Freethought & Rationalism Archive

GakuseiDon · 02-10-2006, 10:13 PM

In another thread, youngalexander quotes Doherty as saying:

"we have the witness of a writer like Celsus, around 160-180, whom Origen did his best to refute. He accused the Christians of having nothing new, of borrowing or stealing everything from the widespread myths of the time. Then we have Christianity's own apologists like Justin and Tertullian being forced to deal with such accusations, not by denying that the mysteries had possessed such features before Christianity came along, but by admitting that while they did predate Christ, they were the responsibility of Satan and his demons who counterfeited them ahead of time."

I know that Justin Martyr didn't believe that Satan looked into the future to copy from Christ's life -- he believed that Satan used the Old Testament writings, but misunderstood them. (Whether that constitutes "counterfeiting in advance" I'll leave for others to decide.) So I've tracked down the relevent comments by Justin Martyr.

Now I've been trying to find whether Tertullian and Celsus actually made any such argument. The only thing I find for Tertullian is here:

The question will arise, By whom is to be interpreted the sense of the passages which make for heresies? By the devil, of course, to whom pertain those wiles which pervert the truth, and who, by the mystic rites of his idols, vies even with the essential portions of the sacraments of God. He, too, baptizes some--that is, his own believers and faithful followers; he promises the putting away of sins by a layer (of his own); and if my memory still serves me, Mithra there, (in the kingdom of Satan,) sets his marks on the foreheads of his soldiers; celebrates also the oblation of bread, and introduces an image of a resurrection, and before a sword wreathes a crown. What also must we say to (Satan's) limiting his chief priest to a single marriage? He, too, has his virgins; he, too, has his proficients in continence. Suppose now we revolve in our minds the superstitions of Numa Pompilius, and consider his priestly offices and badges and privileges, his sacrificial services, too, and the instruments and vessels of the sacrifices themselves, and the curious rites of his expiations and vows: is it not clear to us that the devil imitated the well-known moroseness of the Jewish law? Since, therefore he has shown such emulation in his great aim of expressing, in the concerns of his idolatry, those very things of which consists the administration of Christ's sacraments, it follows, of course, that the same being, possessing still the same genius, both set his heart upon, and succeeded in, adapting to his profane and rival creed the very documents of divine things and of the Christian saints--his interpretation from their interpretations, his words from their words, his parables from their parables. For this reason, then, no one ought to doubt, either that "spiritual wickednesses," from which also heresies come, have been introduced by the devil, or that there is any real difference between heresies and idolatry, seeing that they appertain both to the same author and the same work that idolatry does.

But Tertullian seems to be blaming the devil for introducing modern heresies -- at least, there doesn't really appear to be a "counterfeiting in advance" charge.

Does anyone know where Tertullian uses a "diabolical mimicry" type argument? Most people (I even looked in Freke & Gandy's TJM, God help me! :blush: ) appear to use only the above passage.

Also, does anyone have a non-Hoffman(!) derived quote from Celsus charging that Christians "stole everything from pagan myths"? I've found statements from Celsus ridiculing Christians for their beliefs, e.g.

"Do you imagine the statements of others not only to be myths, but to have the appearance of such, while you have discovered a becoming and credible termination to your drama in the voice from the cross, when he breathed his last?"

But there doesn't appear to be a charge that Christians were "borrowing or stealing everything from the widespread myths of the time", as Doherty apparently stated.

I'm beginning to suspect that the whole "diabolical mimicry" argument is the result of "diabolical research"! Any help appreciated!

Roger Pearse · 02-11-2006, 04:58 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by GakuseiDon

I know that Justin Martyr didn't believe that Satan looked into the future to copy from Christ's life -- he believed that Satan used the Old Testament writings...

The only thing I find for Tertullian ...

The Tertullian quote is from De praescriptione haereticorum, of course.

On a related issue: I think that the fathers did believe that people could interact with Christ before he was born. Yesterday I saw somewhere -- perhaps in Wallace-Hadrill's Eusebius of Caesarea (1960)? -- that Eusebius thought that people could be saved through Christ before the incarnation, since the Logos had eternally existed. Unfortunately I didn't write the reference down. Possibly from the Commentary on Isaiah? (Of which no English translation exists, annoyingly).

