CELSUS WAS A GOOD SCEPTIC OF CHRISTIANITY
On the True Doctrine, Celsus, Translated by R Joseph
Hoffmann, Oxford University Press, Oxford 1987
Celsus was a Greek philosopher who wrote his On the True Doctrine in the sixties or seventies of the second century. He was bitterly opposed to Christianity. His book tells us much about what the cult was like then. We must remember that a man trained in critical thinking like a philosopher is the one to be listened to if a religion is getting a dressing down. And he wrote very early in the Christian history.
Celsus gives every sign of believing the Jewish account
of a Jesus who was a scoundrel and who used sorcery and magic tricks.
Celsus stated that the Christian groups were extremely
secretive and gave no reasons to converts as to why they should accept their
faith as true (page 35, 53). This tells us that the gospels could not have
circulated well even if these works had been out of the closet. And they were
not distributed well when they were not used to convince would-be Christians.
Celsus did not believe much in the existence of Jesus
- if at all - for he said that the Christians used stories about him when
casting spells and that these were myths. He then stated that the virgin birth
and death and return of Jesus from the dead were fables and eccentric beliefs
(page 53-4). He also declared that when anybody asked for evidence they were
invariably told the simple were the best and the wisdom of the world is evil and
to believe without asking questions. Clearly then the Christians themselves were
not satisfied with their own evidence.
On page 54, Celsus tells us that everybody has heard
the fables of Jesus’ virgin birth, crucifixion and his resurrection and states
that Christians would die for these fables. He explains with these in mind that
reason should be listened to before any of these are accepted. He said that
Christians went after dullards. He had no need to say that unless it was true
for it would have suited him better to accuse them of being too intelligent to
sincerely believe what they say they believe. This shows that written testimony
was not used to propagate the faith. There were no good gospels or commonly
accepted ones. It is very important that the crucifixion is put down as a fable
though unlike virgin births and resurrections it is possible. Celsus had
no need to go that far unless he was sure Jesus never existed. For a critic of
Christianity, it was enough to say that the virgin birth and resurrection were
fairy-stories. But he even calls the death by crucifixion of Jesus a
fable! He had to call it that even though he would have argued, "Jesus was
crucified and real gods do not get crucified." But no - he calls it a myth
and argues that if it happened then Jesus was fake.
If Jesus’ death was a fable then why does Celsus say
that Jesus’ death proved he was not a god? (page 65). The answer is that Celsus
did not believe Jesus died because he believed Jesus never existed but that if
Jesus had died on the cross he was not a god. He is refuting the Jesus story and
when you do that you can talk as if you accept the story. It is the same as if a
Christian who said the God Prometheus was proven not to be a god at all when he
had to endure an animal eating his liver. Celsus did not attempt to refute
Jesus’ existence in detail for it is better to show cracks in the sect’s
doctrine than to try to prove their founder was a fable when all the Jewish and
Roman records were destroyed. He is saying that Jesus’ death proved he was not a
god if he died. That is what he means.
Celsus said that Jesus had one genealogy (page 64)
while there are two in the New Testament.
Celsus said that Jesus never did anything good (page 65) which implies that the gospels were censored in his day for they present him as good. Celsus could have been speaking in general and it is true that if Jesus lived he would have done good things but that cannot be remarked if he did nothing specially good. It is true that Jesus did absolutely nothing really impressive - he made sacrifices for religious ideas but none for people. He never sold his coat for the poor. The good he did was cheap for it was allegedly miraculous. A man who magically makes bread appear in the hands of the starving is not the same man as one who does the hard work to put bread there and the bread is made of his blood and his sweat and his tears.
Some would say Celsus'
complaint that Jesus was not good was spiteful gossip for he ridiculed Jesus for
being poor which made Jesus blameworthy (65). But what Celsus meant was that a
God should have been able to avoid poverty instead of implying that everybody
should be poor by being deliberately poor himself when he became Jesus.
Celsus said that Jesus said he saw the bird at his
baptism (page 58). The gospels don’t say that.
The Matthew gospel says that astrologers came looking
for the baby Jesus, the new king, when he was born. They are called the Magi.
