The Identity of Celsus and His "Jew"

Discussion about the New Testament, apocrypha, gnostics, church fathers, Christian origins, historical Jesus or otherwise, etc.
User avatar
GakuseiDon
Posts: 1213
Joined: Sat Oct 12, 2013 5:10 pm

Re: Not that Lucian

Post by GakuseiDon »

Giuseppe wrote: Fri Sep 24, 2021 9:16 pm
  • We have nothing, no judgement at all, by Seneca, Pilate, Tiberius about Christians.
  • We have at least a comment by Lucian of Samosata about Christians, and as bild89 pointed out, that comment was negative. In a word: anti-Christian.
It is irrelevant what we have. It's about what the ancient Christians had. And they had stories about Paul writing to Seneca, Pilate converting to Christianity and Tiberius wanting the Senate to add Jesus to the list of Roman gods.
Giuseppe wrote: Fri Sep 24, 2021 9:16 pmAn anti-Christian can't be made a Christian, even in a Catholic universe.
Really. No ancient Christian in a Catholic universe would ever make up a story about an anti-Christian actually becoming a Christian?

You and bild89 seem to think the argument hinges on whether Lucian was really a Christian or not. But that isn't the argument. IF Origen confused his Celsus with the Celsus that Lucian wrote to, then he might well have confused his Lucian with Lucian of S. Bild89 may well be right that there is a mystery about who Origen was referencing, but Lucian of Samosata is an obvious candidate. And remember, Origen describes the followers of Lucian as being heretics, not orthodox. As I've shown from quotes by Tertullian and Irenaeus, heretics often seemed to have been trying to incorporate ideas from philosophical schools into their Christianity.

"An anti-Christian can't be made a Christian, even in a Catholic universe." :confusedsmiley: This board is full of threads about how ancient Christian writers are dirty lying liars, always making things up, getting things wrong, distorting earlier writers and attributing writings to ancient famous people in order to get some unearned respectability.

But, when it's convenient, "an anti-Christian can't be made a Christian, even in a Catholic universe." :notworthy: :notworthy:
StephenGoranson
Posts: 607
Joined: Thu Apr 02, 2015 2:10 am

Re: The Identity of Celsus and His "Jew"

Post by StephenGoranson »

Though I proposed in a 2007 article* that Celsus (the one that Origen responded to) and Lucian and Galen may have known one another, I also find Andrew’s posts quite informative and helpful.
*
https://people.duke.edu/~goranson/Celsu ... rgamum.pdf
User avatar
Giuseppe
Posts: 9653
Joined: Mon Apr 27, 2015 5:37 am
Location: Italy

Re: Not that Lucian

Post by Giuseppe »

GakuseiDon wrote: Fri Sep 24, 2021 11:28 pm
Giuseppe wrote: Fri Sep 24, 2021 9:16 pm
  • We have nothing, no judgement at all, by Seneca, Pilate, Tiberius about Christians.
  • We have at least a comment by Lucian of Samosata about Christians, and as bild89 pointed out, that comment was negative. In a word: anti-Christian.
It is irrelevant what we have. It's about what the ancient Christians had. And they had stories about Paul writing to Seneca, Pilate converting to Christianity and Tiberius wanting the Senate to add Jesus to the list of Roman gods.
precisely. They didn't have stories about Lucian being a Christian and/or having Christian followers. For the simple fact that, differently from Tiberius, differently from Pilate, differently from Seneca, all people who ignored who was a "Christian" (and that accordingly could be christianized easily, without fear of confutation by outsiders), Lucian had talked negatively about both Christ and Christians. The onus probandi is on your weak shoulders, to prove that Lucian was christianized by Christians despite of Lucian's explicit anti-Christianity.
GakuseiDon wrote: Fri Sep 24, 2021 11:28 pm Lucian of Samosata is an obvious candidate.
prove it. Until now, I see no evidence at all.

