Did Celsus and His "Jew" Offer Different Arguments?

Discussion about the New Testament, apocrypha, gnostics, church fathers, Christian origins, historical Jesus or otherwise, etc.
User avatar
Peter Kirby
Site Admin
Posts: 8024
Joined: Fri Oct 04, 2013 2:13 pm
Location: Santa Clara
Contact:

Did Celsus and His "Jew" Offer Different Arguments?

Post by Peter Kirby »

Many people are familiar with the first two books of the "Contra Celsum," where Origen takes up the task of refuting the "Jew" of Celsus, who maintains that Jesus was born of Mary and a soldier named Panthera (thus, a human birth), learned sorcery in Egypt, and came back to deceive with sorcery.

It appears to me that there are actually two different general stances that Celsus' True Discourse takes, which are slightly confused by Origen in the first two books (but not by much). The first one is the one above, which is the position of the "Jew," which is that Jesus was a deceiver but, still, just a man.

The second one emerges in the third book of the Contra Celsum, where Origen starts interacting with the statements made by Celsus directly.

Earlier Origen points out that Celsus takes some sort of 'docetism' to be the doctrine of the Christians.

http://www.newadvent.org/fathers/04161.htm
Chapter 69

After this, Celsus, confusing together the Christian doctrine and the opinions of some heretical sect, and bringing them forward as charges that were applicable to all who believe in the divine word, says: Such a body as yours could not have belonged to God. Now, in answer to this, we have to say that Jesus, on entering into the world, assumed, as one born of a woman, a human body, and one which was capable of suffering a natural death. For which reason, in addition to others, we say that He was also a great wrestler; having, on account of His human body, been tempted in all respects like other men, but no longer as men, with sin as a consequence, but being altogether without sin. For it is distinctly clear to us that He did no sin, neither was guile found in His mouth; and as one who knew no sin, God delivered Him up as pure for all who had sinned. Then Celsus says: The body of god would not have been so generated as you, O Jesus, were. He saw, besides, that if, as it is written, it had been born, His body somehow might be even more divine than that of the multitude, and in a certain sense a body of god. But he disbelieves the accounts of His conception by the Holy Ghost, and believes that He was begotten by one Panthera, who corrupted the Virgin, because a god's body would not have been so generated as you were. But we have spoken of these matters at greater length in the preceding pages.

Chapter 70

He asserts, moreover, that the body of a god is not nourished with such food (as was that of Jesus), since he is able to prove from the Gospel narratives both that He partook of food, and food of a particular kind. Well, be it so. Let him assert that He ate the passover with His disciples, when He not only used the words, With desire have I desired to eat this passover with you, but also actually partook of the same. And let him say also, that He experienced the sensation of thirst beside the well of Jacob, and drank of the water of the well. In what respect do these facts militate against what we have said respecting the nature of His body? Moreover, it appears indubitable that after His resurrection He ate a piece of fish; for, according to our view, He assumed a (true) body, as one born of a woman. But, objects Celsus, the body of a god does not make use of such a voice as that of Jesus, nor employ such a method of persuasion as he. These are, indeed, trifling and altogether contemptible objections. For our reply to him will be, that he who is believed among the Greeks to be a god, viz., the Pythian and Didymean Apollo, makes use of such a voice for his Pythian priestess at Delphi, and for his prophetess at Miletus; and yet neither the Pythian nor Didymean is charged by the Greeks with not being a god, nor any other Grecian deity whose worship is established in one place. And it was far better, surely, that a god should employ a voice which, on account of its being uttered with power, should produce an indescribable sort of persuasion in the minds of the hearers.
There is also a quote from book 4, chapter 19.
Others, then, may concede to Celsus that God does not undergo a change, but leads the spectators to imagine that He does; whereas we who are persuaded that the advent of Jesus among men was no mere appearance, but a real manifestation, are not affected by this charge of Celsus.
Yet Celsus seems to go further than quoting the arguments of the "Jew" and further than pointing out contradictions between the Gospels and the belief that Jesus had the body of a god. Celsus seems to argue, moreover, in the passage below, that the supposed appearance of the body of a god (which, when seen, is but a "shadow") could be nothing more than "inventions," "fictions," and "myths."

