Is Celsus evidence of historicity?

[Giuseppe]

You are right on Celsus knowing only historicist Christians.

And you write:

But my point here was simply against those who have claimed that the Gospels were not presented as true biographical accounts. Pagans like Julian called them "lies", because Julian recognised that the Gospels were being presented as factual. Allegories or fictions are not usually called "lies".
...

Justin Martyr seems to think the pagans really believe those stories.

I am reading a complex book, Resurrection and Reception in Early Christianity, of Richard C. Miller. His analysis starts just from these words of Justin.

He writes:

...the apology confessed that the two groups were identical in kind ... The apology simply proposed what the logician may deem a genetic fallacy, namely, that demons inspired the classical writers to produce lies or fictions that proleptically mimicked the Christian Gospel narratives, thus seeking to preempt and undermine their veracity and legitimacy by apparent generic association.
...
The repositioning reflects and underlying shift in the proposed modality of the Gospel narratives, moving along the continuum from fictive mythography toward historical fact. Such shift corresponds with rising second-century demands being placed upon the Gospels. Whereas, at first, such stories succeeded inasmuch as they were capable of appropriating, riffing on, and engaging the conventions and themes of the classical literary tradition, by the middle of the second century, early Christians had their sights on a higher prize: a comprehensive cultural revolution of the hellenistic Roman world. This claim to a new order required a foundation of distinct superiority, who placed new, unprecedented weight upon the etiological myths of the movement, that is, the Gospels. The founder must be better than, truer than, more virtuous than, of a more archaic tradition than, and more prophetically legitimated than the established classical cultural forms. No longer was it enough that Jesus should join the classical array of demigods as an exciting Near Eastern installment or instance; he must obtain a sui generis stature, while condemning all prior Mediterranean iconic figures.

(p. 4,5)

Miller talks about a precise ''shift'': the Gospel were considered before fiction, later mythic biography, later TRUE biography. I think personally the reason is that, under the threat of Marcion & co and in reaction to pagan attacks, appeal to a strong ''historical Jesus'' was more useful as argument.

Note that under the mythical paradigm, it's 100% expected that who knew that Jesus was a sublunary celestial angel did his best to hide his secret.
While who was historicist Christian, almost by definition, did his best to spread and reveal and sell a ''historical Jesus''.
Against Price, I think that the former didn't obstacle in no way the latter. The fact that you, GakuseDon, recognizes rightly that in the II CE historicist epistles a ''Gospel Jesus'' is not mentioned so much, is a precise consequence of the fact that their autors were clearly embarrassed to show pride in their Gospels: evidently, these Gospels had yet a lower status as recipient of ''truth''. As like the same pagan mythic biography for educated pagan readers.



But not all the pagans considered ''true'' their mythic biographies. Here is where I disagree from you.

To sum up, they produce many such myths, those that irrationally deify the mortal elements of nature together with the divine. [Plutarc, Rom. 28.6]

(ibidem, p. 27)

Plutarch seems similar to Julian and Celsus in their criticism of Gospels. Plutarch, Celsus and Julian seem share the same hate against these people that ''irrationally deify the mortal elements of nature together with the divine''. Is not this the exact description of what do the Catholics even today, for example, with the their Eucharist?

Miller writes:

The escalation in embellishment in the Gospel traditions, and not merely its accretion, serves to disprove the Jesus Myth Theory. From this trajectory, one is able to derive a more modest, human figure behind the earliest stratum. The recent Jesus Myth movement in academia, however, contributes substantively to the understanding of these early Christian renditions of Jesus in that, for the most part, the texts did present a mythologized founder and emblem for the ancient movement(s). This shift away from the faith-based presumption of postulating historical accuracy in the Gospel portrayals of Jesus realigns the discussion with the conventional literary and cultural patterns of classical antiquity, precisely where that discussion belongs, and frees the discourse from the delusive a priori impact of socially governed systems of ''belief'' that have all too often derailed the modern discourse. One must remain mindful that these texts have served as the sacred bedrock of Western myth an, as such, have presented a most formidable resistance to conclusive academic inquiry.

(p.144, note 78)

Note that Carrier has already replied against this argument, arguing together other scholars that even in Mark there is a high christology, for which it is simply not true that ''From this trajectory, one is able to derive a more modest, human figure behind the earliest stratum''.
The Jesus in Mark is falsely modest.

