CELSUS, ORIGEN, AND JULIAN ON CHRISTIANMIRACLE-CLAIMS

DAVID NEAL GREENWOOD

University of Edinburgh

The conflict between Christianity and Greco-Roman writers spans several centuries, and theirsurviving works allow us to trace the best thought from both sides.1 Within this field, I intendto trace the development of a particular argument over the miracles claimed for Christ overseveral centuries, focusing in particular on three figures: Celsus, Origen, and Julian. Theargument relates to the efficacy and significance of Jesus’ miraculous works. I will draw upontwo texts for this, Origen’s Contra Celsum, which contains the remnants of Celsus’ argumentas well as Origen’s response, and Julian’s reception and use of this material in his ContraGalilaeos.2 It is Julian’s particular contribution that merits a new perspective. Although I havepreviously suggested that Julian was the cleverest of the anti-Christian polemicists, largely onthe basis of his seventh oration To the Cynic Heracleios, I have to acknowledge Julian’s newapproach to the issue of miracles as a major mistake.3 This new perspective on Julian’sargument is itself a comment on the success of Origen’s argument.4

The discussion will focus upon the particular miracles that are addressed by all of ourauthors. These are the healing miracles of Christ found in the Gospels, such as mentioned inMatthew’s Gospel, which has Jesus instructing John’s disciples to go and tell him that ‘the blindreceive their sight, the lame walk, the lepers are cleansed, the deaf hear, the dead are raised, andthe poor have good news brought to them.’5 This likely refers to the accounts in the Gospels ofthe healings on the sabbath of a lame man crippled for thirty-eight years, and a man who hadbeen blind from birth.6 These in turn refer back to Isaiah’s Messianic prophecy: ‘Then the eyesof the blind shall be opened, and the ears of the deaf unstopped; and the lame shall leap like adeer.’7 These miracles have significance because of what they may validate regarding Christ’sclaims. In John’s Gospel, Jesus reminded the Jewish leaders in a confrontation in the Templeduring the Feast of Dedication, ‘If I am not doing the works of my Father, then do not believeme. But if I do them, even though you do not believe me, believe the works, so that you mayknow and understand that the Father is in me, and I am in the Father.’8 I shall analyse thetreatment by these three authors of Christ’s miracles, utilising the categories developed byWerner Kahl in 1994.9 Kahl distinguishes between a Petitioner of Numinous Power, who praysfor a miracle, a Mediator of Numinous Power, who is the vehicle for such miraculous power,and a Bearer of Numinous Power, who is the source of that power, and able to work miraclesthemselves.

Early Christian authors spanning the period from Celsus to Julian recognised the significanceof Jesus’ miracles, and the amount of stress placed on them has been noted in modernscholarship.10 In the mid-second century, Justin Martyr held that Christ’s miracles were proofof divinity.11 In the late second century, Bishop Melito of Sardis wrote: ‘What was done byChrist after the baptism, and especially the signs, showed and proved to the world his godhead

bs_bs_banner

HeyJ •• (2014), pp. ••–••

© 2014 Trustees for Roman Catholic Purposes Registered. Published by John Wiley & Sons Ltd, 9600 Garsington Road, Oxford OX4 2DQ, UK and 350Main Street, Malden, MA 02148, USA.

hidden in flesh.’12 In the early fourth century, Athanasius, the bishop of Alexandria, wrote that‘by his works he revealed and made himself known to be the Son of God and the Word of theFather, leader and King of the Universe.’13 This suggests that the significance attached to thesemiracles maintained their importance in Christian apologetic throughout the period we arelooking at. Certainly, these high stakes were recognised by the first pagan author to truly engageChristian thought, Celsus.

CELSUS

While little is known about Celsus as an individual, his Alethes Logos, which survives in itslengthy quotations in Origen’s Contra Celsum, represents the contemporary educated paganargument against Christianity of the late second century, and indeed Andresen has argued thatCelsus’ work was a response to the Christian apologist Justin Martyr.14 This has been noted asan indication that Christians had increased in social significance to the point that they meriteda proper refutation.15 There is a broad consensus that the work dates to the reign of MarcusAurelius (161–180), while the reference to persecution in C. Cels. 8.69 suggests a date in thelate 170s, perhaps during the local persecution of Lyons in 177–8.16 Scholars have attempted toplace Celsus in Alexandria, Rome, Caesarea, and most recently, Pergamum, although conclu-sive evidence remains elusive.17 Celsus’ level of familiarity with the Christian Scriptures, whilenot approaching that of Porphyry, has been highlighted by Wilken.18

Celsus began with the criticism of Christianity’s low social status, although he did not tie thisto his case against miracles as Julian did.19 Celsus approached Christianity from a henotheisticperspective that allowed for worship of traditional subordinate gods synthesized from manycultures to be passed to the one high God, a view which could not tolerate exclusivist Christi-anity. He characterized the idea of incarnation as ‘disgraceful,’20 and following Plato, insistedthat incarnating would cause the changeless God to participate in the ‘great pollution’ of ourreality.21 Insisting that Jesus was born of an adulterous union between his mother Mary and aRoman soldier, Celsus rejected the virgin birth.22 He additionally dismissed the concept ofChrist, the Christian λογος, descending for sinners, as an omniscient, omnipotent God wouldsimply correct sinners.23

