Is Celsus evidence of historicity?

Discussion about the New Testament, apocrypha, gnostics, church fathers, Christian origins, historical Jesus or otherwise, etc.
Giuseppe
Posts: 13732
Joined: Mon Apr 27, 2015 5:37 am
Location: Italy

Is Celsus evidence of historicity?

Post by Giuseppe »

Meier offers the example of Cicero and Catiline: “If Cicero, who despised Catiline,
admitted that the fellow had one good quality—courage—among a host of bad
ones then the historian correctly concludes that Catiline was at least courageous.”
John P. Meier, A Marginal Jew, Vol. 3: Companions and Competitors (New York:
Doubleday, 2001), 198–199.
source: https://www.academia.edu/8075077/_The_A ... _96_705-13

Did this work with Celsus and other anti-Christian pagans?

Could that recognition of historicity be the real reason for the preservation of Celsus among other pagan critics of Christianity?

What do you think?

Thanks,
Giuseppe
Nihil enim in speciem fallacius est quam prava religio. -Liv. xxxix. 16.
User avatar
toejam
Posts: 754
Joined: Sun Apr 06, 2014 1:35 am
Location: Brisbane, Australia

Re: Is Celsus evidence of historicity?

Post by toejam »

Is Celsus evidence for Jesus historicity? In some sense, yes, in some sense, no. How one answers that question will boil down to how one defines "evidence". For those who take Carrier's view, it is interesting that Tacitus, Celsus and other early critics never make the accusation that Christianity started with an initial belief in an outer-space crucifixion that was later euhemerized.
My study list: https://www.facebook.com/notes/scott-bignell/judeo-christian-origins-bibliography/851830651507208
User avatar
Peter Kirby
Site Admin
Posts: 8024
Joined: Fri Oct 04, 2013 2:13 pm
Location: Santa Clara
Contact:

Re: Is Celsus evidence of historicity?

Post by Peter Kirby »

The main issue with the evidence of Celsus is, I think, the matter of whether Celsus would have true knowledge or even rumor of the non-existence of Jesus, on the hypothesis of non-existence. One can make the assumption that it would be so, but proving that assumption is much more difficult.

A secondary issue is whether it would have been quoted in refutation by Origen or deftly skirted, since Celsus does not survive.
"... almost every critical biblical position was earlier advanced by skeptics." - Raymond Brown
User avatar
GakuseiDon
Posts: 2295
Joined: Sat Oct 12, 2013 5:10 pm

Re: Is Celsus evidence of historicity?

Post by GakuseiDon »

Giuseppe wrote:Could that recognition of historicity be the real reason for the preservation of Celsus among other pagan critics of Christianity?

What do you think?
By early Third Century? Even under the MJ theories, there wouldn't have been anyone still around who believed in a MJ by that time AFAIK.

To me, Celsus shows that even educated pagans recognised the Gospels as some kind of biographical work. This may be useful evidence against those who thought that the Gospels were some kind of allegorical works along the lines that educated pagans like Justin and Sallustius were aware of.
It is really important, in life, to concentrate our minds on our enthusiasms, not on our dislikes. -- Roger Pearse
Giuseppe
Posts: 13732
Joined: Mon Apr 27, 2015 5:37 am
Location: Italy

Re: Is Celsus evidence of historicity?

Post by Giuseppe »

GakuseiDon wrote:
Giuseppe wrote:Could that recognition of historicity be the real reason for the preservation of Celsus among other pagan critics of Christianity?

What do you think?
By early Third Century? Even under the MJ theories, there wouldn't have been anyone still around who believed in a MJ by that time AFAIK.

To me, Celsus shows that even educated pagans recognised the Gospels as some kind of biographical work. This may be useful evidence against those who thought that the Gospels were some kind of allegorical works along the lines that educated pagans like Justin and Sallustius were aware of.
By early third century could still be around docetic Christians, i.e. half-historicists (since their Jesus was historical but docetical).
In my view, pagans as Celsus were historicists only for opportunism: it's better, for them, attak the Christians assuming a historical ''euhemerized'' (in a negative sense) Jesus (i.e. seeing him as a mere man). As some atheists today like assume a historical Jesus to denigrate him better.

