Against Celsus 6.49
Summary: Celsus dismisses the Genesis creation story as silly without argument; Origen points to his own commentaries on Genesis and insists that Moses wrote with deep meaning, not as a comic poet.
Greek text · Koetschau 2:120–121
Ἴδωμεν δὲ καὶ τὰ ἑξῆς, ἐν οἷς μιᾷ λέξει ἀποφηνάμενος καὶ μηδὲ κατὰ τὸ πιθανόν τι λέγων κατηγορεῖ τῆς κατὰ Μωϋσέα κοσμοποιΐας εἰπών· ἔτι γε μὴν καὶ ἡ κοσμογένεια μάλα εὐηθική. εἰ μὲν οὖν τὸν φαινόμενον αὐτῷ τρόπον τοῦ εὐηθικὴν εἶναι αὐτὴν καί τινας πιθανότητας προηνέγκατο, κἂν ἠγωνισάμεθα πρὸς αὐτάς· οὐκ εὔλογον δέ μοι φαίνεται πρὸς τὴν ἀπόφασιν αὐτοῦ κατασκευάσαι, τίνα τρόπον οὐκ ἔστιν εὐηθική. εἰ δέ τις βούλεται τὰ κινήσαντα ἡμᾶς καὶ μετὰ τῆς φανείσης ἀποδείξεως κατασκευασθέντα περὶ τῆς κατὰ Μωϋσέα κοσμοποιΐας θεωρῆσαι, λαβέτω τὰ πραγματευθέντα ἡμῖν εἰς τὴν Γένεσιν ἀπὸ τῆς ἀρχῆς τοῦ βιβλίου μέχρι τοῦ „αὕτη ἡ βίβλος γενέσεως ἀνθρώπων, “ ἐν οἷς πεπειράμεθα ἀπʼ αὐτῶν τῶν θείων γραμμάτων κατασκευάσαι, τίς ὁ „ἐν ἀρχῇ“ γενόμενος οὐρανὸς καὶ γῆ καὶ τὸ τῆς γῆς ἀόρατον καὶ ἀκατασκεύαστον, καὶ τίς ἡ ἄβυσσος καὶ τὸ ἐπʼ αὐτῆς σκότος, τί τε τὸ ὕδωρ καὶ τὸ ἐπιφερόμενον αὐτῷ „πνεῦμα τοῦ θεοῦ, “ καὶ τί τὸ γενητὸν „φῶς, “ τί τε „τὸ στερέωμα“ παρὰ τὸν „ἐν ἀρχῇ“ γενόμενον οὐρανὸν, καὶ οὕτω τὰ ἑξῆς. ἀπεφήνατο δὲ μάλα εὐηθικὴν εἶναι καὶ τὴν περὶ ἀνθρώπων γενέσεως γραφὴν, μήτε τιθεὶς τὰς δείξεις μήτʼ ἀγωνιζόμενος πρὸς αὐτάς· οὐ γὰρ εἶχεν οἶμαι λόγους ἀνατρέψαι δυναμένους τὸ „κατʼ εἰκόνα θεοῦ“ πεποιῆσθαι τὸν ἄνθρωπον. ἀλλʼ οὐδὲ συνίει τὸν ὑπὸ θεοῦ φυτευθέντα „παράδεισον“ καὶ τὴν προηγουμένην ἐν αὐτῷ τοῦ ἀνθρώπου ζωὴν καὶ τὴν ἐκ περιστάσεως γενομένην, ἐκβληθέντος διὰ τὴν ἁμαρτίαν καὶ κατοικισθέντος ἐναντίον „τοῦ παραδείσου τῆς τρυφῆς.“ ὁ δὲ λέγων μάλα εὐηθικῶς ταῦτʼ εἰρῆσθαι πρῶτον ἐπιστησάτω καὶ ἑκάστῳ μὲν καὶ τῷδε· „ἔταξε τὰ χερουβὶμ καὶ τὴν φλογίνην ῥομφαίαν τὴν στρεφομένην, φυλάσσειν τὴν ὁδὸν τοῦ ξύλου τῆς ζωῆς.“ εἰ δʼ ἄρα μηδὲν νοήσας Μωϋσῆς ἀνέγραψε ταῦτα ἀλλὰ παραπλήσιόν τι ποιῶν οἷς παίζοντες οἱ τῆς ἀρχαίας κωμῳδίας ποιηταὶ ἀνεγράψαντο· Προῖτος ἔγημε Βελλεροφόντην, ὁ δὲ Πήγασος ἦν ἐξ Ἀρκαδίας· ἀλλʼ ἐκεῖνοι μὲν γελωτοποιεῖν θέλοντες τοιαῦτα συνέταττον, οὐ πιθανὸν δὲ τὸν ὅλῳ ἔθνει γραφὰς καταλιπόντα περὶ ὧν ἐβούλετο πεῖσαι τοὺς νομοθετουμένους ὅτι εἶεν ἐκ θεοῦ, ἀπρόσλογα γεγραφέναι καὶ χωρίς τινος νοῦ εἰρηκέναι τό· „ἔταξε τὰ χερουβὶμ καὶ τὴν φλογίνην ῥομφαίαν τὴν στρεφομένην, φυλάσσειν τὴν ὁδὸν τοῦ ξύλου τῆς ζωῆς“ ἢ ἄλλο τι τῶν περὶ τῆς ἀνθρώπων γενέσεως εἰρημένων καὶ ὑπὸ τῶν παρʼ Ἑβραίοις σοφῶν πεφιλοσοφημένων.
English · Claude translation
