Was Irenaeus's and Marcion's Christianity a Response to Celsus's 'True Word'?
Posted: Fri May 18, 2018 10:57 am
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.
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.