Why Doesn't Celsus Know Jesus is the Christ?

[Secret Alias]

This thread is a continuation of the discovery in another thread that Celsus the pagan critic of Christianity does not seem to know that Jesus is called 'Christ' by Christians. As John noted in that thread, he is aware that Jews express an interest in a warrior figure whom they call 'messiah' but Celsus seems unaware that Jesus was so called by Christians. The surviving MS (likely altered by Eusebius to use against fourth century pagans) seems to allude to the contemporary followers of Jesus as 'Christians' but there are good reasons that in Celsus's original manuscript they were called 'Chrestoi.' Does this help provide for us some clues to (a) where Celsus was writing against Christians and (b) what community Celsus was writing against or drawing his information from?

Clearly Christianity was a forbidden association at the time Celsus was writing (1.1). Moreover there is a strange emphasis on Christianity as a mystery religion which seems to point to Alexandria and the Alexandrian Church as his point of contact. He says it is a 'secret association' (συνθήκας κρύβδην 1.1) and specifically "of associations some are public, and that these are in accordance with the laws; others, again, secret (ἀφανεῖς), and maintained in violation of the laws." Celsus also speaks of 'secret Christian' beliefs (κρύφα Χριστιανοὺς 1.3) and the like but most interesting - going back to 1.1 - it is very apparent that Origen is not following the original order of the True Account at this section (i.e. early in Book 1). I think we can piece together where it originally stood in relation to.

Let's cite the section:

The first point which Celsus brings forward, in his desire to throw discredit upon Christianity, is, that the Christians entered into secret associations with each other contrary to law, saying, that of associations some are public, and that these are in accordance with the laws; others, again, secret, and maintained in violation of the laws. And his wish is to bring into disrepute what are termed the love-feasts of the Christians, as if they had their origin in the common danger, and were more binding than any oaths. Since, then, he babbles about the public law, alleging that the associations of the Christians are in violation of it, we have to reply, that if a man were placed among Scythians, whose laws were unholy, and having no opportunity of escape, were compelled to live among them, such an one would with good reason, for the sake of the law of truth, which the Scythians would regard as wickedness, enter into associations contrary to their laws, with those like-minded with himself; so, if truth is to decide, the laws of the heathens which relate to images, and an atheistical polytheism, are Scythian laws, or more impious even than these, if there be any such. It is not irrational, then, to form associations in opposition to existing laws, if done for the sake of the truth. For as those persons would do well who should enter into a secret association in order to put to death a tyrant who had seized upon the liberties of a state, so Christians also, when tyrannized over by him who is called the devil, and by falsehood, form leagues contrary to the laws of the devil, against his power, and for the safety of those others whom they may succeed in persuading to revolt from a government which is, as it were, Scythian, and despotic.

The stand alone 'Scythian' reference is quite striking and in my mind fits perfectly with this is and only this section of the treatise:

As the Jews, then, became a peculiar people, and enacted laws in keeping with the customs of their country, and maintain them up to the present time, and observe a mode of worship which, whatever be its nature, is yet derived from their fathers, they act in these respects like other men, because each nation retains its ancestral customs, whatever they are, if they happen to be established among them. And such an arrangement appears to be advantageous, not only because it has occurred to the mind of other nations to decide some things differently, but also because it is a duty to protect what has been established for the public advantage; and also because, in all probability, the various quarters of the earth were from the beginning allotted to different superintending spirits, and were thus distributed among certain governing powers, and in this manner the administration of the world is carried on. And whatever is done among each nation in this way would be rightly done, wherever it was agreeable to the wishes (of the superintending powers), while it would be an act of impiety to get rid of the institutions established from the beginning in the various places. By these words Celsus shows that the Jews, who were formerly Egyptians, subsequently became a peculiar people, and enacted laws which they carefully preserve. And not to repeat his statements, which have been already before us, he says that it is advantageous to the Jews to observe their ancestral worship, as other nations carefully attend to theirs. And he further states a deeper reason why it is of advantage to the Jews to cultivate their ancestral customs, in hinting dimly that those to whom was allotted the office of superintending the country which was being legislated for, enacted the laws of each land in co-operation with its legislators. He appears, then, to indicate that both the country of the Jews, and the nation which inhabits it, are superintended by one or more beings, who, whether they were one or more, co-operated with Moses, and enacted the laws of the Jews.

