FRDB Archives

Freethought & Rationalism Archive

The archives are read only.


Go Back   FRDB Archives > Archives > Religion (Closed) > Biblical Criticism & History
Welcome, Peter Kirby.
You last visited: Yesterday at 03:12 PM

 
 
Thread Tools Search this Thread
Old 04-28-2012, 09:34 AM   #71
Veteran Member
 
Join Date: Jun 2010
Location: seattle, wa
Posts: 9,337
Default

Notice also that there are other things referenced in the treatise that Origen passes over especially towards the end:

Quote:
But as this Jew of Celsus, after being thus introduced, asserting that these things were indeed in conformity with his own law, has somewhere here ended his discourse, with a mention of other matters not worthy of remembrance, I too shall here terminate this second book of my answer to his treatise
stephan huller is offline  
Old 04-28-2012, 09:35 AM   #72
Veteran Member
 
Join Date: Jun 2010
Location: seattle, wa
Posts: 9,337
Default

My friend Rory Boid of Monash University wrote a paper noting that Celsus's source may have been Samaritan. There are a lot of anomalous statements that Origen references that only make sense if Celsus's source was Samaritan:

Quote:
and it was a proof of the ignorance of Celsus, to represent a Jew as saying that one prophet (= Moses) only had predicted the advent of Christ.
stephan huller is offline  
Old 04-28-2012, 11:04 AM   #73
Veteran Member
 
Join Date: Jun 2010
Location: seattle, wa
Posts: 9,337
Default

Another sign the author was Samaritan?

Quote:
he was punished by the Jews for his crimes [2.5]
stephan huller is offline  
Old 04-28-2012, 12:23 PM   #74
Veteran Member
 
Join Date: Jun 2010
Location: seattle, wa
Posts: 9,337
Default

Look at this:

IN the first book of our answer to the work of Celsus, who had boastfully entitled the treatise which he had composed against us A True Discourse, we have gone through, as you enjoined, my faithful Ambrosius, to the best of our ability, his preface, and the parts immediately following it, testing each one of his assertions as we went along, until we finished with the tirade of this Jew of his, feigned. to have been delivered against Jesus. And in the second book we met, as we best could, all the charges contained in the invective of the said Jew (δημηγορίας τοῦ παρ' αὐτῷ Ἰουδαίου), which were levelled at us who are believers in God through Christ; and now we enter upon this third division of our discourse, in which our object is to refute the allegations which he makes in his own person.

δημηγορίας Middle Liddell = a speech in the public assembly, Aeschin.
II. popular oratory, clap-trap, Plat.

The words demagogos and the closely related demegoria (public and, by extension, demagogic speaking) were often used by an orator of his political enemies.
stephan huller is offline  
Old 04-29-2012, 04:22 PM   #75
Veteran Member
 
Join Date: Jun 2010
Location: seattle, wa
Posts: 9,337
Default

I think I had something of a breakthrough just now, David. Please read the attached article and tell me if the arguments help support an identification of Philo as the author of the work.

http://www.ts.mu.edu/content/34/34.2/34.2.6.pdf

The arguments here and in the True Account are uncannily similar. The focus in both traditions is the question of whether Jesus was God. The person arguing against the claim is Jewish. It has always bothered me that Origen never tells us the name of the person Celsus allegedly 'forged' this treatise (forgeries are almost always done in the name of some one - i.e. the Pastorals, 2 Peter etc).

Now with respect to Philo actually meeting Jesus - this is possible. The question of Philo having a copy of the proto-gospel of Matthew is more problematic. Yet look at the dates for Josephus and Agrippa. At least one of them reputedly lived until 100 CE. Perhaps the other 85 CR. I even think there are enough similarities in the first demegories that one may have been developed from the other.

In any event the identification of Philo as the author isn't as crazy as it might seem. Celsus does mention Jason and Papiscus. Apparently the name Papiscus once read Philo.

