Origen of Alexandria, Against Celsus

He next continues: “You see how Plato, although maintaining that (the chief good) cannot be described in words, yet, to avoid the appearance of retreating to an irrefutable position, subjoins a reason in explanation of this difficulty, as even ‘nothing’1249 ἐγγαστριμύθοις. τὸ μηδέν. might perhaps be explained in words.” But as Celsus adduces this to prove that we ought not to yield a simple assent, but to furnish a reason for our belief, we shall quote also the words of Paul, where he says, in censuring the hasty1250 ἐπαοιδοῖς. εἰκῆ πιστεύοντι. believer, “unless ye have believed inconsiderately.”1251 Cf. Lev. xix. 31. 1 Cor. xv. 2. Now, through his practice of repeating himself, Celsus, so far as he can, forces us to be guilty of tautology, reiterating, after the boastful language which has been quoted, that “Plato is not guilty of boasting and falsehood, giving out that he has made some new discovery, or that he has come down from heaven to announce it, but acknowledges whence these statements are derived.” Now, if one wished to reply to Celsus, one might say in answer to such assertions, that even Plato is guilty of boasting, when in the Timæus1252 The emendations of Ruæus have been adopted in the translation, the text being probably corrupt. Cf. Ruæus, in loc. [p. 41. S.] he puts the following language in the month of Zeus: “Gods of gods, whose creator and father I am,” and so on. And if any one will defend such language on account of the meaning which is conveyed under the name of Zeus, thus speaking in the dialogue of Plato, why should not he who investigates the meaning of the words of the Son of God, or those of the Creator1253 τοῦ δημιουργοῦ. in the prophets, express a profounder meaning than any conveyed by the words of Zeus in the Timæus? For the characteristic of divinity is the announcement of future events, predicted not by human power, but shown by the result to be due to a divine spirit in him who made the announcement. Accordingly, we do not say to each of our hearers, “Believe, first of all, that He whom I introduce to thee is the Son of God;” but we put the Gospel before each one, as his character and disposition may fit him to receive it, inasmuch as we have learned to know “how we ought to answer every man.”1254 Cf. Col. iv. 6. And there are some who are capable of receiving nothing more than an exhortation to believe, and to these we address that alone; while we approach others, again, as far as possible, in the way of demonstration, by means of question