Celsus and the Composition of Origen’s Contra Celsum
Much has been written about Celsus, the pagan critic of Christianity, who is generally believed to have composed his treatise sometime between 160 and 180 CE, likely in Alexandria. Scholarly consensus holds that he was aware of, or responding to, Justin’s First Apology. Celsus is often identified as belonging to a circle of pagan writers who mocked Christianity, which may have led some to connect him with the Celsus mentioned by Lucian of Samosata. Contra Celsum, the treatise by Origen—through which we learn that Celsus wrote an anti-Christian treatise entitled True Word—was likely composed around 248 CE.
These points have been discussed many times. This paper will focus on the Christian reaction to Celsus’s writing before Contra Celsum, beginning with a σύγγραμμα that Ambrose apparently sent to Origen at the time he was commissioned by his patron to write Contra Celsum. We will refer to this text as Contra Celsum’s “first draft,” since Origen eventually appropriated this treatise, making it the first two books of the eight-volume work that followed. Nevertheless, I will argue that it had a life independent of Origen, likely being written by Ambrose or someone else. The final product that emerged in 248 CE thus represents a collaboration among Ambrose, Origen, and the original author of the “first draft” (if that was not Ambrose), rather than a work of pure Origenist authorship.
The “First Draft” of Contra Celsum
The first time Celsus’s treatise is referenced in Contra Celsum, Origen uses the plural συγγράμματα rather than the singular σύγγραμμα: “I do not know why you wished us to defend ourselves against the false accusations made by Celsus in his writings against Christians and the charges against the faith of the churches in his book.” Next, in the preface, there is a reference to a singular σύγγραμμα: “[W]e considered it right to comply with your command and to respond to the treatise you sent us.” The term σύγγραμμα does not necessarily mean a mere copy of Celsus’s True Word, for that might have been described with simpler language (e.g., “the copy of Celsus’s book you gave me”). Σύγγραμμα more strongly suggests a “treatise” or “composition,” hinting that Ambrose or someone in his circle provided Origen with a preliminary document. This interpretation is further supported by Origen’s repeated insistence on “we” or “us,” along with his acknowledgment of Ambrose’s prior “command” and dispatch of textual material.
While it is true that Celsus’s True Word is almost always referenced in the singular throughout the remainder of Contra Celsum, the preface ends with an acknowledgment of the existence of a “first draft”—a two-volume text that existed before the final eight-book work now extant, and that was, at once, a collective effort of Ambrose and Origen:
“... this preface, following the transcription of everything up to the point where Celsus introduces the persona of the Jew against Jesus, seemed appropriate to place at the beginning, so that the reader, encountering what has been dictated by us against Celsus...”
In other words, the first two books were established before the preface. The preface was prefixed to the two-volume work, with Origen expressly intending to shift its focus from something written for the ecclesiastical elite toward a broader Christian readership.
At the end of the preface, Celsus’s treatise is for the first time clearly referenced in the singular, as a σύγγραμμα: “It is better for someone who does not even need the introduction (i.e., the just-written preface)—whether they have encountered Celsus’s treatise or not—to disdain the defense against it and disregard everything in his book.” Book One mentions other “συγγράμματα” of Celsus that identify him as an Epicurean. At the end of Contra Celsum, Origen comments that he has only the one σύγγραμμα from Celsus but notes that True Word itself references another σύγγραμμα:
“[Celsus] promised to teach how those who wish to and are able to follow him should live. If he did not write this second treatise that he promised, it is well for us to be content with the eight books we have composed in response to his arguments. But if he did begin and complete that work as well, seek it out and send the treatise, so that we may respond to it.”
This apparent difficulty is resolved if we assume that Ambrose or his source—who wrote the material for Books One and Two—had other συγγράμματα, whereas Origen, having only what Ambrose sent him, pleads for additional works, clearly speaking as someone other than the original author of the “First Draft.”
