stephan huller

Hey AA:

I cited Cels. 1.9 and 3.16 not Cels. 1.19 and 3.16. Both make reference to Cybele and "Cybele ordained that the death of Atys should be bewailed every year in solemn lamentations, and that henceforth her priests should be eunuchs."

Eunuchs have no testes, if Christians were likened to Cybele's eunuch priests they probably had no testes either (they were castrated) and if they didn't have testes they couldn't have children (sperm is kept in the testes - the white stuff!) - so they couldn't be "fruitful and multiply."

aa5874

'Against Celsus' 1.9 and 3.16 have NOT ONE thing about castration or disproves that Jesus believers were expected to be "fruitful and multiply" as found in Genesis 1.26-28.

This is getting rather annoying. You make reference to another passage in "Against Celsus" and the results are NEGATIVE again.

Are you too intellectually lazy to actually read "Against Celsus" 1.9 and 3.16 before you make claims that turn out to be bogus?

stephan huller

AA,

Let me help you understand the passage. You have to know something about ancient Roman religions. Origen begins Book One Chapter Nine by saying that Celsus compares "the inconsiderate believers to Metragyrtae." The Metragyrtae were the eunuch priests of Cybele. Notice the reference to 'inconsiderable believers.' Origen is writing off the testimony of Celsus by identifying them as belonging to the Marcionite or some related heretical sect.

MY ARGUMENT IS NOT DEPENDANT ON WHAT FOLLOWS but I am going to tell you what I 'think' anyway. I think 1.9 has been taken from its original place in chapter three. Anyway take what I say with a grain of salt, but here is the rest of what appears in 1.9.

For Celsus's point is that "as amongst such persons are frequently to be found wicked men, who, taking advantage of the ignorance of those who are easily deceived, lead them away whither they will, so also, he says, is the case among Christians. And he asserts that certain persons who do not wish either to give or receive a reason for their belief, keep repeating, "Do not examine, but believe!" and, "Your faith will save you!" And he alleges that such also say, "The wisdom of this life is bad, but that foolishness is a good thing!" [ibid]

Origen points instead to "the great multitude of believers (i.e. the Catholics) who have washed away the mire of wickedness in which they formerly wallowed, whether it were better for them to believe without a reason, and to have become reformed and improved in their habits, through the belief that men are chastised for sins, and honoured for good works or not to have allowed themselves to be converted on the strength of mere faith, but have waited) until they could give themselves to a thorough examination of th reasons."[ibid]

Then Origen continues in chapter twelve to reveal the next part of Celsus's argument by saying - "In the next place, when Celsus says in express words, "If they would answer me, not as if I were asking for information, for I am acquainted with all their opinions, but because I take an equal interest in them all, it would be well. And if they will not, but will keep reiterating, as they generally do, 'Do not investigate,' etc., they must, he continues, explain to me at least of what nature these things are of which they speak, and whence they are derived," [i.12]

Now we know that these arguments follow one another because Origen goes back to the statement of Celsus's regarding "the wisdom of this life is a bad thing, but that foolishness is good" in chapter nine in i.13.

It is very interesting that in THE VERY NEXT chapter (i.14) the narrative goes back and introduces the opening lines of Celsus book. I will quote chapter fourteen in full:

Celsus, being of opinion that there is to be found among many nations a general relationship of doctrine, enumerates all the nations which gave rise to such and such opinions; but for some reason, unknown to me, he casts a slight upon the Jews, not including them amongst the others, as having either laboured along with them, and arrived at the same conclusions, or as having entertained similar opinions on many subjects. It is proper, therefore, to ask him why he gives credence to the histories of Barbarians and Greeks respecting the antiquity of those nations of whom he speaks, but stamps the histories of this nation alone as false. For if the respective writers related the events which are found in these works in the spirit of truth, why should we distrust the prophets of the Jews alone? And if Moses and the prophets have recorded many things in their history from a desire to favour their own system, why should we not say the same of the historians of other countries? Or, when the Egyptians or their histories speak evil of the Jews, are they to be believed on that point; but the Jews, when saying the same things of the Egyptians, and declaring that they had suffered great injustice at their hands, and that on this account they had been punished by God, are to be charged with falsehood? And this applies not to the Egyptians alone, but to others; for we shall find that there was a connection between the Assyrians and the Jews, and that this is recorded in the ancient histories of the Assyrians. And so also the Jewish historians (I avoid using the word "prophets," that I may not appear to prejudge the case) have related that the Assyrians were enemies of the Jews. Observe at once, then, the arbitrary procedure of this individual, who believes the histories of these nations on the ground of their being learned, and condemns others as being wholly ignorant. For listen to the statement of Celsus: "There is," he says, "an authoritative account from the very beginning, respecting which there is a constant agreement among all the most learned nations, and cities, and men." And yet he will not call the Jews a learned nation in the same way in which he does the Egyptians, and Assyrians, and Indians, and Persians, and Odrysians, and Samothracians, and Eleusinians.

