Chapter XI.

In the next place, that He was betrayed by those whom He called His disciples, is a circumstance which the Jew of Celsus learned from the Gospels; calling the one Judas, however, “many disciples,” that he might seem to add force to the accusation.  Nor did he trouble himself to take note of all that is related concerning Judas; how this Judas, having come to entertain opposite and conflicting opinions regarding his Master neither opposed Him with his whole soul, nor yet with his whole soul preserved the respect due by a pupil to his teacher.  For he that betrayed Him gave to the multitude that came to apprehend Jesus, a sign, saying, “Whomsoever I shall kiss, it is he; seize ye him,”—retaining still some element of respect for his Master:  for unless he had done so, he would have betrayed Him, even publicly, without any pretence of affection.  This circumstance, therefore, will satisfy all with regard to the purpose of Judas, that along with his covetous disposition, and his wicked design to betray his Master, he had still a feeling of a mixed character in his mind, produced in him by the words of Jesus, which had the appearance (so to speak) of some remnant of good.  For it is related that, “when Judas, who betrayed Him, knew that He was condemned, he repented, and brought back the thirty pieces of silver to the high priest and elders, saying, I have sinned, in that I have betrayed the innocent blood.  But they said, What is that to us? see thou to that;”180    Matt. xxvii. 3–5.—and that, having thrown the money down in the temple, he departed, and went and hanged himself.  But if this covetous Judas, who also stole the money placed in the bag for the relief of the poor, repented, and brought back the thirty pieces of silver to the chief priests and elders, it is clear that the instructions of Jesus had been able to produce some feeling of repentance in his mind, and were not altogether despised and loathed by this traitor.  Nay, the declaration, “I have sinned, in that I have betrayed the innocent blood,” was a public acknowledgment of his crime.  Observe, also, how exceedingly passionate181    διάπυρος καὶ σφόδρα. was the sorrow for his sins that proceeded from that repentance, and which would not suffer him any longer to live; and how, after he had cast the money down in the temple, he withdrew, and went away and hanged himself:  for he passed sentence upon himself, showing what a power the teaching of Jesus had over this sinner Judas, this thief and traitor, who could not always treat with contempt what he had learned from Jesus.  Will Celsus and his friends now say that those proofs which show that the apostasy of Judas was not a complete apostasy, even after his attempts against his Master, are inventions, and that this alone is true, viz., that one of His disciples betrayed Him; and will they add to the Scriptural account that he betrayed Him also with his whole heart?  To act in this spirit of hostility with the same writings, both as to what we are to believe and what we are not to believe, is absurd.182    ἀπίθανον.  And if we must make a statement regarding Judas which may overwhelm our opponents with shame, we would say that, in the book of Psalms, the whole of the 108th contains a prophecy about Judas, the beginning of which is this:  “O God, hold not Thy peace before my praise; for the mouth of the sinner, and the mouth of the crafty man, are opened against me.”183    Ps. cix. 1, 2.  [cviii. 1, 2, Sept.  S.]  And it is predicted in this psalm, both that Judas separated himself from the number of the apostles on account of his sins, and that another was selected in his place; and this is shown by the words:  “And his bishopric let another take.”184    Ps. cix. 8.  [cviii. 8, Sept.  S.]  But suppose now that He had been betrayed by some one of His disciples, who was possessed by a worse spirit than Judas, and who had completely poured out, as it were, all the words which he had heard from Jesus, what would this contribute to an accusation against Jesus or the Christian religion?  And how will this demonstrate its doctrine to be false?  We have replied in the preceding chapter to the statements which follow this, showing that Jesus was not taken prisoner when attempting to flee, but that He gave Himself up voluntarily for the sake of us all.  Whence it follows, that even if He were bound, He was bound agreeably to His own will; thus teaching us the lesson that we should undertake similar things for the sake of religion in no spirit of unwillingness.

