On the Belly-Speaker against Origen

Against the Belly-Myth§1

1I always praise your illustrious zeal for the divine citizenship, O most distinguished preacher of orthodoxy, Eutropius; and being much astonished by your knowledge of piety, I have not even wondered at this part, that you wish to investigate accurately how I might form an opinion concerning the belly-myth, which is told in the history of the first of kingdoms.

For you say that you are not satisfied with those things which Origen has put forward for this hypothesis. Not only myself, but I know that I would find others whom many have been reproached for those things he decided hastily; indeed, those whose souls are troubled are frequent, being unsettled without restraint.

There are also those who submit to those things which he wrote there, easily casting themselves upon the preceding presumption, attending more to the names rather than to the matters as they ought.

So that I might not seem to introduce a contest of my own that is unjust, I thought it not to open all at once by joining his explanation to the dictation of this letter, but to make the clear thing known through the other, lest some should think that we are slandering, having been praised in any way, or again that the opinions of each side are divided.

But it is necessary to arrange the contending matters against the opposites, so that the superior one may be distinguished from the one of the two. Thus, the original things must be set in order first, and it is necessary to examine with special care the opposing mind through those same things.

Let us indeed consider the very letter of the history as far as is possible; from this, something may be drawn. Saul, he says, was an excellent protector of the people's bravery, having excised all the belly-talkers and those called by that name as experts, who were actually enemies defiling the people. But, since having been turned away from the best things toward the predator, he was bitterly driven by a demon, he rushed again toward the forms of their divination, building up what he had destroyed a little while before, and thereby even convicting himself as a transgressor.

For as the foreign neighbors were announcing the coming of war with unanimous zeal, gathering their phalanxes to be most numerous and setting them in opposition, and having stripped their weapons, they went out broadly for battle, Saul, however, showed himself a scoundrel; seeing the very barrier of the intrusion being fortified, he said in short, 'he is struck with madness,' as the divine forbids, as the writing says. After this, he says, he inquired through the Lord to know the things to be done, licking his lips; but the Lord did not answer him directly because of the excesses of his injustice, neither 'in dreams' nor 'in manifestations' nor 'through the prophets,' but indeed that divine power did not make use of him at all, since he acted unrighteously.

What, then, does he do after these things, having been stripped of the highest help? Instead of rather appeasing God more frequently with prayer and patient service, on the contrary, leaping away, he increases the opportunities for rebellion, and he commanded his servants to seek out a belly-talker for him, so that he might reach her, inquiring as if in an oracle. When his most skilled servants had immediately become greatly angry at the infestation, Saul immediately transformed himself and...

The Witch of Endor and the Limits of Demons§2

2A runner, having stripped off his clothes, left the army. When he arrived at her at night with two men, he approached her with such requests, saying, 'Prophesy to me through the belly-speaker and bring up for me'—he says—'whomever I may tell you.' Truly, if Saul was seen to prophesy through the belly-speaker, someone might say his voices were true. But is there anyone unaware that he was driven by wild passions by a demon, turned toward unlawful divination and diabolical myth-working?

For is not God more trustworthy, having cast the words into the mouth of Balaam (Numbers 22:28), but having permitted Moses to write explicitly in Numbers: 'For there is no enchantment against Jacob, nor divination against Israel' (Numbers 23:23)? If such things are to be forbidden, such as these secret abominations and causes of the enemy's idolatry, how could the witness be worthy, having used these most impious things when tempted? But these things, having repeated them a little later more perfectly, we shall say; yet we must return again to the history of the letter.

As the woman saw the irrational Saul, pretending not to know the ruler, she was more distressed as if it would be better for her to know what terrible things Saul was doing regarding these matters, saying, 'How he has destroyed the belly-speakers and those crying out from the earth.' Because of this, she said she would ensnare his soul unto death. And since, having been convinced by an oath, he confirmed that he would not support any trickery, the woman, immediately being emboldened by her sin, answers more boldly from somewhere: 'Whom shall I bring up to you?'

what sort of woman was this evil-demon old woman, so that she might promise to bring up Samuel from the dead? And indeed, if it is necessary to say the things exceeding their worth, she was not able to bring up a prophetic soul even if she could have, nor even any of those who succeed, nor at all, not even an ant or a flea. For the demons do not have authority over spirits and souls, but God, the Lord of all things together; so that only through divine giving can souls pass from Hadesed up again.

But the elegant Origenes, desiring to surround the church with a dance of idolatrous instruments and necromantic findings, is refuted by the divine letter. For the scripture's voice cries out clearly, as the woman said, 'Whom shall I bring up to you?' (1 Sam 28:13); on the contrary, this man, turning it around, said the face of the text spoke these things of the Holy Spirit.

Then he was so led astray, being seduced, that he did not hesitate to treat the words of the one possessed with holy respect; but blaspheming more nakedly with the tongue, he attributes the whole matter to the Holy Spirit, attempting to insult the listeners by name as untrustworthy.

The woman indeed spoke, as I said, and as having authority to bring the dead up, she cries out: 'Whom,' she says, 'shall I bring up to you?' (1 Sam 28:13); and when the one divining said that Samuel had been raised, she immediately brings forth: 'And the woman saw Samuel,' she said, 'and she cried out with a great voice and said' (1 Sam 28:14) to the ruler, 'Why have you perturbed me? And you are Saul' (1 Sam 28:15). How then the king said to her, 'Do not fear' and added, 'What have you seen?' (1 Sam 28:15); immediately the pythomist countered again, saying: 'I have seen gods ascending from the earth' (1 Sam 28:15). And since the ruler also asked the last thing, 'What did you know?', she immediately again responded with the words, 'A righteous man ascending from the earth, and this one, having been cast down, is double' (1 Sam 28:15). Why then does the divine scripture forbid this? 'And Saul knew that it was Samuel, and he bowed down with his face to the earth and worshiped him' (1 Sam 28:20). It appears, therefore, that nowhere at all does the interpretation of the divine letter declare that Samuel was brought up by the medium; but she previously, through the demon erupting from her, speaks that it is necessary to bring him up; then she is seen approaching gods ascending, and through deception she gave the signs of the man into a trance, but the one misinterpreting says 'Saul knew' (1 Sam 28:20) from which he heard that this one is Samuel.

If it is necessary to believe either that Saul, the demonized one, had a grasp of true knowledge, or a demon swelling with pride and promising to bring the souls of the righteous from Hades, let us judge for ourselves how much of a reputation these and such things would bring, which even the mightiest of men, EuTropius, would avoid. For much, as it seems, is the error of Origenes regarding the truth, even though our Lord Jesus has spoken clearly concerning the devil, 'He was a murderer from the beginning, and in the truth he was not found' (John 8:44).

...

The Demon and the Narrator's Voice§3

3He stands, because there is no truth in him. When he speaks a lie, he speaks from his own nature, saying that he is a liar and so is his father. So what are you saying, O Origen, since it is necessary to ask you? Are these things which the Savior expressed true, or will you say the opposite, countering them? If indeed the words of the Lord happen to be true, then the demon has habitually lied, becoming insolent; but if you define the words of the demon as being without falsehood, you attempt to declare the Lord a liar.

Do you see how far the dogmatizing rule being presented to you has fallen into absurdity? For demons are indeed powerless when they are forced to speak the truth, being twisted by pains, not willingly speaking anything without falsehood. And if someone defines this one as raising a righteous man out of Hades without delay, how could it not be clear that the lie opposes it, desiring to throw someone aside?

Yes, he says, but not the demon has said these things, but 'the narrative voice of the writer'; and the writer of the words is believed to be the Holy Spirit, not a man. Do you not perceive how this appears contrary to the mode of the narrative? It is better, indeed, that those who have spoken with words more suited to all kinds of leisure know that the narrative voice of the writer brought these things forth, as the possessed Saul seemed to do or say; the writer, neglecting that distinction and setting the words of it out literally, said, 'And the woman said: What shall I bring up to you?'

Who is so pleasant as to pretend not to perceive that these are not the voices of the writer, but are of the woman being possessed, whose name also he put forward? Yet he nowhere confirms her words as true, nor could anyone be able to demonstrate this at all. But truly, if it must be said lovingly, the narrative voice said this only as 'the woman saw Samuel.' Thus he wrote these things as one speaking to those who know about possessed speech. For there is no disputing that a demon does not raise the soul of anyone, who, being exorcised by pious men, is driven away, burned, scourged, and flees, leaving the tent behind. But the misled woman saw the form of the apparition as was proper for her.

For the beast is accustomed to changing its appearance into many faces. Thus, after speaking the words of the holy Paul: 'for Satan himself transforms into an angel of light; it is no great thing, if his servants also transform as servants of righteousness' (2 Cor 11:14; 2 Cor 6:7).