I have long noted that Philo attacks the Marcosians in one of his treatises. Some argued that he references the Cainites. The history of Philo as an anti-Christian witness goes beyond what is mentioned here. Indeed Clement's citation of Philo becomes a hell of lot more complicated if this is true as well!
stephan huller is offline  
Old 04-29-2012, 06:43 PM   #76
Veteran Member
 
Join Date: Jun 2010
Location: seattle, wa
Posts: 9,337
Default

Here is the original excerpt from the Hodêgos of Anastasius the Sinaite, which is
surely very relevant to it. I refer to that passage in chap. 14 in which Anastasius reproduces part (the Jew's part) of a dialogue between Mnason the disciple of the apostles and Philo "the philosopher and unbelieving Jew."

Quote:
I am going to adopt and appropriate the role of Paul of Samosata for you, or, better, that of the unbelieving Jew Philo, the philosopher; for he argued against the divinity of Christ with Mnason, the disciple of the apostles, and called Mnason dichrota: What argument, what sort of argument, and from what source (comes) any argument to the effect that the Christ is God? Should you adduce his birth from a virgin, without seed as they say, the begetting of Adam (appears) more noble and more striking, a formation by the very hands of God and a vivifieation through God's own breath, and it was purer than the nine-month fetation of Jesus in his mother (terminating in) filth and wails and mess. Should you adduce the signs he performed after his baptism, I would say to you that no one on earth ever performed such signs and wonders as did Moses for a period of forty years. Should you then point out that Jesus raised the dead, well, the prophet Ezekiel raised up from the dry bones of the army of dead men a numberless people. Moreover, Jesus himself said that some men would perform greater works than he.

Now if you tell us that Jesus was taken up into the heavens as God, surely the prophet Elias was taken up more gloriously in a blazing chariot and with horses of fire. Calling Jesus the God of heaven must be reckoned as the most outrageous of your blasphemies, for God Himself said to Moses that "No man shall see my face and live." Further, our Scripture witnesses that "No one has ever seen God. No man has seen or is able to see God." How is it that Christian preachers are not ashamed to proclaim Jesus as God? For it is said that God is a consuming fire. Tell me, then, does a God of fire hunger? Does a God of fire thirst? Does a God of fire spit? Is a God of fire circumcised and does he bleed? And does he cast on the ground bits of flesh and blood and the refuse of the stomach? All such things were cast to the ground by Jesus and were eaten up and consumed by dogs, sometimes by wild beasts and birds, and trampled on by cattle. Every bit of his flesh that
was cast off and discarded, whether it was sputum or nail-cuttings or blood or sweat or tears, was a part and portion naturally associated with the body and sloughed off or discarded in due process of growth. Indeed you say that he was like men in all things according to the flesh apart from sin. Yet you preach that he who was dead for three days was God. And what sort of a God who is a consuming fire can die? Why his very servants, the angels, cannot die, neither can the evil spirits of the demons, nor, for that matter, the souls of men. To press the matter, I ask: What sort of God, having the power of life and death, would take to flight—as Jesus fled from Herod lest he be put to death as an infant? What sort of God is tempted by the devil for forty days? What sort of God becomes a curse, which is what Paul says of Jesus? What sort of sinless God commits sin? For, according to you, Jesus became sin for our sake. And if he is God, how is it that he prayed to escape the cup of death? And his prayer was not heard. If he is God, how can he speak as one abandoned by God: "O God, my God, why have you forsaken me?" Is God abandoned by God? Does God need God (as would appear) when he says "Do not abandon my soul to the nether world"? Is God (such as to be) tied up, and abused and despised and put to death? If he was indeed God, he should have crushed those intending to take him prisoner, just as the angel crushed the Sodomites (who threatened) Lot. But you call the helplessness of Jesus "long-suffering."
stephan huller is offline  
Old 04-29-2012, 06:53 PM   #77
Veteran Member
 
