Against Celsus 5.20
Summary: The Stoic doctrine of endlessly repeated world-cycles, in which Socrates is born, tried, and condemned again and again, is far more absurd than the Christian resurrection, yet Celsus does not mock it.
Greek text · Koetschau 2:21–22
Ἀλλʼ ἐπεὶ τὰ μὲν ἡμέτερα περὶ ἀναστάσεως, ὡς ἐνεχώρει, ἀπὸ τοῦ μέρους ἐπὶ τοῦ παρόντος λέλεκται (συντέτακται γὰρ ἡμῖν περὶ ἀναστάσεως ἐν ἄλλοις, ἐπὶ πλεῖον ἐξετάσασι τὰ κατὰ τὸν τόπον). τὰ δὲ τοῦ Κέλσου νῦν χρὴ κατὰ τὸ εὔλογον διαλαβεῖν, μήτε νοήσαντος τὸ παρʼ ἡμῖν γεγραμμένον μήτε κρῖναι δυναμένου ὅτι οὐ δεῖ τὸ βούλημα τῶν σοφῶν ἐκείνων ἀνδρῶν νομίζειν πρεσβεύεσθαι ὑπὸ τῶν πλεῖον πίστεως μηδὲν ἐπαγγελλομένων τῆς πρὸς τὸν Χριστιανῶν λόγον· φέρε παραστήσωμεν ὅτι ἀνδράσιν οὐκ εὐκαταφρονήτοις τῆς λογικῆς ἕνεκεν θεωρίας καὶ τῶν διαλεκτικῶν σκεμμάτων σφόδρα ἀπεμφαίνοντα λέλεκται. καὶ εἰ χρὴ μυχθίζειν ὡς ταπεινοὺς καὶ γραώδεις λόγους, ἐκείνους μᾶλλον χρὴ ἢ τοὺς ἡμετέρους. φασὶ δὴ οἱ ἀπὸ τῆς Στοᾶς κατὰ περίοδον ἐκπύρωσιν τοῦ παντὸς γίνεσθαι καὶ ἑξῆς αὐτῇ διακόσμησιν, πάντʼ ἀπαράλλακτα ἔχουσαν ὡς πρὸς τὴν προτέραν διακόσμησιν. ὅσοι δʼ αὐτῶν ᾐδέσθησαν τὸ δόγμα, ὀλίγην εἰρήκασι παραλλαγὴν καὶ σφόδρα βραχεῖαν γίνεσθαι κατὰ περίοδον τοῖς ἐπὶ τῆς πρὸ αὐτῆς περιόδου. οὗτοι δʼ οἱ ἄνδρες φασὶ τῇ ἑξῆς περιόδῳ τοιαῦτα ἔσεσθαι, καὶ Σωκράτην μὲν πάλιν Σωφρονίσκου υἱὸν καὶ Ἀθηναῖον ἔσεσθαι, καὶ τὴν Φαιναρέτην γημαμένην Σωφρονίσκῳ πάλιν αὐτὸν γεννήσειν. κἂν μὴ ὀνομάζωσιν οὖν τὸ τῆς ἀναστάσεως ὄνομα, τὸ πρᾶγμά γε δηλοῦσιν, ὅτι Σωκράτης ἀπὸ σπερμάτων ἀρξάμενος ἀναστήσεται τῶν Σωφρονίσκου καὶ ἐν τῇ ὑστέρᾳ Φαιναρέτης διαπλασθήσεται καὶ ἀνατραφεὶς Ἀθήνῃσι φιλοσοφήσει, οἱονεὶ καὶ τῆς πρότερον φιλοσοφίας ἀνισταμένης καὶ ὁμοίως ἀπαραλλάκτου τῇ προτέρᾳ ἐσομένης. καὶ Ἄνυτος δὲ καὶ Μέλητος ἀναστήσονται πάλιν Σωκράτους κατήγοροι, καὶ ἡ ἐξ Ἀρείου πάγου βουλὴ καταδικάσεται τὸν Σωκράτην. τὸ δὲ τούτων γελοιότερον, τὰ ἀπαράλλακτα ἱμάτια τοῖς ὡς πρὸς τὴν προτέραν περίοδον Σωκράτης ἐνδύσεται, ἐν ἀπαραλλάκτῳ πενίᾳ καὶ ἀπαραλλάκτῳ πόλει ταῖς Ἀθήναις τῇ πρὸς τὴν προτέραν περίοδον ἐσόμενος. καὶ Φάλαρις μὲν τυραννήσει πάλιν, ὁ δὲ χάλκεος αὐτοῦ ταῦρος τῶν ἀπαραλλάκτων τῇ προτέρᾳ ἀνθρώπων περιόδῳ κατακριθέντων μυκήσεται ἀπὸ τῆς τῶν ἔνδον φωνῆς. Ἀλέξανδρός τε ὁ Φεραῖος πάλιν τυραννήσει, τὴν ἀπαράλλακτον ἔχων ὠμότητα τῇ προτέρᾳ καὶ τοὺς ἀπαραλλάκτους καταδικάζων ὡς καὶ τοὺς προτέρους. καὶ τί με δεῖ καταλέγειν τὸ περὶ τῶν τοιούτων δόγμα τοῖς ἀπὸ τῆς Στοᾶς πεφιλοσοφημένον καὶ μὴ γελώμενον ὑπὸ Κέλσου ἀλλὰ τάχα καὶ σεμνυνόμενον, ἐπεὶ δοκεῖ αὐτῷ ὁ Ζήνων τοῦ Ἰησοῦ εἶναι σοφώτερος;
English · Claude translation
