Greek:
Μετὰ ταῦτά τινας τῶν πιστευόντων φησὶν ὡς ἐκ μέθης ἥκοντας εἰς τὸ ἐφεστάναι αὑτοῖς μεταχαράττειν ἐκ τῆς πρώτης γραφῆς τὸ εὐαγγέλιον τριχῇ καὶ τετραχῇ καὶ πολλαχῇ καὶ μεταπλάττειν, ἵν ἔχοιεν πρὸς τοὺς ἐλέγχους ἀρνεῖσθαι. μεταχαράξαντας δὲ τὸ εὐαγγέλιον ἄλλους οὐκ οἶδα ἢ τοὺς ἀπὸ Μαρκίωνος καὶ τοὺς ἀπὸ Οὐαλεντίνου οἶμαι δὲ καὶ τοὺς ἀπὸ Λουκάνου.
My translation, after DeepL:
After these things*, {Celsus says}, some of the {Christ} Believers -as though drunk and self-harming- did transcribe from the primary Scripture the Gospel three-fold, four-fold, and manifold, but transformed it, to deny objectors. Yet of those who corrupted the Gospel, I have not seen others besides those from the followers of Marcion, of Valentinus, or I suppose of Lucanus {Luke?}. And this being said, it is not the fault of the {Christian} Word, but of those who dared tamper with the Gospels.
*things = viz., inconsistencies and complexities of the Gospels
Ante-Nicene Fathers,
2.27
After this he says, that certain of the Christian believers, like persons who in a fit of drunkenness lay violent hands upon themselves, have corrupted the Gospel from its original integrity, to a threefold, and fourfold, and many-fold degree, and have remodelled it, so that they might be able to answer objections. Now I know of no others who have altered the Gospel, save the followers of Marcion, and those of Valentinus, and, I think, also those of Lucian. But such an allegation is no charge against the Christian system, but against those who dared so to trifle with the Gospels.
Therefore we can see and set aside:
Celsus: Christ-Believers have multiplied the Gospel, three and four times (the Four Gospels) - but really many more.
to focus on what Origen declares:
Origen has not seen Gospels from any groups besides Followers of Marcion, Valentinus and -he adds- Lucian (viz. Luke).
Origen doesn't say ONLY Marcionites and Valentinians multiplied the Gospel, rather that his familiarity is only with the two main (heretic) groups plus the mysterious Lucianites (however they should be called) he would add.
Origen's statement must be either True or False.
True: Lucianites existed, they have a Gospel, they are significant enough to be compared to Marcionites, etc. - or
False: countless possibilities, all wrong, such as scribal error significantly changing this text, Origen made up shit, ... etc.
The authority of the source would be impugned by Falsehood, creating problems. I do not assume the Claim is False; rather, it is misunderstood.
'Lucian of Samosata' is Wrong here, simply. Given his own writings (cited), we may easily, reasonably and correctly infer:
1) LS was
not a Believer; au contraire, he scorned Believers. (Necessary Condition 1: Prove that he was),
2) LS
did not preach any Gospel; had someone so famous, it would have been noteworthy. (Necessary Condition 2: Prove that he did),
3) LS
had no Xian sect/cult; no associated cult is so named. (Necessary Condition 3: Prove that he did),
4)
No LS Xian sect existed, therefore it could not have multiplied Gospels. (Necessary Condition 4: Prove they did.)
The four Necessary Conditions must be met for that or any candidate; since they are not, it fails at the start. Inference/ imagining is not "evidence" otherwise, nor is it sound-reasoning when it is mere rationalization (make-believe). Consider further:
5)There is absolutely
no reference to "Lucian of Samosata" anywhere in
Contra Celsum, nor to any implied Lucian-friend-of-Celsus (whoever those two may be).
6) The problematic muddle of those two identities does NOT offer any clarity nor 'reasonable assumption' and benefit of the doubt to proceed any further w/ the spurious claim.
7) Luke/Lucian is a very common name. We must begin thinking it could be ANY Luke/Lucian of learning, faith and status, not confined to any False Candidates.
8) A famous writer presumably writes, no? So his Gospel would be famous (not forgotten) in its day and afterwards. If not, no.
Abstruse or tendentious hypotheticals ("Ancient Xians thought he was!") are unsupported by any facts in this case, so disallowed. Speculation isnt evidence, and so on. The claim that some real 'Followers of Lucian' multiplied their own Gospel(s) remains in question, but w/o any connection to the Syrian satirist.
a) A group would need to have existed by c.245 AD, a TRUE Xian group
and "Believers" probably c.120 AD.
b) Said sect would either have joined the Church or been in dubious conflict w/ it around Origen's day.
Origen's wanted these Followers' writings to be classed with other heretics'. That seems odd, but Church Fathers had their enemies and Origen had his. So we should not exaggerate our own full-blown Heretic presumption(s) without more information, something else to go on.
A novel suggestion? Luke's Gospel Followers
pp.273-4 and whatever they wrote afterwards. Perhaps it was an offshoot, not fully separated as a sect, under a dodgy bishop, or a church network scorned (for something now forgotten) in retrospect?
Where did Luke's Gospel originate and circulate most fervently c.120-175 AD?