The point is that chapter fourteen is actually the beginning of the original book. All that proceeds it was removed from the body of work somewhere and PLACE IN FRONT of what I just cited (just look at how chapter fourteen makes ABSOLUTELY NO SENSE following thirteen). That Origen (or an editor) completely reworked Origen's original design for the work is obvious from the conclusion of the preface where the author 'confesses':

After proceeding with this work as far as the place where Celsus introduces the Jew disputing with Jesus, I resolved to prefix this preface to the beginning (of the treatise), in order that the reader of our reply to Celsus might fall in with it first, and see that this book has been composed not for those who are thorough believers, but for such as are either wholly unacquainted with the Christian faith, or for those who, as the apostle terms them, are "weak in the faith;" regarding whom he says, "Him that is weak in the faith receive ye." And this preface must be my apology for beginning my answer to Celsus on one plan, and carrying it on on another. For my first intention was to indicate his principal objections, and then briefly the answers that were returned to them, and subsequently to make a systematic treatise of the whole discourse. But afterwards, circumstances themselves suggested to me that I should be economical of my time, and that, satisfied with what I had already stated at the commencement, I should in the following part grapple closely, to the best of my ability, with the charges of Celsus. I have therefore to ask indulgence for those portions which follow the preface towards the beginning of the book. And if you are not impressed by the powerful arguments which succeed, then, asking similar indulgence also with respect to them, I refer you, if you still desire an argumentative solution of the objections of Celsus, to those men who are wiser than myself, and who are able by words and treatises to overthrow the charges which he brings against us. But better is the man who, although meeting with the work of Celsus, needs no answer to it at all, but who despises all its contents, since they are contemned, and with good reason, by every believer in Christ, through the Spirit that is in him.[Against Celsus preface.6]

Indeed just go back and look at how abruptly what is now called Book One Chapter One allegedly begins the work as a whole:

The first point which Celsus brings forward, in his desire to throw discredit upon Christianity, is, that the Christians entered into secret associations with each other contrary to law, saying ... [ibid i.1]

In other words, THIS IS NOT THE ORIGINAL OPENING. Origen was a great writer. He wouldn't have just started in with the words 'the first point which Celsus brings forward.' The material has been deliberately rearranged so as to make at least SOME of the contents unintelligible. The stuff which now forms chapters 1, 2, 3, 4, 5, 6, 7, 8 and 9 thru 13 was clearly removed from the main body of the work for a reason.

So we have a reference from Origen saying that Christians are like the eunuch priests of Cybele and that they fool their disciples into joining their mysteries but we have no statement from Celsus as to what rites those mysteries involved.

I suspect that in fact section 1.9 - 13 actually went in front of 3.16 and AFTER the identification of various heresies in second century Christianity. So the material in 3:1 - 15 (which marks the beginning where Celsus speaks in his own voice) followed by a reference to the heretics resembling the eunuch priests of Artemis or "to the begging priests of Cybele" and then the other crazies and then:

as amongst such persons are frequently to be found wicked men, who, taking advantage of the ignorance of those who are easily deceived, lead them away whither they will, so also, he says, is the case among Christians. And he asserts that certain persons who do not wish either to give or receive a reason for their belief, keep repeating, "Do not examine, but believe!" and, "Your faith will save you!" And he alleges that such also say, "The wisdom of this life is bad, but that foolishness is a good thing!"

and then:

If they would answer me, not as if I were asking for information, for I am acquainted with all their opinions, but because I take an equal interest in them all, it would be well. And if they will not, but will keep reiterating, as they generally do, 'Do not investigate,' etc., they must, he continues, explain to me at least of what nature these things are of which they speak, and whence they are derived

All of this follows the order in 1.9 - 13. I suggest however that immediately after this A SECTION WHICH ORIGEN WILL NOT ALLOW US TO SEE WITH OUR OWN EYES. He only says:

But what the legends are of every kind which we gather together, or the terrors which we invent," as Celsus without proof asserts, he who likes may show. I know not, indeed, what he means by "inventing terrors," unless it be our doctrine of God as Judge, and of the condemnation of men for their deeds, with the various proofs derived partly from Scripture, partly from probable reason. And yet--for truth is precious--Celsus says, at the close, "Forbid that either I, or these, or any other individual should ever reject the doctrine respecting the future punishment of the wicked and the reward of the good!" What terrors, then, if you except the doctrine of punishment, do we invent and impose upon mankind? And if he should reply that "we weave together erroneous opinions drawn from ancient sources, and trumpet them aloud, and sound them before men, as the priests of Cybele clash their cymbals in the ears of those who are being initiated in their mysteries"[Celsus 3:16]