The dogmatist Origen, debating opponents with legalistic cunning, also arranged this passage, thinking he describes those who oppose the truth, but he seems to be reconstructing it more by lack of skill than by art. He asks, 'And why' it is not said: 'the woman saw a demon who pretended to be Samuel?' but he said it had been written thus: 'Saul knew that Samuel is' (1 Sam 28:13); then again he brings forward: 'if Samuel had not been, it should have been written; and Saul thought he was Samuel.' Now it is written: 'Saul knew.' But no one knew what does not exist; 'Saul knew that Samuel is and fell on his face upon the earth and worshiped him.'

In order not to go beyond other examples—from those which I have written here I will make the question, and thus I will walk through the remaining examples—he says to God: 'What are you saying, Origen? Whether the woman brought Samuel to him in body, or what kind of shadow-form she saw wrapped around him?' If indeed she brought him incorporeal, she did not raise up Samuel, but an appearance of a spirit; for he who is joined of soul and body is this Samuel, the man having a proportion analogous from both.

But if she brought the man entirely in body, how did Saul not see him? For if he had seen him with his own eyes, he would not have questioned the woman as if seeing one invisible, saying 'what did you see?' in his own words. For if he were invisible, it is indisputable he was incorporeal; but if he appeared in an incorporeal form, why did the prophetess at times declare the opposite, to have seen 'a man standing upright coming up out of the earth,' and 'a double form' according to the custom mentioned before, 'wrapped around' him? Therefore, fight these same things with your words, Origen; for Saul, not having seen anything at all and debating as if concerning an invisible phantom, asked 'what did you see?'; but she, seeing him as a man, cried out 'a man standing upright coming up out of the earth,' in order to persuade that he himself [...]

The nature of the vision§4

4He is a man, and she gives him a sign by pronouncing, 'and this one appeared double-faced.' If the hypotheses of unlawful divination happened to be a man, did Saul not see him? Unless you would say that his physical sight was blinded, just as his spiritual understanding was also ignored.

But perhaps you will say, as a jest: the very organ of the soul was shaped like a human being according to the time, so that it might declare the future with a clear prophetic message, just as sometimes spirits and souls stand over men in dreams, showing human forms most clearly; not indeed, but bearing various and diverse garments and signs of scales or types or blemishes or wounds.

If, therefore, you determine that a soul is to be carried up only, but not a man with his body (for he does not give you the letter if he wishes), fighting against himself and devising things without perceiving, someone else bearing this against you will say: 'When did the woman say: I saw a prophetic soul, but on the contrary, an upright man?' For he spoke to you in such a way: 'And why,' saying, 'is it not said: the woman saw a demon pretending to be Samuel?' With this word I would have appeared to have countered you: for what reason, if it were so, has she not said she saw a soul, but instead from the opposites, a 'man' and this 'upright one', which is a sign of bodily well-being?

For the madwoman did not say she saw a man who was bent or stooped, but an upright one, tense, directed toward war, always fresh around the cycles of evil; and deceiving the fool by a falsehood, she first persuaded him by a sign that the one coming from the earth is a man, but it seemed that he had appeared 'double-faced.' So what (if someone were to say), if he happened to appear as a man with his body, did Saul not then see him, but does he wish to learn from another what kind of man he is, having been struck by invisibility? Surely the facts have cried out that he was not a man, but some kind of shadow that seemed invisible; for he would not have been invisible.

But if you think, Origen, that the soul of Samuel happened to be there, why then was the apparition seen being enwrapped in double clothing? For it is clearly made manifest by the significance that all the garments and coverings of the raiment are more for bodies than for souls. For I do not suppose you would say, without hypocrisy and wavering, that the double clothing has remained upon the tomb for so many days until this very day, so that the soul of the prophet might wear it, lest it should perhaps wander about walking naked. Even if someone were to say that no one is so ignorant as to not know that for the saints there are incorruptible garments from heaven, shining with light-bearing gleams, they are not fabrics of raiment of various colors.

If, however, you define the one seen to be the soul of Samuel, yet you say that a priestly garment is seen according to a concept, in order that the manner of the liturgy might be manifest (though both these things are properties of mental things), it has come to pass that the madwoman reported nothing healthy or true. For she was saying other things apart from what actually exists, misrepresenting the names of sensible things and demonstrating the matters of the intelligible. For instance, calling a 'man' an 'upright garment,' and introducing an invisible, phantom-like spirit through the opposite of a hand-woven garment of clothing.

Tell me then, O best of dogmatists, how did Saul know that this very person happened to be Samuel, when he saw not even a fragment of a shadow, not even an image of a man? But you have not spoken correctly: 'It was necessary that it be written; and Saul thought that he was Samuel. But now it has been written: "Saul knew"' 1 Sam 28:13-15. Furthermore, that the demonized man knew by hearing from the demonizing woman, you say both above and below; but that he did not see at all, you hide in silence. You do not bring the refutation into the midst anywhere; you seem to set aside the truth thinking to deceive men, yet you prop up a finding of divination against all the ungodly. For the knowledge of the demonized man was of the value of the proclamation of her who was also ministering the words to him.

But with skill and understanding, you would say that he knew without seeing, but rather he thought so. For every man receives a matter more by hearing than by sight and thinks and supposes it, not knowing the clear truth, even if he hears it from a person being demonized; for only the words of God are established for precise apprehension and the strength of faith. And indeed, if the diviner said concerning men: 'I said in my ecstasy: every man is a liar' Ps 146:6, how much...

Criticism of Vague Narratives§5

5Rather, would anyone tell a story about a foolish woman? Then you say, 'no one knew that which is not,' like one speaking against children. Therefore, say how he knew that which is, if he himself did not see by inquiring—neither the upright man, nor the ephod which enclosed him, nor the high-priestly garment? But he, seeing nothing at all, was tossing himself among the people with words, just as you too, through negligence, strike the stable ones with senseless talk.

But the historian, having first set down the name of the belly-storyteller, declared what kind of face he has, being earnest. He then described how he had seen the vision, as is proper for those thinking well about the struck-down; for no one would suppose a madman to observe what is necessary. In a similar way, he said the foolish Saul had known him prophesying, as it would be worthy to think regarding him, being bitterly driven by the demon through such many years (1 Sam 16:14).

But truly, because these things have this manner, the facts themselves make clear that this is false. And so that I might also set up similar things from another example, bring forward the history regarding the prophet Elijah. How then Elijah, being in zeal, reproved the eight hundred false prophets, being fifty in number, to test the order of each in sacrifice—not to bring down fire, but to bring down a shower of fire by prayers, so that from the smoking meteor from heaven it might be manifest to all able to hear, by the fire that God sent from heaven, and from this it might be known who has the authority of the superior, and the better thing might be manifest to all (1 Kings 18).

As he commanded the first ones to perform, those having chosen a bull were melting it as was customary, but those calling upon the four-cornered ritual of the so-called Baal did nothing less, nothing at all.

Not so, but rather, 'and they were being cut according to their custom with knives,' he said, 'and with saws until the shedding of blood.' Then, upon this, the narrative of the writer brings assistance: 'and he was prophesying until the evening meal had passed.' Since, therefore, the letter did not command whether it was prophesying truly or falsely, because of this, would anyone say that those were true prophets?

For it was necessary to have spoken according to the decision of Origen: they were prophesying as they thought it seemed, saying nothing true (since it is not even lawful to trade in such predictions), but not with unentangled and pure utterance, in the words 'and he was prophesying until the evening meal had passed.' So, then, is it possible to see following from the same history of the letter that these things were sufficient for them? For if the writer is the same for both, he draws the mind to be similar from both sides.

But just as here, having placed before us the name of the idol-worshippers, he made manifest according to the meaning that one must suppose concerning such people that they are false prophets lacking in foreknowledge, so also there, having placed before us persons possessed by demons and the dramas of unlawful divination, and according to my silence, he suggested what is fitting for the wise to judge concerning the thoughtless.

But as for such testimonies, if I pass them over, perhaps time will perhaps fail us in saying them; but adding one more image of an example, I shall be satisfied. For truly, in the writing of the Exodus, it was signaled by a prophecy how the Lord himself commanded those around Moses and Aaron to cast the rod to the ground to oppose Pharaoh, so that, having changed its shape into a serpent as a sign, it might strike the Egyptians with fearful blow. And as this happened paradoxically, the ruler, being tormented by folly, in an incapable way summoned at once 'the sophists and the pharmacists of Egypt.' 'And the praisers of the Egyptians also did likewise with their pharmacologies,' he said, 'and each one threw his own rod, and they became dragons; and Aaron's rod swallowed their rods.' Moreover, it is still being mentioned.

The distinction between Moses and the magicians§6

6Just as both blood and frogs were made—'so did the magicians of the Egyptians do' (Exodus 7:20-24)—since the narrative does not even here divide the voices of the two classes, and since it said the magicians had performed them in the same way, someone might say that what was done by the pharmacists is similar to what happened through Moses.

