CELSUS OF ROME
THE TRUE WORD OF CELSUS AND MARQION COMPARED
The point is of course is that once we know that Celsus’ True Word is in fact directed principally against the dominant Marqionite tradition in the Hadrianic age from the perspective of someone living in the early years of Antoninus it is not difficult to make out something else – the text was itself a response to the Nag Hammadi text of the same name but wrongly identified as the True Testimony. We read in Pearson’s commentary on the translation of this text that “the tractate is unfortunately very poorly preserved, owing to the fragmentary condition of the manuscript. Almost half the text is lost. Even so enough material is extant or recoverable to enable us to gain a rather good picture of the tractate’s content. It is possible that a title was originally appended to the tractate at the end (as is the case with 21 of the other tractates in the Nag Hammadi corpus) if so it would have been part of the last inscribed folio of the codex, which is now lost. The title now in universal use [i.e. the testimony of truth] has been editorially assigned on the basis of the content (“word of truth” 31, 8; “true testimony” 45,1) and underscores the author’s concern to establish a “true” faith and praxis while also exposing the false claims of “heretical” opponents.”
So how can we argue that Celsus’ work as a whole was a response to an original Marqionite text which lauded Mark as being “better” than the Lord of the world? Just look at the opening sentences of that text [in bold] when compared to Celsus commentary from 7:67 until the end of the book [in italics]. There can be no doubt that the two works whose title was identical and certainly appeared at the same historical period of time are intimately related with one another. For we read:
I will speak to those who know to hear not with the ears of the body but with the ears of the mind. For many have sought after the Truth and have not been able to find it; because there has taken hold of them the old leaven of the Pharisees and the scribes of the Law. And the leaven is the errant desire of the angels and the demons and the stars.
(worship devoted to demons) they will admit that these images, whether they are like or not, are made and dedicated to the honour of certain beings; but they will hold that the beings to whom they are dedicated are not gods, but demons, and that a worshipper of God ought not to worship demons. [7:67]
In the first place, I would ask why we are not to serve demons? Is it not true that all things are ordered according to God's will, and that His providence governs all things? Is not everything which happens in the universe, whether it be the work of God, of angels, of other demons, or of heroes, regulated by the law of the Most High God? Have these not had assigned them various departments of which they were severally deemed worthy? it not just, therefore, that he who worships God should serve those also to whom God has assigned such power? [7:68]
If these idols are nothing, what harm will there be in taking part in the feast? On the other hand, if they are demons, it is certain that they too are God's creatures, and that we must believe in them, sacrifice to them according to the laws, and pray to them that they may be propitious [8:24]
If in obedience to the traditions of their fathers they abstain from such victims, they must also abstain from all animal food, in accordance with the opinions of Pythagoras, who thus showed his respect for the soul and its bodily organs. But if, as they say, they abstain that they may not eat along with demons, I admire their wisdom, in having at length discovered, that whenever they eat they eat with demons, although they only refuse to do so when they are looking upon a slain victim; for when they eat bread, or drink wine, or taste fruits, do they not receive these things, as well as the water they drink and the air they breathe, from certain demons, to whom have been assigned these different provinces of nature [8:28]
Celsus thinks that we cannot eat bread or drink wine in any way whatever, or taste fruits, or even take a draught of water, without eating and drinking with demons. He adds also, that the air which we breathe is received from demons, and that not an animal can breathe without receiving the air from the demons who are set over the air. If any one wishes to defend this statement of Celsus, let him show that it is not the divine angels of god, but demons, the whole race of whom are bad, that have been appointed to communicate all those blessings which have been mentioned. [8:31]
As for the Pharisees and the scribes, it is they who belong to the archons who have authority over them.
(on authorities of the ruler of the world) Have not these inferior powers had assigned to them by God different departments, according as each was deemed worthy? [7:70]
The satrap of a Persian or Roman monarch, or ruler or general or governor, yea, even those who fill lower offices of trust or service in the state, would be able to do great injury to those who despised them; and will the satraps and ministers of earth and air be insulted with impunity?
For no one who is under the Law will be able to look up to the truth, for they will not be able to serve two masters.
(on two Lords) Yet it is impossible, he says, for a man to serve many masters.
This is the language of sedition, and is only used by those who separate themselves and stand aloof from all human society. Those who speak in this way ascribe their own feelings and passions to God. It does hold true among men, that he who is in the service of one master cannot well serve another, because the service which he renders to the one interferes with that which he owes to the other; and no one, therefore, who has already engaged himself to the service of one, must accept that of another. And, in like manner, it is impossible to serve at the same time heroes or demons of different natures. But in regard to God, who is subject to no suffering or loss, it is," he thinks, "absurd to be on our guard against serving more gods, as though we had to do with demi-gods, or other spirits of that sort." He says also, "He who serves many gods does that which is pleasing to the Most High, because he honours that which belongs to Him." And he adds, "It is indeed wrong to give honour to any to whom God has not given honour." "Wherefore," he says, "in honouring and worshipping all belonging to God, we will not displease Him to whom they all belong." [8:2]
And indeed he who, when speaking of God, asserts that there is only one who may be called Lord, speaks impiously, for he divides the kingdom of God, and raises a sedition therein, implying that there are separate factions in the divine kingdom, and that there exists one who is His enemy [8:11]
If," says he, "these people worshipped one God alone, and no other, they would perhaps have some valid argument against the worship of others. But they pay excessive reverence to one who has but lately appeared among men, and they think it no offence against God if they worship also His servant [8:12]
because we join along with the worship of God the worship of His Son, it follows that, in our view, not only God, but also the servants of God, are to be worshipped. [8:13]
For the defilement of the Law is manifest; but undefilement belongs to the light.
