Citation with stable link: Philip A. Harland, 'Persian wisdom: Celsus on mysteries of Mithras as a source of ancient wisdom (mid-second century CE),' Ethnic Relations and Migration in the Ancient World, last modified March 29, 2024, https://philipharland.com/Blog/?p=19400.

Ancient authors: Celsus as cited by Origen, Against Celsus 6.22-24 (link).

Comments: In a previous post, we have discussed Origen’s belated debate with Celsus over the question of what “barbarian” or foreign sources are more or less on track with regard to discerning the “true account” or true wisdom (link). In the passage below, Celsus has moved on to the question of Plato’s concepts of the cosmos and the place of souls’ within that cosmos, arguing that Plato’s writings are far superior to the writings of the “barbarian” Judeans, writings that were also inherited by Jesus adherents. The latter are for stupid, lower-class people with no education, Celsus suggests. Plato’s writings are the go-to source instead.

In the process, Celsus continues with the idea that Plato’s superior conception of the world can be supplemented by specially chosen “barbarian” sources of knowledge, in this case astrological knowledge symbolically represented in the (ostensibly) Persian mysteries of Mithras. The mysteries of Mithras are, in fact, a Roman phenomenon, but people like Celsus (and likely some participants in the mysteries of Mithras) still liked to speak as though these were in some sense Persian rites and Persian ideologies about the cosmos. On this, see also Porphyry’s citation of Euboulos about Zoroaster’s dedication of a cave and foundation of the mysteries of Mithras, where once again the mysteries of Mithras are imagined as “Persian” rather than Roman (link). Nonetheless, the aura of foreignness and the idea of wise barbarians continue to play a key role.

It should be noted that the approach of Celsus and Origen are, in certain structural ways, almost no different from one another here. Celsus draws on ancient foreign wisdom (“Persian” mysteries of Mithras) to support a Greek Platonic understanding of the migration of souls, and Origen responds by drawing on ancient foreign wisdom (Judean writings) to support a Greek Platonic understanding of the migration of souls. However, Celsus puts stress on adapting foreign sources to the Platonic framework, whereas Origen claims to be prioritizing the concepts of the Judean writings as wisdom that had already fed into Plato’s thinking. Origen likes Plato’s ideas about souls, but thinks that aspects of those ideas that were on track actually derived from Judean sources.

‗‗‗‗‗‗

[Celsus citation of “Persian” mysteries of Mithras as a source about astrological wisdom and migration of souls (in a Platonic vein)]

(6.22) After this, Celsus wants to display his learning in his writing against us and also cites certain Persian mysteries, where he says:

“These things are obscurely hinted at in the accounts of the Persians, and especially in the mysteries of Mithras, which are celebrated among them. For in the latter there is a representation of the two orbits in heaven, namely, movement of the fixed stars and movement among the planets, as well as the passage of the soul through these. The symbol is as follows: There is a ladder with seven gates and, at the top, an eighth gate. The first gate consists of lead, the second of tin, the third of copper, the fourth of iron, the fifth of a mixture of metals, the sixth of silver, and the seventh of gold. The first gate they assign to Kronos [Saturn], indicating by the ‘lead’ the slowness of this star; the second to Aphrodite [Venus], comparing her to the splendour and softness of tin; the third to Zeus [Jupiter], being firm and solid; the fourth to Hermes [Mercury], for both Hermes and iron are built to withstand anything, and are money-making and laborious; the fifth to Ares [Mars], because, being composed of a mixture of metals, it is varied and unequal; the sixth, of silver, to the Moon; the seventh, of gold, to the Sun, these metals resembling the latter two.”

[Origen’s objections with further characterizations of the mysteries of Mithras as “Persian” though absurd and barbarian]

Celsus next proceeds to examine the reason why the stars are arranged in this order, which is symbolized by the kinds of matter. Musical reasons, moreover, are added or cited by the discourses about deities (theologia) among Persians. In addition, he strives to add a second explanation which is also connected with musical considerations.

