Apologetics -- History -- Early church, ca. 30-600; Celsus (Platonic philosopher), active 180; Theology -- History -- Early Church, ca. 30-600
All the arguments, indeed, which this Jew of Celsus advances against
those who believe on Jesus, may, by parity of reasoning, be urged as
ground of accusation against Moses: so that there is no difference in
asserting that the sorcery practised by Jesus and that by Moses were
similar to each other,[148]—both of them, so far as the language of this
Jew of Celsus is concerned, being liable to the same charge; as, _e.g._,
when this Jew says of Christ, “But, O light and truth! Jesus with his
own voice expressly declares, as you yourselves have recorded, that
there will appear among you others also, who will perform miracles like
mine, but who are wicked men and sorcerers,” some one, either Greek or
Egyptian, or any other party who disbelieved the Jew, might say
respecting Moses, “But, O light and truth! Moses with his own voice
expressly declares, as ye also have recorded, that there will appear
among you others also, who will perform miracles like mine, but who are
wicked men and sorcerers. For it is written in your law, ‘If there arise
among you a prophet, or a dreamer of dreams, and giveth thee a sign or a
wonder, and the sign or wonder come to pass whereof he spake unto thee,
saying, Let us go after other gods which thou hast not known, and let us
serve them; thou shalt not hearken to the words of that prophet or
dreamer of dreams,’”[149] etc. Again, perverting the words of Jesus, he
says, “And he terms him who devises such things, one Satan;” while one,
applying this to Moses, might say, “And he terms him who devises such
things, a prophet who dreams dreams.” And as this Jew asserts regarding
Jesus, that “even he himself does not deny that these works have in them
nothing of divinity, but are the acts of wicked men;” so any one who
disbelieves the writings of Moses might say, quoting what has been
already said, the same thing, viz., that “even Moses does not deny that
these works have in them nothing of divinity, but are the acts of wicked
men.” And he will do the same thing also with respect to this: “Being
compelled by the force of truth, Moses at the same time both exposed the
doings of others, and convicted himself of the same.” And when the Jew
says, “Is it not a wretched inference from the same acts, to conclude
that the one is a God, and the others sorcerers?” one might object to
him, on the ground of those words of Moses already quoted, “Is it not
then a wretched inference from the same acts, to conclude that the one
is a prophet and servant of God, and the others sorcerers?” But when, in
addition to those comparisons which I have already mentioned, Celsus,
dwelling upon the subject, adduces this also: “Why from these works
should the others be accounted wicked, rather than this man, seeing they
have him as a witness against himself?”—we, too, shall adduce the
following, in addition to what has been already said: “Why, from those
passages in which Moses forbids us to believe those who exhibit signs
Public-domain text, read in full here on John Shaqi.
Reviews
Reviews
No reviews yet
Be the first to share your thoughts on this work.
Elsewhere in the archive
Join the Discussion
Join the discussion
Sign in to leave a comment or review.
Sign InorCreate an account