gnosis92

If Jesus did not exist, and Celsus knew this, would he have mentioned it in his True Word?

Christ mythicists, what convinced Celsus writing 150CE that Jesus was a figure of history? If there was any evidence that Jesus did not exist, or if Celsus had met groups that saw the SOn as Doherty describes, would Celsus have mentioned it?

What does the fact Celsus states that the fact Jesus died a horrible death disproves his claim to divinity, that it is absurd for the Christians in 150CE to say Jesus is divine given he was executed as a criminal, say about the historicity of Jesus, given both Roman and Greek and Jewish religious sensibilities and writing 150CE?

Celsus even argues that aspects of Christ's story imitates Greek myth, but still accepts Jesus as a figure of history (and identifies his father as Panthera).

When Celsus states that Joseph thew out Mary for having a child out of wedlock, do you think this information came from gospel-reading Christians, or independant of Christians?

GakuseiDon

And keeping in mind that Doherty believes that some of the Christian apologists who believed that Christ wasn't historical wrote around 180 CE.

Origen wrote

But let us now return to where the Jew is introduced, speaking of the mother of Jesus, and saying that "when she was pregnant she was turned out of doors by the carpenter to whom she had been betrothed, as having been guilty of adultery, and that she bore a child to a certain soldier named Panthera;" and let us see whether those who have blindly concocted these fables about the adultery of the Virgin with Panthera, and her rejection by the carpenter, did not invent these stories to overturn His miraculous conception by the Holy Ghost: for they could have falsified the history in a different manner, on account of its extremely miraculous character, and not have admitted, as it were against their will, that Jesus was born of no ordinary human marriage. It was to be expected, indeed, that those who would not believe the miraculous birth of Jesus would invent some falsehood. And their not doing this in a credible manner, but (their) preserving the fact that it was not by Joseph that the Virgin conceived Jesus, rendered the falsehood very palpable to those who can understand and detect such inventions.

There's a few interesting things here:
1. Celsus is saying that Jesus was born of adultery between a soldier called Panthera and Mary. This obviously didn't come from the Gospels, though perhaps "Panthera" may have been derived from the word for "Virgin", so it could have been derived indirectly from there. It does seem to indicate an earlier tradition that Jesus was the product of adultery, though.
2. Origen makes the point that Celsus "preserves the fact that it was not by Joseph that the Virgin conceived Jesus". Celsus seems to accept that there was some kind of controversy over the birth of Jesus. Even though Celsus appears to be a philosopher in his own right, he doesn't even hint to wonder about a "Jesus of a spiritual realm" as a solution.
3. Robert Price in "The God Who Wasn't There" says that the pagans were saying “What you say that Jesus we’ve been saying about Dionysus and Hercules all the time.”

If what Price says is true, i.e. that pagans regarded Jesus's story in the same way as other pagan gods AND they also seemed to accept that Jesus was born as a human on earth, it should surely raise questions about Doherty's idea about a "fleshly sublunar realm" existing as a concept at that time. You would think that a HJ would be the odd god out, and this would have needed to have been defended by the HJers, i.e. pagans like Celsus would have been saying that what Christians were saying about a historical Jesus was NOT like they were saying about Dionysus, etc, since they would have been regarded as living in a "fleshly sublunar realm".

gnosis92

GakuseiDon
That's exactly my point. Celsus also raises the issue of how if Jesus did not exist, why the Christians told the Jews and pagans that a man crucified under Pilate is god is absurd, and why they did not change their story accordingly. Celsus is stating that common sense of his time is anyone dying such a shameful death is automatically not divine.

Origin who was highly educated in philosophy does not seem to read Paul as Doherty does.

Evidentally, a first century man as anti-Christian, if not more so, as any MJ-atheist today provides strong evidence for Jesus' historicity and strong evidence against Christ-mythicism

Doug Shaver

Maybe he did. How would we know? We don't have anything he wrote, just some alleged quotations in Origen's writings.