Not so, one might say, nor is it even proper to say that the strange and absurd things resemble the heavenly imitations. Whatever was being done through Moses, the truth was revealed from the things being done; but whatever was being performed through the magicians, it only appeared to seem like the truth; for the falsehood was brought forward by its own inactivity, since how could one rod suddenly swallow all those many rods (Exodus 7:12)?

Nor is it right to suppose that those from the lifeless ones were able to suddenly make the rods produce a dragon; for perhaps those of us who are able to give life to dead wood would have been even less remaining. Perhaps even Moses was doing nothing paradoxical, if he was performing things near to these.

And yet, how is it not unjust to make them appear inactive through that graphic message? For if God, defending against the Egyptians, commanded all the water-streams to be changed into blood for the sake of punishment, and those being struck by such plagues respond to the idea of blood by turning the vessels in the same way, skillfully increasing the passion, for what reason are they worthy and required, being pressed by thirst, to have the waters throughout all Egypt cleansed of the blood-bearing mixture? Or again, having suddenly seen frogs in infinite numbers, whenever they were turning away the crowds of them, did they not again flatten others, unless they did not care for those appearing as if in shadow and illusion, but were terribly tormented by the work being shown by the others? For no one would catch the enemy by adding another countless multitude instead of recruiting spear-bearers for an alliance, nor would one raise a fever to escape a fever by licking the first, nor would one, being beaten by unceasing plagues, bring other plagues upon himself, to be released from these by a clean remission and by embassy and by prayer of the survivors.

But not even of houses being sold, instead of sprinkling vessels with ashes, on the contrary, pouring oil or pitch to raise the flame to an immeasurable height, and the passion being burned increases more, and fire burns without limit. Thus, through which the magicians were eager to practice, through these they brought forth manifest reproaches, thinking they must lead themselves by a semblance of divination. It is indeed not difficult to see from this that even now, much more and greater than these, the voters in the theaters are accustomed to act.

However, by a spontaneous power, as these are being salted against marshes, nothing less is the narrative written: 'And the celebrants of Egypt did likewise with their magic arts.' It was necessary, then, as the dogmatist Origen legislated, to say: 'The celebrants of Egypt did things similar to what it seemed,' but not to say 'likewise,' so that no one might suppose them to be of a similar impulse of power. For if they were such as to practice things similar to those around Moses, surely they would have been able to defend themselves against the opponents with equal things, so that the contests on both sides would exist as equals. But if they did not harm anything by which they were making a show, then the word has been used correctly, but the imprints of the soul's fantasy are made manifest.

Thus, having placed here the name of the celebrants and the advantages of magic, the writer demonstrated how it would not be necessary to dispute everything, saying: 'each thing is practiced by the magicians with curiosity.' Such things are also written as dramas in this history; for he himself, having named Engastrimythos, and then exposing the impious divinations of prophecy, and having shown that the face being demonized was the one prophesying, fully expressed that each thing was practiced by the wicked through fantasies of divination. But these things are to be understood by us in this way.

Let us go again, tracing the tracks of the words. What then? As Saul praised the Engastrimythos, saying, 'What have you seen?' (1 Samuel 28:5), at first the deception responded crying out: 'And I have seen gods ascending from the earth.' For because the devil wished to utterly cast the man aside by seizing him, he attempted to show clearly that the demon had power not only over the soul of one righteous master, but also all the souls of the holy men at once. And he, having armed the host of the demons from the opposites and a company in a single moment of time...

The Deception of the Self-Proclaimed God§7

7Having established himself, he flattered others in order to persuade them that he himself was a god, the one who gathers others.he is prone to play god through domestic insolence, Isaiah, acting as a representative, reproaches him with prophetic preaching: 'But you say in your heart: I will ascend to heaven, I will set my throne above the stars, I will sit in a high mountain over the high mountains toward the north, I will ascend above the clouds, I will be like the Most High' (Isa 14:13-14). And Ezekiel, speaking through the prophet, testifies to this same thing, the Lord Himself opposing him: 'Because your heart was lifted up, and you said: I am God, I dwell in the heart of the sea, but you are a man and not a god' (Ezek 28:2). Instead of the many punishments threatened to him, it is easy to see from the subjects: that for such people, always flattering with empty words, divinity has been revealed by a vote.

Therefore, if the demon was such that he could make those called gods into kings, is it not necessary to realize that the leader is greater than those led? And if this one precedes the holy ones, follow the assumption that he himself is again the arch-demon. If anyone were to demonstrate these things, he establishes by irrefutable power that he is the god of gods, giving such authority to his own servants, so that they might convey spirits and souls from Hades for the righteous. But none of those who think this way yet perceive the whole, lest he be judged against the holy writings by testimonies.

Since the deceiver had already learned the second thing and, having grasped it, said to the woman, 'What did you see?', I immediately reflected on the question and she said: 'I saw a man standing upright, ascending from the earth, and this one, having been cast up, was double-clad.' Having seen nothing else, as he became an ear to the words, he 'knew' according to his own understanding that this man was 'Samuel,' just as he was being besieged from within by the demon; but as he was joined to the naming of the signs, he immediately bowed his face to the ground and 'worshipped him.'

First, one could most rightly say that if it were Samuel, but the wily serpent not having been transformed, he would have resisted with a pious mind, saying, 'You shall worship the Lord your God and Him alone' (Deut 6:13).

Second, I would say again: how much Samuel was chosen as a prophet and leader of all the people, while Saul, still a private person searching even for his father's donkeys, went away to ask him as if for a prophet because of the lost yokes, yet nowhere does he seem to have worshipped him, even though he needed him and was clearly subject to him as one guiding the people. How then, he who then did not worship as a private person a ruler, now, in opposition, the king worships a private person? Third, I have to say this: why, having heard of gods descending, did he worship none of them, but when he heard the man standing upright, he immediately bowed down and worshipped?

And indeed, as Origen boldly declared, if any of these were angels or choirs of prophets, it was necessary for them to fall down first to the greater and more excellent, rather than healing one and leaving the many to be abandoned to the folly of pride. For it should be noted how the flame-like ones among the angels are always far more beautiful than men; indeed, it is easy to see from all their works that Saul, being driven by a demon, was being blinded in mind by the leader, while the devil was driving himself into diverse appearances, negotiating to be worshipped by the Potent One, so that he might more many people, having forgotten, bow down to him.

And what strange thing is it to say, where even having seen the face of Christ—seeing Him inwardly in deed and having performed God and, by the nature of God, a genuine Son, but outwardly observing a man pure, spotless, and unblemished surrounding Him, and a temple-treasure, consecrated and inviolable, testing Him in no small way—he without delay approached, having been accustomed to warring against God? And how, having first called up the first and second arguments against himself, he was miserably defeated, then changing to another character, he attempted to show him the whole description of this world and its kingdoms, but emboldened by folly and false speech, he boasted, 'I will give you all these things, if, falling down, you worship me' (Matt 4:9). Such voices, then, the impious has burst forth here, thinking to call forth into anger the qualities of unevilness, and through this...

The Demon and the Prophet§8

8He thinks such things are happening. But the Lord, acting worthily of God, silenced the mocker with patience, for it is God's own property to bear all things without resentment. If then he considered it nothing to attribute such words to the Lord, how is it not clear that he was acting as one desiring to worship the demon as equal to God?

This, I think, is clear to all who think well: that through a woman, the entranced one deceived the foolish ruler into bowing to him beyond what is due. Furthermore, these things should be taken in order. As Saul bowed to the apparition, immediately the deceiver pretends to have suffered violence, responding in the likeness of Samuel; then, with more irony, he answers more gloomily, saying, 'Why have you hindered me from going up?' (Acts 16:16). Fabricating these things, he intended without doubt to signify that even without the prophet, the demon was able to be transported, and has such authority over him.

Then some blunt the matter, as if one could not perceive that all who sincerely think the things of Christ are driving the demons away by the Divine Name, and not, on the contrary, as if they, being subject to these, while being unconscious, were ascending from Hades to be transported to them? If anyone thinks that the demon of the belly-diviner is never driven away, let him run to the Acts of the Apostles, and having entered into those passages, let him see how the itinerant preacher Paul arrived at Philippi.

How he enlightened Lydia, called to the knowledge of piety; and just so, he was making sounds by opening prayers, and it is said, 'it happened that a little girl met someone having a spirit of Python, which provided much profit to her masters by fortune-telling' (Acts 16:16). And indeed, this girl, having followed Paul and those around him, had cried out: 'These men are servants of the Most High God, who announce to you the way of salvation' (Acts 16:17); and she did this for many days.

But while the demon, being twisted by an invisible scourge, was forced to make such cries, Paul, realizing most correctly that the testimony of that one was not reliable, being distressed, spoke by the Spirit, saying, 'I command you in the name of Jesus Christ to come out of her.' Then the writer, recounting the matter, brings it forward, saying, 'and she came out immediately.'

11.7 Thus, when the masters of the slave-girl saw their hope of profit departing from their work, 'they seized Paul and Silas and dragged them into the marketplace before the rulers,' having become causes of outrage and beatings by raising up slanders.