Here we find Celsus taking up the opinion of the "docetics," essentially, according to which Jesus was a "shadow" or a "phantom." And it seems that Celsus can press this so far as to say that the disciples had only imagined their Jesus, who was but a "shadow" ... and thus created fictions and myths out of something that they thought they had seen. And Celsus compares it to the similar case of Asclepius, who many claim to see and who claim that the spirit of Asclepius has healed him, although Celsus doesn't seem to grant Asclepius any real existence.

If you read between the lines, that seems a substantial shift from the position of the "Jew" (and one not commented on frequently).

http://www.newadvent.org/fathers/04163.htm
But this low jester Celsus, omitting no species of mockery and ridicule which can be employed against us, mentions in his treatise the Dioscuri, and Hercules, and Æsculapius, and Dionysus, who are believed by the Greeks to have become gods after being men, and says that we cannot bear to call such beings gods, because they were at first men, and yet they manifested many noble qualifies, which were displayed for the benefit of mankind, while we assert that Jesus was seen after His death by His own followers; and he brings against us an additional charge, as if we said that He was seen indeed, but was only a shadow!

... And if they who would defend such beings betake themselves to allegorical interpretations, we must examine each individual instance, and ascertain whether it is well founded, and also in each particular case, whether those beings can have a real existence, and are deserving of respect and worship who were torn by the Titans, and cast down from their heavenly throne. Whereas our Jesus, who appeared to the members of His own troop — for I will take the word that Celsus employs— did really appear, and Celsus makes a false accusation against the Gospel in saying that what appeared was a shadow. And let the statements of their histories and that of Jesus be carefully compared together. Will Celsus have the former to be true, but the latter, although recorded by eye-witnesses who showed by their acts that they clearly understood the nature of what they had seen, and who manifested their state of mind by what they cheerfully underwent for the sake of His Gospel, to be inventions? Now, who is there that, desiring to act always in conformity with right reason, would yield his assent at random to what is related of the one, but would rush to the history of Jesus, and without examination refuse to believe what is recorded of Him?

And again, when it is said of Æsculapius that a great multitude both of Greeks and Barbarians acknowledge that they have frequently seen, and still see, no mere phantom, but Æsculapius himself, healing and doing good, and foretelling the future; Celsus requires us to believe this, and finds no fault with the believers in Jesus, when we express our belief in such stories, but when we give our assent to the disciples, and eye-witnesses of the miracles of Jesus, who clearly manifest the honesty of their convictions (because we see their guilelessness, as far as it is possible to see the conscience revealed in writing), we are called by him a set of silly individuals, although he cannot demonstrate that an incalculable number, as he asserts, of Greeks and Barbarians acknowledge the existence of Æsculapius; while we, if we deem this a matter of importance, can clearly show a countless multitude of Greeks and Barbarians who acknowledge the existence of Jesus. And some give evidence of their having received through this faith a marvellous power by the cures which they perform, revoking no other name over those who need their help than that of the God of all things, and of Jesus, along with a mention of His history. For by these means we too have seen many persons freed from grievous calamities, and from distractions of mind, and madness, and countless other ills, which could be cured neither by men nor devils.