So Richard about this my view.

Justin says that the Christians don't say nothing of different from what the Pagan myths were (about the resurrection episodes).

Julian was an educated pagan just as Celsus. He wrote in the opening paragraph of "Against the Galileans":
It is, I think, expedient to set forth to all mankind the reasons by which I was convinced that the fabrication of the Galilaeans is a fiction of men composed by wickedness.

Though it has in it nothing divine, by making full use of that part of the soul which loves fable and is childish and foolish, it has induced men to believe that the monstrous tale is truth.
fiction of men composed by wickedness would be the exact contrary of ''some kind of biographical work''.
Nihil enim in speciem fallacius est quam prava religio. -Liv. xxxix. 16.
User avatar
Peter Kirby
Site Admin
Posts: 8024
Joined: Fri Oct 04, 2013 2:13 pm
Location: Santa Clara
Contact:

Re: Is Celsus evidence of historicity?

Post by Peter Kirby »

GakuseiDon wrote:By early Third Century? Even under the MJ theories, there wouldn't have been anyone still around who believed in a MJ by that time AFAIK.
To be fair, Celsus is typically dated circa 170 CE.

Doherty at least has broached the idea of "MJ" belief in the second half of the second century, or close to it, although that may be a minority view among mythicists. (More important than that, however, is whether it is an implication of the hypothesis of non-historicity/non-existence, which it is not.)
"... almost every critical biblical position was earlier advanced by skeptics." - Raymond Brown
User avatar
GakuseiDon
Posts: 2295
Joined: Sat Oct 12, 2013 5:10 pm

Re: Is Celsus evidence of historicity?

Post by GakuseiDon »

Giuseppe wrote:In my view, pagans as Celsus were historicists only for opportunism: it's better, for them, attak the Christians assuming a historical ''euhemerized'' (in a negative sense) Jesus (i.e. seeing him as a mere man). As some atheists today like assume a historical Jesus to denigrate him better.

So Richard about this my view.
Dr Carrier writes that "Celsus had only the Gospels as a source", so from that, Celsus thought that the Gospels were being presented as biographical accounts. This is only important though if the argument was that the Gospels were apparent attempts at non-historical accounts, i.e. allegorical accounts that educated pagans would have recognised as non-historical.
Giuseppe wrote:Justin says that the Christians don't say nothing of different from what the Pagan myths were (about the resurrection episodes).
Exactly. Justin didn't claim that Christians believed that Jesus died on earth and the pagan gods died in a celestial sphere; he claimed that there was nothing different.
Giuseppe wrote:Julian was an educated pagan just as Celsus. He wrote in the opening paragraph of "Against the Galileans":
It is, I think, expedient to set forth to all mankind the reasons by which I was convinced that the fabrication of the Galilaeans is a fiction of men composed by wickedness.

Though it has in it nothing divine, by making full use of that part of the soul which loves fable and is childish and foolish, it has induced men to believe that the monstrous tale is truth.
fiction of men composed by wickedness would be the exact contrary of ''some kind of biographical work''.
No, quite the opposite. Think of the recent "Hitler Diaries". These were fiction, but they were presented as autobiographical. Julian recognised that the Gospels were presented as biographical accounts (in other words, Julian thought the Gospels were in the biography category), it's just that he thought they were lies.

I cover this in my review of Earl Doherty's "Jesus: Neither God Nor Man", here: http://members.optusnet.com.au/gakuseid ... 4.html#4.2

I've reproduced part of that below:

Second and Third Century Christians attack the Roman gods

In the Second Century CE, Christian apologists began launching attacks on the Roman gods. According to Doherty, early Christians would have been eager to exploit the advantage of a recently historical saviour figure over the "average pagan" belief of their gods existing in this "World of Myth". But is there any record of this?

