mountainman

The writings of Celsus are suspiciously represented ONLY in the refutations of that author by a writer called Origen, of whom there were two in antiquity (one a Christian and one a Platonist) - both students of the father of NeoPlatonism Ammonias Saccas (of whom there were also two - one a Christian and one a Platonist). The 4th century church historical researcher Eusebius is to be congratulate on preserving these fragments from the past for the posterity of the future, since he is the first to assemble from scant fragments the writing exchanges between the important church leaders and the Roman Emperors, Other Bishops, Apologists, Martyrs for the Cause, and the notes of Jewish and Roman Historians of that epoch, of which he is suspected of interpolation and forgery .

Pagan treatises AGAINST THE SECT OF THE CHRISTIANS were REFUTED and BURNT

Looking at the evidence at the end of the day, the orthodox christians preserved their REFUTATIONS and destroyed the ORIGINALS. Celsus's original works were destroyed - only the refutation of Celsus by Origen via Eusebius survives. Porphyry's original works were destroyed - only the refutation of Porphyry by Eusebius survives. Hierocles's original works were destroyed - only the refutation of Hierocles by Eusebius survives. Arius's original works were destroyed - only the refutation of Arius by Anathasius and others survive. Emperor Julian's original works were destroyed - only the refutation of Julian by Cyril survives. etc etc etc

Only the REFUTATIONS survive

This one-sidedness needs to be viewed with a great deal of suspicion since it is obvious to all that we are dealing with a censorship issue of the pagans by the very inventive orthodox christian victors in imperially sponsored scriptoria. As far as I am concerned there is no evidence that Celsus was not a Eusebian inspired source, just one of scores of invented sources in his historical romance. It is not without merit the idea that the Historia Ecclesiastica and the Historia Augusta (a known forgery) were part of an imperial set of reference books produced for the edification of Constantine's loyal tax-paying citizens.

aa5874

There was NO SUCH thing as a CATHOLIC Church before the 4th century.

Origen in "De Principiis" destroys the Fiction of a UNIVERSAL (Catholic) Belief among Christians.

This is the Preface to "De Principiis" And even in "Against Celsus" Origen claimed Heresies among Christians was NO different to medicine. Physicians use different medicines for the SAME ailments.

"Against Celsus" 3.12 There was NO universal (Catholic) Church or doctrine until the 4th century under the Emperor Constatine.

There were INNUMERABLE Christian CULTS with different Beliefs or doctrines before Constantine.

This is "Tertullian" in "Against the Valentinians"

renassault

Doubtful anyone would invent anything as non-linear as the Christian tradition. For example, the chronology of Jesus in the four Gospels: Eusebius himself made a list of pericopes by number in order to arrange them in order of chronology. Kind of strange for the man who according to you invented and created the pericopes in the first place, don't you think?

One sided works are always viewed that way.

You doubt that a common polemic by both Romans and Jews against Christianity existed? Kind of strange, considering one sees them writing works against the religion, full of it. Tacitus calls the Resurrection a 'superstition', so that would be one example of the "stock invective".

Roger Pearse

Lots of claims there. Pity the author never bothered whether they were true.

I can't think of such a phrase in Tacitus, tho -- did you verify this? Perhaps you meant Celsus?

All the best,

Roger Pearse

grog225

I'm not sure we can jump to the conclusion that Celsus accepted the actual existence of Jesus. It appears in the fragments preserved in Against Celsus that he used a scatter-shot approach, a catalogue of criticisms from various sectors. In the passages that are often pointed as evidence that Celsus did not question the existence of an actual man Jesus Christ from Palestine, Celsus is presenting the claims of Jews against Christianity. He has even, in the part of the critique, according to Celsus, taken on the aspect of a Jew:

"And since, in imitation of a rhetorician training a pupil, he [Celsus]introduces a Jew..."

"After proceeding with this work as far as the place where Celsus introduces the Jew disputing with Jesus..."

http://www.tertullian.org/fathers2/A...#P7635_1767613

Origen even says Celsus compares the Jesus to story to "Greek fables"...in other words, myths:

"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, comparing the Greek fables about Danae, and Melanippe, and Auge, and Antiope..."

I think the consensus rests too easily on the assertion that Celsus accepts a Palestinian Jesus. What we have preserved in Origen appears to be a catalogue of criticisms from a variety of sources, including the Jewish critiques of the virgin birth. In dealing with these criticisms, Celsus employs common rhetorical tools very self-consciously and perhaps mockingly (is Celsus imitating Justin Martyr?).