Another issue is that both Celsus’s True Word and Origen’s Contra Celsum contain a “treatise within a treatise” (σύγγραμμα within a σύγγραμμα—or συγγράμματα in Origen’s case). Celsus’s “Jew” is, in some sense, a separate σύγγραμμα. Origen addresses this in what we presume to be his “rewrite” of the First Draft by treating the Jew merely as a “personage” of Celsus. Once Celsus is deemed the real author of this separate Jewish σύγγραμμα, seemingly attached to the True Word as a “preface,” there are no longer two συγγράμματα but only one, authored by Celsus. Similarly, when Origen takes the σύγγραμμα “dictated” by Ambrose and weaves it into the first two books of his eight-book Contra Celsum, there are no longer two συγγράμματα but one, written by “us”—i.e., Ambrose and Origen.
Nevertheless, certain blurred lines remain. The end of Book Two was clearly once a stand-alone σύγγραμμα. As we near the end of Book Two—Contra Celsum essentially having dealt with a separate stand-alone σύγγραμμα in the True Word—we see distinct divisions in each work. At Contra Celsum 1.67, it says, “we have made a defense to the best of our ability, as is fitting in such a treatise,” suggesting that the conclusion of Book Two at one time marked the end of a separate piece. Likewise, Book Two closes with a reference to Celsus’s Jew:
“And since these things were introduced by the Jew in Celsus’s account, speaking supposedly in accordance with his own law and then bringing his argument to an end, and since he said other things not worthy of mention, I too will now bring to a close the second of the responses dictated to me against his treatise (σύγγραμμα). With God’s help and the power of Christ dwelling in our soul, I will endeavor in the third book to address the subsequent matters written by Celsus.”
We will return to these closing words to the original σύγγραμμα in due course, but note how Origen speaks of bringing to a “close the second of the responses dictated to me against his treatise” (σύγγραμμα).
Origen, at the beginning of Contra Celsum, suggests that he had already composed an initial two-book treatise—referred to by some as a proto-Contra Celsum—before producing his final eight-book work. In the Preface to what became the eight-book edition, Origen states his dissatisfaction with that first attempt and his resolve to try again.
In the same Preface, Origen describes how he came to write his defense of Christianity. After noting that Jesus remained silent before his accusers—likely a plea to his patron Ambrose that the Christian community continue ignoring Celsus’s charges—Origen explains that Ambrose, concerned about the negative effect on those who were “weak” in their faith, pressed him to respond more thoroughly. In section five of the Preface, Origen recalls that, after progressing “as far as the place where Celsus introduces the Jew disputing with Jesus,” he decided to compose the Preface, clarifying that this new work was aimed neither at “thorough believers” nor those “wholly unacquainted” with Christianity but at those who were less secure in their faith. Origen then apologizes for having begun his reply to Celsus along one plan but carrying it out according to another.
It may seem odd for Origen to refer to a previous draft—especially one he found unsatisfactory—and then embed that draft within the finished text. However, writing multiple drafts or even abandoning earlier attempts is far from rare in the process of composition. What is striking is Origen’s explicit mention of these “first attempts” in the Preface, immediately before presenting the very sections of text he found wanting. He states:
“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.”
Origen contrasts these initial arguments (“first draft”) with what he calls the more compelling ones beginning in Book Three. He describes Books One and Two as having comparatively weak arguments and then directs Ambrose—and, by extension, other readers of Contra Celsum—to consult “those men who are wiser than myself, and who are able by words and treatises to overthrow the charges which he brings against us.” Some scholars propose that the first twenty-seven chapters of Book One merely summarize Celsus’s True Word, with Origen’s fuller refutation of the “Jew” appearing in the rest of Books One and Two. Yet the Preface hints at a different explanation. Origen’s reference to “others” who had composed responses to Celsus suggests that Books One and Two might stem from an earlier Christian rebuttal, produced closer in time to Celsus’s treatise than Origen’s new material. The text’s repeated instruction to “go back” to other writers indicates that Ambrose may have supplied Origen not only with a copy of Celsus’s text but also an existing Christian counter-argument or material from other Christians who had engaged with Celsus—material which Origen then incorporated into his revised defense.
