stephan huller

Is this the twilight zone? Are we proposing now that Philo is yet another aspect of the fourth century conspiracy theory?

There are so ridiculous statements in three posts above - I don't even know where to begin.

Here is a random selection of comments:

One can be a Jew in any language. Philo was a Greek speaking Jew but his exegesis was pre-existent.

This is like talking to blind people about a rainbow. It's not like there's this holy book and everyone's free to make their own interpretation of it. This is a European conception which developed with Luther and the protestant reformation.

There were established exegetical schools in Judaism and Samaritanism and there still are. Christianity emerged from some pre-existing school of exegesis. There can be no debate about this. The only reason anyone would pretend there was a 'freedom' to read the material this way and that - any way that suits you - is because the person is ignorant and doesn't want to take the time to come to a sensible solution to riddle of Christian origins. Indeed I would say the person is unashamedly ignorant.

And avi. it's not that everything about Christianity was contained a particular tradition (i.e. they wouldn't necessarily have had a pre-existent idea that God have the name Jesus or be crucified) but rather that there has to be enough agreement that we can explain a natural development of the core ideas out of the pre-existent tradition.

For instance, I think that Christianity developed from Alexandrian Judaism. The reason for this is manifold but at bottom the writings of Philo seem closer to Christianity than anything else that is out there. In order to make sense of this position, I have to argue that Christianity began in Alexandria rather than Jerusalem, Egypt rather than Palestine and reject the Acts of the Apostles and many of the core documents of the Catholic tradition as second century forgeries.

Getting back to the OP, if I am going to argue that Jesus did or didn't fulfill certain prophesies, because of my presuppositions I have to assume that Clement of Alexandria, Marcion or other members of the Alexandrian Christian tradition can somehow be connected with Philo or the Therapeutae or some other pre-Christian Alexandrian witness (i.e. the Dositheans for example).

But just to say that the only paradigm that is possible is the existing American evangelical notion that Jesus was the Christ of the Jews, the son of David etc. is moronic. That's what familiar. That's what is generally known. But that doesn't make it true.

No Robots

"Son of God". Jewish Encyclopedia.

stephan huller

Also Celsus makes specific reference to the idea that 'some Jews' were attached to the 'Son of God' concept. We always have to remember that what managed to survive as 'Judaism' and 'Samaritanism' after the rise of Christianity necessarily had in some respects to reform and disassociate its doctrines from ones which supported Christian interpretations. I know this sounds like something Paolo Christiani or one of the doctors of the Spanish Inquisition would say, but there is some truth to it. Religion necessarily develops and changes organically over time.

Look at what happened to Christianity when it came to America.

Iskander

Why are you praising this bit of nothing?
100 hundred prophesies exactly! There are enough cookies to make happy any glutton.
Jesus did not come to please psalmists or entertain the idle but to give direction to mankind.
Jesu bleibet meine freude

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=XVa3nR-2bVc

DrZoidberg

Are you saying there's another list based on another definition? Do you have a link?

Iskander

Collecting prophesies is not a hobby of mine.

avi

Agree, completely, without reservation, or qualification.

But, then, what about "Judaism" and "Samaritanism" following the total annihilation of Jerusalem during the third Jewish-Roman war? Why would there not have been some changes made to Judaism and its related sects, as a consequence of the destruction of Jerusalem by the Romans? Are there any clues to be found in the inscriptions on the wall of the Jewish synogogue at Dura Europos--> inscriptions dating from mid third century?

Do you suppose, stephan, that maybe, perhaps, possibly, the writings of some of those we hold so dear to our hearts, like Philo and Josephus, could possibly have been corrupted during or after that conflict--some might imagine, as a consequence of that warfare? Would the Romans, following the defeats of the Jews, have captured and executed the leaders, including the various religious leaders? What happens to a religion whose leadership has been killed? Please reread stephan huller's quote at the start of this post, about changes made to religion over time....

NO.
This is where the chasm emerges.

What you meant to write, as a scholar, was this:

"According to our oldest extant copy of the writings of Origen, " Celsus wrote thus and so.....

Ooops, except that we don't possess any extant copy of the writings of Origen, correct?

So, what we have then are not one, but TWO layers of fabrication to sort through.

Celsus wrote something, one supposes. We have no idea what Celsus wrote, because we possess NONE of his manuscripts. ZERO.

What we possess is a manuscript claimed to have been quilled by Origen, not a manuscript of Celsus. It is further claimed by some, that this manuscript purported to have been authored by Origen, contains a word for word recopying of something Celsus wrote, fifty years before Origen was born. Umm, Stephan, have you seen this manuscript of Origen? Do you know where it is to be found?

Yes, and, what little we DO know about the previous forty odd years of Origen's life, guess who is responsible for instructing us, about him: Yup. Your favorite hero, Eusebius.

