Reconstructing Celsus

Discussion about the New Testament, apocrypha, gnostics, church fathers, Christian origins, historical Jesus or otherwise, etc.
Secret Alias
Posts: 18362
Joined: Sun Apr 19, 2015 8:47 am

Re: Reconstructing Celsus

Post by Secret Alias »

We are fortunate to have in our possession a wonderful examination of the funeral oration that Gregory Nazianzus gave to his beloved written by Jostein Bortnes of the University of Bergen in Norway. Entitled Eros Transformed: Same-Sex Love and Divine Desire, Reflections on the Erotic Vocabulary in St. Gregory of Nazianzus's Speech on St Basil Bortnes reveals that a critical part of the eulogy reveals the one soul in two bodies doctrine. The section, basically extending from chapter 18 - 25 has a strongly erotic component. Moreover Gregory's description of his love for Basil has been traditionally undervalued, downplayed or even ignored by scholars because there is very little interest in exploring it.

Carolinne White argues that "it is true that the friendships usually existed between members of the same sex and usually between men but to imply that all close friendships between members of the same sex are homosexual is absurd, an unfortunate consequence of modern attitudes to friendship" evidence from the monastic literature of many cultures supports this very conclusions. It has been demonstrated that the term 'friendship' was "used euphemistically in Coptic sources to describe homoerotic relations between monastics, and this is also found in eastern and western Christian monastic sources in a number of traditions, from Late Antiquity throught the Middle Ages and even into the present."

It might be that figuring out the nature of the relationship between Basil and Gregory is to help shine a light 'down the chain' as it were of the obscure relationship of the 'brothers' Theodore and Athenodoros in the original circle of Origen. The Cappadocian Fathers likely believed that their relationship was a mirror of that of the Pontic bishops of the third century. Their mutual love (however defined) for each other in Athens was a perpetuation of the original Alexandrian yoking rite established in Caesarea Maritima with Origen's sudden departure from Egypt. Basil and Gregory's unnamed Athenian teacher can be presumed to have played the part of mystagogue no less than Origen did at the time of Theodore and Athenodorus.

Bortnes begins his study with the very last lines of the Oration, in the section where Gregory Nazianzus remembers reflecting back on their lover affair after leaving Greece. "After only a short time in Athens, my longing desire turns me into Homer's horse, and breaking the bonds of those who restrained me, I thunder over the plains, running towards my mate." Athens was the beginning of their philia. Bortnes notes that in describing how he returned to Cappadocia to be reunited with his friend, Gregory uses an image know from Homer's Iliad, when toward the end of the sixth book, Paris runs toward his brother Hector: "As when some stalled horse who has been corn-fed at the manger breaking free of his rope gallops over the plain in thunder"

In the above passage we find already some of the elements typical of what Bortnes calls "Gregory's rhetoric of philia." This is a most passionate love which begins with Basil's arrival at Athens which Gregory characterizes as follows "Athens, which has been to me, if to anyone, a city truly of gold, and the patroness of all that is good. For it brought me to know Basil more perfectly, though he had not been unknown to me before, and in my pursuit of letters I attained to happiness." Of course as Bortnes notes, this happiness ultimately explodes when they fell madly in love with one another:
Up to this point our discourse has proceeded smoothly, carrying us along the even, very easy, truly royal highway in the praises of this man. But from here onwards, I do not know what language to employ or which way to turn, for our discourse is getting difficult. For at this point of my speech I should like to take the opportunity and follow my desire to add to what I have said a few things that concern myself personally, and to delay my story a little in order to tell you about the cause, the circumstances, and the origin of this friendship, or, to put it more properly, this unity of body and soul. For the eye is not wont to turn away easily from attractive sights, and if torn away by force, it is wont to return to them again. It is the same with a speech when it tells of that which is most sweet to us. Yet I fear the difficulty the difficulty of the undertaking. I will try, therefore, to use all possible moderation. And if I should be overpowered by longing desire pardon this most just of all feelings, not to experience which would be a terrible loss, at least to sensible men.
Bortnes draws attention to the fact that the words used in this section - philia, sumpnoia, sumfuia, pothos - "are all basic words in Gregory's erotic vocabulary." The all reinforce a most passionate relationship, hardly the kind of thing most of us would associate with common 'friendship.'

