17

of interpretation <and> we seek what trees,” he says, “are those that God cultivates, we say that there are no perceptible trees in the place.” 21.3 But in treating these things allegorically he does not shrink from calling myths all that God is recorded to have created, and what Moses, the most faithful servant of God, wrote; but on the contrary, the things which the myth, being formed in the belly, indistinctly suggests, these he confirms with a dogmatic program, showing them to be true. 21.4 The words of the ventriloquist, indeed, he establishes as having been spoken through the Holy Spirit and deems them worthy to remain unshaken, attributing them, as it seems, to Scripture; but the very messages of God given through Moses, 20having called them myths,20 he twists their meaning, not deeming it right to abide by the literal interpretation. 21.5 But does he not allegorize the wells dug by Abraham and those around him, and having spun out such a swarm of words, he destroys their whole substance, transferring it to another sense, even though the wells can still be seen in their place to this day? 21.6 Did he not allegorize the affairs of Isaac and Rebecca, saying that the earrings and bracelets are golden words, and having violently twisted that whole account, did he not misrepresent it by taking it in a spiritual sense? 21.7 And when he addressed much-enduring Job, instead of admiring his patience, praising his labors, extolling his excellence, accepting his faith, setting forth the examples of his fortitude, exhorting the newly-instructed to virtue through him, and arming the contestants with courage and strength of mind to strive bravely for piety, he left that aside and, rushing aloft to the names of the daughters, he wasted his time in an old-womanish way. But what nonsense he prattled about the name of Hemera and Cassia, or indeed the horn of Amaltheia, it is not even possible to say; for it is full of all kinds of mockery. 21.8 And writing about Lazarus, instead of glorifying the mighty work of Christ and through these things clearly demonstrating that he is God who by his authority summoned the stinking corpse from the tomb and, by the utterance of a word, gave life to the swollen body, he says nothing on this account, but allegorically reduced Lazarus, the friend of the Lord, whom he not unreasonably loved for his virtue, to the one who is sick and dead in his sins. 21.9 But no one has said or written these things against the just man; for the Lord would not have loved him so especially, if he had not engaged in a divine way of life. 21.10 And no less, when considering the drama of the stoning (since he attempts to allegorize this too), does he misrepresent the evangelical scripture, saying, “we did not at all find, in searching what came before this, that the Jews took up stones to stone him”; then after a little he says: “for if ‘they took up again’, they must have taken up before.” 21.11 And he wants to argue up and down that another similar account does not precede it, so that he might establish that they took up words, not stones, against him without delay, even though the evangelist had previously 20said, “Therefore they took up stones to throw at20 him.” 21.12 And when he had written these things, skipping about one hundred and thirty-five lines in between, he adds the following: “Therefore the Jews took up stones again, that they might stone him.” But these things have been recorded in two places, and appear to have been done at different times from the fact that they do not have the same connections or conjunctions of words; but Origen, who thinks he knows all the Scriptures, did not read this, and that while writing word for word on the whole Gospel together.

22.1 But if anyone supposes we are inventing these things, with the very evangelical

by encountering the pronouncements and the treatises labored by him on this, he will find that we have said nothing false. 22.2 But what more need be said? Allegorizing, so to speak, all things from their names, he destroys the substance of the events, not even considering this, that there are many homonyms of just and unjust men, it is not possible

