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: 18321
Joined: Sun Apr 19, 2015 8:47 am

Re: Did Celsus and His "Jew" Offer Different Arguments?

Post by Secret Alias »

As a side note I think the reappearance of these ideas in Irenaeus and Against Marcion support Criddle's contention (you see I am open to other people's ideas) that Against Marcion was developed from a text original written by Justin (but likely directed against Jews).
“Finally, from so little sleeping and so much reading, his brain dried up and he went completely out of his mind.”
― Miguel de Cervantes Saavedra, Don Quixote
Secret Alias
Posts: 18321
Joined: Sun Apr 19, 2015 8:47 am

Re: Did Celsus and His "Jew" Offer Different Arguments?

Post by Secret Alias »

The passage in Against Marcion:
The cleansing of the Syrian rather was significant throughout the nations of the world of their own cleansing in Christ their light, steeped as they were in the stains of the seven deadly sins: idolatry, blasphemy, murder, adultery, fornication, false-witness, and fraud. Seven times, therefore, as if once for each, did he wash in Jordan; both in order that he might celebrate the expiation of a perfect hebdomad; and because the virtue and fulness of the one baptism was thus solemnly imputed to Christ, alone, who was one day to establish on earth not only a revelation, but also a baptism, endued with compendious efficacy. Even Marcion finds here an antithesis: how that Elisha indeed required a material resource, applied water, and that seven times; whereas Christ, by the employment of a word only, and that but once for all, instantly effected the cure.
The idea here is that baptism is associated with seven 'powers' as in the material developed by Bucur. I even think the argument made by Marcion is foreign to the text. The original author is comparing baptisms. When Marcion is introduced it is 'shifted' to the curing by means of 'only a word' (no water). I think the original material was connected with a baptism narrative and then 'shifted' to a discussion of Luke specifically by Irenaeus.
“Finally, from so little sleeping and so much reading, his brain dried up and he went completely out of his mind.”
― Miguel de Cervantes Saavedra, Don Quixote
User avatar
DCHindley
Posts: 3401
Joined: Mon Oct 07, 2013 9:53 am
Location: Ohio, USA

Re: Did Celsus and His "Jew" Offer Different Arguments?

Post by DCHindley »

Let's not forget that the whole story of Jesus the son of the Roman soldier Pantera, his mother being turned out by her husband, the period in Egypt learning magic, and such, is found pretty much as Celsus describes it in the Medieval Jewish Toledot Jeschu.

My guess would be that this story cycle was already circulating in some Judean circles in Celsus' time, and he used it to create his fictional dialogue between a Judean and Jesus. I do not know where Celsus was supposed to have lived when he heard the Judean stories about Jesus, but it almost sounds like it came from somewhere like Judea or Galilee, not the Greek diaspora. But then I would expect it would be written in Aramaic. If so, who then made it available to Celsus in Greek? Or did Celsus himself have some proficiency in Aramaic?

DCH (on mandated union break while at work, boss)
Secret Alias
Posts: 18321
Joined: Sun Apr 19, 2015 8:47 am

Re: Did Celsus and His "Jew" Offer Different Arguments?

Post by Secret Alias »

