Was really Jesus beside John in Contra Celsum?

[Secret Alias]

Here is an eye-opening reference to Contra Celsum in Against Hierocles (a prefect of Egypt who argued for the parallels between Jesus and Apollonius of Tyana). Eusebius lauds the poorly written treatise as if it were his own product:

So then, my dear friend, you find worthy of no little admiration the parallel which, embellished with many marvels, this author has drawn between the man of Tyana and our own Saviour and teacher. For already against the rest of the contents of the "Lover of Truth " (Φιλαλήθει), for so he has thought fit to entitle his work against us, it would be useless to take my stand at present; because they are not his own, but have been pilfered in the most shameless manner, not only I may say in respect of their ideas, but even of their words and syllables, from other authorities. Not but what these parts also of his treatise call for their refutation in due season; but to all intents and purposes they have, even in advance of any special work that might be written in answer to them, been upset and exposed beforehand in a work which in as many as eight books Origen composed against the book which Celsus wrote and--even more boastfully than the " Lover of Truth (Φιλαλήθους)"--entitled " True Reason (Ἀληθῆ λόγον)." The work of Celsus is there subjected to an examination in an exhaustive manner and on the scale above mentioned by the author in question, who in his comprehensive survey of all that anyone has said or will ever say on the same topic., has forestalled any solution of your difficulties which I could offer. To this work of Origen I must refer those who in good faith and with genuine "love of truth " desire accurately to understand my own position. I will therefore ask you for the present to confine your attention to the comparison of Jesus Christ with Apollonius which is found in this treatise called the " Lover of Truth," without insisting on the necessity of our meeting the rest of his arguments, for these are pilfered from other people. We may reasonably confine our attention for the present to the history of Apollonius, because Hierocles, of all the writers who have ever attacked us, stands alone in selecting Apollonius, as he has recently done, for the purposes of comparison and contrast with our Saviour.

So Eusebius was not disinterested with respect to the publication of Contra Celsum. He actively cited it in political discourse in the age. This is significant. This is a powerful statement driving home our main point - "to this work of Origen (i.e. Against Celsus) I must refer those who in good faith and with genuine "love of truth " desire accurately to understand my own position." Morlet notes he presents the "at the beginning of the Against Hierocles Eusebius directs the reader to Against Celsus "as the prototype of every possible refutation." But it goes far beyond this. Morlet has done a systematic study of another Eusebian text - Prophetical Extracts - and noted that it too shares uncanny similarities in language with Against Celsus.

Of course his conclusions differ quite remarkably from mine. He writes "Eusebius’ text is inspired by several passages from Against Celsus, and probably by other parallels in Origen’s works. Such parallels may also indicate that he also depends on a lost work by Origen, maybe the prologue of the lost commentary on Isaiah." https://www.academia.edu/6136229/_Orige ... p._207-237 I think Morlet's conclusions are the safe choice but ultimately the wrong choice. Instead we should look to the intimations in Jerome of an Eusebian 'correction' of Origen. Traditionally - thanks to Jerome's discussion of the subject against Rufinus - the understanding has been that Eusebius simply attempted to purge Origen of heretical statements. However I think the weight of evidence suggests something else.

Eusebius rewrote whatever lies under Against Celsus AS IF it were Origen responding to the treatise seventy years later. The composition of the rewrite (i.e. Eusebius's editorial efforts) likely coincided with Against Hierocles. In other words, in the process of attempting to discredit the Roman prefect of Egypt's effort to ridicule Jesus, Contra Celsum was invented and its strange emphasis that Origen resisted writing the treatise until a very late date being forced to do it by his patron Ambrose. In other words, it is highly likely that the text wasn't known to anyone.

The reason I hated mountainman's presence at the forum is that discussions like this couldn't be fleshed out without his vulgar approach to the problem (Eusebius invented Christianity) dominating the conversation. The evidence for Eusebian forgery is now very strong (Testimonium Flavianum etc) is very strong . But we can't get carried away with it.