Εἶτα ὅτι μὲν ὑφ' ὧν ὠνόμαζε μαθητῶν προὐδόθη, ἔμαθεν ὁ παρὰ τῷ Κέλσῳ Ἰουδαῖος ἀπὸ τῶν εὐαγγελίων, πολλοὺς εἰπὼν μαθητὰς τὸν ἕνα Ἰούδαν, ἵνα δόξῃ αὔξειν τὴν κατηγορίαν· οὐκέτι δὲ πάντα τὰ περὶ τοῦ Ἰούδα ἀναγεγραμμένα περιειργάσατο, ὅτι μαχομέναις καὶ ἐναντίαις κρίσεσι περιπεσὼν ὁ Ἰούδας περὶ τοῦ διδασκάλου οὔθ' ὅλῃ ψυχῇ γέγονε κατ' αὐτοῦ οὐδ' ὅλῃ ψυχῇ ἐτήρησε τὴν αἰδὼ πρὸς διδάσκαλον φοιτητοῦ. "Ὁ γὰρ παραδιδοὺς αὐτὸν ἔδωκε" τῷ ἐληλυθότι ἐπὶ τὸ συλλαβεῖν τὸν Ἰησοῦν "σημεῖον" ὄχλῳ "λέγων· Ὃν ἂν φιλήσω, αὐτός ἐστι· κρατήσατε αὐτόν", σῴζων τι τῆς πρὸς αὐτὸν αἰδοῦς· εἰ γὰρ μὴ ἔσῳζεν αὐτήν, κἂν μετὰ παρρησίας χωρὶς προσποιήσεως φιλήματος παρέδωκεν αὐτόν. Τοῦτο μὲν οὖν οὐ πάντας πείσει περὶ τῆς τοῦ Ἰούδα προαιρέσεως, ὅτι μετὰ τῆς φιλαργυρίας καὶ τῆς μοχθηρᾶς εἰς τὸ προδοῦναι τὸν διδάσκαλον προαιρέσεως εἶχέ τι ἀναμεμιγμένον ἐν τῇ ψυχῇ ἀπὸ τῶν Ἰησοῦ λόγων αὐτῷ ἐγγεγενημένον, ἔμφασιν ἔχον λείμματος, ἵν' οὕτως ὀνομάσω, χρηστότητος; Γέγραπται γὰρ ὅτι "Ἰδὼν Ἰούδας ὁ παραδιδοὺς αὐτὸνὅτι κατεκρίθη, μεταμεληθεὶς ἔστρεψε τὰ τριάκοντα ἀργύρια τοῖς ἀρχιερεῦσι καὶ πρεσβυτέροις λέγων· Ἥμαρτον παρα δοὺς αἷμα δίκαιον. Οἱ δὲ εἶπον· Τί πρὸς ἡμᾶς; Σὺ ὄψει. Καὶ ῥίψας τὰ ἀργύρια εἰς τὸν ναὸν ἀνεχώρησε, καὶ ἀπελθὼν ἀπήγξατο". Εἰ δ' ὁ φιλάργυρος Ἰούδας καὶ κλέπτων τὰ εἰς λόγον τῶν πενήτων εἰς "τὸ γλωσσόκομον" βαλλόμενα "μεταμεληθεὶς ἔστρεψε τὰ τριάκοντα ἀργύρια τοῖς ἀρχιε ρεῦσι καὶ πρεσβυτέροις", δῆλον ὅτι δεδύνηταί τινα μετα μέλειαν ἐμποιῆσαι αὐτῷ τὰ Ἰησοῦ μαθήματα, οὐ πανταχῇ καταφρονηθέντα ὑπὸ τοῦ προδότου καὶ ἀποπτυσθέντα· ἀλλὰ καὶ τὸ "Ἥμαρτον παραδοὺς αἷμα δίκαιον" ἐξομολογου μένου ἦν τὸ ἡμαρτημένον. Ὅρα δὲ ὅση διάπυρος καὶ σφοδρὰ γέγονεν αὐτῷ ἀπὸ μεταμελείας