Ante-Nicene Fathers/Volume IV/Origen/Origen Against Celsus/Book III/Chapter XXII

by Origen

Chapter XXII.

But this low jester^[1] Celsus, omitting no species of mockery and ridicule which can be employed against us, mentions in his treatise the Dioscuri, and Hercules, and Æsculapius, and Dionysus, who are believed by the Greeks to have become gods after being men, and says that “we cannot bear to call such beings gods, because they were at first men,^[2] and yet they manifested many noble qualifies, which were displayed for the benefit of mankind, while we assert that Jesus was seen after His death by His own followers;” and he brings against us an additional charge, as if we said that “He was seen indeed, but was only a shadow!”  Now to this we reply, that it was very artful of Celsus not here clearly to indicate that he did not regard these beings as gods, for he was afraid of the opinion of those who might peruse his treatise, and who might suppose him to be an atheist; whereas, if he had paid respect to what appeared to him to be the truth, he would not have feigned to regard them as gods.^[3]  Now to either of the allegations we are ready with an answer.  Let us, accordingly, to those who do not regard them as gods reply as follows:  These beings, then, are not gods at all; but agreeably to the view of those who think that the soul of man perishes immediately (after death), the souls of these men also perished; or according to the opinion of those who say that the soul continues to subsist or is immortal, these men continue to exist or are immortal, and they are not gods but heroes,—or not even heroes, but simply souls.  If, then, on the one hand, you suppose them not to exist, we shall have to prove the doctrine of the soul’s immortality, which is to us a doctrine of pre-eminent importance;^[4] if, on the other hand, they do exist, we have still to prove^[5] the doctrine of immortality, not only by what the Greeks have so well said regarding it, but also in a manner agreeable to the teaching of Holy Scripture.  And we shall demonstrate that it is impossible for those who were polytheists during their lives to obtain a better country and position after their departure from this world, by quoting the histories that are related of them, in which is recorded the great dissoluteness of Hercules, and his effeminate bondage with Omphale, together with the statements regarding Æsculapius, that their Zeus struck him dead by a thunderbolt.  And of the Dioscuri, it will be said that they die often—

“At one time live on alternate days, and at another

Die, and obtain honour equally with the gods.”^[6]

How, then, can they reasonably imagine that one of these is to be regarded as a god or a hero?

1. βωμολόχος.
2. The reading in the text is καὶ πρῶτοι, for which Bohereau proposes τὸ πρῶτον, which we have adopted in the translation.
3. We have followed in the translation the emendation of Guietus, who proposes εἰ δὲ τὴν φαινομένην αὐτῷ ἀλήθειαν ἐπρέσβευσεν, οὐκ ἄν, κ.τ.λ.,, instead of the textual reading, εἴ τε τῆς φαινομένης αὐτῷ ἀληθείας ἐπρέσβενσεν, οὐκ ἄν, κ.τ.λ.
4. τὸν προηγούμενον ἡμῖν περὶ ψυχῆς κατασκευαστέον λόγον.
5. Bohereau conjectures, with great probability, that instead of ἀποδεκτέον, we ought to read ἀποδεικτέον.
6. Cf. Hom., Odyss., xi. 303 and 304.