GakuseiDon wrote: Fri Sep 24, 2021 11:28 pmBut, when it's convenient, "an anti-Christian can't be made a Christian, even in a Catholic universe." :notworthy: :notworthy:
please give as counter-example to my claim at least a name of an anti-Christian who was later christianized. I can answer for you: there was none, none at all.
User avatar
billd89
Posts: 304
Joined: Thu Jun 25, 2020 6:27 pm
Location: New England, USA

Re: Lucian's = Followers of Luke?

Post by billd89 »

Greek:
Μετὰ ταῦτά τινας τῶν πιστευόντων φησὶν ὡς ἐκ μέθης ἥκοντας εἰς τὸ ἐφεστάναι αὑτοῖς μεταχαράττειν ἐκ τῆς πρώτης γραφῆς τὸ εὐαγγέλιον τριχῇ καὶ τετραχῇ καὶ πολλαχῇ καὶ μεταπλάττειν, ἵν ἔχοιεν πρὸς τοὺς ἐλέγχους ἀρνεῖσθαι. μεταχαράξαντας δὲ τὸ εὐαγγέλιον ἄλλους οὐκ οἶδα ἢ τοὺς ἀπὸ Μαρκίωνος καὶ τοὺς ἀπὸ Οὐαλεντίνου οἶμαι δὲ καὶ τοὺς ἀπὸ Λουκάνου.


My translation, after DeepL:
After these things*, {Celsus says}, some of the {Christ} Believers -as though drunk and self-harming- did transcribe from the primary Scripture the Gospel three-fold, four-fold, and manifold, but transformed it, to deny objectors. Yet of those who corrupted the Gospel, I have not seen others besides those from the followers of Marcion, of Valentinus, or I suppose of Lucanus {Luke?}. And this being said, it is not the fault of the {Christian} Word, but of those who dared tamper with the Gospels.

*things = viz., inconsistencies and complexities of the Gospels

Ante-Nicene Fathers, 2.27
After this he says, that certain of the Christian believers, like persons who in a fit of drunkenness lay violent hands upon themselves, have corrupted the Gospel from its original integrity, to a threefold, and fourfold, and many-fold degree, and have remodelled it, so that they might be able to answer objections. Now I know of no others who have altered the Gospel, save the followers of Marcion, and those of Valentinus, and, I think, also those of Lucian. But such an allegation is no charge against the Christian system, but against those who dared so to trifle with the Gospels.


Therefore we can see and set aside:
Celsus: Christ-Believers have multiplied the Gospel, three and four times (the Four Gospels) - but really many more.

to focus on what Origen declares:
Origen has not seen Gospels from any groups besides Followers of Marcion, Valentinus and -he adds- Lucian (viz. Luke).

Origen doesn't say ONLY Marcionites and Valentinians multiplied the Gospel, rather that his familiarity is only with the two main (heretic) groups plus the mysterious Lucianites (however they should be called) he would add.

Origen's statement must be either True or False.

True: Lucianites existed, they have a Gospel, they are significant enough to be compared to Marcionites, etc. - or
False: countless possibilities, all wrong, such as scribal error significantly changing this text, Origen made up shit, ... etc.

The authority of the source would be impugned by Falsehood, creating problems. I do not assume the Claim is False; rather, it is misunderstood.

'Lucian of Samosata' is Wrong here, simply. Given his own writings (cited), we may easily, reasonably and correctly infer:
1) LS was not a Believer; au contraire, he scorned Believers. (Necessary Condition 1: Prove that he was),
2) LS did not preach any Gospel; had someone so famous, it would have been noteworthy. (Necessary Condition 2: Prove that he did),
3) LS had no Xian sect/cult; no associated cult is so named. (Necessary Condition 3: Prove that he did),
4) No LS Xian sect existed, therefore it could not have multiplied Gospels. (Necessary Condition 4: Prove they did.)

