086 STEPHEN BENKO
and they say: ‘We offer to thee this gift, the body of Christ’. And then
they eat it, their own ugliness, and say: ‘This is the body of Christ
and this is the Passover for the sake of which our bodies suffer and
are forced to confess the suffering of Christ’. Similarly also with the
woman when she happens to be in the flowing of the blood they gather
the blood of menstruation of her uncleanness and eat it together and
say: ‘This is the blood of Christ.’ Therefore, when they read in the book
of Revelation, ‘I saw a tree that brought twelve kinds of fruit each year
and he said to me, this is the tree of life’ (Epiphanius quotes very
freely from Apoc. 22:2), they allegorize it to mean the monthly flow of
the female blood. They have intercourse with each other but they teach
that one may not beget children. The corruption is committed by them
not for the sake of begetting children, but for the sake of pleasure,
because the devil plays with them and mocks the image formed by
God. They bring the pleasure to its end, but they take to themselves
the sperm of their uncleanness, not to place it down deep for the
begetting of children, but to eat their shame themselves. And if some-
one from among them is detected to have let the natural emission of
semen go in deeper and the woman becomes pregnant, then hear, what
even worse they do; they pull out the embryo in the time when they
can reach it with the hand. They take out this unborn child and in a
sort of mortar pound it with the pestle and into this mix honey and
pepper and other certain spices and myrrh, in order that it may not
nauseate them, and then they come together, all this company of swine
and dogs, and each communicates with the finger from the bruised
child. And after they have finished this cannibalism finally they pray
to God, saying that we did not let the Archon of this desire play with
us but collected the mistake of the brother. And this they also consider
to be the perfect Passah. Many other horrible things are done by them.
For when they again get into this rage among themselves, they smear
their hands with their own emission. They stretch them out and pray
with the besmeared hands naked in the whole body that through this
practice they may find with God free conversation. But they take
care of their bodies day and night, women and men, with creams,
lotions and foods, and devote themselves to the bed and drunkenness.
They curse the man who fasts because they say that one should not
fast, for fasting is the work of the Archon who made this aion. Rather
one should nourish himself in order that the bodies may be strong, so
that they may give the fruit in its timells.”
Epiphanius had first-hand knowledge of these practices since as a
roung man he came under the influence of some women who introduced
lim to the sect and thus he was also able to read several of the sect’s
l* S. BENKO, The Libertine Gnostic Sect of the Phibionites According to Epiphanius, VC 21
(1967), 109f.
PAGAN CRITICISM OF CHRISTIANITY 1087
books113. Rather than suppose that this experience warped his judgmentI
we must believe that his report is essentially correct and indeed it is now
being recognized that at least some of Epiphanius’ statements were confirmed
by the Nag-Hammadi documents115. Certain weird sexual practices of
Christian splinter groups (= Gnostic sects) are also condemned by the
Pistis Sophia 147 and the Second Book of Jeu 43. We must remember that
the groups practicing such sexual rites did pose as Christians116 and in
Alexandria e.g. the Phibionites were expelled from the church only after
Epiphaniusn7 exposed them. The practices, therefore, must have existed
and the charges of Caecilius, while admittedly vague, were based on real
occuranceslls.
These practices were not mere aberrations either but integral parts of
a theology that was based on the Christian principle of the unification of all
things in Christllg at the “fulness of time” and the unio mystica of the
believer with Christ. This was a favorite topic of the early Christian church
and the idea appears in the Eucharistic prayers of the Didache120, the
reca@datio or dtvcn<gahaiwols theory of Irenaeuslzl and several times in
Augustine who, like Irehaeus using the Pauline image of first Adam and
second Adam, characterizes the redemptive work of Christ as the restoration
of the oneness of Adam122. This process of unification is physically visible
and available for the senses in the Eucharistic celebration, where the
believers become one with Christ and experience the gathering-together of
us 26.17.lff.
11* G. R. S. MEAD, Pistis Sophia, London, 1896. p. xxxiiif.
lls JEAN DORESSE, The Secret Books of the Egyptmn Gnostics. New York, 1960, pp. 159,
163. C. SCHMIDT. Gnostische Schriften in koptischer Sprache (Texte und Untersuchungen
8,1/2), Leipzig 1892, p. 573ff. also accepted Epiphanius’ report as basically trustworthy.
lls Justin, 1 Apol. 7 admits that many were justly arrested and convicted as evildoers but
demands that the punishment be based on the crime and not on the name ‘Christian’
because “all are called Christians”. In 1 Apol. 26 he names several Gnostic leaders and says:
“All who take their opinions from these men are called Christians _” ANF 1.71.
11’ 315-403; the ‘Paliarion’ was composed M. 375.
us It is a different question. of course. that there were even before the Gnostic rites became
known, other types of ceremonies which involved ritual murder (infanticide) and
promiscuity. F. J. DBLGER, and following him A. HENRICHS (see articles in the Bibliog-
raphy) identified three such prototypes: “1. The alleged ritual murder of the Jews; 2. The
Greek oath sacrifice with a human victim as the ritual foundation of a conjuratio; 3. Ritual
infanticide for magical purposes.” (HEINRICHS. art. cit., p. 29). These patterns may have
created rumors concerning Christians but it could only be the actual commitment of the
crime by the Gnostic sects and their confusion with ‘orthodox’ Christianity that led to a
suspicion that Christians in general were guilty of these &+a. Concerning similar
accusations against the Jews see DGLGER, art. cit. pp. 204ff.
u@ Mark 13.27; Eph. 1.9-10.
Iso 9.4: “Just as this piece of bread was scattered over the mountains and then was gathered
together and became one, so let your church be gathered together from the ends of the
earth into your kingdom.” See also 10.4.
I*1 Adv. Haer. 5.1.2: “For He would not have been one truly possessing flesh and blood, by
which He redeemed us. unless He had summed up in Himself the ancient formation of
Adam.”
I** In Ps. 96.15; In Joh. Tract. 10.12; 9.14.
70’
1088 STEPHEN BENKO
the faithful in one body by partaking of the one bread. At the same time
there is an eschatological element in the Eucharist: the participants are
told to do this until the Lord comes and thus they look forward to a final
consummation when all that they do in the Eucharist will become a reality.
So, too, the services described by Epiphanius and Caecilius are
Eucharistic services, and L. FENDT has shownI” that even in the unfriendly
description by Epiphanius certain liturgical elements can be discovered.
These are first of all, the idea of eating together, then the phrase “Perform
the agape with the brother” which makes the impression of being a fixed
liturgical formula, thirdly, the prayer of dedication, “We offer to thee these
gifts . . . etc.” and finally the confession: “This is the body of Christ . . .
etc.” suggests an offering up of the body of Christ each time the Eucharist
is celebrated. The theology is based on the assumption that everything
created and living has a divine spark in it and thus, the original, primeval
divine power is scattered all over the world. Salvation consists in the
gathering and collecting of this power and leading it back to its original
condition. And since this creative divine spark is physically available in
the generating substances, it is thecollectingand offering of these substances
which contributes to salvation most. Generating children only further divides
the divine power, therefore, if by accident pregnancy occurs the fetus is
to. be eaten. According to Epiphanius the Nicolaitans stated their faith
with these words: “We gather the power of Prounikos from the bodies
through the fluids of the begetting powerl”.” The Phibionites also believed
that by eating flesh or vegetables they were actually helping to gather the
@y&e from everything. “Therefore, when they receive all kinds of meat
they say ‘Let us save our race’. And they say that it is the same psyche
which is dispersed in animals and beasts, fishes, snakes, men, vegetables,
trees and anything that is producedlw.” To borrow an expression from
Irenaeus, this is recafhdatio in an absolute sense and the only mistake in
the pagan criticism of the Christian Eucharist is the failure to distinguish
between the orthodox Christian view and the Gnostic excess.
How the average pagan could make this distinction without making
extensive study of Christian theology, is hard to see. And even an expert
would find it difficult to separate the “orthodox” and “heretic” views when
reading 1. John 3. 9: ~16s 6 y~ywvq~.~!vq EK TOG 0~06 &pap-riav 06 TotEi, 6-n
o-rripua a&o6 iv coil@ &EI - which means that the sperm of God is in the
believer. From this statement the conclusion can easily be drawn that the
place of connection between God and man is the sperm, which is not very
far from the Phibionite view. Christians were also known to have received
a commandment of love from Jesusla6 and the idea appears many times in
the New Testament127 and early Christian literaturelz*. The use of the words
Isa Gnostische Mysterien, Mtinchen: Kaiser Verlag, 1922.
l” Panarion 25.3.2.
lzs Panarion 26.9.3-4.
iz* John 13.34-35; 15.17.
Ia7 1 John 3.23, etc. Isa E.g. Tertnllian. Apol. 39.7.
PAGAN CRITICISM OF CHRISTIANITY 1089
“brother” and “sister” in a spiritual sense was common and the Christians
also called their meetings &yCnr~ (= love feast), so that a generalization of
the Phibionite term “Perform the &ydcrrq with the brother” was easy.
Christians were also known to have greeted each other with the “kiss of
love”129 or “holy kiss”l30 which is a practice susceptible to easy abuse.
Problems arose very early as Paul suggests in 1 Cor. 11.29ff., although the
nature of the problem here or in Ignatius, Smyrn. 5.2 (the’bishop must
authorize the agape) is not clear. More is implied by Clement Alexandrinus,
Paedagogus 3.11.81: “There are those that do nothing but make the churches
resound with a kiss not havingloveitself within. For this very thing, the shame-
less use of a kiss, which ought to be mystic, occasions foul suspicions and
evil reports . . . And often kisses inject the poison of licentiousness131.”
Athenagaras, Legatio 32 explains the use of the words ‘brother’ and ‘sister’
and then prominently quotes an unknown source which limits kissing in
the church to one kiss only, because “the kiss, or rather the salutation,
should be given with the greatest care, since, if there be mixedwith it theleast
defilement of thought, it excludes us from eternal life”132. Later we read
that the emperor Licinius forbade worship services of Christians in mixed
congregationsl33 but the report by Eusebius134 that certain harlots in 311
confessed to have practiced prostitution in Christian meetings indicates
that it was a forced confession to counter the Christian charge of temple
prostitution by pagans. At any rate it appears that the pagan criticism of
the Christian Eucharist is not mere religious polemic but was based on the
practices of extremist fringe groups. The charge was known and rejected
by most Christian apologists and Pliny reported to Trajan136 that the food
consumed by Christians at their common meal was of an “ordinary and
innocent kind”, (An unnecessary explanation unless Pliny heard the vile
rumors.) Lucian in his biography of Peregrinus13s attests that the Christian
congregation severed all connections with Peregrinus when his moral
conduct became unbecoming to a Christian. By the time of Eusebius (died
339) the orthodox Christian community successfully demonstrated that it
did not approve of these practices137 and as Epiphanius has shown (above)
strict excommunication was the fate of those who still engaged in it’s.
lzg q[Aqw &yCnrqs 1 Peter 5. 14.
Iso $hr)w Qlov Rom. 16.16; 1 Cor. 16. 20; 2 Cor. 13.12; 1 Thess. 5.26; Justin. 1 Apol. 65.
la1 ANF 2.291.
Is3 ANF 2.146.
ls3 Eusebius, Vita Constantini 1.53.
Is4 H.E. 9.5.2.
Is5 Ep. 10.96.7.
Is3 See below, p. 1093.
Is’ H.E. 4.7.11.
Isa Concerning the charge of Christians worshipping an ass see relevant literature in
HENNECKE-SCHNEEMELCHER, Neutestamentliche Apokryphen, 3rd. ed. Tiibingen. 1959.
vol 1. p. 255f. (in the English translation, vol. 1. p. 345); J. DORESSE. op. cit. p. 41f.:
G. W. CLARKE, The Octavius pp. 216ff.; concerning the “secret signs” by which
Christians supposedly recognized each other. see CLARKE, op. cit. p. 214f.
1090 STEPHEN BENKO
VIII. Lucim Afxdeius (born c. 123-died?)
Lucius Apuleius was a North-African by birth; he was educated in
Carthage, Athens and Rome and finally settled in North Africa where he
became a well-known poet, rhetorician and philosopher. From among his
numerous works best known is the ‘Metamorphoses’ (or ‘The Golden Ass’)‘~$
in which he describes Lucius’ transformation into an ass by magic, his many
adventures as an ass and his transformation back to human form by the
kindness of the goddess Isis and his conversion to the mysteries of Isis.
