Biblical Criticism & History Forum - earlywritings.com

Origen is particularly disturbed by the presumed link between the death of Jesus and the death of John:

As, however, it is a Jew in Celsus' attack who speaks to Jesus about the Holy Spirit's coming in the form of a dove, saying: 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, we have to inform him that these words also which he has put into the Jew's mouth are inappropriate to his character. For the Jews do not connect John with Jesus, nor the punishment of John with that of Jesus.

It is curious that the modern scholars agree with Origen on this point (since they don't see no Jesus in the Baptist Passage in "Josephus"). But have we evidence of a gospel where both Jesus and John share their deaths?

Maybe in proto-Luke it is Herod who crucified Jesus and not Pilate (therefore moving Luke to move Jesus from Pilate to Herod and then again to Pilate in order to harmonize the previous source with the his gospel).

Could John and Jesus share the same death in virtue of a common killer (Herod)?

That's a stretch.

If Celsus or the his Jew knew John only because they read a Gospel (and we know this because Celsus or his Jew despised the witness of John of the his baptism or of Jesus) then it is very probable that Celsus or the his Jew didn't read the Baptist Passage in Josephus (because otherwise they would have shown more respect about John).

Therefore John enters in official history only in virtue of a Gospel. But was he a baptized later converted in a baptizer? What was the original baptism? Simply the descending of the Spirit on the chosen people?

Whatever. First we have to figure out the original shape of Celsus's work and the original response to the True Word. You can't know anything with that detail without having the basic facts straight. So getting back to something more substantive. After we've established the bare outline of the opening section of Celsus's works (i.e. that it revolves around the use of 'logos' in the title) let's look a little closer at the references that follow:

After this, Celsus, without condemning circumcision as practised by the Jews, asserts that this usage was derived from the Egyptians [1.22]

After this, Celsus next asserts that "those herdsmen and shepherds who followed Moses as their leader, had their minds deluded by vulgar deceits, and so supposed that there was one God. [1.23]

After this he continues: These herdsmen and shepherds concluded that there was but one God, named either the Highest, or Adonai, or the Heavenly, or Sabaoth, or called by some other of those names which they delight to give this world; and they knew nothing beyond that. And in a subsequent part of his work he says, that It makes no difference whether the God who is over all things be called by the name of Zeus, which is current among the Greeks, or by that, e.g., which is in use among the Indians or Egyptians. Μετὰ ταῦτά φησιν ὅτι οἱ αἰπόλοι καὶ ποιμένες ἕνα ἐνόμισαν θεόν, εἴτε Ὕψιστον εἴτ' Ἀδωναῖον εἴτ' Οὐράνιον εἴτε Σαβαώθ, εἴτε καὶ ὅπῃ καὶ ὅπως χαίρουσιν ὀνομάζοντες τόνδε τὸν κόσμον· καὶ πλεῖον οὐδὲν ἔγνωσαν. Καὶ ἐν τοῖς ἑξῆς δέ φησι μηδὲν διαφέρειν τῷ παρ' Ἕλλησι φερομένῳ ὀνόματι τὸν ἐπὶ πᾶσι θεὸν καλεῖν ∆ία ἢ τῷ δεῖνα, φέρ' εἰπεῖν, παρ' Ἰνδοῖς ἢ τῷ δεῖνα παρ' Αἰγυπτίοις. [1.24]

As we are at the brink of the introduction of the Jew and Origen tells us that his own commentary does not follow the exact order of Celsus's treatise before the introduction of the Jew how interesting is it that the citation immediately before the introduction of the Jew openly declares that it is 'from a later part' of Celsus's treatise.

But here is the critical difficulty. The translators have misled the reader with the English text. Καὶ ἐν τοῖς ἑξῆς = and in what follows or next. But why do they translate these words as "in a subsequent part of his work" when "in what follows" would be more correct? Because they know that the words being cited appear elsewhere in Origen's response. Again compare:

After this he continues: These herdsmen and shepherds concluded that there was but one God, named either the Highest, or Adonai, or the Heavenly, or Sabaoth, or called by some other of those names which they delight to give this world; and they knew nothing beyond that. And in a subsequent part of his work he says, that It makes no difference whether the God who is over all things be called by the name of Zeus, which is current among the Greeks or by that, e.g., which is in use among the Indians or Egyptians. Μετὰ ταῦτά φησιν ὅτι οἱ αἰπόλοι καὶ ποιμένες ἕνα ἐνόμισαν θεόν, εἴτε Ὕψιστον εἴτ' Ἀδωναῖον εἴτ' Οὐράνιον εἴτε Σαβαώθ, εἴτε καὶ ὅπῃ καὶ ὅπως χαίρουσιν ὀνομάζοντες τόνδε τὸν κόσμον· καὶ πλεῖον οὐδὲν ἔγνωσαν. Καὶ ἐν τοῖς ἑξῆς δέ φησι μηδὲν διαφέρειν τῷ παρ' Ἕλλησι φερομένῳ ὀνόματι τὸν ἐπὶ πᾶσι θεὸν καλεῖν ∆ία ἢ τῷ δεῖνα, φέρ' εἰπεῖν, παρ' Ἰνδοῖς ἢ τῷ δεῖνα παρ' Αἰγυπτίοις. [1.24]

"Νομίζουσι γάρ", φησί, "∆ιῒ μὲν ἐπὶ τὰ ὑψηλότατα τῶν ὀρέων ἀναβαίνοντες θυσίας ἔρδειν, τὸν κύκλον πάντα τοῦ οὐρανοῦ ∆ία καλέοντες". Οὐδὲν οὖν οἶμαι διαφέρειν ∆ία Ὕψιστον καλεῖν ἢ Ζῆνα ἢ Ἀδωναῖον ἢ Σαβαὼθ ἢ Ἀμοῦν,ὡς Αἰγύπτιοι, ἢ Παπαῖον, ὡς Σκύθαι. Οὐ μὴν οὐδὲ κατὰ ταῦτα ἁγιώτεροι τῶν ἄλλων ἂν εἶεν, ὅτι περιτέμνονται· τοῦτο γὰρ Αἰγύπτιοι καὶ Κόλχοι πρότεροι· οὐδ' ὅτι συῶν ἀπέχονται· καὶ γὰρ τοῦτ' Αἰγύπτιοι, καὶ προσέτι αἰγῶν τε καὶ οἰῶν καὶ βοῶν τε καὶ ἰχθύων, καὶ κυάμων γε Πυθαγόρας τε καὶ οἱ μαθηταὶ καὶ ἐμψύχων ἁπάντων. Οὐ μὴν οὐδ' εὐδοκιμεῖν παρὰ τῷ θεῷ καὶ στέργεσθαι διαφόρως τι τῶν ἄλλων τούτους εἰκός, καὶ πέμπεσθαι μόνοις αὐτοῖς ἐκεῖθεν ἀγγέλους, οἷον δή τινα μακάρων χώραν λαχοῦσιν· ὁρῶμεν γὰρ αὐτούς τε καὶ τὴν χώραν τίνων ἠξίωνται. Οὗτος μὲν οὖν ὁ χορὸς ἀπίτω δίκην ἀλαζονείας ὑποσχών, οὐκ εἰδὼς τὸν μέγαν θεὸν ἀλλ' ὑπὸ τῆς Μωϋσέως γοητείας ὑπαχθείς τε καὶ ψευσθεὶς κἀκείνης οὐκ ἐπ' ἀγαθῷ τέλει γεγονὼς μαθητής 'For they have a custom,' he says, 'of going up to the tops of the mountains, and of offering sacrifices to Jupiter, giving the name of Jupiter to the whole circle of the heavens.' And I think, continues Celsus, that it makes no difference whether you call the highest being Zeus, or Zen, or Adonai, or Sabaoth, or Ammoun like the Egyptians, or Pappæus like the Scythians. Nor would they be deemed at all holier than others in this respect, that they observe the rite of circumcision, for this was done by the Egyptians and Colchians before them; nor because they abstain from swine's flesh, for the Egyptians practised abstinence not only from it, but from the flesh of goats, and sheep, and oxen, and fishes as well; while Pythagoras and his disciples do not eat beans, nor anything that contains life. It is not probable, however, that they enjoy God's favour, or are loved by Him differently from others, or that angels were sent from heaven to them alone, as if they had had allotted to them 'some region of the blessed,' for we see both themselves and the country of which they were deemed worthy. Let this band, then, take its departure, after paying the penalty of its vaunting, not having a knowledge of the great God, but being led away and deceived by the artifices of Moses, having become his pupil to no good end. [5.41]

Clearly Book 1 makes reference to what now appears in Book 5. The words that are used in the original Greek do not lead us to the conclusion that Origen said 'later in the book' but rather 'next' or 'in what follows.' In other words English translators go out of their way to divert attention from the fact that something is amiss in the text - namely that we cannot assume that Contra Celsum is a guide for where certain passages appeared in the True Word. The order has been jumbled up by someone subsequent to the original author of the treatise.