By his time, many Christians were convinced that their sect had been founded by a historical person named Jesus, and that is what they were telling anybody who would listen. And also by his time, there was nobody around who would have had clear evidence to the contrary. Unless Celsus was unusually skeptical, he would have taken the Christians' word for it as to how their religion had gotten started.

It's not all that different from how the average secular scholar nowadays views the issue. There are certain things you just take for granted about certain things people say unless some very credible person raises a red flag.

Quite possibly he did. And, quite possibly, Origen pretended like he didn't.

Considered in isolation from all the other evidence relevant to the question of Jesus' historicity, it says nothing useful.

andrewcriddle

I agree that Celsus is so late as to be of limited weight here.

However at face value Celsus is using an earlier 2nd century Jewish tradition which regards Jesus as a historical figure but takes a hostile view of such things as his birth and alleged miracles.

Celsus is not simply taking the Christians' word for it about Christian origins, but provides evidence that earlier opponents of Christianity regarded Jesus as a real historical figure.

Andrew Criddle

gnosis92

Well yes anything is possible. I'm only interested in what is probable. If the original Christians believed in a purely spiritual figure, how did historical Christians become dominant to the extent that neither Origin nor Celsus nor anyone else met any of them?

The evidence Celsus provides is that most of Romans and Jews thought Christian claims that a crucified man is divine is absurd to Roman common sense and that the historicity of Jesus in the second century was accepted by even hostile witnesses, and that there is no evidence that Jesus historicity was in doubt.

GakuseiDon

"Quite possibly Origen pretended like he didn't" just sounds terribly adhoc to me. Origen was asked to respond to Celsus's charges by another Christian. So why would he? Why would Origen, and all the other early heresiologists as well, have ignored those Christians who believed that Jesus was killed in a "spiritual realm"?

gnosis92

GakuseiDon, Agreed.

I would like the resident mythicists here offer a simple yes/no answer,

The idea that some aspects of Jesus story is copycat of pagan myths did occur to him and to other Roman pagans. He expressly mentions it.

If Celsus had encountered, just once, from anyone, the idea Jesus never existed, would he have mentioned it?

Did the idea that Jesus never existed ever occur, just once, randomly, in Celsus mind? ANd if so, would he have mentioned his doubt?


While he is about 120 years removed from the event, when he wrote The True Word, presumably there were oral traditions and writings now lost that he had access to.

EarlDoherty

I would say that 150 is a bit early to date Celsus' work. 170 seems a more acceptable, and accepted, date.

Everyone also seems to be treating the 2nd century as though it was the equivalent of the Internet age. We can see from the Christian record itself that communities and documents which existed in one part of the empire seem unaware of the thought and writing existing in another part. It's quite conceivable that Celsus moved in circles which were heavily supportive of the Gospels as history, and had little or no contact with those which did not.

As for what "mythicists" believed around the year 170, we really have very little evidence of. The apologists who, unlike Justin, made not the slightest bow toward an historical Jesus were adherents of a type of Logos religion, with no sacrificed Son, on earth or in the heavens. It's quite possible the Pauline type of mythicism had died out by now, supplanted by historical Jesus fantasies. After the year 180, the type of Logos faith represented by such as Athenagoras and Minucius Felix also soon succumbed to the Gospel Jesus juggernaut.

In threads like this, there is altogether too much blurred presentation of the actual picture of Christian diversity throughout the 2nd century. And since we don't actually possess the original Celsus, it is difficult to pontificate on what he did know, or should have known, about the Christianity he was attacking. If Minucius Felix 10 or 20 years ealier could ridicule the claim that Christians somewhere were worshiping a crucified man and his cross, can we wonder that Celsus moved only in circles that subscribed to that "abominable" doctrine?

And sorry, Don, I'm not going to be sucked into that one again.

Earl Doherty

Attonitus

Contra Celsum it is a bad sample, the text has only come down to us through the quotations of Origen in his book, we do not have a full text. Celsus's sources are the Gospels, but Celsus also know Marcion and curiously the quotations of Origen does not explain the docetic tesis about Jesus, a very strong evidence against a historical Jesus.