Search

The aim of this paper is to continue the discussion begun at the end of the 19th century comparing the reliability of both the 'indirect tradition' of Contra Celsum (represented by the Philocalia) and the 'direct tradition' (preserved only in the manuscript Vaticanus graecus 386 = A). In the first part of this paper, important conclusions resulting from the above discussion are recalled. Since some readings of Manuscript A are still considered problematic to this day, the second part of this paper deals with the question of whether the reliability of the 'indirect tradition' text has been underestimated in specific cases. Based on recent research on the Alethes Logos and a new analysis of Origen' s reply to Celsus' polemic, it is shown that in three selected fragments (fr. I 9, fr. VI 3 and fr. VI 1) the original words used by Celsus are to be found in the Philocalia instead of Manuscript A, i.e. the source that the modern editors of Contra Celsum followed. In part three of this paper it is shown that by preferring the words of the Philocalia for fr. VI 1, a door opens for a reinterpretation of the larger context of the passage for both the Alethes Logos as well as Contra Celsum. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]