[enricotuccinardi]

Very interesting. So it seems that we have more than the colophon at the end of book 1 to suspect Eusebius'interference in the Contra Celsum.

[Secret Alias]

Yes I am very confident that someone with the competence to write such an article (and the time) could make a very good case that (a) the linguistic similarities between Contra Celsum and Eusebius's other works (b) the manner in which scholars understand Celsus to lay behind various apologetic works of Eusebius (Defense of the Gospel, Preparation of the Gospel etc) and (c) the way Eusebius brought forward Contra Celsum in Against Hierocles all point to Eusebius being the one who wrote the second draft of the MS. I think it also points to the whole scenario with Ambrose as his taskmaster and patron as a literary fiction too or at least that the second author developed a narrative from some the situation which might have been historical or had some kernel of truth.

[Secret Alias]

Remember also that the Commentary on Matthew (or maybe it is John I forget right now) has a similar reference to Origen having written it once in Alexandria and then later again in Caesarea. It is hard to know what is truth any more with anything related to Origen. That Eusebius was actively 're-engineering' his history is well known. But Eusebius also took over Pamphilius's name (and signature on various MSS). The line between Eusebius Pamphilius and Pamphilius is also blurred.

What I can't get my head around is why Celsus's work should be so influential in Eusebius's time. It was strange enough when I just stuck to the standard view that Origen was responding to Celsus 70 years after the fact. Now we are looking at a scenario where Eusebius was further reshaping the original '70 year old literary response' fifty years later (or 120 years after Celsus). How could one text be so influential given that no one has any clue who Celsus was? I mean everyone knows Porphyry and Eusebius also mentions Porphyry but why should Eusebius have been troubled by Celsus to a greater degree than Porphyry when Porphyry and his works were well known. Something isn't quite kosher.

[Secret Alias]

