The resurrection of Jesus as written in the gospel narratives is arguably the major key belief in Christianity. So let’s take a look at what the famous second century pagan philosopher Celsus had to say on the crucifixion and the Christian claim of Christ’s resurrection from the grave. Celsus was a strong critic of Christianity in an age when this new religion was taking root and his book ‘Alēthēs Logos’ or ‘The True Word’ was one of the earliest polemics we know of by pagan Greek theologians to counter Christianity, this new apocalyptic sect which had taken birth from Judaism but which by the second century had pretty much gone its own way and had become to all intents and purposes a separate religion.
In the ‘The True Word’, Celsus attacked many of the beliefs, creeds and dogmas of Christianity to telling effect. On the resurrection story for example he poured scorn on Jesus’ failure to show himself publicly after he had risen up to prove his divinity.
…while he (Jesus) was in the body, and no one believed upon him, he preached to all without intermission; but when he might have produced a powerful belief in himself after rising from the dead, he showed himself secretly only to one woman, and to his own boon companions. – Celsus
Unfortunately the book ‘The true Word’ was banned by later Christian Emperors for its anti-Christian message with all copies ordered to be burnt and therefore there are no surviving copies to the present day. However this powerful critique of Christianity provoked the Christian scholar and theologian Origen to write a response which he called ‘Contra Celsum’ or Against Celsus. And Origen quotes verbatim from Celsus’ work thus unknowingly perhaps preserving a lot of Celsus’ work intact and allowing us in the present age to understand his thoughts and criticisms.
Celsus made a huge number of criticisms so let’s start with some of the comments and critiques he makes regarding Jesus before and after his crucifixion and then the resurrection and at the same time we’ll also go through how Origen who recorded these criticisms in ‘Contra Celsum’ tries to counter these points in his defence of Christianity.
The vast difference between the Old Testament God and the New Testament Jesus
The key theme in Celsus’ remarks is the vast difference between the old Testament God – a much more extrovert and aggressive God, full of wrath and not afraid to show it and Jesus – supposedly god incarnate as Christians believe him to be of the new Testament – who seems to be not much more than a preacher with a few healing tricks which only his followers seem to have recorded. And it has to be said this contrast between the god of the Old Testament and the new Testament is something that Christians themselves struggle with right up to the present time.
Celsus notes the Old Testament being full of gratuitous large scale miracles and shows of God’s power and anger in tackling the constantly misbehaving Jews and gentiles like the Egyptians, the Canaanites and so on. Good examples of this overkill are the great flood of Noah’s time, for instance, wiping out the whole of humanity, or Joshua asking God to stop the sun while he slaughtered the Amorites, or the casual and indiscriminate destruction and sorrow caused by the plagues sent upon the Egyptians during Moses’ time.
However Jesus, the God of the New Testament seems to be a lot more shy about performing at such a level. His miracles are much more pedestrian. In the New Testament, there are no overt and large scale miracles for some reason. So there is no parting of the Red Sea or parting of the Mediterranean Sea perhaps in his case which was closer or making the walls of Jerusalem come crashing down on his command etc. Miracles in other words that could have been easily validated and recorded by many independent witnesses, being in the Roman period of history and with plenty of literate Greeks and Romans around.
Instead Jesus kept his miracles pretty low key during his life for some reason, the only witnesses being his own followers and miracles which curiously were only recorded by the gospel writers much later after his death. These were by and large your typical healing miracles largely or ‘demons’ and ‘unclean spirits’ supposedly being ejected from people. And that’s a far cry from the much more impressive miracles of the Old Testament.
And this was an issue for Celsus – why is God or the son of God suddenly changing tact and executing miracles in a much more modest and covert fashion. Why did he fail to show any of his miraculous powers before a more discerning audience made up of Romans, Greeks and other educated elite, particularly non-believers who would have been much less gullible and more rational than the typical village audience that Jesus normally sought to preach to. And this was especially true of the grand finale if you will of the gospel stories – the crucifixion and supposed resurrection of Jesus – with only close followers claiming they saw him alive again. And it was the inconsistencies of his actions in the crucifixion and resurrection narratives in the gospels particularly in the light of him being a divine messenger with a mission to complete that Celsus would also address. Anyway let’s get to it.
The Last Meal
Why did identifying Judas’ coming betrayal have no effect?
