Celsus Used Against Marcion?

Discussion about the New Testament, apocrypha, gnostics, church fathers, Christian origins, historical Jesus or otherwise, etc.
Secret Alias
Posts: 18362
Joined: Sun Apr 19, 2015 8:47 am

Re: Celsus Used Against Marcion?

Post by Secret Alias »

Henry Chadwick's critically-acclaimed 1953 translation of Origen's Contra Celsum not only included an informative introduction and valuable footnotes, but it also inspired the ground-breaking study by Carl Andresen, Logos und Nomos.66 The fresh contribution of Andresen was to juxtapose the works of Celsus and Justin, recognize how their work was similarly informed by middle Platonism, and draw upon that philosophical background to gain nuances into both of these important second century writers. His investigation brought him to the conclusion that in large measure Celsus had written Alethes Logos as a direct response to the arguments forged byJustin. Parts of this volume read like an exegesis of Celsus' True Doctrine interpreted through the lens of middle-Platonism. Andresen summarized the arguments of Celsus under four main points. As the first of these, consisting of Books I.28–II.79, he recognized Celsus' contrary stance against the Christian contention thatJesus was a son of God; he insisted that Jesus was only a man (nur ein Mensch). Second, recapitulating the content of Books III–IV, Andresen took note of Celsus' charge that Christianity was, in fact, the product of a split with Judaism and constituted a new religion, one that lacked an adequate foundation ( “...das Christentum keine 'der Sache angemessene Grundlage' hat.”). Here Celsus articulated his great disfavor with the practice of Christian missionaries (Missionspraxis) in propagating features of an oriental doctrine that stood in sharp relief to the teachings of the ancient and timeless truths (alte Logos) which Celsus believed lay at the foundation of all human civilization. This led to the third Hauptteil, featured in Books V.2–VII.61, in which Celsus turned his attention to the dogma—the Nomos of Andresen's title—of the new religion. Christianity appeared to Celsus as a perversion (Abart), Andresen stated on the basis that although Christians claimed to be monotheists, in practice, they worshiped two deities. It was in his analysis of this section that Andresen summarized Celsus' appraisal of the new religion as a world without reason (Welt ohne Logos) and a world without dogma (Welt ohne Nomos). Celsus argued that Christians behaved out of a misunderstanding of Greek wisdom. Christians lacked Logos and Nomos because they had rejected the perennial truths of the ancients. Finally, Books VII.62–VIII.75 constituted the fourth and final section of the work, in which Celsus confronted believers for rejecting their duty to tradition (Bilderdienst) and the popular cult (Dämonenkult).

Andresen recognized that Celsus shared much in the way of world view with the Christian apologist Justin. Both, he believed, embraced a common philosophical underpinning, which he identified as middle Platonism. Both shared an understanding of such concepts as Logos and Nomos. Andresen hypothesized that Celsus was not so much attempting to construct a vindictive polemic against Christians, as he was seeking to preserve the cherished values of his Hellenistic ancestors (das griechische “Vätergesetz”). https://www.google.com/search?tbm=bks&h ... +%28das%22
“Finally, from so little sleeping and so much reading, his brain dried up and he went completely out of his mind.”
― Miguel de Cervantes Saavedra, Don Quixote
Secret Alias
Posts: 18362
Joined: Sun Apr 19, 2015 8:47 am

Re: Celsus Used Against Marcion?

Post by Secret Alias »