Τὰς ἀπὸ τῶν Ἡσαΐου Προφητικὰς Ἐκλογὰς μόνας ἡμῖν λειπούσας ἀπανθίσασθαι πειρώμενοι, πρὸς τοὺς ἀπίστως περὶ τὰς προφητείας διακειμένους ὀλίγα προδιαληψόμεθα εἰς παράστασιν τῆς τῶν προφητῶν ἀληθείας. Καὶ δὴ πρῶτον καλῶς καὶ τοῖς πρὸ ἡμῶν τετηρημένον παραθήσομαι λογισμόν. Εὖ γοὖν εἰρηκέναι μοι δοκοῦσιν, ὡς ἄρα τοῖς ὑπὸ τὸν Μωσέως νόμον αὐτὸς ὁ νόμος διαμαρτύρεται, ὅτι δὴ τὰ ἔθνη ὧν μεταξὺ πολιτεύσονται κληδόνων καὶ μαντειῶν ἀκούσονται· σοὶ δὲ, φησὶν, οὐχ οὕτως ἔδωκε Κύριος ὁ Θεός σου· καὶ ἔτι γε εἴργων αὐτοὺς ὁ θεῖος λόγος ἔκ τε οἰωνιστικῆς καὶ πάσης τῆς διὰ δαιμόνων περιέργου μαντείας ἐπιφέρει λέγων, προφήτην ἐκ τῶν ἀδελφῶν σου ἀναστήσει σοι Κύριος ὁ Θεός σου. Ἄρ' οὖν τούτων αὐτοῖς ἀναγεγραμμένων, μὴ ἔργῳ δὲ γενομένων, μὴ δὲ παρόντων αὐτοῖς προφητῶν ἀνδρῶν, δύνατον ἦν αὐτοὺς πιστεύειν τῷ νόμῳ, καὶ τῷ ταῦτα ἐπαγγειλαμένῳ λόγῳ οὕτω προφανῶς καὶ ἐναργῶς ψευδομένῳ, ἢ δῆλον ὅτι ὑπ' αὐτῆς τῆς περὶ τὴν πρόγνωσιν τῶν ἐσομένων λιχνείας ἀγόμενοι κατεφρόνησαν τῶν ἰδίων, ὡς οὐδὲν ἀληθὲς ἐχόντων οὐδὲ θεῖον, διὰ τὸ μὴ εἶναι παρ' αὐτοῖς προφήτας, αὐτόμολοι δὲ ἐπὶ τὰ τῶν ἐθνῶν μαντεῖά τε καὶ χρηστήρια μετήεσαν <ἄν>; Ἀλλὰ γὰρ φαίνονται οὐ μόνον Μωσέα, ἀλλὰ καὶ πλείους μετ' αὐτὸν ὡς Θεοῦ προφήτας προσιέμενοι, οὐκ ἄλλως δῆλον ὅτι ἢ τῷ πείραν τῆς ἐν αὐτοῖς θειότητος εἰληφέναι· οἵδε γὰρ αὐτοῖς οὐ μόνον περὶ τῶν μακροῖς ὕστερον χρόνοις μελλόντων ἔσεσθαι προυθέσπιζον, ἀλλὰ καὶ περί τινων προχείρων καὶ βιωτικῶν προύλεγον· οἷον περὶ ὄνων ἀπολωλυιῶν, καὶ περὶ νοσούντων ἐπισφαλῶς εἰ βιώσονται ἢ μὴ, καὶ περὶ μελλούσης ἔσεσθαι τῷ λαῷ εὐθηνίας, καὶ περὶ ἄλλων μυρίων, ἃ ταῖς κατ' αὐτοὺς ἱστορίαις ἐμφέρεται· ἅπερ εἰ μὴ τοῦτον γεγόνει τὸν τρόπον, ἀποκρινέσθω τίς, τίνι δὴ ποτὲ οὖν λόγῳ προφήτας ἡγοῦντό τε καὶ ἀπεκάλουν, ἢ διὰ τί γραφῆς τοὺς λόγους αὐτῶν ἠξίουν Τίς δ' ἡ αἰτία, δι' ἣν καὶ τοῖς μετέπειτα παισὶν ἑαυτῶν, ὡς ἂν δὴ θείας, αὐτῶν τὰς γραφὰς παρεδίδοσαν· μηδὲν γάρ τι θεῖον μὴ δὲ παράδοξον ἐν τοῖς ἀνδράσιν ἑορακότας εἰκῆ καὶ μάτην οἴεσθαι περὶ αὐτῶν τοιαῦτα διειληφέναι πάντων ἐστὶν ἀπιθανώτατον.