and answer. Nor do we at all say, as Celsus scoffingly alleges, “Believe that he whom I introduce to thee is the Son of God, although he was shamefully bound, and disgracefully punished, and very recently1255 χθὲς καὶ πρώην. was most contumeliously treated before the eyes of all men;” neither do we add, “Believe it even the more (on that account).” For it is our endeavour to state, on each individual point, arguments more numerous even than we have brought forward in the preceding pages.

Εἶτά φησιν ὅτι ὁρᾷς ὅπως Πλάτων, καίτοι διαβε βαιωσάμενος ὅτι "ῥητὸν" οὐκ ἔστιν, ὅμως, ἵνα μὴ εἰς ἀνεξέλεγκτον ἀναχωρεῖν δόξῃ, λογισμὸν ὑπέχει ταύτης τῆς ἀπορίας· εἴη γὰρ ἂν τυχὸν "ῥητὸν" καὶ τὸ μηδέν. Ἀλλ' ἐπεὶ τοῦτο φέρει εἰς κατασκευὴν τοῦ δεῖν μὴ ἁπλῶς πιστεύειν ἀλλὰ λογισμὸν ὑπέχειν τῶν πιστευομένων, χρη σόμεθα καὶ ἡμεῖς τοῦ Παύλου λέξει ἐγκαλούσῃ τῷ εἰκῇ πιστεύοντι, ἐν ᾗ φησιν· "Ἐκτὸς εἰ μὴ εἰκῇ ἐπιστεύσατε." Τὸ ὅσον δ' ἐπ' αὐτῷ ἀναγκάζει ἡμᾶς ταυτολογεῖν ταυτολογῶν ὁ Κέλσος, λέγων μετὰ τὰς εἰρημένας ὥσπερ ἀλαζόνων ἀλαζονείας ὅτι ὁ Πλάτων οὐκ ἀλαζονεύεται καὶ ψεύδεται φάσκων αὐτὸς καινόν τι εὑρίσκειν ἢ ἀπ' οὐρανοῦ παρὼν ἀγγέλλειν, ἀλλ' ὁπόθεν ἐστὶ ταῦθ' ὁμολογεῖ. Εἴποι ἄν τις οὖν καὶ πρὸς ταῦτα, βουλόμενος ἀπαντᾶν τῷ Κέλσῳ, ὅτι καὶ Πλάτων ἀλαζονεύεται ἐν τῇ τοῦ ∆ιὸς κατὰ τὸν Τίμαιον δημηγορίᾳ λέγων· "Θεοὶ θεῶν, ὧν ἐγὼ δημιουργὸς καὶ πατήρ", καὶ τὰ ἑξῆς. Ἀλλ' εἰ ἀπολογήσεταί τις περὶ τούτων διὰ τὸν νοῦν τοῦ δημηγοροῦντος παρὰ τῷ Πλάτωνι ∆ιός, διὰ τί ὁ ἐξετάζων τὸν νοῦν τῶν λόγων τοῦ υἱοῦ τοῦ θεοῦ ἢ τῶν ἐν τοῖς προφήταις τοῦ δημιουργοῦ οὐχὶ καὶ πλεῖόν τι ἐρεῖ παρὰ τὴν ἐν τῷ Τιμαίῳ τοῦ ∆ιὸς δημηγορίαν; Τὸ γὰρ χαρακτηρίζον τὴν θεότητα ἡ περὶ μελλόντων ἐστὶν ἀπαγγελία, οὐ κατ' ἀνθρωπίνην φύσιν λεγομένων καὶ ταῖς ἐκβάσεσι κρινομένων ὅτι θεῖον πνεῦμα ἦν τὸ ταῦτα ἀπαγ γέλλον. Οὐ πρὸς πάντα οὖν τὸν προσιόντα φαμὲν ὅτι πρῶτον πίστευσον ὃν εἰσηγοῦμαί σοι τοῦτον εἶναι υἱὸν θεοῦ, ἀλλ' ἑκάστῳ κατὰ τὸ πρέπον αὐτοῦ τῷ ἤθει καὶ τῇ καταστάσει προσάγομεν τὸν λόγον, μαθόντες "εἰδέναι, πῶς δεῖ ἡμᾶς ἑνὶ ἑκάστῳ ἀποκρίνασθαι". Καὶ εἰσὶν οἷς πλεῖον μὴ δυναμένοις τοῦ προτραπῆναι εἰς τὸ πιστεύειν τοῦτο κηρύτ τομεν, ἄλλοις δὲ ὅση δύναμις ἀποδεικτικῶς δι' ἐρωτήσεων καὶ ἀποκρίσεων προσερχόμεθα. Ἀλλ' οὐδὲ λέγομεν τὸ μετὰ χλεύης ὑπὸ τοῦ Κέλσου εἰρημένον, ὅτι πίστευσον ὃν εἰση γοῦμαί σοι τοῦτον εἶναι υἱὸν θεοῦ, κἂν ᾖ δεδεμένος ἀτιμό τατα ἢ κεκολασμένος αἴσχιστα, κἂν χθὲς καὶ πρώην ἐν τοῖς πάντων ὀφθαλμοῖς ἐπονειδιστότατα κεκαλινδημένος, οὐδέ φαμεν· Ταύτῃ καὶ μᾶλλον πίστευσον. Εἰς ἕκαστον γὰρ πει ρώμεθα λέγειν καὶ πλείονα ὧν ἐν τοῖς ἀνωτέρω ἐξεθέμεθα.