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: 18317
Joined: Sun Apr 19, 2015 8:47 am

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

Post by Secret Alias »

The Jew of Celsus also seems to know the ending of the Gospel of Peter:
Further, after these Greek stories which the Jew adduced respecting those who were guilty of juggling practices, and who pretended to have risen from the dead, he says to those Jews who are converts to Christianity: Do you imagine the statements of others not only to be myths, but to have the appearance of such, while you have discovered a becoming and credible termination to your drama in the voice from the cross, when he breathed his last?
Gospel of Peter:
And, as they declared what things they had seen, again they see three men come forth from the tomb, and two of them supporting one, and a cross following them: and of the two the head reached unto the heaven, but the head of him that was led by them overpassed the heavens. And they heard a voice from the heavens, saying, Thou hast preached to them that sleep. And a response was heard from the cross, Yea. They therefore considered one with another whether to go away and shew these things to Pilate. And while they yet thought thereon, the heavens again are seen to open, and a certain man to descend and enter into the sepulchre.
I don't know if anyone noticed this before but I think this torpedoes Goodacres suggested interpretation of this passage

https://earliestchristianity.wordpress. ... vs-foster/

I think I am going to put this on my blog ...
“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: 18317
Joined: Sun Apr 19, 2015 8:47 am

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

Post by Secret Alias »

So the next question is going to be - if this text was really written by Trypho in the early second century what is the evidence which supports the claim that the 'Jew' claims to have addressed Jesus. I think scholars got this one wrong too. If Trypho is reacting to a gospel the idea of Jesus being there is impossible to believe. Note that he seems to sometimes react to gospel passages being cited to him (by Justin?):
Come now, let us grant to you that the prediction was actually uttered. Yet how many others are there who practise such juggling tricks, in order to deceive their simple hearers, and who make gain by their deception?— as was the case, they say, with Zamolxis in Scythia, the slave of Pythagoras; and with Pythagoras himself in Italy; and with Rhampsinitus in Egypt (the latter of whom, they say, played at dice with Demeter in Hades, and returned to the upper world with a golden napkin which he had received from her as a gift); and also with Orpheus among the Odrysians, and Protesilaus in Thessaly, and Hercules at Cape Tænarus, and Theseus. But the question is, whether any one who was really dead ever rose with a veritable body. Or do you imagine the statements of others not only to be myths, but to have the appearance of such, while you have discovered a becoming and credible termination to your drama in the voice from the cross, when he breathed his last, and in the earthquake and the darkness? That while alive he was of no assistance to himself, but that when dead he rose again, and showed the marks of his punishment, and how his hands were pierced with nails: who beheld this? A half-frantic woman, as you state, and some other one, perhaps, of those who were engaged in the same system of delusion, who had either dreamed so, owing to a peculiar state of mind, or under the influence of a wandering imagination had formed to himself an appearance according to his own wishes, which has been the case with numberless individuals; or, which is most probable, one who desired to impress others with this portent, and by such a falsehood to furnish an occasion to impostors like himself.
The Jew isn't just reacting to a written text. Someone is citing the material to him - an opponent - like Justin.
“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: 18317
Joined: Sun Apr 19, 2015 8:47 am

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

Post by Secret Alias »