11.8 If then Paul, having rebuked the Python by the Spirit, drove it out of her in that very moment, the spirit fled by the power of the word, being unable to endure the sound of the tongue; let it be said that, appearing openly, the one describing such a thing with a certain rule, by what kind of virtue or power was he calling back Samuel, who is of the same mind as Paul, though the demon was pulling him up from Hades?

11.9 But he could not demonstrate anything true of these things; so that through these very things it is very easy to see that the deceiver, having transformed himself, said to Saul, 'Why have you vexed me?' (Acts 13:21). For it was suggested that he was ascending by will and pain, not willing, but by necessity and force, just as he had been transferred by the Higher one having been commanded.

11.10 But the powerful one, having brought this up, said, 'I am greatly distressed, and the foreigners are warring against me, and God has departed' (1 Sam 15:24), he says, 'from me and has not heard me again, neither in the hand of the prophets nor in dreams; and now I have called you to make known to me what I shall do.' Again, therefore, it must be replied: if Samuel, the well-known one, happened to be a prophet, would he not have been prudent in admonishing the man?

11.11 Would he not have said to him first: 'Tell me, are all men in trouble, if the foreigners have stood by for war, opposing one another in faction, if God has departed from you and has not heard you at all, nor have prophets ministered on your behalf, nor has a dream or a waking state revealed to you what is necessary? Would you not have better benefited by repenting, submitting to God, and having distributed alms to atone for the causes of your transgressions, rather than fleeing to a belly-diviner and exchanging the symbols of piety for a mad divination, and thus doubling the increase of your passion?'

11.12 For was it not to be understood that God explicitly forbade such pollutions in the Levitical law, having spoken through Moses: 'You shall not follow the...'

Criticism of the Prophet's Performance§9

9Regarding the belly-gods and the frivolous things, you shall not be joined to them, being defiled by them, for 'I am the Lord your God.' But do you not consider these abominations to be ungodly, attempting to perform dramas in opposition to God? Listen now to what else the God is oracling regarding such a daring act: 'and a soul,' he says, 'whichsoever shall follow the belly-gods or the frivolous things so as to commit fornication after them.' having added 'of any kind or sort' it shall suffer, he emphasized by advancing: 'I will set my face,' saying, 'against that soul, and I will destroy it from its people.'

If, therefore, God, having legislated from the beginning, sent through strict decrees those who are enticed by such frivolous things or divinations, and threatens grim and terrible punishments against those who are caught in the judgment with fear, was it not necessary for Him, the one lying down upon soft pillows and the steadfast guardian of the law, to first indict these matters?

But he, being able to reach the most extreme scrutiny of the law through study and to clarify the legal lines accurately, would not have sought out the trifle, lest perhaps through this some might be drawn into the sleeves of divination, being miserably deceived by falsehood. Yet, regarding these things, he neither said nor sought anything (for it was not Samuel, but one performing such dramas who spoke from above), but instead he responds to these, assuming the mask of the prophet, saying, 'Why do you ask me, and the Lord has departed from you and has become with your neighbor? And the Lord has done to you according to what he spoke through my hand' (1 Samuel 28:6). Thus, by presenting these as both an enemy and a vengeance, the reader is introduced to the reminders of the accusation.

It must be observed how, having presented these connected elements, he weaves his indictments by speaking more demonstratively through hypocrisy, yet having said nothing worthy of foreknowledge, treating those things as second-hand craftsmanship, which Samuel had already foretold would be joined to Saul, which he was already prophesying as having already happened. But indeed, by saying to him, 'Why do you ask me?', he confesses these things disjointedly, as having said them before; he repeats himself, indeed, confirming the first things through the latter under the pretext of enchanting. On the contrary, Origenes distinguishes those words previously uttered by the prophet as if they were complete and new words of prophecy, because...

The Fraud of the Belly-Speaker§10

10This is intended to explain why the belly-speaker was said to be possessed, even though the Scripture contradicts him, as he himself partially admits locally. But why after these things did he add the prophecy he was discussing with the ruler? «The Lord will tear the kingdom from your hand and will give it to your neighbor, David; because you did not obey the Lord's voice and did not fulfill a wrathful anger against Amalek; because of this word the Lord has done this to you on this very day, and the Lord will give Israel with you into the hands of foreign tribes» (1 Sam 15:28-29).

If anyone wishes to clarify the matter precisely, he must first return to the historical context of the letter and, by examining that passagewhere, after having defeated Amalek, the king seized the best of the dogs spoils and thought it necessary to offer them as burnt offerings. By seeking more clearly and scientifically, one would have found that all these words Samuel had already spoken by word at that time; for he said that the Lord had indeed torn the kingdom from his hand, when the ruler, seizing the wing of the Philistine, tore it. He also foretold to him regarding these things how the kingdom was destined to be given to his neighbor, who would be better than him, and how Israel would be divided because of this and would no longer return.

Having said these things, he made the words consistent with the deeds; for not long after, having been appointed king by a divine judgment sent forth, David became king. Was the one said to be speaking through the belly-speaker, therefore, announcing anything new? The things said previously by Samuel he was merely mimicking as his own, deceiving by persona, or perhaps by technical skill, appearing to speak prophetically by repeating the same things.

But just as charlatans and soothsayers go to the houses of the wealthy, rushing in and exaggerating matters of life already passed to search for things hidden, they imply that they are speaking of things that happened long ago spontaneously...

The Deception of the Belly-Speaker§11

The Deception of the Spirit§12

12Thus, he had exhausted himself in such a way that he spent the day fasting, then, having taken a morsel of food on the second, he walked into the camp. It is not only striking in light of the facts as he spoke, but he also said that Jonathan would end up alone with his father (1 Sam 14:45); yet from the opposites, the narrative of the letter proclaims a voice saying that Saul was slain along with three boys, but not with only one, as he had said.

Surely the demon did not speak anything true by way of a foreknowledge (for he would not have announced things contrary to what happened), but, having diverted from what was previously said to Samuel, as I have said, he added a few things to these, weaving them similarly from the images. Thus also he threatened death to the ruler, by making use of those voices of his. But he even promised to introduce an interruption to Israel, because the prophet had said heavily that the people would be divided.

Seeing therefore the war-engines fortified and the leader of the people standing in distress, he also added threats regarding what was left to him of God (through which the ruler, speculating, confessed that the prophet's preaching was being circumscribed), and he responded to the incoming movements by shouting aloud. However, whatever he added of his own, he clearly having been caught lying; for he was not able to foretell even the day of death, nor the executions of the sons of Saul (1 Sam 14:47), of whom the Scripture mentioned by name. From these things, it would not be difficult to perceive that the spirit announced nothing of its own nor anything true, but as he subverted the words of Samuel, he thought he was prophesying by flinging them about.

But above all, it is not possible to say that he prophesied this without falsehood; for if indeed he proclaimed the occurrence of war and the unceasing streams of bloodshed, who is the cause of all wars? Is it not the devil? Did he not himself seek out Job (Job 1:12)? Did he not provoke war against him?

The False Spirit and Ahab§13

13Did he suddenly become an unannounced messenger, not transforming from one form to another, becoming at once an angel, a witness, and a warlord, entering into the inner parts of men? But it has seemed to many that such a form is unclear; therefore, let us follow the traces of the third of the Kingdoms.

It appears then that the prophet Micah is being questioned by Ahab; but since he was compelled to speak the truth without entreaty, he said he had seen the Lord sitting on a throne, and then also heavenly hosts standing around him, both on the right and in a favorable state; and at the same time as the history of the sight and the voice, he said he had heard someone say: 'Who will deceive Ahab and ascend to Remmon-Gilead and fall there?' (1 Kings 22:21). And then he says (omitting the middle parts to say what is sought): 'A spirit went out and stood before the Lord and said: I will deceive him.'

And as the Lord, having reflected, rebuked, 'In whom?'; he implies again: 'I will go out and be a lying spirit in the mouth of all his prophets.' To these things, indeed, the Superior has said: 'You will deceive, and indeed you can; and now behold,' he says, 'go out and do so.' And the prophet, recounting these very things to the king, immediately brings forth: 'God has given a lying spirit in the mouth of all these your prophets, and the Lord has spoken against you evil things.'

Therefore, if it is necessary to understand that it is not good, but that this spirit of lying is evil, it follows to assume that this is a diabolical instrument. And if this is primarily demonstrated to be so, then he had heard beforehand how the defiled Ahab was destined to die while retreating from war; for the lie was worthy of instigating the occurrence of war, so that he might bring about the destruction of the unrighteous shamefully.

Thus through these things it is demonstrated by the works that the devil has learned how evils are brought upon the unrighteous, since he himself is the dramatist of all the enemies. Regarding Saul, whatever he joined to the sayings of Samuel from himself, he not only likely lied, but also blasphemed impiously.