Let us look also at what follows, in which, pronouncing in a single phrase and not saying anything even plausible, he accuses the account of the creation of the world according to Moses, saying: Furthermore, their cosmogony is very silly. If he had put forward the way in which it seemed to him silly, and some plausible arguments, we would have contended against them; but it does not seem reasonable to me to argue, against his bare assertion, in what way it is not silly. If anyone wishes to consider what has moved us and what we have established with apparent demonstration concerning the account of creation according to Moses, let him take our treatises on Genesis from the beginning of the book up to “This is the book of the generation of men,” in which we have tried to establish from the divine writings themselves what the heaven and earth are that came to be “in the beginning,” and what the invisible and unformed state of the earth is, and what the abyss and the darkness upon it are, and what the water is and the “Spirit of God” moving over it, and what the created “light” is, and what “the firmament” is as distinct from the heaven made “in the beginning,” and so on. He also declared that the account of the creation of men is very silly, neither stating proofs nor contending against them; for he had, I think, no arguments able to overthrow the statement that man was made “in the image of God.” Nor did he understand the “paradise” planted by God, and man's original life in it, and the life that came about through circumstances when he was cast out because of sin and made to dwell opposite “the paradise of delight.” Let the man who says that these things are spoken very sillily first consider each of them, and this in particular: “He stationed the cherubim and the flaming sword that turned, to guard the way of the tree of life.” Did Moses, then, write these things without understanding anything, doing something like what the poets of the Old Comedy wrote in jest: “Proetus married Bellerophon, and Pegasus came from Arcadia”? But they composed such things wishing to raise a laugh; it is not credible that one who left writings to a whole nation, and wished to persuade those to whom he gave laws that they came from God, wrote irrelevant things and said without any meaning, “He stationed the cherubim and the flaming sword that turned, to guard the way of the tree of life,” or anything else said about the creation of men and made the subject of philosophy by the wise among the Hebrews.
About this passage
Notes
Translation notes
- The passages are Gen 5:1, Gen 1:1–7, Gen 1:27, Gen 2:8, and Gen 3:23–24 LXX. Origen's Commentary on Genesis is largely lost. The comic line about Proetus and Bellerophon is unidentified.
Cite this passage
Origen, Cels. 6.49 (trans. Sophia Scriptura, https://sophiascriptura.com/fathers/origen-celsum/6/49/).
Plain text
Origen, Cels. 6.49 (trans. Sophia Scriptura, https://sophiascriptura.com/fathers/origen-celsum/6/49/).
Download citation:BibTeX ·RIS (Zotero, EndNote)
Whole work:BibTeX ·RIS ·Markdown text