The four Necessary Conditions must be met for that or any candidate; since they are not, it fails at the start. Inference/ imagining is not "evidence" otherwise, nor is it sound-reasoning when it is mere rationalization (make-believe). Consider further:

5)There is absolutely no reference to "Lucian of Samosata" anywhere in Contra Celsum, nor to any implied Lucian-friend-of-Celsus (whoever those two may be).
6) The problematic muddle of those two identities does NOT offer any clarity nor 'reasonable assumption' and benefit of the doubt to proceed any further w/ the spurious claim.
7) Luke/Lucian is a very common name. We must begin thinking it could be ANY Luke/Lucian of learning, faith and status, not confined to any False Candidates.
8) A famous writer presumably writes, no? So his Gospel would be famous (not forgotten) in its day and afterwards. If not, no.

Abstruse or tendentious hypotheticals ("Ancient Xians thought he was!") are unsupported by any facts in this case, so disallowed. Speculation isnt evidence, and so on. The claim that some real 'Followers of Lucian' multiplied their own Gospel(s) remains in question, but w/o any connection to the Syrian satirist.

a) A group would need to have existed by c.245 AD, a TRUE Xian group and "Believers" probably c.120 AD.
b) Said sect would either have joined the Church or been in dubious conflict w/ it around Origen's day.

Origen's wanted these Followers' writings to be classed with other heretics'. That seems odd, but Church Fathers had their enemies and Origen had his. So we should not exaggerate our own full-blown Heretic presumption(s) without more information, something else to go on.

A novel suggestion? Luke's Gospel Followers pp.273-4 and whatever they wrote afterwards. Perhaps it was an offshoot, not fully separated as a sect, under a dodgy bishop, or a church network scorned (for something now forgotten) in retrospect?

Where did Luke's Gospel originate and circulate most fervently c.120-175 AD?
Last edited by billd89 on Sat Sep 25, 2021 7:04 pm, edited 1 time in total.
perseusomega9
Posts: 904
Joined: Tue Feb 04, 2014 7:19 am

Re: Lucian's = Followers of Luke?

Post by perseusomega9 »

billd89 wrote: Sat Sep 25, 2021 1:31 pm A novel suggestion? Luke's Gospel Followers pp.273-4 and whatever they wrote afterwards. Perhaps it was an offshoot, not fully separated as a sect, under a dodgy bishop, or church network scorned (for something now forgotten) in retrospect?

Where did Luke's Gospel originate and circulate most fervently c.120-175 AD?
Great article you linked, thanks!
User avatar
GakuseiDon
Posts: 1213
Joined: Sat Oct 12, 2013 5:10 pm

Re: Lucian's = Followers of Luke?

Post by GakuseiDon »

billd89 wrote: Sat Sep 25, 2021 1:31 pm'Lucian of Samosata' is Wrong here, simply. Given his own writings (cited), we may easily, reasonably and correctly infer:
1) LS was not a Believer; au contraire, he scorned Believers. (Necessary Condition 1: Prove that he was),
2) LS did not preach any Gospel; had someone so famous, it would have been noteworthy. (Necessary Condition 2: Prove that he did),
3) LS had no Xian sect/cult; no associated cult is so named. (Necessary Condition 3: Prove that he did),
4) No LS Xian sect existed, therefore it could not have multiplied Gospels. (Necessary Condition 4: Prove they did.)

The four Necessary Conditions must be met for that or any candidate; since they are not, it fails at the start.
I agree with 1 thru 3. But, as I wrote earlier, I argue they are irrelevant to my point, which is about "the followers of Lucian". My conclusion is speculative, but it is based on data. Take Tertullian's Prescription against the Heretics:
http://www.earlychristianwritings.com/t ... ian11.html

Where was Marcion then, that shipmaster of Pontus, the zealous student of Stoicism? Where was Valentinus then, the disciple of Platonism? For it is evident that those menlived not so long ago,--in the reign of Antoninus for the most part,--and that they at first were believers in the doctrine of the Catholic Church, in the church of Rome under the episcopate of the blessed Eleutherus, until on account of their ever restless curiosity,with which they even infected the brethren, they were more than once expelled.

