Origen appears to 'jump into' the subject of Celsus's treatise rather suddenly. What does he mean by 'συνθήκας κρύβδην''? Origen claims that this has something to do with the primitive Love feast as DCH noted in another thread:The first point which Celsus brings forward, in his desire to throw discredit upon Christianity, is, that the Christians entered into secret associations with each other contrary to law, saying, that of associations some are public, and that these are in accordance with the laws; others, again, secret, and maintained in violation of the laws.
Πρῶτον τῷ Κέλσῳ κεφάλαιόν ἐστι βουλομένῳ διαβαλεῖν χριστιανισμόν ὡς,
... συνθήκας κρύβδην πρὸς ἀλλήλους ποιουμένων Χριστιανῶν παρὰ τὰ νενομισμένα, ὅτι τῶν συνθηκῶν αἱ μέν εἰσι φανεραί, ὅσαι κατὰ νόμους γίνονται, αἱ δὲ ἀφανεῖς, ὅσαι παρὰ τὰ νενομισμένα συντε λοῦνται. Καὶ βούλεται διαβαλεῖν τὴν καλουμένην ἀγάπην Χριστιανῶν πρὸς ἀλλήλους, ἀπὸ τοῦ κοινοῦ κινδύνου ὑφιστα μένην καὶ δυναμένην ὑπερόρκια
Christians formed amongst themselves secret associations contrary to the things sanctioned by established tradition that some associations are indeed public all in accordance with the laws, but the secret ones are all maintained contrary to the things established by tradition. [1.1]
Let's push to the side the πρὸς ἀλλήλους reference. More intriguing to me is συνθήκας which seems to indicate a secret (crypto-Jewish) society.Chadwick thinks that when Origen describes Celsus' opening argument, "καὶ βούλεται διαβαλεῖν τὴν καλουμένην ἀγάπην Χριστιανῶν πρὸς ἀλλήλους," he means not that "his wish is to bring into disrepute what are termed the "love-feasts" of the Christians" as Crombie translates, but "wishing to slander the so-called love (agape) which Christians have for one another." He explains in a footnote: "That ἀγάπη probably means brotherly love and not the love-feast is shown by πρὸς ἀλλήλους [toward/with one another]. Cf. Volker, Das Bild, pp. 44-3.
συνθήκη , ἡ, (συντίθημι)
A.compounding, esp. of words and sentences, Luc.Hist.Conscr.46, Hermog.Id.1.1,3, Philostr.VS1.17.4, Herm. in Phdr.p.175 A.: in concrete sense, a compound, Luc.Prom.Es5:— but in early writers,
II. convention, compact, “ς. καὶ ὁμολογία” Pl. Cra.384d, cf. 433e; “ὁ νόμος ς. καὶ ἐγγυητὴς ἀλλήλοις τῶν δικαίων” Arist.Pol.1280b10, cf. Rh.1376a33; ἐκ συνθήκης by agreement, Pl.Lg. 879a; “διὰ συνθήκης” Arist.APr.50a18; κατὰ συνθήκην conventionally, opp. φύσει, Id.EN1133a29; so συνθήκῃ ib.1134b32: pl., “συνθήκας ποιεῖσθαι τὰς ὑπὲρ τοῦ μὴ βλάπτειν ἄλληλα” Epicur.Sent.32.
2. article of a compact or treaty, “τὴν ξ. προφέροντες ἐν ᾗ εἴρητο” Th.5.31, cf. 1.78: also, treaty, “ς. καὶ συμμαχία” SIG421.1 (Thermon, iii B.C.): but in this signf. mostly in pl., articles of agreement, and hence, covenant, treaty, between individuals or states, A.Ch.555, Ar.Lys. 1267, Isoc.4.176, etc.; “συνθῆκαι περὶ εἰρήνης” X.Mem.4.4.17; γάμων ς. Plu.Luc.18; ς. κύριαι, ἄκυροι, Lys.18.15; ἐπ᾽ ἄλλους στρατεύειν οὐκ εἶναι ἐν ταῖς ς. X.HG7.5.4, cf. SIG135.1 (Olynthus, iv B.C.), al.; ξυνθῆκαι Λακεδαιμονίων πρὸς βασιλέα . . , σπονδὰς εἶναι καὶ φιλίαν κατὰ τάδε Foed. ap. Th.8.37, cf. IG12.90.21, Pl.Cri.54c, D.15.29; “συνθήκας ποιεῖσθαι” Hdt.6.42, Ar.Pax1065, X.HG7.1.2; “ὑπὲρ τῶν βαρβάρων” Isoc.4.177; ποιεῖν τινι πρός τινα between them, X.Lac. 15.1; “ς. συνεθέμεθα” Lys.13.88; γράψαι, γράφασθαι, D.48.10, D.S.1.66; ἀναιρεῖν, λύειν, Isoc.17.31, 18.24; “παραβῆναι” Pl.Cri. l.c.; “ὑπερβαίνειν” Aeschin.1.164; παρ᾽ οὐδὲν ἡγεῖσθαι Decr. ap. D.18.164; “συνθήκαις ἐμμένειν” Isoc.4.81; ἐκ τῶν ς. according to the covenant, ib.179; κατὰ τὰς ξ. Th.1.144, cf. Pl.Tht.183c; opp. παρὰ τὰς ς. Id.Cri.52d.