It is also curious that just before this passage in Against Marcion the text makes reference to a Greek original (i.e. preserving actual Greek terminology) which repeat over the course of Tertullian's discussion.
We have indeed already laid it down, in opposition to his Antitheses, that the position of Marcion derives no advantage from the diversity which he supposes to exist between the Law and the Gospel, inasmuch as even this was ordained by the Creator, and indeed predicted in the promise of the new Law, and the new Word, and the new Testament. Since, however, he quotes with especial care,234 as a proof in his domain,235 a certain companion in misery (suntalai/pwron), and associate in hatred (summisou/menon), with himself, for the cure of leprosy, I shall not be sorry to meet him, and before anything else to point out to him the force of the law figuratively interpreted, which, in this example of a leper (who was not to be touched, but was rather to be removed from all intercourse with others), prohibited any communication with a person who was defiled with sins, with whom the apostle also forbids us even to eat food,237 forasmuch as the taint of sins would be communicated as if contagious: wherever a man should mix himself with the sinner.
This 'companion in misery' and 'associate in hatred' seems to have been a figure very important to Justin's opponent in the very same way as Origen's commentary on the 'Jew of Celsus' assumes the existence of one who 'suffering with' Christ:
Πλὴν ὅτι σὺ φῂς καί τινα ἕνα ἐπάγῃ τῶν μετὰ σοῦ κεκολασμένων.
What proof is there of it, save your own assertion, and the statement of another of those individuals who have been punished along with you?
The two traditions somehow seem to be related in a most curious way again. There seems to have been a variant gospel narrative where Jesus cured someone in baptism (Simon Peter?) who was a leper (?) and went on to suffer the same death as Jesus after writing a gospel. Also take a detailed look at the use of martyr
What credible witness (μάρτυς) beheld this appearance? Or who heard a voice from heaven declaring you to be the Son of God? What proof is there of it, save your own assertion, and the statement of another of those individuals who have been punished along with you?
Curious that 'John' is specifically mentioned though in what precedes. But we seem to be reaching a core historical understanding that Celsus's Jew was Trypho and that Justin likely wrote many texts against Trypho. Against Marcion seems to have been directed against a Jew at first (which explains why Book Three is also Tertullian's Against the Jews. Very odd indeed.
“Finally, from so little sleeping and so much reading, his brain dried up and he went completely out of his mind.”
― Miguel de Cervantes Saavedra, Don Quixote
Secret Alias
Posts: 18321
Joined: Sun Apr 19, 2015 8:47 am

Re: Did Celsus and His "Jew" Offer Different Arguments?

Post by Secret Alias »

The terms in Tertullian are συνταλαίπωρον and συμμισούμενον [Adv Marc 4.9] Marcion is said to have argued with 'unusual insistence' (Latin attentius argumentatur) about the presence of this individual. Tertullian tells us that this act of healing described in the gospel had a deep significance for Marcionites. Yet almost no one has picked up on the significance of the words that accompany his sending off of the healed leper to the priests with the words ἵνα ᾖ μαρτύριον τοῦτο ὑμῖν.

The echo here is clearly Micah 1:2:
and the Lord God shall be among you for a testimony (ἐν ὑμῖν εἰς μαρτύριον), the Lord out of his holy habitation. For, behold, the Lord comes forth out of his place, and will come down, and will go upon the high places of the earth.
So the passage is a reflection undoubtedly of Micah's understanding that God would be sent out as a testimony to the Jews, coming down from heaven. Jesus is telling the leper to deliver a clear allusion of the fulfillment of Micah's expectation (= that Jesus is God).

The juxtaposition that we saw between Justin and Trypho as to whether baptism only brings down the seven 'lower powers' or - as Justin would content - the Lord himself is now critical if - as it would seem - Jesus baptized the leper and brought down the Lord in the form of a dove upon this 'fellow sufferer' (presumably Simon but we can't be sure).

It is very significant to recall what Irenaeus originally said about the Marcionites taking special interest in this disciple described as "commiseronem" and "coodibilem" given that the rich man who later dies and is resurrected was originally similarly described. Tertullian now preserves the discussion as:
and when that man replied, in respect of the chief of them (= the commandments), that he had kept them from his youth up, he got the answer, One thing thou lackest; sell all that thou hast and give to the poor, and thou shall have treasure in heaven; and come, follow me. Come now, Marcion, and all you companions in the misery and sharers in the offensiveness (commiserones et coodibiles) of that heretic, what will you be bold enough to say? Did Christ here rescind those former commandments, not to kill, not to commit adultery, not to steal, not to bear false witness, to love father and mother? Or is it that he both retained these and added what was lacking? And yet, even this commandment of distributing to the poor is spread about everywhere in the law and the prophets, so that that boastful keeper of the commandments was convicted of having money in much higher esteem. So then this also in the gospel remains valid, I am not come to destroy the law and the prophets, but rather to fulfil. At the same time also he relieved of doubt those other questions, by making it clear that the name of God, and of supremely good, belongs to one only, and that eternal life and treasure in heaven, and himself besides, pertain to that one, whose commandments, by adding what was lacking, he both conserved and enriched. So he is to be recognized as in agreement with Micah, in this passage where he says, Hath he then shewed thee, O man, what is good? Or what doth the Lord require of thee but to do justice, to love mercy, and to be prepared to follow the Lord thy God? [Against Marcion 4:36]
“Finally, from so little sleeping and so much reading, his brain dried up and he went completely out of his mind.”
― Miguel de Cervantes Saavedra, Don Quixote
Secret Alias
Posts: 18321
Joined: Sun Apr 19, 2015 8:47 am

