Origen 2, Scholars 0. Origen as author of ''called Christ''

[Giuseppe]

Eureka!!!!

The definitive proof that Origen interpolated "called Christ" is in the logic shown in Contra Celsum, II, 34.

In that passage there is all the sufficient and necessary to do the case.

[Giuseppe]

Origen has all the features, the circumstances and the intentions of the interpolator of "called Christ":

The features: Origen attributed FALSELY to Josephus the causal link "death of James--->fall of Jerusalem"

The circumstances: Origen had the need of, someway, "evidence" possibly "objective" to confute the accusation of Celsus that Jesus was not vindicated against his killers, differently from the Pagan heroes.

The intentions: Origen would like to prove that the Jews were punished for having killed the Christ.

To hypothesize another interpolator of "called Christ" - with features, circumstances and intentions that we do not know and never will know - distinct from Origen, is totally gratuitous and Occam prohibits.

Therefore, pace Richard Carrier and pace Peter Kirby, I accuse Origen as the more probable interpolator of "called Christ" in Antiquities 20:200, BEYOND ANY REASONABLE DOUBT.

[Peter Kirby]

Congratulations. Indeed "beyond any reasonable doubt" if, of course, you add the silent "in a pig's eye."

[Giuseppe]

I don't understand your arguments to think that Origen was not himself the interpolator of "called Christ".

The onus probandi is on you, now. I have already described my case in this thread.

[Giuseppe]

Note also that Celsus's point is that Dionysus could use cruel irony against Penteus during his persecution by Penteus, while Jesus couldn't do so against the his killers.

Origen replied by pointing out - just at the incipit of the his 7 books against Celsus - the great irony of the words "called Christ" said by Pilate.

It is a great coincidence. Isn't it?

[Giuseppe]

Compare the irony of ''called Christ'' in Matthew 27:17 with the irony of Dionysus:

PENTHEUS

What profit bring they to their votaries?


DIONYSUS

Thou must not be told, though 'tis well worth knowing.


PENTHEUS

A pretty piece of trickery, to excite my curiosity!


DIONYSUS

A man of godless life is an abomination to the rites of the god.


PENTHEUS

Thou sayest thou didst see the god clearly; what was he like?


DIONYSUS

What his fancy chose; I was not there to order this.


PENTHEUS

Another clever twist and turn of thine, without a word of answer.


DIONYSUS

He were a fool, methinks, who would utter wisdom to a fool.


PENTHEUS

Hast thou come hither first with this deity?


DIONYSUS

All foreigners already celebrate these mysteries with dances.


PENTHEUS

The reason being, they are far behind Hellenes in wisdom.


DIONYSUS

In this at least far in advance, though their customs differ.


PENTHEUS

Is it by night or day thou performest these devotions?


DIONYSUS

By night mostly; darkness lends solemnity.


PENTHEUS

Calculated to entrap and corrupt women.


DIONYSUS

Day too for that matter may discover shame.


PENTHEUS

This vile quibbling settles thy punishment.


DIONYSUS

Brutish ignorance and godlessness will settle thine.


PENTHEUS

How bold our Bacchanal is growing! a very master in this wordy strife!


DIONYSUS

Tell me what I am to suffer; what is the grievous doom thou wilt inflict upon me?


PENTHEUS

First will I shear off thy dainty tresses.


DIONYSUS

My locks are sacred; for the god I let them grow.


PENTHEUS

Next surrender that thyrsus.


DIONYSUS

Take it from me thyself; 'tis the wand of Dionysus I am bearing.


PENTHEUS

In dungeon deep thy body will I guard.


DIONYSUS

The god himself will set me free, whene'er I list.


PENTHEUS

Perhaps he may, when thou standest amid thy Bacchanals and callest on his name.


DIONYSUS

Even now he is near me and witnesses my treatment.


PENTHEUS

Why, where is he? To my eyes he is invisible.


DIONYSUS

He is by my side; thou art a godless man and therefore dost not see him.


PENTHEUS

Seize him! the fellow scorns me and Thebes too.