More examples of the Jew responding to an opponent in a debate:
To the best of our ability, therefore, as in a treatise of this nature, we have answered the objection, that if Jesus had really wished to manifest his divine power, he ought to have shown himself to those who ill-treated him, and to the judge who condemned him, and to all without reservation. There was, however, no obligation on Him to appear either to the judge who condemned Him, or to those who ill-treated Him. For Jesus spared both the one and the other, that they might not be smitten with blindness, as the men of Sodom were when they conspired against the beauty of the angels entertained by Lot. And here is the account of the matter: But the men put forth their hand, and pulled Lot into the house to them, and shut to the door. And they smote the men who were at the door of the house with blindness, both small and great; so that they wearied themselves to find the door. Jesus, accordingly, wished to show that His power was divine to each one who was capable of seeing it, and according to the measure of His capability. And I do not suppose that He guarded against being seen on any other ground than from a regard to the fitness of those who were incapable of seeing Him. And it is in vain for Celsus to add, For he had no longer occasion to fear any man after his death, being, as you say, a God; nor was he sent into the world at all for the purpose of being hid.
And again:
Certain among you have abandoned the usages of our fathers under a pretence of explanations and allegories; and some of you, although, as you pretend, interpreting them in a spiritual manner, nevertheless do observe the customs of our fathers; and some of you, without any such interpretation, are willing to accept Jesus as the subject of prophecy, and to keep the law of Moses according to the customs of the fathers, as having in the words the whole mind of the Spirit.
Interestingly Trypho's opponent allegorizes the contents of the Pentateuch as Justin does. And that he was in a debate with a Christian is clearest here:
Celsus, moreover, unable to resist the miracles which Jesus is recorded to have performed, has already on several occasions spoken of them slanderously as works of sorcery; and we also on several occasions have, to the best of our ability, replied to his statements. And now he represents us as saying that we deemed Jesus to be the Son of God, because he healed the lame and the blind. And he adds: Moreover, as you assert, he raised the dead.
And again:
O light and truth! He distinctly declares, with his own voice, as you yourselves have recorded, that there will come to you even others, employing miracles of a similar kind, who are wicked men, and sorcerers; and he calls him who makes use of such devices, one Satan. So that Jesus himself does not deny that these works at least are not at all divine, but are the acts of wicked men; and being compelled by the force of truth, he at the same time not only laid open the doings of others, but convicted himself of the same acts. Is it not, then, a miserable inference, to conclude from the same works that the one is God and the other sorcerers? Why ought the others, because of these acts, to be accounted wicked rather than this man, seeing they have him as their witness against himself? For he has himself acknowledged that these are not the works of a divine nature, but the inventions of certain deceivers, and of thoroughly wicked men.
While the specific accusation that Jesus was a magician is no longer in the mouth of Trypho Justin does acknowledge the charge despite that erasure:
And having raised the dead, and causing them to live, by His deeds He compelled the men who lived at that time to recognise Him. But though they saw such works, they asserted it was magical art. For they dared to call Him a magician, and a deceiver of the people.
“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: 18317
Joined: Sun Apr 19, 2015 8:47 am

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

Post by Secret Alias »

The arguments supporting the text of the Jew having the Jew actually standing and debating Jesus. The strongest argument comes interestingly from the Preface which acknowledges that whoever wrote these words 'corrected' a previous edition:
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
So Celsus wrote a work against Celsus line by line against Celsus until he got to the part where Celsus introduced the Jew and then went back to his original composition and wrote it over again amending the work and tacking on this Preface.

But does 'disputing with Jesus' really mean that Jesus was standing right in front of the author? I don't think so. The terminology comes up again in the very place where allegedly Origen stopped writing his original treatise:
And since, in imitation of a rhetorician training a pupil, he introduces a Jew, who enters into a personal discussion with Jesus, and speaks in a very childish manner, altogether unworthy of the grey hairs of a philosopher,

Ἐπεὶ δὲ καὶ προσωποποιεῖ, τρόπον τινὰ μιμησάμενος ἓν ῥήτορος εἰσαγόμενον παιδίον, καὶ εἰσάγει Ἰουδαῖον πρὸς τὸν Ἰησοῦν λέγοντά τινα μειρακιωδῶς καὶ οὐδὲν φιλοσόφου πολιᾶς ἄξιον
προσωποποιεῖ implies the Celsus 'invents' the Jew. But I don't see where this confirms that Jesus was really there in the dialogue. μειρακιωδῶς means 'youthful' or 'childish' things. Chadwick accordingly translates the passage as "He also introduces an imaginary character, somehow imitating a child having his first lessons with an orator, and brings in a Jew who addresses childish remarks to Jesus and says nothing worthy of." The idea though is that:

a) at this point in his treatment of Celsus's original narrative (who knows when the Jew was actually introduced in Celsus's work it just appears here because the reference was deemed a problem in the original composition, i.e. Origen hadn't done a sufficient job combating the testimony) Origen stopped went back to the beginning and immediately placed the section dealing with the Jew front and center at the beginning of the treatise
b) he also seemed to have added the tactic that the Jew was a mere figment of Celsus's imagination so not surprisingly this kind of language comes to the fore.

