Stuart

LOL you wear your agenda on your sleeve. You are as much agenda driven as Mountainman. And at times just as scientific.

On Irenaeus, I want to agree on both points in the main. I want to date the "authentic" text as between 185-195 CE based on content. But I am concerned about the authenticity of significant passages in his works. There is no question in my mind that AH 1.23 has some significant interpolations (all of 1.23.1 and into 1.23.2, as well as 1.23.4 and part of 1.23.5). That makes me wonder about other elements in his works. LOL, I know a few scholars that think Irenaeus was a pissed off former Valentinian (would explain certain aspects of his theology).

stephan huller

Yeah identifying Irenaeus as writing at the time of Commodus is direct from Eusebius. What an agenda! Letting the text tell us what to believe. Where do all these trolls come from? Are there that many bridges in America

stephan huller

And I notice that Stuart has nothing to offer against the standard dating of Celsus so we move on to another topic ...

Stuart

<removed per poster> You have no reason to back date Celsus, so you pretend your Henny Youngman.

So I again challenge you to explain why it should be moved earlier than say 15 years before Origen wrote his counter. It is not safe nor prudent to simply accept an earlier date than necessary for a work to have been done without solid grounds.

For example, explain what compelled Origen to write an extremely long multi-volume tract against a book that is (in your view) something like 75-100 years old? What crisis in the mid-3rd century suddenly made this "old", "out of date" writer worth commenting on? This simply makes no sense on the surface.

Being that the Democrats are in the White House I'll pretend I am a Republican today. Consider, if I want to bash Democratic Party political positions, I am not going to dig up the positions of Woodrow Wilson and explain why his speeches give a false picture of Republicans today. I would write about Barrack Obama and his speeches. This is the same time gap.

Positions change and evolve. The Christians Celsus comments on look extremely familiar to Origen, they don't sound alien, they don't argue over long settled matters.

Let me give a few examples from the NT. I have argued that the best dates for the Gospels of Marcion, Matthew, and Mark position in the immediate aftermath of the Bar Kokhba revolt. Even the source prototype Gospel(s) has elements that cannot be easily dated before Hadrian's early reign. But for this political example I will put forward Luke 24:21 (in Marcion per AM 4.43.9), when two disciples were walking along the road and told the stranger about Jesus, and made this curious statement
This corresponds remarkably with the slogan of the Bar Kokhba rebels on the coins which stated "For the Redemption of Israel" (on coins for the first two years)

note: the first revolt the slogan was "Redemption of Zion" in the Bellum Iudiaca 66-70 CE. And they did not have to over stamp Caesar's image, since they had their own mint to smelt (so Sheckels instead of Denarii). Hence the imagery in the Gospels does not fit the first War.

This may seem a coincidence, but it is a good indication that it is from the same era. This is further reinforced by the question asked in all three of Gospels I mention about rendering unto Caesar. Jesus when ask if they should pay the Roman poll tax ἔξεστιν δοῦναι κῆνσον Καίσαρι ἢ οὔ, asks to see the coin and asks whose image is on it. Of course it is Caesar. This takes on poignancy during the revolt because the rebels entire coin collection was from captured coins (almost all Roman) in which they over stamped the image of Caesar.

These are current topics in 130-140 CE, as is the question of following Torah Law with the dissolution of Judea into the Syrian province and the end of local Torah Law, and for a few years, until Antoninus gives legal ruling, that circumcision was in a legal limbo (135-138 CE) and subject to capricious local Roman authorities interpretation.

It makes little sense to me that the core of these books to have been written much before that era, nor much after, as the issues had subsided. By the time Justin's Dialogue was written, these issues appear not to have been worth discussing, and we are talking maybe 2-3 generations later, in fact Justin seems very unaware of them (which is as preposterous as it sounds).

I posit the same argument about Origen writing on the issues presented by Celsus. Origen is not arguing that Christians three generations before may have behaved this way but not today. He is countering the current situation in the evolving and growing church challenged by Celsus.

Is that good enough reasoning for you?

...

aa5874

You seem to rely on Apologetics for history.

Well, it was precisely during the time of Serverus c 193-21 and Caracalla c 198-217 CE , Co- Emperors, when Origen was supposedly in Alexandria that there was a GREAT and deadly Persecution of Christians according to the Church.

If Origen was born c 185 CE then he was 17 years c 202 CE.

In Church History 6 at least 9 of Origen's Pupils were executed and some beheaded some time in the early 3rd century.

Church History 6 In Church History Severus persecuted the Church between 193-211 or during the time of Origen.

stephan huller

<edited for consistency>

As I said the traditional dating for Celsus is either:

1. the period when Antoninus Pius and Lucius Verus ruled together
or
2. the period when Antoninus Pius and Commodus ruled together

I don't know why I have to spend more time on this than simply citing the fact that everyone else acknowledges these dates:

According to the Christian father Origen, Celsus (Greek: Κέλσος) was a 2nd-century Greek philosopher and opponent of Early Christianity.http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Celsus
http://books.google.com/books?id=ysC...20date&f=false
http://books.google.com/books?id=14F...20date&f=false
http://books.google.com/books?id=-Fl...20date&f=false
http://books.google.com/books?id=PZP...20date&f=false
http://books.google.com/books?id=58D...entury&f=false
http://books.google.com/books?id=Ya-...%20177&f=false

I don't know where you get this other date. You've provided nothing in favor of this claim.

I love it when people with no argument get angry.

When Origen wrote his response has nothing to do with determining Celsus's original dates. If this is the best you can do go back to whatever you were doing before.

Read a book. I've provided seven reasons. It's in line with what others have said.

You know what? Please come up with an argument besides 'I don't like that date it gets in the way of my mental masturbation'

These arguments are always winners. I don't know what this has to do with anything.

He read books.

I don't think so but I know this is popular here at the forum. I'm not interested in discussing this in a thread devoted to the public libraries of antiquity.

and the quote:
No it isn't. Learn something about Jewish history. I don't have time for this.

As I said learn something about the concept of redemption in Judaism. You'll be amazed at how silly this argument will seem.

I don't care about any of this. It has nothing to do with the topic at hand. I like Detering but I don't buy this argument.

That's nice.

I posit the same argument about Origen writing on the issues presented by Celsus. Origen is not arguing that Christians three generations before may have behaved this way but not today. He is countering the current situation in the evolving and growing church challenged by Celsus.

I'm just wondering what any of this has to do with the topic at hand.

Toto

A request to all parties to deescalate the personal attacks.

stephan huller

Just because I am nice. Your argument is based on a complete lack of knowledge about Judaism. There is no connection between these two ideas. They represent two distinct words:

The coin has ge'ulla for 'redemption' and Exodus 30:12 kopher. Not the same concept.

stephan huller

In case I am jumping too fast for you:

http://books.google.com/books?id=iVh...0jesus&f=false

and again:

http://books.google.com/books?id=Hcd...kel%22&f=false

Roger Pearse

What does Origen himself say, at the start of Contra Celsum?