Did Celsus and His "Jew" Offer Different Arguments?

[MrMacSon]

And some of Origen's commentary seems similar to Tertullians' "On the Flesh" refutations of Marcion

[Peter Kirby]

Overall I'd guess that Celsus doesn't seem like he offered indication that he doubted what we call the 'historicity of Jesus', but it still seems hard to be sure about what Celsus genuinely believed. I'd be glad to know the secure basis for coming to any particular conclusion in that regard.

[MrMacSon]

a lot of the texts of those times seem like they're discussing adversarily the nature of the πνευματος - the pneuma or spirit

[DCHindley]

As to whether Celsus held the opinion that Jesus "was seen indeed, but only as a shadow",

and he brings against us an additional charge [προσκατηγορεῖ, from προσκατηγορέω, A. accuse besides, accuse one also of ...], as if we said [καὶ ὡς λεγόντων] that "He was seen indeed, but was only a shadow [προσκατηγορεῖ δ' ἡμῶν καὶ ὡς λεγόντων αὐτὸν ὦφθαι, καὶ ταῦτα σκιάν]!"

Celsus has cited a source that he identifies as Christian as proof that Christians themselves believed that Jesus' post-death appearance was in the form of a "shadow". Origen, of course, is incensed that Celsus would identify as Christian a source that Origen himself did not believe represented his kind of Christianity.

So, it seems that Celsus was saying all along that Jesus appeared to his "troop" after his death as a shadow of a dead man, not as a physical man. However, appearing to his companions as a shadow of a dead man is not at all the same things as appearing as a shadow because that is his natural state. The latter might well be Origen's position on Jesus' nature, but I get the impression that he was rather offering Jesus as the very model of a true Hero (a man who dies and is deemed worthy of deification after death).

Origen, in chapter 3.23 says that his own close investigation of each Hero story did not support the belief that "those beings [the divinized Heroes of popular belief] ... have a real existence [after their deaths as men], and are deserving of respect and worship".

On the other hand, Origen is quite confident that "our Jesus, who appeared to the members of His own troop (for I will take the word that Celsus [elsewhere] employs), did really appear [as a flesh and blood man] ...

Consequently, he asserts, "Celsus makes a false accusation against the Gospel in saying that what appeared [to his followers as a bodily Jesus] was a shadow". In other words, Jesus was physically resurrected, not making appearances as a ghost or vision.

DCH

[Peter Kirby]

Part of the question is whether Celsus necessarily makes a sharp demarcation of the causes of belief in the resurrection and in the other marvelous things.

The quote provided by Andrew Criddle:

But after this, Celsus, having a suspicion that the great works performed by Jesus, of which we have named a few out of a great number, would be brought forward to view, affects to grant that those statements may be true which are made regarding His cures, or His resurrection, or the feeding of a multitude with a few loaves, from which many fragments remained over, or those other stories which Celsus thinks the disciples have recorded as of a marvellous nature; and he adds: Well, let us believe that these were actually wrought by you

Might suggest that the 'resurrection' were lumped with the rest. Which, likewise, means the rest are lumped with the 'resurrection'.

Celsus seems suspicious of them all, which doesn't mean that he grants basic historicity to the non-miraculous aspects of Jesus, which are scarcely discussed. Celsus seems quite prepared to maintain that any particular one of these things has no real basis in fact (here Origen says that he "affects to grant that those statements may be true" and uses the words "Well, let us believe that these were actually wrought by you"--elsewhere he offers invention, fiction, and myth as explanations of these stories).

That Celsus might have been skeptical of a John who was a baptist is suggested by Origen's eager reference to Josephus on that matter.

http://www.newadvent.org/fathers/04161.htm

I would like to say to Celsus, who represents the Jew as accepting somehow John as a Baptist, who baptized Jesus, that the existence of John the Baptist, baptizing for the remission of sins, is related by one who lived no great length of time after John and Jesus. For in the 18th book of his Antiquities of the Jews, Josephus bears witness to John as having been a Baptist, and as promising purification to those who underwent the rite.

IF Celsus could have such blanket skepticism about the origins of all these stories and could have harbored suspicions regarding John, why are we so sure that Celsus did not have doubts regarding Jesus? Does he ever discuss it as anything other than part of a fictional discourse (his fictive Jew talking to Jesus) or as part of a hypothetical granted just to show that the conclusions do not follow (his direct statements)? If so, where and in what words?

[Peter Kirby]

As to whether Celsus held the opinion that Jesus "was seen indeed, but only as a shadow",

and he brings against us an additional charge [προσκατηγορεῖ, from προσκατηγορέω, A. accuse besides, accuse one also of ...], as if we said [καὶ ὡς λεγόντων] that "He was seen indeed, but was only a shadow [προσκατηγορεῖ δ' ἡμῶν καὶ ὡς λεγόντων αὐτὸν ὦφθαι, καὶ ταῦτα σκιάν]!"

Celsus has cited a source that he identifies as Christian as proof that Christians themselves believed that Jesus' post-death appearance was in the form of a "shadow".

Interesting point.

(Once again, unfortunately for us interested in Celsus' views, it looks like Celsus is more interested in playing with the contradictions--in this case, a certain statement made by someone else about the nature of these so-called appearances.)

[Ben C. Smith]

http://www.newadvent.org/fathers/04161.htm

I would like to say to Celsus, who represents the Jew as accepting somehow John as a Baptist, who baptized Jesus, that the existence of John the Baptist, baptizing for the remission of sins, is related by one who lived no great length of time after John and Jesus. For in the 18th book of his Antiquities of the Jews, Josephus bears witness to John as having been a Baptist, and as promising purification to those who underwent the rite.