Chapter 26

We must, he says, observe the laws, not only because it has occurred to the mind of others to decide some things differently, but because it is a duty to protect what has been enacted for the public advantage, and also because, in all probability, the various quarters of the earth were from the beginning allotted to different superintending spirits, and were distributed among certain governing powers, and in this manner the administration of the world is carried on. Thus Celsus, as if he had forgotten what he had said against the Jews, now includes them in the general eulogy which he passes upon all who observe their ancestral customs, remarking: And whatever is done among each nation in this way, would be rightly done whenever agreeable to the wishes (of the superintendents). And observe here, whether he does not openly, so far as he can, express a wish that the Jew should live in the observance of his own laws, and not depart from them, because he would commit an act of impiety if he apostatized; for his words are: It would be an act of impiety to get rid of the institutions established from the beginning in the various places. Now I should like to ask him, and those who entertain his views, who it was that distributed the various quarters of the earth from the beginning among the different superintending spirits; and especially, who gave the country of the Jews, and the Jewish people themselves, to the one or more superintendents to whom it was allotted? Was it, as Celsus would say, Jupiter who assigned the Jewish people and their country to a certain spirit or spirits? And was it his wish, to whom they were thus assigned, to enact among them the laws which prevail, or was it against his will that it was done? You will observe that, whatever be his answer, he is in a strait. But if the various quarters of the earth were not allotted by some one being to the various superintending spirits, then each one at random, and without the superintendence of a higher power, divided the earth according to chance; and yet such a view is absurd, and destructive in no small degree of the providence of the God who presides over all things.

Chapter 27

Any one, indeed, who chooses, may relate how the various quarters of the earth, being distributed among certain governing powers, are administered by those who superintend them; but let him tell us also how what is done among each nation is done rightly when agreeable to the wishes of the superintendents. Let him, for example, tell us whether the laws of the Scythians, which permit the murder of parents, are right laws; or those of the Persians, which do not forbid the marriages of sons with their mothers, or of daughters with their own fathers. But what need is there for me to make selections from those who have been engaged in the business of enacting laws among the different nations, and to inquire how the laws are rightly enacted among each, according as they please the superintending powers? Let Celsus, however, tell us how it would be an act of impiety to get rid of those ancestral laws which permit the marriages of mothers and daughters; or which pronounce a man happy who puts an end to his life by hanging, or declare that they undergo entire purification who deliver themselves over to the fire, and who terminate their existence by fire; and how it is an act of impiety to do away with those laws which, for example, prevail in the Tauric Chersonese, regarding the offering up of strangers in sacrifice to Diana, or among certain of the Libyan tribes regarding the sacrifice of children to Saturn. Moreover, this inference follows from the dictum of Celsus, that it is an act of impiety on the part of the Jews to do away with those ancestral laws which forbid the worship of any other deity than the Creator of all things. And it will follow, according to his view, that piety is not divine by its own nature, but by a certain (external) arrangement and appointment. For it is an act of piety among certain tribes to worship a crocodile, and to eat what is an object of adoration among other tribes; while, again, with others it is a pious act to worship a calf, and among others, again, to regard the goat as a god. And, in this way, the same individual will be regarded as acting piously according to one set of laws, and impiously according to another; and this is the most absurd result that can be conceived!

Chapter 28

It is probable, however, that to such remarks as the above, the answer returned would be, that he was pious who kept the laws of his own country, and not at all chargeable with impiety for the non-observance of those of other lands; and that, again, he who was deemed guilty of impiety among certain nations was not really so, when he worshipped his own gods, agreeably to his country's laws, although he made war against, and even feasted on, those who were regarded as divinities among those nations which possessed laws of an opposite kind. Now, observe here whether these statements do not exhibit the greatest confusion of mind regarding the nature of what is just, and holy, and religious; since there is no accurate definition laid down of these things, nor are they described as having a peculiar character of their own, and stamping as religious those who act according to their injunctions. If, then, religion, and piety, and righteousness belong to those things which are so only by comparison, so that the same act may be both pious and impious, according to different relations and different laws, see whether it will not follow that temperance also is a thing of comparison, and courage as well, and prudence, and the other virtues, than which nothing could be more absurd! What we have said, however, is sufficient for the more general and simple class of answers to the allegations of Celsus. But as we think it likely that some of those who are accustomed to deeper investigation will fall in with this treatise, let us venture to lay down some considerations of a profounder kind, conveying a mystical and secret view respecting the original distribution of the various quarters of the earth among different superintending spirits; and let us prove to the best of our ability, that our doctrine is free from the absurd consequences enumerated above.

