Biblical Criticism & History Forum - earlywritings.com

Giuseppe wrote:Celsus talks about more ''men'' who were crucified ''with'' Christ and who are considered by Celsus as unreliable witnesses. If John was one of those ''men'', the other could be Simon the Cyrenaic. And so we have two men crucified ''with'' Christ.

Curiously, John and Simon were also the sons of Judas the Galilean (who were executed by procurator Tiberius Julius Alexander).

And he took them and brought them into the very place of purification, and was walking in the temple. And a certain Pharisee, a chief priest, whose name was Levi, met them and said to the Saviour, Who gave thee leave to walk in this place of purification and to see these holy vessels, when thou hast not washed nor yet have thy disciples bathed their feet? But defiled thou hast walked in this temple, which is a pure place, wherein no other man walks except he has washed himself and changed his garments, neither does he venture to see these holy vessels. And the Saviour straightaway stood still with his disciples and answered him, Art thou then, being here in the temple, clean? He saith unto him, I am clean; for I washed in the pool of David, and having descended by one staircase I ascended by another, and I put on white and clean garments, and then I came and looked upon these holy vessels. The Saviour answered and said unto him, Woe ye blind, who see not. Thou hast washed in these running waters wherein dogs and swine have been cast night and day, and hast cleansed and wiped the outside skin which also the harlots and flute-girls anoint and wash and wipe and beautify for the lust of men; but within they are full of scorpions and all wickedness. But I and my disciples, who thou sayest have not bathed, have been dipped in the waters of eternal life which come from . . .

To get clearer about this, we have to turn to the question of what purpose the treatise was meant to serve. There is a view which seems to make the answer to this question obvious. It is the view that here, in the last third of the second century, we have nothing less than a learned Platonist philosopher publishing a scathing critique of Christianity which demands an answer, but that this answer is not forthcoming until about seventy years later, when we finally find a Christian, namely Origen, who is in a position to give a response which has long been overdue. Even then, some think, Origen did not fully manage to meet this formidable challenge. If this were correct, the purpose of the treatise would obviously be to free Christians of the embarrassing and intolerable situation of not being able to respond adequately to Celsus’ attack, and thus to suffer in the esteem at least of educated persons outside Christianity whom Christians might want to attract.

But I think things must be a great deal more complicated than that. Perhaps the best way to approach the matter is to take note of the fact that Origen, right from the beginning of the preface through to the end of the treatise, makes it very clear that though Ambrosius has pressed him to write this apology, he has had grave misgivings about the enterprise and the purpose it may serve, and has only undertaken it because he has been asked to do so with such insistence. Ambrosius was his friend and patron (Eusebius, History, 6. 8. I), who provided him with stenographers, scribes, and calligraphers (6. 23. I—2), without which he would never have been able to produce, and to make public, his voluminous writings, such as, for instance, Against Celsus.

There is a trace of this in the text of Against Celsus itself, which reflects Origen’s reliance on tachygraphers and scribes. If we look at the beginning of I. 28, we see that something must have gone wrong with the text. Origen starts the chapter by saying:

But since he also introduces fictional characters, he also, imitating in a way a rhetor who introduces a child into his speech, introduces a Jew who says some childish things to Jesus. . . . Let us then according to our ability also examine these things and refute Celsus also in this regard that in what gets said he has not managed to preserve at all the fictional character which is fitting for a Jew.

But then he goes on to say: ‘After this he introduces the fictional character of a Jew who has a discussion with Jesus himself and tries to refute him on many points.’

