No Robots

As I have already mentioned, Epiphanius also says:

For Ebion was contemporary with the Nazoraeans and <since he was> their ally, was derived from them. In the first place, he said that Christ was generated by sexual intercourse and the seed of a man, Joseph.--Panarion

It is quite clear that the Ebionites had a Jewish view of Christ as a mere mortal man upon whom the spirit of the Lord descended.

DCHindley

Oh, for goodness sakes, Stephan, are you seriously suggesting that Celsus was citing a document?

What Origen wrote is this:

1:28 And since, in imitation of a rhetorician training a pupil, he [Celsus] introduces a Jew, who enters into a personal discussion with Jesus, and speaks in a very childish manner, altogether unworthy of the grey hairs of a philosopher,

let me endeavor, to the best of my ability, to examine his statements, and show that he does not maintain, throughout the discussion, the consistency due to the character of a Jew.

For he [Celsus] represents him disputing with Jesus, and confuting Him ...

1:37 ... And since Celsus has introduced the Jew disputing with Jesus, and tearing in pieces, as he imagines, the fiction of His birth from a virgin ...

1:48 ... And ... this man [Celsus] who boasts of universal knowledge is convicted of not knowing what words he ought to ascribe to a Jew engaged in a disputation with Jesus.

He introduces the subject of Celsus' Jew lecturing Jesus as a rhetorical device, with Jesus being a straw dog set up for the sole purpose of being knocked down by his fictional Jewish interlocutor. Why are you making a mountain out of a molehill?

DCH

stephan huller

celsus claimed that he was citing a real document and i see no reason to accept origen's claims to the contrary. the text makes reference to many features of the jewish anti-christian polemic including the pandera legend. what reason is there for believing origen over celsus

stephan huller

No robots:

I find it annoying that the fact that you are seemingly incapable of seeing the bigger argument here. The first person to make reference to the Jewish Christians who use the earlier version of the Gospel of Matthew (= the Ebionites) is Celsus. Irenaeus does not make reference to the Ebionites believing in a physical Jesus in 180 but by 192 he does. Simiarly Epiphanius brings forward both reports about the Jewish Christians but the bottom line is still that Celsus is our earliest source by a long shot and he makes clear they believed that he was a God not man. End of story. Stop bothering me unless you have something older than Celsus.

Solo

I think you are right about John recognizing him, except the bird descended into Jesus after the baptism. Mark holds John's baptism to be the act of God. (Mk 11:30-33)

Best,
Jiri

stephan huller

David

Yes Origen says many things about Celsus which scholars disbelieve. He claims Celsus is an Epicurean, he claims that he lived much earlier than most believe he did. It is Origen who is engaging in rhetorical games and argumentative tactics to control the message of his opponent. Why doesn't Origen for instance name who the Jewish author is purported to be? Most forgeries are written in the name of someone. Origen won't tell us because it would remind his readers that this was a real treatise - perhaps even a well known one (i.e. related to Jason and Papiscus?). Celsus does make reference to this treatise (Against Celsus 4:52)

dog-on

I am not sure that Mark even implies that John was aware of the bird, if that is what you meant.

I think Mark implies that John is oblivious to the fact that he had just Baptized the Christ of God. Ironic, isn't it.

Solo

No, John did not see a bird because there wasn't one. Mark says 'spirit descending.. like a dove'.

On the second point: yes it is ironic. But I do not think John being oblivious had any negative connotations, quite the contrary. It has to do I think with Alfred Jarry's fatalist view of ourselves as God's puppets.

Best,
Jiri

stephan huller

It might be worth also noting that the gospel makes mention of (a) the sign of the dove, (b) the sign of Jonah, and (c) the sign given to John and all could be variants of the Hebrew/Aramaic yona(h). I have always been intrigued by the similarity between (a) and (b). It is a powerful argument for some corruption developing from an original Hebrew/Aramaic manuscript.

No Robots

Here is what Origen writes in Contra Celsus, book 5:

Let it be admitted, moreover, that there are some who accept Jesus, and who boast on that account of being Christians, and yet would regulate their lives, like the Jewish multitude, in accordance with the Jewish law,--and these are the twofold sect of Ebionites, who either acknowledge with us that Jesus was born of a virgin, or deny this, and maintain that He was begotten like other human beings.

Clearly, Origen understood the Ebionites (or at least some of them) to believe that Christ was a mere mortal man.