Chapter 29

It appears to me, indeed, that Celsus has misunderstood some of the deeper reasons relating to the arrangement of terrestrial affairs, some of which are touched upon even in Grecian history, when certain of those who are considered to be gods are introduced as having contended with each other about the possession of Attica; while in the writings of the Greek poets also, some who are called gods are represented as acknowledging that certain places here are preferred by them before others. The history of barbarian nations, moreover, and especially that of Egypt, contains some such allusions to the division of the so-called Egyptian homes, when it states that Athena, who obtained Saïs by lot, is the same who also has possession of Attica. And the learned among the Egyptians can enumerate innumerable instances of this kind, although I do not know whether they include the Jews and their country in this division. And now, so far as testimonies outside the word of God bearing on this point are concerned, enough have been adduced for the present. We say, moreover, that our prophet of God and His genuine servant Moses, in his song in the book of Deuteronomy, makes a statement regarding the portioning out of the earth in the following terms: When the Most High divided the nations, when He dispersed the sons of Adam, He set the bounds of the people according to the number of the angels of God; and the portion was His people Jacob, and Israel the cord of His inheritance. And regarding the distribution of the nations, the same Moses, in his work entitled Genesis, thus expresses himself in the style of a historical narrative: And the whole earth was of one language and of one speech; and it came to pass, as they journeyed from the east, that they found a plain in the land of Shinar, and they dwelt there. A little further on he continues: And the Lord came down to see the city and the tower, which the children of men had built. And the Lord said, Behold, the people is one, and they have all one language; and this they have begun to do: and now nothing will be restrained from them which they have imagined to do. Go to, let Us go down, and there confound their language, that they may not understand one another's speech. And the Lord scattered them abroad from thence upon the face of all the earth: and they left off to build the city and the tower. Therefore is the name of it called Confusion; because the Lord did there confound the language of all the earth: and from thence did the Lord scatter them abroad upon the face of all the earth. In the treatise of Solomon, moreover, on Wisdom, and on the events at the time of the confusion of languages, when the division of the earth took place, we find the following regarding Wisdom: Moreover, the nations in their wicked conspiracy being confounded, she found out the righteous, and preserved him blameless unto God, and kept him strong in his tender compassion towards his son. Wisdom 10:5 But on these subjects much, and that of a mystical kind, might be said; in keeping with which is the following: It is good to keep close the secret of a king, — in order that the doctrine of the entrance of souls into bodies (not, however, that of the transmigration from one body into another) may not be thrown before the common understanding, nor what is holy given to the dogs, nor pearls be cast before swine. For such a procedure would be impious, being equivalent to a betrayal of the mysterious declarations of God's wisdom, of which it has been well said: Into a malicious soul wisdom shall not enter, nor dwell in a body subject to sin. Wisdom 1:4 It is sufficient, however, to represent in the style of a historic narrative what is intended to convey a secret meaning in the garb of history, that those who have the capacity may work out for themselves all that relates to the subject. (The narrative, then, may be understood as follows.)

[Secret Alias]

It would seem then that after speaking about the different 'accounts' in all the oldest cultures - all of which are equally valid (hence the title 'True Account' - Celsus must have introduced the Jews (see above) and in passing mentioned the Christians as a secret and unauthorized assembly contrary to the law. The fact that the section cited above in Book 5 originally 'fit' with the jumbled 'point form' notes which makes up the first few chapters of Book 1.

Celsus next proceeds to say, that the system of doctrine, viz., Judaism, upon which Christianity depends, was barbarous in its origin. And with an appearance of fairness, he does not reproach Christianity because of its origin among barbarians, but gives the latter credit for their ability in discovering (such) doctrines. To this, however, he adds the statement, that the Greeks are more skilful than any others in judging, establishing, and reducing to practice the discoveries of barbarous nations. Now this is our answer to his allegations, and our defence of the truths contained in Christianity, that if any one were to come from the study of Grecian opinions and usages to the Gospel, he would not only decide that its doctrines were true, but would by practice establish their truth, and supply whatever seemed wanting, from a Grecian point of view, to their demonstration, and thus confirm the truth of Christianity. We have to say, moreover, that the Gospel has a demonstration of its own, more divine than any established by Grecian dialectics. And this diviner method is called by the apostle the manifestation of the Spirit and of power: of the Spirit, on account of the prophecies, which are sufficient to produce faith in any one who reads them, especially in those things which relate to Christ; and of power, because of the signs and wonders which we must believe to have been performed, both on many other grounds, and on this, that traces of them are still preserved among those who regulate their lives by the precepts of the Gospel.

