Plato’s garden of Zeus and the paradise of God
Celsus also lampoons the story of the serpent, as one who works against God’s commands to man (Genesis 3:1–5), and supposes the account to be a myth like the tales that old women pass on. He deliberately did not name God’s “paradise,” nor say how “God” is said to have planted it “in Eden toward the east” (Genesis 2:8), and then to have made spring up “out of the ground every tree beautiful to see and good for food, and the tree of life in the middle of the paradise, and the tree of knowing good and evil” (Genesis 2:9), with what is said after these words, which could of themselves move a well-disposed reader to see that all this is expressed in figures, and not unworthily. Since he has done this, come, let us set beside it what Socrates says about Love in Plato’s Symposium, words which Plato gave to Socrates as more dignified than those of all who spoke about Love in the Symposium. Plato’s wording runs as follows:
“When Aphrodite was born, the gods held a feast, and among the rest was Resource, the son of Cunning. When they had dined, Poverty came to beg, as one does when there is feasting, and she was about the doors. Now Resource, drunk with nectar (for there was not yet wine), went into the garden of Zeus and, weighed down, fell asleep. Poverty, then, because of her own lack of resource, plotted to have a child by Resource; she lay down beside him and conceived Love. That is why Love has become the follower and attendant of Aphrodite, since he was begotten at her birthday feast, and also because he is by nature a lover of the beautiful, and Aphrodite is beautiful. Since Love, then, is the son of Resource and Poverty, his lot is this. First, he is always poor, and far from being tender and beautiful, as most people think, he is hard and parched, barefoot and homeless. He always lies on the ground, without bedding, sleeping in doorways and on the roads under the open sky; having his mother’s nature, he always lives with want. But after his father again he lays plots for the beautiful and the good. He is brave, headlong and intense, a formidable hunter, always weaving some scheme, eager for understanding and full of resource, philosophizing all through his life, a formidable enchanter, sorcerer and sophist. By nature he is neither immortal nor mortal: at one time on the same day he flourishes and lives, when he has plenty, and at another he dies, and comes to life again through his father’s nature. But what he gains is always slipping away, so that Love is never either destitute or rich. And again he is in the middle between wisdom and ignorance” (Plato, Symposium 203b–e).
Now, if those who read this imitate Celsus’s malice (far be that from Christians), they will laugh at the myth and make a mockery of so great a man as Plato. But if, examining philosophically what is said in the form of a myth, they are able to find Plato’s purpose […]: how he managed to hide, for the sake of the many, the doctrines that seemed great to him under the form of a myth, and yet to speak, as he had to, to those who know how to find, from myths, what the author of these things meant about the truth.
I have set out this myth from Plato because of “the garden of Zeus” in it, which seems to have some likeness to the paradise of God; and because of Poverty, who may be compared with the serpent there; and because of Resource, plotted against by Poverty, who may be compared with the man plotted against by the serpent. It is not at all clear whether Plato came upon these things by chance, or whether, as some think, on his journey to Egypt he met also those who study the philosophy of the Jews, learned some things from them, and kept some while altering others, taking care not to offend the Greeks by keeping wholly to the wisdom of the Jews, a people in bad repute with the many because of the strangeness of their laws and their peculiar way of life.
But this was not the time to explain either Plato’s myth or the story of the serpent and of God’s paradise and all that is recorded to have taken place in it; for we dealt with these matters as our main subject, as well as we could, in our commentaries on Genesis.
