Celsus Used Against Marcion?

Discussion about the New Testament, apocrypha, gnostics, church fathers, Christian origins, historical Jesus or otherwise, etc.
User avatar
Ben C. Smith
Posts: 8994
Joined: Wed Apr 08, 2015 2:18 pm
Location: USA
Contact:

Re: Celsus Used Against Marcion?

Post by Ben C. Smith »

Secret Alias wrote: Mon Jun 18, 2018 6:26 am Footnote 19 http://cdn.theologicalstudies.net/34/34.2/34.2.6.pdf
I do not follow the logic of the footnote. It is commenting on something that Philo allegedly called Mnason ("two-colored," which I can see as a colorful way to describe a fence-sitter), but then speaks to the etymology of Philo. Not sure what is going on there.
ΤΙ ΕΣΤΙΝ ΑΛΗΘΕΙΑ
Secret Alias
Posts: 18362
Joined: Sun Apr 19, 2015 8:47 am

Re: Celsus Used Against Marcion?

Post by Secret Alias »

Thanks
“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: Celsus Used Against Marcion?

Post by Secret Alias »

In Tertullian's work, adversus Judaeos, c. 13, at the beginning, we have the imperial edict forbidding the Jews to enter the environs of Jerusalem, given in terms almost literally identical with those of the passage quoted by Eusebius from Aristo {interdictum est ne in confinio ipsius rcgionis dcmoretur quisquam Judaeorum .... post expugnationem Hicrusalem prohibiti ingredi in terram vestram de longinquo earn ocidis tantum
videre permissum est). Since Tertullian brings this forward in an anti- Jewish controversial treatise, it is highly probable that he had extracted the notice from a similarly anti-Jewish work. But such precisely was the character of the Dialogue between Jason and Papiscus (comp, also Harnack's Texte und Untersuchungen, i. 1—2, p. 12 7 ff.).
“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: Celsus Used Against Marcion?

Post by Secret Alias »

It isn't just the beginning of chapter 13 of Against the Jews which comes from Jason and Papiscus. Note:

Tertullian then refers to the predictions of the Passion and
Death, and it is in ch. x, perhaps, that the suggestion that he used
a list of proof-passages is the most convincing. He begins by
stating the objection felt by Jews to the death upon the cross, for
it is said, Cursed is every one that has hung on a tree.2 He replies that
an examination of the facts removes the difficulty. For Moses was
not dealing with hanging on a tree in general, but with the specific
case of a malefactor, a man punished in this way because he
deserved it. Christ had not deserved punishment, and therefore
the objection does not apply to Him. He was crucified only to
fulfil other Scriptures.3

2 Deut. xxi. 23. Cf. Gal. iii. 13; Trypho, lxxxix. 2. The text is adduced also
in Jason and Papiscus (p. 29); Tim.-Aq. Fol. 100 v° (infra, p. 74); "Anastasius",
Second Add. (p. 179); Alvaro (p. 225). On the subject cf. Dalman, Jesus-Jeschua,
1922, p. 168, E.T. p. 186. I cannot find any trace of the argument Tertullian
uses.

I think the author of Jason and Papiscus also altered Galatians. The influence of a 'falsified OT' permeates not only Justin Martyr but the NT (cf. Mark 1:1). At the beginning of Christianity (orthodox Christianity) there was a false canon which was used to base its theology upon.
“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: Celsus Used Against Marcion?

Post by Secret Alias »

The Greek for the statement:

"Ομως διά την πολλήν και φιλόνεκον ύμών ζυγομαχίαν τών αρνουμένων την ανθρωπίνην φύσιν τού Χριστού ιδού οικειούμαι και αναλαμβάνω πρόσωπον τού Σαμωσατέως ή μάλλον απίστου Ιουδαίου Φίλωνος του φιλοσόφου και ούτος γάρ προς Μνάσωνα τον αποστολικών μαθητην αντίρρησιν τότε περί της Χριστού ποιούμενος θεότητος δίχρωτα τον Μνάσωνα λέγων
“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: Celsus Used Against Marcion?

Post by Secret Alias »

δίχρωτα as a term does not exist anywhere I can find. May be a Semitism
“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: Celsus Used Against Marcion?