"This was" Gregory goes on to say after his description of their first encounter, a mere "prelude of our philia. This kindled the spark of our relationship, thus we were wounded by our love for one another." Again when Basil with Gregory's support wins the dispute with the Armenians again at Athens, Gregory comments that now their friendship was kindled for the second time, "no longer a spark, but a manifest and conspicuous blaze." When Basil has his feelings by disappointment Gregory notes "I restored his cheerfulness, and by this mutual experience, he was the more closely united to me."

The discussion continues now to an account of their intimacy and their living arrangements. Gregory confessing:
When, as time went on, we confessed our innermost desire to each other, and above all that philosophy was what we wanted to pursue, from that moment, onwards we were everything to each other, roommates, messmates, soulmates, in contemplation of the One, forever strengthening and intensifying each other's desire. For the love of body for body, since it is transitory, passes like the flowers of spring. For neither will the flame last when the firewood is spent, but goes away with what kindles it, nor will desire remain when the incentive has been quenched. But a love that is divine and chaste, since its object is firm, is thereby firmer, and the fuller their vision of beauty, the more closely does beauty bind to itself and to each other lovers whose love is the same. This is the law that governed our love for each other.
Bortnes notes that what is being described here is a classic Platonic distinction between the two forms of eros. It is a distinction we know from dialogues such as Alcibiades, Lysis, Phaedros, and the Symposium, in particular. Not only do we here find the image of "the fading flower of the body he so loved," it is in Pausanias's speech in the Symposium that we find a discussion of the dual nature of eros in combination of with a survey of the various laws concering eros. Bortnes rightly remarks that Platonism in Gregory is not the same as Platonism in Plato. Gregory's erotics is uniquely Christian formulation of same-sex philia which we should add greatly resembles the things said in the text by Hippolytus of Rome. Indeed Gregory continues in what immediately follows: to acknowledge that
Such were our feelings for each other, when we had thus supported, as Pindar has it, our well-built chamber with pillars of gold, as we advanced under the united influences of God's grace and our own affection. Oh! How can I mention these things without tears. We were impelled by equal hopes, in a pursuit especially obnoxious to envy, that of letters. Yet envy we knew not, and emulation was of service to us. We struggled, not each to gain the first place for himself, but to yield it to the other; for we made each other's reputation to be our own. We seemed to have one soul, inhabiting two bodies. And if we must not believe those whose doctrine is All things are in all; yet in our case it was worthy of belief, so did we live in and with each other.
The theme of ritualized same sex unions also appears throughout Theodore's Panygeric for Origen. It is the very underpinning of the text. While Basil and Gregory never directly acknowledge their familiarity with the Panygeric, it is impossible to imagine that they did not know this most important of Theodore's works. In spite of all this Bortnes argues that the love described in Gregory Nazianzus's Oration for Basil is slightly different that that which appears in the Panygeric. At least part of that misunderstanding on Bortnes part is attributable to his failure to recognize what the third century text is actually about – i.e. an expression of Theodore’s (Gregory's) ‘thanks’ to Origen for his service as the mystagogue that brought them (Theodore and his partner) together.

Indeed the most critical part of the Panygeric, the section which ultimate connects the material back to secret Mark and forward to the Oration of Gregory is where Theodore acknowledges that Origen carried them off “by a kind of divine power” (theia dynamei)which he references in the following terms - “the desire of love (philia) was also brought to bear upon us,--a stimulus, indeed, not easily withstood, but keen and most effective,--the argument of a kind and affectionate disposition, which showed itself benignantly in his words when he spoke to us and associated with us.”

Clearly the ‘power’ here is Jesus who is described in terms familiar to Marcionites. He is above all else the embodiment of philia and it is important to see that there is a strong homoerotic sense here which bears surprising similarities with the understanding preserved in the writings of Methodius. Jesus is a ‘power’ embodied in an individual who is united with a weaker mate and who is expected to strengthen and preserve this underling through love.

