Biblical Criticism & History Forum - earlywritings.com

An essential point of the hypothesis I made in the first post of this thread is that the original reading in both Contra Celsum 1,40 and 1,41 was παρὰ τῷ Ἰορδάνῃ instead of παρὰ τῷ Ἰωάννῃ.

I suggest this because in Contra Celsum 1,48 where Origen paraphrases again the scene of the Baptism, we read indeed:

Furthermore, I will add to my discussion the point made by Celsus when he thinks that Jesus himself spoke about the opening of the heavens and the descent of the Holy Spirit upon him in the form of a dove by the Jordan (παρὰ τῷ Ἰορδάνῃ)...

If this was the case, the presence of John should be excluded from the gospel the Jew of Celsus was reading and many oddities currently present in Origen’s treatise could be explained.

Yesterday, to my great surprise, I found that I was not the first one to propose such a reading.

In the edition of Contra Celsum prepared by Charles Delarue (1643-1725) the passage in Contra Celsum 1,40 reads as follows:

After this he takes the story form the gospel according to Matthew and perhaps also from the other gospels, about the descent of the dove upon the Saviour when he was baptized by John (παρά του Ιωάννου).

In the note associated to παρά του Ιωάννου we read:

Haec desunt in codd. Regio et Basileensi. Vetus Vaticanus legit: παρὰ τῷ Ἰωάννῃ. Quid si vero scribendum sit παρὰ τῷ Ἰορδάνῃ.

Delarue didn’t know that Vetus Vaticanus (Vat. Graecus 386) was the archetype of all manuscripts of Contra Celsum thus preferring in the main text of the treatise the more logical reading “παρά του Ιωάννου” (by John) to the one that modern scholars today accept on the base of textual evidence “παρὰ τῷ Ἰωάννῃ” (beside John). But Delarue also affirms that if the reading of Vetus Vaticanus is accepted then it should be amended with παρὰ τῷ Ἰορδάνῃ, exactly the correction I have proposed.

Moreover. In Contra Celsum, 1,41 Delarue inserts the following note close to the second παρὰ τῷ Ἰωάννῃ of the text.

Codex Jolianus habet in margine παρὰ τῷ Ἰορδάνῃ, quae correctio non spernenda, imo forte etiam ita legendum est sopra, ut monuimus.

Delarue confirms his point of view, but he also informs us that the same correction was already proposed by the reviser of codex Jolianus (Codex Parisinus Suppl. 293).

Incredible. If we can put in doubt the presence of ''by John'', then this would make the text say, prima facie, that Jesus was baptized without no people to witness him ''near the Jordan'', not even John.

Therefore the argument of Celsus would be that, even if John was a baptizer (something that he seems to concede ''in some way'', for Origen), there is no evidence that he would be a baptizer of Jesus and therefore a witness of the miracles related to baptism in the our canonical Gospels.

In reaction, Origen would introduce an interpolated ''Josephus'', so to show that John was a baptizer even not having nothing in common with Jesus (and therefore not a possible liar for Jesus in league with Jesus). So the idea that John could baptize Jesus, against Celsus claiming the contrary, could receive some plausibility.

Are we sure that the possible replacement of ''by John'' with ''near Jordan'' was deliberate, and not rather an accidental scribal interpolation?

Clearly, if the answer is : deliberate interpolation

then Enrico's solution is decisively more probable: a John possessed by the spirit of Christ was the baptized man ''near the Jordan'', not Jesus of Nazaret.

In my first post I argue that one of the main difficulty of Origen in following the arguments of the Jew of Celsus is due to the fact that in the Jew’s “gospel” there was but one person present at the baptism while in the canonical gospels this person has been doubled in two: John and Jesus.
That’s why Origen accuses the Jew of Celsus “to have joined together (συνάπτουσι) John and Jesus”.

In book II,1-5, we can find a surprising confirmation of this fact, namely that the Jew of Celsus did not know two different men, John and Jesus, but again a single one.
The Jew of Celsus asks (Chadwick’s translation):

What was wrong with you, citizens, that you left the law of our fathers, and, being deluded by that man whom we were addressing just now, were quite ludicrously deceived and have deserted us for another name and another life?
Quite recently, when we punished this fellow who cheated you, you abandoned the law of our fathers.
Or why do you take your origin from our religion, and then, as if you are progressing in knowledge, despise these things, although you cannot name any other origin for your doctrine than our law?
For if there was anyone who proclaimed to you that the son of God would come down to men, it was our prophet, the prophet of our God.

At the beginning it seems clear that the Jew of Celsus is speaking of Jesus. But the last sentence has some ambiguity: who is this Jewish prophet announcing the coming of the son of God, John or Jesus?

Origen gets confused, he wanders "But what sort of objection is it to Christianity that John who baptized Jesus was a Jew?" thus interpreting that the Jew of Celsus was there refering to John the Baptist. If Origen is right, would we presume that the Jew of Celsus has abruptly changed the subject of his reasoning, passing from Jesus to John?

Not at all, look at what Origen says right after:

"After this, even though Celsus repeats himself about John, saying now for the second time that as an offender he was punished by the Jews. [...] Then his Jew disparages as stale stuff the doctrine of the resurrection of the dead and of God’s judgment giving reward to the righteous but fire to the unrighteous.