Because Origen was writing roughly seventy or eighty years after The True Word first appeared, his insistence that Celsus continued to influence some Christians gives context to his decision to reuse and reshape this older material. If the “first draft” was actually someone else’s flawed or incomplete rejoinder, Origen could imagine himself in the position of Jesus, who remained silent before his own accusers; he might have preferred to keep ignoring Celsus. However, Ambrose’s concerns for vulnerable Christians demanded a more forceful, updated defense. Since the “first draft” chiefly targeted believers who were already strong in their faith, Origen needed to intervene so that newer converts or less knowledgeable Christians would confront his stronger arguments first. By integrating the older text into his new composition, Origen not only repaired what he considered an embarrassing or problematic work but also demonstrated why it was inadequate and how his version improved upon it.
This scenario clarifies why Origen chose to address publicly what might otherwise have been a private or editorial matter. Rather than discreetly abandoning early missteps, Origen engaged with an inherited rebuttal he found lacking, making clear to both patron and audience that he recognized and intended to fix its failings. Ultimately, whether the first two books were Origen’s own early drafts or the work of another author, the Preface draws a distinct boundary between these provisional arguments and the more robust defense of Christianity that follows in the subsequent books of his final Contra Celsum.
Ambrose’s Role and Collaborative Authorship in Contra Celsum
In examining the Preface to Contra Celsum, one immediately notices Origen’s use of the first-person plural (ἡμεῖς/ἡμῖν) in contexts where one might otherwise expect him to write in the singular. Although he often employs the so-called “royal we” or includes his scribes under a plural pronoun in other works, the way he incorporates Ambrose’s role in Contra Celsum distinguishes this text from more typical formulations. When Origen writes, “Ὅμως δ' ἵνα μὴ δοκῶμεν ὀκνεῖν πρὸς τὸ ἐπιταχθὲν ὑπὸ σοῦ, πεπειράμεθα ὑπαγορεῦσαι … τὸ φανὲν ἡμῖν ἀνατρεπτικὸν” (“Nevertheless, so that we may not seem to hesitate regarding what was commanded by you, we have attempted to respond … with what seemed to us to be a refutation”), this is more than a stylistic distancing. The explicit link between ὑπὸ σοῦ (“by you”) and ἡμεῖς/ἡμῖν (“we/us”) indicates genuine collaboration—“you (Ambrose) commanded, and we complied”—implying a more complex mode of literary production than simply employing an amanuensis.
Furthermore, Origen’s mention of “Ἐν τῷ πρώτῳ τόμῳ τῶν ὑπαγορευθέντων ἡμῖν πρὸς τὸν Κέλσου” (“In the first volume of the responses dictated to us against Celsus”) strongly supports the idea that Ambrose (or someone connected to him) provided Origen with a treatise or preliminary material that formed the basis of Contra Celsum. The use of ὑπαγορευθέντων (“dictated”) highlights Origen’s reliance on externally supplied content, while the first-person plural (“ἡμῖν”) underscores cooperation rather than solitary authorship. Calling it a “πρώτῳ τόμῳ” (“first volume”) indicates that the project arose within a structured framework—likely one supervised or initiated by Ambrose.
This interpretation is further reinforced by Origen’s phrase “τῶν πρὸς τὸ σύγγραμμα αὐτοῦ ὑπαγορευθέντων μοι” (“the responses dictated to me against his writing”), which points to someone else guiding or influencing Origen’s replies to Celsus. Ambrose, a wealthy Christian patron, famously financed and promoted Origen’s literary undertakings, including Contra Celsum. The term ὑπαγορευθέντων (literally, “dictated”) underscores the collaborative nature of the project, suggesting that Ambrose might have proposed or mapped out responses for Origen to develop—consistent with his role as Origen’s sponsor.