We don't need to propose that Platonists or Stoics were Christians in order to have Marcion and Valentinus students of such ideas. Rather, they started as heretics who became 'corrupted' by pagan philosophy. My speculative reading of Origen is that "the followers of Lucian" were Christians enamoured with the rhetoric that Lucian was famous for:

Now I know of no others who have altered the Gospel, save the followers of Marcion, and those of Valentinus, and, I think, also those of Lucian.

There's an interesting article I found called "Mapping the World: Justin, Tatian, Lucian, and the Second Sophistic", where the author describes the similarities of the approaches of Justin Martyr, Tatian and Lucian during the period called "the Second Sophistic", which the article describes as follows:

https://dash.harvard.edu/bitstream/hand ... sequence=1

The second sophistic was not a club to be joined, but rather an educational and political trend in which Justin, Tatian, and Lucian participated, which spawned satire and debate over culture or education (paideia), cultic practices, and ethnic identity under Rome.

The author sees similarities in how they described the religious practices of their time:

All three also critique what we would call religion:

"If anyone sacrifices, [the gods] all have a feast, opening their mouths for the smoke and drinking the blood that is spilt at the altars, just like flies. . . . Then too they [humans] erect temples, in order that the gods may not be houseless and hearthless, of course; and they fashion images in their [human] likeness. . . . Those who offer victims . . . deck the animal with garlands . . . ; then they bring it to the altar and slaughter it under the god’s eyes, while it bellows plaintively—making, we must suppose, auspicious sounds, and fluting low music to accompany the sacrifice! Who would not suppose that the gods like to see all this? ... (snipped)"

Reading this without attribution, one might guess that it was written by Tatian or some other Christian satirist bitter about other religious practices, such as Minucius Felix.30 But it comes from the pen of Lucian, whose mockery of claims to piety extended to various Mediterranean rituals and cults, including the perpetually insulted Egyptian and (then, much later) Christian cults. If we were to read Justin and Tatian merely as (Christian) apologists, we would miss this larger context of debate over Greek education, Greco-Roman myths, and the panoply of cult practices around the Mediterranean.

Tatian was Syrian, and Lucian of Samosata, whose works were wildly popular in antiquity, was also Syrian. Tatian created his own harmony of the Gospels, the Diatessaron, in which he added his own content, which was used in the Syrian churches for centuries. Tatian was expelled from the church as a heretic, and at some point returned to Syria.

It's certainly pure speculation on my part to propose that Origen saw Christians like Tatian who attacked the Greek religious practices of his time through rhetorical screeds as "followers of Lucian", no doubt about it. I just don't see it as an outlandish claim.

** Again, it has nothing to do with claiming that Lucian of S was a Christian!!!
andrewcriddle
Posts: 2037
Joined: Sat Oct 05, 2013 12:36 am

Re: Not that Lucian

Post by andrewcriddle »

billd89 wrote: Thu Sep 23, 2021 3:52 pm
billd89 wrote: Wed Sep 22, 2021 6:15 pm
Lucian is a common name. The 'Lucian' of Origen's c.248 AD work is not Lucian of Samosata (satirist, not Xtian) ... So who is this particular 'Lucian', and where was he active (coastal Syria? c.80 AD?) His followers have a dodgy Gospel, but that's O.'s opinion and not definite. Origen sounds abit uncertain: given the order, isnt O. also suggesting Lucian's followers pre-date those of Valentinus? The uncertainty may be if their Gospel and sect had disappeared (viz., didnt merit mention because it was outside C.'s time-frame, C. doubtfully knew THAT group, etc.) or if it should be classed with such heretics? Lack of clarity, here.