Now, in order to grant that there did exist a healing spirit named Æsculapius, who used to cure the bodies of men, I would say to those who are astonished at such an occurrence, or at the prophetic knowledge of Apollo, that since the cure of bodies is a thing indifferent, and a matter within the reach not merely of the good, but also of the bad; and as the foreknowledge of the future is also a thing indifferent— for the possessor of foreknowledge does not necessarily manifest the possession of virtue— you must show that they who practise healing or who forefell the future are in no respect wicked, but exhibit a perfect pattern of virtue, and are not far from being regarded as gods. But they will not be able to show that they are virtuous who practise the art of healing, or who are gifted with foreknowledge, seeing many who are not fit to live are related to have been healed; and these, too, persons whom, as leading improper lives, no wise physician would wish to heal. And in the responses of the Pythian oracle also you may find some injunctions which are not in accordance with reason, two of which we will adduce on the present occasion; viz., when it gave commandment that Cleomedes — the boxer, I suppose— should be honoured with divine honours, seeing some great importance or other attaching to his pugilistic skill, but did not confer either upon Pythagoras or upon Socrates the honours which it awarded to pugilism; and also when it called Archilochus the servant of the Muses— a man who employed his poetic powers upon topics of the most wicked and licentious nature, and whose public character was dissolute and impure— and entitled him pious, in respect of his being the servant of the Muses, who are deemed to be goddesses! Now I am inclined to think that no one would assert that he was a pious man who was not adorned with all moderation and virtue, or that a decorous man would utter such expressions as are contained in the unseemly iambics of Archilochus. And if nothing that is divine in itself is shown to belong either to the healing skill of Æsculapius or the prophetic power of Apollo, how could any one, even were I to grant that the facts are as alleged, reasonably worship them as pure divinities?— and especially when the prophetic spirit of Apollo, pure from any body of earth, secretly enters through the private parts the person of her who is called the priestess, as she is seated at the mouth of the Pythian cave! Whereas regarding Jesus and His power we have no such notion; for the body which was born of the Virgin was composed of human material, and capable of receiving human wounds and death.

... Now, in answer to this account of Aristeas, we have to say, that if Celsus had adduced it as history, without signifying his own assent to its truth, it is in a different way that we should have met his argument. But since he asserts that he disappeared through the intervention of the divinity, and showed himself again in an unmistakeable manner, and visited many parts of the world, and made marvellous announcements; and, moreover, that there was an oracle of Apollo, enjoining the Metapontines to treat Aristeas as a god, he gives the accounts relating to him as upon his own authority, and with his full assent. And (this being the case), we ask, How is it possible that, while supposing the marvels related by the disciples of Jesus regarding their Master to be wholly fictitious, and finding fault with those who believe them, you, O Celsus, do not regard these stories of yours to be either products of jugglery or inventions? And how, while charging others with an irrational belief in the marvels recorded of Jesus, can you show yourself justified in giving credence to such statement as the above, without producing some proof or evidence of the alleged occurrences having taken place? Or do Herodotus and Pindar appear to you to speak the truth, while they who have made it their concern to die for the doctrine of Jesus, and who have left to their successors writings so remarkable on the truths which they believed, entered for the sake of fictions (as you consider them), and myths, and juggleries, upon a struggle which entails a life of danger and a death of violence?

... And because it was impossible that the reasons of such things could be discovered by men with perfect exactness, it was deemed safe that no mortal should entrust himself to any being as to God, with the exception of Jesus Christ, who is, as it were, the Ruler over all things, and who both beheld these weighty secrets, and made them known to a few.

The belief, then, in Antinous, or any other such person, whether among the Egyptians or the Greeks, is, so to speak, unfortunate; while the belief in Jesus would seem to be either a fortunate one, or the result of thorough investigation, having the appearance of the former to the multitude, and of the latter to exceedingly few. ...
Origen also frequently alleges that Celsus is an atheist and an Epicurean, who thus has no real belief in Æsculapius; which would suggest, if true, that the analogy drawn by Celsus between Æsculapius and Jesus draws attention to some doubt on the part of Celsus regarding the latter god's "existence."

(There does seem to be some wriggle room here... as there often is. Someone might say that it is only the post-mortem "existence" of Aesclepius or Jesus that is ever challenged. But it seemed worth mentioning. And such a claim runs against the sense that Celsus didn't, it would seem, regard "Jesus" to be a man in the first place--that's the opinion of his "Jew"--but rather as the alleged appearance of 'the body of a god', which he heard from Christians. That retort also contradicts the nature of the "appearance" of Antinous, who is also compared to Jesus, with the former "appearing" to a "multitude," and with the latter "appearing" only to "exceedingly few" that were "members of his own troop" [something mentioned also at the start of this passsage]. So it is not clear that the discussion by Celsus is limited to the 'resurrection' appearances and post-mortem existence.)
"... almost every critical biblical position was earlier advanced by skeptics." - Raymond Brown
User avatar
Peter Kirby
Site Admin
Posts: 8024
Joined: Fri Oct 04, 2013 2:13 pm
Location: Santa Clara
Contact:

Re: Did Celsus and His "Jew" Offer Different Arguments?

