Is Celsus simply possibilist about a historical Jesus, but not really "historicist"?

Discussion about the New Testament, apocrypha, gnostics, church fathers, Christian origins, historical Jesus or otherwise, etc.
Giuseppe
Posts: 13658
Joined: Mon Apr 27, 2015 5:37 am
Location: Italy

Is Celsus simply possibilist about a historical Jesus, but not really "historicist"?

Post by Giuseppe »

I should thank prof Robert Price for this precious point (see his Bart Ehrman Interpreted, 2018). Basically, he points out evidence of Celsus being merely possibilist about a HJ, and in a very rational (probabilistic) way. Something as: under the hypothesis that Jesus existed, then Jesus was probably so and so...

Read by yourself:

Contra Celsum, 1:68
But after this, Celsus, having a suspicion that the great works performed by Jesus, of which we have named a few out of a great number, would be brought forward to view, affects to grant that those statements may be true which are made regarding His cures, or His resurrection, or the feeding of a multitude with a few loaves, from which many fragments remained over, or those other stories which Celsus thinks the disciples have recorded as of a marvellous nature; and he adds: "Well, let us believe that these were actually wrought by you." But then he immediately compares them to the tricks of jugglers, who profess to do more wonderful things

Celsus is saying that he can assume that there is a historical nucleus behind the Gospels, but only if Jesus was a mere magician. What is surprising and new to know for me is that Celsus is introducing his historicist view of Jesus as merely a "hypothesis of work".

Well, let us believe that these were actually wrought by you

This "belief" is not an act of faith (as when elsewhere Celsus assumes for pure sake of discussion that Jesus was really an "angel") but is the mere assumption of a hypothesis: what if the miracles are "true" someway?

Now yes that I read Celsus again for the first time! :cheers:

This is another nail, as you Americans say...
Nihil enim in speciem fallacius est quam prava religio. -Liv. xxxix. 16.
andrewcriddle
Posts: 2806
Joined: Sat Oct 05, 2013 12:36 am

Re: Is Celsus simply possibilist about a historical Jesus, but not really "historicist"?

Post by andrewcriddle »

Celsus seems to accept that a historical Jesus existed. He appears to be more dubious as to the historical basis of the miracle stories about Jesus.

Andrew Criddle
Giuseppe
Posts: 13658
Joined: Mon Apr 27, 2015 5:37 am
Location: Italy

Re: Is Celsus simply possibilist about a historical Jesus, but not really "historicist"?

Post by Giuseppe »

andrewcriddle wrote: Sat Nov 17, 2018 4:39 am Celsus seems to accept that a historical Jesus existed. He appears to be more dubious as to the historical basis of the miracle stories about Jesus.
You will agree surely with me, Andrew, that, from the quote above, “Celsus seems to accept that a historical Jesus existed”, but under a precise condition:
"Well, let us believe that these were actually wrought by you."
I.e., the simple belief that the Gospel stories were actually wrought by Jesus (=a belief is by definition the assumption of an hypothesis, not a certainty) moves Celsus to accept the existence of a historical Jesus who was a magician, etc.

The contrary implication is not true:

the Celsus's independent knowledge that a historical Jesus was a magician, etc. moves Celsus to believe that the Gospel stories were actually wrought by Jesus.

After all, that is the sense of that “immediately”:
and he adds: "Well, let us believe that these were actually wrought by you." But then he immediately compares them to the tricks of jugglers, who profess to do more wonderful things

It shows causality in the process of thought: Celsus first assumes that the Gospels are someway “true” and only after (as effect) he concludes that Jesus was a magician, etc.


Relatively different would be if Celsus had said: I know independently that Jesus was a magician, therefore the Gospels are someway “true”.
Nihil enim in speciem fallacius est quam prava religio. -Liv. xxxix. 16.
User avatar
arnoldo
Posts: 969
Joined: Sat Oct 12, 2013 6:10 pm
Location: Latin America

Re: Is Celsus simply possibilist about a historical Jesus, but not really "historicist"?