Let’s start off before the crucifixion at what’s called the ‘last supper’ where Jesus tells his followers that he will be betrayed. And this is found in all the synoptic gospels (Matt Chap 26, Mark Chap 14 and Luke Chap 22). Whilst eating with them, Jesus accuses Judas of planning to betray him and that another disciple – meaning Peter – will deny being his follower as well. Celsus writes…
How is it that, if Jesus pointed out beforehand both the traitor and the perjurer, they did not fear him as a God, and cease, the one from his intended treason, and the other from his perjury? – Celsus
So his point is that Jesus warning Judas that he would betray him had no effect at all and certainly he failed to strengthen Judas’ faith in him for some reason. He would still end up betraying Jesus. So was there really any point in Jesus pointing out the two culprits at all. In reality it showed he could not influence people who had been with him for so long and if Jesus was divine he must surely have known this.
In fact you could extend Celsus point to other apostles and not just Judas and Peter. Thomas for example doubted him even after being with him for three years and seeing him after his resurrection. So something has to give . Either the miracles didn’t happen or Jesus despite casually going round doing small scale healing miracles etc can’t seem to convince even those closest to him of his divinity which again reflects badly on him.
Why is God engineering Judas’ betrayal?
Secondly and more importantly, Celsus also points out the strange nature of the whole episode of Judas having to betray Jesus so that he could be crucified and hence save humanity as it were by taking everyone sins on himself. What really is the need for this elaborate charade of being betrayed and being crucified and then rising up again and why turn Judas into a pariah for all time? Celsus puts it much more succinctly.
And, which is still more absurd, God himself conspired against those who sat at his table, by converting them into traitors and impious men. – Celsus
Since the death and resurrection of Jesus is an essential pre-requisite for humanity to be saved according to Christianity, then it seems to have been necessary for God to manufacture or engineer a situation which would lead to Jesus being crucified. For if Jesus had lived a long and happy life and died a natural death then paradoxically humanity would have been doomed as there would have been no crucifixion in which all our sins were taken away. So does that mean God is manufacturing a traitor to go through the motions? Was Judas being manipulated by God himself to ensure the crucifixion took place? A puppet without free will if you like? If it was ordained that he should act this part in the play then he can’t be blamed and can’t be called a traitor. Instead he should arguably be called a hero for facilitating Jesus’ death on the cross so that we can all be saved. And Jesus should really be congratulating Judas for doing his part to facilitate his crucifixion and keeping this divine plan on the right path. And of course in this case the malevolence lies with God in using Judas to achieve his own ends. Surely the act of turning a good man into a traitor is against God’s nature. Another further problem is that free will is in accord with Christian teaching so Judas being used as a puppet by god raises even more issues than it answers.
The other option is that Judas was in fact using his free will in betraying Jesus? But if so was Judas right or wrong to betray Jesus bearing in mind that the crucifixion was still necessary to redeem mankind?
Neither alternative is particularly straightforward for obvious reasons and both options present problems for Christian theologians. And it seems the writers of the gospels in their desire to show Jesus as divine and that he was all-knowing and knew of the impending betrayal didn’t really think things through regarding the implications that his foresight brings up. And I’ll do another video specifically on this topic at some later point but let’s move on to how Origen defends the Christian position. Was it Judas’ free will or was it God ordaining these events to take place and using Judas as a mere puppet?
Origen’s response
Origen in his book ‘Contra Celsum’ counters by saying that Judas had to essentially go through with the betrayal otherwise Jesus’ prediction would have been wrong and Jesus – being God – could not be wrong. Therefore his betrayal was effectively cast in stone. There was no way, in other words, for Judas to change his mind at a later stage.
Here the learned Celsus did not see the contradiction in his statement: for if Jesus foreknew events as a God, then it was impossible for His foreknowledge to prove untrue; and therefore it was impossible for him who was known to Him as going to betray Him not to execute his purpose, nor for him who was rebuked as going to deny Him not to have been guilty of that crime. For if it had been possible for the one to abstain from the act of betrayal, and the other from that of denial, as having been warned of the consequences of these actions beforehand, then His words were no longer true, who predicted that the one would betray Him and the other deny Him. – Origen
So essentially Origen although believing in human free will as Christianity accepts nevertheless believes Judas was doomed to betray Jesus. But as you can see he doesn’t really drill down into the problem and address the issue of whether Judas was nevertheless manipulated to ensure the crucifixion took place. In fact on the issue of Judas being used as a puppet for Jesus to achieve his own ends, Origen replies with a somewhat equivocal answer and effectively throws the burden of proof on Celsus.