Theodore goes on to say that Origen “did not aim merely at getting round us by any kind of reasoning; but his desire was, with a benignant, and affectionate, and most benevolent mind, to save us, and make us partakers in the blessings that flow from philosophy.” Yet this again takes place because of:
the power that teaches us piety, the word of salvation, that comes to many, and subdues to itself all whom it visits: for there is nothing that shall resist it, inasmuch as it is and shall be itself the king of all; although as yet it is hidden, and is not recognised, whether with ease or with difficulty, by the common crowd, in such wise that, when interrogated respecting it, they should be able to speak intelligently about it. And thus, like some spark lighting upon our inmost soul, love (eros) was kindled and burst into flame within us—a love at once to the Holy Word, the most lovely object of all, who attracts all irresistibly toward Himself by His unutterable beauty, and to this man, His friend and advocate.
It must be noted how homoerotic the whole description of the rite which confirms Theodore and his partner Athenodorus into the contemporary Christian community. Origen stands in for Jesus who inseminates both partners witht his spiritual seed of love.

Theodore continues by noting that “being most mightily smitten by this love, I was persuaded to give up all those objects or pursuits which seem to us befitting, and among others even my boasted jurisprudence,— yea, my very fatherland and friends, both those who were present with me then, and those from whom I had parted. And in my estimation there arose but one object dear and worth desire—to wit, philosophy, and that master of philosophy, this inspired man.” Origen, playing the part of intermediary is clearly attempting to fan the spark of spiritual love so it settles in these two youths. This is clearly the very same principle of philia at the heart of the secret gospel which one scholar notes was deemed by Empedocles to have been "alone worthy of true worship, as the eternal elemental force of creativity and unity in the cosmos."

Bortnes rightly notes that the philia of Theodore and his teacher represents a relationship not unlike the relationship between Socrates and his pupils. As he puts it "in his spiritual ascent towards the divine, Origen — the theios anthropos, the "friend" and "spokesman" of the Holy Word, has, in the eyes of his disciple already transcended the human condition. It is the "most godlike" in him (Panegyric 2.13) that enables him to play the part of a mediator between the divine and the disciple in an erotic relationship that requires that the latter should break all other bonds and submit his will to that of his guide and master."

While Bortnes argues that what is being described in Gregory's funeral oration for his lover is ultimately different - that Basil and Gregory's union is of two equals rather than a master and guide. In other words, Origen takes the role of Christ (or 'David' according to this arrangement) and Theodore and Athenodorus have been each joined to him. Indeed at the very place Bortnes cuts off the citation from the Panegyric we see an unmistakable reference to this understanding. Theodore cites 1 Samuel 18:1 to explain what has happened to him under Origen's hand:
And the soul of Jonathan was knit with David. (1 Samuel 18:1) This word, indeed, I did not read till afterwardtheos in the sacred Scriptures; but I felt it before that time, not less clearly than it is written: for, in truth, it reached me then by the clearest of all revelations. For it was not simply Jonathan that was knit with David; but those things were knit together which are the ruling powers in man— their souls—those objects which, even though all the things which are apparent and ostensible in man are severed, cannot by any skill be forced to a severance when they themselves are unwilling. For the soul is free, and cannot be coerced by any means, not even though one should confine it and keep guard over it in some secret prison-house. For wherever the intelligence is, there it is also of its own nature and by the first reason. And if it seems to you to be in a kind of prison-house, it is represented as there to you by a sort of second reason. But for all that, it is by no means precluded from subsisting anywhere according to its own determination; nay, rather it is both able to be, and is reasonably believed to be, there alone and altogether, wheresoever and in connection with what things soever those actions which are proper only to it are in operation. Wherefore, what I experienced has been most clearly declared in this very short statement, that the soul of Jonathan was knit with the soul of David; objects which, as I said, cannot by any means be forced to a separation against their will, and which of their own inclination certainly will not readily choose it. Nor is it, in my opinion, in the inferior subject, who is changeful and very prone to vary in purpose, and in whom singly there has been no capacity of union at first, that the power of loosing the sacred bonds of this affection rests, but rather in the nobler one, who is constant and not readily shaken, and through whom it has been possible to the these bonds and to fasten this sacred knot. Therefore it is not the soul of David that was knit by the divine word with the soul of Jonathan; but, on the contrary, the soul of the latter, who was the inferior, is said to be thus affected and knit with the soul of David. For the nobler object would not choose to be knit with one inferior, inasmuch as it is sufficient for itself; but the inferior object, as standing in need of the help which the nobler can give, ought properly to be knit with the nobler, and fitted dependently to it: so that this latter, retaining still its sufficiency in itself, might sustain no loss by its connection with the inferior; and that that which is of itself without order being now united and fitted harmoniously with the nobler, might, without any detriment done, be perfectly subdued to the nobler by the constraints of such bonds. Wherefore, to apply the bonds is the part of the superior, and not of the inferior; but to be knit to the other is the part of the inferior, and this too in such a manner that it shall possess no power of loosing itself from these bonds. And by a similar constraint, then, did this David of ours once gird us to himself; and he holds us now, and has held us ever since that time, so that, even though we desired it, we could not loose ourselves from his bonds. And hence it follows that, even though we were to depart, he would not release this soul of mine, which, as the Holy Scripture puts it, he holds knit so closely with himself
The use of 1 Samuel 18:1 here was again almost certainly reinforcing same sex love 'being in the room' as Theodore was being ritually yoked to his partner Athenodorus.

