Hostname: page-component-78c5997874-ndw9j Total loading time: 0 Render date: 2024-11-03T03:23:43.670Z Has data issue: false hasContentIssue false
  • English
  • Français

Origen, Celsus, and the Resurrection of the Body

Published online by Cambridge University Press:  23 August 2011

Henry Chadwick
Henry Chadwick
Affiliation:
Queens' College, Cambridge, England
Get access Rights & Permissions [Opens in a new window]

Extract

There were indeed many respects in which Christianity was objectionable to Celsus. But perhaps no doctrine was so peculiarly nauseating to him as the Jewish-Christian doctrine of the resurrection of the body. At the beginning of the fifth book of the contra Celsum Origen is dealing with Celsus' attacks on the pride shown by the Jews in supposing that they were the chosen people of God. Celsus is contending that the Jewish belief in angels is merely a manifestation of this (5.6). They believe they have a particularly privileged position in God's sight on the ground of the angelic messengers sent to them by God (cf. 5.41), and this fantastic conceit is equally manifested in their selfcentered conception of the resurrection which is nothing more than the outcome of their delusion that they are the center of the universe and that the world was made entirely for their benefit (4.74–99). It is in this context that he continues:

It is foolish also of them to suppose that, when God applies the fire (like a cook!), all the rest of mankind will be thoroughly burnt up, and that they alone will survive, not merely those who are alive at the time, but also those long dead who will rise up from the earth possessing the same bodies as before. This is simply the hope of worms.

Type
Research Article
Information
Harvard Theological Review , Volume 41 , Issue 2 , April 1948 , pp. 83 - 102
Copyright
Copyright © President and Fellows of Harvard College 1948

Access options

Get access to the full version of this content by using one of the access options below. (Log in options will check for institutional or personal access. Content may require purchase if you do not have access.)

References

1 On the connection of thought in the original text of Celsus see a good discussion by A. Wifstrand in Kungl. Humanistiska Vetenskapssamfundets i Lund Årsberattelse 1941–2, at pp. 409–10. And for the Jewish-Christian belief that the people of God are the ultimate purpose of the creation and that the world is maintained for them, cf. M. Dibelius on Hermas, Vis. 1.16, in the Ergänzungsband to Lietzmann's Handbuch zum N.T., 1923.

My debt should here be expressed to Dr. W. Telfer who kindly read this article in its first draft, and made a number of valuable criticisms of detail and helped to remove some ambiguities.

2 Heraclitus Frag. B 86 Diels.

3 Conveniently translated in James, M. R., The Apocryphal New Testament (Oxford, 1924) p. 512Google Scholar.

4 For a catalogue of the surviving fragments cf. A. v. Harnack, Geschichte der altchristlichen Litteratur I 1, p. 384. They are printed in Lommatzsch xvii. 53–64. Origen wrote two books and two dialogues on the resurrection, which were thus reckoned as four books; cf. Rufinus, adv. Hieron. 2.20; Jerome, c. Joh. Hier. 25. It is perhaps worth noting that Preuschen (in Harnack p. 383) gives the wrong reference to Rufinus, and omits the all-important word quarto in his quotation from Jerome (p. 384).

5 Methodius, de Resurr.1.20–24 = Epiphanius, Panar. 64.12 ff. = Origen, Sel. in Ps. xi.384 ff. ed. Lommatzsch.

6 Celsus' Words are οὐδὲν ἔχοντες ἀποκρίνασθαι καταϕεύγουσιν εἰς ἀτοπωτάτην ἀναχώρησιν, ὅτι πᾶν δυνατὸν τῷ θεῷ. (5.14, II p.15.12 ed.Koetschau). Similarly in c.Cels.2.77 and 3.70.

For a Zoroastrian answer to the question cf. Bailey, H. W., Zoroastrian Problems in the Ninth-Century Books (Oxford, 1943) p. 93–94Google Scholar.

7 The passage is only extant in the old Slavonic version, translated into German in Bonwetsch's edition of Methodius (Die griechischen christlichen Schriftsteller Band 27, Leipzig, 1917)Google Scholar. My paraphrase above depends on Bonwetsch.

8 The text is so emended by H. von Arnim, Stoic. Vet. Fragm. II, p. 288. The Trinity manuscript has κἂν κινῆτε καὶ ταῦτα. (Arnim gives αὐτά in his apparatus, but this is wrong; the MS. reading is quite clear).

9 An excellent commentary on the ideas here is to be found in Lucretius 2.1105–44. Perhaps ultimately it goes back to Plato, Timaeus 42A: ὁπότε δὴ σώμασιν ἐμϕυτευθεῖεν ἐξ ἀνάγκης, καὶ τὸ μὲν προσἰοι, τὸ δʼ ἀπίοι τοῦ σώματος αὐτῶν, κτλ.