From this point, the first slander is convicted: first, that it is according to imitation, just as the Lord said to the thief who confessed the kingdom of his, 'today you shall be with me' (Luke 23:43) saying 'in paradise,' so too the deceiver said to Saul, having fulfilled his prophecies, 'tomorrow you shall be with me and Jonathan your son.' Second, he intends to show through these things that the righteous differs in nothing from the unrighteous, skillfully cutting away the intentions of the pious.

No one seems to be ignorant that no fellowship coexists with the faithful alongside the unfaithful, or again how the one having indulged in wealth responded far from the lifestyle of Lazarus, even though he did nothing similar to him. But this one never shared anything with the suffering one, not even the slightest thing, neither crumbs nor sweepings falling to the ground, nor did he pity the man with wounds, having not driven him further from the earth with lashes.

But nonetheless, since both changed their destination, the one reached the bosom of the forefather Abraham, and the other was given to the sleepless ones in flames of fire. As he was being tortured in Hades, he saw the forefather from afar, and he also perceives 'Lazarus in his bosom'; being burned by the very flame, he cried out worthily to Abraham to send the poor man to him; for it was necessary that, arriving, Lazarus might dip the tip of his finger in water and cool his tongue, breathing on him a moist moisture; thus, the son suffering in fiery pains, he sent such requests with entreaty. Since the forefather, responding in speech, [each to each in each part...]

Saul and the Chasm§14

14He seemed to have received rewards worthy of his labor, and then adding, he said: 'And between us and you there is a chasm,' he says, 'it has been made great, so that those wishing to cross from there to you are not able, nor those from there to us to pass through.'

If then there is an idea of a chasm dividing between the righteous and the unrighteous, so that those from there to that place are not able to wander across, nor those from here to arrive there, Saul, being unrighteous, is not with the prophet Samuel. For if the rich man cannot be with the poor man, even without having done wrong or persecuted him, but not having given to him readily from what he had, how much more is the stingy man unworthy to enjoy the fellowship of the saints?

But it is not to be thought that because of shameful gain the divine command is set aside, and being struck by a demon, he is driven about by a curse, David pursues the saintly one with nothing becoming the world, even though by prophetic psalmody he exposes the ferocity of the demon reveling in him; to slaughter three hundred priests of the Lord, being fifty to the number, does he stand away from God, divining impiously? And if he did these things and these things as brothers, how can one think that Samuel ended up with the wonder-worker, who in a season of summer caused rain to become, and by it an immeasurable multitude of waters was scattered?

If it is not possible to say that Saul is with Samuel, The one who said to him, 'Tomorrow you shall be with me' (1 Sam 28:24), lied. If indeed he who said these things is a liar, it is evident that this Samuel is not; for the prophet of the Lord would not so foolishly lie, so that such widely spreading words point out the nakedly hidden, many-faced, most cowardly beast. He himself is indeed the one who split into the chasm of Tartarus and the manifest Saul; whence he approached him familiarly, grasping him, saying: 'Tomorrow you shall be with me.'

He attempts to arrange things in a double way, striving to show that the righteous never differs from the unrighteous, and he agrees that Jonathan received the same inheritance as his father, even though he was not joined by his father's harshness. Who among those existing pretends not to perceive that the lover of the prophet David, having lived most excellently, but having undertaken to pursue the righteous unjustly, offers the same wages to the persecutor? For he will not die, to use the universal expression, a son for an unrighteous father. But indeed the charlatan is also convicted by this message.

The writer, adding a sequence to a lack of order, said that 'Saul hurried and fell standing upon the ground and was greatly afraid' (1 Sam 15:14), saying 'from the words of Samuel.' For we know those to be the words of Samuel, which he had prophesied to him, being present in body and tongue; but the phantom of these things took up the words and offered them up as his own; of whom, remembering the ruler and seeing the signs of war established opposite, having understood their end, he became fearful.

But Origenes plates doctrines for himself, knowing that most of those who happen to be weighing these things are one thing, yet in conversing with those arguing against him, he did not hasten with the due reverence to investigate accurately what is necessary; but rather, professing to touch upon the drama of the engastrimythos for all and calling the truth necessary for examination, he clearly fights against the truth itself.

Then, having extracted praises for Samuel, as many as the divine scriptures converse about him, he again, as if deciding him to be under the power of the demon, was framing him with words and with syllables: 'Is it then that if such a man was under the earth and the engastrimythos raised him up, the demon has authority over a prophetic soul?' But these things, though he says as if posing a question or perhaps asking, are insinuated to be said sometimes by some, so that through what he will later arrange, he might conclude that such things are so.

The Authority of the Engastrimythos§15

15He adds more clearly with the phrase, 'What shall I say?' having cried out, 'These things are written,' asking, 'Is it true or is it not true?' Saying that to say it is not true leads to unbelief (he says this to bring it upon the heads of those speaking), while to say it is true provides us with inquiry and perplexity.

After this, he again, confirming unthinkingly what he announces, and considering the opinions of those opposing him, brings forth: 'And indeed we know some of our brothers looking askance at the Scripture and saying, I do not believe the engastrimythos; the engastrimythos says it has seen Samuel, it lies,' and many other things besides this. Because of these things, he exhorts while rebuking those who decide the divinations of the engastrimythos are false, and, cursing, brings it upon the heads of those who do not believe it. However, it is easy to persuade the willing who desire to turn the narrative of the Scripture around it, saying, 'These things are written' or 'Are these things not written?'

He uses logic to proceed to a second point: 'Is it true these things or is it not true?', even though the not being able to bear the soul of the prophet 'provides us with perplexity and inquiry,' as he said. And that which is to give such things to a demon is full of how much impiety; he no longer says 'seeking' or 'paying attention' but is struck by unreasonableness. For to God alone belongs such authority to command, so as to transfer and call souls out of Hades.

Therefore, one must counter here again: in the holy writings these things have not been taken up, nor did the writer previously write that such a thing was done by his own person; for the book would not be ecclesiastic, shouting with voices contrary to the prophetic ones, as we have also shown previously and will say a little later.

But indeed he has filled the belly-myth with words and has supplemented the ever-present knowledge of the potentate with works of ignorance, shown to be so. For if he would thus join the belly-myth to the holy scriptures, would he not—since they say that the devil himself proclaims himself as an opponent of God—require one to believe him by laying out the whole thing through a narrative interpretation of the letter, as Origen is introduced?

And this has indeed been written regarding the scriptures. Or again, when using immoderate pride, he claims that the whole description of this world, even its own kingdoms, is his; would someone not say that it is fitting to think that he is the creator of all things? Not so, however; for if indeed the narrative voice has filled his great boasting, it does not declare these things to be true, nor is anyone able to demonstrate this at all. But there are ten thousand such things to see regarding this, though it is not possible to bring them all forward, lest we be thought to wander from the subject through wordiness.

As it seemed to those who think most rightly not to rebuke moderately, the thought immediately leaped away to another matter, and he was making a spectacle of the people, for they say among others that it would be terrible to suppose that the illustrious Samuel has come to be in Hades, who was judged worthy of severe prophecy. This indeed repeats itself above and below in a crude way, handling the listeners from one thing to another, skillfully working deception.

We, however, do not differ regarding these things, about which it has become necessary for all to agree, but because of which we have known to dispute primarily; for it is not whether Samuel has become a matter of inquiry, but whether such a demon has power, so as to call up the souls of the righteous from Hades and send them again. Since, therefore, having been caught in blasphemy on his own authority, he returns to insult the hearing of the listeners, he indeed turns away deceitfully by craft, but pretends to flee toward the face of Christ, in order that, having contested it, he might demonstrate to the holy men that Christ himself also descended into Hades along with all the others. But for as he was demonstrating this and indeed speaking exhortatively toward each man, he said, 'Why fear,' saying, 'to say that all...'

The error of the soul's descent§16

16He asks, "Is the place of Christ and the prophets a place of weeping?" A few among them attack him with slander, suggesting that Christ, while in the lower place, was "away by his own choice," as he says, "being in the lower place."." [17.5] He speaks as if addressing a man alone, no longer considering his divine nature, asserting that he descended to the lowest parts but by choice remained above, just as he neglects all other men.

For he said, "Thus even the prophets and Samuel, even if they descend to where the souls are below—they may be in the lower place, but they are not below by their choice." [17.6] Having filled the world with empty words, he fails to realize that everyone, no matter how much they have sinned, who has descended into Hades, has become 'away' by their own choice. Descended into Hades, they have become 'away' by their own choice.

For no one, whether righteous or unrighteous, would be content to always have the highest fellowship and to be deprived of the lower places. [17.7] If then all who descended into Hades will reach the heights by choice, even if some did not care much for a righteous life, what kind of value does this contradict the prophetic chorus? Why did he report the Lord's word as being identical for all? He spoke ignorantly, not understanding that the Word, being God, is present everywhere continuously, not by choice but by the virtue of divinity. [17.8]

Even if he permitted his most chosen temple to be dissolved and then raised again strangely after three days, [17.9] the soul of this human dwelling, having descended to the lowest parts of the earth, lifted up the gates there with a sudden rush and cast souls into those gates destroyed in that place. [17.10] Thus it has been strengthened by divine power through the union of God and the Word, so that it has authority everywhere. [18.]