Amongst all of Celsus’ rhetorical thrusts, I wish to focus upon his attempt to deflect claimsof divine miracles for Christ by the assertion that he was merely a trickster. It is for this reasonthat Gallagher wrote that in the Alethes Logos, Celsus used magic as the foundation of hisaccusations.24 Celsus recognised that the claimed sign-miracles of Christ were key to hisidentification as Messiah and as God’s Son, writing that the Christians ‘regarded him as Son ofGod for this reason, because he healed the lame and the blind.’25 Celsus responded by associ-ating the claimed miracles of Christ with magical trickery, describing them as ‘the actions ofone hated by God and of a wicked sorcerer.’26 The word Celsus used to describe Christ, γοηςor ‘sorcerer,’ has negative connotations, with a range of meanings that does not include ‘divinemiracle-worker,’ but does include ‘wizard,’ ‘juggler,’ ‘swindler,’ and best of all, ‘cheat.’27 Itscognate γοητεια completes the package with equally reputable-sounding terms like ‘spell,’‘charm,’ and ‘witchcraft.’28 This is supported by Celsus’ assertion that ‘Jesus told great lies.’29

The clear implication in Celsus’ approach is that the miracles were not genuine, but shabbysleight-of-hand tricks.

Robert Wilken has pointed out that Celsus’ historical criticism came second to arguing thatJesus’ miracles were proof of sorcery.30 Celsus wrote that ‘it was by magic that he was ableto do the miracles which he appeared to have done.’31 This stresses not only magic, but the

2 DAVID NEAL GREENWOOD

mere appearance of completed miracles. Later, Celsus attempted to diffuse the power of theclaimed miracles by recasting them as derived from foreign witchcraft: ‘He was brought upin secret and hired himself out as a workman in Egypt, and after having tried his hand atcertain magical powers he returned from there, and on account of those powers gave himselfthe title of God.’32 In addition to the recognition that Christ claimed for himself the status ofdeity, Celsus stressed the trickery of Jesus’ powers. In Celsus’ attribution of the feeding of thefive thousand to magical tricks, he compared ‘the works of sorcerers who profess to dowonderful miracles [. . .] displaying expensive banquets and dining-tables and cakes anddishes which are non-existent, and who make things move as though they were alive althoughthey are not really so, but only appear as such in the imagination.’33 This emphasis on dis-plays of non-existent things, things which only appear real in perception, demonstrates theintent in Celsus’ portrayal of Christ’s miracles as γοητεια, to show their illusory and fraudu-lent nature.

Celsus outright rejected the miracle of Christ’s resurrection, dismissing it as mere sorcery.He wrote: ‘But who saw this? A hysterical female, as you say, and perhaps some other one ofthose who were deluded by the same sorcery, who either dreamt in a certain state of mind andthrough wishful thinking had a hallucination due to some mistaken notion.’34 The perjorativeuse of sorcery is supported by the statement that his followers were ‘deluded’ by it. If this claimhad found purchase, it would have reduced the potency of miraculous claims by Christianity,and perhaps more importantly, retorted that this culminating miracle was fraudulent. Celsus’essential argument was that miraculous healings were attributed to Jesus in the gospels, butthese apparent healings were done by trickery, and therefore he was not divine. Returning toKahl’s scheme, Celsus would have placed Christ in the lowest category, that of a Petitioner ofNuminous Power. However, following Origen’s response to Celsus’ assertion in the nextcentury, Christians perceived that this potential damage was largely contained.35 Origen initiallyundertook the project to allay the concerns of his patron, but eventually warmed to his task andissued a thorough refutation in eight books.

ORIGEN

Celsus’ opponent and preserver Origen grew up in the midst of pagan-Christian conflict inAlexandria, famously losing his father during the persecution of Septimius Severus in A.D.202.36 Given both a Christian and a Hellenic education, he grew in stature as a theologian andteacher, and was finally asked to respond to the arguments of Celsus in approximately A.D. 248,when he was living in Caesarea.37 He responded with erudite arguments, emphasising thereasonableness and historicity of the Christian faith. A major component of his case was theargument from prophecy, specifically that the prophets had predicted that ‘that signs andwonders of a certain kind would be done by the prophesied one.’38

In his response, Origen addressed Celsus’ claims regarding the miracles of Christ, and in sodoing, drew upon existing Christian literary tradition. Origen identified Celsus’ tactic, writingthat ‘Many times already when Celsus has been unable to face the miracles which Jesus isrecorded to have done he has misrepresented them as sorceries.’39 Origen responded, unsur-prisingly, that Jesus’ miracles were genuine, and that Celsus was inconsistent in attackingChrist’s miracles ‘as though they were done by magic and not by divine power.’40 It wasdisingenuous for Celsus to use the gospel accounts to claim this, when in those same accountsJesus clearly instructed his followers not to dabble in magic. Origen asked, ‘is it plausible tosuggest that they were magicians, when they risked their lives in great dangers for a teaching

