Xavier University Exhibit Honors Bachelor of Arts Undergraduate 2016-3 Preaching Christ Crucified: Origen’s Apologetic Strategy in Contra Celsum Morgan S. Thompson Xavier University, Cincinnati, OH Follow this and additional works at:http://www.exhibit.xavier.edu/hab Part of theAncient History, Greek and Roman through Late Antiquity Commons,Ancient Philosophy Commons,Classical Archaeology and Art History Commons,Classical Literature and Philology Commons, and theOther Classics Commons Recommended Citation Thompson, Morgan S., "Preaching Christ Crucified: Origen’s Apologetic Strategy in Contra Celsum" (2016).Honors Bachelor of Arts. Paper 14. http://www.exhibit.xavier.edu/hab/14 This Capstone/Thesis is brought to you for free and open access by the Undergraduate at Exhibit. It has been accepted for inclusion in Honors Bachelor of Arts by an authorized administrator of Exhibit. For more information, please [email protected]. Preaching Christ Crucified: Origen’s Apologetic Strategy in Contra Celsum By: Morgan Thompson HAB Capstone Thesis Thesis Director: Dr. Thomas Strunk Thesis Readers: Dr. Arthur Dewey and Dr. Anna Miller Course Director: Dr. Shannon Hogue Table of Contents INTRODUCTION: Christianity in the Roman Empire……….……………….……………….page 3 CHAPTER ONE: Celsus and Origen………………………………………………….……..page 12 Similarities: Time, Place, and Platonism…………………………………………..page 12 Difference: Scripture………...……………………………………………………..page 21 CHAPTER TWO: Wherever One Finds a Company of Fools………………...……………..page 27 CHAPTER THREE: The Power of Jesus Manifest…………………...…………………..….page 56 Preface: Real Defenses and True Christians…………………………………...…..page 57 Book 1: Confirmation and Opposition………………………………………….….page 65 CONCLUSION: To Know Nothing but Jesus Christ and Him Crucified………………...….page 95 WORKS CITED………………………………………………………………………….…page 100 2 INTRODUCTION: CHRISTIANITY IN THE ROMAN EMPIRE In an ancient account of Christian martyrdom, the letter of the Church of Smyrna to the Church of Philomelium tells of the death of Polycarp. When this bishop of Smyrna was brought before a Roman official, the following exchange took place: The proconsul said: “I have wild beasts. I shall throw you to them, if you do not change your mind [about professing to be a Christian].” But [Polycarp] said: “Call them. For repentance from the better to the worse is not permitted to us; but it is noble to change from what is evil to what is righteous.” And again he said to him, “I shall have you consumed with fire, if you despise the wild beasts, unless you change your mind.” But Polycarp said…“Come, do what you will.” And when he had said these things and many more besides...the proconsul was astonished, and sent his own herald into the midst of the arena to proclaim three times: “Polycarp has confessed himself to be a Christian.” When this was said by the herald, the entire crowd of heathens and Jews who lived in Smyrna shouted with uncontrollable anger and a great cry: “This one is the teacher of Asia, the father of the Christians, the destroyer of our gods, who teaches many not to sacrifice nor to worship.”1 Roman statesman Pliny the Younger has also left behind a record of the treatment of Christians in the Roman Empire. When Christians were brought to trial before him, Pliny would ask them first, if they were Christians; and then, if they were, to denounce Christ and honor the emperor and the Graeco-Roman gods (Epistulae 10.96.3). He wrote this about those who refused to reject Christ: If they admitted it, I asked them a second and a third time threatening them with execution. Those who remained obdurate I ordered to be executed, for I was in no doubt, whatever it was which they were confessing, that their obstinacy and their inflexible stubbornness should at any rate be punished.2 Fed to lions and other wild beasts, executed at the hands of their own government for simply bearing the name of “Christian” – such were the dangers that have informed the modern-day 1 Trans. Shepherd Jr. 1970:153 2 Trans. Walsh 2006:278 3 understanding of the early Christian experience. Indeed, despite the long, complex history of Christianity, the stories of martyrdom and persecution are the defining feature of its beginnings. And it is true that Christians in the Roman Empire faced the threat of governmental action against them, as Pliny’s comments show, and even sustained periods of persecution. De Ste. Croix identifies three “phases” of Roman persecution: “The first ends just before the great fire at Rome in 64; the second begins with the persecution which followed the fire and continues until 250; and the third opens with the persecution under Decius in 250-1 and lasts until 313…”3 He places the deaths of apostles like Stephen and James in the first phase; the famous Neronian persecution recorded by Tacitus (Annales 15.44) in the second phase, and the persecutions led by the emperors Decius and Diocletian in the third phase. There is, however, more to the story of early Christianity beyond these notable periods of violence. As De Ste. Croix describes, Christian persecution can be tracked from the early 1st to the early 4th century AD. In those 300 years, Christians certainly did not face constant persecution and “there were also quite long periods during which the Christians enjoyed something like complete peace…”4 Thus, while the vivid stories of Christians being fed to the lions and otherwise executed by Roman officials may loom the largest in modern understanding of the early Christian church, they are only one aspect of