As an ass Lucius was once sold to a baker, whose wife he characterizes as
follows :
Metamorphoses 9.14:
“The baker who purchased me was otherwise a good and a very modest
man but his wife was the wickedest of all women and he suffered
extreme miseries to his bed and his house so that I myself, by Hercules,
often in secret felt pity for him. There was not one single vice which
that woman lacked, but all crimes flowed together into her heart like
into a filthy latrine; cruel, perverse, man-crazy, drunken, stubborn,
obstinate, avaricious in petty theft, wasteful in sumptuous expenses,
an enemy to faith, and chastity, she also despised the gods and instead
of a certain religion she claimed to worship a god whom she called
‘only’. In his honor she practiced empty rites and ceremonies and she
deceived all men and her miserable husband, drinking unmixed wine
early in the morning and giving up her body to continual whoring140.”
This description could fit a Jewish proselyte, i. e. a &ou+fiS (= god-
fearer) but it could also fit a Christian: the baker’s wife worshipped one god,
rejected polytheism, enjoyed wine in the early morning - which could
be a reference to the early morning Eucharist, and she was promiscuous -
which may reflect the popular charge about the Christians’ immoral behav-
ior as contained in the ‘Octavius’. Apuleius presented the baker’s wife as a
wicked woman, quite in line with the uncritical contemptuous view of
Christianity of his day.
At some time during his career Apuleius was taken to court and charged
with magic. Previously he met and married a very rich widow who was
considerably older than he and he was accused of attracting the woman
with magic. The trial was held in Africa ca. 155-158 and Apuleius was
finally acquitted but he was forced to defend himself. The composition
‘Apologia’ was his defense and in this book there are two passages which
are of interest to us. In the Apologia 26 Apuleius talks about a certain
Aemilianus who rejects any form of worship of the ancient gods - a picture
la9 Augustine, De civ. dei 18.18: Apuleius in lib% quos Asini auvei tit& insctipsit
lI”) Author’s translation.
PAGAN CRITICISM OF CHRISTIANITY 1091
which, again, would fit well a Christian. The characterization of Aemilianus
by Apuleius may be typical of a pagan’s view of a neighbor who was an
“atheist”, i.e. without the gods. The relevant passage reads as follows (56) :
“And yet I know that some persons, among them that fellow Aemilia-
nus, think it is a good jest to mock at things divine. For I learn frbm
certain men of Oea who know him, that to this day he has never prayed
to any god or frequented any temple, while if he chances to pass any
shrine, he regards it as a crime to raise his hand to his lips in token of
reverence. He has never given first fruits of crops or vines or flocks to
any of the gods of the farmer, who feed him and clothe him; his farm
holds no shrine, no holy place, nor grove. But why do I speak of groves
or shrines ? Those who have been on his property say they never saw
there one stone where offering of oil has been made, one bough where
wreaths have been hung. As a result, two nicknames have been given
him: he is called Charon, as I have said, on account of his truculence
of spirit and of countenance, but he is also - and this is the name he
prefers - called Mezentius, because he despises the gods. I therefore
find it the easier to understand that he should regard my list of initia-
tions in the light of a jest. It is even possible that, thanks to his rejec-
tion of things divine, he may be unable to induce himself to believe
that it is true that I guard so reverently so many emblems and relics
of mysterious rites141.”
Another unfortunately corrupt passage, Apologia 90, contains the following
sentence:
“If you can prove that I have made the very slightest profit out of my
marriage, I am ready to be any magician you please - the great Car-
mendas himself or Damigeron or his . . . Moses of whom you have
heard, or Jannes or Apollobeches or Dardanus himself or any sorcerer
of note from the time of Zoroaster and Ostanes till now142.”
If the mysterious letters his in this passage are indeed a reference to
Jesus (ihs) then we have here a suggestion that Jesus was a magician, as
Celsus, too, maintained. While the passage is not clear at all it is significant
that both Augustine’43 and Lactantius144 found it necessary to argue that
the miracles performed by Apuleius and those of Jesus were of different
nature.
‘a H. E. BUTLER , The Apologia and Florida of Apuleius of Madaura. Oxford, 1909. Reprinted
in 1970, Westport, Corm., p. 97f.
“* BUTLER op. cit. p. 141 and T. R. GLOVER, The Conflict of Religions in the Early Roman
Empire,’ Boston, 1960, p. 230.
*‘s De civ. dei 18.18 and 8.14.
I’4 Inst. Div. 5.3.
1092 STEPHEN BENKO
IX. Marcus Aurelizcs (161- 180)
Meditations 11.3:
“What an admirable soul is that which is ready and willing if the time
has come to be released from the body, whether that release means
extinction, dispersal, or survival. This readiness must be the result
of a specific decision ; not, as with the Christians, of obstinate opposi-
tion, but of a reasoned and dignified decision, and without dramatics
if it is to convince anyone else146.”
In the ‘Meditations’ this is the only reference to the Christians and thus
it is difficult to decide how much the emperor really knew about them and
about the spirit of Christianity. His words here contain no condemnation,
but rather scorn and pity and they remind us of Pliny who decried the
fiertinacia et inflexibilis obstinatio of the Christians. The martyrdom of the
Christians at Lyon and Vienne (177) took place under the reign of Marcus
Aurelius but again we do not know whether this passage is a reflection on
that event, since the desire of many Christians to suffer martyrdom was
well known by this time. The Romans did not always view such martyrdom
with respect and the emperor’s words show a close resemblance to the judg-
ment of his contemporary, Lucian of Samosata, who called the self-immola-
tion of Peregrinus an ostentatious and theatrical act146.
Another writing which survived under the name of Marcus Aurelius
is of uncertain origin and uncertain authenticity. The text is as follows:
Letter to the Assembly of Asia.
“The Emperor Caesar Marcus Aurelius Antoninus Augustus, Armenius,
Pontifex Maximus, for the fifteenth time Tribune, for the third time
Consul, to the Common Assembly of Asia, Greeting. I know that the
gods also take care that such persons do not escape detection. For they
would much rather punish those who will not worship them than you
would. But you throw them into confusion, and while you accuse them
of atheism you only confirm them in the opinion which they hold. It
would indeed be more desirable for them, when accused, to appear
to die for their God, than to live. Wherefore also they come off victorious
when they give up their lives rather than yield obedience to your
commands. And in regard to the earthquakes which have been and are
still taking place, it is not improper to admonish you who lose heart
whenever they occur, and nevertheless are accustomed to compare
your conduct with theirs. They indeed become the more confident in
X6 Text: C. R. HAINES in the Loeb Classical Library; ET: G. M. A. GRUBE. Marcus Aurelius
Antoninus, The Meditations, New York, 1963. p. 111.
I’8 See under Lucian.
PAGAN CRITICISM OF CHRISTIANITY 1093
God, while you, during the whole time, neglect, in apparent ignorance,
the other gods and the worship of the Immortal, and oppress and
persecute even unto death the Christians who worship him. But in
regard to these persons, many of the governors of the provinces wrote
also to our most divine father, to whom he wrote in reply that they
should not trouble these people unless it should appear that they were
attempting something affecting the Roman government. And to me
also many have sent communications concerning these men, but I have
replied to them in the same way that my father did. But if any one
still persists in bringing accusations against any of these people as such,
the person who is accused shall be acquitted of the charge, even if it
appear that he is one of them, but the accuser shall be punished.
Published in Ephesus in the Common Assembly of Asia14’.”
The text of this letter is also available in Justin 1 Apol. 68, immediately
after Hadrian’s rescript, but Justin ascribed it to the emperor Antoninus
Pius. The letter certainly could not have been written originally in its
present form, since it forbids persecution of Christians and grants them
freedom of worship which cannot be substantiated from the actual events
of the.following years. It also orders punishment for those who denounce
Christians and this again is difficult to believe knowing that the emperor’s
closest advisor was M. Corn. Fronto, a chief accuser of the Christians. Whether
the letter is a complete Christian forgery or whether Christian interpolators
have altered an originally genuine text148 is still a subject of scholarly debate.
Melito of Sardisi4$ referred to certain “new decrees” of Marcus Aurelius
which enabled Christians to be persecuted again; the content of these
decrees, however, is not known.
X. L&an of Samosata (c. 115-c. 200)
‘De Morte Peregrini’ (The Death of Peregrinus):
The famous Greek humorist satirised in this book a Christian called Pere-
grinus, nicknamed Proteus. Peregrinus was born in Parium in Mysia around
100 A.D. and diedin 165 at Olympia. He was suspected of murdering his father
and to escape conviction fled to Palestine where he was converted to Christian-
ity and received important appointments in the church: prophet, leader of the
synagogue, interpreter of books and writer of bookslsO. He was arrested for his
14’ Eusebius, H.E. 4.13.1-7; NPNF 1.186.
WI See ADOLF VON HARNACK, Das Edict des Antoninus Pius, Texte und Untersuchungen
zur Geschichte der altchristlichen Literatur 13.4, Leipzig, 1895.
la Eusebius, H.E. 4.26.5.
x.0 On the offices mentioned by Lucian see BET& Lucia van Samosata und das Christenturn.
Novum Testamentum 3 (1958), 226237, here especially pp. 229f.
1094 STEPHEN BENKO
faith, thrown into jail where he was visited day night by widows, orphans,
old women and even men of rank. Other Christians sent him gifts from a
common treasury and Peregrinus collected a sizable fortune151. On his
release he returned to Parium but soon started traveling again. He was
excluded from the church because he ate meat sacrificed to idols152, and so
went on to other adventures. In Egypt he studied under the Cynic
Agathobulus and became a Cynic philosopher. He traveled in Italy and
Greece as a wandering teacher and acquired a reputation as a respectable
philosopher. In 165 A.D. he cremated himself at Olympia, an event of which
Lucian was a witness153. Lucian characterized Christians who were
associated with Peregrinus with the following words:
Is1 Concerning the Christian congregations’ concern for those who were in prison for their
faith, see Tertullian, Ad Martyras 1: “Blessed Martyrs Designate, - Along with the pro-
vision which our lady mother the Church from her bountiful breasts, and each brother
out of his private means, makes for your bodily wants in the prison, accept also from me
some contribution to your spiritual sustenance; for it is not good that the flesh be feasted
and the spirit starved” (ANF 3.693). Also, De Jejunio 12 (defending the Montanist practice
of fasting against Christians) : “Plainly your habit is to furnish cookshops in the prisons to
untrustworthy martyrs, for fear they should miss their accustomed usages, grow weary
of life, and be stumbled at the novel discipline of abstinence” (ANF 4.110). Tertullian
then mentions the case of a supposedly well known Pristinus, who was in jail for his
Christian faith and there enjoyed all the conveniences of life: overindulged in eating,
enjoyed the bath, and so forth until at the end he was not willing to die. So his friends
(the “Psychics” Tertullian calls them) on the morning of his execution intoxicated him
with drugged wine and when he was asked the question, whom he would confess as “Lord”
he could only respond with hiccups and belchings and was executed for his silence and be-
came a martyr. See also Passio Perpetuae 3.1. “Again, after a few days, Pudens, a soldier, an
assistant overseer of the prison, who began to regard us in great esteem, perceiving that
the great power of God was in us, admitted many brethren to see us, that both we and
they might be mutually refreshed” (ANF 3.702). 5.3: Perpetua argues for less severe
treatment and reminds the tribune that the martyrs will have to fight on the day of Caesar.
“Is it not your glory if we are brought forward fatter on that occasion ?” The tribune then
ordered lenient treatment of the prisoners and “permission was given to their brethren
and others to go in and be refreshed with them” (ANF 3.704). For the period of the N. T.
many passages indicate the high value Christians placed on imprisonment for their faith:
2 Cor. 11.23; Acts 16.23, etc. See also Hebr. 10.34, “You had compassion on the prison-
ers .” Ign. Smyrn. 6.2, (False teachers) “care nothing for love for him who is in
prison, or him who is released .”
