Two threads behind the Christian origins according to Celsus's Jew

Discussion about the New Testament, apocrypha, gnostics, church fathers, Christian origins, historical Jesus or otherwise, etc.
Post Reply
User avatar
Giuseppe
Posts: 13924
Joined: Mon Apr 27, 2015 5:37 am
Location: Italy

Two threads behind the Christian origins according to Celsus's Jew

Post by Giuseppe »

I see two threads behind the Christian origins:
  • the first thread is well exemplified by 1 Corinthians 2:6-8, i.e. the idea of a celestial crucifixion in heaven, not removed at all even if you place it in the late second century, so much it doesn't fit with any idea of an earthly Jesus.
  • The other thread, is well exemplified by the connection Jesus/Pilate, i.e. a connection probably caused by the memory of Dositheus, or how you would call the unnamed Samaritan false prophet killed by Pilate. Behind that connection there is an entire Mosaic Jesus sect, i.e. a sect that preached Joshua as "a Prophet like Moses".
The Earliest Gospel merged those two different sects: the celestial crucifixion in heaven was merged with the Roman crucifixion of a Samaritan false prophet, under Pilate.

Was a such operation possible? Its probability is identical to the probability of the transformation of a 'Prophet like Moses', as Dositheus probably posed, in a preacher of anti-demiurgism. A such transformation is unexpected insofar a pious adorer of YHWH as supreme god couldn't become an anti-demiurgist icon, contra factum that that is what happened.

We may imagine the process by which this degrading of a celestial crucifixion happened: the incipit of the Earliest Gospel.

In the 15° year of Tiberius, the Chrestos descended on Capernaum.

How was a such incipit interpreted by the Mosaic Jesus sect, when the latter heard about it?

Daniel Massé may give the solution:


Origene... dans l'Anticelse, nous revele qu'il n'y avait qu'une personne au Jourdain, le Ioannes, lequel a ete le seul temoin de la colombe et le seul auditeur de la Voix du ciel (Tu es mon Fils bien-aimé).
En somme, la scene de la colombe signifie que le mot du Plerome, I. E. O. A. l'Esprit de Dieu, le Verbe-Esprit, a élu domicile dans le corps du Crucifié de Ponce-Pilate, au Jourdain. Le Selon-Matthieu, si on veut bien y relire le recit du bapteme, n'est qu'un marivaudage assez apparent, un échange de politesse caracteristique, qui permet de reconnaitre comment la scene a été litt6érairement fabriquee, entre le Verbe Jesus, que le scribe fait venir de Galilee, on ne sait d'ou, — il y est tombé du ciel, — et le Christ baptiseur Ioannes.

(L'énigme du Jésus-Christ, p. 56)

Probably Massé means this passage of Origen:

Contra Celsum 1,41:
Let us, then, see what he says when attacking the story of the physical appearance, as it were, of the Holy Spirit seen by the Saviour in the form of a dove. His Jew continues by saying this to him whom we confess to be our Lord Jesus: When, he says, you were bathing near John, you say that you saw what appeared to be a bird fly towards you out of the air. His Jew then asks: What trustworthy witness saw this apparition, or who heard a voice from heaven adopting you as a son of God? There is no proof except for your word and the evidence which you may produce of one of the men who were punished with you.

The Celsus's Jew doubts a priori about the word of Jesus because "Jesus" is the dove or holy spirit descending from heaven, and also the voice coming from heaven, or, assuming Marcion's proto-Luke, the spiritual entity descending from above.

Having doubted a priori about the spiritual descent of a such spirit (called by him sarcastically 'Jesus'), the Celsus's Jew continues to extend his doubt on the witness given by the only person left on the scene: John.

and the evidence which you may produce of one of the men who were punished with you

John is "one of the 3 men who were punished with you", i.e. with the spiritual entity (called sarcastically 'Jesus' by Celsus) possessing the man on the cross, who therefore could be only John the Baptist.

Hence, we would have a fusion between the deity and Dositheus/Theudas/John the Baptist, precisely at the original "baptism", with Chrestos the divine entity descending on "John".

The author of Mark, reacting against a such idea, would have made to come Jesus from Nazareth, and not more from heaven, while in the same time he would have made John as the Baptizer and not the original Baptized or Anointed one, i.e. the original human recipient possessed by the divine entity.

A trace of this original possession of John the Baptist is left paradoxically in Canonical Luke:

In the fifteenth year of the reign of Tiberius Caesar—when Pontius Pilate was governor of Judea, Herod tetrarch of Galilee, his brother Philip tetrarch of Iturea and Traconitis, and Lysanias tetrarch of Abilene— 2 during the high-priesthood of Annas and Caiaphas, the word of God came to John son of Zechariah in the wilderness.


'the word of God' is an euphemism to allude to the divine entity, who in Marcion was Jesus himself. Hence, translating debtly, we have:

In the 15° year of Tiberius, Jesus descended on John.