Εἰ δ' ἀναδράμοι τίς ἐπὶ τοὺς τότε χρόνους τῇ διανοίᾳ, τί ἄρα ἐπινοήσειεν, ὁρῶν ἄνδρας ἀγροίκους καὶ τὸ σχῆμα λιτοὺς, αἰπολοὺς τινὰς καὶ ποιμένας, εἰς μέσον παντὸς τοῦ ἔθνους παριόντας, καὶ ὡς ἐκ προσώπου τοῦ Θεοῦ τινὰ λέγοντας, καὶ τάδε λέγει Κύριος ἀναβοωμένους, ἐπί τε βασιλέων καὶ παντὸς τοῦ λαοῦ μετὰ παραστήματος ἀκαταπλήκτου δημηγοροῦντας, καὶ σοφίαν ὑπὲρ ἄνθρωπον ἐνδεικνυμένους, τὴν καὶ εἰς ἔτι νῦν ἐν ταῖς προφητείαις 168 αὐτῶν φερομένην, μυρία τε ἄλλα δι' αἰνιγμάτων καὶ παραβολῶν ἀπόρρητα φιλοσοφοῦντας, ἠθικήν τε καὶ δογματικὴν τῇ Ἑβραίων φωνῇ διδασκαλίαν τῷ λαῷ παραδιδόντας, καὶ πρὸς ἐπὶ τούτοις τὸν βίον τοῖς λόγοις αὐτῶν κατάλληλον ἐνδεικνυμένους, καὶ τοῖς πᾶσιν ἀκολακεύτως ὁμιλοῦντας, εἰς πρόσωπόν τε τοὺς ἀσεβεῖς διελέγχοντας, ὡς καὶ ἐπιβουλεύεσθαι πρὸς αὐτῶν μέχρι θάνατον, ῥωμαλέῳ καὶ γεννικῷ παραστήματι τῷ ἀληθεῖ λόγῳ παρισταμένους. Ταῦτά τις εἰς νοῦν εὐγνωμόνως θέμενος, πῶς οὐκ ἂν ὁμολογήσειεν κατὰ θείαν ὡς ἀληθῶς ἐπίπνοιαν ταῦτα πάντα περὶ αὐτοὺς γεγονέναι; ∆ιὸ καὶ τότε θαυμάζεσθαι αὐτοὺς εἰκὸς ἦν παρὰ τοῖς ἔμφροσιν, καὶ τοὺς λόγους αὐτῶν ἀναγράπτους παρὰ τοῖς ἱερογραμματεῦσι φυλάττεσθαι, εἰς ἔτι τε νῦν παρ' ὅλῳ τῷ ἔθνει προφήτας γεγονέναι τοῦ Θεοῦ πιστεύεσθαι· ὃ καὶ ἐναργέστατα μάλιστα παρίστησιν ἡ ἡμετέρα περὶ τοῦ Χριστοῦ διάληψις, καθ' ἣν ἀποδείκνυμεν πᾶσαν τὴν κατ' αὐτὸν οἰκονομίαν γεγενημένην, τά τε περὶ τῆς διδασκαλίας αὐτοῦ, καὶ τῆς ἐξ ἁπάντων ἐθνῶν γενομένης δι' αὐτοῦ κλήσεως ἀκριβῶς προεγνῶσθαί τε καὶ πρὸ μυρίων ὅσων ἐτῶν τοῖς θεσπεσίοις ἐκείνοις ἀνδράσι προειρῆσθαι· ὧν τὰς ἱερὰς βίβλους Ἰουδαῖοι μᾶλλον ἂν ἡμῶν εἶεν ἀξιοπιστότεροι μετὰ πάσης σεβασμίου τιμῆς περιέποντές τε καὶ προφέροντες. [Eusebius Ecl. Proph. IV Pre]

Τὸ δ' ἀναγκαῖον οὕτω παραστήσομεν. "Τὰ ἔθνη", ὡς γέγραπται καὶ ἐν αὐτῷ τῷ τῶν Ἰουδαίων νόμῳ, "κληδόνων καὶ μαντειῶν ἀκούσονται"· τῷ δὲ λαῷ ἐκείνῳ εἴρηται· "Σοὶ δὲ οὐχ οὕτως ἔδωκε κύριος ὁ θεός σου." Καὶ ἐπιφέρεται τούτῳ τὸ "Προφήτην ἐκ τῶν ἀδελφῶν σου ἀναστήσει σοι κύριος ὁ θεός σου. Εἴπερ οὖν τῶν ἐθνῶν χρωμένων μαντείαις εἴτε διὰ "κληδόνων" εἴτε δι' οἰωνῶν εἴτε δι' ὀρνίθων εἴτε δι' ἐγγαστριμύθων εἴτε καὶ διὰ τῶν τὴν θυτικὴν ἐπαγγελλο μένων εἴτε καὶ διὰ Χαλδαίων γενεθλιαλογούντων, ἅπερ πάντα Ἰουδαίοις ἀπείρητο, Ἰουδαῖοι εἰ μηδεμίαν εἶχον παραμυθίαν γνώσεως τῶν μελλόντων, ὑπ' αὐτῆς ἂν τῆς ἀνθρωπίνης περὶ τὴν γνῶσιν λιχνείας τῶν ἐσομένων ἀγόμενοι κατεφρόνησαν μὲν ἂν τῶν ἰδίων ὡς οὐδὲν ἐχόντων θεῖον ἐν ἑαυτοῖς καὶ οὐκ ἂν μετὰ Μωϋσέα προφήτην προσήκαντο οὐδ' ἀνέγραψαν αὐτῶν τοὺς λόγους, αὐτόμολοι δὲ ἐπὶ τὰ τῶν ἐθνῶν μαντεῖα καὶ χρηστήρια μετέστησαν ἢ ἐπεχείρησαν ἂν ἱδρῦσαί τι τοιοῦτον καὶ παρ' ἑαυτοῖς. Ὥστ' οὐδὲν ἄτοπόν ἐστι καὶ περὶ τῶν τυχόντων τοὺς παρ' αὐτοῖς προ φήτας εἰς παραμυθίαν τῶν τὰ τοιαῦτα ποθούντων προειρη κέναι, ὥστε καὶ "περὶ ὄνων ἀπολωλυιῶν" προφητεύειν τὸν Σαμουὴλ καὶ περὶ νόσου παιδὸς βασιλικοῦ τὸν ἐν τῇ τρίτῃ τῶν Βασιλειῶν ἀναγεγραμμένον[Origen Contra Celsum 1.38]