Is2 G. BAGNANI. art. cit., p. 111 proposed that his Christianity may have been of an Essene-
Ebionite type and that he was later expelled from the now Gentile Palestinian church
because of some Ebionite dietary scruples and not because he ate meat sacrificed to
pagan idols.
x58 The event must have caused quite a sensation and the memory of it survived for a long
time. Even Christian authors made references to it. Tertullian, Ad Martyras 4 exhorting
the martyrs designate, quotes examples of people who willingly sacrificed themselves,
among them “Peregrinus. who not long ago threw himself on the funeral pile” (ANF
3.695). See also Athenagoras, Legatio 26: “Proteus, who as you know threw himself in the
fire near Olympia.” According to Athenagoras, lot. cit., Peregrinus had a statue in Parium
which uttered oracles (ANF 2.143). Self-immolation was not an invention of Peregrinus.
Dio Cassius (643.10) mentions an Indian who immolated himself at Athens in 20 B.C. by
throwing himself in fire. Dio is unsure what the motives of the man were: he did it either
because of old age, or because of ambitions as a sophist, or because he wished to make a
PAGAN CRITICISM OF CHRISTIANITY 1095
“The poor souls convinced themselves that they will all be immortal
and will live forever, on account of which they think lightly of death
and most of them give themselves up. Furthermore their first lawgiver
convinced them that they are all each others’ brothers after they once
deny the Greek gods and break the law and worship that crucified
sophist and live according to his laws. They despise all things and
consider them common property accepting such doctrines by faith
alone. So if a cheater who is able to make profit from the situation comes
to them, he quickly becomes rich laughing at the simple peoplels4.”
The information Lucian gives us about Christians in this treatise is
not particularly profound and everybody who knew Christians probably
knew as much about them as he mentions: they rejected polytheism, they
believed in immortality, they despised death, held their possessions in
common and considered each other brothers. By the middle of the second
century there were Christians in many provinces of the empire and the
above mentioned particulars were common knowledge.
‘Alexander the False Prophet.’
Lucian briefly referred to the Christians again in his account of
the false priest of Asclepius, Alexander. Alexander established a cult
in Abonoteichus, a small city in northern Asia Minor, between
150-170 A.D. and deceived many people in the name of Asclepius,
the divine patron of medicine. Together with a companion they bought
a large tame snake which was presented as Asclepius himself and the
people of Abonoteichus immediately decided to build a temple to him. The
god was renamed Glycon and people came from as far as Greece to see him.
Alexander gave out oracles which the people presented to him in sealed
scrolls which Alexander took into the “holy of holies” and then gave back
to the people, the seals still unbroken and the answers attached to them.
This he accomplished by opening and resealing the scrolls, which could
not be noticed. Alexander was paid liberally with gifts and offerings and his
fame spread so much that he even sent an oracle to Marcus Aurelius who
was fighting the Marcomanm and the Quadi. The oracle was to throw two
lions in the Danube and he would win a great victory. The lions, however,
swam ashore on the other side and the victory was won by the enemy.
Lucian claims that he visited Alexander and when he stretched out his
hand to him to kiss it, Lucian hit it. In addition to a natural sceptic like
Lucian, only the Epicureans and the Christians were unimpressed by
display for the benefit of Augustus who was there at the time, and of the Athenians.
Interestingly, Eusebius does not mention the Christian career of Peregrinus. Concerning
Christians’ contempt of death see also Marcus Aurelius, Meditations 11.3; Epictetus,
Diss. 4.7.6. C&us also made a reference to it according to Origen. C. C&urn 2.45. There
are many references to this fact in early Christian literature, e.g.: Tatian, Oratio 4; Ad
Diogn. 7.7 etc.
Isa De morte Peregrini 5. Author’s translation.
1096 STEPHEN BENKO
Alexander and he considered these two groups his greatest enemies. Lucian
refers to this twice in his treatise:
25: “When at last many sensible men, recovering, as it were, from
profound intoxication, combined against him, especially all the fol-
lowers of Epicurus, and when in the cities they began gradually to detect
all the trickery and bumcombe of the show, he issued a promulgation
designed to scare them, saying that Pontus was full of atheists and
Christians who had the hardihood to utter the vilest abuse of him;
these he bade them drive away with stones if they wanted to have
the god gracious.”
38: “He established a celebration of mysteries, with torchlight cere-
monies and priestly offices, which was to be held annually, for three
days in succession, in perpetuity. On the first day, as at Athens, there
was a proclamation, worded as follows: ‘If any atheist or Christian or
Epicurean has come to spy upon the rites, let him be off, and let those
who believe in the god perform the mysteries, under the blessing of
Heaven.’ Then, at the very outset, there was an ‘expulsion’, in which
he took the lead, saying: ‘Out with the Christians’, and the whole
multitude chanted in response, ‘Out with the Epicureans’rs6.
The celebrations of the mysteries of Alexander are reminiscent of the
Eleusinian mysteries in which those not initiated were also required to
leavels6. Epicureans and Christians were considered as spies by Alexander
and he thought that they came to embarrass him. He called both groups
“atheists” since they both refused to believe in his “god” and were besides
critical of pagan polytheism1’j7.
From these quotations it seems to appear that Lucian was not really
interested in Christianity and certainly not interested enough to make a
study of their teaching and observe their morals. His aim is todemonstrate
the fraud of Alexander and Peregrinus’ thirst for fame. The Christians are
on the periphery of his horizon. He mocks them as simple minded who
were so easily fooled by Peregrinus, and from his references in ‘Alexander
the False Prophet’ we cannot even be sure that he knew the difference
between Judaism and Christianity. He made no effort to investigate the
career and the philosophy of Peregrinus either who appears from his
treatise as an incompetent charlatan who could only attract attention by
immolating himself. But a contemporary of Peregrinus, Aulus Gellius
Is5 ET by A. M. HARMON, LCL, v. 4, pp. 209 and 225.
15(1 Compare Didache 10.1 “If anyone is holy, let him come; if anyone is not, let him
repent.” The call here is not an expulsion but an invitation to holiness.
Is’ The charge of ‘atheism’ is often mentioned by the early Christian authors, e.g. Justin,
1 Apol. 6 and 13; Athenagoras, Legatio 4 and others. See for the problem W. NESTLE,
Atheismus, RAC 1 (1941) 866-870; A. VON HARNACK, Der Vorwurf des Atheismus in
den drei ersten Jahrhunderten (Texte und Untersuchungen 28,4), Leipzig, 1905. TH .MOMM-
SBN, Der Religionsfrevel nach r&nischem Recht. Historische Zeitschrift 28 (1890). 389-
429.
PAGAN CRITICISM OF CHRISTIANITY 1097
(c. 130-180 A.D.), leaves us with a quite different picture of the man. He
visited his lectures in Athens and remembered that Peregrinus was a “man
of dignity and fortitude” who was not afraid of rebuking a Roman knight
for being inattentive during lectures. His lectures were “helpful and noble”
and Gelhus especially mentioned what Peregrinus used to say about com-
mitting sinsls8. Yet the story of Alexander is a reminder that the second
century was an age when people were especially sensitive about problems
of life and death, or, as T. R. GLOVER put itlss “Men were taking themselves
desperately seriously - preaching interminable Philosophy, saving their
souls, and communing with gods and daemons in the most exasperating
ways”. Anybody ruthless enough could exploit these fears and hopes of
people for his own financial advantage as no doubt many did. Alexander
was clearly an impostor and Lucian puts Jesus in the same class, as the
“first lawgiver” “ that crucified sophist” who misled and tricked his followers
into believing and doing unreasonable things. Christianity was for Lucian
a senseless and useless philosophy, like other philosophies, and it may be
that by mentioning them together with the Epicureans Lucian in a way
did view Christianity as a philosophical school, although his reference to
Christianity as a xarvfi TE?LET~~ may mean that he viewed the movement
as a new oriental mystery160, or perhaps a blend of both, philosophy and
mystery. And since for him belief in the supernatural was even more
ridiculous than philosophy (see his ‘Lover of Lies’) he snarled at Christians
as “poor wretches” not criminals though, but naive and simple folk, who
refused to live as he advocated in another connection, as “ordinary men,
without fantastic and vain hopes”161.
XI. Aelizcs Aristides (c. 129-181)
%l+p T&J TETT&pW. 2,394ff.:
“Who on earth could tolerate these enemies who lash out more solecism
than words? . . . When they steal, they say that they ‘share’. They
lsB Aulus G&us, Attic Nights 8.3 (summary) “In what terms and how severely the phil-
osopher Peregrinus in my hearing rebuked a young Roman of equestrian rank, who stood
before him inattentive and constantly yawning.” (The Attic Nights of Aulus Gellius,
JOHN C. ROLFE, editor, LCL. Oxford 1960, vol. 2. p. 143). - Attic Nights 11.1-7: Per-
egrinns Proteus lived, like a true cynic, outside the city, in a hut and Aulus Gellius used to
go out and see him often. In these conversations Peregrinus said many noble and helpful
things, such as that a wise man would not commit a sin, even if he knew that nobody
would know it, because one should avoid sin for love of justice and honesty and not for
fear of consequences. However, one should always remember, that nothing can be hidden
forever, and so, if somebody is too weak to avoid temptations, at least the thought of dis-
covery might make him more reluctant to commit a sin.
1se The Conflict of Religions in the Early Roman Empire, Boston, 1960.
loa See BETZ, art. cit., p. 227.
la* Hermotimus 84.
1098 STEPHEN BENKO
call their envy ‘philosophy’ and their mendicity ‘disdain of worldly
goods’. They frequent the doorways, talking more often to the door-
keepers than to the masters, making up their lowly condition by using
impudence. They deceive like flatterers, but handle insults like superior
men, combining the two most opposite and repugnant vices: vileness
and insolence. Their behavior is very similar to those blasphemous
people in Palestine. They, too, manifest their impiety by the obvious signs
that they do not recognize those who are above them, and they separated
themselves from the Greeks and from everything good. They are in-
capable as far as they are concerned to contribute in any manner
whatsoever toward any common good, but when it comes to under-
mining home life, bringing trouble and discord into families and claim-
ing to be leaders of all things, they are the most skillful mennr2.”
This speech of Aelius Aristides was written in defense of the great
heroes of the golden age of Greece against Plato’s ‘Gorgias’. It is in this
context that he came to talk about this peculiar band of philosophers and it
is thus difficult to see exactly whom he did have in mind. Was it the
obnoxious group of the Cynics whom the description could fit well ? Or, did
he mean Christians who were accused by Celsus with very similar short-
comings. The reference to blasphemous people “in Palestine” unfortunately
does not clear up the matter completely so that we must leave the question
undecided: this passage from Aristides may or may not refer to Christians.
XII. Galen of Pergamum (c. 129-199)
The famous medical doctor went to Rome in 162 and except for a short
absence stayed there until his death. In Rome he came to know about the
Christians and in his books made a few references to them. These reflect a
pagan intellectual’s view of Christianity, but once at least Galen praised
the Christians’ self-discipline and morals. The following quotations are
taken from R. WALZER, Galen on Jews and Christians, London, 1949,
pp. 14f.163
De pulsuum different&, 3.3:
“One might more easily teach novelties to the followers of Moses and
Christ than to the physicians and philosophers who cling fast to their
schools.”
la* Selected passages only.
ma See also W. DEN BOER, Scriptorum paganorum I-IV Saec. de Christianis Testimonia.
Leiden, 1965.
PAGAN CRITICISM OF CHRISTIANITY
De pulsuum differentiis, 2.4:
“In order that one should not at the very beginning, as if one had come
into the school of Moses and Christ, hear talk of undemonstrated laws,
and that where it is least appropriate.”
From an Arabic quotation:
“If I had in mind people who taught their pupils in the same way as
the followers of Moses and Christ teach theirs - for they order them
to accept everything on faith - I should not have given you a
definition.”
From another Arabic source:
“Most people are unable to follow any demonstrative argument
consecutively; hence they need parables, and benefit from them’ -
and he (Galen) understands by parables tales of rewards and punish-
ments in a future life - ‘just as now we see the people called Christians
drawing their faith from parable (and miracles), and yet some acting
in the same way (as those who philosophize). For their contempt of
death (and of its sequel) is patent to us every day, and likewise their
restraint in cohabitation. For they include not only men but also women
who refrain from cohabiting all through their lives; and they also
number individuals who, in self-discipline and self-control in matters
of food and drink, and in their keen pursuit of justice, have attained a
pitch not inferior to that of genuine philosophers.”
