The Demon and the Narrator's Voice

He 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 [...]