the demons belong to God, and are therefore to be believed, to be sacrificed to according to laws, and to be prayed to that they may be propitious [8:25]
Besides, what are the laws in accordance with which Celsus would have us propitiate the demons? For if he means laws enacted in states, he must show that they are in agreement with the divine laws. [8:26]
If it were possible," implying at the same time that he thought it most desirable, "that all the inhabitants of Asia, Europe, and Libya, Greeks and Barbarians, all to the uttermost ends of the earth, were to come under one law; "but judging this quite impossible, he adds, "Any one who thinks this possible, knows nothing.
take office in the government of the country, if that is required for the maintenance of the laws and the support of religion [8:75]
The Law commands (one) to take a husband (or) to take a wife, and to beget, to multiply like the sand of the sea.
We must either not live, and indeed not come into this life at all, or we must do so on condition that we give thanks and first-fruits and prayers to demons, who have been set over the things of this world: and that we must do as long as we live, that they may prove good and kind [8:33]
We must surely live, and we must live according to the word of God, as far as we are enabled to do so. And we are thus enabled to live, when, "whether we eat or drink, we do all to the glory of God; "and we are not to refuse to enjoy those things which have been created for our use, but must receive them with thanksgiving to the Creator. And it is under these conditions, and not such as have been imagined by Celsus, that we have been brought into life by God; and we are not placed under demons, but we are under the government of the Most High God [ibid]
They must make their choice between two alternatives. If they refuse to render due service to the gods, and to respect those who are set over this service, let them not come to manhood, or marry wives, or have children, or indeed take any share in the affairs of life; but let them depart hence with all speed, and leave no posterity behind them, that such a race may become extinct from the face of the earth. Or, on the other hand, if they will take wives, and bring up children, and taste of the fruits of the earth, and partake of all the blessings of life, and bear its appointed sorrows (for nature herself hath allotted sorrows to all men; for sorrows must exist, and earth is the only place for them), then must they discharge the duties of life until they are released from its bonds, and render due honour to those beings who control the affairs of this life, if they would not show themselves ungrateful to them. For it would be unjust in them, after receiving the good things which they dispense, to pay them no tribute in return [8:55]
But passion, which is a delight to them, constrains the souls of those who are begotten in this place, those who defile and those who are defiled, in order that the Law might be fulfilled through them.
Celsus had spoken at length on the subject of oracles, and had referred us to their answers as being the voice of the gods; but now he makes amends, and confesses that "those who foretell the fortunes of men and cities, and concern themselves about mortal affairs, are earth-spirits, who are given up to fleshly lust, blood, odours, sweet sounds, and other such things, and who are unable to rise above these sensual objects [8:62]
Celsus says that "we must offer sacrifices to them, in so far as they are profitable to us, for to offer them indiscriminately is not allowed by reason [ibid]
The more just opinion is, that demons desire nothing and need nothing, but that they take pleasure in those who discharge towards them offices of piety." [8:63]
Let any one inquire of the Egyptians, and he will find that everything, even to the most insignificant, is committed to the care of a certain demon. The body of man is divided into thirty-six parts, and as many demons of the air are appointed to the care of it, each having charge of a different part, although others make the number much larger. All these demons have in the language of that country distinct names; as Chnoumen, Chnachoumen, Cnat, Sicat, Biou, Erou, Erebiou, Ramanor, Reianoor, and other such Egyptian names. Moreover, they call upon them, and are cured of diseases of particular parts of the body. What, then, is there to prevent a man from giving honour to these or to others, if he would rather be in health than be sick, rather have prosperity than adversity, and be freed as much as possible from all plagues and troubles? [8:58]
Care, however, must be taken lest any one, by familiarizing his mind with these matters, should become too much engrossed with them, and lest, through an excessive regard for the body, he should have his mind turned away from higher things, and allow them to pass into oblivion. For perhaps we ought not to despise the opinion of those wise men who say that most of the earth-demons are taken up with carnal indulgence, blood, odours, sweet sounds, and other such sensual things; and therefore they are unable to do more than heal the body, or foretell the fortunes of men and cities, and do other such things as relate to this mortal life. [8:60]
And they show that they are assisting the world; and they turn away from the light, who are unable to pass by the archon of darkness until they pay the last penny.
Since men are born united to a body, whether to suit the order of the universe, or that they may in that way suffer the punishment of sin; or because the soul is oppressed by certain passions until it is purged from these at the appointed period of time,-for, according to Empedocles, all mankind must be banished from the abodes of the blessed for 30, 000 periods of time,-we must therefore believe that they are entrusted to certain beings as keepers of this prison-house. [8:53]
If Celsus, and those who like him are opposed to us, had been able to sound the depths of the Gospel narratives, they would not have counselled us to put our confidence in those beings whom they call "the keepers of the prison-house." [8:54]
But the Son of Man came forth from Imperishability, being alien to defilement.
