συνθέτῳ τινὶ ἐκ θεοῦ καὶ ἀνθρώπου θνητοῦ „προσήνεγκαν“, σύμβολα μὲν ὡς βασιλεῖ τὸν „χρυσὸν“ ὡς δὲ τεθνηξομένῳ τὴν „σμύρναν“, ὡς δὲ θεῷ τὸν λιβανωτόν· „προσήνεγκαν“ δὲ μαθόντες τὸν τόπον τῆς γενέσεως αὐτοῦ. ἀλλ᾿ ἐπεὶ θεὸς ἦν ὁ ὑπὲρ τοὺς βοηθοῦντας ἀνθρώποις ἀγγέλους ἐνυπάρχων σωτὴρ τοῦ γένους τῶν ἀνθρώπων, ἄγγελος ἠμείψατο τὴν τῶν μάγων ἐπὶ τὸ προσκυνῆσαι τὸν Ἰησοῦν εὐσέβειαν, χρηματίσας αὐτοῖς μὴ ἥκειν πρὸς τὸν Ἡρώδην ἀλλ᾿ ἐπανελθεῖν ἄλλῃ ὁδῷ εἰς τὰ οἰκεῖα.

Now to the Greeks [we say] that magi, consorting with daimones [demons] and summoning them for the purposes they have learned and wish, do accomplish such things as long as nothing more divine and more powerful than the daimones and the incantation that summons them appears or is uttered; but if some more divine manifestation occurs, the operations of the daimones are overthrown, unable to face the light of divinity. It is likely, then, that at the birth of Jesus too, since “a multitude of the heavenly host,” as Luke recorded and I believe, praised God and said, “Glory to God in the highest, and on earth peace, goodwill among men,” the daimones for this reason lost their strength and grew weak, their goēteia [sorcery] being exposed and their operation dissolved, overthrown not only by the angels who came to the region around the earth because of Jesus' birth, but also by the soul of Jesus and the divinity in him. So the magi, wishing to do their customary things, which they used to do before by certain incantations and charms, sought the cause, judging it to be a great one; and seeing a divine sign in the heaven, they wished to see what was signified by it. It seems to me, then, that having the prophecies of Balaam, which Moses too recorded, Balaam also having been skilled in such matters, and finding there [the words] about the star and “I will show him, but not now; I call him blessed, but he will not draw near,” they guessed that the man prophesied together with the star had come into the world; and, judging in advance that he was stronger than all daimones and than those that customarily appeared to them and worked for them, they wished “to worship” him. So they came to Judaea, persuaded that some “king” had been born, or knowing where he would be born, but not knowing over what kingdom he would reign; bringing “gifts,” which they “offered” to one who was, if I may call him so, a composite of God and mortal man, as symbols: “gold” as to a king, “myrrh” as to one who would die, and frankincense as to a god; and they “offered” them once they had learned the place of his birth. But since the Saviour of the human race, who was above the angels that help humans, was God, an angel rewarded the magi's piety in worshipping Jesus by warning them in an oracle not to go to Herod but to return home by another road.

Ἑξῆς δὲ τούτοις ὁ Κέλσος ὑπιδόμενος τὰ ἐπιδειχθησόμενα ὑπὸ τοῦ Ἰησοῦ γεγενημένα μεγάλα, περὶ ὧν ὀλίγα ἀπὸ πολλῶν εἰρήκαμεν, προσποιεῖται συγχωρεῖν ἀληθῆ εἶναι ὅσα περὶ θεραπειῶν ἢ ἀναστάσεως ἢ περὶ ἄρτων ὀλίγων θρεψάντων πολλοὺς ἀναγέγραπται, ἀφ᾿ ὧν λείψανα πολλὰ καταλέλειπται, ἢ ὅσα ἄλλα οἴεται τερατευσαμένους τοὺς μαθητὰς ἱστορηκέναι, καὶ ἐπιφέρει αὐτοῖς· φέρε πιστεύσωμεν εἶναί σοι ταῦτ᾿ εἰργασμένα. καὶ εὐθέως κοινοποιεῖ αὐτὰ πρὸς τὰ ἔργα τῶν γοήτων, ὡς ὑπισχνουμένων θαυμασιώτερα, καὶ πρὸς τὰ ὑπὸ τῶν μαθόντων ἀπὸ Αἰγυπτίων ἐπιτελούμενα, ἐν μέσαις ἀγοραῖς ὀλίγων ὀβολῶν ἀποδομένων τὰ σεμνὰ μαθήματα καὶ δαίμονας ἀπὸ ἀνθρώπων ἐξελαυνόντων καὶ νόσους ἀποφυσώντων καὶ ψυχὰς ἡρώων ἀνακαλούντων δεῖπνά τε πολυτελῆ καὶ τραπέζας καὶ πέμματα καὶ ὄψα τὰ οὐκ ὄντα δεικνύντων καὶ ὡς ζῷα κινούντων οὐκ ἀληθῶς ὄντα ζῷα ἀλλὰ μέχρι φαντασίας φαινόμενα τοιαῦτα, καὶ φησιν· ἆρ᾿ ἐπεὶ ταῦτα ποιοῦσιν ἐκεῖνοι, δεήσει ἡμᾶς αὐτοὺς ἡγεῖσθαι υἱοὺς εἶναι θεοῦ; ἢ λεκτέον αὐτὰ ἐπιτηδεύματα εἶναι ἀνθρώπων πονηρῶν καὶ κακοδαιμόνων;