Post by Peter Kirby »

Secret Alias wrote:I thought you'd be impressed with my morning's research pulling out:

1. Celsus and Justin using the same gospel
2. Celsus's citation of the Gospel of Peter
3. the likely identification of Trypho as the 'Jew' of Celsus

I guess you can't please everyone.
It is interesting.... Although, it is a little off-topic, for the OP, which hasn't actually received any feedback.
"... almost every critical biblical position was earlier advanced by skeptics." - Raymond Brown
User avatar
Peter Kirby
Site Admin
Posts: 8024
Joined: Fri Oct 04, 2013 2:13 pm
Location: Santa Clara
Contact:

Re: Did Celsus and His "Jew" Offer Different Arguments?

Post by Peter Kirby »

Peter Kirby wrote:Many people are familiar with the first two books of the "Contra Celsum," where Origen takes up the task of refuting the "Jew" of Celsus, who maintains that Jesus was born of Mary and a soldier named Panthera (thus, a human birth), learned sorcery in Egypt, and came back to deceive with sorcery.

It appears to me that there are actually two different general stances that Celsus' True Discourse takes, which are slightly confused by Origen in the first two books (but not by much). The first one is the one above, which is the position of the "Jew," which is that Jesus was a deceiver but, still, just a man.

The second one emerges in the third book of the Contra Celsum, where Origen starts interacting with the statements made by Celsus directly.

Earlier Origen points out that Celsus takes some sort of 'docetism' to be the doctrine of the Christians.
Yet Celsus seems to go further than quoting the arguments of the "Jew" and further than pointing out contradictions between the Gospels and the belief that Jesus had the body of a god. Celsus seems to argue, moreover, in the passage below, that the supposed appearance of the body of a god (which, when seen, is but a "shadow") could be nothing more than "inventions," "fictions," and "myths."

Here we find Celsus taking up the opinion of the "docetics," essentially, according to which Jesus was a "shadow" or a "phantom." And it seems that Celsus can press this so far as to say that the disciples had only imagined their Jesus, who was but a "shadow" ... and thus created fictions and myths out of something that they thought they had seen. And Celsus compares it to the similar case of Asclepius, who many claim to see and who claim that the spirit of Asclepius has healed him, although Celsus doesn't seem to grant Asclepius any real existence.

If you read between the lines, that seems a substantial shift from the position of the "Jew" (and one not commented on frequently).
Origen also frequently alleges that Celsus is an atheist and an Epicurean, who thus has no real belief in Æsculapius; which would suggest, if true, that the analogy drawn by Celsus between Æsculapius and Jesus draws attention to some doubt on the part of Celsus regarding the latter god's "existence."

(There does seem to be some wriggle room here... as there often is. Someone might say that it is only the post-mortem "existence" of Aesclepius or Jesus that is ever challenged. But it seemed worth mentioning. And such a claim runs against the sense that Celsus didn't, it would seem, regard "Jesus" to be a man in the first place--that's the opinion of his "Jew"--but rather as the alleged appearance of 'the body of a god', which he heard from Christians. That retort also contradicts the nature of the "appearance" of Antinous, who is also compared to Jesus, with the former "appearing" to a "multitude," and with the latter "appearing" only to "exceedingly few" that were "members of his own troop" [something mentioned also at the start of this passsage]. So it is not clear that the discussion by Celsus is limited to the 'resurrection' appearances and post-mortem existence.
So... can I get a sanity check here? Yes? No? Maybe? Definitely not?

Is this interpretation of the third book and of Celsus basically sound, or is it puffing too much of the peace pipe? Any opinions?
"... almost every critical biblical position was earlier advanced by skeptics." - Raymond Brown
Secret Alias
Posts: 18362
Joined: Sun Apr 19, 2015 8:47 am

Re: Did Celsus and His "Jew" Offer Different Arguments?