But how Jesus could either conspire or convert His disciples into traitors or impious men, it would be impossible for him to prove, save by means of such a deduction as anyone could refute with the greatest ease.
In the garden
Why is Jesus praying to avoid death?
Moving forward in time, Celsus also comments on Jesus’ actions in the garden of Gethsemane and the issue of him fearing death and praying to avoid the torture. The gospels write of him sweating blood – something known as hematohidrosis today – a symptom seen in anyone experiencing deep fear or extreme levels of anxiety. Celsus asks…
Why does he mourn, and lament, and pray to escape the fear of death, expressing himself in terms like these: ‘O Father, if it be possible, let this cup pass from Me?’ – Celsus
Surely if Jesus was divine and therefore aware of his mission then pleading to God was entirely redundant. He should play the part he was assigned with dignity and stoicism. This was what he had come to Earth for after all and what had already been planned. So why is a supposedly divine being showing hesitancy or a desire not to go through with it? Praying in this situation was nonsensical.
Origen’s response
Origen’s response to this was that Celsus had magnified the torment of Jesus unnecessarily and that he was …
…grossly exaggerating the facts, and quoting what is not written in the Gospels, seeing it is nowhere found that Jesus lamented. – Origen
And that’s quite true – the gospels don’t use the word lament – however the sentiment expressed by Celsus was essentially the same – that of Jesus not wanting to go through with the crucifixion if at all possible which is inconsistent with him being divine and following a plan that’s already been mapped out. Origen also points out Celsus didn’t finish the rest of the sentence which was “Nevertheless, not as I will, but as Thou wilt.” In which Jesus seems to reluctantly acquiesce to God’s decision – whatever it be – and which showed Jesus’ willingness to go through with the crucifixion if necessary. And he castigates Celsus for reading the bible with bad intention.
Nay, even the cheerful obedience of Jesus to the will of His Father in those things which He was condemned to suffer, exhibited in the declaration, “If this cup cannot pass from Me except I drink it, Thy will be done,” he pretends not to have observed, acting here like those wicked individuals who listen to the Holy Scriptures in a malignant spirit, and “who talk wickedness with lofty head.” – Origen
But here I think Origen oversteps the mark considerably. You could hardly call it ‘cheerful obedience’ if Jesus is praying to God to avoid the crucifixion although as mentioned he seems to be acquiescing to his fate when he uses the words ‘not as I will, but as Thou wilt’. But this response still doesn’t explain why a divine Jesus was hesitating and needed to ask to be let off and escape the crucifixion in the first place. Other Christian martyrs in succeeding years and centuries went through similar tortures without sweating blood, without fear and without asking the Christian god for exemption from the punishment. And surely Jesus could have done the same.
In fact Origen has quite a strange and curious explanation for Jesus praying to avoid the crucifixion. It was, he explained, rather to do with showing mercy for the Jewish people instead. Jesus, he wrote, knew that God would show wrath towards the Jewish nation for condemning and crucifying him and God would therefore end up shortly scattering the Jewish nation with the Temple itself being destroyed by the Romans. So he was asking God to let him avoid the crucifixion in order to save the Jews by allowing an alternate future to take place where the crucifixion never took place.
I know, indeed, that there is another explanation of this passage to the following effect:—The Savior, foreseeing the sufferings which the Jewish people and the city of Jerusalem were to undergo in requital of the wicked deeds which the Jews had dared to perpetrate upon Him, from no other motive than that of the purest philanthropy towards them, and from a desire that they might escape the impending calamities, gave utterance to the prayer, “Father, if it be possible, let this cup pass from Me.” It is as if He had said, “Because of My drinking this cup of punishment, the whole nation will be forsaken by Thee, I pray, if it be possible, that this cup may pass from Me, in order that Thy portion, which was guilty of such crimes against Me, may not be altogether deserted by Thee.” – Origen
Now this explanation – that Jesus was avoiding crucifixion to save the Jews from their fate – seems a little contrived and importantly completely ignores the idea that the crucifixion was necessary according to Christianity to save humanity whatever happened to the Jews. And it also seems to run counter to his earlier assertion that Jesus prophesied Judas’ betrayal and therefore the crucifixion would take place whether Judas changed his mind or not because he had predicted it. So praying to avoid the crucifixion was doubly unnecessary – regardless of what happened to the Jewish nation.