10 A critical edition of Albinus has been produced by P. Louis (Paris, 1945), superseding that of Hermann in his Teubner edition of Plato, vol. VI, Berlin, 1895.

11 Quotations from the relevant passages are cited by Bonwetsch.

12 Porphyry, Frag. 94 ed. Harnack, in Abhandlungen der königl. preuss. Akad. d. Wissenschaften, philos. hist. Kl., 1916. It is not improbable that Augustine has Porphyry's objections in mind when he defends the resurrection of the flesh in the last book of the De Civitate Dei.

13 Karl Holl in Texte und Unters. XX, N.F. V, 2 (1899), pp. 38–39Google Scholar.

14 In what follows I am mainly indebted to the masterly chapter in Bailey, Cyril, The Greek Atomists and Epicurus (Oxford, 1928) pp. 438–81Google Scholar. Cf. also Festugière, A.-J., Épicure et ses Dieux (Paris, 1946)Google Scholar.

15 In c.Cels.4.14 Origen has one sentence about the Epicurean gods which was overlooked by Usener and has not, as far as I know, been considered by students of Epicurus: οί δὲ τοῦ Ἐπικούρον θεοί, σύνθετοι ἐξ ἀτόμων τυγχάνοντες καὶ τὸ ὄσον ἐπι τῇ συστάσει ἀναλυτοί, πραγματεύονται τὰς ϕθοροποιοὺς ἀτόμονς ἀποσείεσθαι. Dr. Cyril Bailey, in a private letter, compares with this the scholiast's comment on the first of the Kύριαι Δόξαι (Diog. Laert. 10.139) according to whom Epicurus thought the gods are formed ἐκ τῆς ουνεχοῦς ἐπιρρύσεως πῶν ὁμοίων εἰδώλων ἐπὶ τὸ αὐτὸ ἀποτετελεσμένων ἀνθρωποειδῶς. The gods have to be composed of the right sort of atoms, and are therefore “at pains to reject the destructive atoms” for the reason that they are compounded, and like all other compounds may be dissolved by the intrusion of alien atoms causing disruption.

16 So Scott p. 189, on the basis of Cicero, de Nat. Deor. 1.34.94–5; Philodemus, de Pietate p. 79 ed. Gomperz (conveniently in Diels, Doxogr. Gr. p. 546).

Dionysius of Halicarnassus has an amusing polemic against some who say that, if the gods use a language like ours, Zeus will use Plato's style; de Demosthene 23 (I owe this reference to the kindness of Professor A. D. Nock). Cf. also Clement, Strom. 1.143.1, discussed by Diels, loc. cit. 1916 Heft 6 p. 51 n. 2.

17 Cf. ibid. 1.29.80: “Ecquos, si non tam strabones, at paetulos esse arbitramur? ecquos naevum habere? ecquos silos, flaccos, frontones, capitones, quae sunt in nobis?” There is perhaps an affinity between this difficulty and Origen's enquiry whether men will have “hirsutum supercilium” and if “mulieribus laeves genae et angusta pectora, ad concipiendos et pariendos fetus venter et femora dilatanda sunt.” (ap. Jerome, 378B). Cf. also Cicero, 1.35.99: “Tuus autem deus non digito uno redundat, sed capite, collo, cervicibus, lateribus, alvo, tergo, poplitibus, manibus, pedibus, feminibus, cruribus. si, ut immortalis sit, quid haec ad vitam membra pertinent? quid ipsa fades?”

18 Mansi IX. 516 D, quoted by Paul Koetschau in his edition of de Principiis (1913) p. 176.

19 This has been pointed out by DrKnox, W. L., ‘Origen's Conception of the Resurrection Body,’ in J.T.S. XXXIX (1938) pp. 247–8Google Scholar.

20 According to the scholiast on Iliad 23.65, Chrysippus affirmed that souls μέτα τὸν χωρισμὸν τοῦ σώματος σϕαιροειδεῖς γενέσθαι. Cf. H. von Arnim, Stoicorum Veterum Fragmenta II 815. Professor Nock kindly draws my attention to Seneca, Apocolocyntosis 8 where Claudius cannot become one of the Epicurean gods because they cause no trouble, though he may resemble a Stoic god in his rotundity. “Quomodo potest rotundus esse, ut ait Varro, sine capite, sine praeputio? Est aliquid in illo Stoici dei, iam video: nee cor nee caput habet.”

21 von Balthasar, H. in Zeitschrift für kathol. Theol. LXIII (1939) p. 95Google Scholar. Cf. my remarks in J.T.S. XLVIII (1947) p. 43.