CELSUS, ORIGEN, AND JULIAN ON CHRISTIAN MIRACLE-CLAIMS 3

which forbids magic?’41 This element of the apostles risking their lives for the teaching of Jesuswas crucial.42 Regarding the miracle of the resurrection, Origen delivered a simple but effectiveresponse. He began by laying the foundation of what was widely known: ‘Jesus was crucifiedbefore all the Jews and his body put to death in the sight of their people.’43 From there he movedon to the state of the apostles, who became changed men: ‘I think that the clear and certain proofis the argument from the behaviour of the disciples, who devoted themselves to a teachingwhich involved risking their lives. If they had invented the story that Jesus had risen from thedead, they would not have taught this with such spirit.’44 Origen is well known for allegoricalinterpretation, but with this argument, he focused very definitely on the physical and thehistorical, a critical approach which Mosetto holds was the first application of Hellenistichistoriography to defend the historicity of the miracles claimed in the gospel accounts.45

Clearly, Origen treated Christ as one whom Kahl would categorize as a Bearer of NuminousPower.

Gallagher frames the argument between Celsus and Origen as based on the distinctionbetween a mere human and a candidate for divine status, in turn dependent upon whether theactions performed were beneficial and were enduring.46 In essence, Celsus used the issue ofmagic to argue the negative, while Origen answered in the affirmative.47 Boiled down, Origen’sargument was that the gospels recorded both Jesus’ healings and rejection of magic, and hisdisciples risked their lives to proclaim him as divine; therefore they told the truth regarding hismiracles. Origen’s approach was held to have been authoritative by Christians of ensuinggenerations, as declared by the prolific author and bishop Eusebius of Caesarea, who largelyreiterated his argument, albeit with considerable elaboration.

The church historian Eusebius did not add significant new elements to his argumentin this area, but did provide a lengthy exposition of Origen’s position in his DemonstratioEvangelica, a work targeting Porphyry, which included an extended refutation of theassociation of Christ with sorcery.48 Eusebius wrote that Origen’s response to Celsusrefuted all further contention on the same subjects.49 While surviving texts do not supportPorphyry specifically addressing these miracles claimed for Christ, he did attempt to dismissChristian miracles generally as magic, writing that, ‘by magical arts, they have wroughtcertain signs.’50 Eusebius defined the role of miracles by stating that like Moses, Christ’smiracles authenticated his claims.51 He opened his discussion of Christ’s miracles by review-ing, among others, a set of miracles which will by now be familiar: ‘how he drove demonsout of men by his word of command, and how again he cured ungrudgingly those who weresick and labouring under all kinds of infirmity,’ and closed his review with Christ’s uniquedeath and resurrection.52 Eusebius concluded that, having subjected these to critical inquiry,they were ‘proofs of his divinity.’53 After reviewing these cases, in the following chapterEusebius analysed their significance, generally following Origen in this.54 He dismissed theallegation that Christ had absorbed secret teachings in Egypt, pointing out a distinct lack ofsubsequent magician-teachers like him in Egypt or elsewhere, recalling how those drawn toChrist’s teaching burned their magical books.55 Finally, he returned to the point Origen madein response to the suggestion that the disciples learned magic from Jesus and embellishedtheir account of him, asking rhetorically why, if they knew the truth, they chose to share hisfate.56

The exchange regarding the miracles of Christ had settled into a pattern on both sides. Thiscomfortable groove was upset by the arrival of the emperor Julian, a man with a flair forsynthesis, enhanced by his position and status as a former Christian. He did not hesitate to pickup the miracles gauntlet, but would employ a new approach, addressing Christ’s claimedmiracles in combination with Celsus’ disdain for Christianity’s low social status.

4 DAVID NEAL GREENWOOD

JULIAN

The emperor Julian felt his life was shaped by the pagan-Christian conflict. He had survived thepurge of his family upon his cousin Constantius II becoming Augustus following the death ofhis father and Julian’s uncles, Constantine I.57 As Julian grew older, he felt called to respond toConstantine and Constantius on behalf of paganism.58 After serving as Constantius’ Caesar,Julian was acclaimed as Augustus by his troops, which was followed by Constantius’ fortuitousillness and death, which left the now openly pagan Julian as sole ruler. Despite the advantageshis position afforded him, Julian’s context was very different from that of Celsus and evenPorphyry. In the wake of the Council of Nicaea, Christian influence permeated society. Chris-tian theology no doubt exerted pressure on the debate regarding Christ’s miracles. In his ContraGalilaeos, Julian directly critiqued Christian theology in the polemical vein of Celsus’ AlethesLogos and Porphyry’s Contra Christianos, winning praise from Wilken for his ‘inside knowl-edge of biblical interpretation and theological reasoning.’59 Julian wrote the work in Antiochduring the long winter nights of 362–3.60 In it, he primarily focused on the criticism thatChristianity was an illegitimate schism from Judaism,61 but also consistently rejected the claimsof Christ’s pre-existence and incarnation, the latter of which he derided in a private correspond-ence as irrationabilis.62