Next after this, Celsus, suspecting that the great things done by Jesus would be pointed to, of which we have mentioned a few out of many, pretends to concede that all is true that is recorded about healings, or resurrection, or a few loaves feeding many, from which many leftovers remained, or whatever else he thinks the disciples related in telling marvels; and he adds to them: Come, let us believe that these things were done by you. And at once he puts them on a level with the works of goētes [sorcerers], as though these promised still more wonderful things, and with what is performed by those who have learned from Egyptians, who in the middle of the marketplaces sell their solemn lore for a few obols, drive daimones [demons] out of people, blow away diseases, call up the souls of heroes, display costly dinners and tables and cakes and dishes that do not exist, and set in motion, as if alive, things that are not truly living creatures but appear such only to the imagination; and he says: Since those men do these things, shall we have to consider them sons of God? Or must we say that they are the practices of wicked and wretched men?

Ὑπείδετο δὲ ὁ Κέλσος τὸ ἀπὸ τῆς γραφῆς ποιήσας τὸν Ἰησοῦν εἰρηκέναι ὅτι σατανᾶς τις τοιαῦτα παραμηχανήσεται. ἀλλὰ καὶ συναρπάζει τὸν λόγον φάσκων μὴ ἔξαρνον εἶναι τὸν Ἰησοῦν, ὡς ταῦτα οὐδὲν θεῖον ἔχει ἀλλὰ πονηρῶν ἐστιν ἔργα· ὁμογενῆ γὰρ αὐτὰ πεποίηκεν ἑτερογενῆ τυγχάνοντα. καὶ ὥσπερ λύκος κυνὶ οὐχ ὁμογενὴς, κἂν δοκῇ ἔχειν τι παραπλήσιον ἐν τῷ τοῦ σώματος σχήματι καὶ τῇ φωνῇ, οὐδὲ φάσσα τῇ περιστερᾷ· οὕτως οὐδὲν ὅμοιον ἔχει τὸ δυνάμει θεοῦ ἐπιτελούμενον τῷ γινομένῳ ἀπὸ γοητείας.

Celsus had an inkling of the [proof] from scripture, since he made Jesus say that a certain Satan will contrive such things. But he also twists the argument, asserting that Jesus does not deny that these things have nothing divine about them but are the works of wicked men; for he has made them of one kind when they are of different kinds. And just as a wolf is not of the same kind as a dog, even if it seems to have some likeness in bodily shape and voice, nor a wood pigeon of the same kind as the dove, so what is accomplished by the power of God has nothing in common with what comes about by goēteia [sorcery].

ἔτι δὲ καὶ ταῦτα πρὸς τὰς Κέλσου κακουργίας ἐροῦμεν· ἆρα δυνάμεις γίνονται μὲν κατὰ γοητείαν ἀπὸ πονηρῶν δαιμόνων, οὐδεμία δὲ δύναμις ἐπιτελεῖται ἀπὸ τῆς θείας καὶ μακαρίας φύσεως, ἀλλ᾿ ὁ βίος τῶν ἀνθρώπων ἤνεγκε μὲν τὰ χείρονα οὐδαμῶς δ᾿ ἐχώρησε τὰ κρείττονα; καὶ τοῦτο δὲ δοκεῖ μοι ὥσπερ ἐπὶ πάντων δεῖν παρατιθέναι, ὅτι ὅπου τι χεῖρον προσποιούμενον εἶναι ὁμογενὲς τῷ κρείττονι, ἐκεῖ πάντως ἐκ τοῦ ἐναντίου ἐστί τι κρεῖττον. οὕτω καὶ ἐπὶ τῶν κατὰ γοητείαν ἐπιτελούντων. ὅτι πάντως ἀνάγκη εἶναι καὶ ἀπὸ θείας ἐνεργείας ἐν τῷ βίῳ γινόμενα. καὶ τοῦ αὐτοῦ ἐστιν ἐξ ἀκολουθίας ἤτοι ἀμφότερα ἀναιρεῖν καὶ λέγειν μηδέτερον γίνεσθαι ἢ τιθέντα τὸ ἕτερον καὶ μάλιστα τὸ χεῖρον ὁμολογεῖν καὶ περὶ τοῦ κρείττονος. εἰ δέ τις τιθείη μὲν τὰ ἀπὸ γοητείας γίνεσθαι, μὴ τιθείη δὲ τὰ ἀπὸ θείας δυνάμεως, δοκεῖ μοι παραπλήσιος εἶναι τῷ τιθέναι μὲν ὅτι εἰσὶ σοφίσματα καὶ λόγοι πιθανοὶ, ἀποτυγχάνοντες τῆς ἀληθείας, προσποιούμενοι τἀληθῆ παριστάνειν, οὐδαμοῦ δὲ παρ᾿ ἀνθρώποις ἀλήθεια καὶ διαλεκτικὴ ἀλλοτρία σοφισμάτων πολιτεύεται.

Further, we shall say this too in answer to Celsus' malicious tricks: are mighty works done by goēteia through wicked daimones [demons], while no mighty work is accomplished by the divine and blessed nature? Has human life borne the worse, but found no room at all for the better? And this, it seems to me, should be laid down as holding in every case: where there is something worse pretending to be of the same kind as the better, there, on the opposite side, there is certainly something better. So too with those who achieve things by goēteia: there must certainly also be things done in human life by divine operation. And it belongs to the same person, by consequence, either to do away with both and say that neither happens, or, positing the one, and especially the worse, to grant the better as well. But if someone were to posit that things come about by goēteia, but not posit those that come by divine power, he seems to me like one who posits that there are sophisms and plausible arguments that miss the truth while pretending to establish it, but that nowhere among humans do truth and a dialectic free of sophisms have a home.