III. = θήκη, coffin, v.l. in Lib.Or.8.11.
So getting to Origen's reference to this being above 'love feasts.' Becker sums up the section as being concerned with "heimlich Zusammenschlüsse gegen die gesetzliche Ordnung."
And his (Celsus's) wish is to bring into disrepute what are termed "Christian love with each other" , as if they had their origin in the common danger, and were more binding than any oaths.
Καὶ βούλεται διαβαλεῖν τὴν καλουμένην ἀγάπην Χριστιανῶν πρὸς ἀλλήλους, ἀπὸ τοῦ κοινοῦ κινδύνου ὑφιστα μένην καὶ δυναμένην ὑπερόρκια
ὑπερόρκιος = beyond an oath. δυναμένη ὑπερόρκια = more powerful than any oath. What is odd about this statement is that it is difficult to imagine any other situation other than the army where 'oaths' and 'breaking oaths' would have an every day application. The Epistle to the Diognetes has an echo of this statement when it writes:
Apparently the Christians are coming together with 'love for each other' because of a 'common danger' that they face - or at least that's Celsus's point. The same idea - 'common danger' appears at the beginning of chapter 3:He, I say, Who is eternal, Who to-day was accounted a Son, through Whom the Church is enriched and grace is unfolded and multiplied among the saints, grace which confers understanding, which reveals mysteries, which announces seasons, which rejoices over the faithful, which is bestowed upon those who seek her, even those by whom the pledges of faith are not broken, nor the boundaries of the fathers overstepped (οις όρκια πίστεως ου θραύεται ουδέ όρια πατέρων παρορίζεται).
The subject of 'danger' again appears in 1.8:After this, Celsus proceeding to speak of the Christians teaching and practising their favourite doctrines in secret, and saying that they do this to some purpose, seeing they escape the penalty of death which is imminent, he compares their dangers with those which were encountered by such men as Socrates for the sake of philosophy; and here he might have mentioned Pythagoras as well, and other philosophers.
Μετὰ ταῦτα περὶ τοῦ κρύφα Χριστιανοὺς τὰ ἀρέσκοντα ἑαυτοῖς ποιεῖν καὶ διδάσκειν εἰπών, καὶ ὅτι οὐ μάτην τοῦτο ποιοῦσιν, ἅτε διωθούμενοι τὴν
ἐπηρτημένην αὐτοῖς δίκην τοῦ θανάτου, ὁμοιοῖ τὸν κίνδυνον κινδύνοις τοῖς συμβεβη κόσιν ἐπὶ φιλοσοφίᾳ ὡς Σωκράτει· ἐδύνατο λέγειν καὶ ὡς Πυθαγόρᾳ καὶ ἄλλοις φιλοσόφοις.
Clearly Jesus is the prototype of the Christians here (1.18):It is with a certain eloquence, indeed, that he appears to advocate the cause of those who bear witness to the truth of Christianity by their death in the following words: And I do not maintain that if a man, who has adopted a system of good doctrine, is to incur danger from men on that account (Καὶ οὐ τοῦτο λέγω, ὡς χρὴ τὸν ἀγαθοῦ δόγματος περιεχόμενον εἰ μέλλει δι' αὐτὸ κινδυνεύειν παρ' ἀνθρώποις), he should either apostatize, or feign apostasy, or openly deny his opinions (ἀποστῆναι τοῦ δόγματος ἢ πλάσασθαι ὡς ἀφέστηκεν ἢ ἔξαρνον γενέσθαι). And he condemns those who, while holding the Christian views, either pretend that they do not, or deny them, saying that he who holds a certain opinion ought not to feign recantation, or publicly disown it. And here Celsus must be convicted of self-contradiction. For from other treatises of his it is ascertained that he was an Epicurean; but here, because he thought that he could assail Christianity with better effect by not professing the opinions of Epicurus, he pretends that there is a something better in man than the earthly part of his nature, which is akin to God, and says that they in whom this element, viz., the soul, is in a healthy condition, are ever seeking after their kindred nature, meaning God, and are ever desiring to hear something about Him, and to call it to remembrance. Observe now the insincerity of his character! Having said a little before, that the man who had embraced a system of good doctrine ought not, even if exposed to danger on that account from men, to disavow it, or pretend that he had done so, nor yet openly disown it, he now involves himself in all manner of contradictions.