But indeed I am convinced, and the evidence of this is clear: how he reached the low places of the underworld, and in the same way he brought the willful soul of the thief into paradise. For if through one man salvation has become the property of all men, it is evident that the soul redeems like-kind souls, at once descending into the low parts of chaos, and at once restoring to the most ancient paradise the intruder into the power of the unassailable kingdom.

Furthermore, before these things, the servant of God testified, saying: 'And no one has ascended into heaven except he who descended from heaven, the Son of Man who is in heaven' (John 3:13). Therefore, if it is established that the one moving from the human race ascended to heaven most uniquely of all, and descended again from there into this place, and having come here, walked in heaven, it is established that the man performed these things through the excellence of soul most extraordinarily.

For the holy soul of Christ, sharing with God both essence and Word, wanders all things together, but has ascended into the highest heaven, into which no other of men has ascended. But these things are suspended upon it, the human idea, which God carried and Word.

And since the servant of God is everywhere present at once, John has stood as witness even about this, being an ear to Christ, and crying out having risen, saying: 'No one has seen God at any time; the only-begotten Son who is in the bosom of the Father, he has made him known' (John 1:18). And if Christ, being present here, provided for the body, and how he reported these words to John, and he, receiving these sayings of his, preached that he is in the bosoms of the Father while eating on earth with his body, how should we not conceive that he also stepped upon the heavens at that time, and how, dwelling within the bosoms and having stayed on earth in a God-befitting manner, he was present to all as a god?

The Word and the Descent of Christ§17

17If someone suffers from a Jewish blindness to the gospel, one should recite to him the sayings of Solomon, saying: 'For the Almighty's word', containing all in silence and swiftly dwelling in the privacy of night, comes from the thrones of kings in heaven, a sharp sword bearing your unhypocritical command, filling all with the strokes of death; indeed it touched heaven, but it established itself upon the earth (Psalm 149:6; Psalm 18:4).

If therefore his only-begotten Son, the Word of God, is proclaimed and is God in glorious communion, through whom angels and heavens and earth and seas and depths and heavenly luminaries and the whole constitution of all created things were made, he thus makes all wise through just judgment, seated on the throne of the eternal kingdom in heaven, yet punishing the unrighteous with a sharp justice (but being Almighty in deed and action, since he is God and the Word of God, 'indeed it touched heaven, but it established itself upon the earth' in the same way), making his divinity's excellence manifest by filling all things everywhere.

Surely, if such a nature has been seized, the impious ones who think the Divine is described by a place or a spoken word of a certain region are speaking through Origen's hand, more by ignorance than by wisdom of the cosmos, saying that Christ, having descended to the lowest parts of the earth, lived above his willful choice.

For he did not realize that, being God, he did not remain above as it seems with such a readiness of mind, by the energy of divinity filling all things as if most especially everywhere. But such things are fitting for glorifying Christ, he who is defined by a demon to raise up prophetic souls; and the Pythian sibyl, as she saw the demons who were of the same womb as herself, just as she was raising up kindreds of the same mother like certain brothers of the same belly, cries out: 'I have seen gods ascending from the earth.'

But the boastful one did not hesitate to tell Origen that the demon did not only lift up the soul of the prophet, but asked whether other holy souls of prophets had also 'ascended together.' Not being satisfied with such provocation, he even defined the angels as having ascended together with the spirits; for he said that for the sake of the salvation of those praying, they breathed in here.

Therefore, as it seems, Origen places the greatest hopes in the angels and prophets, or indeed in the whole choir equal to the saints, first by introducing them as being under demonic power, and then by warning that they were brought here through a possessed woman, to heal those suffering like prisoners being led away.

It does not seem to me that it is less foolish to speak thus; for by this work he most pitifully disgraced the holy men, and even the rank of the heaven-flying angels was disgraced by casting them down. Or let him show boldly, by such a standard being established, from where having taken from the earth he said he was sending down the angels who are feasting in the heavens; for these have not descended into Hades being led as redeemers to the captives for remissions, but Christ, since this one also established a victorious trophy against the enemy, and having snatched the spoils of the captives, ascended to the heavens in a transformation of his body. But angels stand before God always, rushing to perform those which they owe for worship, but they do not dwell in Hades.

But, as it seems, Origen pretends not to understand, in order to prepare a demoniacal divination; then, having undertaken to allegorize all the Scriptures, he will only pretend to accept this not merely on the letter of the interpretation, while not even attending to its body with good sense. But, discussing indeed the paradise which God planted in Eden (Gen 2:8), and then wishing to explain in what way the fruit-bearing trees were to be interpreted, he brought forward other things: 'when reading, let us ascend from the myths,' he said, 'and from the literal interpretation, and let us seek what the trees are,' he says, 'they are those things which God cultivates...'

Allegory vs. Myth§18

18We say that there are no perceptible things in the place. By interpreting these things, he does not err in calling a myth what God is said to have created and what Moses, the most faithful servant of God, wrote; rather, from the opposites which a myth formed in the belly offers up obscurely, he confirms these things in a dogmatic writing, showing them to be true.

It is worthy to remain unshaken in the belief that the words of the belly-myth were spoken through the Holy Spirit, having sworn to seem like the Scripture; but calling the messages sent through Moses by God 'myth' fluctuates the meaning, not remaining faithful to the literal sense of the letter.

But does he not allegorize the wells dug by Abraham and those around him, and after constructing such a chain of words, does he not refute their entire reality by shifting them into another sense, even though you will still see the wells appearing in places even now? Did he not turn the matters of Isaac and Rebekah into allegories, having said that the words about the ears and the clefts were golden, but having seized the whole hypothesis and applying it to the intelligible, he acted as a slanderer? Regarding Job, instead of marveling at his endurance, he praised the labors, spoke well of his excellence, accepted the faith, expressed the examples of his patient soul, and through this encouraged the new converts to virtue, arming the combatants with a cheerful and strong wisdom to strive bravely for piety; but leaving him, he rushed meteorically toward the names of the daughters, grinding them down crudely. As for how he puffed up the name of the Day and of Cassia, or even the horn of Amalthea, he does not even say such a thing; for he is a vessel of all kinds of overflow.

Writing about Lazarus, instead of glorifying the great work of Christ and thereby clearly proving that God is the one who, by authority, sent the dead man out of the tombs and, by the release of the word, gave life to the corruptible bodies, he says nothing for this reason, but through allegory leads the friend of the Lord, Lazarus, whom he did not love unsuitably through virtue, to the one weakening and dying through sins.

No one has said or written these things against the righteous man; for the Lord would not have rejected him so severely unless he had broken the laws of a state. Furthermore, the drama of the stoning is not less a target for distortion (since he also tries to interpret this in a different way), the Gospel text being falsified by saying, 'we have not found very much, having searched in those before this, that the Jews carried stones in order to stone him' (John 10:31); then, after a little, he says: 'if they carried them again, they carried them before.' He wants to construct up and down arguments not to precede and another similarly interpretation, so that he might establish that they carried words, not stones, against him without delay, even though the Evangelist added, having said, 'so they took up stones in order to stone him' (John 10:31). But these things are written in two separate places, and it appears they were done at different times because they do not have the same complexities or pairings of words; but Origen, supposing himself to know all the Scriptures, did not read this, and in writing these things, he treats the whole Gospel as if it were merely a matter of words.

If anyone supposes that we are weaving these things, he will find nothing that we have said to be false by encountering those same Gospel decisions and the studies produced by him regarding this.

But what more is necessary to say? Everything, so to speak, by allegorizing from names, refutes the hypotheses of the facts, not even realizing this: that indeed there are many homonyms of the righteous and the unrighteous, yet it is not possible to judge the dissimilar ways of life from the one same name.

For there is Judas the traitor and another Judas the apostle; or again, Zechariah the most unjust king and another Zechariah the prophet; and not only this, but also Ananias who was thrown into the furnace of fire, and besides this, another Ananias who persecutes the church instead of being persecuted, and instead advocates for the apostle to be beaten, to whom Paul, in a word, responded: 'God is about to beat you, you wall that is plastered (Acts 22:25). And you sit judging me according to the law, and while breaking the law, you command me to be beaten?' Truly, if things are judged by name, let those who...