Chapter 3

After this, Celsus proceeding to speak of the Christians teaching and practising their favourite doctrines in secret, and saying that they do this to some purpose, seeing they escape the penalty of death which is imminent, he compares their dangers with those which were encountered by such men as Socrates for the sake of philosophy; and here he might have mentioned Pythagoras as well, and other philosophers. But our answer to this is, that in the case of Socrates the Athenians immediately afterwards repented; and no feeling of bitterness remained in their minds regarding him, as also happened in the history of Pythagoras. The followers of the latter, indeed, for a considerable time established their schools in that part of Italy called Magna Græcia; but in the case of the Christians, the Roman Senate, and the princes of the time, and the soldiery, and the people, and the relatives of those who had become converts to the faith, made war upon their doctrine, and would have prevented (its progress), overcoming it by a confederacy of so powerful a nature, had it not, by the help of God, escaped the danger, and risen above it, so as (finally) to defeat the whole world in its conspiracy against it.

Chapter 4

Let us notice also how he thinks to cast discredit upon our system of morals, alleging that it is only common to us with other philosophers, and no venerable or new branch of instruction. In reply to which we have to say, that unless all men had naturally impressed upon their minds sound ideas of morality, the doctrine of the punishment of sinners would have been excluded by those who bring upon themselves the righteous judgments of God. It is not therefore matter of surprise that the same God should have sown in the hearts of all men those truths which He taught by the prophets and the Saviour, in order that at the divine judgment every man may be without excuse, having the requirements of the law written upon his heart,— a truth obscurely alluded to by the Bible in what the Greeks regard as a myth, where it represents God as having with His own finger written down the commandments, and given them to Moses, and which the wickedness of the worshippers of the calf made him break in pieces, as if the flood of wickedness, so to speak, had swept them away. But Moses having again hewn tables of stone, God wrote the commandments a second time, and gave them to him; the prophetic word preparing the soul, as it were, after the first transgression, for the writing of God a second time.

Chapter 5

Treating of the regulations respecting idolatry as being peculiar to Christianity, Celsus establishes their correctness, saying that the Christians do not consider those to be gods that are made with hands, on the ground that it is not in conformity with right reason (to suppose) that images, fashioned by the most worthless and depraved of workmen, and in many instances also provided by wicked men, can be (regarded as) gods. In what follows, however, wishing to show that this is a common opinion, and one not first discovered by Christianity, he quotes a saying of Heraclitus to this effect: That those who draw near to lifeless images, as if they were gods, act in a similar manner to those who would enter into conversation with houses. Respecting this, then, we have to say, that ideas were implanted in the minds of men like the principles of morality, from which not only Heraclitus, but any other Greek or barbarian, might by reflection have deduced the same conclusion; for he states that the Persians also were of the same opinion, quoting Herodotus as his authority. We also can add to these Zeno of Citium, who in his Polity, says: And there will be no need to build temples, for nothing ought to be regarded as sacred, or of much value, or holy, which is the work of builders and of mean men. It is evident, then, with respect to this opinion (as well as others), that there has been engraven upon the hearts of men by the finger of God a sense of the duty that is required.

The connection between the Christians and the Scythians (and various nomadic people) also appears at the beginning of Adversus Marcionem and I think this is a key point. What Origen (or the final editor of Against Celsus) has done in the first few chapters of Book One is 'distill' the spotty references to Christianity in the opening preamble to the True Word. It would seem that the preamble was made reference to the various cultures and only occasionally made reference to the Christians.