Now we see

Giuseppe wrote:If Celsus or the his Jew knew John only because they read a Gospel (and we know this because Celsus or his Jew despised the witness of John of the his baptism or of Jesus) then it is very probable that Celsus or the his Jew didn't read the Baptist Passage in Josephus (because otherwise they would have shown more respect about John).

Therefore John enters in official history only in virtue of a Gospel. But was he a baptized later converted in a baptizer? What was the original baptism? Simply the descending of the Spirit on the chosen people?

I think "What was the original baptism? Simply the descending of the Spirit on the chosen people?" is a good question!


It would help to clarify " we know this because Celsus or his Jew despised the witness of John of the his baptism or of Jesus"

Do you mean 'we know this because Celsus or his Jew despised the witness of John for his baptism of Jesus/?


and to clarify "But was he a baptized later converted in a baptizer?"

Do you mean 'But was he one who was baptized, and later converted to a baptizer?'

Clearly all that appears before the introduction of 'the Jew' is inaccurate. The citation is very imprecise. It would appear that what follows is far more accurate in terms of being a verbatim citation. For some reason the editor has decided to chop away large parts of the original commentary on Celsus WHICH HAD LITTLE TO DO WITH CHRISTIANITY to the fourth and fifth chapters and move to the fore the citation of what 'the Jew' said about Christianity. One obvious reason is that the new writer was supposedly told to defend the faith against Celsus's words. As such only what Celsus said against Christianity mattered.

Now I just noticed this too:

After this, Celsus next asserts that Those herdsmen and shepherds who followed Moses as their leader, had their minds deluded by vulgar deceits, and so supposed that there was one God ( Ἑξῆς τούτοις φησὶν ὁ Κέλσος ὅτι τῷ ἡγησαμένῳ σφῶν ἑπόμενοι Μωϋσεῖ αἰπόλοι καὶ ποιμένες, ἀγροίκοις ἀπάταις ψυχαγωγηθέντες ἕνα ἐνόμισαν εἶναι θεόν) [1.23]

After this he continues: These herdsmen and shepherds concluded that there was but one God, named either the Highest, or Adonai, or the Heavenly, or Sabaoth, or called by some other of those names which they delight to give this world; and they knew nothing beyond that (Μετὰ ταῦτά φησιν ὅτι οἱ αἰπόλοι καὶ ποιμένες ἕνα ἐνόμισαν θεόν, εἴτε Ὕψιστον εἴτ' Ἀδωναῖον εἴτ' Οὐράνιον εἴτε Σαβαώθ, εἴτε καὶ ὅπῃ καὶ ὅπως χαίρουσιν ὀνομάζοντες τόνδε τὸν κόσμον οὐδὲν ἔγνωσαν) And in a subsequent part of his work he says, that It makes no difference whether the God who is over all things be called by the name of Zeus, which is current among the Greeks, or by that, e.g., which is in use among the Indians or Egyptians. [1.24]

Of course the section in question that we have demonstrated is the source of the 'ἐν τοῖς ἑξῆς' has parts of the information here in the second quote but no reference to 'herdsmen and shepherds':

If, then, in these respects the Jews were carefully to preserve their own law, they are not to be blamed for so doing, but those persons rather who have forsaken their own usages, and adopted those of the Jews. And if they pride themselves on it, as being possessed of superior wisdom, and keep aloof from intercourse with others, as not being equally pure with themselves, they have already heard that their doctrine concerning heaven is not peculiar to them, but, to pass by all others, is one which has long ago been received by the Persians, as Herodotus somewhere mentions. 'For they have a custom of going up to the tops of the mountains, and of offering sacrifices to Zeus, giving the name of Zeus to the whole circle of the heavens.' And I think, that it makes no difference whether you call the highest being Zeus, or Zen, or Adonai, or Sabaoth, (Ἀδωναῖον ἢ Σαβαὼθ) or Ammoun like the Egyptians, or Pappæus like the Scythians. Nor would they be deemed at all holier than others in this respect, that they observe the rite of circumcision, for this was done by the Egyptians and Colchians before them; nor because they abstain from swine's flesh, for the Egyptians practised abstinence not only from it, but from the flesh of goats, and sheep, and oxen, and fishes as well; while Pythagoras and his disciples do not eat beans, nor anything that contains life. It is not probable, however, that they enjoy God's favour, or are loved by Him differently from others, or that angels were sent from heaven to them alone, as if they had had allotted to them 'some region of the blessed,' for we see both themselves and the country of which they were deemed worthy. Let this band, then, take its departure, after paying the penalty of its vaunting, not having a knowledge of the great God, but being led away and deceived by the artifices of Moses, having become his pupil to no good end. [5.41]