μετὰ ταῦτά φησιν ὁ Ἰουδαῖος πρὸς τοὺς ἑαυτοῦ πολίτας τῷ Ἰησοῦ πιστεύοντας· φέρε δὴ καὶ πιστεύωμενηι ὑμῖν τοῦτ' εἰρῆσθαι. πόσοι δ' ἄλλοι τοιαῦτα τερατεύονται, πειθοῦς ἕνεκα τῶν εὐήθως ἀκουόντων ἐνεργολαβοῦντες τῇ πλάνῃ; ὅπερ οὖν καὶ Ζάμολξιν ἐν Σκύθαις φασί, τὸν Πυθαγόρου δοῦλον, καὶ αὐτὸν Πυθαγόραν ἐν Ἰταλίᾳ καὶ Ῥαμψίνιτον ἐν Αἰγύπτῳ· τοῦτον μὲν καὶ „συγκυβεύειν“ ἐν ᾅδου „τῇ Δήμητρι“ καὶ ἀνελθεῖν „δῶρον“ „παρ' αὐτῆς χειρόμακτρον χρυσοῦν“ φέροντα· καὶ μὴν καὶ Ὀρφέα ἐν Ὀδρύσαις καὶ Πρωτεσίλαον ἐν Θεσσαλίᾳ καὶ Ἡρακλέα ἐπὶ Ταινάρῳ καὶ Θησέα. Ἀλλ' ἐκεῖνο σκεπτέον, εἴ τις ὡς ἀληθῶς ἀποθανὼν ἀνέστη ποτὲ αὐτῷ σώματι]· ἢ οἴεσθε τὰ μὲν τῶν ἄλλων μύθους εἶναί τε καὶ δοκεῖν, ὑμῖν δὲ τὴν καταστροφὴν τοῦ δράματος εὐσχημόνως ἢ πιθανῶς ἐφευρῆσθαι, τὴν ἐπὶ τοῦ σκόλοπος αὐτοῦ φωνήν, ὅτ' ἀπέπνει, καὶ „τὸν σεισμὸν“ καὶ τὸν σκότον; ὅτι δὴ ζῶν μὲν οὐκ ἐπήρκεσεν ἑαυτῷ, νεκρὸς δ' ἀνέστη καὶ τὰ σημεῖα τῆς κολάσεως ἔδειξε [καὶ τὰς χεῖρας ὡς ἦσαν πεπερονημέναι], τίς τοῦτο εἶδε; γυνὴ πάροιστρος, ὥς φατε, καὶ εἴ τις ἄλλος τῶν ἐκ τῆς αὐτῆς γοητείας, ἤτοι κατά τινα διάθεσιν ὀνειρώξας καὶ κατὰ τὴν αὐτοῦ βούλησιν δόξῃ πεπλανημένῃ φαντασιωθεὶς, ὅπερ ἤδη μυρίοις συμβέβηκεν, ἢ. ὅπερ μᾶλλον. ἐκπλῆξαι τοὺς λοιποὺς τῇ τερατείᾳ ταύτῃ θελήσας καὶ διὰ τοῦ τοιούτου ψεύσματος ἀφορμὴν ἄλλοις ἀγύρταις παρασχεῖν.

After this the Jew says to his own fellow citizens who believe in Jesus: Come then, let us believe that this was said to you. But how many others tell such marvels, exploiting the deception to persuade those who listen simple-mindedly? That is just what they say of Zamolxis among the Scythians, the slave of Pythagoras, and of Pythagoras himself in Italy, and of Rhampsinitus in Egypt; this last, they say, even “played dice” in Hades “with Demeter” and came back up bearing “a gift from her, a golden napkin”; and indeed also of Orpheus among the Odrysians, and Protesilaus in Thessaly, and Heracles at Taenarum, and Theseus. But this must be considered: whether anyone who truly died ever rose again with the very same body. Or do you think that the stories of the others are myths and seem so, while you have devised the ending of your drama decorously or plausibly: his cry on the stake when he was expiring, and “the earthquake” and the darkness? That while alive he could not help himself, but when dead he rose and showed the marks of his punishment [and how his hands had been pierced]: who saw this? A frenzied woman, as you say, and perhaps some other of those from the same goēteia [sorcery], who either dreamed it in some state of mind and, following his own wish, imagined it through a deluded fancy, which has already happened to countless people, or, which is more likely, wished to astound the rest with this wonder-tale and, by such a lie, to give an opening to other vagrant charlatans.

