Criticism of Origene's Interpretation

A 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.