Reconstructing Celsus

Discussion about the New Testament, apocrypha, gnostics, church fathers, Christian origins, historical Jesus or otherwise, etc.
Secret Alias
Posts: 18362
Joined: Sun Apr 19, 2015 8:47 am

Reconstructing Celsus

Post by Secret Alias »

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.

Πρῶτον τῷ Κέλσῳ κεφάλαιόν ἐστι βουλομένῳ διαβαλεῖν χριστιανισμόν ὡς,

... συνθήκας κρύβδην πρὸς ἀλλήλους ποιουμένων Χριστιανῶν παρὰ τὰ νενομισμένα, ὅτι τῶν συνθηκῶν αἱ μέν εἰσι φανεραί, ὅσαι κατὰ νόμους γίνονται, αἱ δὲ ἀφανεῖς, ὅσαι παρὰ τὰ νενομισμένα συντε λοῦνται. Καὶ βούλεται διαβαλεῖν τὴν καλουμένην ἀγάπην Χριστιανῶν πρὸς ἀλλήλους, ἀπὸ τοῦ κοινοῦ κινδύνου ὑφιστα μένην καὶ δυναμένην ὑπερόρκια

Christians formed amongst themselves secret associations contrary to the things sanctioned by established tradition that some associations are indeed public all in accordance with the laws, but the secret ones are all maintained contrary to the things established by tradition. [1.1]
Origen appears to 'jump into' the subject of Celsus's treatise rather suddenly. What does he mean by 'συνθήκας κρύβδην''? Origen claims that this has something to do with the primitive Love feast as DCH noted in another thread:
Chadwick thinks that when Origen describes Celsus' opening argument, "καὶ βούλεται διαβαλεῖν τὴν καλουμένην ἀγάπην Χριστιανῶν πρὸς ἀλλήλους," he means not that "his wish is to bring into disrepute what are termed the "love-feasts" of the Christians" as Crombie translates, but "wishing to slander the so-called love (agape) which Christians have for one another." He explains in a footnote: "That ἀγάπη probably means brotherly love and not the love-feast is shown by πρὸς ἀλλήλους [toward/with one another]. Cf. Volker, Das Bild, pp. 44-3.
Let's push to the side the πρὸς ἀλλήλους reference. More intriguing to me is συνθήκας which seems to indicate a secret (crypto-Jewish) society.

συνθήκη , ἡ, (συντίθημι)
A.compounding, esp. of words and sentences, Luc.Hist.Conscr.46, Hermog.Id.1.1,3, Philostr.VS1.17.4, Herm. in Phdr.p.175 A.: in concrete sense, a compound, Luc.Prom.Es5:— but in early writers,
II. convention, compact, “ς. καὶ ὁμολογία” Pl. Cra.384d, cf. 433e; “ὁ νόμος ς. καὶ ἐγγυητὴς ἀλλήλοις τῶν δικαίων” Arist.Pol.1280b10, cf. Rh.1376a33; ἐκ συνθήκης by agreement, Pl.Lg. 879a; “διὰ συνθήκης” Arist.APr.50a18; κατὰ συνθήκην conventionally, opp. φύσει, Id.EN1133a29; so συνθήκῃ ib.1134b32: pl., “συνθήκας ποιεῖσθαι τὰς ὑπὲρ τοῦ μὴ βλάπτειν ἄλληλα” Epicur.Sent.32.
2. article of a compact or treaty, “τὴν ξ. προφέροντες ἐν ᾗ εἴρητο” Th.5.31, cf. 1.78: also, treaty, “ς. καὶ συμμαχία” SIG421.1 (Thermon, iii B.C.): but in this signf. mostly in pl., articles of agreement, and hence, covenant, treaty, between individuals or states, A.Ch.555, Ar.Lys. 1267, Isoc.4.176, etc.; “συνθῆκαι περὶ εἰρήνης” X.Mem.4.4.17; γάμων ς. Plu.Luc.18; ς. κύριαι, ἄκυροι, Lys.18.15; ἐπ᾽ ἄλλους στρατεύειν οὐκ εἶναι ἐν ταῖς ς. X.HG7.5.4, cf. SIG135.1 (Olynthus, iv B.C.), al.; ξυνθῆκαι Λακεδαιμονίων πρὸς βασιλέα . . , σπονδὰς εἶναι καὶ φιλίαν κατὰ τάδε Foed. ap. Th.8.37, cf. IG12.90.21, Pl.Cri.54c, D.15.29; “συνθήκας ποιεῖσθαι” Hdt.6.42, Ar.Pax1065, X.HG7.1.2; “ὑπὲρ τῶν βαρβάρων” Isoc.4.177; ποιεῖν τινι πρός τινα between them, X.Lac. 15.1; “ς. συνεθέμεθα” Lys.13.88; γράψαι, γράφασθαι, D.48.10, D.S.1.66; ἀναιρεῖν, λύειν, Isoc.17.31, 18.24; “παραβῆναι” Pl.Cri. l.c.; “ὑπερβαίνειν” Aeschin.1.164; παρ᾽ οὐδὲν ἡγεῖσθαι Decr. ap. D.18.164; “συνθήκαις ἐμμένειν” Isoc.4.81; ἐκ τῶν ς. according to the covenant, ib.179; κατὰ τὰς ξ. Th.1.144, cf. Pl.Tht.183c; opp. παρὰ τὰς ς. Id.Cri.52d.
III. = θήκη, coffin, v.l. in Lib.Or.8.11.

