Was the Gospel according to the Hebrews (GHeb) composed during a famine?

[Gd1234]

It saddens me greatly the loss of the gospel of Hebrews
It also saddens me more the loss of the library of caesarea

So much history lost:(

[John2]

I wonder if the author of G Hebrews had read Luke Acts ...

I think it could be the other way around, that the author of Luke-Acts used a translation of the original Hebrew Matthew/gospel of the Hebrews (along with Mark and perhaps also the NT version of Matthew). This would be in keeping with Lk. 1:2 ("Many have undertaken to compose an account of the things that have been fulfilled among us, just as they were handed down to us by the initial eyewitnesses and servants of the word") and with the parts of Luke that resemble the Ebionite Matthew (which I think was also created using a translation of the original Hebrew Matthew).

So it looks to me like there were at least three versions of Matthew, the original Hebrew (sans Mark) used by Nazarenes, and then translated versions, one of which was incorporated (along with Mark) into the NT Matthew and used by proto-orthodox, and another of which was used to make the Ebioinite Matthew, with all versions reflecting their particular group.

And since Luke (in my view) also used one or more versions of Matthew (if I had to guess I'd say it was the NT Matthew and Ebionite Matthew and not independent translations), it too is a kind of Matthew (at least in part). Not so much that it was ever called that like the other three were, but still.

It makes sense to me. You start with an original Hebrew version of Matthew that was called the gospel of the Hebrews (written as early as the 40's CE, perhaps, though I wouldn't press it), of which were made translations and edits and additions to create the NT and Ebionite Matthews, and then a "final" layer was made over the NT and Ebionite Matthews (Luke).

[Charles Wilson]

Lev --

The short answer is "Yes!".

There was a Severe Famine and you can look it up. Herod even sold the Palace furniture to buy grain from Egypt's Procurator Petronius. Herod then tried to "Buy Off" the populace. The Priests try to tell everyone that God will provide, not Herod, and this is the background for:

Matthew 7: 7 - 14 (RSV):

[7] "Ask, and it will be given you; seek, and you will find; knock, and it will be opened to you.
[8] For every one who asks receives, and he who seeks finds, and to him who knocks it will be opened.
[9] Or what man of you, if his son asks him for bread, will give him a stone?
[10] Or if he asks for a fish, will give him a serpent?
[11] If you then, who are evil, know how to give good gifts to your children, how much more will your Father who is in heaven give good things to those who ask him!
[12] So whatever you wish that men would do to you, do so to them; for this is the law and the prophets.
[13] "Enter by the narrow gate; for the gate is wide and the way is easy, that leads to destruction, and those who enter by it are many.
[14] For the gate is narrow and the way is hard, that leads to life, and those who find it are few.

Famine? Oh, Yes.

Best,

CW

[StephenGoranson]

a) SA wrote: "What I mean is that this text begins with "Origen" confessing that he had to rewrite the original draft."
Where did Origen "confess" that?

b) Maybe worth considering:
Maren Niehoff, “A Jewish Critique of Christianity from second century Alexandria. Revisiting Celsus’ Jew”, Journal of Early Christian Studies 21 (2013) 151-75.

c) my
https://people.duke.edu/~goranson/Celsu ... rgamum.pdf

[Secret Alias]

On the "Rewriting" of Against Celsus in Caesarea

1. The Commentary on John was supposedly "begun" in Alexandria but finished at Caesarea. In the Sixth Book of the Commentary there is:

I composed the material given me as far as the fifth volume (of the Commentary) even though the storm in Alexandria seemed to work against me (εἰ καὶ ὁ κατὰ τὴν Ἀλεξανδρείαν χειμὼν ἀντιπράττειν ἐδόκει), just as Jesus rebuked the winds and the waves of the sea. After I had moved on to part of the sixth (volume), I was brought out of Egypt by God delivering me, He who led His people forth from there. (9) Then, when the enemy assailed me with all bitterness in his new writings, so truly hostile to the Gospel, and stirred up against me all the winds of wickedness in Egypt, reason called me instead to stand fast for the conflict and to preserve my guiding principle, so that evil counsels should never gain the strength to bring the storm also into my soul, or even to compose the next part (of the Commentary) at the wrong time, before my mind had returned to calm. Moreover, the absence of my usual scribes prevented me from adhering to my practice of dictation. (10) But now that the many flaming arrows shot at me are blunted by God as he extinguishes them, and (now that) my soul, which had grown used to such occurrences, is compelled through the heavenly Word to withstand more easily the plots that have arisen, I wish, as though instilled with a certain tranquillity, to continue writing without further delay. I pray that God will be with me and utter his teachings in the inner chamber of my soul, so that the building I have begun—the interpretation of the Gospel of John—may be finished.

2. Eusebius obviously lived in Caesarea, had a problem with composing pseudepigrapha (the Apology is a strange hybrid of Pamphilus's hand and his own to the point that Eusebius literally took over his name!

3. The columned scriptural translations of the Bible are also a strange hybrid of Origen and Eusebius.

4. Eusebius protected Arius installing him in Palestine after things got too hot for him in Egypt.

5. "Pamphilus" has no existence independent of Eusebius and seems to be a little more than a convenient scapegoat to avoid the charge of Eusebius's own interest in preserving the writings of the heretic Origen:

Jerome describes Pamphilus as gathering books together from all parts of the world , thus rivalling in the domain of sacred learning the zeal which Demetrius Phalereus or Pisistratus had shewn for profane knowledge. Origen himself had set the example of a literary society . Aided by the munificence of his friend Ambrosius , he had kept about him always a large number of shorthand writers , to whom he dictated , and of calligraphers - women as well as men - who copied out the Scriptures for him. His example was not thrown away on Pamphilus. Nor was it only in copying and editing that the society gathered about Pamphilus occupied itself. Pamphilus was a devoted admirer of Origen . He possessed the original copy of the Hexapla of Origen , which was afterwards used by Jerome at Caesarea ( Hieron . Comm . in Tit . iii . 9 , Op . vii . 734 ) . He sought out the works of . Op . i . 155 ; Euseb . H. E. vi . 32 ) . He even transcribed the greater part of them with his own hand for his library ( Hieron . Vir . Ill . 75 ). One long work of Origen in the handwriting of Pamphilus came into the possession of Jerome himself ; owning it , he says , he considers that he owns the wealth of Croesus ; it is signed , as it were , with the very blood of the martyr. Like Origen too , Pamphilus paid great attention to the reproduction of accurate copies of the Scriptures . More than one extant MS has been taken from or collated with some copy which he had transcribed or corrected with his own hand (see Scrivener's Introduction to the Criticism of the New Testament pp 51 ...) In this work he had the assistance of Eusebius ( Vir . Ill. 85). Hence the Palestinian manuscripts of the LXX , which Jerome describes as published by Eusebius and Pamphilus from the text of Origen ( c . Ruffin . ii . 27 , Op . ii . p . 522 ) . A colophon found in an extant Vatican MS , and given in an extant Vatican MS , and given in facsimile in Migne's Euseb . Op . iv . 875 ( after Mai , Bibl . Nov. Patr . iv . ) , presents a lively picture of the common labours of the two friends at this time : " It was transcribed from the editions of the Hexapla, and was corrected from the Tetrapla of Origen himself, which also had been corrected and furnished with scholia in his own handwriting; whence I, Eusebius, added the scholia, Pamphilus and Eusebius corrected [this copy]. The reading of the "Eusebian" copy" copy ( το Ευσεβίου , το βιβλίον Ευσεβίου του Παμφίλου ) are frequently mentioned in the scholia of the Old Testament ( Field's bla , i . p . xcix ) .

'

If we accept that Pamphilus was a mere smokescreen for obscuring Eusebius as a crypto-Arian sympathizer gathering the works of Origen on his own initiative, then Eusebius wrote in the name of others/another (= Pamphilus).