All the best,

Roger Pearse

mikem · 02-11-2006, 09:16 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Roger Pearse

On a related issue: I think that the fathers did believe that people could interact with Christ before he was born.
All the best,

Roger Pearse

I'm no expert on the Fathers, but ther is a tantalisng passage in 1 peter 3:18,19 which on some interpretations is taken to refer to the redemptive effects of Christ's death working retrospectively. In the Roman Catholic dogma of the Immaculate conception of Mary, the redemptive effects of Christ's death preserve his mother from her own conception. This notion must have originated somewhere.

PhilosopherJay · 02-11-2006, 11:07 AM

Hi GakuseiDon,

Try these:

De Corona 15: Blush, ye fellow-soldiers of his, henceforth not to be condemned even by him, but by some soldier of Mithras, who, at his initiation in the gloomy cavern, in the camp, it may well be said, of darkness, when at the sword's point a crown is presented to him, as though in mimicry of martyrdom, and thereupon put upon his head, is admonished to resist and cast it off, and, if you like, transfer it to his shoulder, saying that Mithras is his crown. [4] And thenceforth he is never crowned; and he has that for a mark to show who he is, if anywhere he be subjected to trial in respect of his religion; and he is at once believed to be a soldier of Mithras if he throws the crown away--if he say that in his god he has his crown. Let us take note of the devices of the devil, who is wont to ape some of God's things with no other design than, by the faithfulness of his servants, to put us to shame, and to condemn us.

On Exhortation to Chastity
3... For the fact that the chief pontiff himself must not iterate marriage is, of course, a glory to monogamy. [2] When, however, Satan affects God's sacraments, it is a challenge to us; nay, rather, a cause for blushing, if we are slow to exhibit to God a continence which some render to the devil, by perpetuity sometimes of virginity, sometimes of widowhood. We have heard of Vesta's virgins, and Juno's at the town of Achaia, and Apollo's among the Delphians, and Minerva's and Diana's in some places. We have heard, too, of continent men, and (among others) the priests of the famous Egyptian bull: women, moreover, (dedicated) to the African Ceres, in whose honour they even spontaneously abdicate matrimony, and so live to old age, shunning thenceforward all contact with males, even so much as the kisses of their sons. The devil, forsooth, has discovered, after voluptuousness, even a chastity which shall work perdition; that the guilt may be all the deeper of the Christian who refuses the chastity which helps to salvation!

Prescription against Heretics:
By the devil, of course, to whom pertain those wiles which pervert the truth, and who, by the mystic rites of his idols, vies even with the essential portions of the sacraments of God. [3] He, too, baptizes some—that is, his own believers and faithful followers; he promises the putting away of sins by a layer (of his own); [4] and if my memory still serves me, Mithra there, (in the kingdom of Satan, ) sets his marks on the foreheads of his soldiers; celebrates also the oblation of bread, and introduces an image of a resurrection, and before a sword wreathes a crown. [5] What also must we say to (Satan's) limiting his chief priest to a single marriage? He, too, has his virgins; he, too, has his proficients in continence. [6] Suppose now we revolve in our minds the superstitions of Numa Pompilius, and consider his priestly offices and badges and privileges, his sacrificial services, too, and the instruments and vessels of the sacrifices themselves, and the curious rites of his expiations and vows: is it not clear to us that the devil imitated the well-known moroseness of the Jewish law?
[7] Since, therefore he has shown such emulation in his great aim of expressing, in the concerns of his idolatry, those very things of which consists the administration of Christ's sacraments, it follows, of course, that the same being, possessing still the same genius, both set his heart upon,426 and succeeded in, adapting to his profane and rival creed the very documents of divine things and of the Christian saints —his interpretation from their interpretations, his words from their words, his parables from their parables. [8] For this reason, then, no one ought to doubt, either that "spiritual wickednesses," from which also heresies come, have been introduced by the devil, or that there is any real difference between heresies and idolatry, seeing that they appertain both to the same author and the same work that idolatry does. [9] They either pretend that there is another god in opposition to the Creator, or, even if they acknowledge that the Creator is the one only God, they treat of Him as a different being from what He is in truth. [10] The consequence is, that every lie which they speak of God is in a certain sense a sort of idolatry

I am persuaded that Tertullian wrote the works of Justin Martyr, so it would be more correct to say that Tertullian, rather than early Christians, believed all other practices not his own were the work of the devil, and all similar practices were the work of the devil's mimicry.