Working off Elysee Pelaguad's 19th century suggestion that Celsus in The True Logos (which has been reconstructed from Origen's Against Celsus) was directly responding to Justin's Apologies, Andresen gave this obscure theory prominence by championing it as a central theme in his groundbreaking work, Logos und Nomos.53 Andresen even goes on to argue that if one fails to supply Justin's thought as a backdrop to that of Celsus' thought, the project of the infamous pagan critic of early Christianity cannot be properly understood.54 Therefore the misgivings that Celsus declared in a general sense against Christianity in True Logos, Andresen projects specifically onto Justin.55 In particular this includes Celsus' displeasure with a stream of Christian thought he had encountered, which, in his estimation, violently fragmented Greek culture by selectively accepting elements of its philosophy but then rejected the work of the poets altogether.56 By identifying Justin as the source responsible for this unnatural bifurcation of the ancient tradition that Celsus portrayed in his diatribe, Andresen has developed a popular narrative that has informed not only Chadwick but a whole host of contemporary scholars who all argue that although Justin could be somewhat accepting of Greek philosophy, the same of which could not be said regarding his approach towards Greek mythology.57 https://books.google.com/books?id=EytTA ... 22&f=false
“Finally, from so little sleeping and so much reading, his brain dried up and he went completely out of his mind.”
― Miguel de Cervantes Saavedra, Don Quixote
Secret Alias
Posts: 18362
Joined: Sun Apr 19, 2015 8:47 am

Re: Celsus Used Against Marcion?

Post by Secret Alias »

I strongly suspect that 'Justin Martyr' was a fake name no less than 'Luke' and others associated with Irenaeus. It would appear to me at least that it is possible that the Controversy of Jason and Papiscus is somehow an earlier version of the Dialogue of Justin and Papias:

Dialogue of Jason and Papiscus


The Dialogue of Jason and Papiscus is a lost early Christian text in Greek describing the dialogue of a converted Jew, Jason, and an Alexandrian Jew, Papiscus. The text is first mentioned, critically, in the True Account of the anti-Christian writer Celsus (c. 178 CE), and therefore would have been contemporary with the surviving, and much more famous, Dialogue between the convert from paganism Justin Martyr and Trypho the Jew.

Sources
The main source is Origen in his Against Celsus where he criticises Celsus' selective use of the text.[1]

he has chosen one that is worthless, which although it could be of some help to the simple-minded multitude in respect of their faith, certainly could not impress the more intelligent, saying: "I know a work of this sort a Controversy between one Papiscus and Jason..." ... Nevertheless, I could wish that everyone who hears Celsus' clever rhetoric asserting that the book entitled 'A Controversy between Jason and Papiscus about Christ' deserves not laughter but hatred, were to take the little book into his hands and have the patience and endurance to give attention to its contents. .... In it a Christian is described as disputing with a Jew from the Jewish scriptures and as showing that the prophecies about the Messiah fit Jesus; and the reply with which the other man opposes the argument is at least neither vulgar nor unsuitable to the character of a Jew. (Contra Celsum 4:52)[2]

Origen's lukewarm defence of the text, his mention of the vigorous reply of Papiscus, and the Dialogue's use by Celsus, may explain the subsequent non-survival of the text. The loss of the document removes a potentially significant record of a 2nd-century Jewish Christian's arguments before later theological developments in the Christian church.

Jerome mentions the Dialogue twice. In Commentary on Galatians, in connection with he who is hanged on a tree is accursed of God (Commentary on Galatians, 2.3.13) and the Dialogue mis-citing Genesis 1:1 as "In the Son," (instead of "In the Beginning"), "God created the heaven and the earth." (Questions in Genesis, 2.507).

"I Remember in the Dispute between Jason and Papiscus, which is composed in Greek, to have found it written: `The execration of God is he that is hanged.'" (Commentary on Galatians 3:13)
"In the beginning God made the heaven and the earth. The majority believe, as it is affirmed also in the Dispute between Jason and Papiscus, and as Tertullian in his book Against Praxeas contends, and as Hilarius too, in his exposition of one of the Psalms, declares, that in the Hebrew it is: `In the Son, God made the heaven and the earth.' But that this is false, the nature of the case itself proves." (Questions in Genesis)[3]
The third source is a letter (mistakenly included in the works of Cyprian) to a certain "Bishop Vigilius" (not Vigilius of Thapsus(de) ) describing a translation from Greek to Latin by an otherwise unknown Celsus, (given the sobriquet Celsus Africanus by scholars), which also describes the Dialogue, including the information that Jason himself was a convert from Judaism, and the ending - that Papiscus is convinced and asks for baptism.[4] [5]