So here for instance the Scythians are said in Book 5 to shun images and temples just like the Christians. But more importantly we can begin to see another agreement (unnoticed before) which is worth looking into. From Book 5 we see a clear continuation of the 'true word' shared by many cultures (via involvement of the demons):

The Scythians, indeed, regard it as a noble act to banquet upon human beings. Among the Indians, too, there are some who deem themselves discharging a holy duty in eating their fathers, and this is mentioned in a certain passage by Herodotus. For the sake of credibility, I shall again quote his very words, for he writes as follows: 'For if any one were to make this proposal to all men, viz., to bid him select out of all existing laws the best, each would choose, after examination, those of his own country. Men each consider their own laws much the best, and therefore it is not likely than any other than a madman would make these things a subject of ridicule.

And Book 1:

Since, then, he babbles about the public law, alleging that the associations of the Christians are in violation of it, we have to reply, that if a man were placed among Scythians, whose laws were unholy, and having no opportunity of escape, were compelled to live among them, such an one would with good reason, for the sake of the law of truth, which the Scythians would regard as wickedness, enter into associations contrary to their laws, with those like-minded with himself; so, if truth is to decide, the laws of the heathens which relate to images, and an atheistical polytheism, are Scythian laws, or more impious even than these, if there be any such. It is not irrational, then, to form associations in opposition to existing laws, if done for the sake of the truth. For as those persons would do well who should enter into a secret association in order to put to death a tyrant who had seized upon the liberties of a state, so Christians also, when tyrannized over by him who is called the devil, and by falsehood, form leagues contrary to the laws of the devil, against his power, and for the safety of those others whom they may succeed in persuading to revolt from a government which is, as it were, Scythian, and despotic.

I am beginning to suspect that the original structure of the True Word was to distinguish between 'civilizations' and nomadic people and the Jews and then the Christians are identified with the latter. Pretty sure about that now and - interestingly - this identification was passed on to the Marcionites. Curious why that was.

[Secret Alias]

We've already noted that the first book of Against Marcion begins almost begins with this lengthy comparison of the Marcion and the Marcionites to the Scythians of Pontus:

The sea called Euxine, or hospitable, is belied by its nature and put to ridicule by its name. Even its situation would prevent you from reckoning Pontus hospitable: as though ashamed of its own barbarism it has set itself at a distance from our more civilized waters. Strange tribes inhabit it—if indeed living in a wagon can be called inhabiting.

Then a lengthy allusion to the 'Scythian' characteristic of Marcion and the Scythians follows:

Even so, the most barbarous and melancholy thing about Pontus is that Marcion was born there, more uncouth than a Scythian, more unsettled than a Wagon-dweller, more uncivilized than a Massagete, with more effrontery than an Amazon, darker than fog, colder than winter, more brittle than ice, more treacherous than the Danube, more precipitous than Caucasus. Evidently so, when by him the true Prometheus, God Almighty, is torn to bits with blasphemies. More ill-conducted also is Marcion than the wild beasts of that barbarous land: for is any beaver more self-castrating than this man who has abolished marriage? What Pontic mouse is more corrosive than the man who has gnawed away the Gospels?

If we look closely at this section Marcion and the Marcionites are being consistently compared to things Scythian - they are reprehensible as Scythians, uncivilized like another Pontic tribe and then a long list of other barbarous people follow before Marcion is again compared to the animals who are associated with that region - 'wild beast' and a species of 'Pontic mice' mentioned by Aristotle (History of Animals 8.3)

The normal way of viewing this material of course is to think that it was only because Marcion 'really was' from the Roman province of Pontus. No one disputes of course that in antiquity, Σκύθαι was the term used by the Greeks to refer to certain Iranian groups of horse-riding nomadic pastoralists who dwelt on the Pontic-Caspian steppe. Yet for some reason - perhaps because Tertullian is a Church Father - the general consensus is that Marcion really must have been 'of Pontus' because he says so. Yet I want to remind the reader that almost everything he says seems to develop from a comparison of Marcion and the Marcionites with the Scythian nomads who traditionally inhabited Pontus. There is very little reason to believe that any of this has any basis in fact.