Origen’s allegory; the demon and David’s kingdom§19

19Leaning on such allegories, they claim by a mere shared name to interpret unlike sciences or readings of constitutions. Indeed many Jews even today, wrapping themselves in the names of patriarchs or prophets, do unlawful things; and many among the Greeks, called Peter and Paul, do what is ruinous. So Origen’s empty words are caught not least by this kind of light talk. What he brings in wrongly about the resurrection cannot be shown in full here — for Methodius, worthy of holy memory, wrote sufficiently on that theorem and showed plainly that Origen, defining the resurrection on the form rather than on the body itself, unwillingly gave the heretics an opening. That he overturned everything by allegories and sowed seeds of bad doctrine everywhere is easy to see; repeating himself up and down, he filled the inhabited world with unmeasured chatter. By such a method allegorizing everything in every way, he alone could not explain the words of the belly-speaker, nor again set out the clear sense from the sequence itself. What did he bring in besides, inventing escapes by a show of piety? Since the apparition seemed to have said to Saul, “The Lord will tear the kingdom from your hand,” arguing persuasively he answered that one must not think “a demon prophesies about the kingdom of Israel.” Already earlier we said the demon stole these words spoken before by Samuel, so as to deceive the senseless Saul and seem to speak his own. But Origen pretends not to know such dramas of the devil. When it seemed to foretell that the madman’s kingdom would be torn, it then added, “and he will give it to your neighbor, to David.” The much-learned Origen, stirred here, said: “A demon cannot know the kingdom of David appointed by the Lord.” But I am moved to wonder how he carries a reputation for good counsel among the many, as if thoughtful and best in judgment. If the kingdom were unclear, one might somehow feign ignorance under a pretext; but if it was witnessed by God, and Samuel had anointed him for it, and always excelling in the wars he was shown the king’s son-in-law — so that the dancing women ascribed the tens of thousands to him and the thousands to Saul — and if these and such things stood clear, what strange or paradoxical thing was it if the demon recognized the kingdom that exists and was appointed by the Lord through the prophet? For must one not think (if one must say by way of excess that he knows only bodily things) that the anointing with oil has a perceptible application of touch? No one will dispute that these things stand plain to all. And to speak the surplus: even if such things had not stood clear — which would be greater in comparison, to know David’s kingdom, or to bring prophetic souls up from Hades? Yet this too has been shown in the case of the greater person: for even concerning Christ the demons, twisted and unwilling, cry out in so many words, “What have we to do with you, Son of God? Have you come before the time to destroy us?” But to send for souls from Hades and at the same time call down choirs of angels flying from heaven — God alone and his most divine Son have authority to do that; no one else at all. If then they knew God’s invisible kingdom anointed by the Holy Spirit, could they not much more recognize David’s, shown through a perceptible anointing and a visible pouring? Or did the criminal not know what was done and set in the scriptures about David — he who even came to the Lord when he put on the body and said boldly: “If you are the Son of God, throw yourself down; for it is written that he will command his angels concerning you, and they will lift you on their hands, lest you strike your foot against a stone”? So if he is formed to speak from the holy scriptures, he knows what is written — though badly learned; and if he stands in knowledge of these things, he did not fail to know David’s kingdom, which is carved in the sacred letters. Therefore when the demon speaks what is written, he prophesied nothing at all. But the much-famed Origen, finding nothing to say, turns to this…

The Demon's Limited Power§20

20He has naturally fled, and he brings an argument against these things, saying: 'But I,' he says, 'am not able to give such power to a demon, so that he may prophesy concerning Saul and the people of God, and prophesy concerning the kingdoms of David, that he is about to reign.'

Then, someone might say, 'O most foolish of men, you do not grant him to prophesy, yet you permit him to raise up prophets from Hades and to suddenly transfer angelic hosts, which is a greater, more excellent, and more divine thing possessing authority; did anyone then think so weakly or poorly?' But I would most certainly say, having reconsidered, that the demon prophesied nothing, as we also demonstrated further.

If, however, having been judged worthy of prophecy, he did happen to prophesy, it was not necessary to suppose that the demon raised up spirits and souls from Hades; for even Caiaphas, during the conspiracy against Christ, prophesied, having said: 'It is expedient for us that one man should die for the people, and that the whole nation should not perish' (John 11:50). These things he did not say of himself, just as the most wise John, being a high priest in that year, prophesied.

But here he presents the duality of the Father and the only-begotten Son, one being called the Lord who is being tested, and the other being the beloved Lord and God, in order to show from the duality the one divinity and the true generation of God. If that prophet, promising to show a sign or a wonder, is to answer all things to one who introduces the unlawful idolatry, how much more ought one not to believe a demon promising to transport souls from Hades and spirits of the righteous, even if the power of the sign is working ahead?

But no one would say of the impious that God raised Samuel from the dead to test the unrighteous, desiring that he might write the drama upon the demon's promise and through this appearance deceive some; for it is necessary to guard the holiness of divination from every side, as the Lawgiver established. But is not the cause of augury, the divination of the belly, and the omens of bells considered not secret? Hear how shortly thereafter he again strictly commanded: 'And if you enter the land which the Lord your God gives you, you shall not learn to do according to the abominations of those nations (Deuteronomy 18:10-12). There shall not be found among you one purifying his son or his daughter in the fire, one divining, one using omens, one using bells, one using drugs, one being a medium, and one a wonder-seer, inquiring of the dead. For it is an abomination to the Lord, everyone doing these things.'

After this, warning that he also threatens death and destruction to foreigners because of these things, he immediately added: 'Because of these abominations, the Lord will destroy them from you (Deuteronomy 7:3-4).' It appears, therefore, that the divination of the belly is joined together with all the causes of idolatry, just as if, when scraps lying within are subject to fever, they are accustomed to cause stench and destruction by provoking sickness or burning out the exhausted.

If he also named the deceptive visions as wonder-seeing, as many as are recounted through the belly-diviners, he established that nothing is true in them. From here, I think, he again brought forth a darker decision against them in the Levitical law, bringing words to them: 'And man or woman' saying...

The Fate of Belly-Dancers§21

21“If a belly-dancer or an improviser should arise among you, let them be put to death; stone them, for they are guilty.” Exodus 22:18 allusion. What then do those who are admirers of the Horai say regarding the charge of vainglory? Do they defend the belly-dancers as being responsible for the provocations of enemies, or on the contrary as being promoters of good works? If they are indeed makers of impious dramas, the lawgiver justly banishes those who bring them in, announcing nothing true.

But if they are finders of the finest actions, the law was passed against them in excess. For if they indeed bring souls up from Hades, and those arriving here proclaim what is to come, and they supply those in need most profitably, then the lawgiver did not justly ordain that the benefactors be stoned. Thus, one of two things is necessary: either to render these voices useless, or to cast away the words of the belly-dancer as vile and false.

But what shall we say? Do the divine Scriptures contradict themselves? Or does a single vote fight against the many? And if indeed there is a fight, the many prevail. Indeed, from these very opposites, the belly-dancers are voted down in consensus as doing useless things.

It is no less evident, even if it has risen in the fourth of the Kingdoms, that Manasseh, in his extreme impiety toward those he unjustly killed and in his practicing of all kinds of idol-shaped matter, 'made for himself,' as it says, 'belly-dancers and wise men' 2 Kings 21:4. Conversely, King Josiah, having shone through the virtue of justice, at once destroyed all the written works, tearing them down and consuming them with fire; but moreover, he said 'he took away' the belly-dancers and the wise men and the sacred vessels and the idols and the Asherim 2 Kings 23:4; and then, after a little while, he says that he also 'burned them' 2 Kings 23:16, as if they were unlawful.

For if the same person is the writer of both parts of the text, here he speaks of two characters as kings; then he introduces the unjust one and the just one—but the one given to the uncontrolled in injustice is blamed, which is why he was grouped with the other ventriloquists, while the one roused by divine zeal is praised, even to the point of casting out the ventriloquists before all enemies. If he acts thus, it is established that he was not giving forth voices fighting against himself.

Nor did the Holy Spirit say that he had caused Samuel to rise up, but he was narrating the words of the ventriloquist, as he thought, and even to seem like that, lifting the ruler up with phantasmagoria to the unclear; for he would not have fought against himself and all the other scriptures. But not only do these sayings convict these things, but also another illustrious witness is added to these, the prophet Isaiah: on one hand forbidding such mysteries, on the other advising his subjects most correctly, saying: 'And if they say to you: Seek the ventriloquists, and those calling from the earth, those empty-speakers who speak from the belly, is this not a nation against God?' (Isaiah 8:19).

Then what does he bring forth adding this after those things? 'Why do they seek among the living the dead?' he said; 'for law was given for help, so that they might not say as this word, concerning which it is not possible to give gifts' (Isaiah 8:20). The genus of the ventriloquists was clearly declared by hierophony; and if he left such a gathering to be called empty-speaking, he undeniably demonstrated that of these, no one ever says anything entirely true, but they flatter the deception with false speech, and they mock the ignorant with foolish empty-talk.

Therefore, it follows that he looked down upon those who ask the dead about the living; for they themselves are all dead and foolish, the empty-speakers, who imitate the voices of the dead to be ministered. But the prophet was testifying by shouting that a firm law lies regarding these, so that they might not be subjected to foolish deaf-talks according to what is uttered; for most extreme, I think, [...]