If you should tell them that Jesus is not the Son of God, but that, God is the Father of all, and that He alone: ought to be truly worshipped, they would not consent to discontinue their worship of him who is their leader in the sedition. And they call him Son of God, not out of any extreme reverence for God, but from an extreme desire to extol Jesus Christ [8:14]
Here Celsus appears to me to get into confusion. At one time his judgment is darkened by the influence of demons, and at another he recovers from their deluding power, and gets some glimpses of the truth. For again he adds: "We must never in any way lose our hold of God, whether by day or by night, whether in public or in secret, whether in word or in deed, but in whatever we do, or abstain from doing." That is, as I understand it, whatever we do in public, in all our actions, in all our words, "let the soul be constantly fixed upon God." And yet again, as though, after struggling in argument against the insane inspirations of demons, he were completely overcome by them, he adds: "If this is the case, what harm is there in gaining the favour of the rulers of the earth, whether of a nature different from ours, or human princes and kings? For these have gained their dignity through the instrumentality of demons."
We will, however, never swear by "the fortune of the king," nor by ought else that is considered equivalent to God.
Celsus, indeed, says that "we seem to do the greater honour to the great God when we sing hymns in honour of the sun and Minerva [8:67]
We must not disobey the ancient writer, who said long ago, `Let one be king, whom the son of crafty Saturn appointed [8:68]
The point is of course that Celsus is certainly turning around the original arguments made by the Marqionites against the Creator – i.e. the ruler of the world – to imply that they were disloyal to Caesar. We have already spent the greater part of our work proving this very point.
In another words we develop the second part of this understanding – i.e. proving that the Nag Hammadi text is the Marqionite “antitheses” mentioned in Tertullian’s Second Book of Against Marcion. We can I believe intimate that the work was called a “True Word” in the closing sections of Tertullian’s commentary.[i] Yet even more significantly a large portion of the Nag Hammadi work is referenced – i.e. the portion where Genesis’ narrative regarding God’s relationship with Adam is questioned.[ii] Once this connection is solidified and Marqion certainly identified as the author of the work we can I believe do one more thing of great significance – see it as a testimony not only to Marqion’s dominance in the Hadrianic period but moreover the anti-Marqionite character of the Antonine age.
[i] Now we move on to finally cementing that the work in question was written by Marqion which is even easier to do once we see that there was a work identified by scholars as his “antitheses” from the last pages of book two of Tertullian’s Against Marcion where we read:Bottom of Form
In this sense the world itself will acknowledge his antitheses from the contrariety of its own elements, although it has been regulated with the very highest reason [ratione]. Wherefore, most thoughtless Marcion, it was your duty to have shown that one (of the two Gods you teach) was a God of light, and the other a God of darkness; and then you would have found it an easier task to persuade us that one was a God of goodness, the other a God of severity. How ever, the antithesis (or variety of administration) will rightly be His property, to whom it actually belongs in (the government of) the world.
It should by now be apparent what Tertullian is arguing against – i.e. that the modifying adjective “true” which Marqion suffixed to the noun word in the title of a very influential treatise (important enough to have a pagan like Celsus ridicule it) implied that the creative word was somehow inferior to the Father.
Now I have consistently argued that all things to do with Marqion go back to Aramaic where “true word” would be rendered sharira milta. Now the first part here sharira actually comes from the word “strong” which explains the ridicule in Celsus where:
Yet it also appears in Tertullian’s source – i.e. Theophilus of Antioch who also attacks the formulation of a “lord” higher than the Lord of the world meaning the Creator.
So it is that we read now nearing the conclusion that Tertullian ask again regarding the content of Marqion’s treatise entitled sharira miltha “how comes it to pass that the antitheses here demonstrate [Christ] to have been the Creator's rival in every singulas species?” The Latin word species has a specific meaning - something seen, a spectacle, sight, appearance a look, show, seeming, appearance, semblance even an appearance in sleep, a vision, apparition Does the reader see where I am going with this? Tertullian – or undoubtedly his source Theophilus is developing a similar line of reasoning as the author of Luke. Indeed Tertullian answers his own question by saying “even here, too, I will allow that in these causes my God has been a jealous God, who has in His own right taken especial care that all things done by Him should be in their beginning of a robuster growth [arbustiores] and this in the way of a good, because rational [rationali] emulation, which tends to maturity.”
The reader may now be wondering to himself – “okay already when is he going to bring forward a conclusive proof that this antitheses was called sharira miltha”? My friends, I just gave you that proof. For Lewis and Short note that arbustiores actually means “Top of Formfirmer, surer, more settled circumstances (the figure drawn from vines, which are supported on trees more firmly than upon frames), Tert. adv. Marc. 2, 29.” This is then a translation of the core idea behind “sharira” no doubt about it. We then see that this term is immediately followed by the Latin ratio which is the equivalent of the Greek “word” – the original Aramaic text of Theophilus being translated to Greek and then Latin (see the introduction of Against Tertullian Book One for an acknowledgement of three rewrites through three hands of the current Latin work).