Ἥν δὲ βουλόμεθα ἐξετάσαι νῦν τοῦ Κέλσου λέξιν οὕτως ἔχει· καὶ δὴ παραλείπομεν ὅσα περὶ τοῦ διδασκάλου διελέγχονται. καὶ δοκείτω τις ὡς ἀληθῶς ἄγγελος. ἧκε δὲ πότερον οὗτος πρῶτος καὶ μόνος, ἢ καὶ ἄλλοι πρότερον; εἰ μὲν φαῖεν ὅτι μόνος, ἐλέγχοιντο ἂν ἐναντία σφίσι ψευδόμενοι. ἐλθεῖν γὰρ καὶ ἄλλους λέγουσι πολλάκις, καὶ ὁμοῦ γε ἑξήκοντα ἢ ἑβδομήκοντα· οὓς δὴ γενέσθαι κακοὺς καὶ κολάζεσθαι δεσμοῖς ὑποβληθέντας ἐν γῇ, ὅθεν καὶ τὰς θερμὰς πηγὰς εἶναι τὰ ἐκείνων δάκρυα. καὶ μὴν καὶ πρὸς τὸν αὐτοῦ τοῦ τοῦδε τάφον ἐλθεῖν ἄγγελον, οἱ μὲν ἕνα, οἱ δὲ δύο, τοὺς ἀποκρινομένους ταῖς γυναιξὶν ὅτι ἀνέστη. ὁ γὰρ τοῦ θεοῦ παῖς, ὡς ἔοικεν, οὐκ ἐδύνατο ἀνοῖξαι τὸν τάφον, ἀλλ᾿ ἐδεήθη ἄλλου ἀποκινήσοντος τὴν πέτραν. ἔτι μὴν καὶ ὑπὲρ τῆς Μαρίας κυούσης πρὸς τὸν τέκτονα ἧκεν ἄγγελος, καὶ ὑπὲρ τοῦ τὸ βρέφος ἐξαρπάσαντας φυγεῖν ἄλλος ἄγγελος. καὶ τί δεῖ πάντα ἀκριβολογεῖσθαι καὶ τοὺς Μωϋσεῖ τε καὶ ἄλλοις αὐτῶν πεμφθῆναι λεγομένους ἀπαριθμεῖν; εἰ τοίνυν ἐπέμφθησαν καὶ ἄλλοι, δῆλον ὅτι καὶ ὅδε παρὰ τοῦ αὐτοῦ θεοῦ. πλεῖον δέ τι ἀγγέλλειν δοκείτω, φέρε, ὥσπερ πλημμελούντων τι Ἰουδαίων ἢ παραχαραττόντων τὴν εὐσέβειαν ἢ οὐχ ὅσια δρώντων· ταῦτα γὰρ αἰνίττονται.

The passage of Celsus that we now wish to examine runs thus: And now we pass over all the points on which they are refuted concerning their teacher. Let him be thought truly an angel. But did this one come first and alone, or did others come before too? If they were to say that he alone [came], they would be convicted of lying in contradiction of themselves. For they say that others too came often, and indeed sixty or seventy at once; and these, they say, became wicked and are punished, cast into bonds in the earth, which is why the hot springs are their tears. And moreover, [they say] an angel came to the tomb of this very man, some say one, others two, who answered the women that he had risen. For the child of God, it seems, could not open the tomb, but needed someone else to move away the rock. Further, an angel came to the carpenter about Mary's being pregnant, and another angel about their snatching up the infant and fleeing. And why go into every detail and list those said to have been sent to Moses and others of them? If, then, others too were sent, it is clear that this one also [was sent] by the same God. Let him be thought, come, to bring some greater message, as though the Jews were offending in some way, or debasing their religion, or doing unholy things; for these are what they hint at.

Εἶθ᾿ ἑξῆς ἐπαναλαμβάνει τὰ περὶ τῶν ἑπτὰ ἀρχόντων δαιμόνων, μηδαμῶς μὲν ὑπὸ Χριστιανῶν ὀνομαζομένων οἶμαι δ᾿ ὑπὸ Ὀφιανῶν παραλαμβανομένων. καὶ εὕρομέν γε ἐν ᾧ καὶ ἡμεῖς δι᾿ ἐκείνους ἐκτησάμεθα διαγράμματι τὴν τάξιν ὁμοίως ἐκκειμένην οἷς ὁ Κέλσος ἐξέθετο. ὁ μὲν οὖν Κέλσος ἔλεγε τὸν πρῶτον ἰδέᾳ λέοντος μεμορφωμένον, οὐκ ἐκθέμενος, τίνα αὐτὸν ὀνομάζουσιν οἱ ἀληθῶς δυσσεβέστατοι· ἡμεῖς δὲ εὕρομεν ὅτι τὸν ἐν ταῖς ἱεραῖς γραφαῖς εὐφημούμενον ἄγγελον τοῦ δημιουργοῦ, τοῦτον τὸ μιαρὸν ἐκεῖνο διάγραμμα ἔλεγεν εἶναι Μιχαὴλ τὸν λεοντοειδῆ. πάλιν τ᾿ αὖ μὲν Κέλσος ἔφασκε τὸν ἑξῆς καὶ δεύτερον εἶναι ταῦρον· ὃ δ᾿ εἴχομεν διάγραμμα τὸν Σουριὴλ ἔλεγεν εἶναι τὸν ταυροειδῆ. εἶτα ὁ μὲν Κέλσος τρίτον ἀμφίβιόν τινα καὶ φρικῶδες ἐπισυρίζοντα· τὸ δὲ διάγραμμα τρίτον Ῥαφαὴλ ἔλεγεν εἶναι δρακοντοειδῆ. πάλιν τε αὖ ὁ μὲν Κέλσος τὸν τέταρτον ἀετοῦ ἔφασκεν ἔχειν μορφήν· τὸ δὲ διάγραμμα Γαβριὴλ ἔλεγεν εἶναι τὸν ἀετοειδῆ. εἶθ᾿ μὲν Κέλσος τὸν πέμπτον ἔφασκεν εἶναι ἄρκου πρόσωπον ἔχοντα· τὸ δὲ διάγραμμα τὸν Θαυθαβαὼθ ἔφασκεν εἶναι τὸν ἀρκοειδῆ. εἶθ᾿ ὁ μὲν Κέλσος τὸν ἕκτον κυνὸς πρόσωπον ἔλεγεν ἱστορεῖσθαι ἔχειν παρ᾿ ἐκείνοις· τὸ δὲ διάγραμμα ἔφασκεν εἶναι αὐτὸν Ἐραθαώθ. εἶθ᾿ ὁ μὲν Κέλσος τὸν ἕβδομον ἔφασκεν ὄνου ἔχειν πρόσωπον, καὶ ὀνομάζεσθαι αὐτὸν Θαφαβαὼθ ἢ Ὀνοήλ· ἡμεῖς δ᾿ ἐν τῷ διαγράμματι εὕρομεν ὅτι οὗτος καλεῖται Ὀνοὴλ ἢ Θαρθαραὼθ, ὀνοειδής τις τυγχάνων. ἔδοξε δὲ καὶ ἡμῖν ἀκριβῶς ἐκθέσθαι τὰ τοιαῦτα, ἵνα μὴ δοκῶμεν ἀγνοεῖν ἃ Κέλσος ἐπηγγέλλετο εἰδέναι· ἀλλὰ καὶ παραστήσωμεν ἀκριβέστερον ἐκείνου αὐτὰ ἐγνωκότες οἱ Χριστιανοὶ, ὡς οὐ Χριστιανῶν λόγους ἀλλὰ πάντῃ ἀλλοτρίων σωτηρίας καὶ οὐδαμῶς ἐπιγραφομένων Ἰησοῦν ἢ σωτῆρα ἢ θεὸν ἢ διδάσκαλον ἢ υἱὸν θεοῦ.

