Was Irenaeus's and Marcion's Christianity a Response to Celsus's 'True Word'?

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

Was Irenaeus's and Marcion's Christianity a Response to Celsus's 'True Word'?

Post by Secret Alias »

A couple of points:

1. No one knows when Celsus wrote but it seems to have been during a period when two Emperors ruled in Rome so the period of the joint rule of Marcus Aurelius and Lucius Verus and conversely Marcus Aurelius and Commodus are favored as dates).
2. Celsus argued that Christianity shouldn't be tolerated (and Christians put to death) owing to their religion failing to demonstrate a connection with the deep past - i.e. it was wholly 'novel' and so lacked the basis to its being tolerated.
3. Irenaeus goes to great lengths to (a) make Christianity a continuation of Judaism (and thus the true form of the faith of the Patriarchs) and moreover uses the Roman Episcopal list and an 'established tradition' among the apostles almost 150 years earlier the basis to the Christian faith.

But isn't (3) really a response to (2)? The Montanists for instance were arguing that the 'new prophets' were still expounding the Holy Spirit so this certainly went against Celsus's dictum. Similarly Marcionites were limited to only a certain collection of writings (Paul's). Was this also in response to Celsus?

Wouldn't the natural tendency of a new religion be to keep 'inspiration' going? Something had to stop the inspired development of new rules and texts. I wonder whether Celsus was the real impetus to this 'conservative' nature.
“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
John2
Posts: 4309
Joined: Fri May 16, 2014 4:42 pm

Re: Was Irenaeus's and Marcion's Christianity a Response to Celsus's 'True Word'?

Post by John2 »

But isn't (3) really a response to (2)?
I would emend point 3 this way:
2. Celsus argued that Christianity shouldn't be tolerated (and Christians put to death) owing to their religion failing to demonstrate a connection with the deep past - i.e. it was wholly 'novel' and so lacked the basis to its being tolerated.
3. Acts goes to great lengths to make Christianity a continuation of Judaism (and thus the true form of the faith of the Patriarchs). Irenaeus uses Acts and the Roman Episcopal list and an 'established tradition' among the apostles almost 150 years earlier as the basis to the Christian faith.
I suppose if Irenaeus had something to do with the creation of Acts -as Gregory notes, he is "the first firmly dateable author who provides secure and incontrovertible evidence for the knowledge and use of Acts," like Eusebius and the TF- then I wouldn't emend your comment at all. However, it is arguable that Acts was known before this, and as Gregory puts the situation, "Irenaeus was himself a product of late-second century Christianity as well as someone who appears to have shaped the way in which Christianity subsequently developed," concluding that:
... the evidence of Irenaeus marks a watershed in what we are able to say about the early reception of Acts. However this does not mean that Irenaeus was the first to use Acts, or that his use of this text was necessarily innovative. Irenaeus was certainly of enormous influence in the way in which the Christianity of the Great Church developed. Nevertheless, it may be too much to ascribe to his influence the not insignificant number of other texts from the late second and/or early third centuries that may also indicate the use of Acts. Further, the well-known phenomenon of the divergent forms in which the text of Acts appears suggests that Acts may already have been circulating in both its so-called Western and Alexandrian forms from the time of Irenaeus and possibly before.

https://books.google.com/books?id=D4Jv0 ... st&f=false
So I think Acts could be a response to Celsus (or complaints like Celsus's) and in any event see Irenaeus as responding to Acts.
Last edited by John2 on Sat May 19, 2018 7:01 pm, edited 2 times in total.
You know in spite of all you gained, you still have to stand out in the pouring rain.
User avatar
Joseph D. L.
Posts: 1405
Joined: Sat Nov 11, 2017 2:10 am

Re: Was Irenaeus's and Marcion's Christianity a Response to Celsus's 'True Word'?

Post by Joseph D. L. »

Celsus may be as late as Zephyrinus and Severus, who also co-ruled with his son, Caracalla.
Secret Alias
Posts: 18362
Joined: Sun Apr 19, 2015 8:47 am

Re: Was Irenaeus's and Marcion's Christianity a Response to Celsus's 'True Word'?

Post by Secret Alias »

Don't think so. The references to the Bar Kochba make that unlikely
“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
John2
Posts: 4309
Joined: Fri May 16, 2014 4:42 pm

Re: Was Irenaeus's and Marcion's Christianity a Response to Celsus's 'True Word'?

Post by John2 »

1. No one knows when Celsus wrote but it seems to have been during a period when two Emperors ruled in Rome so the period of the joint rule of Marcus Aurelius and Lucius Verus and conversely Marcus Aurelius and Commodus are favored as dates).
I've never looked into the dating of Celsus before. I just accepted the estimate of c. 178 CE without giving any thought to how it was arrived at.