Ἆρα γὰρ ὡς ἔτυχε ταῦτ' ἔλεγον οἱ προφῆται σὺν οὐδεμιᾷ πιθανότητι, τῇ κινούσῃ αὐτοὺς ἐπὶ τὸ μὴ μόνον εἰπεῖν ἀλλὰ καὶ ἀναγραφῆς ἀξιῶσαι τὰ λεγόμενα; Ἆρά γε τὸ τοσοῦτο τῶν Ἰουδαίων ἔθνος, πάλαι χώραν ἰδίαν εἰληφὸς οἰκεῖν, σὺν οὐδεμιᾷ πιθανότητι τινὰς μὲν ὡς προφήτας ἀνηγόρευον ἑτέρους δὲ ὡς ψευδοπροφήτας ἀπεδο κίμαζον; Καὶ οὐδὲν ἦν παρ' αὐτοῖς τὸ προκαλούμενον συναριθμεῖν ταῖς ἱεραῖς εἶναι πεπιστευμέναις Μωϋσέως βίβλοις τοὺς λόγους τῶν
ἑξῆς νενομισμένων εἶναι προφητῶν [Origen Contra Celsum 3.2]

... διὰ τὸ τοῦ βίου δυσμί μητον καὶ σφόδρα εὔτονον καὶ ἐλευθέριον καὶ πάντῃ πρὸς θάνατον καὶ κινδύνους ἀκατάπληκτον ... [Origen Contra Celsum 7.7]

Τῶν δ' ἐν Ἰουδαίοις προφητῶν οἱ μὲν πρὸ τῆς προφη τείας καὶ τῆς θείας κατακωχῆς ἦσαν σοφοί, οἱ δ' ἀπ' αὐτῆς τῆς προφητείας φωτισθέντες τὸν νοῦν τοιοῦτοι γεγόνασιν ... [Origen Contra Celsum 7.7]

Οὗτοι δὴ καὶ ἄλλοι μυρίοι προφητεύσαντες τῷ θεῷ καὶ τὰ περὶ Ἰησοῦ τοῦ Χριστοῦ προεῖπον. [Origen Contra Celsum 7.7]

ταῦτα "δι' αἰνιγμάτων" καὶ ἀλληγοριῶν καὶ τῶν καλουμένων σκοτεινῶν λόγων καὶ τῶν ὀνομαζομένων παραβολῶν ἢ παροιμιῶν ἀπεφήναντο [Origen Contra Celsum 7.10]

"ἐλιθάσθησαν, ἐπρίσθησαν, ἐπειράσθησαν, ἐν φόνῳ μαχαίρας ἀπέθανον [Origen Contra Celsum 7.7]

Ἐπεὶ δ' ἅπαξ εἰς τὸν περὶ τῶν προφητῶν ἤλθομεν λόγον, Ἰουδαίοις μέν, τοῖς πιστεύουσι θείῳ πνεύματι αὐτοὺς λελαληκέναι, οὐ μόνον οὐκ ἔσται ἀχρήσιμα τὰ ἐποισθη σόμενα καὶ τοῖς εὐγνωμονοῦσι δὲ τῶν Ἑλλήνων [Origen Contra Celsum 1.36]