King Herod heard about the child from them and butchered all the babies in the
village where Jesus was born in the hope of killing this new king. Celsus
repeats some details of the story of the Magi and the Massacre of the Infants by
Herod with intent to murder Jesus for he thought he was a rival king (page 58)
as in Matthew’s gospel. He asks if Herod did this why did it work but not the
way the way he expected for Jesus survived but still never managed to become a
real king? Celsus means that God failed to make Jesus a king so whatever saved
Jesus from Herod it was not God. And Herod did win in the end. Jesus was never a
proper king at all and certainly not one that God was looking after. It would
make no sense for Celsus to say that Jesus should have become king when Herod
unsuccessfully tried to prevent this so he means that Jesus was never a proper
king at all. The if over Herod having massacred shows that there was no evidence
for this event that would have shocked the world and been known if it had really
happened.
Celsus wrote that Jesus was secretive and didn't like
the public. This fits the early strata of gospel tradition and the hints that
Jesus was a lot more obscure than they pretend. This shows Celsus' accuracy.
Celsus says that after Jesus was tried and condemned he went into hidingto evade
punishment. So Jesus apparently escaped after his trial and condemnation to
death and went into hiding and was betrayed not by one disciple, Judas, but at
least two but Celsus speaks as if the whole Twelve handed Jesus over (page 61).
He wrote, "Would a divine being, a saviour as you call him, and son of the
highest God, be betrayed by the very men who had been educated by him and who
shared everything with him?" So Celsus does not know of the gospel tradition
that only Judas betrayed Jesus. Celsus did not have free access to the gospels
at least as we have them. Celsus had no need to exaggerate the number of
traitors Jesus had. Why contradict the Church in such a matter? Some scholars
would say that Celsus took care to find out the truth for the apostles did
betray Jesus. They would take the fact that Jesus was crucified for making a
claim to be king and they were his closest supporters and they were allowed to
go about freely as proof that they had got their freedom for handing him over.
Celsus reported that Jesus participated in the Jewish
animal sacrifices (page 61). And that he abrogated the law, circumcision and the
feasts (page 61). None of that is in the gospels. However as a Jew Jesus
must have had sacrifices done and as for the alleged abrogation that was a
Christian lie. The gospels say he was careful to declare the law of God as
in the Bible as infallible and right and cursed anybody who waters it down.
He knew that nobody really believed in Jesus as an
infallible person when he was alive (page 65). Jesus must have been an alcoholic
when he greedily drank bad wine on the cross (page 65).
The Christians had one mad woman and maybe another
person as witnesses to the resurrection and no more (page 67). This seems to
show that Celsus could not access the gospels for he could not confirm how many
allegedly saw Jesus. When he was willing to concede that there were other
witnesses and admit he was uncertain he was not just pretending that too few
people saw the resurrection. He really thought that there were too few of them.
If we were anything like modern Christian apologists, we would be saying that he
must be depending on imperial records just like they say Tacitus was doing when
he mentioned Jesus.
But we must remember that he
could be referring to the John gospel which says Mary Magdalene left the tomb
and bumped into Jesus and does not mention anybody with her. The Christian
argument that it only mentions her but there could have been others and the
gospel knows of them but does not bother mentioning them is far-fetched.
It reads as if there was one witness only at this point so that is what it is
saying. Why does Celsus seem to count her and maybe another?
Probably he is suggesting the others were influenced by her to think they
witnessed something too. Every tale seems to have "witnesses" who really
are just on the bandwagon and nothing more who end up thinking they were real
witnesses.
The Christians heavily relied on magic tricks to get
followers (page 98). They even performed conjuring tricks with silks and stones.
This implies that they had no apologetic books like the gospels with which to
persuade people to join. If they had anything it was not the complete
works.
The Christians had no common rule of faith so Celsus
is surprised that they have anything at all in common though they did have a lot
of disagreements (page 70).