As for Celsus, his charges are easy enough to look up.

Warmly,

PhilosopherJay

Quote:

Originally Posted by GakuseiDon

In another thread, youngalexander quotes Doherty as saying:

"we have the witness of a writer like Celsus, around 160-180, whom Origen did his best to refute. He accused the Christians of having nothing new, of borrowing or stealing everything from the widespread myths of the time. Then we have Christianity's own apologists like Justin and Tertullian being forced to deal with such accusations, not by denying that the mysteries had possessed such features before Christianity came along, but by admitting that while they did predate Christ, they were the responsibility of Satan and his demons who counterfeited them ahead of time."

I know that Justin Martyr didn't believe that Satan looked into the future to copy from Christ's life -- he believed that Satan used the Old Testament writings, but misunderstood them. (Whether that constitutes "counterfeiting in advance" I'll leave for others to decide.) So I've tracked down the relevent comments by Justin Martyr.

Now I've been trying to find whether Tertullian and Celsus actually made any such argument. The only thing I find for Tertullian is here:

The question will arise, By whom is to be interpreted the sense of the passages which make for heresies? By the devil, of course, to whom pertain those wiles which pervert the truth, and who, by the mystic rites of his idols, vies even with the essential portions of the sacraments of God. He, too, baptizes some--that is, his own believers and faithful followers; he promises the putting away of sins by a layer (of his own); and if my memory still serves me, Mithra there, (in the kingdom of Satan,) sets his marks on the foreheads of his soldiers; celebrates also the oblation of bread, and introduces an image of a resurrection, and before a sword wreathes a crown. What also must we say to (Satan's) limiting his chief priest to a single marriage? He, too, has his virgins; he, too, has his proficients in continence. Suppose now we revolve in our minds the superstitions of Numa Pompilius, and consider his priestly offices and badges and privileges, his sacrificial services, too, and the instruments and vessels of the sacrifices themselves, and the curious rites of his expiations and vows: is it not clear to us that the devil imitated the well-known moroseness of the Jewish law? Since, therefore he has shown such emulation in his great aim of expressing, in the concerns of his idolatry, those very things of which consists the administration of Christ's sacraments, it follows, of course, that the same being, possessing still the same genius, both set his heart upon, and succeeded in, adapting to his profane and rival creed the very documents of divine things and of the Christian saints--his interpretation from their interpretations, his words from their words, his parables from their parables. For this reason, then, no one ought to doubt, either that "spiritual wickednesses," from which also heresies come, have been introduced by the devil, or that there is any real difference between heresies and idolatry, seeing that they appertain both to the same author and the same work that idolatry does.

But Tertullian seems to be blaming the devil for introducing modern heresies -- at least, there doesn't really appear to be a "counterfeiting in advance" charge.

Does anyone know where Tertullian uses a "diabolical mimicry" type argument? Most people (I even looked in Freke & Gandy's TJM, God help me! :blush: ) appear to use only the above passage.

Also, does anyone have a non-Hoffman(!) derived quote from Celsus charging that Christians "stole everything from pagan myths"? I've found statements from Celsus ridiculing Christians for their beliefs, e.g.

"Do you imagine the statements of others not only to be myths, but to have the appearance of such, while you have discovered a becoming and credible termination to your drama in the voice from the cross, when he breathed his last?"

But there doesn't appear to be a charge that Christians were "borrowing or stealing everything from the widespread myths of the time", as Doherty apparently stated.

I'm beginning to suspect that the whole "diabolical mimicry" argument is the result of "diabolical research"! Any help appreciated!

GakuseiDon · 02-11-2006, 03:21 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by PhilosopherJay

Hi GakuseiDon,

Try these:

Thanks for that, PhilospherJay. They are examples of "diabolical mimicry" in the sense that Satan is imitating Christianity, but I was after any example showing Tertullian using the "counterfeiting in advance" argument, which your examples don't have. Sorry, I should have been clearer. (Satan imitating goes back to Paul, who talks about Satan appearing as "angels of light" to confuse people.)