On the cross
Why did Jesus not come off the cross to show his divinity in front of a large audience
Moving on to the crucifixion itself, Celsus argued that Jesus really missed a trick here by not showing his alleged powers while he was on the cross in front of a large audience and with numerous Romans, Greeks and Jews watching the scene. This was the real place to show the audience, both followers and non-believers that he was indeed a divine being.
…if this at least would have helped to manifest his divinity, he ought accordingly to have at once disappeared from the cross. – Celsus
Coming down from the cross miraculously and walking amongst the watching people would have ensured his message was carried far and wide for the audience would have seen something truly remarkable. The miracle would naturally have made all of them instant followers and done wonders for the spread of Christianity. This would have been a perfect time to show his divine powers therefore. And this is something that comes up in the gospel accounts as well. While on the cross, Jesus could hear people taunting him on why he couldn’t save himself. But in complete contrast he allegedly rose up from the grave when he was hardly seen by anybody but a few of his followers.
Origins response
Origen in reply mocked Celsus’ argument that showing some sort of miracle or supernatural occurrence would have helped his cause rather than hinder it. He had no real answer to this issue though except to pooh pooh the whole idea and suggest that if Jesus had done this, then surely Celsus a critic would still not have been satisfied and have then criticised this miracle as well and asked for something even more spectacular.
But even if it had been related in the Gospels, according to the view of Celsus, that Jesus had immediately disappeared from the cross, he and other unbelievers would have found fault with the narrative, and would have brought against it some such objection as this: “Why, pray, did he disappear after he had been put upon the cross, and not disappear before he suffered?” – Origen
In answer to Celsus’ point that Jesus never transported and rematerialised himself elsewhere publicly, he fishes out a couple of obscure examples which were reported by his followers.
…is it not reasonable that they should accord their faith also to His resurrection, and should believe that He, according to His pleasure, on one occasion, when the doors were shut, stood in the midst of His disciples, and on another, after distributing bread to two of His acquaintances, immediately disappeared from view, after He had spoken to them certain words? – Origen
Now I’m not quite sure where these examples of materialisation and dematerialisation are mentioned in the Bible. But even if we accept these, Celsus’ point still stands – that he didn’t disappear or reappear in front of large crowds of unbelievers, allegedly doing these things rather just in front of a few of his own followers who, lets face it, obviously had an axe to grind by promoting his reputation as a divine being.
Why did a supposedly divine Jesus expire on the cross before the (mortal) criminals?
Another issue that Celsus brings forward relating to Jesus being put on the cross was the fact that Jesus died quicker than the two criminals who were crucified along with him. Is it not strange Celsus argued, that a divine being expires before ordinary mortals also undergoing the same treatment. How can this be? Surely it should have been the other way around. A divine being should have more staying power, more strength to sustain pain and punishment than the common man – if we assume a divine being can feel pain that is. Yet the two criminals last longer on the cross than Jesus. You could argue the criminals therefore had a greater strength within them than Jesus. And one could also add the criminals acted in a more stoic more dignified fashion on the cross as well. While Jesus was crying out to God asking him why he had forsaken him, the two criminals refrained from crying out in pain and did not beg for mercy according to the gospel accounts. So the question is why isn’t Jesus showing a little more fortitude than mere mortals.
Origen’s response
Origen’s explanation for Jesus dying first is a pretty curious one – he suggests Jesus deliberately hastened his death to make sure his legs weren’t broken – one has to presume so that he could walk properly after his resurrection or perhaps this might be an action that would precipitate his death. But, Origen suggests, a human being can’t surely be the cause of the death of God. Only God can kill himself and therefore his moment of death was his own choosing and this is used to explain his death before the two criminals.
His death some greater display of divine power, so that His soul, if it pleased, might leave its body, and having performed certain offices out of it (going to hell), might return again at pleasure? And such a declaration is Jesus said to have made in the Gospel of John, when He said: “No man taketh My life from Me, but I lay it down of Myself. I have power to lay it down, and I have power to take it again.” And perhaps it was on this account that He hastened His departure from the body, that He might preserve it, and that His legs might not be broken, as were those of the robbers who were crucified with Him. “For the soldiers brake the legs of the first, and of the other who was crucified with Him; but when they came to Jesus, and saw that He was dead, they brake not His legs.” – Origen
So in a nutshell he argues Jesus ended his own life even though he could have lasted longer on the cross as it would not be becoming for a human to kill a divine being. But this explanation surely raises other questions. Surely he could have killed himself after the soldiers had broken his legs and still died on his own accord. The action of braking legs should not have preempted a divine being into rushing to end his own life whichever way you look at it.