a complex clash between Christianity and its surrounding Roman culture. There is simply much more nuance to discover in the first centuries of Christianity’s existence. This thesis aims to take part in that discovery by looking away from the popular stories of Christianity’s tumultuous beginnings and towards the interim periods of relative peace between persecutions. Indeed, in following De Ste. Croix’s timeline, there is a noticeable gap between 3 De Ste. Croix 2006:106 4 De Ste. Croix 2006:107 4 Nero’s persecution in 64 AD and Decius’ in 250 AD. How were Christians interacting with the Roman Empire in those roughly 200 years? While a complete answer to that question is far beyond the scope of this thesis, much insight can still be gained by examining one particular part of the clash between Christians and the Roman Empire. To that end, this thesis will examine the works of the 2nd-century philosopher Celsus and the Christian apologist Origen. Celsus’ Λόγος Ἀληθής (ca. 175 AD), a treatise attacking Christianity, and Origen’s Contra Celsum (ca. 250 AD), an answer to Celsus’ attacks, preserve for modern readers a profound look into the beliefs of Christians and Graeco-Romans in the 2nd-3rd century Roman Empire. Celsus’ treatise is the most substantial extant work against the Christians. In it, he displays his deep disdain for Christianity by criticizing nearly every aspect of the faith. This thesis will focus in particular on his criticisms of Christian doctrine, the Christian God, and Christian people. Celsus finds essentially nothing to be praised in Christianity, zealously and thoroughly deconstructing many of its teachings. Because he addresses so many aspects of Christianity, Celsus’ treatise allows modern readers to understand the complex set of complaints that Graeco-Romans like Celsus had about Christianity. The thoroughness that Celsus displays in his attack on Christianity is equally matched by Origen’s point by point refutation of his arguments. Indeed, it is only due to Origen’s extensive citation of Celsus’ words that the Λόγος Ἀληθής remains in such a great quantity today. Just as Celsus’ work reveals much about Graeco-Roman thought, Origen’s stands as an important demonstration of early Christian thought. In combatting Celsus’ attacks and promoting Christianity, his work is a significant look into the beliefs of Christians before the Biblical canon was officially closed and the creeds of the Church were written. However, the value of Origen’s work goes even beyond the content. Origen employs a fascinating and nuanced apologetic 5 strategy in his answer to Celsus. This thesis argues that Origen, although clearly arguing against Celsus’ criticisms, actually employs the very kind of arguments for the Christian faith that Celsus had criticized in his treatise. As such, Origen’s apologetic strategy, as exemplified in the preface and Book 1 of Contra Celsum, did not show that Celsus’ criticisms of Christians were incorrect, but proved that these criticisms were founded in truth. In particular, I will show how a focus on the common man, the allegorical interpretation of Scripture, resonances with Graeco- Roman philosophy, and the belief in the historical incarnation of Jesus - all things which Celsus criticizes - can be found explicitly in Origen’s work. In order to unfold Origen’s response to Celsus’ work, the chapters of this thesis will be as follows. The remainder of the introduction will examine the religion of the Graeco-Roman world to provide a background for this specific interaction between Origen and Celsus. Chapter 1 will explore the lives of Celsus and Origen, with special attention to their similarities and differences. Chapters II and II will be, respectively, analyses of Celsus’ arguments against Christianity and Origen’s apologetic strategy in answering him. Finally, I will conclude by discussing the many intriguing questions that are raised by Origen’s strategy in the Contra Celsum. The most obvious is: Why would Origen undertake such a large project of answering Celsus so thoroughly if he does not seem concerned to prove his criticisms wrong? Further, an analysis of Origen’s argument also reveals his own understanding of the power of God and the role of man in spreading the Christian message. Thus, the following can also be asked: Does Origen believe that any apologetic effort at all can effect change in the unconverted? Finally, Origen’s impressive work has implications for how modern Christians ought to approach their own apologetic battles. The last question, then, is: Should Christians today imitate the unique strategy employed by 6 Origen in his defense against Celsus? This thesis aims to provide insight into all three of these questions through the course of its analysis of Origen’s Contra Celsum. Before turning to Celsus and Origen, however, it will be helpful to get a sense of the broader context in which they were writing. In particular, it is important to look at the broader religious atmosphere of the Roman Empire that sometimes sparked the violence described in Polycarp’s martyrdom and Pliny’s encounters with Christians. In both of these examples, there is explicit mention that Christians were executed because they would not denounce their religion and properly recognize the gods of the Roman Empire.5 So, although political and even economic concerns were tightly bound up with public Roman religion, the primary battleground between Christians and the Empire was the question of religious beliefs and practice. The first major component