There would be no problem, if it emerged from the discussion which follows in Origen that Celsus had introduced two Jews, both fictional characters, of which the first said childish things to Jesus which a Jew would never say, and the second had a discussion with Jesus, and if Origen correspondingly had first answered the first Jew introduced by Celsus revealing his childishness, and had then addressed the remarks of the second Jew. But this is not at all what happens. From i. 28 onwards he seems to be discussing the objections of just one Jew, the one introduced in the second of the two passages quoted above from the beginning of I. 28. At the beginning of I. 32 he returns to these criticisms of the Jew introduced in the second passage, characterizing them as the objections of a fictional Jew. At the end of I. 44 he turns to the point that this Jew must be fictional, as he is made to say things which a real Jew would not say. But this was Origen’s criticism levelled against Celsus’ fiction of the Jew introduced in the first of the two passages quoted above. Thus Origen criticizes the supposed second fictional Jew precisely in the way in which the beginning of the chapter had made us expect he would criticize the first fictional Jew. Similarly, it is the supposed second Jew about whom Origen complains in I. 37 that the remarks attributed to him are ridiculous and not worthy of a serious person. With this he is obviously taking up the remark in the first of the two passages quoted, that the Jew introduced by Celsus is made to say childish things. Hence it is clear that Celsus introduced only one fictional Jew, that Origen in I. 28 ff. is addressing only the supposed remarks of this one fictional Jew, and that, hence, the passages quoted must be referring not to two different Jews, but to one and the same Jew, a clearly fictional character because he is made to say things a real Jew would not say, moreover somebody whose remarks are ridiculous and childish. But this means that the second passage quoted must constitute a doublet of the first.

Scholars have long seen this, and have connected it with a remark in Origen’s preface. There (6, p. 34, 29 ff.) Origen tells us that when he came to the passage in Celsus in which Celsus introduces ‘the’ fictional Jew, he decided first to write the preface. So we may presume that what happened is this. Origen first wrote I. I—I. 28, first sentence, then the preface, and then continued with i. 28, second sentence, which we see is a doublet of the first sentence. Obviously, if Origen had done the writing himself, he would have noticed that he had already said that at this point Celsus introduces a fictional Jew. It is only if we assume that Origen was dictating that we readily understand that, having dictated the preface, he resumed dictation of the main body of the text, but forgot that he had already dictated a sentence about the fictional Jew whom Celsus then introduces. So here we have a glimpse of the situation which physically enabled Origen to be such a prolific writer. And we also see that Origen cannot have proof read, as it were, at the end—at least not with care—as otherwise he would have deleted the second sentence. It looks as if Origen, having dictated the text, left its further production to others.

It is very clear from Origen’s remarks, especially given that we have the text from i. 28 onwards, written according to the new plan, to which plan Origen switched. It is not so clear what the original plan was. Origen tells us that originally he had planned to proceed in two steps, to first note the main points (kephalaion) which Celsus made, and briefly sketch the kind of response he planned to give, and then, in a second step, to give body (somatopoiesai) to his reply (ton logon) (p. 33, 1—3). But, he continues, in order to save time, he just let I. I—27, his originally provisional notes, stand; but from I. 28 onwards proceeded to take up Celsus’ objections one by one, and to immediately write a full reply to them. i. i—27 corresponds to the description in the preface. Chapter i begins, ‘Celsus’ first kephalaion is . . .’, followed some lines later by ‘against this one has to say that . . .’ (p. 36, 9), a phrase which turns into a formula repeated, for instance, in chapters 3 (p. 37, 23), 9 (p. 61, 21), and 12 (p. 64, 16—17), sometimes replaced by ‘one has to say’ or ‘one has to refute this’ or ‘him’.

What is less clear is how Origen originally planned to use the provisional notes. One possibility is that he had planned to give the different points some further thought, or even work on them, before he turned to writing his final text, but that, having come to the end of the preface, he decided that he did not need to give the points further thought, perhaps even that most of them did not deserve any thought, and that hence he would save time if he wrote his final responses immediately, as he was going through the text, as he then, in fact, did from i. 28 onwards.