Now I deny that the goodness of Marcion's god is rational, on this account first, because it proceeded to the salvation of a human creature which was alien to him [1:23]
Nothing can be claimed as rational without order, much less can reason itself286 dispense with order in any one. Suppose now the divine goodness begin at the second stage of its rational operation, that is to say, on the stranger, this second stage will not be consistent in rationality if it be impaired in any way else.287 For only then will even the second stage of goodness, that which is displayed towards the stranger, be accounted rational, when it operates without wrong to him who has the first claim.288 It is righteousness289 which before everything else makes all goodness rational. It will thus be rational in its principal stage, when manifested on its proper object, if it be righteous. And thus, in like manner, it will be able to appear rational, when displayed towards the stranger, if it be not unrighteous.
If, now, the rational benevolence makes man such, what sort of being prithee295 would the irrational make of him? None I should think more shameless than him who is baptized to his296 god in water which belongs to another, who stretches out his hands297 to his god towards a heaven which is another's, who kneels to his god on ground which is another's, offers his thanksgivings to his god over bread which belongs to another,298 and distributes299 by way of alms and charity, for the sake of his god, gifts which belong to another God. Who, then, is that so good a god of theirs, that man through him becomes evil; so propitious, too, as to incense against man that other God who is, indeed, his own proper Lord? [ibid]
[not rational because] For all are not put into a state of salvation305 by it; but the Creator's subjects, both Jew and Christian, are all excepted [1:24]
Besides, what else is man than flesh, since no doubt it was the corporeal rather than the spiritual element from which the Author of man's nature gave him his designation? "And the Lord God made man of the dust of the ground," not of spiritual essence; this afterwards came from the divine afflatus: "and man became a living soul." What, then, is man? Made, no doubt of it, of the dust; and God placed him in paradise, because He moulded him, not breathed him, into being-a fabric of flesh, not of spirit. Now, this being the case, with what face will you contend for the perfect character of that goodness which did not fail in some one particular only of man's deliverance, but in its general capacity? [ibid]
Not perfect not strong
It is written in the Law concerning this, when God gave a command to Adam, "From every tree you may eat, but from the tree which is in the midst of Paradise do not eat, for on the day that you eat from it, you will surely die." But the serpent was wiser than all the animals that were in Paradise, and he persuaded Eve, saying, "On the day when you eat from the tree which is in the midst of Paradise, the eyes of your mind will be opened." And Eve obeyed, and she stretched forth her hand; she took from the tree and ate; she also gave to her husband with her. And immediately they knew that they were naked, and they took some fig-leaves (and) put them on as girdles.
But God came at the time of evening, walking in the midst of Paradise. When Adam saw him, he hid himself. And he said, "Adam, where are you?" He answered (and) said, "I have come under the fig tree." And at that very moment, God knew that he had eaten from the tree of which he had commanded him, "Do not eat of it." And he said to him, "Who is it who has instructed you?" And Adam answered, "The woman whom you have given me." And the woman said, "It is the serpent who instructed me." And he (God) cursed the serpent, and called him "devil." And he said, "Behold, Adam has become like one of us, knowing evil and good." Then he said, "Let us cast him out of paradise, lest he take from the tree of life, and eat, and live forever."
But what sort is this God? First he maliciously refused Adam from eating of the tree of knowledge, and, secondly, he said "Adam, where are you?" God does not have foreknowledge? Would he not know from the beginning? And afterwards, he said, "Let us cast him out of this place, lest he eat of the tree of life and live forever." Surely, he has shown himself to be a malicious grudger!
Forasmuch, then, as the goodness of Marcion's god failed in the beginning (for he did not from the first deliver man), this failure must have been the effect of will rather than of infirmity. Now a wilful suppression of goodness will be found to have a malignant end in view. For what malignity is so great as to be unwilling to do good when one can, or to thwart273 what is useful, or to permit injury [1:22]
Man is condemned to death for tasting the fruit of one poor tree,276 and thence proceed sins with their penalties; and now all are perishing who yet never saw a single sod of Paradise. And all this your better god either is ignorant of, or else brooks. Is it that277 he might on this account be deemed the better, and the Creator be regarded as all that the worse? [ibid]
And what kind of God is this? For great is the blindness of those who read, and they did not know him. And he said, "I am the jealous God; I will bring the sins of the fathers upon the children until three (and) four generations." And he said, "I will make their heart thick, and I will cause their mind to become blind, that they might not know nor comprehend the things that are said." But these things he has said to those who believe in him and serve him!
And in one place, Moses writes, "He made the devil a serpentthose whom he has in his generation." Also, in the book which is called "Exodus," it is written thus: "He contended against the magicians, when the place was full of serpents according to their wickedness; and the rod which was in the hand of Moses became a serpent, (and) it swallowed the serpents of the magicians."
Again it is written (Nm 21:9), "He made a serpent of bronze (and) hung it upon a pole ... ... (1 line unrecoverable)... which [...] for the one who will gaze upon this bronze serpent, none will destroy him, and the one who will believe in this bronze serpent will be saved." For this is Christ; those who believed in him have received life. Those who did not believe will die.
