Celsus never mentioned Pilate, too
Celsus never mentioned Pilate, too
Very surprising: Origen never has Celsus mentioning Pilate, when Origen reports the Celsus's words.
Was Pilate found in the lost gospel read by Celsus?
Was Pilate found in the lost gospel read by Celsus?
Re: Celsus never mentioned Pilate, too
I start to think that it is more probable that the Pagans connected Jesus with Tiberius rather than with Pilate.
Afterall, Pilate was the favorite of Tiberius, his natural political extension. Pilate was introduced because of Tiberius and not the contrary.
Afterall, Pilate was the favorite of Tiberius, his natural political extension. Pilate was introduced because of Tiberius and not the contrary.
-
- Posts: 141
- Joined: Wed May 29, 2019 9:45 am
Re: Celsus never mentioned Pilate, too
Not that surprising really... we only have excerpts. Even if Celsus mentioned Pilate, Origen wouldn't necessarily quote it. In any case, there's no particular reason why Celsus would feel the need to mention Pontius Pilate.
Re: Celsus never mentioned Pilate, too
I disagree on this point. The Pagan Hierocles insisted just on Pilate's role as the Pagan evidence that Jesus was only a mere Jewish rebel. Hence Celsus would have had any interest to be a precursor of Hierocles about the latter's insistence on Pilate.davidlau17 wrote: ↑Tue Jan 11, 2022 8:11 pm In any case, there's no particular reason why Celsus would feel the need to mention Pontius Pilate.
- Peter Kirby
- Site Admin
- Posts: 8616
- Joined: Fri Oct 04, 2013 2:13 pm
- Location: Santa Clara
- Contact:
Re: Celsus never mentioned Pilate, too
This is true.
Re: Celsus never mentioned Pilate, too
Pontius Pilatus, a governor from an obscure region was surely not famous and interesting for a non-christian roman citizen.
Re: Celsus never mentioned Pilate, too
I quote from here:
The new research, published in a groundbreaking book this week, shows that a major issue used by both sides in the late third and the very early fourth century was the role of Pontius Pilate, the Roman prefect of Judaea who had ordered Jesus’s crucifixion some 270 years earlier.
The battle seems to have centred around Pilate’s actions. Both sides wanted Pilate, a traditional high-ranking Roman, to appear innocent of any wrongdoing – but in different ways.
The new research suggests that the pagans tried to vindicate Pilate by claiming that Jesus was a violent and dangerous rebel – and that therefore Pilate was quite right to have had him executed.
By contrast, many Christian propagandists sought to exonerate Pilate by claiming that the Jews had taken matters into their own hands – and that therefore it was the Jews, not Pilate, who were to blame for Jesus’s death.
Both pagans and Christians were keen to portray themselves as loyally pro-Roman, in order to try to win over traditional elites within the empire.
Although the pagan/Christian ideological war was ultimately decided on the battlefield, both sides appear to have seen their respective propaganda campaigns as essential in increasing their chances of political and military victory.
The battle seems to have centred around Pilate’s actions. Both sides wanted Pilate, a traditional high-ranking Roman, to appear innocent of any wrongdoing – but in different ways.
The new research suggests that the pagans tried to vindicate Pilate by claiming that Jesus was a violent and dangerous rebel – and that therefore Pilate was quite right to have had him executed.
By contrast, many Christian propagandists sought to exonerate Pilate by claiming that the Jews had taken matters into their own hands – and that therefore it was the Jews, not Pilate, who were to blame for Jesus’s death.
Both pagans and Christians were keen to portray themselves as loyally pro-Roman, in order to try to win over traditional elites within the empire.
Although the pagan/Christian ideological war was ultimately decided on the battlefield, both sides appear to have seen their respective propaganda campaigns as essential in increasing their chances of political and military victory.
-
- Posts: 565
- Joined: Thu Jun 25, 2020 2:46 pm
Re: Celsus never mentioned Pilate, too
I would caution making any conclusions about Celsus' text as it stands. I'm not even certain that Celsus' original words are accurately preserved in the quotations that are there, let alone making arguments about what is missing. I am rather willing to ascribe nefarious methods to some of the early Church writers.
Re: Celsus never mentioned Pilate, too
Hi Chris,Chris Hansen wrote: ↑Wed Jan 12, 2022 1:46 pmI would caution making any conclusions about Celsus' text as it stands. I'm not even certain that Celsus' original words are accurately preserved in the quotations that are there, let alone making arguments about what is missing. I am rather willing to ascribe nefarious methods to some of the early Church writers.
Origen both quotes and paraphrases the text of Celsus' *True Reason.* In many cases he cites the same section multiple times, with minor differences.
See viewtopic.php?p=36113#p36113 for a complete downloadable reconstruction. It is by me, so consider the source, but I think it is credible.
It is broken down in a technique similar to that I used to tease out three levels of discourse in Philo's description of Therapeutea of the Nile delta. Here there are only quote-like statements in red, paraphrases are underlined, and quotes from pagan authors are in purple, along with identifications of the sources.
I had completely ignored Origen's rhetorical countermeasures and replies to what he imagines Celsus to have said. Maybe Origen's responses to Celsus add something to what exactly was originally said, but at the time I compiled this I was not sure I wanted to know what Origen thought.
DCH
-
- Posts: 565
- Joined: Thu Jun 25, 2020 2:46 pm
Re: Celsus never mentioned Pilate, too
Gotcha, I'll take a look at your reconstruction! Looks pretty neat! Thank youDCHindley wrote: ↑Wed Jan 12, 2022 6:37 pmHi Chris,Chris Hansen wrote: ↑Wed Jan 12, 2022 1:46 pmI would caution making any conclusions about Celsus' text as it stands. I'm not even certain that Celsus' original words are accurately preserved in the quotations that are there, let alone making arguments about what is missing. I am rather willing to ascribe nefarious methods to some of the early Church writers.
Origen both quotes and paraphrases the text of Celsus' *True Reason.* In many cases he cites the same section multiple times, with minor differences.
See viewtopic.php?p=36113#p36113 for a complete downloadable reconstruction. It is by me, so consider the source, but I think it is credible.
It is broken down in a technique similar to that I used to tease out three levels of discourse in Philo's description of Therapeutea of the Nile delta. Here there are only quote-like statements in red, paraphrases are underlined, and quotes from pagan authors are in purple, along with identifications of the sources.
I had completely ignored Origen's rhetorical countermeasures and replies to what he imagines Celsus to have said. Maybe Origen's responses to Celsus add something to what exactly was originally said, but at the time I compiled this I was not sure I wanted to know what Origen thought.
DCH