6. Jerome directly accuses Rufinus of altering Origen's text to make him seem less heretical but also hints at Eusebius having taken a similar role before him.

7. In the same way there is little line between Origen and Eusebius with respect to the Hexapla, Eusebius seems to continue Origen's war against Celsus.

I have to take my son to a haircut. More to follow.

2. Eusebius

Griesbach discovered that Origen used two different texts of Mark ; but , owing to the paucity of MS . evidence then available , he slightly misinterpreted the facts . These are as follows


It was, indeed, matter of surprise to men even of ordinary intelligence, that one who was accused and assailed by false testimony, but who was able to defend Himself, and to show that He was guilty of none of the charges (alleged), and who might have enumerated the praiseworthy deeds of His own life, and His miracles wrought by divine power, so as to give the judge an opportunity of delivering a more honourable judgment regarding Him, should not have done this, but should have disdained such a procedure, and in the nobleness of His nature have contemned His accusers. That the judge would, without any hesitation, have set Him at liberty if He had offered a defense, is clear from what is related of him when he said, Which of the two do you wish that I should release unto you, Barabbas or Jesus, who is called Christ? and from what the Scripture adds, For he knew that for envy they had delivered Him. Jesus, however, is at all times assailed by false witnesses, and, while wickedness remains in the world, is ever exposed to accusation. And yet even now He continues silent before these things, and makes no audible answer, but places His defense in the lives of His genuine disciples, which are a pre-eminent testimony, and one that rises superior to all false witness, and refutes and overthrows all unfounded accusations and charges.



7.










3. I venture, then, to say that this apology which you require me to compose will somewhat weaken that defense (of Christianity) which rests on facts, and that power of Jesus which is manifest to those who are not altogether devoid of perception. Notwithstanding, that we may not have the appearance of being reluctant to undertake the task which you have enjoined, we have endeavoured, to the best of our ability, to suggest, by way of answer to each of the statements advanced by Celsus, what seemed to us adapted to refute them, although his arguments have no power to shake the faith of any (true) believer. And forbid, indeed, that any one should be found who, after having been a partaker in such a love of God as was (displayed) in Christ Jesus, could be shaken in his purpose by the arguments of Celsus, or of any such as he. For Paul, when enumerating the innumerable causes which generally separate men from the love of Christ and from the love of God in Christ Jesus (to all of which, the love that was in himself rose superior), did not set down argument among the grounds of separation. For observe that he says, firstly: Who shall separate us from the love of Christ? Shall tribulation, or distress, or persecution, or famine, or nakedness, or peril, or sword? (as it is written, For Your sake we are killed all the day long; we are accounted as sheep for the slaughter.) Nay, in all these things we are more than conquerors through Him that loved us. And secondly, when laying down another series of causes which naturally tend to separate those who are not firmly grounded in their religion, he says: For I am persuaded that neither death, nor life, nor angels, nor principalities, nor powers, nor things present, nor things to come, nor height, nor depth, nor any other creature, shall be able to separate us from the love of God, which is in Christ Jesus our Lord.

4. Now, truly, it is proper that we should feel elated because afflictions, or those other causes enumerated by Paul, do not separate us (from Christ); but not that Paul and the other apostles, and any other resembling them, (should entertain that feeling), because they were far exalted above such things when they said, In all these things we are more than conquerors through Him that loved us, which is a stronger statement than that they are simply conquerors. But if it be proper for apostles to entertain a feeling of elation in not being separated from the love of God that is in Christ Jesus our Lord, that feeling will be entertained by them, because neither death, nor life, nor angels, nor principalities, nor any of the things that follow, can separate them from the love of God which is in Christ Jesus our Lord. And therefore I do not congratulate that believer in Christ whose faith can be shaken by Celsus— who no longer shares the common life of men, but has long since departed — or by any apparent plausibility of argument. For I do not know in what rank to place him who has need of arguments written in books in answer to the charges of Celsus against the Christians, in order to prevent him from being shaken in his faith, and confirm him in it. But nevertheless, since in the multitude of those who are considered believers some such persons might be found as would have their faith shaken and overthrown by the writings of Celsus, but who might be preserved by a reply to them of such a nature as to refute his statements and to exhibit the truth, we have deemed it right to yield to your injunction, and to furnish an answer to the treatise which you sent us, but which I do not think that any one, although only a short way advanced in philosophy, will allow to be a True Discourse, as Celsus has entitled it.