However, it seems to me [Origen] that it would be absurd to cite Celsus’ statements about these matters. To do so would be similar to what Celsus himself has done: in his accusations against Christians and Judeans, Celsus inappropriately compared not only the words of Plato with their teachings but – dissatisfied with even Plato’s words – he supplied in addition the mysteries of the Persian Mithras, as well as an explanation of them.

Now, whatever the case may be regarding the truth or falsehood of the accounts of the Persians and those who conduct the mysteries of Mithras, why did Celsus select these for quotation rather than some of the other mysteries, with the explanation of those mysteries? For the mysteries of Mithras do not appear to be more famous among the Greeks than those of Eleusis, or than those on Aigina island, where individuals are initiated in the rites of Hekate [cf. Pausanias, Guide 2.30.2]. But if he insists on introducing barbarian mysteries with their explanation, why not rather introduce those of the Egyptians, which are highly regarded by many, or those of the Cappadocians regarding Artemis [i.e. Ma] at Comana, or those of the Thracians, or even those of the Romans themselves, who initiate the noblest members of their senate? But if he considered it inappropriate to make a comparison with any of these because they furnished no aid in the way of accusing Judeans or Christians, why did it not also appear to him inappropriate to cite the instance of the mysteries of Mithras [i.e. another supposed case of “barbarian” mysteries, though in fact Roman]?

[Origen proposes Judean writings as a better source of “barbarian” wisdom regarding (Platonic) movement of souls in the celestial realm]

(6.23) If one wanted to obtain a better way of contemplating the entrance of souls into the divine realm, not from the statements he cited from that very insignificant sect, but from books — partly those of the Judeans, which are read in their synagogues, and adopted by Christians, and partly from those of Christians alone — let him peruse, at the end of Ezekiel‘s prophecies, the visions witnessed by the prophet. In these visions, gates of different kinds are enumerated, which obscurely refer to the different modes in which divine souls enter into a better world. Let him also peruse what is related about the city of God, the heavenly Jerusalem, and its foundations and gates in the Apocalypse of John.

If Celsus is also capable by means of symbols [i.e. symbols allegorically interpreted from Persian, “barbarian” sources of wisdom] of finding the route of those who will march on to divine things, let him read the book of Moses entitled Numbers. Let him seek the help of one who is capable of initiating him into the meaning of the narratives concerning the encampments of the children of Israel: namely, what sort of “encampments” were arranged towards the east, as was the case with the first ones; what sort were arranged towards the south-west and south; what sort were arranged towards the sea; and what sort were the last ones arranged toward the north. For Celsus will see that there is in the respective places a meaning [i.e. allegorical meaning of the directions of “encampments”] not to be lightly treated. Nor a meaning, as Celsus imagines, that calls merely for listeners who are stupid and servile.  Instead, he will distinguish in the “encampments” certain things relating to the numbers that are enumerated, and which are especially adapted to each tribe, about which it is not the time to talk about here. Overall, let Celsus and those who read his book know that nowhere in what we consider the genuine and divine writings are there “seven heavens” mentioned. Neither do our prophets, nor the apostles of Jesus, nor the son of God himself, repeat anything which they “borrowed from the Persians or the Kabeiroi” [the latter are deities associated with the mysteries at Samothrace].

(6.24) After the instance borrowed from the Mithraic rites, Celsus declares that “anyone who investigates the Christian initiation (teletē) alongside with the previously mentioned Persian mysteries will, on comparing the two together and on uncovering the rites of the Christians, see in this way the difference between them.”  Now, wherever he was able to give the names of the various sects, he did not hesitate to quote those with which he thought he was acquainted. However, at the point when he should have made clear what sect he was referring to, if it was really known to him, and to have informed us which sect uses the diagram he has drawn, he has not done so.  It seems to me, however, that it is from some statements of a very insignificant sect called Ophites, which he has misunderstood, that, in my opinion, he has partly borrowed what he says about the diagram. . . . [omitted discussion of the Ophite sect of Jesus adherents and Celsus’ critique of their diagram of ten circles to explain the cosmos and souls within it].

‗‗‗‗‗‗‗

Source of translation: F. Crombie, The Writings of Origen, Ante-Nicene Christian Library (Edinburgh: T and T Clark, 1869-1872), public domain, thoroughly adapted by Harland.