Next, miracles have happened everywhere, or in many places, as even [Celsus] on this repeatedly cites Asklepios being a benefactor and foretelling the future to whole cities that were dedicated to him, including Trikka, Epidauros, Kos and Pergamon. And also [he cites] Aristeas of Prokonnesos, and some Klazomenaian, and Kleomedes of Astypalaia. […]
And not missing any opportunity to disparage and mock us, this aggressive bum Celsus in his treatise against us names the Dioskouroi, Herakles, Asklepios and Dionysos, whom the Greeks have believed to have become gods from men. […]
Now let us see what Celsus says next, when he presents marvels from histories, and they for themselves seem untrustworthy, but by himself they are not distrusted, at least not according to his own words. And first of all regarding Aristeas of Prokonnesos, of whom he speaks as follows:
‘Then, regarding Aristeas of Prokonnesos disappearing from among men in a divine manner, and appearing again corporeally, and at many later times visiting many places and delivering marvelous messages, and of Apollo commanding the Metapontines to give Aristeas a place among the gods: still no one considers him a god.’
He seems to have taken this story from Pindar and Herodotos. But it suffices for now to cite the statement of Herodotos from the fourth book of his histories, which goes as follows:
[Here Origen quotes verbatim the stories from Herodotos citing oral tradition on Aristeas’ journey and on Aristeas flying to Metapontion 240 years after the Arimaspeia.]
It must be said against Celsus’ account of Aristeas that if he had cited it as [another’s] account, and had not shown approval by admitting it as truth, we would respond to his story differently. But since he says Aristeas disappeared in a divine manner, and appeared again corporeally, and visited many places and delivered marvelous messages, and moreover that there was an oracle of Apollo commanding the Metapontines to give Aristeas a place among the gods, in such a way that he is presenting from himself with his full agreement, this response is directed at him.
And how, while regarding as entirely fictitious the marvels written by the disciples of Jesus about him, and finding fault with those who trust in them, do you regard these [claims about Aristeas] neither as fairy tales nor as fictions? And how, while accusing others of trusting irrationally in the marvels of Jesus, can you show that you have trusted so much, while you bring no evidence of them or logical reasoning about it? Or do Herodotos and Pindar appear to you to speak the truth, whereas those who are prepared to die for the teachings of Jesus, and have been persuaded by them to leave behind their writings one after another, you think struggle so much for the sake of fictions, fables and fairy tales, so they can live for those precariously and die violently? So then put yourself in the middle, between what is written about Aristeas and what is reported about Jesus, and see, from the resulting benefits for the correction of ethics and reverence to the god of everything, whether we can say that what is reported about Jesus was not without divine aid, and not so for that about Aristeas of Prokonnesos.
For to what end did providence engage itself in the marvels around Aristeas, and how did such great deeds aid the human race, you cannot answer. […] And of what sort is Apollo, who commanded the Metapontines to give Aristeas a place among the gods? And to what end does he do this, and what kind of benefit would there be for the Metapontines from the honor towards god of their leaders, if they reckoned as a god one whom a little earlier was a man? But the recommendations regarding Aristeas of Apollo, who according to us is a daimon who won the honor of libations and fumes, appear to you to be worthy of mention. […]
So according to Celsus, Apollo wished the Metapontines to give Aristeas a place among the gods. But then the Metapontines considered the evidence that Aristeas was a man, and probably not an earnest one, to be stronger than that of the oracle that he was a god or worthy of divine honors, and because of that they did not want to obey Apollo, and so no one considered Aristeas a god. […]
And if that is so, why is it not reasonable to assume that with Jesus, who was able to accomplish so much, no mere happenstance divinity was in him, but not so with others – neither with Aristeas the Prokonnesian, even though Apollo wanted to give him a place among the gods, nor with the others Celsus enumerates, [including] when he says that no one considers to be a god Abaris the Hyperborean, who had such power that he was carried by an arrow? For to what end did the divinity who favored this Hyperborean Abaris with the ability to be carried by an arrow give him such a great gift? How did it benefit the human race? Or did [Abaris] himself gain something being carried by an arrow? And that would be conceding that these are not entirely fictions, but occurred with the cooperation of some daimon. […]
And next among these Celsus also speaks about the Klazomenaian, adding to the account his own comment:
‘No surely, do they not say that his soul often abandoned his body and traveled around out-of-body? Yet neither have people considered him to be a god.’