DIONYSUS

I bid you bind me not, reason addressing madness.


PENTHEUS

But I say "bind!" with better right than thou.


DIONYSUS

Thou hast no knowledge of the life thou art leading; thy very existence is now a mystery to thee.


PENTHEUS

I am Pentheus, son of Agave and Echion.


DIONYSUS

Well-named to be misfortune's mate!


PENTHEUS

Avaunt! Ho! shut him up within the horses' stalls hard by, that for light he may have pitchy gloom. Do thy dancing there, and these women whom thou bringest with thee to share thy villainies I will either sell as slaves or make their hands cease from this noisy beating of drums, and set them to work at the loom as servants of my own.


DIONYSUS

I will go; for that which fate forbids, can never befall me. For this thy mockery be sure Dionysus will exact a recompense of thee-even the god whose existence thou deniest; for thou art injuring him by haling me to prison.

[Giuseppe]

I note that Origen had to face a ''mythicist problem'' regarding the presumed baptism by John, since himself compares the problem with one very analogous:

For suppose that someone were to assert that there never had been any Trojan war, chiefly on account of the impossible narrative interwoven therewith, about a certain Achilles being the son of a sea-goddess Thetis and of a man Peleus, or Sarpedon being the son of Zeus, or Ascalaphus and Ialmenus the sons of Ares, or Aeneas that of Aphrodite, how should we prove that such was the case, especially under the weight of the fiction attached, I know not how, to the universally prevalent opinion that there was really a war in Ilium between Greeks and Trojans?

The problem of Origen about the historicity of the war of Ilium:

1) the story of the war of Ilium is full of extraordinary events
2) extraordinary events require extraordinary evidence
3) the same problem is with the story of the Gospel Jesus, precisely with the baptism of Jesus.

According to Allen 2015 (and I agree), Origen resolves the problem by interpolating the Baptist Passage + ''called Christ'' in Josephus's Antiquities.

But the problem now is why Celsus had to link the death of John the Baptist with the death of Jesus.

[Giuseppe]

Two criticisms to my view (that Origen interpolated both ''called Christ'' and the Baptist Passage in Josephus to react against Celsus's need of evidence of the baptism):

1) why Origen insists that ''the Jews doesn't connect John with Jesus''

2) why the Baptist Passage doesn't say that Jesus was baptized by John.

[davidbrainerd]

One interesting thing I think scholars typically miss is the church fathers are not scholars, they're clergymen; they don't write to convince opponents but to keep the choir convinced (well, maybe sometimes scholars do to). In other words, Agaisnt Celsus is no more written TO Celsus to convince HIM as Terullian's Against Marcion was written to convince Marcion's corpse or Against the Jews was written to be read by a rabbi, or any number of Against All Heresies type treatises were written to convince heretics. Writing to convince an opponent you must correctly present HIS argument, and be diplomatic. Writing against an opponent but TO the choir, you attack the opponent with mud slinging, name calling, and misrepresentation. And when writing to an opponent, you must properly quote sources or he'll catch you, but writing against him TO the choir, they're not going to double check your sources so interpolate away and mis-cite all you want. This is how the church fathers operate, evrn the most "scholarly" Origen. So the typical argument "Origen must be accurately quoting a source lest Celsus catch him" need not apply, position is filled.

[Giuseppe]

One interesting thing I think scholars typically miss is the church fathers are not scholars, they're clergymen; they don't write to convince opponents but to keep the choir convinced (well, maybe sometimes scholars do to).

Note the strategy of Origen:

1) the pagan Celsus shows doubt about the historicity of the same minimal core behind the baptism by John.

2) Origen's argument: ''if you doubt about our gospels, then you should doubt about the historicity of the same minimal core behind the Iliad.''


The pattern repeats himself:

1) the Celsus's Jew shows doubt about the historicity of the same minimal core behind the baptism by John.

2) Origen's argument: ''if you doubt about our gospels, then you should doubt about the historicity of the same minimal core behind the Exodus.''

It is clear that at least here Origen was writing to convince opponents.