But the clue here might be the reference to the way the Jews like to ὀνομάζοντες τόνδε τὸν κόσμον. The idea that 1.24 immediately preceded 5.41 helps explain why Celsus cites Herodotus in the passage. It's not just the commonality in terms of (a) the names of God but more importantly (b) that god is the world. This is the critical juncture that is often missed.

In other words, the original 'first part' of the passage read:

Those herdsmen and shepherds who followed Moses as their leader, had their minds deluded by vulgar deceits, and so supposed that there was one God named either the Highest, or Adonai, or the Heavenly, or Sabaoth, or called by some other of those names which they delight to give this world; and they knew nothing beyond that.

The reason Herodotus is cited next is related to the Jewish habit of 'naming the world' with a divine appellation (i.e. 'the Highest, or Adonai, or the Heavenly, or Sabaoth') so:

If, then, in these respects the Jews were carefully to preserve their own law, they are not to be blamed for so doing, but those persons rather who have forsaken their own usages, and adopted those of the Jews. And if they pride themselves on it, as being possessed of superior wisdom, and keep aloof from intercourse with others, as not being equally pure with themselves, they have already heard that their doctrine concerning heaven is not peculiar to them, but, to pass by all others, is one which has long ago been received by the Persians, as Herodotus somewhere mentions. 'For they have a custom of going up to the tops of the mountains, and of offering sacrifices to Zeus, giving the name of Zeus to the whole circle of the heavens.' And I think, that it makes no difference whether you call the highest being Zeus, or Zen, or Adonai, or Sabaoth, (Ἀδωναῖον ἢ Σαβαὼθ)or Ammoun like the Egyptians, or Pappæus like the Scythians. Nor would they be deemed at all holier than others in this respect, that they observe the rite of circumcision, for this was done by the Egyptians and Colchians before them; nor because they abstain from swine's flesh, for the Egyptians practised abstinence not only from it, but from the flesh of goats, and sheep, and oxen, and fishes as well; while Pythagoras and his disciples do not eat beans, nor anything that contains life. It is not probable, however, that they enjoy God's favour, or are loved by Him differently from others, or that angels were sent from heaven to them alone, as if they had had allotted to them 'some region of the blessed,' for we see both themselves and the country of which they were deemed worthy. Let this band, then, take its departure, after paying the penalty of its vaunting, not having a knowledge of the great God, but being led away and deceived by the artifices of Moses, having become his pupil to no good end.

If, as I suggest, this appeared at the very beginning of the treatise we have before us perhaps the reason why Origen or someone else shattered the original response to Celsus - clearly Celsus was on to something.

Celsus was saying that the Jews originally called the world by divine name. They got this practice - according to Herodotus - from the Persians hence the citation of Herodotus. Yet notice that spread out in this very reasonable discussion (Celsus clearly got the identification of the world with God from Philo) are the seeds for his attack against Christianity. Christians it would seem went beyond identifying the world as God as the Persians and Moses originally had. Notice "and they (the first followers of Moses) knew nothing beyond that ..." This is the set up for claiming that Christianity represents a break from the norm.

Remember the opening words included reference to the Persians:

There is, he says, an authoritative account from the very beginning, respecting which there is a constant agreement among all the most learned nations, and cities, and men. And yet he will not call the Jews a learned nation in the same way in which he does the Egyptians, and Assyrians, and Indians, and Persians, and Odrysians, and Samothracians, and Eleusinians.

