3

of the ventriloquist; 3.9 But she, for her part, primarily through the demon that possessed her, declared that it was necessary to bring him up; then also boasting to see gods ascending, by deceit she gave the signs of the man as a trap, but the madman, "Saul knew" from what he had heard that this was Samuel himself.

4.1 But if one must believe either the demon-possessed Saul as having attained an accurate comprehension of true knowledge, or a demon boasting and promising to summon the souls of the just from Hades, let us judge for ourselves how full of blasphemy it would be to think these and such things, O best of men, Eutropius; 4.2 For Origen, it seems, has strayed far from the truth, although our Lord Jesus said expressly concerning the devil, "He was a murderer from the beginning, and has not stood in the truth, because there is no truth in him. When he speaks a lie, he speaks from his own resources, for he is a liar and the father of it." 4.3 What then do you say, O Origen (for it is necessary to ask you)? Are these things which the Savior said true, or will you say the contrary in reply? If, then, the words of the Lord are true, then the demon, being insolent, lied as is his custom; but if you declare the words of the demon to be true, you attempt to show the Lord a liar. 4.4 Do you see into what great absurdity the definition dogmatized by you has fallen? For sometimes demons are compelled against their will to speak the truth, being tortured by pains, but they would never voluntarily say anything truthfully. But if someone should define that this one brings up the just from Hades without delay, how would it not be clear that he introduces falsehood with deceit, wishing to overthrow someone? 4.5 Yes, he says, but the demon has not said these things, but "the narrative voice of the writer; and the writer of the words is believed to be the Holy Spirit, and not a man." Then does he not understand how he shows things contrary to the interpretation of the narrative? 4.6 At any rate, those who have more leisurely conversed with all kinds of writings know better that the narrative speech of the writer has reported these things which the ventriloquist seemed to do or say to the divining Saul; of course, narrating about her, the writer, also setting forth her words verbatim, said, "And the woman said: Whom shall I bring up for you?" 4.7 Who is so simple as to pretend not to understand that these are not the words of the writer, but of the demon-possessed woman, whose name he also put first? Nowhere, however, does he confirm her words as true, nor could anyone at all be able to show this. 4.8 But indeed, if one must speak truly, the narrative <voice> said only this, that "the woman saw Samuel." And he wrote these things thus, as one speaking to those who know about a demon-possessed woman. For it cannot be disputed that a demon does not bring up anyone's soul, who, being exorcised by pious 20men is driven out, is set on fire20, is scourged and flees, having abandoned the body. 4.9 But the deranged woman saw, as was fitting for her, the form of the phantasmagorical vision. For the beast is accustomed to change himself into many-faced forms, but that I may speak, quoting the saintly Paul: "For Satan himself transforms himself into an angel of light; it is no great thing, then, if his ministers also transform themselves as ministers of righteousness." 4.10 But the dogmatist Origen, reasoning with forensic skill as if against opponents, set forth this passage too, thinking from this to refute those who introduce the truth in opposition, and thinking to refute it with lack of skill rather than with skill, he added:

5.1 "And why," he says, "was it not said: 'The woman saw a demon which pretended to be Samuel'?" But he said that in addition to these things it was written, "Saul knew that it was Samuel"; then again proceeding he adds: "If it were not Samuel, it should have been written: 'And Saul supposed it was Samuel.' 5.2 But now it is written: "Saul knew." But no one knew the

3

ἐγγαστριμύθου· 3.9 ἀλλ' αὐτὴ μὲν προηγουμένως διὰ τοῦ ἐκβακχεύοντος αὐτὴν δαίμονος ἀποφθέγγεται δεῖν ἀνάγειν αὐτόν· εἶτα καὶ θεοὺς ἀνιόντας ἐπικομποῦσα θεωρεῖν, ἀπάτῃ μὲν ἐδίδου τὰ σημεῖα τἀνδρὸς εἰς ἐνέδραν, ὁ δὲ παράφρων «ἔγνω Σαοὺλ» ἐξ ὧν ἀκήκοεν ὡς αὐτὸς οὗτός ἐστι Σαμουήλ.