Galen mentioned Jews alone in two more passages. In a quotation
preserved in Arabic, he compares medical doctors who practice without
scientific training to Moses, who promulgated laws and wrote his books
without proofs simply saying, “God commanded, God spoke!” In his treatise
‘De usu partium’ Galen criticized the mosaic cosmogony and rejected its
reliance on divine miraclesls4. It is somewhat significant that in the second
half of the second century Galen still did not make a clear differentiation
between Jews and Greeks. He put the “followers of Moses and Christ” in
the same ‘school’ by which he obviously meant a philosophical school and
in this Galen made a radical change from the traditional view of Christianity.
Christians to him were no longer dangerous conspirators or abominable
cannibals but adherents of a philosophical school. With this classification
Christianity achieved a certain amount of respectability and this may al-
ready have been the aim of Justin Martyr when he presented his embracing
of Christianity as the adoption of a “safe and profitable philosophy”166.
Athenagoras in his plea for fair treatment of Christians requested that they
be judged like other philosoplierslse and the claim to accept Christianity
la4 R. WALZER, Galenos, RAC 8 (1969). 777-786
la5 Dial. 8.
le8 Legatio 2.
1100 STEPHEN BENKO
as a philosophical school does appear several more times in the Christian
literature of the late second century16’. But the complaint of Galen is that
Christians are “philosophers without philosophy “i@, i.e. they have a certain
conduct of lifenr9 but they do not have a rational basis, a conviction based
on reason which would support them. Christians accept everything on faith
and “To anyone brought up on classical Greek philosophy, fistis meant the
lowest grade of cognition: it was the state of mind of the uneducated, who
believe things on hearsay without being able to give reasons for their
belief”l’O. We have met this objection already in Lucian who sneered that
Christians receive their doctrines “without any definite evidence”17i, and
in Marcus Aurelius who contrasted the “reasoned and dignified decision”
of a Stoic with the “obstinate opposition” of a Christian*72. Celsus, according
to Origen made the same charge, claiming that some Christians say, “Do
not ask questions, only believe!“r73 and this accusation has been repeated
by anti-Christian authors of the following generations.
But Galen was still a sympathetic observer of Christianity and while
he criticized their lack of philosophical training he could also admire
Christian virtues, such as their contempt of death and their restraint in
matters of sex and other physical necessities and their pursuit of justice.
In these matters, Galen said, Christians act just like philosophers, in spite
of the fact that their religion is based on parables and miracles instead of
demonstrative arguments. This friendly criticism of Galen created an un-
expected response among certain Christians of Rome who heard about
Galen’s objections and decided to present Christian theology in philosoph-
ically acceptable terms. According to Eusebius174 an orthodox author attack-
ed this group mercilessly accusing them of tampering with the Scriptures
and abandoning the simple faith for the study of geometry and philosophy
and “as to Galen, he is even perhaps worshipped by some”. The “heretics”
were excommunicated by bishop Victor of Rome, who held the office
between 187-198, i.e. during the last period of Galen’s life, but a few years
later the Alexandrian Christians had decisively resolved the problem of
philosophy and Christianity.
la’ Melito in Eusebius, H.E. 4.26.7 “The philosophy which we profess .;” Min. Felix,
Octavius 4.4; according to Eusebius, H.E. 5.17.5 Miltiades “has written a work against the
philosophers of the age, in favor of the philosophy which he embraced.”
Isa A. v. HARNACK. History of Dogma, New York: Dover Publications, 1961 (reprint of the
the hatred of Esau and Jacob (4.46), or the begetting of children by very
1900 edition), v. 1, p. 237.
1*9 On ‘philosophy’ as a lifestyle, see R. WILKEN, art. cit., pp. 271f. and literature quoted
there.
WI E. R. DODDS, Pagan and Christian in an Age of Anxiety, New York, 1965, p. 120f.
I71 De morte Peregrini 13.
l” Med. 11.3.
I’* C. Gels. 1.9; 6.11, cf. Epictetus, p. 1077 above.
I” H.E. 6.28.6ff.
71 ANRW II 23.2
PAGAN CRITICISM OF CHRISTIANITY 1101
XIII. Celsus (2nd Century)
The first systematic attack on Christianity was writen in the period
between 177-180 by a man named Celsus of whom very little is known17h.
The title of his book was ‘Ahr@fis hoyos - True Doctrine - but the work
is lost except for the quotations from it which were made by Origen in reply
to Celsus some seventy years later. The work of Origen, entitled ‘Contra
Celsum’ contains so many quotations that a substantial part of Celsus’
original work may be reconstructed and at any rate his most important
arguments and his basic thoughts come through quite clearly. Celsus is an
important writer because in his criticism of Christianity he does not rely on
hearsay or on unsubstantiated charges but rather on personal observations
and on a study of Jewish-Christian literature. Consequently his work is
generally free of crude mistakes and misconceptions even though he is
prejudiced and in religious questions represents the superstitions of the late
second century. Celsus, a well read and educated Platonist, combined his
criticism of Christianity with a noble attempt todefend the traditionalvalues
of Rome, and in its original form it must have been an impressive work.
Here is a summary of what can be reconstructed from Origen.
Celsus criticized Christianity as an inadequate philosophical-theological
system and Christians as a society that consists of intellectually low level
people. In his attacks Jews are often included simultaneously with Christians
and this is so especially when he deals with the Old Testament. This
according to him is full of very stupid fables (4.50) such as the creation of
the world, the origin of man and a cosmogony which is silly (6.49) and utter
trash (6.50 and 6.58). The image of God that appears through these stories
is blasphemously anthropomorphic and Genesis even says that, like a wom-
out workman, God needed rest on the seventh day (6.61). But God does not
have such human characteristics (6.62) and thus God could not make man
after his image since he does not resemble any such form (6.63). Many
reasonable Jews and Christians know that the idea that man was formed
by the hand of God is wrong and therefore they try somehow to allegorize
the biblical story (4.38,48). But the Bible is incapable of being interpreted
allegorically (4.49) and some stories are downright offensive, e.g., the story
of Lot and his daughters “is more iniquitous than Thyestian sins” (4.45). or
old people (4.43). The inconsistencies of Old Testament accounts cause
insurmountable problems: how could God create and then find fault with
his creation (6.53) ? Why, he could not even convince the man he made
(4.40; 6.57) and how could he make evil (6.54) ? There are some ideas in the
Bible that have already been’ expressed and expressed better by Greek
1’5 For the identity and date of Celsus see H. CHADWICK, Origen: Contra C&urn, Cambridge,
1963. The following quotations, unless otherwise noted are from CHADWICK’S translation.
1102 STEPHEN BENKO
philosophers (6.1) and other ideas were borrowed from the GreeksThe story
of the flood, for example, is a version of the story of Deukalion (4.41).
The New Testament comes under similar heavy criticism (1.40,
etc.) especially when Celsus criticizes the life and the teaching of Jesus.
Concerning Jesus Celsus asserts that the Jewish prophets did not speak
about him but about Jews (1.57) and the prophecies could be applied to
thousands of others more plausibly than to Jesus (2.28). The origins of Jesus
are obscure (1.28). His genealogy, according to the gospel accounts, is
distinguished; but then why was he a lowly carpenter (2.32) ? More likely,
he was the son of Panthera (1.32)176 and he learned magic in Egypt (1.38).
At any rate he was born of a mortal body (3.41,42) and he was altogether
a mere man “and of such a character as the truth itself makes obvious and
as reason shows” (2.79)17’. His character was bad: a “pestilent fellow”
(2.29) who told great lies (2.7) and was guilty of other profane actions, which
Origen does not quote (2.7). At the beginning of his ministry he collected
around himself a group of tax collectors and sailors, wicked men, from the
lowest level of society and with them he went from place to place, hiding
and making a living the best he could (1.62 ; 2.46).
Jesus was a wicked sorcerer (1.71; 2.32; 2.49; 8.41) ; he performed
miracles by magic (1.6), and even though some of his miracles may have
been true, such as some cures, resurrections, the feeding of many people,
they were no more extraordinary than the performances of Egyptian magic-
ians and sorcerers (1.68). In his sermons Jesus uttered wailings (2.24),
threats and empty abuses, such as “Woe unto you . . .I’ (2.76) and yet as
long as he lived he could not convince anybody (2.39; 2.43). Finally, when
he was to be punished by the Jews he ran away and hid most disgracefully
and was betrayed by his disciples (2.92 ; 2.12). He was then punished by
the Jews as an offender (2.4-5) and when he was crucified, neither his
“Father” helped him, nor could he help himself (1.54). Then the disciples
invented the statement, that Jesus knew beforehand and foretold every-
thing that had happened to him (2.13, 15-19). This is not very profound
however, because any robber and murderer could foretell that he would
suffer punishment if he got caught, and when what this criminal said had
taken place, would one say that he was a god (2.44) ? If he really had divine
power, he should have demonstrated it to those who treated him
despitefully (2.63; 2.67), perhaps by disappearing suddenly from the cross
(2.68-69). But he died as a mortal man, the blood that came from his side
was not the blood of gods (1.66; 2.36) and the body he had was not the body
of a god (1.69). The story of his resurrection is not true, only a hysterical
female saw it (2.55) and instead of appearing to many people, he hid him-
self (2.70). He appeared as a phantom (3.22) and Celsus cannot understand
how a dead man could be worshipped as immortal (2.16).
l’s The charge that Jesus was the illegitimate son of a Roman soldier was widespread. See for
literature H. CHADWICK. op. cit. p. 31. footnote 3.
l” CHADWICK. op. cit. p. 127.
PAGAN CRITICISM OF CHRISTIANITY 1103
From among the Christian articles of faith Celsus has the sharpest
criticism for the doctrines of incarnation and the resurrection of the flesh.
Incarnation he understands to mean that God or the son of God came
down to earth (4.2) but what would be the purpose of such a descent ? To
learn what was going on among men, or to correct men ? (4.3) And why is
it that it was only after so many years that God decided to judge the Life
of men? Did he not care before? (4.7) Christians insult God (3.78,79) and
attribute a mortal character to him (4.6) since incarnation would mean a
change for God which is the nature of mortals only. For God the change
would be from good to bad, from beautiful to shameful, from happiness to
misfortune and God could not possibly undergo this change (4.14; 4.18).
No god or child of God has ever come down or would have come down to
earth, only daemons (5.2). But even if we assume that Jesus was some’sort
of angel several difficulties arise: at his conception his mother had to be
defended by an angel and at his resurrection angels moved the stone from
his tomb - the Son of God needed help! (5.52) And why did God have to
breathe his spirit into the womb of a woman? He already knew how to
make men and he could have made a body for Jesus too (6.73). Also, if a
divine Spirit was in Jesus then his body must have been more beautiful,
but Jesus was ugly (6.75).17S The incarnation thus is wholly impossible to
Celsus, and he does not understand that if God had wanted to save the
human race from evil, why did not he send his spirit all over the world,
why only to a little corner of the world, to the Jews? (6.78) Moreover, the
incarnation is blasphemy, because to say that the things that happened to
Jesus, happened to God, is nothing short of wicked and impious talk (7.14).
And so Christians are calling Jesus the “Son of God” not because they
wish to pay special reverence to God, but because they are exalting Jesus
(8.14-15).
Faith in the resurrection of the body is a mimnderstanding of re-
incarnation (7.32). Christians combine this with the idea of an universal
conflagration, when God, like a cook will roast all mankind, except the
Christians who will be saved. Those who happen to be dead at this time will
be raised and will receive the body that they had before. This doctrine is so
repulsive that there is opposition to it even among Jews and Christians17s.
Bodies, once they were decayed can never return to their original condition
and the Christian explanation, that “anything is possible to God” is lame.
God would never want to do such an unreasonable thing; the soul may have
everlasting life, but corpses, as Hera&us said “ought to be thrown away
as worse than dung” (5.14-15; see also 7.32; 8.49). Christians are also
inconsistent, because on the one hand they hope for the resurrection as if
there was nothing more precious than the body, on the other hand they
I’* See Isaiah 52.14 “His appearance was so marred, beyond human semblance” and 53.2-3
“ he had no form or comeliness and no beauty _”
17e C%us was well informed. Among Jews the Sadducees, and among Christians Gnostics
did not believe in the resurrection.
1104 STEPHEN BENKO
believe in eternal punishment of the body as if it had no value. Surely, Celsus
concludes, people who believe such things, are destitute of reason (8.48,49).