Post by Secret Alias »

J. E. Bruns drew attention to this passage in which Anastasius quotes material which he attributes to a disputation between Mnason and the Jewish philosopher Philo.33 Bruns pointed out the participants closely resemble those of JP in the name of the Christian ('Idacov/Mvdaxov) and in the Alexandrian background of his Jewish opponent.34 Moreover Philo is called 'two colored' which could well be a reference to the latter being a Jewish Christian, as Jason was.35 Some further points not mentioned by Bruns seem to confirm that JP is quoted. First, the name "Mnason" is a variant of "Jason," a variant which also occurs in biblical manuscripts in Egypt and plausibly at Sinai.36 Next, Anastasius says that Mnason is a disciple of the apostles (cntoaToXiKov uaOrvrriv), agreeing with connect Jason with the disciple of Paul and JP with a time contemporaneous with or near to the apostles.37 Finally, Anastasius says that Philo's objections occur in response to claims for
“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
John2
Posts: 4309
Joined: Fri May 16, 2014 4:42 pm

Re: Celsus Used Against Marcion?

Post by John2 »

Secret Alias wrote: Sun Jun 17, 2018 6:39 am You can be too trusting of sources Bob. Hence your James Book. What do you think Origen (or Eusebius) is going to do, admit Celsus is well researched? Even when he produces that "accursed diagram" he doesn't cut him slack. Origen's mission is to undercut Celsus. Neither are "scholars" in the modern sense.
Osborn provides a good starting point for assuming the Celsus read Justin, the author of the original Against Marcion:
Origen has no issue with relating writings that Celsus claimed to have read or known something about, like in 6.40. Regardless of whether or not he thinks Celsus invented the existence of these particular books, the point remains that when Celsus claims to get information from writings he says so and Origen doesn't hide it, which I think makes Origen's guess that Celsus "probably" got his information about Marcion "from some paltry and ignorant individuals" and not from a book relevant in light of this.
After these things, Celsus appears to me to act like those who, in their intense hatred of the Christians, maintain, in the presence of those who are utterly ignorant of the Christian faith, that they have actually ascertained that Christians devour the flesh of infants, and give themselves without restraint to sexual intercourse with their women. Now, as these statements have been condemned as falsehoods invented against the Christians, and this admission made by the multitude and those altogether aliens to our faith; so would the following statements of Celsus be found to be calumnies invented against the Christians, where he says that he has seen in the hands of certain presbyters belonging to our faith barbarous books, containing the names and marvellous doings of demons; asserting further, that “these presbyters of our faith professed to do no good, but all that was calculated to injure human beings. Would, indeed, that all that is said by Celsus against the Christians was of such a nature as to be refuted by the multitude, who have ascertained by experience that such things are untrue, seeing that most of them have lived as neighbours with the Christians, and have not even heard of the existence of any such alleged practices!
1.16-17:
Nay, he styles the Galactophagi of Homer, and the Druids of the Gauls, and the Getæ, most learned and ancient tribes, on account of the resemblance between their traditions and those of the Jews, although I know not whether any of their histories survive; but the Hebrews alone, as far as in him lies, he deprives of the honour both of antiquity and learning. And again, when making a list of ancient and learned men who have conferred benefits upon their contemporaries (by their deeds), and upon posterity by their writings, he excluded Moses from the number; while of Linus, to whom Celsus assigns a foremost place in his list, there exists neither laws nor discourses which produced a change for the better among any tribes; whereas a whole nation, dispersed throughout the entire world, obey the laws of Moses. Consider, then, whether it is not from open malevolence that he has expelled Moses from his catalogue of learned men, while asserting that Linus, and Musæus, and Orpheus, and Pherecydes, and the Persian Zoroaster, and Pythagoras, discussed these topics, and that their opinions were deposited in books, and have thus been preserved down to the present time. And it is intentionally also that he has omitted to take notice of the myth, embellished chiefly by Orpheus, in which the gods are described as affected by human weaknesses and passions.

In what follows, Celsus, assailing the Mosaic history, finds fault with those who give it a tropical and allegorical signification. And here one might say to this great man, who inscribed upon his own work the title of a True Discourse, “Why, good sir, do you make it a boast to have it recorded that the gods should engage in such adventures as are described by your learned poets and philosophers, and be guilty of abominable intrigues, and of engaging in wars against their own fathers, and of cutting off their secret parts, and should dare to commit and to suffer such enormities; while Moses, who gives no such accounts respecting God, nor even regarding the holy angels, and who relates deeds of far less atrocity regarding men (for in his writings no one ever ventured to commit such crimes as Kronos did against Uranus, or Zeus against his father, or that of the father of men and gods, who had intercourse with his own daughter), should be considered as having deceived those who were placed under his laws, and to have led them into error?”
So in these examples, when Celsus got (or claims to have gotten) information about certain Christians, "ancient and learned men" and Moses from books he says so and Origen does not hide it.

