Biblical Criticism & History Forum - earlywritings.com

The repeated use of ὑπαγόρευσις only at the very beginning and very end of this treatise pointing to a second hand reshaping the original treatise after its original composition:

Ὅμως δ' ἵνα μὴ δοκῶμεν ὀκνεῖν πρὸς τὸ ἐπιταχθὲν ὑπὸ σοῦ, πεπειράμεθα ὑπαγορεῦσαι κατὰ τὴν παροῦσαν δύναμιν πρὸς ἕκαστον τῶν ὑπὸ Κέλσου γεγραμμένων τὸ φανὲν ἡμῖν ἀνατρεπτικὸν τῶν πιστὸν οὐδένα δυναμένων σεῖσαι λόγων αὐτοῦ (Praef. 4). “Nevertheless, that we may not appear to shirk the task which you have set us, we have tried our best to reply to each particular point in Celsus’ book and refute it as it seemed fitting to us, although his arguments cannot shake the faith of any true Christian.”

Ὅμως δ' ἐπεὶ ἐν τῷ πλήθει τῶν πιστεύειν νομιζομένων εὑρεθεῖεν ἄν τινες τοιοῦτοι, ὡς σαλεύεσθαι μὲν καὶ ἀνατρέπεσθαι ὑπὸ τῶν Κέλσου γραμμάτων θεραπεύεσθαι δὲ ἀπὸ τῆς πρὸς αὐτὰ ἀπολογίας, ἐὰν ἔχῃ χαρακτῆρά τινα καθαιρετικὸν τῶν Κέλσου καὶ τῆς ἀληθείας παραστατικὸν τὰ λεγόμενα, ἐλογισάμεθα πεισθῆναί σου τῇ προστάξει καὶ ὑπαγορεῦσαι πρὸς ὃ ἔπεμψας ἡμῖν σύγγραμμα (Praef 5)

Τοῦτο δὲ τὸ προοίμιον μετὰ τὸ ὑπαγορεῦσαι πάντα τὰ μέχρι τῆς παρὰ Κέλσῳ τοῦ Ἰουδαίου πρὸς τὸν Ἰησοῦν προσωποποιΐας ἔδοξεν ἡμῖν προτάξαι τῆς ἀρχῆς· (Praef 6)

Ἐὰν δὲ μὴ κινηθῇς καὶ ὑπὸ τῶν ἑξῆς ὑπαγορευθέντων ἀνυσίμως, καὶ ἐπ' αὐτοῖς τὴν ὁμοίαν συγγνώμην αἰτῶν ἀναπέμπω σε, ἐάνπερ ἔτι θέλῃς δι' ὑπαγορεύσεων τὰς λύσεις σοι τῶν Κέλσου γενέσθαι λόγων, ἐπὶ τοὺς ἡμῶν συνετωτέρους καὶ διὰ λέξεων καὶ βιβλίων ἀνατρέπειν δυναμένους τὰ καθ' ἡμῶν τοῦ Κέλσου ἐγκλήματα. (ibid)

AND AGAIN IN THE LAST LINES:

Καὶ περιεγράψαμεν ἐν ὀκτὼ βιβλίοις πάντα, ὅσα πρέπον εἶναι ἐνομίσαμεν ὑπαγορεῦσαι πρὸς τὸν ἐπιγεγραμμένον Κέλσου ἀληθῆ λόγον. Τοῦ δ' ἐντυγχάνοντός ἐστι τῷ ἐκείνου συγγράμματι καὶ οἷς ἡμεῖς κατ' αὐτοῦ ὑπηγορεύσαμεν κρῖναι, ὁπότερα μᾶλλον πνεῖ τοῦ ἀληθινοῦ θεοῦ καὶ τοῦ τρόπου τῆς εἰς αὐτὸν εὐσεβείας καὶ τῆς εἰς ἀνθρώπους φθανούσης ὑγιῶν δογμάτων προτρεπομένων ἐπὶ τὸν ἄριστον βίον ἀληθείας. Ἴσθι μέντοι ἐπαγγελλόμενον τὸν Κέλσον ἄλλο σύνταγμα μετὰ τοῦτο ποιήσειν, ἐν ᾧ διδάξειν ἐπηγγείλατο, ὅπῃ βιωτέον τοὺς βουλομένους αὐτῷ καὶ δυναμένους πείθεσθαι. Εἰ μὲν οὖν οὐκ ἔγραψεν ὑποσχόμενος τὸν δεύτερον λόγον, εὖ ἂν ἔχοι ἀρκεῖσθαι ἡμᾶς τοῖς ὀκτὼ πρὸς τὸν λόγον αὐτοῦ ὑπαγορευθεῖσι βιβλίοις· εἰ δὲ κἀκεῖνον ἀρξάμενος συνετέλεσε, ζήτησον καὶ πέμψον τὸ σύγγραμμα, ἵνα καὶ πρὸς ἐκεῖνο ἅπερ ἂν ὁ τῆς ἀληθείας διδῷ ἡμῖν πατὴρ ὑπαγορεύσαντες καὶ τὴν ἐν ἐκείνῳ ψευδοδοξίαν ἀνατρέψωμεν, εἰ δέ που τι ἀληθὲς λέγεται, τούτῳ ἀφιλονείκως ὡς καλῶς εἰρημένῳ μαρτυρήσωμεν. In eight books we have embraced all that we considered it proper to say in reply to that book of Celsus which he entitles A True Discourse. And now it remains for the readers of his discourse and of my reply to judge which of the two breathes most of the Spirit of the true God, of piety towards Him, and of that truth which leads men by sound doctrines to the noblest life. You must know, however, that Celsus had promised another treatise as a sequel to this one, in which he engaged to supply practical rules of living to those who felt disposed to embrace his opinions. If, then, he has not fulfilled his promise of writing a second book, we may well be contented with these eight books which we have written in answer to his discourse. But if he has begun and finished that second book, pray obtain it and send it to us, that we may answer it as the Father of truth may give us ability, and either overthrow the false teaching that may be in it, or, laying aside all jealousy, we may testify our approval of whatever truth it may contain.

The term ὑπαγόρευσις does appear sparingly in Commentary on Matthew but it usually is used to 'tone done' some dangerous interpretation that Origen has just given. Indeed they inevitably happen at the beginning or end of a particularly troublesome section. For instance:

Book 14.6 Now there is, as is probable, an interpretation, transcendental and hard to trace, as it is somewhat mystical, according to which, after the analogy of the parables which are interpreted by the Evangelists, one would investigate each of the details in this; as, for example, who the king was, and who the servants were, and what was the beginning of his making a reckoning, and who was the one debtor who owed many talents, and who was his wife and who his children, and what were the all things spoken of besides those which the king ordered to be sold in order that the debt might be paid out of his belongings, and what was meant by the going out of the man who had been forgiven the many talents, and who was the one of the servants who was found and was a debtor not to the householder, but to the man who had been forgiven, and what is meant by the number of the hundred pence, and what by the word, He took him by the throat saying, Pay what you owe , and what is the prison into which he who had been forgiven all the talents went out and cast his fellow-servant, and who were the fellow-servants who were grieved and told the lord all that had been done, and who were the tormentors to whom he who had cast his fellow-servant into prison was delivered, and how he who was delivered to the tormentors paid all that was due, so that he no longer owed anything. But with regard to the interpretation of the loftiest type, we make no profession; nor on the other hand with the assistance of Christ who is the Wisdom of God do we despair of apprehending the things signified in the parable; but whether it shall be the case that such things shall be dictated (ὑπαγορευθῆναι) to us in connection with this Scripture or not, may God in Christ suggest the doing of that which is pleasing to Him, if only there be granted to us also concerning these things, the word of wisdom which is given from God through the Spirit, and the word of knowledge which is supplied according to the Spirit.

Secret Alias wrote: ..............................

Of course if you accept this explanation you won't need to look any further. Yet it is important to note what Origen is really saying. The existing treatise as it is preserved now has two different 'natures' as it were. Origen first says that he had 'given answer' (ὑπαγορεῦσαι > ὑπαγόρευσις) from the beginning and the "introduction" (προοίμιον) "until" (μέχρι) the part where the Jew of Celsus" (= τῆς παρὰ Κέλσῳ τοῦ Ἰουδαίου) in a scrambled an order but followed the order of the treatise thereafter. That's strange enough (i.e. why would the nature of the treatise be different before and after the Jewish treatise). But the word ὑπαγόρευσις is very rare. I don't have access to a complete list of Greek texts. But from Perseus I see the term appears only in Josephus (7 times) and 2 times in Achilles Tatius (a writer I have never heard of before).