Criticism of Origene's Interpretation§22

22A protection of the law is established from heaven to call for help, not to seek assistance from the earth by looking at earthly things. But Origene, having made it his habit to interpret all the scriptures, does not treat these testimonies as things to be known, nor does he set them down as they ought to be; rather, he circles around those that differ in nothing regarding the matter, yet exceeds those which belong to its own nature; for it seems he does this out of foolish ignorance or reckless defiance

But just as, having spoken in a two-sided way, saying, 'What then does a ventriloquist do here? What does a ventriloquist do concerning the raising up of the soul of the righteous?' (1 Samuel 28:15), he avoided the difficulty of the word by being evasive, he inscribes something else which he himself has done; but having committed the whole matter to the scripture itself, he asserts that Samuel was carried up, yet no longer dares to make secondary the 'who raised him up?' (1 Samuel 28:13).

I think that even later, being investigated by those who always think most correctly, and defending himself a second time, he explained that the place of the ventriloquist had been preserved; then he says also that 'it is written that a ventriloquist raised someone,' and 'that Saul said to Samuel is written.' And, having frequently repeated such things with much babbling, he says again: 'and it has not been said, whether he went up voluntarily'; for you do not have,' he said, 'it lying there if the ventriloquist raised him; let someone who has read the scripture examine it.'

Surely, being investigated as an opponent, he clearly denied what he had previously glorified through thoughtlessness; for there he limited the scripture to having said rather the thing, but not the woman, the 'whom shall I bring to you?'; and, being clearly caught here, he hurried to escape by hiding the cause.

Thus, having fought for himself and being disgraced, he is stripped naked, as if having been defeated in a contest of knowledge right here and now, seeking a way to escape the blame. Since, being dragged by pain, he admitted that the woman did not lead the prophet's soul, let him say who led it (for he had determined that she alone was to be carried away unchangeably). It happened that the pythian oracle was alone, and Saul, who was serving her, was the master of the prophet. But this one could not be the agent of the drama; for it was not necessary for him to approach the engastrimythos at night like her.

But if the deed has happened, the thing seen must be written for someone else. So it is necessary to say one of two things for the two: either this never happened at all, or the upright man was carried away through the engastrimythos and the demon. Does he then, appearing to deny his own voices by another method, deceptively introduce a presumption of vanity? Rather, through those things by which he seems to defend himself, he introduces falsehood as truth.

He is not convinced by so many and such votes of law, nor by harmonious prophetic testimonies, nor by the remaining consistent concordances of history; but having made a fallacy of the truly holy sayings, he confirms the words of the engastrimythos by his choice, later establishing instruments of idolatry and circling with impious demon-divination. Nor does even the compound name convince him of what kind of conduct it has; for the engastrimythos is interpreted as showing a myth formed in the belly, but the compound of the myth is structured as if dwelling plausibly inside the stomach, shouting not truth but falsehood against it. It is better that those who have spoken with various word-references know at a distance what the kind of it is.

Even if he has introduced Greek divination, which burns most with superstition, as if it were forgotten, nevertheless I think we must not refrain from exposing it from here.

The Artificiality of Myth§23

23His lack of understanding for a short time, as is necessary.

For rhetorical arts clearly show that a myth is a fabrication composed for entertainment toward some use differing from life; and a fabrication is said to be 'made' from the very fact that it is composed in agreement with itself; for it would no longer be called a myth if it were actually true.

If, however, it is a composition of spontaneous fabrication or myth-making, it may be proven true in deed, but in word it depicts the substance of things with images, lacking in practice; for it seems to plausibly present non-existent things as if they were existing, and its narration introduces a fabricated imitation; therefore, it announces things that are unsubstantial, without any underlying basis being presented as if it were certain.

Moreover, it seems to me that the craft of making a myth does not differ from shadow-painting without soul; for by similarity, I think, the painting is itself characterized by the line; by a near resemblance, it personifies a hypothesis, casting aside one part, while it shapes the others through imitation with prescribed letters. Thus, it observes a lack of agreement in each of its rhythms most strictly, writing both the beginning and end of a war in a plausible manner, and the speaking lips and the peculiarities of voices, and laughter and weeping, or the authoritative speeches of a public forum, or symposia and revelries, or bacchanalia or rites, or unrestrained drinking, or erotic exhortations, or brigand raids, or unseemly destruction, or lawless slaughter, or the acting of poverty, or the flowing of wealth.

Therefore, everything is characterized by economy of expression, and through personification, it approaches and depicts idle actions; for indeed, the myth-makers, selecting words like flowers, produce various kinds of colored types and entwine them with personification; then, coloring the words with pleasures, they gather the whole narrative of the myth, just as zodiac-sign painters depict the season of the appearance, writing in red and floral colors. And they hasten to compose material characters through phrases and forms, showing them by the work of truth itself. But these people diversify the images of myths in such a varied way; from this, a certain musical harmony and a discovery of poetic composition arise.

Plato, asking unasked, defines music as being of words; he said, 'the kind of words is twofold: the true, and the false being the other; and one must be educated in both, but first in the false ones.' For he previously said that children are easily overcome by the praise of myths. 'This, so to speak, is the whole thing false, yet in it is also truth.' Is not the beginning the greatest part of every work, and moreover, is it not something new and soft? For especially then is it molded and clothed in a type, which anyone might wish to mark for each person.

Through such things, he tries to bring forth utterances as if it were not necessary to oppose the unbridled hearings of the young, since those who are currently being marked by impressions love to have the types of bad reputation become unchangeable and difficult to erase. Therefore, it follows again: 'Will we then easily provide this?' he said, 'that the children, having heard those who have succeeded by having been fashioned by a successful myth, will receive in their souls as a great part those contrary opinions which we must expect them to have when they are perfected? Not in the least,' he has said, 'we will provide it.'

First, as it seems, we must supervise the myth-makers, and approve whichever good myth they make, and reject which one not. And let us persuade the nurses and mothers to speak to the children those which are approved, and to mold their souls with myths much more than their bodies with their hands. But now they say that the many should be cast out. Then

The Truth of Myths and the Belly-Myth§24

24For since, asking about the proportional difference of each, Adeimantus suggested that 'in the greater cases' it was decided that 'even the lesser ones are recognized by myths,' though he did not declare knowledge of these either, he then replied again, having brought it back: 'whom both Hesiod and Homer, I said, were elegists to us; for these indeed once composed and tell myths to men, having joined them with falsehoods.'

If then Homer's epics and Hesiod's myths are judged false, which indeed especially for the sake of education cheer the hearers, and not only that but also stir up the mind toward commanded eloquence with beautiful diction, how much more should those words spoken by the possessed hag, which someone considers to be not of the kind of myth-making, be judged false, as they so sharply and even by the very name of the belly-myth direct the mind?

For if the children of the Greeks, who are precise in the naming of each matter, in Greece call myths 'false fabrications' by voice, they follow from the name the suspicion of the matter as it is primarily arranged. But Aesop's myth-makings are equal to such fabrications of myths, just as the little girls, often being mocked in childhood, play and jest with headbands (it is when they do these things, being frequently drenched in wine in the throat, and attending to the cup and the drink, they chatter without measure).

But those who consider themselves ambassadors for the ethics of philosophy cast about the kinds of poems such as these as being false myths, as is fitting.

If, therefore, the name itself is correctly assigned according to the reality of the thing, the belly-mythos seems to weave myths in the stomach; for the demon does not speak wisely from nature, but defiling the lowest parts, he infects the mind and harms the intellect, pouring out mythic fabrications composed from the stomach, and transforming into various forms, he leads the soul away with diverse disguises.

Since he is many-faced, constantly changing in shapes, he even pretends to ascend and call out from the earth, no less than before; then, rewarding the services on both sides with forms, he seems to present one person ascending to the caller, while he himself runs around here and there changing ideas, so that he may prove by deeds and words that he is a liar.

Indeed, the very faces of the dead are represented as being raised up, as it is possible to suppose from such a drama, bringing in bright faces and dark phantoms as if they were fashioned, and presenting heavy things and the scent of death as if they had been summoned from Hades, and as if they had been raised from chains for a little while, and then again passing from here to there. For he strikes the soul with terrors through these sights, fashioning pale forms, or an eye bulging or sunken, as if they were promising to breathe in the dead and then breathe out again; for the forger is accustomed to pretend by conforming to these terrible things.

But there are times when he himself changes into many forms, and there are times when he has made use of fellow demons of his own kind; he neither transfers souls from Hades, nor the spirits of the righteous, nor the angelic natures, but on the contrary, it happened to be for the purpose of playing tricks before the angels, and it was given to the best of men so that they might be struck down, being prone to fall, bursting into the earth. But this one, being driven down by a violent current from the highest, has retreated to lower things; for to God the Pantokrator alone and to the most Divine Child belongs the power to raise souls from Hades and to have them present as choirs of angels in order, which is a special distinction belonging to the Divine nature.