“... 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. ...”