So getting to Origen's reference to this being above 'love feasts.' Becker sums up the section as being concerned with "heimlich Zusammenschlüsse gegen die gesetzliche Ordnung."

And his (Celsus's) wish is to bring into disrepute what are termed "Christian love with each other" , as if they had their origin in the common danger, and were more binding than any oaths.

Καὶ βούλεται διαβαλεῖν τὴν καλουμένην ἀγάπην Χριστιανῶν πρὸς ἀλλήλους, ἀπὸ τοῦ κοινοῦ κινδύνου ὑφιστα μένην καὶ δυναμένην ὑπερόρκια

ὑπερόρκιος = beyond an oath. δυναμένη ὑπερόρκια = more powerful than any oath. What is odd about this statement is that it is difficult to imagine any other situation other than the army where 'oaths' and 'breaking oaths' would have an every day application. The Epistle to the Diognetes has an echo of this statement when it writes:
He, I say, Who is eternal, Who to-day was accounted a Son, through Whom the Church is enriched and grace is unfolded and multiplied among the saints, grace which confers understanding, which reveals mysteries, which announces seasons, which rejoices over the faithful, which is bestowed upon those who seek her, even those by whom the pledges of faith are not broken, nor the boundaries of the fathers overstepped (οις όρκια πίστεως ου θραύεται ουδέ όρια πατέρων παρορίζεται).
Apparently the Christians are coming together with 'love for each other' because of a 'common danger' that they face - or at least that's Celsus's point. The same idea - 'common danger' appears at the beginning of 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.

Μετὰ ταῦτα περὶ τοῦ κρύφα Χριστιανοὺς τὰ ἀρέσκοντα ἑαυτοῖς ποιεῖν καὶ διδάσκειν εἰπών, καὶ ὅτι οὐ μάτην τοῦτο ποιοῦσιν, ἅτε διωθούμενοι τὴν
ἐπηρτημένην αὐτοῖς δίκην τοῦ θανάτου, ὁμοιοῖ τὸν κίνδυνον κινδύνοις τοῖς συμβεβη κόσιν ἐπὶ φιλοσοφίᾳ ὡς Σωκράτει· ἐδύνατο λέγειν καὶ ὡς Πυθαγόρᾳ καὶ ἄλλοις φιλοσόφοις.
The subject of 'danger' again appears in 1.8:
It is with a certain eloquence, indeed, that he appears to advocate the cause of those who bear witness to the truth of Christianity by their death in the following words: And I do not maintain that if a man, who has adopted a system of good doctrine, is to incur danger from men on that account (Καὶ οὐ τοῦτο λέγω, ὡς χρὴ τὸν ἀγαθοῦ δόγματος περιεχόμενον εἰ μέλλει δι' αὐτὸ κινδυνεύειν παρ' ἀνθρώποις), he should either apostatize, or feign apostasy, or openly deny his opinions (ἀποστῆναι τοῦ δόγματος ἢ πλάσασθαι ὡς ἀφέστηκεν ἢ ἔξαρνον γενέσθαι). And he condemns those who, while holding the Christian views, either pretend that they do not, or deny them, saying that he who holds a certain opinion ought not to feign recantation, or publicly disown it. And here Celsus must be convicted of self-contradiction. For from other treatises of his it is ascertained that he was an Epicurean; but here, because he thought that he could assail Christianity with better effect by not professing the opinions of Epicurus, he pretends that there is a something better in man than the earthly part of his nature, which is akin to God, and says that they in whom this element, viz., the soul, is in a healthy condition, are ever seeking after their kindred nature, meaning God, and are ever desiring to hear something about Him, and to call it to remembrance. Observe now the insincerity of his character! Having said a little before, that the man who had embraced a system of good doctrine ought not, even if exposed to danger on that account from men, to disavow it, or pretend that he had done so, nor yet openly disown it, he now involves himself in all manner of contradictions.
Clearly Jesus is the prototype of the Christians here (1.18):
and in Him who with surpassing wisdom and divine greatness of mind dared to make known this doctrine to men in every part of the world, at the cost of great danger, and of a death considered infamous (μετὰ μεγάλων κινδύνων καὶ θανάτου νομι ζομένου ἀτίμου), which He underwent for the sake of the human race; having also taught those who were persuaded to embrace His doctrine at the first, to proceed, under the peril of every danger, and of ever impending death (μετὰ πάντων κινδύνων καὶ τῶν ἀεὶ προσδοκωμένων θανάτων), to all quarters of the world to ensure the salvation of men?
And again:
And besides this, one may well wonder how it happened that the disciples— if, as the calumniators of Jesus say, they did not see Him after His resurrection from the dead, and were not persuaded of His divinity— were not afraid to endure the same sufferings with their Master, and to expose themselves to danger (καὶ ὁμόσε χωρῆσαι τῷ κινδύνῳ), and to leave their native country to teach, according to the desire of Jesus, the doctrine delivered to them by Him. For I think that no one who candidly examines the facts would say that these men devoted themselves to a life of danger for the sake of the doctrine of Jesus, without profound belief which He had wrought in their minds of its truth, not only teaching them to conform to His precepts, but others also, and to conform, moreover, when manifest destruction to life impended over him who ventured to introduce these new opinions into all places and before all audiences, and who could retain as his friend no human being who adhered to the former opinions and usages.
So there is this sense in the first book that Jesus was exposed to the same dangers as the contemporary Christians who formed a secret society around 'loving one another' because of the aforementioned 'dangers.' What's more this 'secret society' went against τὰ νενομισμένα = the things sanctioned by established tradition.

