Against Celsus 2.18

Next the Jew in Celsus says something else foolish: “How, if he foretold both who would betray him and who would deny him, did they not fear him as a god, so that the one would no longer betray him and the other would not deny him?” The most wise Celsus did not see the contradiction in this passage. If he foreknew as God, and his foreknowledge could not prove false, then it was impossible for the one known as the future betrayer not to betray, or for the one shown to be the future denier not to deny. But if it was possible for this one not to betray and that one not to deny, so that not betraying and not denying could have happened among those who had learned of it in advance, then the one who said, “This one will betray and that one will deny,” was no longer truthful. For if he foreknew the betrayer, he saw the wickedness from which he would betray, and that wickedness was by no means overturned by the foreknowledge. Again, if he recognized the one who would deny, seeing the weakness from which he would deny, he foretold that he would deny; and that weakness was not going to be overturned so suddenly by the foreknowledge. And where does he get this: “But they betrayed and denied him without caring for him at all”? For it has been shown about the betrayer that it is false that he betrayed his teacher without caring for him at all; and this is shown no less about the one who denied, who “went out” after denying and “wept bitterly.”