It is widely recognised that Julian was familiar with the work of Celsus.63 Jean Bouffartiguehas identified twenty-one places in the Contra Galilaeos where Julian followed Celsus’sarguments in his Alethes Logos.64 Yet in none of these places did Julian adopt Celsus’ argumentregarding miracles. Julian never cited Origen directly, although he would have been familiarwith the thrust of his approach, which was absorbed by Eusebius. We know for certain thatJulian was familiar with one work of Eusebius, as in Julian’s Contra Galilaeos he citedEusebius’ large work Praeparatio Evangelica. Indeed, the nature of Julian’s assessment ofEusebius implies a familiarity with the author and his overall work, as the young emperor, arather harsh reviewer, titled him ‘the wretched Eusebius.’65 Bouffartigue has demonstrated thatJulian made consistent use of Porphyry, as well the extent of Julian’s ‘direct consultation’ of thePraeparatio Evangelica, showing that Julian followed Eusebius’s argument in his own ContraGalilaeos.66 Confirming this, David Hunt has drawn attention to Libanius’ association ofJulian’s argument with that of Porphyry, specifically regarding the divinity of Christ.67

While Julian’s criticisms of Christianity are scattered throughout many of his works, hisaddressing of the issue of miracles is located in his fragmentary Contra Galilaeos. Julianpreferred to take another angle from Celsus altogether, acknowledging the miracle, but com-bining it with dismissive social ridicule. Julian’s synthesis of various streams of thought hadserved him well in other areas, combining the direct polemic of Celsus and Porphyry with thesupplanting approach of Sossianus Hierocles, which Julian attempted with pagan deities such asHeracles and Asclepius.68 While acknowledging the historicity of Christ’s σημεια or ‘sign-miracles,’ the emperor dismissed them as insignificant things done among a low class ofpeople.69 Julian was aware of the importance of miracles, as shown when he crafted Heraclesinto a water-walking savior of the world, although in that work he was not commenting on thereality or lack thereof of miracles, but borrowing a trope for his own purposes.70

The significance of sign-miracles was well established by Julian’s time, but where claims ofmagic had not struck a nerve, perhaps ridicule would. Julian did not rely on γοης as did Celsus.The only time he used this terminology in relation to Christianity was in critiquing the ApostlePaul.71 The core of Julian’s effort is found in his mocking presentation of both Christians andtheir Christ as low and unworthy. Julian highlighted what he considered to be the servile natureof the Jews during the time of Jesus: ‘Even Jesus, who was proclaimed among you, was one of

CELSUS, ORIGEN, AND JULIAN ON CHRISTIAN MIRACLE-CLAIMS 5

Caesar’s subjects. And if you do not believe me I will prove it a little later, or rather let mesimply assert it now. However, you admit that with his father and mother he registered his namein the governorship of Cyrenius.’72 In other words, no divinity would willingly allow itself to bethe subject of the earthly emperor. Like Celsus, Julian also mocked the low origins of Jesus. Hepointed out that the events had not been deemed worthy of mention in typical histories: ‘But ifyou can show me that one of these men is mentioned by the well-known writers of that time,these events happened in the reign of Tiberius or Claudius, then you may consider that I speakfalsely about all matters.’73 But in the process of Julian’s attacks regarding Jesus’ humblebackground, note that he admitted that Jesus was a historical person: ταυτα �γινετο, ‘theseevents happened.’ He stated that Jesus lived only a little over three hundred years prior and wasborn one of Caesar’s subjects. Julian wrote that Jesus and his earthly parents registered for thecensus. He wrote, ‘Yet Jesus, who won over the least worthy of you, has been known by namefor but little more than three hundred years: and during his lifetime he accomplished nothingworth hearing of.’74 The major stumble comes in his next clause, as he continued, ‘unlessanyone thinks that to heal crooked and blind men and to exorcise those who were possessed byevil demons in the villages of Bethsaida and Bethany can be classed as a mighty achievement.’75

Julian attempted to deride the humble circumstances of this Jesus the miracle-worker, butcrucially, the emperor did not attribute them to sleight-of-hand trickery or magic. He ratheracknowledged that the miracles happened. Celsus’ approach and Origen’s decisive response hadleft no room for that in the debate. Julian resorted to mockery instead, but his statement was atacit admission that the gospels recorded historical data about the healings and the exorcisms.Fair enough, but which miracles were they? The healing of the ‘crooked man’ appears to be themiraculous healing of the crippled man in the Gospel of St. John.76 The healing of the blind manis also found in St. John’s Gospel.77 The exorcism of the demon-possessed men in Bethsaidaand Bethany are also accounts found in the Gospels.78 These are the same events which were atstake in Celsus’ time. Julian altered Celsus’ approach and articulated the argument that Jesuscommitted the miraculous healings attributed to him in the gospels, but did so in a shamefullylow context; therefore his claim to divinity should be dismissed. Yet these miracles that Julianaccepted inadvertently conceded that Jesus was far more than just a gifted human being, andplaced him into Kahl’s category of a Bearer of Numinous Power. While Julian’s capable effortsat synthesis had served him well elsewhere, he apparently overlooked the significance of doingso with this text, which allowed an inadvertent and damaging admission.