Therefore corroborating the reading by the Celsus's Jew, who assumed only two witnesses:
  • a divine witness, i.e. Jesus, despised sarcastically by the Celsus's Jew (as not being really divine, but human too much human)
  • a human being, John, found there on the scene.
User avatar
Giuseppe
Posts: 13924
Joined: Mon Apr 27, 2015 5:37 am
Location: Italy

Re: Two threads behind the Christian origins according to Celsus's Jew

Post by Giuseppe »

Daniel Massé thought that the original words of the Celsus's Jew were:

What trustworthy witness saw this apparition, or who heard a voice from heaven adopting you as a son of God? There is no proof except for your word

Jesus, i.e. the person addressed by Celsus's Jew as "Jesus", is alone, on the scene. He alone has seen the apparition of the Marcionite Chrestos descending on him.

The interpolator, according to Daniel Massé, would have added:

and the evidence which you may produce of one of the men who were punished with you.

What reveals that the latter quote is an interpolation is the fact that John the Baptist is reported nowhere as having said that he has seen and/or heard the mirabilia during the baptism, even less he is reported as having been crucified with Jesus on the Golgotha.

Hence the Baptism episode has been added after Celsus and before Origen. Basically Celsus read a gospel where a man was possessed by a spirit descended from heaven, without no baptism at all by a Baptizer.

In definitive, Celsus's Jew's accusation is that the man Jesus is the only witness of the descent of a divine entity on himself. This fits a Cerinthian gospel, but without a baptism.
User avatar
Giuseppe
Posts: 13924
Joined: Mon Apr 27, 2015 5:37 am
Location: Italy

Re: Two threads behind the Christian origins according to Celsus's Jew

Post by Giuseppe »

The following is the passage where Daniel Massé makes the case that, having Luke preserved the same chronology of Marcion (=the 15° year of Tiberius) but changing actor (not Jesus now, but John), then the impossibility is very great, that Jesus and John appeared during the same year, and even that one of them was the precursor of the other!

L’Évangile de Marcion, détruit naturellement, débutait ainsi, d’après Tertullien, qui donne la citation (Adv. Marcion, IV, 7 et ss.) : La quinzième année (du règne) de Tibère, au temps de Pilate, Jésus descendit (du ciel). Marcion est un gnostique qui ne confond pas le dieu Jésus, Verbe ou Logos, avec le Christ, dont il prend l’enveloppe charnelle, quand il descend. Jésus débuta donc l’an quinzième du règne de Tibère.

Dans le Selon-Luc actuel, avec quelques précisions de plus sur Tibère, Pilate et les Hérodes, phrase identique, mais, au lieu de Jésus qui descend du ciel, c’est le Iôannès-Jean, fils de Zacharie, — et, il n’est pas encore dit le Baptiste, — qui apparaît, venu l’on ne sait d’où, et à qui la Parole de Dieu est annoncée. Il se manifeste l’an quinzième du règne de Tibère. Si Jésus-Christ et Jean sont deux personnages distincts, d’après ces deux textes, leurs débuts sont synchroniques, simultanés. Qu’est-ce donc que cette, histoire qui fait de l’un le précurseur de l’autre ? Une supercherie. Ecoutez la fin. Si l’on en croit Tertullien, l’Évangile Selon-Luc aurait été composé d’après l’unique évangile dont Marcion serait l’auteur, — Marcion ayant lui-même utilisé comme source un Évangile paulinien ; cette seconde proposition constituant à mon avis une imposture introduite dans Tertullien, s’il ne l’a perpétrée lui-même, mais dont la discussion est sans intérêt ici. Reste ceci, qui paraît plus sûr et l’est plus ou moins : que le Selon-Luc procède d’un Évangile de Marcion.

Il est impossible alors de n’en pas tirer cette conclusion que le Selon-Luc, dans ce passage : La quinzième année de Tibère, etc., reproduisait Marcion, y parlait donc de Jésus et non du Iôannès-Jean, ou du moins, sachant que Iôannès = Jean était le Christ crucifié par Ponce-Pilate, il ne contenait pas, à l’origine, les scènes qui veulent faire de Jean le Jean-Baptiste de convention que l’on voit agir, personnage distinct du Christ.

Il a été retouché plus tard, quand on n’a plus voulu que le Christ, devenu Jésus-Christ, apparaisse sous ses traits historiques de Iôannès, dans son rôle de prétendant davidique, de Messie en révolte, d’émeutier en insurrection, soulevé contre l’État, et coupable, en jouant ce rôle, de crimes de droit commun.

La confrontation raisonnée du texte de Marcion avec le texte du Selon-Luc actuel prouve que Jean et le Christ sont le même personnage historique, que l’on n’a séparé en deux que par fraude.

Post Reply