No wonder then that Christianity is successful only among the un-
educated (1.27). Every intelligent person is driven away by this faith and
only the stupid and low-class folk is attracted to it (3.18). Moreover it seems
like Christians do not even want educated, wise or sensible people to come
to them, because they consider these abilities to be evil (3.44). “Wisdom in
this life is evil, but foolishness is good.” - seems to be a principle of Christ-
ians (1.13; 1.9)l*O. They substitute faith for wisdom and say that one must
first believe that Jesus was God’s Son, in spite of his history, i.e., that he
was dishonorably arrested, disgraced, punished, as if these things were all
the more reasons to believe (6.10). But what would happen if other people
would come and use the same argument, “Believe or else!” (6.11) No intel-
ligent man would be impressed by such opinions (3.73), sochristians invite
the sinner, the wretch and the child (3.59). Why is this preference for
sinners? (3.64) What is wrong in being without sin? Why was God sent
to sinners and not to those without sin? (3.62) After all, who is a sinner?
The dishonest, the thief, burglar, poisoner, and grave robber. All other
mysteries invite to their services those who have purified themselves, but
Christians resort to those who committed sins! (3.59) Christian doctrines
are vulgar (3.68) and for the vulgar (1.27; 3.44, 50, 55, 59, 74, 75; 6.11-14),
in their ignorance they misunderstood the truth expressed by others such
as Plato (6.7 ff .) and they “vulgarly discuss fundamental principles and make
arrogant pronouncements about matters of which they know nothing”
(5.65)‘=.
Accordingly, when they try to display their teaching they do not
dare to go into thecompany of intelligent men but they go to market places,
into crowds of slaves and into companies of fools and there they show off.
(3.50; 3.52). They are not even averse of putting children against their
parents and against their teachers thus destroying families and upsetting
social life.
“We see, indeed, in private houses workers in wool and leather, and
fullers, and persons of the most uninstructed and rustic character, not
venturing to utter a word in the presence of their elders and wiser
masters; but when they get hold of the children privately, and certain
women as ignorant as themselves, they pour forth wonderful statements,
to the effect that they ought not to give heed to their father and to
their teachers, but should obey them; that the former are foolish and
stupid, and neither know nor can perform anything that is really good,
being preoccupied with empty trifles ; that they alone know how men
ls* ET by CHADWICK. Celsus probably had 1 Cor. 1.18ff. and 1 Car. 3.18ff. in mind. The charge
also appears in Octavius 8.4 and it is freely acknowledged by early Christian authors that
there were many uneducated converts, see Acts 4.13; Justin, 1 Apol. 60; 2 Apol. 10;
Athenagoras, Legatio 11; and others.
la1 ET CHADWICK.
PAGAN CRITICISM OF CHRISTIANITY 110.5
ought to live, and that, if the children obey them, they will both be
happy themselves, and will make their homes happy also. And while
thus speaking, if they see one of the instructors of youth approaching,
or one of the more intelligent class, or even the father himself, the more
timid among them become afraid, while the more forward incite the
children to throw off the yoke, whispering that in the presence of
father and teachers they neither will nor can explain to them any good
thing, seeing they turn away with aversion from the silliness and
stupidity of such persons as being altogether corrupt, and far advanced
in wickedness, and such as would inflict punishment upon them;
but that if they wish (to avail themselves of their aid) they must leave
their fathers and their instructors, and go with the women and their
playfellows to the women’s apartments, or to the leather shop, or to
the fuller’s shop, that they may attain to perfection; - and by words
like these they gain them over (3.55)la2.”
How can Christians pursuade people? By inventing terrors (3.16) and by
babbling about God impiously and impurely to arouse the amazement of
the uneducated people (4.10). Wandering prophets go around proclaiming
doom and salvationlB3, some of whom Celsus himself heard and examined
and found to be fakes (9.11). They also practice sorcery (6.14) and Celsus
claims that he had seen Christian elders with books containing barba,rian
names of daemons and magical formulas (6.40) which are effective among
the uneducated (6.41). Christians seem to have a certain power but they pos-
sess this by pronouncing the names of certain daemons and by incantations
(1.6). These teachers are like people who promise to heal and turn away
their patients from expert physicians because they would expose their
lack of training (3.75). They are like drunkards who go to a party of drunk-
ards and then accuse sober people of being drunk (3.76). So Christians
seduce wicked men by vain hopes and persuade them to despise good men
saying that if they keep away from them it will be better for them (3.78).
The idea of a devi 1 is a blatant blasphemy to Celsus (6.42) and he sees
in it an impious division of the kingdom of God into two opposing forces
which he rejects (8.11). As far as the Christians’ idea of a new heaven and
new earth is concerned, they have taken the idea from ancient Gree2
writers (7.28).
Christianity’s relation to paganism was heavily criticized by Celsus.
He complained that Christians ridicule those who worship Zeus because
his tomb is shown in Crete, but they worship one, who rose from the dead
(3.43). They hold the prophets of the Old Testament in great honor, but
other prophets, like the priestesses of Dodona or Apollo, they despise (7.3;
7.9). They do not worship the heavenly bodies “as if it were possible for the
whole to be God but its parts not divine” (5.6ff.). Christians object to the
lsz ET ANF. 4.486.
Isa The image fits well Peregrinus and Alexander of Abonoteichus.
1106 STEPHEN BENKO
pagans’ worshipping of other gods, yet they worship a man who only re-
cently appeared (8.12), indeed, they worship not a god, but a corpse (7.68 ;
7.36), and this they don’t consider inconsistent with monotheism. Surely,
if they wanted to worship a man, there were more sensible persons to choose
from: from the Old Testament Daniel or Jonah, from among the Greeks
Epictetus, Orpheus or others (7.53). But they make a laughing stock of
themselves when they assert that other gods who manifested themselves
are not gods but phantoms and then worship a man who is more wretched
than a phantom and who is not even a phantom any longer because he is
dead (7.36 ; 7.68). They stand by an image of Zeus or Apollo or any other
god, blaspheme it, strike it and boast that it takes no vengeance on them
(8.38). But indeed the gods do take vengeance because the Christians are
persecuted, they have to run for their lives and when they are caught they
are destroyed (8.41). The gods the Christians despise crucify them, but their
Son of God does not vindicate them (8.39). To this Christians answer, “This
is the will of God” but could not the pagan gods say the same when Christians
abuse them? (8.41) If all Romans would abandon their ancient religion
and would become Christians would then the Christian god come down and
fight for them? Experience shows something else, this God was no help to
the Jews who lost even their homeland and he is no help to Christians, who
are being condemned to death (8.69). They do not believe in temples, altars
and images and they use the ludicrous argument that wood, bronze or gold
cannot be god, when everybody knows that these are only votive offerings
and images of gods. Now, if Christians say that God has a different shape,
they contradict themselves because they assert that God made man his
own image (7.62). But suppose these idols are nothing, then why do Christ-
ians refuse to sacrifice to them? If the idols are some sort of daemons, then
sacrificing to them would be quite justified (8.24) since daemons also
belong to God (8.24). Christians do not take part in public festivals (8.21)
because they do not wish to feast with daemons (8.28). This is well and good
but then they should abstain from the food of all animals, because all
food, wine, fruit, water and even the air we breathe is under the administra-
tion of some daemon (8.28; 8.33).
In more general ways of criticism Celsus pointed out that Christianity
is a new religion, it lacks the approval of antiquity and thus Christians have
no authority for their doctrines (3.14; 5.33; 5.65)ls4. In addition to that,
they are corrupting ancient tradition by uncritically taking over and
misinterpreting ideas found in other sources (6.18ff.; 6.21; 6.42f.; 6.70;
7.58; 7.62; etc.). They are brokenupinto amultitudeof sectswho slander each
other and make no concessions and detest each other (5.63). They, together
Is’ Antiquity was accepted by the Remans as a proof of the validity of a rite. Even in the
case of the Bacchanalia an exception was made in this regard (Livy. 39.18.7) and Octavius
6.3 declares that age has sanctified the Roman shrines and ceremonies. Cf. Tacitus, His-
tories 5.5 where he finds only one vindication for Judaism, and that is the antiquity of
Jewish worship.
PAGAN CRITICISM OF CHRISTIANITY 1107
with the Jews are like “a cluster of bats or ants coming out of a nest, as
frogs holding council around a marsh or worms assembling in some filthy
corner, disagreeing with one another about which of them are the worse
sinners” (4.23)185. They also have some exaggerated ideas about themselves,
as if God had abandoned the heavens and the world for their sake and would
only communicate with them (4.23). In fact they are a secret society (1.1)
which even holds its meetings in secret for fear of penalty (1.3). “They wall
themselves off and break away from the rest of mankind” (8.2);186 and their
refusal to set up temples, images and altars is a sure sign of an obscure and
secret society (8.17). They are “boorish and unclean people, destitute of
reason and suffer from the disease of sedition” (8.49). If they have no love
for life and offer their bodies to be tortured and crucified for no purpose,
then they also should refrain from marrying, having children and anything
else in life. They should leave the world leaving no descendants so that
their race would entirely cease to exist on earth (8.55)‘*‘.
Finally Celsus called on Christians to abandon some of their more
radical views and return to a useful membership in the society in which they
live. They should give due reverence to “daemons, rulers and emperors”,
(8.63) and they should not provoke the anger of the emperor which results
in their suffering and death (8.65). They should swear by the genius of the
emperor (8.66) and take an oath by the emperor, for it is from his benefit
that they receive everything in this life (8.67). If everybody would follow
the Christian example and would oppose the emperor, anarchy would be the
result and everything would be destroyed including Christian worship
(8.68). So Christians should support the emperor, they should even become
soldiers, and should accept public office in their country to help preserve
the laws and piety.
These are the main points of the criticism of Celsus. How much Origen
left out (possibly the most damaging parts) we may never know but even in
its mutilated form the book of Celsus goes to the heart of the problem of
Christianity. Some of the objections, such as the charge that Christians
were afraid of educated classes were no longer correct at the time when
Origen wrote his reply and in many other respects too, Origen, who was
more than a match for Celsus, could easily refute the charges. Often,
however, Origen was at a loss for answers. To Celsus’ objection, that
Christians take children away from their parents, he could only answer that
Christians do not draw away children from better things and incite them to
worse things (3.58f.). This is a lame argument and probably did not
convince any pagan who cherished his family life and worked hard to give
his children a good education and a place in society. Origen’s near admission
of guilt, in this case, may have just confirmed many pagan’s suspicions
that Christianity was by and large a disruptive and destructive force.
Is5 ET CHADWICK.
186 The charge of odium humani generis!
Is’ See Octavius 8.
1108 STEPHEN BENKO
Equally serious was Celsus’ charge that the Christian doctrine was vulgar
(I&oTIK~~, 1.27) which is about the same objection that Galen raised.
Paul’s proud assertion, that “the foolishness of God is wiser than men”
(1 Cor. 1.21-25) could hardly convince any Roman and Greek who had
fine philosophical systems, such as Stoicism and Epicureanism at their
disposal. Irenaeus’ search for “truth” and Tertullian’s emphasis on veritas
were no more impressive since both identified truth with the Scriptures and
what an educated pagan who may have been exposed to it thought of the
Scriptures at the end of the second century is amply demonstrated by
Celsus. The dialogue of Christianity with paganism had to be conducted
according to the pagan rules and this was successfully accomplished by
Clement of Alexandria and Origen.
How successful was Celsus ? The fact that two generations later Origen
was still compelled to write a detailed rebuttal and the painstaking care
with which copies of the ‘True Word’ were later taken out of circulation
indicates that he was considered a formidable enemy by the Church. His
anti-Christian work was continued by the Neo-platonic school and especially
by the editor of Plotinus’ ‘Enneads’, Porphyry (232-305), whose book
‘Against the Christians’ was ordered to be burnt in 448 and only fragments
of it survive. The full impact of these scholarly criticisms of Christianity
thus cannot be estimated.
Summary
From the foregoing collection of references to Christians by pagan
writers we receive a kaleidoscopic view of how pagans looked at Christians
in the first two centuries. Their view has naturally changed as the Christian
church itself has changed from the missionary movement of the apostolic
age to the hierarchic organization of 200 A.D. We can see that during this
period of time pagans had the following perceptions of Christianity.
1. A Jewish sect. This view was a mixed blessing, because on the one
hand it put Christians under the protective umbrella which Roman
authorities extended to Jews, on the other hand it also included Christians
in that contempt which Romans reserved for the Jewish superstition. The
contempt was intensified through the Jewish extremist activities and the
resulting Jewish revolts. Christians did not cooperate in these revolts and
their separation now set the Jews against the Christians, without, however,
assuring a popular recognition of the Christians’ independent identity.