5. Paul, indeed, observing that there are in Greek philosophy certain things not to be lightly esteemed, which are plausible in the eyes of the many, but which represent falsehood as truth, says with regard to such: Beware lest any man spoil you through philosophy and vain deceit, after the tradition of men, after the rudiments of the world, and not after Christ. And seeing that there was a kind of greatness manifest in the words of the world's wisdom, he said that the words of the philosophers were according to the rudiments of the world. No man of sense, however, would say that those of Celsus were according to the rudiments of the world. Now those words, which contained some element of deceitfulness, the apostle named vain deceit, probably by way of distinction from a deceit that was not vain; and the prophet Jeremiah observing this, ventured to say to God, O Lord, You have deceived me, and I was deceived; You are stronger than I, and hast prevailed. But in the language of Celsus there seems to me to be no deceitfulness at all, not even that which is vain; such deceitfulness, viz., as is found in the language of those who have founded philosophical sects, and who have been endowed with no ordinary talent for such pursuits. And as no one would say that any ordinary error in geometrical demonstrations was intended to deceive, or would describe it for the sake of exercise in such matters; so those opinions which are to be styled vain deceit, and the tradition of men, and according to the rudiments of the world, must have some resemblance to the views of those who have been the founders of philosophical sects, (if such titles are to be appropriately applied to them).

Advertisement - Continue Reading Below

6. After proceeding with this work as far as the place where Celsus introduces the Jew disputing with Jesus, I resolved to prefix this preface to the beginning (of the treatise), in order that the reader of our reply to Celsus might fall in with it first, and see that this book has been composed not for those who are thorough believers, but for such as are either wholly unacquainted with the Christian faith, or for those who, as the apostle terms them, are weak in the faith; regarding whom he says, Receive him that is weak in the faith. And this preface must be my apology for beginning my answer to Celsus on one plan, and carrying it on on another. For my first intention was to indicate his principal objections, and then briefly the answers that were returned to them, and subsequently to make a systematic treatise of the whole discourse. But afterwards, circumstances themselves suggested to me that I should be economical of my time, and that, satisfied with what I had already stated at the commencement, I should in the following part grapple closely, to the best of my ability, with the charges of Celsus. I have therefore to ask indulgence for those portions which follow the preface towards the beginning of the book. And if you are not impressed by the powerful arguments which succeed, then, asking similar indulgence also with respect to them, I refer you, if you still desire an argumentative solution of the objections of Celsus, to those men who are wiser than myself, and who are able by words and treatises to overthrow the charges which he brings against us. But better is the man who, although meeting with the work of Celsus, needs no answer to it at all, but who despises all its contents, since they are contemned, and with good reason, by every believer in Christ, through the Spirit that is in him.

[StephenGoranson]

So far, in this blizzard of verbiage, I do not see Origen confessing to this particular putative rewriting. Can you be concise?

[Secret Alias]

I am getting to the statement in Against Celsus. The case I am presenting for Eusebius's falsification of Origen is WAY stronger than the nonsense you are willing to accept regarding Morton Smith and Secret Mark.

[Lev]

Lev --

The short answer is "Yes!".

There was a Severe Famine and you can look it up. Herod...

Hi Charles. Which Herod was this and on what date did this famine occur? And where is the evidence or witness for this?

Thanks.

[Secret Alias]

On the "Rewriting" of Against Celsus in Caesarea.

