Was Irenaeus's and Marcion's Christianity a Response to Celsus's 'True Word'?

[Joseph D. L.]

Celsus also makes a deal about Christians being seen as pariahs of the state, and takes issue with their citizenship status, which could allude to Caracalla granting citizenship to freemans. This in turn may reveal the need to distance Marcion's (the stranger) importance over the Church of Rome, and why the author of Acts of th Apostles included an episode devoted to Paul's status as a Roman citizen.

[Secret Alias]

I take the constant imploring to take the side of the king (directed against the Christians by Celsus) is clearly written in the aftermath of a revolt in which Christians initially took the other side. Indeed Frede's argument cited above to the effect that only a general 'succession of rulers' is implied by Celsus flies in the face of his citation of Homer at a critical moment in Book 8:

We must not disobey the ancient writer, who said long ago, 'Let one be king, whom the son of crafty Saturn appointed;' and adds: If you set aside this maxim, you will deservedly suffer for it at the hands of the king. For if all were to do the same as you, there would be nothing to prevent his being left in utter solitude and desertion, and the affairs of the earth would fall into the hands of the wildest and most lawless barbarians; and then there would no longer remain among men any of the glory of your religion or of the true wisdom.

The passage in question from the Illiad:

No good thing is a multitude of lords; let there be one lord, one king, to whom the son of crooked-counselling Cronos hath vouchsafed the sceptre and judgments, that he may take counsel for his people.

As I noted above, the context seems quite clearly that in an age of multiple rulers (i.e. where a general stood up and declared himself to be Caesar) the Christians threw their lot behind this 'pretender' and it turned out to be a grave mistake. The one supported by the Christians lost on the battlefield and Christian loyalty to the 'real' Emperor was questioned (especially by Celsus).

Note that the 'two masters' saying from the gospel is limited to serving demons not political figures:

In the first place, I would ask why we are not to serve demons? Is it not true that all things are ordered according to God's will, and that His providence governs all things? Is not everything which happens in the universe, whether it be the work of God, of angels, of other demons, or of heroes, regulated by the law of the Most High God? Have these not had assigned them various departments of which they were severally deemed worthy? Is it not just, therefore, that he who worships God should serve those also to whom God has assigned such power? Yet it is impossible, he says, for a man to serve many masters. This, he goes on to say, is the language of sedition, and is only used by those who separate themselves and stand aloof from all human society. Those who speak in this way ascribe, as he supposes, their own feelings and passions to God. It does hold true among men, that he who is in the service of one master cannot well serve another, because the service which he renders to the one interferes with that which he owes to the other; and no one, therefore, who has already engaged himself to the service of one, must accept that of another. And, in like manner, it is impossible to serve at the same time heroes or demons of different natures. But in regard to God, who is subject to no suffering or loss, it is, he thinks, absurd to be on our guard against serving more gods, as though we had to do with demi-gods, or other spirits of that sort. He says also, He who serves many gods does that which is pleasing to the Most High, because he honours that which belongs to Him. And he adds, It is indeed wrong to give honour to any to whom God has not given honour. Wherefore, he says, in honouring and worshipping all belonging to God, we will not displease Him to whom they all belong.

So it is interesting that on the one hand, Celsus argues that there can only be one Emperor - one ruler - but that the same isn't true with regards to the heavenly household. The apparent contrast is difficult to fathom unless something like the confusion surrounding the story of Avidius Cassius is envisioned.

In that account, Cassius seems to be something of a sympathetic figure. His father was a prefect of Egypt. Through his mother he was related to Augustus and Herod. It would seem that, according to some accounts Cassius was tricked by Marcus Aurelius's wife into thinking that she needed him to protect her against what might happen if her husband might die. Thus his 'rebellion' might well have been motivated by love or loyalty to the royal household. The point is that Celsus's discussion on the one hand of loyalty to demons might well have found a parallel in Alexandrian Christian devotion to Cassius.

[Secret Alias]

I think Celsus is to be dated to the period when Commodus and Marcus Aurelius ultimately ruled the Empire jointly but not necessarily for the reasons laid out by Chadwick.

[Secret Alias]

It is curious that Avidius Cassius was of the Herodian-Hasmonean bloodline. He would necessarily have been also a son of David.