We have seen that even Galen and Celsus tended to treat Jews and Christ-
ians alike.
2. A superstition of Oriental origin which involves the practice of
magic. This view was supported by certain elements of early Christian
liturgy which showed similarities with other magical practices. Later, as
more information was gathered by the pagans about Christianity there
PAGAN CRITICISM OF CHRISTIANITY 1109
was also a view of Jesus as a magician and then, of course, the followers of
Jesus were immediately placed in the same category. The charge of in-
fanticide, Thyestean meals and promiscuous intercourse as parts of
Christian services were based first , on the fact that such practices were
elements of certain types of magic, second, on the misunderstanding of
the Christian Eucharistic liturgy and, third on the actual occurance of
such practices in some Christian (Gnostic) extremist sects.
3. A conspiracy. This belief was probably intensified by the Romans’
unlucky experience with the BacchanalialsB and the suspicion it created in
the Romans against religious fringe-groups which they considered sub-
versive. The Jews naturally fell into this category and the nightly meetings
of the Christians (Pliny, Ep. 10.96.7) could easily be compared with the
“nocturnal conspiracy” of the Bacchanalia (Livy, 39.14.4). That the Christ-
ians would do that in spite of the ordinance of the Twelve Tables (8.26:
“No person shall hold meetings by night in the city.“) made them all the
more suspicious and the charge appears sporadically in the second and even
the third centuries. In Octavius 8 Caecilius severely criticized the “nocturnal
meetings” of the latebrosa et lucifugax natio of the Christians, and according
to Acta Cypr. 4 Cyprian was accused of being a member of a “nefarious
conspiracy”.
4. A collegizcm or civic association. Clubs, called in Latin collegium
(collegia in plural) or hetaieira in Greek were widespread in the Greco-Roman
world and their origin goes back as far as the time of Solon in Greece (around
600 B.C.) or perhaps to Numa Pompilius (715-673 B.C.) in Rome. There
were sacred and secular associations, the former devoting themselves to the
promotion of certain religious practices (such as the Bacchanalia in Rome)
and the latter serving social or professional ends. We know of associations
of merchants, carpenters, sailors, veterans, sports-clubs, volunteer-firemen,
and many others. Several of them were burial clubs which assured a decent
funeral for deceased members. By a decree of Augustus of 7 A.D. all
collegia had to be licensed by the state. Their activities were limited to
business meetings and social gatherings, such as dining together at certain
occasions. Pliny referred to the Christians in Bythinia as a hetaeria which
met regularly and had common meals until Trajan forbade associations.
Celsus also refers to Christians as an association operating illegally. A
Christian congregation with its peculiar meeting habits appeared in many
places as a club, possibly a burial association.
5. A new mystery. Lucian’s description of Christianity as a KarVi\ trhs-rfl
classified Christianity as a mystery religion of Oriental origin. Again, there
were ample grounds in Christian theology and liturgy for this view which
may have been adopted by many who have accepted Christianity as a new,
bona fide religious movement.
m Livy, 39.3-19 and CIL l* 581.
1110 STEPHEN BENKO
6. Philosophical school. This was a view which was initiated and en-
couraged by the Christians from the middle of the second century on,
Justin Martyr being the first one to promote the idea. The point of con-
nection between Christianity and philosophy was found in the contemporary
understanding of philosophy as a life style that leads to pietylB9 and the view
was already adopted by Galen. Of course, for Galen Christianity was a
very inferior philosophy but, - and this is the decisive difference - it was
no longer a conspiracy or cannibalistic deviation. It was to be a long time
before this view became widespread and the opposition within church
circles to bring philosophy into theology (cf. Tertullian) was quite strong.
But by the end of the second century the pagans’ view of Christianity had
gradually changed and the criticism of Christianity turned from popular
charges to scholarly opposition. In this connection the critics pointed out
the Christians’ blind faith as opposed to the reason inherent in other
philosophical systems, the Christians’ withdrawal from social and political
life, their effect on family life all of which made Christianity into a divisive
and destructive force in the Roman empire.
There were, therefore, many opinions concerning Christianity, depend-
ing on the time period which the historian wishes to scrutinize, but also
depending on the geographic location, the composition of the local con-
gregation and also the good will or lack of it of the individual pagan who was
exposed to the Christian movement. Christianity was tremendously un-
popular during the first two centuries, but it appears that the pagans’ fears
and suspicions concerning it were more often than not based on actual
facts or on a failure of the Christians to present and explain themselves in a
manner that would have satisfied the pagans. There were occasional mob
actions against Christians but these were isolated incidents and by and large
the Roman state and its citizens showed tolerance toward Christianity
which the church failed to reciprocate.
Bibliografihy
A. General Bibliography
AUFHAUSER, J. B., Antike Jesus-Zeugnisse (Kleine Texte 146). Bonn, 1925.
BARDY, G., La conversion au Christianisme durant les premiers siecles (Theologie 15). Paris,
1949.
LE BLANT, E., Les persecuteurs et 11% martyrs aux premiers siecles de notre Bre, Paris, 1893.
BOER, W. DEN, Scriptorum paganorum I-IV Saec. de Christianis testimonia, Leiden, 1965.
BOISSIER. G., La fin du paganisme, 2 vols., Paris, 1891.
BRASIELLO, U., La repressions penale in diritto romano, Naples, 1937.
rs9 See the article by R. WILKEN, Collegia, Philosophical Schools, and Theology, in: The
Catacombs and the Colosseum. ed. S. BENKO and J. J. O’ROURKE, Philadelphia, 1971.
pp. 268-291
PAGAN CRITICISM OF CHRISTIANITY 1111
CALLEWAER~. C.. La methode dans la recherche de la base juridique des premieres persecn-
tions, RHE 12 (1911) 5ff.
CALLEWAERT, C.. Le delit de christianisme dans les deux premiers sibcles, Revue des questions
historiques 74 (1903) 28ff.
CALLEWAERT, C., Les premiers chretiens et I’accusation de lese-majeste, Revue des questions
historiques 76 (1904) 5ff.
CALLEWAERT. C., Les persecutions contre les chretiens dans la politique religiense de l’etat
remain. Revue des questions historiques 82 (1907) 5ff.
CANFIELD, L. H., The Early Persecution of the Christians, New York, 1913.
CHROUST, A. H., A Note on the Persecutions of the Christians in the Early Roman Empire,
Class. et Mediaev. 28 (1969/70) 321-329.
COCHRANE, C. N., Christianity and Classical Culture, Oxford, 1944.
CONRAT, M.. Die Christenverfolgungen im rdmischen Reich vom Standpunkt des Juristen,
Leipzig, 1897.
COURCELLE, P., Critiques exegetiques et arguments antichretiens rapport& par Ambrosiaster,
VC 13 (1959) 133-169.
DIEU, L.. La persecution au 2e s~ecle, RHE 38 (1942) 5-30.
DODDS, E. R., Pagan and Christian in an Age of Anxiety, New York, 1965.
EASTWOOD, B. S., Causes of the Early Persecutions. History Today 16 (1966) 555-563.
FREND, W. H. C., Martyrdom and Persecution in the Early Church, New York, 1967.
GEFFCKEN. J., Der Ausgang des griechisch-riimischen Heidentums (Religionswissenschaft-
lithe Bibliothek 6). Heidelberg, 1920.
GEFFCKEN. J., Das Christentum im Kampf und Ausgleich mit der griechisch-romischen
Welt (Aus Natur und Geisteswelt 54). Leipzig, 1920.
GLOVER, T. R.. The Conflict of Religions in the Early Roman Empire, London, 1909.
GLOVER, T. R.. The Influence of Christ in the Ancient World, Cambridge, 1929.
GRANT, F. C.. Religio Licita, Studia Patristica 4 (Texte und Untersuchungen 79). Leipzi’g,
1961. 84ff.
GR~GOIRE, H., Les persecutions dans l’empire Romam (Academie royale de Belgique, C&se
des Lettres et des Sciences morales et politiques, Memoires 2,46,1) Bruxelles, 1950.
GUTERMAN, S. L., Religions Toleration and Persecution in Ancient Rome, London, 1954.
HARDY, E. G., Christianity and the Roman Government, London, 1894 (reprinted: Studies
in Roman History 1, London, 1910).
HARNACK, A. VON. Die Mission und Ausbreitung des Christentums in den ersten drei Jahr-
hunderten, 2 Bde., Leipzig, 1924 (repr. 1965).
HARNACK, A. VON. Geschichte der altchristlichen Liters&r bis Eusebius, 2 Bde., Leipzig.
1893-1904 (repr. 1958), 865-876.
HOMO, L., Les empereurs remains et le Christianisme, Paris, 1931.
JUDGE, E. A., The Social Patterns of the Christian Groups in the First Century, London, 1959.
KRUGER, G., Die Rechtsstellung der vorkonstantinischen Kirchen. Stuttgart, 1935.
LABRIOLLE, P. DE, La reaction paienne. Etude snr la polemique antichretienne du Ier an
Vie si&cle, Paris, 1934.
LINCK. K.. De Antiquissimis Veterum quae Ad Iesum Nazarenum Spectant Testimoniis,
GieDen. 1913.
LINSENMAYER, A.. Die Bekampfung des Christenturns durch den rdmischen Staat bis rum
Tode des Kaisers Julian (363). Miinchen. 1905.
MARKUS. R. A., Christianity in the ,Roman World, New York, 1974.
MEYER, ED., Ursprnng und Anflnge des Christenturns, 3 Bde., Leipzig, 1923 (repr. Darm-
stadt 1962).
MOLTHAGEN, J., Der rdmische Staat und die Christen im zweiten und dritten Jahrhnndei-t
(Hypomnemata 28). Gottingen. 1970.

1112 STEPHEN BENKO
MOMIGLIANO. A., The Conflict Between Paganism and Christianity in the Fourth Century,
Oxford, 1963.
MOREAU. J., Die Christenverfolgung im romischen Reich (Aus der Welt der Religion, N.F. 2).
Berlin, New York ‘1971.
MOREAU, J., Les plus anciens temoignages profanes sur Jesus. Bruxelles, 1944.
NESTLE, W., Die Haupteinwande des antiken Denkens gegen das Christentum, Archiv ftir
Religionswissenschaft 37 (1941). 51-100.
NOCK, A. D., Early Gentile Christianity and its Hellenistic Background, New York,
1964.
NOCK, A. D.. Conversion. The Old and the New in Religion from Alexander the Great to
Augustine of Hippo, Oxford, 1933 (1961).
LA PIANA. G.. Foreign Groups in Rome During the First Centuries of the Empire, HTR 20
(1927) 183ff.
RAHNER, H., Kirche und Staat im friihen Christentum. Dokumente aus acht Jahrhunderten
und ihre Deutung. Mtinchen, 1961.
SHERWIN-WHITE, A. N., Why Were the Early Christians Persecuted 1 An Amendment, Past
and Present 27 (1964) 23ff.
SIMPSON, A. D., Epicureans, Christians, Atheists in the Second Century, TAPA 72 (1941)
372ff.
SPEIGL, J., Der romische Staat und die Christen: Staat und Kirche van Domitian bis Com-
modus, Amsterdam, 1970.
DE STE CROIX , G. E., Why Were the Early Christians Persecuted ?, Past and Present 26
(1963) 6ff. and 27 (1964) 28ff.
VOGT, J., Christenverfolgung (historisch), RAC 2 (1954) 1159-1208.
VOGT. J., Die Zlhlung der Christenverfolgungen im Rijmischen Reich, La Parola de1 Passato 9
(1954) 5-15.
VOGT. J., Zur Religiosit;it der Christenverfolger im Romischen Reich (Sitzungsberichte der
Heidelberger Akademie. Phil.-Hist. Klasse, 1963, Abhandlung l), Heidelberg, 1962.
WENGER, L.. Erste Berilhrung des Christenturns mit dem romischen Recht, in: Miscellanea
G. Mercati 5 (Studi e testi 125). Rome, 1946, 509-607.
WILCKEN, U., Zu den Kaiserreskripten, Hermes 55 (1920) 142.
WLOSOK, A., Die Rechtsgrundlagen der Christenverfolgungen der ersten zwei Jahrhunderte,
Gymnasium 66 (1969) 14-32.
