Giuseppe wrote: ↑Sat Mar 28, 2020 9:47 pm
The surrounding context adds that the creator is κατηραμένος, "cursed" by the marcionites just as Satan is usually cursed by Catholics. I have no problems to define the same Catholics as dualists insofar they treat Satan as a "god of this world".
That's nowhere in the surrounding context.
This is Origen's entire facsimile and commentary of Celsus with the surrounding context:
[
Also I don't know what's going on with the NewAdvent site. I tried two different browsers and yet it will not copy the quotation marks. I've highlighted the portions of Celsus that Origin quotes for convenience. ]
Celsus then continues: The Jews accordingly, and these (clearly meaning the Christians), have the same God; and as if advancing a proposition which would not be conceded, he proceeds to make the following assertion: It is certain, indeed, that the members of the great Church admit this, and adopt as true the accounts regarding the creation of the world which are current among the Jews, viz., concerning the six days and the seventh; on which day, as the Scripture says, God ceased from His works, retiring into the contemplation of Himself, but on which, as Celsus says (who does not abide by the letter of the history, and who does not understand its meaning), God rested, — a term which is not found in the record. With respect, however, to the creation of the world, and the rest which is reserved after it for the people of God, the subject is extensive, and mystical, and profound, and difficult of explanation. In the next place, as it appears to me, from a desire to fill up his book, and to give it an appearance of importance, he recklessly adds certain statements, such as the following, relating to the first man, of whom he says: We give the same account as do the Jews, and deduce the same genealogy from him as they do. However, as regards the conspiracies of brothers against one another, we know of none such, save that Cain conspired against Abel, and Esau against Jacob; but not Abel against Cain, nor Jacob against Esau: for if this had been the case, Celsus would have been correct in saying that we give the same accounts as do the Jews of the conspiracies of brothers against one another. Let it be granted, however, that we speak of the same descent into Egypt as they, and of their return thence, which was not a flight, as Celsus considers it to have been, what does that avail towards founding an accusation against us or against the Jews? Here, indeed, he thought to cast ridicule upon us, when, in speaking of the Hebrew people, he termed their exodus a flight; but when it was his business to investigate the account of the punishments inflicted by God upon Egypt, that topic he purposely passed by in silence.
If, however, it be necessary to express ourselves with precision in our answer to Celsus, who thinks that we hold the same opinions on the matters in question as do the Jews, we would say that we both agree that the books (of Scripture) were written by the Spirit of God, but that we do not agree about the meaning of their contents; for we do not regulate our lives like the Jews, because we are of opinion that the literal acceptation of the laws is not that which conveys the meaning of the legislation. And we maintain, that when Moses is read, the veil is upon their heart, because the meaning of the law of Moses has been concealed from those who have not welcomed the way which is by Jesus Christ. But we know that if one turn to the Lord (for the Lord is that Spirit), the veil being taken away, he beholds, as in a mirror with unveiled face, the glory of the Lord in those thoughts which are concealed in their literal expression, and to his own glory becomes a participator of the divine glory; the term face being used figuratively for the understanding, as one would call it without a figure, in which is the face of the inner man, filled with light and glory, flowing from the true comprehension of the contents of the law.
After the above remarks he proceeds as follows: Let no one suppose that I am ignorant that some of them will concede that their God is the same as that of the Jews, while others will maintain that he is a different one, to whom the latter is in opposition, and that it was from the former that the Son came. Now, if he imagine that the existence of numerous heresies among the Christians is a ground of accusation against Christianity, why, in a similar way, should it not be a ground of accusation against philosophy, that the various sects of philosophers differ from each other, not on small and indifferent points, but upon those of the highest importance? Nay, medicine also ought to be a subject of attack, on account of its many conflicting schools. Let it be admitted, then, that there are among us some who deny that our God is the same as that of the Jews: nevertheless, on that account those are not to be blamed who prove from the same Scriptures that one and the same Deity is the God of the Jews and of the Gentiles alike, as Paul, too, distinctly says, who was a convert from Judaism to Christianity, I thank my God, whom I serve from my forefathers with a pure conscience. And let it be admitted also, that there is a third class who call certain persons carnal, and others spiritual,— I think he here means the followers of Valentinus — yet what does this avail against us, who belong to the Church, and who make it an accusation against such as hold that certain natures are saved, and that others perish in consequence of their natural constitution? And let it be admitted further, that there are some who give themselves out as Gnostics, in the same way as those Epicureans who call themselves philosophers: yet neither will they who annihilate the doctrine of providence be deemed true philosophers, nor those true Christians who introduce monstrous inventions, which are disapproved of by those who are the disciples of Jesus. Let it be admitted, moreover, that there are some who accept Jesus, and who boast on that account of being Christians, and yet would regulate their lives, like the Jewish multitude, in accordance with the Jewish law — and these are the twofold sect of Ebionites, who either acknowledge with us that Jesus was born of a virgin, or deny this, and maintain that He was begotten like other human beings — what does that avail by way of charge against such as belong to the Church, and whom Celsus has styled those of the multitude? He adds, also, that certain of the Christians are believers in the Sibyl, having probably misunderstood some who blamed such as believed in the existence of a prophetic Sibyl, and termed those who held this belief Sibyllists.