of the religion in the Empire is what Case describes as a “complete syncretism” of different religious movements. She writes: The absence of the particularistic attitude in Roman religion made it inevitable that many cults would freely appropriate features from others, until it became difficult for an observer to draw lines of sharp demarcation between them. While certain gods retained their distinctive characteristics, the tendency to fuse the attributes and functions of one with another made rapid progress during the later centuries of the Empire.6 Thus, the Christian belief in the one true God that demanded complete devotion from his followers would have stood in stark contrast to the divided attention of Roman religious practice. Van Andringa gives a more in-depth look at this mix of religious allegiances in Rome during the 2nd century AD. He notes that religions in Rome displayed a mix of provincial and imperial influences. Arguing against the idea that there was a distinct line between local gods and Roman 5 Note that the excerpt from Pliny cited above does not make mention of the second part – that Christians must turn back to the Roman gods once they denounced Christ. However, later in the letter, Pliny writes (trans. Walsh 2006:278): “Those who denied that they were or had been Christians and called upon the gods after me…I ordered to be acquitted” (Epistulae 10.96.5). Thus, only Christians who “called upon the gods after” Pliny could be cleared of their charges. 6 Case 1930:56 7 gods, he suggests that the gods of the Roman Empire were assimilated into those local communities. He writes: “Rather than focusing on ‘indigenous’ and ‘Roman’ gods, the point was to worship familiar gods and cults whose power was guaranteed by municipal investiture, gods who also established a connection with Rome and were adapted to their times, the situation of individuals and their place in society.”7 It seems that cities throughout the Empire retained their own local identity by continuing to worship their own gods, yet at the same time integrated some Roman gods and practices into their existing religion. In this way, they could honor all those who ensured the prosperity of that community: the local deities and the human government providing a stable environment in which to worship those deities. As Van Andringa concludes: “The populations of the empire knew that peace and happiness depended as much on divine benevolence as on the emperor’s immense powers.”8 As Christians became more prominent in the Empire and rejected a polytheistic concept of the divine, they were thus rejecting the goodwill of those gods towards their people. Moreover, Christians also rejected devotion to the emperor, the other guarantor of the Empire’s prosperity. The worship of Roman emperors started with Augustus, although this dimension of Roman religion developed slowly. Initially, as Wissowa describes, worship of Augustus was not standard across the Empire: “Private persons and individual communities…established temples and shrines to the emperor, created priests for him and founded collegia for his cult without further ado.”9 Wissowa goes on to note that these sporadic pockets of worship for the emperor were still subjugated to worship of local deities. Moreover, Augustus himself was hesitant to establish cults which were dedicated to worshipping him. Suetonius records this in his biography of Augustus in De Vita Caesarum: 7 Van Andringa 2011:88 8 Van Andringa 2011:94 9 Wissowa 2003:347 8 Templa, quamvis sciret etiam proconsulibus decerni solere, in nulla tamen provincia nisi communi suo Romaeque nomine recepit. Nam in urbe quidem pertinacissime abstinuit hoc honore; atque etiam argenteas statuas olim sibi positas conflavit omnis exque iis aureas cortinas Apollini Palatino dedicavit. (Divus Augustus 52) He still accepted temples in no province, although he knew that it was customary that they be dedicated even to proconsuls, unless [they were dedicated] commonly with his own name and with the name of Rome. For even in the city he abstained from this honor most stubbornly; and he even melted all the silver statues once established for himself and from these he dedicated golden tripods to Apollo on the Palatine.10 So, while Augustus was worshipped in certain places throughout the Empire, this type of religious devotion was not the primary one. This changed, however, after Augustus’ death when he was deified. His deification did not signal a new standard practice in Rome. Subsequent emperors were not universally deified, with the Julio-Claudian emperors promoting themselves as gods to an inconsistent degree.11 For example, Caligula was persistent in his push to be honored as a god, though this never became reality for him.12 It was not until Domitian, however, that a living emperor made it mandatory for the Roman people to recognize and worship him as a God. Wissowa notes that prayers and votive offerings were offered to the emperor as part of this worship and were performed for many different reasons: on January 3rd as part of a general prayer for the imperial house; every year to mark the continuation of an emperor’s rule; when the emperor was ill; when he left for war; and many other such instances. 13 A mark of loyalty among those living in the Empire was to participate in these religious rites. Herz points out that “the emperor and his well-being were an indispensable precondition for the well-being of the 10 Translation by author 11 Jones 1980:1024-1032 12 Jones 1980:1027 13 Wissowa 2003:349 9