Usually scholars think that it was merely the fact that the associations weren't public that was the issue. Nevertheless it is interesting to note that the issue of Christianity abrogating τὰ νενομισμένα = 'the things sanctioned by established tradition.' Origen intimates that Celsus sees the gospel as depicting Jesus contravening τὰ νενομισμένα in his evangelic missionary activities:
Now, who is there on seeing fishermen and tax-gatherers, who had not acquired even the merest elements of learning (as the Gospel relates of them, and in respect to which Celsus believes that they speak the truth, inasmuch as it is their own ignorance which they record), discoursing boldly not only among the Jews of faith in Jesus, but also preaching Him with success among other nations, would not inquire whence they derived this power of persuasion? Theirs was certainly not the common method followed by the multitude. (Οὐ γὰρ ἡ νενομισμένη τοῖς πολλοῖς) [1.61]
Of course Origen himself argues that Christianity is rooted in of the Jews. As he notes in Book 4:
Now it has never been recorded, since the Jewish nation began to exist, that they have been expelled for so long a period from their venerable temple-worship and service, and enslaved by more powerful nations; for if at any time they appeared to be abandoned because of their sins, they were notwithstanding visited (by God), and returned to their own country, and recovered their possessions, and performed unhindered the observances of their law (ἀκωλύτως ποιοῦντες τὰ νενομισμένα). One fact, then, which proves that Jesus was something divine and sacred, is this, that Jews should have suffered on His account now for a lengthened time calamities of such severity. And we say with confidence that they will never be restored to their former condition. For they committed a crime of the most unhallowed kind, in conspiring against the Saviour of the human race in that city where they offered up to God a worship containing the symbols of mighty mysteries (ἔνθα τὰ νενομισμένα σύμβολα μεγάλων μυστηρίων ἐποίουν τῷ θεῷ). [4.22]
For Celsus Christianity is a secret 'loving each other' association which stands against τὰ νενομισμένα; Origen claims that it is a sublimation or related to τὰ νενομισμένα of the Jews. This is where the two disagree.

For Celsus is willing to accept that Judaism now is necessarily tolerated religion. Judaism does not contradict τὰ νενομισμένα:
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 institutions (ἀλλὰ καὶ ὅτι ὡς εἰκὸς τὰ μέρη τῆς γῆς ἐξ ἀρχῆς ἄλλα ἄλλοις ἐπόπταις
νενεμημένα),
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 (τὰ ἐξ ἀρχῆς κατὰ τόπους νενομισμένα.). 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. [5.25]
As Origen later clarifies:
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 (λέγει γὰρ ὅτι παραλύειν οὐχ ὅσιον εἶναι τὰ ἐξ ἀρχῆς κατὰ τόπους νενομισμένα). 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 then Origen later clarifies his own position even further:
we shall refuse our assent to the assertion of Celsus, that because of the superintending spirits distributed among the different parts of the earth, what is done among each nation is rightly done; for our desire is to do what is not agreeable to these spirits. For we see that it is a religious act to do away with the customs originally established in the various places by means of laws of a better and more divine character (Ὁρῶμεν γὰρ ὅτι ὅσιον μὲν τὰ ἐξ ἀρχῆς κατὰ τόπους νενομισμένα λύειν ἐστὶ νόμοις κρείττοσι καὶ θειοτέροις), which were enacted by Jesus, as one possessed of the greatest power, who has rescued us from the present evil world, and from the princes of the world that come to nought [5.32]
and again:

But the angels, who are the true rulers and generals and ministers of God, do not, as Celsus supposes, injure those who offend them; and if certain demons, whom Celsus had in mind, do inflict evils, they show that they are wicked, and that they have received no office of the kind from God. And they even do injury to those who are under them, and who have acknowledged them as their masters; and accordingly, as it would seem that those who break through the regulations which prevail in any country in regard to matters of food (τὰ νενομισμένα βρώματα), suffer for it if they are under the demons of that place, while those who are not under them, and have not submitted to their power, are free from all harm, and bid defiance to such spirits; although if, in ignorance of certain things, they have come under the power of other demons, they may suffer punishment from them.

and again:

Celsus supposes that men discharge the duties of life until they are loosened from its bonds, when, in accordance with commonly received customs (τὰ νενομισμένα), they offer sacrifices to each of the gods recognised in the state; and he fails to perceive the true duty which is fulfilled by an earnest piety.

and again:

Celsus, then, as if not observing that he was saying anything inconsistent with the words he had just used, if all were to do the same as you, adds: You surely do not say that if the Romans were, in compliance with your wish, to neglect their customary duties to gods and men (τῶν νενομισμένων αὐτοῖς πρὸς θεούς), and were to worship the Most High, or whatever you please to call him, that he will come down and fight for them, so that they shall need no other help than his. For this same God, as yourselves say, promised of old this and much more to those who served him, and see in what way he has helped them and you! They, in place of being masters of the whole world, are left with not so much as a patch of ground or a home; and as for you, if any of you transgresses even in secret, he is sought out and punished with death. As the question started is, What would happen if the Romans were persuaded to adopt the principles of the Christians, to despise the duties paid to the recognised gods and to men (τῶν πρὸς τοὺς νενομισμένους θεοὺς ἀμελήσαντες καὶ τῶν κατὰ τοὺς ἀνθρώπους προτέρων νόμων), and to worship the Most High? this is my answer to the question. We say that if two of us shall agree on earth as touching anything that they shall ask, it shall be done for them of the Father of the just, which is in heaven; for God rejoices in the agreement of rational beings, and turns away from discord.
“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
Secret Alias
Posts: 18362
Joined: Sun Apr 19, 2015 8:47 am

Re: Reconstructing Celsus

Post by Secret Alias »

It is odd the way Origen won't let us see Celsus's original interest in ἀγάπη. His preface has over 6 seemingly unrelated reference to the term. The only time that we hear Celsus make reference to ἀγάπη is in Book 6:

If he had happened to be cast down a precipice, or shoved into a pit, or suffocated by hanging, there would have been invented a precipice of life far beyond the heavens, or a pit of resurrection, or a cord of immortality. And again: If the 'tree of life' were an invention, because he— Jesus— (is reported) to have been a carpenter, it would follow that if he had been a leather-cutter, something would have been said about holy leather; or had he been a stone-cutter, about a blessed stone; or if a worker in iron, about an iron of love (περὶ σιδήρου ἀγάπης).

and a little later again with reference to the so-called Ophite Diagram:

Now, in the diagram referred to, we found the greater and the lesser circle, upon the diameter of which was inscribed Father and Son; and between the greater circle (in which the lesser was contained) and another composed of two circles—the outer one of which was yellow, and the inner blue—a barrier inscribed in the shape of a hatchet. And above it, a short circle, close to the greater of the two former, having the inscription Love ("ἀγάπην"); and lower down, one touching the same circle, with the word Life.
“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
Secret Alias
Posts: 18362
Joined: Sun Apr 19, 2015 8:47 am

Re: Reconstructing Celsus

Post by Secret Alias »

In the end there can be little doubt that Celsus's underlying purpose was to attack Christian Agape given the repetition of the words (strangely) in the introduction coupled by the opening statement to this effect by Origen:
I venture, then, to say that this apology (ἀπολογίαν) which you [i.e. Ambrose] require me to compose will somewhat weaken that defence (ἀπολογίαν) which rests on facts, and that power of Jesus (δύναμιν τοῦ Ἰησοῦ) which is manifest to those who are not altogether devoid of perception. Notwithstanding, that we may not have the appearance of being reluctant to undertake the task which you have enjoined, we have endeavoured, to the best of our ability, to suggest, by way of answer to each of the statements advanced by Celsus, what seemed to us adapted to refute them, although his arguments have no power to shake the faith of any (true) believer. And forbid, indeed, that any one should be found who, after having been a partaker in such a love of God as was in Christ Jesus (ἀγάπην τοῦ θεοῦ ἐν Χριστῷ Ἰησοῦ), could be shaken in his purpose by the arguments of Celsus, or of any such as he. For Paul, when enumerating the innumerable causes which generally separate (χωρίζειν) men from the love of Christ (ἀπὸ τῆς ἀγάπης τοῦ Χριστοῦ) and from the love of God in Christ Jesus (ἀγάπης τοῦ θεοῦ ἐν Χριστῷ Ἰησοῦ) to all of which, the love that was in himself (ἐν αὐτῷ ἀγάπη) rose superior, argument (λόγον) he did not set down among the grounds of separation (χωρίζουσι) ... And when laying down another series of causes which naturally tend to separate (χωρίζειν) those who are not firmly grounded in their religion, he says: For I am persuaded that neither death, nor life, nor angels, nor principalities, nor powers, nor things present, nor things to come, nor height, nor depth, nor any other creature, shall be able to separate us (χωρίσαι) from the love of God, which is in Christ Jesus our Lord.