[Benway]

What a fantastically well timed thread! I just spent weeks weeks pondering on and researching Celsus and trying to figure out when it was written and what effect it had on the development of Christianity!
My own conclusion, reached only yesterday, was that The True Word was written between the annexation of Judea in 135CE and the death of Hadrian in 138CE (and that Justin's First Apology was written in 138 in an attempt to sway the policy of the new Emperor).
As you note, the obvious stumbling block to this dating for both is that Marcionism already exists in both. In fact, Celsus writes as if at least 50% of Christians are gnostic and names two Simonian sects, the Magdellanians and alludes to the Sethians as well as sects devoted to Salome and Martha.

Now, this is quite clearly at odds with the writings of Irenaeus and the other 4th century anti-heresy writers, according to whom their own sect was established just as it is when they were writing way back in the early first century and they were the only Christians for over a hundred years until suddenly about a dozen heretic sects all split off in just a couple of decades in the mid second century.

I somehow doubt that the other sects would agree! Also, Justin (who refers to the Bar Kokhba uprising as recent) is in a temporal pickle as he knows of Marcion as a heretic. If Marcion became a heretic in the 140s after being a proto-orthodox bishop then how could Justin know about Marcionism, but consider the war to be recent? As Justin wants to disassociate his sect from Marcion, why doesn't he mention that Marcion was kicked out just a few years ago? On the contrary, he says that Marcion is very old and he's surprised he's still teaching! Justin and the anti-heresy writers can't both be right. Justin should know what he's talking about more than Irenaeus as he is actually alive at the time and not writing decades later. Justin has no reason to lie about Marcionism being older than it is, but Irenaeus and the rest have ample reason to pretend that it's newer than it is.

I can't find the actual quote, but Celsus mentioned the annexation of Judea as if it was recent. His argument that Jesus was a magician brings to mind the absurd fire-breathing trick that Bar Kokhba is said to have employed to convince people that he was the messiah. Celsus states that Christians prey on the young because no older person would believe them. If he was writing in the late 130s then his generation would remember, not only Bar Kokhba, but the horrors of the Kitos war when Jewish communities rose up and slaughtered their gentile neighbours across the empire and which also involved a false messiah. The young would not.

I came into reading Celsus with the view that persecution of Christians before the late 3rd century was a myth, but The True Word actually changed my mind. It's eye opening how we can read the same thing so differently! Trying to make sense of this, and the persecution spoken of by Justin in First Apology and noting the references in both to the last Jewish war, it occurred to me that the Kitos massacres and then Bar Kokhba would have created a situation where any Jewishness was treated with paranoia and hatred by many people and Christians would fall foul of that. This would be a plausible reason for the situation portrayed by the two writers, and would also create demand for a book like The True Word.

[Secret Alias]

between the annexation of Judea in 135CE and the death of Hadrian in 138CE

Can't be this early. For one Celsus mentions not Marcellina but the sect of the Marcellinians which would imply either an eyewitness account (unlikely) or a written source (more likely) who mentioned either Marcellina or 'those of Marcellina.' The former is possible of course. But this would argue for Hegesippus or someone who used Hegesippus (Irenaeus). The usual date for Hegesippus is c. 170 CE.

Yes the references to the bar Kochba revolt are important. But the Hadrianic ban on Jews setting foot in Jerusalem would still have been in force c. 170 CE. If Celsus is making reference to the bar Kochba revolt as if it 'just happened' how is the likening of Christians to revolutionaries who revolted from the Jews like the Jews revolted from the Egyptians supposed to fit in? Judea was decimated in 138 CE. Yes there was a transition from Hadrian to Antoninus Pius but it was a peaceful transition. I see the True Word as being written in an age of uncertainty where Christians:

1. are being punished with death
2. their associations were unlawful
3. where Marcionism was very influential - so influential that Apelles (150 - 190 CE) is referenced by Celsus
4. where Celsus implores Christians to fall in line behind the rulers of Rome - presumably after being against the rule or rulers of Rome

it also has to have been written recently enough to the time of Origen that Origen is compelled to respond to Celsus's treatise and moreover Eusebius takes great pains not only to correct Origen's treatise but continue attacking Celsus on his own. A later date for Celsus is thus very plausible and 135 - 138 CE is implausible.