Post by arnoldo »

andrewcriddle wrote: Sat Nov 17, 2018 4:39 am Celsus seems to accept that a historical Jesus existed. He appears to be more dubious as to the historical basis of the miracle stories about Jesus.

Andrew Criddle
Correct.
But he disbelieves the accounts of His conception by the Holy Ghost, and believes that He was begotten by one Panthera, who corrupted the Virgin, "because a god's body would not have been so generated as you were." But we have spoken of these matters at greater length in the preceding pages.

Giuseppe
Posts: 13658
Joined: Mon Apr 27, 2015 5:37 am
Location: Italy

Re: Is Celsus simply possibilist about a historical Jesus, but not really "historicist"?

Post by Giuseppe »

Arnoldo, what do you think about the passage quoted by me, Contra Celsum 1:68 ? If you read it without prejudices, then you will realize easily that Celsus is historicist as consequence of an explicit assumed hypothesis made about the nature of the Gospel stories:
and he adds: "Well, let us believe that these were actually wrought by you." But then he immediately compares them to the tricks of jugglers, who profess to do more wonderful things

From the words of Andrew:
Celsus seems to accept that a historical Jesus existed.
it seems to be not clear where that Celsus's decision comes from: from an independent extra-Gospel evidence of the historicity of Jesus? Or - as I has think that prof Price has just proved - by the gratuitous (and declared as such) assumption that there was a historical nucleus behind the Gospel stories?

Please like the difference between the possibilist belief in a historical Jesus and the genuine historicist belief.
Nihil enim in speciem fallacius est quam prava religio. -Liv. xxxix. 16.
Giuseppe
Posts: 13658
Joined: Mon Apr 27, 2015 5:37 am
Location: Italy

Re: Is Celsus simply possibilist about a historical Jesus, but not really "historicist"?

Post by Giuseppe »

I should quote Robert Price directly to fugue any doubt about which is precisely my point here:
Is Christ Mythicism some kind of novelty, dreamed up by skeptics living far enough after the events to be able to get away with it? bart and many others thinks so. “The idea that Jesus did not exist is a modern notion. It has no ancient precedents.” “Even the enemies of the Jesus movement thought [that Jesus had existed]; amng their many slurs against the religion, his nonexistence is never one of them”. I'm not so sure of that. Just Martyr ascribes to his dialogue partner Trypho (perhaps to be identified with the historical Rabbi Tarfon) the allegation, “You have received a futile rumour, and have created some sort of Christ for yourselves”. We always hear apologists explain this away as if it meant, “You Christians have nominated your own Christ/Messiah”. “You Christians pretend your Jesus was the Christ”. But that's rather different. Would Trypho have said the partisans of Simon bar Kochba had “created” their “own messiah”? I don't think so. It seems less contrived to take Trypho as charging that the Christian Savior was a figment of pious imagination. Bart points out that throughout the Dialogue, Trypho acknowledges that Jesus did exist but declines to accept him as the Messiah. Is that so clear? To me it sounds as if Trypho is being made to grant the reality of the crucified Jesus purely for the sake of argument: could such an individual as you descrive have qualified as the Christ?

Trypho: Let Him be recognized as Lord and Christ and God, as the Scriptures declare, by you of the Gentiles, who have from His name been all called Christians; but we who are servants of God that made this same [Christ], do not require to confess or worship Him. (Chapter 24).

Similarly, Celsus, the second-century critic of Christianity, says, “It is clear to me that the writings of the Christians are a lie, and that your fables have not been well enough constructed to conceal this monstrous fiction”. Does he elsewhere speak of Christ as a historical figure? Not necessarily. Origen says:

Celsus pretends to grant that the scriptures may be true when they speak of “cures or resurrection or a few loaves feeding many people, from which many fragments were left over, or any other monstrous tales”, as he thinks, “relates by the disciples”. And he goes to say: “Come, let us believe that these miracles really were done by you”. Then he puts them on a level with “the works of sorcerers who profess to do wonderful miracles”. (Contra Celsum I:68)

https://books.google.it/books?id=hD1RDw ... us&f=false

So Celsus “seems to accept that a historical Jesus existed”, but “only for the sake of argument”, not for intimate independent (=extra-Gospel) knowledge.
Nihil enim in speciem fallacius est quam prava religio. -Liv. xxxix. 16.
User avatar
arnoldo
Posts: 969
Joined: Sat Oct 12, 2013 6:10 pm
Location: Latin America

Re: Is Celsus simply possibilist about a historical Jesus, but not really "historicist"?

