Against Celsus 6.76
Summary: Celsus accepts Isaiah's prophecy of Jesus' plain appearance but ignores the Transfiguration and the Psalm on his beauty, and in accepting the prophecy he concedes that Jesus fulfilled it.
Greek text · Koetschau 2:145–146
Ἔστω δὲ μὴ ἀνεγνωκέναι αὐτὸν τὴν προφητείαν ἢ ἀνεγνωκότα περιεσπᾶσθαι ὑπὸ τῶν παρερμηνευόντων αὐτὴν ὡς οὐ περὶ Ἰησοῦ Χριστοῦ προφητευομένην· τί φήσει καὶ περὶ τοῦ εὐαγγελίου. ἐν ᾧ ἀναβὰς „εἰς ὑψηλὸν ὄρος“ „μετεμορφώθη ἔμπροσθεν“ τῶν μαθητῶν καὶ ὤφθη ἐν δόξῃ, ὅτε καὶ „Μωϋσῆς καὶ Ἠλίας“ „ὀφθέντες ἐν δόξῃ ἔλεγον τὴν ἔξοδον αὐτοῦ, ἣν ἔμελλε πληροῦν ἐν Ἱερουσαλήμ;“ ἢ ἐὰν μὲν προφήτης λέγῃ· „εἴδομεν αὐτὸν, καὶ οὐκ εἶχεν εἶδος οὐδὲ κάλλος“ καὶ τὸ ἑξῆς, καὶ ὁ Κέλσος παραδέχεται τὴν προφητείαν ταύτην ἐπὶ τὸν Ἰησοῦν ἀναφέρεσθαι, τυφλώττων περὶ τὴν παραδοχὴν τοῦ λεγομένου καὶ οὐχ ὁρῶν ὅτι μεγάλη κατασκευή ἐστι τοῦ τὸν ἄμορφον εἶναι δοκοῦντα Ἰησοῦν υἱὸν εἶναι θεοῦ τὸ πρὸ πολλῶν ἐτῶν τῆς γενέσεως αὐτοῦ πεπροφητεῦσθαι καὶ περὶ τοῦ εἴδους αὐτοῦ· ἐὰν δὲ ἄλλος προφήτης ὡραιότητα καὶ κάλλος εἶναι λέγῃ περὶ αὐτὸν, οὐκέτι βούλεται τὴν προφητείαν εἰς (Ἰησοῦν) Χριστὸν ἀναφέρεσθαι; καὶ εἰ μὲν σαφῶς ἦν ἀπὸ τῶν εὐαγγελίων λαβεῖν ὅτι „οὐκ εἶχεν εἶδος οὐδὲ κάλλος, ἀλλὰ τὸ εἶδος αὐτοῦ ἄτιμον ἦν, ἐκλεῖπον παρὰ τοὺς υἱοὺς τῶν ἀνθρώπων, “ εἶπεν ἄν τις οὐ κατὰ (τὸ) προφητικὸν εἰρηκέναι ταῦτα τὸν Κέλσον ἀλλὰ κατὰ τὸ εὐαγγελικόν· νυνὶ δὲ οὔτε τῶν εὐαγγελίων ἀλλʼ οὐδὲ τῶν ἀποστόλων ἐμφαινόντων ὅτι „οὐκ εἶχεν εἶδος οὐδὲ κάλλος, “ σαφὲς ὅτι τὸ ἀπὸ τῆς προφητείας ἀναγκάζεται παραδέχεσθαι ὡς ἀληθευόμενον περὶ Χριστοῦ· ὅπερ οὐκέτι ἐπιτρέπει τὰς περὶ Ἰησοῦ κατηγορίας προβαίνειν.
English · Claude translation
But suppose he had not read the prophecy, or, having read it, had been led astray by those who misinterpret it as not prophesied about Jesus Christ. What will he say about the Gospel, in which Jesus went up “on a high mountain” and “was transfigured before” the disciples and was seen in glory, when also “Moses and Elijah,” “appearing in glory, spoke of his departure, which he was about to fulfil in Jerusalem”? Or, when a prophet says, “We saw him, and he had no form nor beauty,” and so on, does Celsus accept that this prophecy refers to Jesus, being blind in accepting what is said, and not seeing that it is a great proof that Jesus, who seemed to be without form, is the Son of God, that even his appearance was prophesied many years before his birth; but when another prophet says that he has comeliness and beauty, does he no longer wish the prophecy to refer to Jesus Christ? And if it were clearly to be gathered from the Gospels that “he had no form nor beauty, but his form was without honour, failing beyond the sons of men,” one might say that Celsus said this not on the basis of the prophecy but of the Gospel. But as it is, since neither the Gospels nor the apostles show that “he had no form nor beauty,” it is plain that he is compelled to accept what comes from the prophecy as true of Christ; and this no longer allows his accusations against Jesus to proceed.
About this passage
Notes
Translation notes
- The passages are Matt 17:1–2, Luke 9:30–31, and Isa 53:2–3 LXX.
Notes on the original text
- Digital text corrected (wrong breathing in the digital text): οὐχ ὀρῶν → οὐχ ὁρῶν.
Cite this passage
Origen, Cels. 6.76 (trans. Sophia Scriptura, https://sophiascriptura.com/fathers/origen-celsum/6/76/).
Plain text
Origen, Cels. 6.76 (trans. Sophia Scriptura, https://sophiascriptura.com/fathers/origen-celsum/6/76/).
Download citation:BibTeX ·RIS (Zotero, EndNote)
Whole work:BibTeX ·RIS ·Markdown text