Greek
Ἐπεὶ δὲ καὶ τὰ περὶ τὸν ὄφιν ὡς ἀντιπράσσοντα τοῖς τοῦ θεοῦ πρὸς τὸν ἄνθρωπον παραγγέλμασιν ὁ Κέλσος κωμῳδεῖ, μῦθόν τινα παραπλήσιον τοῖς παραδιδομένοις ταῖς γραυσὶν ὑπολαβὼν εἶναι τὸν λόγον, καὶ ἑκὼν οὔτε τὸν θεοῦ „παράδεισον“ ὠνόμασεν οὐδ᾿ ὡς πεφυτευκέναι λέγεται „ὁ θεὸς“ „ἐν Ἐδὲμ κατ᾿ ἀνατολὰς“ καὶ μετὰ τοῦτο ἐξανατεταλκέναι „ἐκ τῆς γῆς πᾶν ξύλον ὡραῖον εἰς ὅρασιν καὶ καλὸν εἰς βρῶσιν καὶ τὸ ξύλον τῆς ζωῆς ἐν μέσῳ τῷ παραδείσῳ καὶ τὸ γνωστὸν καλοῦ καὶ πονηροῦ ξύλον“ καὶ τὰ ἐπὶ τούτοις εἰρημένα, δυνάμενα αὐτόθεν κινῆσαι τὸν εὐμενῶς ἐντυγχάνοντα, ὅτι πάντα ταῦτα οὐκ ἀσέμνως τροπολογεῖται· φέρε ἀντιπαραθῶμεν ἐκ τοῦ Συμποσίου Πλάτωνος τὰ εἰρημένα περὶ τοῦ Ἔρωτος τῷ Σωκράτει καὶ ὡς σεμνότερα πάντων τῶν ἐν τῷ Συμποσίῳ εἰπόντων περὶ αὐτοῦ τῷ Σωκράτει περιτεθέντα. οὕτω δ᾿ ἔχει ἡ Πλάτωνος λέξις· „ὅτ᾿ ἐγένετο ἡ Ἀφροδίτη, εἱστιῶντο οἱ θεοὶ, οἵ τε ἄλλοι καὶ ὁ τῆς Μήτιδος υἱὸς Πόρος. ἐπειδὴ δὲ ἐδείπνησαν, προσαιτήσουσα οἷον δὴ εὐωχίας οὔσης ἀφίκετο ἡ Πενία καὶ ἦν περὶ τὰς θύρας. ὁ οὖν Πόρος μεθυσθεὶς τοῦ νέκταρος (οἶνος γὰρ οὔπω ἦν) εἰς τὸν τοῦ Διὸς κῆπον εἰσελθὼν βεβαρημένος εὗδεν. ἡ οὖν Πενία ἐπιβουλεύουσα διὰ τὴν αὑτῆς ἀπορίαν παιδίον ποιήσασθαι ἐκ τοῦ Πόρου, κατακλίνεταί τε παρ᾿ αὐτῷ καὶ ἐκύησε τὸν Ἔρωτα. διὸ δὴ καὶ τῆς Ἀφροδίτης ἀκόλουθος θεράπων γέγονεν ὁ Ἔρως, γεννηθεὶς ἐν τοῖς ἐκείνης γενεθλίοις καὶ ἅμα φύσει ἐραστὴς ὢν περὶ τὸ καλὸν, καὶ τῆς Ἀφροδίτης καλῆς οὔσης. ἅτε οὖν Πόρου καὶ Πενίας υἱὸς ὢν ὁ Ἔρως ἐν τοιαύτῃ τύχῃ καθέστηκε. πρῶτον μὲν πένης ἀεί ἐστι καὶ πολλοῦ δεῖ ἁπαλός τε καὶ καλὸς, οἷον οἱ πολλοὶ οἴονται, ἀλλὰ σκληρὸς καὶ αὐχμηρὸς καὶ ἀνυπόδητος καὶ ἄοικος, χαμαιπετὴς ἀεὶ ὢν καὶ ἄστρωτος, ἐπὶ θύραις καὶ ἐν ὁδοῖς ὑπαίθριος κοιμώμενος, τὴν τῆς μητρὸς φύσιν ἔχων ἀεὶ ἐνδείᾳ ξύνοικος. κατὰ δ᾿ αὖ τὸν πατέρα ἐπίβουλός ἐστι τοῖς καλοῖς καὶ τοῖς ἀγαθοῖς. ἀνδρεῖος ὢν καὶ ἴτης καὶ σύντονος, θηρευτὴς