Post by Secret Alias »

I think a better way to characterize it is as follows.

For 'the Jew' Jesus was a man who was also a god. Yes there's the magician business but at the core Christians believe that Jesus was a god born of a virgin. This is the only position 'the Jew' deals with (from memory).

In the case of Celsus there are a plurality of Christian sects and a reference to a 'great Church' (= Catholic tradition) but where Marcionism is just as influential (although 'Marcion' is never explicitly referenced by Celsus), Origen says that Celsus mentions the Marcionites but it's not clear what that means.
“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: Did Celsus and His "Jew" Offer Different Arguments?

Post by Ben C. Smith »

Peter Kirby wrote:So... can I get a sanity check here? Yes? No? Maybe? Definitely not?
Image

I am just today starting to scan through the first few books with this point of yours squarely in mind. It may be a bit before I get back to you on it, though.

Ben.
ΤΙ ΕΣΤΙΝ ΑΛΗΘΕΙΑ
User avatar
Peter Kirby
Site Admin
Posts: 8024
Joined: Fri Oct 04, 2013 2:13 pm
Location: Santa Clara
Contact:

Re: Did Celsus and His "Jew" Offer Different Arguments?

Post by Peter Kirby »

Ben C. Smith wrote:I am just today starting to scan through the first few books with this point of yours squarely in mind. It may be a bit before I get back to you on it, though.
Thanks.
"... almost every critical biblical position was earlier advanced by skeptics." - Raymond Brown
User avatar
DCHindley
Posts: 3411
Joined: Mon Oct 07, 2013 9:53 am
Location: Ohio, USA

Re: Did Celsus and His "Jew" Offer Different Arguments?

Post by DCHindley »

Peter Kirby wrote:Many people are familiar with the first two books of the "Contra Celsum," where Origen takes up the task of refuting the "Jew" of Celsus, who maintains that Jesus was born of Mary and a soldier named Panthera (thus, a human birth), learned sorcery in Egypt, and came back to deceive with sorcery.

It appears to me that there are actually two different general stances that Celsus' True Discourse takes, which are slightly confused by Origen in the first two books (but not by much). The first one is the one above, which is the position of the "Jew," which is that Jesus was a deceiver but, still, just a man.

The second one emerges in the third book of the Contra Celsum, where Origen starts interacting with the statements made by Celsus directly.So... can I get a sanity check here? Yes? No? Maybe? Definitely not?

Is this interpretation of the third book and of Celsus basically sound, or is it puffing too much of the peace pipe? Any opinions?
Well, I tried to get a few words in edgewise around SH/SA, that the bastard son of Pantera, the destitute mother, the learning of magic in Egypt, is related to a series of stories that made their way into the Jewish Toledot Jeschu preserved from medieval times. It is discussed in detail by G R S Mead in Did Jesus Live 100 BC? How Celsus came across this series of stories, which have every appearance of being of Palestinian Jewish origin, and how he made use of it, seemed relevant.

Some while ago, perhaps even as long ago as FRDB days, I took the effort to take a good close look at Contra Celsum to try tease out the preserved words, or at least the subject outlines, of Celsus' True Reason (True Word). One has to very carefully separate out sections where Origen is citing Celsus in various manners (such as quotations and summaries, and certainly not consecutively) and where he is refuting Celsus. Occasionally it is not especially clear where the one thing ends and the other thing starts, although there is occasionally a hint of Celsus' original wording in the refutation.

It is onerous work, mainly because I am not very fond of the art forms of "disputation" and "refutation". What I find is Celsus' "Jew" arguing with Jesus about the validity of things said about him in the Christian gospels, as if Jesus himself had actually claimed that they applied to him. This all absolutely has to be fictional as the Gospels (or whatever gospels he may have used) came after Jesus. If he uses stories about Jesus' origins that are Jewish (showing up in the later Toledot Jeschu) in the process, this just suggests that he was making use of a variety of sources.

a) Jesus was not born of a virgin (1.28ff). His source is reflected in Jewish Toledot Jeschu stories.