But setting aside that, while I don't think it's impossible that Celsus could have read or known of Justin Martyr (or known of the kind of arguments Justin makes), I think that is a separate issue from the question of whether or not there was a writing called Against Marcion in Justin's time and whether it was written by Justin or not. I don't think Justin wrote a separate work called Against Marcion that Celsus used, but rather that Celsus could have been familiar with Justin's extant writings against Marcion or learned of them from others.

In footnote 46 on page 16 here, for example, Concannon writes:
Smith cites the example of Justin Martyr's Treatise against Marcion, which Eusebius discusses at Hist. eccl. 4.11.8-10. When Eusebius cites from this work, he actually cites from Justin's First Apology. As Smith notes, Eusebius gives the impression that he has two works in front of him when he actually has one.

https://books.google.com/books?id=miAzD ... 10&f=false

And given the evidence that Justin, as Lashier puts it, "frequently taught others" and was "a well known teacher in Rome" shortly before Celsus is thought to have written his book in c. 178 CE, it seems plausible to me that Celsus could have been aware of Marcion (and Justin) via "some paltry and ignorant individuals" (as Origen suspects) who may have learned from Justin (like Irenaeus did).
The most important of the influences upon Irenaeus for my purposes was Justin. Many aspects of Irenaeus' theology correspond to the theology of the Martyr, and the degree of dependence suggests that Irenaeus was exposed to Justin's writings while sojourning in Rome. Circumstantial evidence even makes personal contact possible ... Furthermore, the account, or Acta, of Justin's martyrdom states that he frequently taught others who came to him for instruction in he Christian faith. This evidence suggests that Justin would have been a well known teacher in Rome precisely during the time when Irenaeus would have been there.

https://books.google.com/books?id=D56XC ... .2&f=false


Lashier also notes (in footnote 19 on the same page above) that Irenaeus cites from a lost writing of Justin in AH 4.6.2 and 5.27.2:
... possibly entitled Against Marcion. The second quotation is not attributed to any specific work, although the citation's context suggests that it may have come from the same work as the first quotation.


But this too seems like a separate issue from the question of whether or not Celsus had read or was aware of the existence of such a writing. What I have seen thus far is giving me the impression that Celsus was indeed, as Origen supposed, informed about Marcionism from "some paltry and ignorant individuals," in a manner similar to the way Celsus seems to have learned about the idea that Jesus' dad was a Roman soldier named Panthera. In other words, what Origen says about and cites from Celsus regarding this information does not give me the impression that Celsus got this information from the Talmud, but rather from his personal contact with Jews:

1.32:
But let us now return to where the Jew is introduced, speaking of the mother of Jesus, and saying that “when she was pregnant she was turned out of doors by the carpenter to whom she had been betrothed, as having been guilty of adultery, and that she bore a child to a certain soldier named Panthera;” and let us see whether those who have blindly concocted these fables about the adultery of the Virgin with Panthera, and her rejection by the carpenter, did not invent these stories to overturn His miraculous conception by the Holy Ghost: for they could have falsified the history in a different manner, on account of its extremely miraculous character, and not have admitted, as it were against their will, that Jesus was born of no ordinary human marriage. It was to be expected, indeed, that those who would not believe the miraculous birth of Jesus would invent some falsehood. And their not doing this in a credible manner, but (their) preserving the fact that it was not by Joseph that the Virgin conceived Jesus, rendered the falsehood very palpable to those who can understand and detect such inventions.
Origen's language here (at least in this translation) does not give me the impression that Celsus had read any Jewish writings about Jesus' dad being a Roman soldier named Panthera, but rather that it was something Celsus had heard about from Jews like the one who spoke of it in the citation above who had "concocted" and "invented" it. Similarly, I have the impression that Celsus learned about Marcionism from "some paltry and ignorant individuals" as Origen thought, regardless of whether or not Justin wrote anything else against Marcion
You know in spite of all you gained, you still have to stand out in the pouring rain.
Secret Alias
Posts: 18362
Joined: Sun Apr 19, 2015 8:47 am

Re: Celsus Used Against Marcion?

Post by Secret Alias »

Origen has no issue with relating writings that Celsus claimed to have read or known something about, like in 6.40.
That's not true. This is like debating the question of whether 'Trump lies.' Sure the President doesn't lie about everything all the time. But he is capable of lying about anything at anytime. Even his name and identity - John Barron. But moving on from the topic of pathological liars, Celsus and Origen are clearly locked in a partisan dispute where I believe Celsus is 'truer' or closer to the 'on the ground' truth in his reporting than Origen.