What, then, is this faith? They do not serve ... ... (16 lines unrecoverable)... and you (pl.) [...] we [...] and you do not understand Christ spiritually when you say, "We believe in Christ". For this is the way Moses writes in every book. The book of the generation of Adam is written for those who are in the generation of the Law. They follow the Law and they obey it, and ... ... ( 1 line unrecoverable)... together with the ...
pp. 51-54 of codex almost completely missing
The point is of course is that once we know that Celsus’ True Word is in fact directed principally against the dominant Marqionite tradition in the Hadrianic age from the perspective of someone living in the early years of Antoninus it is not difficult to make out something else – the text was itself a response to the Nag Hammadi text of the same name but wrongly identified as the True Testimony. We read in Pearson’s commentary on the translation of this text that “the tractate is unfortunately very poorly preserved, owing to the fragmentary condition of the manuscript. Almost half the text is lost. Even so enough material is extant or recoverable to enable us to gain a rather good picture of the tractate’s content. It is possible that a title was originally appended to the tractate at the end (as is the case with 21 of the other tractates in the Nag Hammadi corpus) if so it would have been part of the last inscribed folio of the codex, which is now lost. The title now in universal use [i.e. the testimony of truth] has been editorially assigned on the basis of the content (“word of truth” 31, 8; “true testimony” 45,1) and underscores the author’s concern to establish a “true” faith and praxis while also exposing the false claims of “heretical” opponents.”
So how can we argue that Celsus’ work as a whole was a response to an original Marqionite text which lauded Mark as being “better” than the Lord of the world? Just look at the opening sentences of that text [in bold] when compared to Celsus commentary from 7:67 until the end of the book [in italics]. There can be no doubt that the two works whose title was identical and certainly appeared at the same historical period of time are intimately related with one another. For we read:
I will speak to those who know to hear not with the ears of the body but with the ears of the mind. For many have sought after the Truth and have not been able to find it; because there has taken hold of them the old leaven of the Pharisees and the scribes of the Law. And the leaven is the errant desire of the angels and the demons and the stars.
(worship devoted to demons) they will admit that these images, whether they are like or not, are made and dedicated to the honour of certain beings; but they will hold that the beings to whom they are dedicated are not gods, but demons, and that a worshipper of God ought not to worship demons. [7:67]
In the first place, I would ask why we are not to serve demons? Is it not true that all things are ordered according to God's will, and that His providence governs all things? Is not everything which happens in the universe, whether it be the work of God, of angels, of other demons, or of heroes, regulated by the law of the Most High God? Have these not had assigned them various departments of which they were severally deemed worthy? it not just, therefore, that he who worships God should serve those also to whom God has assigned such power? [7:68]
If these idols are nothing, what harm will there be in taking part in the feast? On the other hand, if they are demons, it is certain that they too are God's creatures, and that we must believe in them, sacrifice to them according to the laws, and pray to them that they may be propitious [8:24]
If in obedience to the traditions of their fathers they abstain from such victims, they must also abstain from all animal food, in accordance with the opinions of Pythagoras, who thus showed his respect for the soul and its bodily organs. But if, as they say, they abstain that they may not eat along with demons, I admire their wisdom, in having at length discovered, that whenever they eat they eat with demons, although they only refuse to do so when they are looking upon a slain victim; for when they eat bread, or drink wine, or taste fruits, do they not receive these things, as well as the water they drink and the air they breathe, from certain demons, to whom have been assigned these different provinces of nature [8:28]
Celsus thinks that we cannot eat bread or drink wine in any way whatever, or taste fruits, or even take a draught of water, without eating and drinking with demons. He adds also, that the air which we breathe is received from demons, and that not an animal can breathe without receiving the air from the demons who are set over the air. If any one wishes to defend this statement of Celsus, let him show that it is not the divine angels of god, but demons, the whole race of whom are bad, that have been appointed to communicate all those blessings which have been mentioned. [8:31]
As for the Pharisees and the scribes, it is they who belong to the archons who have authority over them.
(on authorities of the ruler of the world) Have not these inferior powers had assigned to them by God different departments, according as each was deemed worthy? [7:70]
The satrap of a Persian or Roman monarch, or ruler or general or governor, yea, even those who fill lower offices of trust or service in the state, would be able to do great injury to those who despised them; and will the satraps and ministers of earth and air be insulted with impunity?
For no one who is under the Law will be able to look up to the truth, for they will not be able to serve two masters.
(on two Lords) Yet it is impossible, he says, for a man to serve many masters.
This is the language of sedition, and is only used by those who separate themselves and stand aloof from all human society. Those who speak in this way ascribe their own feelings and passions to God. It does hold true among men, that he who is in the service of one master cannot well serve another, because the service which he renders to the one interferes with that which he owes to the other; and no one, therefore, who has already engaged himself to the service of one, must accept that of another. And, in like manner, it is impossible to serve at the same time heroes or demons of different natures. But in regard to God, who is subject to no suffering or loss, it is," he thinks, "absurd to be on our guard against serving more gods, as though we had to do with demi-gods, or other spirits of that sort." He says also, "He who serves many gods does that which is pleasing to the Most High, because he honours that which belongs to Him." And he adds, "It is indeed wrong to give honour to any to whom God has not given honour." "Wherefore," he says, "in honouring and worshipping all belonging to God, we will not displease Him to whom they all belong." [8:2]
And indeed he who, when speaking of God, asserts that there is only one who may be called Lord, speaks impiously, for he divides the kingdom of God, and raises a sedition therein, implying that there are separate factions in the divine kingdom, and that there exists one who is His enemy [8:11]
If," says he, "these people worshipped one God alone, and no other, they would perhaps have some valid argument against the worship of others. But they pay excessive reverence to one who has but lately appeared among men, and they think it no offence against God if they worship also His servant [8:12]
because we join along with the worship of God the worship of His Son, it follows that, in our view, not only God, but also the servants of God, are to be worshipped. [8:13]
For the defilement of the Law is manifest; but undefilement belongs to the light.