b) Jesus performed miracles, not by the power of the Judean god, but by magic (1.28, 38). His source also reflected in Jewish Toledot Jeschu stories.

c) That the power of god had not descended upon him in the form of a dove upon his baptism by John the Baptist (1.41ff). This is based on literary and analytical examination of the story of his baptism by John in Matthew.

d) That Jesus was not the "son of god", predicted by a Judean prophet (1.49ff). The source uses arguments similar to those which Justin puts into the mouth of the Judean Trypho against Jesus being the messiah of the Jews.

e) Jesus was also not the person predicted in other Judean prophesies, who was to be "a mighty potentate, Lord of all nations and armies" (2.29ff). Source might be Josephus or Tacitus, who both mention the "world ruler(s)" who(m) many Judeans expected to arise from their stock in the 1st century CE.

f) Jesus could not have been physically raised from the dead (2.55ff). I am not immediately aware of what source, if any, this dissertation on the bodily form and resurrection in general may be from.

g) Jesus could not have been divine (2.63ff). Sources on what characteristics a divine creature should have may be Josephus or Philo.

Hopefully, this might help kick start the discussion in the direction you had hoped for.

DCH
Attachments
(Celsus, an unknown) Fragments of Celsus' True Word (compiled by David C Hindley, 2012).docx
The dreaded reconstruction of True Word
(220.63 KiB) Downloaded 274 times
User avatar
Peter Kirby
Site Admin
Posts: 8024
Joined: Fri Oct 04, 2013 2:13 pm
Location: Santa Clara
Contact:

Re: Did Celsus and His "Jew" Offer Different Arguments?

Post by Peter Kirby »

I don't really doubt that Celsus had heard something or other regarding Jewish views of Jesus.

I am here interested on feedback regarding the interpretation I offered, of the section quoted from book 3 of the Against Celsus.
"... almost every critical biblical position was earlier advanced by skeptics." - Raymond Brown
User avatar
DCHindley
Posts: 3411
Joined: Mon Oct 07, 2013 9:53 am
Location: Ohio, USA

Re: Did Celsus and His "Jew" Offer Different Arguments?

Post by DCHindley »

Peter Kirby wrote:I don't really doubt that Celsus had heard something or other regarding Jewish views of Jesus.

I am here interested on feedback regarding the interpretation I offered, of the section quoted from book 3 of the Against Celsus.
That Celsus was arguing that a divine body could not be physical? Book three is an elaboration of the arguments Celsus puts in the mouth of his "Judean" in book two, specifically arguments (f) and (g), only now he is offering proofs based on generally accepted principals/myths held by Greeks.

Commentators have long noted that Celsus does not seem to espouse any specifically Epicurean philosophical principles, telling me that Origen has probably invented this "fact" to discredit Celsus, i.e., it is a "straw dog" erected to be knocked down. From the phrase "in imitation of a rhetorician (ῥήτορος) training a pupil" (1.28), I concluded it was more likely that Celsus was a tutor for hire, which until ca. 200 CE was the original meaning of the term "sophist (σοφιστής). As a result, I am not going to hold him to the same standard as I might professional philosophers such as Platonists, followers of Aristotle, etc..

Maybe I am just missing your point ...

DCH
User avatar
DCHindley
Posts: 3411
Joined: Mon Oct 07, 2013 9:53 am
Location: Ohio, USA

Re: Did Celsus and His "Jew" Offer Different Arguments?

Post by DCHindley »

Origen clearly did not treat the text of Celsus' book in order, but jumped about quite a bit, almost thematically.

To really get one's head about it, one would have to go through every alleged quote or summary of Celsus' arguments, identify points being made, and evidence presented, and eliminate ALL color commentary about the matter added by Origen. Then the resulting data elements could be decomposed into 3rd normal form.

The Word document I attached to an earlier post might help with such a task, but it also makes clear that there is a LOT of detail to sift through.

I would suggest that any attempt to analyze the significance of details encoded in Origen's refutations be done after the reduction of Celsus' quoted arguments (or Origen's summaries of his arguments) to 3rd normal form.

DCH
Post Reply