I doubt very much that the introduction was actually written by Origen. Eusebius would be my guess. The question of course is why.

FWIW Achilles Tatius is the author of the lurid 2nd century CE novel Leucippe and Clitophon

Andrew Criddle

The bit about John the Baptism comes in the middle of this discussion and it comes allegedly from the Jewish author. The 'others who received punishments' received punishments from the Jews, and undoubtedly associates of the Jewish author.

What is the evidence in Contra Celsum that the killers of the ''others who received punishments'' were ''Jews and undoubtedly associates of the Jewish author'' ? I don't find it.


In whiletime, I note that Origen had to face a ''mythicist problem'' regarding the presumed baptism by John, since he compares the problem with one very analogous:

For suppose that someone were to assert that there never had been any Trojan war, chiefly on account of the impossible narrative interwoven therewith, about a certain Achilles being the son of a sea-goddess Thetis and of a man Peleus, or Sarpedon being the son of Zeus, or Ascalaphus and Ialmenus the sons of Ares, or Aeneas that of Aphrodite, how should we prove that such was the case, especially under the weight of the fiction attached, I know not how, to the universally prevalent opinion that there was really a war in Ilium between Greeks and Trojans?

The problem of Origen about the historicity of the war of Ilium:

1) the story of the war of Ilium is full of extraordinary events
2) extraordinary events require extraordinary evidence
3) the same problem is with the story of the Gospel Jesus, precisely with the baptism of Jesus by John.

It is evident that Origen had extreme need of quoting Josephus on this point (even at cost of becoming himself ''Josephus''). Origen is the first Christian author to point out that ''the Jews don't connect John with Jesus'', an information that the scholars derive only from the Baptist Passage in Josephus (by comparing it with the Gospel account).
But the Celsus's Jew seems to think precisely the contrary: John was connected with Jesus.

I am not sure that Eusebius is the best bet for having added the beginning and end to Contra Celsum. I see no evidence for ὑπαγόρευσις being a part of Eusebius's vocabulary. So the question stands - who rearranged the text and why? As it stands the author (ostensibly 'Origen') says 'hey, I started out by writing a 'scrambled' account of Celsus's True Word and then by the time I got to the part where he introduces the Jewish treatise I followed the text in order, section by section, line by line.' But this is wholly incredible. Why wouldn't Origen have gone back and simply started again and made the beginning accord with the rest of the treatise? He had that option within his power. There was no 'deadline' that we can see. The scrambled beginning' was the desired outcome.

For some reason then the original treatise written by Origen went section by section, line by line more or less, and then someone subsequent to Origen (who happened to love the word ὑπαγόρευσις) 'corrected' the text in the 'introduction' (προοίμιον) or perhaps the beginning. Clearly some parts of the original 'beginning' are still there. For instance in Book One before the introduction of 'the Jew' we still see the beginning of Celsus's treatise preserved:

There is, he says, an authoritative account from the very beginning, respecting which there is a constant agreement among all the most learned nations, and cities, and men. And yet he will not call the Jews a learned nation in the same way in which he does the Egyptians, and Assyrians, and Indians, and Persians, and Odrysians, and Samothracians, and Eleusinians (ὅτι ἔστιν ἀρχαῖος ἄνωθεν λόγος, περὶ ὃν δὴ ἀεὶ καὶ τὰ ἔθνη τὰ σοφώτατα καὶ πόλεις καὶ ἄνδρες σοφοὶ κατεγένοντο. Καὶ οὐκ ἐβουλήθη ἔθνος σοφώτατον εἰπεῖν κἂν παραπλησίως Αἰγυπτίοις καὶ Ἀσσυρίοις καὶ Ἰνδοῖς καὶ Πέρσαις καὶ Ὀδρύσαις καὶ Σαμόθρᾳξι καὶ Ἐλευσινίοις τοὺς Ἰουδαίους) [1.14]

The amount of times that the word λόγος appears in these introductory opening lines of the existing treatise is staggering and clearly is connected to the title 'a True Word.'

