Origen’s ‘Celsus’: Questions of Identity

Abstract

This article will investigate a certain similarity between Origen’s response to Celsus’ True Logos and the criticisms against Longinus’ interpretation of the early pages of Plato’s Timaeus made in Proclus’ Commentary by a certain Origenes, usually held to be a pagan though without compelling evidence. Origen begins by assuming that ‘Celsus’ was an Epicurean of that name, even though it has long been obvious that ‘Celsus’ has adopted a Platonist point of view and that Origen’s answers often rely on Plato’s authority; in Proclus, Origenes regularly regards Longinus’ explanations as turning Plato into a hedonist by having him aim at the reader’s pleasure, and at one point Longinus even made reference to Epicurus. The paper uses recent work on the presence in Porphyry and Lucian of alternative names, whether inside philosophic schools or as a nom de plume, to argue that Origen could not be sure of his opponent’s identity, but that as he wrote he came to suspect that ‘Celsus’ was in fact his younger contemporary Longinus, the initial teacher of Porphyry himself. Hence the allusions to his ‘philological’ tendencies. If this is correct, then there is additional reason to identify Origen with Origenes.