Other remarks in the Preface confirm the same pattern. Origen observes “ἐλογισάμεθα πεισθῆναί σου τῇ προστάξει καὶ ὑπαγορεῦσαι πρὸς ὃ ἔπεμψας ἡμῖν σύγγραμμα,” which translates as “We considered it right to comply with your command and to compose a response to the text (σύγγραμμα) you sent us.” The verbs Origen employs—ὑπαγορεύω (“to dictate,” “to prompt”) and ὑποβάλλω (“to suggest,” “to submit”)—shed valuable light on the collaboration. In the Commentary on Matthew, Origen speaks similarly of composing material by first presenting an explanation and then adding further insights that “occurred to us.” While that context involves divine inspiration, the same language in Contra Celsum suggests input from Ambrose, whereby an initial draft or set of ideas was provided for Origen to refine.
Origen’s statement “ὕστερον δ' αὐτὰ τὰ πράγματα ὑπέβαλεν ἡμῖν … ἀρκεσθῆναι μὲν τοῖς κατὰ τὴν ἀρχὴν οὕτως ὑπαγορευθεῖσιν” (“Later, however, the circumstances compelled us … to be content with what had been composed in the beginning…”) likewise implies that Origen was constrained by practical considerations to continue from an existing foundation. The verb ὑποβάλλω (“to suggest, submit, or throw under”) indicates that time or need obliged him to proceed with previously drafted text rather than starting anew. This situation diverges from the usual notion of single-authored work, opening the possibility that Origen was refining or expanding upon a preliminary draft.
Historically, such a collaborative arrangement is entirely plausible. Eusebius (Hist. Eccl. 6.18–6.23) and other early sources attest to Ambrose’s proactive role in commissioning Origen’s scholarship, offering both financial resources and direction. While prefaces to Origen’s other works often mention Ambrose “urging” him to write, Contra Celsum places its patron in an even more active position, suggesting joint labor. Ambrose not only “commands” but also provides Origen with specific documents or outlines, reinforcing the notion of a pre-existing text that Origen subsequently enlarged. When Origen routinely uses ἡμεῖς/ἡμῖν and specifies that parts of the work were “dictated,” it becomes difficult to interpret his language as merely referring to an amanuensis or polite “royal we.”
Such a perspective aligns with the proposal that Ambrose (or someone under his guidance) assembled quotations from Celsus’s True Word, adding short rebuttals or thematic structures to stimulate Origen to write a thorough refutation. By referencing the σύγγραμμα sent by Ambrose and indicating his satisfaction with the initial “dictated” portion, Origen shows he was developing from this resource rather than creating Contra Celsum from scratch. The consistent emphasis on partnership, the repeated use of verbs like ὑπαγορεύω and ὑποβάλλω, and the suggestion that material pre-dated Origen’s involvement all confirm a collaborative process. Unlike Origen’s more generic gratitude to Ambrose in other works, Contra Celsum displays Ambrose’s direct engagement, underscoring that the finished text reflects both patronal initiative and Origen’s literary skill.
Conclusion
Taken together, these observations about Origen’s Contra Celsum point to a complex process of composition and revision involving personal and communal pressures. Origen’s repeated references to a “first draft,” whether it was his own early project or the work of a prior Christian apologist, show how existing textual material—possibly shaped by earlier counter-arguments—was repurposed and polished. At the same time, his use of the first-person plural and explicit comments on Ambrose’s command and dictation emphasize a patron-author dynamic in which Origen did not work alone. Instead, he built upon outlines, prompts, or fully drafted sections provided by Ambrose or his associates, incorporating these into what became his authoritative repudiation of Celsus.
This kind of collaborative authorship, though unusual by modern standards, aligns with what we know of patronage in the Roman Empire and with Origen’s own discussion of external “prompting” and scribal help in his other writings. Contra Celsum stands as a key example of how Christian intellectuals in the third century responded to pagan critiques, leveraging the resources and expectations of influential patrons while integrating existing materials into a continually evolving defense of the faith.