If 'Followers of Lucian' were a LATER sect, shouldnt they be clearly identified in the record 200-300 AD and definitely marked by later heresiologists? Their Gospel was what, as 'far-out' as what was promoted by Valentinus' gnostics? Hmmm... re: no reports on a 'Gospel of Lucian', the silence is deafening.
...
Contra Celsum, 2.27.
"After this he says that certain (Christian) believers, like persons drunk by establishing their secondary writ from primary scripture, they even refashion the Gospel thrice, four-fold, indeed manifold, so they might deny refutations. Now I {Origen} know of no others who have altered the Gospel, save the followers of Marcion {after 150 AD}, and those of Valentinus {between 'Gospel of Truth' c.145 AD and Heracleon c.175 AD}, and, I think, also those of Lucian {?? c.120 AD?} ..."

andrewcriddle wrote: Thu Sep 23, 2021 8:40 am The Lucian here is Lucian of Samosata.

Andrew Criddle
Christ, you're tedious. Where's the proof of that?

Also, you answered none of my points.

Even wikipedia gets it right: Lucian of Samosata had sweet f*ckall to do w/ Xtianity. NO he wasnt Xtian, had no Xtian sect/followers, and had no Xtian Gospel as Origen states here for THIS Lucian. It's a three-part Fail. Ergo: NOT THE SAME LUCIAN! (There's no logical reason to insert his name here, unless a scribe corrupted O.'s text w/ utter bollocks.) The assumption that he's 'the only possible Lucian' simply because his name is the same & he's mentioned by O. somewhere else is patently ridiculous.

Totally out-of-context, and almost certainly wrong.
I read your post too quickly sorry.

The Lucian mentioned by Origen in Contra Celsus 2. 27 (who is not the Lucian who gave Origen the idea that Celsus was an Epicurean which is what I misunderstood you to mean) was a disciple/colleague of Marcion. Hippolytus
And what were the opinions of Cerdon, who both enunciated the doctrines of Empedocles, and who wickedly induced Marcion to step forward.

