Solo

Origen in 'Commentary on Matthew 15:1-5' argues vehemently that the third "eunuchization" (if not all three) of 19:12 is (are) meant allegorically.

Best,
Jiri

darstec

That is a huge assumption on your part that nobody didn't. The best you can say is that if such arguments existed, none of them were passed down by the biased hands of the Catholic Church.

For most of those early people we have absolutely nothing by them. We have excepts (sometime centuries removed from their lifetimes) of things they supposedly said. Furthermore the writing of those who said so-and-so said thus have also passed down though the hands of a biased Catholic church, and what we have left can be 1000 years removed from the time those writers supposedly told us what the original people said.

You keep commenting on this stuff as though it was real, and we have good copies of the original writers. We don't. In fact we have no proof that some of those original writers actually existed. Until we have such evidence, they should all be considered figments of later church writers imaginations.

charles

aa5874 I am new to the post and have enjoyed reading your opinions. In this case I am a little lost because you have just argued that because it makes sense that Christians must have had children in order to maximize their numbers But Jews don't proselytize but proselytism would increase their numbers much more than sticking together and staying closed to outsiders. Sometimes we just can't assume things. We just can't assume that people will do whatever it takes to beat out the competition.

stephan huller

Hi Everyone

Today has been like the day from hell so I can't respond to every post the way I would like.

Darstec you say that it

I don't think you've thought through your position. Eusebius was defending Origen who was clearly under a cloud of suspicion for 'heresy' in the fourth century. The self-castration tradition is not the SOURCE of the opposition to Origen but it made him look a freak which in turn reinforced his caricature as a heretic.

Eusebius could have omitted the story. Instead he defends Origen by claiming that Demetrius his political master and enemy approved of his deed:

At this time while Origen was conducting catechetical instruction at Alexandria, a deed was done by him which evidenced an immature and youthful mind, but at the same time gave the highest proof of faith and continence. For he took the words, There are eunuchs who have made themselves eunuchs for the kingdom of heaven's sake, Matthew 19:12 in too literal and extreme a sense. And in order to fulfill the Saviour's word, and at the same time to take away from the unbelievers all opportunity for scandal,— for, although young, he met for the study of divine things with women as well as men,— he carried out in action the word of the Saviour. He thought that this would not be known by many of his acquaintances. But it was impossible for him, though desiring to do so, to keep such an action secret. When Demetrius, who presided over that parish, at last learned of this, he admired greatly the daring nature of the act, and as he perceived his zeal and the genuineness of his faith, he immediately exhorted him to courage, and urged him the more to continue his work of catechetical instruction.[Church History 8,1 - 3]

It would be one thing if Eusebius omitted the tradition. It would be another thing if he just said that Origen did it but he was misguided. The idea that he tried to hide it but was discovered AND APPROVED BY DEMETRIUS is the only questionable part of the story.

Demetrius knew, everyone knew that Origen had done this. It is questionable whether everyone approved initially. It is certain that many disapproved later hence Eusebius's carefully worded apology.

Solo, no one can defend Secret Mark's authenticity better than I if only because I am in personal correspondence with a circle of Greeks which included Agamenon Tselikas who has found a great number of other manuscripts written by Madiotes at other monasteries.

This is all going to end very soon. Tselikas originally held the position that the document discovered by Smith was forged by Smith. This was also the official position of the Greek Patriarchy (which is why they seemed to have destroyed the text). Now Tselikas has changed his position. I won't give away the conclusion but you will see very shortly ...

aa5874

My response was to stephan huller who made a claim that Celsus disproved that Jesus believers would have followed the words of God in Genesis 1.26-28 where it says "be fruitful and multiply."

I still waiting for stephan huller to produce the passage from Celsus.

charles

Hi aa5873:

Actually you said it first in post #52:

That's okay because I think you're right. You would expect Christians to be fruitful and multiply. That's what the Catholic Church taught my parents. I come from a family of five brothers and three sisters because of church doctrine. But the priests don't multiply.