It is worth noting that the next reference to appears in chapter 16 as the title of a book written by Tatian - "and there exists the Discourse to the Greeks of Tatian the younger, in which with very great learning he enumerates those historians who have treated of the antiquity of the Jewish nation and of Moses" (Καὶ Τατιανοῦ δὲ νεωτέρου φέρεται ὁ πρὸς Ἕλληνας λόγος, πολυμαθέστατα ἐκτιθεμένου τοὺς ἱστορήσαντας περὶ τῆς Ἰουδαίων καὶ Μωϋσέως ἀρχαιότητος). In the 'introduction' (written by the other hand) the title of Celsus's work is identified - and to furnish an answer to the treatise which you sent us, but which I do not think that any one, although only a short way advanced in philosophy, will allow to be a True Discourse, as Celsus has entitled it (ὅπερ οὐκ οἶμαί τινα τῶν ἐν φιλοσοφίᾳ κἂν ἐπ' ὀλίγον προκοψάντων συγκαταθέσθαι εἶναι λόγον ἀληθῆ, ὡς ἐπέγραψεν ὁ Κέλσος)." [p. 4] The title of Origen's work is identified as ΠΡΟΣ ΤΟΝ ΕΠΙΓΕΓΡΑΜΜΕΝΟΝ ΚΕΛΣΟΥ ΑΛΗΘΗ ΛΟΓΟΝ ΩΡΙΓΕΝΟΥΣ ΤΟΜΟΣ ΠΡΩΤΟΣ

The first appearance of the title of the work in the main body of Origen's treatise is at chapter 17 where we clearly see that the work was likely written as a response to Tatian's work:

In what follows, Celsus, assailing the Mosaic history, finds fault with those who give it a tropical and allegorical signification. And here one might say to this great man, who inscribed upon his own work the title of a True Discourse, Why, good sir, do you make it a boast to have it recorded that the gods should engage in such adventures as are described by your learned poets and philosophers, and be guilty of abominable intrigues, and of engaging in wars against their own fathers, and of cutting off their secret parts, and should dare to commit and to suffer such enormities; while Moses, who gives no such accounts respecting God, nor even regarding the holy angels, and who relates deeds of far less atrocity regarding men (for in his writings no one ever ventured to commit such crimes as Kronos did against Uranus, or Zeus against his father, or that of the father of men and gods, who had intercourse with his own daughter), should be considered as having deceived those who were placed under his laws, and to have led them into error? Καὶ ἑκὼν μὲν ἐπελάθετο τοῦ περὶ τῶν νομιζομένων θεῶν μύθου ὡς ἀνθρωποπαθῶν, ἀναγεγραμμένου μάλιστα ὑπὸ Ὀρφέως, ἐν δὲ τοῖς ἑξῆς κατηγορῶν τῆς Μωϋσέως ἱστορίας αἰτιᾶται τοὺς τροπολογοῦντας καὶ ἀλληγοροῦντας αὐτήν. Ἦν δ' ἂν εἰπεῖν πρὸς τὸν γενναιότατον καὶ ἀληθῆ λόγον ἐπιγράψαντα τὸ ἑαυτοῦ βιβλίον, τί δήποτε, ὦ οὗτος, θεοὺς μὲν τηλικαύταις περιπίπτοντας συμφοραῖς, ὁποίας ἀναγράφουσιν οἱ σοφοί σου ποιηταὶ καὶ φιλόσοφοι, καὶ ἐναγέσι μίξεσι χρωμένους καὶ κατὰ τῶν πατέρων στρατευο μένους καὶ τὰ αἰδοῖα αὐτῶν ἀποτέμνοντας σεμνολογεῖς ἀναγεγράφθαι τὰ τηλικαῦτα τετολμηκέναι καὶ πεποιηκέναι καὶ πεπονθέναι· ὅταν δὲ Μωϋσῆς μὴ περὶ θεοῦ τοιαῦτα λέγῃ ἀλλὰ μηδ' ἀγγέλων ἁγίων περὶ δὲ ἀνθρώπων πολλῷ ἐλάττονα–οὐδεὶς γὰρ παρ' αὐτῷ ἐτόλμησεν ὅσα Κρόνος κατὰ τοῦ Οὐρανοῦ οὐδ' ὅσα Ζεὺς κατὰ τοῦ πατρός, οὐδ' ὅτι τῇ ἑαυτοῦ θυγατρὶ ὁ "πατὴρ ἀνδρῶν τε θεῶν τε" συνελήλυθεν–, πλανᾶν νομίζεται ἠπατημένους τοὺς νενομοθετημένους ὑπ' αὐτοῦ;

Got to run ...