And how Lucian, when he had become a disciple of Marcion, having divested himself of all shame, blasphemed God from time to time.
But one Cerdon himself also, taking occasion in like manner from these (heretics) and Simon, affirms that the God preached by Moses and the prophets was not Father of Jesus Christ. For (he contends) that this (Father) had been known, whereas that the Father of Christ was unknown, and that the former was just, but the latter good. And Marcion corroborated the tenet of this (heretic) in the work which he attempted to write, and which he styled Antitheses. And he was in the habit, (in this book,) of uttering whatever slanders suggested themselves to his mind again
st the Creator of the universe. In a similar manner likewise (acted) Lucian, the disciple of this (heretic).
Pseudo-Tertullian
After him arose one Lucan by name, a follower and disciple of Marcion. He, too, wading through the same kinds of blasphemy, teaches the same as Marcion and Cerdo had taught.
Tertullian
Since there is even within the confines of God's Church a sect which is more nearly allied to the Epicureans than to the prophets, an opportunity is afforded us of knowing what estimate Christ forms of the (said sect, even the) Sadducees. For to Christ was it reserved to lay bare everything which before was concealed: to impart certainty to doubtful points; to accomplish those of which men had had but a foretaste; to give present reality to the objects of prophecy; and to furnish not only by Himself, but actually in Himself, certain proofs of the resurrection of the dead. It is, however, against other Sadducees that we have now to prepare ourselves, but still partakers of their doctrine. For instance, they allow a moiety of the resurrection; that is, simply of the soul, despising the flesh, just as they also do the Lord of the flesh Himself. No other persons, indeed, refuse to concede to the substance of the body its recovery from death, heretical inventors of a second deity. Driven then, as they are, to give a different dispensation to Christ, so that He may not be accounted as belonging to the Creator, they have achieved their first error in the article of His very flesh; contending with Marcion and Basilides that it possessed no reality; or else holding, after the heretical tenets of Valentinus, and according to Apelles, that it had qualities peculiar to itself. And so it follows that they shut out from all recovery from death that substance of which they say that Christ did not partake, confidently assuming that it furnishes the strongest presumption against the resurrection, since the flesh is already risen in Christ. Hence it is that we have ourselves previously issued our volume On the flesh of Christ; in which we both furnish proofs of its reality, in opposition to the idea of its being a vain phantom; and claim for it a human nature without any peculiarity of condition — such a nature as has marked out Christ to be both man and the Son of man. For when we prove Him to be invested with the flesh and in a bodily condition, we at the same time refute heresy, by establishing the rule that no other being than the Creator must be believed to be God, since we show that Christ, in whom God is plainly discerned, is precisely of such a nature as the Creator promised that He should be. Being thus refuted touching God as the Creator, and Christ as the Redeemer of the flesh, they will at once be defeated also on the resurrection of the flesh. No procedure, indeed, can be more reasonable. And we affirm that controversy with heretics should in most cases be conducted in this way. For due method requires that conclusions should always be drawn from the most important premises, in order that there be a prior agreement on the essential point, by means of which the particular question under review may be said to have been determined. Hence it is that the heretics, from their conscious weakness, never conduct discussion in an orderly manner. They are well aware how hard is their task in insinuating the existence of a second god, to the disparagement of the Creator of the world, who is known to all men naturally by the testimony of His works, who is before all others in the mysteries of His being, and is especially manifested in the prophets; then, under the pretence of considering a more urgent inquiry, namely man's own salvation— a question which transcends all others in its importance — they begin with doubts about the resurrection; for there is greater difficulty in believing the resurrection of the flesh than the oneness of the Deity. In this way, after they have deprived the discussion of the advantages of its logical order, and have embarrassed it with doubtful insinuations in disparagement of the flesh, they gradually draw their argument to the reception of a second god after destroying and changing the very ground of our hopes. For when once a man is fallen or removed from the sure hope which he had placed in the Creator, he is easily led away to the object of a different hope, whom however of his own accord he can hardly help suspecting. Now it is by a discrepancy in the promises that a difference of gods is insinuated. How many do we thus see drawn into the net vanquished on the resurrection of the flesh, before they could carry their point on the oneness of the Deity! In respect, then, of the heretics, we have shown with what weapons we ought to meet them. And indeed we have already encountered them in treatises severally directed against them: on the one only God and His Christ, in our work against Marcion, on the Lord's flesh, in our book against the four heresies, for the special purpose of opening the way to the present inquiry: so that we have now only to discuss the resurrection of the flesh, (treating it) just as if it were uncertain in regard to ourselves also, that is, in the system of the Creator. Because many persons are uneducated; still more are of faltering faith, and several are weak-minded: these will have to be instructed, directed, strengthened, inasmuch as the very oneness of the Godhead will be defended along with the maintenance of our doctrine. For if the resurrection of the flesh be denied, that prime article of the faith is shaken; if it be asserted, that is established. There is no need, I suppose, to treat of the soul's safety; for nearly all the heretics, in whatever way they conceive of it, certainly refrain from denying that. We may ignore a certain Lucan, who does not spare even this part of our nature, which he follows Aristotle in reducing to dissolution, and substitutes some other thing in lieu of it. Some third nature it is which, according to him, is to rise again, neither soul nor flesh; in other words, not man, but a bear perhaps — for instance, Lucan himself. Even he has received from us a copious notice in our book on the entire condition of the soul, the special immortality of which we there maintain, while we also both acknowledge the dissolution of the flesh alone, and emphatically assert its restitution. Into the body of that work were collected whatever points we elsewhere had to reserve from the pressure of incidental causes. For as it is my custom to touch some questions but lightly on their first occurrence, so I am obliged also to postpone the consideration of them, until the outline can be filled in with complete
Andrew Criddle
User avatar
billd89
Posts: 304
Joined: Thu Jun 25, 2020 6:27 pm
Location: New England, USA

Re: Lucian's = Followers of Luke?