WLOSOK. A., Rom und die Christen. Zur Auseinandersetzung zwischen Christentum und
romischem Staat (Der Altsprachhche Unterricht 13,1), Stuttgart, 1970.
B. Bibliography to Single Chapters
I. Suetonius
BAMMEL, E., Judenverfolgung und Naherwartung, Zeitschrift f. Theo]. u. Kirche 56 (1959)
295-297.
BENKO, STEPHEN, The Edict of Claudius of A.D. 49, Theologische Zeitschrift 25 (1969) 406
418.
BICKERMAN, E. J., The Name of Christians, HTR 42 (1949) 109-126.
BRUCE, F. F., Christianity Under Claudius, Bull. of the John Rylands Libr. 44 (1962) 309-326.
CHARLESWORTH. M. P., Documents Illustrating the Reigns of Claudius and Nero, Cambridge,
1951.
JANNE, H.. Imp&ore Chresto. Annuaire de 1’Institut de Philos. et d’Hist. Orientales 2,
Brussels, 1934, 531-663.
PAGAN CRITICISM OF CHRISTIANITY 1113
MAY. G., La politique rehgieuse de l’empereur Claude. Nouvelle rev. hist. de droit franc& et
&ranger 17 (1938) 37-45.
MOMIGLIANO, A., Claudius: the Emperor and his Achievement, Oxford, 1962.
PETERSON, E., Christianus, in: Miscellanea G. Mercati 6 (Studi e Testi 126). Rome, 1946,
355-372.
%RAI&UZZA. V. M., The Emperor Claudius (Harvard Historical Studies 44). New York, Cam-
bridge, 1940.
SESTON, W.. L’empereur Claude et les chretiens, Rev. d’histoire et de philos. religieuses 11
(1931) 275-304.
URCH, E. J.. Early Roman Understanding of Christianity, Classical Journal 27 (1932) 255-262.
II. Tacitus
BARNES, T. D.. Legislation Against the Christians, JRS 58 (1968) 32ff.
BAUER. I. B.. Tacitus und die Christen, Gymnasium 64 (1957) 497-513.
Baa&, J.,’ L’incendie de Rome en 64 et les chretiens. Latomus 19 (1960) 65-80 and
291-311.
BISHOP, J., Nero: the Man and the Legend, London, 1964.
BORLEFFS, J. W. P., Institutum Neronianum. VC 6 (1952) 129-145.
BOURGERY, Le probleme de 1’Institutum Neronianum, Latomus 2 (1938) 106-111.
B~CHNER. K., Humanitas Romana. Studien iiber Werke und Wesen der Romer. Heidelberg,
1957. pp. 229-239.
BWHNER. K.. Tacitus fiber die Christen, Aegyptus 33 (1353) 181ff.
CALLEWAERT, C., Les premiers chrdtiens furent-ils persecutes par edits generaux ou par
mesures de police?, RHE 2 (1901) 771ff. and RHE 3 (1902) 5ff.
CANFIELD. L. H., The Early Persecution of the Christians, New York, 1913.
CLAYTON, F. W., Tacitus and Nero’s Persecution of the Christians, CQ 41 (1947) 81-85.
CUQ. E., De la nature des crimes imputes aux chretiens d’apres Tacite, in: Melanges d’archeo-
logie et d’histoire, publib par 1’Ecole fran@se de Rome 6, Paris, 1886, 115ff.
DIBELIUS, M., Rom und die Christen im ersten Jahrhundert (SHAW 11.2) Heidelberg, 1941-
1942, lff.
DIBELIUS, M., Nero und die Christen, Forschungen und Fortschritte 18 (1942) 189-190.
FRAENKEL. E.. Senatus consultum de Bacchanahbus. Hermes 67 (1932) 369-396.
FUCHS. H.1 Tacitus Uber die Christen, VC 4 (1950) 65-93. -
GELZER, M., Die Unterdriickung der Bacchanalien bei Livius, Hermes 71 (1936) 275-287.
GETTY, ROBERT J., Nero’s Indictment of the Christians, The Classical Tradition: Literary
and Historical Studies in Honor of Harry Caplan. Edited by LUITPOLD WALLACH.
Ithaca, N.Y., 1966.
HERMANN, L., Les Juifs et la persecution des Chretiens par N&on. Latomus 20 (1961) 817-820.
HERMANN. L., Quels chretiens ont incendie Rome ?. Revue beige de philologic 27 (1949)
633-661.
HITCHCOCK. M., The Charges against the Christians in Tacitus, The Church Quarterly Review
109 (1930) 300ff.
HOSPBRS-JAUSER. A. M. A., Tacitus over de Joden Hist. 5.2-13.. Groningen, 1949.
KEIL. J., Das sogenannte senatusconsultum de Bacchanahbus, Hermes 68 (1933) 306-312.
KOESTERMANN, Ein folgenschwerer Irrtum des Tacitus (Ann. XV, 44, 2ff.) ?, Historia 16
(1967) 456469.
KRAUSE. W.. Zum Aufbau der Bacchanal-Inschrift. Hermes 71 (1936) 214-220.
KURFESS, A.: Der Brand und die Christenverfolgung im Jahre 64 n. Chr., Mnemosyne 6 (1938)
261 ff.
KURFESS. A.. Tacitus fiber die Christen, VC 5 (1951) 148f.
LAST. H., The Study of the Persecutions, JRS 27 (1937) 80ff.
LAST, H., Christenverfolgungen (juristisch), RAC 2 (1954) 1208-1228.
McDoNALD. A. H., Rome and the Italian Confederation (200-186 B.C.), JRS 34 (1944) llff.
?dICHELPEIT, J.. Das Christenkapitel des Tacitus. Gymnasium 73 (1966) 51P540.
MOYIGLIANO. A., Nero, CAH 10, Cambridge, 1963, 702ff.
1114 STEPHEN BENKO
MOMIGLIANO. A., The Persecution of the Christians, CAH 10, Cambridge, 1963, 887f.
NESTLE, W., Odium generis humani, Klio 21 (1927) 91-93.
Roes. A. G., Nero and the Christians, in: Symbola van Oven, Leiden, 1946, 297-306.
SAUMAGNE, CH.. Tertullien et 1’Institutum Neronianum. Theologische Zeitschrift (Basel) 17
(1961) 334-355.
SCHEDA, Nero und der Brand Rams, Historia 16 (1967) 111-115.
SHERWIN-WHITE, A. N.. The Early Persecutions and Roman Law Again, JTS 3 (1952) 199-
213.
VAN SON, D. W. L.. Livius’ Behandehng van de Bacchanalia, Amsterdam, 1960.
ZEILLER, J.. Institutum Neronianum. RHE 55 (1955) 393-400.
ZELLER, E., Das Odium Humani Generis der Christen, Zeitschrift fur wissenschafthche Theo-
logic 34 (1891) 356ff.
III. Pliny the Younger
BABEL, H.. Der Briefwechsel zwischen Phnius und Trajan fiber die Christen in strafrechtlicher
Sicht, Diss. Erlangen, 1961.
BEAUJEU, J.. Pline Le Jeune 1955-1960. Lustrum 6 (1961) 272-303 (further literature here).
DIEU, L., La prosecution au IIe siecle. Une loi fantome, RHE 37 (1942) 5-19.
DBLGER, F. J., Sol Salutis. Gebet und Gesang im Christlichen Alter-turn (Liturgiegeschicht-
lithe Forschungen 4, 5) Miinster. 1920.
DURRY, M., Pline le jeune IV, Coil. Bud& Paris, 1959.
FREUDENBERGER, R., Das Verhalten der romischen Behdrden gegen die Christen im 2. Jahr-
hundert. Dargestellt am Brief des Plinius an Trajan und den Reskripten Trajans und
Hadrians (Miinchener Beitrlge zur Papyrusforschung und Antiken Rechtsgeschichte 12),
Miinchen. s1969.
GAUDEMET, J., La Juridiction provinciale d’apres la correspondance entre Pline et Trajan,
Revue Internationale des Droits de I’Antiquite 11 (1964) 335-353.
GRANT. R. M., Pliny and the Christians, HTR 41 (1948) 273ff.
HARDY, E. G., Epistulae ad Traianum Imperatorem cum eiusdem responsis. London, 1889.
KORTES. A., Zu Plinius’ Brief iiber die Christen, Hermes 63 (1928) 481ff.
KURFESS. A., Plinius der Jiingere fiber die Bithynischen Christen, Mnemosyne III 7 (1939)
237-240.
LIETZMANN, H., Die liturgischen Angaben des Plinius. in: Geschichtliche Studien fhr A. Hauck,
Leipzig, 1916. 34-35.
LIETZMANN, H., Carmen - Taufsymbol, Rheinisches Museum 71 (1916) 281ff.
LEIPOLDT, J., Gebet und Zauber im Urchristentum, ZK 54 (1935) l-12.
MAYER-MALY, T., Der rechtsgeschichthche Gehalt der Christenbriefe van Plinius und Trajan,
Studia et Documenta Historiae et Iuris 22 (1956) 311-328.
MERRILL, E. T., Tertullian on Pliny’s Persecution of the Christians, American Journal of
Theology 22 (1918) 124ff.
MOHLBERG, C., Carmen Christo quasi Deo, Rivista di Archaeologia Cristiana 14 (1937)
93-123.
MILLER , K.. Kleine Beitrage zur alten Kirchengeschichte, ZNW 23 (1924) 214ff.
NOCK, A. D.. The Christian Sacramenturn in Pliny. Classicsd Review 38 (1924) 5959.
OTTO. W., Zur Lebensgeschichte des jGngeren Plinius (Sitzungsberichte der Bayerischen
Akademie, Philos.-philol. und hist. Klasse 1919). Munchen, 1919.
REICHEL. H. J., Der Romische Staat und die Christen im 1. und 2. Jahrhundert, Diss. Ham-
burg, 1962.
RONCONI, A., Tacito, Plinio e i Cristiani, in: Studi in onore di U. E. Paoli, Florenz. 1956.
615-628.
ROSTOVTSEV, M., Pontus, Bithynia and the Bosporus, Annual of the British School at Athens
22 (1916-1918) l-22.
SCHMID, W., Ein verkannter Ausdruck der Opfersprache in Phnius’ Christenbrief, VC (1953)
75-78.
STOUT, S. E.. The Basis of the Text in Book X of Pliny’s Letters, TAPA 86 (1955) 233-249.
PAGAN CRITICISM OF CHRISTIANITY 1115
WEBER, W., Net nostri saeculi est. Bemerkungen zum Briefwechsel des Plinius und Trajan
tiber die Christen, in: Festgabe Karl Miiller zum 70. Geburtstag dargebracht. Tiibingen.
1922. 24-45.
WICKERT. L., Zum Christenbrief des Plinius, Rheinisches Museum 100 (1957) 100.
SHERWIN-WHITE, A. N.. Trajan’s Replies to Pliny, JRS 52 (1960) 114ff.
SHERWIN-WHITE. A. N., The Letters of Pliny, Oxford, 1962.
VIDMAN. L.. Die Mission Plinius des Jiingeren in Bithynien. Klio 37 (1959) 217-231.
WILCKEN. U., Plinius’ Reisen in Bithynien und Pontus, Hermes 49 (1914) 12&136.
IV. Epictetus
BONHGFFER. A., Epiktet und das Neue Testament (Religionsgeschichtliche Versuche und
Vorarbeiten 10). Giegen. 1911.
BULTMANN. R., Der Stil der paulinischen Predigt und die kynisch-stoische Diatribe (For-
schungen zur Religion und Literatur des Alten und Neuen Testaments 13). Gettingen,
1910.
MIRTH. FR.. Epiktet und sein Verhlltnis sum Christenturn, Festschrift 50 Vers. Klass.
Philol.. Graz, 1909, 17%194.
SEVENSTER, J. N., Paul and Seneca (Suppl. Novum Testamenturn 4), Leiden, 1961.
SHARP. D. S., Epictetus and the New Testament, London, 1914.
SPANNEUT, M., Epiktet, RAC 5 (1962) 599-682.
STEGEMANN. VIKTOR, Christentum und Stoizismus im Kampf urn die geistigen Lebenswerte
im 2. Jahrh. n. Chr., Die Welt als Geschichte 7 (1941) 295-330.
XENAKIS, J.. Epictetus Philosopher-therapist, The Hague, 1969.