I am doubting personally about the same Markan priority, given that some recent scholars are proposing that was the Gospel used by Marcion and marcionites (proto-Luke aka Mcn) the Earliest Gospel. In that prospective, the ''false modesty'' of Jesus in our synoptics (especially in Mark) was a precise reaction to Mcn: the modest ''rabbi from Nazaret'' was introduced against Marcion.

[GakuseiDon]

You are right on Celsus knowing only historicist Christians.

And you write:

But my point here was simply against those who have claimed that the Gospels were not presented as true biographical accounts. Pagans like Julian called them "lies", because Julian recognised that the Gospels were being presented as factual. Allegories or fictions are not usually called "lies".
...

Justin Martyr seems to think the pagans really believe those stories.

I am reading a complex book, Resurrection and Reception in Early Christianity, of Richard C. Miller. His analysis starts just from these words of Justin.

He writes:

...the apology confessed that the two groups were identical in kind ... The apology simply proposed what the logician may deem a genetic fallacy, namely, that demons inspired the classical writers to produce lies or fictions that proleptically mimicked the Christian Gospel narratives, thus seeking to preempt and undermine their veracity and legitimacy by apparent generic association.
...
The repositioning reflects and underlying shift in the proposed modality of the Gospel narratives, moving along the continuum from fictive mythography toward historical fact. Such shift corresponds with rising second-century demands being placed upon the Gospels. Whereas, at first, such stories succeeded inasmuch as they were capable of appropriating, riffing on, and engaging the conventions and themes of the classical literary tradition, by the middle of the second century, early Christians had their sights on a higher prize: a comprehensive cultural revolution of the hellenistic Roman world. This claim to a new order required a foundation of distinct superiority, who placed new, unprecedented weight upon the etiological myths of the movement, that is, the Gospels. The founder must be better than, truer than, more virtuous than, of a more archaic tradition than, and more prophetically legitimated than the established classical cultural forms. No longer was it enough that Jesus should join the classical array of demigods as an exciting Near Eastern installment or instance; he must obtain a sui generis stature, while condemning all prior Mediterranean iconic figures.

(p. 4,5)

Miller talks about a precise ''shift'': the Gospel were considered before fiction, later mythic biography, later TRUE biography. I think personally the reason is that, under the threat of Marcion & co and in reaction to pagan attacks, appeal to a strong ''historical Jesus'' was more useful as argument.

Miller uses a lot of words I don't understand, and even words I do understand but I don't know how he is using them in context. So I guess he is smarter than me! But from what you've quoted, the "repositioning" he talks about is being done in the Second Century. I don't have a problem with that. Second Century Christian apologists wanted Christianity to sound like a school of philosophy, so adopted ideas like the Logos to do this.

So I don't know that Miller is saying that the Gospels were considered fiction before this shift, then mythic biography and then later true biography. Does he provide any evidence that suggests the Gospels were considered fiction by Christians at any time? (Origen certainly regarded some parts of the Gospels as allegory rather than history, but didn't think the whole thing as fiction.)

Note that under the mythical paradigm, it's 100% expected that who knew that Jesus was a sublunary celestial angel did his best to hide his secret.
While who was historicist Christian, almost by definition, did his best to spread and reveal and sell a ''historical Jesus''.
Against Price, I think that the former didn't obstacle in no way the latter. The fact that you, GakuseDon, recognizes rightly that in the II CE historicist epistles a ''Gospel Jesus'' is not mentioned so much, is a precise consequence of the fact that their autors were clearly embarrassed to show pride in their Gospels: evidently, these Gospels had yet a lower status as recipient of ''truth''. As like the same pagan mythic biography for educated pagan readers.

Embarrassment may well be one reason for why many Second Century apologists seemed reluctant to talk about Jesus, to the point of avoiding the name. But I think it is more fundamental, since the First Century Christian writers were the same. What that is I can only speculate.

But not all the pagans considered ''true'' their mythic biographies. Here is where I disagree from you.

To sum up, they produce many such myths, those that irrationally deify the mortal elements of nature together with the divine. [Plutarc, Rom. 28.6]

(ibidem, p. 27)

Plutarch seems similar to Julian and Celsus in their criticism of Gospels. Plutarch, Celsus and Julian seem share the same hate against these people that ''irrationally deify the mortal elements of nature together with the divine''.

I'm not sure what you think I am arguing here, but to reiterate my point: Pagans like Celsus and Julian, who would have been familiar with the philosophical ideas of their day, seemed to think that the Gospels fell into a genre that presented itself as historical. Admittedly Julian lived in the Fourth Century, so the Roman world had three hundred years to get used to the idea. But Celsus was late Second Century.