Post by billd89 »

GakuseiDon wrote: Sun Sep 26, 2021 4:25 am
Tatian created his own harmony of the Gospels, the Diatessaron, in which he added his own content, which was used in the Syrian churches for centuries. Tatian was expelled from the church as a heretic, and at some point returned to Syria.
Where Tatian was assumed a 'Follower of Valentinus', his Gospel (the Diatessaron) fits there. Its just another Gospel of Valentinians. 'Followers of Lucian' must represent ANOTHER branch, logically.

But (1) IF Origen thought Tatian was smthg else, (2) if O. called certain opponents (influenced by Tatian's Gospel) 'Syrian Sophistists', (3) if O. saw Syrian (heretical) writings as influenced by a nebulous 'School of Lucian' (which may not have been formally derived from Lucian of Samosata; Lucian begat another Lucian, and so on), then the CONCLUSION: the Caesarean's implied -even imagined- enemy 'Camp-of-Lucian' (viz., Tatian) could have been a third Xian menace emanating from proximate Syria.

That's highly strained, I think. And a forced re-reading, to reach a 'speculative conclusion'.

Tertullian's slander of Xian heretics as philosophers (c.215 AD) would provide a precedent. Is there evidence Tertullian was known to Origen (c.245 AD)? Too close, by date, I'd guess. But in O.'s next sentence (2.27-8), Origen adds that he doesnt want to impugn philosophers (naming Sophists specifically, in a list) here. Odd. Why not simply name Tatian?
Last edited by billd89 on Sun Sep 26, 2021 12:12 pm, edited 1 time in total.
User avatar
billd89
Posts: 304
Joined: Thu Jun 25, 2020 6:27 pm
Location: New England, USA

Re: The Identity of Lucian

Post by billd89 »

GakuseiDon wrote: Fri Sep 24, 2021 8:04 pm Thus:

Marcion --> Gospel of Luke --> the Stoics
Valentinus --> Gospel of John --> Plato
Ebionites --> Gospel of Matthew --> Judaism
Separatists --> Gospel of Mark --> ?
Lucian (after 160 AD, probably c.180-210 AD) identified as a late Follower of Marcion and tethered to Aristotle! Was Hippolytus' work (c.235 AD) known to Origen (c.245 AD)? I think this Lucian and his Followers (and their Gospel) were real, but where were they based? O. thought them on par w/ Valentinians, a large and well-known heresy, but the other sources diminish this 'Lucian' considerably.
User avatar
billd89
Posts: 304
Joined: Thu Jun 25, 2020 6:27 pm
Location: New England, USA

Re: The Identity of Celsus and His "Jew"

Post by billd89 »

If -- following one theory, that The True Doctrine dates c.125 AD -- Celsum got his information partly from Jewish prophets in Phoenicia, then Celsum was referring to the same decade and area in & on which Philo of Byblos (c.125 AD) wrote.

Celsum knowing the Four-fold Gospels in 125 AD will also not allow any late-dating favored by deniers on this forum. For if Celsum knew the Four Gospels, all those works should already be circulating one or more decades previously (at least). The Gospels (Mark, Matthew, Luke, John) would have existed in some form before 110 AD and there's NO WAY that Celsum could have known a Gospel of Marcion.

Paget [2017], p.204 n.17:
Elysée Pélegaud, Un conservateur au second siècle: Celse et les premières luttes entre la philosophie antique et le christianisme naissant (Paris, 1879), 396. He argued that it was more likely that Celsus gained his knowledge from what the latter terms Jewish prophets in Phoenicia and Palestine (Contra Celsum 7,9 [SC 150, 34,1–36,23 Borret]) and from Christian priests (Contra Celsum 6,40 [SC 147, 274,10–13 B.]), and even speculates as to whether he had engaged in argument with a writer like Justin, citing the latter’s arguments with Crescens (Pélegaud, Conservateur [see above], 397–398) To this should be added Carl Andresen’s argument that Celsus is a response to Justin, a view which has met with only partial approval. See Carl Andresen, Logos und Nomos: die Polemik des Kelsos wider das Christentum (AKG 30; Berlin, 1955).

Post Reply