Why do I think this? Well at face value at least Origen wrote Against Celsus during a persecution in Alexandria. In other words, it is a lot like a Palestinian or an Israeli providing a clear and objective account of what is going on in Israel-Palestine. There are shades of truth on both sides but in the end you believe who you want to believe.

In this case, it is absolutely critical that Origen undercuts Celsus's claim to having at his disposal Christian documents or actual firsthand reporting about Christians. When for instance he claims to have a Jewish document in what has become Books 1 and 2 of Origen's response Origen says that Celsus made up the entire account. This is highly implausible for several reasons but most notably because of the principal argument for forgery that Origen uses - a Jew wouldn't be that familiar with Greek mythology.

Clearly one of the Christian texts that Celsus bases his True Word on is a Controversy between Jason and Papiscus. Origen acknowledges that it's a real text but can't help but add the line that it is an inconsequential text. Note at every turn an attempt to undercut Celsus. Again you have to start seeing that ancient reports were rarely 'objective history' or science. Celsus is clearly more like that Origen's response. But the important thing to note here is that Jason and Papiscus has as one of its two participants an Alexandrian Jew who was familiar with Greek mythology.

Given the relationship between Jason and Papiscus and Justin and Trypho's dialogue which is generally acknowledged Trypho/Papiscus is very familiar with the parallels between pagan myths and Christian myths and Origen's central thesis is demonstrated to be without merit. In fact I certainly think that it is entirely possible that the early Christian apologetic work that Origen acknowledges he has (Jason and Papiscus) and the Jewish apologetic work he denies is an actual historical document - are likely related. In other words, when he says that " the controversy [ἐρίζουσι] between Jews and Christians is a most foolish one, and asserts that the dialogue [διάλογον] which we have with each other regarding Christ differ in no respect from what is called in the proverb, 'a fight about the shadow of an ass.'" [3.1]

In my opinion given the structure of what follows (or precedes if you strictly look at the order Origen or Eusebius arranges Celsus's material - the two are not one and the same) we clearly see two written 'dialogues' - one Christian and one Jewish. Interestingly the Christian one - Jason and Papiscus - is clearly about the very thing Celsus mentions viz. - διάλογον περὶ Χριστοῦ.

To this end it seems patently silly to make the case that Celsus 'invented' or lied about the work that would follow - i.e. that he would survey the 'dialogue' between Christians and Jews 'regarding Christ.' While this doesn't have to be a literary communication it is clear by the statements made by Origen along the way that it is such. Origen can't help himself and his efforts to recast this as 'hearsay,' 'gossip,' 'slander' and the like. But it is what it is.
“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: Celsus Used Against Marcion?

Post by Secret Alias »

FWIW Celsus and his examination of 'dialogues' in Origen:
But it is clear to him who examines the whole spirit of our dialogues [τὸ κοινὸν διαλόγοις], that Celsus is animated with a hatred against the human race resembling that of the ignorant populace, and gives utterance to these falsehoods without examination. [3.53]
and note that it isn't just one dialogue that Celsus cites from the Christian side but two as we see in Book Eight:
Celsus goes on to say: That I may give a true representation of their faith, I will use their own words, as given in what is called A Heavenly Dialogue [Ἐν γάρ που τῷ οὐρανίῳ διαλόγῳ]: 'If the Son is mightier than God, and the Son of man is Lord over Him, who else than the Son can be Lord over that God who is the ruler over all things? How comes it, that while so many go about the well, no one goes down into it? Why are you afraid when you have gone so far on the way? Answer: You are mistaken, for I lack neither courage nor weapons.' Is it not evident, then, that their views are precisely such as I have described them to be? They suppose that another God, who is above the heavens, is the Father of him whom with one accord they honour, that they may honour this Son of man alone, whom they exalt under the form and name of the great God, and whom they assert to be stronger than God, who rules the world, and that he rules over Him. And hence that maxim of theirs, 'It is impossible to serve two masters,' is maintained for the purpose of keeping up the party who are on the side of this Lord. Here, again, Celsus quotes opinions from some most obscure sect of heretics, and ascribes them to all Christians. I call it a most obscure sect; for although we have often contended with heretics, yet we are unable to discover from what set of opinions he has taken this passage,[8.15]
Again Origen can't deny that this comes from a book because of the explicitness of Celsus's citation. But note he tries to ridicule it as belonging to a sect of unknown provenance. Nevertheless the text is older and purer than any surviving Christian text available to us.
“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