Against Celsus 6.51
Summary: Origen declines to repeat his earlier commentary on the six days and dismisses Celsus's jibes about the Creator borrowing light as attacks on heretical sects that Christians themselves reject.
Textual problem in this passage: the printed text is uncertain or disputed here. See the notes.
Greek text · Koetschau 2:122–123
Νῦν δὲ διηγήσασθαι τὸν περὶ νοητῶν καὶ αἰσθητῶν λόγον, καὶ τίνα τρόπον διανενέμηνται αἱ φύσεις τῶν ἡμερῶν εἰς ἀμφότερα τὰ εἴδη, οὐ πρόκειται οὐδὲ τὰ κατὰ τοὺς τόπους ἐξετάσαι· ὅλων γὰρ ἡμῖν συντάξεων χρεία εἰς τὴν διήγησιν τῆς κατὰ Μωϋσέα κοσμοποιΐας· ὅπερ κατὰ τὸ δυνατὸν ἡμῖν πρὸ πλείονος χρόνου τῆς ἐνεστηκυίας πρὸς τὸν Κέλσον συντάξεως πεποιήκαμεν, ἀπὸ τῆς πρὸ πλειόνων ἐτῶν ἕξεως, ἧς ἐχωροῦμεν τότε, διαλαβόντες περὶ τῶν κατὰ Μωϋσέα [τῶν] ἓξ τῆς κοσμοποιΐας ἡμερῶν. εἰδέναι μέντοι γε χρὴ ὅτι τοῖς δικαίοις διὰ τοῦ Ἡσαΐου ὁ λόγος ἐπαγγέλλεται ἐν καταστάσει ἔσεσθαι ἡμέρας, ἐν ᾗ μὴ ἥλιος ἀλλʼ αὐτὸς ὁ „κύριος φῶς“ ἔσται αὐτοῖς „αἰώνιον, καὶ ὁ θεὸς δόξα“ αὐτῶν. παρακούσας δʼ οἶμαι μοχθηρᾶς αἱρέσεώς τινος καὶ κακῶς διηγησαμένης τὸ „γενηθήτω φῶς“ ὡς εὐκτικῶς ὑπὸ τοῦ δημιουργοῦ εἰρημένον εἶπεν· οὐ γὰρ δὴ καθάπερ οἱ τοὺς λύχνους ἐκ γειτόνων ἐναυόμενοι φῶς ὁ δημιουργὸς ἄνωθεν ἐχρήσατο. καὶ ἄλλης δʼ ἀσεβοῦς αἱρέσεως παρακούσας εἶπε καὶ τό· εἰ μὲν ἐναντίος τις ἦν τῷ μεγάλῳ θεῷ θεὸς κατηραμένος ὁ ταῦτα ποιῶν παρὰ γνώμην τὴν ἐκείνου, τί αὐτῷ τὸ φῶς ἐκίχρα; πρὸς ἃ τοσοῦτον ἀποδέομεν ἀπολογεῖσθαι, ὥστε τρανότερον ἡμᾶς ἐθέλειν τῆς ἐκείνων δόξης ὡς ἐσφαλμένων κατηγορεῖν καὶ ἵστασθαι οὐ πρὸς ἃ μὴ οἴδαμεν αὐτῶν ὡς ὁ Κέλσος ἀλλὰ πρὸς ἃ ἀκριβῶς γινώσκομεν, πῇ μὲν ἀπʼ αὐτῶν, ἀκολουθήσαντες, πῇ δὲ τοῖς συγγράμμασιν αὐτῶν ἐπιμελῶς ἐντυχόντες.
English · Claude translation
But it is not our present purpose to expound the doctrine of intelligible and sensible things, and in what way the natures of the days are distributed to both kinds, nor to examine the passages; for whole treatises would be needed for an exposition of the creation according to Moses. We did this, as far as we could, long before the present treatise against Celsus, discussing the six days of creation according to Moses with the capacity we had some years ago. One should know, however, that through Isaiah the Word promises the righteous that there will be days in a state in which not the sun but the “Lord” himself will be their “everlasting light, and God their glory.” But Celsus, having misunderstood, I think, some wretched sect that wrongly interpreted “Let there be light” as spoken by the Creator in the form of a wish, said: For the Creator did not borrow light from above, like those who kindle their lamps from their neighbours. And having misunderstood another impious sect, he also said: If there was an accursed god opposed to the great God, who did these things against his will, why did the great God lend him the light? We are so far from making a defence on these points that we would rather accuse the opinion of those sects more clearly as mistaken, and oppose not, as Celsus does, what we do not know about them, but what we know precisely, partly from having heard them in person and partly from having carefully read their writings.
About this passage
Notes
Translation notes
- The passages are Isa 60:19 and Gen 1:3. Origen's early work on the six days is his Commentary on Genesis (largely lost). The editor deletes a repeated article (τῶν) before “six days.”
Cite this passage
Origen, Cels. 6.51 (trans. Sophia Scriptura, https://sophiascriptura.com/fathers/origen-celsum/6/51/).
Plain text
Origen, Cels. 6.51 (trans. Sophia Scriptura, https://sophiascriptura.com/fathers/origen-celsum/6/51/).
Download citation:BibTeX ·RIS (Zotero, EndNote)
Whole work:BibTeX ·RIS ·Markdown text