Much has been written about Celsus, the pagan critic of Christianity, who is generally believed to have composed his treatise sometime between 160 and 180 CE, likely in Alexandria. Scholarly consensus holds that he was aware of, or responding to, Justin’s First Apology. Celsus is often identified as belonging to a circle of pagan writers who mocked Christianity, which may have led some to connect him with the Celsus mentioned by Lucian of Samosata. Contra Celsum, the treatise by Origen—through which we learn that Celsus wrote an anti-Christian treatise entitled True Word—was likely composed around 248 CE.
These points have been discussed many times. This paper will focus on the Christian reaction to Celsus’s writing before Contra Celsum, beginning with a σύγγραμμα that Ambrose apparently sent to Origen at the time he was commissioned by his patron to write Contra Celsum. We will refer to this text as Contra Celsum’s “first draft,” since Origen eventually appropriated this treatise, making it the first two books of the eight-volume work that followed. Nevertheless, I will argue that it had a life independent of Origen, likely being written by Ambrose or someone else. The final product that emerged in 248 CE thus represents a collaboration among Ambrose, Origen, and the original author of the “first draft” (if that was not Ambrose), rather than a work of pure Origenist authorship.
The “First Draft” of Contra Celsum
The first time Celsus’s treatise is referenced in Contra Celsum, Origen uses the plural συγγράμματα rather than the singular σύγγραμμα: “I do not know why you wished us to defend ourselves against the false accusations made by Celsus in his writings against Christians and the charges against the faith of the churches in his book.” Next, in the preface, there is a reference to a singular σύγγραμμα: “[W]e considered it right to comply with your command and to respond to the treatise you sent us.” The term σύγγραμμα does not necessarily mean a mere copy of Celsus’s True Word, for that might have been described with simpler language (e.g., “the copy of Celsus’s book you gave me”). Σύγγραμμα more strongly suggests a “treatise” or “composition,” hinting that Ambrose or someone in his circle provided Origen with a preliminary document. This interpretation is further supported by Origen’s repeated insistence on “we” or “us,” along with his acknowledgment of Ambrose’s prior “command” and dispatch of textual material.
While it is true that Celsus’s True Word is almost always referenced in the singular throughout the remainder of Contra Celsum, the preface ends with an acknowledgment of the existence of a “first draft”—a two-volume text that existed before the final eight-book work now extant, and that was, at once, a collective effort of Ambrose and Origen:
“... this preface, following the transcription of everything up to the point where Celsus introduces the persona of the Jew against Jesus, seemed appropriate to place at the beginning, so that the reader, encountering what has been dictated by us against Celsus...”
In other words, the first two books were established before the preface. The preface was prefixed to the two-volume work, with Origen expressly intending to shift its focus from something written for the ecclesiastical elite toward a broader Christian readership.
At the end of the preface, Celsus’s treatise is for the first time clearly referenced in the singular, as a σύγγραμμα: “It is better for someone who does not even need the introduction (i.e., the just-written preface)—whether they have encountered Celsus’s treatise or not—to disdain the defense against it and disregard everything in his book.” Book One mentions other “συγγράμματα” of Celsus that identify him as an Epicurean. At the end of Contra Celsum, Origen comments that he has only the one σύγγραμμα from Celsus but notes that True Word itself references another σύγγραμμα:
“[Celsus] promised to teach how those who wish to and are able to follow him should live. If he did not write this second treatise that he promised, it is well for us to be content with the eight books we have composed in response to his arguments. But if he did begin and complete that work as well, seek it out and send the treatise, so that we may respond to it.”
This apparent difficulty is resolved if we assume that Ambrose or his source—who wrote the material for Books One and Two—had other συγγράμματα, whereas Origen, having only what Ambrose sent him, pleads for additional works, clearly speaking as someone other than the original author of the “First Draft.”
