Why was Celsus historicist ?

Discussion about the New Testament, apocrypha, gnostics, church fathers, Christian origins, historical Jesus or otherwise, etc.
Giuseppe
Posts: 13732
Joined: Mon Apr 27, 2015 5:37 am
Location: Italy

Re: Did Celsus and His "Jew" Offer Different Arguments?

Post by Giuseppe »

SURPRISE: a risen Pagan God is more historical than a historical Jesus.


About:
And again, when it is said of Aesculapius that a great multitude both of Greeks and Barbarians acknowledge that they have frequently seen, and still see, no mere phantom, but Aesculapius himself, healing and doing good, and foretelling the future; Celsus requires us to believe this, and finds no fault with the believers in Jesus, when we express our belief in such stories, but when we give our assent to the disciples, and eye-witnesses of the miracles of Jesus, who clearly manifest the honesty of their convictions (because we see their guilelessness, as far as it is possible to see the conscience revealed in writing), we are called by him a set of "silly" individuals, although he cannot demonstrate that an incalculable number, as he asserts, of Greeks and Barbarians acknowledge the existence of Aesculapius; while we, if we deem this a matter of importance, can clearly show a countless multitude of Greeks and Barbarians who acknowledge the existence of Jesus. And some give evidence of their having received through this faith a marvellous power by the cures which they perform, revoking no other name over those who need their help than that of the God of all things, and of Jesus, along with a mention of His history. For by these means we too have seen many persons freed from grievous calamities, and from distractions of mind, and madness, and countless other ills, which could be cured neither by men nor devils.
so Ben:
Ben C. Smith wrote: That is the thing. I am afraid what I have found to be the case so far in book 3 is the boring outcome: I would replace your primarily above with apparently exclusively. It seems to me that in the cases of Asclepius, Aristeas, and Antinoüs, at any rate, the phenomenon under discussion is apotheosis upon death, through and through. I am not so sure about Cleomedes, but in that case the existence of the man does not appear to come up at all; what is under dispute is his worthiness to be called divine (which Origen brings to bear against all of the other candidates, as well). If Celsus questioned the pre-mortem existence of Jesus as well as the post-mortem, Origin seems either not to have noticed it or to have suppressed it.
I would like to do a criticism of this position.

First note the following facts:

1) the activities of the Asclepius (who is meant here) seem to be compared by Celsus to the earthly activities of the Gospel Jesus: to heal and do good, and foretell the future. These are things made by an itinerant healer. To my knowledge, the risen Jesus is not more an exorcist and a prophet in the our Gospels, he says only ''I'm risen, bye bye''.


2) note the Origen's words:
And some give evidence of their having received through this faith a marvellous power by the cures which they perform, revoking no other name over those who need their help than that of the God of all things, and of Jesus, along with a mention of His history.
According to Origen, the miracles of the post-mortem Jesus (made by the Christian exorcists, not directly by Jesus himself) are in perfect continuity with the presumed miracles of the pre-mortem Jesus (therefore the Christian exorcists had to mention the ''his history'' during their works). This seems a counter-point to Celsus's argument that the historicity of the post-mortem Asclepius (''not mere phantom'') is in perfect continuity with the the presumed historicity of the pre-mortem Asclepius.

_______________________________________________________________


Even if Ben is right that Celsus assumes here a post-mortem Asclepius,then the point of Celsus is that he is comparing the post-mortem miracolous Asclepius with the pre-mortem not-miracolous Jesus. In other words, the paradox for Celsus is that who had to be meant as a mere phantasm - the risen Asclepius - is more real and historical than who had to be meant as a real man (according to Gospel), i.e. the pre-mortem Jesus.

Conclusion (for Celsus): that comparison of a post-mortem Pagan God with a pre-mortem Jewish Angel shows that the first being has more reasons to be considered historical, differently from the second being.

The force of the my argument is on the emphasis on the miracles of healing. I repeat: according to our Gospels, the post-mortem Jesus doesn't healings or ''social miracles'', he proclaims only the good news of the his resurrection. Therefore it is irrational to think that Celsus had in mind the post-mortem Jesus when he compared an Asclepius healer and prophet with Jesus. The terms of comparison are the earthly activities of healing and prophecy, precisely the activities that make known the pre-mortem Jesus in the Gospels (and the same activities that make known a post-mortem Asclepius).
Nihil enim in speciem fallacius est quam prava religio. -Liv. xxxix. 16.
User avatar
Peter Kirby
Site Admin
Posts: 8033
Joined: Fri Oct 04, 2013 2:13 pm
Location: Santa Clara
Contact:

Re: Why was Celsus historicist ?

Post by Peter Kirby »

If anyone's lost, the two-year-old thread being mentioned is here:
viewtopic.php?f=3&t=1581

The post above has been merged into this 2017 thread.
"... almost every critical biblical position was earlier advanced by skeptics." - Raymond Brown
Giuseppe
Posts: 13732
Joined: Mon Apr 27, 2015 5:37 am
Location: Italy

Re: Why was Celsus historicist ?

Post by Giuseppe »

While expecting possibly some comment on the my post above, I have a different translation from the words quoted above:
while we, if we deem this a matter of importance, can clearly show a countless multitude of Greeks and Barbarians who acknowledge the existence of Jesus.
My Italian translation reads similar to:
while we, if he deems this a matter of importance, can clearly show a countless multitude of Greeks and Barbarians who acknowledge the existence of Jesus.
Who is then to deem possibly "this a matter of importance", where "this" is the belief in the historicity of Jesus? Celsus or the Christians? Or both? If my translation is correct, then it seems that the Celsus's argument needed as implicit corollary of some evidence of the existence of Jesus...
Nihil enim in speciem fallacius est quam prava religio. -Liv. xxxix. 16.
Post Reply