David's love for Jonathan has always been recognized to have homosexual undertones to it. We see it in David's praise for Jonathan's 'love' (for him) over the 'love' of women in 2 Samuel 1:26 no less than Saul's exclamation to his son at the dinner table, "I know you have chosen the son of Jesse - which is a disgrace to yourself and the nakedness of your mother!" The "choosing" (bahar) may indicate a permanent choice and firm relationship, and the mention of "nakedness" (erwa) could be interpreted to convey a negative sexual nuance, giving the impression that Saul saw something indecent in Jonathan's and David's relationship. Moreover when they are alone together, David confides that he has "found grace in Jonathan's eyes", a phrase proponents say normally refers to romantic or physical attraction.

In the end it is important to note that Gregory twice uses language of marital union to describe his relationship with Basil. In his recollection of their last day at Athens he says "it was like cutting one body into two, to the destruction of either part, or the severance of two bullocks who have shared the same manger and the same yoke (homozygwn), amid pitiable bellowings after one another in protest against the separation. However, my loss was not of long duration, for I could not long bear to be seen in piteous plight, nor to have to account to every one for our separation. After only a short time in Athens, my longing desire turns me into Homer's horse, and breaking the bonds of those who restrained me, I thunder over the plains, running towards my mate." The critical word here is homozygon (= 'one yoke') and it obviously derives from the word syzygy.

Gregory uses the word syzgias four times to describe the ideal behind heterosexual marriage (43.9.1, 43.9.3, 43.16.3, 43.81.2). It is also the term he repeatedly uses to describe the same sex union that he had with Basil - "While I, Gregory, who am half dead, and, cleft in two, torn away from our great union (tes megales syzygias), and dragging along a life of pain which runs not easily, as may be supposed, after separation from him, know not what is to be my end now that I have lost my guidance." This terminology is critical for understanding was going on in Alexandrian circles likely back to the origins of the community. Men were being united with other men through the power of Christ.

Bortnes is quite correct that after Athens Gregory and Basil's philia changed to something else. Gregory says that after he had become a bishop, Basil "built up a network of contacts, acquaintances, relatives, clients, and of friends in the richest sense." Gregory's understanding of friendship as a reciprocal loving relationship between two equals, united in their quest for divine truth, was, however, irreconcilable with Basil's status as a prince of the Church. And although Gregory found a model for their new relationship in Paul and Barnabas in Acts, their friendship was never the same after Athens. Indeed to put it plainly, Gregory was disappointed by Basil inability to give up ties with this world. This is not how Clement, Origen or even Theodore had originally portrayed this syzygy. Above all else, it like their love was supposed to be inviolable.  
“Finally, from so little sleeping and so much reading, his brain dried up and he went completely out of his mind.”
― Miguel de Cervantes Saavedra, Don Quixote
Secret Alias
Posts: 18362
Joined: Sun Apr 19, 2015 8:47 am

Re: Reconstructing Celsus

Post by Secret Alias »

So when you look at Celsus's argument in detailed form it is really twofold:

1. the Christians have secret synthekas (pl. i.e. many) amongst each other contrary to the things sanctioned by established tradition (συνθήκας κρύβδην πρὸς ἀλλήλους ποιουμένων Χριστιανῶν παρὰ τὰ νενομισμένα) [1.15]
2. Christians refuse to render due service to the gods, and to respect those who are set over this service (μὲν ἀπαξιοῦσι θεραπεύειν τὰ εἰκότα τοὺς τῶνδε ἐπιστάτας), to come to manhood (μήτ' εἰς ἀνδρὸς ἰέναι), to marry wives (μήτ' ἄγεσθαι γυναῖκα), to have children (μήτ' ἀναιρεῖσθαι τέκνα), to indeed take any share in the affairs of life (μήτ' ἄλλο πράττειν μηδὲν ἐν τῷ βίῳ) [8.55]

I take these two statements to be related. In other words, the 'secret synthekai' bound Christians together to throw off their duties to the rest of the world, duties which Celsus defined in terms - but not limited to - marriage, propagation of the species, serving in the army, serving the gods of the Empire etc.

I find the use of the plural συνθήκας quite problematic for the traditional understanding of Celsus's statement. For in what follows Celsus says clearly that there is but one logos which was held by all races and Jews and Christians were excluded from this elite company. Indeed against this monolithic 'agreement' between the earliest races Christians have decided πρὸς ἀλλήλους to form secret compacts. Owing to the fragmentary nature of what remains of Celsus's original treatise (and the possibility that Eusebius 'improved' Origen's original response) it is difficult to know how directly one can see the 'many' secret compacts established by Christians against the 'things sanctioned by established tradition' - but I see this as a quite direct relationship. In other words, the secret synthekai are intended to take the Christians away from the true logos.

Moreover despite the fact that the treatise begins with a complex discussion of whether or not Origen should respond to Celsus's claims (using Jesus's silence at his trial as a starting point) the fact that Origen did in fact respond to Celsus's charge necessarily implies that Origen felt very much targeted by Celsus's Λόγος Ἀληθής. It would be very strange indeed to see Origen respond to a treatise directed against the Marcionites for instance. In fact, many times in the treatise we hear Origen say exactly this - 'ah but this (i.e. what Celsus wrote) only applies to the Marcionites.' And yet Against Celsus was written nevertheless.

I think we have to go back to the root of the most common term for Christian 'associations' (in Patristic literature at least) - αἵρεσις. The underlying notion is that of an individual taking or choosing something. Note that in the second citation above the term shows up:
They must choose (between two) 'logoi' (θάτερον αἱρεῖ λόγος). If they refuse to render due service to the gods, and to respect those who are set over this service ...
Choice necessarily takes place on an individual level. The fact that many 'heresies' exist in the world is part of this germination of Christian belief on an individual level. Therefore the 'secret compacts between each other ... in love' are necessarily individual syntheke albeit many of them. I am not sure then that these compacts that Celsus found contradicted 'the natural order' can be anything other than compacts between two individuals.
“Finally, from so little sleeping and so much reading, his brain dried up and he went completely out of his mind.”
― Miguel de Cervantes Saavedra, Don Quixote
Secret Alias
Posts: 18362
Joined: Sun Apr 19, 2015 8:47 am

Re: Reconstructing Celsus

Post by Secret Alias »

