Chap. I. HISTORY and WRITINGS of the JEWS.
Reading edition
The evidence in favour of Christianity, to be deduced from the history and writings of the Jews, is so important, that it was a primary object with Celsus, to render it nugatory. This he endeavours to effect, first, by disputing the antiquity of Moses; and secondly, by condemning his narration. We shall examine his statement on these points, and some important acknowledgments he makes, of the existence of the prophetic writings.
He says that “the Jews, [5a] who were originally fugitive slaves from Egypt, pretended, on the authority of the Books of Moses, to a very ancient genealogy; [5b] that they lived together in a corner of Palestine, in profound ignorance; [5c] not having heard of the things long before celebrated by Hesiod, and many other men divinely inspired.” He then particularizes much of the history of Genesis, which he calls “an old woman’s story, full of impiety;” [6a] and asserts that “many of its facts are taken from the heathens.” To this Origen [6b] replies by referring to Josephus [6c] and Tatian [6d] for external proof of the history of the Jews: He affirms that they have all the evidence of their existence which other nations have, [6e] that they have records which others have not; [6f] that other nations are allowed to have existed who bear testimony to the Jews; [6g] that it would have been impossible for so small a band, to have opposed itself to the whole power of Egypt; that it must have changed its language; and that, in changing, it has not assumed one resembling the neighbouring nations. He then urges the wisdom of the Jewish Institutions; infers from their perfect preservation, the esteem in which they were held; and challenges a comparison, [7a] as to sublimity of doctrine, and purity of morals, with any other system, proposed to mankind.
Celsus then notices many of the Old Testament characters: He ridicules the relation of “the Fall, [7b] the Deluge, Children born of old Persons, Brothers who kill each other, Mothers who deceive, the Sin of Lot, the Animosity of Esau, the Deceit of the Sons of Jacob, the History of Joseph,” &c. Origen replies that such facts alone are selected by Celsus from the writings of Moses, as supply a ground of attack; that the simplicity of his narration proves the integrity of its author; and he then apologizes for these causes of offence by the necessity of the case, he contrasts with them the greater profligacy of the heathen, or fancifully explains them upon the scheme of allegory.
No direct admission of Celsus, relating to Jewish prophecy, is to be found. There are however many observations, which prove the coming of Christ to have been expected by the Jews, and this expectation must have been the result of prophecy. The remarks of Celsus, with regard to this topic, are of this kind. That the “Jews [8a] and Christians believe, that the Spirit of God had promised there would come a Saviour; but they could not agree, whether or no, he had already come;” [8b] that “the prophecies which the Christians apply to Christ refer equally to other persons;” [8c] that “others had lived who had applied the prophecies of Christ to themselves,” &c. &c. Thus he plainly admits prophecies to have existed of some great person, who was to come; and that Jews and Christians believed in them, but that it was uncertain whether they were accomplished.
The inferences to be collected from the preceding observations, are as follows.
First, The Jewish Scriptures are of older date, than the birth of Christ. For if these writings had been compiled since that time, some rumours of such an event must have reached Celsus; and this fact which would have ruined all the pretensions of Jewish antiquity, would have been urged by the heathens as a primary objection to their claims. The Jews themselves moreover could not have been deceived, if this had been a cunningly devised fable; for they were a widely extended people, and in so short a space of time, it would have been impossible to make them the dupes of such an imposture. Secondly, It may be inferred from the admission of Celsus, that the prophecies were found in the Jewish Scriptures in his time; and since then no alteration has been made in them by the Jews. But if so, this is the strongest presumption, that the Jews had never altered them before. For, if, when by the fulfilment of the prophecies, in the person of Christ, they were most tempted to erase predictions, so hostile to their own creed, they made no change, much less, would they do it, when the temptation was diminished. Thirdly, If little is to be collected from the writings of Celsus, in favour of those prophecies which he has attacked, something may be inferred in favour of those which he has failed to attack. Their existence is admitted, and his spirit of hostility is such, that we must attribute his silence not to his forbearance, but to his disingenuousness. Fourthly, The admission that some important character was expected, not only by the Jews, but by the heathens, at the era of Christ’s advent, is very important to religion. Where could the expectation originate, except in the Jewish Scriptures? The sages, poets, and historians of antiquity, appear to have drunk at this sacred source. The Arabians [10a] came from a far country to greet it; Herod destroyed [10b] the Jewish genealogies that the family of David might not be known, [10c] undertook the building of the temple, a work it was thought the Messias was to perform, and murdered [11a] his own son in fear that the promised King should dethrone him. Virgil, building upon the popular persuasion, applied it on two occasions to Augustus. [11b] This expectation is also mentioned by Cicero, [11c] Sallust, [11d] Suetonius, [11e] and Tacitus. [11f] If the origin of this expectation was with the Jews, where else can we look for the accomplishment. Who has fulfilled their wide-spread expectations? Where is this hope of all nations to be sought, if not in the person of Christ?