Quote:

Originally Posted by PhilosopherJay

As for Celsus, his charges are easy enough to look up.

Doherty says that Celsus "accused the Christians of having nothing new, of borrowing or stealing everything from the widespread myths of the time". I can't find anything to support that. (Hoffman's reconstruction appears to distort Celsus on this).

Clivedurdle · 02-11-2006, 03:34 PM

If I remember Pagels correctly, are we not looking here at a high "satanology" that may possibly be one of the inventions of xianity?

In Job, Satan is some form of messenger, then is thrown out of heaven, then becomes with the NT almost equal to God, requiring massive battles and death of a son to defeat.

countjulian · 02-11-2006, 03:49 PM

Yeah. Here are the Celsus quotes on the various myths (Gak, didn't we already have this discussion

From Kirby's site, http://duke.usask.ca/~niallm/252/Celstop.htm

Quote:

Jesus and the jewish Critic
Book VII

53. Seeing you are so eager for some novelty, how much better it would have been if you had chosen as the object of your zealous homage some one of those who died a glorious death, and whose divinity might have received the support of some myth to perpetuate his memory! Why, if you were not satisfied with Hercules or Aesculapius, and other heroes of antiquity, you had Orpheus, who was confessedly a divinely inspired man, who died a violent death. But perhaps some others have taken him up before you. You may then take Anaxarchus, who, when cast into a mortar, and beaten most barbarously, showed a noble contempt for his suffering, and said, 'Beat, beat the shell of Anaxarchus, for himself you do not beat,'--a speech surely of a spirit truly divine. But others were before you in following his interpretation of the laws of nature. Might you not, then, take Epictetus, who, when his master was twisting his leg, said, smiling and. unmoved, 'You will break my leg;' and when it was broken, he added, Did I not tell you that you would break it?' What saying equal to these did your god' utter under suffering? If you had said even of the Sibyl, whose authority some of you acknowledge, that she was a child of God, you would have said something more reasonable. But you have had the presumption to include in her writings many impious things, and set up as a god one who ended a most infamous life by a most miserable death. How much more suitable than he would have been Jonah in the whale's belly, or Daniel delivered from the wild beasts, or any of a still more portentous kind!

Quote:

Jesus and the Jewish Critic
Book II

54. [Celsus' Jewish critic]: Come now, let us grant to you that the prediction was actually uttered. Yet how many others are there who practise such juggling tricks, in order to deceive their simple hearers, and who make gain by their deception?--as was the case, they say, with Zamolxis in Scythia, the slave of Pythagoras; and with Pythagoras himself in Italy; and with Rhampsinitus in Egypt (the latter of whom, they say, played at dice with Demeter in Hades, and returned to the upper world with a golden napkin which he had received from her as a gift); and also with Orpheus among the Odrysians, and Protesilaus in Thessaly, and Hercules at Cape Taenarus, and Theseus. But the question is, whether any one who was really dead ever rose with a veritable body. Or do you imagine the statements of others not only to be myths, but to have the appearance of such, while you have discovered a becoming and credible termination to your drama in the voice from the cross, when he breathed his last, and in the earthquake and the darkness? That while alive he was of no assistance to himself, but that when dead he rose again, and showed the marks of his punishment, and how his hands were pierced with nails: who beheld this? A half-frantic woman, as you state, and some other one, perhaps, of those who were engaged in the same system of delusion, who had either dreamed so, owing to a peculiar state of mind, or under the influence of a wandering imagination bad formed to himself an appearance according to his own wishes, which has been the case with numberless individuals; or, which is most probable, one who desired to impress others with this portent, and by such a falsehood to furnish an occasion to impostors like himself.

Quote:

Ignorance and Superstition
Book VI

47. I can tell how the very thing occurred, viz., that they should call him 'Son of God.' Men of ancient times termed this world, as being born of God, both his child and his son. Both the one and other 'Son of God,' then, greatly resembled each other.