There is nothing that I can see which actually proves that the Jew did anything other than insult Jesus. This seems to be reflected through the treatise:
And since Celsus has introduced the Jew disputing with Jesus (εἰσήγαγε διαλεγόμενον τῷ Ἰησοῦ) and tearing in pieces, as he imagines, the fiction of His birth from a virgin, comparing the Greek fables about Danaë;, and Melanippe, and Auge, and Antiope, our answer is, that such language becomes a buffoon, and not one who is writing in a serious tone.
I am not sure here that διαλέγω necessarily means he had a debate or a dialogue with Jesus. In the context of this present sentence for instance do people think that the Jew literally told Jesus to his face that he wasn't born of a virgin and that his birth claims resembled that of Perseus. We saw from the Dialogue that isn't true.

Earlier in Against Celsus Origen says:
Μετὰ ταῦτα προσω ποποιεῖ Ἰουδαῖον αὐτῷ διαλεγόμενον τῷ Ἰησοῦ καὶ ἐλέγχοντα αὐτὸν περὶ πολλῶν μέν, ὡς οἴεται, πρῶτον δὲ ὡς πλασαμένου αὐτοῦ τὴν ἐκ παρθένου γένεσιν· ὀνειδίζει δ' αὐτῷ καὶ ἐπὶ τῷ ἐκ κώμης αὐτὸν γεγονέναι ἰουδαϊκῆς καὶ ἀπὸ γυναικὸς ἐγχωρίου καὶ πενιχρᾶς καὶ χερνήτιδος ...

For he represents him disputing with Jesus, and confuting Him, as he thinks, on many points; and in the first place, he accuses Him of having invented his birth from a virgin, and upbraids Him with being born in a certain Jewish village, of a poor woman of the country, who gained her subsistence by spinning,
Again there is no evidence that the Jew is portrayed as ever saying to Jesus's face 'you invented your virgin birth.' Another good comparison:
And here a few remarks shall be addressed to this Celsus, who professes both to be a philosopher, and to be acquainted with all our system. How is it, friend, when Hermes, in Homer, says to Odysseus,

Why, now, wretched man, do you come wandering alone over the mountain-tops?

that you are satisfied with the answer, which explains that the Homeric Hermes addresses (προσδιαλέγεται) such language to Odysseus to remind him of his duty, because it is characteristic of the Sirens to flatter and to say pleasing things, around whom

Is a huge heap of bones,
and who say,

Come here, much lauded Odysseus, great glory of the Greeks;