Why showing Jesus’ body as superhuman shows inconsistency
A third issue that Celsus also raised was the idea of blood and water coming from Jesus’ body when it was pierced by the soldier’s lance. And this is described in only one gospel – the gospel of John Chap 19. Celsus compares the mix of blood and water to ichor – the ethereal fluid that acts as blood in the veins of the Greek gods. Perhaps he is suggesting Christians are trying to mirror Greek mythology by showing Jesus also to have the bloodstream of immortals.
What is the nature of the ichor in the body of the crucified Jesus? Is it ‘such as flows in the bodies of the immortal gods?’ – Celsus
Celsus asks. He says this in perhaps mocking fashion, or certainly Origen suggests he is mocking but this comment does raise a serious issue which perhaps Celsus was alluding to regarding whether the physical body of Jesus was itself divine or not. Christians believe Jesus was essentially a composite of man and God. God manifesting himself in a human body. The physical body of Jesus was very definitely human while the immaterial part of him was the divine spirit. And therefore this composite had both divine and human characteristics. And this explanation can conveniently explain away Jesus’ weaknesses and failures which can be attributed to the human side of the being for a divine being cannot show any weakness by definition.
So all his problematic actions, his less confident words, his human frailties, base emotions like fear, hunger, anger etc , the fact that he had to eat, sleep and drink just like other humans derive from his human side. So for example if we look at the gospel accounts of Jesus on the cross, we find he asks God ‘why have you forsaken me’? This Christians will claim can be attributed to the physical human side of Jesus – the weaker part. Conversely all his more confident statements, declarations and miracles etc can naturally be attributed to his divine nature. So for example Jesus declaring “I am the way, and the truth, and the life,” or ‘Before Abraham was, I am’ etc are his divine immaterial side doing the talking.
So far so good. This means anything and everything – his strengths and weaknesses – can all be explained away without deconstructing the idea of Jesus being divine. And Origen, in common with other Christian apologists and theologians of his time and really up to the present time typically employ this standard Christian explanation. But coming back to the issue of Jesus on the cross and the gospel account alleging that blood and water flowed out of his body when his side was pierced by the lance from the Roman soldier. Origen is quite sure this was the case as the Gospel of John mentions.
…we shall show from the serious narratives of the Gospels, although Celsus may not like it, that it was no mythic and Homeric ichor which flowed from the body of Jesus, but that, after His death, “one of the soldiers with a spear pierced His side, and there came thereout blood and water. – Origen
Now if we assume this is true then this poses a problem for the Christian belief that his body was merely a human vessel for the divine spirit. If this was so then blood and only blood should have poured out. Conversely if the body was divine then we have the paradox of a superhuman body which curiously shows human frailties as well. For example in the garden of gethsemane only a few hours earlier, the gospel accounts (Luke) describe him sweating blood out of fear. So which is it? Is the physical body special or merely human? It seems whoever wrote the Gospel of John tries to have things both ways. In his eagerness to show Jesus as divine he obviously decided to add in an extra miracle here without realising the implications of showing his physical side as also superhuman.
Death and ‘resurrection’
Can anyone rising from dead really be dead?
Moving on to the issue of the resurrection accounts, Celsus asks if anyone could rise up alive if they were really definitively dead. For dead really means dead – not just being in some sort of limbo and having the ability to rise again whenever one decided to live again. In other words a rational and scientific approach to the idea of life and death is required. All signs of life being extinguished forever being the definition of real death.
Celsus asks…
But this is the question, whether anyone who was really dead ever rose again with a veritable body? – Celsus
Origen’s response
Origen’s answer to this is that the resurrection account can be of no surprise certainly to Jews as Jesus was a Jew himself and the Jewish scriptures, in other words the Old Testament, have plenty of miraculous occurrences. So why show surprise at one more. And regarding people rising from the dead, he suggests the Jewish scriptures have other examples of people rising from the dead in particular Elijah and Elisha managing to resurrect some dead children.
Now a Jew would not have uttered these words, who believed what is recorded in the third and fourth books of Kings regarding little children, of whom the one was raised up by Elijah, and the other by Elisha. And on this account, too, I think it was that Jesus appeared to no other nation than the Jews, who had become accustomed to miraculous occurrences- Origen
So in other words, for Jews and Christians, Jesus rising up was not a miracle that was unprecedented. But this of course deflects from the real point Celsus makes regarding taking a more rational approach to the idea of death being permanent rather than attributing everything to miracles as explanations.