But there are quite a number of other possibilities, though there is not much hard evidence on the basis of which one could decide between them. Lampe (A Patristic Greek Lexicon, s.v. 3) lists our passage, and gives as the meaning ‘embark on the body or main part of, construct, of a written work’. The verb might mean ‘to produce a body for something’, ‘to realize something materially’, ‘to give something actual existence’, ‘to represent something materially’; but it is also used in Origen and in Eusebius (cf. Lampe, s.v. 4) in the sense of turning something into one body or one whole. Instructive is Eusebius, History, i. 4. Eusebius complains that in his enterprise of writing a history of the Church he does not have any predecessors, that all he can rely on are partial accounts by men who recount what they passed through in their days (i. i. 3). And he promises to take from what they have to say what seems appropriate, and to turn it into a body by means of a historical account. Here, clearly, the point is not that Eusebius is going to give his planned account real, concrete existence by carrying it out in detail on paper, but that by means of a historical account he will turn the scattered, isolated observations of his sources into one whole, complete, coherent account. Eusebius also offers a parallel to the whole phrase somatopoiesai ton logon, which we find in Origen, which is also reminiscent in other ways, even in its language, of our sentence in Origen’s preface. In Against Marcellus, i. i. 6, Eusebius tells us that, given the blasphemous nonsense Marcellus is talking, he will proceed by just briefly recapitulating Marcellus’ absurd claims, and then arranging them so that they hang together, so as thereby to create one whole, coherent account, thus making manifest the sheer absurdity of Marcellus’ claims.
It is simple to see why something like this may also have been Origen’s original intention. Neither Ambrosius nor Origen may have been particularly interested in Celsus’ treatise as such. Ambrosius may have been interested in Celsus only as a fairly complete compendium or repertory of arguments against Christianity. And he may have thought that Origen’s reply, correspondingly, would provide an authoritative manual in which a Christian could count on finding an adequate reply to whatever criticism of Christianity he was likely to encounter. Perhaps it is also in this light that we should see Origen’s repeated assertion that he is addressing all of Celsus’ points, however banal and absurd they may seem (I. 28; I. 41; 2. 20). In fact, this is precisely what Eusebius thinks of Origen’s Against Celsus. In Against Hierocles, I, he tells us that Origen’s work contains a refutation of everything that has ever been said against Christianity, and already counters in advance any objections which anybody could ever possibly raise. This is rather exaggerated praise on the part of an ardent admirer of Origen, but it presumably reflects the fact that Origen’s work generally came to be seen as providing an answer to almost all possible objections directed from the outside against Christianity. And this may also explain why even Origen’s numerous enemies did not stand in the way of its preservation.

But if this was the purpose it was meant to serve, the project faced two serious difficulties which Ambrosius may not have appreciated. Given the lack of organization of Celsus’ treatise, a point-by-point response to it would make the practical use of Origen’s book rather awkward. Especially given the physical nature of ancient books, it would be extremely irksome to try to find the place at which Origen addressed a specific objection one was concerned with. Moreover, the discussion had surely advanced on both sides since Celsus’ writing. Not only were there difficulties which Celsus had overlooked, but new difficulties had been found, often by Christians themselves, and old difficulties had been formulated in a more sophisticated, informed way. Thus in 2. 32 Origen can point out that, though Celsus criticized Jesus’ genealogy, he did not notice that there is a discrepancy between the Gospels on Jesus’ genealogy, a point on which there has been a good deal of discussion among Christians, and one raised against them as an objection. There were a host of other difficulties raised by Scripture, which Origen was aware of, and some of which were exploited by Porphyry.

Thus, I submit, Origen did not originally plan the kind of response he actually produced, even if originally he planned to do it in two steps, first taking notes and then filling out the details. Nor do I think that Origen’s plan had been, as the parallel with Eusebius’ Against Marcellus, I. I. 6, might suggest, just to take brief note of Celsus’ main points, arrange them in such a way as to give his response the form of a continuous argument, and thus make short shrift of Celsus’ treatise without bothering about all the tedious details. What stands in the way of this assumption is that Origen must have thought that it would be less timeconsuming, rather than more time-consuming, but also that, as, for instance, i. 4i indicates, he somehow felt bound to address all of Celsus’ points. So the plan was, I suggest, first to note Celsus’ main points, then to arrange them in such an order that all of Celsus’ objections, but also further objections, would fit into this logical order, and Origen’s response to them could take the form of a continuous, well-organized, clearly structured argument. Thus we would have a comprehensive, systematic response to the objections that can be raised against Christianity, in which it would be relatively easy to find the place at which Origen discussed the kind of objection, if not the very objection, one was concerned with.