There are also many instances in the Stromata where Clement IMHO demonstrates that he knows of Celsus's treatise. For instance in Book 1:
Since, therefore, truth is one (for falsehood has ten thousand by-paths); just as the Bacchantes tore asunder the limbs of Pentheus, so the sects both of barbarian and Hellenic philosophy have done with truth, and each vaunts as the whole truth the portion which has fallen to its lot. But all, in my opinion, are illuminated by the dawn of Light. Let all, therefore, both Greeks and barbarians, who have aspired after the truth, -- both those who possess not a little, and those who have any portion, -- produce whatever they have of the word of truth. Eternity, for instance, presents in an instant the future and the present, also the past of time. But truth, much more powerful than limitless duration, can collect its proper germs, though they have fallen on foreign soil. For we shall find that very many of the dogmas that are held by such sects as have not become utterly senseless, and are not cut out from the order of nature (by cutting off Christ, as the women of the fable dismembered the man), though appearing unlike one another, correspond in their origin and with the truth as a whole. For they coincide in one, either as a part, or a species, or a genus. For instance, though the highest note is different from the lowest note, yet both compose one harmony. And in numbers an even number differs from an odd number; but both suit in arithmetic; as also is the case with figure, the circle, and the triangle, and the square, and whatever figures differ from one another. Also, in the whole universe, all the parts, though differing one from another, preserve their relation to the whole. So, then, the barbarian and Hellenic philosophy has torn off a fragment of eternal truth (τὴν ἀίδιον ἀλήθειαν) not from the mythology of Dionysus (οὐ τῆς ∆ιονύσου μυθολογίας), but from the theology of the ever-living Word (τῆς δὲ τοῦ λόγου τοῦ ὄντος ἀεὶ θεολογίας πεποίηται). And He who brings again together (συνθεὶς αὖθις) what had been separate (ὁ δὲ τὰ διῃρημένα), and makes them one (καὶ ἑνοποιήσας τέλειον), will without peril, be assured, contemplate the perfect Word, the truth (τὸν λόγον ἀκινδύνως ... τὴν ἀλήθειαν). [1.13.58.2]
This is so obviously a response to the central argument lifted by Origen in Book 1 from Celsus's treatise. Just look again at the OP. It is without question.
“Finally, from so little sleeping and so much reading, his brain dried up and he went completely out of his mind.”
― Miguel de Cervantes Saavedra, Don Quixote
Secret Alias
Posts: 18362
Joined: Sun Apr 19, 2015 8:47 am

Re: Reconstructing Celsus

Post by Secret Alias »

Compare Clement's reference to the Christian mysteries:
And He who brings again together (συνθεὶς αὖθις) what had been separate (ὁ δὲ τὰ διῃρημένα), and makes them one (καὶ ἑνοποιήσας τέλειον), will without peril, be assured, contemplate the perfect Word, the truth (τὸν λόγον ἀκινδύνως ... τὴν ἀλήθειαν)
To a standard Greek orthodox marriage rite:
O God eternal, Thou who didst bring together into unity the things which before had been separate, and in so doing didst impose on them an indissoluble bond of love (ὁ τὰ διῃρημένα συναγαγὼν εἰς ἑνότητα καὶ σύνδεσμον διαθέσεως τιθεὶς ἄῤῥηκτον)
I am telling you, there is something to this idea. Christians weren't just punished by the authorities because they had a 'secret synagogue' or something like that. Both Clement and Origen responding to the same treatise implies for me at least an Alexandrian provenance for Celsus too.
“Finally, from so little sleeping and so much reading, his brain dried up and he went completely out of his mind.”
― Miguel de Cervantes Saavedra, Don Quixote
Secret Alias
Posts: 18362
Joined: Sun Apr 19, 2015 8:47 am

Re: Reconstructing Celsus

Post by Secret Alias »

This is also interesting. As noted, the Stromata like all early Patristic texts has clearly suffered through a second later hand in the editing process. What we have is not the original work but a hastily corrected orthodox correction of something early. But interesting things remain. Look at this from Book Three, the most interesting of the books:
Who are the two or three who gather in the name of Christ with the Lord in their midst? 256 By three does he not mean husband, wife, and child? 257 A wife is united with her husband by God. 258 (2) But if a man wishes to be unencumbered, and prefers to avoid producing children because of the time it takes up, then, says the Apostle, "he had better stay unmarried like me." 259 (3) Their interpretation of the Lord’s meaning is this. In relation to the plurality, he is speaking of the creator, who is responsible for all coming into being; 260 in relation to the one, he is speaking of the savior of the elect, naturally the son of a different god, of course, the good god. (4) This is wrong. God through his Son is with those who responsibly marry and produce children, and it is the same God who in the same way is with the man who shows self-control in the light of the Logos. 261 (5) Another interpretation would make the three temper, desire, and reason; 262 yet another flesh, soul, and spirit. 263