In answer to that, we reply that probably some rogue daimones arranged for such things to be written (for I do not believe they arranged for them to happen), so that the prophesying about Jesus and the sayings by him would either be misrepresented as similar to fictions, or in no way would exceed others, so that nothing would completely awe.
Author: Origen of Alexandria
Title of Work: Against Celsus
Location in Work: 3.3, 3.24, 3.26-29, 3.31-32
Date of Work: c. 248 CE
Original Language: Greek (Attic)
Original Text:
Ἴδωμεν δὲ καὶ ἃ μετὰ ταῦτα λέγει ὁ Κέλσος, παρατιθέμενος ἀπὸ ἱστοριῶν παράδοξα καὶ καθ’ αὑτὰ μὲν ἀπίστοις ἐοικότα, ὑπ’ αὐτοῦ δὲ οὐκ ἀπιστούμενα ὅσον γε ἐπὶ τῇ λέξει αὐτοῦ. καὶ πρῶτόν γε τὰ περὶ τὸν Προκοννήσιον Ἀριστέαν, περὶ οὗ ταῦτά φησιν·
“Εἶτ’ Ἀριστέαν μὲν τὸν Προκοννήσιον ἀφανισθέντα τε οὕτως δαιμονίως ἐξ ἀνθρώπων καὶ αὖθις ἐναργῶς φανέντα καὶ πολλοῖς ὕστερον χρόνοις πολλαχοῦ τῆς οἰκουμένης ἐπιδημήσαντα καὶ θαυμαστὰ ἀγγείλαντα, καὶ τοῦ Ἀπόλλωνος ἐπισκήψαντος Μεταποντίνοις ἐν θεῶν μοίρᾳ νέμειν τὸν Ἀριστέαν, τοῦτον οὐδεὶς ἔτι νομίζει θεόν.”
Ἔοικε δ’ εἰληφέναι τὴν ἱστορίαν ἀπὸ Πινδάρου καὶ Ἡροδότου. ἀρκεῖ δὲ νῦν τὴν Ἡροδότου παραθέσθαι λέξιν ἀπὸ τῆς τετάρτης τῶν ἱστοριῶν οὕτως περὶ αὐτοῦ ἔχουσαν·
Λεκτέον δὴ πρὸς τὴν περὶ τοῦ Ἀριστέου ἱστορίαν ὅτι, εἰ μὲν ὁ Κέλσος ὡς ἱστορίαν αὐτὴν ἐξετίθετο, μὴ καὶ τὴν ἑαυτοῦ συγκατάθεσιν ἐμφαίνων παραδεξαμένου αὐτὴν ὡς ἀληθῆ, ἄλλως ἂν πρὸς τὸν λόγον αὐτοῦ ἀπηντήσαμεν· ἐπεὶ δὲ δαιμονίως αὐτὸν ἠφανίσθαι, ἐναργῶς δ’ αὖθις φανῆναι καὶ πολλαχοὺ τῆς οἰκουμένης ἐπιδεδημηκέναι φησὶ καὶ θαυμαστὰ ἠγγελκέναι, ἔτι δὲ καὶ χρησμὸν τοὺ Ἀπόλλωνος, ἐπισκήψαντος Μεταποντίνοις ἐν θεῶν μοίρᾳ νέμειν τὸν Ἀριστέαν, ὡς ἀφ’ ἑαυτοῦ καὶ συγκατατιθέμενος ἐκτίθεται, λόγον τὸν πρὸς αὐτόν.