Also some other points. The ben Panthera myth is referenced. If Jesus was called ben Panthera in 130 CE it is very likely to have been a story or a nickname that went back to Jesus. I don't think the story is that old.

The reference to the Ophite Diagram. Were Christians really giving crazy names and drawing pictures of the seven planetary watchers? Origen also knows about this diagram, knows the names and faces of the planetary watchers. It is thus an Alexandrian diagram. How old is Christianity in Alexandria? How long were Alexandrian Christians calling the seven planetary watchers by these names and with these faces? 135 - 138 CE is possible of course. But would a tradition like this from the early second century (remember Celsus is reporting not creating the evidence). If he's writing in 135 CE then the Diagram would come from the first generation of the second century. Really?

Celsus knows about the Christian interest in the Sibylline Oracles. It seems to have been a widespread Christian practice to adopt the oracles. In 135 CE? Really? Not likely IMHO.

Celsus's references to the Virgin Birth and its similarities to pagan stories. Justin uses the same line of argument and most Patristic scholars think that Celsus read Justin. How old is the Virgin Birth? Mid second century? Maybe early second century. But Celsus seems to have read Justin Martyr who wrote c. 150 CE (C. Andresen, Logos und Nomos Berlin, 1955). So figure on up to a generation to reach and outsider like Celsus.

The reference to the 'great Church' which isn't like the crazy heretics. Again you can believe that the 'great Church' - the orthodox - were around at any time but what Celsus seems to be doing - i.e. juxtaposing 'orthodoxy' against heresy points to the late second century again .

[Secret Alias]

That's why I think 175 - 180 CE is more likely date for the True Word.

[Stuart]

A point in dating based on two emperors. We are very much caught up in our prior assignments if dates that we rarely look beyond them. For example, there were two emperors many times. For example, The co-emperors Septimus Severus and his son Caracalla when he came of age from (198–209). Such was a practice to ensure succession. Geta became a 3rd Emperor from 209 until Septimus' death in 211. This was a family very much worried about intrigue and murder. Poor Geta was co-emperor only days before Caracalla executed him, personally and summarily, in front of their mother. Ah, Roman family life. Anyway this could well fit the time for Celsus' writing as well, and would still not touch out dating of Origen almost two generations later, just before the Decian persecution, in which he supposedly perished.

Anyway I think turn of the 3rd century fits better, as Christians were by this time established everywhere and somewhat numerous, and mixed with the general population. It doesn't require us to push evangelism forward into the 1st century. It does require us to lift anchor on the dates of several church fathers, and let them drift back a few generations. (I favor this model, as it removes the long era of sleep before a "second" eruption.)

Yes Judea was absorbed into Syria, and put under Greek Law instead if Mosaic Law (Torah) sometime between November 135 and July 138. If you consider the last year of Hadrian's life he was pretty much infirm, and needing a few months to set up the workings of administration, 136 CE seems the most logical time for the transfer of Caesarea ruled Judea to become subordinate to Damascus ruled Syria in Syria-Palestine province. The devastation of the Jewish population, and the complicity of the Sanhedrin leadership in the revolt, made it an easy decision to strip them of legal authority. This is no doubt why sometime in Antoninus reign he was compelled to allow Jews the same privilege as Egyptians with respect to circumcision, as no longer having a tribal law to cite to for the practice with the abolition of the province, they had to appeal to the Emperor for relief, which was granted. How long this lack of legal protection lasted is anyone's guess but certainly not longer than from 136 to 160 AD, and most likely less than a decade. My WAG is sometime in the 140s after some cases had been filed and the push up the appeals on the matter eventually made it to the Emperor's desk, along with lobbyists. Antoninus' ruling can be explained without inventing a ban that has no legal recording (Roman legal decisions and legal codes came down to us from the Byzantines, amazingly in Latin, and intact.)

Anyway, my take is the True Word was 200-205 CE.

[Joseph D. L.]

I'm also learning towards the statement of the Gospel being divided threefold and fourfold (paraphrasing) to infer the time of Zephyrinus, when our canon was fully established throughout the Empire.

I also ponder if Marcellina was Marcia Aurelia Demetrias, the mistress and would be assassin of Commodus.

There is also the issue of his statements about Jesus ben Pantera, which coincide with rabbinical legends of Jesus ben Stada from around the late second century.