So without a lot of time to spend on this - if Celsus wrote in response to Tatian's treatise (some argue for Celsus responding to Justin and Tatian to Celsus but that's misguided https://books.google.com/books?id=R0A4H ... an&f=false) then we can safely date the treatise to about 180 CE. See also Crawford on the parallels - https://www.academia.edu/31872207/Tatia ... nd_Century. The question of course is why if Tatian and Celsus were engaged in a 'conversation' why it is that Origen ended up responding to Celsus in the third century? I think there is a high probability that Origen's treatise was a reworking of something Tatian originally wrote and that the current treatise - like the many of works of Tertullian for instance - represented a further 'refining' of original arguments in light of changing Christian orthodoxy.

A strong evidence that the introduction was written by Origen is the following passage:

That the judge would, without any hesitation, have set Him at liberty if He had offered a defence, is clear from what is related of him when he said, "Which of the two do ye wish that I should release unto you, Barabbas or Jesus, who is called Christ?" and from what the Scripture adds, "For he knew that for envy they had delivered Him."

(I, 2)

...where Origen proves to be well aware of the importance of the construct ''called Christ'' to make an argument meant to prove that even in the Jesus story there were thin clues who prefigured his divinity (and his future victory: just as the Pagans could realize that Dionysus was god even during his persecution by Pentheus). That argument requires the entire books I and II of Contra Celsum and finds his conclusion in the quote of ''Josephus''.

Nonsense. The revision of Origen was ongoing. Eusebius and Rufinus were only the most recent in line. The change in canon from Alexandrian to 'Caesarean' and the presence of a 'blend' of canons is another sign of this process. Still working this out.

What is more interesting to me is the fact that the introduction identifies the place the Jew is introduced as the place where Contra Celsum follows the order of Celsus's treatise. This necessarily means that what immediately precedes it IS NOT in the original order or that something is missing (for why specify the 'Jew section' as somehow representing a break from the rest?). The only way that the person at the beginning of the text would make that distinction would be that something is missing after - what I consider to be - the citation of the opening lines of Celsus's work:

There is, he says, an authoritative account from the very beginning, respecting which there is a constant agreement among all the most learned nations, and cities, and men. (1.14)

Clearly the next citation (that follows in order from Contra Celsum) cannot be following the original order of Celsus's work:

Moses having, he says, learned the doctrine which is to be found existing among wise nations and eloquent men, obtained the reputation of divinity.

Τούτου οὖν, φησί, τοῦ λόγου τοῦ παρὰ τοῖς σοφοῖς ἔθνεσι καὶ ἐλλογίμοις ἀνδράσιν ἐπακηκοὼς ὄνομα δαιμόνιον ἔσχε Μωϋσῆς. [1.21]

Clearly these ideas are related - i.e. that the Jews, through Moses, learned everything about 'the logos' from the pagans - but in between there are spotty references to other things Celsus said which contradict the natural order - namely (1.17) "in what follows, Celsus, assailing the Mosaic history, finds fault with those who give it a tropical and allegorical signification" and (1.19) "after these statements, Celsus, from a secret desire to cast discredit upon the Mosaic account of the creation, which teaches that the world is not yet ten thousand years old, but very much under that, while concealing his wish, intimates his agreement with those who hold that the world is uncreated."

The point here is that both of these ideas - i.e. that the Torah can't be read allegorically and problems with the Torah's chronology (where the stoic idea of period conflagrations is brought up) are found in Book 4. I am quite certain that 'the Jew' then wasn't actually brought up at the beginning of Celsus's book but rather that 'the Jew' section was the first section systematically treated by Origen in Contra Celsum. The whole of Book 4 basically appeared immediately after the business about Moses stealing his ideas from the pagans in Book 1. As such it is Origen - through the editorial revisions he confesses in the introduction - who has transformed Celsus's work into a polemic against Christianity when in fact as we clearly see by restoring Book 4 to its place at the beginning that the original work was directed against Jews and Christians together.

It is surely more probable that it is the same person to see the same irony behind "called Christ" in the words of Pilate and behind "called Christ" in "Josephus" , therefore who wrote Contra Celsum I, 2 is probably the same person who wrote Contra Celsum I, 47: Origen.