Join Date: Jun 2010
Location: seattle, wa
Posts: 9,337
Default

Here is a side by side comparison:

Quote:
How is it that Christian preachers are not ashamed to proclaim Jesus as God? For it is said that God is a consuming fire. Tell me, then, does a God of fire hunger? Does a God of fire thirst? Does a God of fire spit? Is a God of fire circumcised and does he bleed? And does he cast on the ground bits of flesh and blood and the refuse of the stomach? All such things were cast to the ground by Jesus and were eaten up and consumed by dogs, sometimes by wild beasts and birds, and trampled on by cattle. Every bit of his flesh that was cast off and discarded, whether it was sputum or nail-cuttings or blood or sweat or tears, was a part and portion naturally associated with the body and sloughed off or discarded in due process of growth. Indeed you say that he was like men in all things according to the flesh apart from sin. Yet you preach that he who was dead for three days was God. And what sort of a God who is a consuming fire can die? Why his very servants, the angels, cannot die, neither can the evil spirits of the demons, nor, for that matter, the souls of men. To press the matter, I ask: What sort of God, having the power of life and death, would take to flight—as Jesus fled from Herod lest he be put to death as an infant? What sort of God is tempted by the devil for forty days? What sort of God becomes a curse, which is what Paul says of Jesus? What sort of sinless God commits sin? For, according to you, Jesus became sin for our sake. And if he is God, how is it that he prayed to escape the cup of death? And his prayer was not heard. If he is God, how can he speak as one abandoned by God: "O God, my God, why have you forsaken me?" Is God abandoned by God? Does God need God (as would appear) when he says "Do not abandon my soul to the nether world"? Is God (such as to be) tied up, and abused and despised and put to death? If he was indeed God, he should have crushed those intending to take him prisoner, just as the angel crushed the Sodomites (who threatened) Lot. But you call the helplessness of Jesus "long-suffering."
stephan huller is offline  
Old 04-29-2012, 06:59 PM   #78
Veteran Member
 
Join Date: Jun 2010
Location: seattle, wa
Posts: 9,337
Default

Here is my attempt at reconstructing the second demegoria cited in Celsus (with the parallels highlighted):

Quote:
A Fragmentary Jewish Treatise Against the Christian Belief in Jesus as God

Yesterday and the day before, when we visited with punishment the man who deluded you, you became apostates from the law of your fathers. What induced you, my fellow-citizens, to abandon the law of your fathers, and to allow your minds to be led captive by him with whom we have just conversed, and thus be most ridiculously deluded, so as to become deserters from us to another name, and to the practices of another life? How is it that you take the beginning of your system from our worship, and when you have made some progress you treat it with disrespect, although you have no other foundation to show for your doctrines than our law?

Even although guilty of falsehood, you have not been able to give a color of credibility to your inventions. Like persons who in a fit of drunkenness lay violent hands upon themselves, you have corrupted your narratives from their original integrity, to a threefold, and fourfold, and many-fold degree, and have remodeled it, so that they might be able to answer objections.

Certain among you have abandoned the usages of our fathers under a pretense of explanations and allegories; and some of you, although, as ye pretend, interpreting them in a spiritual manner, nevertheless do observe the customs of our fathers; and some of you, without any such interpretation, are willing to accept Jesus as the subject of prophecy, and to keep the law of Moses according to the customs of the fathers, as having in the words the whole mind of the Spirit.

If anyone predicted to us that the Son of God was to visit mankind, he was one of our prophets, and the prophet of our God. John, who baptized Jesus, was a Jew as and Jesus observed all the Jewish usages including our sacrificial observances. We certainly hope that there will be a bodily resurrection and that we shall enjoy an eternal life; and the example and archetype of this will be him who is sent to us, and who will show that nothing is impossible with God. Where, then, is he, that we may see him and believe upon him? Did Jesus come into the world for this purpose, that we should not believe him? Many other persons would appear such as he was, to those who were willing to be deceived. How should we, who have made known to all men that there is to come from God one who is to punish the wicked, treat him with disregard when he came? Why did we treat him, whom we announced beforehand, with dishonor? Was it that we might be chastised more than others?