Καὶ πῶς ὅλως γε πλάσματα ὑπολαμβάνων τὰ ὑπο τῶν Ἰησοῦ μαθητῶν παράδοξα περὶ αὐτοῦ ἀναγεγραμμένα καὶ μεμφόμενος τοῖς πιστεύουσιν αὐτοῖς, ταῦτα οὔ τερατείαν οὔτε πλάσματα εἶναι νομίζεις; πῶς δὲ καὶ ὁ ἄλλοις ἐγκαλῶν ὡς ἀλόγως πιστεύουσι τοῖς περὶ τοῦ Ἰησοῦ παραδόξοις σὺ τοσούτοις ἐμφαίνῃ πεπιστευκέναι, οὐδεμίαν ἀπόδειξιν περὶ αὐτῶν ἢ κατασκευὴν περὶ τοῦ αὐτὰ γεγονέναι φέρων; ἢ Ἡρόδοτος μὲν καὶ Πίνδαρος ἀψευδεῖν παρὰ σοὶ νομίζονται, οἱ δ’ ἀποθνῄσκειν μελετήσαντες ὑπὲρ τῶν Ἰησοῦ μαθημάτων καὶ τοιαῦτα περὶ ὧν ἐπείσθησαν τοῖς ἑξῆς καταλιπόντες γράμματα, περι πλασμάτων, ὡς οἴει, καὶ μύθων καὶ τερατειῶν τοσοῦτον ἀγωνίζονται, ὡς καὶ ζῆν περιστατικῶς δι’ αὐτὰ καὶ ἀποθνῄσκειν βιαίως; μέσον τοίνυν σαυτὸν στήσας τῶν τε περὶ τοῦ Ἀριστέου γεγραμμένων και τῶν περι τοῦ Ἰησου ἱστορουμένων, ἴδε εἰ μὴ ἐκ τοῦ ἀποβάντος τῶν ὠφελουμένων εἰς ἠθῶν ἐπανόρθωσιν καὶ εὐλάβειαν τὴν πρὸς τὸν ἐπὶ πᾶσι θεὸν ἔστιν εἰπεῖν ὅτι πιστευτέον μὲν ὡς οὐκ ἀθεεὶ γενομένοις τοῖς περὶ Ἰησοῦ ἱστορουμένοις, οὐχὶ δὲ τοῖς περὶ τοῦ Προκοννησίου Ἀριστέου.
Τί μὲν γὰρ βουλομένη ἡ πρόνοια τὰ περὶ τὸν Ἀριστέαν παράδοξα ἐπραγματεύετο, καὶ τί ὠφελῆσαι τὸ τῶν ἀνθρώπων γένος βουλομένη τὰ τηλικαῦτα, ὡς οἴει, έπεδείκνυτο, οὐκ ἔχεις λέγειν. [...] ποταπὸς δὲ καὶ ὁ Ἀπόλλων, ἐπισκήπτων Μεταποντίνοις ἐν θεῶν μοίρᾳ νέμειν τον Ἀριστέαν; καὶ τί βουλόμενος τοῦτο ποιεῖ, ποίαν τε ὠφέλειαν ἐκ της ὡς πρὸς θεὸν τιμῆς οἰκονομῶν τοῖς Μεταποντίνοις γενέσθαι, εἰ τὸν πρὸ ὀλίγου ἄνθρωπον νῦν θεὸν λογίζοιντο; ἀλλ’ Ἀπόλλωνος μέν, τοῦ καθ’ ἡμᾶς δαίμονος λαχόντος γέρας λοιβῆς τε κνίσσης τε, αἱ περὶ τοῦ Ἀριστέου συστάσεις ἀξιόλογοί σοι φαίνονται εἶναι, [...]
Ὁ μὲν οὖν κατὰ τὸν Κέλσον Ἀπόλλων βούλεται τοὺς Μεταποντίνους ἐν θεῶν μοίρᾳ νέμειν τον Ἀριστέαν. Ἐπεὶ δὲ οἱ Μεταποντῖνοι τὴν περὶ τοὺ Ἀριστέου ἀνθρώπου καὶ τάχα οὐ σπουδαίου ἐνάργειαν κρείττονα ἐνόμιζον εἶναι τοῦ περὶ αὐτοῦ χρησμοῦ ὡς θεοῦ ἢ θείων τιμῶν ἀξίου, διὰ τοῦτο οὐκ ἐβούλοντο πείθεσθαι τῷ Ἀπόλλωνι, και οὕτως τὸν Ἀριστέαν οὐδεὶς νομίζει θεόν. [...]