τῆς ἐπὶ τοῖς ἡμαρτημένοις λύπη, ὡς μηδὲ τὸ ζῆν αὐτὸν ἔτι ὑπομεῖναι ἀλλ' "εἰς τὸν ναὸν" ῥίψαντα τὸ ἀργύριον ἀναχωρῆσαι καὶ ἀπελθεῖν καὶ ἀπάγξασθαι. Ἑαυτὸν γὰρ κατεδίκασε δεικνὺς ὅσον ἐδύνατο καὶ ἐν τῷ ἁμαρτωλῷ τῷ Ἰούδᾳ τῷ κλέπτῃ καὶ προδότῃ ἡ Ἰησοῦ διδασκαλία, οὐ δυνηθέντι πάντῃ καταφρονῆσαι ὧν ἀπὸ τοῦ Ἰησοῦ μεμάθηκεν. Ἢ τὰ μὲν ἐμφαίνοντα τὸ μὴ πάντῃ ἀποστατικὸν τοῦ Ἰούδα καὶ μετὰ τὰ τετολμημένα κατὰ τοῦ διδασκάλου πλάσματα ἐροῦσιν οἱ περὶ τὸν Κέλσον, μόνον δ' ἀληθὲς ὅτι εἷς τῶν μαθητῶν προέδωκεν αὐτόν, καὶ προσθήσουσι τῷ γεγραμμένῳ ὅτι καὶ ὅλῃ ψυχῇ προέδωκεν αὐτόν; Ὅπερ ἐστὶν ἀπίθανον, ἀπὸ τῶν αὐτῶν γραμμάτων πάντα ὡς ἐχθρὸν ποιεῖν, καὶ τὸ πιστεύειν καὶ τὸ ἀπιστεῖν. Εἰ δὲ δεῖ καὶ περὶ τοῦ Ἰούδα δυσωπητικόν τινα παρα θέσθαι λόγον, φήσομεν ὅτι ἐν τῇ βίβλῳ τῶν ψαλμῶν ὅλος ὁ ἑκατοστὸς ὄγδοος ψαλμὸς τὴν περὶ τοῦ Ἰούδα περιέχει προφητείαν, οὗ ἡ ἀρχή· "Ὁ θεός, τὴν αἴνεσίν μου μὴ παρασιωπήσῃς, ὅτι στόμα ἁμαρτωλοῦ καὶ στόμα δολίου ἐπ' ἐμὲ ἠνοίχθη". Προφητεύεται δ' ἐν αὐτῷ καὶ ὅτι Ἰούδας τοῦ μὲν τῶν ἀποστόλων ἀπεχώρισεν ἑαυτὸν διὰ τὴν ἁμαρτίαν ἀριθμοῦ, εἰς δὲ τὸν τόπον αὐτοῦ ἕτερος ἐνεκρίθη· καὶ τοῦτο δηλοῦται ἐν τῷ "καὶ τὴν ἐπισκοπὴν αὐτοῦ λάβοι ἕτερος." Ἀλλὰ γὰρ φέρε ὑπό τινος τῶν μαθητῶν αὐτὸν προδεδόσθαι χεῖρον ἢ Ἰούδας διατεθέντος καὶ ὡσπερεὶ ἐκχέαντος πάντας οὓς ἤκουσε παρὰ τοῦ Ἰησοῦ λόγους· τί τοῦτο πρὸς κατηγορίαν Ἰησοῦ ἢ χριστιανισμοῦ συμβάλλεται; Καὶ πῶς τοῦτο ψευδῆ τὸν λόγον ἀποδείκνυσιν; Ἀπελογησάμεθα δὲ περὶ τῶν ἑξῆς καὶ ἐν τοῖς πρὸ τούτων, δεικνύντες ὅτι οὐ φεύγων ἑάλω ὁ Ἰησοῦς ἀλλ' ἑκὼν ὑπὲρ ἡμῶν πάντων παρέδωκεν ἑαυτόν. Ὧ ἀκόλουθόν ἐστιν ὅτι, εἰ καὶ ἐδέθη, ἑκὼν ἐδέθη, διδάσκων μὴ ἀκουσίως ἡμᾶς ὑπὲρ εὐσεβείας ταῦτα ἀναλαμβάνειν.