Now, truly, it is proper that we should feel elated because afflictions, or those other causes enumerated by Paul, do not separate us (μὴ χωριζούσῃ); but not that Paul and the other apostles, and any other resembling them, (should entertain that feeling), because they were far exalted above such things when they said, In all these things we are more than conquerors through Him that loved us, which is a stronger statement than that they are simply conquerors. But if it be proper for apostles to entertain a feeling of elation in not being separated (μὴ χωριζομένους) from the love of God that is in Christ Jesus our Lord, that feeling will be entertained by them, because neither death, nor life, nor angels, nor principalities, nor any of the things that follow, can separate them from the love of God which is in Christ Jesus our Lord ("χωρίσαι <ἀπὸ> τῆς ἀγάπης τοῦ θεοῦ τῆς ἐν Χριστῷ Ἰησοῦ τῷ κυρίῳ ἡμῶν").

And therefore I do not congratulate that believer in Christ whose faith can be shaken by Celsus— who no longer shares the common life of men, but has long since departed— or by any apparent plausibility of argument. For I do not know in what rank to place him who has need of arguments written in books in answer to the charges of Celsus against the Christians, in order to prevent him from being shaken in his faith, and confirm him in it. But nevertheless, since in the multitude of those who are considered believers some such persons might be found as would have their faith shaken and overthrown by the writings of Celsus, but who might be preserved by a reply to them of such a nature as to refute his statements and to exhibit the truth, we have deemed it right to yield to your injunction, and to furnish an answer to the treatise which you sent us, but which I do not think that any one, although only a short way advanced in philosophy, will allow to be a True Discourse, as Celsus has entitled it.
“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
Secret Alias
Posts: 18362
Joined: Sun Apr 19, 2015 8:47 am

Re: Reconstructing Celsus

Post by Secret Alias »

But you see because I accept the historical authenticity of Clement's Letter to Theodore I take this situation in another way. Notice that the real thing that is being emphasized here by Origen is that members can't be separated from each other. This is what often gets lost here. Jesus had an agape which is now shared by members of the Christian community. When we jump into the main text the repeated mention of the secret compacts formed amongst themselves (συνθήκας κρύβδην πρὸς ἀλλήλους ποιουμένων) and the ἀγάπην Χριστιανῶν πρὸς ἀλλήλους as being the very thing that goes against τὰ νενομισμένα "the things sanctioned by established tradition" and which causes these believers to be 'endangered' in society.

Because the Letter to Theodore hasn't been taken seriously enough by scholars we've always seen these statements as general references to 'persecutions' of Christian communities as secret societies. Yet the fundamental significance of 'love' - love between 'each other' in the form of a 'compact'- in all of this is specifically understood to stand outside of normal social rules and conventions. What could this possibly refer to other than something which appears - on the surface at least - to appear like gay marriage?

I say this because hidden in the strong thematic agreement between Book One and Book Eight is an explicit (and mostly ignored mention) to Christian eschewing heterosexual marriage:
Celsus goes on to say: They must make their choice between two 'logoi' (∆υοῖν θάτερον αἱρεῖ λόγος). If they refuse to render due service to the gods, and to respect those who are set over this service (Εἰ μὲν ἀπαξιοῦσι θεραπεύειν τὰ εἰκότα τοὺς τῶνδε ἐπιστάτας), nor come to manhood (μήτ' εἰς ἀνδρὸς ἰέναι), nor marry wives (μήτ' ἄγεσθαι γυναῖκα), nor have children (μήτ' ἀναιρεῖσθαι τέκνα), nor indeed take any share in the affairs of life (μήτ' ἄλλο πράττειν μηδὲν ἐν τῷ βίῳ) let them depart (χωρεῖν) hence with all speed, and leave no posterity behind them, that such a race may become extinct from the face of the earth. Or, on the other hand, if they will take wives, and bring up children, and taste of the fruits of the earth, and partake of all the blessings of life, and bear its appointed sorrows (for nature herself has allotted sorrows to all men; for sorrows must exist, and earth is the only place for them), then must they discharge the duties of life until they are released from its bonds, and render due honour to those beings who control the affairs of this life, if they would not show themselves ungrateful to them. For it would be unjust in them, after receiving the good things which they dispense, to pay them no tribute in return.
This is the most important statement in the entire work and sums up the situation perfectly. Christians in Celsus's time castrate themselves (= μήτ' εἰς ἀνδρὸς ἰέναι) do not marry wives (= μήτ' ἄγεσθαι γυναῖκα) and thus don't have children (= μήτ' ἀναιρεῖσθαι τέκνα). That Origen understands that this is what Celsus meant is clear from his immediate follow up:
To this we reply, that there appears to us to be no good reason for our leaving this world, except when piety and virtue require it ; as when, for example, those who are set as judges , and think that they have power over our lives, place before us the alternative either to live in violation of the commands of Jesus, or to die if we continue obedient to them. But God has allowed us to marry, because all are not fit for the higher, that is, the perfectly pure life; and God would have us to bring up all our children, and not to destroy any of the offspring given us by His providence. And this does not conflict with our purpose not to obey the demons that are on the earth
Indeed I would even go one step further and note that this response might well have been expanded by Eusebius. Origen initially says 'yes, Jesus gave us this logos and we only have to die when judges make us live according to the world. Then the second argument is added on '... oh and the Bible says we can marry and have kids' pointing to a development in the original argument.