Re: Did Celsus and His "Jew" Offer Different Arguments?

Post by Secret Alias »

These ideas (and words) do show up in an anti-Marcionite passage in Greek. The Philosophumena attempting to connect Marcion's ideas with Empedocles describes the Greek philosopher's system in apparent Marcionite terminology:
He asserts the irksome ways to be the alterations and transfigurations of souls into (successive) bodies. This is what he says:- "Changing the irksome ways of life."

For souls "change," body after body being altered, and punished by Discord, and not permitted to continue in the one (frame), but that the souls are involved in all descriptions of punishment by Discord being changed from body to body. He says:- "AEthereal force to ocean drives the souls, And ocean spurts them forth on earth's expanse, And earth on beams of blazing sun, who flings (The souls) on aether's depths, and each from each (A spirit) takes, and all with hatred burn."

This is the punishment which the Demiurge inflicts, just as some brazier moulding (a piece of) iron, and dipping it successively from fire into water. For fire is the aether whence the Demiurge transfers the souls into the sea; and land is the earth: whence he uses the words, from water into earth, and from earth into air. This is what (Empedocles) says:- "And earth on beams Of blazing sun, who flings (the souls)

On aether's depths, and each from each A (spirit) takes, and all with hatred burn."

The souls, then, thus detested (μισουμένας), and tormented (βασανιζομένας), and chastized (κολαζομένας) in this world, are, according to Empedocles, collected by Friendship as being a certain good (power), and (one) that pities the groaning of these, and the disorderly and wicked device of furious Discord. And (likewise Friendship is) eager, and toils to lead forth little by little the souls from the world, and to domesticate them with unity, in order that all things, being conducted by herself, may attain unto unification. Therefore on account of such an arrangement on the part of destructive Discord of this divided world, Empedocles admonishes his disciples to abstain from all sorts of animal food. For he asserts that the bodies of animals are such as feed on the habitations of punished souls (ψυχών κεκολασμένων). And he teaches those who are hearers of such doctrines (as his), to refrain from intercourse with women. (And he issues this precept) in order that (his disciples) may not co-operate with and assist those works which Discord fabricates, always dissolving and forcibly severing the work of Friendship.
These words are often cited simply as a reflection of what Empedocles believed but that isn't quite true. It is an attempt to reinterpret Marcionism in light of Empedoclism. As if Marcion corrupted the gospel of Mark and added mystical ideas from Empedocles. This terminology is consistently Marcionite.
“Finally, from so little sleeping and so much reading, his brain dried up and he went completely out of his mind.”
― Miguel de Cervantes Saavedra, Don Quixote
Secret Alias
Posts: 18321
Joined: Sun Apr 19, 2015 8:47 am

Re: Did Celsus and His "Jew" Offer Different Arguments?

Post by Secret Alias »

The terminology in Origen - τῶν μετὰ σοῦ κεκολασμένων = one of those punished with you.
“Finally, from so little sleeping and so much reading, his brain dried up and he went completely out of his mind.”
― Miguel de Cervantes Saavedra, Don Quixote
Secret Alias
Posts: 18321
Joined: Sun Apr 19, 2015 8:47 am

Re: Did Celsus and His "Jew" Offer Different Arguments?