And we establish this necessity in the following manner. For the nations, as it is written in the law of the Jews itself, shall hearken unto observers of times, and diviners; but to that people it is said: But as for you, the Lord your God has not suffered you so to do. And to this is subjoined the promise: A prophet shall the Lord your God raise up unto you from among your brethren. Since, therefore, the heathen employ modes of divination either by oracles or by omens, or by birds, or by ventriloquists, or by those who profess the art of sacrifice, or by Chaldean genealogists— all which practices were forbidden to the Jews— this people, if they had no means of attaining a knowledge of futurity, being led by the passion common to humanity of ascertaining the future would have despised their own prophets, as not having in them any particle of divinity; and would not have accepted any prophet after Moses, nor committed their words to writing, but would have spontaneously betaken themselves to the divining usages of the heathen, or attempted to establish some such practices among themselves. There is therefore no absurdity in their prophets having uttered predictions even about events of no importance, to soothe those who desire such things, as when Samuel prophesies regarding three she-asses which were lost, or when mention is made in the third book of Kings respecting the sickness of a king's son.

For was it by chance that the prophets made these announcements, with no persuasion of the truth in their minds, moving them not only to speak, but to deem their announcements worthy of being committed to writing? And did so great a nation as that of the Jews, who had long ago received a country of their own wherein to dwell, recognise certain men as prophets, and reject others as utterers of false predictions, without any conviction of the soundness of the distinction? And was there no motive which induced them to class with the books of Moses, which were held as sacred, the words of those persons who were afterwards deemed to be prophets?

... leading a life of almost unapproachable excellence, intrepid, noble, unmoved by danger or death ...

In regard to the prophets among the Jews, some of them were wise men before they became divinely inspired prophets, while others became wise by the illumination which their minds received when divinely inspired.

These, and a multitude of others, prophesying on behalf of God, foretold events relating to Jesus Christ.

the form of enigmas and allegories, or of what are called dark sayings, parables, or similitudes.

they were stoned; they were sawn asunder, were tempted, were slain with the sword

And now, since we have touched upon the subject of the prophets, what we are about to advance will be useful not only to the Jews, who believe that they spoke by divine inspiration, but also to the more candid among the Greeks.

I will finish marking all the parallels found in the section. Busy with other things ...

[Secret Alias]

Before I complete the last post an interesting coincidence - the title of Hierocles's treatise (which is the first cited Greek text of Eusebius) is Φιλαλήθης λόγος; Celsus interestingly is said to have authored a treatise called Αληθής Λόγος. Coincidence? Does Origen actually say that Hierocles wrote the Φιλαλήθης λόγος? I think we're about to have a breakthrough moment ...

[Secret Alias]

Here is a surprising fact about the translation I cited of the opening words which reads:

So then, my dear friend, you find worthy of no little admiration the parallel which, embellished with many marvels, this author has drawn between the man of Tyana and our own Saviour and teacher. For already against the rest of the contents of the Philalethes, for so he has thought fit to entitle his work against us, it would be useless to take my stand at present; because they are not his own, but have been pilfered in the most shameless manner, not only I may say in respect of their ideas, but even of their words and syllables, from other authorities. Not but what these parts also of his treatise call for their refutation in due season; but to all intents and purposes they have, even in advance of any special work that might be written in answer to them, been upset and exposed beforehand in a work which in as many as eight books Origen composed against the book which Celsus wrote and--even more boastfully than the " Lover of Truth,"--entitled " True Reason." The work of Celsus is there subjected to an examination in an exhaustive manner and on the scale above mentioned by the author in question, who in his comprehensive survey of all that anyone has said or will ever say on the same topic., has forestalled any solution of your difficulties which I could offer. To this work of Origen I must refer those who in good faith and with genuine "love of truth " desire accurately to understand my own position. I will therefore ask you for the present to confine your attention to the comparison of Jesus Christ with Apollonius which is found in this treatise called the " Lover of Truth," without insisting on the necessity of our meeting the rest of his arguments, for these are pilfered from other people. We may reasonably confine our attention for the present to the history of Apollonius, because Hierocles, of all the writers who have ever attacked us, stands alone in selecting Apollonius, as he has recently done, for the purposes of comparison and contrast with our Saviour.