ZAHN, Tn.. Der Stoiker Epiktet und sein Verhaltnis sum Christenturn. Erlangen, 1894.
V I . Hadrian
BARNES, T.. Legislation Against the Christians, JRS 58 (1968) 32-50.
BICKERMAN. E. J., Trajan, Hadrian and the Christians, Rivista di Filologia e di Istruzione
Classica 96 (1968) 290-315.
CALLEWARRT, C., Le rescrit d’Hadrien a Minicius Fundanus, Revue d’histoire et de litterature
religieuses 8 (1903) 152-189.
COLEMAN-NORTON, P. R., Roman State and Christian Church: A Collection of Legal Documents
to A.D. 535, 3 volumes, London, 1966.
FREUDENBERGER, R.. op. cit. under Pliny.
KERESZTES, P.. The Emperor Hadrian’s Rescript to Minucius Fundanus, Phoenix 21 (1967)
120-12s.
KERESZTES, P., Hadrian’s Rescript to Minucius Fundanus, Latomus 26 (1967) 54-66.
MERRILL, E. T., Essays in Early Christian History, London, 1924.
MOREAU. J., La persecution du Christianisme dans l’empire Romain (Mythes et Religions 32).
Paris, 1956, 4749.
D’ORGEVAL. B., L’empereur Hadrien, oeuvre legislative et administrative, Paris, 19m.
PLESCIA. J.. On the Persecution of the Christians in the Roman Empire, Latomus 30 (1971)
120-132.
SCHMID, W., The Christian Re-interpretation of the Rescript of Hadrian, Maia 7 (1955) 5-13.
SYME, R., Pliny’s less successful friends, Historia 9 (1950) 362-379.
THORNTON. M. K.. Hadrian and his Reign, ANRW II 2. ed. by H. TEMPORINI, Berlin-New
York, 1975, 432-476.
VII. Marcus Cornelius Front0
BENKO. S.. The Libertine Gnostic Sect of the Phibionites according to Epiphanius, Vigihae
Christianae 21 (1967) 103-119.
BICKERMAN, E., Ritualmord und Eselskult, Monatsschrift fiir Geschichte und Wissenschaft
des Judentums 71 (1927) 171-187.
1116 STEPHEN BENKO
BBCHNER, K., Drei Beobachtungen zu Minucius Felix, Hermes 82 (1952) 231ff.
CLARKE, G. W., The Octavius of Minucius Felix, New York 1976.
CLARKE. G. W., Four Passages in Minucius Felix, in: Kyriakon. Festschrift Johannes Quasten.
2, Mtinster, 1970, 499ff.
D~LGER, F. J., Sacramenturn infanticidii, in: ID., Antike und Christentum 4 (1934) 188-228.
FOERSTER, W., Die Gnosis 1, Zurich, 1969.
FREUDENBERGER, R., Der Vorwurf ritueller Verbrechen, Theologische Zeitschrift 23 (1967)
97-107.
HENRICHS. A., Pagan Ritual and the AUeged Crimes of the Early Christians, in: Kyriakon.
Festschrift Johannes Quasten, 1. Mfinster, 1970, 18-35.
SPEYER, W.. Zu den Vorwiirfen der Heiden gegen die Christen, Jahrbuch fur Antike und
Christentum 6 (1963) 129ff.
WAGENVOORT. H., Minuciana (ad Oct. 3.1; 29.2). in: Melanges offerts a Mme Christine
Mohrmann. Utrecht, 1963, 66-72.
W ALTZING . I.-P.. Le crime rituel reprochd aux chretiens du IIe siecle, Acad. Royale de
Belgique, Bull. de la classe des Lettres 2. Bruxelles 1925, 205-239.
WALTZING, J.-P., Minucius Felix 9.1 et 34.6, Musee belge 14 (1910) 61ff
VIII. Lucius Apuleius
ABT, A., Die Apologie des Apuleius von Madaura und die antike Zauberei (Rehgionsgeschicht-
lithe Versuche und Vorarbeiten 4, 2). GieBen, 1908.
GLODR, T. R., The Conflict of Religions in the Early Roman Empire, Boston. 1960. 230.
HAIGHT. E. H., Apuleius and His Influence (Our Debt to Greece and Rome 17). London, 1927.
HELM, R.. Apuleius v. Madaura, RAC 1 (1960) 573f.
DE LABRIOLLE, P., La reaction paienne. op. cit., General Bibliography.
NOCK, A. D., Conversion. The Old and the New in Religion from Alexander the Great to
Augustine of Hippo, London, 1933.
VALLETTE, P.. L’apologie d’Apulee. Diss. Paris, 1908.
IX. Marcus Aurelius
BIRLLEY. A. R., Marcus Aurelius, London, 1966.
COLEMAN-NORTON, P. R., Roman State and Christian Church: A Collection of Legal DOCU-
merits to A.D. 636, London 1966, Vol. 1.
HAINES, C. R., The Communings with Himself of Marcus Aurelius Antoninus. London. 1916.
KERESZTES, P., Marcus Aurelius a Persecutor ?, HTR 61 (1968) 321-341.
MARTINAZZOLI, F., Parataxeis. Le testimonianze stoiche sul cristianesimo (Biblioteca di
cultura 46). Firenze, 1963.
PHIPPS, C. B., Persecution under Marcus Aurelius, Hermathena 47 (1932) 167-201.
SORDI, M., I nuovi decreti di Marco Aurelio contra i cristiani. Studi Romani 9 (1962) 366.
SCHMID, W., The Christian Re-interpretation of the Rescript of Hadrian, Maia 7 (1955) l&13.
STANTON, G. R., Marcus Aurelius, Lucius Verus and Commodus, ANRW II 2, ed. by H.
TEMPORINI, Berlin-New York, 1976, 478-548 (here also up to date Bibliography).
WAGENVOORT, H., Marcus Aurelius en zijn verhouding tot het Christendom, in: Christendom
en Historic, Amsterdam, 1926. 46-66.
X. Lucian of Samosata
BABELON, E., Le Faux-Prophete, Alexandre d’hbonuteichos, Rev. Num. 4 (1900) lff.
BAGNANI, G., Peregrinus Proteus and the Christians, Historia 4 (1955) 107-112.
BETZ, H. D., Lukian von Samosata und das Christenturn, Novum Testamenturn 3 (1968)
226-237.
BETZ, H. D., Lukian von Samosata und das Neue Testament (Texte und Untersuchungen 76).
Berlin, 1961 (here complete Bibliography).
BOWERSOCK. G. W., The Sophists in the Roman Empire, Oxford, 1969 (Chapter 9).
PAGAN CRITICISM OF CHRISTIANITY 1117
CASTER, M.. Lucien et la pensee rehgieuse de son temps. Paris, 1937, 346357.
CASTER, M., Etudessur Alexandre ou le faux prophete de Lucien. Paris. 19.38
CARTI, C.. Luciano e i Cristiani, Catania. 1954: -
DUMMER. V.. Lucien de Samosate et la secte chretienne. Paris. 1957
GLOVER, T. R., The Conflict of Religions in the Early Roman Empire, London, 1909. repr.
Boston, 1960. and New York. 1975.
HELM, R., Lucian und Menippus. Leipzig. Berlin. 1906.
JEBB. R. C., Essays and Addresses, Cambridge, 1907, 164-192 (‘Lucian’).
Neck. A. D.. Alexander of Abonuteichos, CQ 22 (1928) 160ff.
PACK. R., The ‘volatilization’ of Peregrinus Proteus, Amer. Journal of Philology 67 (1948)
334-345.
For a complete Bibliography until 1960 see H. D. BETZ, Lukian von Samosata und das Neue
Testament, pp. 215-251.
XI. Aelius Aristides
BEHR. C. A., Aelms Aristides and the Sacred Tales, Amsterdam, 1968.
BouLANoua, A., Aehus Aristide et la sophistique dans la province d’Asie au IIe siecle de notre
Bre. Paris, 1923.
FROCHTEL, L., Aristides Rhetor, RAC 1 (1950). 654-666.
DE LABR~OLLE. P.. La reaction paienne. op. cit., 79-87, General Bibliography.
van Wrr~~owrrz-MOELLENDORF, U.. Der Rhetor A&tides (Sitzungsberichte der preug.
Akademie der Wissenschaften. Phil.-hist. Klasse 28). Berlin, 1925, 333-353.
XII. Galen of Pergamum
BOWERSOCK, G. W., The Sophists in the Roman Empire, Oxford, 1969.
ELLSPERMANN. G. L., The Attitude of Early Christian Latin Writers Towards Pagan Liter-
ature and Learning, Washington, 1949.
DE LABRIOLLE. P.. La reaction paienne, op. cit., 94-97, General Bibliography.
SARTON. G., Galen of Pergamon, Kansas, 1964, pp. 85-87.
SCHBNE. H., Ein Einbruch der antiken Logik und Textkritik in die altchristliche Theologie.
Eusebius KG 5.28.13/19 in neuer Ubertragung erlautert, in: Pisciculi; Studien zur Reli-
gion und Kultur des Altertums. Franz Joseph Dolger zum sechzigsten Geburtstage dar-
geboten, hg. von THEODOR KLAUSER und ADOLF ROCKER, Miinster. 1939.
WALZER, R., Galen on Jews and Christians, London, 1949.
WALZER, R., Galenos. RAC 8 (1972) 777-786.
WILKEN, R. L., Collegia, Philosophical Schools and Theology, in: The Catacombs and the
Colosseum, S. BENKO and J. J. O’ROURKE, editors, Philadelphia, 1971. 268-291.
X I I I . Celsus
ANDRESEN, C., Logos und Nomos, Die Polemik des Kelsos wider das Christentum (Arbeiten
zur Kirchengeschichte 30). Berlin, 1965.
BADER, R., Der ‘Ahqthjs A6yw des Kelsos (Ttibinger Beitrage zur Altertumswissensch~t
33). Stuttgart, 1940.
BARNIKOL. E., Celsus und Origenes (Texte und Untersuchungen 77). Berlin, 1961.
DEN BOER, W., Gynaeconitis: A centre of Christian Propaganda, VC 4 (1950) 61-64.
DEN BOER, W., Celsus. de eerste bestrijder van het Christendom. Groninaen. 1950.
CATAUDELLA. Q.. Celso e l’epicureismo, Annali della Scuola Normale superiore di Piss,
Lettere. storia e filosofia II 12 (1943) l-23.
CATAUDELLA, Q., CeIso e gh Apologeti Chstiani. Nuovo DidaskaIeion 1 (1947) 28-34.
CHADWICK. H., Origen. Celsus and the Stoa, JTS 48 (1947) 34-49.
CHADWICK. H.. Origen. Celsus and the Resurrection of the Body, HTR 41 (1948) 83-102.
72 ANRW II 23 2
1118 STEPHEN BENKO

CHADWICK, H., Origen, Contra Celsum. Translated with an introduction and notes, Cambridge,
1963.
GL~CKNER, 0.. Celsi Alethes Logos (Kleine Texte 161). Bonn, 1924.
J ORDAN , H., Celsus. die Blteste umfassende Kritik des Christenturns. in: W. LAIBLE,
Moderne Irrttimer im Spiegel der Geschichte. Leipzig. 1912, p. lff.
KOCH, HAL, Origenes, R.E. 18.1 (1939). 1036-1069.
DE LABRIOLLE, P., La reaction paienne, op. cit., 111-169, General Bibliography.
LODS, M., Etude sur les sources juives de la polemique de Celse contre les chrdtiens, Revue
d’histoire et de philosophic religieuses 21 (1941) 1-31.
MERLAN. PH., Celsus, RAC 2 (1964) 954-965.
MIURA-STANGE, A., Celsus und Origenes (Zeitschrift fib die neutest. Wissenschaft. Beih. 4),
GieOen, 1926.
MUTK, J. F. S., Der Kampf des heidnischen Philosophen Celsus gegen das Christentum,
Mains, 1899.
ROUGIER, L., Celse ou le conflit de la civihsation antique et du Christianisme primitif (Maitres
de la Pensee antichretienne 1). Paris, 1925.
WHALE, J. S., Great Attacks on Christianity: Celsus, Expository Times 42 (1930/31) 119-124.
WIFSTRAND, A., Die Wahre Lehre des Kelsos (Bulletin de la Socidte royale des lettres de
Lund 6). Lund, 1942.