Celsus and Historical Jesus

[Stephan Huller]

Celsus as many here may know was a second century pagan who wrote a treatise or treatises against Christianity called the True Word. He does his best to demonstrate that Christianity is not the True Word through various lines of reasoning. He hasn't a nice word to say about Christianity and Christian sects in the age. Indeed his work is so hostile that it was common ever since Origen to assume that he stopped at nothing to attack Christianity, even setting forth deliberate untruths about what he considered to be an untrue religion.

Celsus's work is interesting for the modern interest in the question of the historical Jesus insofar as Celsus relentless writes against the dominant contemporary form of Christianity (Marcionism) attempting to demonstrate that Jesus was indeed a historical man. While Celsus informs us that there were indeed some groups who held that Jesus was a man it is clear from his reporting that his interest in proving that Jesus was human goes hand in hand with his broader attempt to disprove the doctrines of the religion.

In other words, Celsus - among other tactics - goes so far as to cite an unnamed Jewish treatise to 'prove' that Jesus was human rather than God because he thought it was a good tactical move to move forward his main these that 'Christianity is one big lie.' Many scholars now read his text as a testimony for the historicity of Jesus, but I think there are problems with this. The most obvious would be that surely accepting the claim of the Marcionites that Jesus was an angel or a phantasm would surely damage the religion more than 'admitting' he was human. Do we really live in times that are so different from antiquity that 'mythicism' helps destroy Christianity in this age (or so according to its detractors) but in antiquity 'historicism' had the very same effect?

I do think upon reflection that antiquity was very different than our own times and the fact that Celsus chose to 'disprove' Christianity by embracing Jesus's humanity argues on behalf of the idea that a narrative developed around an encounter with a space alien (= Jesus) could indeed be quite popular among the lower classes. The widespread belief in 'Jesus the space alien' in the middle of the second century proves that quite certainly. In short, Celsus embraced Jesus humanity because he hoped to destroy Christianity by doing so not because there was any compelling evidence for Jesus's existence.

[Leucius Charinus]

In short, Celsus embraced Jesus humanity because he hoped to destroy Christianity by doing so not because there was any compelling evidence for Jesus's existence.

You of all people must understand that Celsus and Marcion and other early heretics of the "church" (including Julian) cannot speak for themselves unless it is through the literary evidence preserved in the writings of the "church". Origen refuted Celsus. Multiple authors refuted Marcion. Cyril refuted Julian. Whatever may have been the original hopes, motives, desires or thoughts of the heretic, we cannot hope to understand it completely through the propaganda-like polemic-laden rhetorical exercises of the heresiologists, who's literary evidence is preserved unto this day. Origen may not have been corrupt, but his writings were certainly corrupted (as was the "church") as attested by the Origenist controversies of later centuries.

That does not imply your hypothesis might not be true. What other sources support it?


http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Celsus

• According to the Christian father Origen, Celsus (/ˈsɛlsəs/; Greek: Κέλσος) was a 2nd-century Greek philosopher and opponent of Early Christianity. He is known for his literary work, The True Word (also Account, Doctrine or Discourse; Greek: Λόγος Ἀληθής), which survives exclusively in Origen's quotations from it in Contra Celsum. This work, c. 177[1] is the earliest known comprehensive attack on Christianity.

Such a second century date allows the bible to have been in circulation. Two questions about "eyewitness and/or "Apostolic" and/or cultural memory"

1) How many generations would one estimate to have separated Celsus and Jesus? (100 years = 4 or 5 generations?)

2) For how many generations had the bible been around and available before the generation of Celsus? (Between 100 years and zero years)


IDK.

[Stephan Huller]

Of all the repetitious broken records at this forum you had to come interrupt the silence of my thread.

You of all people must understand that Celsus and Marcion and other early heretics of the "church" (including Julian) cannot speak for themselves unless it is through the literary evidence preserved in the writings of the "church".

In the same way a Communist in the last half century couldn't get his weekly ode to the enlightened truth of Marx and Engels adapted to a half hour sitcom on any of the major networks in the United States. There are always going to be people controlling the mass media. So what? And since when is Celsus an 'early heretic'? He was a pagan the last I checked. Are you aware that the Church Fathers are one of our best sources of information about the writings of the Pre-Socratic philosophers? You know, Heraclitus and the like. Surely you don't suggest that Heraclitus is a fiction? Oh yes, Heraclitus's writings don't disprove your theory. No need to develop that claim to save your precious.

Origen refuted Celsus. Multiple authors refuted Marcion. Cyril refuted Julian.

But you accept Julian is a real person but not the others.

Whatever may have been the original hopes, motives, desires or thoughts of the heretic, we cannot hope to understand it completely through the propaganda-like polemic-laden rhetorical exercises of the heresiologists, who's literary evidence is preserved unto this day. Origen may not have been corrupt, but his writings were certainly corrupted (as was the "church") as attested by the Origenist controversies of later centuries.

That does not imply your hypothesis might not be true. What other sources support it?

I am not sure it was a 'hypothesis.' Just an observation.

1) How many generations would one estimate to have separated Celsus and Jesus? (100 years = 4 or 5 generations?)

Yes but how many centuries separate you and Constantine? Much more than 4 or 5 generations. And you assume you have uncovered the truth that lay buried for nearly a 100 generations. And you do this by misrepresenting your sources, quoting them selectively etc. At least it's not certain that Celsus did the same working from material 2 generations earlier than him.

This is even getting boring.