You'd think from this translation that there is a clear identification of Hierocles as the author of a work against Christianity. Well about that ...

If you actually double check the Greek the name Hierocles (Ἱεροκλῆς) does not even appear once in the section:

Αρ' ουν, ὦ φιλότης, κἀκεῖνά σε τοῦ συγγραφέως αξιον ἀποθαυμάζειν, ἃ τῷ ἡμετέρῳ σωτῆρί τε καὶ διδασκάλῳ τὸν Τυανέα συγκρίνων παρεδοξολόγει; πρὸς μὲν γὰρ τὰ λοιπὰ τῶν ἐν τῷ Φιλαλήθει, οὕτω γὰρ εὖ εχειν αὐτῷ τὸν καθ' ἡμῶν ἐπιγράφειν ἐδόκει λόγον, οὐδὲν αν εἴη σπουδαῖον ἐπὶ τοῦ παρόντος ιστασθαι μὴ αὐτοῦ ιδια τυγχάνοντα, σφόδρα δὲ ἀναιδῶς ἐξ ἑτέρων οὐκ αὐτοῖς μονονουχὶ νοήμασιν, ἀλλὰ καὶ ῥήμασι καὶ συλλαβαῖς ἀποσεσυλημένα, ἃτύχοι μὲν αν καὶ αὐτὰ τῆς προσηκούσης κατὰ καιρὸν ἀπελέγξεως, δυνάμει δ' ηδη καὶ πρὸ τῆς ἰδίας κατ' αὐτῶν γραφῆς ἀνατέτραπται καὶ προαπελήλεγκται ἐν ολοις ὀκτὼ συγγράμμασι τοῖςὨριγένει γραφεῖσι πρὸς τὸν ἀλαζονικώτερον τοῦ Φιλαλήθους ἐπιγεγραμμένον Κέλσου Ἀληθῆ λόγον, ᾧ τὰς εὐθύνας ἀπαραλείπτως, ἐν ὅσοις εἰρήκαμεν, ὁ δεδηλωμένος παραγαγὼν συλλήβδην ὅσα εἰς τὴν αὐτὴν 370 ὑπόθεσιν παντί τῳ ειρηταί τε καὶ εἰρήσεται, προλαβὼν διελύσατο, ἐφ' ἃ τοὺς ἐπ' ἀκριβὲς τὰ καθ' ἡμᾶς διαγνῶναι εχοντας φιλαλήθως ἀναπέμψαντες φέρε μόνην ἐπὶ τοῦ παρόντος τὴν κατὰ τὸν κύριον ἡμῶνἸησοῦν Χριστὸν τοῦ Φιλαλήθους τουτουὶ λόγου παράθεσιν ἐπισκεψώμεθα μηδέν τι σπουδαῖον ἡγούμενοι πρὸς τὰ λοιπὰ τῶν ἑτέρωθεν ὑποσεσυλημένων αὐτῷ διαμάχεσθαι. μόνα δὲ εἰκότως νυνὶ τὰ περὶ τὸνἈπολλώνιον ἐποψόμεθα, ἐπεὶ καὶ μόνῳ παρὰ τοὺς πώποτε καθ' ἡμῶν γεγραφότας ἐξαίρετος νῦν τούτῳ γέγονεν ἡ τοῦδε πρὸς τὸν ἡμέτερον σωτῆρα παράθεσίς τε καὶ σύγκρισις

Now we can revisit the question of why Eusebius is so interested in Origen's Contra Celsum. As we noted, it has been acknowledged now that two of Eusebius's apologetic works are in a large part prompted by Celsus. Here he goes out of his way to bring the work into his discussion of Hierocles. The obvious question now is why Celsus, an author who wrote 120 years before Eusebius is so important to Eusebius at the beginning of the fourth century. The answer that seems to be coming into my head is that Hierocles cited from the 'True Word.'