A recent discovery in St. Catherine's monastery at Mount Sinai provides more text quoted from the Dialogue.[6]

Dating and authorship
Lahey (2007) dates the Dialogue to c. 140 and considers a date of c. 160 unlikely since the Dialogue is believed to be a source or model for the Dialogue with Trypho, which is itself dated c. 160.[7]

Maximus the Confessor (7th century, or possibly 6th century if mainly the work of John of Scythopolis as suggested by Hans Urs von Balthasar[8] ), notes that Clement of Alexandria, in the (now lost) sixth book of his Hypotyposes ascribes the Dialogue to Luke the Evangelist, though Maximus himself ascribes the authorship to Ariston of Pella, in Latin Aristo Pellaeus, an author whom Eusebius mentions in connection with emperor Hadrian and Simon bar Kokhba.[9] No further trace of an attribution to Luke or Ariston is extant. Since the Dialogue was known to Celsus, Origen, Jerome and the later Latin translator "Celsus Africanus," none of whom names an author, the testimony of Maximus is now disregarded.[10]

Scholarship
F. C. Conybeare proposed the hypothesis (1898[11] ) that two later traditions, the Dialogue of Athanasius and Zacchaeus (Greek, 4th century) and the Dialogue of Timothy and Aquila (Greek, 6th century), were based on an earlier text, and identified that text as the Dialogue of Jason and Papiscus.[12] His thesis was not widely accepted.[13]

References
Charles Thomas Cruttwell, A Literary History of Early Christianity: The apostolic fathers 1893 "Celsus, who read it, dismisses it with the contemptuous remark "that it is worthy not so much of laughter as of pity and indignation." 3 Origen does not offer a very warm defence of the writer, but he deprecates Celsus' criticism..."
Translation: Contra Celsum Henry Chadwick 1965 2nd ed. 1980 ISBN 0-521-29576-9
Translation: Sir James Donaldson Ante-Nicene Christian Library - The Works of Lactantius (Vol.2) with the Testaments of the Twelve Patriarchs 1871 Page 139
Arthur Lukyn Williams, Adversus Judaeos. A Bird's-Eye View of Christian Apologiae until the Renaissance, Cambridge, Cambridge University Press, 1935 p428 "so called to distinguish him from his earlier namesake, translated the Dialogue into Latin, and tells us that Jason was a Hebrew Christian and Papiscus an Alexandrian Jew, and that Papiscus was won over by Jason and was baptised."
John Allen Giles The writings of the early Christians of the second century 1857 Page 211 "That noble, memorable and glorious result of the discussion between Jason, a Hebrew Christian, and Papiscus, an Alexandrian Jew, comes into my mind; how the obstinate hardness of the Jewish heart was softened by Hebrew admonition and gentle chiding; and the teaching of Jason, on the giving of the Holy Ghost, was victorious in the heart of Papiscus. Papiscus, thereby brought to a knowledge of the truth, and fashioned to the fear of the Lord through the mercy of the Lord Himself, both believed in Jesus Christ the Son of God, and entreated Jason that he might receive the sign."
François Bovon and John M. Duffy, "A New Greek Fragment of Ariston of Pella's Dialogue of Jason and Papiscus, Harvard Theological Review 105.4 October 2012, pp 457-465.
Lawrence Lahey. Evidence for Jewish Believers in Christian-Jewish Dialogues through the Sixth Century. in Jewish Believers in Jesus: The Early Centuries (9780801047688): eds. Oskar Skarsaune and Reidar Hvalvik 2007 pp. 585-591.
Hans Urs von Balthasar Das Scholienwerk des Johannes von Scythopolis, in Scholastik 15 (1940): 16-38, revised in Kosmische Liturgie 1961, translated 2003. Per Brian E. Daley Cambridge Companion to Hans Urs von Balthasar p206.
Maximus, Scholia on The Mystical Theology, ascribed to Dionysius the Areopagite, Chapter 1 "I have found this expression Seven heavens also in the Dispute between Papiscus and Jason, written by Aristo of Pella, which Clement of Alexandria, in the sixth book of the Outlines,3 says was composed by Saint Luke."
Fergus Millar, Emil Schürer, Geza Vermes, The History of the Jewish People in the Age of Jesus Christ 1973 p38 "Since the Dialogue was known to Celsus, Origen, Jerome and the Latin translator as being anonymous (for none of them names the author), it is very questionable whether the testimony of Maximus Confessor describing Ariston as the author deserves any credit"
F. C. Conybeare The Dialogues of Athanasius and Zacchaeus and of Timothy and Aquila, Oxford. 1898. 45. Ibid.. p. xxxiv.
Sébastien Morlet La "démonstration évangélique" d'Eusèbe de Césarée 2009 "Dans le même temps, FC Conybeare se fit lui aussi le défenseur de l'hypothèse «Jason et Papiscus ». En 1898, il suggéra que le Dialogue de Timothée et Aquila et le Dialogue d'Athanase et Zacchée étaient deux recensions différentes d'un "
William Varner Ancient Jewish-Christian dialogues: Athanasius and Zacchaeus, Simon and Theophilus, Timothy and Aquila: introductions, texts, and translations E. Mellen Press, 2004 "This work provides the texts and translations of three ancient Jewish-Christian dialogues: The Dialogue of Athanasius and Zacchaeus (Greek, 4th c.); The Dialogue of Simon and Theophilus (Latin, 5th c.); and The Dialogue of Timothy and Aquila (Greek, 6th c.). This is the first published translation of each of these texts. An introduction discusses the context of these dialogues in the "Contra Judaeos" literature of the early church and also explores the question of whether or not they"
“Finally, from so little sleeping and so much reading, his brain dried up and he went completely out of his mind.”
― Miguel de Cervantes Saavedra, Don Quixote
Secret Alias
Posts: 18362
Joined: Sun Apr 19, 2015 8:47 am