Frede writes:
Scholars have thought that Celsus himself provides two clues that allow us to determine his date more or less precisely. In fact, many of them have thought that these clues allow us to date Celsus' treatise exactly in 178 A.D. Celsus talks of "those who rule us now" ... It has been standardly assumed that this expression, because of the plural, presupposes that Celsus is writing at a time of joint rule of two emperors. This would point to the joint reign of Marcus Aurelius and Lucius Verus (161-169) or the joint reign of Marcus Aurelius and Commodus (177-180). But a closer look at the whole sentence and the whole context makes this interpretation of the phrase highly dubious. For Celsus claims to refer to a Christian view according to which the Christians will try to convert the successors, if those who rule now are forced to cede power once they are converted; and if the successors, too, have to step down once they are converted, the Christians will try to convert those who will succeed them as rulers, and so forth ad indefinitum. Now, admittedly, the sentence, as it goes on, becomes rather obscure. But this much is clear beyond doubt that the view Celsus is referring to, at least given the way Celsus describes it, envisages a succession of whole groups of me who rule; i.e., the view is expressed in such a way that not only those who rule us now constitute a plurality, but that they are succeeded at each point by a whole group of basileuontes (cf. the phrase in the next line "those who rule then" , tous authis basileuontas). That Celsus in this sentence, and throughout the whole passage, is referring to successive groups of men in power is obscured by translations like Chadwick's, who renders mia tis arche at the end of the sentence by 'a ruler', when, in fact, given the preceding, this phrase, too, should be referring to a ruling body, to a group of rulers, to a group in power, rather than a single individual. But it doe snot seem reasonable to assume either that the Christians in question or that Celsus believed that the joint imperium would be a permanent institution. So the phrase "those who rule us now", at the beginning of the sentence can hardly refer to the joint Emperors, either. In fact, already Rosenbaum ... correctly pointed out that both the sentence itself and its context rather suggest that the phrase in question refers to the Romans who are now ruling the world and whom the Christians want to convert, as they will try to convert any nation that should take their place as rulers of the world. As Rosenbaum has already explained, this is a perfectly acceptable way to understand the verb basileuein; Athenaeus (III,98 c), e.g., refers to Rome, 'the imperial city' (LSJ), as the basileuousa polis. So much for one supposed clue as to Celsus' date.

The other passage which has been thought to be crucial for the dating of Celsus occurs in the same context, in VIII,69. Celsus says that the Jews, instead of fulfilling their hope to become rulers of the whole world, in their fight for independence ohave lost their own country ... Similarly, he continues about the Christians, who had entertained the hope of Christ's kingdom: "if one of you still errs around trying to hide, he is sought for, to be brought to trial for capital offense." One has assumed that this language presupposes that Celsus is writing at a time of persecution. And so one looked for a persecution during the joint reigns of Marcus Aurelius and Lucius Verus or Marcus Aurelius and Commodus. And since there was a persecution in Lyon and Vienne in 177 (cf, Eus. H.E. V,I), one arrived at a date for Celsus' writing around 178.

It is obvious that this inference is highly questionable ... it presupposes that the phrase "those who rule us now" refers to a joint reign ... But once we give up this assumption, Celsus might be referring to any of a considerable number of waves of persecution ... we have to note that Celsus' remark is highly rhetorical. If the Christians really had been reduced to isolated, erring individuals in hiding, there would have been little need for concern on Celsus' part. Surely, the point which he wants to make is that the God the Christians invoke does help them as little as the god of the Jews helped them, as we can see in times of persecution and, as, indeed, most of Celsus' readers would have had occasion to observe. The matter becomes clearer, if e compare other passages in which Celsus in referring to the persecution of the Christians (e.g. VIII,39; 54; 65). None of these suggest that Celsus is writing at a time of actual persecution ...

There are other clues which are of some help. The latest philosopher Celsus is referring to (VII,53) is Epictitus who died c. 135 A.D. But Celsus is also referring to a number of Gnostics (V,62), e.g. Marcellina and her followers. Now we know that Marcellina, a follower of Carpocrates, went to Rome under Anicetus, i.e., between 154 and 165 (cf. Iren. Adv. Haer. I,25). This suggests that Celsus can hardly have written before 160 A.D. So, on balance, it seems that Celsus must have written his treatise some time between roughly 160 and 240 A.D.. most likely in the reign of Marcus Aurelius, since under Commodus the situation of the Christians improved again significantly.

https://books.google.com/books?id=2OQJA ... &q&f=false
Last edited by John2 on Sat May 19, 2018 5:50 pm, edited 1 time in total.
You know in spite of all you gained, you still have to stand out in the pouring rain.
John2
Posts: 4309
Joined: Fri May 16, 2014 4:42 pm

Re: Was Irenaeus's and Marcion's Christianity a Response to Celsus's 'True Word'?

Post by John2 »

Though he argues for a date of 175-176 CE based on the second passage, regarding Celsus' phrase "those who reign over us now" Droge writes:
The treatise cannot be dated, as is often done, by the number of emperors to whom Celsus refers. For example, in C. Cels. 8.71 Celsus mentions, "those who reign over us now" ... Elsewhere, however, Celsus speaks of only one emperor (8.68 and 73). His opponent Origen likewise alternates between singular and plural emperors, even within the same chapter (8.73). This kind of reference therefore is not relevant to the date of the Alethes Logos.

https://books.google.com/books?id=R0A4H ... ng&f=false
You know in spite of all you gained, you still have to stand out in the pouring rain.
Secret Alias
Posts: 18362
Joined: Sun Apr 19, 2015 8:47 am

Re: Was Irenaeus's and Marcion's Christianity a Response to Celsus's 'True Word'?