Ἀπολογησάσθω δὲ τὸ προοίμιον, ὅτι ἄλλῃ μὲν προθέσει τὴν ἀρχὴν τῶν πρὸς Κέλσον ὑπηγορεύ σαμεν ἄλλῃ δὲ τὰ μετὰ τὴν ἀρχήν. Πρότερον μὲν γὰρ ἐσκοποῦμεν ὑποσημειώσασθαι τὰ κεφάλαια καὶ διὰ βραχέων τὰ πρὸς αὐτὰ λεγόμενα, εἶτα μετὰ τοῦτο σωματοποιῆσαι τὸν λόγον [Origen Against Celsus p.6]

Ἀλλ' οὐ δυνήσεται τὰ Ἑλλήνων ἀναπλάσματα σωματοποιεῖσθαι δοκοῦντα ἀπὸ τῶν πραγμάτων δεικνύναι θεούς [Origen Against Celsus 1.23]

Ταῦτα μὲν οὖν ὀλίγα ἀποτετολμημένως καὶ παρακεκιν δυνευμένως τῇδε τῇ γραφῇ πιστεύσαντες ἐξεθέμεθα τάχα οὐδέν· εἰ δέ τις σχολάσας τῇ βασάνῳ τῶν ἱερῶν γραμμάτων πανταχόθεν σωματοποιήσαι τὸν περὶ τῆς κακίας λόγον If any one, however, who has leisure for the examination of the sacred writings, should collect together from all sources and form into one body of doctrine what is recorded concerning the origin of evil [Origen Against Celsus 6.42]

ἀλλά μοι συγγνώμην εὐγνωμόνων ἐντεῦθεν ὁ λόγος αἰτεῖ, μείζονα ἢ καθ’ ἡμετέραν δύναμιν ὁμολογῶν εἶναι τὴν ἐπαγγελίαν ἐντελῆ καὶ ἀπαράλειπτον ὑποσχεῖν, ἐπεὶ καὶ πρῶτοι νῦν τῆς ὑποθέσεως ἐπιβάντες οἷά τινα ἐρήμην καὶ ἀτριβῆ ἰέναι ὁδὸν ἐγχειροῦμεν, θεὸν μὲν ὁδηγὸν καὶ τὴν τοῦ κυρίου συνεργὸν σχήσειν εὐχόμενοι δύναμιν, ἀνθρώπων γε μὴν οὐδαμῶς εὑρεῖν οἷοί τε ὄντες ἴχνη γυμνὰ τὴν αὐτὴν ἡμῖν προωδευκότων, μὴ ὅτι σμικρὰς αὐτὸ μόνον προφάσεις, δι’ ὧν ἄλλος ἄλλως ὧν διηνύκασι χρόνων μερικὰς ἡμῖν καταλελοίπασι διηγήσεις, πόρρωθεν ὥσπερ εἰ πυρσοὺς τὰς ἑαυτῶν προανατείνοντες φωνὰς καὶ ἄνωθέν ποθεν ὡς ἐξ ἀπόπτου καὶ ἀπὸ σκοπῆς βοῶντες καὶ διακελευόμενοι, ᾗ χρὴ βαδίζειν καὶ τὴν τοῦ λόγου πορείαν ἀπλανῶς καὶ ἀκινδύνως εὐθύνειν. ὅσα, τοίνυν εἰς τὴν προκειμένην ὑπόθεσιν λυσιτελεῖν ἡγούμεθα τῶν αὐτοῖς ἐκείνοις σποράδην μνημονευθέντων, ἀναλεξάμενοι καὶ ὡς ἂν ἐκ λογικῶν λειμώνων τὰς ἐπιτηδείους αὐτῶν τῶν πάλαι συγγραφέων ἀπανθισάμενοι φωνάς, δι’ ὑφηγήσεως ἱστορικῆς πειρασόμεθα σωματοποιῆσαι, ἀγαπῶντες, εἰ καὶ μὴ ἁπάντων, τῶν δ’ οὖν μάλιστα διαφανεστάτων τοῦ σωτῆρος ἡμῶν ἀποστόλων τὰς διαδοχὰς κατὰ τὰς διαπρεπούσας ἔτι καὶ νῦν μνημονευομένας ἐκκλησίας ἀνασωσαίμεθα. ἀναγκαιότατα δέ μοι πονεῖσθαι τὴν ὑπόθεσιν ἡγοῦμαι, ὅτι μηδένα πω εἰς δεῦρο τῶν ἐκκλησιαστικῶν συγγραφέων διέγνων περὶ τοῦτο τῆς γραφῆς σπουδὴν πεποιημένον τὸ μέρος· ἐλπίζω δ’ ὅτι καὶ ὠφελιμωτάτη τοῖς φιλοτίμως περὶ τὸ χρηστομαθὲς τῆς ἱστορίας ἔχουσιν ἀναφανήσεται. ἤδη μὲν οὖν τούτων καὶ πρότερον ἐν οἷς διετυπωσάμην χρονικοῖς κανόσιν ἐπιτομὴν κατεστησάμην, πληρεστάτην δ’ οὖν ὅμως αὐτῶν ἐπὶ τοῦ παρόντος ὡρμήθην τὴν ἀφήγησιν ποιήσασθαι. (HE 1.1.3-6)

