Is Celsus simply possibilist about a historical Jesus, but not really "historicist"?

[Giuseppe]

So, this alleged "controversy" in the second century whether or not a person who did miraculous things in the first century existed is moot.

I agree with this. In addition, a mythicist (Marc Stéphane) has argued that the same rabbinical Jews were embarrassed by the possibility of defending themselves, against the Christians, by raising a direct comparison "YHWH versus Lord Jesus Christ" about who had to be adored and who had not. The embarrassment was caused from the fact that simply to raise the possibility of a such comparison between de facto two gods would have remembered too much the Hellenistic influence on Judaism. Something as: if you reject the Son of God as a Jewish deity, then you are admitting implicitly that the Jews of some year ago were NOT monotheists.

So it was better, from a rabbinical POV, to raise a contrast and a direct comparison "Jews versus the magician Yeschu".

So even the better candidates to raise "mythicist" accusations against the Christians, the same Jews, had paradoxically a partial interest to give their help to euhemerize Jesus, by describing him as a mere magician, usurper, etc.

[Giuseppe]

Since the Talmudic defamation of Jesus is based on the view found in the Ascension of Isaiah (lapidation/passion of Jesus + crucifixion of only the corpse) more than on the Gospel tradition, then what I have written above may explain partially the later Gnostic identification of the "god of this world" with YHWH: if the Jews seemed to want themselves pose as who are described as "demons" in the Ascension of Isaiah ("...and they killed him and hanged him on a tree..."), then their god was Satan himself: hence the theological justification of an embrional form of Christian gnosticism.

[arnoldo]

So, this alleged "controversy" in the second century whether or not a person who did miraculous things in the first century existed is moot.

I agree with this. In addition, a mythicist (Marc Stéphane) has argued that the same rabbinical Jews were embarrassed by the possibility of defending themselves, against the Christians, by raising a direct comparison "YHWH versus Lord Jesus Christ" about who had to be adored and who had not. The embarrassment was caused from the fact that simply to raise the possibility of a such comparison between de facto two gods would have remembered too much the Hellenistic influence on Judaism. Something as: if you reject the Son of God as a Jewish deity, then you are admitting implicitly that the Jews of some year ago were NOT monotheists.

So it was better, from a rabbinical POV, to raise a contrast and a direct comparison "Jews versus the magician Yeschu".

So even the better candidates to raise "mythicist" accusations against the Christians, the same Jews, had paradoxically a partial interest to give their help to euhemerize Jesus, by describing him as a mere magician, usurper, etc.

Celsus appears to be arguing that the Jews were stating that Jesus had a natural, rather than supernatural, origin.

26. A few years ago he began to teach this doctrine, being regarded by Christians as the Son of God.

28. For he [Celsus] represents the Jew disputing with Jesus, and confuting Him, as he thinks, on many points; and in the first place, he accuses Him of having invented his birth from a virgin, and upbraids Him with being born in a certain Jewish village, of a poor woman of the country, who gained her subsistence by spinning, and who was turned out of doors by her husband, a carpenter by trade, because she was convicted of adultery; that after being driven away by her husband, and wandering about for a time, she disgracefully gave birth to Jesus, an illegitimate child, who having hired himself out as a servant in Egypt on account of his poverty, and having there acquired some miraculous powers, on which the Egyptians greatly pride themselves, returned to his own country, highly elated on account of them, and by means of these proclaimed himself a God.
http://www.earlychristianwritings.com/text/celsus.html

Hence, there appears to be many memory trajectories of this person's origin from the first century to the second century assuming you accept Celsus as a historical rather than fictional person.

[Giuseppe]

So, this alleged "controversy" in the second century whether or not a person who did miraculous things in the first century existed is moot.

I agree with this. In addition, a mythicist (Marc Stéphane) has argued that the same rabbinical Jews were embarrassed by the possibility of defending themselves, against the Christians, by raising a direct comparison "YHWH versus Lord Jesus Christ" about who had to be adored and who had not. The embarrassment was caused from the fact that simply to raise the possibility of a such comparison between de facto two gods would have remembered too much the Hellenistic influence on Judaism. Something as: if you reject the Son of God as a Jewish deity, then you are admitting implicitly that the Jews of some year ago were NOT monotheists.

So it was better, from a rabbinical POV, to raise a contrast and a direct comparison "Jews versus the magician Yeschu".

So even the better candidates to raise "mythicist" accusations against the Christians, the same Jews, had paradoxically a partial interest to give their help to euhemerize Jesus, by describing him as a mere magician, usurper, etc.

