The camel and the eye of the needle
After this he takes the pronouncement of Jesus against the rich, when he said, “It is easier for a camel to go through the eye of a needle than for a rich man to enter the kingdom of God” (Matthew 19:24), and says that it was plainly borrowed from Plato, and that Jesus corrupted Plato’s saying where Plato said that “for one who is exceptionally good to be exceptionally rich as well is impossible” (Plato, Laws 5.742e–743a).
Who with even a moderate power to weigh the facts, not only among those who believe in Jesus but among the rest of mankind as well, would not laugh at Celsus on hearing that Jesus, who was born and brought up among the Jews, who was thought to be the son of Joseph “the carpenter” (Luke 3:23; Matthew 13:55), and who had not learned letters, not only those of the Greeks but not even those of the Hebrews (John 7:15), as the truth-loving writings about him also testify, read Plato, and, pleased with his saying about the rich, that “it is impossible to be exceptionally good and rich,” corrupted it and turned it into “It is easier for a camel to go through the eye of a needle than for a rich man to enter the kingdom of God” (Matthew 19:24)?
If Celsus had loved the truth, and had not read the Gospels with hatred and hostility, he would have considered why a camel was chosen for comparison with the rich man, an animal crooked in its build; and what Jesus meant by the narrow “eye of the needle” (Mark 10:25), since he says that the way that leads “to life” is narrow and hard (Matthew 7:14); and the fact that in the law this animal is recorded as “unclean,” having something acceptable, in that it chews the cud, but also something to be blamed, in that it does not part the hoof (Leviticus 11:4; Deuteronomy 14:7). He would also have examined how often the camel is mentioned in the divine Scriptures, and in connection with whom, so as to see the intent of the saying about the rich. Nor would he have left unexamined the fact that Jesus calls the poor blessed and the rich wretched (Luke 6:20, 24): whether these words of his […] refer to the poor and the rich as the senses perceive them, or whether the Word knows a poverty that is wholly blessed and a wealth that is wholly to be blamed. For not even an ordinary person would praise the poor without discrimination, since most of them are of very bad character. But enough of this.
Greek
Μετὰ ταῦτα τὴν κατὰ τῶν πλουσίων ἀπόφασιν τοῦ Ἰησοῦ, εἰπόντος· „εὐκοπώτερον κάμηλον εἰσελθεῖν διὰ τρήματος ῥαφίδος ἢ πλούσιον εἰς τὴν βασιλείαν τοῦ θεοῦ,“ φησὶν ἄντικρυς ἀπὸ Πλάτωνος εἰρῆσθαι, τοῦ Ἰησοῦ παραφθείροντος τὸ Πλατωνικὸν, ἐν οἷς εἶπεν ὁ Πλάτων ὅτι „ἀγαθὸν ὄντα διαφόρως καὶ πλούσιον εἶναι διαφερόντως εἶναι ἀδύνατον.“ τίς δ᾿ οὐκ ἂν καὶ μετρίως ἐφιστάνειν τοῖς πράγμασι δυνάμενος τὸν Κέλσον γελάσαι, οὐ τῶν πιστευόντων τῷ Ἰησοῦ μόνων ἀλλὰ καὶ τῶν λοιπῶν ἀνθρώπων. ἀκούων ὅτι Ἰησοῦς ὁ παρὰ Ἰουδαίοις γεγενημένος καὶ ἀνατεθραμμένος καὶ Ἰωσὴφ „τοῦ τέκτονος“ νομισθεὶς εἶναι υἱὸς καὶ μηδὲ γράμματα μεμαθηκὼς οὐ μόνον τὰ Ἑλλήνων ἀλλ᾿ οὐδὲ τὰ Ἑβραίων, ὅπερ καὶ αἱ φιλαλήθεις μαρτυροῦσι γραφαὶ τῶν περὶ αὐτὸν, ἀνέγνω Πλάτωνα καὶ ἀρεσθεὶς τῇ περὶ τῶν πλουσίων ἀποφαινομένῃ αὐτοῦ λέξει, ὡς „ἀδύνατόν ἐστιν ἀγαθὸν εἶναι διαφερόντως καὶ πλούσιον,“ παρέφθειρεν αὐτὴν καὶ πεποίηκε τὸ „εὐκοπώτερον κάμηλον διὰ τρήματος ῥαφίδος εἰσελθεῖν ἢ πλούσιον εἰς τὴν βασιλείαν τοῦ θεοῦ“; εἰ δὲ μὴ μετὰ τοῦ μισεῖν καὶ ἀπεχθάνεσθαι ἐντυχὼν τοῖς εὐαγγελίοις φιλαλήθης ἦν ὁ Κέλσος, ἐπέστησεν ἂν, τί δή ποτε παρελήφθη κάμηλος, τὸ τῶν ζῴων ὅσον ἐπὶ τῇ κατασκευῇ σκολιὸν, παραβαλλόμενον τῷ πλουσίῳ, καὶ τί αὐτῷ ἐβούλετο ἡ στενὴ „τῆς ῥαφίδος“ τρυμαλιὰ, στενὴν φάσκοντι εἶναι καὶ τεθλιμμένην τὴν ὁδὸν τὴν ἀπάγουσαν „εἰς τὴν ζωὴν,“ καὶ τὸ κατὰ τὸν νόμον δὲ „ἀκάθαρτον“ τὸ ζῷον ἀναγεγράφθαι τοῦτο, ἔχον μέν τι ἀποδεκτὸν τὸ μαρυκᾶσθαι, ἔχον δὲ καὶ ψεκτὸν τὸ μὴ διχηλεῖν· ἐξήτασεν ἂν καὶ ὁσάκις ἐν ταῖς θείαις παρελήφθη κάμηλος γραφαῖς καὶ ἐπὶ τίνων, ἵνα θεωρήσῃ τὸ περὶ τῶν πλουσίων τοῦ λόγου βούλημα· οὐκ εἴασεν ἂν ἀβασάνιστον καὶ τὸ μακαρίζεσθαι μὲν τοὺς πτωχοὺς ὑπὸ τοῦ Ἰησοῦ ταλανίζεσθαι δὲ τοὺς πλουσίους πότερον ἐπὶ τῶν αἰσθητῶν αὐτῷ ταῦτα . . . . πτωχῶν καὶ πλουσίων, ἢ οἶδέ τινα πτωχείαν πάντως μακαριζομένην ὁ λόγος καὶ πλοῦτον πάντως ψεκτόν· οὐκ ἂν γὰρ οὐδ᾿ ὁ τυχὼν ἀκρίτως τοὺς πτωχοὺς ἐπῄνεσεν, ὧν οἱ πολλοὶ καὶ φαυλόττοί εἰσι τὰ ἤθη. ἀλλὰ ταῦτα μὲν ταύτῃ.