69(1) Perhaps the group of three of which we have been speaking is first an allusion to those called; secondly, to the elect; and thirdly, to the class of beings ordained to the highest honor. 264 The power of God watching over all things is with them, indivisibly divided among them. (2) So a person who makes proper use of the natural powers of the soul has a desire for appropriate objects but hates all that would injure, as the commandments prescribe. Scripture says, "You shall bless anyone who blesses you and curse anyone who curses you." 265 (3) But when a person has risen above temper and desire, when he shows an actual love for the creation, for the sake of God the maker of all things, then he will live a life of true knowledge 266 effortlessly embracing the state of self-control following the likeness of the Savior, bringing knowledge, faith, and love into a single unity. (4) From that point he is single in judgment and genuinely spiritual. He is totally closed to thoughts which arise from temper or desire. He is being brought to perfection according to the image of the Lord by the actual craftsman, becoming a fully mature human being, 267 at last worthy to be called brother by the Lord. 268 He is at once friend and son to him. 269 In this way the two or three are gathered into the same point, the truly Gnostic human being.
We begin with a question: "Who are the two or three who gather in the name of Christ with the Lord in their midst?" (Τίνες δὲ οἱ δύο καὶ τρεῖς
ὑπάρχουσιν ἐν ὀνόματι Χριστοῦ συναγόμενοι, παρ' οἷς μέσος ἐστὶν ὁ κύριος). The reference is clearly to a saying which resembles what is found in Matthew:
οὗ γάρ εἰσιν δύο ἢ τρεῖς συνηγμένοι εἰς τὸ ἐμὸν ὄνομα, ἐκεῖ εἰμὶ ἐν μέσῳ αὐτῶν.
The first answer to the question was clearly brought up and rejected by Clement out of hand:
By three does he not mean husband, wife, and child?
He immediately goes on to clarify
But even if some might wish (θέλῃ) to be well bound (εὔζωνός), choosing not to make children (οὐχ αἱρούμενος τὴν παιδοποιίαν) because time is pressing [then, says the Apostle, "he had better stay unmarried like me"] wanting to say that the Lord set forth with respect to the many (πλειόνων) he is speaking of the Demiurge, who is the begetter god (τὸν δημιουργὸν εἶναι τὸν γενεσιουργὸν θεόν) with respect to the One (τοῦ ἑνὸς) he is speaking of the savior of the elect, naturally the son of a different god, of course, the good god.
Of course the present text denies this possibility:
τὸ δ' οὐχ οὕτως ἔχει
But was this originally there? Did Clement really negate this possibility? In fact Photius mentions that Clement believed something very similar to what is described here:

He is further convicted of monstrous statements about two Words of the Father, the lesser of which appeared to mortals, or rather not even that one, for he writes : “The Son is called the Word, of the same name as” the Word of the Father, but this is not the Word that became flesh, nor even the Word of the Father, but a certain power of God, as it were an efflux from the Word itself, having become mind, pervaded the hearts of men.” All this he attempts to support by passages of Scripture. He talks much other blasphemous nonsense

Needless to say I am convinced that Clement was originally citing his own explanation to the statement found in Matthew. The section which immediately follows where he denies the interpretation comes from the hand of a later editor in order to separate the section from what follows namely:
The power of God watching over all things is with them (i.e. the two Logoi), indivisibly divided among them (μεθ' ὧν ἡ πανεπίσκοπος τοῦ θεοῦ δύναμις ἀμερῶς μεριστή) Accordingly a person who makes proper use of the natural powers of the soul has a desire for appropriate objects but hates all that would injure, as the commandments prescribe. [Scripture says, "You shall bless anyone who blesses you and curse anyone who curses you."] But when a person has risen above temper and desire (τοῦ θυμοῦ καὶ τῆς ἐπιθυμίας), actually loving the creation (ἔργῳ ἀγαπήσῃ τὴν κτίσιν), for the sake of God the maker of all things, then he will live a gnostic life (γνωστικῶς βιώσεται) effortlessly embracing the state of self-control (ἕξιν ἐγκρατείας ἄπονον περιπεποιημένος) assimilating himself to the likeness of the Savior (κατὰ τὴν πρὸς τὸν σωτῆρα ἐξομοίωσιν), bringing knowledge, faith, and love into a single unity (ἑνώσας τὴν γνῶσιν, πίστιν, ἀγάπην). From that point he is single in judgment and genuinely spiritual. He is totally closed to thoughts which arise from temper or desire. He is being brought to perfection according to the image of the Lord by the actual craftsman (τεχνίτου), a perfect man (ἄνθρωπος τέλειος), at last worthy to be called brother by the Lord. He is at once friend and son to him (φίλος ἅμα οὗτος καὶ υἱός ἐστιν). In this way the two or three are gathered into the same point, the gnostic man. (τὸν γνωστικὸν ἄνθρωπον).
I think it is impossible to deny that Clement had some sort of mystical notion about Jesus uniting himself to single individuals and paired individuals in some sort of mystical gnostic rite.
Last edited by Secret Alias on Fri Aug 11, 2017 9:45 pm, edited 1 time in total.
“Finally, from so little sleeping and so much reading, his brain dried up and he went completely out of his mind.”
― Miguel de Cervantes Saavedra, Don Quixote
Secret Alias
Posts: 18362
Joined: Sun Apr 19, 2015 8:47 am