Εἰ δὲ ταῦθ’ οὕτως ἔχει, πῶς οὐκ εὔλογον μὲν νομίζειν περὶ τοῦ Ἰησοῦ, τοσαῦτα συστῆσαι δεδυνημένου, ὅτι οὐχ ἡ τυχοῦσα θειότης ἦν ἐν αὐτῷ, οὐκέτι δὲ οὔτε ἐν τῷ Προκοννησίῳ Ἀριστέᾳ, κἂν ὁ Ἀπόλλων αὐτὸν βούληται ἐν θεῶν μοίρᾳ νέμειν, οὔτ’ ἐν οἷς ἐξαριθμεῖται ὁ Κέλσος λέγων ὅτι οὐδεὶς νομίζει θεὸν Ἄβαριν τον Ὑπερβόρειον, ὃς δύναμιν εἶχε τοσήνδε, ὥστε ὀϊστῷ συμφέρεσθαι; τί γὰρ βουλομένη ἡ χαρισαμένη θειότης τῷ Ὑπερβορείῳ Ἀβάριδι ὀϊστῷ συμφέρεσθαι τὸ τηλικοῦτον αὐτῷ ἐδωρεῖτο; ἵνα τί ὠφεληθῇ τὸ τῶν ἀνθρώπων γένος; ἢ αὐτὸς ἐκεῖνος τί ὤνατο ὀϊστῷ συμφέρεσθαι; ἵνα καὶ συγχωρηθῇ ταῦτα μηδαμῶς εἶναι πλάσματα, ἀλλὰ κατά τινα δαιμονίου συνεργίαν γεγονέναι. [...]
Ἐπεὶ δὲ μετὰ ταῦτα καὶ περὶ τοῦ Κλαζομενίου ὁ Κέλσος εἶπε προσθεὶς ἐπὶ τῆς κατ’ αὐτὸν ἱστορίας· Μῶν οὐ τοῦτό φασιν, ὡς ἄρα ἡ ψυχὴ αὐτοῦ πολλάκις ἀπολιποῦσα τὸ σῶμα περιεπόλει ἀσώματος; καὶ οὐδὲ τοῦτον ἐνόμισαν θεὸν οἱ ἄνθρωποι· καὶ πρὸς τοῦτο φήσομεν ὅτι τάχα πονηροί τινες δαίμονες τοιαῦτα ᾠκονόμησαν ἀναγραφῆναι (οὐ γὰρ πιστεύω ὅτι καὶ γενέσθαι ᾠκονόμησαν), ἵνα τὰ προφητευθέντα περὶ τοῦ Ἰησοῦ καὶ τὰ λεχθέντα ὑπ’ αὐτοῦ ἤτοι ὡς πλάσματα ὅμοια ἐκείνοις διαβάλληται, ἤ ὡς οὐδεν πλεῖον ἑτέρων ἔχοντα μὴ πάνυ θαυμάζηται.
Reference Edition: Marcovich, Contra Celsum
Source of Date of Work: Marcovich, Contra Celsum, ix
Commentary:
Celsus is thought to have written his treatise denouncing Christianity from a Middle Platonist and religiously conservative pagan position at around the time of a renewal of persecutions from 177 CE. Remarks by Origen (1.8, 1.68) and Lucian (21, 25, 43, 61) suggest this Celsus was likely the same person who wrote other works from an Epicurean position, including a denunciation of magicians (Hoffmann, Celsus, 29-33; Chadwick, Contra Celsum, xxiv-xxix).