The point is that Origen is not allowing for us to see that Celsus in undoubtedly well acquainted with how 1 Corinthians was used by the heretics - i.e. to support ritual castration. Not only does Celsus cite material from early in the work, the Marcionites clearly interpretation 1 Cor chapter 6 and 7 in such a way as to say 'it is better to be castrated than burn in the flames of the final conflagration' cf:

You are not your own; you were bought at a price. Therefore honor God with your body. It is good for a man not to marry. I wish that all men were as I am. Time is short. From now on those who have wives should live as if they had none; those who mourn, as if they did not; those who are happy, as if they were not; those who buy something, as if it were not theirs to keep; those who use the things of the world, as if not engrossed in them. For this world in its present form is passing away. (loose assembly of material from Tertullian's witness of the Marcionite recension).

This is what Celsus is referencing and what Origen - or the editors of his work - are preventing us from seeing.

stephan huller

And AA if that is too confusing for you I already showed you the clearest proof that the Alexandrian tradition was founded on castration. From your beloved Justin (I Apol. 29) "And that you may understand that promiscuous intercourse is not one of our mysteries, one of our number a short time ago presented to Felix the governor in Alexandria a petition, craving that permission might be given to a surgeon to make him an eunuch. For the surgeons there said that they were forbidden to do this without the permission of the governor. And when Felix absolutely refused to sign such a permission, the youth remained single, and was satisfied with his own approving conscience, and the approval of those who thought as he did."

The Alexandrian tradition was founded on castration rituals. Castrated men can't 'be fruitful and multiply'

aa5874

What in the world are you doing? You have NOT shown a single passage that makes reference to castration in "Against Celsus" 1.9 and 3.16.

Just show me the passages instead of taking me ALL over.

"Against Celsus" 3.16 has about 500 words and not one of the word is "castration", "eunuch, "monogamy" or "celibacy".

"Against Celsus" 3.16 The reference to Cybele has NOTHING at all to do with castration but with making noise like "clashing cymbals" of the priests of Cybele.

Your claim is TOTALLY in error.

"Against Celsus" 1.9 has about 600 words and has NOT ONE thing on castration, eunuch, monogamy or celibacy.

"Against Celsus" 1.9 is about the deceptive OPINIONS of HERESIES.

There is ZERO on castration. "Against Celsus" 1.9 is about deception.

Your claim is virtually 100% in ERROR.

How could you have been virtually 100% in error on both occasions?

I think I now understand how the history of the Church may have been written.

stephan huller

This isn't one of your typical rants about the mythical Jesus and the like. Origen was a real person who is EXPLICITLY identified as a eunuch by his supporters (as well as his detractors). There have been questions raised by scholars with regards to how we reconcile Origen's apparent silence or even apparent rejection of certain forms of castration but again I DON'T TO PROVE that Origen was castrated. Eusebius makes clear that Origen tried to HIDE the fact that he had castrated himself. This might explain why the topic doesn't come up in his writings and it might also explain why he makes it seem as if he is against certain forms of castration (like Ken Mehlman, Ted Haggart and other homosexuals attack homosexuality in spite of their own habits).

As Moxnes notes:

One wonders how it could be possible for Origen to write this if he actually had castrated himself. But if he in fact had done it, it might explain why he was relatively mild in his criticism of castration and why he was concerned with the shame and slander that eunuchs experienced. He distanced himself from the eunuchs, but nevertheless showed a certain sympathy. Eunuchs were not made into something totally 'other.' [Putting Jesus in his place: a radical vision of household and kingdom p. 82]

Indeed let's remember that Origen ALSO speaks about certain restrictions being placed on Samaritan circumcision. There were bans on castrating others since the second century.

Again, I don't have to argue FOR Origen being castrated. It is explicitly confirmed in writing from within a few generations of his death by a tradition that was directly connected with his teaching. It is impossible to imagine why supporters would lie about his status.

There are also a number of statements which seem to indicate that he approved of something like ritual castration. For instance:

Christians who "like perfect priests, for whom such pleasures have no charm, keep themselves in act and in thought in a state of virgin purity." [Against Celsus 7:48]

Yes, it could theoretically be argued again that Origen was talking about something like the modern Roman Catholic priesthood. But we have that explicit testimony and moreover - and I have shown - the idea that his superior Demetrius was a eunuch and that all Patriarchs before him were too. And Justin's evidence of the Alexandrian Church as a destination where Christian went to cut off their sexual problems.