Then next he takes up again the account of the seven ruling daimones [spirit-beings], who are in no way named by Christians but are, I think, accepted by the Ophites. And indeed, in the diagram that we too acquired on their account, we found the order set out in the same way as Celsus set it out. Celsus, then, said that the first was formed in the shape of a lion, without stating what those truly most impious people call him; but we found that the angel of the Creator who is praised in the holy scriptures, this one that foul diagram said was Michael, the lion-shaped. Again, Celsus said that the next, the second, is a bull; but the diagram that we had said that the bull-shaped one was Suriel. Then Celsus [said that] the third [was] some amphibious creature, hissing horribly; but the diagram said that the third was Raphael, serpent-shaped. Again, Celsus said that the fourth had the form of an eagle; but the diagram said that the eagle-shaped one was Gabriel. Then Celsus said that the fifth had the face of a bear; but the diagram said that the bear-shaped one was Thauthabaoth. Then Celsus said that the sixth is reported among them to have the face of a dog; but the diagram said that he was Erathaoth. Then Celsus said that the seventh had the face of an ass and was named Thaphabaoth or Onoel; but we found in the diagram that this one is called Onoel or Thartharaoth, being somewhat ass-shaped. We too decided to set out such things exactly, so that we may not seem ignorant of what Celsus professed to know, but may also show that we Christians know them more exactly than he does, as the doctrines not of Christians but of people wholly alien to salvation, who in no way acknowledge Jesus as Saviour, or God, or Teacher, or Son of God.

χρὴ μέντοι εἰδέναι ὅτι οἱ ταῦτα συνταξάμενοι, οὔτε τὰ μαγείας νοήσαντες οὔτε τὰ τῶν θείων γραφῶν διακρίναντες. πάντ᾿ ἔφυραν· ἀπὸ μὲν μαγείας τὸν Ἰαλδαβαὼθ καὶ τὸν Ἀσταφαιὸν καὶ τὸν Ὡραῖον, ἀπὸ δὲ τῶν Ἑβραϊκῶν γραφῶν τὸν Ἰαωΐα παρ᾿ Ἑβραίοις ὀνομαζόμενον καὶ τὸν Σαβαὼθ καὶ τὸν Ἀδωναῖον καὶ τὸν Ἐλωαῖον. τὰ δὲ ἀπὸ τῶν γραφῶν ληφθέντα ὀνόματα ἐπώνυμά ἐστι τοῦ αὐτοῦ καὶ ἑνὸς θεοῦ· ὅπερ μὴ συνέντες οἱ ἐχθροὶ θεῷ, ὡς καὶ αὐτοὶ ὁμολογοῦσιν, ᾠήθησαν ἄλλον μὲν εἶναι τὸν Ἰαὼ ἕτερον δὲ τὸν Σαβαὼθ καὶ τρίτον παρὰ τοῦτον τὸν Ἀδωναῖον, ὃν λέγουσιν αἱ γραφαὶ Ἀδωναῒ, καὶ ἄλλον τὸν Ἐλωαῖον, ὃν οἱ προφῆται ὀνομάζουσιν Ἑβραϊστὶ Ἐλωαΐ.

It must be understood, however, that those who composed these things, having neither understood the matters of magic nor discerned those of the divine scriptures, mixed everything together: from magic [they took] Ialdabaoth and Astaphaios and Horaios, and from the Hebrew scriptures the one named among the Hebrews Iaoia, and Sabaoth and Adonaios and Eloaios. But the names taken from the scriptures are titles of one and the same God; and, not understanding this, the enemies of God, as they themselves admit, supposed that Iao was one, Sabaoth another, and Adonaios a third besides him, whom the scriptures call Adonai, and another Eloaios, whom the prophets name in Hebrew Eloi.