CONCLUSION

This mistake on Julian’s part was never exploited by Christian writers due to Julian’s suddendemise shortly thereafter in his invasion of Persia. His death was so unexpected and abrupt thatit was portrayed by relieved Christians as a sign of God’s judgment, which effectively closedthe debate. As concerned as Christians seemed to have been by Julian and his rapidly expand-ing engagement with Christianity, they apparently no longer perceived a need to addresssecondary points in Julian’s argument, which is suggested by the fact that no contemporary feltit necessary to rebut specifically Julian’s Contra Galilaeos; in fact, the first we have anyevidence for came only in the fifth century from Cyril of Alexandria, writing roughly eightyyears after Julian’s death.79 This tactic of Julian would have played right into the hands of hisChristian opponents by granting that the very miracles on which they placed so much weightupon actually happened. Julian’s stumble was not insignificant, but overshadowed by his death,leaving his contemporary opponents content to focus less on the arguments he advanced than

6 DAVID NEAL GREENWOOD

on his overall hostility to the church.80 Julian’s attempted riposte did not cause the end ofthe period of great intellectual conflict between paganism and Christianity, but it was theclosing contribution of any significance from paganism. While Christianity was not the man-dated religion until Theodosius, and Augustine still had yet to compose his De Civitate Deicontra Paganos, paganism had unexpectedly lost its champion and with him its momentum. Itwas the last gasp in another way, demonstrating the corner into which Origen’s argument hadpushed his opponents, as well as the pervasiveness of Christian theology in contemporarysociety.

I have attempted to clearly demarcate the approaches of Celsus and Julian to the miraclesof Christ, specifically the healing miracles from John’s Gospel. Following the collapse ofCelsus’ argument regarding miracles, Julian seized upon a new approach, one which hefumbled badly by inadvertently admitting Jesus into the category of the divine. In a sensethis is an argument about an emperor’s mistake, but even more so about the success of anAlexandrian theologian.

Notes

1 My thanks to the anonymous reviewer at Heythrop Journal, as well as my colleagues Alex Imrie and CasValachova for their valuable suggestions.

2 For the edition of the Contra Celsum, I have used Miroslav Marcovich, ed., Origenes Contra Celsum:libri VIII (Leiden: Brill, 2001), with a close eye to the edition of Marcel Borret, ed., Origène: Contre Celse, tom.1, Paris: Editions du Cerf, 1967), and the translation of Henry Chadwick, Origen: Contra Celsum (Cambridge:Cambridge University Press, 1980), which I have lightly modified at points. For the edition of Julian’s ContraGalilaeos, I have used Emanuela Masaracchia, ed., Giuliano Imperatore, Contra Galilaeos, Rome: Edizionidell’Ateneo, 1990), and the translation is that of Wilmer Wright, ed., The Works of the Emperor Julian, vol. 3(London and Cambridge, Mass.: Heinemann, 1923).

3 David Neal Greenwood, ‘Crafting divine personae in Julian’s Oration 7,’ Classical Philology 109.2(2014), 140–49.

4 Origen’s approach to this issue still forms a central part of the arguments utilized in modern scholarship,e.g. N. T. Wright, The Resurrection of the Son of God (London: S.P.C.K., 2003).

5 Matt 11:4-5 NRSV.6 John 5:2-9; 9.1-7.7 Isa 35:5-6 NRSV.8 John 10.37-38 NRSV.9 Werner Kahl, New Testament Miracle Stories in their Religious-Historical Setting: A Religionsge-

schichtliche Comparison from a Structural Perspective (Gottingen: Vandenhoeck and Ruprecht, 1994), 76.These categories have also been utilised to clarify discussion in Eric Eve, The Jewish Context of Jesus’Miracles(Sheffield: Sheffield Academic Press, 2002), 15; and for a general audience, cf. Robert Bowman and J. EdKomoszewski, Putting Jesus in His Place: The Case for the Deity of Christ (Grand Rapids: Kregel, 2007).

10 R. T. Wallis, Neoplatonism (London: Duckworth, 1972), 104.11 Justin Martyr, Dialogue with Trypho 7.3, 35.8.12 Τα γαρ μετα το βαπτισμα υ� πο Χριστου πραχθεντα, και μαλιστα τα σημεια, την α�του

κεκρυμμενην �ν σαρκι θεοτητα �δηλουν, Melito, fr. 6.1.6-8, tr. Hall. Stuart Hall, ed. and tr., Melito ofSardis, On Pascha and fragments (Oxford: Oxford University Press, 1979), 68–71: Although it is representativeof Christian thought during this period either way, Melito fr. 6 is treated as genuine by Otto, Harnack, Bonner,Blank, Cantalamessa, and Grant, and as a later forgery by Nautin, Richard, and Hall.