And then there is the rest of the list I produced to start this thread ...

stephan huller

Origen's treatment of the castration metaphor in Commentary on Matthew. Origen's figurative interpretation of the third group, those who were eunuchs "because of the kingdom," is filled with masculine metaphors (Comm. Matt. 15.4). His starting point is that castration is performed by the word of God, which is "sharper than any two-edged sword" [Heb 4:12] The ideal eunuch is a man who takes this word, which the apostle also calls "the sword of the Spirit" (Eph. 6:17), so that he may cut out the passions of his soul. Since passions are gendered female, by cutting out the passions the masculine sword (word) of God turns the ascetic man into "a real man,"

I guess my point is that we can go back to the writings of Origen and ask - is Origen taking ritual castration and developing into a loose metaphor for a general 'spiritual' process OR is he disguising a continuing practice going on in Alexandria or at the very least which was maintained in Alexandria and Egypt throughout the second century (cf Justin Apology 1.49)?

I would argue again that it has to be the latter given that Eusebius EXPLICITLY says that Origen 'hid' his own physical state from the authorities. It is impossible to get around the implausibility of claiming that Eusebius LIED about Origen's status as a eunuch. It is easier to imagine that Origen lied OR DISGUISED his sympathies for the castrated state BECAUSE HE WAS A EUNUCH.

charles

I have been going through the Westminster Handbook on Origen all night think about the debate here looking if I could find something that might prove to be decisive in either way. I am not expert of course but I found this statement quite important as it hadn't been brought up by anyone

"Eusebius tells the reader only that Demetrios ungraciously published abroad the story that Origen was a eunuch and unfit for ordination"

The reference http://books.google.com/books?id=Kjm...0unfit&f=false

In other words, it can't be just Eusebius. He wasn't making up this information. Eusebius was reacting to a report from Demetrios. A letter perhaps which is now lost. I don't know but Demetrios knew firsthand that Origen was a eunuch.

vid

Seems so far no one mentioned first canon of Council of Nicea. If self-castration was forbidden by such important all-empire gathering in such prominent place (the very first canon), it must have been an important issue at the time. Some argument goes for early Christian writers arguing against literal interpretation of Matthew passage (unfortunately, I don't have exact references on this laptop).

stephan huller

Yes Charles but you should be made aware that scholars who claim that Origen never underwent castration argue that Demetius made up the story as a way of slighting Origen. In other words, AA's argument is going to be that Eusebius just made it all up which is not even worth discussing. The critical question that we have to consider is whether it just comes down to a 'he said (Demetrius), she said (Origen)" in murkiest antiquity.

I don't think so because of three principle reasons

(a) Justin's letter makes clear that castration rituals were prevalent in Alexandria from the beginning. This connection between Egypt and the eunuch ideal lasted into the sixth century. As such given that Origen seems literally to have been born into Alexandrian Christianity belief he had to have been aware of the importance of castration in the second century. It was swirling around him in the very period where Eusebius points to the self-castration as a 'mistake of youthful indiscretion.'

(b) why does Eusebius provide us with so many specifics about the circumstances of Origen's castration. The argument from scholars is that Eusebius is trying to distract us from framing the conflict with Demetrius as being centered around doctrine. The castration then is supposed to be a distraction from Origen's beliefs. But self-castration is now the clearest sign now of Origen's alienation from later standards of orthodoxy. His castration makes explciit what might only be implicit. It's not so much a distraction as a confirmation of Origen's heretical associations. This strategy doesn't make sense at all.

(c) the fact that no one ever comes out from antiquity and DENIES that Origen did something to himself, Methodius (Res. 1. 58. 2; Epiph. Pan 64.50.2) seems to allude to the act even before Eusebius and parallels to it from Origen's day can be cited (W. Bauer 1914; Hanson 1966) makes it impossible to ignore. The report of Origen's self-castration has to be considered to be real.

Incidentally Charles I think there are also circumstantial arguments which can be used to argue that Clement was eunuch including the advice he gave someone that "for the sake of the kingdom of heaven emasculate (eunuchizein) himself (Matt 5:19) from all desire to purify the conscience from dead works to serve the living God." Stromateis 3. 7.59

The bottom line however is that it just as difficult to find someone 'confessing' that they are a eunuch. More so to imagine how such a proof could be sustained outside such a clear confession from a second hand source.

It is like trying to find proof that any of the witches tried in Salem were really witches or that any of those tried by McCarthy were really communists or homosexuals. The stigma associated with these accusations makes it very difficult to 'prove' any of the charges. The same applies with regards to being a eunuch in second and third century Imperial Rome.