Post by Secret Alias »

This next passage seems to me at least indicate that the 'Jew' was an actual Jewish author:
If the mother of Jesus was beautiful, then the god whose nature is not to love a corruptible body, had intercourse with her because she was beautiful; or, It was improbable that the god would entertain a passion for her, because she was neither rich nor of royal rank, seeing no one, even of her neighbours, knew her. And it is in the same scoffing spirit that he adds: When hated by her husband, and turned out of doors, she was not saved by divine power, nor was her story believed. Such things, he says, have no connection with the kingdom of heaven.
I am struck by the use of the terminology 'kingdom of heaven' which we would take as a 'borrowing' from Christianity but in fact the Mekhilta of R Ishmael written in the same period regularly uses this terminology. It was current among Jews in this age. Also that the author was Trypho, doesn't Trypho also refer to Jewish myths of 'sons of virgins' in paganism negatively? I know that he does.
“Finally, from so little sleeping and so much reading, his brain dried up and he went completely out of his mind.”
― Miguel de Cervantes Saavedra, Don Quixote
Secret Alias
Posts: 18321
Joined: Sun Apr 19, 2015 8:47 am

Re: Did Celsus and His "Jew" Offer Different Arguments?

Post by Secret Alias »

Trypho brings up the difficulty of imagining God almighty eating:
Then Trypho said when I was silent, "That Scripture compels us to admit this, is manifest; but there is a matter about which we are deservedly at a loss--namely, about what was said to the effect that[the Lord] ate what was prepared and placed before him by Abraham; and you would admit this."

I answered, "It is written that they ate; and if we believe that it is said the three ate, and not the two alone--who were really angels, and are nourished in the heavens, as is evident to us, even though they are not nourished by food similar to that which mortals use--(for, concerning the sustenance of manna which supported your fathers in the desert, Scripture speaks thus, that they ate angels'food):[if we believe that three ate], then I would say that the Scripture which affirms they ate bears the same meaning as when we would say about fire that it has devoured all things; yet it is not certainly understood that they ate, masticating with teeth and jaws. So that not even here should we be at a loss about anything, if we are acquainted even slightly with figurative modes of expression, and able to rise above them."
And Trypho said, "It is possible that[the question] about the mode of eating may be thus explained:[the mode, that is to say,] in which it is written, they took and ate what had been prepared by Abraham: so that you may now proceed to explain to us how this God who appeared to Abraham, and is minister to God the Maker of all things, being born of the Virgin, became man, of like passions with all, as you said previously."

Celsus's Jew brings up the impossibility of God Almighty eating:
He asserts, moreover, that the body of a god is not nourished with such food, since he is able to prove from the Gospel narratives both that He partook of food, and food of a particular kind. Well, be it so.
Trypho's original objection and disagreement with Justin was that God Almighty was not one of the three angels with Abraham - "He said, "No; but God appeared to him, before the vision of the three. Then those three whom the Scripture calls men, were angels; two of them sent to destroy Sodom, and one to announce the joyful tidings to Sarah, that she would bear a son; for which cause he was sent, and having accomplished his errand, went away."
“Finally, from so little sleeping and so much reading, his brain dried up and he went completely out of his mind.”
― Miguel de Cervantes Saavedra, Don Quixote
Secret Alias
Posts: 18321
Joined: Sun Apr 19, 2015 8:47 am

Re: Did Celsus and His "Jew" Offer Different Arguments?

Post by Secret Alias »

Trypho - And when I had ceased, Trypho said, "These and such like Scriptures, sir, compel us to wait for Him who, as Son of man, receives from the Ancient of days the everlasting kingdom. But this so-called Christ of yours was dishonourable and inglorious, so much so that the last curse contained in the law of God fell on him, for he was crucified."

Celsus's Jew - And since Celsus, although professing to know all about the Gospel, reproaches the Saviour because of His sufferings, saying that He received no assistance from the Father, or was unable to aid Himself; we have to state that His sufferings were the subject of prophecy, along with the cause of them; because it was for the benefit of mankind that He should die on their account, and should suffer stripes because of His condemnation.

and again:

The few next remarks: You, O sincere believers, find fault with us, because we do not recognise this individual as God, nor agree with you that he endured these (sufferings) for the benefit of mankind, in order that we also might despise punishment.
“Finally, from so little sleeping and so much reading, his brain dried up and he went completely out of his mind.”
― Miguel de Cervantes Saavedra, Don Quixote
Post Reply