εἶτα πάλιν φύρων τὰ ἀπὸ τῆς μαγικῆς γοητείας καὶ προσάπτων τάχα μὲν οὐδενὶ τῷ μὴ εἶναι τοὺς μαγγανεύοντας προφάσει τῆς κατὰ τὸν χαρακτῆρα τοῦτον θεοσεβείας, τάχα δέ τισι καὶ πρὸς τοὺς εὐεξαπατήτους χρωμένοις τοιούτοις, ἵνα δοκοῖεν θείᾳ δυνάμει τι ποιεῖν, ἐκτίθεταί τινα λέγων· τί με δεῖ καταριθμεῖν ὅσοι καθαρμοὺς ἐδίδαξαν ἢ λυτηρίους ᾠδὰς ἢ ἀποπομπίμους φωνας ἢ κτύπους ἢ δαιμονίους σχηματισμοὺς, ἐσθήτων ἢ ἀριθμῶν ἢ λίθων ἢ φυτῶν ἢ ῥιζῶν καὶ ὅλως παντοδαπῶν χρημάτων παντοῖα ἀλεξιφάρμακα; περὶ ὧν οὐκ ἀπαιτεῖ ἡμᾶς ἀπολογήσασθαι τὸ εὔλογον, ἅτε οὐδὲ κατὰ ποσὸν ἐνεχομένους τοιαύταις ὑπονοίαις.

Then again, mixing in matters of magical goēteia [sorcery], and attaching them perhaps to no one, since there are none who work charms under cover of this kind of worship of God, or perhaps to some who use such things on the easily deceived, so that they may seem to do something by divine power, he sets out certain things, saying: Why need I enumerate all those who have taught purifications, or songs of release, or utterances that drive away, or noises, or figures of daimones [spirits], or all kinds of protective remedies made of clothes or numbers or stones or plants or roots, and in general of things of every sort? About these, reason does not require us to make a defence, since we are not in the least implicated in such suspicions.

Μετὰ ταῦτα παραπλήσιόν τι ποιεῖν μοι δοκεῖ τοῖς διὰ πολλὴν τὴν πρὸς Χριστιανοὺς ἀπέχθειαν διαβεβαιουμένοις πρὸς τοὺς μηδαμῶς εἰδότας τὰ Χριστιανῶν, ὅτι ἄρα τῇ πείρᾳ κατειλήφασι Χριστιανοὺς ἐσθίοντας σάρκας παιδίων καὶ μίξεσι ταῖς πρὸς τὰς παρ᾿ αὐτοῖς γυναῖκας ἀνέδην χρωμένους. ὡς γὰρ ταῦτα λεγόμενα ἤδη καὶ ὑπὸ τῶν πολλῶν καὶ πάντῃ ἀλλοτρίων τῆς καθ᾿ ἡμᾶς θεοσεβείας καταγινώσκεται ὡς κατεψευσμένα Χριστιανῶν, οὕτως εὑρεθείη ἂν καὶ τὰ τοιαῦτα τῷ Κέλσῳ κατεψευσμένως εἰρημένα, ἐν οἷς ἔφησεν ἑωρακέναι παρὰ τισι πρεσβυτέροις τῆς ἡμετέρας δόξης τυγχάνουσι βιβλία βάρβαρα, δαιμόνων ὀνόματα ἔχοντα καὶ τερατείας· καὶ ἔφασκε τούτους (τοὺς δῆθεν πρεσβυτέρους τῆς ἡμετέρας δόξης) οὐδὲν μὲν χρηστὸν ὑπισχνεῖσθαι πάντα δ᾿ ἐπ᾿ ἀνθρώπων βλάβαις. καὶ εἴθε πάντα τὰ ὑπὸ Κέλσου κατὰ Χριστιανῶν λεγόμενα τοιαῦτα ἦν, ἵν᾿, ὑπὸ τῶν πλείστων ἐλέγχηται. πείρᾳ καταλαβόντων τὰ τοιαῦτα εἶναι ψευδῆ ἐκ τοῦ καὶ συμβεβιωκέναι Χριστιανῶν τοῖς πλείστοις καὶ μηδὲν τοιοῦτο περὶ αὐτῶν μηδ᾿ ἀκηκοέναι.

After this he seems to me to do much the same as those who, out of great hatred of Christians, assure people who know nothing at all of Christian ways that they have actually caught Christians eating the flesh of children and freely having intercourse with the women among them. For just as these stories are now condemned, even by the majority who are wholly strangers to our worship of God, as lies told against Christians, so too such things as these would be found to have been said falsely by Celsus, where he said he had seen, in the possession of certain elders of our persuasion, barbarian books containing names of daimones and wonder-mongering; and he asserted that these men (the supposed elders of our persuasion) promise nothing good, but everything for harming people. Would that everything Celsus says against Christians were of this sort, so that it might be refuted by most people, who have found by experience that such things are false, from having lived alongside most Christians and never having heard anything of the kind about them.