There is general agreement among scholars that the later works of Origen were written at Caesarea some of which were originally written in Alexandria. I don't think this actually happened this way. Eusebius rewrote texts of Origen to (a) make them dovetail with the new anti-Arian (anti-Alexandrian) orthodoxy of Nicaea and (b) align with interests Eusebius had. In the case of Celsus I believe Eusebius didn't like the original argument Origen made and "chopped up" the order of the original text which followed Celsus's text. Something in Celsus's text bothered Eusebius and which undermined Eusebius's own efforts against Porphyry. Here is the 'confession' that our present text is a second draft likely written by Eusebius at Caesarea in the fourth century.

"Origen" (Eusebius) says in the preface that Ambrose "commissioned" him to write Against Celsus even though, he writes, Jesus didn't respond to the false accusations of his accusers. Because his patron ordered him to write, Eusebius finds a convenient "out" for Origen's efforts. Had Jesus defended himself Pilate "would, without any hesitation, have set Him at liberty." The idea then is that Against Celsus is yet another defense of Christianity against a pagan accuser which, it is said in the preference:

this apology which you (Ambrose) require me to compose will somewhat weaken that defense which rests on facts, and that power of Jesus which is manifest to those who are not altogether devoid of perception. Notwithstanding, that we may not have the appearance of being reluctant to undertake the task which you have enjoined, we have endeavoured, to the best of our ability, to suggest, by way of answer to each of the statements advanced by Celsus, what seemed to us adapted to refute them, although his arguments have no power to shake the faith of any (true) believer. And forbid, indeed, that any one should be found who, after having been a partaker in such a love of God as was (displayed) in Christ Jesus, could be shaken in his purpose by the arguments of Celsus, or of any such as he ... Therefore I do not congratulate that believer in Christ whose faith can be shaken by Celsus— who no longer shares the common life of men, but has long since departed — or by any apparent plausibility of argument. For I do not know in what rank to place him who has need of arguments written in books in answer to the charges of Celsus against the Christians, in order to prevent him from being shaken in his faith, and confirm him in it. But nevertheless, since in the multitude of those who are considered believers some such persons might be found as would have their faith shaken and overthrown by the writings of Celsus, but who might be preserved by a reply to them of such a nature as to refute his statements and to exhibit the truth, we have deemed it right to yield to your injunction, and to furnish an answer to the treatise which you sent us, but which I do not think that any one, although only a short way advanced in philosophy, will allow to be a True Discourse, as Celsus has entitled it.

We must remember that Ammonius Saccas was one such Christian who gave up his Christian faith at this time. What exactly was so convincing about Celsus's work? Origen goes on to say (after citing Galatians 3):

After proceeding with this work as far as the place where Celsus introduces the Jew disputing with Jesus, I resolved to prefix this preface to the beginning (of the treatise), in order that the reader of our reply to Celsus might fall in with it first, and see that this book has been composed not for those who are thorough believers, but for such as are either wholly unacquainted with the Christian faith, or for those who, as the apostle terms them, are weak in the faith; regarding whom he says, Receive him that is weak in the faith. And this preface must be my apology for beginning my answer to Celsus on one plan, and carrying it on on another. For my first intention was to indicate his principal objections, and then briefly the answers that were returned to them, and subsequently to make a systematic treatise of the whole discourse. But afterwards, circumstances themselves suggested to me that I should be economical of my time, and that, satisfied with what I had already stated at the commencement, I should in the following part grapple closely, to the best of my ability, with the charges of Celsus. I have therefore to ask indulgence for those portions which follow the preface towards the beginning of the book. And if you are not impressed by the powerful arguments which succeed, then, asking similar indulgence also with respect to them, I refer you, if you still desire an argumentative solution of the objections of Celsus, to those men who are wiser than myself, and who are able by words and treatises to overthrow the charges which he brings against us. But better is the man who, although meeting with the work of Celsus, needs no answer to it at all, but who despises all its contents, since they are contemned, and with good reason, by every believer in Christ, through the Spirit that is in him.