But in any case it is clear what Celsus originally was saying - the compacts which Christians formed amongst themselves (συνθήκας κρύβδην πρὸς ἀλλήλους ποιουμένων) and the ἀγάπην Χριστιανῶν πρὸς ἀλλήλους went against established social convention - τὰ νενομισμένα. Most likely then I submit, they looked gay.
“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
Secret Alias
Posts: 18362
Joined: Sun Apr 19, 2015 8:47 am

Re: Reconstructing Celsus

Post by Secret Alias »

I think the brothermaking rites still preserved in marginalized Christian communities likely go back to the earliest controversies within Roman society. Christian 'brothers' refused to get married, refused to have kids and walked around together speaking about a different kind of love that they had for one another (= agape) which resembled that of the angels. It was a particularly attractive doctrine for Roman men and women because it was essentially selfish in nature (i.e. just live for yourself). Roman critics like Celsus were horrified by it because this sort of narcissism seemed to herald the end of civilization.

I am fascinated by how 'self-evident' gay marriage is in contemporary society. Why can't two people who 'love' one another simply abandon social convention and marry each other, adopt kids, get divorced, receive social benefits? What is the argument against it? The rules established by social convention (= τὰ νενομισμένα). But what if I love someone who happens to be the same sex as I am? Critics would say τὰ νενομισμένα trumps individual notions of volition and desire. Society demands X. God demands X. It was the same in antiquity with a slightly different form of same sex social coupling I suspect.
“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
Secret Alias
Posts: 18362
Joined: Sun Apr 19, 2015 8:47 am

Re: Reconstructing Celsus

Post by Secret Alias »

The juxtaposition between συνθήκη and gamos is noted in the Wisdom of Solomon:
The rational relationship between solomon and σοφία is the antithesis to the foolish relationship the ungodly imagine they have with death (1.16).16 Whereas the wicked indulge their unwise infatuation (1.16–2.1), Solomon, loving her whom god loves (8.3) and enchanted by her beauty, pursues Wisdom as a bride (8.2). in contrast to the illicit pact (συνθήκη, 1.16), which has death as both its co-signer and telos, marriage to Wisdom brings all the sexual joys of matrimony (8.16)17 and has immortality as its soteriological end: ἀθανασία ἐστὶνἐν συγγενείᾳ σοφίας (8.17). https://books.google.com/books?id=MbPfA ... gQ6AEIKDAA
And the use of syntheke as the marriage between believers and Christ is well noted in Chrysostom:
Elsewhere, speaking to catechumens, who are about to confess their faith and be baptized, Chrysostom says of their commitment, "this word is a covenant with the Master."12 Again, the term for covenant is not diatheke but syntheke, implying that here we are dealing with another kind of relationship of agreement, not the biblical understanding of covenant.13 It is the shared sense that their agreement is not only between the two of them, like some legal contract, but that it includes Christ in the syntheke. https://books.google.com/books?id=9zY2v ... kQ6AEIKDAA
“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
Secret Alias
Posts: 18362
Joined: Sun Apr 19, 2015 8:47 am

Re: Reconstructing Celsus

Post by Secret Alias »

