Contra O Relógio

[Jasmine Lemaitre]

AgainstCelsus (Greek: Κατὰ Κέλσου, Kata Kelsou; Latin: Contra Celsum), preserved entirely in Greek, is a major apologetics work by the Church Father Origen of Alexandria, written in around 248 AD, countering the writings of Celsus, a pagan philosopher and controversialist who had written a scathing attack on Christianity in his treatise The True Word (Λόγος Ἀληθής, Logos Alēthēs). Among a variety of other charges, Celsus had denounced many Christian doctrines as irrational and criticized Christians themselves as uneducated, deluded, unpatriotic, close-minded towards reason, and too accepting of sinners. He had accused Jesus of performing his miracles using black magic rather than actual divine powers and of plagiarizing his teachings from Plato. Celsus had warned that Christianity itself was drawing people away from traditional religion and claimed that its growth would lead to a collapse of traditional, conservative values.

Origen wrote Contra Celsum at the request of his patron, a wealthy Christian named Ambrose, who insisted that a Christian needed to write a response to Celsus. In the treatise itself, which was aimed at an audience of people who were interested in Christianity but had not yet made the decision to convert, Origen responds to Celsus's arguments point-by-point from the perspective of a Platonic philosopher. After having questioned Celsus's credibility, Origen goes on to respond to Celsus's criticism with regard to the role of faith in Christianity, the identity of Jesus Christ, the allegorical interpretation of the Bible, and the relation between Christianity and traditional Greek religion.

Modern scholars note that Origen and Celsus actually agree on many points of doctrine, with both authors emphatically rejecting conventional notions of anthropomorphic deities, idolatry, and religious literalism. Contra Celsum is considered to be one of the most important works of early Christian apologetics; the church historian Eusebius lauded it as an adequate rebuttal to all criticisms the church would ever face, and it continued to be cited throughout late antiquity.

All that is known about Celsus personally is what comes from the surviving text of his book and from what Origen says about him.[6] Although Origen initially refers to Celsus as an "Epicurean",[7][8][9] his arguments reflect ideas of the Platonizing tradition, rather than Epicureanism.[7][10][9] Origen attributes this to Celsus's inconsistency,[7] but modern historians see it instead as evidence that Celsus was not an Epicurean at all.[7][8] Joseph Wilson Trigg states that Origen probably confused Celsus, the author of The True Word, with a different Celsus, who was an Epicurean philosopher and a friend of the Syrian satirist Lucian.[8] Celsus the Epicurean must have lived around the same time as the author of Contra Celsum and he is mentioned by Lucian in his treatise On Magic.[8] Both Celsus the friend of Lucian and Celsus the author of The True Word evidently shared a passionate zeal against superstitio, making it even easier to see how Origen could have concluded that they were the same person.[8]

Stephen Thomas states that Celsus may not have been a Platonist per se,[7] but that he was clearly familiar with Plato.[7] Celsus's actual philosophy appears to be a blend of elements derived from Platonism, Aristotelianism, Pythagoreanism, and Stoicism.[7] Wilken likewise concludes that Celsus was a philosophical eclectic, whose views reflect a variety of ideas popular to a number of different schools.[11] Wilken classifies Celsus as "a conservative intellectual", noting that "he supports traditional values and defends accepted beliefs".[11] Theologian Robert M. Grant notes that Origen and Celsus actually agree on many points:[12] "Both are opposed to anthropomorphism, to idolatry, and to any crudely literal theology."[12] Celsus also writes as a loyal citizen of the Roman Empire and a devoted believer in Greco-Roman paganism, distrustful of Christianity as new and foreign.[13]

The church's usual tactic for dealing with hostile writings was to ignore them;[4] the reasoning behind this was that, eventually, the writings would be lost and all would be forgotten.[4] This was therefore how the church chose to respond to Celsus.[4] Origen initially followed this traditional response as well,[4][13][5] arguing that this was the approach taken by Christ, pointing to Jesus's refusal to respond to Caiaphas during his trial before the Sanhedrin.[4][5] Ambrose, however, continued to insist that Origen needed to write a response.[18][5] Finally, one of Celsus's major claims, which held that no self-respecting philosopher of the Platonic tradition would ever be so stupid as to become a Christian, provoked Origen to write a rebuttal.[4]

