On the "Rewriting" of Against Celsus in Caesarea

There is a general agreement among scholars that the later works of Origen were written at Caesarea, with some originally penned in Alexandria. However, I challenge this consensus. I believe Eusebius rewrote Origen's texts to align them with the new anti-Arian (anti-Alexandrian) orthodoxy of Nicaea and to serve his own interests. Specifically, in the case of Against Celsus, I posit that Eusebius did not favor the original arguments made by Origen and thus reordered and altered the text. Something in Celsus's arguments may have undermined Eusebius's own efforts against Porphyry, prompting these changes.

In the preface to Against Celsus, attributed to Origen, it is stated that Ambrose commissioned the work even though Jesus did not respond to the false accusations of His accusers. This provides a convenient "out" for Origen's efforts as mandated by his patron, Ambrose. Origen writes that had Jesus defended Himself, Pilate would have released Him without hesitation. The preface suggests that the purpose of Against Celsus was to defend Christianity against a pagan accuser, yet it acknowledges that the arguments of Celsus would not shake the faith of any true believer.

Here’s a notable excerpt from the preface:

"This apology which you (Ambrose) require me to compose will somewhat weaken that defense which rests on facts, and that power of Jesus which is manifest to those who are not altogether devoid of perception. Notwithstanding, that we may not have the appearance of being reluctant to undertake the task which you have enjoined, we have endeavoured, to the best of our ability, to suggest, by way of answer to each of the statements advanced by Celsus, what seemed to us adapted to refute them, although his arguments have no power to shake the faith of any (true) believer. And forbid, indeed, that any one should be found who, after having been a partaker in such a love of God as was (displayed) in Christ Jesus, could be shaken in his purpose by the arguments of Celsus, or of any such as he ... Therefore I do not congratulate that believer in Christ whose faith can be shaken by Celsus— who no longer shares the common life of men, but has long since departed — or by any apparent plausibility of argument. For I do not know in what rank to place him who has need of arguments written in books in answer to the charges of Celsus against the Christians, in order to prevent him from being shaken in his faith, and confirm him in it. But nevertheless, since in the multitude of those who are considered believers some such persons might be found as would have their faith shaken and overthrown by the writings of Celsus, but who might be preserved by a reply to them of such a nature as to refute his statements and to exhibit the truth, we have deemed it right to yield to your injunction, and to furnish an answer to the treatise which you sent us, but which I do not think that any one, although only a short way advanced in philosophy, will allow to be a True Discourse, as Celsus has entitled it."

Origen mentions that after proceeding with the work to the point where Celsus introduces the Jew disputing with Jesus, he decided to add a preface to clarify that the book was composed not for true believers but for those unacquainted with the Christian faith or weak in faith.

The preface states:

"After proceeding with this work as far as the place where Celsus introduces the Jew disputing with Jesus, I resolved to prefix this preface to the beginning (of the treatise), in order that the reader of our reply to Celsus might fall in with it first, and see that this book has been composed not for those who are thorough believers, but for such as are either wholly unacquainted with the Christian faith, or for those who, as the apostle terms them, are weak in the faith; regarding whom he says, Receive him that is weak in the faith. And this preface must be my apology for beginning my answer to Celsus on one plan, and carrying it on on another. For my first intention was to indicate his principal objections, and then briefly the answers that were returned to them, and subsequently to make a systematic treatise of the whole discourse. But afterwards, circumstances themselves suggested to me that I should be economical of my time, and that, satisfied with what I had already stated at the commencement, I should in the following part grapple closely, to the best of my ability, with the charges of Celsus. I have therefore to ask indulgence for those portions which follow the preface towards the beginning of the book. And if you are not impressed by the powerful arguments which succeed, then, asking similar indulgence also with respect to them, I refer you, if you still desire an argumentative solution of the objections of Celsus, to those men who are wiser than myself, and who are able by words and treatises to overthrow the charges which he brings against us. But better is the man who, although meeting with the work of Celsus, needs no answer to it at all, but who despises all its contents, since they are contemned, and with good reason, by every believer in Christ, through the Spirit that is in him."

I believe the revision of Against Celsus was not merely the addition of a preface but a wholesale revision of the original work. The language in the preface and the structure of the argument suggest a significant alteration.

Here are additional points supporting this hypothesis:

1. Commentary on John:

   • Supposedly begun in Alexandria but finished in Caesarea. In the Sixth Book, Origen writes:

     "I composed the material given me as far as the fifth volume (of the Commentary) even though the storm in Alexandria seemed to work against me, just as Jesus rebuked the winds and the waves of the sea. After I had moved on to part of the sixth (volume), I was brought out of Egypt by God delivering me, He who led His people forth from there."

2. Eusebius's Role:

   • Eusebius lived in Caesarea and had a history of composing pseudepigrapha. The Apology is a hybrid of Pamphilus's hand and his own, to the extent that Eusebius practically took over Pamphilus's identity.
   • The columned scriptural translations of the Bible are also a strange hybrid of Origen and Eusebius.
   • Changes in the gospel versions between first and second drafts in these works, such as the Gospel of Mark, indicate alterations.

3. Pamphilus's Identity:

   • "Pamphilus" appears to be a smokescreen, a convenient scapegoat to obscure Eusebius's crypto-Arian sympathies and his initiative in gathering Origen's works.

4. Jerome's Accusations:

   • Jerome directly accuses Rufinus of altering Origen's text to make him seem less heretical but also hints at Eusebius having taken a similar role before him.

5. Eusebius's Continued War Against Celsus:

   • As late as 335, when Eusebius delivered his speech In Praise of Constantine at the dedication of the Church of the Holy Sepulchre in Jerusalem, he still engaged with criticisms first raised by Celsus.

The evidence suggests that Eusebius not only rewrote Against Celsus but also altered other works like the Commentary on John and the Commentary on Matthew. The connection between Celsus's work and Ammonius's apostasy may have been part of Origen's original draft, which was subsequently altered to fit Eusebius's narrative and theological agenda.

In conclusion, the rewriting of Origen's works in Caesarea under the influence of Eusebius raises significant questions about the authenticity and integrity of these texts as we have them today.