Chapter XLIX.
But neither do the Jews pride themselves upon abstaining from swine's flesh, as if it were some great thing; but upon their having ascertained the nature of clean and unclean animals, and the cause of the distinction, and of swine being classed among the unclean. And these distinctions were signs of certain things until the advent of Jesus; after whose coming it was said to His disciple, who did not yet comprehend the doctrine concerning these matters, but who said, "Nothing that is common or unclean hath entered into my mouth," [4239] "What God hath cleansed, call not thou common." It therefore in no way affects either the Jews or us that the Egyptian priests abstain not only from the flesh of swine, but also from that of goats, and sheep, and oxen, and fish. But since it is not that "which entereth into the mouth that defiles a man," and since "meat does not commend us to God," we do not set great store on refraining from eating, nor yet are we induced to eat from a gluttonous appetite. And therefore, so far as we are concerned, the followers of Pythagoras, who abstain from all things that contain life may do as they please; only observe the different reason for abstaining from things that have life on the part of the Pythagoreans and our ascetics. For the former abstain on account of the fable about the transmigration of souls, as the poet says:--
"And some one, lifting up his beloved son,
Will slay him after prayer; O how foolish he!" [4240]
We, however, when we do abstain, do so because "we keep under our body, and bring it into subjection," [4241] and desire "to mortify our members that are upon the earth, fornication, uncleanness, inordinate affection, evil concupiscence;" [4242] and we use every effort to "mortify the deeds of the flesh." [4243]
[4239] Cf. Acts x. 14.
[4240] kai tis philon huion aeiras, sphaxei epeuchomenos mega nepios. --A verse of Empedocles, quoted by Plutarch, de Superstitione, c. xii. Spencer. Cf. note in loc. in Benedictine edition.
[4241] Cf. 1 Cor. ix. 27.
[4242] Cf. Col. iii. 5.
[4243] Cf. Rom. viii. 13.
Chapter L.
Celsus, still expressing his opinion regarding the Jews, says: "It is not probable that they are in great favour with God, or are regarded by Him with more affection than others, or that angels are sent by Him to them alone, as if to them had been allotted some region of the blessed. For we may see both the people themselves, and the country of which they were deemed worthy." We shall refute this, by remarking that it is evident that this nation was in great favour with God, from the fact that the God who presides over all things was called the God of the Hebrews, even by those who were aliens to our faith. And because they were in favour with God, they were not abandoned by Him; [4244] but although few in number, they continued to enjoy the protection of the divine power, so that in the reign of Alexander of Macedon they sustained no injury from him, although they refused, on account of certain covenants and oaths, to take up arms against Darius. They say that on that occasion the Jewish high priest, clothed in his sacred robe, received obeisance from Alexander, who declared that he had beheld an individual arrayed in this fashion, who announced to him in his sleep that he was to be the subjugator of the whole of Asia. [4245] Accordingly, we Christians maintain that "it was the fortune of that people in a remarkable degree to enjoy God's favour, and to be loved by Him in a way different from others;" but that this economy of things and this divine favour were transferred to us, after Jesus had conveyed the power which had been manifested among the Jews to those who had become converts to Him from among the heathen. And for this reason, although the Romans desired to perpetrate many atrocities against the Christians, in order to ensure their extermination, they were unsuccessful; for there was a divine hand which fought on their behalf, and whose desire it was that the word of God should spread from one corner of the land of Judea throughout the whole human race.
[4244] kai hos eudokimountes ge hoson ouk enkatleiponto. The negative particle (ouk) is wanting in the editions of Hoeschel and Spencer, but is found in the Royal, Basil, and Vatican mss. Guietus would delete hoson (which emendation has been adopted in the translation), while Boherellus would read hosoi instead.--Ruæus.
[4245] [Josephus, Antiquities, b. xi. cap. viii.]