In his introduction, Origen specifically states that Contra Celsum is not intended for converted Christians,[3][19] but rather for outsiders who were interested in the faith but who had not yet made the decision to convert.[3][19] John Anthony McGuckin states that Origen probably undertook the task of writing Contra Celsum in the interest of furthering the Christian school he was trying to establish in Caesarea.[3] According to McGuckin, Origen may have wanted to make sure that educated pagans who attended the school for their general education but became interested in Christianity as well would be able to consult a serious defense of the religion.[3] Thus, he may have written Contra Celsum partially to address concerns that such students might have regarding Christianity.[3]

In the book, Origen systematically refutes each of Celsus's arguments point-by-point[20][2] and argues that the Christian faith has a rational basis.[21][22][12] Origen draws heavily on the teachings of Plato[23] and argues that Christianity and Greek philosophy are not incompatible.[23] Origen maintains that philosophy contains much that is true and admirable,[23] but that the Bible contains far greater wisdom than anything Greek philosophers could ever grasp.[23]

Origen attempts to undermine Celsus's credibility first by labelling him an Epicurean, since, by the third century, Epicureanism was almost universally seen as discredited and wrong, because of its teachings of materialism, its denial of divine providence, and its hedonistic teachings on ethics.[24] Nonetheless, Origen stops calling Celsus an Epicurean about halfway throughout the text, possibly because it was becoming increasingly difficult to present him as such in light of Celsus's self-evident sympathies for Plato.[25] Origen also attempts to undermine Celsus's credibility by pointing out his ignorance on particular issues.[25] In two cases, Origen points out problems in the literal interpretations of Biblical passages that Celsus himself had overlooked: the contradictory genealogies of Jesus given in the Gospels of Matthew and Luke, and the impossibility that Noah's Ark, if built according to the supposed measurements given in the Book of Genesis, could have held all the animals it is supposed to have held. Based on these examples, Origen attempts to show that Celsus's criticism is based on too literal interpretation of the Bible and therefore flawed.[25] Origen also employs his training in textual analysis to question the integrity of Celsus's Jewish source.[25] Origen points out that the supposed "Jewish" source refers to Old Testament prophecies that do not really exist, indicating that the author was unfamiliar with the Hebrew Bible.[25] He also notes with suspicion that the "Jewish" source quotes the Greek tragedian Euripides[25] and that it argues against the miracles described in the New Testament as irrational, even though the same argument could be equally applied to the miracles in the Hebrew Bible.[25]

Origen rejects many of Celsus's accusations against Christianity as false or inapplicable.[26][27] In many cases, while ostensibly refuting Celsus, Origen is also refuting the ideas of fellow Christians whom he regarded as misinformed.[26] For instance, in the act of denying Celsus's charge that Christians believed that their God was a wrathful old man who lived in the sky, Origen was also confronting Christians who actually believed this.[28] He defends statements in the Bible promising that the wicked will be punished with fire by insisting, "...the Logos, accommodating itself to what is appropriate to the masses who will read the Bible, wisely utters threatening words with a hidden meaning to frighten people who cannot in any other way turn from the flood of iniquities".[28] Origen responds to Celsus's accusation that Christians denigrate reason and education in favor of faith by arguing that, while Christians do believe things on the basis of faith, this faith can be rationally justified;[28] however, because few people are interested in the philosophical justification behind the religion, it is not normally taught, except to the wise.[28]

Origen further objects that Greek philosophers typically accepted the doctrines of their philosophical schools without question, so it is therefore hypocritical for Celsus to condemn most Christians for doing the same thing.[29] Contrary to Celsus's claim that Christians denigrate education, Origen argues that Christians actually study literature and philosophy in preparation for the mysteries of the faith.[30] Origen responds to Celsus's accusation that Christians kept their doctrines secret by insisting that this charge is patently false and that most people, in fact, were far more familiar with what Christians believed than with what various Greek philosophical schools believed.[30] He does argue that Christianity has always withheld its truly mystical teachings from the masses and reserved them exclusively for those who demonstrate true purity and detachment from the world, but states that Greek philosophical schools, such as Pythagoreanism, do precisely the same thing.[30]

3a8082e126