Re: Celsus Used Against Marcion?

Post by Secret Alias »

Indeed there is a whole literature apparently which takes for granted that Jason and Papiscus is an older version of Justin and Trypho and part of a long chain or reusing and modifying the original text over time - https://books.google.com/books?id=QhFND ... 22&f=false

Apparently Skarsaune refers to Nautin as the source of the theory but there are others - https://books.google.com/books?id=66Ssr ... on&f=false

It would appear to me that a case can be made as follows:

1. Jason and Papiscus was very influential. Skarsaune speculates that Marcion knew it. Celsus knew it. Irenaeus knew it. Origen knew it.
2. perhaps because of Celsus Jason and Papiscus fades and the arguments of the text become repackaged and recontextualized in Justin, Irenaeus and Tertullian. It is noteworthy that for instance Jerome cites versions of Against Praxeas that feature 'in his son God created heaven and earth' - an argument first articulated in Jason and Papiscus. It is no longer in Against Praxeas.
3. in this scenario it's not quite true that Celsus knew Justin but rather Jason and Papiscus which was an earlier and more authentic version of Justin's known works.
4. the changes that were made to Jason and Papiscus and other possible sources were made to improve the silliness of Jason and Papiscus. One of those changes was certainly a stronger monarchian sensibility. Note the 'in his Son, God created ...' confirms Celsus's arguments about Christianity being a religion of two powers. This stream of thought disappears completely from Justin, Irenaeus and Tertullian.
“Finally, from so little sleeping and so much reading, his brain dried up and he went completely out of his mind.”
― Miguel de Cervantes Saavedra, Don Quixote
User avatar
Joseph D. L.
Posts: 1405
Joined: Sat Nov 11, 2017 2:10 am

Re: Celsus Used Against Marcion?