13 δια των ε�ργων �νεφαινε, και �γνωριζεν ε�αυτον ε�ναι τον Λογον του Πατρος, τον του παντοςη� γεμονα και βασιλεα. Ath., De inc. 16.23-25, tr. Thomson.

14 Carl Andresen, Logos und Nomos: Die Polemik des Kelsos wider das Christentum (Berlin: De Gruyter,1955), 308; cf. Chadwick, v; Robert Wilken, The Christians as the Romans Saw Them (New Haven: YaleUniversity Press, 1984), 101.

15 John Dillon, The Middle Platonists: A Study of Platonism 80 B.C. to A.D. 220 (London: Duckworth,1977), 401.

CELSUS, ORIGEN, AND JULIAN ON CHRISTIAN MIRACLE-CLAIMS 7

16 Henri Crouzel, Origen, tr. Worrall (Edinburgh: T. & T. Clark, 1998), 48; Jean Daniélou, Origen, tr.Mitchell (London: Sheed & Ward, 1955) dates it at A.D. 180; R. Joseph Hoffmann, tr., Celsus: On theTrue Doctrine (Oxford: Oxford University Press, 1987), 29. While this was a local persecution, Eusebiusseems to treat other persecutions contemporaneously (Hist. Eccl. 5.1.3). See discussion in Chadwick, xxvi–xxviii.

17 Stephen Goranson, ‘Celsus of Pergamum: Locating a Critic of Early Christianity,’ in D. R. Edwardsand C. T. McCullough, eds, The Archaeology of Difference: Gender, Ethnicity, Class and the “Other” inAntiquity: Studies in Honor of Eric M. Myers (Boston: American Schools of Oriental Research, 2007),366–8.

18 Robert Wilken, The Christians as the Romans Saw Them (New Haven: Yale University Press, 1984), 95,101.

19 Jean Daniélou, Origen, tr. Walter Mitchell (London & New York: Sheed and Ward, 1955), 100–1; cf.Morton Smith, Jesus the Magician (London: Gollancz, 1978), 58.

20 αι�σχιστος, C. Cels. 4.2.11.21 μιασμα τοσουτος, C. Cels. 6.73.20-21. Here following the thinking of Plato, who taught that the Good

or the One was beyond being. Rep. 6.509b = C. Cels. 6.64.22; cf. 4.14.9-12; 6.64.13, 22; 6.73.17-21; cf.Chadwick, 379.

22 C. Cels. 1.32.20.23 C. Cels. 4.3, 8.28.24 Eugene V. Gallagher, Divine Man or Magician?: Celsus and Origen on Jesus. SBL Dissertation Series 64

(Chico: Scholars Press, 1982), 43.25 δια τουτ’ �νομισαμεν α�τον ε�ναι υι�ον θεου, �πει χωλους και τυφλους �θεραπευσε, C. Cels.

2.48.13-14.26 ταυτα θεομισους η�ν τινος και μοχθηρου γοητος, C. Cels. 1.71.19-20.27 H. Liddell, R. Scott, H. Jones, and R. McKenzie, A Greek-English Lexicon, 9th edition, with a Revised

Supplement (New York: Oxford University Press, 1995), 356, s.v.: γοης; W. Bauer, W. Arndt, F. W. Gingrich,A Greek-English Lexicon of the New Testament and Other Early Christian Literature (Chicago: University ofChicago Press, 2001), 204, s.v. γοης; Hort Balz and Gerhard Schneider, Exegetical Dictionary of the NewTestament (Grand Rapids: Eerdmans, 1993), 257, s.v. γοης; W. Burkert ‘ΓΟΗΣ. Zum griechischen “Schaman-ismus”,’ Rheinisches Museum für Philologie 105 (1962), 36–55.

28 Liddell, Scott, Jones, McKenzie, 356, s.v.: γοητεια.29 τα μεγαλα ψευσαμενον τον �Ιησουν, C. Cels. 2.7.13-4.30 Wilken, 109; cf. 98, 100–1; cf. Mark Edwards, ‘Christianity, A.D. 70–192,’ in Alan K. Bowman, Peter

Garnsey, and Averil Cameron (eds), The Cambridge Ancient History vol. XII: The Crisis of Empire, A.D.193–337, Cambridge, 585.

31 γοητεια δυνηθεντος α ε�δοξε παραδοξα πεποιηκεναι, C. Cels. 1.6.21-22.32 ου�τος δια πενιαν ε�ς Αι�γυπτον μισθαρνησας κ�κει δυναμεων τινων πειραθεις, �φ’αι�ς Α�γυ πτιοι

σεμνυνονται, �πανηλθεν �ν ταις δυναμεσι μεγα φρονων, και δι’ α�τας θεον αυ� τον �νηγορευσε, C.Cels. 1.38.8-11; cf. 1.28.