Interesting. It has always puzzled me ever since I was a little boy. I think the idea that there was this eunuch celibacy community within the Church from the beginning is on to something.

stephan huller

AA, here is the reference to castration practices among the Christians as witnessed by Celsus. The passages are Against Celsus 1.19 and 3.16 . The analysis from Glancy (New Testament Masculinities (or via: amazon.co.uk) p.259):

For Celsus, the corruption of masculinity among Christians is even more blatant than the Pastor insinuates: Celsus assimilates Christian men to the galli, the self-castrated priests of Cybele. Origen writes that Celsus “compares those who believe ... to the begging priests of Cybele” (Cels. 1.9). According to Origen, Celsus claims that Christians overwhelm worshipers “by playing flutes and music like the priests of Cybele who ith their clamor stupefy the people whom they wish to excite into a frenzy” (Cels. 3.16).

Glancy accepts the idea that Origen is forced into an uncomfortable position by Celsus and notes that "there is some irony that Origen, remembered as an autocastrate, repeats and attempts to refute this charge" and then adds "By associating Christian practices and practitioners with the tactics of the galli, Celsus stigmatizes Christian males as irredeemably effeminate."

Solo

...oh shucks, just as I thought I discovered the real reason why nothing was remembered about Jesus' visit to Jericho !

At any rate, I am eager to see how Ehrman, Carlson and Jeffery were fooled.

Best,
Jiri

aa5874

"Against Celsus" 1.19 and 3.16 have NOT ONE thing about castration of Jesus believers.

I am having a lot of difficulties following you. A pattern has developed where many times your references are NOT compatible with your claims.

I cannot find any details from Celsus at all from "Against Celsus" 1.19 and 3.16 that disproves Jesus believers were likely to "be fruitful and multiply."

Against Celsus 1.19 deals with the age of the earth since creation and Against Celsus 3.16 deals with heresies in Christianity.

stephan huller

Let's make this clear. I don't know what Tselikas is going to conclude with the evidence he has told friends he has uncovered. Intelligent people can reach different conclusions and disagree. My assumption at this point in the dialogue that I hear going on between my Greek friends is that he is NOT going to take up his original working hypothesis (when he stumbled upon the first Madiotes sample) that Morton Smith went to the monasteries where Madiotes samples were kept and copied them. I think Venetia Anastasopoulou report, demonstrated that the chances that Smith could have imitated such a writing was zero. It is worth noting that Tselkas also studied Palaeography in Athens under Prof. M. Manoussaksas who was one of the experts that Smith originally consulted on MS 65 and who then dated the hand to the early 18th century.

As to your statement about the geniuses on this list. Jeffrey is a music professor who happens to be very familiar with Catholic doctrine. Carlson is a very intelligent man who is destined to be a great scholar but his original thesis was crazy to say the least (i.e. Smith leaving clues like the Riddler from Batman in the manuscript!). I think in time even he will laugh about some of the crazy claims in that book. Someone so infected with 'youthful zeal' is certainly a candidate to be be 'fooled' by his own imagination and mistake the strength of the actual evidence.

Ehrman is another issue entirely. Pearson too and Hurtado But then again somebody has to be wrong here. There are great names on the other side - L Michael White, Marvin Meyer, Charlie Hedrick and many more.

It's like the World Series of scholarship. Someone has to win Game Seven. We're in the bottom of the ninth. Anastasopoulou's report is even acknowledged by Jeffrey to make the idea that Smith pulled it off himself unlikely. Now we have the added discovery of more manuscripts by Madiotes at other monasteries.

Would Pearson et al have jumped on board the Carlson express if they had known that he was using low resolution black and white images from Smith's 1973 to develop his forger's tremor argument? I hardly think so. So too would Ehrman have had so many doubts about the MS if he knew there were matching handwriting samples in other monasteries by the aforementioned Madiotes? Again I think not.

Let's see how it all turns out. There have been so many twists and turns it would be foolish for anyone - me included - to claim they know the ending.

But then again, I do happen to stand closer to the guys who are writing the final act of this scholarly drama ...