The Identity of Celsus and His "Jew"

Discussion about the New Testament, apocrypha, gnostics, church fathers, Christian origins, historical Jesus or otherwise, etc.
Secret Alias
Posts: 18362
Joined: Sun Apr 19, 2015 8:47 am

Re: The Identity of Celsus and His "Jew"

Post by Secret Alias »

Christ, you're tedious. Where's the proof of that?
Leave Andrew alone. He's too cool for school. The best thing about the forum.
User avatar
billd89
Posts: 1347
Joined: Thu Jun 25, 2020 6:27 pm
Location: New England, USA

Disagree.

Post by billd89 »

Rather, he needs to stop leaving petty, inspid, snarky, passively-aggressive replies on my OPs (for example). He's one notch above a Grammar Troll, doing that.

And I have absolutely no problem calling out such b.s.

(Nor am I upset - I've made my point, here.)
User avatar
GakuseiDon
Posts: 2295
Joined: Sat Oct 12, 2013 5:10 pm

Re: Not that Lucian

Post by GakuseiDon »

billd89 wrote: Thu Sep 23, 2021 3:52 pmWhere'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.
There is evidence for it, though:

1. Lucian wrote about Christians, and called Jesus a "crucified sophist". Lucian himself was part of the Second Sophistic. So Lucian, a sophist himself, calling Jesus a "sophist" would have been noticed by Christians.
2. Lucian wrote to a Celsus, and from the description Origen probably believed that Lucian's Celsus was the same one that Origen was responding to, though it was probably a different Celsus.
3. This is Origen's perspective, so isn't a question of whether it conformed to reality. And in fact it is about Lucian's followers rather than Lucian himself:

CHAP. XXVII.

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.

Lucian, like Pilate and Seneca before him, might have been astonished to learn after he died that he had in fact been a Christian all along, or at least he had followers that were.

(ETA: And I agree with Secret Alias. People like Andrew Criddle are a treasure here.)
Secret Alias
Posts: 18362
Joined: Sun Apr 19, 2015 8:47 am

Re: The Identity of Celsus and His "Jew"

Post by Secret Alias »

Rather, he needs to stop leaving petty, inspid, snarky, passively-aggressive replies on my OPs (for example). He's one notch above a Grammar Troll, doing that.
Who the fuck are you? You know Andrew has an actual degree from Cambridge? That he wastes time with losers like you is a sign of his generosity. What you call petty I describe as terse. What you call 'inspid' I call 'to the point.' I am always left with the opposite impression - how I wish Andrew would write more not less. Andrew and I don't always agree but having him disagree with me always left me with the opposite impression that you have. I ended up to stop for a moment and reflect and re-examine my assumptions. Andrew is so knowledgeable and as I said so generous with his time I take exception to any smart-shaming that occurs at this forum against him. If only we had more of Andrew, not less.
User avatar
billd89
Posts: 1347
Joined: Thu Jun 25, 2020 6:27 pm
Location: New England, USA

Re: Not that Lucian

Post by billd89 »

GakuseiDon wrote: Thu Sep 23, 2021 11:06 pm There is evidence for it, though:

1. Lucian wrote about Christians, and called Jesus a "crucified sophist". Lucian himself was part of the Second Sophistic. So Lucian, a sophist himself, calling Jesus a "sophist" would have been noticed by Christians.
2. Lucian wrote to a Celsus, and from the description Origen probably believed that Lucian's Celsus was the same one that Origen was responding to, though it was probably a different Celsus.
3. This is Origen's perspective, so isn't a question of whether it conformed to reality. And in fact it is about Lucian's followers rather than Lucian himself.
Uh, no. That's not factual evidence, it's your make-believe. (And terrifying, if you actually believe that sort of nonsense. Why? Because it's misconstrued, simply wrong, and delusional to believe otherwise.)

#1. That characterization is bullshit. Lucian of Samosata MOCKED the Xtians. Sincere apologies to Believers for any offense, but the "Crucified Sophist" is utterly scornful of Xtians and their batshit crazy.
#2. How do I loop a Clove-Hitch? I'm talking about Bob and Mike, friends in the 1970s. So it has to be Bob Hope and Mike Douglas, right? Because they were both famous, lived in 1970s, must have known each other. Or something like that.
#3. No, Origen is writing factually here: RELIGIOUS followers of Valentin, actual people in a real sect/cult. Marcionites, numerous and ditto. NOT smthg fictious, imaginary, or hypothetical. By context and common-sense, all right and reason, we can only conclude one thing: Origen means there was a TRUE Xtian sect with a 'Gospel of Lucian' (however titled, in whatever iteration). Nor does anything suggest that Lucian of Samosata ever 1) identified w/ Christ, 2) preached to & established a Xtian sect, 3) had "followers" w/ deviant Christ Gospel(s).