I do not believe that the revision of Against Celsus was merely limited to adding a preface. The language here speaks more of a wholesale revision of the original work. Chadwick translates the pertinent section as follows:

The preface may serve as my apology for the fact that I wrote the beginning of my answer to Celsus on one plan, but after the first part followed a different one. At first I contemplated making notes on the main points and giving brief answers to them, and then putting the work into definite shape. But afterwards the material itself suggested to me that I would save time if I were to be content with the points which I had answered in this way at the beginning, and in what followed to combat in detail Celsus' charges against us to the best of our ability.

So the "author" claims that he rewrote an original draft in a second work. But this is by no means limited to this text.

1. The Commentary on John was supposedly "begun" in Alexandria but finished at Caesarea. In the Sixth Book of the Commentary there is:

I composed the material given me as far as the fifth volume (of the Commentary) even though the storm in Alexandria seemed to work against me (εἰ καὶ ὁ κατὰ τὴν Ἀλεξανδρείαν χειμὼν ἀντιπράττειν ἐδόκει), just as Jesus rebuked the winds and the waves of the sea. After I had moved on to part of the sixth (volume), I was brought out of Egypt by God delivering me, He who led His people forth from there. (9) Then, when the enemy assailed me with all bitterness in his new writings, so truly hostile to the Gospel, and stirred up against me all the winds of wickedness in Egypt, reason called me instead to stand fast for the conflict and to preserve my guiding principle, so that evil counsels should never gain the strength to bring the storm also into my soul, or even to compose the next part (of the Commentary) at the wrong time, before my mind had returned to calm. Moreover, the absence of my usual scribes prevented me from adhering to my practice of dictation. (10) But now that the many flaming arrows shot at me are blunted by God as he extinguishes them, and (now that) my soul, which had grown used to such occurrences, is compelled through the heavenly Word to withstand more easily the plots that have arisen, I wish, as though instilled with a certain tranquillity, to continue writing without further delay. I pray that God will be with me and utter his teachings in the inner chamber of my soul, so that the building I have begun—the interpretation of the Gospel of John—may be finished.

2. Eusebius obviously lived in Caesarea, had a problem with composing pseudepigrapha (the Apology is a strange hybrid of Pamphilus's hand and his own to the point that Eusebius literally took over his name!

3. The columned scriptural translations of the Bible are also a strange hybrid of Origen and Eusebius.
4. It has been noticed that the version of the gospel changes between first draft and second draft in these works. The Gospel of Mark is not the same.

5. Eusebius protected Arius installing him in Palestine after things got too hot for him in Egypt.

6. "Pamphilus" has no existence independent of Eusebius and seems to be a little more than a convenient scapegoat to avoid the charge of Eusebius's own interest in preserving the writings of the heretic Origen:

Jerome describes Pamphilus as gathering books together from all parts of the world , thus rivalling in the domain of sacred learning the zeal which Demetrius Phalereus or Pisistratus had shewn for profane knowledge. Origen himself had set the example of a literary society . Aided by the munificence of his friend Ambrosius , he had kept about him always a large number of shorthand writers , to whom he dictated , and of calligraphers - women as well as men - who copied out the Scriptures for him. His example was not thrown away on Pamphilus. Nor was it only in copying and editing that the society gathered about Pamphilus occupied itself. Pamphilus was a devoted admirer of Origen . He possessed the original copy of the Hexapla of Origen , which was afterwards used by Jerome at Caesarea ( Hieron . Comm . in Tit . iii . 9 , Op . vii . 734 ) . He sought out the works of . Op . i . 155 ; Euseb . H. E. vi . 32 ) . He even transcribed the greater part of them with his own hand for his library ( Hieron . Vir . Ill . 75 ). One long work of Origen in the handwriting of Pamphilus came into the possession of Jerome himself ; owning it , he says , he considers that he owns the wealth of Croesus ; it is signed , as it were , with the very blood of the martyr. Like Origen too , Pamphilus paid great attention to the reproduction of accurate copies of the Scriptures . More than one extant MS has been taken from or collated with some copy which he had transcribed or corrected with his own hand (see Scrivener's Introduction to the Criticism of the New Testament pp 51 ...) In this work he had the assistance of Eusebius ( Vir . Ill. 85). Hence the Palestinian manuscripts of the LXX , which Jerome describes as published by Eusebius and Pamphilus from the text of Origen ( c . Ruffin . ii . 27 , Op . ii . p . 522 ) . A colophon found in an extant Vatican MS , and given in an extant Vatican MS , and given in facsimile in Migne's Euseb . Op . iv . 875 ( after Mai , Bibl . Nov. Patr . iv . ) , presents a lively picture of the common labours of the two friends at this time : " It was transcribed from the editions of the Hexapla, and was corrected from the Tetrapla of Origen himself, which also had been corrected and furnished with scholia in his own handwriting; whence I, Eusebius, added the scholia, Pamphilus and Eusebius corrected [this copy]. The reading of the "Eusebian" copy" copy ( το Ευσεβίου , το βιβλίον Ευσεβίου του Παμφίλου ) are frequently mentioned in the scholia of the Old Testament ( Field's bla , i . p . xcix ) .