The prophecies may be applied to ten thousand things more credibly than to Jesus -they declare the coming one to be a mighty potentate, Lord of all nations and armies. Nor did the prophets predict such a pestilence. From such signs and misinterpretations, and from proofs so mean, no one could prove him to be God, and the son of God. For as the sun, which enlightens all other objects, first makes himself visible, so ought the son of God to have done.

If your Logos is the son of God, we also give our assent to the same. Yet you do not present to view a pure and holy Logos, but a most degraded man, who was punished by scourging and crucifixion. The framers of the genealogies, from a feeling of pride, made Jesus to be descended from the first man, and from the kings of the Jews. The carpenter’s wife could not have been ignorant of the fact, had she been of such illustrious descent.

O most high and heavenly one! What God, on appearing to men, is received with incredulity or why, pray, is he not recognized by those who have been long looking for him? He makes use of threats, and reviles men on light grounds, when he says, ‘Woe unto you,’ and ‘I tell you beforehand.’ For by such expressions he manifestly acknowledges his inability to persuade; and this would not be the case with a god, or even a prudent man.

You deem Jesus to be the son of God, because he healed the lame and the blind; moreover, as they assert, he raised the dead. But, O light and truth! Jesus with his own voice expressly and distinctly declares, as you yourselves have recorded, that there will come to you even others, employing miracles of a similar kind who are wicked men, and sorcerers; and he calls him who makes use of such devices, one Satan.

So Jesus himself does not deny that these works at least are not at all divine, but proceed from wicked men; and being compelled by the force of truth, he at the same time not only laid open the doings of others, but convicted himself of the same acts. Is it not, then, a miserable inference, to conclude from the same works that the one is God and the other sorcerers? Why ought the others, because of these acts, to be accounted wicked rather than this man, seeing they have him as their witness against himself? For he has himself acknowledged that these are not the works of a divine nature, but the inventions of certain deceivers, and of thoroughly wicked men.

How should we deem him to be a god, who not only in other respects, as was currently reported, performed none of his promises, but who also, after we had convicted him, and condemned him as deserving of the punishment of death, was found attempting to conceal himself, and endeavoring to escape in a most disgraceful manner, and who was betrayed by those whom he called disciples? And yet, he who was a god could neither flee nor be led away a prisoner; and least of all could he be deserted and delivered up by those who had been his associates, whom he called his disciples, and had shared all things in common, and had had him for their teacher, who was deemed to be a Savior, and a son of the greatest God, and an angel.

No good general and leader of great multitudes was ever betrayed, nor even a wicked captain of robbers and commander of very wicked men, who seemed to be of any use to his associates; but Jesus, having been betrayed by his subordinates, neither governed like a good general, nor, after deceiving his disciples, produced in the minds of the victims of his deceit that feeling of good-will which, so to speak, would be manifested towards a brigand chief.

Although I could state many things regarding the events of the life of Jesus which are true, and not like those which are recorded by the disciples, I willingly omit them. The disciples of Jesus, having no undoubted fact on which to rely, devised the fiction that he foreknew everything before it happened. The disciples of Jesus wrote such accounts regarding him, by way of extenuating the charges that told against him: as if any one were to say that a certain person was a just man, and yet were to show that he was guilty of injustice; or that he was pious, and yet had committed murder; or that he was immortal, and yet was dead; subjoining to all these statements the remark that he had foretold all these things.

For you do not even allege this, that he seemed to wicked men to suffer this punishment, though not undergoing it in reality; but, on the contrary, you acknowledge that he openly suffered. How is it credible that Jesus could have predicted these things? How could the dead man be immortal? What god, or spirit, or prudent man would not, on foreseeing that such events were to befall him, avoid them if he could; whereas he threw himself headlong into those things which he knew beforehand were to happen?