I would add #4, but it's Not Evidence; rather, it's my own conjecture. Pure myth-making!

#4. Imagine a cult of J.K. Rowling. Or DaVinci Coders. So let's say a 'Pseudo-Lucian' penned a sophistic 'Book of Jeebus' which gained some popularity, briefly and locally circulating in Origen's day. Said readers approached Xtians, curious. Then some preacher (perhaps the pseudoepigrapher himself) sets up a congregation or three. Our 'Lucian' gained some traction, died; his Followers carry on. Thus, a little failing sect became known to Origen for its false 'Gospel of Lucian'. Makes sense? As weirder and more successful examples, recall the rogue literary stunt of 'Dianetics' and those buried golden tablets somewhere in Upstate New York...

Back on planet Earth, two questions remain simple, straightforward, though probably impossible to answer.
a) Who was THE Lucian (a heretic, gnostic or obscure presbyter?), THIS cult leader to which Origen refers?
b) What was the 'Gospel of Lucian' his Followers read?

User avatar
billd89
Posts: 1347
Joined: Thu Jun 25, 2020 6:27 pm
Location: New England, USA

Who are you?! LOL

Post by billd89 »

Secret Alias wrote: Fri Sep 24, 2021 6:17 amWho the fuck are you?
yakovzutolmai
Posts: 296
Joined: Mon May 17, 2021 6:03 am

Re: Not that Lucian

Post by yakovzutolmai »

billd89 wrote: Thu Sep 23, 2021 3:52 pm
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.
Origen attributes this to Celsus's inconsistency, but modern historians see it instead as evidence that Celsus was not an Epicurean at all. Joseph Wilson Trigg states that Origen probably confused Celsus, the author of The True Word, with a different Celsus, who was an Epicurean philosopher and a friend of the Syrian satirist Lucian. Celsus the Epicurean must have lived around the same time as the author of Contra Celsum and he is mentioned by Lucian in his treatise On Magic. Both Celsus the friend of Lucian and Celsus the author of The True Word evidently shared a passionate zeal against superstitio, making it even easier to see how Origen could have concluded that they were the same person.
Wiki (Contra Celsum) seems to have explained that Origen made a mistake. Yes of course Lucian had nothing to do with Christianity.

But to your point, just as Origen confused and conflated two Celsuses, he might have also taken the Samosatan Lucian referred to by the conflated Celsus, and then conflated him with some other Lucian of which he, Origen, was aware.

So, he is in fact referring to Lucian of Samosata, but also betraying awareness of this other Lucian whose identity you seek.

I think this other Lucian must be Lukuas of Cyrene, whom I hold as a neo-Sicarii successor to James in Egypt. He was of course defeated, but his moniker "Andreas" betrays him possibly as the physician Luke. We see a similar pseudonym in the Glaucias of the Basilideans. I've also identified "Lucius of Cyrene" as anachronistic in Acts 13:1, which I interpret to possibly mean that the writer of Luke-Acts is inserting Lucius into an apostolic position, probably so that apostolic authority can be claimed through Luke.

Lukuas who led the Egyptian branch of the Kitos revolt being the "spiritual" founder and leader of this heretical sect about which Origen possesses vague awareness. In his mistake with Celsus, he tries to claim Lucian of Samosata must be this "Luke" he's heard of.
User avatar
GakuseiDon
Posts: 2295
Joined: Sat Oct 12, 2013 5:10 pm

Re: Not that Lucian

Post by GakuseiDon »

billd89 wrote: Fri Sep 24, 2021 6:50 am
GakuseiDon wrote: Thu Sep 23, 2021 11:06 pm There is evidence for it, though:

1. Lucian wrote about Christians, and called Jesus a "crucified sophist". Lucian himself was part of the Second Sophistic. So Lucian, a sophist himself, calling Jesus a "sophist" would have been noticed by Christians.
2. Lucian wrote to a Celsus, and from the description Origen probably believed that Lucian's Celsus was the same one that Origen was responding to, though it was probably a different Celsus.
3. This is Origen's perspective, so isn't a question of whether it conformed to reality. And in fact it is about Lucian's followers rather than Lucian himself.
Uh, no. That's not factual evidence, it's your make-believe. (And terrifying, if you actually believe that sort of nonsense. Why? Because it's misconstrued, simply wrong, and delusional to believe otherwise.)
No, all based on sound reasoning and evidence.
billd89 wrote: Fri Sep 24, 2021 6:50 am#1. That characterization is bullshit. Lucian of Samosata MOCKED the Xtians. Sincere apologies to Believers for any offense, but the "Crucified Sophist" is utterly scornful of Xtians and their batshit crazy.
Totally irrelevant to my point. It doesn't matter what Lucian thought, but only what later Christians thought. Seneca didn't correspond with Paul, but later Christians thought he did. Pilate never became a Christian, but later Christians thought he did. Tiberius never tried to convince the Senate that Jesus was a God, but later Christians thought so. In a world where "Christians were philosophers and philosophers were Christians", a sophist declaring that Jesus was a sophist would likely to have been noticed by Christians. It's irrelevant what Lucian himself thought of Christians, only what later Christians thought he thought.
billd89 wrote: Fri Sep 24, 2021 6:50 am#2. How do I loop a Clove-Hitch? I'm talking about Bob and Mike, friends in the 1970s. So it has to be Bob Hope and Mike Douglas, right? Because they were both famous, lived in 1970s, must have known each other. Or something like that.
Origen's description of Celsus appears to match the Celsus that Lucian wrote to, showing that Origen thought that Lucian knew the Celsus who had written the "True Discourse":

All that is known about Celsus personally is what comes from the surviving text of his book and from what Origen says about him.[8] Although Origen initially refers to Celsus as an Epicurean,[9][10][11] his arguments reflect ideas of the Platonic tradition, rather than Epicureanism.[9][12][11] Origen attributes this to Celsus's inconsistency,[9] but modern historians see it instead as evidence that Celsus was not an Epicurean at all.[9][10] Joseph Wilson Trigg states that Origen probably confused Celsus, the author of The True Word, with a different Celsus, who was an Epicurean philosopher and a friend of the Syrian satirist Lucian.[10] Celsus the Epicurean must have lived around the same time as the author of Contra Celsum and he is mentioned by Lucian in his treatise On Magic.[10] Both Celsus the friend of Lucian and Celsus the author of The True Word evidently shared a passionate zeal against superstitio, making it even easier to see how Origen could have concluded that they were the same person.[10]

There's no doctrinal point at stake here. If Origen thought that both Celsus and Lucian led Christians to heresy, and they knew each other, then that explains the reference to Lucian. That conclusion is speculative, of course, but it's hardly outlandish.
billd89 wrote: Fri Sep 24, 2021 6:50 am#3. No, Origen is writing factually here: RELIGIOUS followers of Valentin, actual people in a real sect/cult. Marcionites, numerous and ditto. NOT smthg fictious, imaginary, or hypothetical. By context and common-sense, all right and reason, we can only conclude one thing: Origen means there was a TRUE Xtian sect with a 'Gospel of Lucian' (however titled, in whatever iteration). Nor does anything suggest that Lucian of Samosata ever 1) identified w/ Christ, 2) preached to & established a Xtian sect, 3) had "followers" w/ deviant Christ Gospel(s).
Origen, if my speculative conclusion is correct, would have believed that there was a HERETICAL Xian sect that looked to Lucian's writings for some reason. Origen's Lucian may no more be related to Lucian of S than Origen's Celsus was related to Lucian of S's friend Celsus. But that's irrelevant to the point I'm making.
billd89 wrote: Fri Sep 24, 2021 6:50 amI would add #4, but it's Not Evidence; rather, it's my own conjecture. Pure myth-making!

#4. Imagine a cult of J.K. Rowling. Or DaVinci Coders. So let's say a 'Pseudo-Lucian' penned a sophistic 'Book of Jeebus' which gained some popularity...
Yes, like pseudo-Tertullian, and pseudo-Paul, and pseudo-Justin Martyr, and pseudo-Seneca, and pseudo-Clementines. Lots of precedents!
billd89 wrote: Fri Sep 24, 2021 6:50 amBack on planet Earth, two questions remain simple, straightforward, though probably impossible to answer.
a) Who was THE Lucian (a heretic, gnostic or obscure presbyter?), THIS cult leader to which Origen refers?
b) What was the 'Gospel of Lucian' his Followers read?

