Biblical Criticism & History Forum - earlywritings.com

But the reason you are avoiding citing the actual passage from Origen is because ... drum roll please ...

It is yet another example of Origen telling us ABOUT Celsus's work rather than citing directly from a passage in Celsus talking about Marcion and the Marcionites.

Any discussion of Celsus necessarily also brings up (A) the question of when Celsus wrote and (B) Celsus's use of source material.

For (A) I think late second century is the most likely time period.
For (B) it is clear that Celsus used Justin and Irenaeus (the former has been acknowledged by Chadwick and various writers the latter because of certain statements and the 'fourfold' division of the gospel).

The point here is that we have to decide between Celsus being like a modern scholar - i.e. gathering primary source material - or being a typical lazy ancient writer copying out things written by other people. I think much of Celsus's knowledge of the heresies comes from Justin and Irenaeus. As such his knowledge of the Marcionite-sounding statements doesn't come from firsthand acquaintance with the group but things written in Justin and Irenaeus and others ATTACKING the Marcionites. In summa: we don't penetrate the Patristic sources THAT MUCH when citing Celsus. Celsus was using very early Patristic source material. What we might get around is third and fourth century editing of the Church Fathers.

1. if Christians denying OT prophecies for Jesus are marcionites, Hoffmann argues, then they are probably Marcionites, and shortly after these same Christians are connected with the conflict between the two rival Gods, etc.

2. Hoffmann interprets Against Celsus, 5.62 as evidence of Celsus's independent knowledge of Marcionites (and his fair vindication of that knowledge).

My most aggravating Celsus citation is the alleged quote of the Heavenly dialogue, used to misdirect logion 74 into the boring saying about "many people around the well yet nothing in the well"

Sowing division, discomfort and dissociation was Origen's goal perhaps, attributing quotes to Celsus that would never be found nor verified - nor debunked, for that matter.
Take a quote from Thomas, twist and turn it, and attribute it to Celsus et voilà, it suddenly appears as if Thomas copied someone else - not only that, but even twisted and turned the original quote to deviously serve his own goals!

Clever

Book VIII 15:

How comes it, that while so many go about the well, no one goes down into it?

BLATZ

(74) He said: Lord, there are many about the well, but no one in the well.

LAYTON

(74) He said, "O lord, there are many around the drinking trough but nothing in the cistern."

DORESSE

78 [74]. He said: "Lord, many are round the opening but nobody in the well!"

Real translation:

say(s) he : oh slaveowner there-be many of the going-around within the(F) separation not-to-be any however in the(F) sickness

Right. But again - given my familiarity with this text - there are clear examples where Origen says about Celsus - he's not distinguishing between us and them (the Marcionites). It's toward the end of the treatise. So given this it is impossible that Celsus is a modern scholar meticulously subdividing THIS group says this THIS GROUP says that. He's just picking up a shotgun and BAM! a blast hits 'Christians' as such. I am not saying he's not using second century material. I am not saying that some of his material references groups called Marcionites in Patristic treatises but:

1. since his source material are likely Justin and Irenaeus we don't know anything more about these sects than what appears in Justin and Irenaeus (other than they may be less filtered than our existing manuscripts).
2. Celsus's methodology isn't to distinguish 'shades of distinction' between groups but to pick up harmful statements (i.e. the Christians don't agree on anything) and use THAT to harm the Christian claim of being 'the true logos' (the title of his work).

Again, since Celsus basically is wielding a shotgun or a machete against his opponents we can't pretend his work is a scalpel - i.e. we can peel back layers of meaning or specific knowledge about different groups. Yes there is the occasional reference to a name or a group but he's just blasting shotgun shells at a wide area and hoping he just 'does damage' to Christianity. He's not a modern scholar.

Robert Hoffmann, I choose you!

So with respect to Marcion:

1. Celsus was using Justin or Irenaeus or some second century author's work against a group called 'Marcion' or Marcionites
2. Celsus doesn't care enough to reference the name in any known citation
3. He isn't interested in Marcion or Marcionites
4. He's just trying to show Christians were divided, Christians are irrational and hence don't know or have 'the true word.'

BOTTOM LINE you can't use Celsus to say anything definitive about the Marcionites. Even the understanding that some have made - the Robert Price - that Marcionites must have been more numerous than orthodox because of the amount of times Celsus references their ideas is inaccurate. IF Celsus is reusing Patristic material very little of what is contained in Irenaeus deals with 'what the orthodox do, what they believe' - most of it is related to the topic of "why the heretics are bad." As such Celsus picks up on this, not because the heretics dominated the early Christian landscape but because they dominate the writings of the early Church Fathers. Not the same thing.

Ok, Celsus is half-blind, but he is not totally blind.

He is able to see that there are Christians who hate the creator.

You can say that these Christians are not exactly the Marcionites meant by you, but you can't deny in no way:

• that Celsus knew them independently from Catholics (Against Celsus, 5.62 is sufficient evidence of this, since it seems to be an explicit answer directly to your objection of a presumed Celsus's total dependence on Catholic propaganda)

• that these Christian haters of YHWH were a reality.

He is able to see that there are Christians who hate the creator.

Absolutely nowhere does he say this. This is your abortive interpretation, and your abortive interpretation only.

Not only is there not an indication that Celsus was independent, Origen even calls out his misunderstandings and mistakes. Your only response is that Origen was just being an apologist, which is not a meaningful rebuttal.

Celsus was a student of Lucian, so he learned the trade of satire, parody, and generalization for rhetoic's sake.