Go to Related Reading
About this book

Contra Celsum, Book 8

Against Celsus

About this book
Chapter 15

After this Celsus says: “That I do not form this opinion wide of the mark, I will use their own words. For somewhere in the heavenly dialogue they say something like this, in these words: ‘If the Son is mightier than God, and the Son of Man is his lord (and who else will be lord over the God who rules?), how is it that many are around the well and no one goes into the well?⁠ Why, having traveled so long a road, are you without courage? You are mistaken; for I have courage and a sword.’ So it is not their aim to worship the God above the heavens, but the one they have supposed to be the father of this man, around whom they have gathered, so that, under the pretext of the great God, they may worship only this man whom they set at their head, the Son of Man, whom they declare mightier than and lord of ‘the God who rules.’ From this comes that rule of theirs, not to ‘serve’ two ‘masters,’ so that the faction around this one man may be preserved.” And here again, having taken these things from some most obscure heresy I cannot identify, he charges all Christians on the strength of them; I say most obscure, since the opinion from which Celsus took them is not known even to us, who have often exercised ourselves against those of the heresies; if indeed he took it and did not invent it or add a consequence of his own. For we, who say that the world perceived by the senses too belongs to the Creator of all things, say plainly that the Son is not mightier than the Father but inferior to him. And we say this because we believe him when he says, “The Father who sent me is greater than I.” And none of us is so confused as to say, “The Son of Man is lord” of God. We say that the Savior rules, especially when we understand him as God, Word, Wisdom, Righteousness, and Truth, over all things subject to him insofar as he is these things, but not over the Father and God who rules him. Then, since the Word does not rule the unwilling, and there are still some wicked beings, not only men but also angels and all demons, we say that he does not yet rule these, since they do not yield to him willingly; but in another sense of “rule” he rules them too (as we say that man rules the irrational animals, not by subjecting their ruling faculty, as he rules certain lions and beasts of burden that he has tamed), yet he does everything so that by persuading those who do not now obey him he may rule them too. On our view, then, what Celsus reports as said by us is false: “Who else will be lord over the God who rules?”

Texts in conversation

Compare Gospel of Thomas 74 and Origen, Contra Celsum 8.15

Nag Hammadi · Early Christian

Share:

Summary

The Gospel of Thomas has an obscure Coptic term in its saying about a well. A similar saying quoted by Origen helped editors identify a likely copying error, restoring the well image where the manuscript's language makes little sense.

Passages

Gospel of Thomas 74

Nag Hammadi
73 Jesus said, “The harvest is plentiful but the laborers are few; therefore, beg the Lord to send out laborers for the harvest.” 74 He said, “Lord, there are many around the well, but there is nothing in the well.” 75 Jesus said, “Many are standing at the door, but the solitary are the ones who will enter the bridal chamber.”
135–200 CE (scholarly estimate) Read in the Gospel of Thomas

Origen, Contra Celsum 8.15

Early Christian · Against Celsus
After this Celsus says: “That I do not form this opinion wide of the mark, I will use their own words. For somewhere in the heavenly dialogue they say something like this, in these words: ‘If the Son is mightier than God, and the Son of Man is his lord (and who else will be lord over the God who rules?), how is it that many are around the well and no one goes into the well? Why, having traveled so long a road, are you without courage? You are mistaken; for I have courage and a sword.’
248 CE (scholarly estimate) Read in Origen, Contra Celsum 8

References

“... Another example of Origen’s use of the Gospel of Thomas is so close that his quotation was used to correct a scribal error in the Coptic text of the Gospel of Thomas. The text of Gos. Thom. 74 as presented in Codex II of the Nag Hammadi library reads: He said, “Lord, there are many around the drinking trough (jǀte), but nothing is in the illness (šǀne).” The last clause does not make good sense, so the original editors of the Coptic Gospel of Thomas considered this text to be corrupt. Taking inspiration from a saying recorded in Origen, Contra Celsum 8.15 and 16, the editors concluded that there is a scribal error in the last word, in which the word šǀne, “illness,” had been written instead of šǀte, “well.” [...] In 8.15, Origen set forth an argument by Celsus that Christians worship the father of Jesus rather than the Creator: After this Celsus says: To show that I am not wide of the mark in forming this opinion, I will quote their own words. For in one place in the heavenly dialogue they speak there in these words: “If the Son of God is mightier, and the Son of man is his Lord (and who else will overcome the God who is mighty?), how is it that many are round the well and no one goes into it? [...] One obstacle for recognizing Origen’s use of the Gospel of Thomas for the “in the well” saying in this case is that Celsus did not identify the saying as coming from that gospel at all. Rather, Celsus quoted it as coming from some other document called the “Heavenly Dialogue.” This document is not the Gospel of Thomas because it is quoted as containing material foreign to that gospel. [...] In fact, Origen’s knowledge of the saying in the Gospel of Thomas enabled him to make another counter-argument to Celsus’s attack (c. Cels. 8.16): Then I think he muddles things again from another sect the following: How is it that many are round the well and no one goes into it? … We who belong to the church named after Christ alone say that none of these things is true. He seems to be attributing sayings which are nothing to do with us in order to be consistent with what he said earlier. Origen’s counter-attack thus accuses Celsus of “muddling things…from another sect.” This charge indicates that Origen was able to recognize some of the content of the Heavenly Dialogue, though not the actual document itself as belonging to another sect. Given Origen’s study of the Gospel of the Thomas, the basis for Origen’s recognition would have to have been his knowledge of a very similar saying found at Gos. Thom. 74. ...”
Stephen C. Carlson, “Origen’s Use of the Gospel of Thomas,” in Sacra Scriptura: How “Non-Canonical” Texts Functioned in Early Judaism and Early Christianity, ed. James H. Charlesworth and with Blake A. Jurgens Lee Martin McDonald (London: Bloomsbury T&T Clark, 2014), 145–146.

References are not endorsements of their contents. Read each reference in full to understand its author's intentions in using these texts.

Your feedback

Gospel of Thomas 74 and Origen, Contra Celsum 8.15

Leave a comment

Your questions and comments are welcome!

Comments

Glossary

Search the Library