δεινὸς, ἀεὶ προσπλέκων μηχανὰς καὶ φρονήσεως ἐπιθυμητὴς καὶ πόριμος, φιλοσοφῶν διὰ παντὸς τοῦ βίου, δεινὸς γόης καὶ φαρμακεὺς καὶ σοφιστής· καὶ οὔτε ὡς ἀθάνατος πέφυκεν οὔτε ὡς θνητὸς, ἀλλὰ τοτὲ μὲν τῆς αὐτῆς ἡμέρας θάλλει καὶ ζῇ, ὅταν εὐπορήσῃ, τοτὲ δ᾿ ἀποθνῄσκει [πάλιν], πάλιν δ᾿ ἀναβιώσκεται διὰ τὴν τοῦ πατρὸς φύσιν. τὸ δὲ ποριζόμενον ἀεὶ ὑπεκρεῖ, ὥστε οὔτ᾿ ἀπορεῖ Ἔρως ποτὲ οὔτε πλουτεῖ. σοφίας δ᾿ αὖ καὶ ἀμαθίας ἐν μέσῳ ἐστίν.“ ἄρα γὰρ οἱ ἐντυγχάνοντες τούτοις ἐὰν μὲν τὴν κακοήθειαν τοῦ Κέλσου μιμῶνται, ὅπερ Χριστιανῶν ἀπείη, καταγελάσονται τοῦ μύθου καὶ ἐν χλεύῃ θήσονται τὸν τηλικοῦτον Πλάτωνα· ἐὰν δὲ τὰ ἐν μύθου σχήματι λεγόμενα φιλοσόφως ἐξετάζοντες δυνηθῶσιν εὑρεῖν τὸ βούλημα τοῦ Πλάτωνος . . . ., τίνα τρόπον δεδύνηται τὰ μεγάλα ἑαυτῷ φαινόμενα δόγματα κρύψαι μὲν διὰ τοὺς πολλοὺς ἐν τῷ τοῦ μύθου σχήματι, εἰπεῖν δ᾿ ὡς ἐχρῆν τοῖς εἰδόσιν ἀπὸ μύθων εὑρίσκειν τὸ περὶ ἀληθείας τοῦ ταῦτα συντάξαντος βούλημα. τοῦτον δὲ τὸν παρὰ Πλάτωνι μῦθον ἐξεθέμην διὰ „τὸν“ παρ᾿ αὐτῷ „τοῦ Διὸς κῆπον,“ παραπλήσιόν τι ἔχειν δοκοῦντα τῷ παραδείσῳ τοῦ θεοῦ, καὶ τὴν Πενίαν, τῷ ἐκεῖ ὄφει παραβαλλομένην, καὶ τὸν ὑπὸ τῆς Πενίας ἐπιβουλευόμενον Πόρον τῷ ἀνθρώπῳ ἐπιβουλευομένῳ ὑπὸ τοῦ ὄφεως. οὐ πάνυ δὲ δῆλον, πότερον κατὰ συντυχίαν ἐπιπέπτωκε τούτοις ὁ Πλάτων ἢ, ὡς οἴονταί τινες, ἐν τῇ εἰς Αἴγυπτον ἀποδημίᾳ συντυχὼν καὶ τοῖς τὰ Ἰουδαίων φιλοσοφοῦσι καὶ μαθών τινα παρ᾿ αὐτῶν τὰ μέν τινα τετήρηκε τὰ δὲ παρεποίησε, φυλαξάμενος προσκόψαι τοῖς Ἕλλησιν ἐκ τοῦ πάντῃ τὰ τῆς Ἰουδαίων τηρῆσαι σοφίας. διαβεβλημένων παρὰ τοῖς πολλοῖς διὰ τὸ ξενίζον τῶν νόμων καὶ τὴν ἰδιότροπον κατ᾿ αὐτοὺς πολιτείαν. οὔτε δὲ τὸν Πλάτωνος μῦθον οὔτε τὰ περὶ τὸν ὄφιν καὶ τὸν παράδεισον τοῦ θεοῦ καὶ ὅσα ἐν αὐτῷ ἀναγέγραπται γεγονέναι νῦν καιρὸς ἦν διηγήσασθαι· προηγουμένως γὰρ ἐν τοῖς ἐξηγητικοῖς τῆς Γενέσεως, ὡς οἷόν τ᾿ ἦν, εἰς ταῦτα ἐπραγματευσάμεθα.