Post by Secret Alias »

His opponent Origen likewise alternates between singular and plural emperors, even within the same chapter (8.73)
This might prove decisive. Especially if you factor in the likelihood (which I think is pretty high) that the text was rewritten by Eusebius.
“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: Was Irenaeus's and Marcion's Christianity a Response to Celsus's 'True Word'?

Post by Secret Alias »

Origen makes reference to Celsus using the writings of Apelles which helps date Celsus:
In the next place, he proceeds to answer himself as he thinks fit in the following terms: And so he is not the only one who is recorded to have visited the human race, as even those who, under pretext of teaching in the name of Jesus, have apostatized from the Creator as an inferior being, and have given in their adherence to one who is a superior God and father of him who visited (the world), assert that before him certain beings came from the Creator to visit the human race. Now, as it is in the spirit of truth that we investigate all that relates to the subject, we shall remark that it is asserted by Apelles, the celebrated disciple of Marcion, who became the founder of a certain sect, and who treated the writings of the Jews as fabulous, that Jesus is the only one that came to visit the human race. Even against him, then, who maintained that Jesus was the only one that came from God to men, it would be in vain for Celsus to quote the statements regarding the descent of other angels, seeing Apelles discredits, as we have already mentioned, the miraculous narratives of the Jewish Scriptures; and much more will he decline to admit what Celsus has adduced, from not understanding the contents of the Book of Enoch. [Contra Celsum 5:45]
Apelles in turn seems to have been dated to the time of Callistion/Callistos which could be a date ranging from 175 - 225 CE but that 192 - 225 is more likely.
“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: Was Irenaeus's and Marcion's Christianity a Response to Celsus's 'True Word'?

Post by Secret Alias »

Contra Celsum VII:71 Celsus talks of "those who rule us now" (hoi nun basileuontes). It has been standardly assumed that this expression, because of the plural, presupposes that Celsus is writing at a time of joint rule of two emperors. This would point to the joint reign of Marcus Aurelius and Lucius Verus (161 — 169) or the joint reign of Marcus Aurelius and Commodus (177— 180). But a closer look at the whole sentence and the whole context makes this interpretation of the phrase highly dubious. For Celsus claims to refer to a Christian view according to which the Christians will try to convert the successors, if those who rule now are forced to cede power once they are converted; and if the successors, too, have to step down once they are converted, the Christians will try to convert those who will succeed them as rulers, and so forth ad indefinitum. Now, admittedly, the sentence, as it goes on, becomes rather obscure. But this much is clear beyond doubt that the view Celsus is referring to, at least given the the way Celsus describes it, envisages a succession of whole groups of men who rule; i. e., the view is expressed in such a way that not only those who rule who rule us now constitute a plurality, but that they are succeeded at each point by a whole group of basileuontes (cf. the phrase in the next line "those who rule them" tous authis basileuontas). That Celsus in this sentence, and throughout the whole passage, is referring to successive groups of men in power is somewhat obscured by translations like Chadwick's who renders mia tis arche at the end of the sentence by 'a ruler', when, in fact, given the preceding, this phrase, too, should be referring to a ruling body, to a group of rulers, to a group in power, rather than a single individual. https://books.google.com/books?id=2OQJA ... 22&f=false
“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: Was Irenaeus's and Marcion's Christianity a Response to Celsus's 'True Word'?

Post by Secret Alias »

Rhodo describes Apelles as "the old man Apelles, when he consorted with us, was proved to make many false statements" - implying that by the time of Callistos/Callistion he was aged. As such the writings of Apelles may well have widely circulated in the preceding period. Apelles was thus an 'old man' at the time Rhodo wrote to Callistos/Callistion (192 - 225) but the writings were written much earlier (145 - 192). What is most reasonable? I think there is an unmistakable association with rebellion lurking in the text. There is political instability in the air as the author writes. Christians are above all revolutionaries who at once appeal their message to potential or would-be rulers. As such I strongly suspect that the rebellion of Avidius Cassius is the underlying context https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Avidius_Cassius. If a connection can be made to the Alexandrian support of the would be Caesar with Christian support for Avidius Cassius I think we have our dating for the text. Indeed Origen's response might well have been crafted as a defense of Alexandrian Christianity or charges made during a rebellion of Christians during the reign of Marcus Aurelius/Commodus in the time of a Christian rebellion in a later period - perhaps the one in which Origen actually fled Alexandria. But an important question has to be why does Origen bother to take up an old book and refute its accusations? Similarly Eusebius (who clearly tinkered with Origen's original text and wrote many works of his own against Celsus down to the fourth century. The charges are principally directed against the Alexandrian Church and the charges of sedition are directed against the same Alexandrian Church - one which both Origen and Eusebius were both connected.
“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