Do you think that maybe, possibly, perhaps, there could have been a tiny bit of interpolation of Origen's writings by those scribes working under the supervision of Eusebius? Do we possess, today, any document, ostensibly authored by Origen, that was not reproduced on instruction from Eusebius? Do we even possess a document from Origen's quill, or are all of our extant copies of his writing, duplicates reproduced under Eusebius' supervision?

Epiphanius? Oh yeah. There's an author, whose earliest extant writings are plentiful, right Stephan?

But, what about Eusebius? Even the master forger's own writings are lost, are they not, Stephan? Do we not depend on Jerome, to learn about what Eusebius knew about Origen.

Please reread those first two quotes of yours, above, and you may begin to see the light....

What little we think we know about the evolution of those "patristic" authors, has been shaped, massaged, and molded into a form that was acceptable to umpteen generations of Roman Emperors.

When you write: Origen said thus and so, Celsus wrote this and that, Philo acknowledged a, b, and c, what you are exhibiting is FAITH in the rumors and gossip and fairy tales handed down to a hundred generations of naive, innocent, and uneducated scholars--folks whose very existence depended upon faithfully executing their masters' orders, not reproducing, accurately, the text of a "heretic". Did Epiphanius consider Origen a heretic, Stephan?

hmm. So, our source for Celsus is a reference found in a non-existant work by Origen, a heretic, whose writings are cited in a non-extant papyrus by the master forger Eusebius, and confirmed by Epiphanius, who acknowledged, supposedly, i.e. according to our only extant copy of his writing, dating from what, tenth century, that he, Epiphanius, proclaimed Origen a heretic based solely upon hearsay, having never read anything written by Origen, himself.

If it is not chiseled in stone, I don't believe it.

avi

stephan huller

I hope you understand that your understanding of history is unusual. For some reason, you feel that the fact that none of the original manuscripts have survived THEREFORE ... and then, no matter how I characterize what comes next in your inference you tell me I don't understand, I am not expressing your views correctly etc. etc.

Your argument is senseless. The situation with Christian authors and manuscripts is not markedly different than with other ancient writers. To draw an inference that texts or individuals don't exist because we don't have original manuscripts is just stupid. But I have said that before. Other people have pointed this out to you but you persist.

Nevertheless on the specific question of Celsus we are lucky to have smart people like Henry Chadwick who point to the fact that it is not only Origen who EXPLICITLY cites opinions from the True Word but contemporaries like Clement, Irenaeus and the like constantly make reference to the same arguments cited in Against Celsus, but don't specifically credit Celsus.

I know you will have some crackpot take on this situation. But the rational people who read us debate will have to ask themselves what is the more likely scenario (a) a fourth century conspiracy or (b) unacknowledged references to the mid-second century writer. The rational people will chose (b) and the crackpots with choose (a) because they want to believe their own invented fantasies. Chadwick provides a number of examples. Here's one I noted recently at my blog:

This might sound rather innocent or something which Clement developed from his own experience living in Alexandria, but the reality is that it is taken from Celsus criticism of the Alexandrian Church. For Origen cites a long passage from Celsus's original work - and which was known to Clement - exactly to this effect:

I cite this not for your education (I fear nothing short of jackhammer will penetrate the thickness of ignorance). I hope others will find it useful.

avi

Good. Are you sure? It is Origen's writing? in Greek? Without redaction, interpolation, or scribal notes in the margin?

Reference?
Link?

Where can I read Origen's citation of Celsus? (not Jerome's Latin version of Eusebius' Greek explanation of .......) I recently learned that Jerome was the offspring of Eusebius.....haha, learn something new everyday....And here, I thought those old Trinitarians were supposed to be celibate....No wonder I am so confused:

avi

stephan huller

Do you really now doubt the fact that Origen cited something written by Celsus given that the work itself was entitled 'Origen Against Celsus'? Really? Is there still a question mark hanging over this work?

A fake work INSIDE of another fake work? So Origen never existed AND Celsus never existed.

No hold on a minute. The True Word by Celsus begins by citing a long anti-Christian treatise by a Jew (or seems to).

So you'd have (a) that original fake work purportedly written c. 135 CE. Then (b) Celsus's fake exegesis and commentary that develops from that text. And then (c) the 'non-existent' eunuch Christian Origen who never wrote a response to any of this.

Oh and then to add to the craziness Origen doubts the authenticity of the original work. So the fake author wrote three fake works AND THEN DELIBERATELY ADDS a literary embellishment to have Origen state that Celsus rather than 'the Jew' wrote document (a).

How diabolically clever on the part of Eusebius!!

A spurious fourth century matroyshka doll. My God. What geniuses. And only you and Pete have figured out the truth ...