If we accept that Pamphilus was a mere smokescreen for obscuring Eusebius as a crypto-Arian sympathizer gathering the works of Origen on his own initiative, then Eusebius wrote in the name of others/another (= Pamphilus).

7. Jerome directly accuses Rufinus of altering Origen's text to make him seem less heretical but also hints at Eusebius having taken a similar role before him.

8. In the same way there is little line between Origen and Eusebius with respect to the Hexapla, Eusebius seems to continue Origen's war against Celsus.

As late as 335, when Eusebius delivered his speech ‘In Praise of Constantine’ at the dedication of the Church of the Holy Sepulchre in Jerusalem, he still thought it important to come to grips with a number of the criticisms that had been first raised by Celsus.12 It would perhaps be going too far to say that he was working from Celsus. But the similarity of the arguments that Eusebius faced is clear. The philosophical critique as he deals with it is inspired by two major sentiments. The first is a frustration with the fact that so many people should have been persuaded to accept a view of God that was intellectually untenable. It was quite arbitrary of the Christians to have singled out Jesus for divine honours when the world was rich in heroes, and polytheism corresponded well with the diversity of things. The incarnation was an impossible and unnecessary contamination of God’s perfection, while the humiliation of Jesus on the cross proved that he could not have been divine anyway. The second kind of argument to which Eusebius replies is inspired by concern over the social promiscuity of the Christian movement. In contrast with the universal judgement that one should associate with God what is best in life, the Christians deliberately cultivated the worst people. Jesus himself was of mean origin, and the disciples paltry. Yet this vulgar company, appearing only the day before yesterday, and in a backward corner of the Empire, had had the impertinence to call in question hallowed national customs, and to address themselves without discrimination to people of any national tradition. This was a profanation of the State, stripping it of its divine sanctions. But in any case, the perverse judgement of the Christians had not been vindicated by their God in the passage of time. Andresen has argued that Celsus, in response to the novel development of a theology of history by Justin, had reacted uniquely amongst the critics of Christianity against the Greek tradition of understanding the cosmos in metaphysical categories.13 But arguments from social and historical reality lack the security of the timeless. The remarkable shift of fortune which Eusebius had witnessed enabled him to convert the social deficiencies to which Celsus had appealed into trump cards. Celsus had mocked the Jews as frogs holding Sanhedrin round a pond, while the Christian worms held their ekklesia in the dung-heap, arguing about which of them was the worst sinner. God had larger things to think of. Plotinus, the teacher of Porphyry, though by no means hostile to Christians, would have agreed. It was absurd to call the least of men brothers and deny this name to the sun and the heavenly bodies. It was all a gross anthropomorphism, hopelessly overestimating the importance of man in the cosmos. But if the universe is stable, remarkable things still happen in the world of men. History might yet reveal the hand of God. In Eusebius’ day the worms had suddenly turned, to rule the world. (c) Julian With Julian we meet at last a spokesman whose voice has not been stifled. We could hardly wish for a better qualified informant. Standing where he does, at the centre of power, and at a time when the significance of the recent changes must have been apparent to anyone with an eye to see, and above all with his close personal involvement, he must have known the answers to our questions. Yet Julian is equally clearly an untypical if not unique participant. His acute sensitivities sharpen all the issues, but no doubt overstate them too.
¹² C. T. H. R. Ehrhardt, ‘Eusebius and Celsus’, Jahrbuch für Antike und Christentum 22 (1979 40–49)