I hope that at the very least the reader can see that linking Marcion to a barbaric community of Iranian nomads would explain his alleged religious dualism. Indeed in the case of his successor Mani this is made explicit with the introduction of a supposed 'Scythian of Alexandria.' https://books.google.com/books?id=iWw_A ... us&f=false Where one might expect to find Marcion, there is instead:

a certain person belonging to Scythia, bearing the name Scythianus, and living in the apostles, was the founder and leader of this sect, just as many other apostates have constituted themselves founders and leaders, who from time to time, through the ambitious desire of arrogating positions of superior importance to themselves, have given out falsehoods for the truth, and have perverted the simpler class of people to their own lustful appetencies, on whose names and treacheries, however, you do not permit us at present to descant. This Scythianus, then, was the person who introduced this self-contradictory dualism; and for that, too, he was himself indebted to Pythagoras, as also all the other followers of this dogma have been, who all uphold the notion of a dualism, and turn aside from the direct course of Scripture: but they shall not gain any further success therein. No one, however, has ever made such an unblushing advance in the promulgation of these tenets as this Scythianus. For he introduced the notion of a feud between the two unbegottens, and all those other fancies which are the consequences of a position of that kind. (Acts of Archelaus 51, 52)

Again it is interesting to see how influential Celsus was.

[davidbrainerd]

We've already noted that the first book of Against Marcion begins almost begins with this lengthy comparison of the Marcion and the Marcionites to the Scythians of Pontus:

The sea called Euxine, or hospitable, is belied by its nature and put to ridicule by its name. Even its situation would prevent you from reckoning Pontus hospitable: as though ashamed of its own barbarism it has set itself at a distance from our more civilized waters. Strange tribes inhabit it—if indeed living in a wagon can be called inhabiting.

Then a lengthy allusion to the 'Scythian' characteristic of Marcion and the Scythians follows:

Even so, the most barbarous and melancholy thing about Pontus is that Marcion was born there, more uncouth than a Scythian, more unsettled than a Wagon-dweller, more uncivilized than a Massagete, with more effrontery than an Amazon, darker than fog, colder than winter, more brittle than ice, more treacherous than the Danube, more precipitous than Caucasus. Evidently so, when by him the true Prometheus, God Almighty, is torn to bits with blasphemies. More ill-conducted also is Marcion than the wild beasts of that barbarous land: for is any beaver more self-castrating than this man who has abolished marriage? What Pontic mouse is more corrosive than the man who has gnawed away the Gospels?

If we look closely at this section Marcion and the Marcionites are being consistently compared to things Scythian - they are reprehensible as Scythians, uncivilized like another Pontic tribe and then a long list of other barbarous people follow before Marcion is again compared to the animals who are associated with that region - 'wild beast' and a species of 'Pontic mice' mentioned by Aristotle (History of Animals 8.3)

The normal way of viewing this material of course is to think that it was only because Marcion 'really was' from the Roman province of Pontus. No one disputes of course that in antiquity, Σκύθαι was the term used by the Greeks to refer to certain Iranian groups of horse-riding nomadic pastoralists who dwelt on the Pontic-Caspian steppe. Yet for some reason - perhaps because Tertullian is a Church Father - the general consensus is that Marcion really must have been 'of Pontus' because he says so. Yet I want to remind the reader that almost everything he says seems to develop from a comparison of Marcion and the Marcionites with the Scythian nomads who traditionally inhabited Pontus. There is very little reason to believe that any of this has any basis in fact.

I hope that at the very least the reader can see that linking Marcion to a barbaric community of Iranian nomads would explain his alleged religious dualism. Indeed in the case of his successor Mani this is made explicit with the introduction of a supposed 'Scythian of Alexandria.' https://books.google.com/books?id=iWw_A ... us&f=false Where one might expect to find Marcion, there is instead:

a certain person belonging to Scythia, bearing the name Scythianus, and living in the apostles, was the founder and leader of this sect, just as many other apostates have constituted themselves founders and leaders, who from time to time, through the ambitious desire of arrogating positions of superior importance to themselves, have given out falsehoods for the truth, and have perverted the simpler class of people to their own lustful appetencies, on whose names and treacheries, however, you do not permit us at present to descant. This Scythianus, then, was the person who introduced this self-contradictory dualism; and for that, too, he was himself indebted to Pythagoras, as also all the other followers of this dogma have been, who all uphold the notion of a dualism, and turn aside from the direct course of Scripture: but they shall not gain any further success therein. No one, however, has ever made such an unblushing advance in the promulgation of these tenets as this Scythianus. For he introduced the notion of a feud between the two unbegottens, and all those other fancies which are the consequences of a position of that kind. (Acts of Archelaus 51, 52)

Again it is interesting to see how influential Celsus was.