the demons belong to God, and are therefore to be believed, to be sacrificed to according to laws, and to be prayed to that they may be propitious [8:25]
Besides, what are the laws in accordance with which Celsus would have us propitiate the demons? For if he means laws enacted in states, he must show that they are in agreement with the divine laws. [8:26]
If it were possible," implying at the same time that he thought it most desirable, "that all the inhabitants of Asia, Europe, and Libya, Greeks and Barbarians, all to the uttermost ends of the earth, were to come under one law; "but judging this quite impossible, he adds, "Any one who thinks this possible, knows nothing.
take office in the government of the country, if that is required for the maintenance of the laws and the support of religion [8:75]
The Law commands (one) to take a husband (or) to take a wife, and to beget, to multiply like the sand of the sea.
We must either not live, and indeed not come into this life at all, or we must do so on condition that we give thanks and first-fruits and prayers to demons, who have been set over the things of this world: and that we must do as long as we live, that they may prove good and kind [8:33]
We must surely live, and we must live according to the word of God, as far as we are enabled to do so. And we are thus enabled to live, when, "whether we eat or drink, we do all to the glory of God; "and we are not to refuse to enjoy those things which have been created for our use, but must receive them with thanksgiving to the Creator. And it is under these conditions, and not such as have been imagined by Celsus, that we have been brought into life by God; and we are not placed under demons, but we are under the government of the Most High God [ibid]
They must make their choice between two alternatives. If they refuse to render due service to the gods, and to respect those who are set over this service, let them not come to manhood, or marry wives, or have children, or indeed take any share in the affairs of life; but let them depart hence with all speed, and leave no posterity behind them, that such a race may become extinct from the face of the earth. Or, on the other hand, if they will take wives, and bring up children, and taste of the fruits of the earth, and partake of all the blessings of life, and bear its appointed sorrows (for nature herself hath allotted sorrows to all men; for sorrows must exist, and earth is the only place for them), then must they discharge the duties of life until they are released from its bonds, and render due honour to those beings who control the affairs of this life, if they would not show themselves ungrateful to them. For it would be unjust in them, after receiving the good things which they dispense, to pay them no tribute in return [8:55]
But passion, which is a delight to them, constrains the souls of those who are begotten in this place, those who defile and those who are defiled, in order that the Law might be fulfilled through them.
Celsus had spoken at length on the subject of oracles, and had referred us to their answers as being the voice of the gods; but now he makes amends, and confesses that "those who foretell the fortunes of men and cities, and concern themselves about mortal affairs, are earth-spirits, who are given up to fleshly lust, blood, odours, sweet sounds, and other such things, and who are unable to rise above these sensual objects [8:62]
Celsus says that "we must offer sacrifices to them, in so far as they are profitable to us, for to offer them indiscriminately is not allowed by reason [ibid]
The more just opinion is, that demons desire nothing and need nothing, but that they take pleasure in those who discharge towards them offices of piety." [8:63]
Let any one inquire of the Egyptians, and he will find that everything, even to the most insignificant, is committed to the care of a certain demon. The body of man is divided into thirty-six parts, and as many demons of the air are appointed to the care of it, each having charge of a different part, although others make the number much larger. All these demons have in the language of that country distinct names; as Chnoumen, Chnachoumen, Cnat, Sicat, Biou, Erou, Erebiou, Ramanor, Reianoor, and other such Egyptian names. Moreover, they call upon them, and are cured of diseases of particular parts of the body. What, then, is there to prevent a man from giving honour to these or to others, if he would rather be in health than be sick, rather have prosperity than adversity, and be freed as much as possible from all plagues and troubles? [8:58]
Care, however, must be taken lest any one, by familiarizing his mind with these matters, should become too much engrossed with them, and lest, through an excessive regard for the body, he should have his mind turned away from higher things, and allow them to pass into oblivion. For perhaps we ought not to despise the opinion of those wise men who say that most of the earth-demons are taken up with carnal indulgence, blood, odours, sweet sounds, and other such sensual things; and therefore they are unable to do more than heal the body, or foretell the fortunes of men and cities, and do other such things as relate to this mortal life. [8:60]
And they show that they are assisting the world; and they turn away from the light, who are unable to pass by the archon of darkness until they pay the last penny.
Since men are born united to a body, whether to suit the order of the universe, or that they may in that way suffer the punishment of sin; or because the soul is oppressed by certain passions until it is purged from these at the appointed period of time,-for, according to Empedocles, all mankind must be banished from the abodes of the blessed for 30, 000 periods of time,-we must therefore believe that they are entrusted to certain beings as keepers of this prison-house. [8:53]
If Celsus, and those who like him are opposed to us, had been able to sound the depths of the Gospel narratives, they would not have counselled us to put our confidence in those beings whom they call "the keepers of the prison-house." [8:54]
But the Son of Man came forth from Imperishability, being alien to defilement.