I think (a) we don't know, but Origen probably THOUGHT it was Lucian of S; is there a better candidate? Not that I know of (b) probably a work of rhetoric, made up in the same way that the letters of Seneca and Paul were made up.
User avatar
GakuseiDon
Posts: 2295
Joined: Sat Oct 12, 2013 5:10 pm

Re: The Identity of Celsus and His "Jew"

Post by GakuseiDon »

According to Tertullian in his "Prescription against Heretics", Christian heresies are instigated by philosophy:
http://www.earlychristianwritings.com/t ... ian11.html

Indeed heresies are themselves instigated by philosophy. From this source came the AEons, and I known not what infinite forms, and the trinity of man in the system of Valentinus, who was of Plato's school. From the same source came Marcion's better god, with all his tranquillity; he came of the Stoics. Then, again, the opinion that the soul dies is held by the Epicureans; while the denial of the restoration of the body is taken from the aggregate school of all the philosophers; also, when matter is made equal to God, then you have the teaching of Zeno; and when any doctrine is alleged touching a god of fire, then Heraclitus comes in. The same subject-matter is discussed over and over again by the heretics and the philosophers; the same arguments are involved. Whence comes evil? Why is it permitted? What is the origin of man? and in what way does he come? Besides the question which Valentinus has very lately proposed--Whence comes God? Which he settles with the answer: From enthymesis and ectroma. Unhappy Aristotle! who invented for these men dialectics, the art of building up and pulling down; an art so evasive in its propositions, so far-fetched in its conjectures, so harsh, in its arguments, so productive of contentions--embarrassing even to itself, retracting everything, and really treating of nothing!

Tertullian concludes:

Away with all attempts to produce a mottled Christianity of Stoic, Platonic, and dialectic composition! We want no curious disputation after possessing Christ Jesus, no inquisition after enjoying the gospel! With our faith, we desire no further belief.

It gives context to the possibility of a group of Christians following a Lucian of Samosata's approach towards rhetoric, whereby they create a sayings gospel containing Second Sophistic ideas. Pure speculation in the case of there being "Lucian of S" Christian heretics, of course, but what is interesting is that it wasn't just philosophical schools that were associated to specific Christian heretics, but also Gospels, as Irenaeus also points out:
http://www.earlychristianwritings.com/t ... book3.html

So firm is the ground upon which these Gospels rest, that the very heretics themselves bear witness to them, and, starting from these [documents], each one of them endeavours to establish his own peculiar doctrine. For the Ebionites, who use Matthew's Gospel only, are confuted out of this very same, making false suppositions with regard to the Lord. But Marcion, mutilating that according to Luke, is proved to be a blasphemer of the only existing God, from those [passages] which he still retains. Those, again, who separate Jesus from Christ, alleging that Christ remained impassible, but that it was Jesus who suffered, preferring the Gospel by Mark, if they read it with a love of truth, may have their errors rectified. Those, moreover, who follow Valentinus, making copious use of that according to John, to illustrate their conjunctions, shall be proved to be totally in error by means of this very Gospel, as I have shown in the first book.

Thus:

Marcion --> Gospel of Luke --> the Stoics
Valentinus --> Gospel of John --> Plato
Ebionites --> Gospel of Matthew --> Judaism
Separatists --> Gospel of Mark --> ?
Giuseppe
Posts: 13732
Joined: Mon Apr 27, 2015 5:37 am
Location: Italy

Re: Not that Lucian

Post by Giuseppe »

GakuseiDon wrote: Fri Sep 24, 2021 7:33 am
billd89 wrote: Fri Sep 24, 2021 6:50 am#1. That characterization is bullshit. Lucian of Samosata MOCKED the Xtians. Sincere apologies to Believers for any offense, but the "Crucified Sophist" is utterly scornful of Xtians and their batshit crazy.
Totally irrelevant to my point. It doesn't matter what Lucian thought, but only what later Christians thought. Seneca didn't correspond with Paul, but later Christians thought he did. Pilate never became a Christian, but later Christians thought he did. Tiberius never tried to convince the Senate that Jesus was a God, but later Christians thought so. In a world where "Christians were philosophers and philosophers were Christians", a sophist declaring that Jesus was a sophist would likely to have been noticed by Christians. It's irrelevant what Lucian himself thought of Christians, only what later Christians thought he thought.
bild89 is right. Basically, you and Andrew are ignoring deliberately the great difference between Seneca, Pilate, Tiberius and Lucian.
  • 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.
An anti-Christian can't be made a Christian, even in a Catholic universe.
Post Reply