Editors and translators (but not Chadwick even if he does not explain the oddity) substitute John with Jesus, but this is not what the textual evidence suggests, in fact the presence of John, not Jesus, is unequivocal in the archetype.
The Jew of Celsus then goes on:

Many others of the same type as Jesus have appeared to people who are willing to be deceived.
This charge is brought against the Jews by believers in Christ, that they have not believed in Jesus as God.
But how would we despise him when he came, when we declare plainly to all men that the one who will punish the unrighteous will come from God?
Why should we have despised the one whom we proclaimed beforehand? Or was it that we might be punished more than others?
How could we regard him as God when in other matters, as people perceived, he did not manifest anything which he professed to do, and when we had convicted him, condemned him and decided that he should be punished, was caught hiding himself and escaping most disgracefully, and indeed was betrayed by those whom he called disciples? And yet if he was God he could not run away nor be led away under arrest, and least of all could he, who was regarded as Saviour , and Son of the greatest God, and an angel, be deserted and betrayed by his associates who had privately shared everything with him and had been under him as their teacher.
No good general who led many thousands was ever betrayed, nor was any wicked robber-chieftain, who was captain of very bad men, while he appeared to bring some advantage to his associates. But he, who was betrayed by those under his authority, neither ruled like a good general; nor when he had deceived his disciples, did he even inspire in the men so deceived that goodwill, if I may call it that, which robbers feel towards their chieftain.

Reading consecutively the whole passage, I have the distinct impression that the Jew of Celsus knows but one man and that it is Origen who gives him the name of John or Jesus depending on the acts attributed to him by the Jew of Celsus.
The Jew of Celsus seems to mean that this man had declared to have become the son of God through the descent of the dove beside the Jordan river and that he was a jewish prophet, a millenarian jewish prophet (like the John of the Revelation) and that his messianic mission, tempted with weapons, failed miserably.

It doesn't seem that the Celsus's Jew was talking just about ''this fellow who cheated you'' in the last phrase (in bold):

Quite recently, when we punished this fellow who cheated you, you abandoned the law of our fathers.
Or why do you take your origin from our religion, and then, as if you are progressing in knowledge, despise these things, although you cannot name any other origin for your doctrine than our law?
For if there was anyone who proclaimed to you that the son of God would come down to men, it was our prophet, the prophet of our God.

Indeed, the last phrase may refer to any Jewish prophet in general (Daniel, for example). It is the classical Jewish argument that their Scriptures don't predict the Christian Jesus.

But even if the Gospel read by Celsus had a John baptized by the Spirit of God etc, and not Jesus, I don't know why Celsus would have opted for the apology of this Christian tradition versus the proto-catholic tradition. Celsus and his Jew would have hated and despised any Christian tradition, any Christian gospel. The difference between gospels may be only an argument raised to attack the credibility of the Christian writings in toto. Something that Celsus does when he writes somewhere that the Gospels were edited again and again.

enricotuccinardi wrote:
present at the baptism while in the canonical gospels this person has been doubled in two: John and Jesus.
That’s why Origen accuses the Jew of Celsus “to have joined together (συνάπτουσι) John and Jesus”..

Why is it so hard to admit the obvious and simple.

Jesus was Johns disciple, when John was murdered Jesus took over, and we have biblical text saying Herod thought John was resurrected, because Johns message never died.

So Jesus rakes his message on the road so he does not end up like John did who gathered large crowds. So Jesus stays in small Aramaic villages where he wont be noticed by Herods military/police. Does not travel with 12 that is fiction. He travels with his inner circle living off the sparse food scraps at dinner tables. Starting the tradition of "Ecclesia" or home worship. The 12 would have starved and would have looked like a threat so I don't find it likely.

Giuseppe wrote:It doesn't seem that the Celsus's Jew was talking just about ''this fellow who cheated you'' in the last phrase (in bold):

Quite recently, when we punished this fellow who cheated you, you abandoned the law of our fathers.
Or why do you take your origin from our religion, and then, as if you are progressing in knowledge, despise these things, although you cannot name any other origin for your doctrine than our law?
For if there was anyone who proclaimed to you that the son of God would come down to men, it was our prophet, the prophet of our God.

Indeed, the last phrase may refer to any Jewish prophet in general (Daniel, for example). It is the classical Jewish argument that their Scriptures don't predict the Christian Jesus.

You are not taking into account the reasoning of the Jew of Celsus. He contests to the christians to have "changed" the original message of their founder after his death "as if they are "progressing in knowledge". He recalls to the christians that their prophet proclaming that "the son of God would come down to men" is a jewish prophet. Jewish people rejected him because he failed not because his prophecy was not right. That's why Origen rightly understands the Jew of Celsus is speaking of John.

Giuseppe wrote: But even if the Gospel read by Celsus had a John baptized by the Spirit of God etc, and not Jesus, I don't know why Celsus would have opted for the apology of this Christian tradition versus the proto-catholic tradition. Celsus and his Jew would have hated and despised any Christian tradition, any Christian gospel. The difference between gospels may be only an argument raised to attack the credibility of the Christian writings in toto. Something that Celsus does when he writes somewhere that the Gospels were edited again and again.

Because at the time of the Jew of Celsus (first half of the second century) the proto-catholic tradition did not exist or, if it existed, it was not dominant.

outhouse wrote: Why is it so hard to admit the obvious and simple.

Jesus was Johns disciple, when John was murdered Jesus took over, and we have biblical text saying Herod thought John was resurrected, because Johns message never died.

This is an abstract reconstruction not based on what Origen wrote about the Jew of Celsus. This is not what I am interested.