If you should tell them that Jesus is not the Son of God, but that, God is the Father of all, and that He alone: ought to be truly worshipped, they would not consent to discontinue their worship of him who is their leader in the sedition. And they call him Son of God, not out of any extreme reverence for God, but from an extreme desire to extol Jesus Christ [8:14]
Here Celsus appears to me to get into confusion. At one time his judgment is darkened by the influence of demons, and at another he recovers from their deluding power, and gets some glimpses of the truth. For again he adds: "We must never in any way lose our hold of God, whether by day or by night, whether in public or in secret, whether in word or in deed, but in whatever we do, or abstain from doing." That is, as I understand it, whatever we do in public, in all our actions, in all our words, "let the soul be constantly fixed upon God." And yet again, as though, after struggling in argument against the insane inspirations of demons, he were completely overcome by them, he adds: "If this is the case, what harm is there in gaining the favour of the rulers of the earth, whether of a nature different from ours, or human princes and kings? For these have gained their dignity through the instrumentality of demons."
We will, however, never swear by "the fortune of the king," nor by ought else that is considered equivalent to God.
Celsus, indeed, says that "we seem to do the greater honour to the great God when we sing hymns in honour of the sun and Minerva [8:67]
We must not disobey the ancient writer, who said long ago, `Let one be king, whom the son of crafty Saturn appointed [8:68]
The point is of course that Celsus is certainly turning around the original arguments made by the Marqionites against the Creator – i.e. the ruler of the world – to imply that they were disloyal to Caesar. We have already spent the greater part of our work proving this very point.
In another words we develop the second part of this understanding – i.e. proving that the Nag Hammadi text is the Marqionite “antitheses” mentioned in Tertullian’s Second Book of Against Marcion. We can I believe intimate that the work was called a “True Word” in the closing sections of Tertullian’s commentary.[i] Yet even more significantly a large portion of the Nag Hammadi work is referenced – i.e. the portion where Genesis’ narrative regarding God’s relationship with Adam is questioned.[ii] Once this connection is solidified and Marqion certainly identified as the author of the work we can I believe do one more thing of great significance – see it as a testimony not only to Marqion’s dominance in the Hadrianic period but moreover the anti-Marqionite character of the Antonine age.
[i] Now we move on to finally cementing that the work in question was written by Marqion which is even easier to do once we see that there was a work identified by scholars as his “antitheses” from the last pages of book two of Tertullian’s Against Marcion where we read:Bottom of Form
In this sense the world itself will acknowledge his antitheses from the contrariety of its own elements, although it has been regulated with the very highest reason [ratione]. Wherefore, most thoughtless Marcion, it was your duty to have shown that one (of the two Gods you teach) was a God of light, and the other a God of darkness; and then you would have found it an easier task to persuade us that one was a God of goodness, the other a God of severity. How ever, the antithesis (or variety of administration) will rightly be His property, to whom it actually belongs in (the government of) the world.
It should by now be apparent what Tertullian is arguing against – i.e. that the modifying adjective “true” which Marqion suffixed to the noun word in the title of a very influential treatise (important enough to have a pagan like Celsus ridicule it) implied that the creative word was somehow inferior to the Father.
Now I have consistently argued that all things to do with Marqion go back to Aramaic where “true word” would be rendered sharira milta. Now the first part here sharira actually comes from the word “strong” which explains the ridicule in Celsus where:
Yet it also appears in Tertullian’s source – i.e. Theophilus of Antioch who also attacks the formulation of a “lord” higher than the Lord of the world meaning the Creator.
So it is that we read now nearing the conclusion that Tertullian ask again regarding the content of Marqion’s treatise entitled sharira miltha “how comes it to pass that the antitheses here demonstrate [Christ] to have been the Creator's rival in every singulas species?” The Latin word species has a specific meaning - something seen, a spectacle, sight, appearance a look, show, seeming, appearance, semblance even an appearance in sleep, a vision, apparition Does the reader see where I am going with this? Tertullian – or undoubtedly his source Theophilus is developing a similar line of reasoning as the author of Luke. Indeed Tertullian answers his own question by saying “even here, too, I will allow that in these causes my God has been a jealous God, who has in His own right taken especial care that all things done by Him should be in their beginning of a robuster growth [arbustiores] and this in the way of a good, because rational [rationali] emulation, which tends to maturity.”
The reader may now be wondering to himself – “okay already when is he going to bring forward a conclusive proof that this antitheses was called sharira miltha”? My friends, I just gave you that proof. For Lewis and Short note that arbustiores actually means “Top of Formfirmer, surer, more settled circumstances (the figure drawn from vines, which are supported on trees more firmly than upon frames), Tert. adv. Marc. 2, 29.” This is then a translation of the core idea behind “sharira” no doubt about it. We then see that this term is immediately followed by the Latin ratio which is the equivalent of the Greek “word” – the original Aramaic text of Theophilus being translated to Greek and then Latin (see the introduction of Against Tertullian Book One for an acknowledgement of three rewrites through three hands of the current Latin work).