Post by Joseph D. L. »

I have pondered whether the tradition of Marcion having a disciple named Lucan is also the same as Luke/Aristo of Pella writing the Dialogue of Jason and Papiscus. Maximos also says that Aristo was the secretary of Mark of Jerusalem, and Justin's Dialogue ends with him dedicated his book to a Marcus Pompeius. This also accounts for the relationship between "Marcion" and the Gospel of Luke: a confusing of traditions, coupled with an agenda to smear Marcion and his status as an Apostolic Father. Aristo becomes Ariston the Elder to Papias.
Secret Alias
Posts: 18362
Joined: Sun Apr 19, 2015 8:47 am

Re: Celsus Used Against Marcion?

Post by Secret Alias »

Παπίσκος is an otherwise unattested Jewish name https://books.google.com/books?id=3zapQ ... 82&f=false which is otherwise very rare https://www.trismegistos.org/graphs/nam ... am_id=4867 https://www.trismegistos.org/ref/ref_li ... ar_id=3475

Curious fact:
Παπεισκος, (with the diphthong), given in the Codex Claromontanus of Irenseus (Clarke, p. 48): which in numerals = 80 +1 +80+5+10+200 + 20+70+. 200) = 666.—I give this for its curiosity, not correctness
https://books.google.com/books?id=FAlZA ... %82%22+%22+(%CE%BB%CE%B1%CF%84%CF%8A%CE%BD%CE%BF%CF%82%22&source=bl&ots=Af9L3wT1fv&sig=nD9pZY6C9VExVEHmp6UARzWjz_U&hl=en&sa=X&ved=0ahUKEwjP_KLtsdzbAhWHHDQIHZ6KCZYQ6AEIKzAA#v=onepage&q=%22%20%CE%BA%CE%B1%CE%90%20%CE%BB%CE%B1%CF%84%CE%B5%CF%8A%CE%BD%CE%BF%CF%82%22%20%22%20(%CE%BB%CE%B1%CF%84%CF%8A%CE%BD%CE%BF%CF%82%22&f=false

So in some manuscripts of Irenaeus Papiscos is identified as one candidate for explaining 666.

https://books.google.com/books?id=1dNYA ... 82&f=false
“Finally, from so little sleeping and so much reading, his brain dried up and he went completely out of his mind.”
― Miguel de Cervantes Saavedra, Don Quixote
Secret Alias
Posts: 18362
Joined: Sun Apr 19, 2015 8:47 am

Re: Celsus Used Against Marcion?

Post by Secret Alias »

Curious that -ίσκος is a diminutive suffix https://en.wiktionary.org/wiki/-%CE%AF% ... E%BF%CF%82

so Παπίσκος = Παπ + ίσκος hmmm

Interesting that παππίας , ου, ὁ, Dim. of πάππας,
A.dear little papa, a term of endearment, Ar.V.297, Pax128, Ephipp.21.

Could they have originally been equivalents or one a substitute or means of obscuring the other? It seems that all παπ- words have something to do with fathers (making this post appropriate today!) παππίζω ,
A.= παππάζω, coax or wheedle one's father, Ar.V.609, cf. Eust.565.32.
παππικός , ή, όν,
A.inherited from one's grandfather, BGU410.23 (ii A. D.).

παπάς of course = Pope a title associated with the bishops of Alexandria. Παπίσκος might well be a diminutive, a sign of affection or closeness associated with the bishop of Alexandria rather than a true name. Of course the difficulty is that Παπίσκος is identified as an Alexandrian Jew in the tradition.
“Finally, from so little sleeping and so much reading, his brain dried up and he went completely out of his mind.”
― Miguel de Cervantes Saavedra, Don Quixote
Secret Alias
Posts: 18362
Joined: Sun Apr 19, 2015 8:47 am

Re: Celsus Used Against Marcion?