4.1 Εἰ δὲ δεῖ πιστεύειν ἢ τῷ δαιμονιζομένῳ Σαοὺλ ὡς ἀληθῆ γνώσεως

ἠκριβωκότι κατάληψιν, ἢ δαίμονι καυχωμένῳ καὶ ψυχὰς ὑπισχνουμένῳ δικαίων ἐξ ᾅδου μεταπέμπεσθαι, κρίνωμεν παρ' ἑαυτοῖς ὅσης ἂν εἴη γε δυσφημίας ἀνάπλεα ταῦτα καὶ τὰ τοιαῦτα νοεῖν, ὧ κράτιστε ἀνδρῶν Εὐτρόπιε· 4.2 πολὺ γάρ, ὡς ἔοικεν, Ὠριγένης τῆς ἀληθείας ἐσφάλη, καίτοι τοῦ δεσπότου ἡμῶν Ἰησοῦ περὶ τοῦ διαβόλου διαρρήδην εἰρηκότος «ἐκεῖνος ἀνθρωποκτόνος ἦν ἀπ' ἀρχῆς, καὶ ἐν τῇ ἀληθείᾳ οὐχ ἕστηκεν, ὅτι ἀλήθεια οὐκ ἔστιν ἐν αὐτῷ. ὅταν λαλῇ τὸ ψεῦδος, ἐκ τῶν ἰδίων λαλεῖ, ὅτι ψεύστης ἐστὶν καὶ ὁ πατὴρ αὐτοῦ». 4.3 τί τοίνυν φής, ὦ Ὠρίγενες (ἀνάγκη γὰρ ἐρέσθαι σε); πότερον ἀληθῆ ταῦτά ἐστιν ἅπερ ἔφρασεν ὁ σωτήρ, ἢ τοὐναντίον ἀνθυποφέρων ἐρεῖς; εἰ μὲν οὖν ἀληθεῖς οἱ τοῦ κυρίου τυγχάνουσι λόγοι, εἰωθότως ἄρα ὁ δαίμων ἐψεύσατο θρασυνόμενος· εἰ δὲ ἀψευδῆ τὰ τοῦ δαίμονος ὁρίζῃ ῥήματα, ψεύστην ἀποφῆναι τὸν κύριον ἐγχειρεῖς. 4.4 ὁρᾷς εἰς ὅσην ἐκπέπτωκεν ἀτοπίαν ὁ παρὰ σοὶ δογματιζόμενος ὅρος; ἄκοντες μὲν γὰρ ἔσθ' ὅτε τἀληθῆ λέγειν οἱ δαίμονες ἀναγκάζονται στρεβλούμενοι τοῖς πόνοις, οὐ μὴν ἑκόντες ἀψευδῶς εἴποιεν ἂν ὁτιοῦν. εἰ δὲ δὴ καὶ δικαίους ἀνάγειν ἐξ ᾅδου τοῦτον ὁριεῖταί τις ἀμελλητί, πῶς οὐκ ἄν γε εἴη σαφὲς ὡς ἀπάτῃ τὸ ψεῦδος ἀντεισάγει, βουλόμενος ἐκτραχηλιάσαι τινά; 4.5 ναί, φησίν, ἀλλ' οὐχ ὁ δαίμων ταῦτα εἴρηκεν, ἀλλ' «ἡ διηγηματικὴ τοῦ συγγραφέως φωνή· συγγραφεὺς δὲ τῶν λόγων εἶναι πεπίστευται τὸ πνεῦμα τὸ ἅγιον, ἀλλ' οὐκ ἄνθρωπος». εἶτ' οὐ νοεῖ πῶς ἐναντία φαίνει τῇ τοῦ διηγήματος ἐκδοχῇ; 4.6 κάλλιον γοῦν ἴσασιν οἱ παντοίοις σχολαιότερον ὁμιλήσαντες λόγοις ὡς ἡ διηγηματικὴ τοῦ συγγραφέως ὁμιλία ταῦτα ἐξέδωκεν, ἅπερ ἐδόκει πράττειν ἢ λέγειν τῷ μαντευομένῳ Σαοὺλ ἡ ἐγγαστρίμυθος· ἀμέλει περὶ ἐκείνης ἐκδιηγούμενος ὁ συγγραφεὺς καὶ τοὺς λόγους αὐτῆς ἐπὶ λέξεως ἐκτιθέμενος ἔφη «καὶ εἶπεν ἡ γυνή· τίνα ἀναγάγω σοι;» 4.7 τίς δὲ οὕτως εὐήθης ἐστὶν ὡς ὑποκρίνεσθαι μὴ νοεῖν ὅτι αὗται μὲν τοῦ συγγραφέως οὔκ εἰσιν αἱ φωναί, τῆς δὲ δαιμονώσης εἰσὶ γυναικός, ἧς καὶ τοὔνομα προὔταξεν; οὐδαμοῦ μέντοι βεβαιοῖ τοὺς λόγους αὐτῆς ὡς ἀληθεῖς, οὐδέ τις ἂν εἴη γε τοῦτο δεικνύναι δυνάμενος οὐδαμῶς. 4.8 ἀλλὰ μήν, εἴ γε δεῖ φιλαλήθως εἰπεῖν, ἡ διηγηματικὴ <φωνὴ> τοῦτο ἔφησε μόνον ὡς «εἶδεν ἡ γυνὴ τὸν Σαμουήλ». οὕτω δὲ ταῦτα ἔγραψεν ὡς πρὸς εἰδότας περὶ δαιμονώσης ὁμιλῶν. οὐ γὰρ ἔστιν ἀμφισβητεῖν ὅτι δαίμων οὐκ ἀνάγει ψυχὴν οὐδενός, ὃς ὑπὸ τῶν εὐσεβῶν 20ἐξορκιζόμενος ἀνθρώπων ἐλαύνεται, πυροῦται20, μαστίζεται καὶ φεύγει, τὸ σκήνωμα προλιπών. 4.9 ἀλλ' εἶδεν ἡ παραπλὴξ ὡς ἔπρεπεν αὐτῇ τὸ σχῆμα τῆς πεφαντασιοκοπημένης ὄψεως. εἴωθε γοῦν ὁ θὴρ εἰς πολυπροσώπους ἑαυτὸν ἐξαλλάττειν ἰδέας, ἵνα δὲ κατὰ τὸν ἁγιοφανῆ Παῦλον ἀποφθεγξάμενος εἴποιμ' ἄν· «αὐτὸς γὰρ ὁ σατανᾶς μετασχηματίζεται εἰς ἄγγελον φωτός· οὐ μέγα οὖν, εἰ καὶ οἱ διάκονοι αὐτοῦ μετασχηματίζονται ὡς διάκονοι δικαιοσύνης.» 4.10 Ὁ δὲ δογματιστὴς Ὠριγένης ὡς πρὸς ἐναντίους δικανικῇ δεινότητι διαλεγόμενος ἔταξεν μὲν καὶ τόδε τὸ χωρίον, οἰόμενος ἐκ τούτου περιγράφειν τοὺς τὴν ἀλήθειαν ἀντεισάγοντας, ἀτεχνίᾳ δὲ μᾶλλον ἢ τέχνῃ δοκῶν ἀνασκευάζειν αὐτὸ προσετίθει·

5.1 «καὶ διὰ τί» φησὶν «οὐκ εἴρηται· εἶδεν ἡ γυνὴ δαιμόνιον ὃ προσεποιεῖτο

εἶναι Σαμουήλ;» ἀλλὰ γεγράφθαι πρὸς ἐπὶ τούτοις ἔφησεν «ἔγνω Σαοὺλ ὅτι Σαμουήλ ἐστιν»· εἶτα πάλιν ἐπιφέρει προϊών· «εἰ μὴ ἦν Σαμουήλ, ἔδει γεγράφθαι· καὶ ἐνόμιζεν Σαοὺλ εἶναι αὐτὸν Σαμουήλ. 5.2 νῦν δὲ γέγραπται· "ἔγνω Σαούλ". οὐδεὶς δὲ ἔγνω τὸ