1: Miscellaneous Objections

Apocrit. II.7-II.12

[Matt. 10.34] * [1]

The words of Christ, "I came not to bring peace but a sword. I came to separate a son from his father," belie the true intentions of the Christians. They seek riches and glory. Far from being friends of the empire, they are renegades waiting for their chance to seize control. [2]

[Matt. 12.48-49]*

That Christ is a mere man is proved from the fact that he claimed kinship with his disciples while rejecting ties to his natural family. It is clear that Christ preferred the company of his followers to that of his mother and brothers. [3]

[Mark 10.18]*

That Christ is merely human is proved further from his own mouth, when he rebukes a man in the following terms: "Why do you call me good [when] no one is good except God?" [4]

[Matt. 17.15]*

Christ on occasion shows no more insight than the Jews, for he agrees to cure a boy thought by his father to be a lunatic when in fact it was a demon that was troubling the boy. [5]

[John 5.31)*

Christ contradicts himself and proves himself a liar when he says. "If I bear witness to myself, then my witness is not true." But in saying [John 8.12-13], "I am the light of the world" (and other, similar things) he does bear witness to himself -- just as he is accused of doing. [6]

_______________

Notes:

1. 11.7-11.12, marked with asterisks, are based on Macarius' replies to objections that have not survived in the manuscript. (Ed.)

2. This objection is clear from the thrust of Macarius' insistence that Christ is speaking of spiritual warfare against the power of sin. Christians take up their cross rather than a sword. The sword is interpreted as that which cuts relationships between the old (sinful) way of life and the new life of faith. The image is given an allegorical twist by the Christian teacher: "The man divided from his father is the apostle of Christ separated from the law .... The sword is the grace of the Gospel." The philosopher's view that Christians are bad citizens is typical of anti-Christian polemic: cf. Tertullian, Apology 11; To the Nations 7. The opinion that the Christians were politically ambitious was well-established by the fourth century. Justin writes in his First Apology (ca. 168): "If we looked for a human kingdom we should also deny our Christ that we might not be slain; and we should strive to escape detection, that we might obtain what we expect. But since our thoughts are not fixed on the present, we are not concerned when men cut us off, since death also is a debt which must at all events be paid" (I Apology 40).

3. It is plausible that Porphyry throughout this section of his attack was challenging the doctrine of the divinity of Jesus (see objection following). The criticism is reminiscent of Celsus' carping treatment of Jesus' ties to his disciples and their final betrayal of his confidence. See my reconstruction in Celsus On the True Doctrine (New York: Oxford University Press, 1987), pp. 59, 62-66. Macarius' response to this treatment of Matt. 12.48-49 is a compilation of paraphrased sayings, with this puzzling formulation given to Jesus: "He that believes that I am the only begotten son of God in some sense begets me, not in subsistence but in faith" (ouk en hypostasei ousias genomenos).

4. The philosopher misses the irony of Jesus' reply to the rich young man in Mark's gospel. Macarius takes the opportunity to instruct him by paraphrasing Jesus' rebuke as follows: "Why call me good if you think of me only as a man? You are mistaken in addressing me as good if you think of me as a mortal young man, because only in God -- not among mortals -- does good reside." The remainder of Macarius' response is a tedious discourse on the standard neo-Platonic distinction between relative good (agathos) and inherent or absolute good (arete).

5. Both the pagan criticism and the Christian account are based on the mistaken idea that Matthew's text is discrete from Mark's account of the episode. In Mark's gospel the father diagnoses the cause of the disease as a dumb spirit of such strength that the disciples cannot cast it out. Matthew's much briefer rendition omits any initial reference to a demon; thus Macarius' reply: "The serpent was crafty enough to wage its campaign against the little boy during the changes in the moon, such that everyone would think that his affliction was caused by its influence."

6. Macarius takes Jesus to mean that if he were a man then bearing witness to himself would be untrue. Instead, he seeks attestation from God, as God; thus there is divine attestation for Jesus' claim to be the light of the world.

Go to Next Page