He next pours down upon us a heap of names, saying that he knows of the existence of certain Simonians who worship Helene, or Helenus, as their teacher, and are called Helenians. But it has escaped the notice of Celsus that the Simonians do not at all acknowledge Jesus to be the Son of God, but term Simon the power of God, regarding whom they relate certain marvellous stories, saying that he imagined that if he could become possessed of similar powers to those with which be believed Jesus to be endowed, he too would become as powerful among men as Jesus was among the multitude. But neither Celsus nor Simon could comprehend how Jesus, like a good husbandman of the word of God, was able to sow the greater part of Greece, and of barbarian lands, with His doctrine, and to fill these countries with words which transform the soul from all that is evil, and bring it back to the Creator of all things. Celsus knows, moreover, certain Marcellians, so called from Marcellina, and Harpocratians from Salome, and others who derive their name from Mariamme, and others again from Martha. We, however, who from a love of learning examine to the utmost of our ability not only the contents of Scripture, and the differences to which they give rise, but have also, from love to the truth, investigated as far as we could the opinions of philosophers, have never at any time met with these sects. He makes mention also of the Marcionites, whose leader was Marcion.
In the next place, that he may have the appearance of knowing still more than he has yet mentioned, he says, agreeably to his usual custom, that there are others who have wickedly invented some being as their teacher and demon, and who wallow about in a great darkness, more unholy and accursed than that of the companions of the Egyptian Antinous. And he seems to me, indeed, in touching on these matters, to say with a certain degree of truth, that there are certain others who have wickedly invented another demon, and who have found him to be their lord, as they wallow about in the great darkness of their ignorance. With respect, however, to Antinous, who is compared with our Jesus, we shall not repeat what we have already said in the preceding pages. Moreover, he continues, these persons utter against one another dreadful blasphemies, saying all manner of things shameful to be spoken; nor will they yield in the slightest point for the sake of harmony, hating each other with a perfect hatred. Now, in answer to this, we have already said that in philosophy and medicine sects are to be found warring against sects. We, however, who are followers of the word of Jesus, and have exercised ourselves in thinking, and saying, and doing what is in harmony with His words, when reviled, bless; being persecuted, we suffer it; being defamed, we entreat; and we would not utter all manner of things shameful to be spoken against those who have adopted different opinions from ours, but, if possible, use every exertion to raise them to a better condition through adherence to the Creator alone, and lead them to perform every act as those who will (one day) be judged. And if those who hold different opinions will not be convinced, we observe the injunction laid down for the treatment of such: A man that is a heretic, after the first and second admonition, reject, knowing that he that is such is subverted, and sins, being condemned of himself. Moreover, we who know the maxim, Blessed are the peacemakers, and this also, Blessed are the meek, would not regard with hatred the corrupters of Christianity, nor term those who had fallen into error Circes and flattering deceivers.
And just for added thoroughness, I went through the Greek for Origen's
Contra Celsum. κατηραμένος does not appear, anywhere, in Book V. It does appear in Book VI, but as you'll see, the meaning is not what you're saying:
Νῦν δὲ διηγήσασθαι τὸν περὶ νοητῶν καὶ αἰσθητῶν λόγον, καὶ τίνα τρόπον διανενέμηνται αἱ φύσεις τῶν ἡμερῶν εἰς ἀμφότερα τὰ εἴδη, οὐ πρόκειται οὐδὲ τὰ κατὰ τοὺς τόπους ἐξετάσαι· ὅλων γὰρ ἡμῖν συντάξεων χρεία εἰς τὴν διήγησιν τῆς κατὰ Μωϋσέα κοσμοποιΐας· ὅπερ κατὰ τὸ δυνατὸν ἡμῖν πρὸ πλείονος χρόνου τῆς ἐνεστηκυίας πρὸς τὸν Κέλσον συντάξεως πεποιήκαμεν, ἀπὸ τῆς πρὸ πλειόνων ἐτῶν ἕξεως, ἧς ἐχωροῦμεν τότε, διαλαβόντες περὶ τῶν κατὰ Μωϋσέα ἓξ τῆς κοσμοποιΐας ἡμερῶν. Εἰδέναι μέντοι γε χρὴ ὅτι τοῖς δικαίοις διὰ τοῦ Ἡσαΐου ὁ λόγος ἐπαγγέλλεται ἐν καταστάσει ἔσεσθαι ἡμέρας, ἐν ᾗ μὴ ἥλιος ἀλλ' αὐτὸς ὁ «κύριος φῶς» ἔσται αὐτοῖς «αἰώνιον, καὶ ὁ θεὸς δόξα» αὐτῶν. Παρακούσας δ' οἶμαι μοχθηρᾶς αἱρέσεώς τινος καὶ κακῶς διηγησαμένης τὸ «γενηθήτω φῶς» ὡς εὐκτικῶς ὑπὸ τοῦ δημιουργοῦ εἰρημένον εἶπεν· Οὐ γὰρ δὴ καθάπερ οἱ τοὺς λύχνους ἐκ γειτόνων ἐναυόμενοι φῶς ὁ δημιουργὸς ἄνωθεν ἐχρήσατο. Καὶ ἄλλης δ' ἀσεβοῦς αἱρέσεως παρακούσας εἶπε καὶ τό· Εἰ μὲν ἐναντίος τις ἦν τῷ μεγάλῳ θεῷ θεὸς κατηραμένος ὁ ταῦτα ποιῶν παρὰ γνώμην τὴν ἐκείνου, τί αὐτῷ τὸ φῶς ἐκίχρα; Πρὸς ἃ τοσοῦτον ἀποδέομεν ἀπολογεῖσθαι, ὥστε τρανότερον ἡμᾶς ἐθέλειν τῆς ἐκείνων δόξης ὡς ἐσφαλμένων κατηγορεῖν καὶ ἵστασθαι οὐ πρὸς ἃ μὴ οἴδαμεν αὐτῶν ὡς ὁ Κέλσος ἀλλὰ πρὸς ἃ ἀκριβῶς γινώσκομεν, πῇ μὲν ἀπ' αὐτῶν ἀκούσαντες, πῇ δὲ τοῖς συγγράμμασιν αὐτῶν ἐπιμελῶς ἐντυχόντες.