What appears to be acceptance of the existence of Jesus could really be tongue in cheek. It could be, "let's assume for the sake of argument that what you say is true..." If take at face value what Origen says, then we would have to accept that Celsus believes Jesus performed miracles (he accuses Christians and Jesus of performing sorcery). What we have here, in my opinion, is a rhetorical device that was somewhat lost (but still peeks through here and there) in Origen's presentation. Without Celsus' own works, I don't think we can conclude that he accepted the actual existence of a Jesus who lived in Palestine.

mountainman

Let's see. The orthodox author of the refutation "Against Julian", Cyril of Alexandria, murderer, thug, terrorist boss, arsonist (?) and censor, states that Julian wrote lies, lies, lies about the very pure christian cult. The orthodox author Athanasius calls Arius the ANTICHRIST.

What was it about the antichristian writings of the pagans and heretics that these idiotic orthodox apologists were so worried about, especially after Nicaea. Which party would one naturally expect to be lying if not the supreme orthodox 4th century state tax exempt church?

mountainman

Without Celsus' own works, I don't think we can safely conclude that there was an author called Celsus. The arguments are extremely refined for a second century christian let alone a pagan. Many people here think that the gospels and acts and paul are 2nd century ... this does not allow much time for the "Good News" to spread through the many sturdy churches of the empire so that the pagans might eventually here of it.

stephan huller

Mountainman

I don't know why I am bothering to write this and I won't bother to respond to your justifications but the idea that because we don't possess Celsus's original 'therefore' there is 'something suspicious going on' is so crazy I don't where to begin.

FACT - there was an original pagan work that prompted Origen to write a response very late in his career. It's nothing short of insane to suggest otherwise. For we don't just have Origen's original response but a reworking of that 'first attempt' (Origen says in the introduction that I started something and then 'I changed my mind' and reorganized it).

The nuance in Celsus's work - with specific references to the bar Kochba revolt, Hadrian the cult of Antinous etc is just so intricate AND UNNECESSARY if it was just some 'stock polemic.'

So you have Origen writing in the middle of the third century writing against what he thinks is a work from the middle of the second century but then it isn't even a work which attacks the 'great Church' but concentrates almost solely on the wrong beliefs of the heresies.

Why would a forger go to such lengths to create such a bizarre forgery? What's its purpose? And above all else - could this purpose possible be worth some guy taking a few months of his life to write an eight volume FORGERY? I don't know if you have actually written a book but it takes some time to put it all down to paper. I can't even imagine how long it would take to complete an eight volume forgery written 'as if' a third century Church Father was repsonding to a 'fake' second century pagan attacking - not the tradition of the third century guy but heresies referenced in Hegesippus's lost 'Memoirs.'

Crazy, crazy, crazy.

Just look at the detail both Celsus and Origen go into discussing a stupid diagram with a greater and less than sign, the Leviathan, a tree

IT"S NOTHING SHORT OF MADNESS - SERIOUS MADNESS - TO SUGGEST THAT SOMEONE INVENTED THIS. It's one thing for our parents or our neighbors who read the DaVinci Code maybe and think that such a stupid thing is possible. They haven't studied this material and it could be argued that they are just defending their own intellectual laziness by saying "all that stuff is fake anyway so why study it?"

But you have taken the time to actually look and think about the material and somehow you think that some crazy person in the fourth century wrote a fake eight volume book FROM SCRATCH which has a pagan from the second century and a Christian from the third century arguing assuming all sorts of things which are ultimately bizarre.

Like the idea that Jews accept the Logos, like that some Christians didn't think that the messiah had already come, like that stupid diagram and all those stupid prayers that Christians supposedly say to each one of the 'guardians of the gate,' like that Christianity stole everything from Plato, like that Christians and Jews are similar to frogs and bats living in a swamp

and then there is Celsus's totally weird discussion about animals being equal to human beings that takes up much of Book Four.

You're telling that some crazy guy in the fourth century just decided to make Celsus into a nature lover and discuss all these different types of animals and how they have the same soul as people?

Come on, this is so fucking ridiculous. You can't really believe this. You can't because this isn't the same as suggesting that Morton Smith forged a couple of pages. I don't agree with the claim but it is at least theoretically possible that someone could attempt a short forgery like that.

But an eight volume work which as I said is SO DETAILED and SO NUANCED? I don't mean to be rude but if you seriously believe that this work is completely forged from scratch you really shouldn't be posting here. There is definitely something wrong with your brain. Sorry. It's not worth even discussing.

jakejonesiv

Why did Origen write a refutation to Celsus?

Jake Jones IV

stephan huller

I don't know. The text itself says that his boss 'Ambrose' asked him to do it so he wrote Against Celsus. Beyond that we're engaging in mere speculation.

But think of the parallel example of the Iraq war. Why did America invade Iraq? The government at the time said they thought that Saddam Hussein was in possession of WMDs and that he with the aid of that ridiculous flying saucer contraption Powell showed at the UN meeting, was going to take over the world. You might doubt the explanation but that doesn't mean there wasn't a war.