[Secret Alias]

A point in dating based on two emperors.

But see citation above. That's not what the text says. Chadwick translated the material in a way that fit this 'clue' but it's not a strong argument.

Anyway I think turn of the 3rd century fits better, as Christians were by this time established everywhere and somewhat numerous, and mixed with the general population.

But the 'two emperors' citation really speaks about groupings of rulers or rulers in the most general sense. It points to the True Word being written in an age where the Empire was at some sort of crossroad, where it would seem at least two groups of 'rulers' (= the lineage that started with Hadrian, his adopted son Antoninus Pius, Marcus Aurelius and presumably Commodus and another lineage or group) vied for control of the Empire. Everywhere in the text there is some sense that the Empire came out of a period of uncertainty and the author calls on Christians to come to the side of the Emperor(s), those who came out on top in the struggle. The Christian use of 'two Lords' saying of Jesus is taken to mean they refuse. They stay steadfast to their ruler, their Lord, their master and this saying is argued by Celsus to be a cipher to support and continue the sedition.

Celsus interestingly counters with a citation of the Illiad:

No good thing is a multitude of lords; let there be one lord, one king, to whom the son of crooked-counselling Cronos hath vouchsafed the sceptre and judgments, that he may take counsel for his people.

Kronos's standard epithet is that of ἀγκυλομήτης and it is employed in Hesiod in the context of a son castrating his father or as Origen notes - casts his father into Tartarus and assumed his throne:

Celsus goes on to say: We must not disobey the ancient writer, who said long ago, 'Let one be king, whom the son of crafty Saturn appointed;' and adds: If you set aside this maxim, you will deservedly suffer for it at the hands of the king. For if all were to do the same as you, there would be nothing to prevent his being left in utter solitude and desertion, and the affairs of the earth would fall into the hands of the wildest and most lawless barbarians; and then there would no longer remain among men any of the glory of your religion or of the true wisdom. If, then, there shall be one lord, one king, he must be, not the man whom the son of crafty Saturn appointed, but the man to whom He gave the power, who removes kings and sets up kings, and who raises up the useful man in time of need upon earth. Sirach 10:4 For kings are not appointed by that son of Saturn, who, according to Grecian fable, hurled his father from his throne, and sent him down to Tartarus (whatever interpretation may be given to this allegory), but by God, who governs all things, and who wisely arranges whatever belongs to the appointment of kings. We therefore do set aside the maxim contained in the line,

Whom the son of crafty Saturn appointed;

for we know that no god or father of a god ever devises anything crooked or crafty. But we are far from setting aside the notion of a providence, and of things happening directly or indirectly through the agency of providence. And the king will not inflict deserved punishment upon us, if we say that not the son of crafty Saturn gave him his kingdom, but He who removes and sets up kings. And would that all were to follow my example in rejecting the maxim of Homer, maintaining the divine origin of the kingdom, and observing the precept to honour the king! In these circumstances the king will not be left in utter solitude and desertion, neither will the affairs of the world fall into the hands of the most impious and wild barbarians. For if, in the words of Celsus, they do as I do, then it is evident that even the barbarians, when they yield obedience to the word of God, will become most obedient to the law, and most humane; and every form of worship will be destroyed except the religion of Christ, which will alone prevail. And indeed it will one day triumph, as its principles take possession of the minds of men more and more every day.

Then later in the same passage is the reference to what Chadwick claims is the 'two emperor' reference which really isn't so:

Surely it is intolerable for you to say, that if our present rulers, on embracing your opinions, are taken by the enemy, you will still be able to persuade those who rule after them; and after these have been taken you will persuade their successors and so on, until at length, when all who have yielded to your persuasion have been taken, some prudent ruler shall arise, with a foresight of what is impending, and he will destroy you all utterly before he himself perishes ... If it were possible, implying at the same time that he thought it most desirable, that all the inhabitants of Asia, Europe, and Libya, Greeks and Barbarians, all to the uttermost ends of the earth, were to come under one law; but judging this quite impossible, he adds, Any one who thinks this possible, knows nothing.

This to me seems to echo a period - like that of 175 CE - where the Christians threw their lot behind an Imperial pretender who presumably fought on behalf of the Christians and their law.