Another issue is that both Celsus’s True Word and Origen’s Contra Celsum contain a “treatise within a treatise” (σύγγραμμα within a σύγγραμμα—or συγγράμματα in Origen’s case). Celsus’s “Jew” is, in some sense, a separate σύγγραμμα. Origen addresses this in what we presume to be his “rewrite” of the First Draft by treating the Jew merely as a “personage” of Celsus. Once Celsus is deemed the real author of this separate Jewish σύγγραμμα, seemingly attached to the True Word as a “preface,” there are no longer two συγγράμματα but only one, authored by Celsus. Similarly, when Origen takes the σύγγραμμα “dictated” by Ambrose and weaves it into the first two books of his eight-book Contra Celsum, there are no longer two συγγράμματα but one, written by “us”—i.e., Ambrose and Origen.
Nevertheless, certain blurred lines remain. The end of Book Two was clearly once a stand-alone σύγγραμμα. As we near the end of Book Two—Contra Celsum essentially having dealt with a separate stand-alone σύγγραμμα in the True Word—we see distinct divisions in each work. At Contra Celsum 1.67, it says, “we have made a defense to the best of our ability, as is fitting in such a treatise,” suggesting that the conclusion of Book Two at one time marked the end of a separate piece. Likewise, Book Two closes with a reference to Celsus’s Jew:
“And since these things were introduced by the Jew in Celsus’s account, speaking supposedly in accordance with his own law and then bringing his argument to an end, and since he said other things not worthy of mention, I too will now bring to a close the second of the responses dictated to me against his treatise (σύγγραμμα). With God’s help and the power of Christ dwelling in our soul, I will endeavor in the third book to address the subsequent matters written by Celsus.”
We will return to these closing words to the original σύγγραμμα in due course, but note how Origen speaks of bringing to a “close the second of the responses dictated to me against his treatise” (σύγγραμμα).
Origen, at the beginning of Contra Celsum, suggests that he had already composed an initial two-book treatise—referred to by some as a proto-Contra Celsum—before producing his final eight-book work. In the Preface to what became the eight-book edition, Origen states his dissatisfaction with that first attempt and his resolve to try again.
In the same Preface, Origen describes how he came to write his defense of Christianity. After noting that Jesus remained silent before his accusers—likely a plea to his patron Ambrose that the Christian community continue ignoring Celsus’s charges—Origen explains that Ambrose, concerned about the negative effect on those who were “weak” in their faith, pressed him to respond more thoroughly. In section five of the Preface, Origen recalls that, after progressing “as far as the place where Celsus introduces the Jew disputing with Jesus,” he decided to compose the Preface, clarifying that this new work was aimed neither at “thorough believers” nor those “wholly unacquainted” with Christianity but at those who were less secure in their faith. Origen then apologizes for having begun his reply to Celsus along one plan but carrying it out according to another.
It may seem odd for Origen to refer to a previous draft—especially one he found unsatisfactory—and then embed that draft within the finished text. However, writing multiple drafts or even abandoning earlier attempts is far from rare in the process of composition. What is striking is Origen’s explicit mention of these “first attempts” in the Preface, immediately before presenting the very sections of text he found wanting. He states:
“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.”
Origen contrasts these initial arguments (“first draft”) with what he calls the more compelling ones beginning in Book Three. He describes Books One and Two as having comparatively weak arguments and then directs Ambrose—and, by extension, other readers of Contra Celsum—to consult “those men who are wiser than myself, and who are able by words and treatises to overthrow the charges which he brings against us.” Some scholars propose that the first twenty-seven chapters of Book One merely summarize Celsus’s True Word, with Origen’s fuller refutation of the “Jew” appearing in the rest of Books One and Two. Yet the Preface hints at a different explanation. Origen’s reference to “others” who had composed responses to Celsus suggests that Books One and Two might stem from an earlier Christian rebuttal, produced closer in time to Celsus’s treatise than Origen’s new material. The text’s repeated instruction to “go back” to other writers indicates that Ambrose may have supplied Origen not only with a copy of Celsus’s text but also an existing Christian counter-argument or material from other Christians who had engaged with Celsus—material which Origen then incorporated into his revised defense.