whereas, if our prophets and Jesus Himself, in order to turn their hearers from evil, make use of such expressions as Woe unto you, and what you regard as revilings, there is no condescension in such language to the circumstances of the hearers, nor any application of such words to them as healing medicine? Unless, indeed, you would have God, or one who partakes of the divine nature, when conversing with men (ἀνθρώποις διαλεγόμενον), to have regard to His own nature alone, and to what is worthy of Himself, but to have no regard to what is fitting to be brought before men who are under the dispensation and leading of His word, and with each one of whom He is to converse agreeably to his individual character (κατὰ τὸ ὑποκείμενον ἦθος διαλέγεσθαι).
Clearly Jesus here is not addressing a particular man or group of men standing before him but rather declaring something about 'the Jews' or mankind in general. The original statement here is:
Celsus, in adopting the character of a Jew, could not discover any objections to be urged against the Gospel which might not be retorted on him as liable to be brought also against the law and the prophets. For he censures Jesus in such words as the following: He makes use of threats, and reviles men on light grounds, when he says, 'Woe unto you,' and 'I tell you beforehand.' For by such expressions he manifestly acknowledges his inability to persuade; and this would not be the case with a God, or even a prudent man.
In another section it seems means individual people actually met:
Or what is there in our conduct that resembles theirs, seeing that by means of readings, and explanations of the things read, we lead men to the worship of the God of the universe, and to the cognate virtues, and turn them away from contemning Deity, and from all things contrary to right reason? Philosophers verily would wish to collect together such hearers of their discourses as exhort men to virtue—a practice which certain of the Cynics especially have followed, who converse publicly (δημοσίᾳ ... διαλεγόμενοι) with those whom they happen to meet.
But then it is immediately followed by a more general use of the term:
And if they are not to be blamed for so doing, let us see whether Christians do not exhort multitudes to the practice of virtue in a greater and better degree than they. For the philosophers who converse in public (δημοσίᾳ διαλεγό) do not pick and choose their hearers, but he who likes stands and listens. The Christians, however, having previously, so far as possible, tested the souls of those who wish to become their hearers, and having previously instructed them in private, when they appear (before entering the community) to have sufficiently evinced their desire towards a virtuous life, introduce them then, and not before, privately forming one class of those who are beginners, and are receiving admission, but who have not yet obtained the mark of complete purification
In other words the word is used in this section to distinguish philosophers who openly declare to anyone in the marketplace with Christians who teach people one on one in private. The Jew then (i.e. Celsus's mouthpiece) is clearly then not engaging Jesus like a Christian (i.e. intimately) intimately and with attention to detail but instead yelling at the top of his lungs accusations like a Cynic philosopher. This helps explain the full context of the original statement in Origen:
And since, in imitation of a rhetorician training a pupil, he introduces a Jew, who enters into a personal discussion with Jesus, and speaks in a very youthful manner, altogether unworthy of the grey hairs of a philosopher.
[/quote]

In other words, the Jew (now not a real person but a mere mouthpiece of Celsus) is not literally engaging Jesus but figuratively shouting accusations like a Cynic at the marketplace at Jesus and Christians generally.
“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: 18317
Joined: Sun Apr 19, 2015 8:47 am

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

Post by Secret Alias »

This is echoed in what follows in 4.2 where Celsus writes - "But that certain Christians and (all) Jews should maintain, the former that there has already descended, the latter that there will descend, upon the earth a certain God, or Son of a God, who will make the inhabitants of the earth righteous, is a most shameless assertion, and one the refutation of which does not need many words."
Observe, now, that if he had wished with a kind of apparent force to subvert faith in the prophetic writings, either with regard to the future or past advent of Christ, he ought to have set forth the prophecies themselves which we Christians and Jews quote in our discussions with each other (τῷ διαλέγεσθαι πρὸς ἀλλήλους).
Does Origen limit himself to 'face to face' meetings or 'discussions' here or does he have in mind broader 'attacks' made against one another? I think the latter. I think 'discussions' or 'dialogues' is far too specific here. Indeed the mirroring of this terminology with the word 'attack' in Celsus makes this absolutely clear in 4.30:
Observe how this venerable philosopher, like a low buffoon, turns into ridicule and mockery, and a subject of laughter, the announcement of a divine judgment, and of the punishment of the wicked, and of the reward of the righteous; and subjoins to all this the remark, that such statements would be more endurable if made by worms and frogs than by Christians and Jews who quarrel with one another (διαφερομένων ἀπαγγελλόμενα)! We shall not, however, imitate his example, nor say similar things regarding those philosophers who profess to know the nature of all things, and who discuss with each other (καὶ πρὸς ἀλλήλους διαλεγομένων περὶ τοῦ), the manner in which all things were created, and how the heaven and earth originated, and all things in them; and how the souls (of men), being either unbegotten, and not created by God, are yet governed by Him, and pass from one body to another; or being formed at the same time with the body, exist for ever or pass away.
Origen clearly means to mimic what is said first about Jews and Christians in a counter attack against the philosophers. Here Origen does not mean 'dialogue' or 'discuss' but something more akin to 'address openly' and rhetorically like a philosopher or groups of philosophers.