33 τα ε�ργα των γοητων, ω� ς υ� πισχνουμενων θαυμασιωτερα . . . �νακαλουντων δειπνα τε πολυτεληκαι τραπεζας και πεμματα και ο�ψα τα ο�κ ο�ντα δεικνυντων και ω� ς ζω α κινουντων ο�κ �ληθως ο�νταζω α �λλα μεχρι φαντασιας φαινομενα τοιαυτα, C. Cels. 1.68.3-9.

34 τις τουτο ε�δε; Γυνη παροιστρος, ω ς φατε, και ει� τις α�λλος των �κ της α�της γοητειας, τοι κατατινα διαθεσιν �νειρωξας και κατα την α�του βουλησιν δοξη πεπλανημενη φαντασιωθεις, C. Cels.2.55.22-25.

35 Mosetto has suggested that on the specific topic of Christ’s miracles, Celsus and Origen somewhat talkpast one another with their different presuppositions. Francesco Mosetto, I miracoli evangelici nel dibattito traCelso e Origene (Rome: Libreria Ateneo salesiano, 1986).

36 Eus., Hist. eccl. 6.1.37 Timothy D. Barnes, Constantine and Eusebius, (Cambridge, Mass.: Harvard University Press, 1981), 86;

cf. Crouzel, 48; Ronald Heine, Origen: Scholarship in the Service of the Church (Oxford: Oxford UniversityPress, 2010), 220; Chadwick, xiv–xv. Elizabeth DePalma Digeser, A Threat to Public Piety: Christian,Platonists and the Great Persecution (Ithaca: Cornell University Press, 2012), 68–9, places this into contextwith the tensions with government and rival philosophical schools and suggests that the beginnings of theDecian persecution may have motivated Origen to write C. Cels.

38 σημεια και τεραστια �σομενα υ� πο του προφητευομενου τοιαδε, Origen, C. Cels. 3.2.6-7; cf.Origen, Comm. John 2.34.

8 DAVID NEAL GREENWOOD

39 Πολλακις δ’ ο� Κελσος η�δη μη δυναμενος �ντιβλεπειν αι�ς �ναγεγραπται πεποιηκεναιδυναμεσιν ο� �Ιησους διαβαλλει α�τας ω� ς γοητειας· και πολλακις τω λογω κατα το δυνατον η� μιν�ντειπομεν, C. Cels. 2.48.

40 ω� ς �πο μαγειας και ο� θεια δυναμει γεγενημενας, C. Cels. 1.38.7-8.41 τινα ε�χει πιθανοτητα το μαγους τοσουτοις κινδυνοις ε�αυτους παραβεβληκεναι <δια&>

διδασκαλιαν μαγειας �παγορευουσαν;, C. Cels. 1.38.20-3.42 Aryeh Kofsky, Eusebius of Caesarea Against Paganism (Leiden: Brill, 2000), 174: ‘Readiness to die for

Christianity in every generation was decisive proof of the truth of the Christian faith.’43 �Ιησου δε σταυρωθεντος �πι παντων �Ιουδαιων και καθαιρεθεντος α�του του σωματος �ν ο�ψει

του δημου α�των, C. Cels. 2.56.6-7.44 Σαφες δ’ο�μαι και �ναργες ε�ναι το �κ των μαθητων α�του �πιχειρημα, �πικινδυνω ω� ς προς τον

των �νθρωπων βιον διδασκαλια ε�αυτους �πιδεδωκοτων, ην ο�κ α� ν πλασσομενοι το �γηγερθαι τον�Ιησουν �κ νεκρων ου τως ε�τονως �διδαξαν, C. Cels. 2.56.20-24.

45 Mosetto 1986, 108, writes: ‘al corrente della metodologia ormai collaudata nella storiografia ellenistica,per la prima volta nella storia del pensiero cristiano egli ne ha fatto uso sistematico per difendere la storicità deimiracoli evangelici.’

46 Gallagher, 63–4.47 Although Kofsky, 174–5, notes that Origen was shifting the emphasis somewhat towards ongoing

miracles within the Christian community, as only three of the seven miracles he utilized in his argument wereclaimed for Christ himself

48 Barnes, 184.49 Eus., Reply to Hierocles 1.1 Jones.50 magicis artibus operati sunt quaedam signa, Porphyry, Contra Christianos, frag. 4 Harnack, preserved in

Hieron., Tract. de psalmo 81.51 Eus., Dem. evang. 3.2.91d.52 τοτε δε προσταγματι λογου τους �ν �νθρωποις δαιμονας �λαυνων, και α�λλοτε παλιν

νοσηλευομενοις και παντοιοις �σθενειων ει�δεσι καταπονουμενοις την ι�ασιν �φθονως δωρουμενος,Eus., Dem. evan. 3.4.107d; 3.4.108cd.

53 θεοτητος τα τεκμηρια, Eus., Dem. evang. 3.4.109a.54 W. J. Ferrar, The Proof of the Gospel Being the Demonstratio Evangelica of Eusebius of Caesarea, vol.