Post by arnoldo »

Giuseppe wrote: Sat Nov 17, 2018 6:02 am Arnoldo, what do you think about the passage quoted by me, Contra Celsum 1:68 ? If you read it without prejudices, then you will realize easily that Celsus is historicist as consequence of an explicit assumed hypothesis made about the nature of the Gospel stories:
and he adds: "Well, let us believe that these were actually wrought by you." But then he immediately compares them to the tricks of jugglers, who profess to do more wonderful things

From the words of Andrew:
Celsus seems to accept that a historical Jesus existed.
it seems to be not clear where that Celsus's decision comes from: from an independent extra-Gospel evidence of the historicity of Jesus? Or - as I has think that prof Price has just proved - by the gratuitous (and declared as such) assumption that there was a historical nucleus behind the Gospel stories?

Please like the difference between the possibilist belief in a historical Jesus and the genuine historicist belief.
I guess confirmation bias can go either way. Anyway, something that's been bugging me is how for example people deem a person "historical" or not. For example, you seem to have no problem accepting Celsus as a historical figure (even though his alleged quotes come second hand from Origen). Whose to say both Celsus and Origen aren't fictonal characters invented in the third century backdated to contrive some sort of controversy which didn't exist in the second century? :confusedsmiley:
Giuseppe
Posts: 13658
Joined: Mon Apr 27, 2015 5:37 am
Location: Italy

Re: Is Celsus simply possibilist about a historical Jesus, but not really "historicist"?

Post by Giuseppe »

arnoldo wrote: Sat Nov 17, 2018 6:45 am Whose to say both Celsus and Origen aren't fictonal characters invented in the third century backdated to contrive some sort of controversy which didn't exist in the second century? :confusedsmiley:
Really, some have argued that Trypho himself (!) is a fictional character invented by Justin “to contrive some sort of controversy”, or something of the kind. I think that the reasons the doubt is not been raised about Celsus, differently from Trypho, are at least two:

1) Trypho was a Jew, so the polemic with him had to be the Polemic Par Excellence between a Jew and a Christian. I mean: Trypho's accusations against Christ are different from the Talmudic accusations against Christ (the latter being decisively more defaming in nature), so there is reason to doubt he is a real person.

2) The accusations by Celsus against Jesus and Christians are so terrible and rancorous in nature, that hardly they could be invented by a Christian.
Nihil enim in speciem fallacius est quam prava religio. -Liv. xxxix. 16.
User avatar
GakuseiDon
Posts: 2263
Joined: Sat Oct 12, 2013 5:10 pm

Re: Is Celsus simply possibilist about a historical Jesus, but not really "historicist"?

Post by GakuseiDon »

Giuseppe wrote: Sat Nov 17, 2018 6:24 amSo Celsus “seems to accept that a historical Jesus existed”, but “only for the sake of argument”, not for intimate independent (=extra-Gospel) knowledge.
Origen seems to concur, to a degree, in that he uses the rationality and wisdom behind the Gospels to show their truths rather than independent witnesses. Some quotes:
http://www.earlychristianwritings.com/t ... en161.html

Before we begin our reply, we have to remark that the endeavour to show, with regard to almost any history, however true, that it actually occurred, and to produce an intelligent conception regarding it, is one of the most difficult undertakings that can be attempted, and is in some instances an impossibility...