Celsus appears to be arguing that the Jews were stating that Jesus had a natural, rather than supernatural, origin.

That also the Jews were euhemerizing independently (from the Gospels) Jesus (as you have well noted) is just what is expected if themselves wanted to eclipse the fact that some Jews were not monotheists (by adoring a Jesus quasi deo).

[arnoldo]

So, this alleged "controversy" in the second century whether or not a person who did miraculous things in the first century existed is moot.

I agree with this. In addition, a mythicist (Marc Stéphane) has argued that the same rabbinical Jews were embarrassed by the possibility of defending themselves, against the Christians, by raising a direct comparison "YHWH versus Lord Jesus Christ" about who had to be adored and who had not. The embarrassment was caused from the fact that simply to raise the possibility of a such comparison between de facto two gods would have remembered too much the Hellenistic influence on Judaism. Something as: if you reject the Son of God as a Jewish deity, then you are admitting implicitly that the Jews of some year ago were NOT monotheists.

So it was better, from a rabbinical POV, to raise a contrast and a direct comparison "Jews versus the magician Yeschu".

So even the better candidates to raise "mythicist" accusations against the Christians, the same Jews, had paradoxically a partial interest to give their help to euhemerize Jesus, by describing him as a mere magician, usurper, etc.

Celsus appears to be arguing that the Jews were stating that Jesus had a natural, rather than supernatural, origin.

That also the Jews were euhemerizing independently (from the Gospels) Jesus (as you have well noted) is just what is expected if themselves wanted to eclipse the fact that some Jews were not monotheists (by adoring a Jesus quasi deo).

Another thing to consider is that the name Jesus/Yeshua appeared to be a rather common name a Jewish family would name their son in the first century. During the second century and beyond, not so much.

[Giuseppe]

Arnoldo, you are doing a lot of questions that reveal a scarse knowledge of the best mythicist case. You can read R.G.Price or Richard Carrier for that matter, but apart it, in this thread I have limited myself to point out that Celsus was only possibilist about a HJ and not a historicist tout court.

I don't see anything of substantially different between what Celsus is doing and what is made by who believes that there was a historical King Arthur. We all are able to imagine a historical Arthur, hero of the resistance against Saxons invasion, etc. But as simple imaginers, we are still merely possibilists about his existence.

For "historicist" I mean someone who is really persuaded by a case for the historicity. He doesn't limit himself to dream a HJ. He knows a HJ.

So my point is that Celsus was a HJ possibilist, a mere dreamer of the his preferred historical Jesus (precisely, a magician), but not a real historicist.

[arnoldo]

Arnoldo, you are doing a lot of questions that reveal a scarse knowledge of the best mythicist case. You can read R.G.Price or Richard Carrier for that matter, but apart it, in this thread I have limited myself to point out that Celsus was only possibilist about a HJ and not a historicist tout court.

I don't see anything of substantially different between what Celsus is doing and what is made by who believes that there was a historical King Arthur. We all are able to imagine a historical Arthur, hero of the resistance against Saxons invasion, etc. But as simple imaginers, we are still merely possibilists about his existence.

For "historicist" I mean someone who is really persuaded by a case for the historicity. He doesn't limit himself to dream a HJ. He knows a HJ.

So my point is that Celsus was a HJ possibilist, a mere dreamer of the his preferred historical Jesus (precisely, a magician), but not a real historicist.

My point is that you accept Celsus as a historical figure (which he may very well be) although there is scant evidence he existed at all.

[Giuseppe]

My point is that you accept Celsus as a historical figure (which he may very well be) although there is scant evidence he existed at all.

The evidence for Celsus (or Marcion, for that matter) is sufficient to establish his historicity, since:
1) despite of the fact that we know him only from Origen, his name is not a hidden reference to a sect or an ideology (compare the different case of “Ebion” and “Valentinus”, not-existing heresiarchs who stand respectively for the “Poors” and the “best” people).
2) the words and accusations given to him are too much embarrassing (and we know that they are embarrassing since they don't find an apt confutation by Origen) to be invented (compare the different case of the invented “Trypho” where his arguments are too much perfectly confuted by Justin to be only a coincidence)

So, no: I can't doubt about Celsus's historicity. And to claim that the Jesus's historicity is equivalent to Celsus's historicity is pure nonsense, in my eyes. Really, soo much nonsense that I suspect that you are trolling, only for having introduced the possibility of a comparison.

Note that Marcion and Ebion and Valentinus are more probably historical people than Jesus himself, since the former are not adored as celestial deity by their followers.