The letter from Gregory and Athenagoras provides us with the clearest example of how a homosexual sounding 'binding together' was rampant in Origen's community. Only here the term used is συνδεδέσθαι. We read Gregory and his 'brother' came before Origen to be bound together like David and Jonathan:
And from the very first day of his receiving us (which day was, in truth, the first day to me, and the most precious of all days, if I may so speak, since then for the first time the true Sun began to rise upon me), while we, like some wild creatures of the fields, or like fish, or some sort of birds that had fallen into the toils or nets, and were endeavouring to slip out again and escape, were bent on leaving him, and making off for Berytus or our native country, he studied by all means to associate us closely with him, contriving all kinds of arguments, and putting every rope in motion (as the proverb goes), and bringing all his powers to bear on that object. With that intent he lauded the lovers of philosophy with large laudations and many noble utterances, declaring that those only live a life truly worthy of reasonable creatures who aim all living an upright life and who seek to know first of all themselves, what manner of persons they are, and then the things that are truly good, which man ought to strive after, and then the things that are really evil, from which man ought to flee. And then he reprehended ignorance and all the ignorant: and there are many such, who, like brute cattle, are blind in mind, and have no understanding even of what they are, and are as far astray as though they were wholly void of reason, and neither know themselves what is good and what is evil, nor care at all to learn it from others, but toil feverishly in quest of wealth, and glory, and such honours as belong to the crowd, and bodily comforts, and go distraught about things like these, as if they were the real good. And as though such objects were worth much, yea, worth all else, they prize the things themselves, and the arts by which they can acquire them, and the different lines of life which give scope for their attainment—the military profession, to wit, and the juridical, and the study of the laws. And with earnest and sagacious words he told us that these are the objects that enervate us, when we despise that reason which ought to be the true master within us. I cannot recount at present all the addresses of this kind which he delivered to us, with the view of persuading us to take up the pursuit of philosophy. Nor was it only for a single day that he thus dealt with us, but for many days and, in fact, as often as we were in the habit of going to him at the outset; and we were pierced by his argumentation as with an arrow from the very first occasion of our hearing him (for he was possessed of a rare combination of a certain sweet grace and persuasiveness, along with a strange power of constraint), though we still wavered and debated the matter undecidedly with ourselves, holding so far by the pursuit of philosophy, without however being brought thoroughly over to it, while somehow or other we found ourselves quite unable to withdraw from it conclusively, and thus were always drawn towards him by the power of his reasonings, as by the force of some superior necessity. For he asserted further that there could be no genuine piety towards the Lord of all in the man who despised this gift of philosophy—a gift which man alone of all the creatures of the earth has been deemed honourable and worthy enough to possess, and one which every man whatsoever, be he wise or be he ignorant, reasonably embraces, who has not utterly lost the power of thought by some mad distraction of mind. He asserted, then, as I have said, that it was not possible (to speak correctly) for any one to be truly pious who did not philosophize. And thus he continued to do with us, until, by pouring in upon us many such argumentations, one after the other, he at last carried us fairly off somehow or other by a kind of divine power, like people with his reasonings, and established us (in the practice of philosophy), and set us down without the power of movement, as it were, beside himself by his arts. Moreover, the stimulus of friendship was also brought to bear upon us—a stimulus, indeed, not easily withstood, but keen and most effective—the argument of a kind and affectionate disposition, which showed itself benignantly in his words when he spoke to us and associated with us. For he did not aim merely at getting round us by any kind of reasoning; but his desire was, with a benignant, and affectionate, and most benevolent mind, to save us, and make us partakers in the blessings that flow from philosophy, and most especially also in those other gifts which the Deity has bestowed on him above most men, or, as we may perhaps say, above all men of our own time. I mean the power that teaches us piety, the word of salvation, that comes to many, and subdues to itself all whom it visits: for there is nothing that shall resist it, inasmuch as it is and shall be itself the king of all; although as yet it is hidden, and is not recognised, whether with ease or with difficulty, by the common crowd, in such wise that, when interrogated respecting it, they should be able to speak intelligently about it. And thus, like some spark lighting upon our inmost soul, love was kindled and burst into flame within us—a love at once to the Holy Word, the most lovely object of all, who attracts all irresistibly toward Himself by His unutterable beauty, and to this man, His friend and advocate. And being most mightily smitten by this love, I was persuaded to give up all those objects or pursuits which seem to us befitting, and among others even my boasted jurisprudence,— yea, my very fatherland and friends, both those who were present with me then, and those from whom I had parted. And in my estimation there arose but one object dear and worth desire—to wit, philosophy, and that master of philosophy, this inspired man. And the soul of Jonathan was knit with David (καὶ συνεδέθη ἡ ψυχὴ Ἰωνάθαν ∆αυίδ). 1 Samuel 18:1 This word, indeed, I did not read till afterwards in the sacred Scriptures; but I felt it before that time, not less clearly than it is written: for, in truth, it reached me then by the clearest of all revelations. For it was not simply Jonathan that was knit with David ( Οὐ γὰρ συνεδέθη ἁπλῶς Ἰωνάθαν ∆αυίδ); but those things were knit together which are the ruling powers in man— their souls—those objects which, even though all the things which are apparent and ostensible in man are severed (χωρισθέντων), cannot by any skill be forced to a severance (χωρισθέντων) when they themselves are unwilling. For the soul is free, and cannot be coerced by any means, not even though one should confine it and keep guard over it in some secret prison-house. For wherever the intelligence is, there it is also of its own nature and by the first reason. And if it seems to you to be in a kind of prison-house, it is represented as there to you by a sort of second reason. But for all that, it is by no means precluded from subsisting anywhere according to its own determination; nay, rather it is both able to be, and is reasonably believed to be, there alone and altogether, wheresoever and in connection with what things soever those actions which are proper only to it are in operation. Wherefore, what I experienced has been most clearly declared in this very short statement, that the soul of Jonathan was knit with the soul of David (τὴν ψυχὴν Ἰωνάθαν συνδεδέσθαι τῇ ψυχῇ ∆αυίδ;); objects which, as I said, cannot by any means be forced to a separation against their will, and which of their own inclination certainly will not readily choose it. Nor is it, in my opinion, in the inferior subject, who is changeful and very prone to vary in purpose, and in whom singly there has been no capacity of union at first, that the power of loosing the sacred bonds of this affection rests, but rather in the nobler one, who is constant and not readily shaken, and through whom it has been possible to the these bonds and to fasten this sacred knot. Therefore it is not the soul of David that was knit by the divine word with the soul of Jonathan (Συνεδέθη γοῦν καὶ ὑπὸ τοῦ θείου λόγου οὐχ ἡ ψυχὴ ∆αυὶδ τῇ ψυχῇ Ἰωνάθαν); but, on the contrary, the soul of the latter, who was the inferior, is said to be thus affected and knit with the soul of David (συνδεομένη λέγεται τῇ ψυχῇ ∆αυίδ). For the nobler object would not choose to be knit with one inferior (ἕλοιτο ἂν τῷ αὐτοῦ συνδεδέσθαι χείρονι), inasmuch as it is sufficient for itself; but the inferior object, as standing in need of the help which the nobler can give, ought properly to be knit with the nobler, and fitted dependently to it (συνδεθὲν τῷ κρείττονι προσηρτῆ σθαι ἐχρῆν): so that this latter, retaining still its sufficiency in itself, might sustain no loss by its connection with the inferior; and that that which is of itself without order being now united and fitted harmoniously with the nobler, might, without any detriment done, be perfectly subdued to the nobler by the constraints of such bonds. Wherefore, to apply the bonds is the part of the superior, and not of the inferior; but to be knit to the other is the part of the inferior, and this too in such a manner that it shall possess no power of loosing itself from these bonds. And by a similar constraint, then, did this David of ours once gird us to himself; and he holds us now, and has held us ever since that time, so that, even though we desired it, we could not loose ourselves from his bonds. And hence it follows that, even though we were to depart, he would not release this soul of mine, which, as the Holy Scripture puts it, he holds knit so closely with himself.
Clearly the terminology is derived from the story of the binding of David and Jonathan. But the context of 'binding' through agape and the juxtaposition of Celsus trying to 'separate' makes clear that this was the original context of Celsus's treatise. Going back to the book of Samuel:
“The soul of Jonathan was bound to the soul of David, and Jonathan loved him as his own soul… Jonathan made a covenant with David, because he loved him as his own soul. And Jonathan stripped himself of the robe that was on him and gave it to David, and his armor, even his sword, his bow, and his girdle.” (I Samuel 18:1-4.)
The Hebrew word for covenant is berit which means “to bond” and in Greek as syntheke, “binding together.” It can not be denied that marriage was considered a covenant in Biblical times and this is the closest verse that may resemble marriage between two men. Secondly, Jonathan immediately disrobed in front of David after the covenant was made and provides a symbol of submission between a relationship of two men which would be seldom seen in a male friendship during this time.
“David arose out of a place toward the south, and fell on his face to the ground, and bowed himself three times: and they kissed one another, and wept one with another, until David exceeded. And Jonathan said to David, Go in peace, forasmuch as we have sworn both of us in the name of the Lord, saying, The Lord be between me and thee, and between my seed and thy seed for ever.” (I Samuel 20:41-42)
One does not have to look hard to see that David and Jonathan had a close relationship. They showed physical affection, shared emotions, and seemed to have a bond beyond friendship. This commentary only touches the surface of the signs that these two men may have been involved.
“Very pleasant have you (Jonathan) been to me; your love to me was wonderful, passing the love of women.” (II Samuel 1:26.)
“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
andrewcriddle
Posts: 2816
Joined: Sat Oct 05, 2013 12:36 am