Second and Third Century apologists like Justin Martyr, Tertullian and Origen were educated members of the Roman Empire who would have grown up immersed in its religious and philosophical culture. They would have been certainly familiar with the views of both the average and educated pagan of their day. And yet, in all their attacks on the Roman gods, there is not a hint of the idea that the pagans thought their gods acted out their stories in a “World of Myth”. They attacked the pagan myths as being legends about men who were merely mortal, or as allegories, or the fiction of poets, or the lies of demons.

Probably many readers are familiar with the famous quote by Justin Martyr that “we [Christians] propound nothing different from what you [pagans] believe...” Could Justin have claimed this if the pagans believed that their gods acted in a “supernatural realm” while early historicist Christians believed that Christ had incarnated on earth? Keep in mind that Justin believed in a historical Jesus and was knowledgeable about the philosophical traditions of the time.

Here is the context of Justin's comment. From his First Apology:
  • And when we say also that the Word, who is the first-birth of God, was produced without sexual union, and that He, Jesus Christ, our Teacher, was crucified and died, and rose again, and ascended into heaven, we propound nothing different from what you believe regarding those whom you esteem sons of Jupiter. For you know how many sons your esteemed writers ascribed to Jupiter: Mercury, the interpreting word and teacher of all; AEsculapius, who, though he was a great physician, was struck by a thunderbolt, and so ascended to heaven; and Bacchus too, after he had been torn limb from limb; and Hercules, when he had committed himself to the flames to escape his toils; and the sons of Leda, and Dioscuri; and Perseus, son of Danae; and Bellerophon, who, though sprung from mortals, rose to heaven on the horse Pegasus...
All those stories do appear to be set on earth. From the extant ancient texts written by pagan philosophers, we have a good understanding of how the ancient Romans and Greeks viewed their gods. This is supported by the texts we have from Christians over the first three centuries, until Christianity became the dominant religion. No pagan – average or otherwise -- appeared to have believed in a “World of Myth”, and when Christian apologists attacked pagan beliefs, they didn't refer to such beliefs either.

Pagans attack Second Century Christianity

We've seen that early 'historicist' Christians, when attacking the Roman gods, appeared to have no knowledge that the "average pagan" believed in a 'spiritual realm' in which the myths of the gods were carried out. But what about the reverse? Did pagan writers point out how the "average pagan" believed in a 'spiritual realm' in which their gods acted, while Christians did not? For this, we turn to Celsus.

Celsus was a pagan philosopher who wrote an attack on Christianity called The True Discourse towards the end of the Second Century. While this text no longer exists, we do have significant quotes from it in the response by Origen, a Third Century Christian philosopher. On his website, Doherty quotes from his own book Challenging the Verdict, where he addresses the apologist Gregory Boyd on whether the pagan mysteries adopted ideas from Christianity. Doherty uses Hoffman's reconstruction of Celsus' work to make the following point (my emphasis below):
  • Let me quote Celsus as quoted by Origen: “Are these distinctive happenings unique to the Christians—and if so, how are they unique? Or are ours to be accounted myths and theirs believed? In truth, there is nothing at all unusual about what Christians believe.” Now, Celsus was a pagan hostile to Christianity who wrote in the latter part of the second century at a time when the mystery cults were flourishing, and he is not the only one to claim that the Christians believed in nothing new.
Doherty goes on to suggest elsewhere in Challenging the Verdict that Paul and the early Christians originally regarded their Jesus as much like the pagan savior gods, a "mythical divine figure operating in a supernatural setting". But Celsus clearly understands that the Christians he is attacking believed in a historical Jesus as outlined in the Gospels of the time. If this is the case, why are both 'historicist' Christians and 'spiritual realm' pagans so at pains to point out that 'historicist' Christian views are NOT different from pagan views?
It is really important, in life, to concentrate our minds on our enthusiasms, not on our dislikes. -- Roger Pearse
Giuseppe
Posts: 13732
Joined: Mon Apr 27, 2015 5:37 am
Location: Italy

Re: Is Celsus evidence of historicity?