22 Cf. Bigg, C., The Christian Platonists of Alexandria, (2nd ed. 1913) p. 272Google Scholar; Bardy, G., Recherches sur l'histoire du texte et des versions latines du De Principiis d'Origène (Paris, 1923) p. 60Google Scholar. The ambiguity of the passage is not noticed by Diekamp, F., Die Origenistischen Streitigkeiten im sechsten Jahrhundert (Münster, 1899) p. 48 noteGoogle Scholar.

23 σθὸδρα δὲ μωρῶς ἀναδτραϕήσεται, ἐὰν τρόπον ἀνδριάντων τις νομίζῃ τὴν μὲν ἐπιϕάνειαν μόνην εἶναι ἀνθρωποειδῆ οὐκέτι δὲ καὶ τὰ ἐν βάθει. For the antithesis between ἐπιϕάνεια and τὰ ἐν βάθει compare, e.g., Clement Paed. 3.4.1. The simile τρόπον ἀνδριάντων quite clearly betrays again the influence of the Academic criticism of Epicurus. Cf. the Academic Cotta in Cicero, de Nat. Deor. 1.26.71: “Non est corpus, sed quasi corpus, hoc intelligerem quale esset, si id in ceris fingeretur aut fictilibus figuris.” Ibid. 1.27.75: “Dicemus igitur idem quod in Venere Coa, corpus illud non est, sed simile corporis, nee ille fusus et candore mixtus rubor sanguis est, sed quaedam sanguinis similitudo; sic in Epicureo deo non res, sed similitudines rerum esse.”

24 Velleius in Cic. de Nat. Deor. 1.10.24 criticizes the Platonic opinion that the world is spherical (rotundum) because this is the most beautiful shape, saying: “At mihi vel cylindri vel quadrati vel coni vel pyramidis videtur esse formosior.”

25 Perhaps John of Jerusalem is the person in mind. Baronius suggested Palladius who lived at Bethlehem for a year with Posidonius the Theban, according to Hist. Laus. 36 (p. 107.1 ed. Butler). Cf. Vallarsi's note, I (Verona, 1734) p. 709 note b.

26 For ψυχῆς which is the reading of the Vatican manuscript Koetschau, in his translation (1926–7), would read μνημεῖα.

27 For the antecedents and later development of this idea of the αὐγοειδὲς σῶμα see Dodds, E. R., Proclus, The Elements of Theology (Oxford, 1933) pp. 313–321Google Scholar. In Origen, Comm. in Matt. 17.30, our resurrection bodies will resemble those of angels — αἰθέρια καὶ αὐγοειδὲς ϕῶς.

28 Origen ap. Jerome loc. cit. (378B—379A), and ap. Methodius 1.26 and 3.12.

29 For this idea which is fundamental to Origen's Christology cf. Bigg, C., The Christian Platonists of Alexandria (2nd ed. 1913) p. 209 ff.Google Scholar; Koch, Hal, Pronoia und Paideusis, Studien über Origenes und sein Verhältnis zum Platonismus (Berlin and Leipzig, 1932) p. 66 ff.Google Scholar; de Faye, E., Origène, III (Paris, 1928) p. 138 ffGoogle Scholar. Compare Methodius' criticisms in 3.12.

30 Origen's usual phrase for the human nature of Christ is ὁ κατὰ τὸν Ἰησοῦν νοούμενος ἄνθρωπος e.g. c. Cels. 2.25 (I p. 154.19 ed. Koetschau); 3.62 (p. 256.18); 4–65 (p. 336.7); 6.45 (p. 116.13); 7.16 (p. 167.22); Comm. in Joann. 20.12 (IV p. 341.23 ed. Preuschen); Comm. in Matt. 15.24 (X p. 420.12 ed. Klostermann) where the phrase stands in apposition to “the Son of Man”; de Orat. 30.2 (II p. 394.26 ed. Koetschau). Cf. c. Cels. 7.16 (p. 168.4): ὁ ἐν τῷ ϕαινομένῳ ἀνθρώπῳ κατὰ τὸν Ἰησοῦν.

31 For Origen's use and modification of the Stoic theory of heredity cf. my remarks in J.T.S. XLVIII (1947) p. 44.

32 So Wendland in Gött. gel. Anz. 1899 p. 293. The Trinity manuscript, followed by Koetschau, reads ἔγκειται.

33 For the idea cf. Plato, Timaeus 51A. Origen alludes to it elsewhere in de Princ. 2.1.4; Comm. in Joann. 13.21.

34 There is as yet no information whether fragments of Origen's lost work on the resurrection have been found in the Toura-find; cf. M. O. Guéraud's article in Revue de l'Histoire des Religions, Jan. 1946.

35 Cf. Koetschau's edition of the de Principiis (Leipzig, 1913) p. 176; de Faye, op. cit. III (1928) p. 253, who goes so far as to write: “Ce qui n'est pas contestable, c'est l'affirmation elle-même. Origène a conçu les corps ressuscités à la fois comme spirituels et sphériques.”