In the section of the anti-Christian treatise that Origen is responding to here, Celsus compared the Christian story of Jesus to Greek stories that were in some way similar. These included stories of sons of gods who lived as men and then became gods (Asklepios, the Dioskouroi, Herakles and Dionysos), apparently to paint Christians’ disbelief in them as inconsistent, and stories of men who traveled or vanished supernaturally and were honored or worshiped as heroes (Aristeas, Abaris, Kleomedes and Hermotimos, referred to as ‘the Klazomenaian’). Celsus also compared the great number of pagans who had reported seeing Asklepios and the ‘many’ reported appearances of Aristeas to the small circle of Christians who claimed to have seen Jesus after his death.
The excerpt from Celsus about Aristeas is the only text that claims Aristeas appeared and delivered messages to many places. This claim is obviously mainly derived from Herodotos’ story of Aristeas flying to Metapontion 240 years after the Arimaspeia and telling its people to set up a sanctuary to Apollo and himself, and Celsus might also have been aware of Apollonios the paradoxographer’s story of Aristeas appearing in Sicily.
Origen’s arguments must be read with caution as a large portion are with a straw man. He exaggerates’ Celsus’ statement about Apollo’s command to the Metapontines, which refers to giving Aristeas’ statue a place in Apollo’s sanctuary and honoring him as a kind of hero, not to regarding Aristeas as a god. Origen does something similar with Abaris, and he seems to, very inaccurately, regard Celsus and pagans generally as having no concern for public morals. Origen also probably portrays Celsus as more credulous towards pagan accounts of miracles than he really was. Celsus’ position may have been closer to that of Maximus of Tyre, another Middle Platonist of the same period who interpreted accounts of Aristeas’ extracorporeal travel as contrived allegory that allude to the revelations that come to the good and wise.
Abaris was a legendary figure associated with Hyperborea, Apollo and cult practices in Athens, who was also incorporated into Pythagorean legends. He was mentioned together with Aristeas by Iamblichos, who also told the story of Abaris flying on an arrow, and by Apollonius the paradoxographer and Clement of Alexandria. Another excerpt from Iamblichos also tells the story of Abaris flying on an arrow (which in earlier stories Abaris carried) and of Abaris becoming Pythagoreas’ disciple.
Hermotimos of Klazomenai was known best for two legends about him: his soul traveled while he lay cataleptic, and he was a previous incarnation of Pythagoras. He was also mentioned together with Aristeas in texts by Pliny the Elder, Apollonios the paradoxographer and Proklos of Lykia, and was also mentioned by Plutarch in a story of a near-death vision of the transmigration of souls. Diogenes of Laertios (8.1.4-5) gives the fullest account of Pythagoras’ previous incarnations. In a much earlier mention by Aristotle (Metaphysics, 984b), Hermotimos was a philosopher predating Anaxagoras, who lived in the 5th century BCE.
Kleomedes of Astypalaia was a champion boxer who was disqualified for a foul, went mad and mass-slaughtered schoolchildren, and while being hunted vanished into thin air (Pausanias, 6.9.6-8).
Origen’s partial crediting of Pindar for Celsus’ account of Aristeas appears to have been part of a broader tradition that had developed of attributing stories about Aristeas jointly to Pindar and Herodotos. The later Neo-Platonist writer Aineias of Gaza (Theophrastos, 63-64) gave Pindar and Herodotos joint credit for a paraphrased version of Herodotos’ story of Aristeas disappearing from Prokonnesos and reappearing in Kyzikos. Perhaps Origen and Aineias were both influenced by some intermediate writer who joined Herodotos’ stories about Aristeas with a story Pindar told about Perseus’ journey to Hyperborea (to come in this collection) and vaguely attributed the combined set of stories to both Herodotos and Pindar. There might also have been a text attributed to Pindar circulating in the Roman imperial period containing information about Aristeas and Abaris. The lexicographer Harpokration (s.v. Abaris) attributed to Pindar information that Abaris lived at the same time as Kroisos of Lydia.
Concordance: EGEP Aristeas T11a; EGF Aristeas T9; PEG Aristeas T7; Bolton, Aristeas T&F 17