Why did Jesus refuse to show himself openly after resurrection?
But let’s move to the main topic of this video and what Celsus has to say regarding Jesus’ alleged resurrection in the gospel accounts and his curiously more introverted behaviour shall we say compared to his open preaching prior to his crucifixion. Celsus points out that the resurrected Jesus is suspiciously only seen alive by a few of his own followers and adherents (similarly to most if not all his miracles in fact). And Celsus stresses this several times.
While undergoing his punishment he was seen by all men, but after his resurrection by one, whereas the opposite ought to have happened. – Celsus
And elsewhere Origen records him writing…
…while he was in the body, and no one believed upon him, he preached to all without intermission; but when he might have produced a powerful belief in himself after rising from the dead, he showed himself secretly only to one woman, and to his own boon companions. – Celsus
And even if we assume there was sufficient reason not to show himself to the general public, It doesn’t explain why he was reticent to appear before Pontius Pilate or the Jewish leadership for example to punish them or at least remonstrate with them for their actions in leading an innocent man to his death. Surely that would have been the correct course of action.
…if Jesus desired to show that his power was really divine, he ought to have appeared to those who had ill-treated him, and to him who had condemned him, and to all men universally. – Celsus
Secondly with his mission being complete, his death and resurrection having been performed, Celsus points out that Jesus could now have taken off the mask as it were and finally and definitively revealed that he was god himself. There was simply no reason at all to hide from his persecutors anymore in case of repercussions – he had after all already been put to death.
…For he had no longer occasion to fear any man after his death, being, as you say, a God; nor was he sent into the world at all for the purpose of being hid. – Celsus
So a divine being making the effort to rise up again but then not proving it to those who needed the proof hardly made sense.
Why Jesus’ behaviour is inconsistent with a ‘divine mission’
And the idea of Jesus staying hid is what I would argue is Celsus’ strongest point. Celsus points out that before he disappeared to heaven as Christians believe, the rational and logical thing for a divine messenger to do would have been to address the public. This behaviour of hiding away and disappearing, Celsus remarks, is inconsistent with someone who came with a message supposedly for all mankind.
His having wished, by the punishments which He underwent, to teach us also to despise death,” that after His resurrection He should openly summon all men to the light, and instruct them in the object of His coming. For He had formerly summoned all men to the light in the words, “Come unto Me, all ye that labor and are heavy laden, and I will give you rest.” – Celsus
Surely the whole mission of a divine messenger to mankind is to persuade as many people as he can by publicising his message as far as possible and to as many people as can be done. And if he is doing miracles willy nilly before as we are led to believe, then why not show all and sundry the biggest miracle to date – his resurrection – in front of the general public and prove once and for all his immortal nature. In addition his message of the news that a day of Judgement would be coming, of terrible punishment awaiting the unbelievers and a reward for believers by its very nature needed to be spread far and wide by the carrier. As Celsus puts it in his own unique and concise way…
…And who that is sent as a messenger ever conceals himself when he ought to make known his message? – Celsus
At precisely the right time when he could have really impressed the general public by showing himself alive again after his death, he declines to do so only deciding to show himself to a select few followers which makes no sense whichever way you look at it.
Origins response – general answer to not showing himself
Let’s see how Origen in Contra Celsum tries to combat each and every point regarding Jesus’ behaviour after the resurrection.
On the issue of only a few people – all being his own followers – seeing Jesus, Origen answers that Celsus is quite wrong – that in fact two Marys saw him rather than one – as written in the Gospel of Matthew and in fact Mark mentions three women. And he also points to the Acts of the apostles where Paul talks of 500 people no less seeing Jesus. This Origen argues is substantial proof that Jesus wasn’t hiding. However as Celsus would most likely point out, none of these sightings were verified by any independent Roman, Greek or Jewish source as a dead person walking around alive and well again would undoubtedly have created far more interest and excitement.
And on this issue of lack of independent witnesses, Origen also argues that men who were not destined to see Jesus’ resurrection would not see it anyway. Only those who were believers he is effectively saying would be able to see this miracle.