I think there is strong evidence (much stronger than the nonsense you weave together to convict Morton Smith) that Eusebius rewrote not only Against Celsus but the Commentary on John and Commentary on Matthew (which was originally written for a four columned 'Diatessaron').

I think there is some connection made in Origen's original draft between Celsus's work and Ammonius's apostasy.

[Charles Wilson]

Josephus, Antiquities..., 15, 9, Sections 1, 2, in parts:

“...the thirteenth year of the reign of Herod, very great calamities came upon the country...there were perpetual droughts, and for that reason the ground was barren, and did not bring forth the same quantity of fruits that it used to produce...one misery following upon the back of another...
…
“...so he cut off the rich furniture that was in his palace, both of silver and gold, insomuch that he did not spare the finest vessels he had, or those that were made with the most elaborate skill of the artificers, but sent the money to Petronius, who had been made prefect of Egypt by Caesar...And Herod taking care the people should understand that this help came from himself, did thereby not only remove the ill opinion of those that formerly hated him, but gave them the greatest demonstration possible of his good-will to them, and care of them... but for those many that were not able...the bakers should make their bread ready for them.

Now read the Matthean verses again and understand the "Jokes":

Matthew 7: 7 - 14 (RSV):

[7] "Ask, and it will be given you; seek, and you will find; knock, and it will be opened to you.
[8] For every one who asks receives, and he who seeks finds, and to him who knocks it will be opened.
[9] Or what man of you, if his son asks him for bread, will give him a stone?
[10] Or if he asks for a fish, will give him a serpent?
[11] If you then, who are evil, know how to give good gifts to your children, how much more will your Father who is in heaven give good things to those who ask him!
[12] So whatever you wish that men would do to you, do so to them; for this is the law and the prophets.
[13] "Enter by the narrow gate; for the gate is wide and the way is easy, that leads to destruction, and those who enter by it are many.
[14] For the gate is narrow and the way is hard, that leads to life, and those who find it are few.

Verses 7 and 8: Intro to the Dilemma. The Faithful have only to ask and it will be given to them.

VERSE 9: Herod sells the furniture and gives the Proceeds to Petronius. Herod builds a Safe Harbor (See: Verses 13 - 14 below.) and off-loads the grain to Bribe the populace with bread - See above.
[Note Added: Herod dropped great stones (Aramaic: Millstones of a donkey.) into the sea to create the Breakwater. Hence:

Mark 9: 42 (RSV):

[42] "Whoever causes one of these little ones who believe in me to sin, it would be better for him if a great millstone were hung round his neck and he were thrown into the sea.

This is a verse about Herod and is complementary to the Matthean Passage cited.]

Verse 10: Note the Serpent Joke. Pharaoh Petronius, anyone?

Verse 11(with thought completed in Verse 12): "If you then, who are evil..." That is, HEROD!!! You can't build a Temple and open it on the Anniversary Day of your ascension (and thus, "a memorial to YOU, Herod, not God..." See: The Woman Bent Over for 18 Years.), or give bread as a Bribe to starving believers (Matthew 7).

Verses 13 - 14: The Safe Harbor at Caesarea was built in dangerous waters (See Josephus' Descriptions of it).



This is NOT Glorious Metaphysics!

FAMINE? That's not the least of it!

CW