To this end we reach what I consider to be the original place where the Jew made his introduction in Celsus's treatise - at the point Celsus writes:
Celsus appears to me to have heard that there are treatises in existence which contain allegorical explanations of the law of Moses. These however, he could not have read; for if he had he would not have said: The allegorical explanations, however, which have been devised are much more shameful and absurd than the fables themselves, inasmuch as they endeavour to unite with marvellous and altogether insensate folly things which cannot at all be made to harmonize. He seems to refer in these words to the works of Philo, or to those of still older writers, such as Aristobulus. But I conjecture that Celsus has not read their books, since it appears to me that in many passages they have so successfully hit the meaning (of the sacred writers), that even Grecian philosophers would have been captivated by their explanations ... After this, selecting from all the treatises which contain allegorical explanations and interpretations, expressed in a language and style not to be despised, the least important, such as might contribute, indeed, to strengthen the faith of the multitude of simple believers, but were not adapted to impress those of more intelligent mind, he continues: Of such a nature do I know the work to be, entitled Controversy between one Papiscus and Jason, which is fitted to excite pity and hatred instead of laughter. It is not my purpose, however, to confute the statements contained in such works; for their fallacy is manifest to all, especially if any one will have the patience to read the books themselves. Rather do I wish to show that Nature teaches this, that God made nothing that is mortal, but that His works, whatever they are, are immortal, and theirs mortal. And the soul is the work of God, while the nature of the body is different. And in this respect there is no difference between the body of a bat, or of a worm, or of a frog, and that of a man; for the matter is the same, and their corruptible part is alike. Nevertheless I could wish that every one who heard Celsus declaiming and asserting that the treatise entitled Controversy between Jason and Papiscus regarding Christ was fitted to excite not laughter, but hatred, could take the work into his hands, and patiently listen to its contents; that, finding in it nothing to excite hatred, he might condemn Celsus out of the book itself. For if it be impartially perused, it will be found that there is nothing to excite even laughter in a work in which a Christian is described as conversing with a Jew on the subject of the Jewish Scriptures (Χριστιανὸς Ἰουδαίῳ διαλεγόμενος ἀπὸ τῶν ἰουδαϊκῶν γραφῶν), and proving that the predictions regarding Christ fitly apply to Jesus; although the other disputant maintains the discussion in no ignoble style, and in a manner not unbecoming the character of a Jew.
This would tend to support the reading of διαλεγόμενος to mean 'debating' or 'discussing.' But I think Origen means here that the debate is carried on the lofty manner of philosophers - i.e. the way they debate one another viz. 'with high rhetoric' - which certainly precludes the application to what the Jew says about Jesus.