Jesus, accordingly, wished to show that His power was divine to each one who was capable of seeing it, and according to the measure of His capability. And I do not suppose that He guarded against being seen on any other ground than from a regard to the fitness of those who were incapable of seeing Him. – Origen
In other words he suggests that Pontius Pilate and the Jews of the Sanhedrin simply didn’t have the insight or capability despite their high station, education and good breeding to appreciate the return of Jesus. And in fact this could be applied to the general public of Jerusalem – none of whom were fit to see Jesus again.
And to counter the accusation of why all Jesus’ disciples and followers weren’t given the privilege of seeing the resurrected Jesus , he replies that Jesus only showed his full true nature to some, while to a second category he only partly revealed himself and to others not at all. But the reason for this , he admits himself, he cannot understand or explain.
Yet He was sent into the world not only to become known, but also to be hid. For all that He was, was not known even to those to whom He was known, but a certain part of Him remained concealed even from them; and to some He was not known at all….
… For our Savior Lord, like a good physician, came rather to us who were full of sins, than to those who were righteous. – Origen
So this rather vague and cryptic explanation is used for the random nature In which only some of his devotees seems to be privy to his rising up. Essentially for reasons unknown he could not reveal his divinity to everyone. However Origen does appear a little mystified himself as to why Jesus didn’t take this golden chance to appear before vast crowds of the area as a sort of grand finale before rising up to heaven.
I am of opinion now that the statements in this passage contain some great and wonderful mysteries, which are beyond the grasp not merely of the great multitude of ordinary believers, but even of those who are far advanced (in Christian knowledge), and that in them the reason would be explained why He did not show Himself, after His resurrection from the dead, in the same manner as before that event. – Origen
And as an example he points to the episode of Jesus in his transfiguration where not all his disciples were able to see him but his most ardent followers – Peter, and James, and John only had the privilege. Another example he gives is god appearing to Abraham but not to other prophets etc as an example of God using his appearance sparingly. So similarly with the resurrection – viewing him wasn’t meant for everyone.
As for not appearing before Pontius Pilate, Origen tries to explain this by arguing that Jesus was in fact being magnanimous in his treatment of the Roman Governor, that he was essentially forgiving him for his blindness on the matter. To do this he compares the incidence to God showing his displeasure on the cities of Sodom and Gomorrah but that Jesus in contrast was now in a forgiving mood otherwise there would surely have been retribution poured on Pilate for his part in crucifying Jesus.
There was, however, no obligation on Him to appear either to the judge who condemned Him, or to those who ill-treated Him. For Jesus spared both the one and the other, that they might not be smitten with blindness, as the men of Sodom were when they conspired against the beauty of the angels entertained by Lot. – Origen
However this doesn’t answer the question of why he didn’t appear before them and simply show them that they did wrong and just leave any punishment aside. Surely this would have done wonders for spreading the new belief.
In hell
Jesus travels to Hades
The last point I thought I’d cover is Celsus ridiculing the Christian belief that Jesus for the three days between his death and resurrection spent his time trudging around preaching to people in hell. And this explanation for what Jesus was up to during this time seems already to have been pretty widespread amongst early Christians of that time and is in fact used right to the current day by Christians.
You will not, I suppose, say of him, that, after failing to gain over those who were in this world, he went to Hades to gain over those who were there. – Celsus
What was the point, he asked, when he had signally failed to win over so many Jews in the living world during his three years of preaching. And one could add it must have been a little difficult in the fires of hell to walk around talking to the many inhabitants of the place. How many people could he talk to in the limited time of three days in any case? It seems a rather rushed affair.
Origen’s response
Origen to his credit does confess he does not really have a well thought out explanation for Jesus’ expedition to hell to convert dead people to Christianity although he does argue that Jesus did convert a lot of people when living and that therefore Celsus is wrong on this point.
…when He became a soul, without the covering of the body, He dwelt among those souls which were without bodily covering, converting such of them as were willing to Himself, or those whom He saw, for reasons known to Him alone, to be better adapted to such a course. – Origen
Why Jesus needed to go into hell to preach to the dead when if there is eternal torment as the gospels describe, the people there would hardly need convincing in any case is not explained. And as Celsus points out, it was surely far better to have spent the three extra days between his death and resurrection on the living who were much more difficult to convince and who had not yet died and gone to hell. Prevention being better than the cure.
So there you have it. A quick run through of some of Celsus’ more interesting comments on the crucifixion and resurrection narratives and the counter arguments – some plausible and others not so plausible – put forward by Origen in his book Contra Celsum.
