Revaluing Celsus as a mythicist

[Giuseppe]

He gives it as his opinion, that the controversy between Jews and Christians is a most foolish one, and asserts that the discussions 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.' and thinks that there is nothing of importance in the investigations of the Jews and Christians: for both believe that it was predicted by the Divine Spirit that one was to come as a Saviour to the human race, but do not yet agree on the point whether the person predicted has actually come or not.

https://www.newadvent.org/fathers/04163.htm

The proverb 'a fight about the shadow of an ass.' is the ancient equivalent of the golden tooth of Fontenelle:

http://hoaxes.org/archive/permalink/the ... lden_tooth

One of the most famous texts by the French philosopher Fontenelle is entitled "The gold tooth". What is it about? The story takes place in 1593 in Silesia. A seven-year-old child, the age at which milk teeth are lost, suddenly has a gold tooth. The wise men, intrigued, immediately set to work to try to understand the miracle, multiplying the hypotheses together with books.

But a goldsmith who examines the child discovers that no miracle has happened: the object of the controversy was actually a gold leaf applied over a normal tooth. Fontenelle makes fun of the haste of the wise: "First they started making books and then they consulted the goldsmith".

Fontanelle comments on this anecdote regretting the fact that we look for the reasons for the facts we are talking about before verifying them, perhaps not realizing how paradoxical his operation is: to criticize the habit of commenting on non-existent facts, he himself invented a fable.

So, returning to Celsus, his point may be considered a precursor of the Fontenelle's point: the Jews and Christians dispute on the messianic status of Jesus, without before agreeing at least about the banal fact of the his existence.

[Sinouhe]

Nice point.
But the argument that Jesus existed because no one questioned his existence, even Celsus, is an incredibly weak argument.

How could Celsus, a roman philosopher or even any second century Jew could have questioned the existence of an obscure Galilean ?
Especially with the wars of 70 and 135 and their consequences (diaspora and deportations).

[Secret Alias]

I don't think Celsus is saying that Jesus didn't exist. I think the 'saying' was used to emphasize that the questions Jews and Christians debated were trivial SUCH AS whether the messiah had come or not. More interesting is the fact that Celsus seems to imply Jews knew of a 'Son of God.'

[Giuseppe]

How could Celsus, a roman philosopher or even any second century Jew could have questioned the existence of an obscure Galilean ?

The same Celsus admits that his arguments against the Christians are based only on the Christian scriptures:

All these statements are taken from your own books, in addition to which we need no other witness; for you fall upon your own swords.

(2:74)

...so admiting as corollary that he is unaware of not-Christian evidence about Jesus.

[Giuseppe]

More interesting is the fact that Celsus seems to imply Jews knew of a 'Son of God.'

Why is it interesting? My point is that the first gospel had no reluctance at all to describe Jesus as the 'Son of God' walking on the earth healing a lot of people and doing a lot of miracles. So the Jews knew that that was the 'Christian message', which confirms that the secrecy in Mark is a clue that Mark is visibly disturbed by such 'Son of God' openly proclaimed as such in the original gospel.

[Secret Alias]

Because Origen says Celsus is wrong for associating "Son of God" as a title used by Jews.

[Giuseppe]

Because Origen says Celsus is wrong for associating "Son of God" as a title used by Jews.

where precisely?

[Giuseppe]

Is this?

no God or son of God has come down or will come down,

https://www.newadvent.org/fathers/04165.htm

No need of disturbing the Jews, here. The claim was so arrogant ab origine, that a divine being has come down, that the natural reaction by everyone would have been: "Prove it!"

Hence the Messianic secret by "Mark".

[davidmartin]

Celsus quotes Jewish sources that assume his existence. That's why mythicists don't like talking about Celsus. I'd like to see how Celsus's Jewish source (of the 2nd century) is worked over by modern (21st century) fundamentalists to undermine what that source said...just because it doesn't agree with a narrow mythicist mindset!

[Celsus' Jewish critic]: Such a body as yours could not have belonged to God. The body of god would not have been so generated as you, O Jesus, were
The Jewish critic that Celsus quotes assumes his existence
That's because it is far more likely than not, that there was a historical personage who existed, that inspired all the stories, etc - mythicism is really a cheap excuse- really a fake excuse for throwing hands up in the air and saying 'I don't know' - saying 'I don't know' is fine, but dressing it all up as a dogmatic belief "No-one existed who the Jesus character was based on" is dogma - because every single one of the sources of the 2nd century has to magically be presented as 'not real'. What a hoax!

[Giuseppe]

Celsus quotes Jewish sources that assume his existence. That's why mythicists don't like talking about Celsus.

That is a pure falsity. Celsus says clearly that the evangelists are "inventors of fictions":

Now if they had not been lovers of truth, but, as Celsus supposes, inventors of fictions, they would not have represented Peter as denying, nor His disciples as being offended.

https://www.newadvent.org/fathers/04162.htm


Which means that Celsus arrived very close to doubt even about the presumed 'embarrassing' events in the gospels.

One who wrote so:

Even although guilty of falsehood, you have not been able to give a color of credibility to your inventions.

...could only be a mythicist.


Martin's reluctance to give full legitimacy to the mythicism is the perfect example of the obtuse blindness of some atheists that is 100% functional to the preservation of the faith among the same believers.