So Tertullian wrote after Celsus then. It seems to me Marcion is Paul himsrlf. He tries to buy a bishopric from Rome per Tertullian the same way Paul tries to buy apostleship from Jerusalem with his collection money. Too coincidental. Marcionites who Tertullian says say Paul is the only apostle he tells us count Marcion as an apostle (how unless the two figures are one snd the same?). Then he's got multiple names (just like Saul/Paul), Marcion, Cerdo (obviously no predessessor but another name), Scythian. Why Cerdo, not sure. Marcion, little Mark, because Hypolytus thinks his gospel is a version of Mark, and because he is really Paulus, little, and his gospel is short compared to orthodoxy. As to Sythianus being an Arabian, its because Paul is an Arabian (explains going to Arabia right after receiving his revelation in Galatians). Sythianus has a connection with Egypt ('Scythian of Alexandria'); Paul is mistaken by the Romans in Acts for 'the Egyptian.'

[Peter Kirby]

The OP leaves out the best quote in the first book, which was noted in the previous thread:

It is shocking to realize (I had no idea previous to this thread) that Celsus never once uses the title 'Christ.' He doesn't have a clue that this has anything to do with Jesus. This is a most surprising discovery. How can it be explained? As Origen notes "A Jew, however, would not admit that any prophet used the expression, The 'Son of God' will come; for the term which they employ is, The 'Christ of God?' will come."

Since most of us don't read the forum with the texts out in front of us, let me provide that quote in full.

http://earlychristianwritings.com/text/origen161.html

CHAP. XLIX.

After this he wilfully sets aside, I know not why, the strongest evidence in confirmation of the claims of Jesus, viz., that His coming was predicted by the Jewish prophets--Moses, and those who succeeded as well as preceded that legislator--from inability, as I think, to meet the argument that neither the Jews nor any other heretical sect refuse to believe that Christ was the subject of prophecy. But perhaps he was unacquainted with the prophecies relating to Christ. For no one who was acquainted with the statements of the Christians, that many prophets foretold the advent of the Saviour, would have ascribed to a Jew sentiments which it would have better befitted a Samaritan or a Sadducee to utter; nor would the Jew in the dialogue have expressed himself in language like the following: "But my prophet once declared in Jerusalem, that the Son of God will come as the Judge of the righteous and the Punisher of the wicked." Now it is not one of the prophets merely who predicted the advent of Christ. But although the Samaritans and Sadducees, who receive the books of Moses alone, would say that there were contained in them predictions regarding Christ, yet certainly not in Jerusalem, which is not even mentioned in the times of Moses, was the prophecy uttered. It were indeed to be desired, that all the accusers of Christianity were equally ignorant with Celsus, not only of the facts, but of the bare letter of Scripture, and would so direct their assaults against it, that their arguments might not have the least available influence in shaking, I do not say the faith, but the little faith of unstable and temporary believers. A Jew, however, would not admit that any prophet used the expression, "The ' Son of God' will come;" for the term which they employ is, "The 'Christ of God' will come." And many a time indeed do they directly interrogate us about the "Son of God," saying that no such being exists, or was made the subject of prophecy. We do not of course assert that the "Son of God" is not the subject of prophecy; but we assert that he most inappropriately attributes to the Jewish disputant, who would not allow that He was, such language as, "My prophet once declared in Jerusalem that the ' Son of God' will come."

So there isn't just a terminological difficulty. Celsus neglects the concept that "His coming was predicted by the Jewish prophets" as a whole, while having some notion that Jews believed that a "Son of God" (not, as Origen is at pains to point out, a "Christ of God") was prophesied.

This does call out for explanation -- and it becomes fairly evident that Celsus (ca. 170) believes something different about the nature of Christianity and Christians than Origen (ca. 230). We might turn to the Christian texts themselves to see if we can figure out exactly what.

[John T]

Clearly Christianity was a forbidden association at the time Celsus was writing (1.1). Moreover there is a strange emphasis on Christianity as a mystery religion which seems to point to Alexandria and the Alexandrian Church as his point of contact. He says it is a 'secret association' (συνθήκας κρύβδην 1.1) and specifically "of associations some are public, and that these are in accordance with the laws; others, again, secret (ἀφανεῖς), and maintained in violation of the laws."

If so, how do you explain the following?

CHAP. XII.