On the present occasion, however, it is not our object to enter into an explanation of the subject of intelligent and sensible beings, nor of the manner in which the different kinds of days were allotted to both sorts, nor to investigate the details which belong to the subject, for we should need whole treatises for the exposition of the Mosaic cosmogony; and that work we had already performed, to the best of our ability, a considerable time before the commencement of this answer to Celsus, when we discussed with such measure of capacity as we then possessed the question of the Mosaic cosmogony of the six days. We must keep in mind, however, that the Word promises to the righteous through the mouth of Isaiah, that days will come when not the sun, but the Lord Himself, will be to them an everlasting light, and God will be their glory. And it is from misunderstanding, I think, some pestilent heresy which gave an erroneous interpretation to the words, Let there be light, as if they were the expression of a wish merely on the part of the Creator, that Celsus made the remark: The Creator did not borrow light from above, like those persons who kindle their lamps at those of their neighbours. Misunderstanding, moreover, another impious heresy, he has said: If, indeed, there did exist an accursed god opposed to the great God, who did this contrary to his approval, why did he lend him the light? So far are we from offering a defense of such puerilities, that we desire, on the contrary, distinctly to arraign the statements of these heretics as erroneous, and to undertake to refute, not those of their opinions with which we are unacquainted, as Celsus does, but those of which we have attained an accurate knowledge, derived in part from the statements of their own adherents, and partly from a careful perusal of their writings.
In Book V Celsus is speaking of opposing Christian and Jewish groups, whose philosophies and theologies are themselves opposing.
In Book VI Celsus is being descriptive and Origen calls him out for not understanding what the heresies believe. Celsus is not singling out the Marcionites and could just as easily be talking about Valentians, who didn't acurse the demiurge, only that he was below a greater power (just like Marcion did).
That's that Celsus. You can not use him for your argument because, independent or not, he is not saying what you say he is.
As to evolution from ditheism (=secret alliance between two gods) to dualism (=explicit conflict between two gods), I am skeptical about it. The use of Jewish scriptures to confute Jewish scriptures is not different from the Christian use of John the Baptist to confute the sect of John. But it is a non-sequitur to conclude that, since the Christians co-opted John by making him a mere precursor of the Christ, then the Christians "derived" from the Baptist sect.
Dithism and dualism are not applicable to Marcion because he had a hierarchy of Archons, YHWH, Isu Chrestus, and finally the Father.
You're also ignoring that Marcion likeiwse co-opted John, even called him the greatest prophet who ever lived, and compared him to Elijah.
Just as it is non-sequitur to conclude that, since the Marcionites co-opted the Jewish God by making him the "cursed" demiurge in their theology, then the Marcionites "derived" from the Judaism.
There is no evidence from Marcion that says he cursed the demiurge, only that he was lower than a higher god.
And then you have not only Marcion as hater of YHWH. You have to explain why Basilides hated YHWH, too. Too much haters of YHWH there out, sorry.
Marcion didn't hate YHWH, and the only evidence we have for this and Basilides are from people who 1) hated Marcion and Basilides themselves, and 2) are writing decades and decades after Marcion and Basilides had died. That is not good evidence.
Cerinthus and Valentinus, whose systems are closer to Marcion's and Basilides's, also thought YHWH was demiurgos, but did not hate him. You are over estimating your beliefs. Hate is a pejorative that is not applicable to these discussions. Do Catholics hate YHWH because he is the God of the Jews? No. They re-interpreted him to make him more suitable for their theology. It's the same with Marcion.