Now I deny that the goodness of Marcion's god is rational, on this account first, because it proceeded to the salvation of a human creature which was alien to him [1:23]
Nothing can be claimed as rational without order, much less can reason itself286 dispense with order in any one. Suppose now the divine goodness begin at the second stage of its rational operation, that is to say, on the stranger, this second stage will not be consistent in rationality if it be impaired in any way else.287 For only then will even the second stage of goodness, that which is displayed towards the stranger, be accounted rational, when it operates without wrong to him who has the first claim.288 It is righteousness289 which before everything else makes all goodness rational. It will thus be rational in its principal stage, when manifested on its proper object, if it be righteous. And thus, in like manner, it will be able to appear rational, when displayed towards the stranger, if it be not unrighteous.
If, now, the rational benevolence makes man such, what sort of being prithee295 would the irrational make of him? None I should think more shameless than him who is baptized to his296 god in water which belongs to another, who stretches out his hands297 to his god towards a heaven which is another's, who kneels to his god on ground which is another's, offers his thanksgivings to his god over bread which belongs to another,298 and distributes299 by way of alms and charity, for the sake of his god, gifts which belong to another God. Who, then, is that so good a god of theirs, that man through him becomes evil; so propitious, too, as to incense against man that other God who is, indeed, his own proper Lord? [ibid]
[not rational because] For all are not put into a state of salvation305 by it; but the Creator's subjects, both Jew and Christian, are all excepted [1:24]
Besides, what else is man than flesh, since no doubt it was the corporeal rather than the spiritual element from which the Author of man's nature gave him his designation? "And the Lord God made man of the dust of the ground," not of spiritual essence; this afterwards came from the divine afflatus: "and man became a living soul." What, then, is man? Made, no doubt of it, of the dust; and God placed him in paradise, because He moulded him, not breathed him, into being-a fabric of flesh, not of spirit. Now, this being the case, with what face will you contend for the perfect character of that goodness which did not fail in some one particular only of man's deliverance, but in its general capacity? [ibid]
Not perfect not strong
It is written in the Law concerning this, when God gave a command to Adam, "From every tree you may eat, but from the tree which is in the midst of Paradise do not eat, for on the day that you eat from it, you will surely die." But the serpent was wiser than all the animals that were in Paradise, and he persuaded Eve, saying, "On the day when you eat from the tree which is in the midst of Paradise, the eyes of your mind will be opened." And Eve obeyed, and she stretched forth her hand; she took from the tree and ate; she also gave to her husband with her. And immediately they knew that they were naked, and they took some fig-leaves (and) put them on as girdles.
But God came at the time of evening, walking in the midst of Paradise. When Adam saw him, he hid himself. And he said, "Adam, where are you?" He answered (and) said, "I have come under the fig tree." And at that very moment, God knew that he had eaten from the tree of which he had commanded him, "Do not eat of it." And he said to him, "Who is it who has instructed you?" And Adam answered, "The woman whom you have given me." And the woman said, "It is the serpent who instructed me." And he (God) cursed the serpent, and called him "devil." And he said, "Behold, Adam has become like one of us, knowing evil and good." Then he said, "Let us cast him out of paradise, lest he take from the tree of life, and eat, and live forever."
But what sort is this God? First he maliciously refused Adam from eating of the tree of knowledge, and, secondly, he said "Adam, where are you?" God does not have foreknowledge? Would he not know from the beginning? And afterwards, he said, "Let us cast him out of this place, lest he eat of the tree of life and live forever." Surely, he has shown himself to be a malicious grudger!
Forasmuch, then, as the goodness of Marcion's god failed in the beginning (for he did not from the first deliver man), this failure must have been the effect of will rather than of infirmity. Now a wilful suppression of goodness will be found to have a malignant end in view. For what malignity is so great as to be unwilling to do good when one can, or to thwart273 what is useful, or to permit injury [1:22]
Man is condemned to death for tasting the fruit of one poor tree,276 and thence proceed sins with their penalties; and now all are perishing who yet never saw a single sod of Paradise. And all this your better god either is ignorant of, or else brooks. Is it that277 he might on this account be deemed the better, and the Creator be regarded as all that the worse? [ibid]
And what kind of God is this? For great is the blindness of those who read, and they did not know him. And he said, "I am the jealous God; I will bring the sins of the fathers upon the children until three (and) four generations." And he said, "I will make their heart thick, and I will cause their mind to become blind, that they might not know nor comprehend the things that are said." But these things he has said to those who believe in him and serve him!
And in one place, Moses writes, "He made the devil a serpent
Again it is written (Nm 21:9), "He made a serpent of bronze (and) hung it upon a pole ... ... (1 line unrecoverable)... which [...] for the one who will gaze upon this bronze serpent, none will destroy him, and the one who will believe in this bronze serpent will be saved." For this is Christ; those who believed in him have received life. Those who did not believe will die.
What, then, is this faith? They do not serve ... ... (16 lines unrecoverable)... and you (pl.) [...] we [...] and you do not understand Christ spiritually when you say, "We believe in Christ". For this is the way Moses writes in every book. The book of the generation of Adam is written for those who are in the generation of the Law. They follow the Law and they obey it, and ... ... ( 1 line unrecoverable)... together with the ...
pp. 51-54 of codex almost completely missing
# © 2006 by World Star International Inc. Marcus Julius Agrippa Jr. 