Because Origen was writing roughly seventy or eighty years after The True Word first appeared, his insistence that Celsus continued to influence some Christians gives context to his decision to reuse and reshape this older material. If the “first draft” was actually someone else’s flawed or incomplete rejoinder, Origen could imagine himself in the position of Jesus, who remained silent before his own accusers; he might have preferred to keep ignoring Celsus. However, Ambrose’s concerns for vulnerable Christians demanded a more forceful, updated defense. Since the “first draft” chiefly targeted believers who were already strong in their faith, Origen needed to intervene so that newer converts or less knowledgeable Christians would confront his stronger arguments first. By integrating the older text into his new composition, Origen not only repaired what he considered an embarrassing or problematic work but also demonstrated why it was inadequate and how his version improved upon it.
This scenario clarifies why Origen chose to address publicly what might otherwise have been a private or editorial matter. Rather than discreetly abandoning early missteps, Origen engaged with an inherited rebuttal he found lacking, making clear to both patron and audience that he recognized and intended to fix its failings. Ultimately, whether the first two books were Origen’s own early drafts or the work of another author, the Preface draws a distinct boundary between these provisional arguments and the more robust defense of Christianity that follows in the subsequent books of his final Contra Celsum.
Ambrose’s Role and Collaborative Authorship in Contra Celsum
In examining the Preface to Contra Celsum, one immediately notices Origen’s use of the first-person plural (ἡμεῖς/ἡμῖν) in contexts where one might otherwise expect him to write in the singular. Although he often employs the so-called “royal we” or includes his scribes under a plural pronoun in other works, the way he incorporates Ambrose’s role in Contra Celsum distinguishes this text from more typical formulations. When Origen writes, “Ὅμως δ' ἵνα μὴ δοκῶμεν ὀκνεῖν πρὸς τὸ ἐπιταχθὲν ὑπὸ σοῦ, πεπειράμεθα ὑπαγορεῦσαι … τὸ φανὲν ἡμῖν ἀνατρεπτικὸν” (“Nevertheless, so that we may not seem to hesitate regarding what was commanded by you, we have attempted to respond … with what seemed to us to be a refutation”), this is more than a stylistic distancing. The explicit link between ὑπὸ σοῦ (“by you”) and ἡμεῖς/ἡμῖν (“we/us”) indicates genuine collaboration—“you (Ambrose) commanded, and we complied”—implying a more complex mode of literary production than simply employing an amanuensis.
Furthermore, Origen’s mention of “Ἐν τῷ πρώτῳ τόμῳ τῶν ὑπαγορευθέντων ἡμῖν πρὸς τὸν Κέλσου” (“In the first volume of the responses dictated to us against Celsus”) strongly supports the idea that Ambrose (or someone connected to him) provided Origen with a treatise or preliminary material that formed the basis of Contra Celsum. The use of ὑπαγορευθέντων (“dictated”) highlights Origen’s reliance on externally supplied content, while the first-person plural (“ἡμῖν”) underscores cooperation rather than solitary authorship. Calling it a “πρώτῳ τόμῳ” (“first volume”) indicates that the project arose within a structured framework—likely one supervised or initiated by Ambrose.
This interpretation is further reinforced by Origen’s phrase “τῶν πρὸς τὸ σύγγραμμα αὐτοῦ ὑπαγορευθέντων μοι” (“the responses dictated to me against his writing”), which points to someone else guiding or influencing Origen’s replies to Celsus. Ambrose, a wealthy Christian patron, famously financed and promoted Origen’s literary undertakings, including Contra Celsum. The term ὑπαγορευθέντων (literally, “dictated”) underscores the collaborative nature of the project, suggesting that Ambrose might have proposed or mapped out responses for Origen to develop—consistent with his role as Origen’s sponsor.