Post by Giuseppe »

Celsus writes:
“Let us then pass over the refutations which might be adduced against the claims of their teacher, and let him be regarded as really an angel. But is he the first and only one who came (to men), or were there others before him? If they should say that he is the only one, they would be convicted of telling lies against themselves.”
(Origen, Contra Celsum, 5:52, my bold)

This claim put relative doubt on your claim that:
But Celsus clearly understands that the Christians he is attacking believed in a historical Jesus as outlined in the Gospels of the time.
Since it's not clear if all the Christians referred by Celsus in that quote did believe in an angel totally ehuemerizied on Terra firma or (still) in the sub-lunary realms. Think to Ascension of Isaiah: it was a pocket-gospel in origin: but where did it put his angel Jesus? On terra firma (as another mere docetical - but historicist -Jesus) or in heaven, as Carrier thinks?
These were fiction, but they were presented as autobiographical. Julian recognised that the Gospels were presented as biographical accounts (in other words, Julian thought the Gospels were in the biography category)
Thus Justin in your quote above is insisting that the gospels are biographical fiction just like the biographies of Pagan heroes. This is expected in equal measure under both the minimal historicity and mythicism. Our doubt about the historicity of a ''Life of Romulus'' should be extended on the ''Life of Jesus'', too, don't you agree?

why are both 'historicist' Christians and 'spiritual realm' pagans so at pains to point out that 'historicist' Christian views are NOT different from pagan views?
But the Christians of Celsus are in pains because they want be tolerated (with their monotheist fanatism) in a pagan world, not because their Gospels had something of different from other pagan myths and stories. Celsus did attack the credibility of the Gospels (despite the fact that he knows they are 100% fiction just as the pagan stories) because he wants to attack the Christians for their congenite intolerance against the paganism. Origen rightly replied to Celsus that their stories were in nothing different from pagan stories, hoping so to receive tolerance by Celsus.

Your point, if I have understand well, is that:
All those [PAGAN] stories do appear to be set on earth.
This is only partially true. About Osiris we have historicist stories (i.e., with him on terra) and sub-lunary stories (with him on heaven). The latter - says Carrier - were previous (and esoterical) to the former (only for outsiders). The big question (to which Celsus is unable to answer) is: was it the case even with the stories of Christ Jesus?
Nihil enim in speciem fallacius est quam prava religio. -Liv. xxxix. 16.
User avatar
GakuseiDon
Posts: 2295
Joined: Sat Oct 12, 2013 5:10 pm

Re: Is Celsus evidence of historicity?

Post by GakuseiDon »

Giuseppe wrote:Celsus writes:
“Let us then pass over the refutations which might be adduced against the claims of their teacher, and let him be regarded as really an angel. But is he the first and only one who came (to men), or were there others before him? If they should say that he is the only one, they would be convicted of telling lies against themselves.”
(Origen, Contra Celsum, 5:52, my bold)

