Against Celsus 7.56
Summary: Celsus gives no proof that Christians altered the Sibyl or that Jesus' life was infamous, and Jesus' death was no more pitiable than Socrates'; Celsus seems moved by a demon that Jesus overthrew.
Greek text · Koetschau 2:205–206
Εἶτʼ οὐκ οἶδʼ ὅπως ἐβούλετο ἡμᾶς μᾶλλον Σίβυλλαν ἀναγορεῦσαι παῖδα θεοῦ ἢ Ἰησοῦν, ἀποφηνάμενος ὅτι παρενεγράψαμεν εἰς τὰ ἐκείνης πολλὰ καὶ βλάσφημα καὶ μὴ ἀποδείξας μηδʼ ὅ τι παρενεγράψαμεν. ἀπέδειξε δʼ ἂν, εἰ τὰ ἀρχαιότερα καθαρώτερα ἐδείκνυε καὶ οὐκ ἔχοντα ἅπερ οἴεται παρεγγεγράφθαι· μὴ ἀποδείξας δὲ μηδʼ ὅτι βλάσφημά ἐστι ταῦτα, εἶτα πάλιν οὐ δὶς οὐδὲ τρὶς ἀλλὰ δὴ πολλάκις ἐπιῤῥητότατον εἶπε τὸν Ἰησοῦ βίον, οὐ στὰς καθʼ ἕκαστον τῶν ἐν τῷ βίῳ αὐτοῦ πεπραγμένων καὶ νομιζομένων εἶναι ἐπιῤῥητοτάτων, ἵνα τοῦτʼ εἰπὼν δόξῃ μὴ μόνον ἀναποδείκτως ἀποφαίνεσθαι (ἀλλὰ) καὶ λοιδορεῖν ὃν οὐκ ἐπίσταται. εἰ γὰρ τὰ εἴδη τοῦ ἐπιῤῥητοτάτου βίου ἐν ταῖς πράξεσιν αὐτοῦ φαινόμενα αὐτῷ ἐκτιθέμενος ἦν, κἂν ἠγωνισάμεθα πρὸς ἕκαστον τῶν δοκούντων εἶναι αὐτῷ ἐπιῤῥητοτάτων. τὸ δὲ καὶ θανάτῳ οἰκτίστῳ κεχρῆσθαι τὸν Ἰησοῦν δύναιτʼ ἂν λέγεσθαι καὶ περὶ Σωκράτους καὶ περὶ Ἀναξάρχου, οὗ πρὸ βραχέος ἐμνημόνευσε, καὶ περὶ ἄλλων μυρίων. ἢ οἴκτιστος μέν ἐστιν ὁ Ἰησοῦ θάνατος, οὐχὶ δὲ καὶ ὁ ἐκείνων; ἢ ὁ ἐκείνων μὲν οὐκ οἴκτιστος, ὁ δὲ τοῦ Ἰησοῦ οἴκτιστος; ὁρᾷς οὖν καὶ ἐνταῦθα ὅτι σκοπὸς ἦν τῷ Κέλσῳ τὸ διαλοιδορεῖσθαι πρὸς τὸν Ἰησοῦν, κινουμένῳ οἶμαι ὑπό τινος πνεύματος, καταλυθέντος ὑπὸ τοῦ Ἰησοῦ καὶ καθαιρεθέντος. ἵνα μηκέτι ἔχῃ κνίσσας καὶ αἵματα, οἷς τρεφόμενον ἠπάτα τοὺς ἐν τοῖς ἐπὶ γῆς ἀγάλμασι ζητοῦντας θεὸν καὶ μὴ ἀναβλέποντας εἰς τὸν ἐπὶ πᾶσιν ἀληθῶς θεόν.
English · Claude translation
Then, I do not know how, he wanted us rather to proclaim the Sibyl a child of God than Jesus, declaring that we have interpolated many blasphemous things into her writings, without showing what we interpolated. He would have shown it if he had shown that the older copies were purer and did not contain what he thinks has been interpolated. And without showing that these things are blasphemous, he then again, not twice nor three times but many times, called the life of Jesus most infamous, without dwelling on each of the things done in his life that are thought to be most infamous, so that in saying this he seems not only to make assertions without proof but also to revile one whom he does not know. For if he had set out the kinds of most infamous life that he thought appeared in his deeds, we would have contended against each of the things that seemed to him most infamous. That Jesus died a most pitiable death could be said also of Socrates and of Anaxarchus, whom he mentioned a little before, and of countless others. Or is the death of Jesus most pitiable, but not theirs? Or is theirs not pitiable, but that of Jesus pitiable? You see, then, here too that Celsus's aim was to revile Jesus, moved, I think, by some spirit that was overthrown and destroyed by Jesus, so that it no longer has the savour of fat and the blood, fed on which it deceived those who seek God in images on earth and do not look up to the God who is truly over all.
About this passage
Cite this passage
Origen, Cels. 7.56 (trans. Sophia Scriptura, https://sophiascriptura.com/fathers/origen-celsum/7/56/).
Plain text
Origen, Cels. 7.56 (trans. Sophia Scriptura, https://sophiascriptura.com/fathers/origen-celsum/7/56/).
Download citation:BibTeX ·RIS (Zotero, EndNote)
Whole work:BibTeX ·RIS ·Markdown text