Christians Supported the Revolt of Avidius Cassius

[Stephan Huller]

A group of Italian scholars have proposed that the Avidius Cassius's revolt may have been supported by Christians in Alexandria. I think this helps explain the rise of Irenaeus and the transformation of Christianity away from St Mark and Alexandria. I see this context in a series of statements in Celsus (c. 177 CE).

Celsus goes on to say: "We must not disobey the ancient writer, who said long ago, 'Let one be king, whom the son of crafty Saturn appointed;'" and adds: "If you set aside this maxim, you will deservedly suffer for it at the hands of the king. For if all were to do the same as you, there would be nothing to prevent his being left in utter solitude and desertion, and the affairs of the earth would fall into the hands of the wildest and most lawless barbarians; and then there would no longer remain among men any of the glory of your religion or of the true wisdom." [8:68]

Celsus, then, as if not observing that he was saying anything inconsistent with the words he had just used, "if all were to do the same as you," adds: "You surely do not say that if the Romans were, in compliance with your wish, to neglect their customary duties to gods and men, and were to worship the Most High, or whatever you please to call him, that he will come down and fight for them, so that they shall need no other help than his. For this same God, as yourselves say, promised of old this and much more to those who served him, and see in what way he has helped them and you! They, in place of being masters of the whole world, are left with not so much as a patch of ground or a home; and as for you, if any of you transgresses even in secret, he is sought out and punished with death." As the question started is, "What would happen if the Romans were persuaded to adopt the principles of the Christians, to despise the duties paid to the recognised gods and to men, and to worship the Most High?" this is my answer to the question. [8:69]

Οὐ μὴν οὐδὲ ἐκεῖνο ἀνεκτόν σου λέγοντος, ὡς, ἂν οἱ νῦν βασιλεύοντες ἡμῶν σοι πεισθέντες ἁλῶσι, τοὺς αὖθις βασιλεύοντας πείσεις εἶτ' ἄλλους, ἂν κἀκεῖνοι ἁλῶσι, καὶ ἄλλους ἐπ' ἄλλοις, μέχρι πάντων τῶν σοι πειθομένων ἁλισκομένων μία τις ἀρχὴ σωφρονήσασα καὶ προειδομένη τὸ συμβαῖνον πάντας ὑμᾶς, πρὶν αὐτὴν προαπολέσθαι, παγγενεὶ διολέσει

Surely it is intolerable for you to say, that if our present rulers, on embracing your opinions, are taken by the enemy, you will still be able to persuade those who rule after them; and after these have been taken you will persuade their successors and so on, until at length, when all who have yielded to your persuasion have been taken some prudent ruler shall arise, with a foresight of what is impending, and he will destroy you all utterly before he himself perishes.

It is quite intolerable of you to say that if those who now reign over us were persuaded by you and were taken prisoner, you would persuade those who reign after them, and then others, if they too are taken prisoner, and others after them until, when all who are persuaded by you are taken prisoner. There will be a ruler who, being a sensible man and foreseeing what is happening, will utterly destroy you all before you destroy him first. [Chadwick translation]

I would translate:

It is quite intolerable of you to say that if those who now reign over us were persuaded by you and were conquered, you would persuade those who reign after them, and then others, if they too are conquered, and others after them until, when all who are persuaded by you are conquered. There will be a ruler who, being a sensible man and foreseeing what is happening, will utterly destroy you all before you destroy him first.

Origen goes on to say:

Reason does not require us to speak about these remarks; for none of us says of those who now reign that if they are persuaded and taken prisoner, we will then persuade their successors, and if they are taken prisoner we will in turn then persuade their successors, and if they are taken prisoner we will in turn persuade those who follow them. And how did he come to remark that if the last in the succession are persuaded by us and are taken prisoner because they fail to defend themselves against their enemies, there will be a ruler who, being a sensible man and foreseeing what is happening, will utterly destroy us? In these words he seems to be putting together nonsensical statements and to have shrieked out stuff he invented out of his own head. 72. After this he utters a sort of wish: "Would that it were possible to unite under one law the inhabitants of Asia, Europe, and Libya, both Greeks and barbarians even at the furthest limits." As if he thought this impossible he continues that "he who thinks this knows nothing."