Μετὰ ταῦτα ὡσπερεὶ ἐπιλαθόμενος οτι κατὰ Χριστιανῶν αὐτῷ πρόκειται γράφειν φησὶ Διονύσιόν τινα μουσικὸν Αἰγύπτιον συγγενόμενον αὐτῷ εἰρηκέναι περὶ τῶν κατὰ τὴν μαγείαν ὅτι πρὸς ἀπαιδεύτους μὲν αὐτὴ δύναται καὶ πρὸς διαφθαρέντας τὰ ἤθη, πρὸς δὲ τοὺς φιλοσοφήσαντας οὐδὲν οἵα τε ἐστὶν ἐνεργεῖν, ἅτε τῆς ὑγιεινῆς διαίτης προνοησαμένους. εἰ μὲν οὖν προέκειτο περὶ μαγείας νῦν ἡμῖν διαλαβεῖν, κἂν προσεθήκαμεν [ἐν] οἷς ἀνωτέρω περὶ αὐτῆς εἰρήκαμεν εἰς τοῦτο ὀλίγα· ἐπεὶ δὲ τὰ ἐπικαιρότερα χρὴ λέγειν πρὸς τὸ Κέλσου σύγγραμμα, περὶ μαγείας φαμὲν ὅτι ὁ βουλόμενος ἐξετάσαι, πότερόν ποτε καὶ φιλόσοφοι ἁλωτοί εἰσιν αὐτῇ ἢ μὴ, ἀναγνώτω τὰ γεγραμμένα Μοιραγένει τῶν Ἀπολλωνίου τοῦ Τυανέως μάγου καὶ φιλοσόφου ἀπομνημονευμάτων· ἐν οἷς ὁ μὴ Χριστιανὸς ἀλλὰ φιλόσοφος ἔφησεν ἁλῶναι ὑπὸ τῆς ἐν Ἀπολλωνίῳ μαγείας οὐκ ἀγεννεῖς τινας φιλοσόφους ὡς πρὸς γόητα αὐτὸν εἰσελθόντας· ἐν οἷς οἶμαι καὶ περὶ Εὐφράτου (τοῦ) πάνυ διηγήσατο καί τινος Ἐπικουρείου. διαβεβαιούμεθα δὲ ἡμεῖς καὶ τῇ πείρᾳ παραλαβόντες ὅτι οἱ κατὰ χριστιανισμὸν διὰ τοῦ Ἰησοῦ τὸν ἐπὶ πᾶσι θεραπεύοντες θεὸν καὶ βιοῦντες κατὰ τὸ εὐαγγέλιον αὐτοῦ ταῖς προσταχθείσαις τε εὐχαῖς συνεχέστερον καὶ δεόντως νυκτὸς καὶ ἡμέρας χρώμενοι οὔτε μαγείᾳ οὔτε δαιμονίοις εἰσὶν ἁλωτοί. ἀληθῶς γὰρ „παρεμβαλεῖ ἄγγελος κυρίου κύκλῳ τῶν φοβουμένων αὐτὸν καὶ ῥύσεται αὐτοὺς“ ἀπὸ παντὸς κακοῦ· καὶ „οἱ ἄγγελοι“ τῶν ἐν τῇ ἐκκλησίᾳ μικρῶν καὶ τεταγμένοι εἰς τὸ προΐστασθαι αὐτῶν „διὰ παντὸς“ λέγονται βλέπειν „τὸ πρόσωπον τοῦ ἐν οὐρανοῖς πατρὸς,“ ὅ τι ποτ᾿ ἐστὶ τὸ πρόσωπον καὶ ὅ τι ποτ᾿ ἐστὶ τὸ βλέπειν.

After this, as if forgetting that his purpose is to write against Christians, he says that a certain Dionysius, an Egyptian musician, who had been in his company, told him about magic that it has power over the uneducated and those whose character is corrupted, but over those who have practised philosophy it can effect nothing, since they have taken care for a healthy way of life. Now if it were our purpose here to discuss magic, we would have added a little on this point to what we said about it above; but since we must say what is more to the point in reply to Celsus' treatise, we say of magic that whoever wishes to examine whether philosophers too can be caught by it or not should read what Moiragenes wrote in the Memoirs of Apollonius of Tyana, magician and philosopher. In them he, no Christian but a philosopher, said that certain philosophers of no mean standing were caught by the magic in Apollonius, having come to him as to a goēs [sorcerer]; among them, I think, he told also of the celebrated Euphrates and of a certain Epicurean. But we affirm, having learned it also by experience, that those who according to Christianity serve the God over all through Jesus, and live according to his gospel, and use the prescribed prayers continually and as they ought, night and day, cannot be caught either by magic or by daimonia [demons]. For truly “the angel of the Lord will encamp around those who fear him and will deliver them” from every evil; and “the angels” of the little ones in the church, who are appointed to watch over them, are said “always” to behold “the face of the Father in heaven,” whatever the face may be and whatever the beholding may be.