But since our views on the resurrection have now been stated in part, as far as the occasion allowed (for we have composed a work on the resurrection elsewhere, examining the subject at greater length), we must now reasonably take up Celsus's views. He neither understood what is written among us nor could judge that one must not think the meaning of those wise men is represented by people who profess nothing more than faith in the Christian message. Come, let us show that men not to be despised for their rational contemplation and dialectical inquiries have said things that are very incongruous; and if anyone must be scorned for low and old-wives' talk, it should be they rather than we. The Stoics say that periodically a conflagration of the universe takes place, and after it a new ordering, which has everything indistinguishable from the previous ordering. Those of them who were ashamed of the doctrine have said that there is a slight and very small difference in each cycle from those in the cycle before it. These men say that in the next cycle things will be such that Socrates will again be the son of Sophroniscus and an Athenian, and Phaenarete, married to Sophroniscus, will again bear him. So even if they do not use the word resurrection, they indicate the thing: that Socrates, starting from the seed of Sophroniscus, will rise again and be formed in the womb of Phaenarete, and, brought up in Athens, will practise philosophy, as though his former philosophy too were rising again and would be likewise indistinguishable from the former. And Anytus and Meletus will rise again as Socrates's accusers, and the council of the Areopagus will condemn Socrates. And what is more ridiculous than these, Socrates will wear clothes indistinguishable from those of the former cycle, and will live in indistinguishable poverty and in a city, Athens, indistinguishable from that of the former cycle. And Phalaris will again be tyrant, and his bronze bull will bellow with the voices of those inside, men indistinguishable from those condemned in the former cycle. And Alexander of Pherae will again be tyrant, with a cruelty indistinguishable from the former, condemning men indistinguishable from the former ones. And why must I list the doctrine on such matters taught by the Stoics, which is not mocked by Celsus but perhaps even revered, since he thinks Zeno wiser than Jesus?
About this passage
Notes
Translation notes
- Origen's lost treatise On the Resurrection is referred to. Zeno of Citium founded the Stoic school.
Notes on the original text
- Digital text corrected (missing accent in the digital text): ᾐδέσθησαν το δόγμα → ᾐδέσθησαν τὸ δόγμα.
Cite this passage
Origen, Cels. 5.20 (trans. Sophia Scriptura, https://sophiascriptura.com/fathers/origen-celsum/5/20/).
Plain text
Origen, Cels. 5.20 (trans. Sophia Scriptura, https://sophiascriptura.com/fathers/origen-celsum/5/20/).
Download citation:BibTeX ·RIS (Zotero, EndNote)
Whole work:BibTeX ·RIS ·Markdown text