On the revolt - http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Avidius_Cassius

[Stephan Huller]

My question was always what does this mean and why would Celsus say it:

Surely it is intolerable for you to say, that if our present rulers, on embracing your opinions, are taken by the enemy (or 'are overcome, defeated, conquered'), you will still be able to persuade those who rule after them; and after these have been taken (or 'are overcome, defeated, conquered'), you will persuade their successors and so on, until at length, when all who have yielded to your persuasion have been taken some prudent ruler shall arise, with a foresight of what is impending, and he will destroy you all utterly before he himself perishes.

This seems like such a strange argument when you think about it. Is Celsus just referencing Christian appeals to the Emperor (a la Justin Martyr)? The more I think about it the less likely that actually seems. The Christians apparently convinced an Emperor to embrace their opinions. This has to be considered to be the historical context. This Emperor must have 'been conquered' here is the Liddell entry:

ἁλίσκομαι [α^λ], defect. Pass., Act. supplied by αἱρέω （
A. [select] “ἁλίσκω” Aq. Ps.21(22).14, cf. “ἐλέφας μῦν οὐχ ἁλίσκει” Zen.3.67): impf. ἡλισκόμην (never ἑαλ-) Hdt., etc.: fut. “ἁλώσομαι” Hdt., etc., later “ἁλωθήσομαι” LXX Ez.21.24 (19) cod. A: aor. (the only tense used by Hom.) “ἥλων” Od.22.230, always in Hdt., and sometimes in codd. of Att., as Pl. Hp.Ma. 286a, Hyp.Eux.15, cf. X.An.4.4.21, but the common Att. form was “ἑάλων” IG2.38, etc., cf. Thom.Mag.146 [α_, Ar.V.355, later α^ AP7.114 (D.L.), 11.155 (Lucill.); α^ in other moods, exc. part. “ἁλόντε” Il.5.487, inf., v. infr.]; subj. “ἁλῶ, ῷς, ῷ” A.Th.257, E.Hipp. 420, Ar.Ach.662, V.898, etc., Ion. “ἁλώω” Il.11.405, “ἁλώῃ” 14.81, Hdt. 4.127; opt. “ἁλοίην” Il.22.253, Antipho 5.59, etc., Ep. 3sg. ἁλῴη (v.l. ἁλοίη, which is to be preferred) Il.17.506, Od.15.300; inf. ἁλῶναι [α^] Il.21.281, [α_] Hippon.74, s.v.l., Ep. “ἁλώμεναι” Il.21.495; part. “ἁλούς” Il.2.374, etc.; later, inf. ἁλωθῆναι v.l. in LXX Ez.40.1, D.S.21.6: pf. “ἥλωκα” Hdt.1.83, Antiph.204.7, Xenarch.7.17, Hyp.Phil.11, D. 21.105; part. “ἁλωκότα” Pi.P.3,57; ἑάλωκα [α^λ] A.Ag.30, Hdt. 1.191, 209 codd., and Att., as Th.3.29, Pl.Ap.38d, D.19.179: plpf. “ἡλώκειν” Hdt.1.84, X.An.5.2.8.: (ϝαλ-, cf. “ϝαλίσσκηται” IG9(2).1226 (Thess.), ϝαλόντοις ib.5(2).351.7 (Stymphalus)):—to be taken, conquered, fall into an enemy's hand, of persons and places, Il.2.374, etc.; ἁλώσεται (sc. ὁ Κρέων) S.OC1065; ἁλίσκεσθαι εἰς πολεμίους to fall into the hands of the enemy, Pl.R.468a, IG12(7).5 (Amorg.); “ἐν τοιαύταις ξυμφοραῖς” Pl.Cri.43c.