1 (London: S.P.C.K., 1920), xiv.55 Eus., Dem. evang. 3.6.131ab; 3.6.128b, citing Acts 19:19.56 Eus., Dem. evang. 3.5.111d.57 The deaths of Julian’s father and siblings (but for Gallus) were almost certainly the responsibility of

Constantius II: see Richard Burgess ‘The Summer of Blood: The “Great Massacre” of 337 and the Promotionof the Sons of Constantine,’ Dumbarton Oaks Papers 62 (2008), 5–51; contra Klaus Rosen, Julian. Kaiser, Gottund Christenhasser (Stuttgart: Klett-Cotta, 2006), who credits military leaders with independent action. Julian,5.270d; Lib., Or. 18.10; cf. Socr., 3.1; Sozom., 5.2.9; Amm. Marc. 25.3.23.

58 Julian, Or. 7.232c-234c; Ep. 111; Lib. Or. 18.19.59 Wilken, 191.60 Lib., Or. 18.178.61 Wilken, 178.62 Ep. 90; cf. C. Gal. 262d. Julian’s Ep. 90 to Photinus is extant only in a Latin copy, the original Greek was

likely α�λογος.63 Wilmer C. Wright, The Works of the Emperor Julian, vol. 3 (Cambridge, Mass.: Harvard University Press,

1923), 314, holds that ‘Julian’s arguments against the Christian doctrine do not greatly differ from those usedin the second century by Celsus, and by Porphyry in the third.’ Similarly, Rowland Smith, Julian’s Gods:Religion and Philosophy in the Thought and Action of Julian the Apostate, (London: Routledge, 1995), 191,criticizes Julian’s ‘readiness to repeat standard criticisms.’

64 Jean Bouffartigue, L’Empereur Julien et la culture de son temps (Paris: Institute d’Études augustiniennes,1992), 685–6.

65 C. Gal. 222a, Praep. evan. 11.5.5.66 Bouffartigue, 385–6.67 E. David Hunt, ‘The Christian Context of Julian’s Against the Galileans’ in Nicholas Baker-Brian and

Shaun Tougher (eds), Emperor and Author: The Writings of Julian the Apostate (Cardiff: The Classical Pressof Wales, 2012), 253.

68 Greenwood, ‘Crafting divine personae in Julian’s Oration 7’.

CELSUS, ORIGEN, AND JULIAN ON CHRISTIAN MIRACLE-CLAIMS 9

69 C. Gal. 191de.70 Julian, Or. 7.219c-220a.71 �λλα και τον παντας πανταχου τους πωποτε γοητας και �πατεωνας υ� περβαλλομενον Παυλον,

C. Gal. 100a.72 και ο� παρ’ υ� μιν κηρυττομενος �Ιησους ει�ς η�ν των Καισαρος υ� πηκοων. ε� δε �πιστειτε, μικρον

υ στερον �ποδειξω· μαλλον δε η�δη λεγεσθω. φατε μεντοι μετα του πατρος α�τον �πογραψασθαι καιτης μητρος �πι Κυρηνιου, C. Gal. 213a, tr. Wright.

73 ω� ν ει�ς �αν φανη ˜ των τηνικαυτα γνωριζομενων �πιμνησθεις, �πι Τιβεριου γαρ η�τοι Κλαυδιουταυτα �γινετο, περι παντων ο τι ψευδομαι νομιζετε, C. Gal. 206b, tr. Wright.

74 ο� δε �Ιησους �ναπεισας το χειριστον των παρ’ υ� μιν, �λιγους προς τοις τριακοςιοις �νιαυτοις�νομαζεται, �ργασαμενος παρ’ ον ε�ζη χρονον ο�δεν �κοης α�ξιον, C. Gal. 191de, tr. Wright.

75 ε� μη τις οι�εται τους κυλλους και τυφλους �ασασθαι και δαιμονωντας �φορκιζειν �ν Βηθσαιδακαι �ν Βηθανια ταις κωμαις των μεγιστων ε�ργων ε�ναι, C. Gal. 191e, tr. Wright.

76 John 5:1-9.77 John 9:1-8.78 Mark 8:22-26 records the healing in Bethsaida, although the reference to a demon possession in Bethany

is either a conflation of the raising of Lazarus, or more likely simply an error on Julian’s part as he wrote frommemory.

79 Wilken, 177. In his Contra Julianum, Cyril held it irrefutable – until his effort, of course: PG 76.508c; cf.Polymnia Athanassiadi-Fowden, Julian and Hellenism: An Intellectual Biography (Oxford: Oxford UniversityPress, 1981), 161, reprinted as Polymnia Athanassiadi, Julian and Hellenism (London: Routledge, 1992);Smith, 191.

80 In the several decades after Julian’s death, he was pilloried by Christian writers. Shortly after Julian’sdeath, his former fellow student Gregory Nazianzen (Or. 4.96) attacked Julian’s plan to deprive Christians ofall rights of speech and assembly, while in 377–8, Chrysostom (Babylas 119) wrote that during Julian’s time inAntioch, he ‘prepared for war against the churches.’

10 DAVID NEAL GREENWOOD