Re: Reconstructing Celsus

Post by andrewcriddle »

There is a discussion of the relationship between Gregory and Origen in Spiritual Guides of the 3rd century by Richard Valantasis

Andrew Criddle
Last edited by andrewcriddle on Wed Aug 09, 2017 10:47 am, edited 1 time in total.
Secret Alias
Posts: 18362
Joined: Sun Apr 19, 2015 8:47 am

Re: Reconstructing Celsus

Post by Secret Alias »

Thanks Andrew. Unfortunately the link doesn't work. Will have to order the book. For those interested in a summary:
R. Valantasis seeks to decipher a sexual code-language in Gregory's description of his relationship to the teacher: “So much of Gregory Thaumaturgos's description of the teacher—student interaction revolves about suggestions of sexual relations that clearly the sexual dynamic exceeds the Platonic model of education in the Symposium. Gregory shows no evidence of abstracting from physical relationships to noetic, because his language consistently betrays the physical aspect. At first, their relationship appears to be classically Platonic: the teacher attracts and compels the student by his beauty to begin the educative ascent. But Gregory's description never moves from that attraction. The teacher entwines the student in a compelling discourse in which he is drawn to the teacher first and only secondarily to philosophy, as though he hurled a "dart of friendship" at him. Until this point one can only presume a sexual relationship. With the "spark," however, the sexual dynamic becomes explicit."
All I can get right now. But it is strange that the man who responds to Celsus's central charge of Christians having some sort of "love between themselves" which goes against established social norms should be a guy who's beloved student spoke about his teacher in homoerotic terms.

Gregory's original name interestingly enough was "Theodore" viz. a letter written to him would be addressed "to Theodore"
Last edited by Secret Alias on Wed Aug 09, 2017 5:53 pm, edited 1 time in total.
“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
Secret Alias
Posts: 18362
Joined: Sun Apr 19, 2015 8:47 am

Re: Reconstructing Celsus

Post by Secret Alias »

Apparently Bortnes noticed the same thing too:
Jostein Børtnes (2000) has drawn attention to this kind of Christian reception of Plato's Symposium in a text of Gregory Thaumaturgos presenting his relationship with his teacher Origen and in Gregory of Nazianzus’ funeral speech about his friendship with Basil the Great. In both cases, Eros becomes subliminally converted into the common veneration of the Logos. https://gionata.files.wordpress.com/201 ... a-21-2.pdf
“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
Post Reply