How is it that, if Jesus pointed out beforehand both the traitor and the perjurer, they did not fear him as a god, and cease, the one from his intended treason, and the other from his perjury? But these persons betrayed and denied him without manifesting any concern about him. It is always the case that, when a man against whom a plot is formed comes to the knowledge of it and makes known to the conspirators that he is acquainted with their design, the latter are turned from their purpose, and keep upon their guard.

Not because these things were predicted did they come to pass, for that is impossible; but since they have come to pass, their being predicted is shown to be a falsehood: for it is altogether impossible that those who heard beforehand of the discovery of their designs, should carry out their plans of betrayal and denial. These events he predicted as being a god, and the prediction must by all means come to pass. God, therefore, who above all others ought to do good to men, and especially to those of his own household, led on his own disciples and prophets, with whom he was in the habit of eating and drinking, to such a degree of wickedness, that they became impious and unholy men. Now, of a truth, he who shared a man’s table would not be guilty of conspiring against him; but after banqueting with God, he became a conspirator.

And, what is still more absurd, God himself plotted against the members of his own table, by converting them into traitors and villains! He who was partaker of a man’s table would not conspire against him; and if he would not conspire against a man, much less would he plot against a god after banqueting with him. And, which is still more absurd, God himself conspired against those who sat at his table, by converting them into traitors and impious men. If he had determined upon these things, and underwent chastisement in obedience to his Father, it is manifest that, being a god, and submitting voluntarily, those things that were done agreeably to his own decision were neither painful nor distressing.

Why does he mourn, and lament, and pray to escape the fear of death, expressing himself in terms like these: ‘O Father, if it be possible, let this cup pass from me?’ though nothing at that time was done to Jesus which was either painful or distressing. But what great deeds did Jesus perform as being a god? Did he put his enemies to shame, or bring to a ridiculous conclusion what was designed against him? In the Bacchae of Euripides, Dionysus says “The divinity himself will liberate me whenever I wish.” But no calamity happened even to him who condemned him, as there did to Pentheus, viz., madness or deception; neither to those who mocked Jesus, and put on him the purple robe, and the crown of thorns, and placed the reed in his hand.

If not before, yet why now, at least, does he not give some manifestation of his divinity, and free himself from this reproach, and take vengeance upon those who insult both him and his Father? What is the nature of the ichor in the body of the crucified Jesus? Is it such as flows in the bodies of the immortal gods? He rushed with open mouth to drink of the vinegar and the gall, and could not endure his thirst as any ordinary man frequently endures it.

You, O sincere believers, find fault with us, because we do not recognize this individual as God, nor agree with you that he endured these sufferings for the benefit of mankind, in order that we also might despise punishment. Having gained over no one during his life, not even his own disciples underwent these punishments and sufferings. You will not, I suppose, say of him, that, after failing to gain over those who were in this world, he went to Hades to gain over those who were there.

If, after inventing defenses which are absurd, and by which you were ridiculously deluded, you imagine that you really make a good defense, what prevents you from regarding those other individuals who have been condemned, and have died a miserable death, as greater and more divine messengers of heaven than Jesus? Any similarly shameless fellow might be able to say regarding even a robber and murderer whom punishment had overtaken, that such an one was not a robber, but a god, because he predicted to his fellow-robbers that he would suffer such punishment as he actually did suffer.

In the next place, those who were his associates while alive, and who listened to his voice, and enjoyed his instructions as their teacher, on seeing him subjected to punishment and death, neither died with him, nor for him, nor were even induced to regard punishment with contempt, but denied even that they were his disciples, whereas now you die along with him. When on earth, he gained over to himself only ten sailors and tax-gatherers of the most worthless character, and not even the whole of these. Is it not the height of absurdity to maintain, that if, while he himself was alive, he won over not a single person to his views, after his death any who wish are able to gain over such a multitude of individuals?

