Toto

I have no special access to him, and I think that even asking such a question would betray a certain amount of tin-eared over-literalness, if you know what I mean.

mountainman

In that case, would it fair to say in his absence that
by not allocating the figure of 0% implying absolute historicity HJ,
or not allocating the figure of 25% implying inclination towards HJ,
or not allocating the figure of 50% implying equal indecision about MJ/HJ,
or not allocating the figure of 100% implying a total MJ and/or fiction herecy,
but by allocating the figure of 76% the speaker implied an
inclination towards MJ in that rough proportion?


And additionally, IMO it is quite possible that the figure given
was arrived at by some considerable process which, when
asked, perhaps the author would be pleased to outline. But
then again, I could be entirely wrong ...

Best wishes,



Pete

Toto

Pete - you could rightfully assume that Hoffman leans towards a non-historical Jesus, but is not 100% certain.

The tone and the context in which he gave the number, and the general laughter that followed, and his further statement that he didn't think this was the most interesting question, made it clear that this was not derived from some "considerable process".

Ben C Smith

I for one am not even tempted to do so. I, too, was being ironic.

Ben.

Roger Pearse

I only saw it recently myself, but didn't see anything in it to modify what I wrote. If I were Adolf Hitler in person, it would have no bearing on whether what I said was true.

All the best,

Roger Pearse

spin

Thanks for your response, Roger, but it leaves me perplexed:
The first example you give relates to Hoffman's

"What an absurdity! Clearly the christians have used the myths of Danae and the Melanippe, or of the Auge and the Antiope in fabricating the story of Jesus' virgin birth."

Having looked at other translations, you conclude:

From which we see that the 'words of Celsus' are not in Origen at all. They have been made up. Hoffmann found a statement in Origen that Celsus had said something along these lines, and imagined what it might have been. It's fiction, in other words.

Your comment seems to me an exaggeration, considering Hoffman does touch all the bases in the original text, then attempts to divine how that was presented by the original writer. I don't have Hoffman, but the comment in 1.37 is closely related to that in 1:32 regarding Mary. I gather that "What an absurdity! Clearly" is his attempt at cohesion for a continuous discourse from Celsus. Hoffman's use of "the christians" here is unsurprising, as that's how Celsus referred to them and obviously Hoffman felt an agent was necessary int he sentence.

However, the rest of the text seems integral to me. The analysis gets worse regarding Hoffman's reconstruction from 2.26 and 2.27:

"It is clear to me that the writings of the christians are a lie, and that your fables are not well-enough constructed to conceal this monstrous fiction: I have even heard that some of your interpreters, as if they had just come out of a tavern, are onto the inconsistencies and, pen in hand, alter the originals writings, three, four and several more times over in order to be able to deny the contradictions in the face of criticism." (p.37).

You complain, saying

"we find that Hoffmann's sentence is actually composed from two different chapters of Origen."

This seems a little disingenuous on your part, as Origen has hacked up Celsus to comment on each part, but when Hoffman tries to restore the original, you object because they come from different chapters of Origen. No joke.

Again "It is clear to me" is an attempt at bringing cohesion to a text which has been broken up. The use of "christians" though not recorded here by Origen is a frequent reference by Celsus as other passages clear show.

You misunderstand Celsus when you write

But Celsus is not discussing the veracity of the bible: he presumes it records the words of the disciples accurately, and accuses the latter of lying as they report Jesus words and actions.

Celsus clearly says that the original writing of the gospel had been "remodeled" (metaxarattein) three or four or many times. This is about writing, not reporting. It is about the differences between the gospels themselves.

Hoffman, by placing the phrase "the writings of the christians" in section 2.26 for "fabricating" (plasamenous, suggesting something tangible) has done so for clarity, a clarity apparently lost when Origen separated that which he quotes in 2.26 from that which followed in 2.27.

(You might have a slightly better hearing for complaining about "monstrous fiction" for what Chadwick gives as "fictitious tales", though I think the truth lies between the two translations, rather than favouring one, and that is only to be expected.)

Hoffman, it seems to me, has attempted to give a partial reconstruction of what Celsus wrote, based on his analysis of the traces left by Origen. This doesn't require him to be faithful to Origen, but to what he considers Celsus to have said, which is not the task you are criticizing him for. His is not an easy goal for a translator for it entails a lot of reading behind the lines. It is similar to the work of an epigrapher who has a text with several lacunae for which the context of the lacunae help you divine what is in the holes, though you can rarely get it all right.

I think the criticism of Hoffman in this task is not well placed.

(I can't comment on the other works because I don't have access to the original text.)


spin

Roger Pearse

I am unable to divine a difference between what you here accept and what I said, so we will have to agree to differ. I think that translations should represent the original, you see.

All the best,

Roger Pearse

spin

What you think a translation is makes only part of the task which Hoffman took on, though the original he was aiming at was not what was left to us by Origen. Another part was to attempt to analyse what Origen did with the Celsus material and another was an attempt to reconstruct as much of the content as possible, while making the result readable by aiding the continuity of the text, ie the discourse flow. I found your attack on Hoffman unattuned to what he was doing and so your criticisms were ill-directed: he wasn't doing what you wanted him to do, ie he wasn't supplying a literal translation of what Origen wrote. He was attempting to give us a shot at Celsus.


spin

S.C.Carlson

I'm not familiar with Hoffman's book. How well did he document his decisions, or do we have to trust his judgment?

Stephen

Roger Pearse

He didn't document his decisions at all. Nor did he give marginal references to Contra Celsum, or indicate which bits were from that work, and which composed by him.

All the best,

Roger Pearse