Another proof that the passage from 5.42 was here at the very beginning is what Origen says at 1.5:

Treating of the regulations respecting idolatry as being peculiar to Christianity, Celsus establishes their correctness, saying that the Christians do not consider those to be gods that are made with hands, on the ground that it is not in conformity with right reason (to suppose) that images, fashioned by the most worthless and depraved of workmen, and in many instances also provided by wicked men, can be (regarded as) gods. In what follows, however, wishing to show that this is a common opinion, and one not first discovered by Christianity, he quotes a saying of Heraclitus to this effect: That those who draw near to lifeless images, as if they were gods, act in a similar manner to those who would enter into conversation with houses. Respecting this, then, we have to say, that ideas were implanted in the minds of men like the principles of morality, from which not only Heraclitus, but any other Greek or barbarian, might by reflection have deduced the same conclusion; for he states that the Persians also were of the same opinion, quoting Herodotus as his authority. We also can add to these Zeno of Citium, who in his Polity, says: And there will be no need to build temples, for nothing ought to be regarded as sacred, or of much value, or holy, which is the work of builders and of mean men ...

Remember that the citation Celsus uses from Herodotus is specifically related to the idea that heaven is the only thing deserving the name of God:

For they have a custom of going up to the tops of the mountains, and of offering sacrifices to Zeus, giving the name of Zeus to the whole circle of the heavens

My point in this lengthy citation is to demonstrate - WITHOUT QUESTION - the text of Contra Celsum was rearranged in a particular manner to avoid allowing the reader to see what Celsus was actually saying. The original response to his True Word contained within it TOO MUCH INFORMATION THAT WAS DANGEROUS for the orthodoxy in the third century.

The topic of the world being god/god being the world extends later into the explanation of what the Son of God is:

Celsus, after what has been said, goes on as follows: I can tell how the very thing occurred, viz., that they should call him 'Son of God' (θεοῦ υἱὸν). Men of ancient times termed this world (τόνδε τὸν κόσμον), as being born of God, both his child and his son. Both the one and other 'Son of God,' then, greatly resembled each other. He is therefore of opinion that we employed the expression Son of God, having perverted what is said of the world, as being born of God, and being His Son, and a God.

And now we move on to the discussion in OP having established that the original Christian response has been deliberately scrambled to avoid us seeing the proper context(s) of the various statements made in the text. It has long been noted that Origen TWICE introduces 'the Jew' in the first book. The first time he acknowledges the authenticity of the Jew and - according to my reading - makes clear that he is a philosopher:

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, let me endeavour, to the best of my ability, to examine his statements, and show that he does not maintain, throughout the discussion, the consistency due to the character of a Jew (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). 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, and who was turned out of doors by her husband, a carpenter by trade, because she was convicted of adultery; that after being driven away by her husband, and wandering about for a time, she disgracefully gave birth to Jesus, an illegitimate child, who having hired himself out as a servant in Egypt on account of his poverty, and having there acquired some miraculous powers, on which the Egyptians greatly pride themselves, returned to his own country, highly elated on account of them, and by means of these proclaimed himself a God. [1.28]

And then again:

But let us now return to where the Jew is introduced (Ἀλλὰ γὰρ ἐπανέλθωμεν εἰς τὴν τοῦ Ἰουδαίου προσωποποιΐαν) speaking of the mother of Jesus, and saying that when she was pregnant she was turned out of doors by the carpenter to whom she had been betrothed, as having been guilty of adultery, and that she bore a child to a certain soldier named Panthera; and let us see whether those who have blindly concocted these fables about the adultery of the Virgin with Panthera, and her rejection by the carpenter, did not invent these stories to overturn His miraculous conception by the Holy Ghost. [1.32]

I am fairly certain that Philo is the source of the information and that this is the reason why Origen doesn't name the source. Εἰσάγει is the crucial word. - Ἐπεὶ δὲ καὶ προσωποποιεῖ ... καὶ εἰσάγει Ἰουδαῖον πρὸς τὸν Ἰησοῦν λέγοντά τινα μειρακιωδῶς καὶ οὐδὲν φιλοσόφου πολιᾶς ἄξιον). The term goes back to discussions of the manner in which Platonic dialogues were created. There was much discussion about whether or not the Platonic dialogues were fictitious. Nor is it surprising in the light of such theorizing on the dialogue by contemporary Platonists. Many held that the meetings underly­ing the conversa­tions are also fictitious: according to Diogenes Laertius, it is Plato who brings the characters on the stage using the same word Εἰσάγει (D.L. 3,52)

The question is of course is whether the Platonist Philo wrote Platonic dialogues. I think it is highly probable that Celsus got much of his information from Philo in the course of his True Word. Did he also uncover a dialogue?