"In the next place, when Celsus says in express words, "If they would answer me, not as if I were asking for information, for I am acquainted with all their opinions, but because I take an equal interest in them all, it would be well. And if they will not, but will keep reiterating, as they generally do, 'Do not investigate,' etc., they must, he continues, explain to me at least of what nature these things are of which they speak, and whence they are derived," etc. Now, with regard to his statement that he "is acquainted with all our doctrines," we have to say that this is a boastful and daring assertion; for if he had read the prophets in particular, which are full of acknowledged difficulties, and of declarations that are obscure to the multitude, and if he had perused the parables of the Gospels, and the other writings of the law and of the Jewish history, and the utterances of the apostles, and had read them candidly, with a desire to enter into their meaning, he would not have expressed himself with such boldness, nor said that he "was acquainted with all their doctrines."...Origen

Translation: Celsus writes out of ignorance at the very least or to beguile his audience at worst. I believe it was the latter.

Still, you have to factor in that Rufinus (fourth-century monk) translation of Origen's comments have been altered to make Origen more orthodox than he really was. Some of Origen's comments were truly mind-blowing on his take on election and heavenly beings.

John T

[MrMacSon]

... you have to factor in that Rufinus (fourth-century monk) translation of Origen's comments have been altered to make Origen more orthodox than he really was.

• Good point. How much post ~320 AD/CE redaction has there been?

Some of Origen's comments were truly mind-blowing on his take on election and heavenly beings.

• Interesting. Such as?

Translation: Celsus writes out of ignorance at the very least or to beguile his audience at worst. I believe it was the latter.

• Or someone else has written or rewritten Celsus or Origen (or both) to beguile the [wider] audience.
  
  (Origen could have done that with his account of Celsus. And others could have subsequently also done that).

[MrMacSon]

This thread is a continuation of the discovery in another thread that Celsus the pagan critic of Christianity does not seem to know that Jesus is called 'Christ' by Christians...

The OP leaves out the best quote in the first book, which was noted in the previous thread...

• What was the previous thread? Link, please?

[MrMacSon]

I'm not sure how valuable this is, but I'll put it here for posterity -

[Categorized] FRAGMENTS FROM ORIGEN AGAINST CELSUS

Christians and Society

Book I

1 The Christians entered into secret associations with each other contrary to law.

The love-feasts of the Christians, have their origin in the common danger, and are more binding than any oaths.

3 Christians teach and practise their favourite doctrines in secret, and they do this to ,some purpose, seeing they escape the penalty of death which is imminent. The dangers are comparable with those which were encountered by such men as Socrates for the sake of philosophy.

5. The Christians do not consider those to be gods that are made with hands, on the ground that it is not in conformity with right reason (to suppose) that images, fashioned by the most worthless and depraved of workmen, and in many instances also provided by wicked men.

https://web.archive.org/web/20060427150 ... christians

via https://web.archive.org/web/20060427150 ... elstop.htm

[Secret Alias]

Not that people should or do keep track of all my crazy hunches but for some time (twenty years) I have been convinced for quite some time that the order of Against Celsus is not that of the original treatise of Celsus. The reasons for this are multi-fold but the most obvious proof is that the same section of the True Account are cited in two different parts of Against Celsus. Also Origen's opening words make it clear that two different methodologies were used.

Why this is (i.e. why the order had to be jumbled) is an open question but the obvious reason is that - as with the gospels which I believe are also in the wrong order or at least do not follow the original gospel(s) - the authorities didn't want the original meaning or logos of Christianity to survive.

But clearly at least now that we see Jesus isn't Christ EVER for Celsus this might be part of the solution. The Romans were very practical. Nietzsche once said that the best way to defeat an argument is make a bad argument in favor of it. When you think of it if you have a problem with Jewish messianism as the Romans did under Hadrian, allowing, favoring or encouraging a wretched messiah or messianic candidate to survive is the obvious solution. For there are no surviving messianic interpretations in the Mishnah. Nothing of any substance in the Talmud. Judaism was very much marginalized into a reaction against Christianity or (perhaps better put) the Jesus is the Christ doctrine.

In other words I wonder if a specifically sanctioned form of Christianity - one which argued that Jesus was indeed the messiah - was set up against the survival messianic ideas in Judaism. That's my theory. But in light of this or independent of this Celsus never identifies Jesus as the messiah or Christ. Could this be owing to the fact that Celsus himself was before the 'messianification' of Jesus?