But he who deals candidly with histories, and would wish to keep himself also from being imposed upon by them, will exercise his judgment as to what statements he will give his assent to, and what he will accept figuratively, seeking to discover the meaning of the authors of such inventions, and from what statements he will withhold his belief, as having been written for the gratification of certain individuals. And we have said this by way of anticipation respecting the whole history related in the Gospels concerning Jesus, not as inviting men of acuteness to a simple and unreasoning faith, but wishing to show that there is need of candour in those who are to read, and of much investigation, and, so to speak, of insight into the meaning of the writers, that the object with which each event has been recorded may be discovered.

Earlier, Origen wrote:

And yet the mystery of the resurrection, not being understood, is made a subject of ridicule among unbelievers. In these circumstances, to speak of the Christian doctrine as a secret system, is altogether absurd. But that there should be certain doctrines, not made known to the multitude, which are (revealed) after the exoteric ones have been taught, is not a peculiarity of Christianity alone, but also of philosophic systems, in which certain truths are exoteric and others esoteric. Some of the hearers of Pythagoras were content with his ipse dixit; while others were taught in secret those doctrines which were not deemed fit to be communicated to profane and insufficiently prepared ears. Moreover, all the mysteries that are celebrated everywhere throughout Greece and barbarous countries, although held in secret, have no discredit thrown upon them, so that it is in vain that he endeavours to calumniate the secret doctrines of Christianity, seeing he does not correctly understand its nature.

So a case could be made that Origen admits that there are secret meanings behind certain historical statements in the Gospels pointing to a higher truth not recognised by the less educated Christian believer.
It is really important, in life, to concentrate our minds on our enthusiasms, not on our dislikes. -- Roger Pearse
User avatar
arnoldo
Posts: 969
Joined: Sat Oct 12, 2013 6:10 pm
Location: Latin America

Re: Is Celsus simply possibilist about a historical Jesus, but not really "historicist"?

Post by arnoldo »

Giuseppe wrote: Sat Nov 17, 2018 7:38 am
arnoldo wrote: Sat Nov 17, 2018 6:45 am Whose to say both Celsus and Origen aren't fictonal characters invented in the third century backdated to contrive some sort of controversy which didn't exist in the second century? :confusedsmiley:
Really, some have argued that Trypho himself (!) is a fictional character invented by Justin “to contrive some sort of controversy”, or something of the kind. I think that the reasons the doubt is not been raised about Celsus, differently from Trypho, are at least two:

1) Trypho was a Jew, so the polemic with him had to be the Polemic Par Excellence between a Jew and a Christian. I mean: Trypho's accusations against Christ are different from the Talmudic accusations against Christ (the latter being decisively more defaming in nature), so there is reason to doubt he is a real person.

2) The accusations by Celsus against Jesus and Christians are so terrible and rancorous in nature, that hardly they could be invented by a Christian.
Yeah, I can agree with that. Another thing that comes to mind in regards to this issue is social memory. Last night at work a somewhat elderly custodian started talking to me about his family history. He started talking about how his grandfather lived during the Mexican revolution whose family fought on the side of the the rebels. Now this happened around 1910 so he's telling me bout stuff that happened over a hundred years ago. Anyways, he sezs that his grandfather's father died around that time so he (the grandfather) had to go in the field with the women who worked while the men fought. He went into great detail (which was passed down to him) how the revolution affected his family. As he was saying this I was thinking how this was an example how Social Memory works. I also shared with him my story of how my maternal grandfather told me one time how as a child he saw Pancho Villa (although this could be an example of a distorted social memory cuz it may've been bs). Also shared with him my story of my paternal grandfather saying his grandfather was a soldier in the French army during the invasion of Mexico. His name was Dionsio and after the war he decided to stick around in Mexico. So if some kind of social memory is alive and getting passed down in this day and age of computers/videos/text by word of mouth about events that happened from the 1860's to today surely this social memory existed amongst jewish exiles in the second century of life in first century. This being the case perhaps this alleged "controversy" in the second century whether or not a person who did miraculous things in the first century existed is moot. Even the Roman Emperor Julian doesn't use such silly arguments.
Post Reply