I'd be interested if you can find any sources that Miller uses to show early Christians regarded the Gospels as fiction, if that is his claim.

[andrewcriddle]

I'd be interested if you can find any sources that Miller uses to show early Christians regarded the Gospels as fiction, if that is his claim.

There may be a general question here about how widespread in the ancient world was the whole concept of 'fiction' in our sense.

It may have been more common to regard prose accounts set in the then contemporary world, as either being at least vaguely historical or as being basically lies.

Andrew Criddle

[Giuseppe]

GakuseiDon, you seem think that if the Gospels were proved be historical biography, or better, mythic biography with claims of ''historicity'' from their authors, this raises the priors pro historicism.
I disagree (if you think this).

The Gospels are mythic biography under both mythicism and historicism. Miller calls them abbellishments according the literary conventions of the time, and under a historicism paradigm a mythic biography is really an ''abbellishment'' (understood: of a crude tiny historical kernel).
Under a mythicist paradigm, a mythic biography made up with claims of 'historicity' is simply an invention, a hoax.

Later (not today) I will report the words of Miller about Bob Price's view on the Resurrection episodes.

But about Celsus: Origen makes clear that Celsus is not dealing in the same way the Gospels and pagan myths because he wants debunking only the Christianity using his own sacred texts. Origen answers that Celsus should then equally debunking also the sacred texts pagans, if only he was coherent. Celsus was moved to his criticism ONLY of Gospels (and not of Osiris, for example) because he was disturbed especially by a thing (what Miller describes above): the Christians are claiming more and more dogmatically that their ''founder must be better than, truer than, more virtuous than, of a more archaic tradition than, and more prophetically legitimated than the established classical cultural forms.'' Celsus did fear rightly this imperialistic threat.

In other words, originally the Gospels claim historicity just as the mythic biography of Romulus or Numa Pompilius (note: I am not saying that they a priori imply mythicism is true). But from the second century forward the same Gospels, in the hands of proto-catholics as Origen, claim something of more: they only are true (or more true). The other stories are demons-inspired. Provoking Celsus & co reactions.

[Peter Kirby]

GakuseiDon, you seem think that if the Gospels were proved be historical biography, or better, mythic biography with claims of ''historicity'' from their authors, this raises the priors pro historicism.
I disagree (if you think this).

The Gospels are mythic biography under both mythicism and historicism. Miller calls them abbellishments according the literary conventions of the time, and under a historicism paradigm a mythic biography is really an ''abbellishment'' (understood: of a crude tiny historical kernel).
Under a mythicist paradigm, a mythic biography made up with claims of 'historicity' is simply an invention, a hoax.

If one is going to use the language of 'priors' and all of that lot, it helps to understand fully the meaning of the Bayesian concepts involved. Otherwise one is better off just ditching it and relying upon one's intuition, as a wrong turn or a muddled attempt will be left unchecked, without knowing how to check it.

This Bayesian approach, somewhat analogous to the experimental method, asks us to begin with a "deductive" or predictive analysis of the expected consequences P( E | H & B ) of the hypothesis (H) and the negation of the hypothesis (~H), given only the hypothesis and the pertinent background knowledge (B), while explicitly leaving to one side the evidence or actual events (E) that will be later considered, in a separate step, for calculation of the mathematical effect of our knowledge of the outcome on our estimate of the probability of the hypothesis itself P( H | E & B ), given that knowledge of the actual events (E).

So, when making a statement that the "Gospels are mythic biography under both mythicism and historicism," while this may be a true statement from a certain point of view, that does not mean that it is the most relevant and appropriate point of consideration as input to the Bayesian analysis. (And, as they say: GIGO.)

The issue with using this statement for estimation of the expected probability of the evidence or actual events (E), where this "E" has something to do with what the Gospels are ("mythic biography" or otherwise, etc.), is that it has muddled the "deductive" step in which we reason solely on the basis of the hypothesis (H) or its negation (~H) and the background knowledge (B), confusing it with an analysis of the probability of the actual events being true. In other words, and in mathematical terms, instead of estimating the conditional probability of the events E given the hypothesis and the background knowledge, P( E | H & B ) or P( E | ~H & B ), from the vantage point of a statistician looking forward and trying to predict the outcome, we have instead used our knowledge that P( E ) is close to or actually just 1.

To do so in this step is simply a categorical error.

And, as one can recall from learning algebra, once any single tiny mistake has been made, things can quickly go off the rails in mathematics. The same applies here.