IF Celsus could have such blanket skepticism about the origins of all these stories and could have harbored suspicions regarding John, why are we so sure that Celsus did not have doubts regarding Jesus?

Is that the best translation of this passage? Here is the Greek:

Ἐβουλόμην δ' ἂν Κέλσῳ, προσωποποιήσαντι τὸν Ἰουδαῖον παραδεξάμενόν πως Ἰωάννην ὡς βαπτιστὴν βαπτίζοντα τὸν Ἰησοῦν, εἰπεῖν ὅτι τὸ Ἰωάννην γεγονέναι βαπτιστήν, εἰς ἄφεσιν ἁμαρτημάτων βαπτίζοντα, ἀνέγραψέ τις τῶν μετ' οὐ πολὺ τοῦ Ἰωάννου καὶ τοῦ Ἰησοῦ γεγενημένων.

The separation of τὸ Ἰωάννην from βαπτιστήν by the infinitive (of indirect discourse) γεγονέναι suggests to me that Origen is calling on Josephus to confirm that John was a baptizer, not that John the baptist existed. It also seems to me that the πως in the second clause might be understood as Celsus expressing doubt as to what his own Jew believed, namely that John was a baptizer (Celsus himself, in other words, expresses doubt that John baptized people, against his own Jew, who somehow believed it anyway).

That is just my reaction from reading the passage itself. I have no idea who in antiquity might have denied that John performed baptisms.

Ben.

ETA: This accords with the next line, as well: For in the eighteenth volume of the Judaic Antiquities Josephus testifies to John as having been a baptist....

[Peter Kirby]

Origen is calling on Josephus to confirm that John was a baptizer, not that John the baptist existed

I understand that the translation is not a completely-literal rendering of the Greek. (I already checked this Greek and saw the same as you did.)

On the other hand, the idea of confirming that there was a John who "was a baptizer" is not so different in concept to the idea that John the baptist existed. After all, there were thousands of guys called John. So, while the translation isn't literal, the translator wasn't just out to lunch either.

It'd be (sort of) like saying that you could call on a witness to Jesus who was crucified. It's almost exactly the same as arguing that Jesus existed. You'd need to split some fine hairs to say otherwise (or have somewhat weird beliefs about how Jesus died). If you catch my meaning.

The "not that John the baptist existed" part is unjustified. Nor is there any suggestion that there was an argument regarding John doing something else.

Focusing on issues of translation seems misguided here. Alternatively, if you insist, the translation is fine; the meaning is latent.

[Ben C. Smith]

Origen is calling on Josephus to confirm that John was a baptizer, not that John the baptist existed

I understand that the translation is not a completely-literal rendering of the Greek. (I already checked this Greek and saw the same as you did.)

On the other hand, the idea of confirming that there was a John who "was a baptizer" is not so different in concept to the idea that John the baptist existed.

After all, there were thousands of guys called John.

So, while the translation isn't literal, the translator wasn't just out to lunch either.

It'd be (sort of) like saying that you could call on a witness to Jesus who was crucified. It's almost exactly the same as arguing that Jesus existed. You'd need to split some fine hairs to say otherwise (or have somewhat weird beliefs about how Jesus died). If you catch my meaning.

The "not that John the baptist existed" part is unjustified. Nor is there any suggestion that there was an argument regarding John doing something else.

Focusing on issues of translation seems misguided here. Alternatively, if you insist, the translation is fine; the meaning is latent.

That line about issues of translation seems... well, at any rate, the clarification itself does not seem off topic, since it does indeed cast the discussion in a far more philosophical light than what was originally presented.

I now notice at 1.41:

And it is a Jew who addresses the following language to him whom we acknowledge to be our Lord Jesus: When you were bathing, says the Jew, beside John [Λουομένῳ, φησί, σοὶ παρὰ τῷ Ἰωάννῃ], you say that what had the appearance of a bird from the air alighted upon you.

This sounds suspiciously like a shared bath of some kind, rather than an act of John baptizing Jesus, does it not? Since the notion which Origen is staving off in this section is the idea that it was Jesus alone who saw the vision, supported only by his fellow cronies, perhaps Celsus was trying to separate John from Jesus, so as to make certain that John was not a fellow witness of the event, and part of that separation entailed denying or avoiding describing an actual baptism one by the other; and Origen expresses this with that πως: the Jew calls John a baptizer somewhere, or seems to regard him as a baptizer, even though Celsus does not relate that John baptized Jesus.

Ben.

[Peter Kirby]

Focusing on issues of translation seems misguided here. Alternatively, if you insist, the translation is fine; the meaning is latent.

That line about issues of translation seems...

I'm just saying that it can happen that someone can raise a point about a translation into English being less than a completely-literal rendering of the Greek's grammatical structure, as if that meant that the (arguably) more-literal rendering is a better way to express the meaning of the passage (and that the emphasis discovered in making this distinction is an emphasis made by the author--i.e., in this case, that the author is not talking about existence), while the (arguably) non-literal rendering is therefore suspect and wrong. That happens quite frequently, and what should be a discussion about the meaning of the text gets reduced to a discussion about the most-literal rendering of the text (which is not the same thing as the meaning of the text).

In short, if I had a different translation to quote, I wouldn't mind quoting that one instead. It doesn't really change the point I was making. There was only one translation that I had at hand, however.