Re: Reconstructing Celsus

Post by Secret Alias »

I think there must have been some myth - which was at work in Marcionism too - where by the power seen by the Jews at Sinai had a 'twin' in heaven. In some form I imagine that these two powers were related to the names 'Jesus' and 'Christ.'
“Finally, from so little sleeping and so much reading, his brain dried up and he went completely out of his mind.”
― Miguel de Cervantes Saavedra, Don Quixote
Secret Alias
Posts: 18362
Joined: Sun Apr 19, 2015 8:47 am

Re: Reconstructing Celsus

Post by Secret Alias »

Moreover since both man and the world are created in the image of God and are both described in Genesis as being made by God the line - actually loving the creation (ἔργῳ ἀγαπήσῃ τὴν κτίσιν) - could apply equally to a man or the world. It also clearly calls to mind the agraphon "see your brother see your God."
“Finally, from so little sleeping and so much reading, his brain dried up and he went completely out of his mind.”
― Miguel de Cervantes Saavedra, Don Quixote
Secret Alias
Posts: 18362
Joined: Sun Apr 19, 2015 8:47 am

Re: Reconstructing Celsus

Post by Secret Alias »

The myth might have involved one man who was the 'Christ' figure - wholly divine and beyond passion - and another man who was less perfect (= 'earthy') who is trying to use his proximity to the perfect man to perfect himself. This is the essential myth of Alexandrian Christianity. Friendship and love is the path to liberation.
“Finally, from so little sleeping and so much reading, his brain dried up and he went completely out of his mind.”
― Miguel de Cervantes Saavedra, Don Quixote
Stuart
Posts: 878
Joined: Mon Apr 14, 2014 12:24 am
Location: Sunnyvale, CA

Re: Reconstructing Celsus

Post by Stuart »

I eagerly await your book with the full reconstruction.

These posts are disorganized thoughts to put it nicely. You are all over the map, and I'd rather wait for the finished product to comment.
“’That was excellently observed’, say I, when I read a passage in an author, where his opinion agrees with mine. When we differ, there I pronounce him to be mistaken.” - Jonathan Swift
Secret Alias
Posts: 18362
Joined: Sun Apr 19, 2015 8:47 am

Re: Reconstructing Celsus

Post by Secret Alias »

Of course it's muddled. Unlike most people at the forum I don't know what the right answer is before I start investigating. Since we share in interest in Marcionism let me turn this around. What do you imagine that 'Marcionites' were doing all day long. They weren't married, they didn't have children, didn't eat very much or very much that was interesting, didn't drink, didn't seem to do much of everything.

Let me throw out an idea. They didn't like sex. Sex is natural and results in children. Have you ever considered that homosexuality would be the biggest f-u to the Creator? Doesn't mean that I think Marcionites were gay. But just as a thought experiment. Buggery is pretty much as big a f-u as I can imagine to the 'world' - to the commandments, whatever. What do you think so far?
“Finally, from so little sleeping and so much reading, his brain dried up and he went completely out of his mind.”
― Miguel de Cervantes Saavedra, Don Quixote
Post Reply