2. [select] to be caught, seized, of persons and things, θανάτῳ ἁλῶναι to be seized by death, die, Il.21.281, Od.5.312; without θανάτῳ, Il.12.172, Od.18.265, etc.; ἄνδρ᾽ ἐκ θνάτου κομίσαι ἤδη ἁλωκότα (sc. νόσῳ) Pi.P.3.57; γράμματα ἑάλωσαν εἰς Ἀθήνας letters were seized and taken to Athens, X.HG1.1.23; τοῖς αὑτῶν πτεροῖς ἁλισκόμεσθα, of eagle, i.e. by a feathered arrow, A.Fr.139:—to be taken or caught in hunting, Il.5.487, X.An.5.3.10:—ἁ. ἀπάταις, μανίᾳ, S.El.125, Aj.216; “ὑπ᾽ ἔρωτος” Pl.Phdr.252c; “ὑπὸνουσήματος τεταρταίου” Hp.Nat.Hom.15; “νοσήματι” Arist.Pr.954a35, etc.; μιᾷ νίκῃ ἁλίσκονται by one victory they are ruined, Th.1.121: abs., to be overcome, A.Eu.67, S.Aj.648.

3. [select] in good sense, to be won. achieved, S.OT542, E.Alc.786, X.Cyn.12.21.

4. [select] c. gen., succumb to, τῆς ὥρας, τοῦ κάλλους, Ael.VH12.52, Ps.-Luc. Charid.9; “κόρης” Philostr.Her.8.2, prob. in Eun.Hist.p.238D.

5. [select] to be established by argument, proved, Phld.Sign.29,33.

II. [select] c. part., to be caught or detected doing a thing, “οὔτε σὺ ἁλώσεαι ἀδικέων” Hdt.1.112; ἐπιβουλεύων ἐμοὶ . . ἑάλωκε ib.209; “ἐὰν ἁλῷς ἔτι τοῦτο πράττων” Pl.Ap.29c; with Subst. or Adj., “οὐ γὰρ δὴ φονεὺς ἁλώσομαι” S.OT576; “μοιχὸς γὰρ ἢν τύχῃς ἁλούς” Ar.Nu.1079; “ἁ. ἐν κακοῖσι” S. Ant.496.

2. [select] freq. as law-term, to be convicted and condemned, “λιποταξίου γραφὴν ἡλωκέναι” D.21.105, cf. Antipho 2.2.9, 2.3.6; ἁ. “μιᾷ ψήφῳ” And.4.9:—c. gen. criminis, <*>῾λῶναι ψευδομαρτυριῶν, ἀστρατείας, ἀσεβείας, etc. (sc. γραφήν), v. sub vocc.; ἁ. θανάτου to be convicted of a capital crime, Plu.2.552d; ἁλοῦσα δίκη conviction, Pl.Lg. 937d; of false evidence, ὁπόσων ἂν μαρτυρίαι ἁλῶσιν ibid.

So Celsus's statement comes after an Emperor embraced their doctrines and was defeated, conquered, overcome etc. Otherwise the whole thing doesn't make any sense. Compare that with what immediately preceded this statement:

all were to do the same as you, you surely do not say that if the Romans were, in compliance with your wish, to neglect their customary duties to gods and men, and were to worship the Most High, or whatever you please to call him, that he will come down and fight for them, so that they shall need no other help than his. For this same God, as yourselves say, promised of old this and much more to those who served him, and see in what way he has helped them and you! They, in place of being masters of the whole world, are left with not so much as a patch of ground or a home; and as for you, if any of you transgresses even in secret, he is sought out and punished with death

The idea seems to be that the defeat of this Emperor is like the defeat of the Jews during the bar Kochba revolt. In other words, the Christian god has had a series of defeats for its leaders which proves the superiority of the Roman gods.

[Stephan Huller]

It all comes down to the meaning of the ἁλίσκομαι. Here is it being used in Socrates's speech from the Apology 38d6:

I have been convicted (perfect of ἁλίσκομαι) by a lack—not, however, (a lack) of arguments/speeches, but of boldness and shamelessness and being willing to say to you the kind of things that would be most pleasant for you to hear : me weeping and wailing and doing other things and saying many things unworthy of myself, take it from me, the kind of things, indeed, that you are accustomed to hear others besides me (doing).

[andrewcriddle]

I have suspected that Celsus is attacking Christian pacifism. If the emperor becomes Christian (as Christians hope) he will be so reluctant to kill people that he will be overthrown by someone less squeamish. Christians may hope to eventually convert to Christianity the overthrower of the initial Christian emperor, but this would lead to his overthrow in turn.

Eventually someone is going to realise the threat Christians pose to stable government and take drastic measures.

Andrew Criddle