Look at the next few examples - little children and ants:
But as, in what follows, Celsus, not understanding that the language of Scripture regarding God is adapted to an anthropopathic (ἀνθρωποπαθοῦς) point of view, ridicules those passages which speak of words of anger addressed to the ungodly, and of threatenings directed against sinners, we have to say that, as we ourselves, when talking with very young children (νηπίοις διαλεγόμενοι), do not aim at exerting our own power of eloquence, but, adapting ourselves to the weakness of our charge, both say and do those things which may appear to us useful for the correction and improvement of the children as children, so the word of God appears to have dealt with the history, making the capacity of the hearers, and the benefit which they were to receive, the standard of the appropriateness of its announcements (regarding Him).
and again:
For, speaking of the ants conversing with one another (διαλεγομένων ἀλλήλοις), he uses the following language: And when they meet one another they enter into conversation (ἀλλήλοις διαλέγονται), for which reason they never mistake their way; consequently they possess a full endowment of reason, and some common ideas on certain general subjects, and a voice by which they express themselves regarding accidental things. Now conversation (διαλέγεσθαί) between one man and another is carried on by means of a voice, which gives expression to the meaning intended, and which also gives utterances concerning what are called accidental things; but to say that this was the case with ants would be a most ridiculous assertion.
The range of meaning clearly goes beyond 'dialogue' for as Origen notes ants don't have discussions. Something is represented here which
Now, by such statements, this illustrious philosopher Celsus distinctly slanders the Christians, asserting that, when the Jews press them hard, they acknowledge the same God as they do; but that when Jesus legislates differently from Moses, they seek another god instead of Him. Now, whether we are conversing with the Jews (Ἰουδαίοις διαλεγόμενοι), or are alone with ourselves, we know of only one and the same God, whom the Jews also worshipped of old time, and still profess to worship as God, and we are guilty of no impiety towards Him.
and again in the discussion of a Dialogue of Plato:
For Plato introduces Socrates conversing with Crito (Σωκράτης Κρίτωνι διαλεγόμενος) as follows: 'Must we never do injustice to any?' 'Certainly not.'
and again:
He further supposes, that because we join along with the worship of God the worship of His Son, it follows that, in our view, not only God, but also the servants of God, are to be worshipped. If he had meant this to apply to those who are truly the servants of God, after His only-begotten Son,— to Gabriel and Michael, and the other angels and archangels, and if he had said of these that they ought to be worshipped,— if also he had clearly defined the meaning of the word worship, and the duties of the worshippers,— we might perhaps have brought forward such thoughts as have occurred to us on so important a subject (ὡς περὶ τηλικούτων διαλεγόμενοι).
and again:
Besides, is it not most absurd and inconsistent in you, on the one hand, to make so much of the body as you do— to expect that the same body will rise again, as though it were the best and most precious part of us; and yet, on the other, to expose it to such tortures as though it were worthless? But men who hold such notions, and are so attached to the body, are not worthy of being reasoned with (οὐκ ἄξιον τοῦτο διαλέγεσθαι); for in this and in other respects they show themselves to be gross, impure, and bent upon revolting without any reason from the common belief. But I shall direct my discourse to those who hope for the enjoyment of eternal life with God by means of the soul or mind, whether they choose to call it a spiritual substance, an intelligent spirit, holy and blessed, or a living soul, or the heavenly and indestructible offspring of a divine and incorporeal nature, or by whatever name they designate the spiritual nature of man. And they are rightly persuaded that those who live well shall be blessed, and the unrighteous shall all suffer everlasting punishments. And from this doctrine neither they nor any other should ever swerve.
and again:
Moreover, Celsus thinks that he ought not to reason (μὴ διαλέγεσθαι) with those who hope for the good of the body, as they are unreasonably intent upon an object which can never satisfy their expectations. He also calls them gross and impure men, bent upon creating needless dissensions. But surely he ought, as one of superior humanity, to assist even the rude and depraved. For society does not exclude from its pale the coarse and uncultivated, as it does the irrational animals, but our Creator made us on the same common level with all mankind. It is not an undignified thing, therefore, to reason (Ἄξιον οὖν διαλέγεσθαι) even with the coarse and unrefined, and to try to bring them as far as possible to a higher state of refinement— to bring the impure to the highest practicable degree of purity— to bring the unreasoning multitude to reason, and the diseased in mind to spiritual health.
I think from all these examples the correct sense that Origen has is 'engage' which goes back to the primary meaning of διαλέγω in Liddell:
A.pick out, Hdt.8.107, 113, X.Oec.8.9, etc.; πτῶμα glean fallen olives, PFay.102.20; cf. διαλέγειν: ἀνακαθαίρειν, Hsch.; select, separate, Pl.Lg.735b; examine, check documents, PFay.11.26 (ii B.C.), etc.
From this detailed examination of all the uses of διαλέγω in Against Celsus I think it is by no means certain - and in fact unlikely - that Origen was saying that the Jew was portrayed as standing in front of Jesus 'debating' or 'discussing' his birth from a virgin. Instead I think Origen means that the Jew was attacking Jesus in a childish manner, openly and out loud like a Cynic in the marketplace.
“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: 18317
Joined: Sun Apr 19, 2015 8:47 am