[Giuseppe]

The answer that seems to be coming into my head is that Hierocles cited from the 'True Word.'

All here? It seems an open secret.

[Secret Alias]

The first question that is asked in studies of Against Hierocles is who is the 'dear friend' viz.

So then, my dear friend (φιλότης), you find worthy of no little admiration the parallel which, embellished with many marvels, this author has drawn between the man of Tyana and our own Saviour and teacher.

This is Conybeare's translation at the beginning of the twentieth century. The same section is translation is translated thusly by the new Loeb series:

Well, my dear friend, do you think that part too of the author’s work to be worthy of admiration:–his preposterous comparison of our savior and teacher with the man of Tyana?

Most of the words are the same, but the idea does creep into my head already that Eusebius is writing to Hierocles (= φιλότης) about his love of Celsus - i.e. that it was Celsus originally who made reference to the comparison between Jesus and Apollonius.

The next lines in the two English translations. First Conybeare:

For already against the rest of the contents of the Φιλαλήθει, for so he has thought fit to entitle his work against us, it would be useless to take my stand at present; because they are not his own, but have been pilfered in the most shameless manner, not only I may say in respect of their ideas, but even of their words and syllables, from other authorities.

And now the new Loeb:

As for the other contents of the Φιλαλήθει (since that is how it pleased him to entitle his tract against us), it would not be worthwhile to take a stand for the moment. They are not in fact his own, but quite shamelessly plundered from other people, not just as to the ideas themselves, but right down to words and syllables.

Of course it is universally acknowledged that the work of Hierocles was not called Φιλαλήθει but Φιλαλήθης λόγος. The work of Celsus is said, as we already noted, to be the same without the prefixed Φιλ- i.e. Αληθής Λόγος. How interesting is it then that the addressee is identified also as φιλότης at the start of the treatise. Another interesting coincidence is that Celsus is repeatedly identified as an Epicurean in Contra Celsum - a mystifying epithet as he is clearly a Platonist and not a follower of Epicurus - and the fact that we learn that Diogenes Laertes makes explicit that φιλαλήθεις is a name given to Epicureans - viz "certain philosophers are called φιλαλήθεις by D.L.1.17, who seems to intend the Epicureans; also applied to the physician Alexander of Laodicea, Anon.Lond.24.32."

Beyond this it might be worth examining what Φιλαλήθης meant as a contemporary terminology. The answer is clearly 'well researched' or 'learned' - https://books.google.com/books?id=Cf_dC ... 22&f=false To this end, φιλαλήθης, could well have been applied to an author or a work that was well researched. This in turn might have been further confused with the title of the work - Φιλαλήθης λόγος.

The next line is Conybeare's translation:

Not but what these parts also of his treatise call for their refutation in due season; but to all intents and purposes they have, even in advance of any special work that might be written in answer to them, been upset and exposed beforehand in a work which in as many as eight books Origen composed against the book which Celsus wrote and--even more boastfully than the " Lover of Truth,"--entitled " True Reason."

And again the second:

These parts too might receive the appropriate refutation in time, but in effect they have already been overturned and disproved in advance, even without a special work devoted to them. Origen wrote no less than eight books against The True Doctrine of Celsus (a title even more boastful than The Lover of Truth).

Isn't that odd though that buried in Against Hierocles is the idea that Hierocles's polemic has already been answered in Against Celsus? I would be very surprised if Hierocles did not turn out to have used Celsus's work to justify his persecution of Christians and hence Eusebius's obsession about the work 120 years after Celsus's original publication.

[Secret Alias]

It seems incredible to me to suggest that than Sossianus Hierocles, an Imperial official in a turbulent period actually authored a massive tome against Christianity. Politicians don't write books - they use literary works written by others to justify political decisions.