But my argument demands thenceforth [that] I ask pardon for myself from the right-minded, confessing that the full and complete promise I undertake is beyond our power [to deliver], since we, now the first to set foot upon the subject, are attempting to travel a certain sort of desolate and pathless road, praying that God be our guide and that we may have the helping power of the Lord, being by no means able to discover from men or women preceding us the same faint footsteps, not to speak of the small utterances each by itself, through which another in another way during the times they have completed has left behind accounts for us, from long ago just as if lifting up their own fiery voices and again from where [they are] calling out and encouraging [us] as if from hidden places and from a watch-tower, where it is necessary to proceed and to guide straight the journey of the narrative unerringly and free from danger. As many things as we aim to embody through this historical narration, we consider advantageous for the aforementioned subject from those things being remembered by each themselves in no particular order, loving therefore the teachings of the illustrious apostles of our savior —if not of all—let us remember in accordance with the still eminent and now memorialized churches. Now I consider it for myself most necessary to toil at the subject, since I have determined that none of the historians has yet until now taken pains concerning this branch of writing; but I hope that it will be declared most beneficial to those who generously hold fast the useful learning of history. Now, of these things and the earlier Chronicle in which I imagined, I render an abridgement, I started to create a most complete narration up to the present.

διὸ βραχέσιν αὐτὸ μόνον παρασημειώσεσιν χρήσομαι, εἱρμῷ καὶ τάξει σωματοποιῶν τὸν λόγον, ὑποσημαινόμενός τε αὐτὸ μόνον τὸ παράλογον τῶν ἐμφερομένων [Eusebius Against Marcellus 1.1.6]

Ὄρος ἐστὶν Ἀερμὼν, τὸ παρακείμενον τῷ Λιβάνῳ, ἐφ' ὃ χιὼν συνάγεται πολλὴ, ἥντινα ὁ Λόγος δρόσον ὠνόμασεν· ἐπειδὴ δὲ ἡ δρόσος ἐκείνη ἡ ἐκ πολλῶν συναγομένη σταγόνων, ὑφ' ἓν σωματοποιεῖται καὶ συμπήγνυται, εἰκότως τὴν τῆς Ἐκκλησίας ὁμόνοιαν καὶ συμφωνίαν ἀπείκασε δι' ἑτέρου παραδείγματος οὐ τῇ χιόνι τῇ ἀπομενούσῃ ἐν τῷ Ἀερμὼν ὄρει, ἀλλὰ τῇ καταβαινούσῃ ἐπὶ τὰ ὄρη Σιών [Eusebius Commentary on Psalm 132]