Either we must go back and make a more careful go of it, in order to do the analysis properly, or we might choose to abandon the approach.

[Giuseppe]

I meant only say that the Gospels, even if meant as having claims of historicity, have a very much problematic nature to permit alone to decide in one way or another.

For example, prof Vinzent says that the Gospel of Marcion has a biographical material of a historical Jesus, but it is shown as a radical negation of the same concept of History (meant as another Demiurg's dominion). When you see someone insist that x existed really, really suffered, really died, but x had no body, no blood, no brain, no flesh, how do you see that someone? Historicist or mythicist?

[Giuseppe]

I see this trend: Pagans as Celsus did assume for polemical reasons that the Gospels were false abbellishments of a real bad person: Jesus. But insofar he was real, that Jesus was virtually the radical negation of all what were the Gospels.

I think Richard Carrier would use about Celsus the same words he gave in reply to prof Bermejo-Rubio:

...using a method that casts off all the things that make a figure exalted, obviously what you will always end up with is a contradiction to the exalted figure originally described. You would get that same result for any demigod in history. That doesn’t make them historical; rather, it just makes you good at inventing more believable fictions than the original authors did.

Note that Porphyry was a historicist Pagan that is different from Celsus just in this: he said that Jesus was a good person (contra Celsus) but not a Son of God (pro Celsus). To confute Porhyry, Eusebius did feel the need of a interpolation in Josephus: the same Jewish writer ''confirmed'' that Jesus was ''more than a man''. Therefore we are sure that the Testimonium Flavianum was interpolated to silence NOT-CHRISTIAN Historicists, not to prove a historical Jesus.

I think then that there exist two different kind of euhemerists:

1) the ''negative'' euhemerists: who reduced Jesus to mere humanity for anti-Christian reasons. Often they were the same educated Pagans who disparaged the superstitiones idola of other low rank people, by euhemerizing them, too.

2) the ''positive'' euhemerists: the same historicist Christian proto-Catholics.

Therefore it's rational for me to say that even Celsus, even the Talmudist hater of Jesus, contributed to the process of euhemerizing a celestial Jesus.

For converse, I ask (in vain) you readers a critical analysis of the arguments of R.G.Price:

http://www.rationalrevolution.net/artic ... _jesus.htm

not about what he writes about Mark (and how he uses Goodacre'solution to synoptic problem) but about the following point:

This meant that those who believed that the Gospel accounts were historically true had to come up with evidence to support their case against large numbers of people who called themselves Christians and worshiped a "Jesus Christ" who was "immaterial" (presumably holdovers from earlier pre-Gospel traditions). What we find in the many arguments made by those who believed that Jesus had existed "in the flesh" is that they were unable to provide any external evidence, and ended up relying entirely on "evidence" from the Gospels and the Hebrew scriptures to make their case that Jesus had in fact existed on earth "in the flesh". This is very important because these people had a very strong interest in being able to prove that Jesus was a real human being, and they lived within 100 to 300 years of when he supposedly lived.

The point I ask is this. This mythicist author is making the error of considering tout court mythicist any Docetic Christian? (if so, he is a stupid).

Or he realizes a very more complex and more serious point: that the Docetic threat (beyond if raised more before or more late) had the unquestionable historical merit to move the Catholics (or whoever had in his hands our 4 canonical Gospels) to reveal ALL their cards in order to confute the deniers of the humanity of a historical Jesus?

Therefore, the fact that their cards consist only of four ridiculous gospels reveals basically the intrinsic fragility of their belief in an historical Jesus?

One can make a case using the Tertullian's argument against Marcion:

In fact, as noted in the case of the brothers of Jesus, when Tertullian introduces the theory of the messengers from the Jesus'family there ''out'' as the tempters - and thereby demonstrating that there was a completely self-sufficient and not inconsistent rival explanation by an heretic gospel - now the same Tertullian stands on the defensive, raising a lot of smoke and rhetorical finally saying that if they really wanted to investigate him having relatives or not, it would be better if they appeal to the anagrafe of the time, to be precise asking to ''Saturninus'' as if it were a fact self-evident the mention in his census of the parents of Jesus.

Note that here I (known in this forum for my obsessive defence of mcn priority) may even assume that Mcn comes later: the essentia of my argument remains. Why did Tertullian ceases to be a dure and pure Historicist and does mere rethorica when he is required only to confute the Marcionites showing concrete evidence of the humanity of Jesus?