Quote:

Philosophical and Theological Criticisms
Book III

3. In the next place, miracles were performed in all countries, or at least in many of them, as Celsus himself admits, instancing the case of Aesculapius, who conferred benefits on many, and who foretold future events to entire cities, which were dedicated to him, such as Tricca, and Epidaurus, and Cos, and Pergamus; and along with Aesculapius he mentions Aristeas of Proconnesus, and a certain Clazomenian, and Cleomedes of Astypalaea.

22 The Dioscuri, and Hercules, and Aesculapius, and Dionysus, who are believed by the Greeks to have become gods after being men, but Christians cannot bear to call such beings gods, because they were at first men, and yet they manifested many noble qualifies, which were displayed for the benefit of mankind, while they assert that Jesus was seen after His death by His own followers, as if they said that "He was seen indeed, but was only a shadow!

Quote:

Philosophical and Theological Criticisms

39 Faith, having taken possession of our minds of Christians, makes them yield the assent which they give to the doctrine of Jesus.

42. Well, after he has laid aside these qualities, he will be a God: (and if so), why not rather Aesculapius, and Dionysus, and Hercules?

43 Christians ridicule those who worship Jupiter, because his tomb is pointed out in the island of Crete; and yet they worship him who rose from the tomb, although ignorant of the grounds on which the Cretans observe such a custom.

GakuseiDon · 02-11-2006, 04:23 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by countjulian

Yeah. Here are the Celsus quotes on the various myths (Gak, didn't we already have this discussion

From Kirby's site, http://duke.usask.ca/~niallm/252/Celstop.htm

IIRC we talked about parallels previously. But here I'm trying to find either examples of "counterfeiting in advance"/"plagiarism by anticipation" from apologists, or "you Christians copied/stole from our myths" accusations from Celsus.

Your passages show Celsus pointing out parallels, but Doherty says that Celsus "accused the Christians of having nothing new, of borrowing or stealing everything from the widespread myths of the time". Your examples don't have the accusation that Christians had stolen from pagan myths. That's the kind of thing I'm looking for.

countjulian · 02-11-2006, 04:30 PM

Quote:

IIRC we talked about parallels previously. But here I'm trying to find either examples of "counterfeiting in advance"/"plagiarism by anticipation" from apologists, or "you Christians copied/stole from our myths" accusations from Celsus.

Your passages show Celsus pointing out parallels, but Doherty says that Celsus "accused the Christians of having nothing new, of borrowing or stealing everything from the widespread myths of the time". Your examples don't have the accusation that Christians had stolen from pagan myths. That's the kind of thing I'm looking for.

Celsus specifically mentions the virgin birth as being stolen from the fables of Mellannippe, Danae and others. I can't find it, I think I posted it in our discussion along with Origen's surounding text. Let me go back and look...

andrewcriddle · 02-12-2006, 08:22 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by countjulian

Celsus specifically mentions the virgin birth as being stolen from the fables of Mellannippe, Danae and others. I can't find it, I think I posted it in our discussion along with Origen's surounding text. Let me go back and look...

Possibly you're merging together Book 1 chapter 28

Quote:

And since, in imitation of a rhetorician training a pupil, he 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 endeavour, 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 represents him disputing with Jesus, and confuting Him, as he thinks, on many points; and in the first place, he accuses Him of having "invented his birth from a virgin," and upbraids Him with being "born in a certain Jewish village, of a poor woman of the country, who gained her subsistence by spinning, and who was turned out of doors by her husband, a carpenter by trade, because she was convicted of adultery; that after being driven away by her husband, and wandering about for a time, she disgracefully gave birth to Jesus, an illegitimate child, who having hired himself out as a servant in Egypt on account of his poverty, and having there acquired some miraculous powers, on which the Egyptians greatly pride themselves, returned to his own country, highly elated on account of them, and by means of these proclaimed himself a God."

and chapter 37

Quote:

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, our answer is, that such language becomes a buffoon, land not one who is writing in a serious tone.

IIUC Origen is saying that the Jewish speaker in Celsus' work a/ claims that Jesus' Virgin Birth is an invention to conceal Jesus' illegitimacy. and b/ compares the Virgin Birth disparagingly to various Greek fables.

I don't think this involves an explicit claim of the Virgin Birth being derived from Pagan myths.