Κατανοήσωμεν δὲ καὶ ἄλλην λέξιν τοῦ Κέλσου, οὕτως ἔχουσαν· ἢ ὁ μὲν τοῦ Περσῶν ἢ Ῥωμαίων βασιλέως σατράπης καὶ ὕπαρχος ἢ στρατηγὸς ἢ ἐπίτροπος, ἔτι μὴν καὶ οἱ τὰς μικροτέρας ἀρχὰς ἢ ἐπιμελείας ἢ ὑπηρεσίας ἔχοντες μέγα δύναιντ᾿ ἂν βλάπτειν ἀμελούμενοι, οἱ δ᾿ ἐναέριοί τε καὶ ἐπίγειοι σατράπαι καὶ διάκονοι μικρὰ βλάπτοιεν ἂν ὑβριζόμενοι; ὅρα δὴ πῶς ἀνθρωπικοὺς σατράπας τοῦ ἐπὶ πᾶσι θεοῦ καὶ ὑπάρχους καὶ στρατηγοὺς καὶ ἐπιτρόπους καὶ τοὺς μικροτέρας ἀρχὰς καὶ ἐπιμελείας καὶ ὑπηρεσίας ἔχοντας εἰσάγει μεγάλα βλάπτοντας τοὺς ὑβρίζοντας, οὐχ ὁρῶν ὅτι οὐδὲ σοφὸς ἄνθρωπος βλάψαι ἂν βούλοιτό τινα ἀλλ᾿ ὅση δύναμις καὶ τοὺς ὑβρίζοντας ἐπιστρέφειν καὶ βελτιοῦν· εἰ μὴ ἄρα Λυκούργου τοῦ Λακεδαιμονίων νομοθέτου καὶ τοῦ Κιτιέως Ζήνωνος χείρους εἰσὶν οἱ κατὰ τὸν Κέλσον σατράπαι καὶ ὕπαρχοι καὶ στρατηγοὶ τοῦ ἐπὶ πᾶσι θεοῦ· ὅτι Λυκοῦργος μὲν, λαβὼν ἐξουσίαν τοῦ ἐκκόψαντος αὐτοῦ τὸν ὀφθαλμὸν, οὐ μόνον οὐκ ἠμύνατο ἀλλὰ καὶ οὐκ ἐπαύσατο κατεπᾴδων αὐτῷ, ἕως αὐτὸν πείσειε φιλοσοφεῖν, Ζήνων δὲ πρὸς τὸν εἰπόντα· „ἀπολοίμην, ἐὰν μή σε τιμωρήσωμαι,“ „ἐγὼ δὲ,“ ἔφη, „ἐὰν μή σε> φίλον κτήσωμαι.“

Let us consider another statement of Celsus too, which runs as follows: "Or would the satrap and prefect or general or procurator of the king of the Persians or of the Romans, and further those who hold lesser offices or charges or services, be able to do great harm if they were neglected, while the satraps and ministers of the air and of the earth would do little harm if they were insulted?" See, then, how he brings in human-like satraps of the God who is over all, and prefects and generals and procurators and those who hold lesser offices and charges and services, doing great harm to those who insult them, not seeing that not even a wise man would wish to harm anyone, but [would wish], as far as he can, to turn even those who insult him and make them better; unless, indeed, the satraps and prefects and generals of the God over all, according to Celsus, are worse than Lycurgus, the lawgiver of the Spartans, and Zeno of Citium. For Lycurgus, when he was given power over the man who had knocked out his eye, not only did not take revenge but did not stop charming him until he persuaded him to take up philosophy; and Zeno, to the man who said, "May I perish if I do not punish you," said, "And I, if I do not make you my friend."

Μετὰ ταῦτά φησιν ὁ Κέλσος τοιαῦτα· ὅτι μὴν ἐν τοῖσδε μέχρι τῶν ἐλαχίστων ἔστιν ὅτῳ δέδοται ἐξουσία. μάθοι τις ἂν ἐξ ὧν Αἰγύπτιοι λέγουσιν. ὅτι ἄρα τοῦ ἀνθρώπου τὸ σῶμα ἓξ καὶ τριάκοντα διειληφότες δαίμονες ἢ θεοί τινες αἰθέριοι εἰς τοσαῦτα μέρη νενεμημένον (οἱ δὲ καὶ πολὺ πλείους λέγουσιν) ἄλλος ἄλλο τι αὐτοῦ νέμειν ἐπιτέτακται. καὶ τῶν δαιμόνων ἴσασι τὰ ὀνόματα ἐπιχωρίῳ φωνῇ, ὥσπερ Χνουμὴν καὶ Χναχουμὴν καὶ Κνὰτ καὶ Σικὰτ καὶ Βιοὺ καὶ Ἐροὺ καὶ Ἐρεβίου καὶ Ῥαμανὸρ καὶ Ῥειανοὸρ ὅσα τε ἄλλα τῇ ἑαυτῶν γλώσσῃ ὀνομάζουσι· καὶ δὴ ἐπικα λοῦντες αὐτοὺς ἰῶνται τῶν μερῶν τὰ παθήματα. τί ουν κωλύει τούτους τε καὶ τοὺς ἄλλους δεξιούμενον, ἂν χρῄζῃ τις, ὑγιαίνειν μᾶλλον ἢ νοσεῖν καὶ εὐτυχεῖν μᾶλλον ἢ δυστυχεῖν καὶ βασανιστηρίων καὶ κολαστηρίων ὡς οἷόν τε ἀπηλλάχθαι;

After this Celsus says the following: That in these things, down to the very least, there is someone to whom authority has been given, one may learn from what the Egyptians say: that thirty-six daimones [spirits], or certain ethereal gods, have divided the human body among them, apportioned into that many parts (others say there are many more), and each has been assigned to govern a different part of it. And they know the names of the daimones in the native tongue, such as Chnoumen and Chnachoumen and Knat and Sikat and Biou and Erou and Erebiou and Ramanor and Reianoor, and all the others they name in their own language; and by invoking them they heal the ailments of the parts. What then prevents anyone, if he wishes, from paying his respects to both these and the others, so as to be healthy rather than sick, fortunate rather than unfortunate, and free, as far as possible, from tortures and punishments?