17

ἐκδοχῆς <καὶ> ζητῶμεν τίνα τὰ ξύλα» φησὶν «ἐστὶν ἐκεῖνα, ἃ ὁ θεὸς γεωργεῖ, λέγομεν ὅτι οὐκ ἔνι αἰσθητὰ ξύλα ἐν τῷ τόπῳ». 21.3 ταῦτα δὲ δὴ τροπολογῶν οὐ φρίττει μύθους ὀνομάζειν, ὅσα δεδημιουργηκέναι μὲν ἱστορεῖται θεός, ὁ δὲ πιστότατος τοῦ θεοῦ θεράπων ἔγραψε Μωσῆς· ἀλλ' ἐκ τῶν ἐναντίων, ἅπερ ὁ μῦθος ἐν γαστρὶ πλαττόμενος ἀφανῶς ὑπηχεῖ, ταῦτα δογματικῷ βεβαιοῖ προγράμματι, δεικνύων ἀληθῆ. 21.4 τὰ μέν γε τῆς ἐγγαστριμύθου ῥήματα διὰ τοῦ ἁγίου πνεύματος εἰρῆσθαι συνιστῶν ἀσάλευτα μένειν ἀξιοῖ, τῇ γραφῇ τῷ δοκεῖν ἀναθείς· αὐτὰ δὲ τὰ τοῦ θεοῦ διὰ Μωσέως 20ἐκδοθέντα μηνύματα μύθους ὀνομάσας20 ἐνδιαλλάττει τὴν ἔννοιαν, οὐ δικαιῶν ἐμμένειν τῇ τοῦ γράμματος ἐκδοχῇ. 21.5 ἀλλ' οὐχὶ τὰ ὑπὸ τοῦ Ἀβραὰμ ὀρωρυγμένα φρέατα καὶ τῶν ἀμφ' αὐτὸν ἀλληγορεῖ, καὶ τοσοῦτον ἀποτείνας λόγων ἑσμὸν ἅπασαν ὁμοῦ τὴν πραγματείαν αὐτῶν ἀναιρεῖ, μεταθεὶς εἰς ἕτερον νοῦν, καίτοι τῶν φρεάτων ἐπὶ χώρας ἔτι καὶ νῦν ὄψει φαινομένων; 21.6 οὐχὶ τὰ τοῦ Ἰσαὰκ καὶ τὰ τῆς Ῥεβέκκας ἐτροπολόγησε πράγματα, τὰ μὲν ἐνώτια καὶ ψέλλια λόγους εἶναι χρυσοῦς εἰρηκώς, ἅπασαν δὲ τὴν ὑπόθεσιν ἐκβιασάμενος ἐκείνην ἐπὶ τοῦ νοητοῦ παραλαβὼν ἐσυκοφάντησεν; 21.7 περὶ δέ γε τοῦ πολύτλα προσομιλήσας Ἰώβ, ἀντὶ τοῦ θαυμάσαι τὴν ὑπομονήν, ἐπαινέσαι τοὺς πόνους, εὐφημῆσαι τὴν ἀριστείαν, ἀποδέξασθαι τὴν πίστιν, ἐκφράσαι τὰ τῆς καρτεροψυχίας ὑποδείγματα, προτρέψασθαι διὰ τούτου τοὺς νεολέκτους εἰς ἀρετήν, εὐψυχίᾳ καὶ ῥώμῃ φρονήσεως ὁπλίσαι τοὺς ἀγωνιστὰς ἀνδρείως ὑπὲρ τῆς εὐσεβείας ἀθλεῖν, ἀφέμενος ἐκείνου, μετεώρως εἰς τὰ τῶν θυγατέρων ὁρμήσας ὀνόματα κατετρίβη γραωδῶς. ἀλλ' οἷα μὲν ἐφλυάρησεν εἰς τὸ τῆς Ἡμέρας ὄνομα καὶ Κασσίας ἤτοι καὶ τὸ τῆς Ἀμαλθείας κέρας, οὐδὲ λέγειν οἷόν τε· χλεύης γάρ ἐστι παντοίας ἀνάπλεα. 