And again:and in Him who with surpassing wisdom and divine greatness of mind dared to make known this doctrine to men in every part of the world, at the cost of great danger, and of a death considered infamous (μετὰ μεγάλων κινδύνων καὶ θανάτου νομι ζομένου ἀτίμου), which He underwent for the sake of the human race; having also taught those who were persuaded to embrace His doctrine at the first, to proceed, under the peril of every danger, and of ever impending death (μετὰ πάντων κινδύνων καὶ τῶν ἀεὶ προσδοκωμένων θανάτων), to all quarters of the world to ensure the salvation of men?
So there is this sense in the first book that Jesus was exposed to the same dangers as the contemporary Christians who formed a secret society around 'loving one another' because of the aforementioned 'dangers.' What's more this 'secret society' went against τὰ νενομισμένα = the things sanctioned by established tradition.And besides this, one may well wonder how it happened that the disciples— if, as the calumniators of Jesus say, they did not see Him after His resurrection from the dead, and were not persuaded of His divinity— were not afraid to endure the same sufferings with their Master, and to expose themselves to danger (καὶ ὁμόσε χωρῆσαι τῷ κινδύνῳ), and to leave their native country to teach, according to the desire of Jesus, the doctrine delivered to them by Him. For I think that no one who candidly examines the facts would say that these men devoted themselves to a life of danger for the sake of the doctrine of Jesus, without profound belief which He had wrought in their minds of its truth, not only teaching them to conform to His precepts, but others also, and to conform, moreover, when manifest destruction to life impended over him who ventured to introduce these new opinions into all places and before all audiences, and who could retain as his friend no human being who adhered to the former opinions and usages.
Usually scholars think that it was merely the fact that the associations weren't public that was the issue. Nevertheless it is interesting to note that the issue of Christianity abrogating τὰ νενομισμένα = 'the things sanctioned by established tradition.' Origen intimates that Celsus sees the gospel as depicting Jesus contravening τὰ νενομισμένα in his evangelic missionary activities:
Of course Origen himself argues that Christianity is rooted in of the Jews. As he notes in Book 4:Now, who is there on seeing fishermen and tax-gatherers, who had not acquired even the merest elements of learning (as the Gospel relates of them, and in respect to which Celsus believes that they speak the truth, inasmuch as it is their own ignorance which they record), discoursing boldly not only among the Jews of faith in Jesus, but also preaching Him with success among other nations, would not inquire whence they derived this power of persuasion? Theirs was certainly not the common method followed by the multitude. (Οὐ γὰρ ἡ νενομισμένη τοῖς πολλοῖς) [1.61]
For Celsus Christianity is a secret 'loving each other' association which stands against τὰ νενομισμένα; Origen claims that it is a sublimation or related to τὰ νενομισμένα of the Jews. This is where the two disagree.Now it has never been recorded, since the Jewish nation began to exist, that they have been expelled for so long a period from their venerable temple-worship and service, and enslaved by more powerful nations; for if at any time they appeared to be abandoned because of their sins, they were notwithstanding visited (by God), and returned to their own country, and recovered their possessions, and performed unhindered the observances of their law (ἀκωλύτως ποιοῦντες τὰ νενομισμένα). One fact, then, which proves that Jesus was something divine and sacred, is this, that Jews should have suffered on His account now for a lengthened time calamities of such severity. And we say with confidence that they will never be restored to their former condition. For they committed a crime of the most unhallowed kind, in conspiring against the Saviour of the human race in that city where they offered up to God a worship containing the symbols of mighty mysteries (ἔνθα τὰ νενομισμένα σύμβολα μεγάλων μυστηρίων ἐποίουν τῷ θεῷ). [4.22]
For Celsus is willing to accept that Judaism now is necessarily tolerated religion. Judaism does not contradict τὰ νενομισμένα:
As Origen later clarifies:As the Jews, then, became a peculiar people, and enacted laws in keeping with the customs of their country, and maintain them up to the present time, and observe a mode of worship which, whatever be its nature, is yet derived from their fathers, they act in these respects like other men, because each nation retains its ancestral customs, whatever they are, if they happen to be established among them. And such an arrangement appears to be advantageous, not only because it has occurred to the mind of other nations to decide some things differently, but also because it is a duty to protect what has been established for the public advantage; and also because, in all probability, the various quarters of the earth were from the beginning allotted to different superintending institutions (ἀλλὰ καὶ ὅτι ὡς εἰκὸς τὰ μέρη τῆς γῆς ἐξ ἀρχῆς ἄλλα ἄλλοις ἐπόπταις
νενεμημένα), and were thus distributed among certain governing powers, and in this manner the administration of the world is carried on. And whatever is done among each nation in this way would be rightly done, wherever it was agreeable to the wishes (of the superintending powers), while it would be an act of impiety to get rid of the institutions established from the beginning in the various places (τὰ ἐξ ἀρχῆς κατὰ τόπους νενομισμένα.). By these words Celsus shows that the Jews, who were formerly Egyptians, subsequently became a peculiar people, and enacted laws which they carefully preserve. And not to repeat his statements, which have been already before us, he says that it is advantageous to the Jews to observe their ancestral worship, as other nations carefully attend to theirs. And he further states a deeper reason why it is of advantage to the Jews to cultivate their ancestral customs, in hinting dimly that those to whom was allotted the office of superintending the country which was being legislated for, enacted the laws of each land in co-operation with its legislators. He appears, then, to indicate that both the country of the Jews, and the nation which inhabits it, are superintended by one or more beings, who, whether they were one or more, co-operated with Moses, and enacted the laws of the Jews. [5.25]
and then Origen later clarifies his own position even further:And observe here, whether he does not openly, so far as he can, express a wish that the Jew should live in the observance of his own laws, and not depart from them, because he would commit an act of impiety if he apostatized; for his words are: It would be an act of impiety to get rid of the institutions established from the beginning in the various places (λέγει γὰρ ὅτι παραλύειν οὐχ ὅσιον εἶναι τὰ ἐξ ἀρχῆς κατὰ τόπους νενομισμένα). Now I should like to ask him, and those who entertain his views, who it was that distributed the various quarters of the earth from the beginning among the different superintending spirits; and especially, who gave the country of the Jews, and the Jewish people themselves, to the one or more superintendents to whom it was allotted? Was it, as Celsus would say, Jupiter who assigned the Jewish people and their country to a certain spirit or spirits?
and again:we shall refuse our assent to the assertion of Celsus, that because of the superintending spirits distributed among the different parts of the earth, what is done among each nation is rightly done; for our desire is to do what is not agreeable to these spirits. For we see that it is a religious act to do away with the customs originally established in the various places by means of laws of a better and more divine character (Ὁρῶμεν γὰρ ὅτι ὅσιον μὲν τὰ ἐξ ἀρχῆς κατὰ τόπους νενομισμένα λύειν ἐστὶ νόμοις κρείττοσι καὶ θειοτέροις), which were enacted by Jesus, as one possessed of the greatest power, who has rescued us from the present evil world, and from the princes of the world that come to nought [5.32]
But the angels, who are the true rulers and generals and ministers of God, do not, as Celsus supposes, injure those who offend them; and if certain demons, whom Celsus had in mind, do inflict evils, they show that they are wicked, and that they have received no office of the kind from God. And they even do injury to those who are under them, and who have acknowledged them as their masters; and accordingly, as it would seem that those who break through the regulations which prevail in any country in regard to matters of food (τὰ νενομισμένα βρώματα), suffer for it if they are under the demons of that place, while those who are not under them, and have not submitted to their power, are free from all harm, and bid defiance to such spirits; although if, in ignorance of certain things, they have come under the power of other demons, they may suffer punishment from them.
and again:
Celsus supposes that men discharge the duties of life until they are loosened from its bonds, when, in accordance with commonly received customs (τὰ νενομισμένα), they offer sacrifices to each of the gods recognised in the state; and he fails to perceive the true duty which is fulfilled by an earnest piety.
and again:
Celsus, then, as if not observing that he was saying anything inconsistent with the words he had just used, if all were to do the same as you, adds: You surely do not say that if the Romans were, in compliance with your wish, to neglect their customary duties to gods and men (τῶν νενομισμένων αὐτοῖς πρὸς θεούς), and were to worship the Most High, or whatever you please to call him, that he will come down and fight for them, so that they shall need no other help than his. For this same God, as yourselves say, promised of old this and much more to those who served him, and see in what way he has helped them and you! They, in place of being masters of the whole world, are left with not so much as a patch of ground or a home; and as for you, if any of you transgresses even in secret, he is sought out and punished with death. As the question started is, What would happen if the Romans were persuaded to adopt the principles of the Christians, to despise the duties paid to the recognised gods and to men (τῶν πρὸς τοὺς νενομισμένους θεοὺς ἀμελήσαντες καὶ τῶν κατὰ τοὺς ἀνθρώπους προτέρων νόμων), and to worship the Most High? this is my answer to the question. We say that if two of us shall agree on earth as touching anything that they shall ask, it shall be done for them of the Father of the just, which is in heaven; for God rejoices in the agreement of rational beings, and turns away from discord.