Post by Secret Alias »

It would appear highly likely that 'Jason' was originally 'Mnason' or connected with that figure. From Anastasius of Sinai:

I am going to adopt and appropriate the role of Paul of Samosata for you, or, better, that of the unbelieving Jew Philo, the philosopher; for he argued against the divinity of Christ with Mnason, the disciple of the apostles, and called Mnason dichrota:

"What argument, what sort of argument, and from what source (comes) any argument to the effect that the Christ is God? Should you adduce his birth from a virgin, without seed as they say, the begetting of Adam (appears) more noble and more striking, a formation by the very hands of God and a vivifieation through God's own breath, and it was purer than the nine-month fetation of Jesus in his mother (terminating in) filth and wails and mess. Should you adduce the signs he performed after his baptism, I would say to you that no one on earth ever performed such signs and wonders as did Moses for a period of forty years. Should you then point out that Jesus raised the dead, well, the prophet Ezekiel raised up from the dry bones of the army of dead men a numberless people. Moreover, Jesus himself said that some men would perform greater works than he. Now if you tell us that Jesus was taken up into the heavens as God, surely the prophet Elias was taken up more gloriously in a blazing chariot and with horses of fire. Calling Jesus the God of heaven must be reckoned as the most outrageous of your blasphemies, for God Himself said to Moses that "No man shall see my face and live." Further, our Scripture witnesses that "No one has ever seen God. No man has seen or is able to see God." How is it that Christian preachers are not ashamed to proclaim Jesus as God? For it is said that God is a consuming fire. Tell me, then, does a God of fire hunger? Does a God of fire thirst? Does a God of fire spit? Is a God of fire circumcised and does he bleed? And does he cast on the ground bits of flesh and blood and the refuse of the stomach? All such things were cast to the ground by Jesus and were eaten up and consumed by dogs, sometimes by wild beasts and birds, and trampled on by cattle. Every bit of his flesh that was cast off and discarded, whether it was sputum or nail-cuttings or blood or sweat or tears, was a part and portion naturally associated with the body and sloughed off or discarded in due process of growth. Indeed you say that he was like men in all things according to the flesh apart from sin. Yet you preach that he who was dead for three days was God. And what sort of a God who is a consuming fire can die? Why his very servants, the angels, cannot die, neither can the evil spirits of the demons, nor, for that matter, the souls of men. To press the matter, I ask: What sort of God, having the power of life and death, would take to flight—as Jesus fled from Herod lest he be put to death as an infant? What sort of God is tempted by the devil for forty days? What sort of God becomes a curse, which is what Paul says of Jesus? What sort of sinless God commits sin? For, according to you, Jesus became sin for our sake. And if he is God, how is it that he prayed to escape the cup of death? And his prayer was not heard. If he is God, how can he speak as one abandoned by God: "O God, my God, why have you forsaken me?" Is God abandoned by God? Does God need God (as would appear) when he says "Do not abandon my soul to the nether world"? Is God (such as to be) tied up, and abused and despised and put to death? If he was indeed God, he should have crushed those intending to take him prisoner, just as the angel crushed the Sodomites (who threatened) Lot. But you call the helplessness of Jesus "long-suffering."

The author of the paper where I got this information suggests that 'philo' means 'fence sitter.' How is this? Ben?
“Finally, from so little sleeping and so much reading, his brain dried up and he went completely out of his mind.”
― Miguel de Cervantes Saavedra, Don Quixote
User avatar
Ben C. Smith
Posts: 8994
Joined: Wed Apr 08, 2015 2:18 pm
Location: USA
Contact:

Re: Celsus Used Against Marcion?

Post by Ben C. Smith »

Secret Alias wrote: Mon Jun 18, 2018 6:10 amThe author of the paper where I got this information suggests that 'philo' means 'fence sitter.' How is this? Ben?
No idea how that would work. I always assumed that Φίλων came from φίλος ("lover" or "friend").
ΤΙ ΕΣΤΙΝ ΑΛΗΘΕΙΑ
Secret Alias
Posts: 18362
Joined: Sun Apr 19, 2015 8:47 am

Re: Celsus Used Against Marcion?

Post by Secret Alias »

“Finally, from so little sleeping and so much reading, his brain dried up and he went completely out of his mind.”
― Miguel de Cervantes Saavedra, Don Quixote
Post Reply