Celsus said that Jesus could not move the stone of his
tomb by himself when he had to send an angel to do it (page 90). The implication
is that Jesus was only a man and not a proper god. The implication is that
if Jesus wants to use facts to suggest [I wrote suggest not prove!] he rose from
the dead then he should rise from the dead and move the stone himself and be
seen doing so. This is a terribly good insight. Christians say
Celsus is misrepresenting the gospels. But would he if people could go to them
or their readers and see? Of course not! Celsus was not stupid. Celsus is not
misrepresenting for he thinks that the allegedly risen Jesus was inside the tomb
and the angel had to come and let him out. Celsus knew that if Jesus had been a
supernaturally powered being and raised himself from the dead he could have left
the tomb without the angel. Celsus is obliquely saying that Jesus was inferior
to the angels though they might have come to help him. He would not have thought
that the guards at the tomb saw Jesus so he did not know that the Matthew gospel
said that the guards were there when the angel opened the tomb. Jesus would have
opened the tomb himself instead of getting an angel to do it especially when
there was no need for anybody to open it. The gospels say that the women came to
get the tomb opened and when it was open when there was nobody about it would
look better if the tomb had been opened by people who couldn’t explain how the
body got out for the tomb hadn’t been touched till they opened it. Celsus was
right that the angel opening the tomb was absurd.
Celsus made no effort to refute the resurrection which
was strange considering that he knew of sorcerers who could resurrect the dead
and have them eating and drinking by pure trickery (60). This can only be
explained by the Christians not having any details about the resurrection apart
from the women’s testimony. Celsus thought that since it was just a mad woman
speaking of the risen Jesus and convincing others there was no need to delve
into the resurrection subject. He denied the apostles claimed to be testators as
well. The sorcerers claim to have occult powers so they would have been making
it look like they raised the dead with these powers. So resurrections were
common in the world in those days.
Celsus says that the Christians who adore one God and
adore the man Jesus as divine and as important as God have a book from which he
quotes this teaching. The quotation from it is not in the gospels (page 116). It
is assumed that Celsus is using a Christian book. But he implies that it is a
scripture of the Christians he is quoting. His polemic and condemnation is no
use if it is just a book that no or some Christians esteemed as scripture so it
was a general scripture for the official Church. Celsus is not quoting a Gnostic
scripture relating to heretics because Gnostics did not tend to believe in one
God and did not regard the person of Jesus as important. It was his teaching
that they concern themselves about.
Celsus is evidence that even then in his day most of
the historical material of the gospels was forbidden to the people by the
Church. It is no use saying that things like his condemning Christians for
having a material God proves that he is inaccurate. The scriptures do have such
a God so Christians are teaching that God is matter when they declare the
scriptures infallible though they claim to have a spiritual God. The word for
spirit is breath and breath is invisible material and the Bible God is breath or
spirit and when the Christians read it they pretend it means that God is a real
entity but that doesn’t have any parts or matter in it.
If Celsus had some preposterous reasons for rejecting
Christianity that has no bearing on his presentation of what Christians
believed. And his reasons are good and understandable enough if you assume what
he assumed. For example, his argument that Jesus’ death proved he was a fraud is
right if the idea of a God of mysterious plots and blood atonement is wrong and
he had a right to reject this sinister God. The Jewish Bible, the Old Testament,
says that if a statue is a god it will be able to protect itself. Accordingly,
Jesus then can’t be a god or the Son of God for he was crucified. The Christian
Church's own scripture says that! A person rejecting the Christian ideas, the
idea of a God with bizarre plans and the idea that a crucified man can be divine
or the son of God and the idea that this blood atones for the sins of the world,
is understandable and does not make them stupid.
Celsus says the Christians do not believe in one God
but make another God of Jesus. That is true though Christians deny it. There is
no evidence of a misrepresentation in Celsus. God comes before Jesus for we can
be more sure that God exists than that Jesus was what he claimed to be but the
Christians see God through Jesus which is putting Jesus first and making an idol
of him. If Jesus were God and could be worshipped as God and not as an idol we
should be equally sure of both.
Celsus rejects the idea of bodily resurrection not
because he stupidly thinks God cannot remake the body and make it live but
because he thinks the idea is disgusting and God does not change nature (page
86). Celsus was a very intelligent man and there is no justice in saying, “Oh,
he hated Christians and would say anything about them. Pay no attention to him.”
Who would want our bodies back the way they are now at the resurrection?
Whatever gospels existed then were kept largely
private or differed a lot from our four if they were not. That shows that
whatever went before was hidden or corrupt and cannot be considered as a
reliable version of the Jesus story or taken to show that there was a Jesus.