Edition Masquer
Contra Celsum

56.

Εἶτ' οὐκ οἶδ' ὅπως ἐβούλετο ἡμᾶς μᾶλλον Σίβυλλαν ἀναγορεῦσαι παῖδα θεοῦ ἢ Ἰησοῦν, ἀποφηνάμενος ὅτι παρενεγράψαμεν εἰς τὰ ἐκείνης πολλὰ καὶ βλάσφημα καὶ μὴ ἀποδείξας μηδ' ὅ τι παρενεγράψαμεν. Ἀπέδειξε δ' ἄν, εἰ τὰ ἀρχαιότερα καθαρώτερα ἐδείκνυε καὶ οὐκ ἔχοντα ἅπερ οἴεται παρεγγεγράφθαι· μὴ ἀποδείξας δὲ μηδ' ὅτι βλάσφημά ἐστι ταῦτα, εἶτα πάλιν οὐ δὶς οὐδὲ τρὶς ἀλλὰ δὴ πολλάκις ἐπιῤῥητότατον εἶπε τὸν Ἰησοῦ βίον, οὐ στὰς καθ' ἕκαστον τῶν ἐν τῷ βίῳ αὐτοῦ πεπραγμένων καὶ νομιζομένων εἶναι ἐπιῤῥητοτάτων, ἵνα τοῦτ' εἰπὼν δόξῃ μὴ μόνον ἀναποδείκτως ἀποφαίνεσθαι <ἀλλὰ> καὶ λοιδορεῖν ὃν οὐκ ἐπίσταται. Εἰ γὰρ τὰ εἴδη τοῦ ἐπιῤῥητοτάτου βίου ἐν ταῖς πράξεσιν αὐτοῦ φαινόμενα αὐτῷ ἐκτιθέμενος ἦν, κἂν ἠγωνισάμεθα πρὸς ἕκαστον τῶν δοκούντων εἶναι αὐτῷ ἐπιῤῥητοτάτων.

Τὸ δὲ καὶ θανάτῳ οἰκτίστῳ κεχρῆσθαι τὸν Ἰησοῦν δύναιτ' ἂν λέγεσθαι καὶ περὶ Σωκράτους καὶ περὶ Ἀναξάρχου, οὗ πρὸ βραχέος ἐμνημόνευσε, καὶ περὶ ἄλλων μυρίων. Ἢ οἴκτιστος μέν ἐστιν ὁ Ἰησοῦ θάνατος, οὐχὶ δὲ καὶ ὁ ἐκείνων; Ἢ ὁ ἐκείνων μὲν οὐκ οἴκτιστος, ὁ δὲ τοῦ Ἰησοῦ οἴκτιστος; Ὁρᾷς οὖν καὶ ἐνταῦθα ὅτι σκοπὸς ἦν τῷ Κέλσῳ τὸ διαλοιδορεῖσθαι πρὸς τὸν Ἰησοῦν, κινουμένῳ οἶμαι ὑπό τινος πνεύματος, καταλυθέντος ὑπὸ τοῦ Ἰησοῦ καὶ καθαιρεθέντος, ἵνα μηκέτι ἔχῃ κνίσσας καὶ αἵματα, οἷς τρεφόμενον ἠπάτα τοὺς ἐν τοῖς ἐπὶ γῆς ἀγάλμασι ζητοῦντας θεὸν καὶ μὴ ἀναβλέποντας εἰς τὸν ἐπὶ πᾶσιν ἀληθῶς θεόν.

Traduction Masquer
Origen Against Celsus

Chapter LVI.

Celsus then adds, for what reason I know not, that instead of calling Jesus the Son of God, we had better have given that honour to the Sibyl, in whose books he maintains we have interpolated many impious statements, though he does not mention what those interpolations are. ¹ He might have proved his assertion by producing some older copies which are free from the interpolations which he attributes to us; but he does not do so even to justify his statement that these passages are of an impious character. Moreover, he again speaks of the life of Jesus as "a most infamous life," as he has done before, not once or twice, but many times, although he does not stay to specify any of the actions of His life which he thinks most infamous. He seems to think that he may in this way make assertions without proving them, and rail against one of whom he knows nothing. Had he set himself to show what sort of infamy he found in the actions of Jesus, we should have repelled the several charges brought against Him. Jesus did indeed meet with a most sad death; but the same might be said of Socrates, and of Anaxarchus, whom he had just mentioned, and a multitude of others. If the death of Jesus was a miserable one, was not that of the others so too? And if their death was not miserable, can it be said that the death of Jesus was? You see from this, then, that the object of Celsus is to vilify the character of Jesus; and I can only suppose that he is driven to it by some spirit akin to those whose power has been broken and vanquished by Jesus, and which now finds itself deprived of the smoke and blood on which it lived, whilst deceiving those who sought for God here upon earth in images, instead of looking up to the true God, the Governor of all things.