οἳ ταῖς τῶν ἀποστόλων λογικαῖς δρεπάναις θερισθέντες, καὶ ὥσπερ εἰς ἅλως τὰς ἁπανταχοῦ γῆς Ἐκκλησίας συναχθέντες ὑφ' ἓν, ὁμοφώνῳ τε διαθέσει
πίστεως σωματοποιηθέντες, καὶ ἁλσὶ τοῖς ἀπὸ τῶν θείων λόγων μαθήμασιν ἐξαρτυθέντες, δι' ὕδατός τε καὶ πυρὸς ἁγίου Πνεύματος ἀναγεννηθέντες, ἄρτοι
τρόφιμοι προσηνεῖς καὶ ἀρεστοὶ τῷ Θεῷ διὰ Χριστοῦ προσφερόμεθα. [Eusebius De solemnitate paschali D]

DCHindley wrote: Does this mean evidence from one of the two others crucified with him, or from among those who share the same fate (execution as criminals/rebels)?

Giuseppe wrote:

DCHindley wrote: Does this mean evidence from one of the two others crucified with him, or from among those who share the same fate (execution as criminals/rebels)?

It seems that the only way to have both the two requisites (that are not mutually exclusive, as you seem to assume)

Giuseppe wrote:About the Jew of Celsus: was he a real person? Or was he invented by Celsus?

I remember that Celsus introduced a ''Greek'' somewhere in his work, and I don't know no scholar who assumes the historicity of that ''Greek''. Therefore, why should we believe the historicity of the ''Jew'', also?

DCHindley wrote:
But again I have to wonder whether Celsus was using a source different than the gospels, and we are back to P Oxy 840.

Then John testified, "I saw the Holy Spirit descending like a dove from heaven and resting upon him.

Regardless,

I think you have to explain how a 2nd century Christian revelation that was not a canonical Gospel, or a rhetorical story invented by Celsus, would disprove the historicity of JtB.

On the other hand, Origen says that Celsus' fictional Judean "in some way" accepted the historicity of John as a baptizer.

It is not an impossible event.

Questioning the historicity of the bird on the shoulder story is not the same as questioning the existence of JtB.

Where testimony/documents weave together a narrative that combines mundane claims with a significant proportion of extraordinary claims, and there is good reason to be sceptical about those extraordinary claims, then there is good reason to be sceptical about the mundane claims, at least until we possess good independent evidence of their truth.

For suppose that someone were to assert that there never had been any Trojan war, chiefly on account of the impossible narrative interwoven therewith, about a certain Achilles being the son of a sea-goddess Thetis and of a man Peleus, or Sarpedon being the son of Zeus, or Ascalaphus and Ialmenus the sons of Ares, or Aeneas that of Aphrodite, how should we prove that such was the case, especially under the weight of the fiction attached, I know not how, to the universally prevalent opinion that there was really a war in Ilium between Greeks and Trojans?

But now even this Celsus, wisest of all men, did not perceive that it is to a Jew, who believes more incredible things contained in the writings of the prophets than the narrative of the appearance of the dove, that he attributes such an objection!

For one might say to the Jew, when expressing his disbelief of the appearance, and thinking to assail it as a fiction, "How are you able to prove, sir, that the Lord spake to Adam, or to Eve, or to Cain, or to Noah, or to Abraham, or to Isaac, or to Jacob, those words which He is recorded to have spoken to these men?"

And, to compare history with history, I would say to the Jew, "Even your own Ezekiel writes, saying, 'The heavens were opened, and I saw a vision of God.'" [Cf. Ezek. i. 1] After relating which, he adds,"'This was the appearance of the likeness of the glory of the LORD; and He said to me,'" etc. [Cf. Ezek. i. 28 and ii. 1]

Now, if what is related of Jesus be false, since we cannot, as you suppose, clearly prove it to be true, it being seen or heard by Himself alone, and, as you appear to have observed, also by one of those who were punished, why should we not rather say that Ezekiel also was dealing in the marvellous when he said, "The heavens were opened," etc.?

Nay, even Isaiah asserts, "I saw the Lord of hosts sitting on a throne, high and lifted up; and the seraphim stood round about it: the one had six wings, and the other had six wings." [Cf. Isa. vi. 1, 2]

How can we tell whether he really saw them or not?

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. Therefore here too, he who boasted that he knew everything is convicted of not having known what words to attribute to the Jew in his address to Jesus.