By what train of argument were they led to regard him as the son of God? They answer that they were won over to him, because they know that his punishment was undergone to bring about the destruction of the father of evil. What then? Have not many others, too, been punished, and that not less disgracefully? By what, then, were you induced? Was it because he foretold that after his death he would rise again?

Come now, let us grant to you that the prediction was actually uttered. Yet how many others are there who practice such juggling tricks, in order to deceive their simple hearers, and who make gain by their deception?—as was the case, they say, with Zamolxis in Scythia, the slave of Pythagoras; and with Pythagoras himself in Italy; and with Rhampsinitus in Egypt (the latter of whom, they say, played at dice with Demeter in Hades, and returned to the upper world with a golden napkin which he had received from her as a gift); and also with Orpheus among the Odrysians, and Protesilaus in Thessaly, and Hercules at Cape Taenarus, and Theseus.

But the question is, whether anyone who was really dead ever rose with a veritable body. Or do you imagine the statements of others not only to be myths, but to have the appearance of such, while you have discovered a becoming and credible termination to your drama in the voice from the cross, when he breathed his last, and in the earthquake and the darkness?

That while alive he was of no assistance to himself, but that when dead he rose again, and exhibited the marks of his punishment, and showed how his hands were pierced with nails - who beheld this? A half-frantic woman, as you state, and someone else, perhaps, of those who were engaged in the same system of delusion, who had either dreamed so, owing to a peculiar state of mind, or under the influence of a perverted and wandering imagination had formed to himself an appearance according to his own wishes, as he himself desired, which has been the case with numberless individuals; or, which is most probable, one who desired to impress others with this portent, and by such a falsehood to furnish an occasion to impostors like himself.

If Jesus had really wished to manifest his divine power, he ought to have shown himself to those who ill-treated him, and to the judge who condemned him, and to all men universally, without reservation. For he had no longer occasion to fear any man after his death, being, as you say, a god; nor was he sent into the world at all for the purpose of being hid. If this at least would have helped to manifest his divinity, he ought accordingly to have at once disappeared from the cross.

And who that is sent as a messenger ever conceals himself when he ought to make known his message? While he was in the body, and no one believed upon him, he preached to all without intermission; but when he might have produced a powerful belief in himself after rising from the dead, he showed himself secretly only to one half-mad woman, and to his own boon companions. While undergoing his punishment he was seen by all men, but after his resurrection by one, whereas the opposite ought to have happened.

If he wished to remain hid, why was there heard a voice from heaven proclaiming him to be the son of God? And if he did not seek to remain concealed, why was he punished? or why did he die? If he had wished, by the punishments which he underwent, to teach us also to despise death, then after his resurrection he should have openly summoned all men to the light, and instructed them in the object of his coming. All these statements are taken from your own books, in addition to which we need no other witness; for you fall upon your own swords. He was therefore a man, and of such a nature, as the truth itself proves, and reason demonstrates him to be.
stephan huller is offline  
Old 04-29-2012, 07:19 PM   #79
Veteran Member
 
Join Date: Jun 2010
Location: seattle, wa
Posts: 9,337
Default

I've got to put the kids to bed but this is bullseye I think. No one has recognized that (a) these two texts are related and (b) the author of both treatises might be Philo
stephan huller is offline  
Old 04-30-2012, 08:06 AM   #80
Contributor
 
Join Date: Jan 2001
Location: Barrayar
Posts: 11,866
Default

By "treatises" you mean the treatises cited in the two texts above, right? Quite interesting. But how can you tell without a statistical analysis of the word usage?
Vorkosigan is offline  
 

Thread Tools Search this Thread
Search this Thread:

Advanced Search

Forum Jump


All times are GMT -8. The time now is 12:36 AM.

Top

This custom BB emulates vBulletin® Version 3.8.2
Copyright ©2000 - 2015, Jelsoft Enterprises Ltd.