Other remarks in the Preface confirm the same pattern. Origen observes “ἐλογισάμεθα πεισθῆναί σου τῇ προστάξει καὶ ὑπαγορεῦσαι πρὸς ὃ ἔπεμψας ἡμῖν σύγγραμμα,” which translates as “We considered it right to comply with your command and to compose a response to the text (σύγγραμμα) you sent us.” The verbs Origen employs—ὑπαγορεύω (“to dictate,” “to prompt”) and ὑποβάλλω (“to suggest,” “to submit”)—shed valuable light on the collaboration. In the Commentary on Matthew, Origen speaks similarly of composing material by first presenting an explanation and then adding further insights that “occurred to us.” While that context involves divine inspiration, the same language in Contra Celsum suggests input from Ambrose, whereby an initial draft or set of ideas was provided for Origen to refine.
Origen’s statement “ὕστερον δ' αὐτὰ τὰ πράγματα ὑπέβαλεν ἡμῖν … ἀρκεσθῆναι μὲν τοῖς κατὰ τὴν ἀρχὴν οὕτως ὑπαγορευθεῖσιν” (“Later, however, the circumstances compelled us … to be content with what had been composed in the beginning…”) likewise implies that Origen was constrained by practical considerations to continue from an existing foundation. The verb ὑποβάλλω (“to suggest, submit, or throw under”) indicates that time or need obliged him to proceed with previously drafted text rather than starting anew. This situation diverges from the usual notion of single-authored work, opening the possibility that Origen was refining or expanding upon a preliminary draft.
Historically, such a collaborative arrangement is entirely plausible. Eusebius (Hist. Eccl. 6.18–6.23) and other early sources attest to Ambrose’s proactive role in commissioning Origen’s scholarship, offering both financial resources and direction. While prefaces to Origen’s other works often mention Ambrose “urging” him to write, Contra Celsum places its patron in an even more active position, suggesting joint labor. Ambrose not only “commands” but also provides Origen with specific documents or outlines, reinforcing the notion of a pre-existing text that Origen subsequently enlarged. When Origen routinely uses ἡμεῖς/ἡμῖν and specifies that parts of the work were “dictated,” it becomes difficult to interpret his language as merely referring to an amanuensis or polite “royal we.”
Such a perspective aligns with the proposal that Ambrose (or someone under his guidance) assembled quotations from Celsus’s True Word, adding short rebuttals or thematic structures to stimulate Origen to write a thorough refutation. By referencing the σύγγραμμα sent by Ambrose and indicating his satisfaction with the initial “dictated” portion, Origen shows he was developing from this resource rather than creating Contra Celsum from scratch. The consistent emphasis on partnership, the repeated use of verbs like ὑπαγορεύω and ὑποβάλλω, and the suggestion that material pre-dated Origen’s involvement all confirm a collaborative process. Unlike Origen’s more generic gratitude to Ambrose in other works, Contra Celsum displays Ambrose’s direct engagement, underscoring that the finished text reflects both patronal initiative and Origen’s literary skill.
Conclusion
Taken together, these observations about Origen’s Contra Celsum point to a complex process of composition and revision involving personal and communal pressures. Origen’s repeated references to a “first draft,” whether it was his own early project or the work of a prior Christian apologist, show how existing textual material—possibly shaped by earlier counter-arguments—was repurposed and polished. At the same time, his use of the first-person plural and explicit comments on Ambrose’s command and dictation emphasize a patron-author dynamic in which Origen did not work alone. Instead, he built upon outlines, prompts, or fully drafted sections provided by Ambrose or his associates, incorporating these into what became his authoritative repudiation of Celsus.
This kind of collaborative authorship, though unusual by modern standards, aligns with what we know of patronage in the Roman Empire and with Origen’s own discussion of external “prompting” and scribal help in his other writings. Contra Celsum stands as a key example of how Christian intellectuals in the third century responded to pagan critiques, leveraging the resources and expectations of influential patrons while integrating existing materials into a continually evolving defense of the faith.
Statistics: Posted by Secret Alias — Sun Dec 29, 2024 8:32 am