This claim put relative doubt on your claim that:
But Celsus clearly understands that the Christians he is attacking believed in a historical Jesus as outlined in the Gospels of the time.
No, it doesn't, since in that passage Celsus also refers to the pregnancy of Mary. Celsus is referring to the pre-existence of Jesus. Even Origen, in the next passage, calls Jesus an angel: the "Angel of the great counsel".
Giuseppe wrote:Since it's not clear if all the Christians referred by Celsus in that quote did believe in an angel totally ehuemerizied on Terra firma or (still) in the sub-lunary realms. Think to Ascension of Isaiah: it was a pocket-gospel in origin: but where did it put his angel Jesus? On terra firma (as another mere docetical - but historicist -Jesus) or in heaven, as Carrier thinks?
On terra firma, in the form of a man.
Giuseppe wrote:
These were fiction, but they were presented as autobiographical. Julian recognised that the Gospels were presented as biographical accounts (in other words, Julian thought the Gospels were in the biography category)
Thus Justin in your quote above is insisting that the gospels are biographical fiction just like the biographies of Pagan heroes. This is expected in equal measure under both the minimal historicity and mythicism. Our doubt about the historicity of a ''Life of Romulus'' should be extended on the ''Life of Jesus'', too, don't you agree?
I do agree. But my point here was simply against those who have claimed that the Gospels were not presented as true biographical accounts. Pagans like Julian called them "lies", because Julian recognised that the Gospels were being presented as factual. Allegories or fictions are not usually called "lies".
Giuseppe wrote:Your point, if I have understand well, is that:
All those [PAGAN] stories do appear to be set on earth.
This is only partially true. About Osiris we have historicist stories (i.e., with him on terra) and sub-lunary stories (with him on heaven). The latter - says Carrier - were previous (and esoterical) to the former (only for outsiders). The big question (to which Celsus is unable to answer) is: was it the case even with the stories of Christ Jesus?
That is a good question about Osiris, but it's separate to my point. My point was only with regards to Justin Martyr's comment, reproduced below:
  • And when we say also that the Word, who is the first-birth of God, was produced without sexual union, and that He, Jesus Christ, our Teacher, was crucified and died, and rose again, and ascended into heaven, we propound nothing different from what you believe regarding those whom you esteem sons of Jupiter. For you know how many sons your esteemed writers ascribed to Jupiter: Mercury, the interpreting word and teacher of all; AEsculapius, who, though he was a great physician, was struck by a thunderbolt, and so ascended to heaven; and Bacchus too, after he had been torn limb from limb; and Hercules, when he had committed himself to the flames to escape his toils; and the sons of Leda, and Dioscuri; and Perseus, son of Danae; and Bellerophon, who, though sprung from mortals, rose to heaven on the horse Pegasus...
Justin Martyr seems to think the pagans really believe those stories. He regarded them as "lies", since the devil had been trying to predict the story of Christ beforehand, but got them wrong. But all these particular stories were obviously set on earth. I agree that Osiris and the mystery religions should be treated separately, but the above is baselining what we know about ancient beliefs from the literature available.
It is really important, in life, to concentrate our minds on our enthusiasms, not on our dislikes. -- Roger Pearse
User avatar
DCHindley
Posts: 3411
Joined: Mon Oct 07, 2013 9:53 am
Location: Ohio, USA

Re: Is Celsus evidence of historicity?

Post by DCHindley »

Because George Washington, the alleged first president of the Eu-Knighted States, was said to have chopped down the family's cherry tree and readily, almost gleefully, admitted it to dear ol' dad, because, it is alleged, he could not tell a lie, it is not right to categorically state that George was here mythologized, but rather it proves beyond a shadow of doubt, that ol' George never existed.

Same goes for John Adams and the Federalist Papers. Just because some of them were attributed to him because of the high-falluten' ideals proposed in them, does not mean that he was held in some sort of mythological awe but because he never existed! There were pre-existent Enlightenment derived high-falluten' ideals that were widely circulating in the marketplaces of Ah-Merika at that time due to the propaganda of Ben-Jammin Franklin, and these were "historicized" (or more properly reverse euhemerized) by the early United States citizenry, desperate for rays of hope after decades of over taxation of tea and other grievous atrocities imposed on them by the Great Satan, George, the King of England (much like those imposed on Judeans by their titular king, Herod the Great).

In fact, you can just go ahead and assume that anyone you have not met directly is fictional and foisted upon you in a vast conspiracy. Yet, because vast conspiracies are so hard to organize and coordinate successfully, and also because people are not all as dumb as depicted by some*, perhaps the movie The Matrix was, in fact, a Revelation and depicts the true nature of things. Just as the Ascension of Isaiah has *proved* beyond all reason that them thar' Judeans must of had a pre-Christian heavenly high priest who died in heaven and was resurrected to serve as a model for all salvation available for man(andwoman)kind, <add the usual drivel here>, The Matrix PROVES that robots have enslaved us and placed us into a dream state with a synthesized "reality", and that salvation comes from popping' the right pill which gives "gnosis" and wizard-like hacking skills at a binary code, and not interpreted pseudo-code, level of sophistication.

DCH <mimicking the usual insanity common to all good insane threads>

*As proved by "Captain Penney" (the late Ron Penfound, host of a children's Saturday morning TV cartoon show well known to those in and around Cleveland, Ohio, USA in the 1960s), who said: "You can fool all of the people some of the time, and some of the people all of the time, but you can't fool mom!" The mother's of the world would have never allow such a thing to be alleged.
Post Reply