21.8 περὶ δὲ τοῦ Λαζάρου γράφων, ἀντὶ τοῦ δοξάσαι τὴν τοῦ Χριστοῦ μεγαλουργίαν καὶ διὰ τούτων ἀποδεῖξαι σαφῶς ὅτι θεός ἐστιν ὁ τὸν ὀδωδότα νεκρὸν ἐκ τῶν μνημάτων ἐξουσίᾳ μεταπεμψάμενος καὶ τῇ τοῦ ῥήματος ἀφέσει τὰ διῳδηκότα σώματα ψυχώσας, οὐδὲν μὲν ἕνεκα τούτου λέγει, Λάζαρον δὲ τὸν τοῦ κυρίου φίλον, ὃν οὐκ ἀπεικότως ἠγάπα δι' ἀρετήν, εἰς τὸν ἀσθενοῦντα καὶ τεθνεῶτα ταῖς ἁμαρτίαις ἀνήγαγεν ἀλληγορῶν. 21.9 οὐδεὶς δὲ κατὰ τοῦ δικαίου ταῦτα εἶπεν οὔτ' ἔγραψεν· οὐ γὰρ ἂν οὕτως ἐκκρίτως ἔστεργεν ὁ κύριος αὐτόν, εἰ μὴ θεσπεσίας ἐξῆπτο πολιτείας. 21.10 οὐκ ἔλαττον δὲ καὶ τὸ τῆς λιθοβολίας δρᾶμα θεωρῶν (ἐπειδὴ καὶ τοῦτο πειρᾶται τροπολογῆσαι) τοῦ εὐαγγελικοῦ καταψεύδεται γράμματος, «οὐ πάνυ τι» λέγων «εὕραμεν, ζητήσαντες ἐν τοῖς πρὸ τούτου, ὅτι ἐβάστασαν οἱ Ἰουδαῖοι λίθους ἵνα λιθάσωσιν αὐτόν»· εἶτα μετ' ὀλίγα φησίν· «εἰ γὰρ "πάλιν ἐβάστασαν", πρότερον ἐβάστασαν». 21.11 ἄνω δὲ καὶ κάτω βούλεται κατασκευάσαι μὴ προηγεῖσθαι καὶ ἄλλην ὁμοίως ἐκδοχήν, ἵνα συστήσειεν ὅτι λόγους, ἀλλ' οὐχὶ λίθους ἐβάστασαν ἀμελλητὶ κατ' αὐτοῦ, καίτοι τοῦ εὐαγγελιστοῦ πρόσθεν 20εἰρηκότος «ἦραν οὖν λίθους ἵνα βάλωσιν ἐπ'20 αὐτόν». 21.12 ὡς δὲ ταῦτα προὔγραψεν, ἐν τῷ μεταξὺ πέντε που καὶ τριάκοντα πρὸς τοῖς ἑκατὸν στίχους ὑπερβάς, ἐπιφέρει προσθείς· «ἐβάστασαν οὖν πάλιν οἱ Ἰουδαῖοι λίθους, ἵνα λιθάσωσιν αὐτόν». ἀλλὰ ταῦτα μὲν ἐν διττοῖς ἀναγέγραπται χωρίοις, ἐν διαφόροις δὲ φαίνεται πεπραγμένα καιροῖς ἀπὸ τοῦ μὴ τὰς αὐτὰς ἔχειν τῶν ῥημάτων ἐπιπλοκὰς ἢ συζυγίας· ἀλλ' Ὠριγένης ὁ πάσας οἰόμενος εἰδέναι τὰς γραφὰς οὐκ ἀνέγνω τοῦτο, καὶ ταῦτα γράφων εἰς ὅλον ὁμοῦ τὸ εὐαγγέλιον ἐπὶ λέξεως.

22.1 Εἰ δέ τις ὑπολαμβάνει ταῦτα πλάττειν ἡμᾶς, αὐταῖς ταῖς εὐαγγελικαῖς

ἐντυχὼν ἀποφάσεσι καὶ τοῖς ἐκπονηθεῖσιν αὐτῷ περὶ τοῦτο σπουδάσμασιν, εὑρήσει μηδὲν ἡμᾶς εἰρηκέναι ψευδές. 22.2 ἀλλὰ τί δεῖ περαιτέρω λέγειν; ἅπαντα μὲν ὡς ἔπος εἰπεῖν, ἐκ τῶν ὀνομάτων ἀλληγορῶν ἀναιρεῖ τὰς τῶν πραγμάτων ὑποθέσεις, οὐδὲ τοῦτο ἐννοῶν, ὅτι πολλαὶ μέν εἰσιν ὁμωνυμίαι δικαίων ἠδ' ἀδίκων, οὐχ οἷόν τε