Andrew Criddle

02-10-2006, 10:13 PM	#1
GakuseiDon Veteran Member Join Date: Apr 2003 Location: Australia Posts: 5,714	Tertullian, Celsus and Diabolical Mimicry? In another thread, youngalexander quotes Doherty as saying: "we have the witness of a writer like Celsus, around 160-180, whom Origen did his best to refute. He accused the Christians of having nothing new, of borrowing or stealing everything from the widespread myths of the time. Then we have Christianity's own apologists like Justin and Tertullian being forced to deal with such accusations, not by denying that the mysteries had possessed such features before Christianity came along, but by admitting that while they did predate Christ, they were the responsibility of Satan and his demons who counterfeited them ahead of time." I know that Justin Martyr didn't believe that Satan looked into the future to copy from Christ's life -- he believed that Satan used the Old Testament writings, but misunderstood them. (Whether that constitutes "counterfeiting in advance" I'll leave for others to decide.) So I've tracked down the relevent comments by Justin Martyr. Now I've been trying to find whether Tertullian and Celsus actually made any such argument. The only thing I find for Tertullian is here: The question will arise, By whom is to be interpreted the sense of the passages which make for heresies? By the devil, of course, to whom pertain those wiles which pervert the truth, and who, by the mystic rites of his idols, vies even with the essential portions of the sacraments of God. He, too, baptizes some--that is, his own believers and faithful followers; he promises the putting away of sins by a layer (of his own); and if my memory still serves me, Mithra there, (in the kingdom of Satan,) sets his marks on the foreheads of his soldiers; celebrates also the oblation of bread, and introduces an image of a resurrection, and before a sword wreathes a crown. What also must we say to (Satan's) limiting his chief priest to a single marriage? He, too, has his virgins; he, too, has his proficients in continence. Suppose now we revolve in our minds the superstitions of Numa Pompilius, and consider his priestly offices and badges and privileges, his sacrificial services, too, and the instruments and vessels of the sacrifices themselves, and the curious rites of his expiations and vows: is it not clear to us that the devil imitated the well-known moroseness of the Jewish law? Since, therefore he has shown such emulation in his great aim of expressing, in the concerns of his idolatry, those very things of which consists the administration of Christ's sacraments, it follows, of course, that the same being, possessing still the same genius, both set his heart upon, and succeeded in, adapting to his profane and rival creed the very documents of divine things and of the Christian saints--his interpretation from their interpretations, his words from their words, his parables from their parables. For this reason, then, no one ought to doubt, either that "spiritual wickednesses," from which also heresies come, have been introduced by the devil, or that there is any real difference between heresies and idolatry, seeing that they appertain both to the same author and the same work that idolatry does. But Tertullian seems to be blaming the devil for introducing modern heresies -- at least, there doesn't really appear to be a "counterfeiting in advance" charge. Does anyone know where Tertullian uses a "diabolical mimicry" type argument? Most people (I even looked in Freke & Gandy's TJM, God help me! :blush: ) appear to use only the above passage. Also, does anyone have a non-Hoffman(!) derived quote from Celsus charging that Christians "stole everything from pagan myths"? I've found statements from Celsus ridiculing Christians for their beliefs, e.g. "Do you imagine the statements of others not only to be myths, but to have the appearance of such, while you have discovered a becoming and credible termination to your drama in the voice from the cross, when he breathed his last?" But there doesn't appear to be a charge that Christians were "borrowing or stealing everything from the widespread myths of the time", as Doherty apparently stated. I'm beginning to suspect that the whole "diabolical mimicry" argument is the result of "diabolical research"! Any help appreciated!

Thread Tools	Search this Thread
Show Printable Version	Search this Thread: Advanced Search

02-11-2006, 03:34 PM	#6
Clivedurdle Contributor Join Date: Mar 2003 Location: London UK Posts: 16,024	If I remember Pagels correctly, are we not looking here at a high "satanology" that may possibly be one of the inventions of xianity? In Job, Satan is some form of messenger, then is thrown out of heaven, then becomes with the NT almost equal to God, requiring massive battles and death of a son to defeat.

Freethought & Rationalism Archive

The archives are read only.