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

Post by Secret Alias »

Chadwick's translation is thus key to get out from under the influence of the one found on the internet:
"He (Celsus) also introduces an imaginary character, somehow imitating a child having his first lessons with an orator, and brings in a Jew who addresses childish remarks to Jesus and says nothing worthy of a philosopher's grey hairs.."
versus
"he introduces a Jew, who enters into a personal discussion with Jesus, and speaks in a very youthful manner, altogether unworthy of the grey hairs of a philosopher."
“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: 18317
Joined: Sun Apr 19, 2015 8:47 am

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

Post by Secret Alias »

So nothing stands in the way of identifying Trypho as the 'Jew' of Celsus.
“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
Peter Kirby
Site Admin
Posts: 7868
Joined: Fri Oct 04, 2013 2:13 pm
Location: Santa Clara
Contact:

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

Post by Peter Kirby »

Secret Alias wrote:Here is it:
And Trypho answered, "The Scripture has not, 'Behold, the virgin shall conceive, and bear a son,' but, 'Behold, the young woman shall conceive, and bear a son,' and so on, as you quoted. But the whole prophecy refers to Hezekiah, and it is proved that it was fulfilled in him, according to the terms of this prophecy. Moreover, in the fables of those who are called Greeks, it is written that Perseus was begotten of Danae, who was a virgin; he who was called among them Zeus having descended on her in the form of a golden shower. And you ought to feel ashamed when you make assertions similar to theirs, and rather[should] say that this Jesus was born man of men. And if you prove from the Scriptures that He is the Christ, and that on account of having led a life conformed to the law, and perfect, He deserved the honour of being elected to be Christ,[it is well]; but do not venture to tell monstrous phenomena, lest you be convicted of talking foolishly like the Greeks."
Compare with Celsus's Jew:
And since Celsus has introduced the Jew disputing with Jesus, and tearing in pieces, as he imagines, the fiction of His birth from a virgin, comparing the Greek fables about Danaë;, and Melanippe, and Auge, and Antiope, our answer is, that such language becomes a buffoon, and not one who is writing in a serious tone.
It's a fucking dead match. Scholars are retards sometimes. They are so fucking lazy often times, giving the Church Fathers and their arguments WAY TOO MUCH credibility. I think we can be virtually certain given all this evidence that Trypho (or whatever his original name was) was Celsus's source and that - yes - Celsus is citing a real Jewish author's work. Just because Origen says (the second time around) that 'this Jew is just a mouthpiece for Celsus's own ideas, that's bullshit.
No surprise--you set out to prove something, and you ended up seeming to "prove" it. But your idea isn't exactly brilliant itself. Your "proof" primarily consists in the dodging of evidence against your position, and not all of that has been elegantly done at that (e.g., the reference to John the Baptist as being a Christian).
"... almost every critical biblical position was earlier advanced by skeptics." - Raymond Brown
Secret Alias
Posts: 18317
Joined: Sun Apr 19, 2015 8:47 am

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

Post by Secret Alias »

So there is evidence that Celsus 'fabricated' the Jew beyond Origen claiming that he did?
“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
Peter Kirby
Site Admin
Posts: 7868
Joined: Fri Oct 04, 2013 2:13 pm
Location: Santa Clara
Contact:

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

Post by Peter Kirby »

Secret Alias wrote:So there is evidence that Celsus 'fabricated' the Jew beyond Origen claiming that he did?
You're the one who claimed that he could